INFLUENCE OF DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEARNERS LEADERS ON

LEARNERS’ DISCIPLINE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS NAKURU TOWN EAST,

NAKURU COUNTY, KENYA

ELIZABETH WANJIKU MBURU

PGDE/2019/60882

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF POST

GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN EDUCATION OF

MOUNT KENYA UNIVERSITY

MAY 2024
 DECLARATION AND APPROVAL

I declare that this is my original work and it has not been presented at any other university or any

higher institution for consideration of any certification.

Signature…………………………… Date………………………………………

ELIZABETH WANJIKU MBURU

PGDE/2019/60882

APPROVAL

This research Project has been submitted with my approval as a university supervisor

Signature........................................ Date...................................

Department of Education Management and curriculum Studies

DR ALICE NGUNJU

MOUNT KENYA UNIVERSITY

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I begin by thanking the Almighty God for giving me strength and good health all through. I also

express sincere gratitude’s to my lecturers for wise guidance throughout the research proposal

process. I also thank my family for encouragement and moral support; my parents, my brothers

and sisters. More importantly, I thank various principals who have been very helpful in assisting

me carry out the research.

Lastly, I thank my friends and all people who took their time to assist by giving sincere

information which has been very useful in this research.

May the almighty God, bless you.

iii
 ABSTRACT

This study was aimed at finding out the influence of democratically elected learners on discipline
in public secondary schools of Nakuru Town East sub county Nakuru County, Kenya. The
specific objectives of the study were ;To establish the perception of learners on influence of
democratically elected learners leaders on discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru
town East sub county, To determine perception of teachers on influence of democratically
elected learners leaders on learners discipline in secondary schools in Nakuru Town East Sub
County, to establish the extent in which selected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing
discipline in secondary schools in Nakuru Town East sub county and to establish the extent in
which democratically elected learners leaders motivate learners to improve and maintain
discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru Town East Sub County.
Descriptive survey design, purposive and simple random sampling were used to choose the
sample size. Target population consisted of 50 public secondary schools in Nakuru town East
sub county, with 50 deputy principals, 500 teachers and 2000 Form 1-4 learners. The sample size
(30%) made a total of 15 public secondary schools, where 15 deputy principals were selected
while a sample size (10%) was used to select a total of 50 teachers and 200 form1-4 learners.
The data was collected through the issue of questionnaires and interview schedules to the
respondents. Validity of the instrument was determined through consultation in form of
discussions with the researcher’s supervisors. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics
while interview schedules was analyzed qualitatively and presented using tables, pie charts,
graphs and percentages.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION AND APPROVAL..........................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT..............................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS....................................................................ix

CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background to the Study...........................................................................................................1

1.2 Statement of the Problem..........................................................................................................3

1.3 Purpose of the study..................................................................................................................4

1.4 Objectives of the study..............................................................................................................4

1.4.1 General objectives..................................................................................................................4

1.4.1 Specific objectives..................................................................................................................4

1.5 Research Questions...................................................................................................................5

1.6 Justification of the Study...........................................................................................................5

1.7 Significance of the Study...........................................................................................................5

1.8 Scope of the Study.....................................................................................................................6

1.9 Limitations of the Study............................................................................................................6

1.10 Assumptions of the Study........................................................................................................7

1.11 Definition of Terms.................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER TWO...........................................................................................................................8

LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................................8

2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................8

2.2 Empirical Review......................................................................................................................8

v
2.3 Theoretical literature..................................................................................................................9

2.3.0 Concept of Democracy...........................................................................................................9

2.3.1 Concept of Democratic Election.............................................................................................9

2.3.2. Learners Discipline..............................................................................................................10

2.3.3 Learners Perception on Democratically Elected Learners Leaders......................................11

2.3.4 Teachers Perception on Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline

.......................................................................................................................................................12

2.3.5 Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline...................................13

2.3.6 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Motivation for Discipline...........................14

2.4 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................14

2.5 Summary..................................................................................................................................15

CHAPTER THREE.....................................................................................................................16

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................16

3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................16

3.2 Research Design......................................................................................................................16

3.3 The Study Area........................................................................................................................16

3.4 Target Population....................................................................................................................17

3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size...................................................................................17

3.6 Research Instruments...............................................................................................................18

3.6.1 Questionnaire........................................................................................................................19

3.6.2 Interview Schedule...............................................................................................................19

3.6.3 Pilot Study............................................................................................................................19

3.7 Validity of the instruments......................................................................................................20

3.8 Reliability of Research Instruments........................................................................................20

3.9 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................20

vi
3.10 Data presentation...................................................................................................................21

3.11 Ethical Considerations...........................................................................................................21

CHAPTER FOUR.......................................................................................................................22

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION............................................................................22

4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................22

4.2 Response Rate..........................................................................................................................22

4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis of Respondents According to their Response Levels.........................23

4.3 Background Information of Respondents................................................................................23

4.3.1 Gender of Respondents.........................................................................................................23

4.4 Learners Perception on Democratically Elected Learners Leaders.........................................24

4.6 Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline......................................37

4.6.1 Democratically Elected learners Leaders and Decision Making..........................................37

4.6.2 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Enhancement of Discipline.........................38

4.6.3 Corporation of Democratically Elected Learners Leaders with Deputy Principals and

Maintenance of Discipline.............................................................................................................39

4.6.4 Strategies to Maintain Discipline in School.........................................................................39

4.6.5 Atmosphere to Exercise Duties............................................................................................40

4.6.6 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Cooperation with Teachers.........................41

4.6.7 Rate of Participation of Democratically Elected Learners Leaders......................................42

4.7 Democratically Elected of Learners Leaders and Motivation for Discipline..........................44

4.7.1 Obedience to Learners Leaders............................................................................................44

4.7.2 Reporting Indiscipline Cases................................................................................................44

4.7.3 Learners Leaders as Mentors................................................................................................45

4.7.4 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Motivation..................................................46

4.7.5 Motivation by Learners Leaders...........................................................................................46

vii
4.7.6 Emulation from Learners Leaders........................................................................................47

CHAPTER FIVE.........................................................................................................................48

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................48

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................48

5.2 Summary of Findings..............................................................................................................49

5.2.1 Learners Perception on Democratically Election of Learners Leaders................................49

5.2.2 Teachers Perception on Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline

.......................................................................................................................................................49

5.2.3 Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline...................................50

5.2.4 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Motivation for Discipline...........................50

5.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................51

5.4 Recommendations...................................................................................................................52

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research............................................................................................53

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................54

APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................56

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH BUDGET........................................................................................56

APPENDIX II: RESEARCH TIME SCHEDULE........................................................................57

APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LEARNERS..............................................................58

APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS...............................................................62

APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR DEPUTY PRINCIPALS...............................66

viii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BOM Board of Management

CFS Child Friendly School

KEPSHA Kenya Primary Schools Heads Association

KSSHA Kenya Public secondary schools Heads

Association

NASC National Association of Learner Council

SGBs School Governing Bodies

SRC Learner representative’s councils

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Democracy refers to learners being given a free platform to elect their learners’ leaders, which has been

a preserve for teachers and school executive for the last years. Over the years, rapid expansion in

enrolment, abolishment of corporal punishment, demand for dialogue with indiscipline learners and

more so demand for quality education has made discipline control a more complex enterprise with

every school having their own system of appointing prefects basing on performance and character. The

introduction of learners’ leaders’ democratic elections in Kenyan schools was hoped to promote school

goals and objectives by minimizing indiscipline cases (UNICEF/KSS HA, 2013). The idea is supported

by social theory which recognizes that though various sub units exercise different levels of authority

and power, they each carry out unique and complimentary roles to achieve a common goal

(UNICEF/KSS HA, 2013). John Dewey an America Philosopher argues that quality participation and

subsequent decision that are taken democratically depend on the quality of the participating members.

He points out that democracy in schools is more of a social way of life than a political system (Bennars

& Njoroge, 2003). The origin of school learners’ council traces its roots to 1920's when they were first

established in Britain and quickly adapted by other countries like United States of America, Canada,

Norway, Finland, Ireland, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa (UNICEF/KSSHA, 2013). In Norway,

schools are required by law to form learners’ council with leaders democratically elected by the

learners. Though prefects are juniors in the school's hierarchical system of authority, they carry out

unique and complimentary roles essential in achieving the set goals of the school and minimize

indiscipline cases. According to Greek Philosopher Plato discussions and criticism serve as the only

ways of attaining truth about things and reality. He appreciated dialogue as a method of getting

solutions to problems and gaining knowledge. He also believed that education is not only imparting

information but it involves redirection of the whole personality by bringing out a positive change in an
1
individual. The study sought to find out if democratically elected learners’ leaders discuss, criticize and

dialogue with the rest of the learners in trying to solve indiscipline problems and enhance discipline in

primary schools (Makumba, 2005).

In New Zealand, Erhart and Erhart (2002), who researched on ways to identify potential school learner

leaders, found out that any system which incorporates an elite group as its learner leadership model has

to have a selection process and criteria. This research indicated that learner leaders are appointed,

selected or elected. In the same region, Currie (2002) argued that the many democratic changes in New

Zealand education, has not changed the prefect system in schools which are appointed solely from

above and acting largely as minor members of the staff. On the other hand, Pedley (2003) argued that

democratically elected learner’s leaders then, were less active because majority of teachers were

products of traditional, conservative grammar schools who merely transplanted their attitudes of

prefect’s appointment into the new environment. He further argued that older learners have a right to

have experience in school governance and that right should belong to all learners and not just a selected

few.

In South Africa, African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (SASA) requires that school learners, who are

members of a Representative Council of Learners (RCL), should be part of school governance through

participating in School Governing Bodies (SGBs). The main intention was to provide the necessary

space for them to acquire democratic capacity and leadership skills (South Africa, 2006).

In Kenyan case, the learners' council came in handy as a problem-solving approach in 2008 when the

crises of strikes in schools reached its peak. A survey carried out in eight schools revealed inadequate

participation of learners in school governance as a major cause of unrest or indiscipline issues. A

parliamentary committee of education addressing the issue of strike then recommended that schools set

up non-violent dispute mechanism, develop a culture of dialogue and at the same time open

communication channels in schools, (Okumbe, 2001).

2
As a result, the Kenya Public secondary schools Heads Association (KSSHA) resolved to open

democratic space that saw the formation of Kenya Public secondary schools Learners’ Council in 2009

with a view of making learner leaders to participate more in school programs including learner

discipline enhancement. Since discipline is an important component of human behavior that helps not

only to regulate people’s reactions to various situations but also regulates human conduct and relations

with others. It is the epicenter of success of a school and all members of a school are expected to adhere

to various standards or rules set (Okumbe, 2001).

Learner’s discipline being a matter of great concern to all education stakeholders it is vital for the

smooth and effective running of school. Though there exist policy guidelines to enhance discipline in

schools, little has been done to reduce indiscipline cases such as absenteeism, stealing, vandalism,

fighting and truancy among other cases reported in most public secondary schools, as these indiscipline

issues detriment the realization of national objectives of education and vision 2030 (R.O.K, 2007).

