Guidelines for Education Sector Plan Preparation and Appraisal

November 2012

Established in 2002, the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) is comprised of more than 50 developing countries and over 30 bilateral, regional, and international agencies, development banks, private sector entities, teacher associations, and local and global civil society groups. The GPE provides developing-country partners the incentives, resources, and technical support to build and implement sound education sector plans. Members of the partnership mobilize and coordinate resources to support the achievement of the targets of these plans by helping more children enroll in school and attain a better education. By promoting dialogue among its partners around shared objectives, the unique partnership model fosters mutual accountability and encourages transparency at all levels. Its support strengthens the growth of entire education systems in developing countries, while ensuring that the flow of external education financing is tracked and coordinated to reduce aid dependency.

The UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), created in 1963, supports governments in planning and managing education systems so that these may achieve national objectives, as well as internationally agreed development goals. The IIEP develops sustainable educational capacity through the following: Training of professionals in educational planning and management through a wide range of approaches, from short-term intensive courses to long-term training; face-to-face, blended, and distance training; and tailored onsite training Evidence-based research that helps anticipate innovative solutions and emerging trends in the development of education systems Technical assistance to ministries of education and other institutions that enables countries to make the most of their own expertise, while minimizing reliance on external organizations Sharing knowledge with all actors in the education community, including the IIEPs wide range of resources (1,500 books, manuals, policy briefs, and thematic portals on education issues)

Part of the United Nations system, IIEP functions routinely at the local, regional, and international levels, together with renowned public and private organizations, and actively participates in numerous networks to achieve its mandate and its missions.

2|P a g e

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION THE EDUCATION SECTOR PLAN: PREPARATION GUIDELINES Principles of the effective preparation of an education sector plan 1. What are the essential characteristics of a credible education sector plan? 2. What are the essential elements in the process of plan preparation? An overview of the phases in the preparation of an education sector plan 1. Phase 1: Education sector analysis 2. Phase 2: Policy priorities, key strategies, and plan targets 3. Phase 3: Program design 4. Phase 4: Implementation arrangements and capacities 5. Phase 5: Costing and financing of the plan 6. Phase 6: Development and financing of an action plan 7. Phase 7: Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms APPRAISAL Appraising the development process of the education sector plan 1. Education sector plan preparation process 2. Stakeholder engagement Appraising the education sector plan 3. Education sector analysis 4. Plan design Appraisal of implementation and readiness 5. System capacity 6. Governance and accountability 7. Risks to implementation and the mitigation of risks ANNEXES AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Annexes Additional resources 5 7 8 8 8 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 25 25 25 25 27 28 29

3|P a g e

INTRODUCTION

At the World Education Forum, in Dakar in April 2000, more than 150 countries and organizations endorsed a framework for action to achieve six education goals.1 In September of that same year, the United Nations Millennium Summit reinforced the commitment by identifying the achievement of universal primary education by 2015 and gender equality in education as two of the eight Millennium Development Goals. In Dakar, the international community pledged that no country with a credible plan to achieve the Education for All goals would be thwarted by a lack of resources. Since then, the development of an education sector plan (ESP) has become a priority in many countries. ESPs present the policies and strategies of a countrys education reform and are considered the first step in the mobilization of additional resources. ESPs have become a crucial means for governments to signal to all potential investorsdomestic or international, private or publicthat their education sector policies are credible, sustainable, and worthy of investment. The consensus on the need for credible ESPs is strong. But what does a credible plan require in knowledge and capacity, education policies and planning, financing projections and monitoring? What does it require in terms of dialogue among governments, education stakeholders, and development partners within countries? The purpose of these guidelines is to assist countries in preparing credible education plans and guide development partners in appraising these plans. Countries may also consider the development of a transitional education plan. Separate guidelinesGuidelines for Transitional Education Sector Plan Development and Appraisal have been developed to address the needs of countries that are affected by conflict or in crisis. This document is divided into two parts: plan preparation and plan appraisal. Its primary audience is government and development partners.

See Education for All by 2015, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=42579&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
1

Organization,

Paris,

4|P a g e

Using the Guidelines These guidelines are not exhaustive. They should be adapted to the unique issues in each country. The guidelines for plan preparation address work in analysis, consultative processes, policy reform, strategy development, plan implementation, and monitoring. The guidelines for plan appraisal address the assessment of the strengths and areas for improvement of the plans, including follow-up actions during implementation. Endorsement by development partners signifies a commitment to align support around the education sector plan.

5|P a g e

THE EDUCATION SECTOR PLAN: PREPARATION GUIDELINES

These education sector plan preparation guidelines are based on two fundamental principles, as follows: Country ownership. Education sector plans are most likely to succeed if they are the result of a process led by the government and internalized by all national stakeholders. During the preparation and appraisal of the plan, one should pay attention to the quality of the preparation process, as well as to the quality of the plan. It is important that the process be fully participatory and include a range of stakeholders (such as civil society, teachers unions, other ministries, and so on), as well as the partners who will be in charge of implementing the plan at the local level. Capacity development. A successful plan depends on aligning with existing capacity and developing additional capacity during the course of implementation. Both elements are critical to supporting sustainable development. The plan preparation guidelines consist of two sections: The characteristics of a credible plan and a credible plan preparation process The steps in the production of an education sector plan

