Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00004003 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-13140) ON A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION FUND GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US $75.5 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA FOR A GHANA PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION GRANT PROJECT February 28, 2017 Education Global Practice AFCW1 Africa Region Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Transcript
Document of
The World Bank
Report No: ICR00004003
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
(TF-13140)
ON A
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION FUND GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF US $75.5 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF GHANA
FOR A
GHANA PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATION GRANT PROJECT
February 28, 2017
Education Global Practice
AFCW1
Africa Region
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective 1/31/2017)
Currency Unit = New Ghana Cedi
New Ghana Cedi 1.00 = US$0.23
US$1.00 = 4.37 New Ghana Cedi
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 – December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADEOP Annual District Education Operational Plan MoF Ministry of Finance
AESOP Annual Education Sector Operational Plan MTR Mid Term Review
APW Annual Programs of Work NAR Net Admission Rate
BECE Basic Education Certificate Examination NCTE National Council for Tertiary Education
CBI Cluster Based In-service Training NEA National Education Assessment
CSO Civil Society Organization NER Net Enrolment Ratio
DED District Education Directorate NESAR National Education Sector Annual Report
DFID UK Department for International Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization
DP Development Partner NIB National Inspectorate Board
EDSEP Education Sector Project
EFA-FTI Education for All Fast Track Initiative PBME Planning, Budgeting, Monitoring and Evaluation Dept
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment PTA Parent Teacher Association
EGMA Early Grade Mathematics Assessment PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio
EMIS Education Management Information System PTTR Pupil Trained Teacher Ratio
ESP Education Sector Plan RED Regional Education Directorate
ESPR Education Sector Performance Report SBI School Based In-service Training
GAR Gross Admission Rate SHS Senior High School
GDHS Ghana Demographic and Health Survey SMC School Management Committee
GDP Gross Domestic Product SPAM School Performance Assessment Meeting
GER Gross Enrolment Ratio SPIP School Performance Implementation Plan
GES Ghana Education Service SRC School Report Cards
GEU Girls Education Unit TED Teacher Education Division
GLSS Ghana Living Standards Survey TIMSS Trends in International Math and Science Study
GoG Government of Ghana TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training
GNECC Ghana National Education Campaign Coalition UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
GPASS Girls Participatory Approach to Student Success USAID United States Agency for International Development
GPE Global Partnership for Education UTDBE Untrained Teachers Diploma in Basic Education
GPI Gender Parity Index VIPs Ventilated Improved Pit-Latrines
IE Impact Evaluation WFP World Food Program
INSET In-Service Education and Training
JHS Junior High School
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MMDAs Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies
MoE Ministry of Education
Senior Global Practice Director: Amit Dar
Practice Manager: Halil Dundar
Project Team Leader: Deborah Newitter Mikesell
ICR Team Leader: Deborah Newitter Mikesell
i
GHANA
Ghana Partnership for Education Grant
CONTENTS
Data Sheet .................................................................................................................... ii
A. Basic Information ................................................................................................ ii B. Key Dates ............................................................................................................ ii C. Ratings Summary ................................................................................................ ii
D. Sector and Theme Codes .................................................................................... iii E. Bank Staff ........................................................................................................... iii
F. Results Framework Analysis .............................................................................. iii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ........................................................... vii H. Restructuring (if any) ........................................................................................ vii I. Disbursement Profile...................................................................................... viii
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................ 1
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ............................................ 7
3. Assessment of Outcomes ....................................................................................... 18
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...................................................... 29
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance .................................................. 31
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ................................................................... 37
Annex 2. Outputs by Component ........................................................................... 38 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis .......................................................... 49
Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes 60 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Summary .................................................... 62 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ............................................ 65
Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ................. 69 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ................ 85
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents .............................................................. 86 MAP of Ghana – IBRD 33411 ................................................................................... 88
ii
GHANA
Ghana Partnership for Education Grant
Data Sheet
A. Basic Information
Country: Ghana Project Name: Ghana Partnership for Education
Basic schools in deprived districts participating in all INSET core courses supported by the
project (Percentage)
Value 0 65 N/A 97.8
Date Achieved 10/10/12 10/31/15 N/A 8/31/2016
Comment Target exceeded. Source: School Grant Report. Note: INSET annual report
used to verify findings.
Schools that have received and displayed the most recent School Report Card on their notice
board (Percentage)
Value 0 75 N/A 93
Date Achieved 10/10/12 10/31/15 N/A 8/31/2016
Comment Target exceeded. Source: School Grant Report.
Schools visited by Circuit Supervisors at least two times in a year (Percentage)
Value 0 100 N/A 100
Date Achieved 10/10/12 10/31/15 N/A 8/31/2016
Comment
Target met. Source: District Education Directorate annual report based on
Circuit Supervisors Reports. Note: Also reported in School Grant Reports for
cross validation.
Regional Education Directorates submitting annual M&E reports to GES HQ & PBME by
incorporating data from all districts in the region (Percentage)
Value 0 100 N/A 100
Date Achieved 10/10/12 10/31/15 N/A 8/31/2016
Comment Target met. Source: Annual M&E reports using the regional consolidation
templates.
Schools in deprived districts with completed SPIPs approved by SMCs using the revised
template (Percentage)
Value 0 75 N/A 100
vii
Date Achieved 10/10/12 10/31/15 N/A 8/31/2016
Comment Target exceeded. Source: School Grant Report Template. Note: Districts also
verify with Circuit Supervisor Reports.
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
No. Date ISR
Archived DO IP
Actual
Disbursements
(USD millions)
1 04/28/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 10.00
2 12/14/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 22.68
3 06/01/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 34.21
4 12/24/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 46.60
5 06/27/2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 60.48
6 12/31/2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 70.49
7 06/22/2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 75.50
8 08/31/2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 75.50
H. Restructuring (if any)
Restructuring
Date(s)
Board
Approved
PDO
Change
ISR Ratings at
Restructuring
Amount
Disbursed at
Restructuring
in USD
millions
Reason for Restructuring
& Key Changes Made DO IP
05/14/2013 S S 14.96
To amend the legal
agreement to add "works" as
a category under District
Grants.
08/25/2015 N S S 60.48
To extend the Project for 10
months from October 31,
2015 to August 31, 2016 and
to introduce a reallocation of
funding among categories,
particularly from the
unallocated category to
category 2 (district grants).
viii
I. Disbursement Profile
1
1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal
Country Context
1. Ghana, a lower middle income country with sustained economic growth, was
considered a strong Sub-Saharan African economy at the time the Ghana Partnership for
Education Grant (GPEG) Project was appraised. Just prior to Project appraisal, the
beginning of oil production and high global commodity prices and good rains had boosted
the economy; real gross domestic product (GDP) growth was expected to reach 12.2
percent in 2011 and projected to remain greater than 7 percent in 2012 and 2013.
2. Ghana’s performance in terms of human development outcomes had been
improving and steady progress had been made with respect to the education Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). The proportion of children completing primary school had
increased to 89 percent by 2012 from 70 percent in 1991. Progress on gender parity also
showed improvement (92 percent ratio of girls to boys in primary and lower secondary
education). However, Ghana was not on track to fully achieve these two MDGs by 2015.
At appraisal, the share of the population living in poverty was reduced by half between the
early 1990s and 2005-2006, but significant regional disparities remained between the
poorer regions in the north compared to the rest of the country.
Sector Context
3. The education sector in Ghana is divided into three levels: basic education
(including kindergarten, primary school, and junior secondary school), secondary
education (including senior high school and technical and vocational education), and
tertiary education, all under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education (MoE). The Ghana
Education Service (GES), an agency under MoE, is responsible for pre-tertiary education
service delivery while the National Council on Tertiary Education (NCTE) is responsible
for tertiary education. Ghana has been operating using a decentralized system since 1988
when local governments began to play a central role in administering greater resources and
taking on new functions. In education, basic schools are overseen by the District Education
Directorates (DED), which are local offices of the GES.
4. At the time of project appraisal, access to education in Ghana had improved
substantially. Between 2002 and 2012, gross enrollment rates (GER) increased from 49 to
99 percent in kindergarten, from 76 to 96 percent in primary, and from 63 to 81 percent in
junior high school (JHS). These improvements were driven by efforts to improve supply
of education as well as the elimination of school fees which led to the provision of school
capitation grants starting in 2004. In terms of learning outcomes, the National Education
Assessment (NEA) showed some improvements in English and Mathematics between 2005
and 2009 and some progress on the Trends in International Math and Science Study
(TIMSS) assessment of Grade 8 pupils between 2003 and 2007.
2
5. Despite this progress, key challenges in the education sector remained including
disparities in learning outcomes, insufficient number of qualified teachers, and inequitable
access. There were significant disparities in learning outcomes between the north and
south of the country and between rural and urban schools. Education outcomes largely
followed regional poverty trends with poor districts challenged by weaker education
outcomes, untrained teachers, and fewer financial resources for education spending. In
2009, despite observed improvements, less than a quarter of Grade 3 students in public
schools were able to read a single word in English. The 2011 NEA and Basic Education
Certificate Examination (BECE) exams reflected wide gaps in learning between Northern,
Upper West, and Upper East Regions and the rest of the country. While net enrollment
rates increased1, a sizeable group of children (about 400,0002) were not in school (either
never entered or having dropped out). In 2008, over 65 percent of girls over the age of 15
in the Northern region had not received any formal education compared with a national
average of 21 percent. Trained teachers were more likely to work in urban or peri-urban
schools; at the time of the Project appraisal there were over 155 students per qualified
teacher in districts in the Northern, Upper West, Upper East, and Western regions.
Project Context
6. During the preparation of the Global Partnership for Education Fund Grant (GPEG),
the IDA Education Sector Project (EdSeP- US$78 million) was drawing to a close (October
31, 2011). The EdSeP aimed to improve (i) equitable access to and completion of basic
education in deprived districts; and (ii) quality of teaching and learning, management
efficiency, and relevance of post-basic education. In addition to the EdSeP which began
in 2004, the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) approved a US$32.2 million
Catalytic Fund allocation for Ghana that was to be processed as three separate grants. The
first two grants (US$8 million in 2005 and US$11 million in 2007) were for direct budget
support to improve the quality of basic education. The third grant (in the amount of
US$14.2 million) in 2009 was a sector investment loan3 and unlike the first two grants
which were considered satisfactory, this operation experienced significant challenges with
large procurement packages and a short implementation period4.
7. While work had been done under the EdSeP in sector capacity building at the
central and decentralized levels, and piloting budgetary support to deprived districts – there
1 From 2011-2015 improvements are evident across all levels of education (from 4.2 percent to 80 percent
in kindergarten, 81.7 percent to 91.5 percent at primary and 46.1 percent to 50.3 percent in JHS). 2 UNICEF projections 2015. 3 The use of the Sector Investment Loan instrument conformed to the new EFA-FTI guidelines 4 By late 2008, presidential and parliamentary elections occupied the attention of key Ministry of Finance
and Economic Planning (MOFEP) officials which delayed final execution of the grant agreement to 2009.
Between the close of the second grant and the signing of the third, the Ministry of Education (MOE), in
anticipation of signing a third EFA-FTI grant, initiated a textbook procurement that they expected to be
financed with the new grant without Bank prior review of procurement documents or a no objection from the
Bank. This set the stage for many of the problems that occurred during the implementation of the third EFA-
FTI grant.” (ICR, Education Sector Development Project, December 2011, page 2).
3
was still a need to mainstream these decentralized processes (e.g., district and school
grants) and further improve the existing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems.
Moreover, the importance of ensuring targeted resource allocation and significant capacity-
building in less endowed districts were lessons that had been learned from previous projects.
At the time of appraisal, the UK Department for International Development (DfID) had
also begun planning a scholarship program for girls in JHS with a plan to overlap this
program’s targeting with that used by GPEG. In addition, the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) had begun planning and designing a learning project
which focused on early grade literacy and numeracy.
8. While the introduction of district and school grants under EdSeP was quite
promising for the education system, particularly with the political push to implement
decentralization to the district level, additional resources would be needed. This was
particularly the case in those areas of the country where there are significant disparities in
economic and social opportunities. While public spending on education was roughly 6
percent of GDP and Ghana compared favorably to higher middle income countries who
spend on average 5 percent of GNP on education,5 there was often little funding available
outside of financing salaries. In 2010, roughly 97 percent of the education budget was
allocated to salaries, leaving little for non-salary recurrent spending.
9. Since 2004, capitation grants (GH¢ 4.50 per student per academic year) had been
supplied in order to provide non-salary resources directly to schools by the Government.
The Government had also introduced the Untrained Teachers Diploma in Basic Education
(UTDBE) program in 2004 to upgrade the skill sets of unqualified teachers through
distance education. While the program had been successful in upgrading 16,000 untrained
teachers in rural schools, the portion of trained teachers in public basic education had been
steadily declining from 65 percent in 2001 to 48 percent in 2009 as enrollment increased.
As such, the UDTBE program needed to be accelerated in order to increase the number of
trained teachers in rural and underserved communities. The use of school report cards
(SRCs) was introduced in 2010 as a pilot (with USAID support) to provide greater
accountability in the areas of attendance and student learning outcomes while school
management structures existed (e.g., School Management Committees (SMCs), School
Performance Appraisal Meetings) but needed strengthening. A 2010 World Bank Survey6
found that even though SMCs existed in over 80 percent of schools, they were only active
in just over 61 percent of schools and members had not been adequately trained in
preparing a School Performance Improvement Plan (SPIP).
10. In 2010, The Ministry of Education (MoE) developed the Ghana Education Sector
Plan (ESP) for 2010-2020 as well as the three-year rolling Annual Education Sector
Operational Plan (AESOP) for 2011-2013 in close partnership with the Local Education
5 UNESCO Monitoring Report, 2015 comparison shows higher income countries such as Cambodia and the
Philippines spending about 2.7 and 2.2 percent respectively of their GNP on education and only 14 percent
and 15 percent of their total budgets for education. 6 Impact Evaluation of School Based Management Committees, 2010. M-H Cloutier (A survey of 300
primary schools).
4
Group (LEG). The main priorities in the ESP were to: (i) 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 the
management of education service delivery. The GPEG Project, financed by the Global
Partnership for Education (GPE) (formerly EFA-FTI), provided direct support for this ESP
while the Bank was selected as the Project supervising entity. Following on the heels of
the EdSeP – a large operation which had piloted support for district grants – the GPEG
provided an opportunity to expand and strengthen the district grant processes that were
considered successful under the EdSeP.
11. Rationale: In the context of Ghana’s geographic disparities and recent economic
growth, opportunities for equitable growth and shared prosperity were largely contingent
on improving the level of education and employability of the workforce in deprived regions
of the country. Education was considered one of the main mechanisms to allow individuals
living in poverty to share in Ghana’s economic growth. The support was consistent with
the World Bank Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) (2008-2012) objectives to focus on
targeted programs to the poor and improve basic health and education systems through a
decentralized system. The Project was also aligned with the GPE Global Strategic
Objectives of 2012-2015, and as noted above, provided direct support to Ghana’s 2010-
2020 ESP. The Project aimed to achieve its project development objective (PDO) by: (i)
making non-salary financial resources available to schools and districts in deprived areas
to improve education service delivery by local actors; (ii) improving decentralized
decision-making for school-based management and accountability; (iii) funding the
upgrading of skill sets of untrained teachers already teaching in underserved areas;; and
(iv) integrating and further developing ongoing and donor-led management tools such as
the SRC activity.
1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators
12. The Project Development Objective was to improve the planning, monitoring, and
delivery of basic education services in deprived districts of the Recipient’s territory.
Successful achievement of the PDO would be measured by the PDO-level indicators
presented in Table 1 below.
