Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00001025 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IDA-038080 TF-055146) ON A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 3.6 MILLION (US$5.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF NEPAL FOR A COMMUNITY SCHOOL SUPPORT PROJECT March 23, 2009 Human Development Sector Unit South Asia Regional Office CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective September 30, 2008) Currency Unit NPR1.00 = US$0.013657 US$ 1.00 = NPRs 73.22 FISCAL YEAR July 16 ­ July 15 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BNPP Bank Netherlands Partnership Program BPEP Basic and Primary Education Program CAS Country Assistance Strategy CMS Community-Managed School CSNN Community School National Network CSSP Community School Support Project DCA Development Credit Agreement DEO District Education Office DOE Department of Education EMIS Education Management Information System EFA Education for All EPDF Education Program Development Fund FY Fiscal Year GON Government of Nepal IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICR Implementation Completion Report IDA International Development Association ISN Interim Strategy Note LIL Learning and Innovation Loan MDGs Millennium Development Goals M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOE Ministry of Education NGO Non Government Organization PAD Project Appraisal Document PHRD Policy and Human Resources Development PPF Project Preparation Facility SMC School Management Committee SO Support Organization SSRP School Sector Reform Program SWAp Sector-wide Approach TA Technical Assistance TF Trust Fund WB World Bank Vice President: Isabel M. Guerrero Country Director: Susan G. Goldmark Sector Manager: Amit Dar Project Team Leader: Rajendra Dhoj Joshi ICR Team Leader: Rajendra Dhoj Joshi NEPAL Community School Support Project CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design........................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .......................................... 4 3. Assessment of Outcomes........................................................................................ 8 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome..................................................... 16 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ................................................. 16 6. Lessons Learned.................................................................................................... 19 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners....... 19 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing.......................................................................... 21 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 20 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis................................................................. 23 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 24 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results........................................................................... 27 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR......................................................................... 30 Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders...................... 33 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 34 MAP A. Basic Information Community School Country: Nepal Project Name: Support Project Project ID: P082646 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-38080,TF-55146 ICR Date: 03/30/2009 ICR Type: Core ICR FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC Lending Instrument: LIL Borrower: REPUBLIC OF NEPAL Original Total XDR 3.6M Disbursed Amount: XDR 3.6M Commitment: Environmental Category: C Implementing Agencies: Department of Education Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s) Concept Review: 03/27/2003 Effectiveness: 08/28/2003 Appraisal: 05/12/2003 Restructuring(s): Approval: 06/30/2003 Mid-term Review: 05/24/2005 05/30/2005 Closing: 09/30/2006 09/30/2008 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Low or Negligible Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory Overall Bank Overall Borrower Performance: Satisfactory Performance: Satisfactory i C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Performance Indicators (if any) Rating Potential Problem Project No Quality at Entry None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of No None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status: D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) General education sector 100 100 Theme Code (Primary/Secondary) Education for all Primary Primary E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Isabel M. Guerrero Mieko Nishimizu Country Director: Susan G. Goldmark Kenichi Ohashi Sector Manager: Amit Dar Michelle Riboud Project Team Leader: Rajendra Dhoj Joshi Rajendra Dhoj Joshi ICR Team Leader: Rajendra Dhoj Joshi ICR Primary Author: Maria E. Anderson F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) To test whether community management of schools can better contribute to enhance a) participation rates, (b) quality and efficiency; and (c) accountability of schools Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) ii (a) PDO Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Revised Achieved at approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Indicator 1 : Share of out-of-school children of primary age Value quantitative or 41% 20.5% 11.1% Qualitative) Date achieved 04/15/2004 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 Comments (incl. % The achievement significantly exceeded the target. These figures reflect children achievement) out-of-school during the time of survey. Indicator 2 : Share of out-of-school girls of primary age Value quantitative or 42% 23.1% 11.2% Qualitative) Date achieved 04/15/2004 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 Comments (incl. % Same as for indicator 1. achievement) Indicator 3 : Share of out-of-school janajati of primary age Value quantitative or 44% 26.4% 11.3% Qualitative) Date achieved 04/15/2004 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 Comments (incl. % Same as for indicator 1. achievement) Indicator 4 : Share of out-of-school dalits of primary age Value quantitative or 50% 30% 15.9% Qualitative) Date achieved 04/15/2004 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 Comments (incl. % Same as for indicator 1. achievement) (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Indicator Baseline Value Values (from Achieved at approval Revised Completion or documents) Target Values Target Years Indicator 1 : Number of schools transferred to community management Value (quantitative 86 1,500 2,035 iii or Qualitative) Date achieved 08/28/2003 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 Comments (incl. % The actual value reflects schools financed under the project. The total number of achievement) schools transferred to community management has reached 7,945. G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO IP Disbursements (USD millions) 1 12/01/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.20 2 03/18/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.59 3 09/17/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.99 4 03/16/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.68 5 09/13/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.87 6 03/13/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.12 7 09/08/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.23 8 03/23/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.33 9 09/21/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.73 10 03/21/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.36 11 09/22/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.36 H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable I. Disbursement Profile iv 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1. At the time of project preparation, the Government of Nepal (GON) had initiated a series of reforms in the public sector to make it more responsive to the needs of the poor. In this context, the Government sought to address the issues of the education sector (limited access to schooling, particularly of the poor and disadvantaged groups, poor quality of education, poor governance, lack of accountability, and system inefficiency) by devolving management of schools1 receiving public financing to communities. In 2001, the Seventh Amendment to the Education Act was passed which articulated the policy of devolving school management responsibilities to communities. 2. The Community School Support Project (CSSP) was designed as a Learning and Innovation project to support the GON in the implementation of its policy of transferring publicly financed schools to community management and provide the required technical and financial support. Devolution of responsibility for management of schools with the intention of raising overall accountability of publicly financed schools was the primary means in the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS, 1998, Report No. 18578-NEP) of reaching the objective of improving the poor quality of service delivery. 1.1 Context at Appraisal 3. Nepal had made considerable progress in reducing poverty and improving human development outcomes. In spite of the conflict and the unstable political situation, Nepal saw large improvements in its human development indicators. Primary net enrollment rates increased from 69 percent in 1998 to 80 percent in 2003. During the same period, primary completion rates rose from 42 percent to about 60 percent. Despite these successes, the primary education system of Nepal continued to be plagued by problems of access, governance, and quality. More than 25 percent of children remained out of school. Girls, disadvantaged castes and indigenous minority groups were disproportionately represented among the large numbers of out-of-school children. 1 Schools eligible for public financing are called community schools since 2001. All community schools are managed by SMCs accountable to parents. Community schools transferred to community management have more authorities than those not transferred to community management. These authorities are power to hire permanent teachers, appoint head teachers and send back non-performing government teachers to the District Education Office (DEO). 