the role of school leadership in student achievement - Case Western ...

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN KENYA
By
Renson Muchiri Mwangi
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Qualitative Research Paper
in the Executive Doctor of Management Program
at the Weatherhead School of Management
Advisors:
Dr. Tony Lingham
Dr. Sheri Perelli
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
December 2009
1

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN KENYA
ABSTRACT
Despite ample documentation that mathematics mastery can affect national development
and notwithstanding long instituted formal government initiatives to improve it, student
mathematics performance at the secondary school level in Kenya has deteriorated. Studies on
mathematics achievement in Kenya have primarily focused on teachers’ classroom practices
neglecting the potential influence of school leadership. We conducted a qualitative study
involving Kenyan school principles and other administrative and instructional staff to construct
an account of how school leadership is enacted and experienced in the day-to-day practices and
how it affects student mathematics mastery. Our findings suggest that principals’ leadership and
engagement, demonstrated commitment, sensitivity and focus on continuous improvement and
openness to information and diverse views, strongly impacts student performance. We
recognized in high – but not low performing schools –evidence of the individual and institutional
mindfulness characteristic of high reliability organizations.
Key Words: School leadership, individual mindfulness, organizational mindfulness, distributed
leadership
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Question .......................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 5
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 10
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 13
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Contributions................................................................................................................................. 23
Implications For Practice And Future Reserach ........................................................................... 24
Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 25
References ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 31
List of figures
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2 ............................................................................................................................. 23
3

INTRODUCTION
Intensified interest in mathematics achievement by practitioners and scholars in
developing markets reflects recognition of and enthusiasm for its economic and social benefits
(Lamb & Fullarton, 2002). Despite ample documentation that mathematics mastery can affect
national development and formal government initiatives to improve it, some developing
countries, however, have failed to boost student achievement. Despite the Kenyan government
prioritizing mathematics achievement and declaring it in her National Development Plan (Kanja
et al, 2001), students’ mathematics performance at the secondary school level has continued to
deteriorate (Kenya Institute of Education, 2001; World Bank, 1998). This presents one of the
most worrisome challenges of the Kenyan education community (Global Literacy Project, 2008).
Intensified pressure for achievement has motivated education researchers and
practitioners to focus on classroom and school factors affecting student performance (Lamb &
Fullarton, 2002). Prior research has identified several factors that influence student achievement
including pupils’ self-efficacy (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Pietsch, Walker, & Chapman,
2003), learning strategies (Pajares, 1996)and motivation (Robbins et al, 2004), quality of
instruction (Marrett, 1987), classroom environment (Lamb & Fullarton, 2002)and school
leadership (Leithwood et al, 2004). In Kenya specifically, research reveals poor performance in
secondary school mathematics to be a function of poor teaching quality, harsh and unfriendly
classroom environment, loss of interest as students’ progress through the school system, negative
attitudes, and poor administration and management practices (Ackers & Hardman, 2001;
Eshiwani, 1985; Githua & Nyabwa, 2008; Kanja et al, 2005).
A number of researchers in other countries have addressed the relationship between
school leadership and student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998) – but relatively little such
work has been done in Kenya. The few school leadership studies there have focused on the
administrative role of school principals (for example Ngware, Wamukuru, & Odebero, 2006).
4

Consequently, the nexus of school leadership and academic performance remains nebulous in the
Kenyan context. Moreover, despite general agreement in school leadership studies that
leadership matters in improving academic performance in schools, less is known about how
school leadership is enacted to develop and sustain in-school conditions that foster innovation
and successful schooling (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). Further, some scholars have
questioned whether school leadership matters contending that there is insufficient evidence to
support its relationship with performance (Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger, 2003).
Our purpose was to understand how school leadership influences the performance of
mathematics in Kenyan secondary schools. In doing so, we aimed to contribute knowledge to the
school leadership literature by constructing an account of how principals’ leadership is enacted
and experienced in the day-to-day practices within Kenyan secondary schools. Further, our study
draws attention to the impact of school leadership on students’ academic achievement in Kenya,
a role that has been overlooked by Kenyan education researchers and practitioners.
RESEARCH QUESTION
In conducting this study we sought to answer the following question:
How and to what extent do school leadership and teacher instructional practices influence
mathematics performance in Kenyan secondary schools?
Below, we review pertinent literature that relates school leadership, instructional
practices and students’ academic performance.
LITERATURE REVIEW
We begin this section by providing a background about the state of mathematics
education in Kenya, noting the limitations of previous studies that have addressed it. We then
proceed to review literature on school leadership and its influence on students’ achievement.
Finally we focus on school leadership and teachers’ instructional practices and their contribution
to performance in mathematics.
5

Mathematics education in Kenya
Kenya is a developing country on the Eastern side of Africa with a population of about 40
million. The Kenyan education system has three levels ─ primary school (class 1 – 8), secondary
school (form 1 – 4) and post-secondary (university, college, certificate and vocational training).
At class eight (equivalent of grade 8 in USA) students sit for a national examination, the Kenya
Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE), to qualify for admission to secondary school and in
form four (equivalent to grade 12 in the USA education system) , they sit for the Kenya
Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) examination. At both levels students take
standardized tests with mathematics as one of the subjects examined.
The strengthening of mathematics at the secondary school level in Kenya was declared a
priority in the seventh National Development Plan for industrialization and sustainability (Kanja,
Iwasaki, Baba, & Uenda, 2001). The performance of mathematics at the secondary school level
has long been a major concern among Kenyan educators and the general public (Inyega &
Thomson, 2002; Kanja, Iwasaki, Baba, & Uenda, 2001). The evidence of deterioration in
students’ performance at the secondary school level presents the most worrisome challenge to
Kenyan education (Global Literacy Project, 2008). In 1998, the Kenyan government with
assistance from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) initiated the Strengthening
of Mathematics and Science in Secondary Education (SMASSE) project with the hope of
strengthening teaching and learning of mathematics and science subjects. In a baseline study
conducted in Kenya under the auspices of the SMASSE project, poor instructional practices, lack
of professional community, poor content mastery, lack of teaching/learning materials, negative
attitudes, poor administration and management practices were identified as major causes of
poor mathematics in Kenyan secondary schools (Sifuna & Kaime, 2007). The SMASSE project
then advocated for change in teachers’ instructional practices and recommended a shift from
teacher-centered to student-centered instructional methods through an In-Service Education and
6

