1

Mozambique ESP/PEE

Appraisal Report – Final Draft

12 May 2020

Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Plan Preparation – Leadership and Participation 3

3. Plan Soundness and Relevance 4

4. Equity, Efficiency and Learning Outcomes 5

5. Plan Coherence 7

6. Financing Proposals 9

7. Plan Monitoring and Evaluation 10

8. Operational Plan 2020—2022 11

9. Conclusion / Recommendations 13

Annex A: Terms of Reference 15

Annex B: Schedule of Interviews/Discussions 16

Annex C: Sample Starter Questions 17

Annex D GPE Quality Review + Appraiser Commentary 19

Annex E Credible Sector Plan Questions: LEG 30

Acronyms

ECE/EPE Pre-School Education

ESP Education Sector Plan

FASE Fund to Support the Education Sector

GPE Global Partnership for Education

INDE National Institute for Educational Development

LEG Local Education Group

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning

MEPT Education for All Movement

2

MINEDH Ministry of Education and Human Development

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

ONP National Teachers Organisation

PEE Education Sector Plan (Portuguese)

PoA Program of Activities

POEMA Planning, Budgeting, Implementing, Monitoring and Evaluation

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

1. Introduction

The independent appraisal is a required step in the pathway to the award of GPE financing to support an education sector program. This appraiser was originally asked to carry out the task commencing in late January 2020. Unfortunately, the launch was delayed until a new start date of 23 March, comprising a ten-day visit to Mozambique, with opportunities for a series of interviews and focus group discussions with a wide range of stakeholders and some field visits to relevant educational institutions (schools, colleges and administrative offices at all levels). The original terms of reference are at Annex A.

Then, two days before the consultant was expecting to travel, the country’s borders were effectively sealed off in an attempt to restrict the spread of the coronavirus. Shortly afterwards all educational institutions were closed, along with other preventive measures being undertaken.

Thereafter, rightly, people’s priorities changed, affecting which aspects of the appraisal could still be pursued. The sources of evidence used came down to:

A set of key documents which provided an evidential platform for the generation of the PEE

A lengthy series of interviews and discussions led by the consultant from his home in the UK, using Skype or Whats App, supported by excellent translators in Maputo, which added substantially to the evidence base. A set of between 4 and 6 starter questions were shared with each group of participants, although the discussions were not limited to these. A list of the different interactions is given at Annex B. Examples of the starter questions used are given at Annex C, and more could be added if desired. .

In addition to the main text of the appraisal, two further analytical pieces are introduced. The first of these is an extended version of the GPE Secretariat’s ‘overall quality review of the ESP’ matrix, which has an additional column added containing reflections by the appraiser, at Annex D. Reading of the GPE Secretariat review should go alongside this report, as an attempt has been made to avoid repetition except where a major point needed to be reinforced. And, secondly, the response of

3

the Local Education Group (LEG) to the 24 question matrix comprising ‘Key aspects of credible education sector plans’, is at Annex E.

The guidance for appraisers, presented in the GPE/IIEP/UNESCO document on ‘Guidelines for Education Sector Appraisal’ summarises the themes to be explored in the box below:

1. Has the plan preparation process been country-led, participatory and transparent? (leadership and participation)

2. Does the plan constitute a solid corpus of strategies and actions addressing the key challenges of the education sector? (soundness and relevance)

3. Are the issues of equity, efficiency and learning soundly addressed to increase sector performance? (equity, efficiency and learning)

4. Is there consistency between the various components of the ESP? (coherence)

5. Do the financing, implementation and monitoring arrangements offer a good perspective for achievement? (feasibility, implementability, monitorability)

It is perhaps worth noting that, in consideration of the shifting priorities of all of us in the time of the coronavirus pandemic, this report has been kept as concise as possible, without neglect of key issues.

2. Plan Preparation – Leadership and Participation

There is a strong analytical documentary base, which includes the following:

Service Delivery Indicators Survey (2018)

2012-2016 (2019) ESP Evaluation *MINEDH/Unesco Education Policy Review (2019)

And, of course, the Education Sector Analysis undertaken as part of the plan preparation.

There is a strong consensus among development partners and the NGO community (represented in discussions by MEPT – the umbrella organisation for Education for All) that in general there has been sound leadership from MINEDH, with the key group being the internal technical committee, ably led by the Director of Planning, and comprising the six priority area directors, which has overseen all aspects of the production of draft strategy. An interesting view came from one development partner:

4

“MINEDH has always been trying to play a role as owners of the process, though sometimes leadership not matched by creativity and courage to change processes and make unpopular choices.”

The development partners and NGOs believe that they have been consulted and engaged throughout the process of plan creation. They have joined working groups where relevant, particularly emphasising the serious needs of the excluded and vulnerable. They have also stressed the need for evaluation of this strategy to be timely and independent. Sometimes, they have been asked to generate responses and feedback on rather unrealistic time frames.

In the emerging context of increased decentralization of functions in the education sector, there has been strong engagement throughout by provincial education leaders, but less so at school/community level, until towards the end of the process. An issue here is that it is highly unlikely that the lengthy strategy will be read much below provincial level. There is an urgent need for increased attention to the presentation of key messages, in appropriate format, to the whole chain from province to district to school/community levels. [Recommendation 1]

3. Plan Soundness and Relevance

The PEE, as has been noted, has a sound analytical base. In most aspects it can be seen as a logical successor to the 2012-2016 (2019) strategy, with added significant learning about what works well and what works less well. It also takes account of disruptive forces – particularly natural disasters - which affected the implementation of the previous plan.

The structure is clear and helpful. Six key programs are developed, each presented to a prescribed pattern. The initial analytical framework in each case has three priority axes: (a) access, participation, retention and equity; (b) Quality of learning; (c) Governance. These are set against a sequence leading from objectives - to results (at 2024 and 2029) - to impact. Additionally, a results matrix provides impact indicators and means of verification for judgments made at Baseline (2019): Mid-term (2024): Final (2029).

Three of the programs describe intentions for the linear sequence: pre-school education, primary education and secondary education. One of the other programs – teacher training acts as a service program relating to the previous three. Adult education rather stands alone, but there are arguments that there are connections, particularly with primary schools through the use of shared facilities. The final program – institutional and administrative development – is over-arching in its application. It is noted that Higher Education and Technical/Vocational Education sit outside the scope of this strategy, as they are the responsibility of other ministries.

Key aspects of the whole proposal include:

The decision to promote the growth of early childhood education, from a tiny base, responding to the wide recognition of its importance in social, skills and psychological development. Others will be involved in this work, beyond MINEDH, specifically MGCAS, and there is a modest ambition for the level of

5

participation by 2029, of 17% of the age group. It would be excellent if this target were to be significantly exceeded. Leadership of the ECE sub-system development needs to be clearly defined and understood, followed by an appropriate budget allocation within the operational plan, 2020-2023;

Following the new Education Law (2018), the restructuring of the primary – secondary interface, with a simplified 6 + 6 division between primary (EP1/EP2) and secondary (ES1/ES2), with each divided into two equal three-year cycles. There is an ambition to make nine years of schooling compulsory, which, given current levels of participation, seems very optimistic;

Initial teacher training will proceed on the recently introduced 12 + 3 model, so that those newly recruited, specifically to primary teaching, should have much stronger backgrounds, both generally and specifically for the high-skill task of setting children on a positive road to learning, by the end of their training. We are told that children in the two primary cycles, from Grades 1 – 6, will be taught by a single class teacher (a common model in a number of countries); this will add a further layer of challenge for the training institutions and their student teachers. Whether or not training for primary teaching will become an attractive proposition for ES2 graduates, will depend crucially on the effectiveness of attempts to change the image of the primary teacher in the community, and on their working conditions and career prospects, a formidable challenge. There are clearly cost implications for the new model of training. Also, there are implications for the supply chain of new teachers.

There is already a rapidly growing demand for access to secondary schools. Even at the endpoint of the strategy, it is still anticipated that an average class will contain upwards of 60 students. This is likely to severely limit the range of methodologies adopted by their teachers. Will technology be available to support them?

So far, so good. The modelling and structure of the strategy is clear and strong, with each of the programs having parity of esteem. In Section 5, we will take a closer look.

4. Equity, Efficiency and Learning Outcomes

Equity

The PEE contains strong analysis of key dimensions of equitable access and inclusion for all levels of the school system. The starkest is the sharp differences in provision by region (province); this shows in all aspects of the response of the schooling system, including: student participation (grade repetition, drop-out, transition rates), teacher and principal absenteeism, weak learning outcomes.

6

There is also clear articulation of the requirement to focus specifically on those students who have a range of special educational needs, including a range of disabilities, and to better prepare teachers to support them. How this can be achieved with a class of, say, sixty-five Grade 1 students, is less clear.

The participation rates of girl students in primary is better than in many schools in Sub-Saharan Africa, but their academic performance lags somewhat. The particular need for adolescent girls to have access to functional WASH facilities is highlighted, as being critical to their regular participation in schooling, in both final primary and secondary grades.

So, the analysis is presented in detail, but how appropriate responses will be funded remains unclear and nor is how to monitor/measure them. The assumption has to be that answers will be found in the detail of the three-year Operational Plans and the annual Plan of Activities (PoA) – see Section 8.

Efficiency

It is not necessary to rehearse here the several reasons why, on any measure, the Mozambican school system is wasteful of its limited resources. Suffice to say that, on average, Mozambican primary school students receive tuition on 39% of the official school days per year – that is 74/190 days. The PEE posits two major ways in which this statistic can be turned around. They are:

Major investment in strengthening the teaching force (classroom teachers and school principals) from their present very low base, through both pre-service and in-service training. This will be discussed in Section 6 in more detail, just to note that motivation and tangible rewards for success are key elements of the solution.

A strong programme of decentralization of education services to provincial, district and school/community level. The key argument, emphasised here, is the necessity for focused, regular support for the classroom teacher, working in a very challenging environment, to help her/him to gradually enhance daily performance in their classroom. Professional visitors (supervisors) from outside the school may make a contribution through their likely occasional visits to classrooms, but grounded change probably has to be led by the school principal, supported by his/her teachers and the School Council. That will be hard to achieve!

Learning Outcomes

Improvement in learning outcomes is contingent on success in key development tasks previously described, the essential priority being the steady (teachers don’t change their behaviour quickly) strengthening of the teaching force.

We also know that investment in good quality ECE can generate positive attitudes to schooling and, particularly, to readiness for reading/writing when it is introduced in Grade 1 of primary school. Is the target of 17% of children being in ECE by 2029 sufficiently ambitious? There is a real danger that it simply becomes an urban phenomenon, so the generation of community-led ECE is most important.

7

The strategy should be clearer about the purpose and extent of assessment in the system. The key proposal appears to be for students to be tested at the end of each phase of schooling, in Grades 3, 6, 9 and 12. If these are all essentially normative examinations, then students are being over-examined. If some are well presented formative assessments in order to understand better what is being learned, then that is helpful. Clarification of intentions would be helpful. In addition, the objectives of a national learning assessment taking place every three years for primary education and newly introduced for secondary education, should be clearer, as should the use of results for better planning and teaching. [Recommendation 2]

But, critically important in relation to learning outcomes is the need for prioritisation of the key activity of ensuring that children learn to read (and then write) as early as possible in their primary schooling. Why? Because so much of schooling is dependent upon the ability to decode language. The understanding we have is that tuition in the first cycle of primary will be, wherever possible conducted in the student’s mother-tongue (or L1). This responds exactly to the best research understandings about language acquisition. No one, however, said that it was easy to saturate schools with reading material in the most appropriate language, at the most appropriate level. Nor can it be guaranteed that teachers know how to teach reading, although the graduates from the new 12+3 pre-service programs should be better equipped. And the teachers have to be posted to the right area where they have the appropriate linguistic background. Both parents and Portuguese-speaking urban dwellers need to be persuaded of the research evidence. The use of the phrase ‘bilingual education’ is not entirely helpful, as the key goal is the achievement of initial literacy in mother tongue, followed by rapid introduction of the second language – Portuguese. Work is being done in this area but much more is needed to deal with the fundamental challenge of language learning and ensuing access to the world of school learning.

5. Plan Coherence

Is there consistency between the various components of the PEE? Summarizing descriptions in previous sections, we may say that the PEE; (i) is built strongly on wider national plans; (ii) is responsive to experiences from the 2012-2016 (2019) plan and to various recent sector analyses; (iii) follows a clear logic in relation to the different phases of schooling; (iv) addresses the respective needs of adult education, teacher training and management/administration development. There is, throughout, a clear link between the program logic and time-bound targets down to the level of results/outcomes. The Operational Plan for the first three years of the PEE, 2020-2022, reflects these structures and takes targets down to output level (See Section 8).

In the descriptors of the six core programs, there is an assumption of parity of esteem between them, based on clear arguments for the equivalent prioritisation of all six of them. Further comment on the numbers will occur in the next section, but it is necessary to point out the very considerable disparities between allocations, which threatens the coherence of the whole. The familiar dominance of funding for the primary and secondary schooling programs, swallows 82% of the budget, largely

8

reflecting the wage bill for the teachers. 13.4% of the budget is allocated for administration costs. The other three programs receive 4.2% of the budget. Perhaps early childhood education can be seen as distinct, as it is currently at a very exploratory stage (despite acknowledgement in the PEE of its key role) involving other potential players. But allocating 3.4% for adult education, with half of the population struggling with basic literacy, seems to ignore the importance of family literacy. No literate mother ever had an illiterate child! And, given the acknowledged centrality of the role of the teacher, a mere 0.5% for teacher training is clearly not right. A slightly elaborated argument for investment in teacher training is given in the box below. [Recommendation 3]

1. At the heart of the PEE is the performance of teachers in primary and secondary schools; 2. At present this is really bad, on several grounds. Primary children are getting only the equivalent of 74/190 days (39%) instruction in a school year and they are learning very little. Not surprisingly, they themselves are frequently absent or drop-out; 3. So, low efficiency and absent professionalism (including principals). What to do? 4. Well, the wage bill constrains (over 80% for teachers’ salaries), so that a mere 0.5% of the ESP/PEE budget is for teacher training, despite a well-argued case; 5. More money for better training and more money (incentives) for those who respond with improved performance, but real penalties for those who continue to fail to teach (Strengthen teeth of those who monitor/supervise, and strengthen their skills in supporting teachers in their school/classroom). A Director indicated that a credentialing process was being developed for the professional development of teachers, which could become an important component of change ; 6. Perhaps recognise that the realistic locus of change is the whole school (principal, teachers and school council), rewarding schools which deliver strong learning in core subjects, i.e. their children can read and write; 7. An addendum to this plea for improving the quality of teachers and teaching, is to ensure the competence of all primary teachers in the teaching of reading, in an appropriate language. The new 12+3 model of initial training should help. The determination to teach Grades 1 – 3 in an appropriate L1 is applauded, with the caveat that saturation of the schools with suitable learning materials is also essential; 8. One development partner wrote: “The insistence on maximising access, while not ensuring minimum quality of teaching and learning, is leading nowhere useful.”

9

There is coherence in the structure of the proposals for monitoring and evaluation across the whole ten-year strategy. The PEE presents a results (Outcomes) matrix for each program, organized around the three dimensions of:

Access, Retention and Equity Quality Governance

These are taken to the level of Priority Activities (Outputs) in the first Operational Plan (2020-2022) – see Section 8.

6. Financing Proposals

The ESP/PEE presents well-modelled scenarios for the financing of the strategy. The level of detail is mirrored in the draft Operational Plan (2020-2022).

Strengths include:

(i)The critical determination to continue with the Direct Support to Schools Program. The program will also be extended to include ES1, hence covering the full nine years of intended compulsory schooling. This funding is a life-line for many schools and has the added benefit of including parents through the School Council. It is important that the effectiveness of the grant should be evaluated periodically. Development partners are very supportive, while:

“Very important but needs to be sure that it is focused on teaching and learning. Review regularly on allocation criteria.”

(ii) FASE (Fund to Support the Education Sector) has an excellent history in Mozambique. The current cycle of the scheme is ending and a comprehensive review is being undertaken. It will be critical for a major part of development partner contributions to the sector to continue to be delivered through this mechanism. While this review is on-going, the financing model estimates a net contribution of 14% of the overall budget from external funding.

Anxieties include:

(i)As documented elsewhere in the report, the budget allocations for early childhood education (ECE), adult education and teacher training are quite inadequate. The case of ECE will have to be re-visited early in the first Operational Plan, as there are other players to consult and much planning for even a modest program to go forward. Adult literacy remains a critical issue, with illiteracy figures of over 50% in five provinces. Adult education generally needs to be the subject of raised national awareness, as GoM ambitions are unlikely to be realized without attention to this historical issue.

(ii)The reform of both initial and in-service teacher training is a critical component of the PEE, currently seriously under-funded. This allocation must be re-assessed.

(iii)The needs for resourcing of the major shift to mother-tongue instruction in Grades 1 – 3 of EP1 are recognised in the existing primary school allocations, but if this significant policy direction is to be successful, it will require major additional teaching

10

and learning resources. Political/parental buy-in will be a key requirement which only requires to be embedded in the elaborated communications approach.

In order to generate a final version of the finance proposals, and to fully explore the likely financing gap, further technical work needs to be done, taking account particularly of the three points made above. A possible element of re-structuring might well look again at allocations for ES2, which are rather high. [Recommendation 5]

7. Plan Monitoring and Evaluation

The PEE contains a thorough, conventional approach to the monitoring and evaluation of the strategy. It is based on the carefully described outcome indicators in the results matrix for each of the six strategic dimensions of the strategy. These form a strong basis for monitoring. More detailed output indicators are not described in the strategy, but will be presented as an integral part of each operational plan developed through the ten-year life of the strategy (See Section 8).

At present, the three-yearly national assessment testing does not deliver results on time, with the result that it is of very limited use in planning.

