What potential difficulties can be faced in the decentralisation process? Can decentralisation work well in the education sector? The last two decades have seen numerous changes in the administrative systems of many less developed countries. Some have centralised their administrations, but most have decentralised. This article from the journal ‘Comparative Education’ considers the advantages and disadvantages of decentralised structures in the education sector, focusing on Papua New Guinea (PNG) during the 1970s-80s.
PNG’s experience highlights the need for those embarking on decentralisation programmes to have a clear understanding of decentralisation, and realistic expectations. Although PNG’s education system at first appears highly decentralised, analysis reveals that key powers remain with national and provincial governments rather than local governments or schools. Provincial governments plan the number and location of schools, run adult education and pre-school programmes and appoint teachers. Almost all other aspects are controlled by the national government, including universities, inspections and most of the curriculum. School boards control facilities, enrolment and discipline, but not curriculum or staffing, and local governments have little role in education.
PNG’s major achievement was the successful establishment and operation of new structures in a country with limited infrastructure and resources. The system provided opportunities for local initiative while leaving the national government sufficient power to coordinate the system and maintain coherence.The introduction of provincial governments also created more opportunities for participation, and decentralisation allowed experimentation with different types of education.
However, problems were also encountered:
- PNG is a small, young country and the existence of provincial governments places strain on financial and human resources.
- The decentralisation debate focused on national and provincial levels rather than local governments and school boards. The roles of local governments and school boards were neglected.
- There was uncertainty about the meaning of decentralisation, the origins and justification for the scheme and about its legal framework.
- There was widespread resistance to decentralisation among national government officers.
The PNG experience demonstrates that it is difficult to design a successful decentralisation structure, even for a single country. There is no ideal prototype that can be transferred internationally. However, several valuable lessons were learned:
- Decentralisation should not been seen as a universal solution. The legal structure of government can be less important than the attitudes and skills of those working in it.
- Decentralisation’s terminology and processes are not always clearly understood or defined. The term ‘decentralisation’, is vague and systems may have contradictory strands.
- Policy makers and implementers must sharpen their understanding of the types, dimensions and levels of decentralisation.
- Few decentralisation schemes pay adequate attention to training for those to whom powers and responsibilities are transferred. Careful attention must be paid to training.
- Expectations must be realistic and decentralisation must be given time to work. New structures generally take 10- 15 years to settle because of the need for training and experience.
- Newly established structures, such as provincial governments, which lack experience, need support from national government.
