Quality secondary education: Principals, teachers and students’ understanding in Ethiopia

Abstract

This study attempted to find out the understanding of principals, teachers and students about quality of education in secondary school. Teachers believe that education quality in terms of input indicators with a total mean of (3.5) near to good. In terms of process indicators with a total mean value of (3.70) near to good. And in terms of output indicators with a total mean value of (3.4) that is fall to on average. As the result of this study indicated, students, teachers and principals perceived process factor of quality education especially student-centered factor below the average. In addition, the one way ANOVA result showed that there is a significant difference between the respondents of input and output factors. On the other hand, there is no significant difference between the respondents on process factors. As a whole they responded that input, process and out factor affect the quality of education.

Keywords:

• principals
• quality education
• secondary education
• students
• teachers
• understanding

1. Introduction

As many educators agreed the concept of quality education is argumentative and difficult to measure by using some pre-determined indicators across nations. For example, few professionals and most parents strongly associated quality education with the end academic outcomes of the education system, that is, students test score (Carlson, 2000). However, he said, “Quality education cannot be ensured and/or evaluated only on the basis of which students and schools have the highest scores on standardized exams since different schools are teaching very different types of students with different learning environments”. Therefore, states that educational quality standards normally related with the quality standard of educational inputs (teaching materials, qualified teachers, parent and community support and other facilities), processes (effective leadership, monitoring and evaluation, accountability, community participation, effective teaching-learning and student assessment) and outputs (student learning, societal and individual problem solving, better treatment of the physical and social environment).

Educational institutions like other organizations are established to serve specific purposes and to carry out designed mission. They provide resources, infrastructure, and necessary training to their staff to enable them to accomplish goals and objectives directed towards the achievement of the mission. Most public debates on the quality of education including concerns about a students’ level of achievements, the relevance of learning to the world of employment or the socio-cultural and political world occupied by the students frequently they often also include concerns about the condition of learning, such as supply of teachers or facilities. In light of this, researchers suggested that the concept of educational quality is complex and multi-dimensional (Grisay & Mahlck, 1991). They argued that the notion of quality should not be limited to students results alone but should also take in to account the factors, which influence the provision of teachers, buildings, equipment, and curriculum. The school might have fewer facilities than another but use them more efficiently.

Quality education at any level, anyway, is not a predetermined and fixed item that someone easily bought through a predetermined and fixed procedures and costs. Rather, it is an interaction effect among various compartments with delicate nature of its practice (Van Kemenade et al., 2008). Though quality in education is relative from one setting/nation/to another and not easy to measure and conceptualize, many educators agreed to measure and conceptualize it from the three major elements of an education system: Input, process and output (Bîrzea et al., 2005; Carlson, 2000). This means that the quality of any education system is highly determined with the quality of its inputs, processes and outputs. According to Chonjo (2018), not only in education but also in any kinds of enterprise the input determines the process, and the process determines the output and lastly the output in turn determines the quality of the next input. If there is garbage in, it mostly expected to get garbage out. Of course though it needs high-quality effort, there is possibility to polish the garbage in with systematic and well-organized processes and then to produce a better non-garbage out.

Accordingly, the general concept of quality of education is made up of three interrelated dimensions. According to Carlson (2000), these are the quality of human and material resources available for teaching (inputs), the quality of teaching practices (process), and the quality of results (outputs). Thus, studies, which set out to assess quality of education, need to treat these dimensions carefully.

Despite a growing consensus about the importance of quality, there is much less agreement on what the concept means in practice. Quality in education is relative and not easy to define and measure. Many educators agree that an adequate definition of quality of education must be related to students’ achievement (output) as its basis (Chonjo, 2018). They also include in the definition that the nature of educative experience should assist students to produce these out comes. Leadership styles that encourage employees’ commitment are essential to manage successfully and implement strategies, achieve their goals, gain competitive advantage and optimize human capital. As such, committed employees are more motivated and dedicated towards meeting and achieving organizational goals.

