Official PDF , 97 pages

of 97/97
Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 74241-PH INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF US$300 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR A LEARNING, EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT February 21, 2014 Human Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region This document is being made publicly available prior to Board consideration. This does not imply a presumed outcome. This document may be updated following Board consideration and the updated document will be made publicly available in accordance with the Bank's policy on Access to Information. Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
  • date post

    20-Dec-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    217
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Official PDF , 97 pages

  • Document of

    The World Bank

    FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

    Report No: 74241-PH

    INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

    PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

    ON A

    PROPOSED LOAN

    IN THE AMOUNT OF US$300 MILLION

    TO THE

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    FOR A

    LEARNING, EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT

    February 21, 2014

    Human Development Sector UnitEast Asia and Pacific Region

    This document is being made publicly available prior to Board consideration. This does notimply a presumed outcome. This document may be updated following Board consideration andthe updated document will be made publicly available in accordance with the Bank's policy onAccess to Information.

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

    Pub

    lic D

    iscl

    osur

    e A

    utho

    rized

  • CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

    (Exchange Rate Effective February 5, 2014)

    Currency Unit = Philippine Peso (Php)US$1 = Php 45.05

    FISCAL YEARJanuary 1 - December 31

    ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

    AusAID Australian Agency for IFR Interim Unaudited FinancialInternational Development Report

    AAP Abot Alam Program IPF Investment Project FinancingBEIS Basic Education Information IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning

    System FrameworkBESRA Basic Education Sector Reform IPs Indigenous Peoples

    Agenda LEAPS Learning, Equity andCAS Country Assistance Strategy Accountability Program Support

    COA Commission on Audit ProjectC A . .vM & E Monitoring and EvaluationCSC Civil Service Commission MOOE Maintenance and Other OperatingDBM Department of Budget and Expenses

    Management MTB- Mother Tongue-Based MultilingualDepEd Department of Education MLE EducationDLI Disbursement-Linked Indicator NAT National Achievement TestDSWD Department of Social Welfare NPSBE National Program Support for

    and Development Basic Education

    DVA DLI Verification Agent PBB Performance-Based Bonus

    eBEIS Enhanced Basic Education PDO Project Development Objective

    Information System Phil-IRI Philippines Informal Reading

    EEP Eligible Expenditure Programs InventoryESBM School-Based ManagementEGMA Early Grade Math Assessment SPHERE Support for Philippine BasicEGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment Education Reform ProjectFM Financial Management SRC School Report CardGAA General Appropriations Act SY School YearGOP Government of the Philippines WA Withdrawal ApplicationIAS Internal Audit Services

    Regional Vice President: Axel van TrotsenburgCountry Director: Motoo Konishi

    Sector Director: Xiaoqing YuSector Manager: Luis Benveniste

    Task Team Leader: Lynnette de la Cruz Perez

    11

  • PHILIPPINESLEARNING, EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Page

    I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................. 1

    A. Country Context ...................... 1..........................

    B. Sectoral and Institutional Context............................................ 1

    C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes ........... ........ 3

    II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 3

    A. PDO........................................................ 3

    B. Project Beneficiaries ................................................. 3

    C. PDO Level Results Indicators......................4.... ............ 4

    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 5

    A. Project Components ..................................... ........ 5

    B. Project Financing .......................................... ..... 9

    C. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design..................... 11

    IV. IM PLEM ENTATION ..................................................................................................... 11

    A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements ................ ............. 11

    B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation .................................... 12

    C. Sustainability......... ........ ............................... 12

    V. Key Risks and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 13

    A. Risk Ratings Summary Table ...................................... 13

    B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation .................................... 13

    VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 13

    A. Economic and Financial Analysis .......................... ......... 13

    B. Technical .................................................... 14

    C. Financial Management...................... ................ 14

    D. Procurement ......................................... ......... 14

    E. Social (including Safeguards) ...................................... 15

    F. Environment (including Safeguards) .................................. 15

    iii

  • Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring .................................................................... 16

    Annex 2: Detailed Project Description .................................................................................. 28

    Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements ............................................................................. 40

    Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF).............................................56

    Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan................................................................................ 63

    Annex 6: DLI Disbursement Rules and Verification Protocol Summary .......................... 63

    Annex 7: Economic and Financial Analysis ......................................................................... 72

    List of Tables

    Table 1: Profile of Project by Target Regions .......................... ......... 28

    Table 2: PDO-level Results Indicators ............................... ......... 30

    Table 3: DLI and EEP Allocations ................... ................ 46

    Table 4: Eligible Expenditures per Component (in US$) ..................... 47

    Table 5: Minimum EEP related DLIs per Period (in US$)..................... 48

    Table 6: Tentative Disbursement Schedule (in US$) ..................... ......... 50

    Table 7: Estimated Project Benefits................ .................... ..... 83

    List of Figures

    Figure 1: Learning Achievement in the Philippines ............................... 74

    Figure 2: Grade 3 Reading Levels, 2013 ....................................... 75

    Figure 3: Project Logic and Components ...................................... 78

    Figure 4: Elementary Students Scoring Zero in Comprehension Assessments, 2013.............. 77

    iv

  • PAD DATA SHEET

    Philippines

    Learning, Equity and Accountability Program Support Project (Pl18904)

    PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

    EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

    EASHE

    Report No.: PAD364

    Basic Information

    Project ID Lending Instrument EA Category Team Leader

    P118904 Investment Project B - Partial Assessment Lynnette Dela Cruz PerezFinancing

    Project Implementation Start Date Project Implementation End Date

    1-July-2013 31-December 2017

    Expected Effectiveness Date Expected Closing Date

    2-June-2014 31-August-2018

    Joint IFC

    No

    Sector Manager Sector Director Country Director Regional Vice President

    Luis Benveniste Xiaoqing Yu Motoo Konishi Axel van Trotsenburg

    Borrower: Republic of the Philippines

    Responsible Agency: Department of Education

    Contact: Francisco Varela Title: Undersecretary

    Telephone (63 2) 6339342 Email: [email protected]

    Project Financing Data(in USD Million)

    [X] Loan [ ] Grant [ ] Other

    ] Credit [ ] Guarantee

    Total Project Cost: 300.00 Total Bank Financing: 300.00

    Total Cofinancing: Financing Gap: 0.00

    Financing Source Amount

    Borrower 0.00

    International Bank for Reconstruction and 300.00Development

    V

  • Total 300.00

    Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)

    Fiscal 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0000 0000 0000Year

    Annual 15.83 77.50 107.68 72.12 26.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

    Cumulati 15.83 93.33 201.01 273.13 299.25 299.25 0.00 0.00 0.00ve

    Institutional Data

    Sector Board

    Education

    Sectors / Climate Change

    Sector (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)

    Major Sector Sector % Adaptation Mitigation Co-Co-benefits % benefits %

    Education Primary education 70

    Education Secondary education 30

    Total 100

    Z I certify that there is no Adaptation and Mitigation Climate Change Co-benefits information

    applicable to this project.

    Themes

    Theme (Maximum 5 and total % must equal 100)

    Major theme Theme %

    Human development Education for all 100

    Total 100

    Proposed Project Development Objective(s)

    The project development objective is to improve the quality of grades 1 to 3 reading and mathskills of children in Target Regions and Target Schools, with a special focus on those belongingto Target Disadvantaged Groups.

    Components

    Component Name Cost (USD Millions)

    Improvement of Teaching and Learning in Grades 1 to 3 180.25Reading and Math

    Strengthening of Accountability and Incentives of Department 82.50of Education Employees

    Improvement of Program Design for Targeting Disadvantaged 36.50

    vi

  • Groups

    Compliance

    Policy

    Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant Yes [ ] No [X]respects?

    Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies? Yes [ ] No [X]

    Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [ ]

    Is approval for any policy waiver sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [X]

    Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Yes [X] No [ ]

    Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No

    Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 X

    Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 X

    Forests OP/BP 4.36 X

    Pest Management OP 4.09 X

    Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 X

    Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 X

    Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 X

    Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 X

    Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 X

    Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 X

    Legal Covenants

    Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

    Institutional Arrangements X

    Description of Covenant

    Borrower's obligation to maintain, throughout the implementation of the Project, an executivecommittee chaired by DepEd, a DepEd project management office, , and operational units ofDepEd at central, region, division, and school levels, all assigned with functions, responsibilitiesand resources for the Project, satisfactory to the Bank.

    Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

    DLI Verification Protocol X

    Description of Covenant

    Borrower's obligation to carry out the Proiect. and monitor and re-ort on the achievement of the

    vii

  • Disbursement Linked Indicators, in accordance with the arrangements and procedures set out inthe DLI Verification Protocol

    Legal Covenants

    Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

    Verification Agent X Appointment by Verification byDecember 15, February 15 and2014 August 15 of ea(h

    year

    Description of Covenant

    Borrower's obligation to appoint and retain for the duration of the Project an independent DLIverification agent having qualifications and terms of reference acceptable to the Bank to verify thachievement of some of the DLIs semi-annually.

    Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

    Indigenous Peoples Planning XFramework

    Description of Covenant

    Borrower's obligation to ensure that the Project is implemented in accordance with theIndigenous Peoples Planning Framework.

    Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

    Interim Unaudited Financial Reports X Semi-annual for(IFRs); Audited Financial Statements IFRs not later

    than 45 days afterthe end of eachcalendarsemester; Annualfor AuditedFinancialStatements notlater than sixmonths after theend of the fiscalyear of theBorrower

    Description of Covenant

    Borrower's obligation to DreDare and furnish semi-annual IFRs. including the sDending status o

    viii

  • the Eligible Expenditure Program under the Project, and annual Audited Financial Statements

    Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

    Project Reports; Mid-Term Review X Semi-annual forProject Reportsnot later than 45days after the endof the periodcovered; June 30,2016 for mid-term report.

    Description of Covenant

    Borrower's obligation to prepare and furnish semi-annual project reports and a mid-term report.

    Conditions

    Name Type

    Withdrawal Conditions Disbursement

    Description of Condition

    Conditions of disbursement providing that the withdrawal of loan proceeds is dependent uponthe achievement and verification of the relevant DLIs against which the withdrawal is requested,the incurrence of the minimum required levels of eligible expenditures, the submission of thesemi-annual interim financial reports, and compliance with other pertinent withdrawalinstructions stipulated in the Disbursement Letter.(Details are found in Annex 3, FinancialManagement, Withdrawal Conditions section).

    Team Composition

    Bank Staff

    Name Title Specialization Unit

    Rene SD. Manuel Senior Procurement Senior Procurement EASRISpecialist Specialist

    Danielle Malek Senior Counsel Senior Counsel LEGEN

    Manush Hristov Senior Counsel Senior Counsel LEGEN

    Matthew James Keir Senior Social Senior Social EASPSStephens Development Specialist Development Specialist

    Lynnette Dela Cruz Senior Education Team Lead EASHEPerez Specialist

    Miguel-Santiago da Senior Finance Officer Senior Finance Officer CTRLNSilva Oliveira

    Maria Loreto Padua Senior Social Senior Social EASPSDevelopment Specialist Development Specialist

    Samer Al-Samarrai Senior Education Senior Education EASHE

    ix

  • Economist Economist

    Gerardo F. Parco Senior Operations Operations Officer EASPSOfficer

    Aisha Lanette N. De Financial Management Financial Management EASFMGuzman Specialist Specialist

    Bonnie Sirois Senior Financial Financial Management EASFMManagement Specialist

    Franco Russo Operations Officer Operations Officer EASHE

    Nicholas M. Tenazas E T Consultant EASHE

    Kristine May San Juan Program Assistant Program Assistant EACPFAnte

    Corinne V. Bernaldez Team Assistant Team Assistant EACPF

    Brenda Batistiana Consultant Consultant EASHE

    Victoria Medrana Consultant Consultant EACPFCatibog

    Maria Adoracion Fausto Consultant Consultant EASHE

    Vicente Paqueo Senior Education Senior Education EASHEConsultant Consultant

    Redempto Parafina SBM Consultant SBM Consultant EASHE

    Merle Tan Math Consultant Math Consultant EASHE

    Felicitas Pado Reading Consultant Reading Consultant EASHE

    Non Bank Staff

    Name Title Office Phone City

    Locations

    Country First Location Planned Actual CommentsAdministrativeDivision

    x

  • I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

    A. Country Context

    1. The Philippines is a lower middle-income country (Gross National Income per capita ofUS$2,210) with a population of 94.8 million, with 26.5 percent living below the national povertyline.I Despite respectable economic growth during the past decade, poverty incidence andincome inequality remain high.2 The country's main development challenge, therefore, continuesto be the achievement of more inclusive growth. To meet this challenge, the Government has laidout in the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan three strategic objectives: (i) attaining asustained and high rate of economic growth that provides productive employment opportunities;(ii) equalizing access to development opportunities for all Filipinos; and (iii) implementingeffective social safety nets to protect and enable those who do not have the capability toparticipate in the economic growth process. As a first step, GOP increased the budget of thesocial services sectors with the Department of Education (DepEd) receiving a 15.2 percentincrease in its budget in 2012 compared to the previous year.

    B. Sectoral and Institutional Context

    2. The most critical issue in the Philippines is the growing number of non-readers andnon-numerates, mainly at the primary level. Available evidence, both international and local,shows that the poor performance of students in terms of enrolment, retention, and completion aswell as in terms of learning outcomes, as measured by results of student assessments, is partlyexplained by the lack of foundational skills in reading and math in the early grades. Recentreading-related subtests in the Grade 3 National Achievement Test (NAT)show disturbing trends,as Mean Percentage Scores (MPS) in the English Reading Comprehension and Grammar testsdecreased from 61.74 and 61.94 in SY 2009-2010 to 54.42 and 57.23 in SY 2011-2012,respectively. The results are just as dismal in the Filipino Reading Comprehension and Grammartests over the same period, as the respective decreases are from 61.25 and 63.94 to 58.61 and56.97. In terms of math, the decline in MPS over the same period is from 65.09 to 59.87.

    3. One of the main reasons for the poor performance of students is traced to the inadequatetraining of teachers on developmentally appropriate approaches and strategies in teachingreading and math. On the other hand, courses for teaching early reading have only been formallyrequired as part of the Teacher Education Curriculum beginning in 2005. More experiencedteachers who might be knowledgeable in effective strategies to teach early grade reading andmath are more likely to be assigned to higher rather than lower grades, which is a loss for thoseGrade 1 - 3 pupils who are struggling. For a long time, DepEd did not have a clearly articulatedofficial reading or math program. Based on local and international experiences, learning in alanguage which is not one's own in the early grades has slowed down the acquisition of basicskills especially in reading and math.

    I National Statistical Coordination Board. February 2011.2 World Bank. 2010. Philippines: Towards Inclusive Growth. World Bank, Manila.

    1

  • 4. The challenge of poor educational access and low student learning is far worse forcertain population subgroups, reflecting high education inequality. There are four majordimensions of inequality: income, ethnicity, disability and geography. Data from the Departmentof Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) through the National Household Targeting Systemfor Poverty Reduction identified 5.2 million poorest households in the country. Out of the 5.2million poor households, 3.9 million individuals aged 3-18 do not attend school. Lack of accessand low quality of learning is particularly pronounced among the Indigenous People (IP)communities and those with disabilities. In some barangays, many pupils and even teachers needto travel (usually on foot) long distances to and from school.

    5. The education system is characterized by a weak incentives structure, compoundedby lack of accountability. In the Philippines, the issue of accountability and incentives forperformance has largely been a missing factor in past education reforms. Salary increases areprovided regardless of performance; underperforming teachers languish in the system untilretirement; and budget allocations to schools and divisions do not reward results, and sometimeseven provide incentives to remain as poor performers. Despite its recognized importance as adriver of performance, there is a need to forge a consensus on how to raise student and teachermotivation (external vs. intrinsic) to improve learning outcomes.

    6. The Government, through the DepEd, has embarked on reforms to address thesechallenges. In 2005, the government developed the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda(BESRA), a coherent education reform program that sought sustainable and system-wideimprovements in outcomes and which was to serve as the overall framework for a coordinatedsectoral approach, involving the participation of government, donors, and other partners. In linewith the objectives of the BESRA, the DepEd recently introduced the Kindergarten to Grade 12Program (K to 12). The program aims to support mastery of the curriculum through increasingthe number of years required from 10 to 12 years so that students have more time to absorb thecurriculum material. This also places the country at par with the international standard of yearsof basic education and prepares graduates for the world of work, even without undergoingtertiary education. Simultaneously, DepEd is also including in the BESRA Mother Tongue-Based Multi-lingual Education (MTB-MLE) and has issued DepEd Order No. 16, s.2012, whichoutlines the guidelines for the use of the child's first language in classroom instruction in Grades1 to 3. In response to the low reading and math skills of early graders, DepEd is currentlyworking on the development of a holistic reading and math program for elementary schools, inline with the major policy reforms. Central to this program is the development of Early GradeReading and Math Assessment tools in the 12 Mother Tongues initially put forward by the MTB-MLE policy.

    7. To address accountability issues, DepEd is currently working on major organizationaldevelopment initiatives that are in line with the key reform thrust of the BESRA on InstitutionalCulture Change and the K to 12 program. DepEd implements programs that are targeting specificdisadvantaged groups. For out of school youths and adults, an Alternative Learning System(ALS) is available, wherein mobile teachers and contracted Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) bring needs-based learning opportunities to far-flung areas. For the poorest studentsenrolled in schools, Abot Alam Program (AAP) of education are provided so that these childrenare not forced to forego learning in exchange for economic activities. The Department is alsoconducting Special Education programs serving people with the following disabilities: autism,

    2

  • behavioral problems, blindness, cerebral palsy, communication disorders, hearing impairment,intellectual disability, learning disability, low vision, multiple handicaps, orthopedic challengesand special health problems. More recently, DepEd has also adopted the National IndigenousPeoples Education Policy Framework and established the IP Education Office.

