SCHOOL DECENTRALIZATION IN THE CONTEXTOF GLOBALIZING GOVERNANCE

SCHOOL DECENTRALIZATION INTHE CONTEXT OF GLOBALIZING

GOVERNANCE

International Comparison of Grassroots Responses

Edited by

HOLGER DAUN

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN-10: 1-4020-4699-5 (HB)ISBN-13: 978-1-4020-4699-5 (HB)ISBN-10: 1-4020-4700-2 (e-book)ISBN-13: 978-1-4020-4700-8 (e-book)

Published by Springer,P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

www.springer.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved© 2007 Springer

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording

or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered

and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 1 Globalization and the Governance of National Education Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 51. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63. The National State and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74. National Policies in the Context of Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. The New Mode of Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2 How Does Educational Decentralization Work and What Has it Achieved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272. Reasons for and Forms of Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283. State Governance and Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364. Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Chapter 3 The State Gives, the State Takes: Educational Restructuring in Norway . . . . . . . 551. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563. The Norwegian Welfare State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574. The Tradition of Education Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595. The Package of Restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616. Case Studies. Glimpses from Five Schools in Three Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667. Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

v

vi Table of Contents

Chapter 4 Steps of Educational Decentralization in Greece: between Delegation andDeconcentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772. Greece and the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783. The Education System and Education Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804. Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835. Teacher and Parent Participation in Decision-Making: Two Case Schools . . . . . . . . . . 866. Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Chapter 5 School Autonomy in Nicaragua: Two Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952. The Country Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963. National Education System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984. Educational Decentralization in the 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995. Decentralization Reform in the 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996. Two Case Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter 6 Decentralization in Senegal – Ambiguous Agendas for Community Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1151. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1152. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163. Educational Decentralization in Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1174. Ambiguous Intentions of BCE Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205. BCE in Diatafa – A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226. Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1277. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Chapter 7 Technocratic School Governance and South Africa’s Quest for DemocraticParticipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1331. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1332. Using the Theories of Action Framework to Examine School Governance . . . . . . . . . 1353. Theory of Action in School Governance Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1384. Theory-in-Use at the National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1395. Theory-in-Use at the Provincial and District Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1446. School Actors’ Theories of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1538. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Table of Contents vii

Chapter 8 Educational Decentralization in Mozambique: A Case Study in the Region of Nampula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1591. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1592. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1603. The Education System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1614. The Origins and Roles of the Zones of Pedagogical Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1635. Potential for Educational Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1656. The Case of the Nampula Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1687. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1728. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chapter 9 Decentralization and Community Participation: School Clusters in Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1751. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1752. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1763. Cambodia Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1784. Educational Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1795. Evidence of Community Participation in Cluster Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1826. Defining Khmer Community and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1857. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1908. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Chapter 10 People’s Participation in School Governance? Realities of EducationalDecentralization in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1951. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1952. Nepal – the Country Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1963. Educational Decentralization in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984. The Workings of Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2035. Local Views of and Responses Concerning Participation in School Management . . . 2066. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2097. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Chapter 11 Educational Governance: Comparison of Some Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2132. World System, Globalization and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143. The New Mode of Educational Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2205. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

List of Tables and Figure

Table 1.1 Core Elements of the World Model for Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 1.2 Four Educational Frameworks Including Different Ideological Orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 2.1 Varieties of School Site Councils or Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 3.1 Decision, Administrative and Operational Levels in Basic Education . . . . . . . . 65

Table 4.1 Administrative Levels of Educational Services in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 5.1 Mixed Model of Involvement in Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 8.1 Access to Education, 1994 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Table 9.1 Cambodia – Country Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Table 9.2 Changes in Rural Cultural and Social Characteristics in Cambodia . . . . . . . . 190

Table 10.1 Educational Agencies at the District and Village Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Table 11.1 Some Indicators of Development for the Eight Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Figure 11.1 Approximations of the Degree of Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

viii

Appendixes

Appendix 7.1 SASA and the Espoused Theory of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Appendix 7.2 Summary Description of Selected Schools/Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Appendix 9.1 Interviews and Group Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Appendix 11.1 Some Forces and Mechanisms of Governance and Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

List of Abbreviations

AEA Adult Education (Mozambique)ASP Autonomy School Program (Nicaragua)BCE Community-based basic education (Senegal)BPEP Basic and Primary Education ProgramCC Commune Councils (Cambodia)CFPP Primary teacher Training Centre (Mozambique)CFR Regional Training Centre (Mozambique)CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CLEC School Community Council Link (Mozambique)CONFEMEN Conference des Ministres de l’Education Nationale (Conferences of

