School Based Governance (SBG), Planning, Budgeting & Implementation;Evidence & Practices

Chair: Captain Zahid Saeed , Special Secretary Schools (Part-1)

Co Chair: Ms. Zakia Sarwar

Papers:Saif-ur-Rehman Usmani (GTZ Advisor, Financial & Budgetary Planning)

School Based Management (NWFP’s Perspective)

Razia Fakir Mohammad (Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Karachi) Quality Education in Classrooms: Possibilities and Constraints

Mir Afzal Tajik (Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Karachi)

Making School Change and Community Development as Mutually Supportive Courses of Action

1)SCHOOLS & LITERACY DEPARTMENT NWFP

School Based Governance-ManagementFinancial, Budgetary & Administrative Reforms

(NWFP’s Perspective)

by Saif-ur-Rehman Usmani

GTZ Adviser Financial & Budgetary Planning

Abstract:School Based Governance/Management (SBM) aims to devolve more responsibilities to schools

and provide them with enhanced flexibility and autonomy in managing their own operation and resources and planning for school development, with increased accountability. Through SBM, schools will develop a management system to ensure the quality of learning and teaching. SBM is school-based, student-centered and quality-focused.

2. Population living below poverty line in NWFP is 46.3% against the country average of 37.3%. Male enrollment is 62% and literacy is 57%. Female enrollment is 39% whereas female literacy is 20%. In some districts female literacy is below 3%. Under the LGO 2001, Education is devolved function to districts. But in NWFP salary budget and block provision for centralized purchases is in the control of Provincial Government, which is about 99% of the total allocation for education sector. The non-salary budget provided through district governments is less than 1% of the salary budget. Non-salary allocation for primary, middle and high schools is Rs. 11, 53 & 53 per student per annum respectively.

3. In NWFP Government & private schools are 84.16% and 15.84% respectively. Gross enrollment in Government and Private Schools is 31,71,584 (78.65%) and 8,61,034 (21.35%) respectively. Working Teachers in the Government Schools are 66.66% and in Private Schools are 33.34%. Enrolment in the 7.81% private primary schools is 20.74% of the total enrollment in government primary schools, indicative

1

of efficient utilization of resources, better quality and conducive working environment. Expenditure on primary, middle and high level education is Rs. 383, Rs.1149 & Rs.815 per student per month respectively. It transpires high rate of dropout at primary level and under-utilization of middle schools.

4. Political interference, polarization between provincial and district governments, resource constraints, corruption, weak monitoring system, non merit based postings against administrative positions, lack of accountability, non-merit based induction, lack of capacity building, weak human resource management, rigid staffing & resource allocation patterns, lack of administrative & financial skills, joint administrative & teaching cadres, complex accounting and audit procedures, weak examination system, centralized procurement system, no system for replacement of about 3000-3500 teaching staff pulled out every year are the key factors affecting the education system.

5. The GoNWFP has brought a shift in its policy & for the first time DDO wise Need Based Budget is being prepared for strengthening the PTAs/SBM, increasing the operational budget and transferring financial & administrative control to districts. The incremental form of budgeting is being replaced with Performance Based Budgeting (PBB). New Accounting Model (NAM) has been adopted. Human Resource database has been established (first of its kind in the public sector), which is being integrated with PBB and NAM.

PAPERSchool Based Governance/Management (SBM) aims to devolve more responsibilities to schools

and provide them with enhanced flexibility and autonomy in managing their own operation and resources and planning for school development, with increased accountability at the same time. Through SBM, schools will develop a management system to ensure the quality of learning and teaching. Hence, SBM is a management framework which is school-based, student-centered and quality-focused.

2. The underlying principles of SBM are two-fold. Firstly, SBM seeks to provide schools with enhanced flexibility and autonomy in managing their own operation and resources according to the needs of their students. Secondly, it seeks to enhance the transparency and accountability in the use of public funds and school operations by providing a participatory decision-making mechanism where all key stakeholders are involved.

3. Population living below poverty line in NWFP is about 46.3% against the country average of 37.3%. Male enrollment in schools is about 62% whereas male literacy rate is about 57%. Female enrollment is about 39% whereas female literacy is about 20% only. In some districts (Kohistan, Tank, Battagram and Upper Dir) female literacy is less than 3%. Enrollment in the public sector primary schools is 12% of the population (7% & 5% for male & female respectively). Primary school enrollment is 32 children per square kilometer (19 & 13 male & female respectively).

4. Parents Teacher Associations (PTAs) have been established in almost all schools. The system is yet to get foot-hold in the rigid socio-cultural environment. In some districts the funds channeled through PTAs are mis-used, especially primary level, where the land donors/ Chowkidars, become chairmen of the PTAs and misappropriates the PTA funds (in the remote districts of Kohistan, Battagram, Upper Dir, Tank, DI Khan and Bannu). However the situation is quite encouraging in many districts. In Peshawar, Mardan, Kohat and some districts of Malakand and Hazara Divisions, the chairmen are formally elected and the PTAs are quite effective in school management. Reforms are required in the structure, formulation process, working & composition of PTAs. The format is being revised and composition broadened, by including parents (excluding land donors/Chowkidars), elected representatives/Union Nazims, Pesh-Imams and increase in number of teachers. The school budget is considered to be increased commensurate with genuine needs and should be utilized entirely through PTAs; setting priorities for individual schools and should be exempted from pre-audit.

5. Under the LGO 2001, Education is the devolved function to districts. But in NWFP salary budget and block provision of budget for centralized purchase of major items like furniture, laboratory equipment,

2

jute tats etc; is in the control of Provincial Government, which is about 99% of the total allocation for education sector. The non-salary budget provided to education sector through district governments is less than 1% of the total budget. Theoretically the district governments are independent in their decisions. But the Provincial Government has control over financial resources, postings and transfers (especially officers), appointments (officers), promotions, inter-district transfers, annual development programme etc. Political interference is quite high and all policy decisions are taken at provincial level.

6. As the quality of school education has direct impacts on students’ learning outcomes, the quid-pro-quo to additional autonomy is that schools have to be more transparent in their operations and accountable to the community for their performance and the proper use of funds. Hence the government supports a participatory governance framework involving principals, teachers, parents, alumni and independent community members. The direct participation of these key stakeholders in school decision-making would be proponent to enhance the transparency and accountability of the school governance and the key stakeholders can contribute their views and expertise for the betterment of the school. SBM leads to;

1. Change in school working culture,2. Classroom practices,3. Student achievements,4. Sense of responsibility & accountability,5. Stronger professional community,6. Increased learning.

7. Political interference, polarization between provincial and district governments, resource constraints, corruption, weak monitoring system, politically motivated postings against administrative positions, lack of accountability, non-merit based induction, lack of continuous capacity building, lack of scientific human resource management, rigid staffing patterns, rigid resources allocation patterns, lack of administrative & financial skills, joint administrative & teaching cadres, complex accounting and audit procedures, weak examination system, vulnerable to unfair means, illiterate parents, wide ranging poverty are some of the key factors affecting the education system in the Province in general and quality of education in particular.

8. Presently schools management (principal/head teachers) and staff are subjected to many rival factors. Teachers have no say in the school’s administrative & financial affairs. Nominal funds are provided through PTA. The rest is centralized. Teachers are not getting any budget for traveling allowance & medical charges. No other incentive. Resultantly they adopt other unfair means, by joining the so called teachers’ associations, examination duties & private tuitions etc. Nominal funds are provided for operational budget of a school. The financial and management control is supra centric under the district offices. Teachers suffer at the hands of clerical staff in the district offices. They can’t clear their bills without paying many visits to the district and accounts offices. The audit department is a nightmare for teachers. They pay several visits to these offices for their pay fixation in case of revision or change in their salary. They work in un-conducive working environment.

9. The Local Government system is still passing through transitory phase. Its future is not guaranteed. Several amendments have been made and many are being made in the LGO, skewed in favor of Provincial Government and centralization. Bureaucracy is not in total support of the new system. The financial system has been disintegrated due to the devolution of power; resulted in drastic cut on the current budget of the devolved departments. All the 24 district governments are getting Rs. 1600 million (3.13% of the total current budget) for non-salary requirements of all the devolved departments during the CFY 2005-06. Obviously fewer resources are available to the departments and education becomes the last priority while allocating resources to departments at district level. During a recent survey it has been observed that nominal funds are provided for POL and repair of vehicles and hence field inspections by the district staff have been virtually stopped.

10. NWFP has peculiar administrative setup. The tribal area stretches all along the western boarder of the Province. The government employees are transferable between FATA and settled area. There are six

3

Frontier Regions (Federal funded & governed under FCR) attached with six districts. Provincial Government is not comfortable with the local government system. Family planning and female education are hindered due to socio-cultural limitations and opposed by the religious circles.

11. The PTAs established in the schools are confronted with plethora of problems. Nominal amount of funds is provided through the PTAs, subjected to stringent pre-audit procedures and policing through various anti corruption agencies. Funds are provided at uniform rate on per room basis, irrespective of enrollment, in the schools. High Schools are getting Rs. 350 per class room vis-à-vis Rs. 1750 per room by primary schools. In some remote districts, the Chowkidars and their relatives are misusing the PTA funds. Funds are usually released in June, which aught to be utilized under a tight schedule, prone to audit mishaps. The funds could be used for specific prescribed items, contrary to local priorities/rigid choice of utilization. There is lack of capacity about financial and accounts matters. In some districts, fake enrollment is reported for getting PTA funds and teachers’ salary. The monitoring system is very weak.

12. The present centralized system of procurement is responsible for unwarranted delays in provision of necessary school requirements. Like the furniture purchased from Pak German Peshawar has not been delivered to date despite advance payment one year back. ESR funds are lapsed in majority of districts due to delay in releases and fulfillment of codal formalities, involved in its utilization. In some cases text books have not been provided in sufficient number. Substitute of teachers is not provided on time after their retirement. There is no automatic system for replacement of about 3000-3500 core teaching staff pulled out of the system every year due to retirement. Facility specific sanction of posts puts a bar on the adjustment of teachers on need basis. Teachers are posted against irrelevant positions, creating practical impediments in teaching of some subjects.

13. Implementation of SBM, includes the streamlining of administrative procedures and the devolution of more responsibilities to schools in personnel management, financial matters and the design and delivery of curriculum. All these measures are to create more room for schools to develop quality education with their own characteristics and provide schools with more flexibility in the use of public funds. SBM have the best information about resource availability, financial & human resource management, and teachers & students management. SBM is;

1. More democratic,2. More relevant,3. Less bureaucratic,4. Stronger in accountability,5. Effective in resource mobilization

14. There are 25955 (84.16%) Government and 4884 (15.84%) Private Schools in NWFP. Gross enrollment in Government and Private Schools is 31,71,584 (78.65%) and 8,61,034 (21.35%) respectively. Working Teachers in the Government Schools are 1,03,361 (66.66%) and in Private Schools are 51,692 (33.34%). Total primary schools in the public & private sector are 22,024 (92.19%) and 1865 (7.81%) respectively. But enrolment in the 7.81% private primary schools is 20.74% of the total enrollment in primary schools, indicative of efficient utilization of resources, better quality and conducive working environment. Overall enrollment in the 15.84% private schools is 21.35% of the total enrollment. Enrollment in public sector primary, middle & high/higher secondary schools is 74%, 6% and 20% respectively. These schools are utilizing 51%, 15% & 35% of the education sector budget. Expenditure on primary, middle and high level education is Rs. 383,1149 & 815 per student per month respectively. It transcribes high rate of dropout at primary level and under-utilization of middle schools.

15. Total sanctioned strength of the Provincial Government during the current financial year 2005-06 is 288,209. Out of that 162,790 (56.48%) posts are in education sector (excluding technical, vocational and professional education). 99% of the staff is deployed in the districts/devolved departments and only 1% comprises provincial administration and elementary teachers training institutions called RITEs. Sanctioned strength of Primary School Teachers is about 67,455 (41.44%), Class-IV/menial staff is 38,739 (23.80%) and all other type of posts of teachers, professors, clerical & Laboratory staff are 56,596 (34.76%). The number of Working Teachers out of the total sanctioned strength is (103,361), which is indicative of large

4

number of menial staff employed in the department (mostly Chowkidars and Naib Qasids) and other clerical staff and a lot of vacant positions at the given point of time.

16. Total budget allocated for education sector during CFY 2005-06 is about Rs. 21,677.061; Rs. 18,617.061 Million (85.88%) current and Rs. 3060 Million (14.12%) as development budget. The current budget allocation for education sector (inclusive of district level non salary) is about 36.47% of the total current budget of Rs. 51052.000 Million. The development budget is 21.64% of the Provincial Annual Development Programme. The district level development allocation for the sector is in addition to that. The average staff strength of educational institutions at the district level after devolution of power is about 76% of the collective staff strength of all other devolved departments. Salary & non salary budget allocation provided through provincial government is about Rs. 17,590.67 Million (97%) and 2.36% respectively. About 0.60% non salary budget is being provided through the 24 district governments. Annual non-salary allocation through district governments to primary, middle and high schools is Rs. 11, 53 & 53 per student respectively.

17. In the public sector schools, female functional schools are 8732 (33.64%), enrolment is 1027,378 (32.39%) and working teachers in the female schools are 33262 (30.90%). It means that the female educational institutions are short of the demand, under staffed and confronted with high dropouts.

18. The provincial government is spending about 36% of its current budget on education. But the non salary operational budget is just 2-3% (less than 1% provided through the district governments). For the first time Need Based Budget is being prepared for education sector. Special reforms are under consideration for strengthening the SBM, increase in non-salary operational budget and transfer of financial & administrative control to districts. Budgetary proposals/estimates have been incorporated in the EMIS Census Proforma. Training has been imparted to district management and Principals/Head Masters/Mistresses of 1549 high & high secondary schools. DDO wise/separate budget is being prepared for all high and higher secondary school for the FY-2006-07. The incremental form of budgeting is being replaced with Performance Based Budgeting (PBB) system. The system has been introduced in two pilot districts of Peshawar and Kohat during the CFY 2005-06. The system is being extended to 10 districts during the FY-2006-07. All high and higher secondary schools are being brought under PBB from 2006-07. Necessary spade work is in progress for the purpose. New Accounting Model (NAM) has been adopted for the salary budget during the CFY and being extended to districts/non-salary budget during the ensuing financial year 2006-07. Human Resource database has been established (first of its kind in the public sector in the country), which is being integrated with performance based budget & accounts systems. In due course lump sum (block grant) will be provided to schools for preparing their budgets according to their own priorities.

19. Schools & Literacy Department through ESDP-GTZ is actively working on a set of reforms in the financial & budget arena. The reforms are focused on increase in the need based operational budget, empowerment of PTAs/SBM, amendments in the rules governing financial utilization through PTAs, transfer of administrative and financial control to districts as per LGO, empowerment of SBM, transparency in use of funds, effective monitoring, improvement in quality of teaching and learning and character building. For the first time school/DDO wise budget is being prepared for all the 1549 male & female high & higher secondary schools for the ensuing financial year 2006-07. It will empower the schools and reduce their dependency on district/provincial offices. Reportedly government of Punjab is also working on the same lines as NWFP and has increased the budget of schools especially operational budget and has placed all the funds at the disposal of PTAs and has exempted PTAs from pre audit. NWFP is planning a step ahead by broadening composition of the PTAs, by making its operations more transparent, expanding scope of procurement through PTAs, allowing re-appropriations, exemption from sales and income taxes, devising a computerized monitoring and surveillance system. The World Bank has also included increase in the non-salary budget during 2006-07 as Trigger for DPC-II.

20. A mechanism is being devised, allowing schools to arrange substitutes of teachers teaching critical subjects at local level. The Principals are being empowered to make appointments against leave vacancies/vacancies arise due to retirement/transfer of teachers. The Principals would play the role of a leader, supportive and collegial for staff. Staff adjustment is being made flexible to address local needs.

5

Capacity building would be a continuous process. The role of PITE and RITEs is being strengthened, the work load of district/sub divisional offices will be assessed in the post devolution scenario and positions rationalized as per requirements. Typical clerical positions will be exchanged with computer oriented clerical positions.

21. Through SBM, schools will have more autonomy and assume greater responsibility to develop an environment that facilitates continuous school improvement and put in place a self-evaluation mechanism to assure the quality of learning and teaching. SBM aims to enhance the standards of teaching and promote reforms in school-based curriculum so as to improve students’ learning outcomes. The ultimate aim of SBM is to improve the standards of teaching and students’ learning outcomes through the concerted efforts of the key stakeholders, the leadership and commitment of frontline educators and the support of the government. The implementation of SBM will enable the education system to cope with global developments, contribute to the personal growth of students, build a competent workforce to sustain the social, economic and cultural development and further enhance their competitiveness internationally.

22. The proposed composite set of reforms will empower the school management on the one hand, and bring the performance of the public sector schools network into lime light, realizing the political clout the consequences of their interference. The system will bring behavioral change towards public funds and sense of responsibility. SBM will link empowerment with responsibility and accountability as its by-product.

23. SBM involves certain risks and reservations. It increases the managerial role of principals’ detriment to their role of pedagogical leaders. It is assumed that principals and teachers are always willing to undertake reforms. Principals/leaders should be supportive & collegial, willing to negotiate and bring all teachers on board. By putting the school budget in hands of community gains little sympathy among school staff. It can create conflicts between teachers and principals about use of funds and performance evaluation. It would be a difficult decision for political elements to reduce their interference. Inconsistency in policies, political instability, resource constraints, and weak managerial capacity are contra to the proposed system.

24. The gains from the system will offset the risks by bringing definite change in the deteriorating public sector education system. In long run the gains expected from the reforms are listed as follows:-

1. Improves administrative efficiency.

Shifts power from central office to school. Introduces participatory decision making process. Gives control over staffing, budget, curriculum & instructions. Can tailor resources/decisions according to local needs. Gives autonomy in staff selection & monitoring. Improves planning, monitoring and communication. Provides/develops leadership.

2. Improves the quality of teaching and learning.

Direct cause-and-effect relationship between self management & improved outcome. Changes the pedagogical practices, school calendar and daily timing, students discipline,

teachers’ incentives (career path), Provides opportunity for assessment of results for improvement of quality. Change in the role of a Principal from a supervisor to a colleague. Provides positive/conducive working conditions. Provides for pre & in-service training & capacity building. Supports innovation and initiatives.

3. Accountability.

Helps in identifying strengths, weaknesses & priorities.

6

Gives school community a voice in decision making. Changes the Political mind set. Redirects resources to support goals. Leads towards performance based budgeting.

