Kobe University Repository : Kernel · 1) Devolution to sub-national governments: The devolution of service delivery responsibilities from national to local or regional governments;

Kobe University Repository : Kernel

タイトルTit le

What Does Parental Part icipat ion in Educat ion Mean? : Evidence fromMalawi

著者Author(s) Shojo, Mari

掲載誌・巻号・ページCitat ion 六甲台論集. 国際協力研究編,11:1-26

刊行日Issue date 2010-01

資源タイプResource Type Departmental Bullet in Paper / 紀要論文

版区分Resource Version publisher

権利Rights

DOI

JaLCDOI 10.24546/81002148

URL http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/handle_kernel/81002148

PDF issue: 2020-09-12

1

What Does Parental Participation in Education

Mean?: Evidence from Malawi1

Mari SHOJO

1. Introduction

Since the 1990 World Conference on Education for All (EFA) in Jomtiem, Thailand, EFA has become

an international commitment for educational development. The Jomtien conference proclaimed

universal primary education (UPE) one of the most beneficial interventions for reducing poverty. In

this conference's wake, it became evident that a major obstacle to UPE in sub-Saharan Africa is the

cost of schooling. A common concern among international agencies and researchers was that

sub-Saharan Africa would not achieve UPE by 2015 unless progress accelerated significantly2.

In response to this concern, many sub-Saharan African countries abolished school fees for

public primary education. Malawi adopted Free Primary Education (FPE) policy in 1994 and

received attention as the first country in Africa to start working toward UPE. Concurrent with

decentralization, implementation of FPE strongly emphasizes the local management of schools and

promotes local stakeholders' participation in schooling. However, previous research3 points out that,

paradoxically, some parents' attitude has become passive, and the relationships between schools and

parents have weakened. Given this evidence, this study explores the reasons why this phenomenon

has occurred and the dynamics behind parental participation4.

This study is organized as follows: following the introduction, Section 2 and Section 3 delineate

two political components: FPE policy and decentralization. First, Section 2 reviews the origins of

FPE policy and then explains the programme which was introduced under FPE policy and

decentralization. Section 3 first reviews the previous discussion about decentralization, followed by a

consideration of educational decentralization in the context of educational decentralization in

Malawi. Section 4 examines ‗participation‘ in education, beginning by reviewing the concept of

participation itself. This section concludes with a delineation of participation of local stakeholders in

1 Numerous people supported this study. I would like to extend my profound gratitude and thanks to Keiichi

Ogawa, Motoki Takahashi and Tatsuo Kawashima of Kobe University for their insightful comments,

suggestions and inspiration. I am also grateful to Nobuhide Sawamura of Osaka University and Joseph

Chimombo and Demis Kunje of University of Malawi for their string support to my field research in Malawi.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the authors‘ own. 2 For the details, see Bennel (2002) and Bruns et al. (2003). 3 See, for instance, Sawamura (2007) and Chimombo et al. (2008). 4 For the convenience of the discussion, I use the term parental participation to refer to participation of the

parents and guardians of school-age children, including grandparents, aunts/uncles, and brothers/sisters who

are socially recognized as taking responsibility for the child.

六甲台論集－国際協力研究編－第１１号

2

Malawi‘s educational system. Section 5 demonstrates the research methodology. Section 6 presents

the findings of the study and main points of the discussion. This study ends with the conclusion in

Section 7 in which the significance of parental participation and the reality of school management

are discussed.

2. Free Primary Education Policy in Malawi

Since gaining independence in 1964, Malawi‘s educational priority has shifted from secondary and

tertiary education to primary education in line with international education agendas. Among

international researchers, reduction in school fees was considered a crucial component of removing

major barriers to enrollment and persistence in school. In 1994, the first multiparty elections took

place in Malawi since independence. The Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the United Democratic

Front (UDF)— the main political parties contesting the election—both used free primary education

as a campaign strategy to win the election. After winning the elections, the UDF declared the

immediate abolition of all primary school fees, which was called FPE policy5. Enrollment in primary

schools increased dramatically by 51 percent from 1.9 million in 1993/94 to 2.9 million in the

following year. The gross enrollment ratio (GER) at the primary level also increased sharply from 89

percent in 1993/94 to 134 percent in 1994/95. However, the dramatic increase in enrollment6 has

brought a series of problems in the educational system: a serious shortage of teaching and learning

materials such as desks and textbooks; a lack of trained teachers; a high pupil-to-classroom ratio of

100 or more; and a low level of internal efficiency (World Bank, 2004; Al-Samarrai & Zaman, 2007;

Shojo 2008).

Before the introduction of FPE policy, parents of children in public primary schools had to pay

tuition to the school. In addition, most schools collected so-called school funds/extra fees from parents

as mandatory contributions. Since the fees were negotiated at individual schools, they varied from

school to school. When the government introduced FPE policy in 1994, the government increased the

budgetary allocation to primary education and abolished the fees, including tuition and the school

funds/extra fees. International donor agencies also provided assistance and resources. However, as

discussed earlier, rapidly increased enrollment occurred with the introduction of FPE policy, and

school conditions worsened. Under this increased pressure, schools had to manage by themselves.

Consequently, many schools continued to charge the parents school funds/extra fees to compensate

for the relative lack of resources. The burden of the costs of education rested heavily on households,

even under FPE.

5 Before 1994, some experimental programmes were introduced. In 1991/92, the government with support from

the World Bank, introduced tuition fee waivers beginning with Standard 1 and phasing in Standard 2 and

Standard 3 over the next two years. From 1992/93, a school fee waiver programme for non-repeating girls in

Standards 2 to 8 was launched. 6 The gross enrollment ratio (GER) at the primary level also increased sharply from 89 percent in 1993/94 to 134

percent in 1994/95. The GER reached 139 percent in 1997; the 2006 education statistics indicate the GER

reached 120 percent.

What Does Parental Participation in Education Mean?: Evidence from Malawi

3

In response to these conditions, the government introduced the Direct Support to Schools (DSS)

programme7 in 2006. The DSS programme aims to ensure basic school conditions to improve the

quality of education. It also has another objective: to support educational decentralization in

management through the participation of communities in school management (GoM, 2006). Under

the DSS, the government sets the amount of grant funds available (about USD 200 per year) to each

school, regulates its use (only for purchasing basic learning materials), and asks each school to be

accountable to the government concerning the utilization. That is to say, under FPE policy, the

government strongly regulates school financing. Nevertheless, schools have the scope for flexible

budgeting and responsibilities for school management. In this regard, we can say that FPE policy

has centralized school financing and simultaneously decentralized school management.

3. Decentralization in Malawi

Another political component which this study addresses is decentralization. Although

decentralization remains a highly ambiguous concept that has been variously defined and

interpreted, a basic common concept considers decentralization a transfer of some form of authority

from the center to the local level. Decentralization is believed to improve efficiency, and

accountability, and strengthen local empowerment and ownership8, and is often regarded as a

strategy for remedying the problems of governance. Although the potential benefits of

decentralization are attractive, there is also a growing literature urging caution. For instance,

Shaffer (1994) refers to challenges with decentralization and suggests that it can lead to too much

variety within a system and greater inequality across the system.

For educational decentralization, more precisely, it can be categorized into two types:

1) Devolution to sub-national governments: The devolution of service delivery responsibilities

from national to local or regional governments; and

2) School autonomy: The delegation of some education service delivery decisions and functions

to the school level.

Some countries attempt both types of decentralization simultaneously. Under 1) devolution to

sub-national governments, some of the government‘s responsibilities are transferred to sub-national

governments. Sub-national governments are partly or mainly responsible for funding education. On

the other hand, under 2) school autonomy, the school headteacher, school board or school

management committee (SMC) is usually given management responsibilities or powers including

school finance. It can also be called school-based management (SBM).

