The reform of financial provision for Chinese schools was deepened by a
comprehensive reconstruction in all aspects of the Chinese education system. The
initiation of curriculum reform also followed this trend. In response to criticism
of the rigidity and narrowness of the highly prescribed national curriculum, the
process of reconstructing the curriculum system features its unprecedented
flexibilities and openness to local inputs. In the current wave of curriculum
reform, local autonomy is accelerating in the curriculum design, implementation
69
retreating from its previous role as the sole source of regulation and management.
It is assumed that the ongoing curriculum reform is moving toward decentralizing
its curriculum system. However, it is hasty to use the term decentralization to
generalize the substantial reform efforts currently taking place in Chinese
curriculum reform.
Decentralization is not a well-defined concept. Education policy scholar R.
Govinda (1997) points out that ―the concept has remained vague and highly
ambiguous, even though used extensively by policy-makers as well as
intellectuals‖ (p.3). The general use of the term focuses on the shift of governing from one level to another level within a system or from one organization to
another. However, few of the studies specify the nature of the mobilization or
clarify the complexities of the shifting. In fact, there is considerable variation in
the actual practices of decentralization. Because of this, it is best to build a
conceptual framework of decentralization before an examination of the reform
trend in Chinese curriculum reform.
Aaron Schneider (2003) notes that ―researchers have multiplied the
conceptualization of decentralization; associated the various concepts with
different meanings; imbued it with positive normative value; conflated it with
other concepts; and ignore its multi-dimensionality‖ (p. 34). Schneider‘s
argument regarding basic standard for measuring the conceptualization of
70
if there are multiple dimensions, then decentralization along one
dimension could be related to one set of causes and effects, and
decentralization along another dimension could relate to a different
or opposite set of causes and effects. Alternatively, decentralization
along one dimension could interact or combine with
decentralization along another dimension (to produce outcomes).
Researchers who do not explicitly look at each dimension or
haphazardly aggregate dimensions will mismeasure the type and
degree of decentralization and draw incorrect inferences about the
relationship between decentralization and other phenomena. (p. 35)
Conforming to the conceptual mode suggested by Schneider (2003),
comparative education scholar Mark Hanson (1989a&b) offers a clear and
coherent definition of education decentralization, along the dimension of resource
transferring in the decision-making process. According to Hanson,
decentralization refers to the transfer of authority, responsibility and tasks from
higher to lower levels or between organizations. Thus, Hanson (2006) identifies
three major forms of decentralization in terms of the degree to which the central
state disperses its governing authority.
1. Deconcentration transfer typically involves the transfer of tasks and work,
71
2. Delegation involves the transfer of decision-making authority from higher
to lower hierarchical units, but that authority can be withdrawn at the
discretion of the delegating unit.
3. Devolution refers to the transfer of authority to an autonomous unit that
can act independently, or a unit that can act without first asking
permission. (p. 10)
To be more specific, deconcentration is a spatial transfer of the
implementation of authority, but not the authority itself. In other words,
deconcentration refers to a geographical relocation of where the task or work
should be done and by whom, but not a shifting of authority to a lower level. In
the process of deconcentration, the central state retains the integrity of its
authority over state affairs and exercises that authority through the hierarchical
channels of the bureaucracy, while the localities carry out the tasks previously
done by the central state with very limited autonomy in implementation. By
contrast, delegation is a transfer of responsibility to lower levels under state
supervision. In this process, the center designs the broad management framework
and overall policy objectives at the national level, but also appoints local
delegates and encourages their participation in making policies for local affairs.
Thus, the localities could gain certain degrees of autonomy in deciding what work
should be done and how it should be done at the local level. However, in the
72
the central authority and all decisions must be subject to the national guidelines
laid down by the central authority. In this way, the central authority could easily
take away local autonomy when there is need. Devolution is a maximum transfer
of authority from the center to the periphery, as compared to the other two forms
of decentralization. Through devolution, the center grants local units genuine
authority over their own affairs, and thus, local units gain a great degree of
autonomy to perform their own governance.
Hanson‘s (1989a, 1989b, 2000&2006) definition differentiates the three forms of decentralization in terms of the degree to which the central authority is
transferred. Deconcentration is the most superficial decentralization, deepened by
delegation, a moderately higher level of decentralization, and then by devolution,
the highest level of decentralization. Hanson (1989a) argues that in the long run,
devolution guarantees the continuity of the shared authority between the center
and the localities, but delegation is often accompanied by the potentials of the
frequently changed center-periphery authority-sharing arrangement, and that even
the retraction of the local autonomy depends on the motivations of the moment.
Hanson‘s interpretation of decentralization clarifies the ambiguousness in conceptualizing decentralization and explains the variety of labels applied to
decentralization. In reality, actions taken in the name of decentralization vary in
their motivations, objectives, and strength of implementation, and thus yield
73
The current wave of education reform in China has been in the making for over
two decades. The reform efforts in education finance, administrative management and
curriculum development are moving toward disengaging the central state from the
heavy burden of maintaining highly centralized education provision and delivery. In
the process, a lot of work which was previously performed by the MOE at the central
level has been transferred to the local level, such as funding schools, administering
local school systems, developing local-based teaching content, etc. However, in
Hanson‘s conceptual framework of education decentralization, it is important to investigate whether these changes have been accompanied by a shift of authority in
the decision-making process.