There is no doubt that PEDP is continuing to make a significant difference to the lives of thousands of children, parents and teachers across Tanzania
The RT has especially noted how school communities have begun taking local ownership seriously and how a ‘demand culture’ is growing. Having developed good school level financial record keeping, school committees are now demanding improvements in financial flows to schools. They are also demanding greater transparency in the provision of funding and a voice in decisions taken over resource allocation and use at Council and ministry level. Put simply, the impression gained in all schools visited had echoes of Winston Churchill who said to the US Congress early in World War Two, ‘Give us the tools and we will finish the job’.
There is a contrast between positive developments at school and community level and perceived levels of dysfunction at the centre. Senior officials and directors expressed disquiet over the lack of coherence in strategic planning, management and accountability, especially within MOEC. Criticism by ministries of other ministries involved in PEDP, and critical concerns expressed by funding partners of GoT’s performance, and vice versa, left the RT questioning what added value the superstructure is providing in the task of enhancing the experience of schooling for primary school pupils in Tanzania
Key findings
1. Funding modalities and funding flows:
Three main funding modalities exist under PEDP: (a) direct budget support to the GoT; (b) sector budget support to the primary education sub- sector; (c) support through a Pooled Fund arrangement regulated by a Memorandum of Understanding. Outside of PEDP, although related, some funding partners also provide direct project support funding in the area of teacher education, classroom construction, school mapping and NFE.
The Review found evidence which suggests strongly that the Pooled Funding arrangement in particular, risks undermining the PEDP vision of decentralised local management of schools. Timing and level of disbursements are not linked to plans prepared by the end users. Unpredictability of funding flows, irregular timing of disbursements and uncertainties over the levels of funding are leaving schools, teacher colleges and Council officials asking why they should plan when they have no control in these areas.
Delays in the approval of work plans by BEDC are largely responsible for this problem. This year, a quarter of the school year has already passed without approval of the work plan. This means that schools are unlikely to receive funding before the second half of the school year.
Ministry of Finance has also delayed the release to Councils of budget books which contain the codes and information on how much has been allocated for schools as the capitation amount.
Pooled funds are allocated to MOEC for disbursement to schools through the Councils on approval of the annual work plan and budget. This is contrary to the policy of decentralisation which intends that PORALG should be the only institution to handle funds going to Councils and schools.
Disbursing funding to Councils and schools through multiple channels has created confusion and opportunities for intermingling funds at Council level. Schools are experiencing delays, they are not receiving the full capitation grant, disbursement of the grant is running up to 18 months behind the school census date (ie the date upon which schools finalise their numbers and submit them to Council), and there is no provision of a supplementary grant to cover changes in school population. Because schools are left in the dark, they suspect that MOEC and the Councils are top slicing funds for their own use. The system is flawed and is rapidly becoming discredited.
The system whereby Teacher Colleges receive PEDP development funding from MOEC could benefit from being formalised. Grants are made in what appears to be an ad hoc fashion.
On funding modalities and flows, the RT recommends:
· a move away from the Pooled Funding modality to a budgetary support modality. This will address system dysfunctionality within MOEC especially, and the elevation of BEDC into ‘a ministry within the ministry’.
· that all funding destined for schools should be disbursed directly into school accounts by the centre once the regional administrative secretary has guaranteed the accuracy of the data upon which funding amounts are based, and has approved the amounts concerned. This arrangement will cut out the practice of intermingling funds at Council level, lower transaction costs and considerably reduce delays, whilst retaining the authority of DEDs as accounting officers, and affirm the central mandate of Councils with regards supervision and monitoring.
2. Capitation and Development Grants:
No school has received the full US$ 10.00 capitation grant, the size of disbursements to schools are erratic and the amounts disbursed are unpredictable, even within individual districts. Development grant funding is slow to process with the result that many partially built buildings await Council funding in order to complete them. Knowledge of entitlements is limited whilst information flows are essentially downwards. Schools are effectively excluded from discussions on priorities and on the amounts to be disbursed.