These three components (input, process and output) might have a cyclical nature in some enterprises including the education enterprises, which apply their outputs again as their inputs. In education, for instance, the output of the system (for example, university graduates), particularly teachers, will join the education system as an input. Therefore, if there are graduates (outputs) with better quality, the education system will have better quality teachers and other staffs as its inputs or the other way round. That is, if there are graduates (outputs) with poor quality, the education system again will have poor quality teachers and other staffs as an input. With this fashion, if the given education system is affected once in poor quality, it might be immersed in a continuous vicious circle of non-quality education system components (inputs, processes and outputs) unless otherwise the system struggles to make reforms to escape from (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. A basic system model on functioning of education (Scheerens, 2004)

1.1. Key issues

Here are a few important keys to writing effective image alt text: Describe the image, and be specific. Use both the image’s subject and context to guide you. Add context that relates to the topic of the page. Alt-text writing plays an important part in enhancing the accessibility of the content. Alt-texts are the invisible explanation of images or graphics, which are read out loud to the blind or differently-abled users on a screen reader. They must include the critical information that the image presents. It is vital for alt-texts to describe illustrations accurately to enable a better understanding among the people with disabilities. Explanatory alt-texts enhance the reading experience of the users.

The context-input-process-output (CIPO) model is a basic systems model of school functioning, which can be applied to several levels within education, namely system level, school level and classroom level. The model also functions as analytical framework through which the educational quality can be reviewed.

The problem, however, is the inability to identify components, how and why the failure lies and then finding appropriate amendments in order to assure quality in certain education system. Of course the outputs can be taken as the last indicators of the quality of the education system. In other words, outputs might be considered as standards that help to measure and level where the status of quality education in the system is. The quality levels of the outputs, normally manifested through students’ behavior (learning outcome), are the consequences of the quality levels of the other previous stages: Inputs and processes (Carlson, 2000). Therefore, educators and other concerned bodies have to work strongly on the quality of input and process aspects of education in order to get better outputs. Though this is the concrete truth, teachers’ main responsibility and focus are about the process-related matters of quality education, which is the important merging points between the input and the output components of quality education (Michaelowa, 2001).

The process is a matter of organizing and putting everything together in order to obtain sounding outputs. This quality measurement stage includes teachers’ teaching, students’ learning, principals and other officers’/experts/leading and monitoring, supervisors’ supervision, students’ performance assessment and parents’ involvement (Michaelowa, 2001). Therefore, it is possible to generalize that all the three stages or components of quality measurement are highly interrelated with a fashion that one is a necessary condition for the other.

Nowadays, the world is rapidly changing as a result of which the schools need suitable leadership styles to enhance teachers’ organizational commitment. This idea is supported by the argument of scholars that organizations need both transactional and transformational leadership (Hill, 1995, May, May). That means leaders or school principals use transactional and transformational leadership styles to lead the schools. Students learn best in a positive and nurturing environment established by the teachers. Students’ learning is both individually and socially constructed; it is influenced by cultural, familial, and social context. Differentiated instruction addresses student’s diverse abilities, cultures, languages, and cognitive skills (Hopkins, 2002).

Currently, Ethiopia has placed education at the center of its strategies for development and democratization, promoting equity and quality of educational provision and rapid expansion of educational opportunity previously underserved population (Union, 2004). Although the Ethiopian government has taken a number of measures particularly in improving quality of education by realizing the importance of quality education, still now there is a problem of quality of education. Supporting this Michaelowa (2001) states that despite the progress made so far in many countries there is a problem of assuring quality of education in different nations.

Similarly, as the researcher experience in teaching, department head and head of education office, there is a problem of quality of education in the study area. Due to this the researcher motivated to conduct a research on assessing the understanding of principals, teachers and students on quality of education in Bahir dar city Secondary schools.

Despite progress, it has become evidence over the past decade, the teachers, students and text book ratio, retention and other global educational quality indicators do not adequately capture daily education experience and outcomes (Benavot, 2004). While this seems obvious, policy makers and program designer show only recently began looking seriously beyond not input and output models of what constitutes quality of education, seeking to understand more about complex processes at the local level and the daily school experience as basic ingredients of quality of education (Hill, 1995, May, May; Nielsen & Cummings, 2014). In searching for ways to improve the quality of education most countries in process of their focus on understanding complex interaction at the school, classroom and community levels as the primary engines of quality of education.

