Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

Education Sector Corruption in Ethiopia 89
Promotion procedures were also perceived to be problematic, with more
than 50 percent of school-level staff expressing dissatisfaction with career
promotion. This view is consistent with a parallel finding that most of the
respondents at all levels believed there were no clear incentives for staff to
perform well. Other surveys that have reached a similar conclusion, including
a 2009 survey, found that “selection for promotion is not merit-based”
(VSO 2009). Corrupt practices also were reported as influencing the award
of grants, which were also affected by forged transcripts and certificates.
Falsification of documents in support of applications for promotion—risk:
high. As a general pattern, the respondents viewed falsification of documents
as being somehow less corrupt than more overt corruption such as
bribery. In the case of applications for promotion, there is an apparently
high risk that supporting documentation relating to qualifications and
experience could readily be falsified by the applicant. For such falsification
to go unnoticed, there is a related risk of the officials supporting or
approving the application being implicated in the corrupt practice.
Collusion to ignore regulations regarding management of staff—risk: medium.
This form of corruption could, for instance, occur if education officials
chose to ignore regulations concerning the attribution of applicable salary
scales to specific staff or any other management regulations. The assessment
of this risk level as medium is based on two findings: First, there is
a general sense that rules and regulations are less strictly applied in practice
than in theory, suggesting a high degree of discretion on the part of
some key decision makers. Second, there is a reported sense that favoritism
by some officials is inevitable and cannot be challenged.
Collusion with teachers over noncompliance with curriculum, academic
calendar, and similar practices—risk: medium. This form of corruption
relates to semiofficial practices that benefit teachers but reduce the provision
of educational services. As such, it requires collusion between
teachers and their managers at the local level.
An indirect indicator of this risk occurs when teacher absenteeism is
tolerated by head teachers, within the context of staff perceiving a need
to supplement their income through private tutoring or other forms of
income generation. Survey responses received during this study indicated
that private tutoring is widespread, with 40 percent of school officials
reporting it as a practice.