EdData II Data for Education Programming in Asia and Middle East

Nepal Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

DEP/AME

EdData II Technical and Managerial Assistance, Task Number 15 Contract Number AID-OAA-BC-11-00001 June 2012

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by RTI International.

Data for Education Programming in Asia and Middle East

Nepal Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

DEP/AME

EdData II Task Order No. 15 Finalized July 15, 2012

Prepared for USAID/Nepal Mitch Kirby, Senior Education Advisor

Prepared by RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Table of Contents

Page List of Figures ...... iii List of Tables ...... iii List of Abbreviations ...... iv Executive Summary ...... ES-1 1 Context/Background and Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background and Assessment Objectives ...... 1 1.2 Assessment Methodology ...... 1 1.3 USAID’s Education Strategy ...... 1 1.4 Research on Improving Reading Outcomes and Decentralization ...... 2 1.5 School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP 2009–2015) ...... 2 1.6 The Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) ...... 2 1.7 Recent Developments in the Education Sector ...... 3 1.7.1 Private Education ...... 3 2 Institutional Mapping and Capacity Assessment ...... 4 2.1 Overview of Institutions ...... 4 2.1.1 Central Government Organizations ...... 4 2.1.2 Local Government Organizations ...... 5 2.1.3 Development Partners ...... 6 2.1.4 International NGOs ...... 7 2.1.5 Public-Private Partnerships ...... 8 2.1.6 Research Organizations ...... 8 2.2 Institutional Assessment ...... 8 3 Critical Issues ...... 9 3.1 Language ...... 9 3.1.1 The Role of Language in the Nepali Education System ...... 9 3.1.2 Strengths of Existing Language Environment ...... 10 3.1.3 Weaknesses of the Existing Language Environment ...... 10 3.2 Curriculum and Materials ...... 10 3.2.1 Organizational Structure for Curricula and Materials ...... 10 3.2.2 Strengths of the Existing Organizational Structure ...... 10 3.2.3 Weaknesses of the Existing Organizational Structure ...... 11 3.3 Teaching and Teachers ...... 11 3.3.1 Teacher Training ...... 11 3.3.2 Strengths of the Teacher Training System ...... 13 3.3.3 Weaknesses of the Teacher Training System ...... 13 3.4 Assessment ...... 13 3.4.1 Current state of assessments and assessment systems...... 13 3.4.2 Strengths ...... 14 3.4.3 Weaknesses ...... 15 3.5 Elements of Demand ...... 15 3.5.1 Horizontal and Vertical Accountability ...... 15 3.5.2 The planning and budgeting process ...... 16 3.5.3 Lower-level spending ...... 16

ES-i EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

3.5.4 Assessment of Horizontal and Vertical Accountability ...... 17 3.5.5 Accountability for Results ...... 18 3.5.6 Data Systems and Data Use ...... 18 3.5.7 Reform Support ...... 19 3.6 Cost Analysis ...... 19 3.6.1 Strengths of the System ...... 20 3.6.2 Weaknesses of the System ...... 20 4 Conclusion ...... 20 4.1 Recommendations ...... 21 4.1.1 Language ...... 21 4.1.2 Curriculum and Materials ...... 21 4.1.3 Teachers and Teacher Training ...... 21 4.1.4 Assessment ...... 22 4.1.5 Elements of Demand ...... 22 4.1.6 Costs and Finance ...... 22 4.2 Key Leverage Points ...... 23 4.2.1 Furthering Demand for Improved Reading ...... 23 4.2.2 Evidence-Based Decision Making ...... 23 4.2.3 Potential of Decentralized System ...... 24 Annex A. Terms of Reference ...... 25 Annex B. Nepal Assessment Protocol Questions...... 28 Annex C. Schedule and Contacts ...... 38 Annex D. Private Education Enrollment Data Private Education Enrollment Data ...... 40 Annex E. Additional International Nongovernmental Organizations Assisting with Education Efforts in Nepal...... 53 Annex F. EMIS Data Collection Forms...... 62 Annex G. List of References and Endnotes...... 63

ES-ii EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

List of Figures

Figure 1. Management, governance, and finance structures of the Nepali Education system ...... 17 Figure 2. Textbook Availability vs. Textbook Use...... 23

List of Tables

Table 1. Reading Systems Diagnostic Map ...... 2 Table 2. Early Grade Reading Studies ...... 3 Table 3. Accountability Linkages ...... 15 Table 4. SSRP 2011/12 Budget Analysis (NRs 000) ...... 19

ES-iii EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

List of Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank ASER Annual Status of Education Report ASIP Annual Strategic Implementation Plan AusAID Australian Agency for International Development BASE Backward Society Education BES Backwardness Eradication Society CAS continuous assessment system CDC Curriculum Development Center CERID Center for Educational Research and Innovation Development CHESS Nepal Child Health and Environment Save Society DDC District Development Committee DEC District Education Committee DEO District Education Office DEP District Education Plan DEP/AME Data for Education Programming/Asia and the Middle East DFID Department for International Development DOE Department of Education DP Development Partner DSP Dailekh School Project ECD early childhood development EFA Education for All EGR early grade reading EGRA early grade reading assessment EMIS Education Management Information System ETC Education Training Center EU European Union FCGO Financial Controller’s General Office FIRDO Fulvari Integrated Rural Development Organization GER gross enrollment ratio GON Government of Nepal GPE Global Partnership for Education GYC Gaja Yuba Club/Gaja Youth Club HSEB Higher Secondary Education Board IBBY International Board on Books for Young People INGO international nongovernmental organization JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JMC Janak Materials Center LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development Program MDG Millennium Development Goal MLE multilingual education MOE Ministry of Education MOF Ministry of Finance MOLD Ministry of Local Development MSBK Manabiva Srot Bikas Kendra Nepal—education NGO MT mother tongue MTR mid-term review NASA National Association for Student Assessment NCED National Center for Education Development NCF national curriculum framework NER net enrollment ratio NEST Nepal Education Support Trust NESCHIL Nepalese Society for Children’s Literacy

ES-iv EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

NFE non-formal education NGO nongovernmental organization NR Nepalese rupee PRAYASH Prayatnashil Community Development Society PTA parent teacher association RBPOP Rato Bangla Partnership in Outreach Programme RC resource center RED Regional Education Directorates RP resource person RtR Room to Read SIP school improvement plan SLC School Leaving Certificate SMC School Management Committee SSRP School Sector Reform Program SWAp sector-wide approach TSC Teacher Service Commission TEVT technical education and vocational training UK United Kingdom UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Education Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development VDC Village Development Committee VDRC Vijaya Development Resource Center VEC Village Education Committee VEP Village Education Plan WB World Bank WFP World Food Program wpm words per minute

ES-v EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Executive Summary In line with the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) new Education Strategy, USAID/Nepal is interested in developing a program to help improve reading outcomes in the early grades of primary school. USAID contracted with RTI International to conduct a rapid education sector assessment focused on understanding the current context for supporting early grade reading in Nepal. The team identified six key issues related to the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for Nepal to mount a significant national program to improve reading outcomes. The education sector in Nepal appears well-managed, with broad government and development partner collaboration around a well-defined School Sector Reform Program (SSRP). The vast majority of external assistance is aligned currently to the SSRP through a well-coordinated sector-wide approach (SWAp). The focus of the SSRP has been primarily on moving Nepal forward towards the Education for All (EFA) goals. The country has made great progress in expanding access and improving equity, achieving a net enrollment rate in basic education of close to 95% with gender parity. However, recent review of the SSRP surfaced concern over the quality of education, and in particular whether students are learning to read well enough in the early grades of basic education. Related to the growing concern about early grade reading in Nepal are several key trends and issues in the education sector. First, the issue of the language of instruction for basic education has become paramount. Schools have traditionally used Nepali as the medium of instruction, with students learning English as a second language. However, the recent political transformation of the country carries with it increased attention to ethnic constituencies. Current policy therefore allows for and promotes use of mother tongue languages as languages of instruction, with the choice of which language to use left to school authorities. At the same time, growth of private schools offering English as the medium of instruction, and increased employment opportunities for Nepali workers abroad, have created social demand for English instruction. The confrontation between national policy promoting mother tongue and social demand for English is inevitable. However, this creates an opportunity with potentially high leverage if assistance can be designed to help Nepal sort out the relationship between language of instruction and literacy acquisition, including how best to help students transition to strong English oral and literacy skills. Second, whatever the medium of instruction, the current curriculum for basic education in Nepal focuses on language instruction and does not address reading as an explicit subject. However, some of the core competencies for reading are addressed in the existing materials. While this represents something that can be built on, considerable effort will be needed to elevate reading sufficiently to ensure that foundational reading competencies receive the required focus and space in the curriculum. Learning materials based on the existing curriculum are available in schools, but teaching is too dependent on the books and the content of those books is neither adequate in scope nor appropriate in sequence as regards developing core early reading skills. Assistance that targets curricular improvements and revision of teaching materials and textbooks could help overcome some of these limitations. Third, Nepal has the advantage of an extensive network of institutions dedicated to teacher training. Every district has multiple teacher resource centers from which in-service teacher training is delivered on a regular basis. However, these centers are understaffed and seemingly under-resourced. In addition, decisions about teacher training are made at the local level, with schools and resource centers identifying training demand and needs and the latter devising programs that respond to them. This leads to high variability in the quality, rigor, and regularity of teacher training. Helping Nepal develop systems for better monitoring of teacher training; for using the decentralized system to deliver rigorous, targeted professional development; and for ensuring ongoing follow up at the school level would go a long way to helping the country extract maximum benefit from its existing teacher training infrastructure. Fourth, while at present there is no systematic approach to measuring learning outcomes in early grades, the government has committed to developing a National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA) that can include a third grade proficiency test in reading. In addition, the SSRP includes the introduction of continuous assessment as a key component of instructional practice in basic education. However, both the Ministry and Department of Education have limited technical expertise in assessment. Assistance that supports the development of rigorous measurement of learning outcomes, and in particular of reading outcomes, would be highly valuable. There is high demand for hard data on student outcomes, at the school, district, and policy levels, so the climate is ripe for generating such data and facilitating dialogue at all those levels about not only whether students are learning to read, but also what to do about it (e.g., in terms of language, curriculum, and teacher training). Fifth, the political, administrative, and financial decentralization that have been taking place progressively since the dissolution of the monarchy in Nepal are dramatically changing the way education is governed, managed, and financed. Nepal has made great strides in moving towards a school-based management approach. All schools have school management committees (SMC) with considerable authority over the use of school resources. And as a result

ES-1 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report of the SSRP, significant amounts of resources are reaching schools. These are used to hire teachers, to purchase materials, and to enroll teachers in professional development opportunities. However, accountability for how resources are used is weak, and no links are made between resource allocation decisions and improvements in learning outcomes. Because schools are under increasing pressure from parents and communities to perform, there is an opportunity to strengthen systems for local accountability that focus attention on tangible measurements of learning (rather than on nebulous perceptions of quality). And because resources are available throughout the system, redirecting those resources to higher value-added inputs could lead to significant improvements in student achievement. Sixth, while there appears to be sufficient funding within the existing system to pay for a sustainable nationwide early grade reading program, it is highly unlikely that the Ministry of Education (MOE) can afford to take any of the existing reading programs currently offered by a number of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) to scale, largely because of their significant input requirements. Measures will have to be taken to determine exactly how much money can be made available for early grade reading and to determine the input requirements of a viable and affordable reading program. A summary account of the institutional and systemic requirements for taking an early grade reading program to scale, and sustaining that effort over time through the system itself are all presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Reading Systems Diagnostic Map Center Language Adjust medium of instruction policies to accommodate demand for mother tongue and/or English instruction; advocacy around international best practices for supporting reading/language Curriculum Strengthen support for early grade reading in the curriculum; adjust policy and provide support to ensure local curriculum meets national standards Materials Develop/distribute appropriate early grade reading materials for students, parents, teachers, trainers, support personnel (could include identifying best/appropriate existing materials); develop materials standards and determine associated resource requirements Teacher Training Develop core teacher training program for grades 1-3 early grade reading that is linked closely to the curriculum and early grade reading textbooks/materials, including how to use those materials effectively; build solid methodology in early grade reading instruction into the PRESET and INSET curricula Assessment Design EGRA instrument (can build on existing instruments); weave early grade reading into NASA mechanism; develop the capacity of NASA to design early grade reading assessments and analyze the results; consider other national assessment mechanism for early grade reading assessment EMIS Adapt EMIS to i) embrace EGRA results that can be used for performance grants and support to schools; and ii) include data on teacher training; develop mechanisms to ensure data quality; develop capacity to create early grade reading report cards Horizontal Adjust the SMC policy such that i) at least 8/9 members are parents elected from the community Accountability served by the school; ii) 5 are women; and iii) a woman serves as SMC Head and/or Treasurer; SMC is empowered to deal with school when misspending is uncovered; LSGA is adjusted to clarify relationships between governing bodies at each level of the system and their corresponding management bodies Vertical Develop a policy around the right to intervene; develop a policy that holds schools accountable for Accountability the money they spend; formalize block grant to school—make it a real block grant such that schools can spend as they best see fit to improve reading outcomes Accountability for Add early grade reading to the performance grant mechanism already in place; determine how this Results system will work; implement inter-district early grade reading performance grant mechanism District Curriculum Build capacity of DEO to support schools in local curriculum development Teacher Training Build capacity of RPs to train teachers in early grade reading and to localize early grade reading teacher training materials Assessment Develop the capacity of the DEO to conduct early grade reading assessments Horizontal Conduct local level elections Accountability Vertical Audit schools for proper spending Accountability Accountability for Implement inter-village/school early grade reading performance grant mechanism; assess school Results spending patterns and correlate with early grade reading results; feed information into school support mechanism Sub-District Teacher Training Train teachers in early grade reading; support trained teachers Assessment Develop capacity of teachers to carry out continuous assessment

ES-2 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report School Language Decide what medium of instruction will be, within the boundaries of national policy Materials Devote resources to ensure sufficient teaching/learning materials are available Teacher Training Develop capacity to identify training needs in relation to early grade reading; support trained teachers Assessment Conduct continuous assessment Horizontal Build the capacity of the PGA to watchdog schools and SMCs vis-à-vis school finance, planning, Accountability procurement, and key reading activities; publically post SIP, budget, and expenditure; build a pro- reading/democracy constituency among the parents Accountability for Post relevant school report cards; build capacity of school to know what investments and spending Results patterns result in improved reading results

Lastly, in addition to the above mentioned education specific issues, it must be noted that Nepal is currently engrossed in a significant political transition to a possibly federated state. The uncertainty that remains regarding the exact form of federalism Nepal will choose to implement is creating a great deal of political instability, as evidenced in the repeated strikes (bandhs) occurring during the month of May. The politics surrounding the redefinition of district/state boundaries is resulting in tension regarding the importance that will be accorded to ethnic and linguistic identities and concerns about public governance, fiscal management, and service provision, in particular in the education sector. Any future programming in the education sector will need to be mindful of the tensions arising from these ongoing debates. But an opportunity exists to help Nepal develop functioning models of how decentralized provision of education could balance national and local perspectives while making significant progress on an issue everyone appears to agree is a priority: early grade reading.

ES-3 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

1 Context/Background and Introduction

1.1 Background and Assessment Objectives USAID/Nepal is interested in developing a program to help improve reading outcomes in the early grades of basic education. To inform the program design, a rapid education sector assessment was conducted to better understand past, current, and planned policies, practices, programs, innovations, and initiatives targeted towards early grade reading. This assessment aimed to identify strengths, weaknesses, and key leverage points to improve children’s reading outcomes within the institutional context of Nepal’s education system. A more detailed overview of the assessment objectives can be found in Annex A, which includes the original Terms of Reference.

1.2 Assessment Methodology The assessment was conducted over a two-month period by a team of researchers and staff from RTI International, including Mr. Joseph DeStefano, Senior Researcher; Dr. Frank Healey, Senior Researcher; Ms. Sharon Loza, Project Management Specialist; and Dr. Wendi Ralaingita, Education Researcher. Significant support was also provided by Dr. Vishnu Karki, Consultant; Dr. Yogendra Yadava, Local Language Expert; Jayanti Subba, Education Specialist, USAID/Nepal; and Mitch Kirby, USAID, Senior Education Advisor. The assessment was carried out by desk study and a two-week field visit from May 7 to May 19, 2012. This report reflects findings from the assessment. The assessment team created a series of questions that was informed by desk research efforts and used as a protocol to structure interviews. A complete list of protocol questions can be found in Annex B. While in-country, numerous interviews were conducted with ministry officials, teachers, district-level education officials, INGOs, and education partners. Observations were also conducted in four primary schools (two government, two private; see Annex C for summary of visits and persons contacted). Results of the desk study and in-country visit were summarized and analyzed in consultation with the USAID/Nepal team and USAID Asia and Middle East Bureau Senior Education Advisor Mitch Kirby.

1.3 USAID’s Education Strategy Two aspects of USAID’s current orientation and policies figured decisively in the approach taken to conduct this assessment. First, the new USAID Education Strategy and Implementation Guidance (2011–2015) indicate that education resources should be targeted to achieve measurable and sustainable education outcomes through enhanced selectivity, focus, country-led programming, division of labor, and innovation. The most significant manifestation of USAID’s application of these principles is in its commitment to achieving the first goal of its education strategy: “Improved reading skills for 100 million children in primary grades by 2015.” USAID/Nepal will contribute to this Agency-wide goal by improving reading skills for a significant number of Nepali students in early grades. However, as important as making that contribution, is doing so in a way that is sustainable and that works within the fabric of the country’s existing education institutions. The tenets of USAID Forward (the Agency’s new way of doing the business of development) place a premium on working in close collaboration with government, civil society counterparts, and other development partners. They also stress the importance of making use of host country systems and expertise. Given the strong SWAp in place in the education sector, through which many funding agencies are already pooling resources and working through government systems, USAID/Nepal has an opportunity to develop a program that would adhere to the principles of USAID Forward. This assessment is shaped by USAID’s strong commitment to working through government systems to achieve sustainable, measureable improvements in reading. Attention is therefore paid to how best to support an evidence- based, scalable, and sustainable reading improvement program. Furthermore, this assessment seeks to identify opportunities where programming can support, strengthen, and utilize existing national-, district-, and school-level institutions. The objective is to assess the current education sector context and identify ways through which a USAID intervention would reinforce, extend, and improve government policies, practices, and institutions while also strengthening civil society and nongovernmental contributions to the education system.

1 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report 1.4 Research on Improving Reading Outcomes and Decentralization Two areas of research and experience are called on to help direct and focus this assessment. The first relates to what is known about how to improve reading. The second concerns governance, management, and decentralization. Reading is a foundational skill necessary for academic achievement. Extensive experience and research have identified key elements of teaching and learning needed to improve reading outcomes: i) teacher training and support for teachers, ii) sufficient instructional time, iii) adequate materials (i.e. textbooks), iv) appropriate language of instruction, and v) use of assessment (Gove & Cvelich, 2011). Therefore, this assessment looks closely at the issues of language, curriculum and materials, teacher training and assessment. Governance, management, and systems research indicates that for an education system to perform well in a decentralized situation like that found in Nepal, the following elements are critical: i) a design of a high-quality decentralized education system that is built around the characteristics of effective schools, ii) a clear demarcation between governance functions and management functions, iii) strong horizontal accountability linkages, iv) some key vertical accountability linkages, and v) adequate resources to carry out the functions necessary at each level (Healey and Crouch, 2012). Therefore, the assessment also examines the nature of the existing governance, finance, management, and accountability systems in Nepal.

1.5 School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP 2009–2015) The Government of Nepal (GON) and MOE, with support from international development partners, are implementing the SSRP to address critical issues related to education quality and improved school management. The SSRP outlines key interventions and resource requirements for achieving the country’s goals and objectives for basic and secondary education. It covers 2009–2015 and is driven by Nepal’s commitment to achieving the EFA goals and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It guides all activity in the education sector. The overarching goal of the SSRP is to ensure that all children (girls, boys, and the disadvantaged) have access to quality primary education by 2015. Emphasis in the SSRP is placed on continuing to make progress in equitably expanding access (primarily through continued construction of additional classrooms where needed and implementation of scholarships for disadvantaged groups). The SSRP also supports decentralization of the education system, in line with the country’s interim constitution and government-wide decentralization policies (in particular, the Local Self Governance Act of 1999). All schools are to become community-managed. Some 11,000 (out of about 31,000) are reported as currently operating that way. Another area of emphasis in the SSRP is the establishment and enforcement of minimum enabling conditions – e.g., for infrastructure, class size, provision of materials – as one way to improve quality. Implementation of the National Curriculum Framework, use of mother tongue languages as the languages of instruction in early grades, and implementing automatic promotion, continuous assessment, and remedial support systems are other SSRP priorities aimed at improving quality. The mid-term review of the SSRP found significant increases in the gross enrollment ratio (GER) for early childhood education, improvements in the net enrollment ratio (NER) for basic education, and achievement of gender parity in access. All primary education teachers in grades 1-5 have been trained through the SSRP and a new needs-based teacher professional development program is being implemented. However the concerns raised by the mid-term review include the need to improve system governance and financial management, further develop institutional capacity at all levels of the system, target the most disadvantaged groups, and ensure “better school operation, better teaching, better learning and greater emphasis on reading skills in early grades.” To address these issues, the SSRP partners stressed the following interventions: institutionalizing continuous assessment, developing reading skills in the early grades, ensuring priority minimum enabling conditions in all schools, teacher training, and improved financial accountability at the school level. The recent emphasis on developing reading skills in early grades dovetails perfectly with Goal 1 of USAID’s Education Strategy.

1.6 The Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) Nepal and its development partners have adopted a sector-wide approach to improving the education system. The development partners and the MOE all indicate how well the SWAp has functioned over the last several years, and available evidence supports that perception. Mention was made, however, of some SWAp limitations, in particular, lengthy review and approval procedures and the reluctance of the MOE to utilize outside short- and long-term technical assistance. Several multilateral and bilateral partners contribute to a pooled fund of budgetary support 2 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report (Global Partnership for Education (GPE), World Bank [WB], Asian Development Bank [ADB], United Nations International Children’s Education Fund [UNICEF], European Union [EU], Australia, Denmark, Norway, and United Kingdom [UK]), and others who are non-pooled nevertheless participate in the SWAp (UNESCO, World Food Program (WFP), Japan, and USAID).i The non-pooled contributions are treated as on-budget, allowing the MOE to see the full measure of assistance it is receiving for the specific programs and initiatives outlined in the SSRP. During informational interviews with WB, Australian Agency for International Development [AusAID], ADB, and the MOE, they all stressed the importance of USAID playing a greater role in the SWAp and, in particular, in the recently prioritized reading skills development initiative. The emphasis on reading skills development presents an opportunity to leverage existing SSRP and SWAp commitments to support USAID’s education strategy. For the current school year, the SSRP is committed to reprinting supplementary early reading materials already developed for Nepali and several mother tongue languages and is considering a pilot early grade reading skills development program. The latter represents an obvious opportunity for USAID to provide not only support but leadership.

1.7 Recent Developments in the Education Sector Nepal has made impressive progress towards the EFA goals of universal access to basic education. Access to early childhood education has expanded: more than 65% of children are enrolled in some form of pre-school. Net enrollment has increased steadily and is now approximately 95%, with a gender parity index of 0.99. Scholarships are targeted to girls, children with disabilities, and the disadvantaged castes of Dalits and Janajatis, but enrollment growth among the latter has been lower than desired. Repetition rates, especially for grade 1, remain unacceptably high, despite moving to a national policy of automatic promotion in lower primary grades. Education quality is an ongoing concern, but there is no systematic monitoring of learning outcomes. Available data from a few early grade studies reveal low levels of reading among the samples of students that were tested, as summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Early Grade Reading Studies Source Sample Findings Room to Read Baseline 49 schools, 3 districts, 488 Reading in Nepali: Study (2009) grade 2 students • 43% knew all their letters • 55% did not attempt to read a sentence • 71% did not attempt to read a paragraph EQUIP 2 School 23 schools, 4 districts, 480 Reading in Nepali: Effectiveness Case Study grade 3 students • 36% of native Nepali speakers could not read a word of text (2010) • 52% of other mother tongue speakers could not read a word of text Save the Children baseline 20 schools, 2 districts, 368 Reading in Nepali: data (2009) grade 2 students • Could identify 18 letters (out of 36) • Could read 5 words per minute (wpm) • 80% of students read 0 wpm ASER (2011) 30 Schools, 6 districts,300 Reading in Nepali grade 2 and 300 grade 4 Grade 2 students • 71% could read letters • 38% could read 4 out 5 words • 15%could read a story Grade 4 • 85% could read 4 out of 5 words • 56% could read a story

1.7.1 Private Education Another significant recent development in the education sector has been the growth of private schools, especially in the Kathmandu Valley.ii Two-thirds of the enrollment in basic education is now in private schools in the three districts in the valley. From 2008 to 2011, private school enrollments increased by 11%, while enrollment in government schools decreased by 4%, signaling that a shift in that region may be occurring away from government schools and towards private ones. Private provision of schooling covers a broad spectrum of schools, in terms of their affiliation, management, and costs. For example, one school in the sample from which data were collected charges just over NR 2,000 per year, compared to another which charges over NR 30,000. Private schools in the Kathmandu Valley are performing better than public schools. Those included in the study showed an average achievement about 25% higher than that in public schools, with a greater proportion of private school students achieving test scores in the top ranges

3 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report compared to students in public schools. It must be noted, however, that many believe that these results are due largely to private schools teaching almost exclusively to the School Leaving Certificate (SLC) exam—and that the achievement gains are the product of rote memory as opposed to true learning and understanding. In Nepal, private education appears to be predominantly an urban phenomenon. For more data on private enrollment, schools, and teachers, compared to public and total figures, by district and region, see Annex D.

