Grace Agyapoma Akukwe gakukwe@aed.org

Community Participation as a school improvement strategy in Ghana

Draft The contents of this paper may not be quoted without the author�s permission

1

Introduction:

Education is of vital and strategic importance to the nation-building objectives of

many developing countries. According to Graham-Brown (1991), it is �inextricably

bound with people�s aspirations for change� (p.17). However, each nation�s obligation

towards the provision of educational services is challenged by socio-economic and

political pressures that necessitate constant assessment, revision of quality, as well as

governance. Over the years, several strategies have been proposed towards effective

educational management. In the last 15 years, decentralization has become the exemplar

of efficient educational governance thus leading to its wholesale adoption by many

developing nations (King & Ozler, 1998). However, defined as the devolution of

responsibilities and decision-making authority to sub-national levels (Ayee, 1996)

decentralization has quite often excluded grassroots participation; and been described as

�re-centralized centralization�. According to Lyons (1985) this is because

decentralization planning is a contradiction. Rather than empowering disadvantaged

groups to increase their level of participation in decision-making, it reinforces existing

power relationships. In agreement, Samoff (in Ayee, 1996) asserts that decentralization

involves specifying who may participate legitimately in decision-making and whose

interests will have the highest priority.

Community participation and decentralization share some similarities. The former

refers specifically to �the ability of disadvantaged groups in society to influence decisions

affecting their lives and aimed at their empowerment� (Ayee, 1996, p.35). While the

latter involves restructuring of decision-making power for the purpose of efficiency and

effectiveness.

2

Participation:

Participation has evolved in several ways. As a collective outcome of behaviours

that reflect empowerment, it represents a challenging solution to policy implementation

strategies that potentially alienate and exclude disenfranchised groups. Unfortunately,

there is no agreement on what behaviours or activities are actually meant by the term

(McDonough, Wheeler, 1998). Keeping this in mind, one may however, concur with the

World Bank�s working definition of participation as �a process through which

stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions

and resources that affect them� (Edgerton, McClean, Tikare, Lytle, Robb & Shah,

2000;p. 1). Anderson (1998) rationalizes this approach as nothing more than a common

sense model since those closest to the action and those with a stake in the enterprise

should have a strong voice in decisions and be accountable for them, (p.572). He goes

onto explain that participation�s obvious applications are not so attainable because

�shared governance structures do not result in significant participation in decisions

(Malen & Ogawa, 1988 in Anderson, 1998), but instead, result in contrived collegiality

(Hargreaves, 1994 in Anderson, 1998), reinforce privilege (Lipman, 1997, in Anderson,

1998), and even create a tighter iron cage of control for participants� (Anderson &

Grinberg,1998; Barker, 1993, in Anderson 1998) (p.572).

The contentious issues of participation�s ideologically driven and contradictory

nature (Anderson, 1998) have become the most widely debated topic of current

educational reforms that involve civil society (i.e. parents or community). The

importance of this debate is entrenched in issues of efficacy, participatory democratic

practices; and even more important its objective. Dudley (1993), Nagle (1992), and Lane

3

(1995)(in McDonough, s& Wheeler, 1998) all question whether participation is a means,

an end, a tool, or a goal. Supposedly, subscribing to any one of these ideas of

participation, immediately changes a project�s implementation focus and outcome. No

matter the choice, I would tend to agree with Shaeffer who proposes that all the scholarly

�noise� surrounding participation is really a re-visitation of the symbiotic relationship

historically enjoyed between education and community (1991, in McDonough &

Wheeler, 1998).

Therefore, in the light of diminishing resources, and governments�

acknowledgement of its inability to meet local needs, community participation serves as a

�bridge� that enables the following factors which will be discussed in greater detail:

• Devolves some financial responsibility from government

• Strengthens the policy delivery framework

• Creates channels for ongoing dialogue among a cross-section of stakeholders

• Opens up a process of continual negotiation on the political agenda in which

the views of the poor are taken into account

• Maintains partnerships

(Robb, 1998, pp. 52-53)

The underlying assumption of all these functions is that �more school and family [i.e.

community] inputs into the education process produces more learning� (King & Ozler,

1998; p. 4).

Edgerton et al�s (2000) rubric identifies four areas in which participation occurs

as: information sharing; consultation; collaboration; and empowerment. This framework

embodies the notions that participation depends on:

4

a) Scope: encompasses the diversity of government processes in which different

stakeholder groups are involved.

b) Extent: involves the diversity of stakeholder groups participating.

c) Level: equates to the level of government operations � national or local level.

d) Quality: the depth and diversity of views expressed, incorporation of these

into strategy formulation, consensus building, building of partnerships for

delivery of the strategy, and information sharing amongst the stakeholder

groups involved.

(p. 47)

Bortei-Doku Aryeetey advances the argument that �between the two extremes of

total devolution (authentic participation) of power to the people and total state control

(top-down bureaucratic development) donor agencies and NGOs have advanced a middle

path that emphasizes the obligation of the state to ensure the well-being of the people by

creating an enabling environment for private initiative, and the right of the people to

decision-making power� (Gow and Vansant, 1983 in Bortei-Doku Aryeetey, 1998,

p.301).

The problem with NGOs and Donor Agencies, however has been related to their

position as �parallel providers� (Jagannathan, 1999) of services usually under the

jurisdiction of government. In the development assistance arena, there has been concern

about the potential of these groups to supplant government legitimacy � more especially

since their involvement potentially alters the dynamics between government and civil

society.

5

Other policy alternatives that have been recommended by researchers include

deconcentration � which �permits fuller participation of states and localities in planning

while leaving the guiding lines and control instruments in the hands of the center. This

can represent a useful compromise between national and sub-national needs and

possibilities in the planning process�, (Lyons, 1985, p.86). Arguments extended in favour

of this model of decentralization recommend that �the center retains the main elements of

strategic control of the system, but the scope of planning, decision-making and control

are vested at the local and /or other sub-national levels of the system, which is

enlarged�(Lyons, 1985, p.86).

