Adequacy of capacity building and stakeholder involvement in decentralized education management: Evidence from Ethiopia

Abstract

Decentralization is a means of enhancing the access, efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of educational services. However, no study has been carried about in the study area. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to assess the adequacy of capacity building and stakeholder involvement in decentralized education management in secondary schools in Enebsie Sarmider district, Ethiopia. With a parallel convergent mixed research design, data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, and document reviews from 187 multilevel participants. The study showed that the capacity of buildings in schools to implement and manage decentralization education is low. Stakeholders’ involvements in various management functions were moderate. Stakeholders’ involvement in organizing activities, such as Kebele (village), Education and Training Bureau and Parent-Teacher-Student-Association members, were rated low. This revealed that stakeholders did not fully carry out their functions and responsibilities given by rules. The most challenging factors affecting decentralized educational management are related to the availability of resources, decision-making process, budget for education, and skilled human resources. Based on the findings, this study has several practical implications for many stakeholders of education, such as the Ministry of Education and school administrators, to understand the adequacy, of organization capacity, and stakeholders’ involvement and associated challenges in decentralizing education. Particularly, the researchers recommend the right people in the right place, a proper budget for education, and facilitating the local decision-making process to diminish the challenges of decentralized educational management. This study has also theoretical implications to the literature about decentralization of education in the Ethiopia context.

Keywords:

• capacity building
• decentralization
• education management
• stakeholder involvement

1. Introduction

Education helps human beings solve complex social, economic, and political challenges (MoE, 2007, 2017; Yerkes & Muasher, 2018). In education, the most significant reforms were introduced to improve efficiency, equity, coordination at the lower level, service sustainability, and the quality of education (Isa et al., 2020). One of these is decentralized governance, which refers to restructuring authority and responsibility at the school level (Hussien, 2007; Work, 2002). Decentralization also tends to be a “bottom-up” approach in nature. It is strongly linked to self-actualization, innovation, free markets, entrepreneurial infrastructure, task organization, matrix management, and close-to-customer productivity (MoE, 2005). Decentralization is an administrative reform and innovation at the local level that enhances active public participation and reinforces administrative proficiency and the provision of quality services (Uddin, 2018). Isa et al. (2020) stated that “authority decentralization at the school level has become a global education reform strategy and implemented to enhance the involvement of parents, students, teachers, officers, principals, and stakeholders in local communities and organizations” (p.1)

The capacity of local governments and local institutions in decentralization refers to three dimensions: political (transfer of power politically and making them accountable to their constituencies), administrative (transfer of policy-making and management responsibilities), and fiscal (changing of the foundations of revenue for local schools) decentralization (Fritzen & Lim, 2006; Saltman & Bankauskaite, 2006). Decentralization has four dimensions: Political, Administrative, Fiscal, and Market (Kundishora, 2019). It is clear that devolution of all dimensions to local schools may reduce corruption (Yerkes & Muasher, 2018). Rosyida and Purwanto (2022) identified six critical stages for practicing decentralization education at the local level: the socialization stage, formulation of the school’s goals, arranging educational resources, carrying out SWOT analysis, preparing plans or programs for quality improvement, and the evaluation of plans or program implementation. For better decentralization in the Netherlands, they have established lump-sum funding in vocational and secondary education first and then primary education since 1992 to sustain financial decentralization in schools (Karsten & Meijer, 1999). This study adopts the conceptual frameworks of Fritzen and Lim (2006), Kundishora (2019), and Saltman and Bankauskaite (2006).

Yamauchi (2014) found that decentralization affects students’ exam results in the Philippines by increasing their scores by 4.2 points. Notably, post-Covid-19 scholars strongly suggested rethinking the importance of community and parent involvement in reducing social and psychological isolation, leadership, and teaching and learning processes in schools (Iyengar, 2021). Owan et al. (2023) also found that decentralization significantly predicts teachers’ instructional material use, lesson preparation, and classroom management.

Improving school effectiveness through decentralization is remained challenging in developing countries, such as Africa and Asia. Educational decentralization has failed to yield the expected results for many reasons: lack of administrative power, decision-making power, and local resources (Saito & Kato, 2008). In the Philippines, decentralization practices were challenged because of principals’ lack of commitment, transparency, and low stakeholder support (Iyengar, 2021). In Sri Lanka, the decentralization program took more than five years to reform the management culture (Aturupane et al., 2022). Gamage et al. (1996) found that poor resource utilization was a significant challenge faced by school leaders in effectively decentralizing and impacting students’ success. School autonomy and transparency in budget management are challenges faced by Negeri school principals in implementing decentralization (Rosyida & Purwanto, 2022). In Eastern and Southern Africa, high poverty levels, rapid urbanization, gender inequality, rampant corruption, political instability, and climate change are challenges that affect the decentralization system (Kundishora, 2019).

