Jane Waithera Gatua

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION SAFETY GUIDELINES ON PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NAIROBI WEST REGION, KENYA
JANE WAITHERA GATUA
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Administration and Planning
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA
NAIROBI, KENYA
AUGUST 2013
ii
DECLARATION
This Dissertation is my original work and has not been presented for any academic
award in any other institution of higher learning
Jane WaitheraGatua -------------------------- ------------------------
Reg. No. PhD/Ed/1012631 Signature Date
This dissertation has been submitted for examination with our approval as university
supervisors:-
Professor AmanuelAbraha August 27, 2013
Associate Professor of Education Signature Date
St. Mary’s University of Minnesota
Dr. Anne Kanga --------------------------- -----------------
Senior Lecturer Signature Date
Catholic University of Eastern Africa

iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful family. Particularly to my understanding
and patient husband, John Maina, who has put up with these many years of this study,
and to our precious children, Patrick, Purity and Elijah who are the joy of our lives,
may this work motivate and encourage you to pursue your dreams. To my parents,
Elijah Gatua and Ruth Wangari who believed in diligence and pursuit of academic
excellence, this work is also dedicated to you.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It would not have been possible to write this doctoral dissertation without the
help and support of the kind people around me, to only some of whom is possible to
give particular mention here. Foremost, I wish to thank Almighty God for giving me
strength and hope when I thought I would never succeed.
I am heartily thankful to my supervisors; Professor Amanuel Abraha
Teklemariam and Dr. Anne Kanga whose encouragement, guidance and support
enabled me to develop an understanding of this study. Without their invaluable help
of constructive comments and suggestions in the course of this work, this dissertation
would not have been completed.
I sincerely thank my husband, John Maina, for believing in me and giving me
encouragement and financial support when I needed it most. Without his support and
love I would never have succeeded. I am grateful to my Children; Patrick, Purity and
Elijah for their love, support and bearing my long absence in the course of this work.
Truly, I can never thank you enough.
I owe my deepest gratitude to all Education Officers, head teachers; teachers
and students of the participating schools for sharing information that made this study
a success.
Last, but not least, I offer my regards and blessings to all of those who
supported me in any respect during this work.

v
ABSTRACT
Safety of learners is central to the provision of education in any country. Unsafe

schools can emanate from inappropriate school physical infrastructure among other
factors. It is in this respect that this study assessed implementation of Ministry of
Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in Nairobi West Region. All
(25) public secondary schools in the study area were stratified according to
administrative districts, type and category. A representative sample of 15 schools, 240
students and 43 teachers was randomly selected. Fifteen head teachers and six
Education officers were purposively included in the sample. For data collection, the
study used both quantitative and qualitative approaches, where convergent parallel
design was employed. Questionnaires were used to gather information from head
teachers, teachers and students whereas Interview guide was used to collect data from
District Education Officers (DEOs) and District Quality Assurance and Standards
Officers (DQASOs). Observation guide was used to complement other data collection
instruments. Research questions addressed the following themes; safety status of
physical infrastructure, factors affecting implementation of safety guidelines,
involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of Ministry of Education safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure, attitude of respondents towards implementation
of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure, and how to
enhance implementation of safety guidelines in schools. Inferential statistics used for
testing of null hypothesis was One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at 0.05 level
of significance. Data were analysed using both descriptive statistics and narrative
techniques. The results of the study indicated that most schools had not fully
implemented MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure. Testing of null
hypothesis indicated that there was significant difference between head teachers’ and
teachers’ attitude towards implementation of MOE safety guidelines and the safety
status of physical infrastructures in public secondary schools in Nairobi West Region.
The researcher recommended formulation of sound MOE safety guidelines
implementation policies and provision of adequate resources to enable effective
implementation of safety guidelines in schools. The researcher suggested further
research on the impact of school facilities on students’ achievement, attendance,
behaviour, completion rate and teacher turnover rate in schools in Kenya. Use of
action research in provision of safe and protective school environment was also a
suggested research area.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ iv
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................ xv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background to the Study...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Research Hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 8
1.5 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Scope and Delimitation of the study .................................................................................. 12
1.7 Limitations of the study ..................................................................................................... 12
1.8 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 13
1.10 Operational Definition of Key Terms .............................................................................. 22
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................................... 23
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 23
2.2 Safety Status of Physical Infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi
West Region, Kenya ....................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Factors Affecting Safety Guidelines Implementation in Public Secondary Schools
in Nairobi West Region, Kenya ...................................................................................... 38
vii
2.4 Involvement of the Stakeholders in the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines

in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region, Kenya ....................................... 48
2.5 Attitude of the Headtechers, Teachers and Students towards implementation of
MOE Safety guidelines in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region ............. 57
2.6 Identification of Research Gap .......................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 65
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 65
3.2 Research Design................................................................................................................. 65
3.3. The Study Area ................................................................................................................. 66
3.4 Target Population ............................................................................................................... 67
3.5 Sample and Sampling Procedure ....................................................................................... 68
3.5.1 Schools and Headteachers............................................................................................... 69
3.5.2 Teachers .......................................................................................................................... 69
3.5.3 DEOs and DQASOs ........................................................................................................ 70
3.6 Research Instruments ......................................................................................................... 71
3.6.1 Questionnaires................................................................................................................. 71
3.6.1.1 Questionnaire for Headteachers, Teachers and Students ............................................. 72
3.6.2 Observation Guide .......................................................................................................... 73
3.6.3 Interview Guide for DEOs and DQASOs ....................................................................... 73
3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Research Instruments ........................................................ 74
3.7.1 Validity ........................................................................................................................... 74
3.7.2 Reliability........................................................................................................................ 76
3.8 Data collection procedures ................................................................................................. 77
3.9 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................................. 79
3.10 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 82
viii
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 82

4.2 Demographic information of the respondents.................................................................. 82
4.2.1 Students’ Characteristics ................................................................................................. 83
4.2.2 Teachers’ Characteristics Responsibility and Teaching Experience .............................. 84
4.2.3 Head Teachers’ Characteristics Professional Qualification and Working
Experience....................................................................................................................... 86
4.2.4 Demographic Information of DEOs and DQASO .......................................................... 89
4.3 Research question 1: Extent of the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on
Physical Infrastructure in Schools .................................................................................. 90
4.3.1 Schools’ Kitchens ........................................................................................................... 91
4.3.2 Schools’ Dining Halls ..................................................................................................... 95
4.3.3 Classrooms .................................................................................................................... 101
4.4 Research question 2: Factors Affecting Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure ........................................................................... 143
4.4.1 Knowledge of safety standards manual for schools in Kenya ...................................... 144
4.4.2 Training ......................................................................................................................... 147
4.4.3 Resources ...................................................................................................................... 152
4.4.4 Communication ............................................................................................................. 157
4.4.6 Condition of school buildings ....................................................................................... 166
4.4.7 Schools’ Safety Programmes and Policies .................................................................... 169
4.4.8 School’s Environmental Factors ................................................................................... 174
4.5 Research question 3: Involvement of Stakeholders in the Implementation of MOE
Safety Guidelines in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region .................... 179
4.5.1 Involvement of Students in MOE Safety Guidelines Implementation ......................... 179
4.5.2 Parents’ Involvement in the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines .................... 183
4.5.3 Involvement of Teachers and Support Staff in the implementation of safety
Guidelines in schools .................................................................................................... 187
4.5.4 Headteachers’ Involvement in the implementation of Safety Guidelines in Public
Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region ................................................................. 193
4.5.5 Involvement Board of Governors’ in the Implementation of Safety Guidelines in
Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region ...................................................... 196
4.5.6 Involvement of Government in the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines
in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi west Region .................................................. 200
ix
4.6 Research question 4: Students, Teachers and Head teachers Attitude towards
Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Public
4.6.1 Students’ Attitude towards Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Public
4.6.2 Teachers’ Attitude towards Implementation of Safety Guidelines in
PublicSecondary Schools in Nairobi West Region ....................................................... 213
4.6.3 Headteachers’ Attitude towards Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Public
4.7 Research Question 5: Measures to Enhance Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi
West Region .................................................................................................................. 224
4.8 Hypotheses ....................................................................................................................... 235
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ...................................... 238
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 238
5.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 238
5.3 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................... 239
5.3.1 Extent of the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on Physical
Infrastructure in Schools ............................................................................................... 239
5.3.2 Factors Affecting the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on Physical
Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 239
5.3.3 Involvement of Stakeholders in the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines ........ 240
5.3.4 Attitude towards implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on physical
Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 240
5.3.5 How to Enhance Implementation of Ministry of Education Safety Guidelines on
Physical Infrastructure in Schools ................................................................................ 241
5.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 241
5.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 242
5.6 Recommendations for Further Research .......................................................................... 246
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 247
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 259
APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HEAD TEACHERS............................................. 259
x
APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS ....................................................... 268

APPENDIX IV: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DEOS............................................................. 284
APPENDIX VII: RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM THE
UNIVERSITY............................................................................................ 287
APPENDIX VIII: AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM THE MINISTRY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ........................................................... 288
APPENDIX IX: PERMIT TO CONDUCT RESEARCH ..................................................... 289
APPENDIX X: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SAFETY GUIDELINES ON
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.............................................................. 290
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.3 Sampling Matrix ...................................................................................................... 71

Table 4.1: Students’ Sex and Age bracket ............................................................................... 83
Table 4.2: Distribution of Teachers by Gender, Academic Qualification, ............................... 84
Table 4.3: Distribution of the Head Teachers by Gender, Age Bracket, ................................. 87
Table 4.4: DEOs’ and DQASOs’ gender, academic qualification, Period of
Experience and their stay in current station ............................................................ 89
Table 4.5: Students’, Teachers’ and headteachers’ responses on Safety Status of
School kitchens ..................................................................................................... 91
Schools’ Dining Halls ............................................................................................ 95
Table 4.7: Students’, Teachers’, headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs responses on
Safety Status of Classrooms................................................................................ 101
Safety Status of Schools’ Libraries ...................................................................... 106
Table 4.9: Students’, Teachers’, Headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs responses on
Safety Status of Schools’ Dormitories ................................................................ 113
Table 4.10: Respondents Responses on Safety Status of schools’ Sanitation Facilities ....... 118
Table 4.11: Respondents’ Responses on Safety Status of Schools’ laboratories .................. 124
Table 4.12: Respondents’ responses on Safety Status of Schools’ Administration
Block .................................................................................................................. 130
Table 4.13: Respondents’ Responses on Safety Status of Schools’ Perimeter Fence .......... 135
Table 4.14: Respondents’ responses on Safety Status of Schools’ Abandoned
Buildings ............................................................................................................ 139
Table 4.15: Respondents’ Responses on how Knowledge of Safety Guidelines Affects
Implementation .................................................................................................. 144
Table 4.16: Respondents’ Responses on how Training Affects Implementation of
Safety Guidelines in Schools ............................................................................. 147
xii
Table 4.17: Respondent’ responses on how resources affected implementation of

safety guidelines in schools ............................................................................... 152
Table 4.18: Respondents’ Responses on how Communication Affected
Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools ............................................. 157
Table 4.19: Students’ Responses on Channels used to communicate Safety Issues in
Schools .............................................................................................................. 160
Table 4.20: Respondents’ Responses on how Safety Equipments Affected
Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools............................................... 163
Table 4.21: Respondents’ Responses on how condition of School Buildings Affected
Table 4.22: Respondents’ Responses on how Schools’ Programmes and Policies
Affected Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools................................ 169
Table 4.23: Respondents’ Responses on how Schools’ Environmental Factors
Affected Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools................................ 174
Table 4.24: Respondents’ Responses on Students’ Involvement in the Implementation
of Safety Guidelines in Schools .......................................................................... 180
Table 4.25: Respondents’ Responses on Parents’ Involvement in the Implementation
of Safety Guidelines in Schools ......................................................................... 183
Table 4.26: Respondents’ Responses on Teachers’ and Support staff’s Involvement in
the Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools......................................... 188
Table 4.27: Respondents’ Responses on Headteachers’ Involvement in the
Table 4.28: Headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs Responses on BOGs Involvement in
the Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools ........................................ 197
Table 4.29: Headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs Responses on Government’s
Involvement in the Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools ............... 200
Table 4.30: Distribution of the headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs Responses on
NGOs’ and CBOs’ Involvement in the Implementation of Safety .................... 203
xiii
Table 4.31: Respondents’ responses on the involvement surrounding community in

the implementation of safety guidelines in schools ........................................... 205
Table 4.32: Students’ Responses on Attitude towards Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines ......................................................................................................... 210
Table 4.33: Distribution of responses on Teachers’ Attitude towards Implementation
of Safety Guidelines ........................................................................................... 214
Table 4.34: Distribution of Responses on Head teachers’ Attitude towards
Implementation of Safety Guidelines ................................................................ 219
Table 4.35: Distribution of Students’, Teachers’ and Headteachers’ Suggestions on
how to Enhance Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines ............................ 225
Table 4.36: Means for Head teachers’ Teachers’ and Students’ attitude towards safety
guidelines ........................................................................................................... 235
Table 4.37: ANOVA Results of the Hypothesis .................................................................... 236
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 A model of five “Ps” Theoretical Framework ........................................................ 18

Figure 1.2 Illustration of interplay of independent variables regarding safety in
Schools ................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.1 Convergent parallel mixed methods design ........................................................... 66
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
BOG Board of Governors
CBO Community Based Organization
CWS Church World Service
DEB District Education Board
DEO District Education Officers
DQASO District Quality Assurance and Standards Officers
ESP Economic Stimulus Project
IPT Independent Project Trust
ITOP Invitational Theory of Practice
MOE Ministry of Education
MOEST Ministry Of Education Science & Technology
NGO Non Governmental Organization
PDE Provincial Director of Education
PTA Parents Teachers Association
SSC School Safety Contact
SSCOS School Survey on Crime and Safety
SWAP Sector Wide Approach to Planning
USDE United States Department of Education

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Effective teaching and learning can take place only in a safe and secure
environment. School safety encompasses the total learning environment including,
learners, classrooms, school compound, parents and the community (Crowe, 1991).
According to Squelch (2001), a safe school is one that is free from danger and
possible harm, where non educators, educators and learners can work, teach and learn
without fear or ridicule, intimidation, harassment, humiliation or violence. Carter
(2001) asserts that, the actualization of the goals and objectives of education require
the provision of safe physical facilities, this is because a direct relationship exists
between the quality of school’s physical facilities and the quality of the products of
the school.
According to Elianson & Frank (2002), taking care of basic safety of a
school’s physical infrastructure is an essential step towards ensuring school safety and
security. This is premised on the notion that a safe and secure physical environment
would make it easy for the school to address issues that threaten its safety. Unsafe
physical infrastructure in a school has effects on child care, health, hygiene and
sanitation (Munyasi, 2002). These effects underscore the urgent need for enhanced
safety measures in learning institutions in order to provide safe school environment as
defined in the subsequent paragraphs.
The term safe school has been defined by Donmez & Guven (2002) as places
where students, teachers and staff feel physically, psychologically and emotionally
free, and where enriched school programme nurture students’ skills. Ogle & Tan
2
(2005) have defined safe school environment as places where positive relations exists
between managers and teachers, teachers and students and among students
themselves, and school staff with each other. Stephens (1995) stated that safe school
enabled teachers to teach and students to learn in a warm and favourable environment
where there is no room for fear and threats. Celik (2000) describes safe schools as
organizations where learning and efficiency is important for everyone and where
students are expected to be successful and are given space to display their social
skills. Offering a more detailed definition, Kadel & Follman (1995) states that, a safe
school environment is a place where teamwork is adopted as a policy, the school
policy is clear, students and teachers expectations are valued, active cooperation from
the environment is important and social activities abound.
Every country to a certain extent is concerned with the issue of safety in
learning institutions. This is as a result of recurrent accidents and disasters in schools,
which include; fire, floods and collapsing of buildings among others. According to
Munyasi (2002), disasters have a direct effect on the life, health, hygiene, sanitation,
shelter and security of the school. Policies and guidelines that address safety needs of
students, school personnel, community and the physical plant of the school have been
systematically effected in many parts of the world. As pointed out by Schneider
(2002), the United States of America Department of Education (U.S.D.E) requires
safety policies on physical infrastructure in schools to be strictly enforced in view of
the threats posed by terrorism, drug related violence, proliferation of firearms and
natural disasters.
National crime prevention in Australia, in cooperation with other
Commonwealth and state partners has worked to develop a consistent approach to
school safety across all states and is investing in long term projects that aim to
3
strengthen the capacity of schools, their staff and communities. A comprehensive
review of school based prevention project and policies have been undertaken,
innovative and restorative approaches that deal with safety in schools have been
piloted in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (Shaw, 2002).
In promoting safe school environment in South Africa, current approaches on
enhancing school safety in South Africa have been put in place, they include;
exemplary programmes such as “Tiisa Thuto”, “Crisp” and “Cass” ( Mgadla ,2006).
“Tiisa Thuto” involves developing partnership between schools, parents, local
business and community organizations in implementing model programmes that
address the needs of individual schools. The “Crisp” project organizes school safety
teams to link parents, schools, local organizations and police. “Cass” is a
comprehensive model involving local community partners, national government
development guidelines and support materials for school manager, educators, and
safety committees.
Uganda has implemented the Safe School Contract (S.S.C) as one of the
identified interventions which strengthen the role of teachers, pupils, parents and their
involvement in children’s education. The Ugandan Ministry of Education and Sports
together with United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
introduced more than 200 schools to S.S.C by the year 2008 so as to enhance safety in
school. Through the experience in the 200 supported schools, S.S.C offers a feasible
mechanism for promoting safety in schools through strengthening school-community
partnership and child participation.
Since the attainment of independence in 1963, Kenyan Government has
committed itself to improving standards of education at all levels. This commitment

4
has been driven by the need to provide education as fundamental human rights. It is
for this reason that the government has from time to time appointed various
educational commissions, committees and task forces such as Ominde Commission
(1964), Commission of Inquiry into the Education System of Kenya (1999), Task
Force on the harmonization of the legal framework on Education, Training and
Research (2009) and Task force on the realignment of the Education Sector to the
Constitution and Vision 2030(2011) among others to address various challenges
facing education sector including safety of schools’ physical infrastructure
Following the Kyanguli Secondary School tragedy in 2001, the then Director
of Education in Kenya wrote a circular on Health and Safety standard guidelines in
Educational institutions. The circular was intended to direct all educational managers,
head teachers and other stakeholders under the then general direction of Ministry of
Education Science and Technology (MOEST), Provincial Education Boards (P.E.B)
and District Education Boards (DEB) to review their institutional safety strategies. In
the same circular all stakeholders were reminded that educational institutions in the
country are for the greater part of the year, home to majority of the students. It was
also stressed in the circular that in the previous years, there had been a number of
incidences of fire and other health risks situations in the learning institutions and
hence the review of their safety standards (MOE, 2001).
In 2003, the Ministry of Education entered into a partnership programme,
“School Safe Zones” with Church World Service (CWS). The programme promotes
enhanced safety for learners in schools. A team of experts compiled safety standards
manual for use in Kenyan schools comprising the following issues; safety in physical
infrastructure, safety in school environment, health and hygiene safety, food safety,
safety against drug and substance abuse, safety in teaching and learning
5
environments, social-cultural environment of the school, safety of children with
special needs, safety against child abuse, transportation safety, school community
relations and safety on school grounds (MOE, 2008). The manual embraced diverse
issues that impinge upon the safety of learners, personnel, parents and the catchment
communities around the schools. Knowledge of school safety laws and regulations
provide administrators with the authority to know what is allowed, what is forbidden,
as well as what actions are considered to be an obligation to the school. It is in view
of this that the current study assessed the implementation of Ministry of Education
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools as outlined safety standards
manual for schools in Kenya (See Appendix VII).
According to Eliason and Frank (2002), ensuring safety of school’s physical
facilities is an essential step towards providing safe learning environment in
institutions of learning. They also provide an safe environment in which children can
be protected from threats such as fire outbreaks and bullying among others and
learning can take place since children who feel safe are both psychologically and
physiologically more receptive to learning.
Physical infrastructure in the current study will include; classrooms,
dormitories, offices, toilets, libraries, laboratories, kitchen, perimeter fence, gates,
dining hall, water tanks, playground equipments among others. Such facilities should
be appropriate, adequate and appropriately located, devoid of any risks to the users or
to those around them. They should also comply with the provisions of the Education
Act (Cap 211) and Ministry of Public Works Building Regulations and Standards
(MOE, 2008). It is against this background that the current study assessed the
implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure
in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region, Kenya.

6
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Educational institutions in Kenya have experienced several disasters. These
have led to loss of precious lives, damage of properties and injuries through
incidences of fire and other health risk situations. Some of such cases include; St.
Kizito Mixed secondary school where boys invaded the girls’ dormitory on July 13th
1991 and raped more than 70 girls, with 19 girls losing their lives in the scuffle and
Kyanguli secondary school where 68 students were burnt to death in a dormitory fire
on March 25th 2001. These incidents were partly associated to lack of adequate safety
measures in the physical facilities involved (Ndirangu, 2007).
In Nairobi West Region, a form three student was burnt to death when the
dormitory in which he was sleeping was set ablaze (PEDs Office Nairobi, 2008). At
school B in the region under study, a dormitory of 68 form one students burnt down
when students were in for the night studies. A report compiled by Lang’ata District
Education’s Office (MOE, 2010), indicated that school management had not fully
adhered to the Ministry of Education’s safety guidelines on physical infrastructure
since windows had grills; this could have hindered any meaningful evacuation process
had the students been trapped in during the incident.
Reports compiled by the Nairobi Provincial Director of Education’s office
(MOE, 2010) indicated that, three Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region
experienced disasters in their physical infrastructure when one had its sanitation
facilities collapse in January 2010 causing acute health risk to school community, a
perimeter wall in a school collapsed in April 2010 due to heavy rains and weak
foundation hence exposing the school community to security threats. The third school
had its dormitory burnt down in August 2010 creating congestion in other dormitories
7
and disrupting learning (MOE, 2010). The same school burnt down another dormitory
in July 2011 while parents were still putting up a new dormitory to replace the one
that had been burnt earlier.
The Reports further indicated that five schools in Nairobi West region
required repair of their physical facilities, perimeter fence, play grounds, water and
sanitation facilities. Priority safety and security needs included more permanent
classrooms, secure gates, toilets, electricity and buildings that have fully complied
with safety guidelines provided by the Ministry of Education. Four schools in the
region were reported to have lacked school based health initiatives and basic security
needs such as first aids kits and fire extinguishers.
The persistent recurrence of safety problems related to physical infrastructure
in public secondary schools in this region pose serious questions that demand answers
if similar cases are to be avoided in future. It was therefore necessary to assess the
implementation of Ministry of Education Safety guidelines on physical infrastructure
in public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region, Kenya.
1.3 Research Questions
In the process of assessing the implementation of Ministry of Education Safety
Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure, the study was guided by the following research
questions.
a) To what extent have public secondary schools in Nairobi West Region
implemented Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure?
8
b) What factors affect the implementation of Ministry of Education Safety
guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi
West Region?
c) To what extent are Schools’ stakeholders involved in the implementation of
Ministry of Education Safety guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Nairobi
West Region?
d) What are the Attitudes of headteachers, teachers and students towards
implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines in public
secondary schools in Nairobi West Region?
e) How can implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region be
enhanced
1.4 Research Hypothesis
HO: There is no significant difference between head teachers’ and teachers’ mean
attitude towards implementation of MOE safety guidelines and the safety status of
physical infrastructures in public secondary schools in Nairobi West Region.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The findings from this study are hoped to improve institution’s performance as
cited by Armstrong (2008) that, the tangible benefit from improved safety in physical
infrastructure include; high productivity, lower work absenteeism, lower costs of
accidents and litigation, meeting clients’ demands and improved staff morale and
employee relations.
9
It is hoped that, findings from this study will help administrators in the learning
institutions to develop and institutionalize safety programmes which will be supported
by top management and be given a mandate to educate school community on safety
issues and enforce safety rules and regulation. This concurs with Flippo (2004) and
Sagimo (2002) who asserts that if employees of any organisation are to be effective,
then employers must have a definite obligation to ensure safety of institutions’
physical infrastructure.
Teachers will be provided with information regarding safety of physical
infrastructure in schools. This could improve their performance as cited by Keller
(2003) that, safe working condition can have a positive impact upon job satisfaction,
attendance, effort, effectiveness and morale. Keller (2003) further asserts that,
teachers should be given an opportunity to assess safety of their working environment
, this agrees with Long (2000) who indicated that, just as students’ attitude and
behaviour are impacted by their physical surroundings, teachers are also influenced by
safety status in their work place.
It is hoped that the study will provide information to school designers and
architects on how to involve school community in projects being implemented in
order to incorporate their ideas regarding safety of the physical infrastructure.
According to Keck (1994), school design should consider making learners, teachers
and other members of the school community feel safe while in school.
Students will be provided with knowledge which could assist them to enhance
safety of physical infrastructure in their schools. Kileen, Evans and Danko (2003)
states that students should be knowledgeable about their safety while in school
10
premises and should be included in facility design in an attempt to increase
ownership.
Educational leaders are hoped to acquire information that could assist them to
develop tools that can be used on physical facilities safety appraisal which is one of
the many roles they play. They should therefore be equipped with a general
understanding of the relationship between safety of physical facilities and the learning
environment. This can be supported by Lark’s (2001) argument that the government
should deem it necessary to closely investigate the effectiveness of government’s
policies implementation in schools.
The identification of mechanisms to ensure safety, which is central to effective
learning in schools, would enable schools stakeholders to provide quality education as
called upon by the government (MOE, 2008). It is hoped that the study will provide
information that could prompt all stakeholders in the schools under study to revitalize
their efforts in ensuring safety measures are implemented in their schools.
The finding from the study could provide feedback to the Ministry of
Education officials such as Education officers and Quality Assurance and Standards
officers who are charged with the responsibility of carrying out monitoring and
evaluation of the implementation of Government policies in schools. This concurs
with Cotton (2006) that supervision of implementation of government policies is a
common element in well managed, safe and orderly schools.
It is hoped that findings from the study will prompt other Government sectors
and nongovernmental organizations to collaborate with the Ministry of Education to
ensure that all schools in the country are safe places for all children. Educational
planners could also benefit from the findings of the study as it is prudent for them to
11
bring up buildings that are up to safety standards in consideration of Ministry of
Education guidelines for designing schools to reduce accidents (Hammond, 2003).
They should also ensure that students are provided with information regarding
minimizing or eliminating risky conditions or threats that may cause accidents, bodily
injuries as well as emotional and psychological distress.
The society is hoped to benefit from the findings of the study in that many
parents and guardians will comfortably take their children to school and be assured of
their safety while in schools. This concurs with Cash (1993), who asserted that,
availability of safe physical infrastructure and continued maintenance of buildings
increases the demand for and access to education.
Besides, the study will make recommendations to the education stakeholders
that may help in the decision making and improved strategies on implementation of
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi
West region, Nairobi County and later spill over to other Counties.
The study is hoped to provide new knowledge on implementing safety
guidelines in schools through people, policies, programmes and processes as
explained in the Invitational Theory of Practice that was used to guide the study. The
study is also hoped to serve as a spring board for other researchers as well as a basis
for innovations in future improvements of safety standards in learning institutions.
According to Hale (2002), much research has continued to focus on
pedagogical and curriculum trends and not on safety of learners and educators.
Therefore the findings of the study will provide information on implementation of the
Ministry of Education Safety guidelines on physical infrastructure and add substantial

12
and original contribution to knowledge about safety in schools. The study could also
act as a basis for other research regarding safety in schools.
1.6 Scope and Delimitation of the study
The study delimited itself to public secondary schools in Nairobi West region and
not in private secondary schools given that safety problems are reportedly higher in
public secondary schools as indicated by the Chairman of Kenya Private Schools
Association (2001) that private schools have fewer problems because open door
policy between students, teachers and administrators is highly encouraged and valued.
The study area was delimited to Nairobi west region because reports complied by
provincial director of education’s office, Nairobi (MOE, 2011) indicated that most
schools in this region had not fully complied with the Ministry of Education safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure. Although safety issues involve the entire school
community, participants in this study that were sampled from the selected schools
included; headteachers, teachers and students, District Education officers and Quality
Assurance and Standards officers since they are at the centre of teaching learning
process.
1.7 Limitations of the study
Safety standard manual for schools in Kenya deals with many areas of school
safety but due to limited time, finances, data inaccessibility and unanticipated
occurrences this study limited itself to the area of safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure. This is a crucial safety issue in schools as stated by Elianson & Frank
(2002) that, taking care of the schools’ physical infrastructure is an essential step
towards ensuring school safety and security.

13
The researcher’s subjectivity cannot be completely ignored because a researcher
could have an influence on the interpretation of the findings. However, since the
participants were allowed to express their views, the effect of subjectivity was
balanced with objectivity.
The researcher used questionnaires as the main data collection instruments,
although Kerlinger (2002) asserts that questionnaires are limited in that most
respondents do not take them seriously so the return rate is normally very low, the
researcher personally administered the questionnaires in order to attain the required
return rate.
Since data was collected during the school term calendar, the researcher was seen
as interfering with the schools’ programme. Some head teachers considered the issue
of safety guidelines implementation as sensitive and failed to provide required
information. To overcome this, the researcher explained to the respondents that their
responses would be handled confidentially and that the study was purely for academic
purposes.
Available information at the districts in Nairobi west region was limited in that
these districts are newly started and had not gathered adequate information and
statistics. Therefore, the researcher consulted Nairobi’s provincial director of
education’s office for more information.
1.8 Theoretical Framework
The study used Invitational Theory of Practice (ITOP) to understand the
implementation of government policies in schools. It is a leadership theory that was
propounded by (Purkey & Novak, 2001). This theory is a collection of assumptions
that seek to explain phenomenon and provide a means of intentionally summoning

14
people to realise their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human
endeavours. It is worth noting that Invitational theory of Practice is not designated to
supplant most other educational or therapeutic strategies that have demonstrated value
in creating safe schools. Rather, it adds to and strengthens existing programmes by
providing a theoretical framework that addresses the total environment and culture of
the school (Drejer, 2002). Some of the other theories that are related to school safety
include: mental framework theory, social disorganization theory, social control
theory, school climate theory, system theory, subculture theory and rational theory.
Born as a reaction to the classical educational practices used in schools,
Invitational Theory of Practice aims to change the limited communication styles
between school members to ensure safety in school plant (Purkey, 1999). According
to the advocates of the theory, there are five factors that affect the appeal of schools;
People, Places, Policies, Programmes and Processes. Invitational Theory of Practice
states that these five factors make schools more socially appealing and safe (Purkey &
Schmidt, 1996). The five ‘Ps’ factors are discussed in relation to the current study;
People- Although all parts of a school are vital to its operation, from the
standpoint of Invitational Theory of Practice; people are the most important part.
They create and maintain the invitational climate that is necessary for safety in
schools (Purkey & Novak, 2001). The Invitational Theory of Practice requires
unconditional respect for people. This respect is manifested in the caring and
appropriate behaviour that people exhibit towards themselves and others, in the
quality of life reflected by the places they create and inhibit, by the policies and
programmes they establish and support and through the processes employed to sustain
their organization and environment. People component is very crucial in the current
study given that school human resource, which comprises managers, teachers,
15
students, support staff and parents are instrumental in safety issues in the school and
when overlooked, they hamper effective implementation of safety policies in schools
(Rugut, 2003, Omolo & Simatwa, 2010).
Places- when seeking to change an environment, the most obvious place to
begin is the physical setting. Any part of the physical plant that is unpleasant,
unattractive, littered, grimy, dusty or dingy is disinviting (purkey & Novak, 2001). A
negative physical place affects school members negatively while comfortable and
aesthetically pleasing features make schools more appealing. The entrance,
classrooms, waiting areas, corridors, canteens, staffrooms, social and sports facilities
and overall environment of the school have direct effects on individual in the school
(Schneider, 2002). Invitational Theory of practice will assist in identifying factors that
that can be altered, adjusted or improved to create a more inviting physical place since
creating of pleasant and safe physical environment is a major way that professionals
demonstrate their concern for the people they seek to serve.
Policies- The places people create are closely related to the policies they
establish and maintain. Policies refer to guidelines, rules, procedures, codes and
directives that regulate the ongoing functions of the school (Drejer, 2002). It is not
the policy itself as much as what the policy communicates that is vital to the
invitational Theory of Practice (respect or disrespect, trust or distrust, optimism or
pessimism, intentionally or unintentionally). Policies reveal the perceptual
orientations of policy makers (Purkey, 1999). Invitational Theory of Practice in the
current study will be used to assist all who are concerned in the implementation of
policies; students, teachers, parents, administrators, community and support staff in
becoming responsible for their own behaviour.

16
Processes- Another element that can make a school more appealing and safe is
the processes used by managers to interact with the social environment and cooperate
with other organizations. Processes include issues such as unity, democratic activities,
cooperation efforts, guidance in ethics and human activities. More effective processes
aim to develop the mutual interaction between the school, families and students
(Purkey & Stanley, 1991). They include all procedures and plans that assist long-term
and continuous stakeholders’ involvement in school policies implementation.
Programmes: A good impression may be made on school members and the
environment by developing school programmes that address human needs at large,
instead of those that focus on narrow goals. Incorporating activities for families and
the social environment into the school programme, in addition to those geared
towards students’ and staff also make schools more appealing and safe (Purkey &
Stanley, 1991). This concurs with Rugut (2003) who observed that lack of regular
communication to sensitize various stakeholders on their roles hampered smooth
implementation of policies in schools.
Invitational Theory of Practice requires a holistic approach that encompasses
everybody and everything in the school. Ideally, the factors of people, places,
policies, programmes and processes should each be intentionally inviting that is;
having the knowledge, skills and purpose to communicate with others in ways that
promote and develop human beings in general to engage in positive endeavours in
life. This creates a total environment where every person is summoned cordially,
physically, psychologically and spiritually (Purkey & Strahan, 1995).
These five dimensions of Invitational Theory of Practice are based on four
assumptions which give the theory its aim and direction. These assumptions are;
17
Trust, Respect, Optimism and Intentionality (Purkey & Schmidt, 1996). They provide
a consistency stance on conceptual framework from which school administrators and
others can effectively create and maintain a truly safe and welcoming academic
environment.
From Invitational Theory of Practice perspective, schools are not likely to be
changed through the addition of isolated new programmes, policies or actions that
ignore the essential nature of the whole school. School safety measures should
address school culture, academic achievement and existing student, parent, and other
stakeholders (Purkey, 1999). This concurs with Miller (1992), who asserts that, the
most effective and efficient programmes for developing safe school environment are
those that emphasize on positive alternatives, psychosocial skills and competent
behaviour.
Invitational Theory of Practice is suitable for the current study because it
presents a way of creating and maintaining schools that are both safe and conducive to
academic success. It also provides a guiding philosophy rather than relying on one
programme, policy or process. It addresses the total sprit of the school and its goal is
to make schools more safe, exciting, satisfying and enriching.
Steady and continuous pressure from people, places, policies, processes and
programmes can overcome the biggest challenge of physical infrastructure safety in
schools as illustrated in figure 1.1

18
Policies
Places - Guidelines from the MOE

Places
- School rules and regulations
-Classrooms -Kitchen
- Discipline
-Dormitories -Libraries
-Dining halls -Special rooms - Curriculum delivery
-Toilets etc
Policies Policies
People
Processes
Programs People
Programs People
- Community services - Administrators
- Sports - Education Officers

Programs
- Music/ Drama Processes - Teachers
- Clubs & societies - Students
- Guidance and Counselling

Processes - Parents
1.9 Conceptual Framework
- Unity - Community
- Democratic activities
- Cooperation efforts
- 1.1 A model of five “Ps” Theoretical Framework

Figure
- Guidance in ethics
19
Safety of physical infrastructure in schools indicates the level of implementation
of safety guidelines as stipulated in government policy regarding safety in schools.
Safety of school’s infrastructure has several components that should work together as
a system. They include; programmes and policies that address school safety,
involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of safety guidelines in schools,
allocation of resources towards implementation of safety guidelines and supervision
of safety guidelines implementation in schools. These components are interrelated as
illustrated in figure 1.2

20
Involvement of all - Programmes and policies

stakeholders to address school safety
Safe physical
- Administrators infrastructure in - Constitution of safety
schools committees in schools
-MOE officials
- Training of school
-teachers community on safety issues
-students etc
Monitoring and supervision

Allocation of resources
- Regular assessment on
- Budgetary allocation to compliance of schools with
address safety guidelines safety guidelines by the
implementation MOE officials
-human resource -internal quality assurance

allocation e.g. guidance mechanisms to ensure safety
and counselling teachers, of physical infrastructure in
security personnel schools
Figure 1.2: Illustration of interplay of independent variables regarding safety in
Schools
Source: Adaptation from Safety Standards Manual (MOE, 2008)
Figure 2 illustrates safe school’s physical infrastructure as the dependent variable of
the study. The implementation of MOE safety guidelines on safety infrastructure will
provide safe school environment where people will feel safe and secure.
21
Policies regarding attendance, grading, promotion and discipline among others
need to be developed and maintained within a cycle of respect for everyone involved.
Every school policy needs to be democratically developed, easy to understand and
made available to everyone involved. Among the many programmes that help to
create safe schools are; community outreach, wellness and enrichment opportunities
for everyone in the school. Guidance counsellors play a central role in arranging
beneficial programmes.
Stakeholders in a school work as a family. School managers should strive to
provide education and training on safety issues, stress reduction and conflict
management. Training should also focus on first aid procedures. This view is
supported by Armstrong (2008), who asserts that, ensuring safety in a workplace is a
vital managerial responsibility, and an organisation that ignores this responsibility
does injustice not only to itself and people affected but also to the whole community
where organisation operates. Government through various policies give direction
concerning safety in educational institutions which if implemented could significantly
improve safety in schools. It is then the responsibility of the schools’ managers to
ensure that safety guidelines are fully implemented. The school administrators should
exercise democratic and participatory leadership styles to ensure that students,
teachers and support staff own their school and will not engage in any action that is
dangerous to the school community.
If careful attention is to be given to the safety of physical facilities in schools,
adequate resources should be allocated to ensure; adequate lighting, well maintained
buildings and grounds, adequate and clean sanitation facilities, adequate, spacious and
safe classrooms, dormitories, laboratories and libraries among other facilities.

22
Monitoring and supervision of MOE safety guidelines implementation in
schools is critical if safe school environment is to be realised. Therefore, it is
important for government officers, especially the directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards to plan for regular standards assessments to ascertain how well safety
guidelines are being implemented in schools. By so doing they will be able to provide
proper feedback to school administrators who in turn will provide safe school
environment.
1.10 Operational Definition of Key Terms
The following are operational definition of terms that were used in the study.
Assessment: This is a process in which judgement is made whether the
sampled school have implemented MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure.
This is done based on the quality index designed by the Ministry of Education.
Disaster: Is a serious disruption of the functioning of school community
causing widespread human, material or environmental losses. This could be related to
lack of or inadequate implementation of the guidelines related to physical
infrastructure of the institution.
Guidelines: These are the recommended practices that the school management
should undertake to meet the MOE safety standards. It will be used to include criteria
or factors such as what tasks should be done, when the task is to be completed, and
the mode of receiving feedback regarding the implementation process.
Implementation: This is when the school management takes action or makes
changes that they have officially decided should take place. This is done based on the
23
Ministry of Education guidelines on physical infrastructure which if effectively
addressed would increase safety in the school.
Physical Infrastructure: Refers to any facility for use in the school to
facilitate the provision of services. In this study they refer to; tuition, administration,
sanitation facilities and perimeter wall. They also include play grounds in the schools.
When they are done in consideration of the Ministry of Education guidelines, schools
become safer for their community.
Safety: This is making school’s physical infrastructure conducive for the
users.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
The chapter provides a review of literature related to implementation of
Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public secondary
schools. A review of related literature indicated that, although research has been done
on safety in schools in other parts of the world, little has been done on the same in
Africa and more so in Kenya. No research has been carried out directly on
implementation of MOE safety guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Public
Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region, Nairobi County. Literature and studies
carried out in other parts of the world that were relevant to this study were considered.
Review of related literature in this study was based on four topics: safety status of
physical infrastructure, attitude of respondents towards implementation of MOE
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure, factors affecting implementation of MOE
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure, stakeholders’ involvement in the
implementation of safety guidelines on physical infrastructure.
2.2 Safety Status of Physical Infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools in
Nairobi West Region, Kenya
Physical facilities play pivotal role in actualization of educational goals and
objectives by satisfying the physical and emotional needs of staff and students in a
learning institution. Physical needs are met through provision of safe physical
structures, adequate sanitary facilities, a balanced visual environment, appropriate

24
thermal environment, and sufficient shelter space for work and play. Emotional needs
are met by creating pleasant surroundings, a friendly atmosphere and an inspiring
environment (Lupinacci, 2002). This concurs with Kennedy (2003) who asserts that
when the learning process is at the core of design priorities, there is significant
likelihood that the physical facilities will positively influence performance. This view
is supported by Clark (2001) who pointed out that student who feels safe in school
experience positive effect on their learning. In view of this, the current study focused
on the assessment of MOE safety guidelines in public secondary schools in Nairobi
West region.
Safe school environment is characterized by the presence of certain physical
aspects such as a secure wall, fences and gates, buildings that are in good state of
repair and well maintained school grounds. The most visible aspect of school’s
physical infrastructure entails quality of security systems and maintenance of school
buildings and grounds. This implies a clean and safe environment that is conducive to
education and has security of property, well cared for facilities, furniture and
equipment, clean toilets, water and green environment and absence of harassment
(Squelch, 2001). Therefore there is a need for research to assess implementation of
safety guidelines in schools which ensures these characteristics are adhered to in order
to enhance effective teaching learning process.
Reid (2000) advocates the general appearance of buildings as an indicator of
the school’s tolerance for misbehaviour and by implication, for safety threatening
situations. He argues that school buildings must be clean, comfortable and devoid of
signs of vandalism, damage and graffiti. This implies that school buildings need to be
in a clean condition and that damage and graffiti need to be repaired as soon as
possible to prevent further damage through appearance portraying a non- caring

25
attitude and lack of safety guidelines consideration in schools. This view is further
reinforced by Carter and Carter (2001) who asserts that, creating and ensuring school
building safety revolves around the physical maintenance of buildings, allows for
continued use of space for its intended purpose, and serves as an additional
manifestation of ownership and caring. It is prudent for studies regarding safety in
schools to be conducted to provide necessary feedback on schools’ adherence to
safety measures to allow informed decision making. Various studies regarding school
safety has been conducted both locally and globally have been conducted as shown in
the subsequent discussions.
Cornell, Sheras, Gregory, and Fan (2009) explored the usefulness of threat
assessment guidelines in reducing violence in 280 public high schools in Virginia.
Their study found out that in schools where threat assessment guidelines were
followed, students reported less bullying, felt more comfortable seeking help, and
possessed more positive perceptions of the school climate. With this consideration, it
was necessary for the current study to address compliance of schools to the MOE
safety guidelines implementation in order to provide positive school climate for
effective teaching learning process.
A study was conducted (2011) with 751 students in 34 classrooms, spread
across seven primary schools in the seaside town of Blackpool, England. Data were
collected on students’ performance level going into the school year. The researchers
comprised faculty from the University of Salford school of Built Environment, in
Manchester, England, as well as collaborators from the architecture firm Nightingale
Associates. They ranked each classroom on a 1 to 5 scale for 10 different design
parameters; light, sound, temperature, air, quality, choice, flexibility, connection,
complexity, colour and texture. Each of these parameters were broken down into a
26
few consideration, light for example, included the amount of natural light entering the
classroom, as well as the teachers’ ability to manually control the level of lighting.
Flexibility took into consideration how well a given classroom could accommodate
students without crowding them, in addition to how easily its furniture could be
rearranged for a variety of activities and teaching approaches.
The study found that six of the design parameters; colour, choice, complexity,
flexibility, connection, and light had a significant effect on learning. Light concerned
the amount of natural light in the classroom and the quality of electrical lights it
contained. Choice had to do with the quality of furniture in the classroom. Complexity
and colour had to do with providing an ample amount of visual stimulation for
students in the classroom. The parameters considered in this study are outlined in the
MOE safety guidelines since they can impact on the learners’ safety. Therefore, the
current study sought answers on safety status of physical infrastructure in public
secondary schools in Nairobi West region.
Cash (1993) examined relationship between safety of school facilities and
student achievement and behaviour. The target population for the study was student in
small rural high schools in the commonwealth of Virginia. Schools that were included
in the study were high schools located outside urban areas with a senior class
population of less than 100 students. Cash (1993) identified a total of 47 high schools
to include in her study. Their total school populations ranged in size from 90 to 695
and their senior class populations ranged in size from 12 to 99.
Cash (1993) found that students’ achievement scores were higher in schools
with better and safe building condition. Students’ achievement was related more to
the cosmetic condition of the building while student behaviour was related more to
27
the structural condition of the building. The researcher also found that varying climate
control, locker condition, and graffiti were factors that were positively related to the
student’s achievement. These findings underscore the importance of the current study
since a school that has implemented safety guidelines ensure improved safe building
conditions resulting to increased student’s achievement and desired behaviour.
Hines (1996) examined relationship between safety condition of school
facilities and students’ achievement and behaviour in urban high schools in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Schools that were included in the study were high
schools located in the metropolitan area with populations over 100,000 and schools
enrolments over 25,000. Hines (1996) identified a total of 88 schools to include in the
study. The study found that condition of the school facilities were affecting student’s
achievement and behaviour. These findings indicate the need for a study to assess the
implementation of safety guidelines in schools which is the focus of the current study.
Lanham (1999) examined relationship between condition of school facilities
and student’s achievement and behaviour in elementary school in the Commonwealth
Virginia. He used a random sample of 300 of 989 elementary schools in Virginia that
housed both third and fifth grades students. Of the schools selected, 197 actually
participated. The finding of the study was that there was a relationship between
building condition and student’s achievement. Some building components were more
related to student’s achievement more than others. For instance, air conditioning,
ceiling type, frequency of floor sweeping, frequency of floor mopping, room
structure, overall building maintenance, and floor type. Lanham (1999) clearly
indicated that safety and appropriateness of school buildings condition is significant
in the teaching learning process. Therefore, studies addressing safety guidelines
implementation in schools, similar to the current study need to be conducted.

