First Regional Education Forum on Decentralization of Education Management

SEAMEO INNOTECH Quezon City, Philippines

FIRST REGIONAL FORUM ON THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZATION OF

EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT TO SCHOOL

IMPROVEMENT AND SUCCESS

PROCESS DOCUMENTATION REPORT

19- 21 May 2009

First Regional Education Forum

1

Theme: The Impact of Decentralization of Educational Management to School Improvement and Success

________________________________________________________________________ Overview Most countries in the Southeast Asian Region have adopted some type of decentralization in their education systems. However, across the region, the models of decentralization vary in terms of features and characteristics, but they share the same objective that it will eventually result to increase school efficiency and effectiveness. Decentralization can take the form of transferring powers to lower levels of an organization. This involves giving additional responsibilities to schools often referred to as school autonomy or school-‐based management. This leads to increasing schools autonomy, involving the active participation in the decision making of the community members, particularly the parents, teachers, students and local officials in education affairs. This may also come in the form of creating formal school committees and/or boards which will serve as the key decision making unit of the school. However, in most cases, not all functions are completely transferred to the schools and districts, curriculum standards and testing remain centrally managed, while teacher selection, instructional materials, school facilities construction and maintenance and to some extent financial management are increasingly being devolved to the schools. There is another model of decentralization, called devolution, which entails transferring of powers to lower levels of government. Under devolution, education responsibilities are most often transferred to the regional, or local levels and the elected governing bodies are authorized to make important decisions relative to budget, programs and other education initiatives. These variations in the nature and character of education decentralization have led to different conceptual frameworks, programs, implementation, and innovations that have been introduced in the education systems. These enable us to pinpoint good practices that have worked well and innovative reforms and programs that would benefit education implementers in the region if these are shared and discussed thoroughly. This is the very essence of the objectives of the three-‐day forum in decentralization fueled by SEAMEO INNOTECH under its LEARNTECH II SIREP Program. While the models differ owing, perhaps to the variations in the country context, it is interesting to examine and analyze the experiences of each country and in the process, identify the core factors that contributed and or hindered its successful implementation. Meaningful lessons and insights can be drawn from these diverse experiences, which


2

are valuable to further enrich the implementation of decentralization of education management and achieve its goal of ensuring school improvement and success. Forum Objectives In general, this forum was able to foster constructive and continuing dialogue and consultation about the theme: “Impact of Decentralization of Educational Management to School Improvement and Success”. This 3-‐day forum provided the participants with a regional perspective about the current state of education decentralization, which were able to generate new insights, ideas and possibilities on how best to pursue it given the Southeast Asian context. Specifically, this 3-‐day forum was able to achieve the following objectives:

1. Gain deeper understanding of the salient aspects of the various education decentralization models being implemented in the Southeast Asian Region.

2. Highlight the core factors that contributed to the success of the implementation

of education decentralization. 3. Identify and examine the elements of decentralization that need further review

and improvement, if these are to be transformed as potential success factors. 4. Ascertain the impact of decentralization in education to school improvement

and success. 5. Generate suggestions and recommendations on how best to address the issues

and challenges being faced by the different countries in the implementation of education decentralization.

Summary of Discussions and Learning Exchange Opening Program A brief opening program was done to present the objectives as well as the mechanics of the three-‐day discussion. This was participated in by twenty-‐two Senior Education Officials from the eleven (11) Ministries of Education in the Region. (See Annex 1: Directory of Participants). Dr. Erlinda C. Pefianco, Director of SEAMEO INNOTECH warmly welcomed the participants to the first ever SIREP-‐funded regional education forum organized by


3

the Center. Dir. Pefianco emphasized the importance of engaging the education officers in the region to talk about and share experiences on critical issues affecting the education sector. She expressed her hopes that this first forum will result to a productive discussion and debate about decentralization of education management and participants would be able to come up with some recommendations on how best to pursue it given the context of the region.

Dr. Ethel Agnes Valenzuela, the Head of the Research and Studies Unit (RSU) and also the Officer-‐in-‐Charge of Programs Office briefly explained the SEAMEO INNOTECH Regional Education Program (SIREP). (See Annex 2: Dr. Valenzuela’s Presentation) She said that SIREP is part of the commitment of the Center which was approved during the September SEAMEO INNOTECH Governing Board Meeting. SIREP, she explained, is an initiative of the Center which seeks to interface training, research studies and research and development activities of the Center to provide a coherent overall strategic response with special focus on school heads as critical change agents for effecting educational quality improvement and

implementation of educational innovations. SIREP carries four thematic areas which are the following:

Educational leadership and management (specifically capacity building in support of decentralized education)

Educational policy (focusing on teacher professional development and educational governance)

Equitable access to education (focusing on technology-‐based innovations such as flexible and alternative learning systems)

Educational partnerships (specifically strengthening technology transfer possibilities with national partner institutions to maximize the regional outreach of the Center’s training program interventions

Dr. Valenzuela cited the other programs of the Center covered by SIREP where two regional education fora are part of it, the first forum is focused on decentralization of education management and the second forum is focused on literary policies and practices in the region. She highlighted the importance of the first forum as one of the identified strategies to help the country achieve its EFA goals. She said that there are a


4

number of factors that affect effective schooling and enhancing student learning, decentralization of education management is considered as one of the variables. However, whether decentralization has positive impact on school success and student learning is something that many researchers are still trying to find out. She is hopeful that some of the answers to this question can be addressed as the participants shared their experiences in implementing decentralization. Ms. Edith Pimentel, Training Specialist, SEAMEO INNOTECH presented the objectives and mechanics of the three-‐day forum . She also explained the detailed schedule and the expected outputs from the participants. (See Annex 3: Ms. Pimentel’s Presentation) Country Presentation and Sharing of Experiences The forum was highlighted by the sharing and exchange of the experiences of the eleven member countries in implementing education decentralization. Each country report highlighted the model of decentralization being adopted as well as the challenges they have and are currently being encountered, and their proposed solutions to address those challenges. (See Annex 4: Compilation of Country Reports) While each country was sharing, they were able to look more closely at the relevance and scope of the reforms, the processes, success stories and methods of implementing these reform agenda. After the country group presentation, there was time allotted for open dialogue to share some gut reactions and feedback about the country presentations, ask clarificatory questions and provide additional insights and information which led to a deeper understanding of country models and experiences. Highlights of the Country Report Brunei Mrs. Hajah Murni Binti Abdullah, Deputy Principal, PAP Hajah Rashidah Saadatul Bolkiah Secondary School and Mr. Haji Shukry Bin Haji Kula, Education Officer / Head Master, Bebuloh Primary School, Department of Schools, Ministry of Education shared with the participants


5

the Brunei experience in implementing education decentralization. The Ministry of Education envisions to ensure quality education towards a developed, peaceful and prosperous nation. Given this, the Ministry aims to provide holistic education to achieve fullest potential for all. Specifically, the 21st century national education system aims to:

fulfill the needs and challenges of the social and economic development of the 21st Century

realise the Ministry of Education’s vision and mission develop 21st century skills

There are three major changes in the SPN 21 which are focused on 1) education structure; 2) curriculum and assessment and 3) technical education. The decentralization of educational management in Brunei Darussalam, particularly in government schools has the following initiatives focused on 1) empowering school leadership 2) zoning system of primary schools and cluster system in secondary schools 3) empowering school teachers and 4) enhancing involvement of the community in the schools. In terms of school leadership empowerment, schools are given the power to develop and organize more responsive school organizational structures, allocate and assign teachers based on their current expertise vis-‐à-‐vis the requirements of the school and plan school activities based on their annual school plan. The school heads also are responsible in ensuring that staff development needs of the development facilitators, teaching and non-‐teaching staff are properly attended to. Schools are also empowered to manage and utilize their school budget based on their school annual plans and allocated budget for the year. One notable education decentralization strategy which facilitate the sharing of ideas and learning between and among teachers and school heads from different schools is the zoning system being done in government primary schools through the JAPSER Primary School Leaders Committee and the cluster system in secondary schools. This involves grouping together several schools according to their locations where school leaders share ideas and work together within their zones or clusters to improve the school achievements both academically and non-‐academically and this happens at the level of the schools.


6

The school teachers on the other hand are given the responsibility and accountability to prepare school-‐based assessments, school-‐based examinations and school-‐based progress assessment of their students, also done in close coordination with their school heads. These initiatives are also being encouraged by the school heads in most of the government schools in the country. More and more, Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and the non-‐government organizations (NGOs) are getting involved in school programs and projects. In terms of monitoring an evaluation of education decentralization, the senior officers at the MOE School Department are charged with this task, specific for primary schools, there are, there are school supervisors PD, Senior District Supervisors (PKD) and Senior District Education Officers PPKD. However, the schools are also encouraged to do self evaluation (Penilain Kendiri Sekolah) of their respective schools, apart from the work of the School Inspectorates and the MOE internal financial auditors. Cambodia Mr. Sam Sopheak, Chief of Teacher Selection and Management Office, Teacher Training Department and Mrs. Tek Vannaret, Education Official, Primary Education Department,

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports presented their country paper on decentralization of education management in Cambodia. Improving the performance of

all stakeholders involved in

providing education services is

given utmost importance by the

Cambodia’s Ministry of

Education, Youth and Sports

(MoEYS). The Ministry's on going policy priority is to ensure greater delegation of

authority and responsibilities to provincial, district, commune, and school level. The

Central MoEYS increasingly implement policy and strategy development and sector and

program performance monitoring to consolidate and extend measures that will build-‐up

capacity for decentralized education service management at the province, district, and

school level.


7

The proposed broadening and deepening of public/private partnership also necessitates

institutional capacity building activities. Another strategic priority is to secure

predictability of program financing from public, private, community, and external

sources. In order to re-‐assure these various stakeholders, Ministry provided priority to

strengthen governance, accounting and internal audit systems.

To achieve the target outcomes, there are seven (7) programs that are currently being

undertaken:

1. Clearly define legislative, regulatory framework to the sector and the sub-‐sector

through the Education Law.

2. Improve predictability for medium term financial planning and decentralized

management and improved governance and Regulatory Systems by increasing

transparency and accountability of resources, including external assistance.

3. Strengthen education system performance monitoring and impact systems,

including Education Strategic Plan (ESP) review processes.

4. Strengthen central, provincial and District Financial Monitoring Systems by

increasing access to training for PBM.

5. Assure that all the planned program and budget management system become

operational and effective, and that District and school/Institution Management

system are enhanced to ensure quality education.

6. Strengthen personal management and monitoring systems.

7. Improve Higher Education Institution Development and Capacity through

Institutional and financial reform that allow greater operational autonomy and income generating authority for higher education institutions.

With the implementation of the national strategic plan, the government enables the

Public Administrative Reform to focus on delivering public service to the people with

quality and effectiveness and on creating a neutral, transparent, professional,

responsive, and responsible civil service. Special attention will be on moving public


8

administration closer to the people consistent with the strategy of decentralization and

de-‐concentration and with the transfer of authority from upper to lower levels of the

bureaucracy. This measure is currently being facilitated by a clear definition of roles,

power and responsibilities of the various authorities at the levels of the province, city,

district, and commune.

MoEYS has implemented decentralization of education the same way as its government

does to achieve its ESP by transferring the implementing authority and responsibility

from central level to provincial education office, district education office and to school

in the focal commune. This is in recognition that moving authority closer to the school

can improve the quality of public services and increase participation of school

development and management from local communities. Key priorities in local

governance are to build local management capacity, to provide reasonable levels of

financial resource operating to school in the communes.

Indonesia Mrs. Suwarsih Madya, Head, Provincial Office of Education and Mrs. Yendri Wirda Head, Innovation in Education Division, Research Center , Ministry of National Education (MONE).

Education decentralization had actually been implemented in Indonesia since 1975. This is especially true for the management of elementary schools. Since the establishment of Law No. 22/1999 and Law No.34/2004, education decentralization includes all levels of basic education (primary and junior high school) and secondary education. This

decentralization policy involves 33 provinces, 492 districts (400 kabupaten and 92 kota)1, 2.7 million teachers of nearly 250 thousands basic and secondary schools in Indonesia (Pusat Statistik Pendidikan, 2006:1).

1 http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daftar_kabupaten_dan_kota_Indonesia


9

As a part of education decentralization, the Government of Indonesia, through the Ministry National of Education has adopted an SBM Policy (Article 51, Law No. 20 Year 2003). It is through the Decentralized Basic Education Projects (DBEP), that the SBM program has been implemented from 2003 until 2008. This program was intended to improve school achievement, including education quality and school environment. In the context of education decentralization, USAID (2006) assisted Indonesia by carrying out the Decentralized Basic Education 1 (DBE1) project which included programs such as school development planning (rencana pengembangan sekolah/RPS) and replication, strengthening school committees and governance, district level planning and management, district education finance and “Local Effort”, information and communication technology (ICT) Grants. For example, in the first year of implementation, DBE1 (USAID, 2006, p.3) estimates that some 12,000-‐15,000 people have had some involvement and there have been four major outcomes in the RPS process, namely (i) greater community interest in and ownership of school-‐based activities (ii) adoption of USAID DBE RPS materials for use by other donors working in Aceh (iii) increased community contributions, in cash and in kind, estimated at Rp. 4 Billion (more than $400,000), including Rp.600 million from the State Electricity Company (PLN) for the reconstruction of MIN Rukoh in Kota Banda Aceh, and (iv) commitments by local governments to replicate RPS in new clusters. By September 2006, 11 governments had committed more than Rp.1.232 billion for replication of DBE, a significant portion of which will be used for replicating the RPS program. In the decentralized education system in Indonesia, such terms as otonomi daerah (district autonomy) and daerah otonom (decentralized district) are being used. District autonomy is defined as rights, authority, and obligation of decentralized districts to organize and to manage its own government affairs and local community in accordance with existing rules (Paragraph 5, Article 1, Law No. 32 Year 2004). While, decentralized district is defined as the unity of juridical community that has a certain boundary and that has authority to organize and to manage government affairs and local community according to local community aspiration within the system of Republic of Indonesia (Paragraph 6, Article 1, Law No. 32 Year 2004). District autonomy refers to local government autonomy, while decentralized district refers to a district which has been decentralized. There are three principles in the decentralization system in Indonesia, namely decentralization, deconcentration, and assistance task. Decentralization itself is defined as the transfer of authority by central government to decentralized districts (kabupaten/kota) to organize and to manage government affairs in the system of the


10

Republic of Indonesia (Paragraph 7, Article 1, Law No. 32/2004). Meanwhile, deconcentration is the transfer of government authority by central government to governors as the government representative and/or to vertical organization in a certain territory (Paragraph 8, Article 1, Law No. 32/2004). Assistance task is assignment from central government to districts and/or village from provincial government to district or village government and from district government to village government to carry out certain tasks (Paragraph 9, Article 1, Law No. 32/2004). Education decentralization was passed since 1975, and been renewed through the Law No. 22/1999, and Law No. 32/2004. The Government of Indonesia is committed to continue with the decentralization policy to increase the quality of education through the increased community participation and more transparent and accountable management both at the central and local government. For more effective implementation of decentralization policy in education, the following recommendations need to be considered. A. Continuous School-‐Based Management Improvement With respect to SBM, schools have greater opportunity to invite community participation through school committees and to develop their own initiatives to improve quality of their teaching and learning process. As evidence from either DBEP or DBE1 program described above, SBM has had some impact on school improvement. However, there are many areas that need to be improved. Among other, this can be done by considering the following programs.

1. Replication to Non DBEP and DBE school target Models, which have been implemented through DBEP and DBE1, can be replicated to non-‐DBEP and DBE schools. As there are 246,996 basic and secondary schools in Indonesia, it is not possible to have all these schools immediately engaged as the targets of the program due to budget constraints. Therefore, there is a need to apply certain categories to select target schools.

2. District Education Office Capacity Building

To ensure replication, the district education officers must carefully study and analyze the models that were earlier developed. In addition, necessary training materials and methods to support this program are needed to make sure that the replication is aligned and consistent with the SBM models.

3. Selective School Target Program

Schools can be classified by using school achievement, geographical area, and parent social status background, among others. On the basis of achievement, the school cluster can be ‘good’, ‘medium’, and ‘bad’ school. By using geographical areas, schools can be grouped into rural and urban or


11

mountainuous areas, beach areas, or even remote and country boundary areas. Parent social status can also be used to group schools into ‘rich community’ school and ‘poor community’ school. To be selective and fair, SBM policy should reach the unreached first. The term unreached refer to those schools which did not fare well in terms of achievement, remoteness of the school location, and ‘poor community’ schools.

4. Improvement of Supervision Program

Selected schools should be monitored to examine their progress, constraints and challenges as well as opportunities. To do so, local district education administrators should have close supervision. This ‘progress’ should be considered as the basis of the following years’ SBM intervention program.

B. Community Based Education Community members will contribute more to a school if they are informed about the school needs and what they can do to help them. DBE1 program and DBEP case study have shown that ‘good’ school community relations improved school resources and quality, including teaching learning process. Based on the positive DBE1 program impact, the model may be adopted and shared with other interested schools. Therefore, some policies or programs should be taken into consideration to guarantee the success of the continuing school-‐community relation improvement.

1. Raising Awareness Program on the Importance of School Community Relations

Central government needs to raise district education officer awareness on the importance school community participation. To do so, DBE1 training materials can be adopted, and modified if necessary. Certain occasions, such as National Education Conference (Rembuk Pendidikan Nasional), and some other national or provincial events can be good opportunities to introduce to non-‐DBE1 and/or DBEP provinces and/or districts projects about the models. Interested provinces and/or districts need to be supported to implement this program.

2. Greater School Authorities

Certainly in some schools, enhanced school-‐community relations have contributed to the improvement of school quality. Greater authorities as described in 11 aspects on DBEP SBM implementation guidance are needed by schools to make sure the positive impact of school-‐community relation. Local education offices should give schools opportunities for schools to practice these authorities.

3. School Selection is based on Interest


12

In order to be efficient, it is recommended that district education offices need to introduce decentralization models only to interested schools. Based on some criteria, schools are selected and supported in the effort of strengthening the school community participation program. Snowball techniques may be used in introducing this program to schools. Success after success in one school and another will in turn spread this program naturally to more and more interested schools.

Lao PDR Mr. Khounmy Phommaninvith, Deputy Director General, Department of Personnel and Mr. Banchong Ladthavarn, Deputy Director General, Department of Secondary Education, both from the Ministry of Education in Lao PDR, shared their country experiences in implementing education decentralization. Since 1999, the government of Lao PDR began to implement the plan and policies of the national government from centralization to deconcentration process, whereby provincial and district authorities are made responsible in the formulation of a plan and budget for the development of each province. Corollary to this, the overall management of the national education system in Lao PDR is characterized by deconcentration of management. The four levels of the Ministry namely: Central Ministry, Provincial Education Service District Education Bureau and the School Levels are mandated to do planning, projecting, budgeting, directing and evaluating at their respective levels. With the EFA implementation and the Policy on Compulsory Primary Education, the Ministry embarked on a pilot project on decentralization of education management in two districts called the “Demand Driven Approach” which is being supported by the


13

Swedish International Cooperation Development Agency (SIDA). The objectives of this project are the following:

1. Improve community participation in school management at the district and school level

2. Provide teaching and teaching materials for schools 3. Reduce repetition and drop out of pupils 4. Enhance the quality of teaching and learning

Through this project, Village Education Development Committees (VEDC) chaired by head of villages and District Education Committee and the District Governor concerned are actively engaged in: 1) involving the community in improving the enrolment rate in schools 2) strengthening capacity of the village and district to encourage participation of local women 3) community involvement to improve school environment and quality of teaching and learning and 4) providing new opportunity for poor adolescent youth in all project villages by conducting cluster-‐based evening classes and life-‐skill training programs. The implementation of this project in the two districts, has so far produced very positive results:

1. High participation of the community into school activities 2. Net enrolment ratio increased from 85% in 2005 to 95% in 2007 3. Percentage of repetition of students decreased from 25% to 8% in two years 4. Zero pupil dropping out of school within the period 5. Teachers have become more responsible in their works 6. Schools have the necessary teaching and learning materials in schools

Given its initial success, beginning 2008, the Government of Lao PDR has mandated the nationwide implementation of this approach, as a model of implementation of decentralization of education management. As of date, almost all villages and districts have established the VEDC and DEDC. Malaysia Mrs. Jamelah Mansor, Deputy Director and Ms. Chithra K.M. Krishnan Adiyodi, Assistant Director , both from the Residential and Cluster Schools Management Division of the Ministry of Education in Malaysia presented their country paper. They reported that decentralization is gradually being introduced in the Ministry, particularly in the management of finance, curricular instruction and co-‐curricular activities as well as in carrying out school-‐based assessment. At the outset, the structure of the Ministry was


14

reorganized to delegate various jobs and to empower particular officers in carrying out their specific duties and responsibilities. Each division, department and school within the Ministry is responsible and accountable for its own financial management. School-‐based assessments have been downloaded to the teachers who are expected to rate the students’ work on specific subjects and forward the same to the Malaysian Examination Syndicate as part of students’ grade in the public examinations.

The principals and heads of schools are designated as leaders of curriculum and instruction at the school levels. They are given the power to make decisions pertaining to curriculum standards based on students’ needs. Teachers are given the autonomy on deciding what should be taught and the manner in which the lessons should be taught in the classrooms.

The implementation of the SMART schools in Malaysia was a step taken by the Ministry to decentralize education. Eighty-‐eight (88) schools were selected as pilot schools which will become the role models for the eventual nationwide implementation of the teaching concepts, materials, skills and technologies. The target is to transform 1000 primary and secondary schools in Malaysia to SMART schools by year 2010. The Ministry also started to develop the Cluster Schools of Excellence as models where new educational approaches and innovations will be started and forged. Given these, the heads of the cluster schools are given the autonomy to raise the standards of performance of their schools. The idea of cluster schools is also a move towards decentralizing the education management in the Ministry with the objective of transforming 300 schools into a cluster school by 2010. Some of the challenges encountered in the implementation of decentralization are: 1) too much dependence of personnel on memos and circulars which sometimes lend to different interpretation at the field level; 2) lack of manpower at the field/school level; 3) tendency to mismanage the autonomy given to personnel; 4) insufficient administrative knowledge; 5) inadequate skills. With these problems, the following recommendations are being offered: 1) install an effective monitoring and evaluation


15

system 2) install an efficient training system for personnel 3) build a more positive organizational culture where trust, accountability, harmonious relationship between and among personnel at various levels abound, 4) efficient bureaucracy. Myanmar Dr. Htay Linn Maung, Pro-‐Rector, Maubin University, Maubin Township and Dr. Than Htike Soe , Principal, No. 26 Basic Education High School Realizing that the education

sector can produce intellectuals,

the State has been making efforts

for the all-‐round development of

the education sector. In an

attempt to promote the national

education standard, the State laid

down the 30-‐year long-‐term

education plan divided into six 5-‐

year short-‐term plans from 2001-‐

2002 fiscal year to the 2030-‐2031 fiscal year. The plan covers 10 tasks and 31 projects.

With the effective and successful implementation of those tasks and projects, a

favorable environment for modern education will emerge coupled with the

development of the Ministry’s human resources.

Regarding the MOE’s vision, the Ministry has been making efforts to create an education system that can generate a learning society capable of facing the challenges of the Knowledge Age. In August 2005, the Head of State, Senior General Than Shwe gave the guidance to give special focus on the implementation of the following tasks for the upgrading of national education:

To ensure teacher quality

To upgrade syllabuses and curricula to international level

To use teaching aids effectively

To respect and abide by laws, regulations and disciplines

To equip the students with patriotic spirit and union spirit


16

All basic education schools are under the supervision of the Ministry of Education; the administration and management of basic education is undertaken by the three departments of Basic Education and the Department of Educational Planning and Training in accordance with the directives of the 4 statutory bodies and organization; Basic Education Council, Basic Education Curriculum, Syllabus and Textbook Committee; and the Teacher Education Supervisory Committee. These Departments are responsible for primary education (5 years): Secondary education-‐middle school (4 years) and high school (2 years), teacher education, curriculum development, inspection and supervision of schools, educational planning and management, and staff development and student affairs. The main responsibility of the Ministry of Education is to implement education plans laid down by the government to achieve educational objectives in the education policy and education acts. The tasks of the Ministry are the following;

Promote vocational and technical education

Allow private and non-‐governmental organizations to participate in the

development of educations to a certain degree

Review curricula and syllabuses and modernize them in line with the prevailing

situation.

Promote educational research

Develop an education system which uplifts patriotism and morale and

safeguards cultural heritage and national character

Narrow the gap among urban, rural and border areas regarding basic education

Universalize primary education

The Ministry focuses on the following education programmes based on the social

objectives laid down by the government.

Development of an education system in consonant with the political, economic

and social situation of the country

Increase enrollment and retention rates at all levels of basic education

Enhancement of teacher education and teacher capacities

Expansion of non-‐formal education


17

To upgrade the learning qualities of students and their ability to make use of their knowledge in relevant situations, teaching aids are being put to use in teaching as follows:

a. Teaching aids, laboratory apparatuses and multimedia equipment are being put

to effective application in teaching lessons which require teaching aids,

demonstrations and multimedia equipment.

b. In basic education schools, the State as well as the public and well-‐wishers are

fulfilling the requirements of demonstration equipment, laboratory apparatuses,

chemicals and multimedia equipment such as computers, televisions, VCR and

cassettes.

Learning can occur anywhere, but the positive learning outcomes generally sought by educational systems happen in quality learning environment. Learning environment is made up of physical, psychosocial and service delivery elements. The quality of school buildings may be related to other school quality issues, such as the presence of teaching aids and textbooks, working conditions for students and teachers. Well-‐managed schools and classrooms contribute to educational quality. Students, teachers and administrators should agree upon school and classroom rules and policies should be clear. To be quality principals, they must have refresher training. To guarantee a high standard, in-‐service training must be organized in cooperation with universities, colleges of other appropriate institutions specializing in higher and further education. To enhance the quality of teachers and to ensure the quality of students, inspections of schools are being made by the Minister for Education, the Deputy Minister for Education, director-‐generals, deputy township education officers and authorities concerned and schools are being assessed and graded based on the following criteria:

Accomplishment of the principal

Gaining highest level of school attendance

Being able to teach according to monthly lesson plans

Achievement of students

Use of teaching aids, multimedia facilities & laboratories in teaching and training

Full capacity teaching staff

Adequate classrooms and furniture


18

Adequate sanitation and tidiness

Adequate teaching aids and multimedia facilities

Greening and Image of school

In brief, expansion of accessibility as well as quality enhancement is being maintained in the education sector under the leadership and with the support of the State. Education serves as a powerful tool for moving nations, communities and households towards a more sustainable future. Philippines Dr. Luisa B. Yu, OIC Regional Director, Region IV MIMAROPA and Ms. Ana Marie O. Hernandez, Program Development Officer (DMDP Coordinator), Department of Education, Philippines Consistent with the provisions of the Philippine Local Government Code of 1991 and to meet the new challenges for sustainable human development, DECS (now DepED) sought to hasten the decentralization of educational management as articulated in its 10-‐year Master Plan (1995-‐2005). With the objective to improve its operations and delivery of services to the public, DECS intended to realize decentralization by giving more and more decision-‐making powers to local officials in terms of repairs, maintenance, textbook and supplies and equipment procurement. To develop a long-‐term decentralization strategy the government engaged the technical assistance (TA) from ADB. The report entitled: Decentralization of Basic Education Management in the Philippines Final Report (2001) yielded recommendations which served as basis for the refinement of the basic education decentralization strategy. Foremost, it recognized the readiness of the country’s education system in pursuing reforms on decentralization.


19

Past project experiences since 1965, including the 1981 Sector Program for decentralized elementary education (Ln. 2030-‐PH) and the 1991 Second Elementary Education Project (Ln. 3244-‐PH) and the findings of the Decentralization of Basic Education Management in the Philippines Final Report (2001) became important references in starting up/operationalizing decentralization in DepED. Foreign-‐assisted projects (FAPs) such as Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP), the Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP), Social Expenditure Management Project (SEMP) and the Basic Education Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM) took note of the lessons and picked up a number of strategies from the Decentralization of Basic Education Management in the Philippines Final Report, then conducted pilot implementation of school-‐based management (SBM) using the phased approach (i.e. pilot first and then use the lessons learned for broadening the experience). And in a number of instances, sharing2 of effective practices took place with a certain project building on the efforts of the other and institutionalizing the same for system-‐wide implementation, e.g. SEMP institutionalizing TEEP’s school building program principal-‐led scheme;3 TEEP’s school improvement plan coverage expanded by SEDIP to include secondary education and alternative learning scheme programs, to mention a few. While these are taking place, Republic Act (RA) 9155 was enacted in 2001, reinforcing implementation of Decentralized Education Management (DEM). Four years later, DepED launched the School First Initiative (SFI) 2005-‐2010. SFI aimed to accelerate and support the implementation and operationalization of decentralized basic education management by empowering schools and making them more accountable to learning outcomes measured as participation, completion and achievement of several desired categories of educational results based on the national curriculum. SFI is basically a flagship program that seeks to address the crisis in the system-‐wide performance in the past decades characterized by wide resource gaps and high dropout rates. It outlines areas of cooperation and synergy among various basic education stakeholders. The SBM approach became the core of the SFI movement for decentralization. The objective is to empower the school head to provide leadership through SBM and for the

2 Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) and Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP) were developed in close collaboration, covered the same underserved provinces and shared complementary approaches and strategies. 3 Under this scheme, school principals issued contracts and conducted day-‐to-‐day project management with DepED school project engineers providing technical assistance. This strengthened school-‐based management, encouraged community participation and resulted in better construction, quick delivery and turnover of projects, and an overall savings.


20

community it serves to have ownership of its school; SBM seeks to mobilize communities to invest time, money and labor in making schools better places to learn and so improve educational achievements of students. Further, the basic thrust is to reduce bureaucratic layers so that schools are able to deliver results while the higher-‐level offices shift to supportive, facilitative and technical assistance functions. As defined in RA 9155, the functions of the divisions shall be enhanced to focus on resources, authority and information management while the regional office shall oversee the enforcement of standards and quality assurance among the divisions. The central office, on the other hand, shall focus on policy, strategic direction, national standards and outcomes specification. Foreign-‐Assisted Projects (FAPs) have provided several relevant lessons regarding decentralization: locally managed school construction; mobilization of community stakeholders to participate in school improvement planning, monitoring, and use of funds at the school level; and involvement of civil society in procurement, textbook inspection and delivery. Division-‐level procurement inspectorates are also a good example for setting up controls in local procurement and distribution systems. The Instructional Materials Council Secretariat (IMCS) provides a model of quality control in the development of new educational materials. The Foreign Assisted Projects (FAPs) served as a laboratory of education reforms’ to help DepED define a Decentralized Education Management (DEM) framework and operationalize the same within the context of RA 9155. The reforms introduced under the projects are now being carried forward under DepED's Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA). Introduced in 2005, BESRA aims to attain and sustain better performance of public schools by supporting the EFA 2015 objectives and the SFI movement. It is a package of policy reforms that as a whole seeks to systematically improve critical regulatory, institutional, structural, financial, cultural, physical and informational conditions affecting basic education provision, access and delivery on the ground. With the BESRA now being gully implement, DepED hopes to pursue institutional change through decentralization by using long-‐term transformational approach by building upon the efforts of the Schools First Initiative (SFI) and the valuable lessons learned from various FAPs. Alongside these reforms, is the clarification of roles of each level of DepED governance in accordance with RA 9155. Currently being refined are “Decentralization Guidelines”,


21

(a spin-‐off of SEDIP’s draft revised IRR) that will explain functions, roles and relationships to fully support SBM. When this is approved, a competency framework will be formulated that will serve as the building block in coming up with a national master plan in staff development to prepare all DepED personnel on their ‘re-‐engineered’ roles geared towards improvement of delivery of service to support SBM. RECOMMENDATIONS:

For the current initiatives on policy reforms and programs to be successfully sustained, the DepED needs to be firm and resolute by ensuring that policy issuance supported by complete systems package come in place to communicate the decentralization message clearly to field implementors.

The government must also explore domestic sources of financing and sustaining

reforms and innovations in basic education to reduce dependence on foreign assistance. It should intensify mobilization of resources from LGUs and the private sector.

The government should ensure BESRA will serve its purpose of sustaining innovations and reforms started through externally funded projects. That it will serve as the integrating thread that will tie up loose ends and complete the package of system-‐wide change via long term process and transformational approach.

For DepED to maximize the active involvement of the civil society, private sector and the LGUs. Mobilizing domestic resources for better basic education outcomes could substantially reduce dependence on foreign funding, especially loans. More efficient collection and strategic utilization of the Special Education Fund can substantially complement national financing of basic education inputs. A stronger partnership with the private sector, especially also the business sector through their corporate social responsibility programs, can significantly increase financial and other forms of support.

Given all these, education decentralization have a long way to go, the key is to orchestrate interventions into coherence, harmony, efficiency and effectiveness while maintaining focus on desired outcomes; of thinking more systematically about how gains from such projects can be sustained and built upon to prevent the dissipation of the momentum of change; and situating projects in a bigger map of reform measures, policies, projects and programs that ought to constitute an integral whole—DepED’s master plan for Philippine basic education system.


22

Singapore Mr. Gek Yin Jimmy Tan, Superintendent / Education Officer, Schools Division and Mr. William Pushpam, Principal, Huamin Primary School, Ministry of Education Singapore The beginnings of decentralization in the Singapore Education System started in the early 1980s. The concept of freeing schools from centralized control was first put forth by the then Director of Schools, John Yip, who in 1982 announced that the Education Ministry wanted to decentralize educational management from the Ministry Headquarters to the schools. He, however, highlighted that the Education Ministry would continue to maintain sufficient control and supervision to ensure uniform standards and that principals would continue to be accountable to the Ministry through regular inspections. The idea to free schools from centralized control was given a major boost by the First Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong in 1985. He spoke of the need for more autonomy in schools and of empowering principals with the authority to appoint staff, devise school curricula and choose textbooks while at the same time conforming to the national education policies such as bilingualism and common examinations4. Mr Goh’s sentiment was echoed the following year in 1986 by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who shared the view that government domination of educational provision meant a lack of competition and diversity. In that same year, the Minister for Education also stated that creativity and innovation in Singapore schools could only be fostered through a “bottom-‐up” approach, in which the initiatives arose from the principals instead of from the Ministry of Education. At the end of 1986, 12 school principals were invited to accompany the then Education Minister, Tony Tan, to study the management of 25 “acknowledged successful schools”

