Promising approaches in programming strategies to fight corruption in education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Promising approaches in programming strategies to fight corruption in education

  • 860 views
Uploaded on

Regional Conference on Fighting Corruption in Education in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 24-25 November, Bratislava ...

Regional Conference on Fighting Corruption in Education in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 24-25 November, Bratislava

Muriel Poisson

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
860
On Slideshare
860
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Regional Conference: ‘Fighting Corruption in Education  in Eastern Europe and Central Asia’ Bratislava, 24‐25 November 2011 Promising approaches in  programming strategies to fight  corruption in education  Muriel Poisson i l i © IIEP‐UNESCO 2 Introduction  Need for a comprehensive view of the implementation  of the anti corruption plan for the education sector of the anti‐corruption plan for the education sector Need to ensure that different actors and stakeholders  respect their commitment in its implementation Need for an accountability frameworkHallak & Poisson © IIEP‐UNESCO 1
  • 2. 3 1. Planning process Red‐flags, other warning signals  Using tools  e.g PETS,  Broad sectoral assessment QSDS  RC   QSDS, RC,  risk analysis Anti corruption action plan Set of explicit targets p p g Annual operational plan and budget Set of related monitoring indicators Related measurement toolsHallak & Poisson © IIEP‐UNESCO 4 2. An integrated promising  approach Creation and maintenance of  regulatory systems  Strengthening  Encouragement of  management  enhanced ownership capacitiesHallak & Poisson © IIEP‐UNESCO 2
  • 3. 5 3. Creation and maintenance of  3. Creation and maintenance of  transparent regulatory systems Priority action areas Possible indicators df l d l Need for clear norms and regulations,  Explicit d f l definition of responsibilities in  f bl transparent procedures and an explicit  the procedures of recruitment of  policy framework teachers Linking incentives to making accountable  Precise criteria for targeting subsidies institutions and individuals* Formula used for funding schools  designed in a way that reduces room for  manipulation p , Standardization of procedures: financial,  Common financial framework for all  human resource management,  primary schools adopted procurement rules Design of ethical standards and codes of  Progress in the adoption of the code conduct targeted at the education  Number of complaints registered personnel (academic and  administrative)**Hallak & Poisson © IIEP‐UNESCO Ex. Need for clear norms and regulations… Research on transparency in the  Brazil Programa de  Conditional cash  management of pro‐poor  Alimentação transfer  incentives Escolar Cambodia Secondary  y Scholarship p WHY? Difficult to target  Scholarship educational incentives at the  India School Grant  Unconditional  Project cash transfer most in need  Peru Juntos Conditional cash  WHAT? Support countries to  transfer improve transparency and  South  Poverty  Unconditional  accountability in the design or  Africa q quintile f cash transfer  implementation of pro‐poor  USA Opportunity  Conditional cash  New York City transfer  incentive policies Vietnam Primary  Geographic  Education for  targeting HOW? Disadvantaged  ►Country surveys Children  ►Policy forum (2012) (PEDC) 3
  • 4. Ex. Design of ethical standards…. WHY? Codes often inefficient,  with a low impact  WHAT? Guiding countries on how  to design and enforce such codes;  promoting dialogue MOE/unions HOW? • Case studies • Survey in 25 countries • Toolkit (cooperation with EI) Toolkit (cooperation  ith EI) • Workshops (Seoul, April 2011) • Online forum (November 2011) http://teachercodes.iiep.unesco.org  8 4. Strengthening management  4. Strengthening management  capacities for greater accountability Priority action areas Possible indicators Strengthening institutional capacities  Number of integrity task forces  of MOE, DEO, schools, PTAs, etc. established in universities Enhancing control mechanisms  of the  Number of cases investigated by  use of resources (internal, external) external auditors in education Use of computerized information  Scope of EMIS systems E‐procurement for school construction Improving skills in management,  k ll Number of school directors trained in  b f h ld d accounting, monitoring and audit of  budgeting different stakeholders according to  needsHallak & Poisson © IIEP‐UNESCO 4
  • 5. Ex. Building capacities on PETS and QSDS WHY? The success of PETS depends on  its ownership by country authorities WHAT? Helping countries design and  implement such surveys HOW? • Methodological book • Regional and national courses • Technical assistance to the national  team in charge of the survey (Burkina  Faso, 2011‐2012) 10 5. Enhancing ownership of the  5. Enhancing ownership of the  management process Priority action areas Possible indicators Supporting advocacy and policy  Number of warning posters   dialogue against corruption in  disseminated (in different languages) education* Ensuring access to timely, reliable and  Publication of the list of students who  relevant information by various  passed the end of secondary exam stakeholders Promoting peer‐monitoring, including  Increase in the number of joint  self control by the profession management committees in schools  (with their own statutes) Frequency of school board meetings Supporting the development of training  Number  of primary school teachers  programs against corruption in and out  trained of schoolHallak & Poisson © IIEP‐UNESCO 5
  • 6. Ex. Supporting advocacy and policy dialogue WHY? The success of an  Date Location Countriesanti‐corruption plan rests  Azerbaijan, B&H, Croatia, on the mobilization and  2011 Ohrid Latvia, Macedonia, Mongolia, Ukraineownership by all  2006 stakeholders 2007  Baku Azerbaijan 2008 2007  Tbilisi GeorgiaWHAT? Promoting  2007  Ohrid Kosovopublicity and debate on  2006  Budva Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina,  Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia anti‐corruption initiatives Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,  2005  Kiev Georgia, Moldova,  g , Montenegro, Ukraine HOW? China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,  2004  Bishkek Tajikistan, Uzbekistan • policy meetings Argentina, Armenia, Botswana, • seminars and workshops 2003 Vilnius Georgia, India, Kenya, Latvia,  Macedonia, Mexico, Tajikistan, • summer universities Ukraine and Uzbekistan• study tours 6