We need a fairer, system

• 9): The lowest amount of K20,000 allocated to New Ireland is 117 times less than the amount allocated to Simbu or Central. The second highest amount of K550,000 allocated to Manus is about four times less than those of Simbu or Central. What are the compelling reasons for such disparities?
• 10): How much is allocated for ‘administration’ cannot be ascertained from Figure 1. A detailed breakdown of the expenditure might shed some insights into the management of TFF funds committed to support ‘quality education improvement programmes’. Can we safely assume that the ‘deficit’ or ‘surplus’ identified in (1) could be earmarked for ‘administration’ purpose?
•  11): When will the rest of the pro­vinces that missed out from this round of allocation of 2014 TFF funds get their? What formula of criteria will be used to avoid inequitable distribution of funds?

General observations 

It is observed that portions of 2014 TFF funds committed to selected provinces to help and support quality education improvement programmes is grossly unfair, thus raising more questions than offering solutions.  

The distribution of TFF funds to support education infrastructure and quality education improvement programmes is ad hoc, with no criteria guiding allocation of funds to the provinces. In the absence of a list of criteria, a fair and equitable allocation of funds should be applied to influence quality decisions. 

Favouritism, nepotism, unfairness and inequitable allocation of funds are likely to influence decision. 

Such sporadic and ad hoc decisions could seriously impact negatively on PNG’s efforts to achieve ‘quality education’.  

Quality professional advice must be provided to the decision makers by equally qualified professionals if Papua New Guinea is to achieve any improvement in quality education indicators. 

Some suggestions

It is often unfair to criticise without providing alternative suggestions for improvement.  At least two suggestions are offered.

• 1): What is meant by ‘quality education’? The Universal Basic Education (UBE) pillar on quality education is a good starting point.  

Some checklists or criteria could be framed based on the factors that contribute to poor quality of learning.  

A baseline data on each province or school regarding the factors that contribute towards poor quality learning is probably the most important consideration. Below are some factors that contribute towards poor quality learning:

• A: Inadequate, non-inclusive or poor state of infrastructure;
• B: Lack of prescribed curriculum and reading materials;
• C: Poor school organisational climate;
• D: Ineffective teaching and implementation of official curriculum;
• E: Poor school governance (how well the school board governs the school);
• F: Poor teacher professional development (in-service and qualification of teachers);
• G: Unqualified teachers (teacher quality).

Critical quality indicators such as teacher qualifications, teacher to students ratio, text book to students ratio and pass rates are very important measures that reflect attainment of quality education.  

It is safe to conclude here that Figure 1 financial commitments were done without considering these indicators.  

It is safe to assume that funds committed in Figure 1 would in the majority of cases be misapplied in the name of improving quality education. 

• 2): Education statistics from each province is sporadic and often chaotic.  

Indicators such as teacher qualifications, teacher to students ratio, text book to student ratio and pass rate are not readily available.  

If one-off TFF money is to be used at short notice to improve quality education then in the interest of equity, parity, and fairness; a mechanism for an equal distribution of available funds must be found and applied.  

It is suggested here that giving each province an equal amount of money is the fairest thing to do.  

However, such fairness will not help resurrect the neediest provinces with poor quality of education to improve.  

Neither will such fairness reward the high performing provinces for achieving quality education.  

It could even be a disincentive to high performing provinces if their efforts are not recognised.  

Even if they are treated equally, none of them will be motivated to excel. Chart 1 contrasts and compares the commitments made without a criterion with a proposed equitable amount of K520,000 to each of the 12 provinces.   A straight horizontal line indicates equitable share of available funds to support quality education improvement programmes.  

A jagged line indicates an unfair distribution of 2014 TFF funds to support quality education improvement programmes.

Conclusion

Everyone wants quality education. Parents and guardians want to see their child gets a quality education.  

Students desire and hope to obtain quality education. Leaders (political and bureaucratic) talk about providing quality education for the country’s education system.  

Teachers attempt to deliver quality education through their teaching episodes despite the many challenges and hardship on their living conditions and silently deliver teaching under serious resource constraints.  

Parents, teachers and students collectively and individually make the greatest sacrifices in pursuit of providing, delivering and acquiring quality education respectively.  

They will be the first to oppose any move that is likely to impinge on their pursuit of obtaining quality education because they want nothing but the very best.

Sadly, they are unaware of the very factors that directly (individually or collectively) contribute towards poor quality of learning environment resulting in poor quality of education.  

The recent exercise to help support improving the quality of education reflects that lack of knowledge thereby misdirecting the relevant resources intended for improving quality of education away from where they are most critically needed.

In this recent exercise, nearly K7 million was to be spent to support quality education improvement pro­gramme in 2014 within selected provinces.  

It is clearly seen that the commitments made to the 12 provinces to support quality education improvement programmes is not guided by any criteria based on the factors that contribute towards poor quality learning environments in a school.  

It is almost like administering a programme of medication to a patient without conducting a proper prognosis to appreciate the patient’s medical predicament or nature of their illness.  

We can safely argue that our efforts to allocate funds on an ad hoc basis will neither have the intended positive impact nor bring about an improvement to the quality of education sought after by many stakeholders.

The K7 million expended have been unfairly allocated to a dozen provinces. 

It made no logical sense to see certain provinces allocate a lion’s share of the TFF funds while other provinces paid a pittance based on an unfair, unjustified and irrational allocation regime.  

Two provinces received nearly 65 toea out of every kina of the 2014 TFF funds for the quality education improvement programme, while 10 provinces share 35 toea out of every kina.  

On average each of the 10 provinces receives 3.5 toea out of every kina for supporting efforts to improve quality of education. 

Now you can see why achieving quality education is still a very tall call for PNG. Who do we blame for poor quality of education?   

We have argued here for a fairer and equitable system to justifiably allocate funds to all provinces based on criteria that addresses factors that impact on quality education. 

We have argued supporting the government’s initiative that the 2014 TFF fund committed to the 12 provinces to support them to improve quality of education should be spent on strategic areas that directly impact on quality of education.  

The strategic areas that require disciplined approach to funding them are (inter alia):

• School infrastructure (classrooms, library, science labs, dormitories, teachers houses, generators, water supply etc);
• Prescribed curriculum materials (teachers text books, students text books, library books, consumables of the science laboratories, etc);
• Teachers’ professional development (in-services, upgrade teachers qualifications);
• Monitoring and evaluation of teachers’ performances (inspections and promotions);
• Effective teaching and learning that deliver the implementation of the intended or the official curriculum;
• School leadership and management on a regular basis (governance and management of resources).

At the end of the day (at Grade 10 or Grade 12) or at the pinnacle of one’s education journey, the pass Rrte is the ultimate trophy.  

The pass rate reflects the quality of education attained by the student.  

That attainment makes the greatest difference on whether the student has earned the required Grade Point Average that will open further opportunities.  

If TFF funds are spent outside of the strategic areas identified above, then one must not expect a miracle at the examination room at the end of Grade 10 or Grade 12 because the pass rate reflects the kind of investment made in quality education.  

We reap what we sow. If you sow for quality education then you will reap quality education outcomes.  

It will be interesting to do another commentary on the detailed expenditure for each province and what they did with their allocation.

The notion of ‘quality education’ that everyone aspires for will remain elusive for policy makers and bureaucrats.  

Parents and teachers will sacrifice in vain. Students will continue to strive for excellence that is evasive.  

The country’s education indicators could remain stagnant or regress and PNG’s global ranking in terms of HDI may fail to place the country in the top 50 countries of the world as dreamt of in PNG Vision 2050. 

As stated elsewhere (Sinebare 2014), the seed for fairness must be planted now if we are to reap the same under PNG Vision 2050 dream. 

Similarly, the seed for being ‘smart’ must be sowed now if we are to reap it in order to be a smart society in 2050.  

To create a smart country we need to invest in quality education, not for quantity.  

Strategically investing in quality education in a smarter, wiser and fairer manner in the PNG education system will no doubt help create an impetus for helping towards achieving the prosperity dreamt of in the PNG Vision 2050.