INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025  
The Assessment of Principals Perception on Democratic  
Governance in Technical and Vocational Colleges (TVC) in  
Bungoma County, Kenya.  
Cosmus Katana1, Dr. Oroni Nicholas Barasa2  
1 Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting, Kibabii University  
2 Department of Education Planning and Management, Kibabii University  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1410000133  
Received: 02 November 2025; Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 20 November 2025  
Abstract: The study is set to examine the Technical and Vocational College (TVC) Principal’s perception on democratic  
governance in public tertiary institutions. The study utilized cross sectional descriptive survey strategy that employed mixed  
methods approach of inquiry in a sequential procedure. The target population of the study was 54 Principals, trainers, parents and  
244 trainees of public technical and vocational institutions in Bungoma, County, Kenya. Data was collected and analyzed using  
descriptive statistics such as means and frequencies to summarize data and inferential statistics: regression model, ANOVA and the  
test were used to test difference between means scores of variables in the study hypothesis. The findings of the study indicated that;  
there is still need for TVC Principal to be enlightened on how to lead tertiary institutions democratically, opportunities for trainee’s  
participation on tertiary institutions governance. The study recommends that Principals should engender parents’ participation in  
TVC governance. it is anticipated that the findings of the study will inform the ministry of education on training needs of TVC  
Principals and board of governors with regard to democratic management of tertiary institutions and how to create a democratic  
culture in their tertiary institutions.  
Key Words: Democratic Governance, Principals, Perception, Enhancing, Trainers  
I. Introduction  
The concept of the democratic colleges has its origins in the writings of john Dewey. Dewey believed that a democratic society was  
one in which the divisions between groups no matter on what criteria, should be minimized and that shared values, meanings and  
goals should be maximized (Gordon, M., & English, A. R. (2016). Thus, to achieve a democratically governed society, it is  
necessary to first have a democratically governed college (Dewey, 1916) as cited by Dworkin (2000) who suggests that the  
implementation of a democratic college would have implications for the roles and behaviors of administrators and trainers within  
it.  
Many countries are reforming the way colleges are run and looking in particular at the issues of leadership and management (Gunter,  
H. M., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D., & Serpieri, R. (Eds.). (2016). Democratic college governance is one of the emerging trends in the  
developed and developing world. According to Gallos and Bolman (2021), states that there is need to rebrand education  
management for efficient service delivery in the leadership of learning institutions and that superior educational management styles  
should be considered too as a basic foundation of satisfactory functioning of democracy in colleges.  
Research conducted by Grapragasem, Krishnan, & Mansor, (2014), noticed the roles of principals in Malaysia to have been  
evolving, due to both globalization as well as various policies imposed by the government. In South Africa, the South African  
college act (SASA) was introduced in 1996 and among other things it makes provision for democratic management and governance  
of south African colleges through the democratically elected college governance structures that involved all stakeholders in the  
decision-making process (Sebidi, 2023).  
Statement of the problem  
The management of colleges in Kenya has faced a number of challenges over the past few years. These challenges have been  
rampant in areas such as trainees unrest lack of financial transparency, poor results of KNEC and trainer absenteeism in most public  
institutions (Wandera, 2008). Backman and Trafford (2007) argue that democratic college governance enhances learning as trainees  
are provided opportunities to maximize their potential. It reduces conflict as the emphasis is on shared decision making and respect  
Through this study, principals will be informed on alternative ways of improving democratic practices in their institutions. The  
findings will help in fostering trainee development by helping them assimilate practices of. It will also boost their academic  
performance and will aid policy makers in designing policies that will enhance democracy in colleges.  
Objective of the study  
To establish the challenges Principals face in enhancing democratic Technical, Vocational and Education and Training (TVET)  
governance in Bungoma county, Kenya.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1099  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025  
Theoretical Framework  
The study was based on three theories of democracy. Benjamin Baber participatory democratic theory which has its roots in Dewey  
conception of democracy, Thomas J. Sergiovannis theory on the principals’ roles and responsibilities in college-based management  
of colleges and Iris young theory on inclusion and democracy.  
Conceptual Framework  
The study adopted a conceptual framework where democratic college governance is itemized as dependent variable while level of  
democratization in colleges, structures and processes which promote democracy in colleges, principal perception and challenges  
they face in democratic governance of colleges are the independent variables. While extraneous variables are government policies  
and board of governors.  