One development partner wrote:

“If the three-yearly operational plan works, it should allow adjustment to implementation, putting results and changes in context. The monitoring system will include DLIs for the first time.”

An evaluation sequence is described, with annual, mid-term and final components. The mid-term evaluation will contribute to the proposed 2024 ESP/PEE review. Each of these evaluation exercises will presumably be carried out by independent adjudicators.

Responsibilities for conduct of monitoring activities at national and local levels are described, and assurance is given that the necessary funding will be made available for required scrutiny to be carried out at provincial and district levels. In the DAI scenario, there are useful stated intentions going forward, and it should be noted that the strengthening of POEMA is being supported by GIZ. This reviewer would wish to see more detail about how monitoring mechanisms will function all levels down to the schools themselves. There is talk of ‘integrated supervision and follow-up’ in the PEE, but we need to understand (a) who will be responsible at each level, and (b) how the chain of collection of evidence will work in practice. Do we know how School Council voices will be heard, and acted upon? Will they be active partners in the proposed stakeholder review?

This reviewer likes to promote the acronym MEL (Monitoring – Evaluation –Learning). This ten-year strategy has an opportunity to push beyond the routine collection and filing of monitoring data, to ensure that there is a strong Learning dimension to the process, resulting in both remedial and creative action. [Recommendation 4]

11

8. Operational Plan 2020-2022

n.b. This section is drafted against a version of the Operational Plan (OP) dated 30.3.2020. It is not quite complete, as will be seen below, but the assumption has to be that this represents a near-final version.

Plan Structure

The OP builds on the experience of the previous plan, 2016-2019. The current version is built, for each of the six strategic programs, around the Results chain. So for each program, there are four levels:

General Objective = Impact

Strategic Objective = Results

Priority Actions = Outputs

Main Activities = Program of Activities, PoA

Strategic Objectives and Priority Actions are generally accompanied by: a clear indicator statement; baseline data (2019); targets (2020, 2021, 2022) and appropriate Means of Verification (MoV). For some programs these are complete, while for others there remain gaps.

Again, as discussed in detail in Section 5 the presentation for Teacher Education and Training is disappointing, with indicators poorly linked to expected improvements in teacher performance (and hence student learning). Commentary, with some suggestions for strengthening are presented in the box below, focusing on initial and in-service training.

1.Results (Outcome indicators) While the numbers of students/teachers completing a training program is useful information relating to supply/demand issues, it is a low-level indicator, saying nothing about impact 2. Participation by teachers and principals in school, i.e. being present and teaching their classes, is more interesting, and MINEDH already has comprehensive data on that efficiency measure 3. Then we need to know what is meant by the phrase “benefitted from” one or other training inputs. Which leads to the question of how these benefits are to be measured. Ultimately, this requires the regular scrutiny of classroom practice for the teachers and of management practice for the principal, alongside on-going mentoring and other support mechanisms. This criterion is not met simply by the phrase ‘submitted reports by supervisors’. 4. The /PEE needs to be clearer about the ways in which supervision can provide the evidence that it makes a difference to the quality of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning.

12

5. And all of this should be framed by the national teacher policy document, which should be constructed around the skills and competences required of each and every teacher and principal. 6. All indicators, in the PEE and the OP should be SMART [Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound]

Plan Costing

The second section of the OP provides cost details across the three years of the OP, and cumulatively. These are closely aligned to the overall costing of the 2020-2029 PEE and contain no surprises. As has been previously discussed, the three weak funding streams are for Early Childhood Education (1%), Adult Education (4%) and Primary Teacher Education (3%). There is no separate heading for the training of secondary teachers. The financing is dominated by the wage bill for the primary and secondary teacher cohorts, comprising just short of 80% of the total costs. The marked reduction in teacher costs between ES1 and ES2 presumably reflects the ambition to move towards nine years of compulsory schooling with some cut-off at the end of ES1.

Plan Monitoring

The overall monitoring structure in the OP reflects that already described n the previous section. The key developing dimension is consequential upon the move to strengthening leadership and management at the provincial (and district) levels. Under the new approach, each province will be responsible for delivering its own annual PoA, with a focus on Priority Actions and Main Activities, which will be “tailored to local priorities”.

Is it necessary to remind those concerned with the structuring of plan monitoring, of the need to emphasise, at every level from ECE to senior education management, the need to ensure that every measure is gender disaggregated? This should come with particular highlighting of obvious gender disparities, as in management roles (17% female at present).

There is clear recognition that the development of this strong monitoring function at provincial and district levels will need to continue to emphasise at least the following:

Strengthen the monitoring instruments at each level, with a clear emphasis on measures of learning

Training for the managers at each level Inclusion in the training of financial, technical and human resource in the

planning and budgeting processes

This will not happen in a day!

13

9. Conclusion and Recommendations

In discussion with the Permanent Secretary of MINEDH, I made the following remarks, which aptly address the appraisal conclusions:

The PEE is comprehensive, challenging and optimistic. It should engage all parties fully for the next ten years in generating a modern, fit for purpose, education system consistent with Mozambican ambitions

Your Directorate colleagues and teams have a strong engagement with the construction and presentation of the PEE, with generally a good understanding of its priorities

Your development partners have properly engaged with the development of the PEE and stand ready to support it going forward

Recommendations

1 Strengthen the communication of the PEE to the grass roots, by presenting key elements of the new strategy in digestible form, and in different formats

2. Make clearer the purposes and audiences for the various anticipated assessments/examinations at different levels of the school system. Timetables for national assessments, such as in literacy and numeracy, should be documented and delivered, in order to support forward planning decisions. There should be reflection on the requirement for a national examination at the end of Grade 6, as the intention is that all students will continue in full-time schooling to Grade 9.3 Revisit the presentation of the proposed teacher training program, ensuring that there is a firm policy base allied to documentation of the skills and competences expected of primary and secondary teachers as they complete their pre-service training. Reconstruct the indicators in the strategy and the first OP so that they reflect what teachers at various levels can be expected to know and to do.

