School Sector Development Plan (SSDP) Mid-Term Review

Executive Summary

1. The Nepalese Government’s School Sector Development Plan (SSDP; FY2016/17–FY2022/23) is a 7-year strategic plan to increase the participation of all children in quality school education. The SSDP focuses on strategic interventions and new reform initiatives to improve equitable access, quality, efficiency, governance, management and resilience of the education 

2. A Mid-term Review (MTR) of the SSDP was undertaken by the SOFRECO – FBC consortium from February to June 2019. The review team consisted of eight international and national experts:

• Hélène Bessières, Team Leader and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist;
• Nelly Dolidze, Governance Specialist;
• Serge Peano, Education Economist;
• Sumitabha Ray, Fiduciary Management Specialist;
• Bharat Bilas Pant, Education Evaluation Specialist;
• Damodar Khanal, Education Evaluation Specialist;
• Sujan Kumar Kafle, Financial Audit Specialist;
• Damodar Bhattarai, Procurement Audit Specialist;

3. The MTR was conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria adopted by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to evaluate development assistance interventions: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact. The overall objective of the external evaluation MTR is to enhance the prospects of the SSDP in achieving its stated goals and objectives, within the changed context of 

4. During the MTR, the team conducted over 70 in-person interviews with national stakeholders at a central level and with representatives of relevant international organizations. In addition, the team conducted in-person interviews and focus group discussions with 66 stakeholders at provincial, district and local levels in Province 2 and Province 

5. The MTR resulted in the following key findings and conclusions: 

I) Relevance:

 The SSDP design is relevant to the needs and priorities of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. The SSDP is supported by numerous Development Partners, including I/NGOs that are members of the Local Education Development Partner Group (LEDPG). Its first five-year costed plan was supported by nine Joint Financing Partners (JFPs)1, which have committed to financial support through a Joint Financing Arrangement (JFA). A set of mutually agreed Disbursement-Linked Indicators (DLIs) and the SSDP Program Results Framework (PRF) form the basis for triggering JFPs’ disbursements to the 

1. The SSDP design is relevant to the needs and priorities of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. The SSDP is supported by numerous Development Partners, including I/NGOs that are members of the Local Education Development Partner Group (LEDPG). Its first five-year costed plan was supported by nine Joint Financing Partners (JFPs)1, which have committed to financial support through a Joint Financing Arrangement (JFA). A set of mutually agreed Disbursement-Linked Indicators (DLIs) and the SSDP Program Results Framework (PRF) form the basis for triggering JFPs’ disbursements to the
2. Since the launch of the SSDP in 2016, the Government has engaged in a transition towards a three-tier federal system, in which authority over most functions associated with basic and secondary education is devolved to local governments. The adjustments made over the past years to adapt SSDP implementation mechanisms can be noted in the evolution of the different program documents, including the structure of ASIP/AWPB, the various reports, and / or the delay encountered in producing them 
3. While the PRF design was structured around 10 objectives and their respective outcomes, two of them (Objectives 9 & 10) were transversal which laid the foundation for the overall implementation of all activities especially with regards to the transition to federalism.

II. Effectiveness: 

1. During the first half of the program, significant progress has been achieved in terms of access and enrolment rates within basic education. The survival rate to grade 8 and completion rate of basic education are increasing, but remain below the target initially set. A high number of out-of-school children have been enrolled in a formal and non-formal setting. 
2. Examination reform in grade 10 has improved the efficiency of the system, as shown by the progress in terms of survival rate at grade 10 and grade Students reaching secondary education are unlikely to drop out. However, the progress in terms of enrolment remains lower than expected, which could be explained by the low completion rate in basic education. 
3. When it comes to students’ learning outcomes, achievement has remained low: the mid-line evaluation of NEGRP implementation shows little improvement in terms of reading fluency in early grades, and SEE examination results also indicate low levels of achievement in Mathematics and Sciences. 
4. With a strong focus on quality-oriented policy, the SSDP has engaged in an important set of reforms². However, the implementation of such reforms has proven difficult considering: i) the high number of reforms engaged at the same time, ii) the high level of technical expertise required at different levels of the education system to implement them, iii) the high number of stakeholders that need to be involved in the process (including education management stakeholders but also parents and communities) and iv) the limited human and financial resources available.

III) Efficiency: 

1. Considering the overall structure of the PRF, it appears that the timeframe for engaging in reforms and implementing them at different levels of the education system was not fully adequate. A revision of the different phases would be necessary to allocate appropriate time for their diffusion at different levels of the education system but also to ensure that they can produce results in terms of learning outcomes. 
2. The limitations in terms of human and financial resources within the education system (including at school level) hinder the possibility to reach the expected outcomes in the set timeframe. The impact of the transition to federalism has also had an effect and will continue to strongly affect SSDP Implementation. 
3. While the economic situation of Nepal over the past years has proven better than anticipated in the financial scenario for the SSDP costed plan, economic growth has not benefited the education budget. Within the current perimeter used for the SSDP, the budget percentage allocated to the education sector remains at 12,4%, somewhat lower than the 15% envisaged and the current MTEF. Based on updated figures, a financing gap can be foreseen for the three coming years if the MTEF remains unchanged.

