i

TITLE PAGE

APPRAISAL OF THE INSPECTION OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN SOUTH EAST ZONE OF NIGERIA

BY

EZENWAJI, IFEYINWA OGOEGBUNAM PG/M.Ed/Ph.D/05/40337

DOCTORAL THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS,

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA,

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D) DEGREE IN EDUCATIONAL

ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING

MARCH 2012

i

ii

APPROVAL PAGE

THIS THESIS HAS BEEN READ AND APPROVED FOR THE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS,

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

BY

_________________________ _______________________ PROF. N. O. OGBONNAYA DR. A.I OBOEGBULEM SUPERVISOR INTERNAL EXAMINER ____________________ _____________________ PROF. P.O.M. NNABUO PROF. IKE IFELUNNI EXTERNAL EXAMINER HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

______________________ PROF. S. A. EZEUDU

DEAN, FACULTY OF EDUCATION

iii

CERTIFICATION

Ezenwaji, Ifeyinwa Ogoegbunam, a postgraduate student of the Department of

Educational Foundations, with registration number PG/M.Ed/Ph.D/05/40337 has

satisfactorily completed the requirements for research work for the award of the

degree of doctor of philosophy in Educational Administration and Planning. The work

embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in whole or part for any

other degree of this or any other university.

_____________________________ _____________________ Ezenwaji, Ifeyinwa Ogoegbunam Prof. N. O. Ogbonnaya

Student Supervisor

Date ________________ Date _______________

iv

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my late husband Prof. Ezenwaji H.M.G. who was my

source of inspiration but did not live to see the end of the work and to my children

Somto, Chisom, Chinazo, Lota, Chisimdi and Kosy for their encouragement and help

throughout the period of the research. Chimax, you are not left out. May your gentle

soul rest in perfect peace.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I must thank the Almighty God for giving me the strength

and support to be able to complete this dissertation. To God be the glory for great

things He has done. I wish to thank my supervisor Prof N.O Ogbonnaya who

supervised this work. Profound thanks also go to Dr (Mrs) T. Offorka and Dr (Mrs)

Ngwoke for their immeasurable contributions.

My thanks also go to Drs J.Omeje, G.T. U Chiaha, N. K Ezegbe, J.U Eze, A.

Oboegbulam, U.K Nwosu, A Okere, A. Okolo, L. Onuigbo, B. C. Madu, N.Eze, J.

Igbo, D. U Ngwoke, U. Igbokwe and Rev. Dr. Ejionueme, for their constructive

criticisms, shaping and supervising of this work. May the Lord Almighty reward you

all. Also to be mentioned is my special friend Dr P. Nwankwo who is always ready

and willing to supply the needed materials and information for the success of this

work. You will never go unrewarded. My immense gratitude goes to Prof (Mrs.) U.

Azikiwe who is a mother in a million. May her generation ever remain blessed. I also

thank in a special way Prof and Dr (Mrs) B.G Nworgu. May the good Lord reward

them in abundance. My special thanks also go to the following: Prof C. Onwuka, Prof

(Mrs) U.N.V Agwagah, Prof I. Ifelunni, Prof Uche Eze, and Prof C. Onwurah May the

good Lord bless them all.

I am very grateful to my brothers, sisters and my brother in-law, Dr Ndu

Ekuma-Nkama for their moral and financial support. I wish to thank my brothers and

sisters in Christ for their prayers and intercession, especially pastor Koyade Kolawole,

and many others. EFAC Nsukka Zone deserve special thanks.

Ezenwaji, Ifeyinwa Ogoegbunam.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE - - - - - - - - - I APPROVAL PAGE - - - - - - - - II CERTIFICATION - - - - - - - - - III DEDICATION - - - - - - - - - IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - - - - - - - - V TABLE OF CONTENTS - - - - - - - - VI LIST OF TABLES - - - - - - - - - IX LIST OF FIGURES - - - - - - - - - X ABSTRACT - - - - - - - - - - XI CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study - - - - - - - - 1

Statement of the Problem - - - - - - - - 13

Purpose of the Study - - - - - - - - 14

Significance of the Study - - - - - - - - 14

Scope of the Study - - - - - - - - - 17

Research Questions - - - - - - - - - 17

Hypotheses - - - - - - - - - - 18

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Conceptual Framework - - - - - - - - 19

Concept of Appraisal - - - - - - - - 20

Concept of Inspection - - - - - - - - 22

History of School Inspection in Nigeria - - - - - - 23

Purpose of Inspection - - - - - - - - 26

Types of Inspection and their Frequency - - - - - - 33

Hierarchy of Primary School Inspectoral Programmes - - - 37

Constraints to School Inspection - - - - - - - 40

vii

Theoretical Framework - - - - - - - - 45

Behavioral Science Theories - - - - - - - 45

Systems Theory - - - - - - - - - 48

Types and Models of Evaluation - - - - - - - 52

Review of Empirical Studies - - - - - - - 56

Empirical Studies on Problems Militating against Effective Inspection - 57

Evaluation of Inspectoral Programme - - - - - 57

Types of Arrangements for School Inspection - - - - - 58

Attitude of Teachers and Administrators towards School Inspection - - 59

Strategies for Improving Inspection of Primary Schools. - - - 59

Teachers’ Perception of Inspectoral Practices - - - - - 60

Constraints to Financial Operation of the Inspectorate Unit - - - 61

Training Needs of School Inspectors - - - - - - 61

Summary of Literature Review - - - - - - - 62

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD

Research Design - - - - - - - - - 64

Area of the Study - - - - - - - - - 64

Population of the Study - - - - - - - - 65

Sample and Sampling Techniques - - - - - - 65

Instrument for Data Collection - - - - - - - 66

Validation of the Instrument - - - - - - - 67

Reliability of the Instrument - - - - - - - 67

Method of Data Collection - - - - - - - - 68

Method of Data Analysis - - - - - - - - 68

viii

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND RESULTS

Research Question One - - - - - - - - 70

Research Question Two - - - -- - - - - 72

Research Question Three - - - - - - - - 73

Research Question Four - - - - - - - - 74

Research Question Five - - - - - - - - 76

Hypothesis One - - - - - - - - - 77

Hypothesis Two - - - - - - - - - 79

Hypothesis Three - - - - - - - - - 81

Hypothesis Four - - - - - - - - - 82

Hypothesis Five - - - - - - - - - 83

Summary of Major Findings - - - - - - - 85

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussion of Results - - - - - - - - 86

Conclusion - - - - - - - - - - 92

Educational Implications - - - - - - - - 92

Recommendations - - - - - - - - - 94

Limitations of the Study - - - - - - - - - 95

Suggestions for Further Research - - - - - - - 95

Summary of the Study - - - - - - - - 96

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - 99

APPENDICES - - - - - - - - - 108

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page 1. Mean rating ( ) and standard deviation on Extent Inspectors Carry out their

Inspectoral functions .....................................................................................70

2. Mean rating ( ) and standard deviation (SD) scores of the inspectors and the head teachers on availability of facilities for inspection purpose ........................................................................................ 72

3. Means rating ( ) and standard deviation (SD) on inspectors and head-teachers on criteria for recruitment .............................................................................73

4. Mean rating ( ) and standard deviation (SD) on problems confronting inspectoral functions ………………………………………………………….75

5. Mean rating ( ) and standard deviation (SD) on measures for improvement..76 6. t-test of the difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and head-teachers on the extent to which the inspectors carry out inspectoral functions .....................................................................................78

7. t-test of the difference between the mean rating of inspectors and head-teachers on the adequacy of facilities for primary schools inspectors .......................................................................................................80 8. t-test of the difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and

head-teachers on application of criteria guiding the requirement of inspectors .......................................................................................................81

9. t-test analysis on problems confronting inspectoral functions in public primary schools ...................................................................................82

10. t-test analysis on measures for improving inspection in public primary schools ..............................................................................................84

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1. Hierarchy in inspectorate unit - - - - 38

2. Behavioural Science Theories - - - - 46

3. Organizational behavioural multidisciplinary approach - 47

4. A conceptual model of the educational system and its major

subsystems - - - - - - - 49

xi

ABSTRACT

There is a realization that the quality of teaching and learning has declined due to ineffective and inefficient inspection and this has provided an impetus for appraising the objectives which school inspection is expected to achieve. A survey research-design was adopted for the study, five research questions and five null hypotheses, tested at (p < .05) level of significance, were used. Through a multistage procedure, three out of five states were selected from South-East Zone. 371 head-teachers from public primary schools and 217 inspectors were sampled. A 56 item questionnaire (IPSAQ) covering different areas of school inspection was developed by the researcher to get information from both head-teachers of public primary schools and inspectors. Cronbach Alpha reliability method was used to determine the internal consistency of IPSAQ. The computation yielded reliability coefficient of 0.97, for the general cluster of the instrument. The findings of the study showed that although inspectors embark on routine inspection and make recommendation to government based on the results of their inspection visits, they do not close schools that are not performing up to expectation. The study also showed that inspectors lack facilities and equipment for school inspection. Finally, measures for improving inspectoral functions in public primary schools include, to allow the inspectors to participate in policy making, to grant autonomy to the inspectorate unit, and government should increase the allocation given to the inspectorate.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

One major trend in the development of education today in many countries,

especially in the third world countries like Nigeria is the effort being made to reform

the Inspectorate units. The main issue remains that education occupies a central

position for economic empowerment and development of sustainable economy. No

wonder, one of the national goals of education is “the acquisition of appropriate skills

and the development of mental, physical and social abilities and competencies as

equipment for the individual to live and contribute to the development of the society”.

The National Policy on Education (N.P.E 2004:8). Nwagwu (2007) noted that what

children learn, retain and practice after leaving school has great impact on the nation’s

development. To this effect, the totality of what the child learnt both formally and

informally determines the individuals ability to contribute to national development.

Aghenta (2006) noted that trained and educated human resources contribute greatly to

manpower and personnel needed to bring about national development. It therefore

means that the quality of education received by the citizens determines the level of

development of any nation.

The provision of manpower and personnel that bring about national

development according to Nwagwu (2007) demands that every government that

provides public schooling must try to ensure that the system is not only regulated but

also controlled and monitored. The government should also ensure that minimum

standards of academic performance, teaching, administration and maintenance of

physical facilities are upheld. Olagboye (2004) remarked that effective quality control

1

2

and evaluation of education, therefore, require the prescription of minimum standards

for the achievement of educational objectives through the inspectoral services. Hence,

it is the function of the school inspectors to constantly monitor and evaluate the set

standards through regular inspection.

Inspection is an indispensable aspect of any organization the world over, be it

in developed or developing countries. It can be seen as a quality control mechanism to

ensure standards. Wilcox (2000) defines inspection as the process of assessing the

quality and performance of institutions, services, programmes and projects by those

(inspectors) who are not directly involved in them and who are usually specially

appointed to fulfill these responsibilities.

Inspection and supervision are essential activities of any organization.

Ogunsaju (1983) noted that both have almost the same administrative functions.

Inspection and supervision are often used interchangeably, but despite their

similarities, there is still a difference between the two terms. Inspection refers to the

general assessment of the entire education programme in the school in order to help

find solutions to the educational problems, while school supervision is concerned with

assisting teachers to improve instruction. In other words, inspection is more

embracing than supervision. Supervision is an aspect of inspection. Buttressing the

above fact, Olagboye (2004) stated that the term ‘inspection’ is older in the field than

supervision. Inspection is a term that has been in use from the time of the colonial

masters even during the missionary era when schools were managed by the

missionaries. School supervision involves an in-house helping relationship in which

the supervisor constantly and continuously guides and assists the teacher to meet set

targets. School inspection involves a cooperative relationship where the school

3

inspector comes into the school from outside to check and ensure that set targets are

being met by both teachers and in-house supervisors (Olagboye, 2004). The inspector

rigidly stresses strict compliance to the laid down rules and regulations as spelt out in

the edict on school inspection but the supervisor is more concerned with the

management of the classroom, while paying attention to peculiar and localized

conditions of the school (Ogunu 2001). The inspector reports findings of any

particular visit to the Ministry of Education while the supervisor discusses findings

with the teacher in order to improve teaching. (Rono, 2000) observed that inspectors

visits are usually periodic while supervisory visits are on going. Based on the above

comparison, Aiyepeku (1987:6) concludes “Inspector is therefore much more than a

supervisor”. The fact remains that the inspector oversees the work of both supervisors

and their supervisees. School inspection is an official visit which is directed at finding

out problems encountered by teachers, head-teachers and school personnel with a

view to finding solutions to these problems so that the standard of education can be

maintained. Universal Basic Education Programme (UBEP, 2002).

Historically, the ordinance of 1887 increased the scope of inspection and was

the first education ordinance for Nigeria. This was after the creation of the

protectorate of Lagos in 1886 (Omoregie, 2004) & Nwagwu (1993) maintained that it

was “the education ordinance of 1887, enacted essentially for the colony and

protectorate of Lagos that established the Inspectorate of Education as an

indispensable component of educational management in Nigeria’. After much

consideration and consultation, the Federal Inspectorate was launched on September

2, 1973 (Taiwo, 1985, Ndupu, 1980). The Federal Inspectorate is a department of the

Federal Ministry of Education. Its’ staff are deployed to the Federal headquaters and

4

to each of the State capitals where they perform their functions in collaboration with

their state counterparts. The Federal and State inspectors have different roles to

perform. The Federal inspector is less involved in administration, but more involved

in classroom evaluation and in advising both State and Federal Ministries while State

Inspectors advise only the State Ministries of Education. Palmer,(1983). The Federal

and State inspectors altogether are to make sure that the goals of education are

pursued and achieved. Inspectorate department was referred to as inspectorate

division, until 1988 during Babangida’s administration when the nomenclature, was

changed to ‘department’ following the reorganization of the civil service. (Olagboye,

2004). The present Federal Inspectorate has five departments: primary education,

secondary education, technical education, post-secondary education and non-formal

education. The inspectorate is an internal part of the Ministry of Education.

A number of factors influence the level of performance in the school system

especially with regard to the quality of input and school process variables. Ochuba

(2008) opined that goals of education can only be achieved with a well organized

school system that would ensure that all aspects of school life are well organized and

effectively co-ordinated. For the education industry to carry out its functions of

developing quality human capital, there is need for checks and balances being carried

out by regular and effective inspection. The Federal Inspectorate service of the

Federal Ministry of Education is directly responsible for quality control and

maintenance of standards in institutions below the tertiary level. Decree No16 of 20th

August 1985 outlined its objectives to include:

1) To maintain minimum standards in education practice nation wide

2) To operate common system of education practice nation wide

5

3) To introduce classroom innovation

4) To achieve quality education in Nigeria (Federal Ministry of Education, Draft

Inspectors Handbook for Inspection of Educational Institutions in Nigeria. (FMEDIH.

2009).

To achieve these objectives, the functions of inspectors fall into three main

categories namely administration and management, assessment or evaluation and

finally advice, guidance and training. These functions interlock but the relative

emphasis placed on each varies in time and place. Inspectors approve schools for

external or public examination like state common entrance examination. The

inspectors carry out the inspection of schools under the guidelines for approval of

schools for external examination, the inspectors visit schools to check actually

whether the schools are qualified or not for the approval. Ochuba (2009:9) noted that:

The improvement of the quality of education requires ensuring that standards are set and adhered to, secondly, that defaulters are brought to book by imposition of sanction. The legal aspects of school inspection in Nigeria is derived from the National minimum standard Act No 16 of 1985 which outlined the functions of the inspectorate and sanctions for offences for providing false information, obstructing the inspectors from carrying out their duties, non-implementation of recommendations of the inspectors establishment of unapproved and substandard schools amongst others.

The inspectors have the authority to close schools that are not performing up to

expectation provided the record from the inspection visit has a backing or evidence to

prove the shortcomings of the defaulting schools. Ogunu (2009) remarked that

approval is given to proprietors who have not met the minimum requirement for

establishing new schools due to compromises on the part of inspectors thereby

compromising standard. Futhermore, Ogunu noted that the current proliferation of

private schools in the nation calls for urgent attention of the quality assurance agents

responsible for approving and establishing schools based on approved minimum

6

requirements stipulated, and the closing down of schools that have not met the

minimum standards. In another study, Pitchard (1999) noted that inspectors visit

schools to carry out routine check on schools. This regular routine check normally

carried out by inspectors can take place as often as possible. It is a less formal type of

inspection unlike full or panel inspection that is carried out annually or bi-annually.

Buttressing the above fact, Pitchard (1999) observed that routine/advisory visits paid

by an inspector or group of inspectors to school was of more help to teachers than the

formal full inspection. It enabled the inspector to observe the work in the classroom in

a natural atmosphere and to establish relationships with the staff by engaging in

discussion, as well as giving and taking of advice which is more productive than the

more judicial context of the formal full inspection. Masara (1987) noted that some

inspectors repeatedly visit schools to boss and harass teachers in full or panel

inspection instead of helping them to solve professional problems. In line with this

observation, Ndegwa (2001) noted that teachers have regarded inspection as a

stressful experience due to fear of the unknown.

Many teachers and head teachers when advised on impending inspection, are

likely to be apprehensive and consequently may decide to put up a show to impress

inspectors. This attitude of window dressing to impress inspectors does not help the

entire educational sector as well as the Ministry of Education (MOE). The inspector

has the role of maintaining standards and ensuring that quality education is given in

primary schools in the country. Adegbesan (2010:1) stated that “the problem the

government has is in reconciling access with quality in the provision of education. In

line with the above, Yaloye (2005) agrees that quality must characterize education at

every stage and the real problem that governments have to face is deciding how many

7

of its citizens should go beyond the basic education, and how many should have

higher education.

Inspectors are to evaluate all educational institutions below the tertiary level

regularly and compile appropriate reports to the Ministry of Education for

implementation. Ezikanyi (2007:26) noted that inspectors reports are not used in

major decision making about schools. Some of their reports are swept under, even

when there is very urgent need for action. This attitude of the stakeholders has ignited

“I don’t care attitude” among school inspectors. Emphasizing the need for report and

its utilization, UBEP (2002) highlights that inspection reports are of value only when

they are put to use in order to improve the quality of educational delivery and

maintenance of high standard.

Other areas of operation of the inspector is advising the government on the type

and quality of education being offered in the country especially in the primary

schools. It is worth knowing that one of the objectives of the inspectorate is to operate

a common system of educational practice nation wide. What goes on in many public

primary schools today calls for attention. Public primary schools are those schools

owned and managed by the government. One seldom hears of inspectors of education

today who actually go round and ensure good standard and quality education. To this

effect, Omorike (2004) noted that inspectors role is to make available to the

appropriate authorities the exact position of the educational system.

The National Policy on Education (NPE 2004) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

prescribes that the teacher pupil ratio in the primary schools should be 1:40. Olaniyan

(2004) observes that the classrooms are over crowded and in some instances schools

have operated with teacher-pupil ratio of 1:76. Inspectors have the right to transfer the

8

excess pupils to other school that have less pupils, if they want to do their job as

prescribed, but the problem is that in some situations, the schools with such problems

may not have access to inspection as a result of one reason or the other. As a result of

shortage of classroom space, classes are offered in the open air and pupils are

subjected to all problems associated with outdoor teaching such as weather fluctuation

leading to disruption of classes and lack of quality instruction.

Inspectors are to provide career guidance to teachers and educational institution.

Bowen (2001) and Isolo (2000) noted that some inspectors have been criticized for

being harsh on teachers and for harassing teachers even in the presence of their pupils

instead of guiding the teachers to achieve career competence. According to Isolo

(2000), many school inspectors demand bribes from head teachers in order to make

favourbale reports, are also dictatorial and insist that things be done their way.

Moreover they work with unsmiling faces. Kumuyu (2001) noted that some inspectors

behave like outsiders whose sole mission is to work against teachers in order to prove

that no teacher is competent.

The inspectors have a role to play in collecting statistical data about schools to

help the government in policy making. Asaya 2000:99) opined that there is lack of

clear-cut policies/ standards on most education policies i.e most policies are usually

not clearly spelt out because of the incessant changes in the system. As a result the

inspectors and those to be inspected are placed in a state of dilemma. Asaya (2000)

further stated that the change from the 6-3-3-4 system to the former 6-5-4 system is

already being considered. Also, it is the duty of the inspector to plan and organize

inductions, seminars and workshops for teachers for professional growth. Teachers

also need in-service training to learn new things and impart same to the learners. This

9

is necessary if the quality of education is to be improved upon. Asaya 2000, and

Colin, 2001 noted that lack of pre-service training and retraining, lack of internship

system for would be school inspectors and lack of inspection reports are major

problems facing the educational system. In a situation were inspection is carried out,

Aderounmu (2001) noted that often feedback is not given to schools and where it is

given, the true picture of the school is not reported. Reports show that acute shortage

of inspectors for the very large number of schools they are expected to visit has

consequently made some schools not to be visited for the past ten years. This

irregularity has led to ineffectiveness in the educational system. Aderounmu (2001)

asserted that inspectoral functions may not have been appraised for a long time to

ascertain the problems facing adequate inspection.

Appraisal, according to Nworgu (2003) is generally used in two senses. In the first

sense, it is used to connote the process of making value judgments or decisions based

on empirical data or information made available through measurement. It is also used

in a broader and more encompassing sense as a process of seeking, obtaining and

quantifying data with a view to making value judgment about objects, events or their

characteristics. Conceptualized in this way, appraisal is a process of collecting and

using information to make decisions about an educational programme.

Educational programmes are appraised by inspectors of schools for quality control.

