Research for Developing Tools of the System Assessment for Better Education Results
(SABER): A Focus on the Participatory School- Based Management System,
Decentralization, and Accountability

Measuring Quality of Policies and Their Implementation for
Better Learning: Adapting the World Bank’s SABER Tools on
School Autonomy and Accountability to Burkina Faso
  Takako Yuki, Kengo Igei, and Angela Demas




                 No. 109

           December 2015




                                        0
Use and dissemination of this working paper is encouraged; however, the JICA
Research Institute requests due acknowledgement and a copy of any publication for
which this working paper has provided input. The views expressed in this paper are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official positions of either the
JICA Research Institute or JICA.



JICA Research Institute
10-5 Ichigaya Honmura-cho
Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 162-8433 JAPAN
TEL: +81-3-3269-3374
FAX: +81-3-3269-2054
Measuring Quality of Policies and Their Implementation for Better Learning: Adapting
the World Bank’s SABER Tools on School Autonomy and Accountability to Burkina Faso


                                                      †                 ‡
                           Takako Yuki *, Kengo Igei , Angela Demas

Abstract
This paper examines the quality of the policy intent with respect to the school-based management
system in Burkina Faso. It discusses the difference between policy intent and policy
implementation; focusing on the functionality of school councils and their synergies with
decentralization and assessment policies to achieve better learning results. A new policy diagnostic
tool, developed and revised by the World Bank and its partners including JICA was adapted to the
context of Burkina Faso. This tool is based on international evidence of good practice collected
under the System Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) program, relating to the policy
domain of School Autonomy and Accountability (SAA). First, for the quality of policy intent, those
policies that concentrate on the roles of school councils are assessed as advanced, and as emerging
directions on school autonomy through decentralization to communes of operational budget
management and teacher deployment, while policies on standardized student assessments are said
to be advanced on their frequency of use. Differences among stakeholders in the degree of policy
implementation were found using survey data collected in 2013 from various level actors, including
rural school directors, school councils, and local administrations. Regarding school councils, called
COGES (Comités de Gestion des Etablissements Scolaires), these differences are on whether such
councils exist and on how functional they are. The degree of functionality, as measured by
community and parental voluntary contributions to schools, is significantly associated with
variables relating to implementation of procedures in COGES, such as organizing a general
assembly and the Federation of COGES, while controlling for other community contexts. The level
of functionality of COGES significantly explains the observed differences in the quality of
education services and learning achievements in Burkina Faso. Moreover, the use of student
assessments is also positively related to learning achievement. The indicator representing the
common views of stakeholders on decentralization also shows a significantly positive association
with the functionality of the COGES system, and the availability of supplementary lessons. These
findings suggest that strengthening policy implementation within participatory COGES, along with
decentralization and the use of assessment tools, is important for better learning results.

Keywords: SABER, a systems approach, benchmarking, SBM (school-based management),
COGES (school councils), community participation, accountability, assessment, decentralization,
primary education, Burkina Faso, World Bank


*
  Senior Researcher, Global Link Management, Inc., Corresponding Author: yuki.takako@glm.co.jp.
†
  Research Assistant, JICA Research Institute.
‡
  Senior Education Specialist, World Bank.



                                                  1
Section 1: Introduction

Despite the remarkable worldwide progress towards universal primary education, more than

60 million primary school aged children do not attend school, and if we include those children

who are at school but do not acquire the basics, and those children who dropout before

reaching Grade 4, this number increases to 250 million (UNESCO 2014). At the World

Education Forum 2015, the international community committed to providing meaningful

education opportunities for out-of-school children, as well as to quality of education and to

improving learning outcomes. 1

        School-based management (SBM) is a popular domain of education policies that has

been addressed by governments and development partners to improve school participation and

learning. SBM is seen as a way to decentralize decision making power in education from the

central government to the school level (Caldwell 2005; Barrera, Fasih, and Patrinos 2009), and

the school can be represented by any combination of school directors, teachers, parents, other

community members, and students. Decentralization is expected to encourage demand for a

higher quality of schooling, ensure schools reflect local voices and priorities, and then bring

better education outcomes and beneficiary satisfaction. In practice, SBM has been introduced

in various forms and it has had a variable impact on education results.

        As an effort to systematically learn from good practices, and to benchmark these when

helping a country assess its SBM system and identify areas for improvement, the World Bank

and its partners have prepared analytical tools on school autonomy and accountability (SAA).

SAA is one of the policy domains for which analytical instruments have been developed and

tested under the program called the Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER),

which is an initiative to produce comparative data and knowledge on education policies and

institutions (Rogers and Demas 2013; Demas and Arcia 2015). Overall, the SABER program



1
   Incheon Declaration on Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and
lifelong learning for all (https://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration).



                                               2
first focused on benchmarking the quality of policy. Then, it began to more explicitly address

the gap between policy intent and policy implementation, especially for developing countries

where institutional capacities are known to be generally weak. This was a response to the

feedback from stakeholders, including the government officials of pilot countries.

        Burkina Faso, our case country in this paper, is a pilot country for SABER-SAA and a

developing country that aims to use SBM to improve education results. Despite remarkable

progress, 2 the country’s primary completion rate was only 58% in 2012 3, and more than 70%

of children of primary school age did not reach Grade 4, or achieve a minimum learning

standard in reading (UNESCO 2014, 193). The two series of regional learning assessments

(PASEC) indicate a significant decline between 1996 and 2006 in the level of student

achievement for Mathematics at Grade 2, and this decline may be due to the way school

participation has evolved (CONFEMEN 2009). Issues of both access and quality of learning

have been more prominent in rural than urban areas Vachon 2007; Chiche et al. 2010; Lewin

and Sabates 2011). The country’s education strategy (Program for Strategic Development of

Basic Education: PDSEB 2012-2021) tackles these challenges by seeking to achieve the

objectives of Education for All by 2021 (MOE 2012a). One of the five main (basic) principles

of the implementation of the PDSEB is democratic governance of the education system based

on the principles of decentralization, devolution and community participation (DEP/MOE

2013). This is also part of a larger movement concerning decentralization for Burkina Faso

that has been on-going since the 1990s. 4

        The objective of this paper is to examine the policy intent with respect to SBM and

SAA in Burkina Faso, and the difference between policy intent and policy implementation. Its

2
  According to the Burkina Faso Ministry of Education (2013, December), the Ten-Year Plan for the
Development of Basic Education (PDDEB) implemented between 2001 and 2010 has greatly improved
primary school enrollment. For example, between 2001 and 2010 the Gross Intake Rate (GIR) rose from
47.4 to 85.8%, the Gross Enrolment Rate (GER) from 45.9 to 74.8%, the Primary Completion Rate
(TAP) from 27.4 to 45.9%, and the success rate for gaining the Certificate of Primary Education (CEP)
from 62.3 to 65.9%.
3
  World Bank online data, downloaded May 2014.
4
  See Dafflon et al. (2013) for timeline of key decentralization policies in Burkina Faso, 1991-2011.



                                                 3
purpose is to highlight which gaps it may be important to close in order to improve education

service delivery and results in rural primary public schools. Built on the World Bank

SABER-SAA diagnostic tool, we developed a complementary tool - a set of questionnaires to

collect detailed information on policies, their implementation, and contexts. These

complementary rubrics were used in 2013 to interview education officers, school directors,

and school councils. The opinions of these people were collected and their administrative

records documented.

        In Section 2 the paper explains the SABER-based analytical framework. Section 3

analyzes the policy intent, which updates and details what the World Bank’s SABER-SAA

assessment found in 2011-2012. Section 4 explains the descriptive statistics of policy

implementation, and presents the empirical analyses. Lastly, Section 5 discusses the

implications for policy reforms and policy monitoring mechanisms.



Section 2: Analytical Framework

2.1 A framework for assessing the SBM system for better education results

To assess the quality of the SBM system (its policy intent), this paper adopts the framework

for what matters most in school autonomy and accountability (SAA) with respect to better

education results. The framework and analytical tools for SAA were prepared by the World

Bank in collaboration with JICA and other partners under the SABER program, according to

global best practice and empirical evidence (see Demas and Arcia 2015 for details).

        The SABER-SAA framework seeks to identify what combination of school

management practices is important for successful education outcomes (Figure 1). As Arcia et

al (2014) point out, while such management practices are still under study, the lessons learned

in the last 30 years indicate that combining managerial autonomy, assessing students learning,

and being accountable to parents and other stakeholders tends to produce good school

performance and increased learning (Bruns, Filmer, and Patrinos 2011). School management


                                              4
under autonomy (with decision-making authority over their operations) may give an important

role to the School Council (e.g. Parent-Teacher Associations), which can include represents of

parents and communities. Although accountability was not initially linked with school

autonomy, in the mid-1990s the concept of autonomy with accountability became increasingly

important (Demas and Arcia 2015). The results from PISA also suggest that combination of

autonomy and accountability tend to be associated with better student performance (OECD

2011). The experience of high-performing countries on PISA, for example, show that

education systems in which schools have more autonomy over resource allocation and those

that publish test results perform better than schools with less autonomy.

        The SABER-SAA framework is detailed as a set of policy goals and action indicators

to be used to benchmark SBM systems or policies on school autonomy and accountability to

ensure better school performance (Table 1). Five policy goal indicators are specified as below

on the basis of empirical evidence from various countries (see Bruns, Filmer, and Patrinos

2011 for a review of the literature, and Demas and Arcia 2015 for summary evidence on each

policy goal identified by SABER-SAA), along with cautions over differences in country

contexts, including the level of capacity of local stakeholders, that can affect how SAA

reforms work:

z   Policy Goal 1, “school autonomy in budget planning and management,” is assessed
    against the degree of local and school authority over school budgets or funds that may
    lead to better incorporation of the interests of local stakeholders and parents, and
    improvements in operational efficiency;
z   Policy Goal 2, “school autonomy in personnel management,” is assessed against the
    degree of local and school authority over personnel appointments and deployment;
z   Policy Goal 3, “the role of school councils in school governance,” is assessed against the
    degree of the participation of school councils (or PTAs) in school finance and activities,
    and how these have been organized to foster a better understanding of their roles and the
    execution of their roles in a transparent and inclusive manner;
z   Policy Goal 4, “school and student assessment, “ is measured against policies that ensure
    regular measurement of student progress as a key precondition for ensuring accountability,
    and against the routine use and sharing of assessment results among various levels of
    stakeholders to reflect and make pedagogical, operational, and personnel adjustments for
    the purpose of improving student performance; and
z   Policy Goal 5, “school accountability”, is assessed by analyzing the way in which
    stakeholders receive comprehensive information on their schools, and how far the school



                                               5
     complies with its own regulations.



2.2 A framework for assessing both policy intent and policy implementation

Education outcomes depend not only on the quality of the policies themselves and the

institutional framework within which they operate, but also on whether those policies and

frameworks are implemented effectively at the local and school level (Rogers and Demas 2013,

11). As Figure 2 illustrates, SABER attempts to address “what lies between an education

system’s inputs (the monetary and other resources that go into it) and its outcomes (such as

years of education completed and learning acquired by students)”, which is often a “black

box”. The elements of this approach can be conceptually categorized into three sets (Rogers

and Demas 2013, 4). The first concerns the quality of policies and institutions, and the second

concerns the quality of policy implementation. Both of these are assumed to have major

influences on the third set (the quality of education delivered), which in turn affects student

learning outcomes.

        We applied the conceptual framework of the SABER result chain to our analysis of the

relationship between policy intent and policy implementation, and to the relationship between

better policy implementation and education results. We also added another set of elements on

the means and contexts that can support policy implementation in terms of each actor’s

leadership, organizational characteristics, and community characteristics. Then, by reviewing

the SABER-SAA policy implementation rubrics 5 and the existing tools of other school and

administration surveys, the research team developed a range of complementary tools: a set of

questionnaires for sub-national (regional, provincial, district, and commutes) and school-level

actors in Burkina Faso (discussed further in Section 4).



5
  The World Bank team conducted an assessment of policy implementation on school autonomy and
accountability for Thailand (Arcia et al. 2014). They used an instrument that asked school directors to
choose one of four scaled options for each sub-indicator (using the 2011 version of the SABER-SAA
rubrics).



                                                  6
Section 3: Quality of Policy Intent

3.1 Methodology

As discussed in Section 2, we adapted the SABER-SAA framework and tools to assess the

quality of SBM systems and policies on SAA in Burkina Faso. We collected laws, decrees,

policy documents, and manuals from relevant central ministries of Burkina Faso in 2013 to

update the information used for the previous SABER-SAA policy assessment that was

conducted in 2011 6. The information was analyzed and scored using a rubric for each of

corresponding policy goals and actions 7 (see Annex 1c for the detailed rubrics). This rubric

allows for country policies scored by each individual policy action to be assigned to one of

four levels of development: 1 (latent), 2 (emerging), 3 (established), or 4 (advanced).

        As in the 2011 assessment, we focused on primary education, 8 which is overseen by

the Ministry of National Education and Literacy (MOE). The MOE coordinates with the

Ministry of Administration and Decentralization in charge of decentralization of educational

resources to communes. MOE also coordinates with the sub-national or de-concentrated

offices in 13 regions, 45 provinces, and more than 350 districts. That is, there are regional

education offices (REO), provincial education offices (PEO), and district education offices

(DEO). Thus, we defined the terms of “sub-national” or “local” authorities as the



6
  The results were published in 2012 (World Bank 2012). See also Annex 1a for the results.
7
  The SABER-SAA policy rubrics were modified by the World Bank in 2013 to reflect various
countries’ needs for benchmarking according to feedback from data collection in various countries,
including Burkina Faso. The five policy goals are the same in the 2011 and 2013 versions of the World
Bank’s SABER-SAA tools, while some policy actions (or sub-indicators) were added and revised for
the 2013 version (as explained in the presentation of the World Bank, Burkina Faso in December 2013).
Annex 1c includes remarks on revisions of the instruments of SABER-SAA. For the update of 2013,
the research team first used the previous tool (2011 version) with additional elements focusing on the
role of school councils, as the team originally saw from in-country feedback seminars that the 2011
rubric had some limitations when addressing this aspect. Meanwhile, the Bank team revised the rubrics
for the 2013 version, including more on school councils, and thus the research team adjusted the study
results to this 2013 version of the World Bank SAA. However, our data cannot adequately cover some
other revised elements, and these are not included in Figure 3.
8
  The formal education system is on a 6-4-3 format for primary, lower and upper secondary education.
See UNESCO/IBE (2010) “World Data on Education Seventh Edition” for Burkina Faso for details,
(http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdf-versions/Burkina_Faso.
pdf).



                                                  7
de-concentrated offices or the communes as in the 2011 assessment. Regarding school councils,

while the 2011 assessment defined these as being the APE (“Association des Parents d’Elèves”,

parents associations in French), we defined them as being the COGES (Comités de Gestion

des Etablissements Scolaires, or school management committees in French) in the 2013

assessment to reflect the government’s regulations 9 and the new official guidelines on

COGES, approved in 2013. 10



3.2 Quality of policy intent

Figure 3 provides a snapshot of both the 2011 and 2013 assessment results of the quality of

policy intent calculated by the policy goal indicators of each year’s SABER-SAA rubrics, and

presents the detailed results by sub-indicator for 2013. The figure shows the scores from 1 to 4

for each indicator.

            Overall, the scores on policy goal indicators increased between 2011 and 2013. In

particular, a major change over the two years is observed in respect of Policy Goal 3 on the

roles of school councils (SC), with the scores appearing to be high for 2013. In that year, the

government authorized a new nationwide guideline for SCs, and this guideline justifies a high

score on the policy sub-indicators of 3D, 3E, and 3F (score 4 or 3). The descriptions of

corresponding rubrics on these policy sub-indicators for 2013 are as follows (see Annex 1b for

details):

z    There are “formal institutions, manuals, and mandates for organizing volunteers to plan,

     implement, and evaluate activities” for 3D (score 4);

9
  Arrete conjoint°2013-029/MENA/MATS/MATD/MEF du 27 Mars 2013.
10
   COGES was recognized as the school administration and management body by a 2008 decree, with
the expectation that it would strengthen the management of basic education through local communities’
closer involvement (MEBA 2007). To make the new policy work, JICA has provided technical
assistance through a project called PACOGES since 2009 (JICA 2012b), learning lessons from the
successful nationwide scale-up of COGES in Niger (Honda and Kato 2013). PACOGES has assisted the
Government of Burkina Faso in developing the manuals for COGES organization and functions,
training stakeholders, and monitoring progress in pilot regions (originally 2, and then 4 regions) (JICA
2012b, 2013). Reflecting these pilot experiences, the manual was revised and authorized by the
government as a nationwide official guideline in 2013.



                                                   8
z    there are “provisions for regularly scheduled elections of SC members and defined term

     limits” for 3F (score 4), “(SC has) legal authority to voice an opinion and legal oversight

     on some learning inputs to the classroom” for 3E (score 3); and

z   “(SC has) legal standing as an organization, and legal authority to have a voice, but no

    legal oversight authority on budget issues” for 3B (score 3).


        The guidelines give instructions on how individual COGES are to prepare and

implement school action plans and prepare financial and progress reports. There are no

regulatory restrictions on the scope of financing sources or expenditure items, except for the

basic salary of teachers (or contracting full time teachers). They also define the democratic

organizational structure: the COGES would have two types of members, the first type being

decided by regulation and includes the mayor or her alternate, the president of APE, the

president of AME (mother association), the school director, the teachers’ representative, other

NGO’s representatives, and a union representative. The second type of members are those who

belong to the executive board, which is composed of elected members (president, treasurer,

public communication officer, and girls’ education officer), and the school director who is by

right the secretary general. Elected members are elected by secret ballot every 3 years at a

general assembly (GA). The GA is the supreme body of the COGES, and is composed of all

community members and people related to the school. The GA is in charge of identifying and

prioritizing a school’s issues, assigning direct priority to actions, validating the yearly school

action plan, and adopting the budget of the annual action plan.

        Also, at the commune level all schools COGES are federated in a structure presided

over by the mayor called the CCC (Coordination Communale des COGES), whose role is to

reinforce the involvement of local authorities in the management of the education system (see

Figure 4 for organizational structures). Through this structure, the COGES have a direct access

to the mayor and can weigh in on the local authorities’ decisions that impact them. Thus, each




                                                9
COGES has a voice in the planning and preparation of non-salary items, either directly in the

school action plan or through the CCC at municipal level. When those items fall under their

action plan, they also have final responsibility for their preparation and implementation.

However when those items fall under other budgets, the mayor has the final responsibility

(thus score 2 for sub-indicator 3A). For personnel management however, there is no legal right

or voice in teacher appointments and removals (thus score 1 for sub-indicator of 3C).

        For Policy Goals 1 and 2 on school autonomy in the management of budgets and

personnel, Figure 3 indicates that there are variations among the policy action sub-indicators.

That is, policy scores depend on areas of responsibilities, some of which are decentralized as

described below:

z    Legal management authority over the operational budget 11 is at the municipal level,

     according to the 2009 decree 12 on transferring government resources for primary

     education to communes 13 (justifying score 2 for Policy Action 1A);

z    The 2009 decree on decentralization would allow regional or municipal governments

     (communes) to deploy teachers within their jurisdiction (justifying score 3 for Policy

     Action 2A); and




11
   The definition of an operational budget in the SABER SAA data collection tool set is: “The budget
transferred through the government channels for the day-to-day operation of schools, excluding salaries
for teachers and non-teaching staff, and capital costs like school construction. Parental and community
contributions as well as other government expenditure lines can be considered as additional funds.”
12
     « Decret n°2009-106/PRES/PM/MATD/MEBA/MASSN/MEF/MFPRE portant transferts des
compétences et des ressources de l'Etat aux communes dans les domaines du présocolaire, de
l'enseignement primaire et de l'alphabétisation. Arrêté conjoint 2011-0007/MEF/MATD/MENA portant
répartition de la somme de dix milliards, trois cent un millions, sept cent cinquante-neuf mille, six cent
quatre-vingt-dix (10,301,759,680) francs CFA, représentant les ressources financières transférées en
2011 aux communes en accompagnement des compétences transférées.
13
   The transfer of competences to communes is progressive (art 5 law 0055-2004). The transfer of
competences regarding health, pre-schooling, basic education, alphabetization, youth, culture and sports
must have been effective in 2005 at the latest for urban communes (art 76), and three years after the
creation of the elected municipal council for rural communes (art 77). Since every commune in Burkina
Faso participated in the 2006 election, then all communes (rural or urban) should theoretically have
those competences from 2010 on. The 2009 decree and the associated governmental letters (arrêté)
transfer funds for school materials (not including production of textbooks), utilities, renovation of
buildings, and so on.



                                                   10
z      There is no intention yet to decentralize the budget for teaching staff salaries (justifying

       score 1 for Policy Action 1C).


           For Policy Action 1D on the legal authority to raise additional funds for the school, the

score is “latent” if this is to be done by the school as an institution, while it is “advanced” if it

is to be done by the COGES for the school. A COGES can “raise additional funds from any

source.” According to the 2007 law, 14 all types of fees (e.g. registration fee) during

compulsory education are abolished. Yet, voluntary participation by community to cooperate

with the government or local government is admitted.

           In regard to school grant programs, which would transfer funds directly to the account

of an individual school or school level committee for their operational plans, the Burkinabe

education system does not yet have such program in place. A pilot program that transfers to

school councils a grant fund specific for canteen operation is however being experimented

with (MOE 2012ab). For Policy Action 1E on collaborative budget planning, the score is also

“latent”, as “budgetary decisions are made at the national and sub-national levels.” Even

though COGES can influence commune budgets through their commune level federation

presided over by the mayor (CCC) (MOE 2013, 80-81), there is no obligation for the

commune or the national budget to take COGES plans into account.

           For Policy Goal 4 on assessment, Figure 3 shows that scores are high for the existence

of student assessments (Policy Action 4C), as various student assessments exist, such as the

graduation exam, provincial standardized assessment for several grades by trimester,

semi-annual national assessment, and a regional assessment called PASEC (see Table 2). Yet,

for the creation of school assessments for making school policy adjustments (pedagogical,

operational, and personnel), the central level policy intent is still emerging. This policy intends

to share the results with regions, but it is not clear whether the intent is to disseminate the


14
     Loi n°013-2007/AN portant loi d'orientation de l'éducation, Article 6.



                                                     11
results to schools with recommendations for improvement (Policy Action 4D). Policy Actions

4A and 4B on school assessments, their frequency, and their use have been established (score

3). School assessments are done at least yearly by the inspectors of the DEO, using a standard

form for their assessment. On school assessment, the school director is to be given the school

assessment report by the DEO, together with any recommendations for pedagogical and

operational adjustments. However, those are not required to be shared with the public.



Section 4: Quality of Policy Implementation

4.1 Methodology

(a)   Data sources

The quality of policy intent at the central level was assessed in the previous section, here we

investigate the current status of policy implementation at the Meso and school levels, and

identify any differences compared to the initial policy intent. From April to May 2013, we

conducted questionnaire-based interview surveys with the various levels of education actors,

including school directors, presidents of school councils and parental associations, the

representatives of mayoral offices, and those of the district education offices, provinces and

regions in Burkina Faso. 15

        Our procedures in the selection of samples at each level were as follows. First, among


15
    At first, 3 schools that had students in 6th grade were randomly selected in each commune, using the
list of schools available from MOE. Then the team adjusted the number of schools per commune based
on the total number of schools in the area (the team also identified a few additional schools that could
be replaced with the sample schools per commune during the field survey as needed). However, largely
because MOE provided the survey team with the contact information of school directors and
administration officers and the survey team called them before the survey, most of the pre-identified
sample schools were reachable during the visits. The survey reports do not indicate cases where
respondent declined to answer. This research focused on rural areas, which have larger educational
challenges as compared with urban areas, and the share of rural schools is more than 80% in our sample
regions (see PADECO Co Ltd (2014) for details of data used in sampling). We sampled only public
schools, which also account for 80% or more of the total schools in the sample regions. We focused
only on public schools partly because the policy context is different between public and private schools,
and the 2011 World Bank’s SABER-SAA assessment and its tools also focus on public schools. For
SABER, there is a policy domain for engaging the private sector, and the policy assessment for Burkina
Faso is being done, but the results are not yet available (as of 2014).