Training (INSET) program (Wambui, 2005). In spite of these efforts – costly in both financial
and manpower terms – a recent study revealed that teachers’ classroom practices had not
changed substantially (Sifuna & Kaime, 2007).
School leadership and academic performance
In the early and mid 1980s, academic research on school leadership focused primarily on
the individual role of the school head (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003). In the 1990s,
however, leadership in schools was increasingly viewed as a collaborative rather than an
exclusively individual activity (Hart, 1995; Heller & Firestone, 1995; Rowan, 1990; Smylie,
Conley, & Marks, 2002) and the research focus broadened to include other players including
teachers. This perspective positions school leadership not just as a function of what the principal
does but rather a “dyadic, shared, relational, strategic, global and complex social dynamic”
model (Avolio et al,2009: 3). Marks and Printy (2003) posit that school leaders seeking to
improve academic performance of their schools often involve teachers in dialogue and decision
making. The belief that leadership matters when it comes to academic performance is generally
accepted within educational leadership studies (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Spillane et al, 2004;
Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), yet some scholars have questioned the validity of this claim
(Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger, 2003). Those that hold this divergent position have argued that
there is no sufficient proof that school leadership really matters. Some empirical studies,
especially in the Netherlands, have reported finding no significant influence of school leadership
on students’ academic performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). There is thus little consensus
about how school leaders impact school outcomes and little is known about how leadership is
enacted within the schoolhouse and the means by which it influences school outcomes (Hallinger
& Heck, 1998; Spillane et al, 2004).These contrasting positions leaves the question about the
degree of influence of school leadership on students’ academic performance unanswered.
7

Most contemporary studies that have sought to understand the relationship between
school leadership and academic performance have focused on the distributed/shared aspects of
leadership (for example Harris, 2004; Leithwood et al, 2007; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). This
focus is driven by a widespread belief about the superior benefits of distributed vs. concentrated
leadership. Moreover, it has been argued that distributed forms of leadership reflect the reality of
the day-to-day division of labor in schools and minimize the probability of error in decision
making by use of additional information available from diverse, leadership sharing sources.
(Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Distrtibuted leadership has also been seen to enhance
organizational learning by creating opportunitues for capacity-building and exploiting individual
capacities of its members (Harris, 2004; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Hopkins and Jackson
(2002:95) argue that “…distributed leadership along with social cohesion and trust” are at the
core of capacity building. Two forms distributed – additive and holistic – have been identified
by Leithwood et al (2007). The additive or cumulative pattern of distribution has different
individuals uncoordinatedly engaging in leadership activities while the holistic pattern is a
conscious alignment of leadership activities to foster collaboration between leaders and followers
(Gronn, 2000; Mascall et al, 2008). However, it is not clear which pattern of leadership has
greater influence on school academic performance (Harris, 2004).
This study aims to contribute to extant school leadership literature by seeking to
understand the influence of school leadership on schools’ academic performance and the
applicability of leadership theories to the Kenyan secondary schools’ context.
School leadership, mathematics instructional practices and school performance
Instructional practices refer to clarity of instructional goals, decision making about
curricular content, choice of instructional strategies, uses of instructional time, grouping
practices, and classroom interactions (Creemers & Reezigt, 1997; Leithwood & Jantzis, 2000).
There is general consensus in educational literature that teachers’ instructional practices do
8

impact student achievement (Leithwood & Jantzis, 2000). Some instructional practices –
especially in mathematics – are reportedly more effective in improving students’ performance
than others. Mathematics instructional practices are broadly categorized into learner-centered
and teacher-centered approaches, the later being referred to as the traditional approach. Learner-
centered instructional practices emphasize high order skills of discovery, reasoning and
collaborative learning, and draw on students’ past experiences and knowledge while the
traditional practices confer the onus of knowledge transmission on the teacher with students
playing the passive role of memorizing and reciting concepts (Stipek et al, 2001).
There is unanimous agreement among educational scholars and practitioners that learner-
centered practices positively influence student performance in mathematics (McCaffrey et al,
2001; Wenglinsky, 2002). On the other hand, McCaffrey et al (2001) report finding no
significant relationship between the traditional approach and improved mathematics
achievement. In Kenya’s case mathematics instruction in secondary schools is dominated by
traditional instructional practices (Kanja et al, 2001; Sifuna & Kaime, 2007; Wambui, 2005).
Consequently, most Kenyan studies have recommended changing the instructional practices as a
way of improving performance (Ackers & Hardman, 2001; Githua & Nyabwa, 2008; Inyega &
Thomson, 2002; Kanja et al, 2001; Wambui, 2005). These studies have proposed interventions
that target the teachers’ classroom activities to the exclusion of school leadership.
Research has demonstrated a statistically significant – but weak - link between school
leadership and academic performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood & Jantzis, 2000).
One explanation for this weak link is that school leadership impacts academic achievement
indirectly through a mediated process (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Some of the mediating
variables of school leadership include teacher related factors such as beliefs and emotional states
(Mascall et al, 2008). It is therefore possible that school leaders, for example principals, could
exert indirect influence on a school’s mathematics performance through teachers’ instructional
9

