Balancing Autonomy and Equity: The Role of Decentralised Governance in Online Education

Balancing Autonomy and Equity: The Role of Decentralised Governance in Online Education

Edwin Francis^1*, Razalina Abdul Rashid¹, Shairil Izwan Taasim², Zuliana Muktar¹, Nurul Asyikin Hassan³

¹Faculty of Business and Management, Open University Malaysia

²Faculty of Humanities, Management and Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia

³Faculty of Human Sciences, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300313

Received: 05 March 2025; Revised: 10 March 2025; Accepted: 15 March 2025; Published: 17 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to explore the effects of decentralised governance on online education. Online education is increasingly important as educational institutions adapt to digital learning. Local or regional educational bodies receive decision-making power from decentralised education, which transfers it from central authorities. . Greater flexibility and responsiveness are among the advantages offered by this approach. However, challenges are also present. Equal access to resources and support across different areas is a key challenge. The rise of online education has increased the need for decentralisation since learners and institutions are often spread across large geographical areas. This study examined how decentralised governance affects three key areas of online education, including access to educational resources, learner satisfaction with learning platforms, and social integration within learning centres. The study used survey data from learners in various locations and analysis of this data aimed to clarify how governance structures influence the quality of the online learning experience. The study also attempted to identify any potential differences in educational offerings. Key findings indicated that decentralisation facilitates localised decision-making and the possibility of region-specific enhancements. Decentralisation also poses the risk of engendering disparities. Learners in metropolitan centres, such as Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, exhibit greater satisfaction with educational materials and platform use than their counterparts in distant areas, such as Sabah and Sarawak, which highlights the need for targeted policies. These policies should ensure that learners everywhere have fair access to resources and support. Such resources and support are crucial for success in online education. The study concludes with recommendations for educational policymakers. The study emphasises balancing decentralised autonomy with centralised monitoring. This balance helps address resource gaps and infrastructure challenges which suggests that further research should focus on optimising decentralised systems for diverse learner populations in online education.

Keywords: Online and distance learning, decentralised, governance

INTRODUCTION

In all fields, including education, decentralisation is a prominent trend in governance. The education system has been traditionally controlled by centralised organisational frameworks. National or regional governments make decisions in the systems (Blazeski, 2023). However, in recent decades, the change has increased towards the decentralisation of the government. The decentralisation strengthens the local institutions, such as certain schools and school centres, as well as the community organisations. Decentralisation is founded on the belief that the local leaders can know better and respond better to the communities’ needs. This form of governance is more responsive and effective (Blazeski, 2023).

Central governments usually delegate tasks to local authorities in the case of education decentralisation. Allocation of funds, curriculum development, and administration may be some of the tasks (Zastrozhnikova & Cheremisina, 2022). Greater flexibility, accountability, and innovativeness are some of the effects of the transformation on the delivery of educational services. Decentralisation allows regional or local education authorities to make their programs suit their needs. These tailor-made programmes can integrate the social, economic, and cultural features of their respective areas. Such tailoring enables improved educational performance.

The discussion related to education governance, particularly decentralisation, has increased remote and online learning. Online education serves learners from various backgrounds and diverse areas. Thus, online education overcomes geographical barriers effectively (Msekelwa, 2023; Gimeno et al., 2023). Nevertheless, decentralisation poses challenges related to governance. For example, educational authorities face challenges in addressing the different needs of learners and institutions located in various locations. An earlier study by Briault (1976) pointed out this issue. In the study, it was noted that to adapt to local educational requirements, cultural differences, and resource availability, centralised systems often lack the flexibility needed. Another study by Verma et al. (2024) also agreed with Briault’s findings. The former revealed that policies might not fit well within local contexts. This issue leads to challenges related to fair application by centralised systems. The unequal treatment causes inefficiencies and dissatisfaction among stakeholders. Resultantly, decentralised governance models are preferred by some online education providers. The model allows regional learning centres to effectively manage learner services, support systems, and educational delivery according to their specific areas.