1 4. Prior to the take over of management of community schools by the government from communities in 1971, Nepal exclusively relied on community schools. These schools, established through community initiatives, were funded through tuition fees and block grants from the GON. In the quest for improvement of the quality of education through assured funding and technical support, the GON nationalized schools. In spite of the sizeable investment that the GON made since then, the extent of improvement in quality and efficiency of school education did not meet the Government's or the public's expectations. In 2002, the GON embarked on a pragmatic policy reform to devolve school management responsibilities to the community level by offering assurances that it would provide technical and financial support. Since then, decentralization has been a key strategy of the GON in improving the equity, efficiency, and quality of public service delivery. The CSSP was initiated to help the Government with the start up of this decentralization initiative in education. 5. IDA and four other donors supported the basic and primary education sub-sector adopting a basket financing approach through the Basic and Primary Education Program (BPEP) II whose first phase ended in July 2004. At the time of CSSP appraisal, the GON and donors were engaged in the preparation of the following five-year phase of the BPEP, which was later named Education for All (EFA) Program. At the same time, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper aimed at transferring management of 8,000 schools to communities by mid-2007. In response to this government goal, the EFA had to be able to support community-managed schools (CMSs). The CSSP project aimed at developing the critical knowledge base for the EFA so that it would be well equipped to cater to the needs of community schools. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives and Key Indicators 6. The project development objective presented in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) was "to test whether community management of schools could better contribute to enhance (a) participation rates, (b) quality and efficiency; and (c) accountability of schools. The key outcome indicators for measuring success were: (a) share of out-of-school children of primary age; (b) share of out-of-school girls of primary age; (c) share of out-of-school janajati (indigenous groups) of primary age; and (d) share of out-of-school dalits (lowest in the Hindu hierarchy of castes) of primary age". 7. The project development objective defined in the Development Credit Agreement (DCA)2 was "to develop a knowledge base needed for successful transfer of responsibility for management of government-funded community schools to local communities". An intermediate results indicator in the project results framework was number of schools transferred. 1.3 Revised Project Development Objective 8. Not applicable. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 2It was the follow-on development objective in Annex 1 of PAD. 2 11. The project's main beneficiaries are 5-15 year old children that enroll in CMSs at the primary, lower secondary and secondary levels. Other direct beneficiaries are teachers, and head teachers. School Management Committee (SMC) members, parents and the school community who have a significant role in managing and supporting the CMSs are indirect beneficiaries, as well as contributors to the project. 1.5 Original Components 12. School Grants Component. This component was designed to provide: (a) incentive grants for communities that take over management of government-funded schools; (b) block grants tied to performance for lower secondary and secondary schools funded entirely by the communities of government-funded primary schools transferred to community management; (c) performance grants for improvement of access to primary education and improvement of promotion rates; (d) supplementary grants to community schools for expanding enrollment to cover additional costs; and (e) other grants for providing additional support to marginalized communities, and for encouraging the piloting of innovative approaches. The aim of this component was to: (a) encourage schools to participate in the experiment; (b) increase access to schools; and (c) improve efficiency. 13. Scholarship Component. It was designed to provide booster scholarships to out-of-school children from poor households in the first year and maintenance scholarships in subsequent years. The maintenance scholarships were to be provided to all children from poor households. Its main purpose was to support enrolment and retention in school of disadvantaged children. 14. Capacity Building Component. This component was designed to: (a) provide assistance to the communities, through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)/Support Organizations (SO), to organize themselves to manage schools; (b) provide training for teachers in instructional planning and delivery, and for SMC members in school management and improving public relations with the community; (c) orientation for civil servants, local government officials and social workers; and (d) communication of government policy of transfer of schools to community management. The component's objective was to contribute to the improvement of accountability in schools and improvement in the quality of education. 15. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Component. It was designed to assist in the development of a monitoring and evaluation system for the project in coordination with the M&E system within the Ministry of Education (MOE), and strengthen the capacity of officials and communities responsible for monitoring and evaluation. Other output/outcome of the component was expected to be a well-established and smoothly operating M&E system that could support periodic improvements in the experimental design of the Learning and Innovation Loan (LIL). Special emphasis was expected to be given to community level monitoring and evaluation as the project relied heavily on communities for achieving the project outcomes. 1.6 Revised Components 16. Not applicable. 3 1.7 Other Significant Changes 17. The Research Support Group envisaged during project design was not created, and the various committees at central and district levels (Central and District Steering Committees, Project Advisory and Project Monitoring Committees) were not created, and if created were not operational. As a result, the proposed technical support for project and school management as well as instructional improvement did not materialize for the majority of the schools and may have hindered progress in instructional transformation in CMSs. 18. Although the project was designed for implementation using the existing government set up, the design included several committees that were not part of the normal government bureaucracy. It was concluded that ad-hoc structures would not contribute to the sustainability of reforms and the functions specified for project specific committees were taken over by the existing institutional structure. In retrospect, the lack of a cascade system of steering and monitoring committees in the CSSP implementation arrangement appears to have served as an incentive for the evolution of strong SMCs and for the development of a functional partnership among community members to support school improvement activities. The emergence of the Community School National Network (CSNN) is an example of how a group of SMC chairpersons responded to the task of advocating community management of school at the local, district, and national levels. 19. GON's Foreign Aid Policy discourages use of loans for technical assistance (TA). As a consequence, the funds included in the project for TA to be used in the capacity building of teachers, communities, SMCs and MOE staff could not be fully utilized for the intended purpose (only 14% of TA funds were utilized during the life of the project). This gap was partially covered by capacity building programs funded by (Policy and Human Resources Development) PHRD grants (TF-055146). Confusion over the contents of the program of education authorities at the district level, as well as communities and teachers could have been avoided, had advocacy and technical support been provided at the outset. This has probably limited or at least slowed down implementation of the project. 20. Similarly, only 19% of project resources available for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) were utilized during project implementation. There appears to have been reluctance on the part of GON to utilize project funds in contracting of consultants (local or foreign) to carry out monitoring and evaluation activities. Several of the evaluation studies were carried out with World Bank (WB) or trust funds financing (see Section 5). 21. The project closing date was extended by two years. The project started during the peak of the insurgency. The project concept was challenged by the rebels. Therefore, some activities could not be completed within the original closing date. Following the Peace Agreement in November 2006, the environment became more conducive for implementation of the project, and most of the remaining project activities were completed in the fourth year. The primary purpose of the second extension of the closing date was to insure that the stewardship for promoting community management of schools was transferred from CSSP to EFA. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 4 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 22. The project design incorporated lessons learned from previous education projects in Nepal, from community-managed programs/projects in the country, and community-managed school programs in Bangladesh and Central America. 23. The risks and mitigation measures were accurately identified during project preparation, except for the political risks. During the project implementation period there were intense political debate about the perils and promise of community management of schools. At times, the debate turned into physical harassment of schools opting for community management. In some cases, the operation of CMSs was disturbed due to the lock up of office premises. 