Project Appraisal Document - World Bank



Document ofThe World BankFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYReport No: 72949-GHPROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENTON AGlobal Partnership for Education Fund GrantIN THE AMOUNT OF US$75.5 MILLIONTO THEREPUBLIC OF GHANA IF DOCPROPERTY Borrower \* MERGEFORMAT Borrower <> "" DOCPROPERTY Borrower \* MERGEFORMAT Borrower {borrower} \* MERGEFORMAT FOR AGHANA PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION GRANT ProjectOctober 10, 2012Central and West Africa Education UnitAfrica RegionThis document is being made publicly available in accordance with the Bank’s policy on Access to Information.CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(Exchange Rate Effective September 12, 2012)Currency Unit=New Ghana CediGH 1=US$.526US$=1.90 GHFISCAL YEARJanuary 1–December 31ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSADEOP Annual District Education Operational PlanAESOPAnnual Education Sector Operational PlanAPWAnnual Programs of WorkBECEBasic Education Certificate ExaminationCBI Cluster Based In-service TrainingCSOCommunity Service OrganizationDACFDistrict Assembly Common FundDED District Education DirectorateDFIDUK Department for International DevelopmentEFA-FTIEducation for All Fast Track InitiativeEGRAEarly Grade Reading AssessmentEMISEducation Management Information SystemESPEducation Sector PlanEDSEPEducation Sector Project FCUBEFree Compulsory Universal Basic EducationFTIFast Track InitiativeGDPGross Domestic ProductGESGhana Education ServiceGEUGirls Education UnitGNAT Ghana National Association of TeachersGoGGovernment of GhanaGPEGlobal Partnership for EducationGPEFGlobal Partnership for Education FundICTInformation and Communication TechnologyIMFInternational Monetary FundINSETIn-Service Education and TrainingJHSJunior High SchoolJICAJapan International Cooperation AgencyLEAPLivelihood Empowerment Against PovertyMDBS Multi-Donor Budget Support MDGsMillennium Development GoalsMLGRDMinistry of Local Government and Rural DevelopmentMMDAsMetropolitan, Municipal and District AssembliesMoEMinistry of EducationMoFEPMinistry of Finance and Economic PlanningMoLGMinistry of Local GovernmentMTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework NAB National Accreditation BoardNALAP National Literacy Accelerated ProgramNARNet Admission RateNCCANational Curriculum Coordinating AuthorityNCTE National Council for Tertiary EducationNDC National Democratic CongressNEA National Education AssessmentNER Net Enrolment RatioNERIC National Education Reform Implementation Committee NERP National Education Reform ProgramNESARNational Education Sector Annual ReviewNGONon-Governmental OrganizationNIB National Inspectorate BoardNTC National Teaching CouncilNVTIsNational Vocation Training InstitutesODLOpen and Distance LearningPBMEPlanning, Budgeting, Monitoring and Evaluation DepartmentPCE Per child recurrent expenditurePCR Primary Completion RatePPPPurchasing Power ParityPRSCs Poverty Reduction Strategy CreditsPRSPPoverty Reduction Strategy Paper PTAParent Teacher AssociationPTE Per teacher recurrent expenditurePTRPupil Teacher RatioPTTRPupil Trained Teacher RatioSBA School Based AssessmentSBI School Based In-service TrainingSEASchool Education AssessmentSHSSenior High SchoolSMCSchool Management CommitteeSPAM School Performance Assessment MeetingSP School ProfileSPIPSchool Performance Improvement PlanSRCSchool Report CardsSSASub-Saharan AfricaSSSCE Senior Secondary School Certificate ExaminationTEDTeacher Education DepartmentTIGTechnical Implementation GroupTHRTake Home RationsTIMSSTrends in International Mathematics and Science StudyTTIsTechnical Training InstitutesTVETTechnical and Vocational Education and TrainingUBCUniversal Basic CompletionUBEUniversal Basic EducationUCC University of Cape CoastUNICEFUnited Nations Children’s FundUPC Universal Primary CompletionUSAIDUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentUTDBEUntrained Teachers Diploma in Basic EducationVATValue Added TaxWAECWest African Examination CouncilWASSCE West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examination WFPWorld Food ProgramRegional Vice President:Makhtar DiopCountry Director:Yusupha B. CrookesSector Director:Ritva S. ReinikkaSector Manager:Peter Nicolas MateruTask Team Leader:Deborah Newitter MikesellREPUBLIC OF GHANAGhana Partnership for Education Grant ProjectTABLE OF ContentsPage TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u \t "Heading 3,3,Heading 4,4" I.STRATEGIC CONTEXT PAGEREF _Toc337122313 \h 1A. Country Context PAGEREF _Toc337122314 \h 1B. Sectoral and Institutional Context PAGEREF _Toc337122315 \h 3C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes PAGEREF _Toc337122316 \h 7II.PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES PAGEREF _Toc337122317 \h 8A. Project Development Objectives PAGEREF _Toc337122318 \h 8Project Beneficiaries PAGEREF _Toc337122319 \h 8PDO-level Results indicators PAGEREF _Toc337122320 \h 9III.PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGEREF _Toc337122321 \h 9A. Project Components PAGEREF _Toc337122322 \h 9B. Project Financing PAGEREF _Toc337122323 \h 15Lending Instrument PAGEREF _Toc337122324 \h 15Project Cost and Financing PAGEREF _Toc337122325 \h 15IV.IMPLEMENTATION PAGEREF _Toc337122326 \h 15A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements PAGEREF _Toc337122327 \h 15B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc337122328 \h 16C. Sustainability PAGEREF _Toc337122329 \h 17V.KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES PAGEREF _Toc337122330 \h 17VI.APPRAISAL SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc337122331 \h 18A. Economic and Financial Analyses PAGEREF _Toc337122332 \h 18B. Technical PAGEREF _Toc337122333 \h 20C. Financial Management PAGEREF _Toc337122334 \h 20D. Procurement PAGEREF _Toc337122335 \h 21E. Social (including Safeguards) PAGEREF _Toc337122336 \h 21F. Environment (including Safeguards) PAGEREF _Toc337122337 \h 22Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring PAGEREF _Toc337122338 \h 23Annex 2: Detailed Project Description PAGEREF _Toc337122339 \h 26Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements PAGEREF _Toc337122340 \h 50Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) PAGEREF _Toc337122341 \h 78Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan PAGEREF _Toc337122342 \h 84Annex 6: Sector Background PAGEREF _Toc337122343 \h 88Annex 7: Economic and Financial Analysis PAGEREF _Toc337122344 \h 99Annex 8: Lessons Learned/Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc337122345 \h 107.PAD DATA SHEETGhana Partnership for Education Grant Project (P129381)PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT.AFRICACentral and West Africa Education .Basic Information Date:10-October-2012Sectors:Primary education (80%), General education sector (20%)Country Director:Yusupha B. CrookesThemes:Education for all (100%)Sector Manager/Director:Peter Nicolas Materu/Ritva S. ReinikkaProject ID:P129381EA Category:B - Partial AssessmentLending Instrument:Specific Investment LendingTeam Leader(s):Deborah Newitter MikesellJoint IFC: No.Borrower: Ministry of Finance and Economic PlanningResponsible Agency: Ghana Education Service Contact:Chris Koramoah Title:Financial Controller, GES Telephone No.:23321231664 Email:yawkriss@.Project Implementation Period:Start Date:10-Oct-2012End Date: 31-Oct-2015Expected Effectiveness Date:11-Jan-2013Expected Closing Date:31-Oct-2015.Project Financing Data(US$M)[ ]Loan[ ]Grant[ X ]Other- Global Partnership for Education Fund Implementation Grant[ ]Credit[ ]GuaranteeFor Loans/Credits/OthersTotal Project Cost (US$M):75.50Total Bank Financing (US$M):0.00.Financing SourceAmount(US$M)Borrower0.00Global Partnership for Education Fund75.50Total75.50.Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)Fiscal Year2013201420152016Annual23.1523.7224.134.5Cumulative20.1546.8771.0075.50.