5
Table 1. PDO-level Indicators
PDO-level Indicators Baseline
(2010/2011) End of Project Target
(2015/2016)
1. Deprived districts disbursing 75% or more of their
district education grants as planned in their Annual
Program of Works (%)
0 80
2. Public basic schools in deprived districts with up-to-
date School Report Cards (%) 0 75
3. P3 student achieving proficiency in English and
Mathematics (using National Education Assessment
results for deprived districts) (%)
English 12.4
Mathematics 9
English 15
Mathematics 11
4. Teachers trained under the project in deprived
districts who obtain satisfactory rating or higher in the
SBI/CBI Lesson Observation Sheet for lesson
planning, teaching methodology, and classroom
organization and management (%)
36 50
5. Direct project beneficiaries (number) of which
female (%) CORE 0
1.6 million of which 40%
female
1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and
reasons/justification
13. The PDO and Key Indicators were not revised during the life of the Project.
1.4 Main Beneficiaries
14. The project beneficiaries identified at appraisal were the students, teachers and
administrators (all disaggregated by gender) targeted by project interventions in the
deprived districts. The targets for beneficiaries were disaggregated by gender and tracked
throughout implementation. Under the Project, students, teachers, and administrators in
over 7,000 project-supported schools in 75 deprived districts (out of 216 districts) had
benefitted from Project activities. Secondary beneficiaries of the Project included the
Colleges of Education responsible for the UTDBE program, SMCs, Parent Teacher
Associations (PTAs), Regional Education Officers (REOs), District Education Officers
(DEOs), GES central staff, National Inspectorate Board (NIB) and senior MoE staff
involved in the implementation and M&E of the project. The targeted beneficiaries of the
Project did not change during the life of the Project, with the exception of additional
district-level staff which were included as a result of incorporating 18 newly created
districts (in the same geographic area) that had been formed during the national
redistricting exercise in 2014.7
7 In 2014, there was a re-delineation of Ghana’s 170 districts to 216 districts, leading to an increase of 18
targeted deprived districts (carved out of the original 57 deprived districts) for the Project during
implementation and bringing to the total number of beneficiary districts to 75.
6
1.5 Original Components
15. Component 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education
objectives (Appraisal estimate: US$44.86 million; Actual: US$48.41 million). The goal
of this component was to provide annual non-salary supplemental resources to deprived
districts to support districts’ annual programs of work (APW) focused on local needs as
well as government strategic priorities of improving access, equity, quality and
management of basic education. Under this component, the government planned to
increase accountability and participation by districts, schools, and communities through:
(i) earmarked funding for the upgrading of unqualified teachers’ skills sets through the
UTDBE program; (ii) mandatory in-service teacher training in literacy, numeracy, and
science; (iii) capacity building for GES staff, regional and district officials, Circuit
Supervisors, SMCs, head teachers, etc.; (iv) facilitation and knowledge sharing by regional
and central governments; (v) M&E activities; and (vi) continuous sensitization activities to
maintain social accountability.
16. Component 2: School Sub-Grants (Appraisal estimate: US$24.06 million;
Actual: US$20.38 million). The goal of this component was to improve teaching and
learning through supplements to the capitation grants at all basic education schools in
deprived districts. The component aimed to improve the management and accountability
of resources at the school level and to strengthen the School Performance Improvement
Plan (SPIP) process and community engagement in approximately 6,600 schools across
the deprived districts. Component 2 was to fund training on the school grant process,
monitoring visits, communication campaigns, school grants, and an impact evaluation (IE)
of school grants (this IE was later combined with the district grant evaluation and funded
under Component 3).
17. Component 3: Project Management and Institutional Strengthening
(Appraisal estimate: US$6.58 million; Actual: US$6.71 million). The purpose of this
Component was to strengthen government systems for the implementation and supervision
of decentralized education services in the deprived districts. This component would fund
consultancy services, training and operational costs, materials, IEs, and external and
internal audits.
1.6 Revised Components
18. There were no major changes in the components other than reallocation of
resources following the mid-term review (MTR) in February 2015.
1.7 Other significant changes
19. The project was restructured twice. The first restructuring was approved on May
14, 2013 in order to add “works” to Category 2 which supported sub-grants to the deprived
districts (District Grants).
20. The second restructuring was approved on August 25, 2015 in order to extend the
project closing date by ten months from October 31, 2015 to August 31, 2016, and to
7
reallocate funding among expenditure categories. The extension would allow additional
time to: (i) provide support to teacher trainees in the UTDBE program to complete their
diploma program; (ii) start-up support for the 18 additional districts (carved from the
original 57 districts); and (iii) complete the IEs.
21. With respect to the teacher trainees in the UTDBE program, the project had
intended to support the trainees through their third year only;8 however, once a project
extension was requested by the Ministry of Finance, it was agreed that the project could
continue its support to the program participants for their fourth and final year of the
program. There were significant savings under the project as a result of exchange rate gains,
lower costs than estimated, and efficient procurement of goods and consultancies. As
mentioned previously, the expected re-delineation of Ghana’s districts in 2014 led to the
eventual establishment of 18 additional deprived districts carved out of the original 57,
bringing the total number of project districts to 75. This increased administrative functions
as the number of district offices involved increased by 18, but did not alter the targeted
project beneficiaries (schools, teachers) as the same population was being captured within
the 75 districts. The extension and reallocation under the restructuring supported capacity-
building for the new district officers, technical assistance and training on project processes,
and start-up funding to equip the new offices and support implementation monitoring.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
22. Project Preparation. Project design was in alignment with key education sector
priorities for the country. As described earlier, its design was harmonized with the ESP for
2010-2020 as well as the three-year rolling AESOP for 2011-2013 in close partnership with
the LEG. The project reflected the ESP strategic goal to provide “equitable access to good-
quality child-friendly universal basic education” and as such focused on targeting
improvements in the deprived areas of Ghana which were lagging behind the rest of the
country in terms of education outcomes. The Project design was also in line with the CAS
2008-2012 which focused on targeted programs for the poor and improving basic health
and education services through the decentralized system. Moreover, the GPEG was
consistent with the GPE Global Strategic Objectives (2012-2015) of supporting basic
education for girls, improving literacy and numeracy skills, improving teacher
effectiveness, and expanding the volume, effectiveness, efficiency, and equitable
allocation of education funding.
23. Project preparation relied extensively on significant analytical work by both the
World Bank and the LEG. A significant strength of the GPEG was the participatory nature
of the preparatory process. The Project was prepared in close partnership between the
Government and the LEG, which included the DfID, the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), USAID, and the World
8 As mentioned in the PAD, additional donor funding or government budget was expected to cover the costs
of the UTDBE beneficiaries in the fourth year.
8
Food Program (WFP) among others, through joint missions, monthly development partner
(DP) meetings, and weekly preparation meetings starting in October 2011. The appraisal
of the ESP coincided with the preparation and design of the GPEG Project, allowing close
involvement of key partners and a strong focus on supporting the objectives of the ESP.
Project preparation also included stakeholder workshops and multi-donor missions to
ensure strong ESP alignment and wider ownership of the Project.
24. Project Design. The Project is Ghana’s fourth EFA-FTI (now GPE) grant. While
the first two grants provided budget support and were rated Satisfactory, the third grant
(which was a SIL) aimed to procure textbooks and learning materials and provide
incentives to attract and retain teachers in deprived districts, was rated Unsatisfactory. This
rating was attributed to the operation’s overly ambitious timeline, implementation delays,
misunderstandings of new guidelines, post-election government changes, and ultimately
the repayment of ineligible expenses to the GPE Fund.9 As a result of this experience, the
GPEG project application was prepared in a more collaborative and comprehensive manner
and avoided centralized procurement of goods or works. In addition, the production of a
detailed Project Implementation Manual (PIM) by the Government enhanced
accountability among all stakeholders. The lessons learned from the experiences with the
EFA-FTI grants on strong government ownership and leadership, strong project
supervision, and realistic implementation period and targets were critical in informing the
design of GPEG.
25. The GPEG design also benefitted from other investments in the sector and in Ghana.
Activities and approaches that were piloted under the EdSeP became the evidence-base for
the GPEG (e.g., equity-based targeting, district and school grants, local capacity-building
for planning and monitoring) 10. The GPEG design was informed by lessons learned from
EdSeP including the importance of: (i) having a simplified project design; (ii) setting
realistic ambitions for decentralized delivery of education services of district grants; (iii)
ensuring indicators are linked to Project interventions and are measurable; (iv) ensuring
transparent and objective targeting of Project support to more economically disadvantaged
regions; (v) establishing more integrated and comprehensive M&E systems to collect data,
measure impact, and influence decision making; (vi) ensuring the timely release of funds
along with capacity-building at the district level to improve success of district grants
against APWs; and (vii) providing capacity-building support at the school level to include
circuit supervisors, head teachers, and SMCs. The GPEG revised the criteria for selection
of “deprived” districts to include both Ghana’s poverty index as well as key education
9 The implementation period of just over one year also coincided with the long transition period after the
2008 election and substantial confusion about the change in fiduciary rules from budget support to investment
project. The large centrally procured packages were problematic and the remaining activities (civil works for
teacher accommodations) required a longer implementation period. In addition, supervision was inconsistent
and led to misunderstandings between the Ministry and the Supervising Entity which led to a neglect of
World Bank procurement guidelines with respect to the textbook component. These expenditures were
declared ineligible and were repaid to the EFA-FTI Fund. 10 Details of lessons learned were included in the PAD as an optional Annex (PAD, Annex 8, page 106) and
included a literature review of school-based management interventions and evaluations to inform the school
grant component.
9
indicators11. The bottom third of the districts, ranked according to the new criteria were
then selected to benefit from the GPEG. All basic schools within these districts would be
supported under the Project, and upgraded teachers (through training under the Project)
would be assigned to the schools in the targeted districts.
26. Project Risks. During preparation, risks were rated substantial related to
stakeholders, implementing agency capacity and overall decentralized service delivery.
Part of the rating reflected the upcoming 2012 elections and concerns about staff turnover,
but most of the issues highlighted were potential risks related to consistent leadership and
coordination and the participation of local communities to ensure that education services
would be delivered. The extensive GPEG consultations combined with the well-vetted and
publicized ESP helped maintain and foster consensus among a large number of
stakeholders. In addition, the PIM guided implementation at both the central and
district/school levels. A separate (and simple) school grant manual was also developed and
widely disseminated during frequent monitoring visits. In feedback from Impact
Evaluation (IE) surveys, the use of GPEG management and planning tools was highly
evident as was the involvement and satisfaction of parents/communities.12 Institutional
assessments had found an overall low capacity at the district and school levels, especially
in deprived regions/districts, so this posed a potential risk. It was decided, therefore, that,
intensive supervision would be provided over the first 18 months of project implementation
(at a significant cost to the Bank supervision budget) to help encourage technical support
and address challenges quickly.
27. Involving the REDs provided additional resources at the local level and helped
build capacity; having developed simplified data monitoring and reporting templates
during project preparation helped to improve M&E systems. In addition, the Project
budgeted for significant training at the local level and monitored this training through the
Project’s Result Framework. Multiple monitoring tools already in use or recently
developed under the GPEG helped mitigate risks to delivery monitoring. The risk of
sustainability, while rated moderate, was highlighted during preparation (and throughout
implementation) and only partially mitigated because of the fiscal crisis that emerged by
2014. The most significant mitigation measure to address these aforementioned risks under
the GPEG was the use of government systems which ensured ownership, political
leadership and adoption of standardized management tools.
28. Quality at Entry. As mentioned above, the preparation of the GPEG was launched
from the ongoing ESP process. The ESP process included considerable technical guidance
and support from the GPE, the LEG, and DP-funded consultancies in the areas of girls’
education, teacher training, learning assessment, decentralization, and kindergarten roll out.
11 Education indicators looked at performance in retention in the basic cycle, share of girls enrolled in P6 and
JHS 3, pass rate in BECE English and share of trained teachers in all public primary schools. 12 The GPEG impact evaluation surveyed 353 schools out of the over 7,000 schools in the 75 GPEG districts.
See sampling design and findings in the 2016 report “Impact evaluation and monitoring of the District Grant
and School Grant component of the Ghana Partnership for Education Grant.” by Edburgh consultants and
Innovative Services consortium.
10
The additional analytical work from these activities as well as the Bank’s sector work
provided a sound framework for the GPEG components.13 The selection of the Bank as
supervising entity for the Project preparation also introduced the Bank’s quality assurance
process to complement GPE’s processes. The LEG played a particularly critical role, under
the leadership of the Coordinating Agency (UNICEF) in ensuring consistency of the
objectives with the ESP and donor-supported programs.
29. Several rounds of quality-at-entry assessment were carried out as part of Project
Preparation. This included two rounds of Quality Assurance Review (QAR) from the GPE
Secretariat as well as a Quality Enhancement Review (QER) with the World Bank. The
GPE was using new procedures for the processing of projects and there was considerable
confusion about how to align the new GPE guidelines with Bank project processing
guidelines. The GPEG navigated these challenges by carrying out both quality assurance
reviews. Both the QAR and QER endorsed the design and approach of the Project, its
consistency with the ESP, and provided guidance on issues related to the PDO, RF,
selection of project activities, elaborated implementation arrangements, and greater donor
harmonization. Similarly, the Bank’s QER assessment provided further feedback on the
PDO, RF, M&E arrangements and activities, and readiness for implementation. The final
design reflects the guidance received, although with two separate quality assessments, the
team had to navigate through some contradictions in guidance.14 Overall, the ICR team
found the process to be technically sound and operationally appropriate, with strong
collaboration from the LEG.
2.2 Implementation
30. Implementation of the project was satisfactory – as a result of focused yet relevant
project design (supporting a limited number of activities) which built on ongoing
investments, strong donor coordination, use of existing government mechanisms, and
strong Project M&E, management, and supervision.
31. By limiting activities to those which had already received support (and had been
field-tested) in Ghana, the Project was able to disburse all funds and complete project
activities within a four-year period (the large majority of activities were completed by Year
3). The school capitation grants, district grants, and UTDBE program had all been
previously (and recently) implemented in Ghana, allowing for easier uptake of improved
and expanded versions of those programs through GPEG.
13 Documents included the 2012 PFM Review, JICA; 2011 Ghana Education Report “Improving Equity,
Efficiency and Accountability of Education Service Delivery”, World Bank; Education Sector Development
Project Implementation Completion Report 2012, World Bank; Education Support to Education Strategic
Plan and KG operational plan, DFID. 14 For example, the GPE QAR placed emphasis on showing a contribution to improved student learning,
while the Bank QER suggested that PDO indicators be in the scope of the Project and attributable to the
Project. In the end, the Project compromised with a PDO indicator on student learning kept but a PDO on
teacher absenteeism dropped.
11
32. Harmonization among DPs was strong throughout GPEG implementation and this
greatly aided successful implementation. Progress under the Project was monitored and
reported at monthly LEG meetings, allowing for frequent status updates. The project was
launched and closed by the same Minister of Education. Six formal joint implementation
support missions were held since effectiveness, occurring approximately every 6 months.
These missions included joint field visits with other DPs (most of whom provided parallel
financing) including DfID, UNICEF, and USAID which led to greater coordination,
collaboration, and technical support to GPEG. The Bank and LEG supported four
Government-led National Education Sector Annual Reviews (NESAR) during the Project
where an expanded group of education stakeholders participated in discussions on the
sector. GPEG was also highlighted in the Government’s Annual Education Sector
Performance Report (ESPR), published at the time of each NESAR. Moreover, the US$10
million DfID-financed Girls Participatory Approach to Student Success (GPASS)
Scholarship program was operating in GPEG districts, aligning with GPEG APWs and
using the same structures as GPEG. This allowed both projects to complement each other
for shared achievement of outcomes.
33. The use of existing government structures was an important feature of the operation
and strengthening decentralized models of governance in the education sector was an
important objective of the GPEG. By working through existing government mechanisms,
GPEG fostered strong project ownership within the MoE and GES. The beneficiary
assessment credited the GPEG for empowering the existing systems and helping to make
them better functioning.
34. The project also benefited from dedicated project management and supervision and
this facilitated the effective implementation of the project. MoE/GES and Bank teams
closely supervised the Project, and regular and candid dialogue between the Bank and the
Ministry on implementation helped resolve implementation bottlenecks in an efficient
manner. On the Bank side, having in-country core team members and a team task leader
who prepared and implemented the project allowed for sustained and consistent support
and supervision. The Project’s funding of a video conference facility at GES further
supported strong communication between the Ministry and Bank teams.
