Annex 6i ESDF Performance Assessment Framework

1 Purpose

1 The Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) describes the components of ESDF progress assessment. These components relate to principles, focus, responsibilities, organisation, timing, indicators of progress, monitoring and reporting instruments, cost categories, and capacity building requirements for ESDF performance assessment. The PAF document will become the mutually agreed framework for all stakeholders to measure progress on the ESDF should this become the basis for medium term action. The reports from the performance assessment processes under the PAF may also generate the content of MOE sector reports to the rest of government.

2 The ESDF is an umbrella of policies, strategies and targets for the whole of the education sector. It is intended to be implemented through the government annual sector operational plan which will be projected forward on a five-year rolling basis1 as a medium-term strategic plan within the ESDF framework. The PAF will monitor this operational environment and provide inputs into the continued direction and priorities of the process.

3 The ESDF was developed within the frameworks of the Vientiane Declaration, the NSEDP, and Education For All. As a result, ESDF assessment will measure performance in relation to the principles, policies and higher-level targets of these documents as well.

4 In the early stages, the PAF will not have a significantly coordinated programme to monitor. In practice, however, the various PAF instruments will serve as a framework within which to assess all education investments in terms of ESDF policies, whether they are intended to achieve these or not. The PAF itself is not an instruction manual for how to conduct programme monitoring but a set of instruments to be used selectively to measure progress in areas of interest or concern.

5 Similarly, in the early stage, it is hard to link the sector-based ESDF PAF with wider general or sector budget support (GBS, SBS) processes other than known triggers relating to PRSO. The common use of PAFs to determine fixed funding and performance-related variable funding will require more agreement down the line between government and development partners on programme funding modalities, and alignment with government disbursement, reporting and accountability mechanisms. Eventually, PAF timing needs to be linked with donor-investment decision-taking.

6 However, in common with GBS performance assessment, the ESDF PAF is intended to promote harmonization, alignment, reduction of transaction costs, and improvements in predictability.

7 The PAF, at this stage, is a general set of instruments for ESDF, assuming a ‘broad-front’ implementation – i.e. the ESDF is an integrated package rather than a menu of policy commitments. Because of uncertainties with regard to ESDF funding2, the PAF is likely to have to be adjusted for the actual programme of implementation and focus on what is being funded rather than the broad front. For this reason, the Policy Action Matrix (PAM), which sets out annual policy action milestones, cannot be completed until the extent of the ESDF implementable under sustainable funding is known.

8 The PAF will start as a purpose-built process to provide strategic direction to the ESDF in its opening phases. The ESDF itself proposes a heavily renovated sector performance monitoring system embedded in government, and, as time goes on, the business of performance monitoring will be taken over by government systems. However, for the medium-term, a renovated sector monitoring system of government should be regarded as an outcome of the ESDF rather than a means to monitor it.

2 Principles

9 The PAF is driven by a number of underlying principles:

 Rationalisation: an efficient and straightforward system of collective monitoring by all stakeholders, led by the GoL, which reduces the administrative burden at all levels

 Harmonisation: a single framework for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on all GoL education activities

 Co-ordination: a single forum for stakeholder discussion of progress and assessment of follow-up measures

 Stability of resourcing: the measurement of progress in the context of longer term commitments

 Standardised measures of progress: a single agreed set of performance indicators and outcomes

 Focus on impact: progress measured by improvements in education service delivery – i.e. outcomes relating to access, quality and governance

 Linking with remedial actions: i.e. closing the circle – a complete cycle from monitoring, evaluation to remedial action. The process of the PAF is completed when recommendations arising from M&E activities are fed into strategic and operational planning

10 Development of the sector in Lao PDR through improved access, increased quality and improved planning and management is, at present, largely ODA financed and project driven, particularly at basic education levels. Procedures have involved each donor separately working, in conjunction with MOE, to identify sector needs that match donor mandates. These current procedures take the form of assistance for needs surveys, project identification missions, advisory technical assistance teams, etc.. These processes take very significant amounts of government time, at central and local levels, especially since each donor has its own feasibility, design, and PCM procedures.

2 At the start of the ESDF, the most likely scenario in sight is a mixed picture of funding – i.e. an uncertain level of increase in the state budget for education, an uncertain result, reliability or scale of funding relating to FTI submission, unknown additional finance through government mechanisms (whether SBS, GBS, pooled or project). While FTI focuses on primary (or basic) education, what will be the response of MOF with regard to other sub‐sectors, if FTI uses a sector funding mechanism rather than GBS? It is, therefore, very difficult to envisage a ‘broad‐front’ implementation of the ESDF actually taking place. Because of the inter‐relationships between ESDF policies, it is equally difficult to see how a selective implementation can occur without compromising the ESDF as a sector framework.

11 If there is a policy shift at donor headquarters, then donor assistance in-country might rapidly move between sub-sectors – for example from basic education to higher education. This creates difficulties for MOE since funding levels are not predictable over time.

12 The ESDF is intended, within a few years, to become the framework within which the government and all donors plan their investments in the education sector. Some development partners may invest directly through the government budget with targeted activities managed by the government using regular or enhanced implementation means. Other donors may continue with project-managed funding. However, it is expected that all investments, either on- or off-budget will be directed at the single purpose of achieving ESDF outcomes. The ESDF will enable all future aid to be embedded within one integrated development framework thus providing predictability and stability of resourcing. In order to achieve this, a well-defined consultative process for all levels of education and the development partners will be needed.

