Harold KT Tjahikika
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 tightly- controlled 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 de-concentration 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 sub-national 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.
* Harold KT Tjahikika has a keen interest in the planning and management of education.