    C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes

    8. The project is closely aligned to the objectives of the World Bank 2010-2013 CountryAssistance Strategy (CAS) in the Philippines of improving public service delivery andgovernance. It will directly support the CAS strategic objective which aims to improve accessand quality of basic education services. Although the new Country Partnership Strategy in thePhilippines for 2014-16 is still under preparation, it is expected that these key objectives ofimproving public service delivery, including the improvement of quality basic education, willremain as a major theme. The components and key result indicators of the proposed project arealigned with the World Bank's twin objectives of supporting poverty eradication and promotingshared prosperity. The project's emphasis on ensuring access of the disadvantaged groups toquality basic education services serves as a pathway for these students' advancement and humancapital development. The project is also consistent with the Bank's Education Sector Strategywhich emphasizes "Learning for All." The project will support the GOP's 2011-2016 PhilippineDevelopment Plan strategies and objectives, including a cross-cutting approach of developinghuman resources through improved social services, and promoting transparent and responsivegovernance. It also supports the President's commitments in the Social Contract which puts"education as the central strategy for investing in the Filipino people, reducing poverty andbuilding national competitiveness."

    II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

    A. PDO

    9. The project development objective is to improve the quality of grades 1 to 3 reading andmath skills of children in Target Regions and Target Schools, with a special focus on thosebelonging to Target Disadvantaged Groups.

    10. For the purposes of the Project, the "target regions" are Regions 5, 8, 9, CAR andCARAGA. "Target schools" shall be defined as a subset3 of elementary and/or high schools inthe target regions implementing the relevant project components. Furthermore, the "targetdisadvantaged groups" will include the following groups in the target regions: (i) indigenouspeoples; (ii) persons with disabilities; (iii) children living in remote or difficult-to-accesslocations; and (iv) out-of-school children and youth.

    B. Project Beneficiaries

    11. The Project beneficiaries include: (i) DepEd central, regional and division staff; (ii)school heads; (iii) teachers; (iv) public school students; (v) Indigenous Peoples students; (vi)

    3 Explained further in paragraph 13.

    3

  • children with disabilities and (vii) out-of-school children and youth of the select target regionsand schools.

    12. The five target regions were selected because they are among the eight poorest regions inthe country, based on the 2012 poverty statistics released during the second quarter of 2013. Tworegions were selected from Luzon, one from Visayas and two from Mindanao. These regionsalso: (i) suffer from significant dropout rates (especially between Grades 1 and 2); (ii) record lowperformance in reading and math scores; and (iii) have a significant IP population and otherdisadvantaged groups.

    13. Beneficiaries specifically within the five target regions can also be broken down bycomponents: (i) Component I will benefit all 11,998 elementary schools by implementing Early-Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) and Early Grade Mathematics Assessment (EGMA) tools;(ii) Component 2 will benefit all 14,121 schools (11,998 elementary plus 2,123 high schools), aswell as officers and staff from DepEd's administrative offices through the project'saccountability interventions; and (iii) Component 3 will support all 14,121 schools andstudents/learners from the targeted disadvantaged groups (i.e. indigenous peoples, persons withdisabilities, out of school children and youth and children living in remote or difficult-to-accesslocations). By the nature of the interventions, target disadvantaged groups will also be servedunder Components 1 and 2. Overall, the five target regions include 14,121 elementary andsecondary schools, 116,587 school teachers and approximately 4,038,780 students.

    14. DepEd will implement all LEAPS activities to all schools nationwide. As a matter of fact,DepEd will set higher internal targets for itself to further accelerate the institutionalization of thereforms reinforced under LEAPS. This project, however, will focus on select target regions andthe schools within these, but will be ready to provide strategic support to DepEd in their plan ofnationwide implementation.

    C. PDO Level Results Indicators

    15. The project outcome indicators for measuring achievement of the PDO are in thefollowing table. These pertain mostly to improved performance of both regular anddisadvantaged students using the EGRA and EGMA tools. The project will monitor at least3,000 elementary schools in the target regions to be included in the computation of the PDOindicators. 4

    PDO-level indicators School year School year School year School year2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-2018

    Decrease of students 0 3% decrease 5% decrease 7% decreasewith scores of zero in from the from previous from previousthe Comprehension Baseline baseline year's value year's valuedomain subtest of the gathering to (Grade 1 (Grade 2 (Grade 3relevant EGRA-mother take place in students) students) students)tongue tool school year

    4 This is roughly 25% of all elementary schools in the five project regions. For monitoring purposes, these 3,000elementary schools per year do not need to be the same elementary schools.

    4

  • 2013/140 3% increase 5% increase 7% increase

    Increase of students from the from previous from previouswith at least 60% Baseline baseline year's value year's valuescores in the relevant gathering to (Grade 1 (Grade 2 (Grade 3EGMA-mother tongue take place in students) students) students)tool school year

    2014/15Decrease of students 0 3% decrease 3% decrease 3% decreasefrom disadvantaged from the from previous from previousgroups5 with scores of Baseline baseline year's value year's valuezero in the gathering to (Grade 1 (Grade 2 (Grade 3Comprehension domain take place in students) students) students)subtest of the relevant school yearEGRA-mother tongue 2014/15toolIncrease of students 0 3% increase 3% increase 3% increasefrom disadvantaged from the from previous from thegroups with at least Baseline baseline year's value previous year's60% scores in the gathering to (Grade 1 (Grade 2 value (Grade 3relevant EGMA-mother take place in students) students) students)tongue tool school year

    2014/15Number of 4,038,780 4,038,780 4,038,780 4,038,780beneficiaries

    Note: Results will be disaggregated by gender

    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

    A. Project Components

    16. The project has three components:

    Component 1: Improvement of Teaching and Learning in Grades 1 to 3 Reading andMath

    Component 2: Strengthening of Accountability and Incentives of Department ofEducation Employees

    Component 3: Improvement of Program Design for Targeting Disadvantaged Groups

    The third and fourth PDO indicators will track performance of students/learners from the following targeteddisadvantaged groups: (i) indigenous peoples; (ii) persons with disabilities; and (iii) children living in remote ordifficult-to-access locations. Out of school children can no longer be assessed using the EGRA and EGMA tools asthese are school-based assessments. Out of school children and adults will be served primarily through theAlternative Learning System of DepEd, which this project will also strengthen.

    5

  • 17. The project will focus on improving teaching and learning in early grades reading andmath through: (i) enhancing and supporting DepEd's overall reading and math program; (ii)providing incentives and increasing accountability for results of school/education personnel; and(iii) helping ensure that the most disadvantaged have access to these educational services. Byfocusing on these key interventions, the foundational skills of learners can be greatly improved.This is very much in line with the objective of the Philippine basic education reform agenda:preparing students for higher learning and the world of work.

    Component 1: Improvement of Teaching and Learning in Grades 1 to 3 Reading and Math(US$180.25 million)

    18. This component seeks to develop the capacity of teachers and schools to improve theteaching of reading and math skills of Grades 1 to 3 students in the target schools andconsequently students' learning outcomes. Recognizing that reading and math is a vital tool forlearning and a predictor of a student's success in school, DepEd is committed to develop theseimportant foundational skills starting in the early grades.

    Sub-component 1.1: Improvement of early grade reading and math assessment in selectedMother Tongues (US$23.25 million)

    19. The EGRA and EGMA tools in Mother Tongues will be developed during the first yearof the project. In line with the recent implementation of DepEd's MTB-MLE program, theEGRA and EGMA tools for Grades 1 to 3 under this project will be developed in five of thetwelve major mother tongue languages: Bikol, 11oko, Sinugbuanong Binisaya, Waray andChabacano. At least six versions of EGRA and EGMA per Mother Tongue will be developed sothat yearly assessments are credible and comparable.

    Sub-component 1.2: Professional development of key personnel in target regions to enhancecapability in teaching grades 1 to 3 reading and math (US$120 million)

    20. The intention is for the EGRA and EGMA tools to provide DepEd with a nationaldiagnostic tool on the learning of reading and math skills which will be administered at leastonce a year in the early grades. On the basis of the results of the new reading and mathassessment, the government will put in place different sets of interventions to enhance teachingand learning of early grade reading and math. This sub-component involves training on theinterpretation of the results of the assessment, and training on classroom activities to helpaddress reading and math skills gaps identified among students.

    21. DepEd will organize trainings for Grades 1 to 3 teachers, as well as school principalsfrom the identified schools. The project is targeting training of 11,998 teachers each for Grades1, 2 and 3 (for a total 35,994 teachers) as well as 11,998 principals/head teachers assigned toidentified schools. They will be coached in training others and to become resource persons fortheir peers and colleagues in their respective schools. The capability to introduce appropriateinterventions for the unique learning challenges of each child as identified by the assessmentresults will be a critical innovation of this project.

