Who Participates in School Councils and How

T R E N D S / C A S E S

W H O P A R T I C I P A T E S I N S C H O O L

C O U N C I L S A N D H O W ?

F a r y a l K h a n

In t roduc t ion

In this review I explore whether school management councils (SMCs) reproduce

prevailing norms of social participation or serve as a lever for change by challenging these

norms and creating opportunities for subdominant groups to participate, thus enabling

parents to take part in decision-making. The analysis highlights examples from Africa.

As some communities make efforts to change the operational core of schools in the

developing world (Sergiovanni, 1998), educators and social science researchers are

studying the critical nature of family and community involvement, especially in tackling

poor levels of achievement and the impact of high attrition on the poor and marginalized

(Sanders & Epstein as cited in Hargreaves et al., 1998). When governments decentralize

education, a strategy of first resort is to increase community participation by establishing

school councils that include parents and representatives of civil society in general (Fuller

& Rivarola, 1998; Bray, 2001). Underlying these approaches is the assumption that

community participation will result in schools with improved democratic governance, as

well as more accountability, by this means enabling communities to take part in related

decisions (Hanson, 1997; Bryk et al., 1998; Khan, 2001).

Original language: English

Faryal Khan (Pakistan)Doctorate in International Education (Ed. D), Harvard University, 2005. At UNESCO Basic

Education, she coordinates the programme on Educational Governance at Local Levels. Her

research interests include international education policy, educational decentralization reforms, and

social and gender equality in community participation in educational decision-making. In 2002,

she worked as technical advisor to the Minister of Education, Pakistan, on educational

decentralization reforms. Upcoming publication: A Case Study of School Councils in SargodhaDistrict, Punjab, Pakistan: Mirroring and Change Bristling Side by Side (HGSE, 2005).

E-mail: [email protected]

Prospects, vol. XXXVI, no. 1, March 2006

The fragmentary nature of available evidence on the functioning of SMCs does not

really support these assumptions about potential outcomes. Also, little of the debate on

the potential of councils is informed by emerging empirical evidence that has examined

what these councils actually do in developing countries. Patterns of social organization

and participation vary in developing countries, and there is scant evidence on how these

contextual and cultural differences might shape the implementation of councils. While

scholars have analyzed community participation in councils throughout the industrial-

ized countries (David, 1989; Duttweiler, 1989; Caldwell, 1990; Malen, Ogawa & Kranz,

1990; Wohlstetter, 1992; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Abu Duhou, 1999), such

practices must still be examined in developing countries to inform policy in contexts with

little historical traditions of participation in public life. My purpose here is to address the

need for a rigorous analysis of community participation in selected countries in Africa,

paying attention to what happens at the local level in this sphere.

Research across the industrialized countries suggests that community participation in

school councils has the capacity to either reinforce or to challenge social practices beyond

the school. Some scholars argue that school-based management deepens democratic

participation per se, and ‘‘opens up schools to involve ... groups previously not involved

in governance’’ (Wohlstetter, 1992, p. 9; Hanson, 2000). Such participation might serve

as a lever for systemic change (Bryk et al., 1998), assuming the schools in question are

relatively autonomous within the social setting that embeds them, and thus are free to

break with tradition. It is a perspective that invites one to expect that councils might

include groups that are marginalized or excluded, such as the poor, the less educated, and

women. Alternatively, one might reasonably assume that schools mirror organization in

the larger social structure (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). Where deeply engrained norms

and behaviours maintain conventional relationships in the councils, participants accept

decision-making roles conforming to custom (Malen et al., 1990). One might thus

expect that community participation reflects tradition, rather than alters it, and councils

provide subdominant groups with minimal voice.

With a view to gaining insights on these issues, I examine studies on the practice of

school councils in developing countries, by asking the following research questions:

1. Who participates in school councils?

2. Is the socio-economic and gender composition of councils related to traditions of

civil autonomy and gender empowerment?

3. What categories of decisions do school councils make?

Despite claims by some writers that ‘‘schools must learn to communicate with all

families, especially those that are marginalized’’ (Phtiaka as cited in Hargreaves et al.,

1998, p. 484), often the poor, the less educated, and women are excluded (Thomas,

1996; Anzar, 1998; Govinda, 2000). Having examined studies of the work of school

councils in 20 developing countries, I note that the groups most likely to serve on

councils are the affluent and educated. Table 1 shows participation by members of the

community in selected countries in Africa: only one study flags participation of member

with low socio-economic status (SES); and three mention women�s participation, though

two specify that it is low.

Faryal Khan98


TA

BL

E1

.W

ho

par

tici

pat

esin

sch

ool

man

agem

ent

com

mit

tees

,in

sele

cted

stu

die

sfr

omA

fric

a

Cou

ntr

yH

ead

teac

her

Tea

cher

sP

aren

tsL

earn

ers

Gov

ern

men

t

offi

cial

Com

mu

nit

y

mem

ber

s

Wom

enL

ow

SES

stat

us

Com

mu

nit

y

lead

ers

Eth

iop

iaP

PP

PP

Ken

yaP

PL

PP

P

Mad

agas

car

PP

PP

Mal

iP

PP

Nig

eria

PP

Sou

thA

fric

aP

PP

PP

Tan

zan

iaP

PP

PP

PL

PP

P=

par

tici

pat

ion

and

LP

=lo

wp

arti

cip

atio

n.

Who participates in school councils and how? 99


Evidence from countries with a low level of gender empowerment indicates that

women too find participation difficult (Bentzen, 1997; Govinda, 1997; Khan, 2001).

Though they might take part, often they are under-represented or play secondary roles.

My literature review suggests an overall trend with regard to decision-making: councils

tend to limit themselves to administrative functions (UNICEF/UNESCO, 1997).

Decisions related to classroom pedagogy and curricula are infrequent (Khan, 2001).

