Contribution of school administrators to instructional supervision is an important aspect in school management and administration. School administrators are responsible for the day-to –day management of schools on behalf of Schools’ Boards of Management (BOM). Further, they are the implementers of government educational policies at school levels. They are also the accounting and quality assurance and standards officers of schools under their management. This means that they oversee provision of quality education in schools in curriculum implementation. It is therefore imperative that school administrators go out of their ways to ensure that teachers teach and record work covered adequately to enhance students’ academic performance. Nevertheless, there are a few administrators who do not check and remark records of work covered in the belief that it is the responsibility of heads of departments (HODS) and that teachers are trained for this work and therefore, need no supervision.         

Administration according to Homby as cited in Omeke and Onah [1] is perceived as an activity done in order to plan, organize and successfully run an institution, a process or act of organizing the way something is done. It involved planning activities which aim at the fulfillment of the goals of a particular organization. Similarly, management is a process of making use of human and non-human resources to achieve organizational goals [2]. Management of secondary schools refers to a process of making use of the available resources towards the achievement of an educational goal. According to Numkanisorn [3], school management is the capacity of a school to maximize functions or the degree to which the school can perform functions when given fixed output. All these are attributed to school administrators for purposes of enhancing academic performance.  In particular the purpose of instructional supervision is to improve the quality of teaching through bettering skills of teachers which in turn enhance students’ academic achievement [4].

Contribution of school administrators was in this study measured in terms of the value added beyond performing their functional role of management, which is not an end in itself. Besides their mandated roles, school administrators’ contribution in this study focused on the efforts they put in checking teachers’ records of work covered as one way of contributing to instructional supervision in the enhancement of students’ academic performance. The indicators for their actions were rubber stamps, signatures, dates and relevant comments. School administrators’ contribution to education is one determinant of quality education since they are designated as internal quality assurance officers in schools [5]. Owing to the challenges that faced the Directorate of Inspection, principals were designated as Quality Assurance and Standards Officers (QASO) in schools being entrusted with the task of instructional supervision for teachers under them. The Government has established Quality Assurance and Standards’ Departments, provides trained teachers and funds Free Secondary Education (FSE) in all schools to attain quality education (Republic of Kenya, ROK, 2008). Despite all these measures in place Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub Counties have not been able to realize quality grades. Parents are not obtaining their returns to investments. Secondary schools need to meet the yearning aspirations of the society which include meeting the countries’ national goals of education such as provision of quality education to its citizenry [6]. Based on this, Townsend in Ajayi and Ekundayo [7] posits that the criterion for measuring quality should incorporate more than achievement in written examination. In support, Uline, Miller and Moran [8] posit that when quality is reduced to a single variable it is generally students’ achievement in average tests score levels (Booker, 2008), realized when principals do proper curriculum supervision.

In his study on assessment of principal’s supervisory roles for quality assurance in Ondo State Nigeria, Ayeni [9] recommended that principals should collaborate with stakeholders such as old students, development partners, Parents’ Teachers’ Associations (P.T.A) to provide adequate instructional materials and facilities for effective teaching, learning process in secondary schools. He concluded that the attainment of quality grades is determined by effective curriculum management especially what teachers are teaching and recording thereafter. Unlike this study, Ayeni [9] linked principals’ provision of adequate instructional materials to effective teaching learning process. The present study attempted to link administrators’ contribution to teaching learning process through checking records of work books, and how it enhances students’ academic performance. Principals in Nigeria do not involve subordinates in their daily routine administrative duties and as a result do a lot of things themselves. Secondary school performance in the context of Ajayi and Ekundayo [7] refers to the ability of a school to achieve its predetermined desired goals [2,10-12] such as ensuring teachers teach as per the schemes of work and record accordingly. In support, Tondeur, Umuhure, Rwigare and Habaragire [13] observe that good school management depends on the efforts of a number of agencies that are interlinked: the regional or provincial office, the district office, the local community and the school staff, all play a part in the daily operations of the school. The head teacher is the pivotal link in this network and ultimately plays the most crucial role in ensuring good performance. 

While studying the impact of head teachers’ supervision of teachers on students’ academic performance in Buret District, Too, Keter, and Kosgei [14] concluded that supervision had positive relationship with the school’s overall mean score in Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (K.C.S.E). The study recommended that head teachers should improve on teacher supervision if schools were to register improved performance in K.C.S.E. Through supervision the teachers are guided and influenced to strive towards desired educational goals. Whereas the focus of Too, et al. [14] study was on the impact of the head teachers’ supervision of teacher performance on students’ academic performance, the present study linked the contribution of school administrators to instructional supervision in so far as checking teachers’ records of work covered and whether it enhanced learners’ academic performance. At present, secondary schools’ principals are absolute Chief Executive Officers (C.E.Os) who have to manage people and be instructional leaders [15]. Further, he observes that instructional leadership occupies half a principal’s day, with less time for out of class activities. Though principals are human capital managers adept at recognizing, developing, rewarding and evaluating teachers, a lot more is needed for their professional development [16]. According to Mulkeen [17], supervision and monitoring of teachers is a central function of the school head. However, heads are absent from schools more than the teachers, frequently for official duties. 