    6

  • Sub-component 1.3: Institutionalization of early grade reading and math program (US$37million)

    22. This sub-component aims to support DepEd develop and implement policies that willestablish guidelines on the use of assessment tools in the appropriate mother tongue for eachgrade and help improve the implementation of DepEd's MTB-MLE policy in the target regions.Activities under this sub-component will ensure that DepEd implements necessary enablingpolicies to institutionalize the package of interventions tested and proven during projectimplementation.

    23. With the introduction of EGRA and EGMA, DepEd will need to specify the role thesetwo new tools will play in relation to the tools it already applies (i.e. the School ReadinessAssessment - SReA - and the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI). DepEdtherefore proposes to use: (i) the SReA tool as the assessment tool for Kindergarten; (ii) EGRAand EGMA for Grades 1-3 (because it coincides with the period wherein the mother tongue ismore prominent in classroom instruction); and (iii) the Phil-IRI for Grade 4-6 (as it is in Englishand Tagalog only). The project would support DepEd's efforts in analyzing the feasibility of thisproposal and developing the relevant policy.

    24. Before being able to implement the MTB-MLE policy effectively, DepEd would requirea complete list of all its mother tongues and their variations, which currently does not exist. Theproject would therefore support DepEd in its efforts to collect data and produce a comprehensiveand reliable linguistic map, which will also help make informed decisions on materialdistribution and further contextualize assessment results. The government has started initial workon creating such a map of the country, which could also serve as the springboard for future andmore detailed mapping activities.

    25. Finally, to ensure that incoming generations of teachers are familiar with all EGRA andEGMA principles, DepEd's Teacher Induction Program (TIP) needs to be updated. Courses onearly literacy and numeracy will be included in the TIP curriculum, which will be informed byDepEd's experience and evaluation of the reading and math program, including the use of EGRAand EGMA tools.

    Component 2: Strengthening of accountability and incentives of Department of EducationEmployees (US$82.5 million)

    26. This component will be used to reinforce the effectiveness of the package ofinterventions proposed in Component 1 of the project. First, it aims to ensure that theimplementation of the Performance Incentive Scheme for the Philippine Government willproduce the intended result of improved performance, especially better teaching in early gradesreading and math. Second, it plans to intensify the culture of accountability in schools, whichwas introduced through School-Based Management (SBM) reforms. Finally, it aims to addressfinancial management constraints and bottlenecks. Although interventions under this componentwill have an impact on the overall education system, the project will monitor their effectivenessand impact specifically in the five target regions and selected schools.

    7

  • Sub-component 2.1: Development of enabling mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness ofimplementation of the government's Performance Incentive Scheme (US$30 million)

    27. Under this project, DepEd will devise a reliable Performance Monitoring System (PMS)that not only measures the achievement of performance indicator targets by year end, but alsoprovides real-time information on the status and progress of achieving targets. This providesDepEd with an accurate dashboard of achievement of targets so that any lags or delays can beaddressed in a timely manner. Once the details of the PMS and the incentive scheme are known,DepEd will also conduct mass information campaigns to explain the details of theimplementation of the Performance Incentive Scheme. These activities will provide valuableinsight into the effectiveness of the Performance Incentive Scheme for future reference.

    Sub-component 2.2: Improvement of school reporting and feedback mechanism (US$30 million)

    28. DepEd understands the importance of stakeholder participation in planning, monitoring,and resource mobilization to achieve desired outcomes at the school level. During the Bank-financed National Program Support for Basic Education (NPSBE) project period, significantgains were achieved in institutionalizing community-based school planning and management ofresources. However, the School Report Card (SRC) which the DepEd is currently using wasfound to be inadequate to properly inform stakeholders and stimulate participation. Therefore,DepEd will revise its SRC and institutionalize its use throughout all schools. DepEd aims for ahigh participation rate of schools using the updated SRC by project closing.

    Sub-component 2.3: Strengthening of DepEd's Financial Management Capability (US$22.5million)

    29. This sub-component will support the development of a FM manual and associatedtraining of FM personnel to ensure that: (i) DepEd FM controls, policies and rules, both internaland external (e.g. those issued by oversight agencies), are codified, unified and made available toall FM personnel; (ii) FM reporting requirements are streamlined, simplified and completed on atimely basis; (iii) appropriate and relevant training is provided to all FM personnel; and (iv)consultations and consensus-building with oversight agencies on critical FM issues are carriedout.

    Component 3: Improvement of program design for Targeting Disadvantaged Groups in theTarget Regions (US$36.5 million)

    30. The project will support the improvement of access and quality outcomes fordisadvantaged groups in the target regions: poor students residing in areas far from a school orlearning center, out of school youth, indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities. Whilethese target groups are geographically dispersed and will inevitably benefit from wider DepEdprograms and projects, focused attention on their specific contexts, especially on early gradesreading and math, is expected to help improve national education outcomes substantially andmore equitably. This component will focus on two main critical areas to ensuring effectiveinterventions for any of these disadvantaged groups.

    8

  • Sub-component 3.11: Improvement of targeting of Disadvantaged Groups in the Target Regions(US$12.5million)

    31. In this subcomponent, DepEd will aim for the development of an information strategythat outlines the information gaps for programs serving target disadvantaged groups and howthese can be addressed, as well as an information system that can produce reliable and updatedinformation on these programs.

    Sub-component 3.2: Expansion of knowledge base on selected programs targetingDisadvantaged Groups and improvement of program design and implementation capabilities(US$24.0 million)

    32. DepEd will invest in evaluating its ongoing programs which are serving the target6disadvantaged groups. Four major programs serving disadvantaged groups will be

    comprehensively reviewed, focusing on its design, budget and performance. The list of programsto be reviewed will be finalized three months after project start-up. It is the intention of DepEdmanagement that these reviews be conducted by external groups or organizations, while makingsure that key DepEd staff are also trained on the management of studies.

    B. Project Financing

    Lending Instrument

    33. The lending instrument that has been selected is an Investment Project Financing (IPF),utilizing a results-based approach, with the amount and event of disbursements based on theachievement of pre-identified results, referred to as Disbursement-Linked Indicators (DLIs), onor before the last day of the relevant period and the incurring of spending levels for the eligibleexpenditures. Activities under selected key DepEd budget line items referred to as EligibleExpenditure Programs (EEPs) will constitute the eligible expenditures. LEAPS will supportelements of the Government's BESRA within budget financing that will help guarantee thedelivery of budget items critical to the reform agenda.

    34. Reporting of DLIs Achieved. PDO level indicators will require yearly submission (2015to 2018) of the EGRA and EGMA results for 3,000 schools. On the other hand, while DLIshave annual targets, verification will be done semi- annually. DepEd will submit a "VerificationReport #1" to the Bank no later than February 15 of each year on the status of the resultsframework and the DLIs (covering DLI's achieved from July 1 to December 31 of each year),and will include the Interim Unaudited Financial Report for the same period as well as a DLIVerification Agent (DVA) assessment for selected DLIs, if applicable.8 DepEd will also prepareand submit to the Bank no later than August 15 of each year "Verification Report #2" on DLI

    6 The programs initially identified are: (i) Multigrade Classrooms; (ii) Special Education; and (iii) School Feeding7 This is roughly 25 percent of all schools in the five project regions. For monitoring purposes, these 3,000 schoolsper year do not need to be the same schools.8 The first Verification Report will cover the period from July 1, 2013 (retroactive financing period start date) toProject Effectiveness date. The DLI Verification Agent assessment will cover selected DLls, as indicated in Annex6 of this PAD as not all DLIs will be subject to review by the DVA.

    9

  • achievement, covering the first six months of each year (which will also include the InterimUnaudited Financial Report for the same period as well as a DVA assessment, if applicable). Ifthe Bank is satisfied (based on the "Verification Report" or evidence of individual DLIachievement) that the DLI requirements and the minimum levels of EEP disbursements that areequal to the DLI values have been met, and the verification protocol properly followed, itauthorizes the withdrawal of proceeds in accordance with the disbursement rules associated witheach DLI.

    35. The DLIs and project activities will be monitored either through the independentvalidation to be conducted by a DVA to be hired by DepEd or through regular Bankimplementation support missions jointly undertaken with the government. The DVA will submitverification reports on pertinent DLIs by February 15 and August 15 of each year.

    36. Bank reviews: The Bank will conduct a mission in February and August of each year tocoincide with the timing of the "Verification Report #1" as well as the "Verification Report #2"and review a sample from the findings of the DVA during implementation support missions. Aspart of the aide-memoire, the Bank will communicate to DepEd any comments orrecommendations it may have to help accelerate or improve project implementation and DLIachievement.

