Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 75530-NG PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 97.4 MILLION (US$150 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA FOR A STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT March 1, 2013 Education – Central and West Africa Africa Region This document is being made publicly available prior to Board consideration. This does not imply a presumed outcome. This document may be updated following Board consideration and the updated document will be made publicly available in accordance with the Bank’s policy on Access to Information. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective: January 31, 2013) Currency Unit = Naira Naira 157 = US$1 1 US$ = SDR 0.64878612 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AfDB African Development Bank JSS Junior Secondary School CFAA Country Financial Accountability Assessment LGA Local Government Area CPAR Country Portfolio assessment Review LGEA Local Government Education Authority CPS Country Partnership Strategy MDGs Millennium Development Goals DAs Designated Accounts MLA Monitoring Learning Achievement DfID UK Department for International NCC National Project Steering Committee Development DHS Demographic Household Survey NEEDS National Empowerment Economic Strategies DLI Disbursement-linked Indicator PAD Project Appraisal Document EFA Education for All PCN Project Concept Note EEPs Eligible Expenditure Programs PCR Pupil:Classroom Ratio ESP Education Sector Plan PEMFAR Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review ESOP Education Sector Operational Plan PDO Project Development Objective EMIS Education Management Information System PFMU Project Financial Management Unit ESMF Environmental and Social Management PSC Project Steering Committee Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan PTR Pupil:Teacher Ratio ETF Education Trust Fund SBMC School-Based Management Committee FMOE Federal Ministry of Education SEPIP State Education Program Investment Project FMOF Federal Ministry of Finance SIP School Improvement Plan FMR Financial Monitoring Reports SMOE State Ministry of Education FPM Financial Procedure Manual SPFMU State Project Financial Management Unit GDP Gross Domestic Product SPTSU State Project Technical Support Unit GPE Global Partnership for Education (formerly SSA Sub-Saharan Africa Fast-Track Initiative) GPI Gender Parity Index SUBEB State Universal Basic Education Board IAU Internal Audit Unit TC Technical Committee ICR Implementation Completion Report UBE Universal Basic Education ICT Information and Communications Technology UBEC Universal Basic Education Commission IDA International Development Association UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization IFRs Interim Financial Reports UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency USAID United States Agency for International Development Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Marie-Francoise Marie-Nelly Sector Director: Ritva Reinikka Sector Manager: Peter N. Materu Task Team Leader: Irajen Appasamy - ii - NIGERIA State Education Program Investment Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................1 A. Country Context ............................................................................................................ 1 B. Sectoral and Institutional Context................................................................................. 2 C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes ........................................ 11 II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ..............................................................11 A. PDO............................................................................................................................. 11 B. Project Beneficiaries ................................................................................................... 11 C. PDO Level Results Indicators ..................................................................................... 12 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................12 A. Project Components .................................................................................................... 13 B. Project Financing ........................................................................................................ 17 Lending Instrument ........................................................................................................... 17 Project Cost and Financing ............................................................................................... 18 C. Program Objectives and Phases .................................................................................. 18 D. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design ................................................ 18 IV. IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................................20 A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements ........................................................ 20 B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................ 21 C. Sustainability............................................................................................................... 25 V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................................26 A. Risk Ratings Summary Table ..................................................................................... 27 B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation ................................................................................ 27 VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ..............................................................................................29 A. Economic and Financial Analyses .............................................................................. 29 B. Technical ..................................................................................................................... 32 C. Financial Management ................................................................................................ 32 D. Procurement ................................................................................................................ 35 E. Social (including Safeguards) ..................................................................................... 36 - iii - F. Environment (including Safeguards) .......................................................................... 37 G. Other Safeguards Policies Triggered (if required)...................................................... 38 Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................39 Annex 2: Detailed Project Description .......................................................................................58 Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements ..................................................................................69 Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) ...............................................106 Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan ..................................................................................108 Annex 6: Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................111 Annex 7: Project Governance Measures.................................................................................118 Annex 8: Findings from the Systems Approach for Better Education Results Exercise ...124 Annex 9: Education Sector Context, Issues and Challenges .................................................135 MAP: IBRD 35281 - iv - PAD DATA SHEET NIGERIA State Education Program Investment Project PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT . Africa Human Development Basic Information Date: March 1, 2013 Sectors: Primary (70%), Secondary (20%) and Technical and Vocational education (10%) Country Director: Marie Francoise Marie-Nelly Themes: Education for All (80%); Public expenditure (10%), financial management and procurement (5%), Administrative and civil service reform (5%) Sector Manager/Director: Peter N. Materu /Ritva Reinikka EA Category: B – Partial Assessment Project ID: P122124 Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Team Leader(s): Irajen Appasamy Does the project include any CDD component? No Joint IFC: N/A . Borrower: Federal Republic of Nigeria Responsible Agency: Federal Ministry of Education Contact: Federal Ministry of Finance and Title: The Director, International Economic Relations Directorate, Governments of Anambra, Bauchi and Federal Ministry of Finance Ekiti States Telephone No.: 234 9 2346291-4, 2346951-4 Email: agyaremu@yahoo.co.uk . Project Implementation Period: Start Date: 26-mar-2013 End Date: 30-apr-2017 Expected Effectiveness Date: 31-Oct-2013 Expected Closing Date: 31-Oct-2017 . Project Financing Data(US$M) [ ] Loan [ ] Grant Term: Standard IDA terms, with a maturity of 40 years, including a grace period of 10 years. -[ X ] Credit [ ] Guarantee For Loans/Credits/Others Total Project Cost : US$1,342.2 m Total Bank Financing : US$150.0 m Total Cofinancing : Financing Gap : . Financing Source Amount(US$M) BORROWER/RECIPIENT 1,192.2 IBRD - IDA: New 150.0 IDA: Recommitted Others Financing Gap Total 1,342.2 . -v- Expected Disbursements (in US$ Million) Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Annual 5.0 35.0 42.0 50.0 16.0 2.0 Cumulative 5.00 40.0 82.0 132.0 148.0 150.0 . Project Development Objective(s) The objective is to support: (a) need-based teacher deployment; (b) school-level management and accountability; and (c) measurement of student learning in Participating States. This will contribute to, and complement, the programs and priorities of participating States in addressing education access, quality and efficiency issues, through their own funding, financing from UBEC and other government agencies, as well as other development partners. . Components Component Name Cost (US$ Millions) Component 1. Results-based Support to Education Sector Program: 125.0 Supporting Participating States’ education sector reform program to improve the quality of education Component 2. Technical Assistance: Financing essential advisory, 25.0 technical, and capacity-building support for Participating States’ education sector program, as well as for federal-level coordination, monitoring, and other key activities in support of Component 1 . Compliance Policy Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant respects? Yes [ ] No [X] . Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Yes [ ] No [X] Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [X] Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [X] Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Yes [X] No [ ] . Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 X Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 X Forests OP/BP 4.36 X Pest Management OP 4.09 X Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 X Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 X Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 X Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 X Projects on International Waters OP/BP 7.50 X Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 X . Legal Covenants Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Institutional Arrangements X - vi - (Financing Agreement (FA) Reference: Schedule 2, Section I.A) Description of Covenant The Recipient shall maintain, throughout the Project implementation period: (a) at federal level, a National Project Steering Committee, a Federal Project Support Unit, a Federal Project Financial Management Division and Universal Basic Education Commission; and (b) ensure that each Participating State maintain, throughout the Project Implementation period: (i) a State Project Steering Committee; (ii) a State Technical Committee; (iii) a State Project Technical Support Unit; (iv) a State Universal Basic Education Board, (v) a State Project Financial Management Unit; (vi) Local Government Education Authorities; and (vii) School-Based Management Committees. Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Project Implementation Manual X Effective Date (FA Reference: Article IV and Schedule 2, Section I.F) Description of Covenant The Recipient and all participating States shall prepare and adopt a Project implementation manual in form and substance satisfactory to the Association, containing detailed arrangements and procedures for: (a) institutional coordination and day-to-day execution of the Project; (b) Project disbursement and financial management; (c) procurement (d) environmental and social safeguards management; (e) monitoring and evaluation, reporting and communication, including a detailed protocol for the verification of DLIs; and (f) such other administrative, financial, technical and organizational arrangements and procedures as shall be required for the Project. Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Environment and Social Safeguards X (FA Reference: Schedule 2, Section I.G) Description of Covenant The Recipient shall ensure that the Project is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), and shall not amend, abrogate, or waive, or permit to be amended, abrogated or waived, the ESMF or any of its provisions without prior approval in writing by the Association, subject to the same approval and disclosure requirements as applicable to the adoption of the ESMF. Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Subsidiary Agreements X Effective Date (FA Reference: Article IV and Schedule 2, Section I.B.) Description of Covenant The Recipient and each of the Participating shall execute subsidiary agreements, under terms and conditions approved by the Association for determining, verifying and providing DLI payments to the States (including, if the need arises, mechanisms for remedies) and providing for technical assistance funds. Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Verification Arrangements X 6 months after the Effective (FA Reference: Schedule 2, Section I.C) Date (for the employment) Not later than February 28 in each year (for the verification) Description of Covenant The Recipient shall employ verification agencies to verify the achievement of DLIs in line with the Project Implementation Manual, and satisfactory to the Association. Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Improvement Grants X Annual (FA Reference: Schedule 2, Section I.E) Description of Covenant The Recipient shall ensure that each Participating State shall, through the State Project Technical Support Unit, make annual grants to SBMCs out of its own funds, in accordance with criteria and procedures acceptable to the Association and elaborated in the SBMC Manual, on the basis of a School Improvement Plan. Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Procurement Complaints and Records Management X Six months after the Effective System Date (FA Reference: Schedule 2, Section III.E) Description of Covenant - vii - The Recipient shall (and shall cause each Participating State to) establish and thereafter maintain, throughout the implementation of the Project, procurement complaints and records management systems, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association. Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Disbursement X (FA Reference: Schedule 2, Section IV) Description of Covenant The Recipient shall withdraw funds according to the Withdrawal schedule with categories of expenditures, including Eligible Expenditure Programs, and related disbursement conditions. Withdrawals under Component 1 are subject to the achievement of DLIs for the respective year. Financing up to an amount not to exceed US$ 15,000,000 for payments made for EEPs under Component 1 prior to the date of signing of the Financing Agreement but on or after January 1, 2013 Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency Education Public Expenditure Review Five (5) months after the end X (FA Reference: Schedule 2, Section I.H) of each fiscal year Description of Covenant The Recipient shall cause each Participating State, through the respective SPFMU, to conduct an annual review of public expenditures in the education sector, in form and substance satisfactory to the Association, for purposes of assessing the overall amount, sources and allocation of the education sector budget and actual spending. . Team Composition Bank Staff Name Title Specialization Unit UPI Irajen Appasamy Task Team Leader Operations (Education) AFTEW 11400 Manush Hristov Sr. Counsel Legal LEGAM 223088 Aristeidis Panou Counsel Legal LEGAM Luis M. Schwarz Senior Finance Officer Finance CTRLA 82804 Olatunde Adekola Sr. Education Specialist Education AFTEW 206975 Boubou Cisse Sr. Human Dev. Economist Economics (Education & AFTHE 287366 Health) Emanuela Di Gropello Sector Leader (Education) Economics AFTEW Michel Welmond Lead Education Specialist Education AFTED Janet Adebo Team Assistant ACS AFCW2 350738 Foluso Okunmadewa Lead Social Protection Specialist & Economics (Social Protection) AFTSP 86213 HD Sector Leader Ogo-Oluwa Oluwatoyin Jagha Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist Monitoring & Evaluation AFTDE 314524 Fred Yankey Sr. Financial Management Specialist Financial Management AFTFM 159416 Adewunmi Cosmas Ameer Financial Management Specialist Financial Management AFTFM 330828 Adekoya Bayo Awosemusi Lead Procurement Specialist & Fiduciary (Procurement and AFTPC 88676 Fiduciary Sector Leader Financial Management) Joseph Ese Akpokodje Sr. Environment Specialist Environment AFTEN 281346 Daniel Kajang Procurement Specialist Procurement AFTPC Bello Muhammad Abubakar Social Safeguards Specialist Social Development AFTCS Varalakshmi Vemuru Sr. Social Development Specialist Social Development AFTCS 214674 Emilio Porta Sr. Education Specialist Education Mgt. Information HDNED 278517 systems - SABER Lisa Kaufman/Emiliana Vegas Sr. Education Specialist Teacher Management - HDNED 178734 SABER Marguerite Clarke Sr. Education Specialist Learning Assessment HDNED 290097 Ikechukwu Nweje Public Sector Management Specialist Public Sector Management AFTPR 332432 - viii - Gloria Joseph-Raji Economist Economist AFTPR 75862 Indira Konjhodzic Country Program Coordinator Operational Services AFCNG 239174 Amit Dar Sector Manager Peer Reviewer SASED 73134 Dhushyanth Raju Economist & TTL (Pakistan – Sindh Peer Reviewer SASED 185726 Education Sector Project & Punjab Education Support II Project) Ismaila Ceesay Lead Financial Management Specialist Peer Reviewer AFTFM 245523 Non Bank Staff Name Title Office Phone City Chris Parel Management Specialist (Consultant) Washington DC Pai Obanya Education Adviser (Consultant) +2348137729771 Abuja Bongo Adi Economist (Consultant) Anambra Fibi Kafi Communications Sp. (Consultant Bauchi Joseph Tawose Economist (Consultant) Ekiti . Locations Country First Administrative Division Location Planned Actual Comments Nigeria State Ministry of Education Anambra Nigeria State Ministry of Education Bauchi Nigeria State Ministry of Education Ekiti Nigeria State Ministry of Education Edo Technical Assistance . - ix - NIGERIA STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT A. Country Context 1. Nigeria, the most populous African country with around 167.4 million people (most recent estimate), comprises the Federal government, a Federal Capital Territory administration, 36 State governments, and 774 Local government councils. The Constitution confers significant powers, resources, responsibilities and autonomy to the sub-national levels of government. Being the world's sixth largest oil exporter, Nigeria is Africa’s second largest economy, with an annual GDP of about US$ 237.5 billion (US$ 1,414 per capita), 1 and one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Real GDP growth was 7.4 percent in 2011, but declined to 6.5 percent in the third quarter of 2012, due to security challenges facing most agricultural states in northern Nigeria, as well as the floods which peaked towards the end of the third quarter. As Africa’s leading producer of oil with large gas reserves and other natural resources, the country is highly dependent on oil, which accounts for over 95 percent of exports and about 78 percent of consolidated government revenues. Notwithstanding, oil only accounted for nearly 15 percent of GDP in 2011, compared with agriculture (over 40 percent, and with 70 percent of employment). 2. Nigeria was seriously affected by the 2008 international economic crisis. The onset of the crisis and corresponding decline in oil prices hit Nigeria with a major terms-of-trade shock, sharply reduced budget revenues, forced the depreciation of the Naira, and brought major distress to the banking sector. In response to the crisis, however, the Federal Government and the Central Bank took a number of proactive actions which helped Nigeria bounce back. Nigeria however still remains vulnerable to oil price shocks. The post-election violence that broke out in most parts of the north in 2011, mostly involving the youth, added to major security issues in the northern part of the country (spate of bombings in Nigeria’s capital and other northern states, as well as the sectarian violence in the northern States). While life continues normally in most parts of the country, security has become a major policy issue again in Nigeria, and disrupted activities in the education sector, especially in the north. 3. Despite a strong economic track record, poverty is significant, and reducing it will require strong non-oil growth and a sustained focus on human development. Nigeria’s people are relatively poor, with about 46 percent of the population living in absolute poverty in 2010; 2 there is high inequality, with an estimated Gini coefficient of 0.49. Nigeria still faces considerable human development challenges, with poor human development indicators, high regional disparities, and huge pockets of extreme poverty. Ranked only at 156 out of 187 countries on the Human Development Index, 3 Nigeria is behind schedule in meeting key MDG 1 National Bureau of Statistics, GDP Report 2011. 2 National Bureau of Statistics, (2013). 3 Human Development Report 2011, United Nations Development Programme. The HDI is a composite indicator that captures levels of literacy, life expectancy, education and per capita income. -1- targets. Moreover, Nigeria's HDI of 0.459 is below that of the regional average for Sub-Saharan Africa (0.463), with a lower rate of improvement over the period 2005-2011. 4. The total number of illiterate adults, almost 46 million 4, places Nigeria in a category of only ten countries worldwide with more than 10 million adult illiterates (15 years and above); the under-five mortality rate stands at 197/1,000 live births, well above rates in comparator countries like Ghana, Kenya and South Africa; the maternal mortality rate, currently estimated at 545/100,000 live births, among the highest in the world, is below the Sub-Saharan average. Economic and social development is complicated considerably by important regional disparities. Nigeria's score on the Gender-related Development Index (GDI), for example, is 0.456 or 139th out of 157 countries. Gender gaps are particularly notable in access to education, household decision-making and political representation. Geographically, Northern Nigeria scores are well below the national average on measures of relative poverty and social development. Hence, continued investment in human development is essential to combat relatively high poverty rates, improve livelihoods for all, and maintain economic growth. Table 1 below shows key indicators for Nigeria, as well as for Participating States of Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. Table 1: Key Socio-Economic Indicators (2010)/a Anambra Nigeria Bauchi State Ekiti State State Total population 167,414,533 4,907,632 5,654,498 2,868,700 GDP per capita (PPP, US$) $1,541 $1,585 $983 $1,169 Total adult literacy rate (%) 57.9 72.8 26.6 62.9 Primary education Net Attendance Ratio (NAR) 61 80.1 40.8 79.1 Secondary education NAR 44.4 59 21.8 65 Public spending on Education as % of GDP (est.) 5 - - - Education expenditures as % of total Govt. Exp . 8.7 /b 13.8 13.7 27.7 Source: Public Expenditure Review Analyses, 2011 (various States), World Bank. Nigeria: Projection for 2011, National Population Commission. Nigeria: Digest of Education Statistics, 2006-2010, Federal Ministry of Education. Nigeria: National Demographic Household Survey 2008. a/ Key Health Indicators: The Maternal Mortality Rate (for 100,000 live births) is 545, and the Infant Mortality Rate is 75. b/ Federal Budget for 2012; for 2011: 7.9%, and actual for 2010: 4.9%. B. Sectoral and Institutional Context 5. Nigeria’s Education Sector Structure, Institutional Setting and Financing. The National Policy on Education stipulates a 6-3-3-4 structure offering nine years of basic compulsory education (i.e. six years of primary and three years of junior secondary), three years of senior secondary, and four years of tertiary education for most of the science, arts and social science programs, whose provision is a concurrent responsibility of the federal, state and local governments, with a fast-growing private sector. The Federal Government plays a dominant role in post-secondary education, while local governments and states are mainly responsible for basic and senior secondary education, respectively. In addition, the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), an autonomous body under the Federal Ministry of Education, plays a 4 Federal Ministry of Education, National Education Management Information System (2012). -2- huge role in basic education, being entrusted with the management and enforcement of basic compulsory education, as well as providing most of the non-salary financing (such as construction and textbooks) for basic education. It is represented at state level by the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB), which works under the State Ministry of Education. SUBEB manages most of the non-salary education spending for basic education, as well as salary expenditure for basic education on behalf of the local governments. The State Ministry of Education is responsible for the management of senior secondary education as well as overseeing basic education matters. Local governments, through the Local Government Education Authorities, are in principle responsible for the management of basic education, but their decision-making power is limited by the extensive responsibilities of SUBEB, the co- responsibility of the different government levels in the management of teachers and their very low and eroding capacity over a long period. 6. Nigeria is spending about five percent of its GDP on education (Table 1), which is in line with international benchmarks. However, with about 9 percent of its total government budget spent on education, the country’s education priority ratio is below international standards. About 80 percent of the education spending is allocated to recurrent costs. Public funding for education comes from four main sources: (a) federal statutory allocations to federal, states and local governments; (b) state and local government’s internally generated funds; (c) UBEC and other federal’ s earmarked transfers for education; and (d) development partners’ funds. The first source is by far the largest, underscoring the vulnerability of states and local governments to federally redistributed revenues. Overall, the large majority of resources for education are managed at the state level, consisting of a percentage of the federal statutory allocations for salaries (including the percentage allocated to local governments), a share of UBEC funds and state internally generated resources. 7. This institutional and financing structure is very much replicated in Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti States. These states also have most management responsibilities at the state level and the same sources of revenues. The three states have education priority ratios higher than the national level – all the more considering that tertiary education is not included, with Ekiti State well above average. 8. Key Achievements and Issues at National Level. Nigeria has successfully launched key reforms, including the Universal Basic Education (UBE) program in 1999, making basic education compulsory. In 2006, another major reform focused on a new vision for the education sector, a national framework, and the 10-Year Education Sector Plan, emphasizing: (i) universal access to basic education; (ii) minimum quality standards; (iii) finance reform to underpin greater equity; and (iv) effective human capital development. Apart from the UBE scheme, the Federal Government also provided direct funding and support through the Education Trust Fund (ETF), 5 and the Virtual Poverty Fund (from the debt relief initiative), mainly for public school physical facilities (classrooms, water and sanitation) towards achievement of the MDGs. Currently, the Federal Government is focusing on its Transformation Agenda as a medium-term goal towards the achievement of its Vision 20:2020. 6 Accordingly, the Federal Ministry of 5 Renamed the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND); now only dedicated to tertiary education. 6 The goal is for Nigeria to be among the top 20 biggest economies in the world by the Year 2020. -3- Education (FMOE) has adopted a new four-year strategy 7 with the overarching objectives of providing access to education with equity, quality, and relevant skills for the labor market. 9. As a result of these reforms and associated investments, basic education coverage has significantly increased. Public primary enrollment rose from 17.9 million students in 1999 to 22.9 million in 2006 (an increase of 28 percent), and 19.2 million in 2010, bringing the Net Attendance Rate to about 60 percent (Table 1). There were also some successes in curriculum development and the provision of textbooks. 10. Despite progress towards the MDGs and universal primary education, critical problems persist in Nigeria, including limited access for the poorest, still insufficient enrollment rates in basic and secondary education, and low schooling quality and internal efficiency. This in turn is related to weak governance and management capacity, and insufficient and inefficient public spending. The challenges facing the education sector are described briefly below (details are in Annex 9). 11. The access and equity challenges. About seven million children are still out-of-school. Overall enrolment rates in basic and secondary education are still too low, especially in the Northern Regions and, particularly for girls. The Nigeria Digest of Education Statistics (2006- 2010) shows 54,434 public primary schools in Nigeria, with an enrolment figure of 24.4 million, of which females account for 11.1 million (45.5 percent), indicating a gender parity index of 83.6. The 7,129 public Junior Secondary Schools have a total enrolment of about 3.3 million (about 45 percent female). The secondary Net Attendance Rate is only about 44 percent (Table 1). A survey 8 on educational attainment shows wide disparities in terms of gender, geographical boundaries, and geopolitical zones. Females and males in rural areas are more than twice as likely as those in urban areas to have no education (49 against 22 percent for females, and 35 against 14 percent for males). Similarly, household members in the North West and North East are four times more likely to have no education than those in the South-South region (68 and 66 percent, against 15 percent). Educational attainment also increases as household economic status increases. For example, 76 percent of women in the poorest households have no formal education, compared with just four percent among the most advantaged households. 12. The quality challenge. Poor quality of schooling is a key issue in Nigeria. The few available surveys on students’ learning outcomes indicate very low and inequitable learning outcomes. The overall adult literacy rate (correlated with both access and quality) is still below 60 percent (Table 1). A literacy test 9 was administered to respondents (with less than a secondary school education) to assess their ability to read all or part of a simple sentence in any of the major language groups in Nigeria. This test indicates that urban women are nearly twice as likely to be literate as rural women (77 and 41 percent, respectively). Literacy levels also vary widely by zone, with the northern zones lagging behind the southern zones. The 2010 results of the West African Senior School Certificate examination (conducted by the West African Examination Council - WAEC) show that only 25 percent of Nigerian candidates obtained credits in English, Mathematics and at least three other subjects (the requirements for admission 7 Federal Ministry of Education: 4-year Strategic Plan for the Development of the Education Sector (2011-2015). 8 National Demographic Household Survey 2008, National Planning Commission, Federal Republic of Nigeria and ICF Macro (Maryland, USA), (November 2009). 9 Nigeria DHS Education Data Survey 2010. -4- into tertiary institutions). There is also ample evidence from the labor market that the graduates of technical and vocational schools do not have the skills required by the labor market. 10 And in fact, very few technical schools are accredited. Low quality is a key driver of low completion (for instance, one estimate puts the average primary completion rate at 55 percent, 62 percent for girls and 59 percent for boys). 13. There are many contributing factors to low quality and relevance. Critical ones in Nigeria include poor learning environment as measured by physical facilities and essential textbooks and instructional aids; lack of teachers in core subjects and in rural areas and low teacher attendance; and poor teaching quality related to inadequate teacher training, low motivation and limited opportunities for professional development. Further evidence on these factors is presented in the section on state level analysis. Some of these factors, like teacher availability, also affect access to education. 14. Weak governance and management capacity. States and LGAs are responsible for pre- tertiary education services based on national education policy and standards. Given its mandate for compulsory basic education, UBEC supports them via SUBEB. At a lower level, School Based Management Committees (SBMCs) have an important potential role in overseeing school performance in primary and secondary schools. The system suffers from an absence of accountability/quality assurance mechanisms, and limited capacity for policy-making, planning, management, and monitoring and evaluation. In particular, there is widespread: (i) ineffective policy implementation or fragmented decision-making due to poor division of responsibilities, unclear overlapping functions, and a multitude of parastatal/agencies, with unclear relationships with government levels; (ii) inadequate management and over-sight capacity of the SBMCs; (iii) inadequate strategic planning and management capacity across the board; and (iv) absence of a sound and reliable monitoring and evaluation system, including scarce reliable information on students' learning outcomes. The issue of overlapping responsibilities and lack of clear accountability lines can be well illustrated by the teacher management case: teacher management functions are shared across three government levels (federal, state and local) and two parastatal agencies (SUBEB and the Teacher Boards) with overlaps and unclear definition of roles, making effective decision-making very problematic and resulting, among other things, in inefficient teacher deployment. On the other hand, ineffective school-based management is a contributing factor to poor teacher attendance and teaching quality. 15. Insufficient and inefficient public spending. The education budget is still insufficient to address existing problems as well as cater to new needs. With a ratio of about nine percent, Nigeria still has scope to improve its share of total spending allocated to education to bring it closer to the minimum standard of annual budget prescribed by UNESCO to fast-track education-related MDGs (i.e. 26 percent). This would also help increase unit costs to support higher education quality. At the same time, the existing resources are often used inefficiently and inequitably, with too little space for non-salary expenditures such as investment in facilities and instructional materials (representing on average only about 30 percent of the budget), with multiple sources of wastage, and resources not reaching their intended beneficiaries. 10 Radwan and Pellegrini: Knowledge, productivity and innovation in Nigeria, The World Bank (2010). -5- 16. Gender development. Nigeria’s education system is characterized by a gender parity imbalance in the Northern States in respect of female students and teachers, whereas some of the other areas of the country reflect an imbalance in favor of female students and teachers. The low proportion of female school participation is acute in Northern States. As a result, as described above, this is manifested in the low level of educational attainment of girls in the Northern States, particularly in rural areas. Key Achievements and Issues at the State Level (Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti States) 17. To a large extent the successes and challenges highlighted above also apply to Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti States, although Bauchi’s outcomes are clearly below average, while the ones of Anambra and Ekiti are above average (Table 1). In terms of relative successes, all states have improved quite significantly access to primary education, with Bauchi still facing an important shortfall (Table 2). Their commitment to the MDGs is also clearly expressed in their Education Sector Strategic Plans, which stress the importance of achieving them through adequate reforms and higher budgetary allocations. The program under the project is the consolidated programs of the Participating States of Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti (see education budget allocation in Table 2). 18. The three states also face a set of common challenges in terms of expanding access to secondary education, including technical schools, and, importantly, quality of the teaching and learning process as illustrated by the very low pass rates in the secondary education WAEC examinations. A low pass rate at the end of secondary is indicative of poor learning not only in secondary schools but also in primary ones because of the cumulative nature of learning. In Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti, the quality and relevance challenge related to poor learning and lack of skills for the labor market (through lack of quality, and poor quality of, technical options) clearly requires urgent attention. In Bauchi, there is a very strong combined quantity-quality challenge. In all states the precise causes of low performance differ somewhat but teacher issues – related to overall numbers and deployment to rural areas in Anambra and Bauchi (with additional issues with basic qualifications in Bauchi) and deployment in core subjects in Ekiti – are an important common concern. Most governance and financing issues described above are also a common challenge, with notably still insufficient functionality of the SBMCs 11 and inefficient spending. Peculiarities per state are briefly mentioned below. 19. Bauchi’s challenges. Of all states, as mentioned above, Bauchi is the one facing the most daunting challenges, consistent with its lower socio-economic status. Beyond the set of issues already highlighted, there is also a very strong gender bias (against females) in enrollment, completion and the teaching profession – the three likely to be at least in part related. Bauchi also used to have a very low education priority ratio (see economic analysis), but, on the positive side, has experienced a largely consistent positive real growth in its education budget over the 2006-2010 period bringing it to a rather significant 14 percent share of the total budget, with particular emphasis on capital expenditure. This indicates a growing commitment to education. Poor governance of the system remains a key constraint. Moreover, Bauchi is currently addressing the gender issue by implementing its policy of improving upon the gender 11 As also indicated in the school based management diagnostic carried out through the SABER benchmarking tool. -6- parity imbalance by 2018 through a set of policy measures aimed at: (i) producing a larger number of girls graduates at its colleges of Education (from 632 graduates in 2012, to an expected 720 in 2013 and 900 by 2016); (ii) providing more space for girls in secondary schools; (iii) replacing all retiring/exiting teachers by female teachers; and (iv) providing incentives to attract and retain girls in schools through the State Girl Education Project, as well as conditional cash transfer programs focusing on female students, in collaboration with the MDG Office. 20. Ekiti’s challenges. On the other hand of the spectrum, Ekiti is a much better performer in terms of most educational outcomes, although quality is still very much an issue. The State has invested a lot in teachers as indicated by its low pupil-teacher ratio and high education priority ratio (almost 28 percent) focused on recurrent costs. Ekiti is possibly among the States with the highest commitment to education in Nigeria. On the minus side, low pass rates for the amount of spending and inadequate non-recurrent spending point to inefficiencies in resource use. 21. Anambra’s challenges. Finally, Anambra’s performance is not too dissimilar from that of Ekiti but with teacher numbers and deployment issues, and spending levels closer to the one of Bauchi, suggesting possibly higher efficiency in the use of existing resources but also a need to sustain financial commitment to the education sector. While quite stable and increasing in 2010, the education priority ratio has room to increase further. Anambra has a strong Education Sector Plan with clearly set goals in terms of outcomes to be achieved and amount and efficiency of education spending which provides a strong basis for sustained engagement. It also counts that the Ministry of Planning and Budget is committed to efficient resource utilization and is striving for results. In terms of gender, Anambra faces a reverse situation from the northern states. It has to grapple with the issue of boys’ early dropout from the basic education system in view of the high opportunity costs for them to remain in school, as opposed to be employed as unskilled and semi-skilled workers. -7- Table 2: Key Educational Indicators (Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti) Anambra Bauchi Ekiti Indicators Primary JSS SSS Primary JSS SSS Primary JSS SSS Primary education Net 80.1 n.a. n.a. 40.8 n.a. n.a. 79.1 n.a. n.a. Attendance Ratio (NAR) Secondary education Net n.a. 59 21.8 65 Attendance Ratio (NAR) Total Enrolment 584,170 87,246 49,159 737,505 90,173 58,792 164,232 51,263 41,054 % Female 50% 57% 56% 41% 38% 28% 51% 49% 48% Total No. of Schools 1,040 253 253 2,143 663 86 818 183 181 % Rural /a 78% 74% 77% 91% 60% 84% 82% 78% 74% Total No. of Teachers 10,177 3,270 4,327 18,127 2,387 2,695 9,235 3,316 3,299 % Female 93% 76% 79% 21% 17% 21% 75% 61% 47% % in Core Subjects /b n.a. n.a. 28% n.a. n.a. - n.a. n.a. 43% % Qualified /c 81% 64% 68% 20% 54% 48% 89% 99% 78% Pupil/Teacher Ratio (overall) 54.6 38.7 33.2 75 68 38 17.8 15.5 12.4 -Rural 55 64 89 16 Average Pass Rates /d n.a. n.a. 29% n.a. n.a. 8% n.a. n.a. 21% Completion rate (females) -Urban n.a. 95% 45% n.a. 58% 45% n.a. 95% 92% -Rural n.a. 89% 55% n.a. 14% 6% n.a. 94% 91% No. of Technical Schools n.a. n.a. 11 n.a. n.a. 8 n.a. n.a. 6 Accredited programs in n.a. n.a. 41%- n.a. n.a. 10%- n.a. n.a. 91%- Technical Schools 100% 100% 100% Enrolment (Technical Schools) n.a. n.a. 3,517 n.a. n.a. 3,875 n.a. n.a. 994 Education Budget allocation 9,708 (Year 2010) 8,088 (Year 2010) 18,327 (Year 2010) (Naira million) Education share as % of total 11 14.2 23 Budget (2008-2010) Recurrent expenditure/total 71 59 72 education exp. (%) (2008-2010) a/ Rural is defined as those schools not located within the Local Government Headquarters. b/ Core subjects include Mathematics, English, Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and Integrated Science in JSS. c/ Have received the National Certificate of Education (NCE) issued by the National Teacher Institute. d/ West African Examinations Council (WAEC). The pass rate relates to the percentage of students having scored 5 credits and above (including English and Mathematics). n.a. – Not applicable. Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 2011, Federal Ministry of Education. Ekiti Vital Statistics, 2011, State Ministry of Education. Ekiti State Universal Education Board. Public Education Expenditure Reviews (Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti, 2011). Bauchi SUBEB. Anambra State Ministry of Education. Relevance of the Project 22. The proposed State Education Program Investment Project (SEPIP) will work with the federal government and support education programs of Participating States (Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti), 12 to improve the quality of their education. Thus, the program is defined as the consolidated programs of these Participating States. The selection of these three states was 12 While the project features results-based financing in these three States, a few other States (such as Edo State) showing commitment to this approach, and meeting the key criteria, will be supported to some extent through national level technical assistance under the project to allow them to participate fully in any subsequent phase. -8- primarily based on these key criteria: (a) demonstrated commitment and ownership; (b) existence of a sound fiduciary framework; (c) quality of Education Sector Plans (ESPs); (d) a strong commitment to the adoption of a performance based approach; (e) need to ensure geopolitical balance. The choice of prioritizing three states is based on: (i) implementation experience in Nigeria emphasizing enhanced focus on fewer states with sizeable funding for reforms to bear results; and (ii) the need to match project intervention with prevailing state capacity, while at the same time ensuring adequate implementation support. It would aim at addressing two key current portfolio challenges: how to enhance the focus on results, and shift the Bank’s strategic focus to a few states to demonstrate improved educational outcomes. The ultimate aim is ensuring learning for all by building strong, resilient, and accountable educational systems that would make a difference in the lives of young people and their communities. 23. Both the Federal and the selected States’ governments are committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and universal basic education goals, and are interested in partnering with development partners. Participating states’ ESPs underscore a focus on interventions leading to better results and outcomes in the: (i) expansion of education coverage with equity; and (ii) improvement of the quality and relevance of education. Adopting a results-based approach, the project focuses on addressing education quality issues in selected States, while issues of access to education with equity are addressed under different programs (including those financed by the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), and development partners such as DfID, AfDB, USAID and Unicef – see Table 3 below). Apart from these, there is currently an ongoing initiative towards achieving education MDG goals by addressing coverage and access to education in needy States through a potential grant funding under the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) Fund (formerly EFA-FTI Catalytic Fund), which could be up to US$100 million. This will necessarily depend on the FGN’s willingness and commitment to tap this funding, which Nigeria has only recently become eligible for. Thus, it should be noted that the proposed project, through its focus on education quality, will complement the government’s own program and coordinated development partner efforts, as well as World Bank ongoing programs in the education sector as a whole, to support the Government in reaching its education sector goals. -9- Table 3 – Key Development Partner Participation in Education Sector Partner Subsector/Main Area States AfDB Technical Education/Skills Training Abia, Akwa Borno, Ibom, Enugu, FCT, Kaduna, Lagos, Ondo DfID Basic Education (Sector Support, Girls Education, Teacher Bauchi, Enugu, Jigawa, Kaduna, Development, Low-cost Private School, EMIS, school-based Kano, Katsina, Kwara, management) Lagos,Niger, Sokoto Global Basic Education (Access to education, especially for girls, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Partnership quality, and institutional capacity-building) – Nigeria: Sokoto for Education Partnership for Education Grant Project (GPE) JICA Strengthening Mathematics and Science Education National Infrastructure (additional classrooms) Kano, Niger, Plateau UNESCO Basic Education – Policy and Guidance National Unicef Basic Education (School Feeding, School Health, Girls National Education, Whole School Development, Early Childhood, Out- of-School Children, EMIS) USAID Basic Education (Northern Education Initiative) Sokoto, Bauchi World Bank Post-Basic Education (Science & Technology Project) National Secondary Education (Lagos Eko Project, State Employment Lagos, Niger Delta, Edo, and Expenditure for Results Project - Skill Development) Basic Education (Community and Social Development Support) National Source: Federal Ministry of Education, 2012 and World Bank. 24. The Project (US$150 million) will promote education quality, also leading to more equitable access and efficiency in the education sector. The proposed results based approach will support systemic reforms in teacher and school management conducive to higher quality by focusing on key teacher and school outcomes that need to be achieved. At the same time, by disbursing against actual education expenditure (refunds), focusing on ambitious outcomes (captured by the DLIs and the PDO indicators), and supporting states with strong commitment to education as illustrated by strong Education Sector Plans and significant education sector budgets, the project is also a vehicle for further increasing the states’ overall education sector budgets and use them more efficiently (including through better targeted recurrent expenditures and a higher share of non-salary recurrent spending). By setting in place a framework to enhance expenditure efficiency and adequacy, the Project, with a relatively small envelope with limited fiscal impact, will therefore have positive broader positive implications for the states’ budgetary frameworks and the implementation of the Education Sector Plans. 