Students’ voice and power accountability relationship for curriculum implementation in Ethiopian primary schools: A qualitative study

Abstract This study was aimed at exploring the students’ voice and power accountability relationships for curriculum implementation in rural public primary schools in the east Wollega zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. An exploratory case study type and a multiple case study research design with a qualitative approach were employed to achieve the study’s objectives. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the schools and the respondents. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations, and documents. The study reveals that the students’ voice accountability relationships were insufficient to hold the Woreda (district) Education Offices’ curriculum and instruction experts accountable. This is due to the loosely coupled triangular accountability system and experts’ sense of superiority and carelessness to focus on political matters rather than taking disciplinary measures against curriculum implementers for poorly implemented curricula.The results of this study also affirm that students’ power accountability relationships were inhibited by local norms to respect teachers, the absence of an updated accountability policy, weak dialogue, their hopelessness for further education, poor feedback from School Management Bodies (SMBs) to students’ requests, a politicized school environment, and fear of teachers’ revenge against students for holding teachers accountable for the curriculum’s implementation. Finally, the study indicates that students were unable to strengthen their power to hold teachers accountable for the successful implementation of the curriculum because SMBs suffered from violated autonomy in establishing formal accountability procedures. The study suggests that the government should design an innovative educational accountability policy and empower students with democratic voice and power.