13 As an instrument for tracking performance of the ESDF, the PAF inherits its characteristics, scope, and also the complications which come with these. The PAF focus will not be on individual projects, or individual government outputs but on the impacts that the priority policies defined in the ESDF are having as a whole. As a result, the ultimate objective of the PAF is to provide a collective, impact-level assessment of all investments under the ESDF umbrella, based on agreed key performance indicators, and expressed in simplified reporting mechanisms for all ESDF stakeholders. The end-result will inform modifications in strategic and future operational planning.

14 Initially, alignment of government and donors with the ESDF may be quite low and will be, to some extent, fortuitous. However, over time, there is an expectation that all GOL funding and ODA will be completely in alignment with the priority policies described in the ESDF. Monitoring compliance with the ESDF by the PAF will provide the ESWG with diagnostic information that will allow ESWG to strengthen donor and government support for the ESDF through advocacy and peer pressure to avoid failure of the ESDF.

3 Assessment Focus Of The Paf

15 ESDF assessment needs are both internal, relating to the educational outcomes of the activities, and external, relating to the performance of the ESDF as a process guided by its principles.

16 The questions the PAF addresses at these two levels are the following;

 How is the sector performing in terms of its ESDF policy objectives?

 Is the ESDF on track to achieve these objectives?

 For each of these ESDF objectives, what have been the main achievements over the year?

ESDF Outcomes

 What are the main outputs that have been delivered by the ESDF over the year (based on the Sector Operational Plan)?

 What evaluations have been conducted and what results did they report?

 Should the policy priorities of the ESDF be changed?

 What operational adjustments are needed for the coming year (to be included in the next SOP)?

The ESDF as a process

 What is the proportion of financing by GoL and Donors that is directly/indirectly/not linked to ESDF priority policies?

 How strong is ownership of the ESDF by different stakeholders?

 How compliant has it been with other overarching commitments (the Vientiane Declaration, the NSEDP, and EFA)?

 How stable has sector/sub-sector financing been (GoL & Donors) over the period of the ESDF?

 To what extent is ODA finance making use of government systems of budget, expenditure, accounting, and reporting? What impact has this had?

 What is the progress towards the 16% target of public expenditure to the sector, and what has been the leverage factor of the ESDF relating to this?

 How well do actual sub-sector budget shares match those projected in the ESDF?

 What are the trends for spending on administration, sub-sector, non-salary at school level, and TA, as a percentage of ODA and what are the implications of this?

 To what extent have the ESDF consultative, collaborative, and joint assessment processes reduced the burden of donor management for government?

 What progress has been made against the ESDF gender equality, pro-poor and inclusive education principles?

17 The questions above will guide content of the Joint Review and/or Annual Sector Reports.

18 The Joint Mission Report will report at the level of the questions above. The format of the report will be agreed between the MOE and DPs.

19 However, the MOF and other levels of government will require a report on activities and achievements on the government Sector Operational Plan, including both government and project activities, inputs, and expenditures against budget lines. This requirement will be fulfilled by an updated regular reporting system and/or the Annual Sector Report, which will include the JRM report.

4 Operational Framework

20 The PAF is not a plan for performance assessment implementation but a framework of process and tools to be shaped to the actual context of ESDF implementation, once funding arrangements and operational planning have been finalised. At that stage, the PAF can be further fine-tuned for the specific conditionalities of the funding sources.

4.1 IMPLEMENTATION

21 The main performance assessment activities for the ESDF are expected to be:

 an annual3 joint review mission (JRM), and a process to agree, finalise and report the results4,

 a periodic technical and financial progress reporting system (bi-annual, or continuous), using government reporting systems5 (enhanced to match ESDF &

3 This is an assumption. Given the significant logistics and costs involved, it may be decided to undertake a Joint Review mission less frequently, or rely on government or project reporting for some areas.

4 While the policy formulation underlying the ESDF is determined centrally, effective implementation is dependent on compliance of the Provincial Education Service (PES) and Provincial Government with the ESDF. As a result, each annual sector review should include a field trip to a province(s) where compliance is not strong. Such field trips should include discussions with both the Director of the PES and the Governor of the Province to identify challenges, issues and suggested modifications to the ESDF.

5 Reporting is likely to become a serious challenge. Existing reporting systems will not meet ESDF assessment requirements, even if adapted, and reporting lines may have been broken by deconcentration. It is unlikely that information systems can fill the gaps in real time, especially if they are based on a traditional annual census system. In any case, information systems do not fill the needs for local diagnosis and remedial actions. If there are government‐wide initiatives (or MOF) relating to accountability and performance, then these need to be explored for early adoption in the education sector. The ESDF stakeholder needs) which will assist the annual joint review to prioritise assessment targets.

 an annual sector report, in government report format, combining the ESDF JRM report with other ESDF and non-ESDF activities, and reported at activity, technical and financial levels, as well as the policy and outcome levels of the JRM.

 a mid-term review of the ESDF (3 years), focussing on whether adjustments are needed in policies, targets, indicators, and implementation arrangements.

22 Implementation of this will involve actions such as the following: Step Units involved Purpose

Preliminary

PAF acceptance process

(VMs, DPC, MPI, MOF, ESWG)

(VMs, DPC, DOI, ESWG)

 to agree on the function, indicators, and implementation among all donors.

PA initial setup

 stakeholder and participant briefing on the PAF scope, implementation arrangements, responsibilities, frequency, instruments (calendar, PA instruments, reporting), assignment by MOE of specialist staff to participate in the annual joint review (both MOE and PES levels)

Implementation of a progress reporting system

(MOE and PES led by DPC)

Annual Implementation

Annual initiation meetings and selection of target areas of concern

 development of revised reporting formats, agreement with stakeholders (esp. EWSG), dissemination of formats to all MOE units and PES, capacity building to implement improved reporting.