4 Jacob, P. (1985, May 30). “Bold New Idea to ‘Free’ Schools”, The Straits Times, Singapore, pp. 1


23

in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The principals’ report recommended greater autonomy for schools in order to “stimulate educational innovations” and to allow schools to “respond more promptly to the needs and aspirations of pupils and parents”5. Based on the recommendations, the Ministry identified well-‐established secondary schools with capable principals, experienced teachers, strong alumni, and responsible board of governors to take part in a pilot project in which they would be given autonomy and flexibility in staff deployment and salaries, finance, management, and the curriculum. These schools were believed to have the pre-‐requisites for school autonomy and would be best positioned to serve as role models to improve Singapore’s education system; they would be in a position to innovate and introduce creative educational programmes which could in turn be extended to other schools at a later date. In 1987 three well-‐established government-‐aided boy’s secondary schools, Anglo-‐Chinese School, The Chinese High School, and St. Joseph’s Institution, announced their intention to go independent in 1988. These three schools were the pioneer schools in the pilot project of decentralization and were later joined by other government and government aided schools. Building upon the success of the independent schools, the Prime Minister announced in July 1992 that several government schools would be turned into “autonomous schools” within the next few years. These autonomous schools would be given greater autonomy and resources to introduce innovations along the lines of the independent schools, while at the same time keeping school fees low6. As such the autonomous schools scheme was launched in six secondary schools in 1994. Five of these schools (Anderson Secondary School, Bukit Panjang Government High School, Dunman High School, River Valley High School and Victoria School) were government schools, while one (the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (Secondary) was a government aided school. The number of autonomous schools has increased steadily over time and as at 2007 the number of autonomous schools stands at twenty-‐four7. Besides the Independent and Autonomous Schools, the government has also concurrently taken steps to grant all school principals greater operating autonomy, although not to as great an extent as that enjoyed in independent and autonomous

5 Ministry of Education. (1987). Towards Excellence for all. Singapore: Ministry of Education, pp. ix 6 Goh, Chok Tong. (1992a). Quality Education. Speeches. 16(4), pp. 1-‐4 7 The Straits Times (11th May 2007), pp H6


24

schools. As of 2009, the independent schools in Singapore have been granted the greatest degree of autonomy, followed by the autonomous schools. The remainder are non-‐independent non-‐autonomous schools. However it has been observed that the autonomy of non-‐independent non-‐autonomous schools has since increased when compared to the early stages of decentralization in the 1990s. Thailand Mrs. Ruangrat Wongpramote, Educational Officer, Bureau of Education Policy and Planning, Office of the Education Council (OEC) and Mrs. Kanjanaporn Imjaijit, Educational Officer, Bureau of Evaluation and Monitoring, Office of the Basic Education Commission from the Ministry of Education presented the country experiences in Thailand. Decentralization changed the operational perspectives at the Thai Ministry level from supply-‐driven to a participatory approach to its 185 educational service areas. It started in 1997 with the enactment of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand which recognizes the right of local authorities to provide community services including education. In 1999, the National Education Act was signed into law. This was followed by the enactment of the Administration Act which assigned the Office of the Basic Education Commission to supervise public schools. This was also followed by the merging of three agencies, namely: Ministry of Education, Ministry of University Affairs and the Office of the National Education Commission into a single Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education is responsible for promoting and overseeing all levels and types of education under the administration of the state. However, local education administration was made under the supervision of the Ministry of Interior. Educational service areas were established in conformity with the requirement to decentralize authority for educational administration. In 2008, there were 185 educational service areas in 76 provinces, with 182 areas in the provinces and the remaining 3 in Bangkok. Each educational service area comprises an Area Committee for Education, with its office responsible for approximately 200 educational institutions.


25

Following the decentralization of authority carried out by the Ministry of Education, administration and management relating to academic affairs, budget, personnel and general affairs are now the responsibility of the institutions themselves. Oversight is through a 7-‐15 member board consisting of parents, teachers, community groups, local administration organizations, alumni and academicians. In 2008, the schools under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Basic Education Commission totaled 31,821 schools. The National Education Act also mandated the local administration organizations to provide education services at any or all levels commensurate with their readiness, suitability and the requirements of the local area. Given this, the Ministry of Education prescribes criteria and procedures for assessing the readiness to provide education services and assist in enhancing their capacities in line with the policies and standards. The decentralization of power in educational administration and management needs to take into consideration the following principles: 1) readiness and suitability in performing the duties of the Committees responsible for the supervision of educational service areas and schools; 2) laws, regulations, announcements and minutes of meeting concerning decentralization; 3) unity of educational standards and policies 4) autonomy and flexibility of educational administration and management 5) emphasis on community and stakeholders’ participation 6) strength and flexibility of schools achieved from the decentralization of power 7) enhancement of schools’ quality and efficiency and 8) empowerment of responsible persons in decision-‐making. Timor Leste Mr. Alfredo de Araujo, Chief, Department of Policy and Teachers Training and Mr. Justino Neno, Regional Director, Ministry of Education presented the country report of Timor Leste.

The education system in Timor Leste was based on the Organic Law which was passed in 2008. Based on this, the national office is mandated to develop policies, regional offices are responsible in implementing these policies at the field


26

level. At present and considering that the country has just started to re-‐organize and consolidate its system, most often it is the national office who makes the major decisions, while some responsibilities are also being devolved to the regional offices. The regional offices, however are expected to provide recommendations to the national office in terms of staff recruitment, staff training, management of school grants, overseeing the distribution of resources to the school levels, establishment of new schools in new location and school rehabilitation. The regional offices monitor information and data relative to the delivery of quality of education at the school level. At present, education decentralization in Timor Leste is adopting the deconcentration model, where financial and administration management are slowly being transferred to the regional level and regional budgets are allocated to the regions based on request. School-‐based management and the involvement of the communities in the schools are currently being started. Vietnam Ms. Le Thi Mai Phuong, Researcher cum Lecturer, National Institute of Educational Management and Mrs. Vu Thi Phuong, Researcher, National Institute of Educational Management, Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), Vietnam presented the country’s model, practices and experiences in implementing education decentralization.

The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) is responsible for developing plans and strategies for the national education system. The Government has approved strategies and plans for improving the national education system until the year 2010 and the Ministry of Education and Training is now putting these plans into effect.

In the last several years, the Vietnamese Government has viewed the development of human resources as a key to defining levels of development and recognizes the


27

challenges to its reform program of improving its educational system. One of the most important factors to improvement of education system is effective decentralization in the educational sector. To date, however, in Vietnam, education decentralization has only been in the form of spatial decentralization, transferring responsibility and authority to lower levels of government, and has not decentralized decision-‐making authority from the Departments of Education and Training. The political sphere has not matched the decentralization of education with financial decentralization and has not increased the capacity within the Ministry of Education and Training. Many development organizations, on the other hand, are pretty satisfied that decentralization of education has taken place in Vietnam. To promote the educational devolution of Vietnam, the Ministry recommends the following areas:

Need to transfer more powers of education governance including the staff management and financial allocations to Departments and Agencies under the Ministry of Education and Training. Current mechanisms of managing this sector encounter a number of problems recently.

Implement a thorough decentralization in the sector, assign all related activities

of heads of agencies, educational organizations and units to lower levels of the Ministry (if not complete tasks, they must be taken away from the current higher positions).

Define roles and responsibilities of individuals who are/will be involved in decentralization; need to perform consistently and comprehensively at all levels ranging from Ministry-‐level to department-‐level agencies.

Carry out reforms in educational management urgently and drastically.

Need to greatly focus on improving effective management process from the central to local level so that local leaders will be able to fulfill their mandated tasks.

Prepare the staff managing educational management at the field level by offering them to participate in training programs and leadership courses.

Develop guidelines on the roles of the school principals taking into consideration

their functions on developing and administering tests in skills and knowledge required and how to weed out from the system, principals who do not have the ability, expertise and experience in leading and managing educational


28

institutions. Need professional development for school principals to develop skills in making the right decisions at the school level.

Provide more responsibilities and authority to all lower levels in the educational sector, particularly the district People's Committee so that it can be more responsible for the development of education careers, mainly constructing new and modern infrastructures.

Control and lead all the activities related to characteristics of each district and school and associated with the local government.

Promote the active role of the People's Education Counsel plays in the development of each locality.

For university and college network in the country, increase the autonomy and self-‐responsibility of these institutions; help their managers develop the ability and active involvement in the process of management.

There is need to have joint planning at various levels of education management towards the improvement of the education sector. What was given more emphasis now is the identification of education and training needs and demands as well as the required financial aids from the Government. The current financial mechanism is not so efficient and the local provinces do not yet possess the necessary competencies to manage resources themselves. For junior and senior high schools: The Ministry of Education and Training have developed some guidelines on the development and implementation of teaching and learning programs, compilation and text-‐book publication. The Ministry is also responsible for organizing national high school examinations while the local education institutions organize their own primary school examinations; junior high schools also arrange recruiting their students and examinations according to the Ministry’s guidelines and regulations. For higher education, the Ministry of Education and Training sets up lists of education and training programs specified for different career plans and program frameworks. Universities and colleges have to develop their own teaching programs, teaching schedules and other programs specified for different career plans according to the Ministry’s program frameworks. The Ministry administers these programs developed by universities and colleges.