2 Institutional Mapping and Capacity Assessment

2.1 Overview of Institutions Nepal has a wide array of institutions serving the education sector. The landscape of local in-country systems include the GON, MOE, local government bodies, development partners, international and local NGOs, public-private partnerships, research organizations, and private sector actors. Below is a list of key actors and their roles with respect to early grade reading. The discussion of each entity includes an assessment of that organization’s capacity to support a national reading program. Analyses of their strengths and weaknesses as well as opportunities to contribute to a national reading program were based on their ability to support efforts to improve achievement/outcomes and scalability. Due to our limited time and lack of sufficient informational resources to identify all actors, the list presented below is not exhaustive. An additional table of INGOs and local NGOs working in education in Nepal can be referenced in Annex E for further follow up. It is worth noting that local NGO capacity has grown as a result of partnerships established through INGO projects.

2.1.1 Central Government Organizations The GON has multiple bodies supporting education. The MOE and its line agencies and affiliates lead educational efforts. The roles of these central agencies are critical to the creation and adoption of national policies, as well as disbursement of funds, and will be especially critical to the development and implementation of a national reading program. Ministry of Education (MOE) – is responsible for overall education planning and management. It has demonstrated good leadership in the development and management of the SSRP and appears to dutifully fulfill development partner reporting requirements. The MOE regularly engages in coordination and review meetings on SSRP implementation status, with specific attention to indicators of progress. Some concern exists among development partners regarding the adequacy of financial reporting and financial management practices. Department of Education (DOE) – is responsible for the overall supervision, monitoring, and implementation of basic and secondary education. It demonstrates the same commitment to the SSRP plan as the MOE and participates actively in all the planning, management, and reporting interactions associated with its implementation. Leadership from the DOE evinced a strong commitment to improving the quality of education and to evaluating quality on the basis of measureable learning outcomes, not just inputs. Both the MOE and the DOE are also committed to the further decentralization of the education system, with resources and authority continuing to flow to the school level. DOE leadership is convinced that the progress to date (towards meeting EFA) has been largely achieved because of decentralization and a move toward school-based management. National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA) – is responsible for developing grade 3, 5, and 8 assessment instruments aimed at giving the MOE/DOE a sense of how well the system is performing with regard to quality education. A nationwide early grade reading assessment could become a part of the NASA portfolio. Progress to date in developing the NASA has been limited to the grade 8 instrument and has relied on external, resident technical assistance that has just concluded. Further development of the NASA therefore will depend on provision of additional technical support, as it is not clear that the required technical expertise is available within the existing ministry and department institutions. Furthermore, there are no plans currently afoot for systematically evaluating learning outcomes prior to grade 3. National Centre for Educational Development (NCED) –oversees all teacher training and professional development and conducts certification courses through a network of nine ETCs. NCED formulates national training policies and guidelines for the development and delivery of teacher in-service training programs. They also are responsible for the training of education managers and administrators. Of primary concern for the purposes of this assessment is their ability to design and enforce rigorous criteria and standards for teacher training. While they do produce and distribute guidelines that RCs rely on when designing training programs, they have no means of monitoring the training

4 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report activities those centers do (or do not) undertake. In particular, no mechanism exists for systematically and rigorously evaluating the quality, outcomes, and impact of teacher training. The Teacher Service Commission (TSC) – is responsible for teacher licensure, recruitment of permanent teachers, and teacher promotion (for permanent teachers). The TSC sets and administers the licensing exam that teacher candidates must pass in order to be fully qualified. Currently, new permanent teachers are not being added to the teaching-force – efforts are being made to negotiate ways for temporary teachers to become permanent teachers, but this is a contested issue. While promotion for permanent teachers is based on experience and performance reviews, there are no promotion provisions for temporary teachers. The TSC represents a potential mechanism for supporting the review of teachers’ performance in relation to student outcomes and teacher instructional practices (in particular in teaching reading), tied to incentives and opportunities for support and development as needed. However, it would be essential to find a way in which such a system could include all teachers, not only permanent teachers. Education Training Centre (ETC) – ETCs provide training and professional support to secondary school teachers, as well as educational management training to Resource Persons. ETCs also provide technical support, materials, and manpower to Resource Centers (RCs) and serve as technical backstop to “lead” RCs (by, in principle, evaluating overall activities and effectiveness of programs). ETCs receive data from RCs and are responsible for monitoring and implementing the Teacher Professional Development program. Each year, NCED provides ETCs the number of teachers that are to be trained; ETCs respond to priority needs/trainings as requested by districts. Curriculum Development Centre (CDC) – is an academic institution affiliated with the DOE that is responsible for creating the curricula and textbooks, and additional supplemental textbooks for the five core subjects. The CDC develops policies and guidelines for private publishers to create additional materials, which then feed into a CDC- approved books list. CDC has produced language textbooks for 15 mother tongue languages, but may be doing so by translating from Nepali. Numerous supplementary reading books for Nepali have also been produced. The “instructional design” inherent in CDC-developed materials falls short of what is needed for a rigorous approach to early literacy acquisition. Furthermore, the materials CDC is developing do not adequately address the language transition issues most Nepali children are facing. Janak Materials Center (JMC) – is the MOE’s publisher/printer, responsible for printing and distributing textbooks and materials developed by the CDC. Up until three or four years ago, private sector activity in this field was not allowed; it was JMC's sole authority. However, with the recent multiple-textbook policy, the government has opened up textbook printing to private publishers. This policy, which is currently in practice in two of five regions of the country, allows schools to choose from a range of textbooks printed either by JMC or the private sector that have been recommended or approved by the CDC. Also, JMC works with a number of private publishers/printers to get all the textbooks and materials printed and distributed, suggesting that there is a fairly well-established private publishing/printing capacity in Nepal. The problem is that this capacity is almost entirely Kathmandu-based.

2.1.2 Local Government Organizations Local government organizations play a key role in educational management, governance, oversight, and approvals. Their functions are critical to the implementation of higher-level and same-level educational policies and programs and would be critical to a national reading program. Below is a list of key local government organizations at the district and sub-district levels. The assessment does not examine the regional level of the system because the team was told that the role the Regional Education Directorates play is largely insignificant, and that regions are the jurisdictions of the country most likely to be changed by the constitutional reforms currently being debated in Nepal. District level consists of: District Education Office (DEO) – implements policies and provides administrative support to schools, including authority to transfer temporary teachers, prepare reports, approve infrastructural developments, and oversee examinations. District Education Committee (DEC) – a body of education actors (Head Teachers, School Management Committee [SMC] Heads, and the DEO) at the district level who develop the district education plan (DEP). District Development Committee (DDC) – A local governance body of electediii and nominated officials who approve the DEP. Resource Centers (RCs) – are responsible for providing primary teacher training; there are currently 1,053 RCs across Nepal.

5 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report The districts, in particular the DEOs, appear to have reasonable resources and staffing, but lack the logistics needed to interact on a regular basis with schools. Resources pass down through district to schools, but districts do not play a meaningful role in monitoring or holding schools accountable for them. Districts track examination results, but do not systematically report and rank schools based on them. The DEC and DDC occupy much of what the DEO does, and so there is overlap and lack of clarity between management and governance functions. National politics play out at the local level around the appointment and operation of these bodies, with education representing a significant prize since the SSRP has succeeded in moving large amounts of resources down to the district and school levels. The sub-district and school levels consist of: Village Education Committee (VEC) – a body of education actors (Head Teachers, SMC Heads) at the village level who develop the village education plan (VEP). Village Development Committee (VDC) – a local body of electediv and nominated officials who approve the VEP. School Management Committee (SMC) – a partially elected body attached to every school that serves as the school’s governing body, establishing broad school policy, approving plans, hiring temporary teachers, and nominating who will serve as the Head Teacher. Parent Teacher Association (PTA) – is a body comprised of all the teachers and parents of a school, which nonetheless serves largely as a parental body that carries out the system’s Social Audit, serving as the watchdog organization over the school and SMC. The movement of resources and authority to the local levels has increased the importance of some of these entities in the day-to-day management and governance of schools: SMCs now have significant resources to manage, thus raising the political stakes associated with who is appointed (or elected) to them. There is some evidence of SMC capture by local elites. The absence of village elections over the past 10 years has severely hindered their operation as governing bodies and placed greater significance on what goes on within the SMCs. As soon as local level (village and district) elections occur, the politics around the SMCs should, according to many, subside. This, however, is not expected to happen for another two to four years.

2.1.3 Development Partners There are currently nine development partners (DPs) that are participating in the SWAp, consisting of pooled and non- pooled funds. DPs supporting SSRP through SWAp are the ADB, Australia, Denmark, EU, Finland, Norway, UK, UNICEF, and WB. Additional DPs are providing support for education reforms within the SSRP framework. All DPs have committed to providing varying levels of financial and technical support to early childhood education and development, basic education, secondary education, teacher development, technical education and vocational training (TEVT), and higher educationv. Beginning with the mid-term review of the SSRP, development partners and the MOE/DOE have turned their attention to improving reading as a specific aspect of the quality improvements SSRP should be supporting. A recommendation of the recent review meeting was to develop and pilot a reading program as a precursor to elaborating a national strategy/program for addressing how students learn to read in the early years of primary school. Asian Development Bank (ADB) – joined the SWAp in 2006 and is the current chair of DP coordination. The ADB has proposed an estimated $65 million in support of SSRP efforts between 2012 and 2014vi. It is clearly a major player in the SSRP and as a supporter of the need to bring early grade reading to scale, a key ally in USAID’s efforts. AusAID – has proposed an estimated $15.6 million in support of SSRP efforts between 2012 and 2014,vii which will aim to increase access and quality of education, particularly basic education (grades 1–8). AusAID is interested in supporting a pilot reading program, and has been approached to provide funding to support pilot program efforts. Global Partnership for Education (GPE) – is providing $70 million to support the SSRP. These funds are counted as part of the pooled financing, but are managed and supervised as a separate account (with the WB acting as the supervisory agency), since Nepal’s public financial management procedures do not meet GPE standards. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) – has been providing support for programs directed towards understanding the role of mother tongue instruction on educational outcomesviii and is also providing technical assistance to EMIS, inclusive education, non-formal education (NFE), and gender advocacy. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) – has proposed an estimated $1 million in support of SSRP efforts between 2012 and 2014.6 Their SWAp money constitutes 10% of their total funding. UNICEF’s aid to the Nepali 6 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report education sector has focused on early childhood development (ECD), NFE, Education in Emergency situations, and formal education, in particular, promotion of the child-friendly schools and their attendant standards of quality education. They are currently in discussions with the DOE regarding a national rollout plan for child-friendly schools. World Bank (WB) – has proposed an estimated $72.5 million in support of SSRP efforts between 2012 and 2014. WB is currently the manager of GPE funds. WB has provided assistance to support strengthening community management of schools, increasing access to schools, and improving higher education. With the recent transition to emphasis on quality education, WB wrote a concept note for a pilot reading project. World Food Program (WFP) –is a contributing partner in the SWAp, but has not provided direct assistance with early grade reading efforts in Nepal. From 2008-2013, the WFP dedicated $33,800,000 to their Food for Education program to support children in early grades in Nepal.ix European Union/DFID – is a major SWAp partner with €26 million in the SWAp already, another €33.5 million in the pipeline, and €4 million set aside for some small projects. They conducted a study of the political economy around education and the ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) assessment. Norway (NORAD) – has committed NKr 219,000,000 to support SSRP efforts from 2009-2014, with an emphasis on supporting early childhood education, basic education, secondary education, and teacher development. Finland – contributes to the pooled fund in support of SSRP, and through the Finnish embassy, they are providing long-term technical assistance to the development of the NASA. Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) – a non-pooling partner providing technical assistance, grants for school construction (9,000 classrooms total) and support for NFE and improved school management.

2.1.4 International NGOs The assessment team identified three major INGOs working to improve reading outcomes in Nepal: Room to Read (RtR), Save the Children, and World Education. SIL International is also active in Nepal and currently implementing a small mother-tongue program focused on reading. All of these organizations have innovative programs to support literacy skills development for children in early grades. Each program brings key strengths in different aspects of improving reading outcomes. RtR has a strong library and teacher training component, while Save the Children provides a model program for community engagement, and SIL’s greatest strength is in supporting instruction in mother tongue. RtR and Save the Children have both undertaken evaluations, which have indicated gains in reading outcomes. Both programs work parallel to existing systems and are small scale and resource intensive. Room to Read (RtR) –currently works in 80 schools in Pyuthan, Nawalparasi, and Dhading to develop literacy skills and a habit of reading among primary school children in grades 1 and 2, and recently added a grade 3 remedial program. RtR partners with three local NGOs (Fulvari Integrated Rural Development Organization, Prayatnashil Community Development Society, and Vijaya Development Resource Centre) to implement their reading program, which includes increased instruction time dedicated to reading (from 40 to 80 minutes), supplementary instructional materials, a print rich environment, teacher training and ongoing support, government advocacy efforts, parent and community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation to improve reading outcomes. An impact evaluation found that grade 2 students in RtR program schools had average reading fluency of 26 wpm compared to 17 wpm for students in control schools. RtR students in grades 1 and 2 showed stronger letter and word reading as well: first grade students in RtR schools read 40 letters per minute compared to 27 in control schools. While the RtR model follows best practices to improve literacy skills, and has shown some gains, the costs associated with the inputs and intensive training and school improvements would appear to prohibit it’s going to scale. Save the Children – Save the Children has been working in Nepal for over 30 years. Their portfolio includes work across the education and health sectors, from ECD to HIV/AIDS and reading programs. They have been implementing their Literacy Boost project in partnership with the Backward Society Education and four other local NGOs since 2009, starting in 16 schools in the Kailali district. Currently, they have begun a project in Kapilvastu. The Literacy Boost toolkit has six components: book banks, teacher training, reading buddies, adult literacy classes, community workshops and reading camps. Grade 2 students in Literacy Boost schools increased their reading fluency from 5 wpm to 13 wpm, compared to an increase from 5 to 8 wpm in control schools, in one year. The percentage of students with zero scores in Literacy Boost schools decreased from almost 80% to 55%. A review workshop Save the Children held indicated that the teacher training component needs strengthening, while stakeholders felt that the reading camp has had the most impact. Their parent/community engagement work and cross-sector involvement in multiple districts could serve as a model component of a national program. While Save the Children’s Literacy Boost program is technically sound, the team believes that its input requirements will likely prohibit MOE’s taking it to scale as is.

7 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report World Education – World Education has been working with the Nepali education sector since 1978, beginning with an emphasis in NFE. More recently, they have begun to participate in activities in formal education, starting with pilot activities in early childhood education with the intention of working also in primary grades. They are currently working with approximately 26 schools (around 10,000 students) in Nepalgunj. Their focus is on reading, and they are evaluating learning outcomes for grade 2 and 3 students in Nepali reading and math. The team was unable to obtain details regarding the input requirements of their reading program. SIL International – SIL International has a long history in Nepal, having worked on development of dictionaries and orthographies in the early 1970s and then again in the 1990s. SIL continues to work in these areas, along with adult literacy, but has recently established three mother-tongue medium schools in Jhapa district, where instruction is in mother tongue from kindergarten through grade 5 and Nepali is taught as a second language. An emphasis of this program is on developing reading and general cognitive skills in the mother tongue before transitioning into Nepali. SIL had difficulty finding local partners or schools that would be willing to agree to a school using mother tongue through grade 5, as this is a model that might not be acceptable in many communities who want their children taught in English. However, they bring technical expertise in the development of appropriate reading materials in local languages, which will be useful in contexts where children are not exposed to Nepali before entering school.

2.1.5 Public-Private Partnerships Rato Bangla Partnership in Outreach Programme (RBPOP) – RBPOP, an exceptional private school in Kathmandu, provided funds to support teacher training, scholarships, and facilities improvements in 10 schools in each of the following districts: Dailekh, Dhading, Lalitpur, Makwanpur, and Myagdi, from 2003-2008, as part of a social awareness effort the school wanted to bring to its well-to-do students. Beginning in 2009, 18% of student tuition fees have been allocated to the Rato Bangla Foundation to provide teacher training support for 500 schools and over 1800 teachers in the Dailekh districts, under the Dailekh School Project (DSP). The DSP also provides full scholarships to underprivileged children. At present, there are no research findings to support the success of the project, however, the RBPOP program is innovative and demonstrates promise of public-private partnerships in Nepal.

2.1.6 Research Organizations Centre for Education Research and Innovation Development (CERID) - is a robust research center affiliated with Tribhuvan University that conducts a wide range of studies, most at the request of the MOE. Over its 36-year history, CERID has, inter alia, conducted studies on how to change the role of the teacher, the relative effectiveness of MLE, early childhood education, and has conducted a longitudinal study on 18 EFA indicators. They appear to be a high- quality organization that could play a key research role in any effort USAID wishes to initiate.

2.2 Institutional Assessment Within the GON there exist all the structures needed to spearhead a viable nationwide reading program. MOE and DOE are both capable and willing leaders of such an effort—leaders who can also forge the policies needed for a pedagogically sound early grade reading program. In the CDC and the JMC are found many of the skills necessary to adjust the curriculum and materials, though some technical assistance will likely be needed to ensure a research-based emphasis on reading. Additionally, while the assessment team was unable to assess the capacities of private sector publishing actors, experience shows that transforming curriculum learning objectives into textbooks is exceedingly difficult and not something easily assigned to others. Accordingly, as the MOE pursues and expands its multiple textbook policy inviting private sector actors to develop, print, and distribute textbooks, attention must be paid by the MOE to the quality of private sector texts. NASA has just gone through a one year capacity development process with an embedded long term technical advisor and can very well take on EGRA, as long as those individuals who have been trained are not moved to another section in the short term. And with the NCED and a highly decentralized network of over 1,000 RCs that innervate the entire country, one has the basis for the teacher training infrastructure needed for a viable early grade reading program. Missing however, are the accountability mechanisms and linkages that generate the “forces” needed to orient and operationalize this infrastructure such that it generates early grade reading results. The DPs are 100% behind early grade reading. Moreover, they have a seat at the table: they are in a position to supply some force of their own, if only they impart it. The INGOs are all quite capable and most are carrying out programs that support reading one way or another. While the coverage of their reading programs is small and their programs too input heavy to go to scale within the public education structures of Nepal, key elements of a successful and sustainable 8 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report nationwide reading program are evidenced in their work. Add to all of this the research capacity of an organization like CERID and the public-private partnership work that Rato Bangla is modeling, and one can say that the overall institutional environment in Nepal is promising for a successful, nationwide, and sustainable program. What exactly that reading program will look like will require some research, or pilot studies, designed to discern the elements and processes of a viable program that can go to scale and be sustained over time given Nepal’s projected financial wherewithal over the course of the next 10-15 years. The cost of getting to scale need not be taken on by Nepal; DPs should be able to help take care of this. What Nepal needs to take on are all of the costs associated with sustaining a scaled-up program over time. These costs, and the associated results that a tailored reading program could produce, should be discerned early on in a USAID early grade reading intervention.

3 Critical Issues As stated in the introduction, this assessment focuses on the issues that are most impacting Nepal’s ability to improve reading outcomes in the early grades of primary schools. Four of these issues deal directly with technical aspects of the education sector: language of instruction, curriculum and materials, teacher training, and assessment. The fifth aspect concerns the overall governance, management, and financing of education, which are all greatly impacted by the political and administrative decentralization of the country.

3.1 Language

3.1.1 The Role of Language in the Nepali Education System From an educational standpoint, the issue of language of instruction is quite simple: children learn best in a language they understand, and if they learn to read first in a language they understand, they will then be able to transfer the skill to a second language.x In reality, and Nepal stands as a clear example of this, the issue of language choice is much more complicated. While current policy allows the choice of either Nepali or students’ mother tongue as the medium of instruction in early grades, schools make three choices: start with Nepali as the language of instruction, start with English, or start with a local mother tongue. Each choice has educational, political, and economic ramifications. While there are over 100 languages spoken in Nepal,xi the majority of the population will start grade 1 with previous exposure to, and likely a working knowledge of, Nepali (approximately 80%).xii For these children, from an educational perspective, it is reasonable to begin with Nepali as the medium of instruction, and to learn to read first in Nepali. However, many parents are putting pressure on schools to use English as a medium of instruction, as English is seen to increase economic potential.xiii From their perspective, it would seem logical that their children should have their schooling in English from day one in order to master it. Parents can also see that the numerous private schools (particularly in urban and peri-urban areas) are English-medium schools and become convinced that this is the best way to ensure that their children become fluent in English. However, the majority of teachers lack the skills to teach in a language other than Nepali. Few public school teachers are prepared to teach in English. Moving to English medium instruction – even in higher grades – potentially impedes classroom communication and improving learning outcomes, although being consistent with parental demand. Providing teachers more exposure to English language texts may enhance skills and improve English language instruction (rather than changing the medium of instruction to English).

In addition to this tension concerning Nepali vs. English as language of instruction, the approximately 20% of students who are not sufficiently exposed to Nepali before arriving at school must also be consideredxiv. These children will be best educated if they are able to begin their schooling with their mother tongue as a medium of instruction, shifting into Nepali (or English) once they have mastered reading in their mother tongue and developed a sufficient vocabulary in the second language. In Nepal, language and identity politics make it difficult to discern which language of instruction would be best. In a region where multiple languages are spoken, a purely educational perspective might dictate choice of the main local lingua franca as the language of instruction – but community members might take issue with such a decision based on their political perspective. Alternatively, attempts to teach each child in the school in his/her mother tongue, as has been piloted in Nepal, can be extremely challenging to implement.xv Even the INGOs and funders can have political perspectives influencing decisions around language of instruction. Some groups argue for mother tongue as the language of instruction for purposes of cultural and language preservation or from a human rights perspective, which may not mesh entirely with a purely educational objective.xvi While sorting out these different theoretical perspectives may be difficult, for decisions about medium of instruction to be sustainable and realistic, they must consider financial feasibility and system capacity. While there appears to be a great deal of interest in English, there is no educational argument for starting in grade 1 with English as a medium of 9 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report instruction, unless students have had the opportunity to develop sufficient English language skills through an ECD program. In addition, system capacity for supporting English immersion programs from grade 1 is non-existent – certainly the current teaching force does not have the English or instructional capacity necessary.

3.1.2 Strengths of Existing Language Environment • The system recognizes the importance of learning in mother tongue, and policies promoting mother tongue languages as languages of instruction in basic education are in place. • Materials in many mother tongue languages are available and have been used in some schools. • International and local NGOs have worked with communities to develop materials for supporting mother tongue instruction, thus there is some existing local capacity in this area. • Many children come to school speaking Nepali, and numerous learning resources are available in Nepali.

3.1.3 Weaknesses of the Existing Language Environment • Decentralized decision-making regarding which language to use as the medium of instruction creates an enormous management and quality control challenge for the system. • Some materials are simply being translated from Nepali into other languages, without adequate attention to linguistic and socio-cultural differences. • Policies promoting mother tongue and multi-lingual education may be at odds with what parents and communities want for their children. • Whatever language is being used as the medium of instruction, there is insufficient attention to building the specific skills related to literacy acquisition. • Given the multi-lingual context of the typical Nepali school, insufficient attention is also being paid to language transition issues – either from mother tongue to Nepali or from Nepali to English.

3.2 Curriculum and Materials

3.2.1 Organizational Structure for Curricula and Materials The organizational structure for the development and production of curricula and materials provides opportunities for centralized quality control, combined with opportunities for schools to complement these centralized curricula with a locally defined subject. As such, the curricula and materials used in schools can be divided into two categories: curricula and materials for core subjects (Nepali, English, mathematics, social studies, and general science), which are developed at the central level by the CDC; and curricula and materials for local subjects, which are developed at the local level, with collaboration and/or approval of the DEO. The CDC has also developed textbooks for all core subjects, as well as language textbooks for perhaps as many as 15 mother tongue languages, which are printed and distributed by JMC. The SSRP’s call for a competition-inducing multiple textbook policy has not yet been implemented nationwide. In addition to the textbooks, the CDC has developed teachers’ guides and numerous complementary materials, the latter of which have yet to be printed.

