Six Steps to Abolishing Primary School Fees

8/14/2019 Six Steps to Abolishing Primary School Fees

1/146

Operational Guide

Six Steps to AbolishingPrimary School Fees

SFAI

SCHOOL FEE

ABOLITION

INITIATIVE


2/146


3/146

SIX STEPS TO ABOLISHING

PRIMARY SCHOOL FEES


4/146


5/146

SIX STEPS TO ABOLISHING

PRIMARY SCHOOL FEES

Operational Guide


6/146


7/146

v

Preface ix

Abbreviations xi

Introduction 1

Why the Focus on Removing Financial Barriers to Schooling? 2

Goals o the School Fee Abolition Initiative 6

Background on the Operational Guide 8

Scope and Foundation o the Operational Guide 9

Summary o the Six Steps or Abolishing Primary

School Fees 16

Step 1: Ensuring Leadership and Participation

from the Start 19

Background/Rationale 19

aking Action 20

Monitoring and Evaluation 24

Step 2: Assessing the Situation 27


aking Action 28Monitoring and Evaluation 37

Contents


8/146

vi Contents

Step 3: Establishing Priorities 39


Making Policy Choices 40


Step 4: Estimating Costs and Identifying

Financing 49


aking Action 50Monitoring and Evaluation 62

Step 5: Planning for Quality 65


aking Action 67


Step 6: Strengthening School Governance

and Accountability 85


aking Action 86


Appendix: Combined Strategies to Reach the

Most Vulnerable 99Background/Rationale 99

Identiying the Most Vulnerable Groups 100

Organizing Intervention Strategies 102

Common Intervention Strategies 107


Notes 117

References 119


9/146

Contents vii

Boxes

2.1 Fee payment in Nigeria 30

2.2 What are the opportunity costs o education? 31

2.3 Language barriers to enrollment in Mali 32

2.4 Pent-up demand or education 34

2.5 Te money trail: How are teachers paid in the

Democratic Republic o Congo? 35

3.1 Who pays teachers in much o rural Arica? 41

3.2 Big bang ee abolition in Malawi and Uganda 433.3 Phasing in school ee abolition by grade in Lesotho 44

3.4 Reaching overage children in India 45

3.5 argeting the most vulnerable in China 46

4.1 Using simulation models in planning in Ethiopia 51

4.2 Piloting school ee abolition in Ghana 53

4.3 Procuring better textbooks or less in Brazil

and Uganda 564.4 Increasing government expenditure or education during

school ee abolition in Cambodia, Kenya, and Uganda 58

4.5 Replacing school ees in China and Ethiopia 59

4.6 EFA/FI fnancing benchmarks 59

4.7 Securing external fnancial support or school ee

abolition in Kenya 61

5.1 Meeting the challenge o postee abolition in Kenya 66

5.2 Guineas reorms in teacher recruitment 71

5.3 Using tents as temporary classrooms in Lesotho 76

5.4 Building low-cost schools in Ghana 77

5.5 Curriculum reorm in Ghana 81

5.6 Local purchase o instructional material in Kenya 82

6.1 Block grants to schools in Mozambique and anzania 88

6.2 Essential Learning Package (ELP): Goals and strategy 90

6.3 Siphoning o school unds at the district level

in Uganda 91


10/146

viii Contents

6.4 School grant planning in Cambodia and Ghana 92

6.5 Decentralization in education: Internationallessons learned 93

6.6 Voluntary school contributions in Ethiopia

and Mozambique 94

6.7 School-based management in El Salvador

and Nicaragua 95

A.1 Guidelines or creating a problem tree or highly

vulnerable children 104A.2 Cooperating to reach out-o-school children in

Ethiopia and India 108

A.3 Inclusive education in Mozambique 109

A.4 Food or education in Malawi 110

A.5 Brazils Bolsa Escola: Keeping vulnerable children

in school 112

A.6 Providing basic education to hard-to-reach urbanchildren in Bangladesh 113

A.7 Cambodias mentor program 114

Tables

1.1 Consultation and communication strategies used

in some Arican countries 23

2.1 Percentage o households reporting expenditures on

dierent categories o ees in primary education

in selected countries 29

2.2 Shares o students in dierent types o schools

in Mali, 2003 33

A.1 Educational consequences o and response options

to childrens vulnerabilities 106


11/146

ix

Tis Operational Guide is the product o several consultations with edu-

cation partners and experts and two major meetings, held in Kenya in

April 2006 and in Mali in June 2007, which gathered ministers o edu-

cation; ministry o education technical o cials; and personnel rom

multilateral and bilateral agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and

research institutions.

Te frst version o the guide was written by Marie Dorlans, edu-

cation specialist and consultant. A second version was draed by Dina

Craissati, senior education adviser at the United Nations Childrens Fund

(UNICEF); Birger Fredriksen, consultant on education development and

ormer senior adviser at the World Bank; and Robert Prouty, acting head

o the Education or All/Fast rack Initiative (EFA/FI). Tis version was

enriched and fnalized by Dean Nielsen, consultant and ormer senior eval-

uation o cer in the World Banks Independent Evaluation Group. Alexia

Lewnes, writer and editor, provided editorial assistance.

Comments were provided by Felipe Barrera (World Bank), Mark

Bray (United Nations Educational, Scientifc and Cultural Organization

[UNESCO]/International Institute or Educational Planning [IIEP]), racy

Brunette (American Institutes or Research), Francoise Caillods (UNES-

CO/IIEP), Joanne Carter (Results), Teophania Chavatzia (UNESCO),Patrick Collins (United States Agency or International Development

Preface


12/146

x Preface

[USAID]), Martial Dembele (University o Montreal), Deborah Dishman

(UNICEF), Kristi Fair (USAID), David Gartner (Global AIDS Alliance),eklehaimanot Haileselassie (Ethiopia), Donald Hamilton (ormerly

o the World Bank), Peter Hyll-Larsen (ActionAid International), Igor

Kitaev (UNESCO/IIEP), Alice Kubo (the Netherlands), Aidan Mulkeen

(World Bank), Mamadou Ndoye (Association or the Development o

Education in Arica [ADEA]), Susan Opper (World Bank), Serge Pano

(UNESCO/IIEP), David Plank (Michigan State University), N. V. Var-

ghese (UNESCO/IIEP), and Cream Wright (UNICEF).Te development o the Operational Guide was unded by UNICEF,

the World Bank, and the EFA/FI. Te project was led and coordinated

by Dina Craissati (UNICEF).


13/146

xi

Abbreviations

$ All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.

ADEA Association or the Development o Education in Arica

DFID Department or International Development (United Kingdom)

EFA Education or All

FPE Free Primary Education

FTI Fast rack Initiative

IIEP International Institute or Educational Planning

IMF International Monetary Fund

MDG Millennium Development Goal

M&E monitoring and evaluation

NGO nongovernmental organization

OPEC Organization o the Petroleum Exporting Countries

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

PTA parent-teacher association

SFAI School Fee Abolition Initiative

Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientifc and Cultural

Organization

UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund

USAID United States Agency or International Development


14/146


15/146

1

I

Introduction

Tis Operational Guide is one o the main outputs o the School Fee

Abolition Initiative (SFAI). SFAI is designed to signifcantly advance

eorts to ensure access to quality basic education by supporting poli-

cies that remove the education cost barriers to parents and households.

Launched by UNICEF and the World Bank in 2005, the Initiative has

grown into a broad partnership that involves other key development part-

ners and constituencies as well as research and academic institutions.