PA Mission Planning meeting

Organisation & logistics setup

(DPC & ESWG)

 to identify scope of assessment (i.e. which are the priority policy areas, areas of progress concern, priority provinces & districts, priority areas of the govt work plan, including target projects (if under the ESDF umbrella)), for the assessment period, based on progress reports to date.

Data/Information

Sourcing process

(DPC, DOI, ESWG)

(DPC, DOI, with MOE departments and PES heads)

(DPC, DOI, STEIC, SREAC, ESQAC)

 agreement process on PA mission participation, timing and budget. Request to Provinces for meetings and visits. Draft of implementation programme.

 issuance of PA mission finalised implementation programme and logistics arrangements made

 preparation of indicator data, collecting of relevant progress reports/surveys/research (govt & projects) relating to the assessment period, data classification by indicators in the ESDF M&E Matrix [B]

Joint Review (MOE (DPC,  provision of progress reports and indicator data document (section 5) proposes an elaborate vertical performance monitoring and reporting system but this will take some time to achieve.

Step Units involved Purpose

mission orientation meeting

DOI, STEIC, SREAC, ESQAC, Govt JRM team, PES & ESWG members of joint review) for previous periods to participating staff, briefing on scope, priorities, performance to date, and logistical arrangements

Implementation of a joint review mission

(MOE & PES units, supervised by DPC/DOI)

(DPC/DOI, JRM team)

 orientation and capacity building (in assessment skills, information collection, active participation, etc.) for national staff undertaking the review, field assessments by the JRM

De-briefing meeting

 brief verbal reports on activities & first impressions, review of report structure, agreement on analysis and report drafting responsibilities and deadlines, decisions on further assessment needs if any

Presentation of findings – 1

(VMs, DPC, DOI, JRM team leader, ESWG chairs)

 high level meeting to preview JRM team findings and resolve interpretation differences and other stakeholder differences if any

Presentation of findings – 2

(Minister, VMs, ESWG, JRM team, department DGs and Directors, MOF, MPI representatives)

 presentation of accepted findings and discussion of results. Agreement on short and medium-term remedial actions needed. Minutes listing required modifications of final report

Report distribution –1

(VMs, ESWG, department DGs and Directors, MOF, MPI representatives)

Report distribution –2 (stakeholders)

Initiation of the annual planning cycle

(DPC, MOE units)

 Submission of Draft Final report to the Minister. Subsequent discussion of Final Report and agreement on list of actions to modify the following year programme.

 regular DPC briefing on planning deadlines and formats, including ESDF remedial actions arising from the JRM.

These steps are sequenced in Error! Reference source not found., Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2 REPORTING

23 The outcome of the process above will lead to the Joint Review Mission Report comprising the performance assessment and remedial recommendations.

24 The Joint Review Mission Report will, inter alia, contain the following sections relating to the instruments of the PAF.

The areas of ESDF policies and strategies which have been selected for performance assessment for the

An analysis of the progress against the legislative and action milestones set for the reporting year, the reasons for successful achievement and under-achievement, and the knock-on effects and implications of under-achievement.

A more detailed look at the selected policies and strategies based on progress toward the outcomes itemised in the M&E matrix. An analysis of successes and impediments leading to recommendations for future actions.

An update of the core sector indicators by subsector and an assessment of trends. This will give a profile of the sector independant of ESDF or programme inputs. [

An assessment of the specific annual programme (govt SOP, FTI) against programme level interventions and targets Standards

Summaries of Learning Assessment, Quality Assurance, and institutional inspection annual reports

M&E section 4 & Donor Profile Matrix

An assessment of how the ESDF has had an impact on the sector resource management.

25 In principle, the JRM should be less interested in progamme activity level performance. However, in practice, it is common for the annual achievement to fall sufficiently far short of the projected targets that analysis tends to drill down to activity levels for explanations. In addition, at the policy level, outcomes may not show up in the indicators for some time, leading to an impression of lack of achievement.

4.3 GOVERNMENT SECTOR ASSESSMENT PROCESSES

26 The ESDF, at the beginning, is a programme which requires substantial system accommodation in terms of perception, process change, capacity building requirements and organisational adjustment. Its origins lie in the gap between national resources assigned to education and the needs for achieving milestone education targets. This gap has to be filled by a combination of increased government allocation to education and external official development assistance.

27 As a consequence, the process of ESDF performance monitoring has multiple stakeholders and must achieve a threshold level of accountability for development partners as well as government. Therefore, at least in the first few years, ESDF performance assessment will be the purpose-built process described above, with contributions from

6 It is unclear to what extend FTI activities will be integrated into the ESDF/govt processes – i.e. whether parallel planning and monitoring arrangements will be made, and whether there will be sufficient funding sources to implement other aspects of the ESDF regular government processes. However, a critical part of the definition of ‘alignment’ in the context of a sector-wide programme, is the extent to which planning, financing, management and monitoring processes used are those of the government. In the medium term, government processes should take over.

28 Government processes needed for a national sector monitoring capacity are;

 The government periodic/annual sector reporting process: this brings together the performance reports of educational levels, institutions and projects, aggregated as they are integrated into higher level reports. It reports on inputs, achievements and expenditures. To a limited degree, in provides indications relating to educational outcomes.

