Page 1 of 13

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 9

Publication Date: September 25, 2022

DOI:10.14738/assrj.99.13099. Stephen, M., John, O., & Susan, K. (2022). Delocalisation and Psychosocial Wellbeing of Public Secondary School Principals in

Selected Counties in Eastern Region, Kenya. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 207-219.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Delocalisation and Psychosocial Wellbeing of Public Secondary

School Principals in Selected Counties in Eastern Region, Kenya

Munyiri Stephen

Chuka University

Ogembo John

Chuka University

Kinyua Susan

Chuka University

ABSTRACT

The Teachers Service Commission proposed and implemented Delocalisation

policy among the teaching fraternity in Kenya since 2017 beginning with Principals

of Secondary schools and Head teachers of Primary schools. Aimed at giving a

national outlook to the management of educational institutions in the country,

enhancing cohesion and quality of their management, implementation of the policy

has been met with mixed reactions. While proponents link its implementation with

improved institutional management, critics have suggested that the

implementation be scrapped due to what they allege are its adverse effectss on

Principals and Head teachers. Especially said to be adversely affected are the

psychosocial wellbeing of delocalised Principals and Head teachers. This means

that implementation of the policy could be adversely affecting the mental and social

health of these personnel. However, empirical literature that could directly link the

adverse psychosocial effects to implementation of the policy is still limited. This

study therefore set out to establish the relationship between delocalisation process

and the psychosocial wellbeing of school administrators with a specific focus on

delocalised Public secondary school Principals in selected Counties in Eastern

region in Kenya. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was formulated for the study.

Data was collected from 277 delocalised Principals, 12 Education officials and 18

Union officials using questionnaires. Data obtained was analysed descriptively and

inferentially to put forward recommendations. Findings showed a significant

negative relationship between delocalisation process and psychosocial wellbeing of

the delocalised Principals implying adverse effect of the process on delocalised

Principals’ psychosocial wellbeing. The relationship was found to be stronger on

older Principals compared to relatively younger ones. At the same time, it was

established that the effect was dependent on type of school, Principal delocalised to

national and extra county schools having a more positive view on the process

compared to those delocalised to County and Sub-County schools. It is therefore

recommended that implementation of the process take a cautious humane

approach to minimise its adverse effects.

Key Words: Delocalisation, Psychosocial wellbeing, Psychological wellbeing and Social

wellbeing

Page 2 of 13

208

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Delocalisation process of the Teachers Service Commission in Kenya was introduced in 2017

for the teaching fraternity in the country. Akin to transfer of public sector workforce which is

universally practiced, the policy implies transfer of teachers from one region, presumably their

County of birth to other Counties within the country (Amollo, Wanzare & Simatwa, 2019). In

Kenya, a County is an adminiastrative region consisting of a number of what was formerly

District which share specific unique characteristics. Implementation of the policy which began

with school administrators also referred to as Principals for secondary schools or Head

teachers for Primary schools was meant to enhance cohesion in the country by giving the

management of schools a national outlook (Nyarima, 2019). Additionally, it sought to address

a number of institutional management challenges prevalent in public institutions including

mismanagement, poor academic performance and financial misappropriation (Amollo et al.,

2019). Similarly, the policy aimed at relocating Principals who had overstayed in particular

institutions, address student’s indiscipline and cases of corruption. Its implementation would

then be cascaded down the rank and file of the teaching workforce from Principals to teachers

in all public institutions in the country.

The process of implementation of the policy has been met with mixed reactions. For instance,

whereas Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) and Kenya Union of Post Primary Education

Teachers (KUPPET) are both organizations representing teachers in the country, the leadership

of KUPPET supported the policy while KNUT remained opposed to its implementation (Tum,

2020). Other education sector stake-holders such as Board of Management (BOM), Parents

Teachers Association (PTA), school sponsors, local communities and political leaders have

largely opposed the transfers. They have advocated for the “delocalisation” policy to be

suspended. The stake-holders have largely rejected the concept of a “delocalised headship” and

termed the whole process as “inhumane”. Specifically, they opine that implementation of the

policy adversely affects beneficiaries. For instance, Education International (2018) observed

that implementation of the policy was breaking up families of educators employed by the

Teachers Service Commission (TSC). They noted that many Principals who were delocalised

had opted to take early retirement, others had moved to County governments, and some were

contemplating what move to make. Still, others were reporting increased health complications

and other behaviour simpotomatic of psychological and social maladjustments. They therefore

advised that the policy should not be imposed since it was dangerous.

Principals are accountable for the general running of schools including school finances,

maintenance of infrastructure, student programs, school staff, interpersonal relations with the

school’s stakeholders, setting school policies on disciple, and running school programmes

amongst other matters (Crawford, 2017). This means that Principals are in-charge of day to

day running of schools, responsible for both administrative, curriculum and instruction

supervision. Further, Principals retain overall management oversight on all administrative,

academic and supervisory issues (Smith, 2016). Faas, Smith, and Darmody, (2018) in their

study on what responsibility Principals play in the creation of a conducive school environments

amongst community national schools in Ireland assert that there had been a shift in the

responsibilities of the Principal from just managerial issues to issues of an instructional and

transformational leadership nature.

Page 3 of 13

209

Munyiri, S, Ogembo, J., & Kinyua, S. (2022). Delocalisation and Psychosocial Wellbeing of Public Secondary School Principals in Selected Counties in

Eastern Region, Kenya. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(9). 207-219.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13099

As school administrators’ Principals are expected to handle various demands from external

forces and carry out their responsibilities in an efficient, effective and economical manner

(Blackmore, Sánchez-Moreno & Sawers 2015). At the same time, they ought to promote

innovation, continuously seek improvement and implement reform initiatives as well as

prepare students to become productive individuals of the 21st century in the course of

conducting their responsibilities (Smith, 2016). They also bear the responsibility of all

decisions made within the school and are accountable to the schools’ stake holders (Tas, 2017).

This means that Principals are expected to be responsible for all school operations and

functions. Their psychological and social soundness is therefore critical for the discharge of

their duties effectively.

Psychosocial wellbeing of Principals tasked with delivering the educational agenda a critical

segment of the educational system of a country is of paramount importance and everything that

affects the Principal merits scrutiny. The overall intention should be to make corrective action

to reduce the negative effect on the institutions’ overall performance and ultimately students’

learning outcomes. Principals’ psychosocial wellbeing refers to a situation where the individual

Principal has harmony in the cognitive, emotional and spiritual areas of their lives, coupled with

healthy social relationships with their family, community and peers (Odebode, 2018). It

involves a range of psychological and social factors that affect an individual’s physical and

mental wellness and the capacity to perform their duties.

According to Ryan and Deci (2018), the psychological wellbeing may range from an individual’s

relationships with others, individual mastery and the individual’s sense of autonomy, view of

life and one’s personal growth and development. It also refers to the various factors used to

gauge one’s level of satisfaction with quality of life (QOL). These factors include feelings of

wellbeing derived from an individual’s state of delight, emotional and physical health. As noted

by Huppert (2009), psychological wellbeing also incorporates feelings of happiness and

contentment, emotions of interest, engagement, confidence and affection. It refers to the

soundness of the individual psychologically.

Social well-being refers to the interaction of an individual with the society one lives in, the

expectations of the society from them, their expectations of the society and the feedback loop

that exists between the individual and the society (Akomolafe & Ogunmakin, 2014). It may also

the ability of an individual to function as a productive member of the society in meeting societal

expectations. Such expectations range from one’s ability to fulfil the expectations and the ability

to interact successfully with colleagues, family and friends in different settings. A person’s

social wellbeing may be affected by a range of factors. Negative factors include depression, drug

addiction, financial challenges, relationship problems, physical changes and work-related

issues such as delocalisation among others. Thus, an individual’s wellbeing is subject to many

different factors within the course of their lives.

An individual’s psychosocial wellbeing may be affected by the levels of autonomy,

environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life and

self-acceptance (Fernandes, Vasconcelos-Raposo, & Teixeira, 2010). Delocalised Principals may

as a matter of fact in the process of dealing with challenges due to delocalisation along with

other challenges have their psychosocial wellbeing affected. This influence can either be

positive or negative depending on how well the Principal is able to adjust to the new setting,