SFAI was initiated within a growing worldwide movement to accel-

erate progress toward achieving the education Millennium Development

Goal (MDG) o 100 percent completion o primary education by 2015

and the Education or All (EFA) goal o ensuring access to and comple-

tion o ree and compulsory primary education o good quality by thatyear. Te bold strategy o SFAI is to provide practical and fnancial sup-

port to countries that have decided to eliminate school ees or provide tar-

geted ee exemptions, subsidies, and incentives or the poor. Donors have

provided strong support to this movement and to related strategies, such

as conditional cash transers. Global leaders have also placed the issue

high on their political agendas. In 2006, or example, the British Chancel-

lor o the Exchequer (later Prime Minister) Gordon Brown highlightedthe need or ree primary education at the Education Roundtable chaired


16/146

2 Introduction

I

by Paul Wolowitz, President o

the World Bank at the time, andArican Development Bank

President Donald Kaberuka,

during the annual meetings o

the World Bank and the Inter-

national Monetary Fund (IMF)

in Singapore (box). Te dis-

cussions during the Roundta-ble ocused on the fndings o

the Development Committee

Report on the Fast rack Initia-

tive (FI) and the need to bolster

unding through the FI to help

achieve EFA. Te United King-

dom committed $15 billion overthe next 10 years to help ensure

that this goal is achieved.1

Why the Focus on Removing Financial Barriers

to Schooling?

Eorts to remove fnancial barriers to school are gaining momentum or

several reasons:

Progress on the education MDGs and the EFA goals needs to be sus-

tained and reinorced. Countries are making encouraging progresstoward reducing the number o out-o-school children. Some 72 million

children were not enrolled in school in 2005 (57 percent o them girls),

down rom 96 million in 1999 (59 percent girls) (UNESCO 2007).

I want to particularly draw attention to the

need for free primary education. It must be

universal, but it must be free. I was in Kenya

more than a year ago and I found that in

the week that Kenya had made primary

education free for its children, 1 million

children who had not had schooling turned

up to be registered for school, just one sig-

nal of the demand for education when it is

available free of charge. And from Kenya,

Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, we

know that more than 1 million children in

each of these countries were added to the

education roles when education was made

free. So part of our commitment to funding

is to make it possible for primary educa-

tion to be both universal and free. And

I hope that we can move this forward

quickly in the next few months.

Gordon Brown, Singapore,

September 2006


17/146

Introduction 3

I

Nevertheless, projections on the average annual rate o increase in

enrollment suggest that most low-income countries will need almostthree times the current growth rate to achieve the 2015 goals. More-

over, increased enrollment does not always translate into similar gains

in attendance and completion, as witnessed by the act that more than

90 million children did not attend school in 2005 (UNICEF 2007). In

addition, in many countries the overage student population is growing

at alarming rates and more than hal o primary school graduates ail to

master basic skills. Tese conditions call or bold measures. School ee abolition is a bold and demonstrably efective initiative

or accelerating the attainment o the EFA goals.Experience in manycountries shows that the household costs o schooling are a major

barrier that prevent children rom accessing and completing quality

basic education. Te private costs o education are especially burden-

some in countries in which poverty and vulnerability impose tough

choices on amilies and households about how many and which chil-dren to send to school and or how long. Countries that have taken

the bold step to eliminate ees and other costs to parents, or intro-

duced conditional cash transer programs or poor amilies, have seen

dramatic and sudden surges in enrollment: in Kenya, primary school

enrollments increased rom 5.9 million in 2002 to 7.12 million in 2004,

and in imor Leste, they increased by 9.5 percent between 1999 and

2001 (Bentaouet-Kattan 2006); in Uganda, primary school enrollment

grew rom 3.1 million in 1996 to 5.3 million in 1997 (World Bank and

UNICEF 2009). o increase educational access, however, school ee

abolition needs to be real, not mere political posturing. O 93 coun-

tries surveyed by the World Bank in 2005, most o which had o cial

provisions or ree primary education, only 16 charged no ees at all. In

addition, recidivismthe uno cial return o eesis a growing phe-

nomenon in countries that have o cially and legally abolished ees

(Bentaouet-Kattan 2006).


18/146

4 Introduction

I

School ee abolition has a direct impact on equity and inclusion, and

it addresses the rights and needs o marginalized, excluded, and vul-

nerable children. School ees are a orm o regressive taxation, which

imposes a disproportionate burden on the poor. Te tremendous

surge in enrollment aer abolishing eesparticularly among poor,

previously excluded, and vulnerable children (girls, children living in

remote rural populations, child laborers, children with disabilities, and

children aected by HIV/AIDS and social conict)reveals that the

private costs o education to amilies are particularly burdensome tothese groups. Enrollment o children rom such groups is very sensitive

to ees, even small ees.

When careully planned, school ee abolition or similar programs

can trigger sectorwide education reorms. Well-planned school ee

abolition is not an isolated policy measure but an initiative that will

stimulate (or be embedded in) sectorwide educational planning and

reorm. Because it needs to be implemented within a sound policyramework, school ee abolition orces governments and development

partners to collect inormation and cost/enrollment projections, scru-

tinize education plans and budgets, identiy ine ciencies, and explore

new avenues o reorm. Major sector reorm needs have been iden-

tifed in a variety o areas, including the size o government budget

allocations to and across the sector; the provision o basic education

services (more student places, trained teachers, and learning mate-

rials); governance (greater decentralization and accountability at the

local level); and transitioning to postprimary education. In some

prominent cases, school ee abolition has triggered improvements in

EFA strategizing within a long-term sector plan and has been promi-

nent in government poverty reduction strategies.2

Well-managed school ee abolition prompts ministries o education to

engage in policy dialogue and consensus building with other sectors

and development partners. Abolishing school ees orces governments


19/146

Introduction 5

I

to simultaneously replace lost revenue and deal with a large surge in

enrollment, creating fnancial burdens that will be hard to bear, at leastin the short run. Tis has oen become a rationale or increased fnan-

cial and technical support rom development partners (such as o cial

debt relie and fnancial contributions rom nongovernmental organi-

zations [NGOs] and development agencies, a large proportion o which

o cially support school ee abolition). In addition, governments have

come to recognize that school ee abolition alone is not enough to

attract the poorest and most marginalized, given the multitude o othereconomic and social barriers to their participation in primary educa-

tion, such as high opportunity and transportation costs, poor nutrition

and health, untreated learning disabilities, and social dislocation rom

conict or HIV/AIDS. Te need to overcome such barriers has led

some ministries o education into dialogue and cooperation with other

parts o the government (such as social welare, health and nutrition,

and transportation ministries) and relevant NGOs. It has also moti-vated policy makers to develop complementary interventions, such as

scholarships or conditional cash transers, school eeding programs,

social mobilization (such as promotion o girls education by womens

groups), and new ways o solving transportation problems (such as

providing some students with bicycles).

Te consequences o school ee abolition and related programs can ocus

greater attention on improved educational quality, especially acceler-

ated approaches to providing quality inputs. Both the loss o revenue to

local schools under school ee abolition and the surge in enrollment pose

threats to school quality. Tis problem could be serious, given that even

beore school ees were abolished quality was unsatisactory in many

settings. School ee abolition programs that end up reducing school

qualityby, or example, overloading classrooms or ailing to provide

enough teachers or textbooksare ultimately sel-deeating, because

parents who might have enrolled their children in school once ees were


20/146

6 Introduction

I

abolished may pull them out i learning opportunities, not just a place

in an overcrowded school, are not provided. Many planners have seenschool ee abolition policies as an opening to the rethinking o ways to

provide quality inputs in a timely manner and to promote acceptable

learning outcomes by, or example, adopting more cost-eective ways o

expanding classroom space; using existing teachers more eectively and

catering to teacher needs in remote areas; improving procurement and

the timely distribution o learning materials through competitive ten-

dering; using local languages in the early years; increasing instructionaltime; and granting unds directly to schools (to encourage community

engagement and minimize misuse o unds).

