1

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BKK j.nr.:. 104.A.1.b.MRD.2.Burma.8.RGN

External Grant Committee Meeting 17 June 2014

Agenda item no. 3 1. Title: Myanmar Quality Basic Education Programme (QBEP)

2. Partner: The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

3. Grant amount: 20.0 million DKK.

4. Duration: July 2014 - December 2015 (18 months) Appropriation years: 2014, 2015

5. Previous grants: - 11.6 million. DKK, Dec 2006 – Dec 2010, Danida Board Meeting on 25 October 2006, Agenda Item 5; - 8.86 million DKK, Dec 2007 – Dec 2010, Appropriation Note to Danida Board Chairman on 28 November 2007; - 25 miillion DKK, Jan 2012 – Dec 2014, Appropriation Committee Meeting on 11 November 2011, Agenda Item 5

6. Strategies and policy priorities: The government policy on efforts in fragile states

EU Common Position 2013/232/CFSP

7. Danish National Budget account code:

06.32.02.05.41

8. Desk officer: Aticha Wongwian

9. Head of Representation: Mikael Hemniti Winther/Ulrich Sørensen

10. Summary: The Myanmar Quality Basic Education Programme (QBEP), the second phase of the Multi Donor Education Fund (MDEF), was launched in 2012, with UNICEF as donor and implementing partner, and with support provided by Denmark, Norway, Australia, the European Commission, and the UK. QBEP aims to provide the basis for a future democratic Myanmar in sustainable economic growth, including supporting the country's efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goal Two (all children must have completed primary education). The immediate objective is to increase the number and percentage of children who have access to and complete a qualitative sound basic education. The programme covers four areas: an extension of the existing Early Childhood Education programme, improving the quality of teaching in primary schools, improving the planning, management, monitoring and evaluation in primary schools and the education of children who have had to leave school.

2

Objective and problem formulation: Myanmar is emerging from decades of isolation, with a series of repressive governments underfunding key social sectors, including health and education. Public investment in education has been very low- and still is – approx. 5 % of GDP. Less than half of the country's 21 million children currently complete primary school. Factors such as poverty, lack of infrastructure, poor nutrition and health, migration, parents' low level of education and a requirement that children must work to contribute to the family income, makes it difficult to keep children throughout primary education especially in regions with large numbers of ethnic minorities such as Chin, Shan and Rakhine States.

Moreover, many years of sanctions against the Myanmar governments have affected enrolment of graduates in higher education abroad and have also affected the means by which MDEF partners can channel their funds to Myanmar for education support. While data is lacking, due to poor monitoring systems and lack of a census for over 30 years, enrolment and completion rates appear to have steadily declined since the 1980s. Poor data with which to plan coupled with a top-down system of decision making, has resulted in the education sector being managed without clear or comprehensive planning and budgeting processes for many years. It has also seriously affected the quality of the education system as a whole.

The Myanmar Quality Basic Education Programme (QBEP), representing the second phase of MDEF, builds upon its predecessor to address the urgent need for sustainable improvements in access, equity, quality and management in Myanmar’s basic education sector in order to accelerate progress towards achieving Millennium Development Goal Two: “Ensure that children everywhere, girls and boys alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.” Special emphasis will be placed on ensuring children from vulnerable and marginalized areas of basic education, and to ensure that children who drop out of primary schools have a minimum education though alternative learning opportunities. In achieving the right of all children to primary education of good quality, there will be strong economic returns for individuals, their families and the wider community as well as progress in all aspects of human development, poverty reduction and towards the realisation of the full range of children’s rights.

Resource efficiency: The QBEP approach is designed to promote resource efficiency, with development partners agreeing to a format of joint reporting, joint planning and joint monitoring processes and documentation. The targeted core township approach, which uses downstream modelling and piloting of specific education activities around teacher training, educational planning, early childhood, school grants and other innovative approaches, to directly influence and advocate for upstream policy reform advocacy and broader technical engagement with Ministry of Education (MoE). This has also placed QBEP partners in a critical role to influence the current Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR)1, which will provide the basis for the first National Education Sector Plan2, being prepared in 2014.

UNICEF maintains rigorous accounting processes to ensure appropriate use of resources,

1 CESR began in 2012 and is expected to be completed in 2014. The first phase of the review, known as the “rapid assessment,” included a quick look at the current situation to identify priority areas for reforms. Reports for the second phase, which examined the initial recommendations in detail, have been completed. CESR is in its third and final phase of the review will see the development of NESP. 2 The delays NESP are due to the magnitude of the task and the lack of technical expertise within MoE to manage it in a timely manner. It is expected to be completed by August 2014 in a rough form and a further refined version will be prepared for review by the end of 2014.

3

maintaining an ample field presence through UNICEF Field Offices to monitor quality and resource efficiency. UNICEF is also actively seeking additional outside resources, based on the success and lessons learned from MDEF I, to complement the programme and to ensure greater resource efficiency.

Challenges and underlying reflections: The Mid Term Review (MTR) of QBEP is planned for June 2014. The MTR should identify key challenges in the three areas being covered – governance/management, quality/effectiveness and monitoring/evaluation – and provide a basis for reviewing staffing, targets and approach. While fundamental shifts to the programme are not expected, there are some key challenges to be addressed going forward. The challenge remains for QBEP to remain flexible and responsive to recommendation or shifts which may occur as a result of the MTR.

Expansion to a state-wide approach in some states (i.e., Mon, Kachin, Kayin) will require closer engagement and participation of non-state actors in planning and capacity development initiatives for education at state and township levels. This is a challenging and politically sensitive process, but must be deliberate – with the goal of including all schools: state and non-state, monastic/faith based and private, in state-wide planning and improvement processes. However, actively engaging with non-state actors creates a risk of unexpected delays to programmes due political dimensions beyond QBEP’s control, and may also result in strains with central government.

The suspension of most of the EU sanctions on economic and development cooperation with Myanmar in 2013 has paved the way for QBEP to a closer engagement with authorities and to channel funds directly to government at Township level.

There is also a need to ensure required support for technical aspects of donor coordination, joint annual planning with the government and monitoring/reporting on the education system as Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR) is completed and a National Education Sector Plan (NESP) begins. This will requires some flexibility in adapting to the outcomes of the CESR and the formulation of NESP and strategies for its implementation. The time frame of QBEP expires at the end of 2015, and the proposed support from Denmark could also serve a very useful bridge to 2016, especially as CESR will prepare two plans on NESP – the more detailed version for 2014-2016 and a less defined version for 2016-2020 in line with government planning processes. Support from Denmark, and from QBEP as a whole, should be mindful of these benchmarks, and the need to support the governments roll out of its first National Education Sector Plan through 2016.