Ministers of National Education) (Africa)CPP Cambodia People’s Party (Cambodia)DAEB Direction de l’Alphabetisation et de l’Éducation de Base (The Direction

of Literacy and Basic Education)DDC District Development Committee (Nepal)DDC District Development Committee (Nepal) DEC District Education Committee (Nepal) DEO District Education Office (Cambodia)DEO District Education Office (Nepal) DEPDK Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia)DOE District Education OfficeDOE Department of Education (South Africa)DOE Department of Education (South Africa) DOS/MCEO Skoledirektøren (Municipality education chief officer - Norway)EDO Education District Office (Mozambique)EDSU Education Department Support Unit (South Africa)

ix

x List of Abbreviations

EMDG Education Management and Governance Development directorateEMIS Department of Education’s Management Information SystemEQIP Education Quality Improvement Programme (Cambodia) ESP Education Strategic Plan (Cambodia)ESSP Education Sector Support Program (Cambodia) EU The European UnionGNP Gross National ProductionGTZ RDP GTZ Rural Development Programme (Cambodia)GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zussammenarbeit (Cambodia)HDI Human Development IndexHMG His Majesty’s Government of Nepal HPI Human Poverty Index IDEKE Institute for continuing adult education (Greece)IEK Institute for vocational education (Greece)ILO International Labour OrganizationINE National Institute of Statistics (Mozambique)INEADE Institut Nationale de l’Étude de d’Action pour le Developpement de

l’Éducation,INGO International Non-Governmental OrganisationKEE Centre for Educational Research (Greece)KR Khmer RougeLSGA Local Self-Governance Act (Nepal) MBO Management By ObjectivesMCE/MCS Ministry of Church and Education/Ministry of Culture and Science

(Norway)MCEBLN Ministry of Basic Education and Literacy (Senegal)MCEO. Municipality education chief officer - Norway MCER Ministry of Church, Education and Research (Norway) MoE Ministry of Education (respective country)NECC National Education Crisis Committee (South Africa)NGO Non-governmental OrganisationNNSSF National Norms and Standards for School Funding (South

Africa)NPC National Planning Commission (Nepal)NPM New Public Management OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOEDB Organization for the publication of school-textbooks OEEK Organization for vocational educationOLME The Greek Federation of State School TeachersOSK Organization for School buildings

PaCC Pagoda Associations Coordination Committee(Cambodia)PAP Priority Action Plan(Cambodia)PAPA Projet d’appui au Plan d’Action (Project of support to the action

plan – Senegal)PDEF Plan Décénnal d’Éducation et du Formation (Ten year plan for

development of education and training – Senegal)PEO Provincial Education Office(Cambodia)PRK People’s Republic of Kampuchea(Cambodia)PTA Parents Teacher Association(Cambodia)RGC Royal Government of CambodiaSASA South African Schools Act SGB School Governing Body (South Africa) SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation AgencySMC School Management CommitteeSMC School Management Committee (Nepal) SNC Supreme National Council(Cambodia)SOC State of CambodiaUDEBA Union for Basic Education Development (Mozambique)UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture OrganizationUNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNTAC United Nations Transitional Administration in CambodiaUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWB World BankVDC Village Development Committee (Nepal) VEC Village Education Committee (Nepal) VEC Village Education Committee (Nepal) ZIP Pedagogical Zones of Influence (Mozambique)

List of Abbreviations xi

Introduction

Since the beginning of the 1980s, decentralization has become a globalized policy andcatchword in education: a large number of countries around the world have formulated such apolicy and many have also implemented it. The policies and the changes at the national levelhave been researched but what has taken place and is taking place at the grassroots level has notreceived attention until recently.

This book presents “grassroots cases” from different countries against the background of theoverall changes in governance philosophy and applications. It uses case studies from countries inAfrica, Asia, Europe, and Latin America and describes what is occurring at this level. The bookgives an account of different types of decentralization and their impact. The first two chaptersdescribe principally structural and organizational educational changes in the broader context ofglobalized models and the pressure to create a competitive education system and changinggovernance. Decentralization is one of the strategic aspects of this new mode of governance.

The subsequent chapters of the book analyze how the grassroots actors respond todecentralization programs. The countries in this book have been selected according to thefollowing criteria: they have at least started to implement some type of decentralizationsuggested by influential international organizations, they represent different cultural, economicand political settings, and findings from field studies on the workings of decentralization at theschool level have been available. Of course, findings from single case schools cannot begeneralized to the whole education system of a country; rather, the findings should be seen asillustrations of what may happen to the centrally defined and implemented policies.