Goals of the School Fee Abolition Initiative

Although quantum leaps have been made in improving access to basiceducation in individual countries that have removed fnancial barriers to

schooling, analysis and experience reveal that some o the hard-earned

gains are being eroded by poor school quality, ee creep, and other

threats, signaling that many challenges, in both planning and implemen-

tation, need to be addressed. A school ee abolition policy requires sound

planning as well as solid technical and fnancial support to ensure that

resources are mobilized and channeled eectively toward the achievement

o sustainable education outcomes. SFAI was launched to present a vari-

ety o policy options and technical/fnancial support possibilities, with

the hope o promoting new cooperative agreements within governments

and between them and development agency partners. In doing so, SFAI

aims to achieve three interlinked goals:

Goal 1: Build a knowledge base and network on school ee abolition

within which lessons learned can be exchanged and sound strategies


21/146

Introduction 7

I

and interventions supported. SFAI a rms the critical importance o

using lessons rom experience and credible evidence to inorm newpolicy making and strategizingincluding the use o project and

planning documents, situation analyses, case studies, action-oriented

research, program evaluations, and impact assessmentsrecognizing

that strategies cannot be simplistically transplanted rom one country

to another but require both rational planning based on local research

and complex political processes o consensus building. Tis Operation-

al Guide is one o the main products o goal 1. Goal 2: Use this knowledge and experience to acilitate and provide

guidance and support to countries in planning and implementing

policies o school ee abolition. SFAI recognizes a range o strategies

to help remove barriers to schooling. Where governments have chosen

to eliminate school ees, international partners are now engaged at di-

erent levels to help them determine the scope, phasing, requirements,

and fnancing o school ee abolition, recognizing that in resource-constrained environments, prudent school ee abolition cannot happen

everywhere at once. Engagement is taking the orm o technical sup-

port and the acilitation o inormation exchange between countries.

Consultations, training, and capacity development are also planned in

conjunction with this Operational Guide.

Goal 3: Facilitate, promote, and advance the global policy dialogue

on the nancial barriers to educational access and acceptable learn-

ing outcomes and build partnerships that ensure an environment

or success. SFAI is building on existing partnerships in and beyond

education (the EFA movement; HIV/AIDS, civil society, and human

rights networks), and it is engaging a broad array o development part-

ners at national, regional, and global levels (governments, civil society

organizations, academic institutions, bilateral and multilateral agen-

cies) to ensure a good understanding o the complexities involved in

school ee abolition, acilitate the articulation o complementary roles,


22/146

8 Introduction

I

create the necessary technical and fnancial agreements, and sustain

commitment and action. Tis Operational Guide will also serve as atool or promoting dialogue and partnerships.

For more inormation on SFAI,

please click on the logo/link below

or go to www.schooleeabolition.org.

Background on the Operational Guide

A workshop, organized by UNICEF and the World BankBuilding onWhat We Know and Defning Sustained Supportwas held in Nairobi

April 57, 2006. It enabled participants to discuss experiences in plan-

ning and implementing school ee abolition policies and to consolidate

partnerships or short- and medium-term support to governments. Te

workshop brought together ministry o education representatives rom

six countries whose governments had already abolished ees (Ethiopia,

Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, and anzania) and three in which

planning was going orward (Burundi, the Democratic Republic o

Congo, and Haiti), as well as bilateral and multilateral agencies, major

international NGOs, academic institutions, and other constituencies.

Te Nairobi workshop helped deepen participants understanding

o how to make a policy on school ee abolition work without seriously

undermining educational quality. Participants rom a number o coun-

tries stated that the workshop gave them greater confdence to commit

themselves to advance or reorm their plans. Partners pledged to work


23/146

Introduction 9

I

together to help government o cials manage the school ee abolition

processes more eectively. o keep the momentum going, workshop par-ticipants recommended the preparation o an operational guide.

A frst dra o the SFAI Operational Guide was developed right aer

the meeting. It was reviewed twice by groups o experts rom countries,

development agencies, NGOs, and academic institutions, frst at UNICEF

(New York) in June and then at UNESCO/International Institute or Edu-

cational Planning (IIEP) (Paris) in July. In 2007 the dra was used as a

resource at the international conerence on school ee abolition convenedin Bamako, Mali, by the Association or the Development o Education

in Arica (ADEA), UNICEF, and the World Bank. Tere it was urther

strengthened, particularly with respect to perspectives on sustaining edu-

cational quality and fnancing (ADEA, UNICEF, and World Bank 2007).

Tis version o the Operational Guide is the product o this con-

sultation process as well as various discussions and dialogues on school

ees within the ramework o EFA orums held during 2005, 2006, and2007. It is by no means a fnal product. It will continue to improve with

urther consultations, training and capacity development, and country

engagement.

Scope and Foundation of the Operational Guide

Te main objectives o this Operational Guide are to generate knowl-

edge, guide analytical and technical work, and acilitate policy dialogue

and decision making. Te document aims to serve policy makers, plan-

ning o cers, and development partners. Te way it is used will vary,

depending on country contexts and choices. It can assist governments

just embarking on school ee abolition in the planning process, and it

can help those already under way review or refne policies and ongoing

implementation processes.


24/146

10 Introduction

I

Te Operational Guide highlights six steps to guide governments

through sound school ee abolition processes. Te steps, which are notnecessarily sequenced, include the ollowing:

1. Defning a leadership and management mechanism that is mandated

at the highest level, supported by national consensus, and backed by

the best technical expertise available

2. Creating a comprehensive situation analysis o school ees, related costs,

school population and enrollment statistics, and existing resources

3. Setting priorities on the types o ees to eliminate frst; the sequenc-

ing o school ee abolition according to geographic area, grade, age,

and/or socioeconomic characteristics; and prioritizing children need-

ing more than school ee abolition

4. Estimating costs related to the range o policy options and identiying

sources o local, national, and international fnancing

5. Maintaining the ocus on quality issues

6. Strengthening school governance and accountability.

For each step, the rationale; suggested actions or policy choices; and moni-

toring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, suggestions, and ideas are pro-

vided, along with country illustrations and examples and key reerences.

An appendix provides additional guidance on combined strategies to

reach the most vulnerable. Te SFAI Web site (www.schooleeabolition.

org) provides additional resources.

All six steps are based on the ollowing premises:

School ee abolition involves major challenges, which need to be

addressed i the gains made are to be consolidated and sustained.School ee abolition does not stop at policy declarations; it needs to

be translated into a set o sound, well-planned, widely negotiated, com-

prehensive, and sustainable policy and operational rameworks.Teabolition o school ees can be easible and realistic, but it is a complex


25/146

Introduction 11

I

process that must take into account the ormidable challenges related

to management and governance, quality, equity, fnancing, and poli-tics. School ee abolition is only one o a number o potential strate-

gies to remove fnancial barriers to primary schooling: governments

should be encouraged to thoughtully consider a range o options. For

governments that have decided that ee abolition is the appropriate

strategy, the six steps o the Operational Guide address the complexity

o school ee abolition processes, rom securing political and techni-

cal backing (Steps 1 and 2) through enhancing the basis or makingequitable and fnancially sound choices (Steps 3 and 4), maintaining

the ocus on quality (Step 5), and strengthening school governance

and accountability (Step 6).

Te ocus on equity and quality should be maintained i school ee abo-

lition is to be successul. In many countries children rom excluded, mar-

ginalized, and vulnerable groups may still not be able to attend school,

despite ee abolition. Tese children may need additional, targetedfnancial and nonfnancial support to ensure that they beneft rom this

policy. Step 3 provides guidance on these accompanying measures and

targeted exemptions, subsidies, and incentives (see also the appendix,

which presents combined strategies or reaching the most vulnerable).

SFAI emphasizes that access to education can be increased only by

enhancing education quality and should by no means be urthered at its

expense, especially with regard to the mobilization o resources. A key

SFAI message is that no child should be excluded rom quality school-

ing. Step 5 positions school ee abolition not as a threat to quality but as

an opportunity to plan or and enhance it.