The justification for this is basically two-fold. Firstly, Lyons contends that, for

reasons of management efficiency, �it would be wasteful to allow decisions to be taken at

sub-national level in cases where, by reason of nature of needs for education or the

character of the service concerned, decisions should be taken for the nation as a whole�

(p.88). Secondly, the equity argument is that �if adequate education is to be extended to

poverty areas, which are short of money, teachers, building equipment, books, etc, the

authorities at the center should be responsible for education (i.e. in terms of resource

allocation as a whole)� (p.88). Lyons�s system proposes the coexistence of decentralized

and centralized authority as a tool for efficient educational governance. This he says will

also improve the quality of communications between center and periphery.

A second policy alternative offered by Lyons (1985) is the techno-rational

model, which �implies a linkage of the various stages of planning, implementation,

evaluation and revision of programme targets and arrangements for achievement of

objectives� (p.91).

6

Community participation, however, as a policy solution has comparative

advantage especially using the Community School Alliance logic model because it allows

for the creative and effective use of multiple techniques (i.e. deconcentration, and

decentralization), using a range of different activities that engage communities and

individuals in a way that is comfortable and accessible for those individuals.

Case study: Ghana

Since its independence in 1957 from Britain, the Government of Ghana has made

conscious efforts to contribute towards the human capital growth of its citizens by

investing in education. The first president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah proclaimed free

education for all Ghanaian nationals in a bid to create socio-economic parity with the

previously privileged white members of Ghanaian society (Stein-George, 1974).

By 1972, due to problems of poor management and diminishing resources,

Ghana�s educational system had become dysfunctional. The first invitation for public

participation in the decision-making process came when the Ministry of Education

(MOE) submitted for public dialogue, proposals on a new structure and content of

education. They also formed a committee that would discuss the Ministry�s proposals

and the views of the public. According to the committee�s findings, the education system

at the time �tended to limit access to education for many Ghanaian children and was too

expensive for both government and parents� (West Africa, 13-19 June 1994, p.1038).

Another thirteen years went by during which Ghana�s education sunk to the very

lowest levels of performance as a result of government�s half-hearted measures to reform

the education system, and stakeholders� lack of empowerment to influence policy

7

(Yeboah, 1992 in Fuller and Aklilu, 1992; World Bank, 1996). The macroeconomic

turmoil of the 1970s and 1980s plunged the country�s education system into severe

decline. Between 1976 and 1983, expenditures on education by the Government fell from

6.4% of GDP to 1.4% (World Bank, 1996). MOE employees lacked dedication to their

meagre- salaried jobs. Teachers were disillusioned by the lack of resources and student

motivation, (World Bank, 1996). Parents lost confidence in an education system that

favoured the more economically advantaged Ghanaian child, (Yeboah, 1992 in Fuller and

Aklilu, 1992).

These conditions spurred a broad reform1 (6-3-3-4) which brought into sharp

focus the growing demand for quality education, and civil society dissatisfaction with the

state of educational provision. In 1983, the Government of Ghana decided to take strong

action to arrest this rapid decline of the educational system.

This new education reform was to ensure that national educational goals could be

realistically met (Yeboah in Fuller and Habte, 1992). Thus, efficient provision of

educational services underpinned the reform, with management being one of the central

issues. However, following the mass failure of students in 1992 - 5 years into the reform,

MOE officials and their partner development agencies became alarmed that the much-

touted education reforms were having little effect on school quality (CSA, 2001).

In response to this, another broad-spectrum reform which had evolved from the

1 The 6-3-3-4 Reform was initiated in the mid-1980s with the support of the World Bank. This reform standardized the number of years for pre-tertiary education for both rural and urban Ghanaian students- where the former had 17 years of pre-tertiary education while the latter had 13 years. The total number of years was also divided into 2 terminal points. Nine years were recommended for Basic Education; another 3 years for Senior Secondary education; and finally 4 years for university. This reform also involved restructuring of educational management bodies (e.g. MOE) as well as the provision of education services to the public.

8

6-3-3-4 policy analysis was launched in 1996. The Free Compulsory and Universal Basic

Education (FCUBE) program was a package of reforms designed specifically to focus on

basic education access and quality. Its 3 components were:

• Improving the quality of teaching and learning activities.

• Improving upon management efficiency throughout the educational sector.

• Provide full access to educational services by empowering partners2 to

participate in the provision of education to all children.

(MOE/GES 2001, CSA, 2001)

This reform was in accordance with the 1996 constitutional requirement that free

education shall be provided for every child of school-going age in Ghana, to receive good

quality basic education by the year 2005. This meant that the FCUBE had an explicit

policy goal and a number of implementation objectives to focus on (MOE/GES 2001).

The United States Agency for International Development�s (USAID) Community

School Alliance Project, Ghana:

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was amongst

the group of international partners enlisted to assist in the implementation and financing

of FCUBE. Their role was �to increase the effective management of the primary

education system through the USAID-sponsored Quality Improvements in the Primary

Schools (QUIPS) program� (MOE/GES, 2001). QUIPS also has 4 main objectives,

directly linked to FCUBE�s own over-arching goals.

2 Some signatories to the FCUBE agreement were the Ghanaian MOE, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank, Department for International Development of the United Kingdom (DFID).

9

QUIPS is responsible for improving the learning environment through policy

change and by strengthening the capacity of districts to effectively plan and manage

resources. Supervision is meant to address issues of both teacher/ student attendance, and

pupil-centred teaching methods. A community involvement component was added to

increase support of local education through assistance to associations and committees.