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. .ComponentsComponent NameCost (USD Millions)Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education objectives44.86School Sub-Grants24.06Project Management and Institutional Strengthening6.pliance PolicyDoes 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 ProjectYesNoEnvironmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01XNatural Habitats OP/BP 4.04XForests OP/BP 4.36XPest Management OP 4.09XPhysical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11XIndigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10XInvoluntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12XSafety of Dams OP/BP 4.37XProjects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50XProjects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60X.Legal CovenantsNameRecurrentDue DateFrequencyRecipient 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 dateThe 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 Agreement6 months after effectiveness date.Conditions NameTypeRecipient 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)) EffectivenessNameTypeThe 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))EffectivenessTeam CompositionBank StaffNameTitleSpecializationUnitQaiser M. KhanSector Lead EconomistSector Lead EconomistAFTSEPeter DarvasSenior Education Econ.Senior Education Econ.AFTEDDeborah Newitter MikesellSenior Operations OfficerTeam LeadAFTEDEunice Yaa Brimfah AckwerhSenior Education SpecialistSenior Education SpecialistAFTEDKirsten MajgaardEducation EconomistEducation EconomicsAFTEDDaniela Anna B. D. JunqueiraCounselCounselLEGAMRobert Wallace DeGraft-HansonFinancial Management SpecialistFinancial Management SpecialistAFTMEShwetlena SabarwalEconomistEconomistAFTEDAdu-Gyamfi AbunyewaSenior Procurement SpecialistSenior Procurement SpecialistAFTPEAnders JensenM&E SpecialistResults FrameworkAFTOSBernardo da Cruz VasconcellosEconomistMonitoring and EvaluationAFTEDLuis M. SchwarzSr. Finance OfficerDisbursementsCTRLDRose-Claire PakabombaProgram AssistantProgram AssistantAFTEDBeatrix Allah-MensahSocial Development SpecialistSafeguardsAFTSDJessica DodooTeam AssistantTeam AssistantAFCW1.LocationsThe GPEG project will be implemented in 57 deprived districts within eight of the ten regions of Ghana. .STRATEGIC CONTEXTCountry ContextGhana 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 2013. 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. 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. 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 89 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. Table1: Ghana’s progress towards the Millennium Development GoalsObservationInitialMost RecentMDG1a. Poverty headcount ratio, national poverty line (% of population)51.7199228.52006MDG1b. Malnutrition prevalence, weight for age (% of children under 5)27.4199313.92008MDG2. Primary completion rate, total (% of relevant age group)61.21991892010MDG3. Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education (%)78.51991922010MDG4. Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000)119.71990802008MDG5. Pregnancy-related mortality rate (per 100,000 live births)74019904512008MDG7a. Improved water source (% of population without access)44.0199016.22008MDG7b. Improved sanitation facilities (% of population without access)96.0199387.62008Source: 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.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. 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 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 ContextAs 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 (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. 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. 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 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.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.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. 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 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.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 ContributesA 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 ernment of Ghana Education Sector Plan: 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. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVESA. Project Development ObjectivesThe PDO of the Ghana Partnership for Education Grant (GPEG) is to improve the planning, monitoring and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts of the Recipient’s territory. 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 BeneficiariesThe 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 female. 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 teachers 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 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.Progress towards the achievement of the GPEG’s proposed development objective will be measured by the following PDO-level Results indicators.PDO-level Results indicatorsObjectiveIndicatorImproved planningDeprived districts disbursing 75% or more of their district education grants as planned in their APW Improved MonitoringPublic basic schools in deprived districts with up-to-date School Report CardsImproved service deliveryP3 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 BeneficiariesDirect project beneficiaries (disaggregated by beneficiary type—students, teachers, etc.); and Female beneficiaries (percentage) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONA. Project ComponentsThe 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 levels 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. The GPEG is based on the Education Strategic Plan 2010-2020 (ESP) and informed by 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. 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) 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).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)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 indicators. 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 GHcs (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. Building on previous experiences with the provision of district grants, enhancements to strengthen the district grant would include: (a) earmarked funding 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. 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.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 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.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)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. 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.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. 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 ponent 2: School Sub-Grants (Estimated total cost including contingencies US$24.06 million contingencies; base cost of US$22.06 million)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. 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.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.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 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 ponent 3: Project Management and Institutional Strengthening (Estimated total cost including contingencies US$6.58 million; base cost of US$4.58 million)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. 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.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. B. Project FinancingLending InstrumentThe GPEG is a Specific Investment Loan (SIL) Grant of US$75.5 million complemented by continued support from UNICEF, DFID, USAID, and JICA. This type of instrument provides adequate flexibility with intensive implementation support. It was preferred to instruments such as Development Policy Lending, Adaptable Policy Lending, and Performance for Results, because (i) the project focuses on strengthening capacities at district and school levels; (ii) information is not readily available about budget expenditure analysis; and (iii) the Program for Results was not an option for Ghana given some substantial risk ratings for fiduciary issues. Furthermore, the lead education development partners were not able to act as supervising entity or pool their resources at this time. The grant mechanisms used under the project are designed to allow for future pooling of support at the district level.Project Costs and FinancingProject ComponentsProject cost (US$ million)GPEG Financing% FinancingComponent 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to Support Key Education Objectives42.3642.36100%1.1 District Sub-Grants 27.3027.30100%1.2 Teacher Development and Skill Upgrading15.0615.06100%Component 2: School Sub-Grants22.0622.06100%Component 3: Project Management and Institutional Strengthening4.584.58100% Physical Contingencies3.253.25100%Price Contingencies3.253.25100%Total Financing75.575.5100% IMPLEMENTATIONA. Institutional and Implementation ArrangementsThe 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 and management of all donor-financed activities in Ghana.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. 