School leadership challenges along Kenya’s Borabu-Sotik border

Abstract

This article is based on a qualitative multi case study carried out in southwestern Kenya along the border areas of Nyanza and Rift Valley province. The purpose of the research was to examine the challenges public secondary school principals faced in their leadership roles and suggest efforts they might adopt to minimize the effects of these challenges. Data was drawn from interviews with six secondary school principals, document analysis as well as participant observation. Findings indicated that principals of public secondary school are faced with challenges associated with overdependence, uncertainty and vulnerability.

Keywords

Borabu-Sotik ethnic violence leadership challenges overdependence school leadership uncertainty vulnerability

Introduction

Research findings from various countries and different school contexts have revealed the powerful impact of leadership in securing school development and have labeled the school principal as the key ingredient for success in schools (Bush and Oduro, 2006). Attributes of school leaders labeled as successful have been highlighted. For instance Day et al. (2001) and DiPaola and Walther-Thomas (2003) emphasized integrity, effectively managing external and internal environments, critical thinking and continuing professional development as the hallmarks of a successful leader. Day et al. (2000) noted successful leaders as being expert at managing competing tensions and dilemmas, to which Gurr et al. (2006) added they were also expert at working with and through others to improve schools. Adding to the same debate on successful leadership, Leithwood et al. (2006) and Leithwood and Riehl (2003) agree that a successful school leader is effective in setting direction, understanding and developing people, designing and managing communities, as well as managing the teaching and learning program.

From these constructions, success entails either a shift towards a desired end or sustenance of an already successful trajectory. This conclusion emanates largely from studies conducted on effective schools mainly located in the USA, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and UK (Leithwood et al., 2008).

However, the idea of labeling some principals as ‘successful’ is based on their perceived attainment of predetermined job performance benchmarks. Their successfulness is therefore manifested in their ability to prudently use available resources and translate them into a desired output. Successfulness thus is only attainable when necessary resources are available in the right quantities, varieties, sizes and supplies. A deficit in the resources might otherwise affect the successfulness of any school leader. Without collaborative structures or supportive structures in places, chances of the principal being successful dwindle. The presence or absence of supportive structures for the school leader to use is largely a function of context. According to (Hausman, Crow, & Sperry, 2000) context plays an important role in the uniqueness and dynamic quality of individual principals.

Schools in Challenging Circumstances

‘Literature on the effectiveness of schools attributes success to the assumption that principals and administrators exhibit a set of leadership characteristics deemed desirable for their role. the However, such a premise excludes the narratives of school leaders whose roles and functions can at best be described as challenging. Challenging due to the shortcomings of their educational context, for example lack of funding or resources, which in many respects thwarts their attempts to be perceived as ‘successful’ institutions and leaders in the traditional sense.

Constructions of Challenging Circumstances

While there is a great deal of contemporary interest in disadvantaged schools, few research studies have focused exclusively on them (Harris, 2002). The relatively few researchers engaged in school contexts, commonly referred to as ‘challenging circumstances’, has resulted in the lack of a universally accepted definition of what these challenging circumstances are. Consequently the few researchers who have ventured into such territories have had to develop their own operational definitions. Despite the disparity in these constructions, a common thread linking most constructions of challenging circumstances is the element of deficiency. Consequently, situations that denote ‘challenging circumstances’ conjure scenarios of school environments that present a sub optimum environment, characterized by severe lack of educational supportive structures/resources (Reynolds, 1995). However this lack of a universal definition has not hindered researchers’ desire to qualify the plight of principals operating in disadvantaged institutions.

According to Harris and Chapman (2002), the term ‘challenging circumstances’ has its roots in the United Kingdom and was used to refer to secondary schools that failed to attain passing grades in standardized tests; for example, those where 25 per cent or fewer of the pupils achieved five or more A–C grades at GCSE or equivalent examinations. Over time the scope of what ‘challenging circumstances’ entails has expanded to include schools where 35 per cent or more pupils require free school meals (Ofsted, 2002), or those that serve communities with high levels of social and economic deprivation. However, Harris and Chapman (2002) suggest that performance measures offer an insufficient indicator of whether a school is in a ‘challenging context’ and postulate that the use of Proxy indicators, socio-economic status, parental education and occupation, would offer a more accurate picture of the degree of challenge faced by such schools. Also, since proxy indicators differ in different contexts, across countries and within communities there is need for ‘context-specific’ or contextualizing circumstances of each school.

A number of researchers offer examples of context specific situations that could be a more accurate measure of what could be construed as challenging circumstances. For instance, O’Connor et al. (1999) state that schools suffering from high staff turnover, or loss of numbers requiring the intake of pupils excluded from other schools, can end up with a very challenging student population, characterized with extremely low entrance grades, trouble acquiring funding and poor staff/student rapport. Similarly a large migrant population, who may have low literacy levels or a history of marginalization or civil unrest; along with the visible deterioration of the school’s physical environment and dysfunctional relationships throughout the collegiate, could be seen as experiencing ‘challenging circumstances’.

According to Abaya (2011) ethnic violence in southwestern Kenya has resulted in a very mobile population that is characterized by many, if not all, of the above problems causing mistrust among students and educators. The perception of insecurity in areas orbiting the violence zones has discouraged economic development and led to many teachers migrating to safer areas. In many cases, relationships have deteriorated over time resulting in a culture of negativity within the school characterized by low expectations and a high degree of mistrust.

Chapman (2002c) has referred to such schools as ‘sick or ineffective’ and states that they are found on the margins of our educational system. In some literature they are also referred to as ineffective and failing schools (Barber, 1998; Reynolds, 1995) or schools placed in ‘special measures’ (Nicolaidou and Ainscow, 2005). Some authors have also used ‘schools in disadvantaged environments’ (West et al., 2005) or those located among the most vulnerable communities (Chapman, 2002a). However, the differences in the operational definitions notwithstanding the main task of those in leadership positions in areas that are faced with challenging circumstances is to cope with ‘unpredictability, conflict and dissent’ (Harris and Chapman, 2002).