PRESENTATION

Saif-ur-Rehman Usmani

Quality Education in Classrooms: Possibilities and Constraints

Name: Dr. Razia Fakir Mohammad

Organization: AKU-IED

Quality Education in Classrooms: Possibilities and Constraints

Abstract:

Quality education has been a major focus for input and reform for the last decade in Pakistan and many efforts have been made for the purpose of improving teaching and learning situation. A teacher has been viewed as a facilitator in supporting and developing students’ thinking, helping students to develop their thinking to become responsible individuals within society and also to assume responsibility for their own learning. The notion of teacher’s new role in the context of recent education has been interpreted from the constructivist philosophy that suggests characteristics for teaching of according to a child’s psychological and social perspectives of learning in the classroom (for example, Cobb, et al., 1991; Jaworski, 1994). This study reveals although the teachers conceptually believed in promoting students participation in their classroom following their learning at the university/teacher education, changing the nature of teaching, in order to encourage students’ learning with reasoning and adapting strategies in their classrooms, created problems for teachers. Findings indicate that even innovative teaching was considered by the teachers to be desirable; the teachers did not successfully their practice towards the promotion of student thinking. Reasons for this failure stemmed from various conceptual and contextual constraints. The discussion in this paper/presentation will focus on teachers’ needs in developing teaching at their schools or respective institutes; and their relation to promote quality education. The findings come from my participation in various research studies with the government school teachers in rural and urban context. It is envisaged that the discussion would suggest ways to overcome the shortcomings and achieve quality education in the context of Pakistani schools. References: Cobb, P., Wood, T. & Yackel, E. (1991) ‘A Constructive Approach to Second Grade Mathematics’, in Von Glasersfeld, E. (ED) Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education, Dortrecht: Kluwer AC Jaworski, B. (1994) Investigating Mathematics Teaching: A Constructive Enquiry, London: The Falmer Press

Theoretical Perspective

7

Literature on school improvement indicates teacher learning as a key indicator to reform education; that

aims to achieve conceptual shift in the practice of teachers from traditional to innovative methods. It has

been suggested that a traditional mode of teaching reduces children’s cognitive and intelligent thinking

(Freire, 1971; Skemp, 1979; Von Glasersfeld, 1994). The literature affirmed that a traditional view of

teaching promotes a practice of rote learning in which learning is built up into a habit of repetition, and can

be followed without thinking. Knowledge is seen as something in the textbook, rather than as constructed

by teachers or students themselves regarding their personal background, emerging needs, knowledge and

interaction with the contextual situation.

The current notion of teacher education views a teacher as a facilitator in supporting and developing

students’ thinking capabilities. This is to enable the students to become responsible individuals in the

society and also to assume responsibility for their own learning. Teacher educators world wide suggest

characteristics for teaching in accordance with the child’s psychological and social perspectives of learning

in the classroom. Therefore, a teacher in the classroom is expected to set individual/group tasks for the

students and analyze outcomes of the tasks in order to understand how students construct meaning, interact

with each other, listen to fellow students, interact with them and understand their level of thinking, and help

students to achieve a common agreement of a concept (Cobb & Steffe ,1983; Jaworski, 1994).

For a decay, teacher educators has been engaged in establishing positive conditions/circumstances for the

change at a number of levels within the schools regarding improving quality education in Pakistan through

its in-service programmes. They provide support through in-service education to all stake holders (head

teachers, teachers, and district officers) in order to bring reform at classroom level. The purpose of

educating different stakeholders is to encourage them to initiate collaborative culture/team building in the

school, develop a shared vision of change and strengthen support structure for implementation of the

change.

However, analysis of my experiences of working with the teachers, as a teacher educator, indicates that

even though innovative teaching has been considered by the teachers to be desirable, the teachers in most

cases were not able to successfully implement any innovative methods for reasons that stemmed primarily

from their conceptual and contextual constraints. The teachers’ participation in the in-service education

updated their knowledge and experiences of learning about teaching (in this case mathematics). The

teachers seemed aware of the usefulness of the new methods of teaching and were motivated to improve

their teaching. They believed that to involve students in learning with reasoning is beneficial for students’

development of thinking. However, I noticed that a transition from routine practice to a new perspective of

teaching was not an easy task for the teachers. There were constraints which inhibited the teachers to move

ahead from the traditional teaching approach.

8

The focus of this paper is to identify and discuss the supporting and hindering factors that are related to

teacher development in Pakistani schools. This paper provides some examples that illustrate the constraints

related to teacher development; at the same time, it suggests ways to move forward in relation to make a

positive impact in schools. It is hoped that this discussion will stimulate teacher educators at national level

to reflect on their own ways of working with teachers, and to challenge the assumptions that inform and

shape their theoretical perspectives and practices. The discussion will examine the practical reality of a

school context and its relation to the theoretical perspective of change.

Methodology

The data (anecdotes/examples) that is used in this paper for discussions and arguments comes from various

studies/research projects, such as, my doctoral work, research work with the teachers in their schools. The

teachers in these projects were the course participants who were been engaged in implementation of new

strategies (learned at various teacher education programmes at the university) in the reality of the school

context either during the course or after completion of the course. The new aim in the teachers’ teaching

was to enable the students to be independent learners through allowing them to solve problems in their own

ways, express their ideas, and participate in group tasks and construct knowledge through their interaction

with fellows and the teacher.

Lesson Learned from the Field: Examples

A transition from routine practice to a new perspective of teaching (encouraging students’ participation in

activity, thinking, and construction of knowledge) was not an easy task for the teachers. The teachers were

able to plan interesting activities, invite students’ answers, organise group work etc., but they were unable

to relate such activities to create conceptual understanding/ meaningful learning. They had difficulties in

engaging students in any problem solving method to generate their own ideas. They dominated the

discussion, limited the students’ participation and thus appeared to be routinized in their actual classroom

practice. I share below some examples from my observations in order to discuss the issues related to

teachers’ implementation of new ideas. In addition, the school culture did not encourage teachers to move

beyond their routine practice.

Example 1

A teacher (Sahib) aimed to increase students’ participation through allowing them to express their

responses. He planned a lesson on equations by using some of the examples learned at the IED course. For

example, one of the questions he asked the students, ‘Somebody has thought of a number, multiplied it by

three, subtracted one and got five. Tell me the number he has thought of’. The teacher also wrote on the

board, x*3 – 1 = 5. He invited the students to share their answers.

9

One student’s response was, ‘Two’, and others confirmed that, too. The teacher probed further, ‘How did

you find out?’ and invited one of them to the board to write his method. The student wrote on the board,

2*3 =6 –1 = 5 [the student multiplied 2 by 3 first, getting 6, and then subtracted 1 to get 5].

The way it appears in writing is mathematically wrong (since 2 * 3 is not equal to 6-1); however, the

student seemed clear in thinking while writing. The teacher asked again, ‘How did you get 2’? The student

was silent. The teacher then asked other students to explain in words what their friend wrote on the board.

However, he got the similar answer that product of 2 and 3 was six and five was one less of six. There

were no responses when the teacher probed further about their reasons of getting the 2. The teacher then

told the student. ‘First, you added one to five and you got six on the other side. Then you divided six by

three to get two’.

During our discussion, I asked the teacher regarding his different way of expressing what the student had

written. The teacher reasoned that he wanted to teach a ‘proper’ method. He also talked about the

students’ poor background of mathematics as a barrier in increasing their participation. In the teacher’s

opinion, it was very time-consuming to involve students and expect them to explain their thinking. He said

that if he had taught the same lesson traditionally, he would have finished the entire exercise in the

textbook.

Example 2

Neelofar taught fractions; her aim was to promote discussion-based teaching in relation to improve

students’ learning outcomes. One of the problems she gave for discussion was, ‘divide two chocolates

among three people’. She then invited the groups to present their respective solutions to the class. The one

group responded ‘each one would get 2/6’. The teacher asked for the reasons and the students made

following justifications:

1/3 and 1/3 is 2/6

1/3 1/3

The teacher asked,’ can you say, 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/6’?

The response: Yes, 1/3 and 1/3 is 2/6

10

The teacher said, ‘Twice of 1/3 is always 2/3’, and she wrote, 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3. Then she said,

‘Denominators are not added in addition of fractions’.

In the post-observation discussion, she identified the students’ problems of adding fractions and the

students’ difficulties in understanding fractions. But she said the students’ responses did not meet hers (the

teacher’s expected answer).

Analysis of Examples

The analysis of findings suggests that the teachers were affected by conceptual and contextual constraints.

Conceptual Constraints

The above examples provide evidence of the teachers’ difficulty in understanding students’ answers. The

teachers rephrased the students’ verbal expressions, ignored the students’ answers and imposed their own

conclusion from the textbook knowledge. In Example 1, the teacher explained the student’s symbolic

representation in a very different way to that used by the student. The example 2 was a case of the teacher

reconciling a new method of teaching with her limited knowledge of the concept. Although her aim was to

enable students to justify their response/solution, she could not succeed because she did not attempt to see

students’ solutions from the students’ perspective.

Without confirmation of what was right and what was wrong, the teachers either moved to another task or

imposed their own thinking. The teachers did not show approval, appreciation or rejection of the students’

different answers during the lessons, and for the students, lack of approval or appreciation might have

implied rejection. Intentionally, the teachers wanted the students to explore methods of solving questions

themselves, but implicitly they had imposed their own methods of thinking without supporting the students’

thinking. This issue became evident in both the classrooms. It was observed that the teachers’ imposition

of their own procedures and their rephrasing of the students’ answers (after inviting the students to bring

their own ideas) first encouraged and then discouraged participation. This led to confusion and sustained

dependency on the teacher. I observed students’ subsequent silence in the classroom in response to the way

the teacher dealt with their explanations. The teachers’ interpretation affected the student’s level of

confidence, because due to the way the teacher dealt with the answer, none of the students offered their

thinking process, either verbally or in writing and accepted the teachers’ statement without any further

argument.

In addition, from my wider set of examples it came out very clearly that although, the teachers’ intention

(of child-centred learning) was mentioned as an objective in their oral planning, in their practice (due to

their limited knowledge), they did not move very much away from the traditional interaction. A lack of

conceptual understanding limited their (a) planning of lessons (b) examination of their students’ and their

11

own mathematical assumptions. Teachers taught the lessons in discrete bits without establishing explicit

connections between new ideas and the text book’s method, or incorporating students’ responses. It was

also difficult for them to think beyond the textbook explanations with which they were familiar, while

inviting students to bring their own ideas.

My observations provide evidence that it was difficult for them to reduce their own domination of the

lessons, to stop telling the students what to do or to provide the students with the space to organize their

thinking. The teachers’ behaviour did not allow the students to step back from dependent modes of

behaviour, despite the teachers’ aims and explicit intentions to do so.

The teachers’ habit of working in a teacher–dominated culture seemed to create mental barriers to self-

analysis for the teachers themselves. The teachers’ analysis of a lesson focused mainly on wider

social/contextual problems in relation to the achievements or failures of their new aims of teaching.

The teachers faced difficulties in achieving their new aims of teaching within available school and lesson

time. Their new practice demanded quality time to comprehend and rationalize new aims and new

practices; however, time was out of their control. The time these teachers contributed to work with the

teacher educator/course facilitator was their non-teaching time at school in which they were otherwise

supposed to fulfill regular requirements such as marking/correction. They had replaced this routine work

with discussion in relation to achieving new aims of teaching. However, the cost of such replacement was

their own time at home. Despite their devotion, the time was still not sufficient for the teachers to satisfy

the expectations of their new role. For example, they said that they would do their planning at home as at

the school provision of time for planning was not sufficient.

Moreover, in many cases when the teachers allowed their students to discuss or present their own ideas it

was difficult for the teachers to complete the planned lesson. In their opinion, it was very time consuming

to involve students in the activity. This resulted in additional pressure on the teacher to continue the lesson

on the following day and also had implications for the syllabus completion.

Contextual Constraints

The findings suggest that the schools did not expect / encourage intellectual thinking or professional

dialogue among teachers to rationalize classroom problems, the type of practice they experienced at the

university. At the school, the teachers listened to the instructions and obeyed the rules of their school

management. The teachers were required to merely have the command of the textbook to complete tasks

and produce results.

12

...we had the opportunity to work together (at the university). In the school, we do not have time to talk to each other. We see each other at teatime... .The students are mostly irregular and if I make groups the students would complain that the group is incomplete as someone is absent... .I have 62 girls in one class, correction of their notebooks, preparing test papers, recording numbers in report cards is my responsibility. I have to teach other classes too. If we make a little mistake in counting the students’ marks, the head teacher immediately calls a meeting. You do not have any idea how much pressure we are under.

The teachers’ conversations suggest that in their schools they consider themselves to be a means of

carrying out school routines, bearing the workload and accepting the limitations and orders of their school

authorities. The teachers perceived that the characteristic of a good teacher must be that of being regular

and punctual in execution of all the tasks given by the school authorities, as their appraisal would depend

on their annual performance report. The most important issue for the teachers was the physical set-up, that

is, the poor condition of classrooms, lack of resources, large numbers of students in a class, authority of

management in decision-making regarding their teaching subjects, workload and low level of students’

thinking. A top-down approach towards decision-making, inspections and increasing workload diminish

the teachers’ confidence in their ability to improve, and minimizes possibilities of learning.

On the contrary, at the university the teachers were confident in completing the tasks and trying out new

ideas in the in-service course, where ongoing reflection, social interaction and a wide range of problem-

solving activities were the means of promoting their professional development. They were interacting with

like-minded, supportive people, and they never felt alone or insecure contrary to what they face at their

schools.

.

The teachers were also under pressure of their annual appraisals which requires completion of the textbook

in time and increase in examination result. These limitations affected the teachers’ practice and confidence

in tackling with their new aims of teaching. For example, in one case the majority of the students in the

teacher’s class failed in the half-yearly examination. The teacher wanted to work on the students’ former

weaknesses in order to improve their foundations, and for that purpose he went to the head teacher to seek

permission regarding reducing the syllabus topics. The headmaster asked him to ignore the students’ needs

and to complete the remaining part of the textbook/syllabus as a requirement for the final examination.

The teachers also discussed the tensions and frustrations resulting from their low financial and social status

in society. Their financial stress required the teachers to do more jobs besides teaching. These teachers

asked questions about betterment of their financial status, workload and family responsibilities. Thus, the

teachers were constrained and appeared to be resistant to change, no matter how effectively a university

course demonstrates new methods to them. How could there be impact of any new initiative on the

classrooms when school expectations promote/impose such narrow vision of teaching?

13

Implications and Recommendations

It is important to recognize here that teachers’ engagement in an in-service course is necessary and,

potentially, a significant part of the continuing professional development of in-service teachers; however,

leaving teachers unsupported in school and expecting them to be ‘change agents’ cannot bring about

improvement in practice at least in the very beginning of this journey towards change. The problem is

multiplied when teachers do not have any learning culture or support mechanism in their schools to help

them to sustain their professional growth.

Regarding the teachers’ contextual constraints my findings concur with studies from other parts of the

world (Fullan, 1999; Day, 1999) that teachers need school based assistance, i.e. professional leadership,

shared vision of change, and support mechanism, in order to shift their practice resulting in effective

learning outcomes. In addition, the conceptual issues i.e. teachers’ understanding of innovative

ideas/strategies and understanding of the subject (Ma, 1999) are also critical for the implementation to

attempt reform at school/classroom level. Teachers cannot develop professionally with their limited

content knowledge. Teachers need to enhance their understanding of content in order to understand what

constitutes teaching a subject with reasoning/thinking.

The questions this conclusion raise for us, therefore are:

How can we, as teacher educators, liberate teachers from the practical constraints in their contemplation of

change?

The following might assist in supporting teacher development:

Teachers need help in enabling students to understand mathematics with reasoning if they want to

promote their teaching practice. In addition teacher educators need to find ways of enabling

teachers to conceptualise their work with pupils in the classroom, i.e., how to get right answers

with an incorporation of students’ mathematical reasoning and teachers’ own standards.

Teachers need to enhance their content knowledge in order to understand what constitutes child-

centred teaching approach. Teacher educators need to have great sensitivity to, and understanding

of, the consequences of the teachers’ limited knowledge of students’ learning as well as

implementing the learning from a course. They need to relate the content knowledge the teachers

have to teach to their students together with appropriate methods.

14

Teacher educators need to address the problem of the length of teaching time required for a lesson

and length of non-teaching time at the school as well as how to adjust new teaching in the

available time in relation to introducing innovative ideas from the university.

Teacher educators need to discuss ways to establish a learning environment in the school where

teachers focus on students’ learning and understanding together with fulfilling textbook

requirements with limited resources and within the school expectations.

Teacher educators need to structure a follow-up support mechanism for teachers in their schools.

In addition educators might arrange seminars/dialogue for all the participants (teachers, head

teachers, managers) in order to devise a support mechanism where the existing reality of teachers

in Pakistani schools is questioned and ways to practice change are discussed.

References:

Cobb, P. and Steffe, l. P. (1983) ‘The Constructivist Researcher as Teacher and Model Builder’, Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 14, pp. 83-94

Day, C. (1999) Developing Teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning, Norwich: The Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (1999) Change Forces: The Sequel, London: The Falmer Press

Freire, P. (1971) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Seaview.

Jaworski, B. (1994) Investigating Mathematics Teaching: A Constructive Enquiry, London: The Falmer

Press.

Skemp, R.P (1979) Intelligence Learning and Action: A Foundation of Theory and Practice in Education,

London: Wiley.

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1994) in Paul, Ernest (Ed) Constructing Mathematical Knowledge: Epistemology and

Mathematical Education, London: The Falmer Press.

PRESENTATION

Razia Fakir Mohammad

Email: mirafzal.tajik@aku.eduAuthor: Mir Afzal TajikOrganization: Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Dev

15

Making School Change and Community Development as Mutually Supportive Courses of Action

Abstract:

During the last four decades, educational researchers and practitioners have intensively engaged in bringing about positive changes in schools. Therefore the kinds of changes introduced to schools have become complex in nature and overwhelming in number –from improving teacher professional knowledge base and teaching repertoires to developing innovative curricula to changing the organizational structures and cultures in schools. The skills required by schools and teachers to implement these changes have also become more complex. Consequently, a large number of external agents—variously referred to as consultants, linking agents, education officers, or supervisors— have mobilized themselves for building schools’ capacity and knowledge utilization at the local level. As these external change agents engage in a systematic and deliberate effort to conceptualize, plan, implement and examine change in schools, they develop a personal understanding of and preferred strategies for change—what change is and how it ought to occur. This paper reports on a qualitative study conducted in a rural, mountainous district of Pakistan. The paper discusses four distinctive strategies for school change and three strategies for community development which have been developed and used by Field Education Officers (FEOs)—external change agents— in the context of a non-profit philanthropic organization dedicated to providing educational and community development programs in disadvantaged parts of the developing world, particularly in Pakistan. The school change strategies include: Teacher-Centered, Moral Persuasion, Pragmatic, and Leadership-Centered, whereas the community development strategies are: Participatory, Training, and Power-Laden. These strategies are client- and situation specific, involve both short-term solution and long-term strategic plans and actions, are sensitive to the socio-political and cultural values of the context, and are rooted into the principles that improve the possibilities for sustainable change in schools and in local communities. Together, these strategies provide a framework for a “socio-educational change” and more specifically, for a “community-based school change” in the context of Pakistan.

PRESENTATION

Mir Afzal Tajik

Part-2

Chair: Anil SettyNCRT

Co-Chair Tehseen SyedWorld Bank

Dr. Faryal khan (Program Coordinator, Educational Governance, UNESCO, Primary Education, France)

School Based Governance

Noor Mohammad Khan, (CEO, Jirga Program)

E-Governance; New Vehicle, Old Road, How Fast Can It Run?