3.2.2 Strengths of the Existing Organizational Structure The designation of one local subject at the basic level allows for communities to determine what subject matter is most appropriate to their local context. Once this determination has been made, help may be enlisted from the district in order to develop the curriculum and materials – or, if they are developed at the sub-district level, the DEO must approve them according to guidelines that have been developed by the CDC. It appears that the core subject textbooks are successfully distributed throughout Nepal. While there are reports of late arrivals in some schools, particularly in remote areas, there does not appear to be a significant number of schools that never received these texts. In many cases, more books are produced and distributed to the region or district level than are actually needed, since schools (that is, SMCs and Head Teachers) often choose to reuse books rather than purchase new books for all students. Because of this, the system may be unnecessarily spending some resources for textbooks. Turning specifically to reading, there is no reading curriculum per se – reading skills are expected to be developed through the core language subjects, Nepali, English, and mother tongue where applicable. An examination was 10 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report therefore undertaken of the core curriculum for Nepali and English, and curriculum guidelines for mother tongue, in order to determine whether the core competency areas of reading (phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension) are represented. The language curricula are organized into the skill areas of “speaking,” “listening,” “reading,” and “writing,” so the examination looked across all of these areas. This analysis indicated that the core competency areas were in fact represented in the curriculum, though they might be represented in any of the skill areas (for example, while the term “phonemic awareness” does not appear anywhere, the speaking skill area for Nepali includes “To listen to the pronunciation of the letters of alphabet and identify them”). This organization of the curriculum seems to reflect a general tendency at multiple levels of the system to look at reading simply as one of the four areas of language, rather than an essential skill that needs to be developed explicitly – unlike other language skills, which can often be developed through exposure. The allotted time for reading within the subject Nepali language, is between 20% (in grade 1) and 25% (in grades 2 and 3), approximately 6% of instructional time overall.xvii Thus, the presence of all of the core competencies is a strength that can be built on, but additional effort will be needed to elevate the importance of reading within the skill areas and thus ensure that foundational reading competencies receive sufficient focus (even if they appear in the curriculum under another skill area).

3.2.3 Weaknesses of the Existing Organizational Structure While the organizational structure would appear to have the potential for striking a positive balance between necessary quality control from the central level and room for addressing local curricular needs, and in general core subject textbooks appear to be reaching schools, a number of weaknesses will need to be addressed in order to enable reading skills to be better developed among Nepali students. While the English and Nepali language curricula include the foundational reading competencies, teachers cannot teach based on a curriculum alone – curricula do not provide guidance as to what teachers should do on a day-to-day basis. Often, and certainly in Nepal, the actual application of the curriculum comes through the textbook. Several stakeholders when interviewed remarked that teaching in Nepal was too textbook dependent. And, unfortunately, an analysis of grades 1-3 textbooks for English and Nepali indicate that some of the foundational reading skills have very little presence in the textbooks (practice reading connected text and comprehension in particular), and they are not approached in a consistent, sequenced way that will build students’ skills and allow them to master reading. The CDC recognizes that these textbooks alone will not ensure students’ success. In fact, CDC representatives indicated that the textbooks and teachers’ guides are not meant to provide comprehensive coverage of the curriculum. There is general agreement that complementary materials and teachers’ guide, while considered necessary by the CDC, are simply not purchased, and therefore not accessible, at the school level. Numerous respondents mentioned that SMCs were more likely to spend available funds on infrastructure or teacher salaries than on complementary materials for use in the classroom. In fact, additional complementary materials that have been developed by the CDC have never been printed, due to insufficient budget, lack of demand, and possibly lack of awareness about these materials. At the local level, reading competencies will need to be invoked when mother tongue curricula and materials are being developed. While stakeholders at the local level (district or sub-district) may very well have the language skills necessary for translating, or even adapting materials, there is no reason to expect that they will have the knowledge of reading development and instruction to independently develop appropriate curricula and materials to support mastery of reading competencies. Recognizing this, there have been efforts by INGOs and DPs to work with particular districts and communities at very small scales to develop curricula and materials for mother tongue.xviii It has not been possible to do an in-depth analysis of all of these materials, though reports that exist on these efforts claim quite positive results.xix It is not clear, however, whether these efforts have created sufficient local capacity to continue developing appropriate local language materials once external funding and technical assistance have departed.

3.3 Teaching and Teachers

3.3.1 Teacher Training Over the years, numerous projects and programs in Nepal have invested in teacher training.xx As a result, over 90% of basic education (grades 1-8) teachers have the appropriate required certification and over 70% have both the level of certification and amount of training mandated by MOE policy.xxi In addition to providing teachers with opportunities to receive training and upgrade their certification, investments in teacher training over the last decade have endowed Nepal with a network of institutions for developing and delivering training and support to teachers.

11 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report For example, the NCED, which oversees teacher training and professional development, conducts certification courses through a network of nine ETCs. A 10-month required training program has been offered through the ETCs as a way to clear the backlog of uncertified teachers. Current policy requires completion of a two-year education-specific course of study during higher secondary, as well as a passing mark on the licensing exam administered by the TSC, as a prerequisite for all basic education teachers,xxii ensuring that the certification in-service will one day be unnecessary. Ongoing in-service professional development opportunities for basic education teachers are organized through the 1,053 RCs throughout Nepal. Each of the 75 districts in the country has several centers. These RCs are attached to one school within a feeder cluster,xxiii are staffed with one DEO-employed field officer, and are governed by a committee consisting of the head teachers from each of the cluster schools and locally selected community members. The DEO allocates a small budget for the administration of the center, to pay the RC coordinator and senior teachers to assist with program development and training delivery, and to provide a nominal monthly travel allowance for the RC field officer and resource teachers. Funding for training programs is decentralized, with each school receiving an allocation for teacher in-service professional development each year, which it then “pays” to the RC for its teachers to attend. These funds cover the costs of training materials, training workshops, teacher travel to the RC, etc. In the past, teacher professional development courses were developed and mandated by the center through NCED, often with the support of a DP project. For example, last year NCED developed modules on “child friendly schools” and provided them to RCs as part of a national emphasis on that approach. Current policy however promotes decentralized, demand-driven teacher professional development. In addition to controlling the resources for their teachers’ training (as mentioned above), schools also complete a survey of teacher needs/demands for training each year. School-level information is passed on to the RC field officer, who reviews it and determines what content is most needed among the majority of teachers in that cluster. Training programs (content, materials, and methods) are developed in response to the expressed needs and demands of the cluster teachers. The single RC staff person, working with senior teachers or other resource people within the cluster identified as specialists in different areas, design the training program using the NCED-provided guidelines for developing training modules. All basic education teachers are expected to complete the equivalent of 30 days of professional development over the course of three years, which translates into ~10 days of training each year. The standard model developed and promulgated by NCEDxxiv for using those 10 days includes 5 days of workshop-based training, 3 days of a school- based project during which each teacher is expected to apply what is learned in the workshop, and 2 days during which the RC field officer or one of the senior teacher resource people visit each teacher to reinforce the ideas covered in the training and treated in the teacher’s project.xxv Last year 66,000 teachers (roughly one-third of the entire teaching force) participated in this kind of training. However participation in training is not linked to teacher career advancement or remuneration. The focus is chiefly on pedagogical skills with little support to help trainees to enhance subject matter knowledge. Weak academic backgrounds coupled with the absence of a culture of self-learning (through independent-reading), leaves the vast majority of teachers with limited subject matter knowledge, especially in English. Moreover, issues of teacher management – including career prospects and service conditions – will require attention to motivate teachers to introduce and effectively practice new classroom initiatives. Motivation to participate is likely to be strongly associated with how useful any training turns out to be: if teachers find training unhelpful, their willingness to participate is likely to decrease. In addition, because RCs are not able to provide training across all of the areas requested during the demand-driven process, they must select topics which a majority of teachers have requested. When weighing such options, the status of target teachers is also taken into account (i.e., permanent teachers take priority over temporary teachers, seniority might be considered, etc.). The apparent strength of Nepal’s system for teacher training, a highly decentralized and demand-driven approach, is also its greatest weakness. While funds are flowing down to districts and schools for teacher training, RCs appear chronically under-funded, with limited resources, few reference or other materials, and insufficient funds to cover regular interaction with and visits to schools.xxvi In addition, RC staff are called on to assist with administrative tasks by the DEOs, such as proctoring of exams or collection of information, further limiting the time they would have available to provide training and support to teachers in their cluster. While the notion of demand-driven training is appealing, in practical terms it means that the over 1,000 RCs in Nepal are all trying to develop training content, materials, and methodologies independently. The capacity to do all that is not present, certainly not uniformly. The system struggles to ensure quality control and to enforce rigorous standards for professional development. It is near impossible to determine if training provided at one RC is in any way comparable to that provided at another. In opting to emphasize responding to the needs of teachers at the cluster or district level, the system appears to have forfeited its ability to promulgate national professional development priorities and programs, as well as its ability to ensure the professional development is of consistent, high quality.

12 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report NCED provides guidelines for training, but RCs as institutions are answerable to their local management committees, and the RC field officers are answerable to the DEOs that pay their salaries. While the ETCs are theoretically intended to provide technical assistance and some oversight to resource centers, ETC staff persons are also responsible for training of secondary teachers, and it does not appear that there is a tight linkage between ETCs and RCs. NCED does not compile data on teacher training and has no mechanism for collecting information on the training offered by the RCs. The EMIS database does collect data on teacher participation in professional development, but not at a level of detail that would allow systematic evaluation of training content, delivery, or impact. Given the decentralized nature of teacher professional development modules, it is not possible to do an exhaustive assessment of the attention paid to early grade reading and, in particular, whether any current training exists to target instruction in foundational reading skills. However, conversations with resource persons and personnel at the ETC indicate that teacher professional development treats reading as one of the sub-skills of language, without acknowledging that specific and explicit instruction in reading, along with extensive practice, is needed for students to master foundational reading skills. The “Teaching Nepali” curriculum, included in the education course taken by higher secondary students who wish to become basic level teachers, echoes this orientation. During the recent mid-term review of the SSRP,xxvii the SWAp partners and MOE agreed that they need to conduct a specific evaluation of the three years of SSRP supported teacher training. NCED has been tasked with developing the terms of reference for this evaluation. The consensus among the DPs and MOE at present is that while they still support in principle a decentralized, demand-driven approach to teacher training, they also see the need to include mandatory packages of professional development (perhaps in response to the uneven quality of training given existing decentralized capacities). Areas SWAp partners and MOE agreed should be targeted include delivery of the national curriculum and implementation of the continuous assessment system. The latter is an initiative supported by SSRP, on which implementation has been spotty at best. Few teachers have the training needed to regularly incorporate continuous assessment into their classroom practice. Two other areas of priority mentioned include revising existing professional development modules to promote “integrated” teaching and emphasizing the development of reading skills in the first three grades. This last point offers a particular opportunity to help improve reading instruction, provided training curricula target research-based, daily instructional practices that improve literacy acquisition.

3.3.2 Strengths of the Teacher Training System • Existence of RCs as dedicated training and support facilities throughout the country, with staff whose primary responsibility is teacher training and support. • Annual allocations of training resources down to school level, giving schools “purchasing power” for training. • A commitment at the national level, with support from the SWAp partners, to place greater emphasis in teacher training on instruction in early grade reading.

3.3.3 Weaknesses of the Teacher Training System • Conflict between centrally mandated training programs and decentralized, demand-driven training. • Over-reliance on local capacity to develop and implement training programs leads to unevenness in the content and quality of training. • RCs that are stretched thin, in terms of the available staff and resources (too many schools and teachers to cover with only one dedicated staff person). • While schools have purchasing power, they are not “informed consumers” of training services. Teachers do not necessarily know to “demand” training in the instructional practices that will help them better support acquisition of literacy in the early grades. • If teachers do demand those kinds of training services, the system at present is not equipped to produce a supply response – no demonstrated expertise in reading-related curriculum and instruction is evident.

3.4 Assessment

3.4.1 Current state of assessments and assessment systems Recent results of exams and research studies have drawn attention to learning outcomes in Nepal, particularly in reading. Numerous MOE/DOE officials noted that recent studies collecting data specifically on foundational reading

13 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report skills, as well as lower-than-desired results from end-of-cycle exams have revealed that Nepali students are struggling with reading.xxviii This reaction illustrates the potential usefulness of a strong assessment system, which can provide solid information about the state of learning outcomes, can pinpoint problem areas, and can track progress once changes are made to the system in support of improving learning outcomes. In Nepal, there are three types of assessments that either exist in the current system for the basic level, or are anticipated in the near future as part of the SSRP. At the school level, year-end exams have typically been implemented in order to determine whether students can pass to the next level. Automatic promotion is current policy, so end-of-year exams no longer determine promotion per se. Also, there is currently a push, supported by the SSRP, to supplement such exams with continuous assessment, to ensure that assessments of student abilities do not depend on only one test, and to enable teachers to provide additional support to students as needed throughout the school year. MOE attention to continuous assessment and to tracking students’ progress throughout the year in order to provide timely remedial or additional assistance is admirable. However, continuous assessment is a methodology that can be very difficult for teachers to learn and manage successfully, and if teachers are not also trained on how to use the information they gather through continuous assessment in order to better support their students, it is a wasted effort. At the district level, yearly end-of-cycle exams at grade 8 are administered and are intended to determine whether students have met the standards set for grade 8. End-of-cycle exams for grade 10 are administered at the regional level, while grade 12 exams are administered at the national level. At the national, level, the SSRP includes the development of a national proficiency examination to be administered in grades 3, 5, and 8. NASA will be a sample-based examination, administered periodically (every 2-3 years), and will evaluate Nepali and mathematics proficiency, as well as a third subject that will rotate. Data from NASA could provide valuable information on learning outcomes, including reading if it is appropriately treated within the Nepali portion of the exam. This will help MOE determine whether students are meeting grade-appropriate standards and identify areas that may need to be strengthened. The Finnish Embassy has provided technical assistance to MOE to help develop NASA with an embedded testing expert working on the grade-8 component. Nepal’s recent experience with NASA confirms the importance of strong technical system support with hands-on training for new initiatives. The current concern over recent test results in reading presents a valuable opportunity to garner support for efforts to improve reading, while also demonstrating a positive orientation among MOE officials to recognize the value of having data about student performance. Early indications from NASA pre-testing indicate that the same low performance on reading that has been found through smaller studies will also be found through this national-level assessment. In addition, it is expected that the NASA reports will point to important policy and practice issues. For example, the percentage of examination items in Nepali that are focused on reading was increased over the allotted amount in the curriculum due to the undervaluing of this skill in the curriculum. This will be a factor that will be reported and discussed when NASA results are analyzed and reported. The NASA exam will thus result in a national- level dataset that can likely be used both as a way to leverage support for focusing on improving reading, as well as to represent a national baseline, against which improvements in systems, teaching, and learning can be compared. One possible drawback to the NASA will be if the skills assessed are above the level of most grade-3 students. That is, if the assessment targets grade-3 level standards, but a significant number of students are well below this standard, the information that the exam provides will be limited. In such a case, the results can show that most students cannot successfully complete the tasks at a grade 3 level – but they will not show what students are able to do, or pinpoint where the problem lies. This floor effect is in part what led to the development of the EGRA. One additional concern is the continuity of NASA once the embedded technical expert leaves. A practice of rotating staff-persons into and out of ministry units (once every 3 months in some cases) could undermine future efforts to implement NASA if those staff persons who have been trained during this technical assistance period are not retained within that unit.

3.4.2 Strengths • Development of the NASA demonstrates attention to measuring learning outcomes and using that data to inform and orient system policy and programs. • Concern for continuous measurement of learning outcomes at the school level. • Demonstrated willingness to respond to assessment results that show lower than desired learning outcomes by focusing attention and effort on strategies for improving teaching and learning. • Recognition that assessment itself does not improve instruction, as demonstrated by the commitment to developing and implementing strategies for remedial instruction at the school level.

14 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report 3.4.3 Weaknesses • Lack of movement on implementing continuous assessment, and concern over whether the system (especially teachers and schools) has the capacity to implement a high quality continuous assessment system. • It is not clear if the system will have the capacity to continue the development and implementation of the NASA without additional technical assistance inputs.

3.5 Elements of Demand At this point, the report takes stock of the institutional and systemic elements of what has been said thus far about embedding an early grade reading program in the fabric of Nepal’s education system. • Policies around medium of instruction have to be adjusted to accommodate parental demand for English and international best practice. • Policies that allow local entities to develop curricula have to be adjusted so curricula meet national standards. • Various and sundry materials—including textbooks, learning materials, children’s books, training guides, and the elements of print-rich classroom environments—have to be developed, tested, printed, and distributed. • Standards for these materials have to be established as well as protocols for ensuring these standards are met. • Assessment tools and mechanisms have to be adapted to measure how well children can read. • EMIS systems have to change to accommodate data on early grade reading and to track teacher training. • New roles and responsibilities have to be assumed by various people throughout the system and job descriptions have to be developed and formalized. • Capacities have to be developed such that people can carry out these new roles and responsibilities. For all of these institutional and systemic reforms to improve reading outcomes, they must be demanded by key stakeholders throughout the system. Without this demand, these reforms will likely result in very little real change. This section of the report examines those aspects of the system from which high demand for early grade reading can emanate: horizontal accountability mechanisms, vertical accountability mechanisms, accountability-for-results mechanisms (i.e., performance grants), data/information systems that inform and shape people’s demands, and reform support systems needed to help address the political economy of the education sector.

3.5.1 Horizontal and Vertical Accountability Horizontal accountability derives from i) strong governance-management relationships that hold the governing body at a particular level of the education system fully accountable to the people who elected it, and ii) a management body at the same level that is accountable for carrying out the decisions of the governing body. Proper vertical accountability derives from relationships through which higher-level management structures hold lower-level management structures accountable for doing what they are supposed to do. Against this idealized backdrop, two pieces of critical information that indicate the amount of horizontal and vertical accountability that exists in Nepal’s education system are provided. The first is Table 3, which shows who is accountable to whom, for what they are accountable, how they are held to account and a subjective assessment of how strong the horizontal or vertical accountability linkage is. The second is an explanation of the planning, budgeting, and financing cycle, together with details of lower-level spending.

Table 3. Accountability Linkages Accountability Who To Whom For What How Type/Strength Teachers Head Teaching, and learning outcomes Performance assessment, ability to Vertical: 4 Teacher recommend removal/transfer Head Teacher SMC Implementing policy objectives of the Power to recommend removal of Head Horizontal: 4 SMC as put forth in the SMC-approves Teacher and nominate a new Head school improvement plan (SIP) Teacher SMC Parents Overall policy direction of the school Election of some members; social audit Horizontal: 3 School/Head DEO Implementing higher-level policies, Power to transfer teachers and appoint Vertical: 1 Teacher operating according GON laws and the Head Teacher; power to audit regulations, overall school performance schools School VEC Developing a SIP that will become part VEP development procedures: Vertical: 1 of a VEP bureaucratic regulations School VDC Not accountable NA Vertical: NA 15 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Accountability Who To Whom For What How Type/Strength VEC VDC VDC approves the VEP developed by VEP development procedures: Horizontal: 1 the VEC bureaucratic regulations VDC Citizens Overall development of the village Elections haven’t taken place since Horizontal: NA 2002 DEO DEC DEO helps develop the DEP as a DEP development procedures: Horizontal: 1 member of the DEC bureaucratic regulations DEO DDC Not accountable NA Horizontal: NA DEC DDC DDC approves the DEP DEP development procedures: Horizontal: 1 bureaucratic regulations DDC Citizens Overall development progress of the Elections haven’t taken place since Horizontal: NA district 2002 DEO DOE Overall educational welfare of the district DOE appoints DEO and most of the Vertical: 5 staff DOE MOE Overall educational welfare of basic MOE appoints key DOE staff Vertical: 5 education in Nepal MOE Parliament Overall educational welfare of Nepal Parliament can ask for the removal of Horizontal: 3 the Minister of Education; approves the final budget 1 = none; 2 = weak; 3 = medium; 4 = good; 5 = strong: these are subjective estimates of the relative strength of these accountability linkages as they exist now. Should certain reforms take place, along with local body elections, these values would change considerably.

3.5.2 The planning and budgeting process As shown in Figure 1, the planning and budgeting cycle starts with each school developing a school improvement plan (SIP) and budget.xxix The Head Teacher develops the plan in consultation with his/her staff and the SMC. Once done, the Head Teacher presents the plan to the SMC for discussion and approval. Once approved, the plans for every school within the political jurisdiction of the VDCxxx are taken up by the VEC, whose job is to craft a VEP. The VEP is a consolidation of the school plans, together with plans to address non-formal and adult education, and any additional “education projects” that can be covered with village resources.xxxi Once developed, the VEC presents its plan to the VDC for discussion and approval. Approved VEPs are passed up to the district, where the DEC consolidates them into the DEP, along with operational costs and capital needs of the DEO and any “education projects” identified by the DDC and funded using local resources. Once the DEP has been developed, the DEC presents it to the DDC, which, after some discussion, ultimately approves it. School- and DEO-related elements of the DEP are separated from its non-formal and adult education and village project components. The former flows up to DOE and the latter to the Ministry of Local Development (MOLD). DOE develops the Annual Strategic Implementation Plan (ASIP), which is a consolidation of everything that flowed upwards to DOE together with its own plans/budgets. The ASIP goes to MOE, which adds it to its plans/budgets and negotiates the overall finance envelop with the Ministry of Finance (MOF). Once the final budget is approved by Parliament, the MOF informs the MOE of its budget. Given the “wish-list” nature of most all bottom-up “planning,” the official budget is less than what was negotiated with MOF. Accordingly, the MOE adjusts its plans to fit the budget, and as resources flow back down the system, plans are adjusted at each level to reconcile with the amount of funding that was made available. Resources flow according to the eight areas of SSRP intervention. Emphasis is placed on moving the maximum amount of resources down to schools. DEOs report that 95% of financing is passed down to the schools, only 5% is retained to cover operational overhead at the district level (additional DEO operational funds come through a separate management budget).

3.5.3 Lower-level spending Since all the money that a school receives is a technically a “grant,” the MOF considers this money spent once the district has passed it on to the schools. So, while schools have developed SIPs that have line items, and while districts send money down to the schools as categorical grants (line items), there is no MOF-induced pressure on schools to spend according to line items, and it is reported that they do not necessarily do so. This is not to say that schools spend the money in a willy-nilly fashion: teachers get paid what they are supposed to get paid, capital construction takes place, textbooks are purchased. Rather, it is to say that they can spend the money as they wish, which is potentially both good and bad. Moreover, the MOF does not require quotes or formal bidding on expenditures under NR 300,000 (about $3,500). This provides schools with considerable flexibility in managing local procurement, but also leaves an opening for improper stewardship of amounts of public funds that may be significant in a Nepali village.

16 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Figure 1. Management, governance, and finance structures of the Nepali Education gu e anagement, governance, and finance structures of the Nepalisystem ducation system

Finance Administration Governance

Parliament

Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Local Central Finance Education Development

Finance Department District Controller’s of General Education Office

District District District District District Controller’s Education Education Development Council General Office Committee Committee Office

Village Village Village Village Education District Council Committee Committee

Legend School plan development Community School Management plan approval Committee (pointing to the approver) finance flows

It has been reported that lower levels of the system frequently spend only 50% of what they receive (due largely to how late in the year the money arrives). Since school money is considered spent, they can easily roll their money over from one year to the next. Since DEOs cannot do this, it was reported that toward the end of the fiscal year, they send much of their unspent money to the schools as grants. This raises a lot of questions: Does the social audit look into the school’s bank account? Where does this money factor in to future school plans, if at all? Given this situation, it is not surprising to hear that SMC elections are hotly contested; they could control a fair amount of money. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be further investigated.

3.5.4 Assessment of Horizontal and Vertical Accountability A modicum of horizontal accountability is evident at the community level between the SMC, the school, and members of the community. The SMC, the school’s governing body, is comprised of four parents elected from among the community and five others who are either nominated by the SMC or sit on the SMC by virtue of their position within the school (e.g., the Head Teacher and teachers). The SMC can hire temporary teachers, nominate from among the teachers two candidates for the position of Head Teacher, and approve the school’s SIP. In the process of approving the SIP, the SMC can weigh in on how the school spends its money. Lastly, the PTA, through the Social Audit, has been empowered to play a watch dog role over the school and the SMC. So while there is a fair degree of horizontal accountability at the school level, evidenced by reports that many public schools are responding to parents’ demand for schools to introduce English as the medium of instruction, it is far from sufficient. Ideally, the SMC should be an entirely elected body such that it can be held to account by the people represented. Moreover, a good number of SMC members should be women, and women should be required to hold at least one of the top two positions in the SMC, to offset the tendency of elite takeover by men who are wont to use the SMCs more for political gain than for the educational welfare of the children of the school. At the village level, horizontal and vertical accountability between schools and various village-level agents is virtually nonexistent. The VEC and the VDC have no governing or managerial authority over the schools. Furthermore, the schools’ finances flow directly into their bank accounts from the District Treasury Controller’s Office (DTCO), a body within the jurisdiction of the MOF. Lastly, the VEC is not an elected body, and while the VDC is supposed to be one, local elections have not taken place in Nepal since 2002. In the absence of these elections, VDC members are appointed by the multi-party commission, rendering the VDC unaccountable to the people of the village.

17 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Horizontal accountability at the district level is also weak. The district education officer is appointed by the DOE, as is most of his/her staff. And while the DEP is developed by the DEC (of which the DEO is a member), and that plan is approved by the DDC, neither the DEC nor the DDC have any governing authority over the DEO. Moreover, all of the DEO’s finances flow from the district treasury. As for the vertical accountability linkages between the district and the schools, they too are tenuous. DEOs can, at teachers’ requests, transfer them to other schools; they also keep records, train teachers, and supervise schools. But the fact of the matter is that schools are virtually autonomous entities. Consider school spending. All schools receive categorical grants from the district. Accordingly, they are supposed to spend their money as per their line item requirements. Yet, because the schools’ money is a grant, the MOF considers it “spent” once it leaves the district, which means that the MOF does not account for how the schools spend their money. DEOs, however, do look into how schools spend their money, but when anomalies surface—when it is found that schools do not spend their money as per their line item requirements—nothing of any consequence ever happens largely because the DEOs have no jurisdiction over the schools in matters of finance.xxxii

3.5.5 Accountability for Results A fair amount of accountability-for-results exists in the “performance grants” that are awarded to schools based on a number of criteria laid out in a series of SSRP implementation guidelines. Specifically, DEOs reward schools for any one or number of the following: • Attaining an 85% survival rate to grade 5 • Improving last year’s survival rate • Attaining a teaching staff that is at least 50% Dalit and/or female • Becoming a Community Managed School • Enrolling 96% of local school-age children • Attaining a girls’ enrollment rate that is above the average for 20 districts with low girls’ enrollment • Raising girls’ and disadvantaged-group children’s enrollment above 30% of the total in certain areas of Nepal • Attaining high SLC pass rate based on specified standards (for secondary schools) While we were not able to see how much money is awarded to schools or how exactly that determination is made, the fact that a performance grant mechanism is in place at all is quite remarkable for a developing country education system. And though the criteria for basic education schools are solely focused on non-learning indicators, it would be possible to add reading results to the performance criteria.

3.5.6 Data Systems and Data Use While there are formal reports on how poor EMIS data are (Malla; Asaman Nepal, 2011) and many personal accounts that underscore these reports, the EMIS appears to be working quite well. DOE produces beginning-of-the-year and end-of-the-year reports (Flash I and Flash II respectively),xxxiii both of which contain a wealth of detailed and potentially valuable information (e.g., enrollment by grade, gender, type of school, and district; number of fully, partially, and untrained teachers; etc.). The official forms that are used to collect the data are found in Annex F. That these Flash reports are produced and made widely available to people on the DOE’s website would indicate that data factors into people’s understanding of what is going on in the education sector, and into various decision-making processes. The fact that EMIS appears to work so well, and that there already is a performance grant mechanism in place, bodes well for how EMIS could be used to support a performance-based accountability mechanism premised largely on reading. Moreover, if the EMIS could pick up school-level expenditure data, in particular, what schools are purchasing, then expenditure patterns that correlate with high performance could be discerned and used to help target support to poor performing schools.xxxiv Therefore, it is critical that measures be taken to ensure that the data in the EMIS are valid and reliable (the main criticism of the current system). Additionally, efforts have to be taken to ensure that key decision makers and stakeholders are well informed. It is not enough to print Flash reports and make data available on the DOE website. Level-specific report cards should be published and distributed such that parents in particular have a good sense of how well their school, village, and district are performing relative to others.

18 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report 3.5.7 Reform Support Identifying critical demand-generating factors is one thing, putting them in place such that they actually generate the demand needed is another. The political economy around education in Nepal is rather complex (Pherali, Smith, & Vaux, 2011) and efforts will have to be made to carry out some reform support work, including advocacy, communications campaigns, and policy dialogue. Over time, it will be critical to build up a constituency of pro- reading and pro-decentralization/democratization advocates at the lowest levels of the system—e.g., the parents–so that when the macro-political situation in Nepal settles, in what most say will be two to three years, this constituency can demand that key reforms stay in place and that others be undertaken to continue to improve the education system.

3.6 Cost Analysis If the GON is to take a reading program to scale and sustain the effort over time it must be able to afford it. Moreover, while the MOE, DOE, and DPs speak of an SSRP funding gap, the facts of the matter are that i) no matter how much money a government has there will almost always be a funding gap—needs outweigh financial resources, and ii) no matter how few resources a country has, they can always spend that money much better. This being the case, the funds to take a reading program to scale and sustain it over time must come from the existing budget.xxxv Table 4 presents an analysis of the 2011/12 SSRP budget based on audited reports provided by the WB.

Table 4. SSRP 2011/12 Budget Analysis (NRs 000) District + Line Items Center Schools District** School* Total Salary 19,107 227,543 227,543 0 246,650 Allowances 0 56,783 56,783 0 56,783 Consultancy fees 13,316 0 0 0 13,316 Earmarked grants to schools 0 0 0 0 0 Block grants to schools 110,000 11,846,453 0 11,846,453 11,956,453 Scholarships 0 2,148,981 0 2,148,981 2,148,981 Program costs 409,157 1,143,656 1,143,656 0 1,552,813 Program monitoring costs 22,000 8,000 8,000 0 30,000 Maintenance of buildings 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 Furniture 300 6,370 6,370 0 6,670 Vehicles 58,000 0 0 0 58,000 Equipment 1,200 0 0 0 1,200 Grants to office building construction 1,200 40,875 40,875 0 42,075 School furniture 0 6,000 0 6,000 6,000 Physical construction in school 5,615,350 0 5,615,350 5,615,350 Total 635,280 21,100,011 1,483,226 19,616,784 21,735,290

% Center 0.029 % District + Schools 0.971 % District 0.068 % Schools 0.903 Values not in NRs 000 District SSRP/district 19,776,353 District SSRP/district staff (assumes 100 DEO staff per District) 197,764 School SSRP/school (39,372 BE schools)*** 498,242 School SSRP/pupil (5,658,326 BE students) 3,467 SSRP/(primary education and education admin budgets) 0.455 SSRP Grants/(primary education and education admin budgets) 0.253 *The data analyzed only showed the official numbers for the district and the schools. We parsed the school funds from the district funds based on a conservative understanding of what goes to the schools (i.e., since we did not know if program costs went to the schools, we left them in the district’s budget). 19 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report **The district budget is what remains after we parsed out the school money. ***Official SSRP audited reports show no SSRP money going to secondary schools. Thus, these values derive from basic education numbers (grades 1-8) taken from 2011/12 Flash data received from DOE.

The amount of SSRP money that stays at the district when divided by the number of district staff per district leads to a value of NR 197,764 per person. The amount of SSRP money that goes to schools is on average close to NR 500,000. When you consider this, together with the fact that schools can roll money over from one fiscal year to the next, and districts allegedly send additional grants down to the schools toward the end of the fiscal year, it appears that there may well be enough resources already in the system to pay for a scalable reading program. This assessment would have conducted a more in-depth cost analysis, but was unable to obtain the necessary data. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn here are guarded and indicative.

3.6.1 Strengths of the System • It is highly decentralized system schools can i) decide how best to spend their money, ii) hire their own teachers, iii) select their own Head Teacher, iv) decide to become an English medium school, v) decide when to open, etc. • A fair amount of money flows downwards to both the DEOs and schools; moreover, it appears to flow in a rational manner: salaries are tied to teachers; non-personnel recurrent funds are tied to enrollment; capital investment is tied to need. • The schools feel pressure to compete with the private schools, in particular they respond to parents who want their children to learn English, so there is considerable social will behind some sense of quality education and some responsiveness to parental demand. • Performance grants are in place and operative: schools compete for these grants, which means that they could also compete vis-à-vis reading achievement. • A social audit is in place and it is being conducted: parents are accustomed to watch-dogging the school/SMC—another critical element of effective horizontal accountability.

3.6.2 Weaknesses of the System • The system is almost too decentralized; for example, districts are free to develop their own curricula but that is a very costly and highly technical function that cannot possibly be carried out well in 75 districts. • There is not enough horizontal accountability: the only place where there is a modicum of horizontal accountability is at the local level, where a partially elected governing body (the SMC) has a fairly clear and distinct governance-management relationship with the executive unit at that level (the school) and both respond to some extent to the citizens they represent and serve respectively. • The SMCs are subject to elite takeover. Since a fair amount of money flows into schools as grant money, the head of the SMC and Head Teacher can wield a considerable amount of power, which leads to local elites spending upwards of NR 500,000 campaigning to become the SMC head. Attendant to this weakness is how politicized schools/SMCs have become, with campaigning closely aligned to political parties. • There is not enough vertical accountability: by way of example, MOF does not force the schools to account for how they spend the money, and while people throughout the system may complain that schools do not spend their money according to line items, nothing is done about it. • School data are unreliable: many people/reports observe that since the amount of money going to schools is per capita based, the schools inflate their enrollment figures. • Lack of capacity: there is, according to many, a lack of capacity throughout the system. But this needs to be qualified. Some of the lack of capacity can be attributed to systems that either do not work or simply are not in place. Some can also be attributed to a deeply rooted culture of rotating people in and out of positions. It was reported that people assigned to permanent positions are moved on average once a year, while people who are attached to non-permanent posts are moved around once every three months.

4 Conclusion Nepal appears poised to begin focusing more directly on improving learning outcomes, and in particular, improving how children learn to read in the first few years of basic education. The MOE, DOE, and their DPs have called for an initiative within the SSRP to improve reading. This presents a great opportunity for the Nepali education system and 20 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report for USAID. But in going forward, it remains important to be mindful of the issues raised in this assessment. Below are the assessment team’s recommendations for how to address some of them. The reference list and endnotes for this report can be found in Annex G.

4.1 Recommendations

4.1.1 Language A. For a minority of the Nepali population (approximately 20%),xxxvi students would be disadvantaged to begin schooling in either Nepali or English. In these contexts, beginning with a mother tongue medium could be a viable and positive option if feasible approaches for ensuring appropriate materials can be developed and sufficient teachers for that language can be supplied. For example, external inputs to develop reproducible materials and local capacity would be a worthwhile investment. Utilizing teachers’ aides to assist with language when a mother tongue teacher is not available can be a viable alternative. B. Given increasing parental demand for English language, if concerted effort were made to develop capacity in English, it would be feasible, and reasonable, to begin instruction in Nepali or a mother tongue and transition into either an English medium or bilingual medium program in a relatively short period of time (by grade 3 or 4, for example, if desired). C. Alternatively to Recommendation A, bilingual early childhood development could potentially serve to develop the skills in the Nepali language so that students could be prepared to begin in grade 1 or 2 with Nepali as a language of instruction, while also supporting the development of students’ mother tongue (which could then be continued as a subject during primary school).

4.1.2 Curriculum and Materials D. The curriculum should be revised to emphasize foundational reading skills and to highlight reading as an essential skill that demands explicit focus, with an accompanying increase in the percentage of time allotted to teaching reading in the classroom. E. Language textbooks should either be revised to reflect a much more explicit focus on reading, with appropriate sequencing, or a mandatory supplementary book should be developed with explicit focus on developing foundational reading skills. F. Appropriate complementary materials, particularly teachers’ guides that clearly show teachers how to use the textbooks and materials, should be produced. Already existing materials, as well as materials developed by the CDC but not yet printed, can be reviewed to identify those that best support early grade reading skill development. G. The importance of these reforms needs to be impressed upon all reading stakeholders within the system, in particular, parents and teachers, so as to create widespread demand for reading and reading reforms.

4.1.3 Teachers and Teacher Training H. Develop at the national level the content for high quality training in research-based instructional practices that promote literacy acquisition in the early grades. I. Work with NCED to develop programs, curriculum and training that address the issues of language of instruction and language transition (from mother tongue to Nepali and from Nepali to English). J. Develop standards and criteria for training content and training methodology, and help build system capacity to enforce those standards at the district and below-district levels (e.g., assigning responsibility and building capacity for quality control within the DEOs). K. Create tighter links between teacher training in literacy acquisition and the materials being made available for use in the early grades (i.e., teachers should be trained in how to extract the greatest value from textbooks and learning materials on a day-to-day basis). L. Help put in place systems that better account for use of training resources, teacher participation in training, the impact training has on teaching practice, and the impact it has on student performance (especially in reading).

21 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report 4.1.4 Assessment M. Integrate some lower-level and pre-reading skills into the NASA so that the test can better capture a full range of abilities, providing more detailed information even at the bottom of the scale, which could produce valuable information for programs intended to improve reading instruction and outcomes. N. Ensure that staff members who have been trained are not moved out of the unit – if some turnover in personnel is necessary, ensure that a significant period of time of overlap is built in so that the current staff members could train incoming staff members. O. Continuous assessment is part of both assessment and ongoing instruction. It involves a change in teacher practice just like any other instructional approach. If it is going to be truly implemented, it must be integrated into a solid teacher training and support program. Difficulties with teacher training and support, and possible solutions, have already been addressed – in this case, the use of continuous assessment to support reading instruction would need to be incorporated into any teacher development program.

4.1.5 Elements of Demand P. Change the SMC rules/regulations such that the majority of members, if not all, are elected parents/members of the community, with at least half being women, and a woman holding either the post of SMC Head, SMC Treasurer, or both. Q. Empower the PTA to look for key indicators of quality education and sound early grade reading practices and support activities (i.e., the teacher shows up before the students, the teacher gets the student involved in fun activities, the teacher is the last one to leave, etc.). R. Develop and institutionalize an accountability system that is largely driven by reading outcomes. Build upon the performance grant mechanism that is already in place. Empower/enable schools, VDCs, and districts to compete against each other based on reading scores. S. Put in place a reading support system that will develop the capacities needed to generate improved results (i.e., how to develop SIPs that best transform financial, material, and human resources into improved reading outcomes; the role parents/PTAs can play in holding schools/SMCs accountable for proper use of resources). T. Hold schools accountable for how they spend their money. While the above recommended accountability system should put in place the “demand forces” necessary to get people to want to spend properly, not all will. Accordingly, there must also be official financial audits of schools, with major penalties in place for misspending. Key here is to not force schools to spend as per various prescribed line items, but to account for how they spend all the money they receive (i.e., did they spend their money as planned, and if not, why).xxxvii U. Put in place the legal “right to intervene” such that when a lower level jurisdiction (i.e., schools/SMCs, DEO) does not perform well, a higher-level jurisdiction (i.e., the DEO or DOE) can intervene to help fix the situation. This right to intervene would prescribe a number of specific measures that the higher level jurisdiction would, in certain prescribed and worsening circumstances, undertake to help address the situation. V. Put in place the mechanisms necessary to ensure that EMIS data are both valid and reliable (i.e., random checks at various data entry points with severe penalties for data fraud). W. Do as much reform support work as one can possibly do and do it from outside the education system such that it can, if necessary, help pressure the MOE to carry out the reforms called for in this report.

4.1.6 Costs and Finance X. Conduct a pilot study that will yield the information necessary to develop an early grade reading program that Nepal can affordably take to scale and sustain over time. Many, if not all, of the reading programs that the assessment team looked into appear to be cost prohibitive in this regard. This study would have to not only determine what a less-input rich yet effective program would look like but would also determine exactly how much GON money could be freed up to pay for it at scale. Moreover, it must be emphasized that this pilot examines the cost and impact of a comprehensive reading program, not one that simply provides textbooks to the schools, which, as EQUIP 2 data show, does not in any way result in high use when teachers are not trained and supported in how to use them (see Figure 2; Schuh Moore, DeStefano & Adelman [2010]).

22 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Figure 2. Textbook Availability vs. Textbook Use

4.2 Key Leverage Points In addition to recommendations formulated above, the assessment team identified the following “key leverage points” – these are areas where intervention in the near term could have a dramatic impact on early grade reading.

4.2.1 Furthering Demand for Improved Reading The current demand, particularly at the MOE/DOE and DP level, for improving reading instruction in grades 1-3 presents a valuable opportunity. This emphasis could be harnessed to ensure that actors at all levels of the system are aware of the need for improving reading instruction and used to create demand at all levels for the input and supports needed to improve reading teaching and learning. 1) Coupled with the interest in improving reading outcomes, the recognition of the importance of language in education should be built on to make the connection between language and reading, and to further develop awareness of the importance of sufficient oral language capacity as a foundation for learning to read in a particular language. 2) Teachers and Head Teachers (and SMCs and PTAs) could be helped to see the need for better instruction related to literacy acquisition and therefore, become demanders of training services that target that. 3) Resources are available in the sector for purchasing learning materials, but they may not be put to maximum benefit. Demonstrating how resources for materials could provide greater value-added for teaching and learning around reading could result in more productive spending at the central, district, and school levels. 4) Given that performance grants are already in place and as such schools/districts are used to competing against each other for financial rewards, an EGRA could be piggy-backed onto NASA (and the forces driving it), and an reading results-based accountability system could institutionalize reading performance as a key driver for decision making, planning and resource allocation.

4.2.2 Evidence-Based Decision Making MOE’s apparent commitment to learning from innovative programs in Nepal and in the region, as well as to evidence- based decision-making, can provide support for both integrating known best practices and using data to continuously improve the system as necessary in support of improved reading outcomes. 23 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report 1) The commitment, among the MOE and DPs, to test an improved and cost affordable reading skills development program opens up an opportunity to improve and test curricula, accompanying materials, teaching and learning practices, and teacher support processes, which better support reading acquisition. a. This may require developing new materials (or adapting the materials already developed by INGOs piloting reading interventions), which could serve as models for how existing national curriculum and materials could be modified. b. The fact that teachers and students are used to using materials in the classroom will facilitate the integration, and testing, of better designed materials and support processes that provide explicit instructional guidance to teachers and that better coordinate teacher and student activities, which could lead to dramatic changes in pedagogy, and therefore learning. 2) The NASA will provide valuable national-level information as to learning outcomes at lower grades, which can be used to identify gaps and track progress of system improvements, and help feed that information back into the system for targeted improvement. In order to make the best use of this assessment, it will be advisable to incorporate elements of EGRA into the grade 3 NASA. Because the NASA will begin measuring student proficiency in grade 3, an opening exists to discuss the role of other assessment methodologies that can target essential early literacy skills, including evaluation of oral language competencies (an important tool that will be needed to manage the language transition and multi-lingual issues schools and teachers will face). For example, an EGRA could be adapted and applied on a fairly large scale in Nepal relatively quickly (instruments have already been adapted for use in Nepali by several projects), contributing hard data on student learning in early grades to the ongoing discussion of the need to focus instruction on early literacy acquisition. Such an assessment could also be designed to shed light on the current high priority issues of language of instruction and language transition.

4.2.3 Potential of Decentralized System While in the high level of decentralization of the Nepal education system has been identified as both a strength and weakness, it does offer great potential for providing timely and appropriate support for improving reading outcomes, if fine-tuned effectively: 1) Nepal benefits from an established network of training facilities and staff. Resources for teacher in-service training are also being made available each year at the national, district, and school levels. Thus an institutional base on which to build sustainable, system-wide capacity is in place. Available resources could be focused more purposefully on high quality training in proven classroom techniques for improving early grade reading, with viable follow-up support available to teachers as they attempt to implement new practice. Demonstrating how ongoing support to teachers can be cost-effectively delivered on-site (at their schools) would be an important contribution of any reading skills development pilot. 2) The school, SMC, PTA, and community interactions represent the points of highest leverage for change in the system. Consider the following: SMCs are responsive to parental demands; schools are already virtually autonomous; they are spending money on education-related things; there is a social audit in place; there is a fair amount of horizontal accountability in place at the local level; there are a lot of personnel transfers everywhere but the local level of the system; there is an extensive set of local actors and networks in place that extend down to just about every village in Nepal; the teachers unions reach down to every teacher in Nepal; and national politics will make working at the central and maybe even the district level tenuous for the next two to three years. Given all of this, focusing largely on the school, SMC, PTA, and community nexus (i.e., strengthening the horizontal and vertical accountability linkages/mechanisms at this level) offers an opportunity to create change on a fairly large scale within a relatively short time frame, change that could promulgate upward changes once the overarching concerns over governance are broadly laid out. 3) While the decentralized systems presents the above kinds of opportunities to leverage and support improved demand for and supply of improved reading instruction, a critical concern will continue to be the need to coordinate and align government and development partner actions. Such coordination is always a concern, but in the context of reinforcing capacity and improving interactions across the various sets of players at the decentralized level (SMC, PTA, district authorities, etc.), the potential for different initiatives working at cross purposes is exacerbated. Therefore, it will be worth devoting effort to building a common understanding and approach among education sector partners.

24 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Annex A. Terms of Reference

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR USAID/NEPAL’S ENGAGEMENT IN

IMPROVED READING SKILLS IN PRIMARY GRADES

SUMMARY: USAID/Nepal is seeking assistance to conduct an analysis of programs, policies, practices, and institutional capabilities for improving early grade reading in Nepal. USAID/Nepal will use the results of the assessment to inform the development of a new reading skills program. This TOR will be developed and cleared by USAID/Nepal, and will then be shared with the AME DEP COTR for review and approval. Funding and technical assistance to carry out the tasks included in this SOW will be provided through the Asia Bureau funded DEP Task Order.

1. Background: The Country Assistance Strategy (2009-2013) of USAID/Nepal recognizes its assistance in the area of early childhood education through the School Sector Reform initiatives of the GON. USAID’s assistance strengthens and expands the national Early Childhood Education and Development (ECED) program, thereby increasing the percentage of four year-olds enrolled in ECED program. This program has been recognized to be important for children’s well-being and their future development. ECED program is one of the key program elements of School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP)xxxviii 2009-2015 of the Government of Nepal (GON). USAID/Nepal’s assistance to ECED program ends July 2012. In February 2011, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah approved and launched a new Agency-wide Education Strategy. The strategy reflects recent Presidential policy guidance that development assistance programs be guided by evidence- based analysis of educational effectiveness and aimed at maximizing the impact and sustainability of development results. The 2011-2015 Education Strategy was created to reflect these core principles. This Education Strategy is premised on the development hypothesis that education is both foundation to human development and critically linked to broad-based economic growth; democratic governance; and improved health outcomes. Embracing the President’s 2010 U.S. Global Development Policy principles, USAID invests education resources strategically to achieve measurable and sustainable education outcomes through enhanced selectivity, focus, country- led programming, division of labor and innovation. Based on the policy principles, USAID has developed three global education goals-Goal One: Improved reading skills for 100 million children in primary grades by 2015; Goal Two: Improved ability of tertiary and workforce development programs to generate workforce skills relevant to a country’s development goals; Goal Three: Increased equitable access to education in crisis and conflict environments for 15 million learners by 2015. The new USAID Nepal education program will directly support Goal One: Improved reading skills for 100 million children in primary grades by 2015. The new Agency education strategy corresponds to the USAID Nepal strategy in several ways. First, a reading skills program is a logical follow-on to the ECED program, which targeted preschool children. There is a great unmet need in Nepal to improve early grade reading skills which is an important foundational building block for literacy, numeracy and eventual participation in social and economic activities. Most importantly, a reading skills program is relevant to the School Sector Reform Program (SSRP) 2008/9-2014/15 of the GON. The overarching goal of the SSRP is to ensure that all children (girls and boys) have access to quality primary education by 2015. The primary sub-sector receives priority in this program. Major thrusts of this program are access, equity, and quality.

Quality of education (relevant to reading skills):

One additional reason why the USAID reading skills program is a good strategic fit is that the GON has identified access to education as a crucial precondition to education impact, but what matters most thereafter is the quality of education. Nepal has made remarkable improvement in terms of access. However, the quality aspect remains a key issue. A recent study conducted by DFID in Grade 2 and 4 revealed that in Nepali subject only 37.9% students recognized and accurately read single words, and only 70.7% recognized and correctly read single letters. Likewise, in 25 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Mathematics 86% of the total students tested in Grade 2 could recognize single-digit numbers but only 31.6% could recognize and read double-digit numbers. Only a tiny number below 2% could manage any subtraction or division sums. At grade 4 in Nepali some 56.2% now reach the expected standard, with some 85.4% able to read single word. In Mathematics the pass rate was reached by only 10.7% of pupils tested. 71.3% could name double-digit numbers but 30% were still unable to reach the Grade 2 pass level. Continuous Assessment System (CAS) is one of the key policy measures for improving children’s learning at early primary grades. It is observed that due to technical difficultiesxxxix the CAS is not being implemented by schools.

