Papua New Guinea - World Bankwbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/... · papua new guinea ã school autonomy and accountability saber country report |2013

THE WORLD BANK

Papua New GuineaSCHOOL AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY SABER Country Report

2013

Policy Goals Status1. Autonomy in the Planning and Management of the School Budget

The Department of Education manages the Fee Free Tuition Policy, whichrepresents the largest share of education financing. School expenditures aredetermined by the School Learning Improvement Plan (SLIP) committee usingthe three year School Learning Plan as a guide and approved by the Board ofManagement (BoM). Teachers’ salary is determined at central level; schoolsdetermine salary for non teaching staff.

2. Autonomy in Personnel ManagementThe Provincial Divisions of Education are responsible for appointing anddeploying teaching staff, and the Teaching Service Commission provides finalapproval. Non teaching staff are managed by the school.

3. Participation of the School Council in School GovernanceThe education system has a two layered approach that includes the SLIPcommittee and the BoM. The SLIP committee is tasked with developing thevision and strategic objectives of the school and the BoM aims to achievequality assurance. Both entities are representative of the community andschool; however, neither uses elections to determine membership.

4. School and Student Assessment Papua New Guinea has both school based assessment (called Whole SchoolQuality Inspection) and standardized student assessments (diagnostic andachievement based) to evaluate the effectiveness of the education system andto inform pedagogy to enhance the learning environment.

5. Accountability to StakeholdersPolicy and regulations exist to govern school operations and financialmanagement. Insufficient information is provided to parents and educationstakeholders in the area of student and school performance, which limits theirability to demand accountability on school performance.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA SCHOOL AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2013

SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 2

IntroductionIn 2011, the World Bank Group commenced a multiyear program designed to support countries insystematically examining and strengthening theperformance of their education systems. Part of theBank’s new Education Sector Strategy,1 this evidencebased initiative, called SABER (Systems Approach forBetter Education Results), is building a toolkit ofdiagnostics for examining education systems and theircomponent policy domains against global standards,best practices, and in comparison with the policies andpractices of countries around the world. By leveragingthis global knowledge, the SABER tools fill a gap in theavailability of data and evidence on what matters mostto improve the quality of education and achievement ofbetter results.

SABER School Autonomy and Accountability is the firstof three SABER domains to be implemented as part ofphase two of the Pacific Benchmarking for EducationResults (PaBER) initiative. Funded by AusAID, the PaBERinitiative aims to link policy with implementation toidentify areas to strengthen policy, improve knowledgedissemination, and improve the quality of educationand student performance across the pacific. Specifically,the PaBER project focuses at the primary level of aneducation system. The project concept anddetermination of three pilot countries – Samoa, theSolomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea – was agreedupon at the Pacific Forum Education Ministers Meetingof October 11 13, 2010. The project is beingcoordinated through the Secretariat of the Pacific Boardfor Educational Assessment (SPBEA).

Country OverviewPapua New Guinea (PNG) received independence fromAustralia in 1975. The country has a constitutionalparliamentary democracy and is a member of thecommonwealth.

1 The World Bank Education Sector Strategy 2020: Learningfor All (2011), which outlines an agenda for achieving“Learning for All” in the developing world over the nextdecade.

PNG is the largest developing country in the SouthPacific region. It has a landmass of 463,000 squarekilometers and comprises around 600 islands. Themainland of PNG, which accounts for 85 percent of thetotal landmass, has some of the most rugged terrain inthe world, with rainforest covering around 75 percentof the area.

PNG is home to approximately 860 different spokenlanguages, and there is similarly rich diversity in cultureand traditions. The total population is approximately 6.5million. Around 40 percent of the population is under15 years of age, and the population growth rate is 2.7.Nearly 85 percent of the population lives in rural areasspread across 22 provinces and 89 districts. Providingquality service delivery is both expensive and logisticallychallenging, which impacts all areas of humandevelopment.

PNG is renowned for its abundance of naturalresources, including gold, copper, oil, natural gas,timber, and fisheries. However, the country’s ruggedterrain and poor transportation network has madenatural resources difficult to develop. In recent years,the government has opened up markets intelecommunications and air transport, making bothmore affordable to the people and assistingdevelopment of natural resources. The country has arelatively small formal employment sector, with nearly90 percent of the working population employed by theagriculture sector.

I. Education in Papua New GuineaAt the time of independence the education systemlargely resembled that of Australia. In 1990/91 thegovernment initiated an Education Sector Review toidentify, document, and develop strategies to rectifyproblems that had become endemic in the system. As aresult of this review and associated research papers, anintegrated package of strategies was developed whichradically changed the education system, and inparticular its structure, curriculum, and financingmechanisms.

The result is an education system in PNG that has threelevels of governance: national, provincial, and school



based. At the national level, the Department ofEducation (DoE)2 is responsible for determining nationalpolicies and coordinating their implementation,maintaining national educational standards, andproviding professional support and advisory services foreducational planning, research, training, and staffdevelopment. A great deal of planning andmanagement of basic educational needs, including theestablishment and operation of schools, is by lawvested with provincial and local level authorities. Parentand school communities are expected to contribute tothe development of schools, particularly at theelementary and primary levels.

The National Education Plan for the ten year period2005 2014 and the Medium Term Development Plan2011 2015 articulate the DoE’s strategic plans and roadmap. The primary areas of focus include access, quality,and management and financing of education withspecific targets and strategies proposed for eacheducation level.

As of 2009, the education system employed 44,558teachers and covered around 1.43 million students.Presented in Table 1, the PNG school system starts withelementary school which covers students, ages 6 8,primary school, secondary school, and post secondaryschool and training for students ages 19 and above.

Table 2 presents select education indicators. Data arenot available regarding the level of public expenditureon education and distribution per level. As a result

insufficient data are available to fully evaluate the

2 Universities and research institutes belong to the Office ofHigher Education.

effectiveness of the education system. Accurate,comprehensive, and timely data collection can promotemore effective policy making.

The pupil to teacher ratio at the primary level is 33 to 1,and the gender parity index is 0.9. As of 2007, theprimary to secondary transition rate was 54 percent.

II. The Case for School Autonomy andSchool Accountability

School autonomy and accountability are keycomponents of an education system that ensureeducational quality. The transfer of core managerialresponsibilities to schools promotes localaccountability; helps reflect local priorities, values, andneeds; and gives teachers the opportunity to establish apersonal commitment to students and their parents(Box 1). Benchmarking and monitoring indicators ofschool autonomy and accountability allows any countryto rapidly assess its education system, setting the stagefor improving policy planning and implementation.