One of its intentions of education is preparing an individual for the future (Fredriksson, 2004). In line with this concept the Ethiopian education and training policy aimed to exploit and educate wholesome citizens and ensure sustainable development of the people and the country. This was one of the rationales behind the transitional government of Ethiopia (TGE) that introduced the current education and training policy (Semela, 2011). Likewise, lack of education quality is one of the major problems of the education system of the nation in general. The above study Semela (2011) focused on the understanding of principals, teachers and students on quality education (based on input, process and output factors) separately. Therefore, this study tried to assess the understanding of principals, teachers, and students on the quality of secondary school education in Bahirdar city.

The purpose of the study was to explore how principals, teachers and students perceive the quality of education in secondary school. Specifically, the study is carried out to assess the perceptions of principals, teachers and students about the quality of secondary school education at Bahir dar city and to investigate whether there was statistical significant differences among the perceptions of principals, teachers and students to the input, process and output factors of quality of secondary school education of Bahir dar city or not. More specifically, this study attempted to find out principals, teachers and students’ understanding of quality education, by raising the following research questions:

1. What are the understanding of principals, teachers and students about the quality of secondary school education of Bahir dar city?

2. Are there statistical significant differences among the understanding of principals, teachers and students to the input, process and output factors of quality of secondary school education of Bahir dar city?

2. Materials and methods

The research design of the study was descriptive survey research. Research design serves as a blueprint for conducting a study. It describes the settings under which the study is to be conducted and how the data is to be generated, collected, and analyzed to answer the research questions (Ary et al., 2010; McMillan & Schumacher, 2013). This research design is appropriate to deal with the understanding of principals, teachers and students about quality of education

2.1. Sources of data

For this study, primary sources of data were employed. The primary sources were principals, teachers, and students of Bahir dar city secondary schools.

The sample for this study includes general secondary school and preparatory school principals (7 males), teachers (187 males and 36 females), and students (193 males and 208 females). The researcher used comprehensive sampling method to select general and preparatory school principals in Bahir dar city. On the other side, to select teachers and students the researcher used proportional and stratified random sampling technique to determine the number of teachers and students. Because the number of teachers and students was not equal in each school. Then, samples sizes, as indicated in Table 1, were principals and vice principals 7(100%), teachers 112 (50%), and 401 (60%) students.

Table 1. Samples of the study by school principals, teachers, and students

No	Name of School	Principals			Teachers			Students
		M	F	T	M	F	T	M	F	T
1.	Ghion	2	_	2	52	7	59	118	103	221
2.	Tana Hiq	2	_	2	19	4	23	37	34	71
3.	Fassilo	1	_	1	7	_	7	9	15	24
4.	Bahir-Dar Mesenado	1	_	1	10	2	12	18	25	43
5.	Dilchibo	1	_	1	10	1	11	14	28	42
	Total	7	_	7	98	14	112	193	208	401

Source: School record offices

2.2. Data gathering instruments

The main tool that the researcher used to collect data was the questionnaire. Appropriate questionnaire was prepared so as to collect data for descriptive survey. In order to gather the appropriate information about the status of quality education, questionnaire was set for teachers, principals and students. The rationale behind for using questionnaire is that it is relatively cost-effective and enables the researcher to gather data from large sample size, yield reliable information as the respondents reply secretly. The questionnaire was developed from review literature. To obtain reliable and valid data for the study, closed ended questionnaire for all principals, teachers and students were prepared. Moreover, semi-structured interview only for principals and observation were used as data gathering instrument. This is because using more than one data gathering instrument is advisable to assure the reliability of a given data.

2.3. Data analysis techniques

The major purpose of the study was to assess the understanding of principals, teachers and students on the quality of general and preparatory secondary schools. To this end, mainly quantitative data analysis was used. To analyze the collected data, different statistical techniques were used. Mean and standard deviation were used to determine the level of the understanding of the respondents on inputs, process, and output of quality education. Moreover, one-way ANOVA was used in order to see relative difference among means of different groups of study. The collected data were analyzed by SPSS version/20. The data gathered using semi-structured interviews and observation were analyzed by using descriptive narration and content category.

