republic of ghana ministry of education...education sector performance report, 2009 ministry of...

REPUBLIC OF GHANA

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

EDUCATION SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT

2009

Education Sector Performance Report, 2009

Ministry of Education 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background to the ESAR ............................................................ 5

1.1.1 The link between ESAR and ESP ............................................ 5 1.1.2 Purpose of the ESAR ................................................................. 5 1.1.3 The ESAR process ..................................................................... 5

1.2 Summary of findings of recent ESARs ..................................... 5 1.3 The 2009 Education Sector Performance Report .................... 6

1.3.1 Sources of information for the 2009 ESPR .............................. 6 1.3.2 The ESAR and the rolled forward ESP .................................... 7

2 Access to Education .............................................................................. 8 2.1 Overview of key Isues .................................................................... 8 2.2 Kindergarten .................................................................................... 8 2.3 Primary ............................................................................................... 9 2.4 Junior High .................................................................................... 10 2.5 Senior High ..................................................................................... 11 2.6 Technical and Vocation Education [incomplete] .................. 12 2.7 Tertiary Education ....................................................................... 15 2.8 Special Education ......................................................................... 16 2.9 Non Formal Education ................................................................. 18 2.10 Colleges of Education ................................................................. 20 2.11 Deprived Districts and Gender Issues ................................... 20

2.11.1 Kindergarten ............................................................................ 20 2.11.2 Primary ..................................................................................... 21 2.11.3 Junior High ............................................................................... 22

3.1 Examinations ................................................................................. 24 3.1.1 Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) ......... 24 3.1.2 West Africa Senior Secondary Certificate Examination

(WASSCE .............................................................................................. 26 3.2 National Education Assessment (NEA) .................................... 28 3.3 Pupil Teacher Ratio ...................................................................... 29

3.3.1 Kindergarten Pupil Teacher Ratio ..................................... 29 3.3.2 Primary Pupil Teacher Ratio ..................................................... 30 3.3.3 JHS Pupil Teacher Ratio ........................................................... 31

3.4 Teachers ............................................................................................ 31 3.4.1 INSET in the Ghana Education Service ................................ 32 3.4.3 Teaching and learning materials ............................................... 36

3.5 Information Communication Technology (ICT) ............................... 36 3.5.1 ICT infrastructure ...................................................................... 36 3.5.2 ICT Skills and Competencies ..................................................... 37 3.5.3 Recommendations ...................................................................... 37

4 Infrastructure and Sanitation .......................................................... 39 4.1 Water and Sanitation ................................................................... 39

4.1.1 Toilets ......................................................................................... 39 4.1.2 Potable Water ............................................................................. 39

4.2 Classrooms ........................................................................................ 41 5 Efficiency.................................................................................................. 43

5.1 Teacher Deployment ......................................................................... 43 5.1.1 Efficiency in teacher deployment ............................................... 43



5.1.2 School size ............................................................................... 47 5.1.3 How to improve efficiency in teacher deployment ................. 47

5.2 Over staffing...................................................................................... 47 6 Management of Education ...................................................................... 50

6.1 Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................. 50 6.1.1 School Report Cards ................................................................ 50 6.1.2 M&E Unit at MoE ................................................................... 50

6.2 District Performance Reports (DPR) ................................................ 51 6.2.1 Students .................................................................................. 51 6.2.2 Teachers .................................................................................. 51 6.2.3 Administration ........................................................................ 51

6.3 Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) ................... 52 6.3.1 2008/09 Education Census ......................................................... 52 6.3.2 Quality of data ............................................................................ 52 6.3.3 Transparency .......................................................................... 52 6.3.4 Questionnaire revision ............................................................ 53

7.1 Current level of Education Sector Spending ................................. 53 7.2 Education Expenditure ...................................................................... 53

7.3 Sources and Allocations of Government Expenditure .................. 54 7.4 Unit Costs ....................................................................................... 74 7.5 Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) ............................... 82

7.5.1 Capitation Grant ................................................................. 82 7.5.2 Textbooks .............................................................................. 86

A APPENDIX 1: DATA AND STATISTICS .......................................... 88 EMIS data ................................................................................................ 88 Statistics .................................................................................................. 88

Gross Enrolment Ratio ..................................................................... 88 Net Enrolment Ratio ......................................................................... 88 Gross Admission Ratio ..................................................................... 89 Net Admission Ratio ............................................................................. 89 Completers Ratio ................................................................................... 89

B APPENDIX 2: COEFFICIENT OF EFFICIENCY ........................... 89 C APPENDIX 3: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................... 91



Table 1: ESP (2003-2015) indicators and targets ......................................... 8 Table 2: Number of Kindergarten Schools .................................................... 8 Table 3: Kindergarten enrolments................................................................. 8 Table 4: Number of Primary Schools ............................................................. 9 Table 5 Primary Enrolment ........................................................................... 9 Table 6: Number of Junior High Schools..................................................... 10 Table 7: Junior High School Enrolment ...................................................... 11 Table 8: Number of Senior High Schools ..................................................... 11 Table 9: Enrolment in Senior High School .................................................. 12 Table 10: Enrolment data for TVET institutions under the MoE .............. 12 Table 11: Enrolment at the Tertiary level (Public and Private) ................ 13 Table 12: Gender Disaggregated Tertiary Enrolment ................................ 15 Table 13: Tertiary Enrolment by Program[2007/2008] .............................. 15 Table 14: Types of Special Education Schools by Region ........................... 16 Table 15: Types and numbers of special schools and units ........................ 17 Table 16: Enrollment in Special Education by Gender .............................. 17 Table 17: Special Education enrolment by sex (2003/04 to 2008/2009) ..... 18 Table 18: Adult Literacy Rate ...................................................................... 18 Table 19: National Functional Literacy Programme .................................. 19 Table 20: Colleges of Education Enrolment ................................................ 20 Table 21: Statistics for KG in Deprived Districts, 2008/09 ........................ 21 Table 22: Statistics for Primary School in Deprived Districts, 2008/09 .... 21 Table 23: Statistics for JH School in Deprived Districts ............................ 22 Table 24: ВЕСЕ Pass Rates by Year ........................................................... 25 Table 25: WASSCE Pass Rates by Year ...................................................... 28 Table 26: Distribution of mean scores, minimum-competency and

proficiency, NEA 2007 .................................................................................. 28 Table 27: Pupil Teacher Ratio by year ........................................................ 29 Table 28: PTR by Deprivation Status .......................................................... 29 Table 29: KG PTR by region and year ......................................................... 30 Table 30: Primary PTR by region and year ................................................. 30 Table 31: JHS PTR by region and year ....................................................... 31 Table 32: KG teachers by gender and qualification .................................... 34 Table 33: Primary teachers by gender and qualification ............................ 34 Table 34: JHS teachers by gender and qualification .................................. 35 Table 35: Student Computer Ratio by Region ............................................. 37 Table 36: ICT Competencies ........................................................................ 37 Table 37: Children per Toilet ....................................................................... 39 Table 38: Access to Potable Water ............................................................... 39 Table 39: Access to Potable Water by Source .............................................. 40 Table 40: Access to Potable Water by Region, 2008/09 ............................... 40 Table 41: Access to Potable Water by Deprivation Status ......................... 41 Table 42: Classrooms Needing Major Repairs ............................................ 41 Table 43: Coefficients of efficiency, 2008/09 ................................................ 47 Table 44: Staffing ......................................................................................... 49 Table 45: International Comparative Analysis of Public Spending on



Education ...................................................................................................... 54 Table 46: Trends in education expenditure by source (1 ............................ 56 Table 47: Trends in education expenditure by source (2) ........................... 59 Table 48: Execution Rates by Source and Year .......................................... 62 Table 49: Trends in education expenditure by level ................................... 63 Table 501: Trend of national expenditure on education ............................. 66 Table 51 Allocations of Education Sector Funding in 2008 ........................ 67 Table 52: 2008 Expenditure by Level of Education (GHc).......................... 68 Table 53: Education Expenditure 2008 by Level and Source ..................... 69 Table 54: GOG Expenditures 2008 .............................................................. 70 Table 55: GoG Execution Rate 2008 ............................................................ 71 Table 56: Donor Funding 2008 by Source ................................................... 72 Table 57: Expenditure of Donor Funding by Level of Education, 2008 ..... 73 Table 5859: Other Expenditures by Source, 2008 ....................................... 74 Table 59: Other Sources of Expenditure by Level of Education, 2008 ....... 75 Table 60: Unit Costs, Basic cycle ................................................................. 77 Table 61: Unit Costs, Post Basic cycle ......................................................... 79

Figure 1: ВЕСЕ Mathematics Pass rates .................................................... 24 Figure 2: ВЕСЕ English Pass rates ............................................................. 24 Figure 3: WASSCE English Pass rates ....................................................... 26 Figure 4: WASSCE Mathematics Pass rates .............................................. 26 Figure 5: Percentage of Untrained Teachers by Grade and Year .............. 32 Figure 6: Percentage of Untrained Teachers by Gender and Year ............ 32 Figure 7: Pupil - Teacher in KG ................................................................... 43 Figure 8: Pupil - Teacher in Primary .......................................................... 45 Figure 9: Pupil - Teacher in JHS ................................................................. 46 Figure 10: Expenditure by Sources of funding ............................................ 62 Figure 11: 2008 Education Expenditure by Level ...................................... 63 Figure 12: Unit Costs by cycle ..................................................................... 81 Figure 13: Capitation Grant Funding Flow ................................................ 83 Figure 14: Capitation Grant: summary of findings .................................... 85 Figure 15: Textbooks fundig flow................................................................. 86 Figure 16: Textbook Procurement: summary of findings ........................... 87 Figure 17: Computer generated data .......................................................... 90



1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the ESAR

1.1.1 The link between ESAR and ESP

In May 2003 the Education Strategic Plan (ESP 2003-2015) was laid out in order to provide relevant education to all Ghanaians. The ESP defined the medium and longer term goals and targets of the education sector. One of the important features of the ESP 2003 - 2015 was the establishment of an Education Sector Annual Review (ESAR) that would provide an opportunity for education stakeholders to participate in an annual review of sector performance. In addition to being an important aspect of system monitoring, the ESAR was introduced as an efficient way of reporting - through the provision of a single participative review that would satisfy all stakeholders.

1.1.2 Purpose of the ESAR

The principal purpose of the 2009 ESAR is to review progress within the education sector towards the targets defined in the ESP 2003 - 2015. The ESAR also provides a forum that enables proposals for adjustments to the ESP and sector activities to be made as and when changes of circumstances dictate.

1.1.3 The ESAR process

Each year in May or June the Ministry of Education (MOE) prepares a preliminary report of education performance: the Preliminary Education Sector Performance Report (PESPR). The PESPR provides the basis for the appraisal of performance within the education sector and serves as a point of reference for all issues concerning education service delivery. It is circulated to representatives of education stakeholders and presented for discussion at the ESAR. Subsequently, arising out of feedback from the ESAR, amendments are made to the preliminary report, culminating in the finalized Education Sector Performance Report (ESPR). Another outcome of the ESAR is an Aide Memoire which embodies key recommendations by the technical groups of the thematic areas of the ESP. This then becomes the subject of an Aide Memoire between MOE and key education stakeholders.

1.2 Summary of findings of recent ESARs

The 2009 ESAR is the 6th ESAR. It is instructive to summarize the findings

of previous ESARs:

The 2004 ESAR (first ESAR) was concerned about the then low PI enrolments. These were seen a threat to sustainable enrolment growth at higher levels in the medium to longer term. Also, arising from that Review, a poverty analysis in public basic schools was initiated (follow up to which does not appear to have regularly taken place).

The 2005 ESAR (second ESAR) identified the equitable deployment of trained graduate teachers to districts as a key issue. This remains an issue.

The 2006 ESAR (third ESAR) led to the emergence of the following as

areas for action:



• Analysis of transition patterns in education delivery through the use of computers to track the flow of students from one level to another to improve the development of definitive programs with job market readiness;

• Poverty analysis in schools to further understand enrolment trends to determine areas that focus on actions for poverty alleviation. The 2007 ESAR (fourth ESAR) revisited issues such as teacher management, deployment and utilization. The Aide Memoire noted that there should be a nationwide staff rationalization exercise to facilitate the effective deployment of teachers in both the classrooms and in management using two recently developed models:

• Teacher Demand and Supply Model; and

• Postings Model. The PBME Division subsequently developed a formula to improve teacher management and deployment. However, this formula is yet to be applied in practice.

The 2008 ESAR (fifth ESAR) focused on systemic efficiency in relation to teacher absenteeism and monitoring and evaluation. A crude calculation of teacher absenteeism estimated that the annual cost to government was in excess of GHc lOO million n public basic schools. One of the most cost-effective ways to address this problem was considered to be through the strengthening of accountability at the school level between parents and teachers, i.e. through the SMCs and BoGs.

1.3 The 2009 Education Sector Performance Report

1.3.1 Sources of information for the 2009 ESPR

The 2009 ESPR draws on various sources:

Numerical data: EMIS1 reports, national statistics, payroll data, budget and expenditure tables. Statistics drawn from the EMIS report are all adjusted for non-respondents as described in the 2008 ESPR and also this report's appendix.

Reports: 2008 ESAR, ESP 2003 - 2015, 2007 Government White Paper on the reform of the Education Sector, GPRS I and GPRS II and other government reports including:

District performance reports: particularly useful for disaggregated financial information and reporting of grassroots' problems.

Studies and papers: such as the CREATE research publications, RECOUP papers, and various papers and studies supported by development partners published during the period.

2009 Regional Education Review in April: Although the main purpose of the 2009 Regional Education Annual Review at the pre-Tertiary level was to examine critically an early draft of the new ESP 2010-2020, the various regional reports and final consolidated report also fed into this PESPR.

1This report provide summaries of the EMIS data and all information in this report would be found in the EMIS report

disaggregated by gender and private and public provision at the district, regional and national levels together with other data

which are not mentioned in this report.



Other national and international agreements: MDBS, EFA, MDGs The above sources are identified and acknowledged in more detail as and where appropriate in the report.