25. More specifically, the results-based financing approach of the project will work to strengthen the budgetary framework of the three states in terms of helping them move towards performance-based budgeting. In general performance-based budgeting helps change the focus of the budgetary process from an input-based annual activity to a performance based exercise that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of expenditures and lay the foundations for greater modernization of public management. The use of pre-agreed outcomes and results to trigger disbursements under this project will force the states to channel adequate amounts of resources to achieve better results in education. Although this is only applicable to the education budget, the project, through its technical assistance/capacity building component, can help states mainstream this approach to the broader budgetary framework. - 10 - 26. Other contributions to the budgetary and planning framework - at federal, state and school level -include the induction of behavioral changes in the way UBEC allocates its funding to states (including through more performance-based approaches), supporting budgeting over a Medium Term Framework, the institutionalization of school-level funding via SBMCs and the alignment of the ESPs with the results-based approach. Most of these contributions will also be supported through targeted TA. C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes 27. The proposed Project, which supports the Government of Nigeria State-level education programs primarily covering basic and secondary education, contributes to Nigeria’s long-term objective of human capital development for sustaining economic growth and poverty reduction. The Project objective is consistent with the objectives of the FY2010-13 Country Partnership Strategy (CPS), which places great emphasis on human capital development. The State Education Program Investment Project objective is well aligned with the Government’s Transformation Agenda towards achievement of its Vision 20:2020. Based on this vision, human capital development is strategic to the socio-economic development of a nation and includes education, health, labor and employment and women affairs. Investing in human capital development is therefore critical as it is targeted at ensuring that “the nation’s human resource endowment is knowledgeable, skilled, productive and healthy to enable the optimal exploitation and utilization of other resources to engender growth and development.� II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. PDO 28. The project development objective is to support: (a) need-based teacher deployment; (b) school-level management and accountability; and (c) measurement of student learning in Participating States. This will contribute to, and complement, the programs and priorities of participating States in addressing education access, quality and efficiency issues, through their own funding, financing from UBEC and other government agencies, as well as other development partners. B. Project Beneficiaries 29. The direct beneficiaries from the Participating States of Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti are the millions of students who attend primary and secondary school in any given year, the teachers in participating states’ government schools who receive training as well as younger cohorts of children who will most likely enter primary and secondary school each year over the course of the Project. Indirect beneficiaries include government staff at Federal and State levels, and below, as well as other eligible states (such as Edo) benefiting from national-level technical assistance. - 11 - 30. Equity Considerations. The pro-poor focus of the Project will be achieved in three ways: (i) a large proportion of the population in the participating Project states is poor; (ii) the Project aims to enhance the delivery of specific services for which the coverage among the poor is disproportionately low; and (iii) several DLIs have a rural focus. C. PDO Level Results Indicators 31. Success in meeting the Project objective will be measured by the following outcome indicators for Participating States: Table 4: Measurement of Outcome Indicators in Participating States Project Development Objective Key Performance Indicators Disbursement Linked Indicator /a (a) Need-based Teacher Teachers deployed in: (i) rural areas; and (ii) DLIs 1 and 2: Improve teacher availability Deployment core subjects in: (i) rural areas; and (ii) core subjects. (b) School-level management and • Schools that meet agreed standards DLIs 4 and 5: (i) Stimulate partnerships accountability • New Partnerships established and and accreditation in technical schools; and accreditation improvement (ii) Strengthen School-Based Management for improving school effectiveness, management and accountability (c) Measurement of Student • Cycle of diagnostic test in English DLI3: Improve regular measurement of Learning Language and Mathematics: (a) Primary student learning and achievement levels in 5 in Bauchi; and (b) Senior Secondary 2 primary and secondary education. in Anambra and Ekiti. • System for measuring student learning achievement at state level. (d) Overall Direct beneficiaries (disaggregated All DLIs geographically and by gender) a/ See Disbursement Linked Indicators below. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 32. The proposed Project is setting in place a framework to enhance expenditure efficiency and adequacy in Participating States. It is expected to act as a catalyst to the adoption of results/performance-based approaches by the Government, and scaling-up over time through its own funding. The results-based approach features Disbursement-linked Indicators, the achievement of which will trigger 83 percent of total project funding, with the remaining funds to be used primarily for technical assistance support towards DLI achievement. It purports to complement government and other development partners’ funding to the Participating States focusing on improving the quality of education. The proposed project will work with the Federal government and in three states 13 selected in accordance with broad principles of the CPS, including: (i) strong government ownership and commitment at sub-national level; (ii) selection of states with strong fiduciary capability and commitment; (iii) states having expressed willingness to use results-based approaches; and (iv) and ensuring geo-political representation and filling of gaps in development partner support, whilst avoiding duplication. At the same time, the three selected states also face urgent education challenges which can be well tackled 13 The States of Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti were selected as they met the selection criteria at the beginning of project preparation. - 12 - through a robust results-based approach. Below is a brief description of the two project components (see details in Annex 2). A. Project Components 33. The proposed project is financed by a US$150 million equivalent Specific Investment Credit to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which in turn will disburse part of the funds to the three participating states through subsidiary financing agreements to support their education program. The credit will support the design and implementation of SEPIP, over the period from March 2013 to October 2017. The project consists of two components: (a) Component 1 – a results-based financing component which would finance the participating states’ eligible expenditure programs, amounting to US$125.0 million (about 83 percent of the total Credit); and (b) Component 2 – technical assistance component which would finance essential advisory, technical, and capacity-building support for the federal and the participating states’ program, amounting to US$25 million (about 17 percent of the total Credit). While payments under Component 1 will reimburse eligible expenditures dependent on the achievement of agreed key results (Disbursement-Linked Indicators - DLIs), those for Component 2 will follow a more traditional transaction-based approach (i.e. financing of specific inputs such as consultants’ services, training, goods, small works and operating costs), both in accordance with the applicable World Bank investment lending policies and guidelines. Component 1 – Results-based Support to Education Sector Reform Program (US$125.0 million) 34. The aim of this results-based component is to support participating State Governments’ program priorities through selected disbursement-linked indicators focusing on the achievement of tangible and measurable results over the project period as follows: (a) improving teacher effectiveness through better deployment, based on needs, including: (i) deployment to hard-to- staff schools; and (ii) deployment in core subject areas (English Language, Mathematics Physics, Chemistry and Biology); (b) improving regular measurement of student achievement; (c) strengthening School-based Management Committee’s participation and capacity for supporting school management and accountability; and (d) supporting stronger partnerships with the private sector to improve the relevance of technical and vocational schools, with emphasis on skills for employment. 35. The focus on the above critical areas is grounded on evidence from educational research that teacher quality, along with regular and systematic measurement of learning outcomes, strong participation of school-based management committees and strong partnerships with the private sector in secondary education can contribute substantially to improvement in student learning outcomes and skills, as well as on the diagnostics undertaken in each state. For instance, in one study of 79 cases of impact of school resources and teacher variables on learning, a consistent result of the impact analysis was that having teachers with greater knowledge of the subjects they teach matters a lot for improving education quality, in addition to having a functional school and teachers that show up for work (understandably since teacher absenteeism affects learning - 13 - negatively). 14 Moreover, evidence also pinpoints to a shift in emphasis from basic school characteristics to changing incentives in schools, and permitting more local decision-making, as cross-country evidence generally indicates positive effects from more local autonomy in decision-making given sound accountability. 15 Further, communities that are informed and engaged in education can promote accountability and learning by monitoring education performance, demanding for improved services, and encouraging learning in and out of school. 16 36. The choice of these critical areas is also supported by key constraints noted in each of the states, further confirmed in some cases (i.e., teachers, learning assessments, school autonomy and accountability, EMIS and school-based management) by results from a rigorous benchmarking of the Participating States’ education systems using tools developed under the World Bank’s Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiative 17 (see Annex 3 and detailed findings in Annex 8). Key benchmarking results confirm that in all three states: (i) it is difficult to match teacher skills with student needs in the absence of incentives for teachers to work at hard-to-staff schools or to teach subjects where there are critical shortages, pointing to a need to better allocate teachers across the system; (ii) there is a lack of standardized information on student learning and achievement levels, partly attributable to the absence of institutionalized, system-level student assessment programs in these states; and (iii) recruitment of teachers and budgeting are too centralized, participation of SBMCs in school finance is weak, there is limited school accountability, and there is a lack of dissemination of information on student achievement and learning to parents. 37. Based on this evidence and diagnostics, the project will support five critical results captured by the five DLIs (see Annex 1 – Appendix 1). (a) Teacher Management - Improve Teacher Availability in Rural Areas (DLI 1). The objective of this DLI is to address the imbalance in the supply of teachers, adversely affecting predominantly rural schools, through deployment of teachers to hard-to-staff schools through revised deployment policy and teacher incentives. Placing teachers where their skills are most needed is crucial for promoting quality, equity and efficiency in the educational system. All three Participating States could benefit from better matching teachers’ skills with student needs – an area identified as a key weakness in all three systems. The difficulty of having sufficient qualified teachers posted in rural areas persists in at least two Participating States; the lack of available teachers in core subjects, addressed through DLI 2 below, is an issue in all three states. It is envisaged that the availability of qualified teachers in rural areas would be addressed either through mandatory posting for a fixed period or through provision of incentives to teachers, 14 Paul W. Glewwe, Erik A. Hanusek, Sarah D. Humpage, and Renato Ravina, “School Resources and Educational Outcomes in Developing Countries: A Review of The Literature From 1990 To 2010,� NBER Working Paper Series, 17554, October 2011, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 15 Hanushek, Eric A., and Ludger Woessmann. 2011. "The economics of international differences in educational achievement." In Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 3, edited by Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann. Amsterdam: North Holland: 89-200. 16 Bruns et al, 2011. “Making Schools Work – New Evidence on Accountability Reforms,� World Bank – Human Development Perspectives. 17 SABER is a relatively new World Bank initiative aimed at helping countries to systematically examine and strengthen the performance of their education systems so that they can achieve learning for all. - 14 - including a bonus program currently under formulation. By the end of the program pupil-teacher ratios in rural areas are expected to be significantly lower. (b) Teacher Management - Improve Teacher Availability in Core Subjects (DLI 2). This priority objective aims at addressing the issue of lack of teachers in certain schools in core subjects, English, Mathematics and Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology), through revised deployment policy and teacher incentives, which may vary from state to state. Technical assistance support will be provided upfront for undertaking a detailed analysis of teacher workforce, and identification of options and recommendations at participating state level. (c) Assessment of Student Achievement - Improve the regular Measurement of Learning and achievement Level in Primary and Secondary Education (DLI3). The objective of this DLI is to support Participating States and the Federal Government in improving the regular measurement of student learning and achievement levels through standardized, state-level testing: (i) in Bauchi, in English Language and Mathematics for Primary 5; and (ii) in Anambra and Ekiti, in English and Mathematics for Senior Secondary 2. In order to improve the quality of education, benchmarking analysis points to the critical need for strengthened monitoring of learning and achievement levels in the Participating States through putting in place regular, standardized student assessment programs. Given the lack of prior activity in this area among the three states, the focus is on initiating a regular system of state-level, standardized assessments, with substantial technical assistance drawn from international expertise. In addition, it is envisaged that in view of its ongoing involvement in large-scale student assessment exercises, UBEC would provide the institutional structure for national-level assessment activities linked to these state-level efforts. The primary focus of the assessment activities for this DLI should be on collecting standardized information on student learning outcomes that is analyzed and reported in an effective and timely manner so as to support improved teaching and learning. (d) Technical and Vocational Education - Stimulate Partnerships and accreditation of programs for relevance in technical schools (DLI 4). The objective of this DLI is to improve the quality of teaching, research, and skills development at the senior secondary technical schools (called colleges in Nigeria), and make them more relevant to the demands of employment and entrepreneurship in Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. Technical schools would receive funding and capacity-building to strengthen the linkages between the schools and industry. Specific outputs include: (i) the number of partnerships established, with collaboration between the technical colleges and entrepreneurs, commerce, and industry in the private sector; (ii) improvement in course accreditation; and (iii) institutional capacity-building in the technical and vocational education sub-sector in these three states. It is expected that over the long-term, following improved quality and relevance (including support in the form of school grants – see DLI 5 below), there will be an increasing number of students enrolled in these programs and completing them successfully, who could be admitted to post-secondary institutions or even start their own businesses. (e) School-Based Management and Accountability - Strengthen School Based-Management Committee participation and capacity for improving school effectiveness, management and accountability (DLI 5). The objective of this DLI is to strengthen school-level management for improved school performance, through annual grants to basic and secondary schools on the basis of their education quality improvement plans. There is an increasing trend toward greater - 15 - autonomy of, and devolution of responsibilities to, schools in light of the positive benefits that can be derived, and strengthening of demand-side accountability for raising learning levels. SBMCs are established, but not yet fully-functional in the three Participating States in the sense of regularly performing a set of functions entrusted to them for improved school-level management and performance. Based on the benchmarking results, SBMCs will be made more effective through institutionalization of school-level funding via SBMCs, while at the same time strengthening their accountability to parents (e.g. through dissemination of expenditures, information on student achievement and learning outcomes, etc.) and developing school improvement plans. The grant would be provided annually to SBMCs of all primary and junior secondary schools to augment the school's budget for non-salary expenditures designed to improve learning performance of students (for example, teaching/learning materials, special teacher training, free student coaching). The amount of the grant would vary according to school size. School head teachers/principals and teachers, representatives from SBMC would prepare the school's improvement plan (SIP) based on an agreed operations manual. Component 2 – Technical Assistance (US$25.0 million) 38. The objective of this component is to provide technical assistance channeled through two levels: (a) State level (US$20 million) – supporting Participating States towards achievement of DLIs, and the associated institutional capacity strengthening; and (b) Federal level (US$5 million) – supporting the Federal Ministry of Education (FMOE) and UBEC in overall project coordination and in providing the enabling environment in line with national policies, and in ensuring sustainability and scaling-up of successful activities in other potential states, for instance in Edo State. 39. The technical assistance aims to support the critical reforms fostered under component 1, leverage the impact of the Project through the sharing of best practices and enhance its implications for the broader states’ budgetary frameworks and planning processes, support the monitoring and evaluation framework of the project, and strengthen fiduciary processes. Along this line, the composition of technical assistance falls under four broad areas (see Annex 2 – detailed table on indicative technical assistance activities): A. Educational development – provision of technical knowledge on teacher management and development (including teacher workforce analysis and incentive options), strategic educational planning, and development of a plan in Bauchi to attract, recruit and retain female teachers in support of Bauchi State’s policy for improving upon the gender balance among the teacher force), learning assessments (including state and national large scale assessment), a diagnostic of core competencies of graduating students in technical schools, EMIS, and quality assurance; school-based management strengthening, and beneficiary feedback, assessments and grievance redress mechanisms (involving CSO’s and well as SBMC’s); capacity-building to LGAs in Participating States with the purpose of equipping them with the necessary information and competencies for effectively participating in the project; B. Budgetary and policy frameworks – technical support to participating states in strengthening school-level funding via SBMCs and in aligning the Education Sector - 16 - Plans with the new results-based approach; technical support to UBEC in the development of a new funding formula; technical studies to support other states on results-based approaches, management and coordination; technical assistance to support a Medium Term Budgeting Framework; annual (or bi-annual) Public Education Expenditure Reviews to confirm overall amount, sources and allocation of education sector budget and actual spending; C. Monitoring and evaluation – support to third party monitoring and validation; social accountability mechanisms, including beneficiary feedback and community monitoring (in collaboration with SBMCs); impact evaluation of strategies to promote decentralized school management; Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) survey; Anambra impact evaluation of various forms of school ownership and accountability mechanisms on quality of service delivery in schools; tracer studies; public expenditure tracking surveys; SABER benchmarking for LGAs; ICT initiatives; D. Fiduciary – strengthening financial management and procurement, and ensuring compliance with the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF); and E. Other - annual program reviews, which would provide for a joint-review of the year’s progress against targets, agree on needed actions to resolve emerging issues, and an action plan for the coming year. B. Project Financing Lending Instrument 40. The proposed project is financed by a US$150 million Specific Investment Credit to support the education program of participating states. The IDA Credit will be disbursed against: (a) Eligible Expenditures Programs (EEPs) under Participating states’ education budget contingent upon achievement of the agreed set of DLIs; and (b) other specified categories of expenditures using the traditional disbursement approach in respect of Component 2 – Technical Assistance. DLIs are priced equally, thus enabling disbursements against DLIs that are met in each year. 41. Over the financing period of the Project, disbursement will be made annually after DLI verification and vetting before February of the subsequent calendar year. In the event that instances of non-compliance occur with a set of DLIs, the Bank would consider proposals for target revision and indicator redesign through possibly a restructuring at mid-term (or earlier, if feasible) with broad flexibility to: (i) re-set targets; (ii) adjust expenditure programs; and (iii) fine-tune protocols for DLIs. In case of continued State poor performance, possibilities for intra- state re-allocation in consultation with the Federal Ministry of Finance may be considered. - 17 - Project Cost and Financing 42. The total program cost is estimated at US$1,192.2 million, out of which IDA will finance about US$150 million, and the remainder will be financed by the States of Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. Of the IDA Credit about US$125.0 million will be disbursed against DLIs that have been met according to an agreed verification protocol. It is envisaged that each Participating State would be allocated an equal amount of funding for DLIs (e.g. about US$41.7 million). The remainder will be made available in the form of technical assistance amounting to about US$25 million aimed at strengthening delivering capacity and knowledge of: (i) Participating States; (ii) relevant interested states in results-based approaches; (iii) Federal Ministry of Education; (iv) the Universal Basic Education Commission; and (v) concerned educational institutions, such as para-statals like the Teacher Service Commission. Program Components Program cost IDA Financing % Financing 1. Component 1 – Results-based Support to Education Sector Program 125.0 125.0 100% 2. Component 2 - Technical Assistance 23.5 23.5 100% 3. Government Program /a 1,192.2 - - Total Baseline Costs 1,340.7 148.5 11.19% Physical contingencies Price contingencies /b 1.5.0 1.5 100% Total Program Costs 1,342.2 150.0 11.18% Interest During Implementation Front-End Fees Total Financing Required 1,342.2 150.0 a/ Total government budget for the Participating States (2013-16). b/ Price contingencies pertain to Component 2, Technical Assistance (about 6.4% of the total amount). Source: State budgets and appraisal estimates (August 2012). C. Program Objectives and Phases 43. Not Applicable. D. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Project Design 44. The State Education Program Investment Project builds upon the lessons learned under previous Bank projects in Nigeria (especially the Sector Education Support Project and the Lagos Eko Project), and on lessons of implementation experience elsewhere (particularly in Latin America and South Asia). These include: (a) hinging project design on priorities delineated in each of the state’s education sector plan, and focusing on a limited number of complementary interventions (with sizeable financing, but a smaller number of DLIs) that can be measured and evaluated, to have maximum impact on the achievement of state’s education goals; - 18 - (b) establishing an effective monitoring and data collection system, which is vital to the successful monitoring and evaluation of project achievements and outcomes, and likely to be enhanced through DLI verification – it is envisaged that each of the State Ministries of Education will have a strong monitoring and evaluation unit, equipped with an appropriate Educational Management Information System (to be strengthened by focused technical assistance); (c) using existing administrative agencies (as opposed to a separate project entities), ensures smooth project implementation and long-term sustainability, provided the choice of agencies is accompanied by commensurate capacity-building, and an effective coordination mechanism – since the locus of implementation will lie at state level, each State Ministry of Education will feature a State Technical Support Unit led by a State Project Coordinator from the State Ministry of Education; (d) designing a component for effective decentralized provision of education quality inputs with strong school-level leadership and accountability can contribute significantly to improving student learning outcomes – the project places a great deal of emphasis on strengthening school level management and accountability through greater decision-making by, and funding support, to School-Based Management Committees, coupled with relevant information dissemination to leverage change for improved service delivery and learning outcomes; (e) taking into account the need to: (i) provide enough flexibility to adjust results, provided key incentives to achieve results are preserved; (ii) ensure timely technical assistance (combining therefore incentives with capacity); and (iii) address supervision intensity, with continuous engagement with authorities, especially with multiple sub-national levels. With regard to flexibility, the project adopts a gradual and progressive approach for DLIs, while incorporating the need for substantial upfront technical assistance to ensure their eventual achievement. Similar attention is paid to match states’ capacity with the implementation/supervision intensity; and (f) incorporating mechanisms to facilitate community engagement and participation, as well as systems of accountability, feedback and grievance redress greatly enhance project performance. - 19 - IV. IMPLEMENTATION A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements 45. Given that the project will be implemented largely at the state level or below, the responsibility for project implementation will lie with the Ministry of Education of each of the participating states, with the Federal Ministry of Education undertaking overall project oversight and coordination, mainly through the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC). The Federal Ministry of Education will be the ultimate sectorial authority for the project, while the State Ministry of Education (SMOE), led by the Commissioner of Education, will assume this responsibility at the state level, in concert with the extended arm of UBEC, the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB). The following describes the institutional arrangements, including roles and responsibilities of the various institutions. Details are in Annex 3, and Appendices 1-3. 46. Federal level. At the Federal level, the Federal Ministry of Education (FMOE) will provide policy guidance and chair the National Project Steering Committee, which will be responsible for overall coordination and monitoring of project implementation, assisted by UBEC, whose role will be to focus on technical aspects of basic education such as learning assessments, and monitoring and evaluation. The FMOE, through the Federal Project Support Unit, will also be responsible for coordinating project activities at federal level, including technical assistance and DLI verification activities and providing implementation support to states, through a newly established Federal Project Support Unit. The Federal Ministry of Finance will be a member of the National Project Steering Committee, and will be expected to provide support to SEPIP through participation in project annual joint reviews. In addition, the Federal Project Financial Management Department (FPFMD) will manage financial management arrangements at the federal level. Given the critical role of the Federal Ministry of Finance as the interlocutor of multilateral and bilateral financing agencies in Nigeria, the Ministry in liaison with the Bank will carry out its oversight functions for project implementation with a view to ensuring value for money. 47. State level arrangements in participating states. The major part of implementation will occur at this level, more particularly the achievement of results as formulated by the DLI targets. Under the guidance of a State Project Steering Committee (SPSC), the main responsibility for this will lie with the State Ministry of Education, including the close monitoring of the DLI targets. A Technical Committee consisting of representatives from SMOE will support the State Project Steering Committee in dealing with technical matters. The SMOE in each state will comprise a State Project Technical Support Unit (SPTSU) with a project coordinator from SMOE. This Unit will liaise with various implementing partners, closely track project progress, particularly on DLI achievement, and compliance with fiduciary safeguards (financial management, procurement, social and environment). It will also play a key role in planning, implementing, monitoring and reporting, as well as acting as a focal point for coordination with the Bank, and other agencies, including concerned civil society organizations. 48. The SMOE will be assisted in financial management by a State Project Financial Management Unit (at the Accountant-General’s Office), responsible for the management of - 20 - donor-funded projects. For SEPIP, the SPFMU will serve as the Fund Holder for Component 1, and manage the financial management arrangements under the Technical Assistance Component. 49. In addition, the State Ministries of Finance and Planning, and the State Universal Basic Education Boards, Local Government Authorities, and key education parastatals such as the Teacher Boards, as well as other agencies including civil service societies, will also be involved in project management at state level primarily through their involvement in the State Project Steering Committee. 50. Local Government Education Authority. With oversight mainly from SUBEB, the LGEA is responsible for assisting with coordination of educational activities at LGA level through educational planning, budgeting, administering schools, and resolving program implementation bottlenecks. Moreover, they assess school educational inputs requirements through basic school data collection. Furthermore, they act as an intermediary for disseminating information to schools/SBMCs (including policy notifications and instructions). They coordinate capacity support to SBMCs, conduct school visits, and perform some monitoring of school activities. In addition, they will assist SMOES/SUBEBs in program coordination and implementation. 51. School Level. Responsibility for project implementation will lie primarily with Head Teachers/Principals, assisted by functional School-Based Management Committees, which will support the schools in developing education improvement plans, and manage activities under such plans, as approved by the SMOEs, in compliance with approved operations manual, satisfactory to IDA. In addition, SBMCs, assisted by NGOs, will be responsible for organizing meetings with relevant community members (e.g. Parent-Teacher Association meetings, parents’ assemblies, social audits, etc.) to discuss, inter alia, school performance against their improvement plans and targets. Annex 3, Appendix 3 shows an organogram of the school level structure. B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation 52. Rigorous monitoring of results is critical to generate evidence of progress towards achieving the project’s Development Objectives. The proposed Project bases the M&E framework on the Government’s established education monitoring system for assessing progress in the project’s outcomes and results. M&E is integrated into the SEPIP design and is supported through DLIs, and a clearly established results framework against which to evaluate project performance, including risk mitigation, and progress toward the SEPIP development objective. The responsibility for monitoring activities will lie with the Monitoring and Evaluation sections within the SPTSU in each of the State Ministries of Education, complemented by overall monitoring by the Universal Basic Education Commission on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Education at the Federal level, and civil society organizations at the school level. The main tasks are described in Annex 3. 53. The project will strengthen the existing system in the States to improve monitoring of results in the sector. The main features of the monitoring systems include systematic school- - 21 - based data collection using registers and records, monthly routine data collection by Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs), quarterly summary of results and quarterly progress reports by State Ministries of Education (SMOE), an annual school census. 54. In addition, the project will support Independent Third Party Monitoring (TPM) and verification coordinated by the Federal Project Support Unit. TPM will be undertaken by qualified CSOs/CBOs/firms selected competitively and will be managed under the technical assistance component set up to validate results reported through the monitoring system. Third party monitoring to be contracted at the national level will complement the usual monitoring and evaluation mechanism under the project. Details on third party monitoring are in Annex 3 (Appendix 5). 55. Measuring results accurately and reliably at desired intervals is critical to the success of SEPIP. It will form the basis for payments to states, local governments and schools. M&E will be a key responsibility of the SMOE in the context of the SEPIP. There will be an annual assessment of project performance, which will, in case of continued poor performance (less than 50% achievement), also consider possibilities for intra-state re-allocation in consultation with the Federal Ministry of Finance, after a notice of six months for redress is given to the State(s) concerned. The results framework in Annex 1 will be jointly reviewed by mid-term, based on an external evaluation to be carried two months prior to this review, and a final one about eight months prior to project closing. It is planned that an Education Public Expenditure Review would be conducted to inform the annual assessment, and address education budget issues. 56. The M&E mechanism will: (a) verify the data provided by schools and the States’ Ministries of Education; (b) contribute to improving the reliability of routine EMIS through technical support, benchmarking and tracking improvements; (c) monitor the progress on performance improvements through periodic independent sample surveys for tracking changes at LGA and School levels; and (d) establish closer links with UBEC on the development of large- scale surveys, with some linkage to the National Bureau of Statistics for household surveys. Monitoring that is specific to fiduciary functions, and environmental and social safeguards is described elsewhere in the respective sections of the PAD. 57. Data collection methodologies for the Results Framework. Five primary data sources will be used to measure the indicators for PDO and intermediate results in the results framework and for measuring performance for implementation purposes more generally. (a) Routine EMIS reporting systems: Data on selected key indicators will be obtained periodically by the SMOE from routine reporting systems and school registers. The Education Management Information System (EMIS) will be strengthened in each State Ministry of Education to function effectively as the data management system and produce/transmit information to various users. (b) Annual School Census: The Annual School Census (ASC) is an activity designed to capture relevant data as needed for adequate planning and administration of education in Nigeria. The main purpose of the census is to collect and collate data on schools in terms of infrastructure, teacher status, enrolment, retention and completion rates, teacher to pupil ratio, teacher to classroom ratio, pupil to classroom ratio that will - 22 - inform stakeholders and form a basis for improved activity-based planning and budgeting for education in the three States participating on the project. The TA component of the project will support the strengthening of logistics of the ASC exercise to enhance the efficiency of the process and improve the quality of results. (c) Student Assessments: Students in Primary 5 in Bauchi will be tested in reading and numeracy using standardized instruments. Students in Senior Secondary 2 in Anambra and Ekiti will be tested in English Language, and Mathematics using standard instruments. The achievement-level results derived from student responses to these tests will be analyzed and an appropriate report produced to facilitate monitoring by schools and the Local Government Education Authority (LGEA) officials who have jurisdiction over the selected schools. (d) School Report Card: LGEA officers will make quarterly visits to schools and implement a quantitative supervision checklist that will assist both LGEA officers and principals to track performance over time and trouble-shoot problems. These checklists will also be an important source of routine data on key school performance parameters such as presence of teachers, school and classroom environment, student attendance, teaching methodology, etc. Data can be aggregated by LGAs to track and manage the school performance within their span of control. (e) Beneficiary Assessments: Qualitative and quantitative surveys will be conducted by an independent consultant at baseline, year 2 and year 4 in the three comparable states. The Beneficiary Assessments will include school-based classroom observation studies that will assess improved learning conditions and the use of pedagogical methods by teachers. (f) Third Party Monitoring: Data collected by the third party monitoring system will also inform the measurement results and will be used to cross check and validate other data sources. 58. SEPIP will build sector M&E capacity. M&E capacity is currently weak and technical assistance in M&E has been identified to develop a culture of results monitoring by strengthening the systems, which provide the information and incentivizing the use of more credible information. The technical assistance plan, drawn on the basis of implementation experience, aims to support implementation, and to respond to emerging needs. Thus, the technical assistance plan for M&E will focus on strengthening evidence-based planning and management: (a) developing enhanced monitoring instruments; (b) independent validation of information; (c) analysis of information from administrative data to report on DLI achievement, where required; (d) more in-depth analysis and information dissemination to support policy- making; and (e) impact evaluations and cost-effectiveness of various interventions. Moreover, technical assistance under M&E can help advance progress in technical areas, such as learning assessment and examinations, and teacher deployment and recruitment. 59. Third-party assessments. To ease the administrative burden on the State Ministry of Education, and to take advantage of knowhow and capacity of the private sector, and more - 23 - importantly, for greater credibility, the State Ministries of Education through the State Project Technical Support Units, plans to carry out third-party assessments of program implementation progress and performance by contracting individuals/firms from the private sector. This emphasis on third-party assessments is imbedded in the DLIs and the relevant verification protocol, through reviews, validations and evaluations to be conducted by third-party organizations at appropriate points over the implementation period. Satisfactory execution and completion of third-party assessments will also be assessed as part of the overall assessment of the achievement of the relevant DLIs. 60. Service Delivery Indicators. The project envisages undertaking service delivery surveys. The disconnect between increased spending and expansion in access to education has not been matched with commensurate improvements in outcomes, suggesting an unfinished quality agenda. Provider performance in this sector is a critical determinant of quality of education. The Service Delivery Indicators 18 survey modules include: provider effort (absenteeism and time-on- task), provider competence (assessment of content knowledge and pedagogical ability), availability of basic school inputs, and pupil assessment (mathematics, language and cognitive abilities). The indicators are as follows: (a) at school level: (i) Schools with electricity, water, and sanitation; (ii) Children per classroom; (iii) Student-teacher ratio; and (iv) Textbooks per student; (b) in respect of teachers: (i) Teachers absent on a given day; (ii) Time children are in school being taught/day; (iii) Teachers with minimum knowledge – language; and (iv) Teachers with minimum knowledge – Mathematics; and (c) in terms of funding: (i) Expenditures reaching primary schools per student; and (ii) Teachers’ experiencing a two-month or more delay in salary payment. 61. The surveys yield nationally representative indicators disaggregated by rural-urban areas. The school-based surveys usually cover 250-300 primary schools covering public and private (for-profit as well as non-non-profit) providers. The survey instruments have been developed (together with Field Manual and Training materials). Once the sampling approach has been developed, training of fieldworkers/enumerators can start, and thereafter survey implementation can proceed. The Service Delivery Indicator Technical Panel and Secretariat in WB Headquarters provide quality assurance and oversight in support of country-level implementation. 62. Monitoring of Feedback and Grievance redress. Systems to collect community and beneficiary generated data and feedback, as well as respond to grievances and complaints, will be developed over the first year of the project and will provide a valuable source of information 18 The Service Delivery Indicators project is a new Africa-wide initiative that tracks service delivery in education and health across countries and over time. The project collects nationally representative data that focus mainly on performance and quality of service delivery in primary schools and at frontline health facilities. Inspired by the Bank's 2004 WDR Making Services Work for Poor People, we know that a key characteristic that distinguishes education and health services from many other services is that these services are discretionary and transaction-intensive, complicating how relationships of accountability for education and health services are structured. - 24 - for evaluating the performance of the project, as well as informing ongoing project implementation. 63. Impact Evaluation. Impact evaluation is proposed in two areas. First, regarding Quality of service delivery in education: the aim is to assess the impact of various forms of school ownership and accountability mechanisms on quality of service delivery in schools. Quality of service delivery in education is strongly influenced by provider competence and provider effort, and hence this will be a strong focus of the analysis, as well as pupil learning outcomes. The SDI Survey instruments will be a useful input into the survey design. 64. Second, an impact evaluation on “Strategies to promote decentralized school management,� will focus on answering the following questions: (a) What is the impact of an additional dollar provided to schools in the form of school grants on a number of outcome variables? (b) What strategies can be used to strengthen SBMCs to make them more effective? (c) Does strengthening of SBMCs lead to more effective use of school grants? (d) Can school grants and SBMC interventions lead to improvements in student learning outcomes? The exercise will also include gathering process information focusing on types of activities, decision- making of SBMCs on school grant use, whether school grants have any impact on teacher and student behaviors, etc. The design of the school grant component within SEPIP is such that the amount of the grant would vary according to school size. This variation in grant amounts will be exploited, to the extent possible, to measure the overall effectiveness and cost effectiveness of school grants in impacting student learning outcomes (see Annex 3, Appendix 3). 65. Supervision and Reporting. The States will collaborate with the World Bank to carry out at least two Joint supervision missions annually, with more frequent missions planned during the first year as required. World Bank supervision will comprise of semi-annual joint missions (which will include visits to schools), additional visits by World Bank country office staff and technical consultants as the need arises, and continuous electronic communication and follow-up to review SEPIP implementation progress and performance. In particular, the World Bank will monitor (progress towards) the achievement of DLIs, compliance with stipulated FM, procurement, and safeguard requirements, and implementation of the proposed project’s TA component. The State Ministries of Education, the SUBEB/LGEAs, SBMCs and local communities, and independent local organizations, such as civil society organizations will also make regular visits on a need basis to support implementation. If the security situation limits mission travel or the scope of supervision during missions, the States will intensify supervision from their offices via regular audio conferences and electronic communication. Annex 3 outlines how periodic reviews will take place at various levels. C. Sustainability 66. The sustainability of SEPIP is shaped by several factors. First, the political commitment to education since the 1990s during the return to democracy is reaffirmed in the Federal Government of Nigeria’s Vision 20:2020, its Transformation Agenda 2011-2015, and the National Education Policy (2010). Second, the Government has a reasonable track record of meeting milestones for access and equity in basic education, given its commitment to compulsory basic education. Third, the project will build upon existing institutional structures - 25 - for the management and implementation of project interventions at the federal, state and LGA levels. These institutions will be provided necessary support to build their capacity to manage interventions in the long-term. A good example is the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) through which the sector’s institutional capacity to manage large-scale programs has been consolidated over decades of implementing basic education programs and other programs under the National Education Plan. Capacity has been strengthened in planning, implementation, financing, monitoring and evaluation, and coordination of educational inputs at state level through synergies between the State Ministries of Education and the State Universal Basic Education Boards, and other relevant parastatal educational institutions such as the Teacher Board. For instance, in all three Participating States, technical teams consist of members from these agencies, who collaborate in the States’ towards educational outcomes. Another example is the LGAs which will receive significant capacity-building to undertake their management role in primary education. 