The discussion related to education governance, particularly decentralisation, has increased remote and online learning. Online education serves learners from various backgrounds and diverse areas. Thus, online education overcomes geographical barriers effectively (Msekelwa, 2023; Gimeno et al., 2023). Nevertheless, decentralisation poses challenges related to governance. For example, educational authorities face challenge in addressing the different needs of learners and institutions located in various locations. An earlier study by Briault (1976) pointed out this issue. In the study, it was noted that to adapt to local educational requirements, cultural differences, and resource availability, centralised systems often lack the flexibility needed. Another study by Verma et al. (2024) also agreed with Briault’s findings. The former revealed that policies might not fit well within local contexts. This issue leads to challenges related to fair application by centralised systems. The unequal treatment causes inefficiencies and dissatisfaction among stakeholders. Resultantly, decentralised governance models are preferred by some online education providers. The model allows regional learning centres to effectively manage learner services, support systems, and educational delivery according to their specific areas.

Decentralisation has its challenges, although online education offers advantages (Marjit & Kumar, 2020; Gao et al., 2022). Maintaining equality of educational quality between regions is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. Rural or disadvantaged students hardly have equal facilities, infrastructures, or support in comparison to individuals staying in modern cities and having a higher purchasing power. In a decentralised system, such gaps are likely to become more pronounced, particularly in situations where the local governments have different levels of capacity and expertise in dealing with online education effectively.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of decentralised governance on online learning, focusing on the learner experiences across various locations. The study compared the effects of decentralisation on learning content access, student satisfaction with online learning environments, and the general feeling of community within learning environments. By evaluating these factors, the study aimed to identify both the advantages and disadvantages of decentralised education systems. The aim was to provide suggestions that would ensure equal and fair chances for all students to obtain good-quality online education in all locations.

Objectives of the Study

The goals of the study are the following:

1. To measure the effect of decentralisation on the presence of additional materials, such as quizzes, forums, and self-practice tools, at different places.
2. To determine the effect of decentralised administration on learner satisfaction on the usability and effectiveness of online learning systems.
3. To investigate the effect of decentralised administration on social integration and involvement of learners in learning centre activities.
4. To investigate the differences in online learning experience across regions and determine policy measures that could mitigate these differences.

This research sought to contribute to the debate on the advantages and disadvantages of decentralisation in education management, in particular in the new area of online learning.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept of decentralisation in education governance has gained much popularity in the last few years. Education institutions are particularly moving towards online and remote education models. Decentralisation refers to the delegation of decision-making authority from central to regional or local authorities (Ibrahim, 2024).

Decentralisation of education involves transferring more responsibility for resources, curriculum, and management from top-level governments to lower-level governments, schools, or learning centres (Verma et al., 2024). The literature on decentralisation in educational governance and its effects on online learning is reviewed in this discussion.

Global events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have led to an increased focus on online and distance education. Such events have posed challenges for researchers exploring how decentralised systems cope with such challenges (Cahyaditama, 2022; Verma et al., 2024). The studies undertaken on digital inclusion highlight that balanced technology access is needed in decentralised learning platforms (Adeleye et al., 2024).

Tailored learning experiences and local support can be achieved through decentralisation. The inequality between developed and underdeveloped areas worsens (Bida, 2021; Siburian, 2023). One of the key concerns that directly affects students’ capacity to access online platforms and learning materials is the unequal access to digital infrastructure.

Balancing between local autonomy and educational fairness is not an easy task. Online education in Malaysia is headed by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and other supporting institutions, such as Open University Malaysia (OUM). In this literature review, the decentralised governance of Malaysia’s online education environment is explored. The effects of decentralised governance on autonomy and fairness are explored in this review.

Decentralised Governance in Education: Conceptual Framework of Decentralised Governance

Decentralised decision-making literally means the delegation of decision powers from central governments or authorities to organisational or institutional levels. On the educational level, this system allows universities and higher institutions more freedom in offering courses, allocations, and management of education affairs. Decentralisation, according to Priatna (2019), heightens responsiveness through the ability of educational institutions to create programmes that reflect local realities more accurately. This flexibility leaves space for innovation and adaptation. Nevertheless, it also raises issues about fairness, with quality education and the same quality of outcomes assured to all, equally accessible and obtainable, regardless of diverse backgrounds and geographical areas.

The Ascendance of Online Education and Decentralised: Global Trends

Online education has sped up decentralised programmes, mainly because of flexibility and scalability (Muir et al., 2019). The pandemic of COVID-19 pushed institutions to embrace online platforms, hence decentralising learning processes and administration (Houlden & Veletsianos, 2021). Online learning decentralises the government and enhances learners’ autonomy, with more flexibility in accessing learning. Nonetheless, if adequate laws and support mechanisms are absent, decentralisation in online education may intensify disparities (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).