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 EvaluationMonitoring 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.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. 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. 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. SustainabilityThe sustainability of the project lies in its close alignment with the on-going decentralization of basic education service delivery. Building on mechanisms that are already in place, the project will strengthen government systems for decentralizing resources and management capacities. As a result of this project, districts and schools will have greater planning and implementation capacity and greater autonomy to meet the demands and expectations of their students and communities, while MoE and GES will have stronger capacity to monitor and support quality improvements. The MoE has expressed a strong commitment to continue the grants beyond this 3-year program. In terms of fiscal capacity to do so, the financial analysis provided in Annex 7 finds that current levels of education spending are roughly comparable to the average for the region, and that macro-economic and demographic trends are quite favorable for sustaining strong public education spending in the coming years. The economic and financial analysis therefore concludes that Government will likely have the fiscal space to mainstream the grants upon completion of the GPEG, although there is a need for better control of the salary envelope, as salary spending tends to crowd out other types of spending in the sector. The UTDBE program is a pre-existing government program, and after completion of the GPEG project, the UTDBE program will continue with Government support. The project's impact evaluation is likely to determine future directions of decentralized funding in Ghana. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURESA. Risk Ratings Summary TableRiskRatingStakeholder RiskSubstantialImplementing Agency RiskSubstantialCapacitySubstantialGovernanceLowProject RiskModerateDesignSubstantialSocial and EnvironmentalLowProgram and DonorModerateDelivery Monitoring and SustainabilitySubstantialOverall Implementation RiskSUBSTANTIALB. Overall Risk Rating ExplanationWith elections scheduled for end 2012, there are some risks that staff turnover within the 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. 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. 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. APPRAISAL SUMMARY A. Economic and Financial Analyses 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 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. 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. 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.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 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 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. 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. 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.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. 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 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.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. ProcurementProcurement 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. 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) 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 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.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)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. 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. Annex 1: Results Framework and MonitoringGhana Partnership for Education Grant Results Framework.Project Development Objective.PDO StatementThe 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 IndicatorsCumulative Target ValuesData Source/Responsibility forIndicator NameCoreUnit of MeasureBaselineYR1YR2YR3YR4YR5End TargetFrequencyMethodologyData CollectionDeprived districts disbursing 75% or more of their district education grants as planned in their APWPercentage 0 60%70%80%--80%AnnualReport of financial analysis of APWsDED 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 010%50%75%--75%AnnualReport of analysis and summary of School Report CardsSchool 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) PercentageP3 English: 12.4%P3 Math: 9.0%--P3 English: 15%P3 Math: 11%BiennialNational Education Assessment GES overseeing National Education AssessmentTeachers trained under the project in deprived districts who obtain satisfactory rating or higher in the SBI/CBI Lesson Observation Sheet for (a) lesson planning (b) teaching methodology (c) classroom organization and management Percentage 00 20% 50%--50%Annual Sample survey using SBI/CBI Lesson Observation Sheet DED and RED overseeing sample survey on the SBI/CBI Lesson Observation SheetDirect project beneficiariesNumber000.2 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 beneficiariesPercentage0040%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 IndicatorsCumulative Target ValuesData Source/Responsibility forIndicator NameCoreUnit of MeasureBaselineYR1YR2YR3YR4YR5End TargetFrequencyMethodologyData CollectionComponent 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education objectivesHead teachers and Circuit Supervisors in deprived districts trained under the project in the use of School Report Cards Number0--6,930Annual 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.)Number0--500 AnnualCapacity building and training reportsDEDs 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: 30,000Annual Reports of training providers Report of APW, UTDBE and INSET reportsDEDs 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 least 70% of schools within the districtPercentage0 30%50%70%--70%AnnualM&E reportsRED collects information and submits an M&E report to GES HQ & ponent 2: School Sub-Grants Basic schools in deprived districts participating in all INSET core courses supported under the projectPercentage 0 30%45%65%--65%Annual INSET annual report on capacity building and trainingDEDs 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 boardPercentage040%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 ponent 3: Project Management and Institutional StrengtheningSchools visited by Circuit Supervisors at least two times in a yearPercentage 050%70%100%--100%AnnualDED annual report based on Circuit Supervisors ReportDED 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 Percentage050%75%100%--100%AnnualAnnual M&E reportsGES HQ & PBMESchools in deprived districts with completed SPIPs approved by SMCs using the revised templatePercentage020%50%75%--75%AnnualDED annual report on school grants DEDs will send report to REDs for regional consolidation, and the GES HQ & PBME produce a national report. Annex 2: Detailed Project DescriptionGHANA Partnership for Education Grant 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. 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. 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. 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.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 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 DistrictsThe 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: retention in primary education (enrollment in P6/enrollment in P1 based on all schools),retention in the basic cycle (enrollment in JHS3/enrollment in P1 based on all schools), share of girls enrolled in P6 (all schools), share of girls enrolled in JHS3 (all schools), pass rate in BECE English, and share of trained teachers in the public primary schools. 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. 