28
Branham (2000) studied the relationship between inadequate school
infrastructure and student’s performance using the 226 schools in Houston
Independent School District (HISD) for the 1995-96 school years. The focus of the
study was relationship between problematic and unsafe school infrastructure and
students’ achievement. Result of the study provided important evidence that safe
school infrastructure has critical impact on students’ achievement. Schools with roofs
in need of repair, those that rely heavily on temporary buildings and schools with
understaffed custodial services provide an environment where students are less likely
to attend school. They are also more likely to drop out. In view of this, studies
assessing schools’ adherence to safety guidelines are necessary since a high quality
and safe buildings bring an atmosphere of high student achievement.
O’Neill (2000) investigated the possible impact of school facilities on
student’s achievement, behaviour, attendance and teacher turnover rates at selected
Central Texas Middle Schools in Region X11 Educational Service Centre (ESC) area.
The principals of all 76 middle schools in the area were sent survey packets and
invited to participate. The actual number of principals who participated in the study
was 70 translating to 92% participation rate. In addition to survey data, interviews
were conducted with 10% of the principals giving first hand qualitative data. O’Neill
(2000) found that there was a positive relationship between academic performance
and school building condition. Together with other studies of similar nature quoted
above, it is evident that various studies regarding safety of physical infrastructure in
schools required to be carried out if desired students’ achievement and behaviour was
to be realised.
A study was conducted by Oluremi (2005) on creating a friendly school
learning environment for Nigerian children. The areas of the study included classroom
29
environment, provision of infrastructural facilities, and teacher pupil interaction in the
classroom setting. Descriptive research design of the survey type was used.
Questionnaire was used to elicit information from the respondents. The sample
comprised 250 teachers from the selected secondary schools in the state. Data were
collected using frequency counts, means and percentages. Results showed that 25% of
the schools selected were not child friendly. This was because they lacked
infrastructural facilities such as toilet facilities, chairs, desks and tables among others.
Most classrooms were not friendly to pupils with disabilities. The study recommended
all education stakeholders to strive to make school environment safe, attractive and
pleasant in order to enhance teaching and learning and improve teacher productivity.
The stakeholders can well be informed about school safety through studies regarding
the same hence the importance of the current study.
Researchers such as Okpala (2006), Ndukwe (2002) and okubukola (2000)
among others highlighted the unsafe and gloomy state of the Nigerian school
environment. According to Okpala (2006), many school children in Nigeria learn
under the shades of trees while many others sit on the floor in their classrooms while
learning. Ndukwe (2000) on the other hand found that many schools had no safe and
adequate physical infrastructure as well as games and recreational facilities.
Okobukola (2000) provided a statistical analysis of the unsafe situations in the
Nigerian schools as follows; 12% of the pupils sat on floor, 87% were in overcrowded
classrooms, 3% of the schools had no chalkboards, 38% of the classrooms had no
ceiling, 77% of the pupils lacked textbooks and 36% of the pupils had no writing
materials. From the foregoing, it is evidently clear that most schools fail to implement
safety guidelines. It is therefore crucial for researchers to embark on studying safety
in schools as is the case with the current study in order to provide school
30
environments that are conducive enough for the development of appropriate skills,
knowledge, interests and attitude in individuals to become responsible citizens.
Magdla, (2006) carried out an investigation on the basic safety and security
status of 23 Primary schools and 12 Public Secondary schools in Sedibeng District,
South Africa. The study employed phenomenological approach, purposive sampling
was used and the main respondents were headteachers. The research instruments used
in the study were observation and interview schedules while data was analysed using
descriptive statistics and qualitative procedures. The study showed that, township
schools were especially vulnerable to unsafe conditions and threats of violence due to
among other things, poor resources and infrastructure, their location, especially in and
around informal settlement, the type of their building and environmental design.
This concurs with Glickman (2004) who indicates that most schools located in
the informal settlement are plagued by decaying buildings that threaten the health,
safety and learning opportunities of the users. He also pointed out that a relationship
exists between safe physical facilities and learners’ performance. However, much
research has continued to focus on pedagogical and curriculum trends and not directly
on the physical facilities as crucial environment surrounding the learner and the
educator. In view of this, the current study focused on the implementation of safety
guidelines in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region given that safety of
students and teachers is core in the provision of quality education.
Over the years, Kenyan Government has devoted herself to enhancing delivery
of quality education through provision of resources and other services to realise this.
It is evident that quality education cannot be achieved in unsafe school environment.
Therefore, various studies have been conducted to address issues of safety in schools.
31
Omolo and Simatwa (2010) conducted a study in Kisumu East and West districts on
the implementation of safety policies in Schools. The study had a sample of 30
schools, 30 head teachers and a saturated sample of 2 Quality Assurance and
Standards Officers (QASOs). Instruments used for data collection included head
teachers and QASOSs questionnaires, interview and observation schedules. The
findings from the study indicated that only 8 schools had fire extinguishers, a total of
38 fire extinguishers were found against a projected demand of 137, this according to
the study raised a serious doubt about the fire safety preparedness in Kisumu East and
West Public Secondary Schools.
Omolo and Simatwa (2010) further revealed that, having fire extinguishers
and training staff on how to use them is one important precaution against fire related
disasters yet such trainings were not being undertaken in the schools understudy
hence compromising safety of school community. The provision of fire extinguishers
in some schools was a step to the right direction; however, there was a need to keep
them serviced. Majority of boarding schools had old fire extinguishers which had not
been serviced hence questioning their usefulness in a fire out break incident. Students
spend a considerable length of time in dormitories and classrooms. These buildings
should therefore be put up according to the guidelines specifications in order to avoid
situations that would compromise safety of occupants. The study by Omolo and
Simatwa (2010) recommended more research in the area of school safety to provide
policy makers with information regarding safety in learning institutions in Kenya. It is
in this line that the current study sought information regarding MOE safety guidelines
implementation in public secondary schools.
According to Waudo (2009), effective and quality learning requires adequate
and safe physical facilities as this would contribute significantly to a conducive

32
environment for teaching learning process. This concurs with Mwaria (1995) and
Maina (2005) who noted that, availability of varied, appropriate and adequate
physical facilities supported by clear policy guidelines enhances learning. Omolo and
Stewart (2010) observed that most schools had not complied fully with the safety
guidelines since doors and windows of the classrooms, dormitories and other rooms
had grills and were opening inwards, this could hinder free flow of evacuees in case
of emergencies.
Dormitories, laboratories and halls require to be fitted with emergency doors
since they provide alternative egress during emergencies and failure to observe this
can compromise security of the users (Comolotti, 1999). Consequently, safe and
secure schools are fundamental to students’ school successes and achievements
(Squelch, 2001). Therefore, the current study assessed whether implementation of
safety guidelines in schools remained an ever present priority of school fraternity in
order to provide a safe and orderly school environment.
Aketch and Omolo (2010) carried out a research on opportunities and
challenges for public primary school teachers in the implementation of Free Primary
Education in Kisumu Municipality, Kenya and noted that the pupil to toilet ratio of
30:1 was grossly ignored by a majority of schools despite the fact that provision of
sanitation facilities has implication on access and quality of learning. This concurred
with the findings of UNESCO (2005). Siringi (2001) reported that overcrowding in
public Secondary schools classes and dormitories posed a serious public health and
safety risks because it caused death due to stampede in fire outbreak incidents. They
further indicated that, conversion of other structures into dormitories due to swelling
enrolment brought about by Free Day Secondary Education caused a lot of risks to
learners. One of the recommendations they made was that school administration
33
should peg admission to bed space available to avoid disasters associated with
overcrowding in schools’ dormitories. Considering this recommendation, it is clearly
outlined in the MOE safety guidelines (2008) that dormitories, being the single most
used physical infrastructure where learners spend the longest continuous period of
time in a day should kept clean, well ventilated and overcrowding to be avoided under
all cost. The current study was apt given that it assessed implementation of such
guidelines in schools in the region under study.
Chumba (2006) conducted a study on perception of secondary school teachers
and headteachers on the planning of school buildings in Nandi South district. A
sample of 23 secondary schools, 23 headteachers and 30 teachers was used in the
study. Data collection instruments included; questionnaires, interview and observation
guides. The study showed that although classrooms should be built in such a way that
longer side with windows run in East to West direction to avoid exposing learners to
the sun’s harmful radiation, 17 schools had not observed that hence putting the users
to risk. Classroom lighting, which depends on proper location of the building, plays a
crucial role in academic performance of students. Appropriate lighting improves test
scores, reduces off-tasks behaviour and plays a significant role in achievement
(Buckley & Shang, 2004).
In Kenya, natural lighting has been the most predominant means of
illuminating most school spaces as the schools are either not connected to electricity
supply or the use of electricity for lighting is expensive and unaffordable (Chumba,
2006). Safety standards manual for schools in Kenya (2008) states that, in order to
ensure adequate natural lighting in the classrooms, orientation of the building should
be considered. To establish whether this requirement was being considered in schools,
the current study assessed whether implementation of MOE safety guidelines on

34
physical infrastructure was a comprehensive approach that focused on prevention,
intervention and planning.
Kennedy (2003) asserts that, an administration building is commonly used by
the public, teachers and students. It should be near the entrance for easy accessibility
and security of the school plant. According to Sustainable Building Industry Council
(2003), a high performing school administration building has three characteristics: it
should be healthy and productive for the users by providing superior indoor quality
air, safe and secure environment, it should be cost effective to operate and maintain,
and it should be sustainable and user friendly in terms of time consumed moving from
one office to the other. Ideally, this building should be centrally located and easily
accessible by both internal and external users. This view is supported by Magdla
(2006) who indicates that, location of the school’s administration should be for
convenience and safety of students and the entire school community.
The location also has a lot to do with attractiveness and wholesomeness of the
school surrounding. It is a requirement of the MOE safety standards guidelines, whose
implementation was being assessed in the current study that school’s administration
block be suitably located to enhance surveillance of the school operations and for easy
detection of any unsafe situation in learning institutions (MOE, 2008)
It is important for school buildings to be painted or white washed regularly
because painting has both aesthetic as well as public health values. Schools that are
newly painted look neat and habitable while schools that have tarnished peeling and
fading paint look dilapidated and unhygienic, giving a negative impression about the
management and the mission of the school. Painting and white washing are effective
and cheap ways to renovate school buildings (Lady, 2009). As the school age reaches
35
thirty years, the challenges facing its buildings are not likely to decrease, therefore,
school managers are duty bound to carry out preventive maintenance of physical
facilities to avoid breakdown and ensure optimal performance of these facilities
(Dewees, 1999). To achieve this, school managers need to implement MOE safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure which is the focus of the current study.
Mwangi (2008) conducted a study on status of disaster preparedness in public
secondary schools in Kiharu division, Murang’a district. The study had the following
objectives; to identify the fire disaster gadgets, to find out the training and drills
schools have on fire disaster preparedness, and identify the fire disaster plans in
schools and also to find out evacuation measures put in place. The study established
that, fire disaster gadgets were available in some schools though most of them were
dysfunctional, poor environmental conditions such as peeling plant, crumbling plaster,
non-functioning toilets, poor lighting, inadequate ventilation and direct sunlight in
classrooms affected learning and morale of staff and students, the study linked
students’ achievement and status of physical infrastructure. It is clear from the said
study that some learning institutions fail to comply with the MOE requirements on
safety of physical infrastructure hence the need to assess the implementation of these
guidelines in schools.
Jagero (2011) carried out an evaluation of school environmental factors
affecting performance of boarding secondary students in Kisumu district Nyanza
Province. The research designs used in the study were descriptive survey and ex post
facto. The population consisted of five headteachers, 140 form four teachers and 609
form four students. The sample size was as follows; five headteachers, 46 form four
teachers and 201 form four students. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics
and inferential statistics such as linear multiple regression and factor analysis. The
36
finding from this study indicated that the main problem faced by the boarding
students included inadequate and unsafe tuition and boarding facilities, it was also
observed that most headteacher, 3 out of 5, had not complied with the MOE safety
guidelines regarding provision of sanitation facilities to the required ratios. Studies
conducted by Holsinger, Jacob and Migimu (2002) also revealed that, problems faced
by students in boarding schools included overcrowding in students’ hostels,
inadequate and low quality food, scarcity of clean water and inadequate sanitation
facilities. All these exposed students to hazardous situations in schools; this could be
minimized if schools implemented fully MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure as stipulated in Safety Standards Manual for Schools in Kenya (2008)
In another study conducted in Kisumu Municipality by Maoulidi (2008) to
assess challenges facing schools in Kisumu Municipality in their efforts to achieve
universal primary education and eliminate gender parities in education by 2015, it was
established that, majority of the schools were in a state of despair for lack of adequate
teaching and learning materials. Class sizes were too large, furniture and light fittings
were broken or loose while many others lacked electricity or running water, and some
had no access to water at all. A recommendation regarding the status of teachers by
UNESCO (1998) advised that; schools building should be safe and attractive in
overall design and functional in layout; they should lend themselves to effective
teaching and learning process. Schools should be constructed in accordance to MOE
(2008) safety standards with view to durability, adaptability and ease economic
maintenance. It was important to assess compliance of schools to such guidelines
because as Jagero (2011) postulates, most schools in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa
do not meet these standards, rather than fostering independent and interest for
learning, schools hinder children’s progress and potential.

37
Dierkx (2003) conducted a survey on community- based architectural
programming and development of inclusive learning environment s in Nairobi’s
slums. The study used simple random sampling to select ten schools from each of the
eight districts in the province for a total of eighty schools. Questionnaires were used
as the main data collection instruments to gather information from 38 male and 42
female headteachers of the sampled schools. The study sought information on the
safety of physical infrastructure and community members’ involvement in the
inclusive school environments. Findings from this study indicated that, in Kenya,
especially in Nairobi, schools’ development is politically motivated. Local politicians
and business leaders financially support the construction of five to ten schools per
year, mostly in poverty stricken areas, to try to gain votes and public support.
They do so without the sanction of the local government and without
consulting students, teachers and parents. Misappropriated private funds, lack of
public financial resources, inadequate supervision, lack of professional labour, and
inappropriate use of technologies and materials routinely result in low quality school
buildings that do not meet the standards set by the Kenyan build code and MOE
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure. Therefore, schools end up being unsafe,
unhealthy and non conducive to neither teaching nor learning. It was therefore
imperative for the current study to be conducted so as to provide feedback for
decision making since no meaningful teaching and learning can take place in an
environment that is unsafe and insecure to both learners and staff.
The Kenyan government acknowledges the need for better and safe school
environment. A governmental commission of inquiry on Kenya’s education system
attributed declining standards of education to partly on inadequate and unsustainable
physical facilities that do not consider MOE safety guidelines on physical

38
infrastructure (Koech, 1999). The commission further indicated that, although
learning and teaching can take place in many settings, a physical educational space
that is dangerous, filthy, and haphazardly constructed and lacking basic facilities
cannot reasonably fulfil its intended purpose. In addition, school finance trends in
Kenya have shown a notable increase in funding for schools’ physical infrastructure
(MOE, 2008). The current study assessed compliance of physical facilities to the
MOE safety guidelines regarding physical infrastructure to ensure that learners and
educators are operating in a safe and secure environment.
2.3 Factors Affecting Safety Guidelines Implementation in Public Secondary
Schools in Nairobi West Region, Kenya
According to Cash (1993), the total amount of available money for education,
the values that the community place on education and other external factors affect
safety of schools’ physical infrastructure. The resources available to maintain
facilities and the selection of school personnel in leadership positions also affect
safety and condition of school buildings. In view of the foregoing, the current study,
in one of the research questions sought answers regarding factors affecting MOE
safety guidelines implementation given that no meaningful teaching and learning can
take place in unsafe environment (Squelch, 2001)
Cash (1993) further stated that the school governing bodies which help the
leadership develop and internalize a personal philosophy of education is responsible
for determining the direction education will move. From that beginning comes a
feeling regarding the importance of safe physical infrastructure which houses the
educational process. If leadership makes the level of importance high, then emphasis
will be placed on creating a safe physical environment which promotes quality

39
education. This emphasis will evidence itself through security maintenance and
custodial staff in adequate numbers and providing them necessary training,
supervision and resources to ensure their success. This argument forms a basis for
studies to be conducted to ascertain the contribution of school leadership pertaining
safety implementation. The current study sought information regarding school
management and how they support the initiative of safety guidelines implementation
in schools.
Hines (1996) suggests that parental attitude and involvement can affect
importance of maintaining school facilities. He further noted that as the building ages,
the safety and condition of the building becomes more a product of the performance
of the maintenance and custodial staff. Maintenance left undone multiplies upon itself
and results in additional needed maintenance. The same holds true for poor custodial
performance which could contribute to maintenance problems. Lack of renovation
and facility maintenance culture in schools could compromise safety of students and
educators hence the need to conduct such a study on safety guidelines implementation
in schools.
Edwards (1991) studied the role of parents in the Washington, D.C school
system. She found that some schools had very attractive Teachers Parent Associations
(PTAs) and others participated in advocacy groups called parents united. Some
schools had little or no organised parental involvement. The study established that the
PTA budget was a very significant variable. They influenced safety and conditions of
their local schools by applying pressure on local elected officials to push for funding
from the city, by directing their own energies to improving the situation such as
volunteering to monitor and clean the playground each day, by funding improvement
project directly, and by supporting certain political candidates or educational

40
measures. She further found that parents could influence schools to adhere to
standards of safety and cleanliness. It was therefore necessary to conduct the current
study on safety guidelines implementation in schools since the resulting safety and
condition of buildings could affect the student’s perception of their own self worth,
the value placed on their education by the society and future prospect for attaining a
better standard of living.
Mwale (2006) conducted a study in Malawi which examined primary school
teachers’ perception of the factors contributing to safe school learning environment.
Twenty eight primary school teachers from one public primary school in Malawi
participated in the study. Data on teachers’ perceptions and behaviours were collected
through survey. Frequencies and percentages were used to analyze the survey data on
teachers’ perceptions.
The study, Mwale (2006) found that unsafe school were associated with a
number of factors such as; lack of attention by school systems, poor supervision,
minimal engagement of pupils in school activities and psychological problems which
escalate to school violence and contribute to unsafe school. According to Herrenkohl
(2000), individual difference, family and school problems, peer and community
influence also contribute to unsafe school. To address these factors, information
regarding safety guidelines implementation in schools is critical since a safe
environment for teaching and learning is the expectation of most parents, students and
educators.
Implementation of safety guidelines in schools cannot be appropriately carried
out in schools without accurate information which should be collected through facility
audit. According to the planning guide for maintaining school facilities (2003) facility
41
audit is a comprehensive inventory of school’s facilities that provide a standard
method for establishing baseline information about components, policies and
procedures for a new existing facility. It provides information on the safety status of
school’s physical facilities. It is carried out by assessing buildings, grounds and
equipments, documenting the findings and recommending service options to increase
efficiency and reduce waste and save money.
The guide further explains that, facility audits are important because they help
planners, managers and staff know what is available, its condition, service history,
maintenance needs and location. Provides facts, not guess work, to inform plans for
maintaining and improving school facilities and at the same time establish a baseline
for measuring facilities maintenance and safety progress. However, an education
needs assessment conducted in Kisumu Municipality by Maoulidi, (2007) indicated
that the aspect of facility audit was generally overlooked and practically no attention
was paid to the maintenance of physical facilities.
The study, Maoulidi (2007) further revealed that several school buildings that
were over 30 years had never undergone any renovation or any other form of
modernisation in spite of changes in the educational system. Some of those facilities
were found to be architecturally obsolete and unsafe hence could not contribute to the
offering of functional education. It was also established that maintaining the new
buildings, renovating and modernising the old ones as stated in the MOE safety
standards manual require considerable expertise and commitment of human and
material resources which was adversely inadequate.
Changes in weather conditions and failure to implement MOE safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure were found to be responsible for ageing and

42
deterioration of schools’ physical infrastructure making them unsafe for the users. In
view of the foregoing, the current study was necessary since school physical
infrastructure that is accessible, durable, functional, safe, hygienic and easily
maintained need to be part of any strategy to meet the Millennium Development Goal
for Education (Nthenya, 2011).
Over the years, school managers have emphasized that physical infrastructure
available for academic and non-academic activities are grossly inadequate and unsafe
(Reid, 2000). He further states that available facilities in most schools may well be
regarded as obsolete in terms of quality and quantity because these facilities were
provided when the students’ population in schools was reasonably low as compared to
the population of the same school presently using the same facilities. This issue is
very demanding because it bears direct relevance to the funding of education and
most importantly to the quality of outputs of the educational system. The same view is
expressed by Crampton and Thompson (2002) who asserts that the concern over
undesirable condition of some schools’ physical facilities could be attributed to by
school managers as a direct result of limited financial resources that are earmarked for
infrastructure improvement.
The quality and safety of school’s physical infrastructure is an important
factor in the decision making of individual teacher and general performance of the
school organs. Buckley & Shang (2004) conducted a research on the effects of school
facility in United States of America and concluded that the quality of school facilities
is an important predictor of the retention decisions made by teachers. The study
indicated lack of resources and safety in a school as factors that contribute to teacher
job dissatisfaction, which may lead to teacher burn out and turnover, they pointed out
that Myriad factors clearly affect teacher retention, but most teaching takes place in a
43
specific physical environment. It was therefore prudent to assess implementation of
MOE safety guidelines in schools given that unsafe physical infrastructure have a
serious impact on the work environment because facility quality is an important
predictor of the decision of teachers to leave their current station. This is significant
because a key factor in raising students’ achievement is the recruitment and retention
of teachers (Trump, 2008)
A study carried out by Omolo & Simatwa (2010) in Kisumu East indicated
that implementation of government policies in schools was very difficult due to
inadequate financial resources, this concurs with (Mbamba, 1992) who asserts that
many safety policies and programmes are inadequately addressed due to lack of
administrative organizations and financial means to enable their implementation.
According to the study, headteachers were required to purchase safety devices
like fire extinguishers, first aid kits among others. They were also required to retain a
trained nurse in the school and to equip the school community with necessary skills to
handle emergency cases should they emerge. The study established that most schools
lacked adequate financial capacity to facilitate effective implementation of safety
guidelines in schools; given that safety programme implementation involves extensive
modification of existing buildings, purchase of safety equipments and fittings and
capacity development at all levels. Without adequate funds, all the safety policies may
not be implemented effectively.
Through one of the research question, the current study sought answers on the
factors affecting implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure
in schools since according to Nthenya (2011) school safety is not only a “money
issue” but also a leadership issue. Administrators must prevent potential challenges to
44
their safe school environments and their reputations, recognise safety gaps, plan and
budget for security, and exercise caution in selecting consultants to strengthen their
safety leadership.
Other than financial aspect in the implementation of government policies in
schools Mari (2010) who conducted a study on the role of discipline in combating
violence in schools in the East London Region of the Eastern Cape Province in four
Primary and five secondary schools and used questionnaires and interviews to collect
data from 330 learners and nine principals established that; schools as formal
organizations need accurate, timely, sufficient and relevant information which are
kept in the form of records and they provide information on the past and anticipated
future centuries of the school. The traditional method of gathering, processing,
preserving and presentation/ dissemination of large volumes of information in print
media have failed to facilitate implementation of government policies in schools
because of its attendant problems ranging from limited capacity to total loss of
important information.
Mari (2010) recommended that since a school is an open system that is in
constant interaction with the external environment and the world is undergoing
tremendous changes as a result of advances in science and technology, it should adopt
to new technology. This concurs with the Commonwealth Secretariat (1991) which
stipulates that the phase of information technology is used to encompass a range of
new technologies and their application, including all aspects of the use of computers,
microelectronics devices, and satellite and communication technology.
Greeff, (2002) states that information and communication technology is a
collective term covering all those technologies, both hardware and software, dedicated
45
to the capture, storage, processing, transmission and presentation of information.
According to Hawkridge, Jaworski and McMahon (1990) computers are at the heart
of Information Communication Technology (ICT) revolution because they are fast
information processing machines, configured to receive input in the form of
information, systematically process the input and provide organized information that
serves the needs of the user. It has the advantage of improving administrative
efficiency and overall quality of the teaching and learning process.
Danson and Wyngaard (2003) defined information as data that have been put
into a meaningful context and communicated to recipient who uses it to make
decisions. According to them, information involves the communication and reception
of intelligence or knowledge. It appraises and notifies surprises and stimulates,
reduces uncertainty, reveals additional alternatives or helps eliminate irrelevant or
poor ones, and influences individuals and stimulates them to action. They listed
relevance, timeliness, accuracy, cost effectiveness, reliability, usability,
exhaustiveness and level of aggression as characteristics of good information which
all learning institutions should adapt to in order to effectively and efficiently
implement government policies.
This is further elaborated by Rugut (2003) who conducted a research on
Teachers, Inspectors and Education Officers’ perceptions of the expected roles of peer
supervisors in Kenyan Primary schools in Nandi District. The research established
that inadequate communication and coordination of stakeholders on safety issues in
schools hampered effective implementation of safety policies. It further revealed that,
lack of regular communication to sensitize various stakeholders on their roles also
affected negatively the smooth implantation of safety policies in Schools. According
to the study, QASOs were inefficient in their job and did not disseminate new policies
46
of the MOE. This explained why some headteachers felt uncoordinated and without
guidance and support which is necessary for the successful implementation of safety
policies in schools. This finding contrasted those ones in the study carried out by
Omolo & Simatwa (2010) which indicated that QASOs played their advisory and
supervisory roles effectively in the implementation of safety guidelines.
The study by Moulidi (2008) established that there was a link between MOE,
schools and all the stakeholders and without their active participation and adequate
communication; implementation of safety policies would be haphazard and
uncoordinated. It was therefore important for the current study to assess
implementation of MOE safety guidelines in schools to ascertain whether effective
communication was affecting implementation of safety guidelines in schools.
According to Squelch (2001) school safety requires planning and vigilance and has to
be everyone’s responsibility, this possible if the administrator, who is a key actor as
they are bestowed with much obligation pertaining to comprehensive school safety,
coordinated all stakeholders through effective communication.
In their study, Omolo and Simatwa (2010) indicated that regular evaluation for
enhancing implementation of safety policies through regular checks and internal
inspections of school buildings and students, the safety shortfall can be identified and
attended to. They further stated that, conducting regular fire and emergency drills
would prepare students for what they need to know in case of a fire or other school
emergencies. The study stressed the fact that QASOs should device realistic,
achievable and acceptable strategies to enhance safety guidelines implementation in
schools. They suggested that organizing workshops and attending trainings helps in
building capacity that enables stakeholders to cope with the new and expanded
47
demands of their jobs. This study recommended further study in the area of school
safety. It was in this line that the current study was conducted.
According to Chumba (2006), school’s physical infrastructure should be able
to provide an educational programme for a specified number of students. Local
conditions for the growth, along with the availability of census data should guide on
estimating future enrolment. Over enrolment due to increased demand on secondary
education hampers effective implementation of safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure which was the major concern of the current study.
Crowded school facilities can create stressful situations to the users, according
to Musvosvi (1998), people tend to be more relaxed and enthusiastic in an orderly
environment where there is proper ventilation, lawn for relaxation, and flowers and
trees to make the place look natural. People who are overcrowded tend to be irritated
more easily than those who have ample space to themselves. This concurs with a
study carried out by Lyons (2002) who indicates students in overcrowded schools are
exposed to more risks than students in underutilized schools. It was crucial for the
current study to ascertain whether this argument applied to the schools under study.
A study conducted by Muthini (2004) on headteachers perception towards in
service programmes in public secondary schools in Nairobi province indicated that
there was a need to ensure that all school headteachers play their role of policies
implementation effectively by providing them with knowledge, skills and attributes to
enable them run schools effectively and efficiently. This way, they can be able to
provide safe and secure learning environment for learners, teachers and support staff.
Muthini (2004) further states that safe school environment can be achieved if
headteachers are specifically prepared for school leadership before appointment and
48
then developed continuously to enhance their performance as school leaders after
appointment. Safety standards Manual for Schools in Kenya (2008) whose guidelines
implementation was being assessed in the current study indicates that knowledge of
school safety laws and regulations provide administrators with the authority to know
what is allowed, what is forbidden, as well as what actions are considered to be an
obligation of the school.
2.4 Involvement of the Stakeholders in the Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region, Kenya
The responsibility of implementing government policies requires collective
efforts. Management processes which involve planning, organising, decision making,
leading, coordinating and controlling are applied in the implementation process.
Broadened educational goals and objectives as a result of changes in socio-economic
development have necessitated the involvement of several minds from a wide range of
stakeholders in management of school facilities and implementation of government
policies (Okumbe, 1999)
The school governing bodies, principals and educators are obliged to ensure
learners safety while in learning institutions. This is premised on the educators’
authority and duty of care towards the learner (Prinsloo, 2005). The role of both
school governing bodies and of educators illustrates the importance of collaborative
efforts regarding ensuring of a safe school environment. Bucher and Manning (2003),
puts emphasis on the fact that for safety measures at school to be effectively
implemented; all stakeholders need to be involved so as to create ownership and
pride. This approach has been adapted in various countries as explained hereof
49
In the United States of America, School wide policies and practices are
effected by all stakeholders in education to systematically address needs of students,
school personnel, the community and the physical plant of the school. The United
States Department of Education (U.S.D.E) requires safety policies on physical
infrastructure in schools to be strictly enforced in view of the threats posed by
terrorism, drug related violence, proliferation of firearms and natural disasters like
typhoons floods and hurricanes. Most American schools have Zero tolerance policies
on activities that are likely to compromise safety.
A School Survey on Crime and Safety (S.S.O.C.S) report states that in the
1996/1997 school year, many schools implemented a number of approaches to
enhance safety and security, they included; visitors signing in before entering into the
school plant, closed school policy prohibiting students from leaving. Since Kenyan
Government has made an effort to outline safety guidelines to be implemented in
schools, it becomes important to assess how these guidelines are being implemented
in these schools.
In Australia, both commonwealth and state initiatives have addressed school
safety issues. National crime prevention, in cooperation with other commonwealth
and state partners is working to develop a consistent approach to school safety across
all states and is investing in long term projects that aim to strengthen the capacity of
schools, their staff and communities. A comprehensive review of school based
prevention project and policies have been undertaken, innovative and restorative
approaches that deal with safety in schools have been piloted in Queensland and the
Australian Capital Territory (Shaw, 2002). These approaches could be applied in the
sector of education based on the recommendations made in the current study.

50
In South Africa, levels of school violence are extremely high. Shaw (2002), in
a paper on International experiences and actions in promoting school safety states
that, there are regular reports of serious violence, gang activities, rape and sexual
assaults on girls in schools. Current approaches on enhancing school safety include
exemplary programmes such as “Tiisa Thuto”, “Crisp” and “Cass”. Non-
governmental organizations such as the Independent Project Trust (I.P.T) and
Business against Crime also play a role. “Tiisa Thuto” involves developing
partnership between schools, parents, local business and community organizations in
implementing model programmes that address the needs of individual schools. The
“Crisp” project organizes school safety teams to link parents, schools, local
organizations and police. In 1990s, I.P.T. developed a policy which provided conflict
resolution training to students, teachers and school governing bodies.
However, continued safety problems led to the realizations that a more
fundamental approach was required. Thus, the “Cass” programme was consequently
initiated. This is a comprehensive model involving local community partners, national
government development guidelines and support materials for school manager,
educators, and safety committees. As the current study gathered information on how
to enhance implementation of MOE safety guidelines in the schools under study,
application of these models, which have been applied successfully in South Africa to
address safety issues, could be used in Kenya for the same purpose.
In a research paper addressing school safety in Uganda, Lulua (2008) states
that, development partners like the national and district governments, communities,
parents and private sector partners have tried to respond to the infrastructural aspect
of educational quality, but safety of the learning environment has not been adequately
addressed. A quality school is defined as a school that is safe, healthy and with a
51
friendly environment without violence and hostility, drug free and well equipped
facilities. Uganda has implemented the Safe School Contract (S.S.C) as one of the
indentified interventions which strengthen the role of teachers, pupils, parents and
their involvement in children’s education. The Ugandan MOE and Sports together
with USAID introduced more than 200 schools to S.S.C by the year 2008 so as to
enhance safety in school. Through the experience in the 200 supported schools, S.S.C
offers a feasible mechanism for promoting safety in schools through strengthening
school-community partnership and child participation. One of the concerns of the
current study was to address stakeholders’ involvement in the implementation of
MOE safety guidelines in schools since according to Day & Golench (1995)
maintaining safe schools is a shared responsibility among administrators, teachers,
support staff, students and parents.
In Paris, policemen are stationed in front of public schools to provide security,
maintain the traffic flow and check suspicious activities. Soomeren (2002) states that
school safety related work in Netherlands has focused on the safety of school
premises, capacity building, bullying and improved incidence response. The
Amsterdam school safety project is a five year project involving 40 Secondary
schools. It uses school safety plans, physical improvements to the school, and
curriculum & social support to promote integrative and preventive approach to school
safety in participating schools. The current study identified various ways of
implementing safety guidelines in schools.
Actions or procedures promoting school safety include establishing school
safety committee (SSC), designing and producing school safety policies (SSP),
implementing the school safety policies and monitoring the implementation thereof
(Calabrese, 2001). This relates to making sure that the right people know what the
52
school safety plan (SSP) entails and what role each of them should play in carrying it
out. Collaboration with agencies from outside school includes collaborative
relationships among school managers, educators, learners, parents, law enforcement
officers and various social-service personnel (Bucher and Manning, 2003). Stephens
(1995) goes further and advocates development of a district-wide school plan,
complemented by one for each school. This draws benefits from parents, students,
educators, law enforcers, religious bodies, corporate, and other community leaders. In
this way, collaboration with agencies from outside schools could enable schools’
safety to be addressed on a holistic basis, covering a variety of safety- threatening
conditions besetting schools precisely because these incidents cannot be adequately
addressed by school stakeholders alone. Therefore it was necessary to conduct a study
on the implementation of safety guidelines to address involvement of stakeholders in
this initiative.
Thompkins (2000) and Burnes (2004) advocate for participatory planning
which involves people who would be affected by the planned programmes. They
assert that, willing participants contribute significantly to the success of any
programme. MOEST, (2003) also emphasizes the importance of SWAP by involving
learners, teachers, BOG and PTA members among other stakeholders in the
formulation of school guidelines and planning school activities basing on MOE policy
guidelines on implementation of educational programmes. With the government
commitment to enhance safety in schools, there is a need to involve stakeholders in
the implementation of policies in schools (Waudo, 2009)
Burnes (2004) and Sallis (2002) indicates that rational attitude towards any
educational programme is conveyed in the chances availed for the members of the
school community to participate in the implementation process. To promote safety of

53
the school physical infrastructure, all stakeholders should participate in the entire
process. According to assessment reports in the PDE’s office (2010) Nairobi County,
there is inadequate supervision of physical facilities and sitting buildings in the
compound, the institutions’ heads and other stakeholders were urged to ensure that
school buildings are planned well to enable users to utilise them effectively and to
stick to the guidelines given by the Ministry of Lands and Settlement and MOE safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure on site plans for schools when putting up new
buildings and continuous maintenance and renovation of the old buildings. This study
was to assess whether these conditions were being met in the schools under study.
According to the MOEST hand book on school management (2003),
management of school’s physical facilities can be done effectively if headteachers
involve all the stakeholders and delegate some responsibilities to other staff members.
The headteacher should supervise and coordinate implementation of programmes in a
school. According to Nair (2003), BOG and PTA members should have in place a
development plan of their schools to ensure thoughtful and purposeful future plan as
need and availability of land demand. It is pointed out that, school’s buildings should
be planned so as to promote flexibility. Syvertsen, (2002) asserts that all stakeholders
should be involved in planning schools that more adequately address the needs of the
whole learning community.
In their effort to illustrate the pivotal role played by education stakeholders in
the implementation of safety policies in schools, UECD (2006) stated that, safe and
secure schools are fundamental to students’ success and achievements. Threats to the
safety and security of schools can arise from natural hazards such as earthquake,
floods and storms or from human actions such vandalism, arson and violent crimes.
While catastrophic events and human tragedies cannot be eliminated entirely, there is
54
a role for facility designers, institutional managers, emergency response teams, and
post- crisis intervention in mitigating their negative impact.
Consequently, providing a safe and orderly school environment should
remain an ever present priority of the school administration. The school
administration has a responsibility to ensure that the school’s physical infrastructure is
conducive for learning (Day, Hadfield and Bereford, 2000). This responsibility is
further reinforced by Trump (2008) who points out that today school safety is not only
a “money” issue but also a “leadership issue. Therefore administrators must prevent
potential challenges to their safe school environments and their reputations, recognize
safety gaps, plan and budget for security and exercise caution in selecting consultants
to strengthen their safety leadership. Nthenya, (2010) states that although school
board and administrators set the climate of safety within schools, teachers must also
be directly involved trained and supported in all stages of developing and
implementing programmes that accomplish safer physical infrastructure in schools.
It follows that safety of school’s physical infrastructure requires planning and
constant vigilance and has to be everyone’s responsibility. Everybody from the head
of school to the maintenance staff should be involved in school safety (Magdla,
2006). School safety should be addressed through a comprehensive approach that
focuses on prevention, intervention and response planning (Maoulidi, 2008). Safe
schools are a shared responsibility with administrators, teachers, support staff,
students and parents (Day & Golench)
At Kenya’s independence, communities and parents were called upon and
encouraged to put up buildings through ‘Harambee’ spirit. Thus it is imperative that
the local people especially parents are involved in the layout of the physical facilities
55
in the school (MOE, 2001). It is common occurrence in Kenyan schools to hire their
facilities to the community; therefore, such facilities should be sited near the gate to
avoid attracting attention of learners by movement of strangers in the compound and
to minimize risks that go with it. A clear and competent access control and
surveillance is required in such circumstances, this can be done effectively when
every stakeholder is called upon to participate actively (Brady, 2003).
School- based activities relate to maintenance and surveillance of physical
infrastructure and to safety procedures. Maintenance, which is a collaborative
function centres on actions aimed at creating safe, secure and orderly schools. It
involves repairs, replacement and general upkeep of these facilities (Hancock, 2002).
This writer makes the point that maintenance is concerned with ensuring safe
conditions for facility users, be they learners, educators, staff, parents or guests. Reid
(2000) goes further to say that surveillance entails monitoring the whole school
environment, removing obstacles from the school grounds such as solid walls, shrubs
and trees, ensuring clear visibility of main entrance, locating parking areas so that
they are visible, keeping unused building and doors securely locked, demarcating “out
of bounds” areas, eliminating blind sports provided by doorways, fences, buildings
and landscaping and access control. All these activities can be handled effectively
when teachers, learners, support staff and school administration are involved (Agron,
2003)
A study conducted by Koech (2004) on indiscipline and unrest amongst
Kenyan secondary schools students recommended that teachers be engaged in
continuous planning of the future programmes in the school. They should give their
views in relation to the subject they teach. This will help them to recommend physical
infrastructure that will be equipped with facilities they will be using in teaching
56
relevant content. This concurs with Okumbe (1999) who asserts that teachers should
help in supervising some areas of school programmes as assigned to them by the
school administration. According to Derouche (1987), evaluating and planning for the
safety and efficient use of the physical facilities in the school requires the cooperation
of teachers and non-teaching staff. These two are in a central position to inform the
headteacher about the use of space in the building regarding the educational
programmes. The current study on the assessment of MOE safety guidelines
implementation sought views on the involvement of the stakeholders in the
implementation process.
Involvement of students in decision making in the school helps them to
develop leadership skills and the ability to plan. Students feel that the school is part of
them and therefore do everything possible to boost and maintain the reputation of the
school. Involvement of students alongside other stakeholders in the implementation of
safety guidelines creates and promotes understanding with the headteachers which
helps in safeguarding and protection of the school’s physical infrastructure (Cotton,
2006).
According to Balyage, (1990), stakeholders needs to be involved in the
implementation of school programmes since the school is not a one man’s business; it
needs a lot of input from professionals and other people with knowledge that
contribute to a better management of the building and planning process. The physical
infrastructure in the school must be safe and serve the purpose that they were meant
for and should meet the needs of the people concerned. Therefore the current study
assessed the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in
Nairobi West region.

57
2.5 Attitude of the Headtechers, Teachers and Students towards implementation
of MOE Safety guidelines in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region
Education’s managers and teachers attitudes towards educational issues have
an important impact on the way they interpret government policies and implement
them, this is due to the fact that accepted ways of thinking and behaving set the
context into which policies are effected (Trowler, 2003). Bohner and Wanke (2004)
asserts that although the relationship between attitudes and behaviour is complex and
not always straightforward, it is most certainly the case that a stakeholder’s attitude
towards policy implementation may influence his or her behaviour towards
implementation of educational policies in the learning institutions.
Bohner and Wanke (2004) further indicates that attitudes do not only influence
behaviour , they also determine the ways education stakeholders process information
related to the attitude object such as safety policy implementation. Therefore, the
construct of attitudes seem to be an important mediating link between the social
information perceived in the environment and the response to it (Trowler, 2003).
Hall (2005) indicates that school administrators and teachers personally held
beliefs and values help to guide their practices while performing their duties. He
further states that the decision on whether to implement policies or not made by the
stakeholders may be largely influenced by their beliefs. This concurs with Heller and
Greenleaf (2007) who pointed out that despite the types and amounts of knowledge
that administrators and teachers may have on the implementation of safety policies in
schools, it is their beliefs that are more likely to dictate their actions in the
implementation process. Therefore, regardless of their exposure and training,
administrators and teachers beliefs inform their professional attitude and conduct
regarding policy implementation in schools.

58
Gliem (1993) conducted a study on administrators’ attitudes, policies and
procedures regarding safety in vocational education laboratories. The population of
this descriptive survey included 260 principals of comprehensive high schools with
agricultural education programmes in Ohio. The study utilized questionnaires to
obtain data from the participants. From this study, a positive attitude towards safety
skills development was prerequisite to the safety of an individual and learning
institution.
The study (Gliem, 1993) established that the school governing bodies,
principals, teachers, support staff and students are responsible for promoting desirable
attitudes towards implementation of safety regulations in schools. Similarly, Brady
(2003) recommends that teachers should work towards demonstrating a positive
attitude, a sound knowledge of safety and maintain school’s physical facilities in safe
working condition. Cotton (2006) emphasizes that the primary responsibility for
providing safety instruction and safe working environment belongs to the teacher who
must be supported by the school administration.
In further support of the importance of positive attitude in the management of
learning institutions, Fenker (2004) pointed out that implementation of safety policies
in schools will happen when administrators supports the process and will cease when
the interests and attention has been eliminated or become lax. Additionally, Mari
(2010) indicates that the single most effective force behind successful implementation
of safety policies in schools is the support of an administrator who accepts its
importance and by their own attitude encourages throughout safety consciousness
throughout their administrative unit.