Little is said about the type and range of pedagogical decisions. I suggest it is these very

lacunae that indicate the importance of further research regarding SES and gender, and

whether councils are truly enabling the marginalized to participate in educational

decision-making.

S T U D I E S S E L E C T E D

The review includes 33 studies, covering 20 countries. Of them, 13 were conducted in

Asia (Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines and

Thailand), 7 in Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Nigeria, South Africa, and

Tanzania), and 13 in Latin America (Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, and Peru). Some countries

are covered by more than one study. Most studies were completed between 1990 and

2001; I refer to each by country, with the year in parentheses. Appendix A summarizes

these studies in table form, reporting region, country, author, and date. Studies include

case studies, evaluation reports, dissertations and other publications. Some describe the

implementation of national reforms; most, however, refer to pilot studies that are limited

to a region or a cluster of schools. Hence, the unit of analysis is the study itself. The

authors are predominantly from international agencies, ministries of education, NGOs,

universities or research institutes.

A N A L Y T I C S T R A T E G Y

Summary descriptions addressing the three research questions were prepared, based on

three related matrices with data drawn from the studies. Data on the gender and SES

composition of councils was examined, such as the numerical ratio of males to females,

the level of education, and whether members owned land or were landless farmers. The

analysis explored whether or not participation of low-status groups and women in

SMCs is related to traditions of civil autonomy and gender empowerment. Matrices

ranked the studies according to indices, notably civil autonomy and gender empow-

erment measure, to identify patterns in the configuration of participants in respective

locales.

To carry out my analysis, I used available indicators of the relevant construct, to

code the context of each country, and looked for systematic patterns in how each

indicator relates to community participation in school management across different

contexts. The indicator used to explore the role of civil autonomy on the composition

of socio-economic composition of school councils is ‘‘civil liberties’’, from Freedom

Faryal Khan100


House (1999; see Appendix B1). Since 1972, Freedom House has provided an annual

evaluation of political rights and civil liberties through-out the world. The concept of

civil liberties includes the freedom to develop views, institutions, and personal

autonomy apart from the state. Freedom House conducts a survey to assign each

country the overall status of ‘‘free’’, ‘‘partly free’’, or ‘‘not free’’ in terms of its civil

autonomy or freedom of association. The rating system has a 7-category scale, with 1

representing the most free, and 7 the least free. Following the Freedom House rating

system, countries are placed in one of three groups: (a) those having weak civil

liberties, i.e. not free (between 5 and 7); (b) those having medium civil liberties, i.e.

partly free (between 3 and 4); and (c) those having strong civil liberties, i.e. free

(between 1 and 2).

The second indicator is the gender empowerment measure (GEM), from the UNDP

Human Development Report (2000). I use it to explore the relationship between SMC

composition and the level of gender empowerment in a given country. The GEM assesses

women�s empowerment at the country level by appraising the percentage of seats in

parliament held by women, the percentage of female administrators and managers, the

percentage of female professional and technical workers, and the percentage of total

income that is earned by women. The GEM value can range from 0 at the lower end of

the spectrum to .99, the highest level of gender empowerment. Amongst the studies

reviewed here, South Africa has the highest GEM value of 0.53, ranking at 23 amongst

countries reported in the Human Development Report. To conduct my analysis, I grouped

the countries as low-GEM (below 0.33), medium-GEM (from 0.33 to 0.66), and high-

GEM (above 0.66). The countries in the studies reviewed here have GEM values ranging

between 0.18 and 0.53. Hence, the highest GEM value in the studies reviewed falls into

the medium set of values for all the countries in the UNDP survey. Thus, in the analysis,

the countries in our studies fall under two categories: low and medium GEM value.

Countries where reported civil autonomy is comparatively weak, such as Kenya, were

examined to assess whether participation there differs from that in countries where

reported civil autonomy is stronger, such as Mali or South Africa. Countries where

female empowerment is high were compared with those from places where it is low.

Though the analysis covers countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this article

highlights cases from Africa.

Who par t i c ipa t e s on schoo l counc i l s ?

The membership of a typical SMC includes head teachers, teachers, parents, community

members, and sometimes students. Some councils such as the parent/teacher associations

(PTAs) of Nigeria (1998) consist mainly of parents. Others are more diverse including

village chiefs or religious leaders. Some studies reflect an emphasis on appointing affluent

and educated people, including traditional leaders. Tending to play only secondary roles,

the poor and less-educated, who often find it difficult to express their needs and opin-

ions, remain under-represented. Though women do participate, in some places they are



relatively under-represented, a pattern that reinforces the status quo regarding levels of

gender inequity and concomitant discrimination.

Of the 33 studies analyzed, 26 of them – representing 20 countries – contribute useful

data on this question. Of these, 19 studies include information on SES levels and on

gender distribution. Likewise, 19 report on recruitment – whether membership is elected

or appointed. Of the 26, parents are members in 16 (80%) and community members are

specifically mentioned in 6 (see Table 1). While 19 studies in 12 countries mention the

SES of council members, only 5 countries indicate whether or not community members

have a low SES, and 10 prefer to appoint people of some influence. Of the 12 countries

that do mention SES levels, councils in 4 – Bangladesh, Kenya, Pakistan and Thailand –

combine low-SES members with the more affluent. Learners themselves participate in 8

countries, and local government officials in 5. Of the studies in 14 countries that do talk

about gender, only 11 (8 countries) comment on women�s participation; in fact, most

discussions of gender balance relate to the country as a whole, rather than female

representation on councils per se.School principals and their staff seem to dominate SMCs, with the local elite and

others with powerful social networks more likely to accept invitations to serve on a

council. Principals are more likely to invite those they believe will accept the invitation

because of their social capital and former experience of participating in community life.

