The challenges of leadership in secondary schools contemporary Nigeria could be seen as too demanding. Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task”. Other in-depth definitions of leadership have also emerged.
A challenge is a general term referring to things that are imbued with a sense of difficulty and victory.
Secondary school (the term “high school” is most often associated with English-speaking countries, though the two are far from synonymous) is a term used to describe an educational institution where the final stage of schooling, known as secondary education and usually compulsory up to a specified age, takes place. It follows elementary or primary education, and may be followed by university (tertiary) education.
Secondary education is the stage of education following primary education. Except in countries where only primary or basic education is compulsory, secondary education includes the final stage of compulsory education and in many countries it is entirely compulsory. The next stage of education is usually college or university. Secondary education is characterized by transition from primary education for minors to tertiary, “post-secondary”, or “higher” education (e.g., university, vocational school) for adults. Depending on the system, schools for this period or a part of it may be called secondary schools, high schools, gymnasia, lyceums, middle schools, sixth-form, sixth-form colleges, vocational schools and preparatory schools, and the exact meaning of any of these varies between the systems.
Generally leadership principles, first written in 1947, state that an auditor must maintain independence in mental attitude in all matters relating to the assignment. Independent auditors furnish critical assurance that the financial statements have been examined by “an objective, impartial and skilled professional” (SEC 2000, p. 2). This assurance adds credibility to financial statements, lowers information risk, and facilitates capital formation, adding value to the entire capital markets system (Elliot and Jacobson 1998; Carmichael 1999; Kinney 1999). This independence can be maintained through external constraints (i.e., legislation and regulation) or through the profession itself, which will maintain independence to preserve its market value (Kinney 1999). Overall, the business press appears skeptical of auditors’ ability to withstand client pressure, emphasizing the effect of economic interests. An Investment News article (November 20, 2000) calls consulting services “the tail that wags the dog” in the accounting industry.
The SEC issued a new set of rules governing auditor independence on November 21, 2000, and included an auditor fee disclosure requirement. Since February 5, 2001, companies must disclose in their proxy statements, the total fees billed for services rendered by the principal accountant (the external audit firm) disaggregated into three categories: audit services, information technology services, and all other services (AICPA 2000; SEC 2000). Study of these disclosures reveals that nearly all firms purchase non-audit services from their audit firm (Abbott et al. 2001). Frankel et al (2001) show that NAS fees average over 246 percent of audit fees for a cross-section of publicly traded companies (Frankel et al. 2001), while Weil and Tannenbaum find a NAS/audit fee ratio of almost 300 percent for a sample of Standard & Poor‘s 500 firms. Although the Big 5 auditing firms continue to maintain that their independence is not impaired by these services, recent problems at Enron, WorldCom, and other public firms have brought accounting and auditing concerns to the attention of Congress and the public. Recently passed legislation prohibits nine NAS, including financial information services and internal auditing services (Money Market Act 2002). The SEC is not only concerned about independence-in-fact, also about the perceptions or appearance of independence. They believe perceptions of the auditor’s independence (objectivity) affect investor confidence in financial statements, and affect financial statement users’ decisions based on those statements (SEC 2000). Although Wallman (1997) and an AICPA white paper (1997) suggest that the provision of NAS does not impair apparent independence, independence perception responses from survey participants do not always bear this out (Jenkins and Lowe 1999; Farmer et al.1987; Pany and Reckers 1984; Schulte 1965).
Earlier research used NAS fee levels ranging from three to 90 percent of audit fees, when realistic levels were thought to be 25-40 percent or less and 90 percent was considered unusually high. This study utilizes a NAS to audit fee ratio (293 percent) that is realistic for a large (S&P 500) firm (Weil and Tannenbaum 2001; Frankel et al. 2002). Also, in all the previously mentioned experimental studies, the specific non-audit service was identified for the experimental participants. With the exception of information technology services, the SEC disclosure rule includes all types of service under the same heading, “other fees.” Although firms have the option of listing the “other” services and even the portion of the other fees paid for each in a footnote, this is not required and the accounting industry has objected to disclosing this information (SEC 2000). The NAS information in this study follows the SEC mandated format. In addition, many prior experimental studies specified whether the NAS was performed by the external auditors themselves or by separate personnel within the external audit firm (e.g., Pany and Reckers 1984; McKinley et al. 1985; Lowe et al. 1999; Swanger and Chewning 2001). This study makes no such separation, limiting NAS information to the fee information currently available to the investor in the real world. In summary, this study focuses on how realistic amounts and disclosures about NAS affect investor perceptions of auditor independence.
These challenges includes;
1. PARENTAL PROBLEMS
2. STAFF PROBLEMS
3. DISTRICT PROBLEMS
4. INADEQUATE FUNDING
5. INCESSANT GOVERNMENT POLICIES