In Malawi, decentralization started in 1998. Some functions and responsibilities have devolved

to sub-national governments and the school level. At the moment, education responsibilities are

7 It was designed by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT) with the support of the World

Bank, and is one of the five components of the Education Sector Support Project (ESSUP 1) under an

International Development Association (IDA) Grant. 8 For instace, Naidoo (2002) delineates the benefits of decentralization.


4

divided between the centre, six regional divisions and 34 districts. According to MoEST (2008a), the

central government retains control over policy formulation, policy enforcement, inspectorate,

establishment of standards, training, curriculum development, salary provisions of school staff and

District Education Office staff, text provisions and other functions. Local level serves generally as

administrative-implementing bodies for policies decided by the central government. However, as is

evident in some educational policy documents such as ‗Education Sector: Policy and Investment

Framework (PIF) (MoE, 2001)‘ and ‗National Education Sector Plan 2008-2017 (MoEST, 2008b)‘,the

government puts emphasis on shared responsibilities of local and the Ministry for efficient and

effective delivery of education.

Turning now to the responsibilities devolved to the school level, the headteacher, with the

support of SMC and PTA, is responsible for school management. Significantly, the government

assumes school management with greater involvement of the community, including parents.

Especially school finance such as ‗resource mobilization‘ and ‗budgeting‘ has been highlighted under

decentralization concurrent with FPE policy.

4. Participation in Education

This section discusses participation in education. Although participation has become a key word and

received much attention, its meanings and implications are subject to diverse interpretations.

Several studies have attempted to categorize the different forms of participation and the levels of

involvement9. The common assumption in the literature seems to be that participation is ―a good

thing‖ and can achieve improvement. Some studies associate the notion of participation with

influence (Bauch & Goldring 1998; Munn 1998), while others contend that participation means

empowerment (Goldring & Shapira 1993; Nelson & Wright 1995), efficiency and effectiveness

(Heneveld & Craig 1996; Cleaver 1999; Gershberg 1999) or democracy (da Cunha & Peña 1997).

Reviewing previous literature on parents and community participation in education, Uemura (1999)

and Bray (2000) give a concrete account of the rationales that explain the importance of participation

in education: maximizing limited resources; identifying and addressing problems; increasing

accountability; ensuring sustainability; improving home environment; and improving educational

achievement. The above definitions help in describing different functions of participation. In reality,

however, different forms and degrees of participation can be seen, depending on the extent and type

of involvement in different aspects of educational delivery. Moreover, as Shaffer (1994) mentions, the

forms and degree of participation achieved in any given society vary considerably.

When it comes to the case of Malawi, participation of parents and communities have played an

important role in the delivery of education in a variety of ways, especially by providing assistance

and contributions such as money, labor and materials to school construction and rehabilitation.

From the beginning of formal education in the late nineteenth century, this self-help from parents

9 See, for instance, Arnstein (1969), Shaffer (1994) and Pretty (1995).


5

and communities was promoted by missionaries and the colonial administration, predominantly

aiming at supplementing the insufficient resources available, as well as at making people more

involved in their children‘s education (Rose 2003). After the 1964 independence, the government was

concerned about the possibilities of self-help, realizing a lack of enthusiasm in many districts (MoE

1973). Nevertheless, influenced by the World Bank, primary school construction especially in rural

areas, continued to rely on self-help from parents and communities. In 1994 the government

introduced FPE policy. As discussed earlier, FPE policy resulted in dramatic increases in enrollment,

which has brought a series of problems in the educational system. In 1995, the MoE developed a

strategy for education known as the Policy and Investment Framework (PIF) to accommodate FPE

policy and other recent reforms. The 1995 PIF put much emphasis on participation of parents and

communities. The current 2000 PIF, which covers the period 2000–2012, also emphasizes the

important role of communities and parents in primary education. As is evident in the phrase in the

PIF 2000 below, the government acknowledges the importance of partnerships with local

stakeholders, and stresses the participation of parents and other local stakeholders, not only in the

financing of individual schools, but also in their governance:

The Government is aware that strong partnerships with local partners are essential to the

success of the Ministry of Education‘s Strategy. The Ministry will thus encourage the

strengthening of the participation of parents and other local stakeholders in the financing and governance of individual schools. (MoE 2001:12)

Although continued attention has been paid to participation of parents and communities, some

researchers note that this intensified policy attention has occurred without the involvement of local

stakeholders, such as teachers, parents, communities and local leaders (Minnis 1997; Kadzamira &

Rose 2001). Thus, with special attention to the parental point of view, this study tries to explore the

reality and significance of participation in education under FPE policy and educational

decentralization.

5. Research Methodologies

For the purpose of in-depth research, five primary schools in Zomba Rural District and five primary

schools in Machinga District in Malawi's Southern Eastern Division were chosen as case study10

samples. The criteria used for the selection of two districts were as follows: a) the district has an

average number of primary schools; b) the district has an average school attendance ratio; and c) two

districts have the different dominant religions of the population (Christianity and Islam). Purposeful

sampling11 was used to select the samples. At the district level, the Zomba Rural District's

10 According to Yin (2003:13), ―case studies are the preferred strategy when ‗how‘ or ‗why‘ questions are being

posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary

phenomenon within some real-life context.‖ 11 Purposeful sampling allows us to choose individuals and sites for the study because they can purposefully

inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon in the study. As stated by Maxwell

(2005), it offers a strategy in which a particular setting, persons or activities are selected deliberately to


6

Education Manager and two Primary Education Advisors (PEAs)12 were chosen. At the school level,

I interviewed13 the following people: 10 head teachers, 30 teachers, 94 parents, 29 SMC members

and 9 PTA representatives. Data collection took place from September to October of 2008 in Malawi.

Before conducting in-depth field research in 2008, I visited Malawi several times. A pilot field study

during my stay in Malawi from August to September of 2007 was conducted. This study investigates

the following research questions: (1) Why and in what ways do local stakeholders expect parents to

participate in education?; (2) In what ways do parents actually participate in education? (3) How do

FPE and educational decentralization affect schools? Question (1) measures the expectation of

parental participation by other stakeholders. It aims to explore the meanings of participation

understood by different stakeholders. Question (2) aims to investigate the perception toward FPE

policy by parents and their participation in reality. In Question 3, outcomes resulting from parental

participation are investigated. Lastly, the outcomes of each school are compared in order it compares

schools and aims to find out the differences regarding frequencies of parental participation among

schools.

In Zomba Rural District, there are three main tribes: Lomwe, Yao and Mang‘anja. The

dominant religion is Christianity. About 77 percent of the population are Christians, 18 percent are

Muslims, and the remaining 5 percent belong to no denomination. The main economic activities

include farming, raising livestock, fishing on lakes, and running small- and large-scale businesses.

The district suffers from major problems: an HIV/AIDS epidemic, infant mortality and a high

illiteracy rate. On the other hand, in Machinga District, the dominant tribes are Yao and Lomwe.

The dominant religion is Islam. Muslims constitute 65 percent, Christians constitute 30 percent, and

others, 5 percent. Agriculture is the dominant activity in the district since most of its land is suitable

for subsistence farming. Commercial farming of coffee and tobacco takes place in the southern part

of the district. Life expectancy for males is 44 years, while 47 years for females. This district also has

problems, including an HIV/AIDS epidemic, infant mortality and a high illiteracy rate.

In each district, five public full primary schools were selected: two belong to the schools with a

high PSLCE14 pass rate, one with a moderate pass rate, and two others with a low pass rate. Table 1

gives the background of the 10 schools selected for this study. Z-1 school to Z-5 school are located in

provide information that cannot be gotten from other sampling methods.

