EFA CoORDINATORS’ Lessons from the MDA: a quick survey 10th Regional Meeting of National EFA Coordinators and Regional Launch of the 2009 EFA Global Monitoring Report Ko-Chih Tung

Why the quick survey? Document the lessons learnt from the experiences of the Mid-Decade Assessment. Lessons learned? Good practices? Difficulties and obstacles? Recommendations for the next rounds of EFA assessment (2010 and 2015)? 9 responses received before 4 May

Survey Response Received from W & S Asia SE Asia The Pacific Pakistan Cambodia Cook Islands Sri Lanka China Fiji Lao PDR Malaysia The Philippines 2 5

I. Five aspects of the MDA questioned Write Y for yes or N for no for each question and each Goal G1, G2 … G6  If you do not know the answer, write in a question mark (?) Shaded boxes= Not applicable, skip. You may explain your reply on additional pages. G1 ECCE G2 UPE/ UBE G3 Skills & LifeSkills G4 Literacy G5 Gender & Social Eq. G6 Quality & Learning 1. MDA Leadership ... 2. MDA advisory/supervision organization … 3. MDA process ... 4. Indicators and data analysis … 4. Report Writing ... 5. Impact ... A schedule design for optional periods of time/objectives.

MDA Leadership Were the policy-level stakeholders convened for consultation on the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the MDA? Y Were the Directors of the relevant departments consulted on the MDA TOR? Did the Minister and/or Secretary of Education authorize the assessment of the respective Goal-subsectors? Were there any problems engaging the leaders in the MDA process? If “yes”, explain: ...............................................................

MDA advisory/supervision organization Was a committee formed to advise and supervise the assessment of the respective Goal-subsector? Y Were senior officials of the Goal-subsector represented in the MDA advisory/supervisory committee? Were advocacy NGOs and CSOs of the respective Goal-subsector’s learner groups represented in the committee? eg. women’s organization. N Were donors contributing to the Goal-subsector programmes represented in the committee? if “yes”, specify: ............................................................ Y/N Were any UN agencies, such as UNESCO, assisting the Goal-subsector programmes represented in the committee? Did the committee discuss the draft and the final national MDA report? Was the advisory/supervisory committee adequate for guiding the MDA?

MDA process Was the MDA conducted mainly by consultant(s)? N Were special technical assessment teams formed to assess the respective Goal-subsector? Y Did the Goal-subsector staff engage in the assessment of its policies, programmes and courses? Did assessment specialists assist in the assessment of learning achievement of the Goal-subsector learners? Did curriculum/quality assurance specialists help to evaluate the quality of education provided by the Goal-subsector? Did statisticians contribute relevant indicators, tables and graphs for the assessment of the Goal-subsector? Y/N

MDA Process, cont’d Were the policymakers consulted in the analysis and the write-up of the conclusions and recommendations of the findings? Y Were researchers from education research faculty/ centre/institute involved in any assessment tasks? If “yes”, specify tasks: ………………………….................................................... Y/N Did any donors and agencies contribute to the assessment of the Goal-subsector programmes? if “yes”, specify organization and type of contribution: ............................................................................................................... Were national consultants hired to do any assessment tasks? If “yes”, specify tasks: .............................................................................. Were foreign consultants hired to do any assessment tasks? If “yes”, specify tasks: ................................................................................ Was the expertise-composition of the MDA technical teams adequate for conducting the MDA? If no, specify missing expertise: ................................................................. Was the performance of the MDA technical teams satisfactory for conducting the MDA?

Indicators and data analysis: no analysis of disparities Were the available data for the MDA core indicators adequate for assessment of the subsector Goals? N Were the tables and graphs broken down by Skills/Subjects (eg., reading, writing, arithmetic) for the assessment of Essential Skills and Life Skills training provided within the respective Goal-subsectors? … broken down by sex (Gender Parity Index) for the assessment of Gender Equality within the Goal-subsectors? Y/N ... broken down by language groups for quantifying and locating the Goal-subsector target groups? ...broken down by disadvantaged and marginalized groups? – exception: Nepal ... adequate for assessing progress toward achieving the Goals and targets for the respective learner groups? Were the available data on the quality of inputs, teaching and learning outcomes adequate for the assessment of Quality and learning achievement within the respective Goal-subsectors?

Report Writing Was the Goal-subsector represented in the overall editorial committee or group of report writers? Y Did the Goal-subsector assign its own author(s) of the Goal-subsector report? Did the Goal-subsector contribute its own written report to the overall national MDA report? Did the Goal-subsector have adequate expertise to write an analytical report on its policies, programmes and courses? Y/N Was the quality of the Goal-subsector report adequate for the MDA Report? Did the Goal-subsector examine and comment on the drafts of the National MDA Report?

Impact Was the Report … published? Y … distributed widely within the Government circle? ... distributed widely outside the Government circle? … and its recommendations presented in public? Y/N Did the MDA inspire internal initiatives within the Goal-subsector to improve/accelerate achieving EFA Goals? If yes, specify: ………..………………………

Impact, cont’d Did the MDA inspire the Government to announce any new initiatives and changes for the Goal-subsector? If yes, specify: ………….…………………………………… Y … new initiatives to include the disadvantaged and marginalized learner groups of the Goal-subsector? Did the national newspapers carry articles on the Goal-subsector’s progress based on the MDA Report? Y/N Were the MDA recommendations incorporated into the Minister’s public speech on Government initiatives to accelerate achieving Goal-subsector EFA Goal by 2015? Did the national TV and radio carry news on the Goal-subsector’s progress based on the MDA Report?