With no universal definition of what exactly the term ‘challenging circumstances/context’ denotes, researchers have had the discretion of deciding from an array of situations and contexts what they deem ‘challenging circumstances’ for school leaders. For this research, ethnic violence and the accompanying insecurity within the learning environment are constructed as ‘challenging circumstances’ for the secondary school principals working along the Borabu-Sotik border.

Context of the study

In order to situate the research, it is important to understand its context. The study area is located in southwestern Kenya along the border zone of Rift Valley and Nyanza provinces. In literature this border region is commonly referred to ‘Sotik-Borabu’ border. Sotik is the southern tip of the Rift Valley Province while Borabu is on the eastern edge of Nyanza Province. Ethnic violence in this region has been a common feature since the 1800s (Morgan, 1963). Although many reasons have been forwarded as the cause for this violence, the main dispute seems related to land grievances. According to some narratives, the Kipsigis claim that the land comprising the Borabu district is their ancestral land (Mars Group, 2008), which they lost when the Europeans forcibly acquired it to establish the White Highlands. After independence, the White Highlands were offered for sale and the Abagusii became the greatest beneficiaries of the settlement schemes and currently occupy significant portions of the arable land in the area. For many years, the Kipsigis have launched several campaigns aimed at recovering what they perceive as their ancestral land (Ndegwa, 1997). They launched major attacks against the Abagusii in 1964, 1969, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007; but between these attacks fighting to a lesser extent continues to be a permanent feature due to frequent cattle rustling (Morgan, 1963).

Justification for the Study

Little or no research has been conducted in contexts such as ethnic violence and its effect on school leadership performance. There is a need for research into such contexts in order to fill an existing literature gap. Equally, irrespective of socioeconomic context or degree of disadvantage that a school exists in, improving against the odds (Gray, 2000a) requires a knowledge base.

Research Question

What leadership challenges do secondary school principals in southwestern Kenya along the Borabu-Sotik border face due to ethnic violence?

Literature Review

Literature on school principals in developing countries affirms that they face problems that differ drastically from their counterparts in developed countries (Kitavi and Van Der Westhuizen, 1997). However, literature on successful leadership based on research conducted in stable environments highlights what principals need to do, or qualities they need to have, to be successful.

Many studies conducted in the developed world suggest that economic, as well as racial, issues contribute to the challenges faced by school leaders. On the other hand, developing countries have a longer list of what they consider challenging circumstances and could include economic, climatic, social and sometimes political issues. Irrespective of how the school context is constructed, all researchers are in accord of the tremendous effect it has on principalship. While Stringfield and Ross (1997) identified low teacher commitment, poor leadership, difficult staff recruitment and retention as the main challenges faced by school leaders, Cawelti (1999), who conducted research among schoolchildren from low socio-economic circumstances, identified lack of commitment within the school communities. Both studies identified low standards of behavior as a serious challenge faced by principals in both contexts.

Based on the above various operational definitions, there is no universally acceptable definition of what ‘challenging circumstances’ are. Especially bearing in mind what may be ‘challenging’ in one environment may not be viewed as challenging in another considering there have been a wide array of situations labeled as challenging. These challenges as earlier stated could be economic, regional or related to human populations located in the most disadvantaged areas (West and Ingram, 2001). Collectively, these factors describe precisely those intransigent problems that beset schools facing challenging circumstances (West et al., 2005).

Analysis of studies conducted in the USA indicate that challenging contexts are those classified as high poverty schools (Herman et al., 1999) schools facing challenging circumstances (SFCC) (Harris and Chapman, 2002) or urban contexts (Louis and Miles, 1990). In the UK, such contexts include schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (Muijs et al., 2004), schools in urban and challenging contexts (Chapman, 2002b), schools in challenging contexts (Harris et al., 2006), schools facing challenging circumstances (Potter et al., 2002), schools in difficult and challenging contexts (Chapman and Harris, 2004), schools in former coal mines (Chapman & Harris, 2004) schools facing exceptionally challenging circumstances (Reynolds et al., 2006).

Most schools located in the above areas encounter a myriad of problems in simply getting to the starting line for improvement (Harris and Chapman, 2002; Stoll, 2002) and edging towards attaining titles and labels that denote them as successful schools and their principals as effective. According to (Clarke et al., 2005) such schools are characterized by high staff turnover, poor facilities, lack of resources, falling pupil numbers, geographical isolation – particularly of rural schools – low levels of formal qualifications in the local adult population, weak support from local educational authorities, and poor employment opportunities (Reynolds et al., 2001).

In the Kenyan Education system, there is no official definition of what challenging circumstances are. However, certain zones and regions in Kenya based on their geographical location are classified as ‘hardship areas’ (Aloo et al., 2011; Ariko and Simatwa, 2011; Kiradi, 2011) or ‘hard to reach areas’ (Ariko and Simatwa, 2011) and teachers working in such regions draw a hardship allowance. Such areas include those mainly located in arid and semi-arid areas of the country (Huho and Mugalavai, 2010), remote areas and those that are sites of ethnic violence. The study area is not classified as a hardship area but it is located in the epicenter of ethnic violence between two warring tribes.

In Kenya, school principals have to deal with students who cannot pay school fees and buy books; shortage of school equipment; shortage of physical facilities; lack of staff accommodation; lack of playgrounds; and students travelling long distances (Kitavi and Van Der Westhuizen, 1997) among other challenges. To make matters worse the principals receive little or no induction, and enjoy little support from the local or regional bureaucracy (Bush and Oduro, 2006). In other African countries, the situation is more or less the same. For instance, in Ghana, principals have to deal with parents who do not pay fees, because most of them are peasant farmers and fishermen whose sources of income are seasonal (Oduro and Macbeath, 2003) and child labor (Agezo and Christian, 2002). Studies conducted in several African countries draw the same conclusions; that serving as a principal is a demanding and a stressful role (Hausman, Crow, & Sperry, 2000)

For instance, in Zambia principals have to deal with a lack of textbooks, (Yulat, 1988); in Sudan, unqualified or under-qualified teachers (Harber and Davies, 1997); and in Rwanda, war and violence leading to school closures (Hammond, 2004).

