Responsive Governance in Decentralised Education Systems: Comparative Evidence From Liberia, Brazil, and Indonesia

Abstract

Decentralised education systems divide responsibility among ministries, regional administrations, municipalities, districts, schools, and community institutions. The effectiveness of this arrangement depends not simply on where authority is formally located but on whether responsibilities are matched by administrative capacity, whether organisations coordinate their work, and whether communities can influence consequential decisions. This article compares these relationships in Liberia, Brazil, and Indonesia using national education legislation, sector plans, government implementation records, international institutional reports. The three countries represent distinct forms of decentralised administration. Liberia has transferred important responsibilities toward county and district structures while continuing to address limitations in local finance and technical capacity. Brazil assigns extensive responsibility for basic education to states and municipalities within a federal system supported by national legislation, redistributive financing, assessment, and municipal education councils. Indonesia combines regional decentralisation and school-based management with community accountability arrangements that have produced directly documented changes in teacher presence, service performance, and parental satisfaction. In the Indonesian KIAT Guru programme, community evaluations of teacher presence rose from 65 to 95 between 2017 and 2019, teacher service-performance scores rose from 56 to 97, classrooms with teachers present during unannounced visits increased from 75% to 87%, and parental satisfaction with educational quality increased from 28% in 2016 to 64% in 2018. The comparison shows that decentralisation functions most effectively when four conditions operate together: clear distribution of authority, adequate institutional capability, coordination across administrative boundaries, and community participation linked to identifiable decisions. The article concludes that education governance should be assessed through the practical operation of authority and accountability rather than through the formal transfer of responsibilities alone.