12 FPE policy created a new management position, Primary Education Adviser (PEA). Each PEA has a zone of

10 to 15 schools. They work intensively as combination supervisors/trainers. In particular, a PEA has

responsibility for in-service training and resource management, and classroom-based training and monitoring

(Chimombo, 2001). Additionally, they train SMC members. They are, as it were, the core of school-based staff

development. 13 Semi-structured interview was used for this study. According to Merriam (2001), interviewing is necessary

when the required information, such as feelings, beliefs, perceptions and opinions cannot be observed.

According to her, interviewing is the best technique to use when conducting intensive case studies of a few

selected individuals. This study required the informants‘ own views and perceptions,. Therefore, interviewing

was used as the primary mode of data collection. 14 Primary School Leaving Certificate Examination (PSLCE) : at the end of the primary cycle (Standard 8),

pupils sit for the selection to secondary education. If they pass, they take the Primary School Leaving

Certificate (PSLC).


7

Zomba Rural District15; M-1 school to M-5 school are located in Machinga District. A wide variability

exists among the 10 schools in the number of teachers and pupils. The same observation in terms of

a wide variability can apply to pupil/classroom ratios and pupil/teacher ratios. Table 1 also shows the

PSLCE pass rate in each school. The PSLCE, the national examination, is important for selection to

the next secondary level of education. Whereas schools such as Z-1 and M-1 were evaluated as

having a high pass rate by DEO, with over a 90 percent PSLCE pass rate, schools such as Z-5 and

M-5, with DEO evaluation of low pass rate, have a pass rate lower than 65 percent.

In total, at the school level, I interviewed the following people: 10 head teachers, 30 teachers, 94

parents, 29 SMC members and 9 PTA representatives.

Table 1: Background of the Sampled 10 Schools

Male Female Total Boy Girl Total (Girls/Total)

Pass rate

in 2007

(%)

Pass rate

in 2006

(%)

Average

(%)

Z-1 7 (0) 6 (0) 13 (0) 309 282 591 (47.7%) 73.9 45.5 91.7 100.0 95.8USAID

(teacher's house)high

Z-2 8 (0) 5 (0) 13 (0) 0 900 900 (100%) 112.5 69.2 92.6 98.4 95.5 No high

Z-3 5 (0) 7 (0) 12 (0) 503 476 979 (48.6%) 122.4 81.6 72.7 75.9 74.3 No middle

Z-4 8 (0) 7 (0) 15 (0) 644 608 1,252 (48.6%) 104.3 83.5 70.3 70.7 70.5Action-Aid

(Pit-latrine)low

Z-5 4 (1) 5 (0) 9 (0) 196 176 372 (47.3%) 46.5 41.3 62.8 N.A. 62.8 No low

M-1 6 (0) 13 (0) 19 (0) 1,047 1,050 2,097 (50.1%) 116.5 110.4 98.8 89.6 94.2UNICEF

(AIDS club)high

M-2 6 (0) 3 (0) 9 (0) 632 760 1,392 (54.6%) 126.5 154.7 73.6 76.6 75.1 No high

M-3 9 (0) 4 (0) 13 (0) 689 746 1,435 (52.0%) 130.5 110.4 70.8 N.A. 70.8 No middle

M-4 5 (0) 4 (0) 9 (0) 635 672 1,307 (51.4%) 163.4 145.2 56.2 67.8 62.0 No low

M-5 5 (0) 9 (0) 14 (0) 319 330 649 (50.8%) 81.1 46.4 50.0 52.4 51.2 No low

School

No. of pupilsNo. of teachers

on payroll (not on payroll)*P/Class

ratioDistrict

Zomba

Rural

Machinga

P/T

ratio

Result of PSLCEPSLCE

result

evaluation

by DEO

Support

from outside

* Numbers in brackets are for teachers not on payroll, such as volunteer teachers.

6. Findings

6.1 Local Stakeholders’ Aspect

6.1.1 Expected Participation

In this section, first of all, how other local stakeholders perceive the participation of parents will be

examined. Parental participation is affected not only by internal factors, but also by external factors.

In this respect, the way in which other local stakeholders perceive parental participation may affect

the way parents participate. In order to examine how local stakeholders perceive parental

participations, this study asked every interviewee this question: ―Do you think parents should

participate in education in some way?‖ Among 10 headteachers and 30 teachers, all believed that

parents should participate in schooling in some way. Among SMC members and representatives of

the PTA, 37 out of 38 approve of parental participation in education in some ways. This shows that

almost all interviewees believe that parental participation in education is very important. An

interview with a PTA chair at M-2 school showed the importance of parental contribution. She

15 The only girls‘ school is Z-2 school because this school was originally established under the support of a religious (Roman Catholic) authority and became a public school later.


8

responded:

Our government stopped assisting us under FPE. We cannot wait for their assistance. To be

able to cover the cost of simple services that the school needs and to acquire some simple

resources, I think parental contribution is important. (45-year-old female PTA chair at M-2 school)

She is a farmer and has three children who are enrolled in M-2 school. She has been a representative

of the PTA for two years. Her comments conclusively show that school stakeholders expect the

cooperation of parents. She explained such cooperation is necessary because the government stopped

helping the school under FPE policy. Thus, she understands parental participation is needed just to

cover costs that the government cannot afford. The same response was found in an interview with a

teacher:

Yes. Parents should contribute. As you know, education is a collective effort. The school

itself can not afford to have everything that is needed. That is why parents should

contribute at least a little amount. Parents should become involved, maybe by molding

bricks or delivering sand and firewood when we need to construct something such as teacher houses. (34-year-old female teacher at Z-2 school)

She admitted to difficulty in running her school under FPE policy and addressed the cooperation of

parents in education by using the phrase ―education is a collective effort‖. The above quote reveals

that almost all stakeholders at the school level support the idea that parental participation is

essential for school improvement because the school cannot provide everything that is needed. For

most stakeholders at the school level, parental participation seems to mean material, money and/or

labor contributions.

To examine this point in more detail, I asked this question: ‖In what ways do you expect

parents to participate in education?16‖ Similar to the aforementioned comment by a teacher at Z-2

school, the responses also illustrate that their expected form of parental participation is mainly

monetary, labor and/or material contributions for school maintenance and rehabilitation. As for

monetary contributions, 90 percent of teachers and 70 percent of headteachers admitted its

importance. In fact, they did not deny the existence of parental financing of schools even after

collection of school fund/extra fees were abolished under FPE policy. Regarding contributions for

school development, 90 percent of teachers interviewed and all headteachers interviewed believed it

should be a parental responsibility. Yet, more importantly, only seven percent of the teachers and no

headteachers expected parental participation in school management such as the planning and

monitoring of school development and of the budget. Considering these figures, it appears that the

expectations regarding parental participation by local stakeholders at the school level are limited to

some specific forms and do not yet reach to the level of school management.

16 The response mode for this question was unstructured free response. After receiving their responses, I ticked

all that applied on the interview protocol, and at the same time, I took a memo of their responses.


9

6.2.2 Expected Impacts on School

When stakeholders at the school level expect parental participation, it can be assumed that they

believe parental participation is a ‗good thing‘. I must then explore why they think so and what kind

of impact they believe will result from this participation. Their answers show that other local

stakeholders believe that if parental participation is promoted, some positive effects on schools will

occur. In particular, they identified the following effects: increasing enrollment, increasing

performance, assuring pupils learning environment, helping development of the school, making

teachers motivated, encouraging pupils, encouraging other parents to join school matters, etc.

Negative effects were not mentioned in their responses. Most of expected effects identified by the

local stakeholders are the same as those listed in the literature such as Uemura (1999) and Bray

(2000) as shown in Section 4.

6.2 Parental Participation in Education

Now let us turn to the focus on parents themselves. In this sub-section, the interpretation of

education by parents and their actual participation are investigated.