II. Literature Review  
Challenges Facing College Principals in Enhancing Democratic College Governance  
Spreading democracy in a college can be stressful. College principals face mitigating factors. By its very nature democracy  
challenges old hierarchies and authorities, and the conflicts that may emerge can be hurtful and wearing for administrators (Apple,  
p. 2022). Further, there are situations, emergencies for instance, where the leader needs to take quick decisions. Under such  
circumstances, democratic processes are flouted, as Jones (2005) contented, in crises there is no time to hold meetings. This can be  
perceived wrongly by other stakeholders. Another disadvantage of democratic governance has to do with situations where staff  
lacks competence, crucial information to make decisions. In such cases, the leader has to monitor and provide constant guidance to  
staff.  
Experts and researchers report the challenges facing the college leaders include, the increasing authentic collaboration with college  
communities, making the SBM work as pedagogy of empowerment and democracy (Pang, 2008, Gamage, 2006b,1996a, Gamage  
& Zajda, 2005a, Cranston,2002, Griffits, Stout, & Forsyth, 1988). The principals are also challenged to encourage the involvement  
and participation of community groups, including industry and commerce. He or she needs to convince the other members of the  
partnership to arrive at particular decision before instructions can be issued. Establishing a committee structure of the college  
council consisting of experts and those interested in developing programs for college improvement is another step in the extending  
the democratic principal of under participation with opportunities to tap the potential of the wider community (Gamage,  
1996a;1996e).  
Regarding the problems and issues that are confronting the implementation of SBM, researchers reveal that the barriers include  
poor resources in colleges, lack of professional development for college leaders and confusion on the part of college councils in  
relation to new roles and responsibilities. There are also difficulties of coordination, lack of decision-making authority, low parental  
participation, and under funding of education by governments (Gamage &Sooksomchitra, 2004; Mulyasa, 2004; Munn, 2000;  
Schlegel,2000; Maksymjuk, 2000; Belk, 1998; Hancock,1998; Oswald,1995; Herman & Herman, 1993).  
Democracy depends on the participation of people and accordingly democratic colleges require the participation of all stakeholders  
(Mnube,2009). Stakeholders’ apathy also hinders democratic participation. For instance, a study by Renuka (2012) cited lack of  
time to attend meetings; transport and communication issues are factors affecting parents’ participation. Relationships between  
learners and some trainers could also hinder democratic college practices. Democratic colleges move away from traditional,  
hierarchical power relations towards egalitarian relationships and this comes with challenges thus college principals should work  
on minimizing them.  
To cope with the new challenges confronted by the college leaders within the dramatically changed environments, Gamage (1996a;  
197) has proposed a college development model which is shown in the figure below  
Challenges  
Participatory decision making  
Multiple ownership of policies  
Developing loyalty to college  
Orderly trainee and staff management  
Staff and trainee development  
Building trust and confidence  
Developing strategic planning  
Developing global budgeting  
Prioritizing  
Human Resource Management  
Allocation of Resources  
Leadership Styles  
Transformational,  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1100  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025  
Instructional,  
Situational  
Learning Programs  
Programs to meet trainee needs  
Programs for the community  
Peer and community support  
Collaboration with community  
Commerce and industry relations  
Negotiations for services  
Nontraditional Roles  
Governance  
College council/board  
Modified bureaucracy  
Committee structure  
Entrepreneurship  
Empowerment  
Skills  
Competitive college improvement  
Innovative approaches to help  
College’s image and marketing  
New participatory structures  
Delegation and empowerment  
Theory Y approach to staff  
Inter personal and communication  
Negotiation and public relations  
Conflict management and resolution  
III. Methodology  
Challenges that Hinder Democratic College Governance.  
Principals and trainers’ responses on challenges that hinder democratic college governance:  
Item  
Respondents No.&% Strongly  
agree/agree  
undecided  
Disagree/  
TOTAL  
strongly  
disagree  
Lack of interest Principal  
among parents  
No.  
%
54  
14  
24  
92  
59.1%  
36  
15.2%  
32  
25.7%  
24  
100  
92  
Trainer  
No.  
%
39.2%  
38  
34.8%  
20  
26%  
34  
100%  
92  
Lack  
of Principal  
No.  
%
awareness among  
parents  
41.1%  
52  
21.1%  
16  
37.8%  
24  
100  
92  
Trainer  
Principal  
Trainer  
No.  
%
56.6%  
58  
17.4%  
10  
26.1%  
24  
100  
92  
Communication  
barriers  
No.  
%
63.1%  
53  
10.9%  
17  
26%  
22  
100  
92  
No.  
%
57.6%  
18.5%  
23.9%  
100  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1101  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025  
Lack of support Principal  
from BOG  
No.  