UNESCO/UIS Regional Support Was the regional orientation and training workshops useful for organizing the national MDA? If no, explain: Y … useful for coordination of the MDA process? … useful for the use of the EFA MDA core indicators? … useful for developing Goal-subsector statistical services? if no, explain: … useful for compiling the national MDA Report? … useful for formulating EFA policies, strategies, programmes?

II. Lessons Learnt and good-practice recommendations concerning the MDA Process Any lessons and recommendations that you can share with us concerning the following aspects? Have the MDA activities made any impact on the participants’ understanding and skills? and influenced/changed your Ministry’s and its subsector’s perspective, planning, policies, programmes and strategies for achieving the EFA Goals and Targets by 2015? Relative vocabulary list.

II. Lessons Learnt and good-practice, cont’d What problems and solutions (good-practices) did you and your staff experience with regard to ... Coordination of the entire process, capacity for Supervision, involving the Leadership, organizing the Advisory Committee’s function, involving EFA Partners? Recruitment of the necessary Expertise in the Technical Assessment Teams? MOE and subsector capacity for Monitoring, Evaluation and Assessment? EFA MDA Core Indicators and analysis of disparities? Capacity for data collection, analysis, dissemination and reporting?

II. Lessons Learnt and good-practice, cont’d Recommendations concerning the role of UNESCO/AIMS/UIS, UNICEF and other agencies to assist Member States? Any other aspects?

ASIA Pre-Primary Enrolment Gross enrolment ratio Net Enrolment Rate   Pre-Primary ASIA Enrolment Gross enrolment ratio Net Enrolment Rate Teaching Staff Trained Teacher Year 2007-2008 2008-2009 Country MF F M %MF %M %F Armenia 48015 24439 51 46 57 ... 5059 5044 Afghanistan Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Darussalam 11740 5761 50 49 44 43 45 555 537 Cambodia 130458 65687 13 14 12 4736 4516 China Democratic People's Republic of Korea Georgia 77922 39921 53 62 41 39 7259 Hong Kong (China), SAR 140783 67729 10384 10298 96 71 India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of 561399 288130 54 31702 23303 74 78 72 Japan Kazakhstan 330897 159912 38 37 31087 30763 Kyrgyzstan 62435 31178 16 15 2462 2435 42 Lao People's Democratic Republic Macao, China 9301 4549 85 80 79 81 477 475 98 100 Malaysia Maldives Mongolia 94702 47840 52 55 48 3262 3255 92 86 Myanmar Nepal 553983 264890 Pakistan Philippines Republic of Korea Singapore Sri Lanka Tajikistan 61236 28374 9 10 7 6 4847 82 - Thailand 2511039 1230840 94 93 99086 77364 Timor-Leste Turkmenistan Uzbekistan 562218 267361 27 26 60642 57621 Viet Nam

PACIFIC Pre-Primary Data Enrolment Gross enrolment ratio Net Enrolment Rate Teaching Staff Trained Teacher Year 2007-2008 2008-2009 Country MF F M %MF %M %F Cook Islands ... Fiji Marshall Islands Micronesia (Federated States of) Niue Palau Samoa 4978 2498 48 46 50 30 29 Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

Primary Year Country ASIA Gross Intake Ratio Net Intake Rate   Primary Gross Intake Ratio Net Intake Rate Gross Enrolment Ratio Net Enrolment Rate Year 2007-2008 2008-2009 Country MF M F Armenia ... Afghanistan Azerbaijan 99 73 74 71 97 86 87 85 Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Darussalam 98 106 105 93 Cambodia 137 141 132 84 124 115 89 91 China Democratic People's Republic of Korea Georgia 109 103 88 100 94 95 92 Hong Kong (China), SAR 59 61 57 India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of 108 96 Japan Kazakhstan 110 117 55 53 90 Kyrgyzstan 60 58 Lao People's Democratic Republic Macao, China 81 82 79 112 Malaysia Maldives Mongolia 125 126 80 78 101 Myanmar Nepal 145 136 127 76 Pakistan 118 83 Philippines Republic of Korea Singapore Sri Lanka Tajikistan 104 102 Thailand 77 Timor-Leste 113 111 39 40 63 64 62 Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Viet Nam

Primary PAC IFIC Cook Islands Fiji Marshall Islands   Primary  PAC IFIC Gross Intake Ratio Net Intake Rate Gross Enrolment Ratio Net Enrolment Rate Year 2007-2008 2008-2009 Country MF M F Cook Islands ... Fiji 96 93 87 86 Marshall Islands Micronesia (Federated States of) 109 110 Niue Palau Samoa 95 88 Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

ASIA Education Finance Year Country   Education Finance ASIA Pubilc expenditure per student as a % of GDP per capita Tot Pub Expendi Edcuation Year 2007-2008 As a % of GDP As a % of t govt exp Country Primary Secondary Tertiary Armenia ... Afghanistan Azerbaijan 11 3 Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Darussalam Cambodia 8 2 12 China Democratic People's Republic of Korea Georgia Hong Kong (China), SAR 13 17 47 4 23 India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of 15 22 28 5 20 Japan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Macao, China Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Philippines Republic of Korea Singapore Sri Lanka Tajikistan 18 Thailand Timor-Leste Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Viet Nam

Micronesia (Federated States of) Niue Palau Samoa Solomon Islands  PACIFIC Education Finance Data Pubilc expenditure per student as a % of GDP per capita Total Public Expenditure on Edcuation Year 2007-2008 As a % of GDP As a % of total gov exp Country Primary Secondary Tertiary Cook Islands ... Fiji Marshall Islands Micronesia (Federated States of) Niue Palau Samoa Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu