Organizational partnerships and educational decentralization

Description

Recent studies of education in India indicate stark inequalities still persist in primary education between children of various backgrounds. Yet, landmark education policy changes in 1986 and passage in 1992 of two constitutional amendments were supposed to give locally-elected representatives and school personnel increased authority to forge partnerships supportive of educational change. Over fifteen years later, we know little about the relationship between these local village councils (Gram Panchayats, or GPs) and their organizational partners and the relationship of these proposed partnerships to primary education and involvement in it. This study utilized social capital theory to examine these relationships and found that, while some GPs establish partnerships with a variety of different types of organizational partners, many establish few partnerships. When they do engage in education projects, GPs tend to get involved in non-capital intensive projects such as enrollment drives and monitoring student and teacher attendance or teaching quality. Amidst many organization-level relationships that were examined, GPs' internal organizational bonding and organization-organization "linking" partnerships with well-endowed organizations were the only variables displaying a clearly consistent relationship to educational involvement. Only one individual characteristic-- mean education --and one organizational characteristic--frequency of GP meetings --have a consistently positive relationship with educational involvement. And lastly, the effect of the gender and caste background of GP members and leaders is uneven at best and does not appear to be associated with GPs' educational involvement. Data for the study came from responses to a structured survey of 720 elected representatives in 240 GPs in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Background and contextual information on the study location and respondents was collected through semi-structured interviews among government officials, policymakers, village and regional-level educational staff, and development practitioners. The results suggest policymakers and practitioners should: (1) use caution when making claims about, and plans based on, the relationship between demographic characteristics and educational involvement, (2) be more discerning when promoting different types of partnerships, (3) support and encourage initiatives to build the internal cohesion and efficacy of GPs, and (4) consider a range of new policy and programming-oriented supports for Village Education Committees and GPs.

Subjects