In Ethiopia, as a recent development, decentralization has become an agenda for the government to respond to the 85% enrollment of young generations (MoE, 2015). Since then, local administrators and (PTSA) were also expected to emphasize recognizing the decentralization of educational management (Hussien, 2007; Mitchell, 2017; Weihrich & Koonth, 1999). Weihrich and Koonth (1999) further defined PTSA as

A joint body of parents, students, and teachers is composed of executive members elected at the parent-student-teacher assembly. PTSA was intended to strengthen school-community relationships, make the school a good teaching and learning environment, foster excellent academic relationships between teachers and students, and lead and administer schools on behalf of the community in collaboration with local government bodies (p.198).

The Ethiopian Government has noted the importance of community participation in decision-making, financing, and preparing annual action plans at the school level (MoE, 2010). At the end of ESDP III, in practice, a later School Improvement Program was established and gave authority and responsibility to school principals (MoE, 2007). Principals are also responsible for management resources in schools; however, district education offices purchase education materials (Abebe, 2012).

Swift-Morgan (2006) revealed that school decentralization does not meet expectations for many reasons. For instance, weak capacity at the school level, limited capacity for planning and management, and a lack of solid communication and relationships between regions and districts have challenged the government to decentralize education effectively and adequately (MoE, 2010). Furthermore, other challenges for decentralizing education are the lack of motivation, willingness, and commitment of leaders; absence of suitable school situations; negative stances of the local people toward the government; lack of commitment to leaders; lack of participatory planning and transparency and accountability; poor school capacity; and lack of material and human resources (Ayalew, 2009). Ayalew (2009) stated that low-level education quality and school improvement program implementation are still inadequate in many public schools in Ethiopia due to a lack of power (Gebre-Egziabher & Berhanu, 2007), lack of knowledge and experience (Ayalew, 2009; Tadesse, 2007). Lack of demarcation of accountability, lines of decentralization, absence of education law, and absence of legal provisions for parents and community involvement were other challenges identified recently in Ethiopia (MoE, 2017). Most of these challenges are context-based and require further study under various circumstances. Besides its novelty in education, as researchers have reviewed different litterateurs, no study has been conducted in this area. Therefore, the researchers investigated the adequacy of capacity building and stakeholder involvement in decentralized education in the case of Enbisie Sarmider District (woreda) secondary schools in Ethiopia.

In 1991, the Ethiopian Federal government decided on a decentralization policy to legitimize region ethnic groups located in region and transfer power to the local level for enabling local communities to take higher responsibility) (Gebre-Egziabher & Berhanu, 2007). The decentralization of education is helping as an instrument for diminishing central government accountability for the running of education. The roles and responsibilities among stakeholders of the education system were various government levels, and schools were lacking clarity in line with development trends. Accountability in line with decentralized units of decision makers is not clear or not practiced: who is accountable, to whom, how they are held accountable, and for what. In the Ethiopian education system, there are no legal or statutory provisions for parents and the local communities to hold the schools accountable, and when they have no financial or other leverage to hold the schools into account as stated in the Drafting Road Map of 2017–2030 (MoE, 2017).

The exclusion of stakeholders such as parents and students from the planning up to implementation stages lead to lack of transparency and accountability in public schools. The extent of decentralization to schools is not on the expected level, the most crucial educational level where decentralization can make differences seems left behind (MoE, 2017). Such above points were recognized before by different studies, for example, those noted as the lack of necessarily skills from education leaders to involve various school stakeholders as a critical challenge to the implementation of Ethiopian local governance policy (Ayalew, 2009). Moreover, the significant challenges to decentralize education in Ethiopia were the lack of administrative capacity, overload, and lack of teamwork (Berhanu, 2023).

In general, as researchers have reviewed different literatures, the following gaps regarding to decentralize educational management are observed. In Ethiopia, some researchers studying on stakeholder involvement in school affairs have revealed that parental involvement was limited (Mitchell, 2017; MoE, 2017). Swift-Morgan (2006) was also conducted how community participation was promoted by Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Gemechu (2012) studied concepts of decentralization in Ethiopia; Taddese and Rao (2022) and Tulu (2019) also studied the practice of school-based teachers’ endless development in Ethiopia. Based on the above investigated studies, the first gap identified in these studies is the content and geographic scope, which means that the study area and the issue of problem intended to be studied. Consequently, the above studies have failed to explore the adequacy of capacity building in terms of financial resources, human resources, and organizational structure, level of leadership and management in Ethiopia. All before, in Ethiopia, many researches were conducted regarding the involvement of parents in school and school-based teachers’ development in Addis Ababa and southern Ethiopia. This study also incorporates examining the adequacy of capacity building to decentralize and associated challenges in Northern part of Ethiopia, Enebsie Sarmider district. Therefore, to fill the gaps identified above, the following research questions were raised.