4 May we have stronger ideas about how we can ensure that ‘supervision’ of schools (principals and teachers) provides meaningful, timely evidence for action for planning at the school, district and provincial levels? Given the priority of rooted change at the school level, how will principals, teachers and school councils be regularly supported by supervisors? Is there a realistic plan?

5 In order to generate a final version of the finance proposals, and to fully explore the likely financing gap, further technical work needs to be done, taking account particularly of the three points made in the financing section and the uncertainties of development partner contributions. . Development partners must be encouraged to express clearly their intentions in relation to support of the PEE, be it through engaging with FASE and/or using other modalities.

14

Annex A

15

Annex B

16

Annex C

Two examples of starter questions

Temas de Discussão para as Reuniões de 17.3.2020

1. OSC [13.30 – 15.15 a ser confirmado]

Estas áreas de interrogação são sugeridas apenas para iniciar a conversa:

Por favor, fale sobre as formas em que esteve envolvido no desenvolvimento

do PEE: Como aconteceu o seu envolvimento? O PEE contém ideias e acções que provêm directa ou indirectamente das suas contribuições?

Até que ponto acha que a propriedade comunitária (Conselhos Escolares, por exemplo) está bem representada no PEE?

Na sua opinião, as seis áreas prioritárias são de igual importância? A grande ênfase na Educação Infantil (EPE) é apropriada? É dada prioridade suficiente à educação de adultos?

O PEE aborda suficientemente toda a gama de questões relacionadas com a inclusão - questões de género; necessidades educativas especiais, absentismo de alunos e professores, etc.?

Por favor diga-me o que significa ‘bilinguismo’ para o estudante médio moçambicano ………………………………………………………………………………………….

2. Parceiros de Cooperação [15.30 – 17.00 a ser confirmado]

Estas áreas de interrogação são sugeridas apenas para iniciar a conversa:

Por favor, fale sobre as formas em que esteve envolvido no desenvolvimento do PEE: Como aconteceu o seu envolvimento? O PEE contém ideias e acções que provêm directa ou indirectamente das suas contribuições?

Por favor, faça uma avaliação informal sobre a qualidade da liderança governamental no processo PEE

Na sua opinião, as seis áreas prioritárias são de igual importância? A grande ênfase na Educação Infantil (EPE) é apropriada? É dada prioridade suficiente à educação de adultos?

O apoio financeiro directo às escolas (ADE) é visto como um investimento de alta qualidade?

17

O cenário de financiamento faz sentido, tendo em conta os défices

significativos previstos? Foram feitas escolhas difíceis?

A partir da experiência anterior dos planos sectoriais anteriores, até que ponto é provável que o planeamento proposto para monitoria e avaliação seja apresentado num formato baseado em evidências, o que resultará em ajustes de planeamento apropriados?

18

Annex D

Annex 1: Initial ESP Assessment – Secretariat’s overall quality review of ESP

Under Assessment use text and color coding as relevant:

Met Partially Met Not Met

Characteristics of ESPs

Assessment Comments Appraiser Comments

1. An ESP is guided by an overall vision

Is the ESP guided by an overall vision?

Met

The plan has a clearly stated vision and mission (11), with corresponding main strategic objectives to guide the plan. Each sub-sector addressed in the plan (pre-primary, primary, secondary, adult education/NFE) also has a corresponding vision. The law on compulsory education is referenced, and other MINEDH policies are mentioned in passing. The country’s broader development strategies are also mentioned, as are regional and international development strategies/agendas.

The ESP s well-grounded within the broader GoM priorities, specifically the upcoming five-year national plan, which puts education at the developmental core. It reflects the new (2018) Education Law, including the restructuring of primary and secondary education into a 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 sequence, with the first nine of these being described as compulsory. This is a reasonable aspiration. The plan is generally aligned with the SDG4 education-related goals. [Met]

2. An ESP is strategic

Does the ESP clearly identify the main underlying causes for its key challenges in EQUITY?

Met

Gender is an area of inequity, both in access and in learning outcomes. Girls from disadvantaged families are especially marginalized in the education system. The main causes mentioned are discrimination and sociocultural norms. Gender-based violence and lack of water and safe bathrooms are additional causes.

Children from poor and rural families have lower achievement and completion

Most striking is the recognition in the ESP of the very great differentials

between the relatively advantaged provinces, specifically in the South,

and other deep rural locations. Indicators of participation, transition and

learning all reflect these disparities.

Gender issues are consistently threaded through the strategy, while

recognizing that addressing them involves

19

rates, due in part to teacher distribution.

Children with disabilities are also mentioned, though there is less information about the causes of inequity related to this group.

in-school better practice and

changes in out-of-school societal attitudes, particularly in rural locations.

Children with a variety of special needs do receive some attention, but

the solutions proposed probably only skim the surface of need.

[Met]

Are the underlying causes of the EQUITY challenges identified by the ESP addressed in the strategic plan?

Met

Proposed strategies address the identified causes of inequality. In some cases, the strategies imply other causes that were not clearly identified in the analysis.

Broadly, the PEE proposes the introduction of social support programs to help address inequalities. Certain proposed strategies, like measures to help improve safety of the school environment and improved resilient infrastructure, including WASH, particularly address issues related to gender but could also help address other forms of inequity. Introduction of teacher training on gender equity and related issues like GBV and other school mechanisms related to GBV are proposed, as are safe spaces for girls, sensitization to teachers about early marriage and initiation rites, and using school as a site for raising community awareness about these issues.

Conditions are proposed to support education of children with special education needs, including inclusive and

All of the points made in the GPE commentary are valid and useful.

It is important to emphasise here that much of the responsibility for

delivery of the strategy and associated plans over the next decade

will rest with the relatively newly established decentralised bodies,

from Provincial Directorates down to the humblest School Council.

These structures will be tested to their limits by the great

Responsibilities coming their way.

[Met]

20

accessible infrastructure and assistant teachers in classrooms.

Strategies related to recruitment and management of teachers could help address some issues related to children from poor and rural families, but more explicit attention to these groups could be helpful.

Does the ESP clearly identify the main underlying causes for its key challenges in LEARNING?

