Decentralization and Development: An Analysis of
the Possibilities and Realities of School Based Management in the Developing
World
Mark Olofson
University of Vermont
________________________________________
For too long, governments and
organizations investing in developing-world education have operated under the
unquestioned assumption that improved test scores were clear evidence that
their investments have paid off. But if…mastery of the basic primary school
curriculum is not the best means for improving life chances and alleviating poverty
in developing countries, that model is broken. (Epstein & Yuthas, 2012, p. 20)
Peñoncito,
a small town in rural northern Columbia, may not be the obvious place to begin
a discussion on community involvement, education, economic development, and
environmental sustainability. But the town’s secondary school, Tomás Herrera
Cantillo, conducts education in a revolutionary way (Arenas, 2008). Here, student learning is
deeply embedded in the work that they do in order to improve their community.
The content of the curriculum is deeply connected to the context, and students
in different grade levels take on different projects in order to increase the
quality of life for themselves and their neighbors. The students not only learn
about economically sustainable and environmentally responsible development,
they take part in it.
This approach to
schooling is not unique to Tomás Herrera Cantillo, but in a time of increasing
movements towards standardization and centralized control in the United States (DeBoer, 2012), ministries of education in
developing nations may need to look elsewhere for models of local control.
Although the conditions necessary for such schools to emerge are difficult to
achieve and troublesome to maintain, the outcomes can be truly revolutionary.
This paper investigates the decentralization in education systems in developing
nations; different models, strengths, weaknesses, and implications for
leadership are considered. The social justice implications of decentralization
efforts are explored by focusing on the location of decision-making power over
curriculum. Although in the realm of education macro-level decisions cannot be
directly mapped on to micro-level realities (Mehan, 2012), the system-level policies
must be in place in order for these locally-driven innovations to emerge.
Decentralization and School Based
Management
School
decentralization generally describes a shift in decision-making power from a
federal ministry to local foci of power. Ten percent of the initiatives funded
by the World Bank for large educational reform are in the area of
decentralization initiatives (Decentralized
decision-making in schools, 2009). A closely tied concept to
decentralization is that of school based management (SBM). In a system where
the central authority is decentralizing, the schools are asked to implement
SBM. Just as there are many models of decentralization, so too are there many
models for SBM to respond.
Decentralization
can take a number of different forms. The framework used by Lai and Lo (2006) includes three levels; deconcentration, where responsibility
but not authority is shifted to the local level; delegation, where real power is given to the local decision-makers,
but the central authority maintains a unified vision and direction; and devolution, where the local schools have
true autonomy. The World Bank (2009) frames school based management on a
continuum, from weak, where local schools have an advisory role and freedom to
choose teaching methods to strong, where local councils are given money from
the central authority and allowed to do what they think is best. Most
decentralization efforts in the developing world fall somewhere in the center
of this continuum (Patrinos, 2011).
Although the
content of curriculum is not identified as one of the first domains of
decentralization, it is recognized as a category for decentralization in the
theoretical literature (Decentralized
decision-making in schools, 2009; McGinn & Welsh, 1999) The concept of locally shaped
curriculum is a reality in places such as Columbia (Arenas, 2008), Nicaragua (Gershberg,
González, & Meade, 2012), Bolivia (Comboni Salinas & Juarez Nunez, 2000), and Indonesia (Yeom, Acedo, Utomo, & Yeom, 2002). Some central authorities in
their decentralization efforts have specifically identified curriculum as not
being an area for decentralization, due to a reluctance to cede control of
content (Moradi, Hussin, & Barzegar, 2012; Ziba, 2011). The presence of a national
core curriculum can hinder any local control of curriculum content (Chikoko, 2009). There is also evidence that
schools may not want this responsibility, such as the case with schools in
Ethiopia (Mebratu & Hoot, 2005; Watson & Yohannes,
2005).
However, in order to engage learners in a critical way, the curriculum must be
connected to the local context (Apple, 2008). Decentralization of this
domain, although not central in much of the dialogue around SBM, is vital in
order to harness the power of the school to create and support socially
conscious and environmentally sustainable development.
