Decentralization of Education in Nicaragua

In recent years “decentralization” has become the buzzword among politicians,

developmental experts and donor agencies alike. In essence, the goals of decentralization

are to improve service delivery, accountability and transparency through increased citizen

participation in the decision-making process, thereby collapsing the state-citizen divide.

Education has been a key social sector area for which fiscal and administrative

decentralization has been prescribed, and nearly all Latin American countries have

adopted it to varying degrees. Nicaragua has been especially prominent in this regard as it

has for more than a decade pushed for radical decentralization of its education system. It

acquires greater significance due to its experience of excessive central control during the

years of previous revolutionary socialist regimes.

This paper aims to delineate the theoretical underpinnings of educational decentralization

with specific reference to the Autonomous Schools Program in Nicaragua. It will gauge

the impact that it has had on service provision and outline the manner in which this has

altered the state-community relationship. Furthermore, it will be analyzed whether the

lessons learnt from the Nicaraguan experience can be generalized to apply to educational

systems across the board, or have the achievements and failures been specific to the

particular social and political context.

In general, decentralization refers to shifting decision-making functions from higher to

lower levels of organizational units. When this concept is applied to the education sector
it translates into a wide array of measures that alter the structure of decision making

within schools, as well as their interaction with larger units of administration and

authority. It involves a fundamental relocation of administrative control over aspects such

as revenue generation, expenditure, curriculum design, teacher training, and general

institutional management, to stakeholders most affected by them. As a result the

relationship between students and parents to schools, and communities to the central and

local governments is transformed, skewing control away from the bureaucracy to the

stakeholders1.

Several strands of reasoning are offered to support educational decentralization. The

foremost issue in developing countries is one of revenue generation. Mobilizing local

sources of taxation can compensate for scarce budgetary allocations on the central level.

This is premised on the assumption that greater participation fosters additional financial

contribution on the community level. In the presence of financial constraints, shifting

some of the financial burden to regional, community and parental levels will foster

greater funding. The second main argument concerns efficiency. Decentralization

relocates authority to the lower level, thereby slashing cumbersome layers of bureaucracy

that are both time-consuming and costly. The third argument relates to general quality of

service provision. Increased participation from below will foster greater pressure on

education service providers such as teachers, administrative staff etc. to improve

performance. Furthermore, when decisions regarding funding and curriculum design are

1
Lammert, Jill, and Vic Paqeou. Education Reform and Management Thematic Group. The World Bank.
Decentralization of Education, 2000.
made by local authorities rather than distant central ones, they are more likely to be in-

tune with local conditions and responsive to their demands2.

In 1990, the Violeta Chamorro’s National Opposition Union came into power in

Nicaragua, signaling a decisive shift from the country’s revolutionary past. It inherited a

highly centralized educational system put in place by the Sandinista National Liberation

Front (FSLN), created as such in line with its revolutionary political objectives. The new

regime initiated a program of decentralization consistent with the neoliberal project

sweeping the globe. Their successor, Arnoldo Aleman’s Liberal Party continued with the

reforms, considerably expediting the process due to fiscal pressures3.

The Autonomous Schools Program (ASP), when initiated in 1991, established councils in

all public schools. These councils consisted of principals, teachers, parents and students –

apart from the students, each having an equal vote in the decision making process. In

1993, a pilot project transformed the school councils of 20 public schools into school

management boards possessing key management tasks, thereby creating the first

“autonomous” schools. By 1995, well over a 100 schools had followed suite 4. The

council has wide-ranging powers over the school management decisions such as the

hiring and firing of directors, principals and teachers, changing the school curriculum,

establishing their own choice of textbooks, setting the level of monthly fees to be paid by

the students etc.

2
Ibid
3
King, Elizabeth M., and Berk Ozler. Development Research Group. The World Bank. What's
Decentralization Got to Do With Learning? The Case of Nicaragua's School Autonomy Reform, 1998.
4
Ibid
The three basic aspects of school autonomy involve5:

1) A monthly fiscal transfer to the school principal to pay for teachers’ salaries and

basic maintenance.

2) A school-site council charged with powers over budget, personnel, and some

curricular decisions.

3) Fees for various services such as exams, educational resources etc.

An autonomous school is governed by the site council, which always possesses a voting

majority of the parents6. However, this greater power has come at considerable economic

cost. In order to win over the support of sufficient number of teachers, parents have had

to bear with additional financial burdens to augment teachers’ salaries as an inducement

towards the new system. This increase in cost for the parents has raised some serious

questions regarding the ASPs. Considering the fact that Nicaragua is the second-poorest

country in the region, coupled with norm of large family size prevalent in the society, a

household with 6 children can expect to spend anywhere between C$ 120-140 on

education7, which would account for nearly half the earnings for those in the lower

income groups. From this it appears that education is still inaccessible to a significant

portion of the country’s population.

The reaction of the teachers to the ASP requires for much more attention as it has had

considerable ramifications for the structure of the entire system. Teachers’ unions

5
Gershberg, Alec I. "Decentralization, Citizen Participation, and the Role of the State: The Autonomous
Schools Program in Nicaragua." Latin American Perspectives 26 (1999): 8-38.
6
Fuller, Bruce , and Magdalena Rivarola. "Nicaragua's Experiment to Decentralize Schools: Contrasting
Veiws of Parents, Teachers, and Directors." Comparative Education Reveiw 43 (1999): 489-521.
7
Gershberg, 1999. 18
possessed substantial clout during the Sandinista regime, and their demands were well

represented within the political system through various organizations, the largest being

the National Association for Nicaraguan Educators (ANDEN.) These unions were

staunchly against the decentralization process and openly fought the regime after 19908.

