id2727140 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com

`^

7iU7Z Z Z6U| 7}Z [gh} [ gZ Z jZ i[[Z

/

Abstract

9-2

BBB

(.2.1) (.4.1) .4.2)

(.4.7)

2,1),2

(2,3)

(4,1)

(4,2)

(5,1)

72.6%

AbstractDelegation Authority of Headmasters at High School and its

Relationship to Management Effectiveness from the point of views of their teachers in Gaza Governorates

The study aimed at recognizing the delegation degree of authority of headmasters at high school,and their management effectiveness degree of in Gaza Governorates from the point of views of their teachers. It further aimed at finding out if there are any differences with statistical significance for the expected assumptions of the management effectiveness that results from practicing delegation authority of headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates, according to the variables of sex, specialization, service years, and the educational state, and exploring the nature of relationship between the delegation degree of authority, and the effectiveness degree of school management in Gaza governorate. The researcher applied the analytic descriptive method. And the study assembly comprised (4080) teachers (male and female). Study sample was applied to (542) with aper cent(13.3) teachers at high school in Gaza Governorates.

TO verity the study objectives, the researcher prepared one questionnaire of two parts. The first part of the questionnaire was for the degree delegation authority of headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates to their teachers from their point of views. That included (21) paragraphs. The second part was for measuring the effectiveness degree of the management of headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates from the point of views of teachers. That included (51) paragraphs distributed to the following fields: (planning, organization, guidance and coordination, and control). Authenticity of the two questionnaires was ensured, and answers of the sample respondents were analyzed by percentage, T Test, One- Way ANOVA, and Person Equation.

The findings indicated: 1- Delegation authority degree of headmasters at high school in Gaza

governorates was 72.6 good. 2- Availability of relationship between delegation authority degree of

headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates and the effectiveness management of its fields: (planning, organization, guidance and coordination, and control) from the point of views of teachers.

3- .The highest effectiveness degree was in the control field, followed by organization, planning, guidance and coordination .

4- There were no differences among respondents about the averages of expected assumptions for the Effectiveness degree results from delegation authority degree of headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates of the averages due to years service (5 years, 6-10 years, over 10 years), in all fields.

5- There were no differences among the answers of respondents about the averages of expected assumptions for the Effectiveness degree, results from delegation authority degree of headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates of the averages owing to the variables of sex (male, female) and thats in all fields.

6- There were no differences with statistical significance among the answers of respondents about the averages of expected assumptions for the Effectiveness degree, results from delegation authority degree of headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates of the averages owing to the variables of scientific degree (diploma .bachelor .master) and thats in all fields.

7- There were differences among the answers of respondents about the averages of expected assumptions for the Effectiveness degree, results from delegation authority degree of headmasters at high school in Gaza governorates of the averages owing to the variables of educational state (west ,east ,south, north .and the middle)and thats in all fields.

Under the light of these findings, the researcher recommends the following: 1- Support and Interest attention from the side of directorate of education and high education managers of high school with guidance and coordination between teachers to achieve their goals and not to ignore it. 2-Educatin administration should be interested the opinions of the teachers at High School and involve them in the operations of organization and planning.

3-Encourage the management leadership to practice delegation through changing the wrong point of view ,the suspect and no trust about the abilities of teachers ,work on finding agood system to

monitor delegating. 4-Provide some of the systemic positive elements to ensure the success of delegate such as to put description of specializatin and boards for authorities and responsibilities,clarify the aim of delegating,types and

results from applying it,ensure alarge amount of security as possible as.

2007:113

115:2002

1998:17

234 :2005

126 :2006

2002199219982005

200720042000

(0.05 )

(0.05 )

(0.05 )

5-110-610 (0.05 )

2009

Delegation

199661

2005233

AUTHORITY

199834

2002203

1995617

420

2002

:1999

NNNNN

`

^1991129

2002138

2002:15

2000:286

200313

2006376

1976215

210:1997706

44

1990:122

1986421989105

200631

2003263

1993257

139

:1996146

199186

2000:268269

2006382383

2005

2001127

1991:242

1979257

AuthorityResponsibilityAccountability

?