Chapters 1 and 2 focus on the administrative and organizational restructuring implied in thenew mode of governance, while the subsequent chapters describe actions and processes as well.Chapter 1 gives an overview of the world wide economic, political, cultural and educationalchanges that have occurred since the beginning of the 1980s and presents the new type ofeducational governance. It describes the processes of globalization and gives some examples ofhow national states have responded to these processes. States have increasingly faced difficultiesin financing and running mass education. One important feature of globalization is the spreadof models, suggested by the most important international bodies such as OECD, Unesco, the

1

Daun (ed.), School Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing Governance: InternationalComparison of Grassroots Responses, 1–4.© 2007 Springer.

2 Holger Daun

World Bank to be implemented governance. Thus, components of the world models (decentral-ization is one example) have been borrowed, imitated, imposed, and so on, when differentcountries have reformed the administration and management of their primary and secondaryeducation systems. It has not been investigated why and how different governments adoptelements of the world model, but this is inferred from the similarities between the content of thereforms and the content of the world model.

How all this takes shape in different types of educational decentralization and theiroutcomes are described in Chapter 2, on the basis of an extensive review of research andevaluation studies conducted in different parts of the world (Australia, New Zealand, the USA,China, Kyrgyz Republic, Czech Republic, Sweden, England, Mozambique, South Africa,Senegal, Nicaragua, Brazil – just to mention some examples).

The different case countries and case schools within these countries are then presented in the subsequent chapters of the book. These case studies are attempts to show what happens atthat level, when the elements of the world model are implemented. Focus is directed towards theoutcomes in terms of local participation in school decision-making. It is evident that differentideological, cultural, economic and other forces are involved, and the encounter between theintended reforms and the local forces results in hybridization or glocalization. That is, theoutcomes are often different from the stated intention and goals of the decentralization reforms.It seems that the larger the cultural and economic distance between the world models ideal and the local contexts, the more the results deviate from the normative expectations at centrallevel.

Educational decentralization in Norway is described in Chapter 3. The governance of theeducation system in this country has shifted due to the tension between the central and the locallevels. The system was – in response to humanistic demands – decentralized to such an extentthat OECD suggested the central state to take back some of its steering of education. Duringthe 1990s, new arrangements were implemented, combining central steering and decentral-ization of the type common around the world. At the case schools, the opinions about decen-tralization are mixed, and parents do not have any real influence.

Greece has been among the last countries in Europe to implement the decentralization policy,and this has been a response more to the requirements from international agencies and bodies(such as the European Union and OECD) than to pressures from within the country. Since theprocesses of decentralization only started in 1997, the description in Chapter 4 is based on ratherfresh experiences among the country’s educational actors. The field study at school level indicates,for example, that parents play very different roles from one school to another.

Like other countries in Latin America, Nicaragua (Chapter 5) has implemented educationaldecentralization. However, the Nicaraguan case is somewhat different from some othercountries in that the program, called the “School Autonomy Program”, implies a transfer ofdecision-making over certain issues, mostly finance, to the school level. Parents and teachers are

Introduction 3

in most cases ambivalent to the decentralization reform; they are positive about the space left forlocal initiatives but negative about the costs that they now have to bear. Also, as far as the parentsare concerned, their opportunities to participate are limited by their work loads.

Senegal in West Africa inherited a centralized state and education system from the Frenchcolonialists. This system has to a large extent been preserved, but like several other countries inAfrica, Senegal started to introduce a new type of schools – community schools – in thebeginning of the 1990s. These schools were given considerable autonomy. The implementationof the community school reform was to a large extent left to Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) with regard to finance and running of the schools. The NGOs were also supposed toleave space for local participation. The outcomes have not yet been what was hoped for and thelocal population blames the central state, which used to take detailed responsibility foreducational matters, while the state and NGO representatives blame the “illiterate” population.This is described in Chapter 6.

There were great hopes when the racist government resigned and apartheid was abolished inSouth Africa in the beginning of the 1990s. Free elections followed and the biggest party(ANC) came into power. The whole education system was reformed in that a new curriculumwas gradually introduced in schools, decentralization to regional and school levels wasimplemented and market forces (choice and school fees) were introduced. Although the racialbarriers have been abolished, socio-economic inequalities between regions, districts and parentsfrom different groups persist and make it difficult for schools to function in democratic ways.Also, policy makers often take for granted that policy practice is shaped by policy intention, andthey tend to have a simplistic understanding of individuals’ motivations for participation or non-participation. From the central level and in the policy documents, local people are expected toreact in specific – sometimes undemocratic – ways in relation to schools and schooling. Chapter7 describes how the schools and local level people act in this context of new ideologies and oldsocio-economic structures.