Project description: Overall goal: To support Myanmar’s progress towards achieving MDG2 and children’s Right to Education as outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Expected outcome: Increased number and proportion of children accessing and completing quality basic education in targeted townships

Outputs: 1. Expansion of coverage of quality Early Childhood Development services and systems building

2. Improved quality of teaching and learning practices in basic education in targeted townships, in Government and monastic schools, and in both mono- and multi-grade schools

3. Enhanced planning, management, monitoring and evaluation, and mentoring capacity of

4

key education actors at all levels 4. Enhanced coverage, quality and relevance of second-chance, alternative education

Activities: The four outputs represent the key programme components for practical implementation purposes: 1) Early Childhood Development (ECD); 2) Quality Basic Education; 3) Education Planning and Management; and 4) Second Chance and Alternative Education. The key activities are summarised by component as follow: Component 1: Early Childhood Development (ECD)

School-based ECD: In 25 core townships where full support will be provided to primary education under Components 2 and 3, school-based ECD centres will be supported to increase access of 3-4 year olds to quality early years education that will support their development and facilitate their transition to primary school.

NGO-supported community-based ECD: Partnership with selected local NGOs working in remote, disadvantaged and border areas will be continued and expanded, to support community-based ECD centres and parenting interventions focusing on the care of 0-5 year olds in 80 townships.

ECD Innovative Pilots: Support to increasing access for the poorest and most disadvantaged children will continue through carefully-focused pilots. These will include the piloting of approaches to inclusion of disabled children and to bilingual learning.

National ECD Framework: Education Thematic Working Group will be supported on awareness-raising/capacity-building with partners in the MoE and Department for Social Welfare for the development of the National ECD Policy and Strategic Implementation Plan.

Component 2: Quality Basic Education

Developing Teacher Competencies: QBEP will support a sharper definition of - and focus on - the key elements of a ‘Child Centred Approach’ and core competencies of teachers. There will be a stronger emphasis on language and literacy learning and on interactive pedagogic techniques in the classroom which in turn will contribute to improving learning outcomes.

Language Enrichment Programme (LEP): The LEP piloted in the first phase will be expanded according to the recommendations of the evaluation, which highlighted most gains for non-Myanmar speaking students while also demonstrating benefits for Myanmar speaking children to support the learning of all children in areas where many come from non-Myanmar speaking backgrounds.

Essential Learning Packages (ELP): The ELP provides a small backpack with stationary, learning materials and classroom supplies to all schools in core townships, in order to encourage attendance, support learning and prevent dropout and to facilitate adoption of child-centred approaches introduced in training.

Additional training and materials in hard-to-reach and emergency-affected areas areas: QBEP will provide humanitarian support, through NGO partners, to children and schools in selected remote and hard-to reach-areas, as well as to emergency- affected areas, outside of the core programme townships. In emergency situations, pre-positioned learning materials and temporary learning spaces with latrine and drinking water facilities will be provided.

School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH): Implementation of school WASH will be undertaken as part of improving the school environment and increasing children’s

5

access to safe drinking and hygiene facilities. Support will be provided to schools and to communities for improving school and monitoring behaviour change, while at the same time training on WASH will also be provided.

Pre-service and distance in-service teacher education: A mixed-mode of in-service training (SITE), using self-learning modules and face to face training with mentoring and coaching by head teachers is being piloted initially in control Townships before being rolled out to QBEP core townships.

Life skills education rollout to secondary schools: The programme will support the introduction of life skills education in post primary and secondary schools, though training of teachers across the country in the revised life skills curriculum and roll out of the revised curriculum and teaching methodologies in education colleges.

Component 3: Education Planning and Management

Instructional Leadership: QBEP aims for improved school management includes building the capacity of head teachers to provide instructional leadership and to create a school climate favourable to innovation and sustained improvements to teaching and learning. Instructional leadership training will be given to township and cluster staff, as well as head teachers.

School management: Head teachers and Parent Teacher Associations will be trained in simple data collection, analysis and planning skills. The process for undertaking School Self-Assessment and School Improvement Planning will be revised to further increase community participation in decision-making and monitoring, and to provide the basis for school grants.

Township Education Improvement Planning (TEIP): There will be coordinated capacity-building for improved education management at the townships level. Township education officers and Assistant township education officers will be supported in developing basic Township Education Plans based on their analyses.

Township Education Management Information System (TEMIS): The TEMIS design will be modified and scaled up to additional townships and used as a tool for schools clusters and townships to assess performance and to develop more detailed Township Education Plans. Decentralized education planning and monitoring will be trialed, exploring mechanisms for improved coordination and coherence between the government system, monastic schools and NGO-supported programmes.

Central level capacity for management and Education Management Information System (EMIS): Through partnership with UNESCO, capacity will be built for EMIS, including support to the development of an EMIS strategy based on the findings of the anticipated Education Sector Review. This will facilitate mainstreaming of TEMIS in due course.

Component 4: Second Chance and Alternative Education

Non Formal Primary Education (NFPE): The importance of NFPE is to ensure that some of the most disadvantaged children access basic education provides a rationale for QBEP to support expansion to more townships, whilst lessons learned to date indicate the need for improved quality, strategy and partnerships towards the development of an effective non-formal education system that is a more fully integrated part of basic education.

Extended and Continuous Education and Learning (EXCEL): The multiple vulnerability of out-of-school teenagers provides a rationale for continuing activities such as EXCEL that address basic skills, life skills and practical livelihoods within a comprehensive child protection framework. EXCEL programmes will be scaled up

6

through selected NGOs, targeting urban, peri-urban and rural adolescent dropouts, with gender parity.

National Non-Formal Education (NFE) Framework: QBEP’s experience of extending programme coverage, quality and management, combined with those of NGOs working in non-formal, alternative and second-chance education, will be used as evidence to contribute to the design of a National NFE Framework, using the mechanism of the NFE sub-group of the Education Thematic Working Group.

Over the course of QBEP implementation, 2 modifications have been introduced into the programme: support to the CESR; and the Mon Whole State Approach (WSA). The CESR is a two year process which the government has undertaken with development partner (especially QBEP) support. The expected outcome of CESR is a National Education Sector Plan (NESP), which will cover all aspects of the national education system, from early childhood up through Technical Vocational Education and Training and Higher Education and will reflect broader education reform. QBEP is actively supporting CESR activities, providing technical experts and linking with the teams seconded by government to work on this process.