Introduction
In Ethiopia, the primary education (grades 1-8) curriculum is aimed at effectively addressing the needs of both society and the individual, bearing in mind the crucial issues of poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies (MoE, 2009).Yet, according to the Ethiopia education roadmap document, the primary education sector has been faced with numerous problems in implementing the curriculum as intended.For one, it was reported that students did not possess adequate literacy, numeracy, and other skills required to continue their secondary education.Secondly, no clear accountability system, inadequate student support systems, limited participation of students in educational accountability, and the absence of an education law are also still common problems that affect the implementation of the curriculum.Lastly, accountability along the lines of decentralized units of decision-makers in the primary education system is not clear or well-practiced (Teferra et al., 2018).
Ethiopian educational history indicates that the modern school system was introduced into the country by missionaries during the 19 th century.The first modern government school was built by Emperor Menelik in 1908; further schools were built by Emperor Haile Selassie and the subsequent regimes (Nekatibeb, 2012).The rise of different governments to power in Ethiopia was accompanied by educational reforms and policy changes.From 1941-74, the imperial education system functioned based on the emperor's conviction that education held a key position in the country's development.Nevertheless, each of the two post-imperial governments had well-defined reform policies of their own.For instance, the socialist regime issued a five-volume publication entitled "General Directions of Ethiopian Education" in 1980.It aimed to cultivate a Marxist ideology, develop knowledge in science and technology, and integrate education with production (Nekatibeb, 2012).
Since the introduction of modern education and the end of the Derg regime in 1991, several years have passed through a centralized education system where the community (students) has not been given the power and responsibility to monitor and control education activities.Yet, in the post-1991 period, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia issued educational reforms based on policy documents titled "Education and Training Policy," which called for greater student participation in education in general and in classroom curriculum practices in particular in the decentralized education system (MoE, 1994).Consequently, the school guideline of 2002 has brought about changes in educational structures, management, and accountability in the Ethiopian education system.These documents addressed decentralization and empowered students to closely follow up on and control the process of curriculum implementation at the school level (MoE, 2002).The government realized the significance of education and curriculum reforms for management and decision-making in the implementation process of the curriculum at the Woreda (district) and school levels (MoE, 2002).This was further strengthened with Education Sector Development Programs (ESDPs) III, when the government decided to decentralize critical decision-making from regions through zones to the Woredas and further to the school level, intending to have education become more responsive to school situations (MoE, 2005).The devolution of decision-making authority to the Woreda level was expected to strengthen the implementation of the curriculum based on the education management guideline.This encourages students to participate in holding Woreda Education Offices (WEOs)' curriculum and instructional experts, as well as curriculum implementers (School Management Bodies [SMBs] and teachers), accountable for effectively carrying out their duties for curriculum implementation (MoE, 2002).SMBs are School supervisors, School Principals, and Parent-teachers Associations (PTAs) who have the responsibility to manage the implementation of the curriculum.
Students could not be actively empowered to participate in improving curriculum implementation in the centralized schooling system.However, post-1991 decentralized and democratic schooling gives students the voice and power to participate in curriculum implementation (MoE, 2002) and hold implementers accountable.The transition from a centralized to a decentralized education system provides educational professionals with the necessary powers and responsibilities to address educational issues in their respective communities.This transmission introduced educational reforms that provide a greater accountability relationship for educational several activities in general and for better curriculum implementation in particular (MoE, 2002(MoE, , 2007(MoE, , 2015)), resulting in numerous shifts that engage students in exercising their voice and power in accountability relationships.
In the context of this study, accountability is concerned with proper behavior, and it deals with the responsibilities of individuals and organizations for their actions toward other people and agencies (Levitt et al., 2008).It is the triangular relationship among students, WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts, and curriculum implementers.In this case, students' voice is defined as the relationship of accountability connecting students to WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts.And students' power is the relationship of accountability, connecting students as right holders to curriculum implementers (DiGropello, 2004;Pritchett, 2015;WDR, 2004).Fundamentally, the critical participation of students in the education system and their engagement in the classroom curriculum have become more explicit (MoE, 2002(MoE, , 2005)).However, in the decentralized primary education system of Ethiopia, accountability for curriculum implementation does not easily rest with the implementers; rather, it rests with WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts (MoE, 2002).
According to the Ethiopian Federal Civil Servants Proclamation, if curriculum implementers do not discharge their responsibilities, the Ethiopian government empowers curriculum users (e.g., students) to exercise voice and power accountability relationships by imposing penalties based on disciplinary measures as recommended by the government (Proclamation, 2002).These measures are simple penalties (oral warning, written warning, and fines up to one month's salary) and rigorous penalties (fines up to three months' salary, downgrading, and dismissal) for educators who do not discharge their duties and responsibilities properly in implementing the curriculum.
The process of implementing the curriculum comprises helping the student in gaining information or experience.Hence, Curriculum Implementation (CI) is the process of translating the effective components of designed curriculum documents into classroom practices as intended (Fullan, 1999).CI is the process of implementing the plans and recommendations produced by curriculum developers in a classroom or educational context.Students, experts, and SMBs might be directly or indirectly involved in the implementation process, although teachers are generally the ones who carry out this task.It entails putting into practice the government's officially prescribed courses of study (student textbooks, syllabi, and teachers' guides) (MoE, 2002).It will fail if students simply wait to be told what to do and if they do only what they are told about their engagement in the curriculum.According to Maile (2002), to achieve adequate curriculum implementation, the voice and power of the student must be fruitful, appropriate, and free of harm, something that can be secured not by regulation but through clear accountability.
As central figures in the implementation of the curriculum, students have a legitimate voice and power to be effectively engaged in the curriculum to evaluate the performance of the implementers (Chaudhary, 2015;Cook-Sather, 2006;MoE, 2002).Therefore, they have the right to demand, either on their own or in alliance with others, that the accountability of curriculum implementers and the WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts respond in ways that compensate for weaknesses in the implementation process.This is because an accountability system helps everyone do his or her job more responsibly by providing information about schools' or teachers' practices along with occasions for curriculum implementation (Darling-Hammond, 1991).
Despite the accountability movement and relationships that have helped to make school performance more transparent (Fullan, 2000), community opinion generally considers public education to be in crisis (Fowler & Bell, 2009) and failing to meet today's challenges in the implementation of the curriculum (Bushaw & Lopez, 2010).Primary schools are no longer making the desired, noticeable impact in achieving the set objectives of the curriculum.CI is highly influenced by the weak commitment of teachers and a poor accountability system in educational structural organizations (Dantow et al., 2002;Desimone, 2002).Due to this fact, the global learning crisis is widely acknowledged (Hale et al., 2021;Le Nestour, 2021;World Development Report, 2004).I was interested in conducting this study because education systems implement meaningful curricula when strong relationships and interactions between the students, WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts, and school curriculum implementers the aligned with curriculum and learning objectives.This is because; primary schools in Ethiopia have faced various crises in the implementation of curricula to address the needs of the students.One of the great problems of curriculum implementation is that stakeholders (e.g., WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts and curriculum implementers) are roughly committed to performing their responsibilities.As evidence, a study conducted by (Areaya, 2006) on curriculum implementation: Yesterday's Issue?In Sub-Saharan Africa in general and Ethiopia, in particular, indicates one of the inhibiting factors for implementing the curriculum at the school level is the incompatibility of school stakeholders.The genuine communication among school stakeholders for meaningful curriculum implementation has not received much concern, and this leads to the inevitable exercise of students in accountability relationships.Ethiopian education roadmap document shows that primary schools attributed to low student interest and lack of accountability measures (Teferra et al., 2018).
Likewise, evidence from large-scale studies of the Ethiopian primary schools shows that there are still crisis narratives in curriculum implementation or student learning (Hoddinott et al., 2019).These issues were compounded by the lack of accountability for performance within the system and the lack of earnest participation and engagement of different stakeholders in monitoring and holding educators accountable for the implementation of the curriculum (Gershberg et al., 2023).In the East Wollega zone of Oromia regional state, students who completed primary school and sat for the regional examination given by the Oromia Development Association (ODA) for attending their further education in boarding or comprehensive secondary schools are shown in Table 1.
This table shows that students of primary schools in the zone who score above 89% in the 8th grade are eligible to enter a boarding secondary school according to the regional state-sponsored examination.As can be seen from Table 1, out of a total of 1408 students who sat for the national exam for four years, only 46 (3.27%) were promoted to boarding secondary schools.Each year, students' scores are low and don't show significant improvement.This directly implies that, sadly, stakeholders' accountability relationships according to their duties and responsibilities for the implementation of the curriculum in primary schools are not as expected.Even though there were many factors contributing to this failure, it is assumed that the participation of the student to facilitate the implementation of the curriculum by exercising accountability relationships is of paramount importance.So, if the curriculum is not implemented properly and if students must fail the examination, they must address their voice accountability relationship to hold both WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts and curriculum implementers accountable (MoE, 2002;Teferra et al., 2018).
The above notion suggests that the student's failure to pass suggests that they may have lowlevel accountability mechanisms.In the zone, there might be numerous variables that contribute to the failure of the curriculum and poor student engagement with it.The question of how accountability relationships were exercised for the implementation of the curriculum has to be highlighted.This is because students' voices symbolize an emerging movement in education in an era of greater accountability.The notion was that accountability systems should value the range of ways in which SMBs and WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts help learners engage with the curriculum and achieve.When seen through the lenses of the World Development Report (2004) framework of accountability system how do students exercise their voice and powers accountability relationship to hold WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts and curriculum implementers respectively accountable for meaningful implementation must be empirically verified.

Research Questions
Based on the above statement of the problems, the following research questions were formulated: (a) How do students practice using their voices to hold WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts accountable for the implementation of the curriculum?(b) How do students exercise their powers to hold curriculum implementers accountable for the implementation of the curriculum?