Met

Disparities in resources, teachers, and infrastructure are presented as causes of low quality of education. Low teacher competence – stemming from poor training and weak supervision – is also discussed, as is teacher retention. Teacher absenteeism and student absenteeism are also major concerns. Overcrowding and high PTR are noted, as well. Poor curriculum development and implementation is also an issue. Finally, many children are not familiar with the language of instruction.

Inadequacies in pretty much all elements of successful schooling, which

results in successful learning, are identified as problematic. Two

dimensions have to be highlighted:

*The woeful performance of teachers (and school principals) results in

students receiving, on average, only 39% of the required 190 days of

schooling per year. The teachers are poorly trained, lacking in basic subject content knowledge and are demoralised by their working conditions.

*The failure of students to achieve early literacy is critical. This is

certainly in part due to poor instruction. BUT, the strategy is weak in

its limited commitment to stressing the importance of

mother-tongue teaching in the early grades, and providing the G1 to G3

teachers with the necessary skills and resources. The curriculum

21

director assured me that teaching in that age range would shift to be

entirely in mother-tongue, with Portuguese only introduced in G4. If

followed through, this would effect a revolution in learning.

[Met]

Are the underlying causes of the LEARNING challenge identified by the ESP addressed in the strategic plan?

Met

Strategies address the identified causes of low learning. The PEE also includes plans to expand ECE as a means of raising later learning outcomes, though low pre-primary coverage is not really discussed as a cause of low learning.

With regard to teachers, revised pre-service training model and implementation of continuing education for teachers are proposed to improve teacher competence. Strategies to improve principal absenteeism are intended to lower teacher absenteeism, as principal absenteeism is linked with lower teacher attendance. School management strategies also target issues related to teacher attendance and performance. Improved recruitment, selection, and management of education personnel is also raised to address teacher issues.

Incentives to address student absenteeism are mentioned, though more detail on this could be useful.

The PEE notes the need to address high PTR through harmonized interventions in

While recognizing that focus on pre-primary is new for most Mozambican

children, there is only a modest intention to provide it – 17% of

eligible children by the end of the decade of the ESP. MINEDH and its

partner ministry are finding their way with this development, but the target

should arguably be higher.

The descriptors used in the ESP for the crisis of teacher (and principal)

performance are laid out in detail. There is, however, a serious

mis-match between the analysis and the feeble budgetary allocation for

all forms of teacher training, a mere 0.5%.

As documented in the previous section, the prioritisation of mother-tongue

introductory reading is not fully fleshed out in the ESP.

[Partially Met]

22

terms of infrastructure, teacher training and placement, and school management, all of which are raised in the strategy.

Production of a relevant curriculum is also proposed. To address the language issue, the plan provides more support for bilingual education.

Does the ESP clearly identify the main underlying causes for its key challenges in EFFICIENCY?

Met

The plan notes that it takes students, on average, about double the expected time to complete primary school, pointing to high repetition. High dropout is also mentioned. High rates of failure are mentioned, and though the causes of these inefficiencies are not explicitly noted, failure thus seems like a strong explanation for both repetition and dropout. Similarly, poor quality of the education system is explicitly mentioned as a source of these inefficiencies. Transition rates to the second cycle of secondary are low, as are completion rates, which again could be due to low quality of education, though this could be made more explicit.

The analysis offered to the left is reflective of the analyses in the

ESP. There is general recognition that we are dealing with a very weak,

under-performing education system. Essentially, many teachers are

barely teaching, and many children are certainly not learning.

Crucially, the failure to attain basic skills of literacy and numeracy in the

first cycle of primary school (G1 – G3) haunts progression through the

system thereafter, with consequent high drop-out, high repetition and

weak transition rates.

[Met]

Are the underlying causes of the EFFICIENCY challenges identified by the ESP addressed in the strategic plan?

Partially met

Improved recruitment, training, and supervision are identified as strategic measures; without major additional incentives, it will be difficult to find skilled professionals willing to locate in the disadvantaged provinces.

As inefficiencies seem to ultimately stem from learning quality issues, the above-

The first point on the left is critical. While the analysis of woeful

teacher performance is clearly and repeatedly made, it is unclear how

this can be comprehensively addressed. The new approach to pre-service

23

mentioned strategies to improve learning help address the identified cause of inefficiency. Improved , resilient infrastructure may also help keep children in school, and the plan also proposes strategies to attract and retain children in school through feeding programs, cultural activities, interest circles, counseling, and other draws. Local curriculum, learning outside the classroom, and materials like colored paper, crafts, films, etc. are also intended to make learning more attractive.

training for primary teachers – 12 + 3 – should eventually make a

difference, but does not affect the bulk of, the teaching stock. The

proposals for in-service, on-the-job training are unconvincing. They do

not reflect best practice in School Improvement, and more

analytical work is needed. The key point is to consider the whole school as the unit for attention.

Crucially, the proposals do not address the

question for the teacher: Why should I make greater effort when I work

in such a depressing environment?

[Partially Met]

Are the programs and activities found in the action plan aligned with the strategy?

Partially Met

Activities in the plan and in the PO Matrix 2020-2022 appear to be aligned with the strategies, however an action plan is not currently available.

The detailed Operational Plan 2020-2022 now exists in final draft form.

For each of the six key programs, results (outcomes) and priority actions

(outputs) are generally clearly stated. Targets and MOVs are given

for all the results statements and most of the priority actions.

[Met]

Z 3. An ESP is holistic

Does the analysis section of the ESP include all the education sub-sectors (pre-primary, primary, secondary, tertiary, literacy, non-formal education, technical/vocational)?

Met

Tertiary and technical/vocational education are managed by a separate ministry and are not discussed in detail in the PEE below the level of general objectives. The limited inclusion of tertiary and technical/vocational education is understandable

Little to add to the left-hand statement. There is an interesting point in

relation to TVET, as the new structure of six years of secondary, with an

intention to see 72% progression from Grade 9 by the end of the

24

Clear analysis is provided for pre-primary, primary, and secondary. NFE is discussed in the context of adult education, though it is noted that children under the age of 14 are increasingly participating in adult education programming, pointing to the insufficiency of current programming at this level.

decade, suggests that the purely academic secondary programme will

need to provide a broader base, probably with a more vocational

dimension, although this may well be resource – constrained.

