Transfer of school management to communities in Nepal:

A participatory management approach for improving results

Teertha Dhakal
Programme Director
Education and Human Resources Section
National Planning Commission Secretariat, Nepal
October, 2007
Context

Nepal has made significant achievements in the last decade improving educational status
of the country. The primary school enrolment rate has reached around eighty-seven
percent in 2006, literacy rate has reached to fifty-five percent and gender disparity in
educational status has been reduced. However, there are various issues in the educational
outcomes and management of education services delivery in the country. Some of these
issues include; low quality of public schools, vast disparity between the quality of private
and public schools and low ownership of community and civil societies in the
management of schools resulting in lack of accountability of schools to local people
(National Planning Commission [NPC], 2007). People tend to relate these problems of
school effectiveness especially with the crucial role played by the management factor
which is distinctly visible in the differences between the privately managed schools and
government managed schools in the country at present.

In order to improve the management of public schools and consequently achieve

educational results the Government of Nepal (GON) decided to transfer school
management to communities since 2002. As of October 2007, more than 2500 schools
have been transferred to communities (Ministry of Finance, 2007). This is one of the
programmes that have been trying to internalize results based management culture in
Nepal. This paper tries to briefly highlight the historical perspectives of school
management in Nepal, initiatives in and arrangements of management transferred schools
to communities, intermediate results and issues of the programme.

School Management- Historical perspective

Communities have always been active and supportive of the development in education in
Nepal. However, the policy changes in the education sector gradually undermined the
role of the community. This was more after the introduction of the New Education Plan
of 1971 where a number of measures were adopted. This heralded an era of state
intervention in the school system. The state began to intervene in every sphere, thus
weakening the community's role in education (NPC, 2006).

Of late, there has been a realization that the nationalization of community schools was a
mistake and that the community's role in schools is a must. The government has,
therefore, initiated the transfer of the management of willing schools to the community of
parents and teachers. Thus the Seventh Amendment of Education Act, in 2001, was a
clear recognition that public schools have failed to meet expectations of the people to
improve quality in education. The Act paved the way for launching a major reform
initiative in school education- transfer of schools to community management- in 2002.
Since then the government has been promoting this policy through various incentive
schemes. So far, over 2500 schools have already been transferred to communities.

Thus, it is an important initiative underway in Nepal in which the government transfers

school management to communities for changing the way public schools has been run
towards internalizing results culture in their management. As per this initiative School
Management Committees (SMCs)- comprising of parents, teachers and village education
committee members- recruit teachers locally. The SMCs closely monitor the schools,
aiming at enhancing ownership of education at the local level.

Approaches adopted in the management transfer of schools to communities

The process of devolution to the school management committees differs conceptually

from the decentralization process of handing over planning, allocation, and monitoring
activities as well as funds to village development committees and municipalities that is
taking place in Nepal in other sectors. The District Education and District Development
Committees (DDC) here have to facilitate, monitor, and evaluate; village development
committees participate in the management of schools through their representation in the
SMCs (Central Bureau of Statistics et al, 2006).

However, issues have consistently been raised by some of the stakeholders that it is not
the right approach to transfer school management directly to communities. They have
been arguing that this process has bypassed the local government bodies and hence been
disturbing the overall devolution to those representative bodies.

Management of schools transferred to communities

Under the community management system government support to community-managed

schools comes in the form of grants, which schools are allowed to spend in line with their
priorities. These grants are linked to accreditation to promote performance. Thus, higher
level of grants is awarded to better performing schools. Grants are expected to cover
more than 60 percent of the non-salary costs of the programme. The government has
shown policy commitments to continue formulating service conditions for teachers
whereas the communities are authorized to recruit teachers. The hiring and firing of
teachers and appointment of head teachers is still with the Ministry of Education and
Sports. It has also made arrangements to determine teachers’ salary by a formula based
on the Per Capita Funding (PCF) or grants to schools are tied up with the number of
students. In addition, funds are provided by the Department of Education, according to
nationally applicable formula based on data on enrollments, class size, structure, level, as
well as on indicators of performance.