Based on national examinations, performance in Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub Counties has been below the minimum university entry requirement of quality grades. From  year 2009 to 2013, out of 43705 candidates who sat for K.C.S.E., 13847 obtained mean grades C+ and above, with Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub-Counties contributing 3535 (26%) and 2104 (15%) candidates, while Hamisi and Sabatia Sub- Counties contributed 3913(28%) and 4275(31%) candidates respectively (Table 1). This means that the   quality     of education    was    low  and not good 

Table 1: Candidates who attained mean grades C+ and above, Vihiga County, 2009-2013

enough. Nationally, the percentages of candidates who scored mean grade C+ and above in K.C.S.E during years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were 27%, 29%, 29%, 28% and 31% respectively (ROK, 2015b).  Since the inception of 8.4.4 system of education in Kenya, candidates who score between grades A and C+ are normally considered for placement in public universities. The country’s minimum grade for accessing university education remains a C+ [18]. Whereas it is the responsibility of parents and communities to provide for physical facilities, payment of teachers’ salaries and learning materials, the contribution of school administrators to students’ academic performance in so far as checking teachers’ records of work covered has not been studied, a gap this study sought to fill.

Research Objective

The research objective was to establish the contribution of School Administrators to instructional supervision with focus on checking records of work covered in the enhancement of students’ academic performance in secondary schools in Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub – counties, Kenya.

Synthesis of literature on the Contribution of School Administrators to Instructional Supervision in the Enhancement of Students’ Academic Performance

Supervision was derived from the Latin word ‘supervidee’ meaning oversee Ofianomagbon, 2004 as cited in Okendu [19]. Overseeing the work of and duties of subordinates connotes the art of guiding, helping, coordinating and directing teachers and other instructional staff so that school programs are improved. Supervision helps a lot in improving academic performance of students since it aims at enhancing teaching and learning through proper guidance and planning and devising ways of improving teachers professionally.

Globally, it has been shown that one determinant of excellence in public schools is the leadership of the individual school principal [20]. Research on effective schools in the United States of America strongly supports the concept that the principal is a school’s success or failure [20]. Similarly, Ibukin as cited in both Ekundayo [6] and in Ajayi and Ekundayo [7] remarks that without leadership an organization can be best described as a scene of confusion and chaos. That is why he concludes that when leadership is effective there is progress, but when the leadership is defective the organization declines and decays. According to Tounder, et al. [13], principals are expected to be effective managers with focus on students’ achievement and facility development. The school head is the authority within the institution with the overall responsibility of its smooth running [21]. He is accountable to the higher authorities as well as to the community in relation to the use of resources [22]. School resources when used prudently will enhance learner performance. One role of the teaching staff is to prepare students and ensure their readiness for further studies and for the world of work as well as for life in a society [21]. Thus, their duties involve adequate preparation of schemes of work and weekly plans of work in respect of the subject taught [9] alongside engaging in adequate keeping of professional records of work covered books [21]. While these are being done it is expected that administrators check teachers’ records of work books to find out if the teacher is in sequence with the prepared schemes of work, and to show support for their work

Fisher as cited in Alimi and Akinifalarini [23] defines supervision as efforts of administrators directed to provide leadership to the teachers and other education works in the improvement of instruction. It involves the stimulation of professional growth and development of teachers and other educational objectives and materials of instruction. In Malaysia, supervision is done by the principal, the headmaster or the senior teacher empowered by the authority [24]. Administrators carry out supervision through examining teachers’ teaching plans and observing the process of teaching and learning in the classroom. In a study carried out in Central Perak District of Malasyia by Yunis et al. [24], on the school principal’s role in teaching and supervision in selected schools, it was found out that most principals were giving more attention to the teaching materials preparation rather than other supervision tasks namely checking records of work covered. The study used 140 teachers in 4 out of the 11 schools. The number of schools used was insufficient to provide adequate data and the respondents not varied as with present study which used sample sizes of 58 Principals, 58 Deputy Principals, 58 Director of Studies (DOS) and 58 Chairmen of BOMs in 58 secondary schools. Data collection procedure was not indicated implying that instruments may not have been validated. Like in this study, data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) such as descriptive statistics, inferential and Pearson correlation. While Yunus, et al. [24] linked principals’ role in supervision and teaching process, the study did not link their contribution to instructional supervision in so far as checking records of work covered to the enhancement of students’ academic performance, a knowledge gap this study hoped to fill.