 Government specialist departmental reporting: periodic sector monitoring reports from Department of Inspection, Centre for Education Standards and Quality Assurance, Centre for Strategy, Research, and Educational Analysis, Directorate of Personnel, Research Institute ...). These provide reports relating to policy implementation outcomes, trends in learning achievement, school quality standards, and resource management.

 The government annual financial reporting process: this provides budget-unit level, and central aggregated reporting on expenditures by sector by annual plan categories (inputs, outputs) as well as on asset changes.

 The government financial control process: sample or full coverage internal audit which provides evidence of use of funds, and, if performance audit, indications of institutional expenditure behaviour

 The government sector assessment process: this brings together the evidence of the processes above, creates an annual picture of situation and trends, and draws technical, financial, policy and strategic lessons for the future.

29 In the early stages of the ESDF, government processes relating to the above are inadequate to serve effective sector monitoring purposes. Consequently, a medium-term capacity building programme for strengthening sector monitoring is included in the PAF (see Error! Reference source not found.). The programme addresses short-term capacity building requirements for implementing the PAF as a specific ESDF programme instrument. It also addresses the medium term need to transfer sector monitoring capacity into government by strengthening or reforming the processes, organisational arrangements, and staff capacities relating to building a government system of performance monitoring which can absorb ESDF PAF needs in the longer term.

4.4 RESPONSIBILITIES

30 Sector performance assessment is not the responsibility of one unit alone7. There needs to be overall coordination of the process, especially in producing an annual sector performance report, but the technical components of the report must be produced by the technical departments responsible.

31 The components and present assignment of responsibilities are indicated in Figure 1: Sector Monitoring Components below.

7 In Lao PDR, the formal assignment of responsibility for ‘Sector Monitoring’ has been given to the Department of Inspection Management. However, ESDF policy actions not only cover a modernisation of the concept of inspection, but also a reform of the sector monitoring system itself.

32 Responsibilities for the implementation of the PAF process described in 4.1 above are outlined below.

Level/Unit Responsibilities

The Minister and Vice Ministers of Education

Initiation, issuance of instructions, delegation of responsibilities, chairing and high-level coordination, decisions on outcomes and remedial and other follow-up actions ..

Standardisation of processes, indicators and reporting formats, PA planning (timing, size of mission, frequency, budget and funding arrangements), the assessment programme (including agreement with ESWG on priority areas of assessment (activities/indicators/locations), coordination with stakeholders, organisation of assessment missions (including logistics arrangements with line departments and Provinces), briefing of, and arrangements with PES, coordination with government led, and project-led M&E activities, coordination and consolidation of analysis and reporting (formats/timing/length/distribution/review and finalisation process), organisation of stakeholder discussions for results assessment, issuance of PAF reports, proposed revisions of PAM, or ESDF targets or contents

The Inspection Department (DOI)

The MOE service departments (STEIC, SREAC,

The overall coordination of the process of sector monitoring , and the organisation of field monitoring at provincial level and units under the MOE. The implementation of sample school inspection & collation of inspection reports. The coordination of the consolidated sector report (?).

Policy monitoring (SREAC), indicator servicing (STEIC), academic performance monitoring (ESQAC, RIES), quality assurance monitoring (ESQAC), information provisioncollection, analysis (STEIC), and technical report presentation, and financial performance of ESDF. Participation in the finalisatio of the consolidated sector report.

Provision of sub-sector assessment reports. Preparation of activities under departmental responsibility for assessment missions (assistance with logistics (with DPC), staff availability, site visits, liaison with counterparts in at provincial and district level (with DPC), information provision (periodic progress reports from different levels and units), subsector discussions on assessment results

Provision of provincial and project-level monitoring and assessment reports. Assessment missions, provision of progress reports as required by government, availability of staff, discussions on assessment results and interpretation, participation in assessment missions at local level

Participation arrangements, identification of priority assessment areas (activities/indicators/ locations), timing, logistics, representative participation in assessment missions, agreement with MOE on arrangements, provision of supplementary assessment funding if needed, contribution and support for analysis and assessment reports, agreement on remedial actions, implications for future actions ..

4.5 INSTRUMENTS

33 The instruments of the PAF are designed to provide multilevel and targeted performance monitoring. It is unrealistic to expect that the entire sector can be monitored for all policies and strategies every year. Consequently, review missions will select target areas of interest and concern and and apply the instruments to those areas.

34 Some of the instruments are very extensive, especially the M&E matrix. However, selective targeting of areas for monitoring and rational distribution of responsibilities for monitoring will mean

35 The instruments used in the implementation of performance assessment are;

 TABLE A: Policy Action Matrix – this provides the policy-level milestones relating to ESDF policy implementation and will is the core instrument for the overall assessment of ESDF at the policy implementation level. Two levels of milestone are given –legislative, and annual actions (Figure 2). It is expected that a section of the JRM or ESDF annual reports will summarise achievements at this level. Responsibility for policy monitoring lies with the SREAC who will therefore have the lead responsibility for maintaining this Matrix.

 TABLE B: M&E Matrix – this is the core of the PAF, establishing the standardised assessment criteria for policy, strategy, and programme level outcomes. This lays out the policies and strategies of the ESDF in terms of outcomes, and describes the indicators for each, baselines where available, information sources, responsibilities for the indicators, analysis criteria, data availability, and timing. It allows the ESDF to be assessed, and reported on, at three levels – policy, strategy, activity (if required) – and can be used to select and target specific areas (Figure 3). The M&E matrix is not the responsibility of any single unit but spreads across all implementing units.

 TABLE C: Reporting Matrix – this lists the key planning and reporting documents of the ESDF, indicating the level at which they plan or report, responsibility for reporting, report recipients, and timing.

 TABLE D: PAF Annual Process Chart – the annual process of PAF activities (preparation, JRM, analysis, reporting, feedback to planning). This diagram will assist in planning the annual events for performance assessments. The DPC has overall responsibility for the PAF process.

 TABLE E: Capacity Building for M&E/PA – activities being undertaken or needed which will improve GoL performance assessment capacity.

 TABLE F: Development partner ESDF alignment matrix – this Table profiles the modalities of ESDF involvement of each development partner and the degree of alignment between ESDF principles and donor practices. The DPC has overall responsibility for reporting on this matrix.

 TABLE G: Core Indicator Reporting Matrix to be maintained for the PAF – this Table itemises indicators by sub-sector to be maintained and reported on against the baselines and annual targets. This gives a snapshop of sector trends independant of, and not orientated towards deliberate interventions. The STEIC has the responsibility for maintaining the core indicators matrix and providing annual updates

1 Introduction

1.1 OVERVIEW

1 The ESDF preparation plan is designed to prepare government units for implementing the ESDF. The reasons such a plan is necessary are;

 government units need to be prepared for the substantial and relatively rapid increase in activities and resource management that ESDF implementation will bring.

 the ESDF policies and strategies need to be better known and their implications fully understood, adapted to local circumstances and sequenced before implementation can begin.

 government managers need to be prepared to lead their own responsibilities for ESDF implementation in the sector. This not only includes being able to explain the ESDF to others, but also to assist in building the capacity of implementing units involved in their areas of responsibility.

 government systems of resource management, monitoring, and reporting will need to perform well early in the ESDF implementation process. Weaknesses in these processes need to be addressed early.

2 Without good preparation, there is a risk that implementation bottlenecks will impede progress. This is an avoidable problem. The preparation plan therefore (in Stage One) targets ESDF awareness and understanding, core skills and knowledge preparing and enabling managers to lead and monitor implementation, and capacity building skills for leading agencies to support other implementing units at central and local levels.

3 Stage Two of the plan implements a series of capacity building and organisational strengthening activities prepared by the leading agencies in Stage One. For most of the activities, staff of the government lead agencies are themselves the capacity builders for the Stage Two.

1.2 ESDF DEVELOPMENT

4 The Education Sector Development Framework (ESDF) for Lao PDR has been through a development phase which has culminated in the signing of the document by the Prime Minister and accession to the FTI in April, 2009.

5 The development phase resulted in an ESDF document which describes the main education sector policies and priorities of the Lao government, and outlines a series of strategies (policy actions1) to achieve the policy outcomes.

6 The ESDF itself has been supplemented by a number of studies which have explored implications of the ESDF relating to institutional strengthening, human resource development, and inclusive education. These studies resulted in recommendations which are intended for consideration in the formulation of implementation plans.

7 Following the development phase, the ESDF has entered a transition-toimplementation phase. The main activities of this phase are;

 reorganisation of ESDF management (government & development partners) to include greater focus on implementation.

 mobilising and orientating the main funding sources towards ESDF as the umbrella framework for investment.

 organisation of sector funding to be channelled through government budget mechanisms in order to fund ESDF activities.

 development of ESDF implementation monitoring tools in preparation for implementation – i.e. the Performance Assessment Framework (incorporating the Policy Action Matrix, and Monitoring and Evaluation Matrix).

1 For the purposes of this document, the terms ‘strategies’ and ‘policy actions’ are synonymous.

 development of an ESDF Preparation-for-implementation Plan to prepare both individuals and units to implement the ESDF (this plan).

8 The Implementation Phase itself will begin when the government annual and rolling sector operational plan receives an injection of sustainable funding from the MOF permitting significant government-led, and ESDFdefined activities to be implemented. Whether this final phase is achieved depends on a number of assumptions outlined below.

1.3 ASSUMPTIONS

10 The ESDF is in the transition phase from development to implementation. However, implementation itself rests on a number of assumptions; i.e.

 the majority of donor-lenders, especially those which provide significant financing for the education sector, accept the ESDF, and its implementation proxy, the government sector operational plan, as the focus for support.

 significant funding, channelled through government, will be available to implement the 2010/11 government sector operational plan. This may come under a different heading (e.g. FTI, General Budget Support, Sector Budget Support) but will, in terms of the content framework, be directed at aspects of the ESDF related to the funding purpose.

 if funding comes through external sources via the government budget, it will allow a balanced implementation of ESDF priorities – i.e. ear-marking for big spending activities does not dry up funding for ‘softer’ items, or ear-marking for primary education does not prevent funding of other subsectors2.

 the government sector operational plans will rapidly reflect increased funding for government targeted, government-led and government-managed activities following and ESDF implementation strategy, and a significantly reduced reliance on projects to implement improvements.

2 A PRSO trigger for 2010 is that the government ‘implements the ESDF’. However, it is not clear what this means in practice. Does it require the government to move forward on all ESDF policies – i.e. on a broad front? The opening scenario of ESDF is a mixed picture of funding – i.e. an uncertain level of increase in the state budget for education, an uncertain result or scale of funding relating to a forthcoming FTI submission, unknown additional finance through govt mechanisms whether SBS, GBS, pooled or project. While FTI focuses on primary (or basic) education, what will be the response of MOF with regard to other sub‐sectors, if FTI uses a sector funding mechanism rather than GBS? It is, therefore, difficult to envisage a ‘broad‐front’ implementation of the ESDF taking place at start‐up. Because of the inter‐relationships between ESDF policies, there is also a risk that selective implementation may compromise the ESDF as a sector framework. There are still many unresolved issues relating to ESDF start‐up.

 where project-based implementation processes continue, the MOE and PES will develop mechanisms for improved targeting or redirecting of project activities so that they are part of the strategies and sequence of activities for implementing the ESDF.

 funding allocation takes into account the government capacity to absorb and does not become preoccupied with underspending at the expense of sensible planning.