Most, if not all public secondary schools in Kenya have democratically elected learner’s leaders who

are expected to do most of the routine day to day organization and discipline of the school outside the

classroom. It must be noted that such astonishing level of responsibility is as a result of careful

nomination and election of these learners’ leaders. Therefore, this study seeks to find out the influence

of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learner’s discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru

Town East sub county Nakuru County, Kenya.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Over the year’s learners’ leaders’ appointment has been a preserve for the teachers and school

executive. This has made learners leaders to be viewed by others as agents of oppression serving only

the interests of those who appointed them. Public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county

have experienced rapid expansion in enrolment and abolishment of corporal punishment accompanied

by the demand for dialogue with deviant learners. This has made discipline become a more complex

enterprise, making teachers’ work to be more demanding. The introduction of learners’ government
3
whose leaders are elected democratically in the year 2008 when the crisis of strikes in schools reached

its peak was seen as a problem-solving approach. Though the Ministry of Education together with the

government of Kenya have put in place these policy guidelines to enhance discipline in schools, little

has been done to reduce indiscipline cases such as vandalism, stealing, absenteeism, fighting, increase

in dropout rate among others in public secondary schools. Nakuru town east sub county schools are not

exempted in this, as indiscipline cases are still rampant. Therefore, it is against this gap that the

researcher was motivated to carry out the study to find out the influence of democratically elected

learners’ leaders on learner’s discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county

Nakuru County

1.3 Purpose of the study

Study was carried to find out the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learner’s

discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county Nakuru county, Kenya.

1.4 Objectives of the study

1.4.1 General objectives

The general objective of the study was to find out the influence of democratically elected learners’

leaders on learner’s discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county Nakuru

county, Kenya

1.4.1 Specific objectives

The specific objectives were;

1. To assess the perception of learners on influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on

discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county.

2. To determine the perception of teachers on influence of democratically elected learner’s leaders

on learner’s discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county.

3. To establish the extent in which democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing

discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county.

4
 4. To establish the extent in which democratically elected learner’s leaders motivate learners to

improve and maintain discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru County.

1.5 Research Questions

1. How do learners perceive the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learner’s

discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county?

2. How do teachers perceive the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learner’s

discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county?

3. To what extent does democratically elected learners’ leader participate in enhancing discipline

in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county?

4. To what extent does a democratically elected learner’s leader motivate learners to improve and

maintain discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county?

1.6 Justification of the Study

This study was justifiable because schools in Kenya are being affected by indiscipline cases such as

vandalism, stealing, absenteeism, fighting, increase in dropout rate among others. Nakuru town east sub

county schools are not exempted in this, as indiscipline cases are still rampant. Therefore, the

researcher carried out the study to find out the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on

learner’s discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county Nakuru county, Kenya.

1.7 Significance of the Study

The findings of the study will be of great help to the teachers in that it will allow them to inculcate the

values of democracy in schools. The study also will be beneficial to the teachers, deputy principal,

principals and school discipline management in addressing learners’ disciplinary issues within and

outside the school. The findings of the study will be of great importance to the learners by encouraging

them to maintain and improve discipline since they elected their leaders who they are able to work and

relate with more closely with them than teachers. Therefore, the delegation of responsibilities to these

leaders will enhance discipline and cooperation amongst learners. The findings of the study will also be
5
beneficial to the Ministry of Education because it will help to formulate policies that will govern

democratic elections of learners’ leaders in schools as a way forward for enhancing learners’ discipline.

It will contribute towards filling up the knowledge gaps

1.8 Scope of the Study

The study sought to find out the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learner’s

discipline in public secondary schools. It was carried out in selected public secondary schools in

Nakuru town east sub county. It sought to establish the perception of learners on influence of

democratically elected learners’ leaders on discipline, perception of teachers on influence of

democratically elected learners’ leaders on learners’ discipline, extent in which democratically elected

learners’ leaders participate in enhancing discipline and extent in which democratically elected

learner’s leaders motivate learners to improve and maintain discipline. It adopted descriptive survey

design and used purposive and simple random sampling to choose the sample size. Data was collected

through the issuance of questionnaires and interviews to the respondents to fill. Data was analyzed

using descriptive statistics where interview schedule was analyzed qualitatively and presented using

tables, pie charts and percentages.

1.9 Limitations of the Study

Some of the deputy head principals and teachers were not willing to disclose information especially the

negative statements about their schools. The researcher assured them about the confidentiality of the

research process that was used for the purpose of study only.

Access to important deliberations on learner’s discipline reports was considered sensitive to school

heads and teachers. The researcher explained to relevant authorities that the reports were only utilized

for the purpose of academic research.

6
1.10 Assumptions of the Study

The study was based on the following assumptions:

That the respondents gave correct and accurate information to facilitate the study in public secondary

schools in Nakuru town east sub county.

The study sample size generated ideas that were generalize to all public secondary schools in Nakuru

town east sub county but was also generalized to other public secondary schools in other areas in Kenya

with caution.

1.11 Definition of Terms

Discipline -The practice of training learners to obey rules or a code of regulation in school, or using

punishment to correct disobedience.

Democratic Election -Refers to learners being given freedom to choose leaders of their choice

Enhance -To improve the behavior of a person or animal or to cause a person to do what you want.

Learners Discipline -Understanding and managing learner behavior to reduce indiscipline cases such

as vandalism, stealing, absenteeism, fighting, increase in dropout rate among others.

Motivation -Refers to the attribute that moves us to do or not to do something

Perception Attitude towards influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on discipline.

Learners Leaders -Refers to learners elected by fellow learners to represent them in school activities

Learners’ Government -Refers to a body elected by learners to represent them in school affairs

7
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Literature review aims to assist identify gaps which exist in the past similar studies, the strength of the

study and its recommendations which could be used in further research. The sources of literature review

included text books, newspapers, articles, research abstracts, journals and government publications.

This chapter presents literature reviewed on the following: concept of democracy, democratic elections,

discipline, perception of learners, perception of teachers, extent of democratically elected learners’

leaders’ participation and learners’ motivation, empirical review and summary.

2.2 Empirical Review

McCabe (2012) considered the views of various education stakeholders on the involvement of learners

in school governance in South African schools. The findings indicated that there exist barriers such as

culture, identities, roles and power relationships and lack of training for learners’ leaders. The study did

not also seek to establish the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learners’

discipline.

The reviewed studies by the Ministry of Education (MOE) Task Force (2011), Wanjiru (1999), Munyao

(2003), Shikami (2000), Duma (2011), Yego (2013) all dealt with different matters related to learner

council and school management in different parts of Kenya. There was, however none of the reviewed

studies that addressed the issue of influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learner’s

discipline with reference to public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county.

McKenzie & Rutto (2010) who did a related study on better discipline in school found out that behavior

of the learner can be managed when head teachers, deputy principals, learner leaders, Board of

Management, Guiding and Counseling department work as a team. Even though this may work well,

the researcher will use it as strength to identify the extent in which democratically elected learners’

leaders participate in enhancing discipline in public secondary schools.

8
2.3 Theoretical literature

2.3.0 Concept of Democracy

According to Burns (2005) democracy is a representative system whereby all people elect a few to do

for them what they could not do together. Mill (2002) further argued that for a representative system

(government) to be democratic it must be accompanied by universal adult suffrage, free elections, short

terms of office and individual liberty. Just like the country has a government, schools need a

government to serve the school community where learners will elect their leaders of choice to exercise

power over them willingly. He further maintained that democracy is the only way power can be or

should be exercised over any societal member against his or her will.

Democracy also refers to devolution of power to the local level in this case learners’ leaders in schools

which aims at making schools more effective, accountable, more cooperate, participatory, to foster

tolerance, rational discussion and collective decision making (Bush and Hystek, 2003). Olowu (2005)

asserts that democracy is to serve the citizen not the other way round. Therefore, the learners’ leaders

need to serve the learners who elected them and not expect to be served by the learners.

2.3.1 Concept of Democratic Election

According to Jeane Kirkpatrick (2007) democratic elections are not merely symbolic. They are

competitive, periodic, inclusive, and definitive in that the chief decision makers in government are

selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to present the alternatives. The idea that democratic

elections are competitive allows opposing parties and candidates to enjoy the freedom of speech,

assembly and movement to voice their criticism and bring alternative policies to the voters. This

definition when related to this study means that the learners who campaign for the positions have to

enjoy freedom of speech, movement and assembly when seeking for votes from their fellow learners.

The rules and conduct of elections contest must be fair in allowing the loosing parties to join hands with

the winning learner leaders as a sign of democracy.

9
Democratic elections being periodic mean that the elected learner leaders are accountable to their fellow

learners and they must return to them at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office.

The learners’ leaders must accept risk of being voted out if they perform their duties against learners

will. Democratic elections are inclusive in that citizen and voters must be large enough to include a

large proportion of adult population.

Eckstein (2001) support the idea as he pointed out that learner leaders are normally drawn from all

senior forms in secondary in Kenya. This forms the adult population while in primary school learner’s

leaders are drawn from upper classes though lower primary classes are left out, they are involved in

electing their class prefects. Democratic elections being definitive determine the leadership of the

government subject to the laws and constitutions of the country. The elected representatives hold the

reins of power and are not merely figureheads. The elected learner’s leaders form the school learner

government as per the guidelines developed by the Ministry of Education and subject to school rules

and regulations. For example, in Indian school’s elections committees under the guidance of principals

prepare the procedures or code of conduct for the schools to follow during elections. Though most

schools conduct elections using traditional method of ballot paper the spirit of democracy is still

observed (Fide et al, 2015).

The president and his/her team have power over the rest of the learners and relate more closely with

them than teachers because they are learners’ representatives in all school endeavors. Since elections

are an integral part of democratic governance, it becomes the only way of choosing a representative of a

given institution or society freely and fairly. When elections of learners’ leaders in schools are free and

fair, the learners’ leaders command more respect and obedience from those they lead and problems are

avoided and outcomes undisputed able.

2.3.2. Learners Discipline

The concept of learner’s discipline in the context of quality education means more than rules and

control. It is an educative process whereby learners have to be taught to differentiate between

10
acceptable and unacceptable behavior and be given opportunity for development of insight and

learning. Therefore, discipline is connected with training, guiding and arranging conditions of learners

(Ouma, Simatwa & Serem, 2013). The word discipline originates from the Latin words

“Disco” meaning learn and “discipline” meaning communication of knowledge to the learner. This

means that learners’ leaders must exercise their authority in the best interest of the learner with

emphasis on the development of self-discipline, independence and maturity. It should be firm,

consistent and positive so as to modify the behavior of learners (Volschenk, 2007).

