Village Education DevelopmentCommittees in Lao PDR:Their functionality and impact

by Amanda Seel, Nic I’Anson andSoukkasem Lomathmanyvong

March 2015

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations......................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ v

1. Background, Rationale and Approach ......................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background and Rationale .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Core Research Questions (CRQs) ..................................................................................................... 4

2. Methodology ..........................................................................................................6 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Sampling Frame ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Relevant Informant Groups ............................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Tool Development............................................................................................................................ 8 2.5 Data Collection/ Field Work Method ............................................................................................... 8 2.6 Selection and Training of Research Teams ...................................................................................... 8 2.7 Analytical Framework ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.8 Limitations and Mitigations............................................................................................................. 9

3. VEDC Functionality ................................................................................................ 11 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2. Establishment of VEDCs ................................................................................................................ 11 3.3 Membership, Composition and Role Delineation .......................................................................... 12 3.4 Inclusiveness of VEDCs ................................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Meetings and Internal Communications ...................................................................................... 15 3.6 Selection and Turnover of VEDC Members .................................................................................... 16 3.7 Horizontal Linkages of VEDCs to other Village-Level Bodies ......................................................... 17 3.8 Vertical Linkages of VEDCs to DESBs and DEDCs ........................................................................... 17 3.9 Effects of the 3-Build Policy on VEDCs ........................................................................................... 18 3.10 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 19

4. VEDCs’ Roles in School and Village Educational Development ................................ 20 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2 The Establishment of SDP in Schools and Districts ........................................................................ 20 4.3. The Involvement of VEDCs in the SDP Cycle ................................................................................. 21 4.4 Wider Community Participation in School Development ............................................................... 23 4.5 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................... 24

5. VEDCs’ Support to Equitable Access and Inclusion ................................................. 26 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 26 5.2 VEDC Impact on Access and Inclusion ........................................................................................... 26 5.3 Data Collection on Children and Households ................................................................................. 27 5.4 Strategies to Support Access and Inclusion ................................................................................... 28 5.5 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................... 29

6. VEDCs’ Support to Teaching/ Quality ..................................................................... 30 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 30 6.2 VEDC Impact on the Quality of Teaching and Learning ................................................................. 30 6.3. Strategies to Improve Teaching and Learning .............................................................................. 31 6.4 Monitoring of and Support to Teachers ........................................................................................ 31

ii

6.5 Support to Linking Home and School Cultures ............................................................................... 32 6.6 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................... 33

7. VEDC Capacity Development ................................................................................. 33 7.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 33 7.2 Constraint and Priorities ................................................................................................................ 34 7.3. VEDC Training ............................................................................................................................... 34 7.4 DESB Support Visits to VEDCs ........................................................................................................ 37 7.5 Self-learning and Support Materials and Other Capacity Development Approaches .................... 39 7.6 Finance and Incentives .................................................................................................................. 40 7.7 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................... 40

8. Conclusion and Lessons Learned ............................................................................ 41

9. Recommendations ................................................................................................ 44 9.1 Functionality .................................................................................................................................. 44 9.2 VEDC Support Access, Quality and Management .......................................................................... 46 9.3 VEDC Capacity Development ......................................................................................................... 47 9.4 DESBs (and PESS) as Trainers, Supporters and Planners ............................................................... 48 9.5 An Enabling Policy, Institutional and Resource Environment for VEDCs ....................................... 49

List of References ........................................................................................................... I

iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

3-B 3-Build Policy BEQUAL Basic Education Quality and Access in Lao PDR CIED (1&2) Community Initiatives for Educational Development (Japan) CRQ Core Research Question DEDC District Education Development Committee DESB District Education and Sports Bureau DNFE Department of Non-formal Education DOF Department of Finance (of MoES) DOI Department of Inspection DOP Department of Planning DPPE Department of Pre-and Primary Education DPs Development Partners ECE Early Childhood Education EFA Education For All EFA-FTI Education For All- Fast Track Initiative (now GPE) EMIS Education Management Information System EQS Education Quality Standard(s) ESDF Education Sector Development Framework ESDP Education Sector Development Plan ESQAC Education Standards and Quality Assurance Centre ESRC Education and Sports Research Centre ESWG Education Sector Working Group EU European Union FTI See EFA-FTI GER Gross Enrolment Rate GoL Government of Lao PDR GPE Global Partnership for Education (formerly FTI – Fast Track Initiative) HRD Human Resource Development ICT Information Communication Technology IEC Inclusive Education Centre INGO International Non Governmental Organisation JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JSRM Joint Sector Review Mission Lao PDR Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic LWU Lao Women’s Union M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MOES Ministry of Education and Sports MOF Ministry of Finance MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs MTR Mid Term Review NER Net Enrolment Rate NFE Non-Formal Education NGOs Non Government Organisations OOSC Out of school children PA Pedagogical Advisor PDR People’s Democratic Republic PESS Provincial Education and Sports Service PI Plan International

iv

RIES Research Institute for Educational Sciences SBG School Block Grant SBM School Based Management SDP School Development Planning/ Plan SoQ Schools of Quality (predecessor to EQS) SWG Sector Working Group TA Technical Assistance ToR Terms of Reference UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UPE Universal Primary Education VC Village Chief VEDC Village Education Development Committee VEDP Village Education Development Plan VFSC Village Front for Safeguarding and Construction WB World Bank WFP World Food Programme

v

Executive Summary

This study explores a critical element of delivery of quality education in Lao PDR: the Village Education Development Committee (VEDC). The overall aim of the study is to contribute to lasting improvements in the capacity, functioning, effectiveness and inclusiveness of VEDCs over the short to medium term. The study was commissioned by the Education and Sports Research Committee (ESRC) of the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES), in partnership with Plan International, UNICEF, Child Fund and World Vision. It was designed and led by three external consultants: Amanda Seel, Nic I’Anson and Soukkasem Lomathmanyvong, under the management of Plan International. The study was based on intensive fieldwork in two districts each of Bokeo, Phongsaly, Xieng Khouang and Saravan Provinces. This was supported by eight MOES staff members and 32 teachers and students of three teacher education colleges. The study was overseen by a Research Committee of ESRC, MOES and the study funders, with wider consultation through the mechanism of the MOES Focal Group 4 (Research).

The purpose of the study was to produce an evidence-base on VEDCs to support the development of relevant areas of VEDC policy, guidance and training, towards lasting improvements in their capacity, functioning, effectiveness and inclusiveness. Specific objectives were to: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of VEDCs and their contribution towards achieving the Education Quality Standards (EQS) at school level; (2) Assess the level of diversity within the VEDC representative structure, with a particular emphasis on the inclusion of women and marginalised groups; and (3) Assess the efficiency and sustainability of VEDC capacity-building approaches currently being implemented in the country. Evidence was primarily from first-hand quantitative and qualitative research with six identified main VEDC stakeholder groups at the village and school levels. The teacher trainers and trainee teachers were the surveyors for the fieldwork whilst the MOES team members worked as enumerators: both received intensive training following a period of tools development and piloting. Field-level research was supported by more in-depth qualitative interviewing at the district, provincial and central levels, complemented by systematic review of relevant secondary sources (reports, documents, data bases etc.).

The research found much that is encouraging as well as concrete areas for improvement. The ‘basics’ of VEDCs are largely in place, but there is more work to be done to ensure their optimal functioning. VEDCs have been established in villages, are adding greater weight to the previously-existing parents’ associations and are perceived as becoming increasingly effective in supporting enrolment, improving infrastructure and making various kinds of contribution to school development. They generally have the ‘right’ members overall, but these are not necessarily in the ‘right’ roles. VEDCs in larger or multi-ethnic villages are often not availing themselves of the existing provision to extend beyond seven members. The ‘status-based’ VEDC structure promotes their authoritative agency but not necessarily their inclusivity or continuity. There are also challenges in ensuring that all members are committed to and capacitated for their roles. Most VEDCs meet fairly regularly, but not on the monthly basis recommended in official guidance. VEDCs have a clear link with DESBs, via the schools directors. DEDCs are more functional and purposeful in some districts than others. In the best examples they were supporting a range of cross-sectoral initiatives to address demand-side barriers to education. However, the various roles of DEDCs and their linkages with DESBs and VEDCs are not yet fully clear or well- established.

The basic idea of developing and implementing SDP is gradually taking root. VEDCs are playing some role in most aspects of making SDP in many schools. In particular, VEDCs seem to be active in problem analysis, identifying priority needs and simple strategies to address these needs. However, there is still some way to go before all schools and VEDCs are preparing and implementing an effective SDP and maximising the participation of the whole school (including teachers and pupils) and the wider community. Some schools have started to use the system of

vi

EQS scoring. Whilst provinces and districts have some basic understanding of EQS, even at this level some find the scoring system quite complicated and this is very much more the case at the school/ community level, especially in smaller schools in disadvantaged areas and in multilingual communities. VEDCs strongest role in SBM seems to be in engendering greater community participation, where they appear to have had a strong impact. Communities are making a range of contributions to a range of important aspects of school development. However, in common with neighbouring countries, there are some limitations on the roles that community members- especially the more disadvantaged- are at present able to play in terms of the decision-making and accountability aspects of school management.

VEDCs are seen by all levels of stakeholder to be extremely successful at improving enrolment and subsequent attendance, whilst reducing dropout. They mostly use at least some of the recommended strategies of data collection, including registers and EMIS data, as well as ‘local knowledge’. However, some schools do not use all the tools available, specifically village mapping, and do not always identify all ‘categories’ of out-of-school children, particularly orphans and children with disability. Based on the data that they do collect, as well as information from school directors and teachers, VEDCs implement a range of strategies to address the issues, in particular making visits to children’s homes and finding ways to encourage and support struggling families. Additionally, many VEDCs are involved in the management of a range of initiatives designed to address the ‘demand’ side barriers to education that are relevant to their particular community.

It seems to be widely understood that VEDCs have the potential to support improvements in teaching and learning, and some examples were found in practice of all the areas specified in the handbook. The monitoring of teacher attendance in particular seems to have been taken up as a responsibility of the VEDC, which (provided it is in tandem with improvement in pupil attendance) has the potential to greatly increase ‘time on task’, with a direct positive link to learning outcomes. VEDCs not only ‘monitor’ in the sense of checking and applying sanctions to poorly-attending teachers, but also take positive, supportive action to encourage teachers to take up posts and then remain in them, through the provision of accommodation, food and friendship. Most VEDCs also seem to be trying to support teachers directly in the classroom, however here they face challenges of knowing ‘what to look for’ and how to give effective support.

Significant progress has been made in building VEDC capacity through training and ongoing support and there is a marked difference between trained and untrained VEDCs. Trainers and trainees alike see the benefits of practical, hands-on and participatory approaches to training. The various handbooks are seen as useful, but need to be more widely available and in some cases could helpfully be simplified, as well as supplemented by visual and audio-visual methods and greater opportunities for struggling VEDCs to learn from stronger ones. Regular, tailored, DESB support is the foundation of building and sustaining VEDC capacity, highlighting the urgency of addressing the lack of funding for regular school monitoring and support, as well as consideration of a ‘whole school’ approach that ensures that DESB support to VEDCs is understood as reinforcing that given to teachers in the classroom, rather than detracting from it.

The report makes the following sixteen recommendations:

1. Further clarify the existing stipulation that a VEDC should have at least 7 members but may have up to 15.

2. Further clarify who should be the core members of the VEDC, whilst also allowing for some flexibility in dividing detailed tasks according to the context.

3. Implement measures to support the increased participation of women in VEDCS and learn from good practice in projects in tailor approaches to included marginalised groups and establishing a means for the students voice to be heard.

vii

4. Encourage that selection and election of non-status based positions on VEDCs (teachers, additional community members and parents) takes place at a different time from the changeover in village leadership and clarify that it is the responsibility of the School Director, with the support of existing and out-going VEDC members, to give orientation to new members.

5. Clarify the roles, membership and functions of DEDCs and incorporate these into a set of clear Guidelines.

6. Strengthen the systems of SBM to facilitate and maximise VEDC involvement.

7. Further enhance VEDCs’ contribution to supporting enrolment, equity and inclusion by establishing village maps as a strategy to reach out to ALL children, clarify the roles and responsibilities of VEDCs regarding ECD and build all VEDCs ‘awareness of the benefits both of pre-primary education and all forms of early childhood development support.

8. Improve VEDC effectiveness in supporting teaching and learning by establishing the monitoring of both teacher and pupil attendance as a strategy for ALL schools and make explicit the role of the VEDC in monitoring teachers’ management and discipline of children.

9. Ensure sufficient financial and human resources to enable all Districts to reach all VEDCs (including school directors) that currently lack basic capacity, with at least a basic training on core purpose, roles and responsibilities of VEDCs.

10. Consider a range of factors in further development and roll-out of VEDC training: a national training plan dividing existing training content into discrete modules which allows for a flexible roll out and a staged approach to capacity development; development of content in specified areas; increased emphasis on on–the-job, participatory and school- or cluster-based training; further measures to support VEDC members who do not speak Lao.

11. Prioritise untrained school directors for basic school management training and further incorporate within such trainings basic skills in support and orientation of VEDC members, VEDC operations, record-keeping and accounts etc.

12. Disseminate the VEDC Handbook and two volumes of SD Handbooks to ALL schools, updating to new versions as these become available and develop a simplified version of the VEDC handbook targeted to VEDC members with limited education/literacy skills, focused on core practical skills and understanding.

13. Strengthen the focus on the development of cross-departmental teams within DESBs with the capacity to support and monitor all aspects of VEDCs' work; ensure that all PESS and DESBs have full access to the full set of current and future relevant manuals and develop/adapt further supplementary visual and audio-visual materials.

14. Ensure further dissemination and awareness–raising around VEDCs.

15. In order to optimise the potential benefits of planned support through GPE-2, BEQUAL and other programmes, make every effort to address the current lack of recurrent funding for DESBs to carry out their core functions in relation to school support and monitoring (and VEDC support as integral to this) and consider a more flexible allocation of pedagogy advisers (PAs) to take account of the size of districts (in terms of the number and level of accessibility of schools).

16. In light of the process of decentralisation, consider how to further establish and institutionalise mechanisms by which VEDCs and primary stakeholders of education have ongoing opportunity to express their views and provide a ‘reality check’ on policy and programme implementation at the grassroots.

1

1. Background, Rationale and Approach

1.1 Introduction

This study explores a critical element of delivery of quality education in Lao PDR: the Village Education Development Committee (VEDC). The overall aim of the study is to contribute to lasting improvements in the capacity, functioning, effectiveness and inclusiveness of VEDCs over the short to medium term. The ToR for the study are attached as Annex A.

The study was commissioned by the Education and Sports Research Committee (ESRC) of the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES), in partnership with Plan International, UNICEF, Child Fund and World Vision. It was designed and led by three external consultants: Amanda Seel, Nic I’Anson and Soukkasem Lomathmanyvong, under the management of Plan International. Alongside the commissioners of the research; the wider education sector from central to village levels, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) and the education Development Partners (DPs) are the main target audiences for the study.

The study was based on intensive fieldwork in two districts each of Bokeo, Phongsaly, Xieng Khouang and Saravan Provinces. This was supported by eight MOES staff members and 32 teachers and students of three teacher education colleges. The study was overseen by a Research Committee of ESRC, MOES and the study funders, with wider consultation through the mechanism of the MOES Focal Group 4 (Research). The full list of the research committee members, consultants and field researchers is given as Annex B and list of research participants as Annex C.

The research start-up commenced with a meeting of the research team with the ESRC-led Research Committee on 13th October 2014. Following a period of preliminary consultation and planning, the draft design was presented to Focal Group 4 on 28th October 2014. This was followed by piloting and further revision of the tools and, in mid-November, the training of the field researchers. Data collection in districts and villages, followed by initial data analysis, took place over a three-week period from 23rd November to 5th December 2014. Subsequent report-writing, including rounds of consultation and feedback, took place from December 2014 to February 2015. The overall timetable for the research is given in Annex D.

Chapter 1 of this report gives the background, rationale of overall approach of the study. Chapter 2 outlines in more detail the methodology and process for the fieldwork. Chapters 3 to 7 report findings for each of the five overarching research themes. Chapter 8 draws conclusions and identifies lessons learned. Chapter 9 presents the recommendations of the research.

1.2 Background and Rationale

The education system in Lao PDR is undergoing a process of decentralisation, with the aim of ensuring local- and community-level involvement and thus helping to achieve national goals of universal access to- and completion of- basic education, of sufficient quality to result in tangible learning outcomes. Under the evolving decentralising system, the MOES sets overall policy and provides oversight, the offices of the Provincial Education and Sports Service (PESS) take overall responsibility for education development within their jurisdiction and the District Education and Sports Bureaus (DESB) are responsible for the direct provision of early childhood education, primary and lower secondary services, including technical support. To support the decentralisation process, a 2008 Ministerial Decree1 made provision for the establishment of Village Education Development Committees (VEDCs) and District Education Development Committees (DEDCs), under

1 MOES Decree No-2300/MOES.DP/08, dated 3 September 2008. This decree was based on the ‘Approval and Promulgation of the Education Development Lessons Learned in Feuang and Xanakham districts, Vientiane Province’.

2

the guidance of PESS and DESB. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) is responsible through their District Governor’s Offices for the establishment and functioning of VEDCs and DEDCs.

VEDCs are stipulated to be composed of at least seven individuals, including the village head (serving as chairperson), representatives from the Women’s and Youth Union and the School Director. The VEDC should serve as the statutory body responsible for overseeing the educational development of all children (of all ages) in villages. The VEDC structure incorporates the head of the long-established Parents’ Associations (‘Samakhom pho-me nak-hiane’), but was intended to give greater authority and status to community-level education management. The role of VEDCs (summarised in the Decree and further expounded in the VEDC Handbook 2013) is described as promoting enrolment and completion, as well as supporting school management and learning achievement; through liaison with the wider community, providing cash and in-kind support and participating in school activities.

DEDCs are stipulated in the Decree to comprise 17 members, of which one member at a minimum should represent a mass organisation, such as the Lao Women’s Union (LWU). The role of the DEDC is to supervise and guide planning of the District Education Development Plan; monitor emerging problems in the education sector and provide solutions for these; support the VEDCs to engage with the community and encourage community participation (through the provision of labour and resources) and to provide opportunities for underprivileged students to enroll in schools.

The Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP) 2009-2015 sets out a formal role for VEDCs in the implementation of the school block grant (SBG) scheme. Roles for VEDCs are also being clarified as a part of an ongoing process of development of Education Quality Standards (EQS) and a national framework for School Based Management (SBM).

Various DPs have worked with the MOES to support the development of VEDC capacity, in conjunction with the implementation of SDP, SBG and SBM initiatives. Around 1,200 VEDCs in 56 of the most educationally-disadvantaged districts have been trained over the past four years under FTI-1. From 2015, the GPE-22 will seek to bring all schools in the country up to a basic level of functionality to make effective use of SBG, through design and implementation of SDP. The funders of the research, JICA’s Community Initiatives for Education Development (CIED) programme and a number of other agencies/programmes are closely involved in supporting government roll-out of SBM and VEDC training. Plan International, for example, trained over 145 VEDCs involving 878 village authorities in three districts of Bokeo Province between 2009 and 2013. The incipient large scale Basic Education Quality and Access in Lao PDR (BEQUAL) programme of the Government of Australia will also support the development of SBM in 1,000 targeted disadvantaged schools across 65 disadvantaged districts3.

The mid-term review of the ESDP conducted in 2013, noted that VEDC, DEDC and DESB have received insufficient investment to effectively fulfill their mandated roles. The report on Basic Education notes that ‘the effectiveness of VEDCs seems to rest on a range of factors, including the capacity and education levels of its members, as well as the geographic and cultural cohesiveness of the village. Whilst there is some evidence of the impact of strengthened VEDCs on community awareness of girls’ education and increased support to schools and teachers, there continue to be significant challenges in ensuring regular and meaningful community participation, especially with regards to more disadvantaged community members’. The MTR recommended further capacity-building of VEDCs and DEDCs and- to support this process- that evidence be gathered on the

2 Education for All Fast Track Initiative (FTI) became the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) in 2010. 3 An additional nine districts have been added to the 56 originally identified, in response to an updated analysis of indicators of socio-economic and educational disadvantage.

3

extent to which VEDC training has resulted in increased community participation and engagement. Since the undertaking of the MTR, it has also been decided to revise the Education Law. It is currently being explored how to cover VEDCs, given that they sit outside of the education sector.

All of these developments create a clear rationale for undertaking research into VEDCs at this juncture. By supporting the MOES in the implementation of the MTR recommendation, the research has the potential to help to inform the design and development of the new ESDP for 2016-2020, as well as feeding into discussions on revision of relevant policy and legislation and the development of the various DP-supported programmes. Equally important is to provide an improved evidence-base on VEDCs that will enable strengthened practical approaches to their capacity development, training, support and monitoring, within a cohesive overall framework. In summary, the all-round strengthening of VEDCs in the context of decentralisation has the potential to make an important contribution to accelerating achievement of the priority education and poverty-reduction goals of Lao PDR.

1.3 Purpose and Objectives

Based on the ToR, the purpose and objectives of the study were clarified at the inception period, as given in Figure 1.

1.4 Research Approach

1.4.1 Overall approach

An approach was identified for the study that would ensure sufficient rigour to generate valid findings, whilst being manageable within various parameters of budget, available capacity and time-frame. It was agreed that an appropriate approach would be to gather evidence primarily from first-hand quantitative and qualitative research with the main VEDC stakeholders at the village, school and district levels. This would be supported by more in-depth qualitative interviewing at the provincial and central levels, complemented by systematic review of relevant secondary sources (reports, documents, data bases etc.).

Figure 1: Research purpose and objectives Purpose: to produce an evidence base on VEDCs to support the development of relevant areas of VEDC policy, guidance and training, towards lasting improvements in their capacity, functioning, effectiveness and inclusiveness. Specific objectives:

1. Evaluate the effectiveness of VEDCs and their contribution towards achieving the Education Quality Standards (EQS) at school level;

2. Assess the level of diversity within the VEDC representative structure, with a particular emphasis on the inclusion of women and marginalised groups;

3. Assess the efficiency and sustainability of VEDC capacity-building approaches currently being implemented in the country;

and, on the basis of these…

Generate lessons and provide recommendations to inform and support the revision of existing VEDC guidelines and the design of upcoming programs under the new ESDP umbrella that will work in the area of school-community partnerships/ VEDCs and school-based management.

4

1.4.2 Research principles

At the outset of the research, the research team and stakeholders agreed a set of professional and ethnical principles to guide the implementation of the research. These relate to internationally- recognised standards in implementing participatory research, as well as to the ethical guidelines of the implementing agencies. These are summarised in Figure 2.

1.4.3 Document review

To inform the detailed research design, the consultants reviewed the main legislative, policy and national planning documents pertaining to DEDCs and VEDCs. Key among these were the 2008 directive on VEDCs and the elaboration of this directive in the VEDC Handbook 2013, the ESDP, drafts of the Education Law and various documents and presentations linked to the current development of the SBM framework. Also important were the existing studies and reports that contain references to VEDCs, notably ‘School Based Management in Lao PDR, Current Condition and Recommendations for the Future (RAND, 2013) and EFA-FTI Programme Evaluation: An End-Of Project Update on Implementation of the Five Quality Sub-Components (WB/GPE, August 2014), as well as the reports of the JICA-supported CIED programme and a review of Plan’s Basic Education Programme. Additionally, the team reviewed a number of reports and studies on school/village development or management committees (or similar) from other countries of Southeast and South Asia. The full list of references for the study is attached at the end of this report.

1.5 Core Research Questions (CRQs)

To ensure a coherent approach to these various elements of the research, a critical first step was to elaborate the broad research objectives into more specific Core Research Questions (CRQs), taking account of both the aims of the study in the current context and of issues related to VEDCs flagged in existing studies and reports. The 27 CRQs identified, clustered under five thematic headings, provided a clear focus to all of the evidence-gathering activities of the research. They supported the identification of study informants and acted as the ‘master-template’ for the field research tools (described further in Chapter 2) and for the subsequent analysis and presentation of findings. The full list of the 27 CRQs is provided in Annex E. The table in Figure 3 summarises the

Figure 2: Research principles Ethics

Upholding ethical standards of qualitative research, including child protection measures, transparent communication of purpose, voluntary nature of participation.

Local ownership

Ensuring full involvement of MOES and other stakeholders from the design stage.

Building on what is already known (from those working in the field, existing reports and studies).

Openness to learning both from successes/ strengths and from weaknesses/ challenges.

Inclusion and participation

Prioritising researching the perspectives of the direct (primary) stakeholders of VEDCs, namely VEDC members themselves and other at the school and community levels.

Measures to support the participation of women, marginalised community members, children and others with less power in the research situation.

Development of research capacity

Working with research committee and teams so as to support general development of national research capacity, as well as professional development opportunities for the individuals involved.

5

five thematic CRQ areas and shows their relationship to the research objectives, the three ‘pillars’ of the ESDP and the six ‘domains’ of the EQS.

Figure 3: The Core Research Questions and their relationship to the research objectives, ESDP and EQS

Five CRQ themes Research objective ESDP EQS domains4

1: VEDC functionality: 9 different CRQs explore VEDCs as ‘institutions’- their membership, roles, internal workings, linkages etc.

5

1. Evaluate the effectiveness of VEDCs and their contribution towards achieving the EQS at school level. (As this was very broad, it was broken down into the 4 respective CRQ areas). 2. Assess the level of diversity within the VEDC representative structure, with a particular emphasis on the inclusion of women and marginalised groups (a sub-section of CRQ1)

6.

Pillar 3: Management and Governance

5. Management and Administration 6. Community Participation

2: VEDC contribution to school management: 3 CRQs explore the role of VEDCs in supporting SDP and mobilising community support and contributions

3. VEDC contribution to access and equity/ inclusion: 4 CRQs explore the roles of VEDCs in data collection, encouraging enrolment/retention and implementing specific programmes (NFE/ ECE) that support access and inclusion

Pillar 1: Access and Equity

1. The Learners

4: VEDC contribution to quality and learning. 3 CRQs explore VEDC contribution to improving teaching, the learning environment and linking home and school cultures.

Pillar 2: Quality

2. Teaching-Learning 3. The School Environment 4. Teaching-Learning Materials

5. VEDC capacity development. 8 CRQs include VEDC training, in-school support to VEDCs and other approaches to building and sustaining capacity (e.g. incentives, manuals, support materials).

3. Assess the efficiency and sustainability of VEDC capacity-building approaches currently being implemented in the country.

Pillar 3: Management and Governance

5. Management and Administration 6. Community Participation

Having summarised here the rationale and overall approach to the study, Chapter 2 proceeds to a more detailed description of the methodology.

4 It is noted that the EQS domains do not show an exact fit with the Pillars of the ESDP. 5 Whilst use of a formal institutional analysis model was not appropriate for the relatively simple- and also unique- context of VEDCs in Lao PDR, the areas explored under CRQ1 are similar to the McKinsey ‘7S’ model, which identifies essential elements of an organisation to include staff, skills, shared values, systems, strategy, style and structures 6 It was decided that this most logically fits under CRQ heading 1 (functionality), alongside other questions on VEDC membership, composition and roles. However, to ensure that this area was given the level of importance that is implied in the ToR, inclusivity was defined as a discrete CRQ (1.5), to be explored in detail at the district, provincial and central levels. Analysis of the results of this objective/ CRQ is also afforded a discrete section of the report (section 3.4).

6

2. Methodology

2.1 Introduction

This chapter summarises the methodology used for the collection and analysis of first-hand qualitative and quantitative data to address the Core Research Questions. The approach taken aimed to generate:

Quantitative data on the key metrics of a reasonably representative sample of VEDCs;

Quantifiable data on the opinions, experiences and perceptions of a reasonably representative sample of direct and indirect stakeholders of VEDCs; and

Qualitative data (in the form of quotes, cameos, mini-case studies) to illustrate and further illuminate various points and to triangulate the quantitative findings.

2.2 Sampling Frame

2.2.1 Purpose of sampling

The four provinces Bokeo, Phongsaly, Xieng Khouang and Saravan were pre-selected for the research at the outset. These were identified to give a spread of northern, central and southern provinces, with, however, a deliberate bias towards poorer provinces in which development efforts are particularly concentrated. The choice of Bokeo, Xieng Khouang and Saravan was also influenced by the location of the programmes of the initial funders of the research in these areas, in order to ensure effective logistical support, as well as increase the likelihood of the research feeding back into practice. Additionally, Phongsaly was specifically identified by MOES in order to include a further disadvantaged Province that has not been supported by the research funding partners.

The sampling frame was developed to identify, within the four selected provinces, a sample of VEDCs from which it would be possible to obtain data to address the CRQs. This sample needed to be as representative as possible of the various different contexts of VEDCs in those provinces, in terms of the situation of the village (poverty level, ethnic groups, geographic location), the nature of the school (complete/incomplete, large/small, project supported/not supported etc.) and the nature of the district (size, location, degree of programme support).

At the same time, however, the number and locations of schools needed to be manageable within the limited timeframe, human capacity and budget for the research. To achieve the best result within these constraints, a two-stage, criterion-based purposeful selection was identified as the most appropriate, as summarised below. 2.2.2 Selection of districts

Eight districts (two from each province) were identified. Whilst a larger number of districts was considered, it was concluded that two per province would give acceptable diversity, whilst ensuring that not too much time was consumed merely in travel to and between locations. The main criteria for selection were to include a balance of educationally advantaged/disadvantaged (this was identified according to inclusion-or not- in FTI-1, which also provided the possibility of exploring the benefits to VEDCs of inclusion in FTI-1 training), more-remote and less-remote districts and also to include at least one district supported by each of the initial research funders. Given that the 3-Build (Sam Sang) Policy, announced in 2012, is an essential building block in strengthening decentralisation, 3-B districts were also included, but without over-riding other criteria. It is noted that given that the districts were selected from more disadvantaged provinces,

7

even the ‘better off’ districts selected for the study are probably only ‘average’ for Lao PDR as a whole. Information on the selected districts is given in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Characteristics of the selected districts

Province District 3-B Educationally

Disadvantaged Remoteness-

more/less Significant agency/

project support

Bokeo Pha Oudom Yes Yes More FTI-1, Plan

Ton Pheung - - -

Phongsaly Boun Neua Yes - -

Khoua - Yes More -

Saravan Lao Ngam Yes Yes JICA (CIED-1)

Ta Oy Yes Yes More FTI-1, UNICEF

Xieng Khouang

Khoun - Yes FTI-1

Nonghet - - More Child Fund

Total 8 4 5 4

2.2.3 Selection of schools

Ten schools per District were selected against the following criteria:

3 urban, 6 rural on-road, and 1 rural off-road schools, with a range of school sizes

9 complete schools and 1 incomplete school

a representative selection of the main ethnic groups in that district

a mix of schools receiving varying levels of support from programmes or projects Annex F provides a table for each district listing the selected schools against these criteria.

Whilst efforts were made to give a good range of schools and VEDCs, the sample could not be fully representative, or include the full range of situations. For logistical reasons, only one off-road school per district (8 in the total sample) could be included and in each case the off-road schools were the same as the incomplete schools. This does not fully reflect the real situation of around 30% of schools nationally being incomplete and a similar percentage being off road. Given that the interviewing was to focus on VEDCs, it might be that schools known to have problems with their VEDC were excluded from the selection. Moreover, it was not possible to include VEDCs in villages that do not have primary schools but do, for example, manage ECE or NFE programmes.

