- Centralization Versus Decentralization
- By Annick M. Brennen, 2002
The concepts of centralization and decentralization are
important ones to consider as they ultimately affect the effectiveness of
schools in educating the children of a nation. Centralization refers to the
condition whereby the administrative authority for education is vested, not in
the local community, but in a central body. This central body has complete power
over all resources: money, information, people, technology. It decides the
content of curriculum, controls the budget, is responsible for employment, the
building of educational facilities, discipline policies, etc.
Decentralization, on the other hand, refers to the extent to
which authority has been passed down to the individual school. Site-based
management is an example of decentralization in which individual schools can
make their own decisions related to finances and curriculum. However, the locus
of power remains with the central body. Advocates of decentralization believe it
will result in higher student performance; more efficient use of resources;
increased skills and satisfaction for school administrators and teachers; and
greater community and business involvement in and support for schools.
In The Bahamas, public education is under the total control of a
central administration headed by the Minister. Having experienced first hand the
problems associated with such a system, I believe that a degree of
decentralization would empower the individual schools to adapt to changes in
their external environment and be more responsive to the needs of pupils and the
community. My position rests on the following arguments (some of them advanced
by Dr. Thomas, 1998):
-
It is virtually impossible to manage large and complex
organizations from the top. Inflated bureaucracies are extremely slow to
respond to local needs and are not very adaptable.
-
Centralization does not fit the current trends of
participatory management, empowerment, and shared decision-making.
Decentralization provides local administrators with greater autonomy, thus
giving scope for creativity, resourcefulness, and personal enhancement
particularly in the area of problem solving.
-
Decentralization provides for persons at the scene of the
action to become involved in the decision-making process. This allows for
greater flexibility, and makes it possible for better decisions to be made
because persons at the scene of the action are more closely related to the
problem.
-
When individual schools are given the opportunity to make
decisions, a higher degree of morale and commitment to the organizational
goals and objectives are fostered. If the principal through decentralization
is given the authority to generate and disburse funds, great gains could be
realized. The staff, then, would exert more effort since it would be a means
by which their strategic plans for curricula and program development could
be implemented.
-
Decentralization also promotes the professional development
of principals. Everyone has the innate tendency towards self-actualization.
Therefore, being responsible for the development of school goals and
objectives and their implementation would encourage principals to seek
various means for achieving professional growth while maximizing their
potentials.
-
Decentralization demands the establishment of accountability
and evaluation mechanisms. This in itself would ensure that individual
schools operate at a high level of efficiency and effectiveness in promoting
student achievement.
-
Decentralization promotes greater parental and community
involvement. Community members and parents can provide valuable insight
about how schools can be improved to better educate the children in the
community. Parents having a greater stake in the educational process, would
have a better understanding of the problems facing schools, and would tend
to increase their support.
-
Reform is never initiated by central administration. It
usually originates at the bottom and finds its way to the top because of the
pressure exerted by those who are affected by unreasonable and ineffective
policies.
While I believe that a certain degree of decentralization is
needed, I also believe that total decentralization would not achieve
cohesiveness among schools. I agree with Michael Fullan who posits that neither
centralization or decentralization works by themselves. Both top-down and
bottom-up strategies are necessary. Centralization errs on the side of over
control, while decentralization errs toward chaos. He argues that site-based
management fails in the long-run because not enough attention is paid to the
center and vice-versa. School and district development must be coordinated.
Personnel moves, transfers, selection and promotion criteria, policy
requirements, budget decisions, including staff development resource all take
their toll on schools if the relationship is not coordinated. The center and
local units need each other. Schools will get nowhere by swinging from one
dominance to another. What is required is a different two-way relationship of
pressure, support, and continuous negotiation.
Contact Annick: annickbrennen at gmail
dot com