1. What is the status of organizational capacity to implement decentralized educational management in Ethiopia?

2. What is the level of stakeholders like PTSA and KETB involvement in different managerial functions in Ethiopia?

3. What are the challenges to implementing decentralized educational management in Ethiopia?

The specific objectives of this study are as follows:

1. Assess the level of organizational capacity to implement decentralized educational management.

2. Examine the level of stakeholders such as PTSA and the Kebele (village) Education and Training Bureau (KETB) participating in various functions of management

3. Identify the significant challenges of implementing decentralized educational management

2. Theoretical framework

Educational decentralization as a process, a system, or as a development tactic, also traces to numerous theories. As a fact, it could not be very easy to discovery a single theory that comprehensively holds all dimensions of decentralization under this study. To this effect, researchers need to select theories that contextually best fit into this study variable. Researchers have tried to focus on the most pertinent theories which are in line with the current studies in the area of decentralization. The proposition of the study, “For the decentralized education management at an anticipated degree (qualitatively and quantitatively), the adequacy of capacity building and stakeholder involvement are crucial”. To explain this proposition, first, this study explores management theory. In management theory, the sequential theory of decentralization, Participatory Democracy, and the theory of federalism have been used exclusively to explain the decentralization of education.

This study followed Falleti’s (2010) sequential theory of decentralization, which identified three types of decentralization (fiscal, administrative, and political). Administrative decentralization is aimed at transferring responsibility for planning, financing, and management from the central to local levels. Administrative decentralization is the redistribution of authority and responsibility of administering material, human, and financial resources for offering public services at various government echelons. The dominant task of administrative decentralization is service delivery by administering the whole sector. Political decentralization involves the creation of subnational units (regional, states, provincial, districts, or municipalities) of the central government that are endowed with independent decision-making power. Political decentralization targets to offer citizens or their elected representatives more power in making decisions. To this effect, in practice, elected officials at the local level will have dual accountability to the center and to their communities. The structure of implementation among these dimensions of decentralization differs from country to country and from sector to sector based on the central interest of the central government, nature, ruling party, and the existing objective situations.

In Ethiopia, when the current government, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), people accept the government’s new policies and programs with great enthusiasm and pleasing to bring about rapid change. One of the strategies set by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in the year 2000 was the District Level Decentralization Program (DLDP). To this effect, the government of Ethiopia was to begin exercising fiscal, administrative, and political decentralization at district level in 2000s. With the principle that the decentralization strategy is a tool of consolidating the federal system, the government of Ethiopia included DLDP as one of the four pillars to accelerate development, enhance democratic practices, promote good governance and improve service delivery, and bring about peace (Gemechu, 2012). In addition to the alignment to Ethiopian’s District Level Decentralization Program (DLDP) and the current study, this theory departs from other models in that it analyzes three decentralization dimensions together as components of the same process as decentralization.

Decentralization is also linked to Riker’s theory of federalism (Riker, 1964), which emphasizes the constitutional autonomy of subnational units. In line with Riker’s (1964) theory of federalism, Ethiopia also has a federal structure and significant decentralization pursued since the early 1990s. It is thus an ideal theory to examine organizational capacity to decentralize education and stakeholders’ involvement. In this study, decentralization as the devolution of authority and power by the central government over specific functions, together with administrative, fiscal, and political attributes. Furthermore, the theory of Participatory Democracy or democratic decentralization has been utilized to explain the decentralization program in education. Participatory Democracy Theory that guarantees stakeholders’ involvement (Booyse, 2018). The theory argues that stakeholders’ involvement has a very significant importance for decentralization process, Theoretically, democratic decentralization may have good space for a wider and deeper involvement of individuals at the local level. As a theory of democratic decentralization, to make the involvement of people efficient and effective, there are certain situations that needs emphasize: The the level of stakeholders’ involvement and institutional capacity arrangements to decentralize education (Faguet et al., 2021). In line with the present study, Falleti’s (2010) sequential theory of decentralization and Riker’s theory of federalism (Riker, 1964) and the theory of Participatory Democracy (Booyse, 2018) emphasize the decentralization of the government structure and are crucial for decentralization practice. In line with the ideas of the above theorists, Ethiopia also has a constitutional federal government, and the federal government gives constitutional autonomy to their regional states and further to district levels.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Research design

This study uses a mixed approach with quantitative and qualitative research methods together (Cohen et al., 2007). A convergent parallel mixed-method design was adopted because the required data were collected simultaneously (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Collecting qualitative and quantitative data is essential for comprehending individuals’ perceptions of the world, seeking in-depth insights, and conducting statistical analyses. To offset the weakness of the approaches and to benefit from the strength, the mixed or combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used. Because combining both approaches provides relevant data and helps to be more confident of the results. Convergent parallel mixed-method design is also important for

3.2. Participants

The procedure for selecting participants using various random sampling methods incorporated the following steps. First, the researchers started by deciding on the target population of the study, that is, experts, heads of district level and secondary schools’ school leaders in the Enbisie Sarmider district through a purposive sampling method. According to Babbie (2007), purposive sampling allows researchers to select the sample on the base of their own judgment and knowledge of the population. The rationale behind selecting this district is remote areas of the province and less performance when compared to other districts. The study area will be important to include all primary schools to obtain relevant information. However, it is found to be unmanageable for the researchers, due to financial and time constraints to include primarily schools. Because of this, the scope of the study is delimitated to secondary schools purposively. By this district, the target groups for this study were the heads of the Enbisie Sarmider Woreda (district), Education Office (WEO) and experts (professionals), secondary school principals, vice principals and supervisors, department heads, PTSA, and KETB members. Therefore, the population of the study was two WEO heads and thirty-two experts, six principals and nine vice principals, and two supervisors, seventy-two department heads, forty-two PTSAs, and forty KETB, which would account for 205.