Methods

This study focused on six secondary school principals, five male and one female deployed along the Borabu-Sotik border in southwestern Kenya. In order to be a participant, a principal had to, among other criteria, have been deployed in the study area since 2007, as this is when the most recent outbreak of severe ethnic violence occurred. Of the principals initially approached to participate in the study, only the six met this criterion. This being a qualitative study, the participants were selected purposefully because of their knowledge and experience of the challenges caused by ethnic violence (Patton, 2005).

Even though Boyd (2001) regards two to 10 participants or research subjects as sufficient to reach saturation, Wertz (1985) noted that between one and six participants may be sufficient when conducting phenomenological research. Using Pseudonyms to identify each principal, the following is a brief description of the participants, length of service and their perception of the effect of ethnic violence in their schools.

Participant 1 – ‘Paul’ had worked for a total of 15 years at the secondary school level, seven of which were as a principal. His first school was located in an area far from the violence zone. This was his second school. Before being appointed as principal, Paul had been deployed in other leadership positions including head of department and a deputy headmaster. According to Paul, the biggest challenge he encountered was attainment of the minimum student enrolment as required by the state before educational funds can be released. Participant 2– ‘Peter’ had worked in the public secondary schools system for a total number of 18 years. He had been a principal for 12 years at the current school. Paul expressed his frustration with many of the ‘parents who use the school as a holding place as they search for better schools’. He also talked of ‘nomadic’ students a term he explained referred to those students who moved from school to school each term while leaving behind huge fee arrears. This challenge was common to all the principals interviewed. Participant 3 -James’ had been in the school system for a record 26 years. James had held various leadership roles as a head of department and a deputy principal. The current school was his first deployment as a principal and had worked there for five years. According to James, because of the violence ‘you lose student’ creating a situation he described as ‘fluid’ in the sense that he had no assurance that the student enrolment would remain constant for any reasonable time. He also had had issues with trying to cope with an unprecedented inflow of victims of violence from other regions. Participant 4 – ‘Jacob’ had been a secondary school teacher in the public school system for 19 years and had been a principal for the previous ten years. Jacob noted that in the study area ‘you lose teachers as they seek refuge (in) safer areas’. Accordingly there was a shortage of teachers willing to work in such areas. A related problem that Jacob noted was that teachers spend a lot of time away from their duty stations in Nairobi ‘seeking transfers to schools of their choice’. Participant 5 – ‘Brianna’ was the only female participant in this research. She had worked for 15 years in the school system. She had been deployed as a principal for six years, all in her current school. Brianna, like all other principals interviewed, had experienced a high staff turnover in her school. She had also noted that parents in her school always withdraw their children from school to be used as cheap labor in the farms especially during the planting and harvesting seasons. Participant 6 – ‘John’ had been a teacher for 19 years and a principal for seven years. In his school, John talked of ‘many’ challenges he had faced such as parents not honoring their pledges to pay school fees in time, as well as general insecurity in the area. John talked of ‘not knowing’ when the violence would erupt and as a result most principals were in ‘limbo’ not knowing what to expect and when and, by extension of that, what to do ‘when it finally happens’.

Data Collection

Purposive sampling, considered by Welman and Kruger (1999) as the most important kind of non-probability sampling, was used to identify the six principals who were the primary participants. The principals making the list of participants were based on my judgment and the purpose of the research (Greig and Taylor, 1999; Schwandt, 1997), looking for those who ‘have had experiences relating to the phenomenon to be researched’ (Kruger, 1988: 150), in this case ethnic violence. To be a participant, one had to be deployed in a public secondary school in the study area, be registered by the Teachers Service Commission, and have worked for a minimum of three years as a principal in the study area. The ethnic violence in the region was last witnessed in 2007 and only those who were principals at that time were finally selected as participants. The researcher used in-depth unstructured and open-ended in-depth interviewing techniques (Creswell and Miller, 2000; Seidman, 1998) as the primary source of data collection. By using an in-depth interviewing approach, I aimed at understanding the ‘lived experience’ (Seidman, 1998) of the principals. The interviews were conducted individually and lasted approximately sixty to ninety minutes.

Observation that entailed the systematic noting and recording of events and behaviors during morning student assembly, one staff meeting and a PTA meeting in the school setting was also used as a method of data collection. I observed many parents seeking admission forms while others were filling transfers. A scrutiny of the teacher’s register indicated that there were a number of untrained teachers in all the schools. Data on student enrolment prior to and following the outbreak of violence in the area also showed a marked fluctuation of student numbers.

Data Analysis

As suggested by Miles and Huberman (1984), data analysis began as soon as the initial data were collected. Hycner’s (1999) five-step explicitation process was used in data analysis. By using the explicitation a description of personal experiences with ethnic violence was developed, which was further used to come up with a list of significant statements. These significant statements helped in developing themes which in turn enabled the researcher to write a textural description as well as a composite description, which presented the ‘essence’ of the ethnic violence as presented by the principals.

Findings

Findings from the study highlighted the very fact that school leadership along the violence prone border faced a myriad of challenges. Data analysis categorized these challenges into three common themes namely overdependence, uncertainty and vulnerability. These themes are discussed in detail below.

Overdependence on Parents

In carrying out their most important role as instructional leaders, principals confirmed the existence and the nature of a high level of dependence on their respective communities. A common comment ‘… minus the parents I really doubt whether we can go very far …’ echoed by all the principals denotes the strong control parents have over the schools, principals rely heavily on the parents for the provision of resources necessary for running the school.

The principals, while acknowledging the high level of dependence on the parents, explained that dependence was mainly in the provision and equipping of learners, security and financial resources. A government policy, requiring schools to maintain a minimum enrolment of at least 40 students per class in order to remain eligible for registration and monetary subsidies, is a contributing factor to this overdependence. The principals further explained that without an official government attendance policy in place, parents were at liberty to send their children to any school of their choice. According to Paul:

If parents denied you their children, you can never have a school. A school grows when the parents give you more children. In that case then I can say that parents do create schools and can also ‘kill’ schools by withholding their children or redirecting them to a different location.

