Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: PAD 2416 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION PROJECT PAPER ON A PROPOSED ADDITIONAL FINANCING CREDIT AND RESTRUCTURING IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 28.9 MILLION (US$40 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA FOR THE SECONDARY EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT June 6, 2017 Education Global Practice Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective 5/31/2017) Currency Unit = New Ghanaian Cedi (GHS) US$1.00 = GHS 4.305 SDR 1 = US$1.384320 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF Additional Financing BECE Basic Education Certificate Examination CAGD Controller and Account General Department CSSPS Computerized School Selection and Placement System DLI Disbursement-Linked Indicator DLR Disbursement-Linked Result EEP Eligible Expenditure Program ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework GDP Gross Domestic Product GER Gross Enrollment Rate GES Ghana Education Service GIFMIS Ghana Integrated and Financial Management Information System GLSS Ghana Living Standards Survey GoG Government of Ghana GSS Ghana Statistical Service ICT Information and Communication Technology IFR Interim Financial Report IPF Investment Project Financing IUFR Interim Unaudited Financial Report JHS Junior High School M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MOE Ministry of Education MS4SSA Math and Science for Sub-Saharan Africa NER Net Enrollment Rate NITA National Information Technology Agency PDO Project Development Objective PIM Project Implementation Manual PPSD Project Procurement Strategy Development PTA Parent Teacher Association RAP Resettlement Action Plan RBF Results-based Financing RF Results Framework i RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SDG Sustainable Development Goal SEIP Secondary Education Improvement Project SHS Senior High School SPP School Performance Partnership SPPP School Performance Partnership Plan TA Technical Assistance TIC Technical Implementation Committee TVI Technical and Vocational Institution WASSCE West Africa Senior Secondary Certificate Examination Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Henry G. R. Kerali Senior Global Practice Director: Jaime Saavedra-Chanduvi Practice Manager/Manager: Halil Dundar Task Team Leaders: Deborah Newitter Mikesell/ Eunice Yaa Brimfah Ackwerh ii GHANA SECONDARY EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ADDITIONAL FINANCING CONTENTS Project Paper Data Sheet Project Paper Additional Financing Data Sheet 1 I. Introduction 6 II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing 8 III. Proposed Changes 19 IV. Appraisal Summary 27 V. World Bank Grievance Redress 33 Annex 1: Results Framework 34 Annex 2: Table on Disbursement-Linked Indicators and Disbursement-Linked Results and Verification Protocol for SEIP and SEIP AF 40 Annex 3: Updated Economic and Financial Analysis 58 Annex 4: Updated Fiduciary Arrangements (including Eligible Expenditure Program) 70 MAP -IBRD 33411 78 iii Ghana Secondary Education Improvement Project Additional Financing (P163628) AFRICA EDUCATION GLOBAL PRACTICE Basic Information – Parent Original EA Parent Project ID: P145741 B - Partial Assessment Category: Current Closing Date: 30-Nov-2019 Basic Information – Additional Financing (AF) Additional Financing Project ID: P163628 Scale Up Type (from AUS): Regional Vice Proposed EA Makhtar Diop B – Partial Assessment President: Category: Expected Country Director: Henry G. R. Kerali 08-Nov-2017 Effectiveness Date: Senior Global Jaime Saavedra Expected Closing 30-Nov-2021 Practice Director: Chanduvi Date: Practice Halil Dundar Report No: PAD 2416 Manager/Manager: Deborah Newitter Team Leader(s): Mikesell, Eunice Yaa Brimfah Ackwerh Borrower Organization Name Contact Title Telephone Email Chief Director, Mr. Patrick Ministry of Finance Ministry 233-202012600 chiefdirector@mofep.gov.gh Nomo of Finance Project Financing Data - Parent (Ghana Secondary Education Improvement Project - P145741) (in US$, millions) Key Dates Original Approval Signing Effectiveness Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Closing Revised Closing Date Date Date Date Date Effecti P145741 IDA-54520 20-May-2014 31-Jul-2014 03-Oct-2014 30-Nov-2019 30-Nov-2019 ve 1 Disbursements Revi- Cancelle Disbur- Project Ln/Cr/TF Status Currency Original Undisbursed % Disbursed sed d sed P14574 IDA- Effect 101.0 XDR 101.00 0.00 58.77 42.23 58.19 1 54520 ive 0 Project Financing Data - Additional Financing for the (Secondary Education Improvement Project Additional Financing - P163628) (in US$, millions) [] Loan [] Grant [] IDA Grant [X] Credit [ ] Guarantee [] Other Total Bank Total Project Cost: 40.00 40.00 Financing: Financing Gap: 0.00 Financing Source – Additional Financing (AF) Amount International Development Association (IDA) 40.00 Total 40.00 Policy Waivers Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other No significant respects? Explanation Does the project require any policy waiver(s)? No Explanation Bank Staff Name Role Title Specialization Unit Deborah Newitter Team Leader Senior Education Education GED13 Mikesell (ADM Specialist Responsible) Eunice Yaa Brimfah Team Leader Senior Education Education GED13 Ackwerh Specialist Thomas Kwasi Procurement Senior Procurement GGO01 Siaw Anang Specialist Procurement (ADM Specialist Responsible) Charles John Aryee Procurement Senior Procurement GGO01 Ashong Specialist Procurement Specialist 2 Robert Wallace Financial Sr. Financial Financial GGO31 DeGraft-Hanson Management Management Management Specialist Specialist Michael Gboyega Safeguards Social Safeguards GSU01 Ilesanmi Specialist Development Specialist Nightingale Counsel Senior Counsel Country Lawyer LEGAM Rukuba-Ngaiza Ana Isabel Dos Reis Safeguards Consultant Environmental GEN01 E Sousa Piedade Specialist Safeguards Abreu Janet Omobolanle Team Member Program Assistant Team assistant GED13 Adebo Mariam Nusrat Adil Team Member Operations Economist OPSPQ Analyst Stephen Kwaku Team Member Team Assistant Team Assistant AFCW1 Tettevie Locations Country First Location Planned Actual Comments Administrati ve Division GHANA Ashanti Adansi North Adansi South Ahafo Ano North Ahafo Ano South Amansie Central Amansie West Asante-Akim South Atwima Mponua Bosome Freho Ejura Sekyedumase Kumasi Metropolitan Offinso Municipal Offinso North Sekyere Central Sekyere Kumawu Sekyere South Asunafo North Brong Ahafo Municipal Asunafo South 3 Asutifi South Atebubu Amantin Banda Dormaa West Jaman North Kintampo North Municipal Kintampo South Nkoranza North Nkroranza South Pru Sene East Sene West Tain Tano South Techiman Municipal Wenchi Municipal Central Agona East Asikuma-Odoben- Brakwa Assin North Municipal Assin South Awutu-Senya Ekumfi Gomoa West Twifo Hemang-Lower Denkyira Twifo-Ati Morkwa Upper Denkyira East Municipal Upper Denkyira West Afram Plains (Kwahu Eastern North) Afram Plains (Kwahu South) Akyemansa Ayensuano 4 Upper Manya Krobo Upper West Akim Greater Accra Accra Metropolitan Northern Bole Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo Central Gonja East Gonja Gushiegu Karaga Kpandai Nanumba North Nanumba South Saboba Savelugu Nanton Sawla-Tuna-Kalba Tatale Sanguli West Mamprusi Upper East Bawku West Bongo Builsa North Builsa South Garu Tempane Kassena Nankana East Kassena Nankana West Nabdam Talensi Upper West Daffiama-Bussie-Issa Jirapa Lambussie-Karni Nadowli Sissala West Wa East Volta Adaklu Agotime Ziope Akatsi North 5 Ketu South Krachi East Nkwanta North Nkwanta South North Tongu Western Aowin Bia West Bodi Juabeso Nzema East Prestea Huni Valley Sefwi Akontombra Suaman Wasa Amenfi East Wasa Amenfi West Wassa East Institutional Data Parent (Ghana Secondary Education Improvement Project - P145741) Practice Area (Lead) Education Contributing Practice Areas Not applicable Additional Financing for the Secondary Education Improvement Project Additional Financing - P163628) Practice Area (Lead) Education Contributing Practice Areas Not applicable. Consultants (Will be disclosed in the Monthly Operational Summary) Consultants Required? Consulting services to be determined 1. This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Executive Directors to provide an additional financing (AF) credit in the amount of SDR 28.9 million (US$40 million equivalent) from IDA to the Republic of Ghana for the Secondary Education Improvement Project (SEIP) (P145741) and to restructure the parent project. The SEIP is funded by an IDA 6 Credit in the amount of SDR 101 million (US$156 million equivalent). The SEIP was approved on May 20, 2014, signed on July 30, 2014, and declared effective on October 3, 2014. 2. The proposed AF (P163628) would cover the costs associated with scaled-up activities to enhance the impact of a well-performing project. The AF would extend project coverage to additional low-performing secondary schools in the SEIP-targeted districts1 with the aim of further increasing equitable access to and improving the quality of teaching and learning at the secondary level. Funds would also be provided to cover the incremental management costs and technical assistance (TA) activities associated with the expansion of activities under the AF and the extension of the closing date of the parent project from November 30, 2019 to November 30, 2021. The AF would help to achieve more fully the overall Project Development Objective (PDO)—to increase access to senior secondary education in underserved districts and improve quality in low-performing senior high schools (SHSs) in Ghana. As with the original project, the proposed AF design is well aligned with the National Education Strategic Plan (2016–2030) and the Ghana Country Partnership Strategy (CPS- Report number 76369) (2013–2018). The AF aims to continue efforts to improve competitiveness and job creation by increasing opportunities to build human capital through post-basic education- one of the key pillars (Pillar 2) of the CPS. 3. Specifically, the proposed AF will provide support to implement activities under Components 1 and 2. Under Component 1, the AF would support Results-based Financing (RBF) for achievement of the following results: (a) Increased utilized seats in existing low-performing schools (through additional rehabilitation/expansion in selected schools and quality packages); (b) Increased enrollment in beneficiary SHSs in targeted districts/schools for students from low-income families, especially girls; (c) Annual publication of school performance report/school mapping, online and in print, to improve data management, monitoring, and information dissemination; (d) 125 schools continue to receive school performance partnership (SPP) grants for an additional 2 years; about another 1072 schools receive SPP grants for 3 years; and (e) Improved learning outcomes in selected SHSs measured through increased number of information and communication technology (ICT) packages implemented in beneficiary schools; increased numbers of teachers participating 1 Project districts were selected based on criteria related to the demand for senior secondary school places, district poverty index, and the size of the school population. The bottom 100 districts (out of 216 total districts in the country) were selected and schools within these districts were then identified based on their standardized assessment scores and facilities assessment. The ranking of districts can be found in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM). 2 About 107 schools, as the exact number is yet to be determined. 7 in mathematics and science training; and increased percentage of West Africa Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (WASSCE) achievement of 6 credits. 4. Under Component 2, the AF will support activities related to management, research, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) including the following: (a) Incremental operating costs associated with scale-up and extended closing date; (b) Increased capacity building for policy analysis, school leadership and management, procurement and financial management; (c) Independent verification of results; and (d) Research and diagnostic activities to support analysis on education policies. 5. A restructuring of the parent project is also requested to (a) extend the project closing date to November 30, 2021, to align with the closing date of the proposed AF; and (b) introduce revised wording to several of the disbursement-linked results (DLRs). A. Country Context 6. Ghana, located on the west coast of Africa, has an estimated population of 28.3 million people.3 Ghana has achieved sound economic growth during the past two decades that has translated into significant poverty reduction. Over the last 20 years, the Ghanaian economy has grown more quickly than many other Sub-Saharan African countries, and the national poverty rate declined from 52.7 percent to 21.4 percent, between 1991 and 2012. By 2012, the gross national income per capita had reached US$1,940, reflecting Ghana's status as a lower-middle-income country. In recent years, however, a combination of energy rationing, low commodity prices, rising inflation, and expenditure-side fiscal consolidation have inhibited economic activity slowing annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth to an estimated 3.6 percent in 2016. Further, significant geographic disparities exist in access to economic and social, opportunities, mainly between the poorer three regions in the north and the rest of the country. 7. Improvements have been observed on key human development outcomes with Ghana ranking 139 out of 188 countries on the 2015 United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index. By 2015, Ghana had attained Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) such as halving extreme poverty (MDG 1A), halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water (MDG 7B), universal primary education (MDG 2A), and gender parity in primary school (MDG 3). Ghana had also made substantial progress in reducing HIV prevalence (MDG 6C), increasing access to ICT (MDG 8F) and reducing the proportion of people suffering from hunger (MDG 1A).4 The primary 3 Ghana Statistical Service Data Production Unit, September 2016. 4 National Development Planning Commission and United Nations Development Programme. Ghana’s MDGs Biennial Report, September 2015. 8 completion rate is 112 percent (as a percentage of the relevant age group in 2012/13). To accelerate progress toward achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) on quality education to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, the Government, through the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Ghana Education Service (GES), has advanced education policy reforms under the Education Strategic Plan (ESP 2010–2020) and is currently finalizing the revised National Education Strategic Plan (2016–2030). 8. The general elections held in December 2016 led to another peaceful transition of political power from one administration to another. Key among the priority areas of the new administration is to promote universal access to basic and secondary education. At the same time, the new Government has inherited a large fiscal deficit, high inflation, and weak economic growth which may limit its ability to implement the planned reforms. B. Sector Context 9. Ghana has made significant commitments to the education sector since 2000, cutting across basic education (kindergarten, primary, and lower secondary), secondary education, 5 skills and technology, and tertiary education. Ghana has achieved near universal access to primary education and enrollment gains have been substantial, even in some of the most remote regions of the country, such as deprived districts in the Northern, Upper East, and Upper West regions. The net enrollment rate (NER) in deprived districts (93.5 percent in the 2014/2015) was slightly higher than the national NER for Ghana’s primary schools of 91.0 percent. Improvements in enrollment are reflected in completion rates, which in 2015/2016 was 113 percent at kindergarten, 112 percent at primary, 76 percent at lower secondary, and 46 percent at upper secondary level. 10. Challenges persist with regard to expanding access to post-basic education, particularly for low-income families, especially in deprived districts. Ghana Demographic Health Survey data for 2014 reveal that among the 15–18 years’ age cohort, for every 100 children, 96 enter primary school and 16 transition to Senior High School (SHS) compared to the poorest quintile where 90 out of 100 children enter primary school and only four actually transition to SHS. Currently, a large number of adults have not attended any school —with the rates varying significantly by gender and regions. Two-thirds of women and nearly one-half of men have no education in the Northern region as compared to 8.3 percent of women and 2.9 percent of men in Greater Accra. While gender parity has been achieved at the primary level, at higher levels of education, girls’ participation drops off significantly. Gender inequity in education access and completion is linked to sociocultural factors including early marriage, teenage pregnancies, high opportunity cost of education, high costs associated with secondary education, as well as the availability of and distance to quality SHSs. Table 1. SHS Enrollment Statistics Indicators 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 GER (%) 36.5 37.1 36.8 43.9 45.6 49.6 5 Reference to secondary education refers to higher secondary and under the SEIP it encompasses SHS. 9 NER (%) 24.3 23.6 23.6 21.8 22.5 25.2 Enrollment 728,076 758,468 842,587 750,706 804,974 851,312 Enrollment (correct age) 486,237b 483,161b 540,025b 372,226a 397,604a 432,780a Transition rate from JHS3 to SHS1c 57 51 61 68 68 67 Completion rate (%) 33 34 31 40 44 46 Private participation (%) 8.9 8.8 8.5 8.8 7.9 7.5 Source: Ghana MOE Education Sector Performance Report 2016. Note: a. Correct age = 15–17 years b. Correct age = 15–18 years c. This indicator uses the enrollment in JHS3 from the previous academic year GER = Gross Enrollment Rate; NER = Net Enrollment Rate; JHS = Junior High School 11. With access to primary education becoming near universal in Ghana, new priorities are emerging at the post-basic level where the demand for secondary education is fast increasing, but the supply of SHSs has not kept pace. Ghana’s lower- middle-income status will also require more secondary level graduates with the relevant skills to continue their education and/or to enter the labor market, hence investing in secondary education will improve the human capital of the country, and also improve long-term competitiveness, access jobs, and improve people’s lives and incomes. During the last decade, senior secondary education6 in Ghana has undergone significant changes driven by increasing demand, diversifying supply, changing structure (from four-year to three-year programs) and fast-changing financial/budgeting conditions. In 2015/16, the GER and NER at the senior secondary level were 49.6 percent and 25.2 percent, respectively (see table 1). The increased demand for SHS education has been fueled by the growing portion of the population coming out of poverty, completing universal basic education, and moving to urban areas and away from agriculture in search of wage employment. There are currently 872 public and private SHSs enrolling about 851,000 students in 2015/16. 7 The pupil-to-trained-teacher ratio in general SHSs is 24:1, and 86 percent of SHS teachers are trained. Table 2. SHS Enrollment and Expenditure (in GHS) 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011a 2012a 2013 2014 2015 JHS public 1,015,489 1,064,088 1,075,035 1,100,671 1,122,621 1,157,827 1,178,344 1,240,416 1,254,370 enrollment SHS public 393,995 441,324 479,296 663,500 692,328 770,925 684,388 741,052 787,861 enrollment SHS 1,057 1,152 1,467 1,713 expenditure million million million million Source: Ghana MOE Education Management Information System, 2016. Note: a. During these years, the SHS program was 4 years (instead of 3). The years refer to the start of the academic year (that is, 2015 refers to the 2015/16 academic year). 12. With respect to facilities and supplies, there are challenges. The ratio of core textbooks per student is less than one, and approximately 13 percent of public SHS 6 Secondary education in Ghana (SHS) refers to higher secondary covering three-year programs of general arts and general science, agriculture science as well as business, technical, and vocational courses in SHS. 7 2016/17 data are not yet available but projections used for the costing of the free SHS policy estimate approximately 868,000 students enrolled in public SHSs in 2016/17 compared to 787,900 in 2015/16 and a further 41,500 projected enrollments for public technical and vocational Institutions (TVIs). 