world bank document › curated › en › ...vat value added tax ... wassce west african senior...
TRANSCRIPT
Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: 72949-GH
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON A
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION FUND GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$75.5 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF GHANA
FOR A
GHANA PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION GRANT PROJECT
October 10, 2012
Central and West Africa Education Unit
Africa Region
This document is being made publicly available in accordance with the Bank’s policy on Access
to Information.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective September 12, 2012)
Currency Unit = New Ghana Cedi
GH 1 = US$.526
US$ = 1.90 GH
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 – December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADEOP Annual District Education Operational Plan
AESOP Annual Education Sector Operational Plan
APW Annual Programs of Work
BECE Basic Education Certificate Examination
CBI Cluster Based In-service Training
CSO Community Service Organization
DACF District Assembly Common Fund
DED District Education Directorate
DFID UK Department for International Development
EFA-FTI Education for All Fast Track Initiative
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
EMIS Education Management Information System
ESP Education Sector Plan
EDSEP Education Sector Project
FCUBE Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education
FTI Fast Track Initiative
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GES Ghana Education Service
GEU Girls Education Unit
GNAT Ghana National Association of Teachers
GoG Government of Ghana
GPE Global Partnership for Education
GPEF Global Partnership for Education Fund
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IMF International Monetary Fund
INSET In-Service Education and Training
JHS Junior High School
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
LEAP Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty
MDBS Multi-Donor Budget Support
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
MMDAs Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies
MoE Ministry of Education
MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
MoLG Ministry of Local Government
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
NAB National Accreditation Board
NALAP National Literacy Accelerated Program
NAR Net Admission Rate
NCCA National Curriculum Coordinating Authority
NCTE National Council for Tertiary Education
NDC National Democratic Congress
NEA National Education Assessment
NER Net Enrolment Ratio
NERIC National Education Reform Implementation Committee
NERP National Education Reform Program
NESAR National Education Sector Annual Review
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIB National Inspectorate Board
NTC National Teaching Council
NVTIs National Vocation Training Institutes
ODL Open and Distance Learning
PBME Planning, Budgeting, Monitoring and Evaluation Department
PCE Per child recurrent expenditure
PCR Primary Completion Rate
PPP Purchasing Power Parity
PRSCs Poverty Reduction Strategy Credits
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PTA Parent Teacher Association
PTE Per teacher recurrent expenditure
PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio
PTTR Pupil Trained Teacher Ratio
SBA School Based Assessment
SBI School Based In-service Training
SEA School Education Assessment
SHS Senior High School
SMC School Management Committee
SPAM School Performance Assessment Meeting
SP School Profile
SPIP School Performance Improvement Plan
SRC School Report Cards
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
SSSCE Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination
TED Teacher Education Department
TIG Technical Implementation Group
THR Take Home Rations
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
TTIs Technical Training Institutes
TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training
UBC Universal Basic Completion
UBE Universal Basic Education
UCC University of Cape Coast
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UPC Universal Primary Completion
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UTDBE Untrained Teachers Diploma in Basic Education
VAT Value Added Tax
WAEC West African Examination Council
WASSCE West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examination
WFP World Food Program
Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop
Country Director: Yusupha B. Crookes
Sector Director: Ritva S. Reinikka
Sector Manager: Peter Nicolas Materu
Task Team Leader: Deborah Newitter Mikesell
REPUBLIC OF GHANA
GHANA PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION GRANT PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................1
A. Country Context ............................................................................................................. 1
B. Sectoral and Institutional Context .................................................................................. 3 C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes ............................................ 7
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................................8
A. Project Development Objectives .................................................................................... 8 Project Beneficiaries ................................................................................................. 8
PDO-level Results indicators ................................................................................... 9
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................9
A. Project Components ....................................................................................................... 9 B. Project Financing.......................................................................................................... 15
Lending Instrument ................................................................................................ 15 Project Cost and Financing ..................................................................................... 15
IV. IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................................15
A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements.......................................................... 15 B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 16
C. Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 17
V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................................17
VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ..............................................................................................18
A. Economic and Financial Analyses ............................................................................... 18
B. Technical ...................................................................................................................... 19 C. Financial Management ................................................................................................. 20
D. Procurement ................................................................................................................. 21 E. Social (including Safeguards)....................................................................................... 21 F. Environment (including Safeguards) ............................................................................ 22
Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 23
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description ...................................................................................... 26
Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 49
Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) ................................................ 77
Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan ................................................................................... 83
Annex 6: Sector Background ..................................................................................................... 87
Annex 7: Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................ 98
Annex 8: Lessons Learned/Literature Review ...................................................................... 106
i
PAD DATA SHEET
Ghana Partnership for Education Grant Project (P129381)
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
AFRICA
Central and West Africa Education
Basic Information
Date: 10-October-2012 Sectors: Primary education (80%), General education
sector (20%)
Country Director: Yusupha B. Crookes Themes: Education for all (100%)
Sector
Manager/Director:
Peter Nicolas
Materu/Ritva S.
Reinikka
Project ID: P129381 EA
Category:
B - Partial Assessment
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment
Lending
Team Leader(s): Deborah Newitter
Mikesell
Joint IFC: No
Borrower: Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
Responsible Agency: Ghana Education Service
Contact: Chris Koramoah Title: Financial Controller, GES
Telephone
No.:
23321231664 Email: [email protected]
Project Implementation
Period:
Start
Date:
10-Oct-2012 End
Date:
31-Oct-2015
Expected Effectiveness
Date:
11-Jan-2013
Expected Closing Date: 31-Oct-2015
Project Financing Data(US$M)
[ ] Loan [ ] Grant [ X ] Other- Global Partnership for Education Fund
Implementation Grant [ ] Credit [ ] Guarantee
For Loans/Credits/Others
Total Project Cost (US$M): 75.50
Total Bank Financing (US$M): 0.00
ii
Financing Source Amount(US$M)
Borrower 0.00
Global Partnership for Education Fund 75.50
Total 75.50
Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)
Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016
Annual 23.15 23.72 24.13 4.5
Cumulative 20.15 46.87 71.00 75.50
Project Development Objective(s)
The PDO of the Ghana Partnership for Education Grant is to improve the planning, monitoring and delivery
of basic education services in deprived districts of the Recipient’s Territory.
Components
Component Name Cost (USD Millions)
Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education
objectives
44.86
School Sub-Grants 24.06
Project Management and Institutional Strengthening 6.58
Compliance
Policy
Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant respects? Yes [ ] No [ X ]
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies? Yes [ ] No [ X ]
Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [ X ]
Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [ X ]
Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Yes [ X ] No [ ]
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No
Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 X
Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 X
Forests OP/BP 4.36 X
Pest Management OP 4.09 X
Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 X
Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 X
Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 X
Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 X
iii
Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 X
Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 X
Legal Covenants
Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency
Recipient has established the Steering
Committee, in accordance with the
provisions of Section I.A.1(c) of Schedule 2
to the Grant Agreement
Two months after
effectiveness date
The Recipient shall, not later than six
months after the Effective Date, engage
external auditors for the purpose of
verifying and validating the flow of funds
under the Project in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.B.4 of Schedule 2 to
the Grant Agreement
6 months after
effectiveness date
Conditions
Name Type
Recipient has adopted a Project Implementation Manual, in accordance with the
provision of Section I.B.2 of Schedule 2 to the Grant Agreement (Section
4.01(a))
Effectiveness
Name Type
The execution and delivery of the Grant Agreement on behalf of the Recipient
have been duly authorized or ratified by all necessary governmental action
(Article IV, Section 4.01(b))
Effectiveness
Team Composition
Bank Staff
Name Title Specialization Unit
Qaiser M. Khan Sector Lead Economist Sector Lead Economist AFTSE
Peter Darvas Senior Education Econ. Senior Education Econ. AFTED
Deborah Newitter Mikesell Senior Operations
Officer
Team Lead AFTED
Eunice Yaa Brimfah
Ackwerh
Senior Education
Specialist
Senior Education
Specialist
AFTED
Kirsten Majgaard Education Economist Education Economics AFTED
Daniela Anna B. D.
Junqueira
Counsel Counsel LEGAM
iv
Robert Wallace DeGraft-
Hanson
Financial Management
Specialist
Financial Management
Specialist
AFTME
Shwetlena Sabarwal Economist Economist AFTED
Adu-Gyamfi Abunyewa Senior Procurement
Specialist
Senior Procurement
Specialist
AFTPE
Anders Jensen M&E Specialist Results Framework AFTOS
Bernardo da Cruz
Vasconcellos
Economist Monitoring and
Evaluation
AFTED
Luis M. Schwarz Sr. Finance Officer Disbursements CTRLD
Rose-Claire Pakabomba Program Assistant Program Assistant AFTED
Beatrix Allah-Mensah Social Development
Specialist
Safeguards AFTSD
Jessica Dodoo Team Assistant Team Assistant AFCW1
Locations
The GPEG project will be implemented in 57 deprived districts within eight of the ten regions of Ghana.
1
I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
A. Country Context
1. Ghana is a strong performer among the Sub-Saharan African economies. After
years of sustained economic growth and based on a 2010 GNI per capita of US$1,240, Ghana
reached the status of lower middle income economy as of 2011, with ambitions for further rapid
growth and development in the coming years. Ghana’s economy—which grew by an average of
5.7 percent per year between 2000 and 2009—is based to a large extent on natural resources and
agriculture, mostly high volume and low intensity production of raw materials, such as cocoa. A
series of shocks in 2008 led to high fiscal deficits, the appreciation of the Ghana cedi and the
closing of access to international capital markets. In recent years, the beginning of oil production
combined with high global commodity prices and good rains boosted the economy and real GDP
growth is expected to reach 12.2 percent in 2011 and more than 7 percent in both 2012 and
20131. High public expenditure arrears remain a challenge despite new oil revenues. Efforts to
ensure transparent and accountable use of these new resources are critical. Further, there is a
need to improve the quality of public spending, including (a) a better targeting of programs to
support the poor, (b) stronger management and control systems, and (c) improving the
effectiveness of public servants.2
2. The review of progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) depicts
steady progress in many areas. The share of the population living in poverty nearly halved
from 52 percent at the beginning of the 1990s to 28.5 percent by 2005-06. Based on trend data,
the income poverty, hunger, and access to water goals are largely on track to be met by 2015.3 At
the same time, other important MDGs, such as sanitation, child and maternal mortality are still
off-track and require more effort. As related to the education MDGs, Ghana has made substantial
progress since 1990 in terms of increasing the proportion of children completing a full cycle of
primary schooling, with the primary completion rate estimated at 894 percent in 2010/2011, up
from 79 percent in 1991. Despite this healthy progress, Ghana cannot fully achieve MDG2 by
2015, as there are still around 5 percent of children with no access to formal schooling, according
to household survey data. In terms of MDG3 on gender disparities in school enrollments, the
ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education attained 92 percent in 2010/11; based
on the improvement trend, Ghana is not quite on track to achieve parity by 2015. This reflects
that there are still gender gaps in school participation in the poorer parts of Ghana.
1 The Economist Intelligence Unit Ghana Country Report December 2011.
2 World Bank CAS Update March 2011.
3 When at least two observations are available after 1990, with a sufficient number of years separating them, the
World Bank determines whether a country is on or off track to meet a given MDG by 2015. To do so, it compares
the progress recorded so far with that needed to reach the MDG, under the assumption that progress becomes
increasingly difficult the closer countries get to the goal. Technically, this is equivalent to comparing the annual
growth rate between 1990 and today with the constant growth rate required to reach the MDG in 2015 from the
situation in 1990. 4 The completion rate reported here is based on grade 6 enrollments minus repeaters, whereas the completion rate
reported in Ministry of Education documents includes repeaters and is therefore a little higher (91.6%).
2
Table1: Ghana’s progress towards the Millennium Development Goals
Observation Initial Most Recent MDG1a. Poverty headcount ratio, national poverty line (%
of population) 51.7 1992 28.5 2006 MDG1b. Malnutrition prevalence, weight for age (% of
children under 5) 27.4 1993 13.9 2008 MDG2. Primary completion rate, total (% of relevant age
group) 61.2 1991 89 2010 MDG3. Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary
education (%) 78.5 1991 92 2010
MDG4. Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000) 119.7 1990 80 2008 MDG5. Pregnancy-related mortality rate (per 100,000 live
births) 740 1990 451 2008 MDG7a. Improved water source (% of population without
access) 44.0 1990 16.2 2008 MDG7b. Improved sanitation facilities (% of population
without access) 96.0 1993 87.6 2008 Source: The 2010 education indicators are calculated from EMIS 2010/11 data and 2010 population based on
projections of the 2000 census data. Once the 2010 census data are available, the completion rate will be re-assessed.
Other data are from "2008 Ghana Millennium Development Goals Report", Republic of Ghana, April 2010.
3. Fast economic growth and poverty reduction has mainly benefited the south of
Ghana, with poverty now concentrated in the north. Despite the overall reduction in poverty,
wide regional disparities in poverty and human development indicators remain, mainly between
the poorer northern Savanna regions and the rest of the country. Between 1992 and 2006 (Ghana
Living Standards Survey 3 and 5), the number of poor declined by 2.5 million in the south while
it grew by 0.9 million in the northern regions. Thus, the bulk of poverty has become concentrated
in the three northern regions which now comprise more than half the poor (against a fourth of
Ghana’s population) and where no significant poverty reduction has been observed in the past,
either through local development or out-migration.5
4. Administratively, Ghana is currently divided into 10 regions and 170 districts and
municipalities. Since 1988, Ghana has put in place comprehensive local government and
decentralization reform, although progress and approaches have been uneven across sectors. The
170 local governments, the District Assemblies, play a major role in taking on new functions and
administrating greater resources. In the concept for decentralization, districts report to regional
offices which play a monitoring role. In the education sector, the District Assemblies' role so far
is mainly in basic infrastructure development, for which they receive funds through the District
Assemblies Common Fund (DACF). The local bodies overseeing the operation of the basic
schools are the District Education Departments (DED), which are local offices of Ghana
Education Service, a central government agency under the Ministry of Education. Eventually, the
DEDs are expected to become part of the District assemblies, which will then play a much
greater role in the operation of the public basic schools. Government has increased the total
number of districts and municipalities in Ghana in recent years: this trend is continuing and the
total number of districts will increase by an additional 42, as announced by government in
October 2011, making the total number of districts 212. A number of districts are categorized by
5 See Tackling Poverty in Northern Ghana, World Bank, March 2011, Washington D.C.
3
the Ministry of Education and Ghana Education Service as deprived districts and have qualified
for particular programs or support. The Northern Savannah regions comprise the majority of the
deprived districts.
B. Sectoral and Institutional Context
5. As Ghana is getting close to universal primary education, the goalpost is now to
universalize an 11-year basic cycle. Ghana has pursued free and compulsory basic education
for decades, but the definition of what constitutes basic education has evolved. Since 2008, the
policy has been to provide eleven years of universal basic education (two years of Kindergarten,
six years of Primary, and three years of Junior High School). Enrollments have increased rapidly
in all three sub-cycles in recent years: between 2002/03 and 2011/12, gross enrollment rates
increased from 49 to 99 percent in Kindergarten, from 76 to 96 percent in Primary, and from 63
to 81 percent in Junior High (JHS). The primary completion rate (PCR) attained 89 percent in
2010/11. The share of girls in primary school has improved from 47.6 percent in 2002/3 to 48.9
percent in 2011/12, but wider gaps persist in the rural areas, particularly affecting the last grades
of primary school. The share of girls is lower in Junior High School (47.4 percent) and Senior
High School (45.4 percent). The dramatic increase in school enrollments has been driven mostly
by a concerted effort to build up the supply of schooling combined with the elimination of fees,
followed by the introduction of the capitation grant. Government eliminated the last remaining
school fees and levies in 2004, introducing at the same time a capitation grant to compensate
schools for the loss of revenue. The capitation grant was piloted in 2004 under the World Bank-
supported EDSEP project in 40 deprived districts, and mainstreamed to all schools in 2005 with
government funding.
6. Learning outcomes in basic schools are clearly unsatisfactory; improving learning is
a pressing need for the sector and a Government priority. Less than a third of primary school
children reach proficiency levels in English or in Mathematics, according to the National
Education Assessment (NEA) tests of 2005, 2007 and 2009. Similarly, an early grade reading
assessment for public schools in 2009 revealed that about 22% of children in grade 3 were
unable to read a single word on an oral reading test administered in English. These weak results
are clearly unsatisfactory given the large investments made in basic education in recent years.
Moreover, they signal that improving learning is an urgent need for the sector. A comparison
with other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa shows that Ghana is not alone in facing the issue of
weak learning outcomes (children unable to read a single word on an oral reading test in grade 3
were 1% in Liberia, 18-20% in Senegal, 27% in The Gambia, 28% in Malawi, 36% in Ethiopia,
and 57% in Mozambique). Further, Ghana is one of the few countries that are already making
some progress in this area, as demonstrated by the small improvement between 2005 and 2009 in
the NEA assessment in English and Mathematics. Ghana also improved its score between 2003
and 2007 on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) assessment of 8th
graders in Science and Mathematics. Still, government, communities, parents and students are
concerned with the weak learning outcomes, exam performance and sub-standard schools. Most
recently, the Government launched a campaign to improve exam performance of JHS 3 students
in some of the poorest, low-performing districts in the northern parts of Ghana.
7. Poorer districts, mainly concentrated in the north, have far weaker education
outcomes than other parts of the country; yet, they do not receive their fair share of
4
education spending. Poverty is largely concentrated in the northern half of Ghana, particularly
in the Northern, Upper West and Upper East Regions. Children from these parts, particularly
girls, have lower rates of school participation and weaker learning outcomes. According to the
Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2008, over 65% of girls over age 15 in the Northern
region have received no formal education compared with the national average of 21%. In the
2011/12 school year, the share of girls in grade 6 is 48 percent at national level, but only 44
percent in the Northern region. The preliminary results for the 2011 NEA reflect wide gaps in
learning between Northern, Upper West and Upper East Regions and the rest of the country. The
same pattern holds true for the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE), a
comprehensive leaving test at the end of lower secondary school. In 2008/09, the bottom five
performing districts on BECE English exams were all found within the Northern region. Despite
the weaker education outcomes, deprived districts do not receive their fair share of public
expenditures on education. About 60 percent of students in the Northern region attend primary
schools with per child expenditure (PCE) within the bottom third of the nation. Thus, instead of
receiving extra support to assist these districts to catch up to the rest of the country, schools in
poorer districts struggle with limited resources.
8. Public spending on education is around 6 percent of GDP in Ghana indicating a
high budget priority for the sector. However, relatively little is available for non-salary
recurrent spending needs. In the past three years, public education spending has fluctuated
between 5.3 and 6.3 percent of GDP, or around 22-25 percent of total public spending. The
education sector employs around 40 percent of the total civil service, and in 2010, as much as 97
percent of the core Government of Ghana education budget financed salaries. Further, salaries
are often under-budgeted and end up crowding out other types of expenditures during budget
execution. There are other sources of public education financing, including the Ghana Education
Trust Fund (GETFund), accumulated as a percentage of the Value Added Tax (VAT), which
mainly finances investments, but recently also textbooks and the capitation grant. Local
governments, through their District Assemblies, also allocate some of their funds sourced from
the statutory District Assembly Common Fund (DACF) for education, although their spending is
not well-coordinated with the Ghana Education Service (GES), an agency under the Ministry of
Education responsible for pre-tertiary education service delivery. GES is represented locally
through DEDs. Focusing on a set of deprived districts the prior World Bank-supported Education
Sector Project (EDSEP) initiated a Pilot Programmatic Scheme that transferred resources from
GES headquarters to the district DEOs, based on their annual programs of work. The objective
was to provide non-salary resources locally to the most under-resourced school districts in order
to improve the delivery of basic services.
9. Although there are probably enough teachers overall, too many are untrained- and
attracting and retaining qualified teachers in remote rural areas is a considerable
challenge. The Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) at the primary level has remained stable over the past
decade, at around 34 in public schools, despite the sharp increase in enrollments. This is a result
of recruitment of a large number of new teachers, many of them untrained. Between 2004/05 and
2010/11 the total number of teachers in public basic schools grew by 48 percent, almost keeping
pace with enrollment growth (51 percent). However, the share of untrained teachers increased
over the period from 30 percent in 2004/05 to the current 36 percent, and the PTTR in public
basic schools rose from 40:1 to 45:1. The PTTR is highest in Kindergarten (96:1) and primary
5
(54:1) and low in JHS (22:1). As a result of weaknesses in teacher deployment and difficulties in
retaining trained teachers in remote, impoverished areas with poor infrastructure and sanitation,
trained teachers are more likely to work in urban or peri-urban schools. As a consequence, there
are more than 1,700 public primary schools without a single trained teacher. Further, in ten
districts in the Northern, Upper West, Upper East and Western regions, there are over 155
students for every trained teacher.
10. The UTDBE course has been successful in upgrading untrained teachers in rural
schools; teacher upgrading will need to be accelerated, if Ghana is to meet its goal for
teacher training. According to Ghana's Education Sector Plan, the policy is to achieve a
minimum of 95 percent trained teachers in basic schools. In order to upgrade eligible untrained
teachers in schools in rural communities, Government introduced the Untrained Teachers
Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) program in 2004. UTDBE uses Open and Distance
Learning (ODL) to support untrained teachers studying for the Diploma in Basic Education,
while they continue to teach in their schools. Residential periods of training are offered locally as
a more efficient way of organizing training, and increasing the likelihood that teachers remain in
schools after their training. To date, more than 27,000 teachers (44% female) have enrolled in
this program, completion rates are high, and the costs are one fourth the pre-service diploma
program. The number of teachers participating in the UTDBE program will have to be increased
if the target of 95% trained teachers is to be achieved by 2015 or soon thereafter. UTDBE is
organized by the Teacher Education Department (TED) and accredited by the public University
of Cape Coast. The needs for teacher upgrading are particularly acute in the northern regions,
where the proportion of untrained teachers in particularly high.
11. School-based management approaches hold much promise for promoting
accountability for education service delivery; the mechanisms already exist in Ghanaian
schools, but need to be strengthened. A 2010 World Bank survey in 300 public primary
schools found that even though School Management Committees (SMCs) existed in 81 percent
of the schools, they were active in only 61 percent of the cases, and many SMC members did not
have enough information about their roles and responsibilities or about the School Performance
Improvement Plan (SPIP). Other mechanisms for promoting community and stakeholder
involvement in school management include Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) and local
traditional authorities. School Report Cards (SRC) were introduced in Ghana in 2010 as a way of
addressing challenges of low attendance and pupil learning achievements. The School Report
Card contained data on student and teacher attendance, enrollment, class average grade points,
number of SMC meetings conducted, number of visits to school by Circuit Supervisors and other
relevant school management information. In order to encourage the use of the School Report
Cards as a critical source of information for school management improvement, School
Performance Appraisal Meetings (SPAM) are organized using information on the report cards.
Initial implementation has been challenging, but it has proved a useful tool in improving school
level management in areas where the SRCs were used, particularly for increasing teacher
attendance. The system is recommended for further strengthening and use, particularly for
improving teacher attendance, as it provided details on each teacher in the school in terms of
attendance, thereby providing evidence for sanctioning teachers who absent themselves from
school. High teacher absenteeism is one of the key inefficiencies in the education sector. It is
more common in rural schools, apparently associated with higher occurrences of a poor work
6
environment and weak supervision and accountability. The average teacher absentee rate, as a
survey by the Center for Democratic Development (2008) indicates, was 27 percent. This is
corroborated by a recent World Bank survey (2010), where unannounced visits to about 300
primary schools found that approximately 28 percent of teachers were missing from classrooms.
12. The proposed project responds to a request from the Ghana Ministry of Education
and Local Donor Group to catalyze funding for quality improvements in the deprived
areas in Ghana, which are lagging behind the rest of the country in terms of educational
outcomes. Given the very high level of funding for salaries in the sector, the focus of the GPEG
is to make available non-salary financial resources to schools and districts in deprived areas to
support local action to improve service delivery. A focus of the project is to strengthen
decentralized decision-making and systems of school-based management and accountability.
Further, the grant will fund teacher upgrading of approximately 5,000 and no more than 8,000
untrained teachers currently teaching in schools in the deprived areas. The project will
complement the existing Capitation grant, which the government will continue to provide to all
schools. Moreover, the project will integrate and further develop ongoing government and donor-
supported instruments, such as the SRC. The GPEG seeks to realistically lay the foundation for
an improved system that will see improvements in learning outcomes in the near future.
13. The project has been developed in a very close partnership between the government
and the Local Donor Group and is aligned with the Education Sector Plan 2010-2020
(ESP). Since 2003, the Ministry of Education and Development Partners active in the sector
have been working towards an increasingly coordinated sector-wide approach to educational
development. The Local Education Group, comprised of the Local Donor Group and
Government, hold weekly coordination meetings; monthly sector discussions; develop annual
sector progress reports and participate in the annual sector review meeting held every June where
performance of the sector is discussed with all stakeholders. After a nearly two-year drafting
process that involved numerous stakeholders, the MoE finalized the new ESP for 2010-2020,
which spells out the MoE’s long-term visions, targets and strategies for the education sector.
Thereafter the MoE developed the three-year rolling Annual Education Sector Operational Plan
(AESOP) 2011-2013 in order to translate the ESP policies and strategies into concrete annual
actions, targets and financing plans. Both the ESP and AESOP have strong emphasis on the
expansion of educational opportunities to disadvantaged populations as well as the enhancement
of the quality of education and students’ learning outcomes. The proposed GPEF implementation
grant has been prepared by the Local Education Group during joint missions followed up by
weekly meetings since October 2011.
14. Strong relationship with the Global Partnership for Education: Ghana was among
the first group of countries invited to join the Education for All – Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI)
group in 2004, receiving Catalytic Fund grants in 2005, 2007 and 2009 for US$8 million, US$11
million and US$14.2 million respectively. The first two grants were provided as direct budget
support to improve the quality of basic education in Ghana and were implemented successfully.
The third grant, however, was prepared as a sector investment loan (SIL) to centrally procure
textbooks and Teaching and Learning Materials (TLMs) and provide incentives to attract and
retain teachers in under-resourced schools. The one year implementation period to procure
textbooks and civil works was overly ambitious and resulted in ineligible expenditures which
7
were repaid to the GPE Fund by the Government of Ghana. High turnover of staff in the Ministry
of Education combined with weak supervision and neglect of Bank procurement guidelines led
to the unsatisfactory implementation of this grant. Ghana’s education system has accordingly
benefited from a total of US$19 million from the Catalytic Fund. Lessons learned from this
experience have influenced the decentralized design of this project and are documented in the
recent Implementation Completion Report (WB, December 2011) and in the lessons learned
section of the PAD. The EFA-FTI officially became the Global Partnership for Education on
September 21, 2011. The Global Partnership for Education is a platform for collaboration at the
global and country levels. Through the Global Partnership for Education compact, Ghana
commits to design and implement a credible education plan while donor partners commit to align
and harmonize their support around this plan. Funding is coordinated around the ESP and
channeled through existing bilateral, multilateral channels and through the Global Partnership for
Education Fund, and in this instance, the World Bank serves as the GPE supervising entity.
15. The project is designed to improve the planning, implementation and monitoring
capacity of ongoing government efforts to decentralize education resources to the district
and school levels. Despite the substantial education budget, investments are inadequate to
sustain a dynamic and equitable quality education system. Salary expenditures crowd out
investment in learning materials, infrastructure and pedagogical support. Resources are also
inefficiently allocated. Models for increasing investments through district planning and
expenditures were piloted under previous Bank supported program and other donor sponsored
district interventions (e.g., PPS, DFID budget support to districts). The proposed GPEG will
focus on strengthening these mechanisms in line with the decentralization mandate, supporting
greater accountability for resources allocated to districts and schools and monitoring their use
towards the ESP aims and objectives.
C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes
16. A CAS progress report (FY08-12) presented to the Board of the World Bank in April
2010 updates the 2007 CAS as a response to the evolving changes in Ghana and challenges such
as the macroeconomic crisis of 2008, discovery of oil and gas and arrival of a new administration
in 2009. The CAS report proposed to focus on targeted programs for the poor, improving basic
health and education services through the decentralized system and focusing on post-basic and
innovative tertiary support in areas including technical and vocational education and health
insurance. Although the CAS update indicated a transition from basic to post-basic education
support, since then, government has requested continued Bank technical assistance and IDA
support for basic education especially for targeting of the poorest areas. The proposed program
responds to this request from the Ghana Ministry of Education and the Local Donor Group to
catalyze funding for basic education improvements in the deprived areas in Ghana. Furthermore,
the project complements the ongoing activities and new commitments of the key education
donors in Ghana, in alignment with the ESP. It focuses on strengthening governance and public
sector capacity, decentralized flow of funds and decision-making. It also focuses on equitable
and higher quality service delivery. The project’s focus on improving resource allocations to
impoverished areas, supporting girls’ education and improving learning and quality of basic
education are important objectives of the GPE global strategy.
8
17. Government of Ghana Education Sector Plan6: The ESP strategic goal is to provide
“equitable access to good-quality child-friendly universal basic education, by improving
opportunities for all children in the first cycle of education at kindergarten, primary and junior
high school levels.” Under this overarching goal are four targeted pillars considered critical for
Ghana to meet the education MDGs and to produce the well-educated population required to
contribute to economic growth and development of the country. The objectives of these pillars
are (i) to improve equitable access to and participation in quality education at all levels; (ii)
bridge the gender gap in access to education; (iii) improve the quality of teaching and learning;
and (iv) improve management of education service delivery. Therefore, GPEG activities are
oriented around these four pillars.
II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
A. Project Development Objectives
18. The PDO of the Ghana Partnership for Education Grant (GPEG) is to improve the
planning, monitoring and delivery of basic7 education services in deprived districts of the
Recipient’s territory.
19. The GPEG objective is an intermediate outcome of the Education Sector Plan and
consequently, it will be difficult to attribute results exclusively to it for higher order outcomes.
Strengthened capacities of key education stakeholders to improve resource allocations ultimately
aim to impact on higher order objectives of access, equity, quality, and education management as
well as to target those areas where the poorest children reside. The GPEG will be implemented
over three years.
Project Beneficiaries
20. The project is expected to benefit approximately 6,600 schools and 1.7 million students
(400,000 in KG, 1,000,000 in primary, and almost 300,000 in JHS), of which 47% are female8.
These beneficiaries are located in the poorest regions/districts of the country, in line with
government policy to target support and resources to reduce poverty. Approximately 5,000 and
no more than 8,000 untrained teachers9 may participate in the UTDBE, and an additional 40,000
teachers and many education staff will benefit from the project. The GPEG will cover 34
percent of basic school enrollment and 46 percent of basic school teachers, mostly untrained, in
Ghana. Other beneficiaries include the Colleges of Education responsible for the UTDBE
program, participating Community Service Organizations (CSO), Non-Governmental
6 Ghana ESP, 2010. The GPEG focal areas are extracted from the key strategy areas under the Education Sector
Plan with prioritized areas identified in the medium term framework (AESOP 2011-2013). Guidelines in the
Project Implementation Manual will encourage districts and schools to select activities that are likely to have an
impact on these key areas. 7 Basic education includes KG, primary and junior high school.
8 There was some discussion on whether private schools would be supported under the grant. It was agreed that
school grants follow the existing capitation grant selection (private schools are excluded). However, Districts may
allocate some resources to private schools (not-for profit) under their grant allocation and INSET and other training
could be available for private school teachers. 9 The GPEG would aim to support significant female enrollment.
9
Organizations (NGO), SMCs, PTAs, who may support implementation of district grants,
Regional Education Directorates, District Education Directorates, GES staff, National
Inspectorate Board (NIB) and senior officers in the Ministry of Education involved in the
implementation and monitoring/evaluation of grant activities. The ultimate beneficiaries of the
project are the basic education students in deprived districts, who will benefit from an improved
and equitable learning environment and being taught by more qualified teachers with greater
professional ability. These beneficiaries are both current students as well as future cohorts of
students in participating schools.
21. Progress towards the achievement of the GPEG’s proposed development objective will
be measured by the following PDO-level Results indicators.
PDO-level Results indicators
Objective Indicator
Improved planning Deprived districts disbursing 75% or more of their district education
grants as planned in their APW
Improved Monitoring Public basic schools in deprived districts with up-to-date School
Report Cards
Improved service
delivery
P3 students achieving proficiency in English and Math (National
Education Assessment results for deprived districts)
Teachers trained under the project in deprived districts who obtain a
satisfactory rating or higher in the SBI/CBI Lesson Observation Sheet
for (a) lesson planning (b) teaching methodology (c) classroom
organization and management
Beneficiaries
Direct project beneficiaries (disaggregated by beneficiary type—
students, teachers, etc.); and
Female beneficiaries (percentage)
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Components
22. The GPEG will support a decentralized mechanism for more reliable funding of non-
salary expenditures to improve the delivery of basic education services. These mechanisms build
on previous experience decentralizing funding to the district and school levels10
and provide a
next generation of support with enhancements and improvements to how education services are
delivered and monitored as well as their focus on equity, quality and accountability of education
management. Another goal of the GPEG is to use these mechanisms for improved coordination
among government and development partners and eventual on-budget allocations to ensure
continuation of targeted activities and reliability of resource flows.
23. The GPEG is based on the Education Strategic Plan 2010-2020 (ESP) and informed by
10
PPS under EDSEP and DFID budget support contributed to Government Annual District Education Operational
Plan (ADEOP) whereby resources were channeled to districts for non-salary activities aligned with ESP objectives.