Consequently, it became competitive for principals to make overtures to attract and retain students in order to meet the minimum enrolment requirement and also continue receiving graduate teachers posted and paid by the state.

In addition to the enrolment requirement, Free Education monies were pegged on the enrolment implying that schools with more students received more funding from the state. Peter said, ‘… the more students you have, the more money you get from the state …’ by allowing their children to attend a particular school, parents were in effect offering a financial lifeline to the principal. If they decided otherwise, and withdrew their children from a particular school, parents could easily bring a school to a standstill or even closure by failing to maintain the minimum enrolment, causing reduction in state funds and withdrawal of government paid teachers.

Related to the above, the principals also heavily depended on the parents to prepare the students for learning. This was explained at two levels. First, the parents bought uniforms and school supplies required by the learners. Secondly the parents motivated their children to go to school and ensured that they actually came to school. This is what James had to say:

They also counsel their children and prepare them before they come to school. You see, if students are encouraged from home by the parents and provided with books, writing materials Parents ensure their children are punctual in school and actually attend school when they are supposed to …

This idea of parents preparing and ensuring that their children attend school cannot be taken for granted because, along the border towns, many diversionary activities compete for the learners’ attention. Principals explained that during the market days, many students opted to go to the trading centers. Other students spent their time playing pool. Since principals could not follow the learners to some of these places, they relied on the parents to ensure that the learners made it to school daily. By buying school supplies, the parents reduced the possibility of learners engaging in economic activities under the pretext of … ‘raising money to buy school uniform …’

It also emerged that principals heavily depend on the parents for financial resources. The principals explained that they received some minimum amount of money from the Free Education kitty per child from the government. The principals further noted that the remittances from the government were sometimes irregular and at times the principals had to overlook these funds when planning. Only that portion of the fees made up of tuition is paid by the state and the remaining portion is passed on to parents as development fund and Miscellaneous Expenditures. This necessitates parents to supplement by making payments to schools in the form of tuition and various fees fixed and authorized by both BOGs and PTAs. Consequently principals depend on parents for financial support to cover part of the expenditures incurred by the school. All principals affirmed this financial dependence.

Principals also expressed that they had a high dependence on the parents in terms of support in initiating and implementing various development projects in their schools. It emerged that since there were warring groups and factions of parents, principals found it difficult to initiate and implement development projects as each group of parents played down projects if they were spearheaded by a rival tribe or clan. Most principals noted that they had initiated lunch programs in their schools whereby students were required to eat in the school at a fee. Where students had complained of insecurity in their homes, some principals had also initiated boarding facilities for students at a fee.

One common occurrence along the study area was the prevalence of violence. The likelihood of fighting erupting along the border coincided with harvesting seasons, initiation seasons or in December–January when schools were set to open. During such times there was a marked escalation in violence, involving mainly cattle rustling, as communities engaged to raise money for their needs, while the Maasai Morans engaged in it as a cultural maturing ritual. Principals were caught at the cross roads whenever this happened. Often times many boys actively participated in such activities and postponed attending school. Such boys became hardened by war and were therefore difficult to discipline at times. However, the principals noted that when war was imminent, parents armed themselves and formed a security ring around the school to ensure that school property was not damaged.

Uncertainty

During the interviews with the principals in the study area, it also emerged that another major leadership challenge was a high level of uncertainty. The principals explained that they faced a constant fluctuation in student enrolment. The phrases ‘… I am never sure of the enrolment being constant …’ and ‘… enrolment can fluctuate daily, weekly, or monthly, all year round …’ were common statements among all principals. The principals further explained that marked enrolment fluctuations were influenced by agricultural seasons, what semester it was, and the emergence or expected emergence of ethnic violence in the community. Short-term student fluctuations in enrolment were common during the season of extracurricular activities, such as sports and the annual school drama and music festivals. Schools that performed well in these activities experienced a swell in their numbers while those that performed poorly experienced a reduction in enrolment. Paul noted that ‘… students move to well performing schools to participate in these extracurricular events …’ was the reason for this phenomenon. During the planting and harvesting season, parents withdrew their children from schools to work in the farms. Peter said, ‘… parents withdraw and use their children as labor in the farms …’ during these crucial seasons for the farmers. A more permanent student reduction was attributed to cultural events in the communities. All principals confirmed that when for example young Maasai men became Morans by undergoing circumcision, enrolment reduced drastically. This is because once they become Morans, they are considered adults and no longer ‘… children to be going to school …’; Jakob stated, ‘… some students drop off school to prepare for the cultural ceremonies, and never return …’

It also emerged that when there was an impending attack or when, as in 2007, general elections were forthcoming the fluctuation in student numbers was more pronounced and long term. Brianna explained that she lost nearly a quarter of the student population because as she said, ‘due to the elections and the talk about impending attacks on people from certain communities, all these students left’. It emerged that whenever there was talk of an impending attack, there was a corresponding outflow of families moving to urban areas or to camps established inside police stations for safety reasons.

Lack of an official attendance policy also caused uncertainty. The principals explained that parents, due to lack of finances, had resorted to moving students from school to school in order to avoid paying tuition. The issue of students moving to avoid paying fees is a common occurrence in the schools along the border zone. This seasonal or short-term movement of students is common both at the end of the term and the beginning of a new term. All the secondary school principals had experienced student numbers swelling at the beginning of the term but dwindling as the end of the term approaches as more and more students moved on to another school in order to avoid paying school fees.

At another level this so called ‘student nomadism’ was evident in situations where parents brought their children to school at the beginning of the January–April school term to ‘chill out’ as the parents sought ‘better schools’. The genesis of this, as explained by the principals, was that after the terminal examination, Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE), students move to secondary school. The principals further explained that since there were two selection periods, students who missed admission to a secondary school of their choice during the first selection had to wait for the second intake. During this ‘waiting period’ parents took their children to local schools instead of staying at home. Consequently student enrolment also shifted as students moved in and out of different schools. John noted that he was shocked when at the beginning of the term a good number of his students did not report. On inquiring, ‘I was told that they had been admitted to better government schools in Kisii town’.

