Evaluation Department
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EVALUATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 7/2015 Photo: Ken Opprann Evaluation of Norwegian Multilateral Support to Basic Education: Nepal Case Study ISBN: 978-82-7548-816-7 Evaluation of Norwegian Multilateral Support to Basic Education: Nepal Case Study Development Portfolio Management Group October 2015 Acknowledgements Field work for the Nepal case study was conducted by Pramod Bhatta (team leader) and Lynn Bennett. Lynn Bennett took the lead in preparing the draft and final reports with support from Sue Berryman. Linda Morra Imas provided an independent peer review of the draft document. Her review was complemented by quality assurance reviews by the DPMG Director, Xavier Legrain. The Team would like to thank UNICEF management and staff in the country office, local World Bank staff, partner organizations in the Local Education Group, and Government officials for the time they provided for interviews. This report is the product of its authors, and responsibility for the accuracy of data included in this report rests with the authors. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of Norad’s Evaluation Department. i Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iv I: Introduction: Objectives, methods, theory of change ................................................................... 1 II: Nepal Country Context ..................................................................................................................... 4 III: The School Sector Reform Program – Interventions .................................................................. 10 IV: Outcomes and Program Results ................................................................................................... 18 A. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 18 B. GPE Contributions to Norway’s Focus Outcomes for the SSRP ............................................ 18 C. UNICEF Contributions to SSRP .............................................................................................. 28 V: Aid Management, Financial Management, and Enabling Conditions ........................................ 36 A. Aid Management ..................................................................................................................... 36 B. Financial management ............................................................................................................ 42 C. Enabling conditions ................................................................................................................. 43 VI: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 45 A. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 45 B. Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 46 References ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Annex 1. Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................. 51 Annex 2: Schematic of the project cycle and questions that reveal the quality with which it is implemented .............................................................................................................................. 62 Annex 3: List of those interviewed in the field....................................................................................... 63 Annex 4: Nepal case study instrument ................................................................................................... 64 Annex 5: Project/Program Assessment Instrument .............................................................................. 72 Annex 6: MOE list of positive UNICEF contributions to basic education ........................................... 81 Annex 7: Views of members of the LEG on UNICEF strengths and weaknesses .............................. 82 Tables Table 1: Basic Information ............................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: Classification of 125 Groups into Major Caste/Ethnic Groups in 2011 Census and Proposed for Nepal’s Education Management Information System (EMIS) ........................................................ 6 Table 3: Government Allocations to the Education Sector ........................................................................... 8 Table 4: Internal Efficiency in Primary and Basic Education, 2009-2013 .................................................. 19 Table 5: Average student achievement in NASAs, 2011-2013 .................................................................. 20 Table 6: Variation in net attendance rate ................................................................................................... 23 Table 7: Distance to Educational Facilities by Consumption Quintile ........................................................ 23 Table 8: Education Domain: mean (percent) and index scores by broader social group .......................... 27 Table 9: Results for the UNICEF Country Programme for Nepal............................................................... 29 Table 10: Ratio and Trend Analysis ........................................................................................................... 43 Table 11: Enabling Conditions.................................................................................................................... 44 Figures Figure 1: Theory of Change ......................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: SLC Pass Rate, 2007-2014 ........................................................................................................ 20 Acronyms and Abbreviations ii CA Constituent Assembly CBS Central Bureau of Statistics CFS Child Friendly School CPAP Country Program Action Plan DEO District Education Office DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) DOE Department of Education DP Development Partner ECED Early Childhood Education and Development EFA Education for All EMIS Education Management Information System GDP Gross Domestic Product GoN Government of Nepal GPI Gender Parity Index JFA Joint Financing Agreement MLE Multilingual Education MOE Ministry of Education MOI Medium of Instruction MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey MTR Mid Term Review NASA National Assessment of Student Achievement NER Net Enrolment Rate NGO Non-Governmental Organization OOSC Out of School Children PAD Project Appraisal Document PMEC Priority Minimum Enabling Conditions PTA Parent Teacher Association RC Resource Center SE Supervising Entity SLC School Leaving Certificate SSRP School Sector Reform Program SSR-Plan School Sector Reform Plan STR Student Teacher Ratio SWAp Sector Wide Approach SZOP Schools as Zones of Peace VDC Village Development Committee VEC Village Education Committee UML United Marxist Leninists iii Executive Summary Introduction 1. The Nepal case study is one of four case studies conducted for the Evaluation of Norway’s Support to Basic Education through UNICEF and the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) from 2009 through 2013, the other three being Ethiopia, Malawi, and Madagascar. The two main questions for the Evaluation are these: 1) what are the intended and unintended outputs and outcomes of the basic education initiatives that Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs funds indirectly through two agents, GPE and UNICEF; and, 2) what is the value-added to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of using GPE and UNICEF as conduits for its investments. Two causal pathways are used to assess these questions: the research team’s theory of change based on the factors that can be expected to improve the three outcomes of interest to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (learning outcomes, gender equality, and equity) and the processes and quality assurance mechanisms that increase the probabilities of good aid management of the project/program cycle. 2. Each case study is based on multiple sources of evidence: interviews with relevant staff at UNICEF's headquarters in New York, GPE's Secretariat, Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), and Norway's Norad; analysis of the financial management of UNICEF, GPE, and partner country government education programs and budgets; desk reviews of multiple documents prior to the field work; and extensive fieldwork in each country. The fieldwork complemented and deepened the desk reviews of documents for each case. It involved interviews with outside observers and all parties that affected the GPE and UNICEF programs, such as members of the Local Education Group, supervising or managing entities for GPE programs, UNICEF staff, and Ministry of Education managers and technical staff. 3. The four basic education programs during the period under study were: 1) the GPE grant to the School Sector Reform Program (SSRP, 2009-2014), 1