67. Fourth, the fact that the Government’s financial commitment to basic education is incorporated in the country’s broader medium-term budgetary framework, signals strongly that financial sustainability could be assured through predictable and increased government allocation to the sector and effective fiscal decentralization, including rational use of available resources. Currently, through UBEC, the Government provides for two percent of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be transferred for basic education, which if fully implemented, would increase public sector spending on education beyond the current five percent of GDP. The amount thus contributed for basic education by the consolidated Revenue Fund almost covers the additional annual spending per capita that the project will invest in the three states during the project period. Sustainability considerations are built directly into the SEPIP design through improvements in budgetary processes and capacity at federal, state and school levels to refocus program implementation under a results-based management model, whose successful experience can be scaled-up. Fifth, since donor contribution represents only a small proportion of total education funding at federal and state levels, it is not a significant factor in the financing of education systems, although it plays a catalytic role in many critical interventions such as fiduciary, institutional and human resource reforms. 68. Sixth, sustainability is also enhanced at the state level. First, by the stable or growing education sector priority ratios, with increases in real terms in the education budget in at least two of the states, and project financing, while sizeable enough to have a catalytic effect, is expected to have a limited fiscal impact. Second, by the alignment of project priorities with the state Education Sector Plans, aimed at increasing quality and coverage through higher budget envelopes. 69. Finally, by actively involving the communities and beneficiaries from the very beginning it is envisaged that demand for the project and what it brings will help maintain momentum and ensure longer term sustainability of the approach. V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 70. Potential risks are summarized below, and detailed in the Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) in Annex 4. The proposed overall risk rating for the Project for - 26 - implementation is Substantial. Key factors contributing to the choice of the overall risk are briefly described below. A. Risk Ratings Summary Table Rating Stakeholder Risk Substantial Implementing Agency Risk - Capacity Substantial - Governance Substantial Project Risk - Design Substantial - Social and Environmental Moderate - Program and Donor Moderate - Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Substantial - Other (Optional) - Other (Optional) Overall Implementation Risk Substantial B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation 71. Governance. Sector governance is challenging particularly in an environment which has historically been prone to corruption and leakages in service delivery, thereby reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of education expenditures. Project governance measures, including a Governance and Accountability Plan, are in Annex 7. Despite the existence of a decentralized structure in the education sector with shared responsibilities among the federal, state and local government levels, there is limited accountability for education decisions as well as the sound tracking of education expenditures. The project supports: (a) significant sector governance- related reforms and activities (e.g., need-based teacher deployment, sound education management); (b) enhanced monitoring at different levels, including third party monitoring; (c) fiduciary measures such as (i) the use of computerized accounting systems; (ii) auditing systems; (iii) improved internal controls and preventive measures for greater financial accountability in the sector; (iv) independent expenditure tracking; (v) social accountability via SBMCs, supported by civil society organizations; and (vi) education expenditure analysis. 72. Capacity. The education sector suffers from the generic capacity issues prevalent in the civil service: staff turnover, civil administration issues, and little accountability. Weak capacity in planning, implementation and monitoring, coupled with low fiduciary capacity, could jeopardize project achievements. The project builds on the implementation experience of both the State Education Sector Project and the Lagos Eko Project. The project provides for substantial technical assistance in various aspects of educational management, monitoring and evaluation, and fiduciary elements to support state governments in achieving education results/outcomes. Similarly, local capacity and accountability are being addressed through the stronger involvement and training of School-Based Management Committees, the development and implementation of school improvement plans for better education results, and with greater - 27 - awareness, and participation, of communities, in holding the SBMC and school system accountable. 73. Fraud and Corruption. Certain elements of states’ programs expose the project to a likely risk of corruption and non-transparent or inefficient practices, for example, in the hiring of teachers, in the use of school level funding for quality improvements, or in examinations. Moreover, although all participating states have implemented, or have on-going, procurement and financial management reforms, the actual enforcement of the new regulatory system may not meet the needed level of governance and accountability. Several risk mitigation measures are envisaged, including expenditure monitoring, external validation, and strong monitoring of audits. Transparency would be attained through disclosure of procurement activities, which will include posting on SMOE’s websites. Relevant information such as procurement under SIPs, school performance will be disseminated and displayed at the schools. Feedback and grievance mechanisms will also capture possible incidences of fraud and corruption. 74. Focus on inputs. Given the unfamiliarity of State Ministries of Education and other key stakeholders with results-based interventions, the shift in focus from the traditional approach based on inputs to outcomes and results may take a long time. To mitigate this risk, a multi-tier monitoring and evaluation system will be put in place, coupled with intensive dissemination on the change in approach, as has been done throughout preparation. Nevertheless, the adoption of DLIs builds on an incentive system into the program design. Moreover, this is buttressed by specific technical assistance. 75. Flow of funds and Fiduciary Risks. Although participating states have undertaken, or have on-going, procurement and financial reforms, their capacity to plan, budget, track and audit expenditures demonstrating transparency and accountability is still weak. Specifically, ensuring that resources are budgeted and disbursed to the appropriate entities in a timely manner is an implementation risk, given the multiplicity of institutional partners. The challenge is to ensure that project funds reach the schools for results achieved while also ensuring that regular Government resources for education are more efficiently budgeted, released and expended. This is evident from the recent Public Education Expenditure Review carried out for each of the participating states. Thus, the project recognizes that this is a substantial risk. In view of this weak capacity, particularly at the LGA level, project implementation arrangements have clarified the roles and responsibilities (including fiduciary responsibilities) of various actors. TA will be provided at all levels to strengthen capacity for managing the financial aspects of the project. States will be required to undertake an annual internal audit of sector expenditures to track allocation of funds from various sources, complemented by updates of State education expenditure reviews. 76. Society and Security Risks. The escalation of campaign of violence by Boko Haram, an Islamic extremist group, has become a real challenge for security. Security issues may affect implementation of activities as crimes and incidences of violence continue to increase. Bauchi State, where such violence has already occurred, may become subject to increasing levels of violence and instability which would render implementation difficult and challenging in the absence of law and order. Given that the project is results-based, regular detailed supervision will be minimal. Nevertheless, if such events were to recur, mitigation measures envisaged will follow a three-stage approach: (a) Stage 1 – limited staff travel to Bauchi, with substantial - 28 - reliance on independent consultants for validation of DLIs (whose disbursements are conditional upon verification of achievements - representing about 80% of disbursements for each State – in themselves a built-in mitigation measure), coupled with focused discussions with key Bauchi officials in Abuja; (b) Stage 2 – under more severe conditions, implying no staff travel to Bauchi, with heavy reliance on independent consultants, and regular audio/video conferencing with key Bauchi officials; (c) Stage 3 – under totally impractical conditions, not expected to improve in the short-term (within a twelve-month period), it was agreed during appraisal with the Federal Government of Nigeria that project proceeds would be made available to other Participating States in the first instance, or to other potentially eligible states, but with still a modest amount of technical assistance being allocated for Bauchi State. VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY A. Economic and Financial Analyses 77. The economic and financial analysis carried out for SEPIP assesses: (a) trends and levels in public education expenditure in the three states; (b) the fiscal impact of the project intervention; and (c) the economic rationale and justification for Results Based Financing (RBF) interventions in the education sector and the selection of the project components in the three states. The details of the analysis are included in Annex 6. Public Expenditures Review 78. A succinct review of trends and levels in the education sector expenditure of the three states over the 2006-2010 period was undertaken, very much relying on the data of the 2011 states’ education public expenditure reviews. The detailed data analysis is included in Annex 6. 79. A key finding of the analysis is the stable or increasing education priority ratios (measured as state education spending in relation to total state spending) in the three states, as a result of real growth rates in the education budget higher or similar than the ones experienced by overall state spending, over the 2006-2010 time period. This finding suggests significant or at least consistent commitment to education from the budgetary perspective. This is all the more true as 2009 was a very difficult year revenue wise due to the oil shock. Two of the states (Anambra and Ekiti), while experiencing a decrease in their nominal budgets for education following the cuts in the statutory revenue allocations, managed to keep this decrease lower than the one for the overall budget suggesting a good level of protection of their education sector. One state, Bauchi, while less able to protect its education sector during the crisis showed a good recovery afterwards. 80. Looking further at state specificities, the data analysis points to some noticeable differences among states. It confirms notably that Ekiti is the state showing the highest level of commitment with an average real growth rate of its education budget of almost 40% over the 2006-2010 period leading to a very significant 27% education priority ratio. These findings are aligned with the strong importance attributed to education in the state and the fairly low pupil- teacher ratios, suggesting active teacher recruitment policies. It also indicates that Bauchi has experienced quite a remarkable real growth rate increase (of about 12%) in its education - 29 - spending for such a poor state over the same time period leading to a respectable 14% education priority ratio. Most of this increase was driven by capital investments highlighting a strong commitment to improving infrastructure and the need, now, to put more emphasis on recruiting teachers. Finally, Anambra experienced no real growth in its education budget over the 2006- 2010 time period, although nominal increases were sizable. The decision to halt new teacher recruitment in 2009 to assess and rationalize the use and allocation of the teaching staff shows commitment to efficiency, but it is now important for the state to consolidate its budgetary commitment to education. Overall, and in spite of the mixed crisis response, there are indications that Anambra has been putting renewed emphasis on education spending over the past three years, with a commitment to continue increasing its education priority ratio through a strong education sector plan. 81. Moving forward, the analysis suggests that there is good ground to believe that the states’ education sector budgets will continue to grow in real terms. Combined with the fact the project disburses against “actual� eligible expenditures and the DLIs focus on ambitious results -some of them very difficult to achieve without more funding, like teacher redeployment to rural areas, others, like the DLI on SBM, even factoring in the need for funding within the DLI itself (school based committees receiving the school grants) – this finding provides support to the likely “additionality� of the project funds. 82. To ensure that additionality is achieved and maintained and the education sector budget in general is well managed, two additional steps are recommended: undertaking an annual Education Expenditure Review, and supporting budgeting over a Medium Term Framework under the project. (a) Public Expenditure Review. The PER should assess amounts, sources and allocation of education sector expenditure, both actual and budget, to verify budget adequacy and efficiency; (b) Budgeting over a Medium Term Framework. As the project spans a financing period of five years, the states should need to demonstrate their own commitment to education funding by crafting their medium term budget and expenditure framework over the life span of the project. In other words, the project should prompt the three states to indicate their planned allocation of resources to education in particular and other strategic priorities in general. With technical assistance support, the project would enable these states to move towards budgeting through the Medium Term Budget Framework/Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTBF/MTEF) approach. This approach to budgeting in general, gives some degree of budget predictability to spending agencies, while ensuring overall fiscal discipline. Fiscal Impact Analysis 83. The point on additionality is further supported by the fact that the project amount represents a sizable but still relatively low percentage of the overall education spending budget in the three states, as indicated in a brief fiscal impact analysis of the project also reported in Annex 6. The fiscal impact analysis shows that across the three States- - 30 - 84. The annual project funding represents between 8 and 16% of the State education budget, decreasing to between 7 and 14% by the fourth year of project implementation. While this is a significant amount for Nigeria (important to provide a catalytic effect), this amount appears to be nonetheless fiscally sustainable in the context of the increasing real budgets, which by the first year of post-implementation of the project would already be able to potentially absorb practically the full funding in Bauchi and Ekiti and part of the funding in Anambra. Overall, any recurrent costs derived from the project funding (estimated at 80% of the annual amount taking out the TA component and assuming that all DLI related spending translate into recurrent spending) would represent a manageable and decreasing share of the State education budget. The expected efficiency gains generated by the project will decrease the burden even further. Economic Analysis 85. Principal - Agent Issues. Like many other education systems, the Nigerian education system has introduced a formal separation between the provider (school directors and teachers) and the purchaser functions (LGA/State/FGN’s ministry of education). Widely regarded as a necessary or desirable education sector policy reform, the purchaser–provider split however has some inherent problems, which are symptomatic of systems with inadequately aligned incentives, as measured by access, levels of production, quality, efficiency, and other indicators. Performance based approach can overcome these by devising remuneration schemes that explicitly link payment with achievement of output targets, thereby providing education workers with an incentive to maximize their productivity and foster entrepreneurial behavior. The proposed SEPIP project specifically designs a performance based scheme with a contract that provides incentives to the agent to perform in the way the principal would like because it is in the agent’s best interest to do so. Therefore, the project will establish performance indicators that make clear what principals want and how much incentive they are willing to pay the agent for achieving. By linking allocation of financial resources to achievement of pre-defined performance targets of a specified quality, the SEPIP performance based scheme will align the incentives of providers and purchasers of education services, thereby improving education system efficiency. 86. SEPIP also focuses on three widely used strategies that each have a clear rationale for how reforms might translate into improved learning outcomes: (i) information for accountability: generation and dissemination of information about schooling rights and responsibilities, inputs, outputs, and outcomes; (ii) school-based management: decentralization of school-level decision making—autonomy—to school-level agents; and (iii) teacher incentives: policies that link pay or tenure directly to performance. Because the payment mechanism rewards results, institutions that provide education services can be expected to examine the ways in which they structure and organize learning, motivate and supervise staff, and use resources. This change in payment policy fosters finding innovative ways to achieve the results for which schools are rewarded. The incentive to achieve results has the potential to transform managers and staff into strategic problem-solvers focused on improving quality of education and efficiency. The transformation motivated by the change in the payment system directly contributes to ensuring the sustainability of provider organizations. In view of its strong in-built monitoring and evaluation tools and systems, the performance based approach could also help establish a culture of systematic data collection, analysis and use in decision making, as well as accountability for expected results of spending decisions, all areas that currently are extremely weak in those states. - 31 - 87. Estimates also show that investment in quality will also increase the internal efficiency of the three states education system, contributing to the decreased repetition rate from 6 percent to 2 percent per grade on average during the primary cycle. Only investing in expansion will keep these system indicators at status quo. Without the investment in quality, it takes 6.38 years on average for a graduate to complete the cycle, and an average of 8.93 years of investment to produce one graduate, taking into account the wastage due to dropout. It is envisaged that, with the planned investments in quality, it will take 6.12 years on average for a graduate to complete the cycle, and an average of 6.78 years of investment to produce one graduate. The improved efficiency will result in reduced total cost of producing one primary school graduate from estimated US$190 to $179, even with the increased unit spending per pupil per year from 7 percent of GDP per capita to 9 percent of GDP per capita. B. Technical 88. The approach adopted under the project stems from implementation experience in Nigeria, particularly under the Sector Education Support Project, which was a state-based project, and the ongoing Lagos Eko Project. However, a key consideration was to design a project that would place much greater emphasis on achieving specific key results and on providing incentives and capacity in the system to facilitate this achievement, while giving greater flexibility to the Government in the choice of inputs to achieve agreed results. 89. The project aims at improving student learning through a set of focused interventions. Thus, school quality is proven to complement attainment. The choice of DLIs rests on assumptions of linkages between selected interventions and the project development outcomes, based on experience in Nigeria and other parts of the world, and on research. For example, world-wide research has shown that the quality of teachers is a key variable in improving student performance. Therefore DLIs focusing on teacher recruitment in, and deployment, to needy areas is likely to raise both student attendance and learning. Similarly, more systematic assessment of student learning, particularly at the early stages, will provide timely signals to teachers on enhancing teaching methods. SABER benchmarking tools in the areas of school based management, teachers, learning assessments and EMIS were applied in the three states to derive analytical and policy diagnostics across these areas. 90. The project design also takes into account that achieving the expected development outcomes, in particular improving school quality, is a gradual process and a lengthy undertaking. During the first two years of the project, there is greater emphasis on establishing key policy actions related to DLIs and meeting important milestones to build stronger foundations in key areas such as measuring student learning. The shift in focus from inputs to achievement of important outcomes and results, together with greater use of the country’s financial systems, provides the state governments with greater flexibility in implementing their programs. C. Financial Management 91. A review of implementation of the recommendations of the Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA 2000) in January 2005 and the PEMFAR review, 2006 - 32 - indicate that FGN has made significant efforts to advance PFM system reform since 2003. All three- participating states have passed procurement and fiscal responsibility legislation. The project will provide some TA support for specific actions needed to improve PFM systems relevant to the education sector. The Bank will also support the States to carry out required fiduciary strengthening measures. 92. State Project Financial Management Units (SPFMUs) in the Offices of the State Accountants-General have been established in all States, the Federal Capital Territory and Federal Project Financial Management Division (FPFMD) at the federal level. The SPFMUs are responsible for managing the financial affairs of donor-funded projects. Bank assessments have found the SPFMUs to be functioning satisfactorily. In view of the foregoing, the SPFMU will serve as the Fund Holder for Component One. TA funds will be available to strengthen the SPFMUs, if deemed necessary. 93. The project will use various disbursement methods appropriate to the component and ensure smooth implementation of the project. These would include: Reimbursement, Advance and Direct Payment, which will be used for DLI achieved payments and transaction-based payments (Statements of Expenditures) under Technical Assistance component. The details are summarized in Table 2 of Annex 3. 94. Component One will support the participating States’ program for improving the quality of education to be disbursed against achievement of Disbursement-linked Indicators (DLIs). After independent verification of the achievements of the DLIs, a request for payment will be made to the Bank. This payment will on reimbursement basis and based on certified Eligible Expenditure Programs (EEPs) for the State. According to criteria described below, the most appropriate EEP selected for disbursements upon DLI achievement is that of education worker salaries. 95. With regard to School Improvement Grants associated with the DLI for SBMC, which will be financed by the States’ counterpart funds, their objective will be to augment the school’s budget for non-salary expenditures through annual payments ranging from Nairas 500,000-1 million (depending on school size). Under the school improvement grant subprogram, the project plans to strengthen the capacity, authority, and autonomy of School-Based Management Committees (SBMCs) to manage and use their grants for school improvement activities thus strengthening SBMCs participation for improving school effectiveness and management, and accountability. As part of this process the SBMCs will be required to develop and implement school improvement plans. The preparation of these plans will be participatory and follow laid down procedures and criteria that will be included in the project school grants manual, the key elements of which are incorporated in the final draft Project Implementation Manual. A detailed SBMC manual, including procedures and criteria for school grants, will be prepared before project effectiveness. 96. In respect of Component Two – Technical Assistance, disbursements will be according to the traditional Bank modality for approved specific expenditures. These are aggregated and SOEs will be submitted to the World Bank for vetting and reimbursement. - 33 - 97. The Results-based Component, featuring DLIs, will reimburse a portion of the state government education EEP expenditures. The Project will support the State Government to ensure that the State Financial Management Information Systems (FMIS) adequately capture the budgeted EEPs and actual expenditures in a credible and timely manner. The EEPs should also contribute to meeting the DLIs and advancing project objectives. As stated above, the EEP will comprise state education worker salaries. It is possible that over the course of implementation some additional state EEPs could be added, through a project restructuring, including program budgets such as school grants (if budgeting reforms are implemented), and possibly maintenance, utilities, training, etc. But at this juncture they do not meet all of the essential EEP criteria which include the following: (a) Expenditures must be by the State, not direct Federal expenditure or earmarked funding from other organizations; (b) EEP must be budgeted annually and approved with budget codes (separate sub- accounts) that allow expenditures to be tracked and recorded at the State; (c) Tracking and recording of EEP expenditures must be timely (within three months of the close of a period), credible and capable of being audited with an adequate paper trail; (d) EEP must be important budget items both in terms of size of resources and relevance to SMOE objectives. Smaller but important line items may be included if they satisfy all of the criteria; and (e) EEP must satisfy Bank fiduciary (FM, procurement and safeguards) requirements. 98. State education worker salaries is the most logical and easily verifiable EEP and the one that is budgeted, tracked and reported from a credible system and without delay. To ensure continued credibility of this EEP, the states will conduct an annual payroll audit. The value of these budget lines is also sufficient to cover DLI payments to States. 99. The financial management dimensions (budget/treasury management, reporting and monitoring) will be the overall responsibility of the State Ministry of Finance (SMOF). The SMOF would work closely with the SPTSU of SMoE to prepare disbursement requests for submission to the SPFMU for processing. The existing transfers and payments system will be utilized for reimbursements under the proposed operation. Project financing will represent only a fraction of the overall financing for the State Education Plan included in the pooled EEPs for the implementation period. The budgets will continue to follow the existing procedures for approval, reporting (on budget execution) and monitoring. In addition, it is planned that an Education Public Expenditure Review would be conducted to inform the annual assessment, and address education budget issues. The Education Public Expenditure Review will be utilized as an instrument to ensure adequate levels of education spending. - 34 - 100. Each state government and FMoE will prepare project financial statements (interim and annual) showing the sources of project funds and their uses. The annual financial statements will be audited by auditors acceptable to the Bank, and submitted to the Bank within six months from the end of each financial year. In addition, the State Auditors-General, in conducting the yearly audit of the State’s financial statements, will carry out a detailed audit of education sector expenditures. These reports will be expected to be part of the State Auditors-General report that will be submitted to respective State Parliaments within nine months from the end of each financial year. The Auditors-General will send a copy to the World Bank for review by the World Bank implementation support team. D. Procurement 101. The State Education Program Investment Project (SEPIP) is a Result Based Financing (RBF) Operations. The total project cost is $150 million out of which about $125.0 million will be disbursed against DLIs that have been met according to agreed verification of Eligible Expenditure Programs (EEPs) for Supporting Programs of the participating states. The remainder of $25.0 million will be in the form of ‘Technical Assistance’ (TA) aimed at strengthening the delivering capacity and knowledge of: (i) Participating States; (ii) other states interested in results-based approaches; (iii) Federal Ministry of Education; (iv) the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), State Universal Basic Education Boards (SUBEBs); and (v) concerned educational institutions. In the SEPIP only procurement activities that relate to the provision of technical assistance will be carried out in accordance with World Bank guidelines. No procurement activity is associated with Component 1, as under this the Credit will reimburse EEPs (education worker salaries). Procurement activities for the technical assistance component will be implemented by the Federal Ministry of Education and by the three participating states. Annex 3 provides details on procurement for technical assistance activities. 102. An assessment of the capacity of the four implementing agencies (i.e. Federal and 3 States) to implement project procurement activities was carried out in accordance with Procurement Services Policy Group (OCSPR) guidelines dated August 11, 1998. The assessment reviewed the organizational structures for implementing the project and the roles of the key actors in project implementation of the agencies. The detailed assessment is in the project files. The assessment notes that both the Federal Ministry of Education through UBEC and the states through the SUBECs have several years of experience in implementing Bank funded projects. Lapses observed in the implementation of the previous and ongoing projects include inadequate capacity, poor documentation, political interference etc. These lapses were addressed by continuous internal and external training, PPR missions, engagement of procurement consultants, continuous dialogue with government, etc. Other risk issues include: (i) lack of adequate procurement capacity; (ii) lack of effective and efficient storage; (iii) lack of appropriate MIS for tracking procurement records; (iv) lack of contract management skills; (v) potential undue interference in the procurement process; and (vi) frequent transfer of procurement staff after building capacity. The risk mitigation measures to be put in place will include: (i) establishment of a complaints and record keeping systems; and (ii) supervision missions and post procurement reviews of procurement of approved technical assistance components. It was agreed that each state will produce procurement plans for Bank’s clearance covering the approved technical - 35 - assistance components in their respective approved work plans. A Bank Procurement Specialist will also provide training where necessary and provide close supervision of the Technical Assistance Component in line with the following Bank guidelines: • “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants�, dated October 15, 2006 and revised in January 2011; • “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers� dated January 2011; and • “Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers� dated January 2011. 103. Considering the risks and proposed mitigation measures, the progress made in reforming the federal and states procurement systems in Nigeria, the fact that the implementation of procurement activities for the EEPs will not entail applicability of Bank guidelines, also considering the fact only the activities related to the TA component will follow Bank guidelines, procurement related risk with respect to SEPIP implementation will be minimal and is rated Moderate. E. Social (including Safeguards) 104. The key social development aspects that the project will address are: (i) Equity issues: Enrolment, attendance and learning outcomes are inequitable and vary across gender, grades, geographical boundaries, and geopolitical zones. The project addresses these inequities by: (i) enhancing the coverage of the poor in the delivery of specific services; and (ii) focusing on rural areas and gender aspects under several of the DLIs. The project provides for greater information to, and engagement of, communities in school functioning to enhance learning and accountability. Communities will play a role in monitoring education performance, advocating for improved services, and encouraging learning in and out of school. A key role will be in identifying and enrolling out-of-school children in the three project states. (ii) Gender issues. The project addresses gender issues specifically through: (i) correcting gender imbalance among teachers; (ii) focused attention to retention of girls in Bauchi and boys in Anambra, and (iii) ensuring women representatives in the SBMC decision- making role. (iii) Communication. A multi-pronged strategy using different media, tailored for internal and external stakeholders, is being designed, and will be implemented to communicate about the project objectives, investments, implementation arrangements, and results. (iv) Social Accountability. Mechanisms to enhance transparency, accountability and participation are being developed. Apart from information dissemination, the results of - 36 - performance tracking (social audit, school report card) will serve to hold the relevant stakeholders accountable. Important inputs for project implementation include: (i) an assessment of the functioning of school-based management committees (SBMCs) with respect to planning, budgeting and delivery of education services at the school level; (ii) feedback provided, and complaints registered at the community level through the Grievance redress mechanism to be developed and maintained by the SBMCs in partnership with appropriate civil society organizations (CSOs); and (iii) the third party monitoring system that verifies the appropriate disbursement-linked indicators (DLIs), such as teacher deployment, and school-based management committees (details in Annex 3). 105. The project proposes the strengthening of School-based Management Committees’ (SBMCs) participation and capacity for supporting school management and accountability, including the condition of physical facilities, learning materials, teaching aids, teacher attendance and teaching quality, and school performance. A SBMC operational manual that builds on existing experience will guide SBMC constitution, functioning, and accountability. The relationship of SBMCs with the school system, PTAs, parent assemblies and the LGEA will also be guided by the Manual. The preparation and implementation of School Improvement Plans (SIPs), particularly the process, eligible expenditures, procurement, accounting, and accountability mechanisms will be addressed in the manual. Civil society organizations will support the strengthening of SBMCs’ capacity in planning, management, monitoring and resolving grievances/complaints through focused technical assistance. While SBMCs will monitor and report on, among other things, school affairs (e.g., teacher presence, teaching quality), and the performance of selected service delivery interventions, the activities and performance of SBMCs themselves are to be monitored by the local communities via community reviews will cover of SBMC constitution, inclusive decision-making, design and implementation of school improvement plans, funds receipt and use, and regular information disclosure. 106. The project is financing some school repairs and maintenance. As such, any civil works will be within existing facilities/footprints where no land acquisition is required and there is no encroachment. The project will not finance any activities that result in land acquisition leading to involuntary resettlement and/or restrictions of access to resources or livelihoods. Project Technical Support Units of the participating states will be responsible for ensuring attention to social issues and compliance with the ESMF on safeguards; with active involvement of LGEA and the SBMCs. The project will invest in their training and capacity building. In addition specialists in the World Bank team will provide guidance as and when necessary. F. Environment (including Safeguards) 107. There will be no major environmental implications given that project activities focus on education quality and systems improvements. Under the project some repairs and maintenance of schools and classrooms, with minimal to moderate environmental and social impacts may be carried out. Thus, the proposed project is classified into environmental category “B� in accordance with Operational Policy – OP4.01 (Environmental Assessment) and an Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared, consulted upon, and disclosed - 37 - in-country on May 30, 2012. The ESMF describes the types of impacts (positive and negative); the screening procedure to be put in place to categorize subprojects, and the possible need for staffing and other institutional arrangements and accountabilities for environmental due diligence in the states. The ESMF was discussed with relevant members of government and civil society, and the final version was disclosed through the Infoshop on May 30, 2012, prior to appraisal. G. Other Safeguards Policies Triggered (if required) 108. None. - 38 - Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring Project Development Objective (PDO): The objective is to support: (a) need-based teacher deployment; (b) school-level management and accountability; and (c) measurement of student learning in Participating States. Cumulative Target Values Responsibility Unit of Baseline Data Source/ Description (indicator PDO Level Results Indicators* CY CY CY CY Frequency for Data Measure (estimate) Methodology definition etc.) Core 2013 2014 2015 2016 Collection Indicator One: Teachers deployed to rural areas. Anambra Total: 10,735 NA 20% of 30% of 60% of Annual State EMIS; Director, PRS, Number of teachers total total total LGEA SOME deployed to teach in rural teachers teachers teachers areas (disaggregated by planned planned planned male and female) at are are are primary and secondary deployed deployed deployed level. “Rural schools� Bauchi Total: 15,801 NA 20% of 40% of 60% of are schools located in total total total non-Headquarter LGAs. teachers teachers teachers Percent planned planned planned are are are deployed deployed deployed Ekiti Total: 4,707 NA 20% of 40% of 70% of total total total teachers teachers teachers planned planned planned are are are deployed deployed deployed Indicator Two: Teachers deployed to core subjects Anambra Total: Sec:1,417 NA 15% of 30% of 50% of Annual State EMIS; Director, PRS, Number of teachers total total total LGEA SMOE deployed to teach in core teachers teachers teachers subject areas (English, planned planned planned Math, Biology, are are are Chemistry and Physics) Percent deployed deployed deployed at secondary level. Bauchi Total: 1,790 NA 30% of 50% of 70% of total total total teachers teachers teachers planned planned planned are are are - 39 - deployed deployed deployed Responsibility Unit of Baseline Data Source/ Description (indicator Core PDO Level Results Indicators* Cumulative Target Values Frequency for Data Measure (estimate) Methodology definition etc.) Collection CY CY CY CY 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ekiti Total: 271 NA 40% of 60% of 86% of total total total teachers teachers teachers planned planned planned are are are deployed deployed deployed Indicator Three: Currently there + 10% + 30% +50% +60% Numerator is the number Schools that meet agreed service is no systematic of schools that meet the standards. measurement of following 4 standards: service delivery Service Director, teacher attendance Anambra Percent indicators. Annual Delivery Planning records kept, learning Bauchi SBMC reporting Indicator Research & materials available, score Ekiti on a survey. Statistics card submitted, coaching representative (PRS), SMOE, system in place and sample of SBCs (School budget for non-salary schools to be Based recurrent expenditure; assessed by Committees) denominator is the total Board number of participating schools. Indicator Four: System for learning assessment at the State level Whether or not the basic elements of a system for Anambra (SS2) Yes/No No (standard No No Yes Yes Annual State EMIS; Director, PRS, measuring student Yes/No and comparative LGEA SMOE learning and achievement Bauchi (Primary 5) Yes/No systems do not No No Yes Yes levels exist at the state Ekiti (SS2) exist in any No No Yes Yes level. state) - 40 - Responsibility Unit of Baseline Data Source/ Description (indicator Core PDO Level Results Indicators* Cumulative Target Values Frequency for Data Measure (estimate) Methodology definition etc.) Collection CY CY CY CY 2013 2014 2015 2016 Indicator Five: Students enrolled in technical and vocational schools Anambra Male: 2,796 2,936 3,083 3,237 3,399 Cumulative number of Director, Female: 1,947 1,947 2,044 2,147 2,367 students enrolled in Academic Number Technical technical and vocational Planning, colleges schools as a result of Technical and Annual survey; SMOE increased partnership Vocational EMIS with private sector and Education improved learning Board conditions. Bauchi Male: 5,709 5,994 6,294 6,609 6,939 Female: 869 912 958 1,006 1,056 Ekiti Male: 868 911 957 1,005 1,055 Female: 126 132 139 146 153 Indicator Six: Anambra Director, Total numbers of Direct beneficiaries Number 1,028,932 Planning enrolled students and Anambra Bauchi 474242 Research & teachers in participating Bauchi Ekiti 174602 Statistics schools and LGAs. Ekiti Total: 1,677,776 (PRS) and SMOE Of which female Percent 45.9% (all) Anambra Ekiti Bauchi - 41 - Responsibility Unit of Baseline Data Source/ Description (indicator Core PDO Level Results Indicators* Cumulative Target Values Frequency for Data Measure (estimate) Methodology definition etc.) Collection CY CY CY CY 2013 2014 2015 2016 INTERMEDIATE RESULTS Indicator One: System for school- specific core-subject teacher placement and deployment. The rating of the level Anambra Index 0 1 2 3 3 of establishment and operations of the Bauchi Index 0 1 2 3 3 State EMIS; Director, PRS, system for the Annual LGEA SMOE deployment of teachers to core subject areas as Ekiti described in the Index 0 1 2 3 3 deployment program document. Indicator Two: System for teacher placement and deployment to rural The rating of the level areas. of establishment and operations of the Anambra State EMIS; Director, PRS, system for rural Index 0 1 2 3 3 Annual LGEA SMOE deployment as Bauchi described in the Index 0 1 2 3 3 deployment program Ekiti document. Index 0 1 2 3 3 Indicator Three: Program for measuring student learning and achievement levels. Whether or not the basic elements of a Anambra (SS2) 0 Approved Pilot Program Evaluati Annual State EMIS; Director, PRS, system for measuring Text Plans testing completed on LGEA SMOE student learning and Bauchi (Primary 5) 0 adopted completed complete achievement levels Text d exist at the state level. Ekiti (SS2) 0 Text - 42 - Responsibility Unit of Baseline Data Source/ Description (indicator Core PDO Level Results Indicators* Cumulative Target Values Frequency for Data Measure (estimate) Methodology definition etc.) Collection CY CY CY CY 2013 2014 2015 2016 Indicator Four: Partnerships Number of partnerships between technical and vocational established between colleges and private sector technical and Technical Technical and vocational colleges and Anambra 0 - 2 4 6 Annual colleges; Vocational Number private sector as a SMOE EMIS Education Board result of project Bauchi 0 - 2 4 6 Annual intervention in each participating State. Ekiti 0 - 2 4 6 Annual Indicator Five: Courses accredited in technical and vocational schools Anambra 41 – 50% - 1 - 2 Cumulative number of additional Director, courses accredited in courses Annual Technical Academic technical and Bauchi Number 0 – 10% - 1 - 3 colleges Planning, vocational schools as a additional courses survey; SMOE Technical and result of increased Ekiti 51 – 60% - 2 - 5 EMIS Vocational partnership with private additional Education Board sector and improved courses learning conditions. Indicator Six: SBMCs that received Numerator: Number education quality grants for school of SBMCs that received improvement plans for the year in funding for school accordance with performance improvement plans for standards specified in SBMC preceding year in manual. accordance with Anambra Percent 0% NA 30% 50% 70% Director, performance standards Bauchi 0% NA 30% 40% 70% Planning specified in SBMC Research & manual. SBMC Annual Statistics (PRS), Assessment Ekiti 0% NA 30% 50% 70% SMOE, SBCs Denominator: Total (School Based number of eligible Committees) SBMCs. - 43 - ANNEX 1 – Appendix 1 NIGERIA – STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT ALL STATES’ DLIs COMBINED Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 ((2012) Sources 19 Anambra In accordance with the In accordance with the Definitions/details: (1) Needs-based Program: Program: deployment refers to needs (1) Each determined after analysis of teacher Participating (1) At least 30% of total (1) At least 60% of total workforce level in relation to State approved teachers planned to be teachers planned to be In accordance with the enrolment and other agreed a needs-based deployed under the deployed under the Program: requirements at school level; (2) Program (for rural deployment rural deployment Deployment program, developed in the period 2014- program actually program actually Existing (1) At least 20% of total consultation with the World Bank, is 2018) for deployed [at least 1,610 deployed [at least 2,148 deployment teachers planned to be approved by the Participating State; deployment of teachers over 2012 teachers over 2012 scheme is not deployed under the (3) program will include targets for qualified baseline]; baseline]; systematic and rural deployment additional teachers required, teachers in lacks formal program actually (2) All eligible deployed (2) All eligible deployed eligibility criteria, and procedures, primary and incentive deployed [at least 1,074 teachers receive teachers receive taking into account equity, secondary DLI 1 - Teacher framework teachers over 2012 incentives no later than incentives no later than qualifications, teacher presence, schools in rural Deployment in (Currently: baseline]; one month from the one month from the end time-on-task, and incentive strategy areas, with Rural Areas: 10,735 teachers end of the academic of the academic year ; and options. targets, Improve teacher deployed in (2) All eligible deployed year ; eligibility (3) Achievement of trend availability in rural rural areas. teachers receive Sources: (1) Approved rural criteria, of improvement target areas Student-Teacher incentives no later than (3) Budget for education deployment program and incentives, in STR set in 2015; and ratio (STR) not one month from the end rural teacher incentives implementation review documents; procedures, and systematically of the academic year; approved for next (4) Mid-term Evaluation of (2) Certified list of schools with implementation monitored and academic year; and Program completed unique school/teacher identification plan; and [Primary: 55:1; numbers (IDs); (3) Reports and (3) Budget for education (4) A representative field Secondary: databases on school-specific (2) Budget for rural teacher incentives survey conducted, and 64:1] placement of teachers, in agreed education rural approved for next findings used to set formats; (4) Annual School Census; teacher academic year. trend of improvement (5) Service Delivery Indicator incentives target in STR for Survey; (6) Beneficiary assessments approved for CY2016. and PTA/SMBC and community next academic feedback; and (7) Reports of year. independent verification by third- party agents. 