10
the 2011 Ghana Education Report Improving Equity, Efficiency and Accountability of Education
Service Delivery, the Joint Review of Public Expenditure and Financial Management 2011, the
National Education Sector Annual Review (June 2011), the lessons learned from the EFA-FTI
Catalytic Fund Grants and Education Sector Development Project (IDA Cr. 38650), Education
Strategic Objective Assistance to Ghana (SOAG, USAID Ghana), Support to Education Strategic
Plan (DFID), Country Program Action Plan (CPAP, UNICEF Ghana), Support to Education
Implementation (JICA) and school feeding program supported by WFP.
24. Local Donor Group Collaboration in Education: The GPEG is being developed as
part of a larger program of donor support to the Ghana education sector. The project will be
supported by the development partners operating in the education sector, including DFID,
UNICEF, JICA, USAID and WFP. The GPEG has been designed to support areas that
complement the government’s expenditures as well as these other sources of financing to the
sector. JICA provides assistance in the development of the curriculum and manuals for in-service
teacher training. UNICEF and DFID are continuing support to complementary basic education
(CBE) in targeted areas and UNICEF, DFID and USAID will provide funding for inclusive
education and girls’ participation. USAID is leading support to improve early grade reading and
math teaching and learning and education management and systems. This includes direct
financial and technical assistance in support of teacher training, supervision, teacher deployment,
and teaching and learning material development to support better implementation of Ghana’s
mother tongue instruction approach (NALAP). USAID resources for educational management
and assessment will include support to EGRA, the bi-annual National Educational Assessment
(NEA) and improvement of the SEA, in addition to SRC implementation. UNICEF and DFID
have developed child and girl friendly standards for schools. DFID will provide district grant
resources to support girls’ education, particularly scholarships and capacity building of gender
education officers in addition to pre-service improvements in activity based learning methods.
Component 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education objectives
(Estimated total cost including contingencies US$44.86 million; base cost of US$42.36
million)
25. The objective of the district grant is to provide annual non-salary resources to deprived
districts as a supplement to existing resource flows, to support districts' annual programs of work
(APW) and government strategic priorities identified under the ESP and AESOP. A
comprehensive set of guidelines is being developed to guide the district planning process,
procedures and monitoring requirements and reporting. These guidelines will include an
evidence-based menu of activities corresponding to the ESP strategic priorities of access, equity,
quality and management and the attached policy matrix (Annex 2, Appendix A).
26. The district grant aims to channel funds to decentralized structures; to create a favorable
environment for MOE, GES and its implementing agencies to take direct responsibility for the
funding and monitoring of basic education services; and ultimately generate increased
accountability and participation by districts, schools and communities.
Sub-Component 1.1: District Sub-Grants (Estimated total cost including contingencies
US29.30 million; base cost of US$27.30 million)
11
27. The district grant will be provided annually to approximately 57 districts to implement
their annual programs of work (APW) which will be focused on local priority needs but aligned
with government strategic priorities of improving access, equity, quality and management of
basic education. The criteria for district selection include both Ghana's district-level poverty
index (share of population below the poverty line) as well as education indicators11
. The amount
of the grant would average US$5 per student/ per year, and given current enrollments in the
selected districts, the average annual grant would be 264,860 GHcs12
(US$155,800 equivalent),
with exact amounts determined by the size of the district. Many of these districts have had
experience in grant operations through the provision of district grants under the EDSEP project,
DFID-supported budget support and government budgeting under the ADEOP.
28. Building on previous experiences with the provision of district grants, enhancements to
strengthen the district grant would include: (a) earmarked funding13
to support teachers
participation in upgrading their qualifications through the UTDBE (sub-component 1.2); (b)
mandatory strategic in-service training for teachers (in basic literacy, numeracy, and science,
each using activity based learning methods); (c) more strategic and regular capacity building for
Regional Education Directorates, District Education Directorates, District Assemblies, School
Management Committees, head teachers, circuit supervisors, GES, etc.; (d) more facilitation and
knowledge sharing by central and regional government for targeted policy implementation and
results focus; (e) routine funding of robust and relevant monitoring and evaluation- including
better monitoring of expenditures; and (f) continuous sensitization activities to maintain social
accountability. The district grants will reflect district priorities and are therefore not pre-
determined other than the mandatory strategic INSET training.
29. The district grants will finance key trainings of implementing agencies and beneficiaries.
Workshops with District Education Directorate staff, MOE and GES planning staff and Regional
Directorates will assist Districts in drafting, finalizing and implementing their Annual Programs
of Work (APW). The APWs are to be based on assessment of local education needs, feasible,
cost effective activities with appropriate outputs and targets. Regional Education Directorates
will also play a role in monitoring and evaluation and held accountable by GES to ensure
reporting is timely and thorough.
30. Activities under District Grants: Interventions will be based on each district’s work
program but would be aligned with ESP priorities. Grant activities are not pre-determined, but
preparation of the GPEG has focused on possible interventions that correspond to the four key
policy areas identified in the ESP and AESOP, namely: equitable access and participation in
quality education; bridging the gender gap; improving quality of teaching and learning; and
improving management of education service delivery. In order to guide districts on preparing
and planning their annual plans that correspond to the above ESP focus areas, an indicative
matrix is being developed in the Project implementation Manual (PIM) to present a potential
menu of activities/investments that could be supported by the district grant. The PIM will
elaborate the details of the planning process, implementation guidelines, eligibility of
11
Details on the criteria and selection of deprived districts are elaborated in Annex 2 and Annex 7. 12
Exchange rate based on 1.7 GHcs to US$1 (March 1, 2012). 13
UTDBE support is detailed under Sub-Component 1.2.
12
expenditures, financial management, procurement and roles and responsibilities for carrying out
proposed interventions. Most importantly it will provide extensive guidelines on various
education investments. An evaluation of the District Sub-grants will be conducted during the
lifetime of the project. This component would finance: (i) training of district and school
personnel, teachers, SMCs, DA staff, (ii) district grants that may include, but not limited to,
provision of instructional materials and laboratories, implementation of special school programs
for students, provision of in-service training programs; and (iii) goods, minor works, non-
consultant services and consultant services, operational costs.
31. DFID would be providing additional district grant funding of US$10 million for girls’
education packages (scholarships, incentive packages) to the 17 lowest Gender Parity Index
(GPI) rated districts under their Girls’ PASS program.
Sub-component 1.2: Teacher Development and Skill Upgrading (Estimated total cost
including contingencies US$15.56 million; base cost of US$15.06 million)
32. While the ESP envisages that not more than 5% of teachers should be unqualified, the
proportion of trained teachers in primary schools has deteriorated since 2003/04, when 65% of
male teachers and 91% of female teachers were trained, to 61% and 69% respectively in
2010/11. Deprived districts have a proportion of untrained teachers significantly higher than the
national average. The UTDBE program introduced by Government aimed to address this by
training teachers already working in deprived schools, using distance education methods at a
fraction of the cost of pre-service programs. The upgrading improves learning during the training
period and is a more efficient way to keep trained teachers in the more remote/deprived schools.
There is also a higher likelihood that teachers would remain in these schools after graduation.14
However, the number of teachers being upgraded, including through the UTDBE, will have to be
increased if the target of 95% trained teachers is to be achieved by 2015 or soon thereafter.
33. Therefore, one of the objectives of this component is to support the upgrading through
UTDBE of approximately 5,000 and no more than 8,000 untrained teachers, (applying
transparent criteria to identify eligible candidates), in deprived districts. It is equally important
that attention be paid to increasing the proportion of female trainees especially given the
evidence of their impact on girls’ enrolment and learning.15
Preference will be given to untrained
teachers already teaching in primary schools, however, some untrained teachers teaching at KG
and JHS levels will be included to increase the number of female trainees. The GPEG would also
support some capacity strengthening of the institutions delivering the courses. This component
will include an impact assessment of the UTDBE program. This sub-component would finance:
(i) the costs of residential courses, UTDBE tutors on these courses and to help teachers between
residential courses; and (ii) goods (e.g., teaching materials), non-consultant services and
consultant services, including for monitoring, system improvement and evaluation.
14
An evaluation of UTDBE was conducted in 2010. Summary documents of UTDBE are available in project files. 15
CAMFED report 2011, “What works”. Field visit to Karaga district revealed an extraordinarily low transition rate
from primary to JHS for girls. This can be attributable to the problems of forced early marriage and the small
numbers of JHS schools, but a closer look at the data reveals that there are only 3 female teachers in 15 JHS schools
(enrollment 11,700, of which 594 girls).
13
Component 2: School Sub-Grants (Estimated total cost including contingencies US$24.06
million contingencies; base cost of US$22.06 million)
34. The elimination of school fees in 1992 and additional reforms in 1996 contributed to the
dramatic basic education enrollment increase of 50% over the last decade. However, during this
period, in the context of flagging public expenditures on education beyond salaries, many
schools were forced to impose indirect fees to cover a range of schooling expenditures including
lunch, uniforms, textbooks, examination fees and transportation. In response, the government
introduced a capitation grant for public primary and junior high schools in 40 deprived districts
in 2004 and in 2005 extended this grant to the whole country. This grant amounts to GH¢4.50
(US$2.78) per student per academic year with a view to encourage enrollment and empower
local schools management. Access was further improved as a result of the capitation grants, but
quality continues to present challenges. Reviews of the Ghana capitation program have often
pointed out the limitations of the small capitation resources, particularly for schools with lower
enrollment, many of which are situated in the more remote and deprived areas of the country.
35. Therefore the objective of this component is to provide a supplement to the above
described capitation grant with an explicit focus on improving access to and quality of education
services as priority needs are defined at the school level. School Grants will be provided annually
to all public basic education schools (6,600) in the 57 districts to augment schools’ operating
costs and non-salary expenditures to ensure that key policies aligned with the ESP can be
implemented. The amount of the grant would average GHc1,836 (US$1,100)/year based on a
GHc7.65 (US$4) per capita formula. Although a per capita expenditure formula is used for
planning purposes, the grant is a base grant in addition to the ongoing capitation grant already
received annually through the Government of Ghana.
36. Although international evidence is mixed with regard to impact from school grants,
experience in Ghana has been promising, as demonstrated by significant improvements in access.
GPEG aims to make greater headway towards improving the quality of education and focusing
on improved teaching and learning. Such focus would require strengthening the strategic
objectives of the grants (increasing the menu of options, using data to determine activities and
using evaluation to understand what is working and what is not). Furthermore, the GPEG is
promoting improvements in the scope of the grants (new formula for allocation), better targeting
of resources (to redress inequities), more reliable timing of resources, and stronger information
feedback loops through School Report Cards (SRCs), School Performance Appraisal Meetings
(SPAMs), increased monitoring by circuit supervisors, etc.. Given the lack of rigorous
evaluation of the ongoing capitation grant, this component could finance an evaluation to better
understand the impact of the grant and cost effectiveness of interventions. Qualitative reviews of
the school grants will also be conducted annually with support provided under component 3.
37. The school grants are expected to finance activities (KG, primary and JHS) identified in
School Performance Improvement Plans (SPIP) prepared jointly by parents, teachers and school
principals. The school grant could include: (i) instructional materials and learning inputs; (ii)
school furniture; (iii) mentoring/coaching opportunities; (iv) training related to identified local
skills needs, i.e., math and science, special needs assessments, remedial courses, KG training;
(v) guidance and counseling system for girls; (vi) school based In-Service Education and
14
Training (INSET) on child-centered activity based learning; (vii) library materials; (viii)
equipment or tools (ICT) to improve teaching and learning; (i) minor works to refurbish
classrooms, build latrines; and/or (ix) school-level reading or and/or math competitions. To
access the grants, a prerequisite is the training and capacity building on record keeping and use
of school report cards (to improve school performance) and to ensure school grant receipt and
expenditure is communicated to parents and communities (by posting this information on school
bulletin boards, in SRCs and through other dissemination strategies depending on the local
context). Additional support for School Report Cards will also be made available through a
USAID project. This is expected to contribute towards better monitoring of school grant use,
teacher attendance and punctuality, and help create a culture of transparency, accountability, and
greater parental and community participation in school management. Impact studies of the
school sub-projects may also be carried out during the life of the project.
Component 3: Project Management and Institutional Strengthening (Estimated total cost
including contingencies US$6.58 million; base cost of US$4.58 million)
38. Effective implementation of the GPEG will rely upon good management and monitoring
mechanisms, timely implementation and proper evaluation of project activities and outcomes.
This component will provide the necessary resources for management, monitoring and
evaluation of GPEG activities at the central, district and school levels. The objective of this
component is to strengthen government systems for the implementation and supervision of
decentralized education services in the deprived districts.
39. Significant technical assistance is already being provided through TA programs
supported by USAID, DFID and JICA. GPEG would complement these activities and where
necessary scale up (e.g., School Report Cards). A key lesson from previous decentralized
programs/projects is the need for a robust monitoring and evaluation system that supports both
the routine detailed supervision and broader periodic assessments to improve the knowledge and
functioning of the system. In addition to supervision support, financial audits, qualitative audits
and impact evaluations, funding will be provided for technical assistance to support the Ministry
of Education, National Inspectorate Board, Regional Education Directorates and District
Education Directorates to undertake M&E activities and/or carry out supplemental data
collection and analysis necessary to measure implementation performance and impact of grant
activities (e.g., comprehensive surveys, qualitative grant audits, etc.). This component would
support school supervision; delivery of INSET; data sharing technology; the implementation of
School Report Cards; reporting, monitoring and evaluation for school improvement planning;
support to Colleges of Education for UTDBE implementation, and to TED for managing core
INSET activities, monitoring and consulting support. This component may also include capacity
building activities for financial management, procurement and M&E.
40. This component will finance: (i) consultancy services for supporting independent
monitoring and evaluation; improved school supervision, implementation of SRC; (ii) INSET
and UTDBE materials and costs related to managing INSET delivery; (iii) monitoring surveys
and impact evaluation; (iv) training materials and costs related to providing the training
programs; (v) internal and External audits; and (vi) operational costs for project management and
training programs.
15
B. Project Financing
Lending Instrument
41. The GPEG is a Specific Investment Loan (SIL) Grant of US$75.5 million complemented
by continued support from UNICEF, DFID, USAID, and JICA. This type of instrument provides
adequate flexibility with intensive implementation support. It was preferred to instruments such
as Development Policy Lending, Adaptable Policy Lending, and Performance for Results,
because (i) the project focuses on strengthening capacities at district and school levels; (ii)
information is not readily available about budget expenditure analysis; and (iii) the Program for
Results was not an option for Ghana given some substantial risk ratings for fiduciary issues.
Furthermore, the lead education development partners were not able to act as supervising entity
or pool their resources at this time. The grant mechanisms used under the project are designed to
allow for future pooling of support at the district level.
Project Costs and Financing
Project Components Project cost
(US$ million)
GPEG
Financing
%
Financing
Component 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to
Support Key Education Objectives
42.36 42.36 100%
1.1 District Sub-Grants 27.30 27.30 100%
1.2 Teacher Development and Skill Upgrading 15.06 15.06 100%
Component 2: School Sub-Grants 22.06 22.06 100%
Component 3: Project Management and Institutional
Strengthening 4.58 4.58 100%
Physical Contingencies 3.25 3.25 100%
Price Contingencies 3.25 3.25 100%
Total Financing 75.5 75.5 100%
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements
42. The GPEG will have the oversight of the Ministry of Education but will be implemented
by the Ghana Education Service at the headquarters, regional, district and school levels in close
collaboration with all relevant education sector agencies (e.g., GES, NIB, TED) and district
authorities. The project will be supported by the development partners operating in the education
sector, including DFID, UNICEF, JICA, USAID and WFP. A project steering committee will be
established to provide project implementation oversight. Coordination will be led by the GES
with support for monitoring from the MOE, PBME to ensure continued streamlined coordination
16
and management of all donor-financed activities in Ghana.
43. The Ghana Education Service (GES) will manage the three components of the project.
The Project Coordinator will be appointed by the GES to work across all implementing agencies,
reporting to the Director General of the GES. The Director of Basic Education and the Financial
Controller of the GES will jointly report on the project’s implementation, and be responsible for
the operational and the financial management reporting on the project respectively. The Director
of the Teacher Education Department (TED) will be responsible for management and reporting
on UTDBE and INSET. To ensure smooth implementation at the sub-national level, the GES
will organize regular practical training sessions to ensure that districts (i) understand the
guidelines for planning their programs; (ii) implement activities that will achieve set targets; (iii)
access and report on funding provided for district and school grants; and (iv) monitor and
evaluate activities being implemented.
44. GPEG activities will be monitored and reported on in the National Education Sector
Annual Review (NESAR). Independent evaluation, jointly supported by donors, will become a
routine part of the preparation for the NESAR. The Local Education Group will continue to play
a key role to ensure coordination and collaboration.
B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation
45. Monitoring and Evaluation: The GPEG will be coordinated and overseen by the
PBME/MOE and will be implemented by the GES at the national, regional, district, and school
levels. Based on inputs received from schools, DEDs, and REDs, GES HQ and MOE Planning,
Budgeting, Monitoring and Evaluation Department (PBME) will be responsible for providing the
following consolidated monitoring data: (i) status reports on project implementation by
component, including summary description of activities at the regional, district, and school levels
(biannually); (ii) status reports on the use of GPEG funds (biannually); and (iii) detailed M&E
reports (annually). The main findings from the M&E reports will be incorporated into the joint
annual review feeding into the NESAR report and discussed with district and regional education
officers as way to promote improved planning, monitoring and delivery of basic education
services in deprived districts.
46. The Regional Education Directorates (REDs) will be responsible for routinely monitoring
and supervising school and district grants, providing implementation support and technical
assistance to DEDs, consolidating all district Annual Programs of Work (APW), and submitting
an annual M&E report to GES HQ and PBME/MOE. The M&E report will be incorporated into
the NESAR; inform the development of the Annual District of Education Operational Plans
(ADEOP); and provide strategic guidance on education planning, budgeting, and policy-making
at the national, regional, and district levels of education. Given the increase in initiatives under
the GPEG, other donor and government-supported programs, RED’s will play a more strategic
role in monitoring, supervision, and data collection under the GPEG.
47. The District Education Directorates (DEDs) will: (i) provide strategic guidance in the
development of all district Annual Programs of Work (APW); (ii) support the implementation of
district and school grants; (iii) collect and submit district and school-level data to the REDs; and
(iv) oversee sampled-based surveys to monitor and evaluate the relative impact of various project
17
activities and interventions.
48. The M&E system envisioned under the GPEG project will also: (i) leverage and
strengthen Ghana’s well-established Education Management and Information System (EMIS);
(ii) provide continued support aimed at improving and mainstreaming existing data collection
instruments such as School Report Cards (SRCs); (iii) support capacity building at the regional,
district, and school levels of education; and (iv) conduct impact evaluations on district and
school grants and UTDBE.
C. Sustainability
V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Risk Ratings Summary Table
Risk Rating
Stakeholder Risk Substantial
Implementing Agency Risk Substantial
- Capacity Substantial
- Governance Low
Project Risk Moderate
- Design Substantial
- Social and Environmental Low
- Program and Donor Moderate
- Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Substantial
Overall Implementation Risk SUBSTANTIAL
B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation
50. With elections scheduled for end 2012, there are some risks that staff turnover within the
18
Ministry leadership and its various agencies might delay the GPEG implementation during the
transition period. This risk materialized during the implementation of the last EFA-FTI Catalytic
Fund grant in 2008-2009. Therefore, the preparation process has included a wider group of
stakeholders, particularly at the technical level within the GES (both central and district levels),
to ensure ownership of the project. The focus of implementation at the district and school levels
helps to mitigate against such turnover. The manuals and implementation of training to run the
project will be completed well before the elections take place.
51. Weak capacity at district and school levels in deprived areas is further taxed by the
complicated funding modalities and mandates of multiple agencies, donors (and more often by
the lack of non-salary funding). The GPEG aims to address this risk by providing capacity
building and support to decentralized implementing agencies while defining a framework for
coordinating and harmonizing these separate financing sources around the district planning
process. Building on mechanisms (district and school grants) that have been supported by
Government and Development Partners over the last several years also helps minimize risks for
governance, capacity and sustainability. The project preparation assessments focusing on public
financial management, institutions, social issues and monitoring and evaluation have addressed
many of these potential risks and proposed various mitigation measures. The implementation risk
is substantial in light of the decentralized implementation at district and school levels and the
difficulties in monitoring and evaluation. All of these ratings will be revisited annually,
particularly sub-ratings for governance/fraud and corruption with regard to the district grant and
school grant mechanisms.
52. There also remain several risks to the financial sustainability of district and school grants.
Unsustainable growth in the education sector salary envelope could put at risk the sustainability
of the school and district grants. Budget implementation is another critical issue identified at
appraisal. Even when non-salary spending is budgeted for, there is a precedent of not fully
executing non-salary budgets, while salary budgets are often overrun. Thus, even if grants are
mainstreamed into government budgets, there is a risk that district and school grants would not
be fully disbursed. In order to mitigate the risk related to budget implementation, a main focus
of the program is to use and improve government systems for planning, implementing and
monitoring district and school grants, with a focus on improving the transparency and
predictability of such funding flows. However, these risks cannot be fully mitigated as delays or
under-execution relate to the release of funds by MOFEP, so are beyond the control of the sector.
VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY
A. Economic and Financial Analyses
53. The focus on basic education service delivery with a strong focus on the learning
agenda is justified, and the project has a strong poverty and equity focus through its
geographical scope. Investments in education, particularly basic education, generally produce
high economic returns. Education is associated with many non-monetary benefits to the
individual and society, including better health and lower fertility. But just enrolling in school is
not enough; students need to be learning to reap these economic benefits. Although basic school
enrollment and completion rates are now quite high in Ghana, learning outcomes are generally
not. Furthermore, the districts targeted in this project are behind the national average, particularly
in terms of learning outcomes and exam pass rates. During the preparation of the project, the
19
criteria for selecting the districts that are targeted for support have been revised to give the
project an even stronger poverty orientation than the recently completed EDSEP project.
54. The school and district grants are intended to increase available non-salary
resources for basic education, and make these available as close to schools and students as
possible. The project will double discretionary non-salary recurrent spending in deprived
districts. The grants will provide US$9 per student for school improvements: in primary schools,
for example, the non-salary recurrent spending would increase from an estimated 6 percent of
total recurrent spending to 11 percent. A little less than half will be given directly to schools to
top up the existing government capitation grant, while a little more than half will be provided to
District Education Directorates. Schools and districts will spend their grants according to their
respective plans (SPIP-School Performance Improvement Plans, and APW-Annual Programs of
Work). The project is designed to strengthen government systems for preparing, implementing
and monitoring such plans to ensure greater spending effectiveness.
55. The current level of per student spending in primary education, at 12 percent of
GDP per capita, is close to the average for the region. Strong macro-economic growth and
demographic trends are favorable for maintaining strong per student spending. Public
education spending from all sources was about 5.5 percent of GDP in 2010. The approved
education budget for 2012 is also around 5 percent of Ghana's GDP. These levels of public
education spending are comparable with the average for the SSA region (4.3 percent for low-
income and 5.7 percent for middle-income SSA countries) as well as most other regions (5.6
percent in high-income OECD countries). Ghana's strong real GDP growth—averaging 5.7
percent per year between 2000 and 2009 and reaching as much as 12.2 percent in 2011—means
that the education budget can increase considerably from one year to the next in absolute terms,
even if it is not increasing as a share of GDP. Currently, per student spending in primary
education is around 12 percent of Ghana's GDP per capita, which is similar to the average for
SSA countries (11.5 percent in low- and middle-income countries) and therefore not alarming.
Current demographic trends in Ghana are favorable for maintaining strong per student
expenditure. Since national average pupil-teacher ratios are already quite generous in basic
education, any fiscal space should be mostly used to provide more (quality) non-salary spending.
56. The fiscal impact of the project is substantial and higher than the grant itself.
During project implementation, grant disbursements are expected to be around US$20 million
per year for three years. The cost to the Government of sustaining the school and district grants
after project completion is around US$15 million per year. The fiscal impact on upgrading up to
8,000 teachers is around US$20 million per year given current salary levels. Thus, the total
annual fiscal impact is around US$35 million annually or around 5 percent of total public
spending on basic education, with more than half of the impact resulting from the increase in
teacher salaries. It should be noted, however, that these higher costs are largely already foreseen
in the cost projections prepared to cost the implementation of the ESP. The strong GDP growth,
which will likely outpace teacher salary growth in the coming years, can ease the impact.
B. Technical
57. The GPEG technical design is based on the priorities of the Ghana ESP, ongoing
decentralization policy, and experiences gained from recent World Bank projects, DFID
20
budget support, UNICEF activities, JICA technical assistance, and USAID programs. The
design also builds on international good practices on district and school grants (i.e., Mexico,
India, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines). The following main principles guided the technical design
of the GPEG: (i) consultative alignment and co-financing of government strategy including
donor partner harmonization; (ii) targeted (deprived districts) support to address equity
challenges; (iii) support for decentralized education levels- bringing resources closer to
beneficiaries; (iv) use of resources (non-salary grants) to broaden demand-driven methods for
improving basic education performance; and (v) focus on strengthening government systems for
resource allocation, planning, monitoring and reporting. More details on lessons learned and
incorporated into project design are included in Annex 8.
58. Significant engagement by the technical team in GES, decentralized stakeholders
(regional, district and school) and development partners helps to assure that during
transition periods (i.e., elections) implementation will be sustained. Coordination will also
help reduce transaction costs for key government implementation units and reduce duplication of
activities, reporting, etc. Targeted financing also helps maintain focus on specific objectives
(deprived district support) during a time when political considerations may divert resources.
59. Decentralized funding: Previous experience in Ghana and elsewhere demonstrate
centralized funding of education services are not reaching the most disadvantaged and are not
flexible enough to address local priorities. GPEG funds will support efforts to allocate funds
more efficiently by adopting a direct allocation of resources to district and schools based on their
annual program of work. The GPEG would also support the government’s objective of
addressing the disparities and inequities in the country. School “base” grants would also help
address the gap between small and big schools.
60. Teacher training: There is considerable international evidence that the presence of a
trained teacher has a major impact on student learning. This international evidence is
supplemented by the most recent World Bank study of Education in Ghana that confirmed the
impact of a trained teacher on student outcomes. Accordingly, the project is supporting training
of up to 8,000 teachers while providing in-service support for another 40,000 teachers.
61. Decentralized programs must establish sound monitoring and evaluation systems to
measure impact, identify problems and take corrective measures. More systematic consolidation
of district APWs will help government assess the impact of the district activities. Therefore, the
design of the GPEG includes robust monitoring and evaluation, support to strengthen
government systems and the opportunity to learn from impact evaluations.
C. Financial Management
62. Given that the project’s financial management arrangements will follow country systems,
the Financial Controller (FC) of GES will have overall financial management responsibility. The
responsibility of the FC is to ensure throughout implementation there are adequate financial
management systems in place at all levels of project implementation which can report on the use
of project funds. The FC’s work will be complimented by the assignment of a dedicated
Principal Accountant responsible for the routine day to day transaction processing and reporting.
21
63. The assessment of the financial management arrangements at the GES concludes that
there are adequate systems in place that satisfy the Bank’s minimum requirements under
OP/BP10.02. However, the risks to funds flow is rated as ‘Substantial’ due mainly to the fact that
significant resources will be transferred and utilized in deprived districts where generally the
public financial management systems are comparatively weaker. This risk is mitigated by the
strong internal controls emanating from the Ghana Education Service (GES) Headquarters and
also the presence of internal audit staff in nearly all the participating district offices. In line with
its mandate as per the Ghana Audit Service Act (Act 584) the Auditor General is responsible for
the auditing of all funds under the Consolidated Fund and all public funds as received by
government ministries, agencies and departments. In this regard, and consistent with the use of
country FM systems, the Ghana Audit Service (GAS) will conduct the audit of the project’s
financial statements and furnish copies to IDA within 6 months of the end of each fiscal year of
the GoG. Based on the risk rating of the project and current FM arrangements, in the first year of
implementation there will be two onsite FM visits to ascertain adequacy of systems and how
effectively the country systems are being used to support implementation.
D. Procurement
64. Procurement for the proposed project will be carried out in accordance with the World
Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD
Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011, and
“Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits &
Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011; and the provisions stipulated in the
Legal Agreement. A procurement plan has been agreed.
65. A capacity assessment report was conducted on proposed implementing agencies
including Ghana Education Service Headquarters and the participating districts to ascertain the
existence of capacity or otherwise to implement the project smoothly. The key risk assessment
identifies and proposes risk mitigating measures—details can be found in Annex 3. Although
the risks are substantial, there will be few centralized procurement activities, with most
procurement happening at the district level. The District Education Directorates will be
responsible for schools which benefit under the district and school grants by procuring through
the District Assemblies, which are the legally recognized procurement entities under the Ghana
Public Procurement Act 663 (2003), for all procurement beyond shopping method. For the
school grant, individual schools through SMCs will be responsible for planning and monitoring
the schools’ activities using simplified procedures and assistance from District Assemblies.
E. Social (including Safeguards)
66. The proposed project is expected to have a positive social impact. A detailed social
assessment has been carried out. Among the issues the assessment raised are the following:
impact of family demands on children’s input to household activities, fostering of children to
other family members who are often not interested in the education of such children;
involvement of children in adult social activities like funerals and poverty levels of households
which compel prioritization of resource use with education of children and especially girls being
the last option. These have a big impact on school attendance and focus, performance and
22
outcomes. The assessment outlined actions towards improving social inclusion and equity in
education. For instance, it proposes continuous and vigorous sensitization for key players at the
community and institutional level, enactment and enforcement of appropriate district assembly
by laws, school feeding programs, provision of rations and teaching and learning materials. The
suggested methods and approaches should support the capacity development of staff at all levels
to equitably deliver required improvements. Details of the approaches and the application of
these will be outlined in the project implementation manual.
67. On social safeguards, there will be no land acquisition for the project activities and hence
the involuntary resettlement policy was not triggered. This is because project activities do not
require land acquisition, and therefore no negative impacts on livelihoods or restriction of access
and disturbances that may lead to resettlement or relocation. Minor works on existing school
structures may be required but these are very much contained within the school compounds and
will not lead to displacement or any form of resettlement and disturbances.
F. Environment (including Safeguards)
68. The project is rated as a Category B partial assessment since it is not expected to generate
any major adverse environmental and/or social impacts. The main activities that triggered the
Environmental Assessment Policy (OP/BP/4.01) are related to components one and two which
provide discretionary resources to selected districts and public primary schools to improve the
quality of education services. These improvements may entail minor rehabilitation of existing
buildings or construction of new buildings on existing sites - work that will be guided by
applicable local and national laws and regulations. To ensure proper assessment and mitigation
of the potential adverse environmental and social impacts of activities under the grants, an
Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) will guide the implementation
agency on how to address any environmental and social impacts of project investments. The
ESMF for the project has been developed and disclosed prior to appraisal. There were
stakeholder consultations also held on the ESMF and issues raised have been included in the
ESMF as an annex. The Project Implementation Manual with sections on District Grants and
School Grants also includes a negative list of items that may not be funded, especially those
items that would cause environmental issues and/or trigger additional safeguards. Close
monitoring by GES will ensure activities comply with ESMF and if necessary an Environmental
Management Plan is developed.
69. Date of disclosure at Infoshop and in-country. The ESMF has been disclosed at the
Infoshop on June 1, 2012. It was disclosed in-country May 5, 2012.
23
Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring
Ghana Partnership for Education Grant
Results Framework
Project Development Objective
PDO Statement
The Project Development Objective is to improve the planning, monitoring and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts of the Recipient’s Territory.
Project Development Objective Indicators
Cumulative Target Values Data Source/ Responsibility for
Indicator Name Core Unit of
Measure Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 End Target Frequency
Methodology Data Collection
Deprived districts
disbursing 75% or more
of their district education grants as planned in their
APW
Percentage 0 60% 70% 80% - - 80% Annual
Report of financial
analysis of
APWs
DED provides data to RED
which consolidates the information and submits a
report to GES HQ & PBME.
Inputs are incorporated into the NESAR.
Public basic schools in deprived districts with
up-to-date School Report
Cards
Percentage 0
10% 50% 75% - - 75% Annual
Report of analysis and
summary of
School Report Cards
School data in SRCs
submitted to districts 2X/year. RED aggregates
data into M&E report and
submits copy to GES HQ & PBME.
P3 students achieving
proficiency in English
and Math (NEA results for deprived districts)16
Percentage
P3 English: 12.4%
P3 Math: 9.0%
- -
P3 English: 15%
P3 Math: 11%
Biennial
National
Education Assessment
GES overseeing National
Education Assessment
Teachers trained under
the project in deprived districts who obtain
satisfactory rating or
higher in the SBI/CBI Lesson Observation
Sheet for (a) lesson
Percentage 0 0 20% 50% - - 50% Annual
Sample
survey using
SBI/CBI Lesson
Observation
Sheet
DED and RED overseeing
sample survey on the SBI/CBI Lesson Observation
Sheet
16 Baseline figures correspond to the 2011 National Education Assessment (NEA) results for deprived districts.
24
planning (b) teaching
methodology (c) classroom organization
and management
Direct project
beneficiaries
Number 0 0 0.2 mill. 1.6 mill. - - 1.6 mill. Annual
Report of
analysis of
APW, UTDBE and
INSET
Schools, DEDs, and REDs collect data which are then
consolidated by GES HQ &
PBME.