Teachers sometimes decide that the community�s less-educated parents cannot make

contributions to benefit the school. Although women�s participation is scantily reported,

some research indicates that where NGOs have intervened systematically, women do

participate at council level (India, 1997; Pakistan, 1998a, 1998c). Learners themselves

also play an active part in Latin America, and are beginning to be involved in other places

too (Ethiopia, 1999; South Africa, 1997; Tanzania, 2001). The studies indicate that the

processes governing appointments to the council vary markedly, ranging from election or

selection to volunteering.

Soc io - economic s ta tus (SES)

Socio-economic status was reviewed with respect to education level and affluence. In

Bangladesh, Kenya, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and Thailand, people of low SES can and do

join councils. In contrast, the affluent or educated community serves in 10 countries

including Kenya, Mali, and Tanzania. In Kenya, members include not only the affluent

but also those of low SES. In Mali (1997), the SMCs include influential members of the

community and at least one literate person. In the Arusha Region of Tanzania (2001),

the pastoral Masai, influential and affluent, take an active part as parents, despite low

literacy levels.

Parents who are educated are likely to interact confidently with school directors and

teachers, exert influence and dominate decision-making. In Kenya (1998), it is the

educated parents that tend to initiate large projects, whereas those who are uneducated

engage in smaller-scale endeavours. Parents with low-SES backgrounds are sometimes

at a disadvantage in expressing their needs and being heard, even when the oppor-

Faryal Khan102


tunity arises. Some teachers claim that less-educated parents on school councils do not

understand their roles. Parents report feeling humiliated by teachers� lack of trust in

them.

G E N D E R C O M P O S I T I O N

Studies from only 14 countries refer to gender issues, with 11 studies (8 countries) referring

to the roles women play. The broad trend, however, is that councils are of mixed gender,

although some are either predominantly male or predominantly female. Several studies

indicate that women are either under-represented or play secondary roles. In Tanzania

(2001), in a rural school in Arusha region, where parents are Masai cattle-herders, the only

woman appointed on the council happened to be absent on the day the author visited;

evidently it is the Masai men who are the active participants. In Kenya, women do only 5%

of the planning but provide 80% of the labour when it comes to implementing recom-

mended activities. We might assume that gender bias, in concert with the low literacy levels

of female councillors, replicate the subordinate role of women in society at large. Inter-

ventions by NGOs enable councils to address issues surrounding gender parity.

Contex tua l f ac tor s a s soc i a t ed wi thwho par t i c ipa t e s and how

Are the socio-economic and gender composition of school councils related to traditions

of civil autonomy and women�s empowerment? To answer this question, I first examine

the potential relationship between the participation of low-status members in school

councils, with traditions of civil autonomy reported at country level. The analysis

searches patterns within each group of countries: does the participation of low-status

groups increase as we look across from countries with weak to stronger traditions of civil

autonomy? An assumption is that such participation may be higher in countries with

stronger traditions of civil autonomy, and lower in countries with weaker traditions.

Second, I investigate whether the composition of school councils is related to the level of

women�s empowerment in public life, exploring the assumption that such participation

mirrors traditional customs of gender empowerment. Accordingly, do school councils

serve as a lever for change, and enable excluded members of a community to participate?

The indicator used to explore the role of civil autonomy on the composition of socio-

economic composition of school councils is ‘‘civil liberties,’’ from Freedom House

(1999). The concept of civil liberties includes the freedom to develop views, institutions,

and personal autonomy apart from the state. Appendix B (Table B1) ranks the countries

from low to higher levels of civil autonomy. The second indicator, gender empowerment

measure (GEM), from the UNDP Human Development Report (2000), is used to explore

the relationship between SMC composition and the level of gender empowerment in a

given country. The GEM assesses women�s empowerment at the country level by

appraising the percentage of women holding seats in parliament, the percentage of female

administrators and managers, the percentage of female professional and technical



workers, and the percentage of total income women earn. The countries reviewed fall in

two categories of GEM: low and medium (Appendix B, Table B2).

R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N S O C I O - E C O N O M I C C O M P O S I T I O N

O F S C H O O L C O U N C I L S A N D T R A D I T I O N S O F C I V I L A U T O N O M Y

Countries ‘‘not free’’

Amongst countries in Africa, Kenya reports weak civil autonomy. The harambeemovement, meaning to pull together, with its traditions of community financing and

self-help, plays a catalyst role in engaging community members in development initia-

tives. Even before independence, communities and churches were entirely responsible for

primary and secondary education. Despite colonialism, people worked through political

movements to organize themselves at community level, building on existing patterns of

self-help to become self-reliant. However, one observes a tendency to promote influential

and educated community members to the SMC. One would expect that the wider

participation through the harambee movement would facilitate greater representation of

low-status groups in school councils. However, though some poor and less-educated

people participate on councils, the educated members tend to initiate larger projects

whereas the uneducated play a secondary role and implement these projects or engage in

small projects like cattle dips. Despite traditions of participation, the tendency is to

appoint influential persons on school councils, such as village leaders. However, the

recent educational decentralization reforms offer a platform for school councils to open

up to a broader base of participants

Countries ‘‘partly free’’

Countries rated as ‘‘partly free’’ or having medium civil autonomy in Africa are Ethiopia,

Madagascar, and Tanzania. The processes of democratic institutionalization and local

governance reforms are gradually changing patterns of social organization and partici-

pation (Madagascar, 2000; Tanzania, 2001).

Some countries are shedding their previous history of centralized decision-making, and

providing more autonomy at local levels. Recent governance reforms are creating spaces for

parental participation in school councils, and enabling local communities to have a voice in

formulating district education plans (Tanzania, 2001). While parents, farmers, profes-

sionals, civil servants, and local politicians participate in school councils, members must

have some education to be nominated or elected, which tends to exclude the less-educated

or poor parents. In Tanzania (2001) membership largely represents students� families, and

includes traditional leaders. Parents tend to elect SMC members they consider influential

and active. In Nigeria (1998, p. 40) some communities have an attitude of ‘‘support and

succour’’ towards their schools. They see the school�s fate as inter-twined with their own so

that new educational facilities are perceived as an effective way to promote the community.