Mozambique in southeast Africa had, like Senegal very centralized state and educationsystems, first inherited from the Portuguese colonialists and then further centralised during theSocialist period (1975-1990). Due to the fact that the Ministry of Education was unable tosupervise and support the schools and to resist pressures from international bodies, the countrystarted to decentralise some decision-making to the regional, district and school levels. Firstsome initiative was left to traditional chiefs (in bodies linking schools and local communities)and to Pedagogical Priority Zones (ZIPs), which are bodies for teacher cooperation and in-service training. From the mid-1990s, further steps towards decentralization have been takenin that some decision-making and finance has been delegated to regional and district bodies andto schools. Due to the low technological and economic level of the country and the insufficientcompetence among teachers and administrators, remote rural schools tend to be isolated and donot even have information about the latest decisions made by the central education ministry,

4 Holger Daun

and still less do they have the economic resources to run the schools according to the standardsestablished centrally. The Mozambican decentralization reform is described in Chapter 8, usingone region as a case.

In Cambodia, decentralization has been implemented in a traditionally hierarchical context,where all important decisions have historically been made by the king and his followers. In localaffairs, also the pagoda associations have played and still play an important role. Case studiesconducted in a rural area with cluster schools and community participation projects show thatthe common people have very little influence on educational activities, apart from the economiccontributions they make to the schools (Chapter 9).

Nepal is similar to Cambodia in certain aspects; the caste structure has given people differentlife conditions and different opportunities for participation in decision-making. Decision-making has been decentralized to district offices and to some extent to schools, but the steeringfrom central level via the district offices still conditions local participation and school processes.Case studies make evident how the hierarchical social structure and poverty makes it difficultfor village people to be involved in local decision-making in school matters (Chapter 10).

The last chapter (11) draws different threads together, presents some comparative aspectsand makes a conclusion. It is evident that we have to analyze at least three different levels, layersor phases: the policy discourse (what is stated to be implemented), that which is actuallyimplemented, and the actual outcomes. Despite the uniform global educational discourse andthe spread of the world model (arguing for decentralization), the outcomes seem to vary due tonational and local conditions.

Chapter One

Globalization and the Governance of National Education Systems

Holger Daun

1. Introduction

After a century of centralization of state and education systems, an opposite world trend ofdecentralization started in the 1980s. This chapter takes a broad perspective and attempts tolocate decentralization within the context of globalization, governance and ideologies that arguefor a decentralized role for the state in education. Globalization has direct as well as indirecteffects on education; the former is the borrowing from or imitation of the world model and thelatter are the societal changes that the schools, teachers and students experience related topressure from globalizing economic and cultural forces 1.

Although an important component of the new type of governance (NG), decentralizationalone is not sufficient to make such governance complete. Therefore, decentralization oftenmakes part of a larger package of reforms (educational restructuring) including introduction orreinforcement of freedom of choice, privatization and sometimes centralization of goalformulation, curriculum, and assessment. All this makes monitoring and evaluation anincreasingly important task of the central state.

1. The idea and perception itself that globalization is taking place is an important factor, whose impact is difficult toestimate.

5

Daun (ed.), School Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing Governance: InternationalComparison of Grassroots Responses, 5–26.© 2007 Springer.

6 Holger Daun

The chapter argues that a new mode of governance (NG) has emerged as a way for thecentral state to respond to (i) multiple and sometimes contradictory demands andrequirements, some of which result from global processes and others from the inherentdifficulties for the central state to finance and run large-scale systems such as education;(ii) re-orientation in policy and research from structuralism and state centrism to agent-orientation and an economic view of man and the concomitant elite assumption thatrationalization (enlightenment) in society is growing 2; and (iii) unprecedented educationbudget cuts.

The chapter gives an overview of the role of the state during the past decades and presentssome aspects of globalization which are assumed to have contributed to restructuring ofnational societies and the emergence of the new mode of governance.

2. Background

An analysis of the NG requires a historical and broad perspective including economic,political and cultural changes. Generally, states became hierarchically constructed so as tomeet the requirements of warfare and national defense of territory and to implementnational economic policies (often Keynesian or Leninist inspired). Certain functions,activities and items, once being handled by the local communities, were taken over by thecentral state, while others resulted from innovations and inventions initiated andimplemented by the state. Also, centralization has tended to accompany industrializationand urbanization. Thus, education had in some countries been an issue for religious interestsor local communities but finally became a responsibility of the central state. In the South,colonial patterns of state and education systems were inherited but also non-colonizedcountries, such as Afghanistan and Iran, constructed similar systems. As a result, inpractically all countries in the world, education has – at least during the past five or sixdecades – been an issue for the state (central or regional levels). Therefore, attention will begiven to the changing relationships between the world system, the national state, the nationalsociety and education.