The Online Education Landscape in Malaysia

In Malaysia, MOHE has been actively engaged in overseeing and fostering the development of online education (A Pilot Study on Online Education as an Option in Malaysia, 2024). Besides, MOHE plays a vital role in maintaining decentralisation by offering rules, accreditation, and financial assistance to guarantee fair access to online education. Government policies such as the Higher Education Blueprint 2015-2025 and the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 underscore the necessity of enhancing digital education activities.

Autonomy in Online Education: Institutional Independence

Decentralisation provides educational institutions with the authority to formulate their curricula, monitor resources, and use technology-driven learning platforms (Aithal & Kumar, 2019). Malaysia’s first open university, OUM, possesses considerable autonomy in developing online courses. This autonomy enables OUM to address adult learners’ various learning requirements, fostering lifelong learning possibilities (Chan, 2022). Increased institutional autonomy may result in inequities in resource allocation, causing inequalities in educational quality among education institutions.

Learner Independence

Online education offers learners greater autonomy over their learning speed, schedule, and surroundings. Wang et al. (2022) argue that giving adult learners more control over their education tends to be a good thing, especially since many are balancing work, family, and other commitments. However, not everyone gets the same level of independence in learning. Factors such as financial stability, comfort with technology, and access to digital tools can make a big difference (Li & Lalani, 2020). This highlights a bigger issue, which is educational equity.

Malaysia’s Strategy for Ensuring Equity

Malaysia has also been moving towards achieving greater equity in online education (Eden et al., 2024; Ibrahim et al., 2024). MOHE has suggested a Digital Education Strategy to enhance digital infrastructure and provide financial assistance to students belonging to disadvantaged communities. In addition, institutions like Open University Malaysia (OUM) have an important role to enable access to education through affordable learning at reasonable prices, mainly for working adults and rural residents.

Nevertheless, decentralised control of online learning also poses challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, it gives institutions such as OUM the freedom to innovate and customise programmes to suit diverse student requirements. Nevertheless, it also poses problems with regard to variation in access and quality of education across institutions.

In this context, the regulatory role of MOHE takes effect. One of the roles of the regulator is to make sure that decentralisation adds to, rather than reduces, equity. The challenge is to maintain this balance, ensuring that all students, regardless of their background, have access to quality education (Eden et al., 2024).

Theories of Decentralisation in Education

Typically, decentralisation is assumed to be an approach to improve the efficiency, responsiveness, and equity of education systems (Verma et al., 2024). Supporters of decentralisation opine that allowing local government to make decisions allows policies and practices to be more adapted to the needs of various communities and learners (Bano & Dyonisius, 2022; Sutherland, 2022).

Several theories are able to explain the advantages and disadvantages of decentralisation. One of the most well-known theories is the ‘Subsidiarity Principle’. According to this theory, decisions must be made at the local level of authority that can handle them (Gussen, 2019; Newton, 2020). In terms of the education field, local schools and education officials are in the best position to understand and address their students’ specific needs. The theory applies to large and diverse countries with educational issues that differ for each region (Newton, 2020).

Febriandiela et al. (2024), a critic of decentralisation, warns that decentralisation can actually create inequalities, particularly if local authorities do not have enough resources or capabilities to carry out effective education programmes. There are differences in infrastructure, funding, and digital skills across regions. This difference leads to unequal access to learning opportunities. This concern should not be overlooked in online education (Kameshwara et al., 2020). If there is no proper monitoring, decentralisation could only benefit some students while others are left behind.

Decentralisation and Educational Outcomes

Studies on the effects of decentralisation on learning outcomes have yielded varying results. Blazeski (2023) established that decentralised schools could be used as open learning centres, using local assets and engaging local stakeholders. Such a step could diversify the learning process and provide students with useful skills. In contrast, Kameshwara et al. (2023) studied decentralised school governance in India and observed a concerning relationship between local governance and poorer performance by students in maths and English. The observation reaches the conclusion that delegating the decision-making power to the local bodies alone does not necessarily lead to improved academic performance.

There are some decentralised education systems within countries such as Finland (Lavonen, 2017) and Canada (Waddington, 2018), which consistently excel above others, being centralised in international examinations, for example, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This outcome indicates that decentralisation, when effective, has the potential to produce good school results.

