Education Public Expenditure Reviews for Eastern and Southern Africa : The Good, the Bad and the Future
A sufficient number of education public expenditure reviews, quantitative service delivery surveys, and public expenditure tracking surveys had recently been completed for East and South African countries toexplore several questions. i) What topics...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Report |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/824771493795465502/Education-public-expenditure-reviews-for-Eastern-and-Southern-Africa-The-good-the-bad-and-The-future http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26653 |
| Summary: | A sufficient number of education public
expenditure reviews, quantitative service delivery surveys,
and public expenditure tracking surveys had recently been
completed for East and South African countries toexplore
several questions. i) What topics did the PERs address?; ii)
Could a comparative,regional database be created for the
variables reviewed? iii) Were the data analyses
appropriate,given the issues identified and the quality of
the data?; iv) What did these analyses find?; v) Which were
especially strong PERs and why?; vi) What did the assessment
of these PERs imply about standards for good PERs that can
guide practitioners?; vii) Were the findings of PERs used in
policy dialogue with Governments?; viii) Are the Bank's
taskteams using PER findings to shape the preparation of
education projects? The conceptual framework for assessing
the content coverage and analytic quality of PERs, QSDS, and
PETS was based on the theoretical frameworks that underlie.
The sample of PERs, PETS, and QSDS evaluated consisted of
those recently completed forthe education sectors of
Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles,
Sudan,Zambia, and Zimbabwe. All were published between 2013
and 2016. Methods were developed to assess two basic
questions: the document's content coverageand the
quality of its data analysis. The methods used by the MFM
and GGP PER stocktakingteam provided some guidance.Content
analysis of each document was used to assess its content
coverage, with thecontent analysis coding sheet being
developed inductively from an analysis of a smallsample of
PERs and modified as the coding proceeded. The final sheet
had 11 domains,such as allocative and technical efficiency
or equity of financing. PERs addressed multiple aspects of
most domains, resulting in a total of 54 variables. Since
the coding sheets were developed inductively, they could not
show which domains were not covered by any ofthe PERs for
any of the countries.The intent was to map the topics that
PERs actually covered in order to determine two things: i)
Whether topics fundamental to a PER--e.g., the equity of
financing--were omitted or under-addressed; ii) Whether the
PER's choices explicitly signaled an understanding
ofthe theoretical context for PERs; The content coverage of
the documents was evaluated in five ways: (i) Did the
PERsassess all or only alimited set ofsub-sectors?; (ii) Did
PERs all measure any core variables in the same way so that
acomparative database couldbe created? (iii) What was the
depth of coverage by country? This reveals the
comprehensiveness and depth of coverage by country; (iv)
What was the depth of coverage by domain? This reveals
comprehensive versus skimpy coverage by domain; (v) What
variables are not assessed or are underassessed? Chapters
second and third present the main findings of the review of
the East/South Africa PERs. Chapter second assesses coverage
commonality, depth, omitted variables, and under-covered
variables. Chapter third assesses data sources, data
quality, the statistical methods used by the PERs, and the
quality of their analyses. Chapter fourth focuses on the
lessons learned from this review for improving the quality
of education PERs. Chapter fifth highlights challenges that
PER teams often face. Chapter sixth concludes with recommendations. |
|---|