The Community School Alliance (CSA) project which addresses community

mobilization in school improvement efforts was launched in 1996. This project was

launched in recognition of the MOE and USAID�s agreement that �communities have an

important role to play in enforcing standards, developing and maintaining school

property, and providing support and encouragement to head teachers, teachers, and

students� (World Bank, 1996, p.23).

The main objective behind this approach was to foster community�s sense of

ownership, pride and sense of responsibility for their schools. By strengthening School

Management Committees (SMCs), establishing channels and mechanisms for

consultation between government functionaries and civil society, the MOE hoped to

ensure more equitable allocation of resources. This was a good fit for CSA�s logic model

of community participation.

The CSA project�s main objective was to �to maximize community-based

resources, both human and material, and to build an environment of shared mutual

respect, responsibility, and action among community members, their schools, government

education officials, and other district officials to meet the learning needs of Ghanaian

children� (Boardman, Leherr, Addae-Boahene, & Akorful, 2000; p. 1). Their basic

premise was �Where local school partners are active and the community and school work

10

together, substantial improvements can be achieved� (Boardman, Leherr, Addae-

Boahene, & Akorful, 2000; p. 2). This is exemplified in their belief that �the process,

impact and/or result of a specified intervention strategy will become part of the on-going

daily life of the school-community after the donor funding and/or intervention has

ceased�, (Boardman, Leherr, Adae-Boahene, Akorful, 2000; p.2). These strategic

objectives were aimed at cultivating capacities for 15 �Best Practice� school

improvement activities. The objectives and related best practices are defined as follows:

a) Increased community awareness

• Build trust in school system and teachers. • Respond to interests/concerns of school. • Provide culturally sensitive approach to education. • Support quality education. • Support girls�/boys� education (school and home/community).

b) Strengthened community support

• Empower local people to act. • Define roles and responsibilities of partners (community members and

teachers. • Strengthen school management structures. • Develop productive links to education/government authorities. • Develop productive links to external agencies.

c) Enhanced community participation

• Utilise participatory planning and design. • Mobilise local and district resources. • Monitor school performance. • Monitor school finances and assets. • Develop community leadership and ownership.

(Addae-Boahene, & Akorful, 1999, p. 1).

CSA employs multiple interventions to operationalize these objectives and best

practices. This grassroots� approach includes Participatory Rural Appraisal/Participatory

11

Learning & Action (PRA/PLA)3 which take place in each PSC. The benefits of this

exercise is to gauge PSCs� awareness of educational concerns, as well as mobilize

interest for future participation activities (Addae-Boahene, & Akorful, 1999).

The Community School Improvement Plans (C-SIPs) component is a

collaborative discussion of issues raised at the PRA/PLA between PSCs and CSA

facilitators. It is important to note here that all CSA permanent field staff and facilitators

are Ghanaian locals. A pre-requisite for working in a PSC is that staff members be fluent

in the local language spoken. This is very important as cultural and linguistic nuances can

be lost in translations (Addae-Boahene, & Akorful, 1999).

Charging community with the responsibility for their schools requires that they be

given the necessary tools to address issues pertaining to education. The Information,

Education and Communication (IEC) campaign component provides PSCs with various

forums to debate, discuss and disseminate school concerns. This comprises:

• Community-performed dramas & public forums where issues from the PRA/PLA activity are brought up.

• Story-picture cards, calendars, newsletters(print media) activities are forums for

communities �to share and transfer lessons, achievements and views among various stakeholders.

• Video/drama/public forums where communities view recorded drama

performances on video, then discuss how issues raised relate to education in the community. These often result in updated action plans.

• Radio, TV and newspaper reports (mass media). These strengthen communities�

awareness of key education issues.

Capacity building is an implicit and explicit objective of CSA interventions. PSCs

learn participatory planning methods, basic financial management, how to hold effective

3 PRA/PLA are strategies which involve PSC identification of education �related concerns of the community. This is usually achieved through drama presentations and picture/story cards. It is a form of the

12

meetings and foster productive community-school relations. The Microgrant component

of the intervention activities facilitates the development of school improvement project

proposals along with a budget and monitoring scheme. Small grants are disbursed in 3

tranches for the execution of projects.

To cultivate ownership and ensure sustainability, CSA encourages PSCs to invest

themselves in projects by way of financial contributions, material resources and

communal labour. This Match component of the intervention strategy is an important and

reliable measure of stakeholder participation. The final stage of the 8 steps is Facilitator

Support & Monitoring which tracks change efforts and also support these initiatives by

linking PSCs to external resources.

CSA�s integrative and comprehensive intervention strategies rely heavily on

Ghanaian locals because the processes involved in the previously mentioned activities

create the enabling capacities for effectiveness, institutionalization/mainstreaming, and

sustainability.

Another good indicator of the effectiveness and future success of community

participation strategies is sustainability. CSA�s framework for measuring this is made up

of 5 strategic areas of community development. These are participation, resources,

partnership, transparency, and empowerment.

A major thrust of the CSA strategy is to empower PSCs to exercise their democratic

right to quality education by participating in school improvement efforts through

monitoring and supervisory activities organized through SMC and PTA meetings. This

calls for transparency and accountability � areas in which school administrative staff are

not performing well. In addition to this, PSCs have to learn to mobilize local and external

story dialogue method in which data is collected through interactive self-report approaches.

13

resources. However, in very poor rural communities, this is often a problem. These issues

raise questions about the theoretical and empirical grounding of CSA�s interventions, as

well as the nature of their policy and ethical frameworks for implementation.

