THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE DEB

Guidelines governing the role and scope of the DEB were first developed in 1997 (Ministry of Education Restructuring and Decentralisation Committee (MOERDC) 1997), revised in 2004 (Education Board Service (EBS) 2004a) and culminated in the publication of a comprehensive manual in 2005 (EBS 2005).

According to the latest edition of the manual (ibid), the DEB comprises a management team and a governance body. It is intended that the governance body should represent various interest groups, including the local community, “so as to make decision-making widely shared” (ibid: 20). The management team is in principle composed of district education officials, who are therefore employees of the MOE.

According to the manual (ibid), the governance body should be composed of 15 members, each subject to a distinct selection or nomination process.

Composition of the Governance Body14

(i) Five members of the local community nominated as follows:

(a) One local councillor and one district resident other than a district councillor selected at a full council meeting.

(b) Three district residents selected by the district PTA council.15

14

See appendix 3-2 for the original composition of the Governance Body listed in EBS 2005. 15

However, the guidelines developed in 1996 stipulate that the district residents are to be nominated by the district council upon the request of the DEBS, a ruling that was changed in the 2004 guidelines and the 2005 manual. A policy document indicating the reason for such a change could not be found nor could interviewed senior officials recall why it was made. This may way well be an example of the extremely poor institutional

(ii) One basic school PTA representative and one high school PTA representative to be selected at a general district PTA council meeting.

(iii) Three representatives of the teacher‟s union in the district.

(iv) One representative of the proprietors of the grant-aided schools in the district nominated by the proprietors.

(v) One basic school head teacher elected by the Basic School Head Teacher‟s Association.

(vi) One high school head teacher elected by the High School Head Teacher‟s Association.

(vii) One head teacher representing schools for continuing education, in districts where they exist.

(EBS 2005: 21, summarised by the author).

The chairperson of the DEB should be elected from the governance body members and should not be an MOE official. The DEBS (District Education Board Secretary), who is the MOE employee, serves as the secretary.

As stated in (ii), one PTA spokesperson from all the government basic schools in the district should be elected to represent their interests at the DEB. One policy document (ZCSS 2005) stipulates that the PCSCs of all community schools should elect one PCSC chairperson to represent them at the DEB as a governance body member. However, the 2005 manual makes no mention of whether PCSCs in community schools are also to be represented or not. This may reflect the ambiguous status that community schools have in the public education system.

The repeated emphasis on active „community participation‟ in education matters through the establishment of DEB (MOE 1996a; EBS 2004a; EBS 2005) notwithstanding, the parameters of neither „community‟ nor „local community‟ are clearly defined in these policy documents. Indeed, the boundaries of the „community‟ to which they refer fluctuate, sometimes including teachers and education officials so long as they serve at the local level; while, in other instances, the community is limited to laypersons such as parents and other local residents. Likewise, the key MOE officials interviewed attached varying meanings to „community.‟ Such convenient but ambiguous usage of the term „community‟ in policy has the potential to give rise to confusion over whose prerogative it is to engage in education decision-making.

As stated in (i)-(a), a local councillor should also be represented at the DEB as a governance body member. As mentioned earlier, the government plan for devolution to the district council was delayed, which prompted the MOE to develop its own policy on decentralisation, and to the formation of the DEB at district level. However, the policy for the devolution of several social services to local councils under the auspices of the Ministry of Local Government and Housing (MLGH) continued to be implemented. This strategy culminated in the launch of the National Decentralisation Policy in August 2004, which nominated the local council as the body to which basic education was to be devolved (Cabinet Office 2004).

Yet, the devolution process remains slow, and its institutional and financial structures are unclear. Most tasks that should have been delegated to local authorities – including basic education – are still performed by the local offices of central government ministries (Interview-ME1; ME2; ML; CO). Nevertheless, the limited role of the district council notwithstanding, it has now been allocated a constituency development fund (CDF), which may be used for the implementation of various projects in the district, including the rehabilitation of school facilities (Ministry of Local Government and Housing (MLGH) 2010). A

district councillor with representation at the DEB is therefore expected to act as a vital intermediary between politics and education.

As stated above, the management team is made up of district education officials employed by the MOE, the precise composition of which is catalogued in appendix 3-3.

3.5.1.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE DEB OF THE GOVERNING