35. Despite having an overall satisfactory implementation, GPEG encountered a
number of challenges including the collection and validation of large amounts of data and
high staff turnover (especially at the local level), as well as reporting challenges and
attrition in the UTDBE training program. The collection and validation of data at district
and school levels experienced some delays throughout the project period as districts
struggled to capture and code all school level data (including individual teacher training).
There was a significant amount of data to collate. Further, staff turnover in districts and
schools was high. While the project design included trainings for SMCs, Head Teachers,
Circuit Supervisors, District and Regional officers, the high turnover resulted in schools
and districts not always well versed in guidelines and procedures. New head teachers faced
difficulties in preparing SPIPs which led to mistakes and delays in vetting. At the district
level, high turnover was especially challenging for procurement officers. This was partially
alleviated through support from REDs, the availability of refresher trainings and well as ad
12
hoc trainings for new staff. When district directors had an increased awareness of GPEG,
district grants ran smoothly.
36. The Government committed significant resources (human and financial) to twice
yearly district collation exercises to bring staff together to go over key financial and
monitoring reports. These workshops also served as opportunities for additional capacity-
building and training of key project staff/officers, especially those that may have been
newly appointed at the district level. The School Grants activity also provided ample
resources for ongoing training/capacity building for head teachers and teachers so new staff
could better acquaint themselves with the GPEG processes.
37. The Project also faced some initial eligibility concerns and reporting challenges on
the UTDBE program which were largely resolved during implementation. There were
initial misunderstandings within the UTDBE program on the eligibility requirements
particularly as a result of the parallel Northern UTDBE program (sponsored by the
Colleges of Education) that had been launched just prior to GPEG effectiveness without
the knowledge of the Bank team. This other program (held in the Colleges of Education
based in the Northern regions) had enrolled many teachers in GPEG districts but without
application of the GPEG eligibility criteria. With the strict eligibility criteria being applied
under the GPEG, and many trainees already enrolled in the Northern program, there was
considerable confusion about the initial intake.
38. Further, there was some degree of attrition with the numbers of trainees enrolled in
the program with 7,027 UTDBE participants sponsored by GPEG in 2013 and by 2016
only 6,480 had completed the full training. Some of these participants dropped out of the
program, passed away, or failed to pass (among other reasons).15 In addition, the inability
of the GPEG to use the Colleges of Education in the North for the residential coursework
(they were oversubscribed with the initial Northern program) meant that trainees had to
travel long distances to attend their face-to-face sessions at other Colleges of Education.
This increased transaction costs and made it more difficult for tutors to provide the in-
school coaching and support required. GPEG was able to resolve some of the eligibility
concerns during the first year through an extensive verification and cleaning exercise
conducted by the quality assurance consultants hired to support the UTDBE program.
These consultants were also expected to provide additional recommendations to improve
the face-to-face sessions as well as the in-school and in between coaching sessions and
they produced a monitoring report after the MTR when concerns were raised about the lack
of regular and high-quality reporting on UTDBE program beneficiaries. However, the
quality of the TA provided by these consultants could have been better. The team expressed
its dismay at the level of assistance as well as the lack of proactivity by the consultants.
The team hired two additional consultants to provide direct support to the Teacher
Education Department on revising the UTDBE materials for both the residential college
course and for the in-between trainings in order to ensure technical and quality assurance
was provided.
15 The ICR does not yet have the final data on these graduates with regard to their inclusion on the
Government’s teacher payroll.
13
39. Mission field visits and other monitoring visits found some cases of poor record
keeping by head teachers, SMCs not operating as effectively as they should, and other
challenges at the school level (including overcrowding from increases in attendance, need
for additional teachers and resources beyond the school grant, difficulties monitoring
remote schools, etc.). The project team set out to better understand the issues by conducting
two in-depth fiduciary reviews in addition to the regular internal and external audits.
Mitigation measures were identified from these reviews such as continual training for new
staff, simplified school level templates and greater support from circuit supervisors. The
latest management response to the audit report indicates actions that were taken to address
the issues raised. 16 At the MTR stage, it was noted that additional attention to
communication and sensitization of GPEG would be needed for greater Project
effectiveness; by early 2016 the mobile SRCs piloted with support from UNICEF and
USAID held promise for enhancing community engagement and accountability.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization
40. Design. The system as described in the PAD, PIM and impact evaluations was
sound and capable of collecting information on all performance indicators. One of the great
strengths of the M&E design, and ultimately the GPEG Project, was the richness and
diversity of M&E data built into the Project design. While Ghana had an Education
Management Information System (EMIS) system in place for a decade, its credibility
continued to be an issue and the GPEG helped to strengthen the integrity of EMIS data and
cross-verify how schools were reporting. GPEG included APW analyses, SRC analyses,
quality assurance on the UTDBE program, a beneficiary study, internal and external audits,
an extensive MTR report, and two IEs. Given the focus on better planning and monitoring,
the GPEG set up standardized systems for better analysis of data from schools and districts.
The systems evolved over the course of implementation as it became clear when reporting
was too burdensome, or school heads had difficulties inputting data. The PIM served as a
roadmap, offering explicit instructions on M&E reporting, and has since been used as a
sample for other donor-funded projects.
41. The quality of the RF was good overall. The PDO-level and intermediate results
indicators were linked to the PDO, with at least one PDO-level indicator for each sub-
objective. There are a reasonable number of PDO-level and intermediate results indicators
and realistic targets for a three-year project – all of which benefitted from QAR/QER
feedback. This allowed for regular reporting on Project progress and accurate indications
that the Project was performing well throughout implementation. The causal chain in the
RF is good with all intermediate indicators supporting a PDO indicator with only a couple
of exceptions. There is perhaps an overemphasis on SRCs in the RF indicators; the RF may
have benefitted from greater emphasis on the development of SPIPs from SRC data and
the funding of activities according to what had been planned in SPIPs.
16 This issue of school-level non-compliance was quite low considering that the GPEG reached over 7,000
deprived schools with low levels of capacity at the start of the Project.
14
42. The PDO-level indicator of “P3 students achieving proficiency in Math and English”
was ambitious for a three-year project. Attribution for learning is difficult to apply only to
GPEG given the other interventions going on in these districts during the Project period
(e.g., non-formal education, school feeding, etc). While the GPE requested that the RF
include a learning outcome indicator, a more appropriate PDO-level indicator for improved
service delivery could have been included such as improvements in teacher/student
attendance rates or improvements to access or retention. While not in the RF, these
indicators were tracked through the SRC analysis and improvements were observed
throughout the project period. However, this data is self-reported, and therefore is less
reliable than assessment data that was conducted through a standardized national education
assessment. Targets for some indicators (disbursement of grants, up to date SRCs) were
exceeded. Given the significant challenges in disbursement of grants under the EdSeP,
these targets appear to be realistic for GPEG at the design stage. The RF design may have
been enhanced if more information had been provided on how targets were calculated. For
example, providing information on how targets were set based on observed trends and
assumptions on the reach of the intervention.
43. In addition to regular monitoring instruments, two IEs were conducted that assessed
the UTDBE diploma program as well as the district and school grant programs. The aim
of the UTDBE IE was to: (i) assess the extent to which the distance training program had
achieved its objective of upgrading the skill sets of untrained teachers and impacted
learning outcomes; (ii) compare the classroom performance and content knowledge of
UTDBE trainees with teachers from the conventional teacher training program in Ghana;
and lastly to (iii) make an assessment of cost-effectiveness of the program. The district and
school grant IE was designed in order to: (i) estimate the impacts of the district and school
grants on higher-order outcomes as well as intermediate outcomes at the district and school
level; and (ii) to carry out a survey amongst a sample of schools to report on a selection of
RF indicators and verify and validate the ongoing M&E system. This IE faced
implementation challenges as it became very delayed owing to the slow procurement
process in selecting and contracting the consultant and the difficulties redesigning an
evaluation after implementation had already commenced. Ultimately the scope had to be
reduced which limited the quality of evidence produced from the evaluation.17 The low
capacity of MoE to manage a difficult contractor hired for the evaluation was one challenge
which ultimately affected the timeline and scope. Limited knowledge of technical aspects
of IEs further delayed implementation. Most IEs had been managed by donor partners in
the past. Nevertheless, GPEG adopted mitigation measures to improve their capacity, by
seeking technical support from the Bank and local research firms (e.g., Innovations for
Poverty Action), and conducting IE training for Planning, Budget, Monitoring, and
Evaluation (PBME) staff. The PBME is now managing and supporting two IEs under the
current IDA-funded Secondary Education Improvement Project (SEIP) project.
17 The study was conducted without a control group and baseline data collection, but rather through a desk
review, discontinuity analysis and endline data collection in July 2016. See the 2016 report “Impact
evaluation and monitoring of the District Grant and School Grant component of the Ghana Partnership for
Education Grant.” by Edburgh consultants – Innovative Services Consortium. 2016.
15
44. M&E Implementation: GPEG M&E implementation had some impressive
successes and only minor shortcomings. Led by GES, the strong implementation of M&E
activities was integral to the overall success of GPEG. This included the well-prepared
annual performance reporting on GPEG, the APW analysis, regular monitoring visits
(including joint sector field visits by LEG members) during the lifetime of the GPEG
project, internal and external audits, a beneficiary study, and management of two IEs.
Examples of strong M&E implementation also included the use of detailed M&E templates,
developed in close collaboration with the Government and stakeholders, with key staff in
the education system trained in their use. The APW analysis for GPEG was the first time
the central Ministry had a clear sense of what activities (and their cost) were being
implemented by schools using their capitation grants. Further, annual analyses allowed for
a feedback loop between the central Ministry, districts, and schools; results were
incorporated into capacity building and outreach activities to best ensure relevant grant
activities.18 The coding used for the district grants also allowed better understanding of
district priorities. In addition, the IEs provided extremely rich data on management at the
district/school levels, parent and community involvement, teacher behavior in the
classroom, UTDBE cost-effectiveness, student learning outcomes, and access and
completion rates at schools, among other results. The extensive data from the IE, annual
progress reports/missions, and the collection of such detailed data (at the decentralized
level) were among the standout successes of GPEG.
45. The implementation of M&E under GPEG faced some challenges in terms of RF
indicator reporting and IE management. The collection and validation of decentralized data
on teacher training, from over 7,000 schools and 75 districts was difficult and could have
been improved with computerization of reporting. The number of teachers trained in In-
Service Education and Training (INSET) was being reported as the cumulative values of
trainings given each year. As a result, the exact number of teachers trained can only be
calculated through a proxy indicator for trainings conducted in one subject over one year
at the end of the Project. This also led to overly complicated reporting on direct project
beneficiaries. 19 In addition, the endline value for the PDO indicator on “P3 students
achieving proficiency in English and Mathematics” could not be calculated in the final year
of the project as the 2016 NEA changed the grade level tested to P4.20 Unfortunately the
team did not learn of this change until July 2016 (one month prior to closing). However,
the project benefitted from additional learning assessments conducted during
implementation- the USAID supported EGRA and EGMA rollout in 2013 and 2015 and
these results are discussed below in section 3.
46. In the end, the MoE was successful in implementing the district and school grant
study in a short period, and the Bank team mobilized international experts to support the
18 For example, officers from GES headquarters held quarterly meetings with district officers to check and
discuss project activities and status report of the districts. This high quality reporting prior to
implementation support missions allowed focused mission discussions to address bottlenecks. 19Reporting could have been simplified by using the EMIS count of teachers and students in Project
districts, as all were direct beneficiaries. 20 The NEA receives funding and technical support from USAID.
16
Ministry. While the IE results have informed project performance, there were some missed
opportunities for learning from baseline results and a more robust study design because of
delays and challenges in procuring the survey firm by the Government. The problems in
contracting were not immediately communicated to the Bank, however once the Bank
learned of the difficulties in reaching agreement on deliverables and scope of the research,
the team mobilized international experts to help support the evaluation and get the most
out of the more limited study design.
47. Utilization: Active monitoring of Project activities were critical to the overall
success of GPEG. In general, GPEG did an excellent job of developing feedback loops to
inform and improve the quality of GPEG activities and ultimately the impact of the Project.
The APW analysis is an excellent model which could serve as a best practice for other
Projects using a similar decentralized model of non-salary resource provision. The joint
review missions used these APW reports in order to discuss improvements, provide
recommendations and determine next steps and Project adjustments. These reports evolved
over the course of GPEG with constructive adjustments. Following the MTR, additional
monitoring was contracted including a second in-depth fiduciary review and a separate in-
depth procurement review. Moreover, the Lesson Observation Sheets (LOS) as part of the
UTDBE IE provided a very rich source of data on UTDBE trainee performance throughout
GPEG’s implementation. The UTDBE and district and school grant IEs are providing key
lessons for the Government and other key stakeholders. For example, the IE findings on
the similar performance of UTDBE and DBE-trained teachers but the greater cost-
effectiveness of the UTDBE program will be extremely valuable in advocating for the
continuation of the UTDBE program beyond GPEG. At the time of Project closing, the
Government is considering subsidizing UTDBE trainees for kindergarten teachers since
this is still an area where there are huge deficits of qualified teachers.
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
48. Safeguards: The project was classified as a Category B given the potential
environmental and social impacts of district and school grants that might involve minor
rehabilitation of existing buildings or construction of new buildings on existing sites. An
Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was developed through
consultation and disclosed by the time of project appraisal. The ESMF proposed specific
institutional arrangements to enable sustainable execution of all measures identified in the
ESMF. The PIM included a negative list of items that could not be funded through district
or school sub-grants to discourage items/activities that could trigger additional
environmental and social safeguards. Safeguards reviews were conducted during
implementation in May 2014 and March 2016. During the May 2014 review,
recommendations for screening of minor civil works at the district level were provided and
an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) checklist was developed and circulated.
Despite the initial delays of undertaking environmental and social screening of the sub-
projects, the March 2016 mission confirmed that all minor rehabilitation works undertaken
under the project had been screened and were well documented using the Rehabilitation
and Construction Works Mitigation Measures Checklist provided in the PIM. The
interventions undertaken by GPEG did not trigger additional Safeguards policies nor
additional instruments aside from the approved ESMF for the project.
17
49. Fiduciary: Fiduciary compliance is rated Satisfactory. Overall the client has
complied with all legal covenants related to FM arrangements - there were no outstanding
audits and annual audit reports were received on time and were of unqualified opinion.
Interim unaudited financial reports were also submitted in a timely manner and in
accordance with Bank procedures. Interim Financial Reports were provided on a quarterly
basis. An internal auditor performed independent and objective internal audit activities
including inspections and verification of the use of funds at the district and school levels.
Procurement under the Project was sound but the delay in collating the district level
procurement plans was raised by the project team. Procurement related to project-
supported activities at the central level were adequately implemented and documented. At
the decentralized levels, while monitoring was adequate, reporting was not comprehensive.
After the MTR, the project was able to report on district level procurement and more
recently captured school-level information through an in-depth procurement audit.
50. The GPEG also conducted two in-depth fiduciary reviews, one in December 2014
and the subsequent review in August 2016. The most recent in-depth review (conducted by
an independent consultant) found overall good FM performance based on a sampling of 35
districts and at least 3 schools per district. The fiduciary review attributed the quality of
FM performance to the mainstreaming of FM arrangements with existing Government
processes complimented by strict procedures and processes highlighted in the PIM. While
capacity of district internal auditors was variable and there was some uneven collation of
data by Regional offices, the reviews concluded that the FM systems were in place and
being effectively utilized. There were some challenges related to FM which included: (i)
changes in the accounting personnel, particularly at the district level; (ii) delays in making
payment for district claims (for procurement related activities) which required travel from
the districts to Accra; and (iii) poor filing systems in some districts and schools.
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase
51. Ghana has experienced a number of external and domestic shocks since 2013/2014
due to the decline in the price of oil, gas, and gold which has limited its prospects for
revenues. The Government, as a result of the oil crisis, has faced fiscal pressure and may
not be able to sustain the level of district and school grants under GPEG. This has had a
direct impact on the ability for the Government to sustain certain GPEG activities in its
budget, such as grant allocations to districts and base grants for schools. That being said,
by working within Government systems and building capacity for better monitoring,
planning, and management, GPEG-supported systems have the institutional knowledge to
continue to employ activities at the school, district, and headquarters levels without
additional budget support. At the closure of the Project, several GPEG activities are
expected to continue while others remain uncertain. A sustainability workshop was held
and attended by representatives at the central, regional, and district levels. During this
workshop it was discussed which GPEG activities and procedures do not require funding
to be implemented. The new Government elected in January, 2017 promises to resolve the
fiscal gap and ensure more predictable funding at decentralized levels.
18
52. At the activity level, continued GPEG interventions include school and cluster-
based INSETs, teacher mentors, empowering SMCs and PTAs, SRC evaluation and APW
analyses, and encouraging the use of local teaching and learning materials, amongst others.
At a procedural level, there are many no-cost aspects of GPEG that would continue,
including appraising performance and promotion of head teachers, more efficient
deployment of teachers, simplifying the format of Circuit Supervisor reporting, and
continuation of the UTDBE program. The use of supervision and monitoring templates at
the district-level, capacity-building trainings on SPIPs and APWs, reliable and predictable
release of capitation grants, efficient deployment of teachers, are all capacities created
under GPEG which continue to be implemented by the Government. Section 4, Risk to
Development Outcome, provides more details on the sustainability of project outcomes
and activities.
53. No new GPE grants are currently planned for Ghana but the Government will
continue to engage with the GPE on potential opportunities if and when additional
allocations become available. In addition, the Bank will be preparing a new Country
Partnership Framework (CPF) in which new investments in education are expected to be
considered in basic and post-basic education.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation
Relevance of Objectives
54. As described earlier, the Project was aligned with the sector priorities of the
Government, LEG, Bank, and GPE at appraisal. At closing the Project continues to be
very strongly tied with Ghana’s education sector priorities. As the GPEG Project was
designed while the ESP of 2010-2020 was being appraised -- it is highly aligned with the
ESP goal of providing “equitable access to good-quality child-friendly universal basic
education”. The Project was also very relevant medium-term objectives in the Ghana
Shared Growth and Development Agenda II (2014-2017), which were to: (i) increase
inclusive and equitable access to, and participation in quality education at all levels; (ii)
improve the quality of teaching and learning; (iii) promote the teaching and learning of
science, mathematics, and technology at all levels; and (iv) improve the management of
education service delivery. Similarly, Ghana’s National Action Plan for Education (2016-
2030) identifies three sub-objectives for basic education, which all very closely align with
the GPEG’s objectives. These sub-objectives include: (i) improving equitable access to
participation in quality basic education; (ii) improving quality of teaching and learning
outcomes; and (iii) promoting sustainable and efficient basic education management and
accountability systems for education service delivery.
55. The Project also continues to be aligned with the World Bank’s Country Partnership
Strategy (CPS) for Ghana (2013-2016) which was recently extended to 2018. The CPS
places emphasis on human capital development as being central to the country’s growth
and shared economic prosperity. Consistent with Pillars II and III, the Project focuses on
improving competitiveness and job creation while also protecting the poor and vulnerable
19
by targeting improvements in the deprived areas of Ghana which are lagging behind in
human development indicators. Between the time that the CPS was designed in 2013 and
its extension in 2016, the serious external and domestic shocks Ghana experienced as a
result of the decline in the global prices of gold, oil, and gas has limited Ghana’s prospects
for revenue. As a result, the priorities of the CPS continue to be relevant.
56. The Project also remains relevant to the World Bank and GPE strategies. The vision
of the World Bank Group is the eradication of extreme poverty and promotion of shared
prosperity by fostering income growth of the bottom 40 percent in each country. As
education is considered essential to achieving this goal, the World Bank Education Strategy
2020 shifts the approach from an emphasis on input-driven programs to a focus on
improving learning outcomes, increasing accountability and targeting results, and
strengthening the knowledge base on education. The goals of the GPE Strategic Plan for
2016-2020 are three-fold with a focus on: (i) improving and promoting more equitable
learning outcomes; (ii) increasing equity, gender equality and inclusion; and (iii)
supporting more effective and efficient education systems. With a focus on improving
education service delivery in the most deprived areas of Ghana through decentralized
decision-making, the GPEG is well in line with the current strategic priorities of many
development actors in the education sector.
57. The Project’s relevance of objectives is rated substantial given that the Project’s
objectives were and continue to be consistent with the overall goals and sector priorities of
the Government and the World Bank.
Relevance of Design/Implementation
58. Given the country context at the time of Project design, the strong alignment with
Government priorities, and the development of GPEG and the ESP with the LEG, the areas
on which the Project focused were appropriate. These project-supported activities were
selected and designed to improve the planning, monitoring, and delivery of education
services in underserved areas in the country – in alignment with the PDO. The use of
district or school-sub grants was highly relevant given the Government and Bank priorities
to use and, in turn, to strengthen decentralized systems. Working through district and
school systems more directly supported education stakeholders and mainstreamed the
mechanisms and tools for managing service delivery. The project supported existing
processes and introduced enhancements to strengthen planning, reporting and supervision
at all levels. Project activities were highly relevant given that they all had been
piloted/taken to scale in Ghana, including the UTDBE program, use of SRCs, and provision
of district grants and school capitation grants. The choice of activities was strategic given
the original short implementation period of 3 years.
59. The Project’s targeting of “deprived districts of the Recipient’s territory” reflects
key priorities of the Government, Bank, and GPE. The Project’s design reflects the
situational analysis of wide regional disparities in poverty and human development by
enforcing a clear selection criteria for project beneficiaries. The transparent selection
criteria for districts included both the district-level poverty index (share of population
20
below the poverty line), weighted at one-third, as well as education indicators (retention in
primary education, retention in the basic cycle, share of girls enrolled in P6, share of girls
enrolled in JHS3, pass rate in BECE English, and share of trained teachers in public
primary schools), weighted at two-thirds. The targeting criteria captures the social context,
individual education results, and student flow indicators of schools well, but may have
benefitted from additional information on resources available to schools in order for
targeting to take into account cost effectiveness.
60. On the basis of the information above, the Project’s relevance of design and
implementation is rated substantial.
3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives
61. Overall efficacy for this Project is rated as substantial. As shown in the section
below – and in greater detail in Annex 2 – the Project delivered all of the expected outputs.
At the outcome level, indicators related to all three sub-objectives of improved planning,
monitoring, and service delivery were met or exceeded. Outcomes for planning, monitoring,
and service delivery are all extremely intertwined as the achievements in education service
delivery are largely dependent on good planning and monitoring. The following section
provides an assessment of achievement by the sub-objectives of improved planning,
monitoring, and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts.
Sub-objective 1.1: Improve the Planning of Basic Education in Deprived Districts
62. The GPEG contributed to improvements in basic education planning in deprived
districts as evidenced by the successful completion of yearly district annual work planning,
school planning activities (School Performance Assessment Meetings, SPAMs, and SPIPs)
to access school grants, and more systematic in-school teacher training. Planning activities
supported by the project were implemented at the school, district, and central levels and
project reporting indicated that plans were implemented to support key education
objectives. Progress in this area is captured in PDO indicator 1 as well as Intermediate
indicators 4 and 9, all of which were exceeded. Achievement of this sub-objective is
rated as substantial.
63. At the school level, GPEG’s objective to strengthen planning was met through the
SPAMs, development and implementation of the SPIPs, and management of the school
sub-grants. At project close, 100 percent of schools in deprived districts were reported as
having completed SPIPs that had been approved by their School Management Committees
(SRCs), exceeding the Project target of 75 percent. Furthermore, the execution rate of the
school grants increased as the project progressed, from 72 percent in 2012-2013 to 88
percent in 2014-2015 and to 92 percent by project closing. This was achieved through
special assistance to head teachers in the preparation of SPIPs and close involvement of
SMCs in the preparation and approval of SPIPs. When surveyed, Circuit Supervisors
thought that the quality of SPIP preparation had improved since 2012 and over 80 percent
21
of head teachers were able to show a SPIP in the official template with all fields completed
when asked.21
64. For grant activities, schools could choose activities from a pre-designed Menu of
Activities that provided a list of activities that were eligible for expenditure. The spending
of school grants was based upon a SPIP and schools were unable to access their funds if
their SPIP was not approved and signed by the Chairperson of the SMC. According to SRC
analyses, schools primarily used the grants for facilitating SMC meetings, small repairs,
building of toilets and to improve the overall school environment. A fiduciary assessment
conducted in a sample of 105 schools found that projects undertaken by the school were
inspected by the district office and the expenditure of school grant funds were tracked at
the district level. The execution rate of the funds within the same fiscal year increased as
the project progressed from 72.3 percent in 2013, to 88.0 percent in 2014, and finally to
92.4 percent in 2015/16.
65. The development and implementation of APWs and management of district sub-
grants fueled the achievement of planning objectives at the district level. District Education
Directorates were well set up to administer GPEG with 84 percent of districts having
established a technical working group; roughly half of which met at least three times per
year. The Project exceeded its target for District officers trained with over 2,250 officers
trained (of a target of 500), including 308 in reporting, monitoring, and evaluation and 329
in internal controls and auditing. Moreover, all District offices entered SRCs into the
district’s software to improve planning, exceeding the target of 70 percent. The impact
evaluation of the program found that District Directors and Circuit Supervisors, who visited
schools to observe teaching practices and provide advice on school management at the
primary level, are frequently using the GPEG funded management tools including SRCs,
SPIPs, school assessment meetings, annual training plans, and GPEG working groups.
There was a substantial increase in the number of districts which have district SRC
summaries available – from 73 percent in 2012-2013 to 99 percent in 2014-2015.
66. Ultimately, 100 percent of deprived districts disbursed 75 percent or more of their
district education sub-grants according to their APWs, exceeding the PDO-level target of
80 percent. In fact, the average total disbursement against planned activities in the APWs
was over 98 percent at Project closing. District Annual Programs of Work were created by
districts from a Ministry of Education approved Menu of Activities (included in the Project
Implementation Manual). The APWs were created in workshops wherein districts were
assisted by District Education Directorate staff, MOE and GES headquarters planning staff
and Regional Directorates and district level education statistics from EMIS were used to
inform decision making. According to APW analysis, the most popular district activity by
count and expenditure was the provision of school supplies (chalkboards, desks, chairs,
etc.) with other facility/supply related activities also ranked highly. Provision of teaching
and learning materials and gender-friendly toilet and urinal facilities were among the top
five activities by both count and expenditure. Management and training activities were
particularly popular, especially related to providing support to school grant planning and
21 GPEG District and School Grant Impact Evaluation, 2016.
22
expenditure, training officers in Excel, operational expenses, and training for heads of
schools in the use of the school grant. More detailed information on district grant activities
can be found in Annex 2.
67. Achievements at the central level were also considerable with capacity-building
provided for the management of project components. The APW analysis, for example, in
which district grant activities and spending were consolidated and analyzed on a yearly
basis, allowed GES/Ministry staff to properly monitor both spending and activity choices
at the district level in line with their APWs. Quarterly workshops/meetings with district
directors contributed to the feedback loop and informed the preparation of the following
year APW. This process allowed GES/Ministry staff to both advise and ensure purchases
were of good quality and of relevance to the schools. Project reporting in GPEG was noted
as a best practice by the GPE Secretariat.
Sub-objective 1.2: Improve the Monitoring of Basic Education in Deprived Districts
68. Available data also indicate improvements in monitoring of basic education at all
levels through SRCs, district analysis and M&E reports. Achievement of this sub-
objective under the Project is rated substantial – with progress in this area captured in
PDO-level indicator 2 as well as intermediate-level indicators 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. Out of 1
PDO-level indicator and 5 intermediate-level indicators for this sub-objective, all 6
indicators were met or exceeded.
69. At the school level, the GPEG aimed to improve monitoring through better
implementation of SRCs, which would then inform SPIPs and ultimately the use of school
grants. This was achieved with 98 percent of schools in deprived areas with up-to-date
report cards (PDO-level indicator 2) and 93 percent of schools displaying their SRCs on
public notice boards by the last year of the Project (intermediate-level indicator 6).
Improvements in the updating and utilization of SRCs were driven by the Project’s training
of 5,993 head teachers and 1,094 circuit supervisors in the utilization of SRCs
(intermediate-level indicator 1) as well as increased visits by Circuit Supervisors
(intermediate-level indicator 7). An analysis of EMIS data from 2008 indicated that circuit
supervisors visited schools more than once a year in only 77 percent of schools22. In
comparison, all GPEG schools (confirmed by district reports) were visited over 7 times per
year on average in 2016.
70. The project activities also led to improved monitoring at the regional levels (REDs).
Although compliance was low for the initial two years of the GPEG at only 13 percent in
early 2015, by the end of the Project all REDs submitted adequate reports capturing data
from all districts in their region (Intermediate Indicator 8). This was achieved through the
training of 2,288 regional and district officers on financial management, data collection,
and other key areas (Intermediate indicator 2). In addition, districts aggregated SRC results,
helping them to have consistent information about all basic education schools and
22 Analysis was conducted by WB and GES and reported in “Basic Education Beyond the MDGS in Ghana”
Balwanz and Darvas, World Bank, May 2013
23
ultimately make more informed decisions about their district priorities (and APW
expenditures). The survey from the impact evaluation found that 97 percent of District
Education Directorates agreed or strongly agreed that data from the SRC had helped them
in improving girls’ school attendance by an increased focus on gender in their APW
activities. District Education Departments collating SRCs from at least 70 percent of
schools within the district (Intermediate Indicator 4) was also exceeded as 100 percent was
reported in the final year of the project.
71. At the central level, improved education monitoring of deprived districts was
evidenced through twice-yearly monitoring visits by central level staff members as well as
through the APW analysis, the incorporation of a Lesson Observation Sheet monitored by
the UTDBE IE to measure teacher performance, and the implementation of two impact
evaluations of the Project. Apart from GES/Ministry staff, there was also project
monitoring by civil society in which two independent reviews were conducted during the
life of the Project. The GPEG project generated an impressive volume of education data
which were incorporated into the annual Education Sector Performance Reports and
presented at annual NESAR events during the lifetime of the Project. Sub-objective 1.3: Improve the Service Delivery of Basic Education in Deprived Districts
72. Achievement of the sub-objective of improving basic education service
delivery in deprived districts under the Project is rated substantial. The level of
achievement of this sub-objective is determined on the basis of RF indicators met or
exceeded, impact evaluation reports for the UTDBE and grants to districts/schools,
education indicators as reported by EMIS, as well as proxy indicators from other sources.
The annual Education Sector Performance Reviews (based on annual school census data)
also confirmed improvements in basic education indicators with regard to enrollment,
trained teachers, completion and girls’ participation. As education service delivery can
encompass many different types of activities, this report will view them in terms of the
quality of teaching, quality of learning, access, and school management. All 3 PDO
indicators related to this sub-objective were achieved/exceeded. For the two intermediate
indicators, one was exceeded and the other was met through a proxy indicator for training.
73. The Project had many significant gains in terms of improving the quality of
teaching in deprived areas. The percentage of trained teachers in deprived districts
increased between 10-18 percent in kindergarten, primary, and junior high-levels between
2012-2013 and 2015-2016. While the percentage of trained teachers also increased in non-
GPEG districts, the GPEG districts received between 3-5 percentage point gains over the
non-GPEG districts allowing deprived districts to narrow the gap for this indicator. For
example, the percentage of trained junior high school teachers jumped from 72 to 82
percent in GPEG districts, compared with 87 to 92 percent in non-GPEG districts. This can
partially be attributed to the influx of 6,480 (of a targeted 5,000) teachers trained by the
UTDBE program (Intermediate indicator 3).
