Decentralization - can it improve schools?

Decentralization - can it improve schools?

Decentralization is at the top of the reform agenda in many countries. Governments and agencies consider it an indispensable step in efforts to provide quality education for all. However, little is known about its actual impact on local schools. The recent newsletter of the UNESCO Institute for Educational Planning IIEP looks at the situation in West Africa and Asia.

Decentralization is at the top of the reform agenda in

many countries. Governments and agencies consider

it an indispensable step in efforts to provide quality

education for all. However, little is known about its

actual implementation and impact on local offices and

schools. This article looks at the policy implications of

research undertaken by the IIEP in West Africa and Asia

and two other articles comment on the findings in each case.

DECENTRALIZATION in most developing countries is interpreted in three complementary ways: asking elected local authorities to take charge of education in their area, strengthening the role of regional and district education offices and increasing school autonomy in resource management. Research in Benin, Guinea, Mali and Senegal shows the constraints on the implementation of these policies. Another article comments in detail on these constraints faced by schools, education offices and elected local authorities and on the weakness of government intervention to overcome them. While much of this is disheartening, there are also positive findings. Firstly, parents and communities are showing great commitment to their children’s schooling. Many contribute strongly to the costs of schooling, by paying several fees and providing practical support. In quite a few cases, their financing keeps the local education offices functioning. Secondly, parents and teachers, inspectors and mayors, all are genuinely convinced of the need for decentralization and are committed to its implementation, although they are aware of the present constraints. Thirdly, although schools and local offices struggle with resource constraints, several have taken innovative initiatives. Arguably, the lack of support from the central level obliges them to do so, while the absence of a regulatory framework allows for such initiatives.

From principles …

This commitment to education and to decentralization, linked to the existence of effective initiatives, provides fertile ground for the successful implementation of decentralization. The challenge remains to transform these initiatives into national practice. That demands strong and concerted government efforts. The research, conducted in Africa and Asia, and the subsequent policy seminars in Manila (Philippines) and Cotonou (Benin) at which the findings were discussed, all helped to identify key principles to guide such efforts and a number of promising ways forward. A first principle concerns the need for complementarity. The essence of decentralization is to get more actors to work together towards EFA. While the efforts of one single individual are easily outweighed by the challenges, collaboration between all can make a difference. Legislation recognizes this principle, but isolation or conflict are regularly the order of the day. The reason is partly a problem of resources, partly one of frameworks. Here and there, elected local authorities play an active role in education. But their intervention is generally limited to maintenance or construction, with little attention to monitoring quality. It is more the expression of personal interest than of national policy and carries risks: greater disparities, as only those with better resources intervene in education; and a conflict with the local education offices, as there is no clear collaboration framework. Within such a framework, the mandate of all actors should take into account their resources, competences and assets. The opposite is sometimes the case: parents contribute from their very scarce resources, but are refused control over teacher presence. Principals manage finances and recruit teachers, which are delicate and intricate tasks, but their involvement in pedagogical supervision has not been strengthened. Inspectors have to supervise all teachers, while their resources only allow them a few visits each term. A strategic balance between the mandate and resources of all actors is needed. The level and nature of these resources and assets should not be taken as static. They should be built up, through legislation, capacitybuilding and awareness-raising and through the recruitment of staff with an appropriate profile. A core principle runs through the above reflections: Decentralization does not imply that the State abandons its role, but rather that it takes on a different role. Where its supervision and support is weak and where its absence is not neutralized by strong local accountability, the inefficiency and mismanagement that characterized central management is more than likely to be repeated, if not multiplied at lower levels.

… to practice

These principles help in developing strategies to address three core challenges. Strengthening quality monitoring, a key concern in a context of decentralization, demands that all actors be involved. Initiatives in Benin and Senegal show the potential of school networks where teachers exchange experiences and which develop a tradition of peer support. The Asian research shows that principals are competent to evaluate the performance of their teachers, while parents, community organizations and municipalities can exercise responsibility in supervising teacher presence and maybe in their recruitment. The district office is best placed to offer intensive support to a few schools, which are seriously underperforming. There is a need to reform school supervision, by changing: its mandate – from inspection to professional development; its focus – towards the most needy schools; its practices – from school visits to a mixture of visits, workshops, exchange and the creation of networks. Transparency in the local management of resources is probably one of the main challenges to decentralization and paramount to its success. Ensuring that rules and regulations are known to all and that parents who contribute to school financing have an explicit right to know how these funds are spent is indispensable. Training and setting up financial control structures are equally important. This could be part of a wider accountability framework linking the actors to whom the district office and the school are responsible: the administration; the other teachers and schools; the students, their parents and the public at large. Information should be available on how districts and schools are using their autonomy and on how disparities are evolving. However, such transparency and accountability may encounter serious resistance when it threatens the existing power relations. The profile of the teaching force has deeply changed because of the inclusion of volunteer, contract and community teachers. The motivation and quality of this new teaching corps need to be addressed. The development of a transparent career plan, based on performance, allowing volunteer or contract teachers to move on to civil servant status and be included in schoollevel management and decision-making will help to stimulate their motivation. Quality improvement demands regular support from within the school and outside; this includes some basic resources and recruiting teachers who belong to a community, be it the school or the locality. Decentralization is neither a panacea nor a shortcut. In all countries, disparities will continue to exist. Some municipalities, districts and schools already have what they need to benefit from more autonomy; others need support, orientation and control. The implications are twofold. On the one hand, decentralization is not a policy objective in itself; it is a management strategy, adopted when and where centralized management is felt to be inefficient. On the other hand, decentralization demands a flexible implementation, with a balance between the autonomy and the characteristics of its beneficiaries.

Anton de Grauwe

agrauwe@iiep.unesco.org

bei@consultant.com