19 The definitions and verification sources will be included in the Project Implementation Manual. - 44 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Bauchi In accordance with the Program: (1) Each In accordance with the (1) At least 40% of total In accordance with the Participating State Program: teachers planned to be Program: approved a needs- deployed under the Existing based Program (1) At least 20% of total rural deployment (1) At least 60% of total deployment (for the period teachers planned to be program actually teachers planned to be scheme is not 2014-2018) for deployed under the deployed [at least 480 deployed under the systematic and deployment of rural deployment teachers over 2012 rural deployment lacks formal qualified teachers program actually baseline ]; program actually incentive in primary and deployed [at least 1,074 deployed [at least 720 framework secondary schools teachers over 2012 (2) All eligible deployed teachers over 2012 (Currently in rural areas, baseline]; teachers receive baseline ]; 15,801 teachers with targets, incentives no later than one month from the (2) All eligible deployed deployed in eligibility criteria, (2) All eligible deployed end of the academic teachers receive rural areas. incentives, teachers receive year ; incentives no later than Student-Teacher procedures, and incentives no later than one month from the end ratio (STR) not implementation one month from the end (3) Budget for education of the academic year ;; systematically plan; and of the academic year; monitored. and rural teacher incentives (3) Achievement of trend [Primary: 89:1; (2) Budget approved for next of improvement (3) Budget for education academic year; and Secondary: for education target in STR set in rural teacher incentives 52:1] rural teacher (4) A representative field 2015; and approved for next incentives survey conducted, and academic year. (4) Mid-term Evaluation of approved for next findings used to set academic year. Program completed trend of improvement target in STR for CY2016. - 45 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Ekiti In accordance with the In accordance with the Program: Program: (1) At least 40% of total (1) At least 70% of total (1) Each In accordance with the teachers planned to be teachers planned to be Participating State Program: deployed under the deployed under the Existing approved a needs- (1) At least 20% of total rural deployment rural deployment deployment based Program (for teachers planned to program actually program actually scheme is not the period 2014- be deployed under deployed [at least 640 deployed [at least systematic and 2018) for the rural deployment over 2012 baseline ]; 1,120 over 2012 lacks formal deployment of program actually baseline ]; incentive qualified teachers (2) All eligible deployed deployed [at least framework in primary and teachers receive (2) All eligible deployed 320 teachers over (Currently 4,707 secondary schools incentives no later teachers receive 2012 baseline ] teachers in rural areas, with than one month from incentives no later than deployed in targets, eligibility (2) All eligible deployed the end of the one month from the end rural areas. criteria, incentives, teachers receive academic year; of the academic year; Student-Teacher procedures, and incentives no later than one month from (3) Achievement of trend ratio (STR) not implementation (3) Budget for education the end of the of improvement systematically plan; and rural teacher academic year; and target in STR set in monitored. incentives approved 2015; and [Primary: 20:1; (2) Budget (3) Budget for education for next academic Secondary: for education rural rural teacher year; and (4) Mid-term Evaluation of 16:1] teacher incentives incentives approved Program completed (4) A representative field approved for next for next academic survey conducted, and academic year. year. findings used to set trend of improvement target in STR for CY2016. - 46 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Anambra In accordance with the core In accordance with the subject deployment core subject deployment (1) Each program: program: Participating Definitions/details: (1) Needs- State approved a In accordance with the (1) At least 30% of total (1) At least 50% of total based deployment refers to needs needs-based Core Subject Deployment teachers planned to be teachers planned to determined after analysis of teacher program (for the Program: deployed for each core be deployed for each workforce level in relation to period 2014- (1) At least 15% of total subject under the core core subject under enrolment and other agreed Existing 2018) for teachers planned to subject deployment the core subject requirements at school level; (2) deployment deployment of be deployed for each program actually deployment program Deployment program, developed in DLI 2 - Teacher scheme is not qualified core subject under deployed [425 teachers actually deployed in consultation with the World Bank, Deployment in systematic and teachers in the core subject over 2012 baseline]; accordance with the is approved by the Participating Core Subjects: lacks formal secondary deployment program core subject State. Improve teacher incentive schools in core actually deployed (2) All eligible deployed deployment program availability in core framework subject areas, [213 teachers over teachers receive [638 teachers over subjects (English Currently 1,412 with targets, 2012 baseline]; and incentives no later than 2012 baseline]; Sources: (1) Approved rural Language, teachers in core eligibility one month from the deployment program and Mathematics, subjects in (2) All eligible deployed criteria, end of the academic (2) All eligible deployed implementation review documents; Biology, Chemistry secondary teachers receive incentives, year; and teachers receive (2) Certified list of schools with and Physics, and schools. incentives no later procedures, and incentives no later unique school/teacher IDs; (3) Integrated Science Average Core than one month from (3) Budget for education implementation than one month from Reports and databases on school- in Junior Secondary Subject- the end of the rural teacher incentives plan; and the end of the specific placement of teachers, in School) Teacher Ratio academic year; and approved for next academic year; and agreed formats; (4) Annual School (CSTR) of academic year; and (2) Budget for (3) Budget for education Census;(5) Service Delivery 29:1). education rural rural teacher (4) A representative field (3) Achievement of trend Indicator Survey; (6) Beneficiary teacher incentives approved survey conducted, and of improvement assessments and PTA/SMBC and incentives for next academic findings used to set target in CSTR set in community feedback; and (7) approved for year. trend improvement 2015; and Reports of independent third party next academic target in CSTR for verification. (4) Mid-term Evaluation year. CY2016. of Program completed - 47 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Bauchi In accordance with the core In accordance with the subject deployment core subject deployment program: program: In accordance with the (1) Each (1) At least 50% of total (1) At least 70% of total Core Subject Deployment Participating State teachers planned to be teachers planned to be Program: approved a needs- deployed for each core deployed for each core Existing (1) At least 30% of total subject under the core subject under the core based program (for deployment teachers planned to subject deployment subject deployment the period 2014- scheme is not be deployed for each program actually program actually 2018) for systematic and core subject under deployed [597 teachers]; deployed in accordance deployment of lacks formal the core subject with the core subject qualified teachers (2) All eligible deployed incentive deployment program deployment program in secondary teachers receive framework actually deployed [895 teachers]; schools in core incentives no later than Currently [358 teachers]; and subject areas, with one month from the end 1,790 teachers (2) All eligible deployed targets, eligibility (2) All eligible deployed of the academic year; in core subjects teachers receive criteria, incentives, teachers receive in secondary (3) Budget for education incentives no later procedures, and incentives no later schools. rural teacher incentives than one month from implementation than one month from Average Core approved for next the end of the plan; and the end of the Subject- academic year; and academic year; and Teacher Ratio academic year; and (2) Budget (4) A representative field (CSTR) of (3) Budget for education (3) Achievement of trend for education rural survey conducted, and 71:1) rural teacher of improvement teacher incentives findings used to set approved for next incentives approved target in CSTR set in trend improvement academic year. for next academic 2015; and target in CSTR for year. CY2016. (4) Mid-term Evaluation of Program completed - 48 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Ekiti In accordance with the core In accordance with the subject deployment core subject deployment (1) Each program: program: Participating State In accordance with the approved a needs- Core Subject Deployment (1) At least 60% of total (1) At least 86% of total based program teachers planned to be teachers planned to be Program: Existing (for the period deployed for each core deployed for each core deployment 2014-2018) for (1) At least 40% of total subject under the core subject under the core scheme is not deployment of teachers planned to be subject deployment subject deployment systematic and qualified teachers deployed for each core program actually program actually lacks formal in secondary subject under the core deployed [162 teachers]; deployed in incentive schools in core subject deployment accordance with the (2) All eligible deployed framework subject areas, with program actually core subject teachers receive Currently targets, eligibility deployed [108 deployment program incentives no later than 1,940 teachers criteria, teachers]; and [234 teachers]; and one month from the in core subjects incentives, (2) All eligible deployed (2) All eligible deployed end of the academic in secondary procedures, and teachers receive incentives teachers receive year; and schools. implementation no later than one month incentives no later Average Core plan; and from the end of the (3) A representative field than one month from Subject-Teacher academic year; and survey conducted, and the end of the Ratio (CSTR) of (2) Budget findings used to set trend academic year; 23:1) for education (3) Budget for education improvement target in (3) Achievement of trend rural teacher rural teacher incentives CSTR for CY2016 of improvement incentives approved for next target in CSTR set in approved for next academic year. 2015; and academic year. (4) Mid-term Evaluation of Program completed - 49 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Anambra Definitions/details: (1) Assessment means large-scale assessment of international standard; (2) Plan for assessments, including strategy, parameters, (1) Assessment plan budget, and tools, will have been approved and developed, in consultation with the DLI 3 - adopted by Current systems Pilot testing in Complete program of World Bank, and approved by Assessment of SMOE; for measuring representative sample of testing of students in the SMOE; (3) assessment tools Student (2) Assessment student learning schools as detailed in the second year of senior include sample test, Achievement: tools adopted by and Project Implementation secondary education (SS2) questionnaires, test administration Improve regular SMOE for Evaluation of testing achievement Manual, in consultation in English Language and plan; and (4) independent measurement of second year of exercise completed levels not with the World Bank, Mathematics completed evaluation of testing exercise to be student learning senior secondary standardized completed by SMOE, and disseminated by managed by SMOE, with requisite and achievement education (SS2) within or across using approved SMOE, using approved technical expertise and support level in secondary testing in states assessment tools assessment tools from Federal Ministry of education English Education, as detailed in the PIM. Language and Mathematics Sources: (1) Approved assessment plan by SMOE; (2) Assessment report and sample tests in each area; and (3) Evaluation Report on testing exercise. Bauchi Definitions/details: (1) Assessment means large-scale assessment of international standard; (2) Plan for assessments, (1) Assessment plan including strategy, parameters, approved and budget, and tools, will have been adopted by developed, in consultation with the DLI 3 - Current systems Pilot testing in Complete program of testing World Bank, and approved by Assessment of SMOE; for measuring representative sample of of students in the fifth year SMOE; (3) assessment tools Student (2) Assessment student learning schools as detailed in the of primary education include sample test, Achievement: tools adopted by and Project Implementation (Primary 5) in English questionnaires, test administration Improve regular SMOE for fifth Evaluation of testing achievement Manual, in consultation Language and plan; and (4) independent measurement of year of primary exercise completed levels not with the World Bank, Mathematics completed evaluation of testing exercise to be student learning education standardized completed by SMOE, and disseminated by SMOE managed by SMOE, with requisite and achievement (Primary 5) within or across using approved using approved assessment technical expertise and support levels in primary testing in states assessment tools tools from Federal Ministry of education English Language and Education, as detailed in the PIM. Mathematics Sources: (1) Approved assessment plan by SMOE; (2) Assessment report and sample tests in each area; and (3) Evaluation Report on testing exercise. - 50 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Ekiti Definitions/details: (1) Assessment means large-scale assessment of international standard; (2) Plan for assessments, (1) Assessment including strategy, parameters, plan approved budget, and tools, will have been and adopted DLI 3 - developed, in consultation with the Current systems by SMOE; Pilot testing in Complete program of Assessment of World Bank, and approved by for measuring (2) Assessment representative sample of testing of students in the Student SMOE; (3) assessment tools include student learning tools adopted schools as detailed in the second year of senior Achievement: sample test, questionnaires, test and by SMOE for Project Implementation secondary education (SS2) Improve regular Evaluation of testing administration plan; and (4) achievement second year of Manual, in consultation in English Language and measurement of exercise completed independent evaluation of testing levels not senior with the World Bank, Mathematics completed student learning exercise to be managed by SMOE, standardized secondary completed by SMOE, and disseminated by and achievement with requisite technical expertise within or across education using approved SMOE, using approved level in secondary and support from Federal Ministry states (SS2) testing assessment tools assessment tools education of Education, as detailed in the PIM. in English Language and Sources: (1) Approved assessment Mathematics plan by SMOE; (2) Assessment report and sample tests in each area; and (3) Evaluation Report on testing exercise. - 51 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Anambra Definitions/details: (1) Strategic Plan means plan delineating issues and measures to improve quality and relevance of technical and vocational education in technical (1) Each Participating schools, including timeline and State has ensured that budget, and incorporating an at least two additional assessment of teacher competencies (1) Each partnerships between and training needs, and Participating technical and strengthening of accreditation State, through vocational colleges and system; (2)Partnership refers to its SMoE, has (1) Each Participating State relevant institutions active collaboration of private sector No active approved has ensured that at least have been activated, in partners and technical colleges in partnership exists Strategic plan two additional accordance with the building relevant skills for between peers, for improving partnerships between strategic plan; employment; (3) Strategic Plan, private sector, and quality and technical and vocational developed in consultation with the specialized relevance of colleges and relevant (2) At least 2 additional World Bank, is approved by the training providers technical and institutions have been courses related to Participating State; (4) activation of DLI 4 - Technical vocational Each Participating State activated, in accordance each activated partnership will be defined in the Mechanism for and Vocational education. has ensured that at least with the strategic plan; partnership Strategic Plan for improving the accreditation at Schools : Stimulate (2) Each two partnerships between and accredited by the quality and relevance of technical state level partnerships and Participating technical and vocational National Business and vocational education currently in effect (2) Each Participating State accreditation of State, through colleges and relevant and Technical (instruments for achieving this but weak [41-50% has ensured that at least programs for its SMoE, has institutions have been Examinations Board, would include signature of a of programs two courses related to relevance in completed a activated, in accordance in accordance with Memorandum of Understanding, accredited] each activated technical schools diagnostic of with the strategic plan the approved Co-operation Agreement, or a [11 colleges, 19 core partnership have been Partnership Agreement, and the strategic plan; courses, poor competencies accredited by the program is underway (e.g. students teacher of graduating National Business and studying for the program, or (3) Assessment of qualifications, and students Technical Examinations teachers being trained, or course implementation outdated completed in Board, in accordance being delivered); and (5) partnership against strategic plan facilities] accordance with the approved and accreditation can be both completed; and with strategic plan. national and international. approved (4) An assessment of strategic plan core competencies of Sources: (1) Approved strategic graduating students plan and implementation review completed in documents; and (2) Reports and accordance with databases on school-specific strategic plan programs, internships, apprenticeships, or training (student, teachers) in agreed formats; (3) Report on assessment of core competencies; (4) reports of independent third party verification. - 52 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Bauchi (1) Each Participating State has ensured that at least (1) Each two additional Participating partnerships between State, through technical and vocational No active its SMoE, has (1) Each Participating State colleges and relevant partnership exists approved has ensured that at least institutions have been between peers, Strategic plan two additional activated, in accordance private sector, for improving partnerships between with the strategic plan; and specialized quality and technical and vocational (2) At least 3 additional training providers relevance of colleges and relevant of courses related to technical and institutions have been Mechanism for Each Participating State each activated vocational activated, in accordance accreditation at has ensured that at least partnership education. with the strategic plan; state level two partnerships between accredited by the (2) Each and currently in technical and vocational National Business effect but weak Participating (2) Each Participating State and Technical colleges and relevant [0-10% of State, through has ensured that at least Examinations Board, institutions have been programs its SMoE, has two courses related to in accordance with activated, in accordance accredited] completed a each activated the approved with the strategic plan diagnostic of partnership have been strategic plan; [7 colleges, 11 core accredited by the competencies (3) Assessment of courses, poor National Business and of graduating implementation against teacher Technical Examinations students strategic plan qualifications, Board, in accordance completed in completed; and and outdated with the approved facilities] accordance strategic plan. with approved (4) An assessment of core strategic plan competencies of graduating students completed in accordance with strategic plan - 53 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Ekiti (1) Each Participating State has ensured that at least two additional partnerships between (1) Each technical and Participating vocational colleges and No active State, through (1) Each Participating State relevant institutions partnership exists its SMoE, has has ensured that at least have been activated, in between peers, approved two additional accordance with the private sector, Strategic plan partnerships between strategic plan; and specialized for improving technical and vocational quality and (2) At least 5 additional training providers colleges and relevant relevance of of courses related to institutions have been Mechanism for technical and Each Participating State each activated activated, in accordance accreditation at vocational has ensured that at least partnership with the strategic plan; state level education. two partnerships between accredited by the and currently in (2) Each technical and vocational National Business effect but weak Participating colleges and relevant (2) Each Participating State and Technical [51-60% of State, through institutions have been has ensured that at least Examinations Board, programs its SMoE, has activated, in accordance two courses related to in accordance with accredited] completed a with the strategic plan each activated the approved diagnostic of partnership have been strategic plan; and [6 colleges, 11 core accredited by the courses, poor competencies National Business and (3) Assessment of teacher of graduating Technical Examinations implementation qualifications, students Board, in accordance against strategic plan and outdated completed in with the approved completed; and facilities] accordance strategic plan. with approved (4) An assessment of core strategic plan competencies of graduating students completed in accordance with strategic plan - 54 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Anambra (1) At least 70% of Definitions/details (1) adopt SBMC SBMCs having manual (with comprehensive rules approved school of operation of SBMCs, improvement plan for composition, roles and functions, (1) At least 50% of SBMCs 2016 receiving including criteria and procedures having approved school education quality grants for school grants, operational improvement plans for and implemented their guidelines to include simplified 2015 receiving education improvement plan for procurement, financial record- (1) SBMC manual (1) At least 30% of SBMCs 2015 satisfactorily in keeping procedures, performance quality grants and adopted and having approved school accordance with criteria and corresponding implemented their approved by improvement plans for performance standards rankings), in consultation with the SBMCs improvement plan for SMoE. 2014 receiving specified in SBMC World Bank; (2) need to conduct DLI 5 - School- constituted in: (1) 2014 satisfactorily in education quality grants. manual. orientation/mobilization of Based all the 1,040 state (2) At least 30% of accordance with Management (2) Reports on SBMCs performance standards stakeholders on SBMC manual, and public primary SBMCs having (2) Evaluation of SBMC Committees activities produced and specified in SBMC distribute to concerned schools; and (2) prepared School interventions completed. (SBMCs): publicly disclosed. manual. stakeholders; (3) develop database 107 secondary Improvement Strengthen SBMC (3) Public expenditure of SBMCs; (4) train SBMCs on schools (junior Plan for the (3) At least 50% of SBMCs (2) Reports on SBMCs participation and tracking survey on formulating school improvement and senior)(__% following year schools having prepared activities under School capacity for education quality grants plan; (5) monitoring, feedback and of total schools), (2014) School Improvement Improvement Plans improving school completed and support. but no systematic Plan for the following produced and publicly effectiveness, (3) Budget for published. framework for year (2015) disclosed. management and education Sources of Verification: (1) school grant accountability quality grants (4) Budget for education (3) At least 70% of SBMCs database reports of school names, funding approved for quality grants approved having prepared School signatories for withdrawal, and next academic for next academic year. Improvement Plan for the SBMC bank accounts for all year. following year (2016). schools; (2) Reports on SBMC activities: physical and financial (4) Budget for education progress, assessment of quality grants approved performance against standards for next academic year. specified in SBMC manual; (3) beneficiary assessments and PTA/SBMC and community feedback; and (4) reports of independent third party verification. - 55 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Bauchi (1) At least 40% of SBMCs having approved school improvement plan for (1) At least 70% of 2015 receiving education SBMCs having (1) SBMC manual (1) At least 30% of SBMCs quality grants and approved school adopted and having approved school implemented their improvement plan for approved by improvement plan for improvement plan for 2016 receiving SBMCs education quality grants SMoE. 2014 receiving funding. 2014 satisfactorily in constituted in: and implemented their 1,960 public (2) At least 30% of (2) accordance with Reports on SBMCs improvement plan for primary and SBMCs having performance standards activities produced and 2015 satisfactorily in secondary schools prepared School specified in SBMC publicly disclosed. accordance with (junior and Improvement manual. performance standards senior) (68% of Plan for the (3) At least 40% of SBMCs (2) Reports on SBMCs specified in SBMC total schools), but following year having prepared School activities under School manual. currently there is (2014) Improvement Plan for Improvement Plans no systematic the following year (2) Evaluation of SBMC (3) Budget for produced and publicly framework for (2015) interventions completed. education disclosed. school grant (4) Budget for education quality grants (3) At least 70% of SBMCs (3) Public expenditure funding quality grants approved approved for having prepared School tracking survey on next academic for next academic year. education quality grants Improvement Plan for the year. following year (2016). completed and published. (4) Budget for education quality grants approved for next academic year. - 56 - Combined Disbursement-linked indicator (DLI) Baseline Definitions and Verification Sub-program State CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 (2012) Sources Ekiti (1) At least 50% of SBMCs (1) At least 70% of having approved school SBMCs having improvement plan for approved school (1) At least 30% of 2015 receiving education improvement plan for (1) SBMC manual SBMCs having quality grants and 2016 receiving adopted and approved school implemented their education quality grants approved by improvement plan for improvement plan for and implemented their SBMCs SMoE. 2014 receiving funding. 2014 satisfactorily in improvement plan for constituted in: accordance with 2015 satisfactorily in 1,007 public (2) At least 30% of (2) Reports on SBMCs performance standards accordance with primary and SBMCs having activities produced and specified in SBMC performance standards secondary prepared publicly disclosed. manual. specified in SBMC schools (junior School manual. and senior) Improvement (3) At least 50% of (2) Reports on SBMCs (100% of total Plan for the SBMCs having activities under School (2) Evaluation of SBMC schools), but following year prepared School Improvement Plans interventions currently there is (2014) Improvement Plan for produced and publicly completed. no systematic the following year disclosed. framework for (3) Budget for (2015) (3) Public expenditure school grant education (3) At least 70% of SBMCs tracking survey on funding quality grants (4) Budget for education having prepared School education quality grants approved for quality grants approved Improvement Plan for the completed and next academic for next academic year. following year (2016). published. year. (4) Budget for education quality grants approved for next academic year. - 57 - Annex 2: Detailed Project Description NIGERIA: State Education Program Investment Project Project Development Objective 1. The project development objective is to support: (a) need-based teacher deployment; (b) school-level management and accountability; and (c) measurement of student learning in Participating States. This will contribute to, and complement, the programs and priorities of participating States in addressing education access, quality and efficiency issues, through their own funding, financing from UBEC and other government agencies, as well as other development partners. The main basis for this objective is the Vision 20:2020 framework of the Government, along with the National Education Policy, which is translated into medium-term goals forming part of the Transformation Agenda 2011-2015. The overarching priority of the FGN in education is to provide quality education and developing individuals with skills to drive the different sectors of the economy. At the state level, the main vehicle for coordination of educational programs is the Education Sector Plan, which outlines the program priorities of the state government over the medium-term. This plan incorporates all activities to be undertaken, including development partner contributions. Thus, the project offers complementarity in that it seeks to enhance the state governments’ programs towards improving the quality of education. Project Description 2. The proposed project is expected to act as a catalyst to the adoption of results/performance-based approaches by the Government, and scaling-up over time through its own funding. It purports to complement government and other development partner funding to the Participating States focusing on providing quality education, and access to education with equity. The proposed project will work with the Federal government and in three states 20 selected in accordance with broad principles of the CPS, including: (i) strong government ownership and commitment at sub-national level; (ii) selection of states with strong fiduciary capability and commitment; (iii) states having expressed willingness to use results-based approaches; and (iv) and ensuring geo-political representation and filling of gaps in development partner support, whilst avoiding duplication. Project Components 3. The proposed project is financed by a US$150 million Specific Investment Credit to the Federal Government of Nigeria, which in turn will disburse part of the funds to the three Project states through subsidiary financing agreements to support the education program of participating states. The credit will support the design and implementation of SEPIP, over the period from August 2013 to July 2017. The project consists of two components: (a) Component 1 – a results-based financing component which would finance the participating states’ eligible expenditure programs, amounting to US$125.0 million (about 83 percent of the total Credit); and (b) Component 2 – a technical assistance component which would finance essential advisory, 20 The States of Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti were selected as they met the selection criteria at the beginning of project preparation. - 58 - technical, and capacity-building support for the participating states’ education programs, amounting to US$25 million (about 17 percent of the total Credit). While payments under Component 1 will reimburse defined Eligible Expenditure Programs dependent on the achievement of agreed key results (Disbursement-Linked Indicators - DLIs), those for Component 2 will follow a more traditional transaction-based approach (i.e. financing of specific inputs such as consultants’ services, training, goods, small works and operating costs), both in accordance with the applicable World Bank investment lending policies and guidelines. Component 1 – Results based Support to Education Sector Reform Program (US$125.0 million) 4. The aim of this results-based financing is to support participating State Governments’ education program priorities (as also reflected in the benchmarking exercise carried out in Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti – Systems Approach for Better Education Results – SABER), through selected disbursement-linked indicators focusing on the achievement of tangible and measurable results over the project period as follows: (a) improving teacher effectiveness through better deployment and recruitment practices, including: (i) deployment to hard-to-staff schools; (ii) deployment in core subject areas (English Language, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology); (b) improving regular measurement of student learning and achievement; (c) strengthening School-based Management Committee’s participation and capacity for supporting school management and accountability; and (d) supporting stronger partnerships with the private sector to improve the relevance of technical and vocational schools, with emphasis on skills for employment. 5. The focus on the above critical areas is grounded on evidence from educational research that teacher quality, along with regular and systematic measurement of learning outcomes, and strong participation of school-based management committees can contribute substantially to improvement in student learning outcomes. In one study of 79 cases of impact of school resources and teacher variables on learning, a consistent result of impact analysis was that having teachers with greater knowledge of the subjects they teach matters a lot for improving education quality, in addition to having a functional school and teachers that show up for work (understandably since teacher absenteeism affects learning negatively). 21 Moreover, evidence also pinpoints to a shift in emphasis from basic and school characteristics to changing incentives in schools, and permitting more local decision-making, as cross-country evidence generally indicates positive effects from more local autonomy in decision-making given sound accountability. 22 6. In addition, evidence suggests that placing teachers where their skills are most needed is crucial for promoting quality, equity and efficiency in the educational system, by ensuring: (i) all students have an equal opportunity to learn; (ii) teachers are distributed efficiently, thereby minimizing the number of surplus teachers at a given grade, subject or geographic area; and (iii) 21 Paul W. Glewwe, Erik A. Hanusek, Sarah D. Humpage, and Renato Ravina, “School Resources and Educational Outcomes in Developing Countries: A Review of The Literature From 1990 To 2010,� NBER Working Paper Series, 17554, October 2011, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 22 Hanushek, Eric A., and Ludger Woessmann. 2011. "The economics of international differences in educational achievement." In Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 3, edited by Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann. Amsterdam: North Holland: 89-200. - 59 - a good match between teachers and their school, which can increase their effectiveness and reduce turnover rates. These can be address adequately through the provision of incentives to teachers to work at hard-to-staff schools or to teach critical shortage subjects. 7. All three Participating States could benefit from better matching teachers’ skills with student needs – an area identified as a key weakness in all three systems. While in Anambra teachers are entitled to incentives for working in hard-to-staff schools or for teaching critical shortage subject, those in Bauchi and Ekiti do not have such incentives. In addition, across these three education systems, teaching experience is used in deciding transfer priorities. Even in education systems with well-designed incentives to attract teachers into hard-to-staff schools, the distribution of teachers may still be inequitable if experienced teachers (who can be more effective than novice teachers) are given priority in transfer assignments. Thus, using seniority as a basis for approving transfer requests may motivate the most seasoned and potentially best teachers to leave hard-to-staff schools. All three States have been focusing on addressing this imbalance in teacher availability. Their priority areas are described below. Teacher Management 8. Teacher Deployment to rural schools (DLI1). The objective of this DLI is to address the imbalance in the supply of teachers, adversely affecting predominantly rural schools through deployment of teachers to hard-to-staff schools through revised deployment policy and teacher incentives. This difficulty of having sufficient qualified teachers posted in rural areas persists in all three Participating States. It is envisaged that the availability of qualified teachers would be addressed either through mandatory posting for a fixed period or through provision of incentives to teachers, including a bonus program. 9. Teacher Deployment in Core Subject Areas (DLI2). This priority objective aims at addressing the issue of lack of teachers in certain schools in core subjects: English, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology through revised deployment policy and teacher incentives, which may vary from state to state. Assessments of Student Achievement 10. In order to improve the quality of education, benchmarking analysis points to the critical need for strengthened monitoring of learning outcomes in the Participating States through adopting technically sound and regular student assessment programs at the system level – one of the key factors shown to enhance student learning outcomes. While Anambra and Ekiti have previously participated in large-scale assessments of student learning and achievement levels (Ekiti participated in the Monitoring of Learning Achievement (MLA) in 1996 and 2003, and Anambra participated in the MLA in 2003), they would benefit from more regular engagement with these kinds of system-level assessments, including instituting their own state-level assessments of student learning and achievement levels. Making student achievement data available to teachers is key to informing their diagnosis of the strengths and weaknesses of their students and their lesson planning: the more information teachers have about the learning levels of their students, the better they can prepare to contribute to their students’ learning progress. Making this information available to parents will help them contribute to an improved learning environment at home and to ensuring children’s attendance and efforts. - 60 - 11. Improving the regular assessment of student achievement (DLI3). The objective of this DLI is to Participating States and the Federal Government in improving the regular measurement of student learning and achievement levels through state-based large-scale assessments: (i) in Bauchi, in numeracy and literacy for Primary 5; and (ii) in Anambra and Ekiti, in English and Mathematics for Senior Secondary 2. Given the lack of prior activity in this area among the three states, the focus is on initiating a regular system of state-level standardized assessments, with substantial technical assistance support drawn from international expertise. In addition, it is envisaged that in view of its ongoing involvement in large-scale student assessment exercises, UBEC would provide the institutional structure for national-level assessment activities linked to these state-level efforts. Technical Assistance could focus on capacity building at both national and state levels in the areas of test design, reporting and use, and primarily at the national level in the areas of sample design, sophisticated data analysis (including cut scores, performance standards, and weights) and policy-relevant report writing. The primary focus of the assessment activities should be on collecting standardized information on student learning outcomes that is analyzed and reported in an effective and timely manner so as to support improved teaching and learning. Assessment activities might include the following: (a) piloting an LGA-representative large-scale assessment exercise; (b) piloting uses of data from large-scale assessments for instructional feedback; or (c) piloting school report cards based on data from a large-scale assessment exercise. Technical and Vocational Education 12. Improving the quality and relevance of technical and vocational education through partnerships (DLI4). The objective of this DLI is to improve the quality of teaching, research, and skills development at the technical colleges, and make them more relevant to the demands of employment and entrepreneurship in Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. Technical colleges would receive funding in order to strengthen the linkages between the colleges and industry. The expected outcome is that technical college graduates are either employed in commerce and industry in the private sector or are small business entrepreneurs in the informal sector in both these states. Another outcome is that there will be an increasing number of students completing their programs successfully, who could be admitted to post-secondary institutions or start their own businesses. 13. Specific outputs will relate to: (i) the number of partnerships established, with collaboration between the technical colleges and entrepreneurs, commerce, and industry in the private sector; (ii) institutional capacity-building in the technical and vocational education sub- sector in these three states. Based on a School Development Plan, colleges will become eligible to obtain a partnership grant on the basis of criteria for quality improvement, relevance and impact. School-Based Management and Accountability 14. There is an increasing trend toward greater autonomy of, and devolution of responsibilities to, schools in light of the positive benefits that can be derived, and strengthening of demand-side accountability for raising learning levels. During the benchmarking analysis carried out for the States of Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti the following factors were identified as potential interventions for enhancing school autonomy and accountability toward improved education quality: (a) the availability and publication of credible data, particularly on student - 61 - learning; (b) the possible use of SBMC grant funds to supplement teacher salaries for better performance; (c) the presence of clear guidelines (including roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders) and mechanism to exert maximum leverage over school performance; and (d) the linkage between school management with teacher management (e.g. incentives), and assessment of student learning for improving school performance. However, it should be noted that the mere functioning of established School-Based Management Committees in itself is unlikely to show results overnight. According to an analysis of 232 studies in the United States, it usually takes five years for school-based management to bring about fundamental changes at the school level, and even more for significant changes in test scores. 23 Nevertheless, as indicated earlier significant gains can accrue from greater decision-making at local level, even though these may relate initially to improvements in the learning environment, and teacher performance. 15. School-Based Management Committees (DLI5). The objective of this DLI is to strengthen school-level management for improved school performance, through annual grants to basic and secondary schools on the basis of their education quality improvement plans. There is an increasing trend toward greater autonomy of, and devolution of responsibilities to, schools in light of the positive benefits that can be derived, and strengthening of demand-side accountability for raising learning levels. SBMCs are established, but not yet fully-functional in the three Participating States in the sense of regularly performing a set of functions normally entrusted to them for improved school-level management and performance. Based on the benchmarking results, SBMCs will be made more effective through institutionalization of school-level funding via SBMCs, while at the same time strengthening their accountability to parents (e.g. through dissemination of expenditures, information on student achievement and learning outcomes, etc.) and developing school improvement plans. The grant would be provided annually to all primary and junior secondary schools to augment the school's budget for non- salary expenditures designed to improve learning performance of students. The amount of the grant would vary according to school size. School head teachers/principals and teachers, representatives from SBMC would prepare the school's improvement plan (SIP) based on an agreed operations manual. 16. Therefore, in formulating their Disbursement-Linked Indicators (DLIs), Participating States focused on teachers issues related to deployment/recruitment, learning assessments, school-level management and accountability, as well as technical and vocational education. Participating States’ DLIs center on: (a) teacher deployment in rural areas, and in core subject areas; (b) regular measurement of student learning outcomes through state-level testing; (c) improving relevance of technical and vocational education; and (d) strengthening SBMC participation for improving school effectiveness, and management and accountability. Chart 1 (below) delineates the results chain for the interventions in the areas above – basically, how they contribute to the outcome of improving education quality. For example, DLIs focused on teachers are likely to bring about quality and behavioral changes through appropriate incentives. Similarly, regular assessment of student learning and achievement levels, and dissemination of results can lead to substantial improvement in teaching/learning. School-level interventions involving the School-Based Management Committee can induce the desired performance by teachers and students alike. 23 Barbara Bruns, Deon Filmer, and Harry A. Patrinos, Making School Works, Human Development Perspectives, The World Bank, 2011, 130. - 62 - Chart 1. Results chain: School quality and performance related interventions Interventions Intermediate results Outcomes Improved distribution of teaching and administrative Teacher deployment (rural areas): Fixing teaching posts at the duties; more student-teacher contact time; school level in relation to need and assigning teachers in line Improved teaching performance increased teaching in line with class and Increased student learning and higher student achievement with rationalized posts in rural areas. subject requirements. Teacher deployment (core subjects): Fixing teaching posts at Stronger incentives to align teacher interest and the school level in relation to need and assigning teachers in line effort with outcomes of interest. with rationalized posts, in core subjects (English Language, Mathematics and Science). Assessment of, Accountability for, Student Achievement: Informed decision-making by internal Improving the credibility, relevance, coverage and regularity of stakeholders to improve school performance; school performance information from the school inspection stronger incentives for making improvements data, Annual School Census, and student assessments. by providing relative data (comparisons over . schools, districts, and time); and Provision and use of school performance information: Feeding pressure from external stakeholders to improve back critical information to internal and external stakeholders. school performance. Technical partnerships: Improving the capacity of technical Improved technical partnerships for quality and and vocational schools for skills development through relevance improvement in technical and Improved school quality technical vocational education. School-Based Management Committees: Increasing the Stronger community engagement and improved competency, capacity, authority, and autonomy of SBMCs to decision-making on using grants for timely and monitor and support school performance adequate investments in supporting school improvement activities. Decentralized budget management: Decentralizing Improved level of resourcing of schools for administrative and financial powers to schools investments in complementary inputs; improved likelihood that investment needs are addressed on a more timely basis. - 63 - Component 2 – Technical Assistance (US$25.0 million) 17. The objective of this component is to provide technical assistance channeled through two levels : (a) State level (about US$20 million) – supporting Participating States towards achievement of DLIs, and the associated institutional capacity strengthening; and (b) Federal level (about US$5 million) – supporting the Federal Ministry of Education (FMOE) and UBEC in overall project coordination and in providing the enabling environment in line with national policies, and in ensuring sustainability and scaling-up of successful activities in other potential states. 