36  
33  
23  
92  
%
39.1%  
49  
35.9%  
13  
25%  
30  
100  
92  
Trainer  
No.  
%
53.2%  
14.2%  
32.6%  
100  
Study findings from the table above reveal that most of the principals 59.1% agreed and strongly agreed that lack of interest among  
parents hinders Democratic College Governance (DCG). On communication barriers majority of the principals 63.1% agreed and  
strongly agreed that communication barrier hinders effective democratization of colleges. Communication was also highlighted as  
a barrier by the trainers as a factor which hinders effective Democratic College Governance as majority of the respondents 57.6%  
strongly agreed and agreed. It was also established from the trainers that lack of awareness among parents hindered Democratic  
College Governance as majority of the respondents 56.6% strongly agreed and agreed. It was also established from the trainers that  
lack of awareness among parents hindered Democratic College Governance as majority of the respondents 56.6% strongly agreed  
and agreed. The trainer findings also show that lack of support from the BOG hinders Democratic College Governance as of the  
respondents 53.2% strongly agreed and agreed respectively while 39.1% strongly agreed and agreed. It can therefore be revealed  
from the above findings that lack of interest among parents, awareness and communication are barriers to democratic college  
governance in public technical colleges in Bungoma county. According to (Meier,2003) democratic college culture is characterized  
by a lot of human intervention. Jamali et al., (2006) are in agreement that good teamwork is motivated in college by good leadership  
and effective communication. Responses from the interviews carried out on two principals of pendo and fanaka technical college  
on challenges that hinder Democratic College Governance were categorized into the following themes:  
Lack of support from parents: the principal of Technical and Vocational Colleges(TVC) complained that most parents do not  
show up for important meetings despite being notified through text messages and other means of communication. The principal  
further stated that parents have not taken ownership of their colleges as they should; parent, trainer meetings for example he says  
gives parents a chance to see what happens in the classrooms but unfortunately most parents do not use the opportunity.  
Time: principals stated that the process of consultation is time consuming especially when handling issues with varied opinions or  
matters which require urgency. Principal of TVC revealed that in some instances he makes unilateral decisions. They stated that  
delays could impact negatively on the functioning of the college. Woods and Gronn (2009) in support assert that decisions may be  
delayed substantially and the direction of the organization can be rendered unclear by prolonged debates.  
Curriculum: the college curriculum as stated by principal one has no room for democracy to thrive for the learners. They argued  
that curriculum does not emphasize on trainees centered learning and schedules are very tight and thus timetabling for extra trainee  
peer learning and personal study remains a challenge.  
Training in democratic participation: the TVC principals cited lack of training among stakeholders on their role as active  
participants of college management. The principal stated that some of the members of the college board did not have an idea of the  
basic education act. Tsotetsi et-al (2008) argues that training should be done based on needs of their members for effective  
decentralized and cooperative college governance.  
Inferential Statistics  
Model Summary  
Model  
1
R
R Square  
.597  
Adjusted R Square  
.591  
Std. Error of the Estimate  
9.209  
. 0.773a  
a. Predictors: (Constant), Assessment of Principals Perception  
ANOVAa  
Model  
1
Sum of Squares  
5743.871  
df  
1
Mean Square  
F
Sig.  
.000b  
Regression  
Residual  
Total  
5743.871  
9.864  
582.277  
2258.969  
229  
230  
8002.840  
a. Dependent Variable: Democratic Governance  
b. Predictors: (Constant), Assessment of Principals Perception  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1102  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025  
The model shows a moderate to strong relationship between the assessment of principals' perceptions and democratic governance,  
indicated by an R value of 0.773. This suggests that there is a significant positive correlation between how principals perceive  
democratic governance and how it actually functions in colleges. The R² value of 0.597 tells us that approximately 59.7% of the  
variation in democratic governance can be explained by principals' perceptions. This is considered a moderate explanatory power,  
meaning that while the model accounts for a good portion of the variation, other factors not included in the model might also be  
influencing democratic governance.  
The Adjusted R² value of 0.591 is very similar to the R², indicating that the model holds its explanatory power even after accounting  
for the number of predictors. This reinforces the reliability of the model in predicting democratic governance based on principals'  
perceptions.  
The standard error of the estimate, which is 9.209, represents the average deviation of the observed values from the predicted values.  
A smaller standard error would indicate a better fit, and this value suggests moderate variability in the predictions, meaning there  
is some deviation between what the model predicts and the actual observed outcomes.  
