Effect of head teachers’ partnerships collaboration on inclusive education implementation

The study investigated effect of head teachers’ partnerships collaboration on inclusive education implementation. Bartalanffy (1969) open systems advocates for head teachers to coordinate partnerships to address the lack of support systems for inclusive education. Descriptive survey was applied, and Chi-square tested the null hypothesis. Questionnaires were administered to 71 head teachers and 297 teachers, supplemented by document analysis. Interview was used on eight Quality Assurance Standards Officers (QASOs) and four Education Assessment Resource Centre Officers (EARCs). Quantitative data was coded and analysed using descriptive statistics, and presented in frequency tables and bar graphs. Qualitative data was coded, transcribed and presented in narrative form. Quantitative and qualitative data findings were discussed in juxtaposition with confirming or refuting the research evidence, and reinforcing the interpretation. The study established that majority of schools lacked well- structured coordinated partnerships. This implied that there was low partnership participation in schools’ programs as referenced by head teachers and teachers on provision for specialized teaching and learning resources, 63.4% and 63.3%; assessment of learners, 64.8% and 70.4%; funds outsourcing, 69% and 69.7%. It was recommended that head teachers should increase capacities in partnerships collaboration, and institute well-structured coordinated framework for partnerships engagement for effective inclusive education implementation.

of specialized resources in national and institutional plans/policies, and weak stakeholder/partnership coordination in utilizing the resources (Layton, 2015). It is argued that parents of learners with special needs often express dissatisfaction working with school personnel and other professionals (National Council for Special Education, 2010). Thus, the need for this study to re-examine how head teachers coordinate partnerships with their schools to implement inclusive education.
In Kenya, the National Education Sector Plan [NESP] (Republic of Kenya, 2014a) provides for head teachers to work collaboratively with partnerships in implementing inclusive education. The government policy option of reducing gaps in financing of education is partnerships such as NGOs, which finance only 0.73% of education budget; nevertheless, collaboration with parents, school-communities is highly under-exploited (Ministry of Education, 2003). Gatumbi, Ayot, Kimemia and Ondigi (2015) study reveal that 70.7% of respondents were concerned that schools do not collaborate with the community and other agencies to support learners with special needs in schools. According to Education Sector Report (Republic of Kenya, 2016), 105,727 learners with special needs enrolled in primary schools against the national enrolment of 8,831,263 million pupils. It is indicated that resource allocation for SNE was 948 million compared to 18,627 million for FPE; nonetheless, lack of specialized training of teachers and specialized teaching and learning resources hampered learners with special needs access to schools. It is imperative that the study evaluates how head teachers utilized partnerships provisions of resources for implementing inclusive education in their schools.
In Nairobi City County out of 468,754 pupils who enrolled in primary schools only 1880 were special needs against the backdrop of 105,727 (Nairobi County Taskforce Education Report, 2015). The Department for International Development (2015) report, and National Special Needs Education (SNE) Survey Report (Republic of Kenya, 2014b) revealed that learners with special needs are denied access in primary schools due to lack of resources and specialized teachers. The Handicap International (2013) report indicates that head teachers have great influence on teachers and community, and need to collaborate with partnerships to provide educational resources and support services for implementing inclusive education. This demonstrates that head teachers and partnerships were not doing all that they were expected to do to implement inclusive education, which is the onus of this study.

Statement to the problem
Developing countries including Kenya look upon NGOs to take the lead in implementing inclusive education policy by use of resources and projects. These projects do not sufficiently address inclusive education for learners with special needs, and not much is known about the effects of NGOs-schools' partnerships on the implementation of inclusive education (UNESCO, 2009). Disappointingly, the role of governments seems to be limited to formulation or changing of education policies; whereas, NGOs act as pressure groups for policy change, service delivery, community awareness and mapping resources (Meenakshi, Anke & Sip Jan Piji, 2013). For instance, parents under the auspices of Nairobi Family Support Services (NFSS), resorted to joint advocacy for educational rights of their children, in the case of very few learners with special needs who enrolled in primary schools in Nairobi City County (Nairobi County Taskforce Education Report, 2015). There was need for collaborative partnerships to find out what works in practice for inclusive education (Department for International Development, 2015). Therefore, it was prudent to re-examine how head teachers initiate partnerships collaboration to provide educational resources and support services for implementing inclusive education.