School ee abolition helps lighten the nancial burdens on the poor

and marginalized. School ee abolition is not just about tuition ees

(which do not necessarily constitute the bulk o ees). It must take into

consideration the wide range o household costs o schooling, includ-

ing the costs o textbooks and supplies, uniorms, and parent-teacher


26/146

12 Introduction

I

association (PA) contributions; costs related to sports and other school

activities and those related to transportation; and contributions to teach-ers salaries. In some cases, it may even take into account the opportunity

cost o the childs contribution to amily income, which may need to be

met with complementary actions o social welare agencies (such as cash

transers to a students amily). Governments need to undertake rigorous

context-specifc costbeneft and social analysis on the policy options

that are easible and that yield the best results. Te minimum objective is

to ensure that no child is excluded rom schooling because o inability topay or other fnancial reasons. Steps 2 and 3 provide guidance on assess-

ing the dierent types o costs and putting in place various ee abolition

and other fnancial support measures or the poor and marginalized.

School ee abolition policies should encourage the engagement o par-

ents, teachers, and communities in and around schools; it should not

compromise the initiative and creativity o communities. Communi-

ties can play crucial roles in urthering and sustaining eective andquality schools. Abolishing school ees must thus not reduce commu-

nity support to schools. On the contrary, school ee abolition should

expand and strengthen community engagement. School grants and

other kinds o transers can be used to ensure that all schools have

at least the minimum resources needed or quality education at no

fnancial expense to parents. Communities should not be prevented

rom providing additional resources (including in-kind contribu-

tions) at their own initiative, as long as they do not entail mandatory

contributions by low-income amilies. Step 1 underlines the need or

community participation in school planning and management. Step 4

highlights policy options with regard to fnancing community schools.

Step 6 provides guidance on strengthening community engagement.

Where school ee abolition is the governments preerred strategy, it

should be embeddedas a scaling-up and EFA acceleration strategy

in national education and EFA plans, sectorwide programming,


27/146

Introduction 13

I

existing M&E mechanisms, and nancing instruments and mac-

roeconomic rameworks. School ee abolition is not just about emer-gency responses o replacing ees and managing the ensuing surge in

enrollment. I school ee abolition is to be sustainable, it should be

anchored in long-term education plans and budgets. Te process should

also be placed high on the agenda o annual education sector and other

reviews. Commitment to school ee abolition is meaningul only where

there is a commitment to good-quality EFA. In some countries it will

need to be embedded in programs to rebuild education systems. Abol-ishing school ees also means commitment to promoting complemen-

tary interventions in related social sectors (social welare, health and

nutrition, and transportation) and putting orward this constellation o

interventions within poverty reduction strategies and national budget

processes. Step 1 shows how school ee abolition can be placed high on

the agenda o decision makers and integrated into broader EFA and

development strategies. Te other fve steps link school ee abolition tosituation analysis, fnancing considerations and mechanisms, quality

improvement, and good governance and accountability.

Where school ee abolition policies are envisaged, they need to be

integrated with EFA/FI processes in countries that have established

them. Te EFA/FI can provide added value to school ee abolition

processes on several levels. Te FI endorsement process supports

countries in craing sound national education plans and budgets with

greater and long-term commitment o political and fnancial resourc-

es. Te FI Indicative Framework includes key benchmarks support-

ive o successul school ee abolition, such as the target or nonsalary

quality inputs, which can be useul in determining the level o school

grants. Te FI is well placed to help donors develop proactive strate-

gies with regard to school ees. FI local donor coordination groups,

annual review missions, and the Education Program Development

Fund (EPDF) represent key channels or helping countries undertake


28/146

14 Introduction

I

data collection and analysis regarding school ees, determine the

resources needed, monitor implementation, and mobilize capacitiesand expertise. Te FI Catalytic Fund can help countries meet the

additional fnancial burden created by ee abolition. School ee aboli-

tion movements in certain countries can also contribute signifcantly

to the FI, especially on ways to encourage rapid expansion, improve

equity, strengthen governance and accountability, and enhance prob-

lem solving. Ultimately, school ee abolition experiences and policy

debates can contribute to the evolution o the FI Framework. Step 4discusses resource mobilization and integration with the FI.

In the long run, school ee abolition requires sustainable nancing

rom government sources; in the short and intermediate terms, it may

require external nancial assistance. Promoting and maintainingschool quality despite the loss o ee revenue and the surge in enroll-

ment will require increased domestic (government and NGO) unding

or basic education. Keeping the momentum going beyond the initialpolicy blitz will require sustainable unding. Tis oen implies rais-

ing the percentage o GDP allocated to education, increasing the share

o the education budget going to basic education, or both. Even with

such measures, however, government plans to abolish school ees will

oen leave fnancing gaps, which will require external fnancial assist-

ance. External fnancing or education has increased in recent years,

as countries stretch to reach the EFA goals and MDGs. Experience

has shown that such support is most eective when external fnancing

partners join in the planning o school ee abolition programs. Finan-

cial support provided through the EFA/FI, or example, is based on

partner-reviewed national education plans and budgets (into which

school ee abolition would need to ft); it is contingent on meeting

agreed-upon benchmarks on fnancing (or example, the share allocat-

ed to primary education) and educational quality (a target or nonsal-

ary quality inputs). Whether it comes through the FI (using pooled


29/146

Introduction 15

I

donor resources or the FI Catalytic Fund) or some other channel,

external fnancing can help countries meet the additional fnancialburden created by school ee abolition in the short or intermediate

term. Global policy dialogue can contribute to the work and eective-

ness o external fnancing partners. Step 4 o the Operational Guide o-

cuses on the mobilization o domestic and external agency resources.

(Chapter continues on the following page.)


30/146


31/146

Introduction 17

I

Step Background/rationale Taking action

4. Estimating costs

and identifying

financing

Fee abolition unleashes successive

waves of costs. Not only is there major

budget pressure to replace fee revenues,

funds are also needed to address sig-

nificant enrollment surges. Financing is

necessary to reach marginalized children

and bring the whole system up to mini-mum standards (catching up). Careful

estimates are crucial to determine sus-

tainability and affordability, make more

efficient use of existing resources, and

revise budget strategies. The objective of

this step is to estimate costs related to

the range of policy options and to iden-

tify sources of national and international

financing.

1. Estimating costs

2. Mobilizing domestic resources

3. Seeking external financing to fill

the gap

5. Planning for quality When school systems are flooded with

new students and the resources provided

by fees are no longer available to schools,the results can be catastrophic. Most

countries abolishing fees in recent years

have focused much of their attention on

reducing these risks and limiting the dam-

age to the overall quality of education. The

objective of this step is to identify oppor-

tunities for improving quality and maintain-

ing the focus on quality issues.

1. Providing the needed supply of

capable teachers

2. Constructing and renovatingschools and classrooms

3. Ensuring adequate supplies of

textbooks and other teaching

and learning materials

6. Strengthening

school governance

and accountability

Fees formerly used at the school level to

cover operating costs usually need to be

replaced by resource transfers from the

central (or some other level of) govern-ment. The way in which these resources

are transferred is critical. School gover-

nance will need to be improved, and teach-

ers and principals will need to acquire new

coping skills to deal with crowded class-

rooms and the demands of new school

improvement plans. The objective of this

step is to support effective and transpar-

ent mechanisms to allocate and manage

the resources designed to replace fees

while strengthening community ownership

and support for schools and improving

school instructional management andsupervision.

1. Creating transparent, decen-

tralized resource allocation

systems

2. Creating transparent gover-nance systems at the school

and community levels

3. Maintaining community

engagement

4. Strengthening instructional

management

(continued)


32/146

I


33/146

19

1

Step 1:

Ensuring Leadership and

Participation from the Start

Background/Rationale

Te decision to abolish school ees is ofen politically driven. Country expe-

rience indicates that i the initiative is to succeed, it must have the support

o well-inormed, visionary leaders who enlist the participation o a wide

range o technical experts and stakeholders to build a national consensus

on policy and strategy. A strong group o committed leaders has the power

to inuence the complex processes needed to bring about reorm, mobi-

lize resources, and maintain the momentum needed to keep the school ee

abolition process high on the political agenda. A technical team produces

the analytical work that inorms trade-os during the policy dialogue and

keeps the process moving orward in a sound and inormed way.Te most successul initiatives also enlist the active participation

o parents, teachers, NGOs, the private sector, donor and development

agencies, the media, teachers unions, and cultural and religious leaders

in policy discussions and decision making. Tis is essential or ensuring

ownership and sustaining support or the elimination o school ees over

the long term.

