The Management Model for the Consolidation of Small School under Phetchaburi Primary Educational Service Area Office 2

Abstract

           The purposes of this research were to 1) study the current state of the management model for the consolidation of small schools, 2) create a management administration model of small schools, and 3) study the results of implementing the management administration model of small schools under Phetchaburi Primary Educational Service Area District Office 2. There were 3 sample groups comprised. The sample group for studying the current state of the management administration model of small schools was 8 people, a group of five experts evaluating the management administration model of small schools. The sample group who responded to the questionnaire regarding the implementation of the small school administration model was 42 people, comprising school administrators, teachers, the school board, and students’ parents in the management school responded to questionnaires evaluating the model's implementation. Research instruments consisted of a semi-structured interview, a model evaluation form, and a five-point Likert scale questionnaire. Data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation.

            The results were as follows: 1) In the current state, the main school principal was responsible for managing both the main school and the consolidation school. Instructional management faced a few problems due to an increased number of teachers. However, long distances made it difficult for some parents and communities of the consolidation schools to participate in school activities. The main school principal employed strategic leadership, promoted collaborative learning and stakeholder participation, and applied information technology in school operations. 2) The developed model consisted of eight components: academic administration, budget administration, personnel administration, general administration, stakeholder participation, technology, strategic leadership, and instructional management. The model was rated at high to highest levels in terms of accuracy and appropriateness, and at a high level in terms of feasibility. 3) The implementation results showed the model was rated at the highest level across all components. The rankings from highest to lowest mean scores were strategic leadership, stakeholder participation, technology, instructional management, academic administration, budget administration, personnel administration, and general administration.