The Mon WSA involved an expansion from one QBEP core Township to engaging with all 10 Township Education Offices across Mon State. The Mon WSA purposefully engaged with the Mon National Education Committee, a key non-state actor overseeing education programmes in non-government controlled areas in Mon. Key innovative activities include TEIP, TEMIS, support and consolidation, state level capacity development and state-wide training of head teachers from state, non-state and monastic schools. Lessons learned from Mon WSA will be applied to other States and Divisions as decentralization increases and State-wide approaches are expanded. As a result of Mon WSA, the number of core townships now supported under QBEP has expanded to 34.

Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of QBEP are an estimated 650,000 children annually (1.1 million cumulative), representing all children attending primary schools (including monastic schools) in 34 targeted disadvantaged townships in Myanmar. 85,000 children will be reached by ECD programmes in 80 townships. A further 81,000 out-of-school children and vulnerable adolescents will benefit from second chance opportunities. Given the focus on enrolment, inclusion, dropout prevention and improved learning; it is expected that the beneficiaries will include poor, disadvantaged, ethnic minority and disabled children who might otherwise not have enrolled or remained in school. Implementation of the secondary life skills component has the potential to reach 1.8 million adolescents directly.

Sustainability: A key element to sustainability involves successful policy advocacy, whereby the successful innovations and activities under QBEP are adopted by MoE as standard practice, covered by guidelines and budgeted in the MoE work plan. Work continues on this front under all 4 Components – with success to date on many levels. Sustainability can also enhanced by engaging with and influencing the on-going Comprehensive Education Sector Review process, and the current education reform process. QBEP and its development partners, as the single largest contributor to basic education in Myanmar, have a great opportunity to influence these on-going processes and to mainstream good QBEP practice into NESP and into Education Laws. The QBEP Mid Term Review, planned for June 2014, will provide specific recommendations on the sustainability of efforts under QBEP, which will influence and guide QBEP focus over the remaining 18 months of the programme. In

7

terms of proposed State wide approaches, to ensure sustainability of innovations and local planning processes introduces in Townships and Schools, longer terms commitment of up to 3 years is required. UNICEF and MoE will actively seek additional resources to continue the QBEP package of support at school and Township level after QBEP concludes in 2015.

Monitoring and evaluation: Two monitoring approaches are used in the QBEP: a) annual data collection using standardised tools covering a small but representative sample of schools in 35 townships to track progress toward expected outputs and outcomes; and b) ongoing monitoring visits, along with announced and unannounced spot checks to programme implementation sites to verify delivery and utilisation of inputs according to plan. The QBEP’s monitoring approach has been effective in identifying and raising the awareness among government officials and development partners particularly on learning outcomes, in terms of competencies rather than subject-matter knowledge, as well as factors influencing those learning outcomes.

Coordination: A number of internal coordination mechanisms are in place as part of the MDEF and QBEP. Australia has been identified as Co-Coordinator of QBEP partners with UNICEF to ensure clear communication within the QBEP coordination process. A quarterly QBEP Steering Committee is convened, jointly chaired by Australia and UNICEF, to which all QBEP partners are invited. A Ministry-led Joint Education Sector Working Group, initially established to oversee implementation of the CESR, meets quarterly to help ensure coordination with key stakeholders and is chaired by MoE, with Australia and UNICEF serving as co-convenors. In addition, an informal Education Development Partner Coordination Group co-convened by Australia and UNICEF brings together international agencies, INGOs and development partners on a monthly basis to identify issues to be raised with government at the Joint Education Sector Working Group, reach consensus on strategic messages, and share updates on developments in the sector. Finally, an Education Thematic Working Group, co-chaired by UNICEF and Save the Children as global education cluster leads, brings together government, development partners, international and national NGOs, civil society groups, technical advisors and other education actors.

Previous Results: The Quality Basic Education Programme (QBEP) has completed its second full year and is preparing for a Mid Term Review in mid-2014. From an initial focus on 25 core Townships across the country, which integrated a set of activities in ECD, NFE, basic education and planning support, QBEP has expanded to 9 additional townships from Mon State; this bring the total number of QBEP core townships to 34. The QBEP Annual Report 2013 provides a detailed description of targets and results, and the following table represents specific indicators. By large, results are being achieved both in terms of specific targets related to, but also in terms of outcomes on children in the 34 Core Townships. Results on learning achievement will only be available in 2015 when the next round of examinations will be given. There are specific results which are behind target, including coverage of school grants and Child Friendly School teacher training, but the underlying issues which undermined progress have been identified and are being addresses. Component 1 – Early Childhood Development (ECD)

Key Indicators 2013 Target Progress as of Dec 2013 Remarks

Number of 0 to 5-year-old children in targeted townships accessing facility-

22,000 30,728 children Awareness raising at all levels has resulted in than expected interest from stakeholders

8

based ECD services resulting in higher enrolment.

Proportion of schools in targeted townships with ECD facilities for 3- to 5-year-olds

15% 17% of schools Slight increase over target due to prioritization by communities and support from QBEP

Proportion of school-based ECD facilities that meet minimum quality standards in targeted townships

10% No data Monitoring is to be done in early 2014 for 2013-14 Academic year

Multi-sectoral Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) National Action Plan/ policy in place

Policy drafted National ECCD Policy drafted – ready for Signing by President in early 2014. Draft 5-year Strategic Plan drafted and ready for passage

The Policy was approved by the cabinet in January 2014.

Component 2 - Quality Basic Education

Key Indicators 2013 Target Progress as of Jun 2013 Remarks

% of primary teachers applying improved teaching methods as defined by classroom observation criteria

No target for 2013 Target in 2015 is 35%

No data The survey to assess the % of primary teachers improving their classroom practices will only be assessed in 2014

Pre-service teacher education framework developed and operationalised in targeted Education Colleges (ECs)

Comprehensive assessment report of ECs

EC Assessment of 4 ECs completed and final report submitted to CESR for approval

Number of primary teachers receiving face-to-face and distance learning in-service training (SITE)

Face-to-face: 15,250 teachers including teachers in 9 Mon State townships SITE: 1,000 teachers

10,933 completed face-to-face training

867 teachers completed SITE & additional 824 teachers currently enrolled SITE

Reduced numbers due to attrition amongst the trained trainers, who were reassigned by MoE, and due to delays as training materials were revised, and training was started later than planned. Numbers should be higher than planned targets in 2014 SITE training is being expanded faster than planned due to high interest by MoE

Number of students in targeted township provided with essential supplies and textbooks, including humanitarian support to border areas.