School autonomy is a form of a decentralized educationsystem in which school personnel are in charge ofmaking most managerial decisions, frequently inpartnership with parents and the community. Morelocal control helps create better conditions forimproving student learning in a sustainable way, since itgives teachers and parents more opportunities todevelop common goals, increase their mutualcommitment to student learning, and promote moreefficient use of scarce school resources.

Table 1: Papua New Guinea School System StructureLevel of Education Ages Grade (Year)

Elementary School 6 – 8 Elementary Prep –Elementary 2

Primary School 9 – 14 Grades 3 8

Secondary School 15 – 18 Grades 9 – 12

Post secondary School &Training

19 andabove

College,University, and

Vocational trainingSource: data provided by National Department of Education,October 2013

Table 2: Select Education Indicators, 2010Public Expenditure on Education

As % of GDP N/AAs % of Total Government Expenditure N/A

Distribution of Public Expenditure per Level (%)Elementary N/APrimary N/ASecondary N/ATertiary N/A

Pupil/Teacher Ratio in Primary 33:1Primary to Secondary Transition Rate, 2007 54%Gender parity index (primary level)* 0.9Source: data provided by National Department ofEducation, October 2013; *World Bank Education Statistics,2008



To be effective, school autonomy must function on thebasis of compatible incentives, taking into accountnational education policies, including incentives for theimplementation of those policies. Having more managerialresponsibilities at the school level automatically impliesthat a school must also be accountable to localstakeholders as well as national and local authorities. Theempirical evidence from education systems in whichschools enjoy managerial autonomy is that autonomy isbeneficial for restoring the social contract betweenparents and schools and instrumental in setting in motionpolicies to improve student learning.

The progression in school autonomy in the last twodecades has led to the conceptualization of SchoolBased Management (SBM) as a form of decentralizationin which the school is in charge of most managerialdecisions but with the participation of parents and thecommunity through school councils (Barrera, Fasih andPatrinos 2009). SBM is not a set of predeterminedpolicies and procedures, but a continuum of activitiesand policies put into place to improve the functioning ofschools, allowing parents and teachers to focus onimprovements in learning. As such, SBM should foster anew social contract between teachers and their

community in which local cooperation and localaccountability drive improvements in professional andpersonal performance by teachers (Patrinos 2010).

The empirical evidence from SBM shows that it can takemany forms or combine many activities (Barrera et al.2009) with differing degrees of success (see Box 2).Unless SBM activities contribute to system closure, theyare just a collection of isolated managerial decisions.The indicators of SBM that relate to school quality mustconform to the concept of a system, in which thepresence or absence of some critical components withinthe system allow or preclude system closure.

As components of a managerial system, SBM activitiesmay behave as mediating variables: they produce anenabling environment for teachers and students,allowing for pedagogical variables, school inputs, andpersonal effort to work as intended.

When do SBM components become critical for learning?The improper functioning of a school or a school systemcan be a substantial barrier to success. The managerialcomponent of a school system is a necessary but

Box 1: What are School Autonomy andAccountability?School autonomy is a form of school management inwhich schools are given decision making authorityover their operations, including the hiring and firing ofpersonnel, and the assessment of teachers andpedagogical practices. School management underautonomy may give an important role to the SchoolCouncil, representing the interests of parents, inbudget planning and approval, as well as a voice/votein personnel decisions. By including the SchoolCouncil in school management, school autonomyfosters accountability (Di Gropello 2004, 2006;Barrera, Fasih and Patrinos 2009).

In its basic form accountability is defined as theacceptance of responsibility and being answerable forone’s actions. In school management, accountabilitymay take other additional meanings: (i) the act ofcompliance with the rules and regulations of schoolgovernance; (ii) reporting to those with oversightauthority over the school; and (iii) linking rewards andsanctions to expected results (Rechebei 2010).

Box 2: Different paths to School Based Managementare fine as long as they allow for system closureIn many countries the implementation of SBM hasincreased student enrollment, student and teacherattendance, and parent involvement. However, theempirical evidence from Latin America shows very fewcases in which SBM has made a significant difference inlearning outcomes (Patrinos 2010), while in Europethere is substantial evidence showing a positive impactof school autonomy on learning (Eurydice 2007). Boththe grassroots based approach taken in Latin America,where the institutional structure was weak or servicedelivery was hampered due to internal conflict, and theoperational efficiency approach taken in Europe whereinstitutions were stronger, coincide in applyingmanagerial principles to promote better educationquality, but driven by two different modes ofaccountability to parents and the community. One inLatin America where schools render accounts throughparticipatory school based management (Di Gropello2004) and another in Europe where accountability isbased on trust in schools and their teachers, (Arcia,Patrinos, Porta and Macdonald 2011). In either case,school autonomy has begun to transform traditionaleducation from a system based on processes and inputsinto one driven by results (Hood 2001).



insufficient condition for learning. One can fix somemanagerial components and obtain no results or altersome other components and obtain good results. Whatcombination of components is crucial for success arestill under study, but the emerging body of practicepoint to a set of variables that foster managerialautonomy, the assessment of results, and the use ofthe assessment to promote accountability among allstakeholders (Bruns, Filmer and Patrinos 2011). Whenthese three components are in balance with each other,they form a “closed system.”

Defining a managerial system that can achieve closure isconceptually important for school based management,since it transforms its components from a list ofmanagerial activities to a set of interconnectedvariables that when working together can improvesystem performance. If an SBM system is unable toclose, are partial solutions effective? Yes, in a broadsense, in which schools can still function but theirdegree of effectiveness and efficiency would be lowerthan if the system closes. In this regard, SBM canachieve closure when it enforces enough autonomy toevaluate its results and use those results to holdsomeone accountable.

This last conclusion is very important because it meansthat SBM can achieve system closure when autonomy,student assessment, and accountability, areoperationally interrelated through the functions of theschool councils, the policies for improving teacherquality, and Education Management InformationSystems (see Figure 1).

Source: Arcia and others 2011.Note: EMIS – education management information system.

In managerial terms it is clear that the point of contactbetween autonomous schools and their clients isprimarily through the school council (Corrales, 2006).Similarly, school assessments are the vehicles used by

schools to determine their needs for changes inpedagogical practices and to determine the trainingneeds of their teachers. Both, pedagogical changes andteacher training are determinant factors of teacherquality (Vegas 2001). Finally, the role of EMIS onaccountability has been well established and it is boundto increase as technology makes it easier to report onindicators of internal efficiency and on standardized testscores (Bruns, Filmer, and Patrinos 2011).

Results on the Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA) suggest that, when autonomy andaccountability are intelligently combined, they tend tobe associated with better student performance (OECD,2011). The experience of high performing countries3 onPISA indicates that:

Education systems in which schools have moreautonomy over teaching content and studentassessment tend to perform better.Education systems in which schools have moreautonomy over resource allocation and thatpublish test results perform better than schoolswith less autonomy.Education systems in which many schools competefor students do not systematically score higher onPISA.Education systems with standardized studentassessment tend to do better than those withoutsuch assessments.PISA scores among schools with students fromdifferent social backgrounds differ less in educationsystems that use standardized student assessmentsthan in systems that do not.

As of now, the empirical evidence from countries thathave implemented school autonomy suggests that acertain set of policies and practices are effective infostering managerial autonomy, assessment of results,and the use of assessments to promote accountability.Benchmarking the policy intent of these variables usingSABER can be very useful for any country interested inimproving the performance of its education system.

3 Examples of high performing countries that haveimplemented school based management policies andframeworks include the Netherlands, Canada, and NewZealand among others.



SABER School Autonomy andAccountability: Analyzing Performance.The SABER School Autonomy and Accountability toolassists in analyzing how well developed the set ofpolicies are in a given country to foster managerialautonomy, assess results, and use information fromassessments to promote accountability. Below are thefive main policy goals that can help benchmark aneducation system’s policies that enable schoolautonomy and accountability:

1. School autonomy in the planning and managementof the school budget

2. School autonomy in personnel management3. Role of the School Council in school governance4. School and student assessments5. Accountability

Each of these policy goals has a set of policy actions thatmake it possible to judge how far along an educationsystem’s policies are in enabling school autonomy andaccountability. Each policy goal and action is scored onthe basis of its status and the results classified asLatent, Emerging, Established, or Advanced:

A Latent score signifies that the policy behind theindicator is not yet in place or that there is limitedengagement in developing the related education policy.An Emerging score indicates that the policy in placereflects some practice but that policy development isstill in progress. An Established score indicates that the

program or policy reflects good practice and meets theminimum standards but there may be some limitations inits content and scope. An Advanced score indicates thatthe program or policy reflects best practice and it canbe considered on par with international standards.

III. Papua New Guinea’s Performance: ASummary of ResultsSummary. Using the SABER SAA methodology,autonomy in the planning and management of theschool budget is rated as established in PNG. Thenational DoE provides the largest share of education

financing. Once financed, schools have completeautonomy to execute expenditures. Teaching salariesare determined and administered at the national level;non teaching staff salaries are determined at the schoollevel. Personnel management has been rated asemerging. Recruitment and deployment for all teachersis completed by the Provincial Divisions of Education,while the Teaching Service Commission manages thenational database of teachers. Non teaching staff aremanaged at the school level. The participation of theschool council in school governance is established. TheEducation Act 1983 and School Leaning ImprovementPlan initiative are the foundational policies for the twoentities – the SLIP committee and the Board ofManagement (BoM) – that operate within the scope ofschool council in school governance. The SLIPcommittee is tasked with developing the vision andstrategic objectives of the school, and the BoM isresponsible for quality assurance.

School and student assessment is classified asestablished. The Whole School Quality Inspection iscompleted by the DoE annually, and assesses all aspectsof the school. Standardized tests are used as diagnostictools for individual students and to determine studentprogression. Accountability to stakeholders is emerging,as there are regulations in place for complying withregulations for financial and school operations. Nosystem is in place for recognizing and rewarding schoolsfor excellent performance. Results from school andstudent assessments are not adequately communicatedto education stakeholders, and therefore cannot beused as a mechanism for accountability.

1. School autonomy in budget planning andapproval is Established

This policy goal focuses on the degree of autonomy thatschools have in planning and managing their budgets. Inorder to evaluate policy intent, the scoring rubric makesclear which areas should be backed by laws, regulations,and/or official rules in the public record. In the planningand management of the school budget, schoolautonomy is considered desirable because it canincrease the efficiency of financial resources, giveschools more flexibility in budget management, andgive parents the opportunity to be more vocal regardingbudget planning and execution.

The largest portion of school financing is determined bythe Fee Free Tuition Policy (FFTP). The FFTP is a perchild grant transferred directly from the central level to

Latent Emerging Established Advanced

Reflectspolicy not inplace orlimitedengagement

Reflects somegood practice;policy workstill inprogress

Reflectsgoodpractice,with somelimitations

Reflectsinternational bestpractice



schools. The Department of Education (DoE) hascomplete autonomy to determine the formula for theFFTP and therefore determines the level of funding tobe received by schools.

According to the DoE Fee Free Tuition PolicyManagement Manual, the school level has the authorityto determine how their allocation from the FFTP isspent. Those involved include the Head Teacher, theSchool Council’s Board of Management and the SchoolLearning Improvement Plan (SLIP) Committee (whereapplicable). Preparation of the expenditure aspect ofthe operational budget is guided by the School FinancialManagement Handbook and the DoE’s Financial andOperational Plan Manual for Managers. Additionally,new head teachers are provided training in financialmanagement.

The expenditure aspect of the operational budget isguided by the SLIP initiative, which was introduced in2006. Currently 89 percent of schools haveimplemented SLIP and the remaining schools willpartake within two years. As part of the SLIP initiative,the SLIP committee is responsible for preparing theoperational school budget, which is then presented tothe Board of Management (BoM) for approval (for moredetails regarding the role, responsibilities andcomposition of the SLIP committee and the BoM, referto Policy Goal 3). The budget must align with the threeyear SLIP. The SLIP includes six areas of focus: studentlearning (curriculum); staff professional development;management and administration; infrastructuredevelopment; school governance and communityrelationship; and, budget allocation to support theImprovement Agenda. For each year of the SLIP there isan Annual Action Plan. The SLIP School Committeeprepares both the School Learning Plan and AnnualAction Plans.

The SLIP initiative stipulates that the community shouldbe engaged during all phases of the budgeting to ensurethat members participate constructively in the life ofthe school and develop a sense of ownership over it. Toachieve this, members participate in consultationsduring the preparation of the operational budget. Also,the SLIP committee is comprised of communitymembers.

Schools have the legal authority to manage nonteaching staff salaries, but there is no salary scale as aguideline to assist schools, nor is there a requirement toconsult the community to determine salary structure.