Subsequently, due to internal cleavages within the unions, the state held sway. However,

this apparent victory of the reformers should not be taken at face value as the persistent

resentment within the teaching community poses the biggest obstacle for the reforms to

succeed. Unlike political opponents and pressure groups, the teachers’ demands cannot

be completed ignored, as their alienation from the system would hinder quality of service

provision – an outcome that this entire system was designed to avoid in the first place.

The fact that organized resistance is no longer visible in the streets does not imply that

the political battle has been won. Teacher apathy and low morale will be as detrimental to

the education process as any structural defect that policies try to ameliorate.

Another procedural issue emerging from the Nicaraguan experience is the fact that

decentralization of education took place without any legislative basis for the reforms9.

Rather, the entire shift was carried out through executive orders emanating from the

central education ministry. This is quite extraordinary since a revamp of the entire

educational system of the country – a sector of considerable political and emotive

importance – has been carried out without any national or regional consensus. Although

circumvention of the legislative process has undoubtedly translated into a swift

promulgation and implementation of the plan10, however, this initial disregard for
8
Ibid, 21
9
Gershberg, Alec I. "Education Decentralization Processes in Nicaragua and Mexico: Legislative Versus
Ministry Led Reform Strategies." Comparative Education 35 (1999): 63-80.
10
Ibid, 72
institutional procedure is bound to create obstacles for the program in the future as

unresolved contradictions amongst competing groups will materialize within the ambit of

educational institutions rather than consultative and legislative ones – the latter obviously

being the more preferred means of solving societal disputes. Furthermore, in the absence

of a well-defined legal framework, the plan is susceptible to reversal due to any changes

in the wider socio-political context, such as change in government and alterations in

donor policies. It appears that the long-term sustainability of the program has been

jeopardized for the sake of short-term success.

The absence of legal foundations also produces an environment of ad-hocism – or at least

the perception of it11. As long as the reform program remains at the mercy of the whims

of those holding executive office, there will persist a general feel of experimentation

thereby eroding much confidence and commitment on the part of the stake-holders.

A more disturbing fact that emerges from the kind of institutional mechanisms that the

decentralization program has relied on relates to the dynamics of the demands for reform.

Since consultative mechanisms were largely bypassed, it raises the question whether the

decentralization initiative was spurred by genuine grassroots pressure, or a top-down

enterprise to shift the financial burdens off the center while simultaneously bestowing

upon it greater legitimacy both within the country as well as with the international donor

agencies.

11
King, Ozler
In gauging the impact of education reform, all considerations other than student

enrollment and student performance outcomes are perhaps of a peripheral nature. Since

the reform programs were initiated, both of these measures have seen considerable

improvements, at least in the preliminary phase12. However, as has been already

mentioned, the goals are far from having been met, and there persist some fundamental

questions as regards the reform motivations, institutional backing, and economic viability

for the poor segments of the society. Unless these issues are addressed, the

decentralization program is likely to foster substantial skepticism.

On the most general level of developmental philosophy, the decentralization program

implicitly withdraws the responsibility of education from the state, and places it firmly

with the family13. Although state power has been circumscribed, so has its scope of

service provision. Furthermore, although there is much optimism regarding the

“democracy” and “community freedom” that such decentralization will help to develop,

there remain some very serious equity considerations that have been left un-addressed.

Since responsibility – including financial – has been devolved along with decision-

making, it is probable that there will remain a deep chasm between the educational

standards of schools operating in relatively affluent communities and those that operate in

lower-income areas. With the retreat of the state from equity concerns, there is no other

agent that fills the vacuum to redress societal inequalities.

A “one size fits all” approach to education planning is clearly not the solution within a

society with grievous inequalities. Although decentralization does appear to be the

12
Fuller, et al., 519
13
Arcia, Gustavo, and Humberto Belli. Department of Human Development. The World Bank. Rebuilding
the Social Contract: School Autonomy in Nicaragua. Latin America and the Carribbean Regional Office,
1999.
mainstay of development theory for years to come, and surely there are many aspects of it

that do promote societal benefit through values such as freedom and democracy.

However, a lot depends on not simply the de facto implementation of decentralization,

but on the specific features that are devolved and maintained. Clearly there is a need for

state planning at the broadest level in order to ensure that historical patterns of resources

distribution are not simply replicated into the future. In the absence of varied regional

allocation at the state level, any effects of policy will be eroded by local conditions.

References
• Arcia, Gustavo, and Humberto Belli. Department of Human Development. The
World Bank. Rebuilding the Social Contract: School Autonomy in Nicaragua.
Latin America and the Carribbean Regional Office, 1999.

• Fuller, Bruce , and Magdalena Rivarola. "Nicaragua's Experiment to Decentralize

Schools: Contrasting Veiws of Parents, Teachers, and Directors." Comparative
Education Reveiw 43 (1999): 489-521.

• Gershberg, Alec I. "Decentralization, Citizen Participation, and the Role of the

State: The Autonomous Schools Program in Nicaragua." Latin American
Perspectives 26 (1999): 8-38.

• Gershberg, Alec I. "Education Decentralization Processes in Nicaragua and

Mexico: Legislative Versus Ministry Led Reform Strategies." Comparative
Education 35 (1999): 63-80.

• King, Elizabeth M., and Berk Ozler. Development Research Group. The World
Bank. What's Decentralization Got to Do With Learning? The Case of
Nicaragua's School Autonomy Reform, 1998.

• Lammert, Jill, and Vic Paqeou. Education Reform and Management Thematic
Group. The World Bank. Decentralization of Education, 2000.

• McGinn, N, and T Welsh. Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and

Cultural Organization, Decentralization of Education: Why, When, What, and
How? 1999.

• Weiler, Hans N. "Comparative Perspective on Decentralization: And Excercise in

Contradiction?" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12 (1990): 433-448.