830,000 students receive supplies (includes students from 9 Mon State townships)

758,054 children received school supplies.

This is 10% lower than targeted levels. Based upon feedback from development partners, and our own shift to reduce Service Delivery as part of QBEP to focus more on quality improvement and upstream policy engagement, school supply figures are reduced

Number of teachers trained to implement Secondary Life Skills curriculum

11,200 11,279 trained, including 209 monastic school teachers and 14 school health officers from 116 townships.

Proportion of children (aged 10-15 years) in school demonstrating correct information and skills to reduce risk, including

To be determined after baseline

In the baseline, Grade 6, 7 and 8 students show significant gaps in knowledge after learning the life skills lessons. They

9

prevention of HIV/AIDS, in targeted townships

obtained maximum achievement in environment and sanitation, with a mean percentage of 74%, but the mean percentage of reproductive health, stood at only 16%, representing the minimum achievement.

Component 3 - Education Planning and Management

Key Indicators 2013 Target Progress as of Dec 2013 Remarks

Proportion of schools with operationalised School Self Assessments /School Improvement Programmes (SSA/SIP) in targeted townships

20% Actual achieved 9.5%, which equals 1,300 schools have developed School Improvement Programmes.

This was due to Townships who were unable to prioritize requests from school, and the emphasis on Water/ Sanitation, which was submitted during monsoon season, thereby creating delays in starting construction. In general, SSA/SIP is taking longer than expected

Number of master trainers, head teachers and township education officers (TEOs)/ deputy township education officers (DTEOs)/assistant township education officers (ATEOs) trained on Instructional Leadership and management

60 TEOs/ ATEOs trained 2,700 head teachers trained

79 master trainers 1,843 head teachers 43 TEOs/DTEOs/ ATEO (20 state and district level)

Due to delays in completing the training module for Instructional Leadership, target was not met – but this will be made up for in 2014

Number of townships with Township Education Management Information System (TEMIS) fully operational

TEMIS partially operational in 15 townships

TEMIS partially operational in 19 townships

Outputs on track

Number of townships with Township Education Improvement Plans according to agreed standards

Strategy for development of township planning developed (target) Township planning manual developed (target)

Strategy for development of township planning developed (actual) Township planning manual developed (actual) 7 tsp with Township Education Improvement Plans (actual)

Component 4 – Second Chance & Alternative Education

Key Indicators 2013 Target Progress as of Dec 2013 Remarks

Number of out-of-school children aged 10-14 years, by sex, enrolled in Non-Formal Primary Education (NFPE) programme in targeted townships

10,000 9,200 out-of-school children enrolled in NFPE as of August 2013

Number of out-of-school adolescents aged 10-17 years reached by Extended and Continuous Education and

14,000 10,800 students enrolled in 2013 EXCEL.

The main reason for the shortfall was the suspension of a major local NGO partner due to financial management

10

Learning (EXCEL) in targeted townships

related issues, which reduced the number of children reached by over 4,000, although it is expected that activities with this local partner will resume in 2014.

Proportion of reached out-of-school adolescents completing EXCEL in targeted townships

85% of total reached learners complete full course

97.1% of total reached learners completed the EXCEL course

National framework for Non Formal NFPE equivalency and certification developed

Agreed framework

Task force established. Standardised tests revised for all primary subjects. Conceptual Framework and Operational Guidelines for National Expansion on NFPE Equivalency program was developed. Standardized test primary level developed. A comparison study on primary competencies between formal and non-formal students conducted.

Special considerations and priorities: The project is well aligned with Government of Denmark’s strategies for development cooperation, including “The Right to a Better Life” and human-rights based approach (HRBA). The QBEP Programme Document 2012-15 states in its Executive Summary: “QBEP will implement three inter-related ‘cross-cutting’ strategies for ‘equity/ inclusion’, ‘school- and learning- effectiveness’ and ‘addressing bilingual/ multilingual contexts’; to guide coherent approaches to strengthening effective and inclusive education that respond to a range of dimensions of disparity in educational access and outcomes, including poverty, ethnicity/ language, disability and gender, which are distinct but also closely inter-related”

The QBEP Core Townships were chosen based on criteria which included educational disadvantage, high levels of poverty, remoteness, and incidence of conflict and/or frequent natural disasters – as well as a broad geographical spread. The impact through QBEP service delivery support in these Townships is addressing most disadvantaged populations and addressing issue of equity, including to children who do not speak Myanmar national language. While analysis indicates that gender equality has been achieved at primary levels, much more work remains to be done in the sector. In the areas of differentiated impact analysis of education, gender norms in education management and gender analysis in curriculum reform all require further attention. The QBEP Mid Term Review will provide the opportunity to prioritise gender under QBEP, including recommendations for a gender strategy to be developed in late 2014. Specific attention to gender issues within CESR will be increased in its last phase and the development of a National Education Sector Plan.

Key lessons Learned: Component 1: Early Childhood Development 1. Building a coalition of like-minded and well-coordinated partners and stakeholders has

provided a major boost for the ECD policy engagement. The process of preparing the National ECCD Policy has greatly benefited from the National ECCD Task Force,

11

supported by the QBEP. ECD also benefited from broad-based stakeholder engagement, which is limited in primary education due to limits set by MoE on provision for MOUs and permission to work as NGOs in the formal school setting.

2. QBEP funds for ECD are focusing on school-based kindergartens and the strengthening of national capacity and standards to complement efforts of the Myanmar Education Consortium (MEC)3, with which the QBEP is cooperating closely with regard to the strengthening of NGOs and civil society providers of ECD services. While QBEP continues to support community-based ECD in 2014 through NGO partners, this will be closely coordinated with MEC and will comprise a smaller proportion of the total support under QBEP to ECD.

3. Limits on the use of QBEP funds for central-level and state-level Training of Trainers (TOT) activities, has had a direct negative impact on the targets and on fund utilisation. The budget on TOT was original placed under QBEP but was switched to UNICEF due to the QBEP donors’ restriction of using funds on central and state-level trainings. This has caused the low utilization of QBEP funds for Component 1 in comparison to expenditure rates for UNICEF.4

4. The Small Scale Fund Activity for kindergartens attached to primary schools has been streamlined in its approach compared to School Grants based on processes, and can provide lessons to Component 2. The ECD school grants should be more closely linked to the school grants of the Government and World Bank to complement these efforts and potentially build synergies at school level.