Even before the era of Universal Primary Education, communities helped set up schools

without government support, even raising money to pay teachers.

Faryal Khan104


However, obstacles to participation are undefined roles and overlapping responsibil-

ities, leading to tension or conflict. There is also considerable lack of transparency and

accountability, especially financial, as communities manage schools. Another issue is

cultural and linguistic diversity. In Madagascar (2000), cultural diversity affects patterns

of participation, and shapes the ways citizens interact and organize themselves. Com-

munity involvement in planning has traditionally been rare, and the centre has little

overall knowledge of local needs and priorities.

Weak relations between the parents and the school continue to be a challenge. Parents�roles in school councils may change little, because they cling to traditional roles and

attitudes (Reimers, 1997); even though spaces are created for them to participate actively,

they may believe that matters related to children�s learning are the educators� responsi-

bility. Often, it is easier to get educators and administrators to participate, than to get

parents and learners to do so. Involving parents in the initiatives was relatively easier than

persuading them to perform their assigned tasks.

‘‘Free’’ countries

Countries reporting the highest levels of civil autonomy are South Africa and Mali.

South Africa (1997) is the freest country according to the civil liberties indicator. The

process of undoing the long legacy of separate and unequal opportunities for schooling in

South Africa is well under way. Since the first White Paper in 1995, South Africa has

tended to decentralize governance responsibilities across levels, and now all South

Africans are responsible to help build an equitable and high-quality system for all citi-

zens. The study only refers to recent trends and does not describe the councils� com-

position (South Africa, 1997).

Mali (1997) has rich historical traditions of social participation. Dogons and other

nomadic people, driven south by drought, arrived in the Sikasso Region in Southern

Mali, where the community welcomed them. In Mali, community organizations include

village associations and the traditional ‘‘ton’’ or age groups. Village chiefs and councils of

elders, who hold authority in villages, negotiate development initiatives. This informa-

tion is in accord with a free country where people have developed a system of partici-

patory decision-making at local levels. SMCs are set up in each village in the Sikasso

Region, and community participation is key to implementation (Mali, 1997). One

literate person must serve on each school council, while other members may come from

different SES levels. Sometimes traditional practice bolsters the change process; the

historically inclusive patterns of participation serve as a catalyst to make school councils

more democratic.

In conclusion, school councils may mirror patterns of social participation that may

speed up or slow down social transformations. Where school councils encourage poor or

less-educated people to become members, they may still feel anxious about carrying out

their roles. Social hierarchies prevail and shape the roles council members assume. On

the other hand, the more educated members find it easier to interact with school

directors and have a greater say in decision-making. Decentralization reforms play a



central role in transferring autonomy and decision-making power to local communities;

however, an implication for these reforms to succeed is having socially inclusive strategies

for participation in decisions.

While school councils continue to mirror patterns of social participation in some

contexts, they are also gradually opening up participation to a wider base of participants

who would traditionally have been excluded. Hence, overlapping patterns of participa-

tion are observed. For example, in Kenya despite the tendency to appoint affluent

community leaders as members, school councils are appointing the poor and the less

educated. As school councils become more inclusive by bringing in previously excluded

groups, they challenge traditional patterns of social organization.

For all three groups of countries, it is difficult to identify broad trends in who

participates and how in school councils, and whether such participation is associated with

historical patterns. In some contexts, school councils tend to mirror traditional patterns:

where the poor and the less-educated have traditionally been excluded from decision-

making, they continue to be excluded. However, currently, three forces are serving as a

lever for change in making school councils more inclusive. First, decentralization reforms

are transferring decision-making power to local communities; second, training to

strengthen capacities of all stakeholders enables community members to assume their

roles; finally, civil society organizations are mobilizing the poor and less-advantaged to

participate more actively in educational governance.

T H E R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N T H E G E N D E R C O M P O S I T I O N

O F S C H O O L C O U N C I L S A N D G E N D E R E M P O W E R M E N T

Amongst the studies providing information on the gender composition of school

councils, Madagascar has low ratings on the UNDP gender empowerment measure

(GEM), while South Africa and Mali have medium GEM ratings. Other African

countries reviewed either do not have a GEM rating, or the study provides scant

information on gender balance.

Countries with low ratings on the Gender Empowerment Measure

In this group of countries, tradition may segregate men and women, for example

amongst the Masai in Tanzania the female member abstained from working along with

men on the council. In areas with traditions of female segregation and exclusion of

women from public life, women are often kept in the background, are rarely educated

and typically have low self-esteem and a poor self-image. They are not eager to educate

their daughters, or cannot afford to. Empowering women in such a society is a challenge,

as some communities continue to resist women�s attempts to participate in public life.

Training efforts aim to empower women to participate actively on school councils. The

struggle for gender empowerment is not just to improve girls� educational level; rather

efforts must be made on a socio-cultural and economic basis. The Madagascar study,

based on secondary analysis, does not mention gender equity as a significant issue in the

country.

Faryal Khan106


Countries with medium ratings on the gender empowerment measure

In South Africa (1997) schools have to manage diversity to promote equity between

disadvantaged and privileged groups, and to handle children of different race, gender,

language, and cultural background. However, the data is tenuous and the study does not

provide information on the gender composition of school councils. More research needs

to be conducted before we can explore the relationship between the gender empower-

ment measure and female participation in school councils.

In Mali, older, affluent men may dominate parent/teacher associations (PTAs). In

Kenya (1998), women initiate 5% of the activities but provide 80% of the self-help

labour. In Nigeria (1998), one mother�s perspectives on the decision to educate children

revealed the woman�s role in the social matrix, and the role of family relations: ‘‘It is my

husband�s responsibility to put children in school, not mine’’ (Nigeria, 1998, p. 30).