Risks persist, particularly when local government does not have the funds to ensure good quality education. Decentralisation in a study by King and Ozler (1988) in Nicaragua was observed to result in higher unequal levels of student performance, where richer districts experienced far more improvement compared to poorer districts. This trend may still be observed today. Decentralisation has the potential to lead to financial mismanagement (Nasrullah et al., 2021), unequal quality of education (Verma et al., 2024), and administrative inefficiencies (Nasrullah et al., 2021). In short, decentralisation is full of promise, but only if local governments possess the resources, trained staff, and facilities to manage education programs efficiently. Otherwise, it can prove to widen existing gaps.

Decentralisation in Online and Distance Learning

The emergence of distance and online education has also introduced fresh possibilities and challenges along with decentralised education governance. In contrast to traditional institutions, online education reaches students in extremely wide geographic regions and is thus more difficult to administer from a central location (Farmer, 2019; Bandara et al., 2021). In turn, most online education providers have shifted to decentralised management systems in which local learning centres assume administrative tasks, offer student services, and monitor local engagement (Salman, 2022).

Studies related to decentralisation in online learning identify a number of major benefits. The most important of these is that resources can be allocated and utilised more flexibly (Verma et al., 2024). Local learning centres, for example, can adapt online resources to meet their own students’ needs, making the content relevant and available to different groups of students (Harianto, 2022). This kind of flexibility is particularly critical in distance education, where students are often from different backgrounds and education needs differ.

Decentralised education management also possesses one other major benefit. Decentralisation can ensure greater regional participation on the part of students (Salman, 2022). With the ability of regional learning centres to manage extracurricular, support services, and even virtual social interactions, decentralisation brings forth a sense of more personal and community-oriented learning. Crawford and McKenzie (2022) observed how these frameworks contribute, especially to students who might be undergoing challenges with the separation and self-devotion tendencies usually associated with distance learning.

Nevertheless, decentralisation comes with its own issues (Yingju, 2022). The largest of these is the unequal distribution of resources across regions. One region could have superior technology, more funding, and superior teachers, providing students in that region with superior learning experiences (Kameshwara et al., 2020). Students in less-funded regions, however, could be offered inferior technology, fewer study materials, and less support. Such inequality may lead to huge differences in educational results, undermining the purpose of decentralisation.

Decentralisation and Equity in Education

One of the greatest controversies surrounding decentralisation is whether it impacts education inequality. Although it gives control to local administrations, it tends to promote equality since they have the ability to observe and provide solutions to individualised problems specific to their settings (Bano & Dyonisius, 2022). For example, where poverty is widespread or where there is more than one language spoken, local education authorities can structure programmes that are culturally more appropriate and responsive to the particular needs of each student.

Other scholars, including Brosio (2019) and Bida (2021), contend that it could actually worsen or even deepen the inequalities, particularly in less privileged areas. The biggest issue with online learning is likely the digital divide. Njeri and Taym (2024) observed how this phenomenon presents serious challenges for students in disadvantaged communities. In a decentralised system, these disparities stand out even more, as regional governments bear the responsibility of IT infrastructure and digital support.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a mixed-methods strategy to evaluate how decentralised management affects the achievement of online learning. The major data were collected through the completion of questionnaires by learners from different learning centres in different locations. These answered questions gave feedback regarding their experience, including the accessibility of resources, satisfaction with the learning platform, and their perception of social bonding in the learning environment. By combining quantitative measures and qualitative results, the research sought to gain knowledge on how students interact with the online learning system.

Research Design

The main method of data collection used in this research was a structured questionnaire among students who were undergoing online studies in various learning centres. The questionnaire was created to ascertain their perception and overall satisfaction in the most important areas, such as access to additional learning materials, including e-lessons, forums, quizzes, and others. The following aspects were also gauged in the questionnaire:

– Ease of use and overall satisfaction with the learning platform. Social integration level at their different learning institutions.

– The influence of reconciling professional obligations with scholarly commitments.

Due to the decentralisation of the online learning system, it was important to undertake a regional analysis of the results. It offered a ground on which varied governance systems influenced students’ experience of learning in different locations.

Sample and Data Collection

The questionnaire was answered by students from several study centres in Kuala Lumpur, Johor, Selangor, Sabah, and Sarawak. For the purpose of meaningful comparison on a geographical basis, the sample was stratified geographically.

