2. Education sector diagnosis
financing in the system as data on investments from development partners are not centrally managed in the MoE. Additionally, although annual budget objectives and key performance indicators are derived from goals and strategies articulated in existing policy documents, the organization of the Budget Estimates documents, with respect to budgeted line items contained therein, does not facilitate the monitoring of expenditure in relation to budget objectives; this makes it very difficult to systematically analyse Ministry progress in aligning expenditure with policy priorities( GoSKN, 2014a; World Bank, 2015a).
Efforts to take stock of existing challenges related to access and participation, and quality and relevance in education, and to analyse the effectiveness and efficiency of public spending and development aid in the sector would shed light on barriers to existing resource allocation to meet sector objectives.
2.5. Governance and management
Based on provisions in The Saint Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983( Constitution), education governance is deconcentrated between the GoSKN and the NIA with respect to education policy. This is to ensure compliance with polices set at the Federal level. Governance is decentralized with respect to administrative and financial responsibilities, as the GoSKN MoE is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the education system in St. Kitts, and the NIA is responsible for the same operations in Nevis. In each jurisdiction, overall governance is centralized within the Ministry of Education.
The legal framework for governance and management in the sector is provided by the 2005 Education Act and its accompanying regulations. Significantly, in terms of distributing governance responsibilities, the Act sanctions the establishment of several entities that could aid in management throughout the sector. However, some of these bodies are not functioning effectively( e. g. the Education Advisory Board), while others have not yet been established( e. g. the Council on Early Childhood Education, the Education Review Committee, the National Student Council and the National PTA Association, School Boards). Additionally, although education legislation is quite comprehensive, there is a need in some instances for reform to ensure legislation supports policy priorities. For example, corporal punishment is legislated as a mechanism of last resort with respect to student discipline, yet SKN has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child( CRC) and adopted the UNICEF-supported Effective / Child-Friendly Schools( CFS) Framework, which is rooted in the CRC. As corporal punishment erodes children’ s right to attend school in a safe environment free from harm, existing legislation provides a challenge to effective implementation of the Effective / CFS framework.
Beyond the need to ensure that legislation undergirds policy directives, several other governance constraints have been identified and are presented below:
❚ Policy development and coordination is fragmented, which negatively impacts effective policy implementation, as indicated in the 2016 UNESCO SKN Education Policy Review. For example, since the publication of the White Paper in 2009, more than a dozen policies covering areas such as, but not limited to, ICT in education, curriculum, school safety and maintenance, student behaviour, and teacher performance appraisals have been developed to support improved education provision; however, all remain in draft form and are yet to be fully implemented. Additionally, there is a need to develop and implement policies to guide monitoring and evaluation of equity in the system, as well as financial, material, and human resource management. With respect to the latter, policies on succession planning, teacher training, and continuous professional development are key. Notably, to strengthen this strategic function, the GoSKN has appointed an officer in the Education Planning Division with responsibility for supporting the Permanent Secretary( PS) in policy development and coordination.
❚ The organizational structure and functions of MoE positions are unclear. For example, over time reporting protocols as depicted in the MoE organigram do not correspond with actual reporting practices and overlapping functions have emerged between MoE Departments, without a clear understanding of how such functions may be complementary( e. g. curriculum oversight by Curriculum Officers versus Education Officers)( World Bank, 2015a). Further, staff at all levels have noted a lack of clarity with respect to roles and responsibilities, as many job descriptions are out of date, and for some positions none exist. This breakdown in organizational structure and functions contributes to low levels of accountability in the system.
❚ Long-term resource planning( human, financial, and material) is not in place, and information and data needed for decision making at the Ministry and school levels are fragmented, insufficient, or unavailable in some cases. This is largely due to limitations in the existing Education Management Information System( EMIS) system. While the overall quality of the SKN EMIS, as measured by the World Bank SABER – EMIS Assessment tool( SEAT), was better than the OECS average( the SKN overall score was 0.65 in comparison to the OECS average of 0.59)( World Bank, 2012), the system does not capture a sufficiently wide range of information( e. g. budgetary, teaching force, student performance and enrolment by stream, socioeconomic, tertiary, etc.) to effectively monitor performance and equity in the system. Additionally, there is
31