Ayeni [9] while studying an assessment of principals’ supervisory roles for quality assurance in secondary schools in Ondo State Nigeria, found out that most principals accorded desired attention to: monitoring of teachers’ attendance, preparation of lesson notes and adequacies of dairies of work, while tasks such as the provision of instructional materials, reference books and feedback after checking records of work covered were least performed by many principals in secondary schools. The study used a population of 60 principals, 540 teachers, from 60 secondary schools and did not address the contribution of the administrators to instructional supervision with regard to checking teachers’ records of work, an area to be pursued in this study. In Kenya, K.C.S.E. is a valid measure of academic performance [25]. University assignment and admission depend on performance of K.C.S.E after teaching learning process, and as evidenced in records of work covered books. Supervision improves teaching and learning through deliberate emphasis on ways and means of instilling excellence in the quality of instruction. As supported by Too, et al. [14], supervision offers professional services to teachers for the purpose of interacting and influencing them so as to maintain, change and improve their service delivery to the students in order to enhance performance. Samoei [4] supports this by indicating that the primary purpose of supervision is to help support teachers to be able to handle instruction in the classroom. Regular and continuous supervision checks breaches and ensures that teachers conform to stipulated standards. A teacher who is not recording what he or she has taught is most likely not to have prepared schemes of work which give direction within a fixed time framework. Records of work covered are a form of feedback to the management for the teacher’s presence and actions within the classrooms.

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework that guided this study is according to Frankeal and Wallen, a mental or visual 

Independent Variable               

Figure 1: School Administrators’ Contribution to Students’ Academic Performance in secondary schools in Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub–Counties

Source: Researcher, 2014 (Based on Literature Review)

The research designs that were adopted in this study were descriptive survey and correlation. The study population was 4874 and consisted of 58 Principals, 58 Deputy Principals, 58 Director of Studies (DOS), 4640 Students, 58 Chairpersons of the Boards of Management (BOMs) and 2 Sub County Quality Assurance and Standards Officers (SCQASOs). Fisher’s formula was used to determine sample size of 354 students. Saturated sampling was used to obtain data from Principals, Deputy Principals, DOS, Chairpersons of BOMs, and Quality Assurance and Standards Officers. Questionnaires, Observation Checklists, Document Analysis Guides, and Interview Schedules were used to collect data. Face and content validity of research instruments were determined by experts in Educational Administration. Reliability of questionnaire was determined by piloting in 6 schools and a co-efficient of 0.7 at p-value of 0.05 was set. Quantitative data was analyzed using frequent counts, means, percentages and regression analysis. Quantitative data was analyzed for content in emergent themes and sub themes.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Demographic characteristics of school administrators in Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub Counties as reported by principals (n=52) were as follows.

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Secondary School Administrators

Source: Field Data, 2016

From Table 2 it can be observed that 30 (58%) of school administrators were male whereas 22 (42%) were female, with 28 (53 %) being aged above 50 years. This implies that the gender parity had not been realized in secondary school administration, with 28 (53%) retiring in the next 10 years. However, 23 (45%) of the administrators were aged between 41 – 50 years with only 1 (2%) aged below 40 years. Further, 33 (63%) administrators had teaching experience of between 21 – 30 years, implying that they had been in the teaching profession for some time to understand how schools run. Similarly, 10 (20%) administrators had a teaching experience of between 11 – 20 years, while 8 (16%) have a teaching experience of over 30 years meaning that they had matured in the profession. Concerning one’s experience as an administrator, 22 (43%) reported that they had between 5 to 9 years of experience in leadership, while 17 (31%) had between 10-15 years. Only 7 (14%) had an experience of between 2 – 4 years. Job experience is defined as length of experience in a given occupation (MacDaniel, Schmidt & Hunter, 1988). Studies have shown correlation between job experience and job performance to be positive. In the context of Rice (2010), experience matters. The impact of experience is strongest during the first few years of principals’ leadership during which everyone wants to commit more funds on school activities, after that marginal returns diminish. As concerns the number of lessons taught per week, 32 (63%) of the administrators reported that they taught over 12 lessons per week. This is in keeping with Teachers Service Commission (TSC) policy on curriculum instruction that ensures that school administrators are in touch with what goes on in the classroom. Further, 15 (28%) of the administrators indicated that they taught between 6 – 12 lessons a week, whereas 5 (10%) taught less than 6 lessons a week. In terms of the highest level of education attained, 38 (73%) of administrators had a bachelors’ degree while 13 (26%) and 1 (2%) had masters’ degree and a diploma respectively. In so far as attendance of management courses was concerned, 48 (92%) administrators had attended management courses. This implies that majority of school administrators were endowed with management skills gained from these training.

Table 2 is important to this study in that it gives credibility of respondents used. Characteristics such as age show maturity levels of administrators. Contribution rises with age to optimum levels and then starts to decline as age progresses. Gender shows that information was obtained from both male and female.

Table 3. Students’ Population

Source: Field Data, 2016

Gender of respondents indicates that leadership in schools is held by both male and females implying that both sexes are contributing to students’ academic performance. Contribution by female administrators is mainly channeled to girls’ schools, whereas contribution made by male administrators is mainly channeled to both mixed and boys’ schools. However, women remain strongly underrepresented in senior school headship [28]. Although there are changes in the number of women holding senior leadership positions in secondary schools, a man teacher has a greater chance of being a head than a woman [29]. Women are favored as heads in all girls’ schools. Becoming a woman head of a co-ed or boys’ schools was comparatively difficulty. With most of the school administrators being above 41 years, it is expected that they are mature and credible enough to give trusted responses that can be relied on. Those below 41 years still have expectations to perform better in life. With 68% of the administrators having a teaching experience of over 20 years, they understand what goes into filling records of work books in order to enhance learner performance. Therefore, with this knowledge they are bound to demand and ensure that teachers record what they have taught promptly.