74. As part of an impact evaluation on the UTDBE program, a representative sample
of UTDBE teachers were observed teaching in their classrooms and rated based on their
lesson planning and preparation, teaching methodology, and classroom organization and
24
management. UTDBE trainees’ scores in all three areas improved from participation in the
course and exceeded Project targets, although performance was highest at the time of the
midline survey. PDO indicator 4 measured the percentage of teachers trained who obtained
a satisfactory rating or higher in the lesson observation sheet. At midline, 87 percent of
UTDBE trainees (of a targeted 50 percent, and baseline of 69 percent) had obtained a
satisfactory rating in their lesson observation assessment.
75. Compared with traditionally trained teachers in the DBE program, UTDBE trainees
under the Project showed higher levels of content knowledge by out-performing their
Diploma in Basic Education peers in the examination results of the “Trends in Education,
School Management, and Integrated Science” course. The performance of the UTDBE
teachers in this Project is of additional significance given that these teachers are from the
local school communities and therefore speak local languages, are more integrated within
the community, and have a much higher likelihood of remaining to teach in the deprived
areas. As a result of the success of the UTDBE program through GPEG, the Government
is considering subsidizing UTDBE trainees for kindergarten teaching as this is an area with
large deficits in qualified teachers. The knowledge base of teachers was also improved in
the Project through in-service trainings (INSET) in the core strategic areas of numeracy,
literacy, and science as well as other areas such as early childhood education and gender
sensitivity. Over the course of the Project, over 94,000 INSETs were provided with at least
42,541 teachers (of a targeted 30,000) trained in at least one core INSET subject
(Intermediate indicator 3). Similarly, it is estimated that over 6,500 of basic schools in
GPEG districts participated in all INSET core courses as part of GPEG (Intermediate
indicator 5).
76. The Project showed some progress at the student learning outcome level, although
given the short project timeline it is quite unlikely that advances in student learning
outcomes would be attributable to the Project. The third PDO indicator related to the
National Education Assessment results for P3 students was achieved during the
implementation of the project in 2013, surpassing the target, [16 percent (of a targeted 15
percent) of P3 children achieved proficiency in English and 13 percent (of a targeted 11
percent) in Mathematics]. Such improvements of 29 percent for English and 44 percent for
Mathematics in NEA over the project lifetime are significant and compare favorably to
other countries in the region. Unfortunately a confirmation of further improvements in
learning outcomes through additional data at endline was not available as the 2015 NEA
was postponed to 2016 and the level of assessment was moved from P3 to P4 level. This
was an unexpected change that was communicated in the last month of the project. As
mentioned earlier, this initiative is funded by USAID and Government followed the
technical advice on improving the assessment.
77. However, Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) and Early Grade Mathematics
Assessment (EGMA) for P2 students in GPEG districts between 2013 and 2015 were also
conducted during the project period (with USAID support) and confirmed that there
were statistically significant improvements in number identification, letter sounds in
English, oral reading in English, and letter sounds for local languages in the GPEG
deprived districts. The District and School Grants Impact Evaluation provides an analysis
25
of the results. This study also analyzed results of the BECE23 exam (end of basic education-
grade 9), even though project effects on student performance at the end of basic schooling
would only be measurable with a much longer project duration. The results showed that
the number of students taking the exam between 2012 and 2015 increased by 26 percent in
GPEG districts in comparison to only 12 percent in non-GPEG districts. BECE pass rates
in GPEG districts have declined and the gender gap in BECE pass rates have widened in
comparison with non-GPEG districts during this time. One explanation for these results is
the effect the GPEG project has had on increasing access to education, allowing for larger
class sizes, fewer textbooks, and increased burden on teachers at that level. It would be
interesting to follow BECE results in GPEG districts over a longer time period in order to
see if those trends reverse.
78. The project outputs of improved percentage of qualified teachers in deprived
districts, in-service teacher training and the purchase of teaching and learning materials
from district and school grants contributed to improved learning outcomes observed within
the deprived districts targeted by the project. While the proportion of trained teachers has
increased nationally at all levels, the increase in GPEG districts has outpaced that of non-
GPEG districts across all levels. The rate of increase in GPEG districts is 4 percentage
points higher than the non-GPEG districts for KG, 3 percentage points higher for Primary,
and 5 percentage points higher for JHS (EMIS 2016).
79. Gains in student access and retention in GPEG districts can also be attributed, at
least in part, to the Project. The District and School Grants IE found that the Project had a
positive impact on access, in comparison with similar non-GPEG districts at the
Kindergarten, Primary, and JHS levels. For example, compared with similar non-GPEG
districts, GPEG districts saw an additional 5 percentage point increase in Kindergarten net
admission rate (NAR). The Net Enrollment Rate (NER) for Kindergarten, Primary, and
JHS improved by 17, 4, and 2 percentage points respectively more in GPEG districts than
in non-GPEG districts. In GPEG districts, dropout rates for Kindergarten increased during
the time period, while staying constant at the P5 level (and slightly decreased in comparable
non-GPEG districts) and decreased at the JHS2 level (but at a lower rate than in non-GPEG
districts). Specifically related to gender, the APW analysis of this Project shows that on
average, one-third of all district grant activities were supporting gender related-activities,
the most popular of which was providing gender friendly sanitary facilities in basic schools.
80. There is also some evidence of improvements in school management as a result of
the GPEG Project. Nearly 90 percent of head teachers reported that they provided coaching
to teachers at their school with 75 percent reporting that lesson plans were reviewed weekly.
It was also found that Lesson Observation Sheets were being used in approximately 70
percent of schools in a combination of self-evaluation and evaluation activities. According
to the APW analysis, nearly 40 percent of all district grant activities were management
related.
23 BECE is the Basic Education Certificate Examination at the end of Junior high school- a normative exam
that determines placement in secondary education.
26
3.3 Efficiency
81. Overall efficiency of the project has been rated as Substantial. The findings that
are detailed below and in Annex 3 indicate that the Project benefitted from exchange rate
gains and cost effective implementation of activities, allowing the project to achieve and
exceed many of its targets.
82. In terms of efficiency of district and school grants, the analysis found that district
grants were allocated based on relative deprivation (the targeting mechanism worked). Two
district level activities (accounting for 24.81 percent of overall district level expenditure)
– construction of urinals and toilets and in-service teacher training - were analyzed and
both activities were found to be relatively cost effective in comparison with government
and other donor led initiatives in Ghana. At the school level, school grant disbursements
were found to be highly correlated with improved planning (through SPIPs) and monitoring
(through SRCs). A difference in differences analysis showed that in line with the available
literature on district and school grants, districts that received grants witnessed substantial
improvements in gross and age-appropriate enrolment (as compared to non GPEG districts
over the same period). However, not all the improvements in access can be attributed to
the project as other programs were operating in deprived districts during the same period.
In terms of efficiency of the UTDBE program, the following was determined: UTDBE and
the traditional teacher training (Diploma in Basic education, or DBE) model produce
teachers with similar skillsets though UTDBE is more cost-effective. The program has led
to a convergence in the percentage of trained teachers within GPEG and non GPEG
districts though so far, the upgrade of teacher skills has not translated into vastly improved
completion or transition rates.
83. As outlined in the PAD, to receive district grants, each district submitted an APW
which detailed their planned activities. Districts planned for activities along four cross
cutting thematic areas: Access, Quality, Gender, and Management found in a pre-approved
Menu of Activities. At the end of each year, districts reported on the progress in
implementing their activities within their APW, and were reported on actual expenditure,
timeframe and quantity. The analysis of the executed APWs reveals that districts conducted
4,983 activities over the project period. These were comprised of 76 unique activities.
84. A comparison was made between the unit cost of construction of toilets and urinals
under GPEG with identical models constructed under UNICEF and under government
procurement, an activity that accounted for 18 percent of district grant expenditure (see
Annex 3 for more details). The average cost for a 4 unit VIP was GH¢ 32,801 under
GPEG’s decentralized process as opposed to GH¢ 36,083 under UNICEF and GH¢ 40,100
under the Government’s Funds and Procurement Management Unit (FPMU). Construction
of urinals under GPEG was also found to be the most cost-efficient at GH¢ 5,665 per unit
in comparison with GH¢ 6,368 under UNICEF and GH¢ 5,950 under FPMU.
85. The cost of providing in-service teacher trainings were also most cost-efficient
using the INSET model under the GPEG. For example, under the GPEG Project the unit
cost per participant in an INSET Mathematics training was GH¢ 39.48 in comparison with
27
the same training administered by the government in a non-GPEG district at GH¢ 45.8.
Cost-comparisons of INSET trainings in literacy and science followed similar patterns.
More details are available in Annex 3.
86. Analysis of the UTDBE program found the program to have an efficiency ratio of
1.6 in comparison to the traditional teachers’ diploma program, DBE. After cost sharing
with the student, the cost of the training to the program was US$2,130 in comparison with
US$3,409 per trainee in the DBE program. The attrition rate of 20.43% was also similar to
the attrition rate of the DBE program. Training UTDBE teachers has sharply increased the
percentage of trained teachers and the Pupil Trained Teacher Ratio in deprived districts.
This convergence in the percentage of trained teachers between GPEG and non GPEG
districts is likely to remain persistent as most UTDBE teachers had been teaching in GPEG
districts for several years prior to being selected for the program and have roots within the
communities in which they reside.
87. Several aspects of project design and implementation also attributed to project
efficiency include strong project targeting and focus on equity and the mainstreaming of
project activities through government systems. At the end of the project, districts were re-
ranked per the original selection criteria applied during the design of the GPEG to see
whether deprived districts have changed in ranking. Using the more updated indices, 57
of the 75 GPEG districts remain in the top 75 most deprived districts (or bottom third of
the 216 districts). However, 18 districts (24% of the original deprived districts) can be
considered to have transitioned from the deprived districts list.
88. To summarize, the GPEG project was able to successfully complete all project
activities within a 3 and half-year period. Internal and external audits concluded that district
and school funds were used for their intended purposes and in an efficient and cost-
effective manner. Component level expenditure was in line with the budgetary allocations
made during appraisal and cost savings from currency depreciation were redirected towards
increased allocation for district grants.
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating
89. Rating: Satisfactory. Given the Project’s substantial ratings in Relevance,
Efficacy, and Efficiency, the overall outcome rating of Satisfactory is appropriate.
Project Relevance Achievement of PDO
(Efficacy)
Efficiency Overall Rating
Substantial Satisfactory Substantial Satisfactory
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
90. Largely a result of the targeting mechanism that took into account poverty and
education outcomes, the GPEG Project has meant better education opportunities for
children in the most deprived areas of Ghana. As a result of the Project, children from
28
GPEG districts have improved access to education and an improved school environment
and there are significantly more trained teachers then prior to the project. Since some of
their trained teachers are graduates of the UTDBE program – it is likely that teachers will
speak their local languages and remain teaching in these communities far longer than other
trained teachers at the school. In addition to funding teacher training, the school and district
grants were used to rehabilitate school infrastructure, such as bathrooms, making it easier
for girls to remain in school.
91. The complementarity of the DfID-funded GPASS program24 and the GPEG project
further supported and enhanced achievements under the GPEG operation, particularly with
regards to increasing girls’ access to and retention in schools. The decline in girls’ dropout
rates at the JHS level in GPEG districts outweighed the decline observed in comparable
non-GPEG districts. This may be due in part to the GPEG as well as to the GPASS program
which covered, among other costs (school fees), sanitary and other personal items needed
for girls to remain in school. The Gender Parity Index (GPI) for GPEG districts was
maintained at the kindergarten level, slightly decreased at the primary level, and increased
at the JHS level.25
92. As a result of the systematic school performance improvement planning and school
grant implementation, SMCs were re-energized under the GPEG. While SMCs existed in
most schools across Ghana, their functionality varied widely. The School Grant manual
and SPIP process (planning, sign-off and vetting of the plans) promoted more active
engagement of SMCs in the schools in deprived districts. As mentioned before, a 2010
World Bank survey had found that SMC members did not have enough information about
their roles and responsibilities or about SPIP and SPAM mechanisms. The GPEG aimed to
address this by supporting training for all project SMCs given their key role in designing,
vetting and ultimately approving the SPIP (a requirement for any school to receive a grant
under the Project).
(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening
93. By using the existing government structures and building capacity at the district
and school levels, the Project has strengthened management procedures and mechanisms
at the decentralized levels. GPEG has directly supported the Government’s
decentralization agenda and the 75 participating GPEG districts now have a much stronger
capacity in key functional areas, including budgeting, planning, and monitoring. For
example, district staff are able to effectively carry out supervision and monitoring of
activities, including capitations grants, and are able collate and evaluate SRCs and generate
their APWs. This is likely to continue to have an impact beyond the GPEG Project with
potential spillovers into other sectors. Furthermore, the graduation from deprived category
24 The scholarship program, spanning from 2013 to 2018, was designed to target 55,000 needy girls in the 75
deprived districts. In the 2016-17 academic year an additional 5,000 JHS3 girls will receive a scholarship
package, bringing the total number of beneficiaries to 60,000 JHS girls. 25 As the GPASS program is still underway, an impact evaluation of the GPASS program in 2018 will help
to better understand achievements in attracting and retaining girls in GPEG districts.
29
of 18 GPEG districts out of the 75 deprived districts in Ghana speaks to the institutional
growth in those districts during the life of the GPEG Project.
94. Targeting for the Project had a lasting impression on Ministry staff. With a
substantial risk of political influence in the selection of districts for the Project, it was
important that the targeting be transparent and fully owned by the Government. In
interviews for this ICR, Ministry staff were proud of the targeting mechanism for GPEG
because it used clear education and poverty indicators as criteria for selection. Joint
ownership of the process has allowed the Government to continue to use a robust targeting
mechanism in other projects, such as SIEP and the USAID supported Ghana Partnership
for Education Project. The policy discussions on the new ESP (2016-2030) and new
programs includes more debate about equity and targeted interventions than had previously
been considered during the 2010 ESP.
95. Capacity-building at the central level of the MoE has further facilitated the
preparation and implementation of other large projects. The Ministry and GES have
negotiated several large new programs since the GPEG rollout. Central Ministry staff
reported that their experience under the GPEG Project was useful in the efficient
preparation of the PIM for the SEIP.
(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative)
96. An unintended positive impact has been the interest generated by the NGO/CSO
community to track grant financing and independently review district and school grant
activities. During the GPEG, there were several reviews conducted (GNECC 2013 and
SEND Ghana 2015) that verified grant allocations, utilization, and community satisfaction.
3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops
97. A Beneficiary Survey was undertaken with key stakeholders involved in the Project
and a Stakeholders Workshop was held on September 28, 2016. A summary of the results
of each activity are presented in Annexes 5 and 6.
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome
Rating: Moderate
98. The risk to development outcome is rated moderate for a number of reasons. First,
the mainstreaming of activities into government systems allows for Project activities to
continue beyond the life of the GPEG Project. However, the fiscal crisis slowed growth
and reduced revenues that had been anticipated for continuation of district and school
grants and elections in late 2016 made it difficult to forecast funds available for education
without an approved budget. The financial cost of continuing the school and district grants
in the deprived districts is estimated at US$19.3 million annually26. The government has
26 No school grants have been disbursed in 2016 apart from the preexisting Government-funded capitation
grant (of approximately US$0.49 per student per semester).
30
no plans to increase the capitation grants provided to schools or increase district grants,
leading to no recurrent fiscal implications for the government. Nevertheless, because
GPEG was embedded within existing Government systems and not through a Project
Implementation Unit, many of the outcomes and gains can be maintained in the post-
project phase. A sustainability forum was held in February 2016 to discuss and determine
which GPEG-funded activities could be continued beyond the life of the Project with
minimal or no external funding. At the school level, SPAMs are now functioning and
districts are able to enforce the preparation of SPIPs regardless of the level of funding in
terms of school grants. However, there is real concern that continued delay in the release
of the capitation grants will make it difficult for schools to implement their annual
performance plans. While the scale and timeliness of grants are much more uncertain after
the closing of the GPEG, with the systems established by GPEG, any mobilization of
resources could be quickly channeled to schools. Moreover, districts are equipped to collate
and evaluate SRCs and generate their APWs based on the needs of their districts. At the
central level, MoE and GES institutions have been strengthened and staff are well versed
in project targeting, M&E, and reporting which will continue to enhance management.