Objectives of the study
With the growing focus on accountability for the implemented curriculum, accountability is still centered on satisfying students' engagement in the curriculum and providing sufficient conditions for school implementation of the curriculum.As a primary stakeholder in the schools, the effective participation of students in the accountability system determines the careful implementation of the curriculum.This study's major goal is to examine how students' voices and power are used in the current accountability systems for curriculum implementation in primary school systems.This is how the accountability relationship works, and the intention of this study was also to find out how the curriculum implementers and curriculum and instruction experts of WEOs have handled their duties and responsibilities to address the needs of the students about how the curriculum is being implemented in the primary education system.Specifically, the study is intended to: (1) Determine students' voices to hold WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts accountable for the implementation of the curriculum.
(2) Examine students' powers to hold curriculum implementers accountable for the implementation of schools' curricula.

Research Setting
This study is the first of its kind to try to examine the accountability relationship for curriculum implementation in the east Wollega Zone Administration.East Wollega Zone is one of the zones in Oromia, the regional state of Ethiopia.It is located in the northwestern part of Ethiopia.More specifically, it is located in the western part of Oromia.The main town in east Wollega is Nekemte.
The town is located about 328 kilometers from Addis Ababa on a highway to Asossa.East Wollega Zone is surrounded by west Wollega Zone and the Benishangul Gumuz region in the western part, Jimma and Ilu Aba Bora in the southern part, west Shewa and Horro Guduru Zones in the eastern part, and the Amhara region in the northern part.
Geographically, the zone extends from 9070-1000 degrees north latitude and 37-380 degrees east longitude.The zone is divided into 18 Weardas with 644 respective primary schools.At the time of data collection, more than 300 primary schools were closed due to the political instability of the zone.This study was focused on six primary schools, namely Kolobo, Muleta, Gute, Boneya, Tinfa, and Burka Uke.Kolobo and Muleta schools are found in Diga Woreda; Gute and Boneya schools are found in Wayu Tuka Woreda; and Tinfa and Burka Uke schools are found in Guto Gida Woreda.These Woreda are geographically found around Nekemte town.The medium of instruction in those schools is Afaan Oromoo, the regional language.

Theoretical and conceptual framework
Theoretically, this study is based on a system framework.However, a system can be defined as an entity that is a coherent whole (Ng et al., 2009), such that a boundary is perceived around it to distinguish internal and external elements and to identify input and output relating to and emerging from the entity.Systems theory, by (Lai & Huili Lin, 2017), alludes to a two-pronged approach to systems.As a result, it mainly focuses on the interactions and connections within the organization (the school).Since the learning organization operates in a specific context, this necessitates maintaining a balance that results from interactions between internal and external system components.Systems theory is hence a theoretical perspective that analyzes a phenomenon as a whole and not as simply the sum of elementary parts.The focus is on the interactions and relationships between parts to understand an entity's organization, functioning, and outcomes.
Conceptualizing systems theory may be confined to how the organizational branches or inputs perform.This can exist in the school system due to its functioning through the interrelationships among everybody, every physical matter within its strings, and the energy derived from external forces.Education systems are made up of elements that include people acting in specific roles, like teachers, students, and parents; organizations, like schools and ministries; and things like classrooms and teaching materials.Since systems are based on interdependence among their components, if one of the components does not perform, the whole system fails (Mele et al., 2010).
In agreement with the point made previously, I contend that if the voice and power accountability relationship does not occur, the entire implementation of the curriculum in the classroom will not be able to support meaningful student engagement in the curriculum, and students may experience poor performance.The systems theory that informs the school's worldview interprets it in terms of observable interconnectedness among the component pieces that together form the whole.Furthermore, it implies that a system (a school) is what it is because of interactions between its multiple components, which affect the behavior of the system as a whole.In the context of the study, these elements interact with each other via relationships: the parents send their children to school, the teachers teach the students, and the teachers are employed by the government; WEOs oversee school curricula implementation and provide necessary input; SMBs manage the schools; and so on.These elements should interact for putting the curriculum in to effect as planned.
The framework highlights the interdependence and interconnection of the parts that are thought to be necessary for the implementation of school curricula in a holistic manner.It may affect how the implementation of the primary school curriculum is anticipated.To continue attracting and holding onto more members of society year after year, systems theory appears to need to be a concept with interdependent features that can adapt to social disruptions.
On the other hand, the conceptual framework of this study is informed by the 2004 World Development Report's triangular accountability framework and/or Pritchett (2015), which explain the relationships between policymakers, service providers, and end-users (DiGropello, 2004;Pritchett, 2015;World Development Report, 2004).Hence, due to the decentralized education system of Ethiopian primary schools, this relationship is adopted and contextualized as follows: policymakers as curriculum and instructional experts, service providers as curriculum implementers, and end-users as students.The framework is the most influential and advanced, emphasizing the importance of the implementation of the curriculum in responding to the demands of students and advocating for greater decentralization, control, and accountability (World Development Report, 2003).
The framework has two routes.The first is the long route, which includes students who are expected to influence WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts using voice accountability relationships (DiGropello, 2004;Komba, 2017;World Development Report, 2004) through various mechanisms like meetings, media, face-to-face communications, etc.Hence, WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts would hear the voices and respond to the concerns of the students about issues related to the implementation of school curricula (MoE, 2002), and in turn monitor and put pressure on curriculum implementers using compact accountability relationships to improve their performance (Pritchett, 2015).In the context of this study, the compact is the broad and long route relationship of accountability connecting WEOs' curriculum and instructionexperts to the school curriculum implementers.Thus, through a compact accountability relationship, WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts have the authority to oversee, monitor, and use enforceability approaches to hold curriculum implementers accountable for their conduct and activity in general and for adequate implementation of the curriculum in particular (MoE, 2002).
On the other hand, the short route is considered and preferred as it gives direct authority to students, allowing them to exercise their power over curriculum implementers (Lateef, 2016;MoE, 2002;WDR, 2004).That is, the students' power refers to their direct influence over curriculum implementers for better implementation of the curriculum.Power can exert influence through participation in the implementation of the curriculum, for example, by joining SMBs and/or teachers (MoE, 2002).This power accountability relationship ultimately influences SMBs to use management accountability relationships to monitor and evaluate teachers for improved implementation of the curriculum.Management accountability relationship connects the SMBs with the teachers.It is an action that creates effective frontline curriculum implementers (teachers) to satisfy the needs of the students.It comprises the internal process of the school to respond to the students (MoE, 2002;WDR, 2004).Indeed, students see what is happening in school daily, and the short route importantly helps them practice their power accountability relationships and they have the right to interact with SMBs through their power accountability relationship (MoE, 2002).Furthermore, students are expected to play significant roles in strengthening curriculum implementation by monitoring implementers' performance to achieve the desired goal.To make curriculum implementation effective, the short and long routes accountability relationships are intertwined in a closed system, and should not be viewed in isolation (Dewachter et al., 2018).Pritchett (2015) also used this framework to argue that the educational system works when there is an adequate flow of accountability among the primary educational system in a triangular form.
Effective implementation of the curriculum requires the involvement of stakeholders in a closed accountability system to minimize students' blame.The system looks like an electric system and is viewed as a new wave of educational accountability.It is argued that the framework is relevant and compatible with examining accountability relationships among education stakeholders for the implementation of the curriculum in Ethiopian primary schools.It has been argued that weaknesses in any aspect of the accountability relationships between these stakeholders can cause failure to translate a written curriculum into classroom practices and ensure effective feedback to the student's requests (Pritchett, 2015) (See Figure 1).
The assumption is that, for example, strengthening accountability relationships in primary schools leads to students' voices and power being important dimensions in creating improvements in the implementation of the curriculum.The framework will serve as an effective solution for better curriculum implementation by improving stakeholders' behaviors.In other words, a balance between a long and a short route to accountability is required to generate a positive impact on curriculum implementation by maintaining an adequate flow of accountability among the stakeholders.Hence, this conceptual framework has meaningful implications for unmasking the voices and powers of students for the betterment of the implementation of the curriculum in a decentralized education system.
On the other hand, when evaluating this conceptual framework, it helps to see how the students are involved in the closed network of the primary educational system and if there have been failures in the implementation of the curriculum through long and short routes accountability relationships.It demonstrates how well-accepted the student's requests or rights are, as well as how the implementers and experts of the educational system are attempting to respond to the student's problems.With this useful conceptual framework of accountability relationships, the students, school curriculum implementers, and WEOs' C and I experts can take action and accelerate progress toward the common objectives of curricula by amplifying their real-world voices and strengthening their power accountability relationship.Indeed, there is no question that if any of the connections are weak, it could obscure the voices of students and their power in the primary education system, as well as lead to poor curriculum implementation.

