Autonomy and capacity at decentralised levels

Decentralization consists of the “dispersion or distribution of functions and powers from a central authority to a local authority or community” (UNESCO, n.d.). A majority of countries around the world have engaged in some form of decentralization of policy management, and actors such as local representatives, schools, communities, parents, and pupils are increasingly involved in decision-making in many aspects of policy (IIEP-UNESCO, 2009). Bringing decisions and service delivery closer to local needs is expected to result in quicker and better-targeted interventions, better resource mobilization, increased accountability, and stronger cohesion, among others  (Chimier and Lugaz, 2018; IIEP-UNESCO, 2009). Some researchers further suggest that the more efficient use of resources resulting from decentralization can lead to improved learner performance, higher parental satisfaction, and stronger accountability with community involvement and support (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017).

However, these benefits can only be realized if decentralization has been well designed and implemented and if an effective and competent central government continues to support this process.

Promising policy options

Developing a decentralization strategy

Governments undertaking a decentralization scheme may be motivated by three main reasons: (i) an increased efficiency of the education system, (ii) funding reasons (in case of failure to fund education), or (iii) political motives (e.g., enhancing community participation, democratisation) (McGinn and Welsh, 1999). They have three main options for power transfer: deconcentration, devolution, and delegation.

Deconcentration involves the transfer of responsibilities from the central Ministry of Education (MoE) to units representing that central authority at the regional or local level. Such transfer may be accompanied by increased autonomy regarding personnel management and budget allocation, but the central ministry retains firm control (Winkler and Gershberg, 2003).

Devolution is the transfer of specific decision-making powers from one level of government to lower authorities that exercise these powers autonomously (Yulani, 2004). One example is the 2001 Devolution Plan in Pakistan, which aimed at improving public service delivery. It gives districts power over planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the education system at their level, teaching and non-teaching personnel management, and budget allocation. The federal government remains responsible for policy formulation, coordination, and special service functions (Shah, 2003).

The delegation of powers or functions allows a subordinate to receive the authority to make decisions and act independently under specific terms and limits prescribed by the delegator, who can exercise control and supervision and increase, reduce, or withdraw the delegated authority (Kongnyuy, 2020). For instance, a central or regional government may delegate some powers to school principals or school councils in areas that go from the maintenance of the physical infrastructure to the preparation and approvement of school development plans. A special case of the delegation of education is the implicit delegation. This can be the case in remote areas where the state can hardly ensure access to education. Community schools may take over from the state in the provision and financing of education and may or may not receive funds and support from the state (Winkler and Gershberg, 2003). Although the distinction between decentralization models is often made according to the three main forms of power transfer discussed above, the strategies for decentralization are infinite. Evidence shows that no one best model would fit all contexts. Strategies depend on the national context and the objective or combination of objectives assigned to the decentralization policy. These objectives, whichever they are, should be clear, communicated, and shared, and they should guide the design and implementation of this policy (IIEP-UNESCO, 2016a). Shifting responsibilities from the central to the decentralized levels is insufficient in and by itself. Certain conditions must be fulfilled for managers at these levels to exercise newly transferred functions effectively. This point is further discussed below.

Ensuring capacity-building at the decentralized levels

Strengthening local actors’ capacities is key to reinforcing their professionalism and ability to manage increased or new demands effectively and, ultimately, to undertake their missions autonomously (IIEP-UNESCO, 2016a; Winkler and Gershberg, 2003). Required skills may include, for instance, monitoring budgets, managing personnel, monitoring, and evaluation (Winkler and Gershberg, 2003). Manuals, guides, and procedures that are known and accessible to all should be developed for this purpose.

Beyond training, developing coherent and realistic job descriptions, establishing a clear distribution of responsibilities to avoid overlaps, and ensuring adequate personnel management with regular evaluation are necessary (IIEP-UNESCO, 2009).

