Management of Basic Education in the Context of Ghana’s Decentralization Policy

For almost a decade now the Government of Ghana has been embarking on a decentralization policy in the country. In the main, a collaborative approach in which all stakeholders have spell-out roles and responsibilities in the planning process is emphasized. In the basic education sub-sector, the collaborative efforts find expression in a decentralized management system in which significant discretionary authority has been given to the District Assemblies. Unfortunately, however, after a decade of implementation of the policy in the basic education subsector information available indicates that the decision making process is still centralized and that the degree and form of decentralization is limited to that which is acceptable to, and does not threaten the existence of those actors who hold such power. It was also observed that there are inconsistencies with regards to the strategies meant to address the policy. Educationists and social policy advocates have therefore questioned the adequacy and consistency of the strategies in general, and in particular, how deviations and arbitrariness can bring about the successful implementation of the policy. The study was an exploratory type. The data were from both secondary and primary sources. Secondary data constitute data from the Ghana Education Service/Ministry of Education, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Acts of Parliament, policy documents and speeches of government officials. The main instrument of primary data was the use of structured interview guide. Using quota and purposive sampling techniques, the interview guide was administered to two educational officials each at the Headquarters, Ashanti Regional Directorate and Kwabre District Directorate of the Ghana Education Service. The same techniques were applied to obtain twenty-four headmasters from all three facets of the basic education subsector (kindergarten, primary and junior secondary school) and public and private systems. Among the major findings and conclusions of the study are: (i) Lack of clarity in the policy with regard to the forms of decentralization being pursued, and the roles performed by the various actors. (ii) Weak institutional and resource capacity arrangements for the implementation of the policy. (iii) Inadequacy and inconsistency in the strategies meant to implement the policy. Consequently, the decentralization in the basic education subsector appears elusive unless efforts are made to arrest the negative situation. This calls for the implementation of integrated policy interventions and strategies, some of which are to: (1) Strengthen the human and institutional capacities of the GES, especially in the rural areas. (ii) Build the implementation process into the concept, and making sure that all actors understand and accept their roles (iii) Formulate a well-conceived policy framework which covers all those areas of policy where government wishes to ensure compliance with nationally established norms. The successful implementation of the proposed interventions would depend on the determined and collaborative efforts of all stakeholders in basic education.

Source: KNUST