    37. Disbursement Arrangements. The GOP will pre-finance all of the expenditures underthe EEPs and then get reimbursed by the Bank. EEPs were selected based on consultations withDepEd using the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and because they are directly linked to theproject's DLIs. Each EEP represents a distinct line item from the DepEd budget. The EEPs thatthe project will support are: (i) school Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE); (ii)in-service training (INSET); (iii) human resource training and development fund (HRTD); (iv)Abot Alam Program (AAP); and (v) Alternative Learning System (ALS). 9 Project funds will bedisbursed to the Bureau of Treasury as reimbursements for expenditure already incurred uponachievement of the DLIs. The accounting processes of DepEd are designed such that they candetermine the funding sources of various expenditures and projects so there is no doublefinancing and counting.

    38. DLIs will have an associated amount or 'price tag', which will correspond to an amountof EEP to be reimbursed provided that DepEd spends the required minimum levels for each EEP(See Table 5). Each DLI has a specific set of disbursement rules and a verification protocol,which will guide the timing and level of disbursements for each DLI. For scalable DLIs, theminimum EEPs are also scalable using the same disbursement rules applicable to such DLIs.Withdrawal of funds from the Bank will be through the submission of duly signed WithdrawalApplications (WA) and IFRs. Given that the loan includes a front-end fee of US$750,000, it willonly disburse US$299.25 million, which is the total price of all DLIs.

    9 These expenditure items mostly include maintenance and other operating expenses such transportation, suppliesand materials, training and utilities. These do not include personnel services, capital outlays, works or schoollaboratory equipment.

    10

  • 39. Remedies at the Bank's disposal for dealing with DLIs not having been met by theachievement date or not having conclusive evidence of DLI achievement, or insufficient EEPexpenditures being incurred are spelled out in detail in the loan agreement as well as the DLIverification protocol. They include, amongst others, providing an additional 12 months to meetthe DLI, an extended period to report eligible expenditures, withholding or cancelling theamount corresponding to a DLI. The DLI verification table in Annex 6 also includes additionalinformation as well.

    C. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design

    40. Lessons from basic education projects implemented by the government in the past haveinformed the design of this planned operation. While the NPSBE project covered a wide range ofactivities called for by BESRA and in all divisions, a key lesson from this project is that givenDepEd's implementation and absorptive capacity limitations, it would arguably be more efficientto keep management focused on a limited number of critical reforms in areas that are laggingbehind in basic education. As highlighted in several project implementation support missions onNPSBE and the Support for Philippine Basic Education Reform Project (SPHERE), there is aneed to integrate and coordinate various reform initiatives, and refocus and align reform effortsto a limited number of critical areas to serve as "tipping points" to realize successful reform ofthe education system. In light of this, LEAPS will thus be covering fewer but more focused andstrategic interventions and aim for specific outcomes. It will put great emphasis and focus onimproving the acquisition of reading and math skills in the early grades, improve performanceaccountability, and work on interventions to address the needs of specific disadvantaged groups.These interventions are intended to selectively address remaining gaps in terms of learning andaccess and strengthening and expanding some of the critical reforms started with support fromNPSBE.

    41. Accountability and incentives for performance have largely been a missing factor in pastreforms. There has been a failure to institute results-oriented incentives and social accountabilitymechanisms. The lack of accurate, timely, and coherent databases for evidence-based policy-making, performance monitoring, and social accountability was a problem identified in the pastwhich is currently being addressed by the current administration and included as part of theproject deliverables.

    42. As experienced in previous Bank-supported education projects that involved "withinbudget" financing, the LEAPS project will continue to support country systems and will bemanaged and implemented by organic staff from DepEd in coordination with other governmentagencies.

    IV. IMPLEMENTATION

    A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

    43. Overall responsibility for the project will be vested with the DepEd, which is in charge ofmeeting the objectives of the Philippine Development Plan on basic education, the BESRA andunder it, the K to 12 program, and the President's Social Contract. Furthermore, a projectmanagement office within DepED will be established and charged with functions,

    11

  • responsibilities and resources, and is expected to hire competent staff in adequate numbers, to beresponsible for the overall coordination of the project activities. The DepEd units at the central,regional, division offices, and schools will be responsible for their respective levels, as reflectedin their revised organizational restructuring plan. The Executive Committee composed of seniormanagement of DepEd, chaired by the Secretary of Education, will provide the overall strategicdirections for the project, review its progress, and address major issues. The other agencies ofgovernment, such as the DBM, DOF and National Economic and Development Authority(NEDA), COA and Civil Service Commission (CSC) will have specific roles in theimplementation of the project to ensure the delivery of the results that the GOP will commit toachieving by the end of the project.

    44. A DLI Verification Protocol has been developed with GOP which includes detaileddefinitions and conditions of DLIs to assess compliance and related disbursements. This DLIVerification Protocol shall guide DepEd, the Bank and the DVA on how to measure achievementof the DLIs and compute eligible disbursements for every assessment period.

    B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation

    45. The results-based nature of the operation necessitates a strong monitoring and evaluation(M&E) system to ensure that the project is achieving the results desired. The data to monitor thePDO level indicators for reading and math will come from the EGRA and EGMA results in thetarget schools. The EGRA and EGMA assessments will be given in the five major mother tonguelanguages. The pre- and post- assessment scores will serve as the sources of data for measuringimprovements in the domains assessed.

    46. The data and information required to monitor and evaluate the intermediate indicators inComponent 1 do not yet exist because the project is introducing innovative approaches for whichthere are no data points. Therefore, the performance measurement tools and protocols will bedeveloped and integrated into the DepEd's existing information systems during projectimplementation. For Component 2, many of the data systems needed to measure the projectindicators already exist within DepEd. These systems include: (i) DepEd's Electronic BasicEducation Information System (EBEIS), School Information System; (ii) the SRC that issubmitted annually by schools to the Division, up to the Regional and DepEd Central Offices;and (iii) DepEd's financial records, the financial information system, and reports to monitorprogress towards the identification and resolution of key financial issues. While these systemsalready exist, it will be important for the systems to be reviewed and refined to accommodatenew data required with the implementation of the new pilot performance incentive program.Tools will be developed to monitor the program implementation particularly looking into theoverall performance rating and performance incentives awarded. Finally, Component 3 resultsindicator data will be obtained from various DepEd offices' records.

    C. Sustainability

    47. As in the recent NPSBE project, LEAPS is financing those items in the DepEd budgetthat are critical for achieving the objectives of the DepEd's reform program. The Bank assistancethrough LEAPS will facilitate implementation of the reforms that have been articulated by thegovernment. The government partners, particularly the Department of Education, Department of

    12

  • Budget and Management (DBM), National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA),Department of Finance (DOF) and even the Civil Service Commission (CSC), were extensivelyinvolved in the project preparation especially in identifying key results (specified as the DLIs)and the corresponding prior and concomitant actions to be taken to ensure achievement of theseDLIs. The key indicators and the programs and interventions that were selected to form part ofthe project components and deliverables are aligned with the overall policy and programpriorities of the government in basic education in the next four years, as well as government'soverall priorities in terms of spending and execution.

    V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

    A. Risk Ratings Summary Table

    Stakeholder Risk Rating

    Implementing DepEd Risk

    Capacity Substantial

    Governance Substantial

    Project Risk

    Design Substantial

    Social and Environmental Low

    Program and Donor Moderate

    Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Moderate

    Overall Implementation Risk Substantial

    B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation

    48. The overall implementation risk rating for the project is substantial. The key risks relateto: (i) implementation and technical capacity of the DepEd to implement the innovationsintroduced in the project; and (ii) the challenge of achieving agreed results in a results-basedoperation which could mean low or slow disbursement. The risk mitigation measures which willbe evaluated during project implementation are indicated in Annex 4.

    VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

    A. Economic and Financial Analysis

    49. Despite recent increases in public education spending the quality of basic education in thePhilippines has remained relatively low over the last 10 years. Annex 7 shows that low quality ispartly the result of children failing to master basic skills in the early grades of education. Giventhe linguistic diversity of the Philippines, the annex highlights the potential of mother tongueeducation to improve the acquisition of basic reading and mathematics skills. It shows that

    13

  • changes to the language of instruction coupled with interventions to improve the teaching ofbasic skills can lead to significant improvements in the quality of education.

    50. Annex 7 also shows that the potential social and economic benefits of raising the qualityof education through the planned components of the project are considerable. While it is notpossible to provide an accurate economic rate of return for a program of this kind, the annexsuggests that the benefits of successfully implementing mother tongue education and improvinglevels of learning are large. These benefits are likely to outweigh the costs of the project and theadditional spending the government incurs to implement the reforms supported by the project.

    B. Technical

    51. The selected technical design builds on the Bank's deep policy engagement and extensiveoperations experience working with the GOP in basic education particularly with the DepEd insupport of the GOP's BESRA, and within it, the K to 12 program of the new administration. Theresults orientation of the project is the Bank's response to the challenge of guiding andredirecting the GOP's efforts and priorities to address problems confronting the basic educationsector including the following: (i) significant deficits in reading and math skills of the earlygrade learners; (ii) weak accountability mechanisms; (iii) absence of performance incentivesimpeding implementation of reforms; and (iv) inequitable access of specific target groups toquality basic education services further marginalizing important segments of society. The policyand program actions and results indicators included in the project are informed by internationaland local evidence, including impact evaluation/analyses on the various reform areas covered(e.g. early grade reading assessment, performance incentives, use of social accountability toolsand use of mother tongue as a language of instruction).

