Administering Education:

Structures sans strategy?

EDUCATION: Alfred Chandler (1962) with his seminal work, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise introduced to management literature, an important concept, “Structure follows Strategy”.

Strategy is the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out goals. Structure is the design of the organisation through which it is administered. Best run organisations in the world followed this advice of Alfred Chandler religiously, not only because it was in management literature but also due to its common sense value.

Our system of education and institutions managing it seems to have done the reverse! “Strategy must justify structure” seemed to have been their motto. Strategy is not important to the politician, but the structure is.

That is where they can put people into employment - the vote getter (or vote loser!). It seems that structure after structure to administer education throughout the country hasn’t been right. No wonder our education is going from bad to worse and systems from lean to fat. No strategy, no quality.

From the Ministry of Education in the centre to the Provincial ministries at the Province to the Zonal and Divisional Education offices through the length and breadth of the country, the system of education is not being administered.

It is like a rudderless ship. We have large structures but no strategy, and therefore no quality. Schools are badly neglected, and no one seems to be bothered. Those who bother, the parents and the students, can’t do a thing to remedy the situation.

Because we have unduly large structures, for every rupee we spend on education, 75-80 cents must be ending up as salaries of personnel in the system. Money spent on teacher salaries are an essential part of the education system, and that none can complain about, but colossal sums expended on salaries of non-education personnel (directors, subject directors etc., etc.,) are an absolute waste.

It is time someone analysed how much really reaches the classroom out of every rupee we spend on education. Truly, we need to send more money to the classroom to enhance the quality of education in terms of teaching-learning material, better looking classroom environment, technology etc., by making our structures leaner.

What are these structures that seem to be the hurdle? Let us start from the bottom, the structures closest to the school. Look at Divisional and Zonal education offices that are the intermediate education administrative structures in our system. Each Divisional office is supposed to oversee around 30 - 35 schools, while each Zonal office administers 3-4 Divisional offices and all the schools in a Zone, i.e. about 90 - 100 schools.

There is some duplication because Zonal offices maintain personal files of teachers etc., in these schools. Teachers, parents and all others will not disagree that neither has effectively contributed to the well-being of our education system. But, yet, there are so many personnel in both these offices.

Up to the early eighties, there was the Circuit Inspector (CI) and the Circuit Education Officer (CEO) who made their presence felt in the school system. One thing, they were not in plenty and the other, they were very effective.

Also, they did not have large offices; their offices were just a room in a centrally located school in the circuit (like the zone today), with no additional staff. The CI and the CEO were efficient education administrators and worked with an aura that commanded admiration and respect from school principals and teachers.

Today, both Zonal and Divisional offices are each headed by a director and loaded with a host of officials with designations such as subject directors, deputy directors etc., and yet quality of education in those schools administered by Zonal and Divisional offices is at a very low ebb.

There seems to be no interest on the part of these directors to enhance and maintain the quality of our education, and it is our rural children who suffer most. There seems to be no monitoring of these offices and all who are working at Zonal and Divisional levels seem to be having a whale of a time.

“Who cares about the rural children”, seems to be the work ethic! If one does a survey about the children of these Zonal and Divisional directors, it will surely be revealed that all of them are in ‘good’ schools, most probably in National schools.

The irony is that almost all education administrators, whether at national or sub-national levels, don’t have to really worry about the quality of education in remote rural schools because it won’t affect their own children. If by any chance, children of education administrators are in rural schools, such schools will certainly have much attention from the powers that be.

Rural schools and children studying there are being affected in two ways: many schools are getting closed, and those that are surviving are neglected. There is only one way to make these rural and remote schools work; we must have an impactful inspection process.

Approximately three decades back, we had the school inspectorate that ensured the quality of the school system. All inspectors might not have been excellent, but the majority was. They were excellent teachers and principals who were promoted to the school inspectorate.

When school inspectors came to schools, the head teachers and staff were on pins. So much fear had been instilled into the teachers’ minds that they strove to ensure that children under their charge knew at least the basics.

If the inspector made an adverse remark in the Teacher’s book that every teacher valued so much, it would seriously affect the promotional prospects of the teacher concerned, and the annual salary increment would not be granted.

Today, there is no inspection or evaluation process, and teachers go unpunished for all the ‘crimes’ they commit. We must impress upon the government that if the inspectorate cannot be re-established, at least there must be another mechanism to check what the teachers are doing. At least, it will improve the attendance of the teachers.

Now that most of the education system is under the purview of the Provincial Councils, provincial education departments should establish a strong evaluation team that can effectively improve the quality of education in the schools under their purview.

There also could be civil society groups consisting of retired public servants with an impeccable record of service, helping the government to evaluate the quality of the schools and their teaching. The government alone cannot do it effectively, and if it tries, it will be another fiasco.

That is the story of education administration at the ground level. What about the centre, which is supposed to be the policy level? Over a period of time, from Malay Street to Isurupaya, the Ministry of Education has grown in leaps and bounds to have a massive administrative structure that is far too big.

Before the 13th Amendment to the Constitution established the Provincial Councils, it was the Ministry of Education at the centre that administered all the 10,000 odd schools throughout the country. Relatively, what a good job, it did then?

The rot really set in after provincialisation of education, not just at the school level, but also throughout the entire administrative machinery, and today, the Ministry hardly makes an impact on the quality of education in our school system.

One wag commented, “If the Ministry of Education were to be closed down, most probably, the schools would run better.” The National Schools that are under the central Ministry of Education function relatively well not because of the Ministry, but due to the enthusiasm of the Principals and alumni of the respective schools.

The Ministry of Education must shed a lot of fat and concentrate on having a highly skilled set of policy makers, planners, evaluators and other specialists, required to run an effective and efficient education system.

It is well worth to conduct a proper work study, after defining what education we need to impart to our children, and how the ministry should impact it, to determine how much staff it should have. Structure must follow Strategy as Chandler once said. If the bulk (94 per cent) of the schools are under the Provincial Councils, how can the Ministry of Education justify having so much of staff?

Overall, the education system needs to be administered better. The 300 odd Divisional offices, the closest to the schools, must be completely overhauled to have a dedicated group that is sincerely interested in improving the education our children receive.

Each office must be given the target of improving and sustaining the quality of the schools under its wing, with quantifiable goals. Staff at the Zonal offices must be reduced and Divisional offices strengthened. Success would come only if these two institutions are results driven and managed with due diligence.

With 92 Zonal and 300 odd Divisional offices to be managed, we need only about 400 dedicated education administrators to put our rural schools right. Surely, can’t we locate them? Shame! Shame!

Education: a debt due from present to future generations.

- George Peabody -