The Teaching Service Commission (TSC) is the bodyresponsible for managing teachers in PNG. It establishesand enforces the Teacher Salary Scale without inputfrom the school level or Provincial Divisions ofEducation. The scale is based on the Performance BasedSalary Structure and achieves transparency in cleararticulation of job level progression for teachers. Thesalary scale is standard across the country, andtherefore does not reflect the different environmentsand costs of living throughout the country. As a result itmay be difficult for some provinces to attract the bestteachers.

Some authority to raise additional funds is delegated tothe school level. Within their budget, schools may raisefunds through project fees that are paid by parents, orthe school may elect to solicit support from thecommunity at large, including private businesses andNGOs with a presence in their community. Provincialand local governments may also contribute to fundingat the school level, depending on resource availability.Wealthier provinces, typically rich in natural resources,are better positioned to provide financial support toschools at an individual level.

Schools do not prepare requests for budgets to besubmitted to the DoE for funding. Instead they receivetheir operational allocation based on the FFTP. Per theDoE Guidelines, the school collaboratively develops itsSchool Learning Improvement Plan.



2. School Autonomy in Personnel Management isEmerging

This policy goal measures policy intent in themanagement of school personnel, which includes theprincipal, teachers, and non teaching staff. Appointingand deploying principals and teachers can becentralized or it can be the responsibility of regional ormunicipal governments. In decentralized educationsystems schools have autonomy in teacher hiring andfiring decisions. Budgetary autonomy includes givingschools responsibility for negotiating and setting thesalaries of its teaching and non teaching staff, and usingmonetary and non monetary bonuses as rewards for

good performance. In centralized systems, teachers arepaid directly by the Department of Education or theDepartment of Finance under union or civil serviceagreements. As a result, in centralized systems schoolshave less influence over teacher performance becausethey have no financial leverage over teachers. Inversely,if a school negotiates teachers’ salaries, as privateschools routinely do, it may be able to motivateteachers directly with rewards for a job well done.

In PNG, the Teaching Service Act (1988) and the TSCHuman Resources Policy Information and OperationsManual set out the policy and guidelines for teacherappointment and deployment. All teachers and headteachers must be members of the Teaching Service. Toenter the Teaching Service, as articulated in theEducation Act 1983, all teachers must complete anApplication for Registration and Employment andreceive approval from the Teaching Service Commission(TSC).

Upon entry to the Teaching Service, a teacher is eligibleto apply for vacant positions. The appointment processis led by each Provincial Division of Education andsupported by the TSC and schools. Specifically, schoolsinform provinces of their teaching needs, and in turnthe province advises the TSC, which manages vacanciesacross the country. Although schools have input to theextent that they identify their teaching requirements,the Provincial Division of Education is solely responsiblefor interviewing and selecting candidates to fill vacantteaching positions. Selections are sent to the TSC, whichperforms a review to ensure the selected candidate hasthe appropriate qualifications for the position andupdates their administrative database.

Legal authority to transfer teachers from one school toanother lies with the Provincial Division of Education,and is subject to the rules and regulations establishedby the TSC (namely pertaining to covering costs fortenured staff and providing adequate notice of intent totransfer). The head teacher has complete autonomy toshift teachers within a given school in order to maximizethe learning environment.

Non teaching staff – such as secretarial, janitorial,maintenance or security staff – is hired directly by theschool as part of the operational budget. Stipulatedoriginally in the Education Act 1983 and supportedthrough more recent legislation including the UniversalBasic Education Plan 2010 2019, the school isresponsible for carrying out all maintenance and other

1. Legal Authority over Budget Planning and Approval isEstablishedPolicy Action Score Justification

Legal authorityovermanagement ofthe operationalbudget

Established

Operational expendituresmanaged at the schoollevel through SLIPcommittee and BoM;financial managementguidelines and trainingare provided.

Legal authorityover themanagement ofnon teachingstaff salaries

Emerging

Schools have legalauthority to manage nonteaching staff salaries; nosalary scale or guidelinesexist.

Legal authorityover themanagement ofteachers’ salaries

Emerging

The Teaching ServiceCommission isresponsible for managingteacher compensationthrough the TeacherSalary Scale.

Legal authority toraise additionalfunds for theschool

Established

Schools haveconsiderable authority toraise funding throughproject fees, communitysupport, private sector orNGOs.

Collaborativebudget planningand preparation

Established

The DoE provides the bulkof education financingthrough Fee Free TuitionPolicy; schools determinebudget allocation andexpenditure throughcollaborative approachthat involves participationfrom communitymembers and parents.



work involving non teaching staff. The BoM mustensure that the budget is adequate to cover all relatedexpenses for non teaching staff. Their salaries, whichreflect the local environment and are set by the schooland BoM, must adhere to minimal wage laws. All nonteaching staff is covered under legislation pertaining topublic employees, including the Equal EmploymentOpportunities, Anti Discrimination and HarassmentPolicy.

Similar to the process for teaching positions, theappointment and deployment of head teachers is theresponsibility of the Provincial Division of Education.Officials at the school level do not have a formal voice inthe deployment of head teacher to their school. Theprimary performance evaluation for all head teachers isconducted by the Secretary for Education, which hasthe authority to approve promotions and transfersaccording to the National Assessment and ReportingPolicy (2003). This function is performed by StandardsOfficers (SOs) who are based in the districts and reportto the DoE.

2. School Autonomy in Personnel Management isEmerging

Policy Action Score Justification

Autonomy inteacherappointmentand deploymentdecisions

Emerging

Schools notify ProvincialDivision of Educations oftheir teacher needs.Provinces are responsiblefor appointing anddeploying teaching staffand supported by TSC.National DoE managesnational database.

Autonomy innon teachingstaffappointmentand deploymentdecisions

Advanced

School level is solelyresponsible forappointment anddeployment of nonteaching staff.

Autonomy inschool principalappointmentand deploymentdecisions.

Emerging

Provincial DoE has the legalauthority to appoint anddeploy principals; Secretaryof Education approvespromotions and transfers.

3. Participation of the School Council in SchoolGovernance is Established

The participation of the school/parent council in schooladministration is very important because it enablesparents to exercise their real power as clients of the

education system. If the committee has to cosignpayments, it automatically has purchasing power. Theuse of a detailed operational manual is extremelyimportant in this area, since it allows committeemembers to adequately monitor school managementperformance, help the principal with cash flowdecisions, and become a catalyst for seeking additionalfunds from the community. The use of such manuals bythe school committee is thus a good vehicle forpromoting increased accountability andinstitutionalizing autonomy.