10 classrooms require major repairs. There remain inequities in the demand for SHSs because half of the youth typically either do not have adequate qualifications to enter SHS or cannot afford to move or commute to the schools where they are placed by the Computerized School Selection and Placement System (CSSPS).8 A large portion of students do not complete basic education and about one-third of those taking the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) do not enter SHS having completed JHS. Those coming from the poorest 20 percent of households, the most deprived districts, and/or from rural areas are about five to six times less likely to access SHS. 13. Measures to improve access to and quality of secondary education. The Government has implemented measures to improve BECE results in deprived districts, subsidize needy students, especially those from northern and other hard-to-reach areas through means-tested support to boarding students and subsidized transport for day students living within 20 km of schools. The Government has been expanding SHS access by building new schools and rehabilitating old ones. The Government has recently completed 44 out of 124 planned new SHSs (including 13 out of 23 new SHSs under the SEIP). The construction of the remaining 80 new SHSs are at various stages of completion. When completed, these new SHSs will add at least 15 percent more schools to the total number of public SHSs. 14. In early 2017, to further increase access to SHS, the Government committed to providing higher secondary and Technical and Vocational Institutes9 (TVI) programs free of all charges (tuition in all Ghanaian public schools was already free). The new free SHS policy will cover costs currently borne by families such as admission and examination registration fee, library and laboratory charges, textbooks and exercise books, teaching and learning materials, school uniforms, teacher incentive portion of Parent Teacher Association (PTA) dues, other costs, and one meal for day students. According to the new free SHS policy, the Government will absorb these costs and also subsidize the schools for the lost revenues they would have collected from families. Board and meals for boarding students are already subsidized by the Government and all meals for boarding students will be included under the free SHS policy. The policy will commence in 2017/2018 by covering all successfully admitted first-year SHS students while the second- and third-year students will continue to benefit from existing subsidies. 15. The Government’s goal of universal access to upper secondary education is well justified. There is evidence from Ghana and globally that higher secondary education is positively associated with improved employment outcomes, earnings, and health, fewer early marriages, lower rates of teenage pregnancy, and better child health outcomes. The impact of participation/completion of SHSs is particularly significant for girls. In Ghana, the Government has been providing targeted scholarships to some students, especially to girls and students in need. Research shows that students who receive scholarships have improved learning outcomes, improved access to tertiary education, and improved incomes and labor 8 During the last year of JHS, students submit a ranked list of up to four secondary schools that they would like to attend. The CSSPS uses this ranking, together with their performance on the BECE, to place students in SHSs. 9 TVIs are at secondary level. 11 market outcomes, with the largest impact for girls. 10 The new free SHS policy aims to increase equitable access to higher secondary education in Ghana. 16. While the Government’s policies are likely to increase access to upper secondary education, at the same time, it could lead to a decline in the quality of education provided, unless well-designed policies/interventions for quality improvement are also implemented. The new SHS policy will undoubtedly increase the demand for secondary education. Children from families who previously could not afford to pay for SHS will be more likely to pursue secondary education, further increasing needed budget and available seats in school. Preliminary projections, for 2017/2018, of general SHS enrollment is at nearly 950,000 students, up from an estimated 870,000 in 2016/2017. Thus, it is possible that more schools and classrooms will be needed, and more qualified teachers (particularly in mathematics and science) may have to be deployed to meet this increased demand. While access to SHSs will increase with the introduction of free SHSs, quality may be negatively affected if deliberate interventions are not introduced in parallel to improve quality and relevance of SHSs. The WASSCE results show that learning outcomes have been declining since 2012. Further, these results demonstrate significant regional disparities.11 The WASSCE results also show that a small number of SHSs supply over 90 percent of those who are admitted to higher education while the rest of the SHSs produce between 60 percent and 90 percent of the fail rates at the examination. Since the high-quality SHSs will likely remain selective, the increases in access will mostly be in lower-quality SHSs and TVIs, and this could further exacerbate existing disparities between the elite institutions and the rest of the schools. Without sufficient resources to support the new SHS policy and targeted interventions to improve quality, inequities might increase and returns to higher secondary education might decline (through both quality and supply effects). C. Rationale for Additional Financing 17. The primary rationale for the AF is to ensure greater impact of the SEIP activities in increasing access to and quality of SHSs. The proposed AF would provide support to over 100 additional schools, nearly doubling the number of schools to receive support under the SEIP. As such, the proposed AF will support the achievement of better learning outcomes among a greater number of students while continuing to support activities to increase enrollment in undersubscribed schools (for example, through bursaries [scholarships], performance reporting, rehabilitation/renovation, and ICT-based instruction). In light of the new government’s policy making SHS free for those who qualify to enroll, lessons can be drawn from the parent project on how to target supply expansion, strengthen school-level capacity, transform instruction methods, and influence school choice through consistent access to comprehensive school information. The AF will also help to expand the quality activities to ensure that the expected large numbers of new students entering SHS would receive an effective education to prepare for entering the labor market and/or advancing to tertiary education. The selection of project districts and schools (which were 10 Duflo, Esther, Pascaline Dupas, and Michael Kremer. 2017. The Impact of Free Secondary Education: Experimental Evidence from Ghana. http://economics.mit.edu/files/12682 11 MOE Education Sector Performance Report 2016. 12 identified under the parent project) will contribute to the Government’s equity objectives and to the broader aims for poverty reduction. 18. AF was considered the preferred mechanism to increase support for the Government’s SHS program because the SEIP was approaching its midterm review and would benefit from scaled-up implementation to consolidate project results (particularly for increased attainment by low-income students and improved learning outcomes in beneficiary schools). Preparation of a new operation was considered as an alternative to AF. However, the efficiencies to be gained from working through the parent project design and implementation arrangements led to the decision to use AF. The proposed AF design expands and continues the activities supported under the parent project and its achievements to date. The proposed AF is timely as the Government prepares to implement the new free secondary education policy, with expectations that increased enrollment will require adequate supply of good quality SHSs to meet this demand. Few development partners are working in the post-basic education subsector; therefore, the World Bank continues to be the key partner in supporting secondary education in Ghana. 19. The following are the expected results of the AF: Outcome Level  Increase in transition rates from JHS3 to SHS112 in targeted districts;  Increase in SHS educational attainment within the two poorest quintiles in targeted districts; and  Increase in percentage of WASSCE achievement13 of six credits and above, within beneficiary schools. Output Level  Increase of 5,000 utilized seats in existing selected low-performing schools 14 (through additional rehabilitation/expansion in selected schools and quality packages); 12 Last year of basic education (JHS3) to the first year of SHS (SHS1). 13 WASSCE achievement refers to obtaining a minimum of six credits (three core and three electives) which is required for entry to tertiary institutions. Increase is measured against baseline collected for beneficiary schools. 14 There was an error in the original Results Framework PAD version citing an end target of 10,000, but this should have been 5,000, consistent with the DLR. The AF would add an additional 5,000 to bring the total to 10,000. 13  125 schools (selected using deprivation criteria) receive SPP grants for an additional two years. About another 107 schools receive SPP grants for three years;  Increase in enrollment in beneficiary SHSs for students from low-income families, especially girls;  Increase in the number of ICT packages15 implemented in beneficiary schools;  Increase in numbers of teachers participating in mathematics and science training;  Improved data management, monitoring and dissemination through school mapping; and  Additional research (two analyses) conducted on education policies. D. Performance of the Original Project 20. The project is on track to achieve its PDO. The latest Implementation Status and Results Report (December 2016) rated Progress towards achievement of the PDO and Implementation Progress Satisfactory. The first three years of results (disbursement-linked results – DLRs) have been met (Year 0–Year 2) and independently verified. All legal covenants are complied with and there are no outstanding audits. The evidence of progress against the PDO and intermediate results indicators is detailed in annex 1. Out of 18 DLI milestones to be achieved by midterm, 17 have been fully met. One Year 2 milestone is expected to be achieved by end-June 2017 (printing of the Annual School Performance Report). The original Credit amount is 86.3 percent disbursed (US$120.5 million disbursed out of a total of US$156 million). 21. The SEIP has two components: Component 1 - Support to Increase Access with Equity and Quality in Senior High Schools and Component 2 - Management, Research, and Monitoring and Evaluation. Component 1 uses an RBF approach (including DLIs) and has two pillars (or results areas). Pillar 1 (Results Area 1) focuses on expanding senior secondary places through the construction of approximately 23 new SHSs in underserved districts, rehabilitating and expanding existing low-performing SHSs, and supporting attainment of disadvantaged students (for example, through scholarships to students from low- income families, especially girls). Pillar 2 (Results Area 2) focuses on improving the quality of education in selected low-performing SHSs through (a) strengthened school management and accountability; (b) improved mathematics and science teaching and learning; (c) expanded ICT and Internet connectivity in schools; and (d) the introduction of SPPs. 16 Component 2 finances TA, management, research, and M&E for effective project implementation and uses a traditional investment approach. 15 Education portal for teachers and students to access multiple online resources (curriculum modules and open source sites) to improve content knowledge. 16 SPPs include grants to SHSs for quality activities linked to achievement of improved teaching and learning. 14 22. The SEIP was restructured on August 31, 2016 to amend the table on withdrawal of proceeds in the Financing Agreement. The revision included the reallocation among the Eligible Expenditure Program (EEP) categories to merge the scheduled disbursement categories for the DLRs going forward into a single disbursement category and to eliminate any percentage requirements for advances or remaining payments so that all categories indicate 100 percent financing of eligible expenditures. Originally the Financing Agreement only allowed 50 percent advances with a dated time period for disbursement. The change gives greater flexibility for paying for results without limitation for the timing of specified advances. Table 3. Progress Made Toward Achievement of Outcome Indicator Targets Indicator Baseline Current End-of-project Status (as of April 2017) (2014) Target (November 2019) Increase in transition rates 39% 47% 43% from JHS3 to SHS1 in targeted districts Increase in SHS 8.4% 15% n.a. educational attainment within two poorest quintiles in targeted districts WASSCE achievement of 10.7% (11.6% male; 15% (15.9% male; 14.3% 10.7% (12.6% male; 8.1% 6 credits and above within 9.55% female) female) female) beneficiary schools Direct project 0 276,970 (44%) 134,721 (46%) beneficiaries (of which female) 23. To date, the SEIP has made important progress toward achievement of its PDO (see table 3). At the PDO-level, progress has been observed on one of the three PDO-level indicators (transition rate) and is on track to meet the end-of-project target. The PDO-level indicator on educational attainment will only be measured at project completion through a household survey. The PDO-level indicator on learning results as measured by WASSCE achievement could only be expected to show improvements with additional years of project implementation. The core indicator (number of direct project beneficiaries) is also on track to be fully achieved and all but one of the intermediate results indicators (completion rate) have met yearly targets to date. 24. Implementation progress is on track, albeit four months delayed mainly because of the national elections held in December 2016. The Government recently has met the DLRs for Year 2 which include the following achievements: (a) 80 percent construction works completed (achieved); (b) increase in enrollment in low-performing schools by 1,000 seats (achieved); (c) at least 4,000 SHS students receiving scholarships in project schools (achieved); (d) publication of updated school performance data for FY2015/16 online and in brochure (partially achieved); (e) SPPs for 104 schools signed and 80 received funding (achieved); and (f) ICT-based instruction rolled out in about 50 percent of targeted schools (achieved). The following section provides an overview of progress to date by component. 15 Component 1: Support to Increase Access with Equity and Quality in Senior High Schools Pillar 1: Increase Access with Equity in senior secondary education in underserved districts 25. The construction of 23 new SHSs is 80 percent complete.17 Civil works began in July 2015 with completion originally scheduled for October 2016. Contracts for two technical and three vocational blocks planned under the project (as some schools offer technical/vocational programs), have not yet been awarded (because of current civil works overruns) and two contracts have been terminated owing to poor performance. As of April 2017, 13 of the 23 new schools have reported enrollment of 3,111 students (averaging 240 students per school) for the 2016/2017 academic year. 26. Performance of contractors for civil works currently underway has been inconsistent with delays attributed to a few poorly performing contractors and the non-payment of some contractors for work carried out over the last six months. An infrastructure technical review has been launched to verify the differences in quantities for the same items at various sites, quantities of additional items executed at sites, and calculations of fluctuations. The MOE has also requested the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) to review its price indices from April 2016 onward to guard against overpayment to contractors. It will be critical that the Government completes the remaining 10 SHSs before the start of the next academic year in September, 2017, because further rewards for results will be dependent on increased utilized seats in these newly constructed SHSs. In addition, the Government has also invested in constructing over 33 new additional SHSs18 over the last two years that are now accepting students. The results on increased utilization of seats in newly constructed schools will continue to be rewarded through FY2018, however the AF will not support the DLI for seats in newly constructed schools given the significant support by the Government under its Community Day Secondary School Program to construct 124 new SHSs. 27. With regard to the rehabilitation and expansion of 50 existing low-performing schools, more than 95 percent of all rehabilitation work has been completed (with one contract terminated for poor performance). Most of the upgraded and rehabilitated classrooms were functional by September 2016 (at the beginning of the 2016/2017 academic year). The facilities upgrade contributed to an increase in enrollment by 5,889 in the 125 schools, exceeding the results target for this year. 28. In addition to the above, the parent project has provided 5,398 (2,074 in Year 1; 3,324 in Year 2) of the planned 10,000 scholarships to students from low-income families (61 percent of which were for girls) also exceeding the yearly targets. 17 These new schools are located in underserved communities and include key infrastructure such as classrooms, computer and science laboratories, libraries, administrative space, toilets for students and staff, headmaster bungalow, teacher housing, multipurpose canteen building, gate house and external works (including access roads, utility connections, water, drainage, and so on). 18 The scope of the Government program is the construction of 124 new SHSs including the 23 new constructions under the SEIP. In all, 13 new SHSs and 33 new SHSs have been completed under the SEIP and the Government budget respectively, bringing the total completed to 46 new SHSs out of 124 planned. 16 Pillar 2: Improve Quality in low-performing Senior High Schools: 29. All 125 SHSs have submitted their School Partnership Performance Plans (SPPPs) and 104 have been reviewed, approved, signed, and the initial grant funds disbursed to 80 schools. The SPPs provide a mutual accountability mechanism for incentivizing SHS quality improvement activities as enrollment increases through the expansion of infrastructure and scholarships. The SPPs provide non-salary resources to schools to implement activities to improve quality of SHS teaching and learning. The funding also covers some of the costs of equipment and training of science and mathematics teachers. Two cohorts of a total of 1,050 science and mathematics teachers have received training (with a focus on challenging topics in core mathematics and science subjects) surpassing the end-of-project target. The training aims to address the challenges of weak teacher content knowledge and limited student- centered teaching methodologies. The parent project is also funding school leadership training in an effort to improve teaching, coaching, school management, and teacher assessment. Additional staffing audits and resource materials are being provided to address these areas. New teaching methods are being explored, including potential participation in the Math and Science for Sub-Saharan Africa (MS4SSA)—a regional initiative to introduce scripted lesson plans with embedded classroom assessment techniques. A consulting firm is providing TA to strengthen the in-service training modules for mathematics and science teachers. An impact evaluation is under way to assess the impact of the science and mathematics training. 30. Electronic content has been developed for the i-campus system (teaching and learning portal through i-box technology) with 200 modules in core subjects completed for SHS1. SHS2 content development is completed and work is under way on SHS3 content. The i- boxes deliver pre-prepared video lessons, student exercises, and content assessment to SHS students and teachers. The i-boxes have been rolled out to the initial 70 schools following i- box utilization training. An impact evaluation is underway to measure the impact of the i-box, and the remaining schools will therefore receive the i-box next academic year in September 2017. Component 2: Management, Research, and Monitoring and Evaluation 31. The Government team has hired two independent verification firms (one for civil works and one for quality outcomes) to annually validate and verify project results. Baseline data for the impact evaluations to test the impact of the i-box package and to assess the extent to which follow-up science and mathematics teacher training has an impact on student learning has been collected. The impact evaluation on the i-box will measure the functionality, use, and cost-effectiveness of the i-box and determine its impact on learning; the impact evaluation on science and mathematics training will assess the extent to which follow-up science and mathematics teacher training has had an impact on educational outcomes. In addition, progress is being made in identifying the research agenda for secondary education. Recently, the research team hired an agency based at the University of Cape Coast to help define the research agenda. A report which includes the work plan and timeline for carrying out relevant studies has been submitted. The team has also set up a research database and the project is supporting annual Education Research Evidence Summits (the first of which took place on March 28–29, 2017) which bring researchers and the Government together to learn about current evidence on education policy. All SHSs (public and private) have been mapped and a website portal has been established to make information on SHSs available online 17 (www.ghanaschoolsinfo.org) for all stakeholders. The portal is being further enhanced and expanded to include scholarship information, M&E, and academic performance tracking, and a digest is being printed for wider dissemination. Under the project, there has been adequate M&E of project indicators, excellent tracking of DLRs as well as in-depth monitoring reports on implementation progress of the various components and semiannual project implementation status reports. 