2.3 Relevant Informant Groups

Specific groups of stakeholders were identified that have had close involvement with VEDCs in various capacities and therefore were appropriate ‘informant groups’ to collectively answer the CRQs. These included representatives of all levels from central government officials (MOES, MOHA) and DPs, through PESS and DESB/DEDCs, to the school and community level. The school/ community level is clearly the most critical for exploring the operation of VEDCs, accounting for six of the eight groups identified. Within the Teacher, Villager and Children’s groups, informants were selected as far as possible to be gender-balanced and representative of local ethnic groups, with a group size of from 4-8 participants (though fewer in smaller schools or due to availability factors).

Figure 5: Informant groups and Tools

Informant Group Type T1 Development Partners,

MoES and PESS Written questionnaire/ structured interview

T2 DESB and DEDC Structured interview T3 School Directors Structured interview T4 Teachers Structured group interview T5 Children Participatory research activity T6 Village Chiefs Structured interview T7 VEDC members Structured group interview T8 Villagers Structured group interview

8

2.4 Tool Development

A research tool was developed for each of the informant groups, as shown in Figure 5. The questions for each tool were derived from and numbered according to the CRQs, allowing for triangulation of responses whilst still adapting questions for specific respondent groups. In order to reduce challenges of inter-rater reliability, as well as to enable quantification, many questions required the informants to give a yes/no answer, select from a range of options, or to identify a limited number of priorities (‘top 3’). However, there were also opportunities for elaboration and explanation of responses and space was made for the recording of additional qualitative information. The participatory children’s tool was designed to help children to bring additional insights into parental and pupil participation in aspects of school life and triangulation of responses regarding teachers’ attendance and classroom management, in a way that would be meaningful and enjoyable for them. The tools were tested in a primary school in Sangthong District before further modification. The matrix in Annex G provides a summary of the questions included in each tool.

2.5 Data Collection/ Field Work Method

A system of data collection was developed which included having one team of researchers per district, so eight teams in total. Each team consisted of:

1x MoES enumerator to enter data onto a spreadsheet and send to a central data collection point at close of business each day. This served three different purposes: i) to keep data entry up to date; ii) as a back-up; and iii) to promptly ensure that data collected was appropriate as it could receive a final check by the national consultant.

1x Teacher from the relevant TTC to lead the team and ensure correct use of tools and filling of forms.

3x Students from the relevant TTC to work alongside their Teacher in collecting data.

1x Plan or ChildFund staff member per district to oversee logistics and implementation quality.

The field research was designed so that data collection teams would visit one community and once there divide into two pairs. Typically a visit to one community would take ½ a day. The ordering of the interviews was planned to minimise disruption, for example teachers and children (T4 and 5) were out of the classroom at the same time (rather than consecutively). Following completion of interviews and checking of the data, the tools were passed to MOES staff at the end of each day. They would again check for anomalies in the data. Once it was acceptable it would be entered onto an Excel spreadsheet and then submitted on a daily basis by email to a central point for a final check and collation.

Over the course of the fieldwork implementation, the two international consultants, ably assisted by Plan and ChildFund staff, gave support to Phongsaly and Bokeo; and to Saravan and Xieng Khouang, respectively. They interviewed PESS, DEDC and DESB, joined a number of school visits and generally supported quality control. The national consultant accompanied the team leader in Xieng Khouang and Saravan and also played a pivotal role in supporting and coordinating the enumerators, general troubleshooting and collecting/final-checking the completed data.

2.6 Selection and Training of Research Teams

Eight MoES staff were recruited who had skills in using Excel and availability over the three weeks of the training and field research. 24 teacher-training students were selected from three Teacher Training Collages (TTCs) local to the Provinces being researched (Luang Namtha, Kangkhai and Saravan), plus eight TTC teachers, allocated one each to support each district team. Students were selected to include a balance of men and women, and to reflect as closely as possible the ethno-linguistic communities of the selected schools.

9

Training of all researchers took place over a five-day period in the week immediately prior to the field research. The training involved MoES and TTC participants sitting together for the first day to receive a basic orientation, agree objectives and shared responsibilities for the work. Then, the MoES enumerators had a 1.5 day’s training on entering data in Excel, whilst the TTC surveyors received specific training over a further 4 days to develop their research skills and familiarity with the tools. Training utilised a variety of methods but was essentially participatory in nature, with exercises designed to help the participants to simultaneously understand the rationale behind the tools, the meaning of the questions themselves, and also to develop their basic interviewing, rating and recoding skills.

2.7 Analytical Framework

As noted above, data was collected in the field and immediately checked for gaps and anomalies by the researchers themselves. Where problems were identified they were resolved if possible whilst the informants were still present. The data was then submitted to the MOES staff who again checked it for validity and reliability. Any problems identified at this stage were resolved through either going back to the data collectors, or through communication with the consultants.

The data analysis was undertaken by the consultants, beginning with working through the responses to each of the 27 CRQs, from the Excel spreadsheet. The tool questions for the school and community levels generally followed one of three formats:

those which were specifically quantitative, or binary yes/no questions: e.g. 1.6.1a: ‘is there a DEDC established in this district?’;

those which were essentially qualitative but designed to be analysable by quantitative methods e.g. 1.1.1: ‘how far do you feel familiar with policy directives on VEDCs’. These often had a limited number of answers (very/ somewhat/ not really), which could then be quantified; and

qualitative questions which remained completely open and required ‘manual’ analysis by looking for trends in answers, e.g. ‘1.3.1: what do you consider to be the three most important achievements of VEDCs in your District/School?’.

The majority of questions followed the second format, translating qualitative answers into quantitative totals and percentages. For these answers and the yes/no questions, it was possible to identify trends and patterns that were either common to, or clearly different across, districts, informant groups and school location and situation. The more open-ended questions were analysed through retrospective categorisation: for most questions a number of similar answers occurred frequently. The possible reasons for- and inter-relationships of- the school/community level findings were analysed with reference to the more in-depth qualitative inputs from the district, provincial and central (MOES/DP) levels, as well as to previous studies and reports.

2.8 Limitations and Mitigations

2.8.1 Researcher availability

The MOES, Plan and study funding agencies worked very hard to get the enumerators and field researchers identified, and sent for training, within a tight timeframe and it was particularly to everyone’s credit that the 32 TTC researchers were all identified in time and worked hard and consistently throughout the entire training and implementation period. However, due to unavoidable clashing commitments, there were a few changes in the MOES enumerators just prior to the fieldwork start-up. Additionally, some of the Plan ‘district assistants’ were unable to attend the full week of training.

10

2.8.2 Capacity issues

The research was ambitious in its scope and objectives in relation to the available capacity, budget and time-frame. The time allocated for the research consultants to work with ESRC and the MoES enumerators throughout the design stage was rather less than would have been ideal. An even more important challenge was to develop the capacity of the field researchers to a level where the data they were responsible for collecting was of a sufficiently high quality to be usable. The TTC students particularly, were unfamiliar with the skills required to go beyond a simple reading of the questions (e.g. how to explain or re-phrase a question without introducing bias), or to ensure that the answers given actually answered the questions. Some MoES enumerators also lacked experience in data checking, ‘data cleaning’ and ensuring format consistency. The decision to include some open, qualitative questions undoubtedly enriched the research, but created considerable extra analytical work (categorisation before translation) which was challenging to achieve in the time available.

Addressing capacity challenges required a lot of support and emphasis both during the training and subsequently in the field when the support from Plan and ChildFund Staff was invaluable. Further time to develop the students’ research skills would have been beneficial. Nevertheless, these challenges were surmounted by the dedication and professionalism of all the researchers, combined with the high level of support to the research process in the field. The quality control mechanisms in place of check, check, and re-check have proved to be very robust and have generated a body of data that is a reliable reflection of what was found on the ground.

2.8.3 Sampling limitations

Whilst the approach taken provided as robust and representative sample as was possible within the various constraints, it needs to be kept in mind that the research worked with only a small sample of the total number of primary schools in Lao PDR. It has been attempted to report findings along with a commentary on how far these might be illustrative (if not fully representative) of either the country as a whole, or for specific types of district, school or locality. In particular, it is noted that there were only eight rural off-road schools in the sample, implying that care should be taken in the interpretation of findings regarding this category. (In some cases, it made more sense to disaggregate by ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ only). Likewise, the data on perspectives of PESS are drawn from only four interviews of PESS teams of different sizes and representation and were therefore somewhat less useful than the in-depth qualitative reflections and ideas that PESS officials were in a good position to provide.

2.8.43 Logistical challenges

There were also, as to be expected, various logistical challenges. The research coincided with Hmong New Year, which for Nonghet district required detailed advance planning with each school/village to arrange to undertake the research when schools were not in session. There were also a number of instances in which schools were inaccessible due to local road or weather conditions. The local knowledge of Plan and ChildFund staff and support from the local DESB offices ensured that data collection ran very smoothly with these kinds of obstructions addressed quickly and appropriately7.

7 In one instance for example the car was taking a team to a school in Boun Neua, Phongsaly, but the road became impassable with another 20km to travel. The DESB immediately arranged an alternative school visit which the Plan staff member ensured met the same criteria for the school.

11

3. VEDC Functionality

3.1 Introduction

This chapter reports on the findings regarding the first set of issues that the research explored, related to how far VEDCs are functioning as effective ‘institutions’ at the village level. The investigation took into account the main government regulations regarding aspects of ‘VEDC functionality’, as summarised in Figure 6. Taking account, also, of concerns highlighted in existing reports, it was explored how far VEDCs are established in practice, the ‘structure’ of the VEDC (membership and roles), the ‘systems’ (or processes) of the VEDC (ways of meeting, interacting and making decisions) and the ‘linkages/networks’ of the VEDC (‘horizontal’ linkages to the wider village development committees and to parents associations and ‘vertical’ linkages with DESBs and DEDCs).

3.2. Establishment of VEDCs

In 79 of the 80 schools, the school directors and village chiefs stated that VEDCs were effectively established and functioning. As is to be expected, teachers and villager groups were slightly less sure of the existence of a VEDC in their community (78 and 77 respectively). Nevertheless, this is a very positive result which, given the nature of the research sample, provides a basis for reasonable reassurance that, by and large, VEDCs are established (in some form) across the country. This is supported by the finding that the most critical stakeholders are either ‘very aware’ or ‘somewhat aware’ of the relevant policy directives and guidelines concerning the basic parameters of VEDCs,

as shown in Figure 7. The data also suggests, however, that less than 40% of school directors and village chiefs are fully familiar with the policy directives and over 10% are not really familiar at all, suggesting the need for further efforts to deepen the understanding of these two groups, who constitute critical determinants of VEDC effectiveness.

Figure 6: Stipulations on VEDC functionality

VEDCs can have 7-15 members.

VEDC Chairperson should be Village Chief (or Vice Chief).

VEDC Vice Chair should be President of the Village. Front for Safeguarding and Construction (Neo-home)

VEDC Secretary should be the School Director.

VEDC Members should include teachers, the President of the village Lao Woman’s Union (LWU), the Secretary of the Lao Youth Union and the President of the Parents’ Association (Samakoam

pho-me nak-hiane).

The various VEDC members should carry out specific roles: Chair and Vice Chair providing overall leadership, Secretary organising meetings and advising of school matters, teachers support accounts and statistical records, other members focusing on data collection and mobilisation of communities.

VEDCs should meet monthly, and at other times as required.

From Agreement 2300/Edu.OP/08, 03 September 2008, of the Minister for Education and Sports/ VEDC Handbook 2013.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

very somewhat not really

Figure 7: Awareness of VEDC policy directives

SD and VC DESB/DEDC PESS

12

The finding that VEDCs are generally taking root in Lao PDR is reinforced by the finding of a strong consensus on what are the most important things that VEDCs are doing and achieving. As shown in Figure 8, district, school and community informants rated support to enrolment, infrastructure and raising of funds/ contributions to the be three most important achievements of VEDCs. They also identified improving the school environment, support to teachers and supporting teaching and learning. Meanwhile the central- and provincial- level informants, whilst also identifying these as important roles, gave a higher priority to VEDC support to school and village education development planning. These various activities of VEDCs are elaborated further in subsequent report sections.

3.3 Membership, Composition and Role Delineation

As introduced above (Figure 6), the VEDC handbook clearly stipulates that VEDCs should consist of 7-15 members and that positions (for example Chair, Secretary) should be occupied by a combination of persons of specified status (village officials, school director, etc.), and by elected members (from amongst teachers and villagers). Figure 9 illustrates the percentages that were found in different posts in the schools visited, with defined roles highlighted.

Figure 9: VEDC positions occupied by various persons

It is noted that in 93.1% of cases the Chair of the VEDC was found to be the village chief or deputy, indicating that in this regard the guidelines are generally being followed. By contrast, and surprisingly, the VEDC Secretary role was found to be held by the school director in less than half of the schools - a much greater deviation from the guidelines. School Directors are generally members of the VEDCs, holding the position of Chair, Deputy Chair or Secretary in 77.8% of the sample VEDCs, (in 5.6% of instances being the Chair). One significant finding was the limited representation of teachers on VEDCs. Even taking into account that school directors are also

Figure 8: Ranking of the three most important achievements of VEDCs in the past year

MOES/DPs PESS DESB/DEDC

School and Community

Rank Three most important roles

of VEDCs

Three greatest achievements of VEDCs

in the past year

1st

SDP with

community participation

SDP Enrolment Infrastructure

2nd

Enrolment Community

participation /Enrolment

Fund Raising Fund Raising

3rd

Teaching

and learning Fund raising Infrastructure Enrolment

Status Number Chair % Deputy % Secretary % M1 to 4 %

Village Chief/ Deputy VC

67 93.1

Laos Front 25

33.3

School Director/ Deputy

30 5.6 29.3 42.9 13.3

Women’s Union 35

46.7

Youth Union 57

76.0

Parents’ Association

34

45.3

Teacher 28

37.3

Stipulated positions

School

Directors/ Deputies

13

teachers, the majority of schools in the research sample had at least 3 teachers and it might therefore have been expected to find teacher members more often present. Meanwhile, under half of VEDCs had LWU, or Parents Association members, though the Youth Union is relatively well represented. The reasons for these departures from the guidance are considered further in the discussion on selection below.

Most of the VEDCs in the sample seemed to have the standard seven members. Overall, informants at different levels perceived this to be about the right number- however it also seems that many schools and districts have incorrectly understood the guidelines and so deliberately set the maximum at seven. For example, one provincial official commented: “if the village is quite large- over 200-300 households- then there should be more members, up to 10 maximum”, whilst another commented “bigger and wealthier villages might usefully have some additional members- people of social or economic status who command respect of the communities and can get things done”.

However there is an element of ambiguity about the election of a number of the posts. In the case of the Village Chief, School Director, Representative of the Laos Union for National Construction, these posts are clear, but the teachers and often the representative of the PTA seem less clear and in some instances were elected by popular vote but in others selected by Village Chief and/or School Director. In one instance the DESB stated that they elected the Teachers.

Closely linked with questions of the numbers and status of VEDC members is the role that each member actually performs. Discussions suggested that there is some kind of delineation- for example it seems common for the Parents’ Association member and mass organisation members to take the lead on community mobilisation, consistent with the guidance in the VEDC Handbook. However, given that many VEDC members are in committee positions other than those defined in the guidelines, it seems quite likely that there are also some challenges of effective role delineation. Certainly, some PESS and DESB officials perceive that to be the case, for example one provincial official observed ‘seven members can do the work as long as responsibilities are divided well, but some VEDCs do not know how to do this’. Some village chiefs reported that they adapt roles and responsibilities according to the specific strengths of the different members, which has the potential to work well, or less well, depending on the discernment of the persons making decisions about role allocation.

3.4 Inclusiveness of VEDCs

3.4.1 Issues of inclusivity

As introduced earlier, the ToR for the research set a specific objective to explore the inclusiveness of VEDC membership. This was in response to observations made in successive reports from a variety of programmes and sources (e.g. the Final Review of FTI Programme, 2014) that VEDCs often had no or few women members, as well as concerns regarding how far the ‘status-based’ model for VEDC membership is creating the conditions for a broader and more equitable participation of community members in school affairs. 3.4.2 Gender

Disaggregating VEDC membership by gender and school location paints an interesting picture, as shown in Figure 10.

32.7

21.1

10.7 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

urban rural off-road

Figure 10: Percentage of female VEDC members by location

14

In our sample, 132 of a total of 560 VEDC members (or 23.6%) are female8. 1/3 of urban school VEDC members are female, but in rural schools this drops to 1/5, and in off-road schools to 1/10. This, of course, is what might be expected. Many informants, at all levels, recognised that filling the positions as per the guidelines will inevitably result in a higher percentage of males whilst, on the other hand, ensuring at least one female member in the form of the LWU representative. In urban and less-remote rural areas there are greater numbers of educated women able to take on the various roles that give qualification for VEDC membership, as well as more female teachers and school directors. Indeed, in 4 of the 24 urban schools the VEDC Chair was a woman, and in a total of 26 of the 80 schools the VEDC Secretary was female (but, as noted earlier, this post was not necessarily filled by the school director). Meanwhile, in some remote and ethnic group communities, not only are there fewer women to select from for the set positions but even in terms of selecting additional discretionary members, women are often passed over due to a perceived lack of pre-requisite skills, notably basic literacy and, sometimes, lesser abilities in Lao language. As one provincial official expressed it: “the number of women on the VEDC directly affects their voice and power in the meetings, however it should not be only about increasing the numbers, but ensuring women of the right capacity and qualities”. Some possible negative effects of the lack of women on some VEDCs were cited to include a reduced capacity of the VEDC to communicate with mothers (who often have the strongest influence over early years care and enrolment of children in pre-primary or grade one) and a possible reduced capacity of the VEDC to attract and support female teachers.

Whilst there is agreement on the current under-representation of women in VEDCs, there is a diversity of views regarding what are the best ways to address this issue. Figure 11 presents a summary of a selection of informants’ suggestions. 3.4.3 Disadvantaged/marginalised persons and groups

The quantitative data collected on VEDC membership did not provide specific information on inclusion on VEDCs of community members who are marginalised in some way (e.g. by poverty, remote location of household, having a female head of household, disability in the family etc.). The information provided on ethnicity suggested that VEDC membership tends to reflect the ethnic composition of the community (for example VEDCs in mixed communities often contained 3-4 different ethnicities). However it was not possible to ascertain from the data whether in some cases VEDC membership does not fully reflect the composition of a community or whether certain groups are particularly prone to inclusion/ exclusion (e.g. by reason of dispersed settlement patterns or cultural factors9).

8 The Final Evaluation of FTI-1 (2014) reported 28% of VEDC members in project village were female and 85% villages had at least one female member. 9 This was cited by DESB staff in Bokeo for example as a constraint on VEDC effectiveness in some Lahu communities.

Figure 11: Research Informants’ Ideas for improving women’s representation on VEDCs

Short term solutions:

Add a role for a second Parents’ association member, who is a ‘mother’

Create a quota of roles to be filled by women

Allow for additional discretionary members, encouraging these to be filled by women

Strengthen stipulations about teacher members, including that teacher members should include a women wherever possible.

Include women on the VEDC even if they do not have all the necessary skills, then prioritise them for extra support and training.

Long term solutions:

Prioritise adult literacy in villages that have low numbers of women in various committees and positions.

Continue to prioritise girls’ education, which will solve the problem in the next generation.

15

In contrast to the similar question on gender, the question as to whether disadvantaged groups are fairly represented was more likely to get a ‘yes’ answer. Government stakeholders at all levels broadly perceived that the various mass organisations have clear mandates to ‘take care of’ vulnerable individuals and families and to represent their interests. They were open to measures to directly include more disadvantaged people, but only if these people had meaningful roles on the VEDCs. Some VEDCs seemed to concur with this view, reporting that they target support visits to more disadvantaged community members or, in other cases, establish community rules for attendance at wider community meetings. By contrast, DP respondents were more likely to advocate more interventionist measures, such as creating ‘quotas’ of different ‘categories’ of people to sit on VEDCs.

The role of children within the VEDC was not directly explored as a research question. Whilst some of the research funders have worked on this area, in the research sample there were was no mention of children’s involvement, or of opportunities for this to happen. However, the lively participation of the participants in the children’s tool underscores the ability of children to make shrewd assessments of their experience of schooling and provide fresh insights to inform decision-making. Especially given Lao’s commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN-CRC) it is certainly worth noting this as a gap at present.

3.5 Meetings and Internal Communications

As noted above, the 2013 VEDC Handbook recommends that VEDCs should hold monthly meetings, with additional meetings as necessary. However, as illustrated in Figure 12, only around 17% of urban schools and 27% rural schools in the sample were meeting more than six times per year. Indeed, in nearly 75% of urban schools VEDCs have met only four times or less in the last year. Interestingly, on the whole the rural schools tended to meet more often, however a couple of rural VEDCs had not met at all in the last year. There was no obvious explanation for these differences or means of establishing whether they are significant.

A mixed picture emerged regarding the dynamics of VEDC meetings (and more informal communications) and the extent to which the intended participatory approach is being realised. Only 27% of DESB but 82% of PESS/MOES/DP respondents considered the issue of one or two people dominating discussions and decision-making was either ‘an important constraint’ or ‘somewhat a constraint’. One DP respondent had observed a marked difference in the ways of working between VEDCs that have been trained in a participatory approach (meeting facilitation, consultative tools etc.) and those that have not. There were, however, some encouraging examples of high levels of communication. One director of a rural school in Phongsaly (described in more detail in section 4.5) stated how she has almost weekly meetings with the VEDC and they work very closely together.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 6 +

Figure 12: VEDC meetings in the last 12 months (%)

Urban Rural Off-road

16

The VEDC Handbook makes reference to both the village chief and school director taking some responsibility for defining the content of VEDC meetings, leaving open to interpretation/judgement whether this should be led by one or the other, or done collaboratively. In the sample VEDCs, meeting agendas were defined by the Village Chief in 48% of instances, by the school director in 37%, and collaboratively in the remaining 15% of cases. VEDCs generally claimed to make a note or report of meetings, however the formats for minuting meetings provided in the VEDC Handbook do not appear to be followed in most schools. One INGO questionnaire respondent observed that positive relationships between village chiefs and school directors are often pivotal to VEDC effectiveness.

3.6 Selection and Turnover of VEDC Members

3.6.1 Selection and election

Overwhelmingly, the range of informants said they believed that election of new VEDC members was democratic and fair, with posts being filled either according to the required official status (Village Chief, Laos Front, School Director, etc.) or by a village vote (teacher members). However, in a small number of instances, teacher members were selected by the school director or the DESB, and VEDC members were chosen by the village chief using different criteria. This might help to explain some of the discrepancy of actual and recommended holders of the various positions on the VEDC (discussed in 3.3). 3.6.2 Turnover

High turnover of VEDC members is very frequently cited in reports (e.g. mid-term and final reports of FTI-1, mid-term review of ESDP) as a significant constraint on the effective functioning of VEDCs. This study therefore sought to get a measure of what actual turnover is, how far it is perceived as a constraint by different stakeholders and for what reasons.

The findings did not suggest excessively high turnover as a general rule. As shown in Figure 13, the majority of VEDC members have been in the VEDC for between 12 to 48 months, suggesting that the standard 3-year turn-around is the general practice. Nevertheless, concurring with the previous reports, 3 of the 4 PESS, 58% of DESB/DEDC and 33% of School Directors identified high

turnover as an ‘important constraint’ on VEDC effectiveness. By contrast, interestingly, 57% of Village Chiefs believe that high turnover is ‘not a constraint’. There seemed to be quite strong agreement that high turnover becomes a constraint in situations where new members are not properly briefed or trained. One explanation of the different perspectives

at school and district/provincial levels is that the latter are acutely aware of the limited formal training that they can provide to new members, whilst 85.2% of School Directors and Village Chiefs perceived that they have a strategy to brief new members. This seemed to be most usually by means of an informal orientation, focused mainly in explaining main roles and responsibilities.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

under 12 12 to 24 25 to 48 49 to 120

Figure 13: How many months have members been in the VEDC?

Chair Deputy Chair Secretary Member 1 to 4

17

3.7 Horizontal Linkages of VEDCs to other Village-Level Bodies

3.7.1 Parents’ Associations and VEDCs

Parents Associations have existed for decades as a body for encouraging parents to enrol their children in school, supporting schools and teachers and enabling parents to be involved in their children’s learning. VEDC’s were not intended to replace these associations (indeed one of the members of the VEDC should be the President of the Parents’ Association), but to give them additional clout. The intention is that the association members should still continue their work of facilitating broad parental and community participation in school life and in encouraging all parents to send their children to school, but with the backing of the influential VEDC members.

The research findings suggest that the intended relationship of VEDCs and Parents’ Associations is generally working well. 90.8% of Urban, 92.9% of Rural and 62.5% of Rural Off-Road schools said they have an active Parents’ Association, and this was confirmed by the DESB/DEDC perceptions that they are very common in villages. A number of respondents observed that the VEDCs have been effective in giving parents associations more authority, with some noting in particular that having the village chief as head of the VEDC gives the school better access to population data10. Conversely, it was observed by some that VEDCs are to a large extent dependent on the participation of the wider Parents’ Associations to implement a number of their roles, in particular with regards to community mobilisation and home visits to encourage enrolment or support children at risk of drop-out. There are some challenges, however. One Provincial official observed that, in some instances, VEDC members do not necessarily command authority because they tend to be of quite young age (having been selected into the various village roles that qualify for VEDC membership on the basis of their literacy level or educational status).

3.7.2 VEDCs of complete and incomplete schools, and in villages with no school

There are a variety of scenarios regarding how VEDCs ‘cover’ villages and schools. The most usual situation in urban and less remote rural areas is that there is a one-to-one match of VEDC to village to school. However, it is also quite common-especially in more remote areas for a cluster of villages (some with incomplete schools) to share a VEDC. To further complicate the matter, sometimes a single school serves a catchment area of several villages, some of which have their own VEDC (e.g. for ECE or NFE) despite not having their own school. Despite these complexities, the general consensus seems to be that linkages between schools or villages that share a VEDC, or across VEDCs within a school cluster, do not present any particular problems with regards to VEDC functionality. Often the incomplete and complete schools have developed strategies to coordinate between themselves, and exchange ideas, make plans and submit reports together. Incomplete schools do, however, have certain capacity-building needs, as discussed further in Chapter 7.

3.8 Vertical Linkages of VEDCs to DESBs and DEDCs

3.8.1 DESBs

DESBs were interviewed across all eight Districts and emerged with a clear technical support role which they are (as far as budget permits) actively fulfilling. The function of the visits made by DESBs to VEDCs is predominantly to support the VEDC (in half the visits), with some form of training taking place in 27% of VEDC visits. The other main activities DESBs implement when visiting VEDCs are to collect or write reports, support special events, and help the VEDC to re/establish themselves. Further information regarding training and support from DESBs is given in Chapter 7.

10 The Village Chief is responsible for the Village Population Statistics and for signing permissions for persons leaving or arriving in the village.

18

3.8.2 DEDCs

DEDCs evolved from previously-established District Education For All (EFA) Committees. These aimed to support better inter-sectoral collaboration to address all the demand-side barriers to universal completion of basic education, for example those linked to poverty, poor nutrition, sanitation etc.; mobilise community participation through a range of channels beyond the formal education sector and to support the development of district education plans that link to wider district development plans.

The findings suggested that inter-sectoral collaboration in support of education is proving more difficult to achieve at the district level than in village communities. Of the study sample of eight Districts, six claim to have established DEDCs, though only three of these were able to make meeting minutes available. It proved possible only to meet DEDCs in four of the eight study districts. As DEDCs are by definition cross-sectoral and membership appears to be left to the District Governor to determine, these interviews tended to be with the Chair of the DEDC (deputy governor) and/ or the representative from the DEDC (the DESB director). Only in one district, Lao Ngam in Saravan Province, was there an interview with a large panel of DEDC members.

The role the DEDCs identified for themselves in supporting VEDCs revolves around a number of areas, including in the best cases providing technical support (such as helping schools to establish a kitchen garden, or health training), to providing support on legislation, and increasing enrolment. Whilst in theory DEDCs should visit VEDCs and make regular reports, in practice it seems that very often the DESB is the ‘eyes and ears’ of the DEDC in the communities, reporting to the DEDC via the DESB Directors (Secretaries of the DEDCs), rendering the ‘added value’ of the DEDC unclear.

3.9 Effects of the 3-Build Policy on VEDCs

Central- and Province-level informants, whilst unable to comment on actual implementation at the village level, perceived that the 3-Build (3-B) has a strong potential for strengthening the role of VEDCs. In particular, they emphasised that village chiefs are likely to take more account of 3-B than of line-ministry directives, because of their line of accountability to the District Governors.

The 3-B is being implemented in five of the eight study districts, but only in three of the schools in the sample. The village chiefs of these three schools all stated there is only a small impact at this stage, probably because implementation is only just underway. However, districts were much more positive with two of the five 3-B districts maintaining it had already had a significant impact on a number of areas such as:

increased enrolment as there is now more technical support available for VEDCs;

more training for VEDCs and school directors;

improved methods for raising village funds;

improved infrastructure, furniture and office supplies;

improved support from the district level and;

empowered communities happier to support the school, thus increasing enrolment

In the small sample covered, it seems that 3-B is widely welcomed and viewed as having the potential to enhance VEDC effectiveness However, one PESS noted that 3-B could not be used for ‘software’ such as training, thereby calling into question a clear attribution of some of the perceived improvements to 3-B. It is also as yet unclear what will be the effect of 3-B, given its modality, on overall equity of provision of resources and support across schools.

19

3.10 Summary

In summary, the research suggests the ‘basics’ of VEDCs are largely in place, but that there is more work to be done to ensure their optimal functioning. VEDCs have been established in villages, are adding greater weight to the previous parents’ associations and are perceived as becoming increasingly effective in supporting enrolment, improving infrastructure and making various kinds of contribution to school development. They generally have the ‘right’ members overall, but these are not necessarily in the ‘right’ roles. VEDCs in larger or multi-ethnic villages are often not availing themselves of the existing provision to extend beyond seven members. The ‘status-based’ VEDC structure promotes their authoritative agency but not necessarily their inclusivity or continuity. There are challenges in ensuring that all members are committed to and capacitated for their roles. Most VEDCs meet fairly regularly, but not on the monthly basis recommended in official guidance. VEDCs have a clear link with DESBs, via the schools directors. DEDCs are more functional and purposeful in some districts than others. In the best examples they were supporting a range of cross-sectoral initiatives to address demand-side barriers to education. However, the various roles of DEDCs and their linkages with DESBs and VEDCs are not yet fully clear or established.

20

4. VEDCs’ Roles in School and Village Educational Development

4.1 Introduction

A key rationale for the establishment of VEDCs is to support improvements in school management and development, in particular through catalysing stronger parental and community participation in various aspects of these. As noted in the introduction, as a part of decentralisation, aspects of School Based Management (SBM)11 are being progressively introduced across the country. In particular, there has been a focus on establishing a cyclical process of school development planning (SDP), supported by the allocation of per-capita based school block grants (SBG). SDP incorporates a range of stages including situational analysis/school self-assessment, identifying issues and objectives/priorities, identifying measures to address these issues/priorities, making a budgeted, time-bound plan (SDP) to implement the strategies, mobilising the necessary financial and human resources, implementation and review. Regarding school assessment, with the introduction of the EQS, the ‘scoring’ of schools according to their attainment of the 42 standards is being introduced. In theory, VEDCs should be involved in the entire cycle and should facilitate community participation in key stages (such as assessment, target-setting and monitoring), as well as mobilise different kinds of community contribution.

The concepts of SDP, SBM and EQS are only just beginning to take root across the country and disbursements of SBG have so far been somewhat sporadic. The current version of the VEDC handbook does not make many overt references to these specific concepts, however the actual roles of VEDCs in planning, management and community participation are described, as summarised in Figure 14. The VEDC Handbook also emphasises the role of VEDCs in making a Village Education Development Plan (VEDP) for areas of basic education outside of the school sub-sector, for example community-based ECE initiatives and NFE/literacy for youth and adults12.

