Education is widely acknowledged as a crucial factor in the development of any nation, serving as a catalyst for progress and change. Scholars like Lockheed and Verspoor (1991) have emphasized that education is fundamental to economic and social development, enabling individuals and society to actively participate in the developmental process by acquiring knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (MoE, 1994). Schools play a central role in achieving these educational objectives as they serve as institutions where formal teaching and learning activities take place. Educators worldwide have been striving to improve schools and enhance their effectiveness and efficiency. In the past, efforts were primarily focused on enhancing students’ basic skills and implementing standardized testing programs (Carlson, 1996).

However, the rapidly evolving needs of society have compelled schools to adapt their systems to meet the changing requirements. In an increasingly competitive environment, schools are required to raise standards and improve the quality of their services (Harris, 2005). They must ensure the availability of relevant resources and revise the teaching-learning process to provide students with a standardized education. Consequently, school improvement programs have gained significant attention as a dominant approach to fostering educational change and improving student achievement and the overall quality of education (Hopkins, 2001).

One such program is the SIP, which aims to bring about positive changes in schools and ensure quality education. According to the Ethiopian Ministry of Education, the SIP is one of the six general education quality improvement packages designed to enhance school capacity, prioritize needs, develop school improvement plans, promote community participation, improve resource utilization and decision-making, and enhance the learning environment (MoE, 2007). The SIP focuses on four key domains: teaching-learning, school leadership and management, parent-community school relationships, and a healthy school environment. Each of these domains is of equal importance, and the strength of the whole program is contingent on the effectiveness of each domain (MoE, 2010). The SIP is a continuous and cyclic process that involves planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting, all of which need to be consistently implemented at the school level (MoE, 2007).

Given the significance of the SIP in improving education quality, this study aims to assess the implementation of the SIP as part of the General Education Quality Improvement Package (GEQIP). School improvement is a distinct approach to educational change that focuses on enhancing student performance by improving teaching-learning processes and creating supportive conditions (Harris, 2005).

Previous studies by Hopkins et al. (1994) and Adelman and Taylor (2007) have highlighted the positive impact of the SIP program on education quality, emphasizing the role of best practices within the four domains of the program. Likewise, other researchers have explored the implementation, challenges, and opportunities of the SIP in different regions of Ethiopia, including Kifle and Tariku (2014), Mengistu (2017), Gezahegn and Abebe (2019), Solomon (2020), Jerusalem and Ali (2021), Dabesa and Cheramlak, (2021), and Yishak and Triegaardt (2022).

Some other studies were also conducted about perceptions and contributions of stakeholders to the SIP implementation, such as Solomon (2016), Solomon (2020), and Yishak and Triegaardt (2022). Moreover, Lemessa (2016) and Solomon (2016) investigated the status of SIP implementation, with Solomon focusing on preparation and Lemessa on actual implementation. However, the current study aims to provide a more comprehensive examination of the status of SIP implementation, focusing on its extent, implementation differences among the four domains, and the impact on students’ academic results across different SIP implementation eras. This is important because prior research, including studies by Dereje (2012), Gezahegn and Abebe (2019), Solomon (2016), Solomon (2020), and Dabesa and Cheramlak (2021), have indicated that the implementation of the SIP has faced various challenges that have limited its high-level implementation, particularly in the Gamo Gofa Zone. Therefore, this study aimed to seek this gap by examining the extent of SIP implementation with respect to its main domains in primary schools of Gamo Gofa Zone in South Ethiopia Region. Accordingly, the following research questions were formulated to address the research objectives:

Gamo Gofa Zone is one of the 15 zones located in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regional State of Ethiopia. The administration of the zone consists of 15 rural districts and two city administrations. The capital town of the zone is Arba Minch, situated 505 km to the south of Addis Ababa, the country’s capital, and 255 km from the regional city, Hawassa.

According to the 2017/18 annual abstract from the Gamo Gofa Zone Education Department, there are a total of 902 schools, 12,445 teachers, 238 supervisors, 902 directors, and 542,867 students. The focus of the present study is on four districts within the zone: Bonke, Boreda, Demba Gofa, and Geze Gofa (Figure 2).

The current study employed a descriptive survey research design to gather information about one or more groups of individuals, such as their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or past experiences (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). This design was chosen because it allows researchers to obtain reliable and pertinent data from diverse groups regarding the actual implementation of the problem under investigation. It also facilitates the collection of a substantial amount of quantitative data from a sample population within a specific timeframe, which can then be quantitatively analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics (Best and Kahn, 2005). Moreover, this descriptive survey approach was well-suited to capture a comprehensive understanding of the target population’s experiences, perceptions, and opinions related to the problem of interest. The quantitative data collected can provide valuable insights to inform future research and interventions.