2. To place this in a historical perspective: until approximately a century ago, most of the people in today’s highincome countries were seen by elites as not enlightened enough to vote in general elections. Today, people are seenas enlightened enough to be allowed to make choices in different situations.

Globalization and the Governance of National Education Systems 7

3. The National State and Society

3.1 The State

Using a rather broad definition of the state, it includes all bodies that are funded mainly frompublic sources (Dale, 1989), and is the only actor legitimized by the international community touse coercion and violence (within its territory). Thus, elected as well as decision-making andexecutive bodies (from the national down to the local level) form part of the state to the extentthat they are publicly financed and are in charge of a specific territory and its population Thismeans that there might be contradictions and tensions within the state – between differentlevels as well as between bodies performing different functions.

The fundamental task of the modern state has been to guarantee the principle ofexchange relationships on markets; to make people willing and able to enter suchrelationships and to function efficiently as producers, consumers and citizens; and to provideopportunities of well-being (Habermas, 1976; Offe, 1984, 1996). School education hasgenerally been seen as the most important means for the generation of cultural motivationand attaining well-being.

At least two features are highly relevant in relation to issues of governance: the politicalculture, and the type of state. Culture is constructing shared world views, visions and meaningsystems, and the political culture defines, for example, what is the appropriate role for the statein society, the extent to which state interventions are seen as legitimate and common people areexpected to participate in public decision-making (Almond & Verba, 1965; Inglehart, 1997).For instance, state interventions and state initiatives are more legitimate in several Europeancountries than in the USA. The legitimacy and preparedness of the grassroots initiative andparticipation, and local interventions in school affairs may be more or less expected andaccepted. For example, in parts of Eastern Nigeria there is a culture supporting localinvolvement (Kemmerer, 1994), while “Mongolia ... has almost no comparable tradition” (Bray,1997, p. 197). Also, cultures vary in their degree of individual orientation and collectiveorientation 3.

3. Shweder and LeVine (1984) make a distinction between socio-centric cultures and egocentric cultures. In theformer cultures the individual is not autonomous but is regulated by strict rules set by the clan, the kinshipgroup, and so on. In the latter cultures, the individual is an autonomous, abstract entity existing free of societybut at the same time living in a society.

8 Holger Daun

4. This does not necessarily imply a teleological and deterministic view of the ‘hyper-globalist’ type, according towhich globalization is something unavoidable and, maybe, desirable.

3.2 State and National Society

In order to fulfil its tasks, the state has to arrange certain relationships with its surroundingsociety, and to coordinate relations and activities in society. Traditionally, the following principalmodes of state intervention have been employed: (i) regulation; (ii) economic measures, and (iii) ideological measures. Regulation means to establish pro-actively and more or less in detail theframe of action for different bodies and actors. It has often been used for the sake of equality andequalization. However, the use of regulation is likely to be costly and to affect state legitimacybecause it tends to be characterized by standardization and insensitivity to multi-cultural valuesand different life styles. It might also provoke resistance and produce its own problems that intheir turn require new solutions (Offe, 1984). The second mode, economic measures, includesstate allocation of subsidies and services as well as extraction of resources. In addition to themodes mentioned, ideological measures have been used, and within the educational domain, theyinclude the definition and selection of knowledge to be handled in schools through thecurriculum, syllabi, teacher guidelines, etc. (Lundgren, 1990). Some of the modes of interventionoverlap or combine when applied in practical policy. All measures of intervention require a certaincapability of the central state. Where this capability has been weak, like in many low incomecountries, coercion and force or laissez-faire/neglect have been alternatives.

Globalization has in different ways changed the conditions for the traditional modes of stateintervention and, therefore, some of the key features in globalization and the resulting restruc-turing of national policies will be described in the next section.

4. National Policies in the Context of Globalization

4.1 World System and Globalization

Two sets of theories deal with the phenomena discussed here: (a) world system theories, and (b) globalization theories. The world system (WS) is the structure and relationships betweendifferent interdependent components (nations, companies, organizations, etc.), while global-ization is the processes and flows that take place between the components of the WS. When thelinks between these components become more extensive and form chains, networks, exchangesand transactions, these processes may be seen as globalization (Henderson, 1996)4. This

Globalization and the Governance of National Education Systems 9

system is predominantly capitalistic; people are encouraged or compelled to enter intocommodified, monetized and priced exchanges as producers and consumers and to becomecompetitive.

In the capitalist system there are “balanced” and “differentiated” markets as well as oligopo-listic sections and informal sectors (Hoerner, 1995; Offe, 1996). Contradictory and comple-mentary processes of competition and marginalization take place; more countries than everbefore are affected by or involved in global economic processes. The frame of action ofcountries – even those situated “outside” the most intensive flows – are conditioned by theirposition in the world system. Some countries have been able to conquer space in the globalmarket, while others have been more or less “driven” into marginal positions (Griffith-Jones andCampo, 1999).