1.3.2 The ESAR and the rolled forward ESP

The timing of the sixth ESAR coincides with the development of the ESP 2010 - 2020. It was decided to review the ESP 2003 - 2015 so as to align it with recent developments contained in the Education Reform (2007), the Education Act (2008) and the commitments of the incoming Government in 2009. Although there are significant changes in detail and in the performance indicators and targets, ESP 2010 - 2020 retains many of the principles of ESP 2003 - 2015, in particular those that relate to monitoring and sector review. For 2009, this ESPR reports against the targets of ESP 2003 - 2015. Next year the seventh ESAR will report against ESP 2010 2020.



2 Access to Education

2.1 Overview of key Isues

Table l presents key ESP (2003-2015) indicators and targets.

Table 1: ESP (2003-2015) indicators and targets

Indicator Target

KG 100.0 % by 2015

Primary GER 107.4 % by 2012

Primary GAR 100.0% in

2006/07

JHS GER 100.0% by 2015

Primary Completion 100.0% by 2012

JHS Completion (Universal Basic

Completion)

100.0% by 2015

Second Cycle SHS GER 40.0% by 2015

TVET GER 35.0% by 2015

This section discusses how the basic and the second cycle sub-sectors have performed against these and other targets.

2.2 Kindergarten

The number of kindergarten schools increased from 15,449 in 2007/08 to 16,439 in 2008/09 showing a 6% growth as shown in Table 2. Such a great increase is partly explained by the Government's policy that each Primary School should have a kindergarten attached to it, and partly by the fact that kindergartens are covered by capitation grant while nurseries/créches are not. EMIS data, in fact, shows large numbers of creches registering as kindergartens after the introduction of Capitation Grant.

Table 2: Number of Kindergarten Schools

Type of

Education

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Public 5,205 7,818 10,193 11,140 11,827

Private 1,804 2,913 4,053 4,309 4,612

Total 7,009 10,731 14,246 15,449 16,439

Enrolment in Kindergarten has increased significantly since 2003/04 (Table 3). The percentage increase was 62% between 2004/05 and 2007/08, and 10% over the last year. The last year also recorded a large increase of private sector provision and this may be due to insufficient public sector provision at this level.

The Gender Parity Index has remained over the years consistently close to 1, indicating no discrimination in this cycle.

Table 3: Kindergarten enrolments



Indicator 2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Enrolme

nt

687,64

3

778,10

9

1,065,96

3

1,142,78

4

1,262,26

4

1,338,45

4

GER 54.60% 60.10% 85.30% 89.00% 89.90% 92.9%

GPI 0.98 0.98 1.03 0.99 0.98 0.99

% Private 31.20% 36.80% 29.40% 18.90% 17.10% 28.06%

2.2.1 Conclusions

Kindergarten has, due to the good synchronism between the education sector reform and the choice to cover Kindergartens with Capitation grant, close to doubled in coverage since 2004/05. Yet, the extremely large expansion of the private sector points at insufficient public coverage.

2.3 Primary

The number of primary schools has increased from 17,315 in 2007/08 and 17,881 (Table 4), a 3% increase slightly skewed towards the private sector.

Table 4: Number of Primary Schools

Education

Type

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Public 12,406 12,427 13,093 13,247 13,510

Private 3,622 2,990 3,810 4,068 4,371

Total 16,028 15,417 16,903 17,315 17,881

Enrolment in primary appears to be following the long positive trend

established in the previous years, although each year it increased by less. The intake in the last year has not been sufficient to keep GER on a positive trend. This raises concerns with regards to keeping pace with the targets. This can be due to dropout. Analysis by grade shows that the GER decreases at higher levels, pointing to many drop-outs. In reading this figures it must be kept in mind that (i) the last percentage point in enrolment are the hardest ones to achieve, (ii) a 0.30% decrease is within the error margin of the estimate and (iii) GERs are calculated using a population growth rate of 2.7%, which is probably too high.

NER has kept a steady rate of increase even in the last year, indicating

that an increasing number of children aged 6 - 1 1 are found in primary.

Table 5 Primary Enrolment Indicator 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Enrol. Total 2,957,49

1

3,077,48

9

3,111,75

3

3,473,22

9

3,622,72

4

3,710,64

7

GER 86.50% 87.50% 92.10% 93.70% 95.20% 94.9%

NER 59.10% 69.20% 81.10% 83.40% 88.5%

GPI 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96

PI GAR 88.20% 89.40% 92.30% 103.20% 107.30% 102.9%

PI NAR 26.20% 61.70% 69.10% 74.30% 72.1%

Completion 77.90% 78.70% 75.60% 85.40% 88.00% 86.3%



Rate

Gross admission rate has fallen slightly in the past year. As noted above, the slowdown in admission may lie behind the small reduction in GER: not enough children entered the system to keep it growing against population growth. Net Admission Rates followed the same pattern. This is a potential problem as (i) children not enrolling at the right age face higher chances of dropout and (ii) low NAR cause low NER in the longer run.

The primary completion rate 2 recorded significantly decrease from 88.00% in 2007/08 to 86.3% in 2008/09. (Table 5). This phenomenon underscores the observation of higher drop out at the upper primary levels. This trend has the tendencies of derailing progress towards the attainments of the MDG's target of UBC More investigation is needed on the causes of the sharp decline in the completion rate.

The Gender Parity index has remained at 0.04 from 1, indicating a small

degree of disparity against girls which will have to be addressed. It is likely that the national level figure hides strong geographical disparities.

2.3.1 Conclusions

A continued positive trend in enrolment, together with a decline in GER and GAR, suggests that enrolment is not strong enough to keep the pace with population growth. This might be an "apparent problem" caused by incorrect population growth rate. Increasing NER combined with decreasing NAR on the other hand seems to suggest the increasing presence of out of age enrolment within the 6 - 1 1 age cohorts.

The overall picture is that, as enrolment is slowing down, and the more recent entries are from older year groups, Primary education is nearing a wall. To achieve complete coverage, alternative strategies such as complementary education (eg. School for life and shepherd schools in the Northern Regions) will have to be advanced. The Ministry will be very dependent on external support and know-how in this stage.

2.4 Junior High

The number of Junior High Schools increased from 9,507 in 2007/08 to 10,213 in 2008/09, an increase of 7.4% (Table 6), 55% of which from the public sector. It is worth noting that the private sector grew by 15% just over the past year, a very large grow that could be due to the increased coverage by the EMIS census, but also poses the question of whether there is enough provision of public JHS.

Table 6: Number of Junior High Schools Type of

Education

2004/05 2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Public 6,637 7,130 7,251 7,267 7,656

Private 1,786 1,619 2,083 2,240 2,557

Total 8,423 8,749 9,334 9,507 10,213

2 The completion rate is calculated as enrolment in primary 6 divided by the population aged 11. It is important to note that

this is not the conventional measure of completion as it does not take into account repeaters, this calculation simply shows the

GER for primary 6.



Junior High enrolment increased from 1,224,964 in 2007/08 by about 5% to 1,285,577 in 2008/09 (Table 7).

GER has, over the years, kept on a positive trend. The fact that the NER

has since 2005/2006 been on a declining trend looks worrisome at first sight, but should be read in the light of the fact that JHS is a rapidly expanding level of education, and over age enrolment is to be expected.

Table 7: Junior High School Enrolment Indicator 2003/0

4

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Enrol. Total 984,11

1

1.048,36

7

1,121,88

7

1,170,80

1

1,224,96

4

1,285,57

7

GER 70.20% 72.80% 74.70% 77.40% 78.80% 80.6%

NER 70.30% 74.50% 52.40% 53.00% 47.8%

GPI 0.88 0.88 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.92

JH1GAR 75.60% 76.60% 77.30% 80.20% 84.60% 84.6%

JH1NAR 12.20% 25.30% 28.80% 44.60% 43.6%

JHS Completion

Rate

58.00% 60.00% 77.90% 64.90% 67.70% 75.0%

GAR increased steadily until 2007/08 and stagnated over the last year at about 85%. Similarly, NAR have close to quadrupled between 2004/05 and 2007/08, but remained stationary with a minor fall over the past year.

The completion rate in Junior High in 2008/09 was 75%, an increase by

7.3% from 67.7% in the previous year. Particularly worth of notice is girls' completion rate which increased by over 10 percentage point over the last year.

The Gender Parity Index has improved from 2003 to today but still

leaves room for improvement. It is likely that the national level indicator hides strong geographical disparities.

2.4.1 Conclusions

All indicators point unanimously to the fact that the large expansion of the sector that has taken place in recent years came at the cost over-age enrolment. Now that GER is reasonably high, without losing the gains made, the focus should shift to retention and timely enrolment.

2.5 Senior High

The number of Senior High Schools increased from 492 in 2005/06 to 670 in 2008/09 (Table 8). The public only contributed to 24% of such increase while the rest is due to the expansion of the private sector. Part of recorded private sector growth may be due to improved coverage in the Education census.

Table 8: Number of Senior High Schools

SHS

Provision

2005 / 06 2006 / 07 2007 / 08 2008 / 09

Public 398 493 493 493



Private 94 207 207 177

Total 492 700 700 670

Enrolment in Senior High has increased substantially in 2005/2006,

leveled off in the two following years and picked up again in the last year.. Between 2007/08 and 2008/09, it increased from 454,681 to 490,334. An 8% increase, completely lead by the public sector.

Table 9: Enrolment in Senior High School Indicator 2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Enrol.

Total

328,42

6

333,00

2

384,45

5

485,74

2

454,68

1

490,33

4

GER 26.60% 25.60% 29.10% 35.80% 32.20% 33.9%

% Female n/a 43.50% 49.50% 43.80% 44.00% 44.3%

SHS 1GAR n/a n/a n/a 33.30% 31.50% 35% Gross enrolment rate has kept on a slow but increasing trend, Female

enrolment has remained around 44% for three years now, which suggests that some extra stimuli may be needed to achieve gender parity. GAR remained slightly above 30% since 2006/07. Considering the completion rate of JHS, transition rate from JSH to SHS leaves much to be desired.

2.5.1 Conclusions

The Senior High cycle suffers heavy infrastructure constraints. With only 493 (not fee free) public schools, it will be impossible to increase enrolment without reducing quality in the future years. Given the high coverage of JHS and the poor reputation of Technical and Vocational Education, The SH cycle is already under stress.

The recently introduced computerized selection system intended to

rationalize school vacancies has come under blame for the fact that students have to express a preference without knowing the minimum requirements nor their grade. This causes some to be left out because of expressing out-of-reach preferences while leaving vacancies in smaller schools.

2.6 Technical and Vocation Education [incomplete]

The mandate to provide technical and vocational education has been delegated from the TVET council to COTVET, a newly formed Inter-ministerial council in charge of all government run technical and vocational education.

This section only comments on the performance of the 26 TVET

institutions under the Ministry of Education.

Table 10: Enrolment data for TVET institutions under the MoE

Enrolment 2001/0

2

2002/0

3

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8



Total

enrolment

17.934 19.777 18.672 21.424 20.303 18.432

Male 15.603 17.060 15.889 18.44 16.933 13,467

Female 2.331 2.717 2.783 2.984 3.370 3,081

% Female 13.0 13.7 14.9 13.9 16.6 16.7 *update the table *comment on the table *comment on gender parity

Table 11: Enrolment at the Tertiary level (Public and Private)

2003/2004 2004/2005

Male Femal

e

Total %

Female

Male Female Total %

Female

Universities 42,942 20,634 63,57

6

32% 48,0

55

25,353 73,408 35%

Private Uni. 1,560 1,028 2,588 40% 2,1

05

1,365 3,470 39%

% Private

Unis.

4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5%

Professional

Ins.

1055 958 2013 48% 88

1

480 1361 35%

Polytechnics 17,519 6,834 24,35

3

28% 18,1

38

6,845 24,983 27%

TOTAL 63,076 29,454 92,53

0

32% 69,1

79

34,043 103,22

2

33%



2005/2006 2006/2007

Male Femal

e

Total %

Female

Male

Female Total %

Female

Universities 54,929 29,149 84,07

8

35% 58,

098

30,347 88,445 34%

Private Uni. 5,582 3,915 9,497 41% 11,

157

7,121 18,278 39%

% Private

Unis.

9% 12% 10% 16

%

19% 17%

Professional

Ins.

1808 1343 3151 43% 23

43

2007 4350 46%

Polytechnics 17,156 7,508 24,66

4

30% 20,

229

8,466 28,695 30%

TOTAL 79,475 41,915 121,3

90

35% 91,

827

47,941 139,76

8

34%

2007/2008

Male Femal

e

Total %

Female

Universities 62,267 31,706 93,97

3

34%

Private Uni. 20,00

0

% Private

Unis.

18%

Professional

Ins.

2328 1885 4,213 45%

Polytechnics 24,241 10,207 34,44

8

30%

TOTAL 152,6

34



2.7 Tertiary Education

Due to difficulties in collecting University enrolment data, the Performance Report on this sector shows a one year lag. Enrolment in Public tertiary education institutions increased from 121, 490 in 2006/07 to 132, 634 in 2007/08 academic year (Table 11). Public universities cater for 71% of total public tertiary enrolment, polytechnics 26% and professional institutes 3%.

National policy specifies a male: female ratio of 50:50 in tertiary

institutions. The ratio in 2007/2008 was 66:34 for universities, 70:30 for polytechnics and 56 : 44 for other teaching institutions respectively in favor of males. Table 12 presents further gender-disaggregated enrolment for the public tertiary education.

The government policy is to have an enrolment ratio of 60 : 40 in favor of

science and technology. The ratio for 2007/08 was 38:62 and 30:70 for public universities and polytechnics in favor of Humanities/Arts. Table 13 shows student enrolment by program of qualification for 2007/08

With respect to ageing at the Faculty level, about 31% of faculty

members in the public universities are between the ages of 51-60 years with a further 13% above 60 years. The need to attract young academics to take up faculty appointments is a challenge.