IV) Impact and Sustainability: 

1. During the drafting of the MTR, the transition to Federalism was still ongoing. During the data collection phase, the MTR team observed an interest in the school education sector. However, SSDP objectives, activities and implementation guidelines were unevenly known of and understood by stakeholders. The same goes for the ongoing reforms regarding equitable quality improvement: stakeholders at a local level (including LGs, teaching teams and parents) do not fully understand some of the key reforms implemented, and no not know how they could support them.
2. While the monitoring and evaluation system was not fully ready for the SSDP funding mechanism (DLI matrix) at the beginning of the program, the transition to federalism adds additional challenges, bringing uncertainty regarding the system’s capacity to implement the envisaged activities and define a fixed timeframe for achieving targets.
3. There are key factors that could jeopardize the implementation of SSDP activities in the second half of the program due to this transition to federalism. There is uncertainty regarding the plan’s timeframe, potentially affecting service delivery:

C1. Staffing of new entities: At the end of March 2019, the redeployment of staff was ongoing, resulting in an uneven allocation of human resources with uneven capacities for implementing new assignments. It is likely that some localities will remain understaffed for the next year while others are already fully staffed and can benefit from appropriate capacity building for assuming their new functions and responsibilities. This situation deeply affects school education service delivery considering that all funds for basic school operations and developmental activities are now transferred to LGs. Localities, where essential staff are absent, cannot proceed to fund transfers in time, hindering the possibility for schools to function adequately. This redeployment of staff and the probable necessity to proceed with the massive recruitment of civil servants will also affect the education system in terms of existing expertise at different levels in the coming years.

C2. Legal and reporting framework: Within the current situation, no clear reporting mechanisms have been defined between the different layers of government and confusion remains regarding the exact roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. This situation presents a high risk of duplicated investments within the education sector and a further increase in disparities between localities and schools. The adoption of the Federal Education Act is necessary to provide some essential clarifications regarding responsibilities across the three-tier structure of the government and deployment of essential staff (especially teachers). Financial reporting also constitutes a key issue to be tackled as a priority.

C. 3 Dissolution of the RCs and RPs network: The SSDP implementation and management structure were designed based on the previous system, where the DEO, RCs, and RPs were key both for implementing activities and supporting information flow (both top-down and bottom-up). Within the new system, these key entities have been restructured or dissolved without being replaced. 

6. In this regard, the MTR suggests the following strategic recommendations: 

1. The impact of the transition to federalism and its ongoing development requires i) a revision of activities already implemented (i.e. production of guidelines and FMAP, training, and orientations of redeployed staff) and ii) the implementation of additional activities, that was not planned initially to avoid education service disruption
2. The second half of SSDP should serve as a transitional phase in order to: 

• Accompany the emerging structures to support them in their new roles and responsibilities, determining new mechanisms for core functions currently missing but necessary in order to achieve SSDP objectives;
• Stabilize the legal framework and reporting mechanisms within the new system;
• Undertake, based on the new system, an Education Sector Analysis and design a subsequent Education Sector Plan (based on a more comprehensive vision of the public funding dedicated to education at different levels of the system).

C. Revise the pace, indicators, and targets set in the PRF and maintain only a limited number of core activities already being implemented and supporting their implementation through contingency mechanisms. The PRF should be revised to i) propose revised targets and timeframe, ii) include additional indicators enabling to monitor progress in terms of staffing and capacity development and iii) improve monitoring of progress and impact of activities;

D. Associate representatives of the PG and LG to the program management and implementation mechanisms to ensure: contingency mechanisms and support for regular school operations and reporting activities, ii) the development of accountability mechanisms within the new system, iii) the coordination between the three layers of the system and ownership of the reform and mechanism (reintroduction of a bottom-up approach in planning);

E.  As much as possible, flexibility should be introduced in the DPs’ funding mechanism, through i) the revision of targets and timeframe, ii) off-budget Engage in a multi-year Capacity and Institutional Development Plan, to be progressively rolled out. A key focus should be put on the four cornerstone objectives of the PRF: Teacher rationalization and professional development, Governance and Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (IEMIS) and Examination and Assessment, in order to strengthen system capacity for quality-oriented activities;

F. As much as possible, flexibility should be introduced in the DPs’ funding mechanism, through i) the revision of targets and timeframe, ii) off-budget Support.

• Education Services