ADVISORY NOTE
To:
Director of Basic Education Division, Ghana Education
Service
From:
Advisory Unit on Decentralised Education Management,
BED, GES
Document number:
AN007-2011
Date:
28 October 2011
Re: Result of Document Review on SPIP and SPAM report
Result of Document Review on School
Performance Improvement Plan and School
Performance Appraisal Meeting report
Advisory Unit on Decentralised Education Management
Ghana Education Service
[Main Points of This Report]
1. Overview of the document review
This advisory note has studied SPIPs and SPAM reports collected through district offices and is meant to give technical recommendations to improve quality of these documents as these are key documents on school performance management. In this study, the AUDEM has selected 109 SPIPs and 79 SPAMs as samples for evaluation and examined them with evaluation questions agreed by the director of Basic Education Division. The details of scoring on SPIP and SPAM are attached as Annex 1 and 2 respectively. Below are a summary the results of the study.
2. Key findings
1) SPIP
• All of the sample SPIPs use the standard template without or with slightly changing it.
• None of the sample SPIPs stated visions and missions of schools as there is no space in the SPIP template to state them.
• 95% of the sample SPIPs did not indicate any targets of school performance at all.
• 75% of the sample SPIPs showed their detailed calculation of costs for purchasing. Some SPIPs did not attach its costing sheets.
• In 98% of the sample SPIPs, statements of activities are not specific, measurable, nor result-oriented.
• None of the sample SPIPs included school activities funded by other funding sources. Activities are listed only for the capitation grant.
• More than one third of the sample SPIPs did not have signatures of SMC chairpersons. It is not clear whether these SPIPs were approved by them or not. If not, these should not have been approved.
What can be concluded from the above points as findings of this study are as follows:
• Unfortunately the current SPIP is not a plan aiming at improving school performance
comprehensively because this is not based on visions and missions of schools and there are no annual performance targets shown in the plans. In addition, there is no mid-term perspective of school performance.
• The SPIP template itself creates difficulties for the plan to be result-oriented as it puts no space for such critical information as vision/mission, performance targets and funding source
indication.
• It is concerned that more than one third of SPIPs did not have signatures of SMC chairpersons. It is the matter of transparency and accountability of school management. If the SPIP preparation process is not open to communities, it is difficult to get their support.
2) SPAM
• It was only 36.7% of the samples that confirmed participation of all stakeholders. Others lacked particularly students' presence or no participant record shown in the reports.
• There is no report on results of SPIP in most of the SPAM reports (97.5%). This must be mainly because most of SPIPs are just lists of items for procurement with no relation to performance targets. As a matter of course, it is not meaningful to review the purchasing lists for
performance review.
• Most of SPAM reports (91.1%) raised their problems, many of which are focusing on basic morale issues such as absenteeism of teachers and students, lack of respect on school hours, truancy, negative influence of video shows and TV games, no concentration during classes, students taken to funerals and domestic works by parents, and sexual abuses, rather than issues on academic performance. Strategies shown in most of the sample SPAM reports are also made for these basic conditions of schools.
• It should be seriously noted that six SPAM reports out of 79 (7.6%) reported sexual abuse cases by teachers.
• There is no discussion reported with regard to out of school children.
• There is no financial reporting of school at all.
• Many SPAM reports indicated their targets on BECE or indicators on School Report Card, but no other targets are set on key indicators such as Pupil Teacher Ratio, Pupil Textbook Ratio, Pupil Classroom Ratio, and so on.
3. Recommendations
At this moment, there seems no management cycle on school performance established in schools. In order to establish the management cycle that enables schools to improve their performance
continuously, the following points are recommended:
• SPIP template should be revised by including statements of school vision and mission, which are principle objectives of schools and the basis of all activities planned in schools, and targets on key performance indicators in schools, which are consistent to the ESP key indicators. The template must also facilitate result-oriented planning. A suggested template of the revised SPIP including a suggested list of the key performance indicators is attached as Annex 3.
• SPIP should be made as a comprehensive performance improvement plan of a school, not just for money release of the capitation grant. Activities supported by other funding sources should be included in SPIP.
• Targets and activities should be stated in a SMART manner.
• It should be made sure that a SPIP is mandated to be approved by a SMC chairperson through discussions in SMC. SPIP without a signature of a SMC chairperson should not be accepted.
• A printed template should be distributed to schools so that schools do not have to hand-write the SPIP matrix by themselves.
2) SPAM
• It should be made sure that all stakeholders including students participate in SPAM.
• SPIP should be one of the major items that are reviewed during SPAM. Results of SPIP should be informed and what need to be included in the next SPIP need to be identified during SPAM.
• Other than moralistic issues in schools, SPAM should focus on how to improve entire school performance including academic performance by reviewing status of key performance indicators in major areas including out of school children.
• There should be strong interventions to eradicate sexual abuse cases from all schools.
• A SPAM report should include school financial reporting (income/expenditure) for discussion during SPAM.
• A printed template of SPAM report should be made and distributed to schools so that all reporting requirements are satisfied.
1. Introduction
Aiming at making detailed diagnosis on quality of key management documents at the decentralised levels, i.e. 1) Annual District Operation Plan (ADEOP), 2) Annual District Performance Report (ADPR), 3) School Performance Improvement Plan (SPIP), and 4) reports of School Performance Appraisal Meeting (SPAM), the Advisory Unit on Decentralised Education Management (AUDEM) collected samples of these documents from districts and schools throughout the period from December 2010 to February 2011. The diagnosis on ADEOP and ADPR was completed and reported as the AN003-2011 in May 2011. This advisory note has studied SPIPs and SPAM reports collected through district offices and is meant to give technical recommendations to improve quality of these documents as these are key documents on school performance management.
In this study, the AUDEM has selected 109 SPIPs and 79 SPAMs as samples for evaluation and examined them with evaluation questions agreed by the director of Basic Education Division.
Below are the results of the study.
2. Review of SPIP
1) Number of samples reviewed: 109
Each district was requested through regional offices to submit three SPIPs. Out of the three SPIPs, one was randomly selected by the unit and reviewed. As 109 districts responded to this request, the number of samples reviewed was 109.