3. Results

3.1. Result of the input factors of education

The results in Table 2 and 3 indicate that the students, teachers, and principals believed that there were adequate teachers (in number) in the schools with mean scores of 3.68, 3.61, and 3.00, respectively. Moreover, the weighted mean indicates that availability of teachers in terms of numbers is similar to the mean score is 3.43. Adequacy of teachers (in terms of their number) as an input factor in the schools determines the quality of education delivered, because the more the number of teachers the best quality of education was delivered. The results also revealed that the students, teachers, and principals believed that there were enough text books comparing to the number of students within the schools, with means of 3.79, 3.81, and 3.57, respectively. Textbooks play a role in the quality of education as input factor, the more the text books are available quality education would be delivered.

Table 2. Reliability test results with Cronbach’s alpha

Variables	Cronbach alpha	No of items
Input factor	0.82	12
Process factor	0.84	12
Output factor	0.82	4

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of the understanding of principals, teachers, and students on the inputs factors of education

No	Item	Participants
		Students		Teachers		Principals		Overall Mean
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean
1	How do you evaluate the adequacy of teachers in terms of their number in your school?	3.68	0.95	3.61	0.87	3.00	.57	3.43
2	How do you evaluate the adequacy of textbooks compared to students’ number in your school?	3.79	.93	3.81	0.90	3.57	1.27	3.72
3	How do you evaluate adequacy of laboratory equipment and facilities in your school?	2.89	.68	2.66	0.63	2.57	.78	2.70
4	How do you evaluate the conduciveness of classrooms to teaching-learning process in your school?	4.03	.91	4.03	o.77	4.71	.75	4.25
5	How do you evaluate quality of most teachers in terms their subject matter knowledge?	3.79	.89	4.04	0.81	4.57	.53	4.13
6	How do you assess quality of the items in terms of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and skills?	2.85	1.65	2.88	0.60	2.71	.48	2.80
7	How do you evaluate the knowledge and skill of school managers in your school?	3.87	1.00	3.87	0.921	4.57	.53	4.10
8	How do you evaluate the students’ preparedness in terms of the elementary school performance to study at secondary school?	3.83	.92	3.43	0.999	3.14	1.34	3.46
9	How do you evaluate adequacy of the library space and number of reference materials in your school?	2.87	.48	2.9	0.35	2.57	.54	3.76
10	How do you evaluate the adequacy of budget to run quality education in your school?	3.70	1.07	3.29	1.01	3.29	1.25	3.43
11	How do you evaluate the relevance of curriculum to meet the learners’ need and the required profile for the level?	3.81	.90	3.57	0.95	3.57	.97	3.65
12	How do you evaluate the performance of pedagogical resource center in supporting the teaching learning process?	3.71	1.02	3.46	0.99	3.29	.75	3.49
	Weighted mean	3.10	.96	3.46	.92	3.40	.84	3.32

Students, teachers and principals responded with mean score values of 2.89, 2.66 and 2.57, respectively, about the availability of laboratory rooms and facilities, which are essential to enhance quality education. The reactions of the participants suggest that there are problems related to these facilities. This issue needs to be improved to ensure quality education especially in natural science fields.

Classrooms are also essential for quality education to be delivered. In this case, the mean values of students, teachers and principals on the issue of classrooms were 4.03, 4.03 and 4.71, respectively, suggesting availability of the input. Classrooms play a vital role in achieving quality education as input factor. Classrooms should be conducive to students’ learning, well ventilated, wide area, clean and constructed in buildings (Fredriksson, 2004).

Regarding the quality of most teachers in terms of their subject matter knowledge, students, teachers and principals believed that teachers were qualified in the study area, and has good knowledge in their subject matter with mean scores of 3.79, 4.04 and 4.57, respectively. The participants rated teachers’ qualification in terms of subject matter as high. Pedagogy and psychology are necessary equipment of teachers to enhance good teaching and learning process in the classrooms. To these points, students, teachers and principals responded with mean values of 2.85, 2.88 and 2.71, respectively. These results indicate that teachers have pedagogical knowledge and skill near to average. In general, quality of education in terms of pedagogical knowledge and skill of teachers was found to be around the midpoint of the scale, which indicates that teachers were not fully qualified pedagogically.

