C.

DECENTRALIZATION OF EDUCATION IN CANADA Geographically large and demographically diverse are the main features of Canada as

compared to other homogenous and relatively small countries in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Even though, Canada had emerged outstandingly in PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). Interestingly, Canada has proven decentralization of education as the pivotal ingredient for its success in public education. However, apart from cultural and the idea of welfare state embraced by Canadian as squarely contributed to this astonishing performance in Canada, the first and foremost factor is the government policy on education itself to be greatly considered (OECD, 2010). Initially, the process of decentralization of education in Canada legitimately through the provision of Section 93 in the Constitution Act, 1867 since 1982, (as cited in Zinga, 2008: 5 ) which given the province authority over education. As stated by Karlsen (1999), its main objective is to hand over the power and responsibility of central level to the local level. Therefore, education is largely under the purview of its varied provincial education department or territory with the local school boards and no integrated national education and federal department established. In short, these provinces and territories had full responsibility towards their own education and their course including curriculum, assessment and accountability policies which at most catered to the specialized needs of their respective community. The government of Canada confined its role into the appointment of the minister who headed the ministries/departments of education within its own province. The devolution of educational responsibilities related to administrative, financial management, schools functions as well as educational service, policies and legislative frameworks fall under the provincial jurisdiction (Watson et al., 2003). Whereas, provincial and territorial were also obliged to entrust the school boards, school districts, school divisions to manage the operation and administration of the schools within their board/division, implementation of curriculum, responsibility for personnel and enrolment of students including expenditures involved. Those members of education council were elected by public. The education governance which embodied self governing and school based management has empowered the schools, including the decisions pertaining to hiring and firing of teachers and staffs. The school council has also only restricted to become advisory with the absence of decision making roles. The best example of the implementation of education decentralization within the district jurisdiction is in Edmonton district. In 1976, decentralization of education in Canada began its pilot

project in Edmonton led by superintendent, Mike Strembitky comprised of school districts to 80,000 students (Ouchi, 2006, March 1). It involved the distribution of responsibilities such as student transportation, physical facilities maintenance and operations; human resources like staff recruitment, training, benefits and retirement packages; specialized student services such as counselling and assessments (Schwartz, n.d., p. 6). As one of the earliest decentralized school districts, they served approximately 76,000 students at 195 schools in the 2007-2008 (Schwartz, n.d., p. 6). The district has strong hand in building the capacity of school staff, in selecting principals and the available teacher pool, and in predetermining the set of choices that schools confront. The most apparent feature that characterized this devolution is the allocation of budget. The method of allocating funds directly to schools is according to a differentiated scale of per pupil payments by applying a weighted student formula and students enrolment forecast to determine each schools allocation. In term of personnel, hiring and selecting of new teacher as well as the appointment of principal is settled by the district through central office. Schools can establish their own curriculum and educational programmes. Other provided services catered by the schools including students transportation, for those who live in areas without a local school or where public transit is insufficient and special needs students, where the district pays for the transport of students to nonneighbourhood schools as required (Schwartz, n.d., p. 11). Each district in the province Alberta also has the responsibility to plan and maintain the school facilities including hold all utilities and broadband service contracts to schools and sets out in order priority for school renovations, openings, and closures, which are determined by enrollment trends, and space needs. The technological advancement in schools in district of Edmonton also supported by providing computers to schools and helped to maintain its IT office.

In the area of staff development and professional services, the district a set of consultants that primarily consist of former teachers or school professionals to provide a wide range of services including social work, psychiatry, special education assessors, curricular specialists such as literacy coaches and trainers (Schwartz, n.d., p. 13).

D.

CONCLUSION Whilst it is evidently true that the developed countries that simultaneously enhanced by the

democracy has brought about the educational success based on decentralization to another part of

the world. Thus, it gradually become popular and adopted by the developing countries as well. Nevertheless, decentralization may suit to certain countries in which it may depend on the local setting and acceptance. Therefore it is not the only option for any country to adopt. Some country still centralized their education and may have full control of it as education hold as important role in political dimension.

REFERENCES

Karlsen, G. E (1999). Decentralized-Centralism Governance in Education : Evidence from Norway and British Columbia, Canada, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, #13 http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/karleson.html

OECD (2010), Ontario, Canada: Reform to Support High Achievement in a Diverse Context ,OECD Publishing Retrieved from : http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46580959.pdf

Ouchi, W. G. (2006). Power to the principals: Decentralization in three large school districts, Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences

Schwartz, H. (n.d). The Endurance of Centralized Government Systems in an Age of School District
Decentralization

Retrieve from www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP187_2.pdf

Watson, N., DiCecco, R., Roher. E, Rosenbluth, E. K. & Wolfish, A. (2003). Educational Governance: A Look at the Landscape, The Learning Partnership, 2004 Retrieved from : http://www.tlpresources.ca/policy_research/EducationalGovernance_LookattheLandscape.pdf

Zinga, D. (2008). Ontarios Challenge : Denominational Rights in Public Education, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 80, 1-44