Power-sharing in effective management of teachers' training colleges in a liberalised education system in Tanzania.

The purpose of the study was to add to the existing body of knowledge on power sharing systems within the college settings and between the TCs and MOEC headquarters. The study was justified on grounds that information generated would shed light on the general pattern of power, authority and influence relationships. The study was also expected to shed light to those managing education on factors constraining power-sharing which in turn affected effectiveness of teacher education. Contribution to knowledge and skills on effective power-sharing strategies to prospective education administrators was an added significance to the study. An eclectic model for the study was necessiated by lack of a single model that could adequately guide the investigation on power-sharing in the TCs. The eclectic model drew together essential attributes on power, authority and influence relationships mainly from the works of Hoy and Miskel (1991), Koontz and O'Donnel (1978) on decentralization, participatory decision making, liberalization and democratization. Interviews and documentary review were used as data collection techniques from samples which were stategically chosen. The instruments were administered to MOEC officials, principals, sampled tutors, support-staff and student-leaders at Songea, Ifunda, Morogoro, Mpwapwa and Bustani TCs. Quantitative data were tallied, totals, frequencies and percentages computed. Qualitative data was also subjected to content analysis. The findings which were presented according to the pre-set tasks revealed that final and binding decision even on routine matters such as payment of daily subsistence allowances and related benefits - transfers, staff appraisal and preparation of college calendars were a preserve of MOEC and its support institutions including the TSC and TIE. Secondly, Principals mainly resorted to legitimate power and authority at the expense of other more effective sources of power as a means of affecting compliance. Thirdly, delegation of power and authority was practiced although centred around certain "power points" involving a few key personnel. Fourthly, fear of loosing control of resources and status were major factors constraining delegation within the college settings, and along the hierarchy to MOEC headquarters. Fifth, it was confirmed that participatory decision making although practiced, depended on the behavior of the college principal. Sixth, it was revealed that appointment to leadership positions in the college including the principal was not transparent. Representatives to the CAB were appointed by the principal instead of being nominated by fellow tutors. On the basis of the findings it was concluded that power and authority to make final and binding decisions was heavily reserved at the MOEC. This practice did not perpetuate the spirit of shared control. Fear of loosing control of resources hampered effective delegation of power and authority within the college settings and from MOEC to the TCs. This was a typical clash of objectives. Although participation in decision making was generally practiced, the method of choosing representative remained a monopoly of the college Principals. From the findings it was also plausible to conclude that liberalization of teacher training could be enhanced if flexibility was granted to the institutions to design support and enrichment curriculum.