Global decentralization policies for education and Tanzanian primary school principals’ responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blackmore and Sachs’ (2007) opinion that “educational reform needs to be seen within a broader context of restructuring in economic and social relations among the individual, the state and new modes of governance” (p. 1) is relevant for expressing the essence and influence of the global decentralization policies in Tanzania and elsewhere. The 1995 decentralization of the management of primary schools in Tanzania was the outcome of the World Bank’s policies and the International Monetary Fund’s conditions following the economic instabilities of the 1980s. Assuming that public systems are inefficient, autonomy in decision-making and competition are seen as means of achieving high quality and efficiency (Bonal, 2002; Carnoy, 1995; Martinez & Garcia, 1996). The need for autonomy, external accountability and competition has created new managerial roles for school principals even though their core function is to lead instruction (Lingard & Christie, 2003; Reitzug, West, & Roma, 2008; Stewart, 2006). This study explores how principals in Tanzania are harmonizing these roles and is informed by political discourse analysis and decolonizing theories (Abdi & Shultz, 2012; Blackmore & Sachs, 2007; Dimmock & Walker, 2005; Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012; Nyerere, 1968; Wagenaar, 2011). Qualitative interpretive case study is also used to analyze the principals’ experiences. The implementation of a borrowed culture in new contexts creates tensions; thus, the adoption of new roles in the context of decentralization creates conflicts and imbalances. Given that education is a public good, educational policies should be decolonized and separated from market influences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".