BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL

INSTITUTIONAL SOCIAL CAPITAL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL A������������

A������������

BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL

Sahara Africa, for example, the situation has been exacerbated by the rapid expan-sion of school systems to achieve universal primary education targets (Rose 2003).

This cannot be done by a central government alone and therefore requires the adop-tion of alternative approaches. As Cummings (1997) points out, during the 1990s there emerged the need to move from an old approach to education that entails stan-dardised and centralised control, towards a modern approach that enables flexibility and diversity to shape education to local circumstances.

The earlier sections have explained that the appeal of decentralisation lies in the promises of improved efficiency, transparency, accountability, and service provision that reflect local priorities (McLean and King 1999). The main international confer-ences on education, from Jomtien in 1990 to Dakar in 2000, have emphasised these points and highlighted, among other things, the critical importance of community participation in schools to improve governance and strengthen democratic practices (see WCEFA 1990: article VII, WCEFA 1990a: sections I.2, I.3, I.6 and III.3, WEF 2000: pp. 18-19).

Unfortunately, the creation of spaces of participation does not automatically translate into democratic decision making practices. For this reason, research and studies such as the ones by Bonnal, Cornwall, Sen and others, have helped to clarify an understanding that participation and governance are strongly influenced by spe-cific cultural and social norms. Moreover, it is important to remember that participa-tion normally puts an addiparticipa-tional burden on individuals in terms of time and/or re-sources that they need to contribute to the process. This, argues Shaeffer (1994), may be particularly demanding for parents and community members living in socially and economically marginalised regions. Other aspects that have to be taken into consideration in addressing school-community relations are the lack of community appreciation of the overall objective of education, the cultural gap between commu-nity and school, and the popular belief that education is a task of the state. Whitacre (1997) notes that decentralisation often has been limited to simple deconcentration and has in some cases actually expanded the control and presence of central govern-ment instead of tapping into indigenous institutions to support the decentralisation effort.

It is useful at this stage to present some examples of countries that have a longer experience than Cambodia with decentralisation reforms and participatory school governance. These examples are relevant because they highlight the critical impor-tance of social capital in shaping democratic spaces of participation. The principles of democratic decentralisation are usually spelled out in general terms in national policies and guidelines and their translation into practical actions has to take into consideration different local circumstances. In other words, to search for the oppor-tunities provided by diversity instead of homogeneity.

Theoretical framework of the study and findings of previous relevant research 45

2.4.1 Asia

According to Chapman (2000), “at no time in history in no region of the world have education system expanded as fast or as effectively as have those in Asia, particu-larly in East Asia, during the past thirty years” (p. 283). He also notes that “virtu-ally all developing countries in Asia follow a pyramidal model in which national policy, programmes and logistics are formulated by a central ministry of education

… the ministry then works through a network of provincial, regional and district education offices that largely duplicate the structure of the central ministry and are responsible for ensuring that central policies are communicated and implemented in the schools” (p. 290). Despite this background, decentralisation reforms have been implemented also in Asia with important consequences for school management and school-community relations.

Similarly to Africa, most Asian countries gained independence in the aftermath of World War II and inherited centralised administrations. Some countries had al-ready experienced organised forms of local government. This is the case, for example, with the panchayat (village councils) that evolved in ancient India, and are still active today. In short, panchayat are formed by elected members taking decisions on issues that are relevant to the social, cultural and economic life of the village. They act as a link between local government and people (Govinda 1997).⁹ In the Philippines, barangays represented an indigenous system of community organisation character-ised by strong kinship links (Turner 1999). They were destroyed during the Spanish colonial period, but have been institutionalised through the Local Government Code passed in 1991 and given an ambitious list of services to perform (ibid.).

With regard to forms decentralisation and community participation in educa-tion, School Clusters represent a particularly important experience in Asia. Their origin goes back to the 1950s when they were piloted in Thailand in a joint initiative by the Ministry of Education and UNESCO in the province of Chachoengsao. As the approach proved successful, it was expanded nation-wide between the 1960s and 1980s (Wheeler et al. 1994). During this period, School Clusters became a popular approach in several Asian countries affected by economic recession and high popula-tion growth (e.g. Burma, India, Papua New Guinea, Philippines).¹⁰ In Asia, the first wave of school clustering lasted until the end of the 1980s when high rates of eco-nomic growth achieved in some countries provided sufficient resources to support education. During the 1990s, a second wave of school clustering took place in former socialist countries like Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam and was driven by the collapse

9 Gandhi, advocated theGandhi, advocated the Panchayati Raj as a decentralized form of government, where each village is responsible for its own actions and subsistence, as the foundation of India’s political system (see Meenakshisundaram 1994, Singh 2006).

10 Bray (1987) explains that the School Clusters have also been popular in Latin America andBray (1987) explains that the School Clusters have also been popular in Latin America and have been introduced in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Pan-ama, and Peru.

of the socialist model of centralised administration and the pressure for more local-ized decision-making and democratization (Fiske 1996, Litvack and Seddon 1999, McGinn and Welch 1999, Bredenberg and Dahal 2000).

School Clusters are defined by Bray as “groupings of schools for administrative and educational purposes” (Bray 1987: 7). A typical cluster, shown in figure 2.3, con-sists of six to seven schools. At the centre there is a core school responsible of the ad-ministration of cluster activities. The core school is linked to satellite schools. In more remote areas, satellite school can be further linked to annex schools.¹¹

There are a number of objectives linked to the School Clusters model. From the eco-nomic point of view, one of the most important is to improve cost effectiveness, by sharing facilities, staff and enabling bulk orders of material (ibid.). From the peda-gogical point of view, the main objective is to improve the quality of education in in-dividual schools by easing the access and sharing of educational resources. From the administrative point of view, clusters help to link districts with group of schools, and therefore reduce transaction and information costs. The cluster model also pursues political objectives such as consciousness-raising, community participation,

reduc-11 The number of schools that belong to a cluster can vary greatly. Bray (1987) mentions that inThe number of schools that belong to a cluster can vary greatly. Bray (1987) mentions that in Peru clusters (nucleos) can have up to 30 or 40 schools.

���u��� ���� S�h��� ��u������ ����u��u���

ANNEX