99. Additionally, some elements of GPEG are already being expanded by other donors.
The strong collaboration and wider ownership of the GPEG project amongst development
partners has led to the continuation of scholarships for girls in GPEG districts through 2017
(DfID) and the introduction of more efficient mobile monitoring tools for local level
activities (USAID and UNICEF). That being said, there are sustainability concerns around
the GPASS program as survey results have indicated that most of the GPASS girls are
unlikely to be able to afford Senior high school education and continue their education
beyond the GPASS scholarship27. The Bank-supported Secondary Education Improvement
Project (funded with an IDA credit of US$156 million) is working to link the scholarship
recipients from the GPASS with the scholarship program under the SEIP.
100. The high turnover of district staff and teachers who have been trained raises some
sustainability concerns, while the UTDBE program shows great promise for retaining
qualified teachers in underserved areas. Results from the IE showed that one-fourth of
District Directors were a year away from retirement. With the median age of District
Directors at 57 years old, skills gained by these district staff will be lost to the districts
unless proactive steps are taken for refresher trainings and transfer of skills to new staff
members. At the school level, the IE found that Head Teachers trained by GPEG have been
at their post for an average of 3 years. Because teachers may not be keen to remain at
remote posts, and/or as head teachers are close to retirement, it is expected that some of the
school-level institutional strengthening will be lost when Head Teachers either retire or
transfer out to schools in non-deprived areas of the country. On the other hand, the Project
demonstrated that the UTDBE-trained teachers are of similar quality to DBE teachers. The
large number of UTDBE teachers trained under the GPEG Project are not only more cost-
effective, but they are able to provide mother-tongue instruction, and are bonded to their
27 This situation may change with the introduction of free senior high school education currently proposed
by the new Government to commence September 2017.
31
schools for 4-6 years following the program with a high likelihood of staying longer due
to personal ties to the community.
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1 Bank Performance
(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry
Rating: Highly Satisfactory
101. The Bank’s performance in ensuring quality at entry is rated Highly Satisfactory
based on the following:
a. The PDO was highly relevant and remained so throughout the Project, as discussed
in Section 3. The PDO was well aligned to Ghana’s ESP, the Bank’s CPS, and GPE
strategies. While the focus was on processes and less on learning outcomes, the
project tried to incorporate assessment of quality by tracking performance for the
deprived districts on the NEA as well as the EGRA/EGMA instruments.
b. The preparation task team incorporated lessons learned from previous GPE grants
in Ghana, the recently closed EdSeP, other donor funded programs and
comprehensive analytical work under the ESP. The GPEG built upon programs that
had already been piloted in Ghana and further strengthened their implementation
with additional capacity-building and adopted objective criteria to support pro-poor
targeting. The preparation team also incorporated the guidance received through
the QAR and QER in 2011. Technical aspects of the Project were well developed
and appropriate for the sectoral, institutional, and policy context in Ghana. The
Bank team benefitted from extensive quality assurance through the ESP preparation
and the GPE application process. The additional support from DPs included
additional studies conducted by USAID and DFID with regard to M&E systems
and gender issues respectively.
c. The strong engagement with the country partners (including the LEG) and the
strategic decisions to mainstream project management facilitated excellent
collaboration. Parallel systems were not established, thereby strengthening the
existing systems, capacities and roles of key education agencies.
d. M&E arrangements designed for the Project were strong, with very rich and diverse
M&E data, from both internal and third-party sources, built into GPEG design. The
comprehensive project implementation manual included sample templates for all
monitoring activities to help guide implementation.
e. Risks identified at entry were appropriate, and the mitigation measures proved to
be adequate.
f. Fiduciary and social and environmental aspects of the Project were well designed
with extensive guidance included in the project implementation manual, school
grants manual and Environmental and Social Management Framework.
32
(b) Quality of Supervision
Rating: Satisfactory
102. The Bank’s performance with regards to quality of supervision is rated Satisfactory
based on the following:
a. The Bank team possessed an appropriate skills mix (education, fiduciary,
environmental and safeguards expert, procurement) for supporting and supervising
the Project. Joint missions (with the LEG and Government) were conducted
regularly and Bank staff was commended for their availability to support GPEG.
There was minimal staff turnover allowing for enhanced continuity. The same Bank
team prepared, implemented, and closed the project. The team received consistent
and constructive support from the country office, in particular from the country
management and fiduciary/safeguards staff. A generous preparation and
supervision budget provided by the GPE contributed to the ability of the team to
mobilize support on an as needed basis.
b. Risks and implementation issues were identified and addressed in a proactive
manner, and highlighted and discussed in detailed supervision documentation (e.g.
Implementation Status Reports, Aide Memoires, MTR report). Project ratings were
realistic and in line with implementation progress. The Bank team maintained a
strong focus on the achievement of the PDO throughout the life of the Project. The
Bank team was commended in the Government’s Project Completion Report (PCR,
a summary can be found in Annex 7) for securing all approvals (e.g. for IFRs, no
objections, work plans, budgets, etc.,) with minimal delays and for prompting the
Government to submit relevant documentation at the appropriate time. Reacting to
Project needs, the Bank provided intensive support during the first year of the
Project, as seen in supervision missions and costs) to ensure the Government was
ready to implement. The Bank also supported regular communication with the
Government by supporting the establishment of a videoconference facility within
the MoE.
c. The Bank team was of significant support in helping the Ministry overcome
capacity challenges in managing the school and district grant IE. Nevertheless,
additional attention to RF calculations and reporting during supervision missions
may have prevented some challenges in reporting.
d. The Bank worked with a number of the other DPs – including working closely with
the LEG while also benefitting from GPE Secretariat support and advice throughout
project supervision. As mentioned previously, the degree of local donor
involvement in GPEG preparation and supervision was greatly appreciated by the
Government.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
33
5.2 Borrower Performance
(a) Government Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
103. Overall, the Government demonstrated a high level of commitment to the
achievement of the PDO as well as ownership of activities supported under the Project. At
the design stage, the Government helped facilitate the targeting mechanisms for the Project,
allowing GPEG to be truly focused on supporting the most underserved areas of the country
without political interference. The Government also helped ensure that Project preparation
and appraisal were jointly conducted with the LEG to ensure that the GPEG was well
aligned with ongoing and new commitments of development partners. During
implementation, the Ministry maintained close oversight of the Project and met regularly
with the local Bank team and during missions. GPEG was reported on at monthly LEG
meetings. Four Government-led NESARs were held during the Project period and GPEG
was also highlighted in the Government’s annual ESPR. A Project Steering Committee
including the Ministries of Finance and Local Government and Rural Development
provided additional oversight to GPEG, although they did not meet as frequently as
expected, with only four meetings during the Project lifetime.
104. The Ministry of Finance was supportive of GPEG and ensured a quick turnaround
on legal and formal requests to the Bank. However, the delayed disbursement of capitation
grants throughout the project period reduced the ability of the school grants to be
supplementary.
(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
105. The main implementing agency was the MoE and GES. Within the MoE and GES,
various department were responsible for specific activities and the PBME unit played an
overarching role in coordination and data collection and analysis. FM and Procurement
were handled by units within MoE and GES. Overall, MoE/GES demonstrated strong
commitment and a high level of ownership of GPEG with the Project embedded within
MoE systems. A Project Coordinator was appointed by GES to work across all of the
implementing agencies and reported to the Director General of GES. The Director of the
Teacher Education Division (TED) was responsible for management and reporting on
UTDBE and INSET. In its role as implementing agency, MoE and GES achieved the
following:
a. Disbursed 80 percent of all Project funds and delivered on nearly all Project
activities within the original 3 year period. The project extension of 10 months
allowed for disbursement of remaining project funds and delivery of all planned
assessments.
b. Development of the PIM which remained a reference document throughout the
GPEG project at headquarters, district, and school levels.
c. Compliance with Bank’s fiduciary and safeguards requirements.
34
d. Effectively verified, analyzed and reported on extensive data collected from the
Regions and third-parties as well as conducted their own analyses (APW analysis,
beneficiary study, SRC analysis, etc.). The sheer quantity of monitoring and
evaluation data provided strong feedback loops and detailed analysis. The team also
created four GPEG documentaries which are available on the GPE website.
e. Proactively identified, resolved, and reported implementation challenges during the
Project. In particular, GES is commended for quarterly meetings with district
officers to check and discuss project activities and status report of the districts, as
well as the high quality project status reporting by the Ministry prior to
implementation support missions.
f. The GES and MOE provided comprehensive annual status reports on GPEG
implementation, organized joint supervision missions with the LEG, conducted
annual NESARs, and published annual ESRPs which included special
disaggregation for GPEG districts.
106. MoE and GES performed consistently well during the lifetime of the Project, with
only some minor shortcomings in M&E. These shortcomings included identifying and
addressing challenges in calculating a few RF indicators (teachers trained under INSET,
P3 student outcomes with the switch of NEA to measure P4 achievement) prior to the end
of the GPEG and handling of the district and school grant impact evaluation procurement
to avoid a de-scoping of the evaluation design.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
6. Lessons Learned
107. Lessons learned from previous projects can play an important role in
designing and implementing a short three-year project. Building on lessons learned
from the prior EFA-FTI grants and the Bank-supported EdSeP allowed smooth and
expedited transition/uptake of the GPEG Project. GPEG’s decentralized model worked
well because it had benefitted from piloting under the EdSeP. Capacity building under
EdSeP and other DP supported operations helped ensure institutional readiness. The
inclusion of a lessons learned annex in the PAD (with evidence from other countries as
well) also informed the design of the activities. Most importantly, the GPEG focused on
the piloted and field tested activities. GPEG PDO-level and intermediate indicators
were realistic and consistent with the Project timeframe.
108. GPEG capitalized on the consistency of political leadership. The Education
Minister and other key policymakers remained constant throughout GPEG preparation and
implementation. The Minister of Education was appointed just prior to the GPEG launch
and participated in the closing workshop of the project held in September 2016. Since there
was no parallel structure established to manage the GPEG, the responsibilities were
embedded within the structures of the MOE and GES. Therefore, at the technical levels
there also was minimal turnover of staff.
35
109. Strong project ownership and accountability can be strengthened by
embedding the project in regular processes and within the government system. The
level of ownership of the Project by the Government and stakeholders can play an
important role in determining an operation’s overall success and long-term impact. The
beneficiary assessment acknowledged the success of the GPEG Project in empowering the
existing systems and helping to make them better functioning. Further, the capacity-
building under the GPEG Project followed a “learning by doing” approach which allowed
for more direct involvement of the stakeholders. The implementation arrangements were
further influenced by past challenges when responsibilities were not in direct correlation
to roles of the government agencies. For example, under previous projects, (e.g., EdSeP)
implementation often faced challenges because the Ministry of Education was tasked with
implementation, yet is not set up for playing such a role. Under the GPEG, the bulk of
implementation rested with the GES which has the mandate for implementation
particularly at the local level. GPEG also aimed to strengthen the decentralized system by
empowering the Regions and Districts as they were critical in supporting the collection and
collation of data.
110. More investments in project preparation can lead to subsequent efficiency
savings through enhanced cooperation between the Bank, the Government and donor
partners. Significant analytical work conducted just prior and during GPEG preparation
provided a strong technical foundation for the selected activities. GPEG was also greatly
advantaged by consistent Bank support and adequate preparation and supervision
budgets. During the project preparation phase of GPEG, audio conference meetings were
held weekly, which ensured that all stakeholders were aligned and roles and responsibilities
was clear, leading to smooth flow of disbursements throughout the project period.
111. Investing in engagement with donor partners can lead to greater synergies
between donor efforts and the project. For example, cooperation with DFID during
project preparation led to the Girls PASS program prioritizing the GPEG deprived districts
for the JHS scholarship and enhanced cooperation in monitoring and supervision. Joint
supervision missions allowed for greater engagement among development partners around
GPEG objectives.
112. Through transparent and objective targeting of deprived districts, incentives
can be shifted to allocate resources where they are most needed. Despite initial
concerns about political capture of district selection, the scientific approach of using
poverty and education indicators as criteria in the selection and targeting of districts
received full political support and was a source of pride at project closing.
113. Expenditure tracking at the district and school level can provide valuable
information on education needs at the decentralized level. The project was able to
collect detailed information on district and school expenditure priorities in the deprived
districts and whether actual expenditures were in line with the budgeted amounts. Apart
from improving capacities in decentralized forecasting, this information on expenditure
priorities is useful to the Ministry and for academic research.
36
114. The UTDBE program is a cost-effective alternative to the DBE teacher
diploma program and holds the most promise for increasing the numbers of trained
teachers in underserved areas. The impact evaluation found that UTDBE-trained
teachers perform at similar levels as conventionally trained teachers, but with a significant
cost savings to the Government. UTDBE teachers are from local school communities and,
therefore, speak local languages, are more integrated within the community, and have a
much higher likelihood of working and remaining in the deprived areas of the country.
115. Systems need resources and strong M&E to work. The Project had a rich variety
of internal and external data sources to measure the project’s performance and to identify
challenges. GPEG made significant improvements to the frequency and quality of M&E in
the system and strengthened supervision at the school and district levels. It is equally
critical that adequate financial resources are provided to carry out the responsibilities and
activities required within the M&E system.
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors N/A (a) Grantee/Implementing agencies
(b) Cofinanciers/Donors (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society)
37
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)
Components Appraisal Estimate
(USD millions)
Actual/Latest
Estimate (USD
millions)
Percentage of
Appraisal
Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts 42.36 48.41 114.3
School Sub-Grants 22.06 20.38 92.4
Project Management and
Institutional Strengthening 4.58 6.71 146.5
Total Baseline Cost 69.0 75.5
Physical Contingencies 3.25 0.00
Price Contingencies 3.25 0.00
Total Project Costs 75.5 75.5
Total Financing Required 75.5 75.5
(b) Financing
Source of Funds Type of
Cofinancing
Appraisal
Estimate
(USD
millions)
Actual/Latest
Estimate
(USD
millions)
Percentage of
Appraisal
Global Partnership for Education
Program Grant 75.5 75.5 100
38
Annex 2. Outputs by Component
1. According to the Ghana Partnership for Education Fund Grant Agreement, the
Project Development Objective (PDO) was to improve the planning, monitoring, and
delivery of basic education services in deprived districts of the Recipient’s territory
(Ghana). The PDO as described in the PAD is identical. There were a total of 5 PDO
indicators and 9 intermediate indicators at Appraisal. Project restructuring had no effect on
indicators or targets.
2. The PDO was not revised during the lifetime of the project. There were two minor
restructurings of the project in 2013 and 2015 in order to add works category to the district
grants (2013), extend the project closing date by ten months and introduce reallocation of
funding among expenditure categories (2015). The project consisted of three components
with a total project cost of $75,500,000. In 2014, a re-delineation of districts in Ghana
increased the number of project districts for GPEG to 75. This did not alter the project
target group as the 18 new administrative offices were carved out of the original 57 targeted
districts. There were no major changes in the components and only minor changes in
project activities and allocations across categories.
3. Reallocation of Proceeds. The allocation of loan proceeds from the second
restructuring was revised as follows:
Category of Expenditure Allocation % of Financing
At Appraisal Revised
Goods, non-consultants’
services, consultants’ services,
Training and Operating costs
under the Project (other than
for Sub-grants)
19,700,000.00 14,936,759.52 100%
Goods, works, and services
for Sub-projects to be
financed out of the proceeds
of District Sub-grants
27,300,000.00 38,941,702.00 100%
Goods, works, and services
for Sub-projects to be
financed out of the proceeds
of School Sub-grants
22,100,000.00 21,621,538.48 100%
UNALLOCATED
(contingencies) 6,400,000.00 0.00
Designated Account 0.00 0.00
Total: 75,500,000.00 75,500,000.00 75,500,000.00
4. Activities and their relationship to the PDO. The Project activities were selected
and designed to improve the three sub-objectives of planning, monitoring, and education
service delivery in deprived districts of Ghana. See Figure 1 below for examples of key
GPEG activities and how they fit with the sub-objectives.