Second, the researchers decided the total sample size by using Yamane’s (1967) formula, n = N/1+N (e) ² for WEO experts (professionals), department heads, and KETB members since they are relatively large in number. Based on this formula, 30 WEO experts, 60 department heads, and 36 KETBs were selected. However, two WEO heads, six principals and nine vice principals, and two supervisors, and forty-two PTSAs were taken totally as a sample since they are few in number (Gay et al., 2012. In turn, the total sample size was 187 (91.2%) participants out of the 205 target population.

Finally, regarding the sampling methods, WEO experts (professionals), department heads, and KETB members were selected using simple random sampling. In simple random sampling, the first researchers wrote each individual’s name on a separate slip of paper, place all slips in a big hat, shake the hat, and select slips from the hat until the desired number of participants is selected. This procedure is satisfactory since the population has less than 1000 (Gay et al., 2012). The remaining participants such as WEO heads, principals, vice principals, supervisors, and PTSAs were selected through a comprehensive sampling method since they are few in number. The summary of the target population, sample size, and sampling methods were presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of sample respondents and sampling techniques

No	Categories	Population	Samples	Sample size (%)	Sampling techniques
1	Principals	6	6	100	Comprehensive sampling
2	Vice principals	9	9	100	Comprehensive sampling
3	Supervisors	2	2	100	Comprehensive sampling
4	Department heads	72	60	83	Simple random sampling
5	PTSAs	42	42	100	Comprehensive sampling
6	KETB	40	36	90	Simple random sampling
7	WEO experts	32	30	94	Simple random sampling
8	WEOs Heads	2	2	100	Comprehensive sampling
	Total00	205	187	91.2

Note: PTSAs—Parent- Teacher-Student associations, KETB- Kebele (village) Education and Training Bureau; WEO (Woreda (district) Education Office).

In addition to this, the researchers interviewed four participants (two supervisors and two WEO heads).

3.3. Data gathering tools

Primary and secondary sources of data were used to collect relevant data. Since the research approach is a mixed approach, the data collection methods were both a quantitative data collection tools (questionnaire) and qualitative data collection tools (interview and document review).

3.4. Questionnaire

The questionnaire was used because it helped researchers obtain information about people’s opinions, attitudes, and practices in educational research. The questionnaire of this study has four parts (look appendix): The first is about participants’ background information such as gender, education level, and length of service. The second part is about the adequacy of organizational capacity to decentralize education, the third and the fourth are about stakeholder involvement in management function and its challenges, respectively. The researchers adopted questionnaires from Fritzen and Lim (2006), Kundishora (2019), and Saltman and Bankauskaite (2006). After adoption in the Ethiopian context and writing in English, two English language graduate teachers teaching at Abrehawoastbeha secondary school translated the scale into Amharic. Next, the Amharic version of the scale was administered to educational leadership experts at Debre Markos University, Ethiopia, for face and content validity. Finally, the researchers rearranged the questions based on experts’ comments. In addition, a pilot study was conducted with 25 teachers to check the questionnaires and minimize errors. The reliability of the instrument of the study using Cronbach’s alpha revealed a questionnaire for the status of capacity building, and the level of stakeholder involvement was 0.843 and 0.802, respectively. This shows that the reliability of the scale is highly acceptable (Cohen & Miller, 2007). Very low-1 to very high-5 level Likert scale was used to measure the level of capacity building, stakeholder involvement, and challenges in decentralizing education management. The criteria for constructing judgments on the statistical means (M) of res ponses are as follows: (1) M ≥ 3.66 is High, (2), 2.34 ≤ M < 3.67 is Moderate, (M < 2.34, and Low (Yamashita & Millar, 2021). This interval is depend upon ratio of classification, that means maximum-minimum/number of groups = 5–1/3 = 1.33 (interval).

In addition, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were carried out to check the fitness of the model to the collected data.The findings of CFA for the adequacy of organizational structure reveal that the fitting indexes are χ2/df = 2.78, RMSEA = .073, IFI = .93, NFI = .99, RFI = .99, NNFI = .99 and CFI = .97, GFI = .9 and AGFI = .86, which are in acceptable range. To examine the fitness of the stakeholders’ involvement in the managerial function scale, the researchers conducted CFA, which indicated (x²)/df of 3.2., since it is less than five, the scale has a moderate level of goodness of fit. RMSEA = .073, IFI=. 9, NFI = 0.95, RFI = 0, 94, NNFI = .9, and CFI = .92. The IFI, RFI, NNFI, and CFI indices of over .951 corresponded to a perfect fit.

3.5. Interview and document review

To crosscheck the collected data, researchers interviewed four participants (two supervisors and two WEO heads). The semi-structured interview guides for supervisors and WEO heads are: 1)Is there adequate capacity building (organizational structure, leadership and management, human resources, and financial resources) to implement decentralized education management? Discuss; 2) What is the level of participation of education stakeholders (particularly community, PTSA and KETB members in various functions of management (planning, organizing,, directing controlling (monitoring and evaluation, decision making and so forth) in your woreda education office secondary schools? 3) What do you think are the main internal and external challenges of practicing decentralized education management in your district or school?