The CSA logic model for community participation evolves from several theoretical

frameworks. Firstly, the participatory literature establishes that national development and

more especially rural development requires an informed citizenry with the capacity to

contribute, plan and participate in development work. The human capital and social

theory espouses the idea of equipping citizens with the tools necessary for productivity

(Homan, 1999) �Human capital is embodied in individuals� skills and knowledge created

through educational opportunities� (Carter, 2000; p.2). Social capital on the other hand is

�embodied in relationships among people, includes the webs of information flow, social

norms, expectations, obligations, sanctions and trust that make it possible to achieve

particular goals (Coleman, 1988 in Carter, 2000). According to Carter (2000) �building

social capital requires encompassing all segments of the community by forming equal

partnerships with representatives of government, education, economic development

agencies, extensions, churches/heritage institutions, civic groups, foundations,

public/private entities, local media, and families� (p.2). Evidently, the CSA intervention

strategies are an accurate reflection of these concepts. Their best practices aim to build

strong resource and social networks towards better provision of education services.

Participation itself is the focus of democratic theory which proposes freedom and

equitable rights to participate, and contribute to issues of national concern. Specifically,

with regards to the education sector, the histories of inequalities and outside control of

14

resources sometimes leaves many rural persistent poverty (RPP)4 communities with deep

stratification, low-performing (sometimes dual) education systems� (Carter, 2000; p.1).

The implications of participatory democracy for these rural populations, with reference to

CSA�s PSCs is that empowerment, as a by-product of participation, translates to self-

determination and transformation. PSCs can then identify, prioritize, plan and implement

their own school improvement initiatives � and even more important, utilize local

resources. This is linked to social change theory which explores the socio-cultural

structures and behaviours of groups with respect to their adaptation or resistance to policy

and external pressures that affect their lives.

While there is some contention about linking decentralization to improved classroom

instruction or student performance (Chapman, 1998), increased community participation

in the areas of monitoring, supervision and implementation does impact the quality of

educational services and promote schools as enduring institutions of rural communities as

a result of ownership.

In a number of its own impact assessments (Boardman and Evans 2000) CSA

observes �a definite shift by the school communities on the change continuum from an

awareness, minimum participation and commitment level to active

involvement/initiation, support and monitoring of school-related activities� (p.4).

CSA Sustainability study

As mentioned earlier a good indicator of the success of community participation is

sustainability. In 2002 I embarked on a study of this aspect of community participation,

4 Rural Persistent Poverty. Is defined as poverty that is perpetuated by demographic and socio-cultural and

15

focusing on community participation as a development strategy to counter diminishing

government resources in the education sector. It was predicated on an interest to

understand the factors that influence the level of persistence in school improvement �

with specific reference to the two mechanisms: Parents, Teachers Association (PTA) and

School Monitoring Committee (SMC) - put in place to facilitate the provision of quality

education through decentralized decision making.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that contribute to sustaining the

structures that facilitate school improvement within the context of a community

participation effort by testing my model of sustainability in the Community School

Alliance (CSA) Partnership School Communities (PSCs).

The new model is a synthesis and extension of the already existing literature on

sustainability which describes economic, ecological and socio-political approaches to the

problem. It also incorporates elements of the model utilized by CSA in their own

sustainability assessments. The Synthesis model separates the factors that impinge on

sustainability into two dimensions: management and socio-cultural. The eight

components identified represent areas that potentially influence the PSCs as far as their

ability to sustain the CSA structures.

political factors in spite of reforms that seek redress.

16

Figure 1: Synthesis Model of Sustainability

Management Dimension:

17

Socio-cultural Dimension:

Valuing of Education

Community Skills

Social Cohesion

Participation

Resources

Transparency

Planning

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y

PRO

JEC

TIN

TE

RV

EN

TIO

N

Leadership

18

Definition of Sustainability components

Management:

• Planning refers to the process of organizing human and economic resources for a given agenda. It manifests in decision-making structures, procedures, division of roles and functions.

• Transparency is a state of accountability which involves some aspect of shared power amongst community as far as both the organization and utilization of human and economic resources are concerned.

• Resources refer to the human, and economic capital that a community possesses. • Leadership refers to the nature and quality of change agent activities.

Specifically, effective leadership has been linked to the capacity of a community to organize itself.

• Participation refers to the active engagement of a group of people in locally or externally organized activities.

Socio-cultural:

• Social Cohesion is the common values, collective attitudes and shared commitment within a community -tied to the idea that all members belong to a common entity with a singular goal. This promotes the well-being, strength and potential for prosperity.

• Community skills is their ability to channel their positive attitudes, willingness, self-motivation and self-reliance in to projects that reflect their empowerment and capacity.

• Valuing of education is the extent to which communities see the investment of their time, money and energy in education as a worthy cause � the premise being that valuing education will inspire or reinforce their commitment to the community�s efforts to provide quality education.

Employing this model of sustainability as the framework of analysis, this study seeks to

trace the pathways of sustainability by identifying the factor(s) that promote a close and

sustained collaboration in community school improvement efforts. Ultimately, the results

should establish the importance or unimportance of the inherent and affective attributes

of community as a social system and the way this impacts participation.

Method

Data collection for this study was over a period of 7 weeks during which approximately

110 stakeholders were interviewed individually. These stakeholders comprised parents,

19

teachers, head-teachers, religious and traditional leaders, as well as government

functionaries responsible for the administration of local community schools. In all, 6

communities were selected that represented extreme case studies of the high and low

sustaining PSCs within a cohort of 27. A seventh community was chosen for the purpose

of piloting instruments and research methods. This study employed a mixed approach for

data collection.

Findings

The preliminary analysis of the interviews highlighted some very important trends

in the provision of quality education with regards to community participation. A point of

clarification however, is that there were three potential aspects of the CSA intervention

that could be sustained. These were the benefits, structures or capacities. The focus of

this study was on the structures � namely the School Monitoring Committee (SMC) and

the Parents Teachers Association (PTA). These appeared to have remained intact over the

post intervention period in all the 6 communities. Moreover, these structures were being

utilized in the ways originally intended. The issue of sustainability was therefore about

how long these structures could function within the communities � effectively fulfilling

the roles and expectations of school improvement.