It is the policy that the principal must teach a number of lessons. As noted over 90% of administrators teach between 6 – 12 lessons a week. This enables them prepare professional records for proper curriculum implementation and have a ‘feel’ of the conditions within classrooms. Head teachers should have manageable teaching loads so as to deal with paperwork in the offices [30]. Workloads for principals can have detrimental effects on the quality of teaching, the support they can offer to colleagues, and their health. Overloaded principals would be incapable of effectively carrying out their core work of administration [31]. Experience is what you gain when you are in the field [32]. Having been in the school system long enough both as teachers and leaders, administrators are capable of evaluating themselves better in terms of supervising staff under them. This experience enables them to understand the essence of providing the necessary adequate teaching learning resources, and in essence prepare records of work covered books. Work experience is related to job performance [33]. With 73% of the administrators having a bachelor’s degree, it is expected that they have a deeper understanding of what needs to be acquired in so far as curriculum teaching learning materials are concerned, how to interact with  and supervise teachers for the sake of enhancing students’ academic performance. Higher education plays an important lesson in enhancing personal achievement in one’s career. Higher college graduates contribute more than others to social wellbeing in terms of efficiency [34]. A knowledgeable, honest and satisfied teacher will command respect and produce hard working, efficient and honest citizens [35].

With knowledge acquired in school management, administrators are expected to engage in meaningful teacher supervision so as to enhance students’ academic performance. Kenya Educational Staff Institute (KESI) was a product of the Mungai Report of 1978. Currently KESI has been transformed into Kenya Educational Management Institute (KEMI) which offers In-service training to principals, deputy principals and heads of departments in schools, but does not prepare teachers aspiring to be principals. Courses are offered in 2 weeks (April, August and December) which seems to be too short [32].

School Data

The study was conducted in 52 secondary schools of which 29 were from Emuhaya Sub – County and 23 from Vihiga Sub – County. Out of these 37 were mixed day schools, 10 were girls’ schools and 5 were boys’ schools. The students’ population was as shown in Table 3.

From Table 3 it can be seen that 6 (12%) schools had students’ population of below 200 students, with another 6 (12%) having between 501 – 600, and another 6 (12%) having a student population of between 601-700. Only 12 (13%) schools had a student population ranging between 201–300, and another 10 (19%) schools had a population ranging between 301 – 400 students. Further, it can be noted that 9 (17%) schools had a population of between 401- 500 students, while 3(5%) schools had a student population of above 700.

School population cuts across board where school administrators are making contribution right from schools with low population to schools with large population. Therefore, the study gives realistic data on administrators’ contribution at various levels regardless of school population size. This then makes a true representation of contribution of principals in both Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub-Counties. With a high population the principal has a relatively high population of teaching staff to oversee while a low population means the opposite in terms of records of work covered books to be checked.

Students’ academic performance in this study was measured by the mean scores obtained by the students in the 52 secondary schools’ in K.C.S.E in the year 2016. In order to establish the contribution of Administrators to students’ academic performance, empirical KCSE 2016 results were computed. The results were as shown in Table 4.

From Table 4 it can be observed that only 4 (7.7%) schools obtained mean score of above 6.01(C Plain) implying that 48 schools had below average mean score. This raises concern given that School administrators are the custodians of school resources bestowed upon them to utilize in the enhancement of students’ academic performance. The outcome of stakeholders’ investment in education is evidenced in students’ academic performance. Poor results often cast aspersion on the kind of administration in place, hence the need for this study to find out the efforts of administrators’ contribution to checking of records of work covered books in enhancing students’ academic performance.

Table 4: Students’ academic performance in K.C.S.E, 2016

Source: Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub County Offices, 2017

Table 5: School Administrators’ Contribution to Checking Records of Work Covered.

Source: Field Data, 2017 (Appendix J)

Table 6: Administrators’ Checking and Approval of Records of Work Covered.

Source: Field Data, 2017

Table 7: Regression analysis of administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision in the enhancement of students’ academic performance (n=52)

Table 8: ANOVA of Administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision in the enhancement of students’ academic performance (n=52)

Research Question

What is the contribution of school administrators to instructional supervision of records of work covered in the enhancement of students’ academic performance? 

School administrators’ contributions to instructional supervision were rated in their schools based on document analysis guide. The indicators were the principals’ comments, dates signatures and rubber stamps on records of work covered books that supported supervision. The results were as shown in Table 5.

Interpretation of administrators’ contribution

• 1.00–1.44 : Very Low

• 1.45–2.44 : Low

• 2.45–3.44 : Moderate

• 3.45–4.44 : High

• 4.45–5.00 : Very High

From Table 5 it can be noted that 1(1.92%) school administrator contributed very little in checking records of work covered. Similarly, 22 (42%) administrators contributed little in checking these records, while 20 (38%) administrators’ contribution was moderate in doing the same task. Only 8 (15%) administrators’ contribution in checking records of work was high, while 1(1.92%) administrator’ contribution was very high. 