Hornby (2005) describes the inspector as “an official who make sure that regulations

are obeyed”. A school inspector is a public government official appointed and

empowered by law to monitor schools and to ensure standards in education.

Aderounmu (2001) asserts that inspector is a leader who is interested in the maximum

10

utilization of available resources for the optimum achievement of the goals of the

system.

The main activities of all the inspectorates of education is to conduct scheduled

or unscheduled inspection visits to schools and colleges and write reports on their

findings for both record purposes and for necessary action by the appropriate

authorities. According to Olagboye (2004) there are five main forms of school

inspection visits commonly practiced in Nigeria. These include full general inspection,

advisory visits or routine visits, recognition inspections, follow-up inspection and re-

inspections. Several researchers like Ogunu (2002) consider other form of school

inspections to include the following: inspections for development, survey visits, casual

or operational visits, or check-up visits, investigative visits, special visits.

For effective inspection to take place there must be facilities and equipment

for both the inspector and the school system for easy evaluation. Ezikanyi (2007:2)

noted that there are three main factors that enhance any educational endeavour. These

are finance, personnel physical facilities and equipment. These are indispensable if

any education pursuit is to be achieved. Okeke (1990) pointed out that the major

impediment to teaching and learning is lack of adequate facilities. Supporting the

above assertion, Egonu (1989) noted that most primary schools in the country have

dilapidated buildings, lack basic teaching aids, do not have enough classrooms, have

poor sanitary environment and lack writing desks. Maiyashi (2001) also stated that in

all parts of the country without exception, the school environment is not conducive for

teaching and learning. There are particularly in the urban and semi-urban centres over

populated classrooms with children sitting on bare floors. There is also absence of

basic teaching facilities, while qualified teachers are in short supply. This is in line

11

with Aguokogbue (2003), who maintained that inadequate funds often led to meager

libraries, few instructional materials, cheap building construction, poorly trained staff

and non-provision of basic services to students. Ogbannaya (2004) corroborated this

view when he observed that inspectors of schools lack relevant materials, tools and

resources for effective execution of their functions such as journals, textbooks,

periodicals, teacher performance evaluation report forms, files, stationery and vehicles

because of inadequate funding. It is obvious that these responsibilities are enormous

and require huge amounts of money to meet these needs especially the provision of

serviceable and appropriate vehicles.

Inspectoral roles are indispensable in any organization especially in educational

systems. The criteria utilized for the selection of inspectors/evaluators are important as

the quality of the service depends on the calibre of the people appointed to carry out

the inspection. Quality Assurance Hand Book for Basic and Secondary Education in

Nigeria (QAHB 2010:54) stated that the qualification required is a minimum of

bachelors degree in education or its equivalent, plus a professional certificate or its

equivalent, register with Teacher’s Registration Council of Nigeria (TRCN), 10 years

of teaching experience. An inspector must be an officer not below grade level 12 or

equivalent. This means that inspectors must be carefully selected and regularly

trained.

The provision of necessary facilities and equipment for effective inspection

cannot be overemphasized. Agreeing with this, the Office For Standards in Education

Britain (OFSTED 2005), stated that inspectors should be properly trained and assessed

to specified standards with their initial training lasting for several months. The study

further noted that even when inspectors have been recruited, they should still engage

12

in continuous professional development to improve their inspection skills. The criteria

for recruitment of inspectors are crucial as the quality of the service depends on

competences of those appointed to carry out inspection. Ogunu (2011) observed that

the recruitment of inspectors does not seem to take cognizance of the right qualities

required for effective performance. Secondly, the criteria for appointment of

inspectors are basically the possession of first degree in education and some years of

teaching experience. In some cases owing to acute shortage of inspectors, some

teachers without the required level of education and teaching experience are recruited

as inspectors. It is worth knowing that if people recruited to do the work of inspection

do not have the necessary qualification and experience needed for its crucial role of

ensuring quality education in the school system, the needed quality will not be

achieved and the aim of inspection will be defeated.

In Kenya for instance, Wasanga (2004) noted that the modalities of identifying

potential quality assurance personnel in, Kenya are based on the track records of the

applicant in relation to previous and present performance. The level of education of

the applicant should be a degree in education with at least three year teaching

experience and evidence of potential on quality assurance in education course.

Similarly, Ochuba (2001:3) stated that:

A good inspector should therefore have the appropriate qualification and experience. It is also important that such inspectors should be able to write comprehensive and accurate reports based on information collected with the instrument. Furthermore, the inspector should be able to collect, collate and analyze data which are part of the job requirement of the inspectorate services.

Fagbamiye (2009) noted that lack of accurate and timely data has long been the bane

of policy formulation and management of primary education system in Nigeria. To

obtain accurate data on enrolment, teachers, non-teaching staff and even facilities

13

appears to be a difficult task for school inspectors. School inspectors and teachers

appear to lack adequate cognitive development in the areas of data collection, analysis

and storage. There is the need for the right quantity and quality of inspectors to

ensure regular visits to schools. The expected outcome is improved quality of

education and teacher effectiveness. This study therefore is an appraisal of the

inspection of public primary schools in South -East Zone of Nigeria.

Statement of the Problem:

Research evidence has indicated that many of the inspectoral functions are

neglected in public primary schools in South East Zone of Nigeria. The authority of

the inspectors to close down schools that are not performing up to standard is not

utilized. Besides, approval is given to proprietors who have not met the minimum

requirements for establishing new schools due to compromises on the part of

inspectors thereby compromising standard. This attitude of inspectors has resulted to

the proliferation of private schools without adherence to the stipulated minimum

standard.

Inspectors no longer carry out routine checks on schools to establish

relationships with the staff by engaging in discussion that will create a natural and

conducive atmosphere for efficiency and effectiveness. Reports from the scholarly

works have shown that inspectors repeatedly visit schools to boss and harass teachers

instead of helping them to solve professional problems. Hence, teachers and

headteachers regard inspection as a stressful experience and to this effect resort to

display of window dressing to impress the inspectors.

14

It therefore becomes pertinent to appraise the functions of primary school

inspectors in the south east zone of Nigeria with a view to establish empirical

evidence.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to appraise the inspection of public

primary schools in South East zone of Nigeria.

This study appraised school Inspection in public primary schools in South

Eastern Nigeria, based on the guidelines for inspection of schools in Nigeria.

Specifically, the study examined.

1. The extent to which inspectors carry out their functions.

2. The adequacy and availability of equipment and facilities for school inspection.

3. The extent to which the procedure for recruitment of school inspectors are adhered to.

4. Problems confronting inspectors function in public primary schools

5. Measures for improving inspectoral in public primary school in South-East Zone.

Significance of the Study

The study is important from both theoretical and practical view points. From

the theoretical angle, the study was based on behavioural science theories and systems

approach theory. The behavioural science theories are combination of scientific

management and human relation theories which emphasized that the best way to

facilitate work and increase productivity in an organization is through an

understanding of the worker, his job content and the work environment. Therefore,

administrators should draw their knowledge and experience from various subjects in

social sciences, economics, anthropology, sociology etc. for better understanding of

the job performance of workers. It was believed that with such knowledge and

15

experience, administrators would be in a better position to understand the worker and

his work. Furthermore there should be interaction to produce good organizational

management. Inspectors have roles to play in understanding inspectors work

environment, both at the office and the school under their domain. The government

should expose inspectors to those necessary courses in social sciences required of

them to be equipped in dealing with the teachers and the school system. In general,

inspectors should have good background knowledge in courses like, geography and

psychology- that will expose them to the personality system, sociology, social system,

anthropology- cultural system, political science- leadership and economics which will

help them in management of resources and even in planning. The knowledge acquired

in such courses will serve as an added advantage to their inspectoral functions.

The systems theory encourages managers to view the organization both as a

whole and as a part of a larger environment. The idea is that any part of the

organization’s activities affects all other parts. For example, within the educational

system, there are other sub-systems as primary, secondary and tertiary sub-system.

The basic idea in a system is that the parts of anything are so related and dependent,

that the interaction of any part affects the whole. This study shows that if inspectors

have knowledge of the systems theory, they will come to terms with their duties and

realize that if primary schools are not well inspected for standards to be maintained

and quality education given at that level, other systems will equally be affected. The

understanding of these theories in educational system, especially in relation to

inspection of schools will be of immense significance to future researchers in the field

of administration and planning.

16

In practical terms the findings of this study would be of immense benefit to the

government i.e. policy makers, the inspectorate unit of Ministry of Education.

Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), State Universal Basic Education

(SUBEB) employers of labour, National Universities Commission (NUC) inspectors

and head-teachers.

The finding of the study would help the government in finding ways inspection

can be improved in public primary schools. This can be actualized and achieved when

government utilizes the recommendations and suggestions as outlined in this study.

The significance of any research such as this study, which is aimed at

improving inspection, would enable the Ministry of Education both Federal, State and

the Local Education Authorities to see the need for regular inspection in public

primary schools. The inspectorate unit is not left out as this would enable them to see

the need for regular inspection in public primary schools for maintenance of

standards.

The finding would also expose the inspectors to different types of inspections

and their uses and also throw more light on inspectoral practices which will guide

them in their future programmes.

The findings of this study would sensitize UBEC and SUBEC to their

supervisory role in primary schools. If the recommendation made is taken into

consideration. Headteacher would also benefit from the study as this will help the

head teachers and the entire schools to carry out routine functions as at when due.

The quality of university graduates would increase and standards maintained if

inspectors carry out regular monitoring in primary schools. This would automatically

help to enhance the quality of those that are admitted into the universities. The parents

17

would also benefit from the study since the success of their children educationally is

of paramount importance to them.

Finally the study would help stake holders and the masses in general to know

the importance of the inspectorate unit in solving current educational problems in

public primary schools and how far to rely on them.

Scope of the Study

The research focused on the appraisal of inspection of public primary schools

in South East Zone of Nigeria.

The study was carried out in public primary schools, inspectorate units in South

Eastern Nigeria namely Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo states. However, the

areas researched on include: inspectoral functions of inspectors, availability of

facilities and equipment for school inspection, criteria for the recruitment of

inspectors, problems affecting inspectoral functions, measures for improving

inspectoral functioning.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study.

1. What is the extent to which inspectors carry out their functions?

2. What is the extent of the adequacy of availability of facilities and equipment for

inspection of schools?

3. What is the extent to which recruitment of school inspectors are adhered to as

specified in the guidelines?

4. What are the problems confronting inspectoral functions in public primary schools

in South-East Zone?

5. What are the measures for improving inspectoral functions in public primary

schools?

18

Hypotheses

Five null hypotheses formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance guided the

study.

Ho1: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and

head teachers on the extent to which inspectors carry out their functions.

Ho2: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and

head teachers of public primary schools on the extent of availability of facilities and

equipment for school inspection.

Ho3: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and

head-teachers on application of criteria guiding the recruitment of inspectors.

Ho4: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and

head teachers on problems confronting inspectors in carrying out inspectoral functions

in public primary schools.

Ho5: There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and

head teachers of public primary schools on measures for improving inspectoral

functions in public primary schools.

19

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature related to this study were presented under three broad

headings namely: conceptual, theoretical and empirical framework

Conceptual Framework

Concept of appraisal

Concept of inspection

History of school inspection in Nigeria

Purpose of inspection

Types of inspection and their frequency

Inspectoral programmes in primary schools in South East Zone

Constraints to school inspection

Theoretical Framework

Behavioural science theories

System theory

Models of Evaluation.

Review of Empirical Studies

Empirical Studies on Inspection of Schools

Empirical Studies on Problems Militating against Effective Inspection

Evaluation of Inspectoral Programme in Developing Countries

Types of Arrangements for School Inspection

Attitude of Teachers and Administrators Towards School Inspection

Strategies for Improving Inspection of Primary Schools.

Teachers’ Perception of Inspection Practices

19

20

Constraints to Financial Operation of the Inspectorate Unit

Training Needs of School Inspectors

Summary of Literature Review

Concept of Appraisal

Different types of appraisal exist namely: performance appraisal, self appraisal,

one-to-one appraisal, team based appraisal, 180 and 360 degree appraisal and third

party appraisal.

The one that is in line with the study is that of performance appraisal.

Performance appraisal has two basic systems operating in one namely an evaluation

system and feedback system. The aim of the evaluation system is to find out the

weakness in the organization but that of the feedback is to inform the workers about

the quality of their achievement.

Encarta Dictionary (2001) sees appraisal as assessment, evaluation, judgment,

review, or opinion of something or somebody especially one that assesses

effectiveness or usefulness. Appraisal is a process which systematically and

objectively attempts to determine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact

of project activities in the light of set objectives. Nworgu (2003) pointed out that

appraisal is generally used in two senses. In the first sense, it is used to connote the

process of making value judgments or decisions based on empirical data or

information made available through measurement. It is also used in a broader and

more encompassing sense as a process of seeking, obtaining and quantifying data with

a view to making value judgment about objects, events or their characteristics.

Conceptualized in this way, appraisal includes measurement and more. In a broader

and general sense, appraisal is a process of collecting and using information to make

21

decisions about an educational programme. The information may be collected using

measurement or non-measurement techniques. Nwaogu (1980) defined appraisal as

information gathered by less objective methods such as rating scale, anecdotal records

and interviews. These data obviously do not lend themselves to measurement by

precise, standard units, but they are very valuable as a basis for making judgment

about the quality of the learners’ reactions, his methods of work and other tangible

educational outcomes.

Individuals who are occupying administrative positions should, at all times

create an atmosphere in which everybody is constantly on the alert to improve himself

and assist others to grow professionally. There should be an appraisal of the staff

members’ knowledge of the resources available and how they can use them to enrich

the curriculum as well as up grade the material resources of instruction.

Appraisal is a continuous comprehensive process which utilizes a variety of

procedures and which is inescapably related to the objectives of the educational

programme, because of differences in aptitude (no matter how typical the group is

assumed not all will attain mastery at the same time). It then becomes very important

that group appraisal is always done. Appraisal has been variously conceptualized but

the frame work is similar. Appraisal implies the making of value judgment about a

phenomenon in relation to specific objectives. It is the pinnacle of all intellectual or

thought processes. Appraisal is an outcome of the achievement of a particular

objective. Ohuche (1977) defined it as a quality control system allowing for the

determination at each step in the education programme. It means determining the

extent to which an administrator succeeds in achieving his objectives. It is also seen as

22

a formal evaluation of a student’s academic progress which leads to change of another

level of a certificate or a degree upon graduation.

However the researcher sees appraisal as an exercise which is goal oriented,

and judgment is passed to see if the goal set has been achieved and suggestions made

for improvement.

Concept of Inspection

School inspection is the vehicle which government drives to help bring order in

schools and maintain standard. Infact, it is the totality of the government’s check in

schools to see that the goals and objectives of education are achieved. Seen from a

legal point of view, inspection is an instrument with which the political and

administrative authorities maintain necessary contact with schools, teachers, pupils

and the community to ensure that the system is working satisfactorily and efficiently

(Ajayi, 1985).

Inspection according to Ojelabi (1981) could be defined as the critical

examination and subsequent evaluation of a school as a designated place of learning

so as to make it possible for the necessary advice to be given for the purpose of

improving the school. The advice that is usually offered is incorporated in the

inspectors’ reports.

Mgbodile (1986) maintained that inspection implies that the inspector is to look

into something that he comes to investigate, to check that all is in order, that things are

conforming to prescription. He went further to delineate the role of inspectors as

follows:

1. Maintaining a common minimum standard

23

2. Developing a common system in schools, partly through visits and partly by

influencing the nature of curriculum.

3. Ensuring that government funds are properly spent.

4. Satisfying the suitability of education inputs.

An inspector according to Aiyepuku (1987) is much more than a supervisor or

an adviser. He stated further that in the educational system the real supervisors are the

head-teachers, principals and the school board of Ministries of Education such as the

State Primary Education Board (SPEB).

Therefore supervision concerns itself with the welfare of teachers and the

teaching process, while the inspectoral programme is concerned about the overall

assessment of the entire school programme.

Ogbonna (1995) states that in school inspection emphasis is not so much on

assessing teachers and their teaching as it is with the case of supervision but it is rather

on assessing general educational problems in order to help find real solutions to these

problems.

History of school inspection in Nigeria

History of inspection can be traced back to the era of missionaries. The report

of a commission set up by the British Government in 1864 to look into the situation in

British West Africa made a statement which summarized the position as regards

responsibility for financing and control of education. Commissioner Ord reported that

“neither the local nor the imperial government had made any financial contribution to

education, its being left entirely to the mission”. (Ukeje, 1983: 46).

Though there were several ordinances but it was not until 1887 that the first

purely Nigeria education ordinance was enacted. The year, 1887 can, therefore, be

24

regarded as the year when a sort of cooperation between a colonial government and

the missions in Nigeria began in the field of education. The ordinances stipulated the

part the British government could play in Nigeria education and the conditions under

which it could play such part. The 1887 ordinances established a board of education

for the colony and protectorate of Lagos. The ordinance also outlined the conditions

under which government grants could be made to schools. It graded the schools into

infant, primary, secondary and industrial schools. This can be regarded as the first

attempt to classify schools in Nigeria, according to the functions of the schools, by a

body other than the missions. Yet a large measure of initiative still belonged to the

missions, before government inspection of schools began.

The first known inspector of schools for colony and protectorate of Lagos was

Dr. Henry Carr. He was appointed in 1892. Before 1892 the educational management

was characterized by overwhelming dominance of missionary bodies in Nigeria

education with government role of leadership coming slowly towards the end of the

period. By 1900 there was an increase in missionary educational activities, with fast

increases in the numbers of schools and pupils. It was a period which government and

missions cooperated to formulate a system of education for Nigeria to give education

in Nigeria a definite quality.

An education department was created in 1900 in Southern Nigeria. In 1903,

grants to schools were to be made according to average attendance and the results of

inspections made yearly of schools. In 1908 a new education code was published for

the regulation of education in the provinces of the protectorate. Each province was

given a local education board which was to make detailed regulations. Some of the

mission schools qualified for government grants and were approved for assistance

25

while some did not. The number that qualified was really appreciable. By 1912,

ninety-six mission primary schools, fourteen mission secondary schools and one

teacher training college were on the assisted list of Southern Nigeria. Approval for

assistance was made to depend on the adequacy of staff, building, yearly return, proof

that the school was not superfluous and that the school was not yielding any financial

profit to the owner.

The expansion and management of schools discussed so far occurred in

Southern Nigeria. During that period the situation in the protectorate of Northern

Nigeria was different. Educational activities in the area could not be carried out due to

consideration of the impact of Islam on the society. The Protectorate of the Northern

Nigeria was predominantly Islamic. Islam had its own system of education for

members. The Christian missions could operate only in pagan areas of the north.

By 1910, in the whole protectorate of Northern Nigeria, the government had

built only one school which was built in Nasarawa in 1909. The government became

aware of the need for modern education for the people of the north. In 1910 a

Department of Education was established for the north. From that time the number of

schools began to grow though not as fast as in the south.

The period of cooperation or partnership started about 1900 with the creation of

education department. During this period, the government built her own schools

which were very few in number. The role of government shifted gradually to that of

leadership. Government regulations on education were issued. The regulations

covered the conditions for the payment of grants-in-aids and establishment of schools.

Such were contained in the education codes or ordinances of 1903, 1908, 1916 and

26

1926. The government also made prescriptions about the structure of education and

the training of teachers.

A Ministry of Education was established in 1951 in each of the three regions

under a minister who was responsible for making policies on education in the regions.

He had under him a director of education who became the chief executive to

implement the education policies. In each region, modifications within the general

provisions were made to satisfy the local needs and tastes of the region. The chief

inspector was the highest professional officer and had under him inspectors of

education in charge of primary education, secondary education, teacher training and

technical education. Other officers placed directly under the chief inspector were the

education officer, a rural education officer and a rural adult education officer. These

arrangements mentioned above have been modified since 1951 and still in

modification, yet the main structure of power in those ministries of education have not

changed much.

Purpose of Inspection

According to draft inspectors handbook for inspection of educational

institutions in Nigeria (2007:10), criteria for inspection are derived from existing legal

provisions for inspection of schools in Nigeria. The handbook further stated that the

purposes of inspection are prompted by the following factors:-

Agreed inspection plans and work programmes at national, district, divisional or

zonal levels.

Inspector’s personal initiatives.

Adverse reports or anonymous correspondence from the stakeholders and parents,

etc. asking for inspection.

27

Follow-up inspection, from concerns indicated in previous inspection reports.

It is proposed that the inspectorate should move to a regular pattern of full

general inspections of all Institutions, on four-yearly time cycle, to be worked out by

the state inspector of schools in co-ordination with the National Zonal Coordinating

Inspectorate Office.

The purpose of inspection is to have an overview of the quality of education in

Nigeria based on agreed criteria/standard (benchmarks). The aim would be to report

back in full to the educational institutions, so that they can plan effectively to improve

the standard of education being offered to learners.

Inspection data should be based on the following:-

What you see (observation) O

What you hear (discussion) D

What you read (documentation) D

The purpose of inspection should respond to the questions above hence the

acronym ODD

Experience has shown that some schools are good at recycling their

inefficiencies in the name or under the cover of tradition and experience. Since

inspection is a disciplined enquiry and those charged with it are assumed to be of high

integrity, it is mandatory that the purpose of inspection should be to ascertain whether

the institution has added value to the education of the learners.

The aims of inspection, according to a training manual for Nigerian primary

school inspectors and supervisors are to:

1. Ensure that schools do what the national policy on education has stipulated for

them.

28

2. Inspect the results of school leavers at public examinations in order to improve on

the success rate of learners.

3. Set minimum standards for schools in order to encourage excellence

(UBEP, 2002:33-34).