Justifications for Decentralization
The arguments for
decentralization generally coalesce around political legitimacy, professional
expertise, and market efficiency (McGinn & Welsh, 1999). Legitimacy is achieved by increasing community
participation and empowering local leaders. Instead of a central authority
making decisions that affect the local reality for schools, these decisions are
given to individuals and committees with a better understanding of the
immediate context. Expertise is tapped at all levels by providing a route for
input. Efficiency is increased by removing levels of bureaucracy, as well as
requiring more capital input on the local level. When top-down funding
structures are no longer viable, decentralization can be the answer (Bray & Borevskaya, 2001; Chikoko, 2009).
The potential
increase in participation from numerous stakeholders is also used to justify
decentralization efforts (Decentralized
decision-making in schools, 2009). Among the possible benefits
of increased involvement is an increase in accountability (Patrinos, 2011). This includes teachers being
held accountable to parents, as well as schools being held accountable to
communities. In the World Bank framework, accountability is seen as arising
from the interactions among community members, the state, the service
providers, and school committees (see Appendix 1).
Decentralization
of curriculum can provide the arena for just and responsible pedagogy, which
can then in turn drive development that is sustainable and viable (Arenas, 2008). Education is widely accepted
as being a route for economic development by multinational collaborations such
as the World Bank and the United Nations (Resnik, 2006). On a very basic level,
increasing education levels can be understood as increasing the value of human
capital in an area (Schultz, 1961). However, by implementing
SBM, those benefits can be better tailored for the immediate and local setting.
The realities of what schools can do for communities can be explored, and
schools can become providers instead of consumers in the community (Essuman & Akyeampong, 2011). Through a careful and
democratic development of curriculum, a more socially just educational program
can be achieved (Freedman, 2007). This learning is based on
local knowledge, gives the students the skills they need to work in their
community, but also employs a critical element so that so that traditional
knowledge and methods can be included but not deferred to without scrutiny.
Benefits of Decentralization
Many
goals of decentralization efforts have been identified as being met through
analysis of nationwide and regional transfers of decision-making power.
Increased community involvement is not only a benefit of decentralization
policies, but also central to their successes. This uptick in involvement has
been seen in many locations, including Thailand (Gamage & Sooksomchitra, 2006), El Salvador (Cuellar-Marchelli, 2003), and Bolivia (Comboni Salinas & Juarez Nunez, 2000). Levels of community
involvement vary, from focusing solely on parents to bringing in the numerous
intellectual and economic stakeholders present in the community. Although
decentralization efforts would benefit from more clear pathways for multiple
inputs, the programs tend to increase connections between the schools and those
with power in the community.
In
many places, educational benefits as they are traditionally gauged have also
been realized. SBM programs have been correlated with higher enrollment rates
in some places due to increased parental inclusion (Chikoko, 2009). Evaluated more broadly, SBM
has been seen to lower dropout rates and lessen grade repetitions. Failure
rates have also been shown to decrease in schools deploying these methods. Although
standardized test score results fail to provide any conclusive findings, these
more basic indicators have improved (Patrinos, 2011).
Base level
economic benefits have been realized in El Salvador and Mexico, among other
locations, with SBM leading to a more efficient and cheaper system (Patrinos, 2011). The model has also been more
successful in bringing in outside economic resources (Cuellar-Marchelli, 2003). SBM has been shown to be a
low cost way to improve educational outcomes. Although these larger trends do
not fully describe the less immediately measurable benefits of SBM, they
provide clear indicators of the possibilities of successful implementation of
decentralization policy.
Problems with School Based Management
The
research around the decentralization of school systems has identified many
problems and issues with the practice. When shifting power to the local level,
individuals in communities with existing political power can seize control of
the school as well (Bjork, 2004), and the school boards can
become overly politicized (Edwards, 2011). This has led to political
conflicts on the local level due to decentralization (Khanal, 2010).
Another common
problem with the implementation of decentralization practices is the occurrence
of “pseudo-reform.” When teachers remain beholden to the central authorities due
to acculturation, real reform is made much more difficult (Bjork, 2004). The lack of decentralization
of human resources decision-making can result in less authentic changes (Essuman & Akyeampong, 2011; Lai & Lo, 2006). New ideas can be shaped by
teachers or administrators to justify existing practices (Lam, 2011). When principals provide lip
service to reforms but do not follow through with authentic implementation,
real SBM efforts suffer and may be abandoned (Rose, 2003).