2. Key objective: The overall objective of the assignment is to conduct a needs assessment of the current situation in Nepal relating to reading improvement. An important part of the analysis is to assess the capacity of relevant GoN institutions to develop, manage, and evaluate a national reading improvement program. USAID/Nepal has conducted consultations with the GON and Development Partners and has confirmed the importance of early grade reading skills and this analysis will provide helpful information to the MOE and other development partners (DPs) in Nepal.

3. Specific Tasks • Review of relevant policy documents, SSRP 2009-2015, Education Act and Regulation, National Curriculum Framework, Continuous Assessment System at primary level (grade 1-3), Child Friendly School Framework; Minimum Enabling Condition Guidelines, Mid-Term Review Report of SSRP xletc. The analysis will be done to understand policy environment-compatibility between USAID’s new Education Strategy specifically Agency’s education goal 1 and SSRP of the GON. • Consultation with the MOE, DOE and the DPs (WB, DFID, Save the Children, Room to Read and World Education) to understand ongoing projects implemented by the GON and other DPs related to enhancing children’s reading skills, and private school association, private printing houses. • Consultation with National Center of Educational Development and review of teacher training packages to understand training needs. • Consultation with Curriculum Development Center to understand primary level curriculum and its compatibility with children’s reading skills. • Consultation with people/team involved in designing National Assessment of Students’ Achievement (NASA) specific to children’s assessment at grade three and five. • Consultation with research institutions particularly Research Center for Educational, Innovation and Development (CERID), and education experts. • School visit for classroom observation, consultation with School Management Committees, primary teachers, parents, and students (lower primary grades). • Focus Group discussion with lower primary grades teachers (grades 1-3). • Review and analysis of EGRA and EGRA-like instruments and results that have been implemented in Nepal

4. Key Deliverables Based on the review of relevant documents, consultation with key stakeholders, and field observations, the consultant(s) will produce a report which includes an analysis of the current situation regarding early grade reading in Nepal. Areas of focus for the analysis should include: • Analysis of available information and data on reading. • Analysis of GoN MoE policies, programs and classroom practices relating to reading improvement .This analysis should highlight if and how reading improvement is part of the MOE’s overall education plans and priorities. • An analysis of the GoN management capacity, at multiple levels of the education system, to manage a large scale reading improvement program. Since many externally funded education programs in Nepal are managed through the SSRP multi-donor trust fund, this analysis should include the trust fund in the institutional assessment. Conduct an assessment of and map the GON department and/or SSRP partners who are interested in supporting a national reading improvement program. This mapping should identify specific sector areas that the GoN or

26 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report development partners have unique capabilities or programmatic interests such as teacher training, curriculum development, and measuring learning. • Identify the most appropriate implementation mechanisms for carrying out USAID-funded early grade reading skills interventions (direct assistance to GON, or award to local/ international partner, or combinations thereof, IQC etc.). • Identify if there is a room for public private partnership and/or other initiative(s) to support a national reading improvement program.

27 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Annex B. Nepal Assessment Protocol Questions Operational Issues Related to Primary Teacher Training

Pre-Service 1. Basic data to be obtained from whatever source • Profile of teaching force (including head teachers) by level of education, by type of pre-service training, by years of experience • Number of teacher candidates enrolled in pre-service training in a typical year (past three years of data would provide image of what is typical) • Number of primary teachers certified each year (past three years) – actual number and as percent of those who participated in pre-service training • Relationship between annual supply of teachers from pre-service institutions to the annual demand/need for teachers in primary schools (would worry about demand only if Nepal has done a projection/analysis themselves). 2. Location and administrative/governance/management arrangements of pre-service institutions • Numbers and distribution:: − How many pre-service institutions are there in total? − How are they distributed across the country? • Are there any private pre-service institutions? − If yes, do they produce a significant number of new teachers each year? − (If yes, then distinctions will need to be made on many of the following questions for public v. private institutions.) • Under what part of the ministry do pre-service institutions fall administratively? • Pre-service curriculum: − Who sets curriculum objectives for pre-service training? − Who develops the actual curriculum? − Who develops the materials used? − When was the last time the curriculum for pre-service training was updated/changed in any significant way? • What, if any, have been the other major reforms/changes to pre-service teacher training over the past 3-5 years? • What major programs, projects, or investments have targeted teacher pre-service training in the last 3-5 years? • How (and by whom) are teacher candidates recruited/selected for enrollment in pre-service training (including entry criteria)? − To what extent is recruitment/selection geographically based? • How (and by whom) are teacher candidates evaluated during and at the end of their pre-service training? • What is required for official certification of teachers and head teachers (completion of training, passing of exam, practicum,…)? • How are pre-service institutions managed? − What degree of autonomy do they have related to budget, staffing, course content, course delivery, ... ? • How are pre-service institutions funded? • How much money goes to pre-service? What is the unit cost? • Staff of pre-service institutions: − Where do they come from? − What education levels do they have? − What specific training do they have?

28 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report − What statute do they have (employed full-time, part-time, employed as civil servants, or by each institution, etc.)? 3. Hiring and assignment of teachers following pre-service • Are all teachers who complete pre-service training automatically hired as teachers? − If no, how is the hiring decision made (and by whom)? • What is the status of newly hired teachers—i.e., is there a probationary period before they are fully ensconced in the civil service? (Assumption being that teachers are civil servants – need to also double-check that.) • How are teachers assigned following completion/hiring? Who makes the assignment decisions? • What roles do districts, resource centers and schools play (if any) in the teacher hiring and assignment decision-making process? • What roles do local bodies (governance entities) play? • To what extent are teachers hired who have not completed pre-service training? (Are there other ways into the profession than through pre-service training?) • Head teachers: − How (and by whom) are head teachers hired/assigned? − What are the requirements for becoming a primary school head? • Are there differences in the teachers that public, private, and community schools are hiring? If yes, what are those differences?

In-Service 1. Basic data to be obtained • Number of in-service training initiatives, programs, projects in operation over the past 3-5 years? • Geographic concentration/dispersion of those in-service initiatives, programs and projects? • Numbers of teachers trained through those initiatives, programs and projects? • Typical number of in-service training days for a serving teacher in a given year? 2. Institutional home for in-service • What office is responsible for teacher in-service training? − Is there more than one office that can generate teacher in-service programs? − If yes, how are different in-service initiatives coordinated (if at all)? • What is the main institutional delivery mechanism for teacher in-service? Who governs, administers and manages that institution? • What is the relationship between institutions that deliver in-service training and the existing educational administrative and management structure (relationship to DEO, RC, local bodies, schools, etc.)? • Budgets for in-service training: − How are budgets for in-service training established? − How are costs associated with participation in in-service training addressed (i.e., are teachers reimbursed for travel, do they receive per diem when away from school/home to participate in training, etc.)? • How much money goes into INSET and where does it all come from? 3. In-service training programs • What have been the major in-service training initiatives implemented during the past 3-5 years? • How are in-service programs designed and developed? • Who determines the content and curriculum of in-service training? • Who designs the delivery of in-service training? • Are programs national in scope or are they designed and developed for regional level, district level, or sub- district level? • To what extent are there existing, regular in-service programs? − If any, what have been their focuses? − To what extent are programs designed/delivered on an as needed basis?

29 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report − To what extent are programs dependent on specific projects for implementation? • What training programs are required? If any, what have been their focuses? • When training programs are not required, what (and who) determines teacher recruitment and participation in in-service training? • Are there mechanisms for identifying specific training needs? If yes, who participates in identifying needs (teachers, school heads, SMCs, local bodies, RCs, DEOs, etc.)? • What is the balance between national in-service training initiatives and local (district or below) initiatives? • Do schools have budgets for in-service training? Do RCs? Do DEOs? Do local bodies allocate and spend resources to cover local in-service training needs? • Do teachers receive credit/recognition of any kind for participation in in-service programs? If yes, what? 4. Monitoring and evaluation of in-service • What data are systematically collected on teacher participation in in-service training? • Who collects (and makes use of) these data—at the school level, district level, regional level, national level? • Does the unit that manages the EMIS compile data on participation in in-service? • Is there a TMIS? • Do teachers’ individual personnel records reflect participation in in-service training? • How (and by whom) the effectiveness of in-service training is evaluated (ad hoc, systematic, punctual)? • What formal evaluations of teacher in-service training have been completed recently?

Ongoing Follow-Up and Teacher Support 1. School level • What support is provided to teachers at their schools? By whom (head teacher, other admin staff, other teachers, other)? • Are head teachers trained specifically to provide pedagogical support/leadership for their schools and staff? • What is the nature of the support which teachers receive within their school (help preparing lessons, observation and feedback on technique, etc.)? • To what extent are their peer support mechanisms set up as a regular feature of school operations (mentoring, teachers meeting in teams, use of staff meetings for “in-service,” etc.)? • What happens within a school when a teacher returns from participating in an in-service training? Is there any systematic relationship between in-service training programs and on-site support and follow up? • Are there any special provisions made for beginning/novice teachers at the school level? • What support (if any) is provided by the local community? • Who at the school level evaluates teacher performance? How regularly? On what basis? • How are “effective” teachers recognized/rewarded at the school level? • How are “ineffective” teachers dealt with? 2. Sub-district level • What support is provided to teachers from the sub-district level (from resource center or other institutional base)? • How regularly (if at all) are teachers visited by an external, sub-district support person? • What is the nature of the support provided by the sub-district (help preparing lessons, observation and feedback on technique, reinforcement of specific classroom practices etc.)? • How regularly do the sub-districts plan specific follow-up visits to schools as a facet of in-service training? • What constraints do sub-districts face in reaching schools/teachers regularly with support? • To what extent are peer support mechanisms set up at the sub-district level? • Sub-district-level teacher evaluations: − Who at the sub-district level evaluates teacher performance? − How regularly? − On what basis?

30 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report • How are “effective” teachers recognized/rewarded at the sub-district level? • How are “ineffective” teachers dealt with at the sub-district level? • What is the budget for all of this? • How is it decided? 3. District level • What support is provided to teachers from the district level (from DEO or other institutional base)? • How regularly (if at all) are teachers visited by an external, district support person? • What is the nature of the support provided by the district (help preparing lessons, observation and feedback on technique, reinforcement of specific classroom practices etc.)? • How regularly do the districts plan specific follow-up visits to schools as a facet of in-service training? • What constraints do districts face in reaching schools/teachers regularly with support? • To what extent are peer support mechanisms set up at the district level? • District-level teacher evaluations: − Who at the district level evaluates teacher performance? − How regularly? − On what basis? • How are “effective” teachers recognized/rewarded at the district level? • How are “ineffective” teachers dealt with at the district level? • What is the budget for all of this? • How is it decided?

Horizontal/Vertical Accountability, Governance, Management, and DEC Protocols 1. Regional Level • Is there a regional-level governing body akin to the VDCs and DDCs (LBs) at the lower levels of the system? If NO, skip to district-level questions - If yes, what is the name of this governing body? • Are all of its members elected by the citizens of the region? - If not, what % is? • How do the rest gain membership? • What is the relationship between the RED and this LB? • What are the exact roles and responsibilities of this LB? − Do they have any say over how money is spent at the regional level? − Do they have any say in the local curriculum? − Plan development? − Who works where? • Are these roles and responsibilities enshrined in some kind of legislation? • Given these roles and responsibilities, how accountable do you feel the RED is to this LB? • What is the exact nature of the relationship between the RED and the DOE/MOE? − This will, of course, spill into a lot of Joe’s and Wendi’s questions. 2. District Level • What is the relationship between the DEC and the DDC? − Is the DEC a committee within the DDC? • Are all of its members elected by the citizens of the district? • If not, what % is? • How do the rest gain membership? 31 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report • What are the roles and responsibilities of the DEC vis-à-vis education? • What are the roles and responsibilities of the vis-à-vis education DDC? − To what extent is the DDC/DEC really a governing body over the DEO? • Its role in district planning? • Its role in district monitoring? • Control over finances: Does a block grant of any sort come down? • Control over the local curriculum? • Control over human resources? • Do they hire/fire DEO staff? – If not, who hires/fires DEO, RC, school staff? • Do they have the power to channel money into EGR expenses? • Just how accountable is the DEO to the DDC/DEC, if at all? • What is the exact nature of the relationship between the DEO and the DDC/DEC? • What is the exact nature of the relationship between the DEO and the RED? 3. Sub-District Level • What is the relationship between the VEC and the VDC? − Is the VEC a committee within the VDC? • Are all of its members elected by the citizens of the district? • If not, what % is? • How do the rest gain membership? • What are the roles and responsibilities of the VEC vis-à-vis education? • What are the roles and responsibilities of the VDC vis-à-vis education? − To what extent is the VDC/VEC really a governing body over the schools/SMC/RC/RCMC? • Its role in district planning • Its role in district monitoring? • Control over finances: Does a block grant of any sort come down? • Control over the local curriculum? • Control over human resources? • Do they hire/fire DEO staff? – If not, who hires/fires RC and school staff? • Do they have the power to channel money into EGR expenses? • Just how accountable is the school/RC to the VDC/VEC, if at all? • What is the exact nature of the relationship between the school/RC and the VDC/VEC? • What is the exact nature of the relationship between the school/RC and the DEO? 4. School Level • What is the relationship between the school and the SMC? • What are the exact roles of the SMC and schools vis-à-vis: − Plan development − Budgeting money − Local curriculum definition − Time on task (time needed for EGR) − Human resources • To what extent, if any, is the school accountable to the SMC? − Who hires the Principal? − nT Staff? • What is the relationship between the SMC and the VDC/VEC, if any? • How do the two differ? 32 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report • Which is the true governing body over the school? The answers to all of these questions will, among other things, give us a sense of how much various actors in the system can be held to account for whatever. If, say, schools can channel money into reading and they have some say over who teaches there, they can conceivably hold teachers to account for reading results; the same for a district, etc. They can do so via carrots and sticks. The question then becomes one of measuring the results vis-à-vis some set of performance standards. Point: if the system proves to be fairly decentralized, then one has the problem of getting lower levels of the system to channel money/resources into EGR and to hold people accountable for results. If the system is fairly centralized, then the task is one of getting the center to put money into EGR-related line items and having them, in some way hold people accountable for reading results. In either case, the question becomes one of how: carrots or sticks? Most people eschew sticks, and so one is left with carrots: issuing awards for high performing entities, factoring good performance into progression along career ladders, etc. And do they have the systems in place to do EGRA? This, then, will have to tie into the protocols being developed for assessment. Finance Protocols (A lot of these questions can be answered via the governance/management questions above. For those that can be, I put a G next them.) • May we see the unrolled-up 2010/11 budget for education by region and district? − Fat chance • May we see the budget in as disaggregated a form as possible (center, region, district, schools)? • Schools/districts/RCs: what are the sources of all your money? − How much control do you have over how each kind is spent? G − On what basis do you decide (i.e., does, say, a school first have to develop a SIP, have that SIP approved by the SMC/VDC, before the money can be spent)? G • Is there any movement of GON block grants in the education sector (yes)? G • If so, what kind of money is it (i.e., capital, recurrent, non-personnel recurrent)? • Can we get finance data that shows all finance flows by type of money, type of flow, etc.? • How much of the total budget is this money? • At what level are decisions made about how to use this money? G • Who at that level makes the decision (on what basis)? G − Can any of this be used to address EGR costs? − Is it sufficient to cover EGR-related costs at this level? − What are EGR-related costs at this level? • In what piece of legislation is this delineated? • If no GON money moves as a block grant, how much money is decentralized (i.e., moves to lower levels of the system where it can be spent by a lower level entity)? • What kind of money moves in this way (i.e., capital, recurrent, etc.)? • How is this money moved (i.e., enrollment-based funding formula)? • How much of each kind moves in this way? • At what level of the system is this money spent (by type)? • Who spends the money (by level and type of money)? • On what basis is it spent (i.e., does, say, a school first have to develop a SIP, have that SIP approved by the SMC/VDC, before the money can be spent)? G • Do they have any control over how the money can be spent (i.e., can they move money between line items and/or within a line item: how much choice do they have over how the money is used)? G − How much money can be moved around in these ways? • To what extent can any of this be used for EGR costs? • If little, to what extent can we carve out space for EGR-related line items? − This will require some budget analysis • If none is decentralized, how much is spent on EGR-related costs? • How much is needed?

33 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Data/EMIS Protocols • May we see the data collection sheets for the EMIS for all levels of the system? • If we cannot see the actual sheets to find out what data are collected, we can ask to see printouts of the data that have been collected (I am assuming that the Flash Reports we have describe just some of the data collected by EMIS). • Need to see how much reading data are collected (none). • How much room is there for reading data to be collected? • To what extent are level-specific report cards developed and used? • This all leads into assessment which is also needed for accountability. • Note: From the Flash Reports, it looks like we can get enrollment by grade, gender, ethnic group, and location. Teacher data are only by level. I saw no transition rate data. They did have attendance and some other indicators. It would be ideal to get raw data. • Note: Flash I reports are data taken at the beginning of the school year while Flash II reports are data taken at the end of a school year.

Materials Development and Distribution • Assess what textbook situation looks like: − What is the relationship between textbooks and the curriculum: How many texts are there for each subject/course/grade (one or several from which people can choose)? − How many texts are demanded by the curriculum? − How many are supplied? − Does supply match demand? • What is the budget? • Is the budget sufficient to meet demand? • Quality of the texts? • What % of the budget are textbooks? • See finance: Are any textbooks purchased out of block grants? − How many get to the classrooms/students/teachers? − How are the textbooks distributed? − How are they ordered? − Who prints them? − Who distributes them? − Expected cost of EGR materials? − Who decides to spend this money?

Key Institutional Issues: • Getting EGR into the curriculum − Getting enough class time into the curriculum for EGR • Getting the revised curriculum into printed matter: EGR materials • Getting EGR assessment into the overall education assessment system (this will be driven in part by holding entities accountable for some reading results) • Getting EGR assessment results into EMIS and local-level report cards • Ensuring report cards are well publicized—finding an institutional home for this—creating the space for it (someone’s job to do it) • Developing official EGR-related performance standards for schools, districts, etc. • Creating the accountability system that drives the system to perform − Formalized competitions between localities: schools, districts, etc. − Awards for winning • Who decides? 34 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report − Adding performance to career ladders (and all that this would entail) − In addition to the carrots, any sticks? • Creating the HR space needed for critical EGR and EGR assessment functions: − Decide who will do what where: tease out all of the functions germane to EGR and EGR assessment, and ID who will do what where and how much time is needed to do it. − Formalize job descriptions − Carve out the time they need to do what they need to do − Decide on various service ratios • Getting EGR into PRESET (Getting EGR into the PREST curriculum) • Getting EGR into INSET/CPD (Getting EGR into the INSET/CPD curriculums) • Costs − Personnel costs − Non-personnel recurrent costs − Other costs − For all block-grant money that will be used for some of this: the accountability system will be key, it is the only thing I can think of that will get decision makers to channel some block grant money into EGR and EGR assessment. − Ensure that all horizontal and vertical accountability linkages are in place. − For all categorical money used for this, ensure that line items exist and that proper funding formulas are in place. Reading Teaching and Learning Most of the questions below can/should be asked at both the official policy level (centralized and decentralized ministry offices and official documents) and at the enacted policy level (decentralized ministry offices and schools), in order to gather essentially three types of information: What does the policy say is supposed to happen; what do actors THINK is supposed to happen; what actually happens? A successful, system-wide change in reading T&L will ultimately have to impact all three. General: In addition to the specific questions below, some of which may be altered by respondent depending on their responsibility, I would want to ask every respondent: • How do you think students in Nepal are doing in reading? • Do you think that the schools in Nepal are doing a good job teaching children to read? • (If respondent feels things could be better) What do you think are the biggest challenges that may be resulting in low performance in reading? And for most respondents (at least those who have a post of potential responsibility in the education system): • How do you think children learn to read? • What are the best ways to help children to learn to read? Information related to teachers: • Do teachers receive any training specifically about how children learn to read, or methods for teaching children how to read? (as distinct from general language instruction—for example, helping students to know how to read a word they’ve never seen before by using the sounds that the difference letters make, or asking/answering questions about a text they’ve read) • How do teachers go about teaching children how to read? (may need a further prompt, if respondents really haven’t thought about reading as a specific/separate skill that needs to be taught methodically) • Are there any widely accepted benchmarks or milestones for when children should be able to read fluently (smoothly, without problems) and understand what they’re reading (even if this isn’t official)? • What does the teacher use as a guide for what he/she should be teaching? national curriculum? local syllabus? textbook? [Whatever this source is should be gathered for examination if at all possible] • Are there people in the ministry, or elsewhere, who have expertise or specialization in reading (NOT linguistics, specifically in reading)? Where/who are they? 35 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report • If a teacher needed support or help in teaching reading, who could she/he turn to? [system/support implications] • How are decisions made, at the school-level, for teacher assignment? That is, which teachers will teach 1st, 2nd, 3rd grade? • Do teachers teach all subjects, or specialize by subject? Is this universal or does it differ by district or school? • Are teacher aides or assistants available to any teachers? If yes, in what contexts/situations (certain districts, certain schools, etc.)? Information about opportunity to learn to read: • How many subjects are required in grades 1-3? • Does the curriculum (and syllabus and/or textbook) make any specific reference to the process of learning to read, in mother tongue (MT) or in any other language? • Does the curriculum (or other policy document) specify any dedicated amount of time to be spent on reading? If no, does it mandate time to be spent on language? • How much time is typically spent specifically on reading instruction? • How much time (if any) is typically allotted for children to practice reading? • Does the curriculum explicitly or implicitly set any benchmark or milestone for when children should be able to read fluently and understand what they’ve read? • What are policies or expectations for what teachers should “cover” by the end of the year? How is this monitored? Information about text/materials: • Are there any textbooks specifically designed to support reading instruction? If not, what textbooks include any reading-related instructional material? • How appropriate are these textbooks? Are they “leveled”? (that is, organized to be appropriate to the students’ reading ability, introducing sounds/constructions as they might be learned by the student) [if possible, we’d like to have or inspect examples] • What is the process through which textbooks are developed, approved, and/or selected? • How timely do schools receive textbooks? [budgetary/system implications] • If/when they do receive them, what are typical student-text ratios for reading or language textbooks? • How regularly do teachers use textbooks in class (meaning that they are actually in the hands of the students)? • Are students allowed to take textbooks home? • Are any other books (other than textbooks) available for students to read? • Are there other print materials in the school/classroom environment for children to potentially read? • Are there other print materials in the home or out-of-school environment for children to potentially read? Questions for CDC (from Joe – email on 5/8/2012): • How many languages are you currently working on incorporating into the curriculum? • How are you thinking about dealing with multilingual environments? • Are you doing linguistically appropriate development of materials (or translating)? • Could you please tell me more about the pilot work done in 2007 with the Finnish Embassy? Information about language/mother tongue: • What percentage of schools are actually attempting to utilize mother tongue instruction in the early grades? • What is the expectation for introducing Nepali and English? By what grade are students expected to be able to function fully in Nepali (i.e., ready to have Nepali as LOI)? English (i.e., ready to have English as LOI)? • In what language(s) do parents want their children to be able to read? • What methodology/approach is used for: − learning the second and third language? − learning to read in the second and third language? • Does the methodology/approach utilize the relationship between the linguistic structures of the languages? (that is, for example, teachers specifically noting sounds that exist in both the MT and English to help students

36 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report more rapidly transfer their decoding skills to the second language—as opposed to teaching English as a completely separate, isolated subject) • What is the status of development of reading materials in the mother tongue languages? − How are these being developed? − What is the process? • How long does it take to produce materials? [budgetary implications] Information about assessment: • Do any currently used assessments attempt to incorporate any lower-level reading skills (before comprehension—including decoding, basic vocabulary? (by the ministry? by other organizations? frequency of application?) • Who has, or would have, primary responsibility for developing and implementing assessments that included early-grade reading competencies? • What are students typically tested on in the primary grades in end-of-year or other “external” assessments? • Do teachers have any way to assess the level of their students, in reading or language, at the beginning of the year? • How do teachers track progress of students? − What competencies do they focus on? − What do they do with this information? For current reading programs: Specifically for reading interventions (this is the information that I would like us to collect—I wonder about the sensitivity of us being potential “competitors” . . . ), in addition to above: • What are the main components of the intervention? • What is the approach to reading instruction? • What is the training model used? (amount of time per training, frequency) • What is the coaching/support model used? − Who are the coaches? − How frequent are their visits? − What kind of support do they provide? • What sorts of community-oriented supports are involved? • What are the primary challenges that have been faced in implementation? What work-around have worked well?