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. Table 2: 57 Deprived Districts-based on 2011/12 EMIS dataRegionDistrict codeDistrictBasic schoolsKGsPrimary schoolsJHS schoolsEnrol.BasicEnrol.KGEnrol.PEnrol.JHS% girls BasicTeachers BasicUntrained teachers BasicASHANTI15AHAFO ANO SOUTH1541011026733,0888,41718,6506,02147%1,390258ASHANTI25EJURA SEKYIDOMASE12989924731,0948,75717,1145,22348%1,199581ASHANTI151BOSOME FREHO9059583518,1725,0719,9883,11347%1,027663ASHANTI152OFFINSO NORTH6240402217,6004,21010,6312,75948%638228BRONG AHAFO33ASUNAFO SOUTH9968684428,5867,70215,4665,41848%1,003656BRONG AHAFO35ATEBUBU-AMANTIN9868722627,6797,95115,4824,24648%982486BRONG AHAFO40KINTAMPO NORTH MUNICIPAL6958583123,2665,70813,1644,39447%796317BRONG AHAFO41KINTAMPO SOUTH9264683421,1466,43611,9372,77348%742252BRONG AHAFO43PRU12288903934,8648,88920,4485,52747%798418BRONG AHAFO44SENE10672792725,8797,36014,7143,80548%706400BRONG AHAFO46TAIN14491935129,6408,15716,3385,14548%1,217771BRONG AHAFO156NKORANZA NORTH7345492915,4104,1818,6902,53948%705342EASTERN64AFRAM PLAINS(KWAHU NORTH)1661171374232,6288,03020,4984,10047%914243NORTHERN87BOLE9056582519,0864,85110,9933,24249%631270NORTHERN88BUNKPURUGU-YUNYOO1461011163037,2987,66423,0116,62347%925483NORTHERN89CENTRAL GONJA10466871820,0174,56812,4223,02746%524189NORTHERN90EAST GONJA12792992931,0978,86618,1384,09347%813369NORTHERN91WEST GONJA9247712021,8414,38813,6123,84149%686314NORTHERN92GUSHIEGU10838741320,2054,10513,9042,19643%551333NORTHERN93KARAGA9273741519,5056,65911,1271,71942%541316NORTHERN94MAMPRUSI EAST8765691929,6986,08218,0055,61146%629338NORTHERN95MAMPRUSI WEST137951105145,80211,06726,4048,33148%961422NORTHERN96NANUMBA NORTH11773922638,7127,56124,9776,17445%951368NORTHERN97NANUMBA SOUTH10178821829,6519,12017,2223,30946%767324NORTHERN98SABOBA8359622122,3055,68413,3123,30948%564256NORTHERN99SAVULUGU NANTON11388902330,1197,70617,3635,05043%1,037473NORTHERN100SAWLA-TUNA-KALBA12154903024,4184,33116,2783,80947%618352NORTHERN102TOLON-KUMBUNGU1481321322737,07110,03521,6115,42544%1,173405NORTHERN103YENDI MUNICIPAL1951411613354,22513,67932,3858,16145%1,135366NORTHERN104ZABZUGU-TATALE11873962131,0467,61519,4963,93546%721400NORTHERN170KPANDAI9058692030,0968,03818,1033,95547%623365NORTHERN171CHEREPONI605051915,3115,0568,8761,37947%434272UPPER EAST105BAWKU MUNICIPAL1431051044956,2599,08736,65510,51747%1,163565UPPER EAST106BAWKU WEST8461612832,1527,19620,3254,63149%733352UPPER EAST108BONGO11365674232,9075,76319,8577,28750%876370UPPER EAST109BUILSA10470722825,7245,92914,8394,95650%966596UPPER EAST110GARU-TAMPANE12589883644,4157,80928,2428,36447%842461UPPER EAST111KASSENA-NANKANI EAST9048513825,5103,84515,4406,22549%1,007385UPPER EAST112TALENSI-NABDAM13368683933,3978,23818,9716,18849%1,105516UPPER EAST172KASSENA-NANKANA WEST8448543524,3234,39215,0014,93048%709368UPPER WEST113JIRAPA8954523224,0054,28915,3954,32150%594234UPPER WEST114LAWRA12474654930,6446,22517,0327,38749%822354UPPER WEST115NADOWLI16184834531,5717,56118,1975,81351%836388UPPER WEST116SISSALA EAST5045474216,4303,7379,5533,14053%548152UPPER WEST117SISSALA WEST7248423216,8594,1889,6063,06549%385173UPPER WEST119WA EAST13541633118,1423,95511,7592,42848%462231UPPER WEST120WA WEST13047755124,9693,86116,3374,77147%673322UPPER WEST173LAMBUSSIE4433321713,0613,2377,6482,17647%383211VOLTA129KADJEBI8060613215,5973,8468,8882,86347%588299VOLTA131KRACHI EAST8059631820,5175,45512,5252,53746%454159VOLTA132KRACHI WEST12398993433,6009,14918,8785,57347%647322VOLTA133NKWANTA SOUTH10677804130,1807,54717,4945,13946%783376VOLTA176NKWANTA NORTH4636371018,8105,19111,0622,55743%367204WESTERN138AMENFI WEST2191701717658,72315,87533,6969,15248%1,333965WESTERN140BIA1841331335738,69010,47522,2525,96348%1,078905WESTERN143JUABOSO1641101135235,68510,86719,4675,35149%1,111770WESTERN179SEFWI AKONTOMBRA7857582718,6935,74710,4332,51347%483314Total excl. non-responding schools*6,2944,1794,5281,8831,617,418391,408959,911266,09947%45,34922,222Non-responding schools (estimated at 4.5%)2831882048572,78417,61343,19611,97447%2,0411,000TOTAL Deprived Districts6,5774,3674,7321,9681,690,202409,0211,003,107278,07347%47,39023,222Component 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) 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). 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) 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. Building on previous experiences with the provision of district grants, enhancements to strengthen the district grant would include: (a) earmarked funding 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. 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. 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 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.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 educationDistrict-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, 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. 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 educationGirls' school participation is lower than boys' at JHS and SHS levels. 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. The district grants could provide resources for a “needy girl support package” 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. 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. This support would focus on more 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.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 District grants will be required to support measures to improve the qualification of teachers, particularly by supporting teachers through INSET 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 TED. 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.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. 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 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 deliveryDistrict 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 grants: (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. 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. 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 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 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)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) program 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.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 year 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$800 per student teacher per year, of which transportation and examinations are to be funded by student teachers. Table 3: UTDBE expenditure estimates for 8,000 student teachersCost applicationAnnual NumberAnnual cost(GH cedis)Who gets paidWho pays?Modules10 modules800,000PrinterGES/TED to printerFace-to-face residence food and accommodation70 days4,480,000CoEsGES/TED to CoEsTutoring on residential courses600 hours in groups of 401,800,000CoE tutorsGES/TED to CoETutoring close to school150 hours tutoring for each group of 50 or 3000 hours600,000CoE tutors and secondary school teachersDistrict Practicum supervisionEach tutor/supervisor visits 50 students twice over 6 days8,000CoE tutorsCoEExaminations3800,000CoEsStudent to CoEStudent transport, to CoEs and tutorials3 to CoEs30 to tutorials2,540,000Private taxis buses etcStudent directlyTraining of head teachers tutors and Circuit Supervisors300 cadres, 2,000 head teachers and100 CoE tutors for 3 days each group 600,000TrainersDistrictMonitoring and Supervision by TED, GNAT, DEDs20 days for 4 people4,400Staff in TED, GNAT and DistrictsGES/TEDConsultancy supportOne international and 3 national consultants for six to ten weeks each100,000ConsultantsGES/TEDTotal Annual cost in GH Cedis11,732,400Total four year cost in US$US$24.9 millionSource: Estimates by TED and consultant, 2011While 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, 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.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.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. 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) 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. 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. 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.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 Cards 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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)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. 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. 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.This component will finance: Consultancy services for supporting independent monitoring and evaluation surveys; Training and Operational costs for school supervision, School Report Card implementation;INSET materials, UTDBE materials, tutor training and other costs related to managing core INSET delivery, and lesson observation survey;Operational costs for project management and training programs. Impact EvaluationExternal and Internal auditsThe 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. 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. Annex 2, Appendix A: Policy Matrix for GPEGGPEG 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.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. 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. 