a)
Academic Performance

i) % pupils in Primary 6 achieving A grade in June exams.

This KPI is specific and measurable. It specifies a definite set of pupils, and the percentage of pupils achieving an “A” grade is clearly measurable.
However, it does suffer from several difficulties.
First, focusing on just one set of exams runs the risk of anomalous results which are not statistically significant. Poor performance on this metric could simply be unlucky, and the same set of pupils sitting an exam on a different day could perform significantly differently. This could be remedied by using a metric that includes more than one set of exams, for example exams for more than one-year group, or first term and third term exams.

Second, by measuring A grades only, the relatively small number of pupils at the top of the achievement spectrum are focused on, i.e. those who are capable of achieving an A grade. The performance of many of the pupils is not included in this KPI. This could be improved upon by measuring a broader spectrum of achievement, for example the % of pupils achieving grades A to C (on a range of A to F).

Third, it is likely to be the case that many of Okoro Primary’s pupils are from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, which may mean that in absolute terms they achieve fewer top grades than pupils from more socially advantageous backgrounds. One way of trying to control for this would be to measure not the absolute grades achieved by pupils, but rather their relative improvement (or deterioration) during their time at the school. This could be measured by for example as the change in the percentage of pupils achieving grades A to C from year to year. The school as a whole could be measured as the average percentage change.

ii) An alternative KPI in this area might be: Average % change in % of pupils achieving grades A to C in end of year examinations from primary 4 to 6.

iii) Evidence should be obtained from published examination results for all end of year exams taken by pupils from primary 4 to 6. From this it would be possible to recalculate the total number of grades A, B and C as a % of the number of pupils sitting the exam. The average % change from year to year could then be calculated from this.

School Attendance

i) Average % of pupils absent from registration at 8:30am.

This KPI fails to specify a time period over which the average is to be calculated. This could be specified as the annual average. The KPI makes the mistake of identifying attendance at registration at 8:30am with attendance throughout the school day. Some school pupils have been reported as being in the city centre when they should have been at school. It is therefore possible that they were in attendance at registration at the beginning of the day before running away from school. The existing KPI would fail to register this absenteeism, a failing which could be rectified by taking a register at various points during the day, for example, at the start of every lesson.

ii) An alternative KPI in this area might be: Annual average % of pupils absent per school lesson.

iii) Evidence should be obtained by inspecting registers taken at the start of every lesson. If this data were input in electronic form, then calculating the % of pupils absent from each lesson should be straightforward. This would be the total number of pupil-lesson absences as a % of the total number of pupil-lessons attended.

Participation in Sport

i) Number of trophies won by school sports teams.

It is possible that a school more of whose pupils participate in school sports may win more trophies than one of whose pupils fewer participate in sports. This is, however, a poor measure of participation.
It is possible that pupils may participate in school sports without affecting the number of trophies won. Many pupils may participate without ever winning a trophy or contributing to trophy-winning teams. These pupils should be included in any measure of participation.

A better measure might therefore refer to the amount of time spent playing sport, and to the proportion of pupils who play it. Focusing on time, one might measure the number of pupils playing sport for at least three hours per week. Focusing on the proportion of pupils participating, one might measure the percentage of pupils playing at least some (e.g. one hour) sport per week.

ii) An alternative KPI in this area might be: Annual average % of pupils playing sport for at least two hours per week.

iii) On the assumption that sport is played in Physical Education lessons, both the average attendance of these lessons and their average weekly duration would need to be verified. Attendance could be extracted from registers kept in lessons, calculating the proportion of pupils attending lessons for the year to generate an average per week. Duration could be assessed by inspecting school timetables for evidence of lesson duration.

Uniform

i) % of pupils whose school uniforms are in line with regulations.

This KPI is less problematic than many of the others given. Its chief defect is that it fails to take account of the underlying population of the pupils attending the school, and in particular the lack of economic means of many of their families.