Furthermore, researchers reviewed various documents of the sample secondary schools (monitoring and evaluation checklists, the three-year strategic and yearly plan, organizational/structure chart of office PTSAs and KETBs, their decision records, school and staff attendance, human and financial resources records/profiles, monthly, quarterly, and annual). Therefore, employing multidata gathering tools assisted scholars to chain, reinforce, and revise certain insufficiencies of the data and triangulate them (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2017). Finally, the data were analyzed quantitatively (one-sample t-test, percentage, and frequency) and qualitatively through direct quotes to support quantitative findings. For qualitative analysis, the researchers checked the audio records via interview again to ensure the correctness of the transcripts. Listening to audio tapes in line with transcripts was made to familiarize researchers with the whole interview response and to support quantitative main findings. Researchers use a variety of approaches to quote from their data, ranging from presenting numerous, extensive and/or comprehensive quotations throughout the results section to the reporting of a few particular quotations to illustrate certain aspects of the quantitative findings.

3.6. Results and discussion

This section deals with the findings of the data gathered from 187 respondents from various education stakeholders.

As presented in Table 2, the final participants in this study consisted of two heads and vice heads of the education office, six secondary school principals, nine vice principals, 30 experts, 42 PTSA, 36 KETBs, and 60 department heads. It can be concluded that less emphasis was placed on women in management positions. Upon experience (service years), 166(89%) of the respondents had less than 20 years of experience. Regarding the characteristics of the respondents shown in Table two, particularly the Woreda Educational Office experts, the educational level indicated that only 2(7%) of the total 30 respondents were 2^nd-degree holders, but 27(93%) of them have been 1^st degree and below educational level holders, which do not fulfill the educational requirement at their current position.

Table 2. The characteristics of respondents selected from the study area

Variable		Category		Respondents																Total
				WEOs Heads		Experts		Principal		Vice Principal		Supervisor		Headteachers		PTSAs		KETBs
				F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%
Sex	Male		2		100	27	90	5	83	5	55	2	100	52	86	34	81	29	81	156	83.4
	Female		-		-	3	10	1	17	4	45	-	-	8	14	8	19	7	19	31	16.6
Education qualification	MA/MSC		1		50	2	7	5	83	4	45	2	100	11	18	2	5	1	3	28	15
	BA/BSC		1		50	25	83	1	17	5	55		-	48	80	27	64	30	83	137	73
	DIP/Level and below		-		-	3	10	-	-		-		-	1	2	13	31	5	14	22	12
Length of Service	5–10		-		-	9	30	1	17	2	22	-	-	25	42	15	38	11	31	63	34
	11–15		1		50	3	10	-	-	5	56	1	50	17	28	10	24	11	31	48	26
	16–20		1		50	10	33	5	83	2	22	1	50	14	23	12	29	10	27	55	29
	20 above		-		-	8	27	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	7	5	11	4	11	21	11
	Total		2		100	30	100	6	83	9	100	2	100	60	100	42	100	36	100	187	100

3.7. Adequacy level of capacity building to implement decentralized educational management

The researchers had taken the hypothesized test value, there was to show a 50 percent probability, that is, moderate. If the result was greater than the hypothesized mean, participants’ views on the adequacy of capacity building of secondary schools to implement decentralized educational management had been done at the higher level, but it was not except for the organizational structure. For instance, in Table 3, the one-sample t-test showed that the respondents’ perception of the adequacy of the organizational structure to implement decentralized educational management was significant at t= −3.6, p < 0.05. Ground means 3.023 for organizational structure implied that the respondents were moderate and accepted that the organizational structure statement is not a factor responsible for the non-implementation of decentralized educational management in their school.

Table 3. Adequate capacity building

Dimensions of capacity building	Mean	SD	t-test	P
Organizational Structure	3.023	.511	−3.6	0.47
Level of Leadership and Management	2.13	.32	−4.75	.02
Human resource	2.13	.62	−6.75	.018
Financial resources	2.31	.37	−5.7	.028

The interview results from the WEOs heads and supervisors aligned with the respondents’ rates. For instance, WEOs head 1 stated:

We used the organizational structure developed and distributed based on the guidelines of the Amhara Regional Education Bureau. The document analysis concerning the organizational structure of the woreda levels showed that the structure was adapted from the Ministry of Education, which forwarded to the regional and Korean education offices.

This is also similar to the MoE (2010) document, which revealed the functions and tasks among the stakeholders of education.

Regarding leadership and management capacity, one of the pillars of implementing decentralization in the education sector revealed that respondents had a low grand mean (2.13). Similarly, at a significance level of 0.05, the critical value t = 1.99 was obtained from the table, while the value of t- calculated was −4.75. Therefore, the calculated value of t was less than the t-critical value. Therefore, respondents’ views on leadership and management capacity were significant at t= −4.75, p < 0.05. This means that the status of leadership and management capacity is responsible for the non-implementation of decentralized educational management in their schools. In their interviews, the Woreda education office heads tried to defend the appropriateness of the selection of leaders as follows:

Leaders were appointed based on profession and competency within the framework of school leaders’ recruitment, selection, and assigning guidelines.