Muthamia (2006) states that, discipline is to shape or mold the identity of a child often by example or

by insistence on certain actions or modes of behavior expected to be adhered to and occasionally

admonishing the child to reinforce the method. In secondary school’s discipline is largely the

responsibility of the deputy principal with assistance from the rest of the teachers and learner s leaders.

Therefore, if the deputy principal is a lax disciplinarian, learners’ discipline is a slack and perhaps

ineffective. Discipline in schools also involves a system of appropriate rules, regulations, behavioral

expectations and punishment necessary for the establishment and maintenance of order among learners.

It is also a way of instilling order into one’s life (Kuya, 2011).

2.3.3 Learners Perception on Democratically Elected Learners Leaders

The concern of democratically elected learners’ leaders, on their role as a tool for the smooth and

effective running of school programs has had little influence on discipline in schools which limits the

realization of national objectives of education and Vision 2030 (G.O.K, 2007). There exist indiscipline

cases such as vandalism, increasing dropout rates, stealing, truancy, absenteeism, fighting, noise

making among others in public secondary schools despite the Ministry of Education together with the

government of Kenya having put in place policy guidelines to enhance learner’s discipline. These calls

for enhancement of prefect system mode of discipline which originated from the philosophy that learner

were valuable and underused educational resources in maintaining a given disciplinary climate. After

guiding and counseling becoming too much involving and less effective, democratically elected
11
learner’s leaders came into existence to allow learners involvement in school programs and bring them

to decision making table, learners have different perception either to support it or be against it. The

democratically elected learners’ leaders feel held responsible and accountable for their behavior,

because they are expected to treat others with respect and dignity. They must also demonstrate

understanding of their inappropriate behaviors by stating in their own words what the infraction means

and its impact on others in school. Learners’ expectations are that the elected learners’ leaders must

ensure that their interests are cared for yet these leaders are the middle people between learners and

school administration. This becomes quite challenging as one has to appear to be advancing the

interests of the learners as well as communicating to them the limitations set by administration in a

convincing manner without appearing to be a traitor (Jotia, (2008). This is where this study comes in

due to the fact that learners always have different attitudes towards their learner leaders in relation to

the manner, they handle discipline matters. Therefore, this study sought to establish the perception of

learners on influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on discipline.

2.3.4 Teachers Perception on Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline

Across the board, democratically elected learner leaders have continued to receive a lot of support. In

Kenya UNICEF partnering with KEPSHA, Ministry of Education and the government try to ensure that

all schools across the country embrace the same. It is without doubt that the learners’ governments have

brought positive change in schools as documented by Kimanzi (2014) in a conference edition. The

document also revealed that positive results as pertains to discipline, learner unrest and academic

performance as well as co-curricular performance. However, the changes range from institutions,

situations and perceptions of teachers. However, between 13 th and 16th June 2014 history was made for

Kenyan children when they for the first time became architects of education policy. The child centered

design workshop was perceived by most learners as an eye-opener by providing actionable steps to

making schools more inclusive, protective, healthy and equitable for all (UNICEF, 2014). Therefore,

this study sought to establish the perception teachers on influence of democratically elected learners’
12
leaders on discipline. Jotia (2008) argued that learners’ leaders are the eyes and the ears of the

administration that do not have power whatsoever. The authorities and teachers strangle their voices

and deny them full exposure to democratic function of influencing learners’ discipline. They are used as

wheels of the administration in maintaining a friendly and orderly school instead of advancing the

interest of their fellow learners. His general feeling is that learners’ leaders are used by schools as

puppets or school’s watch dogs instead of involving them in matters that involve learners such as

academic, critical decision making and learners’ discipline. These cases have been similar to those of

public secondary school in Nakuru town east sub county. This study therefore seeks to establish the

perception of teachers on the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on discipline.

2.3.5 Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline

The idea of learner’s council traces its roots to 1920s when they were first established in Britain and

later adopted by countries such as United States of America, Canada, Norway, Finland Ireland, Uganda,

Botswana and South Africa (UNICEF/KSSHA,2013). In Norway, schools are required by law to elect

their leaders democratically to carry out roles that are essential in achieving the set school goals, though

their roles are excessive (Critchley, 2003). This is where this study comes in to find out whether

Kenyan schools are required by law to elect their leaders democratically. Therefore, this study will seek

to establish the extent in which democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing

discipline.

Kenya Secondary school learners Council (2010) noted that learners’ councils have been active in many

tertiary education institutions. It was until 2008 when it was established to create interactive forums

between the learners and school administrators where issues would be discussed before they degenerate

into full-blown school riots. Despite emphasis on democratic elections in Kenya and the modern world

the school’s administrators have remained autocratic making learners’ leaders hardly have an

opportunity to express themselves and as a result they are continuously looking for ways to release

stress generated through oppression in schools (IPAR, 2008). This has made learners to less actively
13
participate in learner’s discipline and instead become more of supervisor. Therefore, this study will

seek to establish the extent in which democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing

discipline.

2.3.6 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Motivation for Discipline

The prefect system mode of discipline was introduced in English schools in nineteenth century as a

way of motivating learners to develop character and responsibility. Since the prefects hold positions of

responsibility, they foster their social development as well as discipline in schools. Jotia (2008) notes

that if School Representatives Council (SRC) is used as a democratic structure it helps solicit learners’

voice and be a mouth piece between school’s management, parents and learner’s body. As such it will

provide meaningful platforms for learner leaders by engaging in discussions with school’s authorities

on matters related to school and the general welfare of the learner community. Such learners will try all

possible means to maintain harmony in school which positively influence discipline. The

democratically elected learners’ leaders can also come together with other school stakeholders in an

attempt to resolve problems that are faced by learners in their every-day lives and come up with

possible solutions to such problems. The Gok (2011) points that the involvement of learner’s leaders in

learner’s discipline is that closeness to their fellow learners and therefore can even thwart planned

strikes or any other form of indiscipline issues in schools. These reviews relate to this study, as it

seeking to establish how democratically elected learners’ leaders motivate learners as they interact with

them so as to improve and maintain discipline.

2.4 Conceptual Framework

The study will adopt a conceptual framework where independent variables will have perception of

learners on influence of democratically elected learners leaders on discipline, perception of teachers on

influence of democratically elected learners leaders on learners discipline, extent in which

democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing discipline and extent in which

democratically elected learners leaders motivate learners to improve and maintain discipline, while the
14
dependent variable was learners discipline. There is a relationship between the independent variables

and dependent variable.

Independent Variables

Perception of learners on democratically

elected pupil’s leaders

Dependent Variables
Perception of teachers on democratically
elected pupil’s leaders
Learners Discipline

Extent in which Democratically Elected

Pupils’ Leaders enhance discipline

Extent in which Democratically Elected

Pupils’ leaders motivates Pupils to
maintain and improve discipline

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework

Source: Researcher, 2022

2.5 Summary

From the review of related literature, it is worth appreciating that involving learners’ leaders in school

programs helps them to actively influence learners’ behaviors by being role model to them. Since the

inception of democratic elections of learners’ leaders in schools, no researches have been done in

Nakuru town east sub county on its influence on discipline in public primary schools. This study will go

a long way in giving insights into the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on enhancing

learners discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east subcounty.

15
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The chapter discusses the research design, study area, target population, sample size and sampling

techniques, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis, data presentation

ethical considerations.

3.2 Research Design

The study used descriptive survey design; which is a method of collecting information by interviewing

or administering a questionnaire to a sample of individuals. Data will be collected from Descriptive

survey research design was used because the population studied was too large to observe directly;

therefore, it was useful because of the economy of taking a sample of the population to generalize

results for the whole population. Quantative research was used in data presentation like the use of

tables.

3.3 The Study Area

The study was carried out in Nakuru town east sub county. The study was based in this Sub

County because secondary school’s elect learner’s leaders democratically which enable learners to

choose their preferred leaders. Public secondary schools in Nakuru town east sub county despite the

fact that all schools have democratically elected learner leaders, indiscipline cases such as increase in

dropout rates, vandalism, fighting, truancy, absenteeism are still rampant. Thirdly, it was to find out

whether, teachers still influence the elections and duties of learners’ leaders. Finally, the issue of

democratically elected learners’ leaders was started as a problem-solving approach to indiscipline cases

in schools. Therefore, the research was carried out in this Sub County to find out the extent in which

democratically elected learners’ leaders have tried to minimize indiscipline cases.

16
3.4 Target Population

Oso& Onen (2005) state that the target population is the total number of subjects or the total

environment of interest to the researcher. On the other hand, Platoon (2002) points out that a target

population is the aggregate of all cases that conform to some designated set of specifications. The target

population for this study entailed 50 public secondary schools in Nakuru town east Sub County, with 50

deputy principals from the 50 public secondary schools, 500 teachers and 2000 form 1-4learners. This

study therefore targeted 2550 respondents.

Table 1 : Target Population

Respondents Target Population

Deputy principals 50

Teachers 500

Form one learners 500

Form two learners 500

Form three learners 500

Form four learners 500

3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size

Sampling is the act, process or technique of selecting a suitable sample or a representative part of a

population for the purpose of determining characteristics of the whole population (Mugenda, 2003).

The study adopted simple random sampling technique to pick the schools that will participate in the

study. Patton (2002) recognizes 30% of the target population as an adequate sample in the descriptive

survey design which ensures reliability of the data collected. The researcher-controlled sampling errors

by not only identifying and justifying the group but also making sure they are truly the representative of

the population. The deputy principals were sampled purposively while teachers and form 1-4 learners

were sampled using simple random technique to participate in the study.

17
A sample size is a representation of the entire population under study (Kothari, 2003). Using simple

random sampling 15 deputy principals were utilized in Nakuru town east sub county. This equaled to

30% of the target population which is higher than 10%, the minimum sample recommended for social

science research (Sekaran, 2006; Orodho, 2005). Simple random sampling of 30% of the target

population was used because it enabled each subject to have an equal opportunity to be sampled while

10% which is the minimum sample recommended for social science research was used to sample

teachers and form 4 learners due to their large numbers. Therefore, the study utilized 15 deputy

principals, 50 teachers and 200 form 4 learners.

Table 2 : Sample Framework

RESPONDENTS TARGET SAMPLING PROCEDURE SAMPLING

POPULATION SIZE

Deputy principals 50 30% 15

Teachers 500 10% 50

Form 1-4 learners 2000 10% 200

Total 3000 265

Source: Nakuru town east sub county Education Office, 2022

3.6 Research Instruments

The research instruments are tools by which data is collected. The choice of instrument is made on the

basis of what the researcher anticipates and the nature of the respondents for whom the tool is

administered (Creswell, 2008). Researchers prefer tools that provide high accuracy, generalization and

explanatory power. The study used questionnaire and interview schedule. The questionnaire targeted

the teachers and form1-4 learners because they were able to interpret and give relevant information

while interview schedule targeted the deputy principals because it was convenient for their small

population.
18
3.6.1 Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a carefully designed instrument for collecting data. In regard to this study where

views of the respondents had been established, questionnaire is the most feasible and manageable tool

for attitude assessment (Kothari, 2008). This instrument is convenient in sourcing from large samples

but at a less cost and free from biasness. There were two sets of questionnaires; teachers’ questionnaires

and form 4 learners’ questionnaires. The questionnaire was administered to teachers and form 4s

because of their ability to interpret questions provided and supply relevant responses.

