Expenditure and Service Delivery Survey in Education 2002
Zambia, 2002
Get Microdata
Reference ID
ZMB_2002_ESDS_v01_M
Producer(s)
Government of the Republic of Zambia, World Bank
Created on
Sep 30, 2011
Last modified
Mar 29, 2019
Page views
107047
Downloads
8551
Decentralization Impact (s6bq8)
Data file: headteacher1_final
Overview
Valid:
90
Invalid:
0
Type:
Discrete
Start:
437
End:
516
Width:
80
Format:
Questions and instructions
Literal question
In your opinion what impact has decentralisation had on the flow of educational materials/money to the school? (only in decentralized districts)?
Categories
| Value | Category |
|---|---|
| -Depends on appointed people, flow from DEO to PEO is still poor of money, flow | |
| Channel is low. If it were straight from the Ministry, it would shorten the chan | |
| Decentralization is only at District level, the impact is that desplining a teac | |
| Decision making is easier now because you do not have to wait for the MOE to do | |
| Delay of material to school sometimes never come. | |
| Delivery of stationary is better. | |
| Education materials arrive faster but the money is insufficient.Free education s | |
| Educational materials have been taken to the schools. | |
| Encouraging because they are able to receive money and materials | |
| Flow of material is very slow/bad | |
| Flow of money is eratic funding must be improved. Education materials are delay | |
| Flow of money is okay except its not enough. | |
| Good in that are able to get salaries fromand books from the DEO s office. One n | |
| Has improved the flow of materials and money to the school. | |
| Has made the school stranded financially | |
| Have to see the DEO for Primary School material and the PEO for Secondary School | |
| Idea is good but has not reached the standards. There is need for improvement. | |
| Idea is good but things are not seen to move the way they are. | |
| If they had been given enough money. They would run the school smoothly. The mon | |
| Impact is minimal becoz of eratic funding. ,Materials are not enough and take ve | |
| Impact is there. But accessing of money to the teacher is not easy. | |
| Impacted negatively the money is not taken to the intended schools and instead b | |
| Implementation has not been good because very little has been done. No funds hav | |
| It has been okay now because they are able to receive money directly fro the DE | |
| It has done good. Only that our offices are far from the district thus we don't | |
| It has had very little impact | |
| It has helped. Many problems can be solved in Ndola. | |
| It has improved the allocation of teachers to rural schools. The furniture has b | |
| It has not benafitted us in Lusaka. It is hardto get things on time. | |
| It has not helped anything. Everything is almost done from the school resources | |
| It has not helped because they bring wrong books for example and they don't enqu | |
| It has not worked as expected because they have failed to deliver materials unli | |
| It has not worked well at this place things take too long to answer the request | |
| It has saved time and money and other inconviences that the later programs cause | |
| It has united the local community with the school administration. It commits pa | |
| It is a better way because money comes straight to the school instead of going t | |
| It is cumbersome, there is a lot of bureaucracy. | |
| It is good because they are able to receive their money on time. Even complaints | |
| It is good but flow of money is poor and little money. | |
| It is not bearing the fruits expected. The headshave not been given the powers t | |
| It is practically negative but ideally negative.Causes delays in money transfers | |
| It is problematic because the schools are not adequately funded with the eradica | |
| It is working well. | |
| It it positive. It's only that the money and the books are little - average. | |
| It's good - although they are not getting money they are supposed to get. Money | |
| It's good but funding is not adequate. | |
| It's okey. It's easy because you don't waste money transporting materials. The | |
| Liked system because previously the community thought the Head and the DEO were | |
| Material flow is very slow and money though it comes it is vry slow. | |
| Materials are not distributed equally | |
| Materials are not forthcoming and the money flow is very bad and inadequate. | |
| Money flow is same or worse than period before decentralisation. | |
| Money given to schools is not sufficient to meet the requirements. | |
| Money is faster to come than before, decentralisation.Educational materials flow | |
| N/A Private school | |
| No change has been seen despite decentralization | |
| No change has been seen. | |
| No change in money flow. Educational materials are now coming fast. | |
| No change noticed | |
| No effect | |
| No impact flow is still slow. | |
| No impact since this is a Private school. | |
| No impact. No effect. | |
| No impact. Worse off than before | |
| No longer have to travel to Lusaka | |
| Not applicable | |
| Not much impact except that it is easier to manouver as distance is less now. | |
| Not very effective.Too many delays the channel should be straight to the school. | |
| Not very successful. Not well executed. | |
| Once materials are available, then schools can easily get them but we are not ge | |
| Problems are solved faster. Problems of teachers leave and other concerns are mo | |
| Provision of materials is working well but as for the money and allowances for | |
| Salaries are paid in a more friendly fashion. Flow of information has improved | |
| Supplies take longer and we only received the 2 million only once. We received | |
| The amount of decentralisation is less. The impact is that it is difficult to r | |
| There has been efficiency | |
| There hasn't been any improvement on the flow of materials/money and other relat | |
| There is a problem in delay of salaries delay in payment of allowances and delay | |
| There is an improvement in the flow of materials unlike before decentralisation. | |
| There is no significant difference. | |
| There is timely delivery of materials than before decentralisation. | |
| They haven't seen it work. With the money they are happy but certain things the | |
| Things are still slow | |
| This is a private school but generally this has brought inefficiency because Hea | |
| Very poor, the situation has been worsened | |
| Very positively; flow of materials has been faster. | |
| We have not seen much change though slight improvement if you want materials as | |
| We have not yet seen the fruits of decentralisation. With the change of officers | |
| Yes but not very much. | |
| Yes the educational materials are now coming fast things have greatly improved. |
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.