Component 2: Quality Education 1. Coordinated QBEP support to teacher education within CESR and Education Promotion

Implementation Committee (EPIC), along with the formation of Working Groups around teacher education, is helping to provide a more consistent approach to addressing the great needs and current gaps in policy and understanding. Close engagement with Department of Education Planning and Training (DEPT) teams has resulted in innovative training modules which are fully owned and endorsed by MoE.

2. Activities related to teacher training, head teacher training and other township-based capacity development are negatively affected by attrition from the ranks of trainers partly due to natural processes of promotion and transfer, but others are assigned to other MoE priorities, such as CESR, EPIC or the census to be conducted in early 2014. Contingency plans have been gaining acceptance amongst senior counterparts, who now agree with a process of identifying excellent-performing Assistant TEOs and head teachers, as well as Education College teachers and NGO staff at state level, for recruitment into the ranks of trainers in subsequent trainings. Ideally, education officials from non-state actors could also join the ranks of trainers at state and township levels in 2014.

3. According to feedback from face-to-face training on CFS Phases 1, 2 and 3, most teachers appear to need strengthened understanding and confidence on LEP implementation and teaching methods.

4. Data entry of TEMIS forms submitted to TEOs by schools is still time-consuming and is experiencing delays. However, it was found that township officials and head teachers had

3 MEC is a consortium of Save the Children, World Vision and Burnet Institute, funded by Denmark; UK and Australia. It aims to support capacity building of complementary non-government education systems and structures including community and school based early childhood development and non-formal education programs for vulnerable children and young people who cannot attend government schools. QBEP and MEC cooperates closely to develop state-wide education plans involving ethnic groups in Mon, Kayah and Rakhine States. Both QBEP and MEC are represented in the Joint Education Sector Working Group and are working with the Government on developing a system of accreditation to ensure quality standards in non-formal education provided by NGOs. 4 For Component 1, the utilization rate of QBEP funds is 45% while the expenditure rates of UNICEF funds is 257%.

12

increased their knowledge in interpreting statistical indicators from the TEMIS on wide range of school issues. A coherent state-wide TEMIS, should help inform plans under Phase 3 of CESR, again including the need for public-private partnerships to address data entry needs, especially in the initial stages.

Component 3: Education Leadership and Management 1. Education sector reform remains intensely affected by shifting factors of political economy

that can unleash or block change. Institutional competition, diverse political, ethnic and religious groupings with their own agendas, and political pressure to deliver immediate results have all placed stress on the CESR to adhere to its systematic, evidence-based approach to long-term reform. The programme will need to take account of the increasing complexity of the political context in the coming year leading to the 2015 elections.

2. Overcoming a cautious approach by MoE, QBEP advocacy was instrumental in gaining Ministry approval for the establishment of the inter-departmental ECWG under MoE leaderships. The group’s mandate to enhance communication with all stakeholders, including the media, has been significantly bolstered by the establishment of the EPIC process. Although this Working Group has taken much longer than expected to get going, the direct support of human resources to CESR for communication by development partners should help pick things up.

3. There is a need to maintain a strong focus on crosscutting issues during CESR analysis and upcoming Phase 3 planning; these include gender, disability, ethnicity and conflict sensitivity/peacebuilding, all of which must be explicitly captured in the CESR. An informal assessment of the technical papers produced through CESR to date tend to suggest that the mainstreaming approach for integrating gender and crosscutting issues across each component could have been tackled in more depth, and could benefit from strengthened analysis in Phase 3 to ensure that the principles of equity and inclusion are integrated into the sector planning and budgeting process.

Component 4: Second-Chance Education 1. NFPE has gained much greater recognition and credibility among senior officials and

policymakers through evidence-based advocacy. Partnerships forged with senior retired officials active in several large local NGOs in education has also helped ensure recognition of this programme. Research that compared the learning outcomes of NFPE graduates with the performance of formal school students, detailed above, has also provided the basis for greater acceptance of this approach through evidence based advocacy. Development of the formal examination system also has helped in paving the way for the expansion of these programmes, as well as for the endorsement in CESR Phase 1 of NFPE as a viable alternative delivery system.

2. Clear recommendations for increased Government resourcing and a dedicated Non Formal Education Unit within MoE need to be followed up in the CESR Phase 3 costed plans.

3. The new NFE Unit is expected to be established in 2014, and close coordination between stakeholders on development of Non-Formal Middle School Education (NFMSE) as part of policy framework is still required.

4. NFPE requires a broader partnership base to become more effective. The Government’s role, through MOE and/or MoSWRR5, needs to be strategically expanded. Proper monitoring, accreditation and teacher development and the innovative use of technology and ICT moving forward requires creative partnerships between diverse groups, including private sector and business associations as well as local governments and TEOs.

5 Ministry of Social Welfare Relief and Resettlement

13

Budget6: The total QBEP budget (2012-2015) is USD 83.24 million (approx. DKK 459.65 million). While UNICEF itself contributes USD 14.31 million, the planned commitments from other donors include USD 30.81 million from Australia, USD 27.60 million from EU, USD 4.72 million from UK, USD 4.35 million from Denmark (DKK 25 million contributed in 2012), and USD 1.45 million from Norway. As of 31 December 2013, USD 31.31 million7 of these funds have been received. Together with this new contribution amount DKK 20 million, the total amount of Danish contribution is DKK 45 million. Table 1: Summary of QBEP overall budget (DKK million)

Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Component 1: Early Childhood Development (14.38%) 17.41 17.72 18.33 12.66 66.12

Component 2: Quality Basic Education (48.63%) 74.55 80.19 47.15 21.65 223.54

Component 3: Education Planning and Management (4.65%)

5.72 7.45 5.36 2.83 21.36

Component 4: Second Chance & Alternative Education (12.43%)

14.98 14.00 15.59 12.58 57.15

Technical assistance (8.93%) 9.30 11.48 10.17 10.10 41.05

Operation costs of the office (1.30%) 1.77 1.55 1.40 1.26 5.98

Other costs and services (audit, evaluation, etc.) (1.15%) 2.49 2.53 0.21 0.06 5.29

Support to special targeted townships (3.11%)8 2.86 3.81 3.81 3.81 14.29

Indirect Cost (max. 7%) 6.76 8.44 5.97 3.70 24.87

Total 135.84 147.17 107.99 68.65 459.65

Significant risks and Mitigation measures: The risk management matrix categorises risks to the QBEP into four key categories: (1) Loss of political support for engagement in Myanmar and/or in the education sector; (2) Slowing or reversal of Myanmar’s political reform process; (3) Unfavourable policy climate for reform in the education sector; and (4) Programme management and implementation risks.