Female beneficiaries
Percentage 0 0 40% 40% - - 40% Annual
Report of analysis of
APW,
UTDBE and INSET
Schools, DEDs, and REDs
collect data which are then
consolidated by GES HQ &
PBME
Intermediate Results Indicators
Cumulative Target Values Data Source/ Responsibility for
Indicator Name Core Unit of Measure
Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 End Target Frequency Methodology Data Collection
Component 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education objectives
Head teachers and Circuit Supervisors in
deprived districts trained
under the project in the use of School Report
Cards
Number 0 - - 6,930 Annual
Capacity
building and
training reports
DEDs collect data from training providers, submits to
REDs for regional
consolidation, and the GES HQ & PBME produce a
national report.
Regional and District
education officers
trained under the project (e.g., financial
management, data
collection and analysis, etc.)
Number 0 - - 500 Annual
Capacity
building and
training reports
DEDs collect data from training providers, submits to
REDs for regional
consolidation, and the GES HQ & PBME produce a
national report.
Teachers trained under
the project
(disaggregated by UTDBE and INSET)
Number 0 - - 35,000
UTDBE: 5,000
INSET: 30,000
Annual
Reports of
training
providers
Report of
APW, UTDBE and
INSET
reports
DEDs collect data from
training providers, submits to
REDs for regional
consolidation, and the GES HQ & PBME produce a
national report.
DEDs collating School Reports Cards from at
Percentage 0 30% 50% 70% - - 70% Annual M&E
reports RED collects information and
submits an M&E report to
25
least 70% of schools
within the district
GES HQ & PBME.
Component 2: School Sub-Grants
Basic schools in
deprived districts participating in all
INSET core courses
supported under the project
Percentage 0 30% 45% 65% - - 65% Annual
INSET
annual report
on capacity building and
training
DEDs collect data from
training providers, submits to REDs for regional
consolidation, and the GES
HQ & PBME produce a national report.
Schools that have
received and displayed the most recent School
Report Card on their
notice board
Percentage 0 40% 65% 75% - - 75% Annual
DED annual
report based on Circuit
Supervisors
Report
DED collates data from
circuit supervisor reports,
submits to REDs for regional
consolidation, and the GES HQ & PBME produce a
national report.
Component 3: Project Management and Institutional Strengthening
Schools visited by
Circuit Supervisors at least two times in a year
Percentage 0 50% 70% 100% - - 100% Annual
DED annual report based
on Circuit
Supervisors Report
DED collates data from
circuit supervisor reports,
submits to REDs for regional consolidation, and the GES
HQ & PBME produce a
national report.
REDs submitting annual
M&E reports to GES HQ
& PBME by incorporating data from
all districts in the region
Percentage 0 50% 75% 100% - - 100% Annual
Annual M&E reports
GES HQ & PBME
Schools in deprived
districts with completed
SPIPs approved by SMCs using the revised
template
Percentage
0
20% 50% 75% - - 75% Annual
DED annual
report on school grants
DEDs will send report to
REDs for regional
consolidation, and the GES HQ & PBME produce a
national report.
26
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description
GHANA PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION GRANT
1. The proposed GPEG is based on the Education Strategic Plan 2010-2020 (ESP), Annual
Education Sector Operational Plan (AESOP) and is part of a larger program supported by
Development Partners engaged in the education sector in Ghana.17
The GPEG supports district
grants and school grants in order to provide supplemental funding for basic education services,
i.e. KG, primary and Junior High School. Therefore, the project complements government
expenditure and other sources of funding for basic education. The district and school grant
mechanisms build on previous experience with decentralizing funding to districts and schools
and represent a next generation of support with enhancements and improvements to how basic
education services are delivered and monitored as well as a means for coordinating interventions
among government and development partners.
2. The Project Development Objective of the GPEG is to improve the planning,
monitoring and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts of the Recipient’s
Territory.
3. The GPEG’s ultimate objective is to help lay the foundation for improvements in
teaching and learning for students in KG through JHS. With such a short implementation period
(3 years), it is unlikely that the project will impact significantly on pupils learning measured
through regularly administered standardized tests. Therefore, the grant aims to build capacities,
monitor any likely outcomes/impact, and strengthen the decentralized system to achieve such
improvements. The strengthened capacities of key education stakeholders, particularly teachers,
are likely to improve service delivery and may ultimately impact on all of the ESP's higher order
objectives of access, equity, quality and education management. All of these ESP indicators will
continue to be monitored and tracked throughout implementation.
4. The design of the GPEG incorporates significant engagement and efforts to coordinate
funding from the lead education development partners in Ghana (UNICEF, DFID, JICA,
USAID, World Bank, and WFP). The local donor group and government have been actively
engaged in developing the GPEG grant framework and linkages to all activities in the basic
education sector. The documentation will specify areas where other development partners are
focusing their financing and/or technical assistance. Although there is no pooled funding under
the GPEG, the key role played by the LEG and agreements in the MOU will go a long way
17
An additional annex (9) provides elaboration of sector background and another annex (8) provides more details on
lessons learned. Several key documents include: 2012 PFM Review, JICA; 2011 Ghana Education Report
Improving Equity, Efficiency and Accountability of Education Service Delivery, the Joint Review of Public
Expenditure and Financial Management 2011, the National Education Sector Annual Review (June 2011, May
2012) , Education Sector Development Project Implementation Completion Report 2012, EFA-FTI Grant
Implementation Completion Report (December 2011); Strategic Objective Assistance to Ghana (SOAG, USAID
Ghana), Education Support to Education Strategic Plan (DFID), United Nations Development Assistance
Framework Action Plan (UNDAP, UNICEF and WFP), Support to Education Implementation (JICA).
27
towards better coordination and ultimately improved aid effectiveness. Most importantly, the
development partners have agreed to ensure that, where possible, common systems, reporting
and FM arrangements are used, especially at decentralized levels. An increased focus on results
will be underpinned by a joint (multi-donor) evaluation before the annual review (NESAR) each
year.
Selection of Deprived Districts
5. The GPEG targets the most deprived districts. The Ministry of Education has operated
with the concept of deprived districts at least since 2004. For this project, the criteria for
selection were revised to give the project a stronger poverty orientation and to put a greater focus
on educational outcomes rather than inputs. The new criteria include both Ghana's poverty index
(share of population below the poverty line) as well as education indicators. Annex 7 includes
more detail on the data sources used and the construction of a joint index used for ranking the
districts. The education indicators are:
a) retention in primary education (enrollment in P6/enrollment in P1 based on all schools),
b) retention in the basic cycle (enrollment in JHS3/enrollment in P1 based on all schools),
c) share of girls enrolled in P6 (all schools),
d) share of girls enrolled in JHS3 (all schools),
e) pass rate in BECE English, and
f) share of trained teachers in the public primary schools.
6. The bottom third (57) of the districts, ranked according to the new criteria, were selected
to benefit from the GPEG, and as additional funds become available, new districts can be
included, moving towards the agreed threshold of all districts that are above the national average
for poverty incidence.18 It is anticipated that a number of the 57 deprived districts will be sub-
divided, therefore they will be included in the GPEG program. As a result, the number of
districts is likely to increase to at least 70 within a year, although this will not result in an
increase in the number of beneficiaries. The table below provides the list of 57 deprived districts
with some basic descriptive data.
18
The criteria have been applied to the existing list of deprived districts. The announcement in December 2011 that
the government planned to increase the number of districts from the current 170 to 212 by the end of the year
requires continued review to apply the criteria in a transparent and efficient manner. Since these new districts may
not be operational until the project is into its first year of implementation, the design is based on the existing 170
districts.
28
Table 2: 57 Deprived Districts-based on 2011/12 EMIS data Region District
code District Basic
schools KGs Primary
schools JHS schools
Enrol. Basic
Enrol. KG
Enrol. P
Enrol. JHS
% girls Basic
Teachers Basic
Untrained teachers Basic
ASHANTI 15 AHAFO ANO SOUTH 154 101 102 67 33,088 8,417 18,650 6,021 47% 1,390 258
ASHANTI 25 EJURA SEKYIDOMASE 129 89 92 47 31,094 8,757 17,114 5,223 48% 1,199 581
ASHANTI 151 BOSOME FREHO 90 59 58 35 18,172 5,071 9,988 3,113 47% 1,027 663
ASHANTI 152 OFFINSO NORTH 62 40 40 22 17,600 4,210 10,631 2,759 48% 638 228
BRONG AHAFO 33 ASUNAFO SOUTH 99 68 68 44 28,586 7,702 15,466 5,418 48% 1,003 656
BRONG AHAFO 35 ATEBUBU-AMANTIN 98 68 72 26 27,679 7,951 15,482 4,246 48% 982 486
BRONG AHAFO 40 KINTAMPO NORTH MUNICIPAL 69 58 58 31 23,266 5,708 13,164 4,394 47% 796 317
BRONG AHAFO 41 KINTAMPO SOUTH 92 64 68 34 21,146 6,436 11,937 2,773 48% 742 252
BRONG AHAFO 43 PRU 122 88 90 39 34,864 8,889 20,448 5,527 47% 798 418
BRONG AHAFO 44 SENE 106 72 79 27 25,879 7,360 14,714 3,805 48% 706 400
BRONG AHAFO 46 TAIN 144 91 93 51 29,640 8,157 16,338 5,145 48% 1,217 771
BRONG AHAFO 156 NKORANZA NORTH 73 45 49 29 15,410 4,181 8,690 2,539 48% 705 342
EASTERN 64 AFRAM PLAINS(KWAHU NORTH) 166 117 137 42 32,628 8,030 20,498 4,100 47% 914 243
NORTHERN 87 BOLE 90 56 58 25 19,086 4,851 10,993 3,242 49% 631 270
NORTHERN 88 BUNKPURUGU-YUNYOO 146 101 116 30 37,298 7,664 23,011 6,623 47% 925 483
NORTHERN 89 CENTRAL GONJA 104 66 87 18 20,017 4,568 12,422 3,027 46% 524 189
NORTHERN 90 EAST GONJA 127 92 99 29 31,097 8,866 18,138 4,093 47% 813 369
NORTHERN 91 WEST GONJA 92 47 71 20 21,841 4,388 13,612 3,841 49% 686 314
NORTHERN 92 GUSHIEGU 108 38 74 13 20,205 4,105 13,904 2,196 43% 551 333
NORTHERN 93 KARAGA 92 73 74 15 19,505 6,659 11,127 1,719 42% 541 316
NORTHERN 94 MAMPRUSI EAST 87 65 69 19 29,698 6,082 18,005 5,611 46% 629 338
NORTHERN 95 MAMPRUSI WEST 137 95 110 51 45,802 11,067 26,404 8,331 48% 961 422
NORTHERN 96 NANUMBA NORTH 117 73 92 26 38,712 7,561 24,977 6,174 45% 951 368
NORTHERN 97 NANUMBA SOUTH 101 78 82 18 29,651 9,120 17,222 3,309 46% 767 324
NORTHERN 98 SABOBA 83 59 62 21 22,305 5,684 13,312 3,309 48% 564 256
NORTHERN 99 SAVULUGU NANTON 113 88 90 23 30,119 7,706 17,363 5,050 43% 1,037 473
NORTHERN 100 SAWLA-TUNA-KALBA 121 54 90 30 24,418 4,331 16,278 3,809 47% 618 352
NORTHERN 102 TOLON-KUMBUNGU 148 132 132 27 37,071 10,035 21,611 5,425 44% 1,173 405
NORTHERN 103 YENDI MUNICIPAL 195 141 161 33 54,225 13,679 32,385 8,161 45% 1,135 366
29
Region District code
District Basic schools
KGs Primary schools
JHS schools
Enrol. Basic
Enrol. KG
Enrol. P
Enrol. JHS
% girls Basic
Teachers Basic
Untrained teachers Basic
NORTHERN 104 ZABZUGU-TATALE 118 73 96 21 31,046 7,615 19,496 3,935 46% 721 400
NORTHERN 170 KPANDAI 90 58 69 20 30,096 8,038 18,103 3,955 47% 623 365
NORTHERN 171 CHEREPONI 60 50 51 9 15,311 5,056 8,876 1,379 47% 434 272
UPPER EAST 105 BAWKU MUNICIPAL 143 105 104 49 56,259 9,087 36,655 10,517 47% 1,163 565
UPPER EAST 106 BAWKU WEST 84 61 61 28 32,152 7,196 20,325 4,631 49% 733 352
UPPER EAST 108 BONGO 113 65 67 42 32,907 5,763 19,857 7,287 50% 876 370
UPPER EAST 109 BUILSA 104 70 72 28 25,724 5,929 14,839 4,956 50% 966 596
UPPER EAST 110 GARU-TAMPANE 125 89 88 36 44,415 7,809 28,242 8,364 47% 842 461
UPPER EAST 111 KASSENA-NANKANI EAST 90 48 51 38 25,510 3,845 15,440 6,225 49% 1,007 385
UPPER EAST 112 TALENSI-NABDAM 133 68 68 39 33,397 8,238 18,971 6,188 49% 1,105 516
UPPER EAST 172 KASSENA-NANKANA WEST 84 48 54 35 24,323 4,392 15,001 4,930 48% 709 368
UPPER WEST 113 JIRAPA 89 54 52 32 24,005 4,289 15,395 4,321 50% 594 234
UPPER WEST 114 LAWRA 124 74 65 49 30,644 6,225 17,032 7,387 49% 822 354
UPPER WEST 115 NADOWLI 161 84 83 45 31,571 7,561 18,197 5,813 51% 836 388
UPPER WEST 116 SISSALA EAST 50 45 47 42 16,430 3,737 9,553 3,140 53% 548 152
UPPER WEST 117 SISSALA WEST 72 48 42 32 16,859 4,188 9,606 3,065 49% 385 173
UPPER WEST 119 WA EAST 135 41 63 31 18,142 3,955 11,759 2,428 48% 462 231
UPPER WEST 120 WA WEST 130 47 75 51 24,969 3,861 16,337 4,771 47% 673 322
UPPER WEST 173 LAMBUSSIE 44 33 32 17 13,061 3,237 7,648 2,176 47% 383 211
VOLTA 129 KADJEBI 80 60 61 32 15,597 3,846 8,888 2,863 47% 588 299
VOLTA 131 KRACHI EAST 80 59 63 18 20,517 5,455 12,525 2,537 46% 454 159
VOLTA 132 KRACHI WEST 123 98 99 34 33,600 9,149 18,878 5,573 47% 647 322
VOLTA 133 NKWANTA SOUTH 106 77 80 41 30,180 7,547 17,494 5,139 46% 783 376
VOLTA 176 NKWANTA NORTH 46 36 37 10 18,810 5,191 11,062 2,557 43% 367 204
WESTERN 138 AMENFI WEST 219 170 171 76 58,723 15,875 33,696 9,152 48% 1,333 965
WESTERN 140 BIA 184 133 133 57 38,690 10,475 22,252 5,963 48% 1,078 905
WESTERN 143 JUABOSO 164 110 113 52 35,685 10,867 19,467 5,351 49% 1,111 770
WESTERN 179 SEFWI AKONTOMBRA 78 57 58 27 18,693 5,747 10,433 2,513 47% 483 314
Total excl. non-responding schools* 6,294 4,179 4,528 1,883 1,617,418 391,408 959,911 266,099 47% 45,349 22,222
Non-responding schools (estimated at 4.5%) 283 188 204 85 72,784 17,613 43,196 11,974 47% 2,041 1,000
TOTAL Deprived Districts 6,577 4,367 4,732 1,968 1,690,202 409,021 1,003,107 278,073 47% 47,390 23,222
30
Component 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education objectives
(Estimated total cost including contingencies US$44.86 million; base cost of US$42.36
million)
7. The objective of the district grant is to provide annual non-salary resources to deprived
districts, as a supplement to existing resource flows, to support districts' annual programs of
work (APW). A comprehensive set of guidelines is being developed to guide the district
planning process, procedures and monitoring requirements and reporting (project implementation
manual).
8. The expected outcome of the district grant is to channel funds to decentralized structures;
to create a favorable environment for MOE, GES and its implementing agencies to take direct
responsibility for the funding and monitoring of basic education services; and generate increased
accountability and participation by districts, schools and communities.
Subcomponent 1.1: District Sub-Grants (Estimated total cost including contingencies
US$29.30 million; base cost of US$27.30 million)
9. The district grant will be provided annually to deprived districts to implement their
annual programs of work (APW) which are focused on local priority needs but aligned with
government strategic priorities of improving equity, access and quality of basic education. The
amount of the grant would average US$5 per student per year, and given current enrollments in
the selected districts, the average annual grant would be GHc 264,860 (US$155,800 equivalent),
with exact amounts determined by the size of the district.
10. Building on previous experiences with the provision of district grants, enhancements to
strengthen the district grant would include: (a) earmarked funding19
to support teachers
participation in upgrading their qualifications through the UTDBE (sub-component 1.2); (b)
mandatory strategic in-service training for teachers (basic literacy, numeracy, science, and
activity based learning); (c) more strategic and regular capacity building for REDs, DEDs, DAs,
SMCs, head teachers, circuit supervisors, GES, etc.; (d) more facilitation and knowledge sharing
by central and regional government for targeted policy implementation and results focus; (e)
routine funding of robust and relevant monitoring and evaluation- including better monitoring of
expenditures; and (f) continuous sensitization activities to maintain social accountability. The
district grants will reflect district priorities and are therefore not pre-determined other than the
mandatory strategic INSET training. A negative list will be detailed in the PIM.
11. The district grants will finance key training of implementing agencies and beneficiaries.
Workshops with District Education Directorate staff, MOE and GES planning staff and Regional
Directorates will assist Districts in drafting, finalizing and implementing their Annual Programs
of Work.
12. The planned school and district grants constitute a considerable financial commitment for
the Ghana government. Due to the costs involved and in view of a possible extension of the
19
UTDBE support is detailed under Sub-Component 1.2.
31
program to the national level, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of these grants to
provide the Government of Ghana with an informed basis for decision making. An impact
evaluation would be financed to assess the development and cost-effectiveness of school and
district grants in improving the quality of learning environment and, ultimately, in improving
student learning outcomes. Furthermore, detailed information will be collected on actual grant
use. The basic IE design will exploit the eligibility criteria for districts to qualify for district
grants. An objective and measurable criterion is being used for selecting districts eligible for
district grants, therefore this criterion can be used to identify a credible counterfactual under the
Regression Discontinuity (RD) design to measure the impacts of the program. The strict
application of the district eligibility criteria will generate a discontinuity between those districts
just above the cut-off (not eligible for the grant) and those just below the cut-off (eligible for the
grant). In the absence of the district grant program, districts just above and below the cut-off are
similar in characteristics. However, the availability of grants to districts just below the cut-off
would generate a discontinuity allowing the analysis of the impact of the district grants by
comparing outcomes in those two restricted groups, i.e. districts just above and below the cut-off.
13. Activities under District Grants: Interventions will be based on each district work
program but would be aligned with ESP priorities. Grant activities are not pre-determined, but
preparation of the GPEG has focused on possible interventions that correspond to the four key
policy areas identified in the ESP and AESOP, namely: equitable access and participation in
quality education; bridging the gender gap; improving quality of teaching and learning; and
improving management of education service delivery. These activities may include, but are not
limited to provision of instructional materials, laboratories, implementation of special school
programs for students, provision of in-service training programs and provision of goods and
services required for the purpose of the sub-grants. In order to guide districts on preparing and
planning their annual plans that correspond to the above ESP focus areas, an indicative matrix is
being developed in the Project implementation Manual (PIM) to present a potential menu of
activities/investments that could be supported by the district grant. The PIM will elaborate the
details of the planning process, implementation guidelines, eligibility of expenditures, financial
management, procurement and roles and responsibilities for carrying out proposed interventions.
Most importantly it will provide extensive guidelines on various education investments. The
following section gives a summary of some potential grant activities.
Improved equitable access to and participation in quality education
14. District-level initiatives would focus on both supply and demand–based initiatives to
support enrollment in primary education at appropriate age, stay in school and attend classes
regularly and move on to upper levels of education successfully. Reasons for dropout include
poverty, child labor, poor performance; lack of parental interest, pregnancy, teacher attitudes
(such as absenteeism), low education quality, etc. Reducing the indirect costs of schooling and
increasing the pro-poor targeting of subsidies and programs could help to continue deterring
some children from entry into child labor. Outreach campaigns, enrollment drives and other
sensitization measures can be critical. On the supply side, remedial support to children with
learning constraints, more learning materials (and in mother tongue), and appropriate school
facilities can also make a difference. The district grants may choose to focus on child-friendly
school (CFS) models to attract and retain children in school (standards of inclusive school,
32
effective teaching and learning, healthy, safe and gender-sensitive learning environment and
community-engaged school). The implementation of the CFS standards has been supported by
UNICEF in 5 districts to date.
15. District grants could also complement the support provided by UNICEF and DFID to the
implementation of complementary basic education (CBE), which is based on the School for Life
initiative and consists of accelerated learning for young people to complete primary education.
DFID is providing support for the development of low cost teaching materials and tools to enable
the roll-out of the CBE program and will provide places for 120,000 out-of-school children.
Districts with low enrollment may use district grants to expand the School for Life program.
Additional activities could include support for special needs training, screening and community
sensitization to expand the inclusive education program implemented by the Special Education
Division (SpED) of the GES (currently supported by UNICEF and several NGOs).
Bridge the gender gap in access to education
16. Girls' school participation is lower than boys' at JHS and SHS levels20
. The risk of
overage enrollment and early drop out is higher for girls than for boys. There are both supply
and demand factors, some of which district education directorates can effectively address.
Among the demand side options, there are outreach campaigns to make sure that girls enroll at
appropriate age and that they regularly attend. Other demand measures may include scholarships
(or bursaries) for girls in JHS, school feeding or supplementary take home rations, transportation
or uniforms. In addition, teachers need sensitization and training to deal with gender-specific
issues and child protection in schools. The District grants could also encourage provision of
gender sensitive infrastructure, school counselors and resources for improved monitoring and use
of data by district gender officers.
17. The district grants could provide resources for a “needy girl support package21
” to ensure
girls do not drop out. The girls would be selected by a girls' education selection committee -
made up of membership from the school leadership and staff and elected parent-teacher
association members. Selection would follow the existing government criteria for needy girls
and would require families’ commitment to support their daughters' continued education. These
kinds of interventions would be closely linked to the planned DFID supported Girls’ education
program that will fund a larger comprehensive scholarship program districts with low GPI.
Gender activities will be further complemented by USAID support to strengthen the capacity of
the Girls Education Unit (GEU); WFP supported school meals and take home rations; and the
UNICEF-supported child-friendly school program.
18. DFID supported Girls PASS project: DFID’s support to gender issues will include
approximately £6.7 million funding under district grants to top up resources for gender
interventions as described in the previous paragraph.22
This support would focus on more
20
GPE support is limited to basic education cycle. Therefore DFID will provide separate support for Senior High
School girl scholarships to address this critical area. 21
Uniforms, sanitary wear, basic gender sensitive counseling. 22
DFID funds would flow through existing government district systems, following same established
FM/disbursement systems. The top up grant will be earmarked for gender activities selected by Districts.
33
intensive packages of assistance to encourage greater female enrollment, completion and
achievement through the basic education cycle. In addition, separate financing and technical
assistance would be provided to support the Girls Education Unit (GEU), national scholarship
program (50,000 scholarships), and other centrally managed related activities.
19. The WFP-supported school meals and take home rations (THR) project supports the
Ghana School Feeding Program with the objective to increase access to education, improve
school attendance and gender parity, and reduce micronutrient deficiencies. WFP delivers
school meals to 150,000 students in targeted public primary schools. Further, WFP will support
THRs for 60,000 JHS girls in seven districts (Bunkurugu, Gushiegu, Karaga, Sawla-Tuna-Kalba,
Yendi, Namumba South and ZabzuguTatale) of the Northern Region, where gender disparity
remains high. WFP and Government have committed to a hand-over strategy whereby 75% of
WFP-supported schools will be handed over to Government by 2016.
Improving Quality of Teaching and Learning
20. District grants will be required to support measures to improve the qualification of
teachers, particularly by supporting teachers through INSET23
and through the UTDBE (see
subcomponent 1.2). The District grants would have to include strategic INSET for early grade
literacy and numeracy, and science -- each supporting activity based learning. All INSET
activities will be guided by the National In-service Unit (NIU) of TED24
. These activities are
managed by district-level committees assigned to lead and implement training of teachers.
INSET monitoring will be guided by a Lesson Observation Sheet (LOS) developed by NIU and
INSET monitors will be trained in the use of this LOS. The INSET activities would complement
USAID-supported NALAP and NEA, the JICA-supported INSET program, the UNICEF-
supported effective teaching and learning program (child-centered, activity-based pedagogy,
SBA, leadership for learning, etc.) and the activity-based learning program under preparation by
DFID.
21. These activities will also complement JICA’s support to the Teacher Education Division
to establish and reinforce the nationwide management system for INSET. The In-Service
Training (INSET) project (June 2009 – March 2013) is ultimately aimed at improving the
teaching abilities of public primary school teachers in the area of mathematics and science
through School and Cluster Based In-service (SBI/CBI) training. The SBI/CBI approach also
keeps teachers in the school while gaining additional skills to help address teacher quality issues.
22. Quality inputs: Other activities that could be funded by District Grants include teaching
and learning materials, remedial classes, support to KG and other early grade activities. Effective
reading is a critical skill for children especially those coming from poor families and attending
school in poor areas. It has also shown to be a strong predictor of learning outcomes including
23
Since 2008, NIU/TED, with support from JICA, began a process of institutionalizing INSET nationwide in all 170
districts. INSET had previously been organized on ad-hoc bases and not well coordinated. TED coordinates all
INSET activities at the National INSET Unit. District INSET Committee (DIC), District Master Trainer (DMT),
District Teacher Support Team (DTST), District Training Officer and Circuit Supervisor positions have been
established to support both School based INSET (SBI) and Cluster -based INSET (CBI). 24
Pre-Tertiary Teacher Professional Development INSET Program is elaborated in a Sourcebook recently published
with support from JICA.
34
performance in assessments in other subjects as well as successful completion of primary and
basic education. Improvements in early grades appear to have strong impact on performance in
later grades, higher percentage of completion and in transition to higher levels of education,
particularly for girls.
Improve the management of education service delivery
23. District level activities could also contribute to improved supervision of education
services in order to improve school monitoring, accountability and transparency. One of the key
outcomes the grants could aim to achieve is the real time reporting and reduction in teacher
absenteeism. District grants could finance the dissemination of information on the school report
card, with emphasis on teacher /pupil attendance, routine supervision visits and adequate training
for administrators on sanctions and incentives available. To strengthen district and school
planning and monitoring capacity, the following activities may also be supported under the
district grants25
: (i) training and support for district personnel on ADEOP/ADPR; (ii)
supervision by circuit supervisors; (iii) capacity building for Heads of Basic Schools and School
Management Committees in deprived areas, particularly on SPIP, SPAM and School Report
Cards; (iv) piloting of award schemes as an incentive for head teachers, teachers and circuit
supervisors in schools in deprived districts (e.g., based on teacher attendance); (v) support
incorporation of School Report Cards, School-based Assessments and EMIS reporting for school
improvement planning; (vi) hire NGOs/CSOs to monitor district funds, strengthen record
keeping, provide ICT training; (vii) organize district level cluster School Performance
Improvement Meetings (SPAMs)/durbars to discuss education results; (viii) publicity for AWPs
through local radio and newspapers; and (viii) organize reading competitions among schools,
mock examinations, etc. These district activities will also complement USAID and JICA support
to the Basic Education Division of the Ghana Education Service to strengthen decentralized
education management.
24. Implementation of District Grants will follow the current planning and operational
cycle whereby programs of work are initiated in July/August and finalized by
November/December. The implementation of these plans begins in January. The grants will be
tranched with 40% advanced at the beginning of the second term. The DED will undertake
eligible activities and once at least 70% of the initial advance is spent, they can submit a claim
for reimbursement. The APW will include all activities implemented by the DED, including
payments for district teachers to participate in UTDBE, DFID top up funds for girls’ education
activities, all capacity building, training and sensitization for school grant implementation (i.e.,
SMC training), and operational costs for continuous monitoring and evaluation of GPEG and
other DP activities.
25. The Ghana Education Service (GES) will lead most of the planning and budgeting
process. Capacity has been strengthened in this area with support from JICA on decentralized
education. 26
The disbursement and accounting of grant funds would be undertaken by a Project
Accountant assigned within the Financial Controller’s Office of the GES. The accounting and
25
Many of the proposed activities were suggested and discussed during a stakeholder workshop held on January 24-
26, 2012 in Akosombo. 26
JICA funded an advisor to the Decentralized Education Management Unit October 2010-September 2013.
35
reporting requirements for the grants are described in detail in the PIM. The annual activity cycle
of the district grant consists of APW planning, validation, execution and feedback-gathering.
The Annual Programs of Work are to be based on assessment of local education needs, feasible,
cost effective activities with appropriate outputs and targets. The development of the district
strategy would entail specific alignment with the ESP objectives, yet allow for maximum
flexibility to address local challenges and priorities. Further details on implementation are
described in Annex 3.
Subcomponent 1.2: Support for Teacher Development and Skill Upgrading (Estimated
total cost including contingencies US$15.56 million; base cost of US$15.06 million)
26. While the ESP envisages that not more than 5% of teachers should be unqualified, the
proportion of trained teachers in primary schools has deteriorated since 2003/04, when 65% of
male teachers and 91% of female teachers were trained, to 61% and 69% respectively in
2010/11. Deprived districts have a proportion of untrained teachers significantly higher than the
national average. The Untrained Teacher Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) program27
introduced by Government aimed to address this by using open and distance learning (ODL)
methods to train teachers already working in schools at a fraction of the cost. The upgrading
improves learning during the training period and is a more cost-effective way to get trained
teachers in the more remote/deprived schools. There is also a higher likelihood that teachers
would remain in these schools after graduation. However, the number of teachers participating
in the UTDBE program and in other upgrading programs will have to be increased if the target of
95% trained teachers is to be achieved by 2015 or soon thereafter.
27. Therefore the objective of this sub-component is to support the upgrading through
UTDBE of approximately 5,000 and no more than 8,000 untrained teachers, in deprived districts.
The teachers are identified by their schools and district education offices (criteria based on
eligibility, percentage of trained teachers in the district, likelihood to remain in the school, age,
etc.) and selected by TED. Most of the teacher would be teaching in primary schools, with some
KG teachers also included to ensure a substantial share of females. The program is a four year28
combination of residential courses and distance learning activities to support the student teacher
while they worked in the school. Based on a rigorous evaluation of the quality of UTDBE in
2010, supplemented by additional work on quality and cost during GPEG preparation, the
UTDBE was determined to be cost-effective, at a quarter of the costs of the three year pre-
service programs delivered in Colleges of Education. Given the lack of trained teachers in more
remote and deprived areas, the UTDBE approach to keep teachers in the school while gaining
professional qualifications will help to address teacher quality issues: the evaluation showed that
UTDBE student teachers in their second year were already preparing and delivering lessons
better than other untrained teachers. The UTDBE costs are estimated at US$800 per student
teacher per year, of which transportation and examinations are to be funded by student teachers.
27
The program was established in 2004, delivered by designated Colleges of Education, graduated 16,000 Diploma
teachers and about 6,000 Certificate A qualification. All at limited cost to the Government as student teachers bore
the vast majority of the costs themselves. Details about the program, analysis, and impact are included in Annex X. 28
The GPEG is a three-year grant, but additional donor funding or government budget would cover the costs of the
UTDBE in the fourth year.
36
Table 3: UTDBE expenditure estimates for 8,000 student teachers
Cost application Annual Number Annual
cost
(GH cedis)
Who gets
paid
Who pays?
Modules 10 modules 800,000 Printer GES/TED to
printer
Face-to-face
residence food and
accommodation
70 days 4,480,000 CoEs GES/TED to
CoEs
Tutoring on
residential courses
600 hours in groups
of 40
1,800,000 CoE tutors GES/TED to
CoE
Tutoring close to
school
150 hours tutoring
for each group of 50
or 3000 hours
600,000 CoE tutors
and
secondary
school
teachers
District
Practicum
supervision
Each
tutor/supervisor
visits 50 students
twice over 6 days
8,000 CoE tutors CoE
Examinations 3 800,000 CoEs Student to CoE
Student transport,
to CoEs and
tutorials
3 to CoEs
30 to tutorials
2,540,000 Private taxis
buses etc
Student
directly
Training of head
teachers tutors and
Circuit Supervisors
300 cadres, 2,000
head teachers
and100 CoE tutors
for 3 days each
group
600,000
Trainers District
Monitoring and
Supervision by TED,
GNAT, DEDs
20 days for 4 people 4,400 Staff in TED,
GNAT and
Districts
GES/TED
Consultancy support One international
and 3 national
consultants for six to
ten weeks each
100,000 Consultants GES/TED
Total Annual cost in
GH Cedis
11,732,400
Total four year cost
in US$
US$24.9
million
Source: Estimates by TED and consultant, 2011
28. While the UTDBE has succeeded in delivering more than 16,000 fully trained teachers,
the program has been less successful in providing teachers with support during the school year,
emphasizing content over pedagogy and minimal monitoring and/or evaluation. Furthermore,
37
the costs have not been shared equitably between student teachers and government. In the past,
students paid most of the costs of the course themselves. Therefore, the GPEG would support
key improvements to the UTDBE. In addition to direct support to student teachers to improve
their qualifications and their teaching methodology (course fees, accommodation, materials), the
UTDBE district support would also include funding for enhanced supervision, monitoring and
mentoring support for enrolled teachers and the schools where they are located. To achieve
maximum results from teacher training, the trained teacher must be provided in-school support to
practice what they have learned, adapt their coursework to local conditions, and create a
community of practice with their fellow teachers, head teacher and circuit supervisors. Involving
a wider group of stakeholders would benefit the student teacher, but more importantly would
enhance the reach of the training and the ownership of such new methodologies by the school.