39
Figure 1: Activities and their Relationship to the PDO
Component 1: Sub-Grants to Deprived Districts to support key education objectives
5. The goal of this component was in line with the PDO’s sub-objectives of- planning,
monitoring, and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts. At Appraisal,
this component was to provide annual non-salary resources to 57 deprived districts as a
supplement to existing resource flows, support districts’ annual programs of work and
government strategic priorities under the ESP and AESOP. This included district grants to
fund activities related to the four key policy areas of (i) equitable access and participation,
(ii) gender, (iii) teaching and learning quality, and (iv) management of education service
delivery, as well as the upgrading of 5,000-8,000 untrained teachers in those districts. To
complement this component and harmonize with GPEG, DfID provided parallel grant
funding of US$10 million for girls’ education packages (scholarships for JHS students,
girls network/mentoring, capacity building for district girl education officers) in the same
GPEG districts. Under the second restructuring, additional funding was allocated to the
district sub-grants from unallocated funds (contingencies) as well as from exchange rate
savings and a reduced number of teacher trainees in the UTDBE program. The additional
funding increased district grant support and in particular, start up expenditures for the
newly created districts. Tables 1 and 2 highlight achievements of results and outputs under
40
Component 1.1 and 1.2, respectively, organized by the sub-objectives of improved
planning, monitoring, and education service delivery.
Table 1: Achievements of Results and Outputs under Component 1.1 – District Sub-
Grants
Results and Outputs
PD
O-l
evel
ind
ica
tor
Inte
rmed
iate
ind
ica
tor
Comment on Indicators
Planning
75 districts drafted, finalized, and implemented
APWs.
100% of deprived districts disbursed more than 75%
of their district education grants as planned in their
APW
X At appraisal, the end target was 80%
PDO-level indicator exceeded
DEDs collating SRCs from 100% of schools within
the district
X At appraisal, the end target was 70%
Intermediate indicator exceeded
Average total disbursement of district education
grants as planned at 98.6%
GH125,945,572 spent on APW activities by deprived
districts
Monitoring
5,993 head teachers trained on school report cards
1,094 Circuit supervisors trained on school report
cards
X At appraisal, the end target was 6,930
head teachers and Circuit
Supervisors trained on school report
cards
Intermediate indicator exceeded
1,568 officers trained on ADEOP and school report
cards
308 regional and district officers trained in reporting,
monitoring and evaluation
329 regional and district officers trained in internal
controls and auditing
X At appraisal, the end target was 500
district education officers trained
under the project
Intermediate indicator exceeded
Service Delivery
1,059 activities (44% of total expenditure) conducted
related to equitable access
639 activities (20% of total expenditure) conducted
related to bridging the gender gap
1,878 activities (17% of total expenditure) conducted
related to improving management of education service
delivery
1,407 activities (19% of total expenditure) conducted
related to improving the quality of teaching and
learning.
41
889 district gender officers trained in guidance and
counseling
94,827 INSET teacher trainings (cumulative
throughout the Project)
28,056 teachers trained in core INSET Math
14,485 teachers trained in non-core INSET
(Kindergarten, Gender)
X At appraisal, the end target was
30,000 teachers trained under INSET
Intermediate indicator met through
proxy calculation
Table 2: Achievements of Results and Outputs under Component 1.2 – Teacher
Development and Skill Upgrading
Results and Outputs
PD
O-l
evel
ind
ica
tor
Inte
rmed
iate
ind
ica
tor
Comment on Indicators
Planning
More cost effective teacher training program
implemented
Service Delivery
75.7% of UTDBE-trained teachers obtained a
satisfactory rating or higher in the LOS
X At appraisal, the end target was 50%
PDO-level indicator exceeded
6,480 unqualified teachers upgraded their skill sets
through the UTDBE training program
X At appraisal, the end target was 5,000
UTDBE teachers trained under the
project
Intermediate indicator exceeded
Percentage of trained teachers in deprived districts
increased between 10-18 percent in KG, Primary, and
JHS between 2012-2013 and 2015-2016.
6. Achievement of Component 1 PDO Indicators:
The project successfully met the target of this PDO indicator – Deprived districts
disbursing 75% or more of their district education grants as planned in their APW.
At project closing, 100% of deprived districts had disbursed 75% or more against
planned activities, exceeding the end target of 80%. In fact, the average total
disbursement was 99% against planned activities in the APW.
The project also successfully met the target of this PDO indicator – Teachers trained
under the project in deprived districts who obtain satisfactory rating or higher in
the SBI/CBI lesson observation sheet for lesson planning, teaching methodology,
and classroom organization and management. While midline scores were higher
overall than endline scores, endline scores were still improvements from both pre-
project scores and the project baseline scores (conducted in year 2) and higher than
the target of 50%.
42
While not listed as an indicator in the results framework, the increase in percentage
of trained teachers in the deprived districts is a natural PDO-level indicator under
this component. The school and district grant IE provides some key figures on this.
The percentage of trained teachers in deprived districts increased between 10-18
percent in kindergarten, primary, and junior high-levels between 2012-2013 and
2015-2016. While the percentage of trained teachers also increased in non-GPEG
11. The goal of this component was in line with the PDO sub-objectives of improving
planning, monitoring, and delivery of basic education services in deprived districts. At
Appraisal, this component was expected to improve teaching and learning through
supplements to the capitation grants at all basic education schools in deprived districts. The
component would improve the management and accountability of resources at the school
level and strengthen the SPIP process and community engagement. Component 2 funded
training on the school grant process, monitoring visits, communication campaigns, and the
44
school grant itself. Table 5 highlights the achievements of results and outputs under
Component 2 within the sub-objectives of improved monitoring and education service
delivery.
Table 5: Achievements of Results and Outputs under Component 2 – School Sub-
Grants
Results and Outputs
PD
O-l
evel
ind
ica
tor
Inte
rmed
iate
ind
ica
tor
Comment on Indicators
Monitoring
98% of schools in deprived districts with up-
to-date SRCs
X At appraisal, the target was for
75% of schools to have updated
SRCs
PDO-level indicator exceeded
93% of schools received and displayed the
most recent SRC on their notice board
X At appraisal, the target was for
75% of schools to have
displayed their most recent SRC
on their notice board.
Intermediate indicator exceeded
Service Delivery
Approximately 98% of basic schools in
deprived districts participating in all INSET
core courses
X At appraisal, the target for this
indicator was 65%
Intermediate indicator exceeded
1,991,030 estimated beneficiaries reached, of
which 48% are female.
X At appraisal, the end target was
1.6 million direct project
beneficiaries, of which 40% are
female.
PDO-level indicator exceeded
16% of P3 students achieving proficiency in
English
13% of P3 students achieving proficiency in
Mathematics
X At appraisal, the end targets
were 15% in P3 English and
11% in P3 Mathematics
PDO-level indicator using
midline data.
12. Achievement of Component 2 PDO Indicators: The project successfully exceeded
the targets of these PDO indicators::
The PDO indicator –Public basic schools in deprived districts with up-to-date SRCs.
At project closing, 98% of schools had an up-to-date report card according to
School Grant Reports, exceeding the end target of 75%.
The PDO indicator – P3 Students achieving improved proficiency in English and
Math in deprived districts was achieved. The 2013 NEA results listed P3 English
scores at 16%, exceeding the end target of 15%, and P3 Mathematics scores at 13%,
above the end target of 11%. Just prior to project closing, the 2016 NEA had
switched to collecting proficiency scores for P4 Math and English, for which there
45
were no project targets set for baseline and closing. EGRA and EGMA for P2
students in GPEG districts between 2013 and 2015 confirmed that there
were statistically significant improvements in number identification, letter sounds
in English, oral reading in English, and letter sounds for local languages in the
GPEG deprived districts.28
The PDO indicator – direct project beneficiaries reached was exceeded with an
estimated 1.9 million beneficiaries at project closing, 300,000 more beneficiaries
than the project target of 1.6 million. It is estimated that the project beneficiaries
comprised of roughly 912,000 females, or 48% of the total, exceeding the project
target of 40%.
The intermediate indicator – basic schools in deprived districts participating in all
INSET courses supported under the project was achieved with an estimated 98% of
the required INSET carried out. While this is a proxy calculation, it still exceeds
the project target of 65%.
The intermediate indicator – schools that have received and displayed the most
recent SRC on their notice board – exceeded its end target of 75% with an estimated
93% of schools displaying their SRC.
Component 3: Project Management and Institutional Strengthening
13. The goal of this component was in line with the PDO’s sub-objectives of improved
planning and monitoring in deprived districts. The purpose of this component was to
strengthen government systems for the implementation and supervision of decentralized
education services in the deprived districts. This component funded consultancy services,
training and operational costs, materials, IEs, and external and internal audits. Table 6
displays the achievements of results and outputs under Component 3 within the sub-
objectives of improved planning and monitoring.
28 GPEG District and School Grant Impact Evaluation, 2016.
46
Table 6: Achievements of Results and Outputs under Component 3—Project
Management and Institutional Strengthening
Results and Outputs
PD
O-l
evel
ind
ica
tor
Inte
rmed
iate
ind
ica
tor
Comment on Indicators
Planning
100% of schools in deprived districts with
SPIPs approved by SMCs
X At appraisal, the end target was
75% of schools with SPIPs
approved by SMCs
Intermediate target exceeded by
25%
Monitoring
On average schools were visited 7.8 times
and no school was visited fewer than 2 times
per year.
100% of schools visited by Circuit
Supervisors at least two times in a year
X At appraisal, the end target was
100% of schools visited by Circuit
Supervisors at least two times in a
year
Intermediate indicator met
100% of Regional Education Directors
submitting acceptable annual reports,
incorporating data from all districts in the
region
X At appraisal, the end target was
100% of REDs submitting
acceptable annual reports
Intermediate indicator met
Impact Evaluation on UTDBE teachers
conducted
Impact Evaluation on district and school
grants conducted
External and internal audits carried out
14. Achievement of Component 3 Indicators: The project successfully met the targets
of all indicators, as outlined below:
At project closing, 100% of Regional Education Directors submitted acceptable
annual reports, incorporating data form all districts in the region – meeting the
target for this intermediate indicator.
The intermediate indicator – Schools visited by Circuit Supervisor at least two
times in a year – was met as 100% of schools were reported as doing more than two
times per year.
The intermediate indicator – Schools in deprived districts with completed SPIPs
approved by SMCs using the revised template – exceeded the project target of 75%
with 100% of schools in compliance by project closing.
47
Additional findings from Fiduciary Review and Procurement Review
15. In depth fiduciary reviews were conducted to assess performance at central and
local levels with respect to financial management and procurement. The findings from the
various fiduciary reviews confirmed the following strengths:
a) Strong technical competences of the financial controller (GES) and the accounts
team at head office;
b) Qualified and capable financial officers at the district levels;
c) Quarterly financial management supervision visits by HQ Accounts team of all the
participating districts to review their systems and validate expenditure;
d) Regular capacity building on fiduciary related topics to address fiduciary capacity
challenges of the districts and also to mitigate issues such as transfers of key staff,
lack of full complement of internal audit staff etc;
e) Strong management and supervisory oversight by the technical staff of GES and
those responsible for their respective component in ensuring that budgets are
adhered to and costs are reasonably controlled;
f) A good and timely reporting mechanism in place channeling up from districts to
regions and HQ. The Project Financial management reviews by the World Bank
were conducted in 2013 and 2015. Implementation Manual also included specific
templates for schools to report on the grants; and
g) Release of funds only when conditions spelled out in the PIM were met.
16. Although FM performance was very steady, the fiduciary reviews also noted some
room for improvement. The strict procedures required that district finance and
administration had to submit hard copy of all claims made by the districts in order to receive
payment (for procurement related activities).This often required travel to Accra which
delayed payments and increased transaction costs for district staff. Electronic submission
would be a preferred method. The FM reviews also recommended a standard template for
internal auditor reporting at the district level, and more training at this level as capacity
seemed to prevent the district auditors from supervising school heads more effectively. In
some of the new districts, internal auditors had not been hired and this contributed to poor
supervision. Filing systems in some districts were weak and similarly at some schools the
filing systems were quite poor.
17. The most recent audit was completed in June 2016. In instances in which minor
issues were identified, corrective actions were enacted by the Bank and the Government.
FM reviews by the World Bank were also conducted in 2013 and 2015.
Safeguards
18. Safeguards compliance was not well monitored until the second year when District
Education Directors were trained and briefed about their responsibility and role in ensuring
safeguard compliance throughout project implementation. Moreover, the project developed
48
a simple checklist that was shared with the Government, included in the PIM and all minor
civil works bidding and contract documents going forward. The most recent safeguards
review in 2016 found minor impacts from the rehabilitation and minor construction works
as well as the adherence to the applicable guidelines provided in the Safeguards
Instruments especially the mitigation measures provided in the checklist for construction
and rehabilitation activities.
19. The applicable Safeguards instruments were prepared and approved for the project
but proved to be a large and unwieldly document. The ESMF from previous projects was
used with additional information provided related to the GPEG. The document may have
provided adequate guidelines for the rehabilitation of classroom blocks and construction
of basic sanitary facilities for the beneficiary schools, but the quality of the document could
have been improved. Use of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) checklist has
ensured safeguards compliance and holding contractors accountable for following EMP for
minor civil works projects.
49
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis
1. Following the economic and financial analysis presented in the Project Appraisal
Document, the Economic and Financial Analysis is similarly divided into two parts: (a)
District and School Grants; and (b) teacher upgrading (Untrained Teachers Diploma in
Basic Education - UTDBE). For both sections, the economic and financial analysis presents
the following sections: (i) efficiency of implementation; and (ii) financial sustainability.
2. The overall findings that are detailed below indicate that GPEG benefitted from
exchange rate gains and cost effective implementation of activities, allowing the project to
achieve and exceed the project targets.
3. Component level expenditure was in line with the assessments made during
appraisal and cost savings from currency depreciation were redirected towards
increased allocations for district grants. The table below compares the component level
project costs as budgeted in the PAD with the actual expenditure (in US dollars). The
Ghanaian Cedi (GHc) depreciated by 115% against the US dollar during the Project
Period29 and savings generated from depreciation of the Ghanaian currency were redirected
towards Component 1. 30 Also, 67.2% of the funds allocated to Physical and Price
Contingencies were directed towards additional support for districts and expansion of the
in-service teacher training program. The remaining contingency amount was directed
towards Project Management and Institutional Strengthening. Due to exchange rate gains,
actual expenditure for school grants was lower than projected even though the base grant
and per capita amounts were increased over the project period.
Table 1. Project Costs and Financing by Component (Budgeted in PAD and Actual
Expenditure) in US$
Project Costs and Financing Budgeted Actual
Component 1 District Grants, Teacher Development & Skills Upgrading 42,360,000 48,407,527
Component 2 School Grants 22,060,000 20,382,339
Component 3 Project Management and Institutional Strengthening 4,580,000 6,710,134
Physical and Price Contingencies 6,500,000
Total 75,500,000 75,500,000
Source: Author’s calculations based on Financial Management Reports, Ghana Education Service
29 The ICR uses 3.05 as the exchange rate for the GH¢ to the US dollar. This is average exchange rate over
the lifetime of the project weighted by the amounts at each withdrawal. The exchange rate during the drafting
of the PAD was 1.90. 30 An additional supplementary grant was provided to districts in 2016.