A total of 397 responses were gathered, with the participants filling out demographic information and providing in-depth feedback on their online learning experience. Responses were gathered using a five-point Likert scale where 1 was high dissatisfaction, and 5 was high satisfaction.

Survey Instrument

The questionnaire had closed and open-ended questions to understand the experience of the learners. The closed-ended questions gave measurable data in the following areas:

1. Availability of Resources: The students graded their access to additional learning resources like quizzes, self-practice material, forums, and supplementary readings on a scale of 1 to 5.
2. Satisfaction with the Platform: The students assessed the functionality and usability of the platform, considering factors like ease of access, load time, responsiveness, and compatibility with mobile devices.
3. Social Integration: Students self-evaluated their participation in clubs, groups, and extracurricular activities at school and with students and teachers through the online platform.

Open-ended questions invited students to provide detailed responses regarding any difficulties encountered in making resources available to them and in addition their view of the strengths and weaknesses of the platform.

Data Analysis

The statistics were analysed through a mix of descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics, such as mean scores and response frequencies, were employed to summarise learner satisfaction by region. The regional comparisons were drawn in three areas:

1. Availability of Resources: Average availability scores for additional learning resources were computed for each site, and differences in resource allocation were reported.
2. Platform Satisfaction: Average satisfaction ratings on the platform usability were gauged, enabling comparison of experience from diverse learning centres.
3. Social Integration: Mean scores and frequency distributions were applied to quantify student participation in their learning community to determine interaction patterns.

In the form of additional investigation, the high-satisfaction groups were compared against the low-satisfaction groups in all categories. Applying this method allowed the impact which decentralised government has on resource distribution and on the learning platform’s effectiveness to be explained.

Ethical Considerations

They were informed about the aim of the study and assured that their answers would be kept confidential. They were allowed to participate on a completely voluntary basis and withdraw at any point. In a bid to maintain anonymity, identifying information was removed prior to beginning the analysis process.

FINDINGS

From data collected from learners from various locations and institutions, some observations have been made on the basis of efficacy in decentralisation through online learning. From the findings of the survey, the impact of geographical diversity is revealed in resource accessibility, learner satisfaction, and integration level in virtual learning environments.

Regional Comparison of Resource Availability

The survey points towards the existence of regional variation among students in having access to learning materials outside classroom lectures, including quizzes, self-practice problems, forums, e-lessons, and extra readings. The students were requested to rate the availability as 1 to 5, where 5 indicates facilities were easily accessible.

Students of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur enjoyed the highest number of claims for accessibility of resources, the majority of which were reported at level 5. The students of Sarawak and Sabah recorded lower levels of accessibility, which tended to mark their availability at levels 3 or 4. Decentralised governance is thus inferred to lead to differences in allocations of resources. The allocations depend on local-level infrastructures as well as on policy decisions at the institutional levels.

These arguments point to the difficulty in decentralised education systems: making learning resources accessible to all students wherever they are. Urban locations will probably have access to improved resource allocation, but rural or disadvantaged students can be disadvantaged when accessing the help they need to do well academically.

Platform Effectiveness and Learner Engagement

Learners were asked to rate the effectiveness of the online learning platforms used at their universities. Responses showed overall satisfaction with the platforms, but geographical differences emerged again. Most respondents in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor rated the platform’s effectiveness as 5, indicating that the system supported their learning effectively.

Learners in Sabah and Sarawak gave ratings of 3 or 4, suggesting differences in platform performance. These differences could be due to differences in regional decision-making and resource allocation within the decentralised system.

Learning centres in peripheral locations may be functioning with inadequate IT infrastructure or experiencing delays in platform upgrades and maintenance, thus detrimentally affecting the learner experience.

Social Integration in Decentralised Systems

A crucial element of the learner experience is social integration, evaluated by soliciting learners’ ratings of their participation in clubs, groups, and social activities at their educational institutions. The data indicates that students across all areas reported elevated levels of social integration, with the majority of respondents awarding ratings of 4 or 5. This discovery shows that decentralised management has not adversely affected students’ ability to socialise with other students, even though there are differences between regions in other dimensions of the provision of education.

Students in Sabah and Sarawak also had a lower level of social integration than students in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Although the contrast is not as obvious as it is with resources available or the efficiency of platforms, it nonetheless indicates that students from these areas perhaps need to be provided with some special assistance to establish stronger social connections in the decentralised environment.