These indirect costs to UTDBE would be supported under the District Grants.
29. This sub-component would benefit from the DFID supported project to introduce
improved teaching methodologies that incorporate activity based learning and early grade
reading and math pedagogy. The training for this approach will be developed and disseminated
through both pre-service and in-service programs. This sub-component could also support
training for head teachers and circuit supervisors to improve supervision and monitoring-
particularly in these new methodologies.
30. Implementation: Districts will be responsible for the selection of participants and
funding throughout the four year program. The delivery of the course is the responsibility of the
Colleges of Education with oversight from the Teacher Education Department (TED) and the
National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE). Quality assurance is provided by the Institute
of Education, University of Cape Coast. Support to the Colleges and TED as well as UTDBE
tutors, would be provided under component 3 as part of program management. The GPEG would
support any required capacity building to selected institutions delivering the courses under
component 3.
31. Project Support: The GPEG will support all costs associated with the participation in
the UTDBE except the costs for transportation and examination fees which are paid by the
student teacher. Cost of accommodation, tuition and food will be paid by districts to the
Colleges of Education. The GPEG will support consultancy and non consultancy services,
goods, and operational costs for supervision under component 3.
Component 2: School Sub-Grants (Estimated total cost including contingencies US$24.06
million; base cost of US$22.06 million)
32. The objective of this component is to supplement capitation grants to all basic education
schools in deprived districts with an explicit focus on improving teaching and learning.
Increasing the level of discretionary resources available to schools to better manage and deliver
education services has significant impact on improved quality and even learning outcomes.29
Reviews of the Ghana capitation program have often pointed out the limitations of the small
29
Bruns, Filmer, Patrinos (2011) presents several rigorous evaluations reporting these effects. This is further
supported by results from two recent World Bank Impact Evaluations in Niger (forthcoming) and The Gambia
(preliminary results).
38
capitation resources, particularly for schools with lower enrollment, many of which are situated
in the more remote and deprived areas of the country. School Grants will be provided annually
to all public primary schools (6,600) in the 57 districts to augment schools’ operating costs and
non-salary expenditures to ensure that key policies aligned with the ESP can be implemented.
The amount of the grant would average GHc1,836 (US$1,100)/year based on a GHc7.65 (US$4)
per capita formula. Although a per capita expenditure formula is used for planning purposes, the
school grant is a base grant in addition to the ongoing capitation grant already received annually
through the Government of Ghana.
33. The existing operational guidelines for capitation grants would form the basis of the
improved manual to guide schools on more strategic expenditures to impact quality and
improved learning. Additionally, this component will aim to increase school accountability to
parents and communities. This component would aim to further empower and support SMCs to
better plan for and improve teaching, learning and participation in their schools through the
School Performance Improvement Plan process. Therefore this component would support
activities for greater facilitation of the planning, operations and monitoring of the school grants.
The PIM and guidance from district education offices will be informative, but not overly
prescriptive as the grants would reflect priorities each school considers most closely associated
with improving its learning environment. The data from the School Report Cards30
would play a
key role in helping the school to diagnose key challenges and serve as a framework for
monitoring progress at the school level.
34. A School Performance Improvement Plan (SPIP) is a school-community plan for
implementing specific activities designed to improve the quality of the school. The GPEG will
strengthen the SPIP process, simplify the forms, improve the monitoring and evaluation of SPIP
execution, focus activities on improving learning and encourage greater participation by SMCs
and the larger community. Ultimately the GPEG aims to improve the social accountability for
the use of resources and to generate increased demand for improved education services by
parents and students. Furthermore, the SPIP presents an opportunity for schools to leverage
additional support from their communities to facilitate school grant implementation. The SPIP
should be evaluated for its alignment with ESP goals and district priorities and the School Report
Card should be more widely used in determining grant activities. The SPIP development process
is an opportunity for a school community to reflect upon successes and challenges and build a
shared vision and sense of direction. The SMCs and school administrators will also be trained
on record keeping and will be required to report school grant receipt and expenditure to parents
and communities by posting this information on school bulletin boards, in school report cards
and through other dissemination strategies depending on the local context. This is expected to
improve the effectiveness of school grant use and help create a culture of transparency,
accountability, and greater parental and community participation in school management.
35. School Grant activities: The school grants are expected to contribute towards improved
teaching and learning which requires an expansion in the menu of activities currently used under
the capitation grant. The school grant could include: (a) instructional materials and learning
inputs; (b) school furniture; (c) mentoring/coaching opportunities for teachers; (d) training
related to identified local skills needs, i.e., math and science, special needs assessments, remedial
30
School Report Cards are supported with assistance from USAID.
39
courses, KG training; (e) guidance and counseling system for girls; (f) school based INSET on
child-centered activity based learning; (g) library materials; (h) equipment or tools (ICT) to
improve teaching and learning; (i) minor works to refurbish classrooms or build latrines; (j)
SPAMs; and (k) school-level reading competitions.
36. To access the grants, a prerequisite is the training and capacity building of head teachers
and SMCs, which would be funded by district grants, to prepare school development plans to
improve teaching, learning and participation of their schools in this program. The Project
Implementation Manual will provide detailed guidance on SPIP process, grant implementation
and positive and negative lists of activities. The manual will also indicate monitoring and
reporting requirements that have been simplified to discourage non-compliance. Therefore,
these additional “base” school grants would ensure that at least minimal levels of discretionary
resources are available to schools but in exchange for improved standards of reporting and
accountability. Future grants may be conditioned on implementation performance, particularly
in areas such as monitoring of teacher attendance/time on task.
37. Given that the ongoing capitation grant has not been rigorously evaluated, this
component would finance an evaluation to better understand the impacts of the grant, cost-
effectiveness, issues or challenges. Specifically, a randomized assignment design is being
considered looking at different sized grants and how they influence better educational outcomes.
In addition, qualitative audits will be carried out yearly to verify achievements, data collection,
summarize realized expenses, outputs from grants and assess outcomes.
38. The GPEG would finance: (a) Training on school grant processes; (b) Monitoring visits
to the schools to support grant planning and grant processes; (c) Communication campaigns to
disseminate project activities and to motivate participation of the school actors and communities;
(d) Annual School grants; and (e) Impact evaluation.
Component 3: Project Management and Institutional Strengthening (Estimated total cost
including contingencies US$6.58 million; base cost of US$4.58 million)
39. This component will provide the necessary resources for improved management,
monitoring and evaluation of GPEG activities at the central, regional, district and school levels.
The objective of this component is to strengthen government systems for the implementation and
supervision of decentralized education services in the deprived districts.
40. Significant technical assistance to the Ghana Education Service is already being provided
through TA programs supported by USAID, DFID and JICA (described below). GPEG would
complement these activities and where necessary scale up (e.g., School Report Cards). A key
lesson from previous decentralized programs/projects is the need for a robust monitoring and
evaluation system that supports both the routine detailed supervision and broader periodic
assessments to improve the knowledge and functioning of the system. Without the data to
validate progress, challenges and deficits, the anecdotal and superficial reporting becomes a
burden without much meaning for the beneficiaries (students, communities, educators). The data
empowers the implementers at all levels to be more accountable for their roles and
responsibilities and to better allocate limited resources.
40
41. In addition to supervision support, financial audits, qualitative audits and impact
evaluations, funding will be provided for technical assistance to support the Ministry of
Education, National Inspectorate Board, Regional Education Directorates and District Education
Directorates to undertake M&E activities and/or carry out supplemental data collection and
analysis necessary to measure implementation performance and impact of grant activities (e.g.,
comprehensive surveys, qualitative grant audits, etc.). This component would support technical
assistance needed to improve school supervision and delivery of INSET; the implementation of
School Report Cards; EMIS reporting for school improvement planning; support to Colleges of
Education for UTDBE implementation; and support to TED for monitoring and managing core
INSET activities. A system for EMIS data sharing may also be financed. This component may
also include key capacity building activities to coordinate development partner activities,
undertake specialized studies and finance key trainings for decentralized financial management,
procurement and M&E. It is also proposed that this component include an evaluation study of the
UTDBE on student learning outcomes in the Ghanaian context.
42. This component will finance:
a) Consultancy services for supporting independent monitoring and evaluation surveys;
b) Training and Operational costs for school supervision, School Report Card
implementation;
c) INSET materials, UTDBE materials, tutor training and other costs related to managing
core INSET delivery, and lesson observation survey;
d) Operational costs for project management and training programs.
e) Impact Evaluation
f) External and Internal audits
43. The activities under this component are defined to support GPEG activities and to
complement planned and ongoing government and donor funded activities. In addition, the
GPEG will co-finance USAID support to extend key monitoring tools to deprived districts. For
example, sole source procurement method may be used to continue international technical
assistance in SRC delivery, developed under USAID projects. Given the key role USAID will
play in supporting this area, some of their ongoing and planned activities are summarized below.
44. USAID programming will work through and support DEDs, through technical assistance
and selective use of NGOs to implement programs, with a focus on performing and transitioning
districts. Institutional and management support will be based on capacity assessments for the
GES, National Inspectorate Board (NIB), National Teaching Council (NTC) and National
Curriculum Coordinating Agency (NCCA). Capacity building efforts at the central level will
support the development of modern institutional structures, and integration of information and
communication technologies (ICT) into ongoing and existing systems, as well as to selected
districts, building on the EDUNet established in 2011. With support emphasizing Districts and
Regions, USAID will also assist MOE and GES to develop a system to facilitate the management
and analysis of education information in line with the ESP. Technical support and expertise to
perform research and evaluations will be provided, coupled with capacity building for relevant
Ghanaian institutions and local organizations with potential to grow and perform in this area.
41
Annex 2, Appendix A: Policy Matrix for GPEG
1. GPEG Policy Agenda. As a three year operation, the GPEG intends to focus on policies
that respond to some of the most persistent issues and challenges, help strengthen central and
local institutions that are involved in the management and delivery of basic education services
and also address some of the most important strategic priorities defined in the country’s
Education Strategic Plan.
2. Education Sector Plan 2010-2020. The Government’s education strategy is outlined in
the Education Strategic Plan (ESP) for 2010 to 2020, which is implemented through a three-year
rolling Annual Education Sector Operational Plan (AESOP). It is consistent with the national
policy objectives for education, which are (i) to improve equitable access to and participation in
good quality education at all levels, (ii) to improve the quality of teaching and learning, (iii) to
bridge the gender gap in access to education, (iv) to improve access to quality education for
people with a disability, (v) to promote science and technical education at all levels, (vi) to
strengthen links between tertiary education and industry, (vii) to mainstream issues of
population, family life, gender, health, HIV and AIDS and STI, conflicts, fire and road safety,
civic responsibility, human rights, and environment in the curricula at all levels, and (viii) to
improve the management of education service delivery.
3. Strengthening Basic Education Policies. In order to achieve its strategic goals in
education, Ghana needs to expand its public resource envelope and use its resources more
equitably and more efficiently. Public education spending in 2010 amounted to roughly 5.5% of
GDP in 2010, which reflects a strong commitment to the sector. However, with the fast
economic growth and slower population growth, Ghana has good opportunities to achieve its
strategic educational goals even if the share of the sector from the GDP remains at the same level
by using additional resources to introducing and scaling up sustainable education policy
measures to improve equity, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. These policies will
need to stimulate better use of resources, better targeting, and will create incentives for improved
performance. Better education services will require stronger district and school level capacities
to manage education and teachers’ capacities to improve learning results.
4. Roles and Responsibilities in education service delivery. The division of roles and
responsibilities between different levels will also have to change. While the local and school
levels will increase their responsibilities and capabilities in management, administration and
service delivery, the central government will increase its responsibility and capabilities to steer
the system through improved financing, better allocation of resources, support and assistance to
lower levels. In addition, monitoring, evaluation and accountability need to improve at all three
levels also to develop a better understanding of what policies work most effectively. Below, the
key responsibilities are summarized for each level. These policies will ensure that key ESP
objectives are met in the long-term.
42
5. Central Government Responsibilities
Ensuring better distribution of public resources by categories increasing the share of
funding for goods, services and investments, programmatic funding of development
priorities, discretionary funding to districts and schools and incentives to improve
performance at all levels.
Ensuring the timely flow of funds from the center to the districts and better monitoring
of the funds flow;
Improving efficiency of public funding by eliminating inefficient programs, (study leave
for teachers)
Ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and that disparities in resource
allocations decrease (including financial, human and physical resources)
Establishing and enforcing standards and providing guidelines and creating incentives to
increasing the instructional time in basic education.
Developing new regulations, establishing supervision and monitoring procedures to
minimize all absence of teachers from schools.
Enhancing the competence of school management and of teaching and learning through
the design and provision of training materials for in-service training and the training
of master trainers”
Ensuring that policies are based on appropriate targeting favoring the deprived, the
poor and the underprivileged through transparent resource allocation methods;
Ensuring that the qualification of teachers and the availability of qualified teachers in
deprived districts improve;
Creating guidelines for effective policies and programs targeting the key strategic
priorities in the sector, including complementary basic education, special education,
girls education, improved learning outcomes especially for early grades and improved
accountability in school management.
Providing the districts and school with technical guidance (including inspectorate
services), realistic options, relevant operational packages to implement local plans and
work programs.
Strengthening the capacities of district and school level management and
stakeholder participants;
Strengthening monitoring and evaluation as well as the collection and use of evidence
about the policy and program effectiveness.
Providing adequate resources and building capacities for Regional Directorates of
Education to improve basic education services at district and school levels through
training, coordination and M&E.
6. District Level Responsibilities
Engage in adequate sector program planning;
Ensuring the timely flow of funds and distribution of other resources/materials from
the district to the schools;
43
Enhancing the competence of school management and of teaching and learning through
in-service training
Strengthening the involvement and participation of district assemblies as well as local
communities in education
Effectively managing specific programs agreed with the various stakeholders
Providing support, guidance and other services to schools; and
Engaging in district level sector monitoring and performance reviews
7. School Level Responsibilities
Ensuring that both teachers and student fully attend through the school day, absence,
attrition, late start and early leave are minimized, monitored and reported;
Ensuring that instruction, effective teaching and active learning is increased during
the school day (ToT);
Ensuring a school environment and school climate that facilitates learning (climate)
Providing adequate pedagogical support to those students who have special needs or
those who are slow learners to minimize falling behind (inclusion)
Instruction and other school activities carried out according to plans (SPIP)
School level funds are used to improve school performance
8. The following matrix summarizes the linkage between strategic objectives in the ESP,
government policies and operations, and GPEG activities at the various levels of the system.
44
Appendix A Matrix: ESP and Ghana Partnership for Education Grant Alignment
ESP strategic objectives, results, indicators, policies, operations, long-term targets, measurement and verification
Strategic
objectives
Results Indicators Central Government
Policies and
operations
District level
policies and
operations
School level actions Long-term
targets
Measurem
ent
verificatio
n
Access 1.1.
Increased
education
attainment
in
deprived
districts
Completio
n of
primary for
deprived,
completion
of JHS for
deprived
Net
enrollment
rate in
deprived
districts
improve
Effective targeting of
deprived districts and
reliable monitoring
Government endorses
complementary basic
education policy for
out-of-school
children
Incentives for the
deprived districts
Programs
(procurement
packages) to improve
supply and demand
for basic education
Develop needs based
targeting mechanism
for other pro-poor
interventions (for
schools and for
families)
Annual Work
Programs to
improve school
facilities and
school supplies in
remote areas
Annual Work
Programs to
incentivize
participation in
poor communities
Districts develop
targeting
according to
central guidelines
and assure
transparent
execution.
School
Performance
Improvement Plans
to improve on-time
admission,
attendance
Community
participation and
outreach to bring
out-of school
children to school
School grants to
improve supply and
improve facilities
School Report Card
monitoring student
attendance
Schools report on
reception and use of
resources received
Disparity in
access
indicators
between
deprived and
non-deprived
diminishes
Annual
EMIS,
district
level
performan
ce review
and survey
outcomes
match
45
1.2.
Increased
access for
children
with
special
needs
Increased
number of
children
with
special
needs
Finalize special needs
and inclusive
education policy
Guidelines and
incentives for
inclusive education to
the districts and
schools
Develop child- and
gender-friendly
learning environment
standards. Ensure that
policies and
procedures around
school attendance of
pregnant teenaged
pupils / teenage
mothers, reporting of
school – based
gender based
violence and teacher
abuse and gender-
friendly infrastructure
are fully implemented
in all schools
Districts
implement
programs of
inclusive
education for
children with
special needs
(teacher training,
screening,
community
sensitization etc.)
Improve physical
access to school
and pedagogical
support to children
with special needs
Proportion of
children with
special needs
in school
matches their
proportion in
population
Gender
parity
Increased
education
attainment
for girls in
deprived
districts
Girls
primary
completion
in deprived
districts
improve
Guidelines and
incentives for girls
education
Monitoring and
capacity building for
Districts appoint
girls education
officer
Annual Work
Programs target
Schools provide
outreach to families
with out of school
girls and with girls
with irregular
attendance
Full gender
parity in
basic
education
Annual
EMIS,
district
level
performan
ce review
46
Girls
transition
to JHS in
deprived
districts
improve
districts on girls
education
Incentives to train
and hire more female
teachers
improvements in
girls education
Access support
packages to
establish gender
sensitive school
environment and
for female
teachers
Schools engage in
extra curriculum
programs that are
most relevant for
girls
Provide gender-
sensitive
infrastructure (inc
potable water and
male/female toilets
for pupils and staff)
and survey
outcomes
match
Quality of
learning
Improvem
ents in
math and
English
proficienc
y at
primary
level in
deprived
districts
Improvem
ent in
basic
education
completio
n in
deprived
districts
NEA
results in
deprived
districts
improve
SEA
results in
deprived
districts
improve
BECE
results in
deprived
districts
improve
Improved
Biannual NEA and
SEA assessments are
carried out, analyzed,
reported and
disseminated at
district level.
Annual BECE reports
are completed and
disseminated at
district level.
Impact Evaluations
(including
randomized control
trials) are carried out
to assess the
effectiveness of
specific policies to
improve learning
District APWs
invest in
improved
learning
especially in the
poorest schools
Provide untrained
teachers with
additional support
for UTDBE
(Enhance the
sponsorship
scheme, e.g.,
Examination fees,
provide modules
Capacity building
of circuit
supervisors,
SPIPs and SPAMs
target and monitor
improvements in
learning outcomes
(grades, pass rates,
SEA results)
Schools invest in
materials improving
learning
Implement School-
based and Cluster-
based INSET on
child-centered
activity-based
learning
Training of teachers
in literacy with a
Disparity
between
deprived and
non-deprived
districts in
NEA, SEA
and BECE
results
disappears as
well as in the
PTTR
disappears
Biannual
NEA and
SEA
results
Annual
BECE
reports all
disaggrega
ted by
districts
SEA
results
reported
for
individual
schools
School
Report
Cards
include
47
Improved
quality of
teachers in
deprived
districts
PTTR in
deprived
districts
Guidelines help
extending effective
instructional time
(Time on Task)
Adopt and implement
the pre-tertiary
teacher professional
Development
Training of Trainers
for District Master
Trainers and District
Teacher Support
Teams
curriculum
leaders and head
teachers to
support INSET
and to monitor
programs aiming
to improve
learning (activity-
based learning,
NALAP, etc.)
Train circuit
supervisors,
curriculum
leaders and head
teachers in
school-based
assessment (SBA)
view to expanding
NALAP to cover
Upper Primary
learning
outcomes
(NEA,
SEA,
BECE)
Managem
ent
efficiency
and
accountabi
lity
School
Report
Cards are
used in
most
schools in
deprived
districts
Use of the
SRCs
Reliable
EMIS data
at central,
district and
school
level
NESAR
reports on
key
strategic
objectives,
Key GPE instruments
(district and school
grants, SRC, NEA,
SEA, etc.) are
mainstreamed in the
budget, in the scope
of work for GES and
in NESAR
Guidelines and
manuals are issued
for the key GPE
instruments (district
and school grants,
SRC, NEA, SEA,
Districts complete
and disseminate
APWs
District provide
DAs APWs for
endorsement
Districts establish
and implement
more extensive
school
supervision plans
Districts develop
Schools complete
and disseminate
SRCs and
disseminate EMIS
school profile
through SMC and
PTA meetings,
SPAMs and
through the notice
board.
Schools monitor
and report on
teacher attendance
Parents and
other
stakeholders
can monitor
key
information
about sector
performance
including
access,
attendance,
outcomes,
learning
results,
resource
NESAR to
report on
the use
and the
results of
the SRCs
Internet
access to
key sector
performan
ce
informatio
n on the
MOE/GES
48
reliable
informatio
n about
resource
allocation
and use,
informatio
n about
learning
outcomes
and results
of impact
evaluations
etc.)
NESAR reports on
improvements along
the four key strategic
objectives and also
on geographical,
social and gender
disparities
Government provides
feedback and training
to districts based on
the NESAR reporting
on management
efficiency and
accountability
NESAR and other
key sector reports,
including reports on
learning outcomes are
broadly disseminated.
DA, NGO and CSO
participation
increases in NESAR
and regional/district
level performance
reviews
APWs to improve
school monitoring
and supervision
Head teachers and
Circuit
Supervisors in
deprived districts
trained in the use
of School Report
Cards
DEDs together
with DA EOC
carry out joint
annual sector
review
SPAM is
mainstreamed and
focuses on
“academic” issues
such as access,
quality and
efficiency
Provision of funds
to organize school-
based orientation
for teachers, SMCs
and PTAs on
teacher absenteeism
allocation
and use
disaggregate
d up to
school levels
Resources
are more
equitably
allocated and
more
efficiently
used
website
National
and
Regional
Education
Annual
Reviews,
49
Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements
GHANA PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION GRANT
1. Implementation period. The project implementation period will cover a period of three
years from October 10, 2012 to October 31, 2015.
2. Recipient and Executing Agency. The Recipient is the Republic of Ghana, represented
by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) as the responsible agency for
financial and legal obligations of the Government of Ghana. The Ministry of Education which is
the policy making entity will provide oversight for the project with implementation carried out
by the Ghana Education Service (GES). The project will be implemented at the national, district
and school levels. The national level activities will be implemented by the Ghana Education
Service headquarters, while the district and school level activities are implemented at the district
and school levels. Regional Education Directorates will also play a key role in coordinating and
monitoring activities at sub-national levels.
3. Project Implementation Responsibilities. All project implementation arrangements are
based on existing Government systems and procedures although some of these existing systems
will be strengthened through the GPEG project to improve their effectiveness. The project will
be implemented at the national, district and school levels. The lead implementation entity is the
Ghana Education Service (GES) which will manage the three components of the project. GES
has a decentralized structure; key programs similar to the GPEG are typically implemented by
the districts with support from the Regional Education Directorates (REDs). The responsibility
for the national level activities will be held by the Director General of the Ghana Education
Service, while the responsibility for the implementation of the district and school grant financed
activities will be held by District Education Directors and by the school head teachers
respectively. Regional Education Directorates will play a role in coordinating and monitoring
activities at sub-national levels.
4. Global Partnership for Education Fund: The Global Partnership for Education (GPE)
is a platform for collaboration at the global and country levels providing much needed resources
to leverage bilateral and multilateral financing for helping countries improve education for all its
citizens. Through the GPE, Ghana ensures coordination and harmonization of DP involvement
and financing around its ESP. Ghana is submitting an application for a Program Implementation
Grant in the amount of US$75.5 million. The GPE (formerly Education For All-Fast Track
Initiative) has agreed to this allocation upon successful completion of all required documentation
including: (i) the Ghana Education Sector Plan; (ii) Ghana medium term costed operational plan
(AESOP); (iii) appraisal and endorsement by the Local Development Group of the ESP; (iv)
Country Presentation; (v) Country Information Form; (vi) Education Sector Performance Reports
for last four years; and (vii) Project Appraisal Document. As supervising entity, the World Bank
guidelines and documentation processes are utilized to develop and document the agreed project.
This PAD is produced with leadership by the Bank, but in consultation and coordination with all
of the key donor stakeholders in education in Ghana. The GPE Board approved the Ghana
application on July 31, 2012.
50
5. Local Education Group: The GPEG is supported by the donor partners operating in the
Ghana education sector, including DFID, UNICEF, JICA, USAID, World Bank and WFP. The
LEG will provide external oversight on behalf of the Global Partnership. The LEG will also be
responsible to harmonize other existing DP-financed activities with GPEG activities. The Donor
Partner group worked collaboratively to prepare this application to the GPEF. The LEG solicited
the World Bank to act as supervising entity and works to harmonize planned commitments and
projects around the GPEG. UNICEF and USAID are currently the lead donor agencies
responsible for representing all of the contributing donors and leading the policy dialogue with
the Ministry of Education. The LEG will continue to play a key role in supervising the GPEG
implementation through joint missions, regular monthly meetings and specific responsibilities as
detailed in an MOU.
6. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has a mandate to formulate national education sector
policy based on the principles of education for all and equitable provision of education services
at all levels of education. The MOE will provide technical and fiduciary oversight for the project
and will assure that the key sector policy, planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation
processes are harmonized with the GPEG design.
7. Project Implementation Manual. To guide the implementation of the GPEG project, a
detailed PIM satisfactory to the Bank will be prepared and submitted prior to project
effectiveness. The PIM sets forth all the operational and procedural steps for project
implementation including detailed descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of implementing
units, review and approval of district annual plans, flow of funds and operational and financial
reporting arrangements, procurement and disbursement processes, standard formats for quarterly
and annual reporting and amendment procedures.
8. Decentralized Implementation and Institutional Framework will be carried out at
central, regional, district and school levels. At each level, designated agencies will
a. provide oversight
b. be responsible for selection and targeting of beneficiaries,
c. planning and endorsing work programs and activities
d. implementation (including procurement and other services)
e. financial management and reporting
f. monitoring and evaluation (focusing both on implementation effectiveness and on
impact)
g. Reporting on progress, fiduciary issues and results
9. Project Oversight: An inter-governmental Project Steering Committee will be
established within two months of project effectiveness, comprising the representatives of the
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Local Government and Rural
Development (MLGRD), the National Inspectorate Board and two representatives of sector-
based CSO or NGOs as well as the Ghana Education Service (ex-officio) to provide project
implementation oversight and synergy with other existing or proposed overlapping activities and
programs. The project steering committee will meet regularly to review and resolve
implementation bottlenecks, oversee disbursements, coordinate and harmonize activities of units
51
involved in project implementation, review and approve annual work plans and budgets, as well
as reports, assess progress towards the achievement of project development objectives, and
provide other strategic guidance to the project’s implementation. At local levels, the
implementation of the district grants will be overseen by the District Education Oversight
Committee and the school grants and other school based activities will be overseen by the
relevant School Management Committees or Parent Teacher Associations or other community
based organizations in case the SMCs are not functional.
10. Project Coordinator. The Director General of the GES, will appoint a full time Project
Coordinator whose task will be to assure timely and effective implementation, disbursement,
flow of funds, monitoring and reporting between various levels. The Project Coordinator will
work closely with the Director of Basic Education and the Financial Controller of the GES who
will jointly report on the project’s implementation, and be responsible for the operational and the
financial management reporting on the project respectively.
11. A Technical Implementation Group (TIG) comprising the key relevant departments as
well as the GES leadership will provide regular advice and oversight, will be responsible to
address any sector-specific issues affecting implementation effectiveness and will also be
responsible for the timely submission and quality of operational and financial management
reporting to the Steering Committee and the Bank. This Group will be headed by the Director of
Basic Education and the Financial Controller of the GES, the Director of the Teacher Education
Division (TED) (also responsible for management and reporting on UTDBE and INSET through
the NIU), the Girls Education Unit, the CRDD and the SRIMP.
12. Coordination and Training. The Project Coordinator with the TIG will establish or
update and distribute existing guidelines, manuals and grant processes and coordinate the
training in these guidelines for implementing agencies, project stakeholders and beneficiaries to
ensure smooth implementation at the sub-national level. The guidelines and manuals will cover
(a) the district and school grant procedures including procurement and financial management; (b)
the key GPEG priority areas as they are defined in the GPEG policy framework; and (c) the
planning and monitoring procedures and reporting formats. The project coordinator will organize
regular practical training sessions to ensure that districts (i) understand the guidelines for
planning their programs; (ii) implement activities that will achieve set targets; (iii) access and
report on funding provided for district and school grants; and (iv) regularly monitor and evaluate
activities being implemented.
13. Planning: The GPEG implementation is built on existing Government planning
procedures. The project is based on the Education Sector Plan (2010-2020) and on the Annual
Education Sector Operational Plan (AESOP) that defines the operational agenda for three year
periods on a rolling basis. Based on these each district is expected to develop an Annual District
Education Operational Plan (ADEOP) to cover all Government and DP financed sector
investment activities and an Annual Program of Work (APW), which defines specifically for the
GPEG the district’s recurrent, non-salary type expenditures in the districts selected to be
financed under the program. The APW is a section of the ADEOP. The scope of the APWs and
SPIPs is defined by the project design with the expectation that the grants will be sustained over
time from Government resources. District and school grants will have an upper ceiling that is
52
defined by the number of students enrolled in basic education within the district.
14. The Ghana Education Service (GES) will lead most of the planning and budgeting
process. Capacity has been strengthened in this area with support from JICA on decentralized
education. The annual activity cycle of the district grant consists of APW planning, validation,
execution and feedback-gathering. The APWs are to be based on assessment of district
education needs, feasible, cost effective activities with appropriate outputs and targets. The
development of the district strategy would entail specific alignment with the ESP objectives, yet
allow for maximum flexibility to address local challenges and priorities.
15. Selection and Targeting: Districts are selected based on their social and education
profile with a focus on those districts that have the highest poverty levels and also lowest levels
of education services (the selection criteria and the list of the districts are discussed previously in
Annex 2). All basic education schools in the selected districts are eligible to benefit from the
school grants. Districts, together with central GES will clearly define the list of schools eligible
for support. District APWs will include the scope of teacher development services within the
district also indicating how many teachers are expected to benefit from these services. Teachers
typically volunteer for the UTDBE program; therefore, further targeting needs to use transparent
selection criteria if the program is oversubscribed. The GPEG financing will be targeted to
primary school teachers, especially those who teach in schools with the highest pupil per trained
teacher ratio.
16. Regional Education Directorates will oversee the implementation of planned activities
to be carried out by the DEDs in their respective regions, will provide capacity building where it
is needed and provide support to district level planning. The key purpose for the RED’s
involvement is to ensure timely implementation and harmonization of the various monitoring and
reporting activities. The REDs will complete their own work-program for monitoring and
technical support and will receive operational and financial support from central GES to fulfill
their roles. The REDs will also collate, review and consolidate district reports as necessary. The
REDs will work mainly through the Regional Planning Coordinating Units (RPCUs).
17. District Level Project Coordination and Management. The DEDs will be the key
entities for the completion and implementation of the APW in the respective districts, transfer of
school grants, overseeing the school grant implementation, timely reporting for both district and
school grant activities. The APW is developed by the District Education Directorate, discussed
with the District Education Oversight Committee and endorsed by the Project Steering
Committee. The District Education Directorate will establish a local technical group consisting
of the District Education Director, Accountant, District level Girls Education Coordinator,
selected circuit supervisor and master trainers. The DED selects one member of the technical
group to be the key district coordinator who will ensure the timely APW process,
implementation, monitoring and reporting as well as support to schools. Quality assurance and
feedback from the central government is provided by the Technical Implementation Group.
18. The APWs will be sent to the Regional Education Directorates for quality assurance and
feedback and will also be discussed with the District Education Oversight Committee. The
GPEG Project Coordinator will monitor the timeliness and relevance of the planning process to
53
validate quality without causing unnecessary delay. Some district grant activities will require
procurement support, which will be provided by the District Assembly Works Departments or
other DA units with relevant procurement capacity. APWs are publicly posted at the District
Education Directorates and, if possible, in local newspapers or newsletters.
19. School Level Project Coordination and Management: Approximately 6,600 schools in
57 districts will receive annual grants. Public KG, primary and junior secondary schools will be
funded under the GPEG. All public basic schools in the selected districts are expected to submit
to the DEDs a School Performance Improvement Plan. The school grant will support activities
agreed in the SPIP. The SPIPs are developed by the school head teachers in partnership with the
local community, in particular, with the School Management Committee (or PTA or other CBO
if the latter is not functional). The Districts, through the circuit supervisors advise the school on
any revisions necessary to the SPIPs and provide the first tranche of the school grant to the
school. Schools are also required to complete the school report cards (SRCs) as a key part of
monitoring school performance. School Performance Assessment Meetings (SPAMs) are
organized upon the receipt of the first tranche of the school grant and the completion of the
SRCs. SPAMs are the key monitoring tools of school grant activities and monitoring school
performance.
20. The SPAM is held to discuss the achievements and challenges of the school and the
learning outcomes of pupils. It outlines steps for improving the school's performance, the roles of
teachers, parents, and the community. It also discusses the implementation of the previous SPIP
and the impact on school performance. The current year’s SPIP is informed by lessons of the
previous SPIP and sets out funded activities to be implemented in order to improve school
performance. Agreed activities and funding allocations in the SPIP are endorsed by the head
teacher, the SMC chairman and the PTA chairman. The implementation of the SPIP is the
responsibility of the head teacher and the SMC. Currently, the SPIP activities are funded by the
ongoing Capitation Grant provided through GoG budget. Under the GPEG project,
supplementary funding (US$4/capita) will be provided to fund expanded activities with an
explicit focus on improving teaching and learning in the school.
21. Joint monitoring visits comprising the MOE, GES and MOFEP and DPs as required
will make joint implementation support visits to sample beneficiary districts and schools
annually. The visits will assess the progress of implementation and challenges and support
districts and schools in improving implementation and resolving these challenges.