    C. Financial Management

    52. Based on a FM assessment of the project carried out in accordance with the "FinancialManagement Practices in World Bank-Financed Investment Operations," DepEd FM systemsmeet the Bank's requirements provided the recommended mitigating measures are incorporatedin the design and implementation of the project. Also, although audit reports showed non-compliance to established internal controls, overall control environment is adequate for theimplementation of the project. For additional information, please refer to Annex 3.

    D. Procurement

    53. Based on the Eligible Expenditures that have been identified for the project, procurementwill be done using the Government procedures acceptable to the Bank and consistent with theWorld Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-consulting Services underIBRD Loan and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011, and"Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loan and IDA Credits &Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011.

    54. Based on a capacity assessment, DepEd was assessed to have adequate experience andcapacity to carry out the relatively small procurement packages and activities to be funded underthe project. Details are provided in Annex 3.

    14

  • E. Social (including Safeguards)

    55. Since some of the project sites would have the presence of IPs as project beneficiaries,OP 4.10 is triggered. The proposed project is expected to have positive social impact particularlyin terms of improved access to basic education among marginalized groups, such as IndigenousPeoples (IPs), out of school youth and students with disabilities. DepEd updated its existingIndigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) under the predecessor project, NPSBE, basedon the lessons learnt under the project. LEAPS will promote equity and social inclusion byadopting socially-responsive educational mechanisms and tools such as the use of mother tongueinstruction and SBM that includes broader participation of stakeholders in the preparation,implementation, monitoring as well as resource mobilization for school improvement plans.Further, LEAPS includes strong social accountability mechanisms such as performance-basedincentives; decentralization of responsibilities to school levels mainly through SBM; parentalaccess to school information through the use of SRC; and mobilization of private and CSOpartnerships.

    F. Environment (including Safeguards)

    56. During the project concept stage, the government proposed the inclusion of classroomconstruction into project activities to be financed by the loan. To address routine environmentalissues, the DepEd prepared an Environmental Code of Practice for classroom construction. Asproject preparation progressed, however, the government decided not to finance any schoolconstruction or rehabilitation as part of the LEAPS project. The final project design alsoexcludes the financing of any other civil works, acquisition of potentially hazardous schoollaboratory equipment or materials/chemicals to be used in laboratories. Therefore, no negative orlong-term environmental impacts are expected for any activity under the project. The PDO ofimproving the early grade reading and math skills of students in the target areas can be achievedindependent of classroom construction through the conduct of professional developmentactivities for teachers to enhance their assessment and teaching skills, and training of principalsand head teachers to strengthen field-level support systems. The project's special focus ondisadvantaged groups involves the implementation of alternative delivery modes and alternativelearning systems which are usually conducted outside the classroom. However, OP 4.01 istriggered due to the need to assess and take into account, in an integrated manner, the socialaspects of the project, particularly its impact on IPs.

    15

  • Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

    Country: Philippines

    Project Name: Learning, Equity and Accountability Program Support Project (P118904)

    Results Framework

    Project Development Objectives

    PDO Statement

    The project development objective is to improve the quality of grade 1 to 3 reading and math skills of children in TargetRegions and Target Schools, with a special focus on those belonging to Target Disadvantaged Groups.

    These results are at Program Level

    Project Development Objective Indicators

    Cumulative Target Values Data Responsib

    Source/ ility for

    Indicator Core Unit of Baselin SY 2014- SY SY 2016- SY 2017- Frequen Methodolo DataName Measure e 15 2015-16 17 18 cy gy Collection

    Decrease of Bureau ofstudents Percenta Elementar

    .it (TBD) (TBD) -3% -8% -15% -15% Annual ofwith scores ge yof zero in Education Education

    16

  • the (orComprehens Rationalizion domain ation Plansubtest of equivalentthe relevant )EGRA-mothertongue tool

    Increase of Bureau ofstudents Elementarwith at least y60% scores Department EducationDPercentain the (TBD) (TBD) 3% 8% 15% 15% Annual of (orrelevant ge Education RationalizEGMA- ation Planmother equivalenttongue tool )

    Decrease ofstudentsfrom Bureau ofdisadvantag Elementared groups ywith scores Department EducationDPercentaof zero in (TBD) (TBD) -3% -6% -9% -9% Annual of (orthe ge Education RationalizComprehens ation Planion domain equivalentsubtest of )the relevantEGRA-

    17

  • Intermediate ResultS IndiCatorS

    18

  • developed (orfor each RationalizSelected ation PlanMother equivalentTongueineach TargetRegion

    NumberSub-

    CARAGA Type 0.00 2.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00Breakdown

    NumberSub-

    Region 9 Type 0.00 2.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00Breakdown

    NumberL Sub-

    Region 8 Type 0.00 2.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00Breakdown

    NumberSub-

    Region 5 Type 0.00 2.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00Breakdown

    NumberCAR Sub- 0.00 2.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

    19

  • TypeBreakdown

    Teachersfromidentified Bureau ofschools Elementartrained to yimprove Department Educationtheir Number 0.00 0 11,998 23,996 35,994 35,994 Annual of (orcapability to Education Rationalizeffectively ation Planteach equivalentGrades 1 to )3 readingand math

    Schoolprincipals /head

    Bureau ofteachers

    Elementarfrom

    identified Department Educationschoolstraie o Number 0.00 0 5,999 11,998 11,998 11,998 Annual of (or

    Education Rationalizstrengthenfield level ationlan

    supportequivalentsupportsystem forimprovedearly grade

    20

  • reading andmathteaching

    Policy on:(i) EGRA

    Developme . andntvlo e Policy on Policy on EGMnt of an teheEGMAenabling Policy on Policy inclusion inclusion tool Bureau ofenvironment the on the of early of early utilization; Elementarfor the th fel fery and (ii) thefftie utilizatio utilizatio literacy literacy inc ion y

    n of the n of the and and Department Educationimplementat Text 0.00 EGRA EGRA numeracy numeracy of early Annual of (orion of the and and course in course in literacy Education Rationalizgrades I - 3EGMA EGMA DepEd's DepEd's ation Planreading and tools tools teacher teacher numera. equivalentmath . . . . course in

    program inadopted adopted induction induction De)'program in porm rgam DepEd'sthe Target pgram pga teacherRegions induction

    programadopted

    Linguistic Bureau ofmap for Elementareach Target yRegion Department Educationdeveloped Number 0.00 1 2 3 5 5 Annual of (orfor Education Rationalizimproved ation Plantargeting equivalentand )

    21

  • implementation of thegrades 1 - 3reading andmathprogram

    Office ofCapability Undersecrof DepEd to Performa PMS etary forimplement nce Regionalits moyitorn 14,173 14,173 14,173 developed Department OperationPerformanc Text 0.00 monitri staff staff staff and 14,173 Annual of s(or

    oriented oriented oriented staff Education RationalizelIncentive develope .RtoaiScheme d oriented ation Planimproved equivalent

    Office ofDevelopme ]Oe

    . thent of an Policy on Undersecrenabling 8,474 13,415 13,415 SRC etary forenvironment Policy on target target target adoptedfor the use the use of schools schools schools and 13,415 Deaumn ReionText 0.00 shos colsAnnual of Operationof school SRC use treuse refined use refined target Education s (orreport cards adopted refined schools .i .

    .SRC SRC shosRationaliz(SRC) in the SRC use refined ation PlanTarget SRC equivalentRegions

    Financial Financial 233 233 FM Department Office ofmanagemen Text 0 0 manage finance finance manual Annual of thet capacity of ment and and adopted Education Undersecr

    22

  • DepEd manual administrat administrat and etary forcentral, for all ive staff ive staff relevant Financeregional and DepEd trained trained staff anddivision finance trained Administroffices and ation (orimproved administ Rationaliz

    rative ation Planstaff equivalentdevelope )d andadopted

    Improvement of data

    managemen Oficmanagem. Informatio Office oft for Informatio o

    . Informat n strategy Planningeducational . Informatio n system developed

    ion dvlpdServiceprograms n strategy for Department

    strategy . and (orserving Text 0 0 dl developed educationa informatio Annual of RationalizTarget and 1 programs Education .Disadvantag doand adopted implement nmysem ationlan

    adopted implement equivalented Groups ed edin theTargetRegions

    Comprehens Office ofive reviews Planning

    completed DeatetServicecosleted Number 0.00 1 2 3 4 4 Annual of (oron selected .dcto (orDepEd Rationalizprograms ation Plan

    23

  • serving the equivalentTarget )Disadvantaged Groupsin theTargetRegions

    24

  • Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

    Country: Philippines

    Project Name: Learning, Equity and Accountability Program Support Project (P118904)

    Results Framework

    Project Development Objective Indicators

    Indicator Name Description (indicator definition etc.)