School management committees are expected to undertake the day-to-day management

and supervision of schools. Schools have to prepare School Improvement Plans
(SIPs), which serves as the basis for funding schools; decide how to spend the funds
provided as school grants; and evaluate the performance of teachers. Their evaluation
will have contracting, continuation, promotion, assignment of teachers (a school
management committee may, for example, recommend the reassignment of a
nonperforming teacher or a head-teacher). Community-managed schools are also
encouraged to enter into partnerships with NGOs. Two types of relationship are
envisaged: NGOs bearing their overheads or NGOs providing services for fees.
Intermediate results achieved

Some notable intermediate results have already achieved after transferring school
management to communities. Firstly, local guardians have become active in the schools
wherever the management of schools has been transferred to the communities. SMC
members have become pro-active in their roles towards reforming their schools (NPC
2006). They are gradually taking more and more responsibilities (Technical Review of
School Education [TRSE], 2006). Thus, school custodians living in the proximity have
begun visiting the transferred schools to understand the pros and cons of management
handover. This has contributed to improve transparency and direct route of accountability
to beneficiaries. Secondly, teachers’ absenteeism has been significantly reduced and
teaching learning has gained momentum. It is due to regular monitoring and supervision
by local people.

Thirdly, parents towards the schools their children attend have taken initiatives in raising
funds for their schools so that it has found that in these schools physical facilities have
been improved compared to other public schools. Overall, this has contributed to increase
the level of awareness and ownership at the local level. As one SMC chairperson noted
'compared to the past, parents have become more vigilant and pro-active towards the
school's activities and their children. However, this change came only after the
management transfer of the schools (NPC, 2006). Lastly, a recent independent study
found that students learning achievements measured in terms of mean scores on
specifically designed tests was generally better in community transferred schools than
control group (public) schools (New Era Ltd., 2006).

Issues

This reform initiative in public schooling system has been the centre of criticisms as well.
There is tremendous pressure from the teachers and their unions to stop the programme
because they want to be managed by the government instead of local community. This
shows that teachers and other stakeholders are still to be assured that central funding
support will continue and job security of teachers will be there even after the
management transfer. The other issue is that the capacity of the community to manage
the schools needs to be strengthened with support from the central level. Due to these
issues and also due to political instability, the programme slowed down and hence despite
the PRSP target of transferring 8000 schools, by July 2007 the achievements was only
2500.

Lessons learnt

Transferring public schools' management to communities is one among several initiatives

that GON has taken in order to improve educational results by means of involving parents
and local people in the management of schools. This policy initiative and practices has
started to demonstrate positive results even in short duration. It is the adoption of
principles of MfDR in the programme which has contributed to achieve these positive
results.
Result based practices have been adopted in different stages of the programme. Firstly, it
is mandatory in the programme that these schools have to prepare School Improvement
Plans on a participatory basis so as to improve performance of the schools. Secondly,
budget grants to these schools are tied up with these plans and also with implementation
performances. Thirdly, as a part of the Education Management Information System
(EMIS), there is simple and clear-cut reporting process for some pre-identified result
indicators. Hence, this programme has tried to internalize the MfDR principles in
planning, budgeting and monitoring processes. These all have been contributing these
intermediate results. However, awareness and capacity building of local level
stakeholders including the members of communities should be a regular activity in such
programmes for their effectiveness and sustainability.

Replicability

In countries where centrally managed public schools have not been delivering good
education results, this innovative policy measures tested in Nepal can be replicable with
marginal funding increment and by incorporating the basic features of MfDR in different
stages of the policy/programme processes.

References

Central Bureau of Statistics, GON, World Bank, ADB & DFID (2006). Resilience
amidst conflict: An assessment of poverty in Nepal, 1995/96 and 2003/04.
Kathmandu: Author.

Ministry of Finance, GON (2007). Economic survey, fiscal year, 2005/06. Kathmandu:
Author.

National Planning Commission (2007). Approach Paper of Three Year’s Interim Plan
(2007/08- 2009/10). Kathmandu: Author.

National Planning Commission (2006). An assessment of the implementation of the

Tenth Plan/PRSP 2005/06. Kathmandu. Author.

New Era Ltd. (2006). Pilot phase of community school survey. Kathmandu: Author.

Technical Review of School Education (2006). Technical review of school education in

Nepal- 2006: Field survey report. (Unpublished draft).