6.2.1 Parents’ Interpretation of Education

(1) Background of the Sampled Parents

I have interviewed 94 parents: 39 male and 55 female. Average age is 43.6 yeas old and 28 percent of

parents sampled were Muslim, while 71.3 percent were Christian. They had on average 2.6 of

children enrolled in primary school. Forty-three parents out of 94 interviewed (45.7 percent) are

farmers. Twenty-two parents (23.4 percent) engage in small business and 7 parents (7.4 percent)

have no job. Looking at the education backgrounds of the sampled parents by sex, 10.3 percent of

sampled males and 18.2 percent of sampled females have no schooling experience17. 43.6 percent of

males dropped out of primary school, as did 65.5 percent of females. These figures indicate that the

average number of years spent in school is lower for female than for males. The gap between males

and females appears strongly when viewing the secondary education. No one has tertiary education

experience.

(2) Parents and Children’s Education

As Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) note, parents‘ construction of the parental role in the

children‘s education is likely to be influenced by interpretation of the parental role and their beliefs

about children‘s education. Thus, let us now extend the analysis to the interpretation of children‘s

education by parents. In order to investigate what parents expect regarding education, I asked this

question: ―Why do you make your children study at school?‖ Of 94 parents, 71 parents hope for their

17 According to the 2004/2005 Integrated Household Survey, nearly one in every four persons in Malawi has

never attended school. Only 15.8 percent of males have never attended school, while 33.6 percent of females

have never attended school.


10

children‘s future to be brighter through education. Twenty-six parents think education is important

because of the need to be literate or educated, 13 parents hope for an increased contribution to the

country, and 10 parents believe that schooling will allow their children to help their family and

community. These figures show that parents emphasize education mainly to improve their children‘s

future, rather than for country, family or community.

I also asked each parent this question: ―Until which grade do you expect your child to continue

his/her study at school?‖ This question can be revealed parents‘ expectations regarding children‘s

education. The results showed that there is polarization in their expectations about children‘s

education. In brief, while some parents expected their children to continue to study until higher

levels of education, others did not. For instance, whereas 47 (50 percent) of the parents expected

their children to be educated through primary school, 21 parents (22.3 percent) and 26 parents (27.7

percent) expected their children to be educated through upper secondary school and through higher

education, respectively. When considering the relationship between parents‘ educational background

and their expectations regarding their children‘s education, this study revealed that parents‘

educational background is not associated with their expectation regarding their children‘s education.

For instance, even some parents who have no schooling experience expect their children to study at

school and continue until higher education. The most likely explanation for this trend is that the

educational level of the sampled parents is not high in general and there is not much diversity

within the samples.

(3) FPE Policy

So far, this study has been concerned with parents‘ perceptions toward their children‘s education. Let

us now discuss the parental interpretations of FPE policy. In order to understand how parents

perceive current educational policy, I asked this question: ―What is your perception of education

under the FPE policy?‖ Sixty-nine out of 94 parents (73.4 percent) report that FPE policy is ‗very

good,‘ and 11 parents (11.7 percent) report that the policy is ‗good,‘ meaning 85.1 percent of parents

approve of FPE policy. On the other hand, 10 out of the 94 parents (10.6 percent) evaluate FPE policy

negatively.

In the interview with parents, two distinct attitudes (positive and negative) toward FPE policy

were observed. The comment below made by a 33-year-old female parent at Z-1 school shows why

she approves of FPE policy. She has had no schooling and is a single mother with two children

enrolled in primary school. She states:

I think FPE policy is a very good policy. We are poor. We cannot afford to pay for school fees.

FPE policy has helped a lot of children to enroll despite of their family's financial status.

(33-year-old female parent at Z-1 school)

She evaluates FPE policy as a very good policy, pointing out that many children, even those whose

families are poor, can study at school. In addition to the comments above, she told us how difficult it

was to raise children with the small salary of a cleaner. Another 58-year-old female parent at M-5


11

school remarked on another aspect of FPE policy. She responded:

It is good because the government takes on all the responsibilities of education. Parents are

not given the burden of paying school fees for their children. (58-year-old female parent at M-5 school)

She referred to the fact that the government takes all the aspects of the responsibility for education.

To summarize, parents appreciate FPE policy firstly because it provides a ‗free‘ education and gives

poor people a chance to study at school. Secondary, they appreciate it because they believe that

under FPE policy the government is responsible for everything and parents become ‗free‘ from their

responsibilities.

However, there are some parents who evaluate FPE policy negatively. The following two

statements were made by parents who pointed out the negative aspects of FPE policy:

Although school is free, the implementation is now so poor that education standards

became worse than when we paid school fees. (57-year-old male parent at Z-3 school)

It leads to a decline of education standards. Parents don't encourage children to study hard because they think they won't lose anything. (29-year-old female parent at M-5 school)

While the former parent describes the decline of the educational environment and educational

standards because of FPE, the latter parent points out that both parents and children have lost their

commitment to education because they do not believe that they will lose anything by doing so. It can

be inferred that such negative perceptions of education may lead parents to have a passive attitude

as suggested by previous research.

6.2.2 Parents’ Perception on Their Participation

Whether people are ‗really‘ participating, as Schuwartz (1984) puts it, depends on their

understanding of what participation is. This sub-section further examines parents‘ perceptions of

their participation. In order to understand their perceptions, I also asked parents the same question

I asked other local stakeholders: ―Do you think parents should participate in education in some

way?‖ Of 94 parents sampled, 92 agreed and two disagreed. This indicates that most parents believe

they should contribute to education in some way. However, this result seems to contradict the

perceptions of parents regarding education shown in the previous part of this section. As discussed

earlier, the parents who appreciate FPE policy believe that the government takes all the

responsibilities for education and parents become free from the responsibilities. Nevertheless, most

of the parents think they should take part in education in some way. Why did such contradictory

remarks occur? In order to perform in-depth exploration regarding parents‘ perceptions, I asked the

parents who answered yes for a reason. Out of 92 parents, 63 (68.5 percent) responded that parental

participation helped the school and also the government. Below is the comment from a parent of a

child attending Z-3 school. She believes that parents can solve the problems of the schools and help

the government.


12

We need our children to learn without problems. In this sense, we can solve the problems

and help the government in improving the country. (30-year-old female parent at Z-3

school)

Twenty-two out of 92 parents (23.9 percent) answered that they could not depend on the government

and donors. Interestingly enough, it seems that they are aware that the government cannot afford

everything that schools needs. The comment by a parent below supports the idea that there is a limit

to the government‘s capacity to provide a decent education.

There are school needs that the government cannot afford. We cannot wait for the support

from the government so it should be the responsibility of parents to contribute to addressing such school needs. (40-year-old female parent at Z-1 school)

This is consistent with the view of ‗self-help‘. These parents seem to realize that demand for

schooling is strong, but the government is unable to meet all needs. On the other hand, of 92 parents,

16 (17.4 percent) responded that they felt committed to participating in education. Most of these 16

parents used the term ‗commitment‘ or ‗responsibility‘. Moreover, some parents referred to the term

‗ownership‘ as shown in the latter statement below. In short, they participate in education to fulfil

their parental role.

My contribution will show my commitment to my children's education because the

contributions will help my children learn in a good environment.(44-year-old male parent at Z-2 school)

This strengthens the power of our ownership and we easily become responsible for all educational matters. (29-year-old female parent at M-1 school)

Overall, the discussion in this sub-section so far reveals that parents have multifaceted feelings

toward education and their participation in schooling. Most of the parents approve of FPE policy and

believe that free primary means the government takes responsibility for all aspects of education. At

the same time, however, some parents realize the necessity of parental participation in education

because the government is incapable of meeting all of the schools‘ needs. Additionally, the evidence

revealed that there are some parents who recognize their participation as a means of commitment to

education or of ownership.

6.2.3 Actual Typology of Parental Participation

With such multifaceted feelings, in what ways do parents actually participate in education? Figure 1

presents the percentages of each category of actual participation in education by the sampled

parents, irrespective of school. I arranged the typology in order by applying Shaffer‘s (1994)

participation ladder18 into a Malawian context, dividing participation into ten levels. All responses

18 Shaffer (1994: 16–17) presents different degrees or levels of participation and provides seven possible

definitions of the term: 1) involvement through the mere use of a service (such as enrolling children in school

or using a primary health care facility); 2) involvement through the contribution (or extraction) of money,

materials, and labor; 3) involvement through ‗attendance‘ and the receipt of information (e.g., at parents‘

meeting at school), implying passive acceptance of decisions made by others; 4) involvement through

consultation (of feedback) on a particular issue; 5) participation in the delivery of a service, often as a partner


13

by 94 parents were analyzed.

Figure 1: Actual Parental Participation

12.8

66.0

94.7

89.4

41.5

8.5

4.3

3.2

17.0

9.6

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

enroll children to school

show concern in learning

help construction or rehabilitation of school

provide moneraty conrtibution

attend school meetings

attend school events

talk to the teachers on individual things

arrange extra lessons

monitor teaching & learning

plan/monitor school development/budget

(%)

Note: N = 94

Multiple answers allowed

Parents participate in education first of all by enrolling their children in school. In this regard,

enrolling children in school is a fundamental form of participation. However, according to Figure 1,

surprisingly only 12.8 percent of parents (12 parents) interpret ‗enrolling children in school‘ as one of

the forms of parental participation. All of the sampled parents actually enroll their children in school,

though. As shown in the statement of a representative of the PTA below, this discrepancy may be due

to their interpretations regarding duty and rights. Generally speaking, for parents, participation in

education is one of their duties, and at the same time it is also their right. Interestingly, sampled

parents of this study seem to think that ‗enrolling children in school‘ is an obligation for them.

It is the duty of parents to send their children to school. It is not their right to decide

whether they should send children to study at school or not. Under free primary, no matter

how poor, all parents should send children to school. (45-year-old female representative of PTA at M-2 school)

One example of ‗showing concern in learning‘ is having an interest in children‘s educational

achievement. Of parents, 66 percent (62 parents) agreed that they actually participate in education

by ‗showing concern in learning.‘ The interviews revealed that the children‘s performance concerned

many parents. However, in terms of ‗talking to the teacher on individual things such as children‘s

performance and behavior, only 4.3 percent (4 parents) of those sampled actually do participate.

These results imply that although many parents are interested in children‘s education, they believe

that ‗talking to the teachers on individual things‘ is not one of the most important forms of parental

participation. I asked the parents ―How often do you talk to your children‘s teacher regarding school

matters?‖. While 26.6 percent talk more than two times per term, 14.9 percent and 8.5 percent of

with other actors; 6) participation as implementers of delegated powers; and 7) most completely, participation

―in real decision-making at every stage, including identification of problems, the study of feasibility, planning,

implementation, and evaluation‖ (UNICEF, 1986: 1). Shaffer points out that the first four definitions use the

term involvement, implying a largely passive collaboration, whereas the last three use the term participation,

intimating a more active role.


14

parents talk once a term and once a year, respectively. Interestingly enough, half of the sampled

parents have never talked to their children‘s teachers regarding school. This can be attributed to the

relationship between teachers and parents. From the interviews with parents, I found that many

parents felt that teachers did not listen to their concern and lacked confidence that they could face

teachers as equals. This evidence accords with the account given by Malen and Ogawa (1988)19

noting a professional-client relationship.

In terms of ‗helping construction or rehabilitation of school‘, 94.7 percent of parents (89

parents) participate in school development work by providing labor and/or material contributions. In

concrete terms, they help schools by molding bricks, collecting sands and stones, constructing and

repairing school facilities. Also, 89.4 percent (84 parents) provide monetary contributions. These

figures show that most of the parents provide contributions to schools in conventional ways.

According to the interviews, it was revealed that 9 out of 10 schools still collect money from parents.

The amount of collecting money differs from school to school (ranging from 20MK20 to 240MK per

year). This implies that even after the introduction of FPE policy, parents are still burdened with the

cost of schooling. In the interviews with headteachers, they did not deny that even under FPE policy,

schools still charge parents some amount of money. In most of the schools, the money collected from

parents is used for payment for a watchman, a postal office box and school facilities, etc. Under FPE

policy, at the school level, only the DSS for purchasing learning materials is provided from the

government. Each school must find the financial resources to pay the salaries of watchman and

part-time teachers, etc. This suggests strained financing at the school level.

Parents are sometimes invited to school meetings and school events organized by the

headteacher, the PTA or the SMC. According to Figure 1, whereas 41.5 percent (39 parents) of

parents attend school meetings, only 8.5 percent (8 parents) attend school events. This study asked

all parents what they think of attending school meeting and events. Some interesting findings

emerged from the comments of the parents. One parent who often attends school meetings and

events said this about her participation:

I often attend SMC meetings. I also attend school events on open day. This is good because

we can air out our concerns. Additionally, we get a chance to appreciate our teachers. (48-female-parent at Z-2 school)

While she commented she could speak out at the meeting, a parent below makes an opposite

statement:

At school meetings, SMC and PTA don‘t listen to our opinions. They don‘t allow us to air out

our concerns. (25-female-parents at M-5 school)

The above two comments show that whether parents participate in school meetings or events

19 Malen and Ogawa (1988) argues that the difficulty of involving parents in school decision making is related to

the professional culture of the school and parents‘ reluctance to violate the professional norms of school

culture. 20 Malawi Kwacha (MK) refers to the local currency in Malawi. The exchange rate is MK 145 to USD 1, based on

the May 18, 2009, rate.


15

depends on whether they are given a chance to speak out and whether school governance bodies

listen to the opinions of parents.

‗Arranging extra lessons,‘ ‗monitoring teaching and learning,‘ and ‗planning/monitoring school

development/budget‘ are regarded as the forms of participation in school management. While only 3

parents (3.2 percent) participate in ‗arranging extra lessons‘, 16 parents (17.0 percent) take part in

‗monitoring teaching and learning‘. In terms of ‗monitoring teaching and learning,‘ a 61-year-old

male parent of a child at Z-4 school, who is a former SMC member, commented that he monitors

teachers and pupils when he visits the school to provide a contribution of labor for school

development.

I sometimes visit schools to help with development project. At the same time, I monitor

teachers and pupils. If we are in the school area, teachers stop chatting. Pupils are also

encouraged to study hard in class instead of escaping. (61-year-old male parent at Z-4 school)

At the level of ‗planning/monitoring school development/budget,‘ only 9 parents (9.6 percent)

participate. In short, although some parents participate in monitoring teaching and learning, most of

the parents do not find the stage to participate in school management such as planning and/or

monitoring school development works and/or budgets. This is the form exactly the government

desires as a form of participation. It suggests that a gap exists between the government‘s

expectations of parental participation and actual participation by parents.

6.3 Frequencies of Parental Participation among Schools

Summarizing so far, this study has focused on understanding the phenomenon of parental

participation irrespective of school. Here, I will analyze parental participation while paying

attention to the differences in participation occurring among schools. Let us focus on the frequency of

parental participation at individual schools.

Table 2: Frequency of Parental Participations

schoolLevel

1

Level

2

Level

3

Level

4

Level

5

Level

6

Level

7

Level

8

Level

9

Level

10total

Z-1 4 8 9 9 3 0 0 0 3 1 37

Z-2 4 5 10 10 5 1 1 2 2 1 41

Z-3 0 7 7 10 3 0 1 0 1 0 29

Z-4 1 8 10 10 5 0 1 0 2 1 38

Z-5 2 6 9 9 4 0 0 0 2 0 32

M-1 0 5 10 10 6 1 1 0 2 2 37

M-2 0 8 9 6 7 4 0 0 1 2 37

M-3 0 7 10 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 28

M-4 1 2 7 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 17

M-5 0 6 8 9 3 2 0 0 2 0 30 Note: Level 1: enroll children in school , Level 2: show concern in learning,

Note: Level 3: help construction or rehabilitation of school, Level 4: provide monetary contribution,

Note: Level 5: attend school meetings, Level 6: attend school events,

Note: Level 7: talk to teachers on individual things, Level 8: arrange extra lessons,

Note: Level 9: monitor teaching and learning, Level 10: plan/monitor school development/budget

Table 2 shows the frequency of parental participations at each level in the 10 sampled schools.


