Ghana - Primary School Development Project

 ICRR 10457 Report Number : ICRR10457 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data : OEDID : OEDID: C2508 Project ID : P000964 Project Name : Ghana Primary School Development Project Country : Ghana Sector : Primary Education L/C Number : C2508 Partners involved : Prepared by : Angela Ransom, OEDST Reviewed by : Linda Ankrah Dove Group Manager : Gregory K. Ingram Date Posted : 08/12/1999 2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs and Components : Objectives Improve learning achievement in the poorest schools Increase primary school enrollment Increase teacher accountability and community involvement at school level Strengthen institutional development to plan, manage, and monitor the sector Components Improve learning achievement in the poorest schools Increase instructional time in the classroom Provide textbooks and materials Train pedagogic staff Set up a school improvement fund and an education information and communication program Increase primary school enrollment Eliminate all fees and levies on primary school pupils not approved by the Ministry of Education Construct school classroom pavilions and rehabilitate and install new roofs on a select number of classrooms Increase teacher accountability and community involvement and sense of ownership of the school Improve headteacher motivation and performance through training in supervision and school management and the provision of headteacher housing Involve communities in head teacher recruitment and supervision Orient community leaders in constructing and running schools and in mobilizing community participation in school construction Strengthen institutional development to manage and monitor the sector Strengthen the Ministry's capacity to implement, monitor, and plan school construction Orient key district officials in the contracting of supervision and technical assistance for school construction Establish an education management information system (EMIS) to improve system monitoring Finance Appraisal Estimate: IDA: US$65.1 M; Govt/Community Participation: 8.2 M Actual/Latest: IDA: US$53.2 M; Govt/Community Participation: 3.4 M Costs Appraisal Estimate: US$73.3 M Actual/Latest: US$56.6 M 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives : After a slow start the project was restructured during the development of a broader government program to support Free Compulsory Primary Education for all (FCUBE) which the Bank also helped finance . OED agrees with the ICR that the original objectives of the project to target and deliver inputs to the least well -off schools were relevant and relatively low risk. The ICR reports that the delivery of physical inputs to schools was satisfactory : Upgrading of targeted primary schools was achieved through the construction of classroom pavilions and headteacher houses, and the reroofing of primary schools . Orientation courses for district officials and training courses for headteachers and circuit supervisors were  carried out, although the ICR indicates that the impact on teacher accountability and performance was negligible. 4. Significant Achievements : The ICR reports that enrollments rose and learning outcomes in project schools made some gains, especially where community participation in improvement programs was high . While enrollments in non-project schools declined: Enrollments increased for both girls and boys in the SIF pilot schools . The SIF pilot was introduced at project mid-term to broaden the scope of activities to improve learning outcomes and community involvement . The Borrowers contribution to the ICR notes that SIF pilot schools performed better than project and non-project schools on project -related indicators such as instructional time and quality; number of exercises assigned per month in math and English; pupil performance in math and English; pupil and teacher attendance; amount and quality of supervision within schools and from circuit supervisors; the construction and cladding of classroom pavilions; the creation and functioning of school management committees; and the sense of community ownership of the school . In OED's view, the ICR lost an opportunity to disseminate the Region's analysis of factors contributing to the success of the SIF approach compared with other project schools. 5. Significant Shortcomings : The ICR makes an important point in showing that central government commitment and concensus on key policy issues were strong, but that the educational accountability system did not reward good performance and sanction poor performance or non-compliance with ministerial directives on policy at the local level . Consequently, central ministerial directives to increase instructional time from four to five days and to eliminate unauthorized fees and levies on primary students were not enforced at the school level . The ICR reports that although schools adopted the policy of five days of instructional time, in name, it is not clear that the extra time is used for instructional tasks . The Borrower's ICR reports that fees and levies on primary school schools students were not enforced at the school level. The ICR reports that although schools formally adopted the policy of five days of instructional time, they do not all use the extra time for instruction . The Borrower's ICR reports that informal fees and levies on primary school pupils continue and are increasing in most schools . The provision of headteacher housing did not succeed as an incentive for better headteacher performance . Teacher absenteeism and poor performance persists and supervisors, though trained, do not hold teachers accountable . Classroom performance or non-compliance with instructional and ministerial policies . Orientation sessions for district officers in community involvement in school construction and management did not result in greater community ownership and involvement with school management . The ICR notes that the replacement of community members by elected district assembly members prevented community involvement in the selection of headteachers . Strengthening local commitment and accountability mechanisms should have received greater attention during project design and preparation . 