In the discussions on VEDC roles in section 3.2, it was noted that officers at the PESS and central levels ascribe a high value to their planning/management role. This priority might increase further with current developments to strengthen a process of district development planning that will base more solidly- and systematically- on schools’ development plans.

4.2 The Establishment of SDP in Schools and Districts

As a basis for understanding the roles of VEDCs in school management and planning it was first sought to get a picture of how far, in general, SDP has been established in schools as a tool for school-based management. As illustrated in Figure 15, it was found that there is a definite trend towards use of SDP, but this is not yet fully established everywhere.

11 SBM focuses on the transition to ‘bottom-up- processes of planning and a stronger voice for local communities, however SBM in Lao does not (as in some other countries) imply the decentralisation of all management functions (e.g. teacher appointment) to schools. 12 The School Management Handbook 2013 explains that the VEDP should incorporate the SDP (not two separate/ conflicting plans).

Figure 14: Stipulations on VEDC involvement in school management, SDP and VEDP

Summarize and study data concerning the various problems of teachers, students, illiterate persons, schools, equipment and learning/teaching materials

Create village education development plans;

based on the ideas and needs of the villagers

Set up procedures for the labour involved in the construction and maintenance of the school and the school environment and monitor construction, repair and maintenance work.

Facilitate the wider community in - school construction, repairs and

maintenance - allocation and improvement of classrooms

and the school environment - looking after the lives and wellbeing of the

teachers From VEDC Handbook, 2013

- From VEDC Handbook 2013

21

Figure 15: Perspectives on use and format of SDP (out of 8)

DESBs that hold copies of their schools’ SDPs ‘No SDPs’ 1

‘Some SDPs’ 1

‘Almost all’ 6

DESBs that claim schools SDPs follow a standard format ‘No’ 3

‘Yes’ 5

School Directors’ perspectives* on whether the school has an SDP and what format is used (of total of 77 schools with reliable data)

‘No SDP’

1%

‘SDP but no copy’

8%

‘Have an SDP in our own

format’ 29%

‘Have an SDP in a standard

format’ 62%

* Teachers and village chiefs gave almost identical responses to these questions, suggesting reliability of the responses.

The perspectives of PESS, MOES and DPs followed a similar pattern, broadly agreeing that most schools do now make an SDP and those that do not tend to be small, remote and/or incomplete schools. However, as yet, SDPs might not follow a standard format nor, more importantly, have been developed in a systematic way. Examples were found of schools that write their SDP in a notebook (so that districts cannot easily take a copy away) or, by contrast, of schools that had completed the school assessment or whole SDP in a format but then given this to the DESB without keeping a copy for their own use. Some DESBs did not seem to appreciate the importance of schools retaining a copy; indeed one DESB noted that they take schools’ SDPs back with them when they go to visit. DESB officers also observed that some VEDCs make their SDP according to a former approach based on various stipulations on the ‘seven roles of a school director’. As might be expected, VEDCs that have received training seem to be more likely to adopt the new approach of objective-based planning around the EQS domains. Villagers and teachers were slightly less aware of the existence of an SDP and what were current SDP priorities than other groups and all groups cited examples of SDP priorities related to infrastructure and physical resources more frequently than those related to direct teaching- learning objectives.

4.3. The Involvement of VEDCs in the SDP Cycle

It was explored in some detail what are different perspectives on how far VEDCs are supposed to be involved in the various stages of VEDC, as well as how far they actually get involved in practice. The various MOES informants working on aspects of VEDCs, all agreed that VEDCs should be involved in all the stages and perceived that VEDCs were at least sometimes (if not often) involved already. The results from the eight districts and 80 school/communities, presented in Figure 16, mainly supports this positive view. It can be seen that (with just one exception) at least 60% of five different informant groups perceived that VEDCs get involved in each of ten different identified aspects of the annual cycle of SDP.

Whilst these are encouraging findings, it is important to note that VEDC members were the least likely to perceive themselves to have an involvement in any particular area, followed by Village Chiefs and then School Directors. Meanwhile, teachers and DESBs perceived a somewhat higher level of involvement of VEDCs.

It is widely perceived that VEDCs are already involved in most stages of SDP, at least to some extent. A number of respondents pointed out, however, that often the involvement is only of 1-2 VEDC members not the entire VEDC, which might be appropriate for activities such as budgeting but less so in the case of the school assessment and identification of priorities.

22

Regarding assessment (a), it seems that most schools involve VEDCs in undertaking some sort of assessment or problem analysis and, from this, identify priority issues (c) and strategies and solutions (d), though fewer get involved in actually writing SDP (f). Of the schools that do a self- assessment, many seem to have a general consultation and perhaps refer to data such as statistics collected for the EMIS or data on school tests etc. and only a smaller group are as yet doing EQS scoring (b). The results are unclear, however –as shown in Figure 17- only around 1/5 schools have so far definitely attempted an EQS scoring (for those that claimed ‘done but not available’ it was

unclear that they were referring to the actual scoring process, or just a more general discussion of EQS, or of its predecessor, the ‘Schools of Quality’). Lack of access to manuals and the relatively complicated nature of the scoring process might be constraints/ deterrents (discussed further in Chapter 7). Whilst the actual EQS scores that schools gave themselves may not be directly relevant to this study, it is noted that the mean score of 125 and lowest score of 50 (out of a possible total of 168) seem plausible and perhaps suggestive of scoring being done properly. However, that said, a couple of schools seemed to have unrealistically high scores, of up to 164.

Overall, whilst VEDCs are quite central to community fundraising (g), rather fewer are involved in making budgets (h) or managing school block grants (i) (though in the latter case the perceived lack of involvement might simply have been due to the delayed SBG tranches over the past 18 months). That said, it is noted that the Final Report of FTI (2014) finds limited involvement of VEDCs in SBG, despite this having been quite central to the FTI programme.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

a. Making a general assessment

b. Using the EQS

c. Identifying priority issue

d. Identifying strategies/ solutions

e. Identifying expenditures related to the strategies

f. Writing SDP

g. Raising funds

h. Managing SBG

i. Preparing school budget

j. Making a Village Education Development Plan (for ECE and NFE) that fits with the SDP

Figure 16: Different informants’ perceptions of how far VEDCs are involved in various SDP stage

VEDC VC Teacher SD DESB/DEDC

Not done 22%

Done but not

available 57%

scored 21%

Figure 17: Is EQS scoring conducted in the school?

23

The findings regarding VEDCs’ involvement in (j) making a village education development plan (VEDP) were difficult to interpret. Around 80% of the school/ community informants asked perceived that they were involved in this, whilst only 2 of the 8 DESBs thought this was the case. Amongst DPs (who work at the school/community level) one perceived that VEDPs are the norm whilst another perceived that they ‘do not exist’. Some of the findings from the DESBs help to shed light on the reasons for wide geographical variation in uptake of VEDPs. Ta Oy and Nonghet DESB officials both noted that VEDPs are made ‘when there is a need’ for example by villages that have community-based ECE/ school readiness programmes or literacy programmes. Meanwhile, their peers in Lao Ngam DESB noted that VEDPs (integrating the SDP) became the norm in the district as a result of the intensive support of the first phase of the CIED programme.

4.4 Wider Community Participation in School Development

Beyond their own involvement, VEDCs seem to have had considerable success in raising the level of participation of their broader community in various aspects of school improvement. Indeed all MOES study informants, all PESS and 60% of the DP informants perceived that VEDCs have had a ‘very strong impact’ on the level of community participation in education. This is somewhat reinforced by children’s perceptions of the frequency with which their parents came to the school for a particular event or meeting (i.e. not just to collect their child from school), as shown in Figure 18.

The various study informant groups were in agreement in identifying labour as the most common way in which communities support schools to implement their SDPs, with ‘cash fundraising’ in second place, followed by donations of materials. The

most common examples given of the ‘products’ of labour and materials donations were classrooms, toilets, fencing, flagpoles and school yards/gardens. Some also mentioned donation of blackboards, desks or materials for teachers to make teaching-learning aids.

Figure 19 shows the range of funds that communities raised last year whilst Figure 20 suggests that whilst most parents feel comfortable with the donations that they made, over a quarter find them at least somewhat difficult.

Whilst the evidence for increasing community participation in education as a result (at least in part) of the establishment of VEDCs is encouraging, it is noted that the most common roles that communities play still tend to be ‘contributory’ rather than participating in actual decision-making. Even where one or two VEDC members are

Figure 19: Funds raised by communities in 77 schools 2013-2014

min mean max

LAK 200,000 7,600,000 60,000,000

$ 25 950 7,500

easy 73%

difficult %

too much 4%

Figure 20: Are community contributions manageable? (Villagers' views)

55% 39%

6%

Figure 18: How often do your parents come in to the school for a particular event or

meeting? (children's responses)

very often

not much

never

24

participating in the assessment and objective-setting/ design and monitoring stages of SDP, the wider community tends to be brought in at the point when the main decisions are made, perhaps for further discussion but in the main to disseminate the decisions and to mobilise contributions and support. This issue resonates with some of the findings from the literature review of similar studies in other Southeast Asian countries. For example, in a study of School Support Committees in Cambodia (Shoraku, 2008), 90% of a sample of parents interviewed ranked ‘contribution’ as the most important thing they do, whilst no parents in the sample said that they were involved in ‘designing a school development plan’, although they were generally informed about it afterwards. Linked to factors of both culture and education level, it seems that many community members do not feel confident to give their ideas and opinions and may prefer to leave the decision-making to the authorities.

4.5 Chapter Summary

In summary, the basic idea of developing and implementing an SDP is gradually taking root. VEDCs are playing some role in most aspects of making SDP in many schools. In particular, VEDCs seem to be active in problem analysis, identifying priority needs and simple strategies to address these needs. However, there is still some way to go before all schools and VEDCs are preparing and implementing an effective SDP and maximising the participation of the whole school (including teachers and pupils) and the wider community.

Some schools have started to use the system of EQS scoring. Whilst provinces and districts have some basic understanding of EQS, even at this level some find the scoring system quite complicated and this is very much more the case at the school/ community level, especially in smaller schools in disadvantaged areas and in multilingual communities.

VEDCs appear to have had a strong impact on the level of community participation in schools. Communities are making a range of contributions to a range of important aspects of school development. However, in common with neighbouring countries, there are some limitations on the roles that community members- especially the more disadvantaged- are at present able to play in terms of the decision-making and accountability aspects of school management.

This chapter is concluded with a brief cameo of a school in an Akha community in Boun Neua, Phongsaly, which has implemented a number of school improvement strategies with the support of a dynamic female school director and an active VEDC.

Figure 21: Cameo: A primary school in an Akha community of Boun Neua District, Phongsaly

The school has the following VEDC membership: 1. Village Chief male 2. Deputy Village Chief male 3. School Director female 4. Village Secretary male 5. Women’s Union female 6. Laos Front male 7. Union for Youth male 8. Village Security representative male

The VEDC meets weekly, though minutes were not available. The school directors’ notes identified the following points which had been discussed over the last few months:

1. Student absences: the SD reports to VEDC if any student are absent for more than 1-2 days, and the VEDC members then follow up with families to identify if it is sickness or truancy. The school claims 100% attendance from the children in the community.

25

2. WFP school feeding programme: previously teachers had been doing the cooking for this, but this was too time consuming, taking them away from the classroom, so it was agreed that a rota of parents would come in to do the cooking.

3. School fencing needed repairing and a shelter constructing in the school grounds for the children to use during breaks/lunch time. It was agreed the fencing would be repaired by villagers and a concrete shelter would be constructed in the next month. Though more costly, this would last longer. This would be paid for by school funds which had been raised by the VEDC from the community earlier in the year.

4. ECE classroom needed. Two classrooms have already been built, constructed from local materials by the villagers. These were to a high standard.

5. Teachers dormitories. A further teacher’s block was built with 4 bedrooms in it. This brings the total to 17 bedrooms constructed with VEDC support for teachers in the school (22 teachers).

Exterior and Interior of ECE Classroom constructed by the community, with funds raised by the VEDC

Staff living accommodation constructed by the community with funds raised by the VEDC

When the SD was asked how effective the VEDC is to the school she replied:

‘’We depend on the villagers and the community, and they support us. If they didn’t support us nothing would happen.’’

When asked how helpful the DESB and VEDC were relatively, she replied:

“the VEDC is far more helpful on a daily basis to the school than the DESB”.

26

5. VEDCs’ Support to Equitable Access and Inclusion

5.1 Introduction

A key function of the VEDC is to support and encourage access to education and to reduce drop-out of children from school. A central strategy that is stipulated is the collection of disaggregated data on household membership, which has the potential not only to increase enrolment but also reduce inequalities related to gender, poverty, remote location or other factors. Frequent interactions with the community including visits to children’s homes are also encouraged.

5.2 VEDC Impact on Access and Inclusion

The various informants were asked whether the VEDCs were having any impact on enrolment and preventing drop-out. A very clear picture emerged of between 94.8 and 100% of the different groups asked believing that VEDCs play ‘an important role’ in this regard, as illustrated in Figure 23. All MOES and PESS informants agreed this effect to be ‘very strong’. Given that universal primary completion is a ‘high level’ goal of the education sector (and ESDP) and that support to enrolment was one of the major purposes of establishing VEDCs, this is a very encouraging result. Two PESS and a number of DESB officers observed big differences in the enrolment statistics of schools with functioning VEDCs and those where the VEDC is not well

Figure 22 : Stipulations on VEDC Involvement in access, enrolment and inclusion VEDCs should:

Collect data on the total number of households and on poor households.

Collect data on school-aged children (and illiterate adults), specific situations etc., disaggregated by gender and ethnicity.

Promote education children and adults who have never yet studied, or who dropped out from studying regularly, especially females and members of ethnic groups.

Advise on food which is healthy according to the nutritional principles.

Monitor the attendance of children, especially with respect to absenteeism, so as to consult their parents or guardians in order to find a solution.

Promote the vocational skills of the community and young people by promoting traditional arts and handicrafts and the establishment of income generation groups.

The wider community should:

Collect statistics on school-aged children in the village, assist poor children, send their children to school regularly, check the number of students with class teachers, watch out for children not going to school.

From VEDC Handbook 2013

100.0

96.1 94.8

96.2

98.8

94.9

92.0

94.0

96.0

98.0

100.0

102.0

DESB/DEDC School Director

Teachers Village Chief

VEDC Villagers

%

Informant

Figure 23: Percentages of informants who believed that VEDCs have a 'very positive impact' on enrolment and dropout

prevention

27

established. However, it is noted that it has not been possible in this study to analyse changes in enrolment in the sample schools over time or relate these directly to the action of VEDCs.

5.3 Data Collection on Children and Households

The VEDC Handbook (2013) specifically identifies the role of the ‘Demographic Education Data Record Book’ and the ‘Village Map’ in identifying the distribution of children in the village. As Figure 23 below illustrates, this system is not always followed. The VEDCs often use a combination of school registers, the data that is collected annually for the EMIS and ‘local knowledge’. The school map is used far less frequently, in only a little over ¼ of schools in fact, and then not always to the necessary degree of detail to be useful.

Whilst it is positive to find that most schools are gathering information, village maps are recommended in the VEDC handbook because they have the potential to be more comprehensive and inclusive than statistical records by themselves. Maps are valuable in picking up on those children who might otherwise be ‘invisible’: children with disability, ethnic group children, adolescent girls at risk of early marriage, or children working to support the family livelihood. The Report of the ESDP Joint Sector Review Mission, April 2014 highlights situations where VEDCs assume their ‘local knowledge’ is sufficient, but when they actually do the mapping they find out about families, children, or situations of which they were previously unaware. Thus, the fact that this practice has not widely caught on might imply that opportunities to identify and bring in marginalised children are being missed in some villages.