Decentralization
is presented to the developing world by groups such as the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and can create
tensions that are present in areas that continue to recover from colonialism (Lam, 2011). Communities in developing
regions are also often fabricated based on needs for labor instead of
traditional communities. This can greatly hinder efforts to build a communal
spirit and increase buy-in to decentralization efforts (Pryor, 2005). There remains a resistance
to the implementation of shared best practices among different groups and
across national borders due to these echoes of colonialism (Lam, 2011).
Decentralization
suffers from the same problem that many systemic level reforms do when
implemented on the micro scale. There is a disconnect between theory writ
largely and daily implementation on the ground (Khanal, 2010). This disconnect between
theory and practice was identified numerous times as being detrimental to SBM
initiatives. There is the perception that the international community knows
little about the local condition (Bjork, 2004). The global community is
perceived as ignoring the local reality (Edwards, 2011). In order to be successful,
these local realities must be considered (Essuman & Akyeampong, 2011). Although theoretically
decentralization may be well-regarded, without clear and implementable steps
provided to those local practitioners it is difficult for SBM to succeed (Khanal, 2010).
Clarity of roles
and avenues for communication must be established in order for an effective
decentralization effort to be implemented. Initially, authentic input from
stakeholders in the community around must be included (Edwards, 2011). All stakeholders in the
community, including those involved in local business and politics, as well as
parents must be brought in to the effort (Lai & Lo, 2006). When the avenues for
stakeholders to provide input are confused, they do not pursue it (Chikoko, 2009). If community members
continue to see the school as a separate field from the community, they are
unable to contribute in meaningful ways, choosing instead to take on more
rigidly defined roles. They must be able to use their social and cultural
capital in the educational field in order for the school to benefit from their
input (Pryor, 2005).
Perhaps the most
troublesome detrimental effect to schools implementing SBM is a noted decrease
in equity among schools in different locations. Since decentralized schools
depend more upon their local communities, disparities among communities are
highlighted in differences among the schools. This rise in inequity arose in
Indonesia (Toi, 2010; Yeom et al., 2002), El Salvador (Cuellar-Marchelli, 2003), Malawi (Chikoko, 2009), Mexico (Reimers & Cardenas, 2007), and China (Bray & Borevskaya, 2001), among others. This
increasing inequity has been identified as the reason for the abandoning of the
decentralization project in Zimbabwe, even though it was originally implemented
in that region to respond to concerns about the economic viability of the
education system (Chikoko, 2009).
Leadership and School Based Management
The
leadership needed for success in decentralization efforts is different than
many traditional models of leadership. Failures of leadership, at many
different levels, have been identified as one of the common struggles for SBM
implementation (Bjork, 2004; Chikoko, 2009; Edwards, 2011; Essuman
& Akyeampong, 2011; Gamage & Sooksomchitra, 2006). Considering the change of
roles and duties for principals, local stakeholders, parents, and teachers,
this struggle is not surprising. Leaders suffer from a lack of training and
preparation for decentralization efforts. However, models of the types of
leadership required do exist.
There
is an increased autonomy granted to principals in decentralization programs.
These leaders, who had previously been operating as low-level bureaucrats, now
must make decisions that have real and lasting effects in their schools. In
order to be successful, individuals must employ more distributive leadership
types (McInerney, 2003). Their networks now become
incredibly important, and they must actively work on building and maintaining
those interpersonal networks in order to better serve their schools (Parks Daloz, Keen, Keen, & Daloz Parks, 1997). As identified by Lipman-Blumen (2000), they must employ more
relational and instrumental leadership styles. This means understanding how
people are connected to each other and using those connections to accomplish
goals. In SBM initiatives, principals should be at the center of
decision-making; it is important then for those leaders to reach out to parents
and the community in order to build that network (Chikoko, 2009). They should not assume a
dictatorial role, but should instead understand that their leadership is shared
(Gamage & Sooksomchitra, 2006). Leadership that focuses on
collaboration has been identified as having numerous benefits (Myers & Mann, 2012), and in decentralization
programs the need for collaboration must be made clear to the school principals,
lest they recentralize the power they have been given into their own office (Lai & Lo, 2006).