16

As can be seen, the total frequency varies from school to school. For instance, the number of total

frequency in Z-2 school is 41, while M-4 school is 17. If the total frequency of parental participation is

higher, the school has more parents who are willing to help. Thus, we can say that the difference of

the total frequency among schools is the same as the difference among parents‘ willingness to

participation in education.

6.4 Impacts of Parental Participation

The previous sub-section illustrated that there was variability among schools in terms of parents‘

willingness to participate in education. Then the following question emerged: if more parents are

active at a school and they are willing to participate in education, does that bring about some impact

on schools? I will investigate this point in this sub-section.

6.4.1 Improving School Facilities

As discussed earlier, most parents contribute to schools in conventional ways such as labor, material

or monetary contributions for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the school. Given this fact, it

can be assumed that if more parents are active and willing to participate in education, their

participation improves school facilities. This is also confirmed by the literature shown in Section 4.

Table 3 shows the relationship between the frequency of participation and indicators of school

quality. There is a statistically significant correlation between the frequency of parental

participation and the number of teachers‘ houses and pit latrines (R2= 0.922 and the coefficient is

significant at 5 percent level), but the frequency of parental participation does not seem to be

associated with the number of classrooms. This is partly because parental contribution is devoted

mainly to the construction and rehabilitation of school facilities such as pit latrines and teachers‘

houses, not schools themselves. As mentioned in the previous sub-section, a wide variability exists

among the 10 sampled schools in terms of enrollment. However, there is not a significant correlation

between frequency of parental participation and enrollment. From the interviews with school actors,

it is apparent that parental participation seems to contribute to the improvement of school facilities.

Table 3: Frequency of Parental Participation and Indicators of School Quality

SchoolFrequency of

participation

No. of

enrollment

No. of

classrooms

No. of

teachers'

houses &

pit latrines

PSLCE

pass rate

(average

2006/2007)

Evaluation

by DEO

Z-1 37 591 8 12 95.8 high

Z-2 41 900 12 11 95.5 high

Z-3 29 979 8 13 74.3 middle

Z-4 38 1,252 12 15 70.5 low

Z-5 32 372 4 4 62.8 low

M-1 37 2,097 13 14 94.2 high

M-2 37 1,392 12 15 75.1 high

M-3 28 1,435 14 11 70.8 middle

M-4 17 1,307 11 4 62.0 low

M-5 30 649 4 5 51.2 low


17

6.4.2 Improving Pupils’ Learning

As discussed earlier, 60 percent of headteachers and 36.7 percent of teachers believe that parental

participation improves school performance. Moreover, some teachers and headteachers identified

‗pupils are encouraged‘ or ‗pupils learn well without problems‘ as the effects of parental participation.

Then the next question to be asked is whether parental participation improves pupils‘ learning.

Looking at the correlation between the frequency of parental participation and PSLCE pass rate,

there is a significant correlation (its coefficient is 0.635 and statistically significant at the 5 percent

level). As a result, this is consistent with the expectations of local stakeholders. The same response is

found from the interview with a parent at Z-4 school. He mentioned that he participates in education

in monitoring teachers and pupils when he visits the school to help with the construction and

rehabilitation of school facilities. Monitoring the behaviors of teachers and pupils may lead to the

improvement of pupils‘ learning. Moreover, the PEA also commented the importance of parental

participation as a means of monitoring the school:

One of our roles is to visit schools and supervise teaching and learning. Parental

participation in schooling works as eyes on school monitoring. And it helps our activity and also the improvement school achievement. (40-year-old male PEA at Zomba Rural District)

6.5 School Management and Parental Participation

Educational decentralization in Malawi has transferred some responsibilities to the school level,

fostering the role of headteachers and school governance bodies such as the SMCs and PTAs. With

the implementation of the DSS programme, resource mobilization, budgeting and participation at

the school level were highlighted. From this standpoint, it can be said that the extent to which

individual schools are effectively managed depends on the abilities of the headteacher and the school

governance bodies at each school. In this sub-section, an examination of school management, with

special attention paid to the relationship between parents and headteachers (teachers) and between

parents and school governance bodies, is presented.

6.5.1 Parents, School Governance Bodies and Headteacher/Teachers

In order to perform further analyses of school management, this study asked parents about their

perception toward governance bodies and headteachers/teachers. Table 4 shows the interesting

results. It illustrates the relationship between the frequency of parental participation and parental

perception toward school governance bodies, as well as toward headteachers and teachers at each

school, in descending order of the frequency of parental participation. According to the table, it is

likely that at schools with higher frequency of parental participation, parents have more positive

perception toward school governance bodies and/or headteachers and teachers. For instance, at Z-2

school, which scores the highest frequency of parental participation, there are more parents having

positive feelings toward teachers. On the contrary, at M-3 and M-4 schools, which score a lower

frequency of parental participation, there are more parents with negative feelings toward school


18

governance bodies and/or teachers. In other words, the extent to which individual schools encourage

parental participation hinges on parents‘ trusting relationship with school governance bodies and

teachers.

Table 4: Perception toward School Governance Bodies and Teachers by Parents

SchoolFrequency of

participation

Perception

toward school

governance bodis

Perception

toward headteachers

and teachers

Z-2 41YYYYY

Y(-)

Z-4 38YY YY

Y(-)

M-1 37YY YY

M-2 37Y Y

Z-1 37 Y(-)

Z-5 32YY

Y(-)Y(-)

Y

Y(-)Y(-)

M-5 30 Y(-)Y(-)Y(-)Y(-) Y(-)Y(-)Y(-)

Z-3 29YY

Y(-)Y(-)

YY

Y(-)

M-3 28 Y(-)Y(-) Y(-)

M-4 17 Y(-)Y(-)Y(-) Y(-)Y(-)Y(-) Note: Y: one positive comment by a parent

Note: Y(-): one negative comment by a parent

6.5.2 Confusion at the School Level

In order to perform further analyses of the relationship between parental participation and

perception toward school governance bodies and teachers by parents, let us take the two case

schools: Z-4 school, where a high frequency of parental participation can be seen; and M-4 school,

where a low frequency of parental participation is observed21.

(1) Z-4 school

The current SMC at Z-4 school is two years old. Due to the good performance of the former SMC, two

members of the former SMC were retained in the current SMC. The current SMC was elected at a

school meeting and were trained on its role by the PEAs over a period of three days. The SMC is

comprised of nine members, including two parents. From interviews with parents, headteachers,

teachers, and SMC members, it was revealed that the SMC at Z-4 school is very active, and

stakeholders appreciate their work. When parents at Z-4 school were asked, ―Do you think the

parents‘ opinions are well reflected in the decisions made by the SMC?‖, nine out of ten answered

―yes.‖ Moreover, those who answered ―yes‖ to this question also answered ―yes‖ to the following

question: ―Have you ever been involved in the work of the SMC?‖ These answers support the idea

that the SMC at this school work with parents, and that their operation is functioning. From the

interview with PTA members, it was found that the current PTA was elected at a PTA meeting, and

21 Although Z-2 school has the highest frequency of parental participation, for the convenience of the discussion

the second highest Z-4 was shown since the perceptions both toward school governance bodies and teachers

can be seen.


