TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS x
ABSTRACT Xi
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 Background to the study 1
1.2 Statement of the problem 3
1.3 Purpose of the study 3
1.4 Objectives of the study 3
1.5 Research questions 4
1.6 Significance of the study 4
1.7 Limitations of the study 4
1.8 scope of the study S
1.9 Definitions of significant terms 5
CHAPTER TWO 7
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.0 Introduction 7
2.1 Democratic leadership style and students’ discipline 7
2.2 Autocratic leadership style and students’ discipline 7
V
2.3 Laissez-faire leadership style and students discipline 8
2.4 Transformational leadership style and students’ discipline 8
2.5 Theoretical framework
2.6 Conceptual framework 11
CHAPTER THREE 12
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 12
3.0 Introduction 12
3.1 Research design 12
3.2 Target population 12
3.3 Sample size and sampling procedures 13
3.4 Research instruments 13
3.5 Validity of the research instruments 14
3.6 Reliability ofthe research instruments 14
3.7 Data collection procedures 15
3.8 Data analysis techniques 15
3.9 Ethical considerations 16
ChAPTER FOUR 17
DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION ANTI INTERPRETATION 17
4.0 Introduction 17
4.1 Instruments return rate 17
4.2. Background characteristics of respondents 18
4.2.1. Age of teachers and Head teachers 18
4.2.2Teachers’ and head teachers’ academic and professional qualifications 20
4.2.3 Head teachers’ and teachers’ duration of service 21
vi
4.2.4 Head teachers’ and students’ response on discipline issues in school 22
4.2.5 Head teachers’ and students’ response on the common discipline problems experienced in school
23
4.2.6 Head teachers’ and students’ view on the discipline at school 23
4.3. Democratic leadership style and students’ discipline 24
4.3.1 Head teachers’ response on democratic leadership style 25
4.3.2 Teachers’ response on democratic leadership style of teachers 26
4.3.3 Students’ response on democratic leadership style of head teachers 27
4.3.4 Head teachers’ responses on who writes the school rules and regulations 28
4.3.SHead teachers’ responses on students channels of communication of their grievances 29
4.3.6 Head teacher’s responses on whether teacher and other motivational speakers are involved in
advising student on good discipline 30
4.4 Head teacher’s autocratic leadership style on students’ discipline 31
4.4.1 Head teachers’ response on autocratic leadership style 31
4.4.2 Teachers’ response on head teachers’ autocratic leadership style 33
4.4.3 Students’ response on head teachers’ autocratic leadership style 34
4.5 Influence of laissez-faire leadership style on students’ discipline 35
4.5.1 ‘Head teachers’ response on laissez-faire leadership style 35
4.6 Influence of transformational leadership style on students’ discipline 36
4.6.1 Head teachers response on transformational leadership style 36
4.6.2 Teachers’ response on transformational leadership style 38
4.7 Teachers’ response on cases of indiscipline in school for the past four years 39
4.8 Suggested possible measures to promote discipline in school 40
4.9 The relationship between the head teacher’s leadership style and students’ discipline 40
VII
ChAPTER FIVE .45
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AN]) RECOMMENDATIONS 45
5.0 Introduction 45
5.1 Summary of findings 45
5.1.1 The influence of head teachers’ democratic leadership styles on students’ discipline in secondary
schools 45
5. 1.2The influence of head teachers’ autocratic leadership style on students’ discipline in secondary
schools 46
5. 1.3How Head teacher’s laissez-faire leadership style influence on student’s discipline 46
5.1 .4The influence of head teachers’ transformational leadership style on students’ discipline 47
5.2. Conclusion of the study 47
5.3 Recommendations of the study 47
5.4 Suggestions for further research 48
REFERENCE 49
APPENDIX I: QUESTIONI’4AIRE 53
ABSTRACT The purpose ofthis study was to investigate the influence ofhead teachers’leadership styles on students’ discipline in Bugweri Sub-County, Bugweri County, Bugweri district. Specifically, the study sought to establish the influence ofautocratic leadership style, democratic leadership style, laissez-faire leadership style, transactional leadership style and transformational leadership style on students’ discipline. This study was anchored on the Contingency Theory ofLeadership, developed by Fiedler (2004) cited in (Cole, 2002). The study used descriptive survey design to explore the influence of head teachers’ leadership styles on students’ discipline. Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) sampling procedure was used to determine the sample size. Sample size of 10% was utilized in obtaining 3 schools with 33 teachers that were used for piloting study. For students, however, five (5) were purposively pickedfrom each ofthe 3 schools taking part in the piloting study. For the main study, 30% of the total population was used to select 9 head teachers and 99 teachers. For students, however, purposive sampling technique was applied to select 10 students from each sampled school. Hence, from the 9 schools, 90 students took part in the main study. Head teachers’ questionnaires, teachers’ questionnaires, students questionnaires and question guided interviews for head teachers were used to collect data. The study yielded data that required both qualitative and quantitative analysis. From the findings of the study, it was established that the common discipline problems experienced in school are examination cheating (37%), drug abuse (17%) and absenteeism (25%). Findings also indicate that democratic leadership style has a great influence on students’ discipline in public secondary schools. Teachers indicated that there is need for head teachers to use democratic leadership (62.5%) besides transformational (50%) where discipline should be positive and constructive. 1/ was also established that autocratic leadership was exercised in schools by the head teachers. From the results obtained a majority of the teachers disagree (75.0%) that the autocratic leadership style is necessary in order to enable people to work as expected. Besides, other head teacher ‘s exercised laissez-faire leadership where they always permitted members to take it easy in their work (77.8%). The study recommends that head teachers and teachers should adopt democratic leadership style that is was liked by a majority. Dictatorship can affect students’ discipline and has always led to unrests in schools. It was recommended that a replica ofthis study to be conducted in other sub-counties in Uganda.