However, in their interviews with other respondents, the cluster supervisor reported an open-ended question: the woreda education offices appointed or rejected leaders for their political commitment, even if their profession was not reflected. The Woreda education leader’s recruitment committee has tried to refer to the guideline—Number 31/2010, the preselection statement: as it has been stated that leaders should be selected if they accept the Ethiopian constitution. Various studies confirm the findings of Jeilu (2001), Hussien (2007), Mitchell (2017), and Weihrich and Koonth (1999), who showed that management and leadership decentralization, in principle, need to be high, but in actuality, low.

Respondents’ views on human resource adequacy were significant at t= −6.75, p < 0.05. A ground mean of 2.13 for human resources implied that the respondents were low (as oand accepted that the human resource statement is a factor responsible for the non-implementation of decentralized educational management in their school. Regarding the characteristics of the respondents shown in Table two, particularly the Woreda Educational Office experts, the educational level indicated that only 2(7%) of the total 30 respondents were 2^nd-degree holders, but 27(93%) of them had been 1^st degree and below educational level holders, which do not fulfill the educational prerequisite of the position.

Most respondents also reported this in the open-ended questions as lacking qualifications, experience, and skills to manage and supervise schools. This result aligns with studies by Ayalew (2009) and Mitchell (2017), who found that the shortage of skilled human resources is a critical challenge in implementing Ethiopian local governance policy.

In the interview, the WEO head and cluster supervisor stated that educational experts were coming from schoolteachers, directors in the field of science, and others, which affected the activities of the education office in the way of performing tasks by putting the right person in the right place. This aligns with researchers who have reported that the lack of human resource capacity is a challenge for decentralizing education (Mitchell, 2017).

Financial capacity is another critical factor for the successful implementation of decentralization. The research showed a grand mean of 2.33 financial capacities, which infers that respondents agree with financial capacity as a factor for the non-implementation of decentralized educational management in schools. The Education Office has an annual budget with plans for expenditures and salaries. However, all financial transactions recorded with appropriate documentation were rated as low as reported and observed.

Moreover, as the cluster supervisor commented on, this issue stated

Every financial transaction within the school did not have vouchers that contained budget categories and account codes and was not signed by authorized finance personnel and as the woreda education office heads confirmed by the external supervision and monitoring time of the school.

3.8. Stakeholders’ involvement in various management functions

School stakeholders, such as KETB, PTSA, parents, and community members, should understand the rationale behind decisions at the school level to enhance the sense of ownership and dedication to mobilize resources. Table 3 shows the participants’ level of agreement regarding stakeholders’ involvement in various management domains.

The data in Table 4 reveal that the means of stakeholders’ involvement in planning, organizing, directing, monitoring, evaluating, and decision-making functions were 3.571, 2.267, 2.950, 2,912, and 3.551, respectively. The dimensions of the management function means and overall mean were between the lower and upper limits of 2.33 and 3.66, respectively. This means that most respondents were moderate to the testaments stated under the dimension level of managerial function.

Table 4. Stakeholders’ involvement in various management functions

The level of management function	Mean
Planning	3.571
Organizing	2.267
Directing	2.950
monitoring and evaluating	2.912
Decision- making	3.551
Overall mean	3.050

However, in this regard, the Woreda education office heads confirmed in the interview that there is no different stakeholder participation in the planning process; instead, the school leaders are only involved alone. This contrasts with Walker (1994), who stated that many main management functions should be carried out with the high involvement of teams, staff, and partners. The interview with a cluster supervisor did not support this, as he reported that the participation of educational stockholders in the monitoring process is better than participating in directing and decision-making processes. This is also in line with the drafted Road Map document, which reported a lack of participatory planning in schools (MoE, 2005, 2010).

Most respondents were very low on these statements of the items, as they confirmed that the community (PTAS and KETB) did not participate in making decisions on budgeting and teachers’ complaints. In addition to documented observations (analysis), a cluster supervisor confirmed the following:

Most school matter decisions were made by the principals and did not occur together with teachers who were members of the PTSA. From this, it is possible to understand that KETB and PTSA members’ participation in decision-making regarding teacher complaints is shallow.

This finding is different from what the MoE (2005) document recognized to be implemented: the devolution of main managerial functions and authorities to the local level for improving community involvement. Furthermore, as the researchers interviewed WEOs heads and cluster supervisors and conducted document analysis, the data were found and reported that the PTSA members’ roles in monitoring and evaluating school planning were moderate, and they carried out their responsibilities.