The ANOVA table tests the overall significance of the model. The sum of squares for regression is 5743.871, indicating that the  
model explains a substantial portion of the variation in democratic governance. In contrast, the residual sum of squares is 2258.969,  
representing the unexplained variance. This difference between the regression sum of squares and the residual sum of squares shows  
that a significant portion of the variation is explained by the model.  
The F-statistic of 582.277 is calculated by dividing the mean square for regression by the mean square for residuals. This high F-  
value indicates that the model is very effective at explaining the variation in democratic governance. A higher F-value generally  
suggests a better-fitting model. The p-value (Sig.) of 0.000 confirms the statistical significance of the model. Since this value is  
well below the typical threshold of 0.05, we can confidently say that the assessment of principals' perceptions significantly affects  
democratic governance. The p-value indicates that the relationship between the two variables is not due to random chance.  
IV. Summary  
Democracy is important in so far as providing the citizen of a country the greatest possible measure of freedom and encouragement  
for the individual to develop his own talent, initiative and moral responsibility (Chand & Prakash, 2007). Dewey (1916) asserts that  
if individuals are to pursue and establish a democratic way of life, they must be afforded opportunities to learn the meaning of that  
way of life. They must be afforded opportunities to learn the meaning of that way of life. In other words, a democratic society  
should afford members of a society freedom of individual developments, self-expression, equality, participation, dialogue and right  
to be heard.  
V. Conclusions  
The study findings show that there is still need for college principals to be enlightened or how to lead colleges democratically  
because they are still in the process of democratizing their colleges and some democratic procedures such as trainee participation  
in BOG are in the introductory stages thus, they need training on how to involve them meaningfully. Principals viewed themselves  
as autonomous and flexible in college governance through trainers thought otherwise. Also, most college principals do no interact  
freely with their trainers tough they appreciated the importance of trainers and parents’ participation in college governance. It was  
also clear that most public technical college do not provide opportunities for their trainees to give their view on issues which affect  
them and they were excluded from key decision-making bodies. It was also concluded that there was no consultation with trainees  
when formulating college rules and that principals and trainers do not interpret these rules for their trainees. Thus, in it can be  
concluded that meaningful trainee participation in college governance has not taken root as expected.  
VI. Recommendations  
The ministry of education should develop to policy on education for democracy where college administrators would be trained in  
order to impact to knowledge, skills and values democracy in their institution. There is need for college administrators especially  
to colleges principals to implement education policies such as the provision of the basic education act 2012 on college governance,  
student friendly colleges (SFC) which empower trainees to take part in decision making process in colleges and also provide them  
with channels they air their grievances. Trainees’ council should also be given special training on leadership. College principals  
should also create opportunities for trainees and staff to meet outside classroom eg organizing sports events, sharing lunch facilities  
and other recreation areas.  
References  
1. Apple, M. W., Biesta, G., Bright, D., Giroux, H. A., Heffernan, A., McLaren, P., ... & Yeatman, A. (2022). Reflections on  
contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education. Journal of Educational Administration and  
History, 54(3), 245-262.  
2. Dworkin, A.G. (2000). Trainer Burnout Scale (Alienation Burnout). In P.E. Lester, and L.K., Bishop (eds). Handbook of  
tests and measurement in education and the social sciences, (2nd ed.) London, Scarecrow Publishers,313-314  
3. Gallos, J. V., & Bolman, L. G. (2021). Reframing academic leadership. John wiley & sons.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1103  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025  
4. Gamage, D.T. (1994a). college governance: Australian perspective.” In A. Thody (ed.), college  
governance: leaders or  
followers?  
5. Gamage, D.T. (1996a). college based management: theory, research and practice Colombo: Karunaratne and sons ltd.  
6. Gamage, D.T. (2003). College based management leads to shared responsibility and quality in education paper presented  
at the annual conference of the CIES in New Orleans, Los Angeles.  
7. Gamage, D.T., (1992). College centered educational reforms of the 1990: an Australian case study educational  
management and administration, 27(1)  
8. Gordon, M., & English, A. R. (2016). John Dewey’s democracy and education in an era of globalization. Educational  
Philosophy and Theory, 48(10), 977-980.  
9. Grapragasem, S., Krishnan, A., & Mansor, A. N. (2014). Current Trends in Malaysian Higher Education and the Effect on  
Education Policy and Practice: An Overview. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 85-93.  
10. Gunter, H. M., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D., & Serpieri, R. (Eds.). (2016). New public management and the reform of education:  
European lessons for policy and practice. Routledge.  
11. Sebidi, S. D. (2023). Financial management decision-making of school finance committees in public primary schools in  
Mpumalanga province, South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 43(3).  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1104