practices and motivations. Specifically, distributed forms of leadership have been positively
associated with higher student academic performance (Harris, 2004).
A common denominator in Kenyan education studies (including the SMASSE project) is
that none takes into account the role of school leadership in changing teachers’ instructional
practices and schools’ mathematics performance. Incongruously, some of the studies have
identified school management and administration to be some of the causes of poor performance
in mathematics (Ackers, Migoli, & Nzomo, 2001; Sifuna & Kaime, 2007). By overlooking the
effects of school leadership, the Kenyan studies have left out a potentially critical factor in
successfully changing teachers’ instructional practices and consequently improving student
performance in mathematics. We sought to fill this gap in Kenyan education literature by
conducting a qualitative study to understand how leadership practices, as enacted by school
leaders in their daily activities, influence secondary school mathematics performance.
Methodology
METHODS
We deemed qualitative research best suited to understand the relationship between
leadership and mathematics performance in Kenyan schools. A key strength of qualitative
research is the ability to give the researcher a comprehensive perspective of the phenomenon
under study (Babbie, 2007), facilitating the discovery and understanding of actions, beliefs,
decisions and recognition of nuances in attitudes and behavior that cannot be easily detected by
quantitative methods (Babbie, 2007; Creswell, 2009).
We adopted a grounded theory approach to the research, designing a study that sought to
inductively generate a theory about our phenomenon of interest by the rigorous constant
comparison of data collected and analyzed concurrently (Babbie, 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1990;
Suddaby, 2006). Theoretical sampling involved the interplay between theory and data to select
10

new research cases and to re-focus the interview questions in order gain deeper meaning and
understanding of emerging concepts (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Sample
In the Kenyan education sector, schools are categorized according to National, Provincial
and District designation. National and provincial schools are government-aided while district
schools are only partially funded by the government. National schools target academically elite
students, provincial schools admit average to above average students and district school admit
average to below average students. Our sample consisted of thirty five practitioners employed at
twelve provincial secondary schools in one (Eastern) province of Kenya (see Appendix A).
Provincial secondary schools were deemed appropriate for this study as their basic facilities and
resources were broadly similar. We believed that by focusing on provincial secondary schools
better comparisons between successful versus less successful schools could be made as opposed
to using district schools whose widely varying resources and facilities would have challenged
ascriptions of success. Six successful and six less successful schools (so labeled on the basis of
mean scores in mathematics in the November, 2008 national examinations) participated in the
study. Provincials schools above first quartile (top 25%) were categorized as more successful and
those below third quartile (bottom 25%) as less successful. The schools were selected from the
Machakos district in Eastern province of Kenya where the principal researcher’s professional
network facilitated respondent identification. The sample consisted of eleven principals (one
principal declined to be interviewed), twelve teacher leaders (heads of department) and twelve
mathematics teachers. Three respondents (one from each of these three professional
classifications) from each successful school participated in the study.
Data collection
We conducted semi-structured interviews in Kenya over a two-month period from June to
July, 2009. Face-to-face interviews of approximately sixty minutes were conducted in a private
11

setting that ensured comfort and confidentiality. Interviews were conducted on provincial school
premises. The interviews were digitally recorded and subsequently transcribed.
The interviews were guided by an interview protocol consisting of seven open-ended
questions (See Appendix B). The questions were designed to elicit narratives from the
participants about their experiences as school leaders or teachers. Following Maxwell’s (2005)
recommendations, the interview questions were pilot tested and revision made where necessary.
Data were simultaneously collected and analyzed with adjustments to the sample and interview
protocol influenced by the ongoing emergence of themes and concepts from in-hand data
(Maxwell, 2005; Suddaby, 2006). Constant comparison of the data influenced the manner in
which subsequent interviews were conducted and helped to determine theoretical saturation
(Backman & Kyngäs, 1999; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
The interviews were conducted within normal business hours. All interviews were
digitally recorded with the permission of the respondent. All the recorded interviews were
secured in an encrypted drive, transcribed by a professional service and reviewed by the
researcher to ensure transcription accuracy.
Data analysis
The transcripts were read repeatedly and the researcher listened to the recorded
interviews multiple times. The process of data analysis involved breaking down the data then
conceptualizing and putting it back together in categories and subcategories (Backman &
Kyngäs, 1999). The transcriptions were initially subjected to open coding, a rigorous line by line
examination of the data to identify “codable moments” which were subsequently categorized and
labeled, and from which themes and ideas eventually emerged (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995;
Maxwell, 2005). Through a process of axial coding, the emergent categories were compared with
data and existing school leadership theories to identify any explicit connections and relationships
12

etween categories and sub-categories. This process involved exploring relationships between
categories to understand the experiences to which they related.
In a third phase of coding (selective coding) core categories were selected, identified and
systematically related to other categories. This involved validating the relationships, and filling
in, refining and developing the selected categories. The categories were then integrated to arrive
at a grounded theory about the role of school leadership in mathematics performance in Kenyan
secondary schools. Qualrus software assisted in coding, systematically organizing themes,
patterns and variations in the data.
In the initial reading words, sentences, and paragraphs were given descriptive labels.
Coding was conducted both manually and facilitated by Qualrus, a coding software. The open
coding resulted in the generation of 937 codes. In the second stage, the open codes were grouped
into categories according to their similarities and differences. A total of 50 categories were
identified. A “comparative analysis” was undertaken and some categories were eliminated and
others were re-categorized. In the final analysis, 20 categories were selected and 4 major themes
were confirmed. The major themes and selected categories used are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Major themes and selected codes
Principal's leadership Participation and interest in mathematics, Sensitivity to failure
behavior
symptoms (e.g. teachers comments, events on the ground), Role
modeling
The practice of leadership Appreciation/recognition, openness to input, providing instructional
support, Inclusiveness, involvement in decision making
Classroom practices Affection to students (e.g. attention to weak students), Assisting
behavior, rapport with students, extra effort, availability to students,
Sense of community Sense of belonging, participation, ownership, inter-personal relations,
respect, influence, team work
FINDINGS
Our data analysis resulted in the identification of several salient factors that distinguish
Kenyan schools with high mathematics performance from schools that are markedly less
successful.
13