29

Administrative tasks (involved in the organization of personnel) have been assigned to the local governments in the process of monitoring and controlling universal education which include the following areas: human resource management, infrastructure management, building schools. The establishment, separation, emergence and dissolution of schools are decided by the Local People's Committee. The Ministry of Education and Training controls directly some stay-‐in ethnic secondary schools while the Ministry of Public Security manages a number of specialized schools. The Minister of Education and Training makes important decisions in terms of setting up colleges. The Ministers, Chairmen of Provincial, and City People's Committee regulate the establishment the vocational secondary schools and this happen after an agreement is reached between the Ministry of Labor -‐ Invalids and Social Affairs. The Ministry of Education and Training leads and coordinates with the Ministry of Home Affairs to fulfill all the functions of issuing regulations and procedures of teaching recruitment. The local People's Committees of provinces and cities regulate staffs in the education sector. In the aspect of financial management, based on the regulations, expenditures from the Government, budget for education are allocated in the following areas: the capital of basic building infrastructures included in Project Group A (about 200 billion and more) the Prime Minister decides in the investment and allocation of the entire budget. For Group B and C, the Ministries and Provincial People's Committees are responsible in investing and allocating capital to basic building infrastructures budget which have been previously decided by the government.


30

Focus Group Discussions Focus group discussions were done simultaneously in three groups to deliberate, discuss and have shared perspectives and appreciation of the following areas. Below is a summary of the outputs generated from these group discussions: FGD1: Education Decentralization Models and Practices Across the Region Group I Members Facilitator: Dr. Ethel Valenzuela

Mrs. Hajah Murni Binti Abdullah Mrs. Tek Vannaret Mr. Banchong Ladthavarn Mrs. Jamelah Mansor Mr. Gek Yin Jimmy Tan Mrs. Ruangrat Wongpramote Mr. Alfredo de Araujo

The Models of Education Decentralization in SEA countries can be gleaned from the way they defined decentralization based on how they implemented and / or are implementing it. The following are the country specific definitions of DEM in the region: Brunei Darussalam The decentralization of educational management in Brunei Darussalam, particularly in government schools has the following initiatives focused on 1) empowering school leadership 2) zoning system of primary schools and cluster system in secondary schools 3) empowering school teachers and 4) enhancing involvement of the community in the schools. It is about empowering school leaders to enable them to build their own organizational structures, plan their own school activities, manage their own annual budget based on the plan and mange the staff development program at the school level.


31

The zoning and clustering systems are learning and professional development strategies that serve as venue whereby school heads and teachers are able to share ideas and experiences and learn from each other and enhancing their own competencies. The school teachers on the other hand are given the responsibility and accountability to prepare school-‐based assessments, school-‐based examinations and school-‐based progress assessment of their students, also done in close coordination with their school heads. These initiatives are also being encouraged by the school heads in most of the government schools in the country. More and more, Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and the non-‐government organizations (NGOs) are getting involved in school programs and projects. Cambodia Decentralization of educational management is the transfer of the implementation process and responsibility of educational service from national level or central level to provincial office of education, district office of education and school in the local commune. This involved transferring the authority closer to the schools and local community to improve the quality of public service and increase/enhance participation of local communities to school management. MoEYS on the other hand, will increasingly implement policies and strategies for sector and subsector development and performance monitoring programs. Indonesia The Government of Indonesia is committed to continue with the decentralization policy to increase quality of education through the increased community participation and more transparent and accountable management both at the central and local government. The decentralization in Indonesian context means providing more autonomy to the district offices and school levels. In the decentralization system in Indonesia, district autonomy is defined as rights, authority, and obligation of decentralized districts to organize and to manage its own government affairs and local community in accordance with existing rules. While, decentralized district is defined as the unity of juridical community that has certain boundary and that has authority to organize and to manage government affairs and local community according to local community aspiration within the system of Republic


32

of Indonesia. District autonomy refers to local government autonomy, while decentralized district refers to district which has been decentralized. There are three principles in decentralization system in Indonesia, namely decentralization, deconcentration, and assistance task. Decentralization itself is defined as the transfer of authority by central government to decentralized districts (kabupaten/kota) to organize and to manage government affairs in the system of Republic of Indonesia. Meanwhile, deconcentration is the transfer of government authority by central government to governor as government representative and/or to vertical organization in certain territory. Assistance task is assignment from central government to districts and/or village from provincial government to district or village government and from district government to village government to carry out certain tasks. Lao PDR Since 1999, the government of Lao PDR began to implement the plan and policies of the national government from centralization to deconcentration process, whereby provincial and district authorities are made responsible in the formulation of a plan and budget for the development of each province. A pilot project on decentralization of education management supported by the Swedish International Cooperation Development Agency (SIDA) was implemented in two districts known as the “Demand Driven Approach”. Through this project, Village Education Development Committee (VEDC) chaired by head of villages and District Education Committee and the District Governor concerned are actively engaged in: 1) involving the community in improving the enrolment rate in schools 2) strengthening capacity of the village and district to encourage participation of local women 3) community involvement to improve school environment and quality of teaching and learning and 4) providing new opportunity for poor adolescent youth in all project villages by conducting cluster-‐based evening classes and life-‐skill training programs. Given its initial success, beginning 2008, the Government of Lao PDR has mandated the nationwide implementation of this approach, as a model of implementation decentralization in its education management. As of date, almost all villages and districts have established the VEDC and DEDC.


33

Malaysia Decentralization as defined in Malaysia is more towards de-‐concentration but delegation is also being practiced. The MOE empowers those at the lower levels to implement policies and manage education activities. As a move towards decentralization, the Ministry has started to implement the “Cluster Schools” whereby the heads of these schools are given guided autonomy with regard to school management.

Myanmar The Ministry of Education in Myanmar is still highly centralized and systems and processes are currently being tested and implemented at the field level, however, MOE believes that decentralization involves the transfer or shift of the authority, control, ownership and financial management from educational governing bodies to lower levels of education administration. It is defined as the total or partial transfer of educational management authority, control, ownership and financial authority from a central governing body to lower levels of education administration. Philippines Decentralization of education management is based on the principles of shared governance. There are certain education functions and responsibilities which are shared between and among the national, regional, divisions and school levels. Such education functions include, educational standard setting, educational policy formulation, educational planning, learner development, learning outcome monitoring, research and development and human, fiscal and physical resource development and management. Decentralization of educational management in the Philippines is about empowering the schools led by an empowered school head and the active involvement of the community in running the school through the school-‐based management (SBM). In SBM. the school head and the community are empowered to set goals for continuous improvement of the school. These goals for SBM include improving the relevance of the curriculum and assessment, increasing resources, improving the commitment of teachers, through school based recruitment and competency of the teachers through in service training and involving the community to increase the effective performance of the school and its student’s achievements.


34

The thrust of decentralization is to provide support from all the organizational levels in the basic education system so that the school heads, the teachers, the parents and the community can support and develop their school so that their children achieve full potential. This potential is not just academic but also social, moral and physical so the students at the end of their education are able to enter full, productive and satisfying lives. Singapore Creativity and innovation in Singapore schools could only be fostered through a “bottom-‐up” approach, in which the initiatives arose from the principals instead of from the Ministry of Education. This has been the guide of the Ministry of Education in its early pilot stages of education decentralization. Given this, the Ministry identified well-‐established secondary schools with capable principals, experienced teachers, strong alumni, and responsible board of governors to take part in a pilot project in which they would be given autonomy and flexibility in staff deployment and salaries, finance, management, and the curriculum. These schools were believed to have the pre-‐requisites for school autonomy and would be best positioned to serve as role models to improve Singapore’s education system; they would be in a position to innovate and introduce creative educational programmes which could in turn be extended to other schools at a later date. There are three well established government aided schools who pioneered the pilot project of decentralization and were later joined by other government and government aided schools. Building upon the success of these schools, several government schools were turned into “autonomous schools” who were given greater autonomy and resources to introduce innovations along the lines of the independent schools, while at the same time keeping school fees low8. The number of autonomous schools has increased steadily over time and as at 2007 the number of autonomous schools stands at twenty-‐four9. Besides the Independent and Autonomous Schools, the government has also concurrently taken steps to grant all school principals greater operating autonomy, although not to as great an extent as that enjoyed in independent and autonomous

8 Goh, Chok Tong. (1992a). Quality Education. Speeches. 16(4), pp. 1-‐4 9 The Straits Times (11th May 2007), pp H6


35

schools. As of 2009, the independent schools in Singapore have been granted the greatest degree of autonomy, followed by the autonomous schools. Thailand Decentralization of educational administration and management involves the transfer of authority and responsibilities in educational administration and management from the policy-‐level agencies to the implementation-‐level agencies, comprising Educational Service Areas, educational institutions and local administration organizations. All the necessary support services are provided to these agencies, to encourage and increase their participation and involvement in educational administration and management. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540 (1997), the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), and the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002)) are among the most important laws specifying the intent of increased decentralization among agencies involved in educational administration and management. Given these laws, decentralization focuses more on devolution instead of mere deconcentration and delegation. Devolution involves the transfer of authority in educational administration and management to local administration organizations which meet the specific criteria. Such local administration organizations will have autonomy in administration and management of education, management of income, and collection of tax. In so doing, they shall be independent from the Central Government. Deconcentration on the other hand, is the division of authority in accordance with organizational management among agencies of the Central Government, Educational Service Areas, and educational institutions. Agencies under the Central Government oversee general administration and management, including educational policies, plans and standards as well as provide educational resources and promote the monitoring and evaluation. Educational Service Areas are responsible for supervision and promotion of educational institutions and agencies involved so that they can provide education in line with educational policies and standards. In this regard, implementing agencies, which are educational institutions, are in charge of educational provision. Delegation, however is the transfer of partial authority in educational administration and management from the Central Government to local administration organizations and educational institutions. In so doing, local administration organizations and educational institutions can enjoy freedom in specifying their own administration and management process. However, they are accorded partial authority, i.e. authority in


