CABRI DIALOGUE on Value for
Money in Education Financing
A Ghana Case-study of Decentralisation
and Institutional Reforms for Basic
Education
(i) What is the model of decentralisation in the education sector
and how well does it support technical and allocative efficiencies
in achieving education objectives?
(ii) What changes in financial management systems and
education management are necessary for a successful
performance orientation? And
(iii) What can other countries learn from the Ghanaian case and
what are the differences in context which need to be
accommodated?
Outline
• Context of institutional reforms
– Profile of Ghana’s Basic Education
– Ghana’s Decentralisation Model and Strategies
• Model of decentralisation in the Education Sector
– Impact on Education Outputs
– Financing, Budget Predictability and Accountability
– Monitoring and Evaluation – FMIS and EMIS
– Challenges in implementation in sector
• Closing remarks
2
Context of institutional reforms
Profile of Basic Education in Ghana today
• Ghana is in the forefront of basic education reform in Africa.
• Allocates 24 % of total public expenditures on education – 3rd
highest on the continent and double the average for SSA
• Strong shift in governance down to districts and schools.
• Rate of primary aged children out of school dropping by 10% (2006
-2009) and children increasingly complete the primary cycle – 87%
in 2009 (an increase of 15% on 2006)
• Similar increases in JSS enrolment (now 80%), especially among
girls
• But mixed education outcomes at basic and junior secondary levels
• Less than a third of primary school children reach proficiency levels
in English or in Mathematics - NEA tests of 2005, 2007, 2009 and
2011
3
Ghana’s Decentralisation Model
Decentralisation has the potential to improve efficiency in mobilising scarce national
resources ,meet local needs, greater accountability and good governance
Intergovernmental Fiscal
Decentralisation Framework
(2008) – structures and
funding
All local development and
governance thru the
metropolitan, municipal
and district assemblies
(MMDAs)
The district oversight
committee sits and plans
district education
programmes.
Services are transferred from the centre to local
governments that raise their own revenues and
have the authority to make investment decisions.
Abolition of sector departments at district level.
Income - 7% of total central government revenues +
locally levied taxes – paid by MoFEP. Covers salaries
and DACP – district development fund.
Provide and maintain school buildings, supply of
furniture, stationaries, bursaries and school feeding
programmes. MMDA can issue penalties to compel
parents to send their children to school.
4
Challenges to Current Ghana
Decentralisation Model
Incomplete implementation: funding, accountability and
authority
•
•
•
•
Disputes about local government boundary demarcations;
Are MMDAs economically viable? Poor funding flows.
Uncertainties about the role of traditional rulers.
Many administrative procedures have not yet been revised to
reflect the needs of fiscal decentralization.
• Funds continue to be retained at the centre when functions have
been devolved to the local level.
• Some sectors using “decentralised departments” - the responsibility
for hiring, transferring, payroll and staffing rests with these central
government ministries although MMDA remain responsible for staff
evaluation and discipline.
5
Decentralisation Model for
Education
•
‘improve planning and management in the delivery of education by devolving
resource management and decision-making to regions, districts and institutions,
while retaining central responsibility for establishing norms, guidelines and system
accountability”. Education Sector Plan 2010 reflects Education Act 2008
Centrally driven deconcentrated
administrative system
Districts to be the main loci of implementation
of centrally driven policies and strategies but
not subject to their control.
6 tiers of responsibility
for the management of
schools
The school, circuit, district, regional, national
GES level (implementation) and Ministry level
(policy, norms and standards).
School level
management structures
SMC and BOG and Parent Associations are
responsible for producing SPIPs and SPAMS.
Designed to reflect community priorities.
6
Impact of “Devolution” on
Education Outputs
• Implementation from 2008 onwards of Education Act has
seen concurrent overall improvements in the system.
• Improved efficiencies in providing greater access to basic
education – 18% increase in enrolment in primary with the
abolition of fees. Girls enrolment increased significantly
• Competencies and proficiency in NEA test scores in
mathematics and English increase steadily from 2007
onwards.
