Develop Local Capacity To Run Schools

Democratic countries tend to develop an institutionalised system to decentralise education services in their respective jurisdictions.  This is because there are several inherent problems with the centralised delivery of education services. The problems with the centralised public provision of education are obvious.  In the centralised system, citizens lack adequate voices in making their preferences known to the policy makers that are remote from the citizens. Moreover, often times, lawmakers do enact ambiguous policies that give unclear and confusing mandates to the service delivery agencies. As a result, the education service delivery agencies face difficulties to translate policy and programme objectives into necessary resources and capacities.  

Moreover, in the centralised system there is reduced space for citizens to interact with the  policy making  agencies at the centre that weaken the prospects for proper communication  between citizens and state agencies to build a proper and effective  accountability relationships. The federal constitution of Nepal institutes the decentralised education system, transferring authority from central government to local units to administer and manage school level education. This constitutional provision obliges the local governments to undertake an overall responsibility for an effective and efficient management of the school education.  

Constitutional obligations

As a result, local governments are also found allocating resources to upgrade physical facilities and other infrastructures which look in many cases adequate and sufficient by our own standards. Many public schools in suburbs and even in rural municipalities are found having  spacious and ambient classrooms, computer laboratories, toilets and bathrooms, midday meal support and so on which speak of the improving situation of wherewithal necessary for effective  learning outcomes.  However, these gradually improving and incessantly upgraded school infrastructures, resources and learning logistics have not produced corresponding impact to secure the noticeable educational achievements. 

The teachers responsible for taking care of the kids and teaching them effectively for their effective emotional and intellectual development seem not doing their job properly and honestly. Candidly speaking, the education sector is passing through a kind of transitional phase characterised by the gap between decentralised formal policy arrangement and centralised tendencies of the policy implementers resisting the devolution and downward accountability process. This is further complicated by the lack of awareness on the part of the local government officials on the seriousness and gravity of their constitutional obligations on school education.  

Furthermore, it appears that local governments have not taken full cognizance of the need for an effective utilisation of the resources available at their disposal. The federal government appears also to be reluctant to transfer to local government the authority related to school education management and administration spelt out in the constitution. According to legal provision stipulated in line with the federal arrangement, the central government has been required to disband the existing agencies like district education offices and transfer human resources and assets to the local governments.

But after almost nine years following the implementation of federal constitution, the school education related authority has been retained and kept with the apparatus controlled by the central government.  Former district education offices (DEOs) have been renamed as district education coordination and development units and they do more or less act as the clearing agents of the ministry of education of the central government at the local level. Contending that local governments suffer from capacity deficits to look after and govern school education effectively, the central government has a pretense to exercise roles and authority.  The local capacity deficit has given an excuse for the central machinery to concentrate key authority only to permit the peripheral and insignificant responsibilities to be exercised by municipalities at the local level.

In fact, the rationale behind entrusting roles and mandates to local government to manage and administer secondary education, as mentioned above, is that the schools operated through decentralised arrangement perform better and deliver education services efficiently and effectively. An effective monitoring and supervision of the teachers through community engagement and participation is possible at the local level.  Similarly, accountability of teachers could be better ensured to improve the learning conditions and outcomes. But the federal government has manipulated the situation to one's own favor on the ground that the local governments needed augmented capacity development further to take full charge of the situation. 

Learning outcomes

According to constitutional provision, school education up to lower secondary level should be provided almost free, and the students passing out from the public schools are also given preference in their pursuit of higher education. By all standards, the salary structure and perks given to the teachers for the public schools is higher when compared against the remunerative provision at the private schools. The school teachers at the public schools are treated more or less at par with the civil servants. When there has been a raise in the salary of the civil servants, a corresponding increase of the perks of the teachers is also announced simultaneously. 

Despite this, teachers' accountability to their job does not seem to have enhanced. Despite increase in the educational infrastructures, teachers are found lacking in commitment to fulfill their responsibilities. It is time efforts be made to ensure teachers are accountable for securing effective learning outcomes. The constitutional provision to devolve the school education related function upon the local government undoubtedly constitutes a big leap forward for decentralised delivery of the education services and accountability of teachers.  But for this to occur, local governments also need to be made truly capable and responsible to govern the school education. Only then can they be equally capable to respond to imperatives of popular legitimacy and capability as the important norm of democratic governance at the local level.

(The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow.  rijalmukti@gmail.com)