Both structured and unstructured items were included. Closed ended and open-ended type of questions

were developed to capture the kind of perceptions that teachers and learners have concerning the

influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on learners’ discipline. The questionnaire was

divided into the following sections;

3.6.2 Interview Schedule

Seale, et al (2004) define an interview as, the social encounter where speakers collaborate in producing

retrospective and prospective accounts or version of their parts or future actions, experiences, feelings

and thoughts. In this study the researcher used unstructured form of Interview due to its flexibility to

questioning. The researcher used this kind of interview because it gave chances for both researcher and

respondents to discuss, also it served time with full information and could be changed or adopted to

meet the respondents’ intelligence, understand or beliefs. This method was applied to deputy principals.

3.6.3 Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted in three public secondary schools in Nakuru town east Sub County to

determine whether the questionnaires and the interview guide provided the data required for the study.

This is because the Sub County had schools which practice democratic elections of learners’ leaders.

The questionnaire was administered to ten teachers, ten forms 4 and two deputy principals were

interviewed. Pilot study was used to determine the questionnaires’ internal consistency and to detect

19
any difficulties that the respondents may likely face when responding to the items. Thereafter the

researcher was allowed to proceed with collection of data from the sampled respondent

3.7 Validity of the instruments

According to Patton (2002) validity refers to the accuracy and meaningfulness of the information based

on the results. It is the degree to which results obtained from the analysis of the data actually represent

the phenomenon under study. The survey instruments were pre-tested to improve validity and relevance

to the objectives of the study. The questionnaires and the interview schedules were scrutinized for

errors and omissions, ambiguity, legibility and relevance. The questionnaires’ content, structure and

sequence were then appropriately amended to remove any ambiguities and to enhance content validity.

To determine the content validity of the questionnaire items, the researcher consulted for guidance and

advice on the validity of the instruments. The advice was utilized by the researcher to modify the items

to ensure that they cover the variables in the study. The feedback from the pilot study also helped to

correct the items in the research instruments on clarity and ambiguity.

3.8 Reliability of Research Instruments

According to Kothari (2008) reliability refers to the consistencies that instruments demonstrate when

applied repeatedly under similar conditions. Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) concur by stating that

reliability of an instrument is the measure of the degree to which a research instrument yields consistent

results on data after repeated trials. The instruments were pre-tested through a pilot study which was

carried out on a sample of 22 respondents. Pre-testing the measurement instrument was a critical

component of minimizing measurement errors in a descriptive survey research design (Mangione,

1995). This process helped to determine internal consistency as well as get feedback on issues such as

representativeness of the items for particular constructs, clarity of questions, questionnaire format,

clarity of instructions, and specificity of items.

3.9 Data Analysis

Data collected through the use of questionnaires was coded and entered into the Statistical
20
Analysis Software - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The data was analyzed using

descriptive statistics. All objectives were analyzed quantitatively by use of questionnaires. The purpose

of descriptive statistics was to enable the researcher to meaningfully describe the findings and give a

summary of data (Mbwesa, 2006). Frequencies and percentages obtained were used in interpreting the

respondent’s perception on issues raised in the collected data so as to answer the research questions.

Interview schedule was analyzed qualitatively.

3.10 Data presentation

Data presentation refers to the ways and means of presenting data after data have been analyzed. In this

study the researcher presented the data by using qualitative approach which presented the data related to

description form. The researcher also presented the data by quantitative approach by using graphs and

tables.

3.11 Ethical Considerations

The researcher obtained research permit to conduct the study from Ministry of Education-Nakuru Town

East sub -county and the respective school Administrators before proceeding to conduct the research.

The purpose of the research was to explain to the participants before requesting them to participate

voluntarily. In addition, the security and privacy of the participants was maintained to ensure that the

participants would not be victimized or harmed due to the information they gave in the survey.

21
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

4.1 Introduction

The chapter presents study findings, analysis and discussion of the data gathered from the field in a

systematic way. The basic principle in presenting results being to give relevant evidence to the research

objectives and addressing all the questions posed, stating whether each question is supported by the

data or not. The objectives of the study were: to establish the perception of learners on influence of

democratically elected learners leaders on discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east

Sub County, to determine perception of teachers on influence of democratically elected learners leaders

on learners discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east Sub County, to establish the

extent in which democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing discipline in secondary

schools in Nakuru town east Sub County and to establish the extent in which democratically elected

learners leaders motivate learners to improve and maintain discipline in public secondary schools in

Nakuru town east Sub County. Data was collected through structured questionnaires and interview

schedule. The methodologies used provided perception of respondents regarding influence of

democratically elected learners’ leaders on learner’s discipline in public secondary schools. This

chapter is sub-divided according to the study objectives and findings presented using tables, pie charts,

frequencies and percentages to summarize and illustrate the findings of the study.

4.2 Response Rate

The instruments for data collection were administered within a period of two months where 200 form 4

learners’ questionnaires, 50 teachers’ questionnaires and 15 deputy principals’ interview schedules

were distributed to each identified respondent who filled, responded and returned. For those who

requested for more time, cordially acceptable dead lines were fixed against which the copies would be

collected. At the expiry of the period, all copies were successfully collected and returned for analysis.

This represented 100% response rate which the researcher used to analyze the data.
22
4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis of Respondents According to their Response Levels

The purpose of descriptive statistics is to enable the researcher to meaningfully describe a distribution

of scores or measurements using a few indices or statistics. For purposes of this study frequencies and

percentages were used where necessary. The study responses are shown in the subsequent tables below.

The target respondents were form 4 learners, deputy principals and teachers.

4.3 Background Information of Respondents

4.3.1 Gender of Respondents

The study sought to find out the gender of the respondents. Majority 30(60%) of the teachers indicated

that they were female, while 20 (40%) of them we male as summarized in table 4.1. This means that

most of the teachers were female.

On the form 4 learners’ side, majority 102 (51%) of the form4 learners indicated they were female,

while 98 (49%) of them indicated they were male as shown in table 4.1. This shows that most of the

form 4 learners were female.

Table 3 : Gender of Respondents

Respondents Frequencies Percentages

Teachers

Male 20 40%

Female 30 60%

Form 4

Male 98 51%

Female 102 49%

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

23
4.4 Learners Perception on Democratically Elected Learners Leaders

The first objective of the study sought to assess the perception of learners on influence of

democratically elected learners’ leaders on discipline in public secondary schools. The findings were as

follows:

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders support learners’

participation on matters concerning discipline. Majority 160 (80.0%) of the respondents strongly

agreed, 15(7.5%) agreed, 10 (5%) were neutral, 10(5%) disagreed while 5(2.5%) of them strongly

disagreed as shown in table 4.2. This implies that most of the respondents strongly agreed that

democratically elected learners’ leaders support learners’ participation on matters concerning discipline.

The findings concur with Aggarwal (2005), that though democratic elections of learners’ leaders

support learner participation in decision making, it confines their involvement to specific areas such as

supervising others when performing duties, checking class room cleanness and reporting wrong doers

to the teachers. This limits their influence on learners’ discipline.

Regarding whether democratically elected learners’ leaders provide platform for learners to raise their

challenges and views concerning discipline in the school, 90(45%) of form 4 learners strongly agreed,

50(25%) agreed, 20(10%) were neutral, 10(5%) disagreed while 10(5%) of them strongly disagreed as

shown in table 4.2. This means that most of the respondents agreed that democratically elected learners’

leaders provide platform for learners to raise their challenges and views concerning discipline in the

school. This finding coincides with Putney (2000) who stated that school places great importance on

learners’ self-esteem, self-discipline and responsible direction. Each learner leader who is provided an

opportunity tends to develop moral, purposeful, self-disciplined attitude in an environment of trust,

respect and responsibility. Therefore, learners feel that democratically elected learner s leaders act as a

turning point from deviance to modeled behavior.

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders build learners

relation with teachers therefore maintaining discipline in the school. Majority 140(70%) of the
24
respondents strongly agreed, 30(15%) agreed, 15(7.5%) were neutral, 10(5%) of them disagreed while

5(2.5%) of them strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.2. This shows that most of the respondents

strongly agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders build learners relation with teachers

therefore maintaining discipline in the school. This finding is similar to Otieno et al (2010) study which

established that in Kenyan secondary school’s learner councils provides platforms for learner to express

their challenges, look for ways to curb them, create forums where learners ask questions or seek

clarifications from teachers on matters of importance, help learners to share ideas, interests and

concern, enhance unity in diversity and encourage learners to share concerns with teachers and

principals.

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders allow learners to

express their rights freely leading to discipline in the school. Majority 150(75%) of the form 4 learner

strongly agreed, 30(15%) agreed, 10(5%) were neutral, 5(2.5%) disagreed, while 5(2.5%) of them

strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.2. This implies that most of the form learners strongly agreed

that democratically elected learners’ leaders allow learners to express their rights freely leading to

discipline in the school. This finding is different from a study by Okaro (2008), who points out that

learners view their leaders as puppets of administration, traitors and sell-outs. He adds that they

perceive them as autocratic system that suppresses them and as such they despise and loathe them.

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, some teachers influence the work of democratically

elected learners’ leaders, majority 160(80%) of the form 4 strongly agreed, 15(7.5%) agreed, 10(5%)

were neutral, 10(5%) agreed while 5(2.5%) of them strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.2. This

shows that most of the form 4 learners strongly agreed that some teachers influence the work of

democratically elected learners’ leaders. This finding corresponds with Jotia (2008) that learners’

leaders are the eyes and the ears of the administration that do not have power whatsoever. The

authorities strangle their voices and deny them full exposure to democratic function of influencing

learners’ discipline.
25
When the class learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders do not solve

indiscipline cases fairly and freely. 100(50%) of the form 4 learners strongly agreed, 50(25%) agreed,

20(10%) were neutral, 15(7.5%) disagreed, while majority 15(7.5%) of them strongly disagreed. This

means that most of the form 4 learners strongly disagreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders

do not s00olve indiscipline cases fairly and freely. This is similar to Serem (2012) who noted that

elected learners’ leaders are able to work and relate more closely with their peers than teachers, as such

teachers delegate responsibilities to these leaders who in turn help to enhance discipline and

cooperation amongst learners.

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders dot not lead by

example. 30(15%) of the form 4 learners strongly agreed, 20(10%) of them agreed, 30(15%) were

neutral, 30(15%) disagreed, while majority 90(45%) of them strongly disagreed. This implies that most

of the form 4s’ strongly disagreed that democratically elected learner leaders do not lead by example.

This finding is different from that of Mukiri (2014) who noted that some elected learners’ leaders tend

to misuse the given privileges as the privileges make them feel as being intrinsically superior to other

learners. This makes them spend most of their time on their duties and having less time as a sign of

superiority.