Kulsoom Jaffer & M. Babur ((Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Karachi)

16

School based Projects, a framework for Participatory Planning and Management: Experiences from ESRA

Dr. Faryal khan (Program Coordinator, Educational Governance, UNESCO, Primary Education, France)

School Based Governance

Abstract:

Governments and international agencies are transferring fiscal, political, and administrative responsibilities to lower-levels of government, local institutions, and the private sector in many countries, as a panacea to solve broader political, social or economic problems. In parallel, governments are proposing educational decentralization reforms. Implicit in these recommendations is the assumption that participation at school level would yield democratic governance, increase accountability, and empower communities (Bryk et al, 1998; Hanson, 1997; Khan, 2001; World Bank, 2000). In the education sector this has led to such policies as transferring decision making from central to local governments, increasing autonomy for schools, enabling communities to participate more effectively in school management and resource mobilization, and offering incentives for private providers. An underlying assumption on the expected paybacks of decentralization is that less centralization in the provision and/or financing of education leads to greater efficiency, responsiveness to local demands, improvements in education quality, and higher levels of citizen participation. In practice, there is little conclusive evidence showing the extent of the claimed benefits. Little of the debate on the potential of such reforms is informed by emerging empirical evidence of how local educational governance and management functions in developing countries. While evidence from developed countries suggests that community participation, a core strategy in decentralization, can bring about changes in schools (Sergiovanni cited in Hargreaves et al., 1998), systematic reviews of such practice in developing countries are scant (Hanson, 1997; Khan, 2001). Some critics argue that school based governance, is likely to generate inequities, is responsible for greater disparities in the quality of services provided across different regions, and may result in only modest increases in the efficiency of public expenditures (Whitty and Power, 2000; Arnove, 1997; Prawda, 1993). Others question whether decentralization enhances academic achievement and learning (King & Ozler, 1998; Hanson, 1997). Given these dilemmas, countries tentatively experiment with various combinations of locating functions across the tiers of government, and may withdraw control or decision-making authority of certain functions from lower levels if they believe it doesn’t meet their purposes. Thus, evidence suggests that countries may oscillate between centralization and decentralization, as their governance strategy. It is imperative, therefore, that we try to better understand the tensions between central control and local governance, and consequences of greater autonomy at the school level. The purpose of this paper is to enable Member States to plan for school based governance, within their particular context, and confronts the challenges of successful implementation. The paper raises questions for Ministries of Education and their partners to develop responsive, participatory and accountable systems of educational governance and management, and ensures the engagement and participation of civil society in local educational governance (Dakar Framework for Action, 2000). By drawing together the experiences of a number of countries, this paper serves as a snapshot of current changes in school based management and governance in order to stimulate a

17

dialogue, and strengthen national capacities among countries in the South Asia region to formulate and implement policies in local educational governance. Part One introduces school-based governance, clarifying key concepts and rationales. I then highlight lessons learned from practice in developing countries. Part Two pays attention to various aspects of school-based governance that need to be taken into consideration when planning for decentralization. These include autonomy, citizen or community participation, private and other partnerships, diversity of needs, budgeting, financial distribution and resource management, and capacity building. It concludes by outlining the kinds of capacity development needed for effective local governance in education. The last section presents key issues in implementation and pre-conditions for confronting the challenges, and how governments and civil society in the South Asia region may support SBG as a key strategy to reach the goals of Education for All. Paramount is the message: school based governance is no magic bullet and no one size fits all (Bray, 2003). The context that shapes educational governance reforms across many developing countries are often quite similar, with limited resources, both human and financial, external pressures and support, and somewhat fragile political systems. At the same time, there are significant differences in culture, political institutions and practices, and educational objectives. Situations in countries vary and some may have conditions more receptive to decentralizing decision-making authority. Given this, it is essential to appraise the local context and readiness level, to ascertain strategies that would respond to the country’s priorities.

.

UNESCO PRIMARY EDUCATION SECTION

POLICY AND STRATEGY PAPER

Implementing Educational Decentralization

January 2006

By; Jordan Naidoo and Faryal Khan

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

FARYAL KHANPRIMARY EDUCATION SECTION

BASIC EDUCATION DIVISIONUNESCO

7 PLACE DE FONTENOY75007 PARIS

TEL: 331 45 68 10 18E-MAIL: F.KHAN@UNESCO.ORG

18

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PART ONECONTEXT OF EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION REFORMS

WHAT IS EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION?WHAT IS DECENTRALIZED?

Why Decentralize?INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION

PART TWOPLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION

Distribution of Autonomy and the Changed Role of Central AuthoritiesCitizen or Community ParticipationAddressing the Needs of Specific GroupsPrivate Provision and Other PartnershipsFinancing and Devolution of Budgetary AuthorityCapacity Building

EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS

PART THREECONFRONTING THE CHALLENGE OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATIONUNESCO’s Role in Educational decentralization

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

19

INTRODUCTION

In following up on the World Education Forum, Dakar 2000, where the international community and Member States pledged to achieve Education for All by 2015, UNESCO has a role in providing international frameworks for education policy and practice on key and complex issues. Educational decentralization, a key strategy for the management and governance of education systems, is one such issue. Across the world, decentralization of fiscal, political, and administrative responsibilities to lower levels of government, local institutions, and the private sector is being attempted as a panacea to solve broader political, social or economic problems. In parallel, governments are proposing educational decentralization, as part of the sector wide reforms. Implicit in these approaches is the assumption that increased participation in local schools would lead to democratic governance, increase accountability, and empower communities (Bryk et al, 1998; Hanson, 1997; Khan, 2001; World Bank, 2000). In the education sector this belief has led to such policies as transferring decision making from central to local governments, increasing autonomy for schools, enabling communities to participate more effectively in school management and resource mobilization, and offering incentives for private providers. Underlying all this work is the assumption that when the provision or financing of education is less centralized, great benefits will follow: education will become better quality, more efficient, responsive to local demands, and more citizens will participate.

In practice, we have little conclusive evidence of such benefits. Moreover, few systematic reviews have been conducted on the processes and consequences of educational decentralization in developing countries (Hanson, 1997; Khan, 2001). Drawing from practice in developed countries, some critics argue that decentralization may generate inequities, or greater disparities in the quality of services provided across different regions, or that public funds will hardly be spent more efficiently (Whitty and Power, 2000; Arnove, 1997; Prawda, 1993). Others question whether decentralization enhances academic achievement and learning (King & Ozler, 1998; Hanson, 1997). Despite this criticism, evidence from some developed countries suggests that community participation, a core strategy in decentralization, can be a lever for change in schools (Sergiovanni cited in Hargreaves et al., 1998).

Given these dilemmas about the potential benefits of educational decentralization, countries may oscillate between decentralization and centralization. Developed and developing countries experiment tentatively; moving functions into various locations across the tiers of government, and may withdraw control or decision-making authority of certain functions from lower levels if they do not see their purposes being met. It is imperative, therefore, that policy makers choosing to decentralize their education systems have access to information to attend to critical aspects that need to be considered in the planning of the reform process. Likewise, planners and policy makers require insights on potential risks of the choices they make.

The goal of this paper is to draw lessons from policy and practice in developing countries to try to better understand the processes and various aspects of education decentralization.

This paper raises questions, and provides potential answers for, ministries of education and their partners that aim to develop responsive, participatory and accountable systems of educational governance and management, and to ensure that the civil society engages with and participates in education (Dakar Framework for Action, 2000). This paper also aims to enable member states to plan for educational decentralization reforms, within their particular context, and tackle the challenges to successful implementation. By drawing together the experiences of several countries worldwide, it provides a snapshot of recent changes in education management and governance reforms. The main objective is to strengthen national capacities to formulate, implement, and evaluate policies in local educational governance, and to carry on a dialogue amongst UNESCO member states to facilitate south-south cooperation.

Part One provides an overview of education decentralization, clarifying key concepts and rationales. This is followed by a description of different forms of education decentralization, highlighting international experiences to draw lessons from practice in developing countries. Part Two attends to various aspects of the reform process that must be considered when planning and implementing educational

20

decentralization. These include autonomy and the changed role of the central authorities, citizen or community participation, diversity of needs, private and other partnerships, financial distribution and resource management, developing the kinds of capacity development needed for effective decentralization, and evaluating the programs that do so. In particular, it focuses on evaluation of educational decentralization to assess progress in implementation, an often-neglected area. Part three presents key lessons and the pre-conditions for successful implementation. It also considers how UNESCO may best support education decentralization as a key strategy to reach the goals of Education for All. Throughout we offer guidelines in the form of key questions that may be helpful to member states as they formulate, implement, and evaluate decentralization policies and strategies in their given contexts. Throughout, one point is crucial: Decentralization is no magic bullet and no one size fits all (Bray, 2003).

21

PART ONE: CONTEXT OF EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION REFORMS

This section describes the context of the growing trend toward educational decentralization and local governance reforms, and the role that key international agencies play in the process. We stress the importance of sensitivity to cultural variations in any such initiative. The section defines educational decentralization, what can be decentralized, and the rationale and assumptions underlying such transfer of authority to local levels. The section concludes by highlighting experience in educational decentralization in developing countries.

The contexts that shape educational decentralization reforms across many developing countries are often quite similar; common elements are limited resources, both human and financial, external pressures and support, and somewhat fragile political systems. At the same time, nations vary significantly in their culture, political institutions and practices, and educational objectives—and in how receptive they are to decentralizing decision-making authority. Given the contextual variations, it is essential to appraise the local context and readiness level, to determine the kind of decentralization strategy that would best respond to the country’s priorities. In the past decade most governments in the developing world have focused on expanding access to education. Enrolment has grown rapidly in South and West Asia, the Arab states and North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, but growth has remained slow in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, and even dropped off in some Central and East European countries (UNESCO, 2003). More importantly, only a small proportion of children are reaching the minimum required competencies and many education systems are not performing to the standards expected of them.

Few educational systems are currently organized to manage the triple challenge of efficiently allocating resources, delivering services equitably, and raising the quality of performance and results. Many governments are tackling with the challenge to set up alternate forms of governance and management based on responsive systems for participation and accounting. In Africa these nations include Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia (Anglophone), and Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger, Mali, and Senegal (Francophone); in Latin America they include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, and Nicaragua. In this region, only Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Uruguay have retained centralized educational systems. In Asia education is becoming decentralized in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, among other nations. In the last decade almost all the former socialist countries of central and Eastern Europe have engaged in educational transformation that entails some decentralization. Many developed countries from the USA to Australia have also engaged in some form of decentralization. Based on country-specific circumstances, authority is being transferred to various levels: regional (Ethiopia, Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Venezuela, China), municipal (Chile, Mali, Colombia), and local school (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Japan, Hong Kong, South Africa, Uganda, USA).

To assist in meeting the challenges countries face, international agencies from UNESCO to the World Bank have played and continue to play a significant role in the development and implementation of education decentralization policies in most of the above-mentioned countries. Each agency has had its own perspectives and centre of attention. For example, UNESCO has emphasized a rights-based approach, promoting democratic participation in educational decision-making and the importance of involving community and other stakeholders in planning, implementing, and evaluating governance reforms to achieve EFA. In particular, UNESCO has launched an initiative to enable member states to strengthen the capacities of local educators, bureaucrats, parents and communities to participate in EFA policy. The training that can build local capacities must answer many questions: What is the local policy context? How can civil society and the private sector participate in education, school-based governance, and district education planning? How can this work strengthen the capacity of District Education Management Information System cells to efficiently collect, present and use data to further EFA policy? UNESCO is also making available guidelines for evaluation so member states can assess their progress in implementing reforms. By identifying key input, process, and output performance indicators, they can assess the extent of their implementation.

22

In contrast, the World Bank has looked at decentralization within the context of education and public sector reforms. It has focused on decentralizing the financing and administration of education services to regional or local levels. More recently, it has emphasized school-based management and the transfer of decision-making to the school level. UNICEF has emphasized decentralization within national development: How can governance remove gender inequities, create “child-friendly schools,” and improve education quality?

In addition, local and national NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs) are engaging in decentralization efforts. They play a major role in organizing training programs that empower local stakeholders to participate more actively. Examples of CSOs working in these areas include Save the Children, World Education, Idara-e-Taleem o Agaahi (Pakistan), and parents’ associations in Mali and Latin America. Some theorists see privatization as a form of decentralization; this may well happen as states reduce their authority over private schools. Sometimes, however, privatization concentrates power in churches or private corporations, and thus centralizes control in the hands of civil society organizations (Bray, 2003; p.206).

To conclude this section, below is an example of the educational decentralization reform in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Two key messages emerge: 1) reform requires commitment from educational institutions at all levels; and 2) primary completion rates are rising and repetition rates are falling

Educational Reform in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil (1991-98)

Educational reform was implemented in all educational institutions in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil—preschool through secondary. Teachers, financial agencies, and managers were given more autonomy at school level. Partnerships were strengthened with civil society groups and they participated actively in planning and implementing at all levels. Two key elements were re-organized: parental and community participation in school councils to enhance participatory decision-making, and the competitive selection of school principals. Since the reform, some challenges remain, but the educational system is now remarkably more efficient. For instance, between 1990 and 1994, the percentage of children completing their primary education rose from 38% to 49% and the repetition rate fell from 29% to 19%. Minas Gerais continues to meet the challenges of strengthening capacity at local level to give a voice to the poor and excluded parents in educational decision-making, and reinforcing civic society networks. Source: UNESCO Chile

What is Education Decentralization?

Given this introductory context, we now explore the various interpretations of the terms “centralization” or “decentralization” that have implications for policy makers.

The terms “centralization” and “decentralization” refer to “deliberate processes initiated at the apex of hierarchies,” though patterns sometimes change by default rather than deliberate action (Bray, 2003; p. 205) As such, these terms have different meanings to different people. A basic conception common to most definitions is territorial decentralization: a transfer of some form of authority from the center to the local level. It may be defined in terms of the form (or functional activities), level (national to sub-national to local) and nature or degree of power that is transferred. This spatial conception of the term is key in this paper.

23

Decentralization takes many forms depending on the level of government to which decisions are devolved, the kinds of decisions moved to other levels of government, and the rationale for doing so. Each form has different characteristics, policy implications, and conditions for success. Administrative, fiscal, market and political dimensions capture the form and level of decentralization while devolution, deconcentration, and delegation1 refer to the nature or degree of power being transferred. Devolution may include privatization policies based on greater participation of the private sector that occur in parallel to decentralization. In general, efforts to decentralize education have revolved around attempts to restructure centralized education bureaucracies and to create devolved systems: transferring authority to different administrative levels, and varying the degrees of institutional autonomy and forms of school-based management. The authority may be transferred in form (and degree) from central governments to provincial, state or regional entities; to municipal, county or district governments; and to schools and communities. Devolution aims to use a participatory and grassroots-up process of decision-making to transfer authority to various levels. Table 1 illustrates these types of decentralization.

Table One: Typology of Education Decentralization Level Form FunctionsCentral government (MOE) to provincial, state regional or district offices

Deconcentration Regional/district offices are in charge of personnel and financial management functions. Central government retains control of fiscal allocations and appointments.

Central government (MOE) to municipal, county or district governments

Delegation and/orDevolution

Management decisions-staff appointments and allocation of local education budgets Central governments retain accountability and control financial transfers from national treasuries.

From Central government (MOE) and regional/district offices or local governments to schools and communities

Devolution Schools are responsible for routine administrative decisions or more substantial powers. They may include maintenance, appointment of staff, school policy, development plans, curriculum choices, fund-raising and financial management. School- or community-based structures may have power over some school and educational decisions.

Devolution is the form of decentralization that facilitates participatory decision-making at the school level, and that is our focus in this paper. The term devolution implies that decision-making power is given back to a level of governance or an institution from which it had been taken. More authority is transferred to local units of government such as districts, municipalities, or provinces (McGinn & Welsh, 1999). Schools, along with local communities, have the power to make administrative or more substantial decisions, such as pedagogy and curriculum, or personnel matters. Theoretically speaking, devolution is the most desirable and advanced form of decentralization, but it will be up to each country to decide what form of decentralization would work best in their particular context. This leads us into the next section, which examines where functions are controlled at various levels.

What is Decentralized? Whatever its form, decentralization can result in major changes in the way education systems are

organized: how they make policy, generate revenues and spend funds, manage schools and other education institutions, and develop and deliver the curriculum (Fiske, 1996). However, perspectives on the appropriate “locus of control” (Bray, 2003) are mixed and often difficult to resolve. This makes it essential to assess what kind of decentralization would fit best in a given context, if at all.1In Rondinelli’s conceptualization, deconcentration refers to the transfer of planning, decision-making or administrative authority from the central government to its field organizations and local units, or to local government or non-governmental organizations; delegation refers to the transfer of some decision-making powers and management authority for specific functions to units or organizations that are not under direct control of central government ministries; and devolution refers to the transfer of authority for decision-making, finance, and management to quasi-autonomous units of local government such as municipalities (Rondinelli and Cheema, 1983; Rondinelli, 1998 and 1999). The typology in Table 2 also draws on the work of Winkler and Gershberg (2003).

24

In making policy choices about where to locate decision-making amongst various levels and institutions, countries can choose from a variety of arrangements for transferring authority and sharing responsibility at the central, regional, district or local levels. For example, while a central government may make certain decisions concerning the organization of instruction and curriculum, the larger proportion of such matters are decided at the school level, in response to the community’s needs. On the other hand, matters concerning personnel management and resource allocation are often made at the district and even regional level, though schools have increasing authority to influence these decisions. In some countries, the same decision can be shared between people at different levels. For example, in the UK, decisions concerning curriculum are made by the central government, whereas in the USA, the state shares them with organizations in the school district.

Under devolution, we see a shift in the locus of decision-making concerning various school functions. Different management functions are distributed, to varying degrees, among the levels of the educational management system. These include functions such as maintenance, resources, students, personnel, pedagogy and curriculum, and structure and operations -- areas that were formerly the sole domain of professional educators at higher levels. Table two draws from a summative analysis of school councils in 33 studies from 20 developing countries; it shows key decisions, and their sub-categories, on various functions that are transferred to local levels, not just to schools but also to communities (Khan, 2002).

Table 2: Types and frequency of School-Level Decisions That Are DecentralizedDecisions Sub-category of Decision Frequency Countries CountriesAdministration and Management

-Regulations for facilities -Inclusion in decisions-Teacher: pupil ratios-Class schedules-Maintenance-Learning environment

100% 20 Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Peru, Russia, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand

Pedagogy -Teaching methods -Learning, and curriculum

More than 75%

17 Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russia, South Africa, Thailand

Resource Mobilization

-Allocation of resources from center-Generation of additional resources and their use

Approx. 75%

14 Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines

Personnel -Hiring or firing of teachers-Tacher qualifications -Personnel discipline

75% 16 Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russia, South Africa, Thailand

Building Partnerships

-Local bonding -Linking groups-Bridging to high levels2

50-75% 14 Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, India, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand

Source: Khan (2002)

Table 3 reveals several clusters of decisions that are being made at the school level in developing countries. For example, in 20 countries all school councils make decisions about administration and management. In the following groups, more than 75% of councils make decisions on pedagogy, approximately 75% decide on resource mobilization and personnel matters, and more than 50% made decisions to build partnerships to mobilize resources. In this analysis, decisions on maintenance include

2 Woolcock, M., 2003.

25

construction, repairs, and improving the school environment. Decisions pertaining to students include the proportion of students of school-going age enrolled, student costs, student support, and assignment of students to classes. Personnel decisions focus on teachers: hiring or firing them, deciding on their qualifications, and disciplining them. Decisions on resources include allocation of resources received from the center, generation and use of additional resources, and building new partnerships. Decisions on pedagogy and curriculum include teaching methods, learning, and curriculum. Decisions on structure and operations are sub-divided into regulations with respect to facilities, inclusion of parents in decision-making, teacher to pupil ratios, and class schedules (McGinn, 2000; Khan, 2002).