19

that they were trained by the former PTA chair about their roles. It seems that the PTA was also

working very hard and hand-in-hand with the SMC, parents and the community. The SMC

members themselves think that they are working hard and are generally satisfied with their

collaboration with other stakeholders. One of the SMC members stated:

The management of school is not difficult as there is strong relationship and collaboration

between the school, parents and traditional leaders. Thus, we can easily collaborate with

them and mobilize parents and community for the development work. (44-year-old female SMC member at Z-4 school)

Regarding perception toward headteachers and teachers, the comment below emerged from the

interview with a parent:

Teachers are humble and open, and treat us as partner. Especially the headmaster at this

school is a good person. I am also satisfied with the children‘s school performance of this

school. That makes me feel that I should also do something for this school. (30-year-old male parent at Z-4 school)

This male parent appreciated not only teachers, but also the headteacher of the school. The above

findings show that parents‘ trust in school governance bodies and headteacher/teachers can be a

force for increased participation.

(2) M-4 school

The SMC at M-4 school is just two months old and is made up of ten members. However, according to

the interview with the headteacher of M-4 school, the SMC is not so active. When parents at M-4

school were asked the same question: ―Have you ever been involved in the work of the SMC?‖, only

half answered ―yes.‖ Moreover, it was revealed that most of these parents do not think that their

opinions are well reflected in decisions made by the SMC. Furthermore, this study found that the

current SMC had never worked with the PTA. One parent at M-4 school explained the situation

between the SMC and PTA as follows:

I am not satisfied with our school committee. They don‘t try to listen to our opinions. And

they are not working hard. The failure of functioning and collaboration with the PTA and

parents has resulted in underdevelopment of the school. (25-year-old female parent at M-4 school)

Another female parent complained about the misuse of money by teachers and SMC members. She

also commented that she did not know whether the PTA even exists.

Teachers and SMC members used our money for personal use. They are stealing bricks and

sands which will be used for rehabilitation and construction of school facilities. … As for

PTA, I have never involved in the work of PTA. I don‘t know who the members are and

what they do. (29-year-old female parent at M-4 school)

The above two statements clearly show that the parents do not trust in its school governance bodies.

However, interestingly enough, from the interview with school governance bodies, another aspect

was revealed. One representative of PTA stated:


20

The current PTA was formed five months ago, and we were chosen without proper election.

The chair of the PTA called us and said that ―you were selected.‖ Now we are waiting for the

headteacher and village headman to assign. Without their assign, we cannot work. So that‘s

why up to now PTA is not at work. (49-year-old male representative of PTA at M-4 school)

Here, the reason why the PTA is not working is that there is a lack of coordination with headteacher,

and the village headman. It can be inferred that the selection of the current PTA members at M-4

school was not performed democratically.

Regarding the work of SMC, the comment below made by one SMC member implies that the

SMC at M-4 school is in a state of confusion without training and cooperation with PTA and the

community:

We have not received training. At the beginning, the headteacher gave us an orientation

but we still don‘t know exactly what to do. I believe one of our tasks is to maintain and

develop school facilities and to monitor teaching and learning. We also ensure the

management of school materials and resources…. We need the support of PTA and

community. But unfortunately our PTA is not functioning and community is not cooperative. (52-year-old male secretary of SMC at M-4 school)

In addition to the lack of training and cooperation, one female SMC member cited no incentives for their work as the SMC:

We don‘t receive anything, and no incentives. Normally we work whole day at school

without eating anything. Moreover, under FPE policy, pupils and parents become rude and

they are not cooperative. It became more difficult to manage school. And I have also

complained about the government. The government sometimes does not supply the requested materials through DSS. (49-year-old female treasurer of the SMC at M-4 school)

Moreover, it is likely that under FPE policy, school management has become more difficult in not

only monitoring pupils and teachers, but also school financing. Although they are given the

responsibility of planning the use of DSS grant, it is not managed according to the plan. Looking at

their educational backgrounds, out of ten members of the SMC at M-4 schools, six dropped out from

primary education and three have no schooling experiences. None have received proper training on

the role of the SMC and its cooperation with other stakeholders. Given this fact, school management

by this group alone is likely to be beyond their capacity.

With respect to teachers at M-4 school, parents complained about teachers‘ behaviours such as

laziness and disrespect. Other parent also cited teachers‘ unfavourable behaviour and pointed out

that school staff members treat parents as uneducated people. As is evident, the relationship

between parents and teachers at M-4 school seems to be far from ideal. Returning now to school

management, the comment below, made by the headteacher at M-4 school, also illustrates the

difficult school situation encountered in the running and management of the school:

Our school resources are not enough. Of course the DSS is good, but it‘s not still enough. We

have about 1,300 pupils. Only MK 27,000 is not enough. And we don‘t know when it will

come. This year we haven‘t received it yet. How can we manage school? Our school is very

old and is lacking many things. We expect the contribution of parents and community

people, but most of them don‘t understand this situation and don‘t trust us. How can we develop the school? (47-year-old male headteacher at M-4 school)


21

Summarizing this sub-section so far, this study revealed that parental willingness to contribute

varies at each school. It seems that the extent to which individual schools encourage parental

participation depends on the level of trust parents have with school governance bodies and teachers.

However, while there is a school where parents‘ trust in school governance bodies and

headteacher/teachers increased participation, there is another school which is confronting

challenges. The case of M-4 school shows that schools with a low frequency of parental participation

face several issues associated with lack of resources, confusion over their roles, low incentives, and

low capacity, and that these issues constrain their activities. Given the fact that the difference in

abilities of school governance bodies and headteachers/teachers exist among schools, we can say that

under FPE policy and decentralization, it has brought about a divide among stakeholders and

schools in terms of school management.

7. Conclusion

This study provides a detailed analysis of parental participation with particular attention to FPE

policy and decentralization in Malawi. First, the study outlined expectations about parental

participation by other local stakeholders at the school level. The study reveals that almost all

stakeholders expect parents to participate in education and believe in its importance. They recognize

that increasing parental participation benefits schools. Yet, they just expect parents to participate in

conventional ways.

This study also reveals that complex implications exist regardingbehind parental participation

in education. Most of the parents approve of FPE and interpret it as the governments' assuming all

educational responsibilities, and parents' being freed from any obligations to educate their children.

In short, FPE has changed the balance of responsibility for education between the government and

parents. At the same time, however, the study found that some parents are aware of the

deterioration in educational standards and the government‘s limited capacity after years of

witnessing the difficult situation at the school level, and have concluded that parental contribution is

imperative for schools. These context-specific perceptions tend to change such parents' perceptions

and attitudes. Complex factors thus affect parental participation and lead parents to have a positive

or negative attitude. As a result, parents actually participate in education in a variety of ways.

However, their participation is limited mainly to conventional ways, such as providing labor,

materials or monetary contribution; showing concern for education and attending school meetings.

In other words, in contrast to parental participation under the framework of the government, in

reality, most parents' participation has not yet reached the sphere of school management. This study

sheds light on the dynamics behind parental participation.

The study also reveals that even though the forms of parental participation in Malawi are still

mainly conventional, parental participation is likely to positively impact schools, such as by

improving schools' facilities and pupils‘ achievements. The frequency of participation varies from


22

school to school. For Malawi's government, one of the most challenging issues in delivering education

is low educational standards. Given that, parental participation in education might be a crucial

component.

Under decentralization, the burden of school management rests heavily on local stakeholders.

The extent to which individual schools manage themselves effectively depends on the ability of the

headteacher and school governance bodies such as SMC and PTA at the individual schools to involve

parents. This study suggests parental trust in school governance bodies and teachers must be the

key. However, the ability of headteachers and school governance bodies differs from school to school.

