GENDER DIFFERENCE, ADMINISTRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS: Implication for Planners

Abstract

In the School Administration and management, like in any other human and social endeavour, human resources are made up of men and women who play the most important role, either as actors or as recipients. For any society to be harmonious and balanced, the gender representation needs to be taken into consideration. It ensures therefore that none of the two sexes should be left behind in the management of the school system. Gender as we understand does not refer to the biological differences of sex, which are natural. It rather refers to social constructs, created social meanings, norms and practices that regulate the relationships between men and women in a given society and at a given time. Gender relations refer to such cultural elements that are contextually and historically dependent. In the light of this understanding, it follows that nay development process that aims at creating a space for all people, men and women, to realize their
potentials and improve the quality of their life in ways that are sustainable and protective of the Earth’s life support systems, men and women must be partners in progress in the creation as well as in the enjoyment of rights, duties, services and goods, Men and women should be real partners. This study looked into gender differences, administrative opportunities and effectiveness of principals in secondary schools in the Ijebu division of Ogun State. The study population consisted of all the principals and teachers of secondary schools, in both urban and rural areas, in the division, from whom a total of 180 respondents were randomly selected as sample. Four null hypotheses were tested using the Principal Questionnaire (PQ) and Teachers Rating of their Principals (TRP) developed and validated by the researcher. Only one of the null hypotheses was rejected. The remaining three hypotheses were accepted. The results show a significant gender difference in administrative opportunities in secondary schools in both rural and urban areas. However, there was no gender difference in the administrative effectiveness of principals, irrespective of the location of schools whether in rural or urban areas. Appropriate recommendations and conclusions were drawn based on these findings in order to build an educational system that reflects and projects an equitable, harmonious and gender-balanced Nigerian society. 

Keywords

• Gender Difference
• Administrative Opportunities
• Effectiveness
• Principals
• Secondary Schools

References

1. Adeniji, A.M (2002). An Analysis of Principals Administrative Performance in Ikenne Local Government Secondary Schools of Ogun State, a dissertation in the department of Education Foundations and management, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye.
2. American Association of University Women (1991). Shortchanging Girls Shortchanging America. Washington, D.C: American Association of University Women.
3. Bachrach, C.A., K.A. London, & K.S. Stolley. (1992). Relinquishment of Pre-marital Births: Evidence from National Survey Data Family Planning Perspectives.
4. Becker, B. 1990. “Item Characteristics and Gender Differences on the SAT-M for Mathematically Able Youths. “American Educational Research Journal 27 (1): 65-71 see also Linn, E., et al. 1987. “Gender Differences in National Assessment of Educational Progress Science Items: What Does I Don’t know’ Really Mean?” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24 (3): 267-78.
5. Belenky, M.F., B.M. Clinchy, N.R Goldberger, and J.M. Tarule. (1986). Women’s Ways of knowing: The Development of Self. Voice and Mind New York: Basic Books
6. Pearson, C. (19929. “Women As Learners: Diversity and Educational Quality.” Journal of Development Education 16, 2 (Winter): 2-8, 10.
7. Child Trends, Inc. (1993). “Facts at a Glance.” Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. Child Trends, “Facts at a Glance”, 1992.
8. Campbell, P.B., & C. Shackford. (1990. EUREKA Programme Evaluation. Groton, Mass.:

9. Campbell-Kibbler Associates. Three Years of Encouraging Young Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Groton, Mass.: Campbell-Kibler Associates. Report.
10. Defries, J.cC. (1989). Gender Ratios in Children with Reading Disability and Their Affected Relatives: A commentary.” Journal of Learning Disabilities
11. Dossey, J.A, I.V.S. Mullis, M.M. Lindquist, and D.L. Chambers (1988): The Mathematics Report Card. Are we Measuring Up? Princeton: Education Testing Service.
12. Earle, J., & V. Roach. (1989). Female Dropouts: A New Perspective. Alexandria, Va: National Association of State Boards of Education, 4.
13. Educational Testing Service. (1990). Profile of SAT and Achievement Test Takers New York: The College Board.
14. Fine, M. (1986) Why Urban Adolescents Drop Into and Out of Public High School Teachers College Record.
15. “Fair Test Examiner” 3, 3 (Summer 1989). Quarterly newsletter of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing Cambridge, Mass.
16. Girls, Inc. 1991. The Explorer’s Pass: A Report on Case Studies of Girls in math, Science, and Technology. Study conducted by Julie D. Frederick and Heather Johnston Nicholson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Girls, Inc., National Resource Center.
17. Grayson, D.A., and M.D. Martin. 1984). Gender Expectations and Student Achievement: A Teacher Training Program Addressing Gender Disparity in the Classroom. “Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La, April 23-27.
18. Grayson, D.A., and M.D. Martin (1988). Gender/Ethnic Expectations and Student Achievement Des Moines, Iowa: GrayMill Foundation.
19. Hallinan, M.T., & A.B. Sorenson. (1987). “Ability Grouping and Sex Differences in Mathematics Achievement. “Sociology of Education”
20. Hale, G.A., et al. (1992): A comparison of the Predictive Validity of the Current SAT and an Experimental Prototype. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
21. Heckman, J., & S. Cameron. (1993). “The Non-Equivalence of High School Equivalence. “Journal of Labor Economics 11, 1 (January 1993): 1-5.
22. Hernandez, B. (1992): Ideas for Action: Helping Girls and Young Women in your Community. Portland, Oreg: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
23. Hillman, S.B., and G.G. Davenport. (1978). Teacher- Student Interactions in Desegregated Schools. “Journal of Educational Psychology
24. John W. Gardener (1993). On leadership The free press New-York
25. Kahle, J. (1990): “Why Girls Don’t know”. In what Research says to the Science Teacher – the process of knowing Washington D.C.: National Science Testing Association.
26. Kolawole E.M (1998). Gender Perception and Development in Africa. Pat-Mag Press Ltd Ibadan.
27. Lee, V. (1991) “Sexism in Single-Sex and Co-educational Secondary School Classrooms.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 8.
28. Kolstad, A.J& J.A. Ownings. (1987): High School Dropouts who change Their Minds About School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, of Education Research and Improvement. Mimeograph, Center for Educational Statistics, Longitudinal Branch, April 16, 1987.
29. Myers, I.B. & M.H. McCaulley. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.
30. Meisgeier,C. & E. Murphy. (1987): Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children Manual. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press.
31. Mullis, I.V.S., & L.B. Jenkins. (1986). The Science Report Card: Elements of Risk and Recovery. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Howard, Bessie C.(1987): Learning to Persist, Persisting to Learn. Washington, D. C.: The
32. Mid-Atlantic Equity Center, The American University, 11.
33. Oakes, J. (1991): Lost Talent: The Under participation of Women, Minorities, and Disabled Persons in Science. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.
34. Rosser, P. (1989): The SAT Gender Gap: Identifying the Causes. Washington, D.C.: Center for Women Policy Studies.
35. Sadker, M.,& D. Sadker. (1986): “Sexism in the Classroom: From Grade School to Graduate School. “Phi Delta Kappan.
36. U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (1993). Letter of Finding, Eden Prairie, Minn., Elementary School Sexual Harassmen Incident. Chicago, III.: U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights-Region V.
37. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1992. Digest of Education Statistics: (1992): Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics.
38. U. S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. “20 Leading Occupations of Employed
39. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Surveys. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
40. Women, (1984). Annual Averages.” Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
41. Women’s Bureau, “20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women, (1992). Annual U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics: 1992.
42. Waszak, C., & S. Neidell. (1992). School-based and School-linked Clinics: Update 1991. Washington, D.C.: Center for Population Options.