It appeared that the demographics of the communities played an important role in

relation to their effectiveness in mobilizing and utilizing resources. Each of the selected

communities was either engaged in subsistence agrarian activities (e.g. farming, fishing)

or small scale trading. This meant that there was not a significant amount of disposable

income. Consequently, one of the major tensions was that between time commitment for

school improvement and earning a living. That notwithstanding the common threads as

20

far as sustainability and the Akukwe model centered on planning, leadership, social

cohesion and valuing of education.

Low sustaining communities

The low sustaining communities identified prior to the study were Lekpongunor,

Edumadze, and Abandze. These three PSCs each recorded sustainability scores of

between .20 and .30 points in 2000. In the 2002 post-intervention assessment, they did

not fair any better, with the exception of Abandze which seemed to be in a school

improvement frenzy at the time.

Planning: As part of its 2-year interventions, CSA guides the PSCs to create an action

plan that outlines what projects the SMC and PTA hope to undertake within the school

fiscal year. This is often the blueprint for community�s school improvement activities. In

some cases, the action-plan is reviewed and revised periodically to reflect the most

current needs and resource status of the school. In 2002 (two years after the end of the

CSA intervention cycle) these 3 communities were either just completing the projects

initiated in collaboration with CSA in 1998. In Lekpongunor�s case, the project had come

to a complete standstill.

The community�s weak planning procedures appeared to be linked to an inability

to articulate or list precisely what activities would lead to successful implementation of

project activities. There also appeared to be elements of arbitrariness in their planning

processes that could be attributed to local politics, social cliques, and blurring of roles

and responsibilities within the leadership. The relevance of planning to the sustainability

21

model lies in its function to facilitate the efficient use of resources through processes that

would reflect an understanding and awareness of the problems facing community

schools.

Leadership: A recurrent issue with the low sustaining communities was the tension

between modern institutions of democracy � along with the expectations of its

constituents, and traditional authority. While the SMC does reserve a place for the

traditional leader as an executive member, this is a shared power model of participation.

Yet, in most communities, it was the traditional leader who �commands� the Town crier

to call community members for meetings. The tension here was as a result of other

executives such as the Head teacher, Assemblyman, or SMC chairman taking the lead in

school improvement activities in communities where the recognized authority (or rather

the known and credible authority) was the traditional leader. These tensions fomented

divided loyalties, created factions and broken networks of communication as well as

participation.

Another problem was continuity. Effective community leaders seemed to have an

internal driving force that could not be replicated nor passed on. This meant that school

improvement had cycles of efficiency and non-efficiency.

Social Cohesion: Interestingly, there has been a lot of media focus placed on tribalism in

Ghana. However, it appears these tensions were not evident in the rural areas where clan

issues took precedence over tribal matters. Clans are groups that have sprung from the

same lineage, but have separated as a result of geographic reasons or due to the adoption

22

of a totem to distinguish each group from the other. Locals appeared to be more

concerned with these divisions. Certain characteristics were often associated with specific

clans � e.g. hardworking, prosperous, lazy. These characteristics created an under current

of rivalries that were further fueled by history and tradition. A typical example was the

chieftaincy disputes that created factions within the low sustaining communities,

resulting in some level of disaffection and disregard for traditional authority. The

problem was that within these communities the chief was the most recognized and

unifying authority. Without his leadership, there was very little holding the community

together, as community members focused more on their individual rather than collective

needs. Needless to say, differences in attitudes and commitment (with regards to

community development) did little to cement social relations.

Valuing of education: Even though most parents tended to agree that education brought

enlightenment to their community, and so had its benefits, the value of education was

expressed at various levels. Predominantly, most parents found the investment of their

children�s education � as �security� in their old age since there was no reliable social

welfare program to speak of in Ghana. Many parents looked to their children to take care

of them in their old age. Thus, social security was a primary incentive or motive for

sending children to school. Countering this was the report from school officials and

parents themselves that the lack of foreseeable opportunities in the locality served as little

encouragement for both parents and students. Their financial realities made education

seem like a long-term investment with no guaranteed returns. More especially with the

basic education graduates, who most invariably returned to fish, farm or trade because

23

their families could not afford to sponsor them beyond junior secondary education. It

came as no big surprise therefore that in the low sustaining communities, parents were

reported as having mixed priorities because they would much rather spend their money

on certain �past times� and ventures rather than their child�s education.

High Sustaining Communities

The high sustaining communities identified for this study were Moree, Richard

Akwei and Mabang. Moree and Mabang were rural communities engaged in subsistence

fishing and farming, while Richard Akwei was an urban village. By this I mean that

although the community retained all the characteristics of a rural settlement (i.e. low

disposable income, poor housing facilities, high unemployment) it was set right in the

heart of the capital of Ghana, Accra. Out of the three high sustaining communities,

Richard Akwei had an amazing turn around. In 2000 it scored .00 in the CSA

sustainability assessment, yet in 2001 it scored .90. With the exception of �valuing of

education�, the high sustaining communities also had significant reports in the areas of

planning, leadership and social cohesion.

Planning: Richard Akwei had the most effective planning processes amongst the 6

selected communities. This community held meetings in which the typical

hierarchies/bureaucracies that potentially impede planning were secondary to

accomplishing activities. Roles and responsibilities were designated based on individuals�

competencies, rather than mandated. Smaller committees were thus formed to facilitate

various project objectives. The only problem here was that this approach had the potential

24

for being exclusionary in that some community members played a very peripheral role in

school improvement activities.