    Decrease of students with scores of zero in the Submission of EGRA results of all 3,000 schools plus independent validation ofComprehension domain subtest of the relevant sample schoolsEGRA-mother tongue tool

    Increase of students with at least 60% scores in the Submission of EGMA results of all 3,000 schools plus independent validationrelevant EGMA-mother tongue tool of sample schools

    Decrease of students from disadvantaged groups Submission of EGRA results of all 3,000 schools plus independent validation ofwith scores of zero in the Comprehension domain sample schoolssubtest of the relevant EGRA-mother tongue tool

    Increase of students from disadvantaged groups with Submission of EGMA results of all 3,000 schools plus independent validationat least 60% scores in the relevant EGMA-mother of sample schoolstongue tool

    Number of beneficiaries Number of students that will be directly influenced by the collectivedeliverables of the project

    Intermediate Results Indicators

    Indicator Name Description (indicator definition etc.)

    25

  • Versions of EGRA and EGMA tools developed for 5 versions of EGRA and 5 versions of EGMA each for Iloko, Bikol, Waray,each Selected Mother Tongue in each Target Region Sinugbuanong Binisaya and Chabacano

    CARAGA EGRA and EGMA tools in Sinugbuanong Binisaya

    Region 9 EGRA and EGMA tools in Chabacano

    Region 8 EGRA and EGMA tools in Waray

    Region 5 EGRA and EGMA tools in Bikol

    CAR EGRA and EGMA tools in Iloko

    Teachers from identified schools trained to improve 11,998 grade 1, 11,998 grade 2 and 11,998 grade 3 teachers trained on readingtheir capability to effectively teach Grades 1 to 3 and mathreading and math

    School principals / head teachers from identified 11,998 school principals / head teachers trained on reading and mathschools trained to strengthen field level supportsystem for improved early grade reading and mathteaching

    Development of an enabling environment for the Policy on: (i) EGRA and EGMA tool utilization; and (ii) the inclusion of earlyeffective implementation of the grades 1 - 3 reading literacy and numeracy course in DepEd's teacher induction program adoptedand math program in the Target Regions

    Linguistic map for each Target Region developed for DepEd has developed linguistic maps for each of the five Target Regionsimproved targeting and implementation of the grades1 - 3 reading and math program

    Capability of DepEd to implement its Performance Y1: Performance monitoring system that will be used in the implementation ofIncentive Scheme improved DepEd's Performance Incentive Scheme in place; Y2 onward refers to staff

    from 5 DepEd regional offices, 47 DepEd division offices and 14,121 TargetSchools oriented on DepEd's Performance Incentive Scheme and performancemonitoring.

    Development of enabling environment for the use of School report card policy (including guide-lines, procedures and templates)school report cards in the Target Regions implemented and 13,415 schools in the five target regions utilize the refined

    26

  • SRC by end of project.

    Financial management capacity of DepEd central, FM manual adopted and Trainers' training on the financial management manualregional and division offices improved of at least 1 finance and administrative staff each from the central office, the 17

    regional offices and the 215 division offices of DepEd conducted.

    Improvement of data management for educational Development and adoption of an information strategy for educational programsprograms serving the Target Disadvantaged Groups serving the Target Disadvantaged Groups; and information system implementedin the Target Regions in accordance with the information strategy for educational programs serving

    the Target Disadvantaged Groups that aims to address information gaps ofprograms serving Target Disadvantaged Groups

    Comprehensive review completed on selected DepEd reviews programs targeting disadvantaged groupsDepEd programs serving the Target DisadvantagedGroups in the Target Regions

    27

  • Annex 2: Detailed Project Description

    PHILIPPINES: Learning, Equity and Accountability Program Support Project

    VI. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

    A. PDO

    1. The project development objective is to improve the quality of grade 1 to 3 reading andmath skills of children in Target Regions and Target Schools, with a special focus on thosebelonging to Target Disadvantaged Groups.

    2. For the purposes of the Project, the "target regions" are Regions 5, 8, 9, CAR andCARAGA. "Target schools" shall be defined as a subset10 of elementary and/or high schools inthe target regions implementing the relevant project components. Furthermore, the "targetdisadvantaged groups" will include the following groups in the target regions: (i) indigenouspeoples; (ii) persons with disabilities; (iii) children living in remote or difficult-to-accesslocations; and (iv) out-of-school children and youth.

    B. Project Beneficiaries

    3. The Project beneficiaries include: (i) DepEd central, regional and division staff; (ii)school heads; (iii) teachers; (iv) public school students; (v) Indigenous Peoples students; and (vi)children with disabilities and (vii) out-of-school children and youth of the select target regionsand schools.

    4. The five target regions were selected because they are among the eight poorest regions inthe country, based on the 2012 poverty statistics released during the second quarter of 2013. Tworegions were selected from Luzon, one from Visayas and two from Mindanao. These regionsalso: (i) suffer from significant dropout rates (especially between Grades 1 and 2 ); (ii) recordlow performance in reading and math scores; and (iii) have a significant IP population and otherdisadvantaged groups.

    Table 1: Profile of Project by Target Regions

    Characteristic and Rank" CAR Region Region CARAG RegionIX V A VIII

    Average Poverty Incidence' 2 39.86% 39.8% 35.60% 40.23% 35.57%3rd13 4th 5th 2 nd 6th

    10 Explained further in paragraph 51 Lower rank connotes poorer situation / performance12 Average of 2006, 2009 and 2012 poverty incidence of the regions; 2012 poverty incidence obtained fromhttp://nscb.gov.ph/povertv/defaultnew.asp13 without Benguet, CAR region's poverty incidence rises to 41.18 in 2012, making it Rank 2 for that year

    28

  • Number of poor households who are part 59.40% 26.20 0.80% 12.20% 0.80%of an IP group 14 st % 1 6 th 9 th 1 5 th

    6 th

    Number of poor households with a 31.40% 18.50 19.10% 29.80% 10.50%disabled family member1 5 1 st % 5th 2 nd 13 th

    6 th

    2011 Regional incidence of Severely 1.44% 2.71% 4.63% 2.38% 3.64%Wasted Children 1 17th 10th 3rd 14 th 9th2010 Dropout rate 6.00% 10.41 5.79% 6.72% 6.42%

    10I th 6th 8th

    2 nd

    2012 G3 NAT Reading Comprehension in 52.03% 59.72 55.36% 74.31% 68.74%Filipino MPS 3rd % 6th 17th 16th

    1 0 th

    2012 G3 NAT Math MPS 54.72% 65.20 58.18% 79.37% 72.64%3rd % 9th 17th 16th

    1 2 th

    5. Beneficiaries specifically within the five target regions can also be broken down bycomponents: (i) Component I will benefit all 11,998 elementary schools by implementing Early-Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) and Early Grade Mathematics Assessment (EGMA) tools;(ii) Component 2 will benefit all 14,121 schools (11,998 elementary plus 2,123 high schools), aswell as officers and staff from DepEd's administrative offices through the project'saccountability interventions; and (iii) Component 3 will support all 14,121 schools andstudents/learners from the targeted disadvantaged groups (i.e. indigenous peoples, persons withdisabilities, out of school children and youth and children living in remote or difficult-to-accesslocations). By the nature of the interventions, target disadvantaged groups will also be servedunder Components 1 and 2. Overall, the five target regions include 14,121 elementary andsecondary schools, 116,587 school teachers and approximately 4,038,780 students.

    2011-2012 Elem Elem Elem Sec Sec SecSchools Teachers Enrolment Schools Teachers Enrolment

    Rank 2: 1,626 11,658 400,346 391 4,323 158,265CARAGARank 3: CAR 1,515 7,881 216,495 280 3,044 86,468

    Rank 4: 2,083 16,610 584,083 377 5,820 213,082Region IXRank 5: 3,141 27,107 988,183 626 10,744 389,582Region VRank 6: 3,633 21,853 709,835 449 7,547 292,441Region VIII 1

    14 Department of Social Welfare and Development: National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction15 DSWD: NHTS-PR16 DepEd Health and Nutrition Center

    29

  • Total 11,998 85,109 2,898,942 2,123 31,478 1,139,838

    6. DepEd will implement all LEAPS activities to all schools nationwide. As a matter of fact,DepEd will set higher internal targets for itself to further accelerate the institutionalization of thereforms reinforced under LEAPS. This project, however, will focus on select target regions andthe schools within these, but will be ready to provide strategic support to DepEd in their plan ofnationwide implementation.