To confirm administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision, the researcher physically checked teachers filled records of work covered books in various subjects in 52 schools. The results are as shown in table 6.

From table 6 it can be seen that 32(62%) records of work books perused had HODs’ signatures, implying that subject heads had gone through them before forwarding them to the principals. Similarly, out of the 52 records of work books checked 46(88%) and 51(98%) had the principals’ signatures and rubber stamps respectively. Only 47(90%) records of work covered had the principals’ comments, while 34(65%) had been checked and rubber stamped every page to ensure completeness. 

To establish the contribution of school administrators to instructional supervision in the enhancement of students’ academic performance, contribution of administrators were regressed against students’ academic performance (Tables 4 & Table 5). The results were as shown in Table 7.

From Table 7 it can be noted that there was a weak, positive and not significant relationship between the administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision and students’ academic performance (r = .092, p > .05). This means that the administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision in enhancement of students’ academic performance was negligible because the p value was > 0.05.Similarly, it can also be noted that administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision accounted for 1.1% variation in students’ academic performance as signified by the co-efficient of Adjusted R² of 0.011.This co-efficient means that administrators’ activities of checking and approving records of work covered books reduced students’ academic performance instead of enhancing it. It was little or small and did not have any significant influence on students’ academic performance.

To further confirm whether principals’ instructional supervision was a significant predictor of students’ academic performance, ANOVA was computed. The results were as shown in Table 8.

• Dependent Variable: Students’ academic performance in KCSE 

• Predictors: Constant Instructional Supervision

From Table 8 it can be observed that principals’ instructional supervision was not a significant predictor of students’ academic performance (F (1, 50) = 0.425, p >0.05). Document analysis guide revealed that principals’ contribution in checking teachers’ filled records of work covered was moderate with a mean rating of 2.62. Since the administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision was not a significant predictor of students’ academic performance as signified by p value of .517, there was therefore no need to compute a linear regression to establish the actual influence of administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision in the enhancement of students’ academic performance [36]. Moreover, it is commonly believed that administrators’ contribution to supervision enhances students’ academic performance. However, their mere presence did not influence performance, since it was evidenced that principals were not helping teachers to improve students’ academic performance through advice.

Instruction in this study refers to teaching and learning. Supervision is an interaction between principals and teachers for the purpose of improving activities such filling records of work taught in the classroom. Instructional supervision requires that principals focus mainly on teachers who implement curriculum directly through instruction. The purpose of supervision is to help principals to support teachers to be able to handle instruction in the classroom. Instructional supervision approaches used in this study included administrators checking and approving filled records of work taught in various subjects. Added to this, administrators are expected to do classroom visitations to oversee teacher –student interaction, guide and help teachers in matters of curriculum delivery and hence syllabus coverage, ensure that teachers are provided with what they need for classroom instruction. Further, supervision entails the administrator checking inventories to understand what needs to be provided. Through checking teachers’ records, problems and weaknesses are identified and addressed [4]. Instructional supervision aids head teachers in coordinating, improving and maintaining high teaching and learning standards. Continuous instructional supervision ensures that teachers adhere to set norms and standards of behavior with regard to curriculum implementation. Any breaches can be noted easily and amendments made [37].

A record of work book is a teacher’s professional record that contains his or her report on what has been taught in class based on the schemes of work prepared. It is a kind of diary that shows that actual teaching learning process has taken place. It provides a link between what was taught by the previous teacher in case of a transfer. As lead educators school administrators are expected to check these records fortnightly to keep abreast with what the teacher is doing in the classroom. In this study records of work perused showed that administrators checked records of work books as evidenced through signatures and dates seen, rubber stamps, and appropriate comments. However, this was not adding any value to students’ academic performance, meaning that administrators needed to go beyond sitting in their offices and demanding for records of work done. Checking and approving records of work should be done alongside schemes of work prepared to confirm whether the teachers are following the syllabi as planned on the schemes. Teachers are held responsible for the quality of students’ work in their note books. The quality of students’ note books and assignments given and marked show the teachers’ delivery methods and the students’ assessment show where there has been improvement or not. The indicator of a teacher’s performance within the classroom is the record of work covered book. This record is useful to any incoming teacher upon the departure of the previous. Therefore, it is expected that records made are in synchrony with students’ note books. Where adequate supervision is done it enhances students’ academic performance. However, the outcome from the principals’ questionnaires showed that what is actually being done does not enhance performance as supported by the Adjusted R² of 0.011. This finding agrees with the preliminary survey indicated in Table 1 where Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub Counties contributed 26% and 15% candidates respectively with quality grades for University intake. Were supervision in Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub Counties effective then this could increase students’ academic performance culminating into high University students’ intake.