For the secondary school principals working along the Borabu-Sotik border zone of southwestern Kenya uncertainty was also attributed to unreliable cash flows into the schools. The principals noted that parents along the border did not highly regard education and therefore did not prioritize it when allocating their meager finances. Brianna noted, unlike communities along the border area, ‘… parents in the urban area put much of their resources in the education of their children …’. Paul observed that parents seemed ‘… to value agriculture more than education …’ and so when it came to prioritize, they ‘… buy farm inputs before they even think of paying tuition …’.

In summary, without an official attendance policy and the persistent failure of the parents to honor their financial obligations in a timely manner had exposed school principals along the sotik-borabu border to untold levels of uncertainty. The uncertainty was heightened by the principal’s inability to monitor or control events in the community, which then seeped into and affected their schools environments.

Vulnerability

Another leadership challenge that secondary school principals working along the Borabu-Sotik border zone faced was their vulnerability. During the interviews and discussions, principals noted that their inability to fulfill their educational goals as well as their leadership roles and consequently meet parental expectations sometimes in a timely manner had exposed them to high levels of vulnerability.

Principals observed that a huge portion of their catchment area was composed of the multi-national tea plantations. These multinational tea plantations attracted labor from all parts of the country. Therefore a good number of parents were not indigenous to the surrounding communities. As a result of the frequent violence and subsequent evictions, these parents were always on the move to safer areas. Consequently, they did not feel part of the community and therefore did not take part or pride in long-term development plans within the community. Principals said that these parents were always reluctant to actively participate in school development projects. These parents felt that ‘… developing a foreigner’s school is like developing a neighbor’s garden’. This view consequently reduced even further the financial base for the principals as these itinerant parents withheld their tuition monies. These parents uncertainty as to whether they would live in the community for long periods, played a predominant role in enhancing the detachment they exhibited towards development projects initiated by the principals in the schools along the unstable border zone.

According to the principals, most of the parents in their schools had rented huge acres of land and practiced large scale farming in the neighboring Transmara district, which is predominantly inhabited by the Maasai. Unfortunately, during episodes of violence, the Maasai’s were accused of turning the farms owned by the Abagusii into fodder for their animals to graze in therefore destroying the crops. In some situations, the principals noted that, ‘the Maasai go ahead and harvest from these farms’. The effect of this on the Abagusii was the destruction of their main source of income and with it the money available to the school.

Unlike in urban schools where parents work in offices and have stable income, parents along the border are mainly farmers and wholly depend on favorable weather conditions. If for instance the rains come late, the planting and harvesting season must change to accommodate them. Consequently, the principals then must change their respective school plans accordingly, especially that those that require financial commitments to be honoured. For those working as tea pickers in the tea estate, it meant that there was no tea to pick and so no jobs meaning people were laid off and the factories closed down. Indeed when such happens the principals noted that ‘we operate at a very low level because the money from the parents dries up’.

Some principals also noted that due to the violence many families and marriages broke down. As a result, teenage pregnancies were common and John noted that ‘in my school, nearly fifty per cent of the girls have children at home’. These teenage mothers presented a dilemma for the school leaders. The principals noted that they had no control over the conditions in the community that gave rise to the teenage pregnancies and that even after returning to school, these students did not pay enough attention to their education as they now had to deal with childcare issues and ended up not doing well in their studies. The principals helplessness was captured by the statement ‘most of these girls are too young to be mothers but what can I do? as voiced by Peter.

The constant violence and subsequent insecurity in the community drastically affected the availability and willingness of teachers to work in their respective schools. The principals confirmed that the violence had not only reduced the pool of teachers applying for vacancies in their schools but also reduced the total contact hours for their faculties as most teachers spent a good chunk of their time trying to secure transfers to schools located in safer places. In addition, because of the insecurity most teachers were residing in towns far from the border zone and commuted to school daily. These teachers sometimes failed to turn up for duty whenever there was a transport crisis, especially during the rainy seasons when the roads became impassable and sometimes bridges were washed away. The principals thought that ‘because of constant violence in this place, investors do not want to invest in good housing’. Principals were aware of this but expressed that they had no control over it as the teacher’s worries were legitimate.

Principals also expressed frustration that constant change in parental expectations was another cause of their vulnerability. As a result of the ethnic violence, schools had not only lost a good chunk of their students they also experienced an inflow of internal displaced persons (IDPs). these IDPS were mainly people who had moved and settled away from the study area but were then displaced from elsewhere and therefore forced to return. When these IDPs move into an area, they completely destabilized previous development plans and necessitate contingent measures to accommodate them. Unfortunately these newcomers were not permanent and no one knew how soon they would return to their land. For the principals, ‘… not knowing when IDPs would leave …’ made it extremely difficult to have long term plans, which in turn caused uncertainty. These IDPs would sometimes stay for months or years but sometimes, depending on the cause of the violence, it was short-lived. Unfortunately, plans made with these IDPs in mind would lead to colossal losses when investments and purchases made to cater for the IDPs end up unused.

The principals also attributed their vulnerability to politics; which was mainly experienced by members of the school board. The principals explained that they were required by law when constituting a school board to include a community representative, the local Member of Parliament’s representative, and the sponsor’s representative. The logic being that, as stakeholders, their interests were not only to be articulated but also propagated in board meetings and enshrined in the overall philosophy of each school. The principals explained that ‘… perceiving schools as serving certain individualized needs or interests …’ presented a challenge to their role performance. The principals further explained that their success was gauged in terms of how close or far they were from meeting these multiple, sometimes competing, interests. Such as measures that have nothing to do with and take focus away from the educational needs of students, which should be the main objective of the school and the principal. For instance, the local Member of Parliament had tried to influence and at times interfering with the tendering process for some schools. Principals were instructed to award projects to certain individuals in total disregard of the laid down procedures. If they refused, the Member of Parliament threatened to ‘… withhold bursary allocations from the Constituency Development Fund …’ or ‘… push for drastic reduction in the total allocations …’ Since principals needed these additional funding, they had no choice but to ‘… play to the whims of these political godfathers …’ Jakob said. The insistence by the community representative that ‘… only children from the local community are awarded bursaries …’ further curtailed the principal’s leadership role. Consequently, needy bright students were denied bursaries. In terms of employment opportunities, the principals also noted that they were required to hire locals. The assertion that, ‘… this is our schools and should therefore benefit us …’ by the community drastically reduced the labour pool for the principals and at times were forced to hire less qualified staff. James observed:

When parents insist that I seek their permission, it kind of undermines not only my authority but also my capability as the principal of the school. They are making a statement that they don’t trust me to make the right choices or decisions.