[Met]

Does the strategies section consider all education sub-sectors?

Met

The plan includes sectoral programs for pre-school, primary, and secondary. Non-formal learning takes the form of adult education, with additional strategic objectives to expand NFE to youth. Strategies are not included for tertiary and technical/vocation education, as these fall under a different ministry.

Nothing to add.

[Met]

Does the action plan consider all education sub-sectors?

Not Met

Currently the plan includes a draft multiyear action plan by sub-sector with priority activities, indicators, responsible units, but it does not include costs and timelines.

The latest draft of the Operational Plan 2020-2022 – dated 30.3.2020,

contains detailed analysis by results and priority actions for each of

the six programs. Each is accompanied by targets covering the three

years to 2022, using 2019 data as baseline. A majority of these

is now complete. A separate section of the OP documents the costs

per program, per year over the three years. A further section provides

details of the anticipated monitoring process. Programs of activities (PoA)

will be generated annually and the OP adjusted accordingly.

[Met]

25

4. An ESP is evidence-based

Is the ESP based on a sector analysis? Are the key results of the sector analysis presented in the ESP?

Met

The ESA, complemented by the Concept Note for the ESP Preparation Grant, provides the foundation of the analysis summarized in the PEE.

There is a strong analytical base, which includes the following:

*Service Delivery Indicators Survey (2018)

* 2012-2016 (2019) ESP Evaluation

* MINEDH/Unesco Education Policy Review (2019)

5. An ESP is achievable

Does the ESP include a sound annual or multi-year action plan?

Not met

Currently, the ESP does not include an action plan as such, as previously mentioned. The PEE contains strategic objectives and activities are described for each, but it would be useful for the plan to include either in the plan or as separate document a full action plan.

See previous sections on the Operational Plan 2020-2022.

[Met]

Does the ESP refer to a financial simulation model?

Met

A financial simulation model was developed and is referred to frequently in Chapter 5. The financial model simulates three scenarios, based on factors such as class size, repetition, and enrolment.

The three scenarios indicate different degrees of ambition and optimism.

Intention is to pursue the most ambitious of the three.

Does the ESP include a sound financial framework?

Partially met

PEE strategy includes a financial framework, but not by sub-sector for the whole plan. The plan currently calculates the financing gap based only on available financing to be allocated to “Ensino Geral”.

Costs are not considered for the other strategic objectives. In addition, there seems to be an error in the calculation of the financial gap.

It is notable that allocations to primary and secondary education are

those presented in detail in the plan. Other key strategic objectives

relating to ECE, adult education and teacher training are not costed

within the plan. This is not satisfactory.

[Partially met]

Is the estimation of the size of the gap based on realistic assumptions, for national resources?

Partially met

The GDP growth rate estimates are aligned with IMF projections, and the projected increase in education as a share of public

See the above response relating to missing elements. A new concern obviously relates to the unknown

26

expenditure (from 14.51% to 15%). However, as previously mentioned, the gap is calculated only based on government allocation to “Ensino Geral.” In addition, there appears to be an error in Table 16’s calculation of the financial gap (in terms of the allocation of resources from the Government) which it will be important to rectify.

impact over the coming months of the coronavirus pandemic on the Mozambican Economy. [Partially met]

Does the ESP include a capacity building plan or elaborate strategies to build capacity?

Partially met

The plan includes improvements to the recruitment, selection, management, and training of human resources, which seems to go beyond teachers. Capacity building, then, seems to be a part of this process, but it would be helpful to offer more clarity about the capacity building offered and the education employees benefiting from this. In addition, the Administrative and Organizational Development Program could be strengthened by including further information about the preparation of instruments and personnel training for PEE implementation and monitoring at the national, provincial, district and local school levels.

Agree that the Administrative and Organizational Development Programme could be pushed harder on the Leadership dimension, Without which there will certainly be a shortfall in strategy achievements. This is more than an administrative challenge! The measures included in the strategy to revolutionize the quality of the teaching force fall significantly short of what will be required, and do not reflect current best practice. [Partially met]

Look at the results framework. Do the strategies have outcomes for most of its objectives and specific objectives?

Partially Met

Key performance indicators in the form of a “matriz estrategica” are included for each of the sub-sectors and priority areas except for “Ensino Professional and Superior”. The matrices include strategic objectives and key priority areas, as well as baselines, intermediate, final targets and verification methods. The PO matrix reflects the key performance indicators in the matrices and has identified activities but

See above for detail on the OP [Met]

27

without indicators and output targets. It would be useful to ensure that the matriz PO 2020-2022 are aligned with the “matriz estrategico” its baselines, intermediate target and final targets, as well outputs for the activities. It would also be useful for the PO matrix to include timeframes by when outputs and targets will be expected to be achieved.

Look at the results framework or action plan. Do the strategies have outputs for most of its activities?

Not met The plan and the PO matrix do not include outputs for the activities.

See above for detail on the OP [Met]

Are the outcome and output indicators well-defined? (measurable and contain timeframe and targets)

Partially met

The outcome indicators (framed as result indicators for strategic objectives) are well-defined and intermediate goals (2024) and 2029 goals are given for each indicator. There are no output indicators for activities.

Agreed. We shall discover whether or not the activities in the Operational Plan, 2020-2022, include output indicators. [Met]

Does the ESP describe monitoring tools and mechanisms at the national and local levels?

Partially met

The plan references annual, mid-term, and final evaluations (14). The responsibilities at the national and local levels are described and the PEE affirms that funds and instruments for monitoring will be available at the provincial and district levels, but the tools and mechanisms are not described. The plan also references monitoring visits and a joint coordination group, who are involved in monitoring. Means of verification are also provided for some indicators, but more clarity about monitoring tools would be helpful.

