Poverty, property rights and land management in Uganda PATRICK
POVERTY REDUCTION AND EDUCATION DECENTRALISATION IN UGANDA
-
Upload
the-bartlett-development-planning-unit-ucl -
Category
Documents
-
view
346 -
download
6
description
Transcript of POVERTY REDUCTION AND EDUCATION DECENTRALISATION IN UGANDA
POVERTY REDUCTION AND EDUCATION DECENTRALISATION
IN UGANDA Consultancy Report
May 2007
Field Trip Report 2007
i
Contents
Executive Summary iii
Acknowledgement iv
Part I Inception Report General Background: The Ugandan Context 2 (Andrew Munk and Fredrick Wamalwa)
Theoretical Framework 4 (Ting YAN)
Scope and objectives of the study 9 (Matthew Bockarie)
Methodology 11 (Obeng-Odoom Franklin)
Institutional Landscape 14 (Fredrick Wamalwa and Ugochukwu Idika)
Part II Recommendations Report Field Trip findings 18
Recommendations 24 - Future Research Areas
- Strategy Guidelines
Bibliography 26
Appendices 30
ii
Executive Summary
When Uganda’s home-based Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)
was launched in 1997, the decentralisation process in this country was
significantly scaled up with the expansion of local governments and
resources for pro-poor service delivery. This was especially
pronounced in the case of Universal Primary Education (UPE), a
significant policy in the national programme for poverty reduction.
However, UPE under decentralisation has led to both achievements
and many unexpected consequences in education service delivery.
This report is the result of a field trip undertaken in Mbarara District
aimed at examining the role of decentralisation in education service
delivery. Decentralisation improves service delivery thus reducing
poverty when local governments are given enough resources and
authority, along with effective local mechanisms of accountability.
After extensively reviewing secondary data and gathering primary data
through interviews from the field, our preliminary findings show that
local authorities in Mbarara District however have very limited
financial capacity and autonomy to effectively improve service
delivery and parents still lack effective mechanisms to hold local
authorities accountable.
Therefore, we recommend that future research areas and future PEAP
agenda need to address these crucial aspects to further improve
education service delivery for poor Ugandan people thus accelerating
the pace of poverty reduction.
Ting YAN
Project Manager
Education Decentralisation Group
iii
Acknowledgement
This report has been prepared by the education decentralisation group
led by Ting YAN, teamed with Obeng-Odoom Franklin, Fredrick
Wamalwa, Andrew Munk, Matthew Bockarie, and Ugochukwu Idika
in Development Planning Unit, University College London.
The field trip in Uganda was directed by Julio Davila, Le-Yin Zhang,
Michael Walls, and Zeremariam Fre, and was assisted by Yukiko
Fujimoto. The education decentralisation group was guided and
advised by Moses Tukwasiibwe.
The team also benefited greatly from the following people who shared
their precious time and opinions with us.
Name of Respondent
Institution Title
Prof. Emannuel. T. Mutebille
Uganda Central Bank
Bank Governor
Lawyer Kafureeka
Centre for Basic Research
Researcher
Eric Hawthorne DFID Uganda Mario Obwona Economic policy
research Centre Principal Research Fellow
Lawrence Bategeka
Economic policy research Centre
Principal Research Fellow
Augustus Nuwagaba
Reevconsult & Makerere University
Chairman Academic Staff Association Makerere University
Robert Esuruku Uganda Martyrs University, Nkozi
Deputy Dean, Inst of Ethics and Dev Studies
Emmanuel Kyagaba
Mbarara University of Science and Technology
Dean of Students
Adoniaa Mbarara District Secretary of Education
iv
Kabaribaa Education Office (LC 5)
and Health
Steven Mugume
Education Standards Agency
Inspector of Schools
John Agair Education Standards Agency
Inspector of Schools (Maths)
Deus Barigye Education Standards Agency
Snr. Inspector of Schools (Science)
Mary Frances Semambo
Kabateraine Memorial School
Proprietress
Francis Wayegumamya
Kabateraine Memorial School
Headteacher
Tuhule Probia Teacher Charles Malugu Kabateraine
Memorial School (Private Primary)
IT Teacher
Benson Arinetwe
Booma International School (Private Secondary)
Deputy Headmaster
Rev. Philemon Canon Tinka
Ankole Diocese Diocesean Secretary of Education
Johnson Muhumuza
Mbarara Juniour School (Primary section/UPE school)
Deputy Head (Primary)
Steven Sasiirwe Ministry of Education (Mbarara District)
Education Officer
Edward Mbabazi
Ministry of Education (Mbarara District)
Education Officer
Bornyenka Boniface
Ntare School Deputy Head
Birindwarugaba Blegious
Ntare School Deputy Head
Hannington Noowe
Parent
Basil Tibanyendera
Mbarara University of Science and Technology
Ag. Head, Foundation Education
All students Kabateraine Memorial School
-
1
PART I Inception Report
2
General Background: Decentralisation in Uganda
(Andrew Munk and Fredrick Wamalwa)
On assuming power towards the end of 1986, the National Resistance Movement
under President Museveni of Uganda, introduced political decentralization by
establishing the Resistance Councils at all sub-national government levels aimed at
increasing local participation in the decision-making processes and strengthening
democracy (Ahikire, 2002). Decentralization was seen as a tool to achieve national
consensus among different groups, given the past political instability and tribal
animosities (Ahamad et al., 2006). The central government opted to create districts as
the highest level of local governments in an attempt to satisfy regional and tribal
demands for political power (Makara, 1998).