In
places where curriculum is being decentralized, decisions around what and how
to include different influences from different voices in the community must be
made using a cooperative and caring framework (Noddings, 1999). It is vital for leaders to
understand that since they have been giving decision-making power, they need to
make those decisions with their local context as the centerpiece, since these
programs will be embedded in that reality (Parks Daloz et al., 1997). Decentralization allows for the inclusion of
local knowledge, and in order to best access and implement that knowledge, deep
understanding of the local context is required. When this understanding is
achieved, indigenous voices can be included in order to craft curriculum that
gives students the skills they needed to satisfy their needs and to improve the
quality of their society (Comboni Salinas & Juarez Nunez, 2000).
Leaders can and
should help to bring clarity to complicated programs such as decentralization.
Such clarity benefits the effort and the leader (Myers & Mann, 2012). Problems with clarity of
communication and confusion about routes of accountability have plagued many
decentralization efforts (Chikoko, 2009; Edwards, 2011). Initially, administrators
need to be educated and trained about SBM (Yeom et al., 2002). They need to understand
their position in the accountability loop, as well as the position of others (Appendix I). They can then drive communication among
the other stakeholders in the school in order to make space for all to have
input and to help all parties hold each other accountable.
It is not only
administrators who are identified as leaders in SBM initiatives; teachers are
also given room to take the lead (Decentralized
decision-making in schools, 2009). They can be parts of
leadership committees in working with more traditional decentralized models,
but they can also take the lead in developing curriculum if the power is
granted to them (Ziba, 2011). Teachers should not be asked
to complete this task on their own, however. Local holders of cultural knowledge
can be tapped in order to train teachers in the skills that are tied to the
context in order to make the teachers experts in these areas. (Yeom et al., 2002).
A Successful Model for Socially Conscious
School Based Management
In
the early 1990s, the Columbian Ministry of Education (MEN) went through a major
decentralization project (Faguet &
Sánchez, 2008).
The decentralization efforts employed a concession school model, where existing
private institutions were funded in order to become public schools. In this way
the quality of education in those schools would not diminish, but they would be
available to all students, instead of only those who were able to pay the
tuition. The hope was that this would increase student performance as well as
school accountability, since the schools could lose their contracts if MEN or
the communities perceived them to be failing (Gershberg et al., 2012).
The
school described by Arenas (2008) and referenced at the
beginning of this piece is a model of an institution where a school has been
granted a large amount of autonomy, and the school and community leaders have
used that power in order to transform their school into an engine for local
development. The town had struggled with issues of violence, poverty, and
environmental exploitation in the name of development. The school started as a
collective of local parents who wanted to provide a primary education, and
quickly evolved into a secondary institution with a mission of vocational
education once partnering with MEN. The benefits of the partnership were
enhanced due to the Ministry’s thematic goals of peace, democracy, and the
environment being in alignment with the ideals of the school in Peñoncito.
The
school has facilities for agriculture, aquaculture, and livestock raising, and
each grade level at the school takes on their own development project in one of
these areas. These projects are not just models of business enterprises from
which the students learn; they are actual functioning businesses. By combining
knowledge provided by local farmers as well as pedagogical methods known to the
teachers, authentic and economically viable work is done. One project conducted
by sixth graders at the school resulted in a net profit at the end of the
season. Instead of the school absorbing the capital, they chose instead to
enact a profit sharing model, so that the students were able to gain
economically from their work. This model did not go unnoticed in the wider
community, and helped to drive conversations related to collective benefits and
unionization in other businesses, resulting in an increase in the quality of
life for people without direct links to the school.
Environmental
stewardship is also central to the education that happens at Tomás Herrera
Cantillo. The curriculum focuses on both learning about and implementing green practices.
Students and teachers talk about issues related to raw materials, production
methods, and end products. They then implement environmentally positive
practices while conducting their work. Teachers bring in processes with local
or indigenous roots, and those practices are critically evaluated and used,
modified, or rejected. The students also consider larger issues of consumerism,
and the balance between the drive for modernization and the necessity of
conservation.