    C. PDO Level Results Indicators

    7. The project outcome indicators for measuring achievement of the PDO are in thefollowing table. These pertain mostly to improved performance of both regular anddisadvantaged students using the EGRA and EGMA tools. The project will monitor at least3,000 elementary schools in the target regions to be included in the computation of the PDOindicators. 17

    Table 2: PDO-level Results Indicators

    PDO-level School School School Year School Yearindicators Year 2014- Year 2015- 2016-17 2017-2018

    15 16Decrease of students 0 3% 5% decrease 7% decreasewith scores of zero in decrease from from previousthe Comprehension Baseline from the previous year's valuedomain subtest of the gathering baseline year's value (Grade 3relevant EGRA- to take (Grade 1 (Grade 2 students)mother tongue tool place in students) students)

    school year2014/150 3% 5% increase 7 % increase

    Increase of students increase from from previous. Baseline from the previous year's valuewith at least 60%0.

    scores in the relevant gathering baseline year's value (Grade 3to take (Grade 1 (Grade 2 students)

    tonueG A otr place in students) students)school year2014/15

    Decrease of students 0 3% 3% decrease 3% decreasefrom disadvantaged decrease from from previousgroups1 8 with scores Baseline from the previous year's value

    17 This is roughly 25% of all elementary schools in the five project regions. For monitoring purposes, these 3,000elementary schools per year do not need to be the same elementary schools.18 The third and fourth PDO indicators will track performance of students/learners from the following targeteddisadvantaged groups: (i) indigenous peoples; (ii) persons with disabilities; and (iii) children living in remote ordifficult-to-access locations. Out of school children can no longer be assessed using the EGRA and EGMA tools as

    30

  • of zero in the gathering baseline year's value (Grade 3Comprehension to take (Grade 1 (Grade 2 students)domain subtest of the place in students) students)relevant EGRA- school yearmother tongue tool 2014/15Increase of students 0 3% 3% increase 3% increasefrom disadvantaged increase from from thegroups with at least Baseline from the previous previous60% scores in the gathering baseline year's value year's valuerelevant EGMA- to take (Grade 1 (Grade 2 (Grade 3mother tongue tool place in students) students) students)

    school year2014/15

    Number of 4,038,780 4,038,780 4,038,780 4,038,780beneficiaries

    Note: Results will be disaggregated by gender.

    VII. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

    8. The project has three components:

    Component 1: Improvement of Teaching and Learning in Grades 1 to 3 Reading andMath

    Component 2: Strengthening of Accountability and Incentives of Department ofEducation Employees

    Component 3: Improvement of Program Design for Targeting Disadvantaged Groups

    9. The project will focus on improving teaching and learning in early grades reading andmath through: (i) enhancing and supporting DepEd's overall reading and math program, (ii)providing incentives and increasing accountability for results of school/education personnel, and(iii) helping ensure that the most disadvantaged have access to these educational services. Byfocusing on these key interventions, the foundational skills of learners can be greatly improved.This is very much in line with the objective of the Philippine basic education reform agenda:preparing students for higher learning and the world of work.

    10. As previously mentioned, support to the three components and proposed activities will beprovided through an IPF with a programmatic design, and disbursements made against evidencethat a particular DLI has been achieved and eligible expenditures incurred. Eligible expendituresrefer to maintenance and other operating expenses incurred for programs under five key DepEd

    these are school-based assessments. Out of school children and adults will be served primarily through theAlternative Learning System of DepEd, which this project will also strengthen.

    31

  • budget line items19 (Eligible Expenditure Program - EEP) and include: (i) School MOOE; (ii) in-service training (INSET); (iii) human resource training and development (HRTD); (iv) AbotAlam Program; and (v) Alternative Learning Systems.

    Component 1: Improvement of Teaching and Learning in Grades 1 to 3 Reading and Math(US$180.25 million)

    11. This component seeks to develop the capacity of teachers and schools to improve theteaching of reading and math skills of Grades 1 to 3 students in the target schools andconsequently students' learning outcomes. Recognizing that reading and math is a vital tool forlearning and a predictor of a student's success in school, DepEd is committed to develop theseimportant foundational skills starting in the early grades.

    Sub-component 1.11: Improvement ofEarly Grade Reading and Math Assessment in Selected MotherTongues (US$23.25 million)

    12. The EGRA and EGMA tools in Mother Tongues will be developed during the first yearof the project. In line with the recent implementation of DepEd's MTB-MLE program, theEGRA and EGMA tools for Grades 1 to 3 under this project will be developed in five of thetwelve major mother tongue languages: Bikol, 11oko, Sinugbuanong Binisaya, Waray andChabacano. At least five versions of EGRA and EGMA per Mother Tongue will be developedso that yearly assessments are credible and comparable.

    13. For several years, the DepEd was relying on the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory(PHIL-IRI)20 to assess the reading skills and gaps of their students. However, an in-depth reviewof this informal reading test by the University of the Philippines College of Education professorshas revealed several weaknesses and deficiencies of the test, which made it an unreliableinstrument to measure reading proficiency and gaps in the early grades. For math, there is noexisting formal tool being used to assess competencies on a regular basis. The introduction ofEGRA and EGMA instruments, and contextualized in Mother Tongue languages, would be acritical innovation.

    14. DepEd has begun preliminary work in developing the EGRA and EGMA tools. The Bankand USAID have been providing technical assistance for capacity building and tooldevelopment. These tools will provide valuable information on the least-learned or least-demonstrated reading competencies. The two tools will also provide useful insights into thecompetency level of each student, thereby providing teachers with information necessary to planclass activities, adjust teaching methods and strategies accordingly and ensure that all pupils areimproving at their own levels and pace.

    15. At the same time, the Department is at an early stage of implementing the MTB-MLEpolicy with the intention to formalize teaching in a child's language until Grade 3 before

    19 These EEPs were in place at the time of project preparation. In case any of these EEPs would be replaced by anequivalent successor budget line, such changes would have to be agreed to by the Bank first.20 Phil-IRI is only administered in English and Filipino

    32

  • gradually shifting to Filipino and English instruction in the higher grades. As a first step, DepEd,with the Komisyon ng Wikang Filipino (the government agency for all local languages anddialects), has identified 12 out of around 170 languages with the most users in the country andcontextualized materials in those languages.

    16. However, implementation of this program has been challenging: (i) teachers have beenusing mother tongue as the language of instruction without being trained on methodology oreffectively maximizing a child's chance to learn in its mother tongue and (ii) the quality ofteacher training and materials, as well as the availability of these key inputs for all early gradeteachers in the country has been largely insufficient or inadequate (training on MTB-MLE tooshort, pedagogical materials not appropriate for intended schools or not available at all, etc.)

    17. Recognizing these challenges, DepEd has committed to filling the gaps in theimplementation of both the reading and math and the MTB-MLE programs by assessing: (i) thecapability of teachers to teach early grades in the mother tongue; and (ii) the current reading andmath level of the students in their own language. Developing EGRA and EGMA tools in the fivemother tongues will provide DepEd with the necessary instruments to tackle these issues andcollect the necessary information to be able to make informed decisions as previous teaching haslargely applied a single strategy, regardless of the students' learning gaps and capacities.

    Sub-component 1.2: Professional development of key personnel in Target Regions to enhancecapability in teaching grades 1 to 3 reading and math (US$120 million)

    18. The intention is for the EGRA and EGMA tools to provide DepEd with a nationaldiagnostic tool on the learning of reading and math skills which will be administered at leastonce a year in the early grades. On the basis of the results of the new reading and mathassessment, the government will put in place different sets of interventions to enhance teachingand learning of early grade reading and math. Assessment results will also be used to trackprogress and identify schools that might need additional, targeted support to improve math andreading learning outcomes in Grades 1 to 3. This sub-component involves interpretation of theresults of the assessment and training on classroom activities to help address reading and mathskills gaps identified among students.

    19. DepEd will organize trainings for Grades 1 to 3 teachers, as well as school principalsfrom the identified schools. The project is targeting 11,998 teachers per grade (for a total 35,994teachers) as well as 11,998 principals/head teachers assigned to the identified schools. Inaddition to training them on the use and administration of the new tools, they will also becoached in training others and to become resource persons for their peers and colleagues in theirrespective schools. The capability to introduce appropriate interventions for the unique learningchallenges of each child as identified by the assessment results will be a critical innovation ofthis project.

    20. To improve classroom practices, teachers will be trained on how to adjust their teachingmethods and approaches based on assessment results. Understanding students' areas of difficultyand cognitive struggles would allow teachers to design more effective lessons that targetstudents' specific needs. Adjusting how teachers teach math and reading should positively

    33

  • influence pupils' learning outcomes in these two subjects. Teachers will be supported not only inmonitoring and assessing the skills acquired by the pupils but also in terms of identifying theirtraining and other capacity-building needs in their respective schools/districts.

    21. As part of the professional development of teachers, support will be given to the: (i)development of a teacher's general classroom assessment skills which will be made part of theteacher education curriculum (pre-service teacher training coursework and practicum); and (ii)training on general classroom assessment and observation techniques to help teachers conductongoing monitoring of students' reading and math skills (in-service teacher training).Furthermore, specific learning modules will be developed to strengthen teachers' ability to teachbeginner level math and reading since it is not a skill taught to all teachers during college. Theseprofessional development activities would include: (i) hands-on and inquiry-based trainings,using material that is user-friendly and designed based on the results of the early gradeassessments; and (ii) mentoring of teachers, both face to face an