Ahamad et al. (2006) suggest that this form of decentralization was primarily
administrative, aimed at building the managerial capacity at the local level and
increasing transparency and accountability in service delivery. It devolved
responsibility for a large number of key public services to the local level, including
primary education and health services. It was not until during 1994 that signs of
political decentralisation started to appear as local governments were granted specific
legal responsibilities and expenditure functions. In spite of these developments, the
central government retained important financing controls.
The need to ensure effective service delivery contributed to the strong expansion of
Uganda’s local government (Ahamad et al., 2006). This expansion took root as the
government focused its economic programme, supported by donors, more intently on
poverty reduction in the second half of the 1990s (Muduuli, 2006). When the
country’s home-based Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) was initiated in 1997,
Uganda significantly raised the resources allocated to pro-poor spending, in particular
those identified and tracked under the Poverty Action Fund (PAF), which received
strong financial support by the external donors (World Bank, 2002). The local
governments were, in fact, allocated with the responsibility to deliver a growing share
of pro-poor expenditures tracked under the PAF, a share that rose to 60–70 % in the
early 2000s (Saito, 2006).
3
However, the design of Uganda’s decentralisation programme as a strategy to
alleviate poverty requires continued reassessment and refinement, specifically the
extent to which local governments have been effectively empowered to deliver key
public services (Ahamad et al., 2006). First, the multiple layers of local government
which decentralisation introduced, has further increased government expenditure due
to bureaucracy and financial leakages resulting from increased rent-seeking (Brixiova
1999). Also, despite the fact that pro-poor government policies receive strong donor
support, they have led to a significant increase in public expenditure, particularly in
terms of the number of local civil servants. Following the introduction of Universal
Primary Education (UPE) in 1997, teacher numbers have risen considerably. Central
government has been faced with mounting education costs, above all the rising
teachers’ wage bill, which it does not have the financial resources to meet (World
Bank, 2002). Local governments have been charged with the responsibility of
delivering UPE on the ground, yet receive insufficient grants from the centre to do so,
and lack the power to raise funds themselves, due to the lack of fiscal decentralisation
(Saito, 2000).
In order to assess the real impact of education decentralisation on poverty reduction in
Uganda, the following section sets up a theoretical framework to explore the linkage.
4
Theoretical Framework: Relationship between Poverty Reduction and
Decentralisation (of Education)
(Ting YAN)
The relationship between poverty reduction and decentralisation of education is
established based on the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) (DFID, 1999).
Within this linkage, in particular, a theoretical framework which guides the whole
field trip is developed to exploare the pro-poor conditions of decentralisation.
I. Poverty reduction and Education
Since the 1990s, poverty and the processes that lead to poverty are conceived as
multidimensional and highly context-specific. According to the World Bank (2000,
pp.34), poverty is the result of:
• Lack of income and assets to attain basic necessities—food, shelter, clothing,
and acceptable levels of health and education
• Sense of voicelessness and powerlessness in the institutions of state and
society
• Vulnerability to adverse shocks, linked to an inability to cope with them
The SLF developed by DFID (1999) also promotes a systematic analysis of the
underlying processes and causes of poverty. It identifies the five assets poor people
own or have access to (HNFSP), based on which they can achieve their livelihoods
through livelihood strategies that are available to them.
Figure 1 The asset pentagon
Source: ibid.
From the SLF perspective, education helps achieve livelihood outcomes thus reducing
poverty in the following senses:
5
• increasing Human Capital (the skills, knowledge and ability to labour);
• helping the poor make better use of the four other types of assets;
• being regarded as an end itself by the poor.
II. Decentralisation and its linkage to poverty reduction
Definition and Typology
Decentralisation is defined by Rondinelli (1981) as the transfer of authority to plan,
make decisions and manage public functions from a higher level of government to any
individual organization or agency at a lower level.
The underlying rationale of decentralisation is that a more decentralised state
apparatus will be more exposed and therefore more responsive to local needs and
aspirations (Crook and Sverrisson, 2001), which will produce systems of governance
that are more effective and accountable to local people (Blair, 2000; Crook and Manor,
1998; Manor, 1999; Rondinelli et al.., 1989).
Power that is transferred can be political, administrative or fiscal. Four types of
decentralisation are commonly recognised (Martinussen, 1997, pp.210-211):
• Deconcentration: the handing over of administrative or managerial
responsibility to sub-national units within line ministries or other sector-
specific national agencies.
• Delegation: public enterprises and other semiautonomous government
agencies are assigned responsibility for implementing sector investments or
for operating public utilities and services.
• Devolution: the transfer of authority and responsibility to regional or local
governments with their own discretionary authority.
• Privatisation: government agencies divesting themselves of responsibility for
project implementation or for providing infrastructure and services.
Linkages to Sustainable Livelihoods
The above types of decentralisation have potentials to transform structures and
processes of the society in a pro-poor way:
6
Structures operate in cascading levels with varying degrees of autonomy and scope of
authority, depending upon the extent and nature of decentralisation (DFID, 1999).
Decentralisation can transform structures by:
• building structures that represent the poor;
• increasing the responsiveness of various organisations to the local preferences;
• (through privatisation) creating competitive markets valued for their economic
efficiency and ‘built in’ responsiveness to clients.