It is important to note that change management studiesalso have provided evidence that bringing stakeholderstogether to plan and implement meaningful activitiescontributes to behavioral change in institutions—andschools in particular. Collective school planningactivities can provide a mutual vision and shared senseof accountability for parents and school staff; it alignsexpectations between both parties with regards to howthey can commit in supporting to the school. Theseprocesses provide an enabling environment for bettergovernance.

Compared with other countries in the Pacific region andinternationally, PNG has a unique, multi layeredapproach to school governance. Two entities exist atthe school level to take on the task of governance.

First, a school has a SLIP committee, which was createdas part of the SLIP initiative (see DoE’s How ToComplete Your SLIP Annual Review, 2011). The SLIPcommittee is responsible for preparing the SLIP andassociated annual plans, which includes responsibilityfor determining the expenditure aspect of the school’soperational budget.

The second entity, a school’s Board of Management(BoM), is declared as its governing body under Section19(3) of the Education Act. 4 One of the primaryresponsibilities for the BoM is to have legal authority forfinancial oversight, including responsibility for approval

4 Note that in PNG’s decentralized approach to servicedelivery, provincial authorities are permitted to enact furtherlegislation on the structure, mandate and responsibilities ofthe BoM as long as it aligns and builds upon the specificationsoutlined in the Education Act 1983.



and monitoring of the expenditure aspect of the schoolbudget submitted by the SLIP. The DoE’s Board ofManagement Handbook for Elementary, Primary andCommunity Schools provides a comprehensive overviewof BoM responsibilities and duties.

One role of the BoM is to liaise with the ProvincialDivision of Education and central authorities on varioustopics, including teacher performance. Through thischannel, the BoM has a voice on personnel decisions,but does not have formal authority for decision making.Each Provincial Division of Education is responsible forappointment and deployment of teaching staff and theTeaching Service Commission establishes theprocesses/procedures to be followed.

Participation from the P&C (Parents and CitizensAssociation) is highlighted in the DoE’s How ToComplete Your SLIP Annual Review (2011) document asa core element of school operations. Since introductionof the SLIP initiative the role of the P&C has furtherexpanded to include active engagement through allaspects of the implementation process (Plan, Do,Review, Report). The P&Cs level of participation ismeasured during the SLIP external review and includes:level of awareness of SLIP; level of P&C involvement;and SLIP evolution and achievements.

Articulated in the Education Act 1983 and subsequentBoM Handbook, the BoM has legal oversight on somelearning inputs to the classroom, including pupils’attendance, application of the curriculum, andimplementation of non core subjects. Specific tocurriculum and non core subjects, at the elementarylevel, children have three years of education in the locallanguage based on local community themes. In primaryschool, students take courses pertaining to communitythemes and local culture, which require assistance andinput from the BoM and P&C to design and execute.

Transparency in community participation is aided by theEducation Act and BoM Handbook, but there are someshortcomings. All schools must have a BoM comprisedof the following three types of members: (1) at leastfive staff members, broadly representative of thecommunity; (2) a teacher; and (3) a head teacher (as exofficio). Each BoM has a chairperson, secretary, andtreasurer. The BoM Handbook does not specify howmembership should be determined, but rather statesthat various approaches – elections, appointment byclans or P&C – exist in the country. Term limits shouldnot exceed three years.

The SLIP committee should be comprised of thefollowing: head teacher; chairperson of the BoM; twoteacher representatives; male and female studentrepresentatives (number not specified); and male andfemale parents (number not specified). As indicated,there is some overlap in personnel between the twobodies, as the head teacher and chairperson will sit onboth the SLIP committee and BoM.

On one hand, PNG’s layered approach to schoolgovernance has the potential to realize high levelengagement and ownership from the community. Theapproach aims, by sharing responsibilities between theBoM and SLIP Committee, to achieve balanced andeffective school management. However, the policyarticulating the role of the BoM was not updated withthe implementation of the SLIP initiative. As a resultthere are duplications of tasks and personnel betweenboth entities, which may impact the effectiveness ofeach body and render the two pronged approach lesseffective.

Furthermore, neither entity requires open elections todetermine membership, nor are there clearmechanisms in place to remove committee members ininstances of poor performance. To some degree, as isarticulated in the Education Act 1983 and SLIPdocumentation, the P&C is tasked with holding the twogroups accountable. One example is that the P&C isable to alert the DoE and Provincial authorities withgrievances, which could lead to suspension ortermination of BoM/SLIP members in instances offraudulent activity. Furthermore, according to policy,there are repercussions for poor performance;however, it is not clear how the P&C can utilize thisaccountability measure.



4. Assessment of School and StudentPerformance is Established

School assessments can have a substantial impact onschool performance because they encourage parentsand teachers to agree on academic scoring rules andpotential tracking strategies for scores. Measuringstudent assessments is another important way todetermine if a school is effective in improving learning.A key aspect of school autonomy is the regularmeasurement of student learning, with the intent ofusing the results to inform parents and society, and tomake adjustments to managerial and pedagogicalpractices. Without a regular assessment of learningoutcomes, school accountability is reduced and, with it,improving education quality becomes less tangible.

In PNG, the Whole School Quality Assessment (2013) isthe policy that governs school assessment and isimplemented by the DoE. The approach has threeelements: (1) interviews with head teacher and BOMchairman; (2) interviews with students, teachers, andP&C members; and, (3) classroom observation. Themain topics covered in the assessment include: schoolgovernance, classroom learning, maintenance of schoolfacilities, staff development, and the school learningimprovement program. The Standards Officers aretasked with implementing each aspect of the WholeSchool Quality Assessment, which normally takes oneday to implement and is conducted annually.

The National Curriculum Statement (2003) and theNational Assessment and Reporting Policy (2003), whichare the two documents that formally establish theassessment system in PNG, predate the development ofthe Whole School Quality Assessment. In practice,results from the Whole School Quality Assessment areanalyzed by the DoE and distributed to provincialauthorities and schools who are expected to use themto improve teaching and learning. There is no policymandating the use of information from schoolassessments for making pedagogical, operational orpersonnel adjustments at the school level, however, theresults of the school assessments may provide headteachers with data to help them in this regard.