2.2 Implementation 24. CSSP implementation was hampered from the project outset until end 2006 because of the insurgency and was affected throughout the project implementation period by opposition to the reform by teachers' unions. During 2005/06, the transfer of schools to community management almost came to a stand still--less than 150 schools were transferred. In spite of this, with GON's political support, community management of schools continued. Fortunately, at the end of 2006 a Peace Agreement was signed between the Seven Party Alliance Government, and the Maoists ending the ten year old insurgency. Project activities and transfer of schools to communities restarted with vigor and the number of schools transferred in FY2007/08 was higher than the total number of schools transferred over the previous five-year period. The number of schools transferred has reached 8,002 by March 13, 2009.CMSs spread to all regions and districts, and all levels of schooling. The take up rate of community management is higher at the primary level compared to that at lower secondary and secondary levels. The share of schools to which community management has been introduced in at least one level has reached around 24% of the total number of schools in the country. In the course of implementation, a number of bottlenecks were identified: (a) at the outset there was a lack of clarity in the legal framework for the transfer of authority to school management, namely provision of permanent recruitment of teachers by schools. Although the law was amended, the GON was reluctant to implement the reform fearing a backlash from teachers' unions. Instead, salary grants to schools for the recruitment of community teachers were introduced. Hiring of new teachers by GON was stopped and the number of permanent positions frozen. By the end of FY 2006/07, the number of community teachers in all community schools crossed 60,000; (b) the lack of awareness of the program by communities in poor and marginalized areas. Although there were some social mobilization efforts since the beginning of project implementation, these accelerated in 2006, 2007 and 2008 when a PHRD grant became available; (c) the DOE inability to put in place an adequate monitoring and evaluation system that could inform about the reach of the program and its impact on quality and learning outcomes; and (d) an insufficient understanding of the factors that would build the capacity of communities to take on and manage schools. 25. Finally, the GON decided not to procure equipment included in the project with the argument that existing vehicles and equipment could be used. This decision did not hamper project implementation. 5 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 26. Design. M&E design relied heavily on community level monitoring, as community initiative was instrumental in achieving project objectives. Schools, apart from collecting data for higher level monitoring, were to collect data for community monitoring. While data for higher level monitoring were prescribed, the data for community monitoring were to be decided by schools themselves based on the guidance provided by districts and the Department of Education (DOE). 27. Project monitoring at the DOE level included indicators related to access and efficiency, but not those related to quality and accountability. Project schools were also to be monitored within the existing framework through the Education Information Management System (EMIS)3, known as flash reports, in quantitative aspects and through resource persons in qualitative aspects. The project envisaged support to project monitoring through consultants by establishing Research Support Groups. 28. Indicators, related to access and efficiency, were adequate but it was not clear how quality was to be assessed. Indicators related to management of schools were adequate to measure progress. The design envisaged the establishment, through a participatory process, of a baseline in each participating school and periodic monitoring of progress by the community. 29. Implementation. Project monitoring, as planned, covered intensive support schools4 only. All intensive schools were given training on community monitoring as a part of the overall capacity building. The training included visioning and planning exercises, the outcomes of which were formulation of a vision, goals, activities and strategies for achieving the goals, prioritization of activities, school improvement plan, assignment of responsibilities and monitoring. The most significant tool for monitoring was social audit conducted by a committee comprising of the chairperson of the Parent Teacher Association and two other parents. The social audit report was to be presented to and endorsed by the parent's assembly. In addition, many schools formed dedicated monitoring committees. Monitoring of school activities, including classroom visits by parents, was common in most schools. 30. Data on access, efficiency (repetition and dropout rates), accountability (social audit and disclosure) were collected from schools through applications for performance grants. Because of the incentives for schools to inflate achievements built into the project, DOE decided to supplement school-based monitoring by independent monitoring through the CSNN. This monitoring covered 30 schools. There have been three rounds of household surveys of the 30 intensive support schools; the last round was conducted in August 2008. The surveys show that the percentage of out of school children of primary school age has been reduced significantly, with the largest reduction observed in girls of primary school age (from 42.2% in 2004 to less than 10.6% in 2008). It is also encouraging to note that the participation rates of dalit and Janjati children have increased considerably in the sample schools service areas. While there has 3Flash reports collect school data at the beginning and end of the academic year. 4Schools selected for project support through performance and matching grants were called intensive support schools to distinguish them from schools that received only incentive grants. The latter were called incentive schools. 6 also been an important reduction in out-of-school children of age six5, there is still 13.6% of these children who are not in school in the sample service areas. (Section 3.2 and Annex 5). 31. While staff from DOE spent about four months a year supervising the project and were accompanied by district staff, their numbers were insufficient to provide adequate training to CMSs in the development of a baseline and monitoring of field activities. Monitoring of quality was conducted mainly through visits to schools by DOE staff, district focal persons, resource persons, supervisors and Bank staff. Except for the Intensive Support Schools, most CMSs depended on the willingness of District Education Officers, Resource Persons and supervisors to provide some technical support and to monitor them. Furthermore, their access, and that of IDA staff, to the interior of the country was limited for a period of time when the armed conflict reached a large area of the country. The creative solution agreed between the GON and IDA was to contract the CSNN to assist in the monitoring of project activities at school level. 32. The EMIS flash reports are issued periodically and they contain valuable data on system efficiency indicators, but these reports do not yet produce aggregate data on CMSs which would be useful to track progress of all these schools. 33. In general, the monitoring of CSSP activities at district level as planned during the project design did not fully materialize. The most serious shortcoming of the M&E component is the non existence of a Research Support Group that was designed to provide technical support, including monitoring, to the project. 34. Utilization. Monitoring data on access and promotion rates were used for determination of performance grants. Feedback from monitoring visits was used for strengthening policy dialogue and changing the legal framework. The most noteworthy changes in the legal framework include the Eighth Amendment to the Education Act, and corresponding changes to the Education Regulations that provided a detailed framework for operation of CMSs. Similarly, the feedback from monitoring visits was used to disseminate success stories of CMSs. 35. Impact Evaluation. Community management of schools attracted great interest. Heated debates started soon after initiation of this reform; therefore, the need for an independent evaluation was evident since the beginning of the project. The baseline for eighty schools--40 intensively supported community managed (treatment group), 20 community-managed that received only incentive grants and 20 community schools not transferred to community management (control group)--was completed in 2003/04 by New Era (financed through the WB budget). After completion of this baseline, the need for a lager sample as well as a revised impact evaluation framework was evident. The pilot baseline survey and advocacy activities under the new framework were financed through a BNPP trust fund (TF-055023). A follow on study of eighty schools and a baseline survey for an expanded sample of schools, financed by an Education Program Development Fund (EPDF) trust fund (TF-054642), has been completed. A follow on survey of the expanded sample of schools is planned for 2009. The results of the impact evaluation are expected in late 2009 or early 2010. 5This is primarily associated with the practice of enrolment of over-aged children. 7 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 36. During implementation, the GON complied with safeguard policies and fiduciary responsibilities under the project. Ratings were consistently satisfactory in most categories except for financial management and monitoring and evaluation. Both received marginally satisfactory ratings on several occasions during the project implementation. The implementing agency appears to have taken the necessary corrective action on financial management matters each time, but other areas were found to be in need of correction during the following supervision visit. The failure to adequately address monitoring and evaluation issues is mainly due to the lack of technical capacity of the implementing institution, and its unwillingness to contract outside technical support to carry out the necessary activities and studies. Proof of this is that most M&E activities have been carried out with trust funds from different sources, or with WB funds. On financial management, consistent improvements in the system were not observed. By the project closing date, it was noted that ledgers were not up-to-date and internal controls remained weak. During implementation, the submission of Implementation Progress Reports and Audit Reports was often delayed, although there are no outstanding reports. Many of the systemic issues observed are being addressed through the Financial Management Improvement Plan under the Education for All Sector-wide Approach (SWAp). 