In conclusion, for the group of countries with low ratings on the gender empowerment

measure, we observe that women find it difficult to participate on school councils.

However, civil society intervenes by enabling women to become council members, and

training them to assume their roles. A limitation in the analysis has been that both

indicators (Freedom House, 1999; UNDP, 2000) provide values at national levels,

while, the studies are based in local settings that vary in context; hence, the indicators are

not sensitive to local variations.

What dec i s ions do schoo l counc i l s make ?

School management councils in selected countries undertake a range of decisions related

to maintenance and repairs, students� needs, personnel, pedagogy and curriculum,

resources and structure and operations. This section summarizes patterns found in the

decisions councils make in the African countries reviewed (see Table 2).

C A T E G O R I E S O F D E C I S I O N S C O U N C I L S M A K E

There is a marked tendency for councils to concern themselves with matters related to

administration and management, with 100% of countries making decisions in this

category. In this category, members decide on ways to formulate school plans, supervise

and maintain the teachers and schools, monitor student flow charts, include parents in

school affairs, organize school events, and address equity-related issues. The pedagogical

decisions councils make are associated with actual learning and teaching practices in the

classroom. Even though 75% of school councils engage in making such decisions, they

do so relatively infrequently. Pedagogical decisions are classified as those related to

classroom and curriculum.

Classroom-related pedagogical decisions cover the teaching and learning process. They

include decisions that promote pedagogical autonomy, and learner-centred approaches.

Councils provide pedagogical guidelines, and delegate responsibility to a school�s tech-

nical committee to improve standards. They make decisions to create a safe learning



environment for both teachers and pupils. Occasionally these interventions are limited to

the council members visiting classrooms, and expressing an interest in classroom practice.

Curriculum-related pedagogical decisions focus mainly on selecting and developing

curricula (South Africa, 1997). In Thailand (1997) schools have autonomy to develop up

to 40% of their own curricula. Certain councils adapt their curriculum to cover aspects

of village life, health, employment, local activities, and material they see as culturally

relevant (Mali, 1997), making curricular choices to improve local education. In

Nicaragua (1996), consejos have added curricular and non-curricular activities in the

school schedule. Additionally, they have introduced rules that govern the submission of

transferred students� work. Councils also select textbooks, readers, and other classroom

resources (South Africa, 1997; Tanzania, 2001).

About 75% of councils make resources-related decisions, such as mobilizing human

resources, finance, power, materials, time, etc. Members can now formulate school

budgets and allocate resources, formerly the sole domain of educators. Councils in Kenya

(1998) engage actively in fund-raising. In Balochistan, Pakistan (1998a), members

mobilized the donation of land for a new school. A council might mobilize its com-

munity to build a wall or classroom, or to donate school furniture (Nigeria, 1998). Other

councils mobilize resources such as time and labour in order to carry out particular plans

that a school has developed. More than half (50–75%) make decisions about mobilizing

partnerships. That is, they mobilize linking social capital among individuals within the

community, and community-based organizations, government institutions, community

projects, etc.

More than half the councils make decisions regarding personnel, such as recruitment,

supervision, and remuneration. Some councils advise the education department on the

recruitment, placement and transfer of teachers, notably in Nigeria and Kenya. Only in

Nicaragua (1998b) do councils recruit and dismiss principals and teachers. Councils

TABLE 2. Types and frequency of decisions school councils make in developing countries

Type of decisions Frequency Total no.

of countries

African countries

included in review

Administration

and management

100% 20 Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar,

Mali, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania

Pedagogy More than 75% 17 Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mali,

Nigeria, South Africa,

Resource mobilization Approx. 75% 14 Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Nigeria

Teacher hiring,

firing & supervision

75% 16 Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar,

Mali, South Africa

Building partnerships Approx. 75% 14 Madagascar, Mali, Nigeria, South Africa

Source: Khan, 2001.

Faryal Khan108


might solicit donations to hire local teachers in under-staffed schools, pay teachers�salaries (Mali, 1997), and offer them lodgings (Madagascar, 2000).

If councils regard performance as unsatisfactory they might exert pressure on a teacher

to leave; a few also decide on the scope and content of teacher training. Some supervise

school-based personnel on a daily or weekly basis (South Africa, 1997). The council

might also develop evaluation criteria, holding teachers accountable for a professional

standard of performance. In certain instances, councils help to build a collaborative spirit

that enhances the holistic functioning of a school and its teachers.

A N A L Y S I S

The strongest trend is that all councils make decisions concerning administration, with

some 75% responsible for pedagogical decisions, and less than 75% making personnel

decisions.

Although some 75% of councils report decisions on pedagogy, these are comparatively

infrequent, with a narrow range of sub-categories. In Mali, for instance, we might ask

whether councils merely offer recommendations. Are these recommendations ever

implemented to improve local education? Sometimes councils assist in adapting the

curriculum to cover aspects of village life, health, employment, local activities, and

culturally specific material.

The studies do not tell us who raises pedagogical issues and who has the casting vote.

Are pedagogical decisions in the hands of educators, or raised and followed up by parents

reflecting their priorities? Perhaps it is the professionals who set the agenda and bring

these matters to the table. If indeed it is the parents, do they merely raise the issue and

then leave it to educators to implement? Or do they intervene in the planning and

implementation?

Moreover, even when studies indicate pedagogical decisions, often they assert that it is

a domain rightly reserved for the professional. Parents, they say, find it difficult to

intervene where a decision implicates classroom practice. Parents� interventions are

restricted to classroom visits or to a declared interest in improving classroom practice. It

is also true that decisions reported as pedagogical might actually prevent parents from

contributing to pedagogical matters. For example, one council delegated the responsi-

bility for improved learning and teaching to a technical committee. Rarely does one see

parents selecting textbooks, readers, teaching materials, and learning resources (South

Africa, 1997; Tanzania, 2001).