The information that schools do collect, is reportedly usually disaggregated across a number of variables, including age, gender and ethnicity. Most schools also claim to have some information

EMIS, 74.0

Map: some detail, 6.5

Map: full detail, 23.4

Register, 93.5

Local Knowledge, 82.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Figure 24: Methods schools use to gather information on enrolment

84.4 97.4

89.6 98.6

81.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

OOSC Gender Disability Ethnicity Orphans

Figure 25: Level of detail in information collected

28

on children with disability, ‘out-of-school children’ (OOSC), and orphans, as shown in Figure 25. It is unsurprising that gender and ethnicity data, required for EMIS, is the most commonly collected.

A number of informants pointed out that it is very helpful to have the village chief, as head of the VEDC, involved in the data collection process. As one PESS officer commented ‘before the VEDCs, many schools had name lists but they were of enrolled children only. With the VEDCs it is possible to find out about all of the children in the community’.

5.4 Strategies to Support Access and Inclusion

Given the overwhelming perception of VEDCs having a direct impact on improving access, it is appropriate to ask how they achieve this. It emerged that a number of different strategies appear to be successful. A particularly important one is to make visits to children’s homes, to encourage initial enrolment and, subsequently, to support families where children are at risk of dropping out, or are not attending regularly. As Figure 26 illustrates, over 85% of school directors, village chiefs, VEDC members and villagers respectively, stated that VEDC members regularly visit the homes of such children, making use of the data gathered and/or in response to teachers or the school

director notifying them of a particular problem. Some schools reported allocating a specific VEDC member to have responsibility to follow up on persistent absences. A range of other strategies were also mentioned. Many informants (from all

levels) referred variously to ‘enrolment campaigns’, ‘advocacy’ or ‘encouragement’. Some elaborated that VEDCs were well-placed to make their arguments for education relevant to the local culture, noted that VEDCs can be more persuasive than the parents’ associations by themselves, as well as describing different communication methods such as drama, posters or special events. A number of villages seem to have introduced a system of giving a small fine or penalty to families that persistently do not send their children to school, a strategy also mentioned by an INGO informant to be being adopted in other areas of the country. Even more common, however, is giving positive support or reward: many VEDCs mentioned giving targeted support to poorer families who otherwise could not afford to send their children to school. The use of VEDC meetings to discuss the situations of individual children was also mentioned. A few VEDCs have managed to find the wherewithal to grant small scholarships to the poorest children.

It is stipulated in some detail in the VEDC Handbook that it is a responsibility of the VEDC to support early childhood development, including the establishment of pre-primary provision at the school. There is certainly good evidence of a strong potential impact of such programmes on enrolment, retention and learning. In reality, of course, VEDCs are only in the position to do this if they have access to the necessary funding and support from the DESB, usually through a specific programme. 59.7% of schools in the sample have an attached pre-primary class, whilst some further schools are involved in project-supported community-based ECE (school readiness) programmes. Where such classes exist, VEDCs play a part in their management, though there are sometimes ECE committees that have a different, but overlapping, membership. There were also a few examples of VEDCs that are currently trying to get support to open a new pre-primary class.

In Xieng Khouang Province, in particular, NFE for young adults was frequently mentioned as a strategy that VEDCs manage, which has an impact on enrolment of children. As one DESB office in

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

School Director Village Chief VEDC Villagers

Figure 26: Perception that VEDC members visit children's homes to encourage enrolment and attendence

29

Nonghet commented “working with communities on NFE really gets them much more interested in enrolling their children in school because they know the benefits of reading and writing”.

44.2% of schools in the sample have a WFP- or MOES-supported school meals programme, which is intended to encourage children to attend school regularly. The practical implementation of these varied, with teachers and community variously taking responsibility for the cooking and distribution of the food. Frequently, the LWU member of the VEDC was responsible for organising the parents’ rota.

Figure 27: Parents and a VEDC member preparing school snacks at a primary school in Lao Ngam.

It is further noted that a range of strategies to support teachers and improve the learning environment, discussed further in the next chapter, were also seen to have a direct effect on enrolment. This is in line with a growing body of evidence of the complex ways in which ‘supply’ influences ‘demand’; in many countries it has been found that even very disadvantaged people will make sacrifices to send their children to school if they perceive sufficient benefit13.

5.5 Chapter Summary

VEDCs are seen by all levels of stakeholder to be extremely successful at improving enrolment and subsequent attendance, whilst reducing dropout. They mostly use at least some of the recommended strategies of data collection, including registers and EMIS data, as well as ‘local knowledge’. However, some schools do not use all the tools available, specifically village mapping, and do not always identify all ‘categories’ of out-of-school children, particularly orphans and children with disability. Based on the data that they do collect, as well as information from school directors and teachers, VEDCs implement a range of strategies to address the issues, in particular making visits to children’s homes and finding ways to encourage and support struggling families.

13 See, for example, ‘Brock et. al Reaching the poor. The 'costs' of sending children to school: a six country comparative study. DFID, 2002’.

30

Additionally, many VEDCs are involved in the management of a range of initiatives designed to address the ‘demand’ side barriers to education that are relevant to the particular community.

6. VEDCs’ Support to Teaching/ Quality

6.1 Introduction

Figure 28 summarises the roles of VEDCs in relation to teaching and learning quality, as has so far been defined in policy and guidelines. It is noted that these are viewed in quite broad terms, to include activities that do not directly involve VEDCs in the teaching learning process, but improving teaching and learning by ensuring that children are more frequently present in the classroom, with teachers to teach them, as well as helping to bridge the gap between the culture of the school and the culture (and language) of children’s homes.

Figure 28: Extracts from VEDC Handbook on Teaching/ Quality

Roles of VEDCs Create lists of qualified and unqualified teachers, persons able to assist teachers and school principals,

and of teachers’ needs. Take the various issues involved with learning and teaching for consultation with the villagers, teachers,

and students so that they may together seek out solutions according to actual circumstances and the capacity of the village without having to rely on superior levels.

Organise activities for students to improve and repair the school, to purchase learning and teaching equipment, and to assist teachers when in difficulty.

Set up storytelling and the telling of local fables and legends (potentials/heritage) and the cultural, material, and psychological ways [of their village] by village elders, teachers, and educated persons of the village families.

Areas for wider community participation Monitoring and assisting teachers in their teaching: Monitor the punctuality of teachers with respect to their teaching hours, check whether or not the days

off taken by teachers are in accordance with the officially issued calendar For those with knowledge or expertise in a field which is suitable for the subject or lesson being taught,

assist the teachers (especially in the teaching of local curricula) Assist teachers in the production of teaching equipment and so forth.

From VEDC handbook 2013

6.2 VEDC Impact on the Quality of Teaching and Learning

All informants were asked the general question as to whether VEDCs (when they are functioning) are having an impact on teaching and learning. The results in Figure 29 suggest that at the school and community levels, impact on quality/ learning is seen as just as strong as on access/ enrolment. District-level officers seem to be somewhat more cautious in making this claim, but even at this level 70% perceived a positive impact. PESS were more divided, with one seeing a ‘strong effect’, two ‘some effect’ and one ‘no effect’ of VEDCs.

31

6.3. Strategies to Improve Teaching and Learning All informants were able to give examples of what are common strategies/ activities of VEDCs that support teaching and learning. The responses in Figure 30 indicate that VEDCs implement many of the activities that are encouraged in the VEDC Handbook. In particular, the provision of accommodation, food and other practical support to teachers was cited very frequently: actions that communities are fully competent and confident to perform that have a strong effect on the ability and willingness of teachers (including women) to work in rural and remote areas.

6.4 Monitoring of and Support to Teachers

It was specifically explored how far VEDCs monitor three aspects of teachers’ work: their classroom teaching, their attendance/ punctuality and their disciplinary methods. As shown in Figure 31, monitoring of teachers’ attendance, which was commonly identified as a general strategy, seems to be an aspect of VEDCs’ responsibility that has taken root quite strongly. As one PESS official said, “if teachers attend regularly and on time then the learning improves for sure!” There was also a strong level of agreement between VEDC members and teachers that the VEDCs do this. Since ‘time on task’ is an important determinant of learning outcomes, this area of VEDC support is significant.

The monitoring by VEDC members of teachers’ work in the classroom also seems to be carried out in over 65% of our sample schools. Interestingly, over 9% more VEDC members than teachers perceive this to be the case. Phongsaly PESS pointed out there can be a problem of language

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

DESB/DEDC Sch Dir Teacher Vill Chief VEDC Villager

Figure 29: Perspectives on whether VEDCs are having a positive impact on teaching and learning

Figure 30: The most commonly-cited strategies that VEDCs use to support quality development/

improved teaching and learning (all informant groups)

Encouraging children’s regular attendance

Monitoring teacher attendance

Food and accommodation support for teachers

Provision of materials for teaching-learning resources

Extra-curricular activities for children

Encouraging different contributions from community to improve the learning environment

67.1

90.8

69.3 78.8

91.3 78.8

0.0

50.0

100.0

Work Attendance Discipline

Figure 31: Teachers' and VEDC members' perceived responsibility in monitoring teachers' classroom

work, attendance and discipline methods (%)

Teacher VEDC

32

differences between teachers and villagers, which places constraints on how directly the VEDC can monitor or support teachers’ work. However, some respondents noted that VEDCs could do simple things such as “see if the teacher is writing on the blackboard, or in children’s books”.

The monitoring of teachers’ approaches to disciplining students seems to be at similar levels to their work in general, again with a 9% differential between teachers’ and VEDCs’ perspectives. School children approached in this research were in broad agreement that most teachers use both reward14 and punishment, and a range of physical punishment practices15 were cited in a number of schools. It is not possible to state conclusively whether there is any correlation between the strength of VEDC involvement and the use of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ forms of discipline as sample sizes were so small in the child discussion groups. With regards to any effect of various projects’ positive discipline initiatives, there appeared to be a trend of slightly fewer examples of physical punishment in the two Bokeo districts than elsewhere. It is emphasised however that this result needs to be approached very cautiously. Some DESB officers and school directors in districts where there had been intensive work with VEDCs through various programmes perceived a gradual change in practice and a greater awareness of children’s rights, something that was particularly emphasised by Ta Oy DESB informants.

6.5 Support to Linking Home and School Cultures

One area in which it might be expected that VEDCs can play a role in improving the quality of teaching and learning relates to their acting as a ‘bridge’ between the mainstream Lao culture of

schools and the diverse languages and cultures of communities across the country. As shown in Figure 32, only just over half of teachers and VEDC members perceive that VEDCs do have this effect. Interestingly, rather more villagers perceive that VEDCs are strengthening the home-school link. District-wise, 83.3% of respondents

Bouen Neua believed VEDCs have this effect, but the reasons for this much higher perception is not clear 16. A number of schools and districts gave examples of simple things that schools are doing, such as inviting communities to join for festival days and special cultural events. It is noted that the students were drawn from a smaller sub-sample of schools and were also asked the question in a slightly simpler way, either or both of which might account for their far more positive response, but it is nonetheless encouraging that children perceive this kind of participation to be strong. By contrast, fewer examples were given of villagers helping out in classrooms, for example telling traditional stories to children or giving local/traditional handicraft lessons.

Whilst the MOES envisage an important role of VEDCs to be to support implementation of a local curriculum, there were few examples of this found in practice. A number of DESB officers suggested that most VEDCs in areas where a local curriculum would be most valuable completely lack the capacity to develop and implement such a curriculum and DESBs are also unclear as to how to support such localisation.

14 Rewards included token systems, pens, flowers or clapping. 15 Physical punishment methods included twisting ears, being made to run around the school, stand on one leg for long periods, to kneel on a rock, ‘heads clash’, or frequently, being hit with a stick. 16 There is no obvious link here to level of project support: in Pha Oudom and Nongkhet only 30% and 46.7% respectively of stakeholders said they believed the VEDC is instrumental in bringing local culture into schools.

56.6

95.3

55.0 64.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Teachers Students VEDC Villagers

Figure 32: Percentage of respondents who agreed that the 'VEDCs support bringing local culture into schools'.

33

6.6 Chapter Summary It seems to be widely understood that VEDCs have the potential to support improvements in teaching and learning, and some examples were found in practice of all the areas specified in the handbook. The monitoring of teacher attendance in particular seems to have been taken up as a responsibility of the VEDC, which (provided it is in tandem with improvement in pupil attendance) has the potential to greatly increase ‘time on task’, with a direct positive link to learning outcomes. VEDCs not only ‘monitor’ in the sense of checking and applying sanctions to poorly-attending teachers, but also take positive, supportive action to encourage teachers to take up posts and then remain in them, through the provision of accommodation, food and friendship. Most VEDCs also seem to be trying to support teachers directly in the classroom, however here they face challenges of knowing ‘what to look for’ and how to give effective support. This brings us to the final ‘findings’ chapter, related to issues of VEDC capacity development.

7. VEDC Capacity Development

7.1. Introduction

Chapter 3 explored how far VEDCs are established and functioning, whilst Chapters 4-6 went into further detail about how far VEDCs are implementing their roles to improve school management and community participation and, thereby, supporting children’s enrolment, completion and learning. Throughout these chapters, it has been highlighted how VEDCs have had considerable success but also continue to face a number of constraints, many of which are capacity-related. It is, indeed, already widely recognised that the roles that have now been assigned to VEDCs are very demanding, in relation to their capacity and prior experience. In many remote areas of the country, and for specific ethnic groups, levels of literacy and basic education remain low, especially for women. To address these challenges, a range of programmes have been- or are being- implemented to build the capacity of VEDCs (including the work of school directors in relation to VEDCs), through training and the strengthening of on-going support and peer learning systems. Some (notably INGO programmes) have focused directly on targeted schools/ communities, whilst others (notably CIED and UNICEF) have worked mainly at the district level, building the capacity of DESBs to undertake their own training and support. FTI-1 included large-scale training of around 1,200 VEDCs, as well as school director training of more than 2,500 school directors (not all of it directly related to VEDCs), which owing to factors of scale and budget were essentially a ‘one off’. SBM training under GPE-2 looks set to take more of a DESB-centred approach, training teams of DESB trainers to deliver training in their own districts, carefully targeted to the most disadvantaged schools and villages/ VEDCs.

Through the initiatives so far, MOES has developed two standard training handbooks to support trainers in training School Directors and VEDC members, respectively. Building on earlier manuals, guidelines and training ‘hand-outs’, in 2013 three updated handbooks were issued by MOES to support schools and communities. These are the School Directors’ Handbook Volumes 1 and 2 and the Handbook for VEDCs. Linked to the development of the school block grant scheme in 2012, there is also a Manual for SBG, targeted at departments of finance at the district level and the relevant VEDC members in charge of finance at the village level. Meanwhile, the Department of Planning (DOP) has been working on development of training and guidance for DESBs in District Education Development Planning, which includes guidance for DESBs in making more systematic use of SDPs in objective-setting, planning, financial allocation and targeting school support and training efforts and resources.

34

This chapter reports on the findings in relation to these training and support initiatives and, more broadly, on overall perspectives on capacity-related constraints, capacity-development priorities and preferred approaches. It is emphasised that it was not intended to undertake a comparison of particular programmes or agencies (and indeed the data does not support such a comparison) but rather to understand overall what have been the benefits of different kinds of approach.

7.2 Constraint and Priorities

Before exploring the range of capacity development approaches, it is worthwhile to summarise what are the specific kinds of capacity-related constraints to VEDC effectiveness. As illustrated in Figure 33, the full range of possible constraints suggested to the informants were recognised in at least some cases, however some were considerably more important than others. For example, all DESBs perceive a funding constraint on visiting schools whilst only two DESBs felt they had a shortage of staff to make visits. The various constraints highlighted are referred to in the relevant sections of this chapter.

