NN40, May 2008
Education for Sustainable Development? Or The Sustainability of Education Investment? A Special Issue
Education for All, Fee Abolition, and Sustainability: Lessons from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda
By Mikiko Nishimura, Kobe University
Email: mnishimu@kobe-u.ac.jpKeywords
EFA, UPE, Fee Abolition, Sustainability, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda
Summary
This article outlines the findings of a comparative analysis on UPE policies organised by Kobe University in partnership with African colleagues. The study analyzes financial, administrative, and attitudinal issues around UPE policies in four selected countries (Malawi, Uganda, Kenya, and Ghana) and indicates a number of issues that should be considered for sustainability of UPE policy.
Universal Primary Education (UPE) policy in the form of fee abolition has become popular in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for achieving Education for All (EFA) since the mid-1990s. Despite its recent rapid expansion, UPE policy has a long history in SSA. Existing literatures indicate that previous attempts to achieve UPE in developing countries faced problems in its supply-driven policies, unclear mechanisms, and declined quality of education (Allison, 1983; Bray, 1986; Prince, 1997; Sifuna, 2007). The past experiences in poor countries such as Nigeria and Kenya also show that UPE policy implementation was prone to be affected by economic crisis (Obasi, 2000; Sifuna, 2007). Having a number of existing lessons in the past, however, the current UPE policy critically lacks analytical studies on its impacts and challenges beyond school enrollment (Nishimura, et al., 2008). Furthermore, some researchers have indicated the recent uniformity of the educational policies that prevail in SSA and suggested that there should be studies to examine how these seemingly similar policies are responding to the capacity and needs of each country (Samoff, 1999; Foster, 2000; Brown, et al, 2001; Klees, 2001).
In response to the above question, Kobe University has conducted a comparative analysis on UPE policies in partnership with five researchers in Africa and five in Japan under the international cooperation initiative supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan. The study attempted to analyze financial, administrative, and attitudinal issues about UPE policies in four selected countries (Malawi, Uganda, Kenya, and Ghana) and to indicate a number of concerns that should be considered for sustainability of UPE policy.
General impact of UPE policy
UPE policy signifies strong government commitment and donor contribution towards EFA goals by enabling children who would not have enrolled in school to come to school. The most apparent impact of the UPE policy is seen in increased enrollment in all four countries. In Kenya, Uganda, and Ghana, UPE intervention also included provision of teaching and learning materials and additional classroom construction. However, UPE policy also had drawbacks at the school site. When school fees were abolished, over-age and underage children flocked into school. The most notable challenge was overcrowded classrooms, which in some schools led to low teacher motivation. The leverage between strong commitment of governments and donors and available resources was another issue. Schools suffer from lack of funds, while not being able to ask parents for tuition fees. Parents have also become passive in every form of participation in school activities and decision making. A common attitude illustrated by parents and communities is that now that the government is responsible for everything, they have no stake in school governance. Under such an environment, dropout of pupils is another challenge under UPE policy.
Financial Challenges
Under UPE policy, the capitation grant has been disbursed from the central government to schools directly in Kenya, and via districts in Uganda and Ghana. The capitation grant is calculated as per pupil cost of primary education. Nevertheless, our interviews revealed that the amount of the capitation grant is not guided by baseline surveys but more affected by whatever is available within the national account and that the aggregated amount at the school level is lower than how much schools used to collect from parents and communities prior to the implementation of UPE policy. In addition to the insufficient amount of the capitation grant, delay in the arrival of these funds is commonly experienced at school level in all countries. This evidently affects daily school activities. Mismanagement of school funds is also reported as a challenge.
Since the introduction of UPE, the budget for primary education has become heavily dependent on the central government. Although districts are allowed in principle to put some additional resources into schools, in reality minimal or no resources are available at the district level. Parents are also found to be covering private costs of schooling (e.g. uniform, development fees, examination fees, lunch, transportation, tutoring, etc.) that is higher than the capitation grant. The overall insufficient budget allocated towards primary education at district level seems to most negatively affect monitoring of schools.
Administrative Challenges
Common themes that cut across administrative issues of UPE policy are mainly rooted in its top-down policy implementation and unpreparedness of the system for the changes. Since the inception of UPE policy, no clear policy on roles and responsibilities has been shared by stakeholders. Ad hoc training opportunities given to head teachers on accounting and school management under UPE were not enough for head teachers and School Management Committees (SMCs) to obtain confidence in daily school management. UPE policy also creates some policy conflicts that make administration fairly difficult. For instance, automatic promotion policy and an increase in enrollment throw teachers into an extremely difficult situation. Fee abolition and inadequate amount of UPE capitation grant are also contradictory and give head teachers? headaches and sometimes even push them into debt. As a consequence of these conflicts, schools are compelled to hold larger classes with more limited resources.