1987

1987

Murphy

B

B B

1987

1987

Organizing

Directing

Controlling

2002162-163

242

Managerial Effectiveness Managerial Effectiveness

2004264-263

EFFECTIVENESSEFFECT

2004264-263

1997529-528

2000102006 564

Ridden

2,2

Lipham

sufficiency

Efficiency Effectiveness

1997-139140

2006 564

ability

motivation

2,1

doing things rightdoing the right things right

2,3

Success and Effectiveness

199774

good organizational climate high expectations

Ridding management effectiveness

(Apparent Effectivene

(Personal Effectiveness

Katz

/

2005 152

Effective School

200621

/ 20062528

1995:620-619

1985Manasse

Manasse,1985:439-465

1993187

NNN

2006

17102005/2006

37021%

44

34

2005

99

2004

187

2000

2003

12860

47%

a=0.05

a=0.05

a=0.05

2000

362

1998

1998

572

B

B

2008/2007 (161

.

0,05>- a

0,05>- a

0,05>- a

0,05>- a

B2007)

6430

2006

5856

2005

128

2005- 2004

2001

55

183

>= a

>= a

2000

1995

A

-1,2001Martin

"IsThereaconnection:Teacher Empowerment,Teachers Sense of Responsibility,and Studentsuccess".

Davis&Wilso.2000

" The influence of organizational culture, subculture, leader ship style and job satisfaction on organizational commitment".

PEBTymon

-3Jonhson& Short1998

" Princpals leader power,teacher empowerment ,teacer compliance, and conflict,Educational Management &Admenstration".

B Rinehart1998

" Viewing reading recovery as a restricting phenomenon, Journal of School Leadership".

Klecker et.al1996

" Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment :Identifying New Roles for Classroom Teachers in Restruction School".

Bishop,Luetta Rose1995

"Exemplary schools ,focus onVisionary leader ship and Teacher Empowerment,".

6443131

1516

Morris& Nunnery1993

"Teacher Empowerment in a Proffessional Development School Collaborative".

1406

BBeverage, 2003

"Inhibiting Factors to Effectiveness and Adaptability of New Superintendents in Virginia"

De Stefano, 2003

"School Effectiveness:The Role of the principal in a leading public secondary school in Santa Fe Province".

Smith, Elbert

"Elbert Smith (1994):Principal Leadership, Faculty, Teacher, Compliance, And School Effectiveness".

Highett

"Highett,NevilleTom.(1990)School Effectiveness and in effectiveness: parents ,principals and superintend dents".

32138

Qwen,1989

"Qwen,Dell,(1989):The Relation between the Strategical Vision and Effective Managements".

428

43

Gilchrist, Roberts, 1989)

" Effective School:The Case Studies of Excellence".

20052000

199820041998

2006(2003

Martin2001Davis&Wilso.2000Acker 1995

Charles Wolf Robert,1971)Jonhson& Short1998

Rinehart,1998

Klecker et.al1996 Morris& Nunnery1993

Rose1995Bishop 1994

1969

2005200419981998

Rose)19952006

20052004

19982000

Rose,Bishop)1995

Davis&Wilso.2000PEBTymon

1994Lightener

2004200020062003

200519981998

Martin2001 Morris&

Nunnery1993)(Charles Wolf Robert,1971)Davis&Wilso.2000,RoseBishop)

19951994LightenerAcker 199511

14789Rose1995

20062001

200120051993

2005

20031992

Beverage, 2003Highest, 1995Dawdle, 1980 Georgiades William 1984

Rose, 1995 Smith: 1994 Rose,Bishop, 1995

2006

20072008

20082005200320032001200120001994

20001995

Erecting, 1998Rose, 1995 Qwen,1989 (Dawdle,1980Highest, 1995

200820082003

2001200120041991199120002007

200520052000

2003

Erecting, 1998 Rose, 1995 Bishop, 1994 Dawdle, 1980

De Stefano, 2003Qwen,1989Highest, 1995

200620052007

20011999

19912001

19911993200320032003

2001Bishop, 1994

Highest, 1995

De Stefano, 2003)Beverage, 2003Qwen,1989

Smith: 1994 Gilchrist ,Roberts) 1989

4

_

4,

361 53.3% 316 46.7% 16.6% 390 50.2% 387 49.8% 19.0%

264 49.7% 266 50.3% 13.0% 354 49.6% 361 50.4% 17.5% 476 56.6% 365 43.4% 20.6%

275 50.9% 265 49.1% 13.2% 2119 51.9% 1961 48.1% 100.0%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