The objective of inspection, according to the training manual for Nigeria

primary school inspectors and supervisors, are short-term measurable criteria that

assist in determining the extent to which an intention has been achieved (UBEP,

2002). Inspectors carry out official visits in order to achieve the following objectives

as stated in the manual:

To ascertain the quality and quantity of human and material resources that are

available in schools. Inspectors physically count teachers, school buildings,

furniture and educational resources such as computers, projectors, audiovisual

resources. Inspectors also collect data on enrolment, examination results, pupils’

dropout rates, teachers’ retirement rate and so on. The data are valuable in policy

making and help to solve important problems in the schools and at the different

levels of government- local, state and federal;

Improvement of teaching and learning: When inspectors visit schools to find out

the state of available human and material resources, they are in a position to

recommend improvement in the quality and quantity of these resources to improve

teaching and learning;

Provision of professional support for personnel in educational institutions:

Inspectors are expected to provide support for less experienced or less qualified

teachers in order to improve their professional performance;

29

Effective and efficient school management: Inspection is done to make sure that

schools are properly managed. During inspection, schools have to show how they

have used the money and material given to them by government. Thus inspection

reveals the managerial skills of the head-teachers and teachers. This will help them

know which teacher is to be rewarded, reprimanded, transferred or relieved of his

position;

Providing feedback: School inspection provides feedback on the state of schools in

all areas of school life. Inspectors write reports of their visit and they give their

reports to government through its agencies to act upon in order to improve the

quality of teaching and learning. They make the report available to schools,

stakeholders, teachers, proprietors, counsellors so that they can all work together to

improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools. (UBEP, 2002: 35– 37).

The practice of inspection in educational institutions, both primary and post

primary in evaluating educational achievement has a very long history. Inspection

improves the educational appraisal of an institution, administrators and even teachers

and pupils. Inspection as an educational activity has been in existence as an integral

part of formal education in Nigeria for some time now. It has tended to maintain the

same purpose irrespective of the effect of the various historical developments that

have affected education over the years. Some of the most important purposes of

inspection among practitioners of education, according to Ojelabi (1981) include the

following.

1. To make sure that minimum standards are adhered to. The intention of this being

to provide relative equal educational opportunity for all children by ensuring that

set school standards are maintained.

30

2. To provide a forum through which purposeful and constructive advice can be

rendered for the sake of improving the quality of teaching and learning in schools

through improvement of educational facilities.

3. To make sure that prudence is maintained in the way and manner that public

funds are spent in running the schools.

4. To make available to the appropriate authorities the true position of human and

material resources as they concern the schools through inspection reports. Some

of the issues under review here include availability of space, size of classes, state

of facilities, staff strength and appropriateness of teaching qualification of

teachers as well as the inspectors’ perceptions of the other numerous difficulties

that the schools have to contend with.

5. To stimulate and provide guidance in the display of desirable educational

practices while noting the various negative educational practices.

6. To provide a veritable foundation upon which various courses of action can be

initiated by the teachers and principals locally within the school, the inspectors

and the government on a larger scale.

In any formal human learning situation, a teacher is indispensable, likewise an

inspector or education officer. By preparation and experience, a teacher is expected to

be able to handle the various issues which arise in connection with learning generally.

He is expected to guide the learner and give leadership as needed. Just as it is

inconceivable to have a dynamic and functioning world without homosapiens, so it is

equally difficult to think of a worthwhile school system without periodic inspection

which will improve on the competence of the teachers. In spite of recent advances in

technology of education, the role of an inspector is still preserved. More and better

31

trained inspectors will be needed in the years to come to cope with the serious

business of educating the world’s children and also improve performance in

education. If a system is to function effectively and standard improved, there must be

periodic inspection of schools. Teachers need to be guided by tested principles which

are relevant to their situation. One way of accumulating knowledge of such principles

is through inspection. Through inspection a study or practices in schools and in other

institutions with similar goals and problems are compared and also solutions and

suggestions shared together.

Since we are aware that the standard and the tone of a school are influenced to

great extent by the headteacher, the headteacher is also under the inspector because

the headteacher is aware that he is not excluded from inspection, he will work very

hard to see that he will not be a scape goat. This will make the headteacher to settle

down to serious study of the various departments of his school. He will study not only

the background of his teachers but also assess their capacities and interests. By sharing

out the duties and responsibilities to teachers evenly according to ability and interests,

he will be left with the responsibility of coordinating and generating activities. The

teachers, because they know the philosophy of the head-teachers and his/her stand on

many issues, will be able to maintain discipline and take decisions which will help to

maintain standards. Inspection also helps to establish a healthy relationship in the

school and the community at large. By paying occasional visits to schools in different

communities, an inspector will be able to understand the peculiar problems facing

them and help in solving them. If the head-teacher, the members of staff and the

parents are in good terms, they can jointly help the children to develop a proper

32

attitude to life. This is an essential part of the educative process of the child. (Fagbulu,

1999).

Inspection creates awareness on the job of the head teachers. There are certain

statutory duties which the head-teacher must perform. The serious ones relate to the

keeping of records in order to avoid giving wrong information to others. This job must

be carried out carefully. Inspection helps in making head teachers keep accurate

account of how they use money in the running of schools. Some head teachers keep

records regularly and faithfully while others keep rough notes of money received and

spent and of other matters which were intended to be properly recorded later. With

inspection such acts of irresponsibility are frowned at and avoided (Fagbulu, 1999).

An inspector is an adviser whose experience is such that it is believed he can offer

help to the average teacher. Sometimes a teacher resents an inspector simply because

he or she is young and perhaps has had only few years experience as against the

teacher of many years of experience. A teacher may have many years of experience of

teaching, perhaps in few schools but without the benefit of watching other colleagues

teach. The inspector on the other could see more than 30 teachers at work during a

period of three weeks, each of them, at his/her best using new methods, charts,

techniques and principles. In three weeks he learns a great deal from five different

schools, thirty different teachers, over a hundred different lessons. If he is a good

inspector, all the new things seen will be re-examined and analyzed and the valid ones

absorbed as part of his professional repertoire. In that way, an inspector learns and

teaches based on the different knowledge acquired during inspection tours or visits.

Inspectors enforce regulations. Where the Ministry of Education stipulates that

classes should not have more than forty pupils, it is a violation to have forty-three.

33

The inspector may insist, in such a circumstance, that three children be transferred to

the nearest school, where there may be only twenty-seven children in the equivalent

class. This and other minor things may happen that can be annoying to stubborn

teachers. A report usually follows an inspector’s visit. This report is not a complaint

but a friendly letter setting out frankly the very good points and the not so good ones.

The right thing to do is to ponder over this report and try to see what the inspector felt

could be improved.

From the above we can see that inspection is inevitable in the school system

because the inspectors are friends and advisers to schools. They offer assistance which

result in better teaching and learning and the general improvement of education.

Types of inspection and their frequency

According to Draft Inspector’s Handbook for inspection of education

institutions in Nigeria (2007), the following types of inspections are carried out by

inspectors: panel inspection, subject-based inspection, educational institutions

registration/recognition inspection, advisory inspection, inspection/evaluation of

teachers, inspection of educational institutions for the introduction of a new subject in

the school curriculum, block inspection, mass inspection, follow-up inspection, etc.

Panel Inspection is variously referred to as Full General Inspection. It involves

a full, diagnostic and situational analysis of the institution. This type of inspection

could be referred to as institutional review or audit, because it is usually carried out

with a view to examining the strengths and weaknesses or limitations, of the

institution and suggesting interventions to be administered for the improvement of the

educational standards. Panel Inspections can be for all schools (pre-primary, primary,

secondary or all educational centres) in a particular L.G.A, State or the whole nation.

34

A good panel should be composed of a team of specialists (subject specialists and

other specialists, in gender, guidance and counseling (G &C), management, auditors,

curriculum experts, etc). Such inspections are more meaningful if institutions are

given notice. The duration should be at least two days if the inspection is to be

thorough. Every educational institution should be panel inspected after every two

years. The Federal Ministry of Education intended that panel inspections should be the

main type of inspection in future. This will require a rationalization of financial

planning within LGAs to stop wasteful unnecessary inspections.

Subject based inspections are specialized inspections carried out by the

inspectors in their areas of subject specialization. The inspections are planned and

prompted by the following factors:

Performance trends in a particular subject in the national examinations by schools.

The inspector’s work programme;

Inquiring into teachers needs with a view to making suggestions for inservice

training unit (INSET) to be carried out by the quality development service;

Monitoring visits to gather data and information about teaching and learning in the

subject or other aspects of school life, and making provision for these aspects, for

the purpose of producing a national review on practice and standard. Textbooks

and teaching methods are likely to be the focus of such visits.

Assess the interpretation and implementation of the curriculum.

Educational institutions registration inspection/recognition inspection is carried

out on the request of the Local Government Education Authority (LGEA). Before the

inspector conducts such an inspection he or she must ascertain that the desire to

35

register the institution is expressed by LGEA, by verifying the minutes of their

deliberations.

The inspector should also ensure that the current rules on school registration

are followed. Inspectors should however note that the Ministry is committed to

ensuring a more cost-effective teacher ratio of 40:1 in primary and secondary schools

in accordance with government’s Strategic Plan for Education, circulars on the

registration of new schools. The emphasis must be on improving existing schools

instead of wasting resources on developing new unnecessary ones. The inspector

should verify whether facilities are available and whether the school catchments area

warrants its registration. Such an inspection report must be accompanied with a Public

Health Report.

Advisory inspection is a routine type of inspection where one or more

inspectors visit a school and sample some aspects of the school. The frequency of this

type of inspection is not certain, for it depends on the number of schools in an area

and the inspectors’ work programme.

Evaluation/Inspection of teachers include assessment of teachers for:

(a) Promotion

(b) Appraisal of Competence

(c) Grading and regrading

(d) Pre-service teachers and final teaching practice

Inspection of educational institutions for the introduction of a new subject in

the school curriculum is another specialized form of inspection. It is usually prompted

by a school’s request to the inspectorate to introduce a new subject, especially in

applied/technical subjects and other languages. The requirement is that before such a

36

subject is introduced the Inspectorate Service has to send the relevant inspector to

asses the readiness of the school in terms of learning and teaching resources. On

certification of the school’s readiness, the school is given permission to introduce the

subject. It is therefore the responsibility of the Director of Inspectorate Service to

inform the FME of the new requirement for the school, that is, the new curriculum

based establishment. It is the responsibility of the field inspector to ensure that no

institution introduces a new subject without express permission of the Chief Inspector

As the name suggests, block inspection is carried out as a block covering all or

most schools in a given L.G.A e.g. primary schools, secondary schools, etc. It is

usually organized at the national level, with inspectors drawn from all over the

country. The inspectors are then put into groups of 6 – 10 based on their specialties.

Each group has a chairperson. Group members can range between 5 – 10 persons and

the inspection can last a full week, with a day allocated to each school. The group

chairpersons are headed by an overall chairperson known as Block Chairperson. Such

inspections can be carried out with or without notice. After the inspection, a general

meeting is held with all head teachers, local inspectors and Education Officers and

other interested stakeholders at a selected central venue to discuss the findings. A

general Block Inspection Report will provide an Executive summary Report, giving a

general over view of the inspectors’ findings on the strengths and weaknesses of the

L.G.A. This will be produced by the Block Chairperson, followed by discussions with

the various Group Chairpersons on each school they visited. Block Inspections have

been useful for sampling standards at L.G.A level.

Mass inspection is a general inspection, whose members are derived from the

inspectorate; other officers from the state; other lay inspectors and interested parties.

37

Mass inspections are for a specific purposes e.g. school awards. Specific

criteria are employed.

Follow-up inspection is basically an inspection that takes place after a full

inspection has been carried out in a school. It is during such visit that inspectors keep

track of the actions taken by a school with regards to the recommendations that were

made during full inspection. The inspectors try to find out the extent to which the

actions taken by the school have achieved the desired results.

Hierarchy of Primary School Inspectoral Programmes

In 1886 Lagos was separated from Gold Coast and became the colony and

protectorate of Lagos. This separation necessitated the enactment of the first purely

Nigerian Education Ordinance in 1887. Under the new ordinance, a board of

education was established.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria has a thirty-six state structure plus the Federal

Capital Territory in Abuja. It has a Federal Ministry of Education and Agencies. The

Ministries are normally organized in departments, each with specific duties.

The Federal Ministry of Education is the organ that is responsible for the

administration, finance and control of education at the federal level. The Ministry has

eight departments of which the Inspectorate unit is one of them. Each state has its own

inspectorate.

38

Figure 1: Hierarchy in inspectorate unit

Commissioner for Education

Permanent Secretary

Director

Deputy Director

Zonal Inspector of Education (ZIE)

Area Inspector of Education (AIE)

Head-Teachers.

(Source: Ministry of Education Enugu 2010)

The zonal inspector of education is in charge of the education zone in an area

while the area inspector of education covers the local government areas and reports to

the zonal inspector of education in charge of the education zone. While it may be

possible to have one zonal inspector of education in an education zone, area inspectors

of education exist in correspondence with the local government area in that zone.

As the area inspectors carry out their inspectoral functions in their various

areas, they report back to the zonal inspectors in their various zones. The Zonal

inspector will compile their various reports including their own reports and send them

to the director at the state level. The director will then report to the permanent

secretary who in turn reports to the commissioner for education for action to take

place. It is worth knowing that commissioner and permanent secretaries are political

appointees and are reappointed, changed or dropped as the chief executive

(President/Governor) wishes. Having seen the hierarchy of primary school inspectoral

39

programme, it is necessary to discuss the duties they perform in such a programme

whether at the local, zonal or the state level, for inspection is the same at every level.

The job of an inspector, according to Akubue (1999) is a state affair conducted

from a distance. The inspector is an official of the Ministry of Education. He comes as

an assessor, who investigates, judges and checks to see if all is in order or that things

are conforming according to prescription. Mgbodile et al (2003) stated five roles of

school inspectors as:-

1. Inspectors carry out the assignment of trying to satisfy themselves that funds

disbursed to schools are judiciously spent. Without periodic checks, school heads

may become careless with funds entrusted in their care. There may be reckless

spending or embezzlement of funds.

2. Inspectors carryout the job of finding out whether schools conform to laid down

standards. During inspection, inspectors get to know about the state of school

buildings and equipment, the attitude of teachers to work and the general tone of

schools. At the end of their visits, inspectors write reports about the state of affair

in schools as well as make appropriate recommendations to the Ministry of

Education.

3. Inspectors help to raise the standard of education. When inspectors assess schools

to find our whether the aims, objectives and policy of the school are being

achieved, they are helping to raise the standard of education. The inspector, by

virtue of his proximity to the government, can influence the acceptance of

textbooks, the establishment of laboratories and the quality of staff and their

distribution to schools.

40

4. Inspectors give teachers professional help and guidance regarding the methods and

procedures of teaching some special topics in their subjects. Inspectors give

teachers advice on how to improve teaching aids for their subjects, how to procure

journals, tape recorders and the newest books in their areas of specialization.

5. Inspectors provide the government with necessary feedback on school

management.

Constraints to school inspection

According to the Draft inspectors handbook for inspection of Educational

institutions in Nigeria (2009), the Ministry of Education has carried out various

researches, which have identified the following problems.

The Inspection visit is often poorly planned and lacks clear objectives

The inspector often seems to be checking up on schools rather than trying to

identify and improve standards

The focus is more on quantitative issues rather than qualitative matters

The teachers mistrust the inspector for the above reasons

Plans to visit schools are over ambitious and seldomly carried out.

Adesina (1980) sees inspection as one of the ways of improving the

professional growth of teachers and offering instructional assistance to teachers and

learners. Universal Basic Education Programme (2002) defines inspection as an

official visit which is directed at finding out problems encountered by teachers,

principals and school personnel with a view to finding solutions to their problems so

that the standard of education can be maintained. The question to ask is whether the

purpose of this board is actually achieved or not. Though inspection and supervision

have gone a long way in achieving their objectives, so many problems are still

41

confronting them and if the government can religiously look into these problems and

find ways of solving them, the country’s national goals and objectives which she

hopes to achieve through education can be a reality.

Abenga (1995) identified the following as problems affecting school inspection

in Nigeria:

1. Lack of proper training for inspectors.

2. Posting of frustrated inspectors to the inspectorate

3. Lack of transport

4. Inadequate funding of inspectorate

5. Lack of basic facilities and equipment for inspectoral programme

6. Poor conditions of service.

Apart from the problems stated above which cannot be overemphasized, there

are numerous problems facing inspectors in their inspectoral functions which are

discussed below.

From the visit made to some local governments, the researcher personally

discovered that even though the government plays some roles in solving the problems

of the inspectors, they themselves equally contribute to their problems. One of the

problems confronting the inspectorate unit is lack of commitment to duties. Most of

the inspectors in the offices are not committed to their duties. They are often absent

from their place of work and many are redundant.

Many of them are not properly trained for the job. Some were head teachers

who got their degree result in other areas not even related to their job but based on

their years of service in the ministry they were interviewed and appointed as

inspectors. Once appointed they are no longer ready to improve themselves on the job

42

since their promotion is based on number of years they serve and not whether they do

the job well. Many of them are outdated in the new system of administration and

inspection. They have no help to offer to the teachers they are expected to inspect nor

do they have any administrative skill to impart to the school administrators. At the end

you discover that a blind man is sent to lead a fellow blind man. Majority of them lack

the needed experience to handle complex school problems. Because many of them

have no help to offer to the teachers and the head teachers they resort to bullying,

insulting and threatening school heads and teachers instead of being friendly.

Aiyepeku (1987) highlighted the need for trained inspectors when he said that it is

important that an inspector be a well trained teacher, who has a long experience as a

teacher, head of department, head teacher or principal. In addition to adequate

training, the inspector has to be of the right psychological make-up and the type of

personality needed to develop the correct attitude for successful interaction needed

with teachers and the community.

Unfriendly attitude of teachers to inspectors is another constraint to effective

school inspection. This is because; teachers see inspectors as enemies rather than

friends or helpers in the sustenance of educational standards. Some teachers pass

unsavoury remarks about inspectors and inspection (Ogbonnaya in Ndu, Ocho and

Okeke, 1997). The school heads are not exonerated in this hostility. This is because

some old school heads with many years of experience do not open up to changes

especially when it is initiated by a young person.

Poor salary is another factor hindering the effectiveness of inspectors from

performing their duties. Inspectors are not well paid. Even the peanuts they are paid is

not regular. As a result of irregular and merger salaries, they are not committed to

43

their duties. They resort to taking bribes from the head teachers in order to write

favourable reports about their schools thereby giving fake report to the government.

Poor funding is another factors affecting inspectoral practices of inspectors,

money is required for transportation allowances, feeding and hotel accommodation.

No education programme can work effectively without adequate funding. Ukeje,

Akabagu and Alice (1992: 379) stated that:

It is a known fact that money, or lack of it, will govern the way on organization is managed and the way it succeeds. With regard to an educational institution, it is also an administrative truism that an educational activity or programme may be encouraged by increasing the revenue for it or it may be discouraged, enfeebled or frustrated by denying it sufficient financial support.

The above assertion indicates that without adequate funding the inspectoral function

of inspectors cannot achieve its objectives.

Considering the complex nature of the society and the number of primary

schools both in urban and rural areas, the inspectors in the areas cannot cope with the

large number of schools they are expected to visit. The result is that most of the

schools especially those in the rural areas suffer or are not visited as at when due. The

effect is that maintenance of standards and quality of education is compromised.

Inspectors complain that their reports are neglected. The government neither

uses their report for formulating education policy nor for improving educational

standards. As a result they feel they are not wanted and no longer have the urge to

work for improvement. Their work remains a formality rather than a criterion for

evaluation or improvement of standards. UBEP (2002) highlighted that inspection

reports are of value only when they are put to use in order to improve the quality of

educational delivery and maintain high standard. It is also worthy to remark that

reports of inspectors have to pass through different stages, processes and offices

44

before a ‘go ahead’ order is given for implementation of inspectors’

recommendations. The adverse effect of the delay cannot be overestimated especially

in the areas that demand urgent attention.

Bribery and corruption is another problem challenging the work of inspector in

our society. Some inspectors influence their reports as a result of gifts received from

the school administrators. As a result, the problems remain in the schools instead of

being solved. Ugochukwu (2001: 8) admonishes school inspectors in the following

words;

He (inspector) has no option being diligent and above board in the performance of his duties. He needs to show a high sense of commitment when producing his report which is his most effective weapon. He is warned not to do anything that may compromise the validity of the report and when it comes to accepting the much vaunted hospitality, for which Africans are said to be known, the inspector must know where to draw the line. Many primary schools in some areas may be dilapidated or have no

accommodation that pupils stay under trees to learn. If an inspector visits such

schools, the atmosphere will not be conducive for ideal inspection to take place.

Non payment of salaries both to inspectors and teachers contribute to the

problems of inspection. When salaries become irregular, both inspectors and teacher

cannot function effectively. Sometimes, teachers tend to be very aggressive, and not

ready to cooperate with inspectors because of non payment of salaries. One of the

Area Inspector, gave a testimony of how their team escaped being beaten in a rural

school visited for routine inspection.

Some inspectors lamented that the government does not follow the criteria set

out for the recruitment of inspectors. Instead the government resorts to ‘man-know-

man’ in the recruitment, or even take bribes in the appointment. The FME, believes

45

that focusing on the panel approach to inspection, ie the planning of far fewer, but

much more meaningful, in-depth inspections of the panel type, is the way forward.

This requires effective organization for it to succeed.