Decentralisation can transform certain processes by:
• Utilising local information to support a more pro-poor policy-making process;
• Deepening and strengthening the contact between the poor and policy makers;
• Promoting participatory processes of policy formulation;
• Increasing the accountability and transparency of public decision-making;
By transforming structures and processes in the above ways, education
decentralisation can contribute to poor people’s sustainable livelihoods through (See
Figure 2)
• increasing the five livelihood assets by improving education service delivery;
and
• a direct impact upon people’s feeling of inclusion and well-being
Figure 2 Decentralisation in SLF
Source: adapted from DFID (1999) and modified by the author
7
III. Conditions for a pro-poor decentralisation
Decentralisation does not automatically bring the above pro-poor transformation (See
Appendix 1 for pros and cons). Only when “carefully planned, effectively
implemented and appropriately managed” (Work, 1999, pp.1), can decentralisation
transform the structures and processes in a pro-poor way. According to the WB (2001,
pp.1), decentralisation promotes effectiveness and efficiency when “the devolution of
functions occurs within an institutional environment that provides political,
administrative and financial authority to local governments, along with effective
channels of local accountability and central oversight”. Therefore, there are two levels
of conditions illustrated in Figure 3: central-local relations and local mechanisms.
Figure 3 Pro-poor conditions of decentralisation
Source: the author
Central-local relations:
• A central government with a political commitment to poverty reduction
• Autonomy and fiscal decentralisation: Local authorities need to have
enough fiscal control to plan their activities (WB, 2000, pp.107) while
“balancing autonomy and accountability” (Johnson, 2001, pp.13).
8
• Central support is required to ensure that “national policies are adhered to
and to coordinate the interregional interests of different administrative units”
(ibid.)
• Safeguards are also needed to monitor financial probity and discourage the
capture of local bodies by powerful elites (ibid.).
Local mechanisms should also be developed for poor people to hold local authorities
accountable in order to avoid the ‘elite capture’ (Crook, 2003):
• Voice mechanism: representative democracy and diverse forms of
participatory democracy are needed for poor people to influence policies and
hold local authorities accountable.
• Information: local citizens should be informed of local politics and events to
make possible an effective participation.
• Exit mechanism: poor people can switch to non-public service providers
(private sector or civil society organisations) or to move to other localities
(WB, 2001). However, the state should also provide regulations to ensure that
the privatisation is pro-poor.
9
Mission Scope and Objectives
(Matthew Bockarie)
Scope of the study The theoretical framework shows that under certain pro-poor conditions, education
decentralisation can greatly enhance the state’s capacity to improve education service
delivery thus reducing poverty and accelerating development. It is revealed that the
central-local relations and local mechanisms of decentralisation are the two main
conditions that favour the poor. In the case of decentralisation of education in Uganda,
we narrowed down our scope to financial capacity and autonomy for the research of
central-local relations, whilst voice, information, and exit have been focused on as
local mechanisms.
Since the aim of the field study is to gain an improved understanding of the factors
behind the early success of Uganda in poverty reduction and the recent fallback of the
process, the first step of this field work was to get an updated look at the
achievements and challenges of education service delivery in Mbarara district before
undertaking further studies on the above pro-poor conditions.
This ten-day field research from 2nd to 13 May 2007 was undertaken in Mbarara
Municipality by interviewing parents, teachers, head teachers, proprietors, pupils,
faith-based organizations, Education Quality Officers (ESA), educationist, local
councillors and district education officers. Decentralisation of education in Uganda
was only introduced in the primary education sector before the Universal Primary
Education (UPE) was declared and introduced in 1997 (Ministry of Education and
Sports, 2001) by the Government of Uganda, therefore the research focus is mainly at
the primary school level, but still involves views of interviewees from the secondary
education sector.
10
Objectives of the study
• To assess the challenges and achievements of education in Mbarara district
• To determine the level of financial capacity and autonomy of local authorities in
Mbarara district.
• To find out whether the local people in Mbarara district are informed and have the
‘voice’ & ‘exit’ mechanisms to hold local authorities accountable in educational
service delivery.
• To make recommendations for further research and policy guidelines to enhance
effectiveness of education decentralisation in Uganda.
11
Methodology
(Obeng-Odoom Franklin)
This section discusses the Research Design of this study. It begins with a set of
Research Questions and ends with a comment on how we describe the data for this
study.
Based on the research objectives, the key research questions to the study are:
1. Has education decentralisation improved the provision of education service
delivery in Mbarara?
2. Do the local authorities of Mbarara District have the financial capacity and
autonomy to provide education service to the local residents?
3. Are there effective mechanisms for local people to influence education
policies and hold authorities accountable?
Data Collection and Sampling
Both primary and secondary data were used. A review of relevant literature on
decentralization of education in Uganda was done before the actual field visit in order
to find out the state of decentralisation in education in Uganda with particular
reference to Mbarara. Following the above research questions, detailed field questions
were developed (See Appendix 2).
Primary data was collected through semi- and unstructured individual and group
interviews as well as through observations (see Laws et al., 2003).
Secondary data was collected from among others, publications, studies, district profile
on educational decentralization in Mbarara from sources like Educational Standards
Agency, Mbarara University, EPRC and Mbarara University of Science and
Technology. We also obtained data from the Ministry of Education (Mbarara branch).
Drawing the Sample
Because of the limited time, the research was focused on Mbarara Municipality. We
drew the sample at our convenience, which means that we used the convenience
sampling approach, where we drew the sample according to the accessibility and
12
availability of data, taking into account the brief period within which this exercise had
to be undertaken. We took a sample of most of the major stakeholders in education
service delivery: One private and one public secondary school were visited. We also
visited two primary schools, one private and one public. Three government offices
and two faith-based organisations were also visited. Finally, one headmaster, seven
teachers, two parents and two groups/classes (primary) of students were visited. Time
and ease of access were the main measures of convenience.
Data Analysis
Our Analysis was preceded by a separation of all data obtained for this study into
quantitative data and qualitative data (see Agyedu et al., 1999) and summarised.