• Deterioration in allocative resource expenditure as quality of
basic education is perceived as weakening – 22% in
enrolment in private schools at basic level. 19% at secondary
7
Financing, Budget Flows and
Accountability in Basic Education
Multiple funding
sources
Districts not cost
centres
Capitation Grant
Budget Flows
Promotes flexibility, higher
sustainability but weakens
predictability and accountability
No control over teacher payments,
allocations and transfers. Enormous
variation in teacher pupil ratios – deepens
inequity among districts and rural/urban
Increased school autonomy, community
ownership of schools and better financial
management of school resources.
Disbursements of grants delayed by 4
months and incomplete transfers in 2012
8
Monitoring and Evaluation
• Intro of GIFMIS will allow sector ministries, for the first time, to assess
expenditure activities against their budgets on a monthly basis
• GIFMIS “clumsy and cumbersome” – 7 templates for capturing the same
data; items at sub-sub level useful for district financial management.
• Dependent on e-connection – unstable and does not cover all districts
• GIFMIS and general budget system running parallel – confusion on codes
• GES pilots own district expenditure system in “deprived districts” in 2014
• GES own resource allocation model for non-salary expenditures at the
district level. This data dependent model relies on EMIS, poverty and
national census statistics but data is only available for 134 of the 212
districts because of new demarcations and divisions of districts
• EMIS “ too aggregated and not timely” –data seldom feedback in real time.
But increasing improvements – Performance Assessment Framework and
MDBS targets, Sector Reviews – data driven.
9
Challenges with implementation
in sector
• Gap between the planned and executed payroll has widened from about
10 per cent to over 35 per cent in last years.
• School heads tend to over-estimate the enrolment in their schools – 515%. The incentive is to obtain higher grant allocations
• Many communities are ill equipped to fully participate in the SPIP
process and hold schools accountable for their performance
• Poorly trained school heads challenged by ad hoc funding flows
• Planned reduction of non-productive staff in District and Regional
Offices – a 60 per cent target is expected. Implications for management?
• Currently, as a result of the underfunding of basic schools, about 7,900
under trees or sheds; 800,000 school children are out of school.
Additionally the existing 8,557 Junior High Schools cannot absorb the
primary six pupils from 14,360 primary schools.
• North South inequities are perceived to be growing despite efforts.
10
Closing remarks
• Premature to link the form of decentralisation with basic education
performance improvements but both have deepened their
efficiencies in terms of local level capacity – schools and districts;
and per capita expenditure and improvements in education test
scores have moved co-jointly upwards. Questions remain is it
sufficient value for money?
• Applicability to other countries?
– Good lessons learnt from the new financial management systems and the
capacity building training – finance and administration for local level. GES
budget office has driven interesting innovation in this.
– Increasing demand for data driven performance evaluation and
disaggregated data for improved operations at local level.
– Dependency on effective communication, ICTs and predicable funding
flows.
– Investment in human resource capacity and system procedures essential
11
Questions for Group Work
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What value does the education sector obtain from its current hybrid form of
deconcentration and devolution? Would it be more effective to follow a deeper
decentralised model?
Would you advise the Ministry of Education to rapidly decentralise its functions to
the management of District Assemblies? What if any are the implications for
schools?
What would you suggest are the requirements to ensure greater technical and
allocative efficiencies in achieving education objectives at the district level?
What are your conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of decentralised
governance? What recommendations would you make to ensure greater value for
money?
How could Ghana improve learning outcomes without substantially increasing its
budget allocations to education?
What evidence did you gain from the Ghanaian case study on the value of
information management systems? What recommendations would you make to
strengthen this?
What can other countries learn from the Ghanaian case and what are the
differences in context which need to be accommodated?
12
Thank You
Angela Arnott
Policy Analyst
ADEA Working Group on Education Management and Policy
Support
Email: [email protected]
13