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 37. This Learning and Innovation Loan served its purpose. The most important indicator of the success of this LIL is that it answered the question whether CMSs make a difference to access, quality, efficiency and accountability, and the answer is yes. A second important indicator is a significant increase in the number of CMSs due to the demonstration effect of successful CMSs, which lays a sound foundation for sustainability. A third important indicator is that most of the activities of the project's components have been mainstreamed into EFA. And a fourth and very important indicator is the observed participation of communities in school management as evidenced by frequent meetings of SMCs and the increased participation of parents in school affairs. 38. The GON and donors are currently preparing a follow on program to EFA to continue support to the education sector reform. A draft document has been prepared for consultation and dissemination among all relevant stakeholders. The follow on program regards community management as one of its corner stones and will seek to continue support of the successful activities of the CSSP. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 39. The project objective, design and implementation continue to have high overall relevance. Supporting continuation of reform efforts aimed at building a new prosperous and peaceful Nepal is the core theme of the Bank's 2007 Interim Strategy Note (ISN). Following the Seventh Amendment of the Education Act in 2001, the education sector has witnessed bold reforms that have started to reshape the sector by changing the role of government from being a 8 provider of education services to being a facilitator for ensuring efficient delivery of education services through communities. These reforms constitute the state's response to the strong public discontent over the failing public education system, but have endured opposition from teachers' unions and the political turmoil because of the strong popular appeal. The success being achieved through these reforms does provide some hope to the population that a "New Nepal" can be built. 40. ISN, 2007 mentions protecting community management of schools as its one of the core thrusts. Community management has remained one of the major programs of the GON through out the project period. Draft ISN, 2009 also proposes to support deepening of on-going reforms in the education sector, particularly community management of schools. The proposed GON's SSR Program (2009-14) regards community management as one of the cornerstones of the school education system. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives 41. The best indicator of the project's positive outcome was that it answered the question whether CMSs make a difference to access, quality, efficiency and accountability. A knowledge base was developed for the successful transfer of responsibility for management of government- funded community schools to local communities, which helped to scale up community management of schools well beyond the project target. 42. CSSP has significantly contributed to improvement in access. The Flash I 2008 statistical report shows that enrollment in the 17,341 primary schools has increased from 4.0 million to 4.8 million, an increase of 20% between 2004 and 2008. Net enrollment rate has reached 92%, an important achievement. While the report does not differentiate between CMSs and other schools, the former which now constitute about 24% of total primary schools actively promote enrollment of all children of school age in their service area, thus, it is possible that a greater proportion of increased enrollment is a direct result of CMSs' efforts. The chart below, from a household survey carried out in the service areas of 30 CMSs (covering 10,000 households) that received intensive support, includes data from 2004-2008 and is indicative of a significant reduction in out-of-school children between 5-15 years old in these service areas. It is particularly important to note the significant reduction in out-of-school girls, dalit and janajati children. 9 Share of out-of-school children in service areas of surveyed schools 60 50 50 44.0 42 41.7 40 41 37.0 % 36.036.4 re,ahS 30 20 18.8 17.7 14.214.7 15.1 13.0 10.9 10 14.1 12.612.3 10.610.4 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Out of school children of primary age Out of school girls of primary age Out of school dalit children of primary age Out of school janajati children of primary age Household Survey Report, Community School National Network, 2008 43. The learning environment of the schools is improving--sufficient desks and benches for all students, textbooks on all subjects, availability of other instructional materials--which should lead to quality improvement. While it is too soon to have established a track record of quality improvements as a result of the project's intervention,6 the recently completed assessment of grade 8 completers beginning their ninth grade education in a representative sample of secondary schools shows that CMSs students performed better than community schools not transferred to community management in all subjects (Nepali, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Health and Population). The mean score of CMSs students was higher than that of schools not transferred to community management by a statistically significant margin of 2-3% in all the subjects except in Nepali in which the difference was only 1.3%. Migration of students from private schools to CMSs has been reported in many instances in press. This is another indication of the fact that quality of education in CMSs is improving. 44. CSSP has significant success in improving accountability of schools. Social audit of schools by parents, introduced by the project, has been mainstreamed into EFA. Sixty eight percent of all community schools7 and ninety two percent8 of CMSs are conducting social audit. 6Evidence from evaluation of school-based management (SBM) programs in the US indicate that it might take at least five years before a successful SBM program can achieve results in learning outcomes (Borman and others, 2003) quoted in "Impact Evaluation for School-Based Management Reform", The World Bank, December 2007. 7Source: Flash Report, 2007/08. 8Source: Good governance survey of 30 schools from the Far-Western Region. 10 Social audit has established itself as a robust mechanism for providing feedback to SMC by the community. SMCs use this feedback for improving school management. Causal Relationship between Outputs and Outcomes 45. Outputs by component listed in Annex 2 are discussed here to assess the causal relationship between outputs and outcomes. The data sheet summarizes major achievements in outcome indicators. 46. School grants component. The major outputs of this component were: (a) incentive grants for 2,035 schools against the project target of 1,500 schools; (b) performance grants for increased enrolment and promotion rates to 500 schools against the target of 250 schools; (c) salary grants for 877 teachers; (d) grants for hiring SOs for 445 schools; (e) incentives for hiring 52 dalit/female teachers; and (f) matching grants for 500 schools. 47. Incentive grants of Rs.100,000 per school (level) proved instrumental in schools subscribing to community management. These grants generated tremendous initiative as well as the sense of responsibility in communities, as they were given full freedom over the use of these grants. Schools used these funds in numerous ways such as for buying instructional materials, construction of physical facilities, procurement of computers, paying salaries of teachers, and for buying rickshaws for income generation. In most cases incentive grants leveraged significant community resources. These grants have been mainstreamed into EFA. In addition to 2,035 schools transferred to community management under CSSP, 5,216 schools were transferred under EFA by the project closing date. After the closing date an additional 751 schools have been transferred. 48. Until the beginning of CSSP, government salary grants were exclusively meant to pay salary of government teachers. CSSP introduced salary grants that allowed communities to hire their own (community) teachers. These grants have made teachers accountable to schools, which in turn has helped to improve accountability of schools to communities. Salary grants for hiring community teachers have been mainstreamed into EFA, and will be continued in SSR. 49. CSSP introduced matching grants to leverage community resources. These grants significantly contributed to improvement in physical facilities of schools, which in turn has contributed to improved access and learning environment. On an average every rupee of CSSP grants generated local resources of about one and a half rupee.9 Matching grants have been mainstreamed into EFA. 50. Scholarship component. The major outputs of this component were: (a) 4,914 booster scholarships of Rs.500 per child per year for the first child of a household joining a school; and (b) 10,691 maintenance scholarships of Rs.250 per child per year for retaining children from poor household in schools. 9Source: Gajendra Man Shrestha et al. Community Managed Schools in Nepal, A Trend in School Reform. December 2007. 11 51. Booster scholarships were piloted to find out if enhanced scholarship can stimulate households excluded from education to send their children to schools. Children from excluded household accounted for around 35% of the increased enrolment in schools. This indicates that booster scholarships were effective in increasing access by mainstreaming children from excluded households. 52. Capacity building component. The major outputs of this component were: (a) school based training for 249 teachers; (b) training for 177 SO staff; (c) orientation of 1,735 MOE/DOE staff; (d) orientation of 4,985 politicians, social workers and local stakeholders; (e) peer to peer experience sharing between 1,200 SMC members and teachers; (f) establishment of CSNN and its district chapters; and (g) nation wide community school advocacy. 