| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project/Programme |
| Project Name |
Accelerated Learning and Multi-grade Teaching Programmes |
| Duration |
2003-2006 |
| Donor |
United Nation Children's Fund (UNICEF) |
| Implementiong Organization |
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS) |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Education |
| Region |
Kompong Thom, Stung Treng, Kompong Speu, Prey Veng, Otdar Meanchey, Svay Rieng, Kampot, Takeo, Kandal and Kep |
| Financing |
N.I. |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Council for Administrative Reform (CAR), District Office of Education (DOE), District Training ad Monitoring Team (DTMT), Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS), Provincial Office of Education, Save the Children Norway |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
No environment issue mentioned in the evaluation report |
| Gender |
No gender issue mentioned in the evaluation report |
| Impact Analysis |
The Education Sector Support Program (ESSP) 2006-2010 includes a reference to lans for the development of the Child Friendly Schools (CFS) programme. Multi-grade Teaching (MGT) occurs briefly in the Child-Friendly School (CFS) Master Plan as does A/L. MGT is included in the Education For All (EFA) National Plan of Action (NPA) 2003 – 2015 and is linked to double-shifting in smaller schools. The EFA Mid Decade Assessment (MDA) refers to MGT as an effective strategy for addressing teacher shortages and incomplete schools in rural areas. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
While the recent Ministry Guideline had definitely thrown management into some disarray, ownership and alignment was clear from field visits, presentation and discussion of detailed programme records with POE, DOE and school staff. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
Policy Coherence and Harmonization have not mentioned in the evaluation report. |
| Rating |
N.A. |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The lack of a precise and widely understood objective for each programme makes them harder to evaluate. There is a need for an M&E framework. This is not yet in place, though as shown, data and monitoring are available, in rather fragmented form at various levels. National provincial and district data, at least for the A/L programme suggest positive progress results for MGT are more mixed and less easy to
determine.
Field visits confirmed the mismatch of demand with trained teachers. A more explicit strategy for retaining trained staff in schools where they can use their skills was discussed with POE staff in Otdar Meanchey and Stung Treng. Central Ministry data suggest that the training is not always being made best use of. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
Both programmes are quite well integrated with MoEYS policy and practice, though clearer policy goals and more explicit management objectives at local level would be welcome. Broad links to better student achievement is also needed to guide teachers and students, and to tell parents and education staff what students are learning for better sustainability. |
| Rating |
3/5 |
| Other Remarks |
|