The National Assessment and Reporting Policy (2003),outlines the two standardized student assessmentapproaches. The first is a diagnostic test, which isconducted every other year, is administered to Grade 5and Grade 7 students, and focuses on literacy andnumeracy. The diagnostic tests, which are sample basedand nationally representative, are used primarily toinform the implementation and review of curriculumand other aspects of the learning environment.

The second form of standardized student assessment inPNG is achievement based examinations used tomeasure student progression and level of certification.Examinations are held in Grade 8 for the primarysystem, and Grades 10 and 12 at the secondary level.There are DoE Examinations Handbooks thatcorrespond to Grades 8, 10, and 12. The MeasurementServices Unit in the DoE is charged with analyzing thedata and results are disseminated to provincial andschool level authorities. Individual results are alsoshared with students and their guardians.

3. Participation of the School Council in SchoolGovernance is EstablishedPolicy Action Score Justification

Participation ofthe SchoolCouncil inbudgetpreparation

Established

SLIP Committee isresponsible fordetermining theexpenditure aspect ofschool budget and BoM istasked with approval.

Participation infinancialoversight

Advanced BoM has legal authorityfor financial oversight.

Participation inPersonnelManagement

Established

BoM has a voice inpersonnel management,however ultimately thisresponsibility resides withthe Provincial Division ofEducation.

Communityparticipation inschool activities

AdvancedCommunity plays a criticalrole in school activitiesthrough P&C (Parents andCitizens Association).

Communityparticipation inlearning inputs

Established

BoM has legal oversight insome learning inputs,including pupilattendance, application ofthe curriculum, and noncore subjects.

Transparency incommunityparticipation

Emerging

BoM members have threeyear term limits, but openelections are notmandated to selectmembers.



The National Assessment and Reporting Policy (2003)stipulates that one of the purposes of assessment is toform and gather evidence to enable teachers toimprove their teaching and help students raise theirstandards of achievement. Furthermore, the policyindicates that analysis of assessment data must be usedto inform decisions about: the effectiveness of teaching,learning and assessment programs; the suitability ofavailable resources; and the degree of communityparticipation in schools. However, the NationalAssessment and Reporting Policy (2003) does notclearly articulate that results should be used to makeoperational and personnel adjustments, nor does itprovide adequate information on how to utilize theresults to improve upon the above noted pedagogicalareas.

In terms of dissemination of results, the same policymandates that results from student assessments are tobe provided to the Provincial Divisions of Education;Local Level Governments, and schools. Students alsoreceive their individual results.

5. School Accountability to Stakeholders isEmerging

Accountability is at the heart of SBM. The systemicconnection between budgetary and personnel–levelautonomy, parent participation in the financial andoperational aspects of a school, and the measurementof learning outcomes are all aimed to reinforceaccountability. Only by being accountable to parentscan educational quality be sustainable. The followingindicators below address aspects of accountability thatcan be implemented within the framework of SBM.

This Country Report looks at five areas of focus thatpertain to accountability in PNG. The Department ofEducation’s National Assessment and Reporting Policy(2003) mandates that results of student assessmentsmust be used to improve the classroom learningenvironment. However, the policy is vague in terms ofhow this should be achieved, and there are nosupporting guidelines to assist school leaders intranslating the results into improvement strategies.

In regard to the analysis of school and studentperformance, the DoE National Assessment andReporting Policy (2003) stipulates that comparison ofstudent and school assessment results should becompleted at the national, provincial, and local level.However, this policy does not require results to bedisseminated to parents or the public at large.

4. School and Student Assessment is EstablishedPolicy Action Score Justification

Existence andfrequency ofschoolassessments

EstablishedWhole School QualityAssessment Form isconducted by DoE in allschools annually.

Use of schoolassessments formaking schooladjustments

Emerging

Results are analyzed byDoE and distributed toprovincial and schoollevel authorities. Nopolicy guiding use ofresults for makingschool adjustments.

Existence andfrequency ofstandardizedstudentassessments

Advanced

Sample baseddiagnostic assessmentconducted bi annually;achievement basedused annually.

Use ofstandardizedstudentassessments forpedagogical,operational, andpersonneladjustments

EstablishedResults from studentassessments are used toimprove pedagogy andclassroom learning only.

Publication ofstudentassessments

Established

National policystipulates that resultsare to be provided tonational, provincial, andschool level authorities.



In the area of financial accountability, the centralgovernment is responsible for establishing theframework which regulates the management and use offinancial resources. The primary legislation thatgoverns use of funds is the Public Finance ManagementAct, which states the reporting requirements and use offunds. Regulations for complying with the rules offinancial management and transparency and reportingto those with oversight authority exist at all levels of theeducation system – centrally, provincially, and schoolwide. In addition, each province has the authority tostipulate further regulations that go beyond that of thePublic Finance Management Act. There are penaltiesfor inappropriate use, but no policy for linking rewardswith good financial management.

At the school level, the Fee Free Tuition Policy buildsupon the above noted legislation by noting thecategories for expenditure, providing expenditureguidelines, including reporting authority and specifictimeframes for expenditures. Compliance is enforced tocurb misuse of funds; there is no reward system in placethat recognizes excellent use of financial resources.

Regulations are also in place for enforcingaccountability in all aspects of school operations,including infrastructure (i.e. water and electricity), thelearning environment, and service delivery.Enforcement is achieved through the Whole SchoolQuality Assessment as well as the SLIP initiative, whichhas an embedded accountability mechanism throughthe collaborative approach with the P&C Association ateach stage of the SLIP life cycle. There is no policy inplace to incentivize schools for better school operationsnor is there a system to reward the best performingschools in terms of school operations.

Regarding learning accountability, policy does notrequire results of student assessments to be simplifiedand explained to the public. As a result, this limits thepublic’s ability to fully understand the efficacy of theeducation system and to adopt a collective voice todemand system wide accountability.

IV. Enhancing Education Quality: Policy

Recommendations for Papua New Guinea1. Autonomy in the planning and management of the

school budget (Established)Operational expenses are primarily funded through theFee Free Tuition Policy, which is a per child granttransferred directly from the central level to schools.Based on their educational and contextual needs,schools determine their operational expenditures basedon what they receive according to a FFTP formula.Considering the large disparity in terms of geography,culture, and access to resources across the country, astandardized approach to education financing may notafford schools in some locations sufficient resources tomeet their needs. In response to this reality, the DoEcould consider undertaking bi annual reviews of the

5. Accountability to Stakeholders is EmergingPolicy Action Score JustificationGuidelines forthe use of resultsof studentassessments

LatentThe Assessment Policy(2003) does not provideclear guidelines and isoutdated.