Beyond this step, similar responses have been put into common themes. Finally, the
data has been presented under each of the objectives to compare the trends in the
data before and after the introduction of decentralisation. This Before-After
Approach has enabled us to have a fair assessment of the effect of
decentralisation on education service delivery.
Qualitative data has been transformed into quantitative data by quantifying qualitative
issues like perception of education quality. However, much more emphasis has been
placed on the concepts they convey per se (Laws et al., 2003 and Willis, 2006).
Also, our analysis was undertaken with the stakeholders of education as we constantly
briefed them on how we were doing the analysis and sought their views on the
conclusions we were drawing. It should be noted that even though this method of
analysis is not conventional, it was used to prevent the common pitfall of jumping to
conclusions and to actively promote stakeholder participation in development research
(Laws et al., 2003)
Data Description and Interpretation
We have used a combination of quantitative indicators like ratios and percentages for
the description of data gathered. However, these have been balanced with qualitative
descriptions like the perceptions of our respondents. Interpretation has been done by
13
comparing and contrasting the data with existing literature on Mbarara in particular
and Uganda in general.
14
Institutional Landscape
(Fredrick Wamalwa and Ugochukwu Idika )
Appendix 3 shows the key stakeholders within the education sector in Uganda. In
terms of the institutional context, the functioning of Uganda’s decentralized education
works through the influence and interaction of a number of organizations and
individuals that can be traced from the international to local levels as below.
International level: Donors (International Community)
External donors are major political actors in Uganda (Ahikire, 2002). Uganda’s
poverty reduction strategies such SAPs, PRSPs and PEAP depend on financial and
technical support from external donors (Ssewakiryanga, 2004). For example, out of a
total cost of US$311 million budget for Universal Primary Education between 1998
and 2000, US$155 million was provided by the International Development
Association, of which US$75 million was a grant in the context of the HIPC Initiative
(World Bank Group, 2007)1. Donors are not just powerful because the country is aid
dependent, but because of the sophisticated relationship they have with the President,
Ministers, government institutions and civil society (Norton et al.., 2004).
National level: Central Government Level (Ministry of Education, MoE)
Although education is decentralized to the lower levels, the Central Government,
through Ministry of Education (MoE) influences the sector through its control over
funding and other policy procedures (Gershberg et al.. 2003). Generally, the central
government budgetary allocation to the sector has been increasing over time. By 2001,
43 percent of the total discretionary budget was allocated to education compared to 24
percent in 1996 (World Bank 2002, Gershberg et al. 2003). The MoE influences the
amount of funds allocated to each district. It’s also the central point where donor
funding to the sector is negotiated and channelled to the district. It also issues policy
guidelines on how funds should be used in schools (Saito, 2006). It also enforces
measures to ensure transparent and effective use of the funds by the lower units.
1See (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-72KM8N?OpenDocument)
15
Sub-National Level: Local Council Level
At the Sub-National level, educational matters are addressed through a Local Council
(LC) system. As shown in figure 4 below, LC is a hierarchical structure of councils
and committees that stretch from village LC1 to District LC5, linking up to the NRC
through the district representative appointed by the president (Local Government Act,
1997). Each Council is a supreme political organ in its jurisdiction2.
Figure 4 Five-tier RC System
Source: Saito, 2006
Principally, educational matters at a local level are channeled up through the various
levels until it reaches LC 5 with sufficient authority. Equally, centrally planned
directives are channeled downward until they are implemented at the local level. LC 5,
which is the highest organ at the district level, allocates funds to the Sub-counties
(lower local government) that are the service delivery points. It also recruits Head-
2 It is important to note that each Local Council is under an elected Chairman and Vice Chairman and other elected Councilors who constitute Councils and Committees. Education and Sports is one of the Committees. Importantly, at LC 2, all Village Executive Committees in a parish form the Electoral College and elect another Executive Committee with similar positions at that level. Also at LC4 the elected representatives at LC3 constitute the Electoral College from which an executive Committee is elected (Ahikire, 2002). Alongside elected councilors are administrators and civil services who assist in administration and implementation roles and are answerable to the Local Councilors (Local Government Act, 1997).
16
teachers, influences their postage and supervises the construction of schools (Saito,
2006).
Local Level: School and Grassroots Level
Each school has a School Management Committee (SMC) whose members include
Parents Teachers Association (PTA) representatives, appointed members of the
education committee and members appointed by the Chief Education Officer (Saito,
2006). The SMC is a policy-making body for the school and function together with
head teachers as a leadership team to provide educational programmes and services
that ensure quality teaching and learning (Kateeba, 2006). However studies have
shown that SMC’s role overlaps with that the PTA, creating two centres of power
(Saito, 2006). Also, teachers feel threatened by the SME because there influence and
control over the school management reduced after the launch SME (Ahikire, 2002).
At the grassroots level are parents, pupils and the community at large. They have the
power to ensure that there is efficiency and effectiveness on the part of the
educational service providers discussed above, by voting out those who fail to deliver
(Kateeba, 2006).
17
PART II Recommendations Report
18
Field Trip Findings
Given the limited time in Mbarara, the findings are still preliminary and need further
research in the future. The following findings based on our research questions are
closely linked to research objectives:
1. Achievements and challenges of education service delivery in Mbarara District
Achievements:
∙ Following the decentralisation of education and subsequent launch of the UPE
policy in 1997, primary school enrolment in Mbarara District has greatly
increased: the number of primary students was 68,000 in 1996 and rose to
230,000 in 1997, which is consistent with the national trend over the past decade
(3.4 to 5.7 millions).
∙ In Mbarara Municipality gender equity has improved from a pre-1997 boy-girl-
enrolment-ratio of 55:45 to 49:51 following UPE (GoU, 2005).