36

endorsement and in procurement, is still under the direct control and responsibility of the Central Government. Timor Leste At present, Timor Leste is adopting the deconcentration model of education decentralizaton, where financial and administration management are slowly being transferred to the regional level and regional budgets are allocated to the regions based on request. School-‐based management and the involvement of the communities in the schools are currently being started. Decentralization of management of education is one of major opportunities from National level for District Level to organize and implemented all of education system which the human resources and financial has enough to provide by their self. Vietnam In Vietnam, education decentralization is in the form of spatial decentralization, which involves transferring responsibility and authority to lower levels of government, but has not decentralized decision-‐making authority from the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). The political sphere has not matched the decentralization of education with financial decentralization and has not increased the capacity within the Ministry of Education and Training. The developments of organizations on the other hand are pretty satisfied that decentralization of education has already started in Vietnam. One popular form of decentralization in Vietnam is deconcentration which gives additional responsibilities to agencies and units under the MOET in all localities. This can take the form of creating elected or appointed school councils and giving them budgets and authority to make important educational decisions. Education deconcentration comes also in the form of empowering school directors and teaching faculty to make decisions within schools. Summary The nature, practices and models of education decentralization being implemented in most of the countries in Southeast Asia, while calling it in a variety of names and titles, point to providing the schools with greater degree of autonomy and responsibility in managing the education affairs at the community level and becoming more accountable in ensuring the quality learning outcome among the students.


37

There is an aspect of deconcentration which involves a shift of authority for implementing rules but limited, in terms of decision making authority, there is a transfer of power to lower authorities but the overall control remains at the higher authorities. This is true in Vietnam which gives additional responsibilities to agencies and units under the MOET in all localities. Vietnam’s model takes in the form of creating elected or appointed school councils and giving them budgets and authority to make important educational decisions. It also comes in the form of empowering school directors and teaching faculty to make decisions within schools. Malaysia’ deconcentration model is in the form of MOE empowering those at the lower levels to implement policies and manage education activities. Timor Leste also adopts the deconcentration model, where financial and administration management are slowly being transferred to the regional level and regional budgets are allocated to the regions based on request. However, in Thailand’s deconcentration model, the Educational Service Areas are made responsible for supervision and promotion of educational institutions and agencies involved so that they can provide education in line with educational policies and standards. In this regard, implementing agencies, which are educational institutions, are in charge of educational provision. Delegation is also one model which is being implemented in combination with the other models in certain countries. In Thailand, while adopting the deconcentration model, also adopts the delegation which involves the transfer of partial authority in educational administration and management from the Central Government to local administration organizations and educational institutions. In so doing, local administration organizations and educational institutions can enjoy freedom in specifying their own administration and management process. However, they are accorded partial authority, i.e. authority in endorsement and in procurement, is still under the direct control and responsibility of the Central Government. In Indonesia, they call this assistance tasks where specific education tasks are assigned from central government to disctricts and / or village from provincial government to district or village government and from district government to village government. There is also an aspect of devolution which involves the total transfer of authority over finance, administration, or pedagogy that is guaranteed and cannot easily revoked which if sustained can result to empowering the local authorities and community-‐financed and managed schools. Thailand also uses devolution which involves the transfer of authority in educational administration and management to local administration organizations which meet the specific criteria. Such local administration


38

organizations have autonomy in administration and management of education, management of income, and collection of tax. In so doing, they shall be independent from the Central Government. In Brunei, for instance, they have included in their new education agenda explicit strategies that would decentralize educational management, particularly in government schools to focus on the following: 1) empowering school leadership 2) zoning system of primary schools and cluster system in secondary schools 3) empowering school teachers and 4) enhancing involvement of the community in the schools. Singapore is very clear from the start that creativity and innovation in schools could only be fostered through a “bottom-‐up” approach, this started the modeling and pilot-‐testing and identifying well-‐established secondary schools having the presence of the following as important ingredients in decentralizing education management: 1) capable principals, 2) experienced teachers, 3) strong alumni, and 4)responsible board of governors which later were given autonomy and flexibility in staff deployment and salaries, finance, management, and the curriculum. These schools were believed to have the pre-‐requisites for school autonomy and would be best positioned to serve as role models to improve Singapore’s education system; they would be in a position to innovate and introduce creative educational programmes which could in turn be extended to other schools at a later date. The Philippines on the other hand, defined decentralization within the principle of shared governance. It maintains the four levels of governance, but there are certain education functions and responsibilities which are shared between and among the national, regional, divisions and school levels. Such education functions include, educational standard setting, educational policy formulation, educational planning, learner development, learning outcome monitoring, research and development and human, fiscal and physical resource development and management. However, the overall focus is to empower the schools to be led by an empowered school head and the active involvement of the community in running the school through the school-‐based management (SBM). The Philippines learned meaningful lessons on education decentralization for the many foreign assisted projects being implemented and which were piloted in some parts of the country. The same case in Indonesia, they have previous education projects which served as models in implementing decentralization in the whole of Indonesia.


39

In Lao PDR, for instance, they recently pilot tested a decentralization project called “Demand Driven Approach” and through this project, Village Education Development Committee (VEDC) chaired by head of villages and District Education Committee and the District Governor concerned became actively engaged in: 1) involving the community in improving the enrolment rate in schools 2) strengthening capacity of the village and district to encourage participation of local women 3) community involvement to improve school environment and quality of teaching and learning and 4) providing new opportunity for poor adolescent youth in all project villages by conducting cluster-‐based evening classes and life-‐skill training programs. This now served as their model of implementing decentralization throughout the country. It was also evident in most of the decentralization models and practices, that there are some aspects of community involvement and empowerment. In other countries there are some formal structures created like committees and in some others, the community representation in some organized bodies that would enable them to support and become part of education affairs at the community level. There is no one best model and strategy that would characterize education decentralization in the region, mainly because of the varying context and country situations different countries face and the adoption of different responses and actions of the people involved. Whatever models the countries are adopting, education decentralization is able to create an environment where community, parents and other stakeholders are encouraged to participate and be involved in education which is the very essence of decentralization, that there are more actors who working together towards achieving the goals of EFA. Effective collaboration among all these sectors can make a great difference. And while so many sectors are now involved in education, there is a need to closely examine and rethink how to do quality monitoring and evaluation, a key concern of decentralization. Very recent pilot projects on decentralization yielded encouraging results in Lao PDR, to some extent other countries have conducted evaluation on a small scale which enabled them to expand the coverage and scope of decentralization. Monitoring and evaluation was found to be inadequate in all the countries in the region, while there were some evidences of positive results from education decentralization, there have been no formal research study conducted to ascertain the effects of education decentralization to school improvement and success.


40

FGD 2: Core Success Factors of Decentralization and Their Impact to School Improvement and Success in the SEA Region

Group II Members: Facilitator: Analiza Serrana Mr. Haji Shukry Bin Haji Kula Mrs. Suwarsih Madya Dir. Luisa Yu Mrs. Kanjanaporn Imjaijit Mr. Justino Neno Mrs. Vu Thi Phuong Dr. Htay Linn Maung

Success stories and experiences have been shared in the 2-‐day country presentation and based on these, the participants suggested the following as the core factors that would ensure/contribute to the success of decentralization in the SEA Region. 1. Visionary Leadership,

who will serve as the champion of EFA and decentralization, someone who would be able to inspire and motivate people to be involved in the process. Someone who would be able to communicate to everyone about the benefits and values of decentralization and would be able to develop more people who will become champions of decentralization at their own level.

2. Presence of clear legal frameworks and policies which will serve as foundation and

bases for all these reforms. People would often refer to these as they implement decentralization.


41

How central bodies will transfer additional authorities/ responsibilities to schools for greater school autonomy

Laws, ordinances, regulations Adequate support system in terms of legal frameworks, reform of organization Policies if restructuring would be required in the organization

3. Clear standards of performance at all levels, this is to ensure the quality of performance of people especially for those decentralized functions and deliverables

4. Strong Advocacy and Social Mobilization is a must in introducing reforms in the

bureaucracy. This will heighten awareness of staff and personnel about the overall reform agenda, will create a conducive environment for change to happen as well as encourage commitments from all sectors.

