1 / 12

Decentralisation of Basic Education in Ghana

Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation. Decentralisation of Basic Education in Ghana. Ghana Impact Evaluation Team (GIET) Charles Aheto-Tsegah, Coachito Thomas Hutton Coleman, Inswinger Matthew Karikari-Ababio, Sweeper Dominic Pealore, Goalee Anthony Arthur, Striker

leverett
Download Presentation

Decentralisation of Basic Education in Ghana

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation Decentralisation of Basic Education in Ghana Ghana Impact Evaluation Team (GIET) Charles Aheto-Tsegah, Coachito Thomas Hutton Coleman, Inswinger Matthew Karikari-Ababio, Sweeper Dominic Pealore, Goalee Anthony Arthur, Striker Justin Oliver, Guest Player Eunice Yaa Brimfa Dapaah, Welfare Directress AFRICA IMPACT EVALUATION INITIATIVE, AFTRL

  2. MAP OF GHANA Key Data • Population (2005) 21.5m • Administrative Regions 10 • Districts 138 • Pop. Growth Rate 2.6 • Literacy Rate (Age 15+) 77 • Gross Prim. Enrolment 80 Male 84 • Female 76

  3. Questions • Has decentralization helped to improve education outcomes? • Will decentralization improve the process of financial allocation and utilization in the districts and schools? • How will decentralization impact pupil learning outcomes? • Will improving community participation ensure effective management of local schools at the district level? • Will decentralization improve the quality and usage of data at the district level?

  4. Indicators • Pupil/Teacher Ratio • Pupil/Textbook Ratio • Test scores NEA, SEA, BECE raw scores • SMCs established and functioning • Increase in Enrolment and Attendance • Decrease in Teacher Absenteeism • Increase in Completion Rates

  5. Evaluation Design • Randomly select two Treatment groups (T1 & T2) and one Control group from 138 districts. • T1 will be granted authority to implement aspects of the management functions relating to district performance carried out at the central level, e.g. teacher recruitment; management of investment grants. • The control group will continue to have the district management functions performed at the central level.

  6. Evaluation Design – cont’ • SMCs for T2 will receive administration and service funding directly from DEOs for the management of school. • SMCs in the Control group will not receive direct allocation of administration and service funds.

  7. Sample • Assuming intra-district correlation of 5% we anticipate a 15% effect size with a power of 83%. • This means in 83% of the experiment with a sample size of 15 schools there will be an effect in the population of 15%. • The effect of 15% being the smallest size of impact, will help in making a policy decision to replicate and spend more money to implement the intervention.

  8. Sample

  9. Data • Annual Education Census Report by EMIS: • Contains data on school enrolment, teacher distribution and facilities. • Collected by the MOESS via surveys completed by school heads. • District data: • Contains data on schools at the district level, teacher distribution and facilities • Collected by District Education Offices via head counts of pupils conducted by school heads. • Administrative data: • Performance Reports, Expenditure returns etc.

  10. Staffing Plan

  11. Timeline

  12. Budget

More Related