Te objective o this step is to dene a leadership and managementmechanism that is mandated at the highest level, supported by national

consensus, and backed by the best technical expertise available.


34/146

20 Step 1

1

Taking Action

1. Establishing a high-level steering group

Governments that are serious about school ee abolition have generally

established high-level working groups to drive their movements. Reerred

to as steering committees, task orces, or joint committees, such groups

are generally commissioned by a national cabinet or legislature to trans-

late a political mandate into realistic plans and vice versa. Consisting o

recognized leaders rom main stakeholders (relevant government minis-tries, NGOs, and academic institutions), such groups generally oversee

policy planning, set up participatory mechanisms or consensus build-

ing, ensure that technical ndings are incorporated into the public debate,

secure needed nancing or the movement, and advocate or school ee

abolition among high-level political leaders. Tey may act to remove ob-

stacles by shaping legal documents and streamlining procedures.

Examples o the use o such groups come rom both sides o Arica.In Ghana, where a successul pilot o a school ee abolition program cre-

ated public pressure or national expansion, the cabinet appointed a joint

committee o senior o cials rom the Ministry o Education and the

Ministry o Local Government to iron out institutional impediments to

a national program o ee-ree education. In Kenya a new government

was immediately challenged by the overwhelming response to its Free

Primary Education (FPE) program. It moved quickly to organize an FPE

task orce headed by a prominent national educator and drawn rom civil

society organizations and educational proessionals, including o cials

rom the Ministry o Education, people rom the media, and develop-

ment partners. Its charge was to develop appropriate strategies or imple-

menting FPE and to identiy concrete guidelines or smooth and eective

implementation. ask orce planning included participatory processes

or incorporating innovations and solutions developed at the local level

(World Bank and UNICEF 2009). Steering groups in countries such as


35/146

Ensuring Leadership and Participation from the Start 21

1

Kenya that anticipate a need or external nancing have ound it helpul

to include external agency partners as observers or advisers.

Given its stature, the steering group is the ideal body to ensure that

school ee abolition remains on the national agenda and is incorporated

into EFA and sectorwide plans and into any poverty reduction strategies

the government may develop (or example, through Poverty Reduction

Strategy Papers [PRSPs]). School ee abolition and poverty relie strat-

egy planning orm a natural alliance, because both deal with the roots o

poverty and use participatory mechanisms. Te PRSP oers the signi-cant advantage o high-level support and the existence o mechanisms or

consulting populations and stakeholders and or reporting back to both

the legislature and other stakeholders.

2. Mobilizing technical teams

Responsible management o school ee abolition requires the mobiliza-tion o technical teams that collect and analyze inormation and work

out technical details. Te composition and responsibilities o such teams

will depend on the scope o the program and the nature o the policies

and plans. eams will be needed to undertake situation analyses (on cur-

rent policies; ees collected and household nancial burdens; current

enrollment and graduation rates; acilities, instructional resources, man-

agement capacity, and community support currently available; and mea-sured learning outcomes) and to make inormed estimates o the needs

and requirements associated with abolishing school ees and dealing with

the accompanying enrollment surges (state nancing, external nancing,

teachers and learning materials, management capacity, and community

support). Step 2 provides a uller listing o inormational needs.

In most cases technical teams will consist o both ministry o educa-

tion proessionals and outside experts, such as those rom research insti-

tutions or NGOs. Kenya mobilized a technical team in support o its FPE


36/146

22 Step 1

1

program consisting o researchers rom the ministries o education and

nance and the Kenya Institute o Public Policy Research and Analysis.

One o its main tasks was to determine the appropriate size o the capi-

tation grants to be provided to schools as one way o covering revenues

oregone by ee abolition (World Bank and UNICEF 2009).

Te technical teams may be sustained throughout the lie o the

school ee abolition process. Ghana has a process o continuous assess-

ment that draws on the results o its annual education sector review to

identiy needed improvements (World Bank and UNICEF 2009). Con-tinuous M&E should be an integral part o any school ee abolition

program.

3. Establishing a participatory mechanism for

consensus building

Eliminating school ees is a bold policy initiative and one o the most

complex interventions a government can launch. It requires a range

o decisionsconcerning denitions, target groups, and intervention

strategiesthat are not easily made. Te choices will have major impacts

on government nancing, labor markets, educational quality, and social

equity. Tereore, inormation and communication, wide-ranging con-

sultation and participation, consensus building, and grassroots support

are keys to success.

School ee abolition cannot be achieved by mobilizing only the

ministry o education. Parents, local authorities, donors, and represen-

tatives rom other government ministries, teachers unions, NGOs, the

private sector, and the media should all be involved in policy dialogue

rom the start, in order to ensure their sense o ownership and ull par-

ticipation throughout the process. Small-scale seminars or high-level

government representatives and other stakeholders, large-scale public

orums, and regional and local meetings can all be used to build a con-sensus (table 1.1).


37/146


1

Although the national debate will necessarily be country specic,

some general questions should be considered in the policy dialogue:

How can teachers, parents, representatives o NGOs, the private sector,

and all other people aected by school ee abolition be assured partici-

pation in the ongoing national dialogue so that their voices are heard

and their opinions taken into consideration?

How can the countrys technical expertise and community resources

be best used to move this initiative orward?

How can public schools maintain or improve educational outcomes

while eliminating ee revenues and increasing enrollment?

How can schools cope with the surge in enrollment that can be expect-

ed during the rst ew years afer school ees are abolished?

How can communities become or remain engaged with their local schools

in the context o school ee abolition? How should communities contrib-

ute to school resources once school ees are abolished?

Will school ee abolition be enough to bring the poorest, most mar-

ginalized social groups into the school system? I not, what else maybe needed?

Table 1.1 Consultation and communication strategies used in some African countries

Country Strategy

Ghana Conference by minister of education; information dissemination including radio

discussions; announcements at churches, mosques, and community gatherings.

Kenya A National Conference on Education and Training was convened after the policy

was announced, and a participatory task force was created that reported to the

government.

Lesotho Community consultations were held and mass media campaigns waged.

Malawi A two-day national policy symposium was held, and mass media campaigns were

waged.

Mozambique National and regional radio channels and newspapers were used. Information and

publicity spots were broadcast in Portuguese and 14 local languages.

Uganda Mass media campaigns were waged.

Source:Avenstrup 2004; World Bank and UNICEF 2009.


38/146

24 Step 1

1

How will private provision o primary education be aected by the pro-

posed school ee abolition policies and strategies?

o what extent will external nancing be needed? What are appropri-

ate roles or development agencies?

Monitoring and Evaluation

High-level groups and technical teams will need to continually monitorand evaluate the eectiveness o their leadership, technical support, and

participatory strategies. Among the M&E questions they should track are

the ollowing:

Are important actors and stakeholders in dierent parts o the country

aware o the governments school ee abolition policy? How well do

they understand the issues?

Is there signicant opposition to the policy? I so, what are the main

points o opposition?

Around which eatures o the school ee abolition policy is consensus

orming, and around which is there controversy?

Are all segments o the population getting a chance to voice their inter-

ests and concerns on school ee abolition policies?

How complete and reliable are the data on the current situation (ees

charged, nancial burdens to parents, current and projected number

o students, school quality, and learning outcomes) and estimates o

uture needs (nances and other resources)?

What gaps are there in technical details, and how can they be lled?

Concerning the leadership or steering group itsel, the cabinet or

commissioning body could ask the ollowing questions:

Is the leadership su ciently inclusive and credible?


39/146


1

Does the steering group have the resources it needs to do its work?