Research Design and Approach
A multiple case study design was used to provide an in-depth insight into how the students' voice and power accountability relationship has been exercised for better curriculum implementation and how this relationship is primarily operational to hold WEOs' curriculum and instructionexperts and curriculum implementers accountable (Yin, 2003).This design helps collect data from multiple primary schools to get a holistic view of the findings.An exploratory case study as a qualitative research method was employed to better understand the accountability relationships due to the subjective aspect of accountability (Hall et al., 2007), which is paramount to understanding the respondents' perspective.

Samples and Sampling Techniques
This study employed purposive sampling.This is because, according to Martella et al. (2013, p. 305), purposive sampling is the deliberate selection of particular people, events, or settings for the significant information they provide.It guarantees that volunteers with "the necessary experience or knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation" will be sought out by the researchers, Gay et al. (2009, p. 430).The east Wollega zone was purposefully selected because it is one of the Oromia Regional State's persistently underperforming zones in promoting students to ODA boarding secondary schools.Six primary schools from three Woredas in the zone were taken as research sites based on political stability as a criterion for selection.As primary data sources, 12 students were selected from sampled schools.Two of them were selected based on their best experience of attending their education regularly, and they deeply understood how they were engaged in the implementation curriculum.
Since students are the direct users of the curriculum, exploring the practice of accountability relationships from their perspectives will give some highlights on how accountability relationships were exercised in the school system.Furthermore, expect PTAs, school principals, supervisors, WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts, and the majority of teachers are members of the politics.I hesitated that they might have given less weight to the student's engagement in the curriculum.Thus, I was frightened that their reflections might be biased and would not be aligned with the student's personal views.This assumption might lead to biased and complex generalizations.

Data Collection Instruments
The research uses triangulation in the data collection to increase the reliability as well as the internal validity of the research (Merriam, 1998).Multiple data sources allowed for triangulation through substantive and in-depth data (Cohen et al., 2007) and helped to enhance data credibility (Patton, 1990;Yin, 2003).According to Baxter and Jack (2008), in the case of study research, the researcher can collect and integrate different sources to create a holistic understanding of the phenomenon.Hence, data were collected from primary sources (interviews, non-participant observations) and secondary sources (documents).

Semi-structured interviews
Interview questions serve as the major data collection tool for this study.Individual interviews provide me access to detailed, individualized information.Because of this, I developed and employed a semistructured face-to-face interview approach with students for this study as a key information source for my research topics.It was assumed that these interviewees would provide authentic information related to the study's subject.All interviewees were available and volunteered for a tape recorder, which led me to productive methods of data collection.The interviews ranged from 50 to 65 minutes.All interviews were conducted in Afaan Oromoo.This is because it is the medium of instruction in primary schools and the mother tongue of the respondents.Then, all recorded interviews were transcribed into the English language to allow for analysis.