3.9. Challenges faced to implement decentralized educational management

As shown in Table 5, the participants were requested to indicate the toughest internal and external challenges in implementing decentralized educational management effectively and efficiently. From the total returned responses of the respondents, the researcher tried to take the grand mean and level in descending order. The ratings range from 4.218 to 1.456. The most challenging factors affecting decentralized educational management were the availability of resources, decision-making process, budget for education, skilled human resources, and use guidelines, as they were rated with mean scores from (3.37–4.218) as indicated in the table above. In addition, coordination among various stakeholders, social change environment, participation of stakeholders, reliability of data, and political environment were the media that ranged their mean scores from (2.469–3,355). However, most of their means were scored from (1.456 to-2.327), which acted as less factors for the non-implementation of decentralized educational management. WEO Head 2 explained the challenges of decentralization: “Decentralization depends on the resources available in the context. Therefore, scant resources at the local level could be our main challenge”.

Table 5. Challenges to decentralized educational management

The most challenges	VH	H	M	L	VL	Mean
	F	F	F	F	F
Availability of resources, e.g., Computers, paper	42	101	60	39	-	4.218
Clearly defined decision-making process	30	107	35	11	-	3.852
Budget for education	17	108	51	7	-	3.737
Skilled human resources	18	106	52	7	-	3.73
Using guidelines	17	93	61	8	4	3.606
Coordination among various stakeholders	17	62	73	31	-	3.355
participation of stakeholders	14	52	68	38	11	3.153
Social change environment	-	10	49	109	15	2.925
Reliable data		31	48	98	6	2.568
Political environment	-	23	63	84	13	2.469
Training for the stakeholders	-	-	56	101	26	2.327
Technological environment	-	-	21	58	104	1.456

Note: VH (5), very high; H (4), high, M(3); Medium, L(2), low; VL(1), very low.

This is affirmed by studies in Victoria (Gamage et al., 1996) and in Israel’s initial experience (Arar & Abo-Rome, 2016) in Negeri (Rosyida & Purwanto, 2022). A district education head commented on the low participation of parents and communities as follows:

Sometimes, we visit schools to examine a community’s involvement in school affairs. However, it is still unacceptable that the number of communities and parents involved still need to be more significant.

This was confirmed by a study conducted in Victoria (Gamage et al., 1996). In line with the present study, the negative perception of teachers to parents and lack of trust challenges the implementation of decentralization in Ethiopia (Mitchell, 2017). One of the participants’ challenges of financial restriction is as follows:

Similar to any school, we have a five-year school improvement program and an annual plan to identify the school’s priorities. Improving school effectiveness remains a challenge in developing countries, including Ethiopia. We must allow funds to finance identified priorities that improve students’ academic performance.

(Cluster Supervisor 2)

Thus, the Ethiopian Government should decentralize finance to schools in an identical form, as the Netherlands established lump-sum funding to facilitate SBM (Karsten & Meijer, 1999). Similar to the present finding, in the Philippines, decentralization practices were challenged due to principals’ lack of commitment, transparency, and low support from stakeholders (Iyengar, 2021). Gamage et al. (1996) found that poor resource utilization was a significant challenge faced by school leaders in effectively decentralizing and impacting students’ success.

4. Conclusion and future directions

Decentralization in the education sector increases the access, relevance, and quality of education in a transparent manner. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the adequacy of capacity building and stakeholder involvement in decentralized educational management in Enebsie Sarmider Wereda Education Office secondary schools. The data from a questionnaire, document review, and semistructured interview revealed that capacity building to implement decentralized educational management was poor due to many factors; for example, leaders were not appointed in terms of profession, inadequate financial resources, and low rate of distributive leadership. Educational leaders should possess management skills and be appointed based on their experiences and qualifications.

Stakeholders’ involvement in organizing activities, such as KETB and PTSA members, were rated low. However, stakeholder involvement in planning, decision-making, directing, monitoring, and evaluation was moderate. This revealed that members of KETBs and PTSAs in schools were not carrying out their roles, and the responsibilities were given by rules.

The internal and external challenges that secondary schools face in implementing decentralized educational management were summarized as follows: The most challenging factors affecting decentralized educational management were the availability of resources, decision-making processes, budget for education, skilled human resources, and use guidelines, as they were rated with mean scores from 3.37 4.218. In addition, coordination among various stakeholders, the social change environment, participation of stakeholders, reliability of data, and the political environment were medium, ranging their mean scores from 2.469 to 3,355. However, as most participants revealed, the lack of training for stakeholders and the technical environment was low, as their means scored from 1.456 to 2.327, which acted as less factors for the non-implementation of decentralized educational management.

The Amhara Regional Education Bureau, province (zonal) education department, and WEOs require strong management dedication to encourage stakeholders to participate in the education system by creating conducive working environments. Educational offices should make task forces responsible and attract well-qualified professionals in educational planning and management at the woreda and school levels. By working with NGOs and volunteers, WEOs and schools should expand opportunities to increase their income and enhance the capacity of PTSA and KETB members. The WEO should establish mechanisms to follow up and evaluate the involvement and performance of stakeholders such as the PTSA and KETB of schools. This helps identify their weaknesses early and further strengthens their strengths. This study has many implications for many stakeholders in education, such as school administrators, to understand the challenges of implementing decentralization and tackle the various challenges in their respective districts. These findings also help educational policymakers in their attempts to plan and formulate guidelines for the successful implementation of decentralization to improve school effectiveness and students’ academic performance.