In contrast, a study by Murithi [38] on the role of the principals in promoting students’ academic performance in Tigania West Sub- County, Meru Kenya, reported that on average 70% of the school principals ensured that teachers filled records of works. While Murithi [38] study agreed that instructional supervision enhances students’ academic performance, the present study  found out that administrators’ contribution to students’ academic performance  in so far as checking teachers’ filled records of work covered was very weak and did not add much value     In Murithi’s [38] study physical checking of records of work filled was not done. The study relied on the opinions of the head teachers by asking them whether they checked the records of work books, although he agreed that the practice of checking the filled records of work had a positive impact on students’ performance. The study did not actually verify by checking these records of work to confirm what the head teachers’ were saying. Perhaps supervision of records of work was going on in schools in Tigania West Sub County. However, there is no significant data obtained through regression to support this finding. Apart from asking the administrators whether they checked records of work filled by the teachers, this study went further to physically check these records in various subjects in 52 schools. The findings confirmed that the administrators were doing it as confirmed by the presence of rubber stamps, dates and signatures. But this was not enough to contribute to students’ academic performance as confirmed by Adjusted R² of 0.011.

In contrast, Lydia and Nasongo [39] found out that 70% of the head teachers in high performing schools in Vihiga County checked records of work, as reported by the head teachers. The study did not actually verify by checking these records of work to confirm what the head teachers’ were saying. Apart from asking the administrators whether they checked teachers’ records of work books filled, this study went further to check these records in various subjects in 52 schools. The findings confirmed that the administrators did check the filled records of work as evidenced by presence of their signatures, rubber stamps, and appropriate comments. The administrators simply sat in their offices and went through the records of work, randomly stamping and signing page by page. However, this did not enhance students’ academic performance. What this means is that the administrators are merely engaging in arm chair exercises which is purely theoretical without any practical implications, making this supervision ineffective. Common comments in most of the records of work seen were: ‘Seen, Approved. Checked.’ This was inadequate and did not communicate much to the teacher concerned. It is done as a matter of routine, a kind of fortnightly ritual, done without verifying if teachers actually use these records to improve their teaching. What was being done was only theoretical without practical significance. Administrators’ contribution was ineffective as signified by some professional records missing signatures and meaningful comments. This explains why their contribution to students’ academic performance was not significant. Administrators need to take further actions such engaging in classroom visitation to find out if what is in the students’ note books in is in agreement with what is filled in the teachers records of work books so as to assist teachers to improve students ‘academic performance. 

Interviews with Directors of Studies (DOS) revealed that they are the ones who checked and signed filled records of work since they have this delegated responsibility, as evidenced by presence of HODS rubber stamps and signatures. DOS reported thus: “teachers hurriedly fill their records of work done upon being demanded by the administrators using lesson notes and not the schemes of work.  Some even used textbooks because their schemes of work had been endorsed and filed at the DOS’ office.” In most instances, it is the HODS who checked and approved these records. It is understood that HODS are the subject experts in their respective departments, and could be more knowledgeable than the administrators especially where the subject in question is not what the administrator teaches. The same assertion was repeated by the deputy principals who also indicated that the administrators had delegated this authority of checking and approving filled records of work books. Thus, deputy principals asserted: “Principals are ever busy attending meetings, and therefore we check, sign and rubber stamp teachers’ records of work books fortnightly on their behalf” said a deputy principal from one of the schools. Further, SCQASOs commented thus: “We expect principals to check teachers’ records of work randomly alongside students’ note books to find out if they are in tandem.”

According to Wehmeber as cited in Too, et al. [14] supervision is the act of being in charge and making sure that things are done correctly and safely. According to Eshiwani [40], supervision of teachers’ and students’ academic performance takes the dimension inspection of records of work covered. Whereas Eshiwani [40] insists that the principal has the responsibility of performing the above role, the study pointed out that some were not doing this. If all principals were doing it, the overall performance could increase. Principals’ active supervision as witnessed by participant observation schedule showed that principals got involved in this role only when the Teachers’ Service Commission (TSC) Teachers Performance Appraisal and Development (TPAD) Tool demanded it. It was witnessed that principals delegated the checking of records of work covered to their deputy principals and respective HODs. This is in disagreement with Hall [41] who says that principals’ presence can influence and improve the teaching learning process. Physical presence in the classroom where the action is and physical presence of their signatures and meaningful comments within the records of work books can motivate performance. Instruction as defined by Okendu [19] refers to the interaction between persons, materials, ideas, performance and objects of the contrived curricula. As observed by Okendu [19] in his study on the influence of instructional process and supervision on academic performance of secondary school students in Rivers State University, Nigeria, regular instructional supervision has a significant bearing on students’ academic performance.  Despite this, the present study confirmed otherwise.