Non-participant observation
In this study, non-participant observation offered a more detailed description of group dynamics and contextualized insights into the issue of interest.Indeed, observational evidence is frequently helpful in providing extra information about the topic that is being investigated.I monitored the interviewees' reactions, including tone of voice, non-verbal behavior, and any other changes observed throughout the interview, and I jotted down notes wherever possible throughout the process.I observed school settings that are related to my research themes.I compared the results of this thematic analysis to the themes uncovered from the interview analysis to verify the findings or add to them.

Documents
In addition to interviews and non-participant observations, documentary reviews are a valuable source of data.Documents (official and unofficial) from sampled schools and education offices were used as data-gathering instruments.Unofficial documents were teachers' attendance and minutes.Official government document was educational rganizations guideline that indicates the duties and responsibilities of education for stakeholders, with particular reference to the implementation of the school curriculum.Although primary data are very critical in answering the research questions, secondary sources were also utilized as they broadened my understanding of theories, key concepts, and empirical results.It is also of paramount importance to compare and contrast Ethiopian education policies and guidelines with the current views and practices of the global educational accountability system.

Method of Data Analysis
Upon completing the data presentation, I proceeded with the data analysis thematically.This is because Braun and Clarke (2006) argued that thematic analysis should be a foundational method for qualitative analysis, as it provides core skills for conducting many other forms of qualitative analysis.Some scholars have also maintained that thematic analysis is a process used by many qualitative methods; it is not a separate method but rather something to be used to assist researchers in analysis (Boyatzis, 1998;Holloway & Todres, 2003).
Hence, I argued that thematic analysis is a qualitative research method that can be widely used across a range of epistemologies and research questions in this study.It is a method for identifying, analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting themes found within a data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006).Based on the conceptual framework of the study and the existing accountability relationships in the primary education system, voice, compact, power, and management were highlighted as themes.However, voice and power have received the most attention in the analysis, in line with the research questions.These themes have a direct and strong link to the student's voice and power to express their concerns about the implementation of the curriculum.That is because voice can make the compact stronger and also drive management relationships to manage it properly based on the demands of the student, which makes teachers accountable for their work.For the sake of data analysis, students were coded as Students One (S1), S2, . . .and S12.

Students' Voice Accountability Relationships
Student voice, as an emergent and complex concept, refers to students engaging in dialogue, discussion, and consultation on issues that concern them about their education, but in particular about CI.Thus, the concept is both defined and described by a wide range of terms and activities that center on the repositioning of students to facilitate their engagement with WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts.Students can use their voices as a tool to express themselves and take part in decisions that will affect how the curriculum is implemented in their classrooms.In the context of this study, one of the long route accountability relationships in a decentralized education system is students' voice relationships with WEOs' curriculum and instructionexperts.Under this sub-section, the students' voice accountability relationships were focused on teacher-related shortcomings, wastage of instructional time, and teaching-learning materials.
This relationship is the long route option in which students can easily communicate with WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts in meetings or face-to-face to address their concerns regarding curriculum implementation.In its modern interpretation, the student's voice is primarily concerned with the design, facilitation, and improvement of the translation of the curriculum into classroom practices (Mitra, 2004).Nonetheless, students indicated that the school environment is dominated by political scenarios, resulting in a lack of concern from WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts for curriculum implementation, whereas they expressed concerns about teachers' weaknesses in curriculum implementation.Several students claimed: Students usually have meetings with WEOs' curriculum and instructionexperts and other new individuals with new faces in politics.When there is political instability, there are also urgent meetings.During meeting sessions, the WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts' concerns are always about student behavior, peace issues, and political conditions (S3 and S7).WEOs' curriculum and instructionexperts are local politicians, and they frequently express concern and discuss matters of political stability and peace during the meetings (S10 and S12).Students are seriously concerned about teachers who are unable to teach subjects like Afaan Oromoo, Mathematics, or English.Experts have no agenda when it comes to curriculum implementation, and they dislike reacting to what happens in the classroom (S1, S9 and S2).Students can't use protests or movements for poor implementation of school curriculum due to insecurity issues . . .(S12) Students genuinely think that their participation in the school curriculum is critical to their lives and the development of their country.In discussing the importance of the curriculum, some students emphasized the teachers' inability to implement the curriculum as intended.Participants made the following observations: Students attempted to inform WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts about the lack of competence of some teachers in implementing school subjects during our meetings (the new Afan Oromo, Mathematics, English Language, Physics, and others).Students are not making adequate progress in these subject areas (S1 and S6).Students asked for and preferred to learn those subjects with different teachers; nothing can be significantly changed.No disciplinary measures have been used to correct teachers' behaviors.They paid no attention to the students' requests during the meeting.I can't influence experts and make them accountable for improving the role of teachers in the implementation of the curriculum (S10).I have not seen their roles in schools.(S11).Students do not have adequate money to go to private schools in the nearest town.(S6, S7, and S9) Cook-Sather (2006) defines the student voice in this context as having a legitimate perspective, presence, and active role in curriculum implementation.The voice enables WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts to strengthen monitoring and respond to students' concerns about curriculum implementation.Students' voices are embedded in a complex web of school structures and cultures that WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts are expected to shape (MoE, 2002) the implementation of the school curriculum.These experts are appointed to ensure that an effective curriculum is maintained at the school level by hearing students' voices.Nevertheless, frequent teacher absenteeism resulted in these experts placing little emphasis on students' concerns for actual curriculum implementation.Students voiced their concerns to these experts about how teachers' absences caused them to fail to complete subject matter according to the annual plan of the curriculum.Students frequently mentioned the following: Students see that there are repeated wastage of instructional time, and teachers do not cover the missed instructional time.They do not even enter the classroom while at the school compound (S2, S4, S5, and S8).They said that more than one-third of the school curricula subjects (e.g., chemistry and mathematics) are not completed at the end of the academic year (especially during the COVID-19 season).WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts do not like to respond to students' voices immediately, and they always suggest discussing the issue with SMBs.There is no practical response in this regard.Students can't choose private schools in the town due to financial constraints.(S1 and S8) In this regard, the document review of the teachers' attendance shows that, explicitly I reviewed that, on average, about 33% of instructional time is usually wasted.It is important to note that in primary schools, one instructional period is equal to 40 minutes.The teachers will be held accountable for three or more consecutive days of unexcused absence.But if they are absent for one or two days, their punishment is not severe.That is why teachers were reluctant to regularly present in the schools to implement curriculum property.The teacher's punishment is a weak shame, and the teacher's absence has become the main issue of the student's complaint.My observation shows that: In one school, I saw with my own eyes a teacher teaching two classes to cover for the teacher who didn't come to the school.Teacher absenteeism is a chronic issue in implementing curriculum effectively.(Observation, May 12, 2021) Other students emphasized the importance of school teaching-learning facilities in ensuring the effectiveness of curriculum implementation.Students expressed their concerns as, Schools lack science-related laboratory space, reagents, and apparatus.School curriculum implementation is not supported by technology (S11 and S12).Students do not have curriculum materials like textbooks, internet access, or other facilities.No one is responsible and takes care of fulfilling these facilities.WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts do not have hope. . .their response is always no budget.They ignore the student's questions (S4 and S8).No private schools around us . . .I do not have the budget to learn in private schools by traveling to the town.(S6) As I had looked around the schools, there is nothing conducive to teaching and learning.This implies that the student's question is reasonable about the shortage of instructional materials.
There is a lack of laboratory rooms and practice for curriculum implementation at all sampled primary schools in the Woredas, making it difficult for teachers to implement science curricula.There is no technology-enhanced learning or teaching.All schools use chalk and talk, which is guided by the students' textbooks.(Observation, May 10, 2021)