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders mostly side with

the teachers when it comes to decision making. 140(70%) of the form 4 learners strongly agreed,

majority 30(15%) of them agreed, 20(10%) were neutral, 5(2.5%) disagreed, while 5(2.5%) of them

strongly disagreed. This shows that most of the form 4 learners agreed that democratically elected

learners’ leaders mostly side with the teachers when it comes to decision making. This finding agrees

with a study by Oyaro (2008), who points out that learner view their leaders as puppets of

administration, traitors and sell-outs. He adds that they perceive them as autocratic system that

suppresses them and as such they despise and loathe them.

26
When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders have minimized

absenteeism in schools. Majority 120(60%) of the form 4 learners strongly agreed,40(20%) of them

agreed, 20(10%) were neutral, 15(7.5%) disagreed, while 5(2.5%) of them strongly disagreed as shown

in table 4.2. This means that most of the form 4 learners strongly agreed that democratically elected

learners’ leaders have minimized absenteeism in schools. This finding is similar to a study by Kimanzi

(2014) that it is without doubt that the learners’ governments have brought positive change in schools.

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders give promises

during campaigns which are not fulfilled. Majority 90(45%) of the form 4 learners strongly agreed,

40(20%) agreed, 50(25%) were neutral, 10(5%) disagreed, while 10(5%) of them strongly disagreed as

shown in table 4.2. This shows that most of the learners strongly agreed that democratically elected

learners’ leaders give promises during campaigns which are not fulfilled. This is because when they

become leaders, they tend to side with teachers therefore not fulfilling promises they made during their

campaigns. This finding agrees with a study by Oyaro (2008), who points out that learner view their

leaders as puppets of administration, traitors and sell-outs. He adds that they perceive them as autocratic

system that suppresses them and as such they despise and loathe them.

When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders do their work

with minimal supervision by teachers. Majority 100(50%) of the form 4 learners strongly agreed,

20(10%) agreed, 50(25%) were neutral, 15(7.5%) of them disagreed while 15(7.5%) of them strongly

disagreed as shown in table 4.2. This implies that most of the form 4 learners strongly agreed that

democratically elected learners’ leaders do their work with minimal supervision by teachers. This is

because they have always been followed by teachers to ensure discipline in the school. This

corresponds with Serem (2012) who noted that elected learners’ leaders are able to work and relate

more closely with their peers than teachers, as such teachers delegate responsibilities to these leaders

who in turn help to enhance discipline and cooperation amongst learners.

27
When the form 4 learners were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders feel superior to

other learners. Majority 150(75%) of the form 4 learners strongly agreed, 30(15%) agreed, 10(5%) were

neutral, 5(2.5%) disagreed while 5(2.5%) of them strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.2. This shows

that most of the form 4 learners strongly agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders feel

superior than others learners. This finding agrees with Mukiri (2014) who noted that some elected

learners’ leaders tend to misuse the given privileges as the privileges make them feel as being

intrinsically superior to other learners. This makes them spend most of their time on their duties and

having less time on building good relation with other learners.

When the deputy principals were interviewed, majority of them reported that learners were happy and

appreciated the election. This was because learners were given a chance to elect leaders of their choice.

This was seen through promotion of togetherness between themselves within and outside the school.

Despite the unity that democratically elected learners have promoted, some of them do not lead by

example and most of them feel superior than others learners.

Table 4.2 Learners Perception on Democratically Elected learners Leaders Statement

(Strongly (Agree) (Neutral) (Disagree (Strongly

Agree) e) y

Disagree

Democratically elected 160(80.0% 15(7.5%) 10(5%) 10(5%) 5(2.5%)

learners leaders )

support learners’

participation on matters

28
concerning

discipline

Democratically elected 90(45%) 50(25%) 20(10%) 10(5%) 10(5%)

learners leaders

provide platform for learners

to raise their challenges and

views concerning discipline

in the school

Democratically elected 140(70.0% 30(15.0%) 15(7.5%) 10(5.0%) 5(2.5%)

learners’ leaders build )

learners relation with

teachers therefore

maintaining

discipline in the school

Democratically elected 150(75%) 30(15%) 10(5%) 5(2.5%) 5(2.5%)

learners’ leaders allow

learners to express their

rights freely leading to

discipline in the school

Some te000.achers 160(80%) 15(7.5%) 10(5.0%) 10(5.0%) 5(2.5%)

influence the work

of democratically

elected

learners’ leaders

29
Democratically 100(50.0% 50(25.0%) 20(10.0% 15(7.5%) 15(7.5%)

elected learners’ ) )

leaders do not solve

indiscipline cases fairly and

freely

Democratically 30(15.0%) 20(10.0%) 30(15.0% 30(15.0% 90(45%)

elected learners’ ) )

leaders dot not lead by

example

Democratically elected 140(70%) 30(15%) 20(10%) 5(2.5%) 2(2.5%)

learners’ leaders mostly side

with the teachers when it

comes to decision making

Democratically elected 120(60%) 40(20%) 20(10%) 15(7.5%) 5(2.5%)

learners’ leaders have

minimized absenteeism in

schools

Democratically 90(45.0%) 40(20.0%) 50(25.0% 10(5.0%) 10(5.0%)

elected learners’ )

leaders give promises during

campaigns which are

not fulfilled

Democratically 100(50.0% 20(10.0%) 50(25%) 15(7.5%) 15(7.5%)

elected learners’ )

leaders do their work with

30
 minimal supervision by

teachers

Democratically 150(75%) 30(15%) 10(5.0%) 5(2.5%) 5(2.5%)

elected

learners’ leaders feel superior than others learners

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

4.5 Teachers Perception on Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline.

The second objective of the study sought to determine the perception of teachers on influence of

democratically elected learners’ leaders on learners’ discipline in public primary schools. The findings

were as follows:

When the teachers were asked whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders have greatly

maintained discipline in the school. 20(40.0%) of the teachers strongly agreed, majority 10(20.0%) of

the teachers agreed, 15(30.0%) were neutral, 10(20.0%) disagreed, while 5(10.0%) of them strongly

disagreed as shown in table 4.3. This means that most of the teachers agreed that democratically elected

learners’ leaders have greatly maintained discipline in the school. This finding agrees with UNAFAS &

ISTP (2009) that learners’ leaders assist in maintaining discipline by guiding and supervising other

learners. As such they can be used to transform the school towards democracy where they can take part

in school activities such as learners’ discipline.

On whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders treat others with respect and dignity. 30(60.0%) of

the teachers strongly agreed, majority 5(10.0%) of them agreed, 5(10.5%) were neutral, 5(10.5%)

disagreed, while 5(10.5%) strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.3. This implies that most of the

teachers agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders treat others with respect and dignity. This

finding is different from a study by Mukiri (2014) which established that some elected learners’ leaders

tend to misuse the given privileges as the privileges make them feel as being intrinsically superior to
31
other learners. This makes them spend most of their time on their duties and having less time for

enhancing discipline.

When the teachers were asked whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders are expected to

supervise and coordinate all school activities to ensure discipline in the school. 15(30.0%) of the

teachers strongly agreed, majority 15(30.0%) of them agreed, 10(20.0%) were neutral, 5(10.0%)

disagreed, while 5(10.0%) of them strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.3. This shows that most of the

teachers agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders are expected to supervise and coordinate

all school activities to ensure discipline in the school. This finding corresponds with McKenzie &

Rutto, C (2010), that learners’ leaders are expected to develop and promote a positive learner spirit and

culture within the school. They should encourage other learners to participate and be responsible for the

sound functioning of the school.

When the teachers were asked whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders are expected to report

to deputy head teachers on matters related to learner behavior and discipline. Majority 35(43.8%) of

them strongly agreed, 31(38.8%) agreed, 10(12.5%) were neutral, 2(2.5%) disagreed while 2(2.5%) of

them strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.3. This implies that most of the teachers strongly agreed

that democratically elected learners’ leaders are expected to report to deputy head teachers on matters

related to learner behavior and discipline. This agree s with Muthamia (2006) who states that, discipline

is to shape the identity of a child often by example or by insistence on certain actions or modes of

behavior expected to be adhered to and occasionally admonishing the child to reinforce the method

since in primary schools’ discipline is largely the responsibility of the deputy head teacher with

assistance from the rest of the teachers and learners’ leaders. When the teachers were asked whether,

democratically elected learners’ leaders are expected to enhance learners’ discipline and inculcate good

behavior. Majority 35(43.8%) of the teachers strongly agreed, 25(40.0%) agreed, 10(20.0%) were

neutral, 5(10.0%) disagreed while 5(10.0%) of them 5(10.0%) of them strongly disagreed as shown in
32
table 4.3. This shows that most of the teachers strongly agreed that democratically elected learners’

leaders are expected to enhance learners’ discipline and inculcate good behavior. This finding coincides

with Kuya (2011) that the learner government or learners’ leaders have to be used to transform the

schools towards democracy where there should be consultations and active participation in school

activities and learners’ discipline. This will motivate them to be self-disciplined which is a type of

selective self-training that leads to that formation of habits of thought, emotions, feelings, speech,

action and relationship with others.

When the teachers were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders discipline cases are

directly influenced by teachers. Majority 20(40.0%) of the teachers strongly agreed, 10(20.0%) agreed,

10(20.0%) were neutral, 5(10.0%) disagreed while 5(10.0%) of them strongly disagreed as shown in

table 4.3. This means that most of the teachers strongly agreed that democratically elected learners’

leaders discipline cases are directly influenced by teachers. This finding corresponds with a study by

Oyaro (2008), who points out that learner view their leaders as puppets of administration, traitors and

sell-outs. He adds that they perceive them as autocratic system that suppresses them and as such they

despise and loathe them.

When the teachers were asked whether, some teachers disapprove democratically elected learners’

leaders on the basis of their behavior. Majority 20(20.0%) of the teachers agreed, 10(20.0%) strongly

agreed, 10(20.0%) were neutral, 5(10.0%) disagreed, while 5(10.0%) of them strongly disagreed as

shown in table 4.3. This implies that most of the teachers agreed that some teachers disapprove

democratically elected learners’ leaders on the basis of their behavior. This finding agrees with

Botswana Country Report (2010) that selection of prefects is carried out by fellow learners but

members of the teaching staff have to approve or disapprove the names as a way of enhancing

democratic skills, values and behavior necessary to sustain the schools.

33
When the teachers were asked whether, democratically elected learners leaders misuse their mandate

which compromise indiscipline cases. 30(60.0%) of the teachers, strongly agreed majority 5(10.0%) of

them agreed, 5(10.0%) were neutral, 5(10.0%) disagreed while 5(10.0%) of them strongly disagreed as

shown in table 4.3. This means that most of the teachers agreed that democratically elected learners’

leaders misuse their mandate which compromise indiscipline cases. This finding concurs with a study

by Mukiri (2014) which established that some elected learners’ leaders tend to misuse the given

privileges as the privileges make them feel as being intrinsically superior to other learners. This makes

them spend most of their time on their duties and having less time for promoting discipline and

deduction of indiscipline of issues.