The study employed a quantitative research method which involves the systematic empirical investigation of observable phenomena via statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques (Neuman 2000). This method is well-suited for collecting a large volume of data from a defined sample within a limited timeframe (Best and Kahn, 2005).

Moreover, quantitative research is commonly used to address specific research objectives and questions (Engel and Schutt, 2016). It allows researchers to measure and analyze relationships between variables, test hypotheses, and draw inferences about a population based on a representative sample. This method is particularly effective for assessing the opinions, attitudes, and behaviors of a large target population. The use of quantitative methods facilitated the gathering of numerical data that could be statistically analyzed to identify patterns, trends, and relationships. This enabled the researchers to generate objective, quantifiable insights about the topic of study. Hence, by collecting and analyzing numerical data, the researchers were able to produce findings that could be generalized to the broader population and replicated in future studies.

Regarding the sampling process, a simple random technique was employed to select teacher and student groups. Census and availability sampling techniques were used to obtain principals and school improvement committees, respectively. Out of a total of 15 districts and two city administrations, four districts were chosen. Similarly, out of 152 primary schools, 16 schools were selected. Furthermore, 99 teachers were chosen from a pool of 411 teachers, while 396 grade seven and eight students were selected from a total of 3,470 students. Additionally, 32 school principals were selected from a group of 42 and 44 school improvement committee members were chosen from a pool of 91 members.

The selection of 571 participants in total was based on the recommendation to include at least 10–20% of the total population to determine the desired sample size (Neuman, 2000). These participants were chosen to represent the population from which each stratum was drawn (Table 1).

A survey questionnaire consisting of close-ended items was utilized to gather quantitative data from students, teachers, principals, and school improvement committees. This approach offers the advantage of efficiently collecting information from a large number of respondents within a short timeframe and at a reasonable cost. The items in the questionnaire were designed based on the main domains, elements, standards, and indicators of the SIP, which were originally developed by the Ministry of Education of the Country, Ethiopia. The questionnaire consisted of a total of 24 items, organized as follows: the first seven items pertained to the teaching-learning domain, the next nine items were related to school leadership, four items were focused on the conducive school environment, and the remaining four items addressed community participation. A five-point rating Likert scale was employed, with the following scale: very high-5, high-4, medium-3, low-2, and very low-1, to collect data from the respondents.

To analyze students’ academic results during different phases of SIP implementation, a thorough review of academic records from grade four zonal and grade eight regional examinations was conducted.

The initial reliability test of the research instrument, conducted with 30 participants at Kamba primary school, yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.71. After making corrections such as rewording ambiguous questions and adjusting the item set, the Cronbach’s alpha increased to 0.86 upon re-testing. The survey items were also reviewed by subject matter experts for validity. The overall reliability coefficient for the study variables was found to be >0.8, which is considered an acceptable level (George and Mallery, 2003).

Descriptive statistics, including measures such as mean and standard deviation, were employed for statistical analysis to assess the level of implementation across the main SIP domains. Bar graphs were utilized to visually present and compare the academic performance of the reviewed students during various strategic periods. Additionally, one-way ANOVA was employed to identify any significant differences in implementation among the four program domains and the four districts. Before application of the ANOVA test, its preconditions like randomization, normal distribution and homogeneity of variance were checked.

Regarding the magnitude of SIP implementation, the data obtained from principals, school improvement committees, teachers, and students of the four districts are commonly treated using descriptive statistics; mean and standard deviation as indicated in Table 2.

In Table 2, the analysis indicates that the implementation of the Geze Gofa district SIP across four domains is at an average level. The mean scores for each domain are as follows: teaching-learning (M = 3.99 ± 0.655), school leadership (M = 3.83 ± 0.696), conducive school environment (M = 3.53 ± 0.963), and community participation (M = 3.23 ± 1.122). Notably, the Geze Gofa district shows a high level of implementation in teaching-learning and school leadership domains.

Similarly, in the Demba Gofa district, the mean values indicate an average level of implementation across all domains: teaching-learning domain (M = 3.96 ± 0.625), school leadership (M = 3.87 ± 0.710), conducive school environment (M = 3.54 ± 0.947), and community participation (M = 3.35 ± 0.979). However, the schools in the Demba Gofa district are very close to a high level in the teaching-learning and school leadership domains.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals that schools in the Boreda district are at an average level across all four domains. However, the teaching-learning and school leadership domains show a good potential for performing at high levels. Lastly, the Bonke district results indicate that schools’ performance in implementing teaching-learning (M = 3.75 ± 0.862), school leadership (M = 3.67 ± 0.890), conducive school environment (M = 3.28 ± 1.169), and community participation (M = 2.98 ± 1.184) are nearly at the average extent of implementation.

To sum up, the analysis reveals that the implementation of the SIP varies across the districts. Geze Gofa and Demba Gofa districts perform well in teaching-learning and school leadership. Boreda district shows potential for high performance, while Bonke district’s implementation is moderate in all domains. The overall SIP implementation with regard to the main domains are presented in Table below.

The scores presented in Table 3 demonstrate the average scores for the implementation of the SIP across four main domains. The mean score for the overall implementation of SIP in these domains was 3.89 ± 0.711 for teaching-learning, 3.79 ± 0.762 for school leadership, 3.43 ± 1.007 for conducive school environment, and 3.33 ± 1.064 for community participation.

The overall implementation of the School Improvement Program (SIP) across the four domains was found to be at a moderate level, as evidenced by an average score of 3.58 ± 0.722. Likewise, previous studies have identified several key factors limiting SIP implementation, including lack of learning facilities and poor community participation (Dabesa and Cheramlak, 2021), inadequate financial and material resources, low follow-up and support from education officials, lack of commitment from the school community, and poor cooperation from parents and partner organizations (Kalayou, 2011), absence of a well-prepared plan, poor understanding of SIP at the school level, weak monitoring and evaluation, lack of leadership capacity, insufficient stakeholder involvement, and insufficient attention to SIP (Yishak and Triegaardt, 2022). Similarly, the major hindering challenges hindering effective implementation of SIP were found to be scarcity of instructional materials, lack of adequate budget, improper utilization of school grants, absence of incentive mechanisms, and failure to search for additional budgets (Solomon, 2020).

However, Gezahegn and Abebe (2019) found that the preparations made for SIP implementation were satisfactory, while Kifle and Tariku (2014) suggested that the participation of different stakeholders, such as teachers, students, parents, principals, and supervisors, in the school improvement program is weak due to a lack of coordination toward common goals, and recommended that school management should take responsibility for organizing the efforts of various stakeholders to ensure effective SIP implementation. Similarly, Marzano (2003) noted that the SIP initiatives in South Africa faced challenges such as a lack of material resources, limited capacity of educational leaders, poor participation, and a lack of safe institutional environments. Hopkins (2002) also observed the difficulty in changing school management and work culture to effectively implement SIP in developing countries.

The ANOVA results in Table 4 showed significant differences among the four main domains implemented in the schools of selected districts. The F-values and associated p-values were as follows: teaching-learning (F = 9.039, p = 0.003), school leadership (F = 6.117, p = 0.014), conducive school environment (F = 4.106, p = 0.043), and community participation (F = 10.246, p = 0.001). The F-tests and corresponding p-values indicated that there are significant variations in these domains, with p < 0.05 for each. This refers that the implementation of the four main domains differs significantly across the schools, highlighting the importance of addressing these areas for effective SIP implementation.

Likewise, the analysis of SIP implementation in different districts demonstrates a moderate level of effort across all domains, that is consistent with previous studies by Dereje (2012) and Lemessa (2016). Contrarily, Gezahegn and Abebe (2019) found that most schools implementing SIP performed moderately in four domains, with weak performance in community involvement. However, they noted that schools excelled in teaching-learning and school leadership, while putting less effort into improving the school environment and community participation. This suggests an imbalance in emphasis on different domains. Hence, MoE (2006) suggests that creating a safe and healthy school environment is crucial for school improvement, and Adelman and Taylor (2007) also emphasized the importance of schools being closely connected to the community for effectiveness and care. Likewise, enhancing community involvement can lead to improved academic performance, reduced disciplinary problems, increased staff morale, and better resource utilization (MoE, 2006; Adelman and Taylor, 2007).

Jeilu (2010) emphasized the need for continuous improvement even in the highest-ranked schools, particularly in the teaching-learning process, empowering stakeholders, creating conducive learning conditions, and enhancing leadership. In addition, MoE (2011) highlights the importance of giving equal attention to the four domains, with teaching and learning being crucial for student outcomes. Challenges identified by Kalayou (2011), Mengistu (2017), Solomon (2020), and Solomon (2016) include scarcity of instructional materials, inadequate budgets, improper utilization of school grants, lack of incentives, lack of commitment from the school community, poor parental cooperation and support, exclusion of stakeholders in the planning process, and insufficient training for effective SIP implementation (Dabesa and Cheramlak, 2021). These challenges have limited the program’s effective implementation.

In 2006 Ministry of Education of Ethiopia launched SIP as a national program in all schools to improve student results. Particularly primary schools have been implementing a three-year strategic plan using SIP documents like school improvement framework, school improvement program implementation manual, and school improvement guideline. During this session, the researchers tried to show the significant difference among districts with regard to the main SIP domain implementation in primary schools using a one-way ANOVA.

According to Table 5, the statistical analysis (F = 3.444 and Sign = 0.017) and (F = 3.900 and Sign = 0.009) show that there is a significant difference in the implementation extent of teaching-learning and community participation domains among the four districts. However, the analysis of the school leadership domain (F = 2.112 and Sign = 0.098) and the conducive school environment domain (F = 2.399 and Sign = 0.067) reveals that there is no statistically significant difference in the implementation of SIP in these two domains across the schools in the four districts. This finding is consistent with the idea that school improvement should be the responsibility of each individual school, as mentioned by Stoll and Fink (1996). High-performing schools achieve student learning outcomes by employing effective practices across various elements within the four domains of schooling, as highlighted by Gallagher (2004). The Ministry of Education of Ethiopia acknowledges that the specific practices within these domains may vary from country to country and from one location to another based on their respective priorities (MoE, 2006).

In general, the study found that there was a significant difference in the implementation of the teaching-learning and community participation domains of the SIP among four districts. However, there was no significant difference in the implementation of the school leadership and conducive school environment domains. The importance of school improvement was emphasized, and it was noted that practices within these domains may vary based on priorities.

Simultaneously, the researchers examined records pertaining to students’ academic achievements, which is the primary objective of implementing the SIP. In order to accomplish this, we analyzed 9 years’ worth of data from three different strategic eras of the SIP, evaluating the results of zonal examinations for fourth-grade students, as well as the regional examination results for eighth-grade students. The findings were then presented in two bar charts, illustrating the percentage of students who were promoted based on the zonal and regional examinations across four districts. The charts also provide a comparative representation of the zonal examination results.

According to Figure 3, the data regarding the first two reviewed periods of implementing the SIP strategy in the districts from 2011 to 2013 and 2013 to 2016, indicates that over 90% of students were promoted to the next grade level, and this improvement was consistent for both males and females. However, in the period from 2016 to 2019, the percentage of promoted students dropped to 72.53%. Additionally, the graph shows that in the first two strategic eras of SIP implementation at the zonal level, the results for grade four students increased from 83.81 to 87.58%. However, in the third reviewed strategic era, the rate of promotion for zonal students decreased by 66.41%.

According to the bar graph shown in Figure 4, there was an improvement in the percentage of students promoted in the primary school leaving regional examination during the first and second reviewed strategic eras of the districts. This improvement was observed in both males and females, with an average of 80% of students being promoted to the next grade level. However, in the third reviewed strategic era, the percentage of promoted students decreased to 74.77%. The zonal data also showed a similar trend, with an improvement from 73.03 to 80.13% in the first and second reviewed strategic eras. However, in the third reviewed strategic era, the zonal rate of promoted students decreased by 10%.

Based on the information presented in the charts, it can be inferred that the implementation of the SIP in the districts has implications for student performance. The results of the grade four zonal examinations indicate that effective implementation of SIP is crucial in the first cycle primary schools of the study districts. Similarly, the grade eight regional examination results suggest that the SIP is not yet properly implemented and requires careful attention in the study districts.

Likewise, the concept of school improvement involves enhancing the input and process of teaching and learning to improve student outcomes. The SIP aims to improve the quality of education and enhance students’ learning achievements and outcomes. It is recognized as a vital strategy for schools to thrive and maintain quality in a changing educational landscape (Hopkins et al., 1994; Hopkins, 2002; MoE, 2006; Jeilu, 2010). The main focus of the program is to improve students’ learning and learning outcomes. The purpose of school improvement, as stated by the Ministry of Education (MoE, 2007), is to enhance students’ learning and their outcomes at a higher level.

Similarly, according to Yishak and Triegaardt (2022), the success of school improvement is directly linked to the systematic planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes implemented by school leaders. This contributes to higher student achievement. To ensure effective school improvement, key stakeholders like teachers, students, and parents should be encouraged to actively participate in the planning and implementation. The central goal is to improve student performance, so school leaders must properly execute the school improvement agenda by raising stakeholder awareness, fostering collaborative responsibility, implementing and refining the main SIP domains, continuously monitoring progress, and addressing challenges that arise.