Leadership: The high sustaining communities had dynamic leaders who invested their

time and personal resources over and above expectations. For instance, Richard Akwei�s

SMC chairman was an alumnus of the school who was a successful entrepreneur. He

quite often pursued potential external donors on his own time. The school staff also had a

number of alumni on board who were dedicated to improving the quality of education

with every necessary resource they could secure. An interesting point is that whereas

�democratic processes� were a definite influence to Richard Akwei�s success, the other

two high sustaining communities had been able to strike a balance between traditional

and modern authority in the school improvement activities. The fact that there were no

reported chieftaincy disputes in these communities may have served as a strong

foundation for either absorbing the former in to the latter, or just simply paving the way

for better leadership practices.

Other Findings: The interviews and analysis revealed other trends that were also very important within

the two dimensions of sustainability previously discussed. These issues seemed to be

underlying themes that defined the ability level of communities to perform within the

eight different components of the sustainability model.

Communication: Almost all of the components are highly dependent on a very effective

chain/network of communication � planning, resources, transparency, leadership etc.

25

Some communities had not developed very strong channels of communication. The PSCs

with weaker links were constrained by most of the components as previously discussed.

They were also unable to effectively share information; and generally parents were not

conversant enough (did not have enough information) to understand decision-making as

well as implementation strategies or rationales. The PSC that was doing exceptionally

well had a dynamic SMC that had a very open and horizontal model of leadership. In

other words, there were no hierarchies.

There seemed to be a lucid flow of information based on a model of clearly defined

roles and responsibilities within the SMC and PTA. However, the executives of these two

bodies dominated the school improvement efforts because like the other PSCs parents

grappled with financial issues, mobilizing resources, and in some cases illiteracy. With

PSCs that had weak communication links, parents usually received information at PTA

meetings if they attended, but rarely if ever enquired about anything beyond their own

roles and expectations.

Gender: For every single PSC that was visited, it was reported that women attended PTA

meetings more, attended communal labour more, and were more concerned about and

invested in their children�s education. It also seemed that women were the heads of the

household as far as making decisions about their children�s upbringing. Unfortunately,

women were not equally represented in both the SMC and PTA executives, and when

they did, they held positions such as secretary, treasurer or teacher representative for the

SMC. Otherwise, both men and women believed the latter to be too distracted by family

26

commitments to play any active or consistent role in school improvement decision-

making.

Females appeared to stay within the boundaries of the roles ascribed to them and so

although they were the dominant majority as far as participation, the decision and power

structure were predominantly male. Yet, with more women taking on �sole�

responsibility for their children, there is a need for more women-focused school

improvement strategies. There are some serious implications for the future success of

school improvement if women who are considered to be economically disadvantaged are

becoming more and more responsible for their children. Another aspect of the gender

issue was girl child education. A few PSCs made reference to statistics that show

decreasing female enrollment following the terminal point for junior secondary or basic

education. The three main reasons attributed to this decrease were financial constraints,

failure due to lack of motivation or good role models, and teenage pregnancy.

Status: While it was not explicitly stated, there appeared to be an implicit culture of

status which I contend was deeply entrenched in the historical continuum of traditional,

colonial and post-colonial governance. Ghanaian culture practices an oral tradition where

codes of behaviour and ethics are passed down from one generation to the next. While the

nuances of behaviour may be obvious to a Ghanaian indigene, they might not be to a

foreigner. For public appearances communities may go through the motions of engaging

in the processes of the CSA but there is still an underlying code of behaviour operating.

Thus, each group of stakeholders had their sense of worth within the community. While I

did not ask specifically if every community member was equally recognized as a

27

potentially negotiating and interested partner in school improvement, it became obvious

from responses that certain barriers (perhaps self-imposed) existed. Traditionally, age

was synonymous with wisdom and respect. Youth were expected to recognize this. The

educated and civil service professionals (e.g. teachers, policemen etc) were also accorded

a different level of respect within the community. Wealth and gender were also

differentiating factors that potentially defined the integrity and weight of each person�s

contribution in a community process/project.

Conclusion:

The CSA project tracks the consultative and societal processes that went into its

program design. These processes have yielded some results in that parents in PSCs are

beginning to appreciate the value added to their participation in and support of their

children�s education. However, for their activities to be self-sustaining there is a need to

not only consult with the �actors of change� themselves, but also to bring to the fore the

latent values, as well as challenges of their indigenous institutional requirements. This

disjuncture between program design and implementation endorses the view that strategies

for participation and sustainability should �unleash the bonds that restrain people from

strengthening their own organizations, or creating new ones; and using their relatively

meagre resources to create alternative and autonomous resolutions to their problems�.

The way forward in community participation might then be found in the translation [and

moderation] of traditional practices of the people and not the outright transposition of

best practice objectives predicated on different value sets.

28

The CSA model and its intervention strategies also contribute to the strengthening of

the policy delivery framework. This is reiterated by Robb (1998) as well as Edgerton et al

(2000) who both agree that participation �involves linking the information from

participatory research into a broad policy dialogue among a cross-section of stakeholders,

leading to increased awareness, attitude shifts, and changes in policy and the policy

delivery framework� (Robb, 1998; p.1).

In addition to this, employing a top-down approach to galvanize communities to

invest themselves in projects that require bottom-up approaches seems to have worked

for CSA in spite of policy challenges such as lack of capacity because their interventions

seek to identify deficiencies, then train community members to participate in

development activities. Robb (1998) expatiates on this when she alludes to building local

capacities which aid in effective policy implementation and also �generate new

institutional alignments to achieve effective and sustainable development� (p. xv;

summary). The policy challenges however, will be how to mobilize local resources in

areas that are in the RPP category, and how to institutionalize accountability and

transparency.