59
The effects of educational managers’ attitudes on their performance was
elaborated on by Nthenya (2011) who conducted a study on school safety and school
administration participation in public secondary schools in Kenya. The study adopted
a descriptive survey research design. Purposive sampling was used to select
respondents comprising of school administrators; 35 headteachers, 28 deputy
headteachers and 12 heads of department drawn from 75 public secondary schools
and 3 Quality Assurance and Standards officers (QASOs) as key informants. Data
collection instruments included headteachers and QASOs questionnaires, interview
and observation schedules. Data collected was analyzed by use of descriptive statistics
and presented in tables.
Nthenya (2011) established that participation of the stakeholders in the
implementation of safety guidelines was low and the overall performance regarding
safety issues in schools was way below the requirements as stated in the MOE safety
standards manual for schools in Kenya, this was largely attributed to negative attitude
expressed by some school managers and to the general feeling that other programmes
were more crucial than those associated with safety. This view concurs with Jagero
(2011) who established in his study that all respondents ranked school safety last with
curriculum, co-curricular and guidance and counselling respectively being given more
priority. The study by (Nthenya, 2011) recommended that MOE should enforce
school safety programmes by ensuring all schools institute school safety policies and
carry out induction of all school administrators on attitude change for effective
implementation of MOE safety guidelines in the learning institutions, hence the
importance of the current study.
Headteachers play a significant role in the implementation of safety policies in
schools. As the managers in the learning institutions, responsibility of the actual

60
implementation rest on their shoulders. Therefore, they have to do everything possible
to ensure a safe school environment (Squelch, 2001). According to Burnes (2004) and
Okumbe (2001), in any organization including a school, it is important to have
managers who are able to implement policies and guidelines and effectively perform
supervisory duties. Therefore, headteachers should play pivotal role in the
implementation of safety guidelines in schools; this was to be ascertained in the
current study
The Ministry of Education guidelines indicated that since headteachers are
crucial in the implementation of each policy in a school, housing them in the school
compound could enhance safety in the school plant to a great extent (MOE, 2008). A
study conducted by Omolo and Simatwa (2010) indicated that most headteacher under
study were not residing in the houses provided in the school compound defeating the
purpose for the provision of the houses. This, according to the findings of the study
was due to the negative attitude attributed to the idea by the headteachers. The same
study further revealed that, from the year 2004- 2006, there was a downward trend in
conducting fire drills among members of the school community. This reflected a
sudden change in the perception of headteachers towards fire safety and preparedness
in the learning institutions.
The significance of fire drills in a school set up should never be down played
for they prepare students for what they need to know in case of fire outbreak. Fire
drills also allow students and teachers to plan their escape in advance and to address
learners safety issues (Comolotti, 1999). The current study was important in that it
focused on the assessment of safety guidelines implementation in schools where
headteachers are key people on the ground to assist in the implementation of
government’s policies.
61
School safety requires that premises and students be inspected at least once a
year, however, according to reports compiled by PDE’s office (MOE, 2010) Nairobi
province indicated that, majority of the public secondary schools in Nairobi West
region had not been inspected as required and the headteachers had not invited
QASOs to do so. This clearly indicated lack of interest in such assessments, failure to
inspect some schools may impact negatively on safety and security matters in such
schools. It is important to note that these assessments are meant to enhance the quality
of teaching and learning by guiding on the appropriateness and safety of school’s
physical infrastructure and environmental soundness of the school plant (Buckley and
Shang, 2004). In the one of the research question, the current study sought
information on the factors affecting implementation of MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure.
Headteachers, like any other employees require some form of appreciation for
work well done. Employees’ recognition ensures a positive productive and innovative
organizational climate and it also encourages attitudes and actions that make the
organization successful. Headteachers who excel in the implementation of safety
guidelines should be recognised through promotion, motivation, award and provision
of funds for the purchase of safety equipments (Tornington, Hall and Taylor 2005).
According to Wortman (1999), awards, promotion and recognition act as motivators
which give impetus to the desired behaviour by arousing, sustaining and directing it
towards the attainment of the desired goals. Since attitude can be affected by
motivation (Okumbe, 1999), the researcher sought information on the attitude of
headtechers, teachers and students towards implementation of safety guidelines in
schools.
62
Mwangi (2008) conducted a study on the status of disaster preparedness in
public secondary schools in Kiharu division, Murang’a District. The study employed
a survey design and used questionnaires only as data collection instrument. The
sample used in the study was 15 Secondary schools and 15 headteachers. The study
indicated that negative attitude by the expressed by the respondents’ affected effective
implementation of safety guidelines in schools; this was due to the fact that,
headteachers had a major role to play in the implementation of safety policies. It was
further reported that with the schools facing increased pressure to improve quality, the
roles and responsibilities of headteachers were found to have expanded to include
management of various aspect of school safety.
The study, Mwangi (2008) concluded that effective implementation of
government policies largely depended on the attitude of the headteachers and they
would not succeed unless the headteacher considered them significant enough to find
value in them. If headteachers were supportive of the implementation programmes,
then these programmes were likely to succeed. It is in view of this that the current
study, on the assessment of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure
implementation in schools sought answers in one of the research questions on the
attitude of the participants since it could have effect on the implementation of safety
guidelines in public secondary schools in Nairobi West Region, Nairobi County.
According to Chumba (2006), planning of school physical facilities is very
vital for the simple reason that the quality of school buildings affects students’
learning and achievement. Therefore, the head of a secondary school should be
familiar with the requirements of the public Health Act and MOE safety standards
guidelines which specify the standards expected of school buildings in terms of
minimum health standards and the rules and regulations governing their provision.
63
This can only be possible if the headteachers’ attitude towards government’s safety
guidelines is a positive one, hence the importance of the current study.
The school head teacher has the responsibility to supervise, manage, evaluate
and improve with assistance from other personnel the school’s physical infrastructure
and its facilities to ascertain safety needs. It is the duty of a school head teacher to
appoint safety committee members, to repair and maintain school facilities to make it
safer and to disseminate reading materials on safety (MOE, 2008). According to
Davis (1997), the roles of the school head teacher include maintaining records of up
to date information about enrolment, housing and other developments, implementing
the programmes and policies. They also include supervision of construction of new
buildings and the existing ones to ensure they adhere to safety guidelines and to
identify special features that can endanger safety of the users.
2.6 Identification of Research Gap
Taken together, the reviewed studies are very useful for educational
improvements. They have reported various elements that have negatively affected
secondary schools administration in various places. However, most of them examined
various segments of school administration and not effective implementation of MOE
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi
West Region, Nairobi County. All examined studies, though on management and
administrative processes, none sought to address the following issues; safety status of
physical infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools, attitude of the headteachers
towards safety guidelines implementation in schools, factors affecting safety
guidelines implementation in schools, involvement of stakeholders in the

64
implementation of safety guidelines in schools and ways of enhancing effective
implementation of safety guidelines in school.
Justifying the importance of safety in learning institutions, several studies
tend to uphold the primacy of the safe schools, they include; Chumba (2006), Omolo
& Simatwa (2010) and Mwangi (2008) among others. Thus from the point of view of
design, the sample involved, data collection instruments, data analysis procedures and
the inconsistency of findings, time and geographical location of the reviewed studies,
the researcher has found it necessary to conduct a study on effectiveness of the
implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public
Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region, Nairobi County, Kenya.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides information on the research design and methodology of
the study. The main purpose of the study was to assess the implementation of MOE
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi
West region, Kenya. This section describes; research design, target population,
sampling techniques, research instruments, data collection procedure, ethical
consideration, data analysis and interpretation.
3.2 Research Design
The study used a mixed methods approach. According to Teddie and
Tashakkori (2009) mixed method approach is a procedure for collecting, analyzing,
interpreting and reporting both quantitative and qualitative data in the research
process within a single study, to understand a research problem more completely.
Brayman (2001) states that when used in combination, quantitative and qualitative
methods complement each other and allow for more complete analysis. Creswell
(2003) postulates that quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible thus, both
numerical and text data, collected sequentially or concurrently can help better
understand the research problem.
The study used the convergent parallel mixed methods design. This design
occurs when the researcher collects and analyzes both quantitative and qualitative
data during the same phase of the research process and then merges the two sets of
results into an overall interpretation (Morse, 2009). Creswell & Clark (2011) asserts
66
that the convergent parallel mixed methods design occurs when a researcher uses
concurrent timing to implement the quantitative and qualitative approaches during the
same phase of the research process, prioritizes the methods equally, and keeps the
strands independent during analysis and then mixes the results during the overall
interpretation (Figure 3.1). Use of convergent parallel design assisted the researcher
as stated by Patton (2002) to obtain different but complementary data, bring together
differing strengths and non overlapping weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative
methods, triangulate the methods by directly comparing and contrasting statistical
results with qualitative findings for corroboration and validation purposes.
Quantitative
Data Collection
and Analysis
Compare or relate Interpretation
Qualitative Data
Collection and
Analysis
Figure 3.1 Convergent parallel mixed methods design
Source: Adopted from Creswell & Clark (2011)
3.3. The Study Area
The study was undertaken in Nairobi West region which comprises of three
districts; Langata, Dagoretti and Westlands. The residents of this area are of different
social, economic, religious and political backgrounds whose main economic activities
include small scale traders, farmers and large scale traders. The area was chosen for
67
the study as a result of educational assessment reports in the Provincial Education
Office Nairobi (MOE, 2010) which revealed that some public secondary schools had
experienced problems in their physical infrastructure due to lack or inadequate
implementation of the Ministry of Education guidelines on physical infrastructure.
3.4 Target Population
The study targeted all 25 public secondary schools, 25 headteachers,816
teachers, 16,065 students, all 3 Quality Assurance & Standards Officers and all 3
District Education Officers in Nairobi West Region. Headteachers were targeted in
the study since they play an integral part in the implementation of government
policies in schools. According to Mapfumo (1999), the school headteacher is
instrumental in the implementation of safety policies in schools since it is their
responsibility to prepare, monitor, evaluate and make necessary interventions during
the implementation process. Kapuya (1993) further states that success of
implementation of government policies in schools is the product of headteachers’
influence because they work closely together with other stakeholders in the
implementation issues.
Teachers were included in the study since they are important parts of the entire
school system and their adequate involvement in the implementation of educational
programmes in their schools leads to greater achievement of the set goals. Chivore
(1995) states that implementation of government policies in schools depends on
teachers’ commitment and acceptance of the innovations.
Students were included in the study given the pivotal role they play in school
management. This role is elaborated by Gwengo (2003) who stated that students are
important players during the implementation of safety policies in schools although

68
they are usually ignored during decision making and vision building. Chivore (1995)
further indicated that the degree of programmes’ implementation success is
determined by students’ behaviour change.
DEOs were targeted in the study because they oversee implementation of
educational programmes in the schools under their jurisdiction and have substantial
knowledge of the current situation regarding safety of physical infrastructure in
schools found in their districts. According to Fullan (2002), implementation of
government policies depends on the support given by the DEOs which include;
orientation, capacity building, supervision of policies’ implementation and supply of
adequate resources
DQASOs were targeted in the study because they continuously assess the
implementation process of government policies in schools to establish the progress of
the implementation. According to Hord (1995) ongoing assessments motivate
implementers to commit themselves to the innovation and assessment results are used
by education managers to help schools accordingly.
3.5 Sample and Sampling Procedure
As shown in Table 3.2, sample selected included; 15 headteachers from the
selected 15 out of 25 public secondary schools, 43 out of 816 teachers, 241 out of
16,065 students, all ( 3) District Quality and Standards Officers (DQASOs) and all (3)
District Education Officers (DEOs). The sample was drawn from the sampling frame
which according to Nesbary (2000) is the actual list of individuals included in the
population. Nesbary (2000) explain that unbiased sample is the one in which every
member of a population has an equal opportunity of being selected in the sample.

69
Therefore, random sampling was used in this study to help ensure unbiased sample
population.
In order to obtain a stratified random sample, the twenty five public secondary
schools were divided into strata according to type (Boys, Girls and Mixed),
administrative districts (Langata, Dagoretti and Westlands) and category (Day or
boarding). According to Gorard (2003), stratified samples enable the researcher to
select cases in proportion to some characteristics in the population to enhance the
quality of the sample. Typically, for stratified random sampling, the same percentage
of participants, not the same number of participants, are drawn from each stratum
(Patten, 2004).
3.5.1 Schools and Headteachers
A sample of 15 (60%) of the 25 public schools was selected using stratified
random sampling technique, to enhance representativeness of the study. Gay (1996)
postulates that, ten to twenty percent of the population is representative enough.
However, the choice of a higher sample in the study assisted in obtaining a more
reliable result that was representative of the target population. The 15 public
secondary schools that were proportionately selected comprised of 1 boys’ day
school, 3 boys’ boarding, 1 girls’ day, 3 girls’ boarding, 6 mixed day and 1 mixed
boarding. Of the 15 selected public secondary schools, 3, 6 and 6 were from Langata
Dagoretti and Westlands respectively (See Table 3.2). Fifteen (15) headteachers from
the selected schools were automatically included in the sample.
3.5.2 Teachers
Forty three (43) out of 816 teachers were randomly selected from 15 public
secondary schools that had been stratified according to type, category and
70
administrative districts. According to Schumacher and McMillan (1993), when
stratified random sampling is used in selecting schools, participants from the selected
schools should also be selected randomly in order to provide a sample that is
representative of the target population. Random sampling also prevents researcher’s
biases in the selection process (Sowell, 2001). Sampled teachers comprised of 18, 19
and 6 teachers from Westlands, Dagoretti and Langata respectively.
Two hundred and forty one (241) out of 16,065 students from form 1, 2 and 3
were included in the sample since they were well versed with educational
programmes’ implementation in their schools. Students’ sample was randomly
selected from 15 public secondary schools that had been stratified according to type,
category and administrative districts. According to Gorard (2003), stratified samples
enable the researcher to select cases in proportion to characteristics in the population
to enhance the quality of the sample.
3.5.3 DEOs and DQASOs
The researcher used purposive sampling to include in the sample all the
District Education Officers (3) and District Quality Assurance Officers (3) in the
Nairobi West region. Purposive sampling allows the researcher to choose a case
because it illustrates some features in which the researcher is interested, and in terms
of its relevance to the study (Silverman, 2000).

71
Table 3.3 Sampling Matrix
District Sampling Westlands Dagoretti Langata Total Sample

technique popula
tion size
total Sam- Total Samp Total Sample

ple le
Schools Stratified 10 5 10 5 5 3 25 15
random
sampling
Head purposive
teachers 10 5 10 5 5 3 25 15
DEOs Purposive 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3
DQASOs Purposive 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3
Teachers Stratified
random
sampling 299 18 210 19 107 6 816 43
Students Stratified
random
sampling 6537 98 7081 106 2447 37 16065 241
3.6 Research Instruments
In order to carry out this study, the following instruments were developed,
pilot-tested, revised and then administered to collect data from the respondents.
Interview guide were used to obtain information from District Education and District
Quality Assurance and Standards Officer. Questionnaires were administered to the
headteachers, teachers and students. Observation schedule was also used to
compliment other instruments.
3.6.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires were used in this study since they gather data over a large and
diverse sample. The use of questionnaires upholds confidentiality because the

72
respondents are not required to indicate their names on it. According to White (2002),
a questionnaire is an instrument with open or closed ended questions or statements to
which a respondent respond. Questionnaires were used widely in data collection as
they were relatively economical, ensured confidentiality and contained questions
written for specific purpose. Questionnaires also minimized time used by participants
in filling them. Three types of questionnaires described below were used in this study.
3.6.1.1 Questionnaire for Headteachers, Teachers and Students
Questionnaires were administered to headteachers, teachers and students.
They had a brief instruction on how to respond to the questions. They consisted of
both closed and open ended questions. The questions were compiled with the help of
the literature review and were categorized into the following themes; section A
demographic data of the respondents, section B. information on the safety status of
physical infrastructure in the schools under study, C. information on the factors that
affect implementation of safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in the schools
under study. Section D. information on the extent of involvement of the stakeholders
in the implementation of safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in their schools E
gathered information on the respondents’, attitude towards MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure in schools and F sought ways of enhancing implementation of
MOE safety guidelines in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region.
The researcher used both open and close ended questions in the questionnaires
to collect data, according to Cohen (2000), one should often consider open- ended
questions to enable the participants to respond freely on their own terms. The open-
ended questions gave participants a chance to explain what they truly felt and avoided
limitations of pre-set categories of response.

73
The items in the questionnaires were developed with consideration of Bebbie’s
(1995) guidelines. Some of these guidelines provided that; (a) items should be made
clear to allow participants interpret them the same way (b) questions should be limited
to a single idea or concept to avoid double barrel questions (c) participants must be
competent to answer questions and provide reliable information (d) questions should
be relevant (e) simple items are the best and to avoid long and complicated items (f)
avoid negative items or terms (g) avoid biased items to discourage giving certain
responses more than others(See Appendix i, ii &iii)
3.6.2 Observation Guide
The observation guide was used by the researcher to obtain data during school
visits. This was used to assess the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region.
Observation guide consisted a list of items to be observed which helped the researcher
to collect data easily, it also assisted in obtaining valuable information on the
following; availability of the perimeter fence, secure school gates, safe play grounds,
availability of clean water, fire extinguishers, availability and appropriateness of
physical infrastructure and signage in the schools under study (See Appendix vi)
3.6.3 Interview Guide for DEOs and DQASOs
The researcher developed an interview guide (See Appendix v). This was used
to collect in-depth information from the DEOs and DQASOs on their perceptions,
experiences and perspectives on the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure in the schools under study. Interview guide were largely used
to complement the questionnaires. The researcher used interview guide because
according to Patton (2002), it is flexible and it helps to make interviewing across

74
different people more systematic and comprehensive. An interview guide was thus
prepared in order to make sure that basically the same information was obtained from
a number of people covering the same material (Hughes, 2002). It was constructed
on the bases of the literature reviewed and the research questions. According to
Fontana and Frey (2000), the use of interviews enables the researcher access through
words to an individual’s constructed reality and interpretation of his/her own
experiences. The same view is expressed by Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell and
Alexander (1995). The interview guide consisted of specific questions that provided
answers to the research questions.
3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Research Instruments
3.7.1 Validity
The term Validity means that the instrument used in data collection should be
able to measure what it claims to measure (Nsubuga, 2000). Validity is the extent to
which results obtained from the analysis of the data actually represents the
phenomena under study (Mugenda & Mugenda, 1999). According to Patton (2002),
no researcher developed test instrument is perfectly valid. Davies and Dodd (2002)
further states that a researcher needs some kind of assurance that the instrument being
used will result in accurate conclusion. Therefore, the researcher addressed three
principles identified by Patton (2002) to improve content validity. They include; use
of a broad sample of content rather than a narrow one, emphasizing on important
material and writing questions to measure the appropriate skill.
To ensure content validity of the research instruments, three members of the
Faculty of education at Catholic University of Eastern Africa who are experts in the
area of Educational Administration and Planning scrutinized the research instruments.

75
They also verified face validity which according to Fairchild (2002) is a non statistical
assessment of whether or not a test appears to be valid. Their input and suggestive
feedback was used in revising the instuments before preparing the final copy. Validity
of the data collected was also enhanced by source and instrument triangulation. Three
different instruments were used: questionnaires, interview guides and observation
schedule. Data was collected from five different sources: head teachers, teachers,
students, District Quality Assurance and Standards officers and District Education
Officers, this helped in the generation of more reliable data ((Nachmias & Nachmias,
1996).
Before the instruments were used to collect data for the study, a pilot study
was conducted in one of the public secondary school in the area under study which
was not included in the sample. This was to ensure that the researcher got the intended
information from the questionnaires. The pilot study also helped to identify problems
the respondents would encounter while filling the questionnaires. The pilot study
helped the researcher to refine and reformulate some questions in the questionnaires
to correct shortcomings that were identified. This helped the researcher to collect data
that were more closely suited to what she was after. The researcher also took note of
the time required to fill the questionnaires and adjusted the items appropriately to take
the time that was scheduled for them.
As stipulated by Gregory (1992), a pilot study also provides data for making
estimates of time and the cost for completing various phases of the research.
Generally, the pilot study allowed the researcher to get suggestive feedback on the
survey and also helped the researcher to eliminate the biases. According to Patton
(2002), the number of respondents for the pilot study should be between 9-10% of the
76
sample population. In this study, a total of 26 respondents from school R were used
for the pilot study since the total sample was 255.
Interview and observation guides were given trial runs to ensure questions
were clearly worded and drew appropriate rage of responses. The trial runs also
assisted the researcher to identify where revisions needed to be done.
3.7.2 Reliability
For an instrument to be reliable, it should consistently yield the same results
when repeated measurements of the same subjects are taken under the same
conditions (Nsubuga, 2000). Mugenda and Mugenda (1999) assert that reliability is a
measure of degree to which a research instrument yields consistent results or data
after repeated trials.
The test – retest method was employed to establish the reliability of the
questionnaires. The technique involves administering the same instrument twice to the
same group of respondents (Gregory, 1992). The questionnaires were administered to
the same respondents from the same secondary school that was used in the pilot study
within an interval of two weeks after the pilot study. Pearson Product Moment
Correlation Coefficient was calculated for each questionnaire.
In social sciences, acceptable reliability coefficient ranges from 0.6 to 1.0
(Nunnally & Bernstain, 1994; Gregory, 1992; Crocker & Algina, 1986; Gall & Borg
1996; Mugenda & Mugenda, 1999). The Reliability Coefficient for the Head
Teachers Questionnaire was 0.767. The others were Teachers’ Questionnaire at 0.761
and Students’ Questionnaire at 0.748. All the above Reliability Coefficients were
between 0.6 and 1.0 showing that the three questionnaires were reliable.
77
3.8 Data collection procedures
After successful proposal defence and subsequent corrections of the suggested
issues, the researcher was cleared by Catholic University of Eastern Africa (CUEA)
on 12th June 2012 to carry out a research on the assessment of the implementation of
the Ministry of Education Safety Guidelines on physical infrastructure in public
secondary schools in Nairobi West Region. The National council for Science and
Technology authorized the researcher on 22nd June 2012 to conduct research in public
secondary schools in Nairobi West region between 22nd June and 20th July 2012.
The researcher sought permission from the respective DEOs to interview them
and later their DQASOs for 20 minutes each on the implementation of MOE safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure in their schools. They accepted the request since
there was prior arrangement. According to Nsubuga (2000), it is necessary that a
definite appointment for the interview to be made at a time which is convenient to the
participant. In conducting the interview, the researcher took into account some
guidelines suggested by Leary (2001). They included; creating a friendly atmosphere,
adhering to the interview schedule, arranging interview questions in a logical manner,
and being carefully not to begin with sensitive questions.
All participants were asked similar questions. However, the order of the
questions and the exact wording of the questions were left at the discretion of the
interviewer (Bryman, 2001). This enabled the researcher flexibility to respond to
issues raised by the participants and to ask probing questions. The time of the
interview suited the interviewee, Interviews were conducted face- to- face in the
DEOs’ and DQASOs offices to allow for privacy and quiet atmosphere. According to
McMillan and Schumacher (2006), a qualitative researcher should collect data in face-
78
to- face situations by interacting with selected persons in their settings. The researcher
therefore went in person to each district in Nairobi West region.
According to Greenfield (2002), no matter what style of interviewing is used,
and no matter how carefully one words interview questions, it all comes to naught if
the interviewer fails to capture the actual words of the person being interviewed .
Therefore it is crucial that one determines in advance what style of interviewing will
be suitable and also which form of recording will be most suitable for ones research.
Therefore, the researcher used a combination of tape recording and note taking to
capture data. Patton (2002) puts great emphasis on field notes especially those made
immediately after the interview. The researcher audio taped the interviews with the
DEOs and DQASOs and transcribed them directly afterwards. The researcher also
made direct observation while conducting interview, listening attentively to the
respondents’ responses, and looking for changes in body language such as laughter or
hand movements. This observation took place in a naturalistic way during the
interview.
Henning (2004) mentions that while interviews are being conducted the
researcher should take notes about how the interview develops structurally. These
notes are intended to harness some of the contextual factors that are not verbalised,
such as gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice, change of tempo of speech and
general body language. Hughes (2002) suggests not using the tape recorder for at least
the first five minutes of the interview in order not to make the participant edgy, and to
create a relaxed atmosphere. This advice was followed. The researcher sought
permission from the interviewees to use a tape recorder during the interviews in order
to enhance capturing of the exact explanations or wordings of some important
responses from the DEOs, and DQASOs. The interview enabled the researcher an
79
opportunity to probe for clarification and in-depth information on the implementation
of safety guidelines in schools which may not have been provided for by the
questionnaires
District Education Officers granted the researcher permission to access the
sampled schools in the respective districts. The researcher then explained to the
headteachers from the sampled school the purpose for the visit. The headteachers
were requested to fill their questionnaires and to allow teachers and students to do the
same. Before administering the questionnaires to the respondents, the researcher
developed a rapport with them and assured them of confidentiality. She then
administered the questionnaire to them for 30 minutes. This exercise took place in
three districts as follows; Dagoretti district 3rd to 5th July 2012, Langata district 10th to
12th July 2012 and Westlands district 17th to 19th July 2012.
At the end of the exercise in each district, the researcher collected completed
questionnaires and thanked the respondents for their contributions and cooperation.
Through questionnaires, interview and observation guide, the researcher gathered
information that assisted to answer all the research questions in all the districts during
the above mentioned dates.
3.9 Data Analysis Procedures
The analysis of data was based on research questions. Data were analyzed
using both qualitative and quantitative procedures. The researcher categorized the
instruments into their homogenous groups, coded the quantitative information and
summarized them into frequencies and percentages with the help of SPSS windows
version 13.0. These were then presented using frequency tables and graphical
representations. Information gathered from attitude scale was used to test hypotheses
80
using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance. The researcher transcribed all
interviews and data obtained from observation guide and interview guides. Key words
and phrases that were similar in meaning were categorized by topics. Responses from
different groups were compared and trends and patterns in the responses established.
The researcher then summarized the quantitative information into frequencies and
percentages. Narrative and interpretive reports were written to depict the situation as
it was on the ground.
Since the main research instruments for data collection were questionnaires
and interview guides, the study used both quantitative and qualitative approaches in
data collection, analysis and interpretation. The quantitative approach was used
because relationship between variables under study was made. The researcher
therefore employed quantitative methods in analysing the data. The qualitative
method was regarded effective in attempting to all aspects of phenomena in great
detail, in a given situation, in order to explain, and gain insight and understanding of
phenomena.
Qualitative data consisted of any information the researcher gathered that was
not expressed in numbers (Tesch, 1990). This was mainly data from interviews and
observation guides which was presented largely in form of words. Use of both
methods assisted the researcher to obtain a more valid result regarding
implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools. They
also complemented each other and ensured collection of adequate data, according to
Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000), employing multiple methods in the same study
enables triangulation to take place, and helps to cancel any method’s effect that might
have risen during data collection.

81
3.10 Ethical Considerations
In carrying out the study, the researcher considered ethical issues pertaining to
the research. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000), ethics refers to the
appropriateness of the researcher’s behaviour in relation to the rights of the
participants of the study or those affected by it. McNamara (1994) identifies five
ethical concerns to be considered when conducting survey research. These guidelines
deal with; voluntary participation, not harming respondent, anonymity and
confidentiality, identifying purpose and sponsor, analysis and reporting.
Cooper and Schindler (1999) further states that ethical issues that affect the
research process include the privacy of the participants, voluntary nature of
participation and the right to withdraw, maintenance of confidentiality, consent of
participants and the behaviour of researcher. According to William (2005),
observation of ethics aims at ensuring that no one is harmed or suffers adverse
consequences from research activity. The researcher ensured that participation was
completely voluntary. Respondents’ identity was protected by exercising their
anonymity and confidentiality.
The researcher allowed all the participants to know the purpose of the research
and the institution supporting it. Therefore the purpose of the study was provided in
the introductory remarks indicating the need to assess the implementation of Ministry
of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public secondary schools
in Nairobi West region. The researcher also explained that the results of the study
would be used in a dissertation as a partial fulfilment for a Doctoral Degree.

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents data analysis, results and discussion of the findings on
the assessment of the implementation of the Ministry of Education safety guidelines
on physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region. The
quantitative data were analyzed with the help of a computer software namely
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) windows version 13.0. This enabled
the researcher to present data in frequencies, means, percentages, and summarized it
in tables and figures. Qualitative data were presented in narrative and interpretative
reports to depict the situation as it was on the ground. The chapter is thematically
organized based on the research questions except the first part which explores the
background information of the respondents. The last part of the chapter presents the
tests of hypotheses.
4.2 Demographic information of the respondents
The background information of the respondents was considered bearing in
mind that every target population has its own characteristics. These characteristics
affect the way information is perceived (Okumbe, 1999). Information obtained was
derived from the completed questionnaires for the headteachers, teachers and students
and interview guide for Education officers. Frequencies and percentages were used to
describe demographic data of the respondents.

83
4.2.1 Students’ Characteristics
The students were asked to indicate their background characteristics. These
included their gender and age bracket. This information is presented in Table 4.1
Table 4.1: Students’ Sex and Age bracket

Male Female Total
Sex
F % F % F %
99 49.5 109 51.5 200 10
Age
12-14 3 1.5 5 2.5 8 4
15-17 70 35 86 40.5 156 78
17+ 26 14.5 10 5 36 18
As shown in Table 4.1, slightly more than a half of the students (50.5%) were
female while 49.5% of them were male, an almost gender parity situation in the
schools under study. This could be attributed to the Government‘s effort to attain
gender parity in education by 2015 as outlined in the Sessional paper No1 of 2005 on
Education Training And Research (MOE, 2005).
Regarding age bracket of the students who participated in the study, majority
of them 151 (75.5%) were between the age bracket of 15-17 years. This could be due
to the fact that students’ sample did not include those in form one since they had not
been in the current schools long enough to comprehend implementation of safety
guidelines in their schools as opposed to those who were included in the sample. This
could also reflect average age of students in secondary schools in the schools
understudy and maybe elsewhere.

84
4.2.2 Teachers’ Characteristics

Teachers were also asked to indicate their background information. This
included their sex, academic qualification, designation and working experience. This
information is presented in Table 4.3
Table 4.2: Distribution of Teachers by Gender, Academic Qualification,
Responsibility and Teaching Experience

Frequency (F) Percentage (%)
Sex (Gender)
Male 14 35.9
Female 25 64.1
Academic Qualification
Med 7 17.9
BEd 26 66.7
BA 2 5.1
BSC 2 5.1
Diploma 2 5.1
Designation/responsibility
Teacher 10 25.6
Class teacher 8 20.5
H.O.D 16 41.0
Assistant teacher 2 5.1
Senior teacher 3 7.7
Working Experience
1-5 years 6 15.4
6-10 4 10.3
11-15 7 17.9
Above 16 yrs 22 56.4
From the tabulated summary, majority of teachers, 26 (64%) who participated
in the study were female. However, slightly more than a third of them 14 (35%) were
male. This difference could be associated to the trends in teaching profession where
there are a considerable number of women joining the profession. This could be
associated to the fact that there are more female teachers in Nairobi County as
85
compared to other counties as shown by a study carried out by Muthini (2004) that
most female teachers were joining their spouses working in Nairobi.
Concerning academic qualification, majority of teachers 27 (67.5%) had
Bachelors degree in Education as their highest academic qualification. This may be
due to the fact that these qualifications are the basic requirements for secondary
school teachers in the public secondary schools. A few of them 7 (17.9%), however
had Masters Degree in Education. This could have resulted from the fact that the
Government has been providing paid study leave for teachers who wished to pursue
Masters Degrees in Education. Presence of teachers with Bachelor of Science
indicated availability of untrained teachers in the learning institutions under study;
this could impact negatively on the teaching and learning process in schools.
According to Koech (1999), trained teachers are better placed to carry out
their duties in a professional and effective manner to ensure good teaching and
learning practices. Subsequently, this can lead to achievement of the goals and
objectives of education which includes improved learning outcomes. He further
indicates that, a professional teacher can teach better than an un-trained teacher since
a trained teacher is well equipped with knowledge on implementation of educational
initiatives.
In terms of work responsibility, 16 (40%) of them were heads of departments
an indication that most schools under study had more than single stream due to
increased enrolment. Other responsibilities held by teachers included; class teachers, 8
(20%) and heads of subjects 6 (15%). However, 10 (25%) teachers had no other
responsibility besides teaching.

86
In the area of teaching experience, it was found that an overwhelming majority
of teachers 34 (85%) had a rich experience of 6 years and above, out of this, 23
(57.5%) had a working experience of over 16 years. This could enhance
implementation of government policies in schools. According to Okumbe (1999),
teachers when well experienced are capable of implementing government policies
effectively. Only 6 (15%) had a teaching experience of 1-5 years, indicating the
current trend of government hiring more teachers.
4.2.3 Head Teachers’ Characteristics
The study also sought head teachers responses concerning the implementation
of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in the schools under study. This
is due to the central role they play in school administration as asserted by Ziva (2002)
that the headteacher is in a strategic position in the translation of Ministry of
Education policies and objectives in to programmes within a school set up. Therefore
the head teacher has an obligation to coordinate human resources, materials, time and
finances in ensuring that safety guidelines are implemented in their schools. Head
teacher’ performance could be could be influenced by their characteristics ( Mutune,
2005). Their background information is as provided in Table 4.3.

87
Table 4.3: Distribution of the Head Teachers by Gender, Age Bracket,
Professional Qualification and Working Experience

Frequency Percentage (%)
Sex (Gender)
Male 6 37.5
Female 10 62.5
Professional Qualification
Med 6 37.5
BEd 10 62.5
Working experience
1-4 years 3 18.8
5-8 years 2 12.5
9-12 years 2 12.5
13 yrs and above 9 56.3
Age Bracket
36-40 6 15.4
41-45 4 10.3
46-50 7 17.9
Above 50 9 23.1
Other administrative duties performed before
Class teacher 5 33.3
HOD 10 66.6
Deputy Head 15 100
As shown in Table 4.3, out of the fifteen (15) head teachers who participated
in the study, ten of them (10) were female and only 6 were male. The higher number
of female principals in Nairobi County is perhaps a reflection of higher number of
female teachers in Nairobi County. This concurs with Muthini (2004) who indicated
that the observable higher number of female principals in urban and peri- urban
schools than rural schools could be connected to concentration of female teachers in
urban schools compared to their male counterparts. This contradicted the findings
from the study conducted in Rachuonyo North and South District by Enose (2011)
which indicated that there were few female principals (20 against 89) due to the fact
that female teachers were reluctant to take up leadership positions and low self esteem
among other factors. This indicates that education managers have a duty of creating
awareness among female teachers regarding professional development.

88
In terms of professional qualification, most of the head teachers (10) had
attained Bachelor of Education Degree as their highest academic qualification. A few
of them (6) had Masters Degree in E Education, an indication that they had required
and adequate knowledge and skills to disburse their duties as expected. In reference to
the working experience as principals, majority of them 9 (56.3%) had a working
experience of 13 years and above. This could enhance their leadership roles since they
were well versed with educational policies. The overall impression was that most of
the head teachers had a rich experience to be in position to respond to the research
questions.
On whether the head teachers had held other administrative responsibilities in
school prior to their appointment to headship, all of them (15) indicated that they had
held other administrative duties such as being class teachers (5), Heads of
Departments (10) and deputy headship (15). The fact that all (15) of them had been
deputy head teachers indicated that they had gained leadership experiences. This
could also be associated to the requirement by the Ministry of Education that, one
cannot be appointed to head a school unless they have been a deputy head before.
All head teachers who participated in the study said that, prior administrative
knowledge had contributed to their stock of headship and management skills. This is
in line with what Ayeni (2012) who asserted that prior knowledge and skills in
administrative duties assists school principals in efficient management, monitoring,
evaluation and reviews of the resource inputs and transformation process to produce
quality outputs that meet set standards and expectations of the society.
89
4.2.4 Demographic Information of DEOs and DQASO
The demographic details of six education officers were collected in order to
gauge their abilities in supervising the implementation of Ministry of Education
Safety guidelines on physical infrastructure. They responded to questions in the
interview schedules regarding their gender, qualification and experience in
supervision of education initiatives. Data on their responses is as indicated in table 4.4
Table 4.4: DEOs’ and DQASOs’ gender, academic qualification, Period of
Experience and their stay in current station

DEOs DQASO
Demographic details Freq. Freq.
Gender
Male 1 1
Female 2 2
Highest academic qualification

M Ed 2 2
B Ed 1 -
Experience as a teacher (years)

Above 10 3 3
Experience as Education officer (years)

1-5 1 1
6-10 1 1
10+ 1 1
Experience current station (years)

1-5 3 3
As shown in Table 4.4, there was an almost gender balance among education
officers in the district under study. This trend was not observed among teachers and
90
headteachers in the same area. Five (5) education officers who responded to this study
had Master of Education degree. All (6) of them had served as teachers for more than
10 years. The fact that all of them had served in their current station for less than five
years could be due to the fact that Nairobi county had been operating as one district
up to 2009 when it was split into nine administrative districts and officers posted to
these districts. Therefore, academic, professional qualifications and administrative
experience of the respondents subscribed to the basic requirements for an education
supervisor according to job requirement of Ministry of Education. Thus they were
qualified to supervise effectively the implementation of Ministry of Education safety
guidelines on physical facilities in their respective districts.
4.3 Research question 1: Extent of the Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Schools
The most visible aspect of school’s physical infrastructure entails quality of
the security systems and maintenance of school building and grounds. This implies
clean and safe environment that is conducive to education and has security of
property, well maintained facilities, furniture and equipment, clean toilets, water and
green environment and absence of harassment (Squelch, 2001).
This study was interested in assessing the implementation of MOE safety
guidelines on various physical infrastructures in secondary schools in Nairobi West
region. Various questions were asked to students, teachers, head teachers, District
Quality Assurance and Standards officers and District Education Officers to establish
the safety status of the physical infrastructure. The questions covered the following
facilities: administration block, dining hall, kitchen, school libraries, classrooms,
dormitories, sanitation facilities and perimeter fences among other things. Table 4.6
91
shows the distribution of students, teachers and headteachers responses on the safety
of schools’ kitchens. DEOs and DQASOs responses to the interview items are also
quoted.
4.3.1 Schools’ Kitchens
School kitchens
Item Students Teachers Headteache
r
Yes No Yes No Yes No
F % F % F % F % F F
Whether there was 180 90 20 10 38 95 2 5 14 1

a kitchen
Whether it was 117 58.5 79 39.5 15 37.5 35 87.5 5 10

safe
Whether it was 50 25 150 75 10 25 30 75 6 9

well equipped
Whether food was 20 10 180 90 3 7.5 37 92.5 7 8

safely stored
Whether cooks 25 12.5 175 87.5 8 20 32 80 5 10

were qualified
As shown in Table 4.6, majority of the respondents; students 180 (90%),
teachers 38 (95%) teachers and headteachers (14) indicated that there was a kitchen in
place. Availability of kitchens in almost all schools under study could be due to the
fact that most day schools were having lunch programmes to enhance access to
education and increase retention rate. Supporting this view, Carter (2002) asserts that
food programmes in schools are a common tool used to attract children to school and
to reduce short- term hunger to help students concentrate and learn.

92
Majority of students (58.5%) stated that kitchens in their respective schools
were safe. This contrasted the views of teachers, 35 (87.5) and headteachers (10) who
felt that school kitchens were not safe. They cited the following security threats;
kitchens were too small to cater for cooking needs, dangerous features like loose
ceilings and exposed electrical wires, lack of exhaust systems and use of sub standard
materials to construct kitchens.
Similarly, large number of respondents; 150 (75%) students, 30 (75%)
teachers and nine (9) headteachers indicated that kitchens were inadequately
equipped. They lacked adequate basic equipments like utensils, cooking gas or and
firewood among other related facilities, thus posing a health risk. One of the District
Quality Assurance and Standards officer commented that “ most schools’ kitchen lack
electrical equipments to hasten kitchen duties , the available ones not in good state of
repair” This inadequacy could result to poorly prepared food pausing health
complication to students and even ignite strikes which could cause damage of school
properties or even loss of lives.
Most students 180 (90%), teachers 37 (92.5%) and headteachers (8) felt that
there was poor system of food storage both for dry and refrigerated items. Similarly,
storage shelves and containers were not being cleaned regularly; this could be a health
hazard to the users. One District Education Officer stated that “good food storage is
necessary in schools because majority of cases of food borne illness result from lack
of proper temperature control”. Large number of students 175 (87.5%), teachers 32
(80%) and headteachers (10) indicated that most of those working in school kitchens
were not qualified since they had little or no education and their health status had not
been medically verified. Another District Education Officers stressed the need of
qualified cooks in schools by saying that:

93
In most schools, staff who work in kitchen are not given health and safety
training. Such training is important because the equipments used in kitchen
can be particularly dangerous. Such trainings can focus on all risks that
employees are exposed to and the precautions needed
Other responses showed that there was inadequate time for proper cleaning of
kitchens due to shortage of kitchen staff hence the observed spilled water, grease and
food particles on the floor. This made the kitchen unsafe since kitchen staff could slip
or fall given that they were carrying heavy loads or pushing trolleys which increased
risk of falling. This was echoed by one District Education Officers during the
interview when she stated that:
In a number of schools in this district, kitchens are ill equipped. Suitable jikos
for preparing large amounts of food are not available and facilities for first aid
are lacking. The few available ones are not working and workers have not
been trained on how to use them. Kitchen floors are not kept clean, dry and
free from obstruction, this, coupled with exposure to hot substances and
manual handling of huge loads make kitchen environment extremely
dangerous.
On the cleanliness and orderliness of school kitchen, another District
Education Officer commented that “some kitchen staffs do not put away blooms and
mops after use. They leave them out against walls or tables where they can easily trip
someone leading to a fall”
District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer in one of the districts
indicated that ventilation systems in kitchens in some of the schools in the district
were not being checked regularly and maintained to ensure users comfort and safety.
This, he said could result in loss of concentration, irritability, muscle crump and even
fainting. He commented that:

94
Working in kitchen involves exposure to very high temperatures and

ventilation is not to the required standards. Some catering staff do not use the
right clothing and some synthetic materials used could increase the risk. It is
notable that under some circumstances personal protective equipment may be
necessary either to protect against risks that cannot be otherwise controlled, or
for use in combination with other controls. Such equipments could include;
aprons and overalls to protect from hot splashes while gloves could be used to
protect hands and arms from burns and cleaning detergents.
Regarding ventilation in schools’ kitchens, the researcher observed that in
most schools, administrators had not provided effective and suitable ventilation to
create a safe and comfortable working environment. To support the importance of
ventilation in school kitchens, Reid (2000) postulated that cooking and catering can
produce significant amounts of fumes and vapour as well as large amounts of heat.
Therefore mechanical extraction, via a canopy hood installed over the cooking
appliances can remove these fumes and vapour and discharge them to a safer location.
One District Assurance and Standards Officer pointed out that “high
temperatures and humidity are not unusual in kitchens because of the cooking process
and the need for food to be served hot, these conditions can have an adverse effect on
catering workers” Commenting on the same issue of kitchens’ safety, another District
Education officer remarked that:
Although there is a large number of catering staff that work part time, there
are never trained on health and safety issues to equip them with the necessary
skill and knowledge to combat disaster if it struck. Lack of such trainings was
putting students at risk while in school premises”
The researcher observed that many chemicals used in school kitchens were not
safely stored, this posed great danger to students and catering staff. In support of safe
storage of chemicals used in kitchen, Clark (2002) postulated that many chemicals
such as oven cleaners used in school kitchens are hazardous because they are
95
corrosive and can cause burns, skin irritations, asthma and other breathing problems if
proper storage and controls are not put in place.
It was observed that most schools had not complied with the Ministry of
Education safety guidelines fully in ensuring kitchen safety. Majority of school
kitchens lacked necessary equipments, were not well ventilated, clean and well
maintained. There were no slotted cases for storage of knives and other sharp
equipments, smoke outlets were lacking hence workers were at risk of developing
respiratory and chest complications.
4.3.2 Schools’ Dining Halls

Schools’ Dining Halls
Item Students Teachers Headteacher
F % F % F % F % F F
Whether there was a 120 60 80 40 30 75 10 25 10 5

dining hall
Whether facilities 50 25 150 75 10 25 30 75 4 11

were adequate
Whether dining halls 195 97.5 5 2.5 36 90 4 10 12 3

were used for other
functions
Whether it was safe 117 58.5 79 39.5 10 25 30 75 6 9
Dining halls are essential for controlling the hygienic conditions in schools
when the students are eating. In response to whether there were dining halls in
schools, 120 (60%) students, 30 (75%) teachers and ten (10) headteachers said yes. It
was notable that the responses on the availability of school kitchens were higher than
those on dining halls. This indicated that most schools though they were providing
96
meals did not have dining halls in place. This could reflect that students were having
their meals from unsafe and unhealthy locations. Stressing on the need of a safe and
healthy eating place, Calabrese (2001) indicated that eating from unsafe places could
lead to food poisoning which occurs as a result of eating contaminated food with
certain types of bacteria, parasites, viruses or toxins. Opposing the idea of students
eating from open and unsafe places, one of the District Education Officer during the
interview commented that:
Some schools do not have a dining hall. When served food from the kitchen,
students normally find shelter in the field, classrooms or other open places.
This practice is dangerous since it compromises health and safety of learners
and it contravene ministry of education safety guidelines.
On the same issue of eating from unsafe and open places, one District Quality
Assurance and Standards officer postulated that:
Other than lack or inadequate dining hall space and facilities, increasingly,
school administrations are shortening lunch breaks and using part of it for
tuition. This can be counterproductive, leading to stressed students who have
little time to sit in a dining hall, eat and digest their food, relax and recover to
concentrate during the afternoon lessons.
Majority of respondents; 150 (75%) students, 30 (75%) teachers and 11
headteachers said that school dining hall facilities were inadequate. They commented
that most dining halls lacked adequate, appropriate and well maintained furniture such
as chairs and tables. Utensils and other related facilities were not in good state since
they were worn out and unkempt. Regarding dining hall facilities and atmosphere,
Crowe (1999) asserted that a safe and healthy surrounding atmosphere in a school
dining hall can have an impact on students’ sense of well being, in and in terms of
changing the culture, ethos and understanding of eating habits.
Commenting on the dining hall facilities, one District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer said that:

97
There is acute shortage of dining hall facilities such as chairs and tables in
some schools. The few available ones are inappropriate, broken and old; they
are not in good shape. Torn and broken things convey the impression to the
students that the room and everything in it is not well taken care of. This
feeling can trigger sense of violence in students which can result to destruction
of school properties.
The researcher observed that in nine (9) schools in the region under study,
dining halls were small and squeezed. Furniture did not match the school enrolment in
that most students did not have tables and chairs to use. They were observed having
their meals while standing. This contravened what Dewees (1999) sates that like
everyone else, students will appreciate feel safe and be motivated by the right
atmosphere and organisation in their dining hall. Gwengo (2003) further asserts that
in order to develop safe and healthier eating habits, students must respect and enjoy
the environment they use while eating.
Overwhelming number of respondents; 195 (97.5%) students, 36 (90%)
teachers and twelve (12) headteacher indicated that dining halls were being used for
other functions like; worship on Sundays and other days as occasion could demand,
entertainment hall, parents meeting hall among other social functions. Most teachers
and students said that some of the functions took place during school time hence
disrupting school programmes and forcing students to take their meals from
unsuitable and unsafe places.
However, majority of the headteachers stated that such income generating
functions did not interfere with normal school programmes. Perhaps, these
contradicting views could be attributed to the fear by the school headteacher to use
their position to expose students to hazardous situations. Stating crucial role of the
school headteachers to provide safe and secure learning environment, Squelch (2001)
postulated that school headteachers and other stakeholders have important role to play
98
in facilitating and enhancing safety in schools. One District Education Officer
reported that:
In most of the schools, dining halls are used for other functions since majority
of the schools do not have multi- purpose halls. In this case headteachers are
advised to go for tables and chairs which can be stacked so that they can be
stored in a corner or a store room. This can prevent damage that is associated
with such occasions.
Asked whether school dining halls were safe, 117 (58.5%) students, 10
(25%) teachers and six (6) headteachers said yes. However, other than the students,
majority of other responses; 30 (75%) teachers and nine (9) headteachers felt that
school dining halls were not safe. They indicated that due to shortage of facilities and
personnel, meals were served from one point, these attracted long queues of students
waiting to be served. They felt that this was risky since students were frustrated. This
was supported by one District Quality Assurance and Standards officer who pointed
out that: “No amount of good seating and attractive menu and displays at any school
can satisfy learners if they are frustrated by having to spend too much time queuing
during lunch”.
Respondents stated that some school dining halls did not meet the needs of all
students including those with disabilities. This was evidenced by most observed
school dining halls without ramps and wide enough doors to allow access to people
with disability either independently or with assistance. One District Education Officer
commented that “most dining space do not have flexible layout to allow access for
independent wheelchair users and their carers to sit and dine alongside others”
Majority of the respondents felt that inadequate natural lighting in school dining hall
was making these facilities unsafe. This concurred with Hammond (2003) who stated
that lighting influences mood; therefore a dining hall should have plenty of natural
light or interior lighting with a pleasant softer quality.

99
Other unsafe dining hall situations that were cited included; lack of adequate
ventilation, this could lead to fatigue and respiratory related complications. Peeling
paint and poor choice of dining hall paint colour were unsafe for students. This was in
line with Brady (2003) who stated that dining hall colours should be considered
because the colour of paint can help cool or warms the room or affect the feelings of
the users.
The researcher observed that dining hall activities were being planned
immediately before or after lunch time. This increased pressure on catering staff; it
also increased students’ possibility of rushing their meals. This concurred with what
Dierkx (2003) states that students can feel rushed and tensed up if while still eating,
kitchen staff starts collecting utensils, mopping floors and clearing tables. A number
of food issues such as eating disorders and food allergies which could impact on
learners’ health and safety as observed by the researcher were not being given special
consideration. This could make such learners feel alienated or set apart from others.
In seven (7) schools under study, dining hall rules had not been strategically
displayed to deter students from engaging in distractive behaviour. According to
Squelch (2001) it is the duty of school administrators to spend time making links
between school rules and dining hall behaviour. This will ensure that students will
know what is expected from them, these rules can be referred to by staff present in the
dining room to reinforce and promote good behaviour.
It was observed that in most schools, there was no allowance in dining halls
arrangement for teachers to have meals together with students to promote social skills
such as table manners which students can carry into their future lives. On this aspect
one District Education Officer said that “It is crucial to encourage teachers to sit
100
among pupils during meals. This can successfully benefit the school safety by
enhancing staff- pupil relationship.” Minimal or lack of students’ supervision during
meal time was witnessed. This was found to be dangerous because in absence of the
teacher and prefects on duty, students could push each other and spill hot substances
on one other causing burns and scalds.
The study established that majority of the schools had not implemented
Ministry of Education safety guidelines regarding dining halls as required. These
inadequacies failed to present dining halls as safe and wonderful place that appeal to
students. The surrounding environment as well as meals in most schools’ dining halls
did not encourage students to feel safe, happy, healthy and comfortable in those
places. This could inhibit the atmosphere of a dining hall to bring the whole student
body together everyday around a set of values, in harmonious surrounding that
promote safe and healthy eating habits and interactions.

101
4.3.3 Classrooms
Safety Status of Classrooms
Items Student Teachers Headteacher DEOs DQASOs
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 140 70 60 30 12 30 28 70 5 10 1 2 - 3
classrooms
were
spacious
Whether 90 45 110 55 10 25 35 75 8 6 2 1 1 2
classrooms
Were
appropriately
located
Whether 105 52.5 95 47.5 20 50 20 50 10 5 1 2 - 3

classrooms
Were safe
Majority of the students, 140 (70%) indicated that classrooms were spacious.
However, most teachers, 28 (70%), Headteachers, ten (10), DEOS, two (2) and, two
(2) DQASOs felt that classrooms were not spacious. Teachers reported that student to
teacher ratio was as high as 60: 1. This was hampering effective teaching learning
process and safety of students. This view is supported by Pouget (2010) who
postulated that the classroom environment is not only the physical setting but also the
learning environment, which the teacher determines and implements.
Headteachers and Education officers felt that , in most schools, classrooms
that had been designed to accommodate 35-40 students was now accommodating as
many as 70 students. This contrasted the view mentioned by Squelch (2001) that,
102
conducive classrooms are essential for sound learning and the safety of both teachers
and the students.
Regarding whether classrooms were appropriately located, majority of the
students, 110 (55%) said yes. The rest 90 (45%) felt that classrooms were
inappropriately located such as being too close to the toilets hence affecting their
concentration level and health. This was in line with Carter (2002) who asserts that
for any meaningful teaching to take place both students and teachers should be
provided with safe and conducive environment to carry out their duties. Most
teachers, 30 (75%) as compared to headteachers (6) felt that classrooms were not
appropriately located, they indicated that some classrooms were too close to the
fences, this exposed students to noisy environments hence disrupting learning.
Teachers reported that since some classrooms were adjacent to public roads,
there was too much noise from the motorists and pedestrians, it was not unusual for
students to peep through the windows and other openings to see what was happening
even when teaching and learning was in progress. This was reported to be risky since
students could access illegal items from outside.
Headteachers who felt classrooms were not appropriately located indicated
that due to inadequate facilities some classrooms had been converted to staffrooms
and other offices, this was not conducive to either the staff or students since there
were a lot of unnecessary interactions between the two. One District Education
Officer commenting on how some classrooms were inappropriately located stated that
“some classrooms are very close to the school entrances such that a stranger can just
sneak in without being noticed since some administration blocks are hidden behind
classrooms”. This school layout contradicts what Hale (2002) postulates that if offices
103
are hidden deep within their respective schools; they are poorly positioned to guard
unwelcome
Responding to whether classrooms were safe most students, 105 (52.5%),
headteachers, ten (10) and half of the teachers, 20 (50%) said yes. However, majority
of the Education Officers, two (2) DEOs and all (3) DQASOs were of different view,
they said most classrooms were not safe. This difference could be due to the fact that,
as Education Officers, they were well placed to identify lack of safety compliance in
schools as opposed to other stakeholders who were not very familiar with safety
guidelines. In this view, Gwengo (2003) indicated that the workshops at District level
are important in training various stakeholders like headteachers, teachers and learners
on their role in the safety guidelines implementation process. To stress on how
classrooms were unsafe, one District Education Officer commented that, “Some
classrooms are unsafe since they have leaking roofs and sagging ceilings that could
easily injure students, one such case had been condemned by the Ministry of Public
Works yet it was still being used”
Other unsafe situations reported by respondents included, overcrowding, poor
arrangement of furniture, loose electrical fittings and uneven floors that generated a
lot of dust which could affect health of students who spent a lot of time in these
classrooms. A District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer commented that
“injuries were occurring at schools due to potholes in classrooms; in some cases
change in floor level is not highlighted”. This could lead to students hurting
themselves while moving within the classrooms.
According to most education officers, school administration was not giving a
lot of attention to classrooms, since the little money available was directed to paying
104
salaries to Board of Governors’ employed teachers due to acute shortage of Teachers
employed by Teachers Service Commission (TSC). Regarding classrooms safety,
District Quality and standards officer said that:
There are some schools where a classroom of 7.5m X 5.85m which should
accommodate a maximum of 30 learners in one-seater desks or 40 learners in
two seater desks in line with the provisions of the Ministry of Education
guidelines was accommodating as many as 60 learners in one seater desks.
These classrooms are overcrowded and the desks are haphazardly placed
hampering easy and orderly movement of learners and teachers as well as
compromising safety of users.
Similar sentiments were reported by a District Education Officer. He felt that
in some schools, all classrooms were not being given attention they deserved. He
commented that:
Although majority of schools here have tried as much as possible to improve

general safety of their classrooms, there are some whose classrooms are still
unsafe. In one of these schools, classroom windows and doors still had grills
and were opening inwards; they lacked adequate ventilation and natural light,
moreover, classroom floors were uneven and had developed cracks that were
generating a lot of dust which could pose risks to health of both teachers and
learners.
Out of the six (6) education officers who were interviewed, four (4) felt that
in the storied buildings, stairways leading to classrooms were not wide enough to
allow for easy passage, moreover, the handrails along the stairs were not strong, of the
recommended height and firmly fixed. This was unsafe for the learners who were
sometimes observed pushing each other along the stairways. District Education
Officer had this to say:
Classroom corridors in some schools are not well ventilated and lit, they are
very narrow hence students walk along bumping into each other and this could
be risky to them. Access steps and ramps are not properly maintained and
provided with handrails.
A Quality Assurance and Standards Officer indicated that “in some schools,
classrooms’ lighting is not bright enough to allow safe access and exit”
105
The researcher observed that, in most schools, classrooms were not adequate
as compared to enrolment; furniture was inadequate, inappropriate to the size of users
and poorly maintained with evidence of breakage that had not been addressed. Most
windows had no glasses, partly painted glasses or with blinds to protect students from
glare and heat from the sun. Some overgrown tress bending dangerously near
classroom roofs were observed, this posed danger to students. Trees were littering
school compound by shading leaves during dry season making such schools very
untidy and disinviting. Some classrooms were observed having students’ unfriendly
black boards or walls which were very small, placed either too low for students at the
back to see or too high for short teachers to use. Faint paint that hindered students to
see what was written on them while some were broken and in bad state.
In some schools, administrators were not putting a lot of emphasis on
classroom safety since some electrical fittings were loose and trailing electrical leads
and cables had not been protected. This could jeopardize safety of learners as was
indicated by Reid (2002) that school buildings must be clean, comfortable and devoid
of vandalism, loose and dangerous electrical wires and graffiti. Regarding this issue
one District Quality and Standards Officer had this to say:
When I walked in some classrooms in one of the school in my district, I found

very many loose electrical wires and sockets that were dangling dangerously.
The headteacher who was taking me round indicated that there was a lot of
vandalism of the same by the learners and school management was unable to
cope with such repairs and maintenance.
The study established that most schools had not complied with Ministry of
Education safety guidelines fully as evidenced by conversion of other structures into
classrooms due to swelling enrolment brought about by free secondary education.
This was unsafe due to overcrowding, inadequate ventilation and poorly maintained
related facilities.
106
4.3.4 Schools’ Libraries
Safety Status of Schools’ Libraries
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 95 47.5 105 52.5 15 37.5 25 62.5 5 10 1 2 1 2

there was a
Library
Whether the 30 31.5 65 68.4 5 33.3 10 66.6 1 4 1 2 - 3

library was
appropriately
Located
Whether the 20 21 75 78.9 4 26.6 11 73.3 - 5 - 3 - 3

library Was
well stocked
Whether the 10 10.5 85 89.4 6 40 9 60 1 4 - 3 1 2

library was
safe
Table 4.8 Indicates that majority (10) of the schools did not have a library in
place. The researcher observed that in the few schools that had libraries, some of them
were small facilities that were more of book stores than libraries. This trend could
undermine the importance of school libraries and the pivotal role they play in raising
learners’ literacy levels and improving their access to knowledge.
According to Church (2002) school libraries are an underutilized resource,
often perceived by the headteachers to be a low priority. Finkkle (2000) further states
that a library, what should be a vital ingredient of our school system is marginalized
and seem not to be connected with the acknowledged educational priorities of literacy
107
and information skills supporting knowledge acquisition, which are its core values.
One District Education Officer commenting on the importance of school libraries had
this to say:
While some headteachers and schools’ board of governors see the school
libraries as an essential element of their school development plan, many others
have given little thought to the part it could be playing in the life of the school.
It is a strategically useful resource that could play a wider role of helping the
school to deliver after the school hours and to work with the families and the
wider community to support literacy and enjoyment of reading.
Appearing disturbed by the fact that many schools under her jurisdiction did
not have libraries, one District Quality Assurance and Standards officer remarked
that:
Whether or not a school has a library is dependent upon the headteacher.

Whether or not this school library is an effective one, able to contribute fully
to the learning outcome of the school is dependent upon the effectiveness of
leadership and management within the school.
She paused and asked me “are you getting my point?” I said “yes”. Then she
continued with her explanation:
Some school managers with a shaky view of information and knowledge

acquisition argue that school libraries are no longer necessary because of the
ready access to a plethora of information via the internet. They forget that the
uncontrolled growth of the internet and the variable levels of access to e-
publications and e- resources are placing greater than ever demands on the
information handling capacities of students of all ages including their ability to
read and digest material published in a wide variety of forms. Therefore
school libraries have an essential role to play in helping students at every stage
in their quest for learning and in equipping them to function effectively and
safely in an increasingly competitive electronic environment.
Respondents were asked whether schools’ libraries were appropriately located
or not. To answer this, 55 (68.4%) students, 10 (66.6%) teachers, four (4)
headteachers and four (4) Education officers said no. Most of them indicated that
some school libraries were located near noisy environments like busy roads, pathways
and shopping centers. Noise from motorists, pedestrians and loud music played in
108
some shops were making libraries unfriendly for any meaningful reading. This
contradicted concerns raised by Clark (2002) regarding facilities planning when he
stated that in planning libraries it is good to respond to the needs of the learners.
Therefore a library needs to be characterized by comfortable, safe, quiet and
welcoming environment offering more social reading opportunities. Other issues
related to the location of the schools’ libraries included; placing libraries among
classrooms, next to the staff rooms and open fields where a lot of activities were
taking place. This was observed to be disruptive to the library users.
When one District Education Officer was asked to respond to the
appropriateness of schools’ library location, she stood up and pointed at some noisy
surrounding next to her office and asked me “do you hear how disturbing the noises
from these shops are?” I said “yes” then she sat down and continued:
Some schools in this district have their libraries surrounded by such noisy
surroundings. According to me a library is a learning resource centre to
support all the predominant modes of teaching and learning in the school,
ranging from teacher-led lessons to independent learning and e-learning.
Therefore, I feel these facilities require quiet environment to allow all these
activities to take place.
A District Quality Assurance and Standards officer in the same district who
had been interviewed earlier commented that:
According to my own view, school libraries require to be placed in separate

location and have well publicized opening times so that students can make the
best possible use of the books instead of having it stacked in the middle of
other facilities that are constantly in use. A lot of noise generated from such
facilities is not healthy for those using the library.
Regarding whether schools’ libraries were well stocked, a large number of
respondents, 75 (78.9%) students, 11 (73.3%) teachers, five (5) headteachers and all
(6) Education Officers stated that schools’ libraries were not well stocked. Most of
these respondents indicated that most school libraries were lacking or had very few
109
contemporary materials to equip students with relevant information. Instead they were
stocked with old books mostly donated by well wishers even though such books were
not relevant to the users. Stressing the need of well stoked school library, Church
(2002) stated that it is appropriate for a school library to maintain excellent book
stocks to stimulate reading culture among young people, more access to up-to-date
technology and more targeted services aimed at meeting the particular needs of a
particular group.
One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer when asked to comment
on the schools’ library stock was disappointed by the fact that some schools
administrators were not paying required attention to their libraries. She said:
We acknowledge that whilst many schools boast impressive and well stocked
school libraries, there are still those that are poorly located, badly organized
and inappropriately stocked with old, out of date material, much of which is in
poor condition. In some schools the library is divided between individual
classes and there seem to be no real system in place to encourage effective
purposive borrowing. I feel that, unless a trained librarian is put in place, many
school libraries become just random collections of books which offer no
attraction to children to remain largely underutilized. Many librarians and
teachers are not adequately trained in library organization or stock promotion.
When a District Education Officer from the same district was asked to
comment on the schools, library stock, she remarked that:
The aim of a school library is to have a collection of well used information

and enjoyable books. It is better to have a small stock of interesting books than
a large collection that nobody reads. To achieve this, one must sort through the
existing stock carefully and remove books that are of no value to a school
library. Donated books may not be what you want, or what the students need.
Some are inappropriate for the age of the students because they do not
stimulate their interests.
The researcher observed that most of the schools’ libraries were stocked with
old books that had not been properly catalogued. Students were observed getting
frustrated as they tried to locate books without much success and without any
110
assistance from the librarians. Although school libraries are supposed to have a
variety of stocks besides books such as magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, flipcharts,
maps, posters and even audio-visual stocks, well maintained, relevant and attractive to
arouse curiosity of students, most of the libraries were having outdated and tattered
books.
Inadequate safety of both students and library stock in schools’ library was
seen as a problem by most of the respondents, 85 (89.4%) students, nine (9) teachers,
four (4) headteachers and four (4) Education Officer. These responses contravened
Finkkle (2000) who postulated that a well run and safe school library could have
impact on learners’ literacy levels, enjoyment of reading, information literacy skills
and access to knowledge. Some students felt that some schools’ libraries were too
small to offer conducive environment for study. This was in line with Squelch (2001)
who suggested that the school’s library room be big enough for at least one form of
students to visit at the same time.
Regarding safety of the schools’ library, most headteachers felt that due to
inadequate funds and lack of support from parents, most school libraries remained
unsafe. They stated that books can last longer and are easier to locate if they are
displayed on shelves. Such basic furnishing is hard to come by due to shortage of
finances. The researcher observed that bookshelves were not of the required materials
and height. Students were seen struggling with the inappropriate heights of shelves,
tables and chairs which was unsafe for them. Asked to comment on stock safety, one
District Education Officer said that:

111
Books are made of paper, which is a delicate material prone to damage. They
will easily be spoilt it they are carelessly or roughly handled. Books are also
difficult and expensive to obtain in schools’ libraries. It is important to take
extra care and keep books in good condition. Water can be the biggest enemy
and when school libraries have leaking roofs; books can be damaged beyond
repair. We always advise school administrators to avoid water getting into the
libraries by maintaining good roofs, keeping books in raised shelves and to
keep gutters clear and windows closed during rainy seasons. High shelves
would also facilitate cleaning the floor.
Some teachers maintained that some libraries were not well lit and ventilated
hence making it hard to use them for study. They suggested wide windows to allow
air circulation. In support of this view, one District Education Officer had this to say:
Windows are essential. They provide good reading light and ventilation. A hot
room makes people want to sleep. In humid places, books may be spoilt by
moulds if library room is dump. Good ventilation reduces these problems.
When the same District Education Officer was probed more on what makes
schools’ library unsafe, she said this “there are a lot of safety issues in schools’
library, do you want to hear more?” after I said yes, she continued:
Safety of books in the library is wanting in most schools here. Books keep on
disappearing from the shelves. This could be due to improper lending and
borrowing procedures. You find that others are torn while others have missing
pages, all because schools have failed to put strict measures in place. Covering
of books using hard covers or dust jacket can increase their life span. Other
safety concerns include; unsecured and unlocked doors when there is no one in
the libraries, poor electrical wiring, inappropriate heights of raised cupboards
that knocks children and poorly maintained wall fixtures.
The researcher observed that some libraries had glass- fronted lockable
bookcases for the most desirable books. A list of titles of the books contained in these
bookcases was pinned where students could easily see. These were used during
supervised study time. This practice could control theft and tearing of books. In some
instances, the researcher witnessed students who were left in the library unattended
either by their teachers or the school librarians. This could be unsafe because students
could vandalize library stock or injure themselves as they played within the facility.
112
Asked whether leaving students unattended while using the library was a safety threat
to learners, one District Education said that:
Children can abuse computers and access undesirable information from the
internet. With the growth in electronic communication and increasing mobility
of the internet, online bullying and cyber crime is becoming an increasing
issue in schools. Therefore, school librarians and teachers have a definite role
to play in the education and welfare of students. Many school librarians have
been active in this area and have contributed towards getting their schools a
written policy on internet. School librarians are in a good position to teach
pupils about ethical aspects of internet use and keeping safe while on line.
A District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer explained that insects like
cockroaches, mosquitoes, termites, red and black ants not only spoil books but
disturbs students. It is prudent to keep library environment clean to avoid such. To
explain how destructive insects can be to the library stock, she asked me “can you
allow me to quote a school headteacher?” after I said yes, she explained that a
headteacher of a school she had visited lamented about the destruction that had been
caused by insects. She told me this:
We were so proud of our book shelves and the magazine display racks. They
looked so smart with all the stock piled up high. It was really nice for a year
and then the white ants moved in. In less than two months all our books,
journalism materials, pamphlet collections and magazines had become food
for the insects. Worse still, the office building had to be partly rebuilt.
As she continued, I suggested to her to try metal bookshelves to avoid similar
problems. She interjected me with this statement:
What! Insects cannot eat metal bookshelves. However, you may have
problems with rust, which also spoil books. I think the rule is to keep
everything clean and anticipate trouble because even other animals like rats
and mice can spoil your bookshelves and stock. The issue is to put down traps
to eliminate them and act quickly.
The Ministry of Education safety guidelines regarding physical infrastructure
in the schools under study had not been fully implemented as evidenced by lack of
libraries in schools, inappropriate location of this facility, poorly stocked libraries and
113
lack of safety for both stock and the library users. This is in line with Clark (2002)
who stated that schools’ libraries are useful not only to students but also for teachers
since they can improve their teaching by using stock from the library. To achieve this,
school libraries needs adequate safe space, a range of current appropriate books and
other learning resources backed by ready students’ access to Information
Communication Technology (ICT).
4.3.5 Schools’ Dormitories
Table 4.9: Students’, Teachers’, Headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs responses

on Safety Status of Schools’ Dormitories
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether the 50 41.6 70 58.3 9 36 16 64 2 4 - 3 - 3

dormitories
were
spacious
Whether the 70 58.3 50 41.6 10 40 15 60 2 4 1 2 1 2
dormitories
were
appropriately
located
Whether the 100 83.3 20 16.6 5 20 20 80 2 6 1 2 - 3
dormitories
were safe
As indicated in Table 4.9 Most respondents, 70 (58.3%) students, 16 (64%)
teachers, four (4) headteachers, all (3) DEOs and all (3) DQASOs stated that schools’
dormitories were congested. Students indicated that overcrowding in the dormitories
compromised their hygiene and safety because sometimes they were forced to share
114
beds. A study conducted by Magdla (2007) showed that overcrowding in boarding
schools especially those in informal settlement was promoting moral decay among
students especially when they were allowed to share beds. Teachers, headteachers and
Education officers asserted that congestion in schools’ dormitories was due to
increased demand for boarding secondary schools and few boarding schools in the
region. One DEO argued that:
Majority of parents in this region dislike taking their children to boarding

schools in rural areas due to increased cost of living and cultural shock
experienced by their children. They prefer having them near their homes. This
has strained the few boarding schools available leading to overcrowding in the
dormitories and other facilities.
On the same issue, one District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer
commented that “admission in some boarding schools is not based on bed capacity
due to pressure put on headteachers from different quotas to admit more students”
The researcher noted that five (5) schools out of the six (6) boarding schools that
participated in the study had overcrowded dormitories. This situation compromised
students’ health and safety since most schools had not complied with safety guidelines
requirements. A District Education Officer noted that:
unsafe situations in the dormitories is as a result of overcrowding, these

facilities are overstretched such that bunk beds are even accommodating three
learners exposing them to danger given that the materials used are very weak.
There is hardly any space for students to place their luggage hence "mabati”
boxes are squeezed under the bed and in the little available space exposing
students to injury and harm. Worse still, some school matrons or teachers in
charge lock dormitory doors from outside at night when students are asleep.
This is a dangerous practice that can lead to death of students in case of an
emergency.
When asked whether dormitories were appropriately located, majority of the
students, 70(58.3%) said yes. However, most teachers, 15(60%), headteachers, four
(4) and four (4) Education Officers, felt that most dormitories were not appropriately
located. They remarked that most dormitories were far from administration block
115
making it hard for proper surveillance. Headteachers stated that some schools’ layout
did not allow proper location of dormitories. In support of this view, one DEO posed
that:
In some old schools, construction of buildings was not guided by any plan. In
fact some buildings were converted to serve as dormitories though initially
they were not meant for that. It is not strange to find dormitories located at
very unusual places like at the school entrance or bordering a shopping centre.
To correct such anomalies is deemed expensive by the school administrators
since it calls for complete overhaul of such buildings.
It was observed that, some dormitories were located at the extreme ends of the
school compound near unsafe environments. There were no janitors’ rooms adjacent
to dormitories to ensure safety of the students. Headteachers and deputy headteachers
were not residing in the school compound as required by the Ministry of Education
Safety Standards Manual for Schools in Kenya (2008). This could expose students to
unsafe situations since they were left unsupervised in the dormitory area.
Majority of the respondents, 100 (83.3%) students, 20 (80%) teachers, four (4)
headteachers and five (5) Education officers felt that school dormitories were not safe.
Teachers, headteachers and Education Officers indicated that safety items were either
lacking or inadequate in some schools’ dormitories. Available fire extinguishers were
not functioning and were not placed at easily accessible points. This was further
enhanced by one District Quality and Standards officer, who argued that:
Most of fire fighting equipments are not available in majority of the schools
within this district. The available ones are inadequate, not serviced, or non
functional. They are not appropriately placed to allow easy accessibility. At
the same time, most teachers, support staff and students have no knowledge on
how to use them if need arises.
Students who felt their dormitories were not safe cited overcrowding,
inadequate facilities, scarcity of water, dirty bathrooms and toilets; they said they
were at high risk of getting infectious diseases. Other safety concerns raised by the
116
students included; poor ventilation and lighting, dilapidated buildings, theft, lack of
mosquito nets and temporary structures being used as dormitories.
The researcher observed that, in most of the schools under study, dormitory
doors and windows had grills, they were opening inwards and were not wide enough
to allow easy passage. Most of the schools with storied buildings were not disability
friendly since they had no ramps in place to cater for students with disabilities. On the
issue of grills, one District Education Officer commented that “most head teachers
feel that grills on doors and windows of dormitories, classrooms, libraries,
laboratories and dining halls are almost unavoidable due security lapse experienced in
some schools.”
It was reported that in 4 schools, dormitory doors were not being locked all the
time when learners were in classrooms or in the play fields. This could encourage
intruders. In some schools, it was reported that dormitory doors were sometimes
locked from outside by the matrons, house masters/mistresses or teachers on duty
when students were asleep to deter students from sneaking out of the school
compound at night. This was found to be dangerous and against Ministry of Education
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure since in case of fire breakout or any other
incident requiring evacuation it would be impossible to do so. Similarly, dormitories
lacked doors at both ends and an additional emergency exit at the middle. In few cases
where an emergency exit existed, it was not clearly labelled “emergency exit” and it
was usually obstructed by debris making it hard to use in case of an emergency.
Simatwa (2010) stated that it has long been presumed that, accidents just
happen and therefore trying to prevent them would be a futile exercise. The truth
however is that accidents are caused by certain definable factors that can be
117
prevented. Simatwa (2010) further indicates that, the main causes of accidents in
schools are human related such as; carelessness, inattentiveness, ignorance,
irresponsibility or negligence.
The study established that although in boarding schools dormitories are the
single most used physical infrastructure where learners spend the longest continuous
period of time in a day, some school administrators had not given a lot of emphasis on
their safety. According to Omolo and Stewart (2010) dormitories should be fitted with
emergency doors since they provide alternative egress during emergencies and failure
to observe this can compromise security of students.

118
4.3.6 Sanitation Facilities
Table 4.10: Respondents Responses on Safety Status of schools’ Sanitation

Facilities
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 90 45 110 55 18 45 22 55 5 10 1 2 - 3
the toilets
were
adequate
Whether 80 40 120 60 19 47.5 21 52.5 6 9 - 3 - 3

the toilets
were
adequately
located
Whether 73 35 130 65 11 27.5 29 72.5 4 11 1 2 - 3

toilets
offered
required
privacy
Whether 105 52.5 95 47.5 10 25 30 75 9 6 - 3 - 3

toilets
were safe
As shown in Table 4.10 Majority of students, 110 (55%), teachers, 22 (55%),
headteachers (10) and Education Officers (5) indicated that schools’ sanitation
facilities were inadequate. This concurred with the views expressed by Siringi (2001)
that, pupil to toilet ratio was grossly ignored by majority of schools despite the fact
that provision of sanitation facilities has implication on access and quality of learning.
Students felt that toilets were not matching the students’ population since they had to
make long queues in order to use the few available ones during the short breaks.
119
One District Education Officer responding citing shortage of sanitation
facilities commented that “most school administrators ignore the issue of toilets; they
direct their finances to other tuition facilities”. The researcher observed that due to
shortage of sanitation facilities, students were forced to go back to class before
relieving themselves since they were unable to access the facilities within the short
stipulated time. This could have diverse health implications on them. According to
Glickman (2004) significant amount of disease could be prevented through better
access to safe water supply, adequate sanitation facilities and better hygiene practices.
Headteachers attributed shortage of sanitation facilities to inadequate funding by the
government and parents’ laxity to pay more for construction of schools’ toilets.
Teachers on the other hand felt that inadequate toilets were due to poor planning by
school administration and less attention given to toilets by the school managers.
Concerning teachers’ and other staff’s toilets, seven (7) out of fifteen (15)
schools had clean and adequate toilets which were well designated for ladies and
gentlemen, they were also well labelled for easy access by visitors. However, in eight
(8) schools, these toilets were as few as one (1) closet that was being used by both
male and female. In one (1) school, teachers were sharing the same toilets with the
learners; this could interfere with privacy and safety of the users.
Majority of the students, 120 (60%), teachers, 21 (52.5%), headteachers, (9)
and all (6) Education Officers stated that schools’ toilets were not appropriately
located. Most students felt that toilets were located very far from the tuition facilities
and in some dark alleys far from the eyes of the school administrators where bullying
and other forms of abuse were evident. Other students said that some dormitories had
no adjacent toilets and where they existed, they were barred from using them due to
water shortage. They had to cover long distances at night to which could expose them
120
to danger. On toilets location, the researcher observed that, two (2) out of five
schools that had pit latrines, the structures were very close to the classrooms and were
not on the downside. Stench from the toilets was evident in the classrooms and other
parts of the school compound. This compromised health and safety of learners.
In Table 4.10, it is notable that overwhelming number of respondents, 130
(65%) students, 29 (72.5%) teachers, eleven (11) headteachers and five (5) Education
Officers felt that schools’ toilets were not providing the required privacy. Students
indicated that some toilets were located in old and dilapidated buildings; some had
wide gaping gaps and no doors. This not only compromised their health but also their
privacy. Teachers and headteachers felt that some toilets were not providing privacy
to the users since they were placed too close to each other, had no doors, were too
close to the fences or entrances and they had not been well designated for boys and
girls. The researcher observed that, in two (2) mixed schools, toilets for boys and girls
were too close to each other. This could compromise privacy and safety of students.
Asked to comment on the privacy of sanitation facilities in schools, one District
Education Officers said that:
Some school toilets don’t even have doors and students are afraid and
ashamed to use them. In some toilets, there are no locks on the toilet doors and
the available ones are not functional, there was one case where the locks were
only on the outside, the naughty students were locking their colleagues inside
while others were just walking in without knocking. In some cases the gaps at
the top and bottom of the closet were too low or too high; therefore children
harassed each other by peeping over or below, and sometimes throwing or
dropping objects at their peers while inside the toilets. This was humiliating
and dangerous for students. There is also a lot of graffiti in some toilets
inciting students to do undesirable things. I think school administration should
consider these facilities more seriously than they are doing currently.
It was observed that, in some schools, sanitary pads disposal bins for girls had
not been provided. Available ones were not appropriately located, some had been
placed in an open common place hindering access and compromising hygiene

121
standards. It could also undermine students’ privacy and impact negatively on their
self image and self esteem. Compared to other respondents, a high number of
students, 105 (52.5%) and headteachers (9) stated that sanitation facilities were safe.
However, majority of the teachers, 30 (75%) and Education Officers (6) felt that
sanitation facilities were not safe. Those who felt sanitation facilities were not safe
cited lack of relevant facilities such as water points, sinks, soap, leaking roofs, poor
maintenance among other issues.
The researcher observed that in ten (10) schools where ablution block was
attached to the dormitories, three (3) schools had not maintained high degree of
cleanliness and maintenance. Damaged taps, sinks, toilet seats and lack of mirrors
especially in girls’ toilets was observed. Regarding cleanliness and other hygiene
situations in the toilets, 105 (52.5%) of the students indicated that, toilets were not
cleaned regularly and water points to enable cleaning of hands after visiting the
toilets were inadequate and very far from the facility.
For at least 120 (60%) students who responded to the study, there was no
provision or access to facilities for hand washing and drying, toilet papers, soap and
hand towels. This deterred students from using toilets frequently and it was also
affecting the development of positive habits around personal hygiene. The study
established that the standards of cleanliness was satisfactory for 40% cases, 50%
unsatisfactory and only 10% saying that their toilets were adequate, clean and well
maintained. When a District Education Officer was asked to comment on the extent of
the implementation of safety guidelines regarding toilets in the schools under his
jurisdiction, he posed that:

122
In some schools, toilets are adequate, clean or even fantastic; this proves that
there is really no excuse for the nasty school toilets. It is a question of taking
responsibility, making it a priority and involving students and other
stakeholders. I am saying this because this issue is important and one which
impacts daily on the physical and well being of the children yet in terms of
school development plans there is no specific or detailed reference which is
made regarding toilets and sanitation facilities, the focus is mainly on the
classrooms and other access areas.
In five (5) schools, there were no urinals in the boys toilets and where a trough
for this purpose existed, there was no running water to keep them clean all the time.
This made the facilities unsafe and unfriendly to the users. In four (4) schools, toilet
closets were found to be too small and much squeezed; passageways were narrow
such that it was not possible for the learners to access them with ease.
In one (1) school, it was observed that, access to drinking water was confined
to a tap situated in the toilet area. This was unhygienic to learners as indicated by
Magdla (2006) that it is not desirable or acceptable for sources of drinking water to be
located in toilet areas. Among the students who responded to this study, 120 (60%)
felt that, the issue of toilets was not being given priority and respect by the school’s
administrators. The same sentiments were reflected during an interview with a District
Quality Assurance and Standards Officer who commented that:
Toilets in some schools here lack sanitary facilities and equipments. They are
not in the best state of repair, not serviceable and they are not inspected
regularly. Where there are pit latrines, they are less than six meters deep and
are not regularly disinfected. During rainy seasons, they flood hence making
them unusable and a health hazard to students and the surrounding
community. Some toilets are located very far and out of sight by the school
administration, therefore some students are transforming toilet areas to
smoking and bullying zones and other forms of undesirable behaviour. Even
bathrooms have a reputation of unsafe locations, where illicit activities and
bullying are common. This is because they are frequently located in isolated
corners of buildings away from natural surveillance. Occasionally they are
also near secondary entries providing opportunities for unobserved trespassers
and easy exits.
123
It was observed that in some two (2) schools where flush toilets existed, toilet
seats were inadequate and unclean; this was a real danger since students using them
were crouching instead of sitting on them. This could compromise health of learners
as stated by Glickman (2004) that the best position for emptying the bladder or
bowels properly is to sit with support of the thighs and feet, bent slightly forward.
Clark (2002), Squelch (2001) and Reid (2000) have shown that going to the toilet is
more than just a physical reflex. The whole environment must be comfortable in order
to relax and allow proper physical and psychological processes to take place.
The study established that in most schools, the required safety standards by the
Ministry of Education had not been met. This was evidenced by lack of adequate
toilets, inappropriate location of sanitation facilities, and poor maintenance of toilets.

124
4.3.7 Laboratories
Table 4.11: Respondents’ Responses on Safety Status of Schools’ laboratories
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 50 25 150 75 10 25 30 75 5 10 1 2 1 2
laboratories
were
adequate
Whether 70 35 130 65 15 37.5 25 62.5 6 9 1 2 - 3

laboratories
were
adequately
located
Whether 30 15 170 85 5 25 35 87.5 3 12 - 3 - 3

laboratories
were well
equipped
Whether 20 50 180 90 6 15 34 85 2 13 1 2 - 3
laboratories
were safe
Table 4.11 shows that majority of the respondents, 150 (75%) students, 30
(75%) teachers, ten (10) headteachers and four (4) Education Officers indicated that
schools’ laboratories were not adequate. According to Lyons (2002) schools’
laboratories are an expensive investment and are expected to last for many years. A
poor location or design will impact on generation of students, teachers and
technicians. Students felt that laboratories were few compared to the number of
students using them. This interfered with comprehension of the subject content
especially during practical lessons. This concurred with Reid (2000) who stated that a
science department requires enough laboratories unless the curriculum is to be unduly

125
constrained. Squelch (2001) further stated that all science lessons need to be
timetabled in laboratories but with consideration for cleaning and servicing schedules.
Teachers stated that science laboratories were few and they were using one laboratory
for all science subjects. This constrained the existing facilities allowing very little
time for cleaning and preparation for the next lesson.
Overcrowding was observed during compulsory science subjects where one
teacher was handling more than fifty students during a practical lesson. Headteachers
said that science laboratories were few and they were small in size making them
unsafe for the users during practical lessons. One District Education Officer
commented that “shortage of laboratories discouraged most schools from offering all
science subjects as required by the set curriculum”. A District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer noted that “inadequate and squeezed laboratories were major
contributing factors to lack of safety and breakages of equipments during practical
lessons”. Concerning adequacy of laboratory another District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer postulated that:
Some laboratories are too small to accommodate preparation and storage

rooms yet these rooms are used to prepare equipments and materials for
lessons as well as to store chemicals and other equipments safely and securely.
These activities cannot be effectively undertaken in rooms that are too small,
badly laid out, poorly furnished, or located randomly around a science
laboratory. Sometimes teachers are left with no working space while handling
a practical lesson exposing students to danger.
Responding to whether laboratories were appropriately located, 130 (65%)
students, 25 (62.5%) teachers, nine (9) headteachers and five (5) Education Officers
said no. Students and teachers felt that some laboratories were situated next to the
roads and busy pedestrians’ paths and there were no measures taken to reduce noise
levels. This disrupted learning since most windows were also facing this direction.
Headteachers stated that due to lack of proper planning especially in the old schools,
126
science laboratories were located in very unlikely places like between classes, next to
libraries or even to administration blocks. This caused interference during practical
lessons which required high level concentration. One District Education Officer
commented that:
Some laboratories are inappropriately located because all users were not
involved in planning. It is important to involve teachers, technicians and
students. It is also important to avoid any one individual having his/her own
way because highly innovative ideas will have a long working life
The researcher observed that some laboratories were not located on ground
floor. This was learner unfriendly because most equipments were fragile and required
to be moved a lot especially in cases where they were not stored in the same floor.
This arrangement had not considered learners with special needs since ramps had not
been provided to allow access to those on wheel chairs.
As shown in Table 4. 11. Overwhelming number of students, 170 (85%),
teachers, 35 (87.5%), headteachers, twelve (12) and all (6) Education Officers
indicated that schools’ laboratories were not adequately equipped. All of them felt
that laboratory stools and benches were few, inappropriate, of low quality and poorly
maintained. This was unsafe for students who were using them while in stooping
position for long periods of time. One District Education Officer commented that
“Students experience difficulties regarding where to place their personal items like
books and coats while in the laboratory because cupboards and shelves are not
provided in laboratories”. A District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer said
that:
Other than being few, some laboratory stools are not of the correct height.
Shorter students are forced to use tall stools with no footrest. This other than
being unsafe is very uncomfortable for the learners. Some benches and tables
also pose a similar challenge.
127
The researcher observed that, during practical lessons other mostly used
equipments such as flasks, test tubes, puppets and beaker were inadequate. This
caused a lot of spillages because they were shared among many students. Breakages
and minor injuries were also noticed. Sinks and taps were observed to be few, small in
size and inappropriately located to the proximity of users. This necessitated a lot of
movements, spillage and littering of the laboratories in most of the schools. This
situation could increase chances of injuries though slips and falls.
A large number of respondents, 180 (90%) students, 35 (85%), thirteen (13)
headteachers and five (5) Education Officers indicated that laboratories were not safe.
According to Bruening, Hoover, and Radhakrishna (1991), of all the jobs that a
science teacher performs, safety of students is the most important. What and how
students learn must be secondary to the physical safety of both students and teachers
in a science laboratory. Gliem and Hard (1998) further stated that not only is safety an
important consideration for educators but a moral professional and legal obligation as
well. The primary responsibility for providing laboratory safety instruction and a safe
learning environment rests within the teacher
All (15) headteachers who responded to the study indicated that teachers
instruct students on how to use equipments in a science laboratory and demonstrate
their usage. However, a few (5) of them reported that some teachers were leaving
students unsupervised while using dangerous equipments or chemicals in a science
laboratory. Out of 40 teachers who took part in the study, 35(87.5%) were not aware
of the recommended laboratory safety guidelines, however, 38 (95%) considered
knowledge of these regulations as very important. Overwhelming number of teachers,
37 (92.5%) who participated in the study considered their laboratory technicians not
qualified and careless in the science laboratories. However, 20% of them were leaving
128
students under their care. This was a dangerous practice that could endanger lives of
the students. One of the District Education Officer while commenting on laboratory
safety had this to say:
Providing a safe learning environment in a science laboratory for public

schools is a problem here. This is because, teachers and school administrators
do not adhere to the recommended safety practices of providing students with
safety and emergency equipments to the extent warranted by the potential
hazards present in science laboratories. Most science laboratories lack
equipments such as; fire extinguishers, exhaust systems, first aid kits, exit
signs, posted laboratory safety regulations, safety zones, safety cans for
flammable liquids and panic buttons among others. Such laboratories are
unsafe for students.
Safety problems associated with ventilation mentioned by teachers and
students included availability of smoke and dust and inadequate air circulation in the
laboratories. Thirty (75%) teachers and 110(55%) students indicated that, sources of
hazards in school laboratory included improper techniques of using equipments,
inadequate laboratory facilities, improper storage of equipment and poor management
and organization of laboratory facilities. Similarly, 12 (80%) headteachers felt that
basic causes of accidents in laboratories included extensive use of glass wares, non
exposure of science teachers to laboratory safety, hasting activities during practical
and in active supervision of students during laboratory activities.
It was observed that safety devices that lacked in most science laboratories
included eye protective shield, spectacles, and goggles, safety screen and fire
extinguishers. Regarding safety of science laboratories, one District Quality
Assurance and Standards Officer commented that:
Quite a number of schools’ buildings in this district are in need of

reconstruction or renovation. This is in response to growing enrolments and
the deterioration of an older generation of buildings. You find some science
laboratories with some flaws such as leaky roofs, a faulty electrical system or
dysfunctional plumbing
129
It was established that all principals (15) and 35 (87.5%) teachers agreed that
most schools’ laboratories did not have adequate space for teachers’ planning,
preparation of investigations, and secure storage of laboratory supplies as well as
space for students’ and teachers’ activities. Similar view was express by one District
Education officer who stated that:
Due to increase in students’ enrolment brought about by free day secondary

education and lack of enough teachers to match students’ population, class
sizes have increased over and above the required teacher student ratio of 1:35.
In a science laboratory, it may be extremely difficult for teachers handling
classes of forty students and above to perform their supervisory role and
maintain safety during laboratory experiences. I feel this class size is
potentially unsafe.
The study established that in most schools, Ministry of Education guidelines
regarding laboratory safety had not been fully implemented. This was evidenced by
inadequate, squeezed, inappropriately located and ill equipped laboratories. Lack of
necessary safety precautions such as availability of wide windows and doors without
grills opening outwards with easy, Serviceable and suitably located fire extinguishers,
safety rules posted in the laboratory. Inadequate or lack of appropriate furniture
clearly marked emergency exits and, inadequate light and ventilation were also
witnessed.
130
4.3.8 Administration Block
Table 4.12: Respondents’ responses on Safety Status of Schools’ Administration

Block
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether there 160 80 40 20 35 87.5 5 12.5 10 5 3 - 2 1

was an
administration
block
Whether 90 45 110 55 15 37.5 25 62.5 6 9 1 2 - 3

administration
block was
appropriately
located
Whether 70 35 130 65 10 25 30 75 5 10 1 2 - 3
administration
offices were
well equipped
Whether 100 50 100 50 12 38 28 70 3 12 - 3 - 3

administration
offices Were
safe
Table 4.12 shows that, most students, 160 (80%) teachers, 35 (87.5%),
headteachers, ten (10) and five (5) Education Officers indicated that there was an
administration block which was complete, clean and well maintained in various
schools in the area under study. This concurred wither Carter (2002) who pointed out
that the administration block is a very important aspect of a school plant since it is the
first station of call for all visitors to the school. Squelch (2001) further states that an
ideal school administration should put into consideration the prevailing security
situation of the school environment and the needs of the school. However, the
131
researcher observed that, in three (3) schools, there was no administration block,
instead there were rooms among the tuition block that were being used as different
offices while in two (2) schools, construction of administration block was on-going
while semi- permanent structures were being used as offices. This could compromise
safety of learners since administrators were not comfortable to carry out their
supervision duties as required. Stressing the need of a school administration block,
one District Education Officer commented that:
It is prudent for schools to have administration blocks since they carry offices
of key school personnel such as the headteachers, deputy headteachers, senior
teachers, and heads of departments, bursar and other supporting secretarial
staff. They also house reception and staffroom. If all these key officers are
provided with conducive and safe environment, employees will be able to take
care of the learners and ensure their safety.
One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer felt that, most young
schools were still constructing administration blocks among other tuition facilities.
Meanwhile they were using other temporary structures as offices. These structures
were squeezed, poorly furnished and offered little or no security to essential office
materials and equipments. On the same issue, one District Education Officer said that:
Continuous construction of new building and upgrading of existing ones

disrupts learning since it is noisy, dirty and unsafe because learners and other
people within such compounds are exposed to dangers of falling objects, nails,
debris of iron sheets, barbed wires, open holes, sand and ballast among others.
It is notable from Table 4.12 that majority of students, 110 (55%), teachers, 25
(62.5%), headteachers, nine (9) and Education Officers, five (5) felt that
administration blocks were not appropriately located. According to students some
visitors were accessing them in classrooms and in other parts of the school compound
without being noticed by the school administrators due to poor location of offices.
This could compromise students’ safety since such visitors could sneak harmful
substances and equipments into school compounds. Magdla (2006) noted that main
132
office staff and administrators are the most important players when it comes to school
safety hence the need to position them strategically to perform this duty. Donmez and
Guven (2002) further stated that, office is the screening tool in most schools from
where visitors are expected to be evaluated and directed, bar undesirables, placate the
disgruntled, and generally solve problems.
Some teachers indicated that location of administration block was not
appropriate since offices were situated close to busy roads and pathways. Exposure to
high noise levels was disrupting them while doing their work. One District Quality
Assurance and Standards Officer stated that:
Teachers require a quiet and peaceful environment in order to do their work

which requires a lot of concentration. Disturbing teachers when they are
preparing schemes of work, lesson plans, record of work, progress records,
teaching aids, setting and marking examination can be disastrous to teaching
learning process.
Head teachers maintained that some schools’ administration blocks were not
appropriately located since some were hidden deep within school compound. This
was common in some old schools where various structures were allocated various
uses that they were not designed for. Increased enrolment also forced head teachers to
give up administration blocks to be used as tuition facilities as they relocated to
smaller facilities that were inappropriate as offices.
The researcher observed that, some schools’ administration blocks were not
appropriately positioned to allow full view of those entering the school compound for
proper identification and direction. Most schools lacked signage, the available ones
lacked maps, arrows, or other directions, and this made office location unclear. When
asked to comment on the office location in schools, one District Education Officer
said that:
133
Some offices are inappropriately located. There are no signs to indicate where
to get the offices and other facilities. Therefore, visitors can be instructed to
check in at the office, but with inadequate guidance, this can be an invitation
for visitors to prowl school compounds while ostensibly looking for a
destination. Even if offices are located at the main entry, it may lack
appropriately located windows eliminating natural surveillance. The
assumption that school staff can deal with a threat that suddenly appears at the
front desk is unrealistic.
According to Kennedy (2003), an administration building is commonly used
by the public, teachers and students; therefore, it should be near the entrance for easy
accessibility and security of the school plant. Responding to whether administration
blocks were well equipped, 130 (65%), 30 (75%) teachers, ten (100 head teachers and
five (5) Education Officers said they were no adequate equipments in schools’ offices.
Glickman, (2004) noted that some school management failed to provide their staff
with necessary equipments to perform their duties as required. Students felt that some
schools’ offices were ill equipped since teachers did not have space and chairs in their
offices to use while assisting them. Some felt discouraged to seek any assistance from
their teachers outside their classrooms. Teachers stated that, some schools’ offices
lacked necessary items like chairs, tables, cupboards and lockers. To support this view
one District Education Officer commented that:
In some schools, teachers are not provided with enough chairs and tables. This
makes their work very difficult. In some cases, their tables do not have
drawers, neither are they provided with cupboards to keep their personal items
safe. Some of the lady teachers opt to carry their handbags to class to ensure
their safety. With this kind of working conditions, teacher retention becomes a
problem and most such teachers are always in my office seeking for transfers
to better schools.
The researcher observed that, schools’ offices lacked essential facilities like
computers to enable teachers to access internet as they prepared their lessons. Lack of
communication facilities like radios and television sets in the staff rooms or other
common places impacted negatively on teaching and learning process. Some teachers
134
left school compound to access information elsewhere leaving learners unattended
during breaks.
On whether schools’ administration blocks were safe, 150 (75%) students, 28
(70%) teachers, twelve (12) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers said no.
Crowe (2002) while stressing on the importance of a safe and secure school
administration block stated that most of schools’ activities are coordinated from the
schools’ administration block, essential documents and property is kept in these
offices. It is therefore important to ensure school offices are safe by taking all
necessary precautions including using burglar proof doors.
Students, teachers and headteachers indicated that some schools’
administration blocks were not safe since they were situated at vulnerable locations
such as close to busy roads and pathways. This could allow easy access to strangers
with ill motive. They stated that the materials used to construct some offices were not
secure enough since some of them were made of iron sheets where thieves could
easily gain access.
The researcher observed that, where offices were located near exterior
doorways, they had many alternative access points were intruders could be able to
gain entry through secondary doors or even through windows. This was echoed by a
District Education Officer during the interview, he said that “some schools’ offices
are not safe; doors are sometimes left unlocked even when no one is inside. Some
offices have more than one door and windows are low and wide enough to be used by
anyone with bad motives”
The study established that majority of the schools’ administration blocks had
not fully implemented Ministry of Education safety guidelines. This was evidenced by
135
lack of office space in some schools, improper location of offices to allow full view of
those entering school premises. Inadequate equipments to allow efficient and effective
performance and inadequate safety precautions such as fire extinguishers, alarm
systems, adequate light and ventilation among others were also noted.
4.3.9 Perimeter Fence
Table 4.13: Respondents’ Responses on Safety Status of Schools’ Perimeter
Fence
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 90 45 110 55 22 55 18 45 13 2 3 - 2 1
there was a
perimeter
fence
Whether 80 40 120 60 15 37.5 25 62.5 5 8 - 3 - 3

the
perimeter
fence was
of the
required
nature
Whether 20 10 180 90 8 20 32 80 3 10 - 3 - 3
the
perimeter
fence
offered
required
security
Table 4.13 shows that a large number of respondents, 110 (55%) students, 22
(55%), thirteen (13) teachers and five (5) Education officers said that there were
perimeter fences in their schools. This was in line with Glickman (2004) who
postulated that school security is a multi- faceted subject in that, as well as parents
136
expecting their children to be safe from intruders, schools want to prevent truancy by
controlling when and where children can leave. In addition, the personal safety of
staff and visitors is of considerable concern to education managers. Therefore fencing
of the school compound is paramount to all education administrators. According to
one District Education Officer:
With a cleaner, protected school yard, schools can be establish and maintain
gardens for students to learn and practice agriculture. Schools’ administrators
will also prevent trespassing livestock that spend their time soiling the school
compound and destroying plants.
All (15) headteachers indicated that since schools contain valuables and
portable property that is attractive to thieves, and cases of arson increasing in schools,
availability of strong and quality fence is beneficial. The same views were expressed
by a District Quality Assurance & Standards office who noted that:
It is very important for all schools to have complete perimeter fences because,
they mark the school boundaries, deters casual trespassers and or determined
intruders, increases the time it takes for determined intruders to breach the
security and prevents unauthorized removal of properties
The responses from those who did not have a perimeter fence indicated lack of
adequate funds to have a fence in place, lack of support from the government, parents
and other stakeholders and school administration putting a lot of emphasis on
academic issues at the expense of school security. This concurred with the findings of
a study conducted by Simatwa (2010) which recommended that school management
should emphasize on school safety issues as much as they did on academic
performance.
Responding to whether school fences were of good quality, 120 (60%)
students, 25 (62.5%) teachers, eight (8) head teachers and all (6) Education Officers
said no. Students and teachers indicated that some school fences were made of
137
overgrown shrubs, off cuts, spiked wire and iron sheets. These materials as observed
by the researcher were a security threat to the school community since they could
injure students easily. One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer
commented that:
Due to shortage of finance in our schools, headteachers find it challenging to

put up quality fences. They use substandard materials which increase risk
instead of offering the sought for security. Materials like overgrown shrubs
could breed harmful creatures like snakes and rats which can cause death and
property destruction respectively. Old iron sheets and spiked wires can injure
students.
Asked whether schools’ perimeter fences provided the required security,
majority of the students, 180 (90%), teachers, 32 (80%), headteachers, ten (10) and all
(6) Education Officers said no. Some students indicated that it was possible for them
to sneak out of the school since available fences were incomplete, had openings or too
low and they could easily jump over. Headteachers stated that, students were able to
develop rapport with school security personnel to allow them to leave school illegally.
As for the respondents who said that schools’ perimeter fences were providing
required security, they explained that school perimeter fence was able to bar
unnecessary movement, strangers and intruders, prevent animals such as cattle, dogs
and donkeys from intrusion, and ensure general safety of the students. One District
Education Officer commented that:
When perimeter fences are built in schools, we see a remarkable decline in

security incidences such as vandalism, break-ins and land grabbing. A school
with a nice fence other than making them clean and green so as to attract more
students also affects neighbourhood reputation positively.
The researcher observed that, in three schools, there were no proper gates
though some perimeter fences existed. In five schools, gates existed though the fence
was either lacking or incomplete. According to Chumba (2006), gates are intended to
138
control access, keep intruders out and prevent students from leaving during school
hours. She further states that, whenever there is a perimeter fence, there needs to be at
least one access point, therefore there is need to ensure that the design and
specification of the gates provide the same level of security as the fencing. One
District Officer during the interview asserted that:
Some gates in our schools are vulnerable in comparison with the remainder of
the perimeter fence. Gates are left unattended by security personnel; they are
also inappropriately located where they are not clearly visible. I am sorry to
say that some are in bad state of repair since hinges and other mechanical
components are not adequately maintained. Some school gates are too small
and put at an angle that bars effective access by vehicles. Other entrances are
uneven making them very unfriendly to the users.
Similar views were expressed by a District Quality Assurance and Standards
officer who said that:
It is assumed that perimeter fences provide security in our schools.