18. The technical assistance aims to support the critical reforms fostered under component 1, leverage the impact of the Project through the sharing of best practices and enhancing its implications for the broader states’ budgetary frameworks and planning processes, support the monitoring and evaluation framework of the project, and strengthen fiduciary processes. Along this line, the composition of technical assistance falls under four broad areas: A. educational development – provision of technical knowledge on teacher management and development, learning assessments (including state and national large scale assessment), EMIS, and quality assurance; school-based management strengthening, and beneficiary assessments (including strengthening the role of SBMs in beneficiary assessments and training CSOs); capacity-building to LGAs with the purpose of equipping them with the necessary information and competencies for effectively participating in the project; B. budgetary and policy frameworks – technical support to participating states in strengthening school-level funding via SBMCs and in aligning the Education Sector Plans with the new results-based approach; technical support to UBEC in the development of a new funding formula; technical studies to support other states on results-based approaches, management and coordination; annual (or bi-annual) Public Expenditure Reviews to confirm overall amount, sources and allocation of education sector budget and actual spending; C. monitoring and evaluation – support to third party validation; social accountability/third party monitoring; impact evaluation of strategies to promote decentralized school management; Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) survey; Anambra impact evaluation of various forms of school ownership and accountability mechanisms on quality of service delivery in schools; tracer studies; public expenditure tracking surveys; SABER benchmarking for LGAs; public/private partnership in technical and vocational education; ICT initiatives; D. fiduciary – strengthening financial management (including external audits) and procurement, and ensuring compliance with the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF); and F. Other - annual program reviews, which would provide for a joint-review of the year’s progress against targets, agree on needed actions to resolve emerging issues, and on an action plan for the coming year. - 64 - 19. During preparation there was consensus that in view of the benchmarking finding that all three Participating States were in “Emerging� status in key areas of educational development, substantial technical assistance support (both analytical and capacity-building) need to be provided in the areas of teacher management (particularly, matching teachers with student needs), assessment of student learning and achievement levels, School-Based Management, and Educational Management Information System. With regard to EMIS, the major finding was poor reliability of information, and the lack of accessibility of data to promote accountability and educational research. Under the project, it was agreed that the focus would be on improving accessibility to information since this would allow for greater transparency on education statistics, promote accountability and, as a result, improve data quality. Ways to increase accessibility could include making databases available online, producing educational digests and making them accessible online, and distributing school report cards. - 65 - Table 1. Indicative list of activities to be supported under SEPIP TA CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 Analytical and advisory support Teacher Management: Analysis of teacher Teacher Management: Survey data in Participating States in rural areas, and preparation of a development plan (including institutional framework for teacher deployment in relation to enrolment and other requirements at school level) Teacher Management: Analysis of teacher Teacher Management: Annual survey of Teacher Management: Annual Teacher Management: data and the Government’s Sector Plan progress in balancing the gender parity index Survey of progress in balancing the survey of progress in (2008-2018) in Bauchi to develop a strategy among teachers. gender parity index among teachers. balancing the gender parity for improving on gender imbalance in the index among teachers. education sector, and a plan for attracting, recruiting, and retaining female teachers in line with Bauchi’s policy on female teachers, with options for incentives provision Student Assessment Systems: Development Student Assessment Systems: Advisory Student Assessment Systems: Student Assessment of institutional strengthening plan, and support on undertaking representative large- Advisory support on undertaking Systems: Advisory support improved design and administration scale assessments (development, pilot, representative large-scale on undertaking representative procedures and quality control implementation and evaluation) assessments (development, pilot, large-scale assessments implementation and evaluation) (development, pilot, implementation and evaluation) Student Assessment: In-depth analysis of Student Assessment: Development or national and state assessment systems adaptation of tests for the state-level assessment systems Educational Management Information Educational Management Information Educational Management Educational Management System: In-depth review of current system System: Analysis of Annual School Survey, Information System: Review of Information System: Review and identifying options for strengthening, and identify policy and implementation the EMIS to assess progress in data of the EMIS to assess progress including dissemination of available strategies for improving system from the reliability, availability, punctuality, in data reliability, availability, information perspective of reliability, integrity, and and use in decision-making. punctuality, and use in serviceability) decision-making. Financial Management: Review of payroll Financial Management: Review of Financial Management: Review Financial Management: and EMIS data and updating of chart of education expenditures against allocations, of education expenditures against State payroll audit and accounts payroll audit, and implementation of updated allocations (including breakdown of generation of financial reports chart of accounts development and recurrent based on the updated chart of expenditures) and generation of accounts. financial reports based on the updated chart of accounts - 66 - Table 1. Indicative list of activities to be supported under SEPIP TA CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 budgetary and policy frameworks: budgetary and policy frameworks: budgetary and policy budgetary and policy Annual (or bi-annual) Public Expenditure Annual (or bi-annual) Public Expenditure frameworks: frameworks: Reviews to confirm overall amount, sources Reviews to confirm overall amount, sources Annual (or bi-annual) Public Annual (or bi-annual) Public and allocation of education sector budget and and allocation of education sector budget and Expenditure Reviews to confirm Expenditure Reviews to actual spending actual spending overall amount, sources and confirm overall amount, allocation of education sector sources and allocation of budget and actual spending education sector budget and actual spending Annual Program Review Annual Program Review Annual Program Review Annual Program Review Capacity building and support 1. Educational Development Student Assessment Setting up capacity for Learning Assessments Learning Assessments Learning Assessments coordinating and administering tests at State Level EMIS – Strengthening capacity at different Training in EMIS and Monitoring and Data analysis levels (I, LGA, school, etc.) Evaluation budgetary and policy frameworks: budgetary and policy frameworks: budgetary and policy budgetary and policy (i) technical support to participating states (i) technical support to participating states in frameworks: frameworks: technical in strengthening school-level funding strengthening school-level funding via (i) technical support to support to participating states via SBMCs and in aligning the SBMCs and in aligning the Education participating states in in strengthening school-level Education Sector Plans with the new Sector Plans with the new results-based strengthening school-level funding via SBMCs and in results-based approach; approach; funding via SBMCs and in aligning the Education Sector (ii) technical support to UBEC in the (ii) technical support to UBEC in the aligning the Education Sector Plans with the new results- development of a new funding formula; development of a new funding formula; Plans with the new results- based approach; technical studies to support other states on technical studies to support other states on based approach; results-based approaches, management and results-based approaches, management and coordination; coordination; ICT: Develop strategies for adaptation and ICT – Pilot in selective LGAs Assessment of pilot and scaling up use of ICT tools in project implementation in implementation. and monitoring Beneficiary Assessments Beneficiary Assessments Beneficiary Assessments Beneficiary Assessments • Surveys • Surveys • Surveys • Surveys • Strengthening roles of SBMs in • Strengthening roles of SBMs in • Strengthening roles of SBMs in • Strengthening roles of SBMs beneficiary assessments and training beneficiary assessments and training beneficiary assessments and in beneficiary assessments CSOs CSOs training CSOs and training CSOs - 67 - Table 1. Indicative list of activities to be supported under SEPIP TA CY2013 CY2014 CY2015 CY2016 2. Monitoring and Evaluation Impact Evaluation (incl. baseline study) Impact Evaluation: detailed follow-up and Impact Evaluation: detailed follow- Impact Evaluation: Support • Service Delivery Indicators support up and support for analysis for survey data. • Promoting decentralized school- based management funding Third party Validation Studies Third party Validation Studies Third party Validation Studies Third party Validation Studies Tracer Study Tracer Study Tracer Study Tracer Study Development of Public Expenditure Tracking Preparation and testing of PETS instruments Administration of PETS surveys PETS evaluation Survey Questionnaires SABER Benchmarking for LGAs SABER Benchmarking for LGAs - - Develop Terms of Reference for PPP (TVET) PPP (TVET) study Dissemination of PPP (TVET) study study Social Accountability/third party (LGA Social Accountability/third party (LGA Social Accountability/third party Social Accountability/third monitoring) monitoring) (LGA monitoring) party (LGA monitoring) Establishing feedback and grievance redress Addressing feedback and grievance redress Addressing feedback and grievance Addressing feedback and mechanisms redress grievance redress 3. Fiduciary Financial Management Financial Management Financial Management Financial Management Procurement Procurement Procurement Procurement Environmental and social management: Environmental and social Staffing for monitoring and supporting ESMF management: Staffing for compliance. monitoring and supporting ESMF compliance. 4. Other Technical Studies & Support to Other States Technical Studies & Support to Other States Technical Studies & Support to Technical Studies & Support Other States to Other States LGA-based Studies LGA-based Studies LGA-based Studies LGA-based Studies Management and technical studies Management and technical studies Management and technical studies Management and technical Annual Program Review Annual Program Review Annual Program Review studies Annual Program Review - 68 - Annex 3: Implementation Arrangements NIGERIA: State Education Program Investment Project Project Institutional and Implementation Arrangements 1. Given that the project will be implemented largely at the state level or below, the responsibility for project implementation will lie with the Ministry of Education of each of the participating states, with the Federal Ministry of Education undertaking overall project oversight and coordination, mainly through the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC). The Federal Ministry of Education will be the ultimate sectorial authority for the project, while the State Ministry of Education (SMOE), led by the Commissioner of Education, will assume this responsibility at the state level, in concert with the extended arm of UBEC, the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB). The following describes the institutional arrangements, including roles and responsibilities of the various institutions. Details are in Annex 3. 2. Federal level. At the Federal level, the Federal Ministry of Education (FMOE) will provide policy guidance and chair the National Project Steering Committee (composed primarily of representatives from the Federal Ministry of Finance, National Planning Commission, Participating States� Ministries of Education, UBEC, and civil society organizations) which will be responsible for overall coordination, knowledge sharing and monitoring of project implementation. The FMOE will also be responsible for coordinating project activities at federal level, including technical assistance activities and providing implementation support to states, through a newly established Federal Project Support Unit, and help resolve emerging implementation issues. The Federal Ministry of Finance will be a member of the National Project Coordination Committee, and will be expected to provide support to SEPIP through participation in project annual joint reviews. In addition, the Federal Project Financial Management Department (FPFMD) will manage financial management arrangements at the federal level. Given the critical role of the Federal Ministry of Finance as the interlocutor of multilateral and bilateral financing agencies in Nigeria, the Ministry in liaison with the Bank will carry out its oversight functions for project implementation with a view to ensuring smooth coordination and project effectiveness. The Universal Basic Education Commission will coordinate technical assistance at federal level, and be responsible for technical aspects of education, including monitoring and evaluation, and national assessments of student learning outcomes. 3. State level arrangements in participating states. The major part of implementation will occur at this level, more particularly the achievement of results as formulated by DLI targets. A Project Steering Committee (SPSC), chaired by the Commissioner, State Ministry of Education and composed of representatives of State Ministry of Finance, Planning and Budget, parastatals, SUBEB, and civil society, will provide guidance to the SMOE which will be responsible for project implementation, including close monitoring of DLI targets. A Technical Committee will support the State Project Steering Committee on technical matters, as well as give technical guidance to SMOE. The SMOE in each state will be supported by a State Project Technical Support Unit (SPTSU) with a project coordinator from SMOE. This Unit will liaise with various implementing partners, closely track project progress, particularly on DLI achievement, and compliance with fiduciary safeguards (financial management, procurement, social and environment). It will also play a key role in planning, implementing, monitoring and reporting, as well as acting as a focal point for coordination with the Bank, SUBEB, Local Government Education Officers, and other agencies, including concerned civil society organizations. - 69 - 4. The SMOE will be assisted in financial management by a State Project Financial Management Unit (at the Accountant-General’s Office), responsible for the financial management of donor-funded projects in each State. For SEPIP, the SPFMU will serve as the Fund Holder for Component 1, and manage the financial management arrangements under the Technical Assistance Component. 5. In addition, the State Ministries of Finance and Planning, and the State Universal Basic Education Boards, Local Government Authorities, and key education parastatals such as the Teacher Boards, as well as other agencies including civil service societies, will also be involved in project management at state level primarily through their involvement in the State Project Steering Committee. 6. School Level. Responsibility for project implementation will lie primarily with Head Teachers/Principals, assisted by functional School-Based Management Committees, which will support the schools in developing education improvement plans, and manage activities under such plans, as approved by the SMOEs, in compliance with an approved operations manual, satisfactory to IDA. In addition, SBMCs, assisted by NGOs, will be responsible for organizing meetings with relevant community members (e.g. Parent-Teacher Association, parents’ assemblies, and support school social audits. Project administration mechanisms 7. At the Federal Level, a National Project Coordination Committee to be chaired by the Minister, Federal Ministry of Education (FMOE), will be established to facilitate federal level project coordination, and to act as a forum for knowledge sharing. This Committee will be assisted by the Federal Project Support Unit in FMOE, which will be entrusted with project administration. The Universal Basic Education Commission will coordinate technical assistance at federal level, and be responsible for technical aspects of education, including monitoring and evaluation, and national assessments of student learning outcomes. 8. At the State Level, a Steering Committee will guide and oversee project implementation by the State Ministry of Education, with support from State Project Technical Support Unit (with capacities for educational development, EMIS, procurement, research and M&E) headed by a State Project Coordinator (see table 1 below). 9. At the LGA level, the participation of Local Government Education Authorities (LGEA) by building their capacity on focused on expected requirements. The proposed capacity-building strategy is to equip the LGAs with the necessary information, resources and competencies for effectively participating in the project. This is expected to be carried out through organizing training and capacity-building for key LGEA officers. The capacity building will entail developing a communication plan on how the LGEA should interface with the State government and schools. Grants can be introduced to the schools. The process, which should encompass information sharing, will also make the LGA to be more accountable to the state, particularly with regards to education budget at the local level. Key activities of LGAs are listed the table below, but these will include: (i) support to States in the development of a communication plan to involve community in primary education management and oversight; (ii) build capacity of PTAs and other CBOs and foster them where they do not exist; (ii) make information available on LGEA budgets and expenditures to the general public; and (iii) provide training and means of transport for supervisors. - 70 - 10. Table 1 below outlines the key roles and responsibilities for implementation and monitoring of SEPIP activities. Table 1. Roles and responsibilities for SEPIP implementation Unit Key roles and responsibilities Federal level National Project Steering • responsible for overall coordination, knowledge sharing and monitoring Committee of project implementation Federal Ministry of • Provide advice and overall policy guidance for implementation of SEPIP Education • Chair the National Project Steering Committee, acting as a forum for knowledge sharing and • Support SEPIP by coordinating project annual joint reviews, facilitating inter- ministerial coordination, and undertake general monitoring • Assist in resolving program implementation bottlenecks at Federal level Federal Project Support Unit • Be responsible on behalf of FMOE for coordinating SEPIP activities at federal (FPSU) level, project administration (including organization of annual joint reviews), and liaison with relevant stakeholders • Coordinates and employ third parties for independent DLI verification and vetting Federal Ministry of Finance • Federal Ministry of Finance will provide policy guidance in fiscal matters, as well as being a member of the project Coordination Committee Federal Project Financial • Provide guidance on project financial matters and manage the financial Management Division management arrangements at the federal level • Prepare financial reports for the federal component • Prepare the Credit Withdrawal Applications • Reinforce design and implementation of interventions for systemic improvements and financial accountability in the education sector • Maintain computerized systems for financial reporting • Ensure that accounts are kept and reports on financial progress are prepared in timely manner • Facilitate the audit process for the program expenditures and improvement of internal controls over the life of the program Universal Basic Education • Coordinate technical assistance activities at federal level Commission • Provide support to SEPIP in overall monitoring and evaluation • Act as an administration entity for national assessments • Carry out diagnostic assessments • Compile findings of assessments of student learning outcomes • Coordinate activities of State Universal Basic Education Boards in support of SEPIP State Level State Program Steering • Provide advice and overall guidance for implementation of SEPIP Committee (SPSC) headed • Carry out joint biannual reviews on implementation progress by Commissioner of • Resolve program implementation bottlenecks (including financing of key Education supported programs) through bi-monthly meetings or as required Technical Committee • Provide technical inputs to the State Program Steering Committee • Provide guidance to SMOEs - 71 - State Ministry of Education • Overall responsibility for project implementation, monitoring and reporting to SPSC and development partners at the state level • Coordinate ministries, departments and agencies involved in delivery of reform program, specifically, SPFMU, SUBEB, Teacher Board • Develop State Education Budget (Development & Non-Development) • Prepare Medium Term Sector Framework and Sector Plan • Approve State Education Development Schemes • Convene State Project Steering Committee meetings and issue Minutes of meetings • Issue School-Based Management Committee policy and guidelines soon after project Effectiveness • Issue notifications/guidelines to LGEAs for implementation of program activities soon after Project Effectiveness • Notify revised teacher deployment/recruitment policy, prepare teacher deployment/recruitment plans based on school specific need and undertake teacher recruitment according to approved plans • Responsible for conduct of state-level testing • Coordinate and provide guidance to LGEAs to undertake teacher deployment/recruitment based on approved plans prepared in accordance with school specific needs • Provide monitoring and evaluation and financial oversight of project implementation • Coordinate the design, development, implementation, maintenance, monitoring and evaluation of a system of examinations for basic education • Build capacity of teachers and education management staff to improve systems of learning assessment • Conduct standardized examinations for Primary 5 or Senior Secondary 2 to enable education managers in the state to assess learning outcomes • Conduct analysis on student achievement data collected through the examinations - 72 - State Project Technical • Coordinate all project monitoring and implementation Support Unit (SPTSU) • Conduct coordination meeting of project stakeholders • Liaise with SPFMU and State Planning & Budget Office of Ministry of Finance • Coordinate ESMF implementation and report on progress • Support the designing and implementation of communication strategy including creation of communication material • Issue operational manual guidelines to LGEA offices • Coordinate technical assistance to LGEAs to facilitate implementation of school budgets, teacher deployment/recruitment, decentralization of powers to head teachers and School-Based Management Committee capacity development; assist SMOE in development of policies/notifications related to implementation of these project interventions • Responsible (overall) for preparing and disseminating school performance report cards • Responsibility for design and delivery of grants to SBMCs • Manage implementation of technical assistance activities, including procurement • Liaise with relevant educational institutions/agencies/units on project implementation (with support from FMOE) • Prepare regular reports on implementation progress and plans • Consolidate plans and budget estimates, implement and manage project activities, and prepare relevant reports • Plan and carry out procurement activities and oversee/execute contracts for goods, works and services Monitoring and Evaluation • Coordinate with Monitoring & Evaluation consultants/SBMCs • Ensure quality, consistency of data collected • Maintain FMOE’s EMIS and disseminate for data utilization in decision-making • Produce/oversee production of statistical data reports • Produce/oversee production of semi-annual analysis of project progress • Arrange conduct of third party validations • Oversee production of implementation evaluation studies of project interventions • Feed data/information into annual monitoring and progress reports State Project Financial • Under the guidance of the State Ministry of Finance and Budget, Prepare Budget Management Unit Execution Reports of entire education sector for monitoring education sector program expenditures • Prepare semi-annual financial reports of Eligible Expenditure Programs (EEPs) and TA for disbursement purposes • Prepare the Credit Withdrawal Applications • Reinforce design and implementation of interventions for systemic improvements and financial accountability in the education sector • Maintain computerized systems for financial reporting • Ensure that accounts are kept and reports on financial progress are prepared in timely manner • Facilitate the audit process for the program expenditures and improvement of internal controls over the life of the program State Universal Basic • Coordinate Universal Basic Education activities with SMOEs Education Board • Provide direction to policy development on promoting sustainable and systematic teacher development • Prepare action plans, programs, and continuous professional development activities for public school teachers • Provide capacity-building of LGAs and related institutions for managing and delivering LGA level development plans • - 73 - Local Government • Under SUBEB/SMOE oversight, responsible for implementation oversight and Education Authorities coordination at LGA level • Resolve program implementation bottlenecks (including financial management issues) • Administer Schools • Prepare LGEA budgets (Non-Development) based on school specific needs • Undertake rationalization of teaching posts based on school specific needs based formula • Coordinate decentralization of administrative and financial powers to SBMCs • Coordinate dissemination of information to schools/SBMCs (including policies, policy notifications, etc.) • Coordinate capacity support to SBMCs • Conduct monthly visits to schools to collect school level information on a standardized form • Monitor ESMF compliance • Assist in institutional data/information collection • Assist SMOEs in program coordination and implementation School-Based Management • Assist in supervising school activities Committees • Contribute to improving school performance • Be responsible for school maintenance (under separate funding) • Assist schools in decision-making, in preparing school plans and budget • Keep financial records of school expenditures and receipts • Demonstrate accountability and transparency in school affairs • Assist in fostering greater participation of communities in school management through assemblies, PTA meetings, etc. • Support preparation, implementation and monitoring of School Improvement Plan • Facilitate Social School Audits Results Monitoring and Evaluation 11. Rigorous monitoring of results is critical to generate evidence of progress towards achieving the project’s Development Objectives. The proposed Project bases the M&E framework on the Government’s established education monitoring system for assessing progress in the project’s outcomes and results. M&E is integrated into the SEPIP design and is supported through DLIs, and a clearly established results framework against which to evaluate project performance, including risk mitigation, and progress toward the SEPIP development objective. The responsibility for monitoring activities will lie with the Monitoring and Evaluation units in each of the State Ministries of Education, complemented by overall monitoring by the Universal Basic Education Commission on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Education at the Federal level, and civil society organizations at the school level. 12. The project will strengthen the existing system in the States to improve monitoring of results in the sector. The main features of the monitoring systems include systematic school-based data collection using registers and records, monthly routine data collection by Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs), quarterly summary of results and progress reports by State Ministries of Education (SMOE), an annual school census. Independent Third Party monitoring and verification, including third party monitoring by qualified CSOs/CBOs selected competitively, has also been built into the technical assistance component to validate results reported through the monitoring system. Third party monitoring by CSOs will complement the usual monitoring and - 74 - evaluation mechanism under the project. Details on third party monitoring are in Annex 3 (Appendix 4). 13. Measuring results accurately and reliably at desired intervals is critical to the success of SEPIP. It will form the basis for payments to states, local governments and schools. M&E will be a key responsibility of the SMOE in the context of the SEPIP. There will be an annual assessment of project performance, which will, in case of continued poor performance, also consider possibilities for intra-state re-allocation in consultation with the Federal Ministry of Finance, after a notice of six months for redress is given to the State(s) concerned. (In that case the FA will specify that money can be reallocated if the DLIs are not met). The results framework in Annex 1 will be jointly reviewed by mid-term, based on an external evaluation to be carried two months prior to this review, and a final one about eight months prior to project closing. It is planned that an Education Public Expenditure Review would be conducted to inform the annual assessment, and address education budget issues. 14. The M&E mechanism will: (a) verify the data provided by schools and the States’ Ministries of Education; (b) contribute to improving the reliability of routine EMIS through technical support and benchmarking and tracking improvements; (c) monitor the progress on performance improvements through periodic independent sample surveys for tracking changes at LGA and School levels; and (d) establish closer links with UBEC on the development of large-scale surveys, with some linkage to the National Bureau of Statistics for household surveys. Monitoring that is specific to fiduciary functions, and environmental and social safeguards, is described elsewhere in the respective sections of the PAD. 15. Data collection methodologies for the Results Framework: Five primary data sources will be used to measure the indicators for PDO and intermediate results in the results framework and for measuring performance for implementation purposes more generally. (a) Routine EMIS reporting systems: Data on selected key indicators will be obtained periodically by the SMOE from routine reporting systems and school registers. The Education Management Information System (EMIS) will be strengthened in each State Ministry of Education to function effectively as the data management system and produce/transmit information to various users. (b) Annual School Census: The Annual School Census (ASC) is an activity designed to capture relevant data as needed for adequate planning and administration of education in Nigeria. The main purpose of the census is to collect and collate data on schools in terms of infrastructure, teacher status, enrolment, retention and completion rates, teacher to pupil ratio, teacher to classroom ratio, pupil to classroom ratio that will inform stakeholders and form a basis for improved activity-based planning and budgeting for education in the three States participating on the project. The TA component of the project will support the strengthening of logistics of the ASC exercise to enhance the efficiency of the process and improve the quality of results. (c) Student Assessments: Students in Primary 5 in Bauchi will be tested in reading and numeracy using standardized instruments. Students in Senior Secondary 2 in Anambra and Ekiti will be tested in English Language, and Mathematics using standard instruments. The achievement-level results derived from student responses to these tests will be analyzed and an appropriate report produced to facilitate monitoring by schools and the Local Government Education Authority (LGEA) officials who have jurisdiction over the selected schools. - 75 - (d) School Report Card: LGEA officers will make quarterly visits to schools and implement a quantitative supervision checklist that will assist both LGEA officers and principals to track performance over time and trouble-shoot problems. These checklists will also be an important source of routine data on key school performance parameters such as presence of teachers, school and classroom environment, student attendance, teaching methodology, etc. Data can be aggregated by LGAs to track and manage the school performance within their span of control. (e) Beneficiary Assessments: Qualitative and quantitative surveys will be conducted by an independent consultant at baseline, year 2 and year 4 in the three comparable states. The Beneficiary Assessments will include school-based classroom observation studies that will assess improved learning conditions and the use of pedagogical methods by teachers. 16. SEPIP will build sector M&E capacity. M&E capacity is currently weak and technical assistance in M&E has been identified to develop a culture of results monitoring by strengthening the systems, which provide the information and incentivizing the use of more credible information. The technical assistance plan, drawn on the basis of implementation experience, aims to support implementation, and to respond to emerging needs. Thus, the technical assistance plan for M&E will focus on strengthening evidence-based planning and management: (a) developing enhanced monitoring instruments; (b) independent validation of information; (c) analysis of information from administrative data to report on DLI achievement, where required; (d) more in-depth analysis and information dissemination to support policy-making; and (e) impact evaluations and cost- effectiveness of various interventions. Moreover, technical assistance under M&E can help advance progress in technical areas, such as learning assessment and examinations, and teacher deployment and recruitment. 17. Third-party assessments. To ease the administrative burden on the State Ministry of Education, and to take advantage of knowhow and capacity of the private sector, and more importantly, for greater credibility, the State Ministries of Education through the State Project Technical Support Units, plans to carry out third-party assessments of program implementation progress and performance by contracting individuals/firms from the private sector. This emphasis on third-party assessments is imbedded in the DLIs and verification protocol, through reviews, validations and evaluations to be conducted by third-party organizations at appropriate points over the implementation period. Satisfactory execution and completion of third-party assessments will also be assessed as part of the overall assessment of the achievement of the relevant DLIs. 18. Service Delivery Indicators. The project envisages undertaking service delivery surveys. The disconnect between increased spending and expansion in access to education have not been matched with commensurate improvements in outcomes, suggesting an unfinished quality agenda. Provider performance in this sector is a critical determinant of quality of education. The Service Delivery Indicators 24 survey modules include: provider effort (absenteeism and time-on-task), provider competence (assessment of content knowledge and pedagogical ability), availability of basic 24 The Service Delivery Indicators project is a new Africa-wide initiative that tracks service delivery in education and health across countries and over time. The project collects nationally representative data that focus mainly on performance and quality of service delivery in primary schools and at frontline health facilities. Inspired by the Bank's 2004 WDR Making Services Work for Poor People, we know that a key characteristic that distinguishes education and health services from many other services is that these services are discretionary and transaction-intensive, complicating how relationships of accountability for education and health services are structured. - 76 - school inputs, and pupil assessment (mathematics, language and cognitive abilities). The indicators are as follows: (a) at school level: (i) Schools with electricity, water, and sanitation; (ii) Children per classroom; (iii) Student-teacher ratio; and (iv) Textbooks per student; (b) in respect of teachers: (i) Teachers absent on a given day; (ii) Time children are in school being taught/day; (iii) Teachers with minimum knowledge – language; and (iv) Teachers with minimum knowledge – Mathematics; and (c) in terms of funding: (i) Expenditure figures reaching primary schools per student; and (ii) Teachers experiencing a two-month or more delay in salary payment. 19. The surveys yield nationally representative indicators disaggregated by rural-urban areas. The school-based surveys usually cover 250-300 primary schools covering public and private (for-profit as well as non-non-profit) providers. The survey instruments have been developed (together with Field Manual and Training materials). Once the sampling approach has been developed, training of fieldworkers/enumerators can start, and thereafter survey implementation can proceed. The Service Delivery Indicator Technical Panel and Secretariat provide quality assurance and oversight in support of country-level implementation. 20. Impact Evaluation. Impact evaluation is proposed in two areas. First, regarding Quality of service delivery in education: the aim is to assess the impact of various forms of school ownership and accountability mechanisms on quality of service delivery in schools. Quality of service delivery in education is strongly influenced by provider competence and provider effort, and hence this will be a strong focus of the analysis, as well as pupil learning outcomes. The SDI Survey instruments will be a useful input into the survey design. 21. Second, it is envisaged to undertake an impact evaluation on “Strategies to promote decentralized school management,� which will focus on answering the following questions: (a) What is the impact of an additional dollar provided to schools in the form of school grants on a number of outcome variables? (b) What strategies can be used to strengthen SBMCs to make them more effective? (c) Does strengthening of SBMCs lead to more effective use of school grants? (d) Can school grants and SBMC interventions lead to improvements in student learning outcomes? The exercise will also include gathering process information focusing on types of activities, decision- making of SBMCs on school grant use, whether school grants have any impact on teacher and student behaviors, etc. The design of the school grant component within SEPIP is such that the amount of the grant would vary according to school size. This variation in grant amounts will be exploited, to the extent possible, to measure the overall effectiveness and cost effectiveness of school grants in impacting student learning outcomes (see Annex 3, Appendix 2). 22. Supervision and Reporting. The States will collaborate with the World Bank to carry out at least two Joint supervision missions annually, with more frequent missions planned during the first year as required. World Bank supervision will comprise of semi-annual joint missions (which will include visits to schools), additional visits by World Bank country office staff and technical consultants as the need arises, and continuous electronic communication and follow-up to review SEPIP implementation progress and performance. In particular, the World Bank will monitor (progress towards) the achievement of DLIs, compliance with stipulated FM, procurement, and safeguard requirements, and implementation of the proposed project’s TA component. The State Ministries of Education, the SUBEB/LGEAs, SBMCs and local communities, and independent local - 77 - organizations, such as civil society organizations will also make regular visits on a need basis to support implementation. If the security situation limits mission travel or the scope of supervision during missions, the States will intensify supervision from their offices via regular audio conferences and electronic communication. Annex 3 outlines how periodic reviews will take place at various levels. Monitoring Evaluation - Chart 23. Project Reviews will be held on periodically at various levels as illustrated in the chart below: • The State Project Steering Committee will hold bi- State Government monthly/quarterly meetings to review SEPIP progress with the SMOE, SUBEB, Teacher Board, and other concerned agencies, including the civil society organization • Will have overall responsibility for SEPIP monitoring, and will UBEC regularly gather information and formally report on all project components and requirements. • Local government education officers will provide supervision and LGA reporting support to the state government in selected project components and requirements. • SBMCs are expected to monitor and report on, among other things, school affairs (e.g., teacher presence) and the performance of selected service delivery interventions. The Schools activities and performance of SBMCs themselves are expected to be monitored by the local communities via community reviews of SBMC fund receipt and use and the design and implementation of school improvement plans prepared by SBMCs. Local Independent • Will be used to review the performance in selected project Organizations components and requirements. The third party activities will include continuous monitoring of teacher (e.g. Civil Society recruitment/development, and reviews of SBMC funds receipt and Organizations) use. - 78 - Financial Management 24. Country Issues: The Bank has extensive knowledge of the country’s Public Financial Management (PFM) system. A review of implementation of the recommendations of the Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA 2000) was carried out in January 2005 and PEMFAR was done in 2006. These reviews indicate that FGN has made significant efforts to advance reform of the PFM system since 2003. PFM initiatives and reforms are included in the Government’s PRSP – NEEDS, and further articulated in the 7-Point Agenda, which sets out policy priorities to further strengthen the reforms and support economic growth, ensuring that the impact of the reforms is felt widely. Major achievements so far have been: (i) adopting an oil- based fiscal rule that has greatly improved the quality of macroeconomic management; (ii) launching of significant steps to increase budget transparency; (iii) assuring more efficient cash management; (iv) undertaking procurement reforms; (v) updating the legislative framework for PFM; (vi) reallocating budget resources in support of MDG-related government functions; (vii) strengthening M & E; and (viii) introducing a more strategic longer-term budget management focus. Continuing challenges include overcoming weaknesses in audit efficiency and budget monitoring. The Bank supports the government’s PFM initiatives through Bank assisted projects including the State Governance and Capacity Building Project (SCBGP), the State Employment and Expenditure for Results Project, the Economic Reform and Governance Project, Lagos Metropolitan Development and Governance Project, the First Lagos Development Policy Operation Program, and the First Edo State Growth and Employment Support Credit Program. 25. The Federal Government of Nigeria with supports from the World Bank and DFID is currently carrying out a PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) plus assessment. So far about 12 States have completed PEFAs. The assessments will provide the authorities with a comprehensive set of evidence on the status (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks) of the PFM systems and processes and recommendations for consideration in making improvements over time and in assessing readiness for introduction of PBB. In addition, the reports will allow a structured way of monitoring the ‘Governance and General Administration’ policy thrust of the National Implementation Plan for Vision 20:2020 to accelerate the implementation of reforms to enhance the quality and efficiency of public expenditure; and reinstate greater prudence in the management of the nation’s financial resources. 26. State Project Financial Management Units (SPFMUs) in the Offices of the State Accountants-General have been established in all States, the Federal Capital Territory and Federal Project Financial Management Division (FPFMD) at the federal level. The SPFMUs are responsible for managing the financial affairs of donor-funded projects. Bank assessments have found the SPFMUs to be functioning satisfactorily. In view of the foregoing, the SPFMU will serve as the Fund Holder for Component One. TA funds will be available to strengthen the SPFMUs, if deemed necessary. 27. The project will use various disbursement methods appropriate to the component and ensure smooth implementation of the project. These would include: Reimbursement, Advance, and Direct Payment which will be used for DLI achieved payments and traditional payments under Technical Assistance component. - 79 - 28. Component One will support the participating States’ program for improving the quality of education to be disbursed against Eligible Expenditure Programs (EEPs) upon verified achievement of specific Disbursement-linked Indicators (DLIs). After independent verification of the achievements of the DLIs, a request for payment will be made to the Bank. This payment will be on reimbursement basis and based on certified Eligible Expenditure Programs (EEPs) for the State. According to criteria described below, the most appropriate EEP selected for disbursements upon DLI achievement is that of education worker salaries. 29. With regard to School Improvement Grants associated with the DLI for SBMC, which will be financed by the states’ counterpart funds, their objective will be to augment the school’s budget for non-salary expenditures through annual payments ranging from Nairas 500,000-1 million (depending on school size). Under the school improvement grant subprogram, the project plans to strengthen the capacity, authority, and autonomy of School-Based Management Committees (SBMCs) to manage and use their grants for school improvement activities thus strengthening SBMCs participation for improving school effectiveness and management, and accountability. As part of this process the SBMCs will be required to develop and implement school improvement plans. The preparation of these plans will be participatory and follow laid down procedures and criteria that will be included in the project school grants manual, a draft of which was prepared by Appraisal and a final draft to be submitted before project effectiveness. 30. In respect of Component Two – Technical Assistance, disbursements will be according to the traditional Bank modality for approved specific expenditures. These are aggregated and SOEs will be submitted to the World Bank for vetting and reimbursement. 31. The Results-based Component, featuring DLIs, will reimburse a portion of the state government education EEP expenditures. The Project will support the State Government to ensure that the State Financial Management Information Systems (FMIS) systems adequately capture the budgeted EEPs and actual expenditures in a credible and timely manner. The EEPs should also contribute to meeting the DLIs and advancing project objectives. As stated above, the EEP will comprise state education worker salaries. It is possible that over the course of implementation some additional state EEPs could be added including program budgets such as school grants (if budgeting reforms are implemented), and possibly maintenance, utilities, training, etc. But at this juncture they do not meet all of the essential EEP criteria which include the following: (a) Expenditures must be by the State, not direct Federal expenditure or earmarked funding from other organizations; (b) EEP must be budgeted annually and approved with budget codes (separate sub- accounts) that allow expenditures to be tracked and recorded at the State; (c) Tracking and recording of EEP expenditures must be timely (within three months of the close of a period), credible and capable of being audited with an adequate paper trail; - 80 - (d) EEP must be important budget items both in terms of size of resources and relevance to SMOE objectives. Smaller but important line items may be included if they satisfy all of the criteria; and (e) EEP must satisfy Bank fiduciary (FM, procurement and safeguards) requirements. 32. State education worker salaries is the most logical and easily verifiable EEP and the one that is budgeted, tracked and reported from a credible system and without delay. To ensure continued credibility of this EEP, the states will conduct an annual payroll audit. The value of these budget lines is also sufficient to cover DLI payments to States. I. Technical Assistance Component: 33. Disbursements will be according to the traditional Bank modality for approved specific expenditures. These are aggregated and SOEs submitted to the World Bank for vetting and reimbursement. Table 2: Fund Flow Arrangements 34. Disbursements will be according to the traditional Bank modality for approved specific expenditures. These are aggregated and SOEs submitted to the World Bank for vetting and reimbursement. Table 2: Fund Flow Arrangements Description Disbursement Linked Indicators Technical Assistance Advance Payments Recipient State Federal; State Paid into State Ministry of Finance’s Treasury FMoE, PTSU Designated Account SMoE, Account PTSU Designated Account Basis of Reimbursement of State EEPs in Specific statements of expenditure against payment advance of the achievement of DLIs contracts in the Procurement Plans and in Year 1. activities in the approved work plan Vetting Bank’s “No Objection� Bank Frequency Year 0 only As needed Amount Up to 30% of US$10,416,667annual Federal US$5 million; States US$20 million Allocated per state - 81 - Table 3. Pricing of DLIs and Total Amount Allocated for Component One FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 US$ US$ US$ US$ DLI price per annum 2,083,333 each 2,083,333 each 2,083,333 2,083,333 each each Amount allocated for 10,416,667 10,416,667 10,416,667 10,416,667 Component One per State Total Amount Allocated for Component One 31.25 million 31.25 million 31.25 million 31.25 million 35. On effectiveness and subject to the Bank’s “No Objection�, the participating states may request for a one-time advance of up to thirty percent (30%) of the DLI allocated amount for the first year. The amount granted as advance in Year 0 will be off-set against the total amount earned in Year 1. In addition, provision for retroactive financing is being made for Component 1, should the FGN opt to pursue this facility. The estimated amount of retroactive financing is US$15.0 million, based primarily on the expenditures expected to be incurred under the project towards the achievement of the first-year DLIs by the States. 