11 The ESDF preparation plan invests in improving government knowledge, skills, organisational adjustments needed to implement ESDF policies and strategies, and has to assume that the means and environment to do this will be enabled in the short term. At present, however, there is relatively little activity undertaken outside projects and managed by government units. De-projectising government plans through significant increases in government managed funding in the major sub-sectors, is a key early strategy for ESDF implementation.

12 Developing capacity building and organisational adaptation plans creates expectations among implementing units. The environment of the transition stage has not clarified whether or when funding will be channelled into the ESDF, a sub-set of ESDF policies, or an alternative framework. Neither is there certainty of funding for the preparation plan implementation itself.

13 If these uncertainties remain, the ESDF preparation plan will seem to have been misdirected. This environment will need to change for the ESDF plan to become viable.

2 The Preparation Plan Context

2.1 PURPOSE

14 The ESDF Preparation for Implementation Plan (ESDF PP) combines the two main requirements of ESDF start-up;

[A] capacity building for ESDF implementing units – in effect, all units – to understand the policies and strategies of the ESDF, their own roles and responsibilities in implementing aspects of the ESDF, and how to translate these responsibilities into action plans for the short and medium term.

[B] institutional and organisational adjustments needed to implement ESDF effectively.

15 When the term ESDF Preparation Plan is used in this document, it refers to both capacity building and institutional change. The two have been combined into one concept because, where organisational change or reform3 is involved, it is inseparable from capacity building support activities – i.e. organisational change in government does not happen unless supported by capacity building for the change – and because process change, which is the most significant management change requirement of the ESDF, involves a package of activities relating both to organisation and capacity.

16 The development phase of the ESDF occurred largely in 2008, and involved a subset of staff in the education sector. During the development of these preparation plans, it became evident that there is a need to spread awareness of the ESDF and deepen understanding of the intentions of its policies and strategies.

17 The initial concept of an ESDF Preparatory capacity building and organisational change Plan made some assumptions with regard to the state of knowledge and commitment to the ESDF by implementing units. Because of a weaker than expected foundation, the main initial objective of the ESDF Preparation Plan will be to address this problem.

18 During the development period of this ESDF preparation plan, the MOE, with the assistance of ADB ESDF TA, put together its first sector operational plan as a PRSO trigger condition, with the broad summary tables of the ESDF being used for FTI accession. The first draft of this plan has revealed that the majority of activities declared under departmental headings are project managed, project delivered, and project funded. The lack of investment funding has also concentrated government management on recurrent budget management, particularly relating to teachers.

3 The term ‘organisational change (or adjustment, adaptation)’ has been preferred to ‘institutional reform’ for a number of reasons. It matches the scope and freedom of action (relating to institutional change) of a single ministry better, the ESDF does not itself envisage institutional ‘reform’ except through a series of steady service improvement activities over time, and, except in very rare cases, ‘reform’ is a complex process usually beyond the capacity of a sector without wider government movement. The wider dependencies associated with ‘reform’ are too unpredictable at present for a preparation plan to prepare for.

19 This has a number of implications the most relevant of which, in terms of ESDF preparation, are;

 the present education management system and staff are largely unused to preparing for, planning, managing, or monitoring substantial educational resources under government systems4,

 many departments have not had to lead their respective areas of responsibility beyond participating in project activities. Projects have acted as de-facto implementers and coordinators. Though the integration of some project programs into activities under departmental management has kept government management active to some degree, full responsibility from the planning to the outcomes is still relatively limited.

20 This, in turn, presents a double challenge which makes a preparation programme a priority, whether for ESDF as a broad front of activities, or a partial implementation under the FTI umbrella – i.e.

 there is a need to prepare managers to take on increased direct responsibility for major implementation activities under government systems, whether through planning, managing, or monitoring.

 and, at the same time, there is a need to strengthen the capacity of managers to lead and build the capacity of implementing units under their areas of responsibility

21 These two objectives form the basis for the preparation plan. As a result, it is a simple plan. It provides a straightforward framework for managers, collectively, to work out what the government has signed up to, acquire ownership of it, decide how it can be implemented, and strengthen key skills and knowledge needed for to implementation – and then, to assist subordinate and partner units to prepare for implementation.

22 It is, therefore, government education managers who make their own plans to implement the ESDF to meet the objectives and targets set down. The preparation plan provides a guided and supported opportunity to do this.

23 The plan does not extend to capacity building and institutional changes needed to implement ESDF policies themselves. That is the business of the ESDF over the medium term.

24 It is intended that the programme of activities that the plan contains will be implemented in the fourth quarter of 2009 should funding be available.

2.2 PLAN OVERVIEW

25 The plan is founded in the immediate post-development phase context – i.e. it begins with the state of knowledge and attitudes of implementing units towards the ESDF.