Unfortunately, some of them have wide gaps that are left unattended, trees and
bushes are left to grow along the fences making it easier for intruders to climb
over, rubbish and other flammable items are left in close proximity to the
fence making it very unsafe. You know that a fence is as good as its
installation, poorly installed fences detracts from the appearance of the
premises, and everybody knows how first impressions are. An invited visitor
to the school may see a poor fence as a reflection of the school’s own
standards, and a potential intruder may look upon poorly installed fence as a
sign that the school pays little attention to security. Furthermore, poorly
installed fence may be easier to breach in some cases. It will be more likely to
need repairs and maintenance earlier than would otherwise be necessary.
The study established that most schools in the region under study had not fully
complied with the Ministry of Education safety guidelines regarding fencing of the
school compounds. This was evidenced by the fact that most schools had not erected
fences hence exposing schools to vandals and other security threats. Such schools
could be easy targets to land grabbers and street people who were looking for open
places to establish their resting places. Presence of incomplete fences, fencing of
small isolated area, use of substandard materials in fences construction and lack of
139
secure and stable gates all pointed out to lapse in safety guidelines implementation in
schools.
4.3.10 Abandoned Buildings
Table 4.14: Respondents’ responses on Safety Status of Schools’ Abandoned

Buildings
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 90 45 110 55 25 62.5 15 37.5 6 9 2 1 2 1

there were
Abandoned
buildings
in schools
Whether 70 77.7 20 22.2 22 88 3 12 5 1 2 - 2 -

they have
been
abandoned
for more
than three
year
Whether 80 88.8 10 11.1 23 92 2 8 6 - 2 - 2 -

abandoned
buildings
were
unsafe
Table 4.14 shows that 25 (62.5%) teachers, six (6) headteachers and four (4)
Education Officers stated that there were abandoned buildings in the schools under
study. This concurred with the findings in an earlier study by Magdla (2006) which
showed that most schools, especially those located at informal settlement were
plagued by decaying buildings that threatened health, safety and learning
opportunities of the students. However less number of students, 90 (45%) felt the
140
same. This could be due to the fact that, some of these buildings were still being used
by students irrespective of their risky status. One District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer who appeared shocked by the presence of abandoned buildings in
schools shook his head and remarked that:
It is very disturbing to witness some abandoned buildings in some of our

schools. Some of them are situated at the far end of the school grounds. They
pose great risk to learners because criminals could use them as hide outs. I
also think they are a health risk to students because they are covered with
overgrown vegetation that is not friendly to those who come into direct contact
with them.
Headteachers and teachers noted that existence of such buildings was as a
result of poor planning by the school management who were starting many projects at
the same time leading to stalling of some of them for many years. They further
reported that due to aging of some schools’ building and lack of facility maintenance
and renovation culture, most schools’ structures were becoming obsolete hence
presence of abandoned buildings in schools’ premises. This agreed with the views
raised by one District Education Officer who remarked that “existence of abandoned
and stalled buildings was due to poor planning and failure to involve all the
stakeholders at the planning stage of schools’ projects”
Majority of the respondents, who said there were abandoned buildings in their
schools; 70 (77.7%) students, 22 (88%), five (5) headteachers and four (4) Education
Officers indicated that most of these buildings had been abandoned for more than
five years. This was in line with Reid (2000) who asserted that when a school project
stalls, it becomes hard to proceed with it since available funds are normally directed
to other urgent innovations. Headteachers, teachers and students said that it was very
unlikely for these buildings to be put in use again due to architectural flaws or to
demolish them due to financial implications. This view was supported by one District
141
Quality Assurance and Standards Officer who explained that “some of these buildings
are as old as thirty years and no one thinks of the danger posed by such buildings”
As indicated in Table 4.9, most respondents, 80 (88.8%) students, 20 (80%)
teachers, six (6) headteachers and four (4) Education Officers felt that abandoned
buildings in schools were unsafe. This was in support of Carter (2002) who stated that
abandoned buildings seem intriguing and mysterious but they should be avoided
because of numerous dangers that can be found within them. Headteachers, teachers
and students noted that abandoned buildings were unsafe because they were old and
had been neglected hence they were often falling apart. However, those who said such
buildings were safe indicated that school administration had enforced strict
disciplinary action to those found near such buildings. Expressing how unsafe
abandoned buildings were, one District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer had
this to say:
Many students are unaware of the dangers that exist in these buildings and are
drawn to them out of curiosity. Exploring such buildings can be dangerous
because sections of the buildings such as structural beams, pieces of the
ceilings, walls, floors or staircases can all collapse on them or under them.
Such happening can lead to serious injury or even death.
He paused and continued:
Some of these buildings still have electricity turned on, and exposed wiring
which can lead to electrocution or shocks. There is also danger of falling off
unguarded and or unstable staircases. More to that, some abandoned buildings
contain abandoned equipment and supplies. These buildings often have rusty
metals inside, broken glass from old windows and rusty nails on exposed or
fallen beams.
The researcher observed that some abandoned buildings had been left
completely unattended. They were engulfed in bushes and long grass, under such
situation; they were likely to have many dangerous animals such as poisonous snakes
and spiders. Stray dogs and cats were loitering around these buildings looking for
142
food and shelter. These animals have the ability to carry rabies and other diseases
which could jeopardize lives of those staying in the school compounds.
Stressing the need of demolishing abandoned buildings, one District Education
Officer remarked that:
It is the high time all school managers and government should rise and
demolish all abandoned buildings existing in schools or find a way of making
them safe. As for now, these buildings are often sites of illegal activities. Drug
dealers and users are sometimes attracted to abandoned buildings to sell or use
drugs without being observed by anyone.
As he expressed these sentiments, he ushered in the District Quality Assurance
and Standards Officer whom the researcher had interviewed earlier. The DEO
requested her to respond to the issue of abandoned buildings in schools. She laughed a
bit and said this:
I forgot to mention that organised gangs intending to recruit students often

use abandoned buildings as a meeting place. Sometimes students hide stolen
items in such buildings waiting to sell them later. Vagrants sometimes use
abandoned buildings and other vulnerable places within the school compound
as shelter during bad weather or as an alternative to sleeping on the street.
Sometimes we are called from the office to evacuate them from schools after
they become adamant. Such happenings are very dangerous and unsafe to the
entire school community.
After a brief silence, she commented that “abandoned buildings are sometimes
used for sexual activities as well because the buildings are isolated and private”.
These concerns were in line with Squelch (2001) who stated that abandoned buildings
in schools are predictable locations for misbehaviour because they are far from the
eyes of the schools’ administrators.
Regarding safety status of physical infrastructure in public secondary
schools in Nairobi West Region, most schools had not fully implemented Ministry of
Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure. Majority of schools’ physical
infrastructure such as; kitchens, dining halls, classrooms, libraries, sanitation

143
facilities, laboratories and administration blocks had doors and windows fitted with
grills, were not wide enough to allow for easy passage and were not opening outward.
This could bar any meaningful evacuation if a disaster struck. Some buildings were
poorly maintained and not renovated as evidenced by peeling and faded paints, loose
ceilings, exposed electrical wires among others. In some schools, dormitories lacked
emergency exits, fire extinguishers an d other safety equipments. Other unsafe
situations witnessed included; overcrowding, inappropriate furniture and disability
unfriendly buildings among others. However, few schools had ensured safety of
physical infrastructure to support teaching and learning process as indicated by
Squelch (2001) that physical infrastructure should be appropriate, adequate and
properly located, devoid of any risks to users or those around them.
4.4 Research question 2: Factors Affecting Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure
The Ministry of Education Safety Standards Manual for schools in Kenya
provides a framework to achieve health and safety standards within the school. The
school management is expected to designate specific health and safety coordination
roles that commensurate to the MOE’s safety guidelines. This study was to assess the
implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public
secondary schools in Nairobi West region, Kenya. Therefore, in one of the research
questions, the study sought responses on the factors affecting implementation of
safety guidelines in public secondary schools in the region under study. The
responses were as discussed.

144
4.4.1 Knowledge of safety standards manual for schools in Kenya
Table 4.15: Respondents’ Responses on how Knowledge of Safety Guidelines

Affects Implementation
Item Student Teacher Headteacher DEOs DQASOs
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 30 15 170 85 10 25 30 75 12 3 1 2 1 2
safety
manual
was
available
in schools
Whether 10 5 190 95 5 12.5 35 87.5 5 10 - 3 - 3

it was
easily
accessible
Whether 12 6 188 94 10 25 30 75 9 6 1 2 1 2
they read
it
Whether 10 5 190 95 16 40 24 60 10 5 2 1 2 1
they
discussed
it
Whether 50 25 150 75 12 30 28 70 10 5 1 2 - 3
they
practiced
it
Table 4.15 Indicates that overwhelming number of headteachers, twelve (12)
and all (6) Education officers stated that safety standards manuals for school were
available in their schools. This was in line with Squelch (2001) who postulated that
school administrators are bestowed with important duties of educating children in a
safe environment. However, most teachers, 30 (75%) and students, 170 (85%)
indicated that safety manuals were not available in their schools. This sharp
145
contradiction could be due to the fact that some headteachers had not availed the
copies of safety standards manuals to teachers and students. Asked whether safety
standards manual for schools was accessible, majority of the students, 190 (95%),
teachers, 35 (87.5%) and four (4) Education Officers said no. This could point to
inadequacies of the school administration in availing safety related information to
those concerned. One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer was asked
whether safety standards manual for schools were available in schools. He turned
around and asked me “you are asking me whether this (holding a copy of the safety
manual) is available in our schools?” I said “yes”. He placed it on the table and
pointing at a cabinet right at the corner of his office, he said this:
I want to assure you that copies of safety standards manuals are well
distributed to our schools. There are more in that cabinet and any time a
headteacher comes here we ask them whether they have copies in their
schools. If they say no, we normally give them copies.
After a short silence, he continued, “Irrespective of the fact that we give out these
copies to our schools, anyone who visits the schools including our officers report not
finding copies in schools. I wonder where the copies disappear to”.
The researcher observed that, even in schools where safety manuals were
available, they were kept in the principals’ office. There were none in schools’
libraries and other strategic places like reception/ waiting area, staffrooms and notice
boards. This could hamper sensitization of safety guidelines that should be
implemented in schools. On the same issue, One District Education commented:
The school headteacher is instrumental in enhancing safety guidelines

implementation in schools; therefore it is their role to ensure that teachers,
students and other staff are aware of the Ministry of Education safety
guidelines. We ask them during assessments exercise to place this policy
documents in the libraries, staffrooms and extract some information from them
and pin on the notice board to ensure everyone in the school is aware of these
guidelines; however, this does not happen as expected.
146
According to Table 4.15, only 12 (6%) teachers, and 10 (25%) had read safety
manual. Majority of them, students, 188 (94%) and teachers, 30 (75%) had never read
it. This could impact negatively on the implementation of safety guidelines in schools.
This is coherent with Sheth (1999) who observed that teachers have little knowledge
pertaining school safety guidelines. Sheth (1999) noted that it is important for
teachers and students to have appropriate and adequate knowledge regarding Ministry
of Education safety guidelines since they are essential in ensuring their safety within
school premises.
On knowledge of safety guidelines in schools, another District Quality
Assurance and Standards Officer stood up during the interview and asked me “do you
see that door?” pointing at a certain door in the opposite building. I also stood up to
ensure I was seeing it, and then I said “yes”. Then he explained:
That building is used as an office and as you have just seen, that door is the
only entrance to that building hosting quite a number of offices. The door is
very narrow and it opens inwards. The same scenario happens in our schools
and when you question the practice, they say they are not aware of the safety
measures to put in place. One year ago there was furnace in one of the schools
in this district. When we visited the school we found all windows and doors
had grills, they were too narrow and opened inwards. Emergency exits were
also missing. The headteacher told us he was not aware of the safety
guidelines. You see how dangerous it could have been if students were
sleeping in that dorm? Thanks God they were in for the night preps when that
happened.
Six (6) head teachers indicated that, they had never read the entire manual
citing their many administrative roles. Replying to whether they had availed safety
manual to students, eight of them said no since they thought it was meant for the
school administrators. While a good number of them (7) had not made this document
available to their teachers, majority of them (12) had distributed a copy to their
deputies because they were delegating responsibilities to them.

147
Lack of or inadequate information regarding Ministry of Education safety
guidelines, not availing copies to relevant stakeholders and failure to read the manual
to comprehensively get what it requires could have prevented schools in the area
under study to fully implemented safety guidelines as expected.
4.4.2 Training
Table 4.16: Respondents’ Responses on how Training Affects Implementation of

Safety Guidelines in Schools
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 50 25 150 75 9 22.5 31 77.5 4 11 1 2 - 3

there were
trainings
on safety
Whether 6 12 44 56 1 11.1 8 88.8 - 4 - 2 - 3

trainings
are on
yearly
basis
Whether 10 20 40 80 2 22.2 7 1 3 - - - - -
these
trainings
equip
them with
the right
knowledge
on safety
As noted in Table 4. 16 Trainings on implementation of safety guidelines in
schools was limited, 150 (75%) students, 31(77.5%) teachers, eleven (11) head
teachers and five (5) Education officers said there were no safety trainings in schools.
This could hinder effective implementation of safety guidelines in schools. However,
the few who said such trainings were available indicated that, they were not organized
148
regularly. Responding to whether the few available safety trainings were offering the
right content, majority of the respondents, 40 (80%) students, 7 (77.7%) and three (3)
head teachers stated that the safety curriculum was poorly organized and failed to
address the real safety concerns in a school situations.
One District Education Officer stated that “most of the safety equipments
required according to safety trainings are not available in schools to start with, so
what is the need of such trainings?” In connection to importance of trainings,
Hallinger and Snidvongs (2008) states that within the complex operation of schools in
the 21st Century, headteachers, teachers and other stakeholders play pivotal role in
bringing about school improvement and effectiveness. Increased training of schools
personnel is based on the fact that teachers and head teachers can make a difference in
both the effectiveness and efficiency of schooling.
Consequently, there is need therefore to ensure that head teachers, teachers
and other stakeholders play their roles effectively by providing them with knowledge
and skills to enable them implement government policies in schools as required. One
District Education Officer when responding to whether there were trainings on
schools safety appeared unhappy when he asked me that “are you asking about safety
trainings?” he laughed a bit and made this remark:
I don’t think there has been any training specifically on safety for the last two
years I have been in this office, on academic performance, yes. This trend I
think is risky because, as far as I am concerned having a safe school is not a
one-time event. It is on-going, broad based, systematic, and comprehensive
process. Schools should schedule annual safety training for all stakeholders;
no one should be exempted from this training for any reason.
These remarks concurred with sentiments that had been said by another
District Education Officer that:

149
It is not easy to find the right balance between creating a safe and secure
school, and maintaining a welcoming and nurturing environment. Successful
administrators choose creative ways to address this challenge. This includes
mandatory training that is specific to individual duties that is conducted yearly
and training students continuously to create awareness and reduce risks of
injury.
On whether principals were given relevant and adequate training on how to
implement safety policies in their school, majority of them indicated that most short
courses offered by Kenya Education Staff Institute (KESI) during April and August
holidays focuses mainly on administrative duties and not on the implementation of
government policies. This concurs with Olembo, Wanga and Karagu (1992) who
argued that the duration offered by KESI is so short to satisfy the requirements for the
complex functions of school headship. This view was reflected by one District
Education Officer who said that:
School headship vested in the hands of the principals is so demanding in so

many areas such that if principals have to be in serviced properly, then it
should be done over some time. This I believe will enable them to understand
the complexity of issues they are supposed to deal with and how to go about
them
On the same issue, one District Quality Assurance and Standards officer
commented that:
In as much as principals appreciate relevance of KESI courses, they still feel

that the programme should be regular and they should be consulted on courses
they wish to be covered since being on the ground, they are better placed to
identify areas of need to be addressed during training for school leadership
The study established that all education officers who participated in the study
had been exposed to various trainings ranging from in service courses, seminars and
workshops among others. Most (90%) of these trainings were basically on
management which included; senior management courses and strategic leadership
among others. A bout 10% of these trainings were on emerging issues such as
150
HIV/AIDS, drug and substance abuse, dropout rates among others. While these
trainings touched on management skills, there was inadequate or lack of training
focusing on how to implement Ministry of Education safety guidelines in schools.
This was expressed by one District Quality Assurance and Standards officer who
remarked that:
As educational managers in the districts who direct and lead all educational
matters, our job profile includes mobilizing materials and human resources,
ensuring government policies implementation and enforcing ministerial laws
and regulations. Therefore, we need a lot of training to enable us to execute
these roles effectively and efficiently
All (6) Education officers who were interviewed stated that efforts to
implement Ministry of Education safety guidelines sometimes fail because those
involved have not been trained on their roles. They felt that District Education
Officers with other education players should ensure school communities grasp
implementation of government policies in learning institutions.
Fifty (25%) Students stated that school administration had ever explained to
them their role in ensuring safety of physical facilities in their schools. The fact that
majority of the students, 150 (75%) had not been exposed to safety guidelines could
increase safety threats in schools. This was supported by Mbamba (1992) who noted
that many safety policies and programs are inadequately addressed in schools due to
lack of administrative organizations and financial means to enable their
implementation. Thus, students remain ignorant about school safety guidelines all due
to lack of commitment by school administration to communicate to them.
These findings concurred with the findings of an earlier study by Kipngeno
and Wambua (2009) on the safety awareness and preparedness in secondary schools
in Turkana District. They found out that safety for students and staff from hazards that
151
can be created by unsafe conditions, behaviour, disasters or emergencies in Kenya
schools could not be guaranteed. The findings further showed that there were no
training nor awareness programs of school safety needs in Turkana District; teachers
and students were poorly trained to respond to fire outbreak and destructive violence.
Earlier study by Mbugua and Sang (2011) pointed that schools in Kisii County
faced a number of security challenges like strikes, arson, theft and fighting among
other emergencies but head teachers appeared not to know how to go about such
emergencies. This was attributed to lack of safety training handling emergencies.
The findings indicated that, there was no adequate safety training targeting all
stakeholders in schools, the few available ones were irregular and failed to provide
required information as per the status of the schools depending on the safety gadgets
they could afford.

152
4.4.3 Resources
Table 4.17: Respondent’ responses on how resources affected implementation of

safety guidelines in schools
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether there 20 10 180 90 3 7.5 37 92.5 1 14 - 3 - 3

was a specific
budget for
safety
implementation
Was there 30 15 170 85 5 12.5 35 92.5 2 13 1 2 - 3

adequate time
to address
safety in issues
in schools
Was there 50 25 150 75 2 5 38 95 3 11 - 3 - 3

adequate staff
to deal with
safety issues in
schools
Whether there 40 20 160 80 6 15 34 85 5 10 - 3 - 3

was there
transport to
ensure safety
Implementation
in schools
According to Table 4.17, majority of the respondents, 180 (90%) students, 37
(92.5%) teachers, fourteen (14) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers indicated
that there was no specific budget for safety guidelines implementation in schools.
This affected safety guidelines implementation which needed a lot of financial
commitment. Headteachers further stated that Free Day Secondary School fund was
153
too little for all school’s safety implementation needs. They felt that lack of funds
hampered effective implementation of safety guideline in schools. Responding to
whether funds were available for safety guidelines implementation in schools, one
District Education Officer shook her head and asked me “do you want to know why
implementation of safety guidelines fails in schools?” I said yes then she continued:
Implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines in schools fail

because the issue is poorly resourced. The inadequacy of resources for District
Education Officers prevents us from properly performing our roles. We
require time, human, funds and other resources to properly execute our
responsibilities. The scarcity of any of these resources is a barrier to effective
performance of our roles. Headteachers are not spared either, the vote head for
repair and maintenance availed in their vote heads is barely enough to address
even a single need of school safety.
During an interview with one District Quality Assurance and Standards
Officer, it was evident that availability of funds enables effective performance by
Education officers, headteachers, teachers and other stakeholders during the process
of safety guidelines implementation while lack of funds impact negatively on safety
guidelines implementation process. He stated that “Change oriented Education
officers and school administrators must mobilize adequate resources for their schools
to ensure safety of these institutions”. This concurs with Ziva (2002) who suggests
that successful safety policy implementation must be budgeted for in order to
purchase all the necessary resources in advance. Supporting similar views, Okumbe
(1999) states that adequate supply of resources enables effective safety policy
implementation in schools. This is because implementation plans are aligned to the
resources available for the implementation process.
Time shortage was cited by most respondents as an impediment to safety
guidelines implementation in schools., 150 (75%) students, 38 (95%) teachers, eleven
(11) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers stated that school calendar was
154
overloaded with very many activities and the obligation for them to complete a wide
syllabus on time was leaving them with no time to address other issues. This was in
line with what Drejer (2002) postulates that schools are not given enough time to
learn and adjust to their roles in the implementation of safety policies, this result in
implementation problems in schools. Asked to comment on time available for safety
guidelines implementation, one District Education officer reached out for a prize
giving booklet in one of the schools and told me “madam, look at this clearly and tell
me whether there is any reward for adherence to safety in such a schools” I looked at
it and could not see such an item. Then he told me “I have this to say”:
Due to a lot of emphasis given to academic work in schools, and the fact that
success of any school is basically measured by academic mean score of the
students in a particular school, there is no time for head-teachers, school
managers, teachers and students to discuss on how best to implement safety
guidelines in schools
Similar concerns are raised by Hord, (1995), who asserts that when leaders
provide time for staff to deal with implementation issues and concerns, they strike a
chord of support with staff. This follows that schools need to have time for staff
development programmes and other activities related to safety policy implementation.
Out of the six (6) Education officers who participated in the study, five (5) of
them felt that they were always overloaded with curriculum innovations, such many
duties at the same time barred them from focusing on the implementation of safety
policies in schools because their efforts were directed towards many ends. This was in
line with Mapfumo (1999) who asserted that Education Officers are usually burdened
with a lot of responsibilities such that all of them are left ‘half baked’ by the end of
the day. Fullan (1991) further asserts that too many responsibilities from the
government disrupt District Educations officers’ efforts to successfully implement
any one of them.

155
Staff shortage was another issue affecting effective implementation of safety
guidelines in schools. Most students, 150 (25%), teachers, 38 (95%), head teachers,
eleven (11) and all (6) Education officers said that there was no adequate staff to
enable proper implementation of safety guidelines in schools. Few teachers available
were sometimes unable to cope with large numbers of students especially during
practical lessons hence exposing them to risky situations. It was also hard to supervise
huge students’ population in dormitories, classrooms and other parts of the school to
ensure their safety due to inadequate staff in schools.
Responding to a question on how often Quality Assurance and standards
officers visited schools to assess implementation of Ministry of Education safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure, one District Quality Assurance and Standards
officer said that:
We rarely visit schools for assessments due to shortage of officers. Other than
support staff, I am the only Quality Assurance and Standards Officer in this
district yet we are supposed to assess a school as a panel. Before, we used to
team up with officers from the neighbouring districts; it has since stopped due
to increased duties and persistent staff shortage in the districts
This is further supported by Kapuya, (1993) who asserted that the District
Education Officers have extra responsibilities which are administrative in nature.
These administrative duties include and not limited to staff recruitment exercise,
disciplinary problems, bursary allocation, co-curriculum activities and boards of
schools management. These responsibilities require adequate staff in the DEO’s
office.
During school visits, the researcher observed staff shortage in most schools.
Most teachers had large classes which were not easy to manage, kitchen, security
156
personnel, librarians and other support staff also appeared inadequate to perform their
duties without compromising safety of the learners.
On transport, most respondents, 160 (80%) students, 34 (85%) teachers, ten
(10) head teachers and all (6) Education Officers reported that lack of transport was
affecting implementation of safety guidelines in schools. Most schools did not have
vehicles, available ones were poorly maintained or broken down, and fund to fuel
them was a problem. One District Quality Assurance and Standards officer said
“School vehicles are major requirements when it comes to ensuring safety in schools,
if a child is hurt in school; you require quick means to rush them to hospital”.
The researcher observed that, none of the District Education Officers had a
government vehicle, all of them were either relying on already overstretched school or
public vehicles for transport. This could have negative effect on monitoring and
evaluation of government policies implementation in schools under their jurisdiction.
This was clearly cited by one District Education officer who said that:
I have visited only two schools this term; this is due to lack of transport since
we do not have government vehicles. Initially, I used my own car to visit
schools expecting some payments from the government but I was not paid
despite completing the necessary claim forms. I have since stopped using it
because it turned out to be very expensive for me
It was established that inadequate budget, time, staff and means of transport to
address safety needs in schools were major resources affecting implementation of
Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools.

157
4.4.4 Communication
Table 4.18: Respondents’ Responses on how Communication Affected

Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether there 120 60 80 40 30 75 10 25 12 3 3 - 3 -

was
communication
on safety
Whether this 42 35 78 65 6 20 24 80 5 7 - 3 - 3
Communication
was adequate
Whether 18 15 102 85 6 20 24 80 3 9 - 3 - 3
feedback
mechanisms
were effective
Whether 36 30 84 70 4 10 28 90 4 8 1 2 1 2
communication
channels were
effective
Most schools were communicating safety related issues to relevant
stakeholders. This was supported by 120 (60%) students, 30 (75%) teachers, twelve
(12) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers. This concurred with Christopher
(1992) who postulated that effective communication is important throughout the
implementation of safety guidelines process in schools. Education managers need to
continuously communicate new ideas or solutions to problems to schools in their
districts. However, majority of the respondents, 78 (65%) students, 24 (80%) teachers,
five (5) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers felt that communication regarding
158
Ministry of Education safety guidelines implementation was inadequate. They
indicated that information communicated was inadequate, was not timely, was hard to
interpret and the channels used were inappropriate.
This view was further elaborated by one District Education Officer who told
me that “it is good you kept time as we had agreed, I will be leaving for a meeting
exactly after twenty minutes, you see the importance of communication?” when I said
yes, he continued “effective communication is an important process of management,
it helps in planning and time management” when I asked him about factors affecting
implementation of MOE safety guidelines, he smiled and said:
Just as I have told you few minutes ago about proper communication. Safety
in schools relies mainly on good communication and consultation with all
relevant bodies. This motivates work force and students and increases
performance leading to improved services and reduced cases of accidents and
injuries. Parents and guardians expect and deserve honest, truthful and timely
communication about safety of their children at school.
This concurred with the findings of a study conducted by Rugut (2003) on
teachers, inspectors and education officers’ perceptions of the expected roles of peer
supervisors in Kenyan primary schools in Nandi District that inadequate
communication and coordination of stakeholders on safety issues in schools hampered
effective implementation of safety policies. The study by Rugut, (2003) further stated
that, lack of regular communication to sensitize various stakeholders on their roles
also affected negatively the smooth implementation of safety policies in schools.
Most students 78 (65%) felt that implementation of Ministry of Education
safety guidelines was not being communicated adequately to their parents or
guardians. They reported that report forms and newsletters given to them at the end of
the term mostly contained information on their academic progress. This view was
echoed by 24 (85%) teachers who indicated that parents were rarely informed about
159
safety needs in a school and when they were called for academic clinics and annual
general meetings, what was mostly addressed were issues related to academic
performance and fees payment. One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer
remarked that:
Sometimes I don’t like how some school administrators communicate safety

information to parents and guardians. They are not able to articulate measures
that are in place to ensure safety at any time. Telling parents that “safety is our
top priority” is not enough. Parents are more educated consumers of best
practices, and generalities will not suffice. To communicate about safety,
school administrators must make sure their schools have well-developed and
exercised safety and crises plans and their staff are trained to implement the
plans.
Regarding feedback mechanisms, majority of the respondents 102 (85%)
students, 24 (80%) teachers, nine (9) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers felt
that there were effective feedback mechanisms. This could indicate breakdown in
communication as stated by Okumbe (1999) that good communication involves not
only giving employees information but also listening to and taking account of what
they say, particularly when they report problems before making any safety decision.
This is possible only when effective feedback mechanisms are put in place. This view
was enhanced by a District Education who remarked that “successful communications
during and after a crisis require that you listen, respond to concerns and show
compassion”.
On whether there were effective communication channels on safety issues in
schools. Majority of the respondents, 84 (70%) students, 28 (90%) teachers, eight (8)
headteachers and four (4) Education Officers said no. Responses on various
communication channels regarding safety guidelines implementation were as shown
in Table 4.19.
160
Table 4.19: Students’ Responses on Channels used to communicate Safety Issues

in Schools
F % F % F F F
Safety bulletins 20 10 5 12.5 2 1 1
Newsletter 80 40 6 15 9 2 1
Posters 30 15 7 17.5 6 1 1
Notice boards 50 25 15 37.5 11 2 2
School assemblies 180 90 35 87.5 13 3 3
Barazas 160 80 30 75 12 2 3
Suggestion boxes 70 35 15 37.5 10 2 2
School magazines 40 20 10 25 9 1 2
Music festivals 120 60 20 50 10 3 3
Drama 110 55 28 70 13 3 3
Sports 130 65 29 72.5 14 3 3
Clubs and 90 45 16 40 11 2 3
societies
It is clear from Table 4.19 that schools were using variety of channels to
communicate about safety issues to various stakeholders. This was in line with Fullan
(1991) who postulated that communication on school safety is especially difficult
because safety information need to be exceptionally clear and comprehensive. This
can be achieved only when school administrators engage use of effective channels of
communication. Fullan (1991) further argues that communication is the key to
successful implementation of government policies. Education officers should
therefore disseminate information to all schools through effective means of
communication like telephones, newsletters, computers, circulars, newspapers and
meetings.
161
According to responses on various channels of communication, school
assemblies, barazas, music festivals, drama and sports were the most popular channels
of communication. These methods could facilitate communication since they involve
face to face talks. On the issue of using co curricular activities to communicate school
safety issues, one District Education said that:
From time in memorial, important messages were put across through music
and dance, elocutions, drama and various sporting activities. Such methods of
communication are very effective even today. Take for example music and
drama; they carry wonderful messages across the world on various themes that
boosts safety culture in our schools. That is why MOE gives a lot of emphasis
to co-curricular activities in schools for holistic development of individuals.
The study established that, all Education officers who were interviewed were
using circulars, telephones and meetings to communicate to schools. According to
them these channels provided limited information about implementation of
government policies and were not effective in facilitating implementation of Ministry
of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools. He further stated
that computers provide most effective means of communication and could make
communication between education officers and school administrators more effective
and easier. This view was cited by one District Education Officer during the interview
when he said that:
Sometimes it becomes very hard for us to communicate policy issues to

schools because we rely widely on circulars, meetings and calling the schools.
This is frequently faced with various challenges. I feel that computers that
have been donated to schools by the government through economic stimulus
projects will improve communication regarding government policies
implementation in schools.
The researcher observed that use of safety bulletins, newsletters, school
magazines; suggestion boxes, notice boards, clubs and societies, and posters were not
very popular in schools. This could hinder effective communication on schools’ safety
issues to various stakeholders. Christopher (1992) stated that alternative methods of

162
communication should be considered rather than adopting a few methods in isolation.
He further asserted that posters could make a more immediate and emotional impact
and can appeal more to the instinct preservation by giving illustrations of what can go
wrong and how to avoid accidents.
Concerning communication channels, one District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer asked me during the interview “do you know today’s students are
part of “generation text” because text messaging, cell phones, e-mails, and other
communications are integral to their interactions?” he paused a bit then continued:
While school leaders typically need time to investigate rumours and verify
information, many parents will forward to each other information they
mistakenly believe to be true. A good crises communication plan could reduce
delay and deliver timely and accurate messages when a rumour breaks.
The study established that inadequate information on safety, limited channels
of communication and lack of effective feedback mechanisms were affecting
in public secondary schools in Nairobi West Region.

163
4.4.5 Safety Equipments
Table 4.20: Respondents’ Responses on how Safety Equipments Affected

F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Availability 150 75 50 25 35 90 5 10 12 3 2 1 2 1
of safety
equipments
Adequacy 60 40 110 60 7 20 28 80 5 7 1 1 - 1
of safety
equipments
Proper 26 24 114 76 7 20 28 80 4 8 1 1 - 1
location of
safety
equipments
Whether in 24 16 126 84 4 11.4 31 88.6 5 7 1 1 - 1

good
condition
As show in Table 4.20 Overwhelming number of respondents, 150(75%)
students, 35 (90%) teachers, twelve (12) headteachers and four (4) Education Officers
stated that safety equipments were available in schools. However, majority of them
110 (60%) students, 28 (80%) teachers, seven (7) headteachers and two (2) Education
Officers felt that safety equipments in the schools were inadequate. This contrasted
the view expressed by Squelch (2001) that all school administrators have a duty to
secure proper safety requirements in schools in order to protect all adults and pupils
while they are on school premises. Citing inadequacy of safety requirements, most
respondents indicated that necessary equipments such as first aid kits, fire
164
extinguishers, electrical plug covers, fire blankets, safety glasses and gloves, spill kits,
laboratory coats and aprons were lacking, were very few or in bad state. As observed
by the researcher most schools did not have safety equipments in place, even lockable
cabinets to store chemicals were not available. Lack of such important safety
equipments could jeopardize health and safety of learners and school community at
large. When one District Education Officer was asked to comment on school safety
equipments, he commented that:
I am not amused by the lapse in disaster preparedness experienced in our

schools. Some of them barely do anything in as far as safety is concerned.
Most headteachers will always tell you there are no funds to purchase safety
equipments. I walked in to a laboratory and found a half bucket of sand. I
wondered how much it could help if a fire broke out.
Another District Education Officer was equally unhappy about disaster
preparedness in schools. She remarked that:
As I had told you earlier, lack of training on school safety is a major drawback
in as far as safety guidelines implementation is concerned. Most school
administrators do not understand which safety equipments to purchase. I am
telling you that the only safety equipments you can get in some schools if you
are lucky are fire extinguishers and a first aid box.
Similar views were expressed by a District Quality Assurance and Standards
Officer who had earlier stated that “some school administrators do not buy other
safety equipments like fire blankets, gloves and other protective devices. The fire
extinguishers alone cannot serve any purpose in the event of fire break out”
Regarding location of safety equipments, most respondents, 114 (76%)
students, 28 (80%) teachers, nine (9) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers felt
that safety equipments available were inappropriately located. They felt some fire
extinguishers were placed behind doors or in dark corners. This could hamper their
usage in the hour of need. The researcher observed that some fire extinguishers were
165
not visible, were placed too high such that most people could not reach them. Some
buckets of sands were kept in a crowded store. This contradicted Clark (2002) who
stated that safety equipments in schools should be located within reach by the users if
a disaster struck.
On the condition of safety equipments in schools, majority of the respondents,
126 (89%) students, 31 (88.6%) teachers, ten (10) headteachers and all (6) Education
officers stated that most of the safety equipments in schools were not in good state of
repair. Most of them were defective and had not been serviced over a long period of
time. This could impact negatively on their use. On condition of safety equipments in
schools, One District Education Officer remarked that “some schools have fire
extinguishers of low quality, small size and not serviceable. This beats the purposes of
having them in the first place”. The researcher observed that, most safety equipments
were defective, broken or worn out. This could compromise safety of those in school
premises.
The study established that some schools under did not have safety equipments.
The available ones were not adequate, were in appropriately located and in poor
condition. This concurred with the findings of a study conducted by Kipngeno and
Wambua, (2009) in Turkana District which showed that inadequate disaster
preparedness and lack of adequate and proper safety equipments in schools hampered
implementation of safety guidelines in schools.