6 Based on exchange rate on 15 May 2014: 1 USD/5.44303 DKK 7 This amount excludes UNICEF’s contribution. 8 This was agreed with MDEF donors as a potential line which could be used to support activities in any township nationwide if an emergency arises, hence the 'special targeting'. Utilisation of this budget line must be approved in advance by MDEF partners on a case by case basis.

Risks Mitigation Measures

1. Loss of political support for engagement in Myanmar and/or in education sector

MDEF partner reduction in funding or imposed restrictions on spending lead to failure of programme to deliver objectives.

Discriminatory practices of the Government cause donors to reduce or stop funding

MDEF Steering Committee to lead advocacy efforts in support of education with development and foreign ministers, and to organise regular meetings of the wider donor groups in-country, regionally and globally to ensure a coordinated approach with a clear agreement and understanding on common policies and approaches

MDEF partners share and support the development of communications materials

Continuous advocacy for the rights of affected populations

2. Slowing or reversal of Myanmar's political progress

Maintain open and clear communication, with regular meetings and clarity on formal

14

Multidonor group comes under pressure as a result of divergent views among MDEF members, leading to poor decision making and planning

Limited ability to engage in policy dialogue with the Government, in particular MoE, leads to limited progress on key policy changes

arrangements

Develop common understanding among donor group members on issues faced by UNICEF and education sector

Develop an advocacy strategy for engaged dialogue with senior Government. officials and donor groups

Joint meetings/field visits

Regular meetings with MoE officials and Ministers

3. Unfavourable policy climate for reform in the education sector

Deterioration in aid operating environment

Reduced public investment in Basic Education, leading to targets not being met or results sustained

Education and national development plans and strategies are unaligned and unclear, undermining coordination and the CESR process

Limited implementation capacity of MoE undermines CESR and programme implementation.

Maintain open, regular and clear communication with Government about the project

Strategic advocacy and communication plan to be developed

Keep abreast of new developments regarding Government structures

Develop targeted advocacy for each state/ division and the central Ministry and ensure regular pattern of engagement

Continuous advocacy with Government, parliamentarians and donors on the urgent need for increased investment in the Basic Education sector

Evidence- based research and studies to advocate for key policies (teacher education reform, education sector review, policies for quality of primary education)

Support to CESR sustained and aligned with plans in other sectors

ESR (capacity and human resource development), capacity building of MoE staff at all levels, and awareness raising of senior government officials (including Parliament) on education development and reform

4. Programme management and implementation risks

Weak education management and efficiency at township level leads to low-quality outputs on implementation of QBEP activities in townships

Weak population and socioeconomic data undermine effective formulation of programme strategy, implementation and monitoring/evaluation

Limited capacity of INGOs/NGOs/civil society actors to engage in education sector, limiting QBEP coverage and sustainability of results

Work in conflict- affected areas exacerbates conflict and/or does not contribute positively to peacebuilding objectives

Natural disasters and conflict may disrupt programme implementation

Focus effectively on capacity building of Township Education Office to better plan, manage, monitor and support schools for quality improvements

Continue work on Education Management Information System

Population census in 2014

MDEF partners to continue advocacy with MoE and increase dialogue between INGOs/NGOs and MoE through ETWG, MEC and regular education discussion meetings

“Do no harm” principles adhered to. Conflict analysis (with focus on education) conducted and applied

Strong advocacy strategy to ensure the programme approach is understood.

Opportunities for peacebuilding activities identified at local level

Emergency preparedness to be mainstreamed in the programme with effective training. Formulate standby agreements for assessment and response

15

Annex 1: Partners

UNICEF has been working in Myanmar continuously since 1950. The overriding goal of UNICEF's current program in Myanmar is to protect and further children's rights to survival, development, protection and participation. Recognizing that the wellbeing of children is closely linked to the health and wellbeing of their mothers, UNICEF also works to help women in Myanmar realize these fundamental rights.

UNICEF started its unique partnership with the Multi-Donor Education Fund (MDEF) partners, comprising Australia, the European Union, DFID (UK Aid) - Denmark, and Norway, in 2007. The partnership was established in response to the emergency Myanmar was facing in education. UNICEF will work with a range of implementing partners, which will include but not be limited to those contracted through Project Cooperation Agreements (PCAs):

Central Ministries of Government of Myanmar: UNICEF will work with the MoE’s technical officers of the Department for Education Planning and Training (DEPT) and the Departments of Basic Education (DBE) in implementation and monitoring of QBEP activities. The Border Areas and National Races Department of the Ministry of Border Affairs will provide some support to the implementation of the programme in the border areas. The Department of Social Welfare will lead the process of developing a multi-sectoral policy in ECD. Townships, Schools and Communities: Many activities will be facilitated on the ground by UNICEF field officers and the Township Education Officers with direct access to schools and communities. Implementing Partner NGOs, CSOs and FBOs: Involvement of local NGOs and INGOs in education is largely limited to ECD and NFE for out-of-school children, due to government restrictions on their involvement in the formal sector. However, some international NGOs directly support Myanmar's network of monastic schools, whilst others support primary schools in ‘hard to reach’ and insecure border areas. Inclusion of NGOs in MDEF1 enabled considerable expansion of coverage, reaching remote areas and the opportunity for local NGOs to develop capacity and expand their programming.

UN Agencies: UNESCO and World Food Programme (WFP) are the two main UN agencies that UNICEF works with in the implementation of the programme. UNESCO will provide guidance and support on the implementation of the pre-service education sub-component; while also provides technical support to EMIS including support to high-level advocacy efforts for education policy reform, provision of technical support to the basic education sector review, and assessment of current policies and practices on quality education. UNICEF will coordinate with WFP and its Food for Education programme. Regional Knowledge Partnerships: Expanded knowledge partnerships will be explored especially with regional networks such as Asia Pacific Network for Early Childhood (ARNEC), the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI) and with the private sector to taking initiatives such as EXCEL and NFPE to disadvantaged areas.

16

Annex 2: Background facts Myanmar is a union of 7 states with an estimated population of 55-60 million, whereof approximately 32% live in urban areas. The country is geographically and culturally diverse, with 130 ethnic groups speaking over 100 languages and dialects. Ethnic groups comprise an estimated 35-40% of the population. The ethnic minorities have historically been marginalized under Myanmar ruling and for long periods of time been exposed to harsh military control and significant human rights violations.

