Swaziland SABER Country Report Engaging the Private Sector in Education 2016 Policy Goals for Independent Private Schools Status 1. Encouraging Innovation by Providers Schools have legal authority to set teacher standards, to appoint and dismiss teachers, and to determine teacher salary levels without final review from central authorities. Schools also have the legal authority over how the curriculum is delivered. However, central government has the legal authority over how resources are allocated to the classroom. 2. Holding Schools Accountable The government does not set standards on what students need to learn and by when. Standardized exams are administered annually and results are disaggregated. Government does not require schools to undergo an inspection. Sanctions are not administered based on the results of school inspections or performance on standardized exams. 3. Empowering All Parents, Students, and Communities Ad hoc information is provided to parents on standardized exam results or inspection reports. The government does not provide tax subsidies or cash transfers for families attending private schools. 4. Promoting Diversity of Supply Schools set fees without any review from government. The government allows all of the following school types to operate: community, not-for-profit, faith-based, for-profit. Operating standards are the same as public school certification standards. Registration/certification guidelines are not made public and are only available on request. Policy Goals for Government-Funded Private Schools Status 1. Encouraging Innovation by Providers Schools have the legal authority to set teacher standards, to dismiss teachers, to determine teacher salary levels, to manage school operating budgets, and determine how the curriculum is delivered without final review from central authorities. However, the central government has the legal authority to appoint teachers and determine classroom resources allocation. 2. Holding Schools Accountable The government sets standards on what students need to learn and by when. Standardized exams are administered annually and results are disaggregated. Government does not require schools to report on the use of public funds as a condition for the continuation of funding. Schools are required to undergo an inspection but no standard term is specified. Inspection reports include a school’s strengths and weaknesses and specific priorities for improvement. Sanctions are not administered. 3. Empowering All Parents, Students, and Communities Ad hoc information is provided to parents on standardized exam results or inspection reports. Neither students nor parents are interviewed as part of an inspection process. Schools are allowed to select students based on academic performance. Parental choice is restricted by compulsory monetary parent contributions. 4. Promoting Diversity of Supply The government allows for all types of providers to operate a school. Operating standards are the same as public school certification standards. Registration/certification guidelines are only available on request. Academic operating budgets are equivalent to per-student amounts in public schools. Schools do not receive initial funding to open. SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Overview of SABER-Engaging the Private Sector .................................................................................................................... 3 Benchmarking Education Policies: The SABER-EPS Methodology .......................................................................................... 5 Education in Swaziland ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Private Education in Swaziland ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Benchmarking Swaziland’s Private School Policies ............................................................................................................... 11 Goal 1: Encouraging innovation by providers ................................................................................................................... 11 Goal 2: Holding schools accountable ................................................................................................................................ 13 Goal 3: Empowering all parents, students, and communities .......................................................................................... 15 Goal 4: Promoting Diversity of Supply .............................................................................................................................. 16 From Analysis to Action: Policy Options for Swaziland ......................................................................................................... 20 Policy Option 1: Empower parents to make informed educational choices, while providing additional support to disadvantaged groups ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 Policy Option 2: Strengthen accountability mechanisms to ensure that all students receive a quality education ......... 22 Policy Option 3: Strengthen the policy environment around the non-state sector to promote transparency and adequate supply of school places ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................................. 26 References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26 SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 1 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Introduction collects and analyzes policy data on education systems around the world, using evidence-based frameworks to In recent years, private sector engagement in education highlight the policies and institutions that matter most —which includes a vibrant mix of non-profit, for-profit for promoting learning for all children and youth. and faith-based organizations—has grown significantly SABER-EPS research in Swaziland has found that at both around the world. In the last two decades, the the primary and secondary levels, quality and equity are percentage of students in low-income countries challenges. The private sector plays an increasingly attending private primary schools doubled, from 11 significant role in education at both levels. Based on a percent to 22 percent (figure 1). This growth in private review of existing policies, SABER-EPS offers the provision is closely connected to the boom in access that following recommendations for Swaziland to enhance has taken place in low-income countries over the same private sector engagement in education in order to meet two decades: primary net enrolment increased from 55 the challenges of access, quality, and equity: percent to 80 percent between 1990 and 2010. 1) Empower parents to make informed As countries redouble their efforts to achieve learning educational choices, while providing additional for all at the primary and secondary levels, the private support to disadvantaged groups. sector can be a resource for adding capacity to the 2) Strengthen accountability mechanisms to education system. By partnering with private entities, ensure that all students receive a quality the state can provide access to more students, education. particularly poor students who are not always able to 3) Strengthen the policy environment for the non- access existing education services (Pal and Kingdon 2010; state sector to promote transparency and an Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guáqueta 2009; Hossain adequate supply of school places. 2007). Additionally, evidence shows that governments have been successful at improving education quality and The rest of the report provides an overview of SABER-EPS student cognitive outcomes in many countries through findings, followed by a description of the basic education effective engagement with private education providers system in Swaziland that focuses on the private sector (Barrera-Osorio and Raju 2010; French and Kingdon and government policies related to the private provision 2010; Barrera-Osorio 2006). of education. The report then benchmarks Swaziland’s policy environment utilizing the SABER-EPS Framework Figure 1. Private enrollment as a percentage of total primary and offers policy options to enhance access and learning enrollments, by country income level for all children in primary and secondary school. Low-income countries Middle-income countries High-income countries Source: Baum et al (2014). This report presents an analysis of how effectively the current policies in Swaziland engage the private sector in basic (primary and secondary) education. The analysis draws on the Engaging the Private Sector (EPS) Framework, a product of the World Bank’s Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER). SABER SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 2 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Overview of SABER-Engaging the Private education system and, subsequently, have a positive impact on educational outcomes. Sector Box 1. Key Private Sector Engagement Policy Goals In many countries, the extent and activity of the private 1. Encouraging innovation by providers. Local decision sector in education is largely undocumented and making and fiscal decentralization can have positive unknown. SABER-EPS is working to help change that. effects on school and student outcomes. Most high- SABER-EPS assesses how well a country’s policies are achieving countries allow schools autonomy in oriented toward ensuring that the services of non-state managing resources (including personnel) and providers promote learning for all children and youth. educational content. Local school autonomy can improve the ability of disadvantaged populations to The aim of SABER-EPS is not to advocate private determine how local schools operate. schooling. The intention is to outline the most effective 2. Holding schools accountable. If schools are given evidence-based policies specific to each country’s autonomy over decision making, they must be held current approach toward non-state provision of accountable for learning outcomes. Increases in education. SABER-EPS assesses the extent to which autonomy should be accompanied by standards and policies facilitate quality, access, and equity of private interventions that increase access and improve quality. education services. Data generated by SABER-EPS can The state must hold all providers accountable to the same high standard. further the policy dialogue and support governments in engaging private providers to improve education results. 3. Empowering all parents, students, and communities. When parents and students have access to information Four policy goals for engaging the private on relative school quality, they can have the power to sector hold schools accountable and the voice to lobby governments for better-quality services. For SABER-EPS collects data on four key policy areas that empowerment to work equitably, options for parents international evidence has found effective for and students should not depend on wealth or student strengthening accountability mechanisms among ability. citizens, policymakers, and providers (box 1). These 4. Promoting diversity of supply. By facilitating market policy goals were identified through a review of rigorous entry for a diverse set of providers, governments can research and analysis of top-performing and rapidly increase responsibility for results, as providers become improving education systems. directly accountable to citizens as well as to the state. The four policy goals enable a government to increase innovation and strengthen accountability among the critical actors in an education system (figure 2). Empowering parents, students, and communities enhances the ability of parents to express their voice and hold policymakers accountable for results. Additionally, when parents are empowered, in most contexts, they can have greater influence over provider behaviors. Increasing school accountability strengthens the quality- and equity-assurance mechanisms between the state and education providers. Encouraging innovation and promoting diversity of supply can allow providers to respond to local needs. Increasing school-level autonomy in critical decisions improves the services provided to students. Allowing a diverse set of providers to enter the market can increase client power and enable citizens to choose from a wider range of models. By developing these policy goals, a government can improve the accountability of all providers in an SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 3 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Figure 2. Relationships of Accountability for Successful government or non-government providers or Service Delivery both, depending on the system. SABER-EPS analyzes laws and regulations to: (1) identify the types of private engagement that are legally established in each country and (2) assess each education system’s progress in achieving the four policy goals. The aim of the SABER-EPS Framework is to provide policy guidance to help governments establish strong incentives and relationships of accountability among citizens, governments, and private education providers, with the goal of improving education results. Source: Adapted from the World Bank (2003). SABER-EPS recognizes that the four policy goals outlined in box 1 can assist governments in raising accountability for the education services provided in their countries. The tool allows governments to systematically evaluate their policies and implement practices that are effective across multiple country contexts. Four types of private provision of education Across the world, governments can implement numerous strategies to improve educational outcomes by supporting non-state education provision. SABER-EPS benchmarks key policy goals across the four most common models of private service delivery: 1. Independent private schools: schools that are owned and operated by non-government providers and are financed privately, typically through fees. 2. Government-funded private schools: schools that are owned and operated by non- government providers, but receive government funding. 3. Privately managed schools: schools that are owned and financed by the government, but are operated by non-government providers. 