While up to 75% of school councils make decisions about personnel, on closer

examination the evidence reveals that most such decisions involve only the supervision

and remuneration of teachers. Councils might advise government officials on recruit-

ment, placement, and transfer of teachers in Nigeria (1998) and Kenya (1998); however,

often they do not have the autonomy to implement the decision. On rare occasions,

councils of government schools donate funds that help under-staffed schools hire local

teachers or offer lodgings (Madagascar, 2000). In Mali, the council raised funds to pay



teacher salaries (Mali, 1997). If a teacher�s performance is rated as unsatisfactory, a

council might exert pressure on that teacher to leave, though the final decision is left to

education authorities. In community-based schools that fall outside the sphere of an

education department, councils have more freedom to recruit teachers.

Although research indicates that councils in developing countries make a range of

decisions, many questions still remain unanswered. First, I found little analysis of the

decisions that affect classroom practice and learning, such as those encompassing ped-

agogy, the curriculum, and personnel. Second, many council decisions in fact implement

policies that come from the top. Though certain decisions respond to local demands, we

cannot identify those precisely using data from the studies. Nor is the level of autonomy

exercised by councils in relation to their decision-making function explicit. Third, few

studies explain the dynamics of the decision-making process. We do not know who

participates, or whether all members have an equal voice, particularly women and per-

sons of low SES. While the studies do report on decisions made, we are none the wiser as

to who initiates or who takes the lead. Is it the parents or teachers? Nor do they provide

data that let us compare decisions made with actual rates of implementation; we do not

know if decisions are followed through.

Future research might benefit us by exploring some of these areas. For example, the

dynamics of decision-making: do women have an equal opportunity to take part? To

what extent are the poor and less-educated parents included? Who sets the council

agenda, the professional educator or the parent? What decisions respond to local

priorities? A final area is the nature and extent of a council�s role in implementing

decisions.

Conc lus i ve summary

Local communities are potentially a powerful means of reversing a decline in standards

when they manage education in a given setting. Communities might improve the

quality of education and facilities, increase enrolment and attendance, and adopt

curricula that are relevant to local needs (Nigeria, 1998). Although the review confirms

that councils create opportunities for communities to bring about abiding change at

the operational core of schools (Sergiovanni as cited in Hargreaves et al., 1998), some

important limitations emerge. For example, it remains unclear whether the decisions

councils make merely implement policies made at the top, or are a response to local

priorities.

The studies report tremendous variations in who participates and how, and despite the

difficulty of identifying patterns or trends, some provide evidence of an emphasis on

appointing affluent and educated members of the community, e.g. traditional leaders, to

become members. Parents who are more educated are likely to interact better with

the school directors and teachers and play a larger role in decision-making. In some

countries, the poor and less-educated remain under-represented and tend to play

secondary roles, often finding it difficult to express their needs or to be heard. Though

Faryal Khan110


women participate in councils, they are either under-represented on SMCs or play only

secondary roles. Since the studies reviewed offer little information that helps us analyze

the balance of gender relations within a community or council, it is correspondingly

difficult to understand how best to challenge the course of systemic forces that

marginalize women.

The main pattern I discovered is that school councils tend to mirror traditional

practices of participation. Who participates on school councils and how they do it tends

to be associated with historical patterns of civil autonomy. I also found an alternative

trend, however: changes are occurring in participation, and councils are gradually

opening up to groups previously excluded. Three forces are making school councils more

inclusive. First, through inclusive policies and decentralization reforms autonomy in

decision-making power is being transferred to local communities. Second, capacity

strengthening and training for all stakeholders across the system, from the centre to the

local levels, is enabling all community members to assume their roles and responsibilities.

Finally, NGOs mobilize communities, especially women and the poor, to participate

more actively in education.

With respect to the decisions SMCs make, the studies vary in their detail of the

functions and decisions; there is a marked inclination to focus on administrative func-

tions (UNICEF/UNESCO, 1997), and this is true for most places. Less frequent are the

decisions related to classroom pedagogy and curriculum (Khan, 2001). The studies are

also comparatively limited regarding the type and range of pedagogical decisions.

Further, it is unclear whether councils merely implement policy directives that emanate

from ministries, or make decisions in response to local needs and priorities.

My findings identify areas where further study will be of benefit if we are to better

understand the function of school councils in developing countries. We need research to

tell us if those of low socio-economic status serve on councils; with respect to those who

serve already, we need to know more about the nature and extent of their role in

decision-making. To what extent, for instance, are the poor and the less-educated

contributing to any or all decisions? Do women have an equal opportunity on councils?

Similarly, gender parity is an issue where women observe strict rules of segregation or

seclusion that make public life difficult if not impossible.

Details of decisions that councils make are key information for reform initiatives in

South Asia and Africa in particular. Such information will provide evidence on the

significance of particular decisions, such as those about learning and teaching, and link

the nominated categories. Research might also look at whether decisions are gender

equitable and socially inclusive. For instance, do they create equal opportunities for girls

and boys? Do they enable children from poor families and those out of school to enrol

and then complete basic education? To what extent do councils implement their deci-

sions?

Addressing these questions will deepen our understanding of whether councils in

developing countries are socially and gender-equitable and enable parental participation

in educational decision-making.