Agriculture remains central to the Myanmar economy, with the main share of GDP derived from agriculture, livestock and fisheries, although substantial revenue is generated by export of natural resources. Both absolute and relative poverty declined between 2005 and 2010, but still 1/3 of the population live below the poverty line, with 5% living in extreme poverty. Poverty incidence is around twice as high in rural areas and is also unevenly distributed across the country’s states and regions, with 73% of the population in Chin, 44% in Rakhine and over 30% in Shan, Tanintharyi and Ayeyarwady States living in poverty according to UNDP’s 2009-2010 household survey. One third of the poorest people live in the densely populated Mandalay and Ayeyarwady regions, especially in the so-called Dry Zone area.

Myanmar held its first Parliamentary election in 20 years in November 2010, after many years of military rule. According to the 2008 constitution, the military regime was guaranteed 25 pct. of the seats in Parliament and the regime’s party, ‘The Union Solidarity and Development’ party proceeded to win by more than 80 pct. of the votes. A result of both the undemocratic process leading up to the election and fraud on the election day. Aung San Suu Kyi was released from her 15 year-long house arrest (over the last 21 years) shortly after the election and in the by-elections held on 1 April 2012 her party, National League for Democracy, won an overwhelming victory that secured her a seat in Parliament.

This political upheaval in Myanmar has led to expansions of basic freedoms, materialized notably by the release of around 700 political prisoners, an ease of censorship of the print media and the internet, the enactment of new laws on freedom of association and assembly, and the establishment of a Myanmar National Human Rights.

As a response to the positive political changes, EU has suspended most of the restrictions on economic and development cooperation with Myanmar in 2013. The suspension of the sanctions has paved the way for a broader engagement with the Myanmar government on political, economic and development cooperation. International development assistance is however still hampered by lack of access to parts of the country, especially the ethnic areas and along the borders due to conflicts between ethnic groups and the Myanmar army.

17

Annex 3: Indicators GOAL/IMPACT: Increased number and proportion of children in Myanmar accessing and completing quality Basic Education

Indicators Baseline: 2011-2012

Milestone 1: 2012-13

Milestone 2: 2013-14

Milestone 3: 2014-15

Target: 2015

Net primary enrolment rate nationally, by sex

84% M: 84% F: 85%

87% 90%

Source: MoE’s Education Management Information System (EMIS) data, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey

Survival rate to Grade 5 nationally, by sex

74% M: 73% F: 74%

76% 78%9

Source: MoE EMIS data, Programme Monitoring and Evaluation

OUTCOME : Increased number and proportion of children accessing and completing quality Basic Education in targeted townships10

Indicators Baseline: 2011-2012

Milestone 1: 2012-13

Milestone 2: 2013-14

Milestone 3: 2014-15

Target: 2015 Assumptions

Net primary enrolment rate in targeted townships, by sex 11 Survival rate, by sex, to Grade 3 in targeted townships Survival rate to Grade 5, by sex, in targeted townships12

Total: 689,470 students M: 50,691 F: 38,779 Total: 83% M: 83% F: 82% Total: 72% M: 72% F: 73%

1 percentage point above baseline (target)

2 percentage points above baseline (see footnote 3) 3 percentage points above baseline 3 percentage points above baseline

The economic situation does not deteriorate drastically

No severe external shocks

Source: MoE EMIS data; programme surveys

Proportion of Grade 3 and 5 students, by sex, achieving the minimum (50%) competency13 in standardised math and Myanmar language tests

55% (Myanmar G3) 77% (Myanmar G5) 17% (Math G3) 22% (Math G5)

30% Mathematics 50% Myanmar language14

Source: Standardized tests administered at baseline and end of programme

9 Data on survival rate at national level may be delayed each year depending on the MoE data compilation process. 10 Targeted townships include the 25 core townships, 9 additional Mon State townships and 3 Northern Rakhine townships. 11 If reliable population estimates are not available, the number of enrolled students will be used to assess progress in enrolment in targeted townships and milestone 2 will be an increase of 1 percentage point, with the target in 2015-16 an increase of 2 percentage points compared to the baseline in 2011-12. National data for NER stand at 84 per cent. This is in line with the average enrolment trend at national level between 2004-05 and 2010-11. 12 Survival rate to Grades 3 and 5 will be calculated using the reconstructed cohort method, with the underlying data taken from the routine EMIS. National data for Grade 5 stand at 74 per cent. 13 Minimum competency level expected is at least 50 per cent score (out of possible 100 per cent) in a standardised learning achievement test. 14 MDEF-1 learning achievement result for Myanmar language was 59 per cent; for mathematics ,21 per cent

18

Proportion of new entrants in Grade 1 with prior ECD experience in targeted QBEP townships 15

Total 34% (boys); 34% (girls) Rural 24% (boys); 25% (girls) Urban 45% (boys); 45% (girls)

6 percentage points above baseline

Source: UNICEF monitoring and survey data

Component 1: Expansion of coverage of quality Early Childhood Development (ECD) services Indicators Baseline:

2011 Milestone 1: 2012

Milestone 2: 2013

Milestone 3: 2014

Target: 2015

Assumptions

Number of 0- to 5- year- old children in targeted townships16 accessing facility-based ECD services17

20,000 (target) 20,416 (actual)

42,000 (target) 51,144 (cumulated)18

74,000 (target)

89,000

Policy climate favourable for proposed changes

Government approves policy development process

If multi-sector plan agreed, system for targeting mapping and provision of integrated ECD services by concerned Ministries to be developed by 2015

Minimum standards finalized by Gov’t in timely manner.

Source: Partners’ data & UNICEF monitoring reports

Proportion of schools in targeted townships with ECD facilities for 3- to 5-year-olds 19 Proportion of school-based ECD facilities that meet minimum quality standards in targeted townships

10% (actual)

12% (target) 2% (actual)

15% (target) 17% (actual) 10% (target)

18% (target)

20% 20%

Source: Township EMIS; UNICEF and partner monitoring reports

Multi-sector Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) national action plan/ policy in place

Policy framework designed (target) Policy drafted (actual)

Policy drafted (target) Draft costed strategic plan prepared (actual)

Action plan drafted (target)

Multi-sectoral five year ECCD national policy in place

Source: Government plans; UNICEF reports

Component 2: Improved quality of teaching and learning practices in Basic Education in targeted townships in Government and monastic schools and in both mono-grade and multi-grade schools.