53. CSSP piloted need-based training for teachers which was administered by schools. The pilot was designed to address existing training program shortcomings and to encourage CMSs to procure the needed training from private sources. This experience encouraged schools to later procure training using their own resources. The results were found to be positive and the program has been mainstreamed into EFA. 54. CSSP facilitated the exchange of experiences between CMSs by financing visits by SMC members and teachers to successful CMSs within the country. Peer to peer experience sharing between SMC members and teachers contributed to replication of initiatives of successful schools by other schools, which contributed to improving efficiency of schools. There are many instances when success of a CMS has motivated all neighboring schools to opt for community management. The World Bank financed a visit to schools in the State of Uttarakhand in India by SMC members and teachers of CMSs and, DOE/District Education Officials (DEO) officials. Similarly, it financed a visit of DOE/DEO officials to Pakistan. These visits substantially contributed to scaling up of community management as well as improving the performance of CMSs. 55. Orientation programs, focus group discussions, radio interactions, documentary films, TV news clips and articles in newspapers were used for communication on community management of schools. The WB helped to update the documentary developed with project financing and translated it into English10. CSNN and the Education Journalists' Group actively supported these activities. Orientation of government officials, politicians, social workers and community leaders was instrumental in neutralizing the intense agitation against community management from some stakeholders. 56. Monitoring and evaluation component. The major outputs of this component were: (a) participation in action research by 906 schools; (b) support for thesis work to 10 bachelor's and master's degree students; (c) household survey of service area of 30 schools; and (d) telecasting of documentary films on community management of schools; (e) impact evaluation of CMSs. 57. Support to thesis work for student helped to trigger academic interest in the reform. Academics were unaware of the potential of this reform, as there was very little literature dealing 10The English version of the documentary was posted in the South Asia Sector Human Development website of the WB. 12 with this reform in 2003. At the beginning of the reform most academics were skeptical to the concept of community management. By the end of the project this concept has become one of the major areas of academic interest. More and more students are engaging in research in this area. 58. Given the GON policy of restricting financing of TA from loans, the Japan PHRD Grants were extremely important, as they supported key activities that IDA could not finance, such as cross-sectional surveys, advocacy, networking and capacity building. PHRD Grants made significant contributions in the following areas: (i) capacity building of CSNN, primarily through establishment of full fledged district chapters in 40 districts; (ii) developing national capacity for standardized learning assessment tests; (iii) social mobilization activities to communicate the concept of community management of schools; and (iv) building capacity of schools through peer to peer networking and creating demand for good governance. 3.3 Efficiency With little over $5 million total project costs11, CSSP project achieved the following: About 2,000 schools, voluntarily, opted for community management. Five hundred schools received performance for increased enrolment and promotion rates, and about 800 schools matching grants. About 450 schools utilized the services of SOs. About 900 teacher-years financed to support increased enrolments. About 31,000 student-years of scholarships were disbursed to students from marginalized population groups and at different levels of schooling. About 5,000 school stakeholders/personnel benefitted from courses, training and other capacity building programs. 59. While the full impacts of the project interventions on access, internal efficiency and quality are yet12 to be documented for CSSP project schools specifically and the community management initiative generally, preliminary evidence from the beneficiary survey (chart above in 3.2) and other surveys (funded by trust funds13) indicate that: There has been a noteworthy reduction in out-of-school children, even among the more disadvantaged population groups. About 75% proportion of the community feel they are part of the school ownership. Almost 90% CSSP schools are making their income and expenditure statements public, reflecting increased accountability. More than 80% of schools prepare a yearly school improvement plan, reflecting better management. 11Project funding leveraged significant community contribution, but this has not been fully documented. 12A systematic impact evaluation of community managed schools is being carried by the Bank and full results are expected at end of 2009/early 2010. 13"Monitoring Survey for Schooling Input, Output and Outcome indicators", Full Bright Commission Report commissioned by Department of Education, 2008. 13 60. These are in addition to other evidence from qualitative surveys that point to increased participation from parents in school affairs, increased ability to generate local resources and reduced teacher absenteeism. 61. Moreover, all the positive externalities that this LIL project has had on the reform programs in the country's education sector (as described in other sections of this report) on the community empowerment and ownership, and on the network of advocacy (led by CSNN) are significant. 62. Given all this, it is not easy to quantify the financial/economic returns or cost- effectiveness in monetary terms. But the impacts (immediate or downstream) are unambiguously large, especially considering what such a relatively small investment has been able to achieve in this short time. 63. Extension of the closing date by two years did not in any appreciable manner decrease project efficiency, as the targeted number of schools was transferred to community management within the original project period. And similarly, targeted number of intensive schools was supported within the same period. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 64. This LIL served to support the GON to implement an important reform process in the education sector. The project development objective has been achieved by establishing that community management can contribute to increasing access, quality, efficiency and accountability. The sustainability of the reform has been demonstrated by the fact that the project target for transfer of schools to communities was surpassed by far, and most of the project components' activities have been mainstreamed into the EFA. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 65. Most CMSs that received intensive support and the booster scholarships have been able to significantly increase participation of 6-15 year olds. Enrollment of girls has increased significantly to a level close to parity (97%). Enrollment of dalit and janajati children has also increased significantly. 66. In addition, community participation, as well as participation of females and mother's groups in school day-to-day operations, through meetings with teachers, attendance in classrooms, and creation of pre-school classes, has seen an important increase. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 14 67. The most important institutional strengthening aspects of the project have occurred at the school level where SMCs have taken charge of the school, have obtained funds from the com- munity, local government or local/international NGOs to improve the schools. Rather than guided by a centrally prescribed scheme, the CMS identified their own priorities and implemented different activities mobilizing community resources. Most of the improvements can be seen as new or rehabilitated classrooms; toilets, water tanks and fences, and other needed infrastructure. 68. Volunteerism and community initiative played a key role in the adoption of community management of schools under the CSSP. The number of schools transferred to community management was determined by local initiative and effort, reflecting a wide range of commitments and strategic options adopted by these schools. The sense of ownership of the school by the communities and their participation in schools activities are important institutional changes that occurred because of the project. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 69. CSSP was designed to pilot community management in 250 schools to evaluate if this reform should be scaled up. Driving this reform forward was not the intention of the project, but it became a vehicle for this reform process in practice. Retrospectively, it seems that without CSSP this reform may not have succeeded. Transfer of about 8,000 schools to community management and mainstreaming most of the initiatives piloted by CSSP into EFA was also not expected. The most important unintended impact of this project was that it helped to build the GON's confidence to undertake bolder reforms. Notable reforms that CSSP was instrumental in triggering were introduction of salary grants, allowing schools to recruit community teachers, and per capita financing for salaries. 70. The formation of the CSNN has had a very positive effect on the implementation of the reforms. Its most important contribution has been the lobbying function to ensure continuation of the reforms. The network also carried out supervision of CMSs at a time when the armed conflict prevented DOE staff or IDA staff from visiting the schools. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 71. The beneficiary surveys showed significant decreases in out of school children, particularly girls, as well and dalit and janajati children in the service areas of 30 CMSs. 72. The results of the qualitative evaluation carried out in 2007 through focus group discussions with stakeholders and school surveys indicate that the transfer of school management to the communities has triggered a process of change and transformation in CMSs mainly in the areas of school management, physical and instructional improvement, and partnership building. 73. The social mobilization activity for purposes of program advocacy also conducted workshops with stakeholders in many districts and schools. The first one carried out in 2006 covered 40 schools in six districts, the second one carried out in 2007 covered 155 schools in 16 districts, and the last one carried out in early 2008 covered 40 resource centers in 40 districts. The comments made by stakeholder/participants are similar to those of the qualitative evaluation. 