Finding #1: While principals at all of the schools in our sample acknowledged the importance
of student mathematics mastery, those at higher performing schools demonstrated higher
personal commitment and dedicated more personal time and attention to ensuring mathematics
achievement than did principals at lower performing schools.
The data revealed stark distinctions between the attitudes and behaviors of principals at
higher vs. lower performing schools. Leaders at the top performing schools purposefully
prioritized mathematics mastery and clearly and persistently communicated their expectations to
other administrators and teachers. Most principals in the higher performing schools reported
personally involving themselves in the classroom or engaging directly with students out of the
classroom to encourage mathematics achievement. Dedicating personal time and energy to
improve the students’ mathematics skills and persistent emphasis on importance of mathematics
achievement was uniformly reported by the principals and administrators of the better schools.
On the contrary, few principals at lower performing schools divulged similar levels of personal
commitment or similar intensity and regularity of emphasis on mathematics performance. The
data failed to evidence comparable allocations of time and energy on the part poorer performing
school principals to support and encourage teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
Better performing school principals reported higher awareness of and concern about the
failure of mathematics mastery and encouraged institutional conversation about it. Some reported
self-involvement in the classroom. Others devised personal opportunities to communicate and
sometimes work with students outside of the classroom. This intensity of personal involvement,
focus and persistent attention was far less apparent in the narratives of principals in poorer
performing schools. From them we heard more procedural responses about how to address
student mathematics deficiency. These principals acknowledged the problem but were more apt
to discuss routine rather than novel responses to it. These included the maintenance of records,
reliance on syllabi and emphasis on examinations. Table 2 illustrates the support we found in our
data for this proposition.
14

Staying close to
mathematics
instruction
Focus on
continuous
improvement
Openness to
information and
diverse views
Table 2
Principal’s Commitment to Mathematics
Higher Performing School Lower Performing Schools
I have to create a lot of interest [in mathematics] because of the girls. I
have to be a role model. (Principal 11)
I am a member of that mathematics department, I teach and in fact I
have one of the form four classes. (Principal 4)
I had to take the leadership role by preaching to the students that
mathematics is like any other subject and can be performed better.
(Principal 7)
We introduced evening discussions for students… when the teachers
leave for home, I come in the evening … and make sure that what the
teacher left for discussion is done. (Principal 8)
I like also listening to the teachers as they talk and I keep correcting
the language so that they can also have the right attitude towards the
girls about mathematics. (Principal 11)
I invite [weak students] to my office and we talk about their grades.
(Principal 8)
Where you find there are omissions, be very prompt in pointing out, in
a rather encouraging manner. Not criticizing but encourage and show
the difference. (Principal 7)
We always have our remedial teaching, which we do after classes
[and] over the weekends. (Principal 7)
I normally have open forums with the students. Where they have
problems, they tell us [and] so I am able now to get that information
and discuss with the teachers. (Principal 8)
I have made it open such that everybody is free to contribute. And in
fact I have told them the principal is not a ‘know it all’. They give me
ideas on anything they think we can put on board to run the school.
(Principal 4)
As I start the day I am in touch at a very personal level and then later
in the day, if I get another opportunity, I still will go round [to gather
information]. (Principal 11)
15
They [Heads of Departments] supervise the way
the teaching is being done to ensure that the
syllabus coverage is done in good time.
(Principal 10)
We have record books where a teacher records ‘I
have taught this and this’. (Principal 2)
We are encouraging teachers to go on and finish
the syllabus and do the type of revision that will
be required. (Principal 3)
We don’t have a school mathematics project
specifically for improving mathematics, not yet.
(Principal 1)
We started what we called supplementary exams
for the weak students in mathematics … but I
think since last year but one we have not been
able to do [any]. (Principal 10)
We have documents which we follow, like the
syllabus, which is drawn by the KIE (Kenya
Institute of Education) and other documents
which guide us on how to go about
implementing the curriculum. (Principal 1)
If need be I take the exercise books from the
students and check them physically, look at the
schemes of work and see whether they correlate
with what is being recorded. (Principal 2)
If we say this is the program to be followed, all
the students will follow what the teacher says.
Again our culture is to follow the right channels
of passing information. (Deputy Principal 1)
Mine is to issue a general circular to the effect
that, whether you missed a lesson for genuine
reasons or otherwise, it is your duty to ensure
that you cover up for any lessons missed.
(Principal 3)
Finding #2: Our analysis suggests a positive relationship between school performance in
mathematics and teacher sensitivity to and commitment to students’ needs and problems.
2.1: Teachers in better performing schools revealed higher sensitivity to student needs
and problems than did teachers in lower performing schools.
In particular, our data demonstrated higher sensitivity on the part of teachers in better
performing schools about the learning problems and/or special requirements of students,
individual or collective. The narratives of these teachers emphasized the differentiated needs of
singular students and focused efforts teachers took to preclude failure. Similar efforts and

endeavors were absent in the narratives of teachers from the lower performing schools. Examples
of the evidence we found is presented in Table 3.
Differentiated attention to weak
students
Table 3
Teacher Sensitivity to Student Problems and Needs
Higher Performing Schools Lower Performing Schools
We also grouped these students; we could deal
them at personal level but according to their
ability. (Teacher 4)
We talked about the poor students, how we
[could] help the poor students so that they go up
and improve math grade. Perhaps we may decide
we pick all the poor students in the whole and we
assign a person or two to take care of them.
(Teacher 11)
You call them individually, you talk [and] you
agree this is where you are going to major, …, the
weak ones particularly. (Head of department 11)
Efforts to preclude failure We have encouraged students to come and see us
after classes and also we are free. Like if you
come here after class you get so many of them
floating here coming for discussion. (Head of
department 8)
We also try to make the subject enjoyable, so that
the students feel free to ask questions. (Teacher 8)
You go ahead, outside your academic profession
as a teacher and even “bribe” with a snack. When
you want to bring them closer, you do anything.
You talk and ask them to give their experiences
why they hate mathematics. (Head of department
11)
16
We need to give more than we give nowadays. And
even remedial teaching of the weak students, we do
not have. (Teacher 10)
Mainly I don’t use discussions, as in discussing
among the students, I rarely do that.(Teacher 2)
We need a lot of time to be with these students, and if
you look at the routine of the day, we are saying, there
is no such time. (Teacher 1)
Those projects, if they require a lot of input from the
teachers, especially sacrifice, you don’t expect a lot of
support from the teachers. (Head of department 3)
So there was that challenge, as you try to assign them
[teachers] duties, people will give all sorts of excuses.
(Teacher 1)
I am not there at night; I am not there during their
private reading over their [students] weekend.
(Teacher 3 )
2.2: In better performing schools teachers reported higher personal commitment to
student achievement and were more intrinsically motivated to affect it.
The narratives of teachers at higher ranked schools revealed flexibility in classroom
practices and emphasized personal investment (involving time as well as effort) in devising
them. These instructors divulged willingness to engage in non-routine practices and encouraging
students to seek different views in solving problems. As demonstrated in Table 4 below, teachers
at lower ranking schools were far less apt to mention non-routine practices or to reference the use
of personal time and energy to design such.