Theoretical Framework

Administrative behaviour is a discursive subject and much has been written

about it. The study of administrative and management theories will be of benefit to

this research. The study of different theories will yield a lot of benefits to the

inspectorate department and to future researchers. Mullins (2007) noted that writing

on administrative and management in some form or another can be traced back

thousands of years. However, the systematic development of management and

administrative thinking is viewed generally as dating from the end of the nineteenth

century, with the emergence of large industrial organizations and institutions and the

ensuring problems associated with their structure and management. The inspectorate

department is not left out in the problems associated with the management and

administration of primary schools in the nation. Hence the need for the review of the

related theories in this study.

In administration, theories are very useful and they are normally arranged

according to their historical development. In this study two theories will be very

useful namely behavioural science theories and systems theory.

Behavioural Science Theories

These theories are viewed as the combination of scientific management and

human relation theories. The behavioural science movement originated from the social

sciences in the early 1940s with the assumption that the best way to facilitate work

46

Job

Social setting or work environment Worker/man

and increase productivity in an organization is through an understanding of the

worker, his job content and the work environment. (See figure 2 below)

Figure 2: Behavioural science Theories

Mgbodile, (2004) stated that administrators should draw their knowledge and

experience from various subjects in the social sciences, economics, anthropology,

sociology etc., for better understanding of the job performance of the workers. It was

believed that with such knowledge and experience, administrators would be in a better

position to understand the worker and his work and how they should interact to

produce good organizational management.

Mullins (2007: 7) noted that these different dimensions provide contrasting but

related approaches to the understanding of human behaviour in organizations. They

present a number of alternative pathways for the study of the subject and level of

analysis, if possible for example adopt a psychological approach with the main

emphasis on the individuals of which the organization is comprised. Psychological

aspects are important but by themselves provide too narrow an approach for the

understanding of behaviour. Our main concern is not with the complex detail of

individual differences and attribute, but with the behaviour and management of people

within an organization. Mullins stated further that it is also possible to adopt a

Source: Mgbodile (2004:79)

47

sociological approach concerned with a broader emphasis on human behaviour in the

society. Sociological aspects can be important but must not be over emphasized.

Whatever the approach, the study of organizational behaviour cannot be undertaken

entirely in terms of a single discipline. It is necessary to provide a multi-disciplinary

behavioural science perspective.

Although there are areas of overlap among the various social sciences their

subdivisions and related disciplines such as economics and political science, the study

of behaviour can be viewed in terms of three main disciplines-psychology, sociology

and anthropology. All three disciplines have made an important contribution to the

field of organizational behaviour. As shown in the diagram below.

FIGURE 3: Organizational behavioural multidisciplinary approach

Management and organizational behaviour; source: Laurie Mullins 2007

Nwachukwu (1988) noted that the behavioural science theory concentrates on

the interpersonal relationship between management and workers. It stresses that

motivation, meeting workers needs and use of human relationship will aid

management in realizing organizational goals. The criticism of this theory is that it

Personality System (Psychology)

Cultural System (Anthropology)

Economics Political Science

Social System (Sociology)

48

tries to link management too closely to the field of psychology and sociology. The

study of group dynamics and interpersonal relationship is not limited to management.

However it was believed that with such a knowledge and experience, administrators

would be in a better position to understand the worker and his work and how they

should interact to produce good organizational management.

The behavioural science theory is good considering the fact that school

administrators should be knowledgeable in social science subjects, including

economics, sociology, anthropology, government etc. This will help them to know the

basis of the theory and how they are expected to operate. The question, however, is

whether this is obtainable in the school system. Considering the complex nature of the

theory a school administrator needs to be vast in such areas of studies needed to be

able to operate in line with the theory.

Systems Theories

The systems theory is not new. It has been used in the natural and physical

sciences for a number of years. One of the founders of this approach was biologist

Ludwig Von Bertalanffy who used the term ‘systems theory’ in an article published in

1951. More recently, attention has been focused on the analysis of organizations as

‘systems’ with a number of interrelated sub-systems. The systems theory tries to

reconcile earlier theories. In systems theory, attention is focused on the total work of

the organization and the interrelationships of the structure and behaviour and the

ranges of variables within the organization. The system approach encourages

managers to view the organization both as a whole and as a part of a larger

environment. The idea is that any part of an organization’s activities affects all other

parts.

49

Mgbodile et al. (2004) stated that system as a term has been used to describe

the working of almost everything. This explains the universality of the concept.

Consequently, people talk of a car system, a human body system, an electrical system,

an economic system, an educational system, etcetera. The basic idea in a system is

that the parts of anything are so related and dependent; that the interaction of any part

affects the whole.

Nwankwo (1982) defined a system as a unit with series of interrelated and

interdependent parts. Within every system, there are other smaller systems, called sub-

system. For example, within the educational system, there are other sub-systems as

primary, secondary and tertiary (figure 4).

Figure 4: A conceptual model of the educational system and its major

subsystems. Sources: Mgbodile et al. (2004)

It is based on the concept of system that systems theory was developed. As

could be seen from figure 3, the system theory is relevant to educational

administration because the entire educational set-up is a system and the concept of

Secondary Sub-System

Primary Sub-System

Tertiary Sub-System

Educational System

50

interaction and interdependence of parts with the others is applicable. The educational

system, like other social systems has identical properties.

Edem (2006) noted that all the sub-systems work towards the maintenance of

the life of the social system as a whole, the survival of which depend on its capacity to

maintain constancy in its processes and relationship within and outside the system. To

survive, the system and its sub-systems must be open and so have the capacity to

relate to and exchange matters with their environments, unlike a closed system which

cannot do so. Mgbodile (2004) maintained that the educational system, like other

social systems, has identical properties and they relate to education as stated below:

Systems are either open or closed. An open system relates and interacts with

other systems, while a closed one does not do any of these. The educational system

fits into the open system description because it constantly relates and interacts with

other systems. In order to survive, a system must have a continuous supply of inputs.

The educational system has this attribute because it has constant supply of human (e.g.

teachers and students) and materials resources (equipment and facilities) or example

human resources input some in form of either recruited staff or admitted student while

material resources input come as purchased or acquired equipments and facilities. The

input into any system is usually processed in line with objectives of the system. Thus,

within the educational system, the various human and material inputs are usually seen

through various teaching-learning, administrative processed and various curricular and

co-curricular activities. This constitutes the final product of the system. In the

educational system the output comes in form of the educated individuals who have

acquired the relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes from the system.

51

Every system has an evaluative mechanism which enables it to asses its

products against the set objectives or acceptable standards. In the educational system,

feedback is often obtained from parents and employers of labour who evaluate the

worth of the educated individuals. Every system strives to maintain a certain

equilibrium among its various parts, by developing certain internal and external

mechanisms. The educational system has a similar strategy because it is tends to

balance its activities, ensuring that no one actively dominates the other. No system

likes to go extinct. It therefore strives to live by fighting against death. The

educational system strives to survive by having or devising a number of survival

strategies including a system of rules and regulations, system of rewards and

sanctions, accounting procedures etc.

There is the tendency of a system to reproduce itself in form of sub-systems. In

educational system, differentiation takes the form of creating new administrative and

academic units (for example classrooms, departments, sections, unit, facilities etc).

This property emphasizes the fact that, irrespective of any pattern of

differentiation, every system and its various sub-systems operate to achieve the

common purpose of the parent system. Thus, within the educational system, all the

various parts operate to achieve the overall objectives of education. Thus, no matter

how many new departments are established, each will function to achieve the overall

objectives of the school. Every system needs to be checked and balanced through

regular inspection. For achievement of overall objectives of the school, there must be

outside checks which the inspectorate department must exercise, hence every

organization needs to be checked. The inspectors’ knowledge of the systems theory

52

will be of added advantage to their inspectoral functions as the theory will expose the

inspectors to different dimensions to appraisal.

In conclusion one can say that in the study of management and organizational

behaviour, we will come across many theories. However, we should not be put off by

the use of the word ‘theory’. Most rational decisions are based on some form of

theory. Theories contain messages on how administrators might have to effect change

in behaviour of individuals and the organization. Though the application of theories

brings about changes in actual behaviour, school administrators should have vast

knowledge of theory and apply only those ones that will be of immense benefit to the

organization in question.

Types of Evaluation and Models of Evaluation

Scriven (1967) outlined two types of evaluation namely formative and

summative evaluation.

i. Formative Evaluation: This, according to Scriven (1967) seeks to provide data about

educational programmes, while they are still being developed. It is therefore

developmental in nature, undertaken during the process of developing the product, a

person or programme. In this case, evaluation is used for improvement and

development of an on-going activity. Information obtained from such evaluation is

useful to programme planners, curriculum developers and administrators to modify or

improve an on-going programme.

ii. Summative Evaluation: Summative evaluation, conversely, usually takes place when

any programme has fully been developed. In this type, evaluation portrays the quality

of performance in a particular program. It is conducted to determine how worth-while

the final programme is (Okoro, 1991, Mkpa 1987, and Onwuka ed. 1984).

53

In summary, while formative evaluation is concerned with an on-going

programme, summative evaluation is concerned with the total programme, after it had

been fully developed.

An evaluation model can be regarded as a set of steps or a system of thinking,

which if followed or implemented will result in the generation of information which

can be used by decision makers in the improvement of educational programmes

(Okoro, 1991). Evaluation models provide a general guide, which can be adapted or

modified to suit specific programmes being evaluated.

Okoro further revealed that in selecting evaluation models for use, the

evaluator should consider:

The appropriateness of the model, to ascertain if it can yield adequate information

The complexity of the model, can it be effectively applied by the evaluator, taking

into consideration experience, cost, implementation and other related factors?

Evaluation models serve as a guide to a researcher, though in some cases the

researcher can modify a particular model to suit a specific programme being

appraised. As mentioned earlier, performance appraisal has two basic systems

operating in one-an evaluation and feedback system. The study of the different models

of evaluation will help the inspector in inspectoral functions.

A number of models will be very useful to this work but two of such models

will be discussed namely:

1. The Context, input, process and product model (CIPP)

2. Discrepancy Evaluation Model.

54

Context, input, process and product (CIPP) model

The Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) model was developed by

Stufflebeam in 1971. The model regards evaluation as continuing process requiring a

systematic programme of implementation and involving a co-operation between the

evaluator and the decision maker. The CIPP evaluation model identifies four

processes or stages of evaluation which include:

i). Context evaluation

ii). Input evaluation

iii). Process evaluation and

iv). Product evaluation.

Context evaluation is concerned with the determination and the validation of

goals and objectives. It is usually employed when a programme is being planned and

helps to describe the prevailing environment and the needs, problems and conditions

in the environment. Input evaluation provides information on resources available and

how resources may be used to achieve desired ends. Input evaluation may entail the

assessment of staff, students, physical facilities, equipment, library resources and

other resources that will be involved in the educational programme. Input evaluation

is used to assess alternative procedures for attaining desired goals and objectives.

Process evaluation is undertaken during the period of programme implementation and

provides periodic feedback on the quality of implementation.

The main purpose of process evaluation is to determine if there are any defects

in the implementation process. Process evaluation is concerned with course offerings,

teaching methods and other processes for programme implementation and assess the

efficiency with which input components are being utilized. Product evaluation

55

determines the effectiveness of the programme in achieving the objectives and goals

of the programme. It is mainly used when course offerings have been completed and

when some learners have graduated from the programme. Product evaluation relates to

programme outcomes, programme objective and process components.

In CIPP, four types of decisions are usually made namely, planning decisions,

structuring decisions, implementing decisions and recycling decisions. Planning

decisions determine goals and objectives to be served, by the programme structuring

decisions, determine procedures or the means to be adopted in attaining the desired

objectives, utilization and implementation of procedure, and recycling decisions,

review achievements and make room for modifying, terminating or continuing the

programme. Robinson (2002) from his investigation into the CIPP programme equally

affirms that the four aspects of context, inputs, process and output answer four basic

questions such as what should we do, how should we do it, are we doing it as planned

and did the programme work? The above questions will guide the Ministry of

Education to know if the aim of establishing inspectorate department is worthwhile or

whether they need modification or to continue if the department is doing well.

In the light of this, the present study on the appraisal of inspection of public

primary schools in South East Zone will apply the CIPP model, because the model

requires the study of the context which involves the determination and the validation

of goals and objectives. Such an appraisal study will also consider input such as

assessing the resources available. It is also expected that such an appraisal study will

determine if there are any defects in the inspectorate function of inspectors in public

primary schools in South-East Zone.

56

Discrepancy Evaluation Model

Provus (1971) developed a model which he called “discrepancy evaluation”. It

is a decision making type of model some-what related to that of Stufflebeam 2002. He

stated that programme evaluation is a process of (1) defining program standards, (2)

determining whether a discrepancy exists between some aspects of program

performance and the standards governing that aspect of programme and (3) using

discrepancy information either to change performance or to change programme

standards.

Provus’ model calls for evaluation of the goals and objectives themselves and

this occurs when programme performance data do not match standards. Provus

therefore pointed out that such a discrepancy requires the program planner either to

revise the program’s standard, modify the program or discard it. If no discrepancy is

found, the staff moves on to the next stage until the whole programme is acceptable

and valid or has been discarded as undesirable. The inspectorate unit has goals and

objectives which it hopes to achieve through different inspectoral programmes. The

knowledge of the Discrepancy Evaluation Model will help the inspector to know

whether their exists a problem in the programme for the unit in order to modify their

programme, work with the existing programme or discard the existing programme and

develop another programme.

Review of Empirical Studies

Empirical Studies on School Inspection

A search through available literature reveals that there is scarcity of empirical

studies on appraisal of inspection of primary schools in South-East Zone of Nigeria,

rather studies have been done on problems militating against inspection, improving

57

inspection and evaluation of inspectorate programmes etc. These could be narrowed

down to two of the clusters of the present study. However, a few studies carried on

inspection of schools include:

Empirical Studies on Problems Militating against effective Inspection

Eterakaya and Onyere (1995) conducted an empirical study to identify

problems militating against the effective inspection of schools in Lagos State. Two

research questions were asked and one hypothesis tested. The main instrument used

for the study was interview. The findings of the study indicated that the major

problems of school inspection were inadequate funding, financial constrain(s),

irregular inspection, poor communication, mediocrity, hostility of principals, poor

incentive, bureaucratic bottlenecks and political instability.

Evaluation of Inspectoral Programmes

Ajoku (1998) undertook an evaluation of the inspectoral programme of primary

schools in Owerri education zone. The researcher found among other things, that the

major inspectoral practices include, undertaking routine inspection of schools,

assessing the tone of schools, assisting teachers in the selection of relevant text books

being used, monitoring the amount of written exercises given to pupils,

implementation of continuous assessment and the organization of seminars and

workshops on the improvement of teaching methods.

The study found that the problems encountered during inspection include the

following: seminars and workshops are not regularly organized for inspectors and

head teacher to update their knowledge, inspectors do not have enough time to plan

and go round the schools within the calendar, inadequate funds to effectively carry out

the objectives of school inspection, remoteness of most primary schools from the

58

headquarters, insufficient stationery and folders to carry out school inspection, lack of

encouragement from the ministry which dampens the morale of inspectors and

occupational hazards faced by inspectors during inspection. The findings show that

inspectoral problems were and are still a hindrance to achieving the set goals as stated

in the National Policy of Education.

The sixth commonwealth education conference (1983) evaluated the

inspectoral programme in developing countries such as China, Nigeria, Pakistan and

Sierra Leone. The functions of an inspector were discussed/deliberated and they

discovered that in some developing countries, the individual inspector has many

functions to perform namely assessment of teaching, policing the system, encouraging

innovation, actualizing activity and promoting good public relations. This is in line

with Canham (1983) who posited that the inspector has the main duties of ensuring

effective control and management of schools.

Types of Arrangement for School Inspection

Igwe (1982) carried out a survey study from selected countries in America,

Africa, Asia, Australia and Europe and the result indicated that there are different

types of arrangements for school inspection. In some of the countries mentioned, the

states tended to be solely responsible for the inspection of all educational institutions

in the public system. Generally it was discovered that the modern concept and practice

of school inspection places a unique role in an inspector as he is involved in

educational planning and administration, the implementation of educational policies,

research and evaluation.

59

Attitude of Teachers and Administrators towards School Inspection

Ajayi (1983) carried out a study on the attitude of teachers and administrators

towards school inspection practices and procedures in Kwara State. Two hundred and

six respondents were used comprising teachers and administrators. Means and t-test

were used for analysis. He found out among other things that teachers and principals

contrary to widely held views are not averse to the concept of school inspection. What

they are averse to is the way and manner the inspectorate carries out its duties.

Strategies for Improving Inspection of Primary School

Onwodi (2001) undertook a study of strategies for the improvement of

inspection of primary schools in Oshimili education zone in Delta State. The findings

showed that one of the strategies for improving inspection in primary schools in the

area is that inspectors should be provided with official vehicles, materials, log books,

data processing machine. The result also found that in order to improve inspection,

salaries should be paid regularly and funds made available for the procurement of

equipment and stationery. The researcher found that orientation in the form of

training, seminars, symposia, workshops and conferences should be organized for

newly appointed inspectors to equip them with the techniques of modern methods of

inspection. This agrees with Aiyepeku (1983), that some pre-service training be

organized for newly appointed inspectors of schools. It will help them to be informed

on the current issues on school inspection.

Nnamani (2004) in a survey study identified strategies for improving the

inspection of primary schools in Nsukka Education Zone of Enugu State. No sampling

was done from the population of head teachers and inspectors because the population

was small. The result of the study revealed that the strategies to be adopted to improve

60

inspection of primary schools include regular payment of inspectors’ salaries and

allowances, maintenance of inspectors’ offices, adequate funding of the inspectorate

units, appointing only professionally competent persons as inspectors; retraining of

inspectors, as well as provision of facilities and equipment to facilitate inspection.

On their part, Obeogbulem and Ogbonnaya (2007) undertook a study on the

strategies to improve inspection in Abia State Primary Schools. The result from the

education officers and headteachers indicated that the strategies for improving

inspection in primary schools include provision of logbooks and inventories, having

access to current professional literature and resource materials for inspection

purposes.

Teachers’ Perception of Inspectoral Practices

Also Chukwu (1994) carried a study on principals and teachers’ perception of

inspectoral practices of secondary schools in Onitsha education zone. The findings

were that inspectors performed their duties within the area of curriculum development

even though they performed poorly in such specific functions as working with

professionals to develop and implement pilot project, assisting in setting lesson

objectives, content and method of evaluation. Equally, inspectors were rated low in

contributing towards staff professional growth, that is, the teachers do not like

inspectors because they do not understand their professional and personal problems.

Inspection was for fault finding. This indicates the inabilities of school inspectors to

provide the necessary guidance and leadership in the school.

61

Constraint to Financial Operation of the Inspectorate Unit

Aniema (1991) carried out a study on constraints to financial operation of the

inspectorate unit in Bauchi education zone. All the eleven inspectors of education in

the zone were used. The researcher found out that:

Sixty-four percent (64%) of the inspectors have very sound professional

background training as teachers possessing (TC II, NCE, B.Sc/B.Ed).

Very few inspectors received handbooks on recent educational development in

their subject areas, regular basic seminars were not organized for the inspectors on

appointment, ie inspectors only depended on what they learnt in the University.

This confirms that the inspectors were not trained on techniques of inspection.

Inspectors do not enjoy any extra financial benefits such as placement on higher

salary level or appointment or car loans to help boost their prestige and facilitate

easy movement to schools.

No job elevation opportunities because no of further training is undergone.

There is limited number of contacts with schools, in other words, the inspectors do

not visit schools regularly.

Most inspection visits are advisory and last only for short periods.

Lack of funds and means of transportations.

The recommendations of previous inspection reports are not implemented.

Training Needs of School Inspectors

Ogunu (2002) in a survey research design undertook a study on the training

needs of school inspectors in Nigeria. The results revealed that the most needed

training needs of Nigerian inspectors are the instructional supervision techniques,

human relations skills, education laws and government regulations and policies,

62

principles and practice of modern supervision and curriculum and instructional

evaluation. All this notwithstanding, the need of the inspectors according to the study,

is teaching skills, which include skills in writing inspection reports, the keeping of

school records and maintenance skills, financial and business skills.

The findings of the empirical research on inspection are very interesting as

many have provided valuable information for the present study. The relationship

between these studies and the present study is that they point towards improving

inspection and its programmes in Nigeria.

Summary of Literature Review

Literature reviewed indicated that school inspection is very important and must

be carried out in schools especially in public primary schools. Although the

importance of school inspection cannot be over-emphasized the exercise must be done

because it is designed by the Federal Ministry of Education to ensure that standards

are maintained. Inspection has grown in importance in Nigeria today because of the

complex nature of the educational system. In fact teachers of today are facing a lot of

challenges as a result of the broadening and complexity of organizational and

instructional tasks, new trends in technology and also rush for formal education.

Under conceptual framework, the concept of appraisal, nature and purpose of

inspection were highlighted. Inspection was seen as the critical examination and

subsequent evaluation of the school as a designated place of learning so as to make it

possible for necessary advice to be given for the purpose of improving the school. The

advice that is usually offered is incorporated in the inspectors” report.

History of inspection was traced back to the missionary era; the formulation of

the 1882 education ordinance under which legal provision was made to give grants in

63

aid to the missions engaged in education. Inspectoral programmes in primary schools

were seen and different types of inspection were discussed. Problems and constraints

to school inspection were highlighted. The problems affecting school inspection in

Nigeria according to the review included:

Lack of proper training for inspectors

Posting of frustrated inspectors to the inspectorate

Lack of transport

Inadequate funding of inspectorate

Lack of basic facilities and equipment for inspectoral programmes and

Poor conditions of service.

