Financing of Basic Education

Since the making into law of the Education Act of 1961, successive governments have made efforts to expand basic education as part of the national development agenda (Amedahe and Chandramohan, 2009). As stated at the start of this study, there is a strong

Ministry of Education

Ghana Education Service (GES)

GES- National Headquarters

GES-Regional Offices

GES-District Offices

GES-Circuits

Page 33

belief that basic education is strategic to the development of the country. In line with this agenda, the cost of basic education continues to be borne by the government. What this means is that no issues such as parents’ failure to afford tuition fees and other critical learning resources should serve as an impediment to any child from benefitting from basic education. This is a policy directive that is still in place. In addition to this, the government, through the Ghana School Feeding Programme, provides one free meal for children in some selected schools. The registration fees for candidates of the Basic Education Certificate Examination are also subsidised, all in an effort to ensure that no child fails to progress to the secondary school level because of parents’ inability to pay the fees for the examination. Due to this, the education sector claims huge portion of the national budget. According to Amedahe and Chandramohan (2009), 22% of the budget in 1992 was allocated to the education sector and out of this 45% was spent on the basic education sector alone. The Ministry of Education estimates show that over 11% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product is spent on education and more than 30% of the education annual budget is spent on the basic education sector (MOESS, 2009).

The huge expenditure in the sector has compelled governments over the years to solicit financial support from international donor agencies (Casely-Hayford, 2011). Support from these agencies come in different forms like grants and loans in support of different programmes and projects (see Table 3 below).

Page 34

Table 3: Some International Donor Funding of Basic Education in Ghana

Name of Project Name of Donor Amount (in millions) Period Whole School Development Department For International Development (DFID) £50.00 1988-2005 Teacher Training International

Development Association (IDA)

US$1.10 1990-1994 School Building and

Rehabilitation(EdSAC- II) IDA US$15.20 1990-1994 Primary School Development Project

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) US$35.00 1990 – 1995 Construction of Classrooms European Commission US$14.10 1996-2000 Basic Education Sector Improvement Programmes IDA DFID USAID US$11.04 1996 – 2001 Quality Improvements in Primary School USAID US$53.00 1997-2004 Source: Thompson and Casely-Hayford (2008, pp.13-14)

Aid from these donor agencies have supported the sector significantly. However, the over reliance on them has adverse consequences as their support is sometimes accompanied with conditions which may not be consistent with the underlining objectives of the programmes and projects they intend to support. The inability of the government to satisfy such conditions leads to delays and withdrawal of support and even in some instances, diversification of programmes (King and Palmer, 2010). This raises concerns with respect to ‘national ownership’ of educational policies. Critics claim that in many instances salient programmes are imposed on the sector by these foreign donor agencies (Ayamdoo and Ayine, 2002; Thompson and Casely-Hayford, 2008). For instance, the Education Sector Adjustment Credit (EdSAC-II) project by the International Development Association of the World Bank included a condition that compelled the

Page 35

government to ensure that its recurrent expenditures for basic education did not exceed 62.0 % of the education sector’s total expenditure.

There was also a condition that to achieve total cost recovery, tuition, examination and textbook user fees should be reintroduced into primary schools and all proceeds accrued should be invested into a recurrent fund. Similarly, in the World Bank’s own evaluation of its influence in the educational reforms in 1987, it admitted that although the reforms were driven by the government of Ghana, the Bank had some influence on the shape of programmes as it was the one that persuaded the government to limit vocational training at the Junior High Level to just ‘an introduction to tools’ (Akyeampong, 2017, p.5). Due to this, the Ministry of Education was more accountable to the World Bank rather than the government of Ghana. Such interferences denote what I describe as a ‘new imperialism’ which restricts the ability of the country to decide its own educational agendas (Tikly, 2004, p.190).

This is not the only funding challenge in the sector. There are also instances of delays in the disbursement of approved funds within the Ministry of Education itself. In their study exploring funding of the sector, Ampratwum and Armah-attoh (2010) identified that a key challenge facing the Capitation Grant intervention policy, for example, was that funds from the Ministry of Education were often not released to schools on time which negatively affected academic work in many schools. The Ministry of Education itself seemed to acknowledge this challenge by stating in its 2007 education sector performance report that in addition to supply of physical resources and facilities, timely release of funds was key to ensuring effective functioning of schools (MOESS, 2007).

Inequitable spending and allocations of financial resources across all regions of the country is another key concern as poverty-stricken areas, mostly in rural districts, are under-funded in relation to teachers and resources spent per child in school (Casely- Hayford, 2011). A World Bank research recognised this funding gap. The research, which analysed the spending pattern of Ghana’s education sector, found that poor regions received less than 30% of the financial support required compared to their counterparts in well-resourced regions (World Bank, 2010). This implies that well-resourced schools with less resource deficits continue to enjoy more support, while those located in poor

Page 36

regions and in need of more financial support to improve tend to receive less. The rippling effect of this challenge is the widening in the stratification of education in the country.

Notwithstanding the huge financial burden, successive governments in the country continue to stress free basic education as reflected in the policies for the sector and budgetary allocations to it every year. Having explored the key areas in the basic education sector, the next sections focus specifically on the situation of teachers. The first section discusses the training of basic school teachers.