Adequate supervision is supposed to result in good performance. Therefore, Administrators should go beyond checking and approving filled records of work books and instead step up classroom visitation to interact with teachers and learners to understand challenges faced in curriculum implementation. Efforts should be put in place to ensure that the prepared records of work are projections of prepared schemes of work. Kenya’s subsidiary legislation of 2015 page 1178 Article 72(h) states that one of the responsibilities of the head of institution shall include insuring, maintenance of teaching standards and professional records maintained by a teacher including records of work covered [42]. A study by Too, et al. [14] on the impact of head teachers’ supervision of teachers on students’ academic performance, revealed that supervision had a positive relationship with the school’s overall mean score in K.C.S.E. Further, they recommended that head teachers should improve on teacher supervision for schools to register improved performance in K.C.S.E. If head teachers performed this supervisory role there is bound to be remarkable efficiency in the work carried out by subordinates. On the contrary this study proved otherwise. School administrators in Emuhaya and Vihiga Sub – Counties are contributing weakly in so far instructional supervision is concerned as signified by Adjusted R² of 0.011. Administrators’ activities of demanding for and approving teachers’ filled records of work books is merely a routine exercise in readiness for arrival of Quality Assurance and Standards Officers (QASO) to inspect. The demand for these records is done when there is ‘wind’ of an impending visit by these officers [43-50]. 

Interview findings supported the finding (Table 7) as DOS asserted that they were the ones who checked and endorsed teachers’ subject records of work books, and that principals only rubber stamped and signed them. Document analysis supported this finding as it was noted that most books did not have signatures, rubber stamps and meaningful comments, meaning that principals were not checking these records. Where they assessed these records, their input was minimal such that teachers did not benefit much from this quality of supervision at all. Presence of mere signatures did not imply that the principals communicated to the teachers and advised them accordingly. This finding somewhat contradicts the findings of other researchers who found out that administrators’ contributions to instructional supervision enhances students’ academic performance. This is because these researchers did not quantify the contributions and therefore, their findings were rather not precise. In view of interview findings and document analysis guide, it was clear that principals contributed very little to students’ academic performance through instructional supervision as supported by the 1.1% variation in students’ academic performance [51].

The study concluded that school administrators’ contribution to instructional supervision in respect of checking records of work covered in the enhancement of students’ academic performance was not significant. Therefore, it did enhance students’ academic performance somewhat.

Recommendations

School Administrators should Actually check records of work covered and adhere to set norms and standards to    enhance students’ academic performance. Be trained to acquire conceptual, interpersonal and technical skills in supervision in order to enhance students’academic  performance.

1. Omeke, F.C. and Onah, K.A. "The influence of principal’s leadership style on secondary school teacher’s job satisfaction." Journal of Educational and Social Research vol. 29, no., 2012, Nsakka, Nigeria.

2. Fasasi, Y.A. "School record keeping: A strategy for management of Nigerian secondary educational institutions." Retrieved on 27 July 2012 from http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/publication/fasasi/schoolrecord.htm.

3. Numkanisorn, N.P. "An exploration of the impact of principal leadership behavior on school culture." Victoria, Australia: Australian Catholic University Research Services, 2005.

4. Samoei, C.J. "Instructional supervisory role of principals and its influence on students’ academic achievement in public schools in Nandi district, Nandi County, Kenya." ir.cuea.edu-thesis, 2014.

5. MOEST. Report on the task force on implementation of the primary education. Nairobi: Government Printer, 2004.

6. Ekundayo, H.T. "Principal’s leadership behavior as a determinant of effectiveness of secondary schools in Nigeria." European Journal of Educational Studies vol. 2, no. 1, 2010, Ozean Publication.

7. Ajayi, I.A. and Ekundayo, H.T. "Factors determining the effectiveness of secondary schools in Nigeria." Retrieved on 22 June 2012 from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Auth-13-0-000-11-Abst.pdf.

8. Uline, C.L. et al. "School effectiveness: The underlying discussions." Educational Administration Quarterly vol. 34, no. 4, 1998.

9. Ayeni, J.A. "An assessment of principals’ supervisory roles for quality assurance in secondary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria." World Journal of Education vol. 2, no. 1, 2011.

10. Okumbe, J. Educational management: Theory and practice. Nairobi: Nairobi University Press, 1999.

11. Sergiovanni, T.J. The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Trinity University San Antonio, Texas: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.

12. Obondo, A., Nandego, M. and Otiende, E. Managing our schools today: A practical guide on participatory school governance. Nairobi: PAMOJA with ANCEFA, 2005.

13. Tondeur, N. et al. School management training manual for secondary school managers. Kigali: MINEDUC, 2008.

14. Too, C. et al. "The impact of headteachers’ supervision of teachers on students’ academic performance." Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies vol. 3, no. 3, 2012, pp. 299–306.

15. Arne, D. "If our 95000 schools each had a great principal, this thing would take care of itself." Education Leadership: An Agenda for School Improvement, Washington D.C.: The Wallace Foundation, 2009.

16. Colvin, R.L. "The principal as a leader of leaders." Education Leadership: An Agenda for School Improvement, Washington D.C.: The Wallace Foundation, 2009.

17. Mulkeen, A. Teachers in Anglophone Africa: Issues in teacher supply, training and management. Washington D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2010.

18. Buhere, K. "Why textbooks matter in education." The Standard, Wednesday, 9 March 2016, Nairobi: The Standard Group Centre, p. 14.