7.3. VEDC Training

7.3.1 Training coverage

As shown in Figures 34a and 34b, in our sample, 69% of school directors reported that they had received training on their roles in relation to VEDCs. Somewhere between 42% and 49% of VEDCs had been formally trained: the discrepancy between the views of VEDC members and school directors here is possibly because school directors referred to whether some training had taken place in the past two years, whereas VEDC members might have responded in relation to whether they, themselves, had been present for the training.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

VEDC uneducated

VEDC not well trained

systems too complicated

not enough written

guidance

Sch directors unable to support

DESB lacks sufficient funding

DESB lacks sufficient

staff

DESB lacks sufficient

knowledge

Figure 33: Which are the major capactiy-related constraints on VEDC effectiveness?

MoES/PESS DESB Sch Dir Village Ch VEDC

48.1

42.3

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Sch Director VEDC

Figure 34a: % of school directors and VEDC members that perceive that VEDCs have

been trained in the last two years

yes 69%

no 31%

Figure 34b: School Director training (%)

35

Figure 34c shows a considerable difference in VEDC training coverage across districts. The high level of training in Ta Oy probably reflects the ongoing capacity and resource support from UNICEF. Khoua, Khoun and Pa Oudom have benefited from FTI training (in Khoua most of the training seemed to be for school directors rather than the full VEDC), whilst Pha Oudom has benefited both from FTI and Plan support.

There is clearly some way to go in attaining full coverage of trained VEDCs. Most DESBs, asked what their future VEDC capacity development priorities were, emphasised expanding coverage (with existing modules etc.) over and above additional or revised content. This coincides with the findings discussed earlier that DESBs perceive a strong impact of training and a big difference between trained and untrained VEDCs. However, given the 2-3 year turnover rate of VEDCs (discussed in Chapter 3), it seems clear that attempts to achieve full coverage can only be sustained by establishing systems for the ongoing orientation and support of new members.

7.3.2 Training content

The trained VEDC members and directors, along with MoES, PESS and DESB personnel who have been involved in VEDC training, were questioned about what topics are covered. Whilst the level of detail varies (according to training length, particular emphasis of the supporting project etc.), trainers were quite strongly agreed that ‘roles and responsibilities’, ‘problem analysis’, ‘making SDP’ and ‘promoting enrolment’ are common to all trainings. Finance training was also widespread, though this had normally been targeted to just one or two individuals at both school and district levels. Recipients of training concurred with these perspectives, most commonly citing ‘roles and responsibilities’, ‘SDP’ and ‘SBG’ as topics of training, with some also mentioning training related to specific programmes such as managing school meals. VEDCs in Pha Oudom game notably more comprehensive descriptions of the training they had received, including health, gender and child rights, perhaps a reflection on the combination of FTI and Plan support.

Some DESB trainers reported that their VEDC training integrates an introduction to EQS, though less often orientation on the scoring process. Other DESBs reported having undertaken the separate EQS orientation training in some schools. Again, the issue of the proposed system of scoring being quite complicated was raised: interestingly, as shown in Figure 33, VEDC members themselves, along with the MOES/PESS/DP informants, perceived this as more of an issue than did DESBs, school directors and village chiefs.

Rather fewer trained VEDCs perceived that they had been trained regarding ‘supporting teaching and learning’. Whilst PESS and DESB trainers pointed out that this aspect is included, to some extent, under ‘roles and responsibilities’; they too highlighted this as an area that needs more

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Khoua Boun Neua Ton Pheung Pha Oudom Nongkhet Khoun Ta Oy Lao Ngam

Figure 34c: Number of VCs, SDs and VEDC members by District stating they have received training in the last 2 years (out of possible total of 30).

36

detailed coverage, reinforcing the findings presented in Chapter 6. When asked what further training they would like, VEDC members strongly prioritised ‘roles and responsibilities’ and ‘school management’. School directors agreed on these priorities, but also wanted to be trained further in how to facilitate the participation of the wider community, including learning particular techniques and approaches for this.

7.3.3 Training delivery

DESBs (as trainers) and school directors (as trainees and sometimes as informal trainers of other VEDC members) were very strongly agreed about which methods are most helpful in the training of VEDCs. As shown in Figure 35, participatory and task-based approaches were almost universally seen as ‘very useful’. MoES, PESS and DP officers with roles in VEDC training concurred with this view. It is noted, however, that most respondents did not dismiss the role of lecture methods, rating these as ‘somewhat useful’.

A significant determinant of the effectiveness of VEDC training would seem to be its location. As shown in Figure 36, the strong preference of the VEDC participants would seem to be for trainings to take place at the village level. The main reason was related to the preference for ‘on the job’

training approaches: being trained in-situ makes it possible for VEDCs to work on a real school assessment, problem analysis or planning task as a part of the training. Additional logistical reasons included that it would be easier to attend whilst not being taken away completely from other responsibilities (e.g.

family, farming) and that it is more possible to train VEDCs as ‘whole teams’ and bring in other community members, or teachers, as needed. DESBs, by contrast, whilst recognising these advantages, felt that this could also be achieved at the cluster level, in particular emphasising

the importance of including the VEDCs of incomplete schools in training (which is possible by taking a cluster-based approach). School directors most strongly favoured a district-level training, explaining that this would give a better chance of meeting new people, learning new ideas (e.g. by study visits to local schools) and also asserting that this would ensure that VEDC members, village chiefs in particular, would not be diverted onto other tasks but could attend full-time. These differing perspectives suggest that DESBs should not be forced into a ‘straight jacket’ but supported to consider the pros and cons of different scenarios and consult with participants to identify the best solution in each case.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

In own village In a village cluster At district level don’t know

Figure 36: Where is the best location to train VEDCs?

DESB Sch Director Vill Chief VEDC

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Lecture Participatory Task based

%

Figure 35: Respondents perceptions of which training methods are most useful?

DESB School Directors

37

7.3.4 Training management, evaluation and reporting

DESB and PESS trainers generally felt able to manage training implementation and context and felt constrained mainly by lack of budget. However, most would nevertheless welcome the opportunity to further develop their training skills as well as increase the size of their training teams. All DESBs reported that they keep records of VEDC training, however these were not necessarily available for the research teams to peruse. When asked to describe their approach to training, only a few trainers made reference to basing training on initial needs analysis or to ending training with evaluation by both participants and trainers, suggesting a possible need for more emphasis on this area.

7.4 DESB Support Visits to VEDCs

Despite the challenges of lack of budget for monitoring and sometimes also staff limitations (presented in Figure 33 and discussed further in Section 7.7), DESBs do visit schools and support VEDCs as a part of these visits. However, the frequency of support provided to VEDCs by DESB is not clear, with different stakeholders perceiving different levels of support. As illustrated in Figures 37a and 37b, 21% of urban schools said they have received no VEDC support visits from DESBs in the past 12 months, but DESBs maintained this is only 8% of schools. Interestingly, rural schools provided similar results despite their further distance from their DESB. Discussions with DESBs revealed that whilst an average is 1-3 visits and they often manage to reach their target of twice yearly visits to more accessible schools, it is quite common for some schools in the most remote locations to not be visited at all, or only once a year.

Figure 38 shows which DESB officers are involved in school visits. As was anticipated, most support is given by the pedagogical advisers (PAs) and by officers of the district-level DPPE. There are differences of opinion regarding the use of PAs to support VEDCs: some informants, in particular

none 8%

1 to 3 75%

4+ 17%

Figure 37a: DESB view on frequency of school visits

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Pedagogy Advisors

DPPE Academic Unit Teacher Training

Statistics and Planning

ECE All

Figure 38: Total number of DESB officers responsible for supporting VEDCs

none 21%

1 to 3 67%

4+ 12%

Figure 37b: Urban schools- VC & SD views on frequency of DESB visits

38

from DPs, felt strongly that given the severe quality challenges in the sector, PAs should not be distracted from their primary task of supporting classroom teaching. Others, however, pointed out the evidence for the effectiveness of linking pedagogical support to wider processes of ‘whole school development’. More pragmatically, until more budget can be found, it seems likely that DESBs will continue to try to make most efficient use of any opportunities they have to visit schools to support all areas as well as they can. It is also interesting to note that a number of different officers make visits to schools in different capacities, in particular ECE technical officers (a number of whom joined the research interviews) often work very closely with VEDCs.

As shown in Figure 39, DESBs seemingly employ a number of methods in their support to VEDCs during school visits. Unsurprisingly, visits almost universally include discussions with the school director, and seemingly in around 80% of cases also involve the wider VEDC (though DESBs perceived this to be higher). Interestingly, more DESBs than school-level informants perceived that DESBs give written comments, whilst far fewer perceived that they complete a standard inspection checklist. However, this should be interpreted with caution as schools might have been refereeing to a standard notification form rather than a monitoring tool. Given that it would not be expected that DESBs would do all of the different things in each and every visit (but tailor according to the need, context and time of year etc.) it is encouraging that over 60% of school level stakeholders perceived that there are examples of DESBs doing all of the suggested tasks at some point. PESS officials were more likely to believe that DESBs require further training for carrying out their VEDC training and support roles than were DESBs themselves.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Figure 39: Methods used by DESB during visits to school (%)

DESB Sch Director Vill Chief VEDC

39

7.5 Self-learning and Support Materials and Other Capacity Development Approaches

As noted in the chapter introduction, a number of different handbooks and guides have been developed to support the work of the VEDC. Figure 40 shows the extent to which the various support documents have so far been distributed to the DESB and school levels. Reassuringly, 12 of the 13 DESB and DEDCs asked said they were ‘very familiar’ with this literature. One DESB team noted that they have received very few of the stipulated VEDC-related manuals but have been able to access and download many of these from the internet. However, the percentage drops to only 38% of school directors and village chiefs. So far, it seems that distribution to school level is not systematic- only trained school directors and VEDCs are receiving the handbooks (handed out during trainings) and training coverage is, in turn, determined by the level of DP/programme support to a district. On the one hand, many perceive that the distribution of manuals without training would be fruitless, given the low education levels and lack of a culture of reading in the country as a whole. Others, however, point to the value of having ‘something rather than nothing’ and- as was shown in Figure 33- around 60% of informants overall identified ‘lack of written guidance’ as a major constraint to VEDC effectiveness. Certainly, as illustrated in Figure 41, DESBs, school directors and village chiefs generally value highly the manuals that they do have. Moreover, school directors and VEDCs identified access to the existing manuals (VEDC handbook and SD handbook, especially Volume Two on SDP and EQS), as well as additional self-learning resources as a high priority for further building their capacity. A further point of feedback was that capacity development does not need to be limited to training and manuals. VEDCs can learn much from other VEDCs, through opportunities for meetings and visits. Mention was also made of the potential of use of ICT, posters and DVDs, with reference to various projects that have developed these various supplementary capacity development materials.

37.5 37.5

75

100

37.5

87.5

12.5

30 17.5

25 28.75

0

45

0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Sch Mangmt H'book Vol 1

2013

Sch Mangmt H'book Vol 2

2013

VEDC Handbook

2013

EQS for Primary Schs

2013

EQS Orientation Guidelines

SBG Manual H'book for Dist Devt Planning

2012

Figure 40: Which manuals do DESB and School Directors have ? (%)

DESB School Director

0

20

40

60

Very somewhat not very don’t know

Figure 41: How useful are the various manuals that DESBs/Schools have?

DESB/DEDC Sch Director Village Chief

40

7.6 Finance and Incentives

A final observation from the research findings is that there were common references from informants from all levels of the importance of adequate, recurrent financing to build and sustain VEDC capacity and motivation. VEDC members seemed to realise and accept that direct financial incentives related to VEDC work would not be realistic. However, they pointed out how having a reasonable and regular school block grant would provide an incentive for SDP and how small financial allocations that would allow schools to make copies of handbooks, purchase notebooks and writing materials, run mini-trainings and so on, would not only improve the quality of VEDC’s work but also make VEDCs feel more valued. As discussed earlier, schools and VEDCs highly rate DESB support visits and in-situ refresher trainings/orientations that are tailored to their needs and current priorities. Figure 33 shows that different informants unanimously agreed that the single largest constraint on these activities is the lack of budget. All eight DESBs agreed on this point, with strong backing from school-level informants as well as provincial- and central-level stakeholders. This constraint impacts on the frequency and duration of support visits, but also on the possibilities for DESBs to run additional mini- or refresher- trainings for struggling VEDCs. In some districts, especially larger ones, there is an additional but linked constraint of the numbers of DESB staff available to undertake such visits. DESB officers felt strongly that financial and logistical constraints to visiting schools were much more significant than any weaknesses in their own capacity or training. As one PA put it: “if we can get to the school and stay there for a good while, then we know what to do with that time”.

7.7 Chapter Summary

In summary, significant progress has been made in building VEDC capacity through training and ongoing support and there is a marked difference between trained and untrained VEDCs. Trainers and trainees alike see the benefits of practical, hands-on and participatory approaches to training. The various handbooks are seen as useful, but need to be more widely available and in some cases could helpfully be simplified, as well as supplemented by visual and audio-visual methods and greater opportunities for struggling VEDCs to learn from stronger ones. Regular, tailored, DESB support is the foundation of building and sustaining VEDC capacity, highlighting the urgency of addressing the lack of funding for regular school monitoring and support, as well as consideration of a ‘whole school’ approach that ensures that DESB support to VEDCs is understood as reinforcing that given to teachers in the classroom, rather than detracting from it.

41

8. Conclusion and Lessons Learned

The research has generated detailed and illuminating findings across the full range of identified areas of enquiry. Some of the ‘lessons learned’ are highlighted in Figure 42.

There is much that is encouraging. The research found that, in our sample of poorer and average districts across four disparate provinces, VEDCS are generally established and known about. Moreover, they are already seen as not only having the potential to enhance community participation in education and to support improved enrolment and completion, but also to be already achieving this potential in practice in many cases. In particular, they have taken up activities related to bringing children into school, supporting children at risk of dropping out, monitoring teacher attendance, participation in problem analysis as a prelude to SDP and mobilising community contributions to school development, especially through labour and materials donations.

The findings on VEDC functionality suggested that most stakeholders have a basic understanding of the roles and functions of the VEDC (as appropriate to their level and role), but that, however, this understanding is not yet universal, especially regarding community members. VEDCs generally have the required seven members but are often not availing themselves of the existing provision to extend beyond this number, in situations where this would be beneficial. Whilst school directors are generally present on the VEDCs they are often not in the stipulated position of Secretary. Indeed, except for the village chiefs playing the role of Chairperson, there is considerable variation regarding which of the stipulated persons are VEDC members and what roles they play. Of particular concern is the absence of teacher members and under-representation of women in many cases. Most VEDCs meet fairly regularly, but not on the monthly basis recommended in official guidance and few seem to be making use of the standardised forms for minutes, accounts and records.

The ‘status-based’ structure of VEDCs (in as far as it is being followed) promotes their authoritative agency and they are generally seen to be adding greater weight to the already-established Parents’ Associations, enhancing their ability to encourage parents and monitor teachers. A caveat is that in some villages the younger persons who have attained various VEDC positions (on account of their education/literacy level) are not necessarily those that command most respect within the

Figure 42: Lessons Learned VEDCs can make a difference to children, schools and

communities. ‘High turnover’ of VEDCs is less of a problem than

‘poor continuity’. VEDCs’ contribution to social equity is more than a

matter of numerical ‘balance’ of membership. Increasing community participation in the decision-

making and accountability aspects of school management is likely to require a long-term change process that takes account of cultural factors.

VEDCs are capable of making a meaningful impact on teaching learning through the synergistic monitoring of teacher and pupil attendance.

Even VEDC members with limited literacy and formal education can benefit from formal training, especially if this is tailored to their needs.

Successful VEDC training is generally participatory, directly relevant to the context and current priorities of the learners, supports peer-to-peer learning, takes account of the needs of those who do not speak or understand Lao well, includes incomplete schools and is linked to systems of ongoing follow up.

Regular, systematic and tailored support from DESBs underpins VEDC effectiveness. Therefore the current lack of budget for DESB monitoring tasks constitutes a major constraint to building sustainable VEDC capacity.

VEDC effectiveness can be enhanced by a wider range of incentives than training on its own

Manuals and materials are particularly valuable as a supplement to training, however they can also be a great support to those who are still awaiting an opportunity for training.