22. Management and Social Accountability. Since the project will be implemented through
a number of decentralized agencies and will also target a large number of beneficiaries, the
implementing agencies will be responsible for accountability through reports and other forms of
dissemination.
a. School Performance Improvement Plans will be made available to the public for
planned activities and school report cards (piloted in the last two years) will record
key results at school level. These will be discussed at School Performance
Assessment Meetings and will be posted for public view.
54
b. District Annual Work Plans will be issued at district level where district performance
reports will also be issued, discussed at annual performance reviews and posted.
District Education Oversight Committees will also play key role in the planning and
performance review processes.
c. GES, together with MOE will update the rolling Annual Education Sector
Operational Plans which will guide the planning process for GPEG. The Ministry of
Education and the GES also complete a National Education Sector Annual Report and
Annual Review which will monitor the GPEG related inputs, outputs, processes and
results/outcomes.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND DISBURSEMENT
23. The Overall Financial Management risk is considered Moderate.
24. The risks to funds flow is rated as ‘Substantial’ due mainly to the fact that significant
resources will be transferred and utilized in deprived district where generally the systems are
comparatively weaker. This risk is however mitigated by the strong internal controls emanating
from the Ghana Education Service (GES) Headquarters and also the presence of internal audit
staff in nearly all the participating district offices. The assessment of the financial management
arrangements at the GES concludes that there are adequate systems in place that satisfy the
Bank’s minimum requirements under OP/BP10.02.
25. Given that the project’s financial management arrangements will follow the country
systems, the Financial Controller (FC) of GES will have overall financial management
responsibility. The responsibility of the FC is to ensure that throughout implementation there are
adequate financial management systems in place at all levels of project implementation which
can report adequately on the use of project funds. The FC’s work will be complimented by the
assignment of a dedicated Principal Accountant responsible for the routine day to day transaction
processing and reporting.
Table 4: Risk Rating Summary Table
Risk Risk
Rating
Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks
Conditions for
Effectiveness/
Negotiations
Residual
Risk
Rating
Inherent Risk
Country Level
Weaknesses in the effective use
of public funds, weak oversight
regarding transparency and
accountability. Poor linkages
between strategic planning and
long term budgeting at the
sector levels.
M
Strengthening the role of the MMDAs in
FM capacity building through ongoing
reforms in the public financial
management.
No
M
55
Risk Risk
Rating
Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks
Conditions for
Effectiveness/
Negotiations
Residual
Risk
Rating
Entity Level ( GES)
The ability of GES to
effectively coordinate and
supervise the districts
(approximately 70) and
regional offices and basic
schools during implementation.
S
The GES is the lead governmental
agency for implementing all policies and
programs for basic education and have
capacity and experiences in supervision
(District Education Directorates (DEDs)
and Regional Education Directorates
(REDs).
The implementation arrangements
include the establishment of key
technical and stakeholder committees.
These committees will provide ongoing
strategic guidance and monitor the results
of implementation progress towards
outcomes.
No
M
Project Level
Challenges in coordinating the
activities of the various districts
assemblies and spending units.
Potential weaknesses in
effective monitoring and
tracking of activities and
expenditure due to the wide
dispersion and the small value
of transactions.
Since a large part of the project
(over 80% of funding) would
be implemented at the District
Assembly level, there exist
inherent risks due to weak
financial management systems.
S
Staff members to be trained on IDA
policies and procedures. Intensive IDA
supervision to help identity and address
weaknesses.
In line with the UCS, the project will
seek to rely on existing GoG internal
control mechanism and where these are
weak there is provision for capacity
building to strengthen such systems.
No
M
Overall Inherent Risk S Moderate
Control Risk
Budgeting
Challenges particularly at the
sub national level in translating
the allocated funds into realistic
time bound budgets with
specific activities and outputs.
Risk of cost overruns and
adverse variations in
expenditure due to potential
slow implementation.
S
Implementations challenges are expected
to be addressed through the various
institutional hierarchies established for
the project. The budget for the project
will be part of the overall sector’s budget
which will be prepared in line with GoG
timelines.
Budget execution to be monitored
through biannual reports and IFRs by
IDA and other existing GoG control
mechanisms
No
M
Accounting
The lack of reliable accounting
systems at the districts can pose
a challenge in terms of
credibility of preparing
financial statements and also
delays in submission of
S
Excel will be used initially, followed by
full migration to the GIFMIS as soon as
the new system becomes operational.
Accounts staffing capacity to be
strengthened through regular training of
No
M
56
Risk Risk
Rating
Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks
Conditions for
Effectiveness/
Negotiations
Residual
Risk
Rating
expenditure returns.
district and regional accountants and
district finances officers
Internal Controls
Risk of non compliance with
internal control processes.
Possibility of weaknesses in
GAC (transparency in
processes) particularly in
procurement and contract
awarding/execution the sub
national level(district
assemblies)
S
The GoG financial regulations,
guidelines and manuals are adequate for
operational control under the project.
These manuals document clearly the
approval and authorization hierarchies
applicable for processing financial
transactions. The GES has a functioning
Internal Audit Unit to help minimize risk;
in addition most of the district offices
have internal audit staff.
Regular IDA/DP supervision missions
and reviews will help ascertain level of
compliance.
No
M
Funds Flow
Non compliance with the IDA
requirements and procedures
can pose a challenge to smooth
funds flow arrangements, thus
undermining implementation
progress.
Challenges in preparation and
submission of satisfactory
returns due to delays in
obtaining expenditure returns
from the district offices.
S
Funds will be transferred to DED using
existing government approved processes
and this will be supplemented by
additional controls from GES HQ.
No
M
Financial Reporting
Delays in processing and
submitting IFRs and other
progress reports due to the need
for receiving returns and other
supporting documentation from
district and regional offices.
S
Even though financial reporting is
centralized there is the need to obtain
expenditure returns and other supporting
documentation from districts. To avoid
delays the GES HQ will organize
quarterly meetings to review, validate
and accept district returns.
No
M
Auditing
The risk that audits will not be
submitted on time to ensure
compliance with covenants.
GES is audited by the GAS and
their scope of work and timing
may be different and this may
lead to delays in adhering to the
financial covenant dates.
S
An arrangement will be reached with the
GAS to complete and report on the audit
of the GES within the defined
timeframe’. However where this is not
feasible then alternative arrangements
will be made using private firms to audit
project specific transactions.
No
M
Overall Risk Rating S M
H – High S – Substantial M – Moderate L – Low
57
Budgeting Arrangements
26. The GES, as a government agency follows the budget preparation guidelines according to
the Financial Administration Act (2003), the Financial Administration Regulation (2004) and
also the annual budget guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
(MOFEP). The project specific budgeting process will be documented in a revised IDA approved
Project Implementation Manual (PIM). Generally, the budgeting arrangements at GES are
satisfactory and derive from the IDA allocations which serve as a basis for determining the
district allocations and preparing the Annual Work Plan (APW) incorporating the activities to be
undertaken under the various components. Individual district budgets, work plans, procurement
plans will be collated and consolidated at the GES headquarters and reviewed jointly by key
project staff. GES HQ will co-ordinate annual work-plans and budgets and share consolidated
copies to the Bank and Development Partners for review and endorsement.
27. Once the budgets are endorsed copies will be provided to the Financial Controller of GES
to enable monitoring and adequate budgetary controls over expenditure. Project management
will ensure that all units and component activities are correctly reflected in the work plans and
budget. The current budgetary control processes used mostly for the government’s discretionary
budget are capable of monitoring commitments and outstanding balances and this helps to reduce
risk of multiple payments.
28. The assessment indicates that budgeting processes are satisfactory and can be relied upon
to reflect the various components to be implemented.
Accounting Arrangements
29. The Finance and Accounts Office (FAO), of GES, has responsibility for maintaining the
accounting records and books of the agency. The unit is headed by a Financial Controller who is
a qualified chartered accountant with relevant years of experience, having worked at different
MDAs within the government service. Accounting and financial reporting for the proceeds of
the credit will follow the existing GoG accounting policies and rely on the existing systems
including the GoG Chart of Accounts, internal approval processes, payment vouchers, and
authorization limits. Currently, a combination of manual cash books and general ledger,
supplemented by excel spreadsheets are used to provide periodic returns.
30. In line with government policy at the decentralized levels, financial management of
government funds is vested in the district finance officers (DFO) and as such the role of the GES
Regional Office accountants will be to coordinate the work of DFOs, ensure that they meet
reporting requirements, offer technical advice and monitor compliance. The assessment notes
that at the head office and regional offices, the accounting capacity is adequate and can be relied
upon to satisfactorily support implementation. There are however systemic weakness due to lack
of capacity at the sub national level but this will be mitigated through periodic training and
monitoring/supervision by the GES HQ units.31
31
Additional recommendations from the Financial Management Review report (funded by JICA) have been
discussed and communicated.
58
Internal Control and Internal Auditing
31. Consistent with the decision to adopt some aspect of the use of country systems (UCS)
for implementation, the project’s internal controls will rely on the government established
accounting and internal control guidelines as documented in the Financial Administration Act
(2003) and the Financial Administration Regulation (2004), and informed by the Internal Audit
Agency Act (2003). In addition the expenditure initiation and related controls will follow the
authorization and approval processes as pertains within the MOE/GES. The GES has a
functioning internal audit unit which helps to ensure a sound control environment for transaction
processing. However our assessment indicates that the unit is grossly understaffed and as such
focuses primarily on GoG funded activities. To mitigate this risk, the project will provide some
operational support to enable the unit include donor funded activities as part of its oversight
functions. The role of the internal audit will be regularly assessed during project implementation
support missions by reviewing their reports and GES management responsiveness to their
findings. This will ensure that the role of the internal audit unit is not limited to transactional
reviews (pre-auditing) but adds value to the overall control environment.
32. Since the GPEG will be highly decentralized, the project will rely on both the internal
audit units and Audit Review and Implementation Committee (ARIC) for ensuring compliance.
Within six months of project effectiveness, the Government will engage external auditors for the
purpose of verifying and validating the flow of funds under GPEG.
33. As part of its mandate the Internal Audit Department is required to visit district
assemblies and other beneficiaries to periodically review the control environment and proposed
recommendations. As an additional oversight of the fiduciary controls, all district assemblies are
required to have in place an ARIC to ensure compliance and also to follow up on audit findings.
Since the GPEG will be highly decentralized the project will rely on both the internal audit units
and ARICs for ensuring compliance.
59
Funds Flow and Disbursement Arrangements
34. The proposed financing instrument is a GPEF grant SIL estimated at US$75.5 million
(Seventy Five Million, Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) to be disbursed over a
three year period. GPE funds for implementing the project will all be disbursed to a segregated
designated account managed and operated by the Financial Controller (GES). Project activities
and expenditure are mostly at the sub-project and district levels and as such the funds flow
mechanism have been designed to support implementation at those levels. Although
implementation is at the district levels, the designated accounts is maintained and managed at the
headquarters from where further transfers are made directly to the district offices with the
regional offices being notified to help in monitoring.
Notes
i. There will be only one designated account and it will be maintained by the Ghana
Educations Service (GES).
ii. Funds will be transferred to two lower levels i.e. to the Regional Educations
Directorates for monitoring and supervisory purposes and to the District Education
Directorates for actual implementation of their approved APW and also as part of
the school grants component. Transfers to these sub accounts at the Regional and
District Level will be based on an imprest system and as a percentage of the
approved annual work plans.
iii. Periodically or based on rate of usage, Districts will report on fund use to the GES
HQ and these will be consolidated and used as part of the supporting
documentation for replenishment of the Designated Accounts.
35. Funds for implementing the project will all be channeled initially to the segregated
designated account from which subsequent transfers will then be made to the respective ‘District
Regional
Educational
Office Accounts
GPEG
Designated
Funds Flow
District
Account
District
Account
District
Account
District
Account
District
Account
District
Account
District
Account
District
Account
Reporting on Fund Use
60
GPE Accounts’ in line with their approved activities, work plans and budgets under the various
components. Initial releases to the designated accounts will be an aggregate of the various
district work plans and forecast project management expenditure. The proposed funds flow
arrangements are presented in the chart above.
Disbursement Arrangements
36. Proceeds of the facility will be used for eligible expenditures as defined in the Financing
Agreement. Disbursement arrangements have been designed in consultation with the Recipient
after taking into consideration the assessments of GES’s financial management and procurement
capacities, the procurement plan, anticipated cash flow needs of the operation. The proposal is to
have four broad disbursement categories as represented in the table below:
Table 5: Allocation of Grant Proceeds
Category Amount of the
Financing
Allocated
(expressed in US$)
Percentage of
Expenditures to be
Financed
(inclusive of Taxes)
(1) Goods, non-consulting services,
consultants’ services, Training and Operating
Costs under the Project (other than for Sub-
grants)
19.7 100%
(2) Goods and services for Sub-projects to be
financed out of the proceeds of Sub-Grants
under Part 1 (a) (i) of the Project (District
Sub-grants)
27.3 100%
(3) Goods, works and services for Sub-
projects to be financed out of the proceeds of
Sub-Grants under Part 2 (a) of the Project
(School Sub-grants)
22.1 100%
(4) Unallocated (contingencies) 6.40 100%
TOTAL 75.50
37. Based on the assessment of financial management, the proceeds of the grant will be
disbursed to the project using report based disbursement procedures (Interim Financial
Reports) arrangement with a flexible disbursement ceiling. The initial disbursement and ceiling
will be based on the expenditure forecast for the first six months (subject to the Bank’s approval
of the estimates). Subsequent replenishments of the DA would be done quarterly based on the
forecast of the net expenditures for the subsequent 6 months after the first quarter. Additional
instructions for disbursements will be provided in a disbursement letter issued for this project.
38. A summary of the funding process for the components to be implemented is as follows:
Components 1 and 3:
i. As part of the normal GoG budget cycle, the qualifying districts will prepare their
Budgets and Annual Programs of Work (APW) and submit copies to the GES HQ for
61
verification and approval.
ii. Once the individual APWs have been approved these will be consolidated and
presented to IDA for review and final approval and as a basis for determining the
allocations to be made for each participating district. (Note the district APW will
include cost estimates for components 1 and 3).
iii. Based on the approved APW and the annual allocations, the GES will transfer 40%
(advance) to the District EDSEP Accounts which is maintained by the District
Education Directorate (DED), used exclusively the GPEG project.
iv. DED will undertake eligible projects and once they have spent at least 70% of the
initial advance they can submit to GES HQ a claim for reimbursement including
necessary supporting documents.
v. As an additional control measure, on a quarterly basis the GES HQ team will meet
with the participating district to review and validate their expenditure claims and
sever as a basis for further transfers.
Component 2 – School Sub-Grants32
:
i. The initial transfer to the qualifying schools will be based on historical data i.e.
transfer made by the GoG under the Capitation Grant and this will be the basis for
transferring the base allocation for all schools.
ii. The total estimated allocations for schools in a particular district will be aggregated
and the funds transferred to the DED into the District Accounts. Copies of the transfer
instruction and the amounts will be issued to the Regional Education Directorates.
iii. On receipt of funds into the District Accounts, it is expected that within five working
days the DED will transfer the allocated amount to each school.
iv. Prior to the disbursement of another tranche of funds (ideally in line with the start of
school academic year) the DED will provide a summarized report to the GES HQ.
Financial Reporting Arrangements
39. The Financial Controller, working on behalf of the Director General will be required to
prepare and submit separate biannual IFRs to account for activities funded and also request for
funding under this grant. Financial reporting under the grant will be report based and it is
expected that the unit will maintain adequate filing and archival system of all relevant supporting
documents for review by the Bank’s FM team during supervision mission and also for audit
purposes. The assessment indicates that although at the headquarters there will be minimal
challenges in financial reporting, there may be delays from the district offices in meeting
deadlines for submitting returns. The delays are because the headquarters have to rely on
expenditure returns from the regional and district offices to consolidate for reporting purposes.
40. To address this weakness, standard reporting templates have been designed and these
reports are adequate and have the necessary supporting schedules and attachments. In addition on
a quarterly basis the Finance Monitoring Team of the GES will visit the district to assist with the
preparation and validation of returns. Again there is an added incentive for districts to meet the
32
The specific details of the qualifying criteria for districts and schools, transfer mechanism, sub-grant
agreements, etc., will be further elaborated in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM).
62
reporting requirement since transfers to districts will be based on adequate submission of returns
and accounting for fund use.
41. IFRs for the project are expected to be submitted not later than 45 days after the end of
each semester (6 months). The financial reports have been designed to provide relevant and
timely information to the project management, implementing agencies, and various stakeholders
monitoring the project’s performance. The formats and content of the IFRs were agreed during
negotiations.
Auditing
42. In line with its mandate as per the Ghana Audit Service Act (Act 584) the Auditor
General is solely responsible for the auditing of all funds under the Consolidated Fund and all
public funds as received by government ministries, agencies and departments. In this regard, and
consistent with the use of country FM systems, the Ghana Audit Service (GAS) will conduct the
audit of the project’s financial statements and furnish copies to IDA within 6 months of the end
of each fiscal year of the GoG. The capacity of the GAS is considered satisfactory. However as
is the practice, due to capacity constraints, it is usual for the auditor general to subcontract the
audit of donor funded project to private firms. It is expected that once the project is signed and
declared effective the GES will formally inform the GAS so that a decision is made on whether
the GAS will appoint an auditor or have firms competing for the audit of the project subject to
the Bank’s necessary procurement and technical clearance of the terms of reference (TOR) for
the engagement of the audit firm. This is to ensure that there are no delays in meeting the
financial covenants for submission.
Supervision Plan
43. Based on the risk rating of the project and the current FM arrangement, it is expected that
in the first year of implementation there will be two onsite FM visits to ascertain adequacy of
systems and how effective the country systems are being used to support implementation. The
FM supervision mission’s objectives will include ensuring that strong financial management
systems are maintained throughout project tenure. In adopting a risk-based approach to FM
supervision, the key areas of focus will include assessing the accuracy and reasonableness of
budgets, their predictability and budget execution, compliance with payment and fund
disbursement arrangements, focusing on the transfer to the districts and the ability of the systems
to generate reliable financial reports.
PROCUREMENT
A. General
44. Applicable Guidelines: Procurement under the proposed project would be carried out in
accordance with the World Bank’s "Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-
Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers"
dated January 2011; "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans
and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011; “Guidelines on
63
Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA
Credits and Grants”, dated October 15, 2006, and updated January 2011; and the provisions
stipulated in the Grant Agreements.
45. Exceptions to National Competitive Bidding Procedures - For National Competitive
Bidding (NCB) for goods and works, the Borrower may follow its own national procedures that
are governed by the Ghana Public Procurement Act 663 of 2003, with the following exceptions
noted below:
(i) Procuring entities shall use appropriate standard bidding documents acceptable to
the Association.
(ii) Foreign bidders shall be allowed to participate in National Competitive Bidding
procedures and foreign firms shall not be required to associate with a local partner in
order to bid as a joint venture, and joint venture or consortium partners shall be
jointly and severally liable for their obligations.
(iii) Bidders shall be given at least 30 days to submit bids from the date of the invitation
to bid or the date of the availability of bidding documents, whichever is later.
(iv) No domestic preference shall be given for domestic bidders and for domestically
manufactured goods.
(v) Each bidding document and contract financed out of the proceeds of the Financing
shall include provisions on matters pertaining to fraud and corruption as defined in
paragraph 1.16(a) of the Procurement Guidelines. The Association will sanction a
firm or an individual, at any time, in accordance with prevailing Association
sanctions procedures, including by publicly declaring such firm or individual
ineligible, either indefinitely or for a stated period of time: (i) to be awarded an
Association-financed contract; and (ii) to be a nominated sub-contractor, consultant,
manufacturer or supplier, or service provider of an otherwise eligible firm being
awarded an Association-financed contract; (g) in accordance with paragraph 1.14
(e) of the Procurement Guidelines, each bidding document and contract financed out
of the proceeds of the project shall provide that: (i) the bidders, suppliers, contractors
and subcontractors shall permit the World Bank, at its request, to inspect their
accounts and records relating to the bid submission and performance of the contract,
and to have said accounts and records audited by auditors appointed by the World
Bank; and (ii) the deliberate and material violation by the bidder, supplier, contractor
or subcontractor of such provision may amount to an obstructive practice as defined
in paragraph 1.16 (a) (v) of the Procurement Guidelines, and (h) The Association
may recognize, if requested by the Borrower, exclusion from participation as a result
of debarment under the national system, provided that the debarment is for offenses
involving fraud, corruption or similar misconduct, and further provided that the
Association confirms that the particular debarment procedure afforded due process
and the debarment decision is final.
46. Advertising procedures: In order to get the broadest possible interest from eligible
bidders and consultants, a General Procurement Notice (GPN) will be prepared by each
participating country and published in United Nations Development Business online (UNDB
online), on the Bank’s external website and in at least one national newspaper, or technical or
financial magazine of wide national circulation in the Borrower’s country, or a widely used
64
electronic portal with free national and international access; after the project is approved by the
Bank Board, and/or before Project effectiveness. The borrower will keep a list of received
answers from potential bidders interested in the contracts.
47. Specific Procurement Notices for all goods and works to be procured under International
Competitive Bidding (ICB) and Expressions of Interest for all consulting services to cost the
equivalent of US$200,000 and above would also be published in the United Nations
Development Business online (UNDB online), on the Bank’s external website, and the widely
circulated national newspapers. For works and goods using NCB, the Specific Procurement
Notice (SPN) will be published in widely circulated national newspapers in the country that is
procuring for such works and goods.
48. NCB and other post review contracts shall be published in national gazette or on a widely
used website or electronic portal with free national and international access within two weeks of
the Borrower’s award decision and in the same format as in the preceding paragraph.
B. Procurement Arrangements
49. Procurement of Works: Works contract expected to be procured under this project will
involve very small contracts for the rehabilitation of school building and other associated
infrastructure that may be included in district annual program of works and government strategic
priorities identified under ESP and AESOP. No ICB works contracts are anticipated as no
contract is expected to cost more than US$5,000,000. Contracts estimated to cost below US$
5,000,000 but greater than US$100,000 equivalent may be procured through NCB. Relevant
NCB works contracts, which are deemed complex and/or have significant risk levels, will be
prior-reviewed. Such contracts will be identified in the procurement plans. Contracts estimated to
cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per contract may be procured using shopping procedures in
accordance with Para. 3.5 of the World Bank Procurement Guidelines33
and based on a model
request for quotations satisfactory to the Bank. At the minimum, this could be achieved by
soliciting quotations through written invitations from not less than three qualified contractors.
Direct contracting may be used in exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the Bank,
in accordance with paragraphs. 3.6 and 3.7 of the Procurement Guidelines.
50. Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under the project would include office
equipments, computers, vehicles, etc. Contracts for goods estimated to cost US$500,000
equivalent or more per contract shall be procured through ICB. To the extent possible and
practicable, goods orders shall be grouped into larger contracts wherever possible to achieve
greater economy, at the procuring entity level. In this regard, goods that cut across all
implementing districts and or other agencies will be managed at the center by GES Headquarters.
Contracts estimated to cost less than US$500,000 but equal to or above US$50,000 equivalent
per contract may be procured through NCB. Contracts estimated to cost less than US$50,000
equivalent per contract may be procured using shopping procedures in accordance with Para. 3.5
of the Procurement Guidelines and based on a model request for quotations satisfactory to the
33
Shopping consists of the comparison of at least three price quotations in response to a written request. Additional
information on how to do prudent shopping is contained in the Guidance on Shopping available at the Bank’s
external web site for procurement under Procurement Policies and Procedures.
65
Bank. Direct contracting may be used in exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the
Bank, in accordance with paragraphs. 3.6 and 3.7 of the Procurement Guidelines.
51. Procurement of Textbooks, Reading, and Teaching & Learning Materials: The project
does not provide for procuring textbooks at the national level. However, minimum quantities of
text books, reading materials and other teaching and learning materials may be procured under
the District grant by deprived implementing districts to supplement and support their key
educational objectives. In such circumstances, applicable competitive process, depending on the
estimated cost and guided by the threshold defined in the PAD or direct contract in accordance
with paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines will be followed. Contracts
for this category of items will awarded at the district level after collation of choices of textbooks,
reading and teaching & learning materials from schools in the district.
52. Selection of Consultants: Consulting services would consist of various studies, field
work, surveys and technical assistance to be carried out by both national and international
consultants provided under the project and includes the following categories: financial, technical
and procurement audits, institutional studies, monitoring and evaluation studies and technical
assistance to the implementing ministries.
53. Contracts for consulting services, each estimated to cost US$100,000 equivalent or more,
will be awarded following the procedure of Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS).
Consulting services estimated to cost less than US$100,000 per contract under the project would
be procured following the procedures of Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications (QBS).
Selections under Fixed Budget Selection (FBS) and Least Cost Selection (LCS) methods will be
applied in the circumstances as respectively described under paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the
Consultants Guidelines. For all contracts to be awarded following QCBS, LCS and FBS the
Bank’s Standard Request for Proposals will be used. Procedures of Selection of Individual
Consultants (IC) would be followed for assignments that meet the requirements of paragraph 5.1
and 5.3 of the Consultant Guidelines. LCS procedures would be used for assignments for
selecting the auditors. Single-Source Selection (SSS) procedures would be followed for
assignments that meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.10-3.12 of the Consultant Guidelines and
will always require the Bank’s prior review regardless of the amount.
54. Assignments estimated to cost the equivalent of US$200,000 or more would be
advertised for expressions of interest (EOI) in Development Business (UNDB) and the bank’s
external website through the Client Connection, and in at least one newspaper of wide national
circulation. In addition, EOI for specialized assignments may be advertised in an international
newspaper or magazine. In the case of assignments estimated to cost less than US$200,000, but
more than US$100,000 the assignment would be advertised nationally. The shortlist of firms for
assignments estimated to cost less than US$200,000 may be made up entirely of national
consultants, if at least three qualified firms are available at competitive costs in Ghana. However,
foreign consultants who wish to participate should not be excluded from consideration.
55. The use of civil servants as individual consultants or a team member of firms will strictly
follow the provisions of Article 1.9 to 1.11 of the Consultants Guidelines.
66
56. Community participation in procurement: The project intends to provide a supplement
(top up) to the existing capitation grant funded by government to some schools in identified
deprived districts. The uses of the capitation grant are planned with active participation of head-
teachers, parents and School Management Committees. Procurement under the school grant will
be guided by paragraph 3.19 of the Bank procurement guidelines and guidelines developed under
the implementation of the Ghana Government’s capitation grant.
57. Capacity Building, Training Programs, Workshops, Seminars and Conferences etc.: A
number of target trainings and workshops are anticipated under the project to build capacity of
implementing agencies to assure efficient implementation, provide required knowledge and
ensure sustainability. All training and workshop activities would be carried out on the basis of
approved annual programs that would identify the general framework of training activities for
the year, including: (i) the type of training or workshop; (ii) the personnel to be trained; (iii) the
selection methods of institutions or individuals conducting such training; (iv) the institutions
which would conduct the training; (v) the justification for the training, how it would lead to
effective performance and implementation of the project and or sector; and (vi) the duration of
the proposed training; (vii) the cost estimate of the training. Report by the trainee upon
completion of training would be required.
58. Operating Costs: Operational costs would include project implementation-related
expenditures such as in-country travel, office supplies, office rentals, utilities, communication
costs, per diem for project supervision activities in the field, etc. which would be procured using
shopping method, where necessary.
C. Assessment of the Agency’s Capacity and Risks to Implement Procurement
59. Arrangements for implementing procurement activities: The overall program will be
under the supervision and monitoring of the Ministry of Education. However the actual program
implementation coordination will be led by the GES (which is responsible for basic and
secondary education in Ghana) with support for monitoring from the PBME at the MoE to
ensure continued streamlined coordination and management of all donor-financed activities in
Ghana. In addition managing certain aspects of capacity building support which will be required
to ensure that both central management and district management are strengthened appropriately,
GES will also manage all the cross-cutting procurement. The District Education Directorates will
be responsible for schools which benefit under the district grant by procuring through the District
Assemblies which are the legally recognized procurement entities under the Ghana Public
Procurement Act 663 (2003), for all procurement beyond shopping method. For the school grant,
individual schools through their SMCs will be responsible for the planning and monitoring
directly the schools’ activities.
60. Capacity Assessment: An assessment of the capacity of the implementing agencies
including Ghana Education Service Headquarters and the participating districts to implement
procurement actions for the project has been carried out by the Bank February 2012 based on
responses by the relevant agencies to questionnaires. The assessment reviewed the organizational
structure for implementing the project and the interaction between the implementing agencies
and their staff responsible for procurement. The observations on the assessment of the capacity
67
of each agency to do the procurement for the project under the Bank’s Guidelines and procedures
are given below.
(i) GES: An assessment of the capacity of GES as the coordinating implementing
agency for the project has been carried out and concludes that the GES is in compliance
with the country’s procurement law. It has an entity tender committee and review board
in its permanent organization as final decision making authorities in addition to adequate
internal technical and administrative controls and anti-corruption procedures. The review
also noted the existence of satisfactory appeals mechanisms for bidders.
GES has a well set-up procurement unit headed by a qualified and trained procurement
personnel with a Master’s degree in Procurement. She is supported by four other
qualified procurement staff. GES’s procurement unit is noted to have implemented in the
past aspects of World Bank funded education projects, including the recently completed
Ghana Education Sector Project (EdSEP). It was also noted that though the unit has
significant experience in using shopping procedures and bidding under the Ghana PPL.
The procurement unit, in its present strength, has adequate capacity to manage
procurement under the project
The assessment concludes that GES is in compliance with the procurement law, has some
experience in implementing World Bank-financed projects, and is capable to handle the
proposed project. It also has entity tender committees and review boards in its permanent
organization as final decision making authorities in addition to adequate internal
technical and administrative controls and anti-corruption procedures. The review also
noted the existence of satisfactory appeals mechanisms for bidders.
(ii) District Education Directorates: The District Education Directorates are by law
not procurement entities. They are considered to be part of the respective District
Assemblies which are noted to be public entities and therefore their procurement
functions are governed by the 2003 Public Procurement Act 663. District Directors of
Education are only allowed to procure through shopping methods up to a ceiling set in
the Act, currently GHS5,000. All other procurement greater in value beyond this
threshold are procured through the District Assemblies’ procurement system. An
assessment was therefore carried on DAs to ascertain their capacity to support the District
Education Offices to undertake procurement management. The assessment reviewed the
organizational structure for implementing the project and the interaction between the
DAs and their staff responsible for procurement and relevant units for administration and
finance. It found that the existing structure for procurement of the above DAs responds to
the requirements of Ghana’s PPL.
The review noted that the DAs (a) are mandated by law to perform developmental
functions in their respective jurisdictions using defined national rules and guidelines; (b)
have been and are currently implementing World Bank and other donor funded Projects;
(c) have the requisite procurement structures like entity tender committees and review
boards in their permanent organization to oversee procurement management; (d) have
68
adequate internal technical and administrative controls and anti-corruption procedures;
and (e) have satisfactory appeals mechanisms for bidders.
The DAs rely on relevant technical and administrative staff including District Directors
of Education, Planners, Works Engineers and Accountants in the Assemblies to prepare
technical aspects of procurement documentation and functions. Most of these technical
people have participated in numerous procurement workshops organized by the Public
Procurement Authority in addition to procurement training under various Bank financed
projects.
The assessment concludes that the DAs are in compliance with the procurement law.
However, it was noted that delays have often occurred in some of the contracts
implemented by the DAs the following areas: (i) preparation of bidding documents and
request for proposals (RFPs); (ii) advertising and evaluating/assessing expression of
interests (EOIs) for shortlists; (iii) and bid evaluations and evaluating technical proposals;
(iv) awarding contracts; and (v) poor contract management. Other areas that contributed
to delays were lack of relevant procurement delivery capacity and the assumption that
implementation of the procurement plans would follow the logic of the sequential steps,
whereas it is significantly affected by the competing demands of time for implementation
of other activities.
61. The overall risk assessment is rated substantial. The key risks for procurement are (i)
The problem of coordination of activities of all participating DAs; (ii) Possible delays in
evaluation of bids and technical proposals leading to implementation delays and poor quality of
contract deliverables; (iii) Inconsistencies between the National Procurement procedures and the
Bank procurement guidelines in the use of National Competitive Bidding.
62. To address the above risk areas, the following actions are envisaged:
Preparation of a Project Implementation Manual with a section on procurement
detailing out instructions and guidance for handling procurement. This should be
disseminated to staff involved in the project at project launch. This will include
guidance on and incorporation of procurement thresholds and methods, Bank’s fraud
and corruption, eligibility requirements, conflict of interest and audit right provisions,
in all aspects of procurement, procurement audit requirement, and procurement
reporting, among others.
Help the client to identify and apply the necessary flexibilities provided in the Bank’s
Procurement and Consultants guidelines
Organization of procurement training workshops to explain/train/raise awareness of
implementing DAs by first quarter of project implementation;
Close monitoring of procurement plans by GES on a quarterly basis to ensure
constant progress on the projected time lines, as well as oversight quality control
measures on all aspects of the procurement process, including evaluation, selection
and award;
Preparation of standard bidding documents for NCB procurement under Bank
Procurement Guidelines, that incorporate a list of identified exceptions to the
69
National Procurement Procedures under the national procurement law (PPL) that
take account of the Bank’s fraud, anti-corruption and other procurement provisions.
Strong field presence by Bank team at various stages of implementation to provide
support to the borrower when needed through hand holding in a such a way not to
diminish the borrower’s development capability and at the same not infringing on the
Bank’s mandate.
Procurement Risk Assessment and Mitigation
63. This section presents the results of the risk assessment and identifies the key procurement
management risks that the Project may face in achieving project objectives together with the
related risk mitigating measures.
Table 6: Action plan to strengthen capacity and mitigate procurement risks Risk Description Risk
Rating
Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks
Responsibility Due Date
Low level of knowledge
about IDA procurement
policies and procedures,
and in particular the
changes in the latest
version of the
Procurement and
Consultants’ Guidelines
S
Preparation of Project Implementation Manual
with a section on procurement, detailing out
instructions for handling procurement and
clarifying that Bank Guidelines should be
followed in case of conflict between National
Procurement Law and the World Bank Guidelines
and the Financing Agreement.
Organize a workshop to update procurement staff
on current changes in Bank procurement
procedures and work closely with Bank PS.
Provide continuous support and guidance through
hand holding to implementing DEOs
GES HQ
Prior to
Effectiveness
Project
Launch
On a
continuous
basis
Lack of contract
management skills
especially at the District
level
S
Training of GES District Directors in contracting,
management and monitoring to assure delivery of
quality outputs, value for money, accountability
and transparency.
Strong field presence of Bank team to provide
support and directions to IAs
GES HQ
WB
On a
continuous
basis
Lack of Procurement
Plan
S
Ensure procurement plans are prepared as part of
District annual work plan and budget.
Distribute copies of Procurement Plan Templates
prepared by GES and agreed with the Bank to all
participating District Education Directorates
GES
Prior to
Project
effectiveness
Delays in taking
procurement actions
like preparation of BD,
RFPs, BER, TER, etc.
S Close monitoring of procurement plans on a
monthly basis and closely monitor and exercise
quality control on all aspects of the procurement
process, including evaluation, selection and
award.
Help IAs to Identify and apply the full range of
flexibilities available in the Guidelines
Project
Coordinator
Bank PS
Throughout
project life
70
Risk Description Risk
Rating
Risk Mitigating Measures/Remarks
Responsibility Due Date
Records Management
Poor records
management can pose a
challenge to easy
identification and
retrieval of procurement
and contract records,
and undermine progress
reviews.
H
Institute a structured filing and identification
system.
Refresher training to be provided to relevant
procurement staff on IDA guidelines on filing and
records management systems.
GES
Throughout
project life
Fraud and Corruption
(Kick-backs)
S Enforce provisions of World Bank Guidelines, the
Public Procurement Act, the Financial
Administration Act and Internal Audit Agency
Act on Fraud and Corruption.
Observed cases to be referred to Auditor General
for further investigations.
Annual project audit including procurement and
financial management
MoE’s Chief
Director
External
Auditors
Throughout
project life
Overall Risk Rating S
H – High S – Substantial M – Moderate L – Low
64. The overall Project risk for procurement is Substantial, prior to mitigation.
65. Procurement Plans: The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for
activities that could be identified upfront which provides the basis for the procurement methods.
This plan has been agreed between the Borrower and the Project Team on June 1, 2012 and is
available in the image bank and made publicly available online. This plan will be updated
annually to reflect the latest circumstances. It will also be available in the project’s database and
in the Bank’s external website and also available in the Project’s database.
66. Individual contracts under the various Components which are mostly demand driven are
not known yet and will be identified for each year independently by each of the participating
districts and schools after preparing their annual work plans for each specific year. Districts will
submit their annual work plans together with associated procurement plans for review before an
allocation will be released for implementation. The MoE already has a draft procurement plan
format discussed and approved by the Bank to be adopted and used as part of the annual program
of works.
67. Prior-Review Thresholds: The Procurement Plan shall set forth those contracts which
shall be subject to the World Bank’s Prior Review. All other contracts shall be subject to Post
Review by the World Bank. However, relevant contracts below prior review thresholds listed
below which are deemed complex and/or have significant risk levels will be prior-reviewed.
Such contracts will also be identified in the procurement plans. A summary of prior-review and
procurement method thresholds for the project are indicated in the table below. All terms of
reference for consultants’ services, regardless of contract value, shall also be subject to the
World Bank’s prior review.
71
Table 7: Thresholds for Procurement Methods
Expenditure
Category
Contract Value (Threshold)
(US$ 000)
Procurement
Method
Contract Subject to Prior
Review (US$ 000)
1. Works
<5,000,000 NCB
Specified contracts as indicated in
the procurement plan
<100,000 Shopping None
No threshold Community Contracting None
2. Goods
≥500,000 ICB All contracts
<500,000 NCB
Specified contracts as indicated in
the procurement plan
<50,000 Shopping None
No threshold Community Contracting None
No threshold Direct contracting All contracts
3.Consultancy
≥100,000 QCBS, QBS All contracts of 200,000 and more
<100,000 QCBS; LCS; CQ; Other
First 2 contracts per IA
for contract below 200,000
≥50,000 IC All contract of 50,000 and more
<50,000 IC
Specified contracts as indicated in
the procurement plan
No threshold
Single Source (Selection
Firms & Individuals) All contracts
4. Training Annual Plan All Training
All TORs regardless of the value of the contract are subject to prior review
68. Post Review Procurement: IDA will carry out sample post review of contracts that are
below the prior review threshold for contracts implemented by MoE and GES to ascertain
compliance with the procurement procedures as defined in the legal documents.
69. Procurement Audits: Not less than three months after the end of each financial year,
MoE/GES will submit to the Bank a procurement audit report prepared by consultants selected in
accordance with the Bank’s guidelines for selection of consultants and Terms of Reference
approved by the Bank. The Independent Procurement Reviewer will also carry out procurement
reviews of post review contracts carried out by the all agencies, districts and schools. Such
reviews (ex-post and procurement audit) may be conducted for a sample of at least 20% of
contracts under the project.
D. Frequency of Procurement Supervision
70. In addition to the prior review supervision which will to be carried out by the Bank, the
procurement capacity assessment recommends at least two supervision missions each year and
also one visit to the field to carry out post-review of procurement actions. The procurement post-
reviews should cover at least 20 percent of contracts subject to post-review. Post review consist
of reviewing technical, financial and procurement reports carried out by the Borrower’s
72
executing agencies and/or consultants selected and hired under the Bank project according to
procedures acceptable to the Bank.
E. Publications of Awards and Debriefing
71. GES will prepare a General Procurement Notice (GPN) on behalf of the project which
will be advertised on the Bank’s Client Connection or Operations Portal and in United Nations
Development Business (UNDB) online, in addition to local newspapers of wide national
circulation and Ghana’s PPA website, after the project is approved by the Board of the
Association, and/or before effectiveness. Specific Procurement Notices for all goods and works
to be procured under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) and Expressions of Interest (EOI)
for all consulting services costing the equivalent of US$200,000 and above would also be
published in the above websites and newspapers.
72. Publication of contract awards of the bidding process and debriefing for all ICB
procurements, Direct Contracting, and the Selection of Consultants for contracts exceeding a
value of US$200,000 will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s “Guidelines:
Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits” dated May 2004, revised in October 2006 and
May 2010; the “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank
Borrowers” dated May 2004, revised in October 2006 and May 2010. In addition, where
prequalification has taken place, the list of prequalified bidders will be published. With regard to
ICB and large value consulting contracts, the Borrower would be required to assure publication
of contract awards as soon as the Bank has issued its “no objection” notice to the recommended
award on the Bank’s Client Connection or Operations Portal and in United Nations Development
Business (UNDB) online, in addition to local newspapers of wide national circulation and
Ghana’s PPA website. All consultants competing for an assignment involving the submission of
separate technical and financial proposals, irrespective of its estimated contract value, should be
informed of the result of the technical evaluation (number of points that each firm received)
before the opening of the financial proposals. The borrower would be required to offer
debriefings to unsuccessful bidders and consultants should the individual firms request such a
debriefing. Publication of results of other procurement activities below international competition
or selections, including debriefing shall be subject to the stipulations in the Ghana Public
Procurement Law of 2003, Act 663.
F. Fraud, Coercion and Corruption.
73. All procurement entities as well as bidders and service providers, i.e., suppliers,
contractors, and consultants shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement
and execution of contracts financed under the project in accordance with paragraphs 1.14 and
1.15 of the Procurement Guidelines and paragraph 1.22 and 1.23 of the Consultants Guidelines,
in addition to the relevant Articles of the Ghana Public Procurement Act which refers to corrupt
practices.
MONITORING & EVALUATION
74. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting. The GPEG will be coordinated and overseen
73
by the PBME/MOE and will be implemented by the GES at the national, regional, district, and
school levels. Based on inputs received from schools, DEDs, and REDs, GES HQ and
PBME/MOE will be responsible for providing the following consolidated monitoring data: (i)
status reports on project implementation by component, including summary description of
activities at the regional, district, and school levels (biannually); (ii) status reports on the use of
GPEG funds (biannually); and (iii) detailed M&E reports (annually). The main findings from the
M&E reports will be incorporated into the National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR)
and discussed with district and regional education officers as way to promote improved planning,
monitoring and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts. In addition, the GES
HQ and PBME/MOE will be responsible for the following documents: (iv) interim financial
reports (IFRs) for the project covering all the components (biannually); (v) financial statements
and independent financial audits reports (annually); (vi) a mid-term review report with
recommendations and lessons learned, and (vii) an Implementation Completion and Results
Report (ICR) including the project’s economic, financial, social and environmental impact, no
later than six months after project closing. Significant training and technical assistance will be
provided by the GPEG to ensure that project interventions and activities are properly monitored
and evaluated.
75. RED: Monitoring, Supervision, and Data Consolidation. The Regional Education
Directorates (REDs) will be responsible for routinely monitoring and supervising school and
district grants; providing implementation support and technical assistance to District Education
Directorates (DEDs); consolidating all district Annual Programs of Work (APW); and submitting
an annual M&E report to GES HQ and PBME/MOE. The M&E report will be incorporated into
the NESAR; inform the development of the Annual District of Education Operational Plans
(ADEOP); and provide strategic guidance on education planning, budgeting, and policy-making
at the national, regional, and district levels of education. Given the increase in initiatives under
the GPEG, other donor and government-supported programs, RED’s will play a more strategic
role in monitoring, supervision, and data collection under the GPEG. The REDs will also be
provided with operational funding to support coordination, monitoring, capacity enhancements
and backstopping for weaker districts. Since the REDs will mainly work through Regional
Planning Coordinating Units (RPCUs)—entities staffed with accountants, engineers, monitoring
and evaluation officers, etc.—REDs will be well-positioned to coordinate district plans,
harmonize planned activities, and monitor project implementation.
76. DED: Strategic Coordination, Implementation Support, and Data Collection. The
District Education Directorates (DEDs) will: (i) provide strategic guidance in the development of
all district Annual Programs of Work (APW); (ii) support the implementation of district and
school grants; (iii) collect and submit district and school-level data to the REDs; and (iv) oversee
sampled-based surveys to monitor and evaluate the relative impact of various project activities
and interventions. In order to ensure the efficient and timely implementation of project
activities—including proper monitoring and evaluation of district grants—budget officers,
planning officers, accountants, and M&E specialists will be trained in financial
management/reporting, program management, and data collection/analysis throughout the life of
the GPEG.
77. GPEG Targeted Schools: Data Collection and Monitoring. School Report Cards
74
(SRCs), standardized sample-based school surveys, and detailed district-level M&E reports on
school grants will provide valuable school-level data to all education stakeholders (e.g., head
teachers, circuit supervisors, school management committees, district, regional, and national
education officers, etc). SRCs will also form the basis through which strategic interventions are
pursued at both the national and sub-national levels of education. In order to ensure that the
collected data is effectively used to inform strategic decisions, SRCs will be widely disseminated
and publicized. Head teachers and circuit supervisors will jointly be responsible for collecting
and submitting SRCs to the DEDs twice a year. At the end of each academic year, SRCs will be
consolidated by the DEDs and REDs and presented as an M&E report to GES HQ & PBME.
The main findings and lessons learned will be discussed in regional and national workshops and
consequently reflected in the ADEOP.
78. The M&E system envisioned under the GPEG project will also: (i) leverage and
strengthen Ghana’s well-established Education Management and Information System (EMIS);
(ii) provide continued support aimed at improving and mainstreaming existing data collection
instruments such as School Report Cards (SRCs) and the SBI/CBI Lesson Observation Sheet
(LOS); (iii) support capacity building at the regional, district, and school levels of education; and
(iv) conduct rigorous impact evaluations on district and school grants.
79. Ghana has a well established Education Management and Information System
(EMIS) which will be leveraged as a part of project M&E. Ghana’s EMIS currently provides
valuable data at the school, district, regional, and national levels. The project will strengthen the
EMIS in three ways. First, independent data collection at the school level under the project will
act as a data-quality check on EMIS for deprived districts. By comparing the findings of
independent data collection with EMIS data, the PBME/MOE will be able to derive estimates of
the EMIS data quality and reliability and develop recommendations for improving the existing
EMIS system. Second, the project will help mainstream and strengthen the School Report Card
program (details below) and efforts will be made to align information from this program with the
information from EMIS. Third, the project will enhance the use of EMIS data at school and
district level by supporting data dissemination and use (particularly for planning) at school
management committee and community levels.
80. The ongoing School Report Card program will be supported with the aim of
mainstreaming and maximizing the use of these cards. A program on School Report Cards
(SRC) is currently being implemented by the Ministry of Education in collaboration with
USAID. These SRCs contain information on school inputs and up to five indicators focused on
school processes and standardized exams. The project will support the program with the
objective of ensuring that: (i) all schools produce SRCs according to the standard formats and
guidelines; (ii) SRCs are aligned with EMIS data collection and used by Ministry of Education
for its planning and M&E; (iii) SRCs are used by district and school administrators for planning,
budgeting, and M&E purposes; (iv) SRCs become valid instruments for ‘information for
accountability’ at the school level by providing community/parents/ and other stakeholders
information on the quality of education service delivery. In particular, SRCs will be used to
monitor teacher attendance at the school level; school based assessments; relative performance of
school compared to national and district averages.
75
81. Technical assistance and capacity building will be provided to support the Ministry
of Education, Regional Education Directorates and District Education Directorates to
undertake M&E activities and/or carry out the data collection and analysis necessary to
measure implementation performance and impact of grant activities. In addition to
supporting the improvement and mainstreaming of data collection instruments such as School
Report Cards (SRCs) and the School-Based and Cluster-Based In-Service Lesson Observation
Sheet (LOS), GES HQ will be provided with technical assistance to oversee the successful
completion of the National Education Assessment (NEA) in 2013 and 2015. DEDs and REDs
will also be provided with the necessary TA and training to supervise the sampled-based surveys
on lesson planning, teaching methodology, and classroom organization and management.
82. Rigorous impact evaluation of (i) school grants and district grants; and (ii) teacher
training activities will be conducted. Discussions are ongoing with Ministry of Education and
other stakeholders to finalize the impact evaluation design, however, it has been agreed that the
design will be rigorous enough to allow identification of the relative impact and cost
effectiveness of the different interventions. These impact evaluations are expected to inform
future scale-up of quality of service delivery interventions by the government.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL
83. Grants to districts and schools might involve minor rehabilitation of existing buildings or
construction of new buildings on existing sites- work that will be guided by applicable local and
national laws and regulations. Bank policy OP/BP 4.01 is the only safeguard policy triggered by
the GPEG in light of environmental risks from such potential rehabilitation and minor works.
The GPEG will not finance projects that require involuntary land acquisition nor will it deprive
people of access to their usual means of livelihood. No significant adverse environmental or
social impacts are anticipated. To ensure proper assessment and mitigation of the potential
adverse environmental and social impacts of activities under the grants, an Environmental and
Social Management Framework (ESMF) will guide the implementation agency on how to
address any environmental and social impacts of project investments. The ESMF for the project
has been developed and disclosed prior to appraisal. There were stakeholder consultations also
held on the ESMF and issues raised have been included in the ESMF as an annex. The Project
Implementation Manual with sections on District Grants and School Grants also includes a
negative list of items that may not be funded, especially those items that would cause
environmental issues and/or trigger additional safeguards. Close monitoring by the GES will
ensure that activities comply with ESMF and if necessary, an Environmental Management Plan
is developed. The MOE’s capacity is strong as the MOE is familiar with World Bank safeguards
policies and their requirements. The Ministry of Education has just completed the
implementation of an IDA project for the Education Sector which was guided by the original
ESMF. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Ghana also has much competency
working in close collaboration with the World Bank and can check on compliance issues. In
addition to normal World Bank support on safeguards, the MOE should be able to fully comply
with safeguards policies triggered whilst ensuring due diligence for safeguards in general.
84. A social assessment was conducted to contribute to the understanding of the social
feasibility of the project´s interventions by focusing on how its design meets the interests, values
76
and expectations of the groups that it intends to benefit. This includes an assessment of MOE
policies and strategies which address: (a) distribution of wealth across the states and the impact
of poverty on access to education; (b) households’ conflicting demands on limited resources; (c)
social and cultural activities impacting on access to social services, and the strategies included to
incorporate traditional rights and entitlements; (d) levels and types of participation of women,
economically marginalised and minority groups in and their roles in education; and (e)
improving the equitable supply and demand for educational services.The project will adopt a
three-pronged approach to promoting and addressing social inclusion by including: a vigorous
outreach and communication program as well as supervision by the district education team,
School Management Committees and ParentTeacher Associations to ensure that a broad range
of actors throughout the project target areas will be familiar with the goals and objectives of the
project; targeting of resources to deprived districts with guidelines for interventions focused on
increasing access and equity (e.g., complementary basic education for out–of-school children,
girls’ education packages including scholarships, inclusive education activities); and attention to
monitoring participation of beneficiaries by gender. The negative social impacts of the GPEG
are expected to be minor as the project will not finance any sub-projects resulting in the
involuntary acquisition of land, loss of physical and economic assets, and/or loss of livelihoods.
Overall, the proposed Project is expected to have a positive social impact. The promotion of
improved education in disadvantaged areas, girls’ education, inclusive education all contribute to
poverty reduction.
85. The Bank team will regularly include environmental and social development specialists
located in the Ghana country office during implementation support missions to supervise the
implementation of the ESMF.
77
Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF)
Ghana Partnership for Education Grant (P129381)
Project Stakeholder Risks
Stakeholder Risk Rating Substantial
Description:
Staff turnover: With elections scheduled for end 2012,
there is likely to be significant turnover within both
Ministry leadership and its various agencies.
Decentralization policy is not yet fully implemented, and
capacity remains weak at district level, which could have
some impact on how effective funding is channeled
through districts and schools.
Given the large number of stakeholders involved in the
program and the need to engage and coordinate a
multitude of agencies, donor partners and local
governments there is a risk of lack of leadership or
consensus on policy directions which could make
coordination difficult and lead to delays in implementation
of activities.
Risk Management:
The well-vetted and publicized Education Sector Plan (2010-2020) is the basis for
ongoing and future support in the education sector. Wide group of stakeholders,
particularly at the technical level within the GES have been involved in preparation of
the project. Project preparation has included work at the regional and district levels to
ensure participation of the local communities.
Resp: Client Stage: Preparation Due
Date: December,
2012
Status: In Progress
Risk Management:
A recently published PER and PFM assessment provide recommendations on addressing
improvements for funding flows and how to improve existing mechanisms from MOE to
DEOs. In addition, significant capacity building activities at district level will build
ownership for process, capacity to implement and district level responsibility for service
delivery. The Project Implementation Manual will guide grant implementation.
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: January,
2013
Status: In Progress
Risk Management:
A GPEG task force has been assembled by the Minister of Education and meets weekly
since October to further program preparation and keep all stakeholders involved in
design, implementation arrangements, etc. Extensive consultations with all key
stakeholders throughout the design and implementation of the project are expected, but
it will be critical that ministry staff delegate responsibilities and program management to
78
the best-placed/qualified staff.
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: November,
2012
Status: In Progress
Implementing Agency (IA) Risks (including Fiduciary Risks)
Capacity Rating Substantial
Description: Risk Management:
Overall low capacity at district and school levels,
particularly in deprived regions.
Capacity assessment of the key implementing agencies and service providers has been
performed, based on which appropriate technical assistance, follow up mechanisms and
other capacity building measures are provided to the implementing agencies to ensure
effective implementation of the activities, and establishment/improvement of solid M&E
systems etc.
Intensive supervision planned for first 18 months of project including more extensive
field visits to deprived districts.
Building on familiar district and school systems, the project finances significant training
at local levels and a more supervisory role for the Regional Education Offices to
supervise districts and schools.
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: March, 2013 Status: In Progress
Governance Rating Moderate
Description: Risk Management:
There is a risk of political interference in the selection of
districts to receive grant funding as well as selection of
teachers for upgrading and continuous support.
Risk that funds may be diverted from original activities
Appropriate and transparent technical criteria have been established for selection process
of beneficiary districts and teachers based on stakeholder consultation and donor-
assisted technical support for developing criteria.
Improved monitoring and evaluation system with increased resources for supervision
will help reporting and monitoring of how funds are being utilized.
The PIM will include mechanisms for addressing grievances, complaints and disputes.
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: December,
2013
Status: In Progress
79
Risk Management:
Government has committed itself to adopting and implementing a Program-Based
Budgeting (PBB) framework which will help to remedy some of budget shortcomings.
The PBB is planned to replace the existing activity based budgeting system and align the
sector programs better for more efficient service delivery definitions and outcome
measures- Education is a pilot sector for the PBB.
Public Finance Management (ERPFM) and Public Expenditure and Financial
Accountability (PEFA) reports of 2010 confirmed that Ghana enjoys a well grounded
and formulated legal and regulatory framework for PFM
Although some capacity has been strengthened at the district levels under recently
closed IDA supported EDSEP, high staff turnover means that capacity will remain a
pressing issue.
A rigorous monitoring and evaluation system is being established, with independent
monitoring to provide information on utilization of district and school grants in a more
timely manner so that any irregularities would be detected in time to suspend subsequent
grants.
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: December,
2013
Status: In Progress
Project Risks
Design Rating Substantial
Description:
The program focuses on only a few priority areas (gender,
out of school children, teacher quality, supervision) that
would require commensurate investments in areas not
covered under the GPEG to achieve education objectives
(e.g., textbooks, school construction)
Decentralized service delivery of education would precede
implementation of national decentralization policy
Risk Management:
Situating the GPE grant within the framework of the ESP helps to see how these
programs fit within the national strategy, but more importantly identify where funding
gaps remain. Government investments are fragmented among a number of sources (e.g.,
Ghana Education Trust Fund) that are responsible for allocating to different areas such
as infrastructure, salaries, textbooks, etc. Project reporting will include monitoring on all
sources of education funding at the district and school level. Furthermore, the project
mechanism allows some flexibility for districts and schools to decide how resources will
be best used according to their needs and funding allocations from other sources. The
district’s accountability to deliver results (indicators) will also help rationalize these
80
(recently revised).
Time frame for UTDBE (teacher upgrading) is 4 years, yet
GPE grant is a three year financed program.
Reliance on external transfers to local Government
budgets might crowd out local revenues and could
eventually jeopardize the equity and efficiency gains
which decentralization seeks.
resources to ensure that strategic priorities are being addressed.
The program will indicate continued financing beyond the close of the GPE grant, either
through government budget or other DP financing (UTDBE).
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: December,
2014
Status: In Progress
Risk Management:
Donors have already been piloting district transfers (grants through PPS, ADEOP, etc.)
under previous operations. The PFM review also provides guidance on how to
strengthen and/or revise the transfer systems in line with decentralization policy.
Project design is based on recommendations from several pieces of recent analytical
work.
Resp: Client Stage: Implement
ation
Due
Date: February,
2013
Status: In Progress
Social and Environmental Rating Low
Description: Risk Management:
The project is classified as Environmental Category B
since grants to districts and schools might involve minor
rehabilitation of existing buildings or construction of new
buildings on existing sites- work that will be guided by
applicable local and national laws and regulations.
A social assessment will be conducted during preparation
of the project to guide both design and implementation.
An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was updated for the
project and accommodates planned activities under GPEG.
The project will adopt a three-pronged approach to promoting and addressing social
inclusion by including: a vigorous outreach and communication program as well as
supervision by the district education team, School Management Committees and Parent-
Teacher Associations to ensure that a broad range of actors throughout the project target
areas will be familiar with the goals and objectives of the project; targeting of resources
to deprived districts with guidelines for interventions focused on increasing access and
equity (e.g., complementary basic education for out–of-school children, girls’ education
packages including scholarships, inclusive education activities); and attention to
monitoring participation of beneficiaries by gender.
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: December,
2013
Status: In Progress
81
Program and Donor Rating Low
Description: Risk Management:
Description : GPE Board may not approve grant and/or
reduce available allocation for Ghana
Development Partner contributions could be reduced or
increased between design phase and implementation.
Risk Management: Replenishment meeting in Copenhagen November 8, 2011
confirmed notional allocation for Ghana and confirmed successful mobilization of
resources for FY12 beneficiaries. The task team will keep in close contact with GPE
secretariat to ensure good communication about progress and funding prospects.
Additionally, the program design is easily scalable given the focus on district and school
grants which can either be increased or decreased in number depending on availability
of donor funding.
An MOU has been drafted among development partners to specify commitments to GPE
principles and harmonization efforts as well as continued support to Government's ESP.
Keeping the design demand-driven and flexible will allow for additional funding and
potentially even pooled funding in the future.
Resp: Bank Stage: Preparation Due
Date: December,
2013
Status: In Progress
Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Rating Moderate
Description:
Given the focus on targeted and decentralized flow of
funding, there is a substantial risk of weak monitoring and
evaluation at the local levels due to low capacity.
With salaries consuming much of the public education
budget, the grant activities could be transitory and
perpetually dependent on development partners for
funding.
Risk Management:
A simple project implementation manual will provide clear guidelines on reporting,
monitoring and evaluation activities as well as templates for collecting and
disseminating information. The project will use multiple monitoring tools such as
project reviews, surveys, School Report Cards and independent audits (both financial
and qualitative). A M&E plan for a comprehensive Monitoring system has been drafted.
Additional support from USAID is being provided. The M&E reporting templates have
been drafted and training needs identified. The use of new tools such as School Report
Cards and SBI/CBI Lesson Observation Sheet will also help validate performance at
school level.
Lessons learned will also be gleaned from recently closed EDSEP and ongoing district
support from DFID where similar fund flows are monitored and evaluated.
In addition, the GPE grant will provide support and technical assistance to districts to
strengthen the quality of M&E systems.
82
Resp: Client Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: June, 2013 Status: In Progress
Risk Management:
The plan to incrementally include the district grants as on-budget financing will help
ensure sustainability as would the linkage with district assembly financing which is
more realistically matched to available local resources. The capitation grants introduced
under the previous IDA supported project are funded by government budget already.
Therefore, the formula for grant amounts will be carefully calculated to ensure that the
grants are sustainable given expected budget planning and efficiencies gained from
planned policy reforms.
Resp: Both Stage: Implementa
tion Due
Date: October,
2015
Status: In Progress
Overall Risk
Implementation Risk Rating: Substantial
Comments:
The implementation risk is substantial especially in light of the decentralized implementation at district and school levels.
83
Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan
GHANA Partnership for Education Grant
1. The GPEG builds on a series of World Bank operations and other donor partner projects
aiming at supporting the decentralized delivery of basic education services. Because the GPEG
is situated within the Ghana Education Service (GES) work program, the project is part and
parcel of the government’s program. It has strong support from authorities, development
partners, regional and district education offices, as well as from school heads and District
Assemblies. It was designed in collaboration with the different levels of stakeholders taking into
account the lessons learned from experiences with EDSEP, DFID district budget support and
government financed school capitation grants. The design of the GPEG also relies on recent
sector work “Improving Equity, Efficiency and Accountability of Education Service Delivery in
Ghana” (World Bank, February 2011), information gathered from the assessments supported by
the EPDF grant and donor supported activities/studies. However, the GPEG ambitiously aims to
move the locus of decision making from the central to local levels where there is more limited
implementation capacity. Therefore, significant support will be required to ensure smooth project
implementation. The implementation risks are substantial, but mitigation measures have been
presented in various sections of this PAD and in this annex, the implementation support plan
addresses some of these risks.
2. Duration of implementation. The GPEG will be implemented over a 3-year period.
Given upcoming elections in December 2012, significant preparatory activities have already
been initiated and support from other donor partners are well underway to strengthen capacity
and establish guidelines for operationalizing the GPEG activities. Even with a potential
slowdown resulting from the upcoming elections, the wider stakeholder involvement is expected
to keep the implementation momentum. The design of the program reflects the need to use
existing systems that are familiar to policy makers, stakeholders and implementing agencies in
order to maximize the short implementation period. Innovations and improvements to these
systems are being introduced, but the GPEG maintains simplified arrangements in line with
current government processes. A separate PSU is not being established as technical teams will
be mobilized within the GES and MOE to lead and manage the three components. This decision
also reflects the government intention to mainstream GPEG activities within their current
system.
3. Scope. As described throughout the PAD, the GPEG is focused on the 57 deprived
districts in Ghana. The bottom third of the ranked districts were selected, and as additional funds
become available, new districts can be included, moving towards the agreed threshold of all
districts that are above the national average for poverty incidence. According to the criteria at
least 57 districts34
will benefit from the district and school grant mechanisms under the GPEG.
34
The criteria have been applied to the existing list of deprived districts. The announcement in December 2011 that
the government planned to increase the number of districts from the current 170 to 212 by the end of the year
requires continued review to apply the criteria in a transparent and efficient manner. Since these new districts may
not be operational until the project is into its first year of implementation, the design is based on the existing 170
districts.
84
It is anticipated that a number of the 57 deprived districts will be sub-divided, therefore they will
be included in the GPEG program. As a result, the number of districts is likely to increase to at
least 70 within a year, although this will not result in an increase in the number of beneficiaries.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation: The GPEG grant will be coordinated and overseen by the
PBME/MOE and will be implemented by the GES at the national, regional, district, and school
levels. Based on inputs received from schools, DEDs, and REDs, GES HQ and PBME/MOE will
be responsible for providing the following consolidated monitoring data: (i) status reports on
project implementation by component, including summary description of activities at the
regional, district, and school levels (biannually); (ii) status reports on the use of GPEG funds
(biannually); and (iii) detailed M&E reports (annually). The main findings from the M&E reports
will be incorporated into the National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) and discussed
with district and regional education officers as way to promote improved planning, monitoring
and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts. In addition, the GES HQ and
PBME/MOE will be responsible for the following documents: (i) interim financial reports (IFRs
biannually) for the project covering all the components; (ii) financial statements and independent
financial audits reports (annually); (iii) a mid-term review report with recommendations and
lessons learned, and (iv) an Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICRR) including
the project’s economic, financial, social and environmental impact, no later than six months after
project closing. Significant training and technical assistance will be provided by the GPEG to
ensure that project interventions and activities are properly monitored and evaluated.
5. A sound monitoring and evaluation framework has already been drafted which includes
an M&E Plan for tracking and assessing the activities and results of the GPEG. Performance
indicator reference sheets have been developed for each indicator in the results framework. Each
reference sheet provides information on indicator definition, unit of measurement, and any
breakouts required; data acquisition, data sources, timeline for data collection, and person
responsible; plans for data analysis, review and reporting; any data quality issues; and notes on
baseline, data calculations and targets. Data capacity assessment and training needs have been
identified and significant TA will be provided under the GPEG to support supervision,
monitoring and evaluation. During supervision missions, the team will assess progress on staff
training and development and recommend specific areas for intensive support. The joint
technical assistance provided by USAID and the GPEG will also support ongoing training to all
relevant stakeholders based on evolving needs.
6. In an effort to harmonize reporting the following templates have been drafted in close
collaboration with the government: (i) Annual Programs of Work (APWs) for District Grants;
(ii) School Performance Improvement Plans (SPIPs) for School Grants; (iii) Interim Financial
Reports (IFRs) on district and school grants; (iv) Status Reports on district and school grants;
and (v) Capacity Building and Training Reports. Further details on these templates are included
in the GPEG’s Project Implementation Manual (PIM).
7. Joint supervision: Developed as a multi-donor program, the implementation of the
GPEG will continue the spirit of cooperation and partnership through joint supervision and
support. The World Bank, as supervising entity, will be responsible for ensuring compliance,
performance and fiduciary standards as established in the PIM and the PAD. The lead
85
development partners, notably UNICEF, will take the overall leadership for coordinating the DP
education group and monitoring GPEG implementation. The Donor leadership group (UNICEF,
DFID, USAID, JICA and the World Bank) will provide ongoing capacity building support for
implementation during the life of the GPEG through monthly VC meetings, semi-annual
reviews, strategic implementation workshops and annual NESAR reviews. By broadening the
supervision agents beyond one entity, the GPEG aims to increase the availability of technical
expertise to support the government program. This strong partnership between the donors,
government and the Bank has already been established during joint preparation and is essential
for ensuring continued coordination and harmonization of support in the education sector. Joint
supervision will also increase the resources available for more field supervision which will be
required to adequately monitor district and school activities.
8. Donor coordination: Although pooled funding is not yet a reality in the education sector
in Ghana, the complementarities and collaboration under the GPEG will set the stage for such
arrangements. Technical assistance will be rationalized with key positions supporting education
activities across various DP initiatives. In many cases, donors are co-financing ESP objectives
and support to their implementation will need to be equally coordinated. For example, USAID
will support School Report Card implementation and GPEG will provide interim (semi-annual)
support in addition to expansion of the training in SRCs to all schools in the deprived districts.
Essentially, the GPEG will co-finance USAID technical assistance. DFID support to girls’
education is provided through the district grants. This “top up” grant would flow through the
same GPEG established mechanisms.