36. Based on the DLI pricing table above, Tables 4 and 5 below show estimated disbursements by component, and by year, respectively. Table 4: Estimated Disbursement Schedule by Component /a US Dollars Component Anambra Bauchi Ekiti Federal Total A. Results-Based Component (a) DLI1 - Teacher Deployment in Rural Areas 8,333,333 8,333,333 8,333,333 - 24,999,999 (b) DLI2 - Teacher Deployment in Core Subjects 8,333,333 8,333,333 8,333,333 - 24,999,999 (c) DLI3 - Assessment of Student Achievement 8,333,333 8,333,333 8,333,333 - 24,999,999 (d) DLI4 - Technical & Vocational Education 8,333,333 8,333,333 8,333,333 - 24,999,999 (e) DLI5 - School-Based Management 8,333,335 8,333,335 8,333,334 - 25,000,004 Sub-total 41,666,667 41,666,667 41,666,666 - 125,000,000 B. Technical Assistance Component 6,666,667 6,666,666 6,666,667 5,000,000 25,000,000 TOTAL 48,333,334 48,333,333 48,333,333 5,000,000 150,000,000 a/ Assuming total achievement of DLIs by each Participating State in any given year. - 82 - Table 5: Estimated Disbursement Schedule by Year /a /b US Dollars Component 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total A. Results-Based Component (a) DLI1 - Teacher Deployment in Rural Areas 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 25,000,000 (b) DLI2 - Teacher Deployment in Core Subjects 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 25,000,000 (c) DLI3 - Assessment of Student Achievement 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 25,000,000 (d) DLI4 - Technical & Vocational Education 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 25,000,000 (e) DLI5 - School-Based Management 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 25,000,000 Sub-total 31,250,000 31,250,000 31,250,000 31,250,000 125,000,000 B. Technical Assistance Component 4,350,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 23,100,000 Project Preparation Advance 1,900,000 - - - 1,900,000 TOTAL 37,500,000 37,500,000 37,500,000 37,500,000 150,000,000 a/ Assuming total achievement of DLIs by each Participating State in any given year. b/ Annual disbursements include total for all three States for DLIs, and both Federal and the three States for Technical Assistance. 37. Eligible Expenditures: The DLI component reimburses a portion of the state government education EEP expenditures. The Project will support the State Government to ensure that the State Financial Management Information Systems (FMIS) systems adequately capture the budgeted EEPs and actual expenditures in a credible and timely manner. The EEPs should also contribute to meeting DLIs and advancing the Project objectives. The EEP will comprise state education worker salaries. It is possible that over the course of loan implementation some additional state EEPs could be added including program budgets (if budgeting reforms are implemented) and possibly maintenance, utilities, training, etc. But at this juncture they do not meet all of the essential EEP criteria which include the following: (a) Expenditures must be by the State, not direct Federal expenditure or earmarked funding from other organizations; (b) EEP must be budgeted annually and approved with budget codes (separate sub- accounts) that allow expenditures to be tracked and recorded at the State (c) Tracking and recording of EEP expenditures must be timely (within 3 months of the close of a period), credible and capable of being audited with an adequate paper trail. (d) EEP must be important budget items both in terms of size of resources and relevance to SUBEB objectives. Smaller but important line items may be included if they satisfy all of the criteria; and (e) EEP must satisfy Bank fiduciary (FM, procurement and safeguards) requirements. - 83 - 38. State education worker salaries is the most logical EEP, and the one that is budgeted, tracked and reported from a credible system and without delay. The value of these budget lines is also sufficient to cover DLI payments to States. Table 6: Budget Codes for EEPs Existing Object Code Expenditure Element Description of Object Classification Classification Anambra State 418090201/1 Ministry of Education - Personnel Cost 418090202/1 Examination Development Centre - Personnel Cost 418090203/1 Universal Basic Education - Personnel Cost Bauchi State 1500017110000 Ministry of Education - Personnel Cost 5400017110000 Teachers Service Commission - Personnel Cost 1502017110000 State Universal Basic Education Board - Personnel Cost 1503017110000 Special Education Management - Personnel Cost 1504017110000 Nomadic Education Agency - Personnel Cost 1806017110000 Adult and Non Formal Education - Personnel Cost Ekiti State 432-10 Secondary Schools Teachers Service Commission - Personnel Cost 417-01 (a) Ministry of Education - Personnel Cost 39. Budgeting and Planning: The financial management dimensions (budget/treasury management, reporting and monitoring) will be the overall responsibility of the State Ministry of Finance (SMOF). The SMOF will work closely with the SPTSU of SMoE to prepare disbursement requests which will be sent to the SPFMU for processing. The existing transfers and payments system would be utilized for reimbursements under the proposed operation. Project financing would represent only a fraction of the overall financing for the State Education Plan included in the pooled EEPs for the implementation period. The budgets will continue to follow the existing procedures for approval, reporting (on budget execution) and monitoring. 40. Financial Reporting and Monitoring: Accounting records will be maintained using the government-wide manual financial management information system and in accordance with the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and would thus be acceptable to the Bank. The system-generated accounting records will be the basis for preparation of the Budget Execution Reports of the Education Sector, including the project expenditures financed under the Credit. Timely preparation of accurate financial reports for the sector will be one of the key Financial Management performance indicators to be monitored. 41. In addition, the FPFMD and SPFMUs will prepare the Project Financial Statements (interim and annual), showing the sources of project funds and their uses. The Project Financial Statements will take the form of quarterly Interim Unaudited Financial Reports and Annual Financial Statements. The project reports and financial statements will identify the uses of funds according to the pre-defined eligible expenditure elements and technical assistance costs - 84 - financed by the Bank. The project reports will show eligible expenditures under budget codes including separate project sub-accounts to track and record at the State, LGAs and Schools. Adequate notes and disclosures consistent with acceptable international practice will be provided, at least as part of the annual financial statements. The report will be submitted to the Bank, within 45 days after the end of each quarter. 42. Auditing: The annual financial statements will be audited by auditors acceptable to the Bank and submitted to the Bank within six months from the end of each financial year. In addition, the State Auditors-General, in conducting the yearly audit of the state’s financial statements, will carry out detailed audit of education sector expenditures. These reports will be expected to be part of the State Auditors-General report that will be submitted to their State Parliament within nine months from the end of each financial year. The Auditors-General will send a copy to the World Bank for review and as input to the World Bank implementation support team. 43. Supervision Plan: The Project will require frequent implementation support, particularly on financial reporting aspects. During project implementation, the Bank will review (a) the IFRs, Project audited financial statements, audit reports of the participating governments and the budget execution report; and (b) the Project’s financial management and disbursement arrangements to ensure compliance with the agreed requirements. Given sound implementation of financial management and monitoring system by the SPFMU staff, the Bank’s normal implementation review procedures will suffice. - 85 - Procurement Country Environment 44. Nigeria has been implementing a procurement reform program based on the recommendations of the 2000 Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR). A review of the progress made on the 2000 CPAR recommendations as reflected in 2007 Public Expenditures Management and Financial Accountability Review (PEMFAR) shows that reforms has brought about substantial improvements in obtaining value for money in the public expenditure. It further introduced some level of transparency into the country’s procurement process which has led to substantial reduction of contract prices. The regulatory agency, the Bureau of Public Procurement, has been established while procurement professionals’ cadre was also established at the Federal level in 2006. The States are now in different stages in the process of establishing such cadre in their civil service. The Public Procurement Act was promulgated in Nigeria in May 2007 to improve the legal and regulatory framework for public procurement, which has often been the subject of abuse and corruption. The Act adheres to the principles of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law, and outlines the principles of open competition, transparent procurement procedures, clear evaluation criteria, award of contract to the lowest evaluated tender, and contract signature. The legislative framework is applicable to all procurement categories (suppliers, contractors, consultants) and must be applied for all public funds regardless of value. The Act has provisions for exceptions to competitive tendering, which are the exception rather than the rule. Also, government has already prepared relevant implementation regulations, standard bidding documents (SBDs) and manuals for the procurement of goods, works and consulting services, which describes the minimum contents of the tender and proposal documents. The essential elements are in line with internationally acceptable procurement standards. The Procurement Act also presents for complaints and appeals mechanism to be established to enhance accountability. 45. All the three participating states (i.e. Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti) of the SEPIP project have either promulgated the public procurement act or are in the process of doing so. The State laws are modeled on the Federal law and therefore the weaknesses in the current Federal law have been passed down to the State laws. As a result, there is need to amend some of the provisions of the laws for them to meet internationally acceptable standards. 46. Procurement Risk at the Country level: with the substantial progress in procurement reforms as described above, procurement risk such as capacity, fraud and corruption etc. are being addressed. The Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) has organized series of trainings and awareness workshops to sensitize the cadre of professionals with the current procurement processes. Currently, the Government Procurement Reform Program is being supported by the IDA-financed Economic Reform and Governance Project with a substantial component focusing on procurement reforms. There is an Institutional Development Fund grant to assist the Federal and two State Governments address the weak procurement capacity in the public sector and to build appropriate partnership with the private sector, while up to 16 states are also supported under two IDA projects – State Governance and Capacity Building I and II. The project instrument has been used by the government to prepare the relevant procurement tools mentioned above. - 86 - 47. Guidelines. Procurement under the proposed Technical Assistance (TA) component of the project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s "Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011 (“Procurement Guidelines�) and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011 (“Consultant Guidelines�) and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general in the subsequent paragraphs below. For each contract to be financed by the Credit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Borrower and the World Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual implementation of TA activities of the project towards improvements in institutional capacity. Procurement Procedures and Processes: 48. The State Education Program Investment Project (SEPIP), is a Result Based Financing (RBF) Operations. The total project cost is $150.million out of which about $125.0 million will be disbursed against DLIs that have been met according to agreed verification of Eligible Expenditure Programs (EEPs) for Supporting Programs of the participating states. The remainder of $25.0 million will be in the form of ‘Technical Assistance’ (TA) aimed at strengthening the delivering capacity and knowledge of: (i) Participating States; (ii) other states interested in results-based approaches; (iii) Federal Ministry of Education; (iv) the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC); and (v) concerned educational institutions. In the SEPIP only procurement activities that relate to the provision of technical assistance will be carried out in accordance with World Bank guidelines. No procurement activity is associated with Component 1, as under this the Credit will reimburse EEPs (education worker salaries). Procurement activities for the technical assistance component will be implemented by the Federal Ministry of Education and by the three participating states. This will involve the use of conventional or traditional Bank methods covering inputs in the form of TAs, consultancy, goods, Schools Board Management Committees (SBMCs) Improvement Plans etc., which will be procured using the Bank’s traditional Procurement Guidelines. Such TAs will include procurement of services of CSOs, NGOs, Firms, Individual Consultants and procurement of basic goods that are required for the implantation of protocols for strengthening the capacity of the implementing agencies towards the achievement of DLIs targets. The January 2011 Procurement Guidelines allow the use of institutes, public training institutions, and NGOs in the project which is covered under para.1.13. 49. World Bank procurement Guidelines will apply to the Technical Assistance Component only. • Procurement of Goods: Goods to be procured under this Project will include office furniture, computers and accessories, software, educational materials and supplies, etc. . - 87 - • Selection of Consultants: The implementation of the project will require procurement of services by the FMOE through the National Project Steering Committee (NPSC) and the States Project Technical Support Units (SPTSUs) using the TA component. • Operating Costs: The operating costs include staff, travel expenditures and other travel-related allowances with prior clearance from IDA; vehicles rental; vehicle fueling; utilities and communication expenses; and bank charges. Operating costs will be managed using the implementing agency’s administrative procedures acceptable to the Bank. Procurement Implementation Arrangements: 50. Procurement activities under the State Education Program Investment Project (SEPIP) will be implemented by: (a) FMOE (NPSC) and (b) by the State Project Technical Support Units (SPTSUs) at the participating states of Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. They will use Technical Assistance TA component to procure consultancy services, goods etc. The TAs could be acquired in the form of knowledge, skills, training, capacity enhancement, office equipment, office accommodation, etc. Each implementing agency (FMOE NPSC), and the participating states (SPTSUs) will have at least a Procurement Officer as a member of the team for the implementation of Technical Assistance (TA) activities. The FMOE and states may use any existing platform under any World Bank assisted project in their states for procurement support or can acquire procurement TA for the implementation of the procurement activities. The first 18-month procurement plan for the available TAs for the project was finalized and agreed upon during negotiations. The Procurement plan for Component 2 will be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website. Procurement/consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, thresholds, prior review requirements, and time frame for each contract will be agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the procurement plan. The procurement plans will be updated at least once annually or as required. Assessment of Implementing Agencies 51. Under the SEPIP procurement will not be implemented using the model of the traditional PIUs, but will be facilitated and coordinated by the National Project Steering Committee (NPSC) at the Federal level and in the States, procurement will be implemented by the State Project Technical Support Units (SPTSUs) of the participating states of Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. The Procurement teams in both the NPSC and SPTSUs will consist of co-opted procurement officers from the Federal Ministry of Education, Federal Ministry of Finance, Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), State Universal Basic Education Boards (SUBEB) and other relevant agencies responsible for procurement processes in the education sector at both states and Federal Levels. An assessment of the capacity of the Implementing Agencies at national and state level to undertake procurement activities for the project has been carried out. The assessment of implementation arrangements revealed that all the implementing agencies both at the Federal and the three participating states have had previous experience in implementing Bank-financed projects in the past. Procurement systems in the States are still evolving. However, it is expected that the progress being made in the ongoing procurement reforms in the participating states and at the federal level will be leveraged to enhance capacity in carrying out procurement under the project, especially as it relates to the TA component and other internal procurement - 88 - activities to be implemented for meeting DLIs targets. The risk mitigation measures to be put in place will include: (i) establishment of a procurement complaints and record keeping mechanism; and (ii) supervision missions and post procurement reviews of procurement of approved technical assistance and goods. It was agreed that each state will produce procurement plans for Banks clearance covering the approved technical assistance and goods in their respective approved work plans. The procurement risks and risk mitigation measures: 52. Following years of investment in building national and state education, systems have led to modest improvements in capacities including procurement. However some weaknesses remain mainly in the areas of frequent movement of trained procurement staff, poor documentation, non-adherence to procurement scheduling, political interference, and weaknesses in the contract management and monitoring of NGOs. While no major procurement risk is envisaged under SEPIP, the following Procurement Implementation Plan will be used to mitigate the procurement implementation weaknesses and risks identified for the implementation of TA activities and for strengthening the internal procurement systems of the implementing agencies. Table 1: Procurement Action Plan Action Responsibility Due Date Remarks 1. Procurement Plan for FMoE By Negotiations Completed. implementing Component 2 for (NPSC/States the first 18 months prepared (SPTSUs) and agreed with the Bank. 2 Adoption of the Bank Standard FMoE Before Effectiveness First set of RFPs to be Bidding Documents and RFPs (SPSC/States prepared and reviewed for use in implementing TAs. (SPTSUs) 3 Ensure transparent process of FMoE Not later than 6 handling procurement (SPSC /States months into project Continuous complaints arising from the (SPTSUs) implementation implementation of the TA component. 4 Organize Contract Management FMoE (SPSC Not later than 3 months To improve project staff Training for TAs component States into project contract management skills. (SPTSUs) implementation. 5 Preparation of draft Bidding FMoE Before Effectiveness To ensure that advert will be documents, EOIs, RFPs, QSLs (SPSC /States placed as soon as project is etc. for TA component (SPTSUs) approved for timely project implementation. 6 Record Keeping: Establish a FMoE (SPSC Not later than 6 months This will be continuous procurement records /States into project management system (database, (SPTSUs) implementation hot-line etc.) for the TA Component. 7 Organize Procurement tracking FMoEd Not later than 3 months Continuous system (PROCYS) training for (SPSC /States into implementation TA component (SPTSUs) - 89 - 53. Procurement Plan: The consolidated procurement plan for the first 18 months of the Component 2 has been agreed upon. It will also be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website. A summary procurement plan will form part of Annex 3. For each contract to be financed by the Credit through TAs the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, thresholds, prior review requirements, and time frame will be agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least once annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. - 90 - Procurement Thresholds. Table 2: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review for the Technical Assistance Component, should such activities occur. Contracts Subject N Expenditure Contract Value Procurement to Prior Review oo Category Threshold** (US$) Method (US$ ) 1 Works (NOT C > 5,000,000 ICB All Contracts (But APPLICABLE not envisaged) IN SEPIP for 100,000 < C ≤ 5,000,000 NCB First Contract now) only(But not envisaged) C ≤ 100,000 Shopping None All values Direct All contracts Contracting Goods and C ≥ 750,000 ICB All Contracts Services (other First Contract only 50,000 ≤ C < 750,000 NCB than Consulting 2 Services C< 50,000 Shopping None Direct All values All Contracts Contracting IT Systems, and All Contracts other Non- C ≥ 750,000 ICB 3 consulting Services 50,000 ≤ C < 750,000 NCB First Contract only Consulting C ≥ 200,000 firms All Contracts All Services C < 200,000 All Only TORs 4 C ≥ 50,000 individuals IC All contracts C < 50,000 individuals IC TORs All Values Single Source All Contracts Selection Training, All Values To be based Workshops, on Annual Study Tours Work Plan & 5 Budgets in the TA work plans. Implementation SBMCs SBMCs to None of procurement following activities by Basic SBMCs from the procurement 6 $500,000-$1, procedures 000,000 annual outlined in the grants to schools PIM/Grant acceptable to the Manual. - 91 - Association has been described in the SEPIP PIM and Grant Manual **These thresholds are for the purposes of implementing the TA procurement plan only. The thresholds will be revised periodically based on re-assessment of risks. 54. Frequency of Procurement Supervision for the TA Component: The Bank Implementation Support Team will be in continuing contact with Federal and state officials and supervision visits will be conducted at least once a year to support implementing agencies and to ensure that procurement functions do not become an obstacle to the achievement of the PDOs. Environmental and Social (including safeguards): 55. The project has been classified as category B since there will be limited adverse environmental impacts given that the project activities are focused on education quality and systems improvements. . 56. The main activities that triggered the Environmental Assessment Policy (OP/PB/4.01) are related to Component 1. While there is no construction involved in the project, an ESMF detailing the processes and procedures was prepared and disclosed in the event that minor school repairs/maintenance will need to be done through the proposed school grants under the project. There is also the additional need for proper handling of the debris to be generated by such minor school repairs/maintenance activities. To address potential negative impact consistent with the requirements of the triggered safeguard policy, the Government has prepared an ESMF. The Framework is consistent with national laws as well as the World Bank’s safeguard policy on Environmental Assessment. The ESMF has been approved, consulted upon, and disclosed in- country and at the World Bank Info-Shop on May 30, 2012, prior to appraisal. 57. The ESMF will establish a mechanism to determine and assess future potential environmental and social impacts of the project, and then to set out mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during design, implementation and operation of the school quality grants to minimize adverse environmental and social impacts to acceptable levels. The framework contains a screening mechanism that the project would use to identify adverse impacts from any future proposed construction activities. The ESMF also contains an environmental and social management plan (ESMP) with responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring, costs, duration, and institutional capacity building to implement the ESMF. The selected states have considerable experience in World Bank Safeguard Policies. The State Project Technical Support Unit (SPTSU) in each State shall designate a staff to be responsible for following up environmental and social safeguards issues. The designated Project Staff charged with implementing safeguards instruments will be given more in-depth training in environmental management. He/She will be supported by a consultant, who will be hired on an as-needed basis. - 92 - Social 58. The project seeks to address the following key social development issues in the education sector. 59. Equity and Gender issues: Enrolment, attendance and learning outcomes are inequitable and vary across gender, grades, geographical boundaries, and geopolitical zones. The project will address these inequities by: (i) enhancing the coverage of the poor in the delivery of specific services; and (ii) focusing on rural aspects in several of the DLIs. Given the significant number of out of school children in the three project states, the SBMCs, PTAs, Parent Assemblies and other stakeholders will be involved in identifying the out-of-school children of different ages especially girls but also boys and strategizing to bring them to schools. The deployment of teachers with an emphasis on correcting gender imbalance among teachers not only provide women employment and professional growth opportunities, but will also encourage more girls to attend school. Further, ensuring women representatives in the SBMCs will provide them an opportunity in decision making at the community level. 60. Communication: A multi-pronged strategy is being designed by the project to reach out to internal and external stakeholders and communicate about the projects’ objectives, investments, implementation arrangements and results as they emerge. The channels for communication will be tailored to different stakeholders. At the school level, pamphlets, posters, wall painting, community radio, meetings, and training would be used, while periodic articles, reports, features, and the website will be used for communicating with stakeholders at state and federal level. 61. School Based Management Committees (SBMCs): SBMCs have an important potential role in overseeing school performance including condition of physical facilities, teacher attendance and teaching quality, and learning outcomes. The project will support the functionality of SBMCs in all schools in the three states. An operational manual will guide the SBMCs on (i) membership – democratic (S)election of voting members and nomination of non- voting members in an open meeting, (ii) constitution of (sub) committees for SIP preparation and implementation, procurement, grievance redress, (iii) meetings – frequency, quorum, decision making process, minutes and dissemination, and (iv) interaction with school, PTA, LGEA and other stakeholders. 62. The SBMC manual will also provide guidance on the School Improvement Plans (SIPs) in terms of the transparent and inclusive process for preparation and endorsement, proposals for inclusion in the SIP and eligible expenditures from the project, community contribution and nature of contribution, procurement procedures, transparency and information display, record keeping and accounting procedures. Among the factors contributing to low quality of outcomes at schools is the poor learning environment in terms of physical facilities, text books, teaching and learning aids, on addition to teacher deployment, attendance, and quality of teaching. While the grants under the project are to be utilized for quality enhancement investments and not physical upgrades, it would be useful for the SIP Preparation Committees to review all contributing factors in their respective schools so that funds for non-project supported activities could be leveraged from other sources including local fund raising. - 93 - 63. The establishment of SBMCs will build upon existing experience and in consultation with communities. Civil society organizations will support the strengthening of SBMCs capacity in planning, management, monitoring and resolving grievances/complaints. While SBMCs are expected to monitor and report on, among other things, school affairs (e.g., teacher presence, teaching quality), and the performance of selected service delivery interventions, the activities and performance of SBMCs themselves are to be monitored by the local communities via community reviews that will cover SBMC constitution, inclusive decision making process, design and implementation of school improvement plans, fund receipt and use, and information disclosure. 64. Social Accountability: Transparency, accountability and participation are key elements that will contribute to enhancing coverage and quality of education services in the three project states. Transparency will be ensured by making available project related information, including project investments and results at different levels in the appropriate formats and platforms. At the federal and state-levels, information and reports will be made available on the website. Key information at the school level to be provided by the SBMC and the Head Teacher/Principle relate to student enrolment, teacher deployment and teaching quality, SIP and grants sanctioned, and learning outcomes. An aware and involved community will contribute to improving the learning environment at the households and also in hard-to-staff schools, resulting in better teaching quality and learning outcomes. 65. Apart from information dissemination, the results of performance tracking (social audit, school report card) will serve to hold the relevant stakeholders accountable. Important inputs for project implementation will be derived from: (i) an assessment of the functioning of school- based management committees (SBMCs) with respect to planning, budgeting and delivery of education services at the school level; (ii) feedback and complaints handling mechanisms developed and maintained in partnership between appropriate civil society organizations (CSOs) and SBMCs and (iii) the third party monitoring system to support of the verification of appropriate disbursement-linked indicators (DLIs), such as teacher deployment, and school- based management committees. 66. State Project Technical Support Units of the participating states will be responsible for ensuring attention to social issues and compliance with the ESMF on safeguards. The active involvement of LGEA and the SBMCs will be supported and the project will invest in their training and capacity building. In addition specialists in the World Bank team will provide guidance as and when necessary. 67. Safeguards: Any civil works financed by the project will be within existing school facilities where no land acquisition is required and there is no encroachment. The project will not finance any activities that result in land acquisition leading to involuntary resettlement and/or restrictions of access to resources or livelihoods. Role of Partners (if applicable) 68. N/A - 94 - Annex 3 - Appendix 1: STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT (SEPIP) Organizational Implementation Structure Minister, Federal Ministry of Education Pa ra s ta ta l s National Project Universal Basic (excl . UBEC) Steering Cttee. Education Commission Federal Project Fed. Project Financial Mgt. Support Unit Division Commissioner, State Ministry of Education Technical State Universal Pa ra s ta ta l s State Project Steering Committee Basic Educ. (excl . SUBEB) Committee Board Project State Project Financial Technical Support Mgt. Unit Unit Local Government Education Authority Civil Society - 95 - Schools Organizations Annex 3 - Appendix 2: STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT (SEPIP) Organizational Implementation Structure - State Project Technical Support Unit (SPTSU) State Ministry of Education (Permanent Secretary) State Project State Universal Pa ra s ta ta l s Technical Support Basic Educ. (excl . SUBEB) Unit Board Project Monitoring Education Communications Internal Financial Procurement and Technical Team & Safeguards Audit Mgt. Unit Evaluation Local Govt. Education Authority Civil Society Schools/SBMCs Organizations - 96 - ANNEX 3 Appendix 3 ORGANOGRAM – SCHOOL LEVEL - 97 - ANNEX 3 Appendix 4 DRAFT NIGERIA STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT (SEPIP) IMPACT EVALUATION OF ‘STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE DECENTRALIZED SCHOOL MANAGEMENT DRAFT CONCEPT NOTE BACKGROUND & INTERVENTION DESIGN 1. Recent education discourse has emphasized the role of decentralized decision-making and increased community involvement as pathways to improved education service delivery. It is argued that through these mechanisms it is possible to ensure that school-level decisions reflect local priorities and meet the needs of the clients they are serving (World Bank (2003)). Further, communities that are informed and engaged in education can promote accountability and learning by monitoring education performance, advocating for improved services, and encouraging learning in and out of school (Bruns et al. (2011)). 2. However, recently conducted SABER (Systems Approach for Better Education Results) surveys reveal that decentralized school management is still far from effective in Nigeria. Specifically, school based management committees (SBMCs) have, at best, weak participation in decision-making around school finances. More fundamentally, there is weak school accountability to communities, as well as the lack of dissemination of information of student achievement and learning to parents. In light of this, the design of SPIP includes explicit strategies for making SBMCs more effective. These strategies include: (i) institutionalization of school-level funding via SBMCs though school grants (ii) strengthening SBMC accountability to parents (e.g. dissemination of expenditures, student achievement and learning outcomes, etc.). 3. In terms of (i), annual grants will be provided to basic and secondary schools on the basis of education quality improvement plans. These grants are intended to augment the school's budget for non-salary expenditures with the objective of improving learning performance of students. The school improvement plan, on the basis of which the grants are to be disbursed, would be prepared by a School-Based Management Committee comprising of school head teachers, teachers, and representatives from PTA, women’s organization, Alumni, traditional leadership, faith based organizations, etc., as elaborated in the SBMC Manual. 4. In terms of (ii), it is planned that SBMCs, assisted by NGOs, will be responsible for organizing meetings with relevant community members (e.g. Parent-Teacher Association, parents’ assemblies, and organizing school social audits. In addition, the activities and performance of SBMCs themselves are expected to be monitored by the local communities via community reviews of SBMC fund receipt and use and the design and implementation of school improvement plans prepared by SBMCs, and presentation to communities, PTA and Parent Assemblies. Independent third party monitoring (by CSOs) is to be used to review the performance in selected project - 98 - components and requirements. The third party activities will include continuous monitoring of teacher recruitment/development, and reviews of SBMC funds receipt and use. RATIONALE FOR IMPACT EVALUATION 5. In recent years school grants and strengthening of SBMCs have become a popular vehicle for fostering decentralization in education service delivery. There is a small but growing set of studies that rigorously measure the developmental impacts of such programs – and the findings reveal a mixed, but promising, picture. However, many questions remain unanswered particularly in the context of developing countries. This IE will help fill part of the global knowledge gap with respect to the effectiveness of school grants. 6. Further, such interventions - particularly school grants- constitute a considerable financial commitment for the government. Due to the costs involved and in view of their potential scalability to other parts of the country, it is important to evaluate their overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to provide policy-makers with rigorous evidence for current and future decision making. 7. In the particular the IE will focus on answering the following questions: • What is the relative impact of an additional dollar provided to schools in the form of school grants on a number of outcome variables? • What strategies can be used to strengthen SBMCs and make them more effective? • Does strengthening of SBMCs lead to more effective use of school grants? • Can school grants and SBMC interventions lead to improvements in student learning outcomes? 8. Also process information will be gathered on the following aspects: • What types of activities are being supported through school grants? • How well equipped are SBMCs to make informed decisions about school grant use? • Does availability of school grants positively impact the level of engagement exhibited by the parents and community on school management? • Do school grants have any impact on teacher and student behaviors? • How well was the school grant program executed? What are some implementation constraints for a program of this kind? DESIGN & METHODOLOGY 9. The design of the school grant component within SPIP is such that the amount of the grant would vary according to school size. This variation in grant amounts will be exploited, to the extent possible, to measure the overall effectiveness and cost effectiveness of school grants in - 99 - impacting student learning outcomes 25. 10. In addition, a randomized control trial approach will be used to rigorously measure the (absolute and relative) impacts of different strategies for strengthening SBMCs. This will allow us to measure how these strategies compare in terms of promoting effective decentralization of school management and fostering accountability in education service delivery. Further, we will be able to assess how all these efforts translate into changes in student outcomes, particularly outcomes related to learning. 11. The IE will explore the relative effectiveness of two different types of approaches: (i) Information for accountability: It has been argued that one of main challenges to effective decentralization of school management is the lack of information on the part of local stakeholders and communities with respect to their schools. This intervention is aimed at closing that gap. Within the intervention information on school inputs (ex. teachers presence, receipts of school grants and expenditures) and performance (completion, test scores, etc.) will be communicated to SBMCs themselves and to communities through high-intensity dissemination activities (training, community meetings, school report cards, poster, pamphlet, SBMC resource handbook, etc.) (ii) Upward and downward linkages for accountability: It has also been argued that realization of effective decentralization is constrained by absence of clear linkages between SBMCs and District Education Officers on the hand; and SBMCs and the wider community on the other. This intervention is aimed at strengthening both upward and downward linkages of SBMCs. This will be done by creating channels through: (a) periodic community and Civil society reviews of SBMC fund receipt and use, and (b) periodic facilitated meetings between SBMC members, District education officers, local councilors, and village heads. 12. Overall IE design will be as follows: • All public schools in the three states will be eligible for receiving school grants and basic SBMC training. • Around 700 public schools will be selected randomly from the full list of schools in these states. • These schools will be divided randomly into four groups, as per the table below: 25 In fact, if it is the case that schools will be divided into different size categories based on their enrollment and the level of grant differs across the four categories but remains the same within a category, then the overall impact of school grants can be assessed in a straightforward way through the application of the regression discontinuity design. - 100 - No facilitation for Linkages Facilitation for strengthening upward and downward linkages of SMCs No information for accountability T0 (100 schools) T1 (200 schools) Information for accountability T2 (300 schools) T3 (100 schools) 13. Baseline, midline, and end line data will be collected for these 700 schools. Given the randomized assignment, a simple comparison of outcomes between the different groups will yield credible impact estimates. The existence of baseline data will allow adjustment for any potential baseline differences through the use of differences in differences (pre- and post-; treatment and no treatment). - 101 - Annex 3 Appendix 5 Nigeria Third Party Monitoring in SEPIP Project Objective: 1. The aim of the SEPIP third party monitoring system (TPMS) is to provide an independent assessment of key elements of project implementation as well as provide mechanism for data collection directly from beneficiaries. The TPMS will be a key part of the system of validation of results under SEPIP; monitoring will be undertaken by CSO’s, in conjunction with a firm through technical assistance. Rationale 2. With the aim of strengthening education sector governance in Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti States, the SEPIP project will support the implementation of mechanisms that enhance transparency, accountability and participation in the planning and delivery of education services. The project will support both supply and demand-side governance reforms aimed at enhancing the enabling environment for interaction between communities and government. 3. On the supply side, the project will implement activities focused on information dissemination and performance tracking (which may include the development of basic school report cards). On the demand side, the project will support active community participation, as well as mechanisms to ensure feedback and complaints handling. Key mechanisms in this regard include: (i) a strengthened role of school-based management committees (SBMCs) in the planning, budgeting and delivery of education services at the school level; (ii) feedback and complaints handling mechanisms developed in partnership between appropriate civil society organizations (CSOs) and SBMCs and (iii) the development of a third party monitoring system to support of the verification of appropriate disbursement-linked indicators (DLIs), such as teacher deployment, and school-based management committees. 4. Both the FGN and the World Bank have experience working with a range of CSO organizations on third party monitoring and the development of community feedback and complaints handling systems. In other country contexts such independent monitoring arrangement and feedback mechanisms have shown to substantially improve project performance and beneficiary satisfaction. 5. In the Nigerian context the Bank has supported a range of different TPM and beneficiary feedback systems. These include an ongoing TPM pilot that facilitates independent CSO monitoring of four World Bank funded projects (three of which under the CDD approach). 26 The results of the monitoring are reported and incorporated into World Bank’s official supervision reports, which were made public through the World Bank Access to Information Policy. The Bank 26 The projects monitored were the Pilot E-ISR+ Project in Nigeria which is the third party monitoring of four World Bank-assisted projects, including the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP), the FADAMA III Project, the Malaria Control Booster Project and the Commercial Agriculture Development Project (CADP). - 102 - has also supported independent monitoring of procurement processes within a range of government MDA’s as well as within Bank-supported public financial management projects. More recently an ICT based monitoring system has been developed for a new performance based health project, and for an ongoing agricultural CDD project. 6. The nature and design of the TPM systems is dependent on the aims and purpose of such systems. In the case of SEPIP the aim of the TMP system is to insure independent monitoring of key Disbursement Linked Indicator (DLIs). As such the system will complement the overall Monitoring and Evaluation system and the process of validation of results. Thus the system will be developed as an ongoing, periodic activity It is envisaged that the system will focus on both qualitative and quantitative indicators and will promote upward accountability 7. To ensure technical competence and internal accountability, the selection of the CSOs for the monitoring will be competitive; the tools for gathering data during the monitoring will be tailored specifically to the aims of the project; intensive training of State level CSO/CBO monitors to conduct the third party monitoring will be required; and where necessary the management firm need to provide support and oversight. 8. TPM will enable project implementers and beneficiaries obtain a more complete sense of project performance, particularly as it relates to quality and beneficiary perspectives. This will be particularly useful where capacity or will may be lacking, such as the LGA level. It will also enable the identification of unintended outcomes and impacts, thereby adding input to project implementation. TPM will also enable the utilization of local community knowledge in beneficiary states and communities in project implementation. It is envisaged that TPM would assist in monitoring project implementation spread through a vast representational geographical area of Nigeria (Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti, with Edo States - TA only). It is expected that lessons from TPM in this project will set the pace for community monitoring in other WB-assisted projects, particularly, emerging results-based operations. TPM Framework 9. The TPM in SEPIP project will be led by CSOs supported under the TA component of the project. It is envisaged that the firm will work with an umbrella CSO at the national level to support the range of information, capacity building and accountability efforts outlined above. The CSO will also work with the SBMCs that established with parents, teachers, students and local NGOs constituting membership. 10. Specifically however the TPM system developed to monitor DLI’s, the results of which will then be fed into the validation process, will be undertaken by CSO’s or firms with technical capacities in this area, given the rigor required and the importance of the resultant data. Selection will be done through competitive processes and contracting, which may also involve other bodies such Academic institutions; for-profit firms/consultants. 11. It is expected that a system will be developed that will allow for some elements of participatory monitoring by the community and local CBO’s, understanding that with high - 103 - capacity CSO’s, logistics of arranging CBO and local government interaction at local level can be difficult. Results are reported upwards from local to state to national, and will be made public. TPM Activities 12. The selected CSO’s or firm (the implementer), in consultation with project staff and the world bank task team, will develop a framework and system for monitoring and reporting on selected DLIs at different levels of governance (local, state and federal). It is expected that the implementer will have a national office at the Federal level (preferably based in Abuja) and links to/offices in the four States where the project is being implemented. The national office should provide mentorship and capacity development to the State-level activities- presuming such activities are undertaken by State level CSOs or CBO’s. The overall implementer will be responsible for the quality and consistency of data across states, and providing data that will feed into the DLI validation process across the States. 27 13. The TPM system will be designed to monitor two main categories of DLIs, relating to: (i) teacher deployment, (ii) effectiveness and functionality of SBMCs and (iii) enrolment rates. Depending on the DLIs agreed upon in each State by the FGN and the World Bank, and in consultation with the State Project Technical Support Unit the specific DLIs that will be subject to third party verification will be identified. 14. With regards to teacher deployment, the specific DLIs to be verified could include: (a) the deployment of teachers to schools that don’t have sufficient number of teachers (need based deployment), (b) the payment of incentives to teachers posted to rural areas, or (c) the provision of accommodation or subsidy and provision of teaching materials (to be finalized). 15. With regards to the effectiveness and functionality SBMCs, the indicators to be verified could include (a) the number of approved SBMCs with functional membership and implementation committees, (b) the existence of functioning bank accounts for the SBMCs, (c) the number of SBMCs with approved school improved plans, (d) the existence of operational manual by SBMCs, or (e) the evidence of greater teacher presence in the classroom. 16. With regards to enrolment rate of students, the indicators to be verified in this category could include (a) availability of instructional materials, or (b) provision of conveniences, recreational facilities, furniture items and water. 17. The TPM system will be designed to capture both quantitative data (e.g. percentage of SBMCs with functional member and implementation committees) and qualitative data (e.g. constraints and facilitating conditions for the levels of functionality of SBMCs). 