166
4.4.6 Condition of school buildings
Table 4.21: Respondents’ Responses on how condition of School Buildings

Affected Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 36 18 164 82 8 20 32 80 5 10 1 2 1 2
school
buildings are
constructed
properly
Whether 50 25 150 75 10 25 30 75 6 9 - 3 - 3
school
buildings are
appropriately
located
Whether 80 40 120 60 12 30 28 70 4 11 - 3 - 3
school
buildings
were well
equipped
In reference to schools buildings’ condition, most respondents, 164 (82%)
students, 32 (80%) teachers, ten (10) headteachers and four (4) Education Officers felt
that most schools’ buildings were not constructed properly. On whether school
buildings were appropriately located, 150 (75%) students, 30 (75%) teachers, Six (6)
headteachers and all (6) Education Officers said no. they stated that some schools’
buildings were placed near entrances, close to pedestrian’s paths and busy roads.
Others were close to shopping centres and informal settlements. All these factors
167
hindered effective implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on
physical facilities in schools. Most headteachers and Education Officers indicated that
most schools lacked site plans to guide them while putting up school buildings. This
was pointed by one District Education Officer who stated that “in some schools,
buildings are scattered all over the place without giving any consideration to the use
of the building”.
The researcher observed that most schools lacked site plans to guide them on
where to put which building. This led to inappropriate location of buildings. This
could not only hamper implementation of safety guidelines in schools but also could
interfere with general aesthetic of the school. When one District Quality Assurance
and Standards Officer was asked whether condition of schools’ buildings could affect
implementation of safety guidelines she had this to say:
A school that was designed 50 years ago cannot face safety demands that
were never even considered when the buildings were built. When we talk
about safety guidelines, they ask us “do we bring down these buildings or
what do you expect us to do? How do I fix a rump on this building to make it
disability friendly?”We sometimes lack answers to such questions. Unless the
government addresses safety issues with all the seriousness it deserves, then
we are all stuck.
Condition of schools’ buildings facilities was considered as a factor that
hindered implementation of safety guidelines in schools. One hundred and twenty
(60%) students, 28 (70%) teachers, eleven (11) headteachers and all (6) Education
Officers were of the view that some equipments in school buildings were in built and
it was hard to demolish them or make them learner friendly without interfering with
the buildings’ foundation . To this effect one District Education Officer said that:
Some of these old buildings have very funny and unsafe fixtures such as
cupboards in classrooms and libraries, and benches in the laboratories among
other buildings. Due to ageing and lack of maintenance culture in our schools,
such fixtures are becoming dangerous to students.
168
The researcher observed old cupboards that were fixed on the walls and were
loaded with cargo that were not in use. Some wood and metal debris had been placed
on top of these cupboards. This could increase risks associated with such facilities
since they could fall on the students. Other issues mentioned by students and teachers
included; accidents due to schools located near busy highways, and entrance of
intruders in the school with bad motives, fire outbreaks, electric shock due to hanging
wires and spread of diseases.
The findings of the study indicated that condition of the schools’ buildings in
terms of how they were constructed, located and their facilities affected
in the schools under study. This was in line with a study conducted by Magdla (2006)
which found out that schools were especially vulnerable to unsafe situations and
threats of violence due to among other things, poor resources and infrastructure, their
location, especially in and around informal settlement, the type of their building and
environmental design.
169
4.4.7 Schools’ Safety Programmes and Policies
Table 4.22: Respondents’ Responses on how Schools’ Programmes and Policies

F % F % F F F
Creating 120 60 25 62.5 10 3 3

school wide
prevention
and
intervention
strategies
Ongoing 90 45 35 90 14 2 3
staff
development
Ensuring 150 75 38 95 13 3 3
quality
school
facilities and
security
technologies
Instituting 100 50 30 75 15 3 2
school based
links with
mental health
and social
services
agencies
Fostering 130 65 36 90 12 3 3
school family
and
community
involvement
Fostering 90 45 30 75 14 3 3
school-Law
enforcement
partnership
Acquiring 60 30 32 80 15 3 3
and utilizing
resources to
enhance a
safe learning
170
All respondents indicated that inadequate safety policies and programmes in
schools was a major factor affecting implementation of Ministry of Education safety
guidelines. Majority of students, 120 (60%), teachers, 25 (62.5%), head teachers, ten
(10) and all (6) Education Officers felt that safety policies addressing creation of
school wide prevention and intervention strategies were either lacking or inadequate.
This contradicted Schnaider (2000) who asserted that proactive approaches to
preventing violent behavior by learners are more effective than reactive punishment
based approaches. Proactive approaches can protect school property and help at-risk
students become productive citizens.
Schneider (2000) further states that this can only be possible when sound
safety policies and programmes are put in place. Most teachers, head teachers and
Education officers stated that proper policies guiding on physical layout of the school
buildings and grounds could improve the management and use of physical space to
prevent and deter criminal behavior. One District Education Officer said that “safety
can only be enhanced by developing and using adequate architectural designs”. This
view was further developed by a District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer
who had this to say:
Schools are ideal setting for organizing an effort against the increasing
problems among the youth that lead to destruction of school property.
Therefore school administration is better placed to organize for systematic
social skills instruction such as conflict resolution education and drug and
alcohol resistant curriculum.
The researcher observed that characteristics of some of the surrounding school
neighborhood could contribute to risk factors in a school. Therefore school
administrators required policies and programmes to address poverty, dysfunctional

171
and chaotic families’ life, drug and substance abuse among the caregivers, domestic
violence, neglect, emotional and physical abuse, negative attitude, sexual exploitation
and media violence. If such issues were addressed adequately in schools, it could
reduce cases of indiscipline that led to destruction of school property.
Inadequate policies and programs regarding ongoing staff development was
seen by most respondents, 90 (45%) students, 35 (90%) teachers, fourteen (14) head
teachers and five (5) Education Officers as a factor affecting implementation of
Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in the schools. They
felt that both teaching and subordinate staff were not being given skills on how to
handle unsafe situations that are likely to happen in schools.
According to Carter (2002) ongoing staff development is an integral part of
the educational planning process to ensure safety. One District Education Officer
indicated that staff development is normally tailored towards academic performance
and nothing much was being done to equip staff with safety knowledge. This view
was supported by a District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer who said that:
Staff development is to ensure high levels of learning for all students through
improved professional learning experiences for every school employee who
affects students’ learning. But the sad bit is that when it comes to safety
guidelines implementation, this is left to few individuals who are confined to
our traditional beliefs of what school safety is or is not. Unfortunately, safety
is not viewed as a vital support structure for effective learning.
According to 150 (75%) students, 38 (95%) teachers, thirteen (13) head
teachers and all (6) Education Officer, schools lacked proper policies for ensuring
quality school facilities and security technologies. They stated that the task of school
is to promote resilience, teach skills for success and develop alternatives to replace the
maladaptive forms of behavior the child has learnt to use in achieving his or her social
goals. If there were adequate policies and programmes to address these issues then
172
schools could be safe places for the children. One District Education Officer remarked
that:
Schools are falling apart; age has caught up with them. Maintenance has often
been deferred to a point of diminishing returns. Building deficiencies have
become glaring over time, highlighted by concerns over frayed wiring, peeling
paints, decrepit plumbering among other needs. Yet renovation and
maintenance policies and programmes are not in place in our schools.
The researcher observed that in some schools, facilities such as buildings,
furniture and electrical equipments among others had not been well maintained. Most
of them had been heaped in a store or in an open space. This could indicate lack of
clear policies regarding repairs and maintenance of school’s facilities as required by
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools. It was observed that security
technologies such as alarm systems, panic buttons and surveillance cameras had not
been embraced in the schools under study. This could hinder effective implementation
of safety guidelines in schools.
One hundred (50%) students, 30 (75%) teachers, all (15) head teachers and
five (5) Education Officers indicated that most schools had no programmes and
policies of instituting school based links with mental health and social services
agencies. Schnaider (2000) asserts that links between the school and mental health
and social services was very crucial in ensuring safety in schools. He further stated
that these services are essential for school’s ability to ensure a safe and healthy
learning environment for all students. This view was supported by one District
Education Officer who remarked that:
It would be very helpful if our schools established policies and programmes to

work with mental health and social services agencies. Such services addresses
classroom behavior and discipline, promotes students’ social- emotional
173
needs, identify and respond to a serious mental health problems, and support
and partner with families. With such programmes in place, fewer cases of
unsafe situations will be reported in our schools.
Fostering school, family and community involvement in the
implementation of safety guidelines in schools was viewed as a worthwhile
initiative in the implementation of safety guidelines in schools by 130 (65%)
students, 36 (90%) teachers, twelve (12) head teachers and all (6) Education
officers. This was summarized by one District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer who said that:
Schools are more effective and caring places when they are an integral
part of the community. This contributes to enhanced academic
performance, fewer discipline problems, higher staff morale and
improved use of resources.
Ninety (45%) students, 30 (75%) teachers, fourteen (14) head teachers and all
(6) Education Officers indicated that programmes and policies geared towards
fostering school-Law enforcement Partnership could assist in the implementation of
safety guidelines in schools. One District Education Officer remarked that:
School-law enforcement partnership can go a long way in enhancing safety in

our schools. This is because this partnership would involve conducting
security assessments, developing crisis- management procedures, conducting
classroom law- related educational activities, providing staff development
training and assisting children who are crime victims.
Majority of the respondents, 32 980%) teachers, all (15) head teachers and all
(6) Education Officers felt that lack of sound policies and programmes regarding
acquiring and utilizing resources to enhance a safe learning environment was
affecting implementation of safety guidelines in schools. One District Education
Officer stated that “human resource is one of the fundamental qualities of a safe and
responsible school” while a District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer said that
“strong headship, caring staff, family and community are important resource in the
174
safety guidelines implementation process”. They also cited information, finances and
time as important resources that required policies and programmes on how to acquire
and utilize them.
4.4.8 School’s Environmental Factors
Table 4.23: Respondents’ Responses on how Schools’ Environmental Factors

Item Students Teacher H/T DEOs DQASOs
F % F % F F F
Cases of drugs and 120 60 35 75 12 3 3

substance abuse
Negative peer Pressure 180 90 38 95 14 3 3
Negative school 90 45 20 50 9 3 2
culture
Poor role models 170 85 25 62.5 10 3 3
As indicated in Table 4.23, there were a number of environmental factors that
affected implementation of safety guidelines in schools. Sixty six (66) percent of the
respondents felt that cases of drugs and substance abuse in schools was contributing
to lack of safety in schools. This was due to the fact that students under the influence
of drugs and alcohol could engage in destructive behavior like burning down
buildings without thinking about the consequences. This concurred with Magdla
(2006) who asserted that there are high numbers of crimes connected to drug and
substance abuse in schools. This is because a number of students commit crime in
order to fund their drug habit. Explaining how drug and substance abuse hampered
implementation of safety guidelines in schools, one District Education Officer said
that:
175
Unless schools’ environment is made drug free, we shall continue having

unsafe schools. Drug is evident in our schools. You should know that many
teens use drugs because they are depressed or think drugs will help them
escape their problems. The truth is they find themselves in deeper problems.
They often cause a lot of destruction and even loss of lives in schools.
When one District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer was asked to
comment on drug and substance abuse and how it hindered implementation of safety
guidelines in schools, she scratched her hands and said that:
Unless we all address the issue of drugs and substance abuse that is prevalent
in our schools, strikes will always be reported in our schools. The youth have
many reasons for using drugs. They belief they will find pleasure in them,
someone tried to convince them that drugs will make them feel good or that
they would have a better time if they took them. You see, it is about all of us
finding ways of declaring zero drug and substance abuse tolerance in our
schools in order to have safe school environment.
The researcher observed that, most schools had not displayed posters or other
forms of communication to promote campaign against drugs and substance abuse in
schools. Students had also not been encouraged to display their own articles regarding
dangers of drug and substance abuse. Lack of proper information regarding use of
drugs could hamper implementation of safety guidelines in schools.
Negative peer pressure was viewed by overwhelming number (91%) of
respondents as a major school environmental factor affecting implementation of
safety guidelines in schools. They all felt that negative peer pressure was an
impediment factor to sustaining safety in school. This was said by one District
Education Officer who stated that:
Students continue to struggle with peer pressure through years of schooling

and perhaps even later. Peer pressure is inevitable since there always exists
one “cool” group in a school. Basically, this includes a bunch of students who
do all things they are not supposed to do and make it seem like a “cool” thing
to do. Such groups will always influence others negatively to destroy school
properties and hurt others.
176
One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer noted that negative peer
pressure was sometimes too great on students who were willing to obey school rules
and regulations. She had this to say:
Students who are too sincere at their studies have often been at receiving end
of ridicule and a lot of meaningless bashing by the bullies at school. Indulging
in unsafe sexual practices, alcohol, drug abuse, eating disorders and smoking
are activities that are part of peer pressure phenomenon. These activities are
very risky and can lead to destruction of school property.
The study established that negative peer pressure in the school could impact
negatively on safety and security of the schools. This concurred with Coulson, (2010)
who observed that the school playground, classrooms, dormitories and other places
where students interact and influence each other sometimes negatively is often a mine
field of potential social challenges that can culminate into security risk for many
students.
Table 4.23, show that a small percentage (47.5%) of the respondents felt that
negative school culture was an environmental factor that could hinder successful
in schools. They stated that when a school effective safety guidelines implementation
programmes is linked to a positive school culture, success is achieved. This was in
line with Cohen and Pickeral (2007) who postulated that positive school culture is
important dimension that can be linked to effective risk prevention and the
advancement of teaching and learning process. Explaining how school culture was
important aspect of a safe school, one District Quality Assurance and Standards
Officer said that:
Culture is the stream of norms, values, beliefs, traditions and rituals built up
over time. These are all reflected in the general out look of a school. Imagine
entering a school, what do you see? What do you hear the teachers and other
staff members saying? What do the bulletin boards look like? How easy is it to
177
enter the school? What are the students saying and doing? How noisy is the
school? Do you feel welcome or afraid? What is the general feel of the
environment? Answers to these questions will help you to know whether a
school culture is a positive or a negative one.
She paused a bit and continued:
If a school culture is toxic or negative, teachers are unwilling to take any

initiative to ensure safety in schools. They will bypass their students
misbehaving and assume nothing is happening. I have visited schools to solve
some safety related issues and these are places where the tone is not inviting,
where nobody wants to be, where negativity dominates conversations,
interactions and planning. The only stories recounted are of failure. To them,
the way it has always been done is the right way.
She looked at me straight in to the eyes and asked me “in such schools, is it
possible to implement government policies? Don’t answer me”
One District Education Officer had identified overcrowded and chaotic
schools as one of the key barriers to creating a positive school culture. According to
him:
To build trust, teachers need to get to know the personalities, strengths,

challenges and needs of individual students as well as dynamics between
different students. Therefore class size should be such as to permit the teacher
to give pupils individual attention. In overcrowded schools and limited
resources, teachers do not have time and space to build the necessary
relationships with students. Students themselves have a more difficult time
managing multiple peer to peer relationships and tensions are more likely to
develop.
The researcher observed that schools that had inviting environments were
orderly, time management was given top priority and the general aesthetic of these
schools was pleasing. On the contrary in the schools that had negative culture,
students and teachers were not responding to bells promptly, a lot of graffiti was
noticed and the general atmosphere of laxity dominated these school. This could
interfere with implementation of safety guidelines in schools.
High number (84.6%) of respondents felt that poor role model both in the
society and school was an impediment to the implementation of safety guidelines in

178
schools. This could be due to the fact that a good role model is suppose to act as a
guide and use personal experience to inform and help others. Most students indicated
that if their teachers were keen on observing safety requirements like putting on
protective gear during practical lessons, they would also emulate them. Similar
sentiments were cited by one District Education Officer who stated that “I belief that
students will always imitate their parents, teachers and society in which they live” she
paused and asked me “ do you remember what happened in the year 2008 in our
schools during post election violence?” I replied “yes, more than 300 schools as
reported by the media went on strike with most of them burning down their schools’
building” she shook her head in agreement with what I was saying and continued:
That is a perfect example of how a role model can influence young ones either
positively or negatively. A role model is a person whose behaviour is imitated
by others. There are both good and bad role models. We all hope that our
students have good, strong role models who possess the kind of qualities that
would make our children want to maintain safety in all aspects of school
environment.
The researcher observed that, in some schools, even staffrooms and other
offices had not complied with the Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure. This could affect students’ behaviour negatively since they lacked good
examples to emulate. The study established that cases of drug and substance abuse,
negative peer pressure, toxic school culture and poor role models were some of the
schools’ environmental factors that affected implementation of Ministry safety
Inadequate Knowledge of safety standards manual for schools in Kenya, lack
of proper training, limited resources, lack of effective communication, poor condition
of existing buildings, lack of comprehensive policies and programmes to address
safety in schools and negative school environment were found to be the major factors
179
affecting implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region in Kenya.
4.5 Research question 3: Involvement of Stakeholders in the Implementation of
MOE Safety Guidelines in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West
Region
The broadened educational goals and objectives as a result of changes in
socio-economic development have necessitates involvement of several minds from a
wide range of stakeholders in management of school facilities and implementation of
government policies (Okumbe, 1999). This view is further explained by Hord (1995)
who asserts that implementation of government policies becomes effective or possible
where all stakeholders give maximum support to the implementation process. Clark
(2002) also states that safety of school depends to a large extent on measures taken to
organize and manage such safety. In this respect, school management, committees,
Board of Governors, head teacher, teachers, parents, learners and other stakeholders
have important role to play in facilitating and enhancing safety in schools. In one of
the research questions, this study sought to establish how stakeholders were involved
in the implementation of safety guidelines in public secondary schools in Nairobi
West region. The results were as discussed;
4.5.1 Involvement of Students in MOE Safety Guidelines Implementation
Respondents were asked to indicate whether students were involved in the
implementation of Ministry of Education guidelines in the schools under study. Their
responses were as indicated in Table 4.24

180
Table 4.24: Respondents’ Responses on Students’ Involvement in the

Item Student Teachers H/Teachers DEOs DQASOs
F % F % F F F
Students 20 10 5 2.5 2 - -
were in
safety
committees
Students 30 15 6 15 4 1 1
were
provided
with proper
safety
reporting
systems
Students 80 40 10 25 9 1 2
were
effectively
carrying Out
safety
campaigns
Few respondents, 20 (10%) students, 5 (2.5%) teachers, two (2) headteachers
and none Education Officer indicated that students were involved in schools’ safety
sub committees. Majority of respondents stated that most schools had not constituted
safety committees to address safety concerns in schools. When one District Education
Officer was asked whether students were involved in schools’ safety sub committees,
he asked me “Do such committees exist in our schools?” This indicated that most
schools had not formulated safety sub committees as required by the MOE safety
standards manual for schools in Kenya (2008). This also contradicted Ziva (2002)
who postulated that school safety committees are crucial. They identify safety needs
of the school with a view of taking necessary action, mobilize resources required by
the school to ensure a safe, secure and caring environment for learners, staff and
181
parents and to monitor and evaluate the various aspects of school safety with a view
to enhancing school safety. Mapfumo, (1999) further stated that direct responsibility
of overseeing school safety falls within specific school safety committees.
Regarding provision of proper safety reporting systems to students, few
respondents, 30 (15%) students, 15 (6%) teachers, four (4) headteachers and two (2)
Education officers felt that students were enabled to report any safety concern in the
school. They cited presence of school assemblies, class meetings and open forums as
ways provided for reporting any safety issue. However, overwhelming number of
respondents stated that most schools had not established proper safety reporting
systems for students because the available ones were inadequate and could allow
intimidation from their colleagues. They further reported that most schools did not
have suggestion boxes to facilitate reporting of unsafe situations in schools. Where
suggestion boxes were present, they were inappropriately located in full view of
school administration and other people. This hindered effective use of these facilities.
One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer explained that, although
there were no proper safety reporting systems in schools, it was important to
encourage students to report any suspicious individuals or activities on school
grounds. This was in line with the views of one District Education Officer who
commented that
Students’ participation in school safety promotes responsible student

development and maturity, enabling students to be part of the solution rather
than being perceived only as part of the problem. It is prudent for school
administration to provide students with various avenues of reporting presence
of weapons, safety concerns, and criminal activities. Without such
arrangement it would be hard to implement MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure in schools.
182
Eighty (40%) students, 10 (25%) teachers, nine (9) headteachers and three (3)
Education Officers indicated that students were effectively carrying out safety
campaigns in their schools. This could enhance implementation of safety guidelines in
schools. According to Bucher and Manning (2003) students’ involvement in
campaigns for safety guidelines implementation in schools is critical since they are
among key stakeholders in school community. However, overwhelming number of
students, 120 (60%) and teachers, 30 (75%), nine (9) teachers and three (3) Education
officers felt that students were not conducting safety campaigns in their schools as
expected. Most school administrators had not designed creative ways for students to
campaign against unsafe situation in schools, such as classroom posters, bookmarks,
calendars and even videos regarding school safety. Responding to students’ campaign
on safety in schools, one District Education officer had this to say:
It is crucial for school administration to encourage students to carry out safety

campaigns in their schools. This can encourage students to enhance safety
culture in their schools. Students represent one of the best resources for
promoting and maintaining safe school. Therefore, it is important for students
to promote school safety through various activities, curriculums, support
services and peer activities. Adopting a personal and social skills curriculum
that focuses on good communication, decision making, responsible citizenship
and conflict resolution is crucial in maintaining a safe school.
The researcher observed that in some schools, students were involved in
implementation of safety guidelines in schools. This was done through provision of
school safety related rules and regulations to guide them on responsible behavior in
the school. However, there was no evidence of students’ involvement in safety
campaign through advertisement, brainstorming, bulletin board and posters among
other avenues. This could hinder implementation of safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in the schools under study.

183
4.5.2 Parents’ Involvement in the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines
Parents play an important role in the implementation of MOE safety
guidelines in schools. In order to understand the nature of parents’ involvement,
respondents were asked to comments on parents’ involvement in the implementation
of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in the schools under study. Their
responses are shown in Table 4.25
Table 4.25: Respondents’ Responses on Parents’ Involvement in the

F % F % F F F
Understand 160 80 32 80 12 3 3
schools’
Safety
policies
Be aware of 180 90 38 95 13 3 3
school’s rules
and
regulations
Understand 90 45 20 50 10 2 2
schools’
safety
protocol
Encourage 150 75 39 97.5 15 3 3

positive
commitment
of their
Children
To monitor 80 40 35 87.5 14 3 3
their
children’s
activities
184
Table 4.25 shows that, 160 (80%) students, 32 (80%) teachers, twelve (12)
headteachers and all (6) Education officers felt that there was need for parents to
understand school safety policies. This knowledge could assist them to promote safe
and healthy behavior among students. This concurred with Squelch (2001) who
asserted that students who feel supported by their parents are less likely to experience
distress leading to disruptive behavior. He further stated that school’s effort to
implement safety guidelines is more successful when parents have full information
regarding them. Similar views were expressed by one District Education Officer who
said that “parents who familiarize themselves with safety policies are better placed to
intervene in their children’s behavior”. Expounding on these sentiments a District
Quality Assurance and Standards Officer had earlier commented that “parents who
understand safety policies can serve as critical resource for schools to maintain a safe,
positive and welcoming climate so that students are better able to achieve academic
success”
One hundred and eighty (90%) students, 38 (95%) teachers, thirteen (13)
headteachers and all (6) Education Officers maintained that parents who are aware of
schools’ rules and regulations assisted in the implementation of safety guidelines in
schools. This was in line with Reid (2000) who stated that a safe school sets high
academic standards and clear and consistent rules of behavior and discipline that are
consistently and uniformly enforced. A school can enjoy this only when parents are
aware of such rules and standards. Responding to how parents can be involved in the
implementation of safety guidelines, one District Education officer stated that:
As education managers, we require that parents are consistently reminded

about school rules and regulations. On the contrary, what happens in our
schools is that, parents are given these rules as part of form one joining
instructions. This practice does not help parents to understand rules in their
children’s schools and make sure their children know what is expected of
185
them. Some are not even aware of the consequences of breaking these rules.
Therefore it becomes increasingly hard for parents to work with school
administration to enforce the consequences.
According to Table 4.25, less than half, 90 (45%) of the students, half, 20
(50%) of the teachers, ten (10) headteachers and four (4) Education Officers felt that
parents should understand schools’ safety protocol. Headteachers and teachers
indicated that some parents were not aware or simply ignored school’s safety
protocol, this was demonstrated by the fact that some parents refused to stop at the
gate for security checks, and others did not sign visitors ’ book and those who did
failed to give all details required. In some cases parents allowed students to carry
illegal items to schools while others could walk straight to classrooms or other areas
to see their children without passing through the office. This was a security threat
since criminals could easily take advantage and harm students. One District Quality
Assurance and Standards Officers said that “parents, just like any other person should
be briefed about safety protocol in the school and should be willing to adhere to them
in order to enhance school safety”
Overwhelming number of respondents, 150 (75%) students, 39 (97.5%)
teachers, all (15) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers were of the view that
parents should encourage their children to have positive commitment towards school
safety. They stated that such practice would help in the implementation of safety
guidelines in schools since students would be willing to listen. This concurred with
Moulidi (2008) who stated that parents who spend time with their children and
encourage positive commitment to school enhance smooth implementation of safety
policies in schools. One District Education Officer remarked that “parents, through
discussion of school’s safety concerns with their children always ask help from
186
schools’ administrators if there are on-going problems”. Another District Education
Officer commented that:
For schools to be one of the safest places for our children, parents must play
an integral part in maintaining that safety. It is an on-going and evolving
concern, as are measure we take to combat the day to day challenges that
sometimes prevent children from feeling safe and productive at school.
Schools that thrive in students’ safety and academic success could not do
without parents who are alert and active always encouraging their children to
be committed in enhancing school safety.
Fewer number of students, 80 (40%) as compared to teachers, 35 (87.5%),
headteachers, fourteen (14) and all (6) Education Officers indicated that parents
should monitor their children’s activities. This could be due to the fact that students
thought they were able to take control of their lives without their parents’ supervision
while other respondents felt otherwise. According to Mwangi (2008) destruction of
school facilities could be minimized if parents were able to monitor and supervise
their children’s activities and their friends and if they suspect something is wrong talk
to them and encourage them to talk to a teacher or any other person in authority to get
help.
This was in line with the views of one District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer who said that “parents who continually monitor and supervise their
children are more likely to solve difficult situations before they escalate than those
who do not”. When one District Education Officer was commenting on parents
monitoring their children’s activities said that:
As much as it is the duty of parents to spend time with their children in order
to understand and guide them, this is not the case. Most parents are too busy
for their children. Other children come from morally challenged families
hence they influence other children negatively. It is not unusual for parents not
to attend school’s meeting when policy issues are being communicated. “How
then do you involve such parents in school safety?
187
The study found that some parents were not adequately involved in the
implementation of MOE safety guidelines in schools since they did not fully
understand schools’ safety policies, were not aware of schools’ rules and regulation,
failed to understand and honor school’s safety protocol and did not encourage positive
commitment to school safety for their children. They also did not monitor their
children’s activities to ensure they were safe. Other issues reported included; failure
to attend meetings; help in fundraising activities and not participating in schools’
safety planning committee or safety activities.
4.5.3 Involvement of Teachers and Support Staff in the implementation of safety
Guidelines in schools
Respondents were asked to suggest on how teachers and support staff can be
involved in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in
schools. Their responses were as presented in Table 4.26

188
Table 4.26: Respondents’ Responses on Teachers’ and Support staff’s

Involvement in the Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Schools
F % F % F F F
Clearly 120 60 34 85 12 3 2
spelling out
safety rules
and
regulations
Being alert 100 50 38 95 14 3 3

all through
Getting more 160 80 35 87.5 13 3 3

involved In
students’
affair
Identify 90 45 36 18 12 2 3
warning
signs
Dealing with 190 95 30 75 13 3 3

safety related
cases
cautiously
Being good 170 85 25 62.5 10 3 2

role models
According to 120 (60%) students, 34 (85%) teachers, twelve (12) head
teachers and five (5) Education Officers, teachers and support staff could be involved
in the implementation of safety guidelines by clearly spelling out safety rules and
regulations to guide students’ behavior. They further stated that these rules should be
strategically displayed for all to see and the consequence to be well spelt out. This
concurred with cotton (2006) who asserted that rules and regulations regarding use of
physical facilities and how to behave while in the school premises help to eradicate
disruptive behavior. District Education Officer commented that “when students are
189
constantly reminded to follow safety rules in which they were involved to formulate,
it becomes a lot easy to maintain safe school environment”. Consequently, one
District Quality Assurance and Standards officer remarked that “clearly written rules
regarding use of school laboratories, libraries, classrooms and dormitories among
other facilities assist a great deal in ensuring safety in schools”.
The researcher observed that in most of the schools, rules and regulations had
not been displayed in strategic places like classrooms, staffroom and notice boards.
Other rules for specific facilities were also lacking in some schools. This could hinder
appropriate implementation of safety policies in schools.
Half, 100 (50%) of the students, 38 (95%) teachers, fourteen (14) teachers and
all (6) Education Officers indicated that it was important for teachers and support staff
to keep their eyes and ears open all the time. By doing this they would be able to
notice any unbecoming behavior among students that can result to damage of school
property or even loss of lives. This concurred with Hopkins (2005) who asserted that
paying attention to what students are saying and doing during class time, play time,
meal time among others can enable teachers and support staff to realize bad things
going on among students. In line with this, one District Education Officer remarked
that “intermingling with students when they are settling down in classes or elsewhere
could lead to finding out problems such as bullying, vandalism, planned fights and
much more”
Majority of the respondents, 160 (80%) students, 35 (87.5%) teachers, thirteen
(13) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers felt that in order to ensure safety,
teachers and support staff needed to be more involved in students affairs. They stated
that being with students during trips, in their clubs and societies, in welfare
190
associations and other areas will enable teachers and staff to know what is going on in
school. This was in line with Johnson (2002) who postulated that getting involved in
students’ affair is good way to make adults’ presence known as well as showing
students you are available for them and they can come to you when there is a problem.
One District Education Officer had this to say:
Getting involved in students affair can help teachers and support staff to let
trouble makers know that they are aware of what is going on in the school and
are likely to find out bad behavior and do something about it.
The researcher observed that, in few schools, teachers and support staff were
interacting well with students during out of class hours. This could enhance positive
and safe school climate. However, there was little or no interaction among students,
teachers and support staff. This could lead to negative behavior among students due to
limited supervision and interaction.
Another way of involving teachers and support staff in the implementation of
MOE safety guidelines in schools included identifying warning signs. This was stated
by 90 (45%) students, 36 (95%) teachers, twelve (12) head teachers and five (5)
Education Officers. They felt that if teachers and support staff are able to identify
warning signs like restlessness, laxity and general non response to school routines
among students, they can easily intervene before unsafe situation could materialize.
This view was supported by Kibble (2006) who indicated that it is possible for
teachers and other school administrators to predict disruptive behavior by knowing
some of the warning signs that could indicate a problem. A District Education Officer
stated that “teachers and support staff are better placed to identify warning signs since
they are close to students than anyone else in the school”

191
Overwhelming number of students, 190 (95%), teachers, 30 (75%), head
teachers, thirteen (13) and Education Officers (6) stated that teachers and support staff
are required to deal with safety related cases cautiously so that they do not cultivate
bad feelings among students which can easily trigger a strike in school. According to
Randazzo, (2006) when a punishment is applied selectively among students for
similar offense, it is more likely to be counterproductive than rehabilitative. This
could suggest that, if a student was found doing something that could disrupt school
climate, teachers and staff could administer the best method in the problem solving
technique to avoid more trouble with a large number of students. Similarly, a large
number of students, 170 (85%), teachers, 25 (62.5%), ten (10) headteachers and five
(5) Education Officers indicated that the best way for teachers and support staff to be
involved in the implementation of safety guidelines was for them to be positive role
models to students. This could have positive impact on students since they were likely
to emulate them.
Other ways of involving teachers and support staff in the
implementation of safety guidelines included; providing guidance to students and
educating them on the importance of taking care of the school physical infrastructure.
Encouraging students to take care of school facilities and being responsible by
rewarding those who maintained the facilities, inspecting infrastructure and repair of
the broken properties. Identifying security challenges and reporting them to authority.
Removing obstacles from the school grounds such as solid walls, shrubs and trees,
ensuring clear visibility of main entrance, locating parking areas so that they are
visible, keeping unused building and doors securely locked. Demarcating “out of
bounds” areas, eliminating blind sports provided by doorways, fences, buildings and
192
landscaping and access control as advocated by (Reid, 2000). One District Quality
Assurance and Standards Officer commented that:
If teachers and support staff were to be meaningfully involved in the

implementation of MOE safety guidelines in schools, they should be seen to
be mobilizing various stakeholders to participate in ensuring safety, giving
guidance and direction to the students on safety issues, taking charge of
various facilities, ensuring that students do not carry any safety threatening
gadgets to school and administering first aid to those injured.
When asked whether they involved support staff in the implementation of
safety guidelines in schools, 10 head teachers said yes while the rest 5 said no.
Majority of them reported that support staff especially security personnel, laboratory
technicians, matrons, cooks, bursars, ground people, clerks and accounts other than
handling vital functions in the school were also very close to students and could tell
easily when there was uneasiness in the school. This view concurs with Magdla
(2006) who indicated that support staff have a duty in the implementation of safety
policies in schools because they normally carry out risk assessment and do relevant
documentation and devise a safe working practices in their areas of their
responsibilities. Ziva (2002) further states that support staff assist in the
implementation of safety policies in schools at a level appropriate for their
requirement by ensuring that the procedures are explained in a way that students can
understand.
The importance of involvement of support staff in the implementation of MOE
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools was stressed by one District
Quality Assurance and Standards officer who said this:
It is very important to involve support staff in the implementation of safety

policy in schools because they assist in the supervision of students and
maintain an awareness of emergency procedures in respect of fire, first aid and
accident reporting among others. They also ensure that where necessary, the
appropriate protective clothing, guards and other equipments are available, in
193
good condition and are used. They also check electrical equipments before
they are used. However some schools do not put a lot of emphasis in support
staff involvement in the implementation of safety policies in schools.
According to one District Education Officer:
It is important for all support staff in a school to cooperate with the school
management in an effort to implement safety guidelines and in particular,
bring to the school administration attention any significant risk or dangerous
situations. Yes, the school administration acknowledges the fact that primary
responsibility for safety implementation lies with the administrators but all
staff have an important contribution to make in identifying hazards and
controlling risks.
The study established that though majority of the schools headteachers
reported to have involved support staff in the implementation of safety guidelines,
there were no proper procedures or documentation on how they were being involved.
Similarly, there were no programmes and policies in place indicating how they were
being involved. According to purkey (1984), policies reveal the perceptual
orientations of policy makers while a good impression may be made on school
members and the environment by developing school programmes that address human
needs at large, instead of those that focus on narrow goals.
4.5.4 Headteachers’ Involvement in the implementation of Safety Guidelines in

Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region
The study sought information from the respondents on the involvement of
headteachers in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in the schools under study. The responses were as stipulated in Table
4.27
194
Table 4.27: Respondents’ Responses on Headteachers’ Involvement in the

F % F % F F F
Placing school 120 60 25 62.5 11 3 3

safety on the
educational
agenda
Maintaining 140 70 36 95 12 3 2
crime
reporting and
record
keeping
system
Providing 180 90 35 87.5 13 3 3

safety related
rules and
regulations
Design 110 55 30 75 10 2 3
conflict
resolution
programmes
Most respondents, 120 (60%) students, 25 (62.5%) teachers, eleven (11)
headteachers and all (6) Education Officers indicated that although headteachers were
playing important role in the implementation of government policies in schools,
majority of them were not placing school safety as a priority in their educational
agenda. This could hamper effective implementation of safety guidelines as stated by
Cotton (2006) that school headteachers must make a conscious decision that safe and
welcoming school is a high priority and measure their progress towards that end. This
view was expressed by one District Education who stated that “headteacher’s
commitment to safety in school provides the basis for the enhancement of existing
195
strategies and the development of new ones to achieve this goal” Another District
Education Officer commented that:
Headteachers have a duty to emphasis on school safety as a top educational

agenda. School’s mission statement should reflect the context in which the
school community wishes academic learning to take place. These statements
should enhance school’s position to create and enforce policies promoting a
disciplined school climate. Such statements can also markedly increase the
validity and credibility of the school’s effort to create and preserve a safe
environment.
One hundred and forty (70%) students, 36 (95%) students, twelve (12)
headteachers and five (5) Education Officers felt that headteachers could be involved
in the implementation of safety guidelines by maintaining crime-reporting and record
keeping system. This could help them and the entire school community to know
specifically what crimes are being committed in their schools, when and where the
crimes are committed and who is involved. This concurred with one District Quality
Assurance and standards officer who felt that “available data regarding school safety
can ease problem solving process hence increased security in schools”
Most respondents, 180 (90%) students, 35 (87.5%) teachers, thirteen (13)
headteachers and all (6) Education Officers maintained that provision of user friendly
safety related rules and regulations could ensure consistency of students’ supervision
and management. Other safety related regulations cited by the respondents included;
development of comprehensive school safety plan, school safety training
programmes, crises response plan, safety annual review, selection of new employees
and comprehensive locker policy.
One hundred and ten (55%) students, 30 (75%) teachers, ten (10) headteachers
and five (5) Education Officers indicated that headteachers could enhance safety
guidelines implementation by designing conflict resolution programmes. Such

196
programmes should stress the unique worth and contribution of every person or group
by engaging them in the safe school planning process. Recognizing the impact of
cultural influences on a school community’s ability to create safe, secure and peaceful
schools for all students, one District Education Officer asserted that “cultural
influences can directly affect the information, strategies and resources that are used to
plan, create and promote a safe and peaceful school as well as to prevent a school
crisis”
The study established that, most headteachers were not adequately involved in
the implementation of safety guidelines in schools since they had not placed school
safety issues as a top priority in educational agenda and had not designed proper
safety programmes in their schools. Most headteachers had not maintained school
crime reporting and record keeping with a view of enhancing safe and secure schools.
4.5.5 Involvement Board of Governors’ in the Implementation of Safety
Guidelines in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region
Headteachers, DEOs and DQASOs were asked how schools’ BOGs were
involved in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines. Their responses were as
presented in Table 4.28

197
Table 4.28: Headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs Responses on BOGs

Item Headteacher DEOs DQASOs
F F F
Develop structures and operations 13 3 3

that spell out the role of different
Stakeholders in the Implementation
of Safety guidelines
Maintain safe learning environment 15 3 2

Engage all stakeholders in ongoing 14 3 3
safety guidelines implementation
process
Mobilize resources to implement 15 3 3

safety guidelines
Create network and linkages to 12 2 2

enhance safety guidelines
implementation
Monitor safety guidelines 14 3 3

implementation
Enforce MOE safety guidelines 15 3 3

implementation
As shown in Table 4.28, out of fifteen headteachers who participated in the
study, fourteen (14) of them and all (6) Education Officers reported that BOGs were
involved in the implementation of safety guidelines in schools. This was important
because according to Moulidi (2008), school’s governing body has the responsibility
to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to reduce the possibility of accidents or
injury to staff, students and visitors. However, they felt that BOG members should
develop structures and operations that spell out the role of different stakeholders in
the implementation of Safety guidelines to ensure effectiveness in the implementation

198
process. Such structures had not been put in place as was reported by the respondents
and observation made by the researcher.
One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer remarking on sound
safety structures and operations in the schools remarked that: “in the absence of well
coordinated safety structures, programmes and policies, schools cannot succeed in
implementing safety guidelines?” He continued:
It is the work BOGs to develop policies and procedures that detail safety and
security responsibility of staff and faculty members, security personnel and
other support staff. These responsibilities may include monitoring and
patrolling specific areas of the school, observing questionable or suspicious
activities, and intervening and reporting activities that threaten school safety.
All (15) headteachers and five (5) Education Officers indicated that BOGs
were tasked with responsibilities of maintaining safe learning environment. This
included providing and maintaining adequate and quality physical facilities in
schools, equipments and machinery and ensuring storage and use of substance. This
view was supported by one District Education Officer who said that “it was the
responsibility of schools’ BOGs to maintain high standards of health and safety to
enhance achievement of other performance standards within the school”. The
researcher observed that some schools’ BOGs had not ensured safe learning
environment as evidenced by dilapidated buildings, inadequate and poorly maintained
physical facilities as well as buildings that failed to comply with MOE safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure.
Engaging all stakeholders in ongoing safety guidelines implementation
process was cited by fourteen (14) headteachers and all (6) Education Officers as one
of the ways of involving BOGs in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines.
They indicated that since BOGs are schools’ manager they should be centrally placed
199
to coordinate all other stakeholders to ensure smooth safety guidelines
implementation. Twelve (12) headteachers and four (4) Education Officers stated that
BOGs in their effort to implement safety guidelines should create network and
linkages to enhance implementation process. Most respondents, fourteen (14)
headteachers and all (6) Education Officers felt that Schools’ BOGs would be more
involved in safety guidelines implementation if they monitored safety guidelines
implementation as well as enforce their implementation.
Nine (9) headteachers indicated that they requested BOGs to allocate
resources on safety guidelines implementation. Some five headteachers reported that
BOGs were also carrying out risk assessments during construction of buildings in
schools and recommended regular review. This finding concurred with sentiments
made by one District Education Officer that:
Some Board of Governors deal seriously with safety related issues. They
ensure regular safety inspections of school premises and take action
accordingly. Some have made it a habit to receive an annual audit of safety
systems and safety standards from their respective headteachers. They discuss
safety issues and establish, encourage and maintain positive health and safety
culture in schools. To impose respect of school properties on students, some
BOGs even punish students to change their behaviour and enhance safety in
schools. They even involve parents in the entire process of safety guidelines
implementation.
It was established that Board of Governors played various roles in schools
such as; organizing workshops, seminars, in service and training courses, academic
trips, benchmarking in other schools and motivation of staff through award schemes.
Much of this work was academic oriented but little was happening regarding safety
guidelines implementation in schools. This is supported by Omolo and Simatwa
(2010) who indicated that a lot of research was being conducted on academic
performances while very few were available on safety related issues in schools.
200
4.5.6 Involvement of Government in the Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi west Region
Headteachers, DEOs and DQASOs were asked to comment on involvement of
government in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure. Their responses were as indicated in Table 4.29
Table 4.29: Headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs Responses on Government’s

Item H/Teacher DEOs DQASOs
F F F
Formulating and clarifying safety 13 3 3

related policies
Carrying out standards assessments 15 3 3
Conducting school safety trainings 14 2 3
Funding various projects to enhance 14 3 2

school safety
Monitoring compliance with school 13 3 3

safety requirements
Thirteen (13) headteachers and all (6) Education Officer stated that
government, through the Ministry of Education and other agencies was actively
involved in the implementation of safety guidelines. Majority (13) of the headteachers
and all (6) Education Officers indicated that district Education Officers usually
clarified policy stipulations and encouraged them towards achieving the policy goals.
This was in line with Squelch (2001) who states that education managers should
encourage involvement of all stakeholders in the safety guidelines implementation
because this develops a sense of ownership and commitment. It also helps in vision
building, clarifying policies to users, leading and participating in change process.

201
All (15) headteachers and Education Officers (6) indicated that Quality
Assurance and Standards officers were carrying out standards assessments in their
schools. They highlighted various safety threats in physical infrastructure and gave
recommendations. However, these assessments were not regular and the officers took
a lot of time before going back to schools to ascertain whether the recommendations
were adhered to or not. This concurs with Omolo and Simatwa (2010) who stated that
shortage of Quality Assurance and Standards officers in the field was impacting
negatively on MOE safety guidelines implementation. All DEOs and DQASOs
interviewed felt that effective leaders are the ones who assess implementation of
government policies to establish how schools were doing. This assessment according
to Hord (1995) motivates implementers to commit themselves to the implementation
process. Regarding assessments, one District Education Officer said that:
Assessment reports show that some physical infrastructure in some schools are
deplorable and in bad state of repair, requiring renovation or demolition but
there is a limit to how far we can go in this matter, I remember closing down
and withdrawing registration certificate of one private school whose facilities
were not conducive for learning, but hardly did one year lapse before the
school was back and full functional without my knowledge. It was a total blow
to this office since we had no voice to address other schools that were facing
similar circumstances.
Respondents, fourteen (14) headteachers and five (5) Education Officers stated
that government was involved in conducting school safety trainings. Despite this
effort, it was reported that few schools had formal procedures in place to ensure that
sufficient training was provided to all students, teachers and school administrators.
This concurred with the views of one District Quality Assurance and Standards
Officer who remarked that:
A comprehensive school safety training programme is important. This should

meet the needs of classroom teachers and administrators. In- service training
regarding student behaviour management should be offered for teachers and
others in students’ discipline. In order to ensure safety in schools, teachers
202
must develop skills and strategies for shaping positive learning environments,
controlling disruptive students’ behaviour and dealing with difficult parents.
The researcher observed that in some schools there was no evidence of school
safety knowledge since most fire extinguishers were not of the recommended size,
were inappropriately located and were not in working condition. Other school
buildings had not complied with safety standards requirements.
Fourteen (14) headteachers and five (5) Education Officers stated that
government was funding various project to enhance safety in schools. They reported
that through economic stimulus project, government was putting up centres of
excellent in every constituency to address inadequacy and quality of physical
infrastructure in schools. This initiative could enhance implementation of MOE safety
guidelines since they were built based on strict requirement from both MOE and
Ministry of Public Works. The researcher observed that, most of the recent buildings
in schools put up under Economic Stimulus projects had complied with the majority
of safety requirements.
Monitoring compliance with school safety requirements was cited by thirteen
(13) headteachers and all (6) Education as one of the ways how government was
involved in the implementation of safety guidelines in the schools under study. This
concurred with Reid (2000) who stated that school boards are responsible for
complying with legislation and policies. Through monitoring of compliance with
safety requirements, the government could receive feedback to enable them introduce
new or revise school safety policy.
The research established that government was not adequately involved in the
implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure.
This was due to the fact that formulation and clarification of safety policies were not
203
reviewed regularly, standards assessments were not carried out in schools
continuously to advice on safety requirements. Schools’ safety trainings were not
conducted on regular basis to equip stakeholders with relevant skills to handle safety
concerns in schools. However, Economic Stimulus projects in schools had complied
with some safety requirements.
Table 4.30: Distribution of the headteachers’ DEOs and DQASOs Responses on

NGOs’ and CBOs’ Involvement in the Implementation of Safety
Guidelines in Schools
Item H/Teachers DEOs DQASOs
F F F F F F
Whether NGOs and 3 12 1 2 1 3

CBOs were involved
in school safety
Whether they funded 8 7 3 - 3 -

projects
Whether they 5 10 - 3 1 2
advised on safety
compliance
Whether they trained 3 12 1 2 1 2

on school safety
Few respondents, three (3) headteachers and two (2) Education Officers
indicated that they involved Non Governmental and Community Based Organizations
in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools.
Through researcher’s observation there were few safety initiatives that had been
initiated by NGOs and CBOs. Overwhelming number of headteachers (10) and
Education Officers (4) reported that they did not involve NGOs and CBOs in the
implementation of safety guidelines in schools. This could be attributed to the fact
that in public schools various organizations were denied direct access to schools
204
unless they were approved by the Ministry of Education as stated by (Bandi, 2011).
This concurred with the remarks made by one District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer that “most NGOs who come to this office requesting to access
schools do not have safety agenda as their top priority”
Asked Whether NGOs and CBOs funded projects in schools, eight (8)
headteachers and all (6) Education Officers said yes. They cited major NGOs like
UNICEF, USAID, Action Aid and SOS as having safety initiatives in schools. Asked
how they involved NGOs in the implementation of safety guideline in their schools,
two (2) headteachers reported that, other than assisting them to write proposals to
request for finances, they also invited them to schools to sensitize school community
about safety issues, training students on fire drills and donation of safety equipments
such as fire extinguishers, alarm systems among others. This concurs with Nthenya
(2011) who indicated that active involvement of Nongovernmental organizations and
other donors is critical if vision 2030 in provision of free and quality education is to
succeed. One District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer remarked that:
Some NGOs were constructing sanitation facilities in schools, modern school

kitchens and laboratories. This was not only enhancing delivery of curriculum
but also increased retention and completion rates as well as providing safe
learning environment.
One District Education Officer indicated that community based organizations
were not actively involved in the implementation of safety guidelines in schools as it
used to happen during 1970s when community were coming together to construct
schools. He said that:
In early years, communities would pull resources together (harambee) and

construct a school within the community. Once the school was constructed,
the community would then petition the government to provide the school with
teachers and other necessary provisions which the government normally did.
205
The researcher observed that NGOs and CBOs were not adequately involved
in safety guidelines implementation in schools. However, in few cases where such
involvement was evident, they were not monitoring whether safety requirements were
adhered to especially in construction of buildings.4.5.7 Involvement of school
surrounding community in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in schools
Table 4.31: Respondents’ responses on the involvement surrounding community

in the implementation of safety guidelines in schools
Item Student Teacher H/Teacher DEOs DQASOs
F % F % F % F % F F F F F F
Whether 90 45 110 55 10 25 30 75 5 10 1 2 - 3
surrounding
school
communities
were involved
in Safety
implementation
Whether it was 100 50 100 50 38 95 2 5 14 1 3 3 3 3

necessary to
involve s/c in
school Safety
Whether there 50 25 150 75 4 10 36 90 3 12 1 2 1 2

was Positive
relationship
between s/c
and schools to
enhance safety
As shown in Table 4.31 few respondents, 90 (45%) students, 10 (25%)
teachers, five (5) headteachers and one (1) Education Officer stated that surrounding
school community was involved in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines in
the schools under study. This could compromise safety standards in the concerned
schools since according to Sanders (2004) positive relationship between surrounding
community and schools can improve risk prevention, intervention and response. Some
206
respondents stated that surrounding community was very dangerous because they
carried out illegal businesses such as drug peddling and stealing. Sometimes they
collaborated with students to commit crimes. One District Education Officer
commented that:
Involvement of surrounding communities in the implementation of safety

guidelines in schools is sometimes hard because there is a tendency of both of
them to regard each other with a great deal of distrust. Each has developed a
sharp eye for the weaknesses of the other. It is not difficult to find professional
educators who characterize communities as uninformed “amateurs” hardly
qualified to contribute systematically to the education of young people.
Similarly, a District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer remarked that:
“Strong positive relationship based upon trust and cooperation between surrounding
communities and schools can and do play an important role in improving schools’
safety and academic performance”
In as much as schools were not adequately involving surrounding communities
in the implementation of safety guidelines, overwhelming number of respondents, 100
(50%) students, 38 (95%) teachers, fourteen (14) headteachers and all (6) Education
officers felt it was necessary for surrounding communities to be involved in school
safety. They reported that positive relationship between surrounding school
community and schools provide a holistic environment in which children are raised
with a unified set of expectations and behaviour. This concurred with Warren (2004)
who postulated that when community members are engaged in the implementation of
safety guidelines in schools, they can work together with schools’ administrators to
develop a common vision for school reform. Similar views were echoed by a District
Education Officer who commented that: "Schools are more safe, effective and caring
places when they are an integral and positive part of the community. This enhances
207
academic performance, fewer discipline problems, higher staff morale, and improved
use of resources”
One hundred and fifty (75%) students, 36 (90%) teachers, thirteen (13)
headteachers and all (6) Education Officers indicated that there was no positive
relationship between surrounding communities and schools. Commenting on the
relationship between surrounding communities and schools, one District Education
officer commented that:
Some surrounding communities engage in illegal activities such as

brewing alcohol, drug and substance dealing and even prostitutions.
Cases have been reported in this office of some students being spotted
in surrounding areas engaging in behaviour forbidden in the school
compound making them vulnerable to criminal enticement. This
behaviour can likely be transferred to schools and impinge on safety
and security of the school.
The few respondents, 50 (25%) students, 4 (10%) teachers and two (2)
headteachers stated that surrounding communities were involved in the
implementation of safety guidelines indicated that neighbouring community were
positioned to serve as critical eyes and ears for a school, before and after school
hours. They felt that no security service could compete with school neighbours in
terms of providing a continual presence as well as in commitment to school’s safety
needs. This concurs with Nthenya (2011) who indicated that neighbours are more
likely to spot vandals in the act than are police or private security. She further asserted
that some school communities have had success in having law enforcement officers
contact the owners of rental property where criminal activities are being encountered
near schools and many landlords have evicted such tenants.
They further stated that sometimes they called upon students for community
service in the neighbourhood. This was used to discourage immediate problems while
208
building long term goodwill. This positive interaction could build shared sense of
belonging leading to mutual assistance of either students or neighbours are in need of
help. Suggesting how school surrounding community could be involved in the
implementation of safety guidelines, one District Quality Assurance and standards
officer said that:
School administration can enlist some neighbours as allies and provide them
with phone numbers for contacting the school administration. In some cases it
may be appropriate to entice them to help by providing cell phones for them
and even empowering some of them as quasi- official school caretakers or
allies. You could even go a step further and reward them for any alert they
made. This is a cost effective alternative to paid security.
The gap between school administration and the community could be attributed
to the fact that many school administrators are not adequately trained on how to work
with the community to enhance their administration. According to Squelch (2001)
concerned bodies fail to educate school managers on how schools and the community
should work together to create a peaceful school environment because schools alone
cannot function as a panacea for safety related problems.
The researcher observed that some schools were sharing facilities like
playgrounds and halls with the surrounding communities. This positive relationship
could enhance implementation of safety in schools. However, the study established
that surrounding communities were not being adequately involved in the
implementation of safety guidelines in the schools under study. Negative relationship
between surrounding communities and schools which was negatively affecting safety
guidelines implementation was noted. It was established that majority of the
respondents felt it was necessary to involve schools’ surrounding community in the
implementation of safety guidelines to minimize discipline problems and maximize
safety in schools.
209
4.6 Research question 4: Students, Teachers and Head teachers Attitude towards
Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in
In this section, the attitude of students, teachers and head teachers towards
implementation of Ministry Of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure
was presented in the subsequent subsections. According to Bohner and Wanke (2004)
a stakeholder’s attitude towards policy implementation may influence his or her
behaviour.
4.6.1 Students’ Attitude towards Implementation of Safety Guidelines in
Students were asked to indicate whether they strongly agreed (SA), agreed
(A), not sure (NS), disagreed (D) or strongly disagreed (SD) towards various
statements regarding the implementation of MOE safety guidelines. Students’
responses on their attitude towards implementation of safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure are presented in Table 4.32