When the teachers were asked whether, learners’ leaders should be appointed by teachers instead of

democratically being elected to ensure discipline. Majority 26(32.5%) of the teachers strongly agreed,

20(40.0%) agreed, 10(20.0%) were neutral, 10(20.0%) disagreed, while 10(20.0%) of them strongly

disagreed as shown in table 4.3. This shows that most of the teachers strongly agreed that learners’

leaders should be appointed by teachers instead of democratically being elected to ensure discipline.

This finding agrees with Botswana Country Report (2010) that selection of prefects is carried out by

fellow learners but members of the teaching staff have to approve or disapprove the names as a way of

enhancing democratic skills, values and behavior necessary to sustain the schools.

When the teachers were asked whether, learners elect leaders whom they can influence easily. Majority

25(50%) of the teachers strongly agreed, 10(20%) agreed, 5(10%) were neutral, 5(10%) disagreed,

while 5(10.0%) of them strongly disagreed as shown in table 4.3. This implies that most of the teachers

strongly agreed that learners elect leaders whom they can influence easily. This finding corresponds

with a study by Oyaro (2008), who points out that learner view their leaders as puppets of

administration, traitors and sell-outs. He adds that they perceive them as autocratic system that

suppresses them and as such they despise and loathe them.

34
The interview conducted on principals revealed that majority of them pointed out that, though those

democratically elected learners’ leaders have greatly maintained discipline in the school. Teachers still

perceive that, learners’ leaders should be appointed by teachers instead of being democratically elected

to ensure discipline, since learners elect leaders whom they can influence easily, thus teachers feel that

prefect ship system was better than democratic elections.

Table 4.3 Teachers Perception on Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners

Discipline Statement

(Strongly (Agree) (Neutral) (Disagree) (Strongly

Agree) Disagree)

Democratically elected learners’ 20(40.0%) 10(20.0%) 15(30.0%) 10(20.0%) 5(10.0%) leaders have

greatly maintained discipline in the school

Democratically elected learners’ leaders treat others with respect and dignity

30(60.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

Democratically elected learners’15(30.0%) 15(30.0%) 10(20.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

leaders are expected to supervise

and coordinate all school activities

to ensure discipline in the school

Democratically elected learners’25(50.0%) 10(20.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

leaders are expected to report to

deputy head teachers on matters

related to learner behavior and

35
 discipline.

Democratically elected learners’20(40.0%) 10(20.0%) 10(20.0.0% 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

leaders are expected to enhance )

learners’ discipline and inculcate

good behavior

Democratically elected learners’20(40.0%) 10(20.0%) 10(20.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

leaders discipline cases are directly

influenced by teachers

Some teachers disapprove30(60.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

democratically elected learners’

leaders on the basis of their

behavior

Democratically elected learners’20(40.0%) 10(20.0%) 10(20.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

leaders misuse their mandate which

compromise indiscipline cases

Learners’ leaders should be25(50.0%) 10(20.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

appointed by teachers instead of

democratically being elected to

ensure discipline

Learners elect leaders whom they30(60.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

can influence easily

The prefect ship system was better 5(10.0%) 20(40.0%) 10(20.0%) 5(10.0%) 5(10.0%)

than democratic elections

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

36
4.6 Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline

The third objective of the study sought to establish the extent in which democratically elected learners’

leaders participate in enhancing discipline in public primary schools. The findings were as follows:

4.6.1 Democratically Elected learners Leaders and Decision Making

The study sought to find out from the teachers, whether democratically learners leaders participate in

decision making in the school. Majority 52(65.0%) of the teachers indicated yes while 28(35.0%) of

them indicated no as shown in figure 4.1.

28(35.0%)
52(65.0%)

Yes

No

Figure 4.1 Democratically Elected learners Leaders and Decision Making

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This implies that most of the respondents acknowledged that democratically learners’ leaders do

participate in decision making in the school. The findings are similar to Aggarwal (2005), that though

democratic elections of learners’ leaders support learner participation in decision making, it confines

their involvement to specific areas such as supervising others when performing duties, checking

classroom cleanness and reporting wrong doers to the teachers. This limits their influence on learners’

discipline.

37
4.6.2 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Enhancement of Discipline

The study sought to establish from the teachers, how democratically elected learners’ leaders participate

in enhancing discipline in the school. Majority 20(40.0%) of the teachers indicated they report wrong

doers to the deputy principals, 5(10.0%) indicated they participate by assigning duties to other learners,

20(40.0%) indicated that some participate through dialogue with learners and teachers and 5(610.0%)

of them indicated that they punish learners who break rules as shown in table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Enhancement of Discipline

Respondents Frequencies Percentages

Assigning duties to other learners 20 40%

Dialogue with learners and teachers 20 40%

Punish learners who break rules 5 10%

Report wrong doers to the deputy 5 10%

head teachers

Total 50 100.0%

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This implies that most of the democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing discipline

in the school through reporting wrong doers to the deputy head teachers. This finding agrees with Jotia

(2008) who points out that learner’ leaders are toothless as they are not involved in schools’ affairs,

their main role is to supervise meals, studies, cleaning of school compound and reporting wrong doers.

Their voices are strangled and denied full exposure to exercise democracy.

38
4.6.3 Corporation of Democratically Elected Learners Leaders with Deputy Principals and

Maintenance of Discipline

The study sought to find out from the teachers, whether democratically elected learners’ leaders

corporate with deputy head teacher to maintain discipline in the school. Majority 30(60.0%) of the

teachers indicated yes while 20(40.0%) of them indicated no as shown in figure 4.2.

20(40%)

Yes No
30(60.0%)

Figure 4.2 Corporation of Democratically Elected learners Leaders with Deputy Head teacher and

Maintenance of Discipline

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This shows that most of the teachers agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders do corporate

with deputy head teacher to maintain discipline in the school. The finding differs with Mduma (2001)

findings in public secondary schools in South Africa, which showed that some teachers are resistant to

collaborate with learner leaders because they have become accustomed to functioning without them

being central to their work and they feel that they have enough mounting professional strain without

additional pressure of entering into partnership with learners.

4.6.4 Strategies to Maintain Discipline in School

The study sought to establish from the teachers, the strategies that democratically elected learners’

leaders use to maintain discipline in the school. Majority 20(40.0%) of the teachers indicated they allow

39
learners to express their view freely, 15(30.0%) indicated they hold meetings with learners, and

15(30.0%) of them indicated that they give each learner a chance to explain themselves as shown in

table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Strategies to Maintain Discipline in School

Respondents Frequencies Percentages

Holding meetings with learners 15 30%

Allowing learners to express their 20 40%

view freely

Giving each learner a chance to 15 30%

explain themselves

Total 50 100.0%

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This shows that most of the democratically elected learners’ leaders allow learners to express their

views freely as a strategy to maintain discipline in the school. This finding is similar with UNAFAS &

ISTP (2009) posit that learners’ leaders assist in maintaining discipline by guiding and supervising

other learners. As such they can be used to transform the school towards democracy where they can

take part in school activities such as learners’ discipline.

4.6.5 Atmosphere to Exercise Duties

The study sought to find out from the teachers, whether, democratically elected learners’ leaders are

given a free atmosphere to exercise their duties democratically. Majority 35(70.0%) of the teachers

indicated yes, while 15(30%) of them indicated no as summarized in figure 4.3.

40
 30%
Yes
70%
No

This implies that most of the teachers agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders are given a

free atmosphere to exercise their duties democratically. This finding is similar to Serem (2012) who

noted that elected learners’ leaders are able to work and relate more closely with their peers than

teachers, as such teachers delegate responsibilities to these leaders who in turn help to enhance

discipline and cooperation amongst learners.

4.6.6 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Cooperation with Teachers

The study sought to establish from the teachers, whether democratically elected learners’ leaders

cooperate with teachers in enhancing discipline. Majority 35(70%) of the teachers indicated yes, while

15(30%) of them indicated no as summarized in figure 4.4.

41
 Sales

15(30%)

35(70%)

Yes No

This means that most of the teachers agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders do cooperate

with teachers in enhancing discipline. This finding agrees with Serem (2012) who noted that elected

learners’ leaders are able to work and relate more closely with their peers than teachers, as such

teachers delegate responsibilities to these leaders who in turn help to enhance discipline and

cooperation amongst learners.

4.6.7 Rate of Participation of Democratically Elected Learners Leaders

The study sought to establish from the teachers, how they rate the extent to which democratically

elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing discipline in the school. More than half 26(52%) of

the teachers indicated good, 15(30%) indicated fair, 4(8%) indicate excellent while 5(10%) of them

indicated poor as summarized in figure 4.5.

42
 60.00% Excellent

Good
50.00%
Fair
40.00%
Poor
30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00 %
Ratings

Figure 4.5 Rate of Participation of Democratically Elected Learners Leaders

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This implies that most of the teachers rate the extent to which democratically elected learners’ leaders

participate in enhancing discipline in the school as good. This agrees with Whitty and Wisby (2007)

who indicated that elected learners’ leaders act as a voice, having opportunity in school activities and

decisions that affect them. It entails learners playing an active role in the education and schooling.

This finding is similar to the responses from the interviewed deputy principals, who reported that,

democratically elected learners’ leaders have slightly reduced indiscipline cases in the school. This is

evidenced by solving minor cases and forwarding major ones to teachers. Some learners also use them

as a link between them and teachers. The deputy principals also noted that, the role of democratically

elected learners’ leaders is limited to specific areas such as supervising others in classrooms and

outside. They are not allowed to attend board of Management meetings to discuss issues freely and

therefore limiting their democratic power to represent other learners.

43
4.7 Democratically Elected of Learners Leaders and Motivation for Discipline

The fourth objective of the study sought to establish the extent in which democratically elected learners’

leaders motivate learners to improve and maintain discipline in public primary schools. The findings

were as follows:

4.7.1 Obedience to Learners Leaders

The study sought to find out from class 8 learners, whether they do obey the learners’ leaders in their

school.

Majority 150(75%) of the learners indicated yes, while 50(25%) of them indicated no as shown in

figure

4.6.

Yes

No

Figure 4.6 Obedience to Pupils Leaders

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This means that most of the form 4 learners agreed that they obey the learners’ leaders in their school.

This coincides with the Gok (2011) which pointed out that the involvement of learners’ leaders in

learners’ discipline is that closeness to their fellow learners and therefore can even thwart planned

strikes or any other form of indiscipline issues in schools.

44
 4.7.2 Reporting Indiscipline Cases

The study sought to establish from form 4 learners, whom they prefer to report indiscipline cases to.

Majority 130(65%) of the form 4 learners indicated they prefer teachers, while 70(35%) of them

indicated they prefer democratically elected learners’ leaders as shown in table 4.8.