In addition, funding for some locally based capacity building is also paid by MOEC to Councils, whilst MOEC PEDP money for inspections goes direct from MOEC to the District inspectorate accounts. The amount of money paid each year varies, the timing of payments varies and recipients complain of a lack of transparency.
The top-down culture of directives is undermining the confidence and empowerment of school committees. The RT believes ownership will only increase when school communities are given more control over the funds they receive, when the full capitation grant is paid, and when the level of capitation funding is increased.
3. Management and Planning
Management of PEDP is problematic. The RT wish to suggest that various circumstances appear to have conspired to turn the PEDP co-ordinators’ roles into becoming much more that of project managers than was originally intended in the programme document. All stakeholders need to reacquaint themselves with the original design and to work as intended.
However, the problem goes deeper. It was noted in last year’s report and it is evident this year too, that line directors, in MOEC especially, are effectively excluded from a technical engagement with PEDP, or have become so over time. Funding partners acknowledge their role in creating this situation, but the RT believes MOEC leadership should share responsibility for this development too. They took no deliberate action to mainstream PEDP. A vacuum was created and the MOEC co-ordinator, acting for the Permanent Secretary, especially, was obliged to fill it in order to ensure that progress was made. The RT also believes that the development and management of the programme is not enhanced by PORALG’s determination to see its role and functions in purely technical terms.
Over the course of the Review, the RT has experienced difficulties obtaining information from MOEC and PORALG. Where they do not exist, they had to be created. Annual Work Plans and budgets provide overall global budgeted figures, but obtaining details of amounts actually spent was difficult. This suggests that the importance and accessibility of records and ‘paper trails’ is not regarded as highly as it might be. In respect of MOEC, the RT further suggests that generating, disseminating and keeping such information is not perceived to be an important or normal component of MOEC’s management practice. Both ministries (MOEC and PORALG) could improve their system efficiency.
Two implications can be drawn from the above: First, satisfactory information and management systems do not exist, and where elements of a system re found they do not function satisfactorily. Second, evidence-based decision-making is not occurring. The RT, therefore, wishes to question how PEDP activities are being planned, the processes involved, and indeed, the effectiveness of the Directorate of Planning in the process.
The above are all system issues. Where individuals are doing the right thing as a result of individual initiative and creativity, but in the absence of supportive structures, policies and processes, sustainability of good practice is not assured.
4. Quality Enhancement Activities and Capacity Building
To achieve quality education for all (the theme of the 2004 Review) consensus needs to be reached on what quality education means[1], and indeed to go beyond what is currently understood. Presently, community stakeholders and most Council officials appear to understand little about the vision and policy underpinning PEDP, its funding and management arrangements and its activities. The former perceive it as a technical process involving the receipt and disbursement of funds, whilst the latter see it in terms of books and construction.
The 2003 Review Report pointed to the problematic nature of Quality and to difficulties associated with knowing what is understood when the concept is used. The report further stated that at best, and in the context of PEDP, quality should be seen as a relative concept which relates to GoT’s definitions of effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, impact and sustainability. It also pointed out that no definition of quality is without reference to the processes and nature of transactions involved, whether these are at central ministry level, district and community level or classroom level[2].
The 2004 Review reaffirms the issues raised in the earlier report. The Review is concerned that few people in MOEC and PORALG appear to have read the 2003 report in detail.
The RT is also concerned at the lack of awareness at ministry level of various successful quality enhancing projects[3] being undertaken in primary schools by NGOs and CBOs. The failure to date to draw them into the primary education reform process needs to be addressed. The assumption that only MOEC can provide quality enhancing capacity building training should be challenged and serious consideration ought to be given to outsourcing quality enhancing capacity building, leaving MOEC to undertake quality assurance.
MOEC’s document Designs for the Improvement of Quality of Primary Education (April, 2003) appears not to have been revisited in light of the 2003 report. The 2003 report expressed concern that the focus of much capacity building, and indeed of proposed activities within the plan, appeared overly dominated by inputs. In general, the designs focus little on processes and relationships. They appear not to have given much attention to process driven monitoring procedures and modalities. A review this year of the inspectorate’s School Performance Checklist confirms the 2003 RT’s concerns.
The quality designs in MOEC’s document Designs for the Improvement of Quality of Primary Education (April, 2003) assumes the status quo and also assumes that quality improvements can be achieved within existing structures and allied functions within MOEC. Figure (1) on page 112 in the 2003 review report was designed to encourage a re-examination of structures and functions in order to realise higher level quality indicators.
Capacity Building for Quality Enhancement
Present modalities for capacity building for quality enhancement may be appropriate for the dissemination of technical information, although the RT believes people should be encouraged to read instructions from documents, and that ‘batch processing’ and large lecture type presentations are not necessarily the most efficient way of disseminating information. For quality improvement, however, such mass workshop methods of delivery are inappropriate and will reinforce a directive culture. Moreover, ‘top down’ planning and delivery seldom provides the anticipated quality outputs and transfer of training.
Evidence of impact is needed. The quality of documentation for capacity building activities needs to be greatly improved, and should include, inter alia a list of objectives and intended outcomes, the development of an action plan by all participants and a detailed plan of how the outcomes and impact of the training will be monitored.
Teacher Training and Teacher Management and Development:
The organisation, management and development of pre and in-service teachers and the role, function and capacity of Teacher Colleges require urgent review. In-school teacher development is rare, teacher aspirations are low and the professionalism of teachers is limited. Evidence on the performance of student teachers and their needs is virtually non-existent.
The RT recommends:
· a study be conducted into the organisation, management and development of teachers, teacher educators and teacher education.
· that the assumption that only MOEC can provide capacity building training should be reviewed and serious consideration given to outsourcing capacity building activities, either all or in part, leaving MOEC to undertake quality assurance.
5. Sustainability
The RT reviewed the fiscal projections made in the 2003 Review Report (pgs 34 – 36) and found no reason to revise them.
Sustainability is also about mindset. There is no doubt that PEDP is making a significant difference to the lives of thousands of children, parents and teachers across Tanzania, whilst school communities are increasingly alive to the benefits of primary education. However, for the gains made to be sustained, quality of provision will need to be improved.
Expectations can be undermined easily by a failure by Councils and the GoT to take school communities seriously and to ensure that they are included in the decision-making loop. Councils and MOEC and PORALG can do simple things, such as setting targets requiring officers to respond to queries from schools. Further, when information is called for, reasons can be given for the request as well as what school communities can expect by complying promptly. Simple follow-up procedures can be used to encourage communities and means found to affirm what they are doing.
6. Reporting, monitoring and evaluation:
The RT is concerned at the low level of evidence-based decision-making across the sector. Lower levels wait for directives from above. Feedback on information sought from schools by councils or councils by the centre rarely receives feedback.
The two monitoring and review documents consulted (National Monitoring Report, April, 2004, the Annual Performance Report – July 2002 – June 2003, May 2004) together with Capacity Building Workshop reports offer limited diagnostic evidence on the impact of the activities concerned. The RT believes that monitoring should focus more sharply on key educational outcomes, indicators of service delivery improvement, activity accountability and ‘value for money’, with outcome and impact orientated reporting becoming the norm.
7. Looking ahead:
PEDP formally ends in June 2006 and the RT believes that as a matter of urgency MOEC and PORALG should begin now to initiate a process which:
· identifies the lessons learnt over the course of PEDP to date
· reviews and harmonises inter ministerial roles and responsibilities and ensures that these have a basis in law
· involves MOEC and PORALG departments directly in the preparation of the 2005-06 action plan. Financial analysis capacity within the ministry needs to be strengthened as matter of urgency.
· involves MOEC and PORALG departments directly in the preparation of the next phase of PEDP (post 2006) by transferring the responsibilities for planning and budgeting to them
· leads to a comprehensive review of MOEC’s internal structures and institutional arrangements and to address the dysfunctions observed in this review and the technical shortcomings experienced and commented upon by senior officials and directors interviewed. The review should map out a range of structural, organisational and management options open to GoT.
For the GoT to insist that Pooled Fund partners move towards a budget support modality. This will strengthen the gains made to date under PEDP, and reduce the unnecessarily high levels of recrimination between MOEC (and to a lesser extent PORALG) and the Pooled Fund partners, and within the funding partner group as well.