Stakeholders? Perception
UPE certainly was a consensus agreed upon by democratic elections and a domestic decision making process in each country. The majority of stakeholders interviewed in this study perceive that the current policy is good and they view primary schooling as either important or very important for both boys and girls. Parents in Kenya, Uganda, and Ghana also report that although they are bearing the private cost of schooling under the UPE policy, the amount is lower than what it used to be. The UPE policy is greatly appreciated by parents and communities for its equitable nature and benefit to the poor. The cases of Uganda and Kenya also showed that parents appreciate the provision of teaching and learning materials under the UPE policy.
However, the majority of respondents view the implementation of the policy as having a number of problems. In particular, the automatic promotion policy is much contested by all stakeholders at the district and school levels. This is due to the fact that to promote pupils to the next grade without meeting the proficiency set by each grade will do more harm than good for a child since s/he will not obtain anything at the end of the primary cycle and the school system will compromise quality of education.
What this study revealed clearly was that effective policy implementation would require considerable consultation with key stakeholders. Without a baseline survey, any systematic implementation of the policy may become unworkable. Although governments and donors have organized a series of advocacy campaigns on UPE policy, continuous and untiring sensitization and commitment towards the policy may be required to avoid any confusion or local political interference. In particular, there is a need for an effective system of monitoring the programme and tightening accountability of the policy. Faced with increased enrollment, each country now needs to bear cost-effective strategies to raise the quality of primary schools with limited resources in order to tackle the challenge of maintaining both quantity and quality of education. Furthermore, equity issues should be considered, and the current flat rate of capitation grant may need some revision as the cost of schooling should vary depending on the location, disability, language problem, and other socio-cultural backgrounds.
Finally, who owns UPE policy is an important question to be posed. As mentioned earlier, our study revealed that the relation between school administration and parents and communities has weakened after the inception of UPE policy. This is not to say that parents would need to pay in order for their voices to be heard at schools. On the contrary, how parents keep their voices heard when fees are no longer required is a key question to be pursued in order to make UPE policy sustainable. Who owns UPE policy and who is accountable for UPE policy? Ultimately, it is not just the government who complies with the policy and is accountable to the public, but it is the public who should also hold consistent interest for what they voted for. The responsibility deficit of the local population induces neglect of downward accountability of the overall education system and causes a negative spiral of accountability absence. Sustainability of UPE policy can be ensured only with this mutual responsibility relationship.
NB: The full report of the research project can be downloaded here.
References
Allison, C. (1983). Constrains to UPE: More that a question of supply? International Journal of Educational development, 3(3): 263-276.
Bray, M. (1986). If UPE is the answer, what is the question? A comment on weakness in the rationale for universal primary education in less developed countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 6(3): 147-158.
Brown, A, Foster, M., Norton, A. and Naschold, F. (2001). The Status of Sector Wide Approaches, Working Paper No. 142. Overseas Development Institute, London
Foster, M. (2000). New Approaches to Development Cooperation: What Can We Learn from Experience with Implementing Sector Wide Approaches? Working Paper, No. 140. Overseas Development Institute, London
Klees, S. J. (2001). World Bank Development Policy: A SAP in SWAP?s Clothing. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 3(2): 1-11.
Nishimura, M., Yamano, T. and Sasaoka, Y. (2008). Impacts of the universal primary education policy on educational attainment and private costs in rural Uganda. International Journal of Educational Development 28(2): 161-175.
Obasi, E.(2000). The impact of economic recession on UPE in Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Development, 20(3): 189-207.
Prince, A. (1997). Quality of Learning in Nigeria?s Universal Primary Education Scheme-1976-1986. Urban Review, 29: 189-203.
Samoff, J. (1999). Education Sector Analysis in Africa: limited national control and even less national ownership. International Journal of Educational Development, 19(4): 249-272.
Sifuna, D. N. (2007). The Challenge of Increasing Access and Improving Quality: An Analysis of Universal Primary Education Interventions in Kenya and Tanzania since the 1970s. International Review of Education, 53: 687-699.
Back to full contents of NORRAG NEWS 40.
Download the full issue of NORRAG NEWS 40 in pdf.