1 Three Financing Mechanisms to Improve Education Outcomes in Mozambique CABRI Education Dialogue Muriel Visser 26 February 2013

2 Compare and contrast education financing experiences to: – Identify salient features of each initiative – Review evidence on effectiveness and efficiency – Identify areas of improvement – Reflect on criteria for choosing between these initiatives if one of the three were to be scaled up Three initiatives: – Direct Support to Schools (DSS) – Early Childhood Education (ECE) – Distribution of vouchers for school materials and clothing linked to Education Material Fairs (EMF) Objectives

3 Important reforms in primary education over the past decade : – Curriculum reform – Introduction of free primary education in 2003 – Reform of teacher education The past decade has also seen impressive growth in primary education enrolment and retention, and reduction in repetition rates However challenges remain, including: – Around 300,000 children are still out of school, mainly because of extreme poverty – Primary completion rate (grade 7) is below 50%, and shows substantial variations by region (lowest in the north and centre of the country) – Declining education quality – as measured against SACMEQ scores Key issues – Poverty, hunger and vulnerability for young children -> late enrolment and drop out – Opportunity costs and cultural factors (e.g. early marriages) for older children -> drop out Mozambique – progress and challenges in primary education

4 Priorities for the Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) for 2016 Various initiatives have been put in place to improve quality concerns in primary education, including 3 that are reviewed in the case study, namely: Direct Support for Schools (DSS) Education Materials Fairs (EMF)/School Vouchers Early Childhood Education (ECE) Key questions: How effective have these been? Which, if any, should be scaled up? Initiatives to address the challenges in primary education

5 Established in 2003: – To compensate for the loss of income in schools due to the abolishment of school fees – To address chronic lack of materials and equipment in schools Ensures all primary schools receive a monetary value which reflects the size (# of pupils) and location of the school Funds are disbursed from a central (donor funded) pool twice a year to district offices and then to schools Management of the funds is done through: – Parent-teacher committees – Based on a guideline -> establishes what can be bought, and how decisions are made Outcome: – Rapid increase in enrolment since 2004, attributable in large measure to the abolishment of school fees and introduction of the DSS (Fox et al., 2012) Direct Support to Schools (DSS)

6 Strengths – Many schools no longer face chronic shortages of supplies – Decision making at local level has been strengthened in selected schools – The DSS initiative has laid the groundwork the decentralization process in the country – Expansion of the initiative to provide targeted support to Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) in 48 districts in extreme poverty Challenges: – Insufficient capacity development and training of school management and school committees – Marginal involvement of communities in decision making – Weak monitoring and evaluation Cost $ 1.6 to 1.8 per child/year Direct Support to Schools (continued …)

7 ECE in Mozambique: – Covers only 4% of the 4.5 million children and is concentrated in urban areas In 2006, ECE schools escolinhas were opened in 42 communities by Save the Children UK. Communities participated by: – Contributing to construction of classrooms – Providing a voluntary monetary contribution and/or labor Outcomes (as measured against base-line): – Escolinha graduates were 26% more likely to go on to primary school, and 24% more likely to do so at the right age – Had an 87% increase on standardized cognitive, social, emotional and fine motor skill tests – Spill over effects on parents included stronger and better parenting and more time to work and/or take care of young children at home – Cost: $2.5/month/child = $30 per year/child ECE in Rural Communities

8 Success factors – Child centered approach, including basic kit for each school, bilingual education, and in- service training for staff – Strong involvement of community and parents – Linking ECE to local primary school, to ensure continuity – Good coordination with government authorities – Strong monitoring and evaluation Challenges – High drop-outs after centers were handed back to communities, and external support withdrawn – Parents are often unwilling to contribute as primary education is (supposed to be) free – Expansion relies on a Government-CSO partnership for expansion, which is a new model ECE in Rural Communities

9 NGO initiative: – Implemented in 2 districts in one province in 2005 – Specifically targeted drop-out and absenteeism of school age children from poor families Modality – School vouchers were equivalent to what an average household would spend on school materials for each child in a year, if they had the income – Targeted to poor families, aimed at meeting basic needs and enhancing self-esteem, satisfaction and right to education – Vouchers could be used at a vendor fair, organized at community level, ahead of start of the school year Outcomes – Increase in enrolment rate by 36%, partially attributable to the EMF – No data of impact on school attendance Challenges Identification/targeting of beneficiaries Cost: $ 7.6/ pupil/year Education Materials Fairs/School Vouchers

10 PurposeReduce drop-out rates, repetition rates and school failure School readiness, transition to primary education, right age enrolment Improve school enrolment and school attendance Funding ChannelDirect funding to schools Sub-contracting CSOsParallel funding by NGO ModalityGovernment managed CSOs service providers NGO Managed OutcomesIncrease in enrolment and completion rates Improved transition rates to primary Higher scores on cognitive tests Increase in enrolment Expressed willingness to return to school TargetingNoneRural communitiesPoor pupils Cost/year/pupil$2$30$6 Summary

11 To what extent do you think that the resources are being effectively channeled to identified priority needs? For each of the initiatives what might be done to improve the targeting? If you had to use one of these initiatives to present a convincing case to the Ministry Finance for additional funding, which one would you use and why? What additional information might you try to procure to present a convincing story? What evidence is there that line agencies involved in these initiatives are adequately monitoring results and impact for these initiatives? What recommendations would you make to strengthen this? What are your conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions? What recommendations would you make to ensure greater value for money? Issues for discussion …