Teacher’s source of
motivation
Table 4
Teachers’ motivation and commitment
Higher Performing Schools Lower Performing Schools
If I feel that students have an urge to do well, I
am really motivated to give even with nothing
to receive on my side. So my motivation is
being able to see the students doing well.
(Teacher 11)
When I teach and the students fail to understand
I don’t sleep. (Teacher 8)
When I see a child working, when I see a child
comfortable, when I go to that class and I feel
they are getting. You feel your emotions getting
higher and higher. (Head of department 11)
Teachers’ commitment Naturally you have the obligation of pursuing
and seeing your students do well and of course
you love that motivation to work hard [for]
extra hours [and] even seek other time outside
the normal classroom teaching to try to see your
students are taken care of. (Teacher 7)
And they [teachers] give themselves deadlines;
it is not only an issue of money. (Principal 7)
Encouraging student
discovery of solutions
We are here for the students, so we have to
work towards one goal, must have one goal. We
are here to help the students achieve success.
(Teacher 8)
Sometimes I get challenging questions which I
normally give to the students so that they will
be forced to think. (Head of department 8)
You give that child a question, particularly
during the revision time, to go and research.
They can be taught by the others then they can
come and present to the whole school. (Head of
department 11)
We also try to make the subject enjoyable, so
that the students feel free to ask questions.
(Teacher 8)
If you have to be devoted to work, you also
have to be recognized and where there is
devotion there must be a reward. (Teacher 1)
Somebody would say “that’s a good idea,
mostly it is good but the availability of us,
will we all be there for it? How much will we
be paid if we come for it?” So if we won’t be
paid when we take the extra [load] then you
carry it alone. (Teacher 3)
[The teachers] are very interested in whether
or not it will require some part of their time.
So we have to ensure that they are given
something. (Head of department 3)
So, telling me to come on Saturday to come
and assist my own students … I may not be
comfortable. (Teacher 1)
There was the tendency of us teachers also to
relax and not giving them [students] enough
practice, there was also the issue of; you give
an exercise and you are not likely to grade.
(Head of department 2)
I don’t know maybe that’s the weakness.
When we start off something we find
ourselves with no time [and] so it dies off.
(Teacher 10)
[The students] make notes, they also solve
some questions in their books and I’ll solve
some few problems on the board that is if the
time allows. (Teacher 2)
Finding # 3: Higher performing schools fostered a learning environment emphasizing a sense of
community among administrators, faculty and students and characterized by feedback and collaboration.
Our data revealed clear differences in the sense of community in higher performing
schools and lower performing schools. Most teachers and administrators in the higher
performing schools talked of their association as a family, feeling accepted, the importance of
having everybody on board and being unreserved with one other. Most of teachers and
principals in these schools expressed comfort in working together, sharing tasks and assisting
17

each other both socially and professionally. On the other hand, teachers and administrators in
lower performing schools made little reference to cohesiveness in their community. There was
emphasis of delegation of duties in the lower performing schools as opposed to collaboration.
More of the evidence we found is presented in table 5 below.
Harmony among school
members
Collaboration versus
delegation
Table 5
School Sense of Community
Higher performing schools Lower performing schools
The students respect teachers. They will even greet
you on the way; you feel you are free with
everybody. (Teacher 8)
[We chat] freely and this one really helps us to
forget our stress and our problems that we have out
there and it creates a sense of belonging among the
teachers. (Principal 8)
There is a lot of unity and warmness, whereby the
members, they like living as a family and they want
the success to be owned by everybody. (Principal
11)
If teacher A was in charge of CAT one, then teacher
B will lead in CAT 2, another person in the same
group will take charge of CAT 3 or end of term
exam. So you see once we do it that way everybody
feels part of the team. (Teacher 4)
We go [to the classroom] as a group and talk with
students. That way they feel we [teachers] have their
interest at heart and they feel we are together.
Therefore they are able to communicate with any of
the teachers without fear. (Teacher 11)
There is cooperation among the math teachers.
They work in a harmony and with the other
teachers. ( Head of department 11)
Rapport with student And whatever you agree with your students, they
will, they will do it, anyway, you will enjoy
teaching. (Teacher 8)
When we started [evening lessons] with them
[students], the boys were cooperative. (Head of
department 4)
Actually there is a lot of support from the teachers
and students. (Head of department 11)
18
But it is like the [previous] principal had a clique
of teachers who were close to him and another
clique of teachers who were labeled as saboteurs.
(Principal 3)
Not many teachers allow team teaching, the
reason being that I may feel that am not
competent enough, so by allowing somebody to
come into my class while am still there some of
my colleagues feel that it is belittling. (Head of
department 6)
We have a briefing in the staff room the
principal’s briefing he will come there, tell us the
objectives of the week. (Teacher 5)
We have the idea of the delegation where you find
that [everything] flows from the [principal’s]
office to the lowest level. (Principal 5)
So they [students] never listened to the teachers.
(Principal 3)
You could hear some other things cropping up,
the girls complaining here and there. (Teacher 1)
We realized that our students mainly don’t revise.
It is like they don’t want to revise. (Teacher 2)