Under theoretical framework, two theories of educational management and

organisation were used namely behavioural science theories and systems theory.

There was also review of empirical studies on inspection and other related

studies. The relationship between these evaluative studies, and the present study is that

they are on the evaluation of programme effectiveness. The information received will

be valuable in the present study as both deal on strategies for programme

improvement, which is one of the purposes of the present study.

64

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter described the procedure that was adopted for carrying out and

analyzing data collected for the study. The procedure include: research design, area of

study, population of study, sample and sampling technique, instrument for data

collection, validation of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, method of data

collection and method of data analysis.

Research Design

The descriptive survey design was used in appraising the inspection of public

primary schools, in South East zone of Nigeria. A descriptive survey study is

concerned with describing events (appraisal of the inspection of public primary

schools in South-Eastern zone of Nigeria) as observed or occurs (Ali, 1996:59) or as

they are without any manipulation of what is being observed. It seeks to find out the

conditions or relationship that exists, opinions that are evident or trends that are

developing (Akuezuilo 1993:08). In this type of study, the subjects do not have a

control group where the reverse factors are tested. Descriptive Survey was used

because it is more realistic in that it investigates phenomena in their setting.

Furthermore it has the advantage of a wide scope.

Area of the Study

The study was delimited to the inspectorate departments of public primary

schools in South-East zone of Nigeria. South East Zone is made up of five states

namely Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo State. These states are contiguous

and make up the major Igbo speaking areas of the South-East Zone of Nigeria. These

states were also chosen for the study because of the researcher’s observation, of the

64

65

lapses in some inspectoral functions of inspectors. The headquarters of the education

zones of the states are sited at Awka, Enugu, Abakaliki, Owerri and Umuahia

respectively. Anambra state is made up of six education zones namely: Aguata, Awka,

Nnewi, Ogidi, Onitsha and Otuocha. Enugu State Education Management Board is

made up of six education zones namely: Agbani, Awgu, Enugu, Obollo-Afor, Nsukka

and Udi. Ebonyi State Education Board is made up of three education zones namely:

Abakaliki, Onueke and Afikpo. Imo state is made up of three education zones namely:

Okigwe, Orlu and Owerri while Abia state is made up of three zones namely: Aba,

Umuahia and Ohafia education zones. The various zones of each state run the primary

schools within their zones and then report back to the headquarters, which are sited in

the capital of each state.

These five States are all Igbo speaking, have similar culture. They belong to

one geo-political zone, practice common religion mostly Christianity and traditional

religion. Historically, these states belonged to the former East Central State.

Population of the Study

The population of this study consisted all the head teachers in government primary

schools and inspectors of the Ministry of Education in south eastern Nigeria. These

include five thousand, nine hundred and seventy-three inspectors and head teachers

(5973). (Statistics of education in Nigeria 2007-2009). From the figure mentioned,

five thousand, six hundred and twenty-seven (5627) were head teachers while three

hundred and forty-six (346) were inspectors. (See Appendix 2).

Sample and Sampling Technique

Based on the population, a total of 588 head teachers and inspectors in the

proportion of 371 head teachers and 217 inspectors were sampled. Using multi-stage

66

sampling technique, 3 states were randomly sampled out of the 5 states representing

60% of the population. The sampled states were Anambra, Enugu and Imo. In order to

sample the head teachers 10% of the schools in each of the three states were randomly

sampled. This is in line with the work of Borg and Gall (1989), who suggested that

5% could be used as a representative sample for population that is up to 10,000 or

more, while 10% could be used when the population is up to 5,000 or less. All the

head teachers from the sampled schools were used as follows: Anambra 126 out of

1,260, Enugu 118 out of 1,180 and Imo 127 out of 1,272 respondents giving a total of

371 head-teachers.

All the 217 inspectors in the three sampled states were used for the study.

Hence there was no sampling for the inspectors. (See Appendix 3).

Instrument for Data Collection

The instrument used for data collection was a questionnaire developed by the

researcher. The questionnaire was titled Inspection of Primary Schools Appraisal

Questionnaire (IPSAQ). The instrument was made up of three parts. The first part of

the questionnaire consisted of an introductory letter to respondents which contained

the purpose of the study and an earnest request for the respondents to respond to the

items of the questionnaire. The second part consisted of demographic data which

sought the name of the zones, rank of the respondents and years of experience in the

post. Part three of the questionnaire comprised fifty-six items homogeneously keyed

into five clusters.

Cluster one addressed functions of inspection, cluster two bordered on

availability of facilities and equipment, cluster three focused on criteria for

recruitment of inspectors, cluster four addressed the problems of inspectors in their

67

inspectoral functions and cluster five dwelt on the measures for improving inspectoral

functions.

The questionnaire was built on a four modified Likert scale with responses

varying from cluster to cluster as indicated in the instrument. Cluster 1 and 3 have

responses of Very Great Extent (VGE), Great Extent (GE), Little Extent (LE) and

Very Little Extent (VLE). Cluster 2 used the responses Highly Adequate (HA),

Adequate (A), Inadequate (I) and Highly Inadequate (HI).while cluster 4 and 5 used

the responses of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree

(SD). These levels of responses are weighted as 4,3,2,1 respectively for positive items

and the reverse for negative items.

Validation of the Instrument

The initial draft of the questionnaire was subjected to face and content

validation by five experts, 4 in Educational Administration and Planning and 1 in

Measurement and Evaluation. These experts were asked to examine the instrument in

terms of relevance of the items in relation to purpose of the study, ambiguity of the

sentences used in framing the questions, and the clarity of the items. Materials that

were not relevant to the work were expunged. The research questions that were

initially three were expanded to five to cover more contents of the study. Also the

experts examined the clusters and matched them with the research questions and

hypotheses. Items that were originally 74 were reduced to 56.

Reliability of the Instrument

The instrument was trial tested on 20 public primary school head teachers and

inspectors randomly selected from Delta State which is outside the study area.

Cronbach Alpha method was used to compute the reliability of the different clusters

68

which yielded 0.91 for cluster 1, 0.84 for cluster 2, 0.92 for cluster 3, 0.76 for cluster 4

and 0.81 for cluster 5. Internal consistency reliability was considered appropriate so as

to ensure the extent of the homogeneity of these items in each section.

The overall internal consistency reliability coefficient for all the clusters was

.97, as presented in appendix 5.

Method of Data Collection

Copies of the instruments were administered directly to the respondents by the

researcher with the help of research assistants in all the zonal and area office including

their headquarters. To ensure maximum collection of the instrument, direct delivery

technique or on the spot collection was adopted. This implies that the respondents

were expected to fill and return the instruments to the researcher or assistants on the

spot. This approach enabled the researcher to answer questions or give explanations to

respondents where necessary and to ensure 100% rate of return of the instrument.

The researcher and her assistants visited the head-teachers and the inspectors in

the three states involved in the study. The instrument was promptly administered,

filled and returned to the researcher on the spot. A total 588 questionnaires were

administered on 371 head-teachers of public primary schools and 217 inspectors of the

three sampled states.

Method of Data Analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze data collected. The

data collected through the questionnaire were collated, organized and analyzed using

mean and standard deviation for the research questions, while the hypotheses were

tested using the t-test statistics at 0.05 level of significance. The questionnaire was

69

classified into two parts, one for inspectors and the other for head-teachers. Scores

were assigned to each item and analyzed.

The four point rating scale was used and the values assigned to the scores in

descending order are as follows:

3.50-4.00 for Very Great Extent, Highly Adequate and Strongly Agree

2.50-3.49 for Great Extent, Adequate and Agree

1.50-2.49 for Little Extent, Inadequate and Disagree

0.50-1.49 for Very Little Extent, Highly Inadequate and Strongly Disagree

70

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter presents the analysis of data obtained from the administration of

research instrument. The data were analyzed based on the five research questions and

five null hypotheses that guided the study.

Research question 1

To what extent do inspectors carry out the following inspectoral functions in

public primary schools?

Table 1: Mean and Standard deviation on Extent Inspectors Carry out their Inspectoral Functions

S/N Functions of Inspectors Inspectors N = 217

Head– Teachers N = 371

SD DEC

SD DEC

1 Approval of schools for external/public examinations such as state common entrance examination or first school leaving certificate.

3.07 0.69 GE 3.33 0.74 GE

2 Monitoring the conduct of external examinations. 3.01 0.68 GE 2.99 0.88 GE 3 Embarking on routine monitoring of schools. 3.08 0.67 GE 2.88 0.87 GE 4 Making recommendation to the government based on

the result of the inspectoral visits. 3.09 0.72 GE 2.51 0.92 GE

5 Closing of schools that are not performing up to expectation.

1.98 0.82 LE 2.04 1.03 LE

6 Advising the government on the type and quality of education being offered in the country.

2.50 1.01 GE 2.64 0.92 GE

7 Planning and organizing inductions, seminars and workshops for teachers for professional growth.

2.86 0.90 GE 2.36 1.15 LE

8 Advising on the selection and promotion of teachers. 2.70 0.87 GE 2.39 1.15 LE 9 Maintaining standards and quality education in primary

schools 2.21 1.01 LE 2.41 1.09 LE

10 Disbursing funds and equipment for important school projects.

2.30 0.85 LE 2.18 1.01 LE

11 Collecting data from schools for policy making 2.79 0.62 GE 2.46 1.07 LE 12 Reporting to the ministry on the effectiveness of the

curriculum. 2.51 0.94 GE 2.52 1.02 GE

13 Ensuring the equitable distribution of teachers in public primary schools.

2.65 1.07 GE 2.28 1.05 LE

14 Investigating reported cases of indiscipline to the inspectorate.

2.72 0.79 GE 2.48 0.99 LE

15 Implementing government policies in relation to achievement of educational goals and objectives.

2.45 0.82 LE 2.48 1.07 LE

Cluster 2.66 0.42 GE 2.53 0.67 GE

Key = GE = Great Extent = LE = Little Extent, Mean Score, SD = Standard Deviation, DEC Decision

70

71

Table I presents the views of inspectors and headteachers of public primary schools

in South-East zone of Nigeria on the extent to which inspectors carry out their

functions. The cluster mean score of 2.66 shows that the inspectors of pubic primary

schools in South-East of Nigeria comply with the functions of the inspectorate.

Therefore, looking at the table, we can see that items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 15 are rated

great extent with mean values of 3.07, 3.01, 3.08, 3.09, 2.50, 2.51 and 2.66 with

standard deviations of 0.69, 0.68, 0.67, 0.72, 0.82, 1.01, 0.94 and 0.82 respectively by

inspectors. They also rated items 5, 9, 10 and 15 little extent with mean scores of 1.98,

2.21, 2.30 and 2.45 with standard deviations of 0.81, 1.01, 0.85 and 0.82 respectively.

The head-teachers rated these same items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 15 great extent with

mean values of 3.33, 2.99, 2.88, 2.51, 2.64, 2.52 and 2.53 with standard deviations of

0.74, 0.88, 0.87, 0.92, 0.97 and 1.05 respectively. The head-teachers also rated items

5, 9, 10 and 15 little extent with mean scores of 2.04, 2.41, 2.18 and 2.48 with

standard deviations of 1.03, 1.09, 1.01 and 1.07 respectively. Inspector rated items 7,

8, 11, 13 and 14 high in favour of their functions in public primary schools, with mean

values of 2.50, 2.86, 2.79, 2.65 and 2.72 with standard deviation 0.90, 0.87, 0.62, 1.07

and 0.79 respectively. Inversely, head-teachers rated the same items little extent with

mean scores of 2.35, 2.39, 2.46, 2.28 and 2.48 with standard deviations of 1.15, 1.15,

1.07, 1.05 and 0.99 respectively.

72

Research question 2

How adequate are facilities for primary school inspection in the South East

Zone?

Table 2: Mean rating ( ) and standard deviation (SD) scores of the inspectors

and head teachers on availability of facilities for inspection purposes.

S/N Facilities and Equipment Inspectors N = 217

Head –Teachers N = 371

SD DEC

SD DEC

16 Inspectors rating sheets (i.e standard forms to record first hand information, gather, analyze, and record judgments).

2.38 0.71 IN 2.30 0.96 IN

17 Comfortable office accommodation for inspectors to use after field monitoring

2.29 0.57 IN 2.30 0.96 IN

18 Vehicles at the service of inspectors for efficient performance of their duties,

2.16 0.70 IN 2.24 0.89 IN

19 Modern office furniture (tables, chairs, cupboards, duplicating and photocopier machines) etc

2.39 0.89 IN 2.44 0.89 IN

20 Data processing equipment like computers for inspectors to store information

2.41 0.80 IN 2.30 0.94 IN

21 Internet facilities for current information 2.21 0.83 IN 2.33 0.91 IN 22 Support staff (typists, clerks, messengers etc), to work

with. 2.00 0.68 IN 2.39 0.95 IN

23 Telephone and fax services for easy communication 2.35 0.91 IN 2.36 0.97 IN 24 Office files and folders, 2.18 0.71 IN 2.31 1.07 IN 25 State/Zonal resource centres for consultation 2.00 0.97 IN 2.24 0.97 IN 26 Comfortable classroom size for effective teaching,

learning and monitoring 2.04 0.80 IN 2.18 0.87 IN

27 Regular power supply 2.19 0.72 IN 2.16 0.81 IN Cluster 2.23 0.77 IN 2.30 0.54 IN

Key: In= Inadequate,

The table shows that on item by item basis, items 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 were rated

2.38, 2.29, 2.16, 2.39, 2.41 and 2.21 with standard deviations of 0.71, 0.57, 0.70, 0.89,

0.80 and 0.83 respectively, by the inspectors showing that facilities for school

inspection are inadequate. Also items 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 were rated inadequate

with mean values of 2.00, 2.35, 2.18, 2.00, 2.04 and 2.19 and standard deviations of

73

0.68, 0.91, 0.71, 0.97, 0.80 and 0.72 respectively. The Head-Teachers also agreed that

facilities are inadequate for school inspection in public primary schools. The items

indicated that inspectors lack rating sheets ( = 2.30, SD 0.96), office

accommodation ( = 2.30, SD 0.96), Vehicle for inspection ( = 2.24, SD = 0.89);

Office furniture ( = 2.44, SD 0.89); Data processing equipment ( = 2.30, SD =

0.94); Internet facilities ( = 2.33, SD 0.91) Supporting staff ( = 2.39, SD 0.95);

Telephone and fax ( = 2.36, SD 0.97). Regular power supply ( = 2.16, SD 0.81)

respectively.

Research question 3

What is the extent of adherence to criteria guiding the recruitment of

inspectors?

The data for providing answer to the research question 3 above are presented in

table 3 below:

Table 3: Mean and Standard deviation of inspectors and head-

teachers on recruitment of inspectors.

S/N Criteria for recruitment Inspectors N = 217

Head-Teachers N = 371

SD DEC SD DEC 28 Inspectors’ academic and professional

qualifications. 2.86 0.85 GE 2.64 1.01 GE

29 The inspectors output as a teacher is considered before being selected.

2.25 0.85 LE 2.77 0.89 GE

30 Political leanings of the inspectors are considered. 2.39 0.75 LE 2.57 1.04 GE 31 The inspectors subject area of specialization. 2.53 0.87 GE 2.39 1.10 LE 32 Evidence of potentials on inspector training

courses is considered 1.69 0.81 LE 1.99 0.89 LE

33 Selected inspectors must have done a minimum of ten years as a teacher

2.82 0.87 GE 2.66 1.02 GE

34 The selection of inspectors is based on need in the area or available vacancies.

2.57 0.91 GE 2.73 1.00 GE

Cluster 2.44 0.41 LE 2.54 0.65 GE

74

The results in table 3, showed that, of the 7 items on the extent to which the Ministry

of Education adheres to criteria that guide the recruitment of inspectors, four of the

items, namely items; 28, 31, 33 and 34, which were on inspectors academic and

professional qualifications, minimum of ten years of experience as a teacher and also

available vacancies were rated great extent by the inspectors, ( = 2.86, 2.53, 2.82

and 2.57) Items 29, 30, and 32 dealing with the inspectors output as a teacher before

being selected and their training potentials were rated little extent by the same

inspectors. Items 29, 30 and 32 which were the inspectors’ output as a teacher before

being selected, ( = 2.25) political leanings of the inspectors ( = 2.39) and evidence

of potentials on inspector training courses were rated low extent by the same

inspectors. Finally, the table also showed that the same items 28, 29, 30, 33 and 34

were rated great extent by Head-Teachers, ( = 2.64, 2.77, 2.66 and 2.73) While, the

head – teachers rated item 31 and 32 little extent which were on the inspectors subject

area of specialization ( = 1.69, SD = 0.81), and evidence of potentials on inspector

training courses is considered ( = 1.99, SD 0.89) respectively.

Research Question 4

What are the problems confronting inspectoral functions in public primary

schools in South East zone of Nigeria? This research question was answered using

data collected from table four below:

75

Table 4: Mean and Standard deviation on problems confronting inspectoral

practices.

S/N Constraining factor items Inspectors

N = 217 Head-Teachers N = 371

SD DEC SD DEC 35 People at the top do not allow the inspectors to

contribute their ideas in policy making. 3.11 0.99 A 3.11 0.93 A

36 Permission for any major innovation is required of the inspectors from the ministry.

2.74 0.96 A 3.16 0.84 A

37 Most of the good policies of the inspectorate are never implemented.

3.28 2.89 A 2.95 0.93 A

38 Funds allocated to the inspectorate are never enough.

3.15 0.59 A 3.06 0.67 A

39 Inappropriate selection of primary school inspectors.

2.91 2.84 A 3.19 0.83 A

40 Poor job description for inspectors. 2.39 0.77 D 2.62 0.90 A 41 Lack of professionally trained personnel to carry

out school inspection. 2.16 1.02

D 2.16 1.04 D

42 Poor motivation of inspectors to enhance effectiveness.

3.21 0.74 A 3.14 0.79 A

43 Poor staff development functions to acquaint inspectors with recent developments on school inspection.

2.94 0.84 A 2.93 0.88 A

44 Lack of materials for effective inspection. 2.71 1.09 A 3.12 0.80 A 45 Lack of vehicles to embark on inspection. 3.26 0.64 A 3.17 0.82 A 46 Inspectors’ reports are never taken serious by the

government. 2.34 0.64 A 3.17 0.83 A

Cluster 2.93 0.57 A 3.03 0.40 A

Table 4 above indicates the means rating of inspectors and heads teachers on the

problems militating against effective school inspection. Items 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 43,

44, 45 and 46; were rated agreed by both the inspectors and Head-teachers. These

items were, that people at the top do not allow the inspectors to contribute their ideas

in policy making, ( = 3.11 and 3.11) permission for any major innovation is required

of the inspectors from the ministry, ( = 2.74 and 3.16) most of the good polices of

the inspectorate are never implemented, ( = 3.28 and 2.95) funds allocated to the

inspectorate are never enough ( = 3.15 and 3.06) inspectors are inappropriate by

76

selected ( = 2.91 and 3.19 ). Others were poor staff development functions to

acquaint inspectors with recent development on school inspection, ( = 2.94 and 2.93)

inspectors lack of materials for effective inspection, ( = 2.71 and 3.12) lack of

vehicles to embark on inspection ( = 3.26 and 3.17). While the head-teachers

indicated that all the items in cluster 4 above, were the problems militating against

effective inspection in the public primary schools, the inspectors reported of lack of

professional trained personnel to carry out school inspection ( = 2.16), poor job

description for inspectors ( = 2.39) and that inspectors’ reports were not taken

seriously by the government ( = 2.34) .

Research Question 5

What are the measures for improving inspection in public primary schools?

The data on research question 5 is shown on table 5 below:

S/N Strategies for improvement items Inspectors N = 217

Head-teachers N = 371

SD DEC SD DEC 47 Allowing the inspectors to participate in policy

making. 3.57 0.65 SA 3.69 0.56 SA

48 Granting autonomy to the inspectorate unit. 3.27 0.79 A 2.91 0.73 A 49 Increasing the allocation given to the inspectorate. 3.56 0.63 SA 3.28 0.75 A 50 Training inspectors on organizational and

administrative skills so they can manage their areas better.

3.51 0.62 SA 3.44 0.70 A

51 Provision of job description to each inspector. 3.24 0.86 A 3.32 0.67 A 52 Appointing inspectors based on merit. 3.71 0.61 SA 3.55 0.67 SA 53 Making effort to train professional inspectors. 3.47 0.77 A 3.68 0.59 SA 54 Developing programmes that will acquaint

inspectors with modern trend on inspection. 3.51 0.61 SA 3.60 0.60 SA

55 Motivating the inspectors for effectiveness. 3.53 0.59 SA 3.70 0.53 SA 56 Giving adequate attention to inspectors’ reports. 3.52 0.60 SA 3.72 0.50 SA

Cluster 3.49 0.39 A 3.49 0.32 A

Table 5 above shows that, both respondents agreed on the measures for improving

inspection in the public primary schools. Inspectors should be allowed to participate in

77

policy making ( = 3.57, SD = 0.65; = 3.69, SD = 0.56); granting autonomy to the

inspectorate unit ( = 3.27, SD = 0.79; = 3.28, SD = 0.75) government increasing

the allocation given to the inspectorate, training inspectors on organizational and

administrative skills so that they can manage their areas better ( = 3.24, SD = 0.86;

3.32, SD = 0.67). Others were government to develop programmes that will

acquaint inspectors with modern trends in inspection ( = 3.5, SD = 0.51; 3.60, SD

= 0.60); government should motivate the inspectors in order to be very effective ( =

3.52, SD = 0.59; = 3.70, SD = 3.53) and ministry of education should give adequate

attention to inspectors’ report ( = 3.52, SD = 0.60; 3.72, SD = 0.50).