∙ Decentralisation of education has enhanced collaboration among key
stakeholders in education. In different ways, the government, faith-based
organisations, donors and parents partner each other by pooling resources to build
schools and classrooms, provide scholastic materials, hire teachers and offer ways
to monitor and evaluate the quality of education.
∙ More funds (Inadequate though) have been channelled to teacher training colleges
to improve teacher quality.
∙ The increased demand for schools has also resulted in the establishment of more
private schools, thus increasing local school places.
19
Challenges:
∙ The introduction of UPE has caused demand for school places to substantially
outstrip the supply of resources. Immediately after 1997, the pupil-classroom
ratio worsened from an average 1:45 to 1:115 for primary 1-4 and 1:80 for
primary 5-7. Primary 1-4 are particularly overcrowded as large numbers of poorer
parents seek to take advantage of the free education provided by government.
However, from primary 4-7, classrooms became less crowded as increased
number of students exit government schools due to poor education quality and
parental financial hardship. In spite of significant school and classroom
constructions in recent times, the pupil-classroom ratio (1:55) remains worse than
prior to UPE.
∙ Although schools are provided with learning materials, there is an acute lack of
text books to meet increased enrolments. Compared with pre-1997 levels of 1:2,
the pupil-textbook ratio has increased to 1:3 post-1997. Furthermore, teachers are
not usually consulted on the choice of the textbooks being supplied; consequently
some textbooks are irrelevant to classroom teaching.
∙ The academic performance has also declined greatly in government schools,
which was followed by the mushrooming of private schools with more
widespread ‘drilling’ teaching methods. The result is a high exam success rate in
private schools. For example, the percentage of pupils passing exams to enter
secondary school is averagely about 100% in Kabateraine Memorial Primary
School (private) compared with 60% in Mbarara Primary School (government).
Overall, it appears that even though there was a worsening of the quality of education
immediately after UPE, the situation is improving and many of our respondents are
optimistic of the quality of education in future.
20
2. Financial capacity and autonomy of local authorities
An analysis of the findings from our fieldwork suggests that decentralisation has been
characterised by ‘deconcentration’ and ‘delegation’; ‘devolution’ of power has not
taken place. In addition, decentralisation remains administrative, with few evidence of
fiscal or political decentralisation. Consequently local authorities do not have the
financial capacity and autonomy to actively respond to local needs even if they are
accountable.
Financial capacity
Following the introduction of UPE and the resultant rise in enrolment rates,
government schools have insufficient resources due to the inadequate funds
transferred from central to local government. However, local governments lack the
authority to raise funds to fill this funding gap, due to the absence of fiscal
decentralisation, especially after the abolition of local ‘graduated tax’. The lack of
funds is compounded by the illegality of parental contributions to schools.
Nonetheless in many areas parents appear to largely ignore this ban and raise money
amongst themselves to ‘top-up’ the funding gap. In urban compared with rural areas,
parents tend to raise significantly higher top-up fees due to greater financial resources.
The Education Standards Agency (ESA), a semi-autonomous government body, also
lacks the necessary financial capacity to effectively carry out quality assurance in
schools. Whilst ESA has itself put in place the necessary administrative structures
and procedures for widespread inspections it suffers from a severe lack of resources.
For example, for the whole of Western Uganda, ESA has just one vehicle to use to
travel to schools.
Autonomy of local government and schools
The ability to deliver education services to meet local needs is adversely affected by
the lack of autonomy of local authorities and schools. Local education budgets are
calculated by central government based on the number of students enrolled in an area.
Local governments are not however empowered with the authority to determine how
21
this budget is then spent; rather the budget is already ‘earmarked’ by central
government. For example, whilst Mbarara district education committee is allowed to
determine the geographical locations for the building of new schools, the council does
not have the power to decide the percentage of their own education budget which can
be spent on building new schools. Local authorities and schools are not able to devote
a larger proportion of the education budget to hiring more teachers or to pay teachers
a higher wage to incentivise performance. In fact, the budget local governments have
to spend on teachers and salary levels are both determined centrally. As result, local
authorities and schools are powerless to take steps to address vastly overcrowded
classrooms or poor teaching quality.
Whilst the administration of education services has theoretically been decentralised, in
reality a number of time-consuming bureaucratic processes remain which constrain
the ability of local authorities to effectively respond to specific local requirements.
For example, head teachers lack the necessary autonomy to take full responsibility
and accountability for the performance of their school.
As noted, decisions regarding policies and financial resources devoted to specific
educational requirements are made at a central level. In addition, there is no feedback
loop for local authorities and schools to voice local concerns and influence decisions
in order to address these issues.
Lack of financial capacity and autonomy prevents local authorities and schools from
making key decisions in response to local needs, even if they are accountable to local
people. However, this is also understandable, given the lack of local accountability
mechanisms, to avoid the local ‘elite capture’.
22
3. Local mechanisms
Voice mechanism The School Management Committee (SMC), which is the current governing body in
public primary schools, is the major form of participation of parents in school affairs.
Its main role is to ensure the effective and accountable use of resources in the
provision of primary education. Two/three members of the Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) who have children in the school will represent the general parents
in SMC. However, it is revealed that usually well-educated and better-off parents are
elected by the general parents. In some cases members representing the PTA in SMC
may have already sent their children to other schools but remain in SMC, which
significantly compromises their representativeness.
In addition, even the parent representatives in SMC are less influential compared with
the other members in day-to-day management and school decision making processes.
On the other hand, apart from the PTA meetings there are few other channels for
parents to express their needs or to complain.
At the national policy level, parents often feel that there are hardly any government
policies and plans that have consulted local level stakeholders in the absence of
participatory democracy in spite of periodic elections.