The type of world system theory proposed by the institutionalists (Meyer & Kamens, 1992;Meyer et al. 1987; Meyer et al. 1997) assumes the existence of a world polity, which is not aphysical body or institution but a complex of cultural expectations. This theory also assumesthat national decision-makers have the ambition or feel compelled to form modern states thatfulfill the requirements of the world polity. It is useful for understanding some aspects of theextensive spread of the NG, but it does not say very much about economic processes andtherefore has to be combined with approaches dealing with economic structures and processesand the drive for profit and competitiveness (Dale, 2000).

As to globalization, a distinction may be made between: (i) general processes of global-ization, and (ii) spread of world models (Meyer et al. 1997). As far as globalization is concerned,there is a growing global interdependency between nations, companies, organizations,individuals, and so on. High technology activities, growth and richness are concentrated in ageographical zone including East and Southeast Asia, Western Europe, parts of Latin Americaand the USA. Financial transactions have become relatively independent from investments andpayment of goods and services exchanged in external trade (Bretherton, 1996), a factor that has“governance consequences”, for example, the flow of finance capital may force governments insmaller countries to change their economic policy.

Sectors and branches of economies are being restructured due to the competition on the global market. Economic globalization results in economic growth in some countries orplaces but also marginalization of other countries and increasing gaps between the Northand the South (Griffin, 2003; Lipumba, 2003). Poverty, risk and uncertainty are accumulating in the economically poorest countries (Cox, 2000). The sector of the economymostly involved in global processes consists of companies that increasingly restructurethemselves and demand a flexible labour force (Waters, 1995), but for large sections ofthe economies, the organization of production and work is not very different from beforeand their nature varies from one country to another (Carnoy, 1999; Lorenz, Lundvall and Valeyre, 2004).

10 Holger Daun

While some global processes result from state, company and NGO activities, otherprocesses are driven by large-scale economic actors, such as Transnational Companies andInternational Governmental Organizations (OECD, Unesco, the World Bank, etc.) and tendto take place rather independently from single country actions and frontiers (Boli & Thomas,1999; Sklair, 1995). Politically, globalization causes restructuring of the relationships betweenthe national state, companies and international governmental and non-governmental organi-zations (the “myriad of international institutions ... interact to produce global governance”(Zürn, 2003, p. 341), but also between different levels within a society. Globalization changesthe conditions for the functions of the state and its mode of governance.

The state now has to handle multiple and sometimes contradictory demands andrequirements: the consequences of economic restructuring (e.g. unemployment), increasingcomplexity and specialization and, at the same time, increasing networking in society and acrosssocieties. There is a growing pressure on the state to struggle not only for peoples’ entrance intoexchange on markets but also for their will and capacity to become competitive. As a result,states are restructuring themselves but not necessarily shrinking themselves, “the new publicmanagement increases some dimensions of central control through budgetary constraints,accounting procedures, and forms of inspection” (Pierre, 2000, p. 20). They establish “policy andfunding mechanisms designed at the centre to steer from a distance more autonomous localunits” (Blackmore, 2000, p. 134). Factors indicating this are the fact that many states do notspend a lower percentage of their GDP than they did some decades ago (Pierre, 2000, p. 1) butspend less on social welfare as a percentage of GDP (Gilbert, 2004, p. 3). The state attempts todelegate responsibility, uncertainty, risk, funding and accountability to lower levels of society andto private actors. In addition, resources are transferred towards supervising and monitoringfunctions.

Culturally, globalization causes or encompasses standardization and homogenization as wellas particularization and heterogenization; secularization as well as de-secularization and revital-ization of moral and religious values (Berger, 1999; Norris & Inglehart 2004). The “univer-salized” aspects of cultures challenge and question local cultures and taken-for-granted aspects,and traditions and religious beliefs are being problematized (Giddens, 1994). Also, culturally,economic imperatives tend to dominate over all others (Saul, 1997). The fact that somecountries have started to give more attention to morals and values education in the schools maybe interpreted as a response to this (see, for instance, Cummings et al. 1988; Taylor, 1994). Thedissemination of world models and “universal cultural aspects” sometimes provokesexaggeration of local ideas and values (cultural particularism).