4. Voucher schools: schools that students choose to attend with government-provided funding; these schools can be operated by the SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 4 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Benchmarking Education Policies: The The hypothetical country’s overall score for this policy goal would be: (2+3+4+4)/4 = 3.25. The overall score is SABER-EPS Methodology converted into a final development level for the policy goal, based on the following scale: The World Bank has developed a set of standardized Latent: 1.00 – 1.50 questionnaires and rubrics for collecting and evaluating Emerging: 1.51 – 2.50 data on the four policy goals for each type of private Established: 2.51 – 3.50 school engagement established in a given country. Advanced: 3.51 – 4.00 The policy goals are benchmarked separately for each The ratings generated by the rubrics are not meant to type of private engagement. A point of emphasis here is be additive across policy goals. That is, they are not that these tools only assess official and established added together to create an overall rating for engaging policies governing private education provision. the private sector. Additional tools determine on-the-ground implementation of these policies. The SABER-EPS Use of the SABER-EPS tool information is compiled in a comparative database that interested stakeholders can access for detailed reports, SABER-EPS is not intended to be used as a prescriptive background papers, methodology, and other resources; policy tool, but rather, as a tool to generate an informed the database details how different education systems assessment of a country’s policies vis- à-vis current engage with the private sector. knowledge about effective approaches. The results of this benchmarking exercise serve as a good starting point For each indicator associated with the respective four to discuss potential policy options that could be policy goals, the country receives a score between 1 and considered, based on the nuances of the local context 4 (figure 3), representing four levels of private sector and national education system. Education systems are engagement: 1 (latent), 2 (emerging), 3 (established), or likely to be at different levels of development across 4 (advanced). indicators and policy goals. While intuition suggests it is probably better to be as developed in as many areas as Figure 3. SABER Rubric Benchmarking Levels possible, the evidence does not clearly show the need to be functioning at the advanced level for all policy goals. National education priorities lay at the center of recommended policy options; countries may prioritize higher levels of development in areas that contribute most to their immediate goals. For more information on the global evidence underlying EPS and its policy goals, see the SABER framework paper, “What Matters Most for Engaging the Private Sector in Education” (Baum et al. 2014). Source: Baum et al. (2014). The overall score for each policy goal is computed by aggregating the scores for each of its constituent indicators. For example, a hypothetical country receives the following indicator scores for one of its policy goals: Indicator A = 2 points Indicator B = 3 points Indicator C = 4 points Indicator D = 4 points SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 5 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Education in Swaziland status, or wealth quintile (Central Statistical Office and UNICEF 2011). Swaziland is a lower middle-income country in Sub- In secondary school, attendance rates drop substantially. Saharan Africa with a population of 1.2 million. Gross In 2011 the enrollment rate was a mere 35 percent domestic product (GDP) per capita (current US$) in (Edstats). The reasons behind the drop include both low Swaziland was US$ 3,042 in 2012. The country’s average access by poorer households, but also a limited supply of annual growth rate from 2009 to 2013 was 1.5 percent, secondary education. The SACMEQ III (Southern and and was projected to be 2 percent for 2014 (World Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Development Indicators). Swaziland is divided into four Quality) Report noted that due to the “pyramidical” administrative regions: Hhohho, Manzini, Lubombo, and structure of the Swazi education system, there are not Shiselweni. enough spaces in secondary school for all students who pass the end of primary examination (Shabalala, Swaziland recognizes education as a catalyst for socio- Nxumalo, and Nkambule 2012). Moreover, pupils from economic development and national economic growth. rural and poor households are disadvantaged in The mission of the education system is “[t]o provide accessing secondary education. For instance, 64 percent relevant, quality, and affordable education and training of children in urban areas attended secondary school in opportunities for the entire populace of the Kingdom of 2010, compared to only 44 percent in rural areas (figure Swaziland in order to develop all positive aspects of life 4). The rate of attendance also increased proportionally for self-reliance, social and economic development, and with household income: whereas 29 percent of children global competitiveness” (MET 2011b). from the poorest quintile attended secondary school, 71 percent of their peers from the wealthiest quintile did Education in Swaziland is regulated by the 2005 (figure 4). Constitution, the Education Act of 1981, and the Free Primary Education Act of 2010. The basic education Figure 4. Secondary Enrollment Rate by Rural-Urban Status system in Swaziland follows a 7-5 structure: 7 years of and Income Quintile, 2010 primary education (grades 1–7) and five years of secondary (forms 1–5) education. The Free Primary 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Education Act of 2010 (article 3) says, “Except as Rural provided in this Act every Swazi child enrolled at a public primary school is entitled to free education at that public Urban primary school, beginning with grade 1 up to and including grade 7.” Schools are considered public if they Quintile 1… are “maintained with public funds to the extent of at Quintile 2 least 51 percent of its needs” (article 2) (Swaziland 1981). Quintile 3 The Ministry of Education and Training implemented free Quintile 4 primary education (FPE) in all grade 1 and 2 public Quintile 5 (richest) schools in January 2010. The FPE program was designed to expand to grade 3 in 2011, grade 4 in 2012, and so on Source: Central Statistical Office and UNICEF (2011). in subsequent years until the whole primary school cycle is covered in 2015 (MET 2014). Overall, average years of schooling for a child in Swaziland is strongly related to the socio-economic In 2007 the primary net enrollment rate in Swaziland was status of the household. As shown in figure 5, the 85 percent (Edstats). After the introduction of free duration of a child’s schooling increases with household primary education in 2010, first-grade enrollment wealth. Children from the poorest quintile have, on increased by 32 percent in one year (MET 2014). The average, 6.2 years of schooling, whereas children from Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) of 2010 found the wealthiest households have 9 years (figure 5). that 97 percent of children aged 6–12 were attending primary or secondary school. The MICS found no marked differences in primary attendance by gender, rural-urban SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 6 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Figure 5. Average Years of Schooling by Income Quintile, Age Despite this notable performance, there are distinct 15–19, 2006 differences in learning outcomes depending on the 10 location of a student (urban-rural), as well as the socio- economic status of the pupil’s household. For instance, 9 9.0 the latest SACMEQ examination, in 2007, shows that 8 8.0 students from rural areas scored over 30 points lower 7.8 than their urban peers in reading, while the difference 7 7.2 between the poorest and wealthiest students was 6.2 almost 40 points (figure 7) (SACMEQ 2010). It is 6 important to note that a difference of approximately 50 5 points represents a difference of one year of schooling Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 (Chitiga and Chinoona 2011). Accordingly, students from Source: Edstats. the poorest quintile are nearly a year behind their wealthiest peers in schooling. Repetition in primary school is a challenge across the board, even though boys repeat grades at higher rates Figure 7. Performance in Reading by Location and Socio- than girls. In 2011, 15 percent of all students repeated economic status, Grade 6, 2007 their grade. The repetition rate in first grade was 18 580 percent for boys and 13 percent for girls (figure 6). These 573 571 rates remained very high through grade 7, with 21 570 percent of boys and 15 percent of girls repeating grade 3 (figure 6). In lower and upper secondary, the overall 560 repetition rate also remains high—11 percent at both levels in 2011 (MET 2011a). Swaziland average 550 Figure 6. Repetition Rate by Gender in Primary School, 2010 539 540 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 532 Grade 1 530 Grade 2 520 Rural Urban Bottom 25% Top 25% Grade 3 Female Sources: Edstats; SACMEQ (2014). Grade 4 Male A pertinent reality that impacts Swaziland’s education Grade 5 system is the high number of orphaned and vulnerable Grade 6 children, largely attributable to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the country. In 2011, the total number of orphans and Grade 7 vulnerable children in schools was 68,251, or almost 30 percent of all primary school students (figure 8) (MET Source: MET (2011a). 2011a). These are children who have lost one or both parents, or who are vulnerable because of various In terms of student learning, Swaziland has performed factors, such as living with a guardian unable to care for above average on standardized tests in mathematics and them, staying alone, living with elderly grandparents or a reading. At the national level, the country has improved sibling-headed household, or having no fixed place to in the period from 2000 to 2007. In the SACMEQ projects stay. administered in 2000 and 2007 to students in grade 6, Swaziland ranked above average on both occasions (Edstats). For instance, Swazi students scored 530 points on average in reading in 2000 and 549 points in 2007 (compared to a regional average of 500). SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 7 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Figure 8. Share of Orphaned and Vulnerable Children among Figure 9. Educational Expenditures in Swaziland, Tanzania, All Primary School Students, 2011 and Ghana, by Level, Various Years 100% 20% Orphans 80% 37% 60% 17% 8% Vulnerable 37% 40% Other students 49% 42% (not OVC) 20% 31% 71% 0% Swaziland Tanzania Ghana Source: MET (2011a). Pre-primary Primary Secondary Tertiary The Government of Swaziland has demonstrated a Source: Edstats. commitment to supporting orphans and vulnerable Note: Swaziland statistics from 2011; Tanzania and Ghana statistics from 2009. children to access education, for instance, by implementing the All Children Safe in School Initiative in Private Education in Swaziland 2003–2005. Key parts of the program included providing grants to schools to cover children’s school fees and In Swaziland, the Education Act of 1981 provides the organizing school meals in some schools. In the legal foundation for private schools to operate, so long communities that benefited from the program, primary as they are registered with the government. The school enrolment increased by approximately 20 percent Education Act also allows the Minister of Education to (UNICEF 2009). establish regulations governing education, and in 2009, the Ministry of Education used this mandate to issue The Since 2000 public spending on education has increased Education (Establishment and Registration of Private substantially in the country. While education spending Educational Institutions) Regulations Notice (MET 2009). made up 5.5 percent of GDP in 2000, it made up over 8 percent in 2011 (Edstats). As a share of total government A number of Swaziland’s other key policy documents expenditures, educational spending increased from 17 recognize the potential role of the private sector in percent to nearly 24 percent over the same period. In improving access to and the quality of basic education terms of allocations by education level, Swaziland spent services. For example, The Swaziland Education and the majority of education funding on primary education, Training Sector Policy (MET 2011b) applies to “all nearly 50 percent, in 2011. In the same year, learners, teachers, employees, managers, and other expenditures on secondary education stood at 37 providers of education and training in all public and percent, and on tertiary education, 13 percent (figure 9). private, formal, and non-formal learning institutions, at Swaziland’s spending on education is compared to two all levels of the education system in the Kingdom of low-income and lower-middle-income countries, Swaziland.” Tanzania and Ghana, respectively (figure 9). There is currently a vibrant mix of public-private partnerships in the education sector in Swaziland. The non-state sector plays a major role in delivering basic education services, but the Government of Swaziland plays a major role in financing these services. Building on the most common models of private service delivery identified by SABER, there are currently government- funded and independent private schools in Swaziland, in addition to public schools. These categories are outlined below, as well as further distinctions to be made within SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 8 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 government-funded private schools in the case of Table 1. Primary Schools in Swaziland by Ownership and Swaziland: Funding Source, 2011 Source of Financing Government schools Gov’t Both gov’t Non- These schools owned by and fully financed by the only and non-state state Total government. Ownership only (%) Government-funded private schools 60% 61 Based on the SABER-EPS definition, community schools, Government 1% (Community mission schools, and private and/or aided schools are schools) considered government-funded private schools for the 34% 34 purposes of this study. They are defined as follows: Faith-based (Mission/ organization  Community schools are owned by the Gov’t schools) government and employ teachers that are paid 3% 5 by the government. Communities pay for the (Privat 2% support staff and other costs of these schools. Other private e/ non- (Private/ organization aided aided schools)  Mission and/or government schools are owned schools by faith-based or religious organizations, but the ) government employs and pays their teachers. Total (%) 1 96 3 100 Source: MET (2011a).  Private and/or aided schools are owned by private organizations, but the government pays Thus, although 40 percent of primary schools are owned their teachers’ salaries. by non-state organizations, the government funds or at least partially funds nearly all (96 percent) of these Independent private schools schools. These schools can thus be considered Schools that are considered independent private schools government-funded private schools, on the basis of both in Swaziland are defined as follows: public and non-state involvement in the schools’  Private and/or non-aided schools that are ownership and/or financing. Only three percent of all owned by private organizations and fully funded primary schools are considered to be independent by private, non-governmental sources (i.e., private schools—that is, completely funded by non- tuition and school fees). governmental sources. In 2011, there were 21 such independent private schools. Not surprisingly, those Only one percent of primary schools are funded solely by independent private schools enrolled only one percent the government (table 1). Although the government of the primary school population (MET 2011a). funds 60 percent of those primary schools considered community schools, such schools also receive significant Similarly, at the secondary level, we see that the vast resources from their communities. Faith-based/religious majority (93 percent) of schools receive some funding organizations own and operate 34 percent of primary from public sources (table 2). As at the primary level, the schools, which are also partially funded by the majority of schools (68 percent) are community schools. government. Other private organizations own the 89 percent of secondary schools can thus be considered remaining 5 percent of primary schools, but of those, half government-funded private schools, as ownership (2 percent) are also funded partially by the government and/or financing of the school consist of both public and (table 1). non-state actors. Only seven percent of secondary schools are considered independent private schools. In 2011, all independent private schools (17 in total) at the secondary level provided senior secondary education (MET 2011a). The only providers of lower secondary education were community schools and mission schools. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 9 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Table 2. Secondary Schools by Ownership and Funding Source, 2011 Source of Financing Gov’t Both gov’t and Non-state Total Ownership only non-state only (%) 68% Government 4% (Community) 72 Faith-based 19% organization (Mission/Gov’t) 19 7% Other private 2% (Private/ organization (Private/aided) non- aided) 9 Total (%) 4 89 7 100 Source: MET (2011a). The proportion of students attending independent private schools is relatively stable: around one percent for primary schools (table 3) and two percent for secondary schools (table 4). Table 3. Primary Enrollment in independent Private Schools, as a Percentage of Total Primary School Enrollment Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of students in 1,126 2,588 2,515 3,610 private/non- aided schools Total primary 231,449 241,231 239,124 school students Private enrolment as % 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% of total Source: MET (2012). Table 4. Secondary Enrollment in Independent Private Schools, as a Percentage of Total Primary School Enrollment Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of students in 1,376 2,070 1,666 1,938 private/non- aided schools Total secondary 83,089 88,850 90,950 school students % of Total 1.7% 2.3% 1.8% Source: MET (2012). SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 10 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Benchmarking Swaziland’s Private School Box 2. International Best Practice – Encouraging Innovation by Providers Policies The following decisions/processes are made at the school level: This section presents the results of SABER-Engaging the  Establishment of teacher qualification standards. Private Sector Framework tool for (i) independent  Appointment and deployment of teachers private schools and (ii) government-funded private  Teacher salary levels schools, as Swaziland has decided to involve these  Teacher dismissals providers in offering basic education services. 1 The  The way in which the curriculum is delivered following text discusses the benchmarking results  Class-size decisions  Management of the operating budgets against the established recommended practices. For more information on the global evidence underlying Development level: these policy goals, see the SABER framework paper, Independent private schools: “What Matters Most for Engaging the Private Sector in Education” (Baum et al. 2014). Government-funded private schools: The main policies, laws, and official documentation used In Swaziland, most education policies allow both to benchmark Swaziland’s education sector include: independent and government-funded private schools a high degree of school-level autonomy. With an overall  2005 Constitution score of established, current policies for both  Education Act No. 9 of 1981 independent and government-funded private schools  Free Primary Education Act of 2010 meet the standards of good practice.  Teaching Service Act of 1982  The Education (Establishment and Registration Independent private schools have the legal authority to of Private Educational Institutions) Regulations appoint, deploy, and dismiss teachers without review by Notice of 2009 the central government. The policies that allow independent private schools this autonomy are currently Goal 1: Encouraging Innovation by Providers informal. The highly particular and contextualized nature of Both independent and government-funded private education delivery necessitates decision making at the schools are allowed to determine teacher standards and school level. In order to be aware of and adapt to how to deliver the curriculum. There are certain basic changing student needs, school leaders require requirements for teachers set by the government, which autonomy over the most critical managerial decisions. vary by the type of teacher vacancy in question. These The methodologically rigorous studies assessing the basic requirements are the same across all schools, but impacts of local school autonomy on student learning independent and government-funded private schools outcomes generally find a positive relationship are allowed to set additional criteria. Class sizes are set (Hanushek and Woessmann 2010; Bruns, Filmer and by the government, with maximum outlined in the Patrinos 2011). A few studies find evidence that local Education (Education Standards) Regulations, section 14. autonomy for school leaders is associated with increased For primary school the maximum class size is 45 pupils; student achievement, as well as reduced student for secondary school, the maximum is 40. repetition and failure rates (King and Özler 2005; Jimenez and Sawada 2003; Gertler, Patrinos, and Rubio-Codina While government-funded private schools have 2012). autonomy over their operating budgets, they do not have the legal authority to appoint and deploy teachers. Since the government (via the Teaching Service Commission, or TSC) pays teachers’ salaries in these schools, it also maintains the authority to appoint and 1As of May 2017, this report had not yet been validated in country. Data on have diminished or have varying relevance, depending on current Swaziland’s laws and policies pertaining to nonstate education provision circumstances in Swaziland and its education sector. were collected in 2013. Consequently, potential policy options may either SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 11 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 deploy teachers centrally. Most government-funded Table 5. Goal 1: Encouraging Innovation by Providers schools “top-up” teacher salaries with their own A. Common policies for independent private schools and resources. To recruit a teacher, a government-funded government-funded private schools school announces the vacancy and any additional hiring Item Score Justification criteria to the TSC, which then seeks a suitable candidate. 2 Government-funded schools may also Schools have the Who has legal Advanced present a candidate to the TSC. legal authority to set authority to set  minimum standards teacher standards? for teachers. Schools have the Who has legal Advanced legal authority to authority to  determine teacher determine teacher salary levels without salary levels? government review. Schools have the Who has legal Advanced legal authority to authority to dismiss  dismiss teachers teachers? without government review. Who has legal Schools have the authority to Advanced legal authority over determine how the  how the curriculum curriculum is is delivered. delivered? Who has legal The central authority to Latent government has the determine maximum  legal authority to class size? determine class size. B. Independent private school policies Item Score Justification The school has the Who has legal legal authority to Advanced authority to appoint appoint teachers  and deploy teachers? without review by central authorities. C. Government-funded private school policies Item Score Justification The central Who has legal Latent government has the authority to appoint  authority to appoint and deploy and deploy teachers? teachers. Who has legal Schools have the authority to Advanced legal authority to manage school  manage their operating budgets? operating budgets. 2 Interviews with the Ministry of Education and Training, April 2014. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 12 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Based on the benchmarking results for encouraging Development level: innovation by providers, the suggested policy options Private independent schools: for Swaziland include the following:  Strengthen the regulatory environment for the non- Government-funded private schools: state sector. Swaziland’s policies for holding independent schools  Increase schools’ flexibility with respect to the use accountable are emerging, while its policies for holding of additional resources and curriculum delivery government-funded private schools accountable are which meet the needs of the local community. established, demonstrating systematic instances of good practice. For government-funded private schools:  Allow schools to appoint and deploy teachers at the While students at independent schools take the same school level. standardized exams as students at all other schools, policy does not require most independent private Goal 2: Holding Schools Accountable schools to undergo inspections. However, if schools do not meet all required criteria at the time of registration, On average, students perform better in schools with they are awarded only provisional registration. In those higher levels of accountability to the state cases, after one year of provisional registration, private (Abdulkadiroglu et al. 2011; Carnoy and Loeb 2002; schools are required to undergo an inspection to become Woessmann et al. 2007; Hanushek and Raymond 2005). fully registered. The Education (Education Standards) For non-state providers, when government funding is Regulations, article 7, establish that: “The director shall tied to accountability standards, schools are incentivized appoint officers with authority to enter and inspect any to perform more efficiently (Barrera-Osorio and Raju school, or any place at which it is reasonably suspected 2010; Patrinos 2002). A strong accountability system that a school is conducted, at any time, without notice, requires that the government, parents, and educational and to report to him with respect to the school or any professionals work together to raise outcomes. The aspect thereof” (MET 2009). government must play a role in ensuring that superior education quality is delivered by schools. SABER-EPS Private schools are also required to provide the principal assesses multiple policy indicators to determine non- secretary with “such particulars, information, documents state provider accountability. A list of the key indicators or returns as the principal secretary may from time to is provided in box 3. time require. This includes statistics, information and Box 3. International Best Practice – Holding Schools inspection” (MET 2009, article 10). Accountable  The central government sets standards regarding In contrast, for government-funded private schools, what students need to learn, including deadlines for policies pertaining to standardized exams and school meeting these standards. inspections demonstrate good practice. For these  Students are required to take standardized schools, the government sets standards on what examinations; exam results are disaggregated by students must learn and requires inspections. Although school, socioeconomic status, gender, etc. there is no standard timetable for inspections, inspection  Schools are required to report on the use of public reports outline the strengths and weaknesses of schools funds as a condition of continued funding. and recommend specific priorities for school  The central government or an external agency improvement. Primary schools are required to submit performs school inspections as determined by school need. school improvement plans following inspection  Schools produce school improvement plans. recommendations. Neither sanctions nor rewards are  School performance is tied to sanctions and/or administered as a result of school inspections or school rewards. performance on standardized exams. However, these policies are currently informal. While the government has stated its intention to inspect all schools, in practice resource constraints may prevent inspectors from SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 13 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 reaching some schools, especially government-funded The government private schools.3 does not require Are school inspections Latent independent determined by school  private schools to The Swaziland Examinations Council is responsible for need? undergo developing, administering, and processing national inspections. examinations in Swaziland. All public and private schools Does the inspection Not applicable if and students studying the primary, lower secondary, and report outline the Latent the government upper secondary curricula take national examinations at strengths and does not require  weaknesses of the schools to take part the end of grade 5, form 3 (grade 10), and form 5 (grade school? in inspections. 12), respectively. C. Government-funded private schools The Education Act (article 20) stipulates that “The Item Score Justification Permanent Secretary may appoint any person to inspect schools and adult education centres [sic] for the purpose Does the government The government of– set standards on what Established sets standards on students need to learn what students need  a) Ensuring that proper standards are maintained and by when? to learn and by when. in relation to the health of pupils, teachers and other members of staff and the cleanliness of The government requires buildings, premises, and other facilities; Are school inspections government-funded b) Examining the records of any school or adult Emerging private schools to determined by school education centre [sic] and any other matters  undergo need? relating to the teaching at or management of inspections, but the such school or centre [sic].” (Swaziland 1981).” term is not specified. Table 6. Goal 2: Holding Schools Accountable Inspection reports A. Common policies for independent private schools and include strengths government-funded private schools and weaknesses of Does the inspection the school, plus Item Score Justification report outline the specific priorities for Established strengths and improvement.  Standardized exams weaknesses of the Primary schools are Are students required Advanced are administered in school? required to submit a to take standardized exams, with results  select grades school improvement disaggregated? annually and results plan following an are disaggregated. inspection. Are sanctions There are no Are schools required to The government administered based sanctions in place for report to the does not require on the results of Latent underperformance. government on the use Latent schools to report on school inspections or  the use of public of public funds as a  performance on condition of continued funds as a condition standardized exams? funding? of continued funding. B. Independent private school policies Item Score Justification Informed by the results of the benchmarking procedure, the following suggested policy options would help The government Does the government Swaziland increase the accountability of non-state does not set set standards on what Latent schools: standards on what students need to  students need to learn and by when? learn and by when.  Require schools to undergo a standard-term inspection.  Establish appropriate sanctions as the result of 3 Interviews with the Ministry of Education and Training, April 2014. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 14 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 underperformance on standardized exams Box 4. International Best Practice—Empowering All Parents, and/or school inspections. Students, and Communities  Information on standardized tests and school For independent private schools: inspections is made available by multiple sources.  Parents and students are included in the  Set standards on what students need to learn inspection and improvement-planning processes. and by when.  Admission processes for entry into publicly funded schools are not based on student background; a For government-funded private schools: lottery is used in cases of oversubscription.  Require schools to report on the use of public  School choice is not hindered by mandatory funds as a condition of continued funding. financial contributions.  Tax subsidies, scholarships, or cash transfers are available to families whose children attend Goal 3: Empowering all Parents, Students, independent private schools. and Communities Development level: Empowering parents, students, and communities is one Private independent schools: of the foundations for creating quality learning opportunities for all students. Poor and marginalized Government-funded private schools: children, together with youth, disproportionately lack access to quality education services. To overcome this In Swaziland, policies for empowering parents, students, obstacle, governments need to increase providers’ and communities for independent private schools are accountability to all clients, particularly underserved latent. For government-funded private schools, policies groups. Educational access and the performance of are emerging. schools and students can be substantially impacted by openly disseminating comparable school performance For both independent and government-funded private information (Andrabi, Das, and Khwaja 2009; Pandey, schools, only ad-hoc information on standardized exam Goyal, and Sundararaman 2009; Björkman 2007; results is made available to parents through multiple Reinikka and Svensson 2005); increasing parental sources, including newspapers, PTA meetings, and SMS influence in the school (Skoufias and Shapiro 2006; King messages; different schools use different methods. No and Özler 2005; Jimenez and Sawada 1999; Gertler, programs are in place to provide information on Patrinos, and Rubio-Codina 2012; Di Gropello and standardized exam results to hard-to-reach groups, and Marshall 2005); and implementing demand-side schools do not have to give parents or students access to interventions, such as scholarships, vouchers, or cash inspection reports. For independent and government- transfers, to help the most vulnerable students (Orazem funded private schools, neither students nor parents are and King 2007; Filmer and Schady 2008; Lewis and interviewed as part of inspections; independent private Lockheed 2007; Patrinos 2002; Barrera-Osorio 2006). schools are not even required by law to undergo Effective policy practices for non-state providers include inspections. The government does not provide any tax some of the indicators listed in box 4. subsidies or cash transfers for children to attend independent private schools. The empowerment of parents and students is further restricted in government-funded schools by compulsory parental contributions, as well as the selective admission criteria applied by these schools. According to informal policy, government-funded schools are not allowed to discriminate by academic ability.4 However, schools are ranked by performance, which gives them an incentive to apply selective admission criteria. 4Information was obtained from interviews with the Ministry of Education and Training in April 2014. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 15 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Table 7. Goal 3: Empowering all Parents, Students, standardized exam results and school and Communities inspection reports. This could also be done A. Common policies for independent private schools and through school report cards. government-funded private schools For independent private schools: Item Score Justification  Consider cash transfers for disadvantaged Are standardized pupils (such as orphaned and vulnerable Ad-hoc information on exam results and Emerging children and those from poor and rural standardized exam inspection reports  results is made households) to attend independent private provided regularly to available to parents. schools. parents? B. Independent private schools For government-funded private schools:  Remove the ability of schools to use selection Item Score Justification criteria that may discriminate against marginalized groups. Are parents and Independent private students Latent schools are not interviewed as part  of the inspection required to undergo Goal 4: Promoting Diversity of Supply inspections. process? By opening education to a more diverse set of providers, Does the The government does governments can increase client power and make government provide not provide tax providers directly accountable to students and parents tax subsidies or cash Latent subsidies or cash transfers for families transfers for families for results. Although the public sector will always remain  whose children whose children attend an important (and, in most cases, the predominant) attend independent independent private provider of education services, educational choice can be private schools? schools. used as part of a package of reforms to improve C. Government-funded private schools education access and quality in both the public and private sectors (Hoxby 2003; Levin and Belfield 2003; De Item Score Justification la Croix and Doepke 2009; Carnoy and McEwan 2003; Are parents and Neither students nor Himmler 2007; Angrist et al. 2002; World Bank 2003). In students interviewed Emerging parents are interviewed order to facilitate quality improvements through as part of the  as part of the inspection increased school competition and choice, governments inspection process? process. can (i) allow multiple types of providers to operate; Are schools allowed to Schools are allowed to (ii) promote clear, open, affordable, and unrestrictive apply selective Emerging select students based certification standards; and (iii) make government admission criteria  on academic when admitting performance and/or funding (and other incentives) available to non-state students? geography. schools. This policy goal aims to increase the ability of diverse providers to provide education services. In order Are schools allowed to Parental choice is to do so, a number of policy indicators are suggested, as charge additional fees Latent restricted due to outlined in box 5. or accept  compulsory monetary contributions from contributions. parents? Informed by the results of the benchmarking procedure for Swaziland, the following suggested policy options would help empower parents and students to influence the quality of education services provided by non-state schools:  Guarantee parents access to comparable information on the quality of schooling, such as SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 16 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Box 5. International Best Practice—Promoting Diversity of a) the school or other facilities provided or to be Supply provided at the school are suitable and adequate in  The central government allows different types of accordance with the prescribed minimum providers to operate schools. requirements applicable to public schools: and  Certification standards do not prohibit market entry. b) the owner of the school undertakes to the  Information on market-entry requirements is satisfaction of the Principal Secretary that available from multiple sources.  Regulatory fees do not prohibit market entry. i) adequate financial provision has been made  Publicly funded non state schools and public or guaranteed for the maintenance of the schools receive equivalent student funding; school for a reasonable period; funding is increased to meet specific student needs. ii) the teaching staff to be employed at the  The central government provides incentives for school is sufficiently qualified for the purpose of market entry, such as access to start-up funding, efficient provision of qualitative basic public land, and public buildings. education;  Schools are able to plan budgets six months in advance of the academic year. iii) the school will provide a standard of  Privately managed schools are not restricted by education not inferior to the standard student numbers, school numbers, or location. maintained in comparable public schools;  The central government does not restrict tuition levels at private independent schools. iv) the school will not impose restrictions of Development level: whatever nature with respect to the admission of learners based on race, ethnic origin, color, Private independent schools: or creed; and Government-funded private schools: v) the school will not impose restrictions of whatever nature with respect the recruitment In Swaziland, the policies in place to promote diversity of and appointment of staff based on race, ethnic supply for independent private schools and for origin, or color; government-funded private schools are established, representing systematic good practice. he may cause the private school to be fully registered or to be provisionally registered” (MET 2009). Overall, government policy supports the market entry and relatively unburdened operation of multiple private As noted earlier, if a school is provisionally registered, it providers. The Swazi government allows all types of is inspected after a period of one year. The principal providers—community, not-for-profit, for-profit, and secretary can register the school if he is “satisfied that faith-based organizations—to operate private schools. the school has fully complied with the terms and Schools are free to set their own tuition fees. The conditions imposed” (Ibid.). However, failure to comply minimum standards for operating a private school are with the terms of the regulation will lead to a notice to the same as those for public schools. Regulatory remedy the remaining defects within six months. At the guidelines are available to the public, but only upon end of this period, the Secretary can order the private request. school to be closed if defects remain. The following required steps for registration are outlined Specified minimum criteria for school registration in the Education (Establishment and Registration of include a land and staffing requirement. Primary schools Private Educational Institutions) Regulations Notice of must have 1 hectare for every 100 pupils, while 2009, article 5: secondary schools must have a land area of 1.5 hectares. Regarding staffing, one teacher per class is required for “2) If the Principal Secretary is satisfied that- primary schools. For secondary schools, the minimum number of teachers varies by form (grade). Additionally, SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 17 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 schools are required to submit information on the Table 8. Goal 4: Promoting Diversity of Supply following issues in the application form: A. Common policies for independent private schools  Number of students and government-funded private schools  Curriculum to be followed  Standardized exams to be followed Item Score Justification  List of buildings by type (including size of rooms, The government construction materials used) Does the government allows community, allow multiple types Advanced not-for-profit, faith-  List of furniture and equipment (MET 2009) of providers to  based, and for- operate a school? profit providers to Although the application does not indicate that certain operate schools. facilities are obligatory, the required list describing the Certification type of buildings suggests that schools should strive to standards, which have the following facilities: are not linked to Are there minimum education standards for Established outcomes, restrict  Principal’s office registration to enable market entry   Offices for head(s) of department independent private including one of the schools to operate?  Office for school secretary three following  Staff room for teachers criteria: land, facilities, or assets.  Library Are guidelines that  Storeroom for school records outline the Registration Emerging guidelines are  Biology/life science laboratory requirements for available to the school registration   Physical science laboratory public, but only clearly publicized by  Toilet facilities (separate for girls, boys, teachers) multiple sources? upon request.  Sport facilities Are schools able to Established Schools only have operate without to pay a one-time  Private providers also need to justify which specific paying fees? registration fee. needs the school will provide that are not already B. Independent private schools provided for in public schools (MET 2009, section 7). Item Score Justification Independent private schools are able to operate without Who has legal having to pay fees, other than a one-time registration Advanced Schools are free to authority to  determine their own fee. determine tuition tuition fees. fee standards? For government-funded private schools, the central C. Government-funded private schools government provides the same level of teacher salaries Item Score Justification that it does for public schools, though government- Does the government Academic operating funded private schools receive lower amounts of non- provide equivalent budgets are Emerging academic budgets. Most public (i.e., government) funding for public and equivalent to per-  government-funded student amounts in schools are boarding schools, which receive additional private schools? public schools. government support in the form of support staff salaries, Do government- Government-funded transport, and utility payments. funded private schools Latent private schools do not receive any start-up  receive any start-up Government-funded schools are provided information funding? funding. on the amount of their upcoming government funding Is information on the Schools receive more than six months in advance of the beginning of the amount of information more Advanced government funding than 6 months in academic year. However, schools receive neither  provided in a timely advance of the targeted funding to meet individual student needs, nor manner? academic year. start-up funding. Informed by the results of the benchmarking procedure for Swaziland, the following suggested policy options SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 18 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 would help to better promote diversity of supply for independent private schools:  Publish clear registration guidelines by multiple sources in order to ease the market entry of new providers. For government-funded private schools:  Consider providing schools with access to start-up funding and/or access to government facilities or land in areas where the supply of secondary school places is low. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 19 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 From Analysis to Action: Policy Options for underserved groups in particular. Ensuring that information on school performance is made available Swaziland and enabling families to respond to that information through open enrollment policies can be a powerful Following the introduction of free primary education, means for equalizing opportunities (World Bank 2011). Swaziland has nearly achieved universal primary Ensuring that all students are afforded the same education, with 97 percent of children aged 6–12 opportunities, however, sometimes requires attending school in 2010. However, serious challenges redistributive action. remain at both the primary and secondary level, including high repetition rates of both boys and girls in i) Provide parents with comparable primary school; performance at the end of primary information on standardized exams school being linked to location and socioeconomic and/or inspection reports. status; and low access to secondary school, particularly for the poorest students. Swaziland faces the particular Central governments should not to be the only monitors challenge of ensuring equal opportunity for the of school performance. Access to comparative approximately 30 percent of children who are orphaned information can enable parents and students to and vulnerable. influence school quality through increased choice and direct voice to providers. Based on current policies, the Based on the results of the benchmarking exercise, three government of Swaziland could increase the information suggested policy options are offered to strengthen the provided to parents on school quality. government’s engagement with independent and government-funded private schools in order to ensure School report cards can provide information in one place learning for all: that allows parents to easily compare schools in their area. Information usually includes school demographics, 1. Empower parents to make informed classroom assessment results, examination results, and educational choices, while providing additional inspection reports. Evidence from Pakistan found that support to disadvantaged groups. school report cards improved learning by 0.1 standard 2. Strengthen accountability mechanisms to deviations and reduced fees by almost 20 percent. The ensure that all students receive a quality largest learning gains (0.34 standard deviations) were for education. initially low-performing (below median baseline test 3. Strengthen the policy environment for the non- scores) private schools, with the worst of these more state sector to promote transparency and an likely to close (Andrabi, Das, and Khawja 2009). adequate supply of school places. The Ministry of Education and Training could create a These policy options are supported by international mechanism to inform communities about the inspection evidence, best practice, and examples of countries that and exam results of both private and government- have used innovative interventions to improve from a funded private schools, inspection action plans, and variety of starting points. other information of interest to parents and communities. This mechanism could also function as a Policy Option 1: Empower parents to make discussion forum where different stakeholders could informed educational choices, while exchange experiences and opinions on the performance providing additional support to of private schools. disadvantaged groups. The empowerment of parents, students, and Country examples communities is foundational for providing quality learning opportunities to all students. Poor and An early adopter of school report cards was Parana state marginalized children and youth disproportionately lack in Brazil. Between 1999 and 2002 report cards were access to quality education. To overcome this obstacle, introduced to inform school communities and stimulate governments need to use various mechanisms to greater involvement in the school improvement process. increase providers’ accountability to all clients— The report cards were disseminated to a wider range of SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 20 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 stakeholders including all schools, PTAs, municipal can currently hinder the transition of students from education authorities and all 70,000 state education primary to secondary school, especially those from employees, including 46,0000 teachers. Results were disadvantaged and marginalized backgrounds. In reported in the state education secretariat’s monthly grade 6, student performance is strongly linked to newsletter, used in teacher and PTA workshops, socioeconomic background: the poorest 25 percent of disseminated via press releases and press conferences students scored over 40 points less than their wealthiest (EQUIP2). peers in reading on the SACMEQ III exam in 2007 (Shabalala, Nxumalo, and Nkambule 2012). If schools are In the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, allowed to select students for secondary school based on Honduras, and Nicaragua, a USAID-funded program – academic ability, this will particularly impact rural and Civic Engagement for Education Reform in Central poor students. Therefore, Swaziland needs to focus on America – implemented a school report card that ensuring that, regardless of background, all students focused on indicators in four areas: have access to quality schooling. 1. Context: basic profile information (number of iii) Consider increasing support to students in each grade, etc.) and access to services disadvantaged and marginalized at the school (sanitation, electricity, etc.) students in order to promote equity. 2. Inputs: class size, access to resources (notebooks, pens, etc.), and access to social services (school In Swaziland, inequality persists in the access to meals, health programs, etc.) secondary education. The rate of attendance increases 3. Processes: student and teacher attendance, school proportionally with household income: whereas 29 plan implementation, and parent participation percent of children from the poorest quintile attend 4. Results: coverage and efficiency (repetition and secondary school, 71 percent of their peers from the retention) wealthiest quintile do. The results of the school report card are used by Redistributive mechanisms can protect poorer students communities to develop and monitor implementation of without negatively impacting the growth of the private school action plans (CERCA 2006). education sector. Swaziland could consider one of two options in order to support disadvantaged and In Andhra Pradesh, India, the Vidya Chaitanyam marginalized students, particularly orphans: either intervention used citizens to monitor and advocate for providing conditional cash transfers (CCTs) to these higher quality service delivery from government and students to attend independent private schools, or non-government basic education providers. This was introducing a voucher system, whereby the government intended to strengthen the oversight function in the provides funding to the school that a student chooses to state due to the lack of capacity at the Local Education attend. Offices whose responsibility is to carry out school inspections. The program included members of Such options can increase equity in the educational Women’s Self Help Groups, who were often illiterate and system and have positive impacts on quality. For semi-literate, to assess the quality of basic education example, voucher reform in Chile increased both the provision through the use of school scorecards. The demand for private schooling and secondary school results of the scorecards were shared with district attainment and graduation rates across all income levels officials, the local School Management Committee, and (Bravo, Mukhopadhyay, and Todd 2010). Moreover, at local Women’s Self Help Group meetings (CfBT 2012). when government funding for vouchers is tied to accountability standards, it creates an incentive for ii) Remove the ability of schools to use schools to perform more efficiently (Patrinos 2002). selection criteria that may discriminate against disadvantaged or marginalized With both vouchers and CCTs, effective targeting is groups. critical. The voucher system in Chile has been criticized because schools can decide not to offer vouchers to The ability of schools to use selective admission criteria disadvantaged groups. Moreover, private schools are SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 21 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 allowed to ask parents for additional contributions to “top up” the voucher, as well as to select students, both of which have been argued to create inequality Country example: CCTs (Gonzalez, Mizala, and Romaguera 2004). Evidence from Cambodia suggests that to promote quality as well as In Cambodia, two evaluations of the impact of equity, a two-step targeting approach might be scholarships for lower secondary school have shown preferable: first, target low-income individuals, then substantial increases in school enrollment and among them, target based on merit (Barrera-Osorio and attendance as a direct consequence of the programs. Filmer 2013). Recipients were 20–30 percentage points more likely to be enrolled and attending school as a result of the Country examples: Vouchers scholarships. Impacts on learning outcomes were, however, limited (Filmer and Schady, 2008, 2009, 2011). The Right to Education Act in India is the largest school A new approach to scholarships at the primary level were voucher program in the world. The Act outlines that all subsequently tried, using two different targeting children between the ages of 6 and 14 have the right to mechanisms. One was based on students’ poverty level free and compulsory elementary education at a and the other, on baseline test scores (“merit”). Both neighborhood school. There is no direct (school fees) or targeting mechanisms increased enrollment and indirect cost (uniforms, textbooks, mid-day meals, attendance. However, only the merit-based targeting transportation) to be borne by the child or the parents to induced positive effects on test scores. obtain elementary education. The government will provide schooling free-of-cost until a child’s elementary The results suggest that in order to balance equity and education is completed. In order to increase access to efficiency, a targeting approach should first target low- education, the Act outlines that 25 percent of places in income individuals, and then award scholarships based private schools must be allocated to economically on merit (Barrera-Osorio and Filmer 2013). weaker section (EWS) and disadvantaged students (Government of India 2010). Policy Option 2: Strengthen accountability mechanisms to ensure that all students In Pakistan, the Punjab Education Foundation launched receive a quality education. an Education Voucher Scheme (EVS) in 2006 to benefit A country’s accountability mechanisms are crucial for children in less affluent and underprivileged areas, who ensuring high-quality service delivery. During a year of otherwise could not access education due to financial schooling, students with a poor teacher typically master and social constraints. The scheme was immensely less than 50 percent of the curriculum, while students popular due to its positive effects on poorer segments of with a good teacher average one year of progression, society. The scheme enables children aged 4–17 years to and those with great teachers, one-and-a-half years attend a nearby EVS private school of their choice for (Hanushek and Rivkin 2010). But while good teaching is free. The Scheme particularly targets out-of-school essential, systems must also ensure that accountability children, orphans, children of widows and single parents, mechanisms are effective and aligned with the goal of as well as children who cannot afford school. There are monitoring teaching and learning. no up-front infrastructure costs, as existing schools express their interest in participating in the EVS. A There are currently great differences in learning partnership between the school and EVS is dependent on outcomes in Swaziland depending on the location and continuous quality assurance, including school visits and socioeconomic status of a student’s household. As noted bi-annual quality assurance tests (QAT) that assess earlier, students from rural areas scored over 30 points improvements in student learning outcomes.5 less than their urban peers in reading on the latest SACMEQ exam (2007), while the difference between the poorest and wealthiest students was almost 40 points (Shabalala, Nxumano, and Nkambule 2012). To raise the 5“Education Voucher System,” webpage of Punjab Education Foundation, Lahore, Pakistan (accessed May 2014). SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 22 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 accountability of non-state schools, Swaziland could set Table 4. Types of School Inspections in Malawi standards for all private schools, strengthen the Who inspection system and oversight mechanisms, provide Type of carries it parents with information about school quality, and inspection Objective out Duration establish appropriate sanctions and rewards. Full Evaluation of all Team of Full day inspection aspects of the inspectors: i) Strengthen the inspection system by school: 3–6 curriculum, inspectors, requiring standard-term inspections. organization of depending teaching and on size of On average, students perform better in schools with learning, general school higher levels of accountability to the state school (Abdulkadiroğlu et al. 2011; Carnoy and Loeb 2002; administration and Woessmann et al. 2007; Hanushek and Raymond 2005). documentation, In Swaziland, the principal secretary can currently buildings and appoint inspectors to any school, but no term is specified grounds, for such inspections. The MEST Inspectorate should be equipment mandated to inspect not only government-funded Follow-up Evaluation of 1–2 2 hours schools, but also independent private schools, at a set inspection extent to which advisors frequency. The government could also create recommendations mechanisms to ensure that the number and location of made in the full inspection report inspections are actively monitored and follow-up action have been is taken by schools based on inspection implemented recommendations. Partial Examination and 1–2 Depends inspection evaluation of one advisors on Country examples or a limited gravity number of aspects of In Malawi, the inspection framework covers private of school life aspect(s) independent schools, religious schools, and public Block Improve 6–8 1–2 schools. Schools are inspected once every two years. inspection inspection supervisors weeks Malawi also has need-based inspections based on the coverage of from following criteria: schools in a different specific period of districts a) Schools with poor examination results time b) Schools that are poorly managed Source: Government of Malawi. c) Schools that have not been inspected for more than two years The inspection report includes information on the type d) High-performing schools (in order to learn good of school visited, enrollment, staffing, and a rating of practices) various aspects of school performance, as well as general strengths and weaknesses of the school. After the Malawi also has four different types of inspection inspection, school staff members and the head teacher (table 4). are briefed on its findings. This discussion gives them a chance to start working on the weaknesses identified in the school. ii) Consider establishing sanctions based on poor performance. There are currently no sanctions in place for underperforming independent or government-funded SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 23 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 private schools in Swaziland. The use of sanctions for Policy Option 3: Strengthen the policy poor school performance is a policy intervention that has environment for the non-state sector to helped raise the quality of education in many countries promote transparency and an adequate (Patrinos 2002; Barrera-Osorio and Raju 2010; Chiang supply of school places. 2009; Rockoff and Turner 2008). When schools face closure, re-organization, and other sanctions as the i) Clearly outline governance and financial result of underperformance, there are strong incentives arrangements of schools in policy to make school improvements. Any sanctions need to documents. take into account the local context and how to best meet the needs of students. In Swaziland, the regulatory environment could be strengthened for both independent and government- Country examples funded schools. Policies and laws should explicitly outline the governance and financial arrangements in In the Netherlands, if a school’s performance fails to order to ensure that the system promotes transparency improve after an improvement plan is implemented, and quality education. This is particularly important in school management receives an official warning. the area of school autonomy, where informal guidelines Subsequently, if the school still fails to improve, it is often apply. Methodologically rigorous studies that have reported to the Minister of Education, who can then assessed the impacts of local school autonomy on impose administrative sanctions (Onderwijs Inspectie student learning outcomes generally find a positive 2010). relationship between the two (Hanushek and Woessmann 2013; Bruns, Filmer, and Patrinos 2011). A iii) Set clear student standards for few studies find evidence that local autonomy for school independent private schools. leaders is associated with increased student achievement, as well as reduced student repetition and The government does not explicitly outline student failure rates (King and Özler 2005; Jimenez and Sawada standards for independent private schools, although 2003; Gertler, Patrinos, and Rubio-Codina 2012). schools do take part in standardized examinations administered at grade 5, form 3 (grade 10), and form 5 For government-funded private schools, accountability (grade 12), respectively. The government could set for the use of public funds also needs to be strengthened. standards on what students should know at each stage Currently, government-funded private schools in of the learning process in these schools in line with Swaziland are not required to report on the use of public expectations of public schools. This could be done by funds as a condition of continued funding. Greater individual grade or by setting a learning standard for the transparency and more rigorous compliance would end of each school level: kindergarten, primary school, ensure that funding is used efficiently by private lower secondary school (form 3), and upper secondary providers. Communities can also be actively involved in school (form 5). monitoring the use of public spending on education. Country examples Country example In British Columbia, Canada, the top performing In England, when the Department for Education Canadian province on international tests, the Education extended their engagement with the private sector, they Standards Order (ESO) requires that all children explicitly outlined the governance and financial educated by independent private providers reach the arrangements with the schools in the 2010 Academies expected intellectual, human, social, and career Act. This Act was then revised when Free Schools became development goals. The ESO also sets standards for an additional type of private sector engagement. The education delivery for students with special educational Department for Education also provides guidance notes needs. Schools are expected to implement Individual to both Free Schools and Academies in order to more Student Education Plans to support them (British effectively implement the policies. For example, the Act Columbia 2013). outlines that schools are able to make their own personnel decisions and adapt the curriculum. In SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 24 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 practice, some schools opt to use the government specified number of school places are allocated to poor, teacher standards while other schools tailor these to disadvantaged, and marginalized students. As part of meet the needs of the local community.6 promoting the diversity of supply, Swaziland should ensure that registration guidelines for new providers are In Uganda, a survey in 1991 showed that only 13 percent readily available from multiple sources. of government funds were reaching schools. This led the Government of Uganda to disseminate information on Country example monthly transfers to the districts via newspapers and radio. Schools were also required to show use of In Uganda, the Government is using a public-private intended funds per student. By 1999, around 90 percent partnership (PPP) to support its Universal Secondary of funding was reaching schools and being used to Education (USE) Program. Under this PPP program, the support student learning (Reinikka and Svensson 2005). government finances the education of USE-eligible students in participating private schools on the condition ii) Ensure that the regulatory environment that the private schools do not require any additional promotes an adequate supply of school fees for these students’ participation. Students that places, particularly at the secondary level. cannot be accommodated in public USE schools are channeled to the nearest private school participating in Swaziland should ensure that its regulatory environment the PPP program. This contract between government promotes access and encourages new providers to enter and private schools is formalized as a memorandum of the market in areas where the supply of school places understanding signed by the Ministry of Education and does not meet demand. Overall, secondary enrollment participating private schools. Around 650 schools are represented only 35 percent of students of secondary included in the program, including purely private school age in 2011. According to the SACMEQ III report, schools, community schools, and even some faith-based secondary school places in Swaziland were limited, and schools (Barrera-Osorio, De Galbert, Habyarimana, and not all those who had passed primary could transition to Sabarwal 2016). secondary education (Shabalala, Nxumalo, and Nkambule 2012). Swaziland could consider public- In Burkina Faso, a PPP was set up to increase enrollment private partnerships to promote access to secondary in lower secondary schools, resulting in an increase from schooling, for instance, by funding additional school 20 percent in 2004 to 33.5 percent by 2009. Through the places in existing schools or by offering incentives to new partnership, the Government supported the providers to expand the supply of school places in construction and equipment of 80 private schools and disadvantaged areas. The latter policy could be achieved hired and paid two teachers per school. The schools by offering private schools start-up funding, support for aimed to reduce disparities in choice of secondary academic budgets, or other incentives (e.g., access to schools among the provinces. The 18 provinces with the government land or buildings, tax exemptions). lowest coverage benefited from 70 percent of program funding. These schools then operated at a lower cost In order to simultaneously promote equity, support than typical private schools. No recurrent costs were and/or funding could be granted on the condition that a incurred by the government. 6“Opening a Free School or Studio School,” U.K. Department for Education, http://www.education.gov.uk/a0075656/free-schools-faqs-curriculum#faq3, Department for Education, Manchester, UK. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 25 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Acknowledgments Report 2018 background paper. Washington, D.C., World Bank Group. Barro, R. J., and J.-W. Lee. 2013. “A New Data Set of This SABER-EPS Country Report was originally prepared Educational Attainment in the World, 1950–2010.” by Callista Chen, local consultant, with support from Journal of Development Economics 104: 184–98. Laura Lewis and Anna-Maria Tammi at World Bank Baum, D., L. Lewis, O. Lusk-Stover, and H. A. Patrinos. 2014. headquarters in Washington, D.C. The report presents “What Matters Most for Engaging the Private Sector in country data collected by Ms. Chen in 2014 using the Education: A Framework Paper.” SABER Working Paper 8. SABER-EPS policy intent data collection instrument. The SABER, Education Global Practice, World Bank, report was further updated and revised by Minju Choi, Washington, DC. with inputs from Oni Lusk-Stover. The report was Björkman, M. 2007. “Does Money Matter for Student prepared in consultation with the Government of Performance? Evidence from a Grant Program in Swaziland under the leadership and guidance of the Uganda.” IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for World Bank Education Swaziland team led by Xiaonan Economic Research) Working Paper 326, Bocconi Cao. University, Italy. Bravo, D., S. Mukhopadhyay, and P. Todd. 2010. “Effects of The SABER-EPS team would like to thank the United School Reform on Education and Labor Market Kingdom’s Department for International Development Performance: Evidence from Chile’s Universal Voucher for support of the Education Markets for the Poor System.” Quantitative Economics 1 (1): 47–95. research study, which made this work possible. British Columbia, Government of. 2013. Educational Standards Order, Independent School Act. Section 4(1)(b). Victoria, British Columbia. References Bruns, B., D. Filmer, and H. A. Patrinos. 2011. Making Schools Abdulkadiroğlu, A., J. D. Angrist, S. M. Dynarski, T. J. Kane, and Work: New Evidence on Accountability Reforms. P. A. Pathak. 2011. “Accountability and Flexibility in Washington DC: World Bank. Public Schools: Evidence from Boston's Charters and Pilots.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (2): 699– Carnoy, M., A. K. Gove, S. Loeb, J. H. Marshall, and M. Socias. 748. 2008. “How Schools and Students Respond to School Improvement Programs: The Case of Brazil's Andrabi, T., J. Das, and A. Khwaja. 2009. “Report Cards: The PDE.” Economics of Education Review 27 (1): 22–38. Impact of Providing School and Child Test Scores on Educational Markets.” Unpublished manuscript. World Carnoy, M., and S. Loeb. 2002. "Does External Accountability Bank, Washington, DC. Affect Student Outcomes? A Cross-State Analysis." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (4): 305– Angrist, J., E. Bettinger, E. Bloom, and E. King. 2002. “Vouchers 331. for Private Schooling in Colombia: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment.” American Economic Carnoy, M., and P. J. McEwan. 2003. “Does Privatization Review 92 (5): 1535–58. Improve Education? The Case of Chile’s National Voucher Plan.” In Choosing Choice: School Choice in International Barrera-Osorio, F. 2006. “The Impact of Private Provision of Perspective, ed. D. N. Plank and G. Sykes, 24–44. New Public Education: Empirical Evidence from Bogotá’s York: Teachers College Press. Concession Schools.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4121. Education Unit, Human CERCA (Civic Engagement for Education Reform in Central Development Network, World Bank, Washington, DC. America). 2006. “School Report Card.” Academy for Educational Development, Washington, DC. Barrera-Osorio, F., and D. Raju. 2010. "Short-Run Learning Dynamics under a Test-Based Accountability System: CfBT Education Trust. 2013. “Community-Based Accountability Evidence from Pakistan." World Bank Policy Research for School Improvement: A Case Study from Rural India.” Working Paper 5465. Education Unit, South Asia Region, CfBT Education Trust, Reading, UK. and Education Unit, Human Development Network, Chiang, H. 2009. “How Accountability Pressure on Failing World Bank, Washington, DC. Schools Affects Student Achievement.” Journal of Public Barrera-Osorio, F., De Galbert, P. G.; Habyarimana, J. P., Economics 93(9-10): 1045-1057. Sabarwal, S. 2016. “Impact of public-private partnerships Chitiga, Z. M., and A. Chinoona. 2011. “Achievement Levels of on private school performance: evidence from a Grade 6 Pupils in Zimbabwe.” SACMEQ III Policy Brief 1. randomized controlled trial in Uganda.” Policy Research SACMEQ, Gabarone, Botswana. Working Paper 7905. World Bank World Development SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 26 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Collins, J. C. 2005. Good to Great and the Social Sectors: A Hanushek, E. A., and L. Woessmann. 2013. “Does School Monograph to Accompany Good to Great. New York: Autonomy Make Sense Everywhere? Panel Estimates Harper Collins. from PISA.” Journal of Development Economics 104 De la Croix, D., and M. Doepke. 2009. “To Segregate or to (September): 212–32. Integrate: Education Politics and Democracy.” The Himmler, O. 2007. “The Effects of School Choice on Academic Review of Economic Studies 76 (2): 597–628. Achievement in the Netherlands.” Georg-August- Di Gropello, E., and J. H. Marshall. 2005. “Teacher Effort and Universität, Göttingen, Germany. Schooling Outcomes in Rural Honduras.” In Incentives to Hossain, N. 2007. “Expanding Access to Education in Improve Teaching, ed. E. Vegas, 307–57. Washington, DC: Bangladesh.” In Ending Poverty in South Asia: Ideas that World Bank. Work, ed. D. Narayan and E. Glinskaya, 304–25. EdStats (database). World Bank, Washington, DC. Washington, DC: World Bank. www.worldbank.org/education/edstats. Hoxby, C. M. 2003. “School Choice and School Competition: EQUIP 2. 2013. “Increasing Accountability in Education in Evidence from the United States.” Swedish Economic Paraná State, Brazil.” Policy Brief. EQUIP 2, Washington, Policy Review 10: 9–65. DC. http://www.epdc.org/sites/default/files/ India, Government of India. 2010. Right to Education Act. New documents/Increasing%20Accountability%20in%20Para Delhi, India. na%20State%20Brazil.pdf. Jimenez, E., and Y. Sawada. 1999. “Do Community-Managed Filmer, D., and N. Schady. 2008. “Getting Girls into School: Schools Work? An Evaluation of El Salvador’s EDUCO Evidence from a Scholarship Program in Program.” World Bank Economic Review 13 (3): 415–41. Cambodia.” Economic Development and Cultural Change ———. 2003. “Does Community Management Help Keep Kids 56 (3): 581–617. in Schools? Evidence Using Panel Data from El Salvador's ———. 2009. “School Enrollment, Selection, and Test Scores.” EDUCO Program.” CIRJE (Center for International World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 4998. World Research on the Japanese Economy) Discussion Paper F- Bank, Washington, DC. 236. CIRJE, University of Tokyo, Japan. ———. 2011. “Does More Cash in Conditional Cash Transfer King, E. M., and B. Özler. 2005. “What’s Decentralization Got Programs Always Lead to Larger Impacts on School to Do with Learning? School Autonomy and Student Attendance?” Journal of Development Economics 96 (1): Performance.” Discussion Paper 54/ 21COE. Interfaces 150–157. for Advanced Economic Analysis, Kyoto University, Japan. French, R., and G. Kingdon. 2010. “The Relative Effectiveness Levin, H. M., and C. R. Belfield. 2003. “The Marketplace in of Private Government Schools in Rural India: Evidence Education.” Review of Research in Education 27: 183– from ASER Data.” Department of Quantitative Social 219. Science Working Paper 10-03. Institute of Education, Lewis, M., and M. Lockheed. 2007. Exclusion, Gender, and University of London, UK. Education: Case Studies from the Developing World. Fullan, M. 2007. The New Meaning of Educational Change . 4th Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. ed. New York: Teachers College Press and Abingdon, UK: McEwan, P. J. 2002. “Public Subsidies for Private Schooling: A Routledge. Comparative Analysis of Argentina and Chile.” Journal of Gertler, P., H. A. Patrinos, and M. Rubio-Codina. 2012. Comparative Policy Analysis 4 (2): 189–216. “Empowering Parents to Improve Education: Evidence Mourshed, M., C. Chijioke, and M. Barber. 2010. “How the from Rural Mexico.” Journal of Development Economics Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better.” 99 (1): 68–79. McKinsey & Company, London, UK. Gonzalez, P., A. Mizala, and P. Romaguera. 2004. “Vouchers, Namibia, Government of. Ministry of Education. 2007. Inequalities, and the Chilean Experience.” Center for Education Training Sector Improvement Programme Applied Economics, University of Chile. (ETSIP). Planning a Learning Nation, Windhoek, Namibia. http://ncspe.org/publications_files/Voucher_ChileOP94. Onderwijs Inspectie (Dutch Inspectorate of Education). 2010. pdf. “Risk Based Inspection as of 2009 Primary and Secondary Hanushek, E. A., and M. E. Raymond. 2005. "Does School Education.” Onderwijs Inspectie, Utrecht, The Accountability lead to Improved Student Performance?" Netherlands. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24 (2): 297– Orazem, P. F., and E. M. King. 2007. “Schooling in Developing 327. Countries: The Roles of Supply, Demand, and Hanushek, E. A., and S. G. Rivkin. 2010. “Generalizations about Government Policy.” Handbook of Development Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality.” Economics 4: 3475–3559. American Economic Review 100 (2): 267–271. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 27 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Pal, S., and G. G. Kingdon. 2010. “Can Private School Growth ———. 2009. The Education (Establishment and Registration Foster Universal Literacy? Panel Evidence from Indian of Private Educational Institutions) Regulation Notice. Districts.” Discussion Paper 5274. Institute of the Study of MET, Mbabane, Swaziland. Labor (Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit), Bonn, ———.2011a. Annual Education Census Statistics Report. Germany. MET, Mbabane, Swaziland. Pandey, P., S. Goyal, and V. Sundararaman. 2009. “Community ———. 2011b. Swaziland Education and Training Sector Policy. Participation in Public Schools: Impact of Information MET, Mbabane, Swaziland. Campaigns in Three Indian States.” Education Economics ———. 2012. Annual Education Census Statistics Report. MET, 17 (3): 355–75. Mbabne, Swaziland. Patrinos, H. A. 2002. “A Review of Demand-Side Financing ———. 2014. “Implementation of Free Primary Education Initiatives in Education.” Unpublished draft. World Bank, (FPE) in Swaziland.” MET, Mbabne, Swaziland. Washington, DC. Swaziland, Government of the Kingdom of, Central Statistical ———, ed. 2012. “SABER: Strengthening the Quality of Office, and UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). Education in East Asia.” Education Unit, Human 2011. Swaziland Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Development Network, World Bank, Washington, DC. 2010. Final Report. Mbabane, Swaziland, Central Patrinos, H. A., F. Barrera-Osorio, and J. Guáqueta. 2009. The Statistical Office and UNICEF. Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education. Washington, DC: World Bank. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2009. “Promoting Quality Education for Orphans and Vulnerable Children.” Reeves, D. B. 2006. “The Learning Leader: How to Focus School UNICEF, New York. Improvement for Better Results.” Association of Curriculum and Development, Alexandria, VA. Western Cape, Government. 2013. “Plan to Address the Needs of our Underperforming Schools.” Press Release, March Reinikka, R., and J. Svensson. 2005. “Fighting Corruption to 24, 2013. Government of Western Cape, Cape Town, Improve Schooling: Evidence from a Newspaper South Africa. Campaign in Uganda.” Journal of the European Economic Association 3 (2–3): 259–67. http://bit.ly/ugandaRS. Woessmann, L., E. Ludemann, G. Schutz, and M. R. West. 2007. “School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level Rockoff, J. E., & Turner, L. J. 2008. “Short run Impacts of of Student Achievement: International Evidence from Accountability on School Quality.” National Bureau of PISA 2003.” Education Working Paper 13. OECD, Paris. Economic Research No. w14564 World Bank. 2003. World Development Report 2004: Making SACMEQ (Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Services Work for Poor People. Washington, DC: World Monitoring Educational Quality). 2010. “What Are the Bank. Levels and Trends in Reading and Mathematics Achievement?” SACMEQ Policy Issue 2. SACMEQ, ———. 2011. “Education Strategy 2020 Learning for All: Gaborone, Botswana. Investing in People’s Knowledge and Skills to Promote Development.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Shabalala, J., P. Nxumalo, and M. Nkambule. 2012. “Swaziland SACMEQ III Report.” Ministry of Education and Training, ———. 2013. “What Matters for Workforce Development: A Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland, Mbabne, Framework and Tool for Analysis.” SABER Working Swaziland. Paper 6. SABER, Global Education Practice, World Bank, Washington DC. Schmoker, M., and R. J. Marzano. 1999. “Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based Education.” Educational Leadership World Development Indicators (database). World Bank, 56: 17–21. Washington, DC. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?sour Skoufias, E., and J. Shapiro. 2006. “The Pitfalls of Evaluating a ce=world-development-indicators School Grants Program Using Non-Experimental Data.” Policy Research Working Paper 4036. World Bank, Washington, DC. Swaziland, Government of the Kingdom of. 1981. Education Action (No. 9, 1981). Mbabne, Swaziland. ———. 1982. Teaching Service Act (Act No. 1, 1982). Mbabne, Swaziland. ———. 2005. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland. Mbabne, Swaziland. ———. 2010. Free Primary Education Act (Act No. 1, 2010). Mbabane, Swaziland. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 28 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Annex I: SABER-Engaging the Private Sector Rubrics The following tables display the indicators and scales utilized for benchmarking an individual country’s policy on private sector engagement in education. Across the four types of private schools, the indicators pertaining to each goal are largely the same; where a certain indicator pertains only to certain school types, this is noted within the table. Table A1.1 Policy Goal: Encouraging Innovation by Providers Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced The central government has Regional or municipal Regional or municipal Schools have the legal the legal authority to set governments have the legal governments have the legal authority to set their own minimum standards for authority to set minimum authority to set minimum teacher standards without Teacher standards teachers. standards for teachers, with standards for teachers without final review by central final review by central final review by central authorities. authorities. authorities. The central government has Regional or municipal Regional or municipal Schools (i.e., individual the legal authority to governments have the legal governments have the legal school principals, school appoint and deploy teachers. authority to appoint and authority to appoint and deploy councils, parent Teacher appointment deploy teachers. teachers without review by associations, etc.) have and deployment Appointments are subject to central authorities. the legal authority to final review by central appoint teachers without authorities. review by central authorities. The central government has Regional or municipal Regional or municipal Schools have the legal the legal authority to governments have the legal governments have the legal authority to determine determine teacher salary authority to determine authority to determine teacher teacher salary levels Teacher salary levels. teacher salary levels, with salary levels without review by without review by central final review by central central authorities. authorities. authorities. The central government has Regional or municipal Regional or municipal Schools have the legal the legal authority to governments have the legal governments have the legal authority to dismiss Teacher dismissal dismiss teachers. authority to dismiss authority to dismiss teachers teachers without review teachers, with final review without review by central by central authorities. by central authorities. authorities. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 29 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Table A1.1 Policy Goal: Encouraging Innovation by Providers Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced The central government has Regional or municipal Regional or municipal Schools have the legal the legal authority over how governments have the legal governments have the legal authority over how the the curriculum is delivered. authority over how the authority over how the curriculum is delivered Curriculum delivery curriculum is delivered, curriculum is delivered without without final review by with final review from final review from central central authorities. central authorities. authorities. The central government has Regional or municipal Regional or municipal School have the legal the legal authority over how governments have the legal governments have the legal authority over how resources are allocated to authority over how authority over how resources resources are allocated to the classroom (e.g., class resources are allocated to are allocated to classrooms classrooms without final Classroom resourcing sizes). classrooms, with final without final review by central review by central review from central authorities (e.g., class size). authorities (e.g., class authorities (e.g., class sizes). sizes). The central government has Regional or municipal Regional or municipal Schools have the legal the legal authority over the governments have the legal governments have the legal authority over the Budget autonomy management of school authority over the authority over the management management of school (not applicable to operating budgets. management of school of school operating budgets operating budgets without independent private operating budgets, with without final review by central final review by central schools) final review by central authorities. authorities. authorities. Table A1.2 Policy Goal: Holding Schools Accountable Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced The national government The national government The national government does The national government does not set standards on does set standards for what set standards for what students does set standards for Student Standards what students need to learn. students need to learn, but it need to learn and also indicates what students need to does not indicate how well EITHER by when OR how learn, by when, and how or by when. well. well. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 30 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Students do not take Standardized exams are Standardized exams are Standardized exams are standardized exams. administered, but not administered annually. administered annually and annually. results are disaggregated by school, socioeconomic Student Assessment background, gender, and other criteria of student disadvantage. The central government The central government The central government The central government does not require schools to requires schools to undergo requires schools to undergo requires schools to undergo inspections. inspections, but no term is standard term inspections. undergo inspections, with specified. the frequency of Inspection inspections depending on the results of the previous inspection. Not applicable if the Inspection reports include Inspection reports include the Inspection reports include government does not require strengths and weaknesses of strengths and weaknesses of a strengths and weaknesses schools to take part in the school. school, as well as specific of the school. Schools are Improvement inspections. priorities for improvement. required to submit a planning school improvement plan with specific priorities for improvement following the inspection. Sanctions are not Sanctions include additional Sanctions include additional Sanctions include administered based on the monitoring and/or monitoring and/or fines, which additional monitoring, results of school inspections warnings; they are are administered based on the fines, and as a final or school performance on administered based on the results of school inspections or measure, school closures; standardized exams. results of school inspections school performance on decisions are made based or school performance on standardized exams. For on the results of school Sanctions and standardized exams. government-funded, privately inspections or school rewards managed, and voucher performance on schools: rewards may also be standardized exams. For used. government-funded, privately managed, voucher schools: rewards are also used. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 31 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 The central government The government requires The central government The central government does not require schools to schools to report on the use requires schools to report on requires schools to report report on the use of public of public funds as a the use of public funds as a on the use of public funds Financial reporting funds as a condition for the condition for continued condition for continued as a condition for (not applicable to continuation of funding. funding, but on an ad-hoc funding according to a continued funding on a independent private basis and not according to a standard term. standard-term basis, with schools) standard-term schedule. greater monitoring of schools that have failed to adhere to report requirements in the past. Table A.1.3. Policy Goal: Empowering All Parents, Students and Communities Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced No information is provided Ad-hoc information is Regular information is A variety of sources to parents on the results of provided to parents on provided to parents on provide parents regular standardized exams or standardized exam results or standardized exam results or information provided on inspection reports. inspection reports. inspection reports. standardized exam results (disaggregated by school, socioeconomic background, gender, and Information other criteria of student disadvantage.) and inspection reports. Policy specifies information on interventions designed to targeted disadvantaged student groups. Not applicable if the Neither students nor parents Students and/or parents are Student and parents are government does not require are surveyed as part of the interviewed as part of the interviewed as part of the schools to take part in inspection process. inspection process. inspection process. inspections. Voice SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 32 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Table A.1.3. Policy Goal: Empowering All Parents, Students and Communities Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced Schools are allowed to Schools are allowed to Schools are not allowed to Schools are not allowed to Selection select students based on select students based on select students but schools are select students and are (not applicable to both academic performance academic performance or not required to use a lottery if required to conduct a independent private and geography. geography. oversubscribed. lottery if school if over- schools) subscribed. Parental choice is restricted Parental choice is restricted Parental choice is restricted by Parental choice is not Contributions by compulsory monetary by voluntary monetary voluntary nonmonetary restricted by any type of (not applicable to parent contributions that, if contributions (i.e., contributions (i.e., in-kind required parental independent private not paid, prohibits a child contributions to a school labor or goods) to a school. contributions. schools) from attending the school. fund). The central government The central government The central government The central government Financial support does not provide tax provides tax subsidies to provides tax subsidies and cash provides targeted cash (for independent subsidies or cash transfers families whose children transfers to families, which can transfers that can be used private schools only) to families whose children attend private schools. be used to enable their children by disadvantaged students attend private schools. to attend private schools. attending private schools. Table A.1.4. Policy Goal: Promoting Diversity of Supply Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced The central government The central government The central government allows The government allows allows one of the following allows two of the following three of the following types of all of the following types types of organizations to types of organizations to organizations to operate of organizations to operate schools: operate schools: schools: operate schools: Ownership Community Community Community Community Not-for-profit Not-for-profit Not-for-profit Not-for-profit Faith-based Faith-based Faith-based Faith-based For-profit For-profit For-profit For-profit SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 33 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Table A.1.4. Policy Goal: Promoting Diversity of Supply Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced Certification standards, Certification standards, Certification standards, which Certification standards, which are not linked to which are not linked to are not linked to education which are not linked to education outcomes, restrict education outcomes, restrict outcomes, restrict market education outcomes, do market entry. These include market entry. These include entry. These include one of the not restrict market entry. all of the following: two of the three following three following criteria: 1. land (undulating, distance criteria: 1. land (undulating, distance Certification from public venues, etc.) 2. 1. land (undulating, distance from public venues, etc.) standards facilities (separate science from public venues, etc.) or 2. facilities (separate science labs, weather vanes, etc.) 2. facilities (separate labs, weather vanes, etc.) 3. assets (ownership of land science labs, weather vanes, 3. assets (ownership of land or or buildings) etc.) buildings) 3. assets (ownership of land or buildings) Registration/certification Registration/certification Registration/certification Registration/certification Market entry guidelines are not officially guidelines are not made guidelines are made public, but guidelines are made information outlined. public and available only by a single source. public and by multiple upon request. sources. Schools are able to operate Schools are able to operate Schools are able to operate Schools are able to while paying four or more while paying two to three while paying one type of fee. operate without paying Regulatory fees types of fees. types of fees. fees. The central government sets The central government Schools set fees, but those fees Schools set fees without standardized tuition fees. does not set standardized are subject to review by the any review by the central Tuition fees tuition fees, but imposes a central government. government. (for independent tuition cap (an overall private schools only) amount or percentage increase). Academic operating budgets Academic operating All budgets — academic and All budgets — academic are not equivalent to per- budgets are equivalent to other, such as for facilities and and other, such as for student funding amounts in per-student funding transport — are equivalent to facilities and transport — Funding public schools. amounts in public schools. per-student funding amounts in are equivalent to per- (not applicable to public schools. Schools do not student funding amounts independent private receive targeted funding to in public school. Schools schools) meet specific student needs. receive targeted funding to meet specific student needs. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 34 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 Table A.1.4. Policy Goal: Promoting Diversity of Supply Indicator Latent Emerging Established Advanced No incentives exist. Schools are supported by Schools are supported by two Schools are supported by one of the following: of the following all of the following 1. 1. start-up funding similar 1. Start-up funding similar to Start-up funding similar to that provided to public that provided to public schools to that provided to public Incentives schools 2. access to government land schools (not applicable to 2. access to government or unused government 2. access to government independent private land or unused government facilities land or unused schools) facilities 3.exemption from local taxes government facilities 3. exemption from local (i.e., property taxes) similar to 3. exemption from local taxes (i.e., property taxes) that granted to public schools taxes (i.e., property taxes) similar to that granted to similar to that granted to public schools public schools Schools are provided Schools are provided Schools are provided Schools are provided Planning information on the information on the information on the allocations information on the (not applicable for allocations to be transferred allocations to be transferred to be transferred to them allocations to be independent private to them less than 1 month to them between 1 and 3 between 4 and 6 months before transferred to them more schools) before the start of the months before the start of the start of the academic year. than 6 months before the academic year. the academic year. start of the academic year. Coverage of charters is Coverage of charters is Coverage of charters is No restrictions. Charters restricted by three of the restricted by two of the restricted by one of the are not restricted by following: following: following: student numbers, school 1. student numbers 1. student numbers 1. student numbers numbers, or location (i.e., Coverage 2. school numbers and 2. school numbers and 2. school numbers and location certain cities or districts). (for privately managed location (i.e., certain cities location (i.e., certain cities (i.e., certain cities or districts). schools only) or districts) or districts) 3. only new or only existing schools are able to become No restrictions due to charters new/existing school status. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 35 SWAZILAND ǀ ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN EDUCATION SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2016 www.worldbank.org/education/saber The Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiative collects data on the policies and institutions of education systems around the world and benchmarks them against practices associated with student learning. SABER aims to give all parties with a stake in educational results—from students, administrators, teachers, and parents to policymakers and business people—an accessible, detailed, objective snapshot of how well the policies of their country's education system are oriented toward ensuring that all children and youth learn. This report focuses specifically on policies of engaging the private sector in education. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 36