6|P a g e

Principles of the effective preparation of an education sector plan

1. What are the essential characteristics of a credible education sector plan? a. An ESP is guided by an overall vision . A mission statement indicates overall direction, including (i) the governments development policy, (ii) the approach the government will follow to reach its goal, (iii) the principles and values that will guide this approach. b. An ESP is strategic. It identifies the strategies for achieving the vision, including the human, technical, and financial capacities required, and it sets priorities. c. An ESP is holistic. An ESP covers all subsectors and should include formal and nonformal education. It recognizes the need for a balance among subsectors and reflects awareness that education takes place throughout life. The learner is defined as the central beneficiary of the education system, with recognized rights and needs. d. An ESP is feasible. An ESP is based on an analysis of the current trends and thoughtful hypotheses for overcoming financial, technical, and political constraints to effective implementation. Ownership by key stakeholders also has an impact on feasibility. e. An ESP is sensitive to the context. It includes an analysis of the vulnerabilities specific to a country. Vulnerabilities might include conflicts, natural disasters, economic crises, and so on. An ESP must address preparedness, prevention, and risk mitigation. 2. What are the essential elements in the process of plan preparation? a. A participatory process. The planning process should be accompanied by a policy dialogue that builds consensus on the development of the education system. It should be a participatory process designed to accomplish the following: Allow political leaders and technical experts to find a balance between political ambitions and technical constraints Raise awareness and gain the commitment of a wide range of education stakeholders

The process should involve selected ministries (especially the ministry of finance), various levels of education system administration, stakeholders in the education sector and civil society, nongovernmental education providers, and international partners. The involvement of these actors can occur through consultations during the plan preparation process and through structured discussions on drafts of the plan document. The local education group (LEG), chaired by the ministry of education, is a valuable forum for policy dialogue and to nurture the plan process. b. A well-organized process. If a participatory process is to run smoothly and involve a wide range of actors, it needs to be well organized and supported by clarity on the roles and responsibilities of these actors, especially the actors who lead and coordinate. The following structures may be particularly useful:2

In many ministries, such committees and groups may already exist, even if they carry other names. Other types of structures may be considered according to the context.
2

7|P a g e

A steering committee to oversee and guide the process. It would be composed, essentially, of senior ministry personnel, with the participation of other relevant ministries (for example, finance and planning) and development partners. A planning committee would coordinate the technical work, including bringing all ministry directorates and departments together. This committee might be led by a chief technical coordinator, generally the director of planning. The secretariat of the committee might be the strategic planning team, which would be responsible for preparing the draft education sector plan. Working groups would focus on specific themes or subsectors (for instance, teacher education, adult education, finance, monitoring and evaluation [M&E], and so on) and may be asked by the planning committee to draft specific sections of the plan.

c. A capacity-development process. Because plan implementation depends on a wide range of actors within the administration of the education system, from central administration to the schools, it is important that capacity at all these levels be addressed. Plan preparation is itself a form of capacity development. Work on drafting a plan and involvement in consultations are of great value in developing capacities and strengthening motivation. Capacity development includes setting up problem-solving systems to foster management consistency. Where external technical support is needed, it must be delivered through the government, support ministerial planning officers, and collaborate with the LEG.

8|P a g e

An overview of the phases in the preparation of an education sector plan

Plan preparation is an iterative process. Targets may need to be revised after they are tested against available and expected resources. Strategies may need to be thought out again when detailed programs are being developed. Implementation constraints may lead to the need to rethink targets and programs. During plan preparation, regular consultations with education administration personnel and stakeholders will take place. These may also lead to redimensioning and the redefinition of priorities, targets, and program details. Major considerations of this phase are political, relating to the degree of political buy-in of the plan; capacity, relating to the effectiveness of education administration and the skills of personnel; contextual, that is, the vulnerability to natural or human disaster; and financial, referring to the adequacy and predictability of financial resources. A plan preparation process should take from 12 to 24 months, depending on several factors, in particular whether or not a good information base exists, and whether this is the first education sector plan to be developed in the country. The following are the main phases of the ESP development process: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Education sector analysis Policy priorities, key strategies, and plan targets Program design Implementation arrangements and capacities Costing and financing of the plan Development and financing of an action plan Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

Phase 1: Education sector analysis The preparation of an ESP starts with a diagnosis of the sector and the sector context. Three key questions should be posed when undertaking this diagnosis: What lessons can be learned from past implementation experience? What needs to be included? What information is available? a. What should the sector analysis cover? The assessment of an education sector plan may be examined under various headings, reflecting the many elements that impact the performance of the plan. The following are core issues. i. Context analysis. The context analysis covers issues with a particular impact on education, which can be listed under several key themes, as follows: Macroeconomic context: general economic data, public resources, and their distribution across sectors Demographic context: population data, under-15 cohort population, rural-urban migration Sociocultural contexts: homogeneity of the population, the existence of marginalized groups, multiple languages, populations with low education demand (for example, among pastoralists) Politico-institutional context: political (in)stability, effectiveness of the public administration Vulnerability analysis: each national plan should assess the presence or the likelihood of risks, such as conflict, natural disaster, economic crisis, and so on, and their potential impact on the education sector
9|P a g e

ii. Analysis of existing policies. The purpose is to explore achievements under current policies and identify effective practices. This should examine the following: Explicit education policies, where they exist Implicit policies as reflected in the practical decisions made by the government and in the choice of ongoing education development projects Overall development policies that have a direct impact on education policies (for instance, policies reflected in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and national development plans) Large-scale partner-supported activities International commitments made by the government (for example, to the Millennium Development Goals, Education for All goals, Salamanca Declaration, and so on) and the extent to which these affect ESPs

iii. Analysis of cost and finance. It is important to examine financing trends (over a period of at least five years) to identify whether funding has kept pace with enrollment increases and whether funding has increased in line with inflation. Cost analysis is central to this examination. Unit cost comparisons are useful (with due attention to equity), as are explorations of community and private contributions. These comparisons will also be used for financial simulations. In the event of a major sector plan revision or expansion, an education public expenditure review is worth considering. This exercise tells where the money is going and who is benefitting from public investment. It also reveals unnecessary or ineffective expenditures and how greater efficiency might be obtained. iv. Analysis of education system performance. The following factors must be diagnosed in any education sector plan, with indications of the key questions to be answered: Access: Who goes to school, at what age, and what are the shares of each gender? Who does not go to school and for what reasons? Analysis should include data on marginalized groups: children with disabilities or children living in extreme poverty, working children, and so on. Internal efficiency: Are students completing the primary cycle? How many repeat? How many drop out? Equity: Is there equal opportunity to participate in schooling? Are conditions similar for all pupils? Quality of learning: Are the necessary conditions for quality learning present? Is the curriculum relevant? Are students mastering basic skills? External efficiency: Are learning outcomes relevant to the aspirations of parents and students? Do students find relevant employment after graduation? What are the opportunities in the labor market? Management: How is the system managed? What are the responsibilities of central, district, and school administrations? To what extent are central resources efficiently transformed into school-level deliverables?

All subsectors should be analyzed: preprimary, primary, secondary, tertiary, formal, and nonformal. v. Analysis of system capacity. This is an analysis of the systems fitness for its purpose. It examines the effectiveness of the education administration (in particular, the ministry and the ministrys regional and local offices) and the competencies of staff. The functioning of the ministry (at central, district, and school levels) is examined to see if it is effective, efficient, and adequately professional. The roles and responsibilities of each position should be clearly stated and understood. The profiles of individual officers are looked at to assess competencies to undertake expected tasks.

10 | P a g e

Capacities can be analyzed not only within the education system, but also within the private sector, civil society, national and international nongovernmental organizations, and multi- and bilateral agencies. b. What information is available? This key question is addressed through four key steps: i. First, relevant secondary data need to be collected and analyzed. In most countries, much information already exists, for instance, through the education management information system, through education sector reviews and specific research exercises, and through household surveys. Documents such as national Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and ministry of finance or ministry of planning documents may be viewed through an education lens to assess their relevance to the education system. The available information may be sufficient to complete a significant part of the diagnosis. Special attention should be paid to service delivery in schools (for example, public expenditure tracking surveys, studies of effective learning time, and so on).3

ii. Second, the remaining information gaps need to be identified, and the importance of these gaps must be assessed. For instance, the absence of disaggregated information on who is out of school makes it almost impossible to prepare an effective plan. iii. Third, depending on the significance of the information gaps, some primary data collection and analysis may have to be undertaken for missing information that is essential to completing the diagnosis. In many countries, the main education challenge has been to ensure quality teaching and learning. Data and information on this theme are often limited. Primary data collection may have to be undertaken, for instance, on teacher support and control systems, classroom practices, teacher performance, and student learning. Early consensus should be reached on how such data will be collected. iv. Fourth, not all the missing data can be collected within the time available for the diagnosis. If such is the case, one component of the plan may be the development of a comprehensive information system. The absence of complete data sets should not deter the planning process where good estimates can be made. To build a strong diagnosis, all key stakeholders should be consulted at various steps of the process so that there is agreement on the key issues, the main determining factors, and the tentative conclusions. Phase 2: Policy priorities, key strategies, and plan targets It is necessary to agree on (i) broad, long-term policy orientations and goals, (ii) a limited set of priorities, and (iii) major strategies for reaching the goals. The diagnosis will have identified key challenges. Policy priorities should be linked to these. The identification of priorities is the outcome of the dialogue between political and technical viewpoints. Public policy debates can often help clarify critical issues. To define realistic strategies and targets, it is advisable to carry out the following: Develop education projections and a financial simulation model. This will give an indication of the feasibility and cost of achieving the targets and allow decision makers to explore several financial scenarios. The basic parameters in such a model include population projections, economic development indicators, financing indicators (for example, the share of education in the budget), unit costs, and education parameters (such as class size, teacher-pupil and pupil-textbook ratios, salaries, and rural incentives).

For a review of available studies, see PETS/QSDS Data Portal (database), World Bank, Washington, DC, http://pets.prognoz.com/prod/.
11 | P a g e

Undertake a stakeholder analysis. The objective is to identify all stakeholders in the sector, as well as their relative strengths and experience. The analysis may clarify the extent to which programs are adapted to the expectations of the main stakeholders (including trade unions, political parties, and parents).

The choice of policy priorities will be influenced by the social development priorities and international commitments of the government. Most countries have committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goals on education and the six Education for All goals and targets. Policy priorities need to be accompanied by precise targets and translated into key strategies. These need only be general at this stage. Phase 3: Program design Policy priorities and strategies must be translated into priority programs. Each of these should have clear targets and outcomes and, where possible, be translated into key activities with activity targets. There are many ways of developing strategies (see the resource section). Strategies usually have the following elements: Goals (overall objective: for instance, increase access to preprimary education) Targets or specific objectives (for example, raise enrollment in preprimary education from 25 to 40 percent) Program(s) (develop preprimary education policy and guidelines, teacher training, for example) Activities (a national workshop for policy development, establishing teacher training institutions, and so on)

A goal-target-program-activity process could have the following structure:

GOAL OBJECTIVES

Improve the Quality of Basic Education Student achievement improved by 20% PROGRAMS

PROGRAM 1

In-service teacher training system established

PROGRAM 2

National student assessment system established

Activities

review all current inservice programs develop in-service curriculum (diploma level) develop in-service delivery system, and so on

Activities

set up assessment technical committee establish minimum standards for literacy and numeracy pretest literacy and numeracy assessment instruments, and so on

12 | P a g e

When all targets have been set (for all subsectors) and all programs and key activities have been outlined, a feasibility check might address the following questions: To what extent are the estimated costs compatible with the financial resources expected to be available? To what extent are the objectives and priority actions coherent and compatible with each other? The feasibility check may lead to a reassessment of priorities and strategies and to alternative or complementary strategies. Stakeholders should be involved in this phase through technical participation in working groups or other appropriate structures. At the end of this phase, a broad consultation process should be launched to draw out the final comments and suggestions of stakeholders. Phase 4: Implementation arrangements and capacities The next step in the preparation of the ESP consists of defining the implementation arrangements and ensuring that the necessary capacities are available. A more detailed action plan is drawn up once the overall ESP has been costed (see Phase 7). Implementation arrangements Key questions here are who is responsible for the overall implementation of the plan and who is responsible for specific programs. Responsibilities and accountability need to be clearly identified. They should be as close as possible to the usual responsibilities of ministry departments. A good organizational chart helps show the overall structure of the ministry and the lines of authority. The organizational chart should be in harmony with the ministrys structure. It may be necessary to set up new structures as in the case of the plan preparation process (see above). The joint steering committee will be in charge of assigning implementation responsibilities and overseeing the overall implementation at the policy level, while a strategic monitoring team will coordinate daily implementation. Implementation capacity The ability of the ministry to implement its plans depends on a number of factors, not all of which are under the control of the ministry; some are the result of overall government policies. An analysis of the capacity for plan implementation needs to examine the following: Public sector management and institutions: the quality of budgetary and financial management, the efficiency of revenue mobilization, the quality of public administration and civil service management, transparency, and accountability in the public sector The effectiveness of educational administration: clarity of roles and responsibilities, link between roles and structures, communication and coordination, and monitoring and evaluation The competencies of individual officers: qualifications, skills and training, incentives

The draft education sector plan should be reviewed against each of these factors. For example, the efficiency of revenue mobilization may be a particular concern if the plan relies heavily on the governments capacity to raise internal revenue. In the same way, it is important to reflect on the question: to what extent can implementation be efficiently ensured by the management capacities of the ministry (at the central and decentralized levels) and its partner organizations?

13 | P a g e

Depending on the replies to such questions, it may be necessary to rethink the plans objectives and ambitions and to include in the plan a capacity development chapter that addresses the core capacity constraints in the system. Phase 5: Costing and financing of the plan The costing of the plan The costs of the ESP will be examined at regular intervals during plan preparation using projections and a financial simulation model. Cost estimates may lead to a rethinking and adaptation of the targets and programs of the plan. The cost of the education sector plan depends on the following: Policy objectives: Translated into targets, these almost always concern enrollment rates and internal efficiency ratios (for example, increasing the access to early childhood care and education by 20 percent or increasing the transition rate between primary and secondary education to 90 percent); these targets will also include qualityrelated indicators (for instance, increase the share of qualified secondary-school teachers to 90 percent) Assumptions on resource use: for example, textbooks per pupil ratios, pupils per classroom ratios, shares of pupils in double shifts Assumptions on cost items: for instance, teacher salaries, the cost of a classroom

The assumptions should be made explicit so that the cost estimate can be calculated more easily. Using these targets and assumptions, a full cost estimate can be broken down by subsector and category of spending. It is useful if the cost structure of the plan can also be determined in line with the budget structure because it would then be possible to link to the medium-term expenditure framework. The financing of the plan Resource availability should be carefully considered during the development of the plan. If a funding gap remains between the costs of the plan and the expected budget from domestic and external resources, strategies should be revised. Household contributions should not be relied on as a funding source for basic education. To project the domestic resources available for education, a macroeconomic framework should be used to review economic growth, fiscal pressure, and the allocations to sectors. Funding gaps are calculated by identifying the difference between the costs of the plan and the potential domestic resources available for education. A review of the potential funding provided by development partners should be undertaken, whether these are channeled through general or sector budget support or through earmarked funding for selected activities. The remaining gap, if any, represents the additional support that must be sought. If the funding gap appears to be too great, strategies have to be revised to reach an appropriate level. There may be an opportunity of finding more cost-effective implementation strategies. For example, a given donor may have high unit costs, and it may be possible to reduce these costs through dialogue and by sharing information on best practices. In other cases, unit costs may be reduced through more effective programming and greater synergy. It may be possible to decentralize or delegate certain activities if the decentralized or delegated education offices have the necessary funds and capacities to undertake these activities effectively. If these solutions do not narrow the resource gap to a reasonable level, revisions to the policy options and targets may be needed.
14 | P a g e

The final scenario and financing plan included in the ESP will reflect the conclusions on the iterative consideration of the actions planned and the available resources. Phase 6: Development and financing of an action plan The action plansometimes referred to as implementation plan or an operational planis prepared on a programspecific basis. It follows the same structure and logical framework format as the program matrices, but is more detailed. It is the element that provides the link between strategies, programs, and resources, and it also provides information on timing, roles, responsibilities, and unit costs. A robust action plan increases the probability of successful implementation. In most cases, the action plan is organized around the objectives in the results framework. The action plan or implementation plan generally includes the following information for each activity: A clear statement of the activity. This will serve as a reference point in developing a work plan. The program objective that the activity is supporting. This information shows the reader the relationship between the activity and the results framework. It ensures that activities support agreed priorities. Time period. This shows the extent of the match between the annual costs of activity implementation and the available funding. The quantity of the outputs (for example, the number of teachers trained, the number of classrooms built). This information is critical for the annual implementation report; it confirms the target for a given activity in a given year. The unit cost. This information is a reference point for the annual implementation report. Education planners, decision makers, and partners will want to know if the implementation strategies have been efficient. The overall cost of the activity. This is the quantity multiplied by the unit cost. The cost of all action plan activities needs to be within the overall envelope of resources identified in the education sector plan. Source of funding. It is important to use only those sources of funding that are actually available or are likely to be available based on current projections. Depending on the modality of the support of development partners, some sources of funding may be managed outside the regular national budget process or by local governments, nongovernmental organizations, or other entities. If activities funded by these entities are part of the ESP, they should appear in the action plan. The financing information associated with the action plan needs to be compatible with the financing plan (see Phase 5). The entity responsible for implementation. This information shows the responsibility for each activity. The entity listed as responsible for activity implementation should initiate funding requests in time for implementation. The action plan also includes the output indicator from the program or results framework to which the activity is contributing. If there are activities that do not correspond to output-level indicators in the results framework, it is still useful to provide indicator-type information that will show if or when the activity has been implemented.

The process of developing an action plan also requires dialogue, as follows: Between the government and development partners: It is necessary to obtain as much information as possible on all forms of external funding. In the past, most donor funding went to projects, and most of the costs were off-budget. Most donors now fund within the context of an education sector plan, and many will soon join pooled arrangements or fund through general or sector budget support. All on-budget and off-budget amounts should be identified.
15 | P a g e

Among offices inside the ministry of education: There must be close collaboration among education ministry technical directorates and finance and planning offices. Between the ministry of education and the ministry of finance: It is particularly important to create close links between the preparation of the annual plan and the preparation of the annual budget to ensure full compatibility between the two, thereby facilitating efficient plan implementation. Between the government and local actors: Many countries now grant more autonomy and authority to school committees. This can improve accountability, but may have policy and budgetary implications that need to be considered within the promotion of a fee-free framework.

The process of the development of the action plan facilitates prioritization among activities and involves trade-offs. If financing gaps are identified during the action plan development process, the revision, postponement, or cancelation of lower-priority activities will need to be undertaken. The ability of the ministry of education to implement its plans depends on a number of factors, not all of which are under the control of the ministry; some are the result of overall government policies (see Phase 4 on implementation arrangements and implementation capacity). The draft education sector plan should be reviewed against each of these factors. For example, the efficiency of revenue mobilization may be a particular concern if the plan relies heavily on the governments capacity to raise internal revenue. In the same way, it is important to reflect on the extent to which the implementation of what is being proposed can be efficiently ensured by the management capacities of the ministry (at the central and decentralized levels) and its partner organizations. The action plan will then be fully costed according to the above parameters. Depending on the size of the funding gap, it may be necessary to rethink the plans objectives and ambitions or to include in the plan a capacity development chapter that addresses the core capacity constraints in the system. Phase 7: Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms Monitoring and evaluation are critical to ensuring that the plan is on track to achieving its targets. An effective M&E system should ask whether the intended activities are being carried out as designed and whether the targets of the plan are being achieved. The following paragraphs address the M&E arrangements and the key indicators. a. The first step is to ensure the organization and procedures of monitoring. A unit or department in charge of overall monitoring is necessary to ensure consistency and coverage. The education management information system section of the ministry is the engine of the monitoring process because it collects and analyzes data delivered from all levels of the system. The most important monitoring activities are as follows: Routine monitoring within implementing departments: plan implementation will be monitored through structured meetings within the various departments based on the targets and indicators contained in work plans that derive from the approved action plan. Similar monitoring procedures need to be put in place at the decentralized levels of management. Periodic reviews by the monitoring team or monitoring unit: short standardized performance reports should be produced by the same departments at regular intervals using the guidelines and tools provided to them by the
16 | P a g e

monitoring committee. The reports might be submitted to the committee to review progress, examine constraints, and recommend corrective action. Regular reports might also be requested from the decentralized levels of management. Annual review with stakeholders: the monitoring team or monitoring unit should prepare a consolidated annual performance report. This will serve as the basic document for the joint sector review, which should assess achievements and shortcomings and agree on improvements. Each joint sector review should serve as an input to the following years annual action plan (including the budget).4 The annual report should use the same format as the annual action plan and include unit cost, quantity, and overall cost information for each activity, as well as information on the progress in achieving the targets set out in the ESP. The same indicators should be consistently measured from one annual review to the next. Overview of the Monitoring and Evaluation Process

Education- term Medium plan Sector Plan Final review & evaluation Rolling Plan Mid Mid - term review

+ MTEF

Annual operational Action Plan plan

+ Budget

Day to day monitoring

Annual Annual Joint Sector review Review

Periodic internal Regular internal reviewing reviewing

b. Evaluation Evaluation is usually carried out at midterm and at the end of the plan period. Often, it is carried out by independent personnel to guarantee objectivity. An evaluation tests the premises upon which the education sector plan is built and provides guidance for future plan development. It may lead to rethinking the plans priorities and targets fully. The intent of the final review is not only to evaluate impacts and outcomes, relevance, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability, but also to analyze the reasons certain results have been achieved and not others and to derive lessons for policy revision and for preparing the next medium-term plan. c. Key performance indicators An essential tool in M&E is the indicators that are linked to the targets and that reflect target achievement. A considerable number of indicators will have been identified in the different program matrices, and these will serve as the basis for program-specific monitoring processes. However, for the purpose of monitoring the performance of plan implementation, a limited set of key indicators should be presented in a results framework.5
4 5

If an annual report is prepared on year n, it will be produced in year n + 1 and will influence the annual planning process for year n + 2. For the GPE framework, see http://www.globalpartnership.org/media/docs/aid_effectiveness_2011/Results_Framework_Website.pdf.
17 | P a g e

The selection of these indicators will have to take into account a certain number of requirements, as follows: Key indicators should mainly relate to the outcomes of the education system. They should concentrate on measuring results in terms of overall goals, objectives, and targets, without neglecting important direct output indicators (such as the number of schools built) or input indicators (such as the percentage of the national budget devoted to the education sector). They should be limited in number, preferably no more than 20. This is important to help focus on priority actions. They should provide information about disparities within the performance of the education system. Indicators must be gender disaggregated and should provide information about marginalized or vulnerable groups. The list and the definitions of indicators should remain stable during the plan period (even if some finetuning is necessary) to measure progress consistently over time. The indicators should be easily understandable by decision makers and nontechnical users.

All indicators should be agreed and accepted by stakeholders and development partners to ensure smooth coordination and cooperation. While many ministries succeed in collecting the necessary information to calculate key indicators, it is most important to use the indicators to identify the areas in which progress is being made and to understand and address the causes of the lack of progress. This may require, in addition to indicators, reliance on qualitative information, such as information collected by supervision departments or through research. An M&E system is only effective if it influences policy and strategic planning.

18 | P a g e

APPRAISAL

The development partner group within the LEG is part of the process of education plan development.6 The group is responsible for producing the appraisal report that is shared with the government before the report is submitted to the Global Partnership. The appraisal is the basis for endorsement by the development partners, which in turn signifies their commitment to align their support to the ESP. The following questions are intended to help the group assess the overall plan and to identify gaps requiring additional research and close monitoring during implementation.7 The general questions the appraisal would seek to answer are as follows: Does the plan contribute to the achievement of education sector goals? Is there a significant likelihood that the targeted outcomes of the plan will be achieved? If there are risks, how will they be mitigated? Has the plan preparation process been participatory and transparent?

The appraisal implies a need for interviews and field visits, in addition to a desk review of the ESP. The following guidelines for the appraisal are organized into three sections: the plan process, the plan design, and implementation and readiness. An appraisal summary table template is provided (see annex C) to facilitate the presentation of the main findings.

The development partner group includes the partners of the government that are supporting the country in developing and implementing an ESP. The development partner group and the government also participate together in the LEG. 7 Refer to Country-Level Process Guide, http://www.globalpartnership.org/media/GPE_Country_Level_Process_Guide_Aug_2012.pdf.
6

19 | P a g e

Appraising the development process of the education sector plan

1. Education sector plan preparation process General question: have the principles of plan preparation been respected? To what extent do the planned objectives correspond to the priority objectives of national development, poverty reduction strategies, and the medium-term expenditure framework? To what extent is national ownership reflected in the ESP? Was there consistent leadership of a national team in developing and writing the ESP? Was there a broad participation by a range of stakeholders in civil society, teachers unions, decentralized levels of government, nongovernmental education providers, development partners, and others during the plan preparation? Are the outcomes of stakeholder consultations adequately reflected in the ESP? Were the plan preparation and consultation processes inclusive, that is, did they involve the people and groups responsible for program implementation, particularly at the decentralized and school levels; relevant branches of government; public interest groups; civil society organizations; nongovernmental education providers; and direct stakeholders such as teachers, administrators, parents, and students?

2. Stakeholder engagement General question: what are the levels of commitment and accountability among relevant local stakeholders and development partners? What was the role of the LEG in the preparation of the plan? How do local stakeholders such as universities, civil society, and nongovernmental education providers plan to support the implementation of the ESP? Did partners provide technical support during the plan preparation process? If yes, what kind of support? Was this support coordinated with the LEG? How will development partners align their support to the ESP?

