98
Conclusion
information—as an example, the MICS 2010 in Togo identifies the education service provider (public, private secular, private faith-inspired and community school) and it also provides information on education expenditures. More generally, as more data become available, more counties could be added to the analysis. In terms of the scope of the analysis, the data could also be used for assessing other education outcomes, including whether different types of providers are more efficient than others. This could in principle be measured by looking at indicators such as age for grade, repetition, dropouts, and completion rates. In countries where administrative data are available, comparisons of the allocations of resources (for example teachers) could also be made between different types of providers. More work is also needed on differences in performance (for example using test score data) between providers. Finally, the analysis of the private cost of schooling combined with administrative data on public funding for various types of providers could be used to better understand the cost of achieving desirable education outcomes and to generate national education accounts, as has been done in health. What about policy? This study was devoted to a basic diagnostic of the role of FISs in service provision in education in Sub-Saharan Africa, with additional work for Ghana and Burkina Faso. Policy questions related to the integration of FISs in national education systems have not been discussed much, but work could be done in this area as well given that such integration is likely to present trade-offs for FISs, as well as for donors and line Ministries. This is thus one priority area where further research should be undertaken. At least three points or research items on the agenda are worth emphasising here. A first important item on the agenda is to conduct more research on how to deal with the risk of duplication of efforts and the lack of harmonization between the programs and interventions of various types of service providers. To minimize these risks, it is important to improve data collection in order to provide detailed pictures of the service delivery landscape at both the local and national levels. But it is also important to promote collaborations—for example though memorandums of understanding between FISs and governments. Mappings of existing interventions and collaborative agreements should ideally also factor in nonfacilities-based services where the role of faith communities may well be important. This is important for government ministries as well as education providers, but also for donors. Within the World Bank for example, this report has relevance for the work-on-service delivery indicators and public-private partnerships carried out by the human development network and the regions. A second important item on the agenda is to better understand the constraints in which FISs operate, the challenges they face, and the opportunities they offer. Some challenges faced by FISs may also be faced by other types of providers, but others may be specific to FISs. How can FISs maintain in their programs a preferential option for the poor when the sources of revenues available to them are limited and in some cases reduced? How can FISs maintain their distinctive vision and culture while being progressively more integrated into national education systems? How can the capacity of FISs to evaluate their own interventions, Education in Sub-Saharan Africa • http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9965-1