Students' Power Accountability Relationship
Since curriculum and instruction experts of WEOs cannot specify all actions for curriculum implementation in the compact accountability relationship; students must exercise their power accountability relationship to increase the role of SMBs to monitor teachers' roles.
Students are the primary stakeholders to exercise their right to improve the implementation of the curriculum.Students' powers are viewed as an emerging and complex concept that refers to students engaging in dialogue, discussion, and consultation on issues concerning their education, particularly curriculum implementation (McEachern, 2008).Under this sub-section, the student tried to exercise their power accountability relationship about the shortage of teachers, incompetent teachers, poor instructional method, and wastage of instructional time . . .However, these relationships were not enough to improve the implementation of the curriculum and were challenged by local norms, the absence of an accountability policy, poor feedback from SMBs, weak dialogue, fear of school political conditions, and teachers' arrogant behaviors against students.
Concerning students' understanding of educational accountability, they have limited details on how to hold teachers accountable for effective curriculum implementation in the classroom.This was brought up by Participant S8: I know whether a teacher is present or absent on any given school day.I know how much time the teacher devotes to tasks, and I know whether the classroom appears purposeful and wellorganized to me.While implementing the curriculum, I observe whether the teacher treats me kindly or rudely.I respect my teacher, and this is our norm.I think that I have limited information to influence teachers' behaviors for better implementation of the curriculum.
When students have access to information about the status of curriculum implementation in their schools, they must be able to hold curriculum implementers accountable for improved curriculum implementation.Nonetheless, S1 also explained: Students are always informed in school about what they do regarding their behaviors, but not about what teachers do.I don't have a clear strategy or guideline to increase the accountability of teachers for curriculum implementation.
Students made numerous requests to the SMBs through their power accountability relationships.Monitoring by SMBs should improve accountability for better implementation of the curriculum.In practice, SMBs have paid little attention to using management accountability relationships with teachers.Students mentioned common views: Students observe that some teachers are absent from the classroom and do not complete the assigned subjects (for example, chemistry, biology, and others) within the time frame specified in the annual plan.If a teacher wastes education, SMBs don't care (S2 and S3).Students know about their right to learn, but they are ill-informed to hold both teachers and SMBs accountable for the implementation of the curriculum (S5 and S6).There is no formal space for meaningful dialogue among students, teachers, and SMBs on accountability issues for curriculum implementation.(S10 and S12) Students devote time to education to ensure that the curriculum is implemented correctly.Listening to student rights may be used by students in the school to establish power relationships and persuade others.Students genuinely want to talk to them about how the school curriculum is being poorly implemented.Students expressed their displeasure, declaring: Through our classroom monitor, I communicate issues concerning teachers' pedagogical and content knowledge.I am not satisfied with the instructional methods used by English and mathematics teachers.The SMBs remain silent and make no response, and sometimes they claim that they lack the authority to punish or fire teachers for poor performance. . .teachers are trained and employed to teach by the government.Teachers' salaries are from the government (S7).SMBs don't want to get involved in classroom matters with teachers.(S10).No hope from SMBs to address my problem . . ..Only quiet learning will save me.(S11) In terms of this power-accountability relationship for increasing curriculum implementers' accountability, students are demotivated and hapless, and they are less concerned with holding teachers accountable for curriculum implementation.Several respondents highlighted: To earn money and survive, I simply need to complete Grade 8 and become a licensed car driver.I dislike continuing my education at secondary school and University.This is because I notice a large number of unemployed graduates around us.I've been discouraged from exercising my right to hold teachers accountable to improve curriculum implementation (S5). . . .unemployment is high; I do not like to put pressure on teachers and school principals.(S12) The student should learn in a comfortable school environment.A learning environment that is right for students to feel connected with teachers and SMBs and take responsibility for exercising their power accountability relationship.They should also express their opinion without fear (MoE, 2002).Conversely, poor communication with SMBs was evident on the part of the student due to frustration.Students noticed: Political spirit has polluted the school environment.It is not secure.I dislike reporting deficiencies in curriculum implementation to SMBs or teachers.I'm afraid to bring my concerns to the appropriate body.I do have very limited power to challenge (S4).If I raise a question, SMBs will tell me that you want to disturb. . .I am afraid.(S10) Another participant stated as well: Our curriculum is designed to kill time rather than create jobs, resulting in an unemployed graduate.So, in the current risky political environment, I have not participated in debates, protests, or movements against the failure of curriculum implementation.I'm unable to express my opinion because it might be politicized.(S2) As part of the essential responsibilities and roles of a teacher in a school, teachers sincerely and regularly attend classes.In contrast, one student highlighted the practical reality: I am usually afraid to notify SMBs when I see teachers are wasting instructional time. . .Some teachers use shrinking their faces as a personal revenge mechanism against students.SMBs are more concerned with school construction, facilities, and maintenance than with classroom curriculum implementation.(S6) One more student emphasized the waste of their classroom instruction by saying: When teachers are absent and wasting instructional time, I communicate with school principals through classroom monitor.The principal is aware of this and warns students to be quiet in the classroom.(S4)Teachers are primarily accountable to the students (Maphosa et al., 2012).However, when the implementer lacks basic knowledge, skills, and experience, it is difficult to successfully implement a curriculum (Mokhele, 2012;Olamo et al., 2019).Students mentioned that there were few chances to learn from more qualified teachers and to hold them accountable.Students made it clear: I was usually in charge of informing SMBs about teachers' limitations in implementing the curriculum in the classroom, particularly in physics and chemistry. . .The school principals' response is always that the school didn't have any other qualified teachers. . .(S6 and S9).Principals cannot choose and hire qualified teachers (S12).SMBs cannot meet the teacher's needs . . .they are usually skeptical of teachers' classroom practices.Nobody can monitor or hold teachers accountable for their performance in the classroom (S9) Regarding the issue of teacher competence, students' opinions were not easily and readily heard by SMBs.Another respondent also addressed that: I come across teachers who lack subject knowledge.I notified the SMBs.They do not like to punish teachers and they ignore my request.To be honest, SMBs are more concerned with additional classroom construction than with my needs for what is going on in the classrooms.(S7) The power of the students was overlooked by SMBs regarding failure in curriculum implementation that was associated with management accountability relationship failure to communicate with teachers.According to respondents: I repeatedly requested more qualified English teachers.If you ask SMBs, they will tell you that the government trained teachers at the College of teacher education and sent them to schools as if they were capable graduates . . .there is nothing that I can do. ... Who is responsible for using sanctions to improve curriculum implementation?(S3).I usually report poor curriculum implementation related to teachers' weaknesses to the SMBs . . .they do not treat it as a serious issue (S5).SMBs don't want to fight with teachers who show poor performance.(S11 and S12)