Appendix A

TABLE A1. Studies included in the review, by region and country

Title Author Date Source Country

Asia

1. Bangladesh Rural

Advancement Committee

experience in

Primary Education

A. Rugh &

Bossert

1998 Involving communities:

Participation in the

Delivery of Education

Programs. Creative

Associates International,

Washington, DC

Bangladesh

2. Localized Manage-

ment and Commu-

nity Participation in

the Improvement of

Primary Schools:

A Case Study of

Gonosahajjo

Sangstha Schools

Roy & Das 1997 UNICEF/UNESCO Bangladesh

3. School-based Man-

agement Through

Cluster Schools:

A Case Study from

Cambodia

A.H. Dykstra &

P. Kucita

1997 UNICEF/UNESCO Cambodia

4. Lok Jumbish: An

Innovation in

Grassroots Level

Management of

Primary Education

R. Govinda 1997 UNICEF/UNESCO India

5. Coplaner: Local

Resources and

Decisions Improve

Education in

Indonesia

Ministry of

Education and

Culture

1997 Planning Bureau, MOEC

UNICEF/UNESCO

Indonesia

6. The All Children in

School Project

E. Bentzen 1997 UNICEF/UNESCO Myanmar

Faryal Khan112


TABLE A1. Continued


7. An Exploratory Study

of Factors which have

Contributed to the

Sustainability of

Community Participa-

tion in Education in

Balochistan, Pakistan

Uzma Anzar 1998a Dissertation.

American Univer-

sity, USA

Pakistan

8. Survey on School

Management Com-

mittees in the Prov-

inces of D.G.

Khan and Gujranwala

for Depart of Educ.,

Govt. of Punjab,

Pakistan

1998b Ministry of Educ.,

Govt. of Pakistan

Pakistan

9. The Community Sup-

port Programme in

Pakistan

A. Rugh & Bossert 1998c Creative Associates

International,

Washington, DC

Pakistan

10. Village Education

Committees in

Northern Areas in

Pakistan

C. Wheeler,

A. Azfar, et al.

1997 Aga Khan Founda-

tion, Islamabad

Pakistan

11. Does Community Par-

ticipation Make a Diff-

erence? Girls� School-

ing Outcomes and

Community Participa-

tion in Balochistan

C. Thomas 1996 Dissertation, Stan-

ford University,

USA

Pakistan

12. IMPACT Project in

the Philippines

Rugh & Bossert 1998 Creative Associates

International,

Washington, DC

Philippines

13. Early Warning System

Helps Children: The

Children�s Integrated

Learning and Devel-

opment Project

G. Attig et al. 1997 UNICEF/

UNESCO

Thailand

Africa

14. As Different as

Ground and Sky:

Involving Children

and Communities

Save the Children

Fund, UK

1999 Towards Respon-

sive Schools, Save

the Children Fund,

UK

Ethiopia



TABLE A1. Continued


15. Harambee Secondary

School Movement

A. Rugh

& Bossert

1998 Creative

Associates

International,

Washington, DC

Kenya

16. Local Governance in

Education in Mada-

gascar

F. Khan 2000 Presentation at

the annual meeting

of CIES, San

Antonio, Texas,

8–12 March 2000

Madagascar

17. Fulfilling the Prom-

ise: Village Schools

Bring Affordable

Education to Rural

Mali

J.P. Velis 1997 UNICEF/

UNESCO

Mali

18. Hard Lessons: Pri-

mary Schools, Com-

munities and Social

Capital in Nigeria

P. Francis 1998 The World

Bank, Washington,

DC

Nigeria

19. Implications of White

Paper 2 and the South

African Schools Act

for School-based

Management

S.M. Luswata 1997 UNICEF/

UNESCO

South Africa

20. Educational Gover-

nance at Local Levels:

Who Participates and

How?

F. Khan 2001 UNESCO Tanzania

Latin America

21. The School Councils

and Educational

Development: An

Argentinian Experi-

ence

A.P.F. Salviolo 1990 The Major Project

in the Field of

Education

(LAC region).

Bulletin 21

Argentina

22. Participation in

Schools: What do

mothers get out of it?

L. Delagnello 2000 Dissertation,

Harvard Graduate

School of

Education

Brazil

Faryal Khan114


TABLE A1. Continued


23. Empowering Schools

and School Communi-

ties in Brazil

The World Bank Un-published CIES Presentation

2001 (by Robin

Horn)

Brazil

24. Community Involve-

ment: School Based

Management takes Root

in Brazil

A.L. Machado 1997 UNICEF/

UNESCO

Brazil

25. Microcentres for Rural

Schools in Chile: Centres

for Learning with

Extension

C. Richards 1997 UNICEF/

UNESCO

Chile

26. Nicaragua�s School

Autonomy Reform: Fact

or Fiction?

The World Bank 1999a The World Bank,

Washington, DC

Nicaragua

27. Nicaragua�s Appraisal:

Social Evaluation

(Autonomous Schools)

V. Castro, X. Traa,

M. Vijil & N.

Cuadra

1999b The World Bank Nicaragua

28. What�s Decentralization

Got to Do with Learn-

ing? The Case of Nica-

ragua�s School

Autonomy Reform

King, E. & B.

Ozler

1998a The World Bank,

Washington, DC

Nicaragua

29. Nicaragua�s Experiment

to Decentralize Schools:

Views of Parents,

Teachers, and Directors

B. Fuller & M.

Rivarola

1998b The World Bank,

Washington, DC

Nicaragua

30. Evaluating Nicaragua�sSchool Based Manage-

ment Reform,

L. Rawlings 1997a The World Bank,

Washington, DC

Nicaragua

31. Nicaragua School

Autonomy Reform.