4,1

SS = (Z2 * P (1-P)) / C2 (Gauderman, 2002 : 480)

SS ZZP C

Finite Population

NEW SS = SS / ( 1 + ((SS 1) / POP)) (Gauderman, 2002 : 480)

NEW SS POP

4,2

100

114

78

105

124

79

600

4,3

47 51.6% 44 48.4% 91 16.8% 53 50.8% 51 49.2% 104 19.2% 35 48.3% 38 51.7% 73 13.5% 46 46.9% 52 53.1% 98 18.1% 60 54.8% 49 45.2% 109 20.1% 33 49.7% 34 50.3% 67 12.4%

274 50.6% 268 49.4% 542 100.0%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

4,2

Scale Validity

Trusties Validity

1

Internal Consistency Validity

4,4(N=30)

0.564

0.650

0.510

0.830 0.368

0.638

0.562 0.389 0.367

0.678

0.638 0.390 0.443

0.645

0.508

0.534 0.377

0.590

0.824

0.685

0.493

R

.01R

Mann-Whitney

4,5

U W Z

.

0.0036.0

3.3730.01

Z Z

Scale Reliability

2000

Cronbach Method Cronbach

Alpha Coefficient `^`^

Split Half Method

Spearman Brown Prophecy

Formula )

4,6

2

Scale Validity

Trusties Validity

1

Internal Consistency Validity

4,7

(N=30)

0.363 0.393

0.536

0.526

0.569

0.592

0.554

0.654

0.625

0.568

0.829

0.596

0.748 0.457

0.787

0.476

0.501

0.676 0.452

0.789

0.514

0.675

0.705 0.427

0.812 0.411

0.524

0.803

0.429

0.569

0.799 0.407

0.595 0.395 0.362

0.827

0.362

0.573

0.516

0.712

0.584

0.573

0.557

0.701

0.481

0.624

0.530

0.523

0.657

0.706

0.401

0.593

0.679

0.789

0.385

0.644

0.599 0.407

0.476

0.647

0.574

0.491

0.654

0.745

0.486

0.523

0.721

0.603

0.743

0.783

0.447 0.373 0.413

0.484

0.826

0.756

0.685

0.600

0.691

0.555 0.387

0.733

0.489

0.521

0.806

0.544

0.391 0.414

0.727

0.774

0.368

0.537 0.444

0.670

0.756

0.498

0.810

0.832

0.620 0.431 0.422

0.473

0.571 0.447

0.615

0.772

R

R

4,8

(N=30)