In making choices like these, governments and civil society must engage in a participatory process to assess the roles and responsibilities the sub-national institutions would assume in designingthe decentralization process. A critical risk arises when the center makes decisions about transferring authority, without consulting with regional and local stakeholders. Particular attention must be paid to the extent of autonomy at school level, and the decisions a school can make in a decentralized system (McGinn & Welsh, 1999).

Why Decentralize?Each country will have its own multiple rationales for decentralizing education, all of them shaped

by particular historical, socio-economic and political realities.

Five motives are commonly accepted.

1. Education Finance: how resources for education are raised. Nations expect that decentralization will generate extra revenues, as it takes advantage of local sources of taxation, reduces operating costs, and shifts some of the financial burden to the regional or local government, community organizations, and parents. Financial stringency should not be the primary reason for decentralization: sometimes central governments will try to evade their responsibility to provide services by devolving responsibilities to lower tiers or nongovernmental bodies (Bray, 2003).

2. Increased Efficiency: how educational resources are used. Bureaucrats may stress efficiency in advocating for, both centralization and decentralization. Administratively-motivated reforms aim to facilitate operations. The efficiency rationale suggests that local decision-making in education will alleviate problems of wastage and mismanagement and lead to more efficiency by eliminating inefficient bureaucratic procedures and motivating officials to be more productive.

3. Redistribution of Political Power: how decision-making authority is distributed. Decentralization of education is a means to establish institutional legitimacy by redistributing power and giving local communities a greater management role and voice. This rationale holds that administration and accountability will improve when schools are made more responsive to the local community and to parents. Political motivations often lead those in power to include or exclude certain groups from the decision-making processes.

4. Educational Improvement: – how teaching and learning is affected. This rationale argues that decentralization will improve the quality of teaching and learning by locating decisions closer to the point where they are carried out.

5. Cultural differences and linguistic pluralism: – how education can be made relevant to local contexts. Alternatively, centralization is often advocated on the grounds of setting standards in the core elements in curriculum and instruction, to address “intra-national diversity in the culture” (Bray, 2003).

International Experience with Educational Decentralization How have the concepts of decentralization and devolution been applied thus far? In this section,

we examine the policy and practice of educational decentralization in varying developing contexts to draw lessons for policy makers in other contexts. These experiences illustrate the challenges of making major

26

changes in the organizational structure of a system, which is also trying to reach new levels of performance and growth. The section concludes with an analysis of these experiences, listing critical risks that reformers must consider right from the start of the planning process.

Various processes have been used to decentralize and/or privatize education; each has had different impacts on equity, quality and efficiency. Indeed, these mixed effects may depend on the way policies have been designed and implemented in specific socio-economic and cultural contexts. Few of these experiences have been rigorously evaluated, making it difficult to assess the actual connection between these reforms and outcomes. Still, the accumulated evidence has important implications for public policy. The examples provided below illustrate the range of choices available to countries designing decentralization policies and strategies.

Table 3 provides a brief overview of policies and strategies in selected counties.3 The examples in Table 3 range from forms that emphasize regional and municipal deconcentration (e.g. Argentina) to more intense devolution to local school and community governance structures (e.g. Minas Gerais, Brazil) to contracts with private organizations (e.g. Memphis, Tennessee USA). In some cases (e.g. South Africa and Armenia), deconcentration overlaps with significant devolution to schools.

Table Three: Overview of Education Decentralization in Selected CountiesCountry Form of Governance Aims Management Finance Argentina Deconcentration of

decision-making authority to provinces

Expand fiscal responsibilities Strengthen capacity of provincial MOE

Provincial MOE Provincial governments responsible for expenditure

Uganda Devolution to district education committee and school committee

Improve efficiency through community participation

District education officers (DEOs) and school management committee (SMC)

Funds provided by center to district and schools

Netherlands Deconcentration and devolution with substantial central control

Address local needs Schools responsible for teacher recruitment; central government sets curriculum, minimum standards

Central govt. financing to advisory school councils, Municipal role in expenditure decisions

Chile Devolution of pedagogical decision-making to school staff

Change the content of education and raise quality

School project teams and director in charge

Central ministries and incentive schemes provide funds

El Salvador EDUCO Devolution to community partnership model

Improve access to education for children in rural areas

Community based school councils: manage schools, hire teachers

Central and community financing

New Zealand Devolution to elected school boards - parent members only

Improve education quality by giving local communities a voice in school policy

Local school board adapts national curriculumTeachers employed by central state

Financing from the central government via formula-driven capitation grants

3 This overview draws extensively from a review of decentralization by Winkler and Gershberg (2003). These cases reflect the wide variety of forms, and are not meant to be representative of all the forms in practice across the world.

27

Armenia Deconcentration to regional admin. and municipalities Devolution to elected school boards

Increase efficiency by broadening decision-making

Municipalities provide infrastructure, maintenance, regional administration educational support.

Central government finances recurrent costs via a transfer of funds to school board.

South Africa Centralization and decentralization - functions distributed across national, provincial, district and school levels

Increase efficiency and democratic participation

National MOE responsible for standards. Provincial MOE for personnel. School governing bodies manage non-personnel budget, school policies

Central government responsible for funding the system through provincial allocations. Schools complement funds through fees.

Minas Gerais, Brazil Devolution to school councils: parents, teachers, and students

Improve education quality by giving local communities a voice in schools

School councils hire teachers, select school director, choose textbooks and allocate non-personnel budget

Revenue transferred from center to school for non-personnel expenditure; schools raise funds

PakistanDevolution to district, tehsil and union councils; devolution to school councils composed of educators, parents, community representatives

Increase efficiency, cost-sharing, and democratic participation, especially of women and persons with low SES

Center determines curriculum. Provinces hire, fire personnel. District and sub-district levels allocate resources. School councils make decisions on maintenance, student needs, resources, pedagogy, and a few on personnel.

Revenues are transferred from provincial governments to district governments. School council bank accounts are wire transferred a modest annual sum. School councils mobilize funds.

Memphis, Tennessee School System

School board contracts private reform design models

Improve school quality by using for-profit or not-for-profit companies

Advisory school council diagnoses school needs and develops reform plan. Private reform model agent in charge

Financed by the city under contract that includes performance targets.

Though these experiences vary widely, seven critical risks are widespread and must be considered:

When technical functions such as project planning and the development of investment proposals are decentralized to the local level, problems arise. Handing over substantial ownership of schools to poor village communities may be problematic if they are unequipped or ill prepared. It can also exacerbate issues of partisan politics. Even when poor parents are capable, they may feel inadequate, or teachers may send the message that less educated parents have less to contribute.

Significant transaction costs may be transferred from the central to district levels with powerful effects on both efficiency and equity. Decentralization may often be perceived as a cost-cutting measure, but high costs can arise at initial stages.

Decentralization requires that national and/or regional ministries of education be restructured; district-level personnel and organizations may lack many abilities, especially in accountability and spending. More importantly, officials at higher tiers are often unwilling to relinquish their power.

Decentralization of education to regional or local governments does not automatically empower parents and improve school performance. School council/management committees that include parents and community members may continue to serve more in administrative and support roles than in governance and management roles.

28

Traditions shape local governing structures such as school councils, and local governing bodies can mirror and reproduce persisting inequities in social organization. In these cases, the excluded groups e.g. women, the poor and the less educated are at a risk of remaining marginalized (Khan, 2005).

Leaders at local and regional tiers may create problems. For example, educators may perpetuate their roles as gatekeepers for education and learning, thus continuing to exclude parents from decision-making (or imposing their decisions on school councils)

Local stakeholders must unleash the social and cultural capital embedded in their communities to mobilize local resources, thus enabling groups to create bonds, links, and bridges amongst themselves (Woolcock, 2000; Khan, 2005). If they fail to do so, they fail to use valuable social capital.

Although the challenges are daunting, it does not mean that decentralization should either be reversed or abandoned.

29

PART TWO: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION

Part Two of this paper explores various aspects of the reform process that must be considered in formulating policy, planning strategies, and implementing educational decentralization at the country level. To enable member states to make policy and strategy choices to plan for and implement educational decentralization, this paper raises critical issues in relation to certain salient areas, which form the crux of decentralization. These issues include transfer of autonomy and the changed role of central authorities, citizen and community participation, responsiveness to diverse needs, private provision and other partnerships, financing and devolution of budgetary authority, capacity building, and evaluation of programs. Emphasis is placed on evaluating decentralization efforts in order to assess progress in implementation, an often-neglected area.

The long history of advocacy for educational decentralization suggests that it has rarely been achieved thus far. Among the potential explanations are difficulties in planning for and implementing such reforms, and the range of issues and priorities that determine the decentralization plan or governance model. Moreover, each plan proceeds in a context of different political ideologies, historical legacies, and factors such as linguistic plurality, geographic size, and ease of communication. Given all these factors, an obvious starting point is an institutional analysis of the overall government structure (Mukundan & Bray, 2004). Such an analysis could identify existing strengths in the system to be built upon, and gaps to address.

If the goals of Education for All are to be realized, democratic participation is a given, as is the need for local communities to play an important role in planning, managing, governing and assessing basic education efforts. However, over-hasty or forced decentralization can do as much damage as good. A steady process of decentralization should be pursued judiciously, with sensitivity to the perspectives and evolving aspirations of local communities, paying attention to certain key implementation issues. Planners must acknowledge critical risks and find ways to minimize them.

The following sections introduce each critical area, highlighting its significance. Choices in approaches are provided using concrete country experiences. As mentioned earlier, no one size fits all, and each country must examine its own mix of choices in light of its own circumstances. The role of this paper is to enable policy makers and planners to raise pertinent questions in each of these areas, to assess their needs and priorities and make choices in line with their purposes, in their own environment. Pro-active social and gender sensitive policies and strategies include attention to attitudes towards gender, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status; understanding the election and participation process and monitoring its impact; and compensatory steps, such as special grants to low-performing schools or marginalized populations (Fiske, 2000). Social and gender equity is tackled at two levels. First, parents from poor households, especially women, are given a voice in educational decisions, e.g. through participation on school councils. Second, planners improve access and quality of learning opportunities for children from poor households, with an emphasis on girls (Khan, 2002).

Distribution of Autonomy and the Changed Role of Central AuthoritiesThe responsibilities of the different government levels and stakeholders in education are being

redefined and reallocated as new concepts emerge about the potential educational roles of the national government (ministry of education), sub-regional structures, schools, local communities and other social partners. However, the simple dichotomy of centralized versus decentralized education systems is inadequate to describe the intricate redistribution of autonomy in education systems. The challenges for each country are to balance increased diversity, flexibility, and local control with the responsibility of the national and regional education authorities to assure that education is provided across the nation in an orderly way, and that the provision is equitable across regions and socio-economic and ethnic divisions (Abu-Duhou, 1999: 20). Unless clear roles and responsibilities are established at each level, implementers may lose their enthusiasm as they continually encounter a lack of coordination in the system (Mukundan & Bray, 2004).

In centralized systems, the national ministry of education usually covers a wide range of functions: planning, program implementation, coordination, personnel supervision, monitoring, and evaluation. But in

30

decentralized and mixed systems, the central ministries’ role changes from planner or implementer to technical consultant and coordinator responsible for policy formulation, and for overall quality assurance, monitoring, and evaluation. As a result, new steering instruments and practices have been proposed in a number of countries. In Uganda for example, district education officers (DEOs) are responsible, along with communities, for delivering primary education, while the MOE focuses on policy making, investment management, and quality assurance. DEOs are responsible for monitoring and supporting all primary schools in their districts. Through the District Service Commission, districts recruit and assign primary school teachers, while teachers’ salaries remain a central responsibility (Moulton, 2000).

While the role of the central ministry as implementer decreases in decentralized systems, it still has significant roles to play in management, financing, and general oversight of the system. To play this role well, it must utilize findings from on-going evaluations to learn from experience at the local level, which can in turn inform the implementation strategies. In its oversight role, the central ministry shares responsibility with regional and local administrations and with school communities for many elements, from accountability to curriculum development and implementation. Given its central responsibility for overall accountability, it must systematically collect, analyze, and share? critical information. In general, the central ministries plan the national curriculum and are responsible for national-level examinations. Decentralization and local involvement in curriculum development allow them to adapt to varied and changing local conditions. They also allow them to promote UNESCO’s ideals of lifelong education, and of integration between school and community. The central ministry and sub-national and school actors may share responsibility for ensuring the minimum educational standards necessary to safeguard equity of access and outcomes.

While there are no prescribed steps, it may be helpful to prepare a schema that lists the central functions, and the responsible levels within the education system. In preparing a schema for redistributing autonomy in a decentralized system, it may be appropriate to think of educational autonomy within a multi-dimensional matrix that accounts for the type of issue, the level of institution, the group or individual exerting influence, the channels of influence involved, and the stage of decision-making (McLean and Lauglo, 1985). Table 4 offers a simplified matrix that may be adapted or expanded for use as a planning tool. Categories may be added or deleted as appropriate.

Table 4: Location of decisions, by categoryInstitution, group or individual exerting influence at various levels

Category of issue Central level Regional level District level Local levelGovernance:PolicyPlanningImplementationSchool organization:StructureMinimum requirementFinancing:CurrentDevelopmentTraining:In-servicePre-serviceManagementCurriculum:SubjectsContentTextbooks Language policyInstructional methods

31

Teacher evaluationMonitoring:AccreditationExaminationsPupil promotionsDisciplineData systemsSchool evaluationResearch:NeedsConduct ImplementationSource: McGinn & Welsh (1995)

As a next step, to adapt a framework like this one, policy makers and implementers may need to reflect on key questions to determine who does what at various levels in their particular settings. Decisions concerning transfer of authority should be made through a participatory process that begins at the local level. The questions suggested below can be used to stimulate reflection, and can be adapted for use within different settings. You may add new questions, or delete those not relevant in a given context.

KEY QUESTIONS: DISTRIBUTION OF AUTONOMY AND THE CHANGED ROLE OF CENTER

What are we trying to accomplish through decentralization? How does the decentralization initiative fit with the sector wide educational development

strategy of achieving greater school participation and student learning? What are the pathways and associated conditions for pursuing these goals? Is there an

appropriate legal, financial, and bureaucratic environment that supports the decentralization process? Identify potential strengths and gaps at various levels.

Is there a well-conceived plan for sharing power and specific strategies to provide key actors with the authority they need to carry out the decentralization objectives?

Are there clear centralized policy guidelines and standards for central authorities, regions and districts, and schools? How can we balance regional autonomy and ensure common standards throughout the country to avoid inequalities?

Is there an infrastructure or sets of agencies whose main role is to stimulate and provide on-going support to local capacity at the school and community level?

How are decisions made to formulate plans and guidelines to transfer autonomy? To what extent do local stakeholders have a voice in decisions to formulate the

educational decentralization plan and strategies? Is there an effective communications campaign/strategy to enlist the support of central,

regional and local level politicians and administrators, and local stakeholders, including parents, other community members, and teachers?

How is accountability designed and administered? Does it include an incentive structure that promotes quality and accountability?

Citizen and Community Participation A key element of decentralization is the move towards greater community participation in

educational decision-making. People increasingly recognize that local initiatives, which bring the school and community closer, can generate a sense of ownership, enhance accountability, and ensure that those in charge accurately identify the content, scheduling, and educational requirements, and adapt them to local conditions. In the process, community support for education can be key in raising participation rates, and improving school retention and learning outcomes (Watt, 2001). Moreover, recent research on social capital points out the significance of mobilizing communities to tap the cultural, social and political capital embedded in local communities (Woolcock, 2002), and school based management offers a platform to parents and communities to draw on these potential resources.

32

Community participation ranges from familiar forms of support—such as community involvement in construction—to more active involvement in management, planning, and learning. The impact of community participation is often uneven, as it is multi-faceted, and communities vary widely in their ability to participate in and support education. Some well resourced, highly motivated, and cohesive communities are single-handedly financing and managing their local education. Other communities lack the resources to make anything more than a minor contribution to the costs of education, or are unable or unwilling to work together. Still, associations of parents and students (PAs and APEs) constitute a striking feature of community participation in basic education in many countries. In Senegal (see below), community schools are playing an important role in providing greater access to education for at-risk youth, as part of the outsourcing or “Faire Faire” strategy.

Local Community Schools (ECB) in SenegalIn Senegal in 1992/1993, two NGOs, ADEF-Afrique and Aide et Action, initiated these schools; in 1996 they were adopted as a basic component of the alternative models the ministry was trying out. Currently several operators subsidized by the ministry and by many NGOs, including PLAN International and RADI, are using them. They target youth aged 9 to 14 who were never enrolled in school (and are illiterate) or who left school early. The pedagogical approach has three goals: integrate young people into socio-economic activities in their environment; keep them in secondary school; and provide pre-vocational training or integration into certain jobs. Six elements are key to the model. 1) The local community designs and manages the educational system. 2) It includes children aged 9 to 15 who are not enrolled or have dropped out, in particular girls, for a 4-year educational cycle, the equivalent of six years of elementary school. 3) National languages are used as the main language of instruction with French as a second language. 4) The adult literacy program provides support for the basic adolescent education program. 5) The coordinated approach involves schools for both parents and children. 6) Learning methods focus on protecting the environment.

Drawing from country experiences such as this one, we can identify several factors that can have a positive impact on community participation, and which may be useful to keep in mind when preparing policy or strategies at country level. They include a positive perception of basic education amongst parents; regular and stable household incomes; a history of social mobilization, community organization and leadership; educational involvement beyond financial contributions; external support and development mechanisms in the community; the presence of community role models whose social status derives from their education; community involvement in the decision-making process; government aid and abolition or regulation of school fees; high student achievement, and communication among the MOE, communities, and school staff. On the other hand, economic pressures and poverty, the spread of AIDS, illiteracy, and political instability seriously hamper community participation in many contexts.

A community’s ability to mobilize its social and cultural capital is another explanatory factor that challenges existing social norms and serves as a lever to boost community participation (Khan, 2005). Putnam (1993, p. 167) defines social capital as “features of organization, such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action.” He emphasizes that the ability of individuals or groups to make “bonds” within their own groups and “bridges” to other groups is key to a community’s strength and ability to improve itself. Critics argue that this account of social capital ignores issues of class distinction and power (Fine, 2001; Harris, 2001). Harris (2001) points out a problem in de-linking power and social relations in order to put Putnamian social capital into practice: it overlooks the abstract nature of community as a social construct, as well as the strategic and relational choices that underpin the processes of social organization (Mansuri & Rao, 2004).