Does it have ready access to key decision makers?

Are the steering group messages coming orth in a timely and convinc-

ing manner?

Is the required momentum being maintained?

Are steering group processes and decisions evidence based and su-

ciently participatory?


40/146

1


41/146

27

2

Step 2:

Assessing the Situation

Background/Rationale

Understanding the impact o school ees and related costs and how

such costs prevent access to learning is essential or identiying evidence-

based options and easible solutions. Likewise, understanding the

school-eligible populationboth those already in school and those

still out o schoolis crucial or efective planning, especially when

it comes to estimating the size o the surge and establishing baselines

against which to track increases in enrollment and improvements in

learning outcomes.

Generating benchmark data and indicators that are monitored

periodically can help chart the path or implementation and maintainthe momentum throughout the school ee abolition process. Tis preas-

sessment process, oen called a situation analysis, can also identiy major

ine ciencies within the whole education system and lead to other educa-

tional reorms that urther improve both access and quality.

Te objective o Step 2 is to dene and assess school ees and related

private costs, to develop an understanding o the school-eligible popula-

tion, and to document existing resources or primary education.


42/146

28 Step 2

2

Taking Action

1. Defining and assessing the current status of school fees

It is oen hard to dene school ees precisely, because what constitutes them

varies rom place to place and time to time. In addition, there is requently a

diference between the o cial denition o school ees (what governments

indicate should or can be collected) and what is actually collected.

Types of fees

In most locations school ees can be broken down into direct ees and

other private expenses. Direct ees include ees paid directly to the school

or school system (tuition, examination ees, activity or sports ees, build-

ing or building maintenance ees, school development ees, boarding

ees). Other ees include those that involve payments to commercial enti-

ties or books, supplies, uniorms, transportation, and meals/snacks and

voluntary contributions made to PAs or similar organizations.

Te types o ees charged vary across countries and regions

(table 2.1). In some cases children pay schools directly or books or uni-

orms; in others, PAs collect unds that cover basic school expenses,

such as teacher salaries or parts thereo (box 2.1). Some schools or teach-

ers may collect ees that are unauthorized or even illegal, such as ees or

end-o-year parties, teachers gardens, or extra tutoring or private lessons.

Te main point o SFAI is to ree pupils and their amilies rom all out-o-pocket expenses or primary education. Each country will have to dene

what this means, but it is essential that the denition be comprehensive.

Comprehensive assessment of fees and the burden

on households

A comprehensive assessment should include not only school o cials

statements o ees collected but also a listing o all ees paid by households.Even where ees have been ormally abolished, the program may not have


43/146

Assessing the Situation 29

2

Table 2.1 Percentage of households reporting expenditures on different categories of fees in

primary education in selected countries

Country (year of survey)

Expenditure Malawi (2002) Nigeria (2004) Uganda (2001) Zambia (2002)

Tuition 1 14 22 73

Books, supplies 83 99 97 98

Uniforms, clothing 69 88 78 81

PTA 70 18 67

Development fund 57 29 56

Exam fees 3 39 24 2

Transport 1 5 6 2

Food 34 62 24 24

Boarding fees 0.3 0.2 2 0.2

Private tutoring 4 23 6 12

School reports 15

Sports fund 24

Maintenance fees 18 10

Other 2 14 24 4

Source: Demographic and Household Survey (DHS) EdData Survey: Malawi 2002, Nigeria 2004, Uganda 2001,

Zambia 2002.

Note:Data for each country are for the school year preceding the year of the survey (expenditures in Uganda, for example,

are for the 2000/01 school year).

Not available.

been implemented or ees may have reappeared. Special attention should

be paid to evaluating disparities between regions and levels o house-

hold income. In Malawi in 2001, or example, the poorest 20 percent o

the population paid more ees in absolute termsthan all higher-income

groups except the wealthiest 20 percent (World Bank 2004b).

Once school ees are enumerated, the next step is to determine the

burden they place on households, broken down by region and household

income. Analyses will oen show relatively heavy burdens in low-income

households, as they did in the Kyrgyz Republic, where the poorest house-

holds spent 17 percent o their household consumption on education, armore than the 13 percent consumed by nonpoor households (World Bank


44/146


45/146


2

on education that would otherwise have gone to other goods. For amilies

with very low household incomes, opportunity costs can be signicant.

Tese costs need to be estimated, especially or marginalized amilies.

Where they are ound to impede school attendance and completion,

complementary supportssuch as grants or scholarshipsmay need to

be provided (see appendix).

2. Understanding the school-eligible population

Planners need to have a clear understanding o the school-eligible pop-

ulation, both to establish a baseline on educational outcomes (enroll-

ment, completion, and achievement) and to help anticipate increases in

enrollment and educational resource requirements. Te school-eligible

population includes anyone who has not yet completed the basic edu-

cation cycle(s), as dened by a government. Tis population is gener-

ally made up o school-age children, but it can also include overage

children and adults who have not yet completed school. Tis part o a

situation analysis should cover both those already in school and thosestill out o school.

Box 2.2 What are the opportunity costs of education?

Two types of opportunity costs are associated with the costs of education:

the loss of income from a child who stops working or reduces his or her

hours to attend school and the loss of consumption of other goods caused

by expenditure on education. The first type of opportunity cost results

because the child cannot work while attending or traveling to and from

school. The magnitude of this cost reflects not only the time spent in the

classroom but also the labor market and the nature of home production.

The value of labor generally increases as children get older. The second type

of opportunity cost is a relative concept that reflects how a family values

investment in human capital relative to investment in physical capital or

consumption. Both types of opportunity costs may play important roles in

households decision to send their children to school.

Source:Bray, Ding, and Huang 2004.


46/146

32 Step 2

2

Those already enrolled in school

Planners need to compile government records on school enrollment

and outcomes, both or public (state) and private schools. In the spirit o

sectorwide planning, it is important to determine enrollment and out-

comes data not only in primary education but also in secondary (lower

and upper) and preschool (or early childhood) education, as there will

inevitably be a pull rom and push to those subsectors once school ees

are abolished. All data taken rom school system records should be

double-checked or accuracy. Baseline data should be obtained on grossenrollment ratios, net enrollment ratios, rst-grade (primary) enrollment

rates, school dropout and repetition rates, graduation rates, continuation

rates (rom primary to lower-secondary and rom lower-secondary to

upper-secondary), and learning outcomes (on standardized tests).

Also crucial is breaking these data points down by social groups,

particularly gender, household income level, region, rural-urban location,

and vulnerable groups, such as speakers o nonmetropolitan languages(box 2.3), children afected by HIV/AIDS, reugees or others displaced

by social conict, children with disabilities, street children, working chil-

dren, and nomads. Doing so allows planners to understand which groups

all below the norm in retention, completion, and learning outcomes and

to establish a basis or tracking progress among those most likely to be

mobilized by school ee abolition.

Box 2.3 Language barriers to enrollment in Mali

Most children in Mali are expected to learn in a language they do not speak

at home, inhibiting enrollment and retention. A recent pilot study shows that

changing the initial language of instruction to the mother tonguealthough

initially involving extra expenses for new materials and teacher trainingis

cost-effective, because children learn better and are less likely to drop out of

school.

Source:World Bank IEG 2007a.


47/146


2

Data on learning outcomes will provide an opportunity to determine

whether school ee abolition is having a negative impact on the quality oeducation. Other relevant analyses include study o the relation between

participation in early childhood education and enrollment/progress in

primary school, the relation between primary school graduation and con-

tinuation to secondary school, and the shares o students enrolled in di-

erent types o schools (public, private, religious, and community) (table

2.2) and whether enrollment in them represents a amily preerence or a

necessity, given limited access to a public school o adequate quality.