It also emerged that most schools in the study area were sponsored by churches. As a result, the principals were required to follow and adhere to the teachings of their sponsor and infuse these teachings in the daily routines of the schools. For instance, those working in catholic sponsored schools were required to observe catholic teachings and also catholic holidays. Those of the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), the Lutherans and the Pentecostal Assemblies of God (PAG) followed suit. In the end, a school was running on several and at times competing tracks. The fact that the church sponsor was the most important determinant in the selection of who is promoted to the leadership position further weakened the ability of the principal to reject or alter non-educational decrees and requests that did not enhance the attainment of educational objectives.

In summary, the environment in which the principals work in is characterized by high levels of dependence, uncertainty and vulnerability. These challenges are realities as confirmed from the stories and experiences by the principals. The changing parental expectations and the inability of the principals to foretell when the violence will erupt limit their planning range. The possibility of not meeting parental expectations was high, bearing in mind that the support and resources from the parents were not guaranteed.

Discussion of Findings

The purpose of this study was to map the leadership challenges faced by secondary school principals working in an area characterized by ethnic violence, school closures and sometimes death. The violence present in the region is attributed to historical injustices traced to the 1800s. The insecurity, violence and the population displacement rampant in the region have become threats to the smooth running of schools. The emergence of ethnization and subsequent ethnic violence has introduced new and untold challenges to the traditional authority of the secondary school principal (Abaya, 2011). Despite this challenging context along the border zone, the pressure on the principals to succeed is rife and theirs is still a complex headship (Njeri, 1996) and more demanding than ever (Ibrahim, 2011). The violence present in the study area has immensely contributed to the complexity of the principalship (Murphy and Louis, 1994; Roe and Drake, 1980). Findings confirmed that as a result of the ethnic violence prevalent along the Borabu-Sotik border, three contextual characteristics that tremendously impacted the effectiveness of secondary school principals had emerged in the study area namely; overdependence, vulnerability and uncertainty.

Schools being part of society cannot exist in a vacuum or in isolation (Deal and Peterson, 1999). And by extension therefore, schools have to maintain a close relationship with the parents they serve. Indeed research supports the assertion that active parental participation and close principal–community connections are touted as vital ingredients of modern day pedagogy (Casanova, 1996; Crowson, 1998). To highlight this necessary connection is the view that principals need resources to run their schools. These resources reside with the parents and consequently the principals have to depend on the parents for these resources. In view of this, dependence as a characteristic of such a relationship is a healthy feature. However, what makes the relationship in the study area unhealthy and an impediment to effective role performance by the secondary school principals is the extremely high degree of dependence that gave credence to the notion ‘… we cannot do without the parents …’ and ‘… without the parents we can’t have a school …’ held and as stated by the principals. The idea gleaned from such declarations, is that parents have too much control over the principals in the study area. Schools in which parents have too much control become a threat to independence of the principals (Greenfield, 1995).

The primary activity in schools is instruction. Effective instructional leadership in the success of any school is well documented (Edmonds, 1979; Leithwood et al., 2006; Leithwood and Riehl, 2003; Purkey and Smith, 1983). As instructional leaders, the principals’ effectiveness becomes affected by how well laid out their plans for the implementation of the schools’ vision are. Planning therefore becomes an integral part of a school leader (Fink and Brayman, 2006). Through planning, the principal initiates and implements visionary programs and projects aimed at the attainment of the overall educational objectives. However when future plans and school policies are based on unreliable, inaccurate, and unguaranteed data and information the possibility of failure becomes a reality. As results from the study indicated, the inability by the principals to control external conditions and events that heavily impact the learning environment exposed them to uncertainty. Further, the principals were not even sure nor could they completely safeguard their reactions to these external situations. Thus the possibility of failure in successful performance of their leadership roles was real. As open institutions, schools located in contested areas face constant uncertainty in the form of multiple and continuing threats to its stability and credibility (Johnson and Fauske, 2000). One of the major causes of such uncertainty is the ever changing and sometimes conflicting community demands and expectations on the school (Greenfield, 1995). As population changes in terms of composition and aggregate, demands and expectations also change. As a result principals are constantly changing/ trying to change/ need to change their plans to accommodate these changes. In addition, when the flow of resources from the community to the school is unreliable as was in the study area, it further exacerbates uncertainty for the school principal.

Another contextual characteristic of the study area presenting a challenge to effective role performance of the secondary school principals was a high level of vulnerability. Data gathered confirmed that high school principals working in the study area have to deal with insecurity issues and the uncertainty of not knowing when the next attack will occur. The principals have also to deal with the unstable and ever changing parental demands and expectations. Long term planning in such situations becomes ineffective as stability is only guaranteed over short periods of time. Fluctuating as well as insufficient resources threaten the principal’s credibility (Wildy and Clarke, 2008) and ability to be fully in charge of the learning process. Faced with uncertainty, inconsistency and the concomitant flow of resources as well as the instability caused by ethnic violence along Borabu-Sotik border makes both the school and its principal vulnerable to manipulation, unreasonable parental demands and possibly eventual loss of credibility. With this vulnerability comes insecurity in their positions as they are perceived as inefficient educational leaders. When school principals, such as those in the study area, are perceived to be incompetent by the communities they serve, regardless of the causes of the vulnerability, their legitimacy and position are jeopardized.

And even though stage theorists suggest that concerns for survival diminish in intensity as the principal becomes more socialized to the role (Parkay et al., 1992) the concern for survival, remains intense even among principals with substantial experience working in unstable environments.