Indicators Baseline: 2011

Milestone 1: 2012

Milestone 2: 2013

Milestone 3: 2014

Target: 2015

Assumptions

% of primary teachers applying improved teaching methods, as defined by classroom observation criteria

4% 24% 35% of sampled teachers

Technical and human resource capacities of implementing partners meet the scope of the programme

Source: Baseline and end of programme surveys; UNICEF monitoring; both using classroom observation

Pre-service teacher education framework developed and operationalised in targeted

Draft national Teacher Education

Comprehensive assessment report of 2

Reforms institutionalized in Hpa-an, Mawlamyine,

15 This will be taken from the school survey conducted together with learning achievement tests. 16 Only some villages in the targeted townships will be selected. Since population sizes at village levels are not available, the number of children reached will be monitored. 17 It includes school- and community-based ECD facilities, which includes mother circles; however, Parenting Education is not included due to measurement difficulties. MICS data for attendance of 3- to 5-year-olds stand at 22.9 per cent 18 30,728 children under five benefitted in 2013 19 National data stand at 6.6 per cent of schools with preschool classrooms

19

Education Colleges (ECs) Strategy framework developed20

ECs (target) EC assessment report completed (actual)

Pakkoku and Yankin Education Colleges (UNESCO program)

Source: UNESCO reports

Number of primary teachers receiving face-to-face and distance learning in-service training (SITE) Number of students in targeted township provided with essential supplies and textbooks, including humanitarian support to border areas.

0 0

Face-to-face: 8,250 teachers SITE 1,000 teachers 620,000 students receive supplies

Face-to-face: 15,250 teachers (target) 10,933 teachers (actual) SITE: 1000 teachers (target) 867 teachers completed (actual). Another 824 enrolled (actual) 830,000 students receive supplies (increase reflects 9 Mon State extra townships) 758,000 students (actual)

SITE: 1,000 teachers 645,000 students receive supplies

Face-to-face: 23,500 teachers (cumulative) SITE: 1,000 teachers 4,000 teachers (cumulative) 658,000 students receive supplies 1.3 Million (cumulative)

Source: UNICEF Monitoring and Evaluation and monitoring reports

Number of teachers trained to implement Secondary Life Skills curriculum Proportion of children (aged 10-15 years) in school demonstrating correct information and skills to reduce risk, including prevention of HIV/AIDS, in targeted townships

3,900 teachers

10,800 teachers To be determined (Baseline)

11,200 teachers (target) 11,279 teachers (actual)

2,903 teachers

30,000 teachers (cumulative) 50% answer correctly

Source: Baseline and end-of-programme surveys; UNICEF Monitoring reports

20 This change is due to delays in joint programme and alignment with the CESR. The original milestone has been moved to second year

20

Component 3: Enhanced planning, management, monitoring and evaluation and mentoring capacity of key education actors at all levels Indicators Baseline:

2011 Milestone 1: 2012

Milestone 2: 2013

Milestone 3: 2014

Target: 2015

Assumptions

Proportion of schools with operationalised School Self-assessment/School Improvement plans in targeted townships

0%

20% (target) 9.5% (actual)

25% 35% MoE agrees to education sector reform and commits to implement the identified milestones

High turnover of HT

Source: UNICEF field monitoring

Number of master trainers (MT), head teachers (HT) and Township Education Officers(TEOs)/Assistant township education officers(ATEOs) trained on instructional leadership and management

0

50 MT (target) 79 MT (actual) 32 TEOs/ ATEOs (target) 48 TEOs/ ATEOs + 21 state/district (actual) 500 HT (target) 1843 HT (actual)

30 MT (target) 28 TEOs/ ATEOs trained (target) 1,528 HT trained (target)

140 master trainers (cumulative) 124 TEOs/ ATEOs trained (cumulative)

4,900 HT trained (cumulative)

Number of townships with Township Education Plans according to agreed standards 21

0 townships

Strategy for development of township planning developed (target) Township planning manual developed (target)

Strategy for development of township planning developed (actual) Township planning manual developed (actual) 7 tsp (actual)

13 tsp 14 tsp (target) 34 tsp (cumulative)

Source: UNICEF field monitoring; commissioned studies

Number of townships with Township Education Management Information System (TEMIS) fully operational

TEMIS partially operational in 3 townships

TEMIS partially operational in 5 tsp (target) TEMIS partially operational in 5 tsp (actual)

TEMIS partially operational in 15 tsp (target) TEMIS partially operational in 15 tsp (actual)

TEMIS fully operational in 15 townships

Source: TEMIS review, regular monitoring reports

21Township Education Plans should at least include simple diagnosis of problems, planned activities with cost estimates, and strategies for mobilising these resources

21

Component 4: Enhanced coverage, quality and relevance of second- chance, alternative education

Indicators Baseline: 2011

Milestone 1: 2012

Milestone 2: 2013

Milestone 3: 2014

Target: 2015

Assumptions

Number of out-of-school children aged 10-14 years, by sex, enrolled in Non-Formal Primary Education (NFPE) programme in targeted townships

8,000 9,000 10,000(target) 9,200(actual)

10,000 5,000 42,000 (Cumulative)

Policy on reintegration and equivalence is clarified

Government allows more NGO partners to implement NFPE

Human resource capacity of MoE increased

Source: MoE reports, NFPE data, UNICEF monitoring and evaluation reports

Number of out-of-school adolescents aged 10-17 years reached by Extended and continuous Education and Learning (EXCEL) in targeted townships Proportion of reached out-of-school adolescents completing EXCEL in targeted townships

11,000 85% of total reached learners complete full course

14,000 85% of total reached learners complete full course

14,000 (target) 10,800 (actual) 85% of total reached learners complete full course (target) 97.1% (actual)

11,000 85% of total reached learners complete full course

50,000 (cumulativeby sex) 85% of total reached learners complete full course

Source: EXCEL data

National framework for NFPE equivalency and certification developed

- Task force established and functional

Agreed framework (target) National Framework for Primary Equivalency report prepared and standardized test developed (actual)

Action plan Evidence of framework with implementation plan

Annex 4: Approved response by representation to summary of recommendations in the appraisal report

N/A

Annex 5: List of relevant supplementary material

1. QBEP Programme Design Document (October 2012) including:

- Detailed programme description

- Detailed original QBEP overall budget (USD)

2. QBEP Annual report 2013 including:

- Detailed progress of the programme

- Updated Logical Framework

- Financial Report 2013

- List of townships and schools supported by QBEP

- Maps of targeted townships

- Detailed risk management matrix