Information It seems that parents are much more familiar with the Universal Primary Education
(UPE) policies than education decentralisation policies. However, due to unclear
information, they generally misunderstand UPE policies as if the government is
providing all educational facilities and resources when it promises free primary
education. But this intensified their disappointment especially when they found out
that they have to ‘top-up’ fees to fill up the financial gap to meet their own demand
for quality.
But at the school level, parents are well-informed of school affairs and events through
PTA meetings, where parents can also discuss their concerns on school issues.
23
Exit mechanism
After the introduction of UPE system, due to the general belief that the quality of
government schools declined tremendously, private schools have mushroomed.
Interestingly, the “exit mechanism” is controversial in a pro-poor sense.
There is a ‘clustering effect’ as a result of the exit mechanism. Since the financial
contribution is usually initiated by parents themselves, the amount of top-up fees is
decided through consensus building. Therefore, when poor parents cannot afford the
amount agreed upon, they either contribute in other forms (e.g. labour) or pull their
children out of this school (drop-out or switch to affordable schools). Usually local
awareness of high top-up fees can deter poorer parents from sending their children to
this school in the first place. On the other hand, rich parents who are willing to pay
more would pull their children out either to private schools or to richer public schools.
The result is a ‘clustering effect’ that poor children tend to remain together in poor
schools with relatively low education quality while rich parents tend to gather
together and top up fees to meet their higher demands.
This effect is also believed to be nationwide, as the result of the emergence of an
‘education market’ whereby the quality of a school a child attends is determined by
the financial resources of his/her parents. It exacerbates the rich/poor divide in
Uganda, which tends to coincide with the urban/rural divide. Whilst education
provides a means by which individuals can be lifted out of poverty, the existence of a
‘market’ inhibits education provision reaching the poorest in society.
24
Recommendations
Based on the above findings, the following areas are recommended for future
research:
Financial capacity and autonomy of local authorities:
∙ The feasibility of fiscal decentralisation in Uganda to improve education
service delivery;
∙ How can financial resources and autonomy transferred to local authorities
be balanced with their accountability to avoid local ‘elite capture’?
Local mechanisms:
∙ The role of decentralisation in enabling greater participation amongst
parents in order to influence education policy and service delivery;
∙ The impact of an “education market” and the resulting “clustering effect”
on the equitable distribution of quality education provision.
Other:
∙ Since Universal Secondary Education (USE) has just been introduced in
Uganda, a comparison between decentralised UPE & centralised USE
would be possible in the future (e.g. in 5 years) to determine whether
decentralisation is a critical factor in education service provision.
Strategy Guidelines
Fully aware of the risk of ‘elite capture’ at the local level, we recommend that before
more financial resources and autonomy are transferred from the center to local
authorities, the PEAP policy needs to enhance local accountability mechanisms and
deepen the participatory democracy:
∙ Parent representatives in SMC need to have their children attending the
schools
∙ Create more channels for poor parents to participate in school affairs and
educational policy planning.
25
∙ Inform and sensitise parents about education policies through mass media,
more contact between parents and local authorities, etc.
However, while enhancing local accountability, the financial resources and
autonomy of local authorities should also follow up gradually and cautiously:
∙ Create channels for local authorities to give feedback and influence the
budget allocation of the center.
∙ Empower local authorities to generate their own funds and determine the
use of their budget
∙ Grant more resources to school inspection agencies
26
Bibliography
Agyedu et al., 1999, Teach Yourself Research Methods, UCEWK
Ahamad, E, Brosio, G, 2006, “Uganda: Managing More Effective Decentralization’
(IMF working Paper, December 2006) [http://www.Ahamad et
al., .org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06279.pdf] (Accessed on 29.04.2007) Ahikire, J, 2006, “Decentralisation in Uganda Today: Institutions and Possible
Outcomes in the Context of Human Rights”, A Presentation of the
International Council on Human Rights Policy Decentralisation, Local
Government and Human
Rights,[ http://www.ichrp.org/paper_files/116_w_06.doc](accessed on
28.4.2007)
Avenstrup et al., 2004, Reducing Poverty, Sustaining Growth.What Works, What
Doesn”t, and Why A Global Exchange for Scaling Up Success, Scaling Up
Poverty Reduction: A Global Learning Process and Conference.
Blair, Harry, 2000, “Participation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic
Local Governance in Six Countries”, World Development, Vol.28, No.1,
pp.21-39
Brixiova, Z., 1998, “Public Service Reform,” Uganda: Selected Issues and Statistical
Appendix, AHAMAD ET AL., Staff Country Report No. 98/61 (Washington:
International Monetary Fund). June 1998
Brixiova, Z., 1998, “Public Service Reform,” Uganda: Selected Issues and Statistical
Appendix, IMF Staff Country Report No. 98/61 Washington: International
Monetary Fund). June 1998
Crook, Richard C. and James Manor, 1998, Democracy and Decentralisation in South
Asia and West Africa, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crook, Richard C. and Alan Sturla Sverrisson, 2001, “Decentralisation and poverty
alleviation in developing countries: a comparative analysis or, is West Bengal
unique?” IDS Working Paper 130, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Crook R, 2003, ‘Decentralisation and poverty reduction in Africa: The politics of
local-central relations’, Public Administration and Development, vol. 23, No.1,
pp. 77-88
27
Dauda ,L, Carol, 2004 The Importance of De Facto Decentralization in Primary
Education in Sub-Saharan Africa PTAs and Local Accountability in Uganda
Published by www.sagepublications.