Democratically
Percentages
elected learners’

leaders

Teachers

0.00% 50.00% 100.00%

Figure 4.8 Reporting Indiscipline Cases

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

Their responses revealed that they prefer to report indiscipline cases to teachers. This finding is

different from Serem (2012) study which established that elected learners’ leaders are able to work and

relate more closely with their peers than teachers, as such teachers delegate responsibilities to these

leaders who in turn help to enhance discipline and cooperation amongst learners.

4.7.3 Learners Leaders as Mentors

The study sought to find out from the form 4 learners whether; they look up to their learners’ leaders as

their mentor. Majority 160(80%) of the form 4 learners indicated yes, while 40(20%) of them indicated

no as show in figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9 Learners Leaders as Mentors

45
 Sales

40 (20%)
160 (80%)

No Yes

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This implies that most of the form 4 learner agreed that they look up to their learners’ leaders as their

mentor. This concurs with Teeny (2014) who noted that public speaking skills are sharpened when

aspirants are exposed to the campaign process. Interesting enough is that even shy learners come up

strongly during campaigns a sign of motivation to exercise power over their fellow learners. The skills

that learners’ leaders gain from their roles in the school motivate other learners to emulate them.

4.7.4 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Motivation

The study sought to establish whether democratically elected learners’ leaders motivate learners to

maintain discipline in the school. Majority 160(80%) of the form four learners indicated yes, while

40(20%) of them indicated no as shown in table 4.10.

Sales

40 (20%)

160 (80%)

No Yes

Figure 4.10 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Motivation

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

46
This implies that most of the form 4 learner agreed that democratically elected learners’ leaders

motivate them to maintain discipline in the school. This finding is similar to Khairi (2013) who stated

that before starting learners’ government in 2011, learners were shy, quiet and fearful of talking to

teachers and even fellow learners. But after the elections, elected learners’ leaders are more open,

confident and interested in finding innovative ways for improving the quality of the school.

4.7.5 Motivation by Learners Leaders

The study sought to find out from form 4 learners, what make them motivated by learners’ leaders.

Majority 123(54.2%) of the form4 learner indicated they get motivated through treating both learners

equally when solving disciplinary issues, 59(26.0%) indicated they get motivated through guide and

counseling from learners’ leaders who are indiscipline and 45(19.8%) indicated they get motivated

through solve disputes without teachers as shown in table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Motivation by Learners Leaders

Respondents Frequencies Percentages

Treat both learners equally when 140 70%

solving disciplinary issues

Solve disputes without teachers 35 17.5%

Guide and counsel learners’ leaders 25 12.5%

who are indiscipline

Total 200 100.0%

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This shows that most of the form 4 indicated they get motivated through treating both learners equally

when solving disciplinary issues. This finding agrees with Serem (2012) study which established that

elected learners’ leaders are able to work and relate more closely with their peers than teachers, as such

47
teachers delegate responsibilities to these leaders who in turn help to enhance discipline and

cooperation amongst learners.

4.7.6 Emulation from Learners Leaders

This study sought to establish from the form 4s’ whether they have something to emulate from their

learners’ leaders. Majority 110(55%) of the form 4 learners indicated that they emulate discipline,

40(20%) indicated they emulate leadership skills, and 50(25%) of them indicated they emulate public

address skills as summarized in table 4.7.

48
Table 4.7 Emulation from Learners Leaders

Respondents Frequencies Percentages

Discipline 110 55%

Public address skills 40 20%

Leadership skills 50 25%

Total 200 100.0%

Source: Researcher’s Findings (2022)

This implies that most of the respondents emulate discipline from their learners’ leaders. This coincides

with Khayeri (2013) who stated that before starting learners’ government in 2011, learners were shy,

quiet and fearful of talking to teachers and even fellow learners. But after the elections, elected

learners’ leaders are more open, confident and interested in finding innovative ways for improving the

quality of the school.

When the deputy principals were interviewed, majority of them stated that, learners are motivated to

improve and maintain discipline by democratically elected learners’ leaders being given a free

atmosphere to express their views freely, resulting to obedience from the rest of the learners who look

up to them as mentors.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to give the researcher an opportunity to summarize findings, give

conclusions and make recommendations. The chapter organization involves discussion of the research

findings under sub headings covering the research questions.

49
5.2 Summary of Findings

The purpose of the study was to establish the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on

learners’ discipline in public secondary schools. Data was collected using structured questionnaires

administered to respondents who were teachers and form4 learners. Simple Random sampling was

employed to select the teachers and class eight learners. The primary data obtained from the

respondents was coded into the computer and analyzed using the SPSS software.

5.2.1 Learners Perception on Democratically Election of Learners Leaders

The first objective of the study sought to assess the perception of learners on influence of

democratically elected learners’ leaders on discipline in public secondary schools. The study revealed

that learners had the following perceptions, on the influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders

on discipline. More than half 70.0% of the respondents strongly agreed that democratically elected

learners’ leaders support learners’ participation on matters concerning discipline. From the learner’s

perspective the study also revealed that; democratically elected learners leaders provide platform for

learners to raise their challenges and views concerning discipline in the school, they build learners

relation with teachers therefore maintaining discipline in the school, they allow learners to express their

rights freely leading to discipline in the school, they lead by example, they solve cases fairly and freely,

they have minimized absenteeism in schools. 40.1% of the form 4 learners strongly agreed that some

teachers influence the work of democratically elected learners’ leaders. they mostly side with the

teachers when it comes to decision making, they give promises during campaigns which are not

fulfilled, they do their work with a lot supervision by teachers and they feel superior than others

learners. This shows that most of the respondents strongly agreed that democratically elected learners’

leaders feel superior than others learners.

5.2.2 Teachers Perception on Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline

The second objective of the study sought to determine the perception of teachers on influence of

democratically elected learners’ leaders on learners’ discipline in public primary schools. The study
50
revealed that teachers had the following perception on the influence of democratically elected learners’

leaders on discipline. Majority 33.8% of the teachers agreed that democratically elected learners’

leaders have greatly maintained discipline in the school, they treat others with respect and dignity, they

are expected to supervise and coordinate all school activities to ensure discipline in the school, they are

expected to report to deputy principals on matters related to learner behavior and discipline, they are

expected to enhance learners discipline and inculcate good behavior, they are directly influenced by

teachers, some teachers disapprove democratically elected learners leaders on the basis of their

behavior, democratically elected learners leaders misuse their mandate which compromise indiscipline

cases, learners’ leaders should be appointed by teachers instead of democratically being elected to

ensure discipline, learners elect leaders whom they can influence easily and small number of teachers

agreed that the prefect ship system was better than democratic elections.

5.2.3 Democratically Elected Learners’ Leaders and Learners Discipline

The third objective of the study sought to establish the extent in which democratically elected learners’

leaders participate in enhancing discipline in public secondary schools. The study revealed that

democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing discipline in public secondary schools.

More than half 65.0% of the teachers acknowledged that democratically learners’ leaders do participate

in decision making in the school. They report wrong doers to the deputy principals as the manner to

which democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in enhancing discipline in the school, they do

corporate with deputy principals to maintain discipline in the school, allow learners to express their

views freely as a strategy to maintain discipline in the school, they are given a free atmosphere to

exercise their duties democratically and they do cooperate with teachers in enhancing discipline.

5.2.4 Democratically Elected Learners Leaders and Motivation for Discipline

The fourth objective of the study sought to establish the extent in which democratically elected learners’

leaders motivate learners to improve and maintain discipline in public secondary schools. The study

revealed that democratically elected learners’ leaders motivate learners to improve and maintain
51
discipline. More than half 95.6% of the teachers indicated learners are motivated to obey the learners’

leaders in their school, they are motivated to raise their concern to teachers, they prefer to report

indiscipline cases to teachers, they look up to their learners leaders as their mentor, democratically

elected learners leaders motivate learners to maintain discipline in the school, learners get motivated

through treating learners equally when solving disciplinary issues and learners emulate discipline from

their learners

5.3 Conclusions

From the findings of this study, the following conclusions were made:

The perception of learners on influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders influence discipline

in many ways which include; democratically elected learners leaders support learners’ participation on

matters concerning discipline, provide platform for learners to raise their challenges and views

concerning discipline in the school, build learners relation with teachers therefore maintaining

discipline in the school, allow learners to express their rights freely leading to discipline in the school,

do their work with minimal supervision by teachers and have minimized absenteeism in schools. On

the other hand, learners have negative perception on their learners’ leaders which include; some

teachers influence the work of democratically elected learners’ leaders, they do not lead by example,

they mostly side with the teachers when it comes to decision making, give promises during campaigns

which are not fulfilled and feel superior than others learners.

The findings concluded that, teachers perceive influence of democratically elected learners’ leaders on

learners discipline in public secondary schools in the following ways; that democratically elected

learners’ leaders have greatly maintained discipline in the school, treating others with respect and

dignity, being expected to supervise and coordinate all school activities to ensure discipline in the

school and expected to report to deputy principals on matters related to learner behavior and discipline,

enhance learners discipline and inculcate good behavior. Though democratically elected learners’

leaders discipline cases are directly influenced by teachers, while some teachers disapprove them on the
52
basis of their behavior, because they misuse their mandate which compromise indiscipline cases. On the

other hand, some teachers feel that learners’ leaders should be appointed by teachers instead of being

democratically elected to ensure discipline, since learners elect leaders whom they can influence easily,

thus teachers feel that prefect ship system was better than democratic elections.

The study also concluded that the extent in which democratically elected learners’ leaders participate in

enhancing discipline in public primary schools by; participating in decision making, reporting wrong

doers to the deputy head teachers, cooperating with deputy head teacher and teachers, allowing learners

to express their views freely as a strategy to maintain discipline in the school and being given a free

atmosphere to exercise their duties democratically.

The study finally concluded that democratically elected learners’ leaders motivate learners to improve

and maintain discipline in public secondary schools in the following ways this is evidenced by

obedience from the rest of the learners looking them as mentors and equal treatment of disciplinary

issues. Despite this, the findings revealed that most of the learners preferred to raise their concern to

teachers.

5.4 Recommendations

The study recommends that;

Learners should be encouraged to participate in democratic election to choose leaders of

their choice.

Schools should put policies which will not allow teachers to interfere with democratically

elected learners’ roles of maintaining discipline.

Democratically elected learners’ leaders should cooperate with teachers in maintaining

discipline in school.

Learners should work together with democratically elected learner’s leaders in order for

them to emulate good traits from them.

53
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research

It is suggested that future researchers should focus on, factors affecting the performance of

democratically elected learners’ leaders in public secondary schools in Nakuru town east Sub County,

Nakuru County, Kenya.

Factors which motivate learners to contest for learners’ leadership in public secondary schools in

Nakuru town east Sub County, Nakuru County, Kenya

54
 REFERENCES

Achievement in Children, 27(11), 151–176. Conjure, V. (2015). Leadership Motivation and

Mentoring Can Improve Efficiency of a Classroom Teacher and Workers in Institutions, 6(15),

1–15.