A more nuanced perspective on social capital recognizes that it must be understood within its cultural and political context (Krishna, 2002; Rao, 2001). Indeed, better networked groups may be better able to organize and benefit from community projects; and the level of social capital or community cohesion will positively affect the quality and sustainability of local projects (Mansuri & Rao, 2004). Such partnerships also expand the interests of parents and local governing bodies, and create opportunities for innovation.

33

Through these processes, communities are beginning to reorder the flow of social capital organization at many levels, starting as parents and civil society engage with the school and take part in educational decisions. In turn, some community members may stimulate “bridging social capital” with the district education department and local government machinery to take action. Although the concept of social capital is highly relevant here, little research is available on community-driven initiatives that rely on latent or proactive social capital in communities, given the rate and scale at which such initiatives are undertaken (Khan, 2005).

School-Based Management (SBM) is the most intensive form of decentralization and an increasingly popular way to enhance community participation. Internationally, a variety of SBM initiatives have enabled school- or community-based structures to assume varying degrees of power related to educational management in Chicago (USA), Colombia, El Salvador (see Box II below), Uganda, South Africa, and Senegal. Increasingly schools are being asked to manage themselves and to make decisions regarding curriculum, budget and resource allocation, and staff and students (Abu-Duhou, 1999). SBM is expected to improve the quality of teaching and learning by locating decisions closer to the point at which they are carried out; this provides for sensitivity to local conditions, and allows teachers to design programs to meet local needs and thus improve learning. The El Salvador EDUCO Project, below, provides a concrete example of contracting parents’ association to administer schools - one form of SBM.

El Salvador: Contracting Parents’ Associations to Administer SchoolsDecentralization was part of an evolving initiative to modernize public administration and make it more cost-effective and participatory. During the 1990s, the government of El Salvador began transforming the state’s role in delivering education services by letting the private sector participate more in managing public education. Critics felt that the top-down management system, in which most programs were designed and administered by a central ministry of education (MINED), did not respond adequately and efficiently to local needs or to national priorities. The government decided to give more decision-making power to the municipalities and to privatize delivery of some education services, in order to improve access and quality, while encouraging municipalities, NGOs, parents, and communities, to be actively involved in education. While the state provided most primary schooling, civil society was also offering alternatives to public education: in some poor and isolated rural areas, communities hired teachers and provided classroom spaces to create their own schools.

The EDUCO program, which started in 1991 through a World Bank loan, was an important component of the initial decentralization effort, aimed at expanding access to preschool and basic education in poor rural areas. Under EDUCO, parents organized into non-profit Community Education Associations (ACE) were responsible for managing schools financed by the state. The program did expand schooling and mobilize private resources. More recent plans (1995–2005) include contracting with private institutions to design curriculum, evaluate programs, design standardized testing, and provide in-service teacher training and other activities traditionally conducted by the central administration. The new policy also introduced a new model of school organization in which a board, the consejo directivo escolar (CDE), consisting of the principal, two teachers, three parents, and two students, manages the school. The principal is always the president and representative of MINED inside the school, a teacher the secretary, and a parent the treasurer. Today, about 3,035 of the nation’s 4,800 schools are run by CDEs, which set school priorities, plan activities, make decisions on resources, and administer state funds transferred as block grants.

In El Salvador, decentralization policies have produced multiple results. The institutional modernization has redefined MINED’s role and the organizational structure of the education system. The new model of school administration through CDEs promises to change the organizational culture of schools, making them more democratic, efficient and responsive to local demands. More basic education is available in rural areas and private resources are being used to improve education. But decentralization has also created new problems and challenges: CDEs face financial constraints, and have limited power to allocate public funds. The financing mechanism tends to produce inequities, with relatively wealthier communities more likely to supplement state funds. In addition, the nation still lacks adequate information services and qualified teachers and administrators, and no system is in place to effectively monitor school quality.

34

One of the lessons that emerges from such country experiences in developing countries is that school-based management may exacerbate social and gender equity if local governance mirrors or reproduces prevalent patterns of social organization that exclude some groups from participation. Alternatively, it can be a lever for change if local governing structures challenge the status quo and give the marginalized groups a voice. One can gauge the extent to which these councils are socially equitable by looking at who participates on these councils in terms of SES; for example, does the council appoint persons with little education or from poor households?

Women’s participation on councils in countries with low scores on the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM, UNDP, HDR 2005) must also be addressed through policy intervention. Appointment to a council per se is not enough. Once the council is established, whose voice has weight? Can women participate as much as men? Does the council represent the interests of poor parents? Are members elected or selected? Careful guidelines on appointment processes can assure that councils represent the interests of disadvantaged groups and are not “captured” by the local elite.

For community support to education to realize its full potential, several key conditions must be in place. All the education stakeholders involved—communities, government, teachers, and often NGOs—must accept the need for change, and be prepared and able to listen, learn, and collaborate. Governments must ensure that all schools can meet the basic conditions for effective learning and that community efforts add to, rather than substitute for, the services provided though public funds. Equity and quality objectives can be met only if all parties recognize these realities, and act ensure that communities participate effectively. Moreover, all parties must recognize that community support is a process in which they must share risks as well as rewards. In many cases, sustained capacity-building efforts are needed before communities can participate effectively. Some communities may lack the skills and confidence to contribute to school management, while others may lack the cohesion and experience of working together to reach collective decisions. The focus should always be on building a skills base at several levels—administration, school, and community—to ensure that all parties engage with the school over the long term. Where these conditions are in place, communities are likely to make a full and effective contribution to education (Watt, 2001).

In planning for community participation in educational change, it is crucial to reflect on the nature of community participation that would be relevant in a particular setting. The following questions could help in this process.

KEY QUESTIONS ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Who can participate? Are diverse community groups represented? What about of SES,

gender, marginalized groups, etc.? How does the decision making process take place? What weight do different groups have in decision-making? Are the roles of school councils adequately clarified? And individual roles? What is the role of citizen participation in issues such as school policy, enrolment and

increased access, gender and social equity, personnel management, teaching and learning methodologies, learning materials, etc.?

Can public-private partnerships participate in this process? How can NGOs and civil society participate in the process? How can central governments promote citizenship participation? How can local actors map the social capital embedded in their community to stimulate

bonding, linking and bridging amongst different groups?

Responding to Diverse Needs As attempts to expand access to basic education intensify it is obvious that conventional

approaches will not succeed with particular populations that have very specific needs. School systems that use a standardized curriculum, permanent buildings, and rigid calendars and schedules often fail to provide equitable access to quality basic education for various marginalized groups, including girls, learners with

35

special needs, minority groups, rural populations, and nomads. It is now recognized that they need a flexible and responsive education delivery programs that address their particular needs and circumstances.

Decentralization, coupled with greater community involvement, affords some opportunities to address such needs. Examples include the Community Support Program (CSP) in Pakistan, the Negotiated Education Plan (NEP) in South Australia, and Nigeria’s Nomadic Education Programme (NEP).

In Balochistan, Pakistan the CSP increased the levels of girl’s school enrollments by an average of 22 percentage points: it increased the supply of schools and female teachers and encouraged parental involvement by creating community public girls’ schools in rural areas. The opening of a CSP school also increased boys’ enrollment by an average of 9 percentage points.  Thus, the program targeted to increase girls’ educational opportunities appears to have spillover benefits for boys as well as the direct benefits for girls (Kim et al., 1998).

The NEP was established in South Australian government schools for students with special educational needs: students with physical, sensory, intellectual and language and communication disabilities as well as students with learning difficulties, gifted learners, distance education students and Aboriginal students. These individualized programs help students achieve their learning goals, and also help teachers adapt the curriculum to meet their students' needs. Involving the learner, teacher, and parents or caregivers in a local partnership is a powerful way to facilitate greater involvement and motivation for all participants, as well as providing support (Horrocks and Burrows, 2002).

Based on the issues raised in the above examples, the key questions suggested below, should help planners approach some of the concerns raised by educational diversity.

KEY QUESTIONS: ADDRESSING DIVERSITY

To what extent do learners from minority groups and disadvantaged populations have access to the local school?

What means can local schools use to become inclusive (e.g. bursaries, transport, schools that are ‘safe’ for girls, special needs education)?

Once in school, what support services are provided to learners? Is the support system continuous?

How can the school system respond to the educators’ needs to improve learning? Is the local curriculum flexible and responsive to diversity? In rural areas, can schools adapt their schedules to the harvest cycle? If children in the local community face educational challenges, can they attend the local

school? If yes, how does the school community respond to their needs? What mechanisms enable learners from non-formal systems to be mainstreamed? Are distance rural education programs available? If yes, what populations do they cater

to?

Private Provision and Other PartnershipsNational, regional, and local education authorities have an obligation to provide basic education

for all, but they cannot be expected to meet every human, financial or organisational need. Thus each country must address a key question: What should the public authorities supply? With public funds for education stagnant or shrinking across many developing contexts, severe constraints face those who aim to achieve the “Education for All” goal of universal quality education. New and revitalised partnerships at various levels can help meet this challenge, including partnerships between government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the private sector, local communities, religious groups and families. These efforts can take the form of partnership arrangements, private provision, and alternative delivery systems.

Private schools and other forms of private provision including voucher schemes, are expanding in most countries, given their difficulties in ensuring adequate provision. For example, in Côte d'Ivoire, 60%

36

of secondary schools are now in private hands, a trend the government actively supports through the provision of financial incentives. Furthermore, in many countries more parents are demanding private provision as they perceive those schools to be of higher quality and more accountable. Often the expansion of private provision is part of a broader strategy to diversify sources of funding and service provision and to enhance school autonomy. For example Colombia’s voucher program targeting poor students was established to relieve the overcrowding in public schools, and to increase net enrollment without sacrificing quality. Recognizing that many children could not enroll in any public secondary school given space constraints (King et al,1997), this program takes advantage of the fact that private schools can expand opportunities relatively quickly and inexpensively.

Private schools present several advantages: they are more likely to use local decision-making power to improve learning conditions, they generally outperform public schools on standardized tests, and their unit costs are lower than those of public schools (Jimenez et al., 1991). Experiences with private provision can suggest how to increase public school efficiency and effectiveness by adopting the management practices successfully employed in private schools.

Another way to involve the private sector is outsourcing: contracting with external providers. It usually involves a bidding process: the winning group enters into a contract with the responsible government agency to set up and implement a subproject within a larger program. In education, outsourcing has been used to implement services such as school transport, canteens, cleaning, and maintenance, and to set up infrastructure and support programs (Nordtveit, 2003). Many argue that outsourcing services is preferable to relying on government-implemented programs: specialized providers are more efficient, and the services provided are more user-friendly, since the providers, often community-based, can interact with villagers to provide services based on actual demand and need.

Financing and Devolution of Budgetary Authority

The underpinning rationale of fiscal devolution is making government functionaries more accountable for getting resources to local initiatives, and on time. Evidence suggests that tensions emerge when the implementation of federal, district and local budgets is not coordinated, and when delays in fiscal transfers impede local progress. In planning for fiscal devolution, several aspects must be considered: 1) fiscal transfers, 2) new financial arrangements and options, 3) changes in the delegation of financial powers, 4) shifts in the designation of finances, i.e. development, non-development, recurring, etc., and 5) flexibility for needs-based allocations within existing budgets (MOE, Pakistan & UNESCO, 2003).

Various countries have decentralized a range of budgetary components using various arrangements. These decisions are made at the regional (provincial) level in some countries (e.g. Argentina, Mexico), at the local (municipal) level in others (e.g. Chile), and at the school level in those cases with the greatest devolution (e.g. El Salvador, Minas Grais, Brazil, and Nicaragua). Four broad categories capture the range of experiences: 1) decentralization of school budgets to purchase supplies and learning materials; 2) decentralization of other functions (school management, building maintenance, school feeding programs); 3) agency projects in decentralization or school autonomy; and 4) competitive grants and incentive schemes (Lang, 2002).

System-wide costs can be a key factor in decisions to decentralize. In considering costs it is important to distinguish between provision of education services and financing. The first means delivering and managing education services, while the latter relates to the sources of funding to operate the system. As local governments in many developing contexts have little power to levy taxes or generate revenue, financing will have to remain a national responsibility. However, it does not follow that provision and management of education should also be a national responsibility. In fact, to address the challenge of achieving efficiency, equity and quality, governments may have to share responsibility for provision and management with local government authorities, schools, and communities, as is happening in El Salvador, Mali, Tanzania, and South Africa. This is especially important in many developing contexts where efficient usage of limited financial and human resources, and systemic accountability remain major challenges. Decentralization may often result in a significant transfer of transaction costs from the central to the district level. The flow of funds through different institutions and levels of the system is often erratic,

37

and quality of financial reporting is poor. The experience of Uganda (see below) clearly illustrates some of the complexities and challenges involved.

Uganda: Devolution of Financial Management to School Management Committees

At the heart of the decentralization process in Uganda is the question of resources. Before decentralization, the central government decided how funds were to be utilized and sent them directly to the department in the district: the district authorities had no control over their use. Under Universal Primary Education (UPE) policy, parents no longer pay school fees; instead, the schools receive a UPE capitation grant from the government. Uganda’s grant system is calculated centrally and released as a conditional block grant to districts, which in turn release all funds to schools based on enrollment. The ministry has also developed guidelines for schools’ allocation of funds, for example, 50% for scholastic materials, 5% for administration, etc. The grant system provides about $4 per year for each child in grades one through three and $6 for those in the next four grades. The government pays for teachers’ salaries and textbooks, but the grants are also used to fund other school needs. The school management committee manages the money at school level. To improve financial management, the government provides training and sensitization workshops so that everyone involved can appreciate the structures, principles, and procedures for record keeping and accountability. The program aims to provide: 1) full community participation and decision making without unrealistic and unfair demands on the poorest; 2) decentralized procurement that maximizes the use of local expertise; and 3) a system of ranking and prioritizing to support the neediest schools and communities.

Experience in several countries has shown that it is extremely difficult to collect taxes from poor communities, and that local authorities have little mastery of planning and management procedures. Moreover, central governments are reluctant to transfer resources to local governments. But local governments, district education offices, and schools need additional funding in order to take on most added responsibilities. Even though local revenues are often not mobilized adequately and local government councils often cannot carry out their spending tasks, the fact remains that parents and communities do contribute significant amounts to the education of their children. The challenge is to ensure that what parents can and do contribute is complemented effectively by public funding, so that every child can access opportunities to learn. In this regard, emerging experience is showing that policy should aim to involve communities in meaningful decisions about allocating the resources available at the school level, and to effectively target available public resources towards the most disadvantaged.

Several issues of design and implementation deserve particular attention: (1) Weaker schools or regions need sufficient technical assistance and time to benefit

fully and compete for funding on an equitable footing. (2) Learning outcomes must be monitored to ensure that funds are used for school

improvement.(3) Community contributions must be weighed for their appropriateness and should not

be regarded as a substitute for government funding. (4) Everyone must guard against inequities in the distribution of grant funds. (5) Those in charge must monitor the local capacity for implementation.

Examples from the Asia region on the modernization of public sector management in the design and testing of new approaches to plan the education sector include the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), Targeted Budget Support (TBS), and Sector Wide Approach or SWAP (Handbook for Decentralized Education Planning, UNESCO Bangkok, 2005). The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), refers to a programme and programme budgets which – contrary to the traditional single year budget practice—cover a period of several (usually three) years. MTEF has four key features:

A detailed sector development programme identifies priorities and sets out the targets to be achieved by the end of the medium-term period.

A detailed estimate is made of the personnel, material, and financial resources required to implement the programme activities.

38

The annual budget allocations depend on the achievement of targets. At the end of each year, progress of implementation is assessed, and the MTEF is

extended by one additional year so that at any given time the MTEF plan covers a medium-term period.

The MTEF approach assures that the province has a foreseeable budget and allows a good measure of flexibility in the sequencing of activities and the use of resources. The MTEF allows provincial education authorities to decide on allocation priorities (e.g. to reallocate resources between levels) as well as the sequence of activities (what comes in the first year, what in the second year, etc.).

The design of a coherent programme is essential for MTEF to be effective. The central and provincial-level education authorities manage the planning and resource allocation process together. The education plan informs the MTEF, which in turn informs the annual budget, which is no longer the principal instrument of resource allocation. Gradually, the provincial MTEF comes to play an important role in the resource allocation process, and is drawn up within the context of the provincial education plan. Thus, the MTEF is the link between the long-term provincial education plan and its implementation through annual budgets.

Another example is Targeted Budget Support (TBS), a way to focus the use of resources to achieve specific educational objectives. For example, improvements in accessibility and quality of primary education may be formulated as a special programme and budget. Such programming includes all related activities and budget, including teacher training, the employment of teachers, construction and equipment for schools, and provision of teaching-learning materials to teachers and pupils. The budget allocation is made for the entire programme in a distinct budget line (or an entire budget section) earmarked for the programme. As with MTEF, a multi-year programme must be planned if TBS is to be effective.

To conclude, here are some questions you could reflect on, or consider, in formulating policy or strategies on financing and devolution of budgetary authority in your own country.

KEY QUESTIONS: FINANCING AND DEVOLUTION OF BUDGETARY AUTHORITY Are there clear financial rules and regulations? What percentage of the budget is to be held, generated, and managed at each level or at

each school site? Which regions receive more money? Why? Are any objective criteria used to determine budget allocation formulae across regions? What are the sources of funding at the regional or local level? One or multiple funding

sources? In what way does the local tax revenue finance education? What are the reporting lines for various sources of funds? Do local levels have autonomy

to use resources? Or, is budget decentralized under specific budget lines, supervised by auditors or inspectors placed at higher levels?

Do regions receive a pre-assigned sum for education under the fiscal devolution plan? Or does education have to compete with various services, such as health, water and sanitation, infrastructure, etc. for budgetary allocation at the local level?4

What guarantees, or checks and balances, ensure that funds are released in a timely fashion to avoid delays in implementation?

What mechanisms are used to ensure that funds are used appropriately? Are there compensatory and reactive strategies to ensure equitable funding to address the

specific needs of particular regions, and schools and disadvantaged populations?

4 In some countries, under the systemic fiscal devolution plan, each region receives a total sum for all expenses, and it is up to the regional governor, or local governing bodies to determine the percentage of the total regional budget allocated to education. For example, in Pakistan, under the current Local Government Ordinance 2001, the education budget in some districts is actually declining because of competition for funds for infrastructure and other services at the district level.

39

Capacity Building

With increased numbers of students and teachers, the simple quantity of resources to be managed requires new functions at central levels of the system. With schools acquiring more decision-making authority, the managerial and administrative capacity of thousands of school directors, teachers and community representatives also needs attention. Therefore, in a decentralized system, it is crucial to develop capacity in each provincial, regional, and/or district level education office, as well as in every school (UNESCO, 2002; Mouton, 2003). Training for stakeholder groups (parents and other community actors, teachers and administrators) can have a substantial impact. For example, Kenya’s collaborative training approach for school councils has improved both school-based management and program delivery; more school committees now have input into school development planning, which has improved the sense of ownership and community involvement (Bray, 1999).

