Does universal primary education policy weaken decentralisation? Participation and accountability frameworks in East Africa

Abstract

This article critically reflects upon the ‘divides’ among actors within two currently popular education policies in low‐income countries: decentralisation and Universal Primary Education (UPE). Current literatures suggest that the existing decentralisation framework tends to overlook the ‘divides’ among actors that often impede the implementation of educational decentralisation. Furthermore, in East Africa, UPE policy characterised by centralised political power coexists with decentralisation policy: here, central control is strengthened while the notion of increased local control under decentralisation is becoming blurred. In this context, it is essential to enhance participation and accountability in school governance in order to recover client power.

Keywords:

• decentralisation
• universal primary education
• educational policy
• East Africa

Notes

1. These three countries are members of the East African Community (EAC), a regional inter‐governmental organisation, together with Burundi and Rwanda.

2. When it comes to the involvement of local governments, there are structural differences in their roles in the three countries. Districts and sub‐counties are devolved authority in Uganda, while in Tanzania, districts and villages are devolved. In Kenya, districts and others are deconcentrated units.

3. The sector administration is not decentralised under the district government. The Kenyan formula with money sent directly to schools seemed more effective and Uganda is trying to introduce the same formula.

4. According to Hannaway and Carnoy (1993), there are three types of decentralisation in education; system‐level decentralisation, organisation‐level decentralisation, and market decentralisation. Market decentralisation refers to devolution to parents in deciding the most desirable type of education for their children. The voucher system is one of the most representational methods of implementation.

5. The main areas of the survey include Dar es Salaam and Morogoro Province in Tanzania (March 2005), Nairobi, Maboko Municipality, and Machacos Municipality in Kenya (February and March 2006), Nyando County, Kisumu Municipality, and Narok District in Kenya (August 2006), Kamplala in Uganda and Nairobi in Kenya (November 2006), Kayonga District in Uganda and Kiambu District in Kenya (March 2007), and Soroti District in Uganda (July 2007).

6. The expansion in funds derives from the Local Government Development Programme and School Facility Grant in Uganda and the Local Government Capital Development Grant in Tanzania.

7. Another barrier is a large geographical area of districts that deters the expected role, especially in Tanzania.

8. Capitation grant, in Tanzania, covers costs of textbooks, scholastic materials, equipment, repairs, exams, capacity building, and seminars.

9. Interview with Mr Wietze Lindeboom, Consultant, Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA), March 2005. It should also be noted that the Ministry of Finance did not officially authorize the report in the end.

10. The data include 1248 children aged 6–15 in 2004 and 1138 children aged 6–15 in 2007.

11. To improve the quality of education, some incentive scheme needs to be considered (see Nishimura, Yamano, and Sasaoka 2008).