Those not enrolled in school

O interest to planners are children o school age who have never en-

rolled in or dropped out o school and those above school age who have

not completed primary education (box 2.4). In many cases governments

will have collected such inormation in household surveys. Where such

surveys have not been conducted, technical teams will need to collectbaseline data rom randomly sampled households in diferent regions o

the country. As with in-school data, these data will need to be broken

down by gender, amily economic level, region, urban-rural location, so-

cial group, and age in order to reveal the location, size, and characteristics

o new learners potentially motivated by school ee abolition.

Another actor in the size o the enrollment surge is demand or edu-

cation among out-o-school children and youth. Assessment o a countrys

Table 2.2 Shares of students in dif ferent types of

schools in Mali, 2003

Type of school Share of students (percent)

Public 65

Private 8

Community 16

Madrassah 10

Source:Adapted from World Bank IEG 2007a.


48/146

34 Step 2

2most vulnerable children and the reasons why they do not attend or drop

out o school should also be conducted beore deciding on complemen-

tary measures to meet their educational needs (see appendix). Denitions

and analysis should be consistent with the countrys PRSP, i one exists.

3. Identifying existing resources

It is important to identiy existing resources and determine whether they

are su cient or current needs or already stretched, because the envelope

o resources will suggest uture requirements and policy options. Indeed,

depending on the average budget envelope dedicated to nancing school

ee abolition and the physical resources mobilized, what is desirable may

not be easible, and adjustments in the policy priorities will have to be

made. Identiyingexisting resources should not be undertaken as an iso-lated exercise, ocused only on school ee abolition, but should be part o

overall sector planning (including within the ramework o the EFA/FI)

or plan updating that incorporates school ee abolition. Such planning

should consider the issues identied below.

Current pattern of education budget provision

and allocation

What is the current share o government budgetary resources allocated to

the education sector and the share o the education budget dedicated toprimary education? What share o these budgetary resources comes rom

the central government, regional and local governments, school ees, and

Box 2.4 Pent-up demand for education

When Kenya announced its free primary education policy in 2003, those

who never could afford to go to school finally had their chance. The national

press reported on an 82-year-old man who enrolled in grade 1 at Kapkeduiwo

Primary School in the Uasin Gichu District. Three years later he was still in

school, attending grade 4.

Source:World Bank and UNICEF 2009.


49/146


2

external agencies (international development agencies, NGOs, and the

private sector)? What share o resources (rom the various sources) goestoward capital expenditures and what share goes toward recurrent costs

o various kinds (salary and nonsalary inputs)?

Financing mechanisms

How are unds, teachers, and material resources typically distributed to

schools? Is the distribution system centralized or decentralized? What

channels are used to pay teacher salaries (box 2.5)? What ormulas are

used to determine the size o allocations (unds, teachers, and other

resources) to each school? Do the ormulas take into account higher

enrollment? Where school ees were ormerly collected locally to sup-

port school operations, are there mechanisms in place to replace such

revenues? What proportion o unds transerred actually make it to their

destination? Do all schools have access to a banking or postal account?

School infrastructure

School inrastructure should be assessed in terms o physical needs and re-

sources. What are current needs or new schools and classrooms and the

Box 2.5 The money trail: How are teachers paid in the Democratic

Republic of Congo?

There are no banks in the interior of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

To pay teacher salaries, the government funnels funds through multiple

channels, which can result in significant delays. The government

deposits funds with the central bank. The central bank then transfers the

funds to its regional branches, which channel the money to a regional

commission, made up of representatives of the education, finance, and

budget ministries. This regional commission sends the money to regional

school boards, which transfer the money to school principals, who pay

the teachers. An independent authority maintains the teacher rolls and

conducts periodic censuses.

Source:World Bank 2004c.


50/146

36 Step 2

2

renovation o existing ones? What plans are under way or new construc-

tion and renovation? How many units are planned and completed eachyear? Are government school designs appropriate and economical? Are

construction standards adequate? What is the state o the local construction

industry (competition, unit costs, costs/quality o building materials, trans-

port, labor, builders, and district engineers)? In what ways do communities

typically participate? How prepared is the government or the timely provi-

sion o new school places in response to the expected surge in enrollment?

Where new construction/renovation cannot keep pace with enrollmentexpansion, are interim arrangementsuse o homes, churches, mosques,

community centers, and temporary sheltersdesirable and possible?

Teachers

What is the teacher-student ratio, disaggregated by region, socioeconomic

status, and rural-urban location? What teaching modalities (single class,

multishi, multigrade) are used? What are teacher certication require-ments, and what proportion o teachers are certied? How long is pre-

service training? How many students can teacher colleges train per year?

What is the estimate o the teacher shortage (or surplus)? How many

teachers were recruited per year in recent years? Is there equity in teacher

deployment? How high is turnover, as a result o retirement, disease (HIV/

AIDS or other), or other causes? Does the government (or community)

have a policy o recruiting contract teachers? What is the salary o contractteachers compared with that o regular teachers? Is there an in-service

teacher system? I so, how much training per year do teachers typically

receive? What is the current range o teacher incentives, and what is the

state o teacher morale?

Teaching and learning material

How is the supply delivery chain organized, especially or textbooksand other teaching and learning material? Is there in-country capacity


51/146


52/146

38 Step 2

2

(at least every two years) in order to monitor and evaluate both imple-

mentation and results. Aer ees have been eliminated, or example, itis essential that evidence be collected rom the eld to ensure that new,

uno cial ees have not taken their place. It is also essential that enroll-

ment gures be tracked to determine the size and nature o the enrollment

surge and assess how the system is coping with it (prompting problem

solving where necessary). It is also important to track the provision o

essential resources or learning to make sure that quality has not su-

ered. Periodically, it is important to track student dropout and learn-ing outcomes to make sure that students are progressing and learning at

acceptable levels.

Te initial situation analysis and subsequent M&E activities need

to be organized and managed by an experienced M&E team. Tis team

could create the M&E design (including sample and timing), organize

political and institutional support (buy-in) or the evaluation, obtain

or create evaluation instruments, manage eld work, and produce dataanalyses and reports. It is important that the initial situation analysis

and ollow-up M&E work cover a ull range o geographic areas and

socioeconomic groupings, so that regional and social disparities can be

identied and addressed. Findings should be disaggregated (by region,

urban-rural location, and socioeconomic status) in order to identiy

inequities. It is not necessary to collect baseline and M&E data rom all

areas and schools: a representative sampling is generally adequate. Gath-

ering learning outcomes data could present a challenge, unless a country

has regular standardized assessments that can be used. I it does not, the

team and its consultants could create and use simple tests o reading u-

ency and numeracy, as the NGO Pratham (2006) does annually in India.

Te situation analysis and ollow-up M&E work itsel should also

be subjected to M&E. Te group that has commissioned the situation

analysis (generally the steering group) needs to undertake its own qual-

ity control by periodically assessing the quality and timeliness o the data

collected during both the initial situation analysis and subsequent M&E.


53/146


54/146

40 Step 3

3

Te objective o this step is to set priorities on the types o ees to

eliminate rst; determine the sequencing o school ee abolition by geo-graphic area, grade/age level, or socioeconomic characteristics; and tar-

get groups needing complementary measures.

Making Policy Choices

Priority setting or school ee abolition is oen needed in two areas: the

types o ees and the phasing-in sequence. Te choices and trade-ofs at

play will vary rom one country to another, depending on a number o

actors, including the policy objectives o the government; the amount o

revenue collected through ees beore ees were abolished; the magnitude

o the enrollment surge; the educational resources (classrooms, teachers,

learning materials, and community support) available; and the amount o

unding at hand (and nancing gaps identied). Setting priorities is both

a technical and a political issue, so planners must anticipate and plan

ways to mitigate the political allout. As the ultimate goal o school ee

abolition is good-quality, ee-ree education or all, prioritization seeks

to identiy which ees to eliminate rst, under the assumption that all

will eventually be eliminated, and which groups to reach rst, under the

assumption that all will eventually be reed rom the need to pay.

Priority setting or removing nonee economic barriers will be based

on the nature o the excluded groups and the particular constraints they

ace (see Step 2). Some solutions will be within the control o the edu-

cation establishment; others will require cross-sectoral cooperation and

complementary programs sponsored by other ministries.