The Impact of Work on Academic Progress

One of the surprising results of the survey is the attitude of working students towards their academic progress in a decentralised education system. In different places, the majority of working students indicated that their work commitments had no or minimal negative effects on their studies, with the majority giving a score of 4 or 5 on the scale.

This evidence indicates that decentralisation has not been a substantial deterrent to working students’ ability to balance their study obligations. However, if the figures are broken down by area, students in Kuala Lumpur were more pleased with having managed to balance study and work compared to rural areas. This outcome may be due to the more ample services available in the urban setting, which can more effectively assist students in regulating their time and study level.

Challenges and Opportunities of Decentralised Governance

The conclusions of this research identify the problems and opportunities related to decentralised management of online learning. Learners in more centralised regions, such as Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, are more resourced, having effective online learning platforms and more robust support structures to help them cope with managing work and education. Students in decentralised locations, such as Sabah and Sarawak, however, are faced with some issues, primarily in the aspect of the availability of resources and efficiency of the platform. Nonetheless, they were not faced with major problems regarding social integration and work-study balance.

These differences are a call for targeted policy to ensure that all students, wherever they are located, have the same access to good-quality learning resources and assistance. Decentralised management itself offers flexibility and enables localised decision-making, but this must be accompanied by strategic action to close regional gaps and advance balanced learning chances.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide pertinent lessons in decentralised governance that affect online learning. Through the analysis of students’ feedback from the various regions, the study illustrates how decentralisation can produce noteworthy differences regarding resource utilisation, platform support, and the overall engagement of students.

On the one hand, decentralisation facilitates localised decision-making, and institutions can thus adapt their method to suit unique needs. Decentralisation is not without its challenges, though, the most critical being that resources should be shared equitably and all learners everywhere have a uniform and quality learning experience.

Key Findings

Among the strongest implications is the imbalance of resources offered in regions. Students in modern areas such as Kuala Lumpur and Selangor expressed greater satisfaction with additional learning resources, whereas rural students from Sabah and Sarawak encountered more difficulties. The discovery highlights the challenges posed by decentralised education. The challenge lies in giving every student, wherever they are, access to equal resources and tools to enable learning.

Similarly was the experience of platform satisfaction. Urban students, whose facilities are equipped with better IT infrastructure and support services, found online platforms more useful and efficient. Rural students’ ratings were lower, meaning that differences in the implementation and maintenance of online platforms between regions can have a direct effect on learning.

Regardless of all these variations, the study confirmed that there was significant social integration in all settings. Regardless of whether the students were based in city or rural settings, they were active in clubs, groups, and social affairs. This finding indicates that decentralised management has not constrained learners’ capacity to form relationships with other learners or access the wider study community. Decentralised system institutions can even develop a high sense of belongingness among learners.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The study’s findings offer implications for educational policymakers and leaders. Decentralisation helps localised governance. Nevertheless, it is crucial to implement systems that ensure fair resource allocation in various areas.

Similar to their counterparts in developed areas, policymakers should consider establishing centralised oversight or support mechanisms to guarantee that students in remote or underdeveloped regions obtain equal resources and platform support.

Moreover, to improve platform satisfaction and the overall learner experience, investment in IT infrastructure and support services in decentralised areas is essential. The efficacy of decentralised online education models would be essential for guaranteeing learners access to superior, adaptive online platforms regardless of their geographical location.

Recommendations for Future Research

In this study, an overview of the present condition of decentralised governance in online education is offered. Nevertheless, further studies should investigate long-term trends and effects. Future studies must focus on exploring targeted interventions to improve resource distribution and platform assistance in decentralised systems. A thorough examination of the influence of decentralised governance on faculty-learner relations and academic achievement would offer additional knowledge of its effects on educational outcomes.

The studies will explore some critical aspects to enhance the comprehension of decentralized governance in online education as such:

Mental Health and Social Well-being:

Future research should explicitly examine the psychological effects and social well-being of students who juggle employment and study in decentralized online learning environments. Examining the accessibility, utilization, and efficacy of mental health support services may yield significant insights (Wang et al., 2022).

Detailed Demographic Analysis:

Analysis should be conducted, concentrating on diverse groups (e.g., older students, gender disparities, students with familial obligations) to ascertain varying consequences. This focused strategy would guide policies that more efficiently cater to the varied demands of learners (Li & Lalani, 2020; Eden et al., 2024).