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.Central Government ResponsibilitiesEnsuring 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.District Level ResponsibilitiesEngage in adequate sector program planning;Ensuring the timely flow of funds and distribution of other resources/materials from the district to the schools;Enhancing the competence of school management and of teaching and learning through in-service trainingStrengthening the involvement and participation of district assemblies as well as local communities in educationEffectively managing specific programs agreed with the various stakeholdersProviding support, guidance and other services to schools; andEngaging in district level sector monitoring and performance reviewsSchool Level ResponsibilitiesEnsuring 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 performanceThe 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. Appendix A Matrix: ESP and Ghana Partnership for Education Grant Alignment ESP strategic objectives, results, indicators, policies, operations, long-term targets, measurement and verificationStrategic objectivesResultsIndicatorsCentral Government Policies and operations District level policies and operationsSchool level actionsLong-term targetsMeasurement verificationAccess1.1. Increased education attainment in deprived districts Completion of primary for deprived, completion of JHS for deprivedNet enrollment rate in deprived districts improveEffective targeting of deprived districts and reliable monitoringGovernment endorses complementary basic education policy for out-of-school childrenIncentives for the deprived districtsPrograms (procurement packages) to improve supply and demand for basic educationDevelop 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 areasAnnual 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 schoolSchool grants to improve supply and improve facilitiesSchool Report Card monitoring student attendanceSchools report on reception and use of resources receivedDisparity in access indicators between deprived and non-deprived diminishesAnnual EMIS, district level performance review and survey outcomes match1.2. Increased access for children with special needsIncreased number of children with special needsFinalize special needs and inclusive education policyGuidelines and incentives for inclusive education to the districts and schoolsDevelop 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 schoolsDistricts 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 needsProportion of children with special needs in school matches their proportion in populationGender parityIncreased education attainment for girls in deprived districtsGirls primary completion in deprived districts improveGirls transition to JHS in deprived districts improveGuidelines and incentives for girls educationMonitoring and capacity building for districts on girls educationIncentives to train and hire more female teachersDistricts appoint girls education officerAnnual Work Programs target improvements in girls educationAccess support packages to establish gender sensitive school environment and for female teachersSchools provide outreach to families with out of school girls and with girls with irregular attendanceSchools engage in extra curriculum programs that are most relevant for girlsProvide gender-sensitive infrastructure (inc potable water and male/female toilets for pupils and staff)Full gender parity in basic educationAnnual EMIS, district level performance review and survey outcomes matchQuality of learning Improvements in math and English proficiency at primary level in deprived districtsImprovement in basic education completion in deprived districtsImproved quality of teachers in deprived districtsNEA results in deprived districts improveSEA results in deprived districts improveBECE results in deprived districts improve Improved PTTR in deprived districtsBiannual 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 learningGuidelines 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 District APWs invest in improved learning especially in the poorest schoolsProvide untrained teachers with additional support for UTDBE (Enhance the sponsorship scheme, e.g., Examination fees, provide modulesCapacity building of circuit supervisors, 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)SPIPs and SPAMs target and monitor improvements in learning outcomes (grades, pass rates, SEA results)Schools invest in materials improving learningImplement School-based and Cluster-based INSET on child-centered activity-based learningTraining of teachers in literacy with a view to expanding NALAP to cover Upper PrimaryDisparity between deprived and non-deprived districts in NEA, SEA and BECE results disappears as well as in the PTTR disappearsBiannual NEA and SEA resultsAnnual BECE reports all disaggregated by districtsSEA results reported for individual schoolsSchool Report Cards include learning outcomes (NEA, SEA, BECE)Management efficiency and accountabilitySchool Report Cards are used in most schools in deprived districtsUse of the SRCsReliable EMIS data at central, district and school levelNESAR reports on key strategic objectives, reliable information about resource allocation and use, information about learning outcomes and results of impact evaluationsKey GPE instruments (district and school grants, SRC, NEA, SEA, etc.) are mainstreamed in the budget, in the scope of work for GES and in NESARGuidelines and manuals are issued for the key GPE instruments (district and school grants, SRC, NEA, SEA, etc.)NESAR reports on improvements along the four key strategic objectives and also on geographical, social and gender disparitiesGovernment provides feedback and training to districts based on the NESAR reporting on management efficiency and accountabilityNESAR 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 reviewsDistricts complete and disseminate APWsDistrict provide DAs APWs for endorsementDistricts establish and implement more extensive school supervision plansDistricts develop APWs to improve school monitoring and supervisionHead teachers and Circuit Supervisors in deprived districts trained in the use of School Report CardsDEDs together with DA EOC carry out joint annual sector review 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 attendanceSPAM is mainstreamed and focuses on “academic” issues such as access, quality and efficiencyProvision of funds to organize school-based orientation for teachers, SMCs and PTAs on teacher absenteeismParents and other stakeholders can monitor key information about sector performance including access, attendance, outcomes, learning results, resource allocation and use disaggregated up to school levelsResources are more equitably allocated and more efficiently usedNESAR to report on the use and the results of the SRCsInternet access to key sector performance information on the MOE/GES websiteNational and Regional Education Annual Reviews, Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements DOCPROPERTY "Country" \* MERGEFORMAT GHANA Partnership for Education GrantImplementation period. The project implementation period will cover a period of three years from October 10, 2012 to October 31, 2015.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. 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. 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.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.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.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. Decentralized Implementation and Institutional Framework will be carried out at central, regional, district and school levels. At each level, designated agencies will provide oversight be responsible for selection and targeting of beneficiaries, planning and endorsing work programs and activities implementation (including procurement and other services) financial management and reporting monitoring and evaluation (focusing both on implementation effectiveness and on impact)Reporting on progress, fiduciary issues and results 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 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. 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. 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.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. 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 defined by the number of students enrolled in basic education within the district.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. 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.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). 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. 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 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. 