42

traditional culture (often older people endowed with traditional wisdom but lacking formal education).

A broader challenge inherent in the stipulated approach to membership is that, at least in the short- to mid- term, women will be automatically under-represented, due to their being less likely to be holders of the specified posts (except for the LWU member), linking in turn to the current gender gap (for adults) in education levels, literacy attainment and (for ethnic group communities) abilities in Lao language. There is a difficult balance to be achieved in improving representation both of women and of various disadvantaged individuals and groups, without resulting in a ‘tokenistic’ representation that, by reducing the effectiveness of the VEDC, might be detrimental in the longer term to progress towards equity goals.

A rather different issue related to the specifications for VEDC membership regards the tendency for whole VEDCs to change along with the village chief. The results suggest that it is this lack of continuity, rather than overall rates of turnover, which presents challenges, both to orientation of new members and to sustaining and deepening activities that have been initiated.

VEDCs have a clear link with DESBs, via their school directors, who generally submit monthly reports that cover all aspects of school management. VEDCs sometimes also report to DEDCs, but overall this linkage is less well-established, reflecting wider challenges over the establishment of functioning DEDCs and, indeed, clarity on what should be their specific roles, membership and ‘added value’.

Regarding VEDC roles in school management, the basic idea of developing and implementing an SDP is gradually taking root, with VEDCs playing some role in most aspects of making SDP in most schools. In particular, VEDCs seem to be active in problem analysis and subsequently identifying priority needs along with simple strategies to address these. However, there is still some way to go before all schools and VEDCs are preparing and implementing an effective SDP and maximising the participation of the whole school (including teachers and pupils) and the wider community. As a part of SDP, some schools have started to use the system of EQS scoring. Whilst provinces and districts have some basic understanding of EQS, even at this level some find the scoring system quite complicated and this is very much more the case at the school/ community level, especially in marginalised and/or multilingual communities.

VEDCs appear to have had a strong impact on the level of community participation in schools. Communities are making a range of contributions to a range of important aspects of school development. However, in common with neighbouring countries, there seem to be some limitations on the roles that community members- especially the more disadvantaged- are at present able to play in terms of the decision-making and accountability aspects of school management.

As noted above, VEDCs’ contribution to ESDP Pillar 1 (Access and Equity) objectives is the area where VEDCs appear to be having the most consistent beneficial effect. VEDCs’ achievements in this area seem to be the result of a range of strategies, in particular making visits to children’s homes and finding ways to encourage and support struggling families. Many VEDCs are also involved in the management of a range of initiatives designed to address the ‘demand’ side barriers to education that are relevant to the particular community, for example early childhood or school meals programmes. To inform their strategies, VEDCs mostly use at least some of the recommended methods of data collection, including registers and EMIS data, as well as ‘local knowledge’. However, some schools do not use all the tools available, specifically village mapping, and do not always identify all ‘categories’ or situations of out-of-school children.

43

Regarding VEDCs’ contribution to ESDP Pillar 2 Quality objectives, it seems to be widely understood that VEDCs have the potential to support improvements in teaching and learning. The monitoring of teacher attendance in particular seems to have been taken up as a responsibility of the VEDC, which (provided it is in tandem with improvement in pupil attendance) has the potential to greatly increase ‘time on task’, with a direct positive link to learning outcomes. VEDCs not only ‘monitor’ in the sense of checking and applying sanctions to poorly-attending teachers, but also take positive, supportive action to encourage teachers to work in rural and remote schools, including the provision of appropriate accommodation for them. Most VEDCs also recognise there is an opportunity to support teachers directly in the classroom, however here they face challenges of knowing how to do this effectively. There are some encouraging examples of how VEDCs are helping to bridge the cultural gap between home and school in ethnic group communities.

The achievements that many VEDCs have made so far, as well as the challenges that many face, relate in large part to VEDC capacity (both of individual members and of teams as a whole). Significant progress has been made in implementing formal VEDC training programmes (especially where there has been support through FTI or other DP programme). There is perceived to be a marked difference between trained and untrained VEDCs and, critically, training is seen to be a more important contributor to VEDC effectiveness than the prior level of education of individual members. Trainers and trainees alike see the benefits of practical, hands-on and participatory approaches to training, which gives rise to a general preference for village or cluster-based training but, however, a preference of school directors for district-level training where they have access to a wider peer group for support and learning.

Even more than training, regular, tailored, DESB support seems to be the foundation of building and sustaining VEDC capacity. DESB support visits are highly valued and seen as crucial by all stakeholders. This highlights the urgency of addressing the lack of funding for regular school monitoring and support. There are also some challenges in ensuring a clear system of undertaking support, recording and following up on specific issues, as well as how DESBs can support VEDCs without reducing the already-constrained time that PAs have for actually supporting teachers in the classroom. These challenges point to the need for further capacity development of DESB teams themselves, regarding targeting support to weaker schools and linking different kinds of support through a ‘whole school’ approach. There has been notable progress in the development of handbooks and guidance materials both for the direct use of VEDCs and for school principals and DESBs in areas that relate to the work of VEDCs. These have not yet been universally distributed but where they are available are generally seen as useful. At present, outside of the bounds of specific projects, there has been limited attention to a wider range of forms of capacity development, for example visual and audio-visual methods, use of ICT and provision of greater opportunities for struggling VEDCs to learn from stronger ones.

44

9. Recommendations

This chapter, on the basis of the research findings elaborated above, makes recommendations and suggestions regarding the future development of VEDCs, through policy, legislation, systems development and capacity-building.

9.1 Functionality

R1. Numbers of members: VEDCs generally have seven members but are not necessarily aware that it is already allowed to have more than this. Taking advantage of the existing provision for flexibility in particular contexts could help to enhance VEDCs’ inclusivity, authority or practical effectiveness. It might also allow for a better mix of status-based and elected roles, which in turn would help support continuity. It is therefore

recommended to further clarify the existing stipulation that a VEDC should have at least 7 members but may have up to 15.

R2. Optimal membership: It was found that not all the stipulated members are present and sometimes members are not in the right position on the VEDC to ensure optimal functioning. It is therefore

recommended to further clarify who should be the core members of the VEDC, whilst also allowing for some flexibility in dividing detailed tasks according to the context. Specifically: Chair should be the Village Chief or delegated Deputy Village Chief Deputy should be the Head of the Lao Front for Safeguarding and Construction Secretary should be the School Director The President of the Parents’ Association should be a member There should be at least one teacher member. Schools with 4 or more teachers

should have at least two teacher members Mass organisation members should include the President of the village Lao

Woman’s Union (LWU) and the Secretary of the Lao Youth Union Additional discretionary members should be identified in situations where these

will help to: — Ensure adequate representation of women on VEDCs (also see R3); — Ensure representation of all the main ethnic groups present in a community; — Allow for committed, available persons of good standing in the community to

put themselves forward for an elected position on the VEDC — Ensure sufficient members to perform roles and implement planned activities

(related to school and community size).

R3: Improving representation of women and disadvantaged community members: The research highlighted that women are present on most VEDCs but under-represented in terms of numbers. VEDCs do have strategies for taking account of the needs of the whole community, however the lack of direct representation of disadvantaged members, sometimes including marginalised ethnic groups, has implications for how far VEDCs have access to the full range of perspectives and insights about the community and also VEDCs’ ability to communicate successfully with all segments of the community. This situation is changing due to advances in education, but only slowly. There is a recognition that active steps need to be taken, but at the same time there seems to be limited support for a rigid ‘quota’ approach, which might result in ‘tokenistic’ representation. The missed opportunity to appropriately involve students in aspects of the work of VEDCs was also

45

noted. On the basis of these findings and taking account of the study participants’ suggestions (Figure 11) it is:

recommended to support the increased participation of women in VEDCS by: Encouraging communities and schools to aim to progressively include more

women on the VEDC (and indeed other village positions) and wherever possible include at least three.

Re-emphasising that the President (or elected representative) of the LWU member should always be a part of the VEDC

Encouraging a second Parents Association member who is an active woman in the parents association to sit on the VEDC alongside the president

Ensuring that teachers are included in the VEDC and allowing for an increased number of teachers where this would enable a women teacher to join the VEDC.

VEDC capacity development approaches that enable VEDCs to offer peer-support to members who lack experience or confidence.

recommended to disseminate successful examples from projects of tailored and innovative approaches to improve the participation of students, marginalised minorities and other disadvantaged persons or groups in VEDCs Trialling approaches for involving students in appropriate aspects of VEDC activity,

which could be through direct student representation on the VEDC or through formalised dialogue opportunities between the Youth Union representative and the School Council (where School Councils are established).

R4: Addressing continuity: The findings suggested that high turnover of VEDCs is perceived to be a considerable constraint on VEDC effectiveness. When unpacked, it seems that the challenge is not so much the length of the VEDC term of office, but that the status-based composition of VEDCs often results in a complete turnover (except the school director) at one time, creating challenges in continuity and in orientation of new members. It is therefore

recommended that, in conjunction with implementation of Recommendation 1, it is encouraged that selection and election of non-status based positions on VEDCs (teachers, additional community members and parents) takes place at a different time from the changeover in village leadership; and

recommended to clarify that it is the responsibility of the School Director, with the support of existing and out-going VEDC members, to give orientation to new members (this has implications for school director training and support detailed in R12).

R5: DEDC functionality: The study found that DEDCs, through their diverse membership with correspondence to different VEDC positions, have the potential -through regular meetings- to mobilise cross-sectoral support to education. However, many DEDCs are not yet fully functioning in practice. It is therefore

recommended to clarify the roles, membership and functions of DEDCs and incorporate these into a set of clear Guidelines as follows: Map out simply and clearly on a district-by-district basis the key ‘demand’ issues in

education that require cross-sectoral collaboration (e.g. health, sanitation, nutrition, maternal and early childhood care, livelihoods development) and how DEDCs can address these;

Clarify who should be DEDC members and what are their roles and responsibilities;

46

Clarify how DEDCs should operate in practice, in particular their relationship to DESBs; what should be lines of reporting and communication between VEDCs, DESBs and DEDCs and frequency of meetings.

9.2 VEDC Support Access, Quality and Management

R6: VEDCs and School Based Management: It was found that, in line with the gradual introduction of basic concepts and practice of SDP, there is a steady increase in VEDCs’ involvement in the various aspects of the cycle of school development. They are in particular getting involved in making a simple problem analysis, identifying ‘do-able’ strategies for school improvement and facilitating community contributions, in particular labour and materials. There are, however, certain ‘teething problems’ in the roll-out of SDP/ SBM, which currently constrain the full and effective participation of VEDCs. It is therefore:

recommended to strengthen the systems of SBM to facilitate and maximise VEDC involvement, in the following ways: as a part of the current work (led by ESQAC) to further clarify and simplify the EQS,

consider the development of pictorial indicators so that VEDC members are able to evaluate EQS to some extent. (See also MTR recommendation)

as a part of the ‘reactivating’ of SBG under GPE-2, clarify the role of school directors vis a vis village chiefs in relation to school budgeting and the management of SBG.

ensure that the SBM framework currently being developed with leadership from DOP achieves a balance between the requirements of DESBs for clear information from schools’ SDPs and the vital importance of schools and communities having a full ‘ownership’ of their SDP, seeing it as a useful guide of their school development activities. An ‘extractive’ approach should be avoided.

R7. VEDC support to access and equity: The research found very strong perceptions of VEDCs having a significant impact in this area. Taking account of the findings regarding a range of constraints to fully successful implementation of the range of strategies that VEDCs are implementing, it is

recommended to further enhance VEDC’s contribution to supporting enrolment, equity and inclusion by: establishing village maps as a strategy to reach out to ALL children, so identifying

those who otherwise would be missed. clarify the roles and responsibilities of VEDCs regarding ECD (e.g. in relation to

separate ECD Committees) and build all VEDC’s awareness of the benefits both of pre-primary education and all forms of early childhood development support.

R8: VEDC support to quality and learning: The research found that, additionally to support to the physical aspects of the school environment and the provision of basic learning materials, VEDCs are monitoring teacher attendance and giving practical support to teachers. They are in some cases monitoring the work of teachers and supporting an informal ‘localisation’ of the curriculum but are somewhat constrained by limited competence and confidence in ‘what to look for’ and how to offer practical support. It is therefore:

recommended to improve VEDC effectiveness in supporting teaching and learning by:

47

establishing the monitoring of both teacher and pupil attendance as a strategy for ALL schools, raising awareness of the well-researched correlation of ‘instructional time’ and learning outcomes

make explicit the role of the VEDC in monitoring teachers’ management and discipline of children, including in discouraging physical punishment and supporting teachers in transitioning to employing alternative approaches.

develop training content and simple support materials to help VEDCs undertake simple monitoring of classroom teaching. (See also Recommendation 10)

9.3 VEDC Capacity Development

R9 Coverage of VEDC training: It was found that basic training makes a critical difference to VEDC effectiveness. Untrained VEDC members in particular want to develop the understanding and practical skills necessary to carry out their basic roles and responsibilities. In light of the proposals under GPE-2 to ensure all schools/VEDCs have at least the basic level of capacity to meet the ‘minimum conditions’ to avail of SBG, it is

recommended that MOES, with the support of all relevant programmes, collectively ensures sufficient financial and human resources to enable all Districts to reach all VEDCs (including school directors) that currently lack basic capacity, with at least a basic training on core purpose, roles and responsibilities of VEDCs. Taking account of the imperative to enhance equity, it is proposed that such training should include VEDCs in villages that have incomplete schools, or do not have a school but manage ECD or NFE programmes.

R10 VEDC training content and approaches: VEDCs that have been trained, along with their trainers, have generally appreciated the main areas of content and are clear in their preference for ‘on the job’ and participatory approaches, which in turn gives rise to a preference for school- or cluster- based training. Localised training also makes it easier to include incomplete and satellite schools as well as to ensure that training can respond to the needs of speakers of ethnic group languages. It is therefore

recommended to consider the following factors in further development and roll-out of VEDC training: Develop a national training plan dividing existing training content into discrete

modules, which allows for a flexible roll out and a staged approach to capacity development. This would allow, for example, DESBs to first prioritise ensuring all VEDCs have at least a basic understanding of their roles and responsibilities (see R10 above) and can then develop further capacity in areas according to local needs, priorities and contexts. This modular approach also makes it easier to make ongoing additional and adjustments without the need to re-write whole training manuals.

Within this modular framework, further develop content, in particular in relation to: — Making and using school maps and community data — Strategies for monitoring and supporting quality of teachers’ teaching and

class management/discipline. — Strategies for ‘localising’ the curriculum and making relevant links with home

cultures. Increase emphasis on on–the-job, participatory and school- or cluster-based

training.

48

Take further measures to ensure VEDC members are not disadvantaged in training by lack of Lao language. For example, occasional cluster-level training enabling grouping by language background or the development of specific ethnic language technical terms/ descriptions could be considered.

R11: School Director capacity and VEDCs: School directors have a critical role in supporting other VEDC members, especially where education levels are generally low. The burden of keeping VEDC records, forms and accounts might also fall mainly on the school director. It is therefore

recommended to prioritise untrained school directors for basic school management training and further incorporate within such trainings basic skills in support and orientation of VEDC members, VEDC operations, record-keeping and accounts etc.

R12: Self- and Peer-Learning Materials: Notwithstanding Recommendation 14 (below) on the importance of DESB support to VEDCs, this is likely never to be enough and there is a need to gradually embed and sustain VEDC capacity at the school and community levels. The School Directors’ Handbooks and VEDC Handbook are useful tools that can support self-learning and orientation of new VEDC members: those that had received them generally highly valued them, whilst at the same time recognising the need for a more multi-layered approach Accordingly, it is

recommended to disseminate the VEDC Handbook and two volumes of SD Handbooks to ALL schools, updating to new versions as these become available.

recommended to develop a simplified version of the VEDC handbook targeted to VEDC members with limited education/literacy skills, focused on core practical skills and understanding.

9.4 DESBs (and PESS) as