The intended arrangements for monitoring and evaluation are very standard, taking scrutiny down to district level. What is disappointing, though, is the absence of any sense of mechanisms to respond to M&E findings. If there is Learning from the M&E, how is that to be shared and utilised? [Partially met]

6. An ESP is sensitive to the context

Does the ESP identify risks regarding the implementation and proposes solutions?

Partially met

A brief list of risks is included. These appear to focus mostly on external risks and do not seem to include sectoral or institutional risks to the

Agree that the risk analysis could be strengthened as indicated. [Partially met]

28

implementation of the plan. The risk section does not currently propose mitigation measures, but rather offers a number of assumptions and political commitments that suppose that the identified risks will not pose an issue. It would be useful for this section to further identify sectoral and institutional risks, as well as any others that could affect implementation and indicate how the risks will be mitigated.

7. An ESP pays attention to disparities

Does the ESP include the gender parity index on any of these indicators GER, GIR, CR, learning outcomes, or other main indicators are disaggregated by sex?

Met

The plan mentions that 48% of students are girls. 98% of girls enroll in primary school and an approximation of a girls’ dropout rate is given. The strategic matrices include several indicators with the base (2019) figure disaggregated by gender.

Data also given in relation to performance of girls in secondary school National examination. Indicators are generally disaggregated by gender. [Met]

Does the ESP include data for children with disability at school?

Met

The data provided is very limited: it indicates that 2% of the population has some type of learning disability, and that includes 74,921 students enrolled in the national education system. There is no specification of the type of special needs, educational level, and geographical location of these students. It would however be useful to elaborate further and provide more data if available.

There will surely be development partners who wish to invest in the broad area of special needs, including disability, so that more analysis can be expected to be forthcoming as the strategy unfolds. [Partially met]

Does the ESP include data or analysis of geographic disparities?

Met

The PEE discusses differences in enrolments and learning achievements between Maputo and other parts of the country, rural and urban areas, and provides

Yes, the differential in achievement by geographical area is well presented, offering a serious challenge to the strategy going

29

some inter-provincial comparisons and some comparisons between Maputo and the provinces.

forward. [Met]

Annex E

Mozambique LEG response on the key aspect of credible education sector plan, (PEE) 2020-2029

15.04.2020 Key aspects of credible education sector plans The questions listed in the table represent critical elements of a credible ESP. Please indicate whether these elements are present in the ESP (including the action plan) and provide any comments on the aspects that are missing or need to be improved.

Questions YES NO Comments

Sector-wide: 1. Does the plan cover all subsectors including non-formal Education, literacy, and higher education?

YES The Higher Education is not integrated as a programme. It is under Ministry of Science and Technology. However, synergies with Higher Education, especially in the field of teacher training is taken into account.

Based on a sector analysis: 2. Does the ESP summarize key results of the sector analysis and identify key challenges based on those results?

YES

Coherent and consistent strategies: 3. Do the general objectives, specific objectives, and activities address the key challenges and their underlying causes?

YES

4. Are there any major inconsistencies in the presentation of general objectives, specific objectives, and activities across different sections of the ESP (e.g. narrative of the strategies, logic framework, action plan)?

NO

Sound cost framework: 5. Has the plan been costed?

YES

6. Are the data presented by education level? YES 7. Are the data presented by year? YES 8. Does the cost framework specify the capital and recurrent expenditures as well as the staff salaries share?

YES

Sound financial framework: YES

30

9. Is the financial framework based on official macro-economic assumptions?

The funding gap is presented in different scenarios. In scenario 0 the funding gap including the external aid is USD 214.7 million USD; in scenario 1 it is USD 119.9 million and in scenario 2 it is 27.9 million USD

10. Does the financial framework specify the domestic and external resources allocated to the education sector?

YES

11.Does the financial framework specify the financial gap?

YES

12. What is the level of the funding gap as a percentage of the total resources available (including external aid)?

Simulation model: 13. Was a simulation model used for testing the policy targets and informing the policy dialogue?

YES

14. Was a simulation model used for devising the financing framework?

YES

Sound action plan: 15. Does the action plan contain a precise timeline for each activity?

YES About 40% of the total activities do not contain a responsible authority, but Operational Plan is still under preparation. Pre-primary education and Adult Education are missing responsible authority.

16. Does the action plan contain a responsible authority for each activity?

NO

17. Does the action plan contain the total cost and source of funding for each activity?

YES

Monitoring tools and mechanisms: 18. Does the ESP contain a description of the monitoring tools and mechanisms that will be used to monitor progress, or mention a plan to develop them?

YES Yes, both ESP and operational plan have description of the monitoring mechanism that will be used to monitor progress.

Clear roles and responsibilities: 19. Are there clear roles and responsibilities defined for the implementation and monitoring of the ESP?

YES Yes, the monitoring framework in the operational plan spells out the responsible unit of each indicator/result. However, responsibilities are not very clearly defined under pre-primary.

Sound indicators: 20. Are most of the indicators well defined, meaning they contain a target, a timeframe, and are measurable?

YES Yes, most indicators are well defined, have targets and yearly timeframe. In some cases (pre-primary, secondary, adult education and administration), the baseline and target is missing. Yes, the ESP follow the same format than the previous strategy. Main objectives – strategic goals and priority activities.

21. Do most objectives have corresponding outcomes, and do most activities have corresponding outputs?

YES

Capacity development: 22. Does the ESP contain a programme on capacity development that is based on an assessment of capacities?

NO NO, but there is a plan to conduct the capacity needs assessment during the preparation of the ESPIG and based on the outcome of that assessment develop a capacity development programme.

31

Strong government leadership: 23. Did the ESP’s preparation process demonstrate strong leadership of the government?

YES YES, the Government strong leadership was there in different levels during the preparation process.

Broad stakeholder participation: 24. Did the preparation of the ESP involve a participatory process that included a broad range of stakeholders: central government, decentralized levels of government, civil society, teacher unions, nongovernmental organizations, and development partners?

YES YES, during the preparation process several rounds of consultations processes were conducted among different stakeholders. Development partners and civil society members had at least three rounds of consultation processes conducted (draft was shared and discussed in different working groups with the leadership of the government).