210
Table 4.32: Students’ Responses on Attitude towards Implementation of MOE

Safety Guidelines
Statements SA A NS D SD
F % F % F % F % F %
[*scr] [*scr] [*scr] [*scr] [*scr]
MOE safety guidelines 24 12.0 39 19.5 57 28.5 50 25.0 30 15

on Physical
infrastructure have [0.7] [0.98] [1.4] [1.3] [0.8]
been implemented in
the school
There is awareness 28 14 50 25 29 14.5 40 20 53 26.5

among school
members on how to [0.7] [1.3] [0.73] [1.0] [1.3]
handle disaster
We have adequate 22 11 50 25 13 6.5 49 24.5 66 33

sanitation facilities
[0.55] [1.25] [0.33] [1.23] [1.65]
There are safe and 58 29 72 36 13 6.5 26 13 31 15.5

secure playgrounds in
our school [1.45] [1.8] [0.33] [0.65] [0.78]
There is a strong 41 20.5 77 38.5 28 14 30 15.0 24 12

guidance and
counselling department [1.02] [1.93] [0.7] [0.75] [0.6]
in the school
Most of staff members 17 9 30 15 25 12.5 64 32 64 32

are housed in the
school compound [0.45] [0.75] [0.63] [1.6] [1.6]
Electrical fittings are 44 22 51 25.5 24 12 41 20 40 20

firmly fixed and can’t
cause any damage [1.1] [1.28] [0.6] [1.03] [1]
Total Score 5.87 9.29 4.72 7.56 7.73
Average Score 0.84 1.33 0.67 1.08 1.10
Asked whether MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure had been
implemented in their school, 80 (40%) students either strongly disagreed or disagreed
while 63 (31.5%) either strongly agreed or agreed. It is notable that 56 (28%) students
were not sure of this statement. This information indicated that most students, 136
(68%) had negative attitude on Ministry of Education safety guidelines hence could
211
not tell whether they had been implemented or not. In line with this view, Nthenya
(2011) indicated that although students are important players during safety guidelines
implementation process, they are usually ignored during decision making yet the
degree of implementation success is determined by students’ behaviour change. The
fact that some 63 (31.5%) students felt that safety measures had been implemented in
their schools shows some level of positive attitude in that some school administrators
were making an effort in ensuring safety in their schools as well as engaging students
in the exercise.
Regarding whether they were fully aware of how to behave in case of a
disaster in school, 105(52.5%) students were not sure, disagreed or strongly disagreed
while 78(39%) students either strongly agreed or agreed. This showed that majority
of the students had negative attitude since they had not been trained on disaster
preparedness. This information concurs with the earlier one where students said they
had not read safety manual for schools. The same views were expressed by Kipngeno
and Wambua, (2009) in their study which established that teachers and students in
schools in Turkana District were poorly prepared to respond to fire outbreak and
destructive violence. Omolo and Simatwa (2010) reported that there was downward
trend in conducting fire drills in schools.
On the adequacy of clean sanitation facilities in the school, slightly more than
half of the students 115 (57.5%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. This showed
negative attitude towards this statement. It had earlier been noted that, most schools
lacked adequate, clean and well maintained sanitation facilities which could
compromise health of learners. Magdla (2006) noted that issue of toilets is never
given adequate priority and respect by school administration. Slightly over a third of
them 78 (39%) were however positive about having adequate and clean sanitation
212
facilities in their schools.
In response to whether school playgrounds were safe and secure, majority of
the students 130 (65%) either agreed or strongly agreed an indication of positive
attitude towards this statement. This was encouraging because students were not
likely to be injured during games and sports activities. This agreed with Gliem (1993)
who asserted that it is important to properly maintain school play grounds for various
sporting activities. These grounds should be clearly demarcated and marked, should
be neat, beautiful and safe for use by learners, staff, parents and community members,
at all times. However, almost a third of them 57 (28.5%) differed, showing negative
attitude towards the statement. This showed there were safety concerns related to
playgrounds that needed to be addressed.
In their response to whether most of the staff were housed in the schools
compound, majority of the students, 152 (76%) were not sure, disagreed or strongly
disagreed. This reflected negative attitude. As earlier reported, most teachers and
headteachers were not residing in the school compound irrespective of staff houses
being available. They cited inadequate security in the community and student related
incidences especially during strikes. Omolo and Simatwa (2010) had also noted that,
headteachers and other staff were not staying in the school compound to ensure safety
even though it was a Ministry of Education directive for all headteachers to reside in
the school compound.
There were varied responses on whether electrical fitting were firmly fitted in
the school under study. Almost half of the students (47.5%) either strongly agreed or
simply agreed that electrical fitting were firmly fixed. This was interpreted as a
positive attitude towards this statement. It concurred with Reid (2000) who asserted
that electrical fittings are supposed to be firmly fixed in order to avoid jeopardizing
213
learners’ safety. However, a considerable number of them (40%) differed, indicating
that electrical fitting were not firmly fitted and could endanger lives of the users.
The average score obtained from the students who strongly agreed was at 0.8
while those who agreed was 1.3. The total score of the students who either agreed or
strongly agreed with statements on the implementation of MOE safety guidelines was
2.1. The total average score of the students who either disagreed or strongly disagreed
was 2.2. The scores showed mixed attitude among students towards the
implementation of MOE safety guidelines.
4.6.2 Teachers’ Attitude towards Implementation of Safety Guidelines in Public
Secondary Schools in Nairobi West Region
In order to establish attitude of teachers towards implementation of safety
guidelines in schools, teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed
or disagreed on the following statements: MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure are unattainable, The school management has given a lot of emphasis
on safety standard measures, Teachers are often trained on disaster preparedness, The
school has a firm perimeter fence, The school has sufficient first aid facilities, Most
teachers reside in the school compound. The school has adequate and clean sanitation
facilities, and Playground are safe for students’ use. Their responses were as presented
in table 4.33
214
Table 4.33: Distribution of responses on Teachers’ Attitude towards

Implementation of Safety Guidelines
Statements SA A NS D SD
F % F % F % F % F %
[*scr] [*scr] [*scr] [*scr] [*scr]
MOE safety guidelines on 7 17.9 11 28.2 5 12.5 10 25.6 7 17.9

physical infrastructure are
attainable [0.9] [1.4] [0.6] [1.3] [0.9]
School management has given 7 17.9 17 43.6 7 17.5 5 12.8 4 10.3

emphasis on safety standard
measures [0.9] [2.2] [0.88] [0.6] [0.5]
Teachers are often trained on 3 7.7 3 7.7 8 20 11 28.2 1 38.5

disaster preparedness 5
[0.4] [0.4] [1] [1.4] [1.9]
The school has a firm perimeter 2 5.1 15 38.5 1 2.5 13 33.3 9 23.1
fence
[0.3] [1.9] [0.1] [1.7] [1.2]
School has sufficient first aid 1 2.6 13 33.3 6 15 14 35.9 6 15.4

facilities
[0.1] [1.7] [0.75] [1.8] [0.8]
Most teachers reside in the 2 5.1 5 12.8 1 2.5 15 38.5 1 43.6

school compound 7
[0.3] [0.6] [0.13] [1.9] [2.2]
School has adequate and clean 6 15.4 15 38.5 6 15 8 20.5 5 12.8

sanitation facilities
[0.8] [1.9] [0.75] [1.0] [0.6]
Playground are safe for students 6 15.4 17 43.6 8 20 5 12.8 4 10.3

to play in
[0.8] [2.2] [1] [0.6] [0.5]
Total *Scr 4.5 12.3 13.1 10.3 8.6
Average *Scr 0.6 1.5 0.65 1.3 1.1
* scr - score
In terms of attainability of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure, it
was noted that teachers had varied responses. Almost half of the teachers 18 (45%)
were positive about attainability of safety guidelines. According to Heller and
Greenleaf (2007) despite the types and amounts of knowledge that administrators and
teachers may have on the implementation of safety policies in schools, it is their

215
beliefs and attitudes that are more likely to dictate their actions in the implementation
process. However, more than half, 21 (52.5%) of the teachers felt that implementation
of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure was unattainable.
This showed negative attitude towards this particular statement. This could be
attributed to inadequate training on implementation of safety policies in schools
among other factors. This view is enhanced by Cotton (2006) who asserted that proper
timing and training is important for any success in policy implementation and there is
need for continuous orientation and workshops to be held throughout the
With reference to school management’s role in ensuring safety standard
measures are met in school, majority of the teachers 24 (61.5%) stated that school
management in their respective schools had placed emphasis on safety measures. This
is consistent with the provisions of MOE safety guidelines manual which states that it
is the responsibility of the school management to supervise, manage, evaluate and
improve the school’s physical infrastructure in order to ensure safety needs.
It is the duty of a school management to appoint safety committee members,
to repair and maintain school facilities to make it safer and to disseminate reading
material about safety (MOE, 2008). However, 15 (37.5%) teachers were not sure,
disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. This negative attitude could be
attributed to the fact that school administrators and managers were more concerned
with academic performances more than other areas in the school (Moulidi, 2008).
Majority of the teachers 26 (67%) were negative on whether they had received
training on disaster preparedness. The importance of this knowledge is brought out by
Trowler (2003) who states that teacher training on disaster preparedness is one of the
216
key elements that may be employed in enhancing safety within the school. If they are
not adequately or well prepared, then there may be a critical issue when it comes to
ensuring safety in school.
Slightly more than half of the teachers 22 (56.4%) were negative on whether
there were perimeter fences in their schools. This pointed out that, most schools did
not have perimeter fence to enhance security hence exposing students and staff to
safety threats. According to Glickman (2004) a parameter fence is quite essential in
enhancing security in the school because it prevents truancy by controlling when
children can leave school compound. In addition, the personal safety of staff and
visitors is enhanced by a school fence. Chumba (2006) further states that a strong
perimeter fence with a secure gate controls access by keeping intruders out and
prevent students from leaving school during school hours.
On whether there were sufficient first aid facilities in schools, majority, 21
(52.5%) of the teachers responded negatively. On the other hand 14 (35%) teachers
felt that first aid facilities were sufficient. This information showed that in most
schools, there were no first aid facilities to be used in case of a disaster, this is risky
because according to Squelch (2001) it is important for school administration to
secure first aid box together with other relevant facilities that can help in time of
disaster. Those concerned should also be adequately equipped with required skills and
knowledge.
The findings showed that most teachers in the schools under study did not
reside in the school compound. An overwhelming number of teachers 32 (82%) either
disagreed or strongly disagreed to whether they resided in the school compound. The
same finding was established in the students’ attitude. The ministry of education
217
guidelines indicates that since teachers and head teachers are crucial in
implementation of each policy in a school, housing them in the school compound
could enhance school safety to a great extent (MOE, 2008). Omolo and Simatwa
(2010) in a study on the implementation of safety policies in schools in Kisumu East
and West found that most teachers were not residing in the houses provided in the
school compound. This resulted to inadequate implementation of MOE safety
guidelines.
On the adequacy of clean sanitation facilities, slightly more than half of the
teachers 21 (54%) were positive. This contrasted the views of the students, majority
of whom felt that there were no adequate and clean sanitation facilities. This could be
due to the fact that, most school administrators were putting emphasis on their own
sanitation facilities while neglecting those for students.
There was however a considerable number of teachers 18 (46.1%) who
indicated that these facilities were inadequate and poorly maintained. This indicated
that a lot of emphasis on sanitation facilities was required if safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure were to be implemented in secondary public schools in Nairobi
West region, Nairobi County.
In terms of safety of play grounds in schools, it was affirmed by 24 (59%)
teachers that indeed the school playgrounds were safe. This could be attributed to the
fact that co-curricular activities were given a lot of emphasis by Ministry of Education
(MOE, 2008). However a good number of teachers still felt that playgrounds were
not safe enough. They stated that playgrounds were not levelled, there were gaping
holes, overgrown shrubs and sometimes spiked wires were used as fences. According
218
to Reid (2002) schools’ play grounds should provide necessary security to the users
devoid of any disruptive objects.
The average score obtained from the teachers who strongly agreed was 0.6
while those who agreed was 1.5. The total score of the teachers who either agreed or
strongly agreed with statements on the implementation of MOE safety guidelines was
2.1. On the other hand, the total score of the teachers who either disagreed or strongly
disagreed was 2.4. Thus, teachers appeared to have had mixed attitude towards the
implementation of MOE safety guidelines on various physical infrastructure in the
schools under study.
4.6.3 Headteachers’ Attitude towards Implementation of Safety Guidelines in
Attitude of headteachers towards implementation of Ministry of Education
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools was as presented in Table 4.34.
The scale used ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree with SA=5, A=4,
NS=3, D=2 and SD=1

219
Table 4.34: Distribution of Responses on Head teachers’ Attitude towards
Implementation of Safety Guidelines
SA A NS D SD
F F F F F
Abandoned and uncompleted buildings are unsafe to 10 3 - 1 1
[3.3] [1] [0.3] [0.3]
learners
I regularly check visitors’ book to ascertain those 7 2 1 2 1
[2.3] [0.7] [0.3] [0.7] [0.3]
who access the school
The playgrounds are safe for use by learners 6 5 2 1 1
[2.0] [1.7] [0.7] [0.3] [0.3]
There are adequate toilets/closets for both girls and 2 2 2 5 4
[0.7] [0.7] [0.7] [1.7] [1.3]
boys.
The school has clean and adequate water supply. 4 6 - 3 2
[1.3] [2.0] [1] [0.7]
I identified the potential safety hazards in the school 3 2 4 5 1
[1] [0.7] [1.3] [1.7] [0.3]
with a view of taking preventive measures
Due to financial constraints of the MOE safety 8 4 - 2 1
[2.7] [1.3] [0.7] [0.3]
requirements, it is not possible to implement them
There is adequate security lights in schools 7 1 4 2 1
[2.3] [0.3] [1.3] [0.7] [0.3]
fire fighting equipments are available in schools 1 1 1 4 8
[0.3] [0.3] [0.3] [1.3] [2.7]
The school has constituted a strong and effective 2 1 1 2 9
[0.7] [0.3] [0.3] [0.7] [3]
safety committee.
Total score 16.6 9 4.9 9 9.5
Average score [1.7] [0.9] [0.7] [0.9] [1.0]
The study established that majority (12) of headteachers felt that abandoned or
incomplete buildings were unsafe. This concurred with findings of a study conducted
by Magdla (2006) that abandoned buildings served as hideouts for criminals where
illegal activities were conducted in schools.
Two (2) headteachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement
that abandoned or incomplete buildings were unsafe. This could be due to the fact that
with adequate surveillance such places could be secured as Clark (2002) states that
220
proper school design ensures that all physical facilities in the school are in full view
of school administration.
On whether they checked visitors books regularly, seven (7) headteachers
strongly agreed while two (2) of them agreed. This shows that majority (9) of them
were committed to ensuring safety in schools by monitoring visitors entering the
school. This was in accordance with Squelch (2001) who stated that maintaining clear
and up to date records regarding those visiting the school would deter people with bad
motives to enter the school compound.
As compared to students, more headteachers (6) strongly agreed to the
statement that play grounds were safe for use by students. This could be attributed to
the fact that they are instrumental in enhancing safety of play grounds hence the
positive attitude. The fact that two (2) headteachers were not sure of this statement
could point to lack of knowledge on Ministry of Education safety guidelines in order
to ascertain whether play grounds were safe or not. Nthenya (2011) asserted that most
headteachers had not read Safety Standards Manual for schools irrespective of having
them in their offices due to a lot lack of time.
Some (5) headteachers either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that
there were adequate sanitation facilities for both boys and girls in their schools. This
positive attitude could imply that the situation was not as bad as had been observed
and reported or these respondents were withholding the truth regarding the actual
situation, Glickman (2004) asserted that most administrators would not highlight
issues which they had not addressed adequately. Majority (9) of headteachers
expressed negative attitude towards adequacy of sanitation facilities in schools by
either strongly agreeing or disagreeing with this statement. This evidenced the fact
221
that there was shortage of sanitation facilities in schools which could affect health of
students as well as compromise quality of learning. An earlier study by Omolo and
Simatwa (2010) indicated that there was dire need of adequate, clean and well
maintained sanitation facilities in public secondary schools in Kisumu West district.
Seven (7) headteachers agreed to the statement that there was clean and
adequate water supply in schools. This indicated that healthy and hygienic conditions
could be maintained in schools. This concurs with Moulidi (2008) who stated that
schools with clean running water were more likely to minimize diseases than those
without. It is notable that this statement had highest (5) responses on the category of
not sure. This could be due to the fact that most schools sourced their water from
Nairobi water and Sewerage Company hence relied on them to clean the water. Three
(3) headteacher disagreed with this statement. This concurred with Dierkx, (2003)
who stated that some schools in Nairobi had their water contaminated when the
sewers busted and got their way into the clean water systems. This could cause health
hazards to the users.
On whether they identified potential hazards with a view of taking preventive
measures, more than half (8) of headteachers had negative attitude since they either
strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement. This implied that there were no
quality assurance and standards mechanisms in place to ensure safety of physical
infrastructure in schools. According to Fenker (2004), preventive measures help
schools’ administrators to avoid hazards in schools. He further asserted that such
measures save costs and time and it is an integral part of the management practice in
societies where preventive culture is well established. However, five (5) headteachers
either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement, this positive attitude indicated
that they were in a position to mitigate preventable disasters. According to Nderitu

222
(2008), school accidents can happen at any time, nevertheless, maximum precautions
should be undertaken to avoid preventable accidents. She further explained that it
would be commendable to neutralize imminent disasters or minimize the effects, but
it would be disastrous if caught unawares and unprepared.
Overwhelming number (12) of headteachers either strongly agreed or agreed
that financial constraint was hindering implementation of safety guidelines in schools.
According to Zivai (2002) successful policy implementation must be adequately
budgeted for in order to purchase all the necessary resources in advance. One District
Education Officer stated that “supply of adequate resources in schools is an important
form of support from education managers”. Only three (3) headteachers either
disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement while none was not sure of
whether financial constraint prevented implementation of safety guidelines in schools.
Majority (8) of the headteachers expressed positive attitude towards
availability of security lighting in schools by strongly agreeing or strongly agreeing to
this statement. This indicated that, in most of the schools under study, there was
electricity. This could enhance safety in school as Nthenya (2011) stated that well lit
school compound provides opportunity for school managers to detect any illegal
activity within the school premises.
Four (4) headteachers were not sure of this statement. This could mean that
though electricity was available in school, it was not possible to light security lights
always due to increased electricity bills which schools could not cope with. This
concurred with Magdla (2006) who established that most schools especially those
located in informal settlements were plugged in darkness since they were unable to
pay their electricity bills. Three (3) headteacher either strongly disagreed or disagreed
223
with this statement an indication that there was enough security lighting in the school
which could impact positively to safety of the school’s physical infrastructure.
On availability of fire fighting equipments, majority (12) of headteachers
either strongly disagreed or disagreed while only three (3) , one each, strongly agreed,
agreed and not sure. This indicated that most schools under study were ill equipped
with fire fighting equipments. This concurred with the findings of a study conducted
by Nderitu (2008) who established that for any school to be prepared for fire related
disasters, they should acquire adequate fire fighting equipments which are in good
state of repair and ensure they are inspected regularly. Only two (2) headteacher
strongly agreed or disagreed with this statement.
Headteachers’ negative attitude towards availability of safety committees was
evidenced by the fact that majority (11) of them either strongly disagreed or disagreed
with this statement. This implied that safety committees had not been constituted in
schools irrespective of the Ministry of Education requirement that every school
should constitute a safety sub- committee which should be chaired by a BOG member
and whose secretary should be the headteacher (MOE, 2008).
On average, headteachers had positive attitude towards Ministry of Education
safety guidelines implementation in public secondary schools in Nairobi west region.
This was evidenced by the fact that the mean score for those who either strongly
agreed or agreed to the given statements was 2.6 while for those who strongly
disagreed or disagreed was 1.9. There were others, (0.7) who were not sure about the
implementation of MOE safety guidelines in schools. This could mean that there were
some head teachers who had mixed reaction towards implementation of MOE safety
guidelines in school. Some felt that much had been done to ensure effective
224
implementation of safety guidelines in schools while for others, there were number of
issues that needed to be checked to ensure effective implementation of safety
guidelines. This concurred with Mwangi (2008) who in his study on the status of
disaster preparedness in public secondary schools in Kiharu division, Murang’a
District found that negative attitude by head teachers towards safety guidelines had
affected effective implementation. This was attributed to the many roles that head
teachers had besides implementation of safety guidelines.
The study established that although most respondents had mixed feelings
towards implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in schools in the area under study, they all felt it was important to
enhance safety in schools by involving all stakeholders and providing adequate
resources for safety guidelines implementation process.
4.7 Research Question 5: Measures to Enhance Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Public Secondary Schools in Nairobi
West Region
The study sought information on how to enhance implementation of MOE
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools. Students’, teachers’, head
teachers’ and Education officers’ responses were as shown in table 4.36 and as
subsequently discussed.
225
Table 4.35: Distribution of Students’, Teachers’ and Headteachers’ Suggestions

on how to Enhance Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines
Suggestions Students Teachers Head-

teachers
F % F % F
Engage professionals in the construction of 80 40 35 87.5 11

Schools’ physical facilities
Continuous renovation and Maintenance of 150 75 38 95 12

facilities
Quality Fencing of the school 50 25 20 50 9
Adequate and professional security personnel 70 35 22 55 10
Child Friendly dormitories, classrooms, 133 66.5 37 92.5 8

dormitories, libraries and other special rooms
All stakeholders to be involved in school safety 100 50 25 62.5 12

issues
Well constituted safety committees with terms of 20 10 30 75 10

reference
Sound safety programmes and policies 40 20 35 87.5 14
Cordial relationship schools and community
Resources availability 80 40 36 90 13
Training and capacity building 15 7.5 34 85 15
Effective communication 185 92.5 39 97.5 13
Monitoring and evaluation of implementation 45 22.5 22 55 15

process
Engagement of Professionals in Construction of Schools’ Buildings
In order to enhance implementation of safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in schools under study, 80(40%) students, 30 (87.5%) teachers and
eleven (11) headteachers suggested engagement of professionals in construction of
schools’ buildings to ensure required standards. Similar views were expressed by
Chumba, (2006) who asserted that it is easy for professional planners and architects to
generate excellent norms tailored to specific needs in a school. Five (5) education
226
officers out of the six (6) felt that school administrators should seek services of
qualified personnel to carry out construction work in schools as explained by one
District Quality Assurance and Standards officer:
In some schools, construction of some buildings is poorly done without

consideration of laid out specification from both Ministry of Education and
Ministry of Labour. Some have even collapsed before completion. This, other
than putting people’s lives at risk is also costly to the government, parents and
other funders.
Continuous Renovation and Maintenance of Schools’ Physical Infrastructure
Responses on the need for continuous renovation and maintenance of physical
infrastructure were as follows; students, 150 (75%), teachers, 38 (95%) and
headteachers, twelve (12). It is notable that this suggestion had very high number of
responses an indication that majority of buildings in schools under study were in bad
state of repair and unsafe for use. This concurred with Fenker (2004) who maintained
that several school buildings that are over thirty years have never undergone
renovation or any form of modernization in spite of the changes in the educational
system. Moulidi (2008) explained that an aspect of school management that is
generally overlooked is facility maintenance because when new buildings are
constructed and taken over by the appropriate authorities, practically no attention is
paid to the maintenance of such buildings. This suggestion was further enhanced by
one District Education officer who stated that:
Changes in weather conditions and lack of building maintenance culture are

responsible for the ageing and deterioration of school buildings, grounds and
equipments. The issue of facility maintenance is haphazardly addressed at all
levels of education al system. Repairs take place only when problems arise
due to break down of the existing facility.
227
All Education officers who were interviewed maintained that although
government was concerned with improving physical facilities in public schools
through various approaches such as Economic Stimulus Projects and other initiatives,
continuous renovations and maintenance of existing physical infrastructure had not
been fully addressed.
Quality Fencing Of the School Compound
Respondents felt that quality fencing of the school could enhance
implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure.
This was a feeling of 50 (20%) students, 20 (50%) teachers and nine (9) headteachers.
As observed from this distribution more teachers and headteachers as compared to
students were of this opinion. This could suggest that students did not attach a lot of
importance on school fencing. A study conducted by Nderitu (2008) indicated that
students could still sneak out of school compound even where school perimeter fence
existed. As for the teachers and headteachers, they strongly felt that fencing of the
school compound could provide security to the school plant. According to Magdla
(2006) school perimeter fence prevent truancy by controlling when and where
children can leave school compound. In addition, it provides the personal safety of
staff and visitors. Suggesting that school fencing could significantly enhance safety in
schools, one District Education Officer said that,“Today, schools contain valuable and
portable properties that are attractive to thieves. Arson is a significant problem that
can, to a large extent be tackled by preventing unauthorised access by erecting a
stable and quality fence”
Majority of the Education Officers stated other than demarcating school
boundaries and providing security, school perimeter fence kept a way land grabbers.
228
Employing Adequate and Professional Security Personnel
In order to enhance implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines
on physical infrastructure, 70 (35%) students, 22 (55%) teachers and eight (8)
headteachers suggested that schools’ Board of Governors should employ adequate and
qualified security personnel. They should also be continuously trained on their roles
to equip them with relevant knowledge. According to Fullan (1995) there is need for
continuous orientation and workshops for parties involved throughout safety policies
implementation period. Regarding this suggestion, three (3) Education Officers said
that:
Time has come for the government to design a policy regarding employment
of support staff in public schools and design terms of reference and placement
criteria as opposed to what is happening currently in these institutions where
schools Boards of Governors employ support staff independently. This has
greatly impacted negatively on services delivered by these staff especially
where they are not well motivated.
Adherence to MOE Safety Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure
A high number of students, 133 (66.5%), teachers, 37 (92.5%) and
headteachers, eight (8) suggested that dormitories, classrooms, laboratories, libraries
and other physical facilities should embrace safety needs of the students. They
indicated that such facilities should be spacious, clean and well maintained. They
should consider safety requirements such as windows and doors without grills and
opening outwards to enable easy operation by students in case of a disaster. Teachers
especially felt that congestion in the dormitories was a major security threat. This
concurred with Jagero (2011) who reported that overcrowding in dormitories with
sometimes double the originally intended number of students being accommodated
and scarcity of running water was affecting security of students in boarding schools.
229
Stakeholders’ Involvement in the Implementation of Safety Guidelines
Half of the students, 100 (50%), teachers, 25 (62.5%) and headteachers,
twelve (12) suggested that it was crucial to involve stakeholders in order to enhance
in schools. Students felt that they were left out in implementation of policies in
schools. This agreed with Fullan (2003) who maintained that learners are important
players during safety guidelines implementation process though they are usually
ignored during decision making and vision building. Teachers indicated that although
their core business was to implement curriculum in schools, it was important to
involve them in safety guidelines implementation since physical infrastructure
constitute the major components of both direct and indirect action elements in the
environment of learning. These suggestions concurred with Clerk (2002) who
maintained that success of implementation of safety guidelines in schools depends on
teachers’ support and commitment to this innovation.
Headteachers felt that there was need to involve all stakeholders in safety
guidelines implementation because collaborative efforts bring into implementation
process new ideas and perspectives. They further explained that, implementation of
safety guidelines in schools requires intermixture of experts in different areas. This
suggestion agreed with squelch (2001) who asserted that the responsibilities of safety
guidelines implementation require collective efforts of all parties involved. He further
stated that importance of safe physical infrastructure in schools have necessitated the
involvement of several minds in safety guidelines implementation.
On the same suggestion, education officers indicated that implementation of
Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools involves

230
among other things collective decision making in relation to establishment of new
schools, designs, renovation and modernization of old buildings and provision of safe
equipments for both academic and non academic activities. They further stated that
provision of safe physical infrastructure is a concerted effort among government,
staff, students and communities of individual school.
Establishment of Schools’ Safety Sub Committees
Only 20 (10%) students out of the 200 who participated in the study suggested
that it was necessary for schools to establish safety sub committee to oversee the
implementation of safety guidelines in schools. However, overwhelming numbers of
teachers, 30 (75%) and headteachers, all (15) suggested the same. This information
indicates that students had little knowledge on the Ministry of Education safety
guidelines in schools as opposed to teachers and headteachers.
Most teachers and headteachers who suggested this explained that, formation
of safety sub-committee would decentralize safety implementation issues and relief
headteachers of some duties since they were already overburdened with a lot of
responsibilities. This would then enhance implementation of safety guidelines
process. According to Nthenya (2011), a headteacher is instrumental in the
government policies implementation in schools, it is their responsibilities to prepare,
monitor, evaluate and make necessary interventions during policies implementation
activities. She further stated that if some of these duties are not responsibly delegated
to the teachers, then implementation process would be negatively affected.
Education officers who were interviewed also suggested constitution of safety
sub- committees in schools in order to enhance safety policies implementation. One of
them explained that:

231
For effective implementation of safety guidelines in schools, safety sub

committees are necessary. The objectives of such committees would be to
provide opportunities for the learners to exploit and maximize potential for
learning, growth and development, and participate in enhancing school safety.
The sub committees should also promote, maintain and contribute to the
understanding of child and staff safety, provide benchmark for monitoring and
appraising the safety status of schools. It would be their responsibility to
empower members of the school community and other partners in order to
increase awareness about issues related to school safety and also forge
alliances and networks that enhance school and child safety.
Formulation of Sound Policies and Programmes in Schools to address
Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines

Respondents suggested that in order to enhance implementation of Ministry of
Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools, it was important to
establish sound policies and programs regarding safety measures in schools. The
responses were as follows; students, 40 (20%), teachers, 35 (87.5%) and headteachers,
fourteen (14). This information could imply that students were less exposed to
management issues and they mostly did not understand the crucial role played by
quality policies regarding education matters. A study conducted by Mwangi (2008)
indicated that students were involved in multiple cases of indiscipline because they
were not incorporated in the management of schools. Headteachers and teachers felt
that school managers should proactively develop plans for the implementation of
safety guidelines according to the needs of the school.
In support of this suggestion, Glickman (2004) maintained that the most
fundamental problems in schools are lack of policy guidelines and programmes for
infrastructural development in schools. This is the reason why in some schools, there
are adequate and well equipped classrooms, staff offices, libraries, laboratories and
other facilities while in others such facilities are inadequate or the few that are
available are poorly equipped. He further asserted that, this happens because the
government has failed to establish policy directive on minimum standards in relation

232
to school facilities and where such policies are in place there is no follow up to ensure
their implementation. Suggesting establishment of sound policies and programmes for
enhancement of safety guidelines implementation in schools, one District Education
officers reported that:
Since a policy is authoritative communication of expected behaviour for

individual in certain positions under specific conditions, education policies
should direct actions of the school managers on how to implement safety
guidelines in schools. In absence of such policies, safety guidelines
implementation is left to the whims and caprices of the managers. Since
schools are formal organizations, all activities should be in line with laid down
rules and regulations derived from overall guidelines.
Establishing and Maintaining Cordial Relationship between Schools and
Surrounding Communities
Majority, 36 (90%) of the teachers, thirteen (13) headteachers and 80 (40%)
students suggested that implementation of safety guidelines in schools can be
enhanced by establishing and maintaining cordial relationship between schools and
the surrounding communities. They explained that school’s neighbouring community
is positioned to serve as critical eyes and ears for a school, before and after school
hours. They felt that no security service could compete with school neighbours in
terms of providing a continual presence as well as in commitment to school’s safety
needs. This concurs with Nthenya (2011) who indicated that neighbours are more
likely to spot vandals in the act than are police or private security. She further asserted
that some school communities have had success in having law enforcement officers
contact the owners of rental property where criminal activities are being encountered
near schools and many landlords have evicted such tenants. One District Quality and
Standards Officer said that:

233
School administrators can call upon students for community service in the
neighbourhood. This can be used to discourage immediate problems while
building long term goodwill. This positive interaction can build shared sense
of belonging leading to mutual assistance when either students or neighbours
are in need of help.
Availability of Time, Human, Finance and Material Resources
It was suggested that Ministry of Education safety guidelines could be
implemented effectively if time, financial, human and material resources were made
available. This was brought out by 15 (7.5%) students, 34 (92.5%) teachers and all
(15%) headteachers. The fact that very few students as compared to teachers and
headteachers made this suggestion, it could mean that students are rarely involved in
decision making in schools. Majority of teachers and headteachers felt that with
adequate resources, implementation process would be smooth and effective. This
concurred with Chivore (2002) who asserted that safety implementation in schools
fail because it is poorly resourced. The inadequacy of resources prevents District
Education Officers to perform their roles. They require time, fund, human, transport
and other resources to execute their duties properly. He further stated that scarcity of
any of these resources is a barrier for DEOs to effectively perform their role.
Education officers who were interviewed indicated that availability of

adequate funds would enable school managers to ensure safety in schools through
facility expansion and maintenance and also provide clean and safe environment for
teaching and learning. One of them explained that:
Over the years, school managers have emphasized that physical facilities
available for academic and non academic activities are inadequate and unsafe.
This is very sensitive and demanding because it bears a direct relevance to the
funding of education which is inadequate. It is evident that available physical
facilities in some schools may well be regarded obsolete in terms of quality
and quantity. These facilities were provided when the student population in the
school was reasonably low when compared to the population of the same
school presently using the same facilities. These facilities are no longer safe
and do not satisfy present day need.
234
Capacity Building and Training of Stakeholders on School Safety
Suggestion regarding emphasis on capacity building and training to enhance
implementation of safety guidelines in schools was made by overwhelming numbers
of respondents. The responses were as follows; students, 185 (92.5%), teachers, 39
(97.5) and headteachers, thirteen (13). This information could imply that there was a
dire need for safety trainings in schools. Students explained that they required training
on disaster preparedness through fire drills, first aid skills and operation of basic
safety equipments in schools. Teachers and headteachers felt that all school
community required training on safety guidelines implementation in order to promote
the culture of safe school. According to Squelch (2001) availability of safe school
facilities play pivotal role in the actualization of the educational goals and objectives
by satisfying the physical and emotional needs for the staff and students of the school.
Education officers indicated that capacity building and training for those
directly involved with safety policies implementation in schools was very necessary.
They felt that school managers and teachers who constantly use school facilities lack
knowledge of facility maintenance. Consequently, they fail to integrate facility safety
and maintenance into the management of the school. This concurred with Mapfumo
(1998) who maintained that several individuals occupying managerial positions in
schools lack knowledge of management processes and some who poses the
knowledge fail to put them into practical use in the management of school. Education
officers further felt that training and capacity building would encourage the culture of
preventive facility maintenance rather than emergency repairs that are rampant in
schools. One of them said that:
Due to lack of training on safety in schools, emergency repairs are very

common in schools. This takes place when a facility breaks down and urgent
235
measures have to be taken to remedy the situation. In this regard, collective

decision making may not be possible because there may be limited time to
bring together all necessary individuals to make decisions. It is also expensive
because due to lack of maintenance, the extent of damage may demand total
replacement of the facility or very high cost repair. In some cases, the
breakdown may cause injury or even death.
Majority of the respondents suggested the following in order to enhance MOE
safety guidelines implementation; engagement of professionals in the construction of
school buildings, fencing of the school premises, provision of adequate and
professional security personnel, adequate, clean and well maintained schools’
physical infrastructure, involvement of all stakeholders in the implementation process,
sound policies and programmes to address safety in schools, cordial relationship
between schools and the surrounding communities and provision of adequate
resources for safety guidelines implementation in schools.
4.8 Hypothesis
The following hypothesis was tested
HO: There is no significant difference between head teachers’ and teachers’ attitude
towards implementation of MOE safety guidelines and the safety status of physical
infrastructures in public secondary schools in Nairobi West Region.
Table 4.36 Means for Head teachers’ and Teachers’ attitude towards
Implementation of safety guidelines
N Mean Std. Deviation
Head teachers' attitude 15 2.4667 .63994
Teachers' attitude 40 3.1250 .56330

236
Table 4.37 ANOVA Results of the Hypothesis
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.796 4 .949 4.777 .001
Within Groups 49.464 249 .199
Total 53.260 253
* sig .05
Since the obtained p value of .001 was smaller than the level of significance
(.05), the Null Hypothesis was rejected and the study concluded that there was
significant difference between head teachers’ and teachers’ mean attitude towards
implementation of MOE safety guidelines and the safety status of physical
infrastructure in public secondary schools in Nairobi West Region. This could imply
that headteachers as manager of the learning institutions could have different views
from teachers regarding implementation of MOE safety guidelines. According to
Burnes (2004), responsibility of the actual implementation of Government policies
rests on the shoulders of headteachers and they have to do everything possible to
ensure safe school environment.

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an overview of the study, summary of the findings,
conclusions and recommendations based on the assessment of implementation of
Ministry of education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public secondary
schools in Nairobi West Region.
5.2 Summary
The Purpose of the study was to assess implementation of the Ministry of
education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in
Nairobi West Region. The study was guided by specific research objectives on the
areas of safety status of physical infrastructure, factors affecting implementation of
safety guidelines, involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of safety
guidelines, attitude of headteachers, teachers and students towards safety guidelines
implementation and how to enhance implementation of safety guidelines in the
schools under study.
From the literature reviewed, it was established that, the persistent recurrence
of safety problems related to physical infrastructure in public secondary schools in the
region under study pose serious questions that demand answers if similar cases are to
be avoided in future. The study employed mixed methods approach where convergent
parallel mixed method design was used. This enabled the researcher to collect and
analyse both quantitative and qualitative concurrently and to merge the two sets of
results into an overall interpretation.

239
Simple random sampling procedure was used to arrive at a sample of two
hundred students (200) and forty three teachers (43). However, a sample of fifteen
(15) head teachers and six (6) Education Officers was arrived at through purposive
sampling procedure. Questionnaires, interview guides and observation guides were
used to acquire data from the respondents. Data were analysed using descriptive
statistics, employing both quantitative and qualitative approach. Inferential
analysis was also used to test one hypothesis.
5.3 Summary of Findings
5.3.1 Extent of the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on Physical
Infrastructure in Schools
The findings indicated that some schools had implemented MOE safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure. However, most of them had not complied fully
with these guidelines as evidenced by presence of poorly equipped and unsafe
physical facilities. Some schools lacked permanent, secure and complete perimeter
fence to offer necessary security and safety. Availability of abandoned buildings in
some schools under study could be used for illegal activities.
5.3.2 Factors Affecting the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on
Physical Infrastructure
Findings on factors affecting implementation of MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure indicated that most students and teachers were not aware of the
existence of Safety Standards Manual for Schools In Kenya (MOE, 2008). This had
negative effects on the implementation of safety guidelines in schools. Lack of
training on school safety issues and inadequate resources hindered implementation of
safety guidelines in schools. Inappropriate communication channels and unsuitable

240
existing school buildings were cited as factors contributing to unsafe school
environment. Other factors affecting Ministry of Education safety guidelines
implementation in schools included; negative peer pressure, lack of good role models,
drug and substance abuse, inadequate monitoring and evaluation of the
implementation process among other factors.
5.3.3 Involvement of Stakeholders in the Implementation of MOE Safety
Guidelines
Regarding involvement of stakeholders in the in the implementation of safety
guidelines in schools, the study established that most students were not being
involved in the implementation process. Most teachers and parents never got
comprehensive information regarding safety in schools. On the contrary they got a lot
of information on academic progress of their children and the importance of paying
school fees promptly.
It was evident from the study that few headteachers were involving support
staff in the implementation of safety guidelines. However, majority were involving
BOG members in safety implementation process. It was noted that most headteachers
did not involve surrounding community in ensuring safety of school premises.
5.3.4 Attitude towards implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines on physical
Infrastructure
Majority of the student either strongly disagreed or disagreed with various
statements on safety guidelines implementation. Similarly, More than half of them
were negative on disaster preparedness and availability of adequate, quality and safe
physical infrastructure in schools. However, less than half of the students were
positive about adequacy and quality of physical facilities in schools. The average
241
scores showed mixed attitude among students towards the implementation of MOE
safety guidelines. Considerable number of teachers either disagreed or strongly
disagreed about various statements on the extent to which safety guidelines had been
implemented in schools. However, there were others who felt that safety guidelines
had been implemented in schools. Thus, teachers appeared to have had mixed
perceptions about the implementation of safety guidelines on various physical
infrastructure in schools.
5.3.5 How to Enhance Implementation of Ministry of Education Safety
Guidelines on Physical Infrastructure in Schools
In order to enhance implementation of safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in schools, respondents suggested engagement of professionals in the
construction of school buildings. They also suggested continuous renovation and
maintenance of physical infrastructure as well as quality fencing of the school
compounds. Employment of adequate and qualified security personnel and Increment
of sanitation facilities, cleanliness modernization and equipping of the school kitchens
and dining halls were also suggested. Further suggestions included maintaining
physical facilities. Equally, a high number of respondents suggested involvement of
all stakeholders in the implementation of safety guidelines in schools. Establishment
of safety sub-committees in schools to oversee safety guidelines implementation
process was suggested by most of the respondents.
5.4 Conclusion
Based on the findings, the study concluded that, most schools under study had
not fully complied with the Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure. This was evidenced by presence of unsafe, squeezed, ill equipped and
242
poorly maintained physical infrastructure. Majority of the respondents lacked
adequate knowledge on safety standard manual for schools and had not received
adequate training on safety and disaster preparedness. There was no adequate time,
material, human and financial resources to enhance implementation of MOE safety
5.5 Recommendations
The study made the following recommendations regarding implementation of
Ministry of Education safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools;
Headteachers should ensure that all members of staff and students are aware of
the contents of safety standard manual for schools since they are responsible and
accountable for the implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines and the
compliance with all relevant legislation in every area and for every activity within the
school. Headteachers should put in place effective first aid provision and accident
reporting procedures in accordance with the Ministry of Education safety guidelines
in schools
District Education Officers should ensure that standards assessments are
conducted in schools regularly to ascertain whether physical facilities are safe and
provide recommendations to the concerned stakeholders. The officers should ensure
such recommendations are adhered to by making regular follow up. There is need for
the Ministry of Education to improve standards assessment tools to enable assessors
determine whether implementation of safety guidelines is progressing as required or is
having limitations and challenges. If assessment tools are consistent, reliable and
valid, they will provide useful data for use in support of safety guidelines
243
School administration should establish and maintain effective communication
channels to provide feedback to schools’ governing bodies regarding safety guidelines
implementation. Board of Governors have responsibility to ensure that all reasonable
steps have been taken to reduce the possibility of accidents or injury. Consistent and
open communication is very important for successful education reforms because on -
going communication eliminates misunderstanding and promotes innovative ideas.
School administration should therefore embrace use of computers which provide most
effective means of communication.
School administrators should enhance safety by emphasizing on a positive
school climate, students and staff support systems and counselling opportunities. This
approach is both preventive and proactive, and attempts to develop emotional literacy
skills such as empathy and respect. This could establish school environment that
allows students, teachers, administrators, staff and visitors to interact in a positive,
non-threatening manner that reflects the educational mission of the school while
fostering positive relationships and growth.
Since teachers have a duty in the implementation of safety guidelines in
schools, they should carry out risk assessment, keep relevant documentation and
devise safe working practices for their areas of responsibility. They should exercise
effective supervision of students while maintaining awareness of emergency
procedures in respect of fire, first aid, accident reporting and carrying them out as
necessary. At the same time, teachers should set an example by personally following
safe working practices and integrate all relevant aspects of safety guidelines into the
teaching process and if necessary, give special lessons on safety in schools.

244
There is need for policy makers to develop a comprehensive policy indicating
how all stakeholders in education should be involved in the implementation of safety
guidelines in schools. Stakeholders are vital in addressing safety issues in schools by
ensuring that new constructions and modernization projects are planned, designed,
implemented and maintained in a safe manner that produces conditions conducive for
teaching and learning. Training and education of all stakeholders on the operations
and maintenance of safe schools should be carried out at all levels.
The government should provide adequate resources to schools for construction
of physical facilities and develop extensive guidance on operation and maintenance of
existing schools, and best practices for renovation and maintenance. They should also
offer training, technical assistance and consultation on safety issues to schools. The
government should also establish strict safety enforcement practices such as annual or
routine inspection with written reports regarding safety status of physical
infrastructure in schools. Written operations and maintenance plans for every school,
available on request to staff, parents, students and other community members.
Schools’ Board of Governors should lead the establishment and development
of school safety sub committees and policies in an inclusive manner that involves all
stakeholders. Such policies should detail the unique nature of each school and pay
attention to emergency and evacuation procedures, post- incident resettlement, first
aid and procedure for reporting criminal and violent crime. This should facilitate the
inclusion of safety measures implementation in schools’ development plan to ensure
safety measures are budgeted for and implemented.
Headteachers are charged with responsibility of safety guidelines
implementation. Therefore they should have, as their daily responsibilities, action

245
plans detailing surveillance schedules and maintenance and repair of school facilities.
Personnel employed to carry out maintenance work should have schedules relating to
these functions and should receive basic training for doing so.
Security and safety of the school environment begins at home. Parents are
critical stakeholders in achieving a secure and safe school environment. This study
recommends principals to engage parents in reinforcing security through adherence to
safety standards, rules and guidelines of the school. Parents should be involved in
developing the security and safety procedures and be constantly informed and
updated. Security and safety should be an agenda item for all Parent Teacher
Association meetings.
School administration should establish continuous programs for school safety.
This could be done by using strategies such as conflict resolutions initiatives where
educators are able to create an environment that fosters the development of resiliency.
This will help students to preserve relationships, control their behaviour, and resolve
conflicts peacefully. Similarly, school administrators should expressly pay attention to
safety issues and compile comprehensive safety plans and strategies which take
cognizance of clarification of a school safety mission statement and comprehensive
safety policy and rules.
The school administration should maintain cordial relationship with the
surrounding communities. This is because school’s neighbouring community is
positioned to serve as critical eyes and ears for a school, before and after school
hours. No security service could compete with school neighbours in terms of
providing a continual presence as well as in commitment to school’s safety needs.
Orderly maintenance of physical facilities is often undervalued and overlooked as

246
a security and safety enhancement strategy. This refers to a routine programme of
keeping the physical environment clean, orderly and hygienic. Unkempt, disorderly,
and run down facilities send a signal of lack of control and compromise of the safety
of the users. Often law breakers find such an atmosphere welcoming. Therefore,
headteachers should develop a programme of routine maintenance of the school
premises. They should also set clear rules and sanctions regarding waste disposal,
vandalism of school property, theft, graffiti, etchings and other forms of defacing
school walls and infrastructure.
Planning of school physical facilities is very vital for the simple reason that the
quality of school buildings affects students’ learning and achievement. Therefore,
school administrators should be familiar with the requirements of the public Health
Act and MOE safety standards guidelines which specify the standards expected of
school buildings in terms of minimum health standards and the rules and regulations
governing their provision. The ministry of education should revise safety standards
guidelines to encompass contemporary challenges.
5.6 Recommendations for Further Research
Researcher made the following suggestions for further studies.
 An investigation into the basic safety and security status of schools’
physical environments.
 Effective facility management in learning institutions
 The impact of school facilities on students’ achievement, attendance,
behaviour, completion rate and teacher turnover rate in schools in Kenya
 The role of action research in provision of safe and protective school
environment in public schools.