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. 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.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. 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. 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. 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.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 DISBURSEMENTThe Overall Financial Management risk is considered Moderate. 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.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 TableRiskRisk RatingRisk Mitigating Measures/Remarks Conditions forEffectiveness/NegotiationsResidual RiskRatingInherent RiskCountry LevelWeaknesses 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.MStrengthening the role of the MMDAs in FM capacity building through ongoing reforms in the public financial management.NoMEntity Level ( GES)The ability of GES to effectively coordinate and supervise the districts (approximately 70) and regional offices and basic schools during implementation. SThe 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.NoMProject LevelChallenges 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.SStaff 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.NoMOverall Inherent RiskSModerateControl RiskBudgetingChallenges 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.SImplementations 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 mechanismsNoMAccountingThe 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 expenditure returns.SExcel 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 district and regional accountants and district finances officersNoMInternal ControlsRisk 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)SThe 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.NoMFunds FlowNon 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.NoMFinancial ReportingDelays 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.SEven 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.NoMAuditingThe 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.SAn 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. NoMOverall Risk RatingSMH – High S – SubstantialM – ModerateL – LowBudgeting ArrangementsThe 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.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.The assessment indicates that budgeting processes are satisfactory and can be relied upon to reflect the various components to be implemented.Accounting ArrangementsThe 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. 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.Internal Control and Internal AuditingConsistent 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. 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. 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. 73025-103505Regional Educational Office AccountsGPEGDesignated Account (USD)Funds FlowDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountReporting on Fund Use 00Regional Educational Office AccountsGPEGDesignated Account (USD)Funds FlowDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountDistrict AccountReporting on Fund Use Funds Flow and Disbursement ArrangementsThe 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. NotesThere will be only one designated account and it will be maintained by the Ghana Educations Service (GES).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.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. 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 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 ArrangementsProceeds 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 ProceedsCategoryAmount 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)19.7100%(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) 27.3100%(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) 22.1100%(4) Unallocated (contingencies)6.40100%TOTAL75.50Based 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.A summary of the funding process for the components to be implemented is as follows: Components 1 and 3: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 verification and approval.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).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. 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.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 ponent 2 – School Sub-Grants: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.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.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.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 ArrangementsThe 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. 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 reporting requirement since transfers to districts will be based on adequate submission of returns and accounting for fund use.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.AuditingIn 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 PlanBased 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.PROCUREMENTA. General 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 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. 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: Procuring entities shall use appropriate standard bidding documents acceptable to the Association. 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. 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.No domestic preference shall be given for domestic bidders and for domestically manufactured goods.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.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 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.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.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 ArrangementsProcurement 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 Guidelines 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.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 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. 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.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. 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.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. 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 munity 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.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.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 ProcurementArrangements 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.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 of each agency to do the procurement for the project under the Bank’s Guidelines and procedures are given below.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. 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 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.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. 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 guidelinesOrganization 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 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 MitigationThis 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 risksRisk DescriptionRisk RatingRisk Mitigating Measures/Remarks ResponsibilityDue DateLow level of knowledge about IDA procurement policies and procedures, and in particular the changes in the latest version of the Procurement and Consultants’ Guidelines SPreparation 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 DEOsGES HQPrior to Effectiveness Project LaunchOn a continuous basisLack of contract management skills especially at the District levelSTraining 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 IAsGES HQ WBOn a continuous basis Lack of Procurement PlanSEnsure 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 DirectoratesGESPrior to Project effectivenessDelays in taking procurement actions like preparation of BD, RFPs, BER, TER, etc.SClose 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 GuidelinesProject CoordinatorBank PSThroughout project lifeRecords ManagementPoor records management can pose a challenge to easy identification and retrieval of procurement and contract records, and undermine progress reviews. HInstitute a structured filing and identification system.Refresher training to be provided to relevant procurement staff on IDA guidelines on filing and records management systems. GESThroughout project lifeFraud and Corruption (Kick-backs)SEnforce 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 managementMoE’s Chief DirectorExternal AuditorsThroughout project lifeOverall Risk RatingSH – HighS – SubstantialM – ModerateL – LowThe overall Project risk for procurement is Substantial, prior to mitigation. 