Regarding the knowledge and skill of school managers; students, teachers and principals rated the item with mean scores 3.87, 3.87 and 4.57, respectively. The overall mean value (4.10) shows the schools managers have good knowledge and skills of management. That is, the results indicate that qualified principals (school managers) were assigned in the sample schools, which could contribute significantly to the quality of education. Students’ preparedness (in terms of elementary school performance) to study at secondary level was another issue presented to the participants. In this regard students, teachers and principals responded with mean values of 3.83, 3.43 and 3.14, respectively, implying that the students were prepared to the secondary school education. Library facility is an important input for quality education. The students, teachers and, principals reported that library facility is limited in the schools as evidenced by their mean scores of 2.87, 2.90 and 2.57, respectively. That is, the sample schools were not well equipped with library facilities and this also difficult to enhance quality education in the study area.

Students, teachers and principals responded that the adequacy of budget to run quality education in their school, with mean score values of 3.70, 3.29, and 3.29, respectively. It falls well above the expected mean, which is 3, showing the adequacy of the budget in running the school functioning. The relevance of the curricula with regard to meet the learners’ need has been an issue of concern for the study, which was presented to the participants. Accordingly, students, teachers and principals believed that the curricula were considered as relevant in meeting the needs of the learners’ which was indicated by the mean scores of students, teachers, and principals to be 3.81 3.57. & 3.57, respectively.

Lastly, the respondents were asked to rate their understanding concerning the pedagogical resource center in supporting the teaching-learning process as input factor. The result in Table 3 indicated that, students, teachers and principals responded with the mean values of 3.71, 3.46 and 3.29, respectively, which suggests a higher level of their rating of the support rendered by the pedagogical centers of the schools.

One way ANOVA shows that there was significant difference among respondents (F = 3.36, p < 0.05). This result indicated that the respondents not tend to hold similar level of understanding on school input factors that affect the quality of education at school level. There were enough teachers and textbooks in number that compare with number of students in the study area. In addition to this there were adequate budget and conducive classrooms then these situations affect quality education positively. The respondents, interviewees and observation results on input factors showed that the absence of sufficient reference books and low pedagogical knowledge of teachers and lack of laboratory equipment (apparatus, chemicals) these also affect negatively. The input factor focuses on the qualities of an effective teacher, and the efforts and behavior expected from students, and the school curriculum clarity.

3.2. Result of the process factors of quality education

The results in Table 4 and 5 indicated that students, teachers, and principals respond to item addressing the effectiveness of the teaching learning process in their schools with mean values of 3.84, 3.84 and 3.29, respectively, implying that the teaching learning process in the sampled schools was considered to be effective. Regarding the essence of the teaching learning process to students’ success the participants reported that the teaching learning process was effective in the sense that students were found to be successful (Overall mean = 3.84). Moreover, the results revealed that teachers’ assessment in their schools contributed highly to students’ learning as indicated by above the midpoint of the scale.

Table 4. One—way ANOVA comparison of understanding of principals, teachers and students towards the input factors of quality in secondary education

		Sum of square	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Input	Between the groups	7.566	2	3.74	3.36	0.01
	Within the groups	432.693	507	0.923
	Total	440.253	509

Table 5. Mean and standard deviation of the understanding of principals, teachers and students on the process factors of quality education

No	Items	Position
		Students		Teacher		Principals		Over all
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean
13	How do you evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching learning process in your school?	3.84	0.88	3.84	.872	3.29	1.49	3.65
14	How do you evaluate the contribution of the teaching learning process in your school to students’ success?	3.80	0.983	3.72	.949	4.00	.81	3.84
15	How do you evaluate the contribution of teachers’ assessment to students’ learning in your school?	3.84	0.969	3.89	1.01	3.29	.95	3.67
16	How do you evaluate the use of students centered teaching method in your school?	2.80	0.65	2.95	.49	2.86	1.06	2.83
17	How do you evaluate the adequacy of teachers’ preparation for each lesson?	3.74	0.948	3.86	1.017	4.00	1.41	3.78
18	How do you evaluate the appropriateness of teachers’ feedback in your school?	3.89	0.92	3.71	.85	4.14	1.34	3.9
19	How do you evaluate the integration of co- curricular activities in your school?	3.60	1.02	3.58	1.08	4.00	1.13	3.72
20	How do you evaluate the participation of teachers’ in decision making in your school?	3.87	0.98	3.70	.97	3.43	0.81	3.66
21	How do you evaluate the contribution of the management process of your school students learning?	3.91	0.96	3.73	1.05	3.00	1.29	3.55
22	How effective is the school management in implementing school improvement program?	3.84	0.99	3.73	.88	3.57	0.53	3.71
23	How do you evaluate the effectiveness community participation in school affairs?	3.66	1.07	3.59	1.03	4.57	0.78	3.94
24	How do you evaluate the performance of the management in your school?	3.67	0.95	3.69	.96	3.57	0.78	3.64
	Weighted mean	3.70	0.95	3.65	1.o3	3.29	1.1	3.54