Table 12: Gender Disaggregated Tertiary Enrolment No Total Male Femal

e

%

Female

Public Universities 6 9397

3

6226

7

31706 34%

Polytechnics 10 3444

8

2424

1

10207 30%

Professional

Institutions

3 4183 2328 1855 44%

Table 13: Tertiary Enrolment by Program[2007/2008]

No

Tota

l

Art

s, B

usi

ness

an

d

Hu

ma

nit

ies

Sci

en

ces

an

d T

ech

nolo

gy

% o

f S

cien

ce a

nd

Tech

nolo

gy

Public Universities 6 93973 58572 35401 38%

Polytechnics 10 34448 24159 10289 30%

Professional

Institutions

3 4183 4183 0

All professional institutions enrolment is in arts and businesses,

none science nor technology. Tertiary enrolment increased by a remarkable



50% since 2003/04. However, the limited absorption capacity of the

economy and poor quality of graduates is causing the number of

unemployed graduates to grow. While the brightest graduates are

brain-drained out of the country, graduate unemployment is emerging as a

serious issue.

2.8 Special Education

In the ESP (2003-2015) the indicative targets are to:

• integrate all children with non-severe special needs in mainstream

schools by 2015;

• achieve an inclusive education system by 2015 including boys and girls with non-severe Sense integrated into mainstream schools.

Challenges to achieving these targets include insufficient funding, the limited number of screening and assessment centers, lack of training of teachers in SEN, Inclusive technology and pedagogy-inadequate monitoring and evaluation of special schools, lack of training exposures and resource

Table 14: Types of Special Education Schools by Region

Sch

ools

for

the B

lin

d

Sch

ools

for

the D

ea

f

Sch

ools

for

the M

en

tall

y

Dis

able

d

Un

its

for

the B

lin

d

Un

its

for

the D

ea

f a

nd

Bli

nd

U

nit

s fo

r th

e M

en

tall

y

Dis

able

d

Sch

ools

wit

h I

ncl

usi

ve

Ed

uca

tion

V

oca

tion

al

Cen

ters

for

the

Dea

f V

oca

tion

al

Cen

ters

for

the

Bli

nd

In

tegra

ted

SH

S

Inte

gra

ted

TT

C

Tota

l

Greater

Accra

0 1 2 0 0 3 42 0 0 0 0 48

Central 0 2 0 1 0 3 39 1 0 1 0 47

Western 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

Eastern 1 3 0 0 1 6 46 1 1 1 1 61

Volta 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 8

Brong Ahafo 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 9

Ashanti 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 5

Northern 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5

Upper East 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6

Upper West 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 8

Total 2 13 7 3 1 27 129 6 3 6 3 200



support materials and motivation packages for special education teachers. Table 14 gives an indication of the dispersion of the 200 special schools and units within the country.

As is evident from the Table 14, the schools and units are mainly concentrated in the southern, more populous, parts of the country with Greater Accra, Central and Eastern Regions being especially well covered. They are the only regions with inclusive schools. The schools for the deaf in particular are concentrated in two regions (Eastern Region and Central Region) and the units for the blind are exclusively in the south (Central Region, Brong Ahafo Region and Volta Region).

Table 15: Types and numbers of special schools and units Type of school/unit No

Segregated Special boarding basic schools for the

Deaf

13

Segregated Special boarding basic schools for the

Blind

2

Units for the Blind 3

Segregated Special boarding schools for the

intellectually disabled

12

Units for intellectually disabled 23

Segregated Special boarding SHS for the Deaf

(Sec/Technical)

3

Vocational Centres for the Deaf 5

Vocational Centres for the Blind 2

Integrated SHS for the Blind 4

Integrated Teacher Training Colleges for students

with disability-

3

Inclusive Schools at primary and JHS levels 479

In all these Institutions, the 2008/09 total enrolment is 6308, made up of 3760 boys and 2548 girls, as shown in Table 16:

Table 16: Enrollment in Special Education by Gender

Male Female Total

Enrolment at basic level 2346 1724 4070

Enrolment at SHS level 302 120 422

Enrolment at Colleges of

Education

15 21 36

Enrolment at

Technical/Vocational

133 86 219

Enrolment Special Class 750 472 1222

Enrolment Inclusive schools 214 125 339

TOTAL: 3760 2548 6308

Table 17 shows that there has been a virtual doubling of special needs

enrolment from 2004 to 2009. This clearly does not suggest that the SEN



population has increased, but rather that as supply is increased, demand for SEN rises.

Table 17: Special Education enrolment by sex (2003/04 to 2008/2009)

Enrolme

nt

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

08 - 09

Growth

Male 1509 2666 2821 3004 3315 3760 13%

Female 1694 1769 1901 2088 2339 2548 9%

Total 3203 4435 4722 5092 5654 6308 12%

% Female 53% 40% 40% 41% 41% 40%

2.9 Non Formal Education

Non Formal education is geared to adults. Run at community level it is meant to improve or provide basic literacy and numeracy skills.

The adult literacy rate in Ghana is gradually increasing, but at a very slow rate, unlikely to achieve the 2015 target of 81% (Table 18).

Table 18: Adult Literacy Rate

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

Literacy

Rate

53.4 53.7 60.3 61.7 62.0%



Table 19: National Functional Literacy Programme

*Batches 12, 13 and 14 figures are targets.

Batch No. Recruited Graduate

d

Dropouts % Dropout

Male Female Total Male female total Male Female Total

1. (1992/94) 80,224 121,536 201,760 66,586 100,875 167,461 13,638 20,661 34,299 17%

2. (1994/95) 108,078 170,131 278,209 83,137 126,626 209,763 24,941 43,505 68,446 25%

3. (1995/96) 85,488 125,738 211,226 65,915 108,144 174,059 19,573 17,594 37,167 18%

4. (1995/97) 82,615 126,611 209,226 71,712 103,719 175,431 10,903 22,892 33,795 16%

5. (1996/98) 87,120 132,179 219,299 70,153 105,230 175,383 16,967 26,949 43,916 20%

6. (1997/99) 78,051 129,274 207,325 71,425 109,129 180,554 6,626 20,145 26,771 13%

7. (1998/2000) 75,010 112,540 187,550 64,987 98,794 163,781 10,023 13,746 23,769 13%

8. (2000/2002) 74,411 121,759 196,170 69,571 102,882 172,453 4,840 18,877 23,717 12%

9. (feb

2003/2005)

121,797 191,110 312,907 94363 154755 249,118 27,434 36,355 63,789 20%

10. (Nov.

2003/2005)

66,928 115,109 182,037 54,491 87,278 141,769 12,437 27,831 40,268 22%

11. (jun 05/mar

07)

106,311 166,046 272,357

12. (jan 06/oct

07)*

60,750 141,750 202,500

13. (nov 06/aug

08)*

12,000 18,000 30,000

14. (oct 07/jul 09)

*

12,000 18,000 30,000

1 5 . ( )

TOTAL 1,050,783 1,689,783 2,740,566 712,340 1,097,432 1,809,772 147,382 248,555 395,937 18%



2.10 Colleges of Education

There are 38 public Colleges of Education in Ghana, 1 male only, 6 female only and the rest co-educated. Thirty (30) have boarding facilities.

The ESP (2003-2015) set the goal of 95% trained teachers at basic

education by 2015. In 2003, 21.2% of teachers at the primary level and 12.8% teachers at the junior secondary level were untrained. The ESP (2010 - 2020) revised the targets to 90% of primary teachers being trained and 95% of JHS and SHS teachers to be trained. Table 20 shows the trend of intake and enrolment in colleges of education. The number of teachers remained substantially constant over the 2003 - 2009 period. This situation, however, is not one of concern, since there is more of a need for redistribution of teachers rather than recruitment.

Table 20: Colleges of Education Enrolment

The percentage of female teachers enrolled in CoE has fluctuated around 42% over the years and does not seem to be improving.

2.11 Deprived Districts and Gender Issues

This section focuses on access in deprived districts for the Basic Education cycle. All statistics in this section are susceptible to deficiencies in population data. In particular, if the population of deprived district has been migrating out since the census date, the population estimates will be overstated which will lead to a downwards bias in all the population based indicators.

2.11.1 Kindergarten

Table 21 shows a selecting of statistics for KG comparing deprived district to non-deprived district and to the national level. The table shows no substantial difference for access statistics (GER, NER, and GPI) nor does the table show evidence of gender discrimination between deprived and non deprived districts.

The table however shows a significantly higher Pupil Teacher Ratio in deprived districts.

2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Intake Total 8,980 8,989 8,538 9,401 8,401

%

Female

43.90% 42% 42.60% 46.60% 41.8%

Enrolme

nt

Total 23,999 25,116 25,534 26,025 26,400

%

Female

40.50% 45% 42.10% 43.30% 43%

Note: the length if the course is 3 years, therefore Enrolment is appreciatively 3 times Intake



Table 21: Statistics for KG in Deprived Districts, 2008/09 Enrolme

nt

Gende

r

Qualit

y

GER NER GPI PTR

male femal

e

total male femal

e

total

National 94% 92% 93% 64% 63% 64% 0.99 36.69

Deprived 92% 90% 91% 64% 63% 64% 0.98 45.97

Non

Deprived

94% 93% 94% 64% 63% 64% 0.99 32.78

2.11.2 Primary

Table 22 shows a selection of statistics for access and quality in the primary cycle, comparing deprived to non deprived district and to the national levels.

Enrolment is slightly lower in deprived district, with girls bearing most of the burden, as can be seen from a lower female GER and NER in deprived district relative to the non deprived. Admission rates (both gross and net) are higher in deprived district then in non deprived suggesting (i) a catch up on part of deprived districts, and (ii) a higher rate of dropout. The low female NAR together with the high female GAR suggest a substantial amount of late enrolment for girls

Completion rate is lower in deprived districts and lowest for girls in deprived districts and GPI is lower.

PTR is higher in deprived districts, and Pupil to trained Teacher ratio indicates a serious shortage of trained teachers in deprived districts.

Table 22: Statistics for Primary School in Deprived Districts, 2008/09

Enrolme

nt

GER NER

male femal

e

total male female total

National 97% 93% 95% 90% 87% 89%

Deprived 97% 91% 94% 89% 85% 89%

Non

Deprived

97% 94% 95% 90% 88% 90%

Admissio

n

GAR NAR

male femal

e

total male female total

National 105% 101% 103

%

73% 71% 72%

Deprived 110% 104% 107

%

76% 73% 75%

Non

Deprived

102% 100% 101

%

71% 71% 71%



Completi

on

Gend

er

Qualit

y

CR GPI PTR

male femal

e

total traine

d

total

National 89% 83% 86% 0.9

6

58.50 34.18

Deprived 85% 78% 81% 0.9

4

100.24 37.23

Non

Deprived

91% 85% 88% 0.9

6

47.80 32.74

2.11.3 Junior High

Table 23 shows a selection of statistics for access and quality in the JH cycle, comparing deprived to non deprived district and to the national levels.

Enrolment, as testified by a lower NER and GER, is lower in deprived

districts. Gross admissions are lower, and Net Admissions - admission at correct age - are very significantly lower in deprived districts, indicating a persistent issue of late enrolment.

Completion rate is lower in deprived districts, and lowest for girls, of

which only 57% complete the cycle. GPI is significantly lower in deprived districts.

PTRs are higher in deprived districts, but being JHS PTR already low, the effect on quality shouldn't be too great.

Table 23: Statistics for JH School in Deprived Districts

Enrolme

nt

GER NER

male femal

e

total male femal

e

total

National 84% 77% 81% 48% 48% 48%

Deprived 71% 65% 68% 37% 36% 37%

Non

Deprived

67% 66% 85% 53% 52% 53%

Admissio

n

GAR NAR

male femal

e

total male femal

e

total

National 87% 82% 85% 44% 43% 44%

Deprived 76% 70% 73% 32% 30% 31%

Non 92% 86% 89% 49% 48% 49%



Deprived

Completi

on

Gend

er

Quali

ty

CR GPI PTR

male femal

e

total train

ed

total

National 80% 70% 75% 0.92 23.43 18.00

Deprived 67% 57% 62% 0.91 30..3

6

12.10

Non

Deprived

85% 75% 80% 0.99 21..6

7

28.32



3 Quality of Education

Quality of education remains an unaddressed issue in Ghana. This section report on the indicators of quality.

3.1 Examinations

3.1.1 Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE)

Basic Education Certificate Examination, taken at the end of the last grade of Junior High School, shows a pass rate of around 75% for Mathematics and 60% for English in 2008/09. Boys consistently performed better then girls in Mathematics, while there appear to be more uniformity in English.

Figure 1: ВЕСЕ Mathematics Pass rates

Figure 2: ВЕСЕ English Pass rates



Table 24: ВЕСЕ Pass Rates by Year

Mathemati

cs

Englis

h

Science

s

Social

Studies

No. % Pass No. % Pass No. % Pass No. % Pass

2009

boys 184,560 62% 184,59

0

60% 184,584 64% 184,614 62%

girls 151,637 56% 151,65

5

61% 151,663 57% 151,682 55%

tot 336,197 59% 336,24

5

60% 336,247 61% 336,296 59%

2008

boys 173,918 78% 173,93

7

77% 173,903 79% 173,975 78%

girls 157,776 73% 142,84

2

76% 157,755 74% 142,874 73%

tot 331,694 75% 316,77

9

76% 331,658 77% 316,849 76%

2007

boys 167,172 62% 167,16

7

59% 167,183 64% 167,204 64%

girls 137,452 59% 137,44

8

60% 137,448 55% 137,483 56%

tot 304,624 61% 304,61

5

60% 304,631 60% 304,687 60%

2006

boys 30,965 75% 30,978 63% 31,012 71% 31,012 70%

girls 25,742 72% 25,752 63% 25,788 65% 25,787 63%

tot 56,707 73% 56,730 63% 56,800 68% 56,799 67%

2005



boys 152,805 77% 152,07

4

77% 152,827 76% 152,827 79%

girls 125,517 72% 124,86

1

76% 125,527 70% 125,527 74%

tot 278,322 75% 276,93

5

76% 278,354 73% 278,354 77%

2004

boys 152,795 63% 152,82

7

59% 152,827 61% 152,795 62%

girls 125,523 56% 125,52

7

58% 125,527 52% 125,523 55%

tot 278,318 60% 278,35

4

58% 278,354 57% 278,318 59%

2003

boys 142,493 61% 142,44

7

61% 142,528 63% 142,550 65%

girls 116,646 54% 116,53

9

60% 116,656 55% 116,663 57%

tot 259,139 58% 258,98

6

60% 259,184 59% 259,213 61%

3.1.2 West Africa Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (WASSCE

The West Africa Senior Secondary Certificate Examination is taken at the end of the SHS cycle. Pass rates have shown a substantial improvement over the past year. Pass rates in Mathematics more then doubled between 2007/08 and 2008/09. Similarly, pass rates in English more then

tripled over the past year. It is however difficult the underlying drivers of

such improvement.