1. Setting priorities for types of fees

Answering a simple question can help policy makers prioritize which

ees or costs to parents should be eliminated at the outset: What basic

minimum costs o education should absolutely be covered by public


55/146

Establishing Priorities 41

3

nancing? One may reasonably argue that basic inrastructure (core

buildings and urnishings) and payment o teachers should be a publicresponsibility and that i parents have to pay any ees at all, those ees

should be used to improve conditions at local schools. In this case, priority

could be given to eliminating ees collected to cover the operating costs

o central or decentralized structures and core school buildings, and to

pay teacher salaries (box 3.1). However, i no child should be prevented

rom attending school because o inability to pay, no eeseven those

that directly benet the local schoolshould be compulsory. Local schoolo cials could ofer ee waivers to children living below the poverty line.

Once national economic conditions have improved and more unds are

available or education, even locally assessed ees or improving school

conditions could be eliminated. Aer those ees are eliminated, only vol-

untary community contributions should remain, and mechanisms should

be set up to ensure that such contributions are truly voluntary and do not

constitute a barrier to attendance.Tis ormulation still leaves some private costs in an ambiguous

position. Should the costs o textbooks be a public responsibility? Can

Box 3.1 Who pays teachers in much of rural Africa?

Parents pay a large share of primary school teachers salaries in many

African countries. In francophone countries this happens largely in rural

areas where there is no public school, where parents establish community

schools and hire and pay teachers fully or par tially. A study of 12 African

countries finds that in or around 2002, almost one-third of all primary

school teachers were paid by parents (ranging from 4 percent in Niger to

68 percent in Chad), although in some countries (including Chad) part of

the salary was subsidized by the government. The situation varies from one

country to another, but it is often the poorest rural communities that finance

their childrens education while better-off urban areas benefit from publicly

financed teachers. On average, teachers paid by parents receive only about

one-fourth the salary paid to civil service teachers.

Source:Mingat 2004.


56/146

42 Step 3

3

household provision o a uniorm be considered a voluntary contribu-

tion that enhances school conditions? Every government will need tothink through such questions. With respect to text and reading books,

where governments are not able to cover the price o textbooks or all, a

compromise may be possible between doing so and shiing the ull cost

to students (examples include the various rental schemes used in many

countries and eforts to lengthen the shel lie o books). Concerning

school uniorms, countries (or localities) may need to reconsider policies

on the need or uniorms or at least provide subsidies to those who can-not aford them, as India has done (Ayyar and Bashir 2004). All countries

need to make it clear that the inability or unwillingness o parents to pur-

chase uniorms will not be a barrier to school attendance.

Another di cult question is whether the government should regu-

late or subsidize ees or private education. Tere are diferent kinds o

private schools in Arica, and the distinction between public and private

is not always clear cut. Some schools run by religious organizations orprivate associations serve as alternatives to government schools, which

are oen relatively expensive and elitist. Other schools have sprung up to

ll in gaps where no government schools exist, oen at the initiative and

expense o amilies. Recently, a third kind o private school has emerged

(in South Asia, or example): a low-cost alternative to state schools that is

supposed to be (but may not always actually be) o better quality, run by

local entrepreneurs. In some countries, such as the Democratic Republic

o Congo and Haiti, where state schools have been in deault as a result

o dysunctional governance, most children who are in school attend pri-

vate ee-charging schools.

Abolishing ees in state schools is likely to afect the balance between

public and private schools in diferent (and sometimes unexpected)

ways. In Kenya school ee abolition caused a widespread transer o stu-

dents rom low-quality private schools to public schools in all grades. In

Malawi, where big bang school ee abolition led to the weakening o


57/146


3

many public schools, the ight was in the other direction (World Bank and

UNICEF 2009). Abolishing ees in private schools would also create waves,including an enrollment surge in many kinds o private schools. A reason-

able position would be or the state to subsidize attendance (pay ees) at

private schools where no public school is available but not to cover ees at

schools voluntarily selected by amilies as alternatives to public schools.

2. Setting priorities for sequencing school fee abolition

Governments are rarely in a position to waive all school ees, public and

private, at once. Te ew countries that have done sotaking the big

bang approach to school ee abolition, which suddenly opened the door

to millions o new learnershave had di culty managing the explo-

sive nature o the expansion (box 3.2). Because o nancial constraints

and time lags or building classrooms and providing new teachers,

Box 3.2 Big bang fee abolition in Malawi and Uganda

In 1994 Malawis newly elected government eliminated school fees for

primary education. As a result, the gross enrollment ratio increased that

year from 89 to 133 percent. The enrollment surge was not accompanied by

a commensurate rise in the number of classrooms, teachers, or materials.

A study conducted in 2004 found average ratios of 119 pupils per

classroom, 62 pupils per teacher (100 in first grade), 38 pupils per desk,

and 24 pupils per book. As a result of the perceived decline in quality,

enrollment ratios subsequently declined.

In Uganda political pressures in 1997 prompted the government to adopt the

big bang approach to primary school fee reduction. Enrollment rose from

about 3 million in the early 1990s to 5.3 million in 1997 and 7.3 million

in 2002. In 2000 the average number of pupils per classroom was 106,

and the average number of pupils per textbook was 7. Test results in 1999

showed significant declines in the proportion of students meeting minimum

standards.

Source:World Bank IEG 2004; Bentaouet-Kattan 2006.


58/146


59/146


3

bringing into lower grades those who belong in a higher one so that they

can benet rom ee removal.Phasing in school ee abolition by age allows governments to better

control the surge in enrollment, because overage learners are not eligible,

at least initially. It may also be a pedagogically sound choice, keeping the

age levels o students in a classroom within a airly narrow range. Coun-

tries that restrict school ee abolition to school-age children oen provide

ree complementary or equivalent education programs to overage chil-

dren (box 3.4). Tis approach is best used in countries that have reliableage data on children.

Phasing in by socioeconomic characteristics

I the main goal is to improve equity o access and outcomes, prioritiz-

ing according to socioeconomic characteristics may be the best approach

(box 3.5). Such an approach could target girls, orphans, children below the

poverty line, children with learning disabilities, children rom disadvan-taged groups (such as scheduled castes or tribes in India), or other groups.

Tis type o targeting can be complicated, because most schools will have

a mix o targeted and nontargeted students. Strict selection criteria need

to be specied and enorced and careul ollow-up processes established

to make sure that the right children are targeted and receiving intended

benetsstandards that are di cult to maintain in many low-income

Box 3.4 Reaching overage children in India

Complementary education programs can build on school fee abolition

initiatives to provide opportunities for disadvantaged and excluded children.

Mobilized by the District Basic Education Program, districts in many Indian

states used bridging programs to help overage students work in an

accelerated way to catch up with their cohorts.

Source:Ayyar and Bashir 2004.


60/146


61/146


3

also additional expenses related to schooling. Tis type o targeted sup-

port is usually practiced at the local district/community level, but it hasalso been applied at the national or provincial level with some success. It

usually involves external nancing, although there are numerous exam-

ples o schemes unded by government, NGOs, and the private sector. Te

advantage o these interventions is that they do not interere with the nanc-

ing o education but simply pay the bills or eligible children. Di culties

include dening eligibility criteria, protecting against raud, dealing with

the costs o administering the scheme, ensuring sustainability, and avoid-ing the stigma that can be attached to poverty targeting.

Some programs ofer incentives to the amilies o disadvantaged

children on the condition that their children enroll in or regularly attend

school. Tese incentives can be in cash (conditional cash transers) or

some other orm, such as ood rations. Bangladesh has rewarded amilies

or keeping girls in school (Khandker, Pitt, and Fuwa 2003). Providing

poor amilies with access to credit can also increase school attendancei it relieves amilies o the need to use child labor. Such

Documents

Six Steps to Abolishing Primary School Fees