Objectives of the Study:1. To find out whether significant differences existed in Secondary Schools’ Educational Management Practices’ Mean Scores in
a) Curricular Design and Planning and School Categories; b) Curricular Transaction and Evaluation and School Categories; c) Research, Development and Extension and School Categories; d) Infrastructure and Learning Resources and School Categories; e) Students’ Support and Progression and School Categories; f) School Management and Organization and School Categories. 2. To find out whether significant differences ex isted in Secondary Schools’Educational Management Practices’ Mean Scores in schools under Head Teachers exposed to Management Training and those who lacked such exposure by Kenya Education Staff Institute ( KESI) in a) Curricular Design and Planning b) Curricular Transaction and Evaluation c) Research, Development and Extension d) Infrastructure and Learning Resources e) Students’ Support and Progression f) School Management and Organization

The study has focused on 168 Secondary Schools in Machakos and Kitui districts that had candidate classes in twelfth grade (form four) for the previous three years before the research was conducted, that is, 2001 to 2003. A stratified random sample of 110 schools was drawn ( Private Schools-20, District Schools-45 and Provincial Schools-45) for the Study. Eighty-eight schools under Head Teachers exposed to management training by Kenya Education Staff Institute (KESI) and 22 schools under Head Teachers not exposed to training by the KESI were contacted for the purpose of the Study.

Self-Appraisal Report, validated through a pilot study, Teachers’ Service Commission Form “A” used to authenticate information obtained through Self-Appraisal Questionnaire, Observation of School Plant and Interaction with the students in counseling sessions were the tools & techniques used for the study.

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 11.5) has been suitably used to generate frequency tables, percentage scores, Mean Scores, Test Results and case summaries as per the rating norms of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council, with some modifications. One Way ANOVA and ‘t’ test were respectively used to analyze the data with respect to Objectives 1 and 2. Schools with Institutional score of >=55 were rated as satisfactory in management practices.

Findings of the Study: 1. There has been found a significant difference in Secondary Schools’ Educational Management Practices on all the six criteria based on school categories. Such differences were evident in pair wise comparison of group means among school categories. 2. Significant differences existed between Curricular Design and Planning, Curricular Transaction and Evaluation, Research, Development and Extension, Infrastructure and Learning Resources, Students’ Support and Progression, and School Management and Organization scores between schools under head teachers exposed to management training by the KESI and those who lacked such management training. 3. On the basis of ratings of the management practices on the six management tasks the order from highest to the lowest was found as 1) Student Support and Progression 2) Curriculum Transaction and Evaluation 3) School Organization and Management 4) Curriculum Design and Planning 5) Research, Development and Extension 6) Infrastructure and Learning Resources 4. None of the schools scored below 55% in overall rating. Two Schools (1.8%) scored 55-59, 15 schools (13.6%) scored 60-64 (C+), 34 schools scored (30.9%) scored 65-69 (C++), 21 schools ( 19.1%) scored from 70-74 (B), 26 schools (23.6%) scored 75-79 (B+), whereas, 12 schools (10.9%) scored 80-84 ( B++).

Recommendations: 􀂾 Only a few schools have been found offering special education for the gifted students and students with hearing and sight difficulties & physical challenges. The study recommends provision for special education in all the schools by having necessary infrastructure as well as adopting the right attitude towards the students. 􀂾 To nurture gifted students in areas of their giftedness, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Kenya) needs to appoint trained officers in Guidance and Counseling to coordinate and streamline counseling services from the school level to the national level. 􀂾 Head Teachers should play roles of being professional mentors as well as giving Departmental Heads the mandate to induct and guide their professional Colleagues. 􀂾 There should be formulation of comprehensive Quality Education Service Guidelines (QESG) for assessing the quality of educational programs on a regular basis by Ministry of Education. The assessment can adopt a Self- Appraisal Report approach, validation by a team of external assessors, preferably, practicing head teachers who are in charge of schools that are highly reputed for their high quality educational programs. It can serve as a basis for arriving at School Excellence Index (SEI). 􀂾 In-service training for Head Teachers should incorporate among other aspects school-based planning, financial management, dealing with giftedness among students, management of human resources, school community relations and labour legislation in relation to educational institutions. 􀂾 The Kenya Education Staff Institute and Universities that have Departments of Educational Administration, Planning and Curriculum Development should consider offering advanced courses in financial management and organizational behaviour and dynamics. This among other things should focus resource mobilization, entrepreneurial approaches to management of finances, Educational management, policy and legal aspects of Education.

Emerging Questions 1. How is it, that, the infrastructure and learning resources; and Research Development and Extension are relatively less emphasized in the selected schools? 2. How the secondary schools differing significantly in Educational Management Practices learn through the experiences of each other?3. On the bases of the prevailing Educational Management Practices in the Secondary Schools how to design a suitable program for the Principals? 4. What possibly could be the factors for School Excellence Index? 5. Are the six criteria considered for assessment comprehensive enough? 6. What should be the characteristics of autonomous, creative administrators?