Effective guidelines for financial management in Zimbabwean secondary schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the nature and constraints of the financial management frameworks and resources available to School Development Committees (SDCs) in Zimbabwean secondary schools for effective financial management practices. It examined the availability of sufficient and appropriate financial management guidelines and the extent to which the available documents impact the effectiveness of these (SDCs). The objective of this investigation is to rectify the dearth of research on the subject for Zimbabwean secondary schools. Employing a pragmatic research paradigm and mixed methods research (MMR) approach, the study utilised an explanatory sequential mixed methods research design. Guided by Stakeholder Theory, the study examined financial management strategies employed by School Development Committees (SDCs), focusing on capacity building, financial governance, and guiding financial documents. The study involved 56 secondary schools in 30 clusters in Zimbabwe. Disproportionate stratified sampling was employed to come up with four (4) clusters from which respondents and participants were drawn. The population of the study was 570 financial management school officials. Data collection involved completion of closed ended questionnaires by 61 respondents and answering of unstructured open-ended interviews by 19 participants. Data analysis involved inferential statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data. The study's findings revealed inadequate capacity building of School Development Committees (SDCs) in secondary schools, hindering effective school financial management. The study also revealed that although School Development Committees in the secondary schools had financial management guiding documents, the SDCs failed to utilise the documents due to limited financial expertise, insufficient capacity building, limited linguistic accessibility, and low levels of education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".