Figure 3: WASSCE English Pass rates

Figure 4: WASSCE Mathematics Pass rates



Table 25: WASSCE Pass Rates by Year

3.2 National Education Assessment (NEA)

Data in Table 26, from the NEA 2007, confirm that proficiency in literacy and numeracy at basic education level is matter for concern. Although data has been collected from the CRD division for the year 2009, at the time of writing the present report aggregate statistics were not yet available.

Table 26: Distribution of mean scores, minimum-competency and

proficiency, NEA 2007 2005 Scores

(%)

2007 Scores

(%)

Mean Min-Com

p.

Proficienc

y

Mean Min-Comp. Proficienc

y

English

P3

38.1 50.5 16.4 37.6 50.1 15.0

English

P6

43.1 63.9 23.6 44.2 69.7 26.1

Maths P3 36.6 47.2 18.6 35.0 42.6 14.6

Maths P6 34.4 42.7 9.8 35.7 46.2 10.8 Source: MOE (2007) National Education Assessment (NEA) (using multiple choice items with 4 options) Minimum competency: pupils achieving 35% or

Mathemati

cs

Englis

h

Science

s

Social

Studies

No. % Pass No. % Pass No. % Pass No. % Pass

2009

boys 76,471 60% 76,422 86% 76,231 75% 76,218 90%

girls 58,953 48% 58,883 86% 58,863 63% 58,873 85%

tot 135,424 55% 135,30

5

86% 135,094 69% 135,091 88%

2008

boys 79,586 29% 84,801 27% 79,591 29% 72,617 73%

girls 58,673 18% 71,304 27% 58,673 19% 58,679 67%

tot 138,259 24% 156,10

5

27% 138,264 24% 131,296 70%

2007

boys 76,921 38% 75,697 36% 76,695 30% 77,444 71%

girls 60,947 24% 60,305 34% 60,882 18% 61,412 64%

tot 137,868 32% 136,00

2

35% 137,577 25% 138,856 68%

2006

boys 64,338 39% 64,338 35% 64,338 52% 64,338 70%

girls 48,609 26% 48,609 22% 48,609 37% 48,609 63%

tot 112,947 33% 112,94

7

29% 112,947 45% 112,947 67%



more on the test (i.e. just 10% points above guessing) Proficiency: pupils achieving 55% or more on the test

Girls performed slightly better than boys on the English tests; vice versa for the mathematics tests. Table 26 demonstrates very weak proficiency in English and mathematics in P3 and P6 pupils, and that no significant change had taken place between 2005 and 2007.

3.3 Pupil Teacher Ratio

The pupil teacher ratio (PTR) is a key indicator of quality in education. This section reports on PTRs disaggregated by region and level of deprivation.

As Table 27 shows, National PTRs have remained substantially constant in the Primary and Junior high cycles and increased at KG. The increase of KG PTRs is due to the fact that KG has been recently included into the compulsory basic cycle which increased enrollment under an unchanged number of teachers.

Table 27: Pupil Teacher Ratio by year

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/9 2015

Target

Kindergar

ten

32.3 24.9 41 32 37 37 25

Primary- 34 34.8 37.8 34 34 34 35

Junior

High

18.6 18.9 20.2 18 17 18 25

In many respects national PTRs reflect socio-economic disparities, with

higher PTRs to found in the remoter underserved parts of the country. Comparing the regional to the national PTR demonstrates inequities across the regions in the country at all levels in public basic schools

PTR variations across regions give - due to the higher degree of aggregation - a cruder but nevertheless interesting picture. There are large variations in PTR at across regions at all levels: the region with the largest PTR has between 1.5 and 2 times the PTR of the region with the smallest PTR depending on the level.

Table 28: PTR by Deprivation Status KG Primar

y

JHS

National 36.69 34.18 20.95

Deprived 45.97 37.23 12.10

Non

Deprived

32.78 32.74 28.32

When broken down by the deprivation indicator (Table 28) , PTRs appear much higher in deprived then non deprived districts for the KG and Primary cycles. The opposite is true for JHS suggesting that JHS are of smaller size in deprived districts.

3.3.1 Kindergarten Pupil Teacher Ratio

Kindergarten is a relatively new institution, and figures show that the GES is experiencing problems in providing sufficient numbers of teachers to



meet the target PTR. It must be acknowledged that the PTR target of 25 :1 is very ambitious, and possibly unnecessarily so. The Ministry is considering a revision of this target for 2020 to 30 :1 which would constitute a substantial saving to the ministry that could in turn be invested in Kindergarten infrastructure.

It is interesting to note how the boom in Kindergarten enrolment recorded in 2005/06, with the introduction of the Capitation Grant, affected the PTRs in all regions (Table 29).

Table 29: KG PTR by region and year REGION 2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Ashanti 26 23.8 34.9 30 38 34

Brong Ahafo 51.1 19.8 32.5 28 30 30

Central 36.7 29.1 44.6 36 40 38

Eastern 29.3 23.1 36.2 30 31 31

Greater Accra 6.3 20.1 37.4 32 37 37

Northern 74.6 35.4 92.8 48 47 45

Upper East 59.7 41.3 82.2 56 61 59

Upper West 37.7 39 58.6 39 44 47

Volta 30.2 23.2 35.4 29 33 34

Western 57.8 27.9 40.8 36 41 44

National

Average

32.3 24.9 41 33 37 37

3.3.2 Primary Pupil Teacher Ratio

At Primary level (Table 31), PTRs remained substantially constant in all regions after a drop in 2006/07. Great improvements have been made in the three regions in the north which had the worse situation 2003/04. Particular improvement must be noted in the Northern region, while improvement must continue in the Upper East and Upper West regions, which are the only two regions with PTR exceeding 40 : 1.

Table 30: Primary PTR by region and year

REGION 2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Ashanti 32.5 32.9 35.9 33 33 32

Brong Ahafo 30 30.4 34.5 30 32 32

Central 34 35.7 39.3 36 37 36

Eastern 29.3 29.7 33.3 30 30 30

Greater Accra 36.8 36.6 39.6 39 40 40

Northern 38.6 40.1 40.5 34 33 33

Upper East 59 57.4 53.3 43 46 48

Upper West 46 49 45.6 34 39 42

Volta 30 30.5 34.1 29 29 30

Western 34.1 36.1 38.9 34 36 37

National

Average

34 34.8 37.8 33 34 34



3.3.3 JHS Pupil Teacher Ratio

PTRs in Junior High schools (Table 31) are too low and have not shown signs of improvement. While a low PTR is auspicable from a pedagogical stand point, there are severe cost implications to such a low ratio. More effort must be made to (i) increase JH enrolment by providing better service and (ii) revise the teacher deployment criterion.

Table 31: JHS PTR by region and year REGION 2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Ashanti 18.2 18.2 18.6 17 17 17

Brong Ahafo 16.8 17.1 23.9 17 17 18

Central 17.2 17.9 17.9 16 17 17

Eastern 16.7 16.9 17.3 16 15 16

Greater Accra 21 20.5 20.7 20 20 21

Northern 24 25.3 23.1 20 19 19

Upper East 25.1 25.1 24.6 21 21 23

Upper West 20.4 24.1 21.9 16 17 18

Volta 16.6 16.6 20.6 16 16 16

Western 20.1 20.8 21.3 19 19 20

National

Average

18.6 18 20.2 18 17 18

3.4 Teachers

This section focuses on quality, skills development and relevance. In much of what follows, the quality of teachers, their training and delivery, is taken as a proxy for quality of learning and pupil/student achievement. This reflects the assertion that if teachers are well prepared, well motivated and actually present in class, then quality of learning will improve

Figure 6 shows the percentage of untrained teacher in the KG, Primary and JH cycles. Over 60% of KG teachers are up to day untrained. The proportion of untrained teachers in Primary increased consistently during the years reaching more then 40% in 2008/09. Similarly the proportion of untrained teachers has increase over the years in the JH cycle reaching 23% in 2008/09.

Tables 33, 34 and 35 show the umber and proportion of untrained teachers by gender for KG, Primary and JH respectively. The information on the three tables is summarized in Figure 6 plotting the percentage of untrained teachers by gender and year for the basic cycle.



Figure 5: Percentage of Untrained Teachers by Grade and Year

Figure 6: Percentage of Untrained Teachers by Gender and Year



3.4.1 INSET in the Ghana Education Service

The Ghana Education Service (with support from JICA) has been resourced with the requisite technical skills to scale up INSET throughout the country this in 2009. The 1st phase will involve 51 deprived district plus 6 others. The following have been completed with regard to the INSET program:

• National INSET Committee to serve as the policy advisory body has

been established.

• National INSET Unit located at Teacher Education Division has been set up to serve as administrative body.

• Six (6) source books have been produced to guide the implementation of the nationwide INSET.

• School-based INSET and Cluster-based INSET have been strengthened in the pilot districts.

• Capacities of District Teacher Support Teams (DTSTs), Head teachers, Curriculum Leaders and Circuit Supervisors were strengthened to manage INSET at the District level. A Total of 5,061 of the above-mentioned have been trained in preparation for the nationwide INSET which will commence in June, 2009.

3.4.2 Untrained Teachers Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) by

Distance Education

To meet the goals of EFA there should be sufficient numbers of qualified teachers in the country. The mandate was given to the GES through Teacher Education Division to enroll all untrained teachers into a 4-year School-Based In-service Programme leading to the award of a Diploma in Basic Education.

This approach has accelerated the production of qualified teachers for the rural and hard-to-reach areas to meet the goals of Education for All. The program has now covered the whole country using a 4-phasse approach.



Table 32: KG teachers by gender and qualification

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005.0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

male trained 454 32% 449 31% 449 31% 1519 35% 1116 27% 1314 29%

untraine

d

987 69% 989 69% 989 69% 2859 65% 2955 73% 3184 71%

femal

e

trained 4867 39% 5086 28% 5086 28% 8130 36% 7350 32% 7892 32%

untraine

d

7733 61% 12849 72% 12849 72% 14551 64% 16016 69% 17021 68%

Table 33: Primary teachers by gender and qualification

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005.0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

male trained 27007 65% 27627 63% 25726 58% 28700 53% 27615 49% 27075 48%

untraine

d

14870 35% 16223 37% 18935 42% 25867 47% 29198 51% 29732 52%

femal

e

trained 20717 91% 20672 90% 21444 84% 23662 80% 24493 79% 24920 77%

untraine

d

2037 9% 2280 10% 4229 16% 6095 20% 6359 21% 7267 23%



Table 34: JHS teachers by gender and qualification

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005.0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

male trained 26564 81% 27332 81% 27332 81% 29477 73% 31218 72% 31517 72%

untraine

d

6065 19% 6565 194% 6565 19% 10929 27% 12385 28% 12326 28%

femal

e

trained 8512 94% 8937 940% 8937 940% 12388 90% 13352 91% 13904 905%

untraine

d

512 6% 566 6% 566 6% 1416 10% 1402 10% 1467 10%



Phase 1: Covered untrained teachers in North, UE, UW and Afram

Plains.

Phase 2: Covered untrained teachers in Ashanti and Brong Ahafo

Phase 3: involved untrained teachers in Eastern, Western and Central

Regions

Phase 4: Covered untrained teachers in Volta and Greater Accra

Regions.

Current UTDBE Enrolment Nationwide

Phase 1 North, UE, UW and Afram

Plains

5,119

Phase 2 Ashanti and Brong Ahafo 7,283

Phase 3 Eastern, Western and

Central

8,994

Phase 4 Volta and Greater Accra 5,439

Total trained and qualified 26,831

3.4.3 Teaching and learning materials

A major textbook procurement took place in early 2009. Enough textbook where procured to bring the Pupil to Core textbook ration to 1 : 3 in both public and private schools. The procured textbooks where distributed to the district offices which in turn deployed them to the schools. Unfortunately this exercise took place after the school census and therefore does not yet show in the official statistics.

3.5 Information Communication Technology (ICT)

The recent Education Reforms launched in June 2007 called for the introduction of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) at the Second Cycle Institutions through (i) the introduction of ICT as a core and, elective subject, (ii) the integration of ICT as a teaching tool and (iii) the integration of ICT to support educational management and administrative functions.

The Ministry of Education has undertaken a census of SHS school to assess their ability to "effectively use ICT in fostering the achievement of educational and management objectives, through the use of appropriate tools, processes and skilled human resources". Such census will constitute the baseline for the planning in ICT.

3.5.1 ICT infrastructure

The survey showed that only 87% of SHS are equipped with a computer laboratory, and facilities in are below acceptable standards. The only 56.92% of the computer in the system was found to be functioning, and an only a fraction of those equipped with acceptable software.

As Table shows, Student: Computer ratio is very large in all regions, indicating insufficient number of computers.



Table 35: Student Computer Ratio by Region Students per

computer

Ashanti 48

Brong Ahafo 44

Central 39

Eastern 38

Greater

Accra

43

Northern 50

Upper East 41

Upper West 48

Volta 33

Western 41

3.5.2 ICT Skills and Competencies

More investment needs to be done in ICT competencies. Out of about 18.000 ICT staff across the school, only 44% had basic ICT skills - what the remaining 56% teaches remains unclear -and only 14% had a deeper knowledge of the subjects.