Institutions such as the World Bank have noted the ethical values of participation on

a-cultural level, since studies have shown �that there is a very large return to the

promotion of positive social relationships and cooperation at the grass-roots level (World

Bank,1998; p. 19). Based on their work on community-based initiatives, they currently

espouse �the promotion of networks of solidarity at the community level� (World Bank,

1998; p. 19) as an important part of development strategies for government.

29

Related to this, Driver and Kravatzky talk about �practitioners of participatory

approaches needing to take a more realistic view of transformation: one that sees

transformation not as a linear, crisis free process ... otherwise it becomes an act of well-

rehearsed roles� (p.5). The implication here is that PSCs may emulate capacity so far as

they have a support crutch, but what happens once the development assistance, and

intervention strategies end? Evans (2000) also speculates about this issue. The questions

we may want to ask in future will be to what extent does the nature of external

intervention strategies for development influence the potential for institutionalization?.

This is really the question of top-down and bottom-up approaches re-framed.

Nagle (1992 in McDonough & Wheeler, 1998) amongst other researchers question

the purpose of participation � i.e. is it a goal, an end, a means, or tool. As mentioned

earlier, choosing any one of these purposes changes the implementation focus. Anderson

(1998) proposes a framework which consists of five central questions to guide

organizations that promote participatory approaches.

• Participation towards what end? • Who participates? • What are the relevant spheres of participation? • What conditions and processes must be present locally to make participation

authentic (i.e. the micro-politics of participation � e.g. schools and community as cultures of power)?

• What conditions and processes must be present at broader institutional and societal levels to make participation authentic (i.e. macro-politics of participation)? (p.587)

These questions are reflected in Dudley (1993 in McDonough & Wheeler, 1998) who

states that �different views of the purpose of participation reflect the state of affairs in

which participation in theory seems like a good idea but in practice can be quite

30

threatening to particular interests, the current social structure, or can reflect outside

idealism and views of democracy that may not be appropriate in the communities being

targeted� (p.3). CSA�s recruitment of partners in PSCs have been based on the existing

social structure. However, empowering women and creating gender equity in education

does add a new dimension to the interactions and social organizations of some

communities.

One very crucial point raised by Rugh and Bossert (1998) refers to the fact that

while communities are building capacity to participate in development, governments and

state functions are showing very little improvement in the ability to provide resources or

improve their management capabilities. According to Rugh and Bossert (1998):

�critics question whether community participation is necessary at all in the delivery of education, which often requires technical expertise more than local support. From their perspective, resources should be directed at increasing capacity of state organizations to deliver quality education efficiently and effectively. Mobilizing communities to take over state functions only postpones the time when the state�s institutions must inevitably be reformed. In the mean time programs may be inequitably and inconsistently implemented, depending on the availability of resources� (p.162).

Of course, the flip side of this argument is the point I have already made in my paper that

community is being invoked as a resource for development because of diminishing

resources, and government�s inability to provide good education. �Community effort is

therefore crucial to supplementing state efforts� (Rugh & Bossert, 1998; p.162). These

points are noteworthy because the end of project assistance to the PSCs will change an

aspect of the implementation strategies. Communities will no longer have the CSA to rely

on for match contributions. If Government is to be their primary alternative source of

funding then there is a need to improve government support for local efforts. A good

31

starting point will be to exemplify accountability and transparency in the allocation and

management of resources.

Jimenez and Sawada�s (1998) work on the effectiveness of community-managed

schools suggest that there is very little empirical evidence in developing countries on the

merits of community-managed schools. This is because it is a relatively new field. The

empirical results cited in this paper are yet to be fully disseminated or challenged.

Furthermore, according to Jimenez and Sawada � the production of educational outcomes

is a complex interaction of the behaviours of various agents who participate in the

schooling process... agents not directly connected to the educational system may also

affect these outcomes if they influence the environment in which students learn� (p.3).

Community involvement does improve the quality of educational provision. Perhaps

linking it directly to student performance may be more difficult. Besides, PSCs are not

given an explicit task of improving student performance. Their task is to provide support

for their schools in the hopes that this will have a ripple effect on student performance.

Can we take them to task if student performance does not increase?

From the CSA model we can surmise that the key principles of community-driven

school improvement are based on demand-based approaches which allow PSCs to define

their own concerns, prioritize them, plan and implement. The overall idea of social

mobilization is critical for strategic alliances that facilitate the realization of shared goals

as well as mobilization of resources. Significant community contributions in cash and

human resources are critical to the sustainability and institutionalization of best practices

for school-community interactions. This should be done, naturally with careful

consideration for environmental and social factors such social inclusion/gender. There is

32

a need for links to the macro-politics of government in order to tap into government

resource allocation cycles. This has to be partnered by sound sector policies that support

community efforts, and strengthen the policy delivery framework. This may require some

institutional reform which government must commit to.

CSA is a microcosm of what can be achieved if projects are well-designed,

managed and implemented. Their example should be considered a challenge for future

education projects.