Globalization implies the dissemination of ideas – in particular world models – on the globeas well as dissemination of the perception that different parts of the globe are interconnected.The strongest globalizing forces include the market idea and the spread of a standardizedconsumer culture. Thus, globalization processes are mainly driven by market forces, which have

Globalization and the Governance of National Education Systems 11

become the most extensive and penetrative forces of governance (Cox, 2000), and have spreadto most areas of life, among them education. The “market order” on a global scale is country-wisemediated by national and local history, politics, economies and cultures. For the single nationstate, globalization makes governance more complex.

The two types of world systems, the economic and the “culturalist/institutionalist”, havesomewhat different views on education. The world systems theory formulated by the institu-tionalists assumes that states structure themselves (including education systems) due to thecultural pressure from the IGOs (proposing the world models). The economic world systemsapproach argues that education is restructured according to the requirements and demands ofthe economy (to make people and countries competitive, for example) (Dale, 2000).

4.2 World Models

The world polity may be seen to include world models (one for education, for instance). Worldmodels consist of “cognitive and ontological models of reality that specify the nature, purposes,technology, sovereignty, control, and resources of nation-states and other actors” (Meyer et al.,1997, p. 144), and they may be seen as “stored” in policy documents in and disseminated frominternational organizations and national governments of the biggest countries (Dale, 2000; Gill,2000). The world polity takes for granted or prescribes the existence of a state of the moderntype in charge of a certain territory and implementing modern institutions and cultures.

The world models inform policy-makers and researchers about the desirable andappropriate educational policies, and prescribe the role of education, research, and so on (Meyeret al. 1997). Also, they signal, among other things, education as an instrument in the struggle foreconomic competitiveness but also educational efficiency, decentralization, school-basedmanagement, privatization, choice, what outcomes to be measured, and indicators of outcomes(Wiseman & Baker, 2005). The elements of the world models are combined in different waysacross countries, but most of these combinations make part of the NG. The world polity is asymbolic and discursive entity, but there is no physical or other body that performs the functionsof a state – the distribution of collective goods and efforts to implement policies of equalizationfor example – at the international or world systems level. Griffin (2003) argues that “We have aglobal economy but not a global polity and hence our ability to “‘govern the market’ andourselves is weakened” (p. 789).

Availability of and enrollment in education at the primary and secondary levels have beenglobalized, and schooling is assumed to have a large number of effects beneficial to both theindividual and society regardless of time and space (Chabbot & Ramirez, 2000; Hannum &Buchmann, 2003). However, its effects and outcomes have been shown to be contingent onnational political, economic and cultural characteristics (Pritchett, 2001) and on “a nation’s

12 Holger Daun

position in the global trade system” (Hannum & Buchmann, 2003, p. 22). Like the state ingeneral, the education system is to a large extent under cross-pressure between local forces, onthe one hand, and the globalizing and internationalizing forces, on the other hand. Around theworld, education systems experience one or several of the following contradictory pressures: aunitarian vs. diversified system; religious-moral vs. secular curriculum components; local vs.national or international curriculum components; education as an individual good vs. educationas a common good; and competition and elitism vs. solidarity and cooperation; focus on testsand performance vs. more holistic considerations; and mother tongue vs. internationallanguage(s) (Daun, 2002) (For core elements in the educational world model, see Table 1.1).

Although certain relationships between institutional arrangements and economic growthare assumed to exist, there is not always correspondence between these two types of factors. Forexample, Africa as a continent has low levels of “connectivity in key areas that drive globalization”(finance, production, trade, etc) but at the same time, it has high levels of connectivity in politics

Table 1.1 Core Elements of the World Model for Education

View of the role Consensus perspective. Education contributes to development, economicof education: growth, democracy, rational human beings. Socialization as lifelong learning

monitored and assessed by the state.

Education system: Extension of compulsory education. Extended pre-school attendance;“pedagogized” methods in pre-school learning contexts. Seven to nine yearscompulsory. At least secondary education is preferable.

Aims, goals: Education for all. Quality education. Effectiveness and efficiency – rationalproduction of multi-skilled, multi-competent and competitive people.

Curriculum: A national core curriculum; other parts flexible and adapted to local conditions.Education for global competitiveness, equality, empower-ment, democracy, humanrights and citizenship. Gender equality. Values education. Scientific and techno-logical subjects. Environmental education. Sexual education. Mother tongueinstruction; English as the second language.

Financing: Basic subsidies from the central state but a considerable share from local andmedium levels. Private.

Organization: National skeleton, national framework. Decentralized bodies for decision-makingwithin this framework. School-based management. Local participation –community participation.

Regulation, control: Surveillance and retro-active assessment by the state; choice exerted by parents and pupils. Use of standardized examination and centralized evaluation procedures.Reporting from below. Outcomes-based education.

Ownership: Public local. Private. NGOs.