Washington DC: The

World Bank, 1997

The World Bank 1997b The World Bank,

Washington, DC

Nicaragua

32. Nicaragua�s School

Autonomy Reform: A

First Look

The World Bank 1996 The World Bank,

Washington DC

Nicaragua



Appendix B

TABLE A1. Continued


33. School Based Educa-

tional Projects in Peru:

Strengthening the Local

Education Community

L. Hidalgo 1997 UNICEF/

UNESCO

Peru

TABLE B1. Classification of countries by gender empowerment and civil autonomy. Classifica-

tion of countries by low, medium, and high levels of civil autonomy

Country Indicator on

civil liberties

Low civil liberties (freedom status: not free)

Cambodia 6

Kenya 5

Medium civil liberties (freedom status: not free)

Pakistan 5

Tanzania 5

Bangladesh 4

Brazil 4

Ethiopia 4

Indonesia 4

Madagascar 4

Nigeria 4

Peru 4

High civil liberties (freedom status: free)

Argentina 3

Chile 3

India 3

Faryal Khan116


References

Abu Duhou, I. 1999. School based management. Paris: UNESCO IIEP.

Anzar, U. 1998. An exploratory study of factors which have contributed to the sustainability ofcommunity participation in education in Balochistan, Pakistan.

TABLE B1. Continued

Country Indicator on

civil liberties

Mali 3

Nicaragua 3

Philippines 3

Thailand 3

South Africa 2

Source: Freedom House, 1999.

TABLE B2. Classification of countries by level of gender empowerment

Country Gender empowerment

measure

Low GEM

Bangladesh 0.305

India 0.228

Madagascar 0.205

Pakistan 0.179

Medium GEM

Brazil 0.374

Chile 0.440

Indonesia 0.365

Mali 0.351

Peru 0.433

Philippines 0.458

South Africa 0.531

Thailand 0.421

Source: UNDP Human Development Report 2000.



Bentzen, E. 1997. The All Children in School Project. Myanmar: UNICEF/UNESCO.

Bray, M. 2001. Community partnerships in education: Dimensions, variations, and implications.Paris: UNESCO.

Bryk, A.; Thum, Y.M.; Easton, J.Q.; Luppescu, S. 1998. Academic productivity of Chicago publicelementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Caldwell, B.J. 1990. School-based decision-making and management: International develop-

ments. In: Chapman, J., ed. School-based decision-making and management, pp. 3–26.

London: Falmer.

Cheng, C. 1999. Toward school based management: Uncertainty, meaning, opportunity and

development. International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 25.

David, J.L. 1989. Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leadership,

vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 45–53.

Duttweiler, P.C. 1989. A look at school-based management: Insights on educational policy andpractice. ED 330 050.

Fiske, E. 1996. Decentralization of education: Politics and consensus. Washington, DC: The World

Bank.

Freedom House. 1999. Annual survey of freedom country scores 1999–2000. Washington, DC:

Freedom House.

Fuller, B.; Rivarola, M. 1999. Nicaragua’s experiment to decentralize schools: views of parents,teachers and directors. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Govinda, R. 1997. Lok jumbish: an innovation in grassroots-level management of primary education.

India: UNICEF/UNESCO.

Govinda, R. 2000. Literacy development in Asia: problems and prospects. ABD, vol. 31, no. 1.

<www.accu.or.jp>.

Hanson, E.M. 1997. Educational decentralization: Issues and challenges. Partnership for Educa-tional Revitalization in the Americas (PREAL), no. 9. <iadialog.org/preal9en.html>.

Hanson, E.M. 2000. Democratization and educational decentralization in Spain. Educational reformand management, Country study series. Washington DC: World Bank.

Hargreaves, A.; Lieberman A.; Fullan M.; Hopkins D., eds. 1998. International handbook ofeducational change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Khan, F. 2001. Community participation in school management councils in developing countries: Whoparticipates and how? Qualifying Paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Leithwood, K.; Menzies, J. 1998. Forms and effects of school based management: A review.

Educational Policy, vol. 12, pp. 325–346.

Malen, B.; Ogawa, R.T.; Kranz, J. 1990. What do we know about school-based management? A

case study of the literature – a call for research. In: Clune, W.H.; Witte, J.F., eds. Choice ofcontrol in American education, Volume 2: The practice of choice, decentralization and schoolrestructuring. London: Falmer Press.

McGinn, N.; Epstein, E.H. 1999. Comparative perspectives on the role of education in democrati-zation. Part I: transitional states and states of transition. Frankfurt: Peter Lang GMBH.

Murphy, J.; Beck, L.G. 1995. School based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand

Oaks: Corwin Press Inc.

Naidoo, J. 2004. Educational decentralization and school governance in South Africa: From policy topractice. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Naidoo, J.; Khan, F. 2006. Policy and strategy paper: Implementing educational decentralization.

Paris: UNESCO.

Faryal Khan118


OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. 1995. Decision-making in 14 OECDEducation Systems. Paris: OECD.

Reimers, F. 1997. The role of the community in expanding educational opportunities: The

EDUCO schools in El Salvador. In: Lynch, J. et al., eds. Education for development:Tradition and innovation, vol. II. London: Cassell.

Sanders, M.G.; Epstein, J.L. 1998. School-family-community partnerships and educational

change: International perspectives. In: Hargreaves, A.; Lieberman, A.; Fullan, M.;

Hopkins, D., eds. International handbook of educational change, pp. 482–502. Hingham,

MA: Kluwer.

Sergiovanni, T. 1998. Market and community as strategies for change. In: Hargreaves, A.; Lie-

berman, A.; Fullan, M.; Hopkins, D., eds. International handbook of educational change,Vol. 1, pp. 576–595. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Thomas, C. 1996. Does community participation make a difference? Girls schooling outcomes andcommunity participation in Baluchistan. Unpublished dissertation: Stanford University.

UNDP. 2000. Human development report. NY: UNDP.

UNICEF/UNESCO. 1997. Innovations in school based management. New York: UNICEF.

Welsh, T.; McGinn, N. 1999. Decentralization of education: Why, when, what, and how? Paris:

International Institute of Education Planning, UNESCO.

Wohlsetter, P. 1992. School-based management: Strategies for success. Los Angeles: University of

Southern California. Mimeo.

.



Who Participates in School Councils and How

Documents

Transcript of Who Participates in School Councils and How