2) Submission rate by region
In total 109 districts (64%) submitted SPIPs in their districts. Details are shown as below. The highest submission rate among regions was 80% of Greater Accra Region and Northern Region. The lowest was 28.6% of Eastern Region.
Number of districts that submitted their SPIPs
Total
number of districts
Submission %
Ashanti 27 19 70.4%
Brong Ahafo 22 16 72.7%
Central 17 7 41.2%
Eastern 21 6 28.6%
Northern 20 16 80.0%
Upper East 9 7 77.8%
Upper West 9 6 66.7%
Volta 18 11 61.1%
Western 17 13 76.5%
Total 170 109 64.1%
3) Evaluation questions and scoring
Questions used for evaluation of SPIPs and scores allotted are as follows:
Q1 SPIP form is used without changing it?: Without change=2, With some change=1, Completely different=0 Q2 School vision and mission are clearly stated?: Both are stated clearly=2, Partially stated=1, No statement=0 Q3 Relevance of targets: Fully relevant=2, Partially relevant=1, Not relevant/not exist=0
Q4 Relevance of costing: Fully relevant=2, Partially relevant=1, Not relevant=0 Q5 Activities are SMART?: All are SMART=2, Some are SMART=1, Not at all=0 Q6 Activities funded by other funding sources than CG are included?: Yes=2, No=0 Q7 The plan is signed by SMC chairperson?: Yes=2, No=0
Full score=14
These questions try to see 1) whether the SPIP follows the guidelines, 2) whether the SPIP is made based on the school vision and mission, 3) whether targets, costing and activities are properly stated, 4) whether it is a comprehensive school plan or just prepared to receive the capitation grant, and 5) whether it is made with SMC or made only inside the school.
4) Actual scores
As shown below, most (81.7%) of the sample SPIPs got scores between 4 to 6 in total while no SPIP got 0 or 14 (full score). Greater Accra has four samples with scores between 7 to 9. The percentage of SPIPs that got more than 50% of total score (=7) was only 5.5%. The details of scoring are attached as Annex 1. Number of samples by score range/ region
Score range 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-14 Total
Ashanti 0 3 15 1 0 19
Brong Ahafo 0 2 14 0 0 16
Central 0 0 7 0 0 7
Eastern 0 0 6 0 0 6
Greater Accra 0 0 4 4 0 8
Northern 0 2 13 1 0 16
Upper West 0 2 4 0 0 6
Volta 0 2 9 0 0 11
Western 0 2 11 0 0 13
Total 0 14 89 6 0 109
0.0% 12.8% 81.7% 5.5% 0.0%
As shown below, for Q1 (Use of form without change), Q4 (Relevant costing) and Q7 (SMC signature) many samples got high scores while few got good scores for other questions.
Number of samples by scores/ questions Q1: Use
of form without change?
Q2: Vision and Mission clear?
Q3: Target relevant?
Q4: Costing relevant?
Q5: SMART activities?
Q6:
Activities by other sources included?
Q7: Signed by SMC CP?
# of 2 101 0 2 82 2 0 72
% 93% 0% 2% 75% 2% 0% 66%
# of 1 8 0 3 2 7 0 0
% 7% 0% 3% 2% 6% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 109 104 25 100 109 37
% 0% 100% 95% 23% 92% 100% 34%
5) Findings
Points noted from the above scoring are as follows:
• All of the sample SPIPs use the standard template without or with slightly changing it.
• None of the sample SPIPs stated visions and missions of schools as there is no space in the SPIP template to state them.
• 95% of the sample SPIPs did not indicate any targets of school performance at all.
• 75% of the sample SPIPs showed their detailed calculation of costs for purchasing. Some SPIPs did not attach its costing sheets.
• None of the sample SPIPs included school activities funded by other funding sources. Activities are listed only for the capitation grant.
• More than one third of the sample SPIPs did not have signatures of SMC chairpersons. It is not clear whether these SPIPs were approved by them or not. If not, these should not have been approved.
What can be concluded from the above points as findings of this study are as follows:
• Unfortunately the current SPIP is not a plan aiming at improving school performance
comprehensively because this is not based on visions and missions of schools and there are no annual performance targets shown in the plans. In addition, there is no mid-term perspective of school performance.
• Rather, this is functioning just as a requirement for release of the capitation grants as this includes very detailed calculation of procurement items and excludes any activity funded by other funding sources.
• The SPIP template itself creates difficulties for the plan to be result-oriented as it puts no space for such critical information as vision/mission, performance targets and funding source
indication.
• It is concerned that more than one third of SPIPs did not have signatures of SMC chairpersons. It is the matter of transparency and accountability of school management. If the SPIP preparation process is not open to communities, it is difficult to get their support.
6) Other remarks
55% of the sample SPIPs were fully or partially hand-written. Some are difficult to have clear understanding on the contents.
3. Review of SPAM reports
1) Number of samples reviewed: 79
Each district was requested through regional offices to submit three SPAM reports. Out of the three SPAM reports, one was randomly selected and reviewed. As 79 districts responded to this request, the number of samples reviewed became 79. Below is the breakdown of the samples as SPAMs are
conducted at several levels such as school, circuit and district levels. More than half of the SPAM reports reviewed were school SPAMs. The half of the rests were district and circuit SPAMs respectively.
20 16 43 79 25.3% 20.3% 54.4% 100.0%
2) Submission rate by region
The submission rate (how much percent of districts having submitted their SPAM reports) was not satisfactory, as low as 46.5% in total. As shown below, especially Central Region, Eastern Region and Upper East Region largely contributed to the low rate.
# of
districts Submission %
Ashanti 27 13 48.1%
Brong Ahafo 22 12 54.5%
Central 17 4 23.5%
Eastern 21 7 33.3%
Greater Accra 10 8 80.0%
Northern 20 9 45.0%
Upper East 9 2 22.2%
Upper West 9 4 44.4%
Volta 18 9 50.0%
Western 17 11 64.7%
Total 170 79 46.5%
3) Evaluation questions and scoring
Questions used for evaluation of SPAM reports and scores allotted are as follows:
Q1 The meeting has reviewed the results of SPIP?: Fully reviewed=2, Partially reviewed+1, Not reviewed=0
Q2 The meeting included participants from all stakeholders (SMC members, teachers, students, PTA and parents)?: Fully participated=2, partially participated=1, Only few or unknown=0
Q3 The meeting has successfully identified problems that affect school performance?: All problems identified=2, Partly identified=1, Not identified=0
Q4 The meeting has successfully set a range of relevant and achievable targets for next year?: Fully relevant and achievable=2, Relevant and achievable in some extent=1, Not relevant nor achievable=0
Q5 The meeting has successfully developed relevant strategies to achieve these targets?: Fully relevant strategies developed=2, Relevant in some extent=1, Not relevant at all=0
These questions try to see 1) whether the SPAM is linked to the SPIP, 2) whether all stakeholders are represented, and 3) whether problems, targets and strategies are properly indicated.
4) Actual scores
As shown below, most (94.9%) of the sample SPAM reports got scores between 1 to 6 in total, below half of the full score, while three SPAM reports got 0 score in total. The details of scoring are attached as Annex 2.
Distribution of score Score
range # of samples %
0 3 3.8%
1-3 32 40.5%
4-6 43 54.4%
7-9 1 1.3%
10-12 0 0.0%
As seen below, most of the sample SPAM reports got 0 score for Q1 (SPIP review) and Q6
(recommendations to SPIP). Almost half of the sample SPAM reports did not show any targets for the next term (Q4).
Q1: SPIP result reviewed?
Q2: All stakeholders participated?
Q3: Problems identified?
Q4: Relevant and achievable targets set?
Q5: Relevant strategies developed?
Q6: Specific actions for SPIP recommended?
# of 2 0 29 17 2 4 1
% 0.0% 36.7% 21.5% 2.5% 5.1% 1.3%
# of 1 2 32 55 39 63 1
% 2.5% 40.5% 69.6% 49.4% 79.7% 1.3%
# of 0 77 18 7 38 12 77
% 97.5% 22.8% 8.9% 48.1% 15.2% 97.5%
5) Findings
Points noted from the above scoring and the studies on reported contents are as follows:
• There is no report on results of SPIP in most of the SPAM reports (97.5%). This must be mainly because most of SPIPs are just lists of items for procurement with no relation to performance targets. As a matter of course, it is not meaningful to review the purchasing lists for
performance review.
• Most of SPAM reports (91.1%) raised their problems, many of which are focusing on basic morale issues such as absenteeism of teachers and students, lack of respect on school hours, truancy, negative influence of video shows and TV games, no concentration during classes, students taken to funerals and domestic works by parents, and sexual abuses, rather than issues on academic performance. Strategies shown in most of the sample SPAM reports are also made for these basic conditions of schools.
• It should be seriously noted that six SPAM reports out of 79 (7.6%) reported sexual abuse cases by teachers.
• There is no discussion reported with regard to out of school children.
• There is no financial reporting of school at all.
• Many SPAM reports indicated their targets on BECE or indicators on School Report Card, but no other targets are set on key indicators such as Pupil Teacher Ratio, Pupil Textbook Ratio, Pupil Classroom Ratio, and so on.
4. Recommendations
At this moment, there seems no management cycle on school performance established in schools. In order to establish the management cycle that enables schools to improve their performance
continuously, the following points are recommended:
1) SPIP
• SPIP template should be revised by including statements of school vision and mission, which are principle objectives of schools and the basis of all activities planned in schools, and targets on key performance indicators in schools, which are consistent to the ESP key indicators. The template must also facilitate result-oriented planning. A suggested template of the revised SPIP including a suggested list of the key performance indicators is attached as Annex 3.
• SPIP should be made as a comprehensive performance improvement plan of a school, not just for money release of the capitation grant. Activities supported by other funding sources should be included in SPIP.
• It should be made sure that a SPIP is mandated to be approved by a SMC chairperson through discussions in SMC. SPIP without a signature of a SMC chairperson should not be accepted.
• A printed template should be distributed to schools so that schools do not have to hand-write the SPIP matrix by themselves.
2) SPAM
• It should be made sure that all stakeholders including students participate in SPAM.
• SPIP should be one of the major items that are reviewed during SPAM. Results of SPIP should be informed and what need to be included in the next SPIP need to be identified during SPAM.
• Other than moralistic issues in schools, SPAM should focus on how to improve entire school performance including academic performance by reviewing status of key performance indicators in major areas including out of school children.
• There should be strong interventions to eradicate sexual abuse cases from all schools.
• A SPAM report should include school financial reporting (income/expenditure) for discussion during SPAM.
• A printed template of SPAM report should be made and distributed to schools so that all reporting requirements are satisfied.
• Results of all the key performance indicators suggested above should be included in the School Report Card and distributed before SPAM meetings.
Annex 1: Scoring on SPIP
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: Us e of for
m
witho ut cha
nge?
Q2: Vi sion an
d
Missio n clea
r?
Q3: Ta rget relev
ant? Q4: C
osting relev ant?
Q5: SM ART activit ies?
Q6: A ctivit
ies by
other s ource
s
include d?
Q7: S igned b
y SMC
CP? Total S core
Gene ral Rem
arks
Ashanti Region.