5. Integrated Capacity Building which can include the following:

Minimum qualifications for all staff in the educational sector Training and promotion programs Effective school-‐community relationships Strong relationships between central and local governments and other agencies

involved Consensus from among the stakeholders in the education sector Integrated initiatives on central-‐local decentralization Empowerment of school leaders Strengthening school organizations Autonomy in using allocated resources/budgets Ability to mobilize resources

6. School Based Management is one strategy adopted in most countries to implement decentralization proven to be successful. SBM must be able to put in place the following: Self-‐assessment / self-‐evaluation Systematic monitoring Localization and contextualization of the curriculum Improve school-‐based assessment Flexible and transparent strategic plan, school vision and mission Quality education – classroom/teaching-‐learning resources SMART school as one program of operationalizing SBM/decentralization Mainstreaming and institutionalization of successful programs


42

7. Strong stakeholder/community participation, is one critical factor to ensure

sustainability of decentralization gains at the community level. Systems and processes need to be in place to encourage stakeholder participation. Participating in the education administration Community involvement – PTAs and NGOs Effective communication between school leaders with teachers and parents Strong community / empowered locals

8. Adequate and appropriate resources and support systems which are available

where they are needed the most. These include, human, financial, material, partners and networks

9. Quality assurance and control must be in place and should govern all the processes,

deliverables at various levels to ensure quality work and outputs.

10. All these efforts on decentralization should be able to contribute to achieving the Education for All (EFA) targets of every country. Ministries should not lose sight of the overall objective of decentralization which is to improve student learning and success!

FGD 3: Areas which need further Improvement and recommendations on how to best pursue Education Decentralization in the region

Group III Members Facilitator: Ms. Edith L. Pimentel Mr. Sam Sopheak Mrs. Yendri Wirda Ms. Chithra K.M. Krishnan Adiyodi Dr. Than Htike Soe Ms. Ana Marie Hernandez Mr. William Pushpam Ms. Le Thi Mai Phuong

Based on the experiences shared by each country as they implement and manage their own models of education decentralization, the following are offered as the areas which need careful analysis and improvement to ensure a more effective implementation of education decentralization:


43

1. The Ministry of Education or whichever is the main implementing unit of education decentralization must invest in an aggressive advocacy and promotion campaign to ensure greater awareness and appreciation of the personnel and people who would be involved in education decentralization. This should be a sustained advocacy work and communication within and outside of the department.

2. There is a need for clear decentralization policies and regulations to avoid varied

interpretation among the personnel which sometimes lead to confusion and misunderstanding. This should be part of the communication and advocacy plan of the ministry. Information materials carrying consistent messages should be incorporated in this plan. Short orientation sessions can be provided to all personnel and stakeholders involved in the process.

3. Education decentralization would sometimes entail changing of roles and

responsibilities of personnel who will involved in its direct implementation, hence, the necessity of clarifying these new or changed roles to those concerned and even those who are not directly involved, so people get to appreciate the overall change reform agenda brought about by decentralization.

4. New roles and responsibilities entail new sets of competencies, hence the need for a more systematic and comprehensive competency development of people within the department and even those community stakeholders who are expected to take part in education decentralization.

5. Put in place an effective monitoring and evaluation system, effective management information system that would feed into the whole system that would decision making and further improvement in the processes, programs and


44

strategies. There is also a need to document the experiences and success stories, so people would be able to see results and outcomes of implementing decentralization into the system.

6. Decentralization encourages greater participation from community stakeholders and local government, hence the need to have clear policies on this. This should be part as well of the advocacy and communication plan of the implementing unit.

7. Based on item 6, and the need for more involvement at the local and field levels, there is a need to come up with interventions that would 1) increase stakeholders’ understanding and appreciation about decentralization 2) enhance their competencies on how they can fully involve themselves in the process and 3) how to sustain their participation at the local levels.

Closing Program The three-‐day forum ended on a positive note, learning from each other’s experiences, strategies and small successes as each of the Ministries implement their own models of education decentralization. Participants were able to discover similar programs and approaches but there were also a lot of unique systems, projects and strategies owing to the different context each country is in. But despite the differences in models and approaches, there are still a lot to learn and share from each other which can be adapted in one particular country. Participants have realized that decentralization of education management is like introducing a change management program in an organization that would have corresponding change in the roles and responsibilities of people who are involved in the process. This change will lead to new set of competencies to be able to effectively perform new roles and responsibilities and carry out education decentralization. Corollary to this, are possible changes in the systems, processes and organizational arrangements and structure. All these aspects must be carefully looked into to ensure the smooth implementation of education decentralization. One very important area which is often neglected is the need to ensure that people in the organization and other stakeholders have a shared understanding of education decentralization, hence the need to invest in an aggressive advocacy and information campaign that will raise the consciousness, awareness and understanding and eventually enhance participation and involvement in the overall change effort.


45

Dr. Erlinda C. Pefianco, SEAMEO INNOTECH Director formally closed the three-‐day forum and thanked all the participants who openly shared their experiences, strategies, programs and approaches in operationalizing education decentralization in their respective Ministries. Dr. Pefianco said that SEAMEO INNOTECH will continue to engage itself in this kind of exchange to enable the region learn from each other and gain meaningful insights, ideas and possibilities on how best to pursue education decentralization given the Southeast Asian context. End–of– Forum Evaluation The training management team ensures that the feedback and reactions from the participants are generated after the program to be able to immediately address areas that need attention and or modification, in the design, substance and in the overall management of the program, should the similar program be conducted in the future. (See Annex 5: End-‐of-‐Forum Evaluation) In terms of the forum organization and delivery, the participants gave an overall mean rating of 4.52 equivalent to a rating of very satisfied along the 7 items measuring the following:

Set objectives were clear and achieved at the end of the forum Topics were logically arranged Time allotment was adequate to learn the necessary skills and knowledge Forum content, presentations and activities provided were relevant to their

work Adequate and useful training materials and handouts Congruency of materials congruent with forum design Appropriateness of the forum design

In terms of the overall satisfaction of the participants, they gave an overall rating of 4.41 or equivalent to a very satisfied rating. The following are some of the common comments and suggestions provided by the participants themselves:

Well-‐planned, organized, well carried out forum Very good organization and delivery Topics are very interesting and relevant to all countries represented in the

forum Time not wasted with unnecessary protocols The forum was a success! The online post-‐forum activity is a relevant strategy

for continuing dialogues and discussion about education decentralization Participants were given time to ask questions and have an open discussion


46

Forum was a very useful venue for sharing of experiences and learn from each other

More activities can be incorporated in the next forum Present new initiatives about education decentralization in the region

Support Services Provided to the Participants Appropriate arrangements and provisions were be made to help ensure a pleasant and productive stay of the participants in the Philippines. On their arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport they were met by the Center’s protocol/liaison officer who helped facilitate their checking through immigration and customs. A service vehicle of INNOTECH transported them to the Center’s International House (IH) where they were received by the staff from the International House (IH). Participants were billeted in air-‐conditioned rooms at the International House. Each room has telephone and cable TV. Facilities for washing and ironing clothes were also made available. They were encouraged to make use of the library at the Learning Resource Center and free Internet access was made available to them in the IH lounge and in the training room. This forum was sponsored by the SEAMEO INNOTECH Regional Education Program (SIREP). Each participant was given the peso-‐equivalent of US$25 per day as their out-‐of-‐pocket allowance and other personal necessities. Health and travel insurance coverage were arranged for the participants. In addition, an office nurse who was made on call to provide health and medical assistance to participants who may experience some discomfort. Each participant was issued a training kit comprising the following;

Program Handbook (covering objectives, the content, and the tentative schedule of day-‐to-‐day activities)

Reading materials and some orientation materials Training bag and ring-‐binder Training notebook and other stationary supplies (for writing their notes and

reflections) Individual photos was taken of participants and each was issued a laminated ID to serve as name tag during training sessions and as their identification card while in the country. At the back of the ID a location sketch of SEAMEO INNOTECH printed which participants


47

may show to taxi drivers or police authorities in case they get lost when they go out on their own. Likewise a group photo was taken of participants with the Center Directorate and the members of the training team, a copy of which was given them for free, together with the directory of participants, during the certificate awarding ceremony. An INNOTECH vehicle was made available for use of participants in their out-‐of-‐Center activities like institutional visits and the tour of Metro Manila accompanied by a guide and a driver. On their departure after the course, participants were conducted to the airport in an INNOTECH vehicle and assisted by the Center’s protocol/liaison officer and by another staff in moving their luggage. As SEAMEO INNOTECH alumni, the participants are entitled to free use of the SEAMEO INNOTECH Learning Resource Center and the ten percent (10%) discount on room accommodation at the Center’s International House. The overall program design and management of this program was done in accordance with the Center policies regarding gender sensitivity, ethnic and religious diversity, sexual harassment and respect for human rights.

Prepared by: Approved by:

EDITH L. PIMENTEL TRAINING SPECIALIST Learning and Training Development Unit (LTDU)

PHILIP J. PURNELL DEPUTY CENTER DIRECTOR (PROGRAMS) SEAMEO INNOTECH


48

First Regional Education Forum on Decentralization of Education Management

Documents

Transcript of First Regional Education Forum on Decentralization of Education Management