Download
1 / 12
130 likes | 322 Views
Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation. Decentralisation of Basic Education in Ghana. Ghana Impact Evaluation Team (GIET) Charles Aheto-Tsegah, Coachito Thomas Hutton Coleman, Inswinger Matthew Karikari-Ababio, Sweeper Dominic Pealore, Goalee Anthony Arthur, Striker
E N D
Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation Decentralisation of Basic Education in Ghana Ghana Impact Evaluation Team (GIET) Charles Aheto-Tsegah, Coachito Thomas Hutton Coleman, Inswinger Matthew Karikari-Ababio, Sweeper Dominic Pealore, Goalee Anthony Arthur, Striker Justin Oliver, Guest Player Eunice Yaa Brimfa Dapaah, Welfare Directress AFRICA IMPACT EVALUATION INITIATIVE, AFTRL
MAP OF GHANA Key Data • Population (2005) 21.5m • Administrative Regions 10 • Districts 138 • Pop. Growth Rate 2.6 • Literacy Rate (Age 15+) 77 • Gross Prim. Enrolment 80 Male 84 • Female 76
Questions • Has decentralization helped to improve education outcomes? • Will decentralization improve the process of financial allocation and utilization in the districts and schools? • How will decentralization impact pupil learning outcomes? • Will improving community participation ensure effective management of local schools at the district level? • Will decentralization improve the quality and usage of data at the district level?
Indicators • Pupil/Teacher Ratio • Pupil/Textbook Ratio • Test scores NEA, SEA, BECE raw scores • SMCs established and functioning • Increase in Enrolment and Attendance • Decrease in Teacher Absenteeism • Increase in Completion Rates
Evaluation Design • Randomly select two Treatment groups (T1 & T2) and one Control group from 138 districts. • T1 will be granted authority to implement aspects of the management functions relating to district performance carried out at the central level, e.g. teacher recruitment; management of investment grants. • The control group will continue to have the district management functions performed at the central level.
Evaluation Design – cont’ • SMCs for T2 will receive administration and service funding directly from DEOs for the management of school. • SMCs in the Control group will not receive direct allocation of administration and service funds.
Sample • Assuming intra-district correlation of 5% we anticipate a 15% effect size with a power of 83%. • This means in 83% of the experiment with a sample size of 15 schools there will be an effect in the population of 15%. • The effect of 15% being the smallest size of impact, will help in making a policy decision to replicate and spend more money to implement the intervention.
Data • Annual Education Census Report by EMIS: • Contains data on school enrolment, teacher distribution and facilities. • Collected by the MOESS via surveys completed by school heads. • District data: • Contains data on schools at the district level, teacher distribution and facilities • Collected by District Education Offices via head counts of pupils conducted by school heads. • Administrative data: • Performance Reports, Expenditure returns etc.