50
1.1 District and School Grants
Efficiency
4. In terms of efficiency of district and school grants the analysis found that district
grants were allocated based on relative deprivation. Two district level activities
(accounting for 24.81 percent of overall district level expenditure) – construction of urinals
and toilets and in-service teacher training - were analyzed and both activities were found
to be relatively cost effective in comparison with government and other donor led
initiatives in Ghana. At the school level, school grants disbursements were found to be
highly correlated with improved planning (through school performance improvement
plans) and monitoring (through school report cards). A difference in differences analysis
showed that in line with the available literature on district and school grants, districts that
received grants witnessed substantial improvements in gross and age-appropriate
enrolment (as compared to non GPEG districts over the same period). However, not all the
improvements in access can be attributed to the project as other programs were operating
in deprived districts during the same period.
5. District grants were allocated based on relative deprivation among the GPEG
districts maintaining a strong equity focus. Resources to districts were allocated based
on a consistent, transparent and deprivation based allocation formula that provided
additional funding to more deprived districts31. The model was updated annually using the
latest EMIS data. Thus, funds were equitably allocated using a resource allocation model
developed during project preparation. Districts were also provided with summary statistics
highlighting their performance on key indicators (GERs, NERs, BECE pass rates etc.).
Since then, the model has become a part of the GES planning toolkit and is used to also
disburse government funds to non GPEG districts.
6. District grant budgeting and expenditure was tracked. As outlined in the PAD,
to receive district grants, each district submitted an Annual Programme of Work (APW)
which detailed their planned activities. Districts planned for activities along four cross
cutting thematic areas: Access, Quality, Gender, and Management found in a pre-approved
Menu of Activities. At the end of each year, districts reported on the progress in
implementing their activities within their APW, and were reported on actual expenditure,
timeframe and quantity. The analysis of the executed APWs reveals that districts conducted
4,983 activities over the project period. These comprised of 76 unique activities.
31 The allocation formula consists of a base grant component and additional allocation was based on the
number of schools, students, teachers and the level of deprivation (lower retention rates, lower share of girls’
enrolment, lower share of trained teachers and lower pass rates in BECE Mathematics and English).
51
Table 2. District level Expenditure (in GH¢)
Cross Cutting Pillar Count of Activities Expenditure % Of Expenditure
Access 1,059 65,100,932.86 44.16%
Gender 639 30,069,127.40 20.40%
Management 1,878 24,392,645.01 16.55%
Quality 1,407 27,850,547.05 18.89%
Total 4,983 147,413,252.32 100.00%
Source: Annual Program of Work Expenditure data. The pillar level allocations include GPEG and DFID’s
Girls PASS Program.
7. As seen from the table below five activities accounted for more than 60% of the
expenditure for district grants. Among the five, the unit cost of two activities (construction
of gender friendly toilets and urinals and provision of INSET) are subsequently examined
in greater detail32.
Table 3. District level activities with the highest level of expenditure (in GH¢)
Activity
Count
Expenditure
%
Expenditure
Provide schools with essential supplies - desks, tables chairs 337 24,236,945 20.10%
Construct gender friendly toilets and urinals 301 21,730,847 18.02%
Provide material support to children in need 89 12,388,831 10.28%
Organize INSET – Mathematics, Science & Lit 278 8,181,657 6.79%
Provide teaching and learning materials, learning kits etc. 335 8,155,606 6.76%
8. Unit cost of construction for toilets and urinals funded under the GPEG
district grants was lower than both the government’s own procurement unit and
UNICEF. The Ministry of Education mandates that all toilets and urinals constructed at
the school level follow a standard design33 allowing for a cost comparison of identical units.
Using GPEG funds, districts constructed 871 2- unit urinals and 609 4-unit Kumasi
Ventilated Improved Pit-Latrines (KVIPs) at an approximate cost of US$7.12 million
dollars. As the table below shows, the average cost of construction for both the toilets and
the urinals were lower than the costs of 300 toilets being constructed with UNICEF funding
and 41 newly constructed toilets under the government’s Funds and Procurement
Management Unit of Ghana (FPMU) in the same period. Thus, the decentralized GPEG
financed toilets were more cost efficient than other construction at the school level.
However, the standards and the cost of construction for school toilets is higher than
UNICEF’s mud walled community based toilets34 . A relaxation of strict construction
32 These items are selected because information regarding quantities for the highest expenditure item of
providing schools with essential supplies (disaggregated by type of furniture) was not available. 33 Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit-Latrines (KVIPs) 34 Community based toilets have a unit cost of Gh¢8,490
52
norms in the design of toilets at the school level may lead to significant generation of cost
savings (cost ratio of 4:1).
Table 4. Unit Cost of Construction (in GH¢) GPEG UNICEF FPMU
Toilet (4 Unit KVIP) 32,801 36,083 40,100
Urinal (2 Unit) 5,665 6,368 5,950
Source: Author’s calculations based on GPEG Annual Programs of Work and data provided by the MOE and
UNICEF
9. Unit cost of providing in-service teacher training under GPEG compares
favorably to non-GPEG districts. In-service teacher training in core subjects (Math,
Science and Literacy) accounted for 6.79% percent of the district grants budget. As part of
the reporting requirements, districts submitted training reports on all the training activities
conducted during each data collection cycle. Delivery of modules through GPEG compared
favorably with the delivery of identical modules in non GPEG districts. For example,
delivering a module in Mathematics under GPEG cost the project GH¢ 39.48 per
beneficiary (approximately US$13) as compared to GH¢ 45.8 (approximately US$15) in a
non GPEG district.
Table 5. Unit Cost of core INSET (in GH¢) GPEG districts Non GPEG districts
Mathematics 39.48 45.8
Science 34.41 48.8
Literacy 37.57 42.7
Source: Author’s calculations based on INSET training reports for 2013, 2015 and 2016 and
reports from non-GPEG districts from GES. Disaggregated data for INSET isn’t available for
2014 as not all districts submitted reports for that year.
School Grants
10. School Grant allocations were based on annual EMIS data and were open and
transparent. The joint monitoring visits conducted by MOE/PBME and GES found that
funds transferred to bank accounts of each school were displayed on a notice board in the
district education office. An impact evaluation of the district and school grant found that
only 3% of the sampled Head Teachers reported that they had not received the full grant
entitlement.
11. Schools primarily used the grants for facilitating of SMC meetings, small
repairs, building of toilets and the overall improvement of the school environment35. A fiduciary assessment conducted in a sample of 105 schools found that projects
undertaken by the school were inspected by the district office and the expenditure of school
grant funds were tracked at the district level. The execution rate of the funds within each
35 Endline Impact Assessment
53
fiscal year increased as the project progressed from 72.3% in 2013, to 88.0% in 2014, and
finally 92.4% in 2015/16.
12. Improvements were seen in planning and monitoring at the school level. On
average, across the duration of the project, 86.9% of schools displayed the School Report
Cards36 on their noticeboard. This proportion has been increasing steadily across the years:
in 2013, the figure was 79.0%, which increased to 87.6% in 2014 and noted a further
improvement in 2015/16 at 93.0%. Thus, improvements in planning and monitoring at the
school level (as envisaged in the PAD) were evident. Though the data to analyse if the
investments made using school grants fund were cost effective is not available.
13. There has been a substantial improvement in gross and age appropriate
enrolment in deprived districts over the project period. Though non GPEG (the
remaining 141 districts that did not receive GPE funding) and GPEG districts have seen
improvements in enrolment over the project period, improvements in districts receiving
school and district grants have been appreciably higher than non GPEG districts across all
sub levels of basic education.
14. As Table 6 shows, at the Kindergarten and Primary level, GPEG and non GPEG
districts had comparable Gross Enrolment Rates (GER), Net Enrolment Rates (NER),
Gross Admissions Rate (GAR) and Net Admission Rates (NAR) at baseline. For example,
in 2012, GAR in non GPEG districts was 107.9 as compared to 107.7 in GPEG districts.
However, by endline, GAR in non GPEG districts had risen only to 115.4 while in non
GPEG districts, GAR had risen to 124.4 (a 16.7 percentage point increase and a 9.2
percentage point improvement above non GPEG districts). The differences are particularly
pronounced at the KG level wherein improvements in GER and NER over the project
period are 24.2 and 16.6 percentage points higher than improvements in non GPEG districts
(see Figure 1).
36 The School Report Card (SRC) collects information from schools concerning pupil and teacher attendance
and student test performance
54
Table 6. Difference in differences between GPEG and non GPEG districts
Non GPEG districts GPEG districts GPEG (assumed prior trajectory)
55
15. However, DFID’s GPASS program (at the JHS level) and the government’s
Complementary Basic Education program that supports mainstreaming of out-of-school
children also operated in GPEG districts during the project period and so it would be
difficult to isolate the improvements in access attributable only to the provision of district
and school grants.
Fiscal Sustainability
16. The financial cost of continuing the school and district grants in the deprived
districts is a recurrent expenditure of US$19.3 million annually. During project
implementation, the fiscal impact of the district and school grants was limited to the
opportunity cost of staff time involved in planning, implementing and monitoring both
district and school grants. The financial cost to the Government of continuing the school
and district grants to the deprived districts is US$19.3 million a year (higher than the
US$16 million a year estimated in the PAD as the allocation for district and school grants
increased over this period). However, with limited sector financing for capitation grants
and other education investments because of fiscal constraints, no school grants have been
disbursed in 2016 apart from the preexisting capitation grant (of approximately US$0.49
per student per semester). So far, the government has no plans to increase the capitation
grants provided to schools or increase district grants, leading to no recurrent fiscal
implications for the government.
17. Donor partners plan to provide gap financing to complement existing public
recurrent education spending for basic schools. USAID is committed to expanding the
district grants while DFID will continue to fund girls’ scholarships to all GPEG districts.
UNICEF and USAID also plan to introduce more efficient mobile monitoring tools to help
track local level expenditure.
1.2 Untrained Teachers Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE)
Efficiency
18. In line with the PAD, the Project’s four year in-service Untrained Teachers
Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) program is compared to Ghana’s conventional
Diploma in Basic Education (DBE) model. The DBE model uses the same curriculum for
training teachers as UTDBE through a three year pre – service residential program and was
the prevailing program of choice to upgrade teacher skills prior to GPEG.
19. In terms of efficiency, the following was determined: UTDBE and the DBE model
produce teachers with similar skillsets though UTDBE is more cost-effective with a cost
ratio of 1.6. The program has led to a convergence in the percentage of trained teachers
within GPEG and non GPEG districts though the upgrade of teacher skills has not
translated into vastly improved completion or transition rates to date.
56
20. Following participation in training, UTDBE- and DBE-trained teachers have
comparable skillsets. In the UTDBE impact evaluation (IE) study comparing the two
programs, 400 of the UTDBE trainees and 185 of the DBE graduates were observed in a
classroom setting and graded on lesson planning and preparation, classroom methodology
and delivery and class management and organization. The UTDBE trainees showed mean
scores within the same range as DBE teachers on 14 out of 17 skills in lesson planning/
preparation, teaching methodology and classroom organization and management 37 .
However, UTDBE and DBE trainees were also tested on content knowledge. DBE teachers
displayed a better understanding of Integrated Science, a result which is statistically
significant at the 1% level. UTDBE trainees showed better results on Classroom
Management techniques. Overall, the assessment concluded that following their trainings,
UTDBE and DBE teachers have a comparable level of skills.
21. UTDBE is more cost-effective than DBE with an efficiency ratio of 1.6. The
Project Appraisal Document estimated the cost of the UTDBE program to be US$2,268
per trainee. However, the IE study estimated the final cost of the program to be US$4,278
(for all four years) per trainee even after the depreciation of the Ghanaian currency. After
cost sharing with the student, the cost of the training to the program was US$2,130 (102%
higher than the estimate of US$1,052 in the PAD). However, the attrition rate of 20.43%
was lower than the modelled 40% and similar to the attrition rate of the DBE program.
22. During the time of project conception, the cost of training a DBE teacher used to
be significantly higher because it included a stipend for each student. In 2012, Murphy
found the cost of training a DBE trainee to be GHc 15,350 (US$5,033)38. However, this
stipend has recently been abolished and the cost of a DBE student has reduced to US$3,409
per trainee (a 32% decline)39. With the new government assuming office in January 2017,
the stipend may be reintroduced.
Table 7. Estimated Government and Project Costs for training UTDBE and DBE trainees
UTDBE DBE
Cost to government per year (GHc) 1,624 3,466
Cost to government per year (US$) 532 1,136
Duration of program (years) 4 3
Total Cost to government (GHc) 6,496 10,398
Total Cost to government (US$) 2,130 3,409
Source: “Impact Assessment of the Untrained Teacher Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) Trainees:
Endline Study.” by Associates for Change (2016).
37 “Impact Assessment of the Untrained Teacher Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) Trainees: Endline
Study.” by Associates for Change (2016). 38 Murphy, P (2012) ‘The Untrained Teacher Diploma in Basic Education in Ghana: Analysis and
Recommendations: Second Draft’ 39 “Impact Assessment of the Untrained Teacher Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) Trainees: Endline
Study.” by Associates for Change (2016).
57
23. At endline, the cost to the government of providing training for one teacher under
UTDBE was US$2,130 as compared to US$3,409 under the DBE model (which continues
to remain in use in Ghana). Effectively, training a student using the conventional mode of
training costs the government 60% more than the cost of training a teacher using the
UTDBE modality. This is a cost ratio of 1:1.6 or conversely, for every US$100 spent on
the UTDBE program, US$160 would need to be spent on the DBE program (or higher if
the allowance is reinstituted). This cost ratio of 1.6 is lower than the one projected in the
PAD (the estimate was 4.3 primarily due to the inclusion of the stipend and the
underestimation of the cost of the UTDBE program). However, the UTDBE program
remains more cost effective while training teachers to achieve the same skills and
certificate at similar levels of attrition.
24. Training UTDBE teachers increased the percentage of trained teachers and
the PTTR in deprived districts. As the difference in differences table below shows, while
the proportion of trained teachers has increased nationwide during the duration of the
project, the increase in GPEG districts has outpaced that of non-GPEG districts across all
levels of basic education40. The rate of increase in GPEG districts is 17 percentage points
higher than the non-GPEG districts for KG and 12 percentage points higher for Primary
and JHS from baseline to endline. The subsequent improvement in PTTR is much higher
for GPEG districts as compared to non-GPEG districts for all levels. At the KG level, the
rate of change at the KG level is particularly noteworthy where the PTTR decreased by 62
more pupils to a trained teacher in GPEG districts compared to non GPEG districts.
25. The convergence in the percentage of trained teachers between GPEG and non
GPEG districts is likely to remain persistent. Most UTDBE teachers had been teaching
in GPEG districts for several years prior to being selected for the program and have roots
within the communities in which they reside.41 Moreover, UTDBE teachers are bonded to
stay within the same school in the deprived areas for at least another two years after the
successful completion of their training. Thus, the reduction in disparity between GPEG and
non GPEG districts in terms of percentage of trained teachers is likely to persist, especially
if all UTDBE trained teachers are put on the GES payroll.
26. However, so far, these improvements have not yet translated into substantial
improvements in indicators of internal efficiency. Though GPEG districts have shown
improvements in completion rates (for example completion rate at JHS rose from 59.9%
to 65.1%), improvements in non GPEG districts outpaced GPEG districts in primary
completion rates and transition rates from primary to Junior High School (JHS) at endline
(both the levels for which data is available). However, given the fact that the UTDBE
teachers hadn’t graduated from the program while the data on transition and completion
rates was collected, the difference in differences between GPEG and non GPEG districts
40 The absolute number of untrained teachers has risen over the project period in both GPEG and non GPEG
districts allaying concerns that the shift in percentage of trained teachers may be partially credited to net
migration of untrained teachers from GPEG districts to non GPEG districts. 41 “Impact Assessment of the Untrained Teacher Diploma in Basic Education (UTDBE) Trainees: Endline
Study.” by Associates for Change (2016).
58
in terms of repetition, transition and completion rates should be observed over the next few
years as the impact of the increased proportion of qualified teachers may take longer to
materialize in terms of results in completion.
Table 8. Difference in differences between GPEG and non GPEG districts
(improvements in percentage of teachers trained, Pupil Trained Teacher Ratio
