The control of federal systems with additional strong local self-government is complicated. That is on purpose. Concentration of power should be avoided. On-site decisions are usually more relevant. In any form of cooperation, this leads to slow and complicated coordination mechanisms. The participation of many is thus assured. The results of political action are different for each decisive level, unless common results are achieved through negotiation. These differences are intentionally brought about by the decision-makers, and are increasingly less accepted by the affected citizens in many political areas. The solutions are very different, but hardly anyone is satisfied with the current situation.
In normal cases, such lengthy decision-making processes are even desirable. In crises they prove to be a hindrance. In times of crisis, management is not about centralized or decentralized issues, but about clear political leadership. In a crisis, it must meet the following criteria: fast, simple, binding and, if possible, the same in the case of the same facts. This requires different procedures: bundling different departments in crisis teams, enforcement of decisions made across levels, different rules on procedures (procurement law, etc.)
In the case of the corona pandemic, many decision-making paths have been changed, especially in the health sector.
Whether it is enough or effective is not the subject of this lecture.
In the education sector, however, this was essentially not the case.
All those responsible in the education sector retained their responsibilities and procedural channels even during the crisis.
There were only new ways of financing (catch-up program, laptops for students and teachers, air filters).
Departmental boundaries and professional brotherhoods
For the future, in the event of similar crises, the cultural area should either bring the (external) decisions to the cross-departmental crisis teams or be able to make its own, faster and more binding decisions.
Crises also need different procedures in the education sector.
The debate about the political control of all systems is mainly about the vertical distribution of responsibilities. Federation or states or federal and states together. Other problems of political control, on the other hand, are underestimated or ignored: In view of cross-departmental problems with a cross-sectional character, the departmental principle in the federal and state governments makes it difficult to work properly together. Political demarcations by coalition partners make things even more difficult. This applies within a country and even more so in the federal-state relationship. Here the vertically well-organized professional brotherhoods work together at the expense of other political fields.
The division of ministries in governments for children and young people is based on institutions, not on life situations.
This has long been different for the environment, economy, safety, health, etc.
In most federal states, responsibilities for childcare, child and youth work, school and university are separated according to institutions.