                                                   12
the 14 regions of the country, four regions were selected in collaboration with Ministry of

Education officers, based on their share of rural population, their share of public primary

schools, the existence of JICA technical assistance on their school councils, the levels of

learning results, access, and other socioeconomic indicators such as poverty incidence and

population density, as well the security situation. The four regions selected consisted of two

regions supported by PACOGES 1, the Central Plateau and Central East regions, and two

others, the Central West and South West regions (see Figure 5). Second, all of the 14

provincial education offices (PEO) under those four regional education offices (REO) were

selected, and 70% of the communes of each of those provinces were randomly chosen. As a

result, 93 district education offices (DEO) for 90 rural communes (mayoral offices) were

selected. 16 Finally, we sampled 303 public schools in total, by randomly selecting schools that

had students in Grade 6 in each commune. About 12% of the public schools (or 18% of the

public schools with students in Grade 6) in the targeted regions were covered.

        While the contents of the questionnaires were different depending on each level of

actor, we asked common types of questions: (i) the implementation status of policies and

official procedures focusing on the policy action indicators relevant to each actor among the

SABER-SAA policy rubrics; (ii) the policy contexts and capacities of each actor in terms of

leadership, budgetary and organizational characteristics, and community characteristics; and

(iii) the actual status and perception of services delivered and their educational outcomes. 17

        The datasets of all actors were merged into one whose basic unit of analysis is the

school. In addition, we utilized the MOE’s annual school statistics database, 18 especially the

data on the number of students and textbooks per school. In the next section we overview the

16
   In a few cases, two DEOs oversee different schools under the same commune.
17
   For details of steps and references used in preparing the questionnaires, see PADECO Co. Ltd
(2014).
18
   MOE collects basic statistics from all primary schools at the beginning of every school year, using
the questionnaire (called “ENQUÊTE ANNUELLE”) covering basic school information. MOE also
publishes reports, called “national education statistics” (ANNUAIRE STATISTIQUE DE
L’EDUCATION NATIONAL). For each of these, the research team received the raw data by school
from the MOE.



                                                 13
status of policy implementation, means of support, education service delivery, and learning

outcomes, using the merged dataset of our survey and MOE’s database.

(b) Two analytical steps

Using the datasets explained above, we examine the following questions about the

relationships between policy intent and policy implementation, and between better policy

implementation and education results, according to the framework of the SABER result chain

explained in Section 2:


(1) What gaps exist between policy intent and implementation? How does policy

    implementation differ within the country?

(2) What can be the means for better implementation? Which policy implementation appears

    to be more important for a better service delivery? Is better implementation related to

    better student learning results and other education outcomes? Which policy

    implementation appears to be important to have better results?


        For the first set of questions, we prepared descriptive statistics based on the variables

that would enable us to measure the differences between policy intent and implementation and

the degree of implementation among stakeholders such as schools, COGEs and communes. As

we assumed that the policy goal that has improved over the past years more than others (Policy

Goal 3) might show a large difference between policy intent and implementation, and we are

also interested in the role of school councils, we first present the results relating to this policy

goal. After reviewing these descriptive statistics, we discuss the statistical models required to

further analyze the second set of questions (see also Section 4.3.1).




                                                14
4.2 The difference between policy intent and policy implementation

(a) Policy implementation on the role of the School Council

To what extent has the policy on COGES been implemented? First of all, we find that all the

sample schools in the two PACOGES regions have a COGES, while there is no COGES

actively functioning in the other 2 regions. Next, focusing on the two PACOGES regions, we

outline the degree of policy implementation on COGES and the differences among schools

(Table 3). For community participation Policy Action 3D, although almost all of the COGES

have a plan of action, differences appear in terms of the target, the scope of funding sources,

the presence of the progress report or financial report, the number of activities, the amount of

the monetary contribution they mobilized, and the implementation rates of their action plans.

The average number of activities in the action plan is six, and the types of activities also vary,

while many action plans include construction of classrooms, learning materials, mock exams,

supplementary lessons (provided by teachers at schools on the days/hours outside

regular/normal school schedules), and school meals. 73% of school directors responded that

the COGES make progress reports while the rest did not (see Figure 6 for an example). While

the amount of contribution from COGES and APE to school activities also varies by school,

the mean is 391,206 CFA (about 800 USD), or about 7000 CFA per student in Grade 6. For

about half of the COGES (or schools with COGES), the financing source is not only parents

but other community members or the communes. The implementation rate of the plan also

differs, and 58% of schools implemented more than half of what they had planned.

        More than 90% of COGESs elected their president and treasurers as intended in the

guidelines relating to Policy Action 3F on transparency in community participation.

Interestingly, a majority of schools also elected the president of their APE (who is also a board

member of the COGES). COGES presidents were mostly elected within the last three years

(2009-2011), and hold the evidence of their investiture (the minutes of general assembly that

elected COGES members). For the year of the survey 2012/13, most COGES also held a


                                               15
general assembly at least once and responded that they had prepared a plan in the GA in a

participatory way, although some 20% had not held a GA yet. More than 90% of COGEs have

at least one female COGE board member as intended by the policy.

        One interesting area related to the role of COGES is collaborative budget planning

(Policy Action 1E). While the government budget cycle does not yet require communes to

review the COGES action plan in the process, some SDs perceived that their plans were used

by the commune or district education offices. This could be a good sign of the increasing voice

of communities in regular government budget via SC. The proportion is higher for COGES

than for APE, so as expected COGES can enhance the voice of parents and communities

through an increasing institutional involvement.

        To strengthen communications among the COGES in each district, and the linkage

between COGES and mayoral offices, there is a new policy to organize CCC or federation of

COGES. 61% of SDs answered that a union (federation) of COGES or APE exists in their

district. It should also be noted that there are differences among stakeholders in the perception

or awareness about the presence of these federations. However, even when district education

offices responded affirmatively on the presence of such federations, the same district’s

mayoral office or school directors might not necessarily respond that it is present. This may be

because the federation is newly established or that it does not have an active relation with the

school level stakeholders and/or with mayoral offices, and thus its presence is not well known.

        For the general capacity of stakeholders which could also affect policy implementation,

the differences identified among stakeholders include, for example, the level of education of

school directors and COGES presidents, and their work experiences (Annex 2).

(b) Policy implementation on autonomy

How does policy implementation differ from the policy intent according the opinions of

stakeholders? Table 4 compares the answers of school directors, the DEO, and communes to




                                               16
the questions on who has responsibilities for the management of operational budget of

non-textbook materials, and for teacher deployment (Policy Goals 1A and 2A, respectively). In

Burkina Faso, the authority for these issues is supposed to be decentralized to mayoral offices.

While the majority of such offices chose themselves, 37% or 60% of SDs or district education

offices chose “mayoral offices,” respectively.

        These variables represent the perceptions of stakeholders, and thus the differences

could affect the understanding and degree of collaboration among them under the policy intent

to gradually transfer responsibilities to communes; a policy allowing responsibilities to be

shared between the central ministry, regional, provincial, and district offices, and communes.

For example, a local newspaper related how a mayor complained about what he perceived to

be a district education office that did not respect his office as he, the mayor, has the final

authority on teachers’ deployment to primary schools in the commune, and was thus entitled to

ignore education office proposals as well as teachers’ protests. 19

(c) Policy implementation on the dissemination of assessment results

Table 5 shows whether schools received the results of student assessment examinations, and

how they used these results. It corresponds to Policy Goal 4. As confirmed in the previous

section, Burkina Faso has student assessment systems, and the results are supposed to be

shared with regional education offices, but the question is whether they are disseminated to

school level as well.

        Considering the national graduation examination (CEP) that students take at the end of

Grade 6, about one-third of SDs responded that they had received both results and

recommendations, and 60% of the DEOs responded that their schools had received

recommendations. These responses reflect an implementation status that goes beyond the



19
   Source: Le Faso.net Commune de Bondigui : Le maire et des enseignants à couteaux tirés pour les
affectations, December 28, 2011. Accessed July 2014.
http://www.lefaso.net/spip.php?article45587&rubrique14.



                                                 17
policy intent. The policy intent is not clearly set for the central ministry in relation to

analyzing the CEP results, or making recommendations for pedagogical and operational

adjustments at school level; however, this does not prevent sub-national offices doing so. As a

technical constraint, the central ministry does not have a CEP database at school level. The

data is for each DEO or province. Thus, the ministry cannot analyze the CEP results along

with other school-level data collected in accordance with its mandates, such as annual school

statistics and the teacher database.

        For provincial standardized assessments, which are often conducted per trimester, the

pattern is similar. About one-third of SDs responded that schools have received

recommendations, and 60% of DEOs responded that schools have responded to these.

However, regarding the national learning assessment survey (EAS), which is conducted every

two years and targets students of two grades in nationwide representative sample schools

(round 400 schools), a large proportion of SDs did not receive the results, and they do not

appear to know anything about this survey. Thus, if the country improves its way of analyzing

and disseminating results to schools and communities, it may also help individual COGES to

discuss and be more functional in terms of learning achievement.

        On the use of the results of examinations, some schools responded they receive the

results with recommendations to be used for pedagogical and operational changes, while

others receive the results only. This difference represents to some extent regional or provincial

efforts, and a new guideline has been developed to clarify the procedure. 20




4.3 Better policy implementation and education results

4.3.1   Statistical models

In the previous two sections, we reviewed the condition of policy implementation and

20
  Source: Opinions from participants in the seminar on the interim report held in Ouagadougou in
December 2013.



                                                 18
educational contexts in Burkina Faso. This section examines policy implementation on school

autonomy, accountability, and participation econometrically, focusing on the roles of school

councils and their linkage to other actors. Based on the analytical framework of the SABER

result chain presented in Section 2, we conducted three analyses: (1) on what variables might

explain differences in the degree of policy implementation regarding school councils; (2) on

how policy implementation is related to quality and quantity of educational services; and (3)

on how policy implementation is associated with the learning outcomes of students.

        The first analysis is to examine the factors that explain the differences in the degree of

policy implementation on school councils, in terms of the functionality of the COGES. As the

dependent variable, we mainly adopt the amount of COGES and APE financing contribution

per student of Grade 6 (“SC contributions” hereafter), along with other measures of the degree

of policy implementation. Considering that in Burkina Faso, public schools with school

councils have full autonomy and accountability in relation to these funds, this variable was

assumed to be a representative indicator of the degree of implementation of policies relating to

SAA when focusing on the role of school councils.

        The explanatory variables were prepared from the categories below, by considering the

results of descriptive statistics and correlation data (see Table 6 for the list of variables):


z Variables on the implementation of intended procedures of COGES (Policy Goal 3). These

    include dummy variables on holding the participatory general assembly, and on having

    more than 25% of parents participating in the last general assembly meeting;

z Variables related to policy implementation on autonomy, decentralization, and assessment

    (Policy Goals 1, 2 and 4), such as category variables on DEO having a common view with

    communes on the implementation of responsibilities over teacher deployment and

    purchase of non-textbook materials (an indicator for school autonomy having the decision

    making closer to school with decentralized authority, communes), and on school directors




                                                  19
    using the CEP results to make pedagogical, operational, and personnel adjustments for

    school (an indicator how assessment results are being used); and

z Other than these variables, we controlled for variables covering the supporting means

    related to COGES, such as the frequency of meetings between the DEO and COGES

    representatives, the existence of a union of COGES or APE, and the holding of teacher

    information sessions by mayoral offices. Variables on other supporting means, such as the

    education level and experience of leaderships (of school directors, presidents of COGES,

    and DEO chief officers), and variables describing non-policy contexts, such as the

    proportion of poor families, and the percentage of parents who speak French, were also

    included.


        We regressed the variable of SC financing contributions on these explanatory variables

by using Tobit models. This was because 15% of school directors answered that there had been

zero amount of financial contributions; that is, SC contributions are left-censored at zero,

which causes the coefficients of OLS estimation to be biased and inconsistent. We used a

Probit model for the regression of the dummy variable on the implementation, and an OLS

model for the regression of the number of activities.

        The second analysis was to examine how policy implementation leads to changes in

the quality and quantity of educational services. The dependent variables are: the total hours of

supplementary lessons in March 2013, the dummy variables covering whether more than half

of Grade 6 students study per day at home by one hour or more, and the amount of distributed

textbooks (see Annex 2b for descriptive statistics). Shortages of textbooks and learning hours

remain important issues for primary education in Burkina Faso (JICA 2011a; Frolich and

Michaelowa 2011). These variables on education services are also assumed to be sensitive to

the degree of policy implementation by the COGES, through their participatory voice and

financial contributions. Thus, key explanatory variables concern policy implementation by the




                                               20
COGES, decentralized autonomy for communes, and the use of assessment results. We

controlled for variables relating to supporting means, to policy contexts that could be more

relevant depending on each dependent variable, and non-policy characteristics. Considering

the characteristics of the dependent variables, we used a Tobit model for the regression

analyses of distributed textbooks and hours of supplementary lessons, because these two

variables are left-censored at zero. We also use a Probit model to model the duration of

homework.

        The third analysis is to examine the effect of policy implementation on learning

outcomes, measured by the pass rate of the CEP exam at the end of Grade 6. The key

explanatory variables are seen as the policy implementation by the COGES, measured as the

SC’s contribution, which in turn is assumed to have a significant association with the pass rate

of the CEP exam. As for the second analysis above, we also controlled for variables relating to

supporting means and non-policy contexts here. With regard to policy contexts, we included

other variables such as the student to teacher ratio and the qualification of teachers, which are

assumed to be less sensitive to COGES activity in the current situation in Burkina Faso, since

the hiring of contract teachers is not to be done by the COGES. Since the pass rate of the CEP

exam is censored from both sides at zero and 100%, we adopted a two-limit Tobit model.

        In all the regression models in this section, we utilized the samples from the two

PACOGES regions, and controlled the fixed effects for the six provinces of those two regions

where deconcentrated education offices are responsible for primary education administration.

We note that the standard errors are clustered at the commune (town) level, which is the

decentralized authority for primary education.



4.3.2   Estimation results

(a) What explains differences in policy implementation on school councils?

As Table 7 shows, SC contributions per Grade 6 student are significantly associated with all



                                                 21
key indicators of the implementation of the SAA policies, even after controlling for the

contexts of schools (such as the education and experience of the school director, the COGES

presidents and the DEO head), and of the communities.

        On the intended procedures of the COGES, variables regarding their participation in

school activities and their transparency, such as holding participatory general assemblies,

having a participation rate of more than 25% of the parents in these general assemblies, and

whether non-parent community members are also included in the assemblies (in addition to

parents), have a positive relation with SC contributions. Setting the improvement of the CEP

pass rate as the target for COGES action plans is significantly related to higher levels of SC

contributions.

        Moreover, we found that the SC linkages to the other actors at sub-national level is as

important as anticipated. The frequency of the meetings between the DEO and COGES

representatives has a significant association with this situation. The existence of the union of

COGES or APE is significantly positively correlated to SC contributions. The union of

COGES is led by the mayor of the district, and thus the presence of the COGES union implies

that communes have more information about the schools. As anticipated, a school whose

commune office responded that they have the information on teachers tend to receive more

contributions from the SC. Thus, these results imply that sufficient information sharing

between SC and sub-national actors is essential for better policy implementation by SCs.

        Further, better implementation of decentralized autonomy, as measured by the extent

to which the DEO shares a common view with the commune (mayoral office) regarding the

implementation of the commune’s roles, is also significantly related to the amount of SC

contributions. Since the mayor or their representative sits on the COGES board, a better

implementation of decentralization should affect how functional the COGES are.

        Better utilization of assessment results is also positively correlated to SC contributions.

A school where the director uses the CEP results with recommendations for pedagogical,



                                               22
operational, and personnel changes, tends to have more contributions from the SC. However,

as the majority of school directors receive information about the graduation exams, at least

about the number of students who took and passed it, differences can arise from the way they

review the results and how that knowledge is transformed into solutions and changes.

        Table 8 shows the regression results for SC contribution per Grade 6 student when

including the above-discussed explanatory variables in the model. In order to examine the

effect of each explanatory variable on the COGES, we added each of them to the regression

equation one by one (Table 7), and then together (Table 8). The results show that the variables

having significant coefficients include those relating to the general assembly, to views on the

role of communes, and those relating to the union of COGES or APE.

        Table 8 also gives the regression results for the other dependent variables that might

capture differences in the degree of functionality of the COGES; including total financing

contributions (not divided by the number of students), and whether the implementation rate of

the action plan is more than 50 percent in columns 2 and 3, respectively. As expected, most

coefficients of the explanatory variables on COGES organizational transparency and

participatory roles are estimated to be positive, but a few become statistically insignificant

when compared with the estimation results in column 1.

        The analyses indicate that the SC contribution per Grade 6 student, which exhibits

more continuity in its variation, can be a more representative indicator. While the

implementation rate of their action plan is also important in monitoring the capacity of each

COGES, it might have a mixed implication. For example, a COGES which prepared an

ambitious plan of activities and implemented only half of it may have eventually implemented

a similar degree of activities per student, when compared to another COGES which

implemented 100% of a more modest plan.




                                              23
(b) How does policy implementation link to more textbooks and learning hours?

As shown in Table 9, SC contributions are significant in almost all the regression results of

using the hours of supplementary lessons, study hours at home, and the number of textbooks

per student, as dependent variables. A better implementation of SC policies can be related to

higher levels of motivation, the commitment of households and schools to the time of learning

by children through supplementary lessons, as well as to studying at home. The table also

shows that the results do not change when each model is estimated without the two variables

relating to assessment and decentralization.

        The total hours of supplementary lessons are also significantly related to a common

view on decentralized management between communes and district education offices (column

2). As assumed, decentralization to mayoral offices could reduce the distance between

authorities and beneficiaries such as parents and communities surrounding the schools, and

increase the incentives for schools to improve their services. The effect of school directors

having records of teacher absence and teachers submitting absence notices to communes tends

to be positive, but it is not statistically significant. Schools which are more accountable for

recording and reporting absences may be more likely to ensure the full implementation of

teaching hours through supplementary lessons.

        For home study hours, the variable of the student assessment utilization (CEP results)

indicates a significant and positive association, while the variable on representing

decentralization has a positive but not significant association (see columns 6 to 8 of Table 9).

In the case of textbooks, these two variables also tend to have a positive but not significant

association (see columns 10-12 and 14-16 in Table 9). The procurement of textbooks is

currently centralized, and thus it is not surprising to find a weak relationship of this with

decentralization, while community contributions ensure that the books reach the students. In

fact, SC contributions have a significant relationship with this variable, and the coefficient of

the variable on the receipt of textbooks signed by a school director along with the president of



                                               24
APE or COGES is positive, and tends to be significant.

        For the number of textbook(s) per student, we also found that those schools that had

been visited by a REO representative the previous year received significantly more textbooks.

Although our estimations controlled for provincial differences (fixed effects), the distance to

the PEO still varies within provinces. Given that the textbooks are first sent from the central

government to the REO, this factor may imply a logistical or transportation advantage to be

gained from receiving textbooks. Better information sharing with sub-national administrative

offices about the conditions and needs of schools could thus affect the delivery of educational

services.

(c) How does policy implementation link to better learning outcomes?

Table 10 shows that SC contributions are significantly associated with the pass rate in

graduation examinations, even controlling for the contexts of individual schools such as the

education and experience of the school director. The utilization of student assessment results

(CEP results) also has a significantly positive association with learning outcomes. The

common view on the implementation of commune roles also shows a positive association,

although the association becomes statistically insignificant when adding it into the model with

the other two variables relating to SAA (column 4). The association between SC contributions

and the use of student assessment results remains significant even when they are estimated

together.

        The model also controls for education quality variables, which are assumed to be less

affected by the role of COGES in the current country context, such as teacher-student ratio and

teacher qualification. However, the analysis showed that these relationships are not

statistically significant. Of the other possible relationships, the DEO chief’s experience in that

position and in working in educational organizations has a positive association with the pass

rate. This seems to reflect the important role of DEO inspectors in insuring education quality.




                                               25
        Regarding the variables for other non-policy elements, the pass rate is higher for the

schools where more parents speak French. The coefficients on the diversity of ethnicity, the

share of children from poor households, and the proportion of not enrolled children have a

negative association as expected, though this is not significant.

Section 5: Summary and Implications for Policies, Implementation, and Monitoring

This paper examined the implications for better learning in primary education in Burkina Faso

of the quality of policy intents and their implementation in SBM processes. Here, a new

analytical policy tool developed by the World Bank and its partners on the basis of evidence of

international good practice, the SABER-School Autonomy and Accountability (SAA) model,

was adapted to the Burkina Faso context.

        For the quality of policy intents, relevant official documents from 2013 were reviewed

in the light of the rubric indicators of the SABER-SAA, and scored on a scale of one to four.

Compared with the previous assessment carried out in 2011, the 2013 snapshot indicates that

Burkina Faso has improved the quality of its policy on the role of school councils in school

governance by officially approving the 2013 guidelines that specify the organization and

procedures of COGES for nationwide dissemination. Other than the use of a school councils’

own voluntary revenues, autonomy in budget or personnel management is decentralized not to

schools but to communes, except for teacher salaries, which are still centralized. As commune

representatives are also on COGES boards, this decentralization to communes can be

considered to be progress in raising the quality of policy on school autonomy. Regarding the

dissemination of student assessments, which is an important policy for school accountability

on learning results, the policy is advanced in relation to the frequency of standardized

assessment, but is as yet emerging in respect of its use in schools to drive pedagogical

changes.

        In the next stage, that of examining the quality of policy implementation, we used data




                                                26
collected in 2013 from various level actors in the four regions, including rural school directors,

SCs, and sub-national authorities. In summary, the survey data indicated that there are

differences between policy intent and implementation, as well as in the degree of policy

implementation. First, despite the 2008 decree that established COGES, the 2013 survey data

found COGES only in the regions supported by the technical assistance project (PACOGES),

and not in the other regions. Second, among established COGES there are also differences as

to whether and to what extent they are functional. The degree of functionality of COGES, as

measured by community and parental voluntary contributions to schools, is significantly

associated with the variables relating to the implementation of procedures in COGES, such as

the holding of a general assembly and organizing the federation of COGES while controlling

for the community context such as French-speaking ability, ethnic group composition, and so

on. These indicators of the functionality of COGES also significantly explain the differences

in delivered education services such as textbooks, supplementary lessons, and learning

achievement, while at the same time allowing policy makers to control for provincial and

community contexts, and for the education and experience of school leaders. In addition, the

indicator used to assess the differences in the use of student assessments is also positively

related to learning achievement, and the indicator of the common views of stakeholders on

decentralization shows a significant positive association with the functionality of COGES and

the availability of supplementary lessons.

        Our analyses confirm that, in the current context of rural Burkina Faso, enhancing the

policy implementation role of the COGES and the functions of participatory COGES, along

with an increase in their linkages with subnational administrations and the use of student

assessment information, is potentially important for better education services and learning

results. Overall, it is consistent with a basic assumption of SABER-SAA, which looks at the

quality of policies and their alignment regarding school councils, assessment, and autonomy,

to make a school-based management (SBM) system work for better education results.



                                               27
        More specifically, the implications for policies and implementation, taking into

consideration the findings of this paper and other relevant studies, have been spelt out for

Burkina Faso. With respect to further areas for study in this context, it should be noted though

that our statistical data have some limitations. First our data was limited to rural areas, mainly

came from two regions (6 provinces), and focused on schools which have Grade 6 students,

thus the results cannot be generalized nationwide or for schools that do not offer a full range of

grade levels. Second, our data are cross-sectional. Our analysis was limited to measuring the

degree of policy implementation among stakeholders to understand their associations with

other policy factors and better education results, while controlling for non-policy factors that

make potentially results biased, such as the social contexts surrounding schools. Finally, our

findings should not be interpreted as being causal because we did not conduct any

experimental design. Such an approach was not applicable to our purpose, which was to assess

both the intent and implementation of national policies.21

The implications for policies and implementation can be summarized as follows:

        Implication 1: Enhancing implementation of the procedures for functional COGES.

The importance for an established COGES22 to be “functional” should be emphasized as part

of the training and guidance to schools and communities with local authorities, as in the

government plans to conduct a series of nationwide training sessions over the next few years

21
   There exists an experimental impact evaluation study of the effect of COGEs conducted for one
province in the earlier phase (2009-2011) of piloting the COGES model (see Kozuka and Sawada 2014
for details). We conducted a joint seminar in Ouagadougou to present the results of both that impact
evaluation study and our study of SAA policy implementation as inputs to comprehensive discussions
among country stakeholders about policy implications.
22
   The main purpose of our research was to analyze the quality of implementation of policies and
procedures (not just the simple fact whether a COGES had been established or not), and our survey data
do not allow analysis of the relationship between the establishment of a COGES and education results,
since the existence of COGES depends on the region and there is no difference among schools within
the same region. However, there are a few other studies that indicate the significance of establishing a
COGES. For example, the impact evaluation in the first year of the PACOGES 1 (in 2010/11) found a
significantly lower repetition rate and better teacher attendance for the treatment schools (where a
COGES was established), as compared with the control schools (Kozuka and Sawada 2014). According
to the data from the 2012 standardized learning assessment (EAS), the mean test score is slightly higher
for schools with a COGES than for the others (statistics provided by DEP, MOE in February 2014).
Shibuya (2014) also showed the good progress made by the two PACOGES regions from 2008 to 2011
in regard to the trends of regional primary completion rates compared to the national averages.



                                                  28
(Government of Burkina Faso and JICA 2014). The issues and differences in the functionality

of a school council have been also pointed out by a few earlier studies, with the school council

defined as a Parental Association (PA). For example, the World Bank (2007) pointed out that

PAs were found to be unrepresentative of the community of parents, and dysfunctional in

terms of financial management, due to their structural weaknesses (they are civil organizations

subject to public control in theory but not in practice), insufficient capacity, and a lack of

accountability. CONFEMEN (2009) differentiated between active and inactive PAs, and found

a positive effect from an “active” PA in relation to 5th Grade student learning in the regression

analysis of the 2006/2007 PASEC scores. Although our survey data could not capture this, any

risk of competition between PAs and COGES (De Grauwe and Lugaz 2007) should be

mitigated by clarifying to parents, at a series of nationwide training sessions, the participatory

structure and roles of COGES and their wider range of stakeholders that are aiming at

improving the education results of local children.

        Implication 2: Enhancing implementation of decentralization to mayoral offices.

Our analysis indicated differences in the policy implementation of the autonomy decentralized

to communes, for example in terms of stakeholder opinions on who has the responsibility for

personnel management and the availability of school information.23 In districts where both the

mayoral office (decentralized authority) and the district education office (the deconcentrated

branches of the MOE) share the opinion that where the commune has the responsibility for

teacher deployment within the district, schools tend to have a more functional COGES. The

government has been taking measures to enhance the administration capacity of mayoral

offices, for example, gradually seconding staff from Education Ministry District Offices



23
   On the weak implementation of decentralization, Mahieu and Yilmaz (2010) also found that in
Burkina Faso, “local governments have a very low degree of discretionary power accompanied with
weak accountability towards citizens at all levels” (329), from their review of the literature and
qualitative interviews with local authorities and community members. Dafflon and Madies (2013) point
out the insufficient administrative and management capacity of commune secretary generals, and of the
government officials working for the communes.



                                                 29
(DEOs) to this level,24 and an administrative reform is also planned for the DEOs.25 It should

be important for the MOE’s COGES unit, as well as others, to be closely involved in the

progress of this transition and to help both DEOs and communes develop clear and shared

views of the division of their roles and collaboration. This would enable them to guide and

facilitate COGES and schools to be more functional in these roles.

        Implication 3: Improving the use of student assessments in both policy intent and

implementation for mobilizing the efforts of communities to work with schools toward better

learning goals. While national level policy does not clearly state or define the procedures on

how each school receives and uses student assessment information for its pedagogical,

operational, and personnel functions, some regional and provincial initiatives seem to exist and

go beyond policy intent.26 Our data also show that schools that, according to the school

director, have and use such assessment information, tend to receive larger contributions from

their COGES and APE, and this also relates to better learning results. The revision of the

COGES guidelines is intended to suggest that the improving of learning results should be a

target of COGES action plans, and it provides examples on how rural communities can better

understand the meaning of the pass rate of the CEP exam, as well as what solutions can be

discussed to improve these results at general assemblies. While it is important to strengthen

the capacity of COGES and schools to discuss student assessment results, there should also be

a need and operational role for the central ministry and its sub-national offices to improve the

management and provision of student assessment and school data, so that each school, COGES,

and district office can better analyze and use these data. School-level data on assessment

results (e.g. pass rates in the graduation exam), educational inputs, and community

participation should help and encourage schools and their stakeholders to cooperate with each


24
   Source: Interviews at various offices in Burkina Faso, March-April 2013.
25
   The government and the World Bank are preparing a new program, the Public Sector Modernization
Program, which includes a sub-component on enhancing administrative deconcentration, and
decentralization for primary education among other proposals (World Bank 2014).
26
   This is according to the REO who participated in the seminar held in December 2013.



                                               30
other and learn valuable lessons so that they can more easily develop solutions and implement

activities for quality improvement.

         Implication 4: Continuing the monitoring of policy implementation to assess the

opportunity to adjust policy intents and the means of supporting better implementation. As

the government plans various education reforms, there can be a change over the time in the

value of the indicators that can capture the differences among schools and local

administrations in the policy implementation of COGES systems, decentralization, and the use

of assessment. In this situation, their explanatory significance for education results may also

change. It should be useful to continue monitoring, in the next few years, the changes in the

values of key indicators and variables, and to assess the differences in policy implementation

that need to be tackled to achieve better learning goals. The data for such monitoring may

come from existing regular statistical surveys as well as administrative reporting, although

their instruments (e.g. the formats of reporting and of questionnaires) and the associated

management of information would require improvements in practice.27

         It should be also noted that there are policy actions whose effects have not been

analyzed in this paper. This was generally because the policy intent was assessed as latent,

and/or it was likely that there were few stakeholders that would go beyond the policy intent as


27
   For example, while the questionnaires for the MOE’s annual school survey and the semi-annual
learning survey include several questions about COGES and APE, there seems to be room to improve
the dissemination of the database for wider use, and the scope of variables to measure policy
implementation. Regarding administrative reporting, for example, although there are format for
reporting overall supervision visits to schools, the template could include a few more check points on
COGES. These might relate not only the availability of a school action plan, but also its functionality.
Meanwhile, the use of the template and the visits themselves should be enhanced. The use of
administrative reports as a means of sharing information with COGES is another important point: not
only for documents directly related to COGES, such as the summary of action plans and progress
reports, but also documents containing other school information. These can be useful for COGES and
local administrations in their quest to be more functional for better learning. For example, the report of
actual teaching hours was not often available in our sample schools or district offices, and only a few
district offices have compiled this information satisfactorily for each school within their district in order
to compare the performance of each school. If this kind of information were more available and shared
with mayoral offices and the Federation of COGES (CCC), it could improve the accountability of
schools and teachers, and each COGES may be able to participate more actively in the monitoring and
the solving of issues concerning teaching hours, and also learn from good practices from other schools
and COGES through the Federation, for example.



                                                     31
a result of existing pilot programs or their own initiatives. Such policy action areas include

decentralization of teacher salary management, selection of textbooks, and operational school

grants sent directly to the account of the school council. Given that there is room to improve

the degree of implementation of the current policies, as shown in this paper, the country may

want to first focus on implementation of the current policies, taking into consideration the

different local and school contexts, before moving further into decentralization. At the same

time it could start a discussion about the possibility of introducing those other actions in pilot

programs or, if these already exist, evaluate the outcomes for wider implementation.28




28
   Furthermore, increasing the autonomy of schools in personnel and budget management beyond the
current level of decentralization to municipalities may require caution in a country like Burkina Faso.
While the SABER policy rubrics do show a higher score if policies intend that schools or school
councils have such responsibilities, there could be different implications, depending on a countries’
development stage and the level of education. For example, Hanushek et al. (2011) suggest that
autonomy affects student achievement negatively in developing or low-performing countries, but
positively in developed and high-performing countries, based on a panel dataset from PISA tests
(2000-2009) for 15 year-old students in 42 countries. More evidence is expected as the new PISA for
Development is planned to be tailored more adequately for developing countries.



                                                  32
References
Arcia, G, K MacDonald, H A. Patrinos, and E Porta. 2011. “School Autonomy and
     Accountability.” In System Assessment and Benchmarking for Education Results (SABER)
     Initiative. Washington, DC: World Bank Human Development Network.
Arcia, G, K MacDonald, and H A. Patrinos. 2014. “School Autonomy and Accountability in
     Thailand: a Systems Approach for Assessing Policy Intent and Implementation.” Policy
     Research Working Paper 7012. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Barrera, F, T Fasih, H A. Patrinos, and L Santibáñez. 2009. Decentralized Decision-Making in
     Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School-based Management. Washington, DC:
     World Bank Group.
Bruns, B, D Filmer, and H A. Patrinos. 2011. Making Schools Work: New Evidence on
     Accountability Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Caldwell, Brian J. 2005. School Based Management. Paris: UNESCO IIEP.
Chiche, M, E Duret, C O’Brien, and S Bayala. 2010. Mid-Term Evaluation of the EFA Fast
     Track Initiative, Country Case Study: Burkina Faso. Mokoro: Cambridge Education, and
     Cambridge, UK: OPM (Oxford Policy Management).
CONFEMEN (Conférence des Ministres de l'Éducation des pays ayant le français en partage).
     2009. Etude PASEC Burkina Faso: Les apprentissages scolaires au Burkina Faso: Les
     effets du contexte, les facteurs pour agir. Dakar, Senegal: CONFEMEN and Ministère de
     l’Enseignement de Base et de l’Alphabétisation.
Dafflon, B, T Madies, and A Ky. 2013. “Local Public Finance of Territorial Collectivities in
     Burkina Faso.” In The Political Economy of Decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa: A
     New Implementation Model in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal, edited by B
     Dafflon, and T Madies, 47-106. Paris: AFD (Agence Française de Développement) and
     the World Bank.
De Grauwe, A, and C Lugaz. 2007. “Décentralisation de l'éducation en Afrique francophone
     de l'Ouest, Réalités et défis au niveau local.” International Review of Education 53:
     613-638.
De Grauwe, A, and C Lugaz. 2007. “District Education Offices in French-Speaking West
     Africa: Autonomy, Professionalism, and Accountability.” Prospects in Education 37(1):
     113–125.
Demas, A, and G Arcia. 2015. What Matters Most for School Autonomy and Accountability: A
     Framework Paper. SABER Working Paper Series 9. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
DEP-MOE. 2013. Evaluation des Acquis Scolaires 2011-2012. Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou:
     Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation.
DEP-MOE. 2013. “Monitoring and Evaluation for better implementation of educational
     policies in Burkina Faso.” Paper presented at the Feedback Workshop on the Interim
     Results of the SABER SAA Survey, Ouagadougou, December 4.
Frolich, M, and K Michaelowa. 2011. “Peer effects and textbooks in African primary
     education.” Labour Economics 18: 474-486.
Government of Burkina Faso and JICA. 2014. Record of Discussions on School Management
     Committee Support Project Phase 2 in Burkina Faso agreed upon between the authorities
     concerned of the Government of Burkina Faso and the Japan International Cooperation
     Agency. Burkina Faso, February.
Hanushek, E A, S Link, and L Woessmann. 2011. “Does School Autonomy Make Sense
     Everywhere? Panel Estimates from PISA.” Journal of Development Economics
     104(September): 212–232.




                                            33
Honda, S, and H Kato. 2013. “Scaling Up in Education: School-Based Management in Niger.”
    In Getting to Scale: How to Bring Development Solutions to Millions of Poor People,
    edited by L Chandy, A Hosono, H J. Kharas, and J F. Linn. New York: Brookings Institute
    Press.
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2012a. Basic Education Sector Report for
    Burkina Faso (In Japanese). Tokyo: JICA.
    http://libopac.jica.go.jp/images/report/12083242.pdf. Available in French on the JICA
    website at http://libopac.jica.go.jp/images/report/12083259.pdf.
JICA. 2012b. Mid-term Review Report on Japanese Technical Cooperation for School
    Management Committee Support Project in Burkina Faso (In Japanese). Tokyo: JICA.
JICA. 2013. Ex-Ante Evaluation on Japanese Technical Cooperation for School Management
    Committee Support Project Phase 2 in Burkina Faso (In Japanese). Tokyo: JICA.
Kozuka, E., Sawada, Y. 2014. “How Can Community Participation Improve Educational
    Outcomes: Evidence from a SBM Project in Burkina Faso?” Paper presented at a
    Workshop on the Impact Evaluation of the School for All Project in Burkina Faso. Tokyo:
    JICA Research Institute, September.
Lewin, K M, and R Sabates. 2011. Changing Patterns of Access to Education in Anglophone
    and Francophone Countries in Sub Saharan Africa: Is Education for All Pro-Poor?
    Research Monograph 52. Brighton: University of Sussex, Centre for International
    Education.
Mahieu, S, and S Yilmaz. 2010. “Local government discretion and accountability in Burkina
    Faso.” Public Administration and Development 30: 329-344.
MEBA. 2007. PDDEB Phase 2 (2008-2010), Burkina Faso: Ministère de l’Education
    Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation, Octobre.
MOE. 2012a. Programme de Développement Strategique de l’Education de Base (PDSEB)
    2012-2021, Burkina Faso: Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation,
    August.
MOE, 2012b. Plan d’Action Triennal 2013-2015 de Mise en Œuvre de la Première Phase Du
    Programme de Développement Stratégique de l’Education de Base), Burkina Faso:
    Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation, Novembre.
MOE. 2013. Guide sur la Gestion Participative des COGES au Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso:
    Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation, Septembre.
OECD. 2011. “School Autonomy and Accountability: Are They Related to Student
    Performance?” PISA in Focus 9: October.
PADECO Co. Ltd. 2014. Final Report for Commissioned Data Collection and Analysis for the
    Research of the System Assessment and Benchmarking for Learning Achievement and
    Equity: A Focus on School Management Systems (Research with the SABER Program).
    Tokyo: JICA, March.
Rogers, H, and A Demas. 2013. SABER Overview: The What, Why, and How of the System
    Approach for Better Education Results (SABER). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Shibuya, K., 2014. Case Study of School Autonomy and Accountability in Burkina Faso.
    Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
UNESCO. 2014. “Teaching and Learning: Achieving quality for all.” EFA Global Monitoring
    Report 2013/4. Paris: UNESCO.
Vachon, P., 2007. “Burkina Faso: Country Case Study.” Background paper for EFA Global
    Monitoring Report 2008. Paris: UNESCO.
World Bank. 2007. Burkina Faso: Réussir la décentralisation, Version transmise au
    Gouvernement du Burkina Faso le 12 juin 2007 pour commentaires. Rapport 38377-BF.
    Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
World Bank. 2012. “SABER School Autonomy and Accountability Burkina Faso.” SABER
    Country Report 2012. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.



                                            34
World Bank. 2014. Project Information Document for Burkina Faso - Public Sector
    Modernization Program Project. PID08038. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.



Acknowledgements:

This paper was prepared for a JICA-RI research project jointly conducted with the World Bank,
the Ministry of National Education and Literacy of Burkina Faso, and Japanese universities.
The core members who contributed to the surveys used in this paper, and to the analyses
include: Dr. Harry Patrinos, Mr. Kazuro Shibuya, Mr. Adama Ouedragou, Mr. Badini Assane,
Dr. Damien Lankoande, and Mr. Go Ota. The authors highly appreciate the advice of
Professors Mikiko Nishimura, Yuko Tarumi, Shoko Yamada, Kazuro Kuroda, Kazuhiro
Yoshida, Yasuyuki Sawada, Keiichi Ogawa; Dr. Yumiko Yokozeki, and Dr. Gustavo Arcia in
designing the research and surveys. The authors also received valuable advice and information
from JICA experts and staff, including Mr. Hiromichi Morishita, Ms. Akiko Kinoshita, Ms.
Tomoko Ebihara, Mr. Masanori Hara, Ms. Yoko Matsuya, Ms. Kikue Sugimoto, Ms. Emi Ota,
Mr. Eiji Kozuka, Mr. Shinichi Ishihara, Mr. Hideharu Tachibana, and Mr. Hiroshi Mochizuki.
The team received technical and data assistance from Mr. Gaetan Moreau, Ms. Mengyuan
Zhou, Dr. Kim Jiyoung, Mr. Juan Martinez, Mr. Takuya Numajiri, and Dr. Yuka Hosoi, and Ms.
Makiko Hayashi provided technical and editorial assistance. The authors also greatly
appreciate all the comments of the participants from governments, donors, and NGOs made at
the seminars held in Burkina Faso, in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, as well as during the
presentation at the World Bank’s headquarters in January 2014, and those of other reviewers of
the draft of this paper. All remaining errors are ours.




                                             35
Abbreviations and Acronyms

 Abbreviation/Acronym   Definition [French-English]

 AME                    [Association des Mères Educatrices] Mothers’ Association

 APE                    [Association des Parents d’Elèves] Parents Association

 CCC                    [Coordination Communale des COGES]
                        Commune Level Federation of COGES

 DEO                    [Circonscription d’Education de Base: CEB]
                        District Education Office (usually one per commune)

 CEP                    [Certificat d’Etudes Primaires] Primary school degree (based on
                        examination)

 CFA/FCFA               West African CFA franc: the currency shared by 8 western African
                        countries, including Burkina Faso

 CH                     [Compositions Harmonisées]
                        Provincial Standardized Students Assessments

 COGES                  [Comité de Gestion de l’Ecole] School Management Committee

 Commune                Smallest territorial division of government. Headed by an elected
                        mayor. There can be several villages in a rural commune

 CONFEMEN               [Conférence des Ministres de l’Education Nationale]
                        French Speaking Countries Education Ministries Conference

 Decentralization       In Burkina Faso’s context, decentralization is the transfer of power to an
                        elected authority. Only communes and regions are managed by an
                        elected authority

 Deconcentration        In Burkina Faso’s context, deconcentration is the transfer of power to
                        any lower level administrative authority (region, province, commune,
                        and so on) which still retains a hierarchical link with central authorities

 DEP                    [Direction des Etudes et de la Planification]
                        Planning and Studies Directorate of the MENA

 EAS                    [Evaluation des Acquis Scolaires]
                        National Learning Assessment Survey

 GA                     General Assembly
 MATD                   [Ministère de l’Administration Territoriale et de la Décentralisation]
                        Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization

 MOE                    Ministry of Education [Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de
                        l’Alphabétisation (Ministry of Literacy and National Education,
                        formerly called MEBA)]
 PASEC                  [Programme d’Analyse des Systèmes Educatifs] Education Analysis
                        Program of the CONFEMEN


 PACOGES                [Projet d’Appui aux COGES] School Management Committee Support
                        Project



                                             36
PDSEB       [Programme de Développement Stratégique de l’Education de Base]
            National Basic Education Strategy and Program
PEO         Provincial Education Office [Direction Provinciale de l’Education
            Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation : DPENA (formerly called DPEBA)]
REO         Regional Education Office [Direction Régionale de l’Education
            Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation : DRENA (formerly called DREBA)]
SABER       Systems Approach for Better Education Results
SABER-SAA   School Autonomy and Accountability Domain of SABER
SC          School Council. This term is used in the SABER-SAA tool and it is
            defined as an institutional body that may include parents, community
            members, teachers, and the school director. In some countries, it may be
            called a School Management Committee or School Board. Depending
            on the country context, a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) could also
            be regarded as an SC for the purpose of data collection and analysis
            (For definitions of terms used in the SABER-SAA, please also see the
            Glossary in the World Bank publication (2014), “Data Collection
            Instrument for SABER – SAA”)
SD          School Director




                                37
Figures and Tables



Figure 1. The 3 A’s Model of School Based Management

              School
              Council
                         Autonomy




  Accountability                                Assessment




Source: Adapted from Arcia et Al. (2011).




Figure 2. SABER and Result Chain for Learning

                     (Black box)
                        (1)                        (2)                 (3)                  [4]
                                                                   Quality and
                  Quality of                Quality of policy                              Student learning
                                                                   quantity of
 Inputs           policies &                implementation                                 & other
                                                                   education
                  institutions                                                             outcomes
                                                                   delivered
                                            Enabling means
                                             and contexts

Note: The authors added the box (S) on means and context to the original figure in Rogers and Demas (2013).




                                                         38
Figure 3. The Intent of the policies on SAA, Burkina Faso, 2011 and 2013


(a) 2011 and 2013 by Policy Goal                                         (b) 2013 by Sub-indicator




Source: World Bank 2012 for 2011, Prepared by the authors for 2013.
Note: The scale ranges from 1 to 4 (from latent to advanced). While the five policy goals (key indicators) remained
the same between the 2011 and 2013 SABER SAA policy rubrics, the sub-indicators have seen some changes (see
Annex 1 for details). For example, the sub-indicators 5C to 5E are new additions in the 2013 policy rubrics, and
thus were not available at the time of the preparation of this research. Thus these are not included here. The school
council was defined as being the APE in 2011, and the COGES in 2013.




Figure 4. The Organizational Structure of COGES


(a) Composition of the COGES Board                    (b) COGES in relation to the administration of
at each school                                            education and decentralization
                                                                                  MENA                            MATD

                                                          DRENA             Regional
                                                          PF COGES                g
                                                                            Meeting


                                                          DPENA
                                                           PEN                ovincia
                                                                            Provincial
                                                           PF COGES         Meeting

                                                                                w
                                                                           Follow
                                                                                  A
                                                                           up in GA
                                                              CEB                             C                   Mayor
                                                                                                                  M
                                                              PF COGES                    C
                                                                         Picking up the       C C
                                                                         follow up                    CCC (Commune
                                                                         sheets                       Coordination of the
                                                                                                      COGES

                                                              Proximity
                                                              Follow up                                                The CCC
                                                                                                                       President (Mayor)
                                                                                   C      C       C     C
                                                      Source: PACOGES.
                                                      Notes: C: COGES. PF: Focal point. GA: general assembly.
                                                      DRENA, DPENA, CEB: regional, provincial, district
                                                      education offices, respectively.




                                                         39
Figure 5. Map of Burkina Faso




Source: Wikimedia Commons.                            Note: The map shows the regional boundaries. This paper
                                                      mainly used data collected in the 2 circled regions.




Figure 6. COGES Yearly Progress Report for a School (example)




Source: 2013 survey team.
Note: The activities are listed with the implementation rate, budget, and remarks.




                                                         40
Table 1. SABER-School Autonomy and Accountability (SAA) Policy Goals and Policy
Actions
                                  [1] Policy goals and actions                 [2] Degree and scope of policy goals
                                  1. Budget planning and management            - What level has the authority?
                                  1A: Operational budget
                                                                                 (Central Æ regionalÆ schools/community)
                                  1B: Non-teaching staff salaries
                                  1C: Teacher salaries                         - Can school raise additional funds and from
  Autonomy




                                  1D: Raise additional funds for the school     what sources? (None-> local-> any sources)
                                  1E: Collaborative budget planning
                                  2.  Personnel management                     - What level has the authority?
                                      (appointment and deployment)             (Central Æ regionalÆ schools/community)
                                  2A: Teacher
                                  2B: Non-teaching staff
                                  2C: School principal
                                  3.  Role of the school council               - Does the school council have a role? To what
                                      (participation in):
                                                                                extent? (NoÆ voice Æ responsibility,
                                  3A: Budget preparation
                                                                                oversight)
                                  3B: Financial oversight
  School Council




                                  3C: Personnel management                     - Are there formal manuals for organizing
                                  3D: School activities (by volunteers)         volunteers to perform activities? What is
                                  3E: Learning inputs*                          addressed? (NoÆYes (for implementationÆ
                                  3F: Transparency in participation             planningÆ evaluation))
                                                                               - Are there manuals for the open election of
                                                                                school council members and for general
                                                                                assemblies? (NoÆ Yes (for general
                                                                                assembliesÆ open electionÆ term limits or
                                                                                regular schedule of elections))
                                  4. School and student assessment             - How often is school performance assessed
                                  4A: School assessment
                                                                                using the MOE’s criteria? (Not on regular
                                  4B: Use of school assessments for making
                                                                                basisÆ every few yearsÆevery year)
                                  school adjustments
                                                                               - Do schools use school/student assessments?
  Assessment and Accountability




                                  4C: Standardized student assessments
                                  4D: Use of standardized student               (NoÆ may useÆ must use)
                                  assessments for adjustments                  - How often do students participate in
                                  4E: Publication of student assessments        standardized assessments?
                                                                               - Who is mandated to receive assessment
                                                                                results? (NoneÆ central/regionalÆ schoolsÆ
                                                                                online)
                                  5. School accountability                     - Do guidelines exist for the use of student
                                  5A: Guidelines for the use of results of      assessment results? Which levels do these
                                  student assessments                           guideline concern? (centralÆ regionalÆ
                                  5B: Analysis of school and student            schools)
                                  performance
                                  5C: Financial accountability
                                  5D: Accountability in school operations
                                  5E: Degree of learning accountability
Source: Prepared by the authors using the World Bank Rubric for SABER-SAA (May 2013 version), Questionnaire
for SABER-SAA (Feb 2014 version), and Demas and Arcia (2015).
Note: *The definition of learning inputs is as follows ͆any inputs related to students' learning: students'
attendance, curriculum, priority subjects, non-core subjects, teaching textbooks /learning materials, teachers' time
on task, and tutoring before/after normal class.” (World Bank 2014, SABER SAA Data collection instrument 2.0).




                                                                              41
Table 2. The Intent of Policy Goal 4 for Schools and the Frequency of Student Assessment
 Type of assessment                           Frequency                         Target schools or students
 CEP (graduation exam)                        Every year                        All students of CM2
 Provincial standardized                      Every trimester a                 All students in all grades
 assessment
 National learning assessment                 Every few years                   Nationwide representative sample schools
 survey (EAS)                                                                   and students in specific grades
 PASEC (Education Analysis                    Every several years               Ditto.
 Program of the CONFEMEN)                     (2007, 2014)
Note: a: Depending on PEOs.




Table 3. Differences in the Implementation of Policy Goal 3
                                                                                                                         Policy     Implement
Policy action      Variables for measuring the implementation
                                                                                                                        Intent a/     ation
Overall            % of schools with COGES                                                                               100%         100%
                   % of schools with the plan of action by COGES                                                         100%          93%
                   % of schools with the action plan setting the target of improving the graduation exam results           n/a         78%
                   % of schools with the scope of funding sources including non-parent community members                [100%]         56%
3D: Community
                   % of schools with the COGES financial report                                                          100%          79%
participation in
                   % of schools with the progress report of the action plan                                              100%          73%
school activities:
                   % of schools with the progress report shared among all stakeholders                                   100%          42%
plan, implement,
                   Average number of activities included in COGES and APE action plan                                     [>0]          5.8
evaluation
                   Average amount of contribution by COGES & APE in 2011/12 (1,000 CFA)                                   [>0]         391
                   Average amount of contribution by COGES & APE per G6 student in 2011/12 (1,000 CFA)                    [>0]          7.5
                   % of schools with the 50% or more implemented action plan of COGES and APE                              n/a         58%
                   % of schools with COGES President-elected                                                             100%          97%
                   % of schools with COGES general assembly held in 2012/13 at least once                                100%          81%
3F: Transparency
                   % of schools with more than 25% of the parents participated at the last general assembly (GA)           >0          60%
in community
                   % of schools with non-parent members participated in the GA of COGES or APE                             >0          60%
participation
                   % of schools of which COGES action plans were approved in the participatory way at the general
                                                                                                                         100%         83%
                   assembly
                   % of schools with at least one female COGE board member                                                 >0         93%
1E: Collaborative % of school directors considering that the COGES action plan was used in the formal budget cycle by
                                                                                                                         [0%]         29%
Budget Planning local or national authorities
                   % of schools with Union of COGES                                                                      100%         60%
Union of
                   % of schools with Union of APE                                                                         n/a         55%
COGES/APE
                   % of schools with Union of COGES or APE                                                                n/a         61%
Source: 2013 survey data for the 2 PACOGES regions.
Notes: a/ For the policy intent column, the information is based on the 2013 policy assessment. There are two types
of variables: (1) % of schools meeting the description noted as a variable (i.e., mean of values of 1 or 0 in
percentage), and (2) variables with continuous values. The benchmark is provided in the bracket when the policy
intention is not a requirement but rather an option (e.g. number of activities that COGES can contribute to). The
total number of observations is 126.




                                                                     42
Table 4. Perceptions on the Actors Responsible for the Implementation of Policy Goals 1
and 2
                                                % of respondents who selected “communes”

                                           Intent         SDs     DEOs        Communes
 Sub-indicator

 1A: Operational budget:
 Non-textbook materials (purchase)         100%           37%     60%            93%
 2A: Personnel management: Teacher
 deployment                                100%           n.a.    58%            90%
Source: 2013 survey data for 2 PACOGES regions.
Note: n.a.: not available.




Table 5. Better Implementation of Policy Goal 4 on the Use of Student Assessment
Information
 4D                                 Sharing results with school           Use of results at school
                                Schools that          Schools that       Schools that used school
                                  received              received            assessments to make
                                 assessment            assessment         pedagogical, operational,
                   Response        results          results and direct   and personnel adjustments
                   by                               recommendations
 Graduation        SD                51%                   34%                     29%
 exam (CEP)        DEO               23%                    60%                    33%
 Provincial        SD                40%                    37%                    29%
 assessment        DEO               18%                    60%                    38%
Source: 2013 survey data for 2 PACOGES regions.




                                                     43
Table 6. List of Variables

                     Variable name                                                               Variable description
Implementation on COGES
SC' s contribution per G6                             Total amount of contribution by COGES & APE per G6 student in 2011/12 (1,000 CFA)
SC's contribution, total                              Total amount of contribution by COGES & APE in 2011/12 (1,000 CFA)
SC's implementation rate                              Implementation rate of COGES and APE action plan is 50% or above.
General assembly, at least 1 time                     COGES general assembly held in 2012/13 at least once
GA-25% or more of parents participated                More than 25% of the parents participated in the last general assembly meeting
GA-non parents participated                           For the GA of COGES or APE, non-parent members participated
Progress report shared among all                      Progress report of COGES or APE has been shared among all stakeholders
CEP as target indicator                               COGES plan sets improving the results of graduation exam as a target indicator.
Implementation on autonomy and assessment
Commune-DEO common view on commune's roles            Category variable (1 to 4), based on Commune and DEO responses whether commune deployed
                                                      permanent teachers and/or purchased non textbook materials
                                                       (1: No common response, 2: Common on materials but not teachers; 3: Common on teachers, but not
                                                      materials; 4: Communes and DEO commonly responded "yes" on both teachers and materials)
SD-DEO view on use of CEP results by school and       Category variable (1 to 8), based on SD and DEO responses on: (a) use of CEP results (whether SD use
receipt of recommendation                             the CEP result pedagogical, operational, and personnel adjustment (full use); non-personel adjustment only
                                                      (partial use); or not use) and (b) wheher SD has received the CEP result with recommendation or not.
                                                       (1: SD or DEO not use without recommendation, 2: SD or DEO not use with recommendation, 3: SD &
                                                      DEO partial use without recomemendation, 4: SD & DEO partial use with recommenadtion, 5: SD-full
                                                      use but DEO-partial use, without recommendation, 6: SD-full use but DEO-partial use, with
                                                      recommendation, 7: SD and DEO full use without recommendation, 8: SD and DEO full use with
                                                      recommendation)
Education service delivery
Supplementary lessons                                 Total hours of supplementary lessons for all grades in March 2013
Study at home                                         More than half of G6 students study 60 minutes or more at home
Science textbook per G6                               Total number of the science books per G6 student in 2013
Textbooks per G6                                      Total number of the books for 4 subjects per G6 student in 2013
Learning outcomes
CEP pass rate                                         Pass rate of CEP in 2012 (%)
Supporting means related to COGES
DEO meetings with SC's representative                 Category variable (0 to 2), DEO: freequently meeting with school councils' representative
                                                      (0: Never, 1: Sometimes, 2: Often)
Union of COGES or APE exists                          A union of COGES or APE exists
Commune with teacher information                      Commune has information about the number of teachers for almost all the public primary schools
Supporting contexts
SD-Age                                                Category variable (1 to 5) on age of SD (1: less than 30, 2: 30-34, 3: 35-40, 4: 40-44, 5: 45 or above)
SD-certified or principal teacher                     SD is certified or principal teacher
SD-university or above                                SD has University or higher education.
SD-years of work on the current school                SD: years of work on the current school
COGES president-years of work as president            COGES president: years of work as president
COGES president-primary education or above            COGES president graduated a primary or higher schools.
DEO head-years of work on the current position        DEO head: years of work on the current position
DEO head-university or above                          DEO head graduated from university
DEO head-worked at other educational administration DEO head had worked as personnel of other educational administration.
Policy contexts
Student-teacher ratio                                 Student-teacher ratio in 2011/12
Share of teachers from SSS or university              Share of teachers graduating senior secondary school or university
Share of permanent teachers                           Share of permanent teachers at school
Share of female teachers                              Share of female teachers at school
At least one teacher participated in training         At least one teacher participated on in-service training in 2011/12
School started instruction before Oct. 8th            School started instruction of this year (2012/13) before Oct. 8th
Document on teaching hours                            Document about official hourly volume per school exists at school
Signature of APE/COGES on the textbook receipt        Signature of APE/COGES is on the receipt of school textbooks
Distance to PEO, less than 50 km                      Distance between School and PEO is less than 50 km
Received visits from REO                              School received visits from inspectors of DEO in 2011/12
Non-policy contexts
% of parents with French ability, >10%                More than 10% of the parents can speak French
% of students from economically disadvantaged, >50%   More than 50% of students come from economically disadvantaged homes
Majority ethnic group of parents, >90%                The proportion of the majority ethinic group of parents is more than 90%
% of school age children not enrolled, >20%           More than 20% of school age children in surrounding communities are not enrolled




                                                                            44
Table 7. Regression results on the Functionality of COGES (SC contribution per G6)
                                           (1)       (2)        (3)            (4)       (5)        (6)        (7)       (8)        (9)        (10)
Implementation on procedures of COGES
General assembly, at least 1 time        6.289**

GA-25% or more of parents participated             4.912***

GA-non parents participated                                   6.893***
Progress report shared among all                                              4.044*
CEP as target indicator                                                                6.261***
Supporting means related to COGES
DEO meetings with SC's representative                                                             3.578***
Union of COGES or APE exists                                                                                 3.095**
Commune with teacher information                                                                                       4.433***
Implementation on autonomy and assessment
Commune-DEO common view on
                                                                                                                                  1.806***
commune's roles
SD-DEO view on use of CEP results by
                                                                                                                                             0.948***
school and receipt of recommendation
Observations                               111       111        111            111       111        111        111       111        111        111
pseudo R 2                                0.042     0.041      0.053          0.039     0.043      0.036      0.035     0.038      0.037      0.036

Note. Tobit Regression. Standard errors are clustered at a commune level. Provincial level fixed effects are
included in all models. All models also include the supporting context and non-policy context variables that are
listed in Table 8. *Significant at 10%; ** Significant at 5%; *** Significant at 1%.




                                                                         45
Table 8. Regression Results on the Functionality of COGES
                                                                     (1)                       (2)                       (3)
                                                                    Tobit                     Tobit                     Probit
                                                          SC' s contribution per G6   SC's contribution, total SC's implementation rate
Implementation on procedures of COGES
General assembly, at least 1 time                                 3.408*                     192.5*                   1.262***
GA-25% or more of parents participated                             2.173                      50.15                     0.271
GA-non parents participated                                      4.198***                   213.5***                    0.46
Progress report shared among all                                   3.347                      84.09                     0.117
CEP as target indicator                                          4.327***                    178.0*                   1.308***
Implementation on autonomy and assessment
Commune-DEO common view on commune's roles                       1.101***                    -1.935                    0.0645
SD-DEO view on use of CEP results by school and receipt
                                                                    0.349                     0.366                    -0.0451
of recommendation
Supporting means related to COGES
DEO meetings with SC's representative                              1.074                      41.77                     0.276
Union of COGES or APE exists                                      2.592**                    102.0*                    -0.357
Commune with teacher information                                  2.891**                     105.6                     0.272
Supporting contexts
SD-Age                                                              0.273                    75.81*                      0.149
SD-university or above                                             -0.838                      11.18                   0.0287
SD-years of work on the current school                            0.386*                      -4.632                   -0.0311
SD-certified or principal teacher                                   4.996                    312.6*                      0.498
COGES president-years of work as president                          0.95                     88.64**                    -0.201
COGES president-primary education or above                        -2.275*                     -61.34                    -0.115
DEO head-years of work on the current position                      0.113                     -4.187                   -0.0797
DEO head-university or above                                        0.242                      48.77                     0.445
DEO head-worked at other educational administration              3.699***                   214.3***                  -0.945**
Non-policy contexts
Majority ethnic group of parents, >90%                              2.353                     72.73                      0.459
% of students from economically disadvantaged, >50%                 1.348                     4.363                    0.781**
% of school age children not enrolled, >20%                        -0.874                      -104                     -0.246
% of parents with French ability, >10%                              -1.49                     3.259                      0.204
Constant                                                         -20.46***                  -864.1***                 -2.777**
Observations                                                         111                       111                        125
pseudo R 2                                                          0.104                     0.048                     0.358

Note. Standard errors are clustered at a commune level. Provincial level fixed effects are included in all models.
*Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%.




                                                               46
Table 9. Regression Results on Education Service Delivery

                                                        (1)         (2)          (3)       (4)         (5)        (6)            (7)       (8)         (9)          (10)      (11)          (12)        (13)        (14)      (15)        (16)
                                                                 Supplementary lesson                             Study at home                                 Science textbook per G6                            Textbooks per G6
Implementation on COGES
SC' s contribution per G6                             1.965**                            1.544*     0.0489***                            0.0403**   0.0198**                               0.0141     0.0586***                         0.0578**
Implementation on autonomy and assessment
Commune-DEO common view on commune's roles                                **
                                                                  10.02                   7.532                  0.0861                  0.00449                   0.145                   0.119                  0.0455                 -0.111
SD-DEO view on use of CEP results by school and
                                                                               5.184      3.533                            0.261*** 0.231***                                 0.0444        0.0365                             0.124      0.073
receipt of recommendation
Policy contexts
School started instruction before Oct. 8th             19.75       18.66       21.27*      18
Document on teaching hours                             16.11       17.71       18.87      18.02
Signature of PA/COGES on the textbook receipt                                                                                                        0.295*       0.316**    0.354**       0.209        0.595     0.768*      0.71        0.59
Distance to PEO, less than 50 km                                                                                                                     0.416         0.281      0.245         0.38        0.537       0.2       0.131      0.488
Received visits from REO                                                                                                                             0.167        0.00938    0.00849       0.244       1.235**     0.448      0.562     1.292**
Supporting contexts
SD-Age                                                 -2.843      -1.59       -3.885     -3.85      -0.0268    -0.0826        -0.215     -0.14       -0.03       -0.0652     -0.086       -0.0398     0.0278       -0.1      -0.139    0.00426
SD-university or above                                25.95*      24.25*       19.26     23.39*      -0.0103    0.000135       -0.174     -0.192     -0.242       -0.358*    -0.405*       -0.272      -0.387     -0.673**   -0.775**    -0.448
SD-years of work on the current school                 -0.99       0.458       0.0532     -0.816     -0.0364    -0.0204        -0.0287   -0.0422     0.0245        0.0499    0.0477        0.0246      0.0341     0.0849      0.079      0.0296
SD-certified or principal teacher                      -49.18     -46.59       -40.12     -42.61      0.274      0.829         1.250**    0.712      -0.0546       0.0172     0.103        0.0337      0.0144      0.067      0.232      0.129
COGES president-years of work as president             6.347       1.705        2.99      6.157       0.338      0.342*        0.412**    0.349     -0.343***      -0.19      -0.167      -0.345***   -0.668**    -0.471*    -0.449*    -0.651**
COGES president-primary education or above             8.091       3.314       6.607      9.526      -0.512*    -0.619**       -0.501*    -0.394     -0.184        -0.246     -0.221       -0.136      -0.0634     -0.201    -0.0895    0.00221
DEO head-years of work on the current position         -2.292      -3.38       -2.134     -2.768    -0.00499    -0.0268        -0.0105   0.00982     0.0533       0.0492*   0.0651**       0.0481      0.0928      0.116      0.129      0.108
DEO head-university or above                           0.486      -2.418        -7.26     -4.203     -0.259     -0.0421        -0.264     -0.473     0.141         0.0192     0.034        0.056        0.218     -0.0631     -0.153     0.197
DEO head-worked at other educational administration    -17.45      -15.1       -10.76     -13.72      0.353      0.416         0.707**    0.647*     0.263         0.314      0.374        0.309        0.607      0.685      0.83       0.706
Non-policy contexts
Majority ethnic group of parents, >90%                 27.94       22.75       23.63      27.89      -0.299      -0.24         -0.225     -0.298     -0.213        -0.185     -0.143       -0.228      -0.475      -0.412     -0.371     -0.416
% of students from economically disadvantaged, >50%   -26.99**    -20.56*      -20.68*   -25.08**    0.512*     0.538**        0.619**    0.583*     -0.117        -0.099     -0.123       -0.0837     -0.674     -0.786*    -0.763*     -0.682
% of school age children not enrolled, >20%            16.78       14.03       19.48      12.29      -0.0427     -0.11         -0.0933    -0.074     -0.223        -0.246     -0.197       -0.277      0.803**    0.738*     0.730*      0.841*
% of parents with French ability, >10%                 14.83       10.14       10.92      13.25      0.635**    0.479**        0.599**   0.707**     -0.0292       -0.133     -0.142       -0.0555     -0.293      -0.585     -0.623     -0.307
Constant                                               34.03       35.12       46.37      15.91     -1.724** -1.790*** -2.152*** -2.087**           1.188***       0.885*    1.067**      0.945**     3.414*** 4.187*** 4.094*** 3.501***
Observations                                            107         122         122        107        111         126           126        111        103           111        111          103         103         111        111        103
           2
pseudo R                                               0.028       0.024       0.024      0.031       0.157      0.122          0.192     0.215      0.132         0.134      0.13         0.138        0.088      0.076      0.078       0.09

Note. Probit regression for study at home. Tobit regression for the other dependent variables. Standard errors are clustered at the Commune level. Provincial level fixed effects are
included in all models. *Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%.


                                                                                                                          47
Table 10. Tobit Regression Results on CEP Pass Rates

                                                                    (1)           (2)          (3)           (4)

                                                                                 CEP pass rate

Implementation on COGES
SC' s contribution per G6                                        1.039**                                   0.729*
Implementation on autonomy and assessment
Commune-DEO common view on commune's roles                                     5.967**                     3.917
SD-DEO view on use of CEP results by school and
                                                                                             3.920**      3.164**
receipt of recommendation
Policy contexts
At least one teacher participated in training                      -1.836       0.561         -1.693       -1.181
Share of permanent teachers                                        4.119        3.979         2.618        4.667
Share of female teachers                                           1.219        3.955         0.834        -2.097
Student-teacher ratio                                              0.0388      -0.0853       -0.0235       0.0331
Share of teachers from SSS or university                          -0.0345       -1.208        -4.604       -2.844
Supporting contexts
SD-Age                                                            -1.712        -2.576         -3.83        -2.67
SD-university or above                                            -6.598        -6.892        -8.849       -8.514
SD-years of work on the current school                            0.301         0.882         0.677        0.371
SD-certified or principal teacher                                 -6.572         0.223        2.547        -0.539
COGES president-years of work as president                        -3.268        -1.779        -2.542       -3.643
COGES president-primary education or above                        -3.948        -6.392        -2.543       -1.985
DEO head-years of work on the current position                    2.366*         1.98        2.779**      2.343**
DEO head-university or above                                       2.388        -1.135        -1.947       -1.239
DEO head-worked at other educational administration                10.91         12.36       15.88*        15.53*
Non-policy contexts
Majority ethnic group of parents, >90%                            -10.76        -12.51        -9.082       -11.12
% of students from economically disadvantaged, >50%               -3.942        -3.553        -2.924       -2.401
% of school age children not enrolled, >20%                       -2.608        -3.557        -1.264       -4.368
% of parents with French ability, >10%                           13.71**       12.19**       12.37**      12.97**
Constant                                                         59.41**       54.93**      66.30***      50.56**
Observations                                                        108           108          108           108
           2                                                       0.041         0.039        0.042        0.049
pseudo R
Note. Standard errors are clustered at a commune level. Provincial level fixed effects are included in all models.
*Significant at 10%; **significant at 5%; ***significant at 1%.




                                                     48
Annex 1a. The Intent of SABER-SAA Policies for Burkina Faso, 2011/2012

Policy Goal 1: School Autonomy in the Planning and Management of School Budgets is Latent

Indicator                             Score          Justification
1A. Legal authority over              Emerging       Legal management authority over the operational budget was delegated to
management of the operational         €€{{           the commune level in 2009.
budget
1B. Legal authority over the          Latent         Non-teaching staff and teacher’s salaries are determined by the central
management of non-teaching staff      €{{{           government’s salary scale.
and teacher’s salaries
1C. Legal authority to raise          Latent         School budgets are transferred from the central government to the CEBs
additional funds for the school       €{{{           and communes. Funds raised by APEs (Parents’ Associations) are not
                                                     included in school budgets.
Policy Goal 2: School Autonomy in Personnel Management is Established

Indicator                             Score          Justification
2A. School autonomy in teacher        Established    A 2009 decree transferred autonomy over human resources in primary
appointment and deployment            €€€{           education to the communes. Teachers are deployed through the
decisions                                            deconcentrated organizations of DRENA, DPENA, and CEB. School directors
                                                     have no autonomy over teacher appointment and deployment decisions.
2B. School Council’s role in teacher Emerging        Stakeholders, including the APEs, can request the transfer of a teacher, but
tenure, transfer, or removal         €€{{            the final decision is the responsibility of the respective regional or local
                                                     government.

2C. Autonomy in the hiring and Established           CEB nominates candidates for school director and commune mayors
firing of principals           €€€{                  approve them. However, the firing of school directors is done not by the
                                                     communes, but by the central government.

Policy Goal 3: Participation of the School Council in School Finances is Latent (SC defined as APE)
Indicator                             Score          Justification
3A. Participation of the school       Latent         APEs are not expected to participate in the preparation of school budgets.
council in budget preparation         €{{{
3B. School council's authority to     Latent         APEs are not expected to participate in the approval of school budgets.
approve the school budget             €{{{
3C. Manual for the participation of   Latent         The decree that established the APEs in 1987 defined their role as
the school council in school          €{{{           advisory, with supportive functions. The decree did not state that APEs
finances                                             were expected to participate in the preparation of school budgets.
3D. Role of the school council in     Latent         APEs have no legal role in the implementation of school budgets.
budget implementation                 €{{{
3E. Use of the budget prepared with   Latent         APEs are not expected to participate in monitoring the use of school
the school council's participation    €{{{           budgets.




                                                                 49
Policy Goal 4: School and Student Assessments are Emerging
Indicator                             Score          Justification
4A. Existence and frequency of        Emerging       CEB inspectors conduct school assessments. Student assessments include
school and student assessments        €€{{           non-standardized tests at the end of each semester and exit examinations,
                                                     such as the CEP, in specific grades every year.
4B. Use of school assessments for     Emerging       CEB inspectors conduct school assessments; however, the results are used
making school adjustments             €€{{           internally and are not made public. MENA conducts analysis of student
                                                     assessments. The information is shared by inspectors at the regional and
                                                     local/ municipal levels for pedagogical reflection.

4C. Frequency of standardized                        There are exit examinations every year in specific grades, such as the CEP
student assessments                                  (grade 6), BEPC (grade 10), and BAC (grade 13). These exams target all
                                          Advanced
                                                     students in the respective grades in the country. In addition, there is a
                                          €€€€
                                                     national assessment of learning achievement using national
                                                     representative samples.
4D. Use of student assessments for Emerging          MENA conducts analyses of student assessments. This information is
pedagogical and personnel          €€{{              shared by inspectors at the regional, municipal, and local levels for
adjustments                                          pedagogical reflection.
4E. Publication of school and      Emerging          The results of student assessments such as the CEP are made public, but
student assessments                €€{{              those of school assessments are only available to educational
                                                     authorities.
Policy Goal 5: Accountability is Latent
Indicator                             Score          Justification
5A. Guidelines for the use of school Latent          The results of student assessments are made public, but those of school
and student assessments by the       €{{{            assessments are only available to educational authorities, not the APE.
school council

5B. National or regional systems of Established      MENA analyzes standardized assessments such as the CEP and shares the
educational assessments             €€€{             results with regional, municipal, and local levels. In that sense, national
                                                     and regional systems of educational assessments exist and their results
                                                     are used.
5C. Comparisons of school and         Emerging       Regarding standardized assessments such as the CEP, comparisons are
student performance reports           €€{{           made among different types of schools, regions, and previous years.
5D. School council has authority to Latent           The APE has no authority to perform financial audits.
perform financial audits            €{{{
5E. Manual for the participation of Latent           The APE has no authority to perform financial audits.
school councils in school audits    €{{{
Source: World Bank (2012) SABER Country Report for Burkina Faso, 2011/2012. Note: APE – Association des Parents d’Elèves;
BAC – Baccalauréat; BEPC – Brevet d’Études du Premier Cycle; CEB – Circonscription de l’Éducation de Base; CEP – Certificat d’É
tudes Primaires; DPENA – Direction Provincial de l’Éducation Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation; DRENA – Direction Régionale
de l’Éducation Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation; MENA – Ministère de l’Enseignement de Base et de l’Alphabétisation.




                                                                50
Annex 1b. The Intent of SABER-SAA Policies for Burkina Faso, 2013
 Indicator             Score    Justification                            Documents
 Policy Goal 1: School Autonomy in the Planning and Management of School Budgets
 1A. Legal authority 2        Legal management authority over the #5 (decree)
 over management of           operational budget (recurrent            #1, #2, #12 (arrete
 the operational              expenses   and  stationary) is at the    transferring funds
 budget                       commune     level since                  for 2011, 2010,
                              decentralization, and is subsidized by and 2009)
                              the central government
 1B. Legal authority   2      Communes      are in charge of support   #06 (article 13)
 over the              (or 4) staff (thus 2). However   COGES      can (for scoring 2)
 management of                manage   service   providers (e.g. a     #15 (for scoring
 non-teaching staff           guard) if those services are in their    4)
 salaries*                    action plan (thus a possible 4)
 1C. Legal authority   1      Primary school teachers are civil          #14 (Chapter 3 &
 over the              (or 2) servants seconded to communes.             art. 77)
 management of                They remain civil servants whose           #4 (article 3, 6
 teacher salaries*            salaries are managed at the central        &7)
                              level (thus 1). However, communes
                              can sanction and reward these
                              seconded civil servants as long as it is
                              within the law regarding the
                              employment of civil servants (thus a
                              possible 2)
 1D. Legal authority 4        If the school council is understood as     #16 (article 10)
 to raise additional          being the "school" (the subject used
 funds for the school         in the rubric), then COGES can raise
                              additional funds from any source
                              (thus 4)
 1E. Collaborative     1      Operational   budget amount is             #5 (decree)
 budget planning*             calculated  on a per class basis by the    #1, #2, #12 (arrete
                              central government, and funds are          transferring funds
                              transferred to communes according to       for 2011, 2010,
                              the number of lessons in their             and 2009)
                              jurisdiction. In this process, there is
                              no formal system to accept a budget
                              proposal from the school level
 Policy Goal 2: School Autonomy in Personnel Management
 2A. Autonomy in       3      Initial appointments are done by the       #8 (article 16)
 teacher appointment          REO, then deployments are decided
 and deployment               at the lowest possible level, either by
 decisions                    the  Mayor, PEO or REO depending
                              on the location of the transfer ***
 2B. Autonomy in       3      Communes have the legal right to           #6 (article 13) (for
 non-teaching staff    (or 4) appoint and deploy support staff (thus     scoring 3)
 appointment and              3). Theoretically, a COGES can also        #15 (for scoring
 deployment                   appoint and deploy service providers       4)
 decisions*                   if they have the means to do so (thus
                              4)




                                                51
2C. Autonomy in       3       School directors are civil servants     #3 (article 27)
school principal              (Instituteur Principaux or Certifies),
appointment and               appointed and deployed by the REO
deployment                    (regional authority) and evaluated by
decisions                     the chief of DEOs. Transfers and
                              removals are decided at the lowest
                              possible level, either by the Mayor,
                              PEO or REO depending on the
                              location of the transfer
Policy Goal 3:Role of the School Council in School Governance (SC defined as
COGES)
3A. Participation of 2        COGES has a voice in the planning       #5, #6
the School Council            and preparation of non-salary items,    #15
in budget                     either directly in the school action
preparation                   plan, or through the CCC at
                              municipal level. When those items
                              fall under their action plan, they also
                              have final responsibility. However
                              when those items fall under other
                              budgets, the Mayor has final the
                              responsibility
3B. Participation in  3       COGES has legal standing as an          #5
financial oversight* (or 4) organization. Budgets are managed by #15
                              the Commune. COGES has a voice
                              through CCC but it has no legal
                              oversight (thus 3).
                              However COGES have complete
                              oversight on their own budgets (so 4)
3C. Participation in  1       REO, PEO and Communes manage            #7, #8
personnel                     teacher appointments, transfers and
management*                   removal, not COGES (thus 1)
3D. Community         4      There are officially approved COGES       #3
participation in             guidelines for organizing the             #15
school activities*           community, and how to plan,
                             implement, and evaluate activities
3E. Community         3      COGES have the legal authority to         #3
participation on             voice an opinion and have oversight       #15
learning inputs*             on some learning inputs
                             (supplementary lessons)
3F. Transparency in 4        There are provisions for regularly        #3
community                    scheduled elections of COGES board        #15
participation*               members who are limited to a
                             maximum of two 3 year mandates.
                             There are guidelines for calling
                             general assemblies
Policy Goal 4: School and Student Assessments
4A. Existence of      3      School assessments are done at least      #3 (title III)
and frequency of             yearly by DEO inspectors using a
school assessments           standard form for their assessment




                                            52
 4B. Use of school       3       The SD is given the school                 #9 (article 16)
 assessments for                 assessment report done by the DEO          #13
 making school                   on which there are recommendations
 adjustments                     for pedagogical and operational
                                 adjustments. However, those are not
                                 shared with the public. The MOE
                                 conducts analyses of student
                                 assessments. This information is
                                 shared by inspectors at the regional
                                 and local/municipal levels for
                                 pedagogical reflection
 4C. Existence and       4       CEP and the so-called "compositions        #11
 frequency of                    harmonisees" - are organized every
 standardized student            year at selected grades and
 assessments                     throughout the country to assess
                                 students' learning. The in-depth
                                 "Acquis Scolaires" tests are
                                 conducted every few years
 4D. Use of              2       Analyses of results of standardized        #9 (article 10)
 standardized student            student assessments (EAS, CH, CEP)         #10
 assessments for                 are done at different levels of the
 pedagogical,                    Ministry of Education (DEP, REO,
 operational, and                PEO), and there are various kinds of
 personnel                       recommendations on pedagogical,
 adjustments                     operational and/or personnel
                                 adjustments that are handled by
                                 different actors. However, the results
                                 of analyses and recommendations are
                                 not directly sent to schools
 4E. Publication of      3       Depending on the kind of student           PDSEB (for EAS
 student assessments     (or 2   assessments, the results can be made       and CH)
                         or 4)   available only at the top level
                                 (central/regional) in the case of EAS,
                                 at local levels including schools in the
                                 case of CH but not made public, or, in
                                 the case of CEP results can be made
                                 public. The score of 3 is for CH
 Policy Goal 5: Accountability
 5A. Guidelines for      1       There are no guidelines for the use of     PDSEB (cf.
 the use of results of           the results of student assessments         6.2.4.1 & 6.2.4.3.)
 student assessments
 5B. Analysis of         2       There are reports comparing student        #10
 school and student              assessment results (EAS, CH, CEP) at       PDSEB plans for
 performance                     the different levels of the MOE (DEP,      publication of
                                 REO, PEO), but these are not shared        results (6.2.4.3.)
                                 with parents
Source: Prepared by the authors, using the documents and information collected from MOE with the
SABER SAA Plus tool developed for this research (see PADECO 2013, Annex 6, for details). For the
names of documents, see the tabulated list below.
Notes: * The sub-indicators are new for the 2013 version of the World Bank SABER-SAA rubrics as



                                              53
compared with the 2011 version (see Annex 1c for details). The sub-indicators of 5C to 5E were not
presented here as they are new, and the available information was not enough to score them.
**Scores: 1 stands for Latent, 2 for Emerging, 3 for Established, and 4 for Advanced.
***For 2A, the decentralization authority does not capture all dimensions of personnel management,
and the policy allows central and local authorities to share these responsibilities. Civil servant teachers
on either an open-end or term limited contact (a permanent or contract teacher), are recruited by the
central government (the MOE), but a primary school teacher is a regionally based job. This means a
primary school teacher can only be deployed within the region of his or her recruitment. All the tests
and exams for recruiting permanent or contract primary school teachers by the MOE are done at the
regional level (REO). A teacher can ask for a transfer outside the region, but this can be refused. Within
the region of a teacher’s recruitment, the REO will assign the teacher a first position. Once a teacher is
working in a school, any transfer of this teacher within the commune is decided by the mayor on a
proposal by the Chief of the DEO. This is decided in the “Deployment Commission” at the commune
level. Once a teacher is working in a school, any transfer of this teacher outside the commune is
overseen by either the PEO if the transfer is within a province, or by the REO if the transfer is outside
the province (and within the region). Any transfer between regions is done at Ministry level, and can
only be done if teachers request those transfers, since the job is a regionally based one. Eventual
primary school teachers recruited by a commune (civil servants recruited and paid by territorial
collectives (regions or communes), are called “territorial civil servants”), and they are deployed within
the commune on the sole decision of the mayor. In short, decentralization took away the power of
deployment within a commune from the Chief of the DEO, and gave it to the Mayor. However, the
mayor can only decide based on the proposal of the Chief of the DEO.




                                                    54
No. Source Name (original name of documents)
1    Arrêté conjoint n° 2011-0007/MEF/MATD/MENA portant répartition de la somme de
     dix milliards trois cent un millions sept cent cinquante-neuf mille six cent
     quatre-vingt-dix (10,301,759,680) francs CFA, représentant les ressources financières
     transférées en 2011 aux communes en accompagnement des compétences transférées
2    Arrêté conjoint n°2010-093/MEF/MATD/MEBA portant répartition de la somme de
     neuf milliards cent millions trois cent quinze mille neuf quatre-vingt-treize francs CFA
     représentant les ressources financières à transférer en 2010 aux communes en
     accompagnement des compétences transférées
3    Decret n°2008-236/PRES/PM/MEBA/MESSRS/MASSN/MATD portant organisation
     de l'enseignement primaire
4    Décret n°2009-109/PRES/PM/MFPRE/MATD/MEF portant modalités de mise à
     disposition des agents de la fonction publique auprès des collectivités territoriales et
     de gestion de leur carrière
5    Décret n°2009-106/PRES/PM/MATD/MEBA/MASSN/MEF/MFPRE, portant
     transferts des compétences et des ressources de l'Etat aux communes dans les
     domaines du présocolaire, de l'enseignement primaire et de l'alphabétisation
6    Arrêté Interministeriel n°2009-022/MATD/MEF/MEBA/MASSN du 5 mars 2009,
     portant protocole-type d’opérations entre l’Etat et les communes dans le cadre du
     transfert des compétences et des ressources de l’Etat aux communes dans les
     domaines du préscolaire, de l’enseignement primaire et de l’alphabétisation
7    Decret n°2006-377/PRES/PM/MFPRE/MEBA/MFB portant organisation des emplois
     spécifiques du MEBA
8    Arrêté n°2003-00142/MEBA/SG portant organisation et fonctionnement des DREBA
9    Arrêté n°2003-00143/MEBA/SG portant organisation et fonctionnement des DPEBA
10   Arrêté n°2006-0007/MEBA/SG/DEP, portant organisation et fonctionnement de la
     DEP
11   Arrêté n°2006-0005/MEBA/SG/DGEB, portant organisation et fonctionnement de la
     DGEB
12   Arrêté conjoint n°2007-91/MATD/MEF/MEBA/MASSN, portant transferts du
     patrimoine de l'Etat aux communes urbaines dans le domaine du préscolaire et de
     l'enseignement primaire
13   Instructions Officielles de Rentrée 2008: Accroitrre l'efficacité et l'efficience du
     système éducatif de base
14   Loi n°013-1998/AN du 28 avril 1998, portant régime juridique applicable aux emplois
     et aux agents de la Fonction Publique
15   Guide de gestion participative de l'école par le COGES, 2013
16   Arrêté conjoint n°2013-029/MENA/MATS/MATD/MEF, portant composition et
     fonctionnement du Comité de Gestion de l'école




                                              55
Annex 1c. Remarks on the Revision of the Instruments for SABER-SAA

     The World Bank - SABER SAA Rubric 2.0: Rubric for SABER - School Autonomy and Accountability (May 2013) *                                                     Remarks on revisions from
                      Policy Goal 1: The level of autonomy in the planning and management of the school budget.                                                         2011 rubrics**
      Variable name Latent                            Emerging                          Established                         Advanced
      Legal authority   Legal management              Legal management authority        Non-salary expenditure can be       Non-salary expenditure can be          The variable name is same
      over              DXWKRULW\RYHUWKH            RYHUWKHRSHUDWLRQDOEXGJHW       PDQDJHGE\VFKRROOHYHO without    PDQDJHGE\VFKRROOHYHOLQ             But rubric changed for 3 and
      PDQDJHPHQW        RSHUDWLRQDOEXGJHWLV         LVDWWKHUHJLRQDORU             consultation with                   FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK                      4 in the underlined part.
1A
      of the            FHQWUDOL]HG                  PXQLFLSDO OHYHOV                SDUHQWVFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV           SDUHQWVFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV
      operational                                                                       XQGHUJRYHUQPHQWJXLGHOLQHV
      budget
      Legal authority   Legal management              Legal management authority        Non-teaching staff salaries can     Non-teaching salaries can be           Decomposition of previous 1B
      RYHU WKH         DXWKRULW\RYHUQRQ           RYHUQRQWHDFKLQJVWDII           EHPDQDJHGDWWKHVFKRROOHYHO      PDQDJHGE\VFKRROOHYHOLQ             (now on non-teaching staff
      management of     WHDFKLQJ VWDIIVDODULHVLV   VDODULHVLVDWWKHUHJLRQDORU    ZLWKRXWFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK           FRQVXOWDWLRQRI                        only). In rubrics 3 and 4,
1B    QRQWHDFKLQJ      centralized.                  PXQLFLSDOOHYHOVD               SDUHQWFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV$         SDUHQWVFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV $Q         mention of the SD has been
      VWDIIVDODULHV                                  FHQWUDOL]HGSD\VFDOHPD\EH       FHQWUDOL]HGRUUHJLRQDOPXQLFLSDO   HVWDEOLVKHGSD\VFDOHPD\ EH          erased.
                                                      XVHGDVD JXLGH                 SD\VFDOH PD\EHXVHGDVD         used as a guide.
                                                                                        guide.
      Legal authority Legal management                Legal management authority        Teacher salaries can be             7HDFKHUVDODULHVFDQEH PDQDJHG       Decomposition of previous 1B
      RYHU WKH       DXWKRULW\RYHUWHDFKHU          RYHUWHDFKHUVDODULHVLVDW       PDQDJHGE\VFKRROOHYHO             E\VFKRROOHYHOLQ FRQVXOWDWLRQRI    (now on teaching staff only).
      management of VDODULHVLVFHQWUDOL]HG          WKHUHJLRQDORUPXQLFLSDO         ZLWKRXWFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK           SDUHQWVFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV $Q         In rubrics 3 and 4, mention of
1C    WHDFKHU                                         OHYHOVD FHQWUDOL]HGSD\        SDUHQWFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV$         HVWDEOLVKHGSD\VFDOHPD\ EH          the SD has been erased.
      salaries                                        VFDOHPD\EH XVHGDVD           FHQWUDOL]HGRU                      used as a guide.
                                                      guide.                            UHJLRQDOPXQLFLSDOSD\VFDOH
                                                                                        PD\EHXVHGDVDJXLGH
      Legal authority   Budget is fixed by the        Schools can request more          Schools can raise additional        Schools FDQUDLVHDGGLWLRQDO IXQGV   The variable name is same as
      WRUDLVH          0LQLVWU\RI(GXFDWLRQDQG     IXQGVIURPVXEQDWLRQDO           IXQGVIURPSDUHQWVFRPPXQLW\       from any source.                       previous 1C. In the rubrics,
      additional        QRDGGLWLRQDOIXQGLQJLV      JRYHUQPHQWV                      PHPEHUVSULYDWHEXVLQHVVHV                                               reference to "school director"
1D    IXQGVIRUWKH     SHUPLWWHG                                                      DQGIURPQRQJRYHUQPHQWDO                                                  was changed to "schools".
      school                                                                            LQVWLWXWLRQV                                                              Examples in rubric 4 have
                                                                                                                                                                   been deleted.

      Collaborative     Budgetary decisions are       Provisions allow for the          National and/or sub-national        National and/or sub-national           Newly added.
      Budget            PDGHDWWKHQDWLRQDODQG      VFKRROOHYHOWRSURSRVHD         DXWKRULWLHVDUHWRXVHWKH          DXWKRULWLHVDUHWRXVHWKH
      3ODQQLQJ          VXEQDWLRQDOOHYHOVDQG       VFKRROEXGJHWWRWKHVXE         SURSRVHGEXGJHWE\WKHVFKRRO       SURSRVHGEXGJHWE\WKHVFKRRO
1E
                        WKHUHLVQRV\VWHPWR         QDWLRQDOOHYHODVDUHTXHVWIRU   OHYHODVDUHIHUHQFHIRUWKH        OHYHODVWKHPDLQJXLGHIRUWKH
                        DFFHSW DEXGJHWSURSRVDO     IXQGLQJ                          WUDQVIHURIUHVRXUFHVWRWKH        ILQDOWUDQVIHURIUHVRXUFHVWR WKH
                        IURPWKHVFKRROOHYHO                                          VFKRRO                             school.




                                                                                                 56
                                    Policy Goal 2: The level of autonomy in personnel management                                                               Remarks on revisions from
     Variable name Latent                         Emerging                         Established                         Advanced                                     2011 rubrics**
     Autonomy in    Teachers must be           Regional or municipal               Regional or municipal               6FKRROVVFKRROSULQFLSDOV VFKRRO     Same. ("school autonomy" in
     teacher        DSSRLQWHG DQGGHSOR\HG    JRYHUQPHQWVKDYHOHJDO              JRYHUQPHQWVKDYHOHJDO              FRXQFLOSDUHQW DVVRFLDWLRQHWF      variable name became
     DSSRLQWPHQW    by the central             DXWKRULW\WRDSSRLQWWHDFKHUV       DXWKRULW\WRDSSRLQWDQGGHSOR\     KDYHOHJDO DXWKRULW\WRDSSRLQW        "autonomy"). Rubric 4 was
2A   and            JRYHUQPHQWOHYHOXQGHUD   XQGHUXQLRQRUFLYLOVHUYLFH        WHDFKHUVXQGHUXQLRQRUFLYLO       WHDFKHUV 8QLRQDQGFLYLOVHUYLFH      amended to not restrict it to
     GHSOR\PHQW     XQLRQRUFLYLOVHUYLFH     DJUHHPHQWV$SSRLQWPHQWV            VHUYLFHDJUHHPHQWVZLWKRXW          DJUHHPHQWPD\RUPD\QRW                SD.
     GHFLVLRQV      DJUHHPHQW                 DUH VXEMHFWWRILQDOUHYLHZE\     UHYLHZE\FHQWUDODXWKRULWLHV      UHJXODWHWKHDSSRLQWPHQWV
                                               FHQWUDODXWKRULWLHV
     Autonomy in    Non-teaching staff must be Regional or municipal               Regional or municipal               Schools have legal authority to         Newly added on non-teaching
     QRQWHDFKLQJ   DSSRLQWHGDQGGHSOR\HG     JRYHUQPHQWVKDYHOHJDO              JRYHUQPHQWVKDYHOHJDO              DSSRLQWQRQWHDFKLQJVWDII &LYLO     staff. (Previous 2B (on SC
     staff          E\FHQWUDOJRYHUQPHQW      DXWKRULW\WRDSSRLQWQRQ           DXWKRULW\WRDSSRLQWDQGGHSOR\     VHUYLFHDJUHHPHQWPD\RU PD\QRW       role) was moved to 3C)
2B   DSSRLQWPHQW    OHYHO XQGHUFLYLOVHUYLFH WHDFKLQJVWDIIXQGHUFLYLO          QRQWHDFKLQJVWDII&LYLO          UHJXODWHWKH DSSRLQWPHQWV
     and            DJUHHPHQW                 VHUYLFHDJUHHPHQWV                 VHUYLFHDJUHHPHQWPD\RUPD\
     GHSOR\PHQW                                                                    QRWUHJXODWHWKHDSSRLQWPHQWV
     GHFLVLRQV
     Autonomy in    Principals are to be          Principals are to be appointed   Principals are to be appointed      3ULQFLSDOVDUHWREHDSSRLQWHG DQG     Major revision.
     school         DSSRLQWHGDQGGHSOR\HG        DQGGHSOR\HGE\WKHFHQWUDO      DQGGHSOR\HGE\UHJLRQDORU         GHSOR\HGE\ PXQLFLSDOORFDO            From "hiring and firing" to
     SULQFLSDO      E\WKHFHQWUDOOHYHO7KHLU   OHYHO7KHLUSHUIRUPDQFHLV      PXQLFLSDOORFDODXWKRULWLHV        DXWKRULWLHVLQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH   "appointment and
     DSSRLQWPHQW    SHUIRUPDQFHLVHYDOXDWHG      HYDOXDWHGUHJLRQDOO\RUE\       ZKRDUHDOVRUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKHLU   6FKRRO &RXQFLOVWDNHKROGHUVDW        deployment". In that new
2C   and            FHQWUDOO\DQGWKH\FDQEH     PXQLFLSDOLQVSHFWRUVZKLFK      HYDOXDWLRQDQGKDYHWKH             VFKRRO OHYHORUE\WKH6FKRRO          context "renvoi" ("removal" in
     GHSOR\PHQW     WUDQVIHUUHGRUILUHGE\       GHWHUPLQHVWKHLUWHQXUH         DXWKRULW\IRUGHWHUPLQLQJ           &RXQFLO DORQH0XQLFLSDOORFDO         French) goes from meaning
     GHFLVLRQV      Central authorities.          WUDQVIHURUUHPRYDOE\          WHQXUHWUDQVIHURUUHPRYDO       DXWKRULWLHVDUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRU WKH    "firing" to "removal from a
                                                  &HQWUDODXWKRULWLHV                                                 SULQFLSDO
VHYDOXDWLRQWR GHWHUPLQH    position".
                                                                                                                       WHQXUHWUDQVIHURUUHPRYDO




                                                                                            57
                                      Policy Goal 3: Role of the school council on school governance.                                                             Remarks on revisions from
     Variable name Latent                            Emerging                          Established                        Advanced                                     2011 rubrics**
     Participation of No role for the School         School Council is to have a       School Council is to have a        6FKRRO&RXQFLOLVWRKDYHD YRLFHLQ   Same. Rubrics 2, 3 were
     WKH6FKRRO       &RXQFLOEXGJHWVDUH           YRLFHLQWKHSODQQLQJDQG         YRLFHLQWKHSODQQLQJDQG          WKHSODQQLQJDQG SUHSDUDWLRQRIDOO    changed. Old 2 disappeared.
     Council in       SUHSDUHGFHQWUDOO\E\WKH      SUHSDUDWLRQRIWKHQRQVDODU\     SUHSDUDWLRQRI all expenses at    H[SHQVHVDW WKHVFKRROOHYHODQG      Previous 3 became new 2
     EXGJHW           0LQLVWU\RI(GXFDWLRQ         EXGJHWLWHPVDWWKHVFKRRO        WKHVFKRROOHYHOEXWILQDO        GHSHQGLQJ RQWKHODZPD\VKDUH        with added wording
3A
     preparation                                     OHYHOEXWILQDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\   UHVSRQVLELOLW\IDOOVRQWKH        UHVSRQVLELOLW\ZLWKWKHVFKRRO          (underlined). New 3 has
                                                     IDOOVRQWKHVFKRROSULQFLSDO     VFKRROSULQFLSDORURWKHU          SULQFLSDO                              budget scope expanded
                                                     RURWKHUJRYHUQPHQW               government authority.                                                      (underlined) compared to old
                                                     authority.                                                                                                   3.
     Participation in No legal standing as an        Legal standing as an              Legal standing as an               /HJDOVWDQGLQJDVDQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ     Major revision: "oversight"
     )LQDQFLDO        RUJDQL]DWLRQQROHJDO        RUJDQL]DWLRQEXWQROHJDO       RUJDQL]DWLRQDQGOHJDO           OHJDODXWKRULW\WR KDYHDYRLFHDQG   replaced "approval". Rubrics
     Oversight        DXWKRULW\WRKDYHDYRLFH     DXWKRULW\WRKDYHDYRLFHDQG    DXWKRULW\WRKDYHDYRLFHEXW     OHJDO RYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\RQEXGJHW    were completely re-written.
3B
                      DQGQROHJDORYHUVLJKW         QROHJDORYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\      QROHJDORYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\RQ    LVVXHV
                      DXWKRULW\RQEXGJHW            RQEXGJHWLVVXHV                  EXGJHWLVVXHV
                      issues.
     Participation in No legal right or voice in     No legal right in teacher         Legal right to have a voice in     Legal right to oversee                  New.
     3HUVRQQHO        WHDFKHUDSSRLQWPHQWV          DSSRLQWPHQWVDQGUHPRYDOV        WHDFKHUDSSRLQWPHQWV              DSSRLQWPHQWVUHPRYDOVRU
3C
     0DQDJHPHQW       WUDQVIHUVDQGUHPRYDOV       EXWKDYHDYRLFHLQWHDFKHU       UHPRYDOVDQGWUDQVIHUV           WUDQVIHURIWHDFKHUV
                                                     WUDQVIHUV
     Community         No formal instructions,       There are formal instructions,    There are formal instructions,     There are formal instructions,          New.
     3DUWLFLSDWLRQ     PDQXDOVRUPDQGDWHVIRU      PDQXDOVDQGPDQGDWHVIRU         PDQXDOVDQGPDQGDWHVIRU          PDQXDOVDQGPDQGDWHVIRU
3D   LQ6FKRRO         RUJDQL]LQJYROXQWHHUVWR      RUJDQL]LQJYROXQWHHUVWR          RUJDQL]LQJYROXQWHHUVWRSODQ      RUJDQL]LQJYROXQWHHUVWRSODQ
     Activities        SHUIRUPDFWLYLWLHV           LPSOHPHQWDFWLYLWLHV             DQGLPSOHPHQWDFWLYLWLHV          LPSOHPHQWDQGHYDOXDWH
                                                                                                                          DFWLYLWLHV
     Community         No legal authority to voice   Legal authority to voice an       Legal authority to voice an        /HJDODXWKRULW\WRYRLFHDQ RSLQLRQ    New.
     3DUWLFLSDWLRQ     DQRSLQLRQDQGQROHJDO      RSLQLRQEXWQROHJDO             RSLQLRQDQGOHJDORYHUVLJKWRQ     DQGOHJDORYHUVLJKWRQDOOOHDUQLQJ
3E
     RQ/HDUQLQJ       RYHUVLJKWRQOHDUQLQJ         RYHUVLJKW RQOHDUQLQJLQSXWV     VRPHOHDUQLQJLQSXWVWRWKH        LQSXWVWRWKH FODVVURRP
     Inputs            LQSXWV WRWKHFODVVURRP     WRWKHFODVVURRP                 FODVVURRP
     Transparency      No provisions for the open    No provisions for the open        There are provisions for open      7KHUHDUHSURYLVLRQVIRU UHJXODUO\     New.
     LQ&RPPXQLW\      HOHFWLRQRIVFKRROFRXQFLO    HOHFWLRQRIVFKRROFRXQFLO        HOHFWLRQRIVFKRROFRXQFLO         VFKHGXOHGHOHFWLRQV RIVFKRRO
     3DUWLFLSDWLRQ     PHPEHUVDQGIRUJHQHUDO       PHPEHUVEXWJXLGHOLQHVIRU       PHPEHUVEXWQRWHUPOLPLWVRU      FRXQFLOPHPEHUVDQG GHILQHGWHUP
3F
                       DVVHPEOLHV                   FDOOLQJJHQHUDODVVHPEOLHV       UHJXODUVFKHGXOHIRUHOHFWLRQV    OLPLWV7KHUHDUH JXLGHOLQHVIRU
                                                                                       7KHUHDUHJXLGHOLQHVIRUFDOOLQJ   FDOOLQJJHQHUDO DVVHPEOLHV
                                                                                       JHQHUDODVVHPEOLHV




                                                                                                 58
                                                Policy Goal 4: School and student assessment.                                                                   Remarks on revisions from
     Variable name Latent                         Emerging                        Established                         Advanced                                       2011 rubrics**
     Existence and    Schools do not assess       Schools are to be assessed      Schools are to be assessed          6FKRROVDUHWREHDVVHVVHG HYHU\         Major revision. Only rubric 1
     IUHTXHQF\RI     VFKRROSHUIRUPDQFHRQD     HYHU\IHZ\HDUVXVLQJ           HYHU\\HDUXVLQJ0LQLVWU\RI        \HDUXVLQJ0LQLVWU\RI (GXFDWLRQ         remains untouched. The
     school           UHJXODUEDVLV              0LQLVWU\RI(GXFDWLRQ           (GXFDWLRQFULWHULD                 FULWHULD,QDGGLWLRQ WKHUHVKRXOGEH   students assessment part
     DVVHVVPHQWV                                  criteria.                                                           VSRUDGLF HYDOXDWLRQVRIVSHFLILF         that was in the other rubrics
4A                                                                                                                    DVSHFWV RIVFKRROOLIHVXFKDV          was removed.
                                                                                                                      VWXGHQW SRYHUW\HTXLW\DQG
                                                                                                                      WHDFKHU TXDOLW\7KHUHVXOWVRIDOO
                                                                                                                      HYDOXDWLRQVVKRXOGEHPDGH
                                                                                                                      SXEOLFDQGHDVLO\DFFHVVLEOH
     Use of school    Schools do not use school   Central Ministry of Education   Central or Regional/ municipal      0LQLVWU\RI(GXFDWLRQRU PXQLFLSDO       Almost the same. Rubrics 2
     DVVHVVPHQWV      DVVHVVPHQWVWRPDNH         PXVWDQDO\]HVFKRRO             EUDQFKRIWKH0LQLVWU\RI           JRYHUQPHQWVPXVW DQDO\]HVFKRRO          and 3 were changed. 2 is now
     IRUPDNLQJ       SHGDJRJLFDODGMXVWPHQWV    DVVHVVPHQWUHVXOWVDQG          (GXFDWLRQPXVWDQDO\]HVFKRRO       DVVHVVPHQWV DQGPDNHUHVXOWV            when recommendations are
     school           RUWRFKDQJHVFKRRO         VHQG WKHPWRWKH5HJLRQV      DVVHVVPHQWUHVXOWVDQGVHQG         HDVLO\ DFFHVVLEOHWRVFKRROVDQG         not handed down to school
4B
     DGMXVWPHQWV      materials.                  PXQLFLSDOLWLHVDQGPDNHV       WKHPGLUHFWO\WRWKHVFKRROV       WKHSXEOLF6FKRROVPXVWXVHWKH          level.
                                                  EURDGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRQ        6FKRROVPD\XVHWKH                 LQIRUPDWLRQWRPDNH SHGDJRJLFDO
                                                  SHGDJRJLFDODQGRSHUDWLRQDO     LQIRUPDWLRQWRPDNH SHGDJRJLFDO    SHUVRQQHODQG RSHUDWLRQDO
                                                  DGMXVWPHQWV                    DQGRSHUDWLRQDO DGMXVWPHQWV       adjustments.
     Existence and    Students do not take        Assessments of student          Assessments of student learning     $VVHVVPHQWVRIVWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ          Same with minor clarification
     )UHTXHQF\RI     VWDQGDUGL]HGWHVWV         OHDUQLQJDUHGRQHHYHU\IHZ    DUHGRQHHYHU\IHZ\HDUVLQ        DUHGRQHHYHU\\HDULQ VHOHFWHG          in rubrics 3 & 4.
4C   VWDQGDUGL]HG                                 \HDUVLQVHOHFWHGJUDGHV        VHOHFWHGJUDGHVIRUDOOVWXGHQWV    JUDGHVIRUDOOVWXGHQWV LQWKH
     student                                      XVLQJ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVDPSOHV   LQWKHFRXQWU\                     country.
     DVVHVVPHQWV                                  RIVWXGHQWV
     Use of           Schools do not use          Central Ministry of Education   Central or Regional/ municipal      0LQLVWU\RI(GXFDWLRQRU PXQLFLSDO       Notable revision: "students
     standardized     VWDQGDUGL]HGVWXGHQW        PXVWDQDO\]HUHVXOWVRI         EUDQFKRIWKH0LQLVWU\RI           JRYHUQPHQWVPXVW DQDO\]HVWXGHQW         assessments" and "exit
     VWXGHQW          DVVHVVPHQWVWRPDNH         VWDQGDUGL]HGVWXGHQW            (GXFDWLRQPXVWDQDO\]HVWXGHQW      WHVWVFRUHVLQVWDQGDUGL]HGWHVWV        exams" were changed into
     assessments      SHGDJRJLFDODGMXVWPHQWV     DVVHVVPHQWVDQGVHQGWKHP       WHVWVFRUHVLQVWDQGDUGL]HG         PDNHUHVXOWV HDVLO\DFFHVVLEOHWR        "standardized tests". Rubric
     IRUSHGDJRJLF     RUWRFKDQJHVFKRRO         WRWKH5HJLRQV                 WHVWVDQGVHQGUHVXOWVDQG          VFKRROVDQGWKHSXEOLF6FKRROV           2 and 3 were re-written,
4D   al,              materials.                  PXQLFLSDOLWLHV DQGPDNH        UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVWRUHJLRQDO         PXVWXVHWKHLQIRUPDWLRQWRPDNH          rubrics 1 & 4 remain
     RSHUDWLRQDO                                 EURDG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRQ       DQGORFDORIILFHVDQGGLUHFWO\WR   SHGDJRJLFDORSHUDWLRQDORU              unchanged.
     DQGSHUVRQQHO                                pedagogical, operational        WKHVFKRROV6FKRROVPD\XVH        SHUVRQQHODGMXVWPHQWV
     adjustments                                  DQGRUSHUVRQQHO                WKHLQIRUPDWLRQWRPDNH
                                                  adjustments.                    SHGDJRJLFDODQGRSHUDWLRQDO
                                                                                  DGMXVWPHQWV
     Publication of   Results of the student      Results of the student          Results of the student              Results of the student                    Major revision: assessments
     student          DVVHVVPHQWVDUHQRW         DVVHVVPHQWVDUHPDGH            DVVHVVPHQWVDUHPDGHDYDLODEOH      DVVHVVPHQWVDUHPDGHSXEOLF               now restricted to students.
4E   DVVHVVPHQWV      UHSRUWHG                   DYDLODEOHWR&HQWUDODQG        WR&HQWUDO5HJLRQDO0XQLFLSDO      DQGDYDLODEOHRQOLQH                     Rubrics 1, 2 & 3 were re-
                                                  5HJLRQDO0XQLFLSDOOHYHOVRI    OHYHOVRIWKH02(6DQGWR                                                    written.
                                                  WKH02(6                       VFKRROV



                                                                                           59
                                                        Policy Goal 5: School Accountability                                                                       Remarks on revisions from
       Variable name Latent                         Emerging                         Established                          Advanced                                      2011 rubrics**
       Guidelines for   There are no guidelines for There are guidelines for the     There are guidelines for the use     7KHUHDUHJXLGHOLQHVIRUWKHXVH RI     Minor revisions in the wording
       WKHXVHRI       WKHXVHRIUHVXOWVRI       XVHRIUHVXOWVRIVWXGHQW        RIUHVXOWVRIVWXGHQW                UHVXOWVRIVWXGHQWDVVHVVPHQWVDW        throughout.
       results of       VWXGHQW DVVHVVPHQWV       DVVHVVPHQWVDWWKHQDWLRQDO      DVVHVVPHQWVDWWKHQDWLRQDO         DOOOHYHOV7KH JXLGHOLQHVDUH
5A     student                                      DQGPXQLFLSDOOHYHOVRQO\       PXQLFLSDODQGVFKRROOHYHOV        DYDLODEOHRQOLQH DQGFDQEHXVHGWR
       DVVHVVPHQWV                                                                   6FKRROFRXQFLOVFDQXVHWKH          IRVWHUGHPDQGDFFRXQWDELOLW\
                                                                                     JXLGHOLQHVWRYRLFH
                                                                                     DFFRXQWDELOLW\
       Analysis of      There are no provisions for There are provisions for         There are provisions for             There are provisions for                 Major revision: Combination
       school and       WKHFRPSDUDWLYHDQDO\VLV     FRPSDUDWLYHDQDO\VLVRI         FRPSDUDWLYHDQDO\VLVRIVWXGHQW      FRPSDUDWLYHDQDO\VLVRIVWXGHQW          of former 5B on assessment
       VWXGHQW          RIVWXGHQWDVVHVVPHQW        VWXGHQWDVVHVVPHQWUHVXOWV      DVVHVVPHQWUHVXOWVIRUGLIIHUHQW     assessment results for different         systems and former 5C on
       performance      UHVXOWV IRUGLIIHUHQWW\SHV IRUGLIIHUHQWW\SHVRIVFKRROV W\SHVRIVFKRROVDFURVV             W\SHVRIVFKRROVDFURVV UHJLRQV       use of school and student
5B                      RIVFKRROVDFURVV           DFURVVUHJLRQVDQGIRU         UHJLRQV DQGIRUSUHYLRXV\HDUVDW   DQGIRUSUHYLRXV\HDUV DWWKH           assessments.
                        UHJLRQVDQG IRUSUHYLRXV   SUHYLRXV\HDUVDWWKH           WKHQDWLRQDOUHJLRQDODQG          QDWLRQDOUHJLRQDO PXQLFLSDODQG
                        years.                       QDWLRQDO DQGUHJLRQDOOHYHOV  PXQLFLSDOOHYHOV6FKRROVDUH       VFKRROOHYHOV 'HWDLOHGVFKRRO
                                                                                     UHTXLUHGWRGLVWULEXWHVXPPDU\       SHUIRUPDQFH UHVXOWVDWWKHVFKRRO
                                                                                     UHVXOWVWRSDUHQWV                  OHYHOPXVW EHSXEOLVKHGRQOLQH
       Degree of        There are no regulations in There are regulations in place 7KHUHDUHUHJXODWLRQVLQSODFH IRU    There are regulations in place for       New.
       Financial        SODFHIRULFRPSO\LQJ      IRUFRPSO\LQJZLWKWKHUXOHV    complying with the rules of          complying with the rules of financial
       $FFRXQWDELOLW\   ZLWKWKHUXOHVRIILQDQFLDO   RIILQDQFLDOPDQDJHPHQWDQG ILQDQFLDOPDQDJHPHQWDQG                 management and transparency; for
       DWWKHFHQWUDO   PDQDJHPHQWDQG               WUDQVSDUHQF\EXWQRWIRU       WUDQVSDUHQF\DQGIRUUHSRUWLQJ      reporting to those with oversight
5Ci    level            WUDQVSDUHQF\LL           UHSRUWLQJWRWKRVHZLWK         WRWKRVHZLWKRYHUVLJKW              authority; and for linking rewards and
                        UHSRUWLQJ WRWKRVHZLWK     RYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\DQGQRW    DXWKRULW\EXWQRWIRUOLQNLQJ       sanctions to compliance.
                        RYHUVLJKW DXWKRULW\DQG    IRUOLQNLQJUHZDUGVDQG         UHZDUGVDQGVDQFWLRQVWR
                        LLLOLQNLQJ UHZDUGVDQG   VDQFWLRQVWRFRPSOLDQFH        FRPSOLDQFH
                        VDQFWLRQVWR FRPSOLDQFH
       Degree of        There are no regulations in There are regulations in place 7KHUHDUHUHJXODWLRQVLQSODFH IRU    There are regulations in place for     New.
       Financial        SODFHIRULFRPSO\LQJ      IRUFRPSO\LQJZLWKWKHUXOHV    complying with the rules of          complying with the rules of financial
       $FFRXQWDELOLW\   ZLWKWKHUXOHVRIILQDQFLDO   RIILQDQFLDOPDQDJHPHQWEXW ILQDQFLDOPDQDJHPHQWDQGIRU           management and transparency; for
       at the           PDQDJHPHQWDQG               QRWIRUUHSRUWLQJWRWKRVHZLWK UHSRUWLQJWRWKRVHZLWK              reporting to those with oversight
5Cii   UHJLRQDO        WUDQVSDUHQF\LL           RYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\DQGQRW    RYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\EXWQRWIRU     authority; and for linking rewards and
       municipal        UHSRUWLQJ WRWKRVHZLWK     IRUOLQNLQJUHZDUGVDQG         OLQNLQJUHZDUGVDQGVDQFWLRQV        sanctions to compliance.
       OHYHO            RYHUVLJKW DXWKRULW\DQG    VDQFWLRQVWRFRPSOLDQFH        WRFRPSOLDQFH
                        LLLOLQNLQJ UHZDUGVDQG
                        VDQFWLRQVWR FRPSOLDQFH




                                                                                               60
        Degree of        There are no regulations in    There are regulations in place    7KHUHDUHUHJXODWLRQVLQSODFH IRU   There are regulations in place for     New.(Although partially
        Financial        SODFHIRULFRPSO\LQJ        IRUFRPSO\LQJZLWKWKHUXOHV      complying with the rules of           complying with the rules of financial covered by previous 5D)
        $FFRXQWDELOLW\   ZLWKWKHUXOHVRIILQDQFLDO     RIILQDQFLDOPDQDJHPHQWEXW      ILQDQFLDOPDQDJHPHQWDQG              management and transparency; for
        DWWKHVFKRRO    PDQDJHPHQWDQG                 QRWIRUUHSRUWLQJWRWKRVHZLWK   WUDQVSDUHQF\DQGIRUUHSRUWLQJ       reporting to those with oversight
5Ciii   level            WUDQVSDUHQF\LL             RYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\DQGQRW      WRWKRVHZLWKRYHUVLJKW               authority; and for linking rewards and
                         UHSRUWLQJ WRWKRVHZLWK       IRUOLQNLQJUHZDUGVDQG           DXWKRULW\EXWQRWIRUOLQNLQJ        sanctions to compliance.
                         RYHUVLJKW DXWKRULW\DQG      VDQFWLRQVWRFRPSOLDQFH          UHZDUGVDQGVDQFWLRQVWR
                         LLLOLQNLQJ UHZDUGVDQG                                       FRPSOLDQFH
                         VDQFWLRQVWR FRPSOLDQFH
        Degree of        There are no regulations in    There are regulations in place    7KHUHDUHUHJXODWLRQVLQSODFH IRU   There are regulations in place for    New.
        $FFRXQWDELOLW\   SODFHIRULFRPSO\LQJ       IRUFRPSO\LQJZLWKWKHUXOHV      complying with the rules of           complying with the rules of school
        LQ6FKRRO        ZLWKWKHUXOHVRIVFKRRO       RIVFKRRORSHUDWLRQVEXWQRW     VFKRRORSHUDWLRQVDQGIRU             operations and for reporting to those
        Operations       RSHUDWLRQVLLUHSRUWLQJ     IRUUHSRUWLQJWRWKRVHZLWK       UHSRUWLQJWRWKRVHZLWK               with oversight authority, and for
5D
                         WRWKRVHZLWKRYHUVLJKW        RYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\DQGQRW      RYHUVLJKWDXWKRULW\EXWQRWIRU      linking rewards and sanctions to
                         DXWKRULW\DQGLLLOLQNLQJ   IRUOLQNLQJUHZDUGVDQG           OLQNLQJUHZDUGVDQGVDQFWLRQV         operating performance.
                         UHZDUGVDQGVDQFWLRQVWR       VDQFWLRQVWRRSHUDWLQJ            WRRSHUDWLQJSHUIRUPDQFH
                         RSHUDWLQJSHUIRUPDQFH         SHUIRUPDQFH
        Degree of        No mandate for simplifying     There is a mandate for            The results of student                The results of student assessments New.
        Learning         DQGH[SODLQLQJUHVXOWVRI      VLPSOLI\LQJDQGH[SODLQLQJ        DVVHVVPHQWVDUHVLPSOLILHGDQG        are simplified and explained to the
        $FFRXQWDELOLW\   VWXGHQWDVVHVVPHQWVWR         UHVXOWVRIVWXGHQW                H[SODLQHGWRWKHSXEOLFDQGWKH       public and the local level/schools are
5E                       WKHSXEOLF                    DVVHVVPHQW WRWKHSXEOLF        ORFDOOHYHOVFKRROVDUH               obligated to have a meeting with the
                                                                                          REOLJDWHGWRVROLFLWIHHGEDFN         school community to solicit
                                                                                          IURPWKHVFKRROFRPPXQLW\RQ          feedback and to inform them of a
                                                                                          WKRVH UHVXOWV                       plan of action to address the issues.
Notes: * From the World Bank website (accessed in July 2014). Some underlines were added by authors to explain the remarks on the revisions.
For definitions of words in the rubrics, please also see the "Glossary" in the Data Collection Instrument for SABER - SAA (World Bank 2014).
** The authors' remarks on revisions from 2011 rubrics, used for the World Bank's SABER SAA country report for Burkina Faso and Senegal 2011/2012.




                                                                                                    61
Annex 2a. Descriptive Statistics on Means and Contexts for Policy Implementation


What is the general capacity of stakeholders, such as leadership or the state of their facilities?
To answer this question, the conditions of the general capacity of stakeholders at all levels are
highlighted below. This capacity can be assumed to affect the policy implementation on
COGES (Table A1).

At the school level, school directors are the key persons. 95% of the school directors are
certified or principal teachers. However, 16% of school directors are also teachers and are thus
not full time managers. Looking at their highest level of education, 43% finished secondary
education and 35% have finished university. Also, 40% have received initial training as school
directors. Regarding their experience, school directors have worked at the same school for an
average of 4.6 years either as a director or as a teacher; 82% speak the main local language;
and 86% responded that they use a mobile phone to communicate with administrators.

On COGES, the mean age of the presidents of the COGES is 45.2 years, and they have held
their current position for an average of 2.3 years. 42% of COGES presidents have primary
education or above. As for APE, the presidents have held their current position for an average
of 5.5 years.

At the DEO (District Education Office), the head of the bureau is on average 47 years old,
and has been in that office for 5 years. 56% have a university education. Most of them have
experience in education, whether as school directors (87%), as teachers (95%), or as personnel
of other educational administrations (26%). 95% responded that they had received initial
training for this position, and 97% indicated that they use mobile phones to communicate with
school directors. 64% answered that they often meet with school councils' representatives
(COGES or CCC) to be informed about schools and students. Some of the sampled DEOs also
had reports on school visits (Figure A1), which had allowed them to check whether the school
action plan (COGES) and other administrative documents were actually available at the school
as they should be. In terms of basic services, 54% of the district education offices said that
they had a lighting system, although only 3% answered that they had running water and air
conditioner. None of the offices had cars, but 90% said they had motor bikes (2.0 on average).

Regarding PEO and REO, 71% of the schools are less than 50 km from the PEO, and 51% of
the schools had received a visit from the REO in the previous year.

At the Commune Office: The mean age of the Mayors is 51, and they have held their current
position for an average of 5 years. The Secretary General tends to be younger, with an average
age of 38 years and a mean of 3 years in their current position. The Mayor and the Secretary
General tend to have the highest education level. In 40% of the Communes, the mayor has
senior secondary education as their maximum education level, and 10% had junior secondary
education. 8% answered primary education only. As for the Secretary Generals, 30%
responded that they had senior secondary education, and 8% junior secondary.

About the Staff: commune staffing is mainly composed by permanent civil servants (with a
mean of 3 people), and each employs an average of 2 contract staff and 2 volunteering staff.
On office facilities, 83% of the communes have a lighting system. The most used vehicle is the
motorcycle, which all of the Communes reported having (on an average of 3.7 machines per
Commune), compared with 10% responding having 4WD vehicles, and 3% having light cars.
68% of the communes reported having information about the number of teachers for almost all
the public primary schools of their district.




                                               62
Demographic Context: Communes have an average population of 30,903 inhabitants and are
100% rural. On average, 64% of the population speaks Moore, while 14% speaks French. An
average of 35% of the population is literate. On community characteristics, 34% of the SDs
responded that more than 20% of the 6 year old children in surrounding communities are not
enrolled in school. About a half of the school directors responded that more than 10% of the
parents can speak French. 55% of the schools responded that more than 50% of the students
come from economically disadvantaged homes. 71% of SDs responded that the largest ethnic
group of parents contributes more than 90% of their students.

Figure A1. DEO Report of School Visits with a Checklist of Documents theoretically
available from the School Director. The school action plan is document #19




Source: 2013 Survey Team
Note: The observation from the inspector reads “Most of the existing documents are not up to date.
There are also other registries missing. Those that exist must be updated and those that don’t must
be created ASAP.”




                                                63
Table A1. Means and Contexts for the Implementation of Policies on COGES
Variables                                                                  Mean
Leadership of school directors (SD)
    Certified or principal teacher                                         95%
    Not full time SD, but also teaches class                               16%
    Highest academic degree is secondary education                         43%
    Highest academic degree is university or above                         36%
    Received initial training                                              40%
    Years of work on the current school                                     4.6
    Speaks the local language.                                             82%
    Uses a mobile phone to communicate with administrators                 86%
Leadership of COGES president
    Age                                                                    45.2
    Years of work as president                                              2.3
    Highest academic degree is primary school or above                     42%
    Speaks French                                                          48%
Leadership of APE president
    Years of work as president                                              5.5
Leadership of DEO chief officers
    Age                                                                    47.1
    Years of work on the current position                                   5.0
    Highest academic degree is university or above                         56%
    Experience of work as SD                                               87%
    Experience of work as teacher                                          95%
    Experience of work as personnel of other educational administration    26%
    Received initial training (=1)                                         95%
    Uses cellphone to communicate with SD                                  97%
    Often meets with representatives of COGES or UCOGES                    64%
    Has a record of staff absence and presence                             23%
Facilities of DEO
    Has lighting system                                                    54%
    Has air conditioner                                                     3%
    Has cars                                                                0%
    Has motorcycles                                                        90%
Leadership of mayor offices
    Age of Mayor                                                           50.60
    Years of Mayor's work on the current position                           4.51
    Highest academic degree of Mayor is senior secondary                   40%
    Highest academic degree of Mayor is junior secondary                   10%
    Highest academic degree of Mayor is primary school                      8%
    Age of Secretary General                                               37.70
    Years of Secretary General's work on the current position               2.88
    Highest academic degree of Secretary General is senior secondary       30%
    Highest academic degree of Secretary General is junior secondary        8%
Staffs of mayor offices
    Number of permanent civil servants                                      3.0
    Number of contract staffs                                               1.9
    Number of volunteering staffs                                           1.9
Facilities of mayor offices
    Has lighting system                                                    83%
    Has motorcycles                                                        100%
    Has 4WD vehicles                                                       10%
    Has teacher information for almost all the public primary schools       68%
Demographic contexts of communes
    Population                                                             30,903
    % of the population speaking Moore                                      64%
    % of the population speaking French                                     14%
    % of the literate population                                            35%
    % of school age children not enrolled, >20%                             34%
    % of parents with French ability, >10%                                  51%
    % of students from economically disadvantaged, >50%                     55%
    Majority ethnic group of parents, >90%                                  71%
PEO/REO
    Distance to PEO, less than 50 km                                       71%
    Received visits from REO                                                5%

Source: 2013 survey data for 2 PACOGES regions.



                                                  64
Annex 2b. Descriptive Statistics on Education Service Delivery and Results


How does quality of education differ among our sample rural schools? Here we present some
descriptive statistics on the quality of education service and learning results as shown in Table
A2.

Time of teaching and learning: In 2013 schools started instruction to all grades that school
year mostly in October (as reported by 98%). 55% started during the first week, while 93%
had started during the first 15 days of the month. On the frequency of teacher absences, 20%
of the school directors chose “often” or “very often”, 77% of them chose “sometime”, and the
rest “never”. 82% of the SDs responded that there were no strikes in the current or last school
year. 61% of SDs responded there are teacher absence records, while 29% submitted that the
record of teacher hours and the summary report was only available at a very few DEOs during
our survey (Figure A2). In 50% of the schools, teachers have to submit a request for leave to
the Commune office. On students, 93% of the school directors indicated that the school keeps
a record of the student’s attendance or absence in all classes. A mean of 11% of students were
absent from class one day or more in the last trimester at the CP2 level, while the proportion
was 9% in the case of CM2. In the last month (March 2013), 74% of schools provided
supplementary classes. On learning at home, 39% of SDs responded that more than half of
Grade 6 students study 60 minutes or more at home.

Materials of teaching and learning: With regard to textbooks, the policy intention is to
provide one textbook per student, but these are intended to be returned to schools after use. On
textbooks, 29% of the SDs responded that the shortage of instructional materials is an
important obstacle for the school's capacity to provide instruction. Central government
procures new textbooks every year based on the needs of schools, as estimated from the the
number of students and the number of textbooks in stock. Given that used books also stay at
the schools, the number of textbooks per student can be larger than one per student. For
example, the average number of textbooks per student is 1.03 for the science textbook for
Grade 6. However, only half of the sample schools (52%) have more than 1 book per student,
the rest have less than one book. Textbook delivery is one of the areas where communities and
parents often seek voluntary contributions. In fact, 76% of the schools have submitted
textbook receipts to the Ministry, and 70% of these show that an APE or representative has
signed those receipts along with school directors.

On other materials, between 70-72% of the SDs responded that all teachers have the MENA
teaching guide for Math (CP2 or CM2), while 74-75% indicated that all teachers have the
MENA teaching guide for French (both levels). 16% of the SDs responded that the shortage of
funds for supplies is a very important obstacle for a school's capacity to provide instruction.
91% of the SDs responded that all students have pencils, 92% said they had notebooks, and
82% said they had chalk and personal boards.




                                               65
Table A2. Education Service Delivery
Variables                                                                         Mean
Time of teaching and learning
    Schools started instruction in October 2012                                   98%
    Schools started instruction during the first week of October 2012             55%
    Schools started instruction during the first 15 days of October 2012          93%
    Teacher absences are “often” or “very often”                                  20%
    Teacher absences are “sometimes”                                              77%
    Teacher absences are “never”                                                   3%
    No strikes in 2011/12 or 2012/13                                              82%
    Teacher absence records exist                                                 61%
    Document on teacher hours submitted by SD                                     29%
    Teachers have to submit a request for leave to the commune office             50%
    Schools keep a record of the student’s attendance or absence in all classes   93%
    % of G2 students absent from class one day or more in the last trimester      11%
    % of G6 students absent from class one day or more in the last trimester       9%
    % of schools providing supplementary classes for all grades in March 2013     74%
    More than half of G6 students study 60 minutes or more at home                39%
Materials of teaching and learning
    Shortage of instructional materials is an important obstacle                  29%
    Total number of the textbooks per G6 student in 2013                           3.8
    Total number of the science books per G6 student in 2013                      1.03
    % of schools having 1 textbook per student or above (science, G6, 2013)       52%
    Document on the textbook receipts submitted by SD                             76%
    APE/COGES representative signed textbook receipts along with SD               70%
    All students have pencils                                                     91%
    All students have notebooks                                                   92%
Source: 2013 survey data for 2 PACOGES regions

Figure A2. Summary Report of Teaching Hours per School at a DEO




                                                                                   Notes: Schools are
                                                                                   listed in the 1st
                                                                                   column, the total
                                                                                   of official hours in
                                                                                   the 2nd, the actual
                                                                                   number of hours
                                                                                   taught in the 3rd,
                                                                                   the difference
                                                                                   between the two in
                                                                                   the 4th, then the
                                                                                   reasons for
                                                                                   missing hours are
                                                                                   split in 5 columns
                                                                                   (sick days, family
                                                                                   events, service
                                                                                   related, and so
                                                                                   on), and the last
                                                                                   column is the
                                                                                   reason for the
                                                                                   extra hours.



Source: 2013 survey team




                                                      66
1. Finally, the most popular indicator of learning achievement for Burkina Faso primary
education, the pass rates of the graduation examination (CEP), was examined. For the targeted
areas, the pass rate was 64% for all students (this number is comparable to the national
average of 64% in 2011, according to the annual statistics from 2011-2012, 432), when the
CEP pass rate is defined as the ratio of the students who passed to the number of students who
attended the exam in 2012. The pass rates differ greatly among schools (Figure A3). For some
schools, the pass rates were lower than 40%, but it should be noted that only 68% of the SDs
submitted the results of the examination. Those that did recorded a higher mean pass rate than
the schools that did not submit the documents. As anticipated from these data show that the
repetition rate is much higher for grade 6 than for students in other grades.


Figure A3. CEP Pass Rates for 2012
      .02
      .015
   Density
    .01
      .005
      0




              0             20             40            60              80            100
                                           Pass rate (%)




                                             67
Annex 3. Overview of Relevant Previous Statistics on APE and COGES in Burkina Faso

(1) Annual Education Survey Data (AES) from MOE/DEP

Overview of survey data: MOE collects basic statistics from all primary schools at the
beginning of every school year, using a questionnaire (called “ENQUÊTE ANNUELLE”)
covering basic school information. MOE also publishes national education statistics
(ANNUAIRE STATISTIQUE DE L’EDUCATION NATIONAL), which include statistical
tables by REO (region), and PEO (province). The relevant database is maintained in a format
that enables experts to generate data files, including data disaggregated by each school (or
each district, commune, province, or region) for each indicator.

Basic statistics on APE and COGES (see tables below):
z An APE was present at 99% of primary schools in all regions in 2012/13 (Table A3);
z A COGES was present at 32% of primary schools in 2012/13;
z The share of schools having a COGES has increased since 2009/10, and almost all
    schools have a COGES in the two regions supported by PACOGES 1 (Central East and
    Plateau Central). However, with the exception of Saher, other regions have a smaller
    percentage of their schools with COGES, at around 10% (Table A4).

Table A3. Overview of APE and COGES, Nationwide and in three PACOGES Regions
2012/13
% of schools (9,885)                       PACOGES                PACOGES1
with:                                              2
                               Nationwide        Central       Central   Plateau
                                                  North          East    Central
APE present                      99%              100%           99%       100%
APE had 3 or more meetings       73%               84%           81%        86%
COGES present                    32%               13%           96%        94%
COGES had 3 or more meetings     18%                 4%          80%        71%
 Source: Calculated using school-level data from DGESS (DEP) Annuaire Statistique, 2012/2013.

Table A4. The proportion of primary schools with COGES by Region, 2008/09 to 2012/13
Region                              2009      2010          2011     2012     2012/13
BOUCLE DU MOUHOU                    10%       11%            9%       8%         9%
CASCADES                            21%       18%           16%      12%        10%
CENTRE                              10%        7%           12%      29%        29%
CENTRE-EST                          15%       19%           52%      90%        96%
CENTRE-NORD                         21%       20%           15%      15%        13%
CENTRE-OUEST                         7%       13%           13%      13%        10%
CENTRE-SUD                          21%       18%           17%      11%         9%
EST                                 30%       55%           44%      37%        30%
HAUTS-BASSINS                       12%       13%            9%      14%        12%
NORD                                12%       12%           12%      12%        12%
PLATEAU CENTRAL                     39%       71%           97%      97%        94%
SAHEL                               88%       94%           96%      95%        95%
SUD-OUEST                           12%       13%           13%      11%         9%
Total                               22%       27%           30%      33%        32%
Source: Calculated    using   school-level   data    from    DGESS    (DEP)   Annuaire   Statistique,
2009/10-2012/2013.



                                                68
Simple school-level regression analysis of AES data: The ratio of female to male students
was significantly higher for schools with a COGES than for the others in 2012/13, when the
model incorporates controls on initial gender parity (in 2009/2010) and provincial effects
(Table A5).

Table A5. Regression result of GPI (gender parity index as a female to male student ratio)
                                                          GPI
 
                                                      in 2012/13
 COGES present in 2012/13                              0.0266***
 Number of COGES meetings in 2012/13                          0.00101
 GPI in 2009/10                                               0.530***
 Constant                                                     0.512***
 Observations                                                  7489
  2
 R                                                             0.363
Source: Author's estimation using the merged AES data from 2009 to 2012/13.
Note: Controlled by province (coefficients omitted from the table, though)
***significant at 1%.

(2) National Large-Scale Student Assessment: EAS

Overview of survey data: Burkina Faso has a national system review to assess student
learning achievement, called EAS (Enquête sur les Acquis Scolaires). It is conducted almost
every two years. The most relevant recent report is for the 2011/12 survey (DEP/MOE 2013)
while the next round was produced in 2013/14 (June 2014). This assessment is implemented at
nationally representative, sample primary schools, selected from all regions for two grades on
several subjects. The specifications regarding the numbers of sample schools and students,
target grades, and subjects change with the year of the survey.

The EAS has a questionnaire for school directors about school characteristics, including the
existence of COGES and APE and their activities. Therefore, it could be used in analyzing the
role of COGES as well as other factors to explain the level of student learning achievements
(Table A6).

Table A6. Existence of COGES and Differences in Learning Assessment Results
 Existence of COGESa/            Proportion           French Mathematics         Sciences

 Yes                            39,0 (1,2)     51,5 (0,9)     50,0 (0,9)      48,9 (0,8)

 No                             61,0 (1,2)     49,0 (0,7)     47,5 (0,7)      47,5 (0,6)

 Significance       of      difference
                                              ***                 ***             ***
 (***)
Source: DEP-MOE 2014.
Note : a/ Q21A - Est-ce qu’il y a dans votre école un COGES? (Is there a COGES at your school?)




                                                 69
(3) District (DEO) Level Simple Analysis of CEP Pass Rates

Data set: DEO-level data from AES and CEP (merged).

Simple regression results (very preliminary): The mean number of COGES meetings is
significantly and positively correlated with the average CEP pass rate per DEO (district), when
controlled for the presence of COGES, and provincial effects (Table A7).



Table A7. Regression Result of CEP Pass Rates at the DEO Level
                                                       CEP pass rate in
 
                                                          2011/12
 COGES present                                                5.85
 Number of COGES meetings                                    1.441*
 Constant                                                   61.83***
 Observations                                                 311
     2
 R                                                           0.379
Source: Author's estimation using the merged AES and CEP data for 2011/2012.
Note: Controlled by province (coefficients omitted from the table, though)
*Significant at 10%; **significant at 5%; ***significant at 1%.




                                               70
Technical Annex 29: Administrative Documents collected during the Survey in Rural
Burkina Faso to Assess the Implementation of Education Policies

By Gaetan Moreau and Takako Yuki

This note has two objectives: First, to show a sample of documents that were used as evidence

in the evidence-based survey on policy implementation (Yuki et al. 2015). For details on the

types of documents and collection rates, see the Final Report for Commissioned Data

Collection and Analysis for the Research of the System Assessment and Benchmarking for

Learning Achievement and Equity: A Focus on School Management Systems (Research with

the SABER Program), submitted to the Japan International Cooperation Agency, March 2014

(PADECO 2014). And second, to illustrate how these existing documents can be used for the

tracking of several education policies. The relevant documents are textbook distribution

(Document 12), stationaries distribution (Document 2, 14), community participation

(Document 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16), and/or teaching hours (Documents 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16).

These documents show how information is handled at the lowest level (by school directors,

parental associations, school councils, and local education offices) in rural Burkina Faso,

before this information is gathered at the regional and then the central level. The process gives

an idea of the current administrative status and capacity in this area, and can be of interest for

public expenditure tracking surveys (PETS).

        This note is organized in three sections: a sample of documents collected during the

field survey at the district education office level (called CEB in Burkina Faso) is outlined in

Section 1; some documents obtained from school directors are shown in Section 2; and in

Section 3, along with a short description, we give the complete list of the documents collected

from school directors, school councils (COGES), parental associations (APE), and local

education offices (CEB) during the survey. The survey also collected similar documents from

29
  This is a technical note prepared during the analysis of the survey data used for a working paper,
Measuring quality of policies and their implementation for better learning: adapting World Bank’s
SABER tools on school autonomy and accountability to Burkina Faso, by Takako Yuki, Kengo Igei, and
Angela Demas.



                                                 71
central, regional, and provincial offices (DRENA and DPENA) and communes, but these are

not presented here as the focus is on the level closest to the ground.



Section 1. Examples of Administrative Documents collected at District Education Offices
(CEB)

Administrative documents collected at the CEB (Circonscription d’Education de Base) can be

classified into two types:



(1)   Documents that compile information disaggregated by school throughout the district; and

(2)   Documents whose information is not aggregated for the whole district, or concern only

      one school due to the nature of the document.



        While the formats of these documents are often pre-set by the central or regional levels,

it appears from the surveys that there is quite a variation on whether and how CEBs use the

forms and fill in the required information. Also, too often the collection of data means the

aggregation of these data (see Document 1, which aggregates Document 11 from different

schools), and this aggregation is done at every step up the chain, leaving the central level with

overall figures not suitable for proper monitoring and tracking.

(1) Documents listing each school on various types of information.

These documents include information such as the actual hours of teaching (compared to the

official teaching hours), the amount of materials each school received (signed by the school

director and APE), the number of textbooks available, and the number of classes and facilities.

Such information can be useful if shared with more stakeholders, for example with the

commune level Federation of School Councils (CCC). This disaggregated information per

school should also be available at the central level for proper monitoring of teaching hours,

and to identify leakage in public resources.



                                                72
1. Actual
   Teaching
   Hours
   (Yearly)

Schools are listed
in the 1st column
(redacted), the total
of official hours in
the 2nd, the actual
number of hours
taught in the 3rd,
the difference
between the two in
the 4th, then the
reasons for missing
hours are split in 5
columns (sick
days, family
events, service
related, etc.), and
the last column is
the reason for extra
hours being
allocated.

2. Distribution
   of School
   Stationary
   Supplies

Schools are listed
in the 1st column,
and other columns
detail the number
of notebooks,
pencils, and so on,
available. Each
school’s total is
acknowledged by
the signature of the
school director and
of the APE/AME
(Parental
Association or
Mothers’
Association)




                        73
3. CEP Results
   (By exam
   center and
   school)

Schools are listed
from the 2nd
column, with the
number of students
who registered,
attended, and
passed the exam by
gender in the other
columns.




4. Action Plans
    of the
    COGES
  (One line per
     school)

For each school
(COGES), the
number of planned
activities,
implementation
status, planned
budgets, the funds
effectively raised,
and the ratio of the
latter two are
listed.




                       74
5. Statistical
    Report
  (At the start of
 the school year
   2012-2013)

Extract of one page
indicating the
number of classes,
toilets, wells, and
so on.




                      75
(2) Other types of documents collected from the CEB

The other types of documents collected concerned either single schools (such as their
inspection report), or aggregated data or information for the whole district (such as the CEB
action plan).


6.
CEB School
Inspection
Form

This is a
basic
template on
administrativ
e processes
(First page)




                                              76
   (Second
    page)

Section I.6 of
this
document is
the check list
of documents
that the
school
director
should keep
at the school.

This check
list includes
the teachers’
presence
registry and
the school
action plan.

This template
of the
inspection
form does not
have any
section
specific to
community,
APE, AME,
or the
COGES.




                 77
7.
CEB School
Inspection
Form

In this
template of a
school
inspection
sheet, Section
5 deals with
the school
and its
surrounding
environment
(APE, AME,
dedicated
section).

The comment
by the
inspector
highlights a
common
challenge that
rural schools
face:

“There is an
evident
disinterest by
the parents
with respect
to the
education of
their children.
Illiteracy is
one of the
reasons.”




                  78
8.
CEB
Program of
Activities
(Cover page
and one
other page,
including
the activities
with school
councils,
COGES,
APE, and
AME).

Here is an
extract of a
CEB yearly
action plan
that is
broken
down into
actions
planned,
expected
results,
period,
person in
charge, and
so on.




                 79
Section 2. Examples of Administrative Documents collected from School Directors

Documents collected from school directors almost always concerned their own school.
However, when CEB have the material means to copy and distribute them all can benefit.


9. Record of
    Actual Teaching
    Hours
  (Weekly Report)

This is the standard
form school
directors use to keep
track of teachers’
attendance on a
weekly basis.

The number of
missed hours is split
by reason (sickness,
personal leave,
work reasons, and
so on).




10. Record of
    Actual
    Teaching
    Hours
    (Monthly
    Report)
This document is
the same data as #9
but for a whole
month, in this case
April 2013.
In this particular
example, the Grade
1 teacher did 58%
of their official
hours, Grade 2 did
91%, Grade 3 did
75%, Grade 4 did
68%, Grade 5 did
67% and Grade 6
did 97%.


                                         80
11. Record of
    Actual Teaching
    Hours
  (Yearly Report)

This document
gives the same data
as #9 and #10 but
for a whole year.

This school has
multi-level classes
(i.e. two grades into
one class) typical of
smaller schools. The
three classes exceed
the yearly official
hours (112%, 112%
and 119%
respectively)
through
supplementary
courses.




12. Receipt of
    Textbooks
    (Signed by
    APE)

This is the standard
template nationwide
for the receipt of
textbooks by the
school. It is signed
by 4 people: the
school director, the
person in charge of
materials at the
CEB, the head of
the CEB, and the
president of the
parental or mothers
association of the
school.




                        81
 13. Student Score
          Card
    (With signature
       of parents)

This is a typical
scorecard, here of
the second trimester.

All different
subjects are graded
on a scale of 10 or
20, the average is
out of 10 (in this
case 8/10), and the
rank of the student
in the class is given
(in this case, she is
first).

It is signed by the
teacher with an
observation, and
signed by the
parents.

As for many
French-speaking
countries, the
passing mark is the
average (i.e. 5 out
of 10), and the
maximum grade is
rarely achieved.




                        82
14. Stationary
    Receipt
    (Signed- among
    others - by the
    COGES
    president)

This receipt was
issued by the
commune, as they
are in charge of
school materials
procurement.

It lists the quantities
of the materials
received and it is
signed by the school
director, the
president of the
COGES, the person
in charge of
education at the
commune’s office,
and an inspector of
the provincial
education office
(DPEBA).




                          83
15. School Action
    Plan of COGES

This shows the
template used by
COGES for their
action plans, listing
the planned
activities (here, one
of the activities is to
organize
supplementary
classes), tasks,
period, cost (here
split into unit cost
and total cost),
funding source, and
person in charge.

Almost all COGES
action plans follow
this template but
very few are printed
like this one.




                          84
16. COGES
    Activity Report

This is a typical
COGES activity
report. It follows a
template but is
drawn by hand since
computers and
printers are still rare
at the school level.

Along with the list
of planned
activities,
information on
whether they were
carried out, the
planned budget, the
level of execution,
and the amount
effectively used.

One of the activities
in this example is
the organization of
supplementary
courses.




                          85
17. Back to School
    Day Statistical
    Report

This is a report
School Directors are
to fill out at the
beginning of the
school year. There
are different
templates.

This example shows
the section on the
school’s furniture
(tables, benches,
blackboards, etc.),
and the CEP and
JHS entrance
exams’ results of the
previous year.




                        86
Section 3. Overview of the Documents collected at CEBs, Communes, and Schools

Unlike documents collected at by the central level, at the local level most documents were
photographed by the surveyors. Very few were copied or given in an electronic format.

CEB document number,                        Remarks (**: possibly relevant for monitoring the
Name (in French-English)                    implementation of policies on COGES or for sharing
                                            with COGES to make it more functional for school
                                            improvement)
CEB 1                                       A standardized document. It is divided into 2 sections,
Etat nominatif du personnel                 one for personnel in the office per se, the other for
enseignant                                  teaching personnel. The information includes: name,
[List of Teacher Names, 2013]               employee number, school, sex, class, length of service
                                            at the position and in total, highest degree
CEB 2                                       Yearly action plan of the CEB. COGES may or may not **
Programme d’activités de la                 be mentioned depending on the CEB’s activities. If the
CEB                                         CEB had activities regarding COGES, this is
[CEB Activity Program, 2013 or 2012]        mentioned. If not, there is no mention of COGES
CEB 3                                       Yearly activity report of the CEB. COGES may or may **
Programme d'activités menées                not be mentioned depending on the CEBs activities
de la CEB or Rapport
d'activités
[Activity Program by the CEB or
Activity Report 2012]
CEB 4                                       A standardized report throughout the Country. Mainly **
Rapport statistique de rentrée              statistical data concerning school infrastructure,
scolaire                                    personnel and students, and CEP results. Nothing on
[Statistical Report at the Start of the     textbooks (CEBs without computers copy the template
New School Year 2012-2013]                  by hand)
CEB 5                                       A brief statistical report that covers some areas covered **
Enquête statistique rapide de               by CEB 4 (infrastructure, personnel and students).
Rentrée Scolaire par école
[Quick Statistical Survey at the Start of   However, this one includes data on textbooks (reading
the New School Year 2012-2013 by            and math only), along with students’ information
School]
                                            (number per class in each school)
CEB 6                                       CEBs run on a budget provided by the Union of APE at
Projet de budget de l’APE pour              the commune level. Three kinds of documents were
la CEB                                      collected (there was a very poor collection rate
[APE Budget Project for CEB]                overall):
                                            The vote of the Union of APE for the funding of the
                                            CEB

                                            1. The budget of the CEB. This one shows that they
                                               expect their revenue to come from the number of
                                               students (through the APE contribution; at 100FCFA
                                               to 200FCFA per student)
                                            2. Finance book of the CEB. The revenue is entered as
                                               “contribution from school XX”




                                                       87
CEB 7                                       CEP results by school (often by an exam center that **
Résultats statistiques du CEP               covers several schools)
par école
[Statistical Results of CEP 2012 by
school]
CEB 8 and 9                                 Each document shows the number of students, for each **
Tableau Synoptique de                       grade and each subject, that are below average (score
l’évaluation du Second                      from 0 to 4.99), and the number of students above
Trimestre par école                         average (score 5 to 10). A score of 5 out of 10 is a
                                            passing score

Tableau Synoptique des                      When the CEB aggregates those numbers, some do
résultats des Compositions                  include the passing rate, depending on the template
Harmonisées du Second                       they have. Most have only the gross numbers, but a
Trimestre                                   passing rate can be easily calculated
[Synoptic Chart of the 2nd Trimester
Examination 2012-2013 of the CM2
class by school; Synoptic Chart of
Harmonized Examinations’ Results of
the 2nd Trimester 2012-2013]
CEB 10                                      (Poor collection rate. Most submitted a teacher (or **
Outil/Fiche de visite                       class) inspection sheet instead). This document exists
d’écoles*(les plus récents outils           in 3 different templates:
de visite de l’ensemble des
écoles de la CEB)                           x One detailed report that has a section requiring some
[School Inspection Form (the most             information on community participation (“integration
recent tool for visits of every school in
the CEB)]
                                              of the school within its surroundings”)
                                            x One detailed report that has no such section but has
                                              an “other activities” section that can address this
                                              topic
                                            x One very brief report that has no section on this topic
CEB 11                                      Based on SD 3 (teacher’s attendance per class/teacher)
Fiche de l’exécution du volume              and SD 4 (teachers’ attendance per school). No
horaire officiel par école pour             parental representative (APE/AME) signs any of these
l’année 2012                                documents
[Sheet of the Official Number of Hours
Worked by School for 2012]

CEB 12                                      CEB12 is the aggregate of CEB13. CEB13 is for the
Fiche d’expression des Besoins              detailed needs per school and it has not only the needs
en Manuels et Guides de l’année             in new textbooks, but also the existing number of
de la CEB                                   usable textbooks in each grade and topic. There is no
CEB 13: par école de la CEB                 standardized format but the information in the
[CEB 12: Schools textbooks, total           document is always the same (sometimes the
needs; CEB13: same per school]              information on existing textbooks is more or less
                                            extensive, i.e. including their condition or not)
CEB 14                                      This is standardized throughout the country. It is the
Bons de Sortie des Manuels et               receipt for the textbooks delivery from the DPENA to
Guides de la CEB de l’année                 the CEB. Signed by the “gestionnaire of the CEB”
[Receipt of Manuals and Guides by the       (person in charge of goods), the head of the CEB and
CEB for 2013]                               the transporter




                                                       88
CEB 15                                  Same as SD 5. Along with information on quantity per
Bons de sortie des manuels et           grade of textbooks and teachers guides received, this
guides de la CEB par école de           receipt is signed by the SD, the President of APE or
l’année 2013                            AME, the Chief of the CEB, and the person in charge
[Receipt for Manuals and Guides from    of textbooks at the CEB
the CEB to Schools in 2013]
CEB 16                                  Need for stationery for each school in the district
Expression des Besoins en
Fournitures Scolaires par Ecole
de la CEB de l’année 2013
[Need for School Stationery and
Teacher’s Guides by Schools of the
CEB for 2013]
CEB 17                                  This is a document compiled by the “Gestionnaire of
Rapport de Gestion des                  the CEB” (person in charge of materials and goods).
Fournitures Scolaires                   There are different formats:
[Management Report on School
Stationery 2012-2013]
                                        x Aggregate number by kind of materials received, the
                                          number of materials distributed, and what’s left in
                                          stock
                                        x Detailed figures of materials distributed, by school
                                        x Detailed figures of materials distributed, by grade
CEB 18                                  Information is about textbooks and materials
Situation de Distribution des           distributed (i.e., no info on stocks), and is detailed per
Manuels et des Fournitures              school
Scolaires de l’Année (par école)
[Textbooks and School Stationery
Distribution Status for 2013 (by
school)]
CEB 19                                  Information about the plan of action of each COGES in        **
Fiche Synthèse des Plans                the CEB
d’action des COGES de la CEB
[Summary Sheet of the Action Plans of
the COGES of the CEB, 2012]




                                                   89
Commune Document Number                     Remarks (**: possibly relevant for monitoring the
Name (in French-English)                    implementation of policies on COGES, or for sharing with
                                            COGES to make it more functional for school improvement)
CL 1a                                       The requested document is not just a list of the elected
Fiche de Renseignement sur les              officials, but a document that also provides information
Elus Locaux de la Mairie                    on their gender, age, occupation, political affiliation
[Information sheet on local                 and education level
representatives of the Commune, 2013
or 2012]
                                            CL1a also lists who belongs to which technical
CL1b Liste des Commissions
                                            commission so most communes provided CL1a for
Techniques
[List of Technical Commissions of the       both CL1a and 1b
Commune, 2013 or 2012]
CL 2                           If a development plan exists and was submitted, which **
Plan Local de Développement de was not always the case, there is always an education
la Commune, (Le plus récent)   chapter in it
[Local Development Plan of the
Commune (the latest)]
CL 3                                        Budget form, with standardized accounting labels. **
Budget Primitif de Gestion de la            Concerning spending on school materials, budget line
commune                                     labeled 605 gives the amount voted on. CL3 does not
[Primary Budget for the Commune’s           show that the money was effectively spent, nor on what
Management, 2013 or 2012]                   it was spent in detail. No mention of textbooks, which
                                            are still dispatched from the central level
CL 4                                        This document is pretty rare. It is not usually a detailed
Rapport Financier Annuel de la              report that shows every line of budget as in the Budget
Mairie » ou « Rapport                       document (CL3). More often, it is a summary with the
d’exécution Financière Annuelle             planned and actual balance of spending and income in
de la Mairie                                big categories (operations, investments, and so on)
[Annual Financial Report of the
Commune or Annul Financial
Implementation Report of the
Commune, 2012]
CL 5                                        Invoice showing the purchase of school materials. This **
Facture d’achat des Fournitures             is one of the few documents that almost all communes
Scolaires                                   provided. Since the money is originally transferred
[Invoice for the purchase of school         from the government to the communes, who then spend
stationery, 2012-2013]                      it on school materials, we suspect the “invoice” is also
                                            needed for the commune to justify their spending to the
                                            central government, hence the excellent collection rate
CL 6                                        Rare document in the gathered evidence. The best **
Etat de répartition des                     example shows the details of materials for each school
Fournitures Scolaires au                    with the signature of the director and of AME/APE. It
Niveau de la commune                        is in fact a CEB document seemingly shared with the
[Distribution status of school stationery   commune office
in the Commune, 2012-2013]




                                                       90
CL 7                              Info on the establishment of the Union of COGES at **
Procès-verbal de Création de      the commune level. The document gives:
l’union des COGES de la
Commune                           x The number of voters without the COGES they are
[Minutes of the Creation of the     from
COGES’s Union of the Communes]
                                  x The names of the COGES for those elected onto the
                                    Board




                                            91
School, APE or COGES              Remarks (**: possibly more relevant to the implementation of
Document Number                   policies on COGES)
Name (in
French-English)
SD 1                              This evidence document comes in different templates:           **
Rapport Statistique de
Rentrée Scolaire                  x A brief overview (on teachers, students, and school
[Statistical Report of a School     materials)
at the beginning of the year,
2012/2013]
                                  x A document providing raw numbers that must be reported
                                    back to the CEB very quickly (by early November)
                                  x A similar document with more statistics (e.g. distance
                                    between school and students home), and has a section on
                                    the CEP and JHS entrance exam of the previous year only.
                                    This is a national template that is to be filled out between
                                    November 10th and 20th
                                  x Some schools provided a copy of the “Enquete Annuelle”
                                    (yearly study) by the DEP (Departement des Etudes et de la
                                    Planification) filled out on “National Statistics Day”
SD 2                              This evidence document has different templates:                **
Rapport de Fin d'année
Scolaire(ou/et) Situation         x According to the MOE’s instructions, the yearly report
de l'école en Fin d'Année            made for the planning department (DEP) can also be used
Scolaire                             as the end of year report
[Year End School Report           x Sometimes the end of year report is a written report (often
(or/and) Situation of The
School at the End of the School
                                     the minutes of the last teachers’ meeting), along with
Year, 2011/2012]                     important data as judged by the SD. In this case, the SD
                                     may include the results of one harmonized test along with
                                     the CEP results. There is also a case that had a comment on
                                     handicapped students
SD 3                              SD 3 is a monthly report and the information is split per **
Fiche de l’exécution du           teacher/class. Some formats have each teacher sign their
Volume Horaire Officiel           attendance report. There could be room for COGES or APE to
Pour La Période du                sign this as well
1er/10/2011 au 31/5/2012
(par enseignant dans              Some schools provided weekly teachers’ attendance reports
chaque école)
[Implementation sheet of the
Official Hourly Volume for the
Period of 1/10/2011 to
31/5/2012 (by teacher)]
SD 4                              Identical to CEB 11 <Fiche de l’exécution du volume horaire
Fiche de l'exécution du           officiel par école dans chaque CEB>
Volume Horaire Officiel
Pour La Période
1/10/2011 au 31/5/2012
par école
[Sheet of the Execution of the
Official Hourly Volume for the
Period 1/10/2011 to 31/5/2012
(per school)]




                                                   92
SD 5                               Along with info on quantity per grade of textbooks and **
Bon de sortie des                  teachers guides received, this receipt is signed by the SD, the
Manuels scolaires                  president of APE or AME, the Chief of the CEB, and the
[Receipt of school textbooks,      person in charge of textbooks at the CEB
2011/2012 (by school)]
SD 6a                              Not standardized, format depends on the commune                   **
Bon de Sortie des
Fournitures Scolaires au           There are many variations as to who signs this document. A
Niveau CEB                         non-exhaustive list is: signed by the sender, the receiver, the
[Receipt of School Materials at    SD, the person in charge from the Mayor’s office, and the
the Level of CEB, 2012-2013]
                                   COGES President
SD 6b                              Formats vary (it is done in each school) as to who signs this **
Etat de Répartition des            document. It includes:
Fournitures Scolaires
Niveau Ecole                       x Inventory document per class, signed by no one
[State of Distribution of School   x Inventory per class, signed by the SD and the teacher (most
Materials by School Level,
2012-2013]
                                     common)
                                   x Same as #2 with extra signatures (APE, Commune officer,
                                     CEB, COGES, and so on)
SD 7                               These are standardized throughout the country. The first page **
Registre d’appel                   has the list of students with their date of birth, date of entering
Journalier de la Classe de         the school, name of parents and their job (although these parts
CM2, Année Scolaire                are seldom filled in), then monthly pages for absences
[Daily Class Registry of the
CM2, School Year CM2,              Absence of students is noted by half-days for the month on
2012/2013]
                                   the page of that month, then a calculation of monthly
                                   absences is made for the class. It is signed by the teacher and
                                   the SD. The summary of this information can be shared with
                                   COGES to discuss the solutions for student absence
SD 8                               This information seems always to be taken from the monthly **
Registre de Fréquentation          summary table that exists in SD 7 (and not from trimester
Scolaire des Elèves de             summaries sent to CEB as we also had in our sample
L’école                            evidence)
[Registry of Attendance of the
Students of the School,            This monthly table is signed by the director, and by the
2011-2012]
                                   inspector (it seems during his visit)




                                                    93
SD 9a                             As long as the document provided is the student score card **
Bulletin de Note du 2nd           with detailed grades, it always has the same format
Trimestre de l’Année              throughout all regions, so this is probably a national template.
(pour un élève de CM2,            It lists grades in each subject (writing, dictation, history, etc.).
CM1 au cas échéant)               Subjects have different weights (they are scored out of 10
[School Report of the 2nd         points or out of 20 points). The total score (out of 160 points),
Trimester of the Year             the average (out of 10 points), and the rank of the student is
2012-2013 (for students of
CM2, CM1 if applicable)]          written

                                  There is the signature of the parents, and of the teacher

                                  x Sometimes the teacher writes a brief observation. As
                                    customary in a French speaking system, the observation is
                                    usually pretty strict and seems mostly based on the grades,
                                    not on the ranking (a good ranking with a low grade is not
                                    lauded)
                                  x There is no information other than the grades (learning
                                    achievement). No information is given on attendance on
                                    this document. However, anything can be addressed in the
                                    teacher’s observation (e.g. “Average work (is being lazy)).”
                                    We suspect that if a student has an attendance problem, it
                                    can be addressed in the observation
                                  x There are some other templates which seem to come from
                                    different documents – and are probably for school records,
                                    as opposed to being a score card given to parents
SD 9b                             This shows the results of each student in each subject. If the **
Résultat du 2nd Trimestre         tests were part of “harmonized tests” then the aggregate data
des Elèves du CM2 ou de           should be used to make SD10
CM1
[Results of 2nd Trimester of      Some SD actually gave the SD 10 (aggregate data for the
Students of the CM2 or of the     class, not detailed per student)
CM1, 2012-2013]
SD 10                             (Similar to CEB 8)
Tableau Synoptique de
l’évaluation du 2nd
Trimestre de la Classe de
CM2, 2011-2012
[Chart of the Assessment of the
2nd Trimester of the Classes of
CM2, 2011-2012]
SD 11                             Results of the primary school graduation exam, the CEP. **
Résultats Statistiques du         Different format (either just the school, or all CEB results)
CEP
[Statistical Results of CEP
2012]




                                                    94
APE 1                              Financial book of the APE. Most APEs submitted this               **
Registre de Cotisation des
Parents d’élèves ou/et «
Cahier de Gestion
Financière de APE
[Registry of the Contributions
of the Parents of
Students 2012-2013, and/or
Financial Management Statistics,
2012-2013 of the APE]

COGES 1                            The number of voters at the COGES general assembly is **
Procès-Verbal de                   shown and split by gender
l’Assemblé Générale
Elective des Membres du
Bureau du COGES
[Minutes of the General
Assembly of the Administrative
Members of the COGES]
COGES 2                            When provided, this list has different formats: just names, **
Liste de Présence des              names with signature (most common format), age, sex,
Membres du COGES au                signature, and verification of voting
Cours d’une Assemblée
Générale
[Attendance list of Members of
the COGES in General Meetings
2012-2013]
COGES 3                            All COGES action plans collected follow the same template:        **
Plan d’Action Annuel               Activities/Tasks/Duration/Cost/Financing source/Person in
2012-2013 du COGES                 charge. Cost may be subdivided into: unit cost/quantity/total
(toutes les pages)                 cost
[COGES Annual Action Plan for
2012-2013]
COGES 4                            There are 3 kinds of reports collected: (i) an external one for   **
Rapport Annuel d’activités         the CEB, (ii) a detailed one, and (iii) a summarized one
du COGES, ou « Fiche de
Bilan Collectif Final du
COGES
[Annual Report of the Activities
of COGES, or 'Certificate of
Final Collective Review of the
COGES' 2011-2012]

(END)




                                                   95
Abstract (in Japanese)

せ ⣙


  ᩍ⫱ศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿඃඛⓗ࡞㛤Ⓨ┠ᶆࡣࠊᏛᰯ࡬ࡢ࢔ࢡࢭࢫቑຍ࠿ࡽᏛ⩦ᡂᯝࡢ㉁ྥୖ࡬ࢩࣇ

ࢺࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᑵᏛ⋡ࡣఙࡧ࡚ࡶᏛࡧࡀ༑ศ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ࡟ྥࡅࠊྛᅜ࡛ࡣᨻ⟇ࡢ

ぢ┤ࡋࡀ㐍ࡳࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ୰ࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞ࢢࢵࢺࣉࣛࢡࢸ࢕ࢫࡸඛ⾜◊✲࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓᨻ⟇

ศᯒࢆࢧ࣏࣮ࢺࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᩍ⫱ไᗘࡢᅜ㝿ẚ㍑ศᯒࢶ࣮ࣝ㸦㏻⛠ 6$%(5ࢧ࣮࣋ࣝ㸧࡜ࢹ࣮ࢱ

࣮࣋ࢫࡢ㛤Ⓨࢆࠊୡ⏺㖟⾜ࡣ௚ࢻࢼ࣮࡜ࡶ༠ຊࢆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㐍ࡵ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ6$%(5 ࡢ୰

࡛ࡶ≉࡟Ꮫᰯ㐠Ⴀไᗘ㸦㏻⛠ 6%0㸧࡜࠸࠺ -,&$ ࡢ༠ຊᐇ⦼ࡶከ࠸ศ㔝࡟㛵ࡍࡿᨻ⟇ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ

ࢶ࣮ࣝࡢᨵၿ࡟ྥࡅࠊୡ㖟ࢳ࣮࣒࡜ඹྠ࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ 6%0 ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㏵ୖ

ᅜࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡣࣛࢸࣥ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡀ୰ᚰ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ

  ᮏㄽᩥ࡛ࡣࠊࣈࣝ࢟ࢼࣇ࢓ࢯࡢᏛᰯ㐠Ⴀไᗘ࡟ಀࡿᨻ⟇ࡢ㉁࡜ᐇ᪋ᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡼࡾⰋ࠸Ꮫ⩦ᡂᯝࡢ㐩ᡂ࡟ྥࡅࡓᏛᰯ㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍ࡢᶵ⬟ࠊཬࡧศᶒ໬ࡸᏛ⩦ホ౯ᨻ⟇࡜ࡢࢩࢼ

ࢪ࣮ຠᯝ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

  ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࣈࣝ࢟ࢼࣇ࢓ࢯ࡛ࡣࠊ&2*(6 ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕ཧຍᆺᏛᰯ㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍ࡢ

ᙺ๭࡟ಀࡿἲ௧ࡸ࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥࡀᩚഛࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᨻ⟇ࡢ㉁ࡣẚ㍑ⓗྥୖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜

ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊศᶒ໬ᨻ⟇ࡶᆅ᪉⮬἞య࡬ࡢᶒ㝈⛣ㆡ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣᴫࡡ㧗ࡃࠊࡲࡓࠊᏛ⩦

ホ౯ᨻ⟇ࡶᏛ⩦ホ౯ࡢ㢖ᗘ࡛ࡣ㧗ࡃホ౯ࡉࢀࡓࠋ௚᪉࡛ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᨻ⟇ࡣࠊᮏ᮶ࡢពᅗ㏻ࡾ༑

ศ࡟ᐇ㊶ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽࡎࠊ㛵ಀ⪅㛫࡛ࡢᐇ᪋ᗘ࡟ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮧⴠ㒊ࡢᏛᰯࡸᆅ᪉⮬

య➼࠿ࡽ཰㞟ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

  ࡲࡎࠊᏛᰯ㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍&2*(6ࡣࠊࡑࡢᶵ⬟ᗘ࡟ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᶵ⬟ᗘࢆ⾲ࡍᣦᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ

ᰯ࡬ࡢ &2*(6 ࡢ㈉⊩㔠㢠࡟╔┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡣ &2*(6 ࡢ⥲఍ࡸ &2*(6 ྠኈࡢ㐃ྜࡢ᭷↓࡞࡝ࡢ

࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥࡀពᅗࡍࡿᡭ㡰ࡢᐇ㊶ᗘ࡜ࡶ᭷ព࡟㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋẸ᪘ᵓᡂ➼ࡢ௚ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ

࢕せᅉࢆไᚚࡋ࡚ࡶ⤖ᯝࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ &2*(6 ࡢᶵ⬟ᗘࡀ㧗࠸Ꮫᰯ࡛ࡣࠊᩍ⛉᭩ᩘࡸ⿵⩦

ᤵᴗ᫬㛫ᩘ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᏛ⩦⎔ቃࠊࡲࡓ༞ᴗヨ㦂ࡢྜ᱁⋡࡜࠸ࡗࡓᏛ⩦ᡂᯝࡢ㉁ࡶẚ㍑ⓗ㧗࠸ഴྥ

ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦ホ౯⤖ᯝࢆࡼࡾά⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡼࡾⰋ࠸Ꮫ⩦ᡂᯝ࡜㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ

ᆅ᪉ศᶒ໬ࡢᐇ㊶ᗘ࡟ಀࡿ㛵ಀ⪅㛫ࡢඹ㏻ㄆ㆑ࡢ㧗ࡉࡶ⿵⩦ᤵᴗ᫬㛫ࡢ㛗ࡉ࡜ṇࡢ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡋ

ࡓࠋཧຍᆺᏛᰯ㐠Ⴀጤဨ఍࡟ಀࡿᨻ⟇ࡢᐇ᪋ࢆࠊᏛ⩦ホ౯⤖ᯝࡢά⏝ࡸศᶒ໬࡜ඹ࡟ᙉ໬ࡍࡿ

ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡼࡾⰋ࠸Ꮫ⩦ᡂᯝࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ



                          96