Conclusion

The school principal is the key ingredient for success in a school (Kitavi and Van Der Westhuizen, 1997), setting the tone for the school and assuming responsibility for instruction (Edmonds, 1979; Weber, 1971). No doubt then a good principal is the cornerstone of good schools (M. DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Unfortunately, research also informs that in certain regions, some school principals are ill-suited (Bush and Saltarelli, 2000; Bush and Oduro, 2006; Kitavi and Van Der Westhuizen, 1997) and poorly equipped or unable to effectively filter what gets through the school boundaries and are therefore constantly faced with personal stress and system failure, with serious ethical and leadership implications (Bush and Heystek, 2006). The degree of failure and consequent challenge to their credibility as effective school leaders is due to features and events in the wider social context that either depress and neutralize or enhance their leadership practices (Leithwood, 2005). This is in line with the concept that leadership may be hindered or helped by circumstances confronting the leader (Bryman et al., 1996). However, just because principals are unable to control events occurring in the communities they serve that might adversely affect the school, it does not in any way lower the bar in terms of their performance. They are still expected to produce exemplary work and meet their annual performance targets.

School leaders cannot give up on their students and deviate from their calling just because their credibility is at stake. For the principals working in unstable environments, there is an urgent need to be innovative and develop strategies that can reduce the negative effects of the disturbances and instabilities in the community. For instance where there is overdependence, the principals need to diversify their resource suppliers so that when one source fails, the flow is not affected and the fluctuation is minimal. As a result, the principals will be much more in control of the learning process and consequently their level of vulnerability will be drastically reduced. Principals who are in control of the learning environment in their schools are more likely to experiment with new innovative programs that are tailor made to their specific environments. Such principals are more likely to become effective in their role performance and their schools attain the coveted label ‘successful schools’.

References

Abaya

(2011) How Secondary School Principals Build Trust in Kenyan Secondary Schools. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.

Agezo

Christian

(2002) The impact of economic environment on primary school attendance: a case study of Elmina in the Central Region of Ghana. Journal of Educational Management 4(1): 137–143.

Aloo

Simatwa

Nyang’ori

(2011) Impact of the school based teacher recruitment policy on the distribution and retention of teachers in public secondary schools in Kenya: a case study of Nyando District. Educational Research (ISSN: 2141–5161) 2(3): 1006–1020.

Anderson

G.J

(1998) Fundamentals of Educational Research: 2nd Edn. London: Falmer Press

Ariko

Simatwa

(2011) Factors influencing secondary school teacher transfer requests in Suba District, Kenya: analytical assessment. Educational Research (ISSN: 2141–5161) 2(7): 1270–1280.

Barber

(1998) ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: imagining an end to failure in urban education’ in Stoll

Myers

, (eds.) No Quick Fixes: perspectives on schools in difficulty, London, Falmer Press, 17–33.

Bryman

Gillingwater

McGuinness

(1996) Leadership and organizational transformation. International Journal of Public Administration 19(6): 849–872.

Bush

Saltarelli

(2000) The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre.

Bush

Heystek

(2006) School leadership and management in South Africa: principals’ perceptions. International Studies in Educational Administration 34(3): 63–76.

10.

Bush

Oduro

(2006) New principals in Africa: preparation, induction and practice. Journal of Educational Administration 44(4): 359–375.

11.

Boyd

(2001) Phenomenology the method. In: Munhall

(ed) Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective, 3rd edn. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett,.93–122.

12.

Casanova

(1996) Parent involvement: a call for prudence. Educational Researcher 25(8): 30–32, 46.

13.

Cawelti

(1999). Improving Achievement. American School Board Journal 186(7): 34–37.

14.

Chapman

(2002a) Ofsted and School Improvement: teachers’ perceptions of the inspection process in schools facing challenging circumstances. School Leadership & Management 22(3): 257–272.

15.

Chapman

(2002b) Schools in Urban and Challenging Contexts. School Leadership & Management 22(3): 239–241.

16.

Chapman

(2002c) Schools in Urban and Challenging Contexts. School Leadership & Management, 22(3), 239–241.

17.

Chapman

Harris

(2004) Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: strategies for improvement. Educational Research 46(3): 219–228. (doi: 10.1080/0013188042000277296)

18.

Clarke

Reynolds

Harris

(2005) Challenging the challenged: developing an improvement programme for schools facing extremely challenging circumstances, in Clarke

(ed) Improving Schools in Difficulty. London: Continuum.

19.

Creswell

Miller

(2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice 39(3): 124–30.

20.

Crowson

(1998) Community empowerment and the public schools: can educational professionalism survive? Peabody Journal of Education 73(1): 56–68.

21.

Day

Harris

Hadfield

(2001) Grounding knowledge of schools in stakeholder realities: A multi-perspective study of effective school leaders. School Leadership & Management 21(1): 19–42.

22.

Day

Harris

Hadfield

Tolley

(2000) Leading schools in times of change: McGraw-Hill International.

23.

Deal

Peterson

(1999) Shaping School Culture: The Heart of Leadership. Washington, DC: ERIC.

24.

DiPaola

Tschannen-Moran

(2003) The principalship at a crossroads: a study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin 87(634): 43–65.

25.

DiPaola

Walther-Thomas

(2003) ‘Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders’ (COPSSE Document No. IB-7E). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

26.

Edmonds

(1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37(1): 15–24.

27.

Elmore

(2000) Building a new structure for school leadership: Albert Shanker Institute Washington, DC.

28.

Fink

Brayman

(2006) School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(1): 62–89.

29.

Gray

(2000a) Causing concern but improving: a review of schools’ experiences. London: DfEE London.

30.

Greig

Taylor

(1999) Doing Research With Children. London: SAGE.

31.

Greenfield

(1995) Toward a theory of school administration: the centrality of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 31(1): 61–85.

32.

Gurr

Drysdale

Mulford

(2006) Models of successful principal leadership. School Leadership and Management 26(4): 371–395. (doi: 10.1080/13632430600886921).

33.

Hammond

(2004) Holocaust in Rwanda, Frontline Fellowship, Cape Town. Available at http://frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_djcatalog2&view=item&id=19:hir&cid=1:resources-cat&Itemid=175 (accessed, 20 August 2014).