247
REFERENCES
Agron, J. (2003). Abscence of resources; American School and University 32 M&O

Cost Study, American School and University 75(8), 26-35
Aketch, P.E. & Simatwa, E.M. (2010). Opportunities and challenges for public
primary schools school teachers in implementation of Free Primary Education
in Kisumu Municipality. Unpublished PhD.Thesis, Moi University.
Armstrong, G. (2008). The Maximum Surveillance Society: The rise of CCTV. New
York, NY: Berg.
Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research (7th ed). Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing
Balyage, Y. (1990). School Plant & Survey, Unpublished Manscript
Bohner, G. and Wanke, M. (2004). Attitudes and Attitude change. New York: Taylor
& Francis Inc.
Brady, T. (2003). Facility planning for educational change: The perfect storm.
Facilities manager, 18(3), 33-35
Branham, D. (2002). The wise man builds his house upon a rock: The effect of
inadequate school infrastructure on students’ performance. Centre for public
policy, Houston, Texas.
Bryman, A. (2001). The Debate About Qualitative and Quantitative Research.

University of South Africa: E Reserves.
Bucher, K.T. & Manning, M.L. (2003). Challenges and Suggestions for Safe Schools.
The Clearing House, 76:160-164
Buckley, J.M, & Shang (2004). The effects of School Facilities, retrieved on 25
December 2010, from National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities site:
http://www.schneidershangbuckley.com/school facility/241.htm,2004
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change. A strategic Approach to Organizational

Dyanamics.4th Edition. Harlow. England: Pearson Educational Limited.
Prentice Hall.
Cash, C.S. (1993). Building Condition and student achievement and behaviour.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Virginia Polytechnic and state University,
Blacksburg
248
Calabrese, R. (2001). Leadership for safe schools: a community-based approach.

Lanham, Md: Scarecrow press.
Carter, S.P. (2002). Surrounded by Safety: Crime Prevention Through Environmental

Design (CPTED). Handbook for youth. Miami, FL: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention and youth Crime Watch of America.
Carter, S.P., & Carter, S.L. (2001). Planning Safe schools. American school and
University.
Cavanagh, S. (2004). Schools abroad brace against Terrorist Education week, 6,
October, 2004. Retrieved July 2010, from http://WWW.edweekorg
Celik, V. (2000). Classroom Management. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
CERNET (2004). Who is to blame for school deaths? Retrieved March 18th 2010.
From http://www.edu.cn
Chivore, R.R.S. (1995). Educational administration and management. A

methodological handbook for administrators Harare: Zimbabwe publishing
House.
Chumba, S.K. (2006). Perception of Secondary Teachers & Headteachers on the

planning of School Buildings in Nandi South District. Unpublished Med
Thesis: University of Eastern Africa, Baraton.
Church, G.M. (2002). In the eyes of the beholder: How libraries have been viewed
overtime. New York: Haworth Innfn Press.
Clark, C. (2002). Texas state support for school facilities, 1971-2001. Journal of
Education Finance, 27(2), 683-700.
Cohen, J. and Pickeral,T. (2007). How measuring school climate can improve your
school. New York: Haworth Innfn Press.
Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. (1999). Business Research Methods (6th Ed). New Delhi:
TATA McGraw-Hill.
Commoloti, J. (1994). The Importance of school fire drills. Retrieved January 18,
2011 from http//www.educn
Cornell, D., Sheras, P., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2009). A retrospective study of
school safety conditions in high school using the Virginia Threat Assessment
Guidelines Versus alternative approaches. School Psychology Quaterly,24
Cotton, K. (2006). Student Discipline and Motivation: Research Synthesis Portland:

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
249
Cozby, P.C. (2001). Methods in Behavioural Research (7th Ed.). California: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Crampton, F.E. & Thompson, D.C. (2002). The condation of America’s Schools: A
national disgrace. School business Affairs, 68(11), 15-19
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed method
Approaches. London: Sage Publication Thousand Oaks.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, Conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education
Cresswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage publications
Crowe, T.D. (1999). Applications of architectural design and space management
concepts. Boston, M.A: Heinemann
Day, C., Hardfield, M. & Bereford, J. (2000). Leading Schools in Times of Change.
Buckingham: Open University.
Davies, D., and Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative Research and the question of rigor.
Qualitative Health Research, 12 (2), 279-289
Davis, S. (1997). The Principal’s Paradox; Remaining Secure in a Precious Position.
NASSP Bulletin 81, 592: 105-10
Derouche, E.F. (1987). An Administrator’s Guide for Evaluating Programmes &
personnel, Washington, Alleyn & Bacon Inc.
Dewees, S. (1999). Improving rural school facilities for teaching and learning.
Charleston WV. ERIC clearing house on rural Education and Small Schools.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 438153)
De Wet, C. (2003). Eastern Cape Educators’ perceptions of the causes and the scope
of school violence. Acta Criminologica, 16(3), 89-106
Dierkx, R. J. (2003) Cool schools for Hot suburbs: Models for Affordable and
Environmentally Responsive schools in Nairobi, Kenya. PhD. Thesis.
Eindhoven University of Technology , The Netherlands.
Donmez, B. & Guven, M. (2002). School Safety Perceptions and expectations of High
School Teachers and school managers. J. Lifelong.
Donson, H. & Wyngaard, G. (2003). School Injury Surveillance in South Africa:
Towards a Platform for Safety promotion in Schools. African Safety
Promotion. A journal of Injury and Violence prevention.
Drejer, A. (2000). Organizational Learning and competence development. The
learning organization.
250
Elianson & Frank (2002). Crime and Violence in schools in transition: a survey of
Crime and Violence in twenty schools in the Cape Metropole and beyond.
Institute of Criminology: social Justice Resource Project; University of Cape
Town.
Fairchild, J. A. (2002). Instrument Reliability and Validity: Introductory Concepts
and Measure. Philadelphia: James Madison University.
Fenker, M. (2004). Organizational change, representations and facilities. In Facilities
Management: Innovation and Performance. London: Macmillan.
Finkkle, D.L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth. NH:
Boynton/Book Publishers, Inc
Flippo, E. (2004). Personnel Management (6th Ed) International edition McGraw Hill.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2000). The Interview of Structured Questions to Negotiate
Text. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications.
Fullan, M. (2002). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan. April:
581-584
Gay, L.R. (1996). Educational Research, competencies for Analysis and Applications.
Columbus, Toronto, London, Charles, Merril Publishing Company,A Bell and
Howell Co.
Gall, M. And Borg, M. (1996). Education Research. An introduction. New York:
Longman
Glickman, C. D. (Ed). (2004). Letters to the next president. New York Teachers
College.
Gliem, A. (1993). Administrators’ Attitudes, Policies and Procedures Regarding
Safety in Vocational Education Laboratories. Journal of Agricultural
Education.
Gliem, J.A, and Hard, D. L. (988). Safety Education and practices in Agricultural
mechanics laboratories: An asset or Liability. A paper presented at the 15th
Annual National Agricultural Education Research meeting, st. Lous-Moo
Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative Methods in Social Sciences. New York: Continuum.
Hitchcock, G., & Hudges, D. (1989). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative
Introduction to School-based Research. London: Routledge
Green, J.C. (2007). Mixed Methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gregory, R.J. (1992). Psychological testing; History principles and Application.
Bosoon: Allyn and Bacon.
Greeff, M. (2002). Information collection Interviewing. In : De Vos(ed). Research at
grass roots. For the Social Sciences and human service professions. Pretoria:
Van Schaik.
251
Greenfield, T. (2002). Research methods for postgraduates. Wiley, John and sons
incorporated. Oxford press: U.S.A.
Gwengo, M. (2003). The assessment of problems encountered in the implementation
of Guidance and Counselling. Unpublished MEd dissertation Harare:
Zimbabwe Open University press
Hale, O. (2002). Improving performance. American School and University, 75(8), 20-
2
Hallinger, P. And Snidvongs, K. (2008). Educating Leaders: Is there anything to learn
from Business Management? Administration and Leadership, 36 (1), 9-39
Hall, L. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: attitude, beliefs and change.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 403-414
Hammond, G. S. (2003). Can what is old be new again? School Planning and
Management.
Hancock, B. (2002). Trents focus for research and development in Primary health
care: An Introduction to qualitative research. Trent Focus Group.
Hawkridge, D., Jaworski, I. & MacMahon, H. (1990). Computers in Third World
Schools. London: Macmillan.
Heller, R. & Greenleaf, C.L. (2007). Literacy Instruction in the content areas.
Alliance for Excellent Education. Washington, DC.
Henning, E. (2004). Finding your way in Qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Hines, E. (1996). A study of the relationship between school building condition and
student achievement and behaviour. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Virginia polytechnic and state University, Blacksburg.
Hitchcock, G. & Hudges, D. (1989). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative
Introduction to school- based Research. London: Routledge.
Holsinger, D.B., Jacob, J.W. & Migimu, B.C. (2002). Cost- Effectiveness Analysis of
Secondary Schools in Uganda: Comparison of Government and Private
Schools. Brigham: Kennedy Centre for International Studies of Brigham
Young University.
Hopkins, G. (2005). Does your school atmosphere shout “welcome!?” Education
world.
Hord, S.M. (1995). From policy to classroom practice. Beyond the Mandates. Cater,
D.S.G and O’ Neill, MH(Eds.) International perspectives on educational
reform policy implementation. London: The Falmer press: 86-100.
Hughes, M. (2002). Interviewing. In T. Greenfield (Ed.). Research Methods for
postgraduates: London: Arnold. P.211.
252
Jagero, N.O. (2011). An Evaluation of School Environmental Factors Affecting

performance of Boarding Secondary students in Kenya. Kampala International
University Dar Es Salaam.
Kadel, S. W. & Follman, J. (1995). Reducing School Violence: Building a framework
for School safety. Southeastern regional Vision for education Association
Press.
Kapuya, J. (1993). Improving Guidance and Counselling in schools. Teacher in
Zimbabwe 7(2), 4-23.
Keck, D. (1994). Future school facility design: Clues from emerging definitions of
teaching and learning plus new thoughts about learning organizations.
Educational Facility planner, 32(3), 2.
Keller, B. (2003). Question of teacher turnovers sparks research interest. Education
week, 22 (33), 8.
Kennedy, M. (2003). Comfort Zone. American School and University, 75(8), 20-25
Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt,
Renehart and Winston
Kibble, D.G. (2004). Safety and Disaster management in schools and colleges.
Oxford , UK: Routledge Education: David Fulton Publisher.
Killeen, J., Evans, G., & Danko, S. (2003). The role of permanent student artwork in
students’ sense of ownership in an elementary school. Environment and
Behaviour, 35(2), 250-263.
Kirui, R. Mbugua, Z. And Sang, A. (2011). Challenges facing Headteachers in
Security management in public secondary schools in Kisii County Kenya.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol 1 Issue 15, p
228
Koech, J. M. (2004). Indiscipline and unrest amongst Kenyan Secondary School
Students: the perceptions of various Stakeholders. Edmonton, Albert.
Unpublished Med Thesis.
Kvale, S. (1996). An Introduction to Qualitative research interviewing. London:
SAGE Publishers.
Lanham, J. (1999). Relating building and classroom conditions to student
achievement in Virginia’s elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Virginia polytechnic and state University, Blacksburg.
Lady, S. (2009). Importance of Painting. Retrieved May 28, 2009 from
http://www.survivalady.com
Leary,K. (2003). The Educational advantages of green: saving, teaching, learning.
Educational Facility planners, 38(2), 35-36.
Leary, M. (2001). Introduction to Behavioural Research Methods (3rd Ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
253
Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA. Sage
Publications
Long, L. (2000). Listening to another Voice. Assessing the work environment.
Facilities manage, 16(2), 35-38.
Lulua, L.R. (2008). Addressing school safety in Uganda Kampala; UPHOLD-
USAID.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behaviour.
Journal of organizational Behaviour. Academy of Management.
Lupinacci, J. (2002). A save haven. American school and University, 75(8), 20-25
Lyons, J.B. (2002). The learning environment: Do school facilities really affect a
child’s education ?. Learning by design, 11,10-13
Maoulidi, M. (2008). Education Needs Assessment for Kisumu City, Kenya: MCI
Social Sector Working paper Series No. 01/2008.
Mari, E.S. (2010). The role of combating violence in schools in East London Region.
University of Fort Hare East London.
Mapfumo, J.F. (1999). Focus on the need for Guidance and Counselling. Teacher in
Zimbabwe, 6(7), 3-30.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and Research Methods (3rd ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mbamba, M.A. (1992). “School Mapping & Micro Planning” Book of readings in
Educational Management, Harare, UNESCO.
McMillan, J.N. and Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education-a conceptual
introduction (5th edition). Addison Wesley (incl): Longman.
McMillan, J.N. and Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education- evidence-based
enquiry (6th ed). USA: Pearson Education Inc.
Mgadla, X. (2006). An Investigation into the basic Safety & Security Status of
school’s physical environments. South African Journal of Education.
Miller, J.G. (1992). No. Youth Violence is not a Serious problem. Greenharen press.
Michael, V.P. (2000). Research Methods in Management (5TH Ed.). Mumbai:
Himalaya Publishing House.
Ministry of Education (1999). TIQET: Totally Integrated Quality Education and
Training. Nairobi, Kenya: Government printers.
Ministry of Education Science and Technology (2001). Ministry of Education
Circular. No. G9/1/169 of 10 April 2001. Nairobi:
Ministry of Education Science & Technology (2003). A Handbook on School
Management. Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
254
Ministry of Education (2005). Sessional paper NO1 2005 on Education, Research and
Training. Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
Ministry of Education (2008) The Safety Standards Manual for schools in Kenya,
Nairobi: Church World Service.
Ministry of Education (2010). Assessment report on secondary schools. Nairobi
County Education Office.
Ministry of Education (2010). Report on school sports safety. Retrieved June 5, 2012
from http://www.moe,gov.sg/media/press/2010/12/class
Ministry of Education (2011). Assessment report on secondary schools. Nairobi
County Education Office.
Minichieello, V., Aroni, E., Timewell, & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth Interviewing
(2nd Ed.). Melbourne: Longman.
Morse, J.M. (2009). Mixed Methods design: Principles and procedures. Walnut
Creek, CA: left Coast press.
Munyasi, A.W. (2002). Introduction to disaster management. Institute of open
learning module. Kenyatta University.
Mugenda, O. & Mugenda, A. (1999). Research methods: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approach. Nairobi: Acts Press
Muijis, D. (2004). Doing Qualitative Research in Education with SPSS. Sage
publications London. Thousand Oaks. New Delhi.
Musvosvi, D. (1998). Alternative Approach to Educational Administration, in African
Perspective, Nairobi, African Herald Publishing House.
Muthin, P. W. (2004). A study of Headteachers’ perception towards in-service
programmes in public secondary schools in Nairobi Province. Unpublished
Masters of Education Thesis: university of Nairobi.
Mutune, M. S. (2005). The Headteachers’ performance of their roles as Instructional
leaders in Nakuru Catholic Private Secondary Schools, Nakuru Catholic
Diocese, Kenya. Unpublished M. Ed Thesis. Catholic University of Eastern
Africa.
Mwale, M. (2006). Safe schools for Teaching and Learning: Developing a school
wide self- study process. Unpublished dissertation, Virginia polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Mwangi, J.W. (2008). A Survey of the status of Disaster Preparedness in Public
Secondary Schools; A Case of Kiharu Division, Muranga District.
Unpublished Med Thesis. Kenyatta University.
Mwiria, K. (1995). Constraints & Challenges to effective School Management in
Eritrea. Unpublished Study for UNICEF & MOE, Eritrea
Nachiamis, C.F. & Nachiamis, D. (1996). Research Methods Publications. London.
255
Nair, P. (2003). Planning Technology Friendly School Building, Retrieved April 20,
2010. Comp/Research/Nair/Techfriendly/Technologyfriendlyschool.
Nderitu, C.N. (2007). Disaster preparedness in Kenyan schools. Unpublished M. Ed
Thesis. Nairobi University.
Nthenya, D. (2011). Situation Analysis of schools safety and school Administration
participation in public secondary schools; Kenya. International journal of
current Research, Vol3, Issue, 6,pp.278-283
Nsubuga, E.H.K. (2000). Fundamentals of Educational Research. Kampala: MK
Publications (U) Limited.
OECD. (2006). Organization for Economic Organization and Development.
International Educational Security Conference organized by the International
Security Management and crime prevention Institute in corporation with PEB;
11-13 July 2006
Ogel, K. & Tan, L. (2005). Prevention of Crime and Violence in school. Istanbul:
New Publishing.
Ogunsaju, M. (2004). Some Aspects of School Management: Ibadan.
Okebukola,P. (2000). The Child-friendly school as a new dimension in educational
development . Lagos state.
Okumbe, S. (1999). Educational Management. Theory and Practice. Nairobi
University Press.
Olaleye, F.O. (2011). Primary and Secondary Schools Administration in
Nigeria.Frontline Publisher Lagos.
Olembo, J. O., Wanga, P.E, and Karagu, N.M. (1992). Management in Education.
Nairobi: Educational Research and Publications.
O’Neill, D. (2000). The impact of school facilities on students achievement,
behaviour, attendance and teacher turnover rate at selected Texas Middle
school in region X11 ESC. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Texas A & M
University, Texas
Omolo, D.O. & Simatwa, E.M. (2010). An assessment of the implementation of safety
policies in public secondary schools in Kisumu East & West Districts, Kenya:
Department of Educational Management & Foundations, Maseno University.
Okpala, P. (2000). Researching learning outcomes at basic education level in Nigeria.

Inaugural lecture University of Nigeria.
Orodho, A.J. (2003). Essentials of Educational and Social Sciences Research

Methods. Nairobi: Masola Publishers.
256
Potter, W.J. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, publisher.
Pouget, M. (2010). Reasons for Changing Classrooms Environment. Accessed on 30th

May from htt://www.eho.com/info_7870094_ reasons hanging-classrooms-
environment.html
Prinsloo, I.J. (2005). How safe are South African Schools? Department of Education
Management and policy studies. University of Pretoria. South African journal
of Education Vol 25(1), 1-5
Purkey, WW. (1999). A brief history of the International alliance for Invitational
education. Invitational Education Forum.
Purkey, W.W. & Novak, J.M. (2001). Invitational Education. Bloonington,IN: Ph
Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.
Purkey, W.W. & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting School Success: A self- concept approach
to teaching. Learning and democratic practice. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth
Publishing Co.
Purkey, W.W. & Schmidt, J. (1996). The Inviting relationship: An expanded
Perspective for Professional counselling. Englewood NJ: Prentice-Hall Press.
Purkey, W.W & Stanely, P.H. (1991). Invitational teaching, learning and living.
Washington DC: National Education Association.
Purkey, W.W. & Strhan, D. (1991). Schools Transformation through Invitational
Environment. Researching in schools.
Randazzo, M.R. (2006). Handbook of school violence and school safety: From
research to practice. New York, NY: Erlbaum Publishers.
Reauters, (2004). Indian School Fire kill 90 Children, Retrieved August 12, 2010.
From, http://www.Reuters.Com/reports
Reid, D. L. (2000). Building a safe environment. American school and University,
73(3) 386-390.
Ronoh,R.K. and Wambua, B. K. (2009). Safety Awareness, Preparedness in
secondary schools in Kenya: A case of Turkana District. Educational
Research and Review, Vol. 4 (8), pp.37a-384, August, 2009
Rugut, J.E. (2003). Teachers, Inspectors and Education Officers’ perceptions of the
expected roles of the peer supervisors in Kenyan Primary schools. A case
study of Nandi District. Unpublished Master of Philosophy Thesis, Moi
University.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2000). Research Methods for Business
Students (2nd Ed.). Great Britain: Pearson Education Ltd.
257
Sallis, E. (2002). Total Quality Management in Education 3rd Edition. Quicksilver

Drive Sterling Virginia USA: Stylus Publishing Inc.
Schumacher, S. & McMillan, J.H. (1993). Research in Education. A Conceptual
Introduction (3rd Ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Schneider, S. (2002). School Violence in Children and Adolescents: A Meta- Analysis
of Effectiveness. Journal of School Violence, 1: 5-34.
Shaw, M. (2002). Promoting Safety in Schools: International Experiences and
Actions. Crime prevention series No.3. Bureau of Justice Assistance
Monograph Washington DC: United States Department of Justice.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative Research. A practical Handbook. London:
Sage.
Siringi, S. (2001). Is there recourse in Law for parents? Daily Nation, p.5. Nairobi,
Nation Media Group.
Simatwa, E.M.W. (2007). Management of students’ discipline in Secondary Schools
in Bungoma District, Kenya. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Maseno University.
Soomeran, P. (2002). Prevention of Crime in and around high schools. Lessons in
implementation. A paper presented at the conference on the role of schools in
crime prevention 30th September to 1st October. Melbourne, Australia.
Sowell, E.J, (2001). Educational Research: An Integrative Introduction. Boston;
McGraw-Hill.
Stephens, R. D. (1995). Safe Schools: A handbook for Violence Prevention.
Bloomington National Educational Service Press.
Stoner, J.A. & Freeman, R.E. (1996). Management. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
Squelch, J. (2001). Do Schools governing bodies have a duty to create Safe Schools?
An educational Law Perspectives in Education.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tele, M.M. (1999). An evaluation of the implementation of pre-service teacher
education programme for English second language. Unpublished MEd
treatise. Port Elizabeth Metropolitant University.
Tesch, R.C. (1990). Qualitative Research. Analysis Types and Software Tools. New
York: the Falmer Press.
Thompkins, D.E. (2000). School Violence: Gangs and a Culture of fear. Annals of
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, (567).
Tornington, D. (2005). Taking charge of the Welfare of our children. Daily Nation,
P.S. Nairobi: Nation Media Group.
258
Trowler, P. (2003). Education policy. London and New York: Routledge

Trump, S.K. (2008). Leadership is key to managing school safety. District
Administrative magazine. Professional Media Group LLC, USA. May 2008
issue.
U.S General Accounting Office (1997). School facilities: Reported Condition and
Costs to Repair Schools Funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs. Retrieved May
31st 2012 from http://www.Bia.gov/idc/groups/documents/text/007591.pdf
Warren, M.R. (2004). Linking community Development and social improvement.
Service organizing and Development Approaches. Prepared for the Ford
Foundation.
Waudo, D.J. (2009). Effective Implementation of Ministry of Education Guidelines for
free Primary Education in Lugari District, Western Province Kenya.
Unpublished Med Thesis, University of Nairobi.
White, C.J. (2002). Research Methods and Techniques. Pretoria Technikon.
Wiersma, W. (1995). Research Methods in Education. An introduction. London,
Allyn and Bacon.
William, N. (2005). Your research project. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
Wortman, M.S. (1999). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of
empirical research into the field: Journal of Management.
Ziva, P. (2002). Success in education. The mirror. Harare.
21st Century School Fund (2005). Recommended Policies for Public Schools
Facilities: Public Schools Facilities Management Policies. Washington, D.C.
259
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HEAD TEACHERS
Introduction
JANE WAITHERA GATUA- REG NO 1012631 TEL NO-0724995079
CUEA P.O BOX 24205 NAIROBI TEL NO-891601/6
I am a student at Catholic University of Eastern Africa. In partial fulfilment for the
award of a PhD degree, I am required to conduct a research and write a report. My
study focuses on assessment of the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructures in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region, Kenya.
Kindly respond to the questionnaire with ultimate honesty in order to facilitate this
study. Your identity will be kept confidential. Thank you for taking time to support
this study.
Instructions
Please place a tick (√) in the bracket in front of the most appropriate responses and
where explanation is required, use the space provided.
Section A
Biographical Data
1. Indicate your gender. Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Indicate your age in the following age brackets.
25-30 ( ) 31-35 ( ) 36-40 ( ) 41-45 ( ) 46-50 ( ) Above 50 ( )

260
3. Indicate your years of experience as a head teacher.
1-4 ( ) 5-8 ( ) 9-12 ( ) 13-16 ( ) 17-20 ( ) Above 20 ( )
4. What is your highest professional qualification?
PhD ( ) M. Ed ( ) B. Ed ( ) BA ( ) B. Sc ( )
Others, specify-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. What other administrative duties in school did you hold before you became a
principal?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section B
Extent of the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in schools under study
5 Is there a kitchen in your school? Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, is it well equipped? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain your answer-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are the cooks qualified? Yes ( ) No ( )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Is there a dining hall in place? Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, are dining hall facilities adequate? Yes ( ) No ( )

261
Explain your response-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Are classrooms spacious? Yes ( ) No ( )
8. Are classrooms appropriately located? Yes ( ) No ( )
If No, give reasons to your answer--------------------------------------------------------------
Are classrooms safe? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain your answer------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Is there a library in place? Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, is it appropriately located? Yes ( ) No ( )
If No, explain your response---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the library well stocked? Yes ( ) No ( )
Is the school library safe? Yes ( ) No ( )
10. Are the dormitories spacious? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain your answer------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are dormitories appropriately located? Yes ( ) No ( )
If No, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are the dormitories safe? Yes ( ) No ( )

262
If No, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Are toilets adequate? Yes ( ) No ( )
Are they appropriately located? Yes ( ) No ( )
Are they safe? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Are laboratories adequate? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If no, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Is there a perimeter fence? Yes ( ) No ( )
Does it offer required security? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Are there abandoned buildings in the school compound? Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, are they unsafe? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Mention ways of ensuring safety of physical infrastructure in your school-----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
263
Section C
Factors that affect implementation of Ministry of Education safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure
16. Is Safety Standards Manual for schools in Kenya available in your school? Yes ( )
No ( ). If yes, is it easily accessible? Yes ( ) No ( )
17. Do you discuss safety standards manual for schools? Yes ( ) No ( )
Explain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Do you practice the requirements of safety standards manual for schools in
Kenya?
Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your answer-----------------------------------------------------------
19. Are there Safety trainings in schools? Yes ( ) No ( ). If yes, are they on yearly
basis? Yes ( ) No ( ).
Do these trainings equip you with the right safety knowledge? Yes ( ) No ( ).
20. Was there a specific budget for safety guidelines implementation in your schools?
21. Is there adequate time to address safety issues in your school? Yes ( ) No ( )
22. Is there adequate staff to deal with safety issues in your school? Yes ( ) No ( )

264
23. Is there adequate transport to facilitate safety guidelines implementation in your
school? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your response-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Is there effective communication regarding safety guidelines implementation in
your school? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your response-----------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Tick (√) against the commonly used communication channel regarding safety
issues in your school
Communication channel √
Newsletters
Posters
Notice Boards
School Assemblies
Barazas
Suggestion Boxes
School Magazines
Music Festivals
Drama
Sports
Clubs and Societies
26. Are safety equipments available in your school? Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, are they adequate Yes ( ) No ( ) Explain your answer------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are safety equipments appropriately located? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your answer---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Are buildings in your school properly constructed? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your
response---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
265
28. Mention safety programmes and policies that affect safety guidelines
implementation in your school-------------------------------------------------------------------
-29. State school environment factors affecting MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure implementation in your school--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section D
Stake holders’ involvement in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on
physical infrastructure in the schools under study
30. Are students included in school’s safety committee? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your
answer-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are students provided with safety reporting systems? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your
answer-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain how students carry out safety campaigns---------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Tick (√) against the statement(s) indicating parents’ involvement in
Statement √
They understand school’s safety policies
They are aware of school rules and regulations
They understand school’s safety protocol
They encourage positive commitment of their children
They monitor their children’s activities
Any other, specify---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Explain how the following are involved in the implementation of safety guidelines
on physical infrastructure in your school;

266
Teachers and support staff------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headteacher ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOG-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NGOs and CBOs-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Is the school’s surrounding community involved in the implementation of safety
guidelines on physical infrastructure? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your answer-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it necessary to involve school’s surrounding community in the implementation of
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in your school? Yes ( ) No ( ). Give
reasons to your answer----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section E
Attitude of head teacher towards MOE safety guidelines on physical

infrastructure implementation
34. Please rate your attitude towards safety measures by indicating whether you
strongly agree (A), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D) or Strongly Disagree
(SD)
Statement SA A NS D SD
1. Abandoned and uncompleted buildings are unsafe to

learners
2. I regularly check visitors’ book to ascertain those who

access the school
3. The playgrounds are safe for use by learners

267
4. There are adequate toilets/closets for both girls and boys.
5. The school has clean and adequate water supply.
6. I identify the potential safety hazards in the school with a

view of taking corrective measures
7. Due to financial implications of the MOE safety

requirements, it is not possible to implement them
8. There is adequate security lighting in the school.
9. There is adequate fire fighting equipments.
10. The school has constituted a strong and effective security

committee.
16. What can be done to enable you to effectively implement MOE safety guidelines
on physical infrastructure in your school?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

268
APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS
Introduction
physical infrastructures in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region, Kenya
this study.
Instructions
Section A: Biographical Data
1. Indicate your gender (a) Male ( ) (b) Female ( )
2. Indicate your highest professional/ academic qualification.
MEd ( ) BEd ( ) BA ( ) BSC ( ) PGDE ( )
Others, specify-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Indicate your years of teaching 1-4 ( ) 6-10 ( ) 11-15 ( )
16-20 ( ) Above 20 ( )
269
4. Indicate your current responsibility(s) in school-------------------------------------------
Section B
Extent of the Implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical


270
If No, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If No, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If no, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Have you ever experienced an incident as a result of unsafe physical
infrastructure? Yes ( ) No ( )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section C
Explain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenya?
272
Explain your answer? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

issues in your school
Newsletters
Posters
Notice Boards
School Assemblies
Barazas
Suggestion Boxes
School Magazines
Music Festivals
Drama
Sports
Clubs and Societies
273
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
response---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. State school environment factors affecting MOE safety guidelines on physical
Section D
Involvement of the stakeholders in the implementation of MOE Safety guidelines
on physical infrastructure
answer-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are students provided with safety reporting systems? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain
32. Tick (√) against the statement(s) indicating parents’ involvement in the

274
Statement √
Headteacher----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guidelines on physical infrastructure? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain your answer-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in your school? Yes ( ) No ( ). Give
reasons to your answer----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section E
Attitude of teachers towards implementation of MOE safety guidelines on

physical infrastructure in schools under study
275
35.Please rate your attitude towards safety measures by indicating whether you
strongly agree (A), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D) or Strongly Disagree
(SD)
Statement SA A NS D SD
1. MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure are unattainable
2. The school management has given a lot of emphasis on safety standard

Measures
3. Teachers are often trained on disaster preparedness
4. The school has a firm perimeter fence.
5. The support staffs are trained on disaster and Crisis management
6. The school has sufficient First Aid facilities
7. Most teachers reside in the school compound
8. The school has adequate and clean sanitation Facilities
9. Playgrounds safe for students To play in.
10. The school dorm master and matrons sometimes make impromptu
visits in dormitories at night.
276
APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS
Introduction
physical infrastructures in public secondary schools in Nairobi West region, Kenya.
this study.
Instructions
Section A
Biographical Data
1. Indicate your gender Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Indicate your age.
12-14 years ( ) 15-17 years ( ) 18-20 years ( ) above 20 years ( )

277
Section B
Extent of the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical

278
If No, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If No, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they appropriately located? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain

279
If no, explain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Have you ever experienced an incident as a result of unsafe physical
infrastructure? Yes ( ) No ( )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section C
Explain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
280
Kenya?
Explain your answer-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
issues in your school.

281
Newsletters
Posters
Notice Boards
School Assemblies
Barazas
Suggestion Boxes
School Magazines
Music Festivals
Drama
Sports
Clubs and Societies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
response---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. State school environment factors affecting MOE safety guidelines on physical
Section D
Stakeholders’ involvement in the implementation of MOE safety guidelines on

answer-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
282
Are students provided with safety reporting systems? Yes ( ) No ( ).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Tick (√) against the statement(s) indicating parents’ involvement in the
Statement √
Headteacher----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guidelines on physical infrastructure? Yes ( ) No ( ). Explain
safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in your school? Yes ( ) No ( ).
Give reasons to your answer---------------------------------------------------------------------

283
Section E
Students’ attitude towards implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure in the schools under study
35. What is your attitude towards effective implementation of safety standard
measures?
Please rate your attitude towards safety measures by indicating whether you strongly
agree (A), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D) or Strongly Disagree (SD)
Statement SA A NS SD D
1 MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure have been

implemented in my school
2. Visitors should be scrutinized as they enter school compound
5. There is a lot of awareness among members of the school on how to

behave when a disaster strikes.
8. We have adequate and clean sanitation Facilities.
9. There are safe and secure playgrounds in our school.
10. There is a strong guidance and counselling department in our school.
13. Illegal items are never sneaked in our school.
14. There are adequate staffs housed in the school compound.
15. We always feel safe and secure while in school.
17. Electrical fittings are firmly fixed and can’t cause any danger.
18. Classes are large and less congested.
36. What can be done to improve safety of physical infrastructure in your school?-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

284
APPENDIX IV: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DEOS
Demographic Information
1. What is your Highest Academic Qualification?
2. What is the range of your age?
3. How long have you served as a DEO?
4. How long have you served as a DEO in the current station?
5. What other responsibilities and positions did you hold before you become a DEO?

6. Do physical facilities comply with the MOE safety guidelines?
7. Do schools in your district have perimeter fence?
8. Are there abandoned buildings in schools in your district?
10. What can be done to improve safety status of physical infrastructure in schools?
Factors affecting Implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical

infrastructure
9. Which courses/ seminars/workshops have you ever attended?
10. Are stakeholders trained on issues related to school safety in your district?
11. Is there financial allocation for safety guidelines implementation?
12. How often do QASOs assess how schools in your district?
13. Which challenges do you encounter as you assess implementation policies?
14. Do you act on the assessment reports?
15. Suggest ways of overcoming obstacles to the implementation safety guidelines.
16. What can be done to enhance implementation of safety guidelines?

285
APPENDIX V: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DQASOS
Demographic Information
1. What is your Highest Academic Qualification?
2. What is the range of your age?
3. How long have you served as a DQASO?
4. How long have you served as a DQASO in the current station?
5. What other responsibilities and positions did you hold before you become a
DQASO?
7. In your own words, how can you describe safety status of schools in your district?
Factors affecting Implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure
8. What are the barriers to implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical
infrastructure?
9. What can be done to enhance implementation of safety guidelines in schools within
your district?
10. Explain factors that hinder implementation MOE safety guidelines on physical
11. In your own opinion what do you think requires to be done in order to improve
implementation of MOE safety guidelines on physical infrastructure in schools?

286
APPENDIX VI: OBSERVATION GUIDE
Indicate using a (√) the availability of the listed items and give your remarks on
adequacy, location, usability, safety status etc on the comments column
S/NO Items Availability Comments
Yes No
1. Perimeter fence
2. Sign posts
3. Playgrounds
4. Toilets
5. Pathways
6. Door ways
7. Dormitories
8. Classrooms
9. Furniture
10. Railings
11. Lighting
12. laboratories
13. Gates
14. Fire extinguishers
14 Kitchen
15 Dining hall
16 Library
287
APPENDIX VII: RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER FROM THE
UNIVERSITY
288
APPENDIX VIII: AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM THE MINISTRY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

289
APPENDIX IX: PERMIT TO CONDUCT RESEARCH

290
APPENDIX X: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SAFETY GUIDELINES ON
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
These facilities include structures such as classrooms, offices, toilets, dormitories,
libraries, laboratories, kitchen, water tanks, and playground equipment, among others.
These facilities can be either permanent or temporary structures. Such physical
structures should be appropriate, adequate and properly located, devoid of any risks to
users or to those around them. They should also comply with the provisions of the
Education Act (Cap 211), Public Health Act (Cap 242) and Ministry of Public Works
building regulations/standard.
The school should ensure classrooms, dormitories, offices, kitchens, toilets, and
other physical structures are clean, well maintained, safe and properly utilised.
Guidelines
It is important to observe the following with regard to the various types of school
buildings:
Classrooms
Classrooms are important infrastructures in a school setting since learners spend most
of their time in these facilities. It is important to observe the following:

291
 The size of the classroom, in terms of length and width, should be as specified
in the Ministry of Education building specifications i.e. 7.5m x 5.85m or 7.5m
x 6.0m. Such classrooms should accommodate a maximum of 30 learners in
one-seater desks or 40 learners in two seater desks in line with the provisions
of the Ministry of Education circular on Health and Safety Standards in
Educational Institutions (2001).
 The doorways should be adequate for emergency purposes, open outwards and
should not be locked from outside at any time when learners are inside.
 For storied buildings, the stairways should be wide enough and located at both
ends of the building and should be clear of any obstructions at all times. The
construction of stairways should give provision for learners with special
needs/disabilities. The handrails in the stairs should be strong and firmly fixed.
 The corridors should be both well ventilated and lit. The width should be wide
enough for the learners to walk along without bumping into each other.
 Classroom windows must be without grills and should be easy to open.
 The classrooms should be properly lit and ventilated.
 The floors should be level and kept clean always. For cemented floors, any
cracks should be repaired in good time. Similarly, for mud walls and floors
teachers should ensure that they are regularly smeared with fresh mud and
floors smeared with cow dung to prevent the development of cracks and the
generation of dust that can pose risks to the health of both teachers and
learners. In all cases, efforts should be made to cement all the classroom
floors.
 Each block should be fitted with serviced fire extinguishers.

292
 Regular inspection of classroom buildings, halls and stairways should be
carried out and immediate measures taken to correct any problems noticed.
 The furniture in classrooms, especially the desks, should be appropriate for
use by both male and female learners. Poorly constructed or inappropriate
desks can lead to physical deformities such as curvature of spine, contraction
of chest, roundness of shoulders or a confirmed stoop. They can also create
tension and fatigue among learners.
 The class teacher should ensure that the desks are arranged in a manner that
facilitates easy and orderly movement of learners in the classroom—ideally
each desk should have no more than 3 learners and the space between any two
desks should be at least 2 feet.
 The positioning of electrical sockets should be beyond the reach of young
learners in order to avoid tampering.
 All buildings and facilities should be accessible by special needs learners.
Dormitories
In boarding schools, dormitories are the single most used physical infrastructure,
where learners spend the longest continuous period of time in a day. It is therefore
important to keep these structures clean and properly ventilated. In every school, care
should be taken to observe the following:
 The space between the beds should be at least 1.2 metres while the corridor or
pathway space should not be less than 2 metres.
 Since sharing of beds is prohibited in schools, admissions should be tied to
bed capacity at all times.

293
 All doorways should be wide enough, at least 5 feet wide, and they should
open outwards. They must not at any time be locked from outside when
learners are inside.
 Each dormitory should have a door at each end and an additional emergency
exit at the middle. It should be clearly labelled “Emergency Exit”.
 Dormitory doors should be locked at all times when learners are in class or on
the playing fields. The keys to the doors should be kept by the Dormitory
Master/Mistress or the Dormitory Prefect.
 Dormitory windows must be without grills and should be easy to open
outwards.
 Fire extinguishing equipment should be functioning and placed at each exit
with fire alarms fitted at easily accessible points.
 Regular spot checks by the teachers and the administration should be
undertaken before learners retire to bed.
 An accurate roll call should be taken every day and records well maintained.
 There should be regular patrols by the school security personnel or any other
authorised security personnel. No visitor should be allowed in the dormitory.
 There should be inspection of hygiene standards of the dormitories and the
learners on alternate days of the week.
 Bunk beds should be strong and firm and fitted with side-grills to protect
young learners against falling off.
Sanitation Infrastructure
Sanitation infrastructure includes all the structures constructed for the purposes of
disposal of human waste and for cleanliness. A safe school must have sanitation
294
facilities built up to the required standards and kept clean with high standards of
hygiene. In order to enhance safety, the following must be observed:
 In cases where pit toilets are used these structures should be built at least 10
metres away from tuition and boarding facilities and on the downwind side.
 Where ablution block is attached to the dormitory, a high degree of cleanliness
must be maintained.
 Pit latrines should not be less than 6 metres (20ft) deep, and should be
regularly well disinfected.
 Pit latrines should be at least 15 metres (50 ft) away from a borehole or well or
water supply point.
 Where there are boreholes or shallow wells in places with difficult soil types
or land forms, the school management should seek the advice of the water
department before the digging of a pit latrine.
 In mixed schools, girls’ sanitation areas must be separate and offer complete
privacy.
 Each school should ensure safe and effective disposal of sanitary wear.
In the construction of sanitary facilities, the following must be observed in relation to
numbers:
• The first 30 learners: 4 closet (holes).
• The next 270 learners: one extra closet for every 30 learners.
• Every additional learner over 270 learners: 1 closet per 50 learners.
• All closets must be clean, well-ventilated and properly maintained.
 At least one third of the fittings for boys should be closets and the rest urinals. If a
urinal is a trough, then 0.6m (2 ft.) of the trough is equivalent to one fitting.
295
 In all schools, appropriate provisions should be given to learners with special
needs and very young learners in pre-unit and lower primary.
 For example, passageways should be accessible and toilet facilities should be
suitable for use by special needs learners and very young school children.
 Proper consideration should be given for staff sanitation, with at least one closet
for 12 persons and with separate provision for ladies and gentlemen.
 All sanitary facilities and equipment should be in the best state of repair,
serviceable and inspected regularly.
 If learners are responsible for cleaning their sanitation facilities, proper protective
measures (e.g. provision of gloves) must be taken.
 Soap and tap water or water cans fitted with taps should be set outside the toilets
for washing hands after use of these facilities.
 For girls, tap water/washing places should be behind a screen or wall.
Libraries
The library is the centre of academic life of the school. It is the designated place for
storing, lending and reading of books in a school. A library that meets safety
standards should be rightly located in a quiet place and should have sufficient space in
addition to being well ventilated and safe from invasion by destructive insects and
pests. In the construction of libraries, ensure:
 Adequate ventilation and lighting.
 Wide alleys of passageways to facilitate evacuation.
 Spacious room for easy movement.
 Dusting books regularly, preferably every three days.
 Properly reinforced and well spaced bookshelves.

296
Administration Block
The administration block is an important structure in the school. It is the first station
of call for all visitors to the school. It is also the storehouse of all the vital school
records and equipment. An ideal school administration block should put into
consideration the prevailing security situation of the school environment and the
needs of the school. The following should be observed in constructing a school’s
administration structure:
 There should be provisions of offices for key school personnel such as the
head teacher and deputy head teacher, senior teacher, bursar and the
supporting secretarial staff. In addition, the school should have a staff room
and registry.
 It should be centrally located and not far from classrooms.
 The doors and windows should be burglar proof.
 Each administration block, like any other block, should have a fire
extinguisher.
 Provisions should be made to acquire fire-proof cabinets for the storage of
essential office materials and documents.
 There should be provisions for easy access to legal and administrative
documents such as the Educational Act, The Children’s Act, Sexual Offences
Act, the Public Health Act, Code of Regulations, school rules and any other
documents accorded importance by the school authorities.
 Overall, the achievement of the right infrastructure in schools requires the
collective efforts of different stakeholders. Nonetheless, the following
guidelines would be necessary:

297
 No physical infrastructure should be constructed or occupied without
consultations with and approval of the Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of
Education, and Ministry of Health (Public Health Department).
 There should be close and cordial working relationship between the school,
parents, sponsors and members of the community with regard to construction,
utilisation and maintenance of the school buildings.
 A school site plan should be developed and be available at all times.

Jane Waithera Gatua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jane Waithera Gatua

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jane Waithera Gatua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION SAFETY GUIDELINES ON PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NAIROBI WEST REGION, KENYA

JANE WAITHERA GATUA

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Administration and Planning

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

award in any other institution of higher learning

Jane WaitheraGatua -------------------------- ------------------------

Reg. No. PhD/Ed/1012631 Signature Date

Professor AmanuelAbraha August 27, 2013

Associate Professor of Education Signature Date

St. Mary’s University of Minnesota

Dr. Anne Kanga --------------------------- -----------------

Senior Lecturer Signature Date

Catholic University of Eastern Africa

I dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful family. Particularly to my understanding

excellence, this work is also dedicated to you.

strength and hope when I thought I would never succeed.

I am heartily thankful to my supervisors; Professor Amanuel Abraha

enabled me to develop an understanding of this study. Without their invaluable help

would not have been completed.

I sincerely thank my husband, John Maina, for believing in me and giving me

Truly, I can never thank you enough.

I owe my deepest gratitude to all Education Officers, head teachers; teachers

supported me in any respect during this work.

Safety of learners is central to the provision of education in any country. Unsafe

2.4 Involvement of the Stakeholders in the Implementation of MOE Safety Guidelines

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 82

APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS ....................................................... 268

Table 3.3 Sampling Matrix ...................................................................................................... 71

Table 4.17: Respondent’ responses on how resources affected implementation of

Table 4.31: Respondents’ responses on the involvement surrounding community in

Figure 1.1 A model of five “Ps” Theoretical Framework ........................................................ 18

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

BOG Board of Governors

CBO Community Based Organization

CWS Church World Service

DEB District Education Board

DEO District Education Officers

DQASO District Quality Assurance and Standards Officers

ESP Economic Stimulus Project

IPT Independent Project Trust

ITOP Invitational Theory of Practice

MOE Ministry of Education

MOEST Ministry Of Education Science & Technology

NGO Non Governmental Organization

PDE Provincial Director of Education

PTA Parents Teachers Association

SSC School Safety Contact

SSCOS School Survey on Crime and Safety

SWAP Sector Wide Approach to Planning

USDE United States Department of Education

1.1 Background to the Study

environment. School safety encompasses the total learning environment including,

without fear or ridicule, intimidation, harassment, humiliation or violence. Carter

According to Elianson & Frank (2002), taking care of basic safety of a

safety measures in learning institutions in order to provide safe school environment as

defined in the subsequent paragraphs.