The
leadership structure in the school is very collaborative and values multiple
inputs. Many of the teachers are originally from the area but had gained their
education elsewhere. When they returned, they had the knowledge base required
to build a school, but the familiarity with the context so that they could locate
and implement local knowledge. Due to the nature of the MEN decentralization
program, this dynamic was not interrupted, and the existing networks were
honored and able to be employed. The school, originally built by
administrators, parents, teachers, and students, was allowed to continue its
mission.
Models
such as Peñoncito show that schools can provide students with the skills to
regenerate human and natural communities. Teachers can help students develop
and utilize a critical framework with which to conduct and evaluate
development. In doing so, they can improve the socioeconomic status of the
students and the community. The combination of Columbia’s particular shape of
decentralization and a group of leaders with a large amount of local knowledge
led to the creation and maintenance of a unique institution. But Arenas (2008)
notes that:
Nonetheless, schools that are located in
urban or suburban areas, focused on capital-intensive forms of vocationalism,
or situated in highly industrialized countries can still benefit from the
lessons derived from this school, and equally important, use them as
inspiration for the changes that they themselves want to implement. (p. 201).
Conclusions
School based
management has the possibility of having positive economic and environment
impacts in developing nations that employ decentralization programs in the
field of education. Although control of the curriculum has not been central to
many decentralization efforts, there are some models that grant local
institutions control over the content being taught in the school. This local
control can and should lead towards responsible and sustainable development.
Schools can have positive effects on the lives of their students, their
parents, and their communities. When leaders in these schools can employ models
of leadership that are collaborative and communal, positive outcomes can be
achieved.
References
Apple,
M. W. (2008). Can schooling contribute to a more just society? Education, Citizenship
and Social Justice, 3(3), 239–261. doi:10.1177/1746197908095134
Arenas, A. (2008). Connecting Hand, Mind, and
Community: Vocational Education for Social and Environmental Renewal. Teachers
College Record, 110(2), 377–404.
Bjork, C. (2004). Decentralisation In Education,
Institutional Culture And Teacher Autonomy In Indonesia. International
Review of Education, 50(3-4), 245–262.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-004-2622-6
Bray, M., & Borevskaya, N. (2001). Financing
education in transitional societies: Lessons from Russia and China. Comparative
Education, 37(3), 345–365.
Chikoko, V. (2009). Educational Decentralisation in
Zimbabwe and Malawi: A Study of Decisional Location and Process. International
Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 201–211.
Comboni Salinas, S., & Juarez Nunez, J. M. (2000).
Education, Culture and Indigenous Rights: The Case of Educational Reform in
Bolivia. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 30(1),
105–124.
Cuellar-Marchelli, H. (2003). Decentralization and
Privatization of Education in El Salvador: Assessing the Experience. International
Journal of Educational Development, 23(2), 145–166.
DeBoer, J. (2012). Twentieth-Century American
Education Reform in the Global Context. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(4),
416–435.
Decentralized decision-making in schools: the
theory and evidence on school-based management. (2009). Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Edwards, R. M. (2011). Disconnect and Capture of
Education Decentralisation Reforms in Nepal: Implications for Community
Involvement in Schooling. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1),
67–84.
Epstein, M. J., & Yuthas, K. (2012, Winter).
Redefining Education in the Developing World. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 10(1), 19–20.
Essuman, A., & Akyeampong, K. (2011).
Decentralisation policy and practice in Ghana: the promise and reality of
community participation in education in rural communities. Journal of
Education Policy, 26(4), 513–527. doi:10.1080/02680939.2011.554999
Faguet, J.-P., & Sánchez, F. (2008).
Decentralization’s Effects on Educational Outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia. World
Development, 36(7), 1294–1316. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.06.021
Freedman, E. B. (2007). Is Teaching for Social Justice
Undemocratic? Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 442–473.
Gamage, D., & Sooksomchitra, P. (2006).
Decentralisation and school-based management in Thailand. In Decentralisation
and Privatisation in Education (pp. 151–167). Springer. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.uvm.edu/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-3358-2_8
Gershberg, A. I., González, P. A., & Meade, B.
(2012). Understanding and Improving Accountability in Education: A Conceptual
Framework and Guideposts from Three Decentralization Reform Experiences in
Latin America. World Development, 40(5), 1024–1041.
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.014
Khanal, P. (2010). School Decentralisation in Nepal: A
Disjuncture between Macro-Level Advocacy and Micro-Level Reality? Educational
Research for Policy and Practice, 9(3), 145–158.
Lai, M., & Lo, L. N. (2006). Decentralization and
Social Partnership: The Development of Vocational Education at Shanghai and
Shenzhen in China. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 5(2),
101–120.
Lam, E. (2011). Sharing Best Practices in Barbados and
Trinidad and Tobago: Patterns of Policy Implementation and Resistance. Compare:
A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41(1), 25–41.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2000). Connective leadership:
managing in a changing world. Oxford [England]; New York: Oxford University
press.
McGinn, N., & Welsh, T. (1999). Decentralization
of education: why, when, what and how? Unesco. Retrieved from
http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/decentr_educ_why_when_what_how_oth_enl_t07.pdf
McInerney, P. (2003). Moving into dangerous territory?
Educational leadership in a devolving education system. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(1), 57–72.
doi:10.1080/1360312022000069996
Mebratu, B., & Hoot, J. (2005). Curriculum Reform,
Challenges, and Coping Strategies in the Ethiopian Educational System. International
Journal of Educational Reform, 14(2), 130–139.
Mehan, H. (2012). Understanding Inequality in Schools:
The Contribution of Interpretative Studies. In Handbuch Bildungs-und
Erziehungssoziologie (pp. 261–281). Springer. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-531-18944-4_17
Moradi, S., Hussin, S. B., & Barzegar, N. (2012).
School-Based Management (SBM), Opportunity or Threat (Education systems of
Iran). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2143–2150.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.179
Myers, B., & Mann, J. D. (2012). Take the lead:
motivate, inspire, and bring out the best in yourself and everyone around you.
New York, NY: Atria Paperback.
Noddings, N. (1999). Care, justice, and equity. In M.
S. Katz, N. Noddings, & K. A. Strike (Eds.), Justice and caring: the
seach for common ground in education (pp. 7–20). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Parks Daloz, L. A., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., &
Daloz Parks, S. (1997). Common fire: leading lives of commitment in a
complex world. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Patrinos, H. A. (2011). School-Based Management. Making
schools work: New evidence on accountability reforms, 87–140.
Pryor, J. (2005). Can community participation mobilise
social capital for improvement of rural schooling? A case study from Ghana. Compare:
A Journal of Comparative Education, 35(2), 193–203.
Reimers, F., & Cardenas, S. (2007). Who Benefits
from School-Based Management in Mexico? Prospects: Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education, 37(1), 37–56.
Resnik, J. (2006). International Organizations, the
“Education-Economic Growth” Black Box, and the Development of World Education
Culture. Comparative Education Review, 50(2), 173–195.
Rose, P. (2003). Community participation in school
policy and practice in Malawi: Balancing local knowledge, national policies and
international agency priorities. Compare, 33(1), 47–64.
Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The
American economic review, 51(1), 1–17.
Toi, A. (2010). An Empirical Study of the Effects of
Decentralization in Indonesian Junior Secondary Education. Educational
Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2), 107–125.
Watson, D., & Yohannes, L. (2005). Capacity
building for decentralised education service delivery in Ethiopia. European
Centre for Development Policy Management. Retrieved from
http://www.ecdpm.org/Web_ECDPM/Web/Content/Download.nsf/0/3750BF444F91C0DDC125706D002FFB9D/$FILE/05-57H-e-DW-Ethiopia.pdf
Yeom, M., Acedo, C., Utomo, E., & Yeom, M. (2002).
The reform of secondary education in indonesia during the 1990s: Basic
education expansion and quality improvement through curriculum
decentralization. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(1), 56–68.
doi:10.1007/BF03024921
Ziba, S. A. (2011). The Decentralization and
Centralization of Curriculum in the Primary Education of Burkina Faso.
Retrieved from http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/502/
Appendix I
(Decentralized
decision-making in schools, 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment