CONCLUSION The SAM was designed to provide quantitative and qualitative information on the status of the proposed KPIs. It is also meant to provide answers on baseline information for the Member States. The survey attracted responses from seventeen Member States. Based on the results from these respondents, one may conclude that there is much diversity in levels of preparedness for use of the proposed indicators. Moreover, most countries are prepared to report aggregate values and performance by sex on the indicators that have been proposed for access and participation in BE. These are the indicators that cover participation in ECE, net enrolment rates, completion rates and survival rates. The inference is that these indicators may be immediately used for target setting and monitoring in the results framework. There are, however, two glaring exceptions that should be noted. One involves the need to ensure that National Statistical Offices provide credible single-age intercensal population estimates (disaggregated by sex, geographic regions) otherwise it poses a challenge for computations and comparisons. The second issue is that Member States appear not to have a practice of monitoring changes in location or geographic parity indices. One explanation offered is that the rural urban divide is blurred in small island states like most of the countries in the Region. Another is that the classification of districts into rural and urban communities has not been formalised and, in some cases, it has been deemed inapplicable where monitoring of performance in education is concerned. Of course, the issue is further exacerbated by the fact that some Member States are multi-island countries. Presumably, these do not exhaust the list of explanations. But whatever the reasons, Member States may wish to pay closer attention to bridging gaps in performance where students may be disadvantaged because of inequity in services or resource allocation that is linked to their geographical locations. The results for the quality indicators are slightly different. Generally, the countries are ready to monitor and report on aggregate values and values by sex for trained teachers, as well as the percentage of secondary graduates with five or more subjects, including mathematics and the official language. But the same is not true with reading and mathematics. The reports indicate that while 59 % of reporting Member States are ready to provide data on achievements in reading for students of Grade 6, there is little or no data collection and analysis from standardised national assessments in Grades 2 and 3. At most, only five countries have demonstrated limited readiness for monitoring performance at those levels; albeit 41% of Member States show readiness for Grade 4. The situation is worse for mathematics and the capacity to report achievement of minimum proficiency levels in lower secondary. Arguably, it is also worthwhile to note the gendered differences that favour girls and their growth in visibility during the transition from primary to secondary. However, one can conclude that while the quality indicators may be used for target setting and monitoring, there is certainly a case for structured discourse on enhancement of readiness and decisions on the scheduling of implementation.
60
READINESS FOR ACTION: THE BASELINE AND SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS REPORT FOR PHASE I OF THE CARICOM HRD 2030 STRATEGY
