西昌贺雪梅,肿瘤康复网,格林威尔张
First, the perceived complexity of managing the modern education from one central point led to the governments’ acceptance of decentralised educational management systems. The essence of that shift lies on efficiency improvement. Second, the concern to ensure that each individual student has access to the particular as opposed to an aggregated mix of resources to cater for the needs and interests of that particular student. Third, some study findings in the developing countries with regard to school effectiveness and improvement have been insisting on decentralisation as a vehicle for success. Fourth, the fact that increased autonomy of the teachers and some bureaucrats at the local level increases ownership and commitment makes decentralisation an ideal strategy for educational management. Fifth, popular demand for more freedom and power of choice in terms of the schools they would prefer according to their perceived qualities by the general public; and sixth, the fact that the education sector should follow the reforms that were instituted in the other similar sectors which were earlier presumed to be solely the concern of the central government. Now with regard to how these are applicable to the developing world, much can be debated especially on the basis of the varying contexts of the developing and the developed countries. However, various studies have also revealed some negative impacts of decentralization policy. Using data from a cross-sectional study of industrial and developing countries, Estache and Sinha (1995) found that decentralization leads to increased spending on public infrastructure. In another study, Ravallion (1998) found that poorer provinces were less successful in favour of their poor areas in Argentina, and decentralization generated substantial inequality in public spending in poor areas of the country. Azfar and Livingston (2002) did not find any positive impacts of decentralization on efficiency and equity of local public service provision in Uganda; while West and Wong (1995) found that in rural China, decentralization resulted in lower level of public services in poorer regions. The Ugandan experience concurs with Sayed (1999); Soudied and Sayed (2005). Giving examples of South Africa and Namibia, the authors caution that decentralisation may promote inequalities or may lead to new forms of social exclusion in the settings where inequalities and social exclusion had been in existent before.
3.7 Educational decentralization in Tanzania Educational decentralization in Tanzania aims to promote community participation in decision-making and cost sharing to ensure sustained effective provision of education and proper use and maintenance of school resources, and to reinforce planning and management capabilities at all levels of the school system. Educational decentralization in Tanzania is embedded in the general government decentralization framework (United Republic of Tanzania, 2007b.), called the Local Government Reform Program (LGRP). Various service provision responsibilities have been transferred to districts and Local Government Authorities (LGAs) through the Prime Minister’s Office-Regional Administration and Local Government (PMO-RALG). |