Discussions of results
This qualitative research aimed to investigate the students' voice and power accountability relationships for curriculum implementation in primary schools.This section discusses the findings considering the existing scholarly literature review.Based on the results of the study, students were aware of their daily experiences with curriculum implementation, and as a result, they expressed their voices in meetings by demonstrating a diverse range of implementation aspects (e.g., wastage of instructional time, teaching-learning facilities, teachers' ability, and absenteeism) that helped them hold WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts accountable for discharging their responsibility for meaningful implementation of the curriculum.
Even though students' voices can help identify problems in curriculum implementation and suggest potential solutions (Arnot & Reay, 2004;Mitra, 2003), the study indicates that WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts have frequently given little attention and undermined the students' voices by linking their weaknesses to their authority.The long route of accountability relationship, voice was not working due to weekend compact accountability relationships and then the implementers of the curriculum got away with engaging students with the curriculum.Through voice accountability relationships, students have few opportunities to hold the curriculum and instruction experts at WEOs accountable for better curriculum implementation.
There is no doubt that the voice of students is crucial to their engagement in curricula.Edwards (2005) stated that students' concerns, inputs, and reflections are important in all aspects of the implementation process, but students' voices to hold WEOs' curriculum and instructionexperts accountable for value-added curriculum implementation were insufficient.Voice and compact are both long route accountability and can be linked together, and voice can drive the compact.On the other hand, the breakdown of the long route can result in a weak voice, which leads to inadequate curriculum implementation, and students' voices can strengthen the compact accountability relationships (WDR, 2004).Further findings show that in practice, relationships between WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts and school curriculum implementers played an insignificant role in influencing both SMBs and teachers' behaviors through the use of compact accountability relationships and enforceability (direct interaction) to enhance the implementation of the school curriculum.This study supports the findings of Komba (Komba, 2017), who discovered a weak voice accountability relationship between curriculum end users (students) and politicians, policymakers, or curriculum experts in Tanzania.
According to the MoE (2002), the student has the right to ask, learn, and use educational materials.They have the right to hold teachers accountable for their duties in the primary education system.Pritchett (2015) highlights that students know their teacher's presence, time on task, classroom order, treatment, understanding, and progress, as well as their ability to complete lessons.They also have an idea of their progress.Conversely, students know that the curriculum implementation was not presented in the way they wanted, even if they express their voice about their implementation of the classroom curriculum.The findings of this study disclose that students were challenged to exercise their power accountability relationship in holding teachers accountable for weak implementation of the curriculum.This is due to a lack of updated educational accountability policies and guidelines, and students were ill-informed, afraid of teachers, politically frustrated, and they were demotivated (hopeless).This finding is in line with WDR findings (WDR, 2004), which show that the power-accountability relationship between students and teachers is a weak force in the public school system and is hampered by specific interests.It has little impact on holding teachers and SMBs accountable for their actions.
The empirical evidence showed that the weakness of the compact accountability relationship also had little impact on the management accountability relationship in driving SMBs to focus on students' concerns because SMBs do not like to take risks based on monitoring progress through management accountability relationships, and they have given less emphasis to students' power on issues related to teachers' weak pedagogical and content knowledge and wastage of instructional time to improve the implementation of the curriculum.This finding supports Pritchett (2015)'s study that indicates that the management accountability relationship between SMBs and teachers is consistent with schooling (general education services, whether textbooks, teachers, policy advocates, construction) that don't strengthen the interaction of students and SMBs for curriculum implementation.
As a result of the short route accountability relationship, SMBs had to keep silent to respond to the student's concerns and preferred not to hold teachers accountable for required curriculum implementation; rather, their primary concern was school input.Thus, the findings of the study are consistent with those of Galabawa and Agu (2001) in Tanzania, who found that school committees, or SMBs, were mainly concerned with school construction activities, school facilities, and manpower agreement funds, and were less concerned with what was going on in the classrooms to hold teachers accountable.Generally speaking, SMBs rush to the subject of educational infrastructure, overlook the expected issue of curriculum implementation, and delay responding to student requests.The student is denied the opportunity to use their power accountability relationships to make the school system workable for adequate implementation of the curriculum.