26 This context is characterised by;

 a lack of knowledge about the ESDF purpose, particularly at provincial and local levels, but with significant gaps at central level also,

And government systems in education are not themselves geared towards managing substantial investments.

 a lack of detail at all levels about ESDF policies, issues, choices, preparation needs and how to develop implementation plans,

 substantially projectised government work-plans, and limited management of government investment resources,

 considerable knowledge held by lead and implementing units of the issues, needs, and challenges throughout the system

 a need to assign responsibilities for ESDF strategy implementation to government units,

 a need formally to fit ESDF implementation into organisational TOR,

 a need to find solutions appropriate to government structure for ensuring the inter-unit coordination necessary for ESDF policy implementation,

 a need to develop a clear management, monitoring and oversight role for lead agencies,

 as part of this role, a need for the lead agencies themselves to become the main capacity providers

27 Addressing these start-up conditions requires a two-stage solution (see Figure 2). The first stage of activities is directed at;

[A] preparing ESDF policies and strategies for implementation – i.e. it will ensure that lead agencies at central and provincial levels understand the ESDF itself in detail, and breakdown the policies and strategies into their expected outcomes, linkages with other policies and strategies, legislative requirements, issues, adaptation needs, phasing and sequencing, and implementation responsibilities – thus strengthening ownership over it. This process will also need to address issues relating to lack of clarity, and real prioritisation of ESDF policies and strategies in terms of sequence and affordability.

[B] strengthening key sector management enabling skills in preparation for leading ESDF implementation – e.g. strategic and operational planning, legislation drafting, sector monitoring processes and networks (i.e. policy implementation monitoring, standards and quality assurance monitoring, learning assessment monitoring, institutional inspection, programme and resource management), assignment of responsibilities for ESDF processes, programme coordination and management5, sector analysis and reporting, organisational analysis, organisational change management, human resource management (with special reference to teacher deployment), training programme preparation and training techniques (capacity building skills). The focus of the strengthening activities will be on the specific requirements of the ESDF, especially those which are less familiar to education managers.

5 This refers to the management of major government activities such as construction, block grant management, or scholarship management. It does not imply that ESDF should have special programme management arrangements using PIU/PMU/PCU – though this may be considered by the government.

[C] providing a framework for leading agencies, as part of their management roles, to predict capacity building and organisational change requirements needed by all (partner and lower level) implementing units to be able to implement the ESDF, and prepare a preparatory programme to address these needs, including training and guidance material.

28 These first stage activities enable the second stage to take place. The second stage is directed at preparing all units for ESDF implementation. Second stage activities will consist of lead agencies carrying out the ESDF preparation capacity building and organisational adaptation plans for all implementing units. Second stage activities will address the following needs;

 ensuring a widespread knowledge of the ESDF policy framework and implementation strategies,

 ensuring that responsibilities for implementing the strategies and the communication processes needed are well understood,

 ensuring that all organisations have the legal mandate to undertake their responsibilities,

 ensuring that key technical competencies, systems and processes needed for actual implementation are strengthened.

29 The content of these second stage capacity building, process and organisational strengthening activities will have been identified in stage one, and necessary input materials into working sessions and workshops also developed. However, the ESDF preparation plan will provide checklist considerations to be used during stage one activities to design stage two.

30 A key principle of the preparation plan is that the leading agencies of government are the main capacity building source for ESDF implementation. This is appropriate for a programme mode of implementation, and in accordance with the revised roles and responsibilities of the MOE and provincial authorities following deconcentration. In general, the MOE no longer implements education directly, but is responsible for oversight, educational content, monitoring and sector assessments of progress and issues.

31 Because awareness of ESDF is still uncertain even among leading agencies, the Stage ONE activities will ensure that they have the ability to lead the rest of the sector preparation. In order to support this process, national and international consultants will be needed selectively to facilitate, provide technical inputs, and assist in capacity building materials development.

3 Content

32 The ESDF cannot be treated as project implementation where almost all activities are supported by external funds6. In principle, it is the main business of the education sector from the 2009/10 academic year. While the ESDF preparation programme is a special capacity building programme run with external assistance, it is designed to update and orientate the regular work of government units towards implementing ESDF policies. Much of the initial stimulus activity may occur in workshops, but the bulk of the work will be done back in offices or in the field.

3.1 SELECTION, PRIORITISATION AND GROUPING OF KEY POLICIES, STRATEGIES

33 The focus of the Preparation Plan is on the capacity and organisational change needs of units in order to be able to plan for, manage and implement ESDF policies. However, some ESDF policies and strategies need more preparation than others for a variety of reasons, some are sufficiently familiar as to need no extra attention, and some will continue to be implemented under project management in the medium term and can be left for project supported capacity building.

6 This is particularly true since ESDF implementation will require a significant increase in GoL funding for recurrent expenditures.

34 Because of the way the ESDF document is written, there is no definitive solution for classifying the policies and strategies. The M&E Matrix in the ESDF Performance Assessment Framework, and the listing given in ANNEX 1 List of ESDF Pillars, Policies and Strategies organize them into a clear set of groupings, with inevitable overlaps since some policies and strategies serve more than one Pillar.

35 All ESDF policies and actions are stated as ‘priorities’ in the document – i.e. as very important to the education sector. There is no discussion with regard to priority choices – i.e. which of the ‘priorities’ are more urgent either in terms of sequence or affordability. This is an important missing element for ESDF preparation purposes since it impedes targeting of capacity building.