20 | P a g e

Appraising the education sector plan

3. Education sector analysis General question: What empirical evidence was available for the development of the plan and has this been used effectively? Are the available data sufficiently comprehensive and reliable for the purpose of defining baselines and targets? Has a recent education sector analysis been conducted? Does the analysis cover the key areas of the education system (access, internal and external efficiency, equity, quality, management)? Does the education sector analysis identify the vulnerability of the education system to political, economic, social, and environmental risks (and, if necessary, has a vulnerability analysis been conducted)? Are the results broadly shared and known by key stakeholders? What other studies or analyses were used to prepare the plan? What baseline values for the sector analysis already exist? How accurate are they? What other baselines need to be collected?

4. Plan design General question: Are the proposed priorities and programs sufficient to reach the goals? Do priorities take into account the risks and constraints faced by the education sector? 4.1. Policy priorities Are the strategic policy and plan priorities informed by the empirical evidence presented in the sector analysis? Do the priorities take into account projections and financial simulations? Is there a comprehensive knowledge base for each of the strategic priorities? Or is a process built into the ESP to address the data and knowledge gaps? Are there reliable and sufficient disaggregated baseline data to enable target setting and make progress in monitoring in each of the strategic priority areas?

4.2. Program design and prioritization of strategies Do the strategies take into account the lessons learned from past policies and implementation experience?8 Is there evidence that the proposed strategies and interventions will have the expected impact? Are the proposed strategies and interventions sufficient relative to the targets set? Do the proposed strategies mitigate the vulnerability of the education system to political, social, and environmental impacts as identified in the sector diagnosis? Do the strategies and interventions reflect an efficient deployment of the resources of public, private, and external development partners relative to impact? Were alternative strategies considered? Are clear descriptive or quantitative outcomes laid out for the planned strategies and programs that demonstrate impact?

The LEG is asked to provide a bibliography of the relevant sector analyses as an annex to the appraisal report.
21 | P a g e

Are targets set for each of the marginalized and at-risk groups (such as underserved communities, girls, the poor, children with disabilities, orphans, children in hard to reach communities, ethnic minorities, refugee and internally displaced populations, and children affected by HIV and AIDS)? Does the ESP include a strategy to ensure equity in the provision of basic inputs across these groups, including targeted fiscal transfers as appropriate? Does the ESP provide an inclusive approach for mainstreaming support to marginalized groups? Are the strategies and interventions well defined and sufficient to address the constraints in each of the priority areas? Does the ESP address the key constraints to improved learning? If the health status of children is limiting the ability of children to learn (including the psychological impacts of conflict or malnutrition because of food crises resulting from natural disasters), is this addressed in the ESP? Does the ESP clearly summarize or define the links among the planned inputs and the expected impact of the ESP over the medium term (for example, in a logical framework or economic analysis)?9

4.3. Plan financing General question: is the financial plan adequate and credible? Does the financing plan take into account all sources of funding? What is the volume of domestic funding? Is there a comparison with domestic funding in other countries in the region? Is the projected domestic financing based on the countrys macroeconomic framework? If not, are the assumptions regarding growth in public expenditure and the allocations going to the education sector reasonable in light of recent experience? Are the targets and costs of postprimary education described in the ESP reasonable in relation to the goals in primary education? Is there an integrated financial analysis or projection that ensures goals can be delivered within a reasonable domestic financial envelope? If domestic financing is insufficient, are the needs for donor contributions quantified? Are there mechanisms for the consistent reporting to all stakeholders on available resources and expenditures? Does the financing plan include strategies to mitigate the vulnerability of the education system to political, social, and environmental impacts as identified in the sector diagnosis?

4.4. Monitoring and evaluation General question: will the M&E system provide robust indicators and valid and reliable data to monitor the progress toward the achievement of the inputs, outputs, and outcomes described in the results framework and are the reporting, feedback, and consultation mechanisms transparent and adequate to maintain broad ownership during implementation?
9

Does the plan contain key indicators for M&E? Is there a results framework? Is there a clear presentation of priorities? Are institutional responsibilities for reporting clearly identified? Is there sufficient human resource capacity to implement the M&E arrangements?

Inputs are defined as the financial, human, and material resources required for implementation. Outputs are the products, goods and services that result from the programs interventions. Outcomes are the expected short- and medium-term effects of the program. Development impact is the long-term social and economic effects of the program.
22 | P a g e

Are the arrangements and processes by which government will report to all stakeholders and by which stakeholders will review and validate the M&E results articulated clearly and are they sufficient and transparent? Does the M&E framework provide for a review of donor and civil society organization support? What is the role of the LEG in M&E arrangements? Is reporting during annual joint sector reviews planned? Will the M&E arrangements support the utilization of M&E data in decision making and resource allocations? Does the M&E framework of the ESP include the monitoring of strategies to mitigate the vulnerability of the education system to political, social, and environmental impacts as identified in the sector diagnosis and program design? Does the M&E framework include the basic indicators of the GPE Results Framework?10 If not, have the key areas been identified in which capacity should be built up to provide better information (for example, on learning outcomes)?