R

Mann-Whitney

4,9

U W Z

.5

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

Z Z

Scale Reliability

Cronbach Method Split Half Method

4,10

2

(SPSS

5,1

13.8% 33.8% 23.8% 16.1% 12.5% 3.200 1.230 64.1%

17.3% 34.3% 20.7% 14.0% 13.7% 3.280 1.280 65.5%

21.0% 26.2% 17.0% 17.3% 18.5% 3.140 1.410 62.8%

7.7% 23.6% 31.4% 24.5% 12.7% 2.890 1.140 57.8%

12.9% 34.5% 31.5% 11.4% 9.6% 3.300 1.130 65.9%

18.8% 38.7% 26.8% 9.8% 5.9% 3.550 1.080 71.0%

24.9% 45.2% 19.6% 6.6% 3.7% 3.810 1.000 76.2%

17.7% 35.6% 22.7% 14.4% 9.6% 3.370 1.210 67.5%

G27.3% 42.8% 19.6% 5.2% 5.2% 3.820 1.050 76.4%

22.1% 36.5% 23.6% 11.3% 6.5% 3.570 1.140 71.3%

24.2% 35.4% 25.3% 10.3% 4.8% 3.640 1.100 72.8%

43.7% 36.5% 12.0% 5.5% 2.2% 4.140 .980 82.8%

30.8% 35.1% 22.0% 8.3% 3.9% 3.810 1.080 76.1%

39.3% 38.0% 13.1% 6.1% 3.5% 4.040 1.040 80.7%

39.5% 37.8% 14.8% 4.4% 3.5% 4.050 1.020 81.1%

17.5% 32.5% 25.8% 14.2% 10.0% 3.330 1.210 66.7%

35.2% 37.8% 17.0% 5.9% 4.1% 3.940 1.060 78.9%

36.2% 37.5% 17.9% 5.9% 2.6% 3.990 1.010 79.7%

27.1% 42.1% 17.5% 9.8% 3.5% 3.800 1.060 75.9%

34.3% 38.9% 15.5% 7.2% 4.1% 3.920 1.070 78.5%

23.6% 38.4% 21.8% 10.3% 5.9% 3.630 1.130 72.7%

25.5% 36.3% 20.9% 10.4% 6.9% 3.63 0,60 72.6%

3.630,6072.6%

12

.82.8% 15

. 81.1%

3

62.8% 4

57.8%

72.6%

2003

2005

Martin2001,Davis&Wilson.2000Jonhson& Short1998Rinehart :1998Klecker et.al(1996

200

5,2

14.4% 35.2% 27.3% 15.5% 7.6% 66.7%

19.9% 39.7% 24.9% 10.7% 4.8% 71.8%

19.7% 36.3% 27.3% 11.1% 5.5% 70.7%

10.9% 41.7% 32.8% 9.4% 5.2% .9868.7%

15.9% 36.7% 27.9% 13.5% 6.1% 68.6%

14.8% 32.3% 28.8% 14.6% 9.6% 65.6%

17.7% 42.3% 27.3% 9.2% 3.5% .9972.3%

17.9% 45.4% 24.2% 9.8% 2.8% .9773.2%

21.0% 42.4% 24.4% 8.7% 3.5% 73.8%

15.9% 27.5% 32.3% 16.4% 7.9% 65.4%

21.0% 43.2% 25.6% 6.8% 3.3% .9874.4%

18.8% 39.5% 25.3% 11.6% 4.8% 71.2%

25.8% 40.0% 21.6% 9.4% 3.1% 75.2%

17.5% 41.0% 22.0% 12.2% 7.4% 69.8%

17.9% 38.8% 26.5% 11.3% 5.4% 3.53 0.79 70.5%

3.530.7970.5%

13

75.2% . 11

.74.4%

(2008(2008(1994

6

65.6%

1065.4%

5,3

25.3% 43.2% 22.3% 5.4% 3.9% 3.81 1.00 76.1% 1

19.0% 44.3% 25.6% 7.2% 3.9% 3.67 .99 73.5% 4

21.0% 44.5% 21.8% 7.9% 4.8% 3.69 1.04 73.8% 3

17.0% 45.0% 24.2% 8.7% 5.2% 3.60 1.03 72.0% 6

22.0% 46.3% 21.2% 7.0% 3.5% 3.76 .99 75.2% 2

11.6% 34.3% 36.9% 11.6% 5.5% 3.35 1.01 67.0% 9

10.3% 40.6% 31.0% 12.2% 5.9% 3.37 1.02 67.5% 7

11.4% 31.7% 37.6% 14.0% 5.2% 3.30 1.02 66.1% 10

12.0% 37.1% 32.8% 12.2% 5.9% 3.37 1.04 67.4% 8

19.7% 45.6% 21.2% 9.4% 4.1% 3.68 1.02 73.5% 5

13.3% 31.7% 31.9% 13.1% 10.0% 3.25 1.15 65.1% 11

16.6% 40.4% 27.9% 9.9% 5.2% 3.53 0.78 70.6%