Job Types and Academic Performance:

Research is required to ascertain particular job arrangements that beneficially impact academic performance. Future research could classify and examine job kinds and their correlations with academic achievement, with special emphasis on work schedule flexibility and remote work opportunities (Chan et al., 2022).

Case Studies and Practical Examples:

Integrating qualitative research methodologies, such as case studies or narratives from successful students adept at balancing their multiple roles, could provide practical illustrations and motivate other learners. This method will demonstrate effective techniques and optimal practices relevant to wider student demographics.

These proposals seek to improve comprehension and offer practical direction for optimizing decentralized governance and support systems in online education.

Conclusively, decentralisation in educational administration offers several advantages. Nevertheless, decentralisation needs detailed supervision to guarantee that all students benefit equally from its opportunities. By addressing the challenges discussed in this study, educational institutions may provide learners with a more efficient and decentralised online learning environment.

REFERENCES

1. (MOHE), K. P. (2022). Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi (KPT) 2022. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi.
2. ‌A Pilot Study on Online Education as an Option in Malaysia. (2024). International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society. https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2024.6.2.1
3. Adeleye, O., Eden, & Idowu, N. (2024). Educational technology and the digital divide: A conceptual framework for technical literacy inclusion. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 12(1), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.12.1.0405
4. Aleksandar Blaseski. (2023). Тhe positive implications of the decentralisation process on primary education management. CRJ, 1, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.59380/crj.v1i1.2749
5. ‌Bandara, I., Balakrishna, C., & Ioras, F. (2021). The Need For Cyber Treat Intelligence for Distance Learning Providers and Online Learning. INTED2021 Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2021.1947
6. Bano, M., & Dyonisius, D. (2022). Community-Responsive Education Policies and the Question of Optimality: Decentralisation and District-Level Variation in Policy Adoption and Implementation in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.35489/bsg-rise-wp_2022/108
7. Benjamen Gussen. (2019). The Principle of Subsidiarity. Springer EBooks, 199–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6950-6_7
8. ‌Bida, O. (2021). Kebijakan Desentralisasi dan Disparitas Pendidikan Lokal di Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara ASIAN (Asosiasi Ilmuwan Administrasi Negara), 9(1), 228–248. https://doi.org/10.47828/jianaasian.v9i1.59
9. ‌Cahyaditama, A. (2022). Decentralization By Local Governments In The Face Of The Covid-19 Pandemic. Jurnal Terapan Pemerintahan Minangkabau, 2(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.33701/jtpm.v2i1.2346
10. Chan Ie Lyn, J., Suppiah, S., & Chan, L. (2022). The post-pandemic challenge: reimagining private higher education in Malaysia. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 59-62.
11. ‌Crawford, N., & McKenzie, L. (2022). Localised learning: mobilising belonging among mature-aged students in low socio-economic status regional and remote areas. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00877-x
12. Eden, Chisom, N., & Idowu, N. (2024). Promoting Digital Literacy and Social Equity in Education: Lessons from Successful Initiatives. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(3), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i3.880
13. W. H. Briault. (1976). A distributed system of educational administration: An international viewpoint. International Review of Education, 22(4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00598814
14. ‌Farmer, L. S. J. (2019). Globalization and Localization in Online Settings. Care and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Online Settings, 168–191. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7802-4.ch009
15. Fifi Febriandiela, Aldri Frinaldi, & Lince Magriasti. (2024). Critical Analysis of Decentralization Theory in the Context of Local Government: A Literature Review. Adabi, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.62066/jpab.v11i1.13
16. Gao, H., Lee, M., Yu, G., & Zhou, Z. (2022). A Graph Neural Network Based Decentralized Learning Scheme. Sensors, 22(3), 1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22031030
17. Halil, A. (2024). Decentralization and its impact on improving public services. International Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijss.v7n2.2278
18. Harianto, W. (2022). Underlying Interests of Enactment Regional Autonomy. PENA LAW: International Journal of Law, 1(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.56107/penalaw.v1i2.42
19. ‌Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2020). The problem with flexible learning: neoliberalism, freedom, and learner subjectivities. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1833920