37 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Annex C. Schedule and Contacts

Meeting Agency Person(s) and Titles Date US Agencies USAID David Atterberry, Mission Director May 7, 2012 Sheila Lutiens, Deputy Mission Director John Stamm, Director GDO Jayanti Subba, Education Specialist USAID – DG Office Narendra Kumar Mishra, Local Governance Specialist May 15, 2012 Christopher A. Hobbs, Crisis, Stabilization, & Governance Office U.S. Peace Corps Andrea Wojnar Diagne, Country Director May 15, 2012 Charles Enciso, Director of Program and Training MOE and its line agencies Ministry of Education (MOE) Kishore Thapa, Secretary May 7, 2012 Janardan Nepal, Joint Secretary, Planning Division and May 18, Lava Deo Aswathi, Joint Secretary, SSRP 2012 Tek Bahadur Khatri, Under Secretary, Foreign Aid Coordination Division Education Review Office and Education Bhoj Raj Kafle Policy Committee secretariat Tulshi Thapaliya Department of Education (DOE) Mahashram Sharma, Director General May 8, 2012 Tek Narayar Pasdey, Director Balaram Timilsina, Deputy Director Jaya Prasad Acharya, Deputy Director, Planning Curriculum Development Center (CDC) Khaga Raj Baral, Executive Director May 8, 2012 Ananda Poudel, Curriculum Section Janak Education Materials Center May 8, 2012 National Center for Education Deepak Sharma, Deputy Director, Program and Monitoring May 8, 2012 Development (NCED) Dev Kumari, Director District Education Office (DEO) – Dipendra Subedi, District Education Officer May 9, 2012 Dhading School Supervisor and Resource Persons Resource Center(s) May 8, 2012 DEO - Kathmandu Baikuntha Aryal, Kathmandu May 13, 2012 Resource Person May 13, 2012 School Visit - Kathmandu May 13, 2012 EMIS Shankar Thapa, DEO May 16, 2012 DOE Finance DOE, Jaya Acharya (Planning) May 13, 2012 Teacher Service Commission Bishnu Nepal (9751017623) Sanothimi May 13, 2012 Office of Controller of Examinations Dilliram Rimal, Controller May 8, 2012 Gyanendra Ban, Training Officer Shankar Adhikari, Training Officer Madhab Sharma, Section Officer Guru Prasad Paudel, Under Secretary Ambika Prasad Regmu, Deputy Controller Ganesh Prasad Dhakal, Deputy Controller Higher Secondary Education Board Ram Chandra Pandey - 9851134410 May 15, 2012 NASA (Representative from the Finnish Jari Metsamuuronen May 17, 2012 National Board of Education TA) Ministry of Finance (MOF) May 8, 2012 Education Training Center May 15, 2012 Development Partners Asian Development Bank Kowsar Chowdhury, Senior Social Sector Specialist May 7, 2012 Bhuwan Bajracharya World Bank Venkatesh Sundararaman, Senior Economist May 7, 2012 Mohan Aryal Saurav Bhatta AusAID Benjamin Reese, First Secretary ? European Union /DFID Louise Banham Finland Satu Pehu-Voima Bhola Dahal UNICEF Eva Ahlen Sumon Tuladhar UNESCO

38 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report Non-Government Organizations (I/NGOs) Save the Children Mariko Shiohata, Overseas Program Division May 14, 2012 Udaya Manandhar, Assistant Country Director Brian J. Hunter, Country Director World Education Chij K Shrestha, Country Director May 8, 2012 Helen Sherpa, Education Specialist Room to Read Gopini Pandey, Literacy Instruction Program Director May 8, 2012 Jon Beaulieu, Regional Director for Asia Dinesh P. Shrestha, Co-Founder & Director, Field Operations SIL International Curits Wong May 17, 2012 Research Institutions Center for education research Kishore Shrestha May 13, 2012 innovation and development (CERID) Private Schools Seto Gurans (ECD network) Agatha Thapa May 16, 2012 Rato Bangla school Shanta Dixit, Director May 15, 2012 Field Visits – School Observations Selection of School Program school Save the Children District (Kapilvastu) 1 Cancelled due to bandh World Education District (Nepalgunj) 1 Cancelled due to bandh Room to Read District (Dhading) 1 May 9, 2012

39 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Annex D. Private Education Enrollment Data Private Education Enrollment Data

Enrolment % Public Private Private 8) 5) 8) 5) 8) 5)

de 6 - 10) 12) 10) 12) 10) 12) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Gra (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - Total Total Total Total 4,111,679 1,546,647 708,154 311,070 6,677,550 671,206 266,033 140,415 42,268 1,119,922 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.14 0.17 Eastern dev. reg. 890,547 365,826 169,844 81,859 1,508,076 106,230 35,778 18,625 7,435 168,068 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.11 East. mountain 104,604 37,008 15,963 7,940 165,515 2,914 646 288 0 3,848 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Taplejung 49,045 14,942 6,369 3,155 73,511 541 129 87 0 757 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Sankhuwasabha 30,618 12,426 5,150 2,152 50,346 2,373 517 201 0 3,091 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.06 Solukhumbu 24,941 9,640 4,444 2,633 41,658 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 East. hill 298,806 143,079 66,750 31,685 540,320 19,304 4,267 2,100 627 26,298 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 Panchthar 40,927 19,583 9,129 4,476 74,115 4,354 737 466 0 5,557 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.07 Ilam 35,244 21,019 9,044 5,281 70,588 4,820 963 523 203 6,509 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.09 Dhankuta 23,721 13,673 6,596 3,787 47,777 2,785 817 345 42 3,989 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.08 Terhathum 25,209 9,698 4,841 2,674 42,422 1,537 374 114 0 2,025 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.05 Bhojpur 35,391 16,281 7,331 2,768 61,771 1,190 334 111 74 1,709 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 Okhaldhunga 30,671 13,971 6,645 3,406 54,693 1,000 169 57 0 1,226 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 Khotang 49,831 19,124 9,482 4,160 82,597 18 0 0 0 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Udayapur 57,812 29,730 13,682 5,133 106,357 3,600 873 484 308 5,265 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 East. tarai 487,137 185,739 87,131 42,234 802,241 84,012 30,865 16,237 6,808 137,922 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.17 Jhapa 70,956 41,274 18,465 9,415 140,110 34,916 13,546 8,003 4,857 61,322 0.49 0.33 0.43 0.52 0.44 Morang 113,942 48,438 25,266 12,837 200,483 8,423 2,141 700 0 11,264 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.06 Sunsari 91,622 33,820 17,683 8,632 151,757 33,617 12,928 6,892 1,663 55,100 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.19 0.36 Saptari 104,828 30,477 13,046 4,306 152,657 3,366 1,293 642 288 5,589 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.04 Siraha 105,789 31,730 12,671 7,044 157,234 3,690 957 0 0 4,647 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 Central dev. reg. 1,346,850 426,533 197,137 81,960 2,052,480 294,155 134,586 74,769 9,453 512,963 0.22 0.32 0.38 0.12 0.25

40 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Enrolment % Public Private Private 8) 5) 8) 5) 8) 5)

de 6 - 10) 12) 10) 12) 10) 12) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Gra (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - Total Total Total Cent. mountain 98,374 41,488 19,385 9,439 168,686 6,140 1,518 767 410 8,835 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 Dolakha 35,343 16,303 7,791 3,625 63,062 3,545 1,034 448 410 5,437 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.09 Sindhupalchok 55,276 21,870 10,020 4,977 92,143 1,683 364 241 0 2,288 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Rasuwa 7,755 3,315 1,574 837 13,481 912 120 78 0 1,110 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.08 Cent. hill 354,311 146,623 67,348 25,089 593,371 35,843 13,871 7,597 3,224 60,535 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.10 Sindhuli 74,886 26,034 10,825 6,458 118,203 3,344 1,284 626 234 5,488 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 Ramechhap 41,095 20,753 10,069 5,130 77,047 1,643 455 210 69 2,377 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 Kavrepalanchok 55,811 25,667 13,475 3,045 97,998 12,836 6,608 3,965 1,721 25,130 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.57 0.26 Nuwakot 50,218 21,507 10,015 3,352 85,092 1,946 47 242 0 2,235 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 Dhading 61,756 25,918 12,016 4,443 104,133 5,222 1,558 796 430 8,006 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.08 Makwanpur 70,545 26,744 10,948 2,661 110,898 10,852 3,919 1,758 770 17,299 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.29 0.16 Cent. tarai 822,418 191,804 83,699 30,650 1,128,571 50,944 16,690 8,884 1,324 77,842 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.04 0.07 Dhanusha 107,867 30,133 12,411 3,410 153,821 10,288 0 0 0 10,288 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Mahottari 126,361 30,816 10,371 2,941 170,489 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sarlahi 153,887 28,423 11,847 5,142 199,299 2,109 1,161 0 0 3,270 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 Rautahat 151,934 27,062 12,596 9,206 200,798 4,358 1,225 853 0 6,436 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.03 Bara 131,757 24,742 10,874 2,732 170,105 2,323 572 0 0 2,895 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Parsa 102,178 22,873 9,797 1,312 136,160 1,784 0 97 0 1,881 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Chitwan 48,434 27,755 15,803 5,907 97,899 30,082 13,732 7,934 1,324 53,072 0.62 0.49 0.50 0.22 0.54 Valley 71,747 46,618 26,705 16,782 161,852 201,228 102,507 57,521 4,495 365,751 2.80 2.20 2.15 0.27 2.26 Lalitpur 19,865 10,578 5,658 3,412 39,513 38,635 21,919 13,475 1,862 75,891 1.94 2.07 2.38 0.55 1.92 Bhaktapur 8,574 7,389 3,676 4,639 24,278 23,821 12,871 7,633 2,633 46,958 2.78 1.74 2.08 0.57 1.93 Kathmandu 43,308 28,651 17,371 8,731 98,061 138,772 67,717 36,413 0 242,902 3.20 2.36 2.10 0.00 2.48 Western dev. reg. 663,526 290,695 145,565 67,183 1,166,969 180,640 70,689 36,498 19,864 307,691 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.30 0.26 West. mountain 1,803 775 369 221 3,168 500 70 46 0 616 0.28 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.19 Manang 480 260 125 105 970 36 0 0 0 36 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Mustang 1,323 515 244 116 2,198 464 70 46 0 580 0.35 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.26

41 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Enrolment % Public Private Private 8) 5) 8) 5) 8) 5)

de 6 - 10) 12) 10) 12) 10) 12) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Gra (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - Total Total Total West. hill 386,957 193,860 102,391 48,535 731,743 100,222 38,831 18,848 12,462 170,363 0.26 0.20 0.18 0.26 0.23 Gorkha 45,258 22,201 10,770 2,750 80,979 4,301 1,010 283 128 5,722 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.07 Lamjung 25,722 12,731 6,588 2,114 47,155 6,081 2,095 786 159 9,121 0.24 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.19 Tanahu 41,303 21,785 10,867 2,380 76,335 13,492 5,038 2,146 1,620 22,296 0.33 0.23 0.20 0.68 0.29 Syangja 36,226 20,984 12,683 6,955 76,848 11,418 4,322 2,109 1,741 19,590 0.32 0.21 0.17 0.25 0.25 Kaski 26,632 17,974 11,124 10,141 65,871 36,119 17,838 9,799 7,148 70,904 1.36 0.99 0.88 0.70 1.08 Myagdi 16,125 8,043 4,044 916 29,128 3,285 1,131 473 576 5,465 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.63 0.19 Parbat 21,106 11,184 6,620 4,005 42,915 2,896 844 314 0 4,054 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.09 Baglung 48,275 20,299 9,969 5,192 83,735 6,078 2,212 870 618 9,778 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.12 Gulmi 49,005 21,105 11,038 4,567 85,715 6,417 1,752 733 0 8,902 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.10 Palpa 40,927 21,467 10,616 6,469 79,479 6,516 1,904 916 294 9,630 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.12 Arghakhanchi 36,378 16,087 8,072 3,046 63,583 3,619 685 419 178 4,901 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 West. tarai 274,766 96,060 42,805 18,427 432,058 79,918 31,788 17,604 7,402 136,712 0.29 0.33 0.41 0.40 0.32 Nawalparasi 83,774 36,670 16,997 6,870 144,311 29,864 10,999 6,453 3,787 51,103 0.36 0.30 0.38 0.55 0.35 Rupandehi 88,390 33,781 15,870 6,669 144,710 41,553 17,550 9,612 2,129 70,844 0.47 0.52 0.61 0.32 0.49 Kapilbastu 102,602 25,609 9,938 4,888 143,037 8,501 3,239 1,539 1,486 14,765 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.30 0.10 Mid western dev. 715,662 279,435 113,575 44,155 62,897 17,146 7,320 5,198 reg. 1,152,827 92,561 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.08 Mid west. 88,902 28,284 11,383 4,140 1,293 209 214 0 mountain 132,709 1,716 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 Dolpa 7,269 2,229 847 336 10,681 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jumla 25,100 6,411 2,825 449 34,785 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kalikot 34,475 12,184 4,569 2,285 53,513 670 123 163 0 956 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.02 Mugu 9,650 4,871 1,862 407 16,790 483 79 51 0 613 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.04 Humla 12,408 2,589 1,280 663 16,940 140 7 0 0 147 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Mid west. hill 428,193 151,283 59,051 23,499 662,026 10,894 1,333 684 0 12,911 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 Pyuthan 47,946 16,851 5,737 1,990 72,524 1,830 331 143 0 2,304 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 Rolpa 54,763 15,549 4,899 1,906 77,117 1,307 119 52 0 1,478 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02

42 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Enrolment % Public Private Private 8) 5) 8) 5) 8) 5)

de 6 - 10) 12) 10) 12) 10) 12) Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 9 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - (Grade 11 - secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Gra (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - (Grade 6 - (Grade 1 - Total Total Total Rukum 67,839 18,398 8,499 677 95,413 965 0 0 0 965 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Salyan 56,608 23,000 9,214 3,900 92,722 755 216 104 0 1,075 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Surkhet 74,838 34,377 13,514 7,006 129,735 4,603 492 0 0 5,095 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 Dailekh 62,782 26,576 10,174 4,378 103,910 1,434 175 50 0 1,659 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 Jajarkot 63,417 16,532 7,014 3,642 90,605 0 0 335 0 335 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Mid west. tarai 198,567 99,868 43,141 16,516 358,092 50,710 15,604 6,422 5,198 77,934 0.26 0.16 0.15 0.31 0.22 Dang 63,106 38,770 19,096 6,883 127,855 22,287 6,085 2,242 2,326 32,940 0.35 0.16 0.12 0.34 0.26 Banke 71,920 22,410 10,981 4,967 110,278 19,402 7,526 3,355 2,479 32,762 0.27 0.34 0.31 0.50 0.30 Bardiya 63,541 38,688 13,064 4,666 119,959 9,021 1,993 825 393 12,232 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.10 Far western dev. 495,094 184,158 82,033 35,913 27,284 7,834 3,203 318 reg. 797,198 38,639 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.05 Far west. 117,754 35,443 16,076 9,343 2,689 453 57 0 mountain 178,616 3,199 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 Bajura 34,484 11,082 4,582 2,161 52,309 973 146 57 0 1,176 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 Bajhang 54,564 14,167 6,336 3,231 78,298 793 83 0 0 876 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Darchula 28,706 10,194 5,158 3,951 48,009 923 224 0 0 1,147 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Far west. hill 209,723 65,772 27,644 11,328 314,467 4,942 1,019 428 265 6,654 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Achham 71,306 20,840 8,527 2,888 103,561 1,191 207 197 0 1,595 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 Doti 48,535 12,318 5,132 1,679 67,664 742 57 30 0 829 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Dadeldhura 26,932 12,547 4,842 1,946 46,267 1,867 513 153 265 2,798 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.06 Baitadi 62,950 20,067 9,143 4,815 96,975 1,142 242 48 0 1,432 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Far west. tarai 167,617 82,943 38,313 15,242 304,115 19,653 6,362 2,718 53 28,786 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.09 Kailali 112,555 54,753 24,645 7,944 199,897 10,259 3,494 1,036 0 14,789 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.07 Kanchanpur 55,062 28,190 13,668 7,298 104,218 9,394 2,868 1,682 53 13,997 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.13

43 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Schools % Public Private Private

10) 12) 12) 8) 8) - - - -

1- 5) 1- 5) 1- 5)

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 6 (Grade 6 (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9- 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 (Grade 11 (Grade (Grade 9 - (Grade Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Total Total Total

Total 28,898 10,474 5,539 2,498 47,409 4,983 3,317 2,399 884 11,583 0.17 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.24 Eastern dev. reg. 6,333 2,314 1,192 540 10,379 958 541 355 153 2,007 0.15 0.23 0.30 0.28 0.19 East. mountain 1,001 343 152 62 1,558 35 15 7 6 63 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.04 Taplejung 331 120 54 28 533 7 4 2 2 15 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 Sankhuwasabha 386 121 57 18 582 25 10 4 2 41 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.07 Solukhumbu 284 102 41 16 443 3 1 1 2 7 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.02 East. Hill 3,023 1,117 587 254 4,981 208 82 48 17 355 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 Panchthar 390 152 76 31 649 43 12 8 2 65 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.10 Ilam 430 149 81 35 695 60 25 11 3 99 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.14 Dhankuta 313 104 69 39 525 27 12 9 3 51 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.10 Terhathum 240 84 45 28 397 12 9 4 1 26 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.07 Bhojpur 386 120 63 26 595 12 5 3 1 21 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 Okhaldhunga 349 122 68 23 562 16 3 2 0 21 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.04 Khotang 481 171 84 29 765 1 1 1 2 5 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 Udayapur 434 215 101 43 793 37 15 10 5 67 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.08 East. Tarai 2,309 854 453 224 3,840 715 444 300 130 1,589 0.31 0.52 0.66 0.58 0.41 Jhapa 414 192 106 58 770 249 152 104 35 540 0.60 0.79 0.98 0.60 0.70 Morang 532 219 124 57 932 157 94 70 42 363 0.30 0.43 0.56 0.74 0.39 Sunsari 472 173 101 41 787 255 171 106 32 564 0.54 0.99 1.05 0.78 0.72 Saptari 458 160 62 32 712 23 16 10 9 58 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.28 0.08 Siraha 433 110 60 36 639 31 11 10 12 64 0.07 0.10 0.17 0.33 0.10 Central dev. reg. 7,912 2,765 1,495 714 12,886 2,115 1,602 1,275 448 5,440 0.27 0.58 0.85 0.63 0.42 Cent. mountain 1,036 398 217 94 1,745 60 29 13 3 105 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.06

44 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Schools % Public Private Private

10) 12) 12) 8) 8) - - - -

1- 5) 1- 5) 1- 5)

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 6 (Grade 6 (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9- 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 (Grade 11 (Grade (Grade 9 - (Grade Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Total Total Total

Dolakha 396 159 82 38 675 33 17 9 3 62 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.09 Sindhupalchok 536 202 118 46 902 18 7 2 0 27 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03 Rasuwa 104 37 17 10 168 9 5 2 0 16 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.00 0.10 Cent. Hill 3,236 1,134 613 263 5,246 272 177 130 40 619 0.08 0.16 0.21 0.15 0.12 Sindhuli 559 192 97 52 900 21 16 10 4 51 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.06 Ramechhap 474 171 86 40 771 17 5 2 0 24 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03 Kavrepalanchok 587 228 130 55 1,000 103 78 65 23 269 0.18 0.34 0.50 0.42 0.27 Nuwakot 495 173 97 43 808 25 7 6 1 39 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.05 Dhading 598 203 118 47 966 36 24 17 4 81 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.08 Makwanpur 523 167 85 26 801 70 47 30 8 155 0.13 0.28 0.35 0.31 0.19 Cent. Tarai 3,006 831 415 247 4,499 337 206 165 97 805 0.11 0.25 0.40 0.39 0.18 Dhanusha 338 107 56 37 538 48 15 12 22 97 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.59 0.18 Mahottari 382 120 61 36 599 29 7 4 4 44 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.07 Sarlahi 727 128 59 40 954 14 13 12 13 52 0.02 0.10 0.20 0.33 0.05 Rautahat 463 123 65 33 684 21 8 4 4 37 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.05 Bara 402 112 47 39 600 14 12 9 7 42 0.03 0.11 0.19 0.18 0.07 Parsa 308 75 30 18 431 76 34 25 13 148 0.25 0.45 0.83 0.72 0.34 Chitwan 386 166 97 44 693 135 117 99 34 385 0.35 0.70 1.02 0.77 0.56 Valley 634 402 250 110 1,396 1,446 1,190 967 308 3,911 2.28 2.96 3.87 2.80 2.80 Lalitpur 207 105 64 38 414 252 213 190 63 718 1.22 2.03 2.97 1.66 1.73 Bhaktapur 130 91 26 14 261 193 164 131 40 528 1.48 1.80 5.04 2.86 2.02 Kathmandu 297 206 160 58 721 1,001 813 646 205 2,665 3.37 3.95 4.04 3.53 3.70 Western dev. reg. 6,399 2,233 1,316 614 10,562 1,131 777 529 187 2,624 0.18 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.25

45 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Schools % Public Private Private

10) 12) 12) 8) 8) - - - -

1- 5) 1- 5) 1- 5)

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 6 (Grade 6 (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9- 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 (Grade 11 (Grade (Grade 9 - (Grade Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Total Total Total

West. mountain 92 34 11 4 141 10 2 1 0 13 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.09 Manang 31 18 4 2 55 1 0 0 0 1 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Mustang 61 16 7 2 86 9 2 1 0 12 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.14 West. Hill 4,923 1,645 1,021 476 8,065 719 471 305 111 1,606 0.15 0.29 0.30 0.23 0.20 Gorkha 518 167 96 49 830 34 16 5 2 57 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.07 Lamjung 384 105 73 22 584 38 27 12 6 83 0.10 0.26 0.16 0.27 0.14 Tanahu 533 175 106 44 858 105 74 36 15 230 0.20 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.27 Syangja 542 181 126 73 922 85 55 34 12 186 0.16 0.30 0.27 0.16 0.20 Kaski 427 157 108 54 746 200 181 150 51 582 0.47 1.15 1.39 0.94 0.78 Myagdi 245 93 54 18 410 27 15 7 3 52 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.13 Parbat 340 110 76 33 559 27 10 6 2 45 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.08 Baglung 525 175 102 49 851 66 37 18 9 130 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.15 Gulmi 554 175 113 49 891 56 22 14 2 94 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.11 Palpa 449 187 99 55 790 44 24 13 7 88 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 Arghakhanchi 406 120 68 30 624 37 10 10 2 59 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.09 West. Tarai 1,384 554 284 134 2,356 402 304 223 76 1,005 0.29 0.55 0.79 0.57 0.43 Nawalparasi 526 220 114 55 915 164 117 69 33 383 0.31 0.53 0.61 0.60 0.42 Rupandehi 393 199 106 47 745 194 153 125 35 507 0.49 0.77 1.18 0.74 0.68 Kapilbastu 465 135 64 32 696 44 34 29 8 115 0.09 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.17 Mid western dev. reg. 4,810 1,712 818 314 7,654 442 234 145 52 873 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.11 Mid west. mountain 813 278 135 46 1,272 26 9 5 1 41 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 Dolpa 114 29 14 4 161 4 0 0 0 4 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Jumla 149 62 30 11 252 6 2 1 1 10 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.04

46 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Schools % Public Private Private

10) 12) 12) 8) 8) - - - -

1- 5) 1- 5) 1- 5)

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 6 (Grade 6 (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9- 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 (Grade 11 (Grade (Grade 9 - (Grade Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Total Total Total

Kalikot 281 105 51 17 454 5 3 1 0 9 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 Mugu 142 39 22 9 212 9 3 3 0 15 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.07 Humla 127 43 18 5 193 2 1 0 0 3 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Mid west. Hill 2,995 1,034 473 173 4,675 133 51 23 9 216 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Pyuthan 350 108 55 17 530 21 6 2 0 29 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.05 Rolpa 395 140 52 11 598 27 4 3 0 34 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.06 Rukum 370 134 69 28 601 13 2 0 1 16 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 Salyan 446 151 72 19 688 6 5 1 0 12 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 Surkhet 525 173 77 42 817 48 29 15 8 100 0.09 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.12 Dailekh 488 176 85 39 788 16 4 2 0 22 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 Jajarkot 421 152 63 17 653 2 1 0 0 3 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mid west. tarai 1,002 400 210 95 1,707 283 174 117 42 616 0.28 0.44 0.56 0.44 0.36 Dang 383 153 75 34 645 122 67 48 20 257 0.32 0.44 0.64 0.59 0.40 Banke 329 121 71 29 550 102 79 54 19 254 0.31 0.65 0.76 0.66 0.46 Bardiya 290 126 64 32 512 59 28 15 3 105 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.21 Far western dev. reg. 3,444 1,450 718 316 5,928 337 163 95 44 639 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.11 Far west. mountain 1,029 377 183 75 1,664 38 11 2 1 52 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 Bajura 243 104 50 16 413 16 4 2 0 22 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.05 Bajhang 443 150 73 34 700 11 3 0 1 15 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.02 Darchula 343 123 60 25 551 11 4 0 0 15 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 Far west. Hill 1,635 634 316 132 2,717 57 24 8 7 96 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 Achham 487 167 85 29 768 13 4 0 1 18 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.02 Doti 371 139 65 29 604 9 3 3 3 18 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.03