The respondents were asked concerning the implementation of student-centered teaching method in their schools. Students, teachers and principals rated its practicability to be 2.80, 2.95 and 2.86, respectively, which indicated that student-centered teaching learning process was below the expected average in its application in their schools. The respondents weighted average of 3.78 regarding the adequacy of teachers’ preparation for each lesson suggests teachers well-prepared daily lesson plan for their subject matter.

Regarding the appropriateness of teachers’ feedback to students’ performance, it was found that students, teachers, and principals rated the idea with mean values of 3.89, 3.71 and 4.14, respectively, where they believed that teachers’ feedback for student’s success was adequate. Assessing students on what they have learnt and providing regular feedback is necessary to improve students teaching (Hill, 1995, May, May). One of the activities of the schools in the teaching learning process is encouraging students to be involved in co-curricular activities. The results indicated that the schools integrate co-curricular activities with the curricular activities as evidenced by the students, teachers and school principals mean scores of 3.6, 3.58 and 4.00, respectively. Furthermore, the participants believed that teachers participate in decision making activities in the school, that there is satisfactory contribution of management process in their school to students learning, that the participation of the school management in implementing school improvement program are relatively high, and that the effectiveness of community participation in school affairs, as represented by above average mean scores. Besides the above results to performance of the management in their school was average.

As indicated in Table 6, the obtained results showed that there is not a significant difference among respondents. In addition, the one way-ANOVAs value also showed that there was no a significant difference among respondents because (F = 1.40, p < 0.05) suggesting perceptual variation among the three groups of participants regarding process factors that affect quality of education at school level.

Table 6. One way-ANOVA comparison of understanding of principals, teachers and students toward the process factors of quality in secondary education of Bahir Dar City

		Sum of square	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Input	Between the groups	7.566	2	3.74	3.36	0.01
	Within the groups	432.693	507	0.923
	Total	440.253	509

3.3. Results of the output factors of quality education

The descriptive analysis presented in Table 7 shows that the respondents claimed that academic performances of most students were satisfactory and promoted to the next grade and that maturity and development of secondary school leaders in their school was above the midpoint of the scale (mean of 3.42). Hatton (1994) builds on students’ prior social and cultural experiences control and making connections between homes and school environment to facilitate students’ learning outcome.

Table 7. Means and standard deviations of the understanding of principals, teachers and students on the output factors of quality education

	No	Position
		Students		Teachers		Principals		Over all
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean
25	How do you evaluate academic performance of students in your school?	3.67	0.98	3.7	0.93	3.43	0.53	3.61
26	How do you evaluate the overall maturity and development of secondary school life skill?	3.55	0.98	3.48	1.07	3.14	0.37	3.42
27	How do you evaluate the preparedness of the secondary school students of your school for the level of education?	3.78	0.96	3.34	1.12	3.14	0.90	3.46
28	How do you evaluate the attainment of students in your school compared to the required profiles behaviors set to the level?	3.74	0.86	3.27	1.07	3.31	1.13	3.44
	Weighted mean	3.68	0.95	3.43	1.o5	3.25	0.73	3.45

Regarding the preparedness of the secondary school students in their school for the next level of education, the respondents believed that they seem to be well above the expected mean (which is 3), as indicated by a weighted mean of 3.40, in their maturity and development.

Besides the above outcome results, the participants perceived that the attainment of students in their school compared to the required profiles (behaviors) set was higher than the overall mean (3.44). Thus, the results of the output factors in quality education in the studied schools are above the average. That is the academic performance, maturity level and preparedness to the next level are relatively high and beyond satisfactory.