33

References

Addae-Boahene, K. & Akorful, K. (2000). Participatory Rural Appraisal/Participatory Learning and Action (PRA/PLA) protocol. Quality Improvements in Partnership Schools (QUIPS) project. USAID/GOG/CSA, Accra, Ghana. Addae-Boahene, K. & Akorful, K. (2000). CSA community mobilization activities: Facilitator manual. Quality Improvements in Partnership Schools (QUIPS) project. USAID/GOG/CSA, Accra, Ghana. Addae-Boahene, K. & Akorful, K. (2000). Improving quality education through community participatioin: SMC/PTA training guide. Quality Improvements in Partnership Schools (QUIPS) project. USAID/GOG/CSA, Accra, Ghana. Anderson, Gary L., (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 571-603. Asiedu-Akrofi A. (1982. Education in Ghana. In Babs A. Fafunwa & J. Aisiku (Eds.), Education in Africa: A comparative survey (pp. 99 � 114). Allen & Unwin. London. Ayee, Joseph R. A. (1996) The measurement of decentralization: The Ghanaian Experience, 1988-92. African Affairs, 95, 31-50. Boardman, G. & Leherr, K. & Addae-Boahene, K. & Akorful, K. (2000). Getting and showing results � Sustainability, spread and mainstreaming. Quality Improvements in Partnership Schools (QUIPS) project. USAID/GOG/CSA, Accra, Ghana. Boardman, G. and Evans, Lynn R. (2000). Community support for education: Local change leaders. Community School Alliance, Accra, Ghana. Bortei-Doku Aryeetey, Ellen. (1998). Consultative processes in community development in Northern Ghana. Community Development Journal. Vol. 33 (4), pp. 301-313. Carter, Carolyn S. (1999). Education and development in poor rural communities: An interdisciplinary research agenda. Eric Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Downloaded from website: http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc999.htm. 5/27/00. Chapman, David W. (1998) The management and administration of education across Asia: Changing challenges. International Journal of Educational Research 29, (pp. 603-626).

34

CSA (2001). Education in Ghana: The need for reform. Downloaded from website: http://www.edc.org/CSA/ed.htm. 2/16/01 CSA (2001). Education in Ghana: What�s needed. Downloaded from website: http://www.edc.org/CSA/ed.htm. 2/16/01. Driver, Thackwray and Kravatzky, Axel (2000). Participatory learning and action or participatory acting. Participatory processes in the North. PLA Notes, 38 (1). (pp.3-5). Edgerton, J. & McClean, K. & Tikare, S, & Lytle, P. & Robb, C. & Shah, P. (2000). Organizing participatory processes. World Bank, Washington D.C. Epstein, Joyce (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, (5). (pp. 13-24). Evans, Lynn (2000). Quality improvements in primary schools in Ghana: Issues of sustainability and emerging learning. CIES 2000, National conference presentation. San Antonio, Texas. Homan, Mark S. (1998). Promoting community change: making it happen in the real world. BrooksCole Publishing Company. Pacific Grove, CA. Jagannathan, Shanti (2000). The role of non-governmental organizations in primary education. A study of six NGOs in India. World Bank, Washington D. C. Jimenez, Emmanueal and Sawada, Yasuyuki (1998). Do community-managed schools work? An evaluation of El Salvador�s EDUCO program. World Bank, Washington D.C. King, Elizabeth and Ozler, Berk (1998). What�s decentralization got to do with learning? The Case of Nicaragua�s school autonomy reform.(pp. 1-32) World Bank, Washington D. C. Lyons, Raymond. (1985) Decentralized Educational Planning: is it a contradiction? In Lauglo, Jon & Mclean, Martin. (Eds.). The Control of Education. International Perspectives on the Centralization-Decentralization Debate. (Eds. (pp. 86 � 95). Institute of Education, University of London: Heinemann Press. McDonough, Maureen H. and Wheeler, Christopher W. (1998). Toward school and community collaboration in social forestry. ABEL Clearinghouse for Basic Education, AED, Washington, D. C. MOE/GES (2001) Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education (FCUBE). Downloaded from website: http://www.ghana.edu.gh/ges_fcube.htm. 2/12/01 Robb, Catherine M. (1998). Can the poor influence policy? Participatory poverty assessments in the developing world. Direction in Development, World Bank, Washington D.C.

35

Rugh, Andrea and Bossert, Heather (1998). Involving Communities: Participation in the delivery of education programs. ABEL project, Washington D. C. De Stefano, Joseph & Hartwell, Ash & Tietjen, Karen (1990) Basic Education in Africa: USAID�s approach to sustainable reform in the 1990s. USAID, Washington, D.C. Stein-George, Betty (1975) Education in Ghana. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Education Division, Office of Education. Washington, D.C. United States Library of Congress (2000). Ghana: Debt and inflation. Downloaded from website: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+gh0076) 2/23/00. USAID (2001). Basic Education programs in Africa � Ghana country profile. Downloaded from website: http://www.usaid.gov/regions/afr/basiced/ghana.html. 2/18/01 West Africa, (June 13, 1994). Education Reform X-rayed. West Africa Publishing Company, London, (pp.1038). World Bank, (1996). Basic Education Sector Improvement Program. Report #15570-GH. Washington, D.C. World Bank, (2001). Country profiles: Project information. Downloaded from website: http://www4.worldbank.org/projects/Projects.asp. 2/13/01 Yeboah, Vida (1992). Ghana�s Policy Adjustment Initiative: Opportunity for Renewal. In Fuller, Bruce and Habte, Aklilu. (pp.18 � 22). Adjusting Educational Policies: Conserving Resources while Raising School Quality. World Bank, Washington, D. C.

Selected Bibliography Anderson, Gary L., (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 571-603. Boardman, G. & Leherr, K. & Addae-Boahene, K. & Akorful, K. (2000). Getting and showing results � Sustainability, spread and mainstreaming. Accra, Ghana: Quality Improvements in Partnership Schools (QUIPS) project. Craig, H. & Kraft, R. & du Plessis, J. (1998). Teacher development: Making an impact. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

36

Epstein, Joyce (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, (5). (pp.13 � 24). Evans, Lynn (2000). Quality improvements in primary schools in Ghana: Issues of

sustainability and emerging learning. CIES 2000, national conference presentation. San Antonio, Texas.

Pilisuk M. & McAllister, J. & Rothman, J. (1998). Coming together for action: The challenge of contemporary grassroots community organizing. Journal of Social Issues. 52(1) Rugh, Andrea and Bossert, Heather (1998). Involving Communities: Participation in the delivery of education programs. ABEL project, Washington D. C. Wittig, Michele Andrisin (1998). An introduction to social psychological perspectives on grassroot organizing. Journal of Social Issues. 52(1), 3-15.