DFID, 1999, “Framework for Sustainable Livelihoods”, Sustainable Livelihoods
Guidance Sheets,
[http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf]
ICHRP, 2002, Local Rule: Decentralisation and Human Rights, International Council
on Human Rights Policy, Versoix, Switzerland.
Gershberg, Alec Ian, and Donald R. Winkler, 2003, Education Decentralisation in
Africa: A Review of Recent Policy and Practice, draft
[http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/94808/Education%20Decentrali
zation%20in%20Africa.pdf]
Goldman, Ian, 1998, “Decentralisation and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods”, in Carney,
D. (ed) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make?
London, Department for International Development
Government of Uganda, Local Government Act 1997
Johnson, Craig, 2001, “Local Democracy, Democratic Decentralisation and Rural
Development: Theories, Challenges and Options for Policy”, Development
Policy Review, Forthcoming
Kappel R, Lay Jann and Steiner,2005 ‘Uganda:No More Pro-poor Growth?’ in
Development Policy Review, 2005, 23 (1):27-53
Kateeba, P, 2006, “Quality in Education Teaching and Leadership in Challenging
Times”, Aga Khan University, Karachi,
[http://www.aku.edu/ied/conference2006/abstracts/022.asp] (Accessed on
23.04.2007)
Langseth, Peter, 1995, “Civil Service Reform in Uganda: Lessons Learned,” Public
Administration and Development, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 365-90.
Laws S, Harper C and Marcus R, 2003, Research for Development, Sage Publications
Makara, S, 1998, Political and Administrative relations in decentralization, in A.
Nsibambi, (ed.) Decentralisation and Civil Society in Uganda: The Quest for
Good Governance, Fountain Publishers, Kampala
Manor, J., 1999, The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralisation, Washington
DC: World Bank.
28
Martinussen, John, 1997, Society, State and Market: A Guide to Competing Theories
of Development, chapter 15, Zed Books, London
Ministry of Education and Sports Uganda, 2001,The Development of Education in
Uganda in the last ten years, Report on the Development of Education for the
46th Session of (ice) 5th, Geneva,
Muduuli, 2006, “Uganda’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan: National Sustainable
Development Strategy Principles Tested” A presentation at international
forum on national sustainable Development Strategies (NSDSs) (Accra, Ghana,
7-9 November 2001)
OECD and African Development Bank, 2005, ‘African Economic Outlook 2004/05:
Uganda’, OECD Emerging Economies, Number 5, pages 425-437, OECD
Development Centre, Paris
Piron L and Norton A, 2004, ‘Politics and the PRSP Approach: Ugandan Case Study’,
working paper presented at the Overseas Development Institute on March
2004
Republic of Uganda (ROU) The Local Governments Act 1997,
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1997/1997065.htm)
Rondinelli, D.A., 1981, “Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective:
Theory and Practice in Developing Countries”, International Review of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 47: 22-42.
Rondinelli, Dennis, J.S. McCullough and R.W. Jonhnson, 1989, “Analyzing
decentralisation policies in developing countries: a political economy
framework”, Development and Change, Vol.20, No.1, pp.57-87
Saito, F, 2000, “Decentralization for Participatory Development in Uganda:
Limitations and Prospects,” Journal of Intercultural Studies, Ryukoku
University
Saito, F, 2006, “Decentralization in Uganda: Challenges for the 21st Century”, Yuck
University, Japan,
[http://www.world.ryukoku.ac.jp/~fumisait/en/ics2000.pdf](accessed on
12.4.2007).
Shaw M.Timothy and Mbabazi P, nd, ‘Two Africas? Two Ugandas? An African
Democratic Developmental State? Or another failed state?’, conference paper
29
Steffensen, J, Per T, Harriet N, E Ssewankambo, Eke, M, 2004, “A Comparative
Analysis of Decentralization in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda,” Final
Synthesis Report, (Washington: The World Bank).
Sswwankiryanga, R, 2004, “Donor dependant Decentralisation and the political
Economy of Aid in Uganda”, Center for Basic Research, Working paper
No.91/2004
Willis K, 2006, ‘Interviewing’ in Desai V and Potter R.B.(editors) Doing
Development Research, Sage Publications, pp.144-152
Work, Robertson, 1999, The Role of Participation and Partnership in Decentralised
Governance: A Brief Synthesis of Policy Lessons and Recommendations of
Nine Country Case Studies on Service Delivery for the Poor
[http://www.unescap.org/pdd/mdg/sharedoc/busdirectory/doc/participationand
partnershippdf.pdf]
World Bank, 2000, World Development Report 2000/1: Attacking Poverty, Oxford
University Press, Oxford
World Bank, 2001, “Decentralisation and governance: does decentralisation improve
public service delivery?” PREM notes, June 2001, Number 55
World Bank, 2002, “Achieving Universal Primary Education in Uganda: The Big
Bang Approach”
[http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/Education-
World Bank, 2007, “A better managed education system in Uganda”,
[http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-
72KM8N?OpenDocument](Accessed on 12.4.2007)
WRI, World Resource Institute, n.d. “Decentralisation: Can It Help the Poor?”
[http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=3782]
30
Appendix 1
Pros and Cons of Decentralisation
Pros Cons
Promotes democracy because it provides better opportunities for local residents to participate in decision-making.
Undermines democracy by empowering local elites, beyond the reach or concern of central government.
Increases efficiency in delivery of public services; delegation of responsibility avoids bottlenecks and bureaucracy.
Worsens delivery of service in the absence of effective controls and oversight.
Provides a chance for poor households to participate in local institutions and have their concerns recognized.
Local institutions mirror the anti-poor biases present at the state level.
Leads to higher quality of public services because of local accountability and sensitivity to local needs.