Summary of related literature review
The development of partnerships among stakeholders supports government efforts, collaboration, and prevents duplication (WHO, 2011). In Qatar, a public private partnership with schools provides specialized resources and services as well as research for inclusive education. In Sweden, the government supports a special initiative to promote the development of specialized resources through exhibitions, and touring for learners with special needs in Europe and Asia (UNESCO, 2015). The Government of India has adopted a scheme that makes specialized resources available free of charge to low earners and subsidies to average income earners (Government of India, 2014).
Coordinated partnerships between schools and partnerships lead to improved learning outcomes for learners with special needs (Stoner et al., 2005). However, Hayes and Bulat (2018) argue that head teachers ought to identify programs that will engage stakeholders including parents to support educational needs for learners with special needs and teachers training for successful implementation of inclusive education. In Lesotho, partnership between schools, NGOs and CBOs resulted in successful implementation of inclusive education with 75% enrolment of learners between ages 5-14 years (Mariga, McConkey & Myezwa, 2014 The Republic of Kenya (2014b;2016) cited the lack of data on learners with special needs, policy operational framework, and stakeholders' engagement structures in management of specialized resources as a hindrance to implementation of inclusive education in Kenya. Estimating children's educational needs and mapping available specialized resources are a prerequisite for planning equitable services. In the absence of available data, 3-5 per cent of children in any population can be used as a baseline to calculate the number of learners who need the specialized resources and services (Borg, 2013;WHO, 2011).
A number of partnerships collaboration have been initiated in schools in Kenya, though not in well-structured and coordinated way. For instance, Leonard Cheshire Disability Organization has partnered with regular schools in Western Kenya to promote inclusive education in areas such as professional development, teaching and learning resources, technical and life skills (Adoyo & Odeny, 2015). In Nairobi City County, NGOs such as Mellon Educate provide financial aid to schools to enhance inclusive education, yet head teachers do not acquire adequate resources for teaching and learning (Nairobi County Taskforce Education Report, 2015). According to Sessional Paper of 2018 on Reforming Education and Training for Sustainable Development (Republic of Kenya, 2018b), coordination of partnerships is not only important for effective management of schools' resources but also for accountability and transparency. Therefore, it was prudent to re-examine how head teachers coordinated partnerships for provision of educational needs and support services for diverse learners.

Methodology and design
A descriptive survey design was employed in this study. Through this design a researcher is able to evaluate policy issues and programs, using questionnaires and interviews, and statistically analyze data to test research hypotheses. The target population had 4546 constituents from 203 public primary schools in Nairobi City County. The sample size was 514 respondents comprising of the nine QASOs and four EARCs officers, 102 head teachers and 400 teachers, selected using consensus and simple random, respectively. This is based on Ariasian (2006, 2009) sample size derivation of 50 per cent for smaller population below 500 for head teachers, and 400 sample size if the population is around/beyond 5000 for teachers.
Two sets of questionnaires were designed for head teachers and teachers, interview guides were used on QASO and EARC officers to collect data. Document analysis guides were used to cross-check the documents. The instruments return rates were 71(69.6%) and 297(74.3%) for head teachers and teachers'; eight (88.9%) and four (100%) for QASO and EARC officers, respectively. Babbie (1989) in Best and Kahn (2006) suggest that a 50% response rate is adequate, while 60% and 70% are good and very good, respectively.
Face validity was enhanced by consulting the supervisors and peers in the School of Education to review the tools on appearance, appropriateness of wording, content, and format of items. Pilot test was conducted on the instruments involving five percent of the sample size. Baker (1994) generally recommends between 10-20% of the sample size. However, Billingham, Whitehead and Julious (2013) argue that a formal sample size for pilot studies may not be necessary. Cronbach (1970) alpha was employed to test the reliability of the instruments. The following reliability indexes were met: head teachers' questionnaires, 0.876 and 0.926; teachers' questionnaires, 0.900 and 0.934; QASOs and EARCs interview guides, 1.00 and 1.000; document analysis guide, 0.945 and 0.960. Quantitative data was coded, analyzed using descriptive statistics, and presented in frequency tables and graphs. Qualitative data was coded, analyzed in themes, and presented in narrative form. Both quantitative and qualitative data findings were discussed in juxtaposition with confirming or refuting the research evidence, and reinforcing the interpretation. Sheldon and Hutchins (2011) and Hayes and Bulat (2018) argue that head teachers ought to identify programs that will engage stakeholders including parents to support educational needs for learners with special needs and teachers training for successful implementation of inclusive education. The Ministry of Education Strategic Plan (Republic of Kenya, 2006) opines that parents and community's roles should not be restricted to resource mobilization and decision-making, but also to contributing in many other ways towards the education of the children, the participation of the government notwithstanding. The responses of head teachers and teachers on head teachers' partnerships collaboration to implement inclusive are presented in Figure 1.