DISCUSSION
Our study sought to understand how school leadership and teachers’ instructional
practices influence mathematics performance in Kenyan secondary schools. Our findings suggest
principals’ leadership and engagement strongly impacts mathematics performance. These results
are similar to those of Timperley (2005) who attributed success in students’ literacy skills to
literacy leaders who assisted teachers in questioning and changing their instruction practices. In
our study school principals did not act as instructional leaders, but played a crucial supportive
and complementary role in mathematics performance, staying close to instruction, remaining
focused on continuous improvement and being open to diverse views. These findings are
significant given the acknowledged lack of clarity about how leadership is experienced and
enacted to influence academic performance of students (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
Our findings showcase the importance of the principals’ commitment, sensitivity and
focus on continuous improvement and openness to information and diverse views (finding # 1).
We liken this to the notion of individual mindfulness associated with Langer (1989) and
extended to organizational mindfulness by Weick and Sutcliffe (2001). Hoy (2003) later
extended the idea of mindfulness to schools. Individual mindfulness is defined as sensitivity to
context, openness to new information, creating new categories and awareness of multiple
perspectives (Hoy, 2003; Thornton II & McEntee, 1995). Organizational mindfulness has five
dimensions (or processes) through which it is manifested, namely; preoccupation with failure,
sensitivity to operations, reluctance to simplify, commitment to resilience and deference of
expertise (Hoy, 2003; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). Mindful leaders are sensitive, flexible and have
the ability to appreciate alternative interpretations of contexts (Thornton II & McEntee, 1995).
Mindlessness, on the other hand, is a mindset burdened by old categories and reliant on routines
and programs (Hoy, Gage III, & John, 2006; Thornton II & McEntee, 1995)
19

Kenyan schools that perform better in mathematics, our study shows, nurture mindfulness
within the school communities. Mindfulness, according to our findings, is not just a quality for
school leaders but an organizational characteristic facilitated by mindful leaders. Our analysis
revealed that in schools with mindful principals, teachers too, were inclined to mindful behavior
when dealing with students (finding #2). Mindfulness became an organization wide
characteristic, as the principal’s propensity for it permeated to lower levels. To promote
mindfulness contagion successful principals got personally involved in mathematics
improvement activities not just as leaders but at times as followers, implementing the decisions
of their juniors, for example overseeing students’ group discussions when the teachers had gone
home. Such direct involvement meant that they were able to be continually aware of the “danger
not yet arisen” (Hoy et al, 2006). The flow of mindfulness from top to lower levels facilitated
student-centered instructional practices, enhancing performance in mathematics as mindful
teachers encouraged discovery and exploration in their instructional practices. The principals’
direct engagement stimulated higher commitment and professionalism among the teachers by
demonstrating their recognition of the multidimensional perspectives within the school
communities.
As described by Hoy (2003), mindlessness, relies on old categories and veils the subtlety
of context by focusing only on a single perspective. In mindless organizations rigidity and
insensitivity to context is the norm and problems are simplified to fit established programs and
routines (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). In our study mindlessness clearly characterized lower
performing schools, where principals were preoccupied, for example, with syllabi completion,
minimized their contact with teachers and relied on hierarchy to manage and communicate.
Mindless management meant that the teaching and learning process was dominated by one
perspective. Adherence to established Ministry of Education rules and regulations rather than
20

exploration and discovery was emphasized and little attention was paid to development of
students’ abilities, leading many of them to lose interest in learning. This could explain why
teachers and principals in some of the lower performing schools reported a lack of rapport with
students and difficulty maintaining their attention (Finding #3).
Hoy et al (2006) proposed that organizational environment facilitates mindful behavior.
At schools in our sample with a strong sense of community and characterized by cohesion,
harmony, mutual respect and team work, student performance was better. Moreover, a strong
sense of community aligns favorably with the African culture where family bonds are given
preeminence. A milieu of cohesion and harmony relates well with how Kenyan students have
been raised. The sense of community present in better performing schools may create comfort
around learning that help students to connect easily with the teaching and learning process.
Further, sense of community fosters trust among members – a condition that has been previously
associated with school improvement and student achievement (Bryk & Schneider, 2003;
Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). In our case, it is likely that sense of community created that
environment conducive for cultivating mindfulness in the school communities. In figure 1 below,
we conceptualize a framework where mindfulness permeated from higher levels to lowers in an
environment characterized by cohesion, harmony, mutual respect and team work. This
environment also encourages mutual trust among the various actors of the school community.
21

Figure 1
School mindfulness framework
The exercise of mindfulness by principals and their subordinates was correlated
with heightened teacher engagement, empowerment and greater experimentation with varied
instructional practices. Teachers’ engagement is defined as the creation of possibilities (Lesko,
1986) while teachers’ empowerment is the process where teachers become responsible for their
own growth and are able to resolve their own problems (Short, 1994). Our data provided
evidence of direct positive relationships between mindful school leadership, teachers’ sense of
empowerment and engagement and students’ academic achievement.
Hoy et al (2006) treat school mindfulness as an aggregation of principal and faculty
mindfulness. However, our findings indicate organizational mindfulness to be more than an
aggregation of the actors within the school community. According to our results, organizational
mindfulness is a function of collaboration and trust across levels and not just aggregation at
individual mindfulness. It involves the creation of an environment conducive to collaboration
and trust. In our case, principals were instrumental in the creation of this mindful organizational
environment – a “black box” that Hoy and colleagues have not previously prioritized. . We
22

