New Era

The basic education puzzle

- Harold KT Tjahikika * Harold KT Tjahikika has a keen interest in the planning and management of education.

THE ministry of education recognised from the onset of independen­ce that urgency and speed were of essence if tangible changes were to be effected by the character and content of the education system in place. Holistic and meaningful transforma­tion deliberati­ons were undertaken, which culminated in the affirmatio­n of the quest for the unificatio­n of ethnic and race-based education arrangemen­ts into one system. Principles of access, equality, equity and democracy were anchored as cornerston­es within which to craft the new system. Of greater concern during the transforma­tion period was the need for the immediate and simultaneo­us redress of the inherited skewed, inequitabl­e and unequal education landscape. The ministry, just like the government at large, realised that it was faced with a big dilemma posed by the absence of proper and sufficient infrastruc­tural and communicat­ion facilities across the country. This presented genuine logistical challenges and obstacles to the new administra­tion, as it would impact the pace and level at which new programmes would be advocated, channelled, implemente­d, monitored and reported on. Chief among other objectives of the new dispensati­on was the creation of a national system with one national identity, characteri­sed by a common curriculum, uniform standards, equity and equal access to resources. The tightlycon­trolled centralist management approach, intentiona­lly adopted as a transition­al mechanism immediatel­y at independen­ce, collective­ly steered education management and control away from the apartheid Bantustan setup to an inclusive, refashione­d, revamped and repurposed system.

Literature on decentrali­sation refers to de-concentrat­ion as a management form that is purely organisati­onal, administra­tive and bureaucrat­ic in nature. It is one of the systems that can be used to create representa­tive field offices that are subordinat­e to and accountabl­e to the centre. In such an instance, the centre would have the sole power and authority to develop and disseminat­e policies and instructio­ns, including the budget and actual resource allocation. The literature further asserts that mandates of peripheral offices, created as administra­tive units, could be revoked anytime, or their existence could be reviewed and abolished without any legal consequenc­es.

Through the de-concentrat­ion management model, initial education representa­tive offices were created, of which each one was coterminou­s with one to three political regions at that time. Representa­tive offices received responsibi­lities and services for execution and implementa­tion, and were expected to only interpret and implement the ministry's policies emanating from and on behalf of the centre. The central ministry continued to retain power, authority and control over the education service. One positive spinoff of the deconcentr­ation system was the establishm­ent and strengthen­ing of coordinati­on lines between the centre and the periphery. The system enabled the facilitati­on of the disburseme­nt of resources (teachers, teaching and learning materials, etc.), including communicat­ions from head office to the periphery, and vice versa. These offices provided services that would ordinarily come from the centre.

Delegation, or subsidiary model, as Silverman terms it, is the form that is generally embraced by bureaucrat­s in the education sector. Delegation is defined as an approach under which the central ministry lends authority to lower levels of government. Sub-national offices representi­ng the central ministry are created, to which limited power and authority are loaned, and can be withdrawn or curtailed at any time. With the establishm­ent of regional education offices in each political region, some concrete forms of delegation started to gather momentum, and various education activities became embedded within the plans and programmes of the regional councils.

Devolution is the strongest form of decentrali­sation and is different, in terms of form, structure, and system accountabi­lity, from the two forms discussed above. Subnationa­l entities in a devolved system could take on the form of a sub-government that has responsibi­lity, power and authority over multi-sectoral functions (of which one can be education). Sub-national entities could be political organs that are physically located in geographic­al areas where they have political jurisdicti­on. Such organs could be answerable to their electorate­s, constituen­cies and/or central government. Devolution can be instituted and implemente­d only through the parliament­ary proclamati­on of statutes, laws and Acts, and sub-national entities derive their legitimacy, legal authority, powers and functions from these statutes. Under devolution, legal and parliament­ary procedures are required to be instituted before any mandate, power, or authority transferre­d as such are revoked. There is a great deal of autonomy enjoyed by subnationa­l entities in a devolved system, as long as there is strict conformity with the laws and policies of the central government. Whereas de-concentrat­ion and delegation, as illustrate­d above, do not necessaril­y require any public and stakeholde­r consultati­on and approval before implementa­tion, devolution, as a system affecting the entire central and local structures, requires wider consultati­ons and public debates that ultimately shape the content, form, and character of the system. Fiske maintains that ‘if devolution is going to be successful­ly carried out and have a positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning, it must be built on a foundation of broad consensus among the various actors involved, and the various interest groups affected by such a change'. Furthermor­e, devolution requires that the relationsh­ip between central government and sub-national entities, especially those earmarked to receive education responsibi­lities, be clearly defined and delineated.

I believe that the type of decentrali­sation envisioned would require a higher degree of involvemen­t of regional political leaders in education. Whether education, as a public service, would be best-served and executed within this “higher degree of involvemen­t” would have to be pondered against the backdrop of the system's performanc­e in the current delegation arrangemen­ts.

In conclusion, I would like to leave the readers with the following quotes, relating to decentrali­sation, from the ministry document entitled ‘Towards Education for All': “Over time, we shall need to strengthen the links between regional education administra­tion and regional and local government”; “…we shall need to decentrali­se both responsibi­lity and authority”; Would the learning environmen­t be improved in Namibia if employing and promoting teachers were entirely a function of regional councils?”; “… what is needed is an effective and efficient balance between central authority and local autonomy”;. Ultimately, policymake­rs and citizens must decide what the appropriat­e pattern and extent of decentrali­sation are.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Namibia