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Unsatisfactory Marginally OED upgrades the rating to take into Unsatisfactory account the achievement of physical targets and the satisfactory achievements of the SIF pilot schools. Institutional Dev .: Negligible Modest OED's rating reflects the establishment of an EMIS which has contributed to building district and central capacity to collect and produce better education statistics and should provide the basis for future progress in data management and analysis. Sustainability : Uncertain Uncertain Bank Performance : Satisfactory Unsatisfactory OED agrees with the ICR rating of satisfactory Bank performance at identification, but disagrees that preparation assistance and appraisal were also satisfactory. In OED's view, the Bank did not adequately appraise local and school level support or accountability mechanisms to ensure compliance . During supervision, staff tried to put  implementation on track but could not overcome design and preparation defects that did not address the policy and institutional constraints. The restructuring did little to improve the project's performance and the complexity introduced was ill-judged. Borrower Perf .: Deficient Unsatisfactory Quality of ICR : Satisfactory 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability : The timing, design, and sequencing of initiatives involving decentralization require careful appraisal . In this case, the absence of commitment to and accountability for central government authority and policies by local level stakeholders required attention . The decentralized interventions risked creating greater disparities and inefficiencies in primary education provision . If the failure for the center to command respect locally is allowed to continue, it could hinder development of the country's human resources in a manner that is efficient, equitable and unifying. OED agrees with the ICR and the Borrower lesson on the need for more bottom -up approaches to project design, which emphasize contributions from teachers, headteachers, and community leaders . The top-down approach contributed to the unsatisfactory performance on community participation and teacher /school accountability objectives . Subsequent operations have built on this lesson . OED notes that the Government is using the lessons learned as the basis for formulating a more informed and coherent strategy for community participation and agrees with the ICR based on SIF and other donor -supported initiatives. The provision of housing as an incentive for improving teacher performance was not successful . This device has also had mixed results elsewhere . When local supervision and conducive pay and working conditions are missing, housing incentives do little by themselves to overcome teacher absenteeism and poor performance . In this case, the project applied a modest device to a huge systemic problem . The Bank and the government learned that a more comprehensive approach is required . The introduction of the large, comprehensive and long -term program overshadowed the achievements of the smaller investment project as originally designed . though targeted simply at providing inputs to schools, this objective was relevant to the needs of schools in underserved areas . The pressure to add components conforming to the FCUBE program led to challenges that the project could not meet and this undermined its chances of success . Under the comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) and programmatic approaches to lending, the Bank and the borrower ensure that ongoing project investments become productive and sustainable even when objective innovations are modest . This is especially the case where local commitment is uncertain, implementation capacity is weak, and government resources are limited . The ICR calls for more targeted and tailored approaches to stimulating demand for education among out-of-school children. These might include greater financial support for the poorest or diversifying the content and modes of delivery of education to suit the different needs and circumstances of beneficiaries . OED adds a reminder that Bank experience with non -formal approaches shows that unit costs may be high and these  projects require very careful design and intensive, technically skilled supervision to ensure that they are sustainable. 8. Audit Recommended? Yes No Why? Evaluation of the CDF approach to comprehensive and participatory development of education system in a CDF pilot country, in a cluster with other social sector education projects . 9. Comments on Quality of ICR : The ICR was well written and thorough . It provides supporting evidence and convincing analysis to support its conclusions.