Table 36: ICT Competencies Numbe

r

Percenta

ge

ICT Staff in the schools

Surveyed

17,953

Basic ICT Skills 7,920 44.10%

Advanced ICT Skills 2,593 14.40%

ICT Integration Skills 1,686 9.40%

Trouble Shooting Skills 1,161 6.50%

Networking Skills 531 3.00%

Content Development

Skills

698 3.90%

3.5.3 Recommendations

• The District Assemblies should put up new computer laboratories to facilitate ICT development in the districts

• The government to partner with the private sector to run subsidized accredited modular courses to train about 1000 teachers to teach the core subjects and 500 teachers to offer first line of support

• Institute Equipment purchasing schemes. At least 30 computers, one LCD Projector and one Laser printer are required in each school

• Integrate the collection of ICT in the EMIS process to support improved efforts in planning, implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation



• Plan for the provision of technical support at several levels to safeguard investments in ICTs.



4 Infrastructure and

Sanitation

4.1 Water and Sanitation

It is widely acknowledged that sanitary infrastructure is a crucial component to access and quality. This section reports on the progress made in this area.

4.1.1 Toilets

Table 37 below show the average number boys and girls making use of the same toilet in a school. In deprived and non deprived districts the upwards trend show that schools are struggling to keep infrastructure at pace with enrollment.

Girls appear - as it should be - to be better served in both deprived and non deprived districts.

Table 37: Children per Toilet

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Deprived boys 58 63 65 63

girls 56 61 62 60

Non

deprived

boys 64 74 76 76

girls 60 66 68 68

National boys 60 67 68 67

girls 57 62 64 63

4.1.2 Potable Water

The ESP 2003-2015 target is to provide potable water to every school by 2015. Table 38 presents the number and relative percentage of schools with access to potable water over the past four years. Between 2005/06 and 2007/08 large improvements have been made, bringing access to potable water to more then 60% of schools. In 2008/09 just enough schools were connected to keep pace with growth in school number. Such a slow down will create problems in achieving the target in time, in particular because the last unconnected schools will be the hardest to reach.

Table 38: Access to Potable Water

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9



No. % No. % No. % No. %

No 8,373 51% 7,523 44% 6,446 37% 6,789 38%

Yes 7,898 49% 9,680 56% 10,932 63% 11,238 62%

Total 16,271 100% 17,203 100% 17,378 100% 18,027 100%

As Table 39 below shows, most of the connection to potable water were achieved through boreholes, which remain the main source of potable water to schools.

Table 39: Access to Potable Water by Source 2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

% for

08/09

No Potable

water

8,373 7,523 6,446 6,789

Borehole 3,405 3,885 4,841 4,996 44%

Other 1,390 1,732 1,646 1,587 14%

Pipe borne 2,555 3,222 3,307 3,569 32%

Well 548 841 1,138 1,086 10%

Total 7,898 9,680 10,932 11,238 100%

Access to potable water is a strongly geographical problem. The ESPR 2008 reported the three regions in the north to host the most water-deprived districts. Table 40 shows percentage of schools with access to potable water by region. Greater Accra - with the largest improvement over the past year - Western and Ashanti regions show access to potable water in more then 70% of schools, while Upper East, Northern, Volta and Upper West regions appears to be the most troubled.

Table 40: Access to Potable Water by Region, 2008/09

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

ASHANTI 55% 62% 70% 73%

BRONG AHAFO 42% 45% 55% 56%

CENTRAL 39% 56% 62% 65%

EASTERN 40% 55% 55% 60%

GREATER

ACCRA

43% 61% 67% 74%

NORTHERN 26% 43% 52% 54%

UPPER EAST 39% 44% 51% 55%

UPPER WEST 25% 33% 42% 42%

VOLTA 46% 53% 50% 55%

WESTERN 40% 51% 74% 73%

Table 41 summarizes the water access situation across deprived and non

deprived districts. It is interesting to note that a stagnation in national



average hides, as pointed out above, a worsening in deprived areas and an improvement in non-deprived.

Table 41: Access to Potable Water by Deprivation Status 2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Deprived 44% 52% 63% 59%

Non

deprived

51% 58% 63% 64%

Nationwide 49% 56% 63% 62%

Conclusions on Access to Potable Water

There is an element of concern regarding the policy on water access in the past year. The focus appears to have shifted from deprived to non deprived areas, with the larges improvements recorded in the Greater Accra region.

4.2 Classrooms

Year 2006/07 recorded a great reduction in the percentage of classrooms in need of major repairs across districts and levels. This is probably attributable to good use of the Capitation grant. Since then however the percentage of classrooms in poor state remained about constant. It is possible that all classrooms that the Capitation grant could serve to repair have been repaired, and the remainder are too expensive for the

Table 42: Classrooms Needing Major Repairs

2005/0

6

2006/0

7

2007/0

8

2008/0

9

Kindergarte

n

Non

Deprived

42% 36% 38% 35%

Deprived 46% 39% 39% 39%

Total 43% 37% 38% 37%

Primary

Non

Deprived

33% 27% 29% 26%

Deprived 36% 31% 30% 30%

Total 34% 28% 29% 28%

Junior High

Non

Deprived

32% 27% 29% 27%



Deprived 32% 28% 28% 23%

Total 32% 27% 28% 26%

Capitation grant to cover. Indeed most districts report that school struggle to keep their infrastructure in good shape for lack of funds. There is however is no ground to substantiate such hypothesis.



5 Efficiency

5.1 Teacher Deployment

Section 3. showed large variations in PTR across regions. Regional aggregates nevertheless tend to hide a great deal of variation between districts and schools. Large variations in PTRs at school level are a symptom of inefficiency in teacher deployment. The following section gives a quantitative estimate of the efficiency in the system.

5.1.1 Efficiency in teacher deployment3

An insightful way of measuring the efficiency of teacher deployment is to look at school level deviations from the average PTR. In an efficient system there will be little dispersion around the average PTR, the more dispersion around the average PTR the more inefficient the system. In other words, in an efficient system the PTR will be very similar across schools while in an inefficient system the PTR will vary significantly: for the same number of children two schools will get different number of teachers.

This section introduces the "coefficient of efficiency": a simple method to calculate efficiency in resource deployment (See Section B on page 62 for more detail on the computation).

Figures 7 8and 9 plot the relationship between number of teachers and number of students for every basic public school in the 08/09 Emis Census. Each school is a dot, the number of teacher in each school is depicted in the horizontal axes and the number of pupils on the vertical axes. The red line indicates the average PTR.

The interpretation of the graphs is simple: the larger the distance between a school and the red line the more inefficient the distribution of teachers. Every school above the line indicates a shortage of teacher and every school below the line indicates an oversupply of teachers.

Figure 7: Pupil - Teacher in KG

3 No attempt was made in this section to adjust for non responders



Figure 8: Pupil - Teacher in Primary



Figure 9: Pupil - Teacher in JHS



The information in Figures 7 8 and 9 is usefully summarized in Table 43, plotting the coefficients of efficiency.

Table 43: Coefficients of efficiency, 2008/09

Kindergart

en

Primar

y

Junior

High

Senior

High

Efficiency 30% 48% 54% 41%

No.

Schools

2760 8394 5120 432

As it emerges clearly, the distribution of teacher is only partially efficient.

By deploying teachers more efficiently costs could be cut and regional

disparities could be resolved.

5.1.2 School size

The EMIS Census reveals a large number of small to medium sized school in the Basic cycle. Enrollment in the average KG is 90, in the average Primary school 193, and in the average JHS 112. In the three levels more than 50% of the schools have below average enrollment.

5.1.3 How to improve efficiency in teacher deployment

In order to improve efficiency in teacher deployment it is of crucial importance that (i) GES adopts a rational system of teacher deployment, where teacher posting is made an explicit function of enrollment. As pointed out in the ESPR 2008 a teacher posting model taking into account demand and supply factors has been developed, but is not currently in use. Such model should be used, if functional, or otherwise revised.

Currently there seems to be a one teacher per subject implicit posting rule. This results in inefficiently small PTRs in small schools. Thus, (ii) small schools are encouraged and supported in multi-grade teaching through a clear policy, supply of appropriate teaching material and pertinent teacher training.

5.2 Over staffing

As reported in the ESPR 2008, over staffing remains a great source of inefficiency.. In 2009 the average district office counted 94 staff, 74 of which trained as teachers and the average regional office counted 84 staff, 39 of which trained as teachers. Whilst on one hand is good to have people with first hand experience in school life working in administration, most administrative tasks require technical skills that teachers do not necessarily have. Only a small fraction of administrative staff should come from teaching background, while the rest should be hired with the appropriate skills. So long as teachers consider a promotion to be moved from the classroom to the office this will remain a problem.

Note: only schools with reasonable enrollment and number of teachers could be used for this

analysis. The official number of schools in the country is given in section 2.



Non teaching staff is mainly made of secretaries, cleaners, drivers and handymen. It is inconceivable that regional offices have on average more auxiliary staff then working staff. Reducing staff by 45% at regional office and by 35% at district office would result in a saving to the ministry of approximately GHc 6 Millions in salaries only.



Table 44: Staffing

DEO REO HQ

2007 2008 %

Change

2007 2008 %

Change

2007 2008 %

Change

TEACHING

NUMBER 12,487 12,496 0% 390 390 0% 258 244 -5%

PER OFFICE 73 74 1% 39 39 0%

TOT PE 48,650,5

28

54,540,2

21

12% 2,186,87

0

2,453,44

5

12% 1,521,64

2

1,676,40

9

10%

UNIT COST 3,896 4,365 12% 5,608 6,291 12% 5,898 6,871 16%

APPROX SALARY

LEVEL

12.08 12.07 0% 15.05 15.04 0% 16.02 16.02 0%

NON TEACHING

NUMBER 3,403 3,355 -1% 478 445 -7% 438 425 -3%

PER OFFICE 20 20 0% 48 45 -6%

TOT PE 7,266,15

0

8,271,67

1

14% 1,204,84

3

1,265,72

4

5% 1,003,42

8

1,113,98

3

11%

UNIT COST 2,135 2,465 15% 2,521 2,845 13% 2,291 2,621 14%

APPROX SALARY

LEVEL

8.08 8.08 0% 10.03 10.03 0% 9.05 9.05 0%

TOTAL

EXPENDITURE

55,916,6

78

62,811,8

92

12% 3,391,71

3

3,719,16

9

10% 2,525,07

0

2,790,39

2

11%



6 Management of Education

6.1 Monitoring and Evaluation

6.1.1 School Report Cards

For the first time this year with the support of USAID school report cards (SRC) have been introduced. Twice a year every headmaster is required to submit basic information to the DEO through the SRC The DEO will calculate the average district performance and return to each school a report of their performance against the performance of the average school in the district. SRC are meant to sensitize local community to the performance of their schools.

6.1.2 M&E Unit at MoE

Against this background Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the entire Education sector in Ghana is drawn for the 2009 MTEF Budget. To ensure effective Monitoring and Evaluation in the Education sector, M&E activities across the levels of Education need to be collated, M&E hearing conducted by Management and agreed activities factored in the budget and ring-fenced to be implemented to ensure efficient and judicious use of the available resources.

At the pre-tertiary level, for instance, accountability will be monitored through Performance Agreements with a focus on the School Report Card system that develops accountability relationships between parents, schools and the DEO . The league table mechanisms already in place in the 1st and 2nd cycles will be extended to the 3rd cycle. Certified audits of tertiary institutions will make them more accountable and accessible to a wider range of stakeholders. Such audits will include the publication of detailed budget and expenditure tables, reports of performance against targets, validation and/or justification for incentive packages and priority-based funding, and certified synopses of published research.

Overall, progress during the ESP 2010-2020 will be monitored by a rigorous, multi-level M&E system as summarized sequentially below:

1. Decentralized M&E: from ground level institutions (e.g. schools through their SMCs) to districts and regions to feed into regional and national annual reviews. This allows for district level reviews and institutional reviews especially at tertiary level during the ESP period. There will be some deconcentration of the NIB to Regions to contribute to the M&E process

2. Centralized M&E: with the PBME, NIB, NAB and other subverted agencies as the key-players - all contributing to the National Annual Review

3. External M&E: from wider Government and other stakeholders (private sector, FBOs, CBOs) as well as international development partners through the ESAR.



6.2 District Performance Reports (DPR)

District performance report are extremely useful monitoring tools. In the light of a decentralized education system DPRs will play a major role in informing future ESPRs and thus policy. Unfortunately by the time the performance report is being written, the Ministry only received a small fraction them. District directors must ensure that the ministry receives the reports within useful time as a report not received is as good as a report not produced.

Due to the small number of report received it is hard to draw general conclusions about the state of the education sector at district level. Nevertheless, some issues are reported with such frequency that deserve to be discussed.

6.2.1 Students

DPRs stress lack of motivation and respect on part of the students, often accompanied by poor attitude and involvement on part of the parents. This is a common problem in education that can be aggravated by a curriculum perceived as irrelevant, poor leadership on part of the teachers and headmasters and small returns to education in general. A commonly reported and worrisome source of student absenteeism that deserves further investigation is teenage pregnancy.

6.2.2 Teachers

Teacher motivation appears consistently at the top of the problem list. Teachers are reported to be not committed, to show up late if at all, and sometimes even to show up drunk.

The two most quoted causes of teacher lateness or absenteeism are commute time and course-work for distance learning programs. While lack of teacher accommodation in remote areas is a problem that deserves attention, lateness or even absence due to distance learning programs is completely unacceptable as such programs are designed specifically for teachers and take into account teaching schedule.

Difficulties with posting teachers in remote areas result in wild variation in PTR across schools which imply wild variation in education quality within the same district.

6.2.3 Administration

District offices report all schools to have developed a SPIP and to have received the Capitation Grant. School Management Committees are however reported in several cases to be lethargic or non existent. Lack of community involvement in school management is a potentially big problem that definitely deserves more attention. Both district and school consistently report late delivery of funds, including the CG. Funds. CG in particular is reported to be inadequate for the purpose.

The Ministry has increased CG by 50% to GHc 4.5 per child, but will have to make more efforts to insure its timely delivery.

All DPRs report to have received core textbooks as agreed under the MDBS target



6.3 Education Management Information Systems (EMIS)

6.3.1 2008/09 Education Census

Decentralization of data entry at district level, happened in 2009 for the first time, posed several challenges. Poor planning of the census activity left very little time for data entry and quality-assurance at the district. Furthermore, the application software used for data entry was found to be inadequate for the infrastructure present at district level (while the software required the entering computers to be networked, no network was available) which led to serious aggregation problems at a later stage. Late delivery of the EMIS report caused delays in all other activities at the Ministry and the near miss of several MDBS targets. Furthermore, untimely delivery-renders the wealth of information contained in the census worthless for planning and budgeting purposes.

