Decentralization for High-Quality Education: Elements and Issues of Design

Abstract

This PDF document was made available from www.rti.org as a public service of RTI International. More information about RTI Press can be found at http://www.rti.org/rtipress. RTI International is an independent, nonprofit research organization dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. The RTI Press mission is to disseminate information about RTI research, analytic tools, and technical expertise to a national and international audience. RTI Press publications are peer-reviewed by at least two independent substantive experts and one or more Press editors. All rights reserved. This report is protected by copyright. Credit must be provided to the author and source of the document when the content is quoted. Neither the document nor partial or entire reproductions may be sold without prior written permission from the publisher.The views and opinions expressed in this occasional paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of RTI International or the Global Partnership in Education. AbstractThe impact of education decentralization on high-quality education has been mixed at best. This can be attributed to a variety of factors including decentralization itself, ineffectual implementation, political-economic friction, and poor design. This paper focuses largely on the issue of design, contending that if governments or donors aim to decentralize education systems, or parts thereof, for the purpose of high-quality education, the system must be designed to do so. Only then might there be some chance of it actually happening. In this paper we put forth a methodology for designing a high-quality decentralized education system and discuss the ways in which that design can be used to support the planning process aimed at bringing about the design.

Education finance in Egypt: Problems and a possible solution

“…While far from perfect, this approach does give schools some element of choice over an issue-minor maintenance-on which they are bestinformed and thus can make swift and information-based decisions. Carnoy, 1993;Naidoo, 2002;Faguet, 2004;Ahmad, Devarajan, Khemani, & Shah, 2005;De Grauwe et al, 2005;Sharma, 2005;Winkler, 2005;Kim, 2008;Ahmad & Brosio, 2009;Healey & Crouch, 2012). A summary of the pros and cons is beyond the scope of this paper.…”

“…The literature on this issue is vast (Rondinelli, Nellis, & Cheema, 1983;Hannaway & 4 Movement of government resources from the center to a subnational level of the system does not, in and of itself, constitute what the literature would refer to as decentralized finance (Hill & Bonan, 1991;Ross & Levacic, 1999;Kim, 2008;Uyttersprott, 2008;Healey & Crouch, 2012). 5 Also, when the BAB2 allocation went nationwide, the maintenance line item of EGP 210M from the General Authority for Education Buildings (GAEB) was used.…”

“…The paper assumes, instead, that countries embark on decentralization for many very complex reasons, not all of them necessarily "rational" from a "modernist" or technocratic point of view. The paper assumes, nonetheless, along with the literature, that once a decentralization path is chosen, the mechanisms for doing so should attempt to maximize equity and efficiency (Rondinelli et al, 1983;Hill & Bonan, 1991;Litvack, Ahmad, & Bird, 1998;Welsh & McGinn, 1999;Winkler, 2005;Kim, 2008;Healey & Crouch, 2012).…”

“…However, it must be noted that these processes are not yet ideal in that, for instance, in the BAB6 allocations there are certain restrictions on the use of the funding-a large percentage can be used only for technical schools. 5 Nevertheless, it is a meaningful beginning toward what many would refer to as decentralized education finance (Hill & Bonan, 1991;Ross & Levacic, 1999;Kim, 2008;Uyttersprott, 2008;Healey & Crouch, 2012).…”

“…While this paper does not focus on advocating for decentralization, or examining its pros and cons in any detail, it does take two claims as its point of departure: (1) that decentralization is an existing trend in many countries and is a policy option that many international agencies urge countries to at least consider (Smoke, 2000(Smoke, , 2001Basher, 2003;Busemeyer 2012;Ahmad, Brosio, & Tanzi, 2005), and that (2) if a country is likely to embark upon some form of decentralization, the design of the mechanisms for decentralization ought to take into account their efficiency and equity impacts (Monk, 1990;Augenblick, Meyers, & Anderson, 1997;Roza & Miles, 2002;Sharma, 2005;Kim, 2008;Odden & Picus, 2008;Ahmad & Brosio, 2009;Healey & Crouch, 2012). On the assumption that post-reform Egypt will continue decentralization efforts, an analysis of past modalities of transferring funds (particularly in terms of equity) is timely and justified.…”