=percentage of head teachers and teachers' responses on head teachers' partnerships collaboration for implementing inclusive education
Findings in Figure 1 revealed that there were high negative scores across the following programs of school and partnerships collaboration: provision of specialized teaching and learning materials 63.4% and 63.3%; assessment of learners with special needs, 64.8% and 66.3%; sending learners for referred physiotherapy and expertise counseling, 57.7% and 70.4%; outsourcing funds for infrastructure development, 69% and 69.7%'; sponsorship to support school programs, 60.6% and 75.8%. This implies that there were very little, weak and unstructured collaborative efforts between the schools and the partnerships resulting in very low participation in school programs and learning outcomes for diverse learners, which dragged implementation of inclusive education. Several researches indicate that both educationists and policy makers single out the challenges in collaborating schools and stakeholders in school programs, despite the crucial role they play in implementing inclusive education (Duhaney & Spenser 2000;Epstein, 2001). QASO 5 was forthright: There is no structured collaboration with partnerships. NGOs such as Ujamaa Africa, Association of Physical Disability in Kenya (APDK), and Korea International Co-operation Agency (KOICA) support infrastructure, teaching and learning resources to integrated and special schools. They come to my office to ask for directions to a school they want to visit and I direct them.
In retrospect to the findings in Figure 1, Gatumbi, Ayot, Kimemia and Ondigi (2015) study on teachers and administrators' preparedness in handing learners with special needs in inclusive education in Kenya, revealed that 70.7% of respondents were concerned that schools do not collaborate with the community and other agencies to support learners with special needs in schools. In addition, Irungu study (2014) indicated that less than half of the head teachers, 40%, indicated having covered the content area of parent collaboration in inclusive educational settings. It is indicated that 44% of these respondents had given priority to parent collaboration. Thus, this study established that head teachers' commitment to gain experience with partnerships collaboration, could translate into positive support systems and services for implement inclusive education in schools.
Further analysis of the study findings on schools-partnerships collaboration in Figure 1 showed that the provision of specialized teaching and learning materials was assented by 36.6% and 36.7% head teachers and teachers. On the other hand, higher negative scores, 63.4% and 63.3% of the same respondents dissented it. The implication is that majority of the respondents were dissatisfied with the low collaborative efforts between schools and partnerships in provision of specialized teaching and learning materials for learners with special needs. The ramification of these findings is that there was low participation of partnerships in the provision of specialized teaching materials to schools. The document analysis of records on schools and partnerships collaboration is portrayed in Table 1.  (2011), that head teachers should guide parents to form school committees to facilitate every child's access to school without discrimination and mobilize resources for teaching and learning in school. It was needful that head teachers re-engaged well-structured collaboration with stakeholders and partnerships for provision of specialized teaching and learning materials to improve access and participation in education for diverse learners.
The findings from Figure 1 on assessment of learners with special needs indicate that 35.2% and 33.7% of head teachers and teachers consent that their schools made arrangements for learners' identification and assessment; however, majority representing 64.8% and 66.3% held a contrary view. This contradiction suggests that majority of the schools did not conduct identification and assessment of learners with special needs prior to admission, except for few integrated and special schools. The implication is that learners with special needs were denied access to regular schooling due to lack of expertise skills to identify and assess the learners, and inadequate facilities. Similarly, Hayes and Bulat (2017)  EARCs provided in-service training on identification and assessment of learners with special needs. Interestingly, the in-service training of teachers does not translate in assessment and placement of their learners in schools. Muuya (2002) argues that special teachers, regular teachers, therapists, audiologists and nutritionists must be involved in the assessment of learners. Therefore, it is incumbent upon head teachers to formulate well-structured collaborative partnership participation including teachers, parents and experts in assessment and placement of learners in their schools. QASO 5 concurred: In a way head teacher collaborate with EARC officers who visit schools to assess learners for referrals to special schools or units and also physiotherapy. EARC officers have specialized skills to identify and assess learners but we (QASOs) do not have. EARC officers can also train teachers if invited, though they are few.
The findings in Figure 1 on referral of learners for physiotherapy and expertise counselling reveal that average score of 42.3% for head teachers, and lower score of 29.6% for teachers consented to it. On the other hand, quite high negative scores of 57.7% for head teachers and very high scores of 70.4% for teachers contended against it. These findings show converging views from the respondents that very few learners were referred for specialized services by head teachers, with very little or without the knowledge of the teachers in school. This implies that assessments and referrals of learners were not well-structured, documented and followed-up.
The findings of document analysis in Table 1  The findings on referral of learners are adduced to Juma and Malasi (2018) study that indicate that less than half of referral and assessment centres in Kenya involve audiologists, speech therapists and nutritionists, but vision therapists and regular teachers are rarely involved in the referral and assessment. It is revealed that 76% of referral centres use obsolete equipment, a situation that has culminated in 72% of regular schools admitting learners with special needs without proper assessment and treatment. According to Talley and Brintnell (2015), admitting these learners without an expert referral is an act of education exclusion.
Schools collaborate with health care workers in screening learners for possible health conditions, referral for medical help and enrolment. For instance, congenital disabilities such as down syndrome can be prevented through early intervention before and when enrolled in school to enable them hear and communicate verbally (Mariga, McConkey & Myezwa, 2014). It was prudent that head teachers initiate collaborative structures with teachers, parents, referral and assessment centres, and service providers to provide physiotherapy, expertise counselling and other support services for learners with special needs.
The findings on outsourcing of funds for infrastructural provisions for learners with special needs from Figure 1 showed that this item elicited lower positive scores of 31% and 30.3% from head teachers and teachers; however, the same respondents registered higher negative scores accounting for 69% and 69.7% respectively. The findings of document analysis on outsourcing of funds in Table 1  The ramification of the findings in Figure 1 on outsourcing of funds is that majority of the schools had very minimal funding channels for infrastructure development; thus, failure to improving on infrastructure. In addition, the outsourced funds were not fully accounted for in terms of channelling it for the intended purpose, and auditing how it was spent. The findings on outsourcing of funds are in semblance to Irungu (2014)  The findings on sponsorship to support school programmes such as open day and outreach for diverse learners from Figure 1 showed that 39.4% and 24.2% of head teachers and teachers consented to it. However, a bigger proportion of the same respondents accounting for 60.6% and 75.8% were contended. This implies that teachers were less aware of the sponsorship for open day and outreach programmes partly because there was no well-structured collaboration initiative for partnership participation in schools. In seconding these findings, Irungu (2014) study found out that only 20.8% of the study participants indicated that EARCs were involved in organizing awareness programmes on the education of learners with special needs. The implication was that teachers, parents and other stakeholders were left out of the uncoordinated sponsorship initiative which resulted into very minimal participation and outcomes in the majority of schools. Janney, Snell, Beers, and Raynes (1995) argue that head teachers need to work with education officials in their localities and other stakeholders to ensure that learners with special needs have access to buses, buildings, classrooms and extracurricular activities. Sanders and Harvey (2002) opine that community partners provide funds for school activities including transport and fees for the learners. Some communities in Kenya, NGOs and CBOs assisted in payment of school fees, provided assistive devices and general care of learners with special needs, and hired aides at a cost of KShs. 5000 per parent; thus, enabling school enrolment and attendance (Republic of Kenya, 2014b).
Therefore, it was evident that collaborative partnerships were unutilized opportunities that head teachers needed to have fully exploited to effectively implement inclusive education in schools.

Effectiveness of head teachers' partnerships collaboration for implementing inclusive education
Tinde, Olja and Dragica (2016)   keyboards; as a result, learners were able to access learning materials without the assistance of readers (United Nations, 2015).
The findings on the effect of collaboration of partnerships in assessment of learners with special needs in Figure 2 revealed that lower scores of 15.4% and 30.6% of head teachers and teachers felt that at least there was participation of partners in the assessment. However, majority, 63.4% and 60.3% of the same respondents strongly felt that the participation was low. This suggests that very few integrated and special schools represented by 15.4% and 30.6% had their learners assessed and placed in their schools through some partnership collaborative efforts. However, majority of the schools, particularly regular schools failed to initiate and coordinate collaborative partnerships to assess and place learners with special needs in their schools. The implication of these findings is that there was very low and uncoordinated participation of partnership in assessment and placement of learners with special needs in majority of the schools; hence, denying them access and participation in learning. Heckman and Masteroy (2005) opine that early identification and intervention leads to positive outcomes such as high academic performance. However, in both highincome and low-income countries, identification of learners with severe special needs is done prior to reaching school age, while those with less or mild special needs such as low vision, hearing impairment, learning disability and moderate autism are identified after joining pre-primary or primary school (Wirz, Edwards, Flower & Yousafzi, 2005).
In Lesotho coordinated collaborative partnership between schools, NGOs and CBOs resulted in successful implementation of inclusive education with 75% of diverse learners between ages 5-15 years assessed and placed (Mariga, McConkey & Myezwa, 2014). In addition, Villa et al. (2003) study on school-community partnerships in Vietnam, saw to it that teachers were trained to cooperative learning, assessment and placement of learners with special needs in regular classrooms. The effect of these collaborative initiatives was that the access and participation in learning of learners with special needs increased from 30% to 86%.
On the contrary, in Kenya, similar findings to this study are revealed in a study by Irungu (2014) that found out that 97.5% of the class teachers reported insufficient support from parents as one of the challenges the head teachers faced in implementing inclusive education. The same respondents accounting for 56.3% felt that their head teachers received inadequate support from teachers to promote inclusive education. (2017) espouse that identification and assessment of learners with special needs is carried out in collaboration with the school and stakeholders such as parents and local education authorities; whereby, learners are placed in school where their information is recorded in a database system which is updated regularly to check on their retention rate.

Merita and Terina
The findings on outsourcing of funds for infrastructural provisions and sponsoring school programs from Figure 2 showed that lower positive scores of 14.1% and 27.6% of head teachers and teachers felt that there was little participation on this initiative. Ironically, higher negative scores of 66.2% and 60.9% of the same respondents strongly felt that there was very low participation of partners on this initiative. These findings are suggestive that majority of the head teachers lacked common understanding with teachers and other stakeholders on the initiative to outsource funds for their schools. The implication is that majority of the stakeholders and partners lowly participated not only on the initiative of outsourcing funds for the school's programs but also were discouraged from participating in providing support services and educational needs of diverse learners in the schools. This is partly attributed to personal initiatives by head teachers and school committees to outsource funds for their schools' programs of interest to themselves, without proper coordination with other stakeholders including teachers, parents, sponsors, and partnerships. EARC officer 6 submitted: They rarely speak about donors or money they get from them. As a matter of concern, they divert money for inclusive education and even the one meant for infrastructure to other areas of the school. There are no records to show how much funding they received from sponsors for learners with special needs in special units in regular primary schools.
The revelation by EARC officer 6 point to financial impropriety in schools that need immediate remedy from internal and external monitoring systems in order to secure and re-channel funds meant for inclusive education. In support to these findings, in addition, Buhere and Ochieng (2013) findings indicate that even though 53% (16) of head teachers were satisfied with improved government funding for school infrastructure, special teachers felt that increased funding was essential and that mechanism be put in place to avoid diversion of funds meant for learners with special needs to other areas. It was revealed that 62.5% of the teachers were dissatisfied with infrastructure including toilets which were not appropriate because they were not modified due to lack of consultation with technical experts. QASO 5 confirmed: They get some financial support to improve on infrastructure but they rarely speak about it. Most schools rely on government funding for infrastructure and instructional materials, but it is still too small to use it on infrastructure, special equipment, cater for special diet and services. Deng and Holdsworth (2007) study found out that head teachers coordinated with parents, special teachers and service providers and had them participate in school programmes such gathering and maintaining data on learners with special needs, formulating school policy and school development or infrastructure plans, and sponsoring training in specialized and instructional skills to handle the learners. The effect was that the enrolment of learners with special needs increased from 30% to 60%.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the head teachers to coordinate collaborative partnerships in identified school programs in order to participate in providing educational resources and support services for implementing inclusive education.

Association between head teachers' partnerships collaboration with implementation of inclusive education
The null hypothesis tested was:' there is no significant difference between head teachers' partnerships collaboration with implementation of inclusive education.' The independent variable was factored in head teachers' partnerships collaboration; while the dependent variable was indicated in participation rates. The tests are presented in chi-square statistical Table 2. The chi-square results findings reveal that there was significant association between head teachers' partnerships collaboration with implementation of inclusive education. Therefore, the study established that head teachers' partnerships collaboration effect on implementation of inclusive education.

Conclusions
The study established that majority of schools had weak, uncoordinated and unstructured partnership collaboration that yielded low level of partnership participation in the provision of support services in their schools; consequently, hindering access and participation of diverse learners in education. This was attributed to head teachers' selfwilled initiatives and lack of partnership networking skills for their schools. The chisquare analysis confirmed that there was statistically significant association between head teachers' partnerships collaboration with the implementation of inclusive education. Thus, head teachers' partnerships collaboration effect on implementation of inclusive education in schools.

Recommendations
i.) The Board of Management, School Committee and head teachers should broaden their partnerships engagements. First, they should increase their capacity through expertise training in partnership collaboration, formulate institutional strategic plans for inclusive education, and network or benchmark with likeminded institutions to gain experience with partnerships for inclusive education.
ii.) A well-structured coordinated framework for partnerships engagement and participation should be redesigned from the national level cascading to the schools with focus on inclusive education. The programs of partnerships such as provision of specialized teaching and learning materials, assessment of learners, and outsourcing of funds amongst others should serve as impetus for deliberate consultative planning for provision of educational needs and support services for inclusive education implementation.