Hypothesis 1

There is no significant difference (P α 05) between the mean rating of inspectors and

head-teachers with regard to extent to which the inspectors carry out their functions.

78

Table 6: t-test of the difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and head-

teachers on extent to which the inspectors carry out inspectoral functions.

S/N Functions of Inspectors Inspectors N = 217

Head–Teachers N = 371

t-cal t-val Remark

SD SD 1 Approval of schools for external/public

examinations such as state common entrance examination or first school leaving certificate.

3.07 0.69 3.33 0.74 -4.18

1.96 R

2 Monitoring the conduct of external examinations.

3.01 0.68 2.99 0.88 0.34 1.96 A

3 Embarking on routine monitoring of schools.

3.08 0.67 2.88 0.87 3.34 1.96 R

4 Making recommendations to the government based on the result of the inspectoral visits.

3.09 0.72 2.51 0.92 8.56 1.96 R

5 Closing of schools that are not performing up to expectation.

1.98 0.82 2.04 1.03 -0.86

1.96 A

6 Advising the government on the type and quality of education being offered in the country.

2.50 1.01 2.64 0.97 1.67 1.96 A

7 Planning and organizing inductions, seminars and workshops for teachers for professional growth.

2.86 0.90 2.36 1.15 6.07 1.96 R

8 Advising on the selection and promotion of teachers.

2.70 0.87 2.39 1.15 3.67 1.96 R

9 Maintaining standards and quality education in primary schools.

2.21 1.01 2.41 1.09 2.24 1.96 R

10 Disbursing funds and equipment for important school projects.

2.30 0.85 2.18 1.01 1.49 1.96 A

11 Collecting data from schools for policy making.

2.79 0.62 2.46 1.07 4.75 1.96 R

12 Reporting to the ministry on the effectiveness of the curriculum.

2.51 0.94 2.52 1.02 1.28 1.96 A

13 Ensuring equitable distribution of teachers in public primary schools.

2.65 1.07 2.28 1.02 4.06 1.96 R

14 Investigating reported cases of indiscipline to the inspectorate.

2.72 0.79 2.48 0.99 3.31 1.96 R

15 Implementing government policies in relation to achievement of educational goals and objectives.

2.45 0.82 2.48 1.07 -0.32

1.96 A

Cluster 2.60 0.42 2.53 0.67 2.79 1.96

79

The data on table 6 showed that out of 15 items tested, items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11,

13 and 14 were significant with the calculated t-values of -4.18, 3.15, 8.56, 6.07, 3.67,

-2.24, 4.75, 4.06 and 3.31 respectively higher than the critical t-value, while items 2,

5, 6, 10, 12 and 15 were not significant with the calculated t-values of -0.34, -0.86,

1.67, 1.49, 1.28 and 0.32 respectively less than the critical t-values. The data on the

table also indicated that the overall calculated t-value is 2.79; since this values is

greater than the critical t-value (1.96), the hypothesis is rejected, thus indicating that

there is a significant difference between the mean ratings of the inspectors and head-

teachers on the extent to which inspectors carry out their functions in public primary

schools.

Hypothesis 2

There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and head

teachers of public primary schools on the extent of availability of facilities and

equipments for school inspection.

80

Table 7: t-test of the difference between the mean rating of inspectors and head-

teachers on the adequacy of facilities for primary schools inspectors.

S/N Facilities and Equipment Inspectors N = 217

Head -Teachers N = 371

t-cal t-val Remark

SD SD 16 Inspectors ratings sheet (i.e standard

forms to record first hand information, gather, analyze and record judgments) are,

2.38 0.71 2.30 0.96 1.13 1.96 A

17 Comfortable office accommodation for inspectors after field monitoring

2.29 0.57 2.30 0.94 -.01 1.96 A

18 Vehicles at the service of inspectors for efficient performance of their duties ,

2.16 0.70 2.24 0.89 -1.30 1.96 A

19 Modern office furniture (tables, chairs, cupboards, duplicating and photocopier machines) etc

2.39 0.89 2.44 0.89 -.73 1.96 A

20 Data processing equipment like computers for inspectors to store information

2.61 0.80 2.30 0.94 4.27 1.96 R

21 Internet facilities for current information 2.21 0.83 2.33 0.91 1.73 1.96 A 22 Support staff (typists, clerks, messengers

etc), to work with 1.95 0.68 2.39 0.95 -6.42 1.96 R

23 Telephone and fax services for easy communication.

2.35 0.91 2.36 0.97 -.13 1.96 A

24 Office files and folders, 2.18 0.71 2.31 1.08 1.77 1.96 A 25 State/Zonal resource centres for

consultation 1.99 0.97 2.24 0.39 -3.03 1.96 R

26 Comfortable classroom sizes for effective teaching, learning and monitoring.

2.04 0.80 2.18 0.87 2.00 1.96 R

27 Regular power supply 2.19 0.72 2.16 0.81 0.42 1.96 A Cluster 2.23 0.77 2.30 0.54 -1.82 1.96. A

The data displayed on table 7 showed that the calculated t-values were less in 8 out of

the 12. These are items 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 27 with calculated t-values of

1.13, -.01, -1.30, 0.73, -1.72, -.13, 1.77, and 0.42 respectively. While items 20, 21, 25

and 26, were greater than the critical t-values. Also, the data showed that the overall t-

value, which is -1.82 is less than the critical t-value; therefore, the null hypothesis was

upheld, indicating that there is no significant difference between the mean rating of

81

inspectors and head-teachers on the extent the inspectors carry out different types of

inspections in public primary schools in South-East zone of Nigeria.

Hypothesis 3

There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and head-

teachers on application of criteria guiding the recruitment of inspectors.

Table 8: t-test of the difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and head-

teachers on application of criteria guiding the recruitment of inspectors.

S/N

Questionnaire Item Inspectors N = 217

Head-Teachers N = 371

t-cal t-val Dec

SD SD 28 Inspectors academic and professional

qualifications. 2.86 0.85 2.64 1.01 2.89 1.96 R

29 The inspectors output as teachers is considered before being selected.

2.25 0.85 2.77 0.89 6.97 1.96 R

30 Political leanings of the inspectors are considered.

2.39 0.75 2.57 1.04 -2.35 1.96 R

31 The inspectors subject area of specialization.

2.53 0.87 2.39 1.10 1.70 1.96 A

32 Evidence of potentials on inspector training courses is considered.

1.69 0.81 1.99 0.89 -4.19 1.96 R

33 Selected inspectors must have done a minimum of ten years as a teacher.

2.82 0.87 2.66 1.02 1.99 1.96 R

34 The selection of inspectors is based on need in the area or available vacancies.

2.57 0.91 2.73 1.00 -2.08 1.96 R

Cluster 2.44 0.41 2.51 0.65 -1.97 1.96 R

The table shows that the t- calculated value -1.97, is greater than t-critical value

(1.96). So there is statistically significant difference between the mean ratings of

inspectors and head-teachers on basic requirement for recruitment of inspectors. And

so the null hypothesis is rejected. On items by item analysis, items 28, 29, 30, 32, 33

and 34 have t-calculated of 2.89, 6.97, -2.35, -4.19, 1.99 and -2.08. So there is

statistically significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and head-

teachers with regards to the application of criteria guiding the recruited of inspector.

82

Hypothesis 4

There is no significant difference between the mean ratings of inspectors and head-

teachers on problems confronting inspectoral function in public primary schools in

South-East zone of Nigeria.

Table 9: t-test analysis on problems confronting inspectoral functions in public

primary schools.

S/N Constraining factor items Inspectors N = 217

Head-Teachers N = 371

t-cal t-val

Dec

SD SD 35 People at the top do not allow the inspectors to

contribute their ideas in policy making. 3.11 0.99 3.11 0.93 -.00 1.96 A

36 Permission for any major innovation is required of the inspectors from the ministry.

2.74 0.96 3.16 0.84 -5.37 1.96 R

37 Most of the good policies of the inspectorate are never implemented.

3.28 2.89 2.95 0.93 1.67 1.96 A

38 Funds allocated to the inspectorate are never enough.

3.15 0.59 3.06 0.67 1.74 1.96 A

39 Inappropriate selection of primary school inspectors.

2.91 2.84 3.19 0.83 -1.44 1.96 A

40 Poor job description for inspectors. 2.39 0.77 2.62 0.90 -3.32 1.96 R 41 Lack of professionally trained personnel to

carry out school inspection. 2.16 1.02 2.16 1.04 -5.42 1.96 R

42 Poor motivation of inspectors to enhance effectiveness.

3.21 0.74 3.14 0.79 1.08 1.96 A

43 Poor staff development functions to acquaint inspectors with recent developments on school inspection.

2.94 0.84 2.93 0.88 0.11 1.96 A

44 Inspectors lack materials for effective inspection.

2.71 1.09 3.12 0.80 -4.78 1.96 R

45 Lack of vehicles to embark on inspection 3.26 0.64 3.17 0.82 1.44 1.96 A 46 Inspectors’ reports are never taken serious by

the government. 3.34 0.64 3.17 0.83 1.54 1.96 A

Cluster 2.93 0.57 3.03 0.40 -2.25 1.96 R

The data on table 9 indicated that out of the 12 items on the table, 8 items had

calculated t value less than the critical value of 1.96. The items were 35, 37, 38, 39,

42, 43 and 45 respectively with calculated values of -.0, 1.67, 1.74, -1.44, 1.08, 0.11,

83

1.44 and 1.54. Thus, there is no significant difference between the opinions of

inspectors and head-teachers on the problems militating against effective inspection in

public primary schools with respect to the items. Conversely, the calculated t-values

were greater than the critical t-values in items 40, 41, 44 and 46. Their values were -

3.32, -5.42, -4.78 and -2.96 respectively, indicating that the opinions of inspectors and

head-teachers were significantly different with regard to the problems inspectors

encounter in the field and in their offices. The data however, showed that the overall

calculated t-value is -2.25 and since the value is greater than the table value (1.96), the

null hypothesis is rejected. In other words, there is a significant difference between the

mean ratings of inspectors and head-teachers on the problems militating against

effective inspection in public primary schools.

Hypothesis 5

There is no significant difference (P < .05) between the mean ratings of inspectors and

head-teachers on measures for improving inspection in public primary schools.

84

Table 10: t-test analysis on measures for improving inspection in public primary

schools.

S/N Strategies for improvement items Inspectors N = 217

Head-teachers N = 371

t-cal t-tal Dec.

SD SD 47 Allowing the inspectors to participate in

policy making. 3.57

0.65 3.69 0.56 -2.36

1.96 R

48 Granting autonomy to the inspectorate unit. 3.27

3.79 2.91 0.73 5.46 1.96 R

49 Government increasing the allocation given to the inspectorate.

3.56

0.63 3.28 0.75 4.70 1.96 R

50 Training inspectors on organizational and administrative skills so they can manage their areas better.

3.51

0.62 3.44 0.70 1.32 1.96 A

51 Provision of job description to each inspector.

3.24

0.86 3.32 0.67 -1.06

1.96 A

52 Inspectors to be appointed based on merit. 3.71

0.61 3.55 0.67 2.94 1.96 R

53 Government should make effort to train professional inspectors.

3.47

0.77 3.68 0.59 -3.37

1.96 R

54 Government to develop programmes that will acquaint inspectors with modern trends on inspection.

0.51

0.61 3.60 0.60 -1.65

1.96 A

55 Government should motivate the inspectors in order to be very effective.

3.53

0.59 3.70 0.53 -3.36

1.96 R

56 Ministry of education should give adequate attention to inspector’s reports.

3.52

0.60 3.72 0.50 -4.30

1.96 R

Cluster 3.49

0.39 3.49 0.32 0.02 1.96 A

The data on table 10 shows that out of 10 items tested, items 47, 48, 49, 52, 53 and 56

were significant with the calculated t-values of 12.36, 5.46, 4.70, 2.94, -3.36 and -

4.30 respectively; higher than the critical t-value of 1.96 while items 50, 51, and 54

were not significant, with the calculated t-values of 1.32, -1.06, and -1.65, respectively

less than the critical t-values. Again the data on the table also indicated that since the

overall calculated t-value (0.02), is less than the critical t-value (1-96), the hypothesis

is accepted, thus indicating that there is no significant difference between the mean

85

ratings of the inspectors and head-teachers as regards the measures for improving

inspection in the public primary schools.

Summary of Major Findings

1. Inspectors perform some of their functions to a great extent in public primary school

while they do not perform well in some other functions. Considering the t-test analysis

on table 6, it is clear that there is significant difference between the mean rating of

inspectors and head-teachers on the extent that inspectors carry out their functions.

2. Equipment and facilities for inspection are inadequate. There is no significant

difference between the mean rating of inspectors and head-teachers responses with

regards to equipment and facilities for school inspection.

3. Criteria for the recruitment of inspectors are adhered to some extent.

4. Inspectors have some constraints in performing their inspectoral functions.

5. Inspectoral functions can be improved if certain measures suggested like government

increasing the allocation given to the inspectorate and government motivating the

inspectors for more effectiveness.

86

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION,

RECOMMENDATION AND SUMMARY

This chapter focuses on the discussion of major findings of the study, their

educational implications and recommendations. Included in this chapter are also the

conclusion, suggestions for further study and summary of the study.

Discussion of Results

The findings of this study were done in line with the following subheadings.

a) The extent that inspectors carry out inspectoral functions in public primary

schools

b) Facilities for primary school inspection

c) Criteria for recruitment of inspectors

d) Problems confronting inspectoral functions in primary schools

e) Measure for improving inspectoral functions in public primary schools

Extent Inspectors carryout Inspectoral Functions in Public Primary Schools.

The result of the study indicates that majority of the items dealing on the extent

inspectors carry out inspectoral functions were rated, to a great extent by the

inspectors and head-teachers. These items are: approval of schools for external/public

examination, monitoring the conduct of external examination, embarking on routine

inspection of schools, making recommendation base on the result of the inspectoral

visits, advising the government on the types and quality of education, advising on the

selection and promotion of teachers etc. while the other items, such as, closing of

school that are not performing up to expectation. Disbursement of funds and

equipment for school projects and implementing government policies in relation to

86

87

achievement of educational goals and objectives were rated little extent. Looking at

table 1, on the extent inspectors carry out their functions it shows that the inspectors

comply to a great extent in carrying out their function in public primary schools. The

interpretation of the function of inspectors is further expressed using the result of the

t-test on table 6. Items 1, 2, 5, 10, 12 and 15 which show that the calculated t-value is

greater than critical t-value, this shows that there is no significances difference

between the mean rating of inspectors and head-teachers on the extent inspectors carry

out their functions in public primary school in those items, while items 20, 22, 25, 26,

show there is a significance difference. Table 1, item 9 further reveals the area the

inspectors are lacking in their functions that is, in maintenance of standard and quality

education. The lack in quality education is grossly affecting the primary school system

seriously, consider a situation a Junior secondary student could not fill the data form

during registration. This situation revealing falling standard in primary school system.

Fagbamiye (2009:74) noted that, the enrolment pattern in the educational system

follows the pyramidal structure of the nation’s population distribution. The primary

level has the largest enrolment, followed by the secondary level and then the tertiary

level. This enrolment structure, no doubt, depicts the structure of our social demand

for the various levels of education. The primary education level, being the bedrock of

the child’s basic education, is a very vital aspect of the nation’s educational system

that deserves to be handled with great care and caution. Any error committed in the

organization and management of this level of education may reverberate on other

levels and thus seriously mar the lives of the people and indeed the overall

development of the nation. This is one good reason why all the stakeholders must

88

show enough concern on issues that concern the organization and management of

primary education system.

Facilities for Primary School Inspection.

The success of every educational organization in achieving its set objective

depends largely on the proper provision and adequacy of both human and material

resources. The result of the study indicates that facilities are inadequate for primary

school inspection in south-east zone. This reveals the urgent need for the government

to give the inspectors materials to work with and equip the inspectorate for effective

inspection. UPEP (2002) and Wilcox (2000) noted that besides having loyal and

committed personalities, inspectors should be provided with necessary working

facilities like good vehicles, office accommodation and furniture, and up-to-date

training and retraining. In one of the inspectorate publications, “Quality control of

education (May, 1990), it was clearly stated that the Federal Inspectorate Service is

generally and grossly under funded considering that its primary objective on school

inspection is capital intensive in terms of hotel bills, vehicle maintenance, office

equipment and lots of stationary items for production of report. The scenario painted

here indicates that the inspectors cannot function without adequate funds and

facilities. Ugochukwu (2001:70) understood the situation when he observed that the

inspector has as his overall bosses the very people who have responsibility for

education, those who have custody of funds for education, those whose acts of

omission and commission have greatly affected the educational system. The study

further stated that looking at this critically, we can understand that the inspectors

cannot do more than what their bosses want them to do. He noted that the current

89

Universal Basic Education (U.B.E) needs an autonomous inspectorate of education for

its success.

The data on table 7 shows that the overall t-value, which was (1.94) was less

than the critical t-value, therefore the null hypothesis was upheld, indicating that there

is no significant difference in the mean rating of inspectors and head-teachers on the

adequacy of facilities. This could be interpreted to mean that both respondents saw the

need for adequate facilities for primary school inspection.

Criteria for recruitment of inspectors.

The findings of the study as reported on table three indicated that inspectors

and head teachers agreed, to great extent, that recruitment of inspectors should be

based on inspectors’ selection criteria which include academic and professional

qualifications. Inspectors must have a minimum of ten years teaching experience. The

opinions of head teachers and inspectors are in line with that of Obi in Ndu, Ocho and

Okeke (ed) (1997) who observed that recruitment is the fuel which provides energy

for human action. It spurs readiness for action. This implies that when inspectors are

adequately recruited there will be corresponding increase in their output. The

appointment of inspectors as agreed by head teachers and inspectors should be on

merit. The criteria for recruitment of inspectors are crucial as the quality of service

depends on competences of those recruited. Unfortunately the recruitment of

inspectors as noted earlier does not seem to take cognizance of the right qualities of

personnel required for effective performance. According to Ogonu (2001) the criteria

for appointment of inspectors is basically the possession of first degrees in education

with some years of teaching experience without considering other important areas like

the inspectors output as teachers. Secondly, the study noted that as a result of acute

90

shortage of inspectors, some teachers without the requisite experience are recruited as

inspectors, thus not adhering to the necessary qualification and experience needed for

the crucial role of ensuring quality education in school.

The analysis of hypothesis 3 (table 8) revealed that there is a significant

difference between the mean rating of inspectors and head-teachers on the criteria for

recruitment of inspectors in primary schools in South-East Zone of Nigeria. Looking

at items 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, the calculated t-value is higher than the critical t-value,

showing a significant difference in the mean rating of inspectors and head-teachers in

those areas. Finally the data shows that the overall t-value, which is -1-97 is greater

than critical t-value, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that position

or status is not a factor in their perception.

Problems Confronting Inspectoral Functions in Primary Schools.

With reference to research question four, the respondents (inspectors and head

teachers) agreed unanimously that the problems militating against effective inspection

in public primary schools include the following: Inspectors are not allowed to

contribute their ideas in policy making, permission for any major innovation must be

received from the ministry, good policies of the inspectorate are never implemented,

funds allocated to the inspectorate are never enough, inspectors are poorly motivated,

poor development for support staff, lack of materials for effective inspection, lack of

vehicles to embark on inspection, and inspectors’ reports are never taken seriously by

the government. This is in line with the opinion of Aguokogbuo (2003), who

maintained that inadequate funds often lead to meager libraries, few instructional

supplies, cheap buildings, poorly trained staff and non-provision of basic services to

students. Ogbonnaya (2004) corroborated this view when he observed that supervisors

91

or inspectors of schools lack relevant materials, tools and resources for effective

execution of their functions such as journals, textbooks, periodicals, teacher

performance evaluation report forms, files, stationeries and vehicles because of

inadequate funds.

The data on table 9 indicates that there is a significant difference between the

mean rating of inspectors and head teachers with regards to the constraining factors to

effective inspection of primary schools in South-East Zone.

Measures for Improving Inspectoral Functions in Public Primary Schools

The result of the data collected for research-question 5 shows that there is need

to improve inspectoral functions in public primary schools. The respondents agreed

that allowing the inspectors to participate in policy making, granting autonomy to the

inspectorate unit, government increasing the allocation given to the inspectorate,

training inspectors on organizational and administrative skills, provision of job

description to each inspector and also Ministry of Education giving adequate attention

to inspectors reports are measures for improving inspectoral functions. This is in line

with the statements of Ozigi (1982) and Ezeocha (1985) who opined that adequate

funding is necessary in the administration of education at all levels. According to

them, money is needed to pay the staff, maintain the school plant and keep services

going. There is need to provide adequate funding of schools, improvement of salaries

of inspectors, regular payment of these salaries and allowances, maintenance of

inspectors’ offices, adequate funding of the inspectorate departments, appointment of

only professionally competent persons as inspectors, training and retraining of

inspectors, as well as provision of facilities and equipment for inspection.

92

The data on table 10 showed that the overall calculated t-value is 0.15. Since

this value is less than the critical t-value (1.96), the hypothesis is accepted thus

indicating that there is no significant difference between the mean rating of head

teachers and inspectors on the measures for improving inspection in public primary

schools.

