School Grants

1
School Grants Successes and Risks     April
2003  
Eluned Roberts-Schweitzer  
2
Why use this mechanism? Is it an easy way out?

• Transparency Local level inputs can improve
  chances of transparency in corrupt systems
• Sustainability Local empowerment and ownership
  can increase chances of sustainability
• Sure dispersing money will flow
• Politically visible for governments
• Avoids central bureaucracy
• Fits with CDD approaches

3
Achieving Education For All Goals School
Grants     February 22, , 2002 Eluned
Roberts-Schweitzer, Andre Markov, Alexandre
Tretyakov SCOPE Reviewed 37 grant components,
about US200 million ( at least 2 more) Did
not include higher education or components that
were only secondary/vocational education, nor
activities external to the education system such
as social funds. Data in slides 4-10 taken from
this draft paper.
4
(No Transcript)
5
Some Characteristics of School Grant Schemes

• Features present in all grant programs
• Money sent directly to end-user
• Flexible (Variable) size of school grant
• Social capital built through community
  involvement in identification of investment
  priority
• Tranched funding
• Process components rather than output components

6
Features present in some grant programs

• Competitive allocation of grants judged at
  regional or central level
• The use of school development/improvement plans
  as a base for design of grants
• Increased public accountability for the use of
  grant funds
• Utilization of school committees, Boards or PTAs
  to devise and monitor grant programs
• Local procurement
• Clustering of schools
• Matching pledges by communities
• Use of Treasury system for accessing funds

7
Stated Objectives of School Grant Schemes
reviewed in 2002
 
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
Factors contributing to sustainable success

• Favorable climate for policy change
• Good and continuous technical assistance
• Realistic goals

• Use of social and needs assessments to gain
  consensus
• Piloting both the mechanism and the materials
• Grant mechanism should facilitate a PROCESS of
  continuous change

12

• Positive outcomes can include
• Devolution of decision making power to the local
  level
• Addressing democratization and accountability
  through the empowerment of local agencies such as
  school boards or municipal government
• Responding quickly to crisis situations where
  funding and administration are absent
• Ensuring sustainability of investments through
  local involvement
• Improving learning outcomes
• Motivating education system staff
• Mainstreaming quality reforms

13

• A Few Recommendations
• sufficient technical assistance and time should
  be allowed for weaker schools/regions to fully
  benefit from the grant scheme and compete for
  funding to ensure an equitable distribution of
  resources
• continuous efforts should be made to ensure that
  the outcomes of the projects are monitored
• where community contributions are required, these
  should be adjusted to the poverty level of the
  constituents and not be seen as a substitute in
  any way for adequate government funding, or lead
  to inequities in the distribution of grant funds
  
• grant programs should have objectives that are
  appropriate for the level of implementation
  capacity in each country.
• Ensure that grant amounts will remain useful in
  improving economies.

14
BUT Trade offs and Questions remain

• Value Added Could the same effect have been
  achieved with less money, or was more money
  needed to gain the right effect? Is it a
  distraction from real reform? What is the
  proportion of the grant scheme in relation to the
  rest of project investments? What else could it
  be used for?
• Measurement how do we measure the learning
  process outputs and community empowerment as well
  as the investment inputs?
• Equity do the programs benefit the poorest?
• Sustainability how do we mainstream activities
  in the education system?

15
Serbia School Grant Component

• Context
• New reformist government
• Short timeframe for action
• Political urgency to reform program money to
  schools, buying support

• Sincere desire for quality improvements highly
  technically competent Ministry staff
• Easy access to good technical assistance from
  Europe and the know how to use it, but little
  implementation experience in government.

16
Grant Component a systems change effort with
political impact

• Amount US4.7 million effective Fall 2002
  new project
• Expected Coverage 75 of primary and 50 of
  gymnasia with grants of up to US7,500.
• Objectives
• To improve the quality of teaching and learning
• To improve community involvement in education

17
Pilot project

• 40 schools involved, both secondary and primary
• TA provided by other donors, Swiss, Austrians,
  British study tours and training for core Team
  26 School Development group

• Program seen as integral to MoE reform issues.
• Significant focus on school development planning,
  curriculum change

18
Second (Main) phase to April 2003

• Activities
• national coverage schools applying from all
  areas
• Training program for schools now also includes
  training on curriculum development innovations
  and changes to the inspectorate.
• Project funds have acted as catalyst for change
  opened a window for MoE vision

• Developments
• Program design changing to include broader system
  changes as they evolve
• Broadening involvement of ed. staff requiring
  more TA.
• Quality efforts taking priority over community
  development so far
• Possible equity issues arising with quality focus
• Main phase projects more innovative than pilots

19
Lessons to date

• Project is paralleling and supporting process of
  systems change, therefore monitoring is going to
  be difficult as parameters change
• TA is continuous need,particularly for weaker
  schools
• Motivation of staff also is constant need
  payment questions for government staff
• Links between ministry vision and school level
  reality must be strengthened.
• Schools are very good at inventing reasons for
  buying equipment and it is the context for these
  purchases which is important.
• Evaluation Boards need professional training,
  involvement in schools, rotating personnel.
• Centrist tendencies in government and education
  personnel may go against equity and
  decentralization concepts inherent in the project.