4.5. Development and financing of an action plan11 General question: is the education sector plan accompanied by a detailed action plan? Is a three-year action plan available? Is there a process in place for the subsequent preparation of annual action plans? Is there consistency between the design of the ESP and the action plan, including strategies to mitigate the vulnerability of the education system to political, social, and environmental impacts? Are the activities clearly identified and costed? Are the indicators and target outputs described for each activity? Have resources been identified for all activities? For activities without an identified source of funding, is there a strategy for identifying additional funding sources? Is the proposed action plan realistic? Does it include consistent reporting and evaluation indicators that can be assessed during annual joint sector reviews? Are the volume and timing of the expected disbursements realistic relative to absorptive capacity (for example, relative to recent experience, relative to plans to strengthen implementation capacity, and relative to the available capacity to manage higher expenditure, particularly in decentralized settings)? Do the institutional structures identified to implement the ESP include clearly designated responsibilities for results and mandates for each activity?

See http://www.globalpartnership.org/media/docs/aid_effectiveness_2011/Results_Framework_Website.pdf for the GPE Results Framework. 11 Or implementation plan or operational plan.
10

23 | P a g e

Appraisal of implementation and readiness

5. System capacity General question: does the plan identify and address capacity constraints that would affect plan implementation? Are the needs in personnel and skill development in central and decentralized contexts sufficiently considered in the ESP? Does the ministry have clear definitions or job descriptions of the roles and responsibilities and the corresponding profiles of education personnel at various levels? If not, is there a plan to develop them? Are resource allocations to decentralized levels adequate in relation to the respective roles in implementing the ESP?

6. Governance and accountability General question: are there strategies in place to improve and establish good governance practices and management accountability across the system? Is there a robust communication strategy (or plans to develop one) to help stakeholders at all levels understand the objectives, strategies, and activities of the plan and the role of stakeholders in implementing these? If the plan foresees a significant increase in the transfer of resources to subnational units and schools, does it indicate how this will be done, and has attention been given to ensuring equity, efficiency, accountability, and predictability? If gender imbalance in educational management has been identified as a concern, are there strategies in the plan to address this concern? In what ways does the ESP aim to strengthen accountability before beneficiaries? (For example, is there a set of service delivery standards that are monitored? Does the ESP propose to draw on instruments for community feedback such as community report cards or social audits?) To promote transparency, is there provision for third-party evaluations, disclosure of and easy public access to ESP monitoring and audit reports, data, and evaluations? Are effective strategies included to monitor education expenditure and leakage (for example, through sector expenditure reviews and the expenditure tracking of resources distributed or disbursed to schools)?

7. Risks to implementation and the mitigation of risks General question: does the ESP design take into consideration possible risks and constraints in implementation? Have potential risks in financial governance been sufficiently assessed and appropriate mitigation measures identified? Have all contextual (political, social, or environmental) risks associated with the implementation of the strategies been adequately analyzed and addressed? Do the resources and incentives outlined in the ESP have the potential to support implementation and progress toward the expected results? Have implementation capacity constraints at all levels been assessed, and are appropriate strategies included in the program to address these?

24 | P a g e

ANNEXES AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

25 | P a g e

ANNEX A Summary of appraisal

Very Satisfactory Education Plan Development Process Education Plan Preparation Process Stakeholders' Engagement Education sector Analysis Plan Design Policy Priorities Programme Design and Prioritization of Strategies Plan Financing Monitoring and Evaluation Development and Financing of an Action Plan Appraisal of Implementation Readiness System Capacity Governance and Accountability Risks to Implementation and Mitigation

Satisfactory

Room for improvement

Comments

Education Plan

26 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

General Plan Development UNESCO Education Planning and Simulation Model (EPSSim) http://inesm.education.unesco.org/en/esm-library/esm/epssim UNESCO National Education Sector Development Plan: a results-based planning guide http://unesdoc.unesco.org/7735964A-0566-43A4-8E50-5F38AB12BA61/FinalDownload/DownloadIdBDDF3C6F807BA8B068C492E8BE8B12C1/7735964A-0566-43A4-8E505F38AB12BA61/images/0014/001447/144783e.pdf IIEPs Working papers on strategic planning http://www.iiep.unesco.org/capacity-development/sector-planning-support/strategic-planning-working-papers.html Aid Effectiveness Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf OECD 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Survey Guidance http://www.oecd.org/dac/pdsurvey Fragile States INEE Minimum Standards Toolkit http://ineesite.org/uploads/documents/store/doc_1_INEE_Toolkit_-_Education_and_Fragility.pdf International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP) Guidebook for Planning Education in Emergencies and Reconstruction http://www.iiep.unesco.org/?id=1475 ETF/INEE/GTZ Capacity development for education systems in fragile contexts http://www.etf.europa.eu/pubmgmt.nsf/(getAttachment)/278378C19FEA93D6C1257611002F8192/$File/NOTE7UV HDR.pdf

27 | P a g e

Vulnerability GEP Tools and Guidelines http://www.educationfasttrack.org/FTI-at-Work/vulnerable-groups/ IIEP-UNESCO: Guidance Notes for Educational Planners: Integrating conflict and disaster risk reduction into education sector planning

Assessment of Learning Outcomes GPE Tools and Guidelines http://www.educationfasttrack.org/FTI-at-Work/learning-outcomes/ World Bank http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/0,,contentMDK:22808581~menuPK:2823 91~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282386,00.html OECD PISA http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html OECD TIMSS and PIRLS http://www.timss.org/ Capacity Development GPE Guidelines for Capacity Assessment and Development http://www.educationfasttrack.org/FTI-at-Work/capacity-development/ IIEP series on capacity development http://www.iiep.unesco.org/capacity-development/capacity-development-strategies/range-of-studies.html

28 | P a g e