34.

Harber

Davies

(1997) School Management and Effectiveness in Developing Countries. London: Cassell/Continuum Press.

35.

Harris

(2002) Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School Leadership and Management 22(1): 15–26.

36.

Harris

Chapman

(2002) Leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances. Management in Education 16(1): 10–13.

37.

Harris

Chapman

Muijs

Russ

Stoll

(2006) Improving schools in challenging contexts: exploring the possible. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(4): 409–424.

38.

Hausman

Crow

Sperry

(2000). Portrait of the “ideal principal”: Context and self. NASSP Bulletin, 84(617), 5–14.

39.

Herman

Aladjem

McMahon

Masem

Mulligan

O’Malley

Woodruff

(1999) An Educators’ Guide to School Wide Reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

40.

Huho

Mugalavai

(2010) The Effects of droughts on food security in Kenya. The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses 2(2): 61–72.

41.

Hycner

(1999) Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. In: Bryman

Burgess

(eds) Qualitative Research (Vol. 3). London: SAGE, 143–164.

42.

Ibrahim

(2011) Preparation and development of public secondary schools principals in Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1(9): 291–301.

43.

Johnson

Fauske

(2000). Principals and the Political Economy of Environmental Enactment. Educational Administration Quarterly 2000; 36; 159, 36, 159

44.

Susu

(2011). Factors contributing to primary schools’ teacher turnover in Sigor Division, Bomet District, Kenya. Masters Thesis, Kenyatta University.

45.

Kitavi

Van Der Westhuizen

(1997) Problems facing beginning principals in developing countries: a study of beginning principals in Kenya. International journal of educational development 17(3): 251–263.

46.

Kruger

(1988) An Introduction to Phenomenological Psychology, 2nd edn. Cape Town: Juta.

47.

Leithwood

Day

Sammons

Hopkins

Harris

(2006). Successful school leadership. What it is and how influences pupil learning. London: Department of Education and Skills.

48.

Leithwood

(2005). Understanding successful principal leadership: progress on a broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 619–629.

49.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management 28(1): 27–42 (doi: 10.1080/13632430701800060).

50.

Leithwood

Riehl

(2003) What We Know About Successful School Leadership. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

51.

Louis

Miles

(1990) Improving The Urban High School: What Works and Why. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

52.

Mars Group (2008) Commission of Inquiry into the Post Election Violence: Internally Displaced Persons. Nairobi: Mars Group Org.

53.

Miles

Huberman

(1984) Qualitative Data Analysis, A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

54.

Morgan

(1963) The ‘white highlands’ of Kenya. The Geographical Journal 129(2): 140–155.

55.

Muijs

Harris

Chapman

Stoll

Russ

(2004) Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas – a review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 15(2): 149–175 (doi: 10.1076/sesi.15.2.149.30433).

56.

Murphy

Louis

(1994) Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from Transformational Reform Efforts. Washington, DC: ERIC.

57.

Ndegwa

(1997) Citizenship and ethnicity: An examination of two transition moments in Kenyan politics. American Political Science Review, 91(03), 599–616.

58.

Nicolaidou

Ainscow

(2005) Understanding failing schools: perspectives from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 16(3): 229–248.

59.

Njeri

(1996) Preparation of secondary school headteachers and implications on their administrative performance. A case study of Nairobi Province. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Nairobi: Kenyatta University.

60.

O’Connor

Hales

Davies

Tomlinson

(1999) Hackney Downs: the School that Dared to Fight. London: Cassell.

61.

Oduro

GKT

Macbeath

(2003) Traditions and tensions in leadership: the Ghanaian experience. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 441–455.

62.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2002) The Curriculum In Successful Primary Schools. London: Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted).

63.

Parkay

Currie

Rhodes

(1992) Professional socialization: a longitudinal study of first-time high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly 28(1): 43–75.

64.

Patton

(2005) Qualitative Research. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Wiley).

65.

Potter

Reynolds

Chapman

(2002) School improvement for schools facing challenging circumstances: a review of research and practice. School Leadership & Management 22(3): 243–256.

66.

Purkey

Smith

(1983) Effective schools: a review. The Elementary School Journal 83(4): 427–452.

67.

Reynolds

Hopkins

Potter

Chapman

(2001) School improvement for schools facing challenging circumstances: A review of research and practice. London: Department of Education and Skills.

68.

Reynolds

(1995) The problem of ineffective school: some evidence and some speculations. Paper presented at the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Seminal Series. Cambridge: Homerton College.

69.

Reynolds

Harris

Clarke

Harris

James

(2006) Challenging the challenged: developing an improvement programme for schools facing exceptionally challenging circumstances. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(4): 425–439.

70.

Roe

Drake

(1980) The Principalship. New York, NY: Macmillan.

71.

Schwandt

(1997) Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

72.

Seidman

(1998) Interviewing As Qualitative Research: A Guide For Researchers In Education And The Social Sciences, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Teachers College.

73.

Stoll

(2002) No quick fixes: Perspectives on schools in difficulty: Routledge.

74.

Stringfield

Ross

(1997) A ‘reflection’ at mile three of a marathon: the Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: 8(1): 151–161.

75.

Weber

(1971) Inner-City Children Can Be Taught To Read: Four Successful Schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.

76.

Welman

Kruger

(1999) Research Methodology For The Business And Administrative Sciences. Johannesburg: International Thompson.

77.

Wertz

(1985) Method and findings in a phenomenological study of a complex life event: being criminally victimized. In: Giorgi

(ed.) Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

78.

West

Ingram

(2001) Making School Admissions Fairer?‘Quasi-Regulation’under New Labour. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 29(4), 459–473.

79.

West

Ainscow

Stanford

(2005) Sustaining improvement in schools in challenging circumstances: a study of successful practice. School Leadership & Management 25(1): 77–93.

80.

Wildy

Clarke

(2008) Principals on L-plates: rear view mirror reflections. Journal of Educational Administration 46(6): 727–738.

81.

Yulat

Y-M

(1988) Education and national development: the continuing problem of misdiagnosis and irrelevant prescriptions. International journal of educational development 8(4): 315–328.