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. 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.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.Table 7: Thresholds for Procurement Methods Expenditure CategoryContract Value (Threshold) (US$ 000)Procurement MethodContract Subject to Prior Review (US$ 000)1. Works<5,000,000NCBSpecified contracts as indicated in the procurement plan<100,000ShoppingNoneNo thresholdCommunity ContractingNone2. Goods≥500,000ICBAll contracts<500,000NCBSpecified contracts as indicated in the procurement plan<50,000ShoppingNoneNo thresholdCommunity ContractingNoneNo thresholdDirect contractingAll contracts3.Consultancy?≥100,000QCBS, QBSAll contracts of 200,000 and more<100,000QCBS; LCS; CQ; OtherFirst 2 contracts per IAfor contract below 200,000≥50,000ICAll contract of 50,000 and more<50,000ICSpecified contracts as indicated in the procurement plan?No thresholdSingle Source (Selection Firms & Individuals)All contracts?4. Training?Annual Plan??All TrainingAll TORs regardless of the value of the contract are subject to prior reviewPost 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. 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 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 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 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.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. 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 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting. 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 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.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.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.GPEG Targeted Schools: Data Collection and Monitoring. School Report Cards (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.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. 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.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.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. 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 SOCIALGrants 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.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 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.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. Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF)Ghana Partnership for Education Grant (P129381).Project Stakeholder RisksStakeholder RiskRating SubstantialDescription: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:ClientStage:PreparationDue Date: December, 2012Status:In ProgressRisk 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:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:January, 2013Status:In ProgressRisk 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 the best-placed/qualified staff.Resp:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:November, 2012Status:In ProgressImplementing Agency (IA) Risks (including Fiduciary Risks)CapacityRating SubstantialDescription: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:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:March, 2013Status:In ProgressGovernanceRating ModerateDescription: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 activitiesAppropriate 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:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:December, 2013Status:In ProgressRisk 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:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:December, 2013Status:In ProgressProject RisksDesignRating SubstantialDescription: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 (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.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 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:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:December, 2014Status:In ProgressRisk 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:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:February, 2013Status:In ProgressSocial and EnvironmentalRating LowDescription: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:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:December, 2013Status:In ProgressProgram and DonorRating LowDescription:Risk Management:Description : GPE Board may not approve grant and/or reduce available allocation for GhanaDevelopment 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:BankStage:PreparationDue Date:December, 2013Status:In ProgressDelivery Monitoring and SustainabilityRating ModerateDescription: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.Resp:ClientStage:ImplementationDue Date:June, 2013Status:In ProgressRisk 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:BothStage:ImplementationDue Date:October, 2015Status:In ProgressOverall RiskImplementation Risk Rating: SubstantialComments:The implementation risk is substantial especially in light of the decentralized implementation at district and school levels. Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan DOCPROPERTY "Country" \* MERGEFORMAT GHANA DOCPROPERTY "ProjectName" \* MERGEFORMAT Partnership for Education GrantThe 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. 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.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 districts will benefit from the district and school grant mechanisms under the GPEG. 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. 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.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. 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).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 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.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.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. 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.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.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)TimeFocusSkills NeededResource EstimatePartnersFirst 12 monthsMonitor quality of district and school grant proposalsSchool grant specialist$10,000WB/USAIDMonitor performance of procurement Procurement$40,000WBMonitor performance of financial managementFM$40,000WBAssess performance of M&E M&E specialist$40,000WB/USAIDDesign and baseline of Impact EvaluationIE specialist$40,000WB/USAIDAssess implementation of UTDBE/INSETTeacher Education expert$25,000WB/DFID/JICA12-48 monthsAssess performance of environ., social issues$20,000WBFollow up on assessment related activities; IE support.Impact evaluation specialist$40,000USAID/WBMonitor compliance to agreed FM/procurement and M&E reportingFM/procurement/M&E$30,000WB/USAIDMonitor performance of district and school grantsGrant specialistUS$20,000WBAssess performance of INSET and UTDBETeacher training expertUS$25,000WB/DFID/JICAAnnex 6: Sector BackgroundGhana 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 GhanaKindergartenPrimaryJHSSHS2002/032011/122002/032011/122002/032011/122003/042011/12GER4999.475.796.563.480.626.636.9NER1964.255.981.736.946.123.6GPI0.98*0.980.920.970.880.94PCR93.4Note: *refers to data from 2003/04Source: Calculations based on EMIS data for respective years.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. Table 9: Structure of Ghana’s education systemYearsAppropriate AgeLevel of EducationAcademic Focus14-5KindergartenBasic Education(free, compulsory and universal)Learning by playing (Foundational Literacy, Numeracy, inter personal and communication skills25-636-7PrimaryBasic Literacy, Numeracy, Science(including environmental) and Social (including Life skills) Studies47-858-969-10710-11811-12912-13Junior High SchoolLower Secondary Education focus English, Ghanaian Language, Math, Social Studies, Science(including environmental), Technical, Vocational, Agricultural Courses1013-141114-151215-16Senior HighSchoolUpperSecondaryTwo categories: Grammar and TechnicalAcademic 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 programs1316-171417-181518-19Tertiary1619-201720-211821-22Source: Improving Equity, Efficiency an Accountability of Education Service Delivery, WB February 2011.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.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. 