Conclusions

From the findings and discussions of the study, the following conclusions are

drawn:

1. Inspectors carry out inspectoral functions assigned to them although they are

lacking in some of the functions as revealed from the findings of the study.

2. Facilities and equipment for primary schools’ inspection are inadequate. There is

need for the government to equip the inspectorate departments.

3. Inspectors should be strictly recruited based on government agreed criteria and

there should be proper induction, seminars and workshops, in-service training and

other refresher training.

4. Many factors militate against effective implementation of primary school

inspection.

5. Primary school inspection need to be improved by making sure that inspectors’

reports are used in policy making.

Educational Implications

From the findings of this study one can deduce some important educational

implications for the government, policy makers, Ministry of Education, school

inspectors, head-teachers etc. The implication of each finding as it relates to education

in general and the inspectoral practices in particular are highlighted.

93

The findings of the study showed that few of the functions of inspectors in

some identified areas were rated little extent. Therefore the implication is that the

Ministry of Education and the inspectors in particular need to re-double their efforts to

improve their job performance in all the identified job expectations which have been

rated poorly in the study.

The study provides an empirical evidence of the place of facilities for

inspection of primary schools. The study revealed that materials needed for effective

school inspection are inadequate. The implication is that inspection and its programme

suffer a great deal due to inadequate facilities and equipment for school inspection.

The criteria guiding the recruitment of inspectors should include inspectors

academic and professional qualification, the inspectors output as a teacher subject area

of specialization. There should be no compromise in the recruitment of inspectors as

this may affect the competence of inspectors. The recruitment of experienced and

qualified inspectors will ensure the maintenance of educational standards. The

implication is that if the criteria for recruitment is compromised, educational standards

can be affected or compromised too.

If the problem of not adhering strictly to the criteria in recruitment is not

solved, it could deter some inspectors from carrying out their duties effectively in

schools, it may also discourage some teachers and head teachers from putting in their

best, thus impeding the overall educational objectives. The fact that the few schools

where facilities abound and where inspectors are given the opportunity to perform

their job well, attract more pupils. Put the other way round provision of adequate

infrastructural facilities and equipment enhance quality delivery of any educational

programme. Constant training of inspectors in terms of refresher courses will help in

94

updating the knowledge of inspectors on the current issues of inspection. Another

implication is that standard of education will improve and the stakeholder will have

confidence in the inspectorate department.

Recommendations

In the light of the findings of this study the following recommendations are

suggested:

1. The Ministry of Education through the inspectorate department should ensure

that inspectors carry out their functions in primary schools. The inspectors

should be allowed to close schools that are not performing up to expectation to

enable the quality assurance agents to achieve the quality of education needed in

primary schools in South-East Zone.

2. For effective inspectoral performance, there is need for the government to

provide adequate equipment and facilities for inspectors.

3. Primary school inspectors should be strictly selected not only considering

accepted norms such as academic and professional qualifications, available

vacancies but other aspects like the candidates’ output as teachers, the track

record of the candidates in relation to previous and present performances,

evidence of potentials on inspector training courses and the candidates

knowledge in subject matter, pedagogy and psychology amongst others.

4. One of the major problems found out from the study is inadequate funding of the

inspectorate units, with no separate budgetary allocation from government. There

is therefore the need to have a separate budgetary allocation for the inspectorate

unit in the South-East Zone of Nigeria. Absence of this has greatly hampered the

function of the inspectorate division especially in areas of equipment and

facilities for inspection.

95

5. Ministry of Education should give adequate attention to inspectors’ reports.

Limitations of the Study

A study of this nature would not have been achieved without constraints. Some of the

constraints encountered include:

1. The researcher made several visits to the Ministry of Education, Inspectorate

Departments of both Federal, State government looking for the guidelines on

school inspection and quality assurance handbook for basic and secondary

education to get information for this study.

2. The researcher did not find it easy administering the copies of the questionnaire to

inspectors and head-teachers.

3. Inadequate finance compelled the researcher to make use of limited number of

respondents instead of the entire population.

4. Most of the empirical studies that were available were on supervision of schools

and evaluations of other educational programmes, hence the researcher had to in

addition to what she was able to get on appraisal of inspection of public primary

schools, include the review of appraisal studies and evaluation of other

educational programmes.

5. The validity of the data and consequently the result depend very much on the

honesty and the sincerity of the respondents in making available needed

information.

Suggestions for Further Studies

In the light of the findings, the following are suggested for further research.

1. The present study should be replicated in other geo-political zones of the country.

96

2. Similar research could be done using private primary schools in South-East Zone of

Nigeria.

3. The study could also be extended to public secondary schools in South-East Zone

of Nigeria.

Summary of the Study

Inspection is an essential part of any organization. For any organization to

achieve its goals and objectives, there must be monitoring. The government is

involved in monitoring the schools system for the achievement of goals and objectives

of education. Every government that provides public schooling should try to ensure

that the system is not only regulated but that it is also controlled and monitored. A

descriptive survey research design was adopted for the study. The population of the

study was 5,973, comprising 5,627 head-teachers of public primary schools and 346

inspectors of the Ministry of Education in South-east zone of Nigeria. Multi-stage

sampling technique was used to select 3 states, out of 5 states that make up South-east

zone. A sample of five hundred and eighty-eight (588) respondents made up of three

hundred and seventy-one (371) head-teachers and two hundred and seventeen (217),

inspectors in South-east zone of Nigeria was used for the study. A 56-item

questionnaire titled “Inspection of Primary Schools Appraisal Questionnaire”

(IPSAQ) was used for the study. Data were presented using descriptive statistics while

t-test was used in testing the hypotheses at 0.05 probability level. Some of the

inspectors’ functions include approval of schools for external examination, monitoring

the conduct of external examination, paying advisory visits to schools etc. Inspectors

need facilities and equipment to function effectively in their inspectoral function and

97

such needed facilities include, vehicles and comfortable office accommodation to

enable them execute their functions effectively.

Recruitment of inspectors is based on their academic and professional qualification,

available vacancies, years of experience. Many problems affect inspectoral functions

in public primary schools. These problems are caused mostly by people at the top who

do not allow the inspectors to contribute their ideas in policy making, and who insist

on giving permission before any major innovation is carried out. As such, most of the

good policies of the inspectorate are never implemented. Inspectors and head teachers

agreed that various measures should be taken to improve inspection in public primary

schools namely: allowing inspectors to participate in policy making, granting

autonomy to the inspectorate unit. Finally Ministry of Education should give adequate

attention to inspectors’ reports.

Evidence from literature review showed that a lot of constraints are confronting

inspectoral functions in public primary schools in South-East Zone of Nigeria and

some of the measures that can be taken to improve inspection in public primary

schools in the area are mentioned.

Results of the Study Showed that:

1. Inspectors perform some of their functions to a great extent

2. Facilities and equipment for school inspection are grossly inadequate in

inspectorate departments

3. Government does not follow due process in the recruitment of inspectors due to

acute shortage of inspectors and the large number of primary schools in South-

Eastern States of Nigeria.

4. Inspectoral functions have a lot of problems confronting them.

98

5. Adequate measures can help solve inspectoral problems.

The findings of the study were extensively discussed, their educational

implications and recommendations were highlighted, suggestions for further research

and limitations of the study were given.

99

REFERENCES

Abadom, G. N. (1996). An evaluation of junior secondary school students’ mastery of primary school mathematics, In Curriculum Organization of Nigeria. Monograph series 4 pp, 166 – 173.

Abenga, F. M. (1995). Principles and practice of school administration. Markurdi:

Onaiyi Publishers. Abiri, J. O. (1987). An evaluation of post-graduate programmes of the University of

Ilorin 1977 – 1985. Ilorin Journal of Education, 7(2), 1 – 17. Aderounmu, W.O and Ehiametalor, E. T, (1985). Introduction to administration of

schools in Nigeria,. Lagos. Evans Brothers Nigeria Ltd. Adukwu, R.M. (2001). Strategies for teachers’ retention in the UBE programme.

Universal Basic Education Journal, 1(2), 113-116. Aghenta, J. A 2006: Human resource development and planning in Nigeria. Second

Faculty of Education distinguished lecture series, University of Benin, Benin city.

Aguokogbuo, C.N. (2003). Funding the UBE programme in Nigeria. The Nigeria UBE

Journal. 2(1), 126-129. Ajayi, K. (1983). The attitude of teachers and school administrators to School

Inspection Practices Procedure in Kwara State. Benin Journal of Studies, 1 (2), 56-60.

Ajayi, A.O. (1996). Quality improvement of teaching supervision and administration

in primary schools. Department of Educational Management University of Ibadan.

Ajoku, R.U. (1998). An evaluation of inspectoral programme of primary schools in

Owerri Education Zone. ( masters project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 1998).

Alake, D. (2000, Sept 26). “Fate of the Nigerian”. National Concord Newspaper. Ali, A. (1988). Evaluation of primary education mathematics curriculum for Nigeria

primary schools. Nigeria Journal of Curriculum Studies, 6 (1) 64 – 78. Ali, A. & Ndubuisi, A. F. (1986). An evaluation of the in-service sandwich

programme of the institute of education. University of Nigeria, Nsukka 1976 – 1984: Occasional publication, institute of education UNN.

Aiyepeku, T.F. (1987). Inspection of schools and colleges. Ibadan: Heninemann

Educational Books (Nigeria) Ltd.

99

100

Akubue, A. U. (1981)). The In-service needs of Secondary School Principals in

instructional supervision. A case study of Anambra State of Nigeria: (doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria Nsukka, 1981).

Akubue, A. U. (1994). School supervision and inspection. unpublished educational

monograph. Akubue, F. N. (1993). An evaluation of the teaching of social studies in Junior

Secondary School. (doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 1993). Aniemena, C. J. (1991). Constraints to Functional Operations of Inspectorate Unit of

Bauchi Education Zone. (masters project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka). Asaya (2000). My teaching: School inspection for improvement. Retrieved from

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/courses/degrees/docs/.../teaching/ Bloom, B. S. (1971). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York:

McGraw-Hill Bowen, C (2001). Rethinking school inspection in the third world: The case of Kenya.

Retrieved from www.ualberta.ca/~ckreber/papers/zak.htm Burt, R. N. (1985). An evaluation of the teacher/advisory Programme in the higher

schools of the Jordan School District. (doctoral dissertation) Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (8). P. 314.

Canham, P. (1983). Inspectors handbook: A guide for primary school inspection and

supervision. Ibadan : Evan Brothers. Child friendly initiative (CFSI) (2000). Blue print compiled by Kungiyar, Kyantatay. Crocker, A. C. (1969). Statistics for the teacher. London: Buttler and Tonner Ltd. Decree 16 (1985). Education national minimum standards and establishment of

institutions. supplement or (official gazette extraordinary, 72 (13) Denga, D. I. & Ali A. (1983). An introduction to research methods and statistics in

education and social science. Jos: Savannah Publishers. Denton, W. T. (1993). Programme evaluation in vocational and technical education.

Columbus Centre for Voc. Education Ohio State University. Dent, H. C. (1977). Education in England and Wales, London: Rodden & Stoughton. Dructberly, D. (1972). The study of organization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

101

Ebel, R. L. (1965). Measuring educational achievement. Egle Word Cliffs: Prentice Hail.

Egonu, D. (1989). Public perceptions of primary education in Nigeria: The case of

Anambra State. Egozi, A. E. S. (1977). A paper presented during workshop by the Dir. Inspectorate

Calabar. 4th – 7th March, 1977. Eterakaya, O. A. & Onyere, V. E. (1955). The problems and challenges of

instructional supervision. Lagos: Joja Pub. Enueme, C. P (2004). Evaluating the management of primary school in Delta state

using UNICEF recommendations for child-friendly environment. (doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria Nsukka, 2004).

Ezikanyi, M. S. (2007) Strategies for improving secondary school inspection in Udi

education zone of Enugu State. ( masters project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 2007).

Fagbamiye, E. O 2009: Management of primary and secondary education in Nigeria.

NAEAP publication. Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/jgrp/PDF/.../OLAMIJU%20and%20OLUJIMI.p.

Fagbulu, A. M. (1999). Administrative practice for teachers. Ibadan: Evans Brothers

Publishing Company. Fafunwa, B.A. (1974). History of education in Nigeria. London: George Allen and

Urwin Ltd. Farrant, J. S. (2000). Principles and practice of education. Great Britain: Longman

Group, Ltd. Federal Government of Nigeria (2000-2007) Statistics in education. Federal Ministry of Education. Draft inspectors handbook for inspection of

educational institutions in Nigeria, (2009- 2010). Federal Ministry of Education (2001). Inspectors manual. The Federal Inspectorate

Service. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981). National policy on education. Lagos: Federal

Ministry of Information. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985). National minimum standard and establishment of

institutions, Decree No. 16.

102

Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2004). National policy on education (4th Edition). Lagos: NERDC Press.

Fellabaum, J. R. (1982). An evaluation of the doctoral programme in administration

and supervision in the college of education and allied professions at the University of Toledo. (doctoral dissertation Abstracts International, 43(4). P. 163).

Freeman, H. & Sherwood, C. C. (1970). Social research and social policy.

Eaglewood: Cliffs Prentice Hall. Geren, M. R. (1981). An evaluation of the internship programme in Educational

administration at East Texas State University. (doctoral dissertation abstracts International, 42(1). P. 85. Texas state university)

Hornby A. S (2002). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. (7th

Edition). New York. Oxford University Press. Igwe, S. O. (1982). The modern approach to school inspection. The Nigerian

Principal Journal of ANCOPSS, 1,(3). Irby, J. A. (1986). The status of honours programmes in two year and four year public

and private colleges in Texas. (doctoral dissertation abstracts International, 47(11), 150).

Isolo, A (2000, may). School inspectors are harassing teachers. East African Standard:

Letters, P. 7. Retrieved from http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckreber/papers/zak.htm Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundation of behavioural research, New York: Holt,

Rinbert and Winston. Laurie J. M (2007). Management and organizational behaviour. England: Pearson-

Edinburgh Education Ltd. Maiyashi, M. I (2001, August 21). Government, civil society and education

perspective. New Nigerian News paper, p 20. Masara, S. (1987) Why teachers hate inspectors. The standard, p. 13 Mgbodile, T.O. (1986). Educational administration and planning. Ibadan:

Heinemann Educational Books. Mgbodile, T.O. (ed) (2004). Fundamentals in educational administration and

planning. Enugu : Margnet Business Enterprises Publishing Division. Maneenil, S. (1982). An appraisal of the doctoral programme in higher education at

North Texas State University. (doctoral dissertation, abstracts International, 3(2).

103

Mussazi, J. C. S. (1982).Theory and practice of educational administration. London:

Macmillan. Ndegwa, A. (2001). Teachers slam school inspectors. East African Standard: Online

Edition. Retrieved from: http://www.eastandaerd.net Ndu, A. N., Ocho, L. O., Okeke, B. S. (1997). Dynamics of educational

administration and management: The Nigerian perspective. Awka: Meks Publishers Ltd.

Ndupu (1980). My teaching: school inspection for improvement. Retrieved from

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/courses/degrees/docs/.../teaching/. Nwankwo, J. I. (1981). Educational management handbook for West African

administrators and supervisors. Ibadan: Heinemann. Nwagwu N.A (1993). The purpose and growth of primary education. Onitsha:

Summer Educational Publishers. Nwangwu, R (2007). Potentials of monitoring learning achievement for national and

international education systems. A paper presented at the zonal orientation and induction workshop for inspectors held at Bauchi.

Nwana, O. C. (1981). Introduction to educational research. Ibadan: Heinemann

Educational Books Limited. Nwana, O. C. (1982). An Appraisal of the major features and problems encountered

by the faculty of education, University of Nigeria Nsukka for the period 1975 – 1990. A Report presented at Education Week of the Faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Nwaogu, J. I. (1980). A guide to effective supervision of instruction in Nigerian

schools. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd. Nworgu, B.G. (2006). Educational research: Basic issues and methodology. Ibadan:

Wisdom Publishing. Obi, E. (1997). Motivation and organizational behavior. Onitsha: Meks Publishers

Ltd. Obilede, S. O. (1984). Modern supervision and strategies for staff development. Paper

Presented at in-service Programme on Quality Education. University of Ibadan.

Oboegbulem, A. I & Ogbonnaya, N. O (2007): Strategies for improving inspection of

Abia State Primary Schools. Lagos Journal of Educational Administration and Planning, Vol. 3, No 1.

104

Ocho, L. O (2003). Educational policy making, implementation and analysis. Enugu.

New Generation Venture Ltd. Ochuba, V. O (2008): Participants’ perception about the effectiveness of a Federal

Ministry of Education workshop on capacity building for inspectors of Education in Nigeria. Benin Journal of Gender Studies, 1 (1), 76-85

Ochuba, V. O 2009: Improving the quality of education in Nigeria through effective

inspection of schools. Find article.com. Retrieved from www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/courses/degrees/docs/.../teaching/

Office for Standards In Education (OFSTED). (2005): Framework for the inspection

of schools in England. OFSTED. Ogbazi, N. & Okpala, J. (1994). Writing research report: A guide for researchers in

Education, Social Science and Universities. Owerri: Prime Publications. Ogbonna, F. C. (1993). Test measurement and evaluation with statistics. Jos:

Techsource Pub. Ogbonna, F. C. (1995). A handbook on educational administration. Jos: source

Publishers. Ogbonna, F. C. (1998). Evaluation of inspectoral programme for secondary schools in

Cross River State. (doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 1998) Ogbonnaya, N. (1990). Evaluation of the administration of the sandwich programme

of two Universities in South Eastern Nigeria. (doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria Nsukka, 1990).

Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Educational measurement and evaluation with statistics Jos:

Source Publishers. Ogunsaju, O. A. (1983). “Nigerian teachers and supervision: The Supervisor’s role”.

The Inspector, Journal of Education, 3 (1). Ogunsaju, S (2006) School management and supervision. Ilfe-Ife: Clean Put

Publishers. Ogunu, M. A (2000). Introduction to educational management. Benin City: Mabogun

Publishers. Ogunu, M. A (2001) Problems of school inspection in Nigeria. In N. A Nwagwu, (ed)

current issues in educational management in Nigeria. Nigeria association of educational administration and planning.

105

Onwodi, C. P. (2001). Strategies for improving inspection of primary schools in Oshimiri Local Government Area. (masters Project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 2001).

Onwuka, U. (1981). A study of the 1976 ACE programme of the University of

Nigeria, institute of education in selected case studies. An inset African project Dowsnent.

Ojelabi, A. A. (1981). A guide to school management. Ibadan: Valuta Educational

Publishers. Okeke, C. C. (1986). An evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of two

instructional approaches upon science students. (doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 1986)

Okoli, N. J. (1990). An evaluation of the implementation of the national mass literacy

campaign programme in three states of Nigeria. (doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 1990)

Okoro, O. M. (1985). A model for evaluating vocational teacher education

programmes in Nigeria. African journal of education, 26 (1, 2). Okoro, O. M. (1991). Programme evaluation in education. Obosi: Pacific Pub. Olagboye (2004). My teaching: school inspection for improvement. Retrieved from

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/courses/degrees/docs/.../teaching/ Oyinloye, E. M (2010). Quality assurance handbook for basic and secondary

education in Nigeria. federal inspectorate service. Omoregie My teaching: school inspection for improvement. Retrieved from

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/courses/degrees/docs/.../teaching/ Ozigi, O. A. (1981). A handbook on school administration. Lagos Macmillan. Peretemode V. F. (1995). Introduction to educational administration, planning and

supervision. Lagos: Joja Publishers. Robinson, B (2002). “The CIPP approach to evaluation”. COLLIT project. Retrieved

from www.hub.col.org/2002/collit/att-0073/01. Rono, D. K. (2000): Handbook of inspection for educational institutions. Nairobi,

Kenya: Ministry of Education Science and Technology. Reicken, N. W. (1959). Memorandum on programme evaluation. In Weiso (Ed.)

Evaluatory action programme: Reading in social action and education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

106

Rssi, P. H. & Williams V. (1972). Evaluation of social programme. New York: Seminar Press.

Ruangauwan, C. (1986). An evaluation of the undergraduate education technology

programme at Srinkrarin Grot University, Mahassarakhan Thailand. (doctoral dissertation abstracts International 47(8).

Schofiold, H. (1972). Assessment and testing: introduction, London :George Allen. Scriven M. (1980). Evaluation. Thasaurus California: Edge Press. Scriven M. (1967). The methodologies of evaluation. American educational research

association mimeograph series on evaluation. Chicago: Rand Menally. Spence, B. V. (1981). Educational administration. Britain: Hull University Press. Stenhouse, L. (1975): Educational evaluation and decision-making. In Worthen and

Sandlers (Ed). Educational evaluation. theory and practice Belmont, California: Wadsworth Pub.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1972): An evaluation of the doctoral programme in development

education at Srinakharn Wirot University, Thailand, (doctoral dissertation abstracts International 47(11).

Pritchard, M. W (1975): The organization and staffing of the primary school

inspectorate: Case Studies -2. Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000718/071810eo.pdf

Taiwo (1985). Daily nation edition. Retrieved from.

www.ualberta.ca/~ckreber/papers/zak.htm Ugochukwu, S. C. (2001). Quality control in education at primary and secondary

school levels, challenges for school inspectors. Journal of federal inspectorate of education. 5(1), 3 – 9.

Ukeje, B. O., Akabogu, G. C., & Ndu, A. N. (1992). Educational administration,

Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing, Ltd. Universal basic education programme, (2002). A training manual for Nigeria primary

school inspectors and supervisors. Lagos: Stirling Horden Publisher. Wasanaga, P. M. (2004). Quality assurance in basic education. A position paper at the

UNESCO Nairobi cluster consultation on quality standards and quality assurance in basic education, Kenya: 6-8 December.