Because of this, the Review recommends that far less funding should flow through MOEC, and instead, for PEDP funding to flow directly into school accounts. Funds for such matters as capacity building or teacher development could be held by Treasury or by independent agencies[4] and released to PORALG or directly to Councils, wards or schools on approval of locally monitored and approved school- based/ward-based development plans[5].
8. Assessment
Much has been achieved over the past two and a half years. Schools are much better places to visit. PEDP has been successful in ensuring that funding has reached school level, in increasing numbers of classrooms constructed, textbooks procured and teachers trained. It has also been instrumental in developing institutions and capacities especially at school level which are increasingly more responsive to the demands of local stakeholders. Whether the supply side institutions particularly in central government are recognising this sufficiently and shaping themselves to respond to these demands is the primary challenge facing PEDP over the next year.
The review has commented upon serious systemic and process weaknesses especially with respect to funding and management. The RT believes that without comprehensive sector reform, the goal of quality education will remain unrealised. With regards management, MOEC especially lacks high level professional planning and financial management capacity. PEDP itself risks failure if it continues to be perceived as a project and if management mindsets fail to change.
9. Major recommendations
MOEC and PORALG should undertake a review of the PEDP plan, and then commission a comprehensive analysis of Institutional and Organisational arrangements in line with the Public Sector Reform programme. This should be completed by end of April, 2005.
MOEC and PORALG should commission a major study designed to review the current position of Teacher Management and Development (TMD) (pre-service and in-service), and Teacher Supply and Demand (TSD). This will provide the GoT with options for TMD, projected models for whole career teacher management and development and associated guidelines, and an electronic forward planning TSD model. This should be completed by end of April, 2005 to enable it be included in the 2005-2006 planning process.
As a priority quality intervention at school level aimed at the creation of a reading culture, MOEC is encouraged to establish libraries in all schools as implemented under the Tusome Vitabu Project (CARE), and that implementation should be outsourced. Planning for this should be completed by the end of April, 2005 to enable it to be included in the 2005-2006 planning process.
On funding modalities and flows, the RT recommends:
· a move away from the Pooled Funding modality to a budgetary support modality. This will address system dysfunctionality within MOEC especially, as well as the elevation of BEDC into ‘a ministry within the ministry’.
· that all funding destined for schools should be disbursed directly into school accounts by the centre once the regional administrative secretary has guaranteed the accuracy of the data upon which funding amounts are based and has approved the amounts concerned. This arrangement will cut out the practice of intermingling funds at Council level, lower transaction costs and considerably reduce delays whilst retaining the authority of DEDs as accounting officers, and affirm the central mandate of Councils with regards supervision and monitoring.
[1] The Designs for the Improvement of Quality of Primary Education document fails to provide a succinct definition of quality or a comprehensive list of indicators. Appendix 3 in the 2003 Review Report endeavoured to provide this. The RT suggests that planners and implementers return to the 2003 report.
[2] The RT wishes to draw readers’ attention to the 2003 Review report and to Appendix C, and especially to figure 1 on pages 112/113. In it, a reading of a quality framework in the Tanzanian context, and links between the characteristics of teaching to characteristics of training and characteristics of management, are made.
[3] The Tusome Vitabu Programme funded by the Royal Netherlands Embassy and implemented by CARE is one such programme. It has brought school libraries to over 1500 schools in 16 districts. The impact of the programme in developing a reading culture in schools has been exceptionally positive, and MOEC should consider seriously funding the taking this programme to scale. (See appendix 7 on projected costs) Others programmes include the AKF STEPS programme which has had considerable success in mobilising in-school teacher development.
[4] These could be recognised and validated NGOs or professional organisations, or even parastatal independent agencies. The Tusome Vitabu Programme managed by CARE International is a very good example of this.
[5] The argument is made that at present that schools or wards do not have the capacity to develop themselves. This may be so, but evidence from this review clearly indicates that schools have the capacity and will to manage their own funds effectively. With guidance from local DEOs they could be invited to ‘buy in’ professional/pedagogy related support
No comments:
Post a Comment