1 Adansi North Asokwa D/A Primary 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Payment of sports and culture fee to district??, provision of uniform?, 2 Adansi South
3 Afigya-Kwabre new Akom D/A JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 Less components, 4 Ahafo Ano North BOAGYM 1 JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
5 Ahafo Ano South Nstem D/A JHS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 No costing sheet attached 6 Amansie Central Jacobu R/C PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 No costing sheet attached 7 Amansie West Abodom R/C PS 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 6
8 Asante Akim North Municipal Konongo Mines M/A PS 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 7
9 Asante Akim South Tokwai D/A JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 Well prepared form used but inputs from school are only what need to be bought, responsible person not shown, 10 Atwima Kwanwoma new
11 Atwima Mponua Otaakrom D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 12 Atwima Nwabiagya
13 Bekwai Asante Edwinase Methodist PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 14 Bosome Freho new
15 Bosomtwe 16 Ejisu-Juaben Municipal
17 Ejura/ Sekyedumase Ejura R/C Primary B 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Only costing sheet 18 Kumasi Metropolitan
19 Kwabre
20 Mampong Municipal Mampong Ahumadiyya JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 21 Obuasi Municipal Obuasi Pedest Primary D 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 22 Offinso Municipal ASAMANKEMA/DENTIN
METHODIST PS
2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
23 Offinso North new SAWUA·MFANTE D/A PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24 Sekyere Afram Plains new BESORO METHODIST PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 Sekyere Central new Nsuta Presby PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 26 Sekyere East Ntunkumso D/A JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 27 Sekyere South KONA D/A '2' JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
Actual Score total 37 0 0 20 3 0 28 88
Full score total 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 456
% 97.4% 0.0% 0.0% 52.6% 7.9% 0.0% 73.7% 22.4% Total Number examined
19 % of submission
70.4%
# of 2 18 0 0 9 0 0 14
% 95% 0% 0% 47% 0% 0% 74%
# of 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0
% 5% 0% 0% 11% 16% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 19 19 8 16 19 5
% 0% 100% 100% 42% 84% 100% 26%
Brong Ahafo Region
1 Asunafo North Municipal GOASO RIC 'B' PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Asunafo South
3 Asutifi KENY ASI NO.1 R/C PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Time frame more than one year, 4 Atebubu-Amantin
5 Berekum Municipal 6 Dormaa East new
7 Dormaa Municipal Twunkrom Presby KG/PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 Jaman North Jamera R/C JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 9 Jaman South Kwameseucrom R/C JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 10 Kintampo North Municipal CHIRANDA PRESBY PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 11 Kintampo South KRUTAKYI D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 12 Nkoranza North new BUSUNYA R/C JHS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 13 Nkoranza South AKUMSA DOMASE COMM. KG 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 14 Pru
15 Sene Nturubuso D/A PS 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 Only costing sheet 16 Sunyani Municipal Sunyani SDA JHS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
17 Sunyani West new
18 Tain Asuafu SDA JHS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
19 Tano North Duayau Kwanta Ibrahimia Islam KG/PS
2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4
20 Tano South Becham St.Joseph Practice 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
21 Techiman Municipal ST. PETER'S R/C BASIC 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 PTA chairman signed it. 22 Wenchi Municipal ASWAQ 'A' BASIC 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4
Actual Score total 31 0 0 20 0 0 18 69
Full score total 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 384
% 96.9% 0.0% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 56.3% 22.1% Total Number examined
16 % of submission
72.7%
# of 2 15 0 0 10 0 0 9
% 94% 0% 0% 63% 0% 0% 56%
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: Us e of for
m
witho ut cha
nge?
Q2: Vi sion an
d
Missio n clea
r?
Q3: Ta rget relev
ant? Q4: C
osting relev ant?
Q5: SM ART activit ies?
Q6: A ctivit
ies by
other s ource
s
include d?
Q7: S igned b
y SMC
CP? Total S core
Gene ral R
emark s
# of 0 0 16 16 6 16 16 7
% 0% 84% 84% 32% 84% 84% 37%
Central Region
1 Abura/ Asebu/ Kwamankese Apewosika/Putubiw Methodist KG
2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
2 Agona East new 3 Agona West Municipal
4 Ajumako/ Enyan/ Essiam Ajumako Methodist Basic 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 5 Asikuma/ Odoben/ Brakwa
6 Assin North Municipal 7 Assin South 8 Awutu-Senya new
9 Cape Coast Metropolitan ABOOM AME ZION 'B' Basic 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 10 Effutu Municipal
11 Gomoa East new
12 Gomoa West TARKWA CATHOLIC JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 13 Komenda/ Edina/ Eguafo/ Abirem AMPENYI M/ A KG 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 14 Mfantseman Municipal Mankessim Methodist B 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 15 Twifo/ Heman/ Lower Denkyira Twifo No.9 KG/PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 16 Upper Denkyira East Municipal
17 Upper Denkyira West new
Actual Score total 14 0 0 14 0 0 14 42
Full score total 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 168
% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 28.6% Total Number examined
7
% of submission
41.2%
# of 2 7 0 0 7 0 0 7
% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
# of 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 7 7 0 7 7 0
% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Eastern Region 1 Akuapim North 2 Akuapim South Municipal 3 Akyemansa new
4 Asuogyaman Nnudu Presby KG 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 5 Atiwa
6 Birim Central Municipal ODA ST. ANTHONY PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 7 Birim North new New Abirem A JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 8 Birim South new AKROSO L/A JHS 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 9 East Akim Municipal
10 Fanteakwa
11 Kwaebibirem Salefe D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 12 Kwahu East new
13 Kwahu North 14 Kwahu South 15 Kwahu West Municipal 16 Lower Manya Krobo
17 New-Juaben Municipal Trinity Presby Model PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 18 Suhum/ Kraboa/ Coaltar
19 Upper Manya Krobo new 20 West Akim Municipal 21 Yilo Krobo
Actual Score total 12 0 0 12 1 0 6 31
Full score total 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 144
% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 8.3% 0.0% 50.0% 24.3% Total Number examined
6
% of submission
28.6%
# of 2 6 0 0 6 0 0 3
% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 50%
# of 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 6 6 0 5 6 3
% 0% 100% 100% 0% 83% 100% 50%
Greater Accra Region
1 Accra Metropolitan ABEKA3 JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Targets not stated, 2 Adenta municipal new BETHEL PRESBY BASIC - OTANO
PS
2 0 1 2 1 0 2 8 Good to have indicators but targets not specific,
3 Ashaiman municipal new Ashaiman No.3 Primary A 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 7 No target stated, good to show indicators, 4 Dangme East LUHUOR D/A PS AND KG 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 Targets not stated, mostly shopping list 5 Dangme West AFIENYA D/A BASIC 'A' 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 No target stated,
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: Us e of for
m
witho ut cha
nge?
Q2: Vi sion an
d
Missio n clea
r?
Q3: Ta rget relev
ant? Q4: C
osting relev ant?
Q5: SM ART activit ies?
Q6: A ctivit
ies by
other s ource
s
include d?
