Education Management Technical Group Recommendations

1. Education Management Technical Group Recommendations Presented by: Ms. Vivian Etroo, Municipal Director, Mfantseman National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

2. Group Members • Chairperson: Victor Mante, TED • Samuel Bannerman-Mensah, Director General • Ato Essuman, Chief Director • J.O. Afrani, Director, Administration • Kwesi Hutchful, DG’s Office, GES • Godwin Oduro, Eastern Regional Office • T.H. Coleman, EMIS Coordinator • Felicia M. Ghansah, Director Wassa Amenfi East • Mama Owusu, JICA • Francis Gidiglo, PBME • Kobina Okyere, NDPC • Matthew Karikari-Ababio, PBME • Jeff Asamany, NDPC • Nana Opare-Djan, NDPC • Godwin K. Addo, BED, GES • Kennedy Quaigran, Link Community Development • Alfred A. Ajene, Upper East Regional Office • Biikook Konlan, UNICEF • Naureen Karachiwalla, PBME • Charlotte Bedford, Inspectorate, GES • Yvonne Agbesi, DFID • Ernestina Afosah-Anim, Greater Accra Regional Office National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

3. Issues Discussed • School-level Management • Teacher Deployment • Accountability • EMIS • Monitoring National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

4. Issue 1 – School-level Management School-level management is currently very weak. The problem seems to reside in the capacity of the head teacher since he/she is the key player in school-level management. National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

5. Recommendation 1 – School-level Management • Leadership and Management Training • Stage 1: Pre-service training to incorporate leadership and management training into the TTC curriculum • Stage 2: Preparation of a leadership and management training package for those that are already at post (extra in-service training) • Identification of good class teachers by District Directors who can be exposed to the training Training of the people identified National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

6. Recommendation 1 – School-level Management • Timeframe • Incorporate leadership and management into new curriculum: Oct 2009 • Development of leadership training package: Oct 2008 • Identification of teachers: Oct 2008 • Training of Trainers: Nov 2008 • Training of identified teachers: at least once a year • Responsibility – training package and curriculum (GES TED), training of trainers (GES TED), training (districts) • Means of Verification – report of ToTs and districts (attendance lists) to regions who will report to DG copied to PBME, submission of leadership package to Director General and copy PBME National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

7. Issue 2 – Teacher Deployment • There are too many teachers in some districts and too few teachers in other districts (particularly deprived areas). Teachers do not accept postings to deprived areas. One reason is that they seek sponsorship from more than one district and the TTCs don’t know about this. Another reason is protocol requests tend to interfere with postings. National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

8. Recommendation 2 – Teacher Deployment • Implementation of supply/demand models Responsibility – HRMD and District Directors Timeframe – August 2009 Means of verification - report on supply/demand of teachers submitted to Director General 2. Policy whereby TTCs only accept sponsorship forms from districts and verify that: • Trainees are not sponsored by more than one district • Trainees are not accepted from districts that don’t need more teachers Responsibility – TTCs Timeframe – December 2009 Means of verification - GES TED report submitted to DG National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

9. Recommendation 2 – Teacher Deployment Continued • Retention of teachers - incentives for deprived communities Responsibility – PBME along with GES Timeframe – September 2008 (with budget) Means of verification - Policy paper submitted to: Director General, Chief Director, Minister • Sanctions for those who don’t stay or don’t come back from study leave – blocking of salaries (refund by guarantors of the cost of training with interest) and stoppage of allowances Responsibility – District Directors Timeframe – End Sept. 2008 (blocking), end Nov. 2008 (deletion) Means of verification – IPPD and Regional Auditor both to report to FC (independently) National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

10. Issue 3 – Accountability • There is a weak system of checks and balances, it is very difficult to hold head teachers accountable. The lines of accountability between head teachers, circuit supervisors, SMCs and District Directors are weak. National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

11. Issue 3 – Accountability • Ineffective: DDE Head Teacher SMC • Effective : DDE SMC Head Teacher National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

12. Recommendation 3 – Accountability • Head teachers should sign a performance agreement with the District Director and the SMCs. The SMC should be reporting to the District Director. The district (cirucuit supervisor) also reports on the head teacher to the district director. • Responsibility – District Director • Timeline – September 2009 • Means of Verification – Regional Directors and Director General National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

13. Issue 4 – EMIS Data (Capacity) • Data quality needs to be improved. Particularly, data is often missing or incorrect. This is because school-record management is weak. There is a need for capacity building at the school level and at the district and regional level so that the EMIS process can be properly decentralized. National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

14. Recommendation 4 – EMIS (Capacity) • Capacity development through a training workshop of head teachers and one other teacher to improve school record management (collection, processing, storage, retrieval) so that they can easily and accurately fill out the EMIS questionnaires • Capacity development through a training workshop of district and regional officers (statistics officers) National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

15. Recommendation 4 – EMIS (Capacity) • Timeline • 1. November 2009 • 2. November 2008 • Responsibility • 1. EMIS trains ToTs and they train the heads and teacher • 2. EMIS • Means of Verification • 1. Report submitted to PBME • 2. Report submitted to PBME National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

16. Issue 5 – EMIS (Validation) • EMIS does not undertake rigorous validation of the data and this is one cause of inconsistencies and multiple sources of data. National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

17. Recommendation 5 – EMIS (Validation) There should be validation of EMIS data (including sampling and spot checks). A validation plan should be developed. • Timeline – January and February 2009 • Responsibility – EMIS • Means of Verification – PBME National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

18. Issue 6 - Monitoring • There is no comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan for the education sector. This means that progress and programmes are often not adequately monitored. National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

19. Recommendation 6 – Monitoring • Develop an M&E plan for the entire sector as part of the new ESP that includes: • Definition of roles and responsibilities (particularly the relationship between supervision and M&E) • Lines of reporting • Validation strategy • NB: this should be done in conjunction with NDPC and other bodies that can help National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

20. Recommendation 6 – Monitoring • Timeline – PBME • Responsibility – June 2009 • Means of Verification – Report submitted to Chief Director, Director General, District Directors National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008

21. THANK YOU! National Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR) 2008