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
Collection(s)
Created on
Dec 06, 2011
Last modified
Sep 26, 2013
Page views
917623
Downloads
1692186
Decentralization Impact (s6bq8)
Data file: headteacher1_final
Overview
Valid:
90
Invalid:
0
Type:
Discrete
Start:
437
End:
516
Width:
80
Range:
-
Format:
character
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 | Cases | |
|---|---|---|---|
| -Depends on appointed people, flow from DEO to PEO is still poor of money, flow | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Channel is low. If it were straight from the Ministry, it would shorten the chan | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Decentralization is only at District level, the impact is that desplining a teac | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Decision making is easier now because you do not have to wait for the MOE to do | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Delay of material to school sometimes never come. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Delivery of stationary is better. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Education materials arrive faster but the money is insufficient.Free education s | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Educational materials have been taken to the schools. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Encouraging because they are able to receive money and materials | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Flow of material is very slow/bad | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Flow of money is eratic funding must be improved. Education materials are delay | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Flow of money is okay except its not enough. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Good in that are able to get salaries fromand books from the DEO s office. One n | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Has improved the flow of materials and money to the school. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Has made the school stranded financially | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Have to see the DEO for Primary School material and the PEO for Secondary School | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Idea is good but has not reached the standards. There is need for improvement. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Idea is good but things are not seen to move the way they are. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| If they had been given enough money. They would run the school smoothly. The mon | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Impact is minimal becoz of eratic funding. ,Materials are not enough and take ve | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Impact is there. But accessing of money to the teacher is not easy. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Impacted negatively the money is not taken to the intended schools and instead b | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Implementation has not been good because very little has been done. No funds hav | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has been okay now because they are able to receive money directly fro the DE | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has done good. Only that our offices are far from the district thus we don't | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has had very little impact | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has helped. Many problems can be solved in Ndola. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has improved the allocation of teachers to rural schools. The furniture has b | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has not benafitted us in Lusaka. It is hardto get things on time. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has not helped anything. Everything is almost done from the school resources | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has not helped because they bring wrong books for example and they don't enqu | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has not worked as expected because they have failed to deliver materials unli | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has not worked well at this place things take too long to answer the request | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has saved time and money and other inconviences that the later programs cause | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It has united the local community with the school administration. It commits pa | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is a better way because money comes straight to the school instead of going t | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is cumbersome, there is a lot of bureaucracy. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is good because they are able to receive their money on time. Even complaints | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is good but flow of money is poor and little money. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is not bearing the fruits expected. The headshave not been given the powers t | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is practically negative but ideally negative.Causes delays in money transfers | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is problematic because the schools are not adequately funded with the eradica | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It is working well. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It it positive. It's only that the money and the books are little - average. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It's good - although they are not getting money they are supposed to get. Money | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It's good but funding is not adequate. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| It's okey. It's easy because you don't waste money transporting materials. The | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Liked system because previously the community thought the Head and the DEO were | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Material flow is very slow and money though it comes it is vry slow. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Materials are not distributed equally | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Materials are not forthcoming and the money flow is very bad and inadequate. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Money flow is same or worse than period before decentralisation. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Money given to schools is not sufficient to meet the requirements. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Money is faster to come than before, decentralisation.Educational materials flow | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| N/A Private school | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No change has been seen despite decentralization | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No change has been seen. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No change in money flow. Educational materials are now coming fast. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No change noticed | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No effect | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No impact flow is still slow. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No impact since this is a Private school. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No impact. No effect. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No impact. Worse off than before | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| No longer have to travel to Lusaka | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Not applicable | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Not much impact except that it is easier to manouver as distance is less now. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Not very effective.Too many delays the channel should be straight to the school. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Not very successful. Not well executed. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Once materials are available, then schools can easily get them but we are not ge | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Problems are solved faster. Problems of teachers leave and other concerns are mo | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Provision of materials is working well but as for the money and allowances for | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Salaries are paid in a more friendly fashion. Flow of information has improved | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Supplies take longer and we only received the 2 million only once. We received | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| The amount of decentralisation is less. The impact is that it is difficult to r | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| There has been efficiency | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| There hasn't been any improvement on the flow of materials/money and other relat | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| There is a problem in delay of salaries delay in payment of allowances and delay | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| There is an improvement in the flow of materials unlike before decentralisation. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| There is no significant difference. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| There is timely delivery of materials than before decentralisation. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| They haven't seen it work. With the money they are happy but certain things the | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Things are still slow | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| This is a private school but generally this has brought inefficiency because Hea | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Very poor, the situation has been worsened | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Very positively; flow of materials has been faster. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| We have not seen much change though slight improvement if you want materials as | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| We have not yet seen the fruits of decentralisation. With the change of officers | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Yes but not very much. | 1 |
1.1%
|
|
| Yes the educational materials are now coming fast things have greatly improved. | 1 |
1.1%
|
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.