15 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Negligible to low 74. The project has strong government and political support that is likely to continue, as well as strong stakeholder support. In addition, the GON together with IDA and other partners are preparing SSRP- a follow on operation to EFA - that is expected to continue to support this important education reform effort. 75. Some teacher association leaders and politicians may continue to discredit CMSs, but the numbers of supporters appear to be growing larger as communities realize the advantages of managing their own schools. 76. The main purpose of CSSP was to help the government to implement the policy of community management of schools. While CSSP transferred 2,035 schools to community management, EFA has transferred 5,967 schools to community management. Most of the initiatives started by CSSP were mainstreamed into EFA. This indicates that the risks to development outcomes are low. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory 77. The timing of WB intervention was optimal to support the GON initiate a substantial education reform. The project preparation process was brief ­ about three months from the project concept to the Board approval - and sought to respond quickly to GON's priorities in education. The project's design provided the details necessary to test an innovative approach to devolving management of schools to communities. 78. During the preparation, significant opposition to the implementation of the project by teachers' unions was not foreseen, as the project supported only a small pilot. This assumption turned out to be incorrect. Similarly, the possible impact of the conflict on project implementation was some what underestimated. 79. During implementation of the project, DOE had not been using credit funds for TA, as it had significant amount of grants for TA from bilateral donors for other projects. This resulted in reluctance on the part of DOE to use IDA credit for TA. The team did not foresee the possible difficulty in use of projects funds for TA. 80. Overall, the design of this LIL was as good, as it could be, considering that it was supporting an untested, major reform process in the education sector. 16 (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 81. In addition to periodic visits by a team of specialists, most of them were available in- country to provide timely support and response in dealing with issues related to project implementation. The supervision team could have benefited from the participation of an M&E expert in the initial stages of project implementation. 82. The GON received on-the-job training for various project activities from WB staff/ consultants such as NGO procurement, training, and management, analysis of performance- based grant requests, and project financial management that made a difference to project implementation and achievement of results. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory 83. IDA had continuity of team leadership starting at the preparation stage and throughout project implementation. Also, several of the team members participated in all the supervision visits. In this case, the presence of the team leader and team members in the country during most of the project implementation period served to support the GON in addressing project issues as soon as they appeared. The team leader was also very effective in garnering political support for the program, as well as in obtaining additional resources from trust funds to carry out much needed studies and evaluations. Support for the project from regional higher level management is also evident throughout the project implementation period. 84. The Bank's ability to build effective linkages across country programs also helped in implementation of CSSP. For example, transfer of schools to community management and introduction of salary grants for primary schools were among the triggers for PRSC in FY04. 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 85. The government in this case includes MOE, Ministry of Finance and the Cabinet of Ministers. There was a strong government ownership and commitment to achieving development objectives. Transfer of schools to community management, which was the reform CSSP was designed to support, was passed by the Parliament through a rare political consensus. Seven governments were involved in implementation of this project. All of them remained committed to this radical reform in spite of the strong opposition they had to face from teachers' unions. Community management of schools was one of the key thrusts of PRSP and one of the triggers of PRSC. 17 86. The GON made a number of changes to the legal framework to expedite implementation of the reform. Notable among them were addition of special provisions for operation of CMSs in the Education Act and Education Regulations. 87. Ministers, Secretaries and political parties were actively engaged in public dialogue on relation to community management of schools. Without this engagement implementation of this project during the insurgency period would have been extremely difficult. 88. The government commitment to the project is also demonstrated by its agreement to provide generous incentive grants for promoting reforms through the project and later through EFA. It also provided adequate matching funds for the project. Another indication of the government commitment to the project development objectives is mainstreaming of initiatives piloted by CSSP into EFA. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory 89. The implementation agency being assessed here is the DOE. DOE implemented the project through the regular bureaucratic structure assigning the coordination role to the Primary Education Section ­ a focal point for the project. DOE through out the project implementation period showed strong commitment to the project development objectives. Senior management of DOE was extensively involved in the public dialogue on community management and made frequent visit to CMSs. In addition, it provided additional incentives to CMSs. These were according higher priority to CMSs while allocating grants for new classrooms and salary grants. 90. Project implementation suffered from some delays because responsibility for implementation was under the Department of Education (DOE) and not in a project management unit. Always an issue in this case is that Department staff has to deal with competing priorities from the various programs that they have to manage. Nevertheless, sufficient priority was given to the project to ensure its effective implementation. 91. Despite the civil service practice of rotation of staff every two years, two key staff were retained in the focal point through out the project period. This was instrumental in ensuring a high degree of coherence to project activities. The commitment of the focal point staff to the project development objectives was exemplary. The job was fulfilling to them as they were able to see positive changes in schools and school communities acknowledged those changes. The project was able to groom a contingent of strong champions of community management at the DOE level. 92. DOE extensively used media for communication on community management of schools. Success of community management has been widely covered by national dailies, FM radios and TV. During the height of insurgency journalists from Education Journalists' Group were able to launch communication campaign in areas controlled by Maoists. 18 93. There was reluctance on the part of GON to utilize project funds in contracting of consultants (local or foreign) to carry out monitoring and evaluation activities. Due to this some of the planned studies were not carried out. This gap was largely addressed by mobilizing resources from trust funds. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory 94. The Government initiated implementation of a significant reform in the education sector in a difficult political environment and managed to carry it through in spite of protests by powerful teacher unions, some politicians, some bureaucrats, and even when the armed insurgency forced closing of private schools and CMSs in some cases. 6. Lessons Learned Strong political support is required to carry out public sector reforms of any kind. When the general public has lost confidence in the government's ability to provide services, a dramatic change is required because "band aids" are insufficient to restore public confidence. Implementation of a project from within the established bureaucratic structure is more sustainable, even if there is weak institutional capacity. A project provides the opportunity to improve institutional capacity A critical ingredient in the development of an innovative program--adequate, relevant and necessary technical assistance in this case--cannot be eliminated without careful analysis of the consequences of the decision. CMSs require continuous support from government to sustain the reforms and to continue improvements in the quality of instruction. Intensive and hands-on approach is required for the long-term. School reform is contextual and is an evolutionary process requiring meaningful local participation and contribution. Functional partnership among key community partners (parents, influential persons, local NGOs, and school personnel) may take school reform to new heights and encompass new dimensions. The sense of ownership and a new feeling of responsibility generated by the transfer of school management to the community can lead to the institutional strengthening of the SMC. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies No comments. (b) Co-financiers Not applicable. (c) Other partners and stakeholders 19 No other partners or stakeholders 20 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ Million equivalent) Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Components Percentage of (US$ millions) Estimate (US$ millions) Appraisal 1. SCHOOL GRANTS 3.21 5.21 162 2. SCHOLARSHIPS 0.38 0.13 34 3. CAPACITY BUILDING 0.59 0.26 44 4. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 0.48 0.10 21 Total Baseline Cost 4.66 5.69 Physical Contingencies 0.30 - - Price Contingencies 0.22 - - Total Project Costs 5.18 5.69 Front-end fee PPF 0.00 - - Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 - - Total Financing Required 5.18 5.69 110 (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Source of Funds Type of Co- Percentage of financing Estimate Estimate (US$ millions) (US$ millions) Appraisal Borrower 0.18 0.33 183 International Development Association (IDA) 5.00 5.36 107 21 Annex 2. Outputs by Component The outputs listed below were drawn from CSSP aide memoire of September 2008. Physical Progress Component/Activity FY FY FY FY FY FY 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 School Grants Component Incentive Grants No. of schools transferred to community 1,000 500 146 389 Continued Continued management14 by EFA by EFA Performance Grants Performance Grant for increased enrolment 5,616 students 3,980 students (Rs.500 per student) 4,390 students Performance Grant for increased pass percentage (Rs.500 per percentage point) 191 schools 257 schools 500 schools Grants to intensively supported schools for additional teachers Grant of Rs.53,300 per primary level teacher 82 teachers 120 teachers Continued by Continued Continued EFA by EFA by EFA Grant of Rs.63,700 per lower secondary level 25 teachers 130 teachers 295 teachers Continued Continued teacher by EFA by EFA Grant of Rs.97,500 per secondary level teacher 10 teachers 50 teachers 165 teachers Continued Continued by EFA by EFA Grants to additional teachers for incentive schools (based on the student enrollment) Grant of Rs.53,300 per primary level teacher 37 teachers 50 teachers Continued by Continued Continued EFA by EFA by EFA Grant of Rs.66,300 per lower secondary level 105 teachers 83 teachers Continued by Continued Continued teacher EFA by EFA by EFA Grant of Rs.97,500 per secondary level teacher 54 teachers 44 teachers Continued by Continued Continued 14In addition to 2,035 schools transferred to community management under CSSP, 5,216 schools were transferred under EFA by the project closing date. After the closing date an additional 751 schools have been transferred. 20 Physical Progress Component/Activity FY FY FY FY FY FY 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 EFA by EFA by EFA Other Incentive Grants Translation of two subjects of grade one in 5 Completed mother tongues Grants to schools for hiring SOs - 445 schools Grants to schools for recruiting female or dalit 14 teachers 42 teachers teachers. Child friendly teaching support grant for 33 schools intensive schools Matching grants for instructional support 243 schools 250 schools 300 schools Scholarships Component Scholarship to the first child of dalit, - disadvantaged and below poverty line families 1,354 students 2,526 students (Rs.500 per student at the primary level) Scholarship to the first child of dalit, - disadvantaged and below poverty line families 387 students 400 students (Rs.700 per student at the lower secondary level) Scholarship to the first child of dalit, - disadvantaged and below poverty line families 74 students 173 students (Rs.1,000 per student at the lower secondary level) Scholarship for child other than first child 15,640 5,088 students 5,603 students (Rs.250 per student) students Capacity Building Support for need based training to teachers 249 schools Six-day training for SOs 177 persons Grants to SOs for community mobilization 250 schools Communication on Management Transfer Radio, TV and Regional Program National Daily and central level media campaign completed Three and six-day orientation programs on 780 600 persons CSSP for officials, and three-day workshop for persons accountants 21 Physical Progress Component/Activity FY FY FY FY FY FY 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 One-day orientation program for social 1,200 persons workers, politicians and community members Development of different materials e.g., 100 % 5 types of CMS Directive 2 type Guidelines, Brochures, Forms, Training completed different developed and materials Packages etc. materials printed developed and printed Experience sharing among the SMC members 250 school 400 school 350 school 500 school and teachers of intensively supported schools. stakeholders stakeholders stakeholders stakeholder s Community strengthening 2-day workshop for 2,285 school 500 school 1,000 local stakeholders in collaboration with CSNN stakeholders stakeholders school stakeholder Orientation for regional and district level 150 persons 125 persons 80 Persons officials Developing and broadcasting of a documentary Completed Film reviewed and broadcast Monitoring and Evaluation Component Baseline survey of the intensive supported 59 schools schools surveyed Action research and progress update from 906 schools schools regarding school management and learning improvement Support to the bachelor's and master's level 10 person students and MOE officials for field research Program Monitoring monitoring on monitoring on Monitoring on Monitoring 54 districts 52 districts 65 districts on 65 districts Monitoring and evaluation of selected schools 30 schools 30 schools 30 schools on an annual basis 22 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis No economic analysis was carried out for this LIL at appraisal. Section 3.3 of the ICR provides a short note on efficiency of the investment made. 23 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Names Title Unit Responsibility/ Specialty Lending Rajendra Dhoj Joshi Sr. Education Specialist SASHD Task Team Leader Susan E. Hirshberg Sr. Education Specialist SASHD Education specialist Bigyan B. Pradhan Sr. Financial Management Financial Specialist SARFM management Kiran Ranjan Baral Sr. Procurement Officer SARPS Procurement Lynn Bennett Lead Social Scientist SASSD Social assessment Nawaf A. Al-Mahamel Counsel LEGSA Lawyer Ivonna Kratinsky Sr. Financial Officer LOAFC Loan officer Afshan H. Khawaja Sr. Social Scientist SASSD Social assessment Gertrude Cooper Program Assistant SASHD Team support Sushila Rai Program Assistant SASHD Team support Supervision/ICR Mohan Prasad Aryal E T Consultant SASHD Education specialist Purush Ratna Bajracharya Consultant SASHD Political economy Kiran Ranjan Baral Sr. Procurement Officer SARPS Procurement Lynn Bennett Consultant SACNP Social development Khagendra Prasad Bhattarai Consultant SASHD Political economy Nazmul Chaudhury Senior Economist SASHD Evaluation Julie-Anne M. Graitge Program Assistant SASHD Team support Padma Bahadur Khadka Consultant SASHD Political economy Nagendra Nakarmi Senior Program Assistant SARFM Financial management Mohan Gopal Nyachhyon Consultant SASHD Pedagogy Financial Bigyan B. Pradhan Sr. Financial Management/Operations SpecialistSARFM management/ operations Sushila Rai Program Assistant SASHD Team support Neena Shrestha Procurement Assistant SARPS Procurement Gajendra Man Shrestha Consultant SASHD Education Specialist Maria Madalena R. dos Santos Consultant LCSHD Education specialist Maria Elena Anderson Consultant SASHD Education specialist Joel E. Reyes Sr. Institutional Development SASHD Institutional Specialist (Education Sector) development 24 25 (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project USD Thousands Cycle No. of staff weeks (including travel and consultant costs) Lending FY03 9 50.67 FY04 -2.30 FY05 0.00 FY06 0.00 FY07 0.00 FY08 0.00 Total: 9 48.37 Supervision/ ICR FY03 0.00 FY04 11 59.90 FY05 17 137.23 FY06 9 47.10 FY07 9 57.13 FY08 6 41.45 FY09 6 0.00 Total: 58 342.81 26 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results 1. During the project implementation period annual household surveys were carried out. The surveys are mainly focused on households with 0-15 year olds within the selected service areas of sample schools. Household survey forms were developed with detailed description of previous years' survey information. The forms were developed in a way that would allow systematic tracking of the previous year children's record in the service area. The children's yearly school enrollment grade tracking system was done as in a longitudinal study. In addition to children tracking system, new births that occurred in the respondents households are recorded in the survey. 2. Sampling. The school selection criteria are similar as in the 2006 household survey. They represent regional and ecological variations across the country. Within the 30 sample schools, 8 schools are pilot schools15 and the remaining 22 schools received both incentive and performance grants through the =CSSP. Status of Out-of-School Children by Selected Indicators16 (in percent) Changes from 2004- Indicators 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 08, % 1 Out of school children of primary school age in the service area 41.0 36.0 14.1 12.3 10.4 75 2 Out of school children of age 6 in the service area 53.3 45.5 14.8 14.5 13.6 75 3 Out of school girls of primary school age in the service area 42.0 36.4 14.2 12.6 10.6 75 4 Out of school girls of age 6 in the service area 54.8 44.8 14.6 13.8/ 14.9 73 5 Out of school dalit children of primary school age in the service area 50.0 41.7 18.8 17.7 15.1 70 6 Out of school dalit children of age 6 in the service area 65.2 58.6 17.2 21.9 21.4 67 7 Out of school janajati children of primary school age in the service area 44.0 37.0 14.7 13.0 10.9 75 8 Out of school janajati children of age 6 in the service area 56.1 47.2 14.7 15.7 13.5 76 Source: Household Survey, 200817 3. The beneficiary surveys show that the percentage of out of school children of primary school age has been reduced significantly, with the largest reduction observed in girls of primary 15The modality for support to intensive support schools were piloted at the beginning on the project in eight schools. 16Based on attendance (not enrolment) 17This table is based on the final report. The figures in the ISRs were based on the interim report. Therefore, some figures may not tally with the figures in the ISRs. 27 school age. It is encouraging to note that the participation rates of dalit and janajati children have increased considerably in the sample school service areas. While there has also been an important reduction in out-of-school children of age 6, there is still a close to 14% of these children who are not in school in the sample service areas. This is primarily associated with the tradition of enrolling over-aged children in grade 1. 4. CCSP has met its objectives of improving participation rates, particularly of girls and disadvantaged groups. 28 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results 1. A qualitative impact evaluation of the CSSP was carried out in 2007. The field study consisted of a sample of 35 schools in 8 districts. Before the field study began meetings were held with DOE officials including staff in the focal point. Questionnaires were completed by the schools, interviews were conducted with head teachers and focus groups discussions were held separately with SMC chairpersons, head teachers, teachers, students, and parents. The data collection instruments were pre-tested in one district. 