32. Key lessons learned through the implementation of the parent project. The key lessons include: (a) focusing on results and outcomes can expedite project implementation, strengthen country systems, and allow for some flexibility in implementation planning; (b) reducing the focus on inputs can encourage costs savings; (c) results focus allows for greater diversity of interventions, some with little cost implications (for example, visits to JHSs to sensitize communities about new SHSs available for potential students); (d) transparent targeting criteria discourages political influence and encourages reliance on data for decision making; (e) technology innovations are only useful if they are well understood and functional in challenging environments; (f) an effective communications strategy is essential; and (g) use of country systems builds ownership and capacity, but there is room for improvement (for example, management of infrastructure contracts, i-box roll out limitations and methodology for teacher training). The results approach has also experienced challenges within a fiscally constrained environment—leading to an overreliance on project funds for program implementation. While the learning curve for RBF was steep, the current implementing agency teams are now knowledgeable about the instrument and advocate for its role in expediting development outcomes. Implementation Arrangements 33. Implementation arrangements of the proposed AF will be the same as those used under the parent project, mainstreamed within the government agencies. The MOE/GES will continue to take the lead as implementation agency, with responsibilities for the day-to- day administration, coordination, and M&E of SEIP activities. Oversight of the SEIP rests with the MOE, with the GES providing their mandated implementation role for service delivery. Continued support to the Technical Implementation Committee (TIC), through the Project Civil Works and Project Quality and Outcomes Team, will be necessary. The Chief Director of the MOE, who reports to the Minister for Education, leads the technical team by chairing the TIC which is responsible for the day-to-day project implementation. The GES oversees all activities related to senior secondary institutional leadership and teacher training, preparation of SPPs, resourcing of schools for quality improvements, improvement of senior secondary school programs, ICT interventions, and M&E. These teams have clear terms of references detailing their responsibilities as spelled out in the SEIP Project Implementation Manual (PIM) that has been published and widely disseminated to project implementers. A Project Steering Committee will continue to provide oversight and guidance to facilitate inter- division and inter-sectoral coordination on implementation. The continued arrangements would include extension of a project coordinator, procurement officer, and technical consultants including safeguards consultant as detailed in the PIM. A revised PIM will be available by project effectiveness to include updates, the expanded scope of the SEIP and revised result targets. The revised PIM will be published on the MOE and GES websites and will be disseminated to beneficiary schools, including the additional SHSs that will benefit under the AF. 18 Monitoring and Evaluation 34. The MOE and GES will continue to be responsible for coordinating and overseeing all M&E activities. The current framework builds on established systems for data collection and analysis by embedding monitoring and reporting in the offices responsible for each of the results areas. Data sources include the Education Management Information System, Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS), Annual WASSCE results, and the newly operational school mapping portal (e-Adido). Consolidated M&E reports are produced by the MOE and GES twice per year and verified by independent third-party agencies responsible for assessing whether results have been achieved. In addition to the core M&E reports, a number of analytical studies will be undertaken under Component 2 of the project. The upcoming midterm review scheduled for September 2017 will include independent in-depth fiduciary review, procurement review, safeguards audit, technical audit of civil works, and an analysis of SPPs/grants. Summary of Proposed Changes An additional US$40 million would support the scale-up of activities for both Component 1 and 2. Specifically, the AF would support additional low-performing schools in the 100 districts (targeted under the parent project) as well as 23 newly constructed schools by providing bursaries (formerly scholarships) for needy students, improving facilities in approximately 75 schools, and rolling out activities to improve the quality of teaching and learning in all beneficiary schools. The proposed AF will also cover (through Component 2) incremental costs related to project management, capacity building, and supervision of the scale-up. Proposed changes to the parent project will include revisions to: (a) the Results Framework; (b) the original credit closing date; (c) disbursement estimates; (d) components and costs; (e) implementation schedule; and (f) wording of DLR targets (DLI/DLR table). Additional details on the proposed changes are provided in annex 1 (Results Framework) and annex 2 (DLI tables). Change in Implementing Agency Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Project's Development Objectives Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Results Framework Yes [ X] No [ ] Change in Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change of EA category Yes [ ] No [ X ] Other Changes to Safeguards Yes [ ] No [ X] Change in Legal Covenants Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Yes [X] No [ ] Cancellations Proposed Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Disbursement Arrangements Yes [ ] No [ X ] Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Yes [ ] No [ X ] 19 Change in Disbursement Estimates Yes [ X] No [ ] Change to Components and Cost Yes [ X] No [ ] Change in Institutional Arrangements Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Financial Management Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Procurement Yes [ ] No [ X ] Change in Implementation Schedule Yes [X] No [] Other Change(s) Yes [ ] No [ X ] Development Objective/Results PHHHDO Project’s Development Objectives Original PDO The PDO is to increase access to senior secondary education in underserved districts and improve quality in low-performing senior high schools in Ghana. Change in Results Framework PHHCRF Explanation: Annual and end-of-project targets for most of the indicators will be revised based on the increase in the number of beneficiary schools. The extension of the parent project for two years will also require revised end-line targets to correspond to the scale-up of interventions. In line with the recent policy on corporate results indicators and citizen engagement, two new indicators have been added to track the number of students benefitting from direct interventions to enhance learning and to track citizen engagement through the carrying out of a survey on project beneficiaries. The indicator on number of teachers trained under the project is already an intermediate results indicator being monitored in the Results Framework ‘number of teachers participating in training to upgrade or ac quire new skills in mathematics or science.’ See annex 1 for revised Results Framework. Compliance Covenants - Additional Financing (Secondary Education Improvement Project Additional Financing - P163628) Finance Source of Funds Agreemen Description of Date Acti Recurrent Frequency t Covenants Due on Reference The Recipient shall cause the Independent Verifiers to furnish to the Association Schedule every calendar SemiAnnuall NE IDA 2, Section X semester, starting y W I. C. 2. (a) six months after the Effective Date, regular reports (“EEP Spending Reports”) prepared 20 in accordance with the provisions of the Project Implementation Manual. The recipient shall, by no later than 3 months after the effective date, appoint external M&E experts (independent Schedule 04- verifiers) to act as NE IDA 2, Section Feb- third- party W I, C.1(a) 2018 verifiers of the proper fulfillment of the DLIs and DLRs set forth in Schedule 4 in the Financing Agreement Conditions P Source Of Fund Name Type IDA Project Implementation Effectiveness Manual Description of Condition Recipient has updated the Project Implementation Manual in form and substance satisfactory to the Association. Source Of Fund Name Type IDA Withdrawal Condition 1 Disbursement Description of Condition No withdrawal shall be made for payments prior to the date of the Financing Agreement. P Source Of Fund Name Type IDA Withdrawal Condition 2 Disbursement Description of Condition No withdrawal shall be made for eligible expenditures under Category 2 unless and until the amount of the financing allocated to Category 2 of the table set forth in Section IV.A.1 Schedule 2 to the Original Financing Agreement has been fully utilized and disbursed. Source Of Fund Name Type IDA Withdrawal Condition 3 Disbursement Description of Condition No withdrawal shall be made for Category 1 with respect to each DLI in the table in Schedule 4 of the Financing Agreement until the Recipient through MoE furnishes to the Association: (i) the 21 applicable EEP Spending Report and the verification of the achievement of the DLIs for the respective Year as set out in Schedule 4 the Financing Agreement; and (ii) evidence satisfactory to the Association as defined in the PIM that payment for the EEP under the Sector Budget Lines in the Annex to Schedule 2 have been made by the Recipient in accordance with its applicable laws and regulations. Source Of Fund Name Type IDA Withdrawal Condition 4 Disbursement Description of Condition The Association may restrict withdrawals if it determines, based on evidence referred to in Schedule 2, Section IV. B.1. (c) of the Financing Agreement that: (i) the DLI targets as set out in Schedule 4 to this Agreement, are not met or partially met; or (ii) at any time, any portion of the amounts disbursed by the Recipient under Category 1 was made for expenditures that are not eligible under the EEP, the Recipient shall promptly refund any such amount to the Association as the Association shall specify by notice to the Recipient. Source Of Fund Name Type IDA Withdrawal Condition 5 Disbursement Description of Condition Without limitation to the provisions of Section IV.B.1. (d) (i), any amount of the Credit withheld pursuant to said paragraph may be cancelled or reallocated by the Association in consultation with the Recipient's Ministry of Finance, and any readjustment to the amount assigned to each DLI/DLR linked to Category 1 shall be made with the agreement of the Recipient's Ministry of Finance. Source Of Fund Name Type IDA Withdrawal Condition 6 Disbursement Description of Condition Upon the Recipient's request, the Association may by notice to the Recipient, adjust from time to time the DLR amounts and targets set forth in the Schedule 4 to the Financing Agreement for specific DLIs/DLRs. Risk Rating (H, S, M, Risk Category L) 1. Political and Governance Substantial 2. Macroeconomic Substantial 3. Sector Strategies and Policies Substantial 4. Technical Design of Project or Program Moderate 5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability Substantial 6. Fiduciary Moderate 7. Environment and Social Moderate 8. Stakeholders Moderate OVERALL Substantial 22 Finance Loan Closing Date - Additional Financing (Secondary Education Improvement Project Additional Financing - P163628) Proposed Additional Financing Loan Source of Funds Closing Date International Development Association (IDA) 30-Nov-2021 Loan Closing Date(s) - Parent (Ghana Secondary Education Improvement Project - P145741) PHHCLCD Explanation: The parent project will be extended to close at the same time as the proposed AF. The additional two years of implementation of the parent project would help to ensure that the DLIs as revised, would be fully met. The proposed AF widens the scope of the parent project to further increase equitable access and to improve the quality of education in beneficiary districts/schools. Status Origina Current Propose Previous Closing l Closing Date d Date(s) Ln/Cr/TF Closing Closing Date Date 30-Nov- 30-Nov- IDA-54520 Effective 30-Nov-2019 2019 2021 Change in Disbursement Estimates (including all sources of Financing) Explanation: Disbursement estimate changes reflect the additional funding of US$40 million (and two additional years of project implementation). Expected Disbursements (in US$, million) (including all sources of financing) Fiscal Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Original 31.94 20.92 29.84 29.84 29.84 13.62 Additional Financing 4.94 9.88 13.35 11.83 Cumulative 184.1 31.94 52.86 82.70 117.48 157.2 196.0 7 Allocations - Additional Financing (Secondary Education Improvement Project Additional Financing - P163628) in US$ million Disbursement Category of Allocation Source of Fund Currency %(Type Total) Expenditure Proposed Proposed Component 1: Results US$, Based Expenditure IDA 37.00 100% millions Program Eligible Expenditure program 23 Component 2: Management, Research, and Monitoring and Evaluation (goods, US$, 3.00 100% IDA consulting services, millions non-consulting services, training, operational costs) Total: 40.00 Components Change to Components and Cost Explanation: The proposed AF will not alter the design of the parent project but instead provide an opportunity to expand and strengthen key efforts to additional schools, particularly those related to improving access to and quality of low-performing secondary schools primarily through incentives to Component 1 results-based disbursements. The AF would increase the number of beneficiary schools within the selected districts. Under the SEIP, districts were ranked based on the following criteria: (a) demand for senior secondary school places (defined by the ratio of JHS3 pupils in Year x to SHS1 pupils in Year x+1 for the same district); (b) district poverty index; and (c) size of school population. The lowest-ranking 100 districts (out of all 216 districts in Ghana) were then selected to benefit from the SEIP. Out of a total of approximately 200 SHSs, up to 125 SHSs based on WASSCE achievement and a facilities assessment were then identified within these 100 districts. Out of the 125 SHSs, 50 benefitted from rehabilitation and expansion and all 125 benefitted from quality interventions. The proposed AF would cover most of the remaining public schools in the selected 100 districts (approximately 71 SHSs) following the original criteria on WASSCE performance as well as ensuring boarding-only schools are excluded. In addition, the expansion includes new schools recently constructed under the parent project (23) and other new schools recently constructed by the Government enrolling students in the 100 districts (13). Therefore, the total number of additional schools to benefit under the AF is 107 SHSs. The expansion retains the transparent and poverty- targeted criteria and continues to focus efforts on the less endowed schools and districts across Ghana. In addition to the targeting achievement, the SEIP directs investment costs sorely needed to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the schools as more students enter the system. Component 1: Support to Increase Access with Equity and Quality in Senior High Schools (Current allocation: US$140.1 million; Total allocation with proposed AF: US$177.1 million) Pillar 1: Increase Access with Equity in Senior Secondary Education in Underserved Districts (Current allocation: US$125.1 million; revised allocation with proposed AF: US$139.92 million) The DLIs associated with this Pillar 1 (DLIs 2–4) aim to reward significant increases in the number of new seats utilized in the newly constructed schools as well as the existing low-performing schools. In addition, the increase in enrollment aimed to include more students from low-income families, especially girls. The activities expected to contribute to the achievement of these results (for example, facilities expansion for additional seats, improvements to existing schools, and scholarships (now bursaries) to students from low-income families) would be continued for the current beneficiary schools under the AF. The AF would not support the construction of new schools. In an effort to promote greater access to SHS, the AF would support 84 additional beneficiary schools 24 in the targeted 100 districts (see description above), and 23 newly constructed schools completed under the parent project. New scholarships, now bursaries for needy students to cover private costs, would be rolled out for low-income students in beneficiary schools following the SEIP scholarship guidelines on selection criteria, monitoring, and reporting. The amount of the bursaries will reflect costs not being covered by the new free SHS policy. Facilities improvements based on a comprehensive needs assessment would be targeted to approximately 75 original SEIP schools that did not receive upgrading. Drawing on the experience with the first round of upgrading to 50 SHSs, the AF would support a more demand-driven approach to meeting infrastructure needs well aligned with the SPPPs to ensure strategic alignment with school priorities. The AF, coupled with an extension of the period for implementation, would allow for the following (under Pillar 1): (a) the expansion of seats utilized in low-performing schools from an original target of 5,000 to 10,000; and (b) an increase in the number of students receiving scholarships (from the original target of 10,000 to 20,000). These indicators would be measured in the total beneficiary schools (125 + 107). Pillar 2: Improve Quality in Low-performing SHS (Current allocation: US$15 million; revised allocation with proposed AF: US$37.23 million) The DLIs associated with this pillar (DLIs 5–7) aim to reward school-level improvements in the quality of the teaching and learning offered in the low-performing SHSs. The DLIs include the annual publication of the School Performance Report capturing current data from the school mapping portal; the implementation of SPPs (SHS grants) in beneficiary schools; and improved learning outcomes as measured by the standardized WASSCE at the end of SHS. The activities expected to contribute to the achievement of the quality DLIs include continued enhancements to the interactive school mapping portal, grants to SHSs through the SPPs, leadership training, intensive science and mathematics training and resources for teachers, and the rollout of an innovative mechanism for ICT-based instruction through the Ghana patented i-campus/i-box (Adido). All of these activities contribute to a ‘quality package’ for the SEIP schools. Under the AF, these quality packages would be extended to the additional beneficiary schools (107). Furthermore, the AF would also reward the increased number of teachers benefitting from mathematics and science training, with options to incorporate customized materials and lesson plans created through either the MS4SSA program; (science and mathematics training provided by the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences) or other teacher strengthening activities, and the expansion of the i-box technology, training, content development, and Internet connectivity for the additional schools. The AF will also include knowledge assessments for teachers to monitor the impact of the training investments. An ongoing impact evaluation would measure the impact of these different teacher strengthening interventions. The AF, coupled with an extension of the period for implementation, would allow for the following (under Pillar 2): (a) annual publication of updated school performance data online and in print; (b) scaling up the number of SPPs from 125 to 232; (c) an increase in science and mathematics teachers trained from 836 to 2,000; (iv) ICT-based instruction from 125 schools to 232 schools; and (e) an increase in the percentage of students obtaining six credits and above WASSCE scores averaged in beneficiary schools. Component 2: Management, Research, and Monitoring and Evaluation (Current allocation: US$15.9 million; Total allocation with proposed AF: US$18.9 million) Under the AF, US$3 million would be provided to support project management and supervision, specifically to cover costs related to TA for the MOE, GES and other key implementing agencies. Funding under the AF will be used to continue to sponsor key trainings, communication strategies, and safeguards screening. The funding would also support web-based school monitoring through the innovative school mapping portal and the subsequent enhancements being made to use this tool to 25 better monitor program activities. Independent verification firms would be supported to annually verify the DLRs. The research and diagnostic activities to support analysis on SHS policy and strategy will be particularly critical to scale up now that the Government has announced the implementation of free SHS in September 2017. The necessary data analysis and implementation assessments would be supported to help guide such a transformative agenda, especially in light of the structural nature of the education system (boarding versus day schools), fiscal constraints (limited non-salary education expenditures), and quality challenges (low learning outcomes at completion of basic education). The AF would also support more systematic procurement and financial management capacity at the school level to strengthen the implementation of the SPPPs and facilities upgrade. Operational costs of the SEIP associated with the scale-up and/or continuation of activities through the extended closing date would also be supported. Development of strategic planning and policy analysis capacity. Under the SEIP, Component 2 aims to strengthen the capacities of the MOE for strategic planning and analysis. The AF would scale up support for planning and analysis activities; identify training needs; and further strengthen skills development for education management. Support will include professional development opportunities through short- and long-term training opportunities for selected qualified staff in the areas of the economics of education, policy analysis, and education planning. Proposed Current Proposed Current Component Name Component Cost (US$, Cost (US$, Action Name millions) millions) Support to Increase Support to Increase Access Access with with Equity and Quality in Equity and 140.10 177.10 Revised Senior High Schools Quality in Senior High Schools Management, Management, Research, and Research, and 15.90 18.90 Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and Evaluation Total: 156.00 196.00 Financing of DLIs/Components Original Funding and Proposed AF (US$ millions) Amount of Type Financing of Allocated Total Components and Results Modifi AF cost per DLI/ Cost cation Componen (PAD) t Support to Increase Access with Equity and 1. 140.10 37.00 177.10 Quality in Senior High School Pillar 1: Increase Access with Equity in senior secondary education in underserved districts DLI Targeting of school expansion in underserved school 5.54 — — 5.54 1 districts 26 DLI Increase in new seats for SHS students in 23.20 — — 23.20 2 underserved school districts DLI Increase in number of seats utilized in existing low- Scale 23.20 9.88 33.08 3 performing schools up Increased enrollment in SHS in targeted districts and DLI Scale schools for students from low-income families, 23.20 4.94 28.14 4 up especially girls Pillar 2: Improve Quality in low-performing senior high schools DLI Contin Annual publication of School Performance Report 18.56 4.94 23.5 5 ue DLI School Performance Partnerships in beneficiary Scale 23.20 9.88 33.08 6 schools up DLI Improved learning outcomes in beneficiary SHS Scale 23.20 7.41 30.61 7 up Management, Research, and Monitoring and 2. 15.90 3.00 18.90 Evaluation Program management/operational Scale costs/communications/verification/TA/training/resea 15.90 3.00 18.90 Up rch TOTAL 156.00 40.00 196.00 Economic and Financial Analysis PHHASEFA Explanation: The economic analysis suggests that the proposed AF remains economically justified. The SHS system in Ghana has undergone rapid expansion from 700 SHSs in 2006 to 872 total SHSs in 2016 and 376,049 public SHS enrollments in 2005/06 to an estimated enrollment of 868,000 students in public schools in 2016/2017. The private rates of return to secondary education in Ghana have also risen from 7.8 percent in 2005 to 8.8 percent in 2012. Within secondary education, returns are higher for females (11 percent) than males (6.5 percent). The returns to secondary education in Ghana are higher than the global average for secondary education (6.8 percent) but lower than the Sub-Saharan Africa average of 10.6 percent.19 The rationale for public investment in education is related to the high social, economic, and non- economic rates of return to education, in addition to the market imperfections that preclude the poor from reaping the private returns to education. Education is an investment that increases individuals’ 19 Montenegro, Claudio E. and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2014. “Comparable Estimates of Returns to Schooling Around the World.” Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 7020. Washington, DC: World Bank. 27 skills and makes more informed and socialized citizens. At the individual level, skills make individuals more productive and employable, extending their labor market participation over their lifetime, leading to higher earnings, and better quality of life. At the country level, education is associated with economic growth. After two years of implementation, the DLI-based design of the project has shifted the focus of the Government toward results and empirical-based policy making. The AF would not alter the design of the SEIP but instead provide opportunities for expansion and strengthening of key efforts, particularly those related to improving the quality of education in low-performing secondary schools. The support to the construction of 23 new schools and rehabilitation of 50 schools provided under the project is cost-effective. The unit costs of construction based on actual contract values are lower than the estimated costs at project design. The unit cost for new schools is US$3.2 million compared to the estimate of US$4.3 million and the unit cost for upgrades is US$0.12 million compared to an estimated amount of US$0.32 million. As of March 2017, 13 of the 23 new schools have reported enrollment of 3,111 students for the 2016/2017 academic year and 5,889 seats were created and utilized within low-performing beneficiary SHSs. A study on the provision of scholarships to students from low-income families, especially girls under the project has found that scholarships have large significant impacts on completion rates and learning outcomes. A randomized control trial of this intervention found that recipients of the scholarship were 26 percentage points (55 percent) more likely to complete secondary school, obtained 1.26 more years of secondary education, scored an average of 0.15 standard deviations greater on a reading and mathematics test, and adopted more preventative health behavior. The project has provided 5,398 (2,074 in year 1; 3,324 in Year 2) of the 10,000 scholarships to students from low income families (61 percent of which were for girls).20 The World Bank’s involvement is expected to bring tangible value-added in several key domains. The World Bank’s global knowledge, technical, and operational expertise will be critical in providing technical support and consensus building around system and institutional changes, which are expected to yield economic and social returns in the longer term. The World Bank’s value added will continue to be significant under the AF. The World Bank has already brought substantial value added under the parent project by nudging a shift toward a results-based policy making and supporting innovative interventions such as school mapping and the i-box. Furthermore, the World Bank has established itself as a trusted partner of the education sector and is well-positioned to provide technical support to the Government in the rollout of the free SHS policy. The policy will have significant impacts on the supply and demand of secondary education both within and outside the scope of this project and the World Bank is expected to play a key role in ensuring a quality-focused expansion of the sector. A detailed economic analysis is presented in annex 3. Technical Analysis PHHASTA Explanation: The AF supports the Government strategy to expand access to secondary education given the increasing demand for post-basic opportunities, generate more sophisticated skills to transform the 20 Duflo, Esther; Pascaline Dupas, and Michael Kremer. 2017 The Impact of Free Secondary Education: Experimental Evidence from Ghana. 28 labor market and level the playing field to reduce disparities/inequities. The planned rollout of free SHS for first year students in September, 2017 also necessitates expediting an increase in the supply of schooling while ensuring that the lower-performing schools strengthen the quality of their learning environment. The design of the SEIP incentivizes results and payments are made based on the achievement of the annual targets agreed with the Government. The focus on outcomes encourages continuous policy dialogue and engagement. The AF would continue to further incentivize Government efforts to improve the quality of lower-performing schools, particularly those that service the poorer communities in Ghana. By almost doubling the number of schools benefitting from quality packages as well as some infrastructure expansion, the SEIP would deepen the impact in the communities that have not traditionally benefitted from post-basic education. As the new free SHS policy is implemented, the AF will help inform the decisions about how to allocate resources more effectively to balance access and quality objectives. With teachers at the center of school improvement efforts, the AF incentivizes the piloting of different teacher training methods such as customized materials under the MS4SSA initiative and/or teacher assessment and training conducted by the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences. The new bursaries would continue to encourage low-income students to enroll and stay in SHS by defraying private costs to families that may not be fully covered/subsidized by the new policy. Expanding the quality package to more schools will help quality improvements to keep pace with expansion and improve the reputation of schools to attract more students in the future. Fiduciary Analysis Explanation: Financial management arrangements were assessed to (a) ascertain if the current SEIP arrangements are adequate to support the AF and (b) determine the level of compliance with the financial covenants by the current project. The assessments concluded that the financial management systems at both the MOE and GES are adequate and meet the minimum requirements as per World Bank Policy Operational Policy 10.00. The SEIP’s financial management performance rating is Moderately Satisfactory and the risk rating is Moderate. The original project has complied with the financial covenants of submitting acceptable financial reports including audits. The auditors issued an unqualified opinion on the accounts, and issued a Management Letter to highlight some internal control weakness which are being addressed to minimize the risk of use of World Bank funds. The MOE will be tasked with coordinating the activities of the various department and agencies. Within the MOE, the Director of Finance will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all fiduciary arrangements, while the Financial Controller of the GES will also be tasked with ensuring that throughout implementation, there are adequate financial management systems which can satisfactorily account for and report on the use of project funds. Disbursement under Component 1 provides for achievement of a total of five DLIs which will be measured and valued in monetary terms for each respective year through a set of identifiable and measurable DLRs totaling 15 to be achieved over the four-year period. These DLIs are considered significant indicators of performance that will influence behavioral and policy reforms required to achieve outcomes related to increasing equitable access to senior secondary education while improving the quality of SHS. Meeting the defined DLRs as identified in annex 2 and also in the Financing Agreement will constitute the primary basis for triggering credit disbursements under the Project’s Eligible Expenditure Program (EEP). The total number of DLR’s have been individually priced, and as such, the eligi ble disbursement amount will be the sum of the achieved DLRs multiplied by the unitary monetary value (price) according to the Disbursement Schedule. The underlying principle will be to disburse, after project effectiveness, and based on a half-year forecast of the funding required to potentially achieve the set of DLRs in each year, an advance to 29 the MOE. Subsequently on a half-yearly basis, the borrower will provide satisfactory documentary evidence including (a) acceptable interim financial reports (IFRs); (b) EEP spending reports; and (c) evidence of independent verification of the set of DLRs for that particular year which have been achieved. These reports will then form the basis of documenting for the advances made. Subsequent advances will be made based on the approval by the World Bank of the next six months forecast of expenditure. Component 2 will be implemented under the principles of traditional IPF arrangements using the report-based disbursement arrangements. Under this approach, the allocated resources will be advanced to the GES’s Designated Account on the basis of an approved six-monthly forecast of expenditures, and replenished quarterly for further periods of six months using IFRs prepared by the GES and or generated from the GIFMIS. The IFRs (including the ‘procurement subject to prior reviews’ and ‘designated account reconciliation statement’) will serve as the basis for requesting for advances and also for documentation. The initial disbursement will be based on the consolidated expenditure forecast for six months, subject to the World Bank’s task team leader and Financial Management Specialist approval of the estimates. Subsequent replenishments of the Designated Account would be done quarterly based on the forecast of the net expenditures for the subsequent half-year period. Procurement will be carried out, per the New Procurement Framework (NPF), in accordance with the (a) World Bank Procurement Regulations for IPF -Borrowers Procurement in Investment Project Financing Goods, Works, Non-Consulting and Consulting Services, dated July 2016; (b) the ‘Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants’, dated October 15, 2006, revised in January 2011; and (c) the provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreement. The bid documents will be based on the Standard Procurement Document, recently enhanced with the Environment, Social Health and Safety sections. Procurement implementation arrangements remain unchanged. The implementing agency will be the Ministry of Education (MOE), responsible for the project’s coordination, procurement, contract management, financial management, and compliance with safeguards policies, in collaboration with the Ghana Education Service and other relevant agencies under the MOE. The procurement capacity assessment, in accordance with OCSPR guidelines and Procurement Risk Assessment and Management System (P-RAMS), indicates that the procurement risk is Substantial for the project and the prior review thresholds have been set to reflect this rating. These thresholds are for the purposes of the initial procurement plan for the first 18 months. The thresholds will be revised periodically based on re-assessment of risks. All contracts not subject to prior review will be post-reviewed. Procurement post-reviews and technical audits will be carried out annually by the Bank Procurement Specialist and Technical Specialist or independent auditors and based on the findings of the reviews the prior review thresholds will be reviewed. The main risks identified are the following: (i) the use of the NPF; (ii) inadequate monitoring; (iii) weak contract management; (iv) delays in processing procurement and payments; (v) some political interference; and (vi) fraud and corruption. The proposed mitigation will include (i) WB to organize and deliver training session for GES and MOE, on the NPF during the appraisal and immediately after effectiveness, with hands-on support to the implementing agencies to ensure the proper use of the borrower regulations; and (ii) intensify training in procurement and contract management by the Bank The Borrower prepared and the Bank cleared the Procurement Plan which covers the first 18 months of project implementation. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the World Bank Project team at least annually or, as required, to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvement in institutional capacity. Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement (STEP) 30 will be the primary software or platform to be used to submit, review, and clear all Procurement Plans and prior review procurements. In preparing the Procurement Plan, at all times, the prior review and methods thresholds associated with the recommended/prevailing procurement risk rating are applicable. Social Analysis PHHASSA Explanation: Building on the successes of its parent project, the proposed SEIP-AF aims to extend project coverage to additional low-performing secondary schools in the SEIP targeted districts to strengthen outcomes for increased equitable access and improved quality of teaching and learning. The AF will not incentivize new school construction (DLI 2 original SEIP) as this result will be mostly achieved by the time the AF becomes effective. As it is with the parent project, the SEIP Additional Financing Project triggers Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement. Significant land acquisition is not anticipated, however, some of the activities under Pillar 1, of Component 1 may lead to land take, change in land use, relocation, and/or restriction of access to sources of livelihoods. Because the exact locations and the number of people to be affected are not known at this time, the borrower has updated the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) prepared for the parent project to cover the interventions and regions in which the proposed AF will be implemented. The RPF outlines measures to avoid and minimize resettlement as well as assist project-affected people in their effort to improve or at least restore their standards of living. The revised RPF was disclosed in- country and at the World Bank’s Infoshop on May 27, 2017. Under the parent project, the client prepared, consulted upon and implemented a Resettlement Action Plan, which was approved by the World Bank. The client is currently finalizing an Addendum to the Resettlement Action Plan. Citizen engagement. The AF will build on the citizen engagement structure designed into the parent project so as to improve transparency, accountability, and participation. To this end, the project will continue to sensitize the public to the e-Adido school mapping portal where anyone can download the app and provide feedback, queries, photos, and comments on the SHS site. Communications activities have also focused on sensitizing communities located near the beneficiary schools to encourage enrollment. Grievance redress mechanisms have been established at all districts and hotlines have been set up. A Beneficiary Survey will be conducted at mid-term and again at end line to measure beneficiary satisfaction with the project by surveying school-level stakeholders and using their feedback to inform project implementation. The proposed AF is expected to have a positive social impact as it will increase equitable access to quality education for pupils from low-income backgrounds. Environmental Analysis Explanation: The AF would not change the Category ‘B’ rating because the environmental and social impacts associated with school rehabilitation and construction are expected to continue. The risks are not substantial as the Government has prepared an excellent Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) that will be updated to cover the interventions and areas in which the proposed AF will be implemented. The MOE will be responsible for maintaining capacity for supervising and advising contractors throughout the lifetime of the project. The additional funds for project 31 management would also support third party audits and reporting to monitor safeguard compliance. The ESMF was updated and disclosed in-country and at the World Bank’s InfoShop on May 27, 2017. A Climate Risk and Disaster Screening was undertaken for the project covering climate and geophysical hazards at project location with ratings on a scale from insufficient understanding; not exposed or no potential impact or risk, slightly exposed or low potential impact or risk, moderately exposed or moderate potential impact or risk, and highly exposed or high potential impact or risk. The hazards identified included extreme temperature, drought, sea-level rise, and strong winds all of which present low potential impact or low risk. The hazard of extreme precipitation and flooding presents moderate potential impact or moderate risk. The overall climate risk under the project is Low. The Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Results Summary is included in the project files. Risk Explanation: The overall risk rating for the AF remains Substantial as Ghana continues to experience significant fiscal challenges which could hamper achievement of the DLIs. The governance risks also remain Substantial as a new government takes the helm and attempts to roll out an ambitious free secondary education policy. The political administrative transition was smoothly attained in January, 2017. The governance risk of large construction is mitigated under the SEIP AF (there is no new construction under the AF), and the facilities improvement under Component 1 of the AF is selected based on transparent and objective criteria, however, governance risks are considered substantial because of frequent cost overruns on civil works and likely persistent teacher time on task issues in deprived areas (teacher time on task is not consistently monitored but is estimated to be low). The macroeconomic risk continues to be rated Substantial given the deteriorating macroeconomic conditions since 2012. Steadily rising public expenditures in the face of weak revenue mobilization has led to an increase in the fiscal deficit from 6.3 percent of GDP in 2015 to 8.7 percent of GDP in 2016 (Public Expenditure Review, 2017). Implementation reliance on multiple institutions and agencies such as MOE, GES, and National Teaching Council (NTC) has not posed a problem as coordination has been ensured with the Technical Implementation Committee (TIC). However, the newly established NTC is not yet fully functional and the capacity to oversee teacher governance is currently not very strong. Therefore, the AF is designed to provide capacity strengthening of implementing institutions and agencies under Component 2. The Project Implementation Manual will be updated to further clarify the roles of implementing institutions and agencies. The plans to fully subsidize public and most of the private costs for SHS has not been fully costed or budgeted yet. The Government may not be able to readily afford the additional teachers, operational costs, and quality improvements anticipated over the next three to five years. The TA/research activities under Component 2 would support more in-depth modeling, costing and forecasting on the implementation of the free SHS policy. The risks related to Sector Strategies and Policies are rated Substantial as the Education Sector Plan and other national plans are currently being reviewed in line with the vision and policy directives of the new administration. While overall implementation risk remains Substantial, the design risk has been revised to moderate given the government's good experience implementing an RBF mechanism over the last two and half years. 32 35. Communities and individuals who believe that they are adversely affected by a World Bank (WB) supported project may submit complaints to existing project-level grievance redress mechanisms or the WB’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS). The GRS ensures that complaints received are promptly reviewed in order to address project-related concerns. Project affected communities and individuals may submit their complaint to the WB’s independent Inspection Panel which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, as a result of WB non-compliance with its policies and procedures. Complaints may be submitted at any time after concerns have been brought directly to the World Bank's attention, and Bank Management has been given an opportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank’s corporate GRS, please visit http://www.worldbank.org/GRS. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel, please visit www.inspectionpanel.org. 33 Project Development Objectives Original Project Development Objective - Parent: The PDO is to increase access to senior secondary education in underserved districts and improve quality in low-performing senior high schools in Ghana. Proposed Project Development Objective - Additional Financing (AF): same as above Results Core sector indicators are considered: Yes Results reporting level: Project Level Project Development Objective Indicators Unit of Status Indicator Name Corporate Baseline Actual(Current) End Target Measure Revised Increase in transition rates from JHS3 Percentage Value 39.00 43.00 49.00 to SHS1 in targeted districts Date 01-Oct-2014 31-Oct-2016 01-Nov-2021 Comment Original target was 47%. Revised Increase in SHS education attainment Percentage Value 8.40 15.00 within the two poorest quintiles in Date 01-Oct-2014 01-Nov-2021 targeted districts (disaggregated by gender) Comment n.a. Target date revised. Revised Increase in SHS educational Percentage Value 11.10 18.90 attainment within the two poorest Date 01-Oct-2014 01-Nov-2021 quintiles in targeted districts (male) Comment n.a. Change in target date Revised Increase in SHS educational Percentage Value 6.10 11.70 attainment within the two poorest quintiles in targeted districts (female) Sub Type Date 01-Oct-2014 01-Nov-2021 Breakdown Comment n.a. Change in target date Revised Increase in WASSCE achievement of Percentage Value 10.70 10.70 15.00 34 percentage of students obtaining 6 credits and above within beneficiary Date 01-Oct-2014 01-Sep-2016 01-Nov-2021 schools (disaggregated by gender) Comment Male actual was Target not revised. Change in target 12.6% (an increase date. from 2015 when achievement was 8.6%). Revised Increase in WASSCE achievement of Percentage Value 9.50 8.10 14.30 percentage of students obtaining 6 Sub Type Date 26-Jan-2015 31-Mar-2017 01-Nov-2021 credits and above within beneficiary schools- percentage female Breakdown Comment This is an increase Target not revised. Change in target from 2015 (5.8%) date. Revised Direct project beneficiaries Number Value 0.00 134,658.00 711,000.00 Date 01-Oct-2014 29-Apr-2016 01-Nov-2021 Comment Original target was 276,970. No Female beneficiaries Percentage Value 0.00 45.80 44.10 Change Sub Type Supplemental Intermediate Results Indicators Unit of Status Indicator Name Corporate Baseline Actual(Current) End Target Measure Revised New (additional) SHS seats created Number Value 0.00 3,111.00 15,000.00 and utilized by SHS students in targeted schools (cumulative) Date 01-Oct-2014 31-Mar-2017 01-Nov-2021 Comment Change in target date Revised Increase in seats created and utilized Number Value 0.00 5,889.00 10,000.00 within low-performing beneficiary Date 01-Oct-2014 31-Mar-2017 01-Nov-2021 SHSs (cumulative) 35 Comment Original target was 5,000 Revised Scholarships/bursaries are distributed Number Value 0.00 5,398.00 20,000.00 to low-income students in participating districts and schools (cumulative) Date 01-Oct-2014 31-Mar-2017 01-Nov-2021 Comment Original target was 10,000 Revised Teachers participating in training to Number Value 0.00 350.00 730.00 upgrade or acquire new skills in Date 01-Oct-2014 01-Dec-2016 01-Nov-2021 mathematics (cumulative) Comment Original target was 360 Revised Teachers participating in training to Number Value 0.00 700.00 1,470.00 upgrade or acquire new skills in Sub Type Date 01-Oct-2014 01-Dec-2016 01-Nov-2019 science (cumulative) Breakdown Comment original target was 500 Revised Increase in completion rates in Percentage Value 81.70 81.60 86.71 targeted schools (disaggregated by Date 01-Dec-2015 29-Apr-2016 01-Nov-2021 gender) Comment Original target was 85.71% and male was 85.8% Revised Increase in completion rates in Percentage Value 81.20 81.80 86.10 targeted schools disaggregated by Sub Type Date 01-Dec-2015 29-Apr-2016 01-Nov-2021 gender (female) Breakdown Comment Original target was 85.1 Revised Number of Performance Partnerships Number Value 0.00 100.00 232.00 for Learning with beneficiary SHSs Date 01-Oct-2014 31-Mar-2017 01-Nov-2021 established (cumulative) Comment Original target was 125 Revised SHS ICT packages implemented in Number Value 0.00 70.00 232.00 beneficiary schools (cumulative) Date 01-Oct-2014 31-Mar-2017 01-Nov-2019 36 Comment Original target was 125 Revised Monitoring system established and Yes/No Value No Yes Yes functioning to annually track data and Date 01-Oct-2014 05-Dec-2016 01-Nov-2021 publish information on all SHSs in Ghana. Comment Target date revised Revised Research and sector analyses Number Value 0.00 2.00 7.00 conducted to inform elaboration of Date 01-Oct-2014 05-Dec-2016 01-Nov-2021 Secondary Education Strategy Comment Original target was 5 New Number of students benefiting from Number Value 0.00 0.00 707,000 direct interventions to enhance Date 09-Sep-2017 30-Nov-2021 learning Comment New Number of students benefiting from Number Value 0.00 0.00 341,000 direct interventions to enhance Sub Type learning - Female Supplemental New Survey on beneficiary satisfaction Yes/No Value No 0.00 Yes Date 31-May-2017 30-Nov-2021 Comment No such survey exists 37 Proposed Changes to Results Framework Comments/ Indicator Proposed Revisions Rationale for Change PDO-Level indicators Increase in transition Change in end of project target Change in end-of-project target to correspond to rates from JHS3 to SHS1 value: more interventions in each targeted district in targeted districts Original target: 47% Revised target: 49% Increase in SHS Adding more schools in the targeted districts educational attainment should help increase attainment. within two poorest Continued quintiles in targeted districts (disaggregated by gender) Increase in WASSCE Change in baseline with addition The increase in beneficiary schools would require achievement of of additional schools. revised baseline and end-line target values with percentage of students yearly target values for an additional 2 years obtaining 6 credits and (through 2021). A separate baseline would be above within beneficiary included for the additional schools being supported schools (disaggregated by under the AF. This indicator would therefore be gender) disaggregated by two cohorts of schools (original SEIP and AF). The increase in the WASSCE is measured yearly against the baseline. Direct project Change in end-of-project target The data on the additional schools would inform beneficiaries (% female) value: the exact revised number of beneficiaries. (core indicator) Original target: 276,970 beneficiaries Revised target: 711,000 Intermediate Results indicators Component 1: Pillar 1: Increase Access with Equity in Senior Secondary Education in underserved districts New SHS seats created No change No new construction planned and utilized by SHS students in targeted schools Increase in seats created Change in end-of-project target and utilized within low- value performing beneficiary Original target: 5,000 SHSs Revised target: 10,000 Scholarships/bursaries Change in end-of-project target Under the AF, bursaries are provided rather than distributed to low- value scholarships as newly entering students would all income students in Original target: 10,000 be subsidized by the free SHS education policy. participating districts Revised target: 20,000 Scholarships would continue for second- and third- and schools year students not covered by the new policy. Pillar 2: Improve Quality in Low-Performing Senior High Schools Teachers participating in Change in end-of-project target Approximately 8 teachers per additional school training to upgrade or value would participate in training. This indicator is also acquire new skills in Original target: 860 a core corporate report card policy. mathematics or science Revised target: 2,200 Increase in completion Change in end of project target 38 Comments/ Indicator Proposed Revisions Rationale for Change rates in targeted schools value (disaggregated by Original target: 85.7% gender) Revised target: 86.7% Number of performance Change in end of project target In addition to the 125 to be established under the partnerships for learning value parent project, under the AF, an additional 107 to with beneficiary SHSs Original target: 125 be established (in 84 schools in the targeted established Revised target: 232 districts plus the 23 newly constructed schools). SHS ICT packages Change in end of project target In addition to the 125 to be established under the implemented in value: parent project, under the AF an additional 107 to beneficiary schools Original target: 125 be established (in 84 schools in the targeted Revised target: 232 districts plus the 23 newly constructed schools). Number of students New indicator - corporate report card policy. benefitting from direct This indicator will be calculated as part of the 707,000 (341,000 female) interventions to enhance project beneficiary reporting. learning Component 2. Management, Research, and Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring system Continued No change established and functioning to annually track data and publish information on all SHSs in Ghana Research and sector Change in end of project target The additional two years would allow for two analyses conducted to value: additional sector policy and/or research analyses. inform elaboration of the Original target: 5 Secondary Education Revised target: 7 Strategy Survey on Beneficiary End line (yes/no) New indicator - core citizen engagement satisfaction indicator. This indicator will measure beneficiary satisfaction with the SEIP by surveying school- level stakeholders and using their feedback to inform project implementation. The survey would be conducted at the beginning and end of the AF. 39 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) DLI 1: Achieved in Year 0 5.54 Government Report Government list of districts Targeting of (2014) World Bank and schools with data on each school indicator as per agreed expansion in selection criteria. underserved school districts DLI 2: Year 0 - 2014 4.64 Environmental Safeguards compliance Increase in DLR 2.1: Pre- Screening Report; through ESMF and RPF new seats for construction Resettlement verified in all new SHS students requirements met for Action Plans construction sites (screening in new construction in 23 (RAPs) and RAPs completed in 23 underserved districts (Achieved) districts). school districts Year 1 - 2015 4.64 Review of Bidding Complete package of final (original DLR 2.2: About21 Documents bidding documents for new credit only) 30% of all World Bank construction in 23 districts in construction works line with appraised design completed and including facilities (aggregated) maintenance plans. (Achieved) Year 2 - 2016 4.64 Third-party The Government of Ghana DLR 2.3: About 80% verification (GoG) report which includes of all construction schematic and site-specific works completed designs based on agreed (aggregated) criteria and technical analysis (Achieved) Year 3 - 2017 4.64 Third-party Construction implementation DLR 2.4: About verification reports verified by mobile 5,000 new seats monitoring and monthly created in underserved construction supervision districts reports. Year 4 - 2018 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by 4.64 DLR 2.5: verification school enrollment records, About 15,000 new subsidy collection list, and seats created in construction certificates. underserved districts TOTAL SEIP: (cumulative) 23.20 21 The word ‘about’ indicates acceptable range in the absolute quantity to determine the indicator is ‘achieved’ based on the principle that the spirit of the DLR has been met regardless of a slight difference in the absolute figure. The range for all ‘about’ indicators would allow for a 5 percent differential as elaborated in the PIM. 40 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) DLI 3: Year 0 - 2014 4.64 Environmental Safeguards compliance Increase in DLR 3.1: Pre- Screening Report; through the ESMF verified in number of construction Review of Bidding all expansion/upgrading sites seats utilized requirements met for Documents; (environmental screening). in existing upgrading of selected District Assembly Detailed school-specific low- schools (Achieved) certification plans include: types of performing facilities needed/eligible schools based on design and technical standards agreed upon between the GoG and the World Bank Year 1 - 2015 4.64 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by DLR 3.2: About 500 verification school enrollment records, seats utilized subsidy collection list, and (cumulative) independent third-party (Achieved) verification. Year 2 - 2016 4.64 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by DLR 3.3: About verification school enrollment records, 1,000 seats utilized subsidy collection list, and (cumulative) independent third-party (Achieved) verification. Year 3 - 2017 4.64 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by DLR 3.4: About verification school enrollment records, 3,000 seats utilized subsidy collection list and (cumulative) independent third-party verification. Year 4 - 2018 4.64 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by DLR 3.5: Total SEIP: verification school enrollment records, About 5,000 seats 23.20 subsidy collection list, and utilized (cumulative) independent third-party verification. Year 0 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Environmental Safeguards compliance 2017 Screening Report; through the ESMF verified in DLR 3.6: all expansion/upgrading sites Pre-construction Review of Bidding (environmental screening). requirements met for Documents; upgrading of Detailed school-specific beneficiary schools District Assembly plans include: types of works department facilities needed/eligible based on design and technical Third party standards agreed upon verification between the GoG and the World Bank Year 1 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by 2018 verification school enrollment records, DLR 3.7: subsidy collection list and About 500 seats independent third-party utilized (cumulative) verification. 41 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) Year 2 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by 2019 verification school enrollment records, DLR 3.8: subsidy collection list, and About 2000 seats independent third-party utilized (cumulative) verification. Year 3 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Third-party Seat occupancy verified by 2020 verification school enrollment records, DLR 3.9: Total AF: subsidy collection list, and About 2,500 seats 9.88 independent third-party utilized (cumulative) verification. DLI 4: Year 0 - 2014 4.64 Government report Methodology and criteria for Increased DLR 4.1: Contracting based on PIM selection of beneficiaries (as enrollment in of scholarship agency guidelines for agreed in the PIM); SHS in to advise on selection of schools List of beneficiaries for targeted administration of and adoption of targeted districts available in districts and scholarships and scholarship criteria district education offices. schools for criteria for selection of for incentives; students from beneficiaries of Scholarship agency Incentives provided in the low-income scholarships terms of reference form of transfers to schools. families, developed (Achieved) especially girls Year 1 - 2015 4.64 School scholarship Scholarship report DLR 4.2: At least reports aggregated by quality team 2,000 SHS students (bi-annually) Third-party receiving scholarship verification Monitoring reports verifying in beneficiary schools receipt of scholarships bi- (Achieved) annually by M&E team Year 2 - 2016 4.64 School scholarship Scholarship report DLR 4.3: At least reports aggregated by quality team 4,000 SHS students (bi-annually) Third-party receiving scholarship verification Monitoring reports verifying in beneficiary schools receipt of scholarships bi- (cumulative) annually by M&E team (Achieved) Year 3 - 2017 4.64 School scholarship Scholarship report DLR 4.4: At least reports aggregated by quality team 6,000 SHS students (bi-annually) Third-party receiving scholarship verification Monitoring reports verifying in beneficiary schools receipt of scholarships bi- (cumulative) annually by M&E team Year 4 - 2018 4.64 School scholarship Scholarship report DLR 4.5: At least reports aggregated by quality team 10,000 SHS students (bi-annually) Third-party receiving scholarship Total SEIP: verification in beneficiary schools 23.20 Monitoring reports verifying (cumulative) receipt of scholarships bi- annually by M&E team Year 1 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Third-party Scholarship report 42 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) 2018 verification and aggregated by quality team DLR 4.6: World Bank (bi-annually) Monitoring At least 5,000 SHS supervision reports verifying receipt of students receiving scholarships bi-annually by bursaries in M&E team beneficiary schools Year 2 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Third-party Scholarship report 2019 verification aggregated by quality team DLR 4.7: (bi-annually) Monitoring At least 10,000 SHS reports verifying receipt of students receiving TOTAL AF: 4.94 scholarships bi-annually by bursaries in M&E team beneficiary schools (cumulative) DLI 5: Year 1 - FY2014 Report on school Spatial and geographic 4.64 Annual DLR 5.1: School mapping exercise mapping based on verifiable publication of mapping of all SHS and data provided data and a number of key School completed (Achieved) to World Bank indicators; published as a Performance (including code report by 2015 National Report book) Education Sector Annual Review (NESAR). Year 2 - 2016 Online school Annual publication includes 4.64 performance data analysis of school-level data DLR 5.2: Publication with particular emphasis on of updated school Linked to the MOE learning outcomes, equity performance data for website and web (including participation of FY2015/16 online and platform for mobile girls), new student in brochure (Partially monitoring enrollment, and infrastructure Achieved) conditions. Year 3 - 2017 Online school 4.64 Annual publication includes DLR 5.3: Publication performance data analysis of school-level data of updated school with particular emphasis on performance data for Linked to the MOE learning outcomes, equity FY2016/17 online and website and web (including participation of in brochure platform for mobile girls), new student monitoring enrollment, and infrastructure conditions. Online school Annual publication includes Year 4 - 2018 4.64 performance data analysis of school-level data DLR 5.4: Publication with particular emphasis on of updated school Linked to the MOE learning outcomes, equity performance data for TOTAL SEIP: website and web (including participation of FY2017/18 online and 18.56 platform for mobile girls), new student in brochure monitoring enrollment, and infrastructure conditions. Year 2 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Online school Annual publication includes 2019 performance data analysis of school-level data DLR 5.5: with particular emphasis on Linked to the MOE Publication of updated learning outcomes, equity 43 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) school performance website and web (including participation of data for FY2018/19 platform for mobile girls), new student online and in monitoring enrollment, as well as brochure infrastructure conditions. Year 3 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Third-party Annual publication includes 2020 verification and the analysis of school-level data DLR 5.6: World Bank with particular emphasis on Publication of updated learning outcomes, equity school performance TOTAL AF: 4.94 (including participation of data for FY2019/20 girls), new student online and in enrollment, and infrastructure brochure conditions. DLI 6: Year 0 - 2014 4.64 World Bank Guidelines approved and School DLR 6.1: Guidelines district/regional distributed to targeted Performance on preparation of education offices schools. Partnerships SPPs developed and annual reports Detailed report on school- in Beneficiary distributed to level training on school Schools beneficiary schools improvement planning and (Achieved) management. 4.64 Year 1 - 2015 Third-party Guidelines approved and DLR 6.2: Training on validation- School distributed to targeted school improvement audit schools. planning and School SPP survey Detailed report on school- implementation level training on school provided for 125 improvement planning and beneficiary schools management. (Achieved) Year 2 - 2016 4.64 Third-party SPPPs are developed by DLR 6.3: SPPs for 80 validation schools in collaboration with beneficiary schools local communities, district (cumulative) signed and regional education (Achieved) directorates using guidelines in the PIM. The GoG reviews proposals and focuses on providing support to essential quality improvements, including activities which strengthen teacher competencies, improve training and skills of students and teachers in mathematics and science Year 3 - 2017 4.64 Third-party Signed partnership DLR 6.4: At least 100 validation agreements available for beneficiary schools audit in district education signing SPPs offices. They include (cumulative) information on: school location, identified needs and action plan (including time frame and budget) and linked 44 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) to predefined learning objectives. Year 4 - 2018 4.64 Third-party Signed partnership DLR 6.5: At least validation- school agreements available for 95% of beneficiary audit audit in district education schools implementing offices. They include SPPs based on SPPPs information on: school (cumulative) location, identified needs and action plan (including time frame and budget) and linked to predefined learning objectives. TOTAL SEIP: Financial management School SPP survey 23.20 quarterly interim unaudited financial reports (IUFRs) transfers to schools for SPPs. 2.47 Year 0 (SEIP AF) - Third-party Guidelines approved and 2017 validation distributed to targeted DLR 6.6: schools. Training on school Detailed report on school- improvement planning level training on school and implementation improvement planning and provided for management. additional schools; Guidelines on SPPs SPPPs are developed by distributed to schools in collaboration with additional schools and local communities, district about 50% of the and regional education additional schools directorates using guidelines have signed SPPs in the PIM. Year 1 (SEIP AF) - Third-party Signed SPPs available for 2.47 2018 validation audit in district education DLR 6.7: offices. They include SPPs for at least 95% information on school of additional schools location, identified needs and signed and action plan (including time implemented frame and budget) and linked to predefined learning objectives. Financial management quarterly IUFR transfers to schools for SPPs. 45 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) Year 2 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Third-party Signed SPPs available for 2019 validation audit in district education DLR 6.8: At least offices. 95% beneficiary They include information on: schools implementing School audit school location, identified SPPs based on SPPPs needs and action plan (including time frame and budget) and linked to predefined learning objectives. Financial management School SPP survey quarterly IUFR transfers to schools for SPPs Year 3 (SEIP AF) – 2.47 Third-party Signed SPPs available for 2020 validation audit in district education DLR 6.9: At least offices. 95% of beneficiary School audit They include information on: schools implementing school location, identified SPPs based on SPPPs needs and action plan (including time frame and budget) and linked to TOTAL AF: 9.88 predefined learning objectives. School SPP survey Financial management quarterly IUFR transfers to schools for SPPs. DLI 7: Year 0 - 2014 4.64 National Council Preliminary curriculum Improved DLR 7.1: Report on on Curriculum and review report on learning review of the quality Assessment report consultations and workshops outcomes in of teaching and and workshop held (participants, agendas, beneficiary learning for proceedings and recommendations) schools mathematics and (quality science in SHS Curriculum can be used package) (Achieved) throughout country and adheres to best practices in strengthening skills in mathematics and science GoG endorsement of curriculum and training plan communicated to all selected schools Year 1 - 2015 4.64 Third-party Training plan includes DLR 7.2: Training validation identification of key modules rolled out for competences, training time mathematics and i-campus content frame, tracking participation, science and ICT-based and modules and certification of 46 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) instruction developed finalized, rolled out completion. for school use and reported by (Achieved) Center for Distance ICT equipment provided to Learning all selected schools, including i-campus packages; National Information Technology Agency (NITA) provided Wi-Fi connectivity verified by service contracts. Year 2 - 2016 4.64 Third-party ICT equipment provided to DLR 7.3: ICT-based validation selected schools, including i- instruction rolled out campus packages (core in about 50% of curriculum modules and on selected schools and offline capabilities); (cumulative). NITA provided Wi-Fi (Achieved) connectivity verified by service contracts. Year 3 - 2017 4.64 Annual school ICT equipment provided to DLR 7.4: ICT-based survey all selected schools, instruction rolled out including i-campus packages in at least 95% of (core curriculum modules selected schools and on and offline (cumulative) WASSCE report capabilities); NITA provided Wi-Fi connectivity verified by service contracts. Third-party Annual report includes validation information on: rollout activities, targeting, planned attendance, number of teachers successfully completing training and demonstrating improved content knowledge in mathematics and science, pedagogical and classroom management skills 47 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) Year 4 - 2018 4.64 Annual report includes DLR 7.5: Increase the information on: rollout percentage of students activities, targeting, planned obtaining 6 credits and TOTAL SEIP: attendance, number of above WASSCE teachers successfully scores averaged in 23.20 completing training and beneficiary schools demonstrating improved content knowledge in mathematics and science, pedagogical and classroom management skills Year 1 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 Annual report includes 2018 information on: rollout DLR 7.6: activities, targeting, planned Science and attendance, number of mathematics teachers teachers successfully trained and ICT-based completing training and instruction rolled out demonstrating improved in at least 95% content knowledge in additional schools mathematics and science, pedagogical and classroom management skills. ICT equipment provided to all selected schools, including i-campus packages (core curriculum modules and on and offline capabilities); NITA provided Wi-Fi connectivity verified by service contracts. Year 2 (SEIP AF) - 2.47 WASSCE results aggregated 2019 DLR 7.7: for beneficiary schools. Increase the Increase is measured against percentage of students baseline. obtaining 6 credits and above WASSCE scores averaged in beneficiary schools WASSCE results aggregated Year 3 – (SEIP AF) 2.47 for beneficiary schools. DLR 7.8: 2020 Increase is measured against Increase the baseline. percentage of students obtaining 6 credits and above WASSCE 48 Amount of the Actions to be Financing Verification DLIs Completed Allocated per Verification Protocol Source/entity DLRs DLR (US$, million) scores averaged in beneficiary schools TOTAL AF: 7.41 TOTAL SEIP 140.10 TOTAL SEIP AF 37.00 TOTAL Component 1 177.1 Note: Shaded DLRs have been achieved under the first three years of the SEIP and funds were released against the DLRs. Italicized DLRs represent SEIP AF results. 49 Annex 2: Appendix 2 - Schedule 4: Disbursement Linked Indicators and Disbursement Linked Results for AF DLI Description, Targets and Amounts for SEIP AF 2017 - Effectiveness 2018 2019 2020 Total Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Pre-construction About 500 seats utilized About 2,000 seats utilized About 2,500 seats utilized DLI 3. Increase the number of requirements met for (cumulative) (cumulative) (cumulative) seats utilized in existing low- upgrading of performing schools beneficiary schools DLI Amount expressed in 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 9.88 US$, millions DLI 4. Increased enrollment in At least 5,000 SHS At least 10,000 SHS students SHS in targeted districts and students receiving receiving bursaries in schools for students from low- bursaries in beneficiary beneficiary schools income families, especially girls schools (cumulative) DLI Amount expressed in 2.47 2.47 4.94 US$, millions DLI 5. Annual publication of Publication of updated Publication of updated School Performance Report school performance data for school performance data FY2018/19 online and in for FY2019/20 online and brochure in brochure DLI Amount expressed in 2.47 2.47 4.94 US$, millions DLI 6. Training on school SPPs for at least 95% of At least 95% beneficiary At least 95% beneficiary School Performance improvement additional schools schools implementing schools implementing Partnerships in Beneficiary planning and signed and performance partnerships performance partnerships Schools implementation implemented based on SPPPs based on SPPPs provided for additional schools completed; and guidelines on SPPs distributed to additional schools and about 50% of the additional schools have signed SPPs 50 DLI Description, Targets and Amounts for SEIP AF 2017 - Effectiveness 2018 2019 2020 Total Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 DLI Amount expressed in 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 9.88 US$, millions DLI 7. Improved learning Science and Increase in percentage of Increase in percentage of outcomes in beneficiary schools mathematics teachers students obtaining 6 credits students obtaining 6 credits (quality package) trained and ICT-based and above WASSCE scores and above WASSCE instruction rolled out in averaged in beneficiary scores averaged in additional schools schools beneficiary schools DLI Amount expressed in US$, millions 2.47 2.47 2.47 7.41 Total DLI Amount expressed in US$, millions 37 51 Annex 2: Appendix 3 - SEIP and SEIP AF Targets and Indicative Timeline for DLI Achievement Total As % of Targets and Indicative Time Line for DLI Achievement Rationale for Financing Total Change from Allocated to Financin Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Original DLI under g (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) AF (US$ Amount million) of AF Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) DLI 1 Targeting of school expansion in underserved school district (met in Year 0 - 2014) US$5.54 million 5.54 — — — — — — 5.54 Achieved Allocated (Achieved) amount (US$, millions) DLI 2 Increase in new seats for SHS students in underserved school districts 22 Pre- About About 80% About About constructio 30% of all of all 5,000 new 15,000 new n constructi construction seats seats created requirement on works works created in in s met for completed completed underserve underserved new (aggregate (aggregated) d districts districts constructio d) (cumulative) n in 23 districts Status of 100% 100% 100% Achievemen US$4.64 US$4.64 US$4.64 t/Disbursem millions millions millions ent Allocated 4.64 4.64 23.2 No new amount schools to be (US$, constructed millions) DLI 3: Increase in number of seats utilized in existing low-performing schools Pre- About 500 About 1,000 About About 5,500 About About Includes constructio seats seats utilized 3,000 seats utilized 7,500 10,000 facilities n utilized (cumulative) seats (cumulative) seats seats upgrading in 22 This DLI will not be continued under the AF. 52 Total As % of Targets and Indicative Time Line for DLI Achievement Rationale for Financing Total Change from Allocated to Financin Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Original DLI under g (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) AF (US$ Amount million) of AF Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) requirement (cumulativ utilized utilize utilized 75 schools out s met for e) (cumulativ d (cumulat of 125. AF for upgrading e) (cumul ive) Years 1, 2, of selected ative) and 3 schools Pre- correspond to constructi Years 4, 5 and on 6 of original requireme SEIP and nts met for provide upgrading additional of seats of 500; additional 2,000; and schools 2,500 respectively Status of 100% 100% 100% Achievemen US$4.64 US$4.64 US$4.64 t/Disbursem million million million ent Allocated 9.88 25% 4.64 4.64 2.47 2.47 33.08 amount (original) (original) (AF) (AF) (US$, 2.47 2.47 millions) (AF) (AF) DLI 4: Increased enrollment in SHS in targeted districts and schools for students from low-income families, especially girls Contracting At least At least At least At least At Includes of 2,000 SHS 4,000 SHS 6,000 SHS 10,000 SHS least additional scholarship students students students students 10,000 bursaries to agency to receiving receiving receiving receiving SHS low-income advise on scholarshi scholarship scholarshi scholarship student students administrati p in in p in in s across all on of beneficiar beneficiary beneficiar beneficiary receivi beneficiary scholarship y schools schools y schools schools ng schools. s completed (cumulative) (Cumulati (cumulative) bursari 53 Total As % of Targets and Indicative Time Line for DLI Achievement Rationale for Financing Total Change from Allocated to Financin Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Original DLI under g (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) AF (US$ Amount million) of AF Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) and criteria ve) es in Bursaries for At least benefic replace selection of 5,000 SHS iary scholarships beneficiarie students school as free SHS is s of receiving s rolled out. scholarship bursaries in (cumul s developed beneficiary ative) schools (AF) (AF) Status of 100% 100% 100% Achievemen US$4.64 US$4.64 US$4.64 t/Disbursem million million million ent Allocated 4.94 12% 4.64 4.64 2.47 28.14 amount (original) (original) (AF) (US$, 2.47 m millions) (AF) DLI 5: Annual Publication of School Performance Report School Publication Publicatio Publication Public Publicati AF would mapping of updated n of of updated ation on of support of all SHS school updated school of updated performance completed performance school performance update school report data for performan data for d perform published in FY2015/16 ce data for FY2017/18 school ance last two years online and in FY2016/1 online and in perfor data for of SEIP brochure 7 online brochure mance FY2019/ implementatio and in data 20 n. brochure for online FY201 and in 8/19 brochure online and in brochu 54 Total As % of Targets and Indicative Time Line for DLI Achievement Rationale for Financing Total Change from Allocated to Financin Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Original DLI under g (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) AF (US$ Amount million) of AF Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) re Status of 100% Achievemen US$4.64 t/Disbursem million ent Allocated 4.94 12% 4.64 4.64 4.64 2.47 2.47 23.5 amount (original) (original) (original) (AF) (AF) (US$, millions) DLI 6: School Performance Partnerships in Beneficiary Schools Guidelines Training SPPs for 80 SPPs for At least 95% At At least 125 original on on school beneficiary at least of least 95% of SPPs plus preparation improvem schools 100 beneficiary 95% of benefici estimated 107 of SPPs ent signed beneficiar schools benefic ary additional developed planning y schools implementin iary schools SPPs and and signed g SPPs based school impleme distributed implement (cumulativ on SPPPs s nting to ation e) imple SPPs beneficiary provided SPPs for at mentin based on schools for 125 Training least 95% of g SPPs SPPPs beneficiar on school additional based y schools improvem schools on ent signed and SPPPs planning implemented and implement ation provided for 55 Total As % of Targets and Indicative Time Line for DLI Achievement Rationale for Financing Total Change from Allocated to Financin Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Original DLI under g (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) AF (US$ Amount million) of AF Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) additional schools; Guidelines on SPPs distributed to additional schools and about 50% additional schools have signed SPPs. Status of 100% 100% 100% Achievemen US$4.64 US$4.64 US$4.64 t/Disbursem million million million ent Allocated 9.88 25% 4.64 4.64 2.47 2.47 33.08 amount (original) (original) (AF) (AF) (US$, 2.47 2.47 millions) (AF) (AF) DLI:7: Improved Learning Outcomes in beneficiary schools Report on Training ICT based ICT based Increase in Increas Increase Original 125 review of modules instruction instruction percentage e in in schools plus the quality rolled out rolled out in rolled out of students percent percenta 23 newly of teaching for about 50% in at least obtaining 6 age of ge of constructed and mathemati of targeted 95% of credits and student students schools and learning for cs and schools beneficiar above s obtainin 84 additional mathematic science (cumulative) y schools WASSCE obtaini g6 schools in 56 Total As % of Targets and Indicative Time Line for DLI Achievement Rationale for Financing Total Change from Allocated to Financin Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Original DLI under g (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) AF (US$ Amount million) of AF Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) s and and ICT- (cumulativ scores ng 6 credits targeted science in based e) averaged in credits and districts. SHS instruction beneficiary and above developed SHS above WASSC for school WASS E scores use Science and CE average mathematics scores d in teachers averag benefici trained and ed in ary ICT based benefic Schools instruction iary rolled out in School at least 95% s of additional schools Status of 100% 100% 100% Achievemen US$4.64 US$4.64 US$4.64 t/Disbursem million million million ent Allocated 7.41 18% 4.64 4.64 2.47 2.47 30.61 amount (original) (original) (AF) (AF) (US$, 2.47 millions) (AF) 57 Introduction 1. This annex summarizes the economic and financial analysis of the proposed AF. The annex also presents an updated discussion on the returns to education and a cost benefit analysis of the SEIP interventions after two years of implementation. 2. The SHS system in Ghana has undergone rapid expansion from 700 SHSs in 2006 to 872 total SHSs in 2016 and 376,049 public SHS enrollment in 2005/06 to a projected enrollment of 868,000 students in public schools in 2016/2017. In 2015/16, the GER and NER in secondary education was 49.6 percent and 25.2 percent, respectively. The pupil-to-trained-teacher ratio in general SHS is 24:1, and 86 percent of teachers are trained. 23 To match this expansion, government expenditure per secondary student went from US$886 in 2011 to US$1,103 in 2014 (purchasing power parity). 24 The SHS expenditure has increased from 18.5 percent of the education budget in 2012 to 21.6 percent in 2015 (table 3.1). Table 3. 1. Trends in Education Expenditure by Level Level 2012 2013 2014 2015 Expenditure Expenditure % Expenditure % Expenditure % % (GHS) (GHS) (GHS) (GHS) Pre- 435,502,334 7.6 363,499,436 6.4 501,912,110 7.6 440,567,890 5.6 school Primary 1,302,972,161 22.8 1,388,792,576 24.4 1,445,683,240 22.0 1,270,418,880 16.0 JHS 969,147,257 17.0 965,117,148 16.9 1,054,711,276 16.1 1,691,653,730 21.3 SHS 1,057,413,465 18.5 1,152,064,995 20.2 1,467,511,148 22.4 1,713,539,729 21.6 TVET 163,681,164 2.9 103,039,432 1.8 243,962,422 3.7 183,950,543 2.3 SPED 21,717,157 0.4 28,064,385 0.5 29,266,775 0.4 29,437,635 0.4 NFED 40,538,896 0.7 39,952,006 0.7 32,271,191 0.5 14,517,722 0.2 Tertiary 1,081,971,635 19.0 1,106,283,329 19.4 1,063,958,851 16.2 1,848,576,964 23.3 Manage ment and 631,075,530 11.1 549,865,010 9.7 725,315,494 11.0 744,727,324 9.4 Agencie s Total 5,704,019,599 100.0 5,696,678,317 100.0 6,564,592,507 100.0 7,937,390,417 100.0 Source: MOE Education Sector Performance Report 2016 Economic Justification for Additional Financing 3. With a dual focus on equitable access and quality backed by DLIs, it is expected that student learning outcomes will improve as a result of the SEIP/AF, which in turn will raise future employability and wages of these students. The total benefit of the project is likely to be much higher if non-monetary returns for beneficiaries as well as social returns, such 23 Source: GoG 24 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics (UNESCO UIS) Data 58 as increased aggregate productivity (over and above the direct effect on individual productivity), reduced crime, and improved political participation are considered (see table 3.2). Table 3.2. Types of Return to Education Benefits Costs Private (individual) Earnings (due to productivity) Direct cost: Tuition, boarding, Employability textbooks and so on Mobility Indirect (opportunity) cost: Forgone Quality of life earnings Social (public) Economic growth: More adaptable labor Project cost force, technology adaptation, and entrepreneurship State’s spending Externalities: Innovation Saved expenses: From social benefits 4. Private rates of return are used to explain the behavior of individuals in seeking different education levels. Estimates of the returns to schooling and to potential experience are a useful indicator of an individual’s productivity. The private rates of return to secondary education in Ghana increased from 7.8 percent in 2005 to 8.8 percent in 2012. Within secondary education, returns are higher for females (11 percent) than males (6.5 percent). The returns to secondary education in Ghana are higher than the global average for secondary education (6.8 percent) but lower than the Sub-Saharan African average of 10.6 percent (tables 3.3 and 3.4).25 While there are methodological challenges associated with using Mincerian regressions—as the controlling for covariates method does not address the endogeneity problem in the estimation caused by unobservable characteristics like ability and motivation—they provide a useful indicator of the productivity of individuals by level of education. Table 3.3. Trends in Returns to Education in Ghana Direction of Change Returns 2005 2012 Return to another year of schooling 10.30 12.50 Standard deviation of return to another year of schooling 4.60 4.60 Returns to education total primary 4.70 2.70 Returns to education total secondary 7.80 8.80 Returns to education total tertiary 23.20 28.70 Returns to schooling male secondary 6.80 6.50 Returns to schooling female secondary 8.40 11.00 Source: Montenegro, Claudio E. and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2014. “Comparable Estimates of Returns to Schooling Around the World.” Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 7020. Washington, DC: World Bank. 25 Montenegro, Claudio E. and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2014. “Comparable Estimates of Returns to Schooling Around the World.” Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 7020. Washington, DC: World Bank 59 Table 3.4. Rates of Returns to Education by Region and Levels of Education Region Primary Secondary Tertiary East Asia 13.60 5.30 14.80 Europe/Central Asia 13.90 4.70 10.30 Latin America 7.80 5.40 15.90 Middle East/North Africa 16.00 4.50 10.50 South Asia 6.00 5.00 17.30 Sub-Saharan Africa 14.40 10.60 21.00 All economies 11.50 6.80 14.60 Source: Montenegro, Claudio E. and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2014. “Comparable Estimates of Returns to Schooling Around the World.” Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 7020. Washington, DC: World Bank . 5. The returns to education also vary based on the type of employment. Data from the 2012/13 GLSS26 indicates that the average monthly earnings of paid employed persons for all occupations are GHS 495.47. Legislators/managers have average monthly earnings of GHS 1081.34, while skilled agriculture/fishery workers have much lower earnings (GHS 263.09). 6. The rationale for public investment in education is related to the high social, economic, and non-economic rates of return to education, in addition to the market imperfections that preclude the poor from reaping the private returns to education. 7. Education is an investment that increases individuals’ skills and makes more informed and socialized citizens. Higher number of years of education is also correlated with democratic governments across countries. At the individual level, skills make individuals more productive and employable, extending their labor market participation over their lifetime, leading to higher earnings, and better quality of life. At the country level, education is associated with economic growth. 8. Furthermore, research suggests that secondary education for girls has positive impacts, especially on reproductive health, fertility, and empowerment (Shannon, Belmonte and Nelson 200927; Warner, Malhotra, and McGonagle 201228; Ackerman 201529). A recent study30 on the impact of scholarships shows that women who received a scholarship had 0.217 fewer children by age 25. They were also 5.5 percentage points (10 percent) more likely to have positive earnings and had significantly higher (hyperbolic sine) earnings. 26 Ghana Statistical Service (GSS). 2006 and 2013. “Ghana Living Standards Survey.” The 2005/06 GLSS sampled 39,001 respondents between the ages of 15 and 65, and the 2012/13 GLSS sampled 19,974. 27 Murphy, Shannon, Wivinia Belmonte, and Jane Nelson. 2009 Investing in Girls’ Education: An Opportunity for Corporate Leadership Lee-Rife, S., Malhotra, A., Warner, A. and Glinski, A. M. 2012. What Works to Prevent Child Marriage: A Review of the Evidence. Studies in Family Planning 29 Ackerman Xanthe 2015. Innovation and Action in Funding Girl’s Education 30 Duflo, Esther, Pascaline Dupas, and Michael Kremer. 2017. The Impact of Free Secondary Education: Experimental Evidence from Ghana. 60 9. The rationale for public investment is even stronger in the context of this AF given its focus on improving the quality of education, which is expected to reinforce its impact on economic and social development. Quality of SHS programs shows large disparities between the best 100 schools and the rest of the schools. The WASSCE results indicate that quality has been declining since 2012 and these results also demonstrate significant regional disparities. 31 The WASSCE exams also show that a small number of SHSs supply over 90 percent of the higher education entrants and the rest of SHSs produce between 60 percent and 90 percent of the fail rates at the examination. Forty-six percent of the students who qualify for tertiary education by successfully sitting for the WASSCE are from the top 20 percent of SHS in the country while 8 percent of students from the bottom 20 percent of the schools (106 schools) qualify for tertiary education. 10. The largest returns are observed among those with tertiary education (university degree and polytechnics). Those having tertiary education receive hourly earnings which are 114 percent higher than the earnings of those without formal education. This finding highlights the importance of quality SHS because without this, students cannot transit to the tertiary level. Data from the 2012/13 GLSS32 show that the majority of professionals (87.5 percent), clerical support workers (73.2 percent), technicians and associate professionals (63.4 percent), and legislators or managers (59.6 percent) have attained secondary education or higher. 11. Regional location has the most significant impact on earnings with the poorest regions providing the lowest earning opportunities regardless of education or employment status. The economic benefits of SHS are sharply divided among the best performers going to tertiary education from the best SHSs and the majority from the rest of the system who do not. The 2012/13 GLSS shows that there are marked differences in the unemployment rates recorded in the regions, with Upper East (10.8 percent) recording the highest unemployment rate and Brong Ahafo (2.9 percent) recording the lowest. The female unemployment rate is higher than that for males in all regions except in the Central and Upper West regions where the reverse is the case. 12. Furthermore, the average monthly earnings for males (GHS 592.64) are much higher than for females (GHS 395.48). In occupations such as agriculture, crafts, and related trades and in elementary occupations, females remained at a disadvantage. The discrepancy in monthly earnings between male and female workers has emerged partly on account of differences in hours of work. Overall, the average monthly cash earnings by those receiving cash and the average monthly in-kind earnings by those receiving payments in kind are more for males than for females in almost all the occupational groups. Cost-Benefit Analysis of SEIP Interventions under Pillar 1 (Unit Cost Analysis) 31 MOE Education Sector Performance Report 2016. 32 Ghana Statistical Service (GSS). 2006 and 2013. “Ghana Living Standards Survey.” The 2005/06 GLSS sampled 39,001 respondents between the ages of 15 and 65, and the 2012/13 GLSS sampled 19,974. 61 13. Having gone through two years of implementation, the DLI-based design has shifted the focus of the Government toward empirical-based policy making. The interventions of SEIP are amenable to a cost-benefit analysis because the benefits of activities under this component can be reasonably appraised from existing data. Based on data compiled so far, the section below provides a cost-benefit analysis for the different SIEP-supported interventions and a justification for the expansion of these activities under the proposed AF. 14. Under Results Area 1, the project supports the construction of 23 new schools and rehabilitation of 50 schools. The DLIs associated with this activity aim to reward significant increases in the number of new seats utilized in the newly constructed schools as well as the existing low-performing schools. 15. Costs. The projected total final cost of the new construction works including variations and fluctuations is estimated at GHS 303,339,955.17 (US$72,801,589.2). This exceeds the original total contract sum of GHS 268,592,295.86 (including contingencies) by GHS 34,747,661.31 representing an increase of 12.94 percent of the original total contract sums. The projected final cost of the facility upgrade works including variations and fluctuations is estimated at GHS 25,023,068.10 (US$6,005,536.3). This exceeds the original total contract sum of GHS 22,223,550.68 (including contingencies) by GHS 2,799,517.42 representing 12.6 percent increase of the original total contract sums. 16. The unit costs of construction based on revised contract values are lower than the estimated costs at project design. The unit cost for new schools is US$3.2 million compared to the estimate of US$4.3 million and the unit cost for upgrades is US$0.12 million compared to an estimated amount of US$0.32 million (table 3.5). Table 3.5. Unit Costs of Construction Original Total Revised Total Revised Unit cost No. of Unit Cost estimates Contract Value Contract Value (US$, Schools (US$) (US$, (GHS) (US$) millions) millions) Facility 50 25,023,068.10 6,005,536.30 120,110.70 0.12 0.32 upgrade New works 23 303,339,955.20 72,801,589.20 3,165,286.50 3.20 4.30 Source: Project Data 17. The unit costs of construction are considerably lower than comparable regional estimates (table 3.6). The average unit cost of a SEIP classroom is GHS 52,500.00 (US$13,125) for a classroom measuring 8.85 m by 7.05 m with a 1.5 m wide veranda and accommodating 48 students. This is among the lower range of unit costs of construction of comparable WB projects in Sub-Saharan African countries, with the lowest cost being US$12,931 in Benin and the highest being US$24,434 in Burundi. Table 3.6. Regional Comparison of Unit Costs of Construction Unit Costs for Cote d’Ivoire Benin Burundi Uganda Ghana 62 Classroom (US$) Construction 21,118 12,931–20,000 24,434 7,400–8,400 13,125 Source: Cote d'Ivoire ICR, 2013 and GoG estimates. 18. Benefits. As of March 2017, 13 of the 23 new schools have reported enrollment of 3,111 students for the 2016/2017 academic year and 5,889 seats were created and utilized within low- performing beneficiary SHSs. 19. The project also provides scholarships to students from low-income families, especially girls, to enhance equitable access to secondary education. 20. Costs. Scholarship amount is GHS 1,750 (US$500) per year. The total cost for scholarships for the three academic years for 5,398 students was US$16.5 million (table 3.7). Table 3.7. Scholarship Costs under SEIP 2016/17 Cohort Schools Students 2014/2015 2015/2016 Total (GHS) First Term 1 - Year 1 107 2,093 3,945,067.50 — — 3,945,067.50 1 - Year 2 107 2,074 — 3,626,099.77 — 3,626,099.77 1 - Year 3 107 2,074 — — 1,209,826.42 1,209,826.42 2 - Year 1 108 3,324 — 5,815,000.00 — 5,815,000.00 2 - Year 2 108 3,324 — — 1,938,988.92 1,938,988.92 Total 5,398 16,531,482.61 Source: SEIP Project Data 21. Benefit. The project has provided 5,398 (2,074 in Year 1, 3,324 in Year 2) of the 10,000 scholarships to students from low-income families (61 percent of which were for girls). The development impact of the scholarship scheme in Ghana is evident from the findings of a randomized control trial. The study shows that scholarships have large significant impacts on completion rates and learning outcomes. Those individuals awarded scholarships were 26 percentage points (55 percent) more likely to complete secondary school, obtained 1.26 more years of secondary education, scored an average of 0.15 standard deviations greater on a reading and mathematics test, and adopted more preventative health behavior. Women who received a scholarship had 0.217 fewer children by age 25. They were also 5.5 percentage points (10 percent) more likely to have positive earnings and had significantly higher (hyperbolic sine) earnings.33 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pillar II Interventions 33 Duflo, Esther, Pascaline Dupas, and Michael Kremer. 2017. The Impact of Free Secondary Education: Experimental Evidence from Ghana. 63 22. Results Area 2 (Pillar 2) focuses on improving the quality of education in SEIP schools through (a) strengthened school management and accountability, (b) improved mathematics and science teaching and learning, (c) expanded ICT and Internet connectivity in schools, and (d) the implementation of SPPPs. This quality package will be introduced to 107 additional schools under the AF. School Mapping Costs 23. The cost of the school mapping activity includes an upfront cost of developing a new platform to support school-level data, annual printing of school digests, and monitoring. The initial costs of setting up the school mapping initiative are GHS 3,117,604 with approximately GHS 4,406,020 of recurrent costs (table 3.8). The overall budget for the school mapping activities was estimated at US$1.07 million. Table 3.8. Costs Associated with School Mapping Activity Activity Total Cost (GHS) Initial Costs Platform development 2,000,000 Initial data collection 184,000 Follow-up data collection 275,184 Cost of training to use the platform 658,420 Recurrent Costs Citizen feedback and two-factor authentication for 4,000,000 SMS (250,000) per year 2,000,000 34 USSD code for school data per year for 4 years 200,000 Maintaining the portal 144,000 Recurring training costs 3 and 4 milestones 1,239,020 Printing and distributing the digest to JHS 700,000 Updating existing content 32,000 Hosting Scholarship database 91,000 Source: Project Data, September 2016 mission documents. 24. Benefits. 891 SHSs (public and private) have been mapped. The mapping includes the following data:  Schools WASSCE pass rate, enrollment data, images, teacher-to-student ratio and so on captured for every school  Time stamp, date stamp, and geo-coordinate stamp enhance accountability  Integration with social media fosters citizen participation and feedback  Cutting-edge and real-time monitoring/mapping capability will transform management and supervision of schools 34 Unstructured Supplementary Service Data-USSD 64 25. While data are not yet available on the impact of the school mapping on education outcomes, there is an evidence on the positive impact of a similar school mapping initiative in the development of education in Tanzania.35 The study examined the experiences of six districts where school mapping exercises were carried out. The school mapping process in Tanzania was designed to do the following: (a) strengthen local capacities to collect, organize, analyze, and use educational data to make informed decision for educational development; (b) improve districts' administrative, planning and monitoring capacities with respect to education; (c) mobilize community members to participate in the development/improvement of education; and (d) establish accurate/reliable, detailed and accessible education information for use in decision making and action. Through a combination of instruments and techniques—interviews, questionnaires, focus group discussion, and document analysis, the study found that school mapping affected in varying degrees positively on education outcomes in the districts with regard to increased enrollment and attendance, decreased incidents of dropping out, improved information for decision making, and enhanced capacities of field actors to plan and take action. These findings are critical for the rollout and scale-up of the school mapping exercise under the SIEP. i-Box 26. One hundred and sixty i-Boxes have been procured in the first phase and 70 had been installed by end of January 2017. The homegrown system has great potential for sharing knowledge through its hardware, platform and content development. 27. Costs. The costs for the i-Box can be broken down between school-level costs and system level costs (table 3.9) The upfront costs for 160 i-boxes are approximately GHS 79,730 while system-level costs for content development and transportation of the boxes is GHS 1.7 million. It is expected that the schools will bear a recurring cost of GHS 10,229 for the maintenance of the i-box. 35 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718901000465 65 Table 3.9. Costs Associated with i-box Activity School-Level Costs (GHS) System-Level Costs (GHS) Initial Costs i-box (160 sets) 17,550 Installation equipment 5,000 Cost of installation 729 Cost of training to use i-box, eContent, and i-campus 9,677 portal (5 teachers per school) Solar power system 40,000 Specialized vehicle 187,000 Content development for one subject at one level 1,559,929 (learner text, audio-visuals and interactive). Includes training of content developers) Quality assurance of i-Box and content (4 subjects of 3 4,430 sets) Upload of content onto i-Box (4 subjects of 3 sets) 2,344 Recurrent Costs Maintenance costs 552 Re-training for new teachers in how to use the i-box, 9,677 eContent and i-campus portal (5 teachers per school) Source: Project Data Benefits 28. So far 70 i-boxes have been installed in schools and are expected to be used for science and mathematics learning. An ongoing impact evaluation is aimed at estimating the value-added and impact of the i-box on learning outcomes. Future allocations under the AF will be assigned to i-box if there is an evidence of impact coming out of the impact evaluation in September 2017. World Bank Value Added 29. The World Bank’s involvement is expected to bring tangible value-added in several key domains. The World Bank’s global knowledge, technical, and operational expertise will be critical in providing technical support and consensus building around system and institutional changes, which are expected to yield economic and social returns in the longer term. The World Bank’s value added will continue to be significant under the AF. The World Bank has already brought substantial value added under the parent project by nudging a shift toward a results- based policy making and introducing innovative interventions such as school mapping and i-box. 30. Furthermore, the World Bank has established itself as a trusted partner of the education sector and is well-positioned to provide technical support to the Government in the rollout of the free SHS policy. The policy will have significant impacts on the supply and 66 demand of secondary education both within and outside the scope of this project and the World Bank is expected to play a key role in ensuring a quality-focused expansion of the sector. Fiscal Sustainability 31. The Government's strategy to increase access and improve the quality of secondary education has significant fiscal implications. The Government would need to carefully assess the budgetary implications of the proposed free SHS policy and how it would guarantee the required funding for sustaining the operating and maintenance costs of an expanded system looking at all available resources. The following section provides an analysis of the free SHS policy and its fiscal implications. Economic Analysis of Free SHS Policy 32. In early 2017, the GoG committed to providing higher secondary and technical SHSs programs free of all charges (tuition in all Ghanaian public schools remains free). The proposed free SHS policy will cover costs currently borne by families such as admission and examination registration fee, library and laboratory charges, textbooks and exercise books, teaching and learning materials, school uniforms (but not sandals), PTA, other administrative costs, and one meal for day students. According to the new SHS policy, the Government will be expected to subsidize the schools for the lost revenues and may have to cover the out-of-pocket expenditures of families as well. Board and meals for boarding students are already subsidized by the GoG. 33. According to the 2012/13 GLSS, households spent on average GHS 458.90 annually per household member attending school. The mean household income was estimated as GHS 16,645. On average, the total annual amount spent is higher in Accra (GHS 1,024.14) than other urban (GHS 520.53) and all the rural areas. Similarly, expenses on all educational items are higher in Accra (Greater Accra Metropolitan Area) than other urban or rural areas. In the rural areas, the average total expenses are less than the national average. Across localities, rural savannah has the lowest average total educational expenses of GHS 120.31 per household member. Findings indicate that higher proportions of educational expenditures are spent on school and registration fees (40.3 percent) and on food, boarding, and lodging (31.2 percent) while expenses on books and school supplies (9.2 percent) are lower. A complete SHS education, currently three years, would cost about 70 percent of GDP per capita, when additional clothing, exam and material fees are included. 34. Aside from these static budget implications, the new SHS policy will undoubtedly increase the demand for secondary education. Children from families who previously could not afford to pay for SHS will be more likely to pursue secondary education, further increasing needed budget and school places to realize the policy. Preliminary projections for 2017/2018 put general SHS enrollment at nearly 950,000 students, up from almost 870,000 in 2016/2017. Thus, more schools and classrooms will be needed, and scarcer mathematics and science teachers will have to be trained and deployed to meet this increased demand. 35. Costs of SHS. There is no annual cost of SHS because of the one-time fees of the first term of Year 1. These will be absorbed under the free SHS policy for first year students in 67 2017/18. The current per student subsidy is GHS 254.4 for day students (Sections A and B below SHS fees *3 for the three terms) and GHS 258.4 for boarding students. This is expected to go up to GHS 1075.40 for day students and GHS 2132.00 for boarding students. Table 3.10 provides all the fee items associated with SHS broken down by the categories under the free SHS policy. The fees for food of boarders will also be absorbed and day students will receive one hot meal a day. Before the free SHS policy, feeding for day students would be paid for by the student. The PTA levies will also be absorbed under the free SHS policy Table 3.10: Costs Associated with Free SHS Policy (A) Originally Subsidized Term Fees Day Boarding General Stationery and Maintenance of Vehicle 2.00 2.00 First Aid 1.00 1.00 Building Maintenance 2.00 2.00 Sports Fees 2.00 2.00 Culture Fees 1.00 1.00 Sanitation Fee 1.50 1.50 Postage 1.50 1.50 Practical Fees 5.00 5.00 Tools for Maintenance of Machines 6.50 6.50 Furniture Maintenance 1.00 1.00 Utilities 7.30 7.30 Subtotal 30.80 30.80 (B) Newly Introduced Term Fees Day Boarding Examination Fees 10.00 10.00 Entertainment 2.00 2.00 Library Fees 3.00 3.00 SRC Dues 2.00 2.00 Sports Fees 5.00 5.00 Culture Fees 3.00 3.00 Co-curricular Activities 2.00 2.00 ICT 3.00 3.00 National Science and Mathematics Quiz 5.00 5.00 Science Development 3.00 3.00 Development Levy 10.00 10.00 Utilities 6.00 10.00 Subtotal 54.00 58.00 (C) ‘One-Time’ Fees to Be Introduced Day Boarding Admission Fee 20.00 20.00 Maintenance Fee 0.00 3.00 68 Cumulative Records 5.00 5.00 School Uniforms 100.00 100.00 House Dress 90.00 90.00 Physical Education Kits 30.00 30.00 School Cloth 80.00 80.00 Medical Exams 15.00 15.00 1 Supplementary Reader/3 Core Literature Books 45.00 45.00 9 Exercise Books 14.00 14.00 4 Note Books 36.00 36.00 Subtotal 435.00 438.00 D. PTA Levies (Term) Day Boarding Teacher Motivation (GHS 20.00) per year 6.67 6.67 House Dues 10.00 10.00 Subtotal 16.67 16.67 E. Teaching and Learning Support for TVET Students Only Day Boarding Technical Training Materials per term 10.00 10.00 Technical Drawing Instruments 60.00 60.00 Technical Drawing Board and Tee Square 30.00 30.00 Subtotal 100.00 100.00 F. Feeding Fees to Be Absorbed Day Boarding Feeding Fee @ GHS 4.80 per day for 96 days (boarders) 0.00 459.20 1 Hot Meal for Day Students at GHS 1.60 per day for 70 days 112.00 Subtotal 112.00 459.20 69 Financial Management, Disbursements 1. Financial management arrangements were reviewed to (a) ascertain if the current SEIP arrangements are adequate to support the AF and (b) determine the level of compliance with the financial covenants by the current project. 2. The primary implementing agencies for the AF will be the MOE and GES. The MOE will be tasked with coordinating the activities of the various department and agencies. In line with the original project design, the project will have two components implemented by the MOE and GES. Within the MOE, the Director of Finance will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all fiduciary arrangements, while the Financial Controller of the GES will also be tasked with ensuring that throughout implementation, there are adequate financial management systems which can satisfactorily account for and report on the use of project funds. 3. The most recent financial management review conducted as part of the September/October 2016 mission concluded that the financial management systems at both the MOE and GES are adequate and meet the minimum requirements as per World Bank Policy Operational Policy 10.00. The project’s financial management performance rating is rated as Moderately Satisfactory and the risk rating is Moderate. 4. The project has generally complied with the financial covenants of submitting acceptable financial reports including audits. In relation to the submission of audit reports, the most recent audit due was for the year-ending December 2015 which was due for submission not later than June 30, 2016. The audit report was received on June 30, 2016 which was within the six-month period after the end of the fiscal year and thus in compliance with the provisions of the Financing Agreement. The auditors issued an unqualified opinion on the accounts, but also issued a Management Letter to highlight some internal control weakness which must be addressed to minimize the risk of use of World Bank funds. Disbursement Arrangements 5. Proceeds of the credit will be used by the project for eligible expenditures as defined in the Financing Agreement and further detailed in the respective approved annual work plans and budgets. Disbursement arrangements have been designed in consultation with the Government, after considering the assessments of the implementing agency’s financial management capacities, and anticipated cash flow needs of the operation. 6. Similar to the original credit, the design features of the proposed AF cater to the requirements of a hybrid structure, all within the Investment Project Financing (IPF) instrument of the World Bank. This involves a results-based (DLI/DLR) financing approach for Component 1 and a traditional investment financing approach for Component 2. 70 7. For ease of implementation the project will maintain only two (2) separate U.S. dollar denominated designated accounts: (a). Designated Account A: for Component 1 to be implemented by the MOE (b). Designated Account B: for Component 2 as implemented by the GES Modalities for Disbursements under Component 1 8. DLIs. The total AF resource allocation for Component 1 is US$37 million. According to the design, disbursement under this component provides for achievement of a total of five DLIs which will be measured and valued in monetary terms for each respective year through a set of identifiable and measurable DLRs totaling 15 to be achieved over the four-year period. These DLIs are considered significant indicators of performance that will influence behavioral and policy reforms required to achieve outcomes related to increasing equitable access to senior secondary education while improving the quality of SHS. 9. Meeting the defined DLRs as identified in annex 2 and also in the Financing Agreement will constitute the primary basis for triggering credit disbursements under the Project’s EEP that is, Component 1. The total number of DLR’s have been individually priced, and as such, the eligible disbursement amount will be the sum of the achieved DLRs multiplied by the unitary monetary value (price) according to the Disbursement Schedule. 10. The underlying principle will be to disburse, after project effectiveness, and based on a half-year forecast of the funding required to potentially achieve the set of DLRs in each year, an advance to the MOE. Subsequently on a half-yearly basis, the borrower will provide satisfactory documentary evidence including (a) acceptable interim financial reports (IFRs); (b) EEP spending reports; and (c) evidence of independent verification of the set of DLRs for that particular year which have been achieved. These reports will then form the basis of documenting for the advances made. Subsequent advances will be made based on the approval by the World Bank of the next six months forecast of expenditure. 11. However, it must be noted that in subsequent years and beyond the first year, only one DLR relating to the prior year, can remain unmet to allow for disbursements of any further advances against the potential for meeting future period DLRs. This means that while noncompliance with a DLR in a period will result in funds associated with that DLR being withheld, disbursement associated with the achievement of other DLIs will not be affected. Where the MOE is able to meet any of the DLRs, beyond the value of the total advances granted, the borrower can request for such values as a reimbursement into any government account other than the Designated Account. 12. Where achievement of a DLR cannot be certified, an amount equivalent to the unitary DLR price will be withheld or considered as undocumented and outstanding obligation on the Borrower. This amount will be paid at any later date, during project life, and at the discretion of the World Bank’s task team when such achievement can be verified. The task team may consider that a later achievement of the DLR performance would not qualify for disbursement against the 71 unmet DLR if it determines that the on-schedule achievement of the DLR is critically fundamental to achieving the overall objectives of the project. 13. Government EEP: The overall government program of expenditures to be supported under the component is defined as the EEP. For the purposes of the AF and as in the original project, the selected EEP item will be the total compensation of employees and operating cost for secondary education in the Chart of Accounts of the Government and as presented in the approved budget estimates and actuals as per the accounting reports of the Controller and Accountant General. The selected EEP is not a procurable item—the expenditure will not attract any procurement actions under the World Bank’s Procurement Guidelines. Such an EEP would be verified by the independent verification agency as part of the documentation for achieving DLRs. 72 Table 4.1. SHS Actual and Projected Budget (2014–2021) GIFMIS Chart of BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED Account CLASSIFICATION Codes 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 GHS GHS GHS GHS GHS GHS GHS GHS 0230304 Compensation (SHS) 638,737,464 632,850,371 838,852,492 801,451,365 841,523,933 885,338,937 930,197,078 976,092,089 Compensation 0230308 51,107,916 48,791,452 54,061,733 55,200,216 57,960,227 59,119,431 61,484,209 65,173,261 (TVET) Total 689,845,380 681,641,823 892,914,225 856,651,581 899,484,160 944,458,368 991,681,286 1,041,265,350 US$ equivalent @ 164,248,900 162,295,672 212,598,625 203,964,662 214,162,895 224,871,040 236,114,592 247,920,322 GHS 4.2/US$ Note: GIFMIS: Ghana Integrated and Financial Management Information System Table 4.2 Eligible Expenditure Program Sector Budget Lines Eligible Expenditure Program – Ministry of Education/Ghana Education Service Line Agency – Item Code Program SUB ministry / Program Budgetary & Code Program Institution Description Institutions Description (Secondary) Code code 2111001 GES 02303 023003 0230031 SHS Salaries 2111001 GES 02303 023003 0230032 TVET Salaries Source: GIFMIS 73 Modalities for Disbursements Under Component 2 14. Funds flow and disbursement arrangements. All other components (other than Component 1) will be implemented under the principles of traditional IPF arrangements using the report-based disbursement arrangements. Under this approach, the allocated resources will be advanced to the GES’s Designated Account on the basis of an approved six-monthly forecast of expenditures, and replenished quarterly for further periods of six months using IFRs prepared by the GES and or generated from the GIFMIS. The IFRs (including the ‘procurements subject to prior reviews’ and ‘designated account reconciliation statement’) will serve as the basis for requesting for advances and also for documentation. The initial disbursement will be based on the consolidated expenditure forecast for six months, subject to the World Bank’s task team leader and Financial Management Specialist approval of the estimates. Subsequent replenishments of the Designated Account would be done quarterly based on the forecast of the net expenditures for the subsequent half-year period. 15. It must be emphasized that other than activities under Component 1, for all other project activities under Component 2, where applicable, the World Bank Procurement Guidelines shall govern all procurement activities. Disbursement Categories 16. Based on the project design there will be only two disbursement categories. The disbursement category for Component 1 will be DLI/DLR-based and the disbursement category expense line will be for the selected EEP—that is, Secondary Education Compensation and Operating Cost as per GoG’s chart of accounts/budget classification code. For component Two, there will be a single category - ‘goods, works, consulting services, non-consulting services, training, and operating expenses.’ Table 4. 3. Disbursement Categories Category Amount of Amount of the Credit Percentage of Expenditure the Credit Allocated (expressed in to be Financed (inclusive of Allocated SDR) Taxes) (expressed in US$) Up to 100% of each DLR Eligible Expenditure Program 37,000,000 26,730,000 amount set out in the DLI under Part A of the Project Schedule Goods, non-consulting service, consulting services, Training 3,000,000 2,170,000 100% and operating cost under all Parts (except Part A) TOTAL 40,000,000 28,900,000 Conclusion 17. Based on the review of the current arrangements and the proposed design of the AF, there will not be any changes in the financial management arrangements as they have proved adequate during SEIP implementation to be continued to support the implementation of the AF. 74 Procurement Management 18. Procurement for the proposed AF under Component 2 will be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers dated July 1, 2016 and applicable to IPF herein after referred to as ‘Regulations’. The project will be subject to the World Bank’s Anti-Corruption Guidelines, dated October 15, 2006, revised in January 2011 and as of July 1, 2016. Modalities for RBF applies to Component 1 and hence the above arrangements do not apply. 19. As per the requirements of the Regulations, a Project Procurement Strategy for Development (PPSD) has been developed by the MOE and the GES with support and guidance from the World Bank. The document has been reviewed by the World Bank and found to be acceptable. Based on the PPSD, the Procurement Plan for the AF has also been developed and accepted by the World Bank. The Procurement Plan will be updated annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs. The summary of the PPSD is provided below. 20. Summary of the Project Procurement Strategy for Development (PPSD). The education infrastructure and services market is vibrant. There are local and experienced service providers and contractors, willing to take part in competitive procurement to win bids and deliver on them. The supply position of these service providers are for low risk and low volume procurement. The Client/Borrower has also approached the market adequately in the past in implementing the parent project and have adequate knowledge of the market. 21. Applicable guidelines. Procurement will be carried out, according to the New Procurement Framework, in accordance with the (a) World Bank Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers: Procurement in Investment Project Financing Goods, Works, Non-Consulting and Consulting Services, dated July 2016; (b) the ‘Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants’, dated October 15, 2006, revised in January 2011; and (c) the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The bid documents will be based on the Standard Procurement Document, recently enhanced with the Environment, Social Health, and Safety. Procurement Implementation Arrangements and Capacity Assessment 22. The procurement implementation arrangements remain unchanged. The implementing agency will be the MOE, responsible for the project’s coordination, procurement, contract management, financial management, and compliance with safeguards policies, in collaboration with the GES and other relevant agencies under the MOE. 23. Procurement capacity assessment. In accordance with Operations Core Services Procurement Policy and Services guidelines and Procurement Risk Assessment and Management System, the summary assessment of the procurement risk is Substantial for the project and the prior review thresholds have been set to reflect this rating. Procurement post reviews and technical audits will be carried out annually by the Bank Procurement Specialist and/or independent auditors and based on the findings of the reviews, the prior review thresholds will be reviewed. The main risks identified are the following: (a) the use of the National Procurement Framework (NPF); (b) inadequate monitoring; (c) weak contract management; (d) delays in 75 processing procurement and payments; (e) some political interference; and (f) fraud and corruption. The proposed mitigation will include the World Bank to organize and deliver training session for the GES and MOE, on the NPF before effectiveness, with hands-on support to the implementing agencies to ensure proper use of the borrower regulations and intensify training in procurement and contract management. 24. Table 4.4 depicts the thresholds and procurement methods to be used under the project reflecting a Substantial risk rating: Table 4.4. Procurement Thresholds and Methods Prior Review Threshold in (US$ '000) Procurement Method s Thresholds (in US$'000) Shortlist of National Consultants Works Goods, IT and non-consulting services Consultants Goods, IT Single Source Request for Request for Engineering & Direct Open Open Open Open Systems+ Quotation/ Quotation/ Consulting & RISK RATING Works Firms Individuals Contract International National or International National or Non Con. National National services construction or ICB NCB or ICB NCB Serv Shopping Shopping supervision SUBSTANTIAL ≥$10,000 ≥$2,000 ≥$1,000 ≥$300 ≥$100 ≥15000 <15000 ≤200 ≥3000 <3000 ≤100 <300 ≤500 25. These thresholds are for the purposes of the initial Procurement Plan for the first 18 months. The thresholds will be revised periodically based on reassessment of risks. All contracts not subject to prior review will be post reviewed. 26. Procurement Plan. The borrower prepared and the World Bank cleared the Procurement Plan which covers the first 18 months of project implementation. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the World Bank project team at least annually or, as required, to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvement in institutional capacity. 27. Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement will be the primary software to be used to submit, review, and clear all Procurement Plans and prior review procurements. In preparing the Procurement Plan, at all times, the prior review and methods thresholds associated with the recommended/prevailing procurement risk rating are applicable. 76 Table 4.5. Activities to be Financed by the AF Expected Expected Bid/Proposal Activity Reference Review Cost Estimate Contract Category Submission No./Description: Type (US$) Completion Date Deadline (YY/MM/DD) (YY/MM/DD) Consultancy for end of project financial review Post Consultancy 150,000 18/02/06 21/09/30 Consultancy for project completion report Post Consultancy 250,000 18/10/04 21/02/07 Consultancy for independent verification of in-school activities Post Consultancy 160,000 18/10/04 20/09/07 Consultancy for end of project technical review Post Consultancy 110,000 19/02/02 19/05/17 Consultancy for end of project procurement review Post Consultancy 120,000 18/02/06 21/09/30 Printing of 11,500 numbers School Mapping Digest for Post Goods 170,000 18/11/30 19/02/21 2017/2018 Printing of 845 numbers SPP training manuals Post Goods 3,000 17/06/20 17/08/09 Printing of 1,600 numbers Science and Mathematics Post Goods 12,000 17/02/17 17/08/09 modules 77 78