*Feedback for the comment: Table 7 is continued from Table 5. That is why item number 25 of Table 7 is continued from item 24 of Table 5.

As indicated in table −8 above, the obtained results that the value of F (2,507, = 0.05) = 3.01 is less than F (5.7) exhibited that there is a significant difference among respondents. The result (Table 8) shows that the respondents also agreed on their schools output factors that affect quality of education at school level.

Table 8. One way-ANOVA comparison of understanding of principals, teachers, and students towards the outcome factors of quality in secondary schools Bahir dar city

	Source of variation	Sum of square	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Outcomes	Between the groups	17.0525	2	2.84	5.7	0.00
	Within the groups	488.621	507	0.951
	Total	499.673	509

P < 0.05

3.4. Classroom observation

Classroom observation tools and student and teacher questionnaires were used to create an “opportunity to read” index as detailed below: ● One person at the student’s home could read (student reported)● Pupil had reading textbook (observed) and pupil had other books at home (student reported)● Teacher gave homework (student reported)● Time spent reading per week at school (teacher-reported)● Teacher absence (teacher-reported)● Pupil absence (student-reported)● Literacy supports on the walls (e.g., posters, decorations, and/or pupils’ writing)

3.5. Interview questions

● What qualities do you have that would make you an effective teacher?● What are some of the current issues in education?● What are the qualities of great teachers?● How do you ensure equal opportunities in the classroom?● How will you meet the needs of the students in your class who are advanced or say they’re bored?

The interview result related to output factors that affect quality education in secondary schools related to academic performance of students’ promotion to the next level. The preparedness of the secondary school principal plays an important role. In line with these criteria all principals replied that the challenges of their schools were serious that students have low interest for their education, even during examination they copied each other to pass to the next level and most teachers give more marks in the case of continuous assessment without following scientific approach. Then, students have good result in the class but not in the national examination. There is a direct correlation between the quality of teaching and educational outcomes

Generally, the interview shows that the quality of secondary school education is behind the expected standards.

4. Discussion

This paper has compared the perceptions of students and teachers of their science lessons on the same metrics via two methods. First, the responses of the entire student and teacher sample are compared using Chi-square analysis. By doing so, we found statistically significant differences in the patterns of responses of teachers and students on most of the items in the SSSQ survey. For those with significant differences, most are interpreted as the teacher having a more positive view of that aspect of their classroom or of their teaching than do the students, although there are a number of items with less clear interpretations.

Overall, looking at the results of the second analysis, there also appears to be no statistically significant relationship between what an individual teacher perceives and what their matched students perceive. Regardless of any response by a teacher, the students’ responses hover very closely around a global mean. One might assume that this implies that it is students who provide the most realistic appraisal of what is occurring in their classroom, however, we cannot be sure as no external objective measure has been applied in order to identify what the perceptions actually should be. Also, whether or not these perceptions represent actual differences in classroom behaviors rather than a simple difference in perception would require an observational study.

Implications of the significant differences between student and teacher perceptions remain unclear. However, it is clear from the results in this study that 1) teachers overall perceive that which occurs in their classroom in a more positive light and 2) students in general seem to perceive their science classrooms similarly regardless of the perceptions of their teachers. This has a variety of impacts on the nature of school science education as well as teacher education and evaluation.

It is implied that there is little point in solely using the teachers to evaluate an educational approach or intervention. On quantitative measures, such as those presented in this paper, it seems that teachers will generally paint a much more positive picture than their students will. Hence, the final evaluation of any educational endeavor needs to be undertaken at the level of both the teachers and students. This also means that teachers are perhaps under the impression that their classrooms are running in a generally more positive fashion than they actually are, leading to a lack, or an underestimate, of any required remediation of in-class practices. This may be difficult for teachers who are already general pushed to the limits of their resources (Fitzgerald et al., 2019), but in reality it is probably more a function of the situational context that the teacher has to work within. It is true that is has been reported that student perceptions and perspectives are rarely brought into consideration (Osborne & Collins, 2000).

4.1. Major findings of the study

This question was explored by the interview participants via the following perspectives, as informed by prior research (e.g., Goe et al., 2008):

(a) What qualities do good teachers possess? (i.e., Inputs; representing what a teacher brings to a classroom);

(b) How do teachers enact quality teaching? (i.e., Processes; representing what a teacher does within the classroom); and

(c) What outcomes should quality teachers work towards? (i.e., Outcomes; representing what students gain from being in the classroom).