While some schools face many issues, including low capacity, role confusion, low incentives, and lack

of resources, all of which are constraints on their actions, others do not. This study found that in

schools where a confusion exists, stakeholders have insufficient ability to promote increased

participation by parents. Such circumstances may consequently lead to insufficient school

development and low educational achievement of the pupils. As a result, such schools fall into a

vicious cycle of low school improvement illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Vicious Circle of Low School Improvement

Lack of

Resources &

capacities about

school management

School

development

School

facilities

Pupils’

achievement

Untruthful

relationship

at school

Headteacher & teachers

School governance bodies

Parental

participation

Parents

Changed

perception

of education

Vicious circle of low school improvement

Decentralization Free primary educationSchool

Dilemmas

Confusion

Therefore, this study suggests that the government still has an important role on this point. A

comprehensive mechanism for greater participation by parents in education needs to be established,

while taking into account specific issues at the school level. In concrete terms, clarity of guiding

policies and capacity building of local stakeholders as well as adequate resources are essential.

Moreover, this study points out the importance of sensitization to the significance of education and

the parental role in it. As discussed so far, it is likely that FPE policy is misinterpreted by parents. It

has changed parental perception toward education. What is the significance of free primary

education? What is the parental role in education under FPE policy? In order to enable people to

understand the concept of free primary education and to increase parental participation in education,

attention should be paid to raising awareness of the importance of education as well as the

importance of parental participation in schooling. Without a common understanding among

stakeholders, the objectives associated with FPE policy and decentralization are unlikely to be


23

achieved.

References

Al-Samarrai, S. & Zaman, H. (2007). Abolishing School Fees in Malawi: The Impact on Education

Access and Equity. Education Economics, 15 (3), 359-375.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, 35 (1), 216-224.

Bauch, P. A. & Goldring, E. B. (1998). Parent-Teacher Participation in the Context of School

Governance. Peabody Journal of Education, 73 (1), 15-35.

Bennel, P. (2002). Hitting the Target: Doubling Primary School Enrollment in sub-Saharan Africa by

2015. World Development, 30 (7), 1179-1194.

Bray, M. (2000). Community Partnerships in Education: Dimensions, Variations and Implications.

EFA Thematic Study. Dakar.

Bruns, B., Mingat, A., & Rakotomala, R. (2003). A Chance for Every Child: Achieving Universal

Primary Education by 2015. Washington DC: World Bank.

Chimombo, J. (2001). Educational Innovations in Developing Countries: Implications and

Challenges for Policy Change in Malawi. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 4

(2), 39-54.

Chimombo, J., Kunje, D., & Ogawa, K. (2008). The Case of Malawi. In Nishimura, M. & Ogawa, K.

(Eds.), A Comparative Analysis on Universal Primary Education Policy, Finance, and

Administrative Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Kobe: Kobe University.

Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to

Development. Journal of International Development, 11, 597-612.

Da Cunha, P. V. & Peña, M. V. J. (1997). The Limits and Merits of Participation. Policy Research

Working Paper 1838. Washington DC: World Bank.

Gershberg, A. I. (1999). Fostering Effective Parental Participation in Education: Lessons from a

Comparison of Reform Processes in Nicaragua and Mexico. World Development, 27 (4),

753-771.

Goldring, E. B. & Shapira, R. (1993). Choice, Empowerment, and Involvement: What Satisfies

Parents? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (4), 396-409.

Government of Malawi (GoM). (2006). Manual on the Implementation of Direct Support to Primary

Schools (DSS). Lilongwe: GoM.

Heneveld, W. & Craig, H. (1996). Schools Count: World Bank Project Designs and the Quality of

Primary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Technical Paper, 303.

Hooper-Dempsey, K. V. & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why Do Parents Become Involved in Their

Children‘s Education? Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 3-42.

Kadzamira, E. & Rose, P. (2001). Educational Policy Choice and Policy Practice in Malawi:


24

Dilemmas and Disjunctures. IDS Working Paper Series, 124, Brighton: Institute of

Development Studies.

Malen, B. & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional-Patron Influence on Site-based Governance Councils:

A Confounding Case Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 251-270.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 2nd Edition. Sage

Publications

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ministry of Education (MoE). (1973). Education Plan of Malawi 1973–1980. Zomba: GoM.

Ministry of Education (MoE). (2001). Malawi Education Sector: Policy and Investment Framework.

Lilongwe: MoE.

Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST). (2008a).Guidelines for the Management of

Education Functions Devolved to District Assemblies. Lilongwe: MoEST.

Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST). (2008b). National Educational Sector Plan

2008-2017. Lilongwe: MoEST.

Minnis, J. (1997). Moderating the Demand for Primary Education in Malawi. International Journal

of Educational Reform, 6, 284-295.

Munn, P. (1998). Parental Influence on School Policy: Some Evidence from Research. Journal of

Education Policy, 13 (3), 379-394.

Naidoo, J. P. (2002). Education Decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Espoused Theories and

Theories in Use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Comparative and

International Education Society, Florida, March.

Nelson, N. & Wright, S. (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. London:

IT Publications.

Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 28 (3),

1247-1263.

Rose, P. (2003). Community Participation in School Policy and Practice in Malawi: Balancing Local

Knowledge, National Policies and International Agency Priorities. Compare, 33 (1), 47-64.

Sawamura, N. (2007). Africa no Kyoiku to Kokusai-Kyoryoku: Seisaku to Field Work no Togo.

[African Educational Development and International Cooperation: Integration of Policy

Research and Field Work] Tokyo: Akashi- Shoten.

Schuwartz, J. D. (1984). Participation and Multisubjective Understanding: An Interpretivist

Approach to the Study of Political Participation. The Journal of Politics, 46 (4), 1117-1141.

Shaffer, S. (1994). Participation for Educational Change: A Synthesis of Experience. Paris: UNESCO

International Institute for Educational Planning.

Shojo, M. (2008). Malawi niokeru Syotou-Kyoiku-Seisakugo no Impact Bunseki. [An Analysis of its

Impact on UPE Policy in Malawi]. Comparative Research of Human Capital Development

and Roles of Government and Private Sector in West Asia and East Africa, 121-131. Kobe:


25

Kobe University.

Uemura, M. (1999). Community Participation in Education: What Do We Know? [Internet] Available

from

www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/doc/Community%20Participation%2

0in%20Education.doc

World Bank. (2004). Cost, Financing, and School Effectiveness of Education in Malawi: A Future of

Limited Choices and Endless Opportunities. Washington DC: Africa Region Human

Development Working Paper Series.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Edition. Sage Publications.


26

What Does Parental Participation in Education Mean?:

Evidence from Malawi

Mari SHOJO

Abstract

Malawi adapted Free Primary Education (FPE) Policy in 1994 and received attention as the first

country in Africa to start working toward Universal Primary Education. Concurrent with

decentralization, implementation of FPE policy strongly emphasizes on the local management of

schools, and promotes the participation of local stakeholders in schooling. However, previous

research points out that FPE under decentralization has led to unexpected consequences. Given this

evidence, this study explores the reasons why this phenomenon has occurred and the dynamics

behind parental participation.

The analysis reveals several findings. First, FPE has changed the balance of responsibility for

education between the government and parents. The study also found that some parents are aware

of the government‘s limited capacity after years of witnessing the difficult situation at the school

level. These context-specific perceptions tend to change parents' perceptions and attitudes. Secondly,

this study explored the fact that in contrast to parental participation under the framework of the

government, in reality, most parents' participation has not yet reached the stage of school

management. The study also reveals that even though the forms of parental participation in Malawi

are still mainly conventional, parental participation is likely to positively impact schools. The extent

to which individual schools manage themselves effectively depends on their ability of the

headteacher and school governance bodies to involve parents. Nevertheless, in most cases school

stakeholders have insufficient ability to promote increased participation by parents. Consequently,

such schools fall into a vicious cycle of low school improvement.

Kobe University Repository : Kernel · 1) Devolution to sub-national governments: The devolution of service delivery responsibilities from national to local or regional governments;

Documents