ecommend future research to explore how the constructs of individual and organizational
mindfulness relate to student achievement. Figure 2 below suggests a causal model that depicts
the relationship between principal’s mindfulness, collaboration and trust, teacher’s engagement
and student achievement.
Figure 2
Causation model
CONTRIBUTIONS
Leadership has been posited as important in driving innovation in schools (Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). Mindfulness on the other hand is a facilitative state that could
create an environment conducive for discovery and innovation by adopting multiple perspectives
and being open to new categories (Hoy et al, 2006; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2000). Contemporary
school leadership literature agrees that distribution or sharing leadership is important to
instructional practices (Timperley, 2005). For the most part, current school improvement and
achievement studies have treated the concepts of mindfulness and leadership as separate
domains. Our results suggest the benefit of bringing the concept of mindfulness into school
leadership studies.
This study also contributes to the literature on school leadership by exploring the
applicability of theories about it in the milieu of Kenyan secondary schools. The impact of
23

school leadership on academic performance has received little attention in Kenyan educational
literature. By bringing into focus the role of leadership in the improvement of schools ‘academic
performance, this study hopes to catalyze more scholarly and practitioner oriented studies on the
Kenyan – and greater African ─ educational environment.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESERACH
Research on school leadership in Kenya has focused on the administrative role of school
principals ignoring the possible direct and indirect influence of it on school academic
performance and other sources of leadership. Little has been done to promote understanding
about how school leadership impacts students’ academic achievement, an emphasis that is
ubiquitous in contemporary leadership literature in the developed world (Mascall et al, 2008).
The findings of this study imply that education scholars and practitioners in Kenya need to pay
closer attention to what principals and other school leaders do in their day-to-day enactment of
leadership. Critically, our results suggest that education policy makers in Kenya must seek to
understand the grounded enactment of school leadership that influences academic performance
by facilitating mindful behaviors within schools.
The mindfulness of principals, instructional leaders (teacher leaders) and teachers appears
to have significant affect on student achievement. We recommend further research to clarify the
relationship of leadership – and styles of it – and mindfulness at various institutional levels in the
school systems (The next phase in our own research will focus on quantitative validation of the
constructs in our conceptual model). On a practical level, our qualitative results suggest that
school administrators and educational policy makers can take steps now to promote mindful
attitudes and behaviors in the school setting. Because principals’ leadership is instrumental in
facilitating and cultivating mindfulness across various levels within the school environment, all
of them should understand and nurture it in everyday practices. Deference to expertise, a key
24

characteristic of mindfulness, for example, may facilitate the practice of shared leadership within
the school community.
LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations in this study that should be noted. Our sample was small,
not randomly selected and restricted to provincial secondary schools in a single region of Kenya.
Hence our results may not be representative of all secondary schools in other provinces in Kenya
or to other types of schools.
In each institution we solicited information from three people; the school principal, the
head of the mathematics department and a mathematics teacher. These interviews were self
reports and although more than one viewpoint from each institution was obtained we
acknowledge that social desirability bias may have influenced our results. Our study required
respondents to recount past experiences and we acknowledge the potential for recall bias.
However, interviewing different respondents requiring them to recount the same or similar
incidences helped to minimize this risk.
Qualitative data analysis largely depends on researcher interpretation and understanding.
The principal researcher having been involved in school administration and teaching at
university and secondary school levels in Kenya for over 15 years and, despite conscious effort
to control its effects during the design and implementation of the study, we acknowledge the
potential for researcher bias.
25

REFERENCES
Ackers, J., & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom Interaction in Kenyan Primary Schools. British
Association for International and Comparative Education , 31 (2), 245 - 261.
Ackers, J., Migoli, J., & Nzomo, J. (2001). Identifying and addressing the causes of declining
participation rates in Kenyan primary schools. International Journal of Educational
Development , 21, 361 - 374.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology , 60, 421 - 429.
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. . Thomson Wadsworth.
Backman, K., & Kyngäs, H. A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice
researcher. Nursing and Health Sciences , 1, 147 – 153.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Educational Leadership , 60 (6), 40-44.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of
elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 25 (4), 347 - 373.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic Self-Efficacy and First-Year College
Student Performance and Adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology , 93 (1), 55-64.
Creemers, B. P., & Reezigt, G. J. (1997). School effectiveness and school improvement:
Sustaining links. School effectiveness and school improvement , 8 (4), 396 - 429.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Field notes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Eshiwani, G. S. (1985). Research into methods of teaching mathematics: some results from
Kenya. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 16
(4), 479 – 488.
Githua, B. N., & Nyabwa, R. A. (2008). Effects of advance organizer strategy during instruction
on secondary school students’ mathematics achievement in Kenya’s Nakuru district.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 6 (3), 439 - 457.
Global Literacy Project. (2008). Retrieved November 28, 2008, from Global Literacy Program:
http://www.glpinc.org/Graphics/Project_Sites/Africa/Kenya/Kenya-overview.htm
26

Global Literacy Project. (2008). Kenya Education Challenges. Retrieved November 28, 2008,
from Global Literacy Program:
http://www.glpinc.org/Graphics/Project_Sites/Africa/Kenya/Kenya-overview.htm
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational
Management & Administration , 28 (3), 317 - 338.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the Principal 's Contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980 - 1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 9 (2), 157 -
191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly , 32 (1),
5 - 44.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: leading or misleading.
Educational Management and Administration , 32 (1), 255–267.
Hart, A. W. (1995). Re-conceiving school leadership: Emergent views. Elementary School
Journal. 96 (1), 9–28.
Heller, M. J., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for change
in eight schools. Elementary School Journal , 95, 65–86.
Hopkins, D., & Jackson, D. (2002). Building the Capacity for Leading and Learning. In A.
Harris, C. Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves, & C. Chapman, Effective
Leadership for School Improvement (pp. 84–105). London: Routledge.
Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical,
research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Administration , 41 (1), 87-
108.
Hoy, W. K., Gage III, C. Q., & John, C. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust: necessary
conditions for each other. Educational Administration Quarterly , 42 (2), 236-255.
Inyega, J., & Thomson, N. (2002). Change in attitudes towards teaching strategies in secondary
school teachers in Kenya. ASTE International Conference. Kennesaw, GA: Association
for Science Teachers Education.
Kanja, C., Iwasaki, H., Baba, T., & Uenda, A. (2001). For the reform of mathematics education
in Kenyan secondary schools. Journal of International Development and Cooperation , 7
(1), 67– 75.
Kenya Institute of Education. (2001). Examination report. Nairobi, Kenya.
27

Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics
achievement: a comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS.
Australian Journal of Education , 46.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Book.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzis, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration ,
38 (2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement.
Educational Administration Quarterly 2008; 44 , 44, 529-561.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research How
leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing
leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and
Policy in Schools , 6, 37–67.
Lesko, N. (1986). Conceptualizing teacher engagement. Madison, WI: National Center on
Effective Secondary Schools.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly , 39 (3), 370 - 397.
Marrett, C. B. (1987). Black and Native American students in precollege mathematics and
science. In D. Linda, Minorities: Their underrepresentation and career differential in
science and engineering (pp. 7-31). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed
leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational , 46 (2), 214-228.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A.
(2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement:
The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education , 32 (5), 493 – 517.
Ngware, M. W., Wamukuru, D. K., & Odebero, S. O. (2006). Total quality management in
secondary schools in Kenya: Extent of practice. Quality Assurance in Education , 14 (4),
339-362.
28

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research
, 66, 543-578.
Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, selfefficacy,
and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of
Educational Psychology , 95 (3), 589–603.
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the disposition
of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues , 56 (1), 27 - 47.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, C. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin , 130 (2), 261-288.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design
of schools. In C. Cazden, Review of research in education. Washington, DC.
Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education , 114 (4), 488 – 492.
Sifuna, D. N., & Kaime, J. G. (2007). The effect of in-service education and training (INSET)
programmes in mathematics and science on classroom interaction: a case study of
primary and secondary schools in Kenya. African Education Review , 4 (1), 104 – 126.
Smylie, M., Conley, S., & Marks, H. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for
school improvement. In J. Murphy, The educational leadership challenge: Redefining
leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162–188). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice: A
Distributed Perspective. Curriculum Studies , 3 - 34.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, B. K., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and
practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education , 17, 213 -
226.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and
techniques. . NewburyPark, London: Sage.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal , 49 (4), 633
– 642.
Thornton II, L. J., & McEntee, M. E. (1995). Learner centered schools as a mindset, and the
connectiion with mindfulness and multiculturalism. Theory into Practice , 34 (4), 250 -
257.
Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal of
Curriculum Studies , 37 (4), 395 - 420.
29

Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly , 44 (4), 458 - 495.
Wambui, N. N. (2005). Study on mathematical achievement using the climbing learning method
in Kenyan secondary school. Reform, revolution and paradigm shifts in mathematics
education conference, (pp. 214 - 219). Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Weick, E. K., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention.
Organizational Science , 17 (4), 514 - 524.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and
student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 10 (12).
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive serach for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly , 39 (3), 398 - 425.
World Bank. (1998). Primary and secondary education in Kenya: A sector review. World Bank.
30

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Demographics of Informants
Respondent Gender Position Performance
1 F Principal Less successful
2 F Head of department Less successful
3 M Teacher Less successful
4 F Principal Less successful
5 M Head of department Less successful
6 F Teacher Less successful
7 M Principal Less successful
8 M Head of department Less successful
9 F Teacher Less successful
10 M Principal More successful
11 F Head of department More successful
12 M Teacher More successful
13 M Principal Less successful
14 M Head of department Less successful
15 M Teacher Less successful
16 F Principal Less successful
17 M Head of department Less successful
18 M Teacher Less successful
19 M Principal More successful
20 M Head of department More successful
21 M Teacher More successful
22 F Principal More successful
23 M Head of department More successful
24 M Teacher More successful
25 M Principal Less successful
26 M Head of department Less successful
27 F Principal Less successful
28 M Head of department Less successful
29 F Teacher Less successful
30 F Principal More successful
31 F Head of department More successful
32 F Teacher More successful
33 M Principal More successful
34 F Head of department More successful
35 F Teacher More successful
31

APPENDIX B
Interview protocol
1) Tell me about your background touching on your training, academic background and
experience.
2) Tell me a narrative that would help me understand the vision, mission, culture, values,
and the expectations of your school.
3) Could you please describe your responsibilities that you as a principal/head of
department/teacher are involved in a typical school term?
4) I am interested in mathematics performance in secondary schools; tell me about some
activities or initiatives you have been involved in geared towards enhancing your
school’s performance in mathematics?
5) Could you tell me about one initiative or activity you undertook that really stood out as a
success case in improving mathematics performance in your school?
6) Now tell me about one initiative you undertook that proved not to be successful in
enhancing mathematics performance.
32

APPENDIX C
Emergent Categories
1 Affection to students 26 Process
2 Appreciation/recognition 27 Respect
3 Assistance and assisting behavior 28 Role modeling
4 Attitude 29 School routine
5 Change 30 Security
6 Consultation 31 Sense of belonging
7 Cooperative behavior 32 Students' involvement
8 Culture 33 Student-teacher relation
9 Decision autonomy 34 Support
10 Delegation 35 Teachers' effort
11 Environment 36 Togetherness
12 Expectations 37 Trust
13 Exposure 38 Vision and mission
14 Fairness 39 Working as a team
15 Inclusiveness 40 Principal's math support
16 Influence 41 Principal's extra effort
17 Information gathering and dissemination 42 Principal's math campaign
18 Inter-personal relations/social bonding 43 Principal's interest in math
19 Involvement in decision making 44 sensitivity to teacher-student relation
20 Lobbying and negotiating 45 rapport with students
21 Math initiatives 46 Perceived causes of failure
22 monitoring teaching 47 Planning and organization
23 Motivation 48 Principal's effort
24 Motivators/demotivators 49 Problem
25 Openness to input 50 Problem solving
33