4.2. Result of the input factors of education

According to Dewey (1974), effective teaching and learning requires the use of appropriate methodologies and pedagogies to meet the demand of the current generation, new technologies, and the ever-changing educational environmental and the challenge is to find new way to stimulate and motivate the creative abilities of today’s generation who have a different set of orientations toward learning. The traditional “Chalk and talk” lecture approach with the students as the passive receivers of knowledge may not be suitable for today’s generation. The traditional lecture approach has its own merits, which increases critical thinking that educator employee a wide range of pedagogies and strategies to encourage students’ participation. Learning by “doing” is a theme that many educations have stressed. Research in teaching and learning increasingly talks about the message system of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (Bernstein, 1998).

4.3. Result of the process factors of quality education

Learner-centered learning is student participation in the learning and teaching process, where students themselves engage with and, to an extent, create their own learning experience. Asgedom, A. (2010) summarized main teacher factors under pinning quality education in secondary schools to maximize their effort on interacting with students; they must organize classroom effectively and prepare lesson in advance; they should be clear both in explaining the purpose of the lesson based on the actual curriculum materials.

4.4. Results of the output factors of quality education

Hatton (1994), building on students’ prior social and cultural experiences control and making connections between home and school environment to improve students’ learning outcome.

Regarding the preparedness of the secondary school teachers in their school for the next level of education, the respondents believed that they seem to be well above the expected mean (which is 3), as indicated by a weighted mean of 3.40, in their maturity and development. Thus, the results of the output factors in quality education in the studied schools are above the average. That is the academic performance, maturity level and preparedness of the next level are relatively high and beyond satisfactory.

5. Conclusion

The most general conclusion that can be taken from this paper is that it is the students, principals

Teachers, who are likely to provide the most realistic appraisal of what occurring in their classrooms. Decisions about what occurs in the classroom are usually undertaken by their teachers and outside “experts” rather than through listening to the student voice (Osborne & Collins, 2000). The most efficient way to get a good picture of multiple science classrooms within any limited educational context, such as a school or jurisdiction, is to talk to the teachers directly. It must be kept in mind though that the person asking the questions may be given a rosier picture (even if the picture is already dark) than what would be elicited from the students. The students, and their achievement and motivation, in any educational endeavor are, after all, the ultimate sources of evaluation in which teachers can only be at best a vague proxy.

1. The conclusion of the study focused on the results of the understanding of principals, teachers and students to the input, process and output factors of quality of secondary education. Input factors included mainly the human, material, finance, learning interactions, the competence of the students, the instructional leadership and commitment of management and teachers, availability of conducive working environment, among major factors the study gave attention to. Having the right inputs in the right quantity at the right time facilitates quality. If these inputs were not properly used in the way to enhance quality, then it will jeopardize the quality of education. On the other hand, regarding the process factors, the result indicated that there was healthy teaching–learning interaction in the classrooms resulting in the students’ positive discipline during teaching learning process.

6. Recommendations

• The seminars, debates and symposiums should be organized at state and national level to bring awareness

• Among teachers of all levels primary, secondary and tertiary so that education system can become dynamic and vibrant.

• School principals are required to develop positive perceptions of the teachers with the help of a blended content of quality education at secondary schools.

• School principals should be trained to express a high moral conduct, and high expectations to their teachers, so as to gain their conviction to work effectively.

• Students, teachers and principals perceived process factor that affect quality education. Then especially to improve student-centered approach teachers and students better work enter actively to enlarge their view.

• Schools should give attention to communicate with University to improve teachers teaching methodology by giving training and asking to borrow laboratory equipment, apparatus and chemicals.

• To improve this situation, schools, district, and regional education leaders should work to raise the output of education by creating awareness about the importance of quality education for students.

• Finally, hopefully, the research findings in this paper will encourage the teacher’s collaborative works is an essential resource to improve quality education. Therefore, this study is not intended to make and generalization about the main determinant of better quality in education, so any concerned and interested body can make use of this study as avenue for further studies and is suggested to contribute a lot.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.