Wanzare, Z.O. (2002). Rethinking school inspection in the third world: The case of

Kenya. Retrieved from www.ualberta.ca/-ckreber/papers/zak.htm.

107

Wilcox, B (2000). Making inspection visits more effective: The english experience. International institute for educational Planning UNESCO: Paris.

Yoloye E. A (2005). The relevance of universal basic education in the development of

primary education system in Nigeria. Retrieved from www.academicjournals.org/jgrp/PDF/.../OLAMIJU%20and%20OLUJIMI.p.

108

APPENDIX 1

Faculty of Education, Dept. of Educational Foundations University of Nigeria, Nsukka. October, 2010.

Dear Sir/Madam,

APPRAISAL OF THE INSPECTION OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN SOUTH EAST ZONE OF NIGERIA

I am a Doctorate student of the Faculty of Education, in the University of

Nigeria, Nsukka. I am carrying out a research on the topic stated above. The aim is to

find out areas of weakness and suggest ways for improvement. Every information

given will be treated as confidential and used purely for research work.

Your cooperation is highly needed for this work to be successful.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Yours Sincerely

Ezenwaji I. O. (Mrs.)

108

109

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

APPRAISAL OF THE INSPECTION OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN SOUTH

EAST ZONE OF NIGERIA.

Section A – Personal Information

Kindly supply the following information in the space provided:

Name of School/Place of work …………………………………

Category of Respondent:

Head teacher in public primary school ( )

Inspectors ( )

Years of Experience:

i) 0 – 9

ii) 10 years and above

INSPECTION OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS APPRAISAL QUESTIONNAIRE

(IPSAQ)

Instruction: please state your opinion by ticking (√) in the appropriate box; using the

rating scales provided below.

Rating scale

VGE Very Great Extent GE Great Extent LE Little Extent VLE Very Little Extent

110

CLUSTER A: INSPECTORAL FUNCTIONS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL

S/N ITEM VGE GE LE VLE 1 Approval of schools for external/public examination such as

state common entrance examination or first school leaving

certificate.

2 Monitoring the conduct of external examination.

3 Embarking on routine monitoring of schools.

4 Making recommendation to the government based on the

result of the inspectoral visits.

5 Closing of schools that are not performing up to expectation.

6 Advising the government on the type and quality education

being offered in the country.

7 Planning and organizing inductions, seminars and workshops

for teachers to professional growth.

8 Advising on the selection and promotion of teachers.

9 Maintaining standard and quality education in primary school

10 Disbursing funds and equipment for important school projects.

11 Collecting data from school for policy making

12 Reporting to the ministry on the effectiveness of the

curriculum.

13 Ensuring the equitable distribution of teachers in public

primary schools.

14 Investigating reported cases of indiscipline to the inspectorate.

15 Implementing government policies in relation to achievement

of educational goals and objectives.

111

HA Highly Adequate (HA) A Adequate (A) I Inadequate (I) HI Highly Inadequate (HI)

CLUSTER B: EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES FOR INSPECTION

Instruction: Please state your opinion by ticking (√) in the appropriate box; using the

rating scales provided below.

Rating scale

S/N ITEM HA A I HI

16 Inspectors rating sheets (i.e standard forms to record first hand

information, gather, analyze and record judgments)

17 Comfortable office accommodation for inspectors after field

monitoring

18 Vehicles at the service of inspectors for efficient performance of

their duties are,

19 Modern office furniture (tables, chairs, cupboards, duplicating and

photocopier machines) etc

20 Data processing equipment like computers for inspectors to store

information

21 Internet facilities for current information

22 Supporting staff (typists, clerks, messengers etc), to work with

23 Telephone and fax services for easy communication

24 Office files and folders are,

25 State/Zonal resource centre for consultation

26 Comfortable classroom size for effective teaching, learning and

monitoring.

27 Regular power supply

112

SA Strongly agree A Agree D Disagree SD Strongly disagree

Instruction: Please indicate your responses.

Rating scale

CLUSTER C: CRITERIA GUIDING THE RECRUITMENT OF INSPECTORS

S/N ITEM VGE GE LE VLE

28 Inspectors academic and professional qualifications.

29 The inspectors output as a teacher is considered before

being selected.

30 Political leanings of the inspectors are considered.

31 The inspectors subject area of specialization.

32 Evidence of potentials on inspector training courses is

considered

33 Selected inspectors must have done a minimum of ten

years as a teacher.

34 The selection of inspectors is based on need in the area

or available vacancies.

Instruction: Please state your opinion by ticking (√) in the appropriate box; using the

rating scales provided below.

Rating scale

CLUSTER D: FACTORS THAT MILITATE AGAINST EFFECTIVE

PRIMARY SCHOOL INSPECTION IN SOUTH EAST ZONE.

VGE Very Great Extent GE Great Extent LE Little Extent VLE Very Little Extent

113

S/N ITEM SA A D SD 35 People at the top do not allow the inspectors to contribute their ideas

in policy making.

36 Permission for any major innovation is required of the inspectors

from the ministry.

37 Most of the good policies of the inspectorate are never implemented.

38 Funds allocated to the inspectorate are never enough.

39 Inappropriate selection of primary school inspectors.

40 Poor job description for inspectors.

41 Lack of professionally trained personnel to carry out school

inspection.

42 Poor motivation of inspectors to enhance effectiveness.

43 Poor staff development functions to acquaint inspectors with recent

development on school inspection.

44 Inspectors lack materials for effective inspection.

45 Lack of vehicles to embark on inspection.

46 Inspectors’ reports are never taking serious by the government.

Instruction: Please state your opinion by ticking (√) in the appropriate box; using the

rating scales provided below.

Rating scale

SA Strongly agree A Agree D Disagree SD Strongly disagree

114

CLUSTER E: MEASURES FOR IMPROVING INSPECTORAL PRACTICES

IN PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS

S/N ITEM SA A D SD

47 Allowing the inspectors to participate in policy making.

48 Granting autonomy to the inspectorate unit.

49 Government increasing the allocation giving to the inspectorate.

50 Training inspectors on organizational and administrative skills so they

can manage their areas better.

51 Provision of job description to each inspector.

52 Inspectors to be appointed based on merit.

53 Government should make effort to train professional inspectors.

54 Government to develop programmes that will acquaint inspectors with

modern trend on inspection.

55 Government should motivate the inspectors in order to be very

effective.

56 Ministry of education should give adequate attention to inspector’s

reports.

115

APPENDIX 2

TABLE 1: HEAD TEACHERS, INSPECTORS AND PRIMARY SCHOOLS OF

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN SOUTH EASTERN REGION

Region Number of head

teachers

Number of inspectors Primary schools

Anambra state 1,260 155 1,260

Ebonyi state 957 64 957

Enugu state 1,180 72 1,180

Imo state 1,272 30 1,272

Abia state 958 65 958

Total 5,627 346 5,627

Source: Statistics of education in Nigeria 2000 – 2007

116

APPENDIX 3

TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLING SCHOOLS, INSPECTORS AND HEAD TEACHERS IN SOUTH-EASTERN ZONE

Zone Number of head teachers

Number of inspectors

Primary schools

Anambra 126 115 126 Enugu 118 72 118 Imo 127 30 127 Total 371 217 371

117

APPENDIX 4

LIST OF SCHOOLS SAMPLED, ARRANGED ACCORDING TO STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

ANAMBRA STATE

S/N AGUATA LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1 Community School, Agbudu 2 Community School, Akpu 3 Primary School, Akpu 4 Community School, Eri Umuohyia 5 Community School, Eziagu 6 Community School, Ezira 7 Community School, Ezira 8 Primary School, Ezira 9 Community School, Ihite

10 Primary School, Ihite 11 Community School, Isulo 12 Primary School, Isulo 13 Community School, Nawfija 14 Community School, Nawfija 15 Community School, Nkerehi 16 Community School, Ogboji 17 Primary School, Ogboji 18 Community School, Ogbunka 19 Ikpaebu Community School, Ogbunka 20 Primary School, Umuebo Ogbunka 21 Primary School Oneh 22 Egbeagu School. Owerri/Ezukala 23 Ihie Primary School, Owerri/Ezukala 24 Okoebe School, Owerri/Ezukala 25 Aladimma School Umunze 26 Community School, Umunze 27 Community School, Umunze 28 Igwebuike School Umunze 29 Ishingwu School, Umunze 30 Nosgwu School Umunze 31 Nwikpa Elem School, Umunze 32 Central School, Achina 33 primary School, Eke Achina 34 School, Achina 35 Progress School, Achina 36 Central School, Aguluezechukwu 37 Community School Aguluezechukwu 38 Primary School, Aguluezechukwu 39 Obiofia Community School Aguluezechukwu

118

40 Central School, Akpo 41 Ebuike Primary School, Akpo/Achina 42 Combined School Akpo/Achina 43 Udoka School, Akpo/Achina 44 central School, Amesi 45 Community School, Amesi 46 Primary School, Agba-Ekswuuluobia 47 Central School, Ekwuluobia 48 Community School, Ekwuluobia 49 Efosie School, Ekwuluobia 50 Primary School, Ekwuluobia 51 Nwannebo School, Ekwuluobia 52 Umuezennofo School, Ekwuluobia 53 Akpunoji central School, Ezinifite 54 Anuil Community School, Ezinifite 55 Central School, Ezinifite 56 Igwebukie Primary School, Ezinifite

AWKA SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 57 Central School, Nibo 58 Central School, Amawbia 59 Udoka Primary School, Awka 60 Central School, Nise 61 Community School, Umuokpu 62 Central School, Isiagu 63 Central School Umuawulu 64 Central School, Mbaukwu 65 Community Primary School, Nise 66 Central School, Akwa 67 Community Primary School, Umuuawulu 68 Ezike Primary School, Nibo 69 Community Primary School, Okpuno 70 Obiora Primary School, Mbaukwu 71 Igwedimma Primary School, Amawbia 72 Ojiagu Primary School, Mbaukwu 73 Oarkebe Memorial Primary School Ndiora 74 Amamife Primary School, Akwa 75 Ezinto National Primary School, Akwa 76 Unity Primary School Umuokpu 77 Irugo Primary School Okpuno

Practicing School, Awka 79 Udodimma Primady School Okpuno 80 Nkwlle Primary School, Akwa 81 Central School, Ndikpa 82 Udeozo Primary School Awka 83 Agulu-Akwa Primary School Akwa 84 Iyiagu Primary School, Akwa 85 Community School, Amawbia

119

86 Ezi-Akwa Primary School, Akwa 87 Ikwodiaku Primary School, Akwa 88 Anaenyi Community Primary School, Akwa 89 Ezinwankwo Primary School, Nibo 90 Igwebueze Primary School Ifite Akwa 91 Obinwanne Primary School Nibo 92 Union Primary School Nibo 93 Nnebuzo Primary School, Akwa 94 Achalla Road Primary School,Akwa 95 Obu Primary School , Okpalla Isagu 96 Igbebueze Primary School, Ifite

ONITSHA SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 97 Agai Primary School, 1 Fegge 98 Agai Primary School, 11 Fegge 99 Anyiogu Primary School, 1 Odoakpu

100 Anyogu Primary School, 11 Odoakpu 101 Central School, Fegge 102 Community Primary School. 1 Fegge 103 Community Primary School, 11 Fegge 104 Fegge Community School, Fegge 105 Lafiaji Primary School, Fegge 106 Lafiaji Primary School, Fegge 107 Modebe Primary School Odoakpu 108 New Market School, 1 Odoakpu 109 Niger Primary School, Fegge 110 Niger Primary School Fegge 111 Niger City 1 Fegge 112 Niger City 11 Fegge 113 Nupe Square Fegge 114 Nweje Primary School, 1 Fegge 115 Nweje Primary School, 11 Fegge 116 O’connor 1primary School, Fegge 117 O’ Connor 11 Primary School, Fegge 118 Onyeabor Primary School, Odoakpu 119 Otomoye Primary School, 1 Fegge 120 Otomoye Primary School, 11 Fegge 121 Patrick Okolo 11 Fegge 122 Pioneer, 1 Primary School, Odoakpu 123 Pioneer 11 Primary School Odoakpu 124 Shanaham Primary School, Fegge 125 Township Primary School, Fegge 126 Ugbormili Primary School, 1 Fegge

120

ENUGU STATE S/N ENUGU EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1 Abakpa Nike P/S. I 2 Abakpa Nike P/S. II 3 Abakpa Nike P/S. III 4 Abakpa Nike P/S. IV 5 Abakpa Nike P/S. V 6 Abakpa Nike P/S. VI 7 Abakpa Nike P/S. VII 8 Abakpa Nike P/S. VIII 9 Airport Primary School I Emene 10 Central School I Emene 11 Central School II Emene 12 Community Migrant Farmers P/S. Ugbo Nike 13 Community Primary School Ezza Akpuoga 14 Community Primary School Neke Uno Ugwuogo Nike 15 Community Primary School Obinagu Ugwuomu Nike 16 Community Primary School Amokopo Nike 17 Community Primary School Agboazi Nike 18 Community Primary School Ako Nike 19 Community Primary School Akpuoga Nike 20 Community Primary School Amorji Nike 21 Community Primary School Ezza Nkwubor 23 Community Primary School I Ugwuogo Nike 24 Community Primary School Ibagwa Nike 25 Community Primary School II Amorji Nike 26 Community Primary School II Nkomoro Onuogba 27 Community Primary School III Akpuoga Nike 28 Community Primary School Nchatacha Nike 29 Community Primary School Neke Odenigbo 30 Community Primary School Nkpologwu Emene 31 Community Primary School Obinagu Amokpo Nike 32 Community Primary School Obinagu Nike 33 Community Primary School Ogbeke Nike 34 Community Primary School Onugba Nike 35 Community Primary School Nkomoro Onuogba 36 Hill-Side Primary School Agu-Abor ENUGU NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 37 Aria Road primary School 38 Army Children primary School II 39 Army Children Primary School III 40 Army Children School I 41 Artisan Quarters P/S. Asata 42 Asata Primary School Asata 43 Broadrick Street primary School 44 Carter Street Primary School 45 Cathedral Primary School Oguii

121

46 China Town primary School Asata 47 City Primary School 48 Coal Camp Primary School 49 Construction Primary School Asata 50 EkZulu Primary School I 51 Ekulu primary School II 52 Ekulu Primary School III 53 Ekulu Primary School IV 54 Hilltop Primary School II 55 Hillside primary School I 56 Hillside Primary School II 57 Independence layout P/S. II 58 Independence layout P/S. I 59 Iva Valley Primary School I 60 Iva Valley Primary School II 61 Iva Valley Primary School III 62 Market Road Primary School 63 Market Road Primary School III 64 Moore House Primary School Ogui 65 New Haven Primary School I 66 New Haven Primary School II 67 New Haven Primary School III 68 New Haven Primary School IV 69 O’Connor Street primary School I Asata 70 O’Connor Street primary School II Asata 71 Obinagu Road Primary School 72 Ogbete Primary School Coal Camp 73 Ogbete River Primary School 2 74 Ogbete River Primary School 1 75 Ogui Nike Primary School 1 76 Ogui Nike Primary School II ENUGU SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 77 Achara layout Primary School II 78 Achara layout Primary School IV 79 Achara layout Primary School I 80 Achara layout Primary School III 81 Abgani Road. Primary School I Uwani Enugu 82 Agbani Road Primary School II Uwani Enugu 83 Amechi Primary School Amechi 84 Army Children Primary School III Gariki 85 Army Children Primary School IV Awkunanaw 86 Army Children School I Awk 87 Army Childern School II Awka 88 Central School Akwuke 89 Central School Amechi Awkunanaw 90 Central School Ugwuaji Awkunanaw 91 Chiukwu Memorial Primary School Awk

122

92 Community Primary School Obeagu II 93 Community Central School Ogbeau Main 94 Community Primary School Ugwuaji Awkunanaw 95 Community Primary School I Amechi 96 Community Primary School II Amechi 97 Community Primary School Ndiagu Amechi 98 Community primary School Ogbeagu I Awk 99 Eke-Aku Model Primary School Ogbeagu 100 Idaw River Primary School 101 Idaw River Primary School II Enugu 102 Idaw River Primary School III Enugu 103 Idaw River Primary School IV Enugu 104 Igbariam Street Campus Two Maryland 105 Igbariam Street Primary School I 106 Igbariam Street Primary School II 107 Igbariam Street Primary School III 108 Niger Close Primary School II Uwani Enugu 109 Niger Close Primary School II Uwani 110 Nomadic Primary School 111 Nomadic Primary School Akwuke I 112 Robinson Street Primary School Uwani I 113 Robinson Street Primary School Uwani II 114 Uwani River Primary School Uwani Enugu 115 Zik Avenue primary School II Uwani Enugu 116 Zik Avenue primary School III 117 Zik Avenue primary School I Uwani Enugu 118 Zik Avenue primary School IV

IMO STATE IDEATO NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA 1 Adimoha Central School Arondizuogu 2 Afor Community Central School Isiokpo 3 Akeme-Ikpaokoil Community School Arondizuogu 4 Akeme Ohiauchi Community School Arondizuogu 5 Akeme Uno Community School Arondizuogu 6 Akokwa Central School 1 7 Akokwa Central School 2 8 Akokwa Central School 3 9 Akokwa Central School 4 10 Akokwa Central School 5 11 Akpulu Central School 1 12 Akpulu Central School 2 13 Akpulu Central School 3 14 Akunwannla Community School Arondizuogu 15 Akwu Central School Akokwa 16 Alandu Primary School Urualla

123

17 Alaogidi Primary School Osina 18 Alaube Ojukwu Primary School Osina 19 Amazu Uno Community School Arondizuogu 20 Aniche Obinetiti Community School Arondizuogu 21 Arondizuogu Central School 22 Arondizuogu Community School 1 23 Arondizuogu Community School 2 24 Arondizuogu Community School 3 25 Arondizuogu Community School 4 26 Arondizuogu Community School 5 27 Ejezie 1 Community School Arondizuogu 28 Ejezie 2 Community School Arondizuogu 29 Ekezeala Community School Akokwa 30 Ekeagwaura Primary School Urualla 31 Eluama Primary School Urualla 32 Ideato North Model Primary School Akokwa 33 Iheme Primary School Arondizuogu 34 Ndimoko Community School Arondizuogu 35 Ndiuche Community School 1 Arondizuogu 36 Ndiuche Community School 2 Arondizuogu 37 Ododoukwu Central School 1 38 Ododoukwu Central School 2 39 Ogbuonyeoma Primary School Arondizuogu MBAISE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA 40 Central School Akpodim 41 Central School Amumara 42 Central School Chokoneze 43 Central School Ezeagbogu 44 Central School Ezi-East 45 Central School Eziudo 46 Central School Ife 47 Central School Ihitte 48 Central School Itu 49 Central School Obizi 50 Central School Oboama 51 Central School Okofe 52 Central School Onicha 53 Central School Umunama 54 Community School Akpodim 55 Community School Amakam 56 Community School Amumara 57 Community School Chokoneze 58 Community School Ezegbogu 59 Community School Eziudo 60 Community School Ife 61 Community School Ihitte 62 Community School Itu

124

63 Community School Oboama 64 Community School Obokwu Obize 65 Community School Okpofe 66 Community School Omukwu 67 Community School Ubonukam 68 Community School Udo 69 Community School Umuawada 70 Community School Umuekwene 71 Group School Akpodim 72 Group School Eziudo 73 Group School Ihitte 74 Group School Obokwu 75 Group School Okpofe 76 Group School Onicha 77 Handicraft Center Oboama 78 Town School Amumara 79 Town School Eziudo 80 Town School Ife 81 Town School Ihitte 82 Town School Itu 83 Town School Obizi 84 Town School Omukwu 85 Town School Ubonukam 86 Town School Udo 87 Town School Umuevu Onicha 88 Town School Umuoma 89 Unity Primary School Ihitte ORLU WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA 90 Aboh Primary School Ozara 91 Agumin Central School Obiasoegbe 92 Amaofuo Primary School Amaofuo 93 Anidinma Primary School Umuabahu Mgbidi 94 Central School Aji 95 Central School Mgbidi 96 Central School Ubulu 97 Community Primary School Eleh 98 Community Primary School Eziama Ubulu 99 Community Primary School Ibiasoegbe 100 Community Primary School Ibiasoegbe 101 Community Primary School Ohakpu 102 Community Primary School Umuehi Mgbidi 103 Community Primary School Uzinaumu Mgbdi 104 Community Primary School Aji 105 Community Primary School Otulu 106 Development Primary School Ohakpu 107 Development Primary School Ugbele Magbidi 108 Eastern Nempi School Nempi

125

109 Ebisi Primary School Amaofuo 110 Hill Top Primary School Ibiasoegbe 111 Ihebigbo Primary School Umuonyeilem Ubulu 112 Nmbachu Primary School Ubulu 113 Mgbidi Town School Mgbidi 1 114 Mgbidi Town School Mgbidi 115 Newlayout Primary School 1 Mgbidi 116 Newlayout Primary School 2 Mgbidi 117 Nkwo Ugbele Primary School Nempi 118 Nobis Primary School Ubulu 119 Ozara Central School Ozara 120 Ozara Town School Ozara 121 Progressive Central School Otulu 122 Progressive School Ibiasoegbe 123 State Primary School Eleh 124 Udoma Primary School Ibiaasoegbe 125 Western Nempi School 126 Community Primary School Ihite 127 Central School Abajah