18. It is also envisaged that as the system develops, and functional technology permits, ICT based tools will be deployed where appropriate to expand the range and quality of data collected, as well as providing a vehicle for more robust community generated data to be gathered. SEPIP 27 A national network of CSOs, Civil Society Coalition Education for All (CSACEFA), may be considered along other similar bodies. - 104 - will be able to build on the lessons from the results of ICT initiatives in ICT in other World Bank assisted projects. Beyond Monitoring and Validation 19. The TPM will foster participation, building local capacity and independent verification of DLIs. Progress will be discussed at periodic community meetings, as well as at state and national level knowledge sharing forums. It is expected that this monitoring, coupled with analysis of its outcome (through dissemination of the observed results), will elicit increased effort by education service providers (improved service delivery/governance), which in turn will yield improvements in human development outcomes particularly student and teacher presence, school attendance, dropout, and grade repetition rates as they relate to the DLIs. 20. The TPM system should also demonstrate whether the active participation of local communities in monitoring education public service providers causes an increase in the quality and the quantity of service provision at schools. Challenges and Mitigation measures 21. Developing a robust TPM system that will produce reliable context specific data has its challenges. In the Nigerian context these include- • Lack of CSO, CBO or beneficiary capacity on certain technical issues • Lack of capacity or commitment by local authorities and service providers • Complexity over the overall project design and monitoring framework • Differing expectations / unclear objectives • Sustainability of relationships between stakeholders beyond the duration of the World Bank project 22. In view of the anticipated challenges of developing an effective TPM, the following mitigation strategies will be utilized: • Competitive selection of a firm/CSO at the national level to lead the process, and possible use of supervisory firm • Active stakeholder engagement and training on TPM • Continuous information sharing and feedback on functionality and results of system, and ensuring that lessons learnt are utilized effectively throughout the project • Development of sustainability plans as soon as effectiveness commences. - 105 - Annex 4: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) Nigeria – State Education Program Investment Project Stage: Board Stakeholder Risks Rating Substantial Description: Risk Management: Local stakeholder commitment may diminish due to lack of awareness and delays in approval of school plans and funding. To strengthen ownership and commitment to the project local stakeholder awareness will be raised as part of a communications strategy targeted at school and local government levels, focused on “results� in education Financing based on results/outcomes entails the availability of reliable and service delivery. Furthermore, clarification of roles and responsibilities and expectations in terms of results timely information, rendering stakeholders more accountable, thereby will help avoid possible tensions at different levels. Civil society organizations will be involved in the likely to give rise to tensions among them. strengthening of school level management and its interface with communities. It may be difficult for stakeholders to shift smoothly from an entrenched To build consensus on results-based initiatives, several stakeholder workshops were held to ensure broad focus on delivery of inputs to delivery of results and outcomes. participation of key stakeholders at all levels, which will continue into implementation, as appropriate. Furthermore, the project will be guided by an agreed Project Implementation Manual. Resp: Bank Stage: Prepn./Impl. Due Date: Status: Ongoing Implementing Agency Risks (including fiduciary) Capacity Rating: Substantial Description: Weak capacity at regional and local levels (including fiduciary capacity), Risk Management: combined with poor coordination, could impair implementation progress The project will support capacity-building in critical areas such as FM and M&E, including use of short-term and project performance. However, State level Ministry of Education staff consultants to provide hands-on support. A Project Implementation Manual has been developed to guide and agencies are technically competent, and are rather conversant with project teams in ensuring smooth implementation. Bank fiduciary systems. Technical assistance, especially at state level and below, will focus on providing regular hands-on support in State officials may not be able to adapt to the level of intensity of DLI-related activities. Respective state technical teams, established during preparation and having familiarity supervision intensity (e.g. availability of reliable information and the with the design of project activities will continue into implementation. necessary documentation) and to adhere to strict timelines under results- based operations, which could lead to delays in disbursements. Resp: Bank Stage: Prepn./Impl. Due Date: 31-Oct-2013 Status: Ongoing Governance Rating: Substantial Description: Risk Management: Sector governance is challenging particularly in an environment which has The project supports: (a) significant sector governance-related reforms and activities (e.g., need-based teacher historically been prone to corruption and leakages in service delivery, deployment, systematic standardized assessment of student achievement, education management reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of education expenditures. strengthening); and (b) fiduciary measures such as (i) the use of computerized accounting systems; (ii) auditing systems; (iii) improved internal controls and preventive measures for greater financial accountability Ownership and commitment is evolving and expected to strengthen as in the sector; (iv) independent expenditure tracking; and (v) social accountability via SBMCs, supported by project preparation and implementation progresses. civil society organizations. Resp: Bank Stage: Prepn./Impl. Due Date: Status: Ongoing - 106 - Project Risks Design Rating: Substantial Description: Risk Management: Given that expected results and assessment of their Project preparation focused on the need to design at the outset a simple and realistic set of DLIs, based on state achievements are agreed upfront, project design does not government priorities and plans, to allow sufficient time to establish a sound monitoring and evaluation system, and pose a huge risk. However, the unfamiliarity of state carry out the necessary baseline studies. Project design also features independent third party validations, including by governments and local stakeholders with performance-based civil society organizations to strengthen monitoring capacity at school level. Provision has been made for an financing could become a challenge. institutional and organizational capacity assessment to identify measures to strengthen the implementation structure. Resp: Bank Stage: Prepn. Due Date: 31-Aug-2012 Status: Completed State government processes and systems in place to monitor, assess, and disseminate results may not be fully in place due to weak capacity, which can cause substantial delays in project implementation. Social & Environmental Rating: Moderate Description: Risk Management: Information dissemination could lead to tensions among The project objectives, roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders will be disseminated and a multi-pronged stakeholders, thereby affecting project implementation. communication strategy is being developed. There would also be a provision for addressing complaints that may arise in a systematic manner. An Environmental and Social Management Framework was disclosed in May 2012. Any civil SIP activities may have negative social and/or environmental works will be done within existing facilities/footprints where no land acquisition is required and there is no impacts. encroachment. The project will not finance any activities that result in land acquisition leading to involuntary resettlement and/or restrictions of access to resources or livelihoods. Resp: Bank Stage: Prepn./Impl. Due Date: Status: Ongoing Program & Donor Rating: Moderate Description: Risk Management: Although all major development partners have endorsed the The Country Assistance framework provides the platform for general coordination. To the extent possible, the project Country Partnership Strategy, minor difficulties may occur will be coordinated with other development partner interventions in the same area. due to difficulties resulting from the need to fully harmonize development partner support along the results-based Resp: Bank Stage: Prepn./Impl. Due Date: Status: Ongoing approach. Delivery Monitoring & Sustainability Rating: Substantial Description: Risk Management: Given that the proposed project is part of the states’ A sound monitoring and evaluation system, coupled with greater accountability particularly at school level, is likely to education sector program adopted jointly by the government enhance education service delivery, and sustainability of project activities. and development partners, the quality delivery risk is low. However, limited capacity could become a constraint. Resp: Bank Stage: Impl. Due Date: 31-Oct-2013 Status: Overall Risk Following Review Implementation Risk Rating: (Substantial) Comments: The project, focusing on outputs and outcomes, through the use of DLIs, presents a novel approach to implementing entities. However, the progressive nature of the design and the provision of focused technical assistance will ensure technical support for smooth implementation. Another factor that would adversely affect implementation relates to security issues in the country, especially in Bauchi. Special measures have been taken to address this, such as third party supervision. - 107 - Annex 5: Implementation Support Plan NIGERIA: STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT Strategy and Approach for Implementation Support 1. The strategy for implementation support is one that moves away from direct attention on delivery of inputs to a shift of focus on the capacity to deliver results, more particularly the strategic interventions mentioned. Moreover, the approach will continue to maintain usual functions of due diligence in fiduciary and safeguard oversight over procedures, transactions and activities. It will also be important to have continuous dialogue with the Government to identify emerging difficulties that could hamper progress towards achievement of agreed results, and to provide the needed technical assistance to overcome these difficulties. Implementation Support Plan 2. The following implementation Support Plan (ISP) describes how the World Bank will support SEPIP implementation of the risk mitigation measures (identified in Annex 4 – Operational Risk Analysis Framework), and provide the necessary technical support towards achievement of the PDO (linked to results/outcomes identified in the Results Framework in Annex 1). The ISP also identifies the minimum requirements to meet the World Bank’s fiduciary obligations. The ISP will be reviewed at least annually to ensure its relevance to SEPIP’s implementation support needs. 3. Joint Reviews will play an important part of the ISP strategy. Such type of review will take place twice a year. In November, the main objective will be to review progress, and focus on whether agreed results have been achieved. The second review, in January, while still reviewing progress, will focus also on identifying in advance, likely impediments to smooth implementation. During the reviews, especially the one in January, the type of implementation support needed could be identified, followed by joint decisions to provide technical assistance, especially to the State Ministry of Education of each participating state, as well as other concerned agencies such as the Universal Basic Education Commission involved in SEPIP implementation. 4. A second part of the strategy is to conduct continuous dialogue with the Government, which would provide an opportunity for discussing options, and responding to specific requests for advice or addressing emerging issues. This approach is informal, and can take place outside the usual missions, based on relevant expertise needed. 5. The main focus of the ISP is summarized below: Time Focus Skills Needed Resource Partner Role Estimate First twelve Technical Review: months • M&E (school census • M&E Specialist, 15 SWs instruments; data Economist 10 SWs analysis and reporting from school census; reporting for DLIs and • Assessments Specialists - 108 - KPIs) • Sr. Education specialist 15 SWs • Primary 5, Senior Secondary 2 25SWs examinations and learning assessment • General education expertise Fiduciary Oversight: • Financial Management Financial Management Specialist 15 SWs • Procurement • Procurement specialist 10 SWs • Procurement consultant 5 SWs Safeguards: • Social Safeguards • Specialist(s) 10 SWs • Environment • Specialist(s) 5 SWs Task Team Leader 15 SWs 12-48 months Technical Review: • M&E (data validation, • M&E Specialist, 60 SWs third party validations, Economist 30 SWs designing surveys, analysis of survey data and reporting) • Building capacity for • Assessments Specialists 30 SWs exams and assessments; targeted support for learning assessments • General Education • Sr. Education specialist 60 SWs expertise Fiduciary Oversight: • Financial Management Financial Management Specialist 30 SWs • Procurement • Procurement specialist 15 SWs • Procurement consultant 15 SWs Safeguards: • Social Safeguards • Specialist(s) 10 SWs • Environment • Specialist(s) 15 SWs Task Team Leader 45 SWs Other Technical Review: • Third party evaluation of • Research firm 30 SWs School-Based Management • Consultants: • Public Expenditure International 10 SWs Tracking Survey National 20 SWs 6. The staff skills mix required is summarized below: Skills Needed Number of Staff Number of Trips Comments Weeks M&E Specialist 80 SWs Field trips as required International and national Economist 40 SWs Field trips as required International Assessments Individual specialist Field trips as required International (s) 45 SWs Senior Education Specialist 25 SWs annually Field trips as required International (based in Country Office) Research consultants 50 SWs Field trips as required Local - 109 - Social specialist 5 SWs annually Field trips as required International Environmental Specialist 5 SWs annually Field trips as required Country office-based Procurement 10 SWs Yr 1; 6 Field trips as required Country office-based SWs annually thereafter Procurement (consultants) 6 SWs annually Field trips as required Country office-based Senior Financial Management 15 SWs Yr 1; 10 Field trips as required Country office-based Specialist SWs annually thereafter Task Team Leader 15 SWs annually Field trips as required International (based in Country Office) Partners: N/A Name Institution/Country Role - 110 - Annex 6: Economic and Financial Analysis NIGERIA: STATE EDUCATION PROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT 1. Because of measurement challenges arising from difficulties in valuing incremental costs and the benefits of education interventions/projects, rigorous economic analysis commonly performed in other sectors are seldom conducted in the education primary sector. Therefore, the economic and financial analysis carried out here rather assesses: (a) trends and levels in public education expenditure in the three states; (b) the fiscal impact of the project intervention; and (c) the economic rationale and justification for Results Based Financing (RBF) interventions in the education sector and the selection of the project components in the three states. A. Public Expenditure Review by State 2. Tables 1 to 3 below undertake a brief review of public spending in education in Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. The tables show levels and trends in state education expenditure over the 2006- 2010 time period and some important ratios such as the education priority ratio (state education spending in relation to total state spending) and the recurrent/capital education sector ratio (share of the education budget spent on recurrent/capital costs). Figures come from the 2011 states education public expenditure reviews. Anambra State (In Millions of Naira) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Total State Expenditure** 24,666.00 29,039.00 53,705.00 41,335.00 34,924.00 76,259.00 31,882.00 57,897.00 89,779.00 32,858.00 47,362.00 80,220.00 30,000.00 40,294.00 70,294.00 Total State Education Expenditure** 4,964.00 1,832.00 6,796.00 4,988.00 2,309.00 7,297.00 5,565.00 3,209.00 8,774.00 6,400.00 1,940.00 8,340.00 7,203.00 2,505.00 9,708.00 Education expenditure in % of Total 20.12 6.31 12.65 12.07 6.61 9.57 17.45 5.54 9.77 19.48 4.10 10.40 24.01 6.22 13.81 Nominal growth in education expend. (%) 0.48 26.04 7.37 11.57 38.98 20.24 15.00 (39.55) (4.95) 12.55 29.12 16.40 Real growth in education expenditure (%) (5.71) 18.27 0.76 (3.11) 20.70 4.42 0.94 (46.94) (16.57) 0.72 15.56 4.17 Capital expend./Tot. education expend. (%) 26.96 31.64 36.57 23.26 25.80 (**) Budget data - 111 - Bauchi State (In Millions of Naira) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Total State Expenditure** 11,044.61 29,849.14 40,893.75 14,884.61 42,076.14 56,960.75 23,252.81 40,345.04 63,597.85 21,220.51 35,074.89 56,295.40 28,747.15 30,385.61 59,132.76 Total State Education Expenditure 2,278.38 976.28 3,254.66 3,003.40 2,605.84 5,609.24 4,905.54 5,446.19 10,351.73 4,860.08 2,222.14 7,082.22 5,378.41 2,710.41 8,088.82 Education expenditure in % of Total 20.63 3.27 7.96 20.18 6.19 9.85 21.10 13.50 16.28 22.90 6.34 12.58 18.71 8.92 13.68 Nominal growth in education expend. (%) 31.82 166.92 72.34 63.33 109.00 84.55 (0.93) (59.20) (31.58) 10.67 21.97 14.21 Real growth in education expenditure (%) 23.70 150.47 61.73 41.85 81.51 60.27 (13.04) (64.19) (39.95) (0.96) 9.16 2.21 Capital expend./Tot. education expend. (%) 30.00 46.46 52.61 31.38 33.51 (**) Budget data Ekiti State (In Millions of Naira) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Recurrent Capital Total Total State Expenditure** 11,044.61 29,849.14 40,893.75 36,253.16 80,713.89 58,296.83 66,068.37 Total State Education Expenditure** 2,278.38 976.28 3,254.66 6,058.93 1,778.37 7,837.30 8,837.07 5,871.74 14,708.81 11,426.16 2,581.68 14,007.84 13,730.50 4,597.17 18,327.67 Education expenditure in % of Total 20.63 3.27 7.96 21.62 18.22 24.03 27.74 Nominal growth in education expend. (%) 165.93 82.16 140.80 45.85 230.18 87.68 29.30 (56.03) (4.77) 20.17 78.07 30.84 Real growth in education expenditure (%) 149.55 70.93 125.96 26.67 186.74 62.99 13.48 (61.41) (16.41) 7.54 59.36 17.09 Capital expend./Tot. education expend. (%) 30.00 22.69 39.92 442.59 18.43 102.02 25.08 (**) Budget data 3. The results show stable or increasing education priority ratios in the three states, as a result of real growth rates in the education budget higher or similar than the ones experienced by overall state spending, which suggest significant commitment to education from the budgetary perspective. This is all the more true as 2009 was a very difficult year revenue wise due to the oil shock but, nonetheless, two of the states (Anambra and Ekiti), while decreasing their nominal budgets for education following the cuts in the statutory revenue allocations, managed to keep this decrease lower than the one for the overall budget suggesting a good level of protection of their education sector; and one (Bauchi) while less able to protect its education sector during the crisis showed a good recovery afterwards. 4. Looking further at state specificities, one notices some further differences. The data show that Ekiti is the state showing the highest level of commitment with an average real growth rate of its education budget of almost 40% over the 2006-2010 period leading to a very significant 27% education priority ratio. These findings are aligned with the strong importance attributed to education in the state and the fairly low pupil-teacher ratios, suggesting active teacher recruitment policies. Bauchi has also shown quite a remarkable real growth rate increase (of about 12%) in its education spending for such a poor state over the same time period leading to a respectable 14% education priority ratio. Most of this increase was driven by capital investments highlighting a - 112 - strong commitment to improving infrastructure. Clearly the state now needs to put more emphasis on recruiting teachers to make up for its hugely high pupil-teacher ratio. Finally, Anambra is of the three the state which experienced no real growth in its education budget over the 2006-2010 time period indicating less emphasis on education spending. This is further strengthened by the finding that, while its education budget was protected during the crisis, actual spending experienced a pretty sharp drop following a decision to stop replacing retiring teachers that year. While to some extent that decision was taken to assess and rationalize the use and allocation of the teaching staff, showing commitment to efficiency, it went too far judging from the currently high pupil-teacher ratios. However, overall, and in spite of the mixed crisis response, there are indications that Anambra has been putting renewed emphasis on education spending over the past three years, with a commitment to continue increasing its education priority ratio through a strong education sector plan. 5. Moving forward, this brief analysis suggests that there is good ground to believe that the states’ education sector budgets will continue to grow in real terms. Combined with the fact the project disburses against “actual� eligible expenditures and the DLIs focus on ambitious results - some of them very difficult to achieve without more funding, like teacher redeployment to rural areas, others, like the DLI on SBM, even factoring in the need for funding within the DLI itself (school based committees receiving the school grants) – this finding provides support to the likely “additionality� of the project funds. In any event, to make sure this is achieved and maintained, an annual Education Expenditure Review to assess amounts, sources and allocation of education sector expenditure, both actual and budget, is strongly recommended. The point on additionality is also strengthened by the fact that the project amount represents a sizable but still relatively low percentage of the overall education spending budget in the three states. Along that line the fiscal impact of the project will also be limited. These two points are further developed below in a succinct fiscal impact analysis of the project. B. Fiscal Impact of the Project 6. The tables below include a brief fiscal impact analysis of the project in the three States. More precisely, the tables undertake a projection of the State education sector budget over the next 10 years in each State and a simple comparison of the estimated project annual disbursement in relation to the annual projected budget to derive insights on the likely fiscal burden that the project would represent. Implementation Post-implementation Anambra State (In Millions of 2010 Naira) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total State Education Expenditure ** 9,999.24 10,299.22 10,608.19 10,926.44 11,254.23 11,591.86 11,939.62 12,297.80 12,666.74 13,046.74 Project amount** 1,723.00 1,723.00 1,723.00 1,723.00 Total Education Expenditure** 12,331.19 12,649.44 12,977.23 13,314.86 11,939.62 12,297.80 12,666.74 13,046.74 Project amount in % of Education expenditure 16.24 15.77 15.31 14.86 Recurrent costs (***) in % of Education expenditure 11.54 11.21 10.88 10.57 (**) Budget data (***) assuming all DLI related spending (80% of total) translates into recurrent expenditure - 113 - Implementation Post-implementation Bauchi State (In Millions of 2010 Naira) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total State Education Expenditure ** 8,897.70 9,787.47 10,766.22 11,842.84 13,027.13 14,329.84 15,762.82 17,339.10 19,073.01 20,980.32 Project amount** 1,723.00 1,723.00 1,723.00 1,723.00 Total Education Expenditure** 12,489.22 13,565.84 14,750.13 16,052.84 15,762.82 17,339.10 19,073.01 20,980.32 Project amount in % of Education expenditure 16.00 14.55 13.23 12.02 Recurrent costs (***) in % of Education expenditure 8.75 7.96 7.23 6.57 (**) Budget data (***) assuming all DLI related spending (80% of total) translates into recurrent expenditure Implementation Post-implementation Ekiti State (In Millions of 2010 Naira) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total State Education Expenditure ** 19,244.05 20,206.26 21,216.57 22,277.40 23,391.27 24,560.83 25,788.87 27,078.32 28,432.23 29,853.84 Project amount** 1,723.00 1,723.00 1,723.00 1,723.00 Total Education Expenditure** 22,939.57 24,000.40 25,114.27 26,283.83 25,788.87 27,078.32 28,432.23 29,853.84 Project amaount in % of Education expenditure 8.12 7.73 7.37 7.02 Recurrent costs (***) in % of Education expenditure 5.34 5.09 4.85 4.62 (**) Budget data (***) assuming all DLI related spending (80% of total) translates into recurrent expenditure 7. While the annual disbursement is assumed to be the same across States following the proposed disbursement schedule, assumptions vary by State for the education sector budget. It is important to recognize here that data are sub-optimal to undertake projections, in particular due to the absence of GDP data series per State to derive growth scenarios. In the absence of GDP data and fairly volatile State expenditure data, the main “driver� of the projections is the estimated annual real growth in State education expenditure, which we base on past trends, current education priority ratios and the State education sector plans. We saw above that in all three States the State education budget has been maintained quite stable (Anambra) or increased substantially (Bauchi and Ekiti) in real terms over the 2006-2010 period resulting in a generally stable (Anambra) or increased education priority ratio. An average annual real growth rate 28 in the education sector budget of respectively 12 and 37% (taking into account the 2009 oil shock) over the 2006-2010 time period in Bauchi and Ekiti provides some comfort for positive future real growth rates. We assume the education budget of Bauchi continues to grow in real terms at 10%, and that the growth rate is at 5% in Ekiti (the lower rate in Ekiti, in spite of higher past trends, is related to the already very substantial education priority ratio which has therefore little margin to increase further). In Anambra, the average past annual real growth rate has not been rising like in the other two states (although there was a nominal increase generally higher than for the overall budget), but based on the small but consistent annual real increases of 2008 and 2010 and the commitment to continue 28 Calculated using a geometric average of the 2006-2010 annual real growth rates. - 114 - increasing budgetary allocation for education in the recent education sector plan, a more modest but positive 3% annual real growth rate in the education budget is assumed. 8. The results show that across the three countries the annual project funding represents between 8 and 16% of the State education budget, decreasing to between 7 and 14% by the fourth year of project implementation. While this is a significant amount for Nigeria (important to provide a catalytic effect), this amount appears to be nonetheless fiscally sustainable in the context of the increasing real budgets, which by the first year of post-implementation of the project would already be able to potentially absorb practically the full funding in Bauchi and Ekiti and part of the funding in Anambra (full funding could potentially be absorbed without cuts in other expenditures by the fourth year of post-implementation). Overall, any recurrent cost derived from the project funding (estimated at 80% of the annual amount taking out the TA component and assuming that all DLI related spending translate into recurrent spending) would represent a manageable and decreasing share of the State education budget. 9. And this analysis does not take into account two important elements, which are the fact that after project funding stops there may not be related annual recurrent costs, or they may be of a lower order of magnitude (if capital or non-salary recurrent costs have been financed), and, more importantly, that efficiency gains will have been realized by the end of the project thanks to the DLI approach resulting in budget savings (say, for instance, through more efficient allocation of teachers, or through improved budget monitoring by the civil society, resulting in a reduction of wastes). The many potential benefits of the results-based approach and the scope for efficiency gains is further developed in a succinct economic analysis below. C. Economic Analysis 10. Economic rationale for Performance Based Financing interventions in the education sector in Nigeria. As one of the few countries that have constitutionally decentralized revenue allocation and expenditure responsibilities to locally elected governments (LGAs), Nigeria has a decentralized education delivery system with elaborate processes for policy-making and donor coordination, as well as financial and management systems that are supported by cooperating partners. While these institutional arrangements have streamlined and strengthened education policy implementation, they have not yet translated into significant improvements in the performance of the education sector or better education outcomes. The education service delivery, in terms of equitable access and student learning outcomes, remains poor, and is partly attributable to a significant waste in the education sector, primarily because of lack of incentives and accountability for providers, ineffective targeting, lack of demand and weak management of (a) human resources for education; (b) educational infrastructure; (c) procurement and logistics; and (d) development assistance for education. 11. There is widespread confidence that RBF approaches can contribute to address these issues. First, the essence of supply-side RBF interventions lies in the design of contracts that align incentives facing principals (i.e., policy makers) and agents (i.e. front-line providers, public or private). The “best� contract would be one which makes the agents take actions that yield results that maximize the objective function of principals with minimum oversight and regulation. If agents are guided by utility maximization (i.e. income maximization), then such a contract would pre- suppose that it also maximizes the objective function of the agent. In other words, the ideal - 115 - contracts would be such that actions taken by those responsible for implementation – i.e., the agents – maximize both their own objective functions (i.e., incomes) and that of the principals (i.e., welfare). 12. Second, the design process of RBF approaches would force the respective state governments to clearly specify outputs for which public funding would be allocated. It would also shift some of the performance risks from the state government to service providers, thereby establishing a framework for accountability and stronger incentives for efficiency. RBF would also support incentives for innovation; especially it would reward efficient providers over inefficient ones. 13. Economic justification for the selection of the project components and activities. The proposed project features should be highlighted for their cost-effective element: (a) the "step-wise" project approach of pilot-testing to gain experience and scaling up based on experiences gained and additional made available, is deemed more cost-effective than an outright national implementation; (b) the focus on a few key interventions that have a significantly large impact on improving learning outcomes; (c) the potential use of more flexible human resource policies to hire and retain personnel, including the provision of a range of staff incentives that will be evaluated in terms of increased service coverage and productivity, as well as improved learning outcomes. 14. The project comprises two major components which will ultimately address the specific education systems bottlenecks and improve effectiveness of the education sector in the three States, as laid out below: (a) a program for results approach using Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs) to incentive the LGA and state levels; and (b) providing technical assistance for institutional strengthening at federal, state, LGA and schools levels to build capacity to manage and operate the RBF approach. a. Waste in public spending is a problem in the Nigerian education sector in general and occurs in a number of ways. These include leakages of funds before reaching the designated spending entities, breach of Government financial and procurement regulations, weak execution of Government regulations especially in respect to application of sanctions and from direct abuse of public office. An assessment of the entire education system drawing on primary data collection as well as on the wealth of existing studies and knowledge about the trends and challenges in Nigeria was conducted in 2008. Though not comprehensive, this assessment of waste in the sector revealed significant waste in the management and performance of the education workforce, logistics management, and general procurement in the sector. The greatest source of waste is from personnel absenteeism where approximately billions of nairas were wasted because of a daily average of around 50% percent absenteeism, main reason being to devote time to other economic activities. The project will support state governments to improve performance of the sector by addressing weaknesses in some of these areas, in particular human resource management. Through component 1, it will support the introduction of RBF agreements with and between the State, LGA and Schools to address poor performance in program management and supervision and the regular unavailability of basic supplies. By providing the opportunity to earn financial rewards for improved results in the State, the SMOE will be more motivated to strengthen management to examine the range of results and the systems, capabilities and strategies they need to introduce to achieve them. It is also expected that it will result in increased responsiveness to the basic supply needs of schools. It can also support the - 116 - introduction of RBF agreements at the school level to address poor performance of school workers, inefficient use of resources and poor quality of education. By providing the opportunity to earn financial rewards for improved results in the school, it will motivate school workers to improve outreach to underserved areas and improve efficiency, responsiveness and technical quality. It can also motivate effort and innovative solutions and support the retention of school workers in rural areas where the bonus is shared among fewer people. b. The benefits of investing in education services in Nigeria (at both primary and secondary level) are obvious. It is well established that spending on elementary and secondary education has a direct impact on the health condition of families as well as on agricultural productivity. In Senegal, analyses show that the income and productivity of rural populations are significantly enhanced by their level of education, particularly those who attended secondary education, followed by those who went through elementary. Regarding the health sector, analyses also show that one additional year in a mother’s level of education reduces by almost 3 percent the likelihood that her child will experience growth problems. Although spending on education has sharply risen over the period 2005- 2010 in the three states, and gross enrollment rates have evolved at all levels of the education system, quality of elementary education as well as access to middle and secondary schools for the poorest in rural areas remain of major concern. States Government recurrent expenditures are used primarily to support the wage bill, with little left over for financing quality inputs. Despite the growth in enrollments, total expenditures on quality totaled less than 7-10 percent of overall recurrent expenditures over the period 2005-2010, in the three states. This, in turn, has resulted in a reduction in per student spending on quality inputs. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out to consider the investment in quality versus the continued mass expansion of school enrollment only. Investment in quality will also increase the internal efficiency of the three states education system, contributing to the decreased repetition rate from 6 percent to 2 percent per grade on average during the primary cycle. Only investing in expansion will keep these system indicators at status quo. Without the investment in quality, it takes 6.38 years on average for a graduate to complete the cycle, and an average of 8.93 years of investment to produce one graduate, taking into account the wastage due to dropout. It is envisaged that, with the planned investments in quality, it will take 6.12 years on average for a graduate to complete the cycle, and an average of 6.78 years of investment to produce one graduate. The improved efficiency will result in reduced total cost of producing one primary school graduate from estimated US$190 to $179, even with the increased unit spending per pupil per year from 7 percent of GDP per capita to 9 percent of GDP per capita. - 117 - Annex 7: Project Governance Measures NIGERIA: STATE EDUCATIONPROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT A. General Governance Issues 1. About thirteen years of uninterrupted civil democracy in Nigeria has provided opportunities for improving public sector governance. However, coming from a history of military authoritarianism for a greater part of its post-independence years, the transition from a culture of weak accountability and widespread corruption particularly in the public sector, though progressing, remains however slow. To illustrate, the country has lately been losing grounds on the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International. From a ranking of 121 out of 180 countries in 2008, the country slipped to 130, 134, and 143 in 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively. Similarly, the 2010 Mo Ibrahim Index which measures African countries on a number of governance indicators also ranked Nigeria 37 out of 53 countries. In the area of budget transparency, the Open Budget survey (2010) suggests Nigeria is one of the 25 countries that provide very scant information on the budget and other financial information with a rank of 18 out 94. B. Recent Efforts by Government to Improve Governance 2. Long years of military rule had its toll on governance and development in the country, characterized by flagrant abuse of office, weak accountability and widespread corruption. Since the return to democracy in 1999, Nigeria has made efforts to improve governance in general. This is being done principally in a two-pronged manner: (i) through legislative and policy reforms at the national and state levels, and (ii) the strengthening of public institutions with the mandate and potential to enhance governance and service delivery. 3. Legislative and Policy Reforms: Nigeria has in the last decade recorded some achievements in the area legislative and policy reforms. Some of the successes in the area of public financial management (PFM) include the enactment of some critical legislations, like public procurement and fiscal responsibility legislations in 2007, as well as the introduction of medium-term and policy- based expenditure frameworks at the federal level and in some of the sub-national level governments. The passage of the procurement law was followed by the establishment of the Bureau of Public Procurement, the development of procurement tools and the establishment of a professional procurement cadre in the public service. In 2010, the country also adopted the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) with the Nigeria Accounting Standards Board directing the adoption of the reporting standards for all publicly listed entities with effect from January 1, 2012. All other public interest entities and SMEs are also mandated to use the same standards for their accounts for the financial years ending December 31, 2013 and 2014 respectively. In 2011 the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in the country giving greater access to documentation on government transactions, including financial records, for public scrutiny. Though some of these reforms are not automatically applicable to sub-national levels of government as a result of Nigeria’s federal structure, several states are, on their own, putting in place similar frameworks to give effect to these reforms. Furthermore, governments at both the federal and state levels now ensure that all resources expended in any given year are reflected in the budget to avoid double-dipping and allow for public scrutiny. - 118 - 4. In addition to the these measures, both the federal and some state governments in Nigeria, with support from the Bank and other donors, are now making significant progress in strengthening external audit functions in the public service, in three key aspects: (i) through the process of revising the obsolete audit legislation currently applied by the different tiers of government; (ii) supporting the efforts at building adequate and sustainable capacity for the thorough performance of this function. It is intended that audits will now go beyond the statutory and routine financial audits hitherto carried out by the Auditors-General on MDAs at the different tiers but will now include “value for money� audits; and (iii) supporting the process of making the outcomes of the external audit exercises open and available to the public for effective third party monitoring. 5. Institutional Strengthening: Among the early measures adopted by the post-military federal Government of Nigeria to tackle corruption were the establishment of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). These two Commissions were given extensive powers to fight official corruption as well as money laundering and all forms of economic crime. Lately too, the Government has strengthened the operations of the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal, with the former adopting a more proactive approach to assets declaration and verification, particularly for politically exposed persons. 6. In order to improve service delivery to Nigerians, a Service Compact with all Nigerians (SERVICOM) was launched in 2004 by the federal government of Nigeria. While this initiative is yet to become formally operational in most States of Nigeria, the governments at the different level continue to strive, though at different paces, to improve service delivery to their citizens. C. World Bank Efforts to Improve Governance in Nigeria 7. The first Country Partnership Strategy (2005) of the World Bank and the UK DFID had governance as one of its three pillars. The second Country Partnership Strategy (2010) of the World Bank, AfDB, UK DFID and USAID elevated governance to be, both a core theme and a cross- cutting theme, based on the acknowledgement that improved governance is fundamental to achieving results in the other two areas i.e. Human Development and Non-Oil Growth. Consequently, two key tools were adopted by the partners to help achieve better governance i.e. (i) ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of public resources and (ii) mainstreaming the participation of communities external stakeholders in decision making and oversight of public resources. The Bank has over time advanced this agenda by investing significant funds in promoting reforms in the public financial management sectors at both federal and state levels of government. Lately too, the Bank has encouraged the involvement of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) in monitoring of budget expenditures and service delivery at the federal and state levels. 8. In light of the forgoing, the Bank has in collaboration with other donors, committed significant resources to support the Government of Nigeria to improve governance. Some of the Bank’s interventions include (i) the Economic Reform and Governance Project which is providing the equivalent of about US$140 million for governance reforms at the federal level, while the State Governance and Capacity-Building Project provided the equivalent of about US$18.1 million for public financial management reforms in three states of Bauchi, Cross River and Kaduna; (ii) The Lagos Metropolitan Development and Governance Project, also currently under implementation, is providing about US$5.97 million for governance reforms in Lagos State; (iii) A Second State - 119 - Governance and Capacity-Building Project in the amount of approximately US$80 million has just become available to the Government of Nigeria for further support to eleven state governments; (iv) A State Employment and Expenditure for Results Project is also providing about US$60 million for public financial management reforms in four other Niger Delta states; (v) The Bank and the European Union are also collaborating in implementing a US$87 million Grant for governance reforms in a cluster of six EU focal states; and (vi) by end of June 2011, 17 states had completed one or more of PER, PEFA or PEMFAR leading to reform action plans with several more already scheduled and/or ongoing; These projects/funds are deployed to help strengthen governance institutions and build the capacity of the public officers who run them. 9. In the implementation of World Bank-assisted projects, a system of fiduciary controls of procurement, financial management, and disbursement procedures are in place, overseen by Bank staff who are members of the task teams. Based on a risk assessment of the project and its implementing agencies, larger contracts are subject to prior review by the Bank at key stages of the processes, while smaller expenditures are subject to post-review on a sample basis, to confirm that procurement and financial management procedures adopted by the implementing agencies are consistent with Bank policies. Where government implementation capacity is limited, the projects are allowed to engage consultants who provide support services as well as on-the-job capacity- building. 10. In the area of financial management, projects are obligated to submit periodic Interim Financial Reports to the Bank for review, while Bank staff carry out periodic Financial Management Missions to carry out financial reviews of project financial management. 11. Implementation support missions are periodically made to the projects and Activity Implementing Agencies, where reviews are conducted on physical achievements, funds utilization, and development impacts of project expenditures. Audit reports are also made periodically and exceptions are examined by Bank FM staff. Where anomalies are noted, the implementing agencies are requested to follow up and report on remedial actions. D. Project Governance Issues for SEPIP 12. A cursory review of the available literature on the Nigeria education sector shows that the sector is facing some dire challenges. Beyond the very obvious challenges of decaying infrastructure and concerns about the general fall in the quality of education, allegations of corruption and the perception of lack of accountability is pervasive in the sector. Over time huge budgetary allocations have been made by the various tiers of government from year to year for the sector and several intervention funds like the education trust fund (RTF), UBE, SUBEC, etc. have disbursed significant funds for different purposes in the sector. In spite of these huge budgets and drawings, outcomes in the sector remain disappointing. 13. Another major challenge in the education sector in Nigeria has been the multiplicity of agencies in the sector. Most of these agencies are also replicated at the State level. This state of affairs has on one hand resulted in lack of clarity as to who has responsibility or should take the lead for certain responsibilities. On another hand, where responsibilities have even been given, there are several instances of overlapping responsibilities and functions, thus creating room for weak accountability for public funds allocated to some of these agencies for projects. - 120 - 14. While the reforms generally being introduced in Nigeria in recent years to curb corruption are gradually taking hold in various sectors, the performance of the various institutions and agencies of government in tackling governance and corruption challenges in the education sector continue to be disappointing in spite of the huge resources that have been allocated and released to the sector. Preliminary analytical work undertaken by the Bank alludes to the fact that beyond design flaws, serious governance gaps in the sector are also responsible for its persistent underperformance. Hence, in the design of this project measures would be introduced to help address these governance challenges that could arise in the course of implementation. A host of stakeholders will be responsible for promoting transparency, achievement of effective standards in project implementation. 15. This Governance and Accountability Action Plan aims at institutionalizing systems for promoting and ensuring transparency and accountability generally in the education sector and particularly in the disbursement and use of funds under this project. In the area of financial scrutiny, the project will have a dedicated State Project Technical Support Unit (SPTSU) with its own complement of financial management staff. The SPTSU will be answerable to A higher level Steering Committee at the state level. Project expenditure would be subject to two distinct audits: (i) the routine audit of the project, as will be stipulated in the Financing Agreement, and (ii) the annual statutory audit usually conducted by the Offices of the Auditors-General of the Federation and participating states on the annual accounts of the Government for the year, bearing in mind that the grant/project funds will reflect in the budgeted expenditure of the Government for the financial year. 16. To mitigate the likelihood of corruption in project implementation,, the Bank’s fiduciary controls and systems outlined in paragraphs 9-10 above will be applicable. In addition to the Banks general fiduciary (Procurement and Financial Management) guidelines, this project would introduce a few additional governance and accountability measures which are listed here in the governance and accountability action plan. In light of the fact that this project would be performance-based, and to further ensure transparency in project procurement, the project will require that the key stages of the procurement processes for all activities to be financed by this project are open and competitive and published to three key stakeholders: (i) the beneficiary-communities, through the registered community associations, (ii) the Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs), and (iii) the alumni associations/old students associations, where they exist. The information to be published will include the final procurement details, including the contractors’ names, contract amount and expected deliverables. This would ensure that information is available to real beneficiaries and non-state actors for external oversight, as well as to participants in the procurement process, to ensure a level playing ground in all procurement dealings and provides an opportunity for aggrieved persons to seek redress. 