Quality of services deteriorates due to lack of local capacity and insufficient funds.
Enhances social and economic development, which relies on local knowledge.
Gains arising from participation by local people offset by increased corruption and inequalities among regions.
Increases transparency, accountability, and the response-capacity of government institutions.
Promises too much and overloads capacity of local governments.
Allows greater political representation for diverse political, ethnic, religious, and economic groups in decision-making.
Creates new tensions or ignites dormant ethnic and religious rivalries.
Increases political stability and national unity by allowing citizens to better control public programs at the local level.
Weakens states because it can increase regional inequalities, lead to separatism, or undermine national financial governance.
Source: WRI, n.d. Adapted from ICHRP 2002
31
Appendix 2
Research Questions (RQ)
1. Has education decentralisation improved the provision of education service
delivery in Mbarara?
2. Do the local authorities of Mbarara District have the financial capacity and
autonomy to provide education service to the local residents?
3. Are there effective mechanisms for local people to influence education
policies and hold authorities accountable?
4. RQ 1: Has education decentralisation improved the provision of
education service delivery in Mbarara?
‘Improved education service delivery’ is explained here as greater access to
education and higher quality education which also includes gender equality. To
measure this, the perceptions of all our respondents were sought.
In addition, Headmasters, Education Quality Inspectors, Teachers, Proprietors,
Parents and Education officers were as appropriate, asked questions like the
following (based on Shaw, nd, OECD and ADB, 2005, Kappel et al., 2005)
1. How many students have enrolled in schools from 1997 to date?
2. What is the rate of enrolment, pre and post UPE?
3. What are the Repetition and drop-out rates in the schools, before and after
UPE?
4. What is the completion rate of students, before and after UPE?
5. What has been the boy-girl ratio of total students enrolled before and after
UPE?
6. What has the Pupil-teacher ratio, before and after UPE?
7. What has the Pupil-textbook ratio been, before and after the introduction of
UPE?
32
8. What types of textbooks are supplied? (All required or some of them?)
9. Has the introduction of UPE enhanced/worsened the supply of textbooks in
Q8
10. What is the Pupil-classroom ratio? Is it worse or better than before the
introduction UPE?
11. What has been the Pupil-desk ratio, pre and post UPE?
12. What is the Trained Teacher-Untrained Teacher ratio?
13. What is the Transition Gap from primary to secondary schools?
RQ 2: Do the local authorities of Mbarara District have the financial capacity
and autonomy to provide education service to the local residents?
This question broadly seeks to examine whether education decentralisation is
deconcentrated, delegated or devolved. In terms of ‘capacity’ institutions are to
have the financial ability and human resources to deliver decentralised education
services. ‘Autonomy’ refers to local authorities and schools having the necessary
independence from central government to meet specific local needs.
To measure this, the Education Quality Inspectors at ESA and the Education
Officers at MOE were interviewed. The Secretary of Education at Local Councillor
(LC5) and past members of SMCs were also interviewed using a semi-structured
interview approach and secondary data from the district education office. Key
questions to obtain evidence in this regard are based on Piron and Norton (2004):
1. Do local authorities receive sufficient funds from central government?
2. Do local authorities have the authority and capacity to raise funds locally?
3. Are schools permitted to ask parents to make contributions/pay top-up fees at
government schools?
4. To what extent are local authorities and schools able to independently
determine how education funds from central government are spent?
a. are the details of how the education budget is allocated calculated
locally in order to meet specific local needs?
5. How are headmasters recruited?
33
6. Who determines changes in teacher salaries?
7. Who and How frequently are government schools inspected?
8. Are local authorities and schools able to recruit/train teachers independently?
9. Are schools able to effectively fire teachers as required?
10. Do schools/local authorities have the voice and authority to influence central
government education policy and spending, based on experiences from the
‘delivery side’.
RQ 3: Are there effective mechanisms for local people to influence education
policies and hold authorities accountable?
This question falls within the remit of participation. Participation is effective when
first there is greater inclusiveness. But it is not enough just to have many people
taking part in decision making. There should be quality of participation as well
which means gender balance. Finally participation can only be effective when what
participants’ preferences are heard/carried out (Crook, 2003). Inferentially, if
participants’ views are ignored or unheard, they should be able to exit.
In order to determine the effectiveness of participation within education
decentralisation, we interviewed past members of the SMC and Parents using semi
structured interview approach. The following questions were asked:
Voice
1. What is the composition of the SMC? (total number/gender etc)
2. How is the SMC formed (appointment/election by whom)?
3. How can the SMC be dissolved (ie if election how often? If appointment, how
can the committee’s mandate be ended?)?
4. What is the tenure of the SMC?
5. Are parents’ wishes carried out by the SMC/ Is the SMC responsive to what
parents want?
6. Is the decision-making process in SMC through consensus building or voting?
34
7. Are there any other forms of participation for parents to be involved in school
affairs?
8. Do parents, as citizens themselves, have other channels to express their views at
other institutions (besides periodic elections)?
Information
9. Do parents understand the general education policies (both education
decentralisation and UPE policies) properly?
10. How are parents informed of school affairs and events as well as local politics?
Exit
11. What kinds of parents pull their children out of the UPE schools? Why?
12. Where do these parents take their children to after pulling them out of the
schools?
Do private schools generally provide better education quality than
government aided UPE schools?
35
Appendix 3
Key Stakeholders in the education sector of Uganda
1. Donors
2. Ministry of Education
3. Ministry of Finance
4. Ministry of Local Government
5. Local Councillors (at levels LC1 to LC5)
6. Civil Servants and Administrators
7. Teachers
8. Parents
9. Pupils