6.3.2 Quality of data

Non-respondents is a potential problem to EMIS statistics. In order to get sensible statistics, it is important to know the exact coverage of the EMIS Census and the reasons behind non-respondents. At present, the actual number of schools in Ghana is unknown: questionnaires are delivered to all schools on EMIS roster and to all schools registered with the district in the most recent year. EMIS statistics are adjusted subsequently at district level for non-respondents under the assumption that non responding schools do not diverge from the district average.

There is, however, no rule for dropping schools from the roster, which leads, in the very likely-case of schools shutting down to an upwards bias in the adjustment as schools that no longer exist are being counted as non respondent.

A number of steps will have to be taken to enhance credibility of EMIS data. First, a school count must take place in order to create a baseline, and second, a "dropping rule" must be established for the roster, something along the lines of - a school that doesn't respond for three consecutive years is considered closed and dropped from the roster. Lastly, in order to increase incentives to respond, a stronger connection should be created between the EMIS Census and the Capitation grant: EMIS enrollment data should be used to calculate the second tranche of the Capitation grant, and non respondents could automatically be denied access to it.

6.3.3 Transparency

Unavailability of EMIS data at a sufficient level of disaggregation in an analyzable format is one of the most reported problems both from within and outside the ministry. It is of crucial importance for transparency and accountability that EMIS census data becomes freely available and analyzable. The following two steps will be taken over the next year to address such problems.

• The EMIS report, statistics at national, regional and district level of disaggregation, will be made freely available on the Ministerial website in Excel format. The Ministry believes that there will be no incentives for misuse of the data as the master copy of the report will remain online for public auditing of any study based on such report.

• The full EMIS census database, containing information at the school level will be made available - conditional on registration and statement of purpose - on the ministerial website. Again, public availability of the master certified dataset shall serve as a deterrent against misuse.



The ministry believes it will benefit from making the full census database available along the following dimensions

Improved image: The ministry will be more accountable and transparent in all it's processes. This is expected to improve the relationship with all stakeholders in the sector.

Reduced transaction costs: obtaining information for internal and external planning will be easier and less pressure will be placed on EMIS technicians.

External impact evaluation: The ministry doesn't have at present the capacity to conduct thorough quantitative impact evaluations of the large number of policies implemented in recent years. Research centers all over the world will gain access to very detailed information on the Ghanaian education sector. This is expected to increase the number of studies on the sector which will in turn assist policy making.

Data quality: by making EMIS data publicly available the Ministry also expects to receive feedback on data quality, and possible inconsistencies.

6.3.4 Questionnaire revision

It has been noted that a number of features on the current questionnaire play a major role in slowing the EMIS process and inflating the cost. Over the next year a major exercise of questionnaire review is scheduled to take place. While the content will remain such as to please the needs of the largest possible number of internal departments and external stakeholders, the revision will attempt to rationalize the frequency with which certain information is collected.

7 Education Finance

7.1 Current level of Education Sector Spending

In 2010, public spending on education in Ghana, including on-budget donor spending, was equivalent to about 10.1% of GDP . Domestic public spending represented 90% [check!] of this spending, and spending by donors/external sources the remaining 10%[check!]. This represents a very high level of spending in a comparative perspective (see Table 46) given that the level of spending is only 4.3% on average in low-income SSA countries and 5.7% on average in middle-income SSA countries.

It is very unlikely that such resource envelope will grow any further, as that would be at the expense of other government sectors. In order to achieve the posed objective given the hard budget constraint, the Ministry will have to reduce substantially the level of inefficiency.

7.2 Education Expenditure

This section follows closely the structure of the ESPR 2008, presenting the same, updated, array of information.

Tables 50 and 48 presents the trends in expenditures by source from 2003 to 2008 and their allocations. The overall budget predicted a 6% expenditure increase over the past year, but actual expenditure rose by 36%. GoG expenditure, budgeted to increase by 10%, recorded a 40% increase instead. Donor funding, on the other hand, despite large internal variations kept close to the budget. EFA financing unexpectedly fell by



55%,, HIPC funding fell by 43% and MDRI funds increased by a factor of 48 (480%).

Figure 10 underneath plots the overall budget against the overall expenditures on year by-year basis. What emerges is a clear struggle to keep expenses within the budget. Between 2005 and 2007 there appears to have been a good coordination between the actual expenditure and the following year's budget, which broke down for 2008.

The same idea is conveyed by table 49, where the problem of under-budgeting is explored more in depth. Comparing budget allocation to actual expenditures on year by year basis, the table provides provenience and extent under-budgeting (showed in red). It is concerning to see how consistent under-budgeting is with GoG funds over the years, and even more so the recent explosion in GoG expenditure

Table 50 show the trends in expenditure by level of education between 2003 and 2009, and Figure 11 summarizes the situation for 2008. Distribution of expenditures across levels remained substantially constant since last year, with primary education taking up 35% and basic education 56%.

7.3 Sources and Allocations of Government Expenditure

Table 52 provides a breakdown of total expenditure in 2008 by source. PE accounts for 67.5% of the total expenditure in the education sector. Administration, Service and Investment account for 4.6%, 14.6% and 13.4% respectively. GoG funds are the bulk of the expenditure at 70%, followed by GETFund expenditure at 12.2%. Internally Generated Funds provide 9.4% of expenditure and donors 5.5%.

Table 53 provides a breakdown of total expenditure in 2008 by level of education. Primary-education captures the largest proportion of all expenditure at 35% of total expenditure. The second largest proportion of expenditure is tertiary with 22%. Comparing this to the GoG expenditure on tertiary for GoG shows that 46% of funding for tertiary comes from external sources. JHS and SHS received 16.8% and 9.8% respectively. These shares continue to be larger than that of pre-school, demonstrating government's commitment to secondary education over pre-school education.

Table 45 gives a breakdown of expenditure in 2008 by Level and Source. EFA money is included in Donor and all others are included in 'Other'. As we can see, the other sources of expenditure account for a quarter of total expenditure. Donors contribute to almost 6%

Table 55 gives the breakdown of GOG expenditure by Item and by level of education. PE increased from 94% last year to almost 96% of the total expenditure, which means that the government pays the majority of the salary costs in education (compare to 65% on PE for total expenditure). Administration, service and investment account for 4% and 0.4% respectively.

Table 45: International Comparative Analysis of Public Spending on

Education

Public spending on education as % of GDP

Total public spending as % of GDP

Public spending on education as % of total public spending

Ghana 2009 10.1 55 18.3

Low-income



countries1

Sub-Saharan Africa 4.3 25 17

Other regions 4.3 31 14

Middle-income

countries2

Sub-Saharan Africa 5.7 35 16

Other regions 4.2 25 17

High-income OECD 5.6 45 12 Source:' Education spending data are from UIS. Total public spending (middle column) is computed from the other two columns. Note: Table does not include: i) countries in the World Bank's Europe & Central Asia region, and ii) countries, mostly island states, with population less than approximately 300,000.

1. Countries eligible for lending from IDA

2. Countries eligible for lending from the IBRD



Table 46: Trends in education expenditure by source (1

Sources 2003

Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Allocation

GHc

Actual %

2004

Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Government 259,884,4

00

94% 377,700,3

00

93% 328,918,8

24

96% 446,650,2

31

79%

GoG 259,884,4

00

94% 337,700,3

00

83% 328,918,8

2

96% 391,845,2

27

69%

GETFund - 0 40,000,00

0

10% 0% 54,805,00

4

10%

SIF - - - - - - - -

Donor 17,704,19

9

6% 18,392,70

0

5% 13,416,30

0

4% 42,009,20

3

7%

Donor

Agency

17,704,19

9

6% 18,392,70

0

5% 13,416,30

0

4% 42,009,20

3

7%

EFA

Catalytic - - - - - - - -

IGF - - - - - - 52,837,80

3

9%

Debt Relief - - 11,331,30

0

3% - - 27,422,90

2

5%

HIPC - - 11,331,30

0

3% - - 27,422,90

2

5%

MDRI - - - - - - - -

TOTAL

Sources

277,588,5

99 2005

100% 407,424,3

00

100% 342,335,1

24 2006

100% 568,920,1

39

100%

Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Allocation

GHc

Actual %


00

93% 561,860,5

00

77% 662,920,2

00

77% 766,953,9

00

82%

GoG 389,541,5

00

72% 485,553,9

00

67% 532,320,2

00

62% 648,325,7

00

69%

GETFund 112,420,0

00

21% 71,556,60

0

10% 130,600,0

00

15% 115,188,4

00

12%

SIF - - 4,750,000 1% - - 3,439,800 0%

Donor 37,513,90

0

7% 65,360,10

0

9% 87,392,70

0

10% 25,271,40

0

3%

Donor

Agency

37,513,90

0

7% 61,875,10

0

9% 73,714,20

0

8% 22,485,40

0

2%

EFA

Catalytic - - 3,485,000 1% 13,678,50

0

2% 2,786,000 0%

IGF - - 69,017,50

0

10% 81,284,00

0

9% 102,238,4

00

11%

Debt Relief - - 31,295,60

0

4% 30,000,00

0

3% 44,560,50

0

5%

HIPC - - 31,295,60 4% 30,000,00 3% 44,560,50 5%



0 0 0

MDRI - - - - - - - -

TOTAL 539,475,4

00

100% 727,533,7

00

100% 861,596,9

00

100% 939,024,2

00

100%



Table 47: Trends in education expenditure by source (2)

Sources 2007 Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Allocation GHc

Actual %

2008 Allocation

GHc

Actual %

Allocation GHc

Actual %


0

84% 1,031,466,5

77

81% 952,925,64

8

81% 1,431,570,0

60

82%

GoG 759,157,70

0

69% 867,133,29

7

68% 841,352,64

8

72% 1,219,028,4

27

70%

GETFund 170,000,00

0

15% 164,333,28

0

13% 111,573,00

0

10% 212,541,63

3

12%

SIF - - - - - - 0

Donor 56,244,100 5% 86,948,363 7% 66,527,668 6% 100,652,08

7

6%

Donor

Agency

46,124,100 4% 77,000,096 6% 52,299,268 5% 96,182,154 6%

EFA

Catalytic

10,120,000 1% 9,948,267 1% 14,228,400 1% 4,469,933 0%

IGF 111,839,80

0

10% 110,689,25

8

9% 105,856,63

2

9% 164,097,98

9

9%

Debt Relief 4,500,000 0% 44,435,287 4% 47,385,000 4% 47,251,582 3%

HIPC 4,500,000 0% 40,207,305 3% 16,485,000 1% 22,790,460 1%

MDRI - - 4,227,982 0.003 30,900,000 0.026 24,461,122 0.014

TOTAL 1,101,741,6

00

100% 1,273,539,4

85

100% 1,172,694,9

48

100% 1,743,571,7

18

100%



Table 48: Execution Rates by Source and Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Government -31% -26% -11% -14% -10% -33%

GoG -23% -16% -20% -18% -12% -31%

GETFund - - 57% 13% 3% -48%

SIF - - - - - -

Donor -4% -68% -43% 246% -35% -34%

Donor

Agency

-4% -68% -39% 228% -40% -46%

EFA

Catalytic - - - 391% 2% 218%

IGF - - - -20% 1% -35%

Debt Relief - - - -33% -90% 0%

HIPC - - - -33% -89% -28%

MDRI - - - - - 26%

TOTAL -32% -40% -26% -8% -13% -33%

Figure 10: Expenditure by Sources of funding



Figure 11: 2008 Education Expenditure by Level



Table 49: Trends in education expenditure by level

Sources 2003 Expenditu

re GHc

% 2004 Expenditu

re GHc

% 2005 Expenditure GHc

%

Pre-school 9,886,200 2.0% 23,176,164 4.0% 25,029,905 3.4%

Primary 163,533,90

0

40.0% 183,091,69

6

31.6% 220,115,93

6

29.9%

JHS 91,035,300 22.0% 92,704,656 16.0% 131,038,91

9

17.8%

SHS 63,024,400 15.0% 115,301,41

6

19.9% 153,124,13

1

20.8%

TVET 4,531,200 1.0% 6,373,445 1.1% 8,834,084 1.2%

SPED 1,647,700 0.0% 2,317,616 0.4% 2,944,695 0.4%

NFED 3,707,300 1.0% 9,270,466 1.6% 13,987,300 1.9%

Teacher

Education

16,477,000 4.0% 21,437,952 3.7% 28,710,774 3.9%

Tertiary 57,257,500 14.0% 121,674,90

0

21.0% 144,290,04

5

19.6%

Mgt. &

Subvented

411,900 0.0% 2,897,021 0.5% 7,361,737 1.0%

HIV-AIDS 411,900 0.0% 1,158,808 0.2% 736,174 0.1%

Total 411,924,30

0 2006

100% 579,404,14

0 2007

100% 736,173,70

0 2008

100%

Expenditu

re

Expenditu

re

Expenditu

re

GHc % GHc % GHc %

Pre-school 37,144,800 3.9% 42,797,283 3.4% 65,901,0

27

3.8

%

Primary 262,627,20

0

27.6% 445,933,60

5

35.0% 613,661,05

4

35.2%

JHS 159,921,60

0

16.8% 206,990,93

3

16.3% 292,419,32

0

16.8%

SHS 150,382,80

0

15.8% 160,788,91

7

12.6% 171,058,25

1

9.8

%

TVET 8,599,900 0.9% 8,236,942 0.6% 18,311,2

07

1.1

%

SPED 3,835,600 0.4% 3,894,322 0.3% 10,662,5

66

0.6

%

NFED 6,736,900 0.7% 5,709,015 0.4% 6,327,28

4

0.4

%

Teacher

Education

33,119,000 3.5% 33,132,980 2.6% 55,274,3

68

3.2

%

Tertiary 214,564,50

0

22.5% 292,931,47

4

23.0% 378,615,13

4

21.7%

Mgt. &

Subvented

73,438,400 7.7% 70,339,643 5.5% 130,011,29

9

7.5

%

HIV-AIDS 2,474,300 0.3% 2,784,370 0.2% 1,330,20 0.1



9 %

Total 952,845,00

0

100% 1,273,539,

485

100% 1,743,571,

718

100

%



Table 501: Trend of national expenditure on education

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

GDP 6,526,200,000 7,762,000,000 9,701,800,000 11,490,320,000 13,974,584,000 17,211,700,000

Tot. GoG Exp. 4,331,683,643 6,081,153,324 9,538,244,208

Tot. Ed. Exp. 407,424,300 568,920,139 727,533,700 939,024,200 1,273,539,485 1,743,571,718

Primary Ed. Exp. 163,533,90 183,091,696 220,115,936 262,627,200 445,933,605 613,661,054

Tot. Ed. Exp. as % of GDP 6.20% 7.30% 7.50% 8.20% 9.10% 10.10%

Primary Ed. Exp. as % of GDP 2.50% 2.40% 2.30% 2.30% 3.20% 3.60%

Tot. Ed. Exp. as % of GoG Exp. 21.7% 20.9% 18.3%

Primary Ed. Exp. as % of GoG

Exp

6.1% 7.3% 6.4%



Table 51 Allocations of Education Sector Funding in 2008

Sources PE ADMINISTRATI

ON

SERVICE INVESTME

NT

TOTAL %

GoG 1,169,814,223

.54

43,428,314.44 4,979,722.69 806,166.65 1,219,028,427

.32

69.90

%

Donor - - 49,622,031.1

8

46,560,122.7

5

96,182,153.93 5.50%

IGF 7,582,824.14 35,883,083.93 104,261,842.