36 For implementation purposes, issues relating to clarity, linkages and priorities of ESDF policies and strategies need to be sorted out. Strategies are interlinked and prioritised through explicit conditions (e.g. block grants with abolition of fees), or implicit (e.g. the relationships & dependencies between education minimum standards, curriculum change, textbook revision, and learning assessment). Consequently, for preparation planning and capacity building, an analysis of the implications of policies and strategies needs to clarify their scope, categorise these according to dependencies and linkages and examine them as groups of related actions rather than separate policy actions. (See ANNEX 2 Selected ESDF Policy and Strategy Groups).

37 The policies and strategies of the ESDF can also be classified according to the degree of change they represent over the existing situation. Those that are extensions or enhancements of existing actions will require less capacity building than those which represent new directions, require new processes, skills, or organisational changes. Moreover, the ESDF proposes several ‘leverage’ policies7 which are intended to bring about significant changes in the sector. These need careful analysis for implementation purposes.

38 Furthermore, though the ESDF (and SWAp programs in general) is fundamentally concerned with re-empowering government units to manage education through government systems, certain sub-sectors, parts of sub-sectors, and areas of the country, will remain dominated by project funding and management8 for the foreseeable future.

39 Consequently, for preparation purposes, the grouped policy actions have been prioritised according to the degree of innovation and change they imply, and the extent to which they will need to be managed by government rather than project systems. The preparation programme will not need to cover all in the same level of detail.

40 Clarification, prioritisation9, and sequencing of ESDF policies and strategies can only be done by government senior managers. Stage One of the preparation programme provides senior education managers with the opportunity to undertake this process.

3.2 STAGE ONE ACTIVITIES

41 Stage One activities are outlined in the Figure 3 below. It is sequenced in three substages;

 ESDF Basics: providing an overview of the purpose and contents of the ESDF

 ESDF enabling skills: directed at developing overall sector management and monitoring capacities

 Capacity development skills: directed at strengthening training and materials development capacities of leading agencies to conduct or organize key capacity building activities for other, particularly local, units.

7 Most notably the use of block grants, and the introduction of progressive promotion. Other policies relating to teacher management are clearly ‘leverage’ policies but are adjustments of existing practices and, in practice, many not turn out to be ‘leverage’ because they cannot be implemented without significant compromise.

8 In particular, TVET.

9 i.e. relating to affordability and sequencing

Lao PDR ESDF Sector Study: Final Consultants’ Report - Annex 6ii

42 The follow-up programs described extend the activities into the Stage Two programme for implementing units at local levels.

43 The programme is described in detail, including activity content, resource requirements and timing in ANNEX 3 Stage One Activity Matrix.

ESDF Preparation for implementation Stage ONE

To ensure that all leading agencies are aware of the purpose and content of a sector programme

DPC SREAC, DPO Support TA

DPC

All MOE Depts & Centres Support TA

A workshop series to understand the key ESDF strategies in detail and make a CB plan for implementing units

DPC, SREAC DOF, DPP, DSE, CEWED, TVET, others Support TA

ESDF Basics

Preparatory working sessions

WORKSHOP ONE

The ESDF

Preparatory working sessions

WORKSHOP TWO Key ACCESS Strategies

DPC, DOEI SREAC, DPO, DPP, DSE, TVET, others Support TA

DPC, DOEI SREAC, ESQAC, STEIC, DPO, DPP, DSE, others Support TA

For technical groups to undertake specific skills capacity building followed up by on‐the‐job ESDF preparation

Lead experts of technical groups Support TA

DPO

Staff identified by the preparation team Support TA

Staff involved with legislation drafting and approvals processes Support TA

DOEI, SREAC DOEI, SREAC, RIES, ESQAC, STEIC; DPC, DOF Support TA

This workshop prepares for the five follow‐up session on the next page. They are all related to developing a sector monitoring system

WORKSHOP THREE Key QUALITY Strategies

ESDF Overview (DPC)

Selection of key Policies & Strategies for analysis for Workshop 2 (SREAC)

Unit Responsibilities for ESDF & Sector Programme Mechanisms (DPC/DPO)

Regional sector programme experiences (DPC)

Block Grant and Abolition of fees (DPP)

Progressive Promotion (DPP)

Pro‐poor scholarships & subsidies management (DPP)

Support policies for remote schools (DPC)

Preparation of CB programme for implementing units

Standards, curriculum, textbooks and learning assessment reform

Teacher demand planning & Teacher recruitment and deployment systems

School and student performance monitoring

Preparation of CB programme for implementing units

Planning & Information Systems strengthening

WORKSHOP FOUR Key MANAGEMENT Strategies

ESDF Enabling Skills for Leading Agencies

Preparatory working sessions

Legislation Preparation WORKSHOP (FIVE)

Legislation Development Follow‐up programme

Sector Monitoring Strengthening WORKSHOP (SIX)

(continued next page)

Legislation and regulations for revised staff functions

Sector performance monitoring

Preparation of CB programme for implementing units

Preparation ofthe agendas, outcomes, draft follow‐up programme, and materials for the technical sessions

Assessment of legislative requirements (provincial & central) of the ESDF

Review of legislation drafting process & identification of responsibilities for each piece of legislation required Legislation & drafting plan for ESDF legislation milestones Training in skills & processes for legislation drafting Applied practical session drafting two real pieces of legislation

Completion of legislation needed for 2010/11 PAM milestones

Development of an SM ‘system’ and processes, including agreement on responsibilities for SM components

Development of an integrated sector reporting mechanism and reporting formats

Establishment of an SM technical coordination mechanism to produce component and consolidated reports

Development of implementation plans to establish or strengthen SM component networks (Policy Monitoring, QA, Inspection, Learning outcomes, Sector trends)

SREAC, DPC PES

Support TA