47 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Schools % Public Private Private

10) 12) 12) 8) 8) - - - -

1- 5) 1- 5) 1- 5)

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 6 (Grade 6 (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9- 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 (Grade 11 (Grade (Grade 9 - (Grade Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Primary (Grade (Grade Primary Total Total Total

Dadeldhura 241 114 59 29 443 20 11 4 2 37 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.08 Baitadi 536 214 107 45 902 15 6 1 1 23 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 Far west. tarai 780 439 219 109 1,547 242 128 85 36 491 0.31 0.29 0.39 0.33 0.32 Kailali 508 272 109 61 950 91 52 34 20 197 0.18 0.19 0.31 0.33 0.21 Kanchanpur 272 167 110 48 597 151 76 51 16 294 0.56 0.46 0.46 0.33 0.49

48 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Teachers % Public Private Private C/I

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade Total Total Total

Total 131,671 34400 22825 13698 202,594 42,043 14448 12850 3747 73,088 0.32 0.42 0.56 0.27 0.36 Eastern dev. reg. 29,202 7840 5058 2361 44,461 6,960 1850 1620 306 10,736 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.13 0.24 East. mountain 4,271 1080 657 282 6,290 274 65 33 0 372 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.06 Taplejung 1,573 432 227 118 2,350 73 11 5 0 89 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.04 Sankhuwasabha 1,573 414 266 120 2,373 167 54 28 0 249 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.10 Solukhumbu 1,125 234 164 44 1,567 34 0 0 0 34 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 East. hill 13,161 3642 2180 1127 20,110 1,462 186 143 23 1,814 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.09 Panchthar 2,118 567 338 114 3,137 146 12 3 0 161 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.05 Ilam 2,077 616 348 190 3,231 306 82 53 23 464 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.14 Dhankuta 1,268 384 255 102 2,009 183 28 41 0 252 0.14 0.07 0.16 0.00 0.13 Terhathum 1,030 270 173 140 1,613 111 27 13 0 151 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.09 Bhojpur 1,616 386 254 104 2,360 110 0 2 0 112 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 Okhaldhunga 1,410 396 235 66 2,107 130 15 20 0 165 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.08 Khotang 1,751 508 293 209 2,761 196 8 7 0 211 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.08 Udayapur 1,891 515 284 202 2,892 280 14 4 0 298 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.10 East. tarai 11,770 3118 2221 952 18,061 5,224 1599 1444 283 8,550 0.44 0.51 0.65 0.30 0.47 Jhapa 2,684 878 585 287 4,434 3,289 1201 1130 137 5,757 1.23 1.37 1.93 0.48 1.30 Morang 2,932 789 556 219 4,496 643 128 85 23 879 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.20 Sunsari 2,264 680 462 250 3,656 1,014 210 202 38 1,464 0.45 0.31 0.44 0.15 0.40 Saptari 1,907 451 322 105 2,785 119 35 13 21 188 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.20 0.07 Siraha 1,983 320 296 91 2,690 159 25 14 64 262 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.70 0.10 Central dev. reg. 36,655 9431 6796 4256 57,138 16,426 8114 7055 1976 33,571 0.45 0.86 1.04 0.46 0.59 Cent. mountain 4,617 1096 776 458 6,947 418 113 81 16 628 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.09 Dolakha 1,876 405 309 204 2,794 242 81 49 0 372 0.13 0.20 0.16 0.00 0.13 Sindhupalchok 2,304 594 402 231 3,531 117 21 22 16 176 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.05

49 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Teachers % Public Private Private C/I

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade Total Total Total

Rasuwa 437 97 65 23 622 59 11 10 0 80 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.00 0.13 Cent. hill 14,079 3603 2212 1281 21,175 3,386 1003 1200 211 5,800 0.24 0.28 0.54 0.16 0.27 Sindhuli 2,260 607 383 178 3,428 365 26 19 0 410 0.16 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.12 Ramechhap 1,813 562 316 103 2,794 197 16 11 0 224 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.08 Kavrepalanchok 2,801 820 517 316 4,454 1,510 649 839 128 3,126 0.54 0.79 1.62 0.41 0.70 Nuwakot 1,739 393 268 214 2,614 153 30 16 0 199 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.08 Dhading 2,927 640 377 215 4,159 259 86 92 51 488 0.09 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.12 Makwanpur 2,539 581 351 255 3,726 902 196 223 32 1,353 0.36 0.34 0.64 0.13 0.36 Cent. tarai 13,490 2695 2029 1772 19,986 2,546 952 691 323 4,512 0.19 0.35 0.34 0.18 0.23 Dhanusha 1,822 339 349 227 2,737 76 3 0 34 113 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.04 Mahottari 1,614 300 271 329 2,514 265 10 6 6 287 0.16 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.11 Sarlahi 2,113 415 262 207 2,997 20 11 2 34 67 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.16 0.02 Rautahat 1,635 257 238 125 2,255 207 23 27 19 276 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.12 Bara 2,151 356 241 295 3,043 125 18 2 37 182 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.06 Parsa 1,877 366 234 351 2,828 220 20 40 174 454 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.50 0.16 Chitwan 2,278 662 434 238 3,612 1,633 867 614 19 3,133 0.72 1.31 1.41 0.08 0.87 Valley 4,469 2037 1779 745 9,030 10,076 6046 5083 1426 22,631 2.25 2.97 2.86 1.91 2.51 Lalitpur 1,185 389 331 233 2,138 2,089 1244 1093 546 4,972 1.76 3.20 3.30 2.34 2.33 Bhaktapur 1,071 357 304 418 2,150 1,678 818 913 165 3,574 1.57 2.29 3.00 0.39 1.66 Kathmandu 2,213 1291 1144 94 4,742 6,309 3984 3077 715 14,085 2.85 3.09 2.69 7.61 2.97 Western dev. reg. 31,166 8096 5710 3789 48,761 11,188 3458 3347 1169 19,162 0.36 0.43 0.59 0.31 0.39 West. mountain 409 95 71 42 617 94 11 7 0 112 0.23 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.18 Manang 139 41 22 16 218 5 0 0 0 5 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Mustang 270 54 49 26 399 89 11 7 0 107 0.33 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.27 West. hill 22,749 5955 4299 2873 35,876 6,841 1931 1792 918 11,482 0.30 0.32 0.42 0.32 0.32

50 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Teachers % Public Private Private C/I

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade Total Total Total

Gorkha 2,161 574 370 275 3,380 315 45 20 9 389 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.12 Lamjung 1,886 404 287 165 2,742 408 105 70 19 602 0.22 0.26 0.24 0.12 0.22 Tanahu 2,034 603 440 248 3,325 1,019 258 219 35 1,531 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.14 0.46 Syangja 2,573 757 529 472 4,331 908 298 253 193 1,652 0.35 0.39 0.48 0.41 0.38 Kaski 2,277 683 589 519 4,068 2,150 841 936 602 4,529 0.94 1.23 1.59 1.16 1.11 Myagdi 1,030 285 175 35 1,525 80 0 0 12 92 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.06 Parbat 1,621 471 352 209 2,653 227 25 6 0 258 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.10 Baglung 2,397 549 395 159 3,500 558 110 78 9 755 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.22 Gulmi 2,613 594 441 372 4,020 403 106 81 0 590 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.15 Palpa 2,497 705 439 290 3,931 558 127 97 10 792 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.03 0.20 Arghakhanchi 1,660 330 282 129 2,401 215 16 32 29 292 0.13 0.05 0.11 0.22 0.12 West. tarai 8,008 2046 1340 874 12,268 4,253 1516 1548 251 7,568 0.53 0.74 1.16 0.29 0.62 Nawalparasi 2,745 767 429 454 4,395 1,344 352 321 90 2,107 0.49 0.46 0.75 0.20 0.48 Rupandehi 3,185 898 618 281 4,982 2,040 1001 1038 20 4,099 0.64 1.11 1.68 0.07 0.82 Kapilbastu 2,078 381 293 139 2,891 869 163 189 141 1,362 0.42 0.43 0.65 1.01 0.47 Mid western dev. 19,386 28,077 3,751 5,368 reg. 4604 2705 1382 732 684 201 0.19 0.16 0.25 0.15 0.19 Mid west. 3,481 5,100 214 232 mountain 730 470 419 9 9 0 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 Dolpa 479 74 74 88 715 8 0 0 0 8 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Jumla 796 162 124 34 1,116 7 0 0 0 7 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Kalikot 1,320 278 157 264 2,019 130 0 0 0 130 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Mugu 453 101 56 19 629 54 9 9 0 72 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.00 0.11 Humla 433 115 59 14 621 15 0 0 0 15 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Mid west. hill 10,149 2348 1328 408 14,233 1,298 149 77 19 1,543 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.11 Pyuthan 1,619 326 230 53 2,228 160 39 7 0 206 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.09

51 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Teachers % Public Private Private C/I

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 1 - 5) (Grade (Grade 6 - 8) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 9 - 10) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade (Grade 11 - 12) (Grade Total Total Total

Rolpa 1,536 396 153 21 2,106 141 9 13 0 163 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.08 Rukum 1,109 279 176 18 1,582 21 11 0 0 32 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 Salyan 1,323 203 153 74 1,753 154 0 0 0 154 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Surkhet 1,945 564 282 141 2,932 385 86 47 19 537 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.18 Dailekh 1,503 309 215 85 2,112 286 4 10 0 300 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.14 Jajarkot 1,114 271 119 16 1,520 151 0 0 0 151 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 Mid west. tarai 5,756 1526 907 555 8,744 2,239 574 598 182 3,593 0.39 0.38 0.66 0.33 0.41 Dang 2,194 646 363 232 3,435 1,012 165 235 95 1,507 0.46 0.26 0.65 0.41 0.44 Banke 1,800 394 272 114 2,580 764 305 310 67 1,446 0.42 0.77 1.14 0.59 0.56 Bardiya 1,762 486 272 209 2,729 463 104 53 20 640 0.26 0.21 0.19 0.10 0.23 Far western dev. 15,262 24,157 3,718 4,251 reg. 4429 2556 1910 294 144 95 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.18 Far west. 4,746 7,052 492 543 mountain 1241 690 375 44 7 0 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.08 Bajura 1,532 376 177 153 2,238 60 8 6 0 74 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.03 Bajhang 2,013 481 305 126 2,925 287 17 1 0 305 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 Darchula 1,201 384 208 96 1,889 145 19 0 0 164 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.09 Far west. hill 6,814 1939 1160 857 10,770 929 68 37 5 1,039 0.14 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.10 Achham 2,320 518 325 97 3,260 124 7 1 1 133 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 Doti 1,483 438 232 530 2,683 300 29 29 0 358 0.20 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.13 Dadeldhura 1,228 386 270 86 1,970 138 32 7 4 181 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.09 Baitadi 1,783 597 333 144 2,857 367 0 0 0 367 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Far west. tarai 3,702 1249 706 678 6,335 2,297 182 100 90 2,669 0.62 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.42 Kailali 2,054 798 413 308 3,573 1,794 27 30 74 1,925 0.87 0.03 0.07 0.24 0.54 Kanchanpur 1,648 451 293 370 2,762 503 155 70 16 744 0.31 0.34 0.24 0.04 0.27

52 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Annex E. Additional International Nongovernmental Organizations Assisting with Education Efforts in Nepal

(Extracted from the Association of INGOs in Nepal) (Source: http://www.ain.org.np/member_ingos.php)

Member INGOS ORGANIZATION NAME & POSITION SECTOR LOGO

Education, Woman, Food and Bimal Phnuyal Land, Health, Local Democracy, ActionAid Nepal Country Director Conflict Management and Peace Sweta Pradhan Building

Health, Education, Economic Development, Good Governance & Emergency Management, Simon Lewis Agriculture, Environment, Country Director ADRA/Nepal Woman/Gender, Children, Ethnic Bidya Mahat Minorities, Saving/Credit/ Micro Program Director finance, Institutional development, Social Mobilization, Livelihood, Water & Sanitation

Aide et Action Babu Ram Neupane International Representative Women, Children & Education Nepal

Bonnie Ellison Ama Foundation Country Director Children & Education

Tulasa Kharel AMICI DEI Country Coordinator Children BAMBINI

Clemens Spiess AWO Country Director Community Development International Rejina Joshi Shrestha Project Officer

BBC World Christian Clark Service Trust Country Director Media for Development Sanepa, Lalitpur

Nepal

Woman Empowerment, Natural Lex Kassenberg Resource Management and CARE Nepal Country Director Livelihood, Social Justice and

Equality

53 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

ORGANIZATION NAME & POSITION SECTOR LOGO

Silvana Mehra Health, Education, Livelihood, CBM Regional Director Social Empowerment & Advocacy

Chanda Rai Education, Health, Child CCS Italy Country Director Protection SC Member

Regional Economic Development & Food Security, Promotion & Hari Bastola Strengthening of Civil Society Interim Country Org., Equality between Woman & CECI Representative Men & Social Inclusion, Rajendra Khadga Community Health, Democracy & Regional Admin Director Good Governance, International Volunteer Cooperation, Humanitarian Assistance,

Family Planning & Adolescent Ramrajya Joshi Sexual & Reproductive Health, CEDPA Project Director Gender & Social Inclusion, Conflict mitigation, Leadership & Empowerment of Woman & Girls

Mariko Tanaka Child Fund Japan Country Director Health, Education

Jean Christophe Ryckmans Child Protection Country Director Centers and Children Arjun M Bhattarai Services/CPCS Deputy Country Director

Douglas Maclagan CWS (Child Education, Health, Child Operations Director Welfare Scheme) Protection

Safe Migration & Anti Human Nina Ellinger Trafficking, Disaster Risk Dan Church Regional Representative Reduction, Dalit Social-Economic Aid/DCA Govinda Neupane Empowerment & Food Security, Funding Officer Nepal Refugee Support

Agriculture, Health & Education, Phinjo Sherpa Natural Resource Management, Eco Himal Country Director Promotion of Alternative Energy,

Eco Tourism Development

Agriculture, Education, Meera M. Singh Rana Educate The Food/Nutrition ,Health, Micro- Country Director Children Finance, Saving-Credit, Woman &

Gender

54 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

ORGANIZATION NAME & POSITION SECTOR LOGO

Dilli Raj Binadi Enfants & Child Protection, Human Rights, Acting Head of Mission Development Education

Michael Bosse Media (including radio), Health, Equal Access Program Director Education, Agriculture, Economic International Bharat Mani Devkota Development, Gender, Executive Director Democracy & Governance

Satish Raj Pandey Health, HIV/AIDS, Children, Country Director Institutional Development, FHI360 Nepal Dale Davis Research, Policy Making, Dy. Director Capacity Building

Paivi Leppanen Education, Community Health Fida International Country Director Education, HIV/AIDS, Disability, Nepal Prem Dangi Chhetri Youth Work, Culture Program Coordinator Empowerment, Housing

Finnish Markus Ilomaki Community Development, Food Evangelical Regional Development Security, Health, Water Lutheran Coordinator Sanitation, Disability, Mental Mission/FELM Health, Education & Peace

Kamal Rupakheti Public Health, Education, Social German Nepalese Representative Relief, Environment & Help Infrastructure

Sung Hoon Ko Good Neighbors Country Director Education, Income Generation International Bimal Bist Executive Director

Puja Singh Community Development, Heifer Project Communications & Environment, Social Mobilization, International Networking Officer Agriculture & Literacy [email protected]

Shiva Aryal Infrastructure in Rural Area, Country Programme Sustainable Use of Natural Helvetas Nepal Director recourse, Education & Culture , Civil Society & State

Micah Shristi Agriculture, HIV/AIDS, Peace, Mennonite Central Program Administrator Children's Education, Disaster Committee Response, Water

55 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

ORGANIZATION NAME & POSITION SECTOR LOGO

Nutritional Rehabilitation-child health , Education, Human Mr. Som Paneru Nepal Youth Rights- Child Protection, Executive Director Foundation/NYF Children's Home, Skill Training,

Counseling -Psycho-social & Career

Martin Punaks Next Generation Child Welfare, Trafficking, Country Director Nepal Reunification & Education

Public Health, Basic Livelihood Support, Disaster Risk Reduction,& Humanitarian Preparedness, Advocacy, Scott Faiia Campaigns, Critical Issues Oxfam GB Country Director Support Program, Empower

Communities, Women Empowerment, Climate Change, Governance, Poverty, Inequality Issues of Marginal

AS Panneerselvan Regional Director Media Development & Panos South Asia Damakant Jayshi Communication for Development Country Representative

Health & Nutrition, Water & Environment Sanitation, Child Donal Keane Development & Learning, Plan Nepal Country Director Household Economic Security, Child Protection & Participation, Building Relationship & Development Education

Ravindra Shakya Restless Health, Education, Livelihood, Country Director Development Environment

Pushkar Shrestha Room to Read Country Director Education

Sanjana Shrestha Country Director (Nepal Rural Education Country Office) Community Library & Resource And Development Tina Sciabica Centre (READ) Nepal Executive Director (READ Global - Head Office US)

Child Rights Governance, Child Brian Hunter Protection, Education, Health & Save the Children Country Director Nutrition, Youth & Livelihood, HIV/AIDS & Emergency & Disaster Management

Willem Becker Education, Shelter, Medical Care Shangrila Home Country Representative for Underprivileged Children & Adolescents

56 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

ORGANIZATION NAME & POSITION SECTOR LOGO

Disaster Preparedness, Child Toshio Shirahata Rights Protection, Non-formal Shapla Neer Representative Education, Gender/ Social Inclusion, Livelihood Promotion, Fair Trade

Sponsorship for Education, Alize Gutierrez SolHimal France Community Development, Country Director Nepal Solidarity Work Camps, Local

Project

Caroline Scheffer Stichting Country Representative Veldwerk, the Women & Child Development Santosh Basyal Netherlands Program Manager

Disability (community-based Jason Squire Terre des rehabilitation), Nutrition, Anti- Country Representative Hommes trafficking, Psychosocial Support,

Child Protection & Others

Ben Ayers Increase Prosperity of The DZi Country Director Underserved Communities & Foundation Individuals in Remote Himalaya

Pralhad Kumar Holistic Community Development The ISIS Dhakal in Humla, Child Protection & Foundation Nepal Country Manager Development, Child Repatriation, Education, Primary Health

The Nepalese Nirmala Adhikari Health, Education and Livelihood Children's Program Director Rights, Especially Women, Dalit, Foundation and Marginalized Groups

Shane Cogan The Umbrella Child Care, Education, Health, Country Director Foundation Protection

Education, Health, Peace building Mark Galpin and Sustainable Livelihoods, United Mission to Executive Director Achieved through Capacity Nepal Building, Advocacy, and Integral Mission

Arlene Mahinay Country Director Education, Governance & VSO Nepal Khadaga Pandey HIV/AIDS Prog Support Manager

57 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

ORGANIZATION NAME & POSITION SECTOR LOGO

Chij Kumar Shrestha Child Labor & Trafficking, Heath Vice President/Country Education, Non-formal Education, World Education Director Vocational Education & Quality Education

Dr. Shibesh C. Regmi Sustainable Agriculture & Rural South Asia livelihood, Community-Based World Neighbours Representative Natural Resources Management, Gopal Nakarmi Community & Reproductive Program Coordinator Health, Gender, Capacity Building

Maternal Child Health & Nutrition, World Vision Michael Frank Education, Livelihood, Water International Country Director Sanitation & Hygiene Nepal (WASH),HIV/ AIDS

Local NGOs Working in Education

Backward Society Education (BASE) – BASE has partnered with Save the Children to assist with their efforts to implement the Literacy Boost program in Kailali. “The mission of BASE is to provide socioeconomic, human resource, child labor reduction, and emergency relief. The goals of BASE are to 1) ensure the rights of deprived communities; 2) improve the economic status of freed Kamaiyas and deprived people; 3) promote government's accountability towards the indigenous and marginalized people; 4) ensure quality of formal and non-formal education for all; 5) protect and promote the traditional culture and natural environment; 6) improve the organizational capacity for its long team sustainability; and 7) improve community health. Their education portfolio includes work in school enrollment campaigns, early childhood development and education, establishment and support for community based child development centers, implementing activities to support the Child Friendly School initiative, provision of scholarship support, infrastructure and education materials to primary schools by training early grade teachers, implementing Building Peace and Democracy through Education, support for non-formal education, adult literacy classes, parents’ education, teacher training, library support, and an awareness campaign to create awareness among the parents, school committee members, and teachers about the government's education policy.”xli Backwardness Eradication Society (BES, Palpa) – BES is a nonprofit organization established in Palpa that has supported various programs in education in partnership with Room to Read, Save the Children, and the Government of Nepal. Through their Reading Room Program, BES has worked with Room to Read since 2008. Through this program, 111 libraries have been established in Palpa to enhance the quality of education. The libraries provide reference materials to teachers and adequate books for students and library members to broaden the knowledge and skills. BES launched a basic education program in partnership with Save the Children in the Nawaparasi district in 2009. The program focuses on increasing learning in primary education and covers 10 VDCs of Nawalparasi, four in hilly areas and six in terai areas. The program aims to enhance learners’ physical safety, learners’ psychological and emotional well-being, effective teaching, and community participation. With financial support from Save the Children, BES started work in the Learning Environment for Early Year Children Project to promote quality in education focusing on 3-4 year old children. This program operates in more than 39 VDCs of Nawalparasi district to 1) improve the quality of ECD centers; 2) develop 3-5 year old children’s physical, mental, emotional, and social behavior; and 3) develop the quality of education through ECD experiences. BES has also worked with the Local Governance and Community Development Program (LGCDP); a national program managed and implemented by the Ministry of Local Development (MOLD), and financed by the Government of Nepal and its development partners (DPs). LGCDP works to reduce

58 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

poverty in Nepal through more inclusive local governance and service delivery. LGCDP operates in over 75 districts, 58 municipalities and 3,015 VDCs of Nepal through DDCs, municipality and VDCs by local developmental and local NGOs. BES- Nepal is one of the local service providers of this program at Palpa. This program has been implemented in four VDCs of Palpa under the Memorandum of Understanding between DDC Palpa and BES- Nepal since November 29, 2011.xlii Child, Health and Environment Save Society (CHESS Nepal) - Child Health and Environment Save Society Nepal (CHESS Nepal) is a not for profit and NGO based in Besisahar, Lamjung District, Nepal, with offices also in Kathmandu and Pokhara. It was established in 1998 and is currently focusing on western Nepal, addresses concerns on children's rights, health, education, environment, awareness raising, and income generation. CHESS Nepal considers social mobilization the key to community development and believes that the sustainability of future generations and children are the key to the future. The organization is affiliated with the Social Welfare Council under the Ministry of Women and Children. One of their notable projects is coffee promotion in Nepal.xliii Educate the Children – Educate the Children is a non-profit in Nepal “that builds self-reliance in Dalit and Janajati communities by ensuring quality education for children and adults through programs that build awareness and foster sustainable improvements in standards of living. ETC works with public schools to establish kindergarten classes including training teachers in age-appropriate pedagogy, to provide scholarships to the children of poor and marginalized communities, to improve school buildings and facilities, and to provide diverse training opportunities for teachers.”xliv Fulvari Integrated Rural Development Organization (FIRDO) – FIRDO has partnered with Room to Read to assist in implementing their programs in Nepal.xlv “[FIRDO] is a nonprofit, nongovernmental social development organization founded by social activist, active youth group. Its main aim is to establish [a] self-help society. Fulvari's main focus groups are untouchable group, ethnic group, women, and disadvantaged group. FIRDO has been working since 1993 in community development activities, poverty alleviation, capacity development, women’s empowerment, social mobilization, income generation activities as well as technology transformation, saving & credit cooperative & agricultural cooperative establishment, focused [on] rural populations.”xlvi Gaja Yuba Club (GYC) – “Gaja Youth Club (GYC) was established in 1994 (2050 BS) as a non- governmental organization with the District Administration Office of Baglung district. The organization was established with the purpose of creating a cultured, civilized and well governed society. It also aimed to eradicate the backwardness, evil doings by the youth of the community, minimizing prevailed injustice in the society, poverty alleviation, and eradication of illiteracy and to encouraging people to contribute in the process of development. The goal of the GYC is to improve the economic and social status of the target communities through raising awareness, increase in access to education and optimum utilization of resources. Their six areas of intervention are 1) income generation and entrepreneurship development; 2) education and health improvements; 3) human rights and good governance; 4) infrastructure development; 5) disaster management; and 6) peace and rehabilitation. Their target populations include marginalized communities, women, ethnic groups, Dalits, the disabled, disaster stricken people, conflict affected people and children.”xlvii Manabiya Srot Bikas Kendra Nepal (MSBK) - “Manabiya Srot Bikas Kendra Nepal (MSBK-Nepal) is an NGO working in Nepal with the vision of ideal society building with effective mechanism to bring up human potentialities. Its main objective is to enhance capacities of the grass root NGOs and communities for the empowerment of disadvantaged section of the society. Currently MSBK-Nepal is working in 10 districts of Western Development Region in the areas of education, good governance, peace building, youth leadership development, ICT and capacity building.”xlviii Nepal Education Support Trust (NEST) –“Nepal Educational Support Trust (NEST) is a registered non - profit making, non-government voluntary organization established in 2000 with a vision of a future in which all people have equal access to basic education and resources which are necessary to their personal and professional growth, and they get equal opportunities to realize their potential. Their goal is to provide educational opportunities for 2000 of the most disadvantaged children (girls,