As for limitations and future directions, this study was also limited to one district, Enebsie Sarmider District Education Office; thus, the study can be expanded by including various districts, where cultural influences on stakeholders’ involvement in education management functions may or may not differ. However, the study will serve as a springboard for future researchers to study decentralization-related fields, such as school-based management, education, leadership, management, and planning. Some participants can have biased views due to their cultural background or personal views which affect the findings of the study (Zhang et al., 2021). Using several data sources such as focus groups, and observations for focal variables would be helpful to achieve a more objective conclusion. Moreover, with a parallel convergence mixed research design by collecting data at one time, it is less likely to infer the adequacy level of organizational capacity and stakeholders’ involvement to decentralize education. Thus, the coming researchers would use longitudinal study designs to provide more conclusive and substantiate information about the adequacy of organizational capacity and stakeholders’ involvement to decentralize education.

This paper will not cover the views of teachers and students. The study would be done through the utilization of the questionnaire to the teachers and students as a survey and reference. By their strategy, the researchers will be able to know the adequacy of organizational capacity and stakeholders’ involvement from teachers’ and students’ perspectives. This study was also delimited to secondary school leaders, experts, and heads at the district level. Future scholars can expand it by including university and primary school leaders to describe the adequacy of organizational structure and stakeholders’ involvement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kelemu Zelalem Berhanu

Dr. Klemu Zelalem Berhanu is a post-doctoral research at the University of JOHANNESBURG. He obtained his Ph.D. degree from Akdeniz University, Turkey. His research interest is leadership style, supervision, school-based management, job satisfaction, and quality of education.

Derib Gobie

Mr. Derib Gobie is a Master student at Debte Markos University. His research interest is decentralization of education, leadership, and principal ship.

Appendix I

Questionnaire

Sample Questionnaires for principals, vice principals, Woreda Education Office (WEO) experts, Kebele Education Training Board (KETB) members, Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) members and department heads.

Part 1: Background Information

(1) Sex :- Male______ Female____

(2) Level of Education :-

a/ PhD MA/MSc ——c/Diploma/level——-

b/ BA/BSc——–d/other please specify—-

3. Work experience

a/ 5-10 Years —–c/16-20 Years——-

b/ 11-15 Years—- d/20 Years and above——-

Part II: Capacity building

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.The following are some of the areas that adequate capacity building to decentralized educational management. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.

Table

No	Items	Level of agreement
		very high	high	medium	low	very low
I	Organizational structure
1	The design of organizational structure
2	The structure of Work processes
3	Decentralized of functional units
II	Leadership and management
1	Appointed Leaders on their competency and Professionalism
2	know the importance distributive of leadership in office
III	Human Resources
1	Right people for the right job in the office
2	Adequate number of staffs to supervise, monitor the day to day activities
3	Turnover of employees
IV	Financial Resources
1	Definition of the annual budget plan
2	Recorded financial transaction in the relevant documents
3	Adequate financial exist

Is there adequate capacity to implement decentralized educational management? Discuss.

Part III. Stakeholder involvement in management of different domains

The following are some of the areas that the stakeholder is expected to participate in educational management. Please provide an appropriate answer by putting a (√) mark in one of the five alternatives.

Table

No	Items	Level of agreement
		very high	high	medium	low	very low
1	The extent to which the KETB and PTSA members are participating in planning
1.1.	Formulating strategic plan and action plan of the school
1.2.	Planning the school program
2	The extent to which the KETB and PTSA members are participating in organizing
2.1.	coordinating human efforts, arranging resources and incorporating the two in such a way
2.2	Identifying the work and dividing them as per the plans.
2.3.	coordinating of efforts and scheduling activities in a logical and systematic manner
3	The extent to which the KETB and PTSA members are participating in directing
3.1.	Motivating the staff in an school in doing work to achieve school goals.
3.2.	Assisting to staff in the school
3.3.	Overseeing the fellow staff in the school, leading their way towards the accomplishment of school goals
4	The extent to which the PTSA and KETB participating in decision making
4.1.	Decision making on budgeting
4.2	Making decision on teachers’ complaints
5	Monitoring and Evaluation
5.1	Preparing evaluating criteria to evaluate the school plan Implementation
5.2	Identifying strengths and weaknesses and challenges encountered
5.3	Monitoring the school resources and evaluating the implementation of the school plan

Discuss other functions in which PTSAs and KETB members involve in —————————-

Part IV. Challenges of decentralized educational management

Pleas indicate the appropriate answer that you believed by putting a tick mark (√) in one of the five alternatives.

Table

No	Items	Level of agreement
	The most external and internal difficult challenges your woreda faces to implement decentralized educational management effectively and efficiently	very high	high	medium	low	very low
I	Internal condition challenge
1	Skilled man power
2	Coordination among various stake holders
3	Budget for education
4	Training for the stake holders
5	Clearly defined decision making process
6	Participation of stake holders
7	Using guidelines
8	Availability of resources (computers, Paper, etc.)
9	Reliable data
II	External condition challenge
1	Political environment
2	Social change environment
3	Technological environment

What are other challenges to implement decentralized educational management in your district or school? —————————————————————————————————————————————