Put simply, it is possible that many of those pupils whose uniforms are not in line with regulations are in this state because their parents cannot afford to buy them new uniforms as required. The KPI needs to take this into account, for example by measuring only the percentage of pupils not receiving free school meals.

ii) An alternative KPI in this area might be: % of pupils not receiving free school meals whose school uniforms are in line with regulations.

iii) This KPI should be tested by recalculation of the required percentage, adjusting for pupils receiving free school meals. Procedures here would include selecting a sample of pupils for inspection in respect of their uniforms, perhaps at unannounced dates during the school year.

b) Publishing Report after laying it with the Speaker of Parliament

The reports of the Auditor General are not draft reports. They are final report duly signed for distribution. The law has it that Parliament should have it first. However, parliament does not control the work of the auditor general. The auditor General is functionally and administratively independent of the parliament and the executive. The audit service law states that auditor general’s report should be published as soon as the reports have been presented to the Speaker to be laid before Parliament. The timeliness and the frequency of the report assures the general public of the independence and the accountability of institutions established to ensure that those charged with the country’s natural resources are held accountable.
The Auditor General is therefore, not wrong for publishing the report after a copy has been given to the office of the speaker before it is laid with the Public Account Committee for discussion.

The issue of mistakes in Audit Reports
The question does not lie with the publication just after the report has been laid with the speaker. The issue is with the quality of the auditor-general’s report itself. If mistakes are uncovered during the sitting of Public Accounts Committee, then the report was not properly reviewed before finalization.
Mistakes can occur in audit report for various reasons;

• Poor planning resulting from none appreciation of the auditees functions and programmes,

• Poor execution of the audit work due to poor audit methodology,

• Poor quality staff,

• Use of standards which have already been revised

• Poor appreciation of standards.

• Typographical errors, etc.

However, poor audit reviews can cause much havoc since all the undetected mistakes will form part of the report. It is therefore necessary for proper review system to be put in place to cure incessant mistakes in the auditor general’s report. Audit work should be properly reviewed. The reviewers should be senior staff with professional qualifications and experience, who can appreciate the objective and the functionality of the institutions being audited. The reviewers should have enough time for the review work. They should have enough time to question the work being evaluated to satisfy all skepticism, check accuracies and reasonableness of all findings and recommendations and make sure all guidelines and checklists and procedures are followed before passing the audit work for completion.

The quality control section should also be strengthened to ensure that standards and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the work performed by audit staff meets the required quality standard of a reputable audit institution.

Where an audit work needs expert supervision, effort should be made for engagement of an expert to advise, supervise and review the audit work. This will instill professionalism in the service delivery of the institution.

The National Audit Office should also have stringent procedures, programmes, standard forms, checklist etc., that when followed, can help the audit staff to assess auditee institutions and perform independent work to ensure that an audit work is done thoroughly to the standard of best practice.

There is the need for Audit Service to train their staff to perform to the standard of best practice, this calls for periodic training. Audit staff should be assessed on each work they perform to enable them to know their weaknesses and be helped correct the weaknesses on subsequent jobs. In a situation of lack of adequate staff to complete the work on time hence, audit work is done in hasty, more audit professional should be employed. if it is necessary for audit service law to be amended for the reporting time to parliament to be moved forward so that good work can be done, that should be advocated for action to be taken.

c) State Audit Institution (SAI) enhances its transparency in a number of ways, including the following:

1. SAIs perform their duties under a legal framework that provides for accountability and transparency. – SAIs should have guiding legislation and regulations in terms of which they can be held responsible and accountable.

2. SAIs make public their mandate, responsibilities, mission and strategy public – The SAIs make publicly available their mandate, their missions, organisation, strategy and relationships with various stakeholders, including legislative bodies and executive authorities.

3. SAIs adopt audit standards, processes and methods that are objective and transparent. SAIs adopt standards and methodologies that comply with ISSAI 100 Fundamental Principles of Public-Sector Auditing.

4. SAIs apply high standards of integrity and ethics for staff of all levels. SAIs have ethical rules or codes, policies and practices that are aligned with ISSAI 130 – Code of Ethics.

5. SAIs ensure that these accountability and transparency principles are not compromised when they outsource their activities. SAIs should ensure that contracts for outsourced activities do not compromise these accountability and transparency principles.

6. SAIs manage their operations economically, efficiently, effectively and in accordance with laws and regulations and reports publicly on these matters. SAIs employ sound management practices, including appropriate internal controls over its financial management and operations. This may include internal audits and other measures.

7. SAIs report publicly on the results of their audits and on their conclusions regarding overall government activities. SAIs make public their conclusions and recommendations resulting from the audits unless they are considered confidential by special laws and regulations.

8. SAIs communicate timely and widely on their activities and audit results through the media, websites and by other means. SAIs communicate openly with the media or other interested parties on their operations and audit results and are visible in the public arena.

9. SAIs make use of external and independent advice to enhance the quality and credibility of their work. SAIs comply with the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions and strive for continued learning by using guidance or expertise from external parties.