9. Procurement: Procurement Post Reviews will be carried out annually by Bank
procurement staff and/or independent auditors. A procurement audit will be prepared by
consultants annually. Specific training on procurement and the GPEG operations will be
provided in tandem with the PIM trainings as well as on an as needed basis. The GES has
adequate procurement staffing to coordinate all GPEG-financed procurement activities for the
project, ensuring that activities are procured in compliance with World Bank Guidelines. Given
that the bulk of procurement will be decentralized to district level, capacity and continued
supervision will be critical to ensure that district level procurement entities (DA) are receiving
the support they need to deliver at the district and school level. The districts and schools will
rely on the PIM which clearly defines procurement procedures (as per Bank guidelines) for all
schools and districts to utilize grant resources. Procurement training workshops to
explain/train/raise awareness of implementing DAs will be organized during the first quarter of
project implementation. Close monitoring of procurement plans by GES on a quarterly basis
will ensure progress on the projected time lines, as well as quality control on all aspects of the
procurement process, including evaluation, selection and award.
10. Financial Management: Financial management supervision will be carried out by the
Financial Management Specialist (FMS) twice a year in line with the substantial risk rating. In
the first year of implementation, financial management supervision will includes field visits to
selected Districts and basic education schools. The FMS will also: review the IFRs; and review
the audit reports and follow-up on material accountability issues by engaging with the TTL, the
Client, and/or the auditors.
86
11. Technical support will be provided by the LEG, Bank staff and external consultants,
especially during the first phases of project implementation, and specifically in relation to the
district and school grant mechanisms. Specialized support for UTDBE implementation and
monitoring and evaluation will also be assured by practitioners who can spend time in Ghana to
support government implementing agencies. In addition to ongoing technical assistance
programs supported by USAID, DFID, JICA and UNICEF, GPE also provides supervision
funding to help support various technical experts as needed.
12. Safeguards: Regular bank implementation support missions will include environmental
and social development staff. Missions will include field visits to grant recipients including
those whose sub-projects have been previously identified as having environmental issues.
Missions will ensure that TA activities and/or District/school grants are adhering to the ESMF
and that civil works do not have adverse environmental and/or social impacts.
Implementation support and skills needed (including resource estimates and partner roles)
Time Focus Skills Needed Resource
Estimate
Partners
First 12
months
Monitor quality of
district and school
grant proposals
School grant
specialist
$10,000 WB/USAID
Monitor performance
of procurement
Procurement $40,000 WB
Monitor performance
of financial
management
FM $40,000 WB
Assess performance of
M&E
M&E specialist $40,000 WB/USAID
Design and baseline of
Impact Evaluation
IE specialist $40,000 WB/USAID
Assess implementation
of UTDBE/INSET
Teacher Education
expert
$25,000 WB/DFID/JICA
12-48
months
Assess performance of
environ., social issues
$20,000 WB
Follow up on
assessment related
activities; IE support.
Impact evaluation
specialist
$40,000 USAID/WB
Monitor compliance to
agreed
FM/procurement and
M&E reporting
FM/procurement/M
&E
$30,000 WB/USAID
Monitor performance
of district and school
grants
Grant specialist US$20,000 WB
Assess performance of
INSET and UTDBE
Teacher training
expert
US$25,000 WB/DFID/JICA
87
Annex 6: Sector Background
1. Ghana has been a leader in Sub-Saharan Africa in terms of demonstrating
impressive progress in education. As early as 1951 Ghana introduced a plan for accelerating
access to education, with legislation in 1961 that aimed at compulsory and fee-free education. In
1996 a fresh effort was made at achieving free and compulsory universal basic education
(FCUBE), at that time by eliminating school fees and starting a concerted effort to build up basic
school infrastructure and education capacities. The most recent legislation of 2008 provides for
eleven years of universal basic education (two years of Kindergarten, six years of Primary, and
three years of Junior High School). Access has improved to all levels as shown in Table 1--for
primary education, the gross enrolment rate (GER) increased from 76% in 2002/03 to 96% in
2011/12 while the net enrolment rate increased from 56% to 82% over the same period.
Furthermore, the primary gender parity index (GPI) has increased from 0.92 in 2002/03 to 0.97
in 2011/12. This expansion is a testimony to Ghana’s deep commitment to a policy aimed at
universalizing basic education.
Table 8: Trends in key education indicators in Ghana
Kindergarten Primary JHS SHS
2002/03 2011/12 2002/03 2011/12 2002/03 2011/12 2003/04 2011/12
GER 49 99.4 75.7 96.5 63.4 80.6 26.6 36.9
NER 19 64.2 55.9 81.7 36.9 46.1 23.6
GPI 0.98* 0.98 0.92 0.97 0.88 0.94
PCR 93.4
Note: *refers to data from 2003/04
Source: Calculations based on EMIS data for respective years.
2. The education sector has enjoyed a strong budget priority within the government
budget. Ghana spends around 5-6 percent of GDP on education. In 2011, the share of
government expenditure that went to education was 25.8% of which 49.0% is allocated to basic
education. Although allocations to education are considerable, the bulk of these expenditures are
recurrent salary costs (96 percent of Government of Ghana funding and 69 percent of all funding
in 2011). The education sector now employs about 40 percent of the total civil service. A number
of key initiatives have been established or expanded: the school feeding program; programs for
school infrastructure, textbooks, and uniforms; supplements for teachers; and a high profile
annual award for the best performing teachers. Education has become one of the most frequently
discussed topics of public concern in newspapers, radio and TV programs, next to politics, the
economy and sports. The country was among the first group of countries in Africa identified to
pilot the Education for All Fast Track Initiative and to receive support under the EFA Fast Track
Initiative Catalytic Fund.
88
Table 9: Structure of Ghana’s education system
Years Appropriate
Age
Level of
Education
Academic Focus
1 4-5
Kindergart
en
Bas
ic E
duca
tion
(fre
e, c
om
puls
ory
and u
niv
ersa
l)
Learning by playing
(Foundational Literacy,
Numeracy, inter personal and
communication skills
2 5-6
3 6-7
Primary
Basic Literacy, Numeracy,
Science(including
environmental)
and Social (including Life
skills) Studies
4 7-8
5 8-9
6 9-10
7 10-11
8 11-12
9 12-13
Junior
High
School
Lower Secondary Education
focus English, Ghanaian
Language, Math, Social
Studies, Science(including
environmental),
Technical, Vocational,
Agricultural Courses
10 13-14
11 14-15
12 15-16
Senior
High
School
Upper
Sec
ondar
y
Two categories: Grammar and
Technical
Academic programs in Core
subjects( in English, Ghanaian
Language, Social Studies,
Mathematics, Science
(including environmental) and
introduction to focus areas of
studies in Grammar type
Education Business Studies,
Science Home Economics
(including Visual Arts) and
Technical and Vocational
Education and Training
programs
13 16-17
14 17-18
15 18-19
Tertiary
16 19-20
17 20-21
18 21-22
Source: Improving Equity, Efficiency an Accountability of Education Service Delivery, WB February 2011.
89
3. Kindergarten and Junior High School are the fastest expanding areas. Between
2002/03 and 2011/12, the Kindergarten gross enrollment rate went from 49 to 99 percent. At
junior high school, gross enrollment rose from 63 to 81 percent during this period. As enrollment
and completion have increased at basic levels, demand for post-basic education has also
increased but supply has not followed suit. Only about half of students who finish Junior High
School (officially the end of basic education) go on to enroll in a Senior High School.
4. The dramatic increases in admission and enrollment rates to basic education during the
past decade are owing mostly to the elimination of school fees in public basic schools, followed
several years later by the introduction of the capitation grant to help schools make up for those
fees. Ghana’s 1992 Constitution declared that basic education “shall be free, compulsory and
available to all.” In 2007, government gave full recognition to the formalization of Kindergarten
education making it a part of basic education. This policy changed the official school going age
in Ghana from the previous 6 years to the current 4 years beginning with two years of
kindergarten education. With this change meant the extension of capitation grant payments to
include children enrolled in public kindergarten institutions, which were previously excluded at
the initial implementation of the Capitation Grant policy in 2005. However during this period, in
the context of flagging public expenditures on education, many schools found themselves forced
to impose indirect fees, e.g. for registration, uniforms, textbooks, etc. In response, the
government in 2004 introduced capitation grants for 40 deprived districts, extending the grants to
the whole country in 2005.
5. Capitation Grant background: The elimination of school fees in 1992 and additional
reforms in 1996 contributed to the dramatic basic education enrollment increase over the past
two decades. However, during this period, in the context of flagging public expenditures on
education beyond salaries, many schools were forced to impose indirect fees to cover a range of
schooling expenditures including lunch, uniforms, textbooks, examination fees and
transportation. In response, the government introduced a capitation grant for public primary and
junior high schools in 40 deprived districts in 2004 and in 2005 extended this grant to the whole
country. The grant amounts to GH¢4.50 (US$2.25) per student per academic year with a view to
encourage enrollment and empower local school management. The amount a school receives is
based on projected enrollments at the start of the academic year. This estimate is the basis for
the transfer of 50 percent of the funds, at the start of the first term. Subsequent transfers are
dependent on the submission of data on actual enrollments. Funds for the second and third terms
are based on that confirmation and are supposed to be paid at the start of term.
6. Improvements in completion are more and more difficult. Household survey data from
2008 show that around 5 percent of school-aged children still never access any formal schooling.
Dropout is also a problem, particularly among children living in extreme poverty and in
geographically isolated settings and high food insecurity. The first cause of dropping out for
most children is that they are contributing to household income generation. Girls in particular are
expected to take care of younger siblings. Being over-age is also a key cause of repetition and
dropout. The problem is exacerbated by classroom overcrowding, which has in turn been
worsened by the rapid enrollment increases of recent years. Transition from primary 6 to JHS 1
is the highest point at which drop out occurs.
90
7. The overall enrollment rates mask stark disparities. The prospects of children in the
poorest quintile never having gone to school are about 10 times greater than those of children in
the richest quintile. If a child lives in a rural area, his or her chances of not having attended
school are over three times higher than an urban child. A rural girl from the poorest quintile is
13.9 times more likely to not have attended school than an urban boy from the richest quintile.
This trend grows sharper further up the education ladder, culminating in very restricted entry to
higher education.
8. Complementary approaches to education have been employed to reach young people
who, for a variety of reasons, cannot be enrolled or retained in conventional schools. This work
has been funded largely by donors, and undertaken by CSOs and NGOs. The School for Life
(SFL) program was initiated in 1995 with the objective of teaching basic skills to children under
the age of 14 who had not been enrolled in school, with a view to eventually integrating them
into the formal system. Evidence has shown that about 70% of those successfully completing the
SFL program do enroll in mainstream primary school. Access to education in remote and
disadvantaged areas continues to be a persistent problem, exacerbated by the lack of
infrastructure or teachers or both.
9. Communities, parents and students, especially in poor areas have legitimate
concerns about sub-standard schools, sub-standard supply of human and financial
resources, unqualified teachers, poor exam results, and lacking services. Despite
investments, many classes are still held under trees, many children are turned away from higher
levels of schooling, and many fail comprehensive exams and do not find post-basic schooling
places or job opportunities. It is becoming clear that addressing these challenges and achieving
further progress cannot be achieved through a simple algorithm between inputs, resources,
standards and projected educational outcomes.
Gender Disparities
10. Gender parity has nearly been achieved at primary level, where girls enroll at almost the
same rates as boys. But towards the end of the primary cycle and at higher levels, girls’
participation drops off. While official completion rates show high level of completion, in reality,
the survival rate starts to decline following the 4th
grade and this decline affects mostly girls.
This is further exacerbated by the fact that children in the poor areas start education later than
age 6. According to 2011/12 EMIS data, the ratio of female to male enrollment (in percentage)
is 96% at primary, but falls to 90% at junior secondary and 83% at senior secondary. Poor
families often “sacrifice” their girls’ education, and have them work at home or on the family
farm, in order to keep their boys in school. When girls do manage to attend JHS (secondary
school), it is not unusual for them to face a hostile environment of sexual harassment from male
students and even some male teachers. The gender gap is much bigger at the country’s Technical
and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions, which are increasingly seen as
having a key role to play in preparing young people for a vast array of in-demand skilled jobs.
11. Gender parity challenges are more pronounced in the Northern region. According to the
DHS 2008, over 65% of girls over age 15 have received no formal education compared with the
91
national average of 21%. The effects of gender, poverty and location negatively impact girl
enrollment, retention and achievement.
Quality of Education and Disparities in Learning Outcomes:
12. Appropriate age enrollment and progression is problematic and particularly so
among poor and rural households. While there is considerable evidence that appropriate age
enrolment improves attainment and achievement, on average, children from households in the
poorest quintile (largely concentrated within the three Northern regions) are about three years
older than the official age in their respective grade. Children from households in the richest
quintile tend to be less than two years older than the official age for their particular grade. In
general, the poorer the families are, the higher the risk is for having overage pupils in school.
The phenomenon is often a result of, for example, the need to care for younger siblings or to
work during times of harvest, which may lead to postponed entry into primary 1 or frequent
repetition as a result of lost instruction time. The consequences of high age-grade delay are a
straining of the pedagogy process, higher public costs of schooling, reduced learning results and
increased dropout rates.
13. While access gaps between rural and urban areas are already wide, the gap in
learning outcomes is even wider. In overcrowded classrooms, often instructed by teachers who
have not had any pedagogical training, large numbers of students complete primary education
without attaining functional literacy. An Early Grade Reading Assessment implemented in a
sample of public primary schools in Ghana in 2009 reveals that about 22% of the children in
Grade 3 were unable to read a single word (World Bank 2010). Poor learning outcomes mean
large numbers of students gain little from their time at school and are excluded from the benefits
of higher levels of schooling. Poor educational quality also undermines Ghana’s ability to
compete internationally.
14. The proportion of primary school children reaching proficiency levels in English or
Math, is low according to the National Education Assessment tests of 2005, 2007, 2009 and
2011. These tests were conducted on a nationally representative random sample of 3.5 percent of
Ghana’s primary schools (NEA 2007). The 2011 results for Primary 3 showed 24.2 percent of
students proficient in English and 18.2 percent in Math; while for Primary 6 the results were 35.3
percent proficient in English and 16.1 percent in Math. The results in both Primary 3 and 6 show
improvements relative to 2005 results with the exception of Math in P3, where the proportion of
proficient pupils has shown a decline from 18.6 in 2005.
15. Data show that the districts with the poorest performance on NEA were in the
northern regions; the percentage of pupils achieving minimum competency and proficiency in
English or Math in P3 and P6 was below the national average for all three northern regions
(Upper East, Upper West and Northern). 2009 NEA data reflect the same significant learning
disparities in the three deprived northern regions, scores in math were 15 points lower than the
national average and less than half compared to the top scoring regions in the country. The
highest concentration of 6th graders with low NEA English scores (38 or below) went to school
within districts of the Northern region, while the highest concentration of students with high
scores (44 or above) attended schools in the districts of Greater Accra. The same pattern holds
92
true for the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE), a comprehensive leaving test at
the end of lower secondary school. In 2011, the three regions with the lowest pass rates for
BECE English exams were Upper East (40%), Northern (44%) and Upper West (48%) compared
with a national pass rate of 59%.
16. Explaining and addressing the poor quality of teaching and learning nationwide.
Attracting and retaining qualified teachers in rural areas, and lack of resources for goods and
services (learning materials, textbooks) are considerable challenges. The centralized teacher
deployment system has not remedied the pattern of unbalanced deployment and may in fact be
undermining the system. Expansion has also been making management and supervision of
personnel increasingly challenging, when control of extensive networks is conducted from the
center. While these challenges are further exacerbated by ongoing difficulties in payroll
management, poor social accountability mechanisms, and uneven deployment of human
resources throughout the country,35
strengthening the quality of teaching and learning by
increasing instructional time would go a long way towards improving learning outcomes. The
available assessments confirm that qualified teachers have the biggest impact on learning.
Improving the active learning and early grade pedagogy also has a substantial impact on
cumulative academic success. These interventions should begin as early as Kindergarten, where
more resources will be required to better prepare students for primary grades. To overcome these
problems, both the central and local governments as well as the head teachers and communities
need to be given authority, improve capacity to supervise, monitor deployment of teachers,
attendance and, indeed, classroom activities. Standards, expectations and regulations need to be
stringent to avoid that new generations of students complete education without effective
learning. The Government needs to provide services to schools with a variety of conditions,
empower and motivate local governments, communities and non-governmental agencies to
initiate these innovations and monitor their impact.
Teacher Supply and Allocation
17. The Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) at the primary level has remained stable during the past
decade, at around 34 for public schools and 32 for all schools, despite the sharp increase in
enrollments. This is due to the recruitment of a large number of new teachers, many of them
untrained. Between 2002/03 and 20101/2 the number of primary school teachers grew from
80,459 to 124,359. By 2007/08, around half of primary school teachers were untrained, but this
proportion has since improved to around 40 percent. The Primary Trained Teacher Ratio (PTTR)
is still high, at 52 in public primary schools in 2011/12.
35
Ghana Public Expenditure Review, 2011, World Bank draft
93
Table 10: Indicators on Primary School Teachers
2002/
03
2003/
04
2004/
05
2005/
06
2006/
07
2007/
08
2008/
09
2009/
10
2010/
11
2011
/12
PUPILS 2,524
,237
2,686
,133
2,929
,536
3,122
,903
3,365
,762
3,616
,023
3,710
,647
3,809
,258
3,962
,779
4,451
,878
TEACHERS 80,45
9
82,83
3
89,27
8
88,46
1
105,2
57
112,4
43
114,4
21
131,0
57
124,3
59
123,
153
Untrained
Teachers
29,86
6
32,29
6
37,60
8
38,65
4
49,45
9
57,26
6
59,48
8
68,73
2
51,43
3
58,7
86
% of Private 30.0
%
39.6
%
40.8
%
23.1
%
20.7
%
23.2
%
22.2
%
22.7
%
23.7
%
25.3
%
% of
Untrained
37.1
%
39.0
%
42.1
%
43.7
%
47.0
%
50.9
%
52.0
%
52.4
%
41.4
%
47.7
%
% of
Untrained
Public
26.5
%
26.2
%
27.7
%
32.9
%
37.9
%
40.6
%
41.6
%
41.8 37.2
%
33.7
%
% of
Untrained
Private
84.7
%
84.5
%
85.0
%
85.5
%
83.6
%
87.6
%
88.5
%
88.7
%
88.8
%
89.0
%
% of Female 32.8 32.0 31.1 33.9 27.7 33.0 33.9
%
34.1
%
36.7
%
36.7
%
PTR 31.4 34 34.9 35.7 33.5 34.1 32 29 32 34
PTTR in
public
49.9 53.2 56.7 62.7 60.3 65.5 58.5 53 54 52
PTR in
Private
27 27 27 26 26 25 26 24 26 29
PTTR in
Private
178.6 174.0 178.3 180.2 157.6 203.7 227.6 211 231 262
PTR in Public 32 34 35 38 33 34 34 31 34 34
Source: EMIS.
18. The distribution of teachers, and especially of trained teachers, is very unequal. Currently, there are more than 1,700 public primary schools without any trained teacher.
Teachers generally prefer to work in better-endowed urban centers, and avoid being deployed to
schools in remote, impoverished areas, with their poorer infrastructure and sanitation. The lack
of real sanctions also contributes to high teacher absenteeism. High performing schools had over
90 percent trained teachers -- 36.4 percent more trained teachers than low performing schools. In
2008/09, one quarter of Ghana's districts had average PTTRs of around 100. Most of these
districts are at the same time classified as belonging to the poorest quintile36
. In these remote
areas, schools are small, with enrollments typically less than 100. This means that often only
36
Poverty data for all 170 districts from the 2010 census is not yet available to update this data.
94
every second or third school in the region has a trained teacher. Within individual districts,
qualified teachers prefer to stay in urban areas, leaving rural schools with even fewer of their
numbers. Also in 2008/09, with the inclusion of Kindergarten as part of mandatory basic
education, 75% of the 37,700 kindergarten teachers were unqualified. The proportion of trained
teachers in Kindergarten has increased in recent years, with 65% of the 42,417 Kindergarten
teachers in 2011/12 unqualified. The proportion of untrained teachers in JHS increased between
2001 and 2011/12 from one fifth to just under a third.
19. Among the approximately 70,000 unqualified teachers employed in Ghanaian basic
schools in 2010/11: (i) about 25,000 were new university graduates doing one year’s national
service in Ghana’s schools; (ii) about 10,000 more, young and sometimes older, were people
teaching as volunteers under a National Volunteer Scheme and (iii) 9,000 were students in the
final year in teachers’ colleges teaching full-time in schools as part of their teacher training
programs. A further unknown number were employed through the National Youth Employment
Scheme. Although these young people assist children in remote areas to learn, they are
inexperienced and many leave their schools after one year.
20. Upgrading of Teacher qualifications. While the ESP envisages that not more than 5%
of teachers should be unqualified, the proportion of trained teachers in primary schools has
deteriorated since 2003/04, when 65% of male teachers and 91% of female teachers were trained,
to 48% and 77% respectively in 2009/10. In an effort to address this problem, Government
introduced the Untrained Teachers Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) in 2004. UTDBE uses
Open and Distance Learning to support untrained teachers studying for the Diploma in Basic
Education while they continue to teach in rural schools. To date, more than 27,000 teachers
(44% female) have enrolled in this program, and completion rates are reported to be high. The
number of teachers participating in the UTDBE program will have to be increased if the target of
95% trained teachers is to be achieved by 2015 or soon thereafter. UTDBE is organized by the
Teacher Education Department and accredited by the University of Cape Coast. Additionally
there are other courses offered by UEW and UCC, including a two-year sandwich program
offered by UCC to bring Certificate A teachers up to Diploma level.
Teacher Absenteeism and Time-on-task
21. High teacher absenteeism is one of the key inefficiencies in the education sector. It is
more common in rural schools, apparently associated with higher occurrences of a poor work
environment and poor teacher morale. The average teacher absentee rate, as a survey by the
Center for Democratic Development (2008) indicates, was 27 percent. This is corroborated by a
recent World Bank survey (2010), where unannounced visits to about 300 primary schools found
that approximately 28 percent of teachers were missing from classrooms. Among the main
underlying reasons for the high absentee rate are (i) inadequate supervision, (ii) sickness/medical
care, (iii) collection of salary at a bank located at a distance, (iv) frequent funeral attendance, (v)
long distances to school, (vi) religious practices (for instance, Friday prayers among Muslim
teachers), (vii) schools lacking facilities, especially sanitation: toilets and potable water, (viii)
schools located far from lorry/bus stations and healthcare facilities, (ix) rural teachers
supplementing their income by engaging in activities related to farming.
95
22. Low attendance is compounded by the problem of low instructional time in school, i.e.
low time on task, which appears to be widespread. Observations of school activities provide a
good picture of the causes of low time on task37
. Frequent breaks, when teachers are separated
from students, slow transition to instruction, down time spent disciplining students, collecting
homework etc., all reduce the amount of time that children are engaged in learning. Together,
teacher absenteeism, poor time on task and short duration of school year can result in the loss of
as much as 50-60 percent of teaching time, clearly making this as a key constraint to learning.
23. Efficiency in teacher allocation generally decreased between 2005/06 and 2011/12. In
2011/12 only 44 percent of teacher deployment could be explained by enrollment in public
primary schools. In 2005/6, 55% of the number of teachers observed in school was related to the
number of pupils, falling to 46% in 2008/09. In other words “randomness” in teacher deployment
increased from 45% to 56% between 2005/06 and 2011/12. Teachers are even less efficiently
distributed in deprived regions, in 2011/12 “randomness” reached 65% and 64% for Northern
and Upper East regions respectively%.
24. Promising interventions for improving teacher deployment and reducing absenteeism
include: (i) increasing the supply of trained teachers working in deprived rural schools through
UTDBE; (ii) improving allocation of all teachers at district level through training and other
support for efficient distribution of teachers; (iii) enforcing sanctions for unexcused absenteeism;
and (iv) better and more frequent supervision and support of circuit supervisors and head
teachers.
Disparities in the Allocation of Financial Resources
25. The system of funding basic education is fragmented, both in planning, budgeting and
accounting systems and reporting mechanisms. The Government budget represents the large
majority but not all the funding going to the sector. Within this budget, over 94 percent is used to
cover salaries (personal emoluments) and the rest is mostly used to cover some services and
administration. Investment is financed separately through the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GET
Fund). The GET Fund is a statutory fund with a separate decision making mechanism. Initially,
(2000) it was mostly focused on tertiary and later on post-basic education but recently some
basic education activities, even textbooks and the capitation grant were also financed by it. In
addition there are several types of allocation to District Assemblies, off-budget and on-budget
donor activities and others that are difficult to plan or to link to sector strategy.
26. The large size of the salary expenditures also has a crowding out impact on the rest of
funding. Even if some new programs or expenditures are introduced, such as the capitation grant
or various textbook campaigns, these are not sufficiently regularized, and funding these new
commitments is provided from various resources. Often they represent various forms of delays,
leakages. In all, very little is spent on items other than salary and the poorer the district or the
school the less likely that such resources are available.
27. Deprived districts do not receive their fair share of public expenditures on education.
More than 60 percent of children in the Northern region attend primary school in districts where
37
Impact Evaluation SMC Baseline Data, World Bank 2011.
96
the per child expenditure (PCE) is within the bottom third of the nation. The proportion of Junior
High School students suffering from under-spending in the Northern region is even higher,
reaching 83 percent of the total number of students in the region. Thus, a key source of
deprivation for the deprived districts is the allocation of public expenditures. These expenditures,
instead of compensating for the deprivation, exacerbate them by allocating fewer resources per
child to the regions where the majority of deprived districts are located.
Table 11: Percentage of children in districts with sub-standard PCE in 2008
KG Primary JHS
ASHANTI 28% 29% 23%
BRONG
AHAFO 0% 35% 45%
EASTERN 0% 15% 0%
GREATER
ACCRA 17% 7% 0%
NORTHERN 49% 65% 83%
UPPER EAST 59% 66% 63%
UPPER WEST 93% 45% 59%
VOLTA 15% 0% 12%
WESTERN 24% 18% 5%
28. Education financing is fragmented among a number of sources and among an even larger
number of flows of funds. This is the most fundamental reason why planned and executed
budgets differ. The authority to allocate the key resources are divided among four agencies: The
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP) is responsible to set the overall budget
and to determine (through the Civil Service Agency) the remunerations; The Ghana Education
Trust (GET) Fund is responsible for investments; Ghana Education Service (GES) is responsible
for allocating recurrent expenditure and to set teacher numbers and to pay teachers and other
educational staff; and the Ministry of Education (MOE) is responsible for coordinating donor
funds and proposing the annual education budget to the Government.
29. Districts Assemblies (DA) count on various sources of funding to fulfill their functions.
Districts benefit from direct releases from Ministries, Departments and Agencies to finance de-
concentrated and delegated functions, such as Education, as well as from expenditure (mostly
investment expenditure) incurred by vertical statutory funds, such as the Ghana Education Trust
(GET) Fund. DAs can also count on the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF), which
allocates Central Government revenue to the district to perform devolved functions. The DACF
is complemented with the District Development Facility, mostly funded by Development
Partners. Finally, DAs can generate internal funds, through the mobilization of various tax and
non tax revenues. (PER 2011)
30. A large share of the public spending on education (about two-thirds in 2007) is channeled
through the budget of the Ministry of Education. However, this budget only covers teachers’
97
salaries, new school construction and some inputs such as textbooks. A significant portion of
public resources benefiting the education sector is still channeled through the budgets of other
ministries, departments and agencies of government, among others, the Social Investment Fund
and the GET Fund. Education funding is also derived from the budgets of the MoFEP and the
Ministry of Local Government. Some of the resources from the “MP Fund,” allocated to
Members of Parliament to promote development in their constituencies, also support school
projects, scholarships and the like.
31. There are significant delays in several funding flows, particularly for the service
component of the budget, due to various systemic and capacity related factors. There is
inadequate capacity at the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDA) level to
account and report in a timely manner for the use of funds. Moreover, these problems are
worsened by the multiple funding flows, planning systems, accounting procedures, reporting
systems, auditing requirements and bank accounts. With the exception of salaries, fund flow is
complex and often leads to fragmented and unpredictable planning and budgeting in the
MMDAs. This has a spill-over effect on service delivery institutions/schools, which have to face
delays of funding for operations and maintenance particularly at the beginning of the financial
year. Capitation grants are supposed to address some of these problems and have improved the
funding for operations of most of the schools, although they are usually delayed by four to six
months.
32. The Government has had several initiatives to improve service delivery and empower
local authorities through improved effectiveness of inter-governmental fiscal relations. The
Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (2010-13) espoused the necessity to enhance
service delivery through greater focus on local governance. Through this vision, it is expected
that legal and institutional framework of local governments will be strengthened and, by
extension, the fiscal transfer arrangements will be improved. As at present, the fiscal transfer
arrangements to local governments (MMDAs) are sourced largely from the District Assembly
Common Fund (DACF), and their share of the Personnel Emolument and Administrative Charge
budgets. With the timing of flows for these transfers not predictable and aligned to the budget
calendars of the MMDAs, planned service deliveries are negatively impacted. The other sources
of revenues for MMDAs – mainly ‘internally generated funds’ – are largely inadequate to
support MMDAs’ assigned service delivery and development requirements. A fiscal
decentralization unit is being established at the MoFEP that will aim to move the fiscal transfer
agenda forward and, in association with the Local Government Finance Department of the
MLGRD, the political and administrative decentralization arrangements.
98
Annex 7: Economic and Financial Analysis
1. The economic and financial analysis is divided into two parts: (i) the District and School
Grants, and (ii) Teacher Upgrading. A final section summarizes the conclusions for the project as
a whole.
A. District and School Grants
2. These two sub-components will provide (i) grants to District Education Directorates and
(ii) grants to public basic education schools. Both types of grants will only be given to the 57
most deprived districts in the country (representing one third of Ghana's current 170 districts).
The grants are intended to finance non-salary recurrent expenditures aligned with district
and school improvement plans with the intention of improving basic school service delivery as
well as improving local-level capacity to manage and implement such plans and monitor
outcomes. Basic schools are defined as Kindergarten, Primary and Junior High School.
Economic Analysis
3. Investments in education, particularly basic education, generally produce high economic
returns. Further, education is associated with many non-monetary benefits to the individual and
society, including better health and lower fertility. But just enrolling in school is not enough,
students need to be learning to reap these economic benefits. Although basic school enrollment
and completion rates are now relatively high in Ghana, learning outcomes are generally not. The
districts targeted in the proposed project are behind the national average, particularly in terms of
learning outcomes and exam pass rates. This means that the learning shortfall among children in
the North of Ghana is much wider than that suggested by the indicators of school participation
alone.
4. The project has a strong poverty and equity focus through its geographical scope.
The Ministry of Education has operated with the concept of deprived districts at least since 2004.
The World Bank-financed EDSEP project provided targeted support to the deprived districts
between 2004 and 2011. Other donors have also targeted their support to the deprived district.
Deprived district were originally selected based on agreed education criteria, intended to
measure the extent of education deprivation. The criteria were: (a) seating places/pupil, (b) core
textbooks/pupil, (c) % of schools needing major repairs/pupil, (d) primary pupil-trained teacher
ratio, (e) primary pupil-teacher ratio, (f) % of girls enrolled, (g) pass rate in BECE English and
(h) pass rate in BECE mathematics. During the preparation of this project, the criteria have been
revised to give the project a stronger poverty orientation and to put a greater focus on educational
outcomes rather than inputs. The new criteria include both Ghana's district-level poverty index
(share of population below the poverty line) as well as education indicators. The education
indicators are: (a) retention in primary education (enrollment in P6/enrollment in P1 based on all
schools), (b) retention in the basic cycle (enrollment in JHS3/enrollment in P1 based on all
99
schools), (c) share of girls38
enrolled in P6 (all schools), (d) share of girls enrolled in JHS3 (all
schools), (e) pass rate in BECE English, and (f) share of trained teachers in the public primary
schools. The education criteria were aggregated to an education index that was assigned a weight
of 2/3 in the district selection. The poverty index had a weight of one third. The data source for
the education indicators is the 2011/12 EMIS data, except the BECE pass rate which is from the
2010/11 school year. The data source for the poverty data is the poverty map based on CWIQ
2003 and GLSS5, as reported in World Bank (2011): Tackling Poverty in Ghana. At the time of
selecting the deprived districts (early May 2012), poverty indicators and population data based
on the 2010 census are not yet released.
Table 12: Basic indicators for 'old' and 'new' set of deprived districts
57 'new' deprived
districts
61 'old' deprived
districts
Average 170
districts
Average poverty index
(share of population
below poverty line)
55% 47% 33%
Retention to grade 6 62% 65% 76%
% of girls JHS3
(truncated at 50%)
41.5% 41.9% 44%
Share of trained teachers
in public primary
schools
48% 50% 63%
Note: Averages across districts are simple averages, not weighted by size of population.
5. The 'new' deprived districts have higher poverty and weaker education performance than
the old. Table 1 compares some basic indicators for the old and new set of deprived districts and
finds that the 57 new deprived districts have higher average poverty (55% below the poverty
line) than the 61 old deprived districts, indicating a stronger poverty orientation. It also shows
that the education indicators are generally worse in the new deprived districts than in the old set:
the retention is lower, the share of girls slightly lower, the share of trained teachers is lower, and
the pass rate in BECE English is lower.
6. Mechanisms for preparation and review of school and district plans. Schools and
districts will spend their grants according to their respective plans (SPIP-School Performance
Improvement Plans, and APW-Annual Programs of Work). Because these plans will not be
ready until project implementation and it is therefore not known at this stage how schools and
districts will spend their grants, it can be argued that the project is a 'framework'-type project
rather than a 'blueprint'-type. World Bank guidelines for 'framework'-type projects require that
the economic analysis describe the type of screening process that will take place of the school
and district grants to ensure spending is economically justified.
38
The share of girls was truncated at 0.50, so no difference was made between districts that had 50% of girls or
higher.
100
7. For district APW's, the requirements for training, consultation and review are:
Districts Education Office staff must participate in training workshops organized by
MOE/GES to become familiarized with the objectives and guidelines of APW
preparation.
The training will introduce the indicative matrix highlighting a menu of key activities that
can be supported (Annex 2). The matrix was prepared jointly by the Local Education
Group and represents priority activities for achieving the ESP objectives. However,
eligible activities are not limited to this list.
District Education Directorates will also receive EMIS and other available statistics on
their district's performance compared with other districts, so that their plans can be
organized to respond to their specific problem areas.
APW's will have to be endorsed by the Project Steering Committee.
8. For school SPIPs, the requirements are:
School Management Committee's must participate in dedicated training and capacity
building activities organized by districts in the preparation of SPIPs.
SPIPs must emanate from School Performance Appraisal Meetings (SPAM), which are
community meetings organized by the school Management Committees and Parent
Teacher Associations to discuss the performance of the school and outline steps for
improvement. Wherever School Report Cards exist, the SPAMs must be organized to
discuss the information on them.
The Project Implementation Manual will include a positive and negative list of activities
that can be financed.
Financial Analysis
9. The school and district grants are intended to increase available non-salary resources for
basic education, and make these available as close to schools and students as possible to increase
spending effectiveness.
Table 13: Public expenditure per student in public schools, FY2010 (SY 2010/11)
Government of Ghana (GoG)
(US$)
All sources
(GoG, Donor, IGF, GETFund,
HIPC/MDRI) (US$)
Salaries Non-salary
recurrent
Total
recurrent
Salaries Non-salary
recurrent
Total
recurrent
Primary 141 0.3 141 141 8 149
JHS 206 0.6 206 206 18 223
Sources: MOE: Preliminary Education Sector Performance Report 23 May 2011 and EMIS
2010/11 enrollment data. Note: Data are based on executed budget figures for FY2010.
10. Most recurrent spending for basic education goes to salaries or infrastructure
investments, with relatively little available for non-salary recurrent spending. In that sense,
the project provides gap financing to complement existing public recurrent education spending
for basic schools. As shown in Table 2, the Government of Ghana core budget allocated the
equivalent of US$141 in salaries per primary school student, but only US$0.3 in non-salary
101
recurrent expenditure in 2010. The corresponding figures for Junior High school were US$206
and US$0.6 per student. When all sources of government funding are included, the non-salary
recurrent per student expenditures was considerably higher, but still only to US$8 per student in
primary schools and US$18 per student in Junior High, according to government figures.
11. The proposed project intends to add US$9 per student per year in discretionary
non-salary recurrent spending per year in deprived districts. The grants will about double
non-salary resources available for school improvements: in primary schools, for example, the
non-salary recurrent spending would increase from an estimated 6 percent of total recurrent
spending to 11 percent. A little less than half (US$4 per student) will be given directly to schools
to top up the existing government capitation grant (currently GHc4.5 or around
US$2.75/student), while a little more than half (US$5) will be provided to District Education
Directorates.
12. Fiscal impact of school and district grants. During project implementation, the fiscal
impact of the grants is limited to the indirect or opportunity cost of staff time of government staff
involved in planning, implementing and monitoring grant activities. After the project closes, the
financial cost to the Government of continuing the school and district grants in deprived district
is US$16 million a year, corresponding to around 1 percent of the total education budget. Scaling
them up to the country as a whole will be around US$49.5 million per year, based on the 5.5
million students currently enrolled in public basic schools countrywide. This corresponds to
around 6 percent of public spending on primary and JHS, or 2.5 percent of total public education
spending.
Table 14: Size of 5-year age cohorts, 2008 (% of total population)
Urban Rural Total
Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
<5 13.0 10.8 11.8 15.2 13.8 14.5 14.3 12.5 13.3
5-9 13.2 11.7 12.4 16.6 15.0 15.7 15.2 13.5 14.3
10-14 12.7 12.3 12.5 14.7 12.4 13.5 13.8 12.4 13.1
15-19 10.7 10.3 10.5 10.8 9.1 9.9 10.7 9.7 10.2
Source: DHS 2008.
13. Current levels of education spending are close to the average for Africa. Based on
the rebased GDP, public education spending from all sources was about 5.5 percent of GDP in
2010 corresponding to 22 percent of the total government budget. The approved education
budget for 2012 is also right around 5 percent of Ghana's GDP. These levels of public education
spending are comparable with the average for the Sub-Saharan Africa region (4.3 percent for
low-income and 5.7 percent for middle-income SSA countries) as well as most other regions (5.6
percent in high-income OECD countries). Currently, per student spending in primary education
is around 12 percent of Ghana's GDP per capita, which is similar to the average for SSA
countries (11.5 percent in both low- and middle-income countries) and therefore not alarming.
14. Strong macro-economic growth and demographic trends are favorable for
maintaining strong per student spending in Ghana. Ghana's strong real GDP growth—
102
averaging 5.7 percent per year between 2000 and 2009 and reaching as much as 12.2 percent in
2011—means that the education budget can increase considerably from one year to the next in
absolute terms, even if it is not increasing as a share of GDP. Further, current demographic
trends in Ghana are favorable for sustaining or even slightly increasing current levels of per
student expenditure. By 2008, according to DHS 2008, the population in the five year age group
0-4 was lower than the population ages 5-9 in both urban and rural areas (Table 3). This suggests
that Ghana is nearing a demographic transition and that school-age population will soon stabilize
or even decline, while the number of adults available to finance the sector will increase for years
to come. Although these demographic trends are yet to be confirmed by the latest 2010
population census, that is not yet released, the combination of strong economic growth prospects
and demographic transition makes it probable that Ghana can sustain strong total education
spending as well as strong per student spending. Since national average pupil-teacher ratios are
already quite generous in basic education, any fiscal space should be mostly used to provide
more (quality) non-salary spending. In fact, the government policy is to raise the primary pupil-
teacher ratio slightly, from the current 34:1, as per the Education Sector Plan, although there are
no plans for its immediate implementation.
B. Teacher Upgrading
Financial Analysis
15. The project will also finance the upgrading of approximately 5,000 and no more than
8,000 untrained teachers currently teaching in primary or basic schools in the deprived districts,
through their participation in the government's in-service UTDBE program. The program offers
the same curriculum as the traditional pre-service training mode and teachers who complete the
program are awarded the Diploma in Basic Education and are automatically upgraded to certified
trained teachers with the corresponding higher pay. Eligible teachers are those untrained teachers
on GES payroll currently teaching in primary (basic) schools in deprived districts. The UTDBE
program is a four-year program delivered through a combination of distance-learning and short
periods of residential courses during school holidays (10 weeks a year). Trainees can continue to
work in schools while participating in the program. Trainees can continue to work in schools
while participating in the program. The cost covered by GPEG is estimated to US$2,230 per
trainee, while the total cost, including the share financed by the trainee, is US$3,116 per student
(for all four years).
16. Fiscal impact during implementation is minimal. During implementation, the fiscal
impact of this sub-component is mainly associated with the time of government staff time for
administration and monitoring. The colleges will be reimbursed for their costs. In the past, the
UTDBE program has operated without donor support, so its sustainability does not hinge on
continued grant support. The support offered from the GPE project, however, enables the
UTDBE program to have a greater targeting to deprived areas.
17. Fiscal impact on teacher salary envelope after graduation. The main fiscal impact of
the teacher upgrading sub-component is on the teacher salary envelope. There is quite a large
difference between salaries of untrained and trained teachers. Based on 2010 numbers for
primary school and kindergarten teachers, trained teachers earn an average of 4.25 multiples of
103
GDP per capita while untrained primary school teachers earn around 2.20 multiples of GDP per
capita on average. Given a GDP per capita of around US$1,230 for 2010, this translates into a
wage difference of more than US$2,500 per year between a trained and untrained teacher. Once
the teachers graduate, the budget impact of training 8,000 teachers is therefore more than US$20
million per year, given these salary levels. The implication should of course not be to not train
school teachers, but Government needs to be aware and prepare for the future higher teacher
salary costs. These higher costs are already foreseen in the cost projections prepared by the Local
Education Group to cost the implementation of the ESP. The strong GDP growth, which will
likely outpace teacher salary growth in the coming years—as has been the case in most countries
as they grow richer—can ease the impact. This argument is based on the fact that average teacher
salaries as a share of GDP per capita are typically lower, the higher the GDP per capita. For
example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, average teacher salaries are around 3 times GDP per capita in
middle-income countries compared over 4 times GDP per capita in low-income countries. In
upper middle and high income countries, average teacher salaries are typically only 1-2 times
GDP per capita.
Economic Analysis
18. It is a government policy that almost all teachers in basic schools (95 percent) should be
trained. However, the evidence of the effectiveness of training teachers is mixed. This project
therefore includes a variety of other measures to increase teacher effectiveness, since teacher
training alone is not guaranteed to improve learning outcomes, or at least not to be a cost-
effective way of improving learning outcomes.
19. For example, in a recent econometric study, Joseph and Wodon (2012) find that having a
trained teacher has a positive impact on learning outcomes, but that the impact is quite small.39
They find that the NEA score would only differ 1-2 percentage-points between a school with all
trained teachers and all untrained teachers. It is also noteworthy that Ghana's many private
schools typically have a very high share of untrained teachers, but do quite well in terms of
learning outcomes based on the NEA. Finally, there was an improvement in NEA scores in
mathematics and English between 2005 and 2009, although the number and share of untrained
teachers increased over the same period. Thus, teacher training should be part of a larger package
of interventions to raise time on task and teacher and school accountability.
20. The project therefore rightly also focuses on stimulating local level capacity for planning
and implementing school improvement plans, and thereby also increasing SMC's and district
education office oversight of schools. The project also engages on teacher absenteeism and use
of report cards and other measures to increase school accountability and effectiveness.
Combining teacher training with these measures is likely to be more effective than teacher
training alone.
21. In-service teacher training is more cost-effective than traditional pre-service teacher
training. Table 4 compares the cost of training teachers through UTDBE with traditional pre-
service teacher training. The per student cost of a course of regular pre-service training is
39
George Joseph and Quentin Wodon (2012). Test scores in Ghana’s Primary Schools: Measuring the Impact of
School Inputs and Socio-Economic Factors. Preliminary Draft. The World Bank.
104
GHc15,350, all of which is paid by Government (a large part of the cost arises from payment of a
student stipend of GHc 3,840 per year). The cost to Government for a full UTDBE course is
GHc1,052. Thus, traditional pre-service is almost 15 times more expensive to Government than
UTDBE, under the cost-sharing arrangements of past UTDBE cohorts. However, when the
students' share of UTDBE costs are included, the ratio drops to about 7 to 1. Even when taking
into account the lower graduation rate of the UTDBE (an estimated 60 percent compared with 95
percent for pre-service), the cost per graduate is 4-5 times for pre-service training than for
UTDBE.
Table 15: Comparison of the cost per student of traditional pre-service teacher training
and past cohorts of UTDBE
GHc College of Education
pre-service (residential)
UTDBE in-service
(distance)
Cost ratio
Duration of training 3 years 4 years
Annual financial cost
per student
First and second year:
5,740
Third year: 3,870
567
Total financial cost per
student (all years)
15,350 2,268 6.8
Financial cost to
Government (after cost-
sharing w students*)
15,350 1,052 14.6
Graduation rate 95% 60% (est.)
Total financial cost per
graduate
16,158 3,780 4.3
*In previous cohorts of UTDBE, students have covered a considerable part of the cost, as reflected in this table;
students supported by the GPE grant will likely cover a lower share of costs than shown here.
Note: Costs for pre-service training are based on Presbyterian Women’s College in 2010/11 when the total number
of students was 473.
C. Summary
22. The focus on basic education service delivery with a strong focus on the learning agenda
is justified, and the project has a strong poverty and equity focus through its geographical scope.
Investments in education, particularly basic education, generally produce high economic returns.
Further, education is associated with many non-monetary benefits to the individual and society,
including better health and lower fertility. But just enrolling in school is not enough, students
need to be learning to reap these economic benefits. Although basic school enrollment and
completion rates are now quite high in Ghana, learning outcomes are generally not. Further, the
districts targeted in this project are behind the national average, particularly in terms of learning
outcomes and exam pass rates. During the preparation of the proposed project, the criteria for
selecting the districts that are targeted for support through this project (deprived districts) have
been revised to give the project an even stronger poverty orientation than the recently completed
EDSEP project.
23. The school and district grants are intended to increase available non-salary
resources for basic education, and make these available as close to schools and students as
105
possible. The proposed project will about double discretionary non-salary recurrent
spending in deprived districts. The grants will provide US$9 per student for school
improvements: in primary schools, for example, the non-salary recurrent spending would
increase from an estimated 6 percent of total recurrent spending to 11 percent. A little less than
half will be given directly to schools to top up the existing government capitation grant, while a
little more than half will be provided to District Education Directorates. Schools and districts
will spend their grants according to their respective plans (SPIP-School Performance
Improvement Plans, and APW-Annual Programs of Work). The project is designed to strengthen
government systems for preparing, implementing and monitoring such plans to ensure greater
spending effectiveness.
24. The current level of per student spending in primary education, at 12 percent of
GDP per capita, is close to the average for the region. Strong macro-economic growth and
demographic trends are favorable for maintaining strong per student spending. Public
education spending from all sources was about 5.5 percent of GDP in 2010. The approved
education budget for 2012 is also right around 5 percent of Ghana's GDP. These levels of public
education spending are comparable with the average for the Sub-Saharan Africa region (4.3
percent for low-income and 5.7 percent for middle-income SSA countries) as well as most other
regions (5.6 percent in high-income OECD countries). Ghana's strong real GDP growth—
averaging 5.7 percent per year between 2000 and 2009 and reaching as much as 12.2 percent in
2011—means that the education budget can increase considerably from one year to the next in
absolute terms, even if it is not increasing as a share of GDP. Currently, per student spending in
primary education is around 12 percent of Ghana's GDP per capita, which is similar to the
average for SSA countries (11.5 percent in both low- and middle-income countries) and therefore
not alarming. Further, current demographic trends in Ghana are favorable for maintaining strong
per student expenditure. Since national average pupil-teacher ratios are already quite generous in
basic education, any fiscal space should be mostly used to provide more (quality) non-salary
spending.
25. The fiscal impact of the project is substantial and higher than the grant itself.
During project implementation, grant disbursements are expected to be around US$25 million
per year for three years. The cost to the Government of sustaining the school and district grants
after project completion is around US$16 million per year. Further, the fiscal impact on the
salary envelope of potentially upgrading 8,000 teachers is around US$20 million per year given
current salary levels. Thus, the total annual fiscal impact is around US$36 million annually or
around 5 percent of total public spending on basic education, with more than half of the impact
resulting from the increase in teacher salaries. It should be noted, however, that these higher
costs are largely already foreseen in the cost projections prepared by the Local Education Group
to cost the implementation of the ESP. The strong GDP growth, which will likely outpace
teacher salary growth in the coming years, can ease the impact.
106
Annex 8: Lessons Learned/Literature Review
Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design
1. Alignment with Government Strategies and Programs: Better communication
among government and development partners and increased supervision and coordination will
help ensure activities are better harmonized. The collaborative efforts to support the
government’s program require significant efforts in planning, consultation and sharing of
information. By working in this way, the government directs development partners to harmonize
around its vision, its institutions and its processes. Securing this harmonization will increase
efficiencies in transaction costs associated with repetitive reporting requirements, redundant
assessments (FM, procurement, etc.) and the risk of duplication. The introduction of a more
evidence based annual review to orient next year’s NESAR will help bring all stakeholders
together to monitor performance and results of the sector, not just individual program or project
support.
2. District Grants: Providing local authorities with stronger capacities for decision making,
supervision and resource allocation to more effectively address the diverse social and economic
conditions of education is a critical lesson. These include more consistent promotion of
innovative practices, strengthening the supervision by district level authorities and strengthening
the role of local communities through improved accountability. In addition, innovative practices
must be monitored and evaluated and results shared. The annual programs of work are important
tools for facilitating funding to local levels and providing accountability and monitoring of
expenditure.
3. School Grants: Capitation Grants have been used to support the implementation of the
School Performance Improvement Plans (SPIP) for enrollment drives, provision of teaching and
learning materials, school management, community and school relationships, support to needy
pupils, school and cluster-based in-service training, and minor repairs. This program was
important because it provided non-salary resources at the school level to address the needs of the
schools. EMIS data also shows that districts which received capitation grants in 2004 saw a
proportionally higher increase in gross enrollment rates and gender parity when compared to
districts which did not benefit from the scheme. The EDSEP project successfully piloted the
capitation grants program which has been institutionalized and scaled up to all 170 districts
nationwide. 40
However, audits have found that the first two tranches of the capitation grants are
often delayed owing to Budget shortfalls. The bulk of the capitation grant is then received half
way through the school year creating issues for head teachers and SMCs on initial outlays for
implementing their SPIPs. Therefore, the base grant, not based on capitation could be allocated
at the beginning of the year since data on enrollment would be based on previous year EMIS
reports and capitation funds would follow this tranche later in the year with updated enrollment
data.
40
The forthcoming ICR of the EDSEP (CR. 38650) project which closed October 31, 2011 provides lessons learned
for the design of the GPEF. In particular, the use of grants to affect education services was proved successful,
although the monitoring and evaluation systems were not robust enough.
107
4. School Management Committees are responsible for promoting accountability in
education service delivery through community involvement, but they need to be
strengthened. A 2010 World Bank survey in 300 public primary schools found that even though
SMCs existed in 81 percent of the schools, they were active in only 61 percent of the cases. In a
small but significant number of cases SMC members did not have enough information about
their roles and responsibilities or about the School Performance Improvement Plan. Other
mechanisms for promoting community and stakeholder involvement in school management
include Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) and local traditional authorities. Again,
strengthening SMCs would improve teacher attendance.
5. Size of school grants: Although these capitation funds have been helpful in many
schools as a much needed source of financing, some schools have not received the full amount of
the grant, and/or not in time, and the amount received remains too small to support schools’ basic
operational needs, particularly in small rural schools in deprived districts. Many of the indirect
fees (books, uniforms, PTA) add up to a much larger amount than the capitation grant. These
factors as well as disparities in other inputs negatively affect school performance in terms of
keeping teachers and children in school, providing adequate instruction, educational support and
leading to a better school climate that in turn helps learning outcomes. Head-teachers, parents
and SMC’s are keen on using the capitation grant to address some of these issues but the
decisions about the use of the grant are difficult given the scope of the problem and the limited
size of the grant. The increased allocation would help address the gap between needs and
allocation.
6. Supervision of teachers by circuit supervisors and head teachers is uneven, but can
have a significant positive impact. Some circuit supervisors don’t observe and assess teachers
during instruction time, but rather visit schools to simply verify student and teacher attendance
figures. Circuit Supervisors would do more work with teachers, provided they receive training
and have time. There is considerable evidence of the impact of the head teachers on teacher
behavior; training focused on supporting teachers to teach is a very promising strategy.
7. Decentralized Implementation: Previous experience in Ghana and elsewhere
demonstrate centralized funding of education services are not reaching the most disadvantaged
and are not flexible enough to address local priorities. GPE funds will support efforts to allocate
funds efficiently by adopting a direct allocation of resources to district and schools based on their
annual program of work. The GPEG would also support the government’s objective of
addressing the disparities and inequities in the country. Deprived districts are identified using
updated criteria according to both education and household data to methodically and
transparently target resources. Support would focus on equity in education, improving quality of
teaching and learning, accountable education management, and decentralized resource
management. Better targeting leads to greater efficiencies of education expenditures.
8. Better monitoring and evaluation: Decentralized programs must establish sound
monitoring and evaluation systems to measure impact, identify problems and take corrective
measures. The PPS pilot program under the ESDP did not have a fully integrated monitoring and
evaluation system. The lack of an appropriate monitoring system limited the project’s ability to
108
regularly assess the programs and outcomes and/or track district achievements. Lack of a
systematic consolidation of district APWs limited the government and Bank’s ability to assess
impact of the districts APW activities. These systems would also benefit from enhanced
facilitation to ensure capacity at all levels for planning, implementation and monitoring.
9. Lessons Learned from EFA-FTI Grants: The previous EFA-FTI Grant ran into some
difficulties when the third tranche conditions for preparation were changed and the rules of the
game were not well communicated. The government transition after elections combined with the
rushed preparation and one-year implementation period further weakened project
leadership/ownership. The large centrally procured packages (e.g., textbooks) were problematic
and the remaining activities (civil works for teacher accommodations) required a longer
implementation period. Supervision was inconsistent and led to misunderstandings between the
Ministry and the Supervising Entity on the changed procurement procedures, and ultimately the
neglect of WB procurement guidelines. These expenditures were declared ineligible and were
repaid to the Fund by the Government of Ghana. Ghana’s education system has benefited
successfully from a total of US$19 million from the Catalytic Fund. This GPEF application has
been prepared more collaboratively by a team of colleagues from the Ghana MoE, GES, and
representatives of the donor education group. Weekly meetings, joint missions and consistent
participation in the preparation process are encouraging greater leadership, collaboration and
coordination. GPEF will focus on targeted decentralized procurement of goods and services, a
more realistic option in a short implementation period.
10. EDSEP: The Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICRR) of the IDA
supported Education Sector Project (EDSEP) which closed on Oct. 31, 2012 has outlined lessons
learned from the EDSEP’s implementation. These lessons have been considered in the Global
Partnership for Education (GPE) project design in the following ways:
Simplified Project Design: The EDSEP was considered to be an overly ambitious sector
wide reform and requiring a longer time to prepare, own and implement. In contrast, the
GPE has a simplified design with three key components to disburse funds to district level,
school level and for project management. In the GPEG’s design, funds disbursement to
district and school levels has benefited from the experience gained in the allocation,
reporting and challenges in implementing the EDSEP Pilot Programmatic Scheme (PPS)
component which allocated funds for implementing the district Programs of Work. The
GPEG will benefit from district capacity strengthened over the years of implementing the
EDSEP PPS while it continues to build the capacity of deprived districts selected to
benefit under the GPEG. While the GPEG expects to support Ghana’s decentralization
process, successful implementation of the project is not dependent on the decentralization
reform. The GPEG spending unit at the district level is the DED with oversight from the
District Education Oversight Committee (DEOC) which has membership of both the
DED and the District Assembly. The GPEG’s project development objective is also
simplified. Although outcome indicators on access, learning achievement, and education
management will be monitored, the DO considering the 3-year implementation period is
to improve the quality of planning, monitoring and effectiveness of basic education
services in deprived districts in Ghana.
109
Sound monitoring and evaluation system: The EDSEP PPS and Teaching and Learning
Innovation Fund (TALIF) did not have fully integrated monitoring and evaluation
systems. This situation constrained the project’s ability to regularly assess the programs
and outcomes. To ensure regular assessment of the programs, outcomes and activities of
the GPEG, an independent monitoring entity is being proposed as part of the project’s
design. The independent monitoring entity will work with institutions like the National
Inspectorate Board (NIB) mandated to ensure monitoring of education systems. The
entity will also work with the beneficiary deprived districts to institute systems that will
ensure tracking of activities and programs at both district and school levels.
Effective and efficient mechanism of decentralized funds flow: The EDSEP successfully
piloted a decentralized funds flow mechanism to district level to ensure strategic
utilization of funds. However, this mechanism can only be sustained if funds, including
GoG’s budget allocations are released in a timely fashion, and capacity strengthening at
district level is sustained. Under the GPEG, funds releases to the district and school
levels will be implemented in concert with GoG’s own funds. For e.g. school grants
under the GPEG will be coordinated with the GoG’s capitation grants to schools and will
aim to ensure a dependable and timely source of funding for the schools to implement
agreed Schools Performance Improvement Plans (SPIP). Training at district and school
level is also an integral aspect of the GPEG project design to ensure an integrated and
continues capacity strengthening.
Lessons for Implementation Arrangements
11. Role for the Regional Education Directorates (REDs): Under the EDSEP, the REDs
were not given a role in project implementation and in cases where District Education
Directorates (DEDs) did not have for e.g. an accountant, the RED was reluctant to provide the
necessary support for smooth project implementation which led to delays in project
implementation with its consequent less than expected outcomes. With the GPEG, the RED will
be provided with some operational funding to support coordination, monitoring, capacity
enhancement and backstopping for weaker districts. The REDs will also collate, review and
consolidate district reports as necessary. However, under other DP funded programs such as
USAID- supported GRAIL, REDs were trained and given resources to report on School Report
Card data and they were not able to deliver. Therefore the linkage between their role
(accountability) and the release of funding to districts and schools will be important to improve
their proactivity. Seeing the benefits of the flow of resources may also help reorient behavior of
regional and district staff towards implementation of new procedures.
12. Role of the Ghana Education Service: Under the EDSEP Sector Capacity Building
(SCB) component, the Ministry of Education which is the policy making entity was given an
implementing role. At mid-term, it was realized that the problems with the SCB’s
implementation could be ameliorated if the Ghana Education Service (GES), the implementing
entity for pre-tertiary education in the public sector, takes over the implementation. Under the
GPEG project, the lead implementation entity is the Ghana Education Service (GES) which will
manage all the three components of the project. The implementation of the project’s components
will be mainstreamed as there is no requirement for a Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The
110
Project Coordinator is the Director General of the GES. The Director Basic Education and the
Financial Controller of the GES will jointly report on the project’s implementation, and be
responsible for the operational and the financial management reporting on the project
respectively.
Literature Review of School Based Management Interventions and Evaluations
13. Increasingly, there is emphasis on decentralizing responsibility of school management
from the government to the school level. Part of this effort also includes increasing the school
management committee’s (SMC) control over financial resources such as school grants.
Programs that involve provision of grants to schools that can be spent at the discretion of SMCs
are aimed at empowering principals, teachers, and even parents by enhancing their sense of
ownership of the school. By giving a voice and decision-making power to local stakeholders who
know more about the local education systems than central policymakers, decentralization can
improve educational outcomes and increase client satisfaction.
14. There is a small but growing set of studies that rigorously measure the developmental
impacts of school grant programs to SMCs – and the findings reveal a mixed, but promising,
picture. Some of these are summarized below.
15. The Government of Nepal transferred responsibility for managing schools from the state
to the community. Community schools in Nepal, working through the school management
committee, consisting of parents and influential local citizens, are given decision making powers
over various staffing and fiscal issues. The community managed schools are given more un-tied
block grants so that the management committee has more control over discretionary spending.
Short-run (2007-2009) impact estimates derived from an empirical strategy that combines
instrumental variable and difference-in-difference methods suggest that devolving management
responsibility to communities has a significant impact on certain schooling outcomes related to
access and equity.41
There is no evidence of improved learning outcomes yet.
16. Another study looks at a reform in Pakistan where an NGO was hired to manage a school
together with the school council42
. Each school receives about $4,000 for school needs. The
NGO is allowed to transfer teachers as well. Between 2004 and 2008, this randomized controlled
trial has yet to show any effects on student enrolment, teacher absenteeism or the facilities index
(infrastructure). It may be possible that the effects of school council management will only be in
the long-term. Nevertheless, the proportion of council members whose children are students in
the school significantly increased in treatment schools. In 2001, Mexico implemented the
Quality Schools Program or PEC (Programa Escuelas de Calidad). This program seeks to
provide more autonomy to schools by giving them five-year grants of up to $15,000 to improve
educational quality (Skoufias and Shapiro 2006). In exchange for PEC grants, schools must
prepare an educational improvement plan that outlines how they intend to use the grant. Parent
associations must be involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of the plan.
Participation in PEC is voluntary, but the program targets disadvantaged urban schools.
41
Chaudhury, N. and D. Parajuli. 2010. ―Giving it Back: Evaluating the Impact of Devolution of School
Management to Communities in Nepal.‖ Draft. World Bank 42
Das, Jishnu 2008, Draft, World Bank
111
17. PEC has been credited with preventing and limiting corrupt practices in the management
of educational funds43 because the school councils are accountable both to their central
education authorities (vertical accountability) and to the school community and donors
(horizontal accountability). If expanded, this program has the potential to reduce petty
corruption. A study44 evaluates the impact of PEC on student dropout, failure, and repetition
rates using a nationally representative panel data set covering the 2001-02 and 2003-04 school
years. They find that participation in PEC decreases dropout rates by 0.24 points, failure rates by
0.24 points, and repetition rates by 0.31 points.
18. Another evaluation of the PEC program finds slightly different impacts using
longitudinal data from the seven full academic years of PEC45
. It shows that participation in PEC
decreased school dropout rates significantly (about 0.11 percentage points for each year of
program participation). Given that the average dropout rate in their sample was 4.75 percent,
three years of PEC would have reduced an average school‘s dropout rate by about 6 percent. The
authors did not find that PEC had had any significant effects on repetition rates. Lastly, they
found that PEC had its greatest impact on states with medium levels of development according to
the Human Development Index and its lowest impact on states with low levels of development.
The authors hypothesized that this was because departments of education in these low
development states had less capacity to support PEC schools than in more developed states.
19. In Cambodia, the grants-to-SMC program is called the EQIP School Grants Program.
EQIP schools receive cash grants that are invested in items on a priority list drawn up
collectively by the participating schools. Preliminary results from an evaluation of this program46
found systematic variation in spending by schools clusters associated to specific school
characteristics and parental participation. Nonetheless, the largest variation is associated with the
year and province variables, suggesting that central forces exert considerable influence on local
choices. With regard to outcomes, preliminary results suggest that participation in EQIP is
associated with marginally lower dropout rates, higher pass rates, and better academic
achievement.
20. Four such interventions have been evaluated in Indonesia. Single and combined methods
were experimented with, giving the school committee over a grant, training of school committee
members, linking school committee members with the village representative council, and
democratic election of school committee members. After one year of implementation, elections
in combination with linkage, and to a lesser extent in combination with training, have substantial
43
Karim, S., C.A. Santizo Rodall and E.C. Mendoza. 2004. Transparency in Education. International Institute for
Educational Planning and International Academy of Education. UNESCO, Paris and Brussels. 44
Skoufias, E. and J. Shapiro. 2006. ―The Pitfalls of Evaluating a School Grants Program Using Non-experimental
Data.‖ World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4036. 45
Murnane, R.J., J.B. Willet and S. Cardenas. 2006. ―Did the Participation of Schools in Programa Escuelas de
Calidad (PEC) Influence Student Outcomes?‖ Working Paper, Harvard University Graduate School of Education:
Cambridge, MA. 46
Benveniste, L. and J. Marshall. 2004. "School Grants and Student Performance: Evidence from the EQIP Project
in Cambodia." Unpublished paper.
112
positive effects on learning. Linkage is the most cost-effective intervention increasing language
scores by 0.12 of a standard deviation47
.
21. In the Philippines, SBM was implemented in 2003 in 23 districts. The project funded
infrastructure, training, curriculum development and textbooks. Participating schools were
required to design a five-year School Improvement Plan in partnership with parents and the
community using data on student achievement, with the school principal leading the process. A
rigorous evaluation of the program shows that in three years the SBM schools improved scores
in math by 16 percentage points, science by 11 points and English by 18 points; while for non-
SBM schools 15, 10 and 16 points. The effect sizes however are 0.10, 0.13 and 0.09 and 0.07, for
overall, science, English and math48
.
22. There is also some newly emerging evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. In Niger, the
Ministry of Education mandated the creation of management committees (Committees de
Gestion Scolaire, or COGES) for each school. The committee included the director of the school,
as well as locally-elected community members. The COGES are responsible for monitoring
teacher attendance and performance and managing both financial and material resources, such as
the purchase of textbooks and supplies. The Ministry of Education introduced a pilot project to
reinforce the capacity of the COGES through the provision of a yearly cash grant, which can be
used to fund a part of its activities for the year, such as the construction of classrooms or the
purchase of materials. To conduct a rigorous impact evaluation of this project, the allocation of
the school grants was randomized across schools.
23. The one-time grant (on average US$250 per school) to school-based management
committees showed improved school management practices and increased pupil attendance and
retention in grant schools. More specifically, results are as follows: (i) the school management
index indicates a positive effect of 0.05 in treatment schools, significant at the 5% level; (ii) this
is further substantiated by increased financial accountability of COGES through the use of a
register for both fund collection and expenses; (iii) in terms of fundraising, the grant appears to
have crowded in, or increased fundraising in treatment schools by around 31,000 FCFA (US$
63) per school on average. Reported pupil absenteeism declined slightly in response to the grant.
There also seemed to have been a small reduction in drop-outs in treatment schools. No impact
was found on student learning achievement.
24. In light of this evidence, the planned impact evaluations on school grants will put
emphasis on: (i) measuring cost-effectiveness of school grants; (ii) measuring process
information; (iii) measuring intermediate outcomes in terms of community participation through
quantitative and qualitative methods. This will be in addition to careful monitoring of teacher
attendance, student attendance and performance outcomes.
47
Pradhan, M., D. Suryadarma, A. Beatty and R.P. Artha. 2010. ―Improving Educational Quality through
Enhancing Community Participation: Results from a Randomized Field Experiment in Indonesia.‖ Draft. 48
Khattri, N., C. Ling and S. Jha. 2010. ―The Effects of School-based Management in the Philippines: An Initial
Assessment Using Administrative Data.‖ World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5248.
113