[2005 January 25]
By Limbani Nsapato. Coalition Coordinator of the Civil Society Coalition for Quality Basic Education (CSCQBE), Malawi.
In September 2004, the Finance Minister of Malawi presented an 87.5 billion Kwacha (K) budget to parliament for the 2004 and 2005 fiscal year. Of this, the Ministry of Education received the highest allocation of K10.5 billion. This represents over 12% of the total budget. Education priorities as outlined in both the Governments' Poverty Reduction Strategy and the ministry's Policy and Investment Framework is to improve education access, quality, and relevance at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Of the total education budget 74% goes toward recurrent development and 26% towards development activities. Parents, civil society, donors and government officials have high expectations that such a large allocation will improve the quality of education at all levels. However, critical barriers to budget performance need to be addressed if implementation of this budget is not to be highly disappointing. Some of the barriers standing between the budget allocation and positive educational outcomes are a lack of careful programme planning, flaws in the budget process, poor financial management, corruption, lack of information, lack of political will, and hitches in the decentralization process.
Lack of Careful Programme Planning
The government in general and the Ministry of Education in particular has shown an inability or unwillingness to engage in careful planning, prioritization and budgeting of policies and programmes. The unexpected, badly timed introduction of free Universal Primary Education (UPE) is one such an example.
Observers note that the government, having just come to power after general elections, hastily introduced the UPE in 1994 when the country was neither economically nor administratively ready. The programme, which saw a doubling in enrolment of pupils from around 1.7 million to 3.2 million, required vast amounts of additional money and resources to respond to an increased demand for classroom blocks, teachers, learning materials, and administrative and supervisory functions. Moreover, in 1994 the GDP declined by 12.4 % due to drought and the suspension of donor aid, accompanied by rising inflation, lower revenues, and currency depreciation.
There had been no meaningful consultations with civic organizations and community representatives to instill a sense of ownership in the programme, and to provide mechanisms for community participation in the management and maintenance of the system to ensure its sustainability. Furthermore, government's announcement that parents should stop paying school fees, which had been contributing to salaries for thousands of teachers and the purchasing of teaching and learning materials for teachers and pupils, further contributed to the initiatives' unsustainability. Subsequently government has been forced to employ around 22, 000 unqualified ‘poverty' teachers to respond to the growing demand.
Flaws in the Budget Process
Budget planning in the Ministry of Education starts in November when primary schools, secondary schools and tertiary institutions are asked to prepare and submit their funding requirements for the forthcoming financial year. The ministry consolidates these submissions into one budget which is presented to the Ministry of Finance for funding. However, this process is marred by flaws to such an extent that the final budget presented to parliament does not accurately reflect the funding submissions, and therefore the resource requirements, of schools and other learning institutions.
In practice the funding requirements of primary schools are not based on submissions made by primary advisers who should consult schools on their budgetary needs. The district officers simply use monthly returns on enrolment, number of teachers, and inventories of teaching and learning materials to determine financial requirements in a particular district.
In addition, budget ceilings are only given to the sectoral ministries after the Ministry of Finance has already consolidated its budget. At this point the ministry does not consult again with schools and districts in order to revise their funding submissions and realign their activities with sectoral priorities and what is possible within the approved budget. The difference between what districts ask for and gets is so great that there is little credibility in the process.
Poor Financial Management
The Ministry of Education has in the past flouted the provisions of the Public Financial Management Act and has displayed poor financial management, including over-expenditure and the inefficient use of public resources.
Officials within the ministry are firstly unable to control spending and remain within budget figures. In the 2002/3 fiscal year the ministry spent K4.6 billion against the approved budget of K3.8 billion, overspending by K0.8 billion. Critics have condemned the ministry's overspending not only because it demonstrates poor fiscal discipline, but also because it leads to poor budgetary performance.
A press statement issued by the Civil Society Coalition for Quality Basic Education (CSCQBE) observed that the ministry is failing to meet activity targets outlined in policy documents and the Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (MPRSP). "The ministry failed to meet the target of training 6000 teachers and recruiting 6000 teachers by only training 4007 and recruiting 5116; it failed to construct 800 teacher's houses; it failed to integrate crosscutting issues of gender and HIV/AIDS and failed to increase teacher salaries; so many failures despite the fact that the ministry got a lion's share from the government budget". A study report released in March 2004 by the University of Malawi pointed out that the ministry of education provides little value for money. The study concluded, amongst other, that the sector spends more than 80% of budgetary allocations on personnel costs and less than 15% on core project activities.
With regard to corruption the general public still awaits the outcome of the K187 million fraud case. The case involves 100 people, including the former secretary of education, Sam Safuli, accused of receiving payment for unfinished school construction as well as receiving inflated payments on poorly built school structures. Apart from this high profile case, the Ministry of Education loses large amounts of money to ghost workers who siphon off millions of kwacha.
Expenditure-related information is difficult to access in the ministry of education. Despite an explicit commitment to transparency and the release of monthly expenditure figures as provided for in the MPRS and Public Financial Management Act, one hardly finds any information on the implementation of activities by the education ministry. This makes it difficult for the public to monitor how funds are being used and evaluate the ministry's performance.
Lack of political will
Political will and commitment to implement policies, which are vital ingredients of good governance, are difficult to find in the ministry of education. A CSCQBE press statement refers in this regard to the "slackness, inactivity and failure of the ministry in implementing and facilitating finalization of major policy documents". The Policy and Investment Framework (PIF) for Education is not being disseminated, the Education for All (EFA) plan has been in draft-form since 2002, the Education Act has been undergoing review since 2003, and the National Strategy for Strengthening Community Participation in Primary School Management has only just been approved after two years of waiting. All these policy documents are crucial for government's bid to promote access, equity, quality and relevance in education. More importantly the provisions in these documents are meant to guide the education budgeting process.
Decentralisation Hitches
The ministry of education is decentralized into 6 education divisions, and further into over 33 district education offices and zones. However, the ministry's devolution plan is still in draft form and the spirit of decentralization, as evoked by the 1998 Local Government Act, is not being practiced. Consequently, there is poor coordination of education services between local assemblies, divisions and headquarters. Major decisions regarding distribution of teachers, teaching and learning materials and other school resources are still prepared at headquarters, resulting in poor and inefficient service delivery.
In conclusion, the above factors reflect poor governance in the education sector resulting in the poor dissemination of policies to the public, low civic engagement in school government and management, corruption and poor service delivery. It also generated negative outcomes such as poor motivation amongst teachers, low pupil retention, poor examination results, high drop-out rates, absenteeism and laxity amongst both pupils and teachers.
In the long run it is the credibility of government that is at stake as the public asks whether resources allocated for education are being used as budgeted for. All stakeholders need to play their role to address these governance problems and improve the ministry's efficiency and effectiveness. One role for civil society in this process is the monitoring of the education sector policy implementation to ensure that allocated funds and resources reach their intended beneficiaries.
References
CSCQBE press statement, The Nation, August, 2004
Esme Kadzamira et al, Financing Primary Education for all, University of Malawi, January 2004
Malawi Government, 2002/3 Annual Review Report, Malawi poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (MPRSP)
Malawi Budget Estimates for Financial Year Budget 2004/05
Ministry of Education, Policy and Investment Framework (PIF), 2001
2002/3 Budget Monitoring Report, CSCQBE, 2003.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Subscribe by RSS