20. ‌Matondang Elsa Siburian. (2023). The impact of education on inequality in a decentralized Indonesia. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2023.2229653
21. Muir, T., Milthorpe, N., Stone, C., Dyment, J., Freeman, E., & Hopwood, B. (2019). Chronicling engagement: students’ experience of online learning over time. Distance Education, 40(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1600367
22. Mwangi Njeri, & Taym, A. (2024). Analysing the power of socioeconomic status on access to technology-enhanced learning in secondary schools. Deleted Journal, 2(4), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.62583/rseltl.v2i4.55
23. Nasrullah, Amin, R. U., & Soomro, K. A. (2021). Decentralization of Education: The Affective Role of Fiscal Decentralization in Pakistani Education System(s). FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.51709/19951272/spring2021/15-4
24. Newton, N. (2020). The rationale for subsidiarity as a principle applied within curriculum reform and its unintended consequences. The Curriculum Journal, 31(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.37
25. Kameshwara, K. K., Sandoval-Hernandez, A., Shields, R., & Dhanda, K. R. (2020). A false promise? Decentralization in education systems across the globe. International Journal of Educational Research, 104, 101669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101669
26. Kalyan Kumar Kameshwara, Shields, R., & Sandoval-Hernandez, A. (2023). Decentralisation in School Management and Student Achievement: Evidence from India. Journal of Development Studies, 60(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2023.2273800
27. King, E. M., & Ozler, B. (1988). What’s Decentralised Got To Do With Learning? Endogenous School Quality and Student Performance in Nicaragua Autonomy Reform. Development Research Group Working Paper, World.
28. Lavonen , J. (2017). Governance decentralisation in education: Finnish innovation in education. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 53(53). https://doi.org/10.6018/red/53/1
29. Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020, Apr 29). World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/
30. Patrick Zingisa Msekelwa. (2023). Beyond The Borders Global Collaboration in Open Distance Education through Virtual Exchanges. Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN 2959-6386 (Online), 2(2). https://doi.org/10.60087/jklst.vol2.n2.p12
31. ‌Priatna, A. (2019). Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah (Orientasi Baru Pengembangan Mutu Pendidikan Dasar di Era Otonomi. Didaktik : Jurnal Ilmiah PGSD STKIP Subang, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.36989/didaktik.v1i1.3
32. P.S. Aithal, & Suresh, M. (2019). Autonomy in Higher Education – Towards an Accountability Management Model. 6(10), 166–175.
33. Salman, A. K. (2022). Governance Reform and Implementation of Right to Education (RTE) Act. Routledge EBooks, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429285523-11
34. Sutherland, D. H. (2022). “Tell them local control is important”: A case study of democratic, community-centered school boards. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.7439
35. Ujjal Marjit, & Kumar, P. (2020). Towards a Decentralized and Distributed Framework for Open Educational Resources based on IPFS and Blockchain. 2020 International Conference on Computer Science, Engineering and Applications (ICCSEA). https://doi.org/10.1109/iccsea49143.2020.9132841
36. Verma, P., Ratnani, D. M., Verma, S., & Sandhya Avasthi. (2024). Decentralised System in Education and Research. 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394205127.ch2
37. ‌Waddington, D. (2018). Challenges of Canada’s Decentralized Education System [Review of Challenges of Canada’s Decentralized Education System]. The College Quarterly, 21(2).
38. Wang, Y., Cao, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Z., Li, N., & Ai, L. (2022). Interaction and learning engagement in online learning: The mediating roles of online learning self-efficacy and academic emotions. Learning and Individual Differences.
39. Zastrozhnikova, I., & Сheremisina, T. (2022). Decentralisation of Education Systems in Ukraine. Scientific Papers of Berdiansk State Pedagogical University Series Pedagogical Sciences, 1(2), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.31494/2412-9208-2022-1-2-133-138
40. ‌‌Zakaria Ibhrahim, Anual Norazlan, Karim, A., Mohd, & Zamri Muhammad Nasrullah. (2024). The evolution, challenges and prospects of implementing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in Malaysian public universities. International Journal on E-Learning and Higher Education, 19(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.24191/ijelhe.v19n1.1914
41. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? Int J Educ Technol High Educ.
42. ‌Zhao Yingju. (2022). The Decentralized Structure of the Digital Cultural Network Affects the Research on Education Informatization. 2022 International Conference on Edge Computing and Applications (ICECAA), 2, 359–362. https://doi.org/10.1109/icecaa55415.2022.9936167