To develop capacity, the state and its several partners must make deliberate and sustained efforts to train local leaders and their communities, as well as local organizations, in the skills needed to support decentralized governance. Pakistan’s GOOD Governance in Educational Management (GOOD GEM) Project (see below) and Senegal’s PADEN project are country examples of helping community leaders to develop literacy and other skills to enable them to participate more effectively in educational governance at a local level. Such capacity building diversifies civil society and enables it to participate in other areas of social, political and economic development.

DEVELOPING CAPACITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION IN PAKISTANGOOD GEM PROJECT

Under the framework of the Education Sector Reforms, Pakistan’s Ministry of Education is undertaking educational devolution reforms to address access, equity, and quality. The district, rather than the province, has become the operational tier of governance, supported by the Tehsil (sub-district) and union council tiers. Village or neighborhood councils and citizen community boards (CCB) are being established to enable citizens to participate. These councils include PTAs, village education committees, and school councils that ensure that communities engage in planning, mobilizing, implementing, and monitoring development plans. In addition administrators have to work closely with other sectors, and with PTA/SMC members, community members, teachers, learners, and NGOs. The program recognized the need to strengthen institutional and human capacity, so local stakeholders could participate in decision-making. As a result, the Academy of Educational Planning and Management (AEPAM), Ministry of Education, initiated the GOOD GEM Project, a training program undertaken in collaboration with UNESCO to support decentralization by developing skills among educational managers, and school and community stakeholders. Training modules focus on policy and context, citizen participation, site-based management, district-based planning for EFA, financial management, and the use of district EMIS for decision-making at local levels.

Several lessons can be taken from successful capacity development programs to support effective decentralization in your country:

Before capacity building can begin, multiple stakeholders—including businesses, cultural institutions, students, women, the disadvantaged, and parents—must be involved in identifying the needs. People outside the initial core of leaders should be engaged to facilitate wider participation in decision-making. In some communities, effective literacy training may have to accompany capacity building to ensure that it goes beyond the most rudimentary level of technical skill and only partial participation.

Capacity development has to be a continuous and on-going process, and provided to a wide range of stakeholders. A key task is to clarify the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders across the levels. In particular, local people need to be able to plan for district-based education, to perform monitoring and evaluation, and to develop school based budgets.

40

The process should occur in phases. The orientation phase should focus on policy and context, the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, and challenges and potential solutions. Other phases should deepen the understanding of roles and responsibilities, and explore citizen participation, district-based planning, effective use of resources and financial management, and attitudinal changes.

At the regional and district levels, capacity building is less about individual skills and more about tasks. Some are: identify local institutes to provide on-going support networks, use supervision for support; and report to schools after analyzing the data they forwarded. Officials need training in a range of new individual and institutional skills: how to assess education needs, monitor progress, and provide supervision. To provide this training will require clear plans and programs.

School leaders and teachers need to learn to handle the control, independence, and collaboration that come with their new roles. Implementing local governance requires wide changes in the culture in the districts, the schools, the communities, and throughout the system. Changing the culture requires changes in leadership. Ministries of education must work with teacher and leadership training programs to ensure that their graduates are fully prepared for their roles in the new education economy.

Capacity building strategies depend in large measure on the context of a school and community—one size does not fit all. Programs must be flexible enough to accommodate contextual variations across the country.

After the intervention a clear follow-up strategy is critical to ensure that the initiative continues and is sustainable.

Drawing on these lessons from country experiences, the questions below could help raise issues for you to consider in planning for a program to strengthen local capacities in your country.

KEY QUESTIONS: CAPACITY BUILDING How do the national EFA plans tackle issues of capacity building at the country level? Who will design the capacity building plan? What will be the role of the ministry of

education at the national level? What will be the role of provincial or regional education departments?

What are the potential strengths in the existing system that can be used as a basis for development? Existing training programmes? Teacher training or other institutes?

In which areas is capacity building needed? In which areas does it need to be strengthened?

What are the goals and objectives of capacity building? Who will be the target beneficiaries? What will be the components and strategies of capacity building? Which organizational units are receiving new responsibility? Do they have the

organizational capacity and institutional incentives to carry out the new functions effectively?

What adjustments in organizational capacity need to be made at various levels to ensure that agencies have the appropriate ability to carry out their new functions and that units with reduced responsibilities are downsized?

Who will monitor and evaluate the results of capacity building, and how? How will participatory evaluation include local communities?

Finally, how will the capacity building programme train higher-level officials in the system to give up authority and responsibility?

EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION REFORMS5 5 Use Evaluation Guidelines as a reference

41

Central policy makers involved in formulating and implementing large-scale educational reforms often make a tacit assumption: that a universally-applied remedy will be received by local schools in uniform ways, and that by merely lifting the heavy hand of central regulation and bureaucratic control, they will allow a thousand (organizational) flowers to bloom so that school actors will assume wise leadership with complete information (Fuller and Rivarola, 1998). In many cases of course, this does not transpire: internal dynamics and institutionalized features of environments or sectors condition their evolution and impact. The exogenous force of a school’s prior history, surrounding economic conditions, and its coherent (or chaotic) management structure, all affect the implementation of decentralization reforms. Therefore, in evaluating the impact of decentralization we need strategies that account for these complexities.

It is generally agreed that the real changes and impact of decentralization can only be measured after some period of time, often five years. An equally clear consensus holds that some benchmarks are needed to assess the extent to which policy, plans and programmes are in line with the vision of devolution. Performance indicators6 that are sensitive to the local context can provide up-to-date quantitative and qualitative information, allowing us to realistically assess progress in the transition from a centralized to a decentralized system. Such an assessment helps to redefine the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders and institutions, and to identify constraints and appropriate inputs that will support further reform. This kind of flexible framework facilitates specific tasks:

Provide empirical evidence on issues and obstacles to implementation at district levels; Facilitate continuous monitoring and evaluation; Assess the roles of school management councils and other associations; Assess roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education, and local governments/departments

to enable the district level to participate in policy, planning, programme design and evaluation. As part of the process, it can determine:

- What authority is transferred?- Who receives transferred authority?- Who makes decisions across levels?- What decisions are made across levels?- What indicators and methodologies might be useful to monitor and evaluate?

Stakeholders at different levels of administration can adapt the framework according to their own contextual variations and priorities. The framework provides tools to assess whether the policy, plans and programmes they are responsible for, or are monitoring or evaluating, reflect the principles of devolution. In assessing decentralization outcomes we need to be circumspect and consider several wider issues. 1) Given the importance of lead time, at what stage can we legitimately assess decentralization as good or bad? 2) Different forms of decentralization may have varying impacts on different levels e.g. primary education and tertiary institutions. 3) The far-reaching benefits of decentralization may not be easily summarized using specific objectives.

The UNESCO evaluation guidelines provide details for planning an evaluation framework to assess progress for the implementation of educational decentralization. However, in conclusion, here are some challenges policy makers and planners should be conscious of to deal with potential risks that may pose a threat to successful assessment of progress.

6 For a suggested framework, please refer to UNESCO (2003) Guidelines: Developing a framework to assess progress in the implementation of educational devolution reforms. Appendix 1 (page) gives an outline of the dimensions covered in the framework.

42

Challenges in Evaluating Decentralization The coexistence of trends that centralize and decentralize creates difficulties in classification.

Both scenarios can occur at once. Hence, is the system decentralized or centralized? Difficulties in measurement arise because of value judgements about how to prioritise different

powers. For example, the power to make decisions on curriculum is considered important, whereas hiring a cleaner might be considered less important. Hence a weighting system would be required in any framework for evaluation.

Measuring progress by ranking on a scale can be misleading. The unit of analysis is rarely the same. The nation-state as the unit of analysis is not appropriate as national boundaries are usually arbitrary. The unit of government is still too large as countries vary in size and population.

Placing countries on a single continuum for comparison is dangerous, though beneficial. For example, local can mean different things in different countries or states. Some functions are more important than others. Therefore they cannot be ranked in the same level.

Source: Bray, 2003

43

PART THREE: CONFRONTING THE CHALLENGE OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION

As we can tell from the above analysis, to succeed, decentralization must be planned for at all levels of the system, trained for at all levels, and financed adequately. Often governments see it as a cost-saving measure, when in fact it may initially cost more.

As education systems decentralize, the potential increases for misunderstanding, disagreement, and conflict over the meaning of quality. Even in centralized systems, stakeholders rarely agree completely on how to define and measure quality, and how to initiate and sustain improvement, but these tasks are even more challenging in a decentralized system. At all levels—central, provincial, and local—educational leaders see their roles changing and growing. At the school level, management roles are changing and new relationships between school and community members are redefining the organization of schooling.. Given all these changes, how can implementers ensure that quality is enhanced rather than compromised?

Based on insights from this analysis, we suggest that implementers consider some critical issues to meet the challenges and potential obstacles in implementation.

Understand the reforms and clearly communicate both their form and function. The government should clearly articulate the national vision and strategy for the reform to its educational personnel at all levels, and to other government sectors and the public. This will require appropriate legal instruments to delegate authority to each level, along with a detailed implementation strategy, and operational manuals for those managing the decentralization. Unless the government carefully specifies the role of each level and institution involved, the lines of responsibility can become blurred. Moreover, since the government recruits school principals and teachers, they often consider themselves solely accountable to the education department, rather than to parents, students, or local governing bodies. Then the culture of the civil between the ideological foundations of educational decentralization and the culture of teaching and government that shapes the behavior of teachers and public employees” (Bjork, 2003, p. 215). Such frictions can be avoided by clear communication when the plan is first implemented.

Consider a system of performance incentives. The new responsibilities at local levels demand that teachers, school principals and parents invest more time than they had before. Under devolution, local educators find themselves taking on many added responsibilities, including curriculum design, planning for innovative instructional strategies, and meeting with parents and the community. Often, teachers must become more involved before other stakeholders will participate, so their motivation to support the process, and that of local officials, is crucial. While an increase in authority is an incentive to invest more time, an interest in job security can trump the desire to increase their influence over school policy or to make a difference in the lives of students. Nor do local educators always feel compelled to support the reform initiative out of a sense of duty to their professions or their community. (Bjork, 2003; Mukundan &Bray, 2004). Larger financial incentives could help shift these priorities, but are seldom offered. Thus implementers must consider some system of incentives such as public recognition, supportive supervision, in-service training, and a clearer career ladder amongst others.

Communication - Many decentralization reforms have benefited from well-designed communication strategies. Successful communication programs provide clear information to parents, teachers, and administrators about the goals, design and implementation of the reform.

Consider Staggered Implementation. As timing is critical, it may be useful to first develop administrative capacity and local political support for particular changes. Even in the Indian state of Kerala, which has a high level of political awareness and social

44

cohesion, a ‘big bang’ approach, backfired. Thus a gradual transfer of power is more likely to succeed.

Use a systemic approach. – Any attempt at educational devolution must be part of a systemic approach that considers the role of other departments, and of the mechanisms for inter-sectoral coordination. Particular attention must be paid to central-local relations: in principle most bureaucrats agree with the concept of decentralization, but in practice they find it hard to relinquish power.

Establish clear procedures for monitoring and evaluation. A strong accountability framework will provide clear checks and balances and create incentives for professionals, communities and schools to dedicate themselves to the reform. A clear action plan will facilitate the implementation of instructional, management, and assessment procedures. Local systems must be developed to monitor education quality; these can include technologies to assess needs, monitor data gathered using indicators, and analyze data. Effective monitoring systems are shifting state-government monitoring from inspection towards support and training. Moreover, monitoring should be ? based on consensus and cooperation amongst neighboring schools, and monitoring by local governing bodies should represent parents and community (Mukundan &Bray, 2004).

Clearly connect educational quality with reforms in educational management. Implementers must clearly connect each new reform with its results or outcomes for on educational quality. Improved service delivery and more efficient use of resources are key goals in decentralization; they must be seen as connected elements in a package of management and other education reforms.

Clarify the role of actors at the community/local level. For the community to be thoroughly involved and mobilized by strengthening its local structures will require an extensive program of mobilization, advocacy, and training, to inform community members about their new roles and power. The extent that decentralization shifts decision making to the community may encourage or stifle education reform. However, communities are often conservative, and even-well intentioned changes to instructional materials, teaching methods, or tests can arouse considerable opposition. Parents may be unwilling to risk their children’s future on new ideas about what students should study, how teachers should teach, or how learning should be measured. Parents and teachers, especially those who do well under the present system, may perceive change as threatening the balance of advantage (Adams and Chapman, 2002). Thus any decentralization effort should build in plans and activities to win over resisters and initiate ”cultural change,”

Planners often assume that communities are ready to take on more responsibilities. Even where people are quite politically aware, or where social organization has already prepared people to participate in service provision, it is a mistake to assume that they will rise to the challenge without specific preparation. When communities do agree to become involved, they often focus on familiar activities such as maintenance or school meals, and it takes time and effort before they can participate more actively on issues such as quality and school policy. Parents may resist deviating from traditional patterns of school-community relations, thus perpetuating the status quo where professional educators continue to wield authority.

Recognize the importance of social capital: As social capital is embedded within local power structures and values, the changes it evokes stem from values rooted in the local culture; that tradition also defines its frontiers. Evidence suggests that different groups in the community represent different kinds of social capital. Even poor farm laborers can help reinforce links between the landowner and the school to fulfill the community's

45

educational needs. In turn, the local power structures can foster alliances with the education authorities and promote the work of the school. Influential members of the school council, such as local politicians and NGO representatives, may facilitate institutional cooperation between the school council and governing bodies at sub-district and union levels through local development initiatives. Female council members can generate and activate social networks in ways their male counterparts could not begin to do. For example in communities in rural Pakistan where women must generally remain within their homes, they can create spaces to negotiate with male members of the household, getting them to solve the schools’ problems by tapping into their social networks and contacting “friends in higher places” (Khan, 2005; Woolcock, 2000).

Develop transparency in delivery of resources and decision-making. Decentralization may lead communities to press schools and system managers to be more transparent and accountable. But these administrators may have limited experience in understanding what this means or in knowing how to comply. Thus, plans for capacity building must go beyond technical training and include the development of personal accountability.

Develop plans to collect and share data. As decentralization deepens, data are needed by a wider category of users: local school administrators, local government officials, NGOs, publishers of education materials and textbooks, etc. But such diverse communities use and share information differently than trained management information staff in central education ministries. This makes it imperative for countries to develop an Education Management Information Systems (EMIS). Such a system could provide faster access to information, support decentralized information processing and access, and make it easier to use and disseminate information. Then the current non-participants can participate more actively in the flow of information.

Based on the points mentioned above, some perquisite conditions to meet the challenges of implementation are summed up below to serve as a checklist for your planning.

Checklist of Preconditions to Meet the Challenges Gain commitments from national, regional, municipal and local leaders. Clearly delegate those roles and responsibilities that can be most efficiently and effectively

delivered either by the center or by smaller decentralized government units and/or the private sector. Explicitly define the extent of accountability of each stakeholder/tier.

Develop an implementation strategy and time table. Develop clear operational manuals and procedures. Continuously train people in the skill sets required at each level. Relevant performance indicators to be Set up Education Management Information System procedures through which policy makers or

senior officials may regularly monitor Ensure an adequate supply of human and material resources to sustain the process

Source: Bray, 2003

UNESCO’S ROLE IN EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION Working in cooperation with the Dakar Framework for Action, UNESCO can facilitate processes that enable communities to participate in planning, managing, and delivering quality education, formal and non-formal, for all children and adults. UNESCO can focus on several areas: reviewing and reforming policy, strengthening capacity, and using research to inform educational policy and networking. UNESCO can assist in many specific ways. Offices or individual consultants can:

46

provide technical assistance in educational decentralization policy, and ensure that national EFA/MDG plans integrate issues of administrative, financial and political devolution;

help design a framework for capacity building to bolster the implementation of educational devolution;

strengthen monitoring and evaluation of the process, including developing performance indicators;

help central governments study the finance and costs of decentralized responsibilities to ensure social and gender equity;

show civil society organizations how to play an active role as technical intermediaries in educational decentralization reforms;

support participatory citizen tracking of decentralization at the local levels and at service delivery sites (using citizen’s report cards, expenditure tracking, etc.);

help partner countries share lessons and experiences in specific thematic areas of focus; document and study education governance and management within decentralized

systems; and ensure that national EFA plans are sensitive to issues of cultural and linguistic diversity.

The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) can assist in two primary ways: conduct field research on the implementation of decentralization and offer various training programs to build the capacities of staff at all levels.

UNESCO has played a lead in many specific activities at the request of member states: It conducted a series of case studies based on empirical evidence describing community

participation in educational governance to learn lessons from experience. It developed a Tool Kit on Educational Decentralization and Community Participation In

Governance that highlights challenges and potential solutions based on practices of member countries.

It has consulted at regional and national levels to strengthen strategies to support effective decentralization and/or its variations and to facilitate networking.

CONCLUSION

It is an overstatement that shifts in the locus of control do not affect life in the classroom. Reforms have led to school councils making decisions on pedagogy and curriculum, personnel issues or access to education by different groups (Bray, 2003. p. 224; Khan, 2005). However, little evidence suggests that education decentralization has led to better quality education, improved governance, or greater efficiency in resource allocation or service delivery. This is not unexpected given the great challenges involved in improving educational quality while maintaining the integrity of the national education system and ensuring equity—much greater challenges than merely administering the expansion of enrollments (Adams and Chapman, 2002). The challenge is greater still in many countries because most education decentralization policies as initially conceived hardly touched key management issues relating to the organization of instruction, planning of programs, course content, financial management of funds, and personnel management.

This situation is changing as the focus shifts to efficient management at all levels of the education system to support quality improvement. Despite the on-going challenges, countries have established a variety of mechanisms to ensure more community participation in the governance and management of schools. They form a base for strengthening community involvement and perhaps, represent a key means to address the problems of relevance, equity and quality.

Decentralization can, and is, making a difference: improving the management of education, and of teaching and learning. Successes include better financial management, community participation in schools, and increasing local administrative capability. Most importantly, the current wave of education

47

decentralization and management reforms has stimulated discussion and led people to recognize the need to focus more directly on changes that impact learning and teaching. However, governance and management reforms alone cannot be expected to improve quality. They must be part of a comprehensive package that includes resources for essential inputs, and support for effective instruction. A mix of political will (policy makers working together with stakeholders), technical inputs (competent policies and personnel in education) and economic factors (adequate resources) is essential. At the same time, implementers must develop a congruency between “bottom-up” and “top-down” principles, emphasizing expertise, rights, and the power of local communities while also considering local contexts and constraints. As with any policy option, education decentralization policies present trade offs; and some of them may work better than others in some contexts and at particular education levels. Policymakers and practitioners must remain committed to reviewing and improving existing policies and practices.

48

References (to be updated)

Abu-Duhou, Ibtisam (1999). School based management. Paris: IIEP/UNECO.

Academy of Educational Planning and Management in collaboration with EFA Wing, MOE and UNESCO Primary Education Section. Basic Education Division Seminar on Capacity Building to Enable Implementation of Educational Devolution Reforms at Local Levels January 29-30, 2003 At AEPAM, Islamabad.

ADEA (2002). The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa – Theme2: Case Studies. Paris: ADEA.

Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) (1999). Prospective, Stocktaking Review of Education in Africa: Synthesis Document for the 1999 Biennial Meeting. http://www.adeanet.org/programs/biennial99/en_synthesis.pdf

Arnove, Robert (1997). Neoliberal Education Policies in Latin America: Arguments in Favor and Against. In Carlos Alberto Torres (ed.) Education in Latin America: Comparative Perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bjork, Christopher (2003). Local Responses to Decentralization Policy in Indonesia. Comparative Education Review, 47(2). Pp. 184-216.

Bray, Mark (1999) Community Partnerships in Education: Dimensions, Variations and Implications EFA Thematic Study. Paris: UNESCO.

Bray, Mark (2003). Control of Education: Issues and Tensions in Centralization and Decentralization. In R. Arnove and C.A. Alberto. Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local, second edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 204-228.

Chapman, David (2002). Management and Efficiency in Education: Goals and Strategies. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Chapman, David and Don Adams (2002): The Quality of Education: Dimensions and Strategies. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Cheema, G. Shabbir and Dennis Rondinelli (eds.) (1983). Decentralization and Development: Policy Implementation in Developing Countries. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Cue´llar-Marchelli, Helga (2003). Decentralization and privatization of education in El Salvador: Assessing the experience. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, Pp. 145–166.

de Umanzor Sandra, Soriano Isis, Vega Marta Rosa, Jimenez Emmanuel, Rawlings Laura, and Diane Steele ( July 1997). El Salvador’s EDUCO Program: A First Report On Parents’ Participation in School-Based Management Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms, Paper No. 4. Development Economics Research Group, The World Bank

Department of Education (1998)a. National Norms and Standards for School Funding. Government Gazette Notice No. 19347 of 1998. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Easton, Peter (Coordinator) (March 1998). Decentralization, Self-Governance, and Local Capacity Building in the SAHEL: Results of the PADLOS-Education Study -Research conducted under the joint aegis of the Club du Sahel/OECD and the CILSS. English translation by Sarah Gushee.

R. Govinda and S. Shaeffer. Innovations in School Based Management: New York: UNICEF/UNESCO 1997.

49

Karen Edge (August 2000]) Decentralization and School Based management Resource Kit. Prepared for Education Reform & Management Thematic Group, HDNED, World Bank.  http://www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/06.GovernaceReform/governance_ref.htm

Education Forum (2000). Newsletter of the World Education Fotum in Dakar –26-28 April 2000. http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/wef_2000/daily_conf_news/pag_4e_3.pdf

EFA (Education for All) Bulletin No. 38, Education for All in Africa. http://www.africaaction.org/docs00/ed0004a.htm

Fiske, E. (2000). Rationing Compassion. The American Prospect, 11 (13) May 22, 2000. Pp. 28. http://www.propsect.org/archives/v11-13/fiske-e.html

Fiske, Edward B. (1996). Decentralization of Education: Politics and Consensus. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Fuller, Bruce and Magdalena Rivarola (1998). Nicaragua’s Experiment to Decentralize Schools: Views of Parents, Teachers, and Directors, Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms, Paper No. 5. Washington DC, The Word Bank.

Hanson, Mark (2000). Educational Decentralization Around the Pacific Rim. http://www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/pdf/Hanson%20Editorial.pdf

Hanson, Mark. Best (and Worst) Practices in Educational Decentralization: The Cases of Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina and Spain. World Bank Seminar on Education Decentralization Paper No. 6/8. June 2/1995.

Horrocks, Liz and Leigh Burrows, (2002) An innovative approach to personalised planning and self-determination for students with special needs. Paper for the Second International Forum on Educational Reform: Key factors in Effective Implementation, Ambassador Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand 2-5 September, 2002).

http://www.worldedreform.com/intercon2/liz3_6.htm

Jimenez, Emmanuel, Lockheed, Marlaine E. and Vicente Paqueo (July 1991). The Relative Efficiency of Private and Public Schools in Developing Countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 6, (2), Pp. 205-218.

Jiminez, Emmanuel and Sawada, Yasayuki (1999) ‘ Do Community Managed Schools Work? An Evaluation of El Salvador’s EDUCO program. The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 13 (3), pp. 415- 412.

Ka-Ho, Mok (2003). Centralization and Decentralization: Educational Reforms and Changing Governance in Chinese Societies. Studies in Comparative Education 13. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Comparative Education Research Center.

Khan, Faryal (2002). Community Participation in School Management Councils in Developing Countries: Who participates and how? Analysis of 33 studies in 20 countries. Qualifying Paper submitted in fulfillment of ED.D requirements at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Cambridge, MA:

Khan, Faryal (2005). Who Participates in School Councils and How? A Case Study of Elementary Schools in Sargodha District, Punjab, Pakistan: Mirroring and Change: Bristling side by side. Doctoral thesis submitted to the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.

Kim Jooseop, Alderman Harold, Peter Orazem (May 1998). Can Cultural Barriers be Overcome in Girls' Schooling? The Community Support Program in Rural Balochistan. Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms, Paper No. 10. Washington DC: Development Research Group, The World Bank.

50

King Elizabeth, Rawlings Laura, Gutierrez Marybell, Pardo Carlos, and Carlos Torres (September 1997). Colombia’s Targeted Education Voucher Program: Features, Coverage, and Participation - Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms, Paper No. 3. Washington DC: Development Economics Research Group, The World Bank.

Lang, Grace (August 2000). School-Based Budgeting: Q& A for the web/knowledge nugget Prepared for the Educational Advisory Service. Reproduced here for the Decentralization & School-Based Management Resource Kit. Coordinated by Karen Edge, Education Reform and Management Group, HDNED, World Bank.

http://www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/06.GovernaceReform/06.03.ssbq&a/q&asbb.html#1

Mansuri, G. & V. Rao. (2004). Community-based and driven development: A critical Review. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

McGinn, Noel F. (2001) International and national trends in local governance of education Paris: UNESCO Basic Education Division/IICBA.

McLean, Keith and Elizabeth King (1999). Decentralization of the Education Sector. In Litvack, Jennie, and Jessica Seddon (eds.) Decentralization Briefing Notes. World Bank Institute Working Papers. Washington, DC: The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/urban/cds/mf/decent_briefing.html

Maclean, Martin and Jon Lauglo(1985). Introduction: Rationales for Decentralization and a Perspective from Organization Theory. In Jon Lauglo and Martin Maclean (eds.) The control of education: international perspectives on the centralization-decentralization debate. London: Heineman Educational Books.

Miller-Grandvaux, Y. and K. Yoder (2002). Literature Review of Community schools in sub-Saharan Africa. USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) / Development Experience System (DEXS). http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC9808.htm

Moulton, Jeanne (2003). Improving the quality of education: What the World Bank has learnt? (Draft). Paper for Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Project, The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA.

Mukundan, Mullikottu-Veettil and Mark Bray (2004). The Decentralization of Education in Kerala State, India: Rhetoric and Reality. International Review of Education, 50. Pp. 223-243.

Naidoo, Jordan and Peggy Kong (2003). Improving Education Management Systems in the Context of Decentralization in Africa - Background Paper For ADEA Study: The Challenge of Learning – Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Narayan, D. (Ed.), (2005). Measuring Empowerment: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives Measuring Empowerment: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Niane, Boubacar (2003). Improving Education Management Systems in Africa: Analytical Elements Concerning the French Speaking Countries – Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Senegal. Background Paper for the ADEA Study: Background Paper For ADEA Study: The Challenge of Learning – Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Nordtveit, Bjorn Harald (June 19, 2003) Partnership Through outsourcing: The Case of Non-formal Literacy Education in Senegal. A study prepared for The World Bank. (Draft)

O’Rourke, Maris (June 16, 1999). Evaluating the Development Impact of Education Projects: Introduction. The World Bank

http://www.worldbank.org/education/economicsed/tools/training/eval/intro.html

51

Paqueo Vic & Jill Lammert (August 2000). Decentralization in Education. Reproduced here as part of the Decentralization & School-Based Management Resource Kit. Coordinated by Karen Edge, Education Reform & Management Thematic Group, HDNED, World Bank.http://www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/pdf/DQ&A(ext).pdf

Prawda, Juan (1993). Educational decentralization in Latin America: Lessons learned. International Journal of Educational Development, 13 (3).

Roberts-Schweitzer Eluned, Markov Andrei, and Alexander Tretyakov (2002).Achieving Education For All Goals School Grant Schemes.

Rondinelli, D. (1981). Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 47: 133-145.

Rondinelli, Dennis A. (1999). What Is Decentralization? In Jennie Litvack and Jessica Seddon (eds.) Decentralization Briefing Notes. World Bank Institute Working Papers. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Rugh, Andrea and Bossert, Heather. (1998) Involving Communities: Participation in the Delivery of Education Programs. Washington D.C.: Creative Associates International.

Shaeffer, S. (1992). Collaborating for educational change: The role of teachers, parents and the community in school improvement. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Support for Research and Analysis in Africa (SARA) (1997). Education Decentralization in Africa: As viewed through the literature and USAID Projects. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.

Thomas, C. Does Community Participation Make a Difference ? Girls Schooling Outcomes and Community Participation in Baluchistan. Dissertation submitted to Stanford University. 1996.

UNESCO (2004) IIEP Newsletter Vol. XXII. No.4, Oct-Dec 2004

UNESCO (2003) Guidelines: Developing a framework to assess progress in the implementation of educational devolution reforms for a suggested framework.

UNESCO (2002). Educational Governance at Local Levels: Towards Achieving Education for All –International Consultation on Educational Governance at Local Levels, 27-28 February 2001, UNESCO, Paris. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2002a). EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2002: Is the World on Track?http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/index.shtml

UNESCO (2002b). Fast Track Initiative.http://portal.unesco.org/education/ev.php?URL_ID=14056&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201

Vengroff, Richard (2000). Decentralization, Democratization and Development in Senegal Paper prepared for delivery at the Yale Colloquium on Decentralization and Development January 21, 2000. http://www.yale.edu/ycias/events/decentralization/papers/vengroff.pdf

Watt, Patrick (2001). Community Support for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa Region Human Development Working Paper Series. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Welsh, Thomas and Noel McGinn (1998). Decentralization of Education: What and how? Paris: IIEP.

Whitty, Geoff and Sally Power (2000). Marketization and privatization in mass education systems. International Journal of Educational Development, 20.Pp. 93–107.

52

Winkler, Donald R. and Alec Ian Gershberg (February 15, 2003) Education Decentralization in Africa: A Review of Recent Policy and Practice. Draft (used by permission of the author).

Wohlstetter, Priscilla and Susan Albers Mohrman (October 1996). Assessment of School-Based Management. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/SchBasedMgmt/index.html (downloaded 4/2/2002)

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward atheoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27(2): 151–208.

Woolcock, M. (2000) Friends in High Places? An Overview of Social Capital. ID21, September 2000 Insights Issue #34 DIFD, UK.

Woolcock, M. & Deepa, N. (2000). Social capital: Implications fordevelopment theory, research and policy. World Bank Research Observer15(2): 225–49.

World Bank/Hamilton, D. (2002). Tanzania-Primary Education Development - Report No. PID10068. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/03/20/000094946_01031706010771/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

World Bank Guinea EFA Case Study: Gender Equity in the EFA Contexthttp://www1.worldbank.org/education/pdf/efa.case.pdf

PRESENTATION

Dr. Faryal khan

2 ) Noor Mohammad Khan, (CEO, Jirga Program)

E-Governance; New Vehicle, Old Road, How Fast Can It Run?

ICEG 2005Lahore University of Management Sciences

e-Governance; New Vehicle, Old Road, How Fast Can it Run?Lessons from the eJirga Program from Inception to Incubation

Noor Mohammed Khan, CEO, eJirga Program. H.No A/32, Sheikhmaltoon Town. MardanNWFP, Pakistan

Email; info@eJirga.com, mohammed_noor@hotmail.com

Abstract; Information and communications technology has revolutionized the value chains in the business sector. Government policy makers around the world are convinced of its utility and are expecting productivity in service delivery to citizens from the government. This paper examines the challenges of e-Goverment interventions deployment in Pakistan. eJirga Program was initiated as a response to the widening digital divide between rural and urban Pakistan. eJirga envisages to play a productive role in improving deteriorating service delivery in key public services and plans to use of ICT for productivity improvement. The case study examines the lessons eJirga Program has learnt through its inception and piloting of ideas in attempted interventions.

The paper is divided into three sections. The first section reflects dynamics of information management for policy & planning process at the provincial level. The arguments presented are a reflection of personal experiences during support to provincial government during the structural adjustment program in the province of NWFP, Pakistan. The section offers insight on information management in the government and common values attached to information access, distribution, and evaluation / monitoring.

53

Second section of the papers, reflects on the dynamics of a multiple stakeholder scenario. The value chain of development is incomplete without participation of civil society institutions, government service delivery organizations, donor agencies and private sector. An assessment study was conducted in District Kohat around information gaps between development stakeholders and its implications. A design framework for district development information system was discussed around realized needs. The paper reflects on the challenges of creating an e-Governance System that can meet the coordination needs of multiple stakeholders.

The third section, reflects on the lessons learnt through incubation of the eJirga School Net pilot projects in government schools. The aim of the project was to test the central hypothesis around the utility of computer assisted learning and improvement of quality and productivity in schools. The paper reflects on the views of various stakeholders involved in the exercise.

The paper reflects the learning from eJirga Program through answering a set of generic questions;

Do we have an adequate incentive structure in place for public sector innovations? Are public institutions ready to trust the private sector in a Public Private Partnership

framework? Are the institutional structures and systems adequate for supporting innovative work in the

public domain? Is resource allocation adequate in terms of public sector IT projects? Are procurement standards pro-quality or pro-quantity in the public sector for ICT projects? Does Government institutions have adequate domain expertise in project management,

costing and evaluation to create sustainable models of e-Government projects. Which lens are we using for ICT projects in the government; Technical or Social?

Paper:

Introduction

eGovernance is the new hope for countries like Pakistan, where the service delivery to citizen needs substantial improvement. The potential productivity offered by new technology is being seen with zeal and high expectations. The objective of this paper is provide a reality check for the potential of eGovernance in the Pakistan, with deduction of lessons learnt through the inception and incubation of the eJirga Program. These lessons are drawn from instances of events in which problem encountered reflects the factors that can support or undermine the implementation of eGovernance Projects in Pakistan. Some of these factors are in the soft area and are at time intangible.

“ICTs are often conceived in terms of machinery and engineering, rationality and objectivity. Many e-governance systems get designed according to these conceptions. The trouble is that many government and civil society organizations do not adhere to these 'hard' ideas. In reality, they are dominated by 'soft' factors: people, politics, emotions and culture. When a hard IT design meets a soft reality, there is a large gap, and a strong likelihood of failure.” Richard Heeks, 2001.The evidence presented here can be termed as circumstantial and qualitative in nature, and does not have quantitative data to support the conclusions drawn. Critics can argue that the paper promotes a self fulfilling prophesy to justify the creation of the program itself. It is being assumed here that Pakistani government organizations being similar in structure and systems will have a high degree of similarity in problems and the paper may find itself more usefulness by stating the cross institutional challenges and pitfalls for eGovernance in Pakistan.

There are a large number of successful eGovernance Projects in Pakistan. At times these seem like islands of excellence with little or no influence outside there borders. If the wider masses have to benefit from the productivity of the eGovernment Interventions, than we need to improve our understanding about the potential and pitfalls in our institutional environment. There is a need for systemic change in the form and content of service delivery to citizens in Pakistan. This will require a holistic approach and a better understanding of the socio economic environment in which change has to be brought about. The paper summarizes the lesson learnt which cuts across all these levels to provide the sense of impact on one layer over the other. The paper is divided into three sections which reflect the state of challenges in the three different layers of governance. The first section looks at the policy

54

and planning level institutions in the provincial government level. The second level, discusses the challenges of coordination and development implementation at the district government level which now has taken a central role for social sector service delivery in the post devolution scenario. The third level of our lessons is drawn from grass root implementation of the eJirga School Net pilot program. This incubation helped create a proof of concept for the potential productivity in the use of information technology for improving service delivery in primary education.

Section I:

Government Policy and Planning Level; This section of the paper reflects on the lesson learnt from personal experience during my role in 2001 to support the office of Provincial Minister for Finance, Planning and Local Governments on a 270$ Million dollar structural adjustment credit from the World Bank. It was the first time in the history of Pakistan, where the Bank was directly lending to the provincial government and much home work had to be done by the provincial policy makers in setting out strategic goals for different social development sectors. My role was to assist the policy making process with more informed decisions and was faced with the challenge of collecting and structuring information for rational decision making. This section reflects the learning from the experience, and instances of engagement with government institutions on different assignments.

Under the devolution of power to districts in Pakistan sixteen departments were devolved. Works & Services, Tehsil Municipal Administration and Public health were departments with similar roles. Immediately after the new institutions took charge the quality of services deteriorated as each department started finger pointing to the other two. The Governor NWFP had appointed a committee to resolve the service delivery crisis. I was requested to look at the options of institutional design and study various processes and systems. It was important to study the various studies conducted in the past on these institutions and create a service delivery design. After repeated request, for Information I was informed that there was not depositary were such studies had been stored over a period of time. As I investigated further, there was a very weak system for knowledge management in the government departments. As I visited the Planning & Development Departmental library, piles of reports lay unorganized in shelves making it virtually impossible for assessing any study done in the past. Millions of rupees had been spent on such reports while very few of these found there way to be effectively utilized for policy and planning process. Knowledge created usually passed away with officers transferred between different roles leaving very little institutional memory behind. How effective can be public policy in absence of Knowledge Management with in the Government domain.

Another assignment took me to the Roads Maintenance Unit, (RMU) which was a sub department of Works & Services Department. The department had been closed down as part of the fat cutting exercise. The RMU was a high tech intervention which used computerized equipment for monitoring the conditions of road. This data then helped the department in assessing the cost and maintenance schedule. The RMU software system made the annual development program more accurate and efficient. The project had been built with assistance from the Asian Development Bank. The RMU project had costed in millions and one of the key out-put was a software databases. As I enquired about the data, it was reveled to me that the computer operator was the over all in-charge and he was hired on a contract basis. The computer operator was called in for getting back-up of the data that the project had generated. The event raised a number of questions in my mind. What is the future of eGovernance in an institutional environment were value of information in non tangible and poorly comprehended.

Due to my specific interest in the eGovernance area, I was assigned to assist the provincial eGovernance Strategy. There was a wider realization for the need of more IT literate clerical staff as computers at time remained unutilized in departments due to lack of qualified staff. The P&D department housed a computer lab which had lied un utilized for a long time. I suggested to the minister for the lab to be utilized after office hours. The minister issued instructions to the administration for using the lab to support the desired objective. It was however observed that the administration came back with a huge list of obstacles to the running of the lab. These included different rules of business, risk of security and the validity of the idea. Even after repeated reminders, the desired operations could not be started. Does this instance reflect the lack of incentive structure for initiatives and public sector innovation. Further more how adequate are our institutional systems geared to support entrepreneurship and utilization of public assets.