Kirunda, H. K. (2004). Performance-Based Rewards and the Performance of Teachers in Private

Secondary Schools in Kampala District. Journal of Business Strategies, 7(5), 132–145.

Kombo, D. K., & Tromp, D. L. A. (2009). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction. Nairobi,

Kenya: Paulines Publications Africa, Don Bosco Printing Press.

Kothari, C. R. C. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age

International (P) Ltd.

Kuada, J. (2012). Research Methodology: A Project Guide for University Leaners. Nairobi:

Samfundslitteratur.

Makgone, S. G. (2012). An Evaluation of Strategic Leadership in Selected Schools and Its Contribution

to Academic Performance. Journal of Academic Strategic Leadership, 4(1), 67–73.

McCoss-Yergian, T., & Krepps, L. (2010). Do teacher attitudes impact literacy strategy

implementation in content area classrooms? Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, Vol. 4, p1.

Miron, B. J. (2014). School Principal Influence Actions, Climate, Culture, and School Performance.

Academia, 5(8), 576–573.

Mugenda, O., & Mugenda, A. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.

Nairobi: Acts Press.

Mulford, B. (2003). School Leaders: Changing Roles and Impact on Teacher and School

Effectiveness. Journal of Academic Leadership, 3(2), 67–75.

Munir, F., & Khalil, U. (2016). Secondary School Teachers’ Perceptions of their Principals’

Leadership Behaviors and their Academic Performance at Secondary School Level, 38(1), 41–

55.
55
Mussa, L. (2015). The Role of School Discipline on Learner’s Academic Performance in Dar es Salaam

Region Tanzania. Bulletin of Research Development, 23(8), 153–167.

Nanyiri, K. (2014). Influence of Discipline Management on Learner’s Academic Performance in

Private Secondary Schools in Mbale Municipalitry Mbale District. Journal of Education

56
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH BUDGET

NO ITEM QUANTITY KSHS

1 Ruled foolscaps 2 Reams 1000

2 File 2 80

3 Ball pens 5 50

4 Pencils 2 50

5 Rulers 2 100

6 File note books 3 50

7 Typing and printing services 50 pages 250

8 Binding services 2 140

9 Computer data processing 200

10 Traveling Expenses 1 week 1000

11 Miscellaneous 500

TOTAL 3650

57
APPENDIX II: RESEARCH TIME SCHEDULE

YEAR MONTH ACTIVITY

2023 December Identification of area of study

2023 January Literature review

2023 February Drafting of project research proposal

2023 March Presentation of proposal to the University for review (Faculty of

Education)

2024 April Review of proposal by supervisor

2024 May Data collection and analysis

2024 May Making of final draft of project and handing over to the University

58
APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LEARNERS

Dear respondent,

My name is Elizabeth Wanjiku Mburu a learner at Mount Kenya University undertaking studies leading

to the attainment of postgraduate diploma in education. I am undertaking a study on “Influence of

democratically elected leaners’ leaders on learner’s discipline in secondary schools of Nakuru town east

sub county Nakuru county, Kenya” This questionnaire has been prepared for purposes of collecting

information important for the study. Kindly fill the questionnaire as required and note that any

information given will be treated as confidential and used for the purpose of this research only. Please

do not write your name anywhere in the questionnaire. Thank you in advance.

Yours faithfully,

Elizabeth Wanjiku Mburu

SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. What is your Gender?

Male …………. Female……….

2. How did the existence of your learner leader in your school come about?

Democratically elected by leaners ………… Endorsed by teachers……………….

SECTION B: PERCEPTION OF LEARNERS ON INFLUENCE OF DEMOCRATICALLY

ELECTED LEANERS LEADERS ON DISCIPLINE

3. Indicate the level to which you agree with the following statements concerning perception of learners

on influence of democratically elected learner’s leaders on discipline

Statement SA-5 A-4 N-3 D-2 SD-1

(Strongly (Agree) (Neutral) (Disagree) (Strongly

Agree) Disagree)

Democratically elected leaners

leaders support learners

59
participation on matters

concerning discipline

Democratically elected leaners

leaders provide platform for

learners to raise their challenges

and views concerning discipline

in the school

Democratically elected leaners

leaders build learners relation

with teachers therefore

maintaining discipline in the

school

Democratically elected leaners

leaders allows learners to express

their rights freely leading to

discipline in the school

Some teachers influence the work

of democratically elected leaners

leaders

Democratically elected leaners

leaders do not solve indiscipline

cases fairly and freely

Democratically elected leaners

leaders dot not lead by example

60
Democratically elected leaners

leaders mostly side with the

teachers when it comes to

decision making

Democratically elected leaners

leaders have minimized

absenteeism in schools

Democratically elected leaners

leaders give promises during

campaigns which are not fulfilled

Democratically elected leaners

leaders do their work with

minimal supervision by teachers

Democratically elected leaners

leaders feel superior than others

leaners

SECTION C: EXTENT IN WHICH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEANERS LEADERS

MOTIVATE LEARNERS TO IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE

4. Do you obey the leaners’ leaders in your school?

Yes……………. No……………

Kindly explain: ……………………………………………………………………………………

5. Whom do you prefer to raise your concern to?

Teacher…………………. Democratically elected learner’s leaders……………….

Kindly explain: ……………………………………………………………………………………

61
6. To whom do you report indiscipline cases to?

Teachers……………………. Democratically elected learner’s leaders……………………

Kindly explain: ……………………………………………………………………………………

7. Do you look up to your learner’s leaders as your mentor?

Yes…………………. No …………………….

Kindly explain: ……………………………………………………………………………………

8. Do democratically elected learner’s leaders motivate you to maintain discipline in the school?

Yes………………... No……………………….

Kindly explain: ……………………………………………………………………………………

9. What make you motivated by leaners’ leaders?

Treat both leaners equally when solving disciplinary issues……………………

Solve disputes without teacher’s influence………………………………………….

Guide and counsel learner’s leaders who are indiscipline………………………….

10. Is there something you emulate form your learner’s leaders?

Discipline……………… Public address skill……………. Leadership skills……………….

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY.

62
APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

Dear respondent,

My name is Elizabeth Wanjiku Mburu a learner at Mount Kenya University undertaking studies leading

to the attainment of postgraduate diploma in education. I am undertaking a study on “Influence of

democratically elected learner’s leaders on learner’s discipline in public secondary schools in Nakuru

town east sub county Nakuru county, Kenya” This questionnaire has been prepared for purposes of

collecting information vital for the study. Kindly fill the questionnaire as required and note that any

information given will be treated as confidential and used for the purpose of this research only. Please

do not write your name anywhere in the questionnaire. Thank you in advance.

Yours faithfully,

Elizabeth Wanjiku Mburu

SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. What is your Gender?

Male………………. Female………………….

2. How did the existence of your learner leader in your school come about?

Democratically elected by learner…………………… Endorsed by teachers…………………

SECTION B: PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS ON INFLUENCE OF DEMOCRATICALLY

ELECTED LEANERS LEADERS ON DISCIPLINE

3. Indicate the level to which you agree with the following statements concerning perception of teachers

on the influence of democratically elected leaners’ leaders’ on learners’ discipline

63
Statement SA-5 A-4 N-3 D-2 SD-1

(Strongly (Agree) (Neutral) (Disagree) (Strongly

Agree) Disagree)

Democratically elected leaners’

leaders have greatly maintained

discipline in the school

Democratically elected leaners’

leaders treat others with respect

and dignity

Democratically elected leaners’

leaders are expected to supervise

and coordinate all school

activities to ensure discipline in

the school

Democratically elected leaners’

leaders are expected to report to

deputy head teachers on matters

related to learner behavior and

discipline.

Democratically elected leaners’

leaders are expected to enhance

learners discipline and inculcate

good behavior

64
Democratically elected leaners

leaders discipline cases are

directly influenced by teachers

Some teachers disapprove

democratically elected leaners

leaders on the basis of their

behavior

Democratically elected leaners

leaders misuse their mandate

which compromise indiscipline

cases

Leaners leaders should be

appointed by teachers instead of

democratically being elected to

ensure discipline

Leaners elect leaders whom they

can influence easily

The prefects system was better

than democratic elections

SECTION C: EXTENT IN WHICH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEANERS’ LEADERS

PARTICIPATE IN ENHANCING LEARNERS DISCIPLINE

4. Do democratically learner’s leaders participate in decision making in the school?

Yes…………… No……………….

Explain……………………………………………………………………………………………
65
5. How do democratically elected learner’s leaders participate in enhancing discipline in the school?

Assigning duties to other leaners…………………….

Dialogue with leaners and teachers………………….

Punish leaners who break rules……………………….

Report wrong doers to the deputy principals……………………….

6. Do democratically elected learner’s leaders corporate with deputy head teacher to maintain discipline

in the school?

Yes…………………. No……………………

Kindly explain: ……………………………………………………………………………………

7. Which strategies do democratically elect learner’s leaders use to maintain discipline in the school?

Holding meetings with leaners………………….

Allowing learners to express their view freely…………………………….

Giving each learner a chance to explain themselves………………………….

8. Are democratically elected learner’s leaders given a free atmosphere to exercise their duties

democratically?

Yes……………………………… No……………………………

Explain……………………………………………………………………………………………

9. Do democratically elected learner’s leaders cooperate with teachers in enhancing discipline?

Yes……………… No……………….

Explain……………………………………………………………………………………………

10. How do you rate the extent to which democratically elected learner’s leaders participate in

enhancing discipline in the school?

Excellent………………….

Good………………….

Fair………………….
66
Poor…………………

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY.

APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR DEPUTY PRINCIPALS

What were the reactions of learners towards democratically elected leaners’ leaders’?

…..................................................................................................................................

How do democratically elected learner’s leaders relate with other leaners in school and even outside

school?

…......................................................................................................................................

…......................................................................................................................................

To what extent do you think democratically elected learner’s leaders encourage and motivate learners to

maintain discipline in school?

…...........................................................................................................................................

….................................................................................................................................

Has the existence of democratically elected learner’s leaders reduced indiscipline cases in your school?

…...........................................................................................................................................

….................................................................................................................................

To what extent do you think that teachers support or influence the work of democratically elected

learner leaders?

…...........................................................................................................................................

….................................................................................................................................

How do teachers perceive democratically elected learner’s leaders in relation to learner’s discipline in

your school?

…...........................................................................................................................................

….................................................................................................................................

67
Do democratically elected learner’s leaders attend board of management meetings to discuss issues

freely as a sign of democracy?

…...........................................................................................................................................

….................................................................................................................................

To what extent do learners emulate the behavior of democratically elected learner’s leaders?

…...........................................................................................................................................

….................................................................................................................................

How far have the democratically elected learner’s leaders enhanced learners discipline in your school?

…...........................................................................................................................................

….................................................................................................................................

Do learners use the democratically elected learner leaders as a link between them and teachers?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

68