Guidelines to Development the Decision Making Process of School Administrators under Sisaket Primary Educational Service Area Office 4

Abstract

This research consists purposes were 1. to examine the current conditions of the decision-making process in school administration under the Sisaket Primary Educational Service Area Office 4 2. to compare the decision making process of school administrators categorized by position, work experience and school size and 3. to propose guidelines for improving the decision-making process in school administration. This study employed a mixed-methods research design, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The research instruments consisted of a questionnaire and an interview guide. The quantitative sample comprised 335 respondents, determined using the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sample size determination table, while the qualitative informants consisted of three key participants, selected through purposive sampling. Data collected from the questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including content validity, reliability analysis, percentage, mean and standard deviation, as well as pairwise comparisons using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) method. Data obtained from the interviews were analyzed using content analysis. The research findings revealed that 1) the overall level of the use of decision-making processes in school administration was high (x̄ = 4.20, S.D. = 0.42) 2) Comparisons based on position and school size showed no significant differences. However, differences based on work experience were statistically significant at the 0.01 level overall, with one specific dimension implementation of decisions showing significant differences at the 0.05 level and 3) Guidelines for improving the decision-making process include: defining problems clearly and comprehensively using reliable data and PLC-based collaborative analysis; generating diverse alternatives through inclusive participation; evaluating alternatives by considering impacts, advantages, disadvantages, suitability and risks in alignment with regulations; promoting participatory and transparent decision-making and ensuring systematic implementation with clear communication, assigned roles, planning, monitoring and continuous improvement based on evaluation results.