55

“Old programs may be inadequate, but their familiarity insulates them from much media attention. Even when they do attract scrutiny, responsible officials can plausibly defend themselves with the argument that they have simply been following standard practice. When new initiatives fail, however and inevitably a large percentage do they become highly newsworthy, and the focus is typically: who is to blame? In such cases, the .standard practice defense is unavailable.” Alan A. Altshuler, 1997

It was a common complaint by citizens that new development projects laid unutilized long after completion and at times deteriorate due to non usage. This reflected disconnect between the execution of the current and development budget systems. The database on the current budget was maintained in the Finance Department, while the development budget and execution database was managed by the Planning and Development department. These databases were not related by design and operated in separate rooms over a physical space of hundred meters with in the provincial civil secretariat. As development project were completed by execution departments they were not reflect in the current budget database as result of which salaries were not released for the assigned staff in these projects. This was one systemic problem which resulted in service delivery delays to citizens.

As I investigated further, it was a chronic problem as all relevant government departments had some type of MIS operational but it was not integrated into a broader relational structure. Most of these organizations, formed part of value chain in service delivery and resulted in high operational inefficiency in cross institutional environment. Does this reflects the need for Standards in eGovernance Projects and if so who should establish and implement such standards?

Section II

Development execution at the District Level: In 2002 my association with the Rural Support Programs brought me closer to understanding of challenges faced by communities at the grass root. In the post devolution scenario the district governments now had access to 60% of federal transfers for development and sixteen departments of key social sector service delivery making it the most important player in development planning and execution.

Rural support programs are civil society support organizations which work in close partnership with communities and local governments for poverty reduction. As I visited grass root communities, is became obvious that even very fundamental information does not finds it way down, which has high implications for the poor and vulnerable segments of the society.

Figure1; Design Framework for District Development Information System.

RSP’s conduct rapid rural poverty appraisal, through a dialogue with the rural communities and identify development needs and opportunities. The Chairman of Rural Support Program was of the opinion that such information can be of high value to the local governments which can help them in creating development plans that can meet the real needs of the people. It was mutually agreed that a multi-stake holder needs assessment study will help create the design of a District Development Information System (DDIS). This assignment was undertaken in District Kohat where Lachi Poverty Reduction Program (UNDP/SAPAP) was operational and was implemented by the Sarhad Rural

56

Support Program. The objective of this exercise was to look into improving knowledge management for development and reduce information gaps between the local government, grass root communities, and donor assisted civil society institutions. The diagram above reflects the design framework for the District Development Information System.

As a step in this direction, a number of meetings had to be arranged with different stakeholders. The exercise helped establish the priority and overlap of information needs between these stakeholders. In order to demonstrate an integrated model of development, information was structured around service delivery points mapped out on a Geographical Information System (GIS). 7GIS-based poverty and food insecurity analysis allows the integration of information on people’s wellbeing with other relevant indicators. The resulting insights into the geographic dimensions of poverty advance our understanding of cause-effect relationships. This, in turn, will inform the development of policies aimed at poverty reduction.

“Governments quite often failed due to their top-down approach and their inability to consult the citizen, let alone the poor. To remedy this, establishing forums for civil society/state dialogue for monitoring and enhancing the accountability of public services is highly recommended by scholars” (Goetz, 2001a ; Paul, 2002).

Accountability can only be funtional if citizens have access to information on the funtions and policies of the state. Without an informaiton system that addresses this need the expectation of local governments being efficient and responsive will be a utopian idea.

Data from the government EMIS was overlapped with poverty profiling of the LPRP in an attempt to draw a better understanding between education and poverty reduction interventions. Following are some lessons learnt during the needs assessment stage.

It was observed that donor assisted project had much better systems of knowledge management and a prudent system of budget control. However much of this is developed around the reporting needs of donor organizations and not for adding to local knowledge pool in the target area of operations. The government on the other had very little or no system of knowledge management. It was learnt through the needs assessment seminar that the Kohat city sewerage maps were not available which meant high cost of public health as a result of inefficient maintenance.

How can sustainable developments objectives are to be achieved when information sharing systems do not exists between key stakeholders due to competing agendas of donors and local governments.

“Despite the importance of technological and skill infrastructures, it is the politics of eGovernance initiatives that probably hold the key. eGovernance projects have made slow progress in many countries because they do not serve the political self-interests of the major stakeholders, particular senior public officials.” Richard Heeks, 2001.

It was observed by the local government officials that eGovernance interventions like the EMIS offers very little value to decision making process. It was seen as more or less a tool used by the provincial government to monitor education department at the district level. Like in one instance the posting and transfers of teachers outside their residential union councils caused instances of absenteeism and had a negative effect on the performance of education delivery. During the needs assessment seminar the District Nazim argued for the need of teachers transfer to be arranged across the district to schools near their residents. The EMIS however had the required information but no Decision Support System through which the desired objective could be achieved.

7 Synthesis report on the international workshop on poverty mapping, october 14 – 16, 1998, Anderal Norwary

57

Figure 2; Poverty Mapping for Identifying Destitute in Project Area of LPRPThe dialogue with women councilors revealed that women were the most effected due to lack of access to information and limitation on mobility. A group of young females informed me that they could not continue their private education as they could not find easy access to examination forms and exam schedule.

The sample demonstration on GIS helped us better understand the importance and need for eGovernance tools to achieve sustainable government. The sample maps reflected a skewed investment of infrastructure investment in primary schools leaving the middle

Figure 3; Students Enrolment in Schools, 2001; Source; Bureau of Statistics, Government of NWFP

schools under developed. This has resulted in system squeeze out of students from the public schooling system in the vertical value chain. Figure 3 shows the status of enrolment in the Province of NWFP. The effective utilization of GIS tool in infrastructure planning could have reduced this problem to some degree. Tools such as Geographic Information System can help develop effective targeting of poverty and most vulnerable in the society. Poverty gap ratio is the ratio between resources transfers to poor created per unit dollar spent through development interventions. Such eGovernance interventions will help improve the poverty gap ratio of our development efforts. This experience confirmed that lower adoption of eGovernance in development, will mean a higher cost of development and lower impact on poverty in Pakistan.

Figure 2 shows a poverty map with high incidence of poverty in one settlement.

Section III

Grass root level service delivery: In late 2003 as a freelance consultant, I had an opportunity to study the ongoing education sector reforms program in the country. This helped me develop an appreciation for the problems of service delivery in this sector. “The impact of educational level on economic development is more pronounced during recent years, with the influence of the information era and the global markets. Nevertheless, educational organization and practice has changed very little in two-hundred years.” Oswin, 1998.

Back home, I associated myself with the National Commission for Human Development (NCHD) as a professional volunteer for the education sector and started paying regular visits to the government

58

schools. NCHD was working in the area of Universal Primary Enrolment and supported the local government in increasing enrolment in the schools. It was evident that although the enrolment in schools had multiplied the immediate resources remained almost the same resulting in further deterioration of education quality. I expressed my reservation to the In-charge General Manager that although the district showed higher enrolment rates but this was being achieved at an intangible cost of quality. I argued further that poor quality education is a negative resource transfer and will only worsen the poverty profile in the country.

My critique of the situation was responded by a challenge from the General Manager as he asked me to suggest an intervention which could offer hope with in the prevailing constraints. Challenged by the argument, I embarked on my research and found that South Africa was once confronted with crisis of education quality soon after the Apartheid regime came to an end. As Nelson Mandella came into power there was a surge in expectation from the new government to improve the quality of education in black schools which suffered from neglect during the Apartheid regime. After an initial strategy for the integration of ICT in education the School Net South Africa program was launched which, demonstrated successful results.

The idea was shared with the NCHD team in Mardan and it was requested that if it can facilitate a meeting with grass root communities and education department for debating the issues around quality of education and the potential of using computer assisted learning. The objective of this meeting was to find more about the perceptions of grass root communities around the need for education quality. A public meeting (Jirga) was arranged in Habib Dad Banda, Union Council Katlang II in which community members, local government political leaders, and teachers participated. All stage holders agreed with the severity of the problem but saw no hope of change forth coming from the government or with in the rural society. The idea of computer assisted learning was shared with the audience which was hailed by all. The role and responsibility of the the community was spelt out for the computer assisted learning program initiation in the school. The school did not have electricity and thus the program could go ahead only if the community would arrange electricity and ensure the security of the hardware. This was agreed instantly by the member of the meeting. Teachers raised the issue of training for enabling teachers to use computers in the class room. The teachers were informed that such training would require additional investment from the program and could only be undertaken if the teachers would do it in their own time and shall not demand travel and daily allowance (TADA). After a weeks time my conviction for the need of the program was strengthened when members of the School Jirga visited the NCHD office demanding the immediate start of the program. In spring vacations of 2004 the teachers training commenced. The teachers developed a Pushto language script from their newly acquired understanding about the computer hardware. The script was converted into voice recorded clips and combined with pictures to create small multimedia software that could be used for teaching kids the fundamentals of computer hardware and its role in their future. The software was given a pilot run in three government primary schools which showed high motivation of teachers and children for ICT enabled learning. The woman club of Mardan donated two more computers to schools which helped establish two full-time eJirga School Net projects in which additional curriculum based software content was tested for assessing learning productivity. Following are some lessons learnt during the implementation of the pilot program.

As the program was tested in different schools it was observed that the program showed grim results where the principals of the schools were not supportive. This raised the issue of program ownership at all levels in the education sector. This means that the program should be seen as a solution to a problem, which is recognized by the government and is willing to adopt out of box solutions. Are we suggesting a shift from the “Sub Acha” (All is well) culture, and if so what should be the right approach. There is very little political conviction within government ranks to acknowledge service delivery problems and no one is looking for pragmatic solutions.

Government schools are built on land donated by the rural elites in return for which they get a class four appointment. After a few weeks of program running as I visited the pilot school in Union Council Katlang, I was surprised that the program computer was missing from the school. On inquiry it occurred to me that the computer had been taken away by the land donating land lord to his “Hugra” (Resthouse) and only his children were being trained through the software. As I collected the computer from his Hugra it was made clear to him that it is a private property and did not belong to the Government. This helped me realize the expectation of rural masses from the government institutions and poor writ of the state administration. The poorly conceived policies in education sector had

59

undermined the autonomy of fundamental institutions like schools in the rural economy. Could the use of Public Private Partnership in service delivery in a weak regulatory environment offer hope or worsen the situation further.

The teachers showed high interest in the activities of the program. It gave them an opportunity to express their creativity. The provision for localized content offered more interest and ownership in teachers. Teacher offered high value input on methodology and ideas on content design. This reflects high potential in ordinary government teachers and the need for giving them an enabling environment to contribute meaning fully. Some teachers also saw the program as a threat to the future of the teacher in the class and refused to learn as there is no government policy associated which encourage learning of IT skills. The program over a period of time had created a pool of volunteers who started seeing the value of potential contributions to the education sector. These volunteers assisted the program in there own capacity.

The program was further improved to integrate it with topics from the government curriculum. The program delivery was converted into a multimedia portal which minimized the technical skill required for new teachers to access lessons on the computer.

The program was evaluated by all stakeholders through a participatory approach and following points are worth mentioning as raised by evaluating stakeholders;

The ICT enabled learning can spark interest in children towards learning. Computer animation creates interest in students and extends the attention span of a child.

Children had started attending school with more interest and were asking teachers about the next learning class on computer.

Teachers argued that the program will have potential externalities for increasing enrolment in schools and reducing drop outs. It was argued that increase in computer assisted learning will lead towards improved performance in school results.

Teachers were excited about the program, as it made their task much easier. Now the teachers played a role of class facilitator then the source of knowledge provider. Teachers also felt a sense of modernity.

Community participation and interest in schools had increased where computer programs were run. This demonstrates that access to education can be substantially improved through improvement in quality.

Officials from the education department expressed there reservations on the scalability of the project with out support from the private sector and therefore suggested a public private partnership model.

The program is envisaged as a public private partnership and a number of contacts were initiated. The experience from the initial hypothesis testing was shared with donors, civil society organizations and the provincial government.

60

Conclusions

This case study presents some instance of experience which can help us draw some broad conclusion on the potential and pitfalls for eGovernance in Pakistan.

It can be safely assumed that information and communication technology can play a very important role in the improvement of government process at all levels. However, any eGovernment intervention planned should have factor considered for its horizontal and vertical integration across levels.

In order to promote home grown IT solutions in the public sector, a more elaborate incentive structure for public sector innovation needs to be in place.

It is recommended that Citizen Voice be given is due consideration in the design and development of services. This many involve closer collaboration of the government with civil society institutions and private sector. Let these voices be the criteria for the success of eGovernment Interventions.

In order to mobilize in house creativity of the public sector, more autonomy is required for institutions to re-engineer their processes. This may require legislation of performance act and provision for incubation of new ideas on a pilot basis. This would create the incentive for re-engineering of processes and implementation of ICT interventions.

The government should actively engage with the private sector for public private partnerships. In order to create a stronger working relationship with the private sector there needs to be a set of policy guidelines for establishing a working partnership between state agencies and private companies.

The government procurement rules do not take into account the total cost of ownership model. Price centered procurement at times lead to high cost of systems maintenance and deployment. The government needs to create new standards for procurement focused towards quality. Further more resource allocation to project must cover implementation time lines as at times the budgets are squeezed towards initial investment only.

Due to largely non market based salaries, in the government sector the government usually fails to attract the brightest. The government will need good domain expertise in project management budgeting and evaluation in order to successful meet its projects deadlines.

In experience, the Government is using a technical lens rather than social to look into eGovernance solutions. It will be highly desirable if the provisions of multi-disciplinary teams are considered. The government has established eGovernance Directorates in different provincial head quarters. These departments are manned with personal of technical background mostly. A shift in personal policy is highly desirable to accommodate individuals with social development background.

Acknowledgements

The eJirga Program was initiated through support of large number of volunteers, who I would like to thank. Also I would also like to thank and acknowledge the support of RSPN, NRSP, (UNDP)/LPRP, NCHD (HDSU Mardan), Local Government (Education Department Mardan. Pakistan).

61

References

R.B. Heeks, “Building eGovernance for Development”, paper no.11, IDPM, University of Manchester, 2001.

R. Heeks, “Building eGovernance for Development”, paper no 12, 2001. IDPM, University of Manchester.

Goetz, Ann Marie & J. Gaventa, 2001b, Bringing citizen's voice and client focus in service delivery, Working Paper No. 138, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. (URL: http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp138.pdf ) [01.11.2002]

Paul, Samuel, 2002. The state of India's public services: benchmarks for the new millennium, Bangalore: Public Affairs Centre (URL: http://www.worldbank.org/participation/spaul11April.pdf) [27.10.2002]

Synthesis report on the international workshop on poverty mapping, october 14 – 16, 1998, Anderal Norway

Alan A. Altshuler, 1997, “Public Iinnovation and Political Incentives”, Kenedy School of Government, Harvard Univeristy

Luis Osin, 1999,” Computers in Education in Developing Countries:Why and How?”, Center for Education Technology, Israel.

PRESENTATION

Noor Muhammad

School based Projects, a framework for Participatory Planning and Management: Experiences from ESRA

Email: kulsoom.jaffer@aku.eduAuthor: Kulsoom Jaffer, Muhammad BaburOrganization: Aga Khan University,Institute for Educatioanal Development

Abstract: Project framework is being used for variety of reasons in educational contexts including meeting school’s needs through the participation of stakeholders into day to day life of the school. This is done to increase their responsibility as well as their ownership in children’s education. The project framework has been specifically used in courses, at the Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development (AKU –IED) that aim at developing educational leaders and managers from Sind and Baluchistan during 2003-2005. The purpose of using ‘project’ approach was to develop skills, as well as to encourage and inculcate (positive) change of attitude towards school development initiatives in the decentralized context of education. So far 30 different school based projects have been developed and implemented in 9 districts of Sind and Baluchistan , as field based assignment of Certificate in

62

Education: Educational Leadership and management(CE:ELM) , under Education Sector Reform Assistance (ESRA) program. During this course the course participants conceptualize small educational projects in their first face-to-face phase of the course and implemented those projects in their schools during the field component. All of these projects were supported, monitored and assessed by the faculty of AKU-IED in order to see the outcomes of the process. Data collected for the purpose of monitoring) and assessment of the projects suggest that conceptualizing, developing and implementing school based educational development projects provides a useful frame work for developing skills and attitudes of participatory planning and implementation at school level. In spite of the variety in the contexts of projects, the findings suggest the efficacy of the frame work.

PAPER

PRESENTATION

Kulsoom Jaffer

Theme: School Based Governance, Planning, Budgeting and Implementation; evidences and practices

Key Debate/Issues Raised by each presenter:1.Discussing the School Based Management in NWFP’s perspective the speaker shared that the province holds the highest proportion (46.3%) of the people living blow poverty line against the country average of 37.3%. With female enrolment about 39% whereas literacy rate only 21% the province is far way behind other provinces. Education is the least priority of the government in terms of resources allocation. About 99% of the total budget allocations, provided by the provincial government, are spent on salaries and block provision of centralized purchase of items like furniture. Political interferences, resource constraints, poor management and monitoring, non-merit based inductions are the key factors behind the poor quality of education. Parents Teacher Associations established in almost all schools are non-or partially functional due to management problems and nominal and/or misuse funds allocations. Teachers are not involved in school’s administrative or financial affaires. 2.Ms. Razia Fakir Ullah viewed teacher’s learning as a key indicator to reform education because teaching in accordance with the child’s psychology and social perspective of learning is known as a main characteristic for teaching. Yet many teachers in Pakistan face conceptual and contextual constraints while teaching in the classroom. According to her findings the teachers were able to plane activities for the children and to involve them with those but they were unable to create conceptual understanding/meaningful learning out of these activities. The teachers tend to impose their thinking and dominate their lessons. The habit of the teachers working in teacher-dominated culture stops them from self-analysis whereas their own knowledge is often limited. Apart from this teachers are under immense pressure of their annual appraisal, which demands in-time completion of the textbooks and good results no mater whether these are achieved through rote learning. 3.Mobilizing the local community for a sustainable change in the school was the main point of the paper presented by Mr. Mir Afzal Tajik. The paper was based on the case study conducted by him in “Chitral” NWFP. The study presented the model improvement in the schools through active and constant participation by the local people. The methodology included the selection of Field Education Officers (EFO) who mobilized the community members using three strategies. First approach was teacher-centered: empowering teachers assuming them as agents for change. Second approach was Moral Persuasion, which included enforcing moral obligations towards fulfilling their duties. Third approach was, Pragmatic and Leadership-centered, with empowering school principal and approaching the dominant figures of the community for a sustainable change Key Learning’s:1.The schools will have more autonomy and greater responsibility to continuous school improvement through SBM. It increases the managerial role of principal determinant to their role of pedagogical leaders. SBMs are expected to improve administrative efficiency, quality of teaching and learning as well as accountability in education sector in NWFP. The focus on need based budget and educational outputs is parts of education sector reforms in NWFP.

63

2.The teachers should be well trained to face the classroom challenges, time management and effective use of teaching material and methodologies.

The teacher is a by-product of the system, leaving her unsupported in school and expecting them to bring change cannot bring about the improvement in the system

Teachers need to enhance their own knowledge; their engagement in pre/in-service training will potentially contribute to their professional development.

3. The “Community-based School Change” strategy provides both long-terms as well short-terms solutions to day-to-day problems that schools face. This strategy also brings reforms and development in the community itself.

The stronger the coordination between the school and the community the greater is chance of change in all contexts.

64