Analysis ofschool andstudentperformance

Emerging

Policy requires results tobe compared atnational, provincial andmunicipal/local level;results are notdisseminated to parentsor public at large.

Degree offinancialaccountability atthe central,regional, andschool levels

Established

Public FinanceManagement Actregulates use of publicresources; Fee FreeTuition Policy outlineseligible expendituresand procurementmethod.

Degree ofaccountability inschooloperations

EstablishedRegulations foraccountability exist forschool operations.

Degree oflearningaccountability

Latent

Policy does not requireresults of studentassessments to besimplified and explainedto the public.



FFTP formula to make geographical or socio economicadjustments in support of underserved schools.

Management of teaching and non teaching staff salariesrepresents an area that could be improved in PNG.Although it is praised that schools make thedetermination of salary for non teaching staff, there areno mechanisms to ensure consistency and transparencyacross the education system. In this regard, the DoEcould develop standard Terms of Reference and provideguidelines based on the collective experiences of theeducation system to inform individual schools as to theapproximate level of salary for a position in nearbycommunities, as well as articulating the specific skillsetand requirements for a given position.

2. Autonomy in personnel management (Emerging)Although PNG has adopted a decentralized approach toeducation and schools are involved in identifying theirvacancy needs, the school level does not have a voice orinput in the selection of teaching staff or head teacher.PNG may want to consider including the head teacheras part of the Provincial DoE’s hiring panel to fill ateacher vacancy and ensure the candidate is a strong fitin their school’s environment and meets the vacancyneeds. For decisions regarding head teacher, the policycould be expanded to allow representatives from theBoM to voice an opinion to reflect the type of personalcharacteristics and professional attributes that areappropriate for the school and community. Selectioncriteria must be transparent to hold stakeholdersaccountable to the public for their decision making.

3. Role of School Committee on school governance(Established)

Despite the Established rating, there are twofundamental features that could be addressed toimprove the current approach towards schoolgovernance. Having a two layered governance approachallows for checks and balances at the school level whichis a good thing. However, there is some confusionresulting from the introduction of the SLIP that tookplace without an update of the policy articulating therole of the BoM. It is recommended to update the BoMpolicy to better clarify revisions to its role. TheGovernment could review the current approach takinginto account the lessons learned and successes. Thefindings should be disseminated through the educationsystem and be used to update/clarify the guidelines foreach role – SLIP and BoM.

Second, there is no consistent and transparent methodused across the education system to determine BoMand SLIP Committee personnel. As such the respectivepersonnel may not be representative of the communityor have the necessary skill set to fulfill their role. Thiscould be addressed through the provision of positiondescriptions and holding democratic, transparentelection process with fixed term and electoral dates.

4. School and student assessment (Established)The National Assessment and Reporting Policy (2003)provides vague information on the intent of studentassessment and does not include specific guidelines onhow to translate findings into action. It is recommendedthat the policy be updated to incorporate and reflectthe numerous advancements and changes in theeducation system including alignment with theintroduction of the SLIP initiative and the Whole SchoolQuality Assessment. The policy update would betterreflect the current context and provide greater utility toeducation practitioners

It would also be important to articulate how the studentassessment analysis of results should be used toimprove pedagogical practices, school operations andmake personnel adjustments to maximize studentlearning outcomes. This would facilitate more datadriven decision making to optimize studentperformance, as well as contribute to increasedconsistency across the education system and provideschools with the tools and autonomy to respond totheir local environment and educational needs.

5. Accountability (Emerging)Several steps could be taken to improve theaccountability policy goal in PNG. Along with updatingthe National Assessment and Reporting Policy (2003),the DoE should consider mandating the publicdissemination of comparison of school and studentassessment results at the national, provincial, and locallevel. Currently a comparative analysis is conducted, onstudent assessment however results are notdisseminated. Building upon this point, the DoE shouldalso mandate that the results of student assessmentsare simplified and explained to the public. Becausestudent assessment results are not clearly articulated tothe public at large, the public does not have sufficientinformation to demand accountability from schools andhigher authorities, and, inter alia, is limited to enhanceschool performance and learning outcomes.



In regard to accountability for financial managementand school operations, PNG has done a good job ofdeveloping financial regulations and systems at theschool level to promote basic safety, operations, andperformance. One element of this approach is that ofsanctions for poorly performing schools. Althoughimproving the performance of poorly functioningschools and providing financial transparency is vital toimproving the education system, the DoE should alsoconsider establishing a framework that incentivizesschools to be high performers and provides recognitionfor this achievement.

V. Comparison of Papua New Guinea’sLevel of School Autonomy andAccountability with Samoa and SolomonIslandsTable 3, below, presents the comparison of results fromthe SABER SAA policy assessment. Both PNG and Samoaachieve an Established rating in autonomy in budgetplanning and approval, whereas Solomon Islands israted as Emerging in this policy goal. Each of the threecountries employs a student fee scheme that isadministered at the central level. The school level, inpartnership with the associated Board of Management/School Committee, determines how resources are used.The primary reason for Solomon Islands Emerging ratingis the absence of adequate documentation in financialmanagement of non teaching staff.

PNG and Solomon Islands, which received a rating ofEmerging for policy goal 2, both have subnational levelsof government – Provincial Department of Educationand Education Authority, respectively – which areresponsible for determining the recruitment anddeployment of teaching staff. In Samoa this function ismanaged by the central Ministry of Education, Sportand Culture, however the education system has a two

level format consisting of the central ministry andschool level.

Although PNG and Samoa are both rated as Establishedin Policy Goal 3 on the participation of the schoolcouncil in school governance, the two countries havevery different systems. Through the School LearningImprovement Plan (SLIP) initiative in Papua NewGuinea, two entities – the SLIP committee and theBoard of Management (BoM) – operate within thescope of the school council in school governance. TheSLIP committee is tasked with developing the vision andstrategic objectives of the school, and the BoM isresponsible for quality assurance. In Samoa the SchoolCommittee – comprised of the school principal and localcommunity members – plays an active role in settingthe vision of the school and in ongoing schooloperations. The MESC provides some support to equipcommittee members with the requisite skills andcompetencies to perform their duties, although thesetend to focus on financial management issues and lesson quality education inputs and methods.

In Solomon Islands participation of the SchoolCommittee – comprised of the head teacher, teachingstaff, community members and students – is Emerging.The committee plays an active role in preparing theWhole School Development Plan (WSDP), annualbudgets and supports school operations, howeverpolicy documentation is not well developed.Furthermore, the School Committee has limitedinvolvement in the non financial input and operationsof schools.