(3.53(0.7870.6% 1

76.1%). 2

(75.2%

1999

(20082007De Stefano, 2003

866.1%

1165.1%

5,4

22.3% 46.9% 20.1% 7.6% 3.1% 3.78 .98 75.5%

26.2% 46.3% 19.6% 5.9% 2.0% 3.89 .93 77.7%

22.3% 33.8% 26.6% 11.4% 5.9% 3.55 1.13 71.0%

17.3% 28.0% 33.2% 13.7% 7.7% 3.34 1.14 66.7%

11.8% 31.0% 34.3% 15.5% 7.4% 3.24 1.08 64.9%

14.6% 39.7% 29.9% 10.3% 5.5% 3.47 1.04 69.5%

7.9% 16.1% 24.0% 23.2% 28.8% 2.51 1.27 50.2%

17.2% 35.4% 28.0% 12.9% 6.5% 3.44 1.11 68.8%

19.9% 35.8% 22.1% 12.0% 10.1% 3.43 1.22 68.7%

13.5% 31.5% 28.4% 17.7% 8.9% 3.23 1.16 64.6%

23.6% 37.1% 24.7% 9.0% 5.5% 3.64 1.10 72.8%

38.0% 41.0% 13.1% 4.8% 3.1% 4.06 .99 81.2%

19.6% 35.2% 25.3% 12.0% 7.9% 3.47 .82 69.4%

3.47 .8269.4%

12

81.2% 2 " "

. (77.7%)

(2005(2005

1064.6%

750.2%

5,5

21.4% 39.1% 26.0% 8.1% 5.4% 3.63 1.07 72.6%

21.0% 45.2% 24.2% 6.6% 3.0% 3.75 0.96 74.9%

19.2% 43.7% 26.4% 7.6% 3.1% 3.68 0.97 73.7%

24.9% 35.6% 23.1% 10.1% 6.3% 3.63 1.15 72.5%

21.4% 40.2% 23.4% 9.8% 5.2% 3.63 1.08 72.6%

17.5% 44.1% 26.4% 7.9% 4.1% 3.63 0.99 72.6%

21.4% 42.4% 24.4% 8.5% 3.3% 3.70 1.00 74.0%

19.4% 33.9% 26.6% 13.7% 6.5% 3.46 1.14 69.2%

15.9% 27.3% 29.2% 17.7% 10.0% 3.21 1.20 64.3%

15.3% 37.1% 29.0% 13.7% 5.0% 3.44 1.06 68.8%

24.4% 40.0% 22.7% 9.2% 3.7% 3.72 1.05 74.4%

16.6% 43.5% 24.9% 10.3% 4.6% 3.57 1.03 71.4%

12.2% 35.6% 34.5% 12.2% 5.5% 3.37 1.03 67.3%

17.7% 40.2% 27.3% 9.2% 5.5% 3.55 1.06 71.1%

19.2% 39.2% 26.3% 10.3% 5.1% 3.57 0.80 71.4%

3.570.8071.4% 2

74.9% 11

74.4%) 2007

20062008

13

67.3% 9

64.3%

5,6

17.9% 38.8% 26.5% 11.3% 5.4% 3.53 0.79 70.5%

16.6% 40.4% 27.9% 9.9% 5.2% 3.53 0.78 70.6%

19.6% 35.2% 25.3% 12.0% 7.9% 3.47 .82 69.4%

19.2% 39.2% 26.3% 10.3% 5.1% 3.57 0.80 71.4%

18.4% 38.4% 26.5% 10.9% 5.9% 3.53 0.74 70.5%

70.5% 70.6%

69.4%

71.4%

68.00%68.50%69.00%69.50%70.00%70.50%71.00%71.50%

5,

3.570.80

71.4%

3.53(0.78 70.6%)

(3.53(0.7970.5%)

3.47.82

69.4%

05.0

TestT Tow

Independent Samples T Test

5,7

T

.80659 .77715

.79234 .77280

.80846 .84236

.81312 .79226

.75242 .73600

T

2005(20042000

200820082001200520062006

05.0

Kruskal-Wallis Test

5,8

286.41 272.47 238.48

1.01

259.91 271.90 267.60

0.076

293.86 271.20 266.77

0.245

312.50 271.29 254.25

0.999

292.32 271.67

255.82 0.395

200520032003

(200420002003

200820082001200520062006

05.0

One Way Analysis Of Variance "ANOVA"

5,9

F

.265.133.629

.211

.609

.754.680

.879

.643

.994.497.553

.898

200520032003(200420002003

200820082001

200520062006

05.0

One Way Analysis Of Variance "ANOVA"

5,10

F

.609

.591

.647

.627

.532

.