19. Okendu, J.N. "The influence of instructional process and supervision on academic performance of secondary school students in Rivers State Nigeria." Academic Research International, 2012.

20. King, B.W. "Relationship of principal’s leadership behavior to academic achievement and school improvement efforts." Retrieved on 26 July 2012 from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/3836/1/um.umd.3681.pdf.

21. Bunwaree, V.K. School management manual for rectors of state secondary schools: Policies, procedures and guidelines on school management issues. School Management Division, Ministry of Education, Culture and Human Resources, 2009.

22. Onderi, H. and Makori, A. "Secondary school principals in Nyamira County in Kenya: Issues and challenges." Reading Gap International, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013, Bondo University College.

23. Alimi, S.O. and Akinifalarini, C.A. "Impact of selected modes of instructional supervision activities on students’ academic performance in senior secondary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria."

24. Yunus, N.K. et al. "The school principal’s roles in teaching supervision in selected schools in Perak, Malaysia." Asian Journal of Business Management Sciences, vol. 1, no. 2, 2011, pp. 50–55.

25. Thinguri, R. et al. "Students’ school attendance and academic performance in Njoro District, Kenya." Mount Kenya University Journal of Education, vol. 2, no. 5, May 2014.

26. Hunt, R.R. and Ellis, H.C. Fundamentals of cognitive psychology. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2004.

27. Creswell, J.W. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2nd edition, Sage Publications Inc., 2003.

28. Fuller, K. "Women strongly under-represented in secondary school head teacher roles, studies find out." The Independent, 2017.

29. Coleman, M. "Gender and headship in the 21st century." NCSL, 2005.

30. Sherrington, T. "Teachers’ workload: Tips on how to manage it and get a work-life balance." Retrieved on 9 November 2017 from http://www.theguardian.com/tea cher-network/teacher-blog/2013/apr/08/teacher-work load-tips-manage-work-life-balance.

31. Ingvarson, L. et al. Secondary school teacher workload study report. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 2005.

32. Nandwah, I. "Preparation and development of public secondary school principals in Kenya." International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 1, no. 9, 2011, Aga Khan University Institute of Education Development Tanzania.

33. Quinones, M. et al. "The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analysis review." Personnel Psychology, vol. 48, issue 4, 1995, pp. 887–910.

34. Baum, S. and Payer, K. "The benefits of higher education for individuals and society." Revised edition. Retrieved from www.collegeboard on 8 November 2017.

35. Shah, R. "Impact of higher education on earnings of women in the public sector educational institutions in Pakistan." International Business and Economics Journal, vol. 6, no. 11, 2007.

36. Brace, N. et al. SPSS for psychologists. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

37. Macharia, M.W. "School-based factors influencing students’ performance in K.C.S.E in public secondary schools in Lari District Kenya." University of Nairobi, Department of Educational Administration and Planning, 2012.

38. Murithi, D.M. "The role of the principals in promoting students’ academic performance in secondary schools in Tigania West Sub County, Meru County Kenya." Department of Educational Management, Policy and Curriculum Studies, 2015.

39. Lydia, M.L. and Nasongo, J.W. "Role of the headteacher in academic achievement of secondary schools in Vihiga District." Current Research Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, 2009, pp. 88–92.

40. Eshiwani, G. Education in Kenya since independence. Nairobi: EAEP, 1993.

41. Hall, P.A. "Voices from the field: The principal’s presence and supervision to improve teaching." Leadership for Learning SDL Letter, vol. 17, no. 2, 2005.

42. Ayeni, J.A. "Improving school-community partnership for sustainable quality assurance in secondary schools in Nigeria." International Journal of Research Studies in Education, vol. 1, no. 2, 2012, pp. 95–102.

43. Booker, I. "Measuring school effectiveness in Memphis." Mathematical Policy Research Inc., Washington D.C., 2008.

44. Commonwealth of Learning and the Southern African Development Community Ministries of Education. Financial management in schools. Retrieved on 20 July 2012 from http://peoplelearn.homestead.com/M.Ed.Home/Management/Financial-Management-In-Schools-pdf.

45. Fraenkel, J.R. and Wallen, N.E. How to design and evaluate research in education. San Francisco: The McGraw Hill Companies Inc., 2000.

46. McDaniel, M.A. et al. "Job experience correlates of job performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 73, no. 22, 1988, pp. 327–350.

47. Rice, J.K. "The impact of teacher experience: Examining the evidence and policy implications." CALDER, The Urban Institute Publisher, 2010.

48. ROK. A new dawn: Kenya Vision 2030 officially launched. Nairobi: Government Printer, 2008.

49. ROK. The Basic Education Act. Kenya Gazette Supplement Acts, Nairobi: Government Printer, 2013.

50. ROK. Teachers’ Service Commission Code of Regulation for Teachers. Kenya Gazette supplements no. 167, legal notice no. 196, Nairobi: Government Printer, 2015a.

51. ROK. Economic Survey 2015. Nairobi: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2015b.