A Ghana Case-study of Decentralisation and Institutional Reforms for Basic Education

1. CABRI DIALOGUE on Value for Money in Education Financing A Ghana Case-study of Decentralisation and Institutional Reforms for Basic Education (i) What is the model of decentralisation in the education sector and how well does it support technical and allocative efficiencies in achieving education objectives? (ii) What changes in financial management systems and education management are necessary for a successful performance orientation? And (iii) What can other countries learn from the Ghanaian case and what are the differences in context which need to be accommodated?

2. Outline • Context of institutional reforms • Profile of Ghana’s Basic Education • Ghana’s Decentralisation Model and Strategies • Model of decentralisation in the Education Sector • Impact on Education Outputs • Financing, Budget Predictability and Accountability • Monitoring and Evaluation – FMIS and EMIS • Challenges in implementation in sector • Closing remarks

3. Context of institutional reforms Profile of Basic Education in Ghana today • Ghana is in the forefront of basic education reform in Africa. • Allocates 24 % of total public expenditures on education – 3rd highest on the continent and double the average for SSA • Strong shift in governance down to districts and schools. • Rate of primary aged children out of school dropping by 10% (2006 -2009) and children increasingly complete the primary cycle – 87% in 2009 (an increase of 15% on 2006) • Similar increases in JSS enrolment (now 80%), especially among girls • But mixed education outcomes at basic and junior secondary levels • Less than a third of primary school children reach proficiency levels in English or in Mathematics - NEA tests of 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011

4. Ghana’s Decentralisation Model Decentralisation has the potential to improve efficiency in mobilising scarce national resources ,meet local needs, greater accountability and good governance Intergovernmental Fiscal Decentralisation Framework (2008) – structures and funding Services are transferred from the centre to local governments that raise their own revenues and have the authority to make investment decisions. Abolition of sector departments at district level. All local development and governance thru the metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies (MMDAs) Income - 7% of total central government revenues + locally levied taxes – paid by MoFEP. Covers salaries and DACP – district development fund. Provide and maintain school buildings, supply of furniture, stationaries, bursaries and school feeding programmes. MMDA can issue penalties to compel parents to send their children to school. The district oversight committee sits and plans district education programmes.

5. Challenges to Current Ghana Decentralisation Model Incomplete implementation: funding, accountability and authority • Disputes about local government boundary demarcations; • Are MMDAs economically viable? Poor funding flows. • Uncertainties about the role of traditional rulers. • Many administrative procedures have not yet been revised to reflect the needs of fiscal decentralization. • Funds continue to be retained at the centre when functions have been devolved to the local level. • Some sectors using “decentralised departments” - the responsibility for hiring, transferring, payroll and staffing rests with these central government ministries although MMDA remain responsible for staff evaluation and discipline.

6. Decentralisation Model for Education • ‘improve planning and management in the delivery of education by devolving resource management and decision-making to regions, districts and institutions, while retaining central responsibility for establishing norms, guidelines and system accountability”. Education Sector Plan 2010 reflects Education Act 2008 Districts to be the main loci of implementation of centrally driven policies and strategies but not subject to their control. Centrally driven de-concentrated administrative system 6 tiers of responsibility for the management of schools The school, circuit, district, regional, national GES level (implementation) and Ministry level (policy, norms and standards). • School level management structures • SMC and BOG and Parent Associations are responsible for producing SPIPs and SPAMS. Designed to reflect community priorities.

7. Impact of “Devolution” on Education Outputs • Implementation from 2008 onwards of Education Act has seen concurrent overall improvements in the system. • Improved efficiencies in providing greater access to basic education – 18% increase in enrolment in primary with the abolition of fees. Girls enrolment increased significantly • Competencies and proficiency in NEA test scores in mathematics and English increase steadily from 2007 onwards. • Deterioration in allocative resource expenditure as quality of basic education is perceived as weakening – 22% in enrolment in private schools at basic level. 19% at secondary

8. Financing, Budget Flows and Accountability in Basic Education • Promotes flexibility, higher sustainability but weakens predictability and accountability • Multiple funding sources • No control over teacher payments, allocations and transfers. Enormous variation in teacher pupil ratios – deepens inequity among districts and rural/urban • Districts not cost centres • Increased school autonomy, community ownership of schools and better financial management of school resources. • Capitation Grant • Disbursements of grants delayed by 4 months and incomplete transfers in 2012 • Budget Flows

9. Monitoring and Evaluation • Intro of GIFMIS will allow sector ministries, for the first time, to assess expenditure activities against their budgets on a monthly basis • GIFMIS “clumsy and cumbersome” – 7 templates for capturing the same data; items at sub-sub level useful for district financial management. • Dependent on e-connection – unstable and does not cover all districts • GIFMIS and general budget system running parallel – confusion on codes • GES pilots own district expenditure system in “deprived districts” in 2014 • GES own resource allocation model for non-salary expenditures at the district level. This data dependent model relies on EMIS, poverty and national census statistics but data is only available for 134 of the 212 districts because of new demarcations and divisions of districts • EMIS “ too aggregated and not timely” –data seldom feedback in real time. But increasing improvements – Performance Assessment Framework and MDBS targets, Sector Reviews – data driven.

10. Challenges with implementation in sector • Gap between the planned and executed payroll has widened from about 10 per cent to over 35 per cent in last years. • School heads tend to over-estimate the enrolment in their schools – 5-15%. The incentive is to obtain higher grant allocations • Many communities are ill equipped to fully participate in the SPIP process and hold schools accountable for their performance • Poorly trained school heads challenged by ad hoc funding flows • Planned reduction of non-productive staff in District and Regional Offices – a 60 per cent target is expected. Implications for management? • Currently, as a result of the underfunding of basic schools, about 7,900 under trees or sheds; 800,000 school children are out of school. Additionally the existing 8,557 Junior High Schools cannot absorb the primary six pupils from 14,360 primary schools. • North South inequities are perceived to be growing despite efforts.

11. Closing remarks • Premature to link the form of decentralisation with basic education performance improvements but both have deepened their efficiencies in terms of local level capacity – schools and districts; and per capita expenditure and improvements in education test scores have moved co-jointly upwards. Questions remain is it sufficient value for money? • Applicability to other countries? • Good lessons learnt from the new financial management systems and the capacity building training – finance and administration for local level. GES budget office has driven interesting innovation in this. • Increasing demand for data driven performance evaluation and disaggregated data for improved operations at local level. • Dependency on effective communication, ICTs and predicable funding flows. • Investment in human resource capacity and system procedures essential

12. Questions for Group Work • What value does the education sector obtain from its current hybrid form of deconcentration and devolution? Would it be more effective to follow a deeper decentralised model? • Would you advise the Ministry of Education to rapidly decentralise its functions to the management of District Assemblies? What if any are the implications for schools? • What would you suggest are the requirements to ensure greater technical and allocative efficiencies in achieving education objectives at the district level? • What are your conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of decentralised governance? What recommendations would you make to ensure greater value for money? • How could Ghana improve learning outcomes without substantially increasing its budget allocations to education? • What evidence did you gain from the Ghanaian case study on the value of information management systems? What recommendations would you make to strengthen this? • What can other countries learn from the Ghanaian case and what are the differences in context which need to be accommodated?

13. Thank You Angela Arnott Policy Analyst ADEA Working Group on Education Management and Policy Support Email: a.arnott@afdb.org