| dc.description.abstract | The objectives of this study were to determine whether the competitive strategies used by public primary schools differed from those of private primary schools and establish factors that influenced the choice of competitive strategies by a school. In order to achieve these objectives, a descriptive design was adopted and a census study carried out. Primary data was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire which was administered through drop and pick later method. The data collected was analyzed using frequencies, percentages, mean scores and chi square tests.
The following conclusions were made: vanous factors that attracted pupils to certain schools and not others were found to be; free primary education, performance in examination, close proximity, good leadership, quality facilities and ample learning environment, popularity in extra curricula activities, feeding programme, transport services, boarding facilities, religious background or spiritual formation, considerable fees etc.
Secondly, to achieve overall low cost leadership, public primary schools capitalized on free primary education, use of school rules and school motto. For private primary schools, they used to a great extent, school rules and school motto to remain competitive, but to a minimal extent the free primary education, which does not benefit them in any way. In order to remain competitive, private schools had provided over and above what their public
counterparts were offering. Both the public and private primary schools used the focused
low cost/differentiation as a competitive strategy to'some little extent and large extent. There were therefore some differences in the use of the strategy among the public and private primary schools.
Lastly, the factors that had very great influence on primary schools' choice of competitive strategies were the management perception and leadership style, but with great influence were factors ranging from leadership, degree of firm's external dependence, management perception, power, competitive reaction, availability of resources, and corporate governance whereas altitude towards risk and ~ulture had least influence. | en |