59 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Dalit, children with different abilities, ethnic groups) by 2015. Currently, NEST runs a non-profit lower secondary school, supports a technical school, and has been working with community schools to set up school libraries.”xlix “NEST co-ordinates with the District Education Office, Makawanpur and involves all major stakeholders (students, parents, school management committees, local community organizations, teachers, head teachers and government officials) in developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluation of its programmes. NEST is working with 150 community schools of Makawanpur districts to improve the quality of education. NEST’s programmes directly contribute to achieving the District Education Plans which ultimately lead towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals and Education for All goals.”l Nepalese Society for Children's Literature (NESCHIL) – “The Nepalese Society for Children's Literature (NESCHIL) is working as a National Section of the International Board on Books for Young People (IBBY), which is a non-profit organization representing an international network of people from all over the world who are committed to bringing books and children together. NESCHIL was established in 1987 with a view to promote children’s literature and reading activities in Nepal bringing together the writers, illustrators, editors of children’s books as well as publishers, librarians, teachers, and experts in children’s activities. NESCHIL organizes conferences, seminars, symposiums, workshops and lecture programmes, carries out research activities in children’s books and reading, publishes journals and newsletters to disseminate knowledge and information about children's books and reading, encourage writers, illustrators, translators and editors for the promotion of children's books and reading, organizes competition programmes for writers and illustrators of children’s books and honors writers, illustrators, translators, editors and publishers as well as the individuals for their outstanding contributions in the field of children’s literature, promotes co- operation among the national and international organizations engaged in the development of children's book and reading, and establishes children’s libraries and reading centres for children in the country.”li PRAYASH – “Prayatnashil Community Development Society (PRAYAS-Nepal) is a registered non- governmental and non-profit making non-religious service oriented district level organization. Prayash Nepal has a partnership with Room to Read and their Library Management and Reading Skill Program that seeks to address illiteracy by establishing children’s libraries in community schools where poverty, ethnicity, or other social and cultural barriers put children at a significant educational disadvantage. The program’s major objective is to increase access and use of library resources for school and/or community members, increase literacy awareness in schools and/or communities and integrate library resources into children’s learning environments and support sustainable Reading Rooms by improving school administration, librarian, and/or teacher capacity to ensure the libraries are well run.”lii Through their partnership with Room to Read they work in 38 VDCs in the Dhading district and 125 primary, lower secondary, secondary, and higher secondary schools. Their organizational efforts also focus on “improving income generation of poor marginalized, Dalit and deprived groups, empowering children in Dhading District through a Centered Community Development approach where children are heard, protected, and given opportunity for their development free from any type of discrimination (gender, caste etc.), or threats to survival and are able to attain their full potential, addressing key gaps in existing child labor in Dhading District through the New Path New Steps program, enabling young people to get into action to stop HIV and positive choices through the Dance4Life program, and implementing the Local Governance and Community Development Program, in partnership with District Development Committee Dhading, which empowers citizens and communities for active engagement with local governments and strengthening downward accountability, and Capacity Development of local governments for effective service delivery.”liii Vijaya Development Resource Centre (VDRC) – VDRC is a national NGO supporting Room to Read program efforts. “Vijaya Development Resource Centre (VDRC- Nepal), initially known as Vijaya Youth Club, is a non-profit member-based social development organization. It has been working in the community development sector for the last 30 years with a vision of building a self-reliant society. Established as a local self-help group in 1979, it is now recognized as a national level NGO with

60 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report multidisciplinary human resources and has successfully completed a number of community development projects across the country that have made a significant contribution in bringing positive changes through a people-centered development approach. VDRC takes a holistic community development model [that] can be applied for sustainable livelihoods in rural areas.”liv

61 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Annex F. EMIS Data Collection Forms

Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4

62 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Annex G. List of References and Endnotes Asian Development Bank [ADB]. (2005). Gender equality results in ADB projects (Nepal Country Report). Nepal: ADB.

ADB. (2009, August). Proposed Asian Development Fund Grant and Loan for Subprogram III Nepal: Education Sector Program. Report and recommendation of the president to the board of directors.

ADB. (2010). Economic Update. Retrieved from http://www2.adb.org/Documents/Economic_Updates/NEP/eco-update-sep10.pdf.

ADB. (2011, October). Proposed policy-based grant and technical assistance grant Nepal: School Sector Program. Report and recommendation of the president to the board of directors.

ADB. (n.d.). Development Coordination. Retrieved from http://www2.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/NEP/35174/35174-082-nep-efa.pdf.

ADB. (n.d.). Economic and Financial Analysis (Summary). Retrieved from http://www2.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/NEP/35174/35174-082-nep-efa.pdf.

ADB. (n.d.). Education Sector Program, Subprogram III Design and Monitoring Framework. Retrieved from http://www2.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/NEP/35174/35174-082-nep-oth-09.pdf

ADB. (n.d.). Gender and Vulnerable Communities Action Plan (Full). Retrieved from http://www2.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/NEP/35174/35174-082-nep-oth-05.pdf

ADB. (n.d.). Governance Risk Assessment and Management Plan. Retrieved from http://www2.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/NEP/35174/35174-082-nep-oth-06.pdf

ADB. (n.d.). Linkages between Education Sector Program, Subprogram III and School Sector Program. Retrieved from http://www2.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/NEP/35174/35174-082-nep- oth-08.pdf

Agreed Actions at the Mid-Term Review Mission (Draft). (n.d.). USAID/Nepal.

Belbase, L. N, Pande, B. D., Dr. Lohani, S. R., Suwal, R., Lekhak, H. R., Upadhyay, U. P., … Joshi, P. R. (n.d.) Improving Local Service Delivery for the MDGs in Asia: Education Sector in Nepal. Nepal: The Foundation for Human Development and Research Inputs and Development Action.

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2010). A study of integration of local contents in school curricula. Submitted to Ministry of Education, Curriculum Development Centre, Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author.

Center for Policy Research and Consultancy. (2004). A study of Action Aid Nepal’s education programs for accountability, mobilization, and transformation. Kathmandu, Nepal: Action Aid Nepal: Author.

Curriculum Development Center. (2007). National curriculum framework for school education. Nepal: Author.

63 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Dhakal, G.P. Country report of Nepal presented to Asia and the Pacific, Seminar/Workshop on Educational Technology. Retrieved from: http://gauge.u-gakugei.ac.jp/ 09/2001.

Dhakal, T. (2007). Transfer of school management to communities in Nepal: A participatory management approach for improving results. Kathmandu, Nepal: National Planning Commission.

Danish University of Education, International Program for Education and Development Study and Resource Centre. (2002). Capacity building for educational improvement: An institutional analysis of the Ministry of Education and Sports of Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Education.

DeStefano, J., & Adelman, E. (2010). School quality in Nepal: Using reading fluency and opportunity to learn to evaluate variations in school effectiveness. Education Quality Improvement Program 2 (EQUIP2), Washington, DC: AED.

DFIDN Nepal Operational Plan: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Annex.

Dixit, S. B. (2006). Rethinking Minimum Standards in Public School Education. Retrieved from http://www.rbf.org.np/minimum_standards_eng.pdf.

Dixit, S. B. (2010). Good on Paper. Himal Southasian. Kathmandu, Nepal: The South Asia Trust. Retrieved from http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/30.html.

Dixit, U. (2009, November 15-17). The use of ICT in teacher training: Nepal's experience. Presentation at13th UNESCO-APEID, International Conference on Education and World Bank-KERIS, High Level Seminar on ICT in Education. Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China.

Education Journalist Group. (2007). Public education expenditure tracking in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

Educational Training Centre. (2008). [Brochure].

Education Financing Reference Group. (n.d.) Financing Education in Federal Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Education and Federalism Support Group.

Financial Comptroller General’s Office. (2002). Public Expenditure Tracking Survey - PETS (2001/02). Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

Gove, A., & Cvelich, P. (2011). Early reading: Igniting education for all. Rev. ed. A report by the Early Grade Learning Community of Practice. Research Triangle Park [RTP], NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Government of Nepal. (2012, March). Mid-term evaluation of the School Sector Reform Program, Vol. 1 (Draft). Nepal: Author.

Government of Nepal [GON], Department of Education [DOE]. (2011, June). A study on reliability of educational data of schools (Final Report submitted to DOE). Aasaman Nepal, Sanothimi, Bhaktapur: International Service Providers Company Private Limited.

GON, Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2009). School Sector Reform Plan (2009-2015). Kesharmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal: MOE/GON.

64 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

GON, MOE (2011). School Sector Program (SSP): Vulnerable Community Development Framework. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

GON, DOE, MOE. (2008). Annual strategic implementation plan for 2008/2009. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

GON, DOE, MOE. (2008, June). National assessment of grade 5 students (Final Report). Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author.

GON, DOE, MOE. (2010). National framework of child-friendly schools for quality education. From Nepal Education Act, 2028 (1971). Nepal: Author.

GON, DOE, MOE (2011, July). Role of resource center for improving quality education in schools (Final report). Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author.

GON, MOE, National Centre for Education Development. (2010). Comprehensive research on contribution of teacher training to primary education development in Nepal (Final study report). Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author.

GON, Ministry of Education and Sports [MOES]. (2004). A handbook for primary English teachers (Teachers’ Resource Material). 1st ed. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur: Author.

GON, MOES. (2004b). Joint Financing Arrangement: EFA (2004-2009). Kathmandu, Nepal: MOES/HMG.

GON, MOES. (2007). A glimpse of Ministry of Education and Sports [Research & Education Management section]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

GON, MOES. (2008). Mid-decade assessment of education for all. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

GON, MOES, Curriculum Development Center. (2008). Primary education curriculum. grades 1-3. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author.

GON, MOES, DOE. (2011, November). Flash 1 report 2067 (2010-011). Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author.

GON, MOES, DOE, Research and Information Management Section. (2006). A study on Effectiveness of Primary Teacher Training in Nepal (Final Report). Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Full Bright Consultancy (Pvt.) Ltd.

GON, Ministry of Finance [MOF]. (2010). Economic Survey. Nepal Rastra Bank. Macroeconomic Situation. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.

GON, MOF, Office of the Financial Comptroller General [OFCG]. (2003, June). Report of expenditure tracking survey of primary, lower secondary, and secondary schools. Anamnagar, Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

GON, MOF, OFCG. (2004). Expenditure tracking survey of primary, lower secondary, and secondary schools. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

GON, Ministry of Health and Population, Population Division. (2011, August). Nepal demographics and health survey 2011: Preliminary report (August 2011). Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

GON, Ministry of Law and Justice [MLJ]. (2007). Interim constitution of Nepal,-2063 (2007). Kathmandu: GON. [A translation by UNDP (2008) was published in January 2009]

65 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

GON, MLJ. (2008). Education acts and regulations (Series and compilations). Kathmandu: GON.

GON, Ministry of Local Development [MOLD]. (2004). Decentralization in Nepal retrospect and prospect. A policy paper on decentralization presented at NDF. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

Healey, F. H. & Crouch, L. (2012) (submitted for publication). Decentralization for high quality education: Elements of design. RTP, NC: RTI Press.

Informal Sector Research and Study Centre. (2006). National policies, strategies, action plans, perspective plans. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

National Centre for Educational Development. (2003). [Brochure]

National Planning Commission. (2007). Three-year interim plan (2007/08 to 2009/010). Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

National Planning Commission. (2008). Synopsis of three-year interim plan (2007-2010). Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

N Malla, U. N. (n.d.) Challenges of education data management system of Nepal. Presentation at Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal.

Office of Inspector General. (2010). Audit of USAID/Nepal’s Education for Income Generation Program. Manila, Philippines: Author.

Pandey-em, G. (2012). Literacy instruction program: Room to read. Power point presentation presented at Room to Read, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Parajuli, M. N. (2007). Local governance and education in Nepal. South Asian Journal. 17, 43-55.

Parajuli, M.N. (2008). State decentralisation in Nepal: Problems in school governance. In Pradhan, P. K., Wastl-Walter, D., & Folmar, S. (Eds.), Public policy and local development: Opportunities and challenges (pp.301-316). Kathmandu, Nepal: International Geographical Union, Commission on Geography and Public Policy.

Pherali, T., Smith, A., Vaux, T. (2011). A political economy analysis of education in Nepal. Nepal: European Commission (EC), the UK Department for International Development [DFID], and UNICEF.

Pinto, C. (2010). Impact of Literacy Boost in Kailali, Nepal, 2009-10 (Year 1 Report). Washington, DC: Save the Children.

Pradhan, L. (2011, December). Teacher Education in Nepal. Journal of Educational and Social Research Vol. 1, 5.

Private Schools in the Kathmandu Valley. Briefing based on research undertaken 2005 – 2009. Kathmandu, Nepal: European Commission.

Research Center for Education Innovation and Development. (2005c). Disbursement of block grants (FRP study report 4). Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

Research Inputs and Development Action [RIDA]. (2007). Nepal case study in school education. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

66 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

Room to Read. (2009). Baseline study of the reading ability of grade 2 students in community schools of Nawalparasi, Pyuthan, and Dhading districts of Nepal. Nepal: Room to Read.

School Sector Reform Plan, Joint Mid-Term Review Mission. (2012, March 12–16). Aide Memoire.

Schuh Moore, A-M., DeStefano, J., & Adelman, E. (2010). Using opportunity to learn and early grade reading fluency to measure school effectiveness in Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras and Nepal, USAID: Educational Quality Improvement Program 2. Washington, DC: AED.

Shrestha, D. N., Pinto, D., & Ochoa, C. S. (2010, November 9). Language and early grades literacy acquisition in Nepal. Presented at the International Conference on Language, Education, & the Millennium Development Goals.

Shrestha, G. M., & Joshi, R. D. (2008). Community managed schools in Nepal: Glimpses of transformation. Presentation in New Delhi.

Shrestha, K. N. (2008). Teacher management in Nepal. Journal of Education and Research. Kathmandu: Kathmandu University.

Singh, R. B., & Jensen, K. (2008). Nepal education sector: Planning for results in an unstable setting. In MfDR principles in action: Sourcebook on emerging good practices.

Suwal, R. (2006). A report on a case study in managerial coordination between community schools and district education offices (Technical Review Project). Kathmandu, Nepal: GON, MOES.

Thakur, T. (n.d.) Recent development in multilingual education in Nepal. Linguistic survey of Nepal. Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal (PowerPoint presentation).

Terry, G., & Thapa, N. (2012, January). Gender audit of Nepal’s School Sector Reform Program (Draft, for mid-term review). Commissioned by U.K. Department for International Development [DFID] and Royal Norwegian Embassy [RNE]. Nepal: DFID and RNE.

Tribhuvan University Research Centre for Educational Innovation and Development. (2009). Ensuring free and compulsory basic education for disadvantaged groups in the context of education for all. Balkhu, Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

United Children’s Fund (2003). Examples of inclusive education. Regional Office for South Asia. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2008). Building UNESCO National Education Support Strategy [UNESS] Nepal 2008-2013. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

UNESCO. (2008b). Status of teacher education in the Asia-Pacific Region. International Reading Association.

UNESCO. (2011). Multilingual Education in Nepal: Hearsay and Reality? Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID]. (2007). Gender and inclusion assessment USAID/Nepal. Nepal: USAID.

67 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

USAID/Nepal. (2009). Report on vocations in demand in India, Middle-east and South-east Asia, with focus in the adjoining market centers in India. Kathmandu: EIG Program Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

USAID/Nepal. (n.d.). Education for Income Generation in Nepal Program, Pre-Vocational (Part 1) Literacy. Nepal: Author.

U.S. Department of State, USAID. (2009). Nepal U.S. foreign assistance performance publication, fiscal year 2009. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaux, T., Smith, A., & Subba, S. (2006, March). International alert, Education for All – Nepal: Review from a conflict perspective. Embassy of Finland, Kathmandu, Nepal: Embassy of Finland.

World Bank [WB]. (2007). Project information document: Education for All. Additional Financing. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

World Data on Education, 7th Edition, 2010/11. (2011). UNESCO: IBE.

Yadava Y. (2003). “Language,” in Population Monograph of Nepal 2003, Chapter 4. Central Bureau of Statistics and UNFP, Nepal.

Yadava, Y. (2007, August 22-24). The Linguistic Diversity in Nepal Perspectives on Language Policy. International Seminar on Constitutionalism and Diversity in Nepal CNAS.

i In 2010/11, the share of grants in the total budget was 21.59%, as per budget tables provided by the WB. ii This information on private schools is taken from a briefing note compiled for the UK Department for International Development (DFID) by Richard Thompson, Institute of Education, University of London. The information in Annex D is from the MOE’s Flash I data for 2011/12, the same data set used for the DFID report. iii There have been no local body elections since 2002, so the DDCs have been comprised of people appointed by the multi-party commission. iv There have been no local body elections since 2002, so the VDCs have been comprised of people appointed by the multi-party commission. v ADB, Development Coordination Report. vi ADB, Development Coordination Report. vii ADB, Economic and Financial Analysis (Summary) Report. viii UNESCO (2011), Multilingual Education in Nepal: Hearsay and Reality? ix ADB, Development Coordination Report. x Gove & Cvelich. (2011). xi The exact number of languages cited differs by report, as discussed in Yadava, (2007, August 22-24).. xii According to the 2001 census, approximately 50% of the population spoke Nepali as a mother tongue, while an additional 27% were bilingual, with Nepali as a second language, indicating likely access/exposure in the environment. See Yadava (2003). This has been confirmed in interviews with linguistic experts familiar with the language situation of Nepal. xiii For example, numerous Nepalis now travel to Gulf States for employment, where English is highly valued. xiv When speaking with experts on language in Nepal, figures of 75%-90% were given as the percentage of the population who would be sufficiently exposed to Nepali before beginning school. xv See UNESCO (2011). xvi The National Curriculum Framework for School Education in Nepal, 2007, recognizes this and posits that teaching and learning issues of mother tongue should be considered more important. xvii Nepali is allotted approximately 25% of instructional time overall, and within this reading is allotted between 20% and 25% of time within Nepali instruction, which comes to approximately 6% of instructional time overall. xviii Room to Read and SIL, for example, have worked with local language experts to develop reading materials. xix See for example Pinto, C. (2010). Impact of Literacy Boost in Kailali, Nepal, 2009-10 (Year 1 Report). Washington, DC: Save the Children

68 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

xx See the Ministry of Education publication, “Comprehensive Research on Contribution of Teacher Training to Primary Education Development in Nepal” (2010), for a thorough review of teacher training in Nepal. xxi See the Ministry of Education, School Sector Reform Plan, 2009-2015, August 2009. xxii While students may choose to major in Education at university, this is not a requirement for becoming qualified at the basic or primary level. Secondary level teachers, on the other hand, must have a university degree. Because this study focuses on the basic education level, we examined those teacher education programs pertinent to basic education teachers. xxiii A cluster consists of a set of 20 to 50 basic education schools that feed into the same secondary school. In some instances, the resource center for that cluster may be attached to that secondary school. xxiv The NCED training guidelines that define this approach are used by all the resource centers to plan training each year. xxv All training days are programmed during the school year. Teachers usually miss school on the days they attend the workshop-based portions of their professional development. xxvi Nevertheless, rough calculations show that on overage, there is NR 197,764 per district staff person, which on the surface looks to be a fair amount of money; thus the call for more in-depth financial analysis of the SSRP. xxvii Aide-Memoire, SSRP Joint Mid-Term Review Mission, March 12-16, 2012 xxviii See for example: Department of Education, “FINAL REPORT, National Assessment of Grade-V Students,” 2010; Room to Read, “Baseline study on the reading ability of Grade 2 students of community schools of Nawalparasi, Pyuthan, and Dhading districts of Nepal,” 2009; Save the Children, “Impact of Literacy Boost in Kailali, Nepal 2009-2010, Year 1 Report,” 2010. xxix A key part of this plan is a capital needs assessment—an SSRP mechanism that allows schools to identify their capital needs—classroom construction, major maintenance, etc.—and factors those into the SIP. xxx VDC refers to both a governing body and the political/geographic jurisdiction that body represents. xxxi This money comes from either own source revenue or the Ministry of Local Development. Throughout this document, this money will be referred to as local development money—it is money that flows downward through the MOLD. The rest of the money will be referred to as education money. xxxii The lack of overall fiscal accountability at the school level has prompted the DPs to launch a Public Financial Management Reform Project. xxxiii See http://www.doe.gov.np/index.php?option=download&id=33 xxxiv A “typical” budget for highly effective schools has been used in Egypt to help guide schools there on how best to spend their money. When combined with support on how to transform those expenditures into processes that lead to school achievement, the impact can be powerful. xxxv Whether the GON will have to help pay for taking a reading program to scale will depend on the DPs. There are many one-off costs associated with scale-up that could be paid for by the DPs. Of major concern here are the costs associated with sustaining an early grade reading program once it has gone to scale. These most definitely must be paid for by the GON. xxxvi See Yadava (2003). xxxvii This is important not just for financial accountability purposes, but the information gathered can be used to develop high-early grade reading achievement spending profiles that can be used to help support schools that do not perform as well. xxxviii SSRP is jointly supported by the GON, pool and non-pool DPs, local bodies, and communities. The total cost for the seven-year SSRP period has been estimated at $6.47 billion, of which $2.7 billion is required for FY 2012-FY 2014. The $2.7 billion includes both development (20%) and recurrent expenditures (80%). Key sub- sectors of SSRP are Early Childhood Education and Development; Basic Education (grades 1-8); Secondary Education (grades 9-12); Literacy and Lifelong Learning; and Technical Education and Vocational Training. Basic education receives the largest share of the budget reflecting the high priority with greater focus on ensuring access, enhancing equity, and improving quality. xxxix Children’s learning performance at low primary grades (grades 1-3) must be assessed through the continuous assessment system. However, the continuous assessment system is not being implemented by schools as mandated by the policy. Children’s learning performance is assessed based on the written examinations. It is observed that the linkages between the curriculum and teacher preparedness in terms of continuous assessment system implementation seems weak. xl Mid-term review of SSRP is being conducted. Full report will be available by the time of this assessment. xli Taken from the Backward Society Education website: http://nepalbase.org/education_campaign.php xlii Taken from the Backward Society Education website: http://besnepal.org.np/about-us/ xliii Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHESS_Nepal xliv Taken from the Educate the Children website: http://www.etc-nepal.org/icd.php xlv See Pandey-em, G. (2012).

69 EdData II, Task 15, for USAID/Nepal’s Education Sector Early Grade Reading Assessment Report

xlvi Taken from the FIRDO Facebook website: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fulvari-integrated-rural- devlopment-organization-FIRDOnepal/124525717658528?sk=info xlvii Taken from http://www.consortium.org.np/categorydetail/41/organization-profile-of-gaja-youth-club-gyc- baglung.html xlviii Taken from the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice Blog: http://sites.sandiego.edu/ipj/blog/2008/05/27/reaching-stable-peace/ xlix Taken from http://www.linkedin.com/company/nepal-educational-support-trust-nest- l Taken from the NEST website: http://nestworld.org/about/ li Taken from the International Board on Books for Young People website: (IBBY)http://www.ibby.org/index.php?id=527 lii Taken from the Prayash Nepal website: http://prayashnepal.org.np/running-projects/local-governance-and- community-development-program.html liii Taken from the Prayash Nepal website: http://prayashnepal.org.np/running-projects/local-governance-and- community-development-program.html liv Taken from the VDRC website: http://www.vdrc.org.np/?option=aboutus

70