17. Recognizing that the media plays a key role in informing the public and exposing governance and accountability challenges, the project would build on the role of the media for enthroning accountability in the project and this would be done by leveraging on the existence of a large community of actors/institutions in the electronic media, particularly the community radio stations which operate in the target/beneficiary states to disseminate critical information on project implementation on a timely basis. The communication strategy being developed for this provides more details on the specific channels and modalities for the utilization of this medium in strengthening accountability in the project. - 121 - 18. Considering the depth of ICT penetration in the country today, these external stakeholders would be able to leverage on same to access information on progress and quality of infrastructure and social services delivered. The project implementation units would be supported in adopting ICT-related technologies for information-sharing and implementation monitoring. With the availability of project information, stakeholders and beneficiaries would be able to report against breaches of due process and project fiduciary arrangements. Table 1 – The Governance and Accountability Action Plan Key Issue Proposed Action Indicators of Responsibility Performance 1. Financial • Interim Financial Reports • Quarterly/Semester IFRs • SPTSUs Management to be prepared submitted to the Bank (Federal/State) periodically and reviewed by the Bank • Report ready within 6 • Audits carried out as months of year end stipulated in the • FPFMD/SPFMU Financing Agreement • Report published within • Annual statutory audit 6 months of year end • Auditor-General conducted by the Auditor (Federal/State) General of Federal/States 2. Procurement • Publication at key stages, • Half yearly report to the • SPTSUs i.e. EOI, BER and award Bank on the on Project website publications. • Monitorable • Documentation of all MIS/Database on complaints received. complaints • Publication of all actions taken on complaints received on Project • Monitorable website MIS/Database on complaints 3. Multiple • Coordination of MDAs • Minutes of Quarterly • SPTSUs Agencies in the participation in project meetings of Technical Sector through Technical & Committee and Half Steering Committees yearly meetings of Steering Committee 4. Stakeholder • FM & Procurement • Audit, Annual Financial • SPTSUs participation information of TA Statements and contract component made awards displayed on available to, CSOs, CBOs project website not later and Parents Teachers than 30 days after Associations publication. • (i) Assessments to be published on website, and (ii) shared with PTA and Alumni (where in existence); within 2 • Periodic Third-party weeks of completion, Assessments to be made - 122 - Key Issue Proposed Action Indicators of Responsibility Performance public 5. Dissemination of • Establishment of project • 80% up-time of project • SPTSUs Information website website • Annual Parents • % of SBMCs having had assemblies (involving parents assemblies communities, PTA, and SBMCs)/social audits • % of schools where SBMC and school • Display of relevant related information is information at appropriate displayed sites - 123 - Annex 8: Findings from the Systems Approach for Better Education Results Exercise NIGERIA: STATE EDUCATIONPROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION 1. Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) (http://www.worldbank.org/education/saber) is a relatively new World Bank initiative aimed at helping countries to systematically examine and strengthen the performance of their education systems so that they can achieve learning for all. The World Bank is working with partners around the world to develop diagnostic, evidence-based tools under SABER that can be used to collect detailed, actionable data on countries’ education policies. Empowered with these data, individual countries will be able to determine the relative development of different aspects of their education systems and benchmark their education policies against global standards and policies of comparator countries. SABER is developing a knowledge base that policymakers and citizens worldwide can tap into to identify the policy reforms needed to improve learning outcomes. SABER toolkits will enable governments and civil society to take an objective look at their education systems and determine which policy changes are most likely to accelerate student learning. 2. SABER is developing detailed policy frameworks and toolkits and collecting data in the following policy domains, among others: • Early Childhood Development • Equity and Inclusion • Finance • Information Systems/EMIS • School Autonomy and Accountability • Student Assessment • Teachers. 3. For each policy domain, key facets of the domain are rated according to whether the data collected on the country or state of interest suggest that it is more or less advanced in its development of effective policies and approaches in that area. There are four possible development-level ratings: a. Latent: Absence of the desired attribute b. Emerging: On the way to meeting minimum standards c. Established: Acceptable minimum standard d. Advanced: Best practice 4. During May-July 2011, SABER assessments were carried out as part of SEPIP preparation for the Participating States of Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti in the following four domains: (i) Teachers, (ii) Student Assessment, (iii) School Autonomy and Accountability, and (iv) - 124 - Information Systems/EMIS. The findings were discussed in detail during a national stakeholder workshop held in July 2011, which comprised representatives from the Federal Ministry of Education; Federal Ministry of Finance; National Planning Commission; the Universal Basic Education Commission; State Ministries of Education and State Universal Education Boards for Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti; Civil Society Organizations; national consultants; development partners (DfID, Unicef, USAID, UNESCO); and the World Bank SABER and project teams. What follows are summary findings of the SABER analyses in the four domains for Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti. SABER-TEACHERS 5. SABER-Teachers collects data on 10 core teacher policy areas in order to offer a comprehensive overview of teacher policies in an education system. These policy areas are listed in Box 1. It is important to highlight that SABER-Teachers’ main focus is on the policies formally adopted by education systems. While in some cases, the data collected also address how the teacher policy goals are achieved in practice, the nature of the data collection approach (based on interviews with key informants and official document review) do not allow for a thorough assessment of policy implementation. Therefore, complementary research will be useful in most settings. Box 1: Key Teacher Policy Areas 6. To analyze these data and offer informed policy guidance, SABER-Teachers analyzes progress on eight teacher policy goals. SABER- Teachers used three criteria to select these teacher policy goals. They are: (i) linked to performance through evidence provided by research and studies; (ii) a high priority for resource allocation; and (iii) actionable. The 8 teacher policy goals are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Teacher Policy Goals 7. The eight teacher policy goals exclude other objectives that countries might want to pursue to increase the effectiveness of teachers. These were excluded because there is to date insufficient empirical basis on which to make specific policy recommendations, either because evidence on policy interventions in that area remains unclear or because the top-performing education systems take very different approaches to reach these objectives. For a more detailed report on the eight teacher policy - 125 - goals and the evidence supporting this selection, please see Vegas et al (2012). 29 8. SABER-Teachers collected policy data for Nigeria’s Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti states. Table 1 presents the extent to which each education system has progressed in the eight SABER- Teachers policy goals. Our analysis indicates that each teacher policy system has relative strengths and weaknesses. However, across the three systems, we observed some general patterns, which we highlight in this section. Table 1: Levels of Development of Teacher Policies in Nigeria Anambra Bauchi Ekiti 1. Setting clear expectations for Established Established Established teachers 2. Attracting the best into teaching Established Emerging Established 3. Preparing teachers with useful Established Established Established training and experience 4. Matching teachers' skills with Emerging Latent Latent students' needs 5. Leading teachers with strong Established Established Established principals 6. Monitoring teaching and Emerging Emerging Emerging learning 7. Supporting teachers to improve Established Established Emerging instruction 8. Motivating teachers to perform Emerging Established Established 9. Setting clear expectations for teachers: The education systems in these states are all Established in this policy goal, which means they have: (i) explicitly defined standards for what students should know and be able to do, as well as curricula to guide teaching and learning; (ii) officially stipulated tasks for teachers; and (iii) delineated official time allocations that enable teachers to fulfill their duties. 10. Attracting the best into teaching: With the exception of Bauchi, the other states are Established in this policy goal, which means they have: (i) entry requirements that allow screening of talented individuals; (ii) attractive pay and benefits; (iii) appealing working conditions; and (iv) attractive career opportunities within the teaching profession. In Bauchi, there is an opportunity to strengthen policies in this domain. 11. Preparing teachers with useful training and experience: In this policy goal, all systems are Established, which means they have developed: (i) minimum standards for pre-service training programs; (ii) requirements for classroom experience for all teachers; and (iii) induction or mentoring programs to help smooth the transition from training into teaching. 29 Vegas, Emiliana et al. (2012). What Matters Most in Teacher Policies? A Framework for Building a More Effective Teaching Profession. Unpublished document. Washington, DC: The World Bank. - 126 - 12. Matching teachers’ skills with students’ needs: This policy goal remains a challenge in all states. Anambra is Emerging in this policy goal, while Bauchi and Ekiti are lagging behind. Top- performing education systems have established incentives to attract teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools and/or to teach certain subjects such as math and science. 13. Leading teachers with strong principals: All education systems in these states are Established in this policy goal, which means they have: (i) introduced requirements to become a principal and attract talented candidates; (ii) established incentives for principals to perform well; and (iii) provided autonomy to principals to make decisions related to instruction or personnel management for their schools. 14. Monitoring teaching and learning: In this policy goal, all states are Emerging, which indicates an opportunity to strengthen its policies in this domain. High-performing education systems have established student learning assessment systems and teacher performance appraisal mechanisms—factors that have been shown to enhance student learning outcomes. 15. Supporting teachers to improve instruction: With the exception of Ekiti, the other states are Established in this policy goal, which means teachers are provided with performance data to help them improve teaching practices, and these data are also used by principals to develop professional development plans for teachers. In Ekiti, there is an opportunity to strengthen its policies in this domain. 16. Motivating teachers to perform: With the exception of Anambra, the other states are Established in this policy goal, which means there are minimum mechanisms to hold teachers accountable as well as rewards and sanctions for high- and low-performing teachers, respectively. In Anambra, there is an opportunity to strengthen its policies in this domain. SABER-STUDENT ASSESSMENT 17. Effective assessment of student learning and achievement is a key component of any successful education system. In order to know if children are learning and achieving at school, countries must put in place strong student assessment systems. 18. Student assessment systems tend to be made up of three main kinds of assessment activities that correspond to three key purposes or information needs: • Classroom assessments – which provide real-time information to teachers and students to support teaching and learning in individual classrooms • Examinations – the results of which are used to make decisions about the progress of individual students through the education system (such as student certification or selection decisions) • Large-scale, system-level assessments – which provide policy- and practitioner-relevant information on the overall performance of the education system, and the factors contributing to that performance. 19. The effectiveness of a student assessment system depends upon the quality of the information that it produces (whether through classroom assessments, examinations, or large- - 127 - scale, system-level assessments) for decision-making. The key factors governing information quality, and ultimately the effectiveness of the assessment system, are (Clarke, 2012) 30: • The enabling context – the broad context in which the assessment activity takes place and the extent to which that context is supportive of the assessment • System alignment – the extent to which the assessment activity is aligned with the rest of the education system • Assessment quality – the technical quality of the instruments and procedures used in the assessment activity. 20. SABER-Student Assessment tools, based on the aforementioned assessment types and quality drivers, were applied at the national and state (Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti) levels in Nigeria as part of SEPIP preparation. Similar to other SABER policy domains, SABER-Student Assessment focuses primarily on collecting and evaluating data on policies, institutions and standard practices (in this instance, for student assessment activities) in a particular education system. 21. The first application of the SABER-Student Assessment tools (June-July 2011) involved data collection and analysis using an abbreviated version of the instrument that asked 29 screening questions about classroom assessment, examinations and large-scale, system-level assessment activity in the three states. The data, validated and discussed in a workshop with representatives from the three states, showed that there was no activity in the area of large-scale, system-level assessment of learning outcomes in the three states -- resulting in a Latent rating in this area for all three states (Table 2) -- but that it was a priority focus for the proposed SEPIP. 22. The aim of the second, more in-depth application of the SABER-Student Assessment tools (October 2011) was to collect information at the federal/national level on large-scale, system-level assessment programs or resources that might be applicable to the three states’ assessment activities under the project and on which capacity-building activities under the project could systematically build. 23. The main assessment program of interest was the national large-scale assessment program run by the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC). UBEC has a legal mandate and funding to carry out national monitoring of education standards across Nigeria and, to date, has conducted four system-level assessments of student learning outcomes at the primary level (Primary 4-Primary 6) and beyond (Junior Secondary School 1) (2001, 2003, 2006, 2011). Also of interest was the National Examinations Council (NECO), which also has a legal mandate to gather information on student achievement at the national level, albeit in the form of student certification and selection examinations. 24. The overall rating of Emerging (Table 2) for the national large-scale assessment program reflects the fact that it is quite sound in terms of its policies and institutional arrangements and offers a useful base on which to draw or expand under the three-state project (see also Table 3). 30 Clarke, Marguerite (2012). What Matters Most for Student Assessment Systems: A Framework Paper. SABER Working Paper No. 1. Washington, DC: The World Bank. This paper can be downloaded from the Student Assessment section of the main SABER website: http://www.worldbank.org/education/saber - 128 - Table 2. Level of development of large-scale assessment activity at the national and state levels in Nigeria, 2011 Nigeria (UBEC) Anambra Bauchi Ekiti Emerging* Latent Latent Latent *The score for UBEC’s national assessment program places it on the border between Emerging and Established. Expert judgment suggests that the rating is closer to Emerging and hence it is shown here as thus. Table 3. Detailed ratings for large-scale assessment activity at the national level in Nigeria, 2011 ENABLING CONTEXT Established • Setting clear policies for NLSA Established • Having strong public engagement for NLSA Emerging • Having regular funding for NLSA Established • Having strong organizational structures for NLSA Emerging • Having effective human resources for NLSA SYSTEM ALIGNMENT Established • Aligning the NLSA with learning goals • Providing teachers with opportunities to learn Latent about the NLSA ASSESSMENT QUALITY Established • Ensuring the quality of the NLSA Emerging • Ensuring effective uses of the NLSA Emerging* OVERALL RATING *The score for UBEC’s national assessment program places it on the border between Emerging and Established. Expert judgment suggests that the rating is closer to Emerging and hence it is shown here as thus. 25. At the same time, when this policy-level view was supplemented with a technical review of an actual published report for one of the national assessment exercises, it became evident that execution is weak in the area of sample design and use of weights (data are currently not representative at the state or national levels, let alone LGA or below), as well as in the reporting of student results (no performance-level reporting, no standard errors, no policy-relevant analysis). It is therefore recommended that any International Technical Assistance in this area under SEPIP focus on capacity building at both national and state levels (e.g., in the areas of test design, sample design, sophisticated data analysis, and policy-relevant report writing). 26. SABER-Student Assessment ratings for NECO’s examinations program (in particular, the Senior School Certificate that is designed to certify secondary school achievement and provide a basis for admission to university) indicate a rating of Established for the program. While this - 129 - assessment type is not a focus for the proposed project, the technical expertise housed in the NECO (and which was evident during our visit to NECO headquarters in Minna) is a possible resource for the work to be carried out at the state level. 27. Two issues to be discussed and clarified moving forward include: (a) the balance of international technical assistance between federal and state levels; and (b) the design of the actual large-scale assessment activity(ies). SABER-SCHOOL AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 28. By school autonomy we refer to a system where schools are given decision-making authority over their operations, including the hiring and firing of teachers, the regular assessment of teachers and pedagogical practices, and the management of school finances. 29. By school accountability we refer to a school that takes responsibility for its actions, including: • compliance with the rules of school governance, which includes a substantive role for the School-Based Management Committee (SBMC); • reporting school results to those with oversight authority over individual schools, and • the use of rewards and sanctions to promote improved results at the school level. 30. These notions are based within a broader conceptualization of education as a system in which good school performance is the result of the interplay between teacher quality, the administration of school resources, the measurement and analysis of learning outcomes, and the reporting of those outcomes to society. This view was used to inform the design of the School Autonomy and Accountability Scale (Arcia, Macdonald, Patrinos, and Porta 2011) 31, which has been tested in more than 30 countries worldwide. 31. The scale assesses the following areas of school governance: • Autonomy in budget planning and approval • Autonomy in hiring and firing of teachers • Parent participation in school finance • Assessment of student learning • School accountability. 31 Arcia, Gustavo, Macdonald, Kevin, Patrinos, Harry, and Porta, Emilio (2011). School Autonomy and Accountability. Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER). Unpublished document. Washington, DC: The World Bank. - 130 - Table 4. Summary ratings of school autonomy and school accountability for Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti States, 2011 Budget Personnel Participation Student State Accountability Autonomy Autonomy Finance Assessment Anambra Emerging Latent Latent Emerging Latent Bauchi Emerging Latent Latent Emerging Latent Ekiti Emerging Latent Latent Emerging Latent 32. The main findings of the SABER-School Autonomy and Accountability benchmarking in Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti indicate that: 33. Budgetary autonomy is Emerging. Currently schools in all three states manage the funds received from their state government to pay for some operating expenses, such as janitorial staff, cleaning and maintenance supplies, and some pedagogical supplies. In Anambra and Bauchi, some non-government funds, donated by the school’s PTA, can be accessed by school staff but their amount is very small. In Bauchi schools receive all of the above materials directly from their Local Government Areas (LGA) and school principals do not control any funds at the school level. 34. Personnel autonomy is Latent. Teachers are hired at the State and LGA levels and their positions and salaries are managed by civil service rules. People interviewed agree that there is little chance that schools will have the authority to hire and fire their teachers. Given this important restriction, to improve teacher quality it may be necessary to empower the SBMC to participate in the teacher selection process and raise the standards for new hires using a different salary scale— still within the civil service framework—in order to attract better entrants to the teaching profession. 35. Participation in school finance by parents and society is rated as Latent. Currently teacher salaries represent between 80% and 90% of the school budget in each state. Since teachers are paid directly by the Ministry of Education of each state, school principals in these three states manage about15% of the total funds needed to run a school. SBMCs are in the process of being instituted, but their operating manual has not been developed yet. Since it is expected that SBMCs will be granted additional funds at the school level, there is hope that they can be trained to reinforce parent participation in school finances. Given this scenario it is considered that the design, testing, and implementation of an Operating Manual for the SBMCs is of upmost importance. 36. School and student assessments are Emerging. This rating refers only to the existing institutional and operational structure for measuring student learning. It means that each of the three states (and Nigeria in general) already has a system of exit exams and standardized testing that can be expanded to measure learning outcomes in different grades. However, the system does not include the routine measurement of learning outcomes in primary or junior secondary school. Although each state has in place a testing structure, significant work remains in scaling up the system to cover non-exit exams applied in primary and junior secondary. - 131 - 37. Accountability to parents and society is at a Latent stage. The concept of parents as clients of the school system—which means that they are people who should be accountable to when measuring student learning—is new to the education system. However, there is consensus among participants in the workshop that accountability to parents is desirable in order to ensure the sustainability of any policies aimed at improving learning outcomes. However, there was also a consensus among participants that accountability to parents was useless if parents did not have ways to reward or sanction schools for their performance. This conclusion led them to the conviction that in order to enforce accountability the additional funds managed by the SBMC must be tied to school performance and to learning outcomes. A first step in this direction is the creation of a School Report Card, which can be a DLI for this project. SABER-INFORMATION SYSTEM/EMIS 32 38. Without improvements to data quality any efforts at improving learning or implementing a learning-for-all strategy will always be in question. The establishment of accountability mechanisms requires accurate and reliable education statistics to ensure that policy makers start replacing decisions based on opinion with decisions based on analysis. Having good access to high quality education statistics facilitates more objective evaluations of education sector performance and the corresponding introduction of policies that are more conducive to improved learning. Hence, the provision of relevant, timely, and accurate educational statistics and the regular functioning of Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) are key elements in transforming the education sector from a mere provider of inputs into a system that ensures the production of good quality education services. 39. To benchmark a country’s information system for planning and policy dialogue, SABER began developing a new EMIS assessment tool based on the six sections of the Data Quality Assessment Framework (DQAF), a tool originally developed by the International Monetary Fund and later adapted to other sectors by UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) and The World Bank. Each of the DQAF’s six Aspects of Quality addresses a component of overall data quality. A brief description of each of the Aspects of Quality is below. 40. Prerequisites of quality. A prerequisite for ensuring the quality of EMIS data and statistics is the existence of an appropriate legal and institutional framework. The legal and institutional environment can affect the operations of the office in charge of education statistics, the professionalism of the staff, the financial resources available for statistical work, and the awareness of the importance of quality in statistical work among key decision makers. 41. Assurances of Integrity. Data integrity refers to the existence of institutional arrangements to ensure that all activities covered by the system of educational statistics are done in a professional manner with transparency and ethical standards. Hence, assessing data integrity relies on the examination of the professionalism of staff in charge of education statistics, the transparency of all processes of data collection, compilation and publication, and the ethical standards of the statistical agency to ensure that the data published are the same as the data collected. 32 This section draws heavily from Porta, Emilio and Arcia, Gustavo (2011). Improving Information Systems for Planning and Policy Dialogue: The SABER EMIS Assessment Tool. Unpublished document. Washington, DC: The World Bank. This paper can be downloaded from the Information Systems/EMIS section of the main SABER website: http://www.worldbank.org/education/saber - 132 - 42. Methodological soundness. Methodological soundness refers to education statistics that are compliant with internationally accepted standards, guidelines, and good practices. It includes compliance with the methodology used by international agencies and with the international standards of the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Although there is no obligation to adhere to international standards, compliance allows for valid comparisons in education sector performance. 43. Accuracy and reliability. In order to ensure data accuracy and reliability, the office producing education statistics must use appropriate statistical techniques in the compilation of source data and must have the procedures in place for the validation of data and for the assessment and validation of intermediate data and statistical outputs. Also, there must be formal procedures for revising data and for making public data revisions in a timely manner. 44. Serviceability. Serviceability refers to the ability of the EMIS to be at the service of parents and society by producing useful data and ensuring the relevance, timeliness, and consistency of education statistics. Educational statistics have to be relevant for policymaking and should allow parents and civil society to obtain objective information about sector performance in a user-friendly manner. 45. Accessibility. Accessibility is one of the most important aspects of data quality because it addresses the issue of accountability. This aspect of data quality includes accessibility of data to analysts outside of the government and to the general public, as well as the availability of programs and procedures for assisting users. 46. The SABER-EMIS tool was created to reduce the amount of subjectivity inherent to the application of the DQAF. 33 47. A World Bank team applied the SABER-EMIS Tool to the three states of Anambra, Bauchi, and Ekiti in June 2011 and validated the results with state and federal officials during a workshop held from July 6 to July 15, 2011. Table 5 shows the results for the three Nigerian states. 48. The overall EMIS situation in the three states is considered to be Emerging as they face considerable challenges in all of the areas covered by the SABER-EMIS tool. The assessment carried out with the government laid out in detail specific actions that they could implement in order to reach a fully operational EMIS in the three states. However, for the current operation, it was agreed that states should focus on improving accessibility to information (see Table 6 for the states’ detailed ratings in this area). There was consensus among the participants that making data more accessible to users will trigger transparency on education statistics, promote accountability and, as a result, improve data quality. Ways to increase accessibility could include making databases available online, producing educational digests and making them accessible online, and distributing school report cards. 33 For further information on the SEAT scoring methods or for the complete SEAT scoring matrix, please download: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1290520949227/7575842- 1299512073351/SABEREMIS.pdf - 133 - Table 5: Levels of Development of EMIS in Nigeria Aspect of quality Anambra Bauchi Ekiti • Prerequisites of quality Emerging Advanced Established • Assurances of integrity Emerging Emerging Established • Methodological soundness Emerging Emerging Emerging • Accuracy and reliability Emerging Established Established • Serviceability Emerging Emerging Emerging • Accessibility Emerging Emerging Emerging Total Emerging Emerging Emerging Table 6: Accessibility Ratings for EMIS in Nigeria Aspect of quality Anambra Bauchi Ekiti • Statistics are presented to Advanced Advanced Advanced facilitate proper interpretation • Dissemination media and format Latent Emerging Emerging are adequate • Statistics are released on a pre- Latent Latent Latent announced schedule • Statistics are made available to all Emerging Latent Latent users at the same time • Statistics not routinely Emerging Advanced Emerging disseminated are made available upon request • Documentation on concepts, data Established Established Established sources, etc. is available, and differences from internationally accepted standards are annotated • Levels of detail are adapted to the Latent Latent Latent needs of the intended users • Contact points for each subject Latent Established Emerging field are publicized • Catalogs of publications and other Latent Latent Latent services are widely available Total Emerging Emerging Emerging . - 134 - Annex 9: Education Sector Context, Issues and Challenges NIGERIA: STATE EDUCATIONPROGRAM INVESTMENT PROJECT 1. Nigeria’s Education Sector Structure, Institutional Setting and Past Educational Reforms. The National Policy on Education stipulates a 6-3-3-4 structure offering nine years of basic compulsory education (i.e. six years of primary and three years of junior secondary), three years of senior secondary, and four years of tertiary education for most of the science, arts and social science programs, whose provision is a concurrent responsibility of the federal, state and local governments, with a fast-growing private sector. The Federal Government plays a dominant role in post-secondary education, while local governments and states are mainly responsible for basic and senior secondary education, respectively. In addition, the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), an autonomous body under the Federal Ministry of Education, plays a huge role in basic education, being entrusted with the management and enforcement of basic compulsory education, as well as providing most of the non-salary financing (such as construction and textbooks) for basic education. It is represented at state level by the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB), which works under the State Ministry of Education. SUBEB manages most of the non-salary education spending for basic education, as well as salary expenditure for basic education on behalf of the local governments. The State Ministry of Education is responsible for the management of senior secondary education as well as overseeing basic education matters. Local governments, through the Local Government Education Authorities, are in principle responsible for the management of basic education, but their decision-making power is limited by the extensive responsibilities of SUBEB, the co-responsibility of the different government levels in the management of teachers and their very low capacity. It is to be noted that education service delivery varies considerably by states in terms of equitable access and student learning outcomes. 2. Nigeria has successfully launched key reforms, including the Universal Basic Education (UBE) program in 1999, making basic education compulsory. In 2006, another major reform focused on a new vision for the education sector, a national framework, and the 10-Year Education Sector Plan, emphasizing: (i) universal access to basic education; (ii) minimum quality standards; (iii) finance reform to underpin greater equity; and (iv) effective human capital development. Thus, investments in basic education have led to a significant increase in coverage. For instance, primary enrolment rose from 17.9 million students in 1999 to 22.9 million in 2006 (an increase of 28 percent). 34 Apart from the UBE scheme, which provides for free primary education up to Primary 6 and junior secondary education, the Federal Government also provided direct funding through the Education Trust Fund (ETF), 35 and the Virtual Poverty Fund (from the debt relief initiative) towards achievement of the MDGs. Currently, the FGN focusing on her Transformation Agenda as a medium-term goal towards the achievement of her Vision 20:2020. 36 Accordingly, the FMOE has developed a new four-year strategy with the overarching objectives of providing access to education with equity, quality education, and imparting skills. 34 UNESCO Statistical Data (stats.uis.unesco.org), October 2010. 35 Now renamed as the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND). 36 The goal is for Nigeria to be among the top 20 biggest economies in the world by the Year 2020. - 135 - Main Issues 3. Key Challenges. Despite progress towards the MDGs and universal primary education, critical problems persist: limited access for the poorest, low schooling quality, low internal efficiency, and weak capacity. About seven million children are still out-of-school. Although reliable measures of student achievement are limited, a few available assessments of student learning outcomes show prevailing low education quality, resulting in turn in low system efficiency. The situation is similar for most states, including Anambra, Bauchi and Ekiti. 4. Low Enrolment Rates. Despite a rapid increase in primary net enrolment since 1990, from 59.9 percent to 66 percent in 2006, overall enrolment rates are relatively low for both primary and secondary. Statistics from the 2006-2010 Nigeria Digest of Education statistics show that there are 54,434 public primary schools in Nigeria, with an enrolment figure of 24.4 million of which the male accounts for 13.3 million (or 54.5 percent) while the female accounts for 11.1 million (or 45.5 percent) indicating a gender parity index (GPI) of 83.6 percent. More males are enrolled in the primary schools than females in the North while a near parity is recorded in the South. About 65 percent of primary school children in the North are male while 35 percent are female. There are also 7,129 public Junior Secondary Schools in Nigeria with a total enrolment figure of about 3.3 million. Gender disparity exists in male and female enrolment figures at the JSS level nationwide. About 55 percent are male while 45 percent are female. Available figures show a significant drop in net enrolment in 2007, which points to the need for continued emphasis on access to education (Figure 1 below). Large gender, income and regional disparities exist – for example, there are regional disparities between the Southern and Northern zones with regard to enrolments: the enrolments were as high as 90 percent in Southern zones and as low as 20 percent in the Northern zones. Also, wide disparity exists between the expected and actual enrolments, meaning a huge number around 7 million children are out-of-school. The cost of schooling, both direct (school fees, books and supplies, uniforms, transportation, etc.) and indirect opportunity costs, remains the key reason for low enrolment and for school drop-out, especially in the Northern States, thus posing a key barrier to the achievement of Education for All and Millennium Development Goals. Figure 1: Net Enrollment (Primary and Secondary) 64 65 66 66 70 61 60 Primary, female 60 61 62 50 58 58 Primary, Total Percent 40 29 26 28 28 26 30 Secondary, female 20 26 Secondary, Total 23 25 25 22 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: EdStats (October 2010). - 136 - 5. Low Completion Rates. As Figure 2 below shows, Nigeria’s primary completion rate is relatively low, with only about three-quarters of students completing the primary education cycle (Primary 1-6), and only about 76 percent of these go on to junior secondary school. This performance is particularly low relative to countries such as Ghana, South Africa, Egypt and the Republic of Korea. The average completion rate at the end of primary education as a percentage of enrolments in Primary 1 are on average reported to be 55 percent, with a transition rate of 50.3 percent to secondary school, of which the recorded average completion rates are 62 percent for girls and 59 percent for boys. Therefore, if Nigeria is to keep pace with growth and face global realities, it is paramount that a higher number of students complete primary education. Figure 2. Primary Net Enrollment and Primary Completion Rates - Selected Countries Net enrollment rate Primary completion rate 93.6 95.2 98.8 98.7 87.5 85.8 75.5 76.5 82.2 61.4 Nigeria Ghana South Africa Egypt Korea, Rep. Source: EdStats, (October 2010). 6. Uneven Access to Learning Opportunities: Overall enrolment rates in basic and secondary education are low, especially in the Northern Regions, particularly for girls. A survey 37 on educational attainment shows wide disparities in terms of gender, geographical boundaries, and geopolitical zones. Females and males in rural areas are more than twice as likely as those in urban areas to have no education (49 against 22 percent for females, and 35 against 14 percent for males). Similarly, household members in the North West and North East are four times more likely to have no education than those in the South-South region (68 and 66 percent, against 15 percent). 7. Educational attainment increases as household economic status increases. For example, 76 percent of women in the poorest households have no formal education, compared with just four percent among the most advantaged households. Only two percent of women in the lowest wealth quintile have completed secondary or higher education, compared with almost two-thirds of women in the highest quintile. Among the lowest quintile only three out of ten children attend primary school, compared to eight out of ten for the fourth quintile (79 percent). This becomes more pronounced in secondary education, with the Net Attendance Rate for the lowest quintile being five times lower than that for the highest quintile (74 percent). 8. The average drop-out rate for Primary 1-5 is relatively low around 0.5 percent. However, the drop-out rate is highest at Primary6 (12 percent), higher for females than males (13 against 10 37 National Demographic and Health Survey 2008, National Planning Commission, Federal Republic of Nigeria and ICF Macro (Maryland, USA), (November 2009). - 137 - percent). Drop-out rates are highest among the poorest: the lowest two quintiles account for more than half of Primary drop-outs (54 percent), while the drop-out rate is four times lower for the highest two quintiles (13 percent). The drop-out pattern is different among regions, with the Northern States like Bauchi experiencing female drop-outs (especially at Junior Secondary 1), while in the South-East Anambra experiences huge drop-outs among boys (especially at Primary 6). 9. Low Education Quality and Relevance. Education quality is substantially low, and varies considerably within and across States. The few available surveys on student’s learning outcomes indicate very low learning outcomes, due primarily to poor learning environment, inadequate learning materials, ineffective teacher training, and outdated curricula. Further, in a survey of student learning achievement across 22 Sub-Saharan countries, Nigerian students scored the lowest, 30 percent compared to the highest rate of 70 percent and an average of 48 percent). 38 Moreover, the 2011 results of the West African Senior School Certificate examination (conducted by the West African Examination Council - WAEC) show that only 30 percent of Nigerian candidates obtained credits in the English Language, Mathematics and at least three other subjects (the requirements for admission into tertiary institutions). The main contributing factors to low learning outcomes are the poor conditions of the learning environment (e.g. physical facilities, including water and sanitation, inadequate distribution of essential textbooks and instructional aids), lack of teachers or their poor deployment, poor teaching quality, inadequate teacher training, low motivation and limited opportunities for professional development. Teacher qualification and deployment issues have become critical to successful delivery of basic and secondary education. While there can be an over-concentration of teachers in the urban areas, the most deprived, largely rural areas lack either qualified or unqualified teachers, which is particularly true for female teachers in the Northern regions. The gender disparity patterns differ regionally, with the Northern Zones teaching staff being about 72 percent male but only 37 percent male in the Southern Zones. National averages are 54.1 percent male teachers and 45.9 percent female teachers. This is generally the case in the participating States though there are diverse constraints. 10. Low literacy Levels. A literacy test was administered to respondents (with less than a secondary school education) to assess their ability to read all or part of a simple sentence in any of the major language groups in Nigeria. This test indicates that urban women are nearly twice as likely to be literate as rural women (77 and 41 percent, respectively). Literacy levels vary widely by zone, with the northern zones lagging behind the southern zones. In terms of household economic status, women in the lowest wealth quintile have very low literacy rate compared with those in the highest quintile (13 against 92 percent). For men, this is less pronounced, though the rate for men in the highest wealth quintile is still more than doubled that in the poorest quintile (97 against 40 percent). 11. Weak governance and management capacity. States and LGAs are responsible for pre- tertiary education services based on national education policy and standards. The system suffers from an absence of accountability/quality mechanisms, and limited capacity for policy-making, planning, management, and monitoring and evaluation. As a result, many children leave primary and junior secondary schools without adequate literacy, numeracy and life skills. In general, the following key issues are consistent across states: (i) ineffective policy implementation or fragmented decision- making due to poor division of responsibilities, unclear overlapping functions, a multitude of parastatal/agencies, and poor relationships across government and concerned agencies; (ii) 38 World Bank, Nigeria Country Status Report, 2004. - 138 - inadequate strategic planning and management capacity; (iii) absence of a sound and reliable monitoring and evaluation system; and (iv) scarce reliable information on students' learning outcomes. Regarding education financing, Nigeria’s public expenditure on education grew from 2.3 between 1996 and 2005 to 5.4 percent of GDP. In 2006, it stood at five percent of GDP, and 12.5 percent of total public spending. 39 While aggregate public spending as a percent of GDP is higher than the average of Sub-Saharan countries (3.9 percent) – only slightly lower than the level in South Africa and Kenya (5.3 and 7 percent, respectively) – substantial educational gains do not materialize due to inefficiency and ineffectiveness of expenditures. 12. Insufficient and inefficient public spending. The education budget is still insufficient to address existing problems as well as cater for new needs. With a ratio of about 9 percent, Nigeria still has scope to improve its share of total spending allocated to education to bring it closer to the minimum standard of annual budget prescribed by UNESCO to fast-track education-related MDGs. In comparison, education as a share of total spending in Kenya is 17.2; Tanzania is 18.3 percent; in Ghana, 24.4 percent; in Rwanda, 16.9 percent, in South Africa, 19.2 percent; in Indonesia, 26 percent; and in Malaysia, 18.9 percent. Boosting the education share would also help increase unit costs to support higher education quality. At the same time, the existing resources are often used inefficiently and inequitably, with too little space for non-salary expenditures such as investment in facilities and instructional materials (representing on average only about 30 percent of the budget), there are multiple sources of wastage, and resources do not reach their intended beneficiaries. 39 Federal Ministry of Education, 2007. - 139 - To Tahoua To Agadez To Nguigmi 10°E 15°E Illela NIGER 1963 Level e 1973 Level NIGER SOKOTO Yo ob To Kandi Sokoto Katsina 2001 Level Nguru ob e Oamasak Yob ma Kaura Lake Chad Ri S Namoda S a h e l Hadejia Gan a ok o K AT S I N A gu ot Birnin ORNO B ORN O u J I G AWA d Kebbi i aar Y OB OBEE ma Gusau CHAD Ko Jam Z AM A M FAR A Kano Maiduguri KE BB KEB BI Dutse Pokiskum Damaturu To Nig Kandi er K AN O ngola . Zaria Go Bunga ts G OM OMBBE M BAUCHI Kaduna Biu BENIN Kainji Kontagora Bauchi Reservoir KADUNA Gombe a ra dun 10°N Wawa NIGER Ka Bauchi 10°N Jos To Plateau da Bori Minna Jos Man e A nu P L AT E A U AW N ig ABUJA Be Yola Plat er NIGERIA K WA R A FEDERAL Shendam AM CAPITAL Jalingo eau Baro TERRITORY Ilorin AD Lafia A S AR AWA N AS Ta O OYO YO ab Benue r Ben a Bali Oshogbo EKI TI EK IT Lokoja Wukari Ado-Ekiti Makurdi TA R A B A KOGI . ts. Ibadan Akure BENUE M OSUN s Mt Abeokuta Chappal Waddi ONDO Udi Hills (2,419 m ) OGUN GGoo NIGERIA EDO thth ENUGU STATE EDUCATION To Enugu LAGOS ANA Lomé Lagos Benin City Abakaliki DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Asaba MBR Awka EBONYI A Sapete CAMEROON PROJECT STATES r Nige CROSS D E LTA Owerri Umuahia RIVER SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS Warri IMO ABIA STATE CAPITALS 5°N RIVERS Aba Uyo 5°N NATIONAL CAPITAL Yenogoa AKWA- Calabar To Port Gulf of Guinea BAYELSA Harcourt IBOM Doula RIVERS N ig er MAIN ROADS 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers Delta RAILROADS JANUARY 2007 IBRD 35281 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank 0 50 100 150 Miles STATE BOUNDARIES Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any Bioko I. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 5°E (EQ. GUINEA) 10°E