Q7: S igned b
y SMC
CP? Total S core
Gene ral R
emark s
7 Ga West Municipal ST. PAUL's Anglican Basic 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 Ledzekuku-Krowor municipal new
9 Tema Metropolitan
10 Ga South (Weija) municipal Annya Community Experimental JHS
2 0 0 2 2 0 2 8 Targets not stated,
Actual Score total 16 0 3 14 6 0 12 51
Full score total 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 184
% 100.0% 0.0% 18.8% 87.5% 37.5% 0.0% 75.0% 33.2% Total Number examined
8
% of submission
80.0%
# of 2 8 0 1 7 2 0 6
% 100% 0% 13% 88% 25% 0% 75%
# of 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0
% 0% 0% 13% 0% 25% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 8 6 1 4 8 2
% 0% 100% 75% 13% 50% 100% 25%
Northern Region
1 Bole Carpenter R/C PS 2 0 2 2 1 0 2 9 Target clearly mentioned! all others also with target statements.
2Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo
3 Central Gonja
4 Chereponi new SANGBANA R/C PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4
5 East Gonja Lamsa D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Terrible description of activities 6 East Mamprusi Baptist PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
7 Gushegu
8Karaga Namburugu L/A PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
9 Kpandai new DON-THEOBOlD COMPLEX JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 10 Nanumba North Binchela Tanga PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 11Nanumba South Nakpayili D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 12 Saboba
13Savelugu/ Nanton Savelugu D/A JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 14 Sawla-Tuna-Kalba Kpembe D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 15Tamale Metropolitan IMANIA ISLAMIC PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 16 Tolon/ Kumbungu KUMBUNOU D/A J.H.S 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 17 West Gonja JAFO EXPERIMENTAL PRIMARY 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 18West Mamprusi ST JOSEPH’S R/C PRIMARY B’ 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 19 Bawku Municipal Zohe EP JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 20Zabzugu/ Tatale
SABARE NO.2 D/A PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Actual Score total 32 0 2 28 1 0 22 85
Full score total 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 312
% 100.0% 0.0% 6.3% 87.5% 3.1% 0.0% 68.8% 33.0% Total Number examined
16 % of submission
80.0%
# of 2 16 0 1 14 0 0 11
% 100% 0% 6% 88% 0% 0% 69%
# of 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 16 15 2 15 16 5
% 0% 100% 94% 13% 94% 100% 31%
Upper East Region
1 Bawku West Yikurugu PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Required resource: money and time !?, 2 Bolgatanga Municipal
3 Bongo ATAMPIISI PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4
4 Builsa Ayieta PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
5 Garu-Tempane DENUGU D/A PS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Only exam 6 Kassena Nankana West new
7 Kassena/ Nankana Nangalikinia PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8 Talensi-Nabdam Christ the King PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
9 Bawku Municipal Winamzua PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 All actions are to ask price,
Actual Score total 13 0 0 12 0 0 6 31
Full score total 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 168
% 92.9% 0.0% 0.0% 85.7% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 22.0% Total Number examined
7
% of submission
77.8%
# of 2 6 0 0 6 0 0 3
% 86% 0% 0% 86% 0% 0% 43%
# of 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 7 7 1 7 7 4
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: Us e of for
m
witho ut cha
nge?
Q2: Vi sion an
d
Missio n clea
r?
Q3: Ta rget relev
ant? Q4: C
osting relev ant?
Q5: SM ART activit ies?
Q6: A ctivit
ies by
other s ource
s
include d?
Q7: S igned b
y SMC
CP? Total S core
Gene ral R
emark s
2 Lambussie Karni new
3 Lawra Naa Imoru JHS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4 Nadowli KALSEGRA R/C JHS 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 Activity is confused with resources needed 5 Sissala East Dolibizon Basic 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4
6 Sissala West Gwollu D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 7 Wa East Kunyebing Roman Chatholic PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 8 Wa Municipal
9 Wa West Lassia Tuolu Cathoric PS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
Actual Score total 11 0 0 8 0 0 6 25
Full score total 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 152
% 91.7% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 19.1% Total Number examined
6
% of submission
66.7%
# of 2 5 0 0 4 0 0 3
% 83% 0% 0% 67% 0% 0% 50%
# of 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 6 6 2 6 6 3
% 0% 100% 100% 33% 100% 100% 50%
Volta Region
1 Adaklu-Anyigbe Adaklu Aziedukofe L.A. PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 2Akatsi
3 Biakoye District new
4Ho Municipal KABORE 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Signed by PTA
5 Hohoe Municipal
6Jasikan JASIKAN E.P. J.H.S. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Problem and expected outcome stated!, 7 Kadjebi No info 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Problem and expected outcome stated!, 8Keta Municipal A VETE L. A. BASIC 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4
9 Ketu North new 10Ketu South
11 Kpando Kpando Dzoandti D/A JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 Problem statement 12 Krachi East Ayirafie Battor D/A KG 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4
13 Krachi West
14 Nkwanta Nkwanta L/A JSSA 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 15 Nkwanta North new Nyameboa L/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 16 North Tongu
17 South Dayi KPEYIBORME L.A. PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 18South Tongu Agbagorme L.A. KG/PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
Actual Score total 20 0 2 18 0 0 12 52
Full score total 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 232
% 90.9% 0.0% 9.1% 81.8% 0.0% 0.0% 54.5% 26.7% Total Number examined
11 % of submission
61.1%
# of 2 9 0 0 9 0 0 6
% 82% 0% 0% 82% 0% 0% 55%
# of 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
% 18% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 11 9 2 11 11 5
% 0% 100% 82% 18% 100% 100% 45%
Western Regions 1 Ahanta West 2 Aowin/ Suaman
3 Bia Debiso Methodist C PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 4 Bibiani/ Anhwiaso/ Bekwai
5 Ellembelle new Ekpoku Tamdah D/A JHS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Success indicator stated,
6 Jomoro Takinta D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
7 Juaboso PATAKRO D/C KG 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
8 Mpohor/ Wassa East DABOASE D/A JHS 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 Just a purchasing list 9 Nzema East Municipal Ahlesunna Islamic PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
10 Prestea-Huni Valley new Aboso Catholic PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 11 Sefwi Akontombra new Kofikrom Wang JHS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 12 Sefwi-Wiawso PUNIKROM D/C PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 13 Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan
14 Shama new ASSORKO ESSAMAN D/A JHS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Success indicator stated,
15 Tarkwa Nsuaem Municipal Essamang Kofi Mensah JHS 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Problem, expected outcome and success indicator in the format
16 Wasa Amenfi East Wasa Akropong D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 6
17 Wasa Amenfi West NYAME DOME D/A PS 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Capitation fee to district??
Actual Score total 24 0 0 20 0 0 20 64
Full score total 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 264
% 92.3% 0.0% 0.0% 76.9% 0.0% 0.0% 76.9% 28.0% Total Number examined
13 % of submission
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: Us e of for
m
witho ut cha
nge?
Q2: Vi sion an
d
Missio n clea
r?
Q3: Ta rget relev
ant? Q4: C
osting relev ant?
Q5: SM ART activit ies?
Q6: A ctivit
ies by
other s ource
s
include d?
Q7: S igned b
y SMC
CP? Total S core
Gene ral R
emark s
# of 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 13 13 3 13 13 3
% 0% 100% 100% 23% 100% 100% 23%
Total
Actual Score total 210 0 7 166 11 0 144 538 Full score total 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 2464 % 96.3% 0.0% 3.2% 76.1% 5.0% 0.0% 66.1% 25.8% Total Number examined
109 % of submission
64.1%
# of 2 101 0 2 82 2 0 72
% 93% 0% 2% 75% 2% 0% 66%
# of 1 8 0 3 2 7 0 0
% 7% 0% 3% 2% 6% 0% 0%
# of 0 0 109 104 25 100 109 37
% 0% 100% 95% 23% 92% 100% 34%
Scoring
Q1 SPIP form is used without changing it?: Without change=2, With some change=1, Completely different=0 Q2 School vision and mission are clearly stated?: Both are stated clearly=2, Partially stated=1, No statement=0 Q3 Relevance of targets: Fully relevant=2, Partially relevant=1, Not relevant/not exist=0
Q4 Relevance of costing: Fully relevant=2, Partially relevant=1, Not relevant=0 Q5 Activities are SMART?: All are SMART=2, Some are SMART=1, Not at all=0 Q6 Activities funded by other funding sources than CG are included?: Yes=2, No=0 Q7 The plan is signed by SMC chairperson?: Yes=2, No=0
Annex 2: Scoring on SPAM reports
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: S PIP re
sult
review ed?
Q2: A ll stak
ehold ers
partic ipated
?
Q3: Pr oblem
s
identi fied?
Q4: R eleva
nt and
achiev able t
argets set?
Q5: R elevan
t stra tegies
develo ped?
Q6: S pecif
ic acti ons f
or
SPIP r ecomme
nded ?
Total S core
Gene ral Rem
arks
Ashanti Region. 1 Adansi North 2 Adansi South 3 Afigya-Kwabre new
4 Ahafo Ano North KOJOBETIAKO D/A PS 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 Participation of SMC members and students not recorded, 5 Ahafo Ano South PEWODIE, KUNSU-DOTIEM AND
ASEMPANAYE SCHOOL COMMUNITIES
0 2 2 1 1 0 6
6 Amansie Central St.Peters Roman Catholic JHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It is not a record of SPAM. 7 Amansie West Essuowin Methodist JHS 0 1 2 2 1 0 6 Students not participate, 8 Asante Akim North Municipal KONONGO!ODUMASI NORTH
AND SOUTH CIRCUITS
0 2 1 1 0 0 4
9 Asante Akim South 10 Atwima Kwanwoma new
11 Atwima Mponua District SPAM 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 12 Atwima Nwabiagya
13 Bekwai Asante Ehurem Methodist PS 0 2 1 2 0 0 5 14 Bosome Freho new
15 Bosomtwe 16 Ejisu-Juaben Municipal 17 Ejura/ Sekyedumase 18 Kumasi Metropolitan 19 Kwabre
20 Mampong Municipal Abuontem Circuit 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 21 Obuasi Municipal
22 Offinso Municipal T.I AHMADIVYA JHS 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 Students and teachers not represented, 23 Offinso North new
24 Sekyere Afram Plains new Kumawu Circuit 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 No numerical analysis, 25 Sekyere Central new Msuta Presby PS 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 Only BECE targets, 26 Sekyere East Awaham/Brofoydr D/A JHS 0 1 1 0 1 0 3
27 Sekyere South Wiamoase Dinn Islamic JHS, Agona Presby JHS and Asamang Amoakohene D/A JHS
0 1 2 0 2 0 5 Students not represented,
Brong Ahafo Region
1 Asunafo North Municipal District report 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Three schools selected 2 Asunafo South
3 Asutifi District report 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Three schools selected 4 Atebubu-Amantin
5 Berekum Municipal 6 Dormaa East new
7 Dormaa Municipal District report 0 2 2 1 1 0 6 Three schools selected, only BECE target
8 Jaman North
9 Jaman South Abirikasu JHS 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Not clear if SMC and PTA represented, only BECE target, 10 Kintampo North Municipal
11 Kintampo South
12 Nkoranza North new District report 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Performance not reviewed, only roles of stakeholders discussed 13 Nkoranza South District report 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Almost same as Nkoranza North 14 Pru
15 Sene District report 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Part of GRAIL?, 16 Sunyani Municipal Susec Model Basic School 0 2 1 1 1 0 5
17 Sunyani West new
18 Tain ATOMFOSO R/C JHS 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 Only BECE target, 19 Tano North District report 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 5 circuit centers covered 20 Tano South District report 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 3 selected schools covered, 21 Techiman Municipal Municipal report 0 1 1 1 2 0 5 Students not represented, good
for showing responsible officers for actions,
22 Wenchi Municipal
Central Region
1 Abura/ Asebu/ Kwamankese 2 Agona East new 3 Agona West Municipal
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: S PIP re
sult
review ed?
Q2: A ll stak
ehold ers
partic ipated
?
Q3: Pr oblem
s
identi fied?
Q4: R eleva
nt and
achiev able t
argets set?
Q5: R elevan
t stra tegies
develo ped?
Q6: S pecif
ic acti ons f
or
SPIP r ecomme
nded ?
Total S core
Gene ral Rem
arks
8 Awutu-Senya new 9 Cape Coast Metropolitan
10 Effutu Municipal GHAHADZE M/A PS 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Students participation unknown, 11 Gomoa East new
12 Gomoa West Akyemfo D/A Basic School 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 13 Komenda/ Edina/ Eguafo/ Abirem Municipal
14 Mfantseman Municipal Waakrom Cath. PS 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 SPAM format 2007, representation unknown, 15 Twifo/ Heman/ Lower Denkyira
16 Upper Denkyira East Municipal 17 Upper Denkyira West new Eastern Region
1 Akuapim North 2 Akuapim South Municipal 3 Akyemansa new
4 Asuogyaman Akisma Presby PS/JHS 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 SPAM form, participants unknown,
5 Atiwa
6 Birim Central Municipal ASlBIRlM L/A JHS 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 7 Birim North new
8 Birim South new BANTAMA ZION JHS 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 9 East Akim Municipal
10 Fanteakwa
11 Kwaebibirem AKAWANI-AGYAPAYE L/A, OLD NTRONANG L/A AND ASUOM - AMANFROM L/A
0 2 1 1 1 0 5
12 Kwahu East new
13 Kwahu North Mem Chemfre Circuit 0 1 2 0 2 0 5 Students not represented, 14 Kwahu South
15 Kwahu West Municipal
16 Lower Manya Krobo AKUSE HOLY FAMILY SCHOOL 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Students not represented, 17 New-Juaben Municipal TRINITY PRESBY MODEL SCHOOL 0 2 1 1 1 0 5
18 Suhum/ Kraboa/ Coaltar 19 Upper Manya Krobo new 20 West Akim Municipal 21 Yilo Krobo Greater Accra Region
1 Accra Metropolitan Apenkwa Circuit 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
2 Adenta municipal new ADJIRINGANOR CIRCUIT 0 2 2 1 1 0 6 BECE is only the performance measurement?
3 Ashaiman municipal new
4 Dangme East ADA FOAH R.C. JHS 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 Problems on teacher side and school management not discussed, review format 5 Dangme West DODOWA CIRCUIT 0 2 1 1 1 0 5
6 Ga East Municipal DABA YARA PS 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 7 Ga West Municipal SAMSAM-ODUMASE M/A JHS 0 2 1 1 1 0 5
8 Ledzekuku-Krowor municipal newNungua LEKMA '3'&'4' PS 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 Students not represented, SPIP attached but not reviewed 9 Tema Metropolitan
10 Ga South (Weija) municipal MALLAM D/A 1/2 School 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 Northern Region
1 Bole
2Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo
3 Central Gonja 4 Chereponi new
5 East Gonja 6 East Mamprusi 7 Gushegu
8Karaga NAMBURUGU L/A PS 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 Students not represented, 9 Kpandai new District report 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Looks incomplete 10 Nanumba North District report 0 1 2 1 1 0 5
11Nanumba South Wulensi community 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 12 Saboba
13Savelugu/ Nanton District report 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 SPAm organised by NGO!!, 14 Sawla-Tuna-Kalba District report 0 2 1 1 1 0 5
15Tamale Metropolitan
16 Tolon/ Kumbungu
17 West Gonja JAFO EXPERIMENTAL PS 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 Students not represented, 18West Mamprusi NASIRIA E/A JHS 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Students not represented, 19 Bawku Municipal
20Zabzugu/ Tatale
GHANA DISTRICTS
Schoo l Name
Q1: S PIP re
sult
review ed?
Q2: A ll stak
ehold ers
partic ipated
?
Q3: Pr oblem
s
identi fied?
Q4: R eleva
nt and
achiev able t
argets set?
Q5: R elevan
t stra tegies
develo ped?
Q6: S pecif
ic acti ons f
or
SPIP r ecomme
nded ?
Total S core
Gene ral Rem
arks
3 Bongo 4 Builsa
5 Garu-Tempane Meliga PS 1 2 1 1 1 0 6 6 Kassena Nankana West new
7 Kassena/ Nankana 8 Talensi-Nabdam 9 Bawku Municipal Upper West Region
1 Jirapa
2 Lambussie Karni new
3 Lawra DONDOMETENG JHS 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 Students not represented, 4 Nadowli District report 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 Witchcraft!!, participants not
reported,
5 Sissala East District report 0 2 2 1 2 0 7 detailed listing of problems without numerical analysis 6 Sissala West
7 Wa East 8 Wa Municipal
9 Wa West District report 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Students not represented, Volta Region
1 Adaklu-Anyigbe 2Akatsi
3 Biakoye District new 4Ho Municipal
5 Hohoe Municipal
6Jasikan JASIKAN E. P. J.H.S. 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Participants not reported, 7 Kadjebi DODI-MEMPEASEM CLUSTER 0 2 0 0 1 0 3
8Keta Municipal Azanu Central JHS 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 9 Ketu North new
10Ketu South
11 Kpando AKPINI NORTH Circuit 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Students not represented 12 Krachi East DAMBAI OLDTOWN D/A PS 0 2 2 1 1 0 6
13 Krachi West
14 Nkwanta South NKWANTA ADOM MODEL JHS 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Students not represented, 15 Nkwanta North new Abunyanya L/A JHS 0 2 2 1 1 0 6 Good format 16 North Tongu
17 South Dayi Peki Avetile L.A JHS 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 Students not represented 18South Tongu SOGAKOFE COMBONI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No report of discussions, bad Western Regions
1 Ahanta West 2 Aowin/ Suaman
3 Bia SEKYEREKROM DIC J.H.S 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 4 Bibiani/ Anhwiaso/ Bekwai
5 Ellembelle new Azulenloanu SDA JHS 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 Participants not clearly reported, 6 Jomoro District report 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 No parents and students
represented, 7 Juaboso
8 Mpohor/ Wassa East 9 Nzema East Municipal
10 Prestea-Huni Valley new Bogoso St. Michael Catholic BS 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Participants not reported, 11 Sefwi Akontombra new BRONIKROM D/C PS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bad format, just copy of SPIP,
results not reported 12 Sefwi-Wiawso SEFWI
PENAKROM/NYAMEBEKYERE Ole PRIMARY AND JHS
0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Organised for GRAIL, participants not reported,
13 Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Boundary Road Methodist PS 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 Students not represented, SPIP attached but not reviewed, 14 Shama new District report 0 2 1 0 1 0 4
15 Tarkwa Nsuaem Municipal CHICHIWERE MA BS 0 2 2 0 1 0 5 16 Wasa Amenfi East District report 0 2 1 0 1 0 4
17 Wasa Amenfi West Achichire Circuit 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 Students and SMCs not represented, SPIP attached but not reviewed
Total
79 Scoring
Q1 The meeting has reviewed the results of SPIP?: Fully reviewed=2, Partially reviewed+1, Not reviewed=0
Q2 The meeting included participants from all stakeholders (SMC members, teachers, students, PTA and parents)?: Fully participated=2, partially participated=1, Only few or unkown=0 Q3 The meeting has successfully identified problems that affect school performance?: All problems identified=2, Partly identified=1, Not identified=0
Q4 The meeting has successfully set a range of relevant and achievable targets for next year?: Fully relevant and achievable=2, Relevant and achievable in some extent=1, Not relevant nor achievable=0 Q5 The meeting has successfully developed relevant strategies to achieve these targets?: Fully relevant strategies developed=2, Relevant in some extent=1, Not relevant at all=0
Annex 3: Suggested template of SPIP
School Performance Improvement Plan
Name of school: School code: District: Region:
Vision of the school
Mission of the school
Signature of headteacher
Signature of SMC chairperson
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND TARGETS
Indicator Base Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 1 Student-related performance
Student attendance (SRC)
Net Intake Rate in the encatchment area Promotion rate in all grades
Repetition rate in all grades Drop-out rate in all grades GPI on enrolment
Transition rate to upper level of education Student test results (SRC)
2 Teacher-related performance
Days present (SRC) Pupil Teacher Ratio
Pupil Trained Tearcher Ratio
Percentage of teachers having participated in INSET Percentage of teachers working in double shift Percentage of teachers working in multi-grades
3 Facility-related performance
Pupil Classroom Ratio
Pupil Core Textbook Ratio (SRC) Availability of sanitation facility Availability of potable water Availability of ICT facility Availability of library
Availability of science laboratory
Availability of facility for disabled students
4 Management-related performance
Annual expenditure per student (GH¢)
Percentage of community support mobilised against total school budget
SPIP Action plan - School Year:
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Expected Outcome 1: Access to school improved
Expectd output 1: School enrolment increased
Conduct Enrolment Drive Net Admission Rate
Provide uniforms # of students provided with uniforms School feeding programme # of students provided with school meal Enrolment promotion for girls
Expected outcome 2: Quality of teaching and learning improved
Expected output 2: Attendance of students improved Student attendance rate Conduct attendance supervision Attendance survey Expected output 3: Attendance of teachers improved Days presented by teachers
Conduct attendance supervision Attendance survey Expected output 4: Core textbooks adequately distributed to Pupil Core Textbook Ratio
Procure core textbooks # of core textbooks procured Expected output 5: Learning materials adequately distributed to students
Procure learning materials # of learning materials provided Expected output 6: Adequate number of teachers deployed in Pupil Teacher Ratio
Recruit teachers # of teachers newly deployed Expected output 7: Student test results improved NEA/SEA results, BECE results
Conduct supplementary classes for needy students # of supplementary classes conducted Conduct mock-exam # of mock exams conducted
Expected output 8: Teachers' performance improved
Conduct In-service Training for teachers # of teachers enroled in INSET Conduct lesson study among teachers # of lesson study meetins conducted Expected outcome 3: School facilities improved
Expected output 9: Number of classroom increased Pupil Classroom Ratio Construct classrooms # of classroom constructed Rehabilitate classrooms # of classroom rehabilitated Expected output 10: Number of sanitation facilities increased # of students per sanitation facility
Construct toilets # of toilets constructed Construct urinates # of urinates constructed
Expected output 11: Access to potable water in school provid # of drinking water facility constructed Construct drinking water facility # of students per drinking water facility Expected output 12: Access to ICT improved # of students per computer
Construct ICT laboratory # of ICT lab constructed Procure computers # of computers procured Expected output 13: Access to reading materials improved # of reading materials per student
Responsible person Source of
funding Budget
(GH¢) Outcome
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Responsible
person Source of
funding Budget
(GH¢) Outcome
/output Activity
Time frame (fiscal year) Target
Indicator Construct science laboratory # of science laboratory constructed Procure experimental equipment # of experimental materials procured Expected output 15: Support for disabled students strengthened
Construct facilities for disabled students Items constructed for disabled students
Procure learning materials for disabled students # of learning materials procured for disabled students Expected outcome 4: School management strengthened
Expected output 16: School budget expanded Annual expenditure per student Conduct fund-raising meetings # of meetings conducted Expected output 17: Commitment of SMC strengthened
Conduct SMC meetings # of meetings conducted Expected output 18: Commitment of PTA strengthened
Conduct PTA meetings # of meetings conducted Expected output 19: School performance well monitored
FORM FOR CAPITATION GRANT
COMPONENT/TARGET ACTION TO BE TAKEN WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE RESOURCES NEEDED TIME FRAME WHO MONITORS 1 IMPROVING ACCESS
Enrolment Drive
2 PROVISION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING MATERIALS
adequate textbooks esp. english and maths. cardboards, felt pens, clock, strings, crayons, etc.
3 SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
i update site plan and inventory for school
ii provision of stationery iii effective SMC/PTA iv effective administration v maintaining discipline
4 COMMUNITY AND SCHOOL RELATIONSHIP i organise school visits
ii organise communal labour iii effective PTA meetings
iv provide welfare services to teachers 5 SCHOOL FACILITIES
i provide desks to school ii rehabilitate classroom