2. The results of the evaluation indicate that the transfer of school management to the communities has triggered a process of change and transformation in CMSs mainly in the areas of school management, physical and instructional improvement, and partnership building. CMSs have improved their management practices, adopted transparent and competitive teacher recruitment procedures, and have generated considerable local resources. Improvement in physical infrastructure appeared to be the most common and most cherished outcome of school transformation. The improved look of the school enhanced the credibility of the school in the community. Instructional facilities have been considerably expanded after management transfer as shown by the provision of computers, library, and teaching and learning materials in the CMSs. Instructional transformation ranged from reorganization of classrooms through subject- wise improvement, to total instructional system development. Increased parental care and concern about their children's learning has made the school management and the teachers more serious and responsible in promoting student learning. CMSs have developed partnerships internally and externally. The internal partnerships have provided a strong base for the meaningful participation and contribution of the community to the school. External partners, mainly local government institutions, NGOs, and international NGOs have extended significant financial and other needed support to CMSs. The CSSP also witnessed the emergence of new alliances such as the CSNN and the Education Journalist Group. 3. The CSSP has set the stage, facilitated the transformation process and produced visible output and impact at the school and policy level. At the school level, CMSs have generated significant local resources in addition to grants provided under the CSSP. With these resources, CMSs added new teachers, and improved physical and instructional facilities. These helped to improve school operation, particularly by increasing working days as well as teacher and student regularity. As a result, school enrollment and pass percentage have steadily increased. A conviction has emerged among CMSs that the community management of a school can make a difference in the look, functioning and effectiveness of the school. 4. The fact that the EFA 2004-2009 is also financing the transfer of school management to communities in view of sustainability and enhanced school accountability is a testimony to the policy impact of the CSSP. 5. These evaluation results are consistent with those of the CMSs programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. School transformation in these programs started with physical improvements, reduction in teacher and student absenteeism, increased participation of parents in school activities, and increase in availability of instructional materials for teachers and students. 29 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR 1. Brief Introduction of the Project The purpose of CSSP was to help GON to scale up transfer of publicly financed schools to community management by demonstrating that community management can contribute to enhancing participation, quality, efficiency, and accountability of schools. Takeover of management of schools from communities by the government was a great oversight that eroded local ownership of schools and subsequently quality of education. Local Self Governance Act (1999) and the Seventh Amendment of Education Act paved the way for transfer of schools to community management. 2. Project Design The objectives of the project were enhancing participation of the local communities, ensuring quality of education, and increasing efficiency, and accountability of schools. The components of the project were School Grants, Scholarship, Capacity Building, and Monitoring and Evaluation. The implementing agency for the project was the DOE under the MOE. The existing administrative structure was used for implementing project activities. School Management Section (primary) was made responsible to plan and execute the program at the central level. In the same way Regional Education Directorate (RED) and District Education Offices (DEO) were involved at the regional and district levels. Collaborative approach was adopted for creating awareness and advocacy. In this connection Community School National Network (CSNN) was the major partner. Side by side NGOs and civil societies also collaborated in building capacity of the local community. 3. Project Achievements There was strong government commitment to community management as reflected in the periodic plans and the education sector plan. Different studies have documented changes in CMSs. Some of the examples are as follows: Increased participation of SMC, PTA, community-based organization, parents and NGO in school management and development. Local resources were mobilized for computer and science laboratories, school library, and construction. Different innovative techniques in school management and development such as income generation, child centered learning and parents' contribution in students' learning evolved. School performance has improved dramatically: drop-out rate significantly reduced; students' learning achievement increased; enrollment of dalit, janajati and girls children increased. School activities are transparent to the stakeholders. CMSs have developed the culture of participatory decision making. Social audit has become regular in CMSs, which has improved governance schools. 30 4. Role of the Donor The World Bank was the single donor for the CSSP. The Bank has created enabling environment for implementing the project. It has helped in capacity building of stakeholders. The Bank also conducted different studies to identify the effectiveness of the project and find out the corrective measures for improvement. 5. Performance of Partners Major partners in program implementation were CSNN and SOs. One hundred seventy NGOs were hired as SOs for providing technical support to CMSs. Though performance of some SOs was exemplary, overall the performance of SOs was mixed. CSNN was a major partner since the beginning of the project. CSNN played a critical role in policy advocacy and strengthening the capacity of SMCs. 6. Constraints The CSSP constituted a paradigm shift of development strategy from centralized approach to decentralized one. The following constraints were faced during the implementation of CSSP: Limited understanding in the teachers' community. Inconsistency in the political commitment. Inadequate awareness of key stakeholders in their rights, roles and responsibilities. Limited application of the legal provisions, particularly, related to permanent teacher recruitment and promotion by the SMC. Absence of the elected local bodies to support the school management in a decentralized way. Greater focus in increasing number of CMSs than in quality improvement. Weak monitoring. 7. Lesson Learned Political stability and strong government commitment is needed for effective implementation of the program Consensus among the key stakeholders is a prerequisite for reforms. CSSP would have achieved greater success if it was able to secure support of teachers' community. CSSP suffered because of its inability to ensure continuity to performance grants. For success of projects it is critical to give continuity to all major project activities. 8. Conclusion Transfer of school management to the local community was a major agenda of the government that was strongly articulated in Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-07) and education sector plans. CSSP was a leading program to facilitate the school management transfer. The project has achieved its objectives in pleasing ways, as well as the project has succeeded in establishing exemplary model of school management by community. It has proved that communities are able 31 to manage schools and that they are eager to takeover the responsibility of school management. Learning from CSSP, community participation in school governance should be ensured for improving quality of education in Nepal. 32 Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Not applicable. No co-financiers or other partners were involved with this project. 33 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Project Documents 1. Project Appraisal Document, Report No. 25789-NEP, The World Bank, 2003. 2. Development Credit Agreement, Credit No. 3808-NEP, IDA, 2003. 3. Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISRs) and Aide Memoires, IDA, 2004-2008. Project-Related Studies, Surveys, and Reports 1. National Assessment of Grade 8 Students, Educational and Developmental Service Centre (EDSC), July 2008. 2. Nepal: Japanese Grant for the Implementation of CSSP, Implementation Progress Report and Financial Monitoring Report, March 2008-July 2008. 3. Community Managed School Advocacy, Centre for Policy Research and Consultancy, June 2008. 4. Household Survey Reports, CSNN, 2006 and 2008. 5. Community Managed Schools in Nepal, A Trend in School Reform, Gajendra Man Shrestha, Agni Prasad Kafle, Arbinda Lal Bhomi, Sugam Bajracharya, December 2007. 6. Governance of Community Managed Schools in Three Districts of Far Western Nepal: A Summary Report, CSNN, 2007. 7. Pilot Baseline Survey (2005/06) and Pilot Follow-up/Baseline (November 2007) Evaluations, Nepal Community School Support Project, IDA. 8. Baseline Survey of Selected Community Managed and Government Managed Public Schools in Selected Districts, Volume I, Main Report, New Era, June 2005. 9. Community Schools in the Process of Transformation, CSSP, May 2005. 10. Community-Managed Schools, Nepal, Survey Report, Community School National Network, 2005. 11. A Country Case Study on "Improving Local Service Delivery for MDGs in Asia: Education Sector in Nepal", undated. 12. Joint Evaluation of Nepal's the EFA 2004-2009 Sector Program, February 2009. Other Documents and Publications 1. Flash I 2008 Report, DOE. 2. Unequal Citizens, Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion in Nepal, Summary, The World Bank, 2008. 3. Impact Evaluation for School-Based Management Reform, The World Bank, December 2007. 4. Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Financing (Grant) to Nepal for the Education for All Project, Report No. 41346-NP, November 2007. 5. Nepal, Joint Bank Group Draft Interim Strategy Note, FY2010-2011, The World Bank Group, South Asia Region, February 2009. 34