Providing an adequate level of autonomy

Research showed that when effective, local actors’ actions can yield high returns for the successful implementation of national policies and learning quality (see, for example, Cilliers, Dunford, and Habyarimana, 2021). However, local actors may be constrained in the effective conduct of their missions and thus, remain an under-utilized resource, if they lack autonomy, for instance, in managing their financial, material, and human resources (IIEP-UNESCO, 2014a, 2016a, 2016b). Their level of autonomy and responsibilities should be determined considering the valuable assets they may have (e.g., closeness to the beneficiaries, experience) (IIEP-UNESCO, 2011) and strengthened by the support and capacity development provided by the central level. This level of autonomy should also be aligned with central regulation, counterbalanced by an effective accountability framework, and inscribed in a legal framework (De Grauwe et al., 2005; IIEP-UNESCO, 2011, 2014b).

Providing adequate resources

Newly empowered levels should be provided with the resources required for their responsibilities. There are various options for finance in a decentralized strategy, each coming with advantages and drawbacks. For instance, the central government may continue to provide the largest share of funds, or subnational governments may raise their own revenues to finance education. In many cases, the transfer of financial responsibilities has been limited, sometimes creating budgetary constraints. Fiscal decentralization is often proposed as a strategy to increase the efficient allocation of resources (Souto Simão, Millenaar, and Iñigo, 2016). It may enable to decrease operation costs, raise additional funds by using local revenues and allocate resources more closely to local needs (Souto Simão, Millenaar, and Iñigo, 2016). However, care must be taken to ensure that responsibilities for education funding are clearly defined, that funding mechanisms are transparent, that equity is maintained across localities, and that accountability systems are in place (Winkler, 2013).

In many countries, school grants are part of the measures taken with a view to providing more autonomy to schools. It is important that the following steps be followed to secure the success of school grant policies:

• Formulate a school grant policy with clear objectives, an adequate funding formula and grant amount, and mechanisms for distribution;
• Determine the areas of use of school grants and the actors involved in the decision-making process of this use,
• Define mechanisms for controlling the use of school grants,
• Support policy implementation by disseminating information and providing capacity development (e.g., in management of grants, leadership, and budgetary skills) (IIEP-UNESCO, 2018).

Ensuring that the central government continues to play a role in the decentralized system

Decentralization must not imply the complete substitution or withdrawal of the central government. It actually entails the strengthening of a number of central-level prerogatives, including evaluation and control. An example is the OFSTED inspection office in England which has received a broad mandate in inspection (Ferhat, 2020). Decentralization may, however, require the central government to complete the necessary restructuring and reorientation. In other words, it should continue to play an active role, but this role should shift from day-to-day tasks (e.g., management of teachers and schools) toward missions that support the decentralization process (Winkler and Gershberg, 2003). Henceforth, the central government should be focused on monitoring education quality (e.g., school inspection, learning assessments), limiting potential inequities arising from decentralization by providing additional support to disadvantaged areas, and ensuring the professionalization of officials at all levels (IIEP-UNESCO, 2009).

As responsibilities and functions are newly created or redistributed, generating complementarities and creating communication and coordination mechanisms across levels appear fundamental (IIEP-UNESCO, 2014b; Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2010). Additionally, allowing all stakeholders to make their voices heard throughout the policy cycle will likely reinforce accountability and generate acceptance and legitimacy, thus facilitating the implementation process (Burns, Köster, and Fuster, 2016).

Other policy options

Promoting community and parent involvement

In some resource-constrained areas, communities have taken over the state’s role in providing and financing education (Winkler and Gershberg, 2003). While the complete replacement of the state by communities and parents is not a viable option, their participation remains essential to the success of decentralization (Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2010). Reciprocally, when decentralization devolves real decision-making power to schools, parental participation can increase, resulting in better school performance (Winkler and Gershberg, 2003).

In many cases, communities and parents’ involvement in school operations have helped increase access, retention, and attendance rates and it has the potential to foster resource mobilization (Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2010). In the specific context of decentralized systems, community participation can help establish checks and balances by holding education managers accountable and strengthening local ownership and compliance with policies (Afridi, Anderson, and Mundy, 2014). One well-known initiative is the citizen-led assessment UWEZO which collects learning data to inform the public about the state of education quality in East Africa. Social audits and local transparency committees are other examples of actions that can strengthen accountability (Poisson, 2014).

Transparency and collaboration, e.g., through regular meetings and access to information, are key to fostering participation in education. In addition, communities and parents should be given roles that reflect their level of involvement in education. For instance, they could participate in the financial management of schools or teacher supervision (Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2010).

For more information, consult the policy page School community relationship.