Educational Decentralization in Low Income Countries: Contradiction with Universal Primary Education (UPE) Policy

Abstract

This article critically reflects upon the existing analytical framework for educational decentralization in responding to the current issues facing low-income countries. The existing framework on decentralization, which articulates the triangle relations among local government, citizen/client, and service providers, tends to overlook “divide” of actors that often arises and impedes implementation of educational decentralization at various levels of educational service delivery. The “divide” is influenced by the individual and institutional diversity in socioeconomic resources as well as attitudinal aspects including organizational culture of schools and mentality of teachers and community members. Furthermore, external political dynamics often interferes and overrides the outcome of educational decentralization.

The simultaneous implementation of decentralization and Universal Primary Education (UPE) policy adds more dilemmas between political legitimacy and central control embedded in decentralization policy. UPE tends to contradict with decentralization since it induces central control over educational provision by providing each child with equal amount of capitation grant through financial decentralization. The lack of local control over educational resources and imbalance among financial, democratic, and administrative decentralization results in different reactions and “divide” at various levels. The recent study in East African countries, namely, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania confirms that the “divide” between various actors is apparent under the simultaneous implementation of the UPE policy and decentralization policy.

As a remedial perspective, the authors suggest to incorporate three lessons into the existing analytical framework; construction of balance among financial, democratic, and administrative decentralization, strengthening the role of the central government to minimize such “divide,” and institutional development to promote mutual effect among actors. Without strong commitment to such efforts, participation and democracy as legitimacy of decentralization and UPE as legitimacy of education are likely to remain incompatible.