Conclusions
Schooling without effective implementation of the curriculum is a terrible waste of precious resources and human potential.The concept of curriculum implementation does not have a consistent function in the primary school system without involving students in accountability relationships.Nevertheless, the finding of the study generally discloses that the triangular accountability relationships for curriculum implementation among students, WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts, and school curriculum implementers were loosely coupled.That is the failure of students' voice and power accountability relationship was observed due to system failure or compact accountability failure, which was associated with management accountability failure.
Despite the Ethiopian government's commitment to enhancing accountability as a means of improving the implementation of the curriculum, the study concludes that few efforts have been made to establish a strong foundation in educational accountability relationships.It is also determined that Ethiopia lacks actual accountability flows, policies, and mechanisms, contributing to students' dissatisfaction with classroom practices and the curriculum.The study reveals that effective curriculum implementation does not take place in schools where students are despised as powerless to exercise their voice and power accountability relationship functions, and both long and short route accountability relationships have not worked as expected in the primary education system.
Students attempted to address their curriculum failures in implementation with the WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts, who were empowered and delegated to oversee curriculum implementation and address student concerns (MoE, 2002).However, this study finds that WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts had difficulty providing resources and addressing student concerns to improve curriculum implementation.It was also concluded that, through the long route accountability relationship, students were politically frustrated during a discussion at meetings, and their voices could not be expected to yield much in terms of holding the WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts accountable for better implementation of the curriculum and in driving these experts to use a compact accountability relationship with school curriculum implementers.
Students have gained the ability to hold curriculum implementers accountable since 1991, and many schools have become more autonomous and decentralized, as well as more accountable to students for translating curriculum into classroom practices (MoE, 2002).However, the study concludes that the short route of students' power accountability relationships was strained for three primary reasons: Due to the high unemployment rate among university graduates, these students were hapless and demotivated to use their power relationships.They went back to their daily lives, saying that learning was a waste of time.Second, this relationship was meaningless for the students because SMBs had shown a very limited response to students' requests, and skepticism put pressure on teachers for curriculum implementation failure through the management accountability relationship.SMBs did not welcome students' requests, and students did not want to be involved in more debates with SMBs.Thirdly, the practice of power accountability relationships masked students' rights because of political pollution, which leads to frustration.
Even though students have the right or power to use their own experience or other information to put pressure on curriculum implementers to meet norms of appropriate behavior (MoE, 2002), the study revealed that teachers were not subjected to any accountability sanctions by SMBs if they were physically present in the school and classroom because the regional education bureau hired them to teach.SMBs lack autonomy in selecting qualified teachers, leading to a porous sanction component in schools.Management accountability relationships are less effective and students lack meaningful power accountability relationships, marginalizing them from holding curriculum implementers accountable for better-quality implementation.

Limitations and future directions
As in all research studies, there were limitations to this study that should be noted to better understand the implications of the results.It is very difficult to conduct accountability investigations in developing countries where political immaturity is evident.Due to the unstable zone administration, I had difficulty gathering data from students promptly.My study did not explore all possible accountability relationships in the primary education system; rather, I focused on voice and power accountability relationships as they indicate the practice of students in holding both WEOs' curriculum and instruction experts and curriculum implementers accountable.However, more research is needed to better explore all approaches to accountability relationships for curriculum implementation in primary schools.The absence of locally conducted research reports on accountability for curriculum implementation and other relevant related pieces of literature at both the federal and regional levels made it very hard to consult and enrich the nature of the problem.
The scarcity of documented shreds of evidence was one of the difficulties I faced, which forced me to rely on limited longstanding government guidelines.In addition to the scarcity of welldocumented materials or research reports on accountability for curriculum implementation, this study's findings depended heavily on students' interviews, observations, and documents as data sources.Further research can include other data collection instruments to explore stakeholders' behaviors in the primary education system.The findings of this study were based on the students' active and regular attendance at school.Further study may be needed on students who are reluctant and have not regularly attended to come up with comparative results among different groups of students to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.

Ethical considerations
During data collection, I informed the respondents about the research purposes and that they were all to be kept safe and confidential.Then all sources of information used for the study were duly acknowledged.Since this study is part of my dissertation, it was approved by Addis Ababa University's Department of Curriculum and Instruction Committee to be conducted at a selected site.I had taken only official letters from the University's department to the respondents' organizations for the sake of formal communication and trust each other.To conduct interviews as well as to utilize highly confidential documents for research purposes all participants and schools were permissible.Informed consent was not sought for the present study because no agreement approach is required as this manuscript is part of a dissertation and not a funded project.