Assessment, Measurable (quantitative items).monitoring:

The content of the table is based on information collected from a large number of policy documents.

Globalization and the Governance of National Education Systems 13

and policy-making (Bangura, 2001, p. 33). That is, the continent has implemented theinstitutions and modes of policy-making suggested and expected by the international agencies,while it has become marginalized from the global economic flows.

Since the beginning of the 1980s, the world models include parts of and carry combinations ofcontradictory as well as complementary or overlapping ideas such as the market orientation (theautonomous individual as a rational chooser, consumer and utility-maximizing being) and themodern communitarian orientation (the individual as an autonomous but altruistic andsolidaristic being). These and some other ideological orientations are described in the next section.

4.3 Ideological Orientations

Various forces conditioning the outcome have to be considered, one set of which are philosophicalor ideological orientations. They are implied in education decisions and activities, from macrorestructuring via formation of local boards/school boards to classroom processes. Thomas(1994) uses two dimensions in his analysis of educational decision-making: (a) locus of intentand (b) locus of decision-making. The former dimension has two categories which are “Self ”(egoism) and “Other” (altruism), and the latter deals with the locus of decision-making whichmay be centralized or decentralized. When these two dimensions are combined, the result isfour ideal types of decision-making: (i) Communal (self/centralism); (ii) Collective (altruism/centralism); (iii) Market (egoism/decentralism); and (iv) College (altruism/decentralism). Thecommunal type implies that actors make decisions centrally in order to improve their ownsituation, while in the collective type, decisions are made centrally for the common good. In themarket, individuals make decisions for themselves in order to improve or maximize their ownutility. College – the fourth type – means that decisions are made at a decentralized level for thecollective good at that level. This type corresponds to the decision-making in local communitiesand non-profit associations.

In a similar way, Cooper (1993) analyzes four “policy frameworks” (see Table 1.2). The ideasand driving forces described in this table form part of the NG, and when synthesizing them, wefind at least five ideal types of ideological orientations behind educational arrangements (amongthem decentralization): (a) market, (b) étatist-welfarist, (c) professional-managerial, (d) profes-sional-pedagogical, and (e) communitarian/humanistic orientations (Crowley, 1987; Etzioni,1995; MacRae, 1969; Miller, 1989; Watt, 1994).

a) Market orientation: The basic idea is that human beings are utility-maximizingcreatures and act accordingly – regardless of time and place (Gill, 2000). The education systemis seen as a market and education as a private (individual) good. Market forces are assumed toimprove efficiency, effectiveness and quality of education by adapting supply to the preferencesand demands of the parents (Chubb & Moe, 1988; Crowley, 1987). Politicians or professionals

14 Holger Daun

can never have the knowledge necessary to satisfy the educational desires and needs of theconsumers of education (Welsh & McGinn, 1999. pp. 42-43). The individual himself or herselfis “responsible for the presentation, reproduction, and reconstruction of one’s own humancapital” (Gordon, 1991, p. 44). Privatization is the highest degree of decentralization. Themarket orientation is an important feature of the NG deriving from the world models.

(b) Étatist-welfarist orientation: The pursuit of the common good at the national levelmay – according to the adherents to this orientation – be seen as one of the principal reasons forthe existence of the state and political activities. The more issues are placed for decision-makingin the political arena, the higher the degree of democracy (Dow, 1993; Miller, 1989). Therefore,the state/public sector should be used for the common good (such as education). Entitlement isa key concept, associated with basic needs and equality. Education tends to be placed in a largerwelfare context (either as a welfare item itself, as a means to attain welfare or both). If decentral-ization is to take place, this should be done through public sector measures, and choice shouldbe limited to schools in the public sector. The étatist-welfarist orientation does not have any highpriority in the world models, although the state is seen to have an important role in guaranteeingeducation for all individuals.

(c) Professional-managerial orientation: There are different definitions of “management”but they share the view that it is about defining the goals of the organization and leading it to

Table 1.2 Four Educational Frameworks Including Different Ideological Orientations

Concept Arena Educational examples

Public choice theory. Markets Vouchers, magnet schools,Consumer – producer relationship. open enrollment, relocation.Consumer choice. Exit options.

Constituent choice theory. Elections Local school councils.Voter choice. Governmental Community school districts.processes. Voice options.

Organizational choice School site Local management,and autonomy. Decentralization, shared decision-making,loose coupling. Devolution school site goal setting,of authority. Theories local governance of schools.of organizational design.

Professional choice School and Teacher leadership, empowerment,and autonomy. Colleagueship, professional reconfigurating schools as places

expert knowledge. groups for professional control, practices,career ladders, national advancedteacher certification and rewards.

Based on Cooper (1993).