Each of the three countries has achieved an Establishedrating in the assessment of school and studentperformance policy goal and Emerging foraccountability to stakeholders policy goal. The biggestarea for improvement relates to the dissemination ofresults, lack of analysis, and use of school performanceresults by the public for better accountability.



AcknowledgementsThis report was prepared by Clark Matthews(Consultant), under the supervision of Angela Demas(Senior Education Specialist, Human DevelopmentNetwork) and Kazuro Shibuya (Senior EducationSpecialist, Human Development Network) who bothprovided technical analysis and feedback. The reportbenefitted from the data collection efforts and insightof Adrian Alamu (PaBER Assessment Officer, Secretariatof the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment) andSeema Prasad (PaBER Assessment Officer, Secretariat ofthe Pacific Board for Educational Assessment). Theauthor is grateful to the Department of Education fortheir input, support, and validation of data. The datacited in this report are based on reviews of official laws,regulations, decrees, and other policy documents. Forfurther information on the SABER Initiative and SABERSAA, see http://saber.worldbank.org/index.cfm.

AcronymsBoM Board of ManagementDoE Department of EducationFFTP Fee Free Tuition PolicyPaBER Pacific Benchmarking for Education ResultsP&C Parents and CitizensSBM School based ManagementSLIP School Learning Improvement PlanSO Standards OfficerTSC Teaching Service Commission

ReferencesArcia, Gustavo, Kevin Macdonald, Harry AnthonyPatrinos, and Emilio Porta. April 27, 2011. “SchoolAutonomy and Accountability.” Systems Approach forBetter Education Results (SABER). Human DevelopmentNetwork, The World Bank, Washington D.C

Arcia, Gustavo, Harry Anthony Patrinos, Emilio Porta,and Kevin Macdonald. 2011. “School Autonomy andAccountability in Context: Application of BenchmarkingIndicators in Selected European Countries.” SystemsApproach for Better Education Results (SABER). HumanDevelopment Network, The World Bank, WashingtonD.C.

Barrera, Felipe, Tazeen Fasih, and Harry Patrinos, withLucrecia Santibáñez, 2009. Decentralized DecisionMaking in Schools. The theory and evidence on Schoolbased management. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Bruns, Barbara, Deon Filmer, and Harry AnthonyPatrinos, 2011. Making Schools Work: New Evidence onAccountability Reforms. Washington, DC: The WorldBank.

Corrales, Javier, 2006. “Does Parental Participation inSchools Empower or Strain Civil Society? The Case ofCommunity managed Schools in Central America.”Social Policy & Administration 40 (4): 450 470

DoE, 2003. National Curriculum Statement for PNG.

DoE, 2004. A National Plan for Education 2005 2014:Achieving a Better Future.

DoE, 2009. Achieving Universal Education for a BetterFuture: Universal Basic Education Plan 20102019.

DoE, 2009. Behaviour Management Policy for theNational Education system of Papua New Guinea.

Table 3: Level of Development of Policy Goals Across Three Pacific CountriesSAA Policy Goals Level of Development

Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands1. Autonomy in Budget Planningand Approval

Established Established Emerging

2. Autonomy in PersonnelManagement

Emerging Latent Emerging

3. Participation of the SchoolCouncil in School Governance

Established Established Emerging

4. Assessment of School andStudent Performance

Established Established Established

5. Accountability to Stakeholders Emerging Emerging Emerging



DoE, 2009. Equal Employment Opportunities, AntiDiscrimination and Harassment Policy.

Government of Papua New Guinea, Education Act 1983.

DoE, 2010. Medium Term Development Plan 2011 –2015.

DoE, 2011. How to Complete Your SLIP Annual Review.

DoE, 2011. How to prepare for your SLIP InternalReview In service Module.

DoE, 2012. Education Sector Strategic Plan 2011 – 2030:A Roadmap into the Future.

DoE, 2013. Whole School Quality Assessment Form.

Di Gropello, Emanuela, 2004. “EducationDecentralization and Accountability Relationships inLatin America.” World Bank Policy Research WorkingPaper 3453. Washington, DC.

Di Gropello, Emanuela, 2006. “A Comparative Analysisof School Based Management in Central America.”World Bank Working Paper No. 72. Washington DC.

Eurydice. 2007. School Autonomy in Europe. Policies andMeasures. Brussels: Eurydice.

Government of Papua New Guinea, 1998. Organic Lawon Provincial Governments and Local levelGovernments.

Government of Papua New Guinea, 1998. TeachingService Act 1988.

Heim, Michael. 1996. “Accountability in Education: Aprimer for school leaders.” Pacific Resources forEducation and Learning, Hawaii Department ofEducation. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Hood, C. 2001. New Public Management, In N.J.Smelser, P.B. Baltes (eds), International Encyclopedia ofthe Social and Behavorial sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Patrinos, Harry Anthony. 2010. “School BasedManagement.” In Bruns, B., D. Filmer, and H.A. Patrinos(2011), Making Schools Work: New Evidence onAccountability Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Rechebei, Elizabeth. 2010. Accountability and Reality.Who Should Do What? and Who Should BeAccountable? Research Into Practice Series, PacificResources for Education and Learning, HawaiiDepartment of Education. Honolulu, Hawaii.

OECD. 2011. School Autonomy and Accountability: AreThey Related to Student Performance? PISA in Focus.

Teaching Service Commission. HR Policy Informationand Operations Manual.

Vegas, Emiliana. 2001. “School Choice, StudentPerformance, and Teacher and School Characteristics:The Chilean Case.” Development Research Group.Washington, DC: The World Bank.



The Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiativeproduces comparative data and knowledge on education policies andinstitutions, with the aim of helping countries systematically strengthentheir education systems. SABER evaluates the quality of educationpolicies against evidence based global standards, using new diagnostictools and detailed policy data. The SABER country reports give all partieswith a stake in educational results—from administrators, teachers, andparents to policymakers and business people—an accessible, objectivesnapshot showing how well the policies of their country's educationsystem are oriented toward ensuring that all children and youth learn.

This report focuses specifically on policies in the area of SchoolAutonomy and Accountability.

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusionsexpressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or thegovernments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Theboundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on thepart of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

THE WORLD BANK

www.worldbank.org/education/saber

Documents

Papua New Guinea - World Bankwbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/... · papua new guinea ã school autonomy and accountability saber country report |2013