(20041998

20062003

20052006200620012008

Scheffe Post Hoc Test

5,11

Person Correlation Coefficient

5,12

01.0

2005(2004

1995

Martin2001,

Martin2001,Davis&Wilson.2000Jonhson& Short1998Rinehart :1998

Smith:1994 Highett 1995Qwen,1989

B

1997

2000

1980

2002

1982

2001

1990

2002 2003

2006

1996

2001

2001

1999 1986

2006

2001

1993

1983 2002

1977

1996

2007

1979 1989

1999 20053435

19

2006

2006

1998

2001

1987

1997

1985

1997

2003 2001

2001

2002

1982

2000

2002

2003

2005

2001

1993

2004 2001

1995 2006

2002

2005

1965

2005

1980

2006

1998

2000

1999

1992

1988

2001

1986

1996

2006

2006

2000

2004

2005

1998

2006

24

199421

BBBBBBBBBB

2003

432

1995

20039?H T

1- Lipham, J. Leadership and Administration by Griffiths, D. E. (ED.). THE 63RD Yearbock of the N.S.S.E. Chicago 1964, PP. 122_123.l, 55/08-A,p.228.2- Highett, NevilleTom.(1990)School Effectiveness and in effectiveness :parents ,principals and superintend dents perspectives "PH.D Boston

College ,1982 Dissertation Abstracts International,43(1),133-A. 3- Gil Christ,Robert S.(1989) " Effective School:The Case Studies of Excellence ."National Educational Service Blooming Indiana .U.S.A(ERTC)ED(340796). 4- Qwen, Dell, (1989):The Relation between the Strategical Vision and Effective Managements"NO.48,The University of Hull London p.13. 5- Martin,Barbara-N.&Crossland,Barbara& Jobnson,Judy A.(2001).IsThereaconnection:Teacher Empowerment,Teachers Sense of Responsibility,and Studentsuccess?,ERIC,ED460116,SP040473." 6- Bishop,Luetta Rose(1995):"Exemplary schools ,focus onVisionary leader ship and Teacher Empowerment,"Dissertation Abstracts International,Vol. (55),no (7) Micro film sinc.AD.January 1995. 7- Morris,Vivian Gunn & Nunnery, John-A.(1993).Teacher Empowerment in a Proffessional Development School Collaborative,USA Tennessee,ERIC,AN:ED368678." 8- Klecher, Beverly & Loadman ,William E(1996). Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment :Identifying New Roles for Classroom Teachers in Restruction Schools,USA Kentuck , ERIC,AN:ED405304.'9- Johnson,P.E& Short,P.M.(1998) Princpals leader power,teacher empowerment ,teacer compliance,and conflict,Educational Management &Admenstration,London,Vol.26,2p.p:147-159". 10- Rinehart, J. S. & Sort, P. M. (1991) Viewing reading recovery as a restricting phenomenon, Journal of School Leadership, Vol.1,No.4,p.p:379-399". 11- Davis, Joan & Wilson , Sandra M.(2000) , Principals effort to empower teachers : Effect on teacher motivation and job satisfaction. Clearing House (73).6.p(349-353). 12- Elbert Smith (1994 ): Principal Leadership, Faculty, Teacher, Compliance, And School Effectiveness, Dissertation Abstracts International , Vol.(55). No. 6 , December 1994.13- Beverage, Layton Hubert (2003): Inhibiting Factors to Effectiveness and Adaptability of New Superintendents in Virginia, Dissertation Abstracts International, A 64\ 1. 14- De Stefano, M. (2003): School Effectiveness: The Role of the principal in a leading public secondary school in Santa Fe Province, Argentina. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3091243.

1

p}}^H%\z

1

2

BBB

X

x

G

3

4

5