The Ethiopian government has pursued decentralization policy by shiftingrnauthority and responsibility to regions. Since 1992, significant changes havernbeen made in the area of provision of educational services, and thernmanagement of the education system whose foundation was based on thernproclamation issued and the new education and training policy promulgated.rnThe decentralization reform seeks to improve the access, equity, quality andrnefficiency of education. The decentralization process that has been chosen asrnan approach to address educational problems was a new phenomena, and arnseries of factors can compl icate its implementation. Thus, the objectives of thernstudy were, to assess how decentralization was working and the extent tornwhich the administrative levels effectively played their roles in implementing thernpolicy of decentralization. Furthermore, assessing changes that took place,rnfavorable conditions and constraints in the implementation were also the focusrnof the study. Therefore, the study seeks to contribute valuable informationrnrelated to educational management problems, which is hoped to encourage thernconducting of detail process evaluation.rnThe study has made a brief review of the related literature and experiences ofrnsome countries. Using a descriptive survey method, data are drawn from focusrngroup meetings, key informant interviews, data gathering questionnaire andrndirect observations and transcribed and analyzed.rnThe report focused on how objectives/ purposes of decentralization filteredrndown the educational administrative levels, the extent to which keyrnmanagement functions were maintained at the intermediate levels, authorityrnand decision making were shared in key areas and creating an environment forrnreform and changes to take place under the decentralization process.rnThe data indicated that the objectives and purposes of decentralization werernpoorly articulated and differences in opinions existed between decision-makersrnand implementers. Regarding transfer of power to intermediate levels to underrntake the management functions, it was not to the expected level. The findingsshowed that high influence of upper authority in planning functions over thernlower administrative levels was observed and the central ministry looselyrncontrolled compliance with standards. On the other hand, the degree to whichrndecision making authority was pushed down to the lower administrative levelsrnwas found to be medium and it was observed that authority was shared amongrneach level to some extent. However, the data also revealed powerrnconcentration at regional level. The enabling environment so far practiced inrnthe area of policy issues and interventions was found to be fair. The datarnobtained also showed the local capacity of REB and ZED to be fair while it wasrnpoor for WEO.There were also efforts made to delineate responsibilities and authorities atrneach level by the REB. However, the leadership and management competencernto create momentum for innovation and facilitate implementation ofrndecentralized management was found to be low. Although the results ofrndecentralization take a long time to notice and it would be premature torninterpret the findings as a full impact they, however, signaled the direction ofrnthe changes. Thus, the changes in school environment were reported as a mixrnof poor, promising and modest impacts for different educational objectives.rnTherefore, it is suggested that building consensus around the objectives ofrndecentralization, restructuring of the organizational settings, developingrnstrategies to promote greater school autonomy and capacity building at allrnlevels are indispensable for the effective implementation and sustainability ofrnthe decentralization efforts.