85

16,370,238.5

6

164,097,989.4

8

9.40%

GETFund - - 61,629,059.1

3

150,912,573.

53

212,541,632.6

6

12.20

%

HIPC - - 9,044,631.50 13,745,828.8

7

22,790,460.37 1.30%

EFA Catalytic

Fund - - - 4,469,932.71 4,469,932.71 0.30%

MDRI - - 24,461,121.9

0

24,461,121.90 1.40%

TOTAL 1,177,397,047

.68

79,311,398.37 253,998,409.

25

232,864,863.

07

1,743,571,718

.37

Percentage 67.53% 4.55% 14.57% 13.36% 100.00%



Table 52: 2008 Expenditure by Level of Education (GHc)

SUB-SECTO

R

PE ADMIN. SERVICE INVESTME

NT

TOTAL %

PRE-SCHOO

L

52,658,373.52 1,341,128.4

7

6,396,368.70 5,505,156.40 65,901,027.09 3.80%

PRIMARY 518,659,950.2

1

8,998,124.6

0

47,320,011.7

8

38,682,967.2

9

613,661,053.8

8

35.20%

JHS 240,209,163.8

0

4,888,528.8

0

28,089,467.6

2

19,232,159.5

4

292,419,319.7

7

16.80%

SHS 101,290,282.1

4

4,831,453.0

2

17,941,939.8

2

46,994,576.0

6

171,058,251.0

5

9.80%

TVET 12,122,912.27 1,114,962.5

1

1,498,889.21 3,574,443.16 18,311,207.14 1.10%

SPED 5,924,967.07 756,746.03 148,039.96 3,832,812.72 10,662,565.78 0.60%

NFED 2,897,241.20 3,306,406.5

5

123,635.83 - 6,327,283.58 0.40%

TEACHER

ED.

48,442,750.97 1,519,963.6

6

631,913.87 4,679,739.33 55,274,367.83 3.20%

TERTIARY 195,000,765.3

5

27,759,274.

81

61,395,107.1

7

94,459,986.5

3

378,615,133.8

5

21.70%

MGT &

SUBV.

190,641.14 24,794,809.

93

89,753,589.3

9

15,272,258.9

3

130,011,299.3

8

7.50%

HIV-AIDS - - 699,445.89 630,763.12 1,330,209.01 0.10%

TOTAL 1,177,397,047

.68

79,311,398.

37

253,998,409.

25

232,864,863.

07

1,743,571,718

.37

100.00

%



Table 53: Education Expenditure 2008 by Level and Source

Level GoG Others Donors &

FTI

Total %

Pre-school 54,281,625.38 5,603,451.20 6,015,950.52 65,901,027.09 3.78%

Primary 529,454,296.2

4

33,620,707.2

0

50,586,050.4

4

613,661,053.8

8

35.20%

JSS 245,975,846.3

0

20,854,985.1

0

25,588,488.3

6

292,419,319.7

7

16.77%

SSS 106,988,372.5

3

7,372,685.07 6,697,193.44 171,058,251.0

5

9.81%

TVET 13,546,464.91 3,522,735.23 1,242,007.00 18,311,207.14 1.05%

SPED 6,876,954.59 3,785,611.19 - 10,662,565.78 0.61%

NFED 6,327,283.58 - - 6,327,283.58 0.36%

Teacher

Ed.

50,341,460.31 4,609,207.52 323,700.00 55,274,367.83 3.17%

Tertiary 204,974,806.2

7

166,250,727.

88

7,389,599.70 378,615,133.8

5

21.71%

Mgt &

Subv

261,317.20 128,271,094.

02

1,478,888.16 130,011,299.3

8

7.46%

HIV-AIDS - - 1,330,209.01 1,330,209.01 0.08%

Total 1,219,028,427

.32

423,891,204.

41

100,652,086.

64

1,743,571,718

.37

100.00

%

Percentage 69.92% 24.31% 5.77% 100.00%



Table 54: GOG Expenditures 2008

SUB-SECTOR PE ADMIN SERVICE INVES

TMEN

T

TOTAL %

(Item 1) (Item 2) (Item 3) (Item 4)

PRE-SCHOO

L

52,658,374 1,341,128 282,123 - 54,281,62

5

4.50%

PRIMARY 518,659,95

0

8,998,125 1,796,221 - 529,454,2

96

43.40

%

JHS 240,209,16

4

4,888,529 878,154 - 245,975,8

46

20.20

%

SHS 101,290,28

2

4,831,453 543,573 323,064 106,988,3

73

8.80%

NFED 2,897,241 3,306,407 123,636 - 6,327,284 0.50%

SPED 5,924,967 756,746 148,040 47,202 6,876,955 0.60%

TEACHER

ED.

48,442,751 1,519,964 308,214 70,532 50,341,46

0

4.10%

TVET 12,122,912 1,114,963 256,882 51,708 13,546,46

5

1.10%

TERTIARY 187,608,58

2

16,671,001 642,879 52,344 204,974,8

06

16.80

%

SUBV. (INV.

ONLY) - - - 24,290 24,290 0.00%

MGT (INV.

ONLY) - - - 237,027 237,027 0.00%

TOTAL 1,169,814,2

24

43,428,314 4,979,723 806,167 1,219,028,

427

100.0

0%

Percentage 95.96% 3.56% 0.41% 0.07% 100.00%



Table 55: GoG Execution Rate 2008

Budget Head PE Administrati

on

Allocation Expenditur

e

Executio

n

Allocation Expenditu

re

Executio

n

Main Ministry 41,826,20

9

74,695,826 179% 8,142,380 7,751,302 95%

GES Headquarters 2472021 3582261.57 145% 5,999,529 5,989,686 100%

GES Regional 633,647,6

26

911,690,904 144% 14,762,819 13,117,445 89%

Institutions of the

Handicapped

3,808,353 5,113,835 134% 875,651 675,651 77%

Tertiary 100,000,0

00

174,731,397 175% 16,104,521 15,894,230 99%

Total 781,754,2

09

1,169,814,2

24

150% 45,884,900 43,428,314 95%

Budget Head Service Investment

Allocation Expenditur

e

Executio

n

Allocation Expenditu

re

Executio

n

Main Ministry 2,238,700 1,030,594 46% 472,813 24,290 5%

GES Headquarters 2684864 1324477.06 49% 895,000 0 0%

GES Regional 3,018,461 2,012,868 67% 2,263,919 682,331 30%

Institutions of the

Handicapped

131,783 131,783 100% 150,000 47,202 31%

Tertiary 1,500,001 480,000 32% 358,000 52,344 15%

Total 9,573,809 4,979,723 52% 4,139,732 806,167 19%



This implies that salaries continue to account for the largest share of expenditures and that resources are likely scarce for programs and investment.

The largest proportion of the GoG budget is spent on primary education (43%). This is close to the suggested international norms described above. JHS receives the second highest share with 20%, followed by 18% at the tertiary level which is much higher than international norms. The remaining levels of education receive minimal proportions of the total expenditure, notably, TVET with 1% of the GoG budget. This does not reflect GoG prioritization of TVET education.

FTI benchmarks on best practice suggest that no more than 65%of the recurrent education budget go for salaries in order to provide for essential non-salary inputs. GoG recurrent expenditure is 95.96% of the budget and total recurrent expenditure is 67.5% of the budget. PE expenditure, in short takes most of GoG budget, leaving the rest completely dependent upon external funding.

Table 56 depicts the execution rate for GOG expenditure for 2008. The overall execution rate for GoG funds was 145%, a substantial increase since 114% in 2007. The execution rate for PE was 150%, indicating that the salary budget is potentially under-budgeted for. The execution rate for Administration was 95%. That for Service was 52% overall This points to two possibilities. Either many of the service activities that were budgeted for were not carried out, or the money was re-allocated elsewhere. The huge execution rate in PE gives suggests that funds for administration and services were reallocated towards salaries.

The execution rate for Investment was shockingly low at 19%. Execution rate for investment was low at all level, with bottom lows at the headquarters, where almost nothing was spent. It is very likely that investment funds too were used to cover under budgeting in PE. This is a very-serious problem.

Table 57 provides a breakdown of donor funding expended in 2008 by source. Recurrent expenditure accounts for 51% of donor expenditure, and capital expenditure 49%. Since 2007, overall donor spending increased by |, capital recurrent expenditures increased and capital expenditures decreased. Similarly to 2007, DFID was the biggest donor with 43%, followed by the World Bank (IDA) with 11.5% and the EC with 10%.

Table 56: Donor Funding 2008 by Source Donor Recurrent Capital Total %

European

Commission - 9,757,242.6

7

9,757,242.6

7

10.10

%

UNICEF 2,363,907.1

7

2,215,609.2

4

4,579,516.4

1

4.80%

USAID 9,084,024.3

0 - 9,084,024.3

0

9.40%

DFID 29,364,023.

67

11,689,048.

39

41,053,072.

06

42.70

%

JICA 2,273,388.0

0

235,391.00 2,508,779.0

0

2.60%

IDA 1,666,692.5

3

9,397,065.7

4

11,063,758.

26

11.50

%

BADEA - 7,067,793.8

3

7,067,793.8

3

7.30%

ADB 452,350.35 6,046,683.8

9

6,499,034.2

4

6.80%



French Embassy 310,004.80 151,288.00 461,292.80 0.50%

WFP 4,107,640.3

6 - 4,107,640.3

6

4.30%

Total 49,622,031.

18

46,560,122.

75

96,182,153.

93

100%

Percentage 51.59% 48.41% 100.00%

Table 57 provides a breakdown of donor expenditure in 2008 by level of education. Primary again captures the highest percentage with 48%, followed by JHS, tertiary and pre school. Since 2007 there has been a substantial increase in donor support to Pre School: recurrent expenditures are four times higher and capital expenditure 1.5. Support to Tertiary on the other hand fell dramatically from 16.5% of the total to about 8%.

Table 57: Expenditure of Donor Funding by Level of Education, 2008

Level Recurrent Capital Total %

Pre-school 3,227,775.7

0

2,788,174.8

1

6,015,950.5

2

6.30%

Primary 28,204,972.

71

17,911,145.

03

46,116,117.

73

47.90

%

JSS 14,507,273.

60

11,081,214.

76

25,588,488.

36

26.60

%

SSS 574,865.55 6,122,327.8

9

6,697,193.4

4

7.00%

TVET 1,242,007.0

0 - 1,242,007.0

0

1.30%

SPED - - - 0.00%

NFED - - - 0.00%

Teacher Education 323,700.00 323,700.00 0.30%

Tertiary- 532,302.87 6,857,296.8

3

7,389,599.7

0

7.70%

Management &

Subvented

309,687.85 1,169,200.3

2

1,478,888.1

6

1.50%

HIV-AIDS 699,445.89 630,763.12 1,330,209.0

1

1.40%

Total 49,622,031.

18

46,560,122.

75

96,182,153.

93

100%

Table 58 provides a breakdown of other expenditures by non-GOG and non-donor source. The GETFund comprises half of these sources of expenditure, followed by IGF at 9% and 13% respectively. MDRI increased substantially since 2007 (1% to 6%) while HIPC fell (13% to 5%). The quasi totality of the other sources of expenditure is spent on service and investment (partially-making up for the very little that is spent on investment from GoG funds). Administration account for 8.5% and PE for 2%. Expenditure on services increased by 20% since 2007, mainly against investment,



Table 58: Other Expenditures by Source, 2008

Table 59 provides a breakdown of other sources of expenditure by level of education. Excluding management and subvented agencies, tertiary comprises the largest proportion with 39% followed by SHS with 13.5% and Primary 8%. This is partially due to the large allocation to tertiary education from the GETFund, since that is its purpose. Since 2007, expenditure on management and subvented agencies increased from 21% to 30%, and expenditure on SHS fell from 27% to 13.5%.

7.4 Unit Costs

The following tables (61 and 62) outline the cost per student for each level of education. The Recurrent costs include Items 1-3 (Personnel Emoluments, Administration and Service).'

The per capita cost is the total expenditure on that level of education divided by public enrollment at that level. The unit cost is the recurrent expenditure divided by public enrollment at that level. The unit cost and per capita cost are both increasing by level of education. That of tertiary exceeds that of primary by a factor of more than ten. At each level, both the per capita cost and the unit cost are increasing over time. For a clearer comparison, unit costs are plotted in graph 13 below.

Source Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Total %

Allocation

GHc GHc GHc GHc GHc

HIPC 9,044,632 13,745,82

9

22,790,460 5%

GETFund 61,629,05

9

150,912,5

74

212,541,633 50%

IGF 7,582,82

4

35,883,0

84

104,261,8

43

16,370,23

9

164,097,989 39%

MDRI 24,461,12

2

24,461,122 6%

Total 7,582,82

4

35,883,0

84

199,396,6

55

181,028,6

41

423,891,204.

41

100%

%

allocation

1.80% 8.50% 47.00% 42.70% 100.00%



Table 59: Other Sources of Expenditure by Level of Education, 2008

SUB-SECTOR Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 TOTAL %

Share

PRE-SCHOOL - - 2,886,469.61 2,716,981.59 5,603,451.20 1.30%

PRIMARY - - 17,318,817.6

5

16,301,889.5

5

33,620,707.2

0

7.90%

JHS - - 12,704,040.3

2

8,150,944.78 20,854,985.1

0

4.90%

SHS - - 16,823,501.0

8

40,549,183.9

9

57,372,685.0

7

13.50%

NFED - - - - - 0.00%

SPED - - - 3,785,611.19 3,785,611.19 0.90%

TEACHER

ED. - - - 4,609,207.52 4,609,207.52 1.10%

TVET - - - 3,522,735.23 3,522,735.23 0.80%

TERTIARY 7,392,183.

00

11,088,274.

00

60,219,925.1

8

87,550,345.7

0

166,250,727.

88

39.20%

MGT. &

SUBV.

190,641.14 24,794,809.

93

89,443,901.5

4

13,841,741.4

1

128,271,094.

02

30.30%

GRAND

TOTAL

7,582,824.

14

35,883,083.

93

199,396,655.

38

181,028,640.

96

423,891,204.

41

100.00

%



Table 60: Unit Costs, Basic cycle

Level 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Pre

School

Total Expenditure GHc 42,797,28

3

65,901,02

7

Recurrent Expenditure

GHc

38,076,75

9

60,395,87

1

Enrollment 1,046,417 1,300,897

Per Capita GHc n/a n/a n/a n/a 40.899 50.658

Unit Cost GHc n/a n/a n/a n/a 36.388 46.426

Primary Total Expenditure GHc 163,533,9

00

183,091,6

00

220,115,900 262,627,2

00

445,933,6

05

611,196,4

70


GHc

149,037,7

00

168,808,0

00

176,628,700 244,403,0

00

397,483,2

45

572,513,5

02

Enrollment 2,418,696 2,445,913 2,727,044 2,870,656 2,990,782 3,041,895

Per Capita GHc 67.612 74.856 80.716 91.487 149.103 200.926

Unit Cost GHc 61.619 69.016 64.769 85.138 132.903 188.209

JHS Total Expenditure GHc 91,035,30

0

92,704,65

6

131,038,919 159,921,6

00

206,990,9

33

290,776,2

64


GHc

118,188,095.

17

150,829,6

06

186,357,2

52

271,544,1

04

Enrollment 828,517 853,230 951,673 969,351 1,015,491 1,064,088

Per Capita GHc 109.877 108.651 137.693 164.978 203.833 273.263

Unit Cost GHc n/a n/a 124.190 155.599 183.514 255.190



Table 61: Unit Costs, Post Basic cycle

Level 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

SHS Total Expenditure GHc 63,024,4

00

115,301,4

16

153,124,131 159,921,6

00

160,788,9

17

171058251.1


GHc

122,687,131.

99

97,101,08

7

80,673,95

2

124,063,674.

98

Enrollment 328,426 333,002 367,242 387,850 395,839 441,342

Per Capita GHc 191.898 346.248 416.957 412.328 406.198 387.587


TVET Total Expenditure GHc 4,531,20

0

6,373,445 8,834,084 8,599,900 8,236,942 18,311,207.1

4


GHc

5,339,436.90 8,531,910 8,192,626 14,736,763.9

9

Enrollment 18,672 21,424 20,303 18,432 16,923

Per Capita GHc 242.674 297.491 435.112 466.574 486.731 #DIV/0!

Unit Cost GHc n/a n/a 262.988 462.886 484.112 #DIV/0!

Tertiar

y

Total Expenditure GHc 57,257,5

00

121,674,9

00

144,290,045 214,564,5

00

292,931,4

74

378,615,133.

86


GHc

118,353,536 140,148,1

41

210,776,5

51

284,155,147.

33

Enrollment 89,942 99,752 111,893 121,490 139,768 132,604.00

Per Capita GHc 636.605 1219.774 1289.536 1766.108 2095.841 2855.232




Figure 12: Unit Costs by cycle



7.5 Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS)

The Public Expenditure Tracking Survey initiated in 2007 is now publicly available. The PETS is an intuitively simple exercise consisting of tracking funds from source to target and comparing the disbursement and receipt claim at each step. The PETS covers Both the Health and Education sectors. The Education section of the PETS covered

1. Capitation Grant

2. Textbook procurement

3. Services (Item 3)

4. Investment (Item 4)

This section presents a brief overview of the findings of the first two sections of the PETS. Interested readers are encouraged to request for the full PETS.

7.5.1 Capitation Grant

Figure 14 summarizes the identified flow of the funds from the source (Ministry of Finance) to the target (Basic Schools); Figure 15 summarizes the robustness of the links. It emerges quite clearly that while funds are transferred reasonably efficiently from MoFEP to the DEO, the link between EOs and schools appear to be much weaker. This points at issues of capacity, infrastructure and M&E at the district levels.



Figure 13: Capitation Grant Funding Flow



Figure 14: Capitation Grant: summary of findings

Source: Public Expenditure Tracking Survey 2007



7.5.2 Textbooks

Figure 16 summarizes the identified flow of funds from the source (MoFEP) to the target (Basic Schools). The procurement process takes place centrally, and books are then dispatched to the DEO to be distributed to the schools. No major inconsistency are found on the path from MoFEP to the DEO, while as in the case of Capitation Grant, problems tend to emerge between the DEOs and the schools. Figure 17 summarizes the number of books that claim to have been dispatched by the DEO against the number of books that claim to have been received by the schools. Except in very few cases less books are received then dispatched, making room for serious concern.

Figure 15: Textbooks fundig flow



Figure 16: Textbook Procurement: summary of findings

Source: MoE elaboration from Public Expenditure Tracking Survey 2007 data.



A APPENDIX 1: DATA AND STATISTICS

EMIS data

Statistic drawn from the EMIS report are all adjusted for non- respondents as described in the 2008 ESPR.

Enrolment and number of teachers are adjusted according to the following

formula

+⋅

d

dd R

NRX 1 ,

where X is the item to be adjusted, NR is the number of non responding

schools, R is the number of responding schools, and the subscript d

indicates that the adjustment is made at district level. The underlying

assumption is that non responding schools on public and private basis are

not too different from the average relative public and private schools in the

district where they belong.

Statistics

This section presents a brief summary of the indicators used in this

chapter.

Define:

{ }{ }

−−−−−−−=−−−−=

−−−==∈

=∈

hlevelinggradeforagecorrectagh

hlevelforagecorrectah

hlevelingradegh

gradeg

levelshsjhsprimarykgh

6,5,4,3,2,1

,,,, K

Gross Enrolment Ratio

is the total enrolment at level h divided by the population supposed to

attend level h. It belongs in the interval and can exceed 1 in

presence of late enrolment and repetition

Net Enrolment Ratio

Is the enrolment of the correct age for level h divided by the population that

ah

hh Population

EnrolmentGER =

)[ ∞+,0

ah

ahh Population

EnrolmentNER =



is supposed to attend level h. It belongs in the interval [0, 1] and can only

exceed 1 in case of incorrect population data or age reporting.

Technical note:

This indicator has to be taken with care as population data belongs to the

Population Census from the year 2000. and differential growth rates across

districts and internal migration hinder its precision.

Furthermore, note that although more precise then the GER, this indicator

does not distinguish between grades. An 11 years old child attending

Primary 1, for example, will be counted in.

Gross Admission Ratio

Is the number of newly enrolled of all ages into the first grade of level h over

the population that is supposed to be newly enrolled in the first grade of

level h. It belongs in the interval [0, ∞+ ) and can exceede 1 in presence of

late enrolment and repetition.

Net Admission Ratio

In the number of newly enrolled of the correct age in the first grade of level

h over the population that is supposed to be newly enrolled in the first

grade of level h. it belongs to the interval [0, 1] and can only exceed 1 in

case of incorrect population data or age reporting.

Completers Ratio

Is the number of pupils of all ages enrolled in the last grade of level h over

the population that is supposed to be in the last grade of level h. In simpler

terms, it measures the ghGAR a the last grade of level h. It belongs in the

interval [0, ∞+ ) and can exceed 1 in presence of late enrolment and

repetition.

B APPENDIX 2: COEFFICIENT OF

EFFICIENCY

The level of dispersion around the PTR line is summarized by the R2 of the linear regression of number of pupils on number of teachers - dubbed for the

1@

1@Re

==−

=gPopualtion

gpeatersNonGAR

agh

hh

1@

1@Re

==−

=gPopualtion

gpeatersNonGAR

agh

aghh

lastgPopualtion

lastgEnrolmentCR

agh

ghh =

==

@

@



purpose of this report "coefficient of efficiency" - is shown at the top of each scatter as "% Efficiency".

The four scatter plots below (Figure 18) - coming from computer generated data - show examples of different deployment systems, from a very efficient to a very inefficient one. Each dot represents the relationship between pupils and teachers in a school, and the red line represent the actual PTR. The closer the dots are to the red line, the more efficient the system

Figure 17: Computer generated data

.



C APPENDIX 3: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AF Administration and Finance Division (of GES)

AFC Associates for Change

AS HIV%AIDS Secretariat (of MoE)

BE Basic Education

BECE Basic Education Certificate Examination

BED Basic Education Division

BoG Board of Governors (Senior High)

CAL Computer Assisted Learning

CBO Community Based Organisations

CBT Competency Based Training

CD Compact Disc

CDMoE Chief Director of MoE

CL Complementary Learning

CoE College(s) of Education

COTVET Council for TVET

CPM Consultative Panel Meeting

CRDD Curriculum Research and Development Division (of GES)

CRS Client Report System

CRT Criterion Referenced Tests

CSSPS Computerised School Selection and Placement System

CWS Community Water and Sanitation

DA District Assembly

DEO District Education Office/Officer

DG Director General of GES

DP Development Partner(s)

EFA Education For All

EM Educational Management

EMIS Education Management Information System

ERRC Education Reform Review Committee

ESAR Education Sector Annual Review



ESP Education Strategic Plan

ESPRR Education Sector Policy Review Report

ESTAC Education Sector Technical Advisory Committee

FBO Faith Based Organisations

FCUBE Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education

FPMU Funds and Procurement Management Unit

GAC Ghana Aids Commission

GBDC Ghana Book Development Council

GCU ? ? ?

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GER Gross Enrolment Ratio

GES Ghana Education Service

GETFund Ghana Education Trust Fund

GEU Girls Education Unit

GLB Ghana Library Board

GNAPS Ghana National Association of Private Schools

GNAT Ghana National Association of Teachers

GoG Government of Ghana

GPI Gender Parity Index

GPRS Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy

HIV&AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

HQ Head Quarters

HRD Human Resource Development

HRMD Human Resource Management and Development (GES)

HT Head Teacher

ICCES Integrated Community Centres for Employable Skills

ICT Information and Communication Technology

ICU Implementation Co-ordination Unit

IEA International Evaluation of Achievement

IEC Information, Education, Communication

IGO Inter-Governmental Organisation

INSET In-Service Education of Teachers

IS Inclusive and Special (Education)



ISH Integrated School Health

JH Junior High

JHS Junior High School

KG Kindergarten

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MDA Ministry Departments and Agencies

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MNS Minimum National Standards

MoE Ministry of Education

MoEP Ministry of Economic Planning

MoF Ministry of Finance

MoH Ministry of Health

MoMYE Ministry of Manpower Youth and Employment

MoYS Ministry of Youth and Sports

MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework

NAB National Accreditation Board

NAP National Apprenticeship Programme

NBSSI National Board of Small Scale Industries

NCCA National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

NCTE National Council for Tertiary Education

NDP National Development Plan

NDPC National Development Planning Commission

NEPAD New Partnerships for African Development

NER Net Enrolment Ratio

NERIC National Education Reform Implementation Committee

NF Non-Formal (Education)

NFED Non-Formal Education Division

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NIB National Inspection Board

NSS National Service Secretariat

NTC National Teaching Council

NUGS National Union of Ghana Students

OU Open University



PBME Planning, Budgeting, Monitoring and Evaluation

PMT Performance Monitoring Tests

PRESET Pre-Service Education of Teachers

PRME Policy Research Monitoring and Evaluation unit (of PBME)

PRU Public Relations Unit (of GES)

PS Private Sector

PTA Parent Teacher Association

PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio

RECOUP Research Consortium on Educational Outcomes and Poverty

REO Regional Education Office/Officer

SA Subject Associations

SED Secondary Education Division

SEN(s) Special Education Needs(s)

SFL Schools for Life

SH Senior High

SHEP School Health Education Programme

SHS Senior High School

SL Supply and Logistics Division of GES)

SMC School Management Committee

SpED Special Education Division (of GES)

SPIP School Performance Improvement Programme

SRC School Report Card system

SRIMPR Statistics, Research, Information Management and Public Relations

SSCE Secondary School Certificate Examination

STD Sexually Transmitted Diseases

STEU Science and Technology Education Unit of GES

STME Science, Technology and Mathematics Education

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TA Technical Assistance

TE Tertiary Education

TED Teacher Education Division (of GES)

TEU Technical Examinations Unit

TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study



TLM Teaching and Learning Materials

TOT Trainers of Trainers/Tutors/Teachers

TTC Teacher Training College

TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training

TVI Technical Vocational Institutions

TVED Technical and Vocational Education Division (of GES)

TVSD Technical and Vocational Skills Development

UBE Universal Basic Education

UDE University Department of Education

UENR University of Energy and Natural Resources (Sunyani)

UHAS University of Health and Applied Sciences (Ho)

UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UTTDBE Untrained Teachers Diploma in Basic Education

VTI Vocational Training Institute

WAEC West African Examinations Council

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organisation

republic of ghana ministry of education...education sector performance report, 2009 ministry of...

Documents