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. 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. 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 plementary 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 munities, 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 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. 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 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: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. 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.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. 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 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%. 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, 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 AllocationThe 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. Table 10: Indicators on Primary School Teachers?2002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/082008/092009/102010/112011/12PUPILS2,524,2372,686,1332,929,5363,122,9033,365,7623,616,0233,710,6473,809,2583,962,7794,451,878TEACHERS80,45982,83389,27888,461105,257112,443114,421131,057124,359123,153Untrained Teachers29,86632,29637,60838,65449,45957,26659,48868,73251,43358,786% of Private 30.0%39.6%40.8%23.1%20.7%23.2%22.2%22.7%23.7%25.3%% of Untrained37.1%39.0%42.1%43.7%47.0%50.9%52.0%52.4%41.4%47.7%% of Untrained Public26.5%26.2%27.7%32.9%37.9%40.6%41.6%41.837.2%33.7%% of Untrained Private84.7%84.5%85.0%85.5%83.6%87.6%88.5%88.7%88.8%89.0%% of Female32.832.031.133.927.733.033.9%34.1%36.7%36.7%PTR31.43434.935.733.534.132293234PTTR in public49.953.256.762.760.365.558.5535452PTR in Private27272726262526242629PTTR in Private178.6174.0178.3180.2157.6203.7227.6211231262PTR in Public 32343538333434313434Source: EMIS.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 quintile. In these remote areas, schools are small, with enrollments typically less than 100. This means that often only 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. 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. 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-taskHigh 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.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 task. 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. 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%. 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 ResourcesThe 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.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.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 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 2008KGPrimaryJHSASHANTI28%29%23%BRONG AHAFO0%35%45%EASTERN0%15%0%GREATER ACCRA17%7%0%NORTHERN49%65%83%UPPER EAST59%66%63%UPPER WEST93%45%59%VOLTA15%0%12%WESTERN24%18%5%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. 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)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’ 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. 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.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.Annex 7: Economic and Financial AnalysisThe 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 districts57 'new' deprived districts61 'old' deprived districtsAverage 170 districtsAverage poverty index (share of population below poverty line)55%47%33%Retention to grade 662%65%76%% of girls JHS3 (truncated at 50%)41.5%41.9%44%Share of trained teachers in public primary schools48%50%63%Note: Averages across districts are simple averages, not weighted by size of population. 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. 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. 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.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 AnalysisThe 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$)SalariesNon-salary recurrentTotal recurrentSalariesNon-salary recurrentTotal recurrentPrimary1410.31411418149JHS2060.620620618223Sources: 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.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 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.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. 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)UrbanRuralTotalAgeMaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTotal<513.010.811.815.213.814.514.312.513.35-913.211.712.416.615.015.715.213.514.310-1412.712.312.514.712.413.513.812.413.115-1910.710.310.510.89.19.910.79.710.2Source: DHS 2008.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. Strong macro-economic growth and demographic trends are favorable for maintaining strong per student spending in Ghana. 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. 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 UpgradingFinancial Analysis 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). 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. 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 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 AnalysisIt 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. 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. 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.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.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 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 UTDBEGHcCollege of Education pre-service (residential)UTDBE in-service (distance)Cost ratioDuration of training3 years4 yearsAnnual financial cost per studentFirst and second year: 5,740 Third year: 3,870567Total financial cost per student (all years)15,3502,2686.8Financial cost to Government (after cost-sharing w students*)15,3501,05214.6Graduation rate95%60% (est.)Total financial cost per graduate16,1583,7804.3*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.SummaryThe 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. 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 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. 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.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. Annex 8: Lessons Learned/Literature ReviewLessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design 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.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.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. 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.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.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. 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.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.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 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.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. 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.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 ArrangementsRole 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.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 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 EvaluationsIncreasingly, 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.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.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. There is no evidence of improved learning outcomes yet.Another study looks at a reform in Pakistan where an NGO was hired to manage a school together with the school council. 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. PEC has been credited with preventing and limiting corrupt practices in the management of educational funds 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 study 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. Another evaluation of the PEC program finds slightly different impacts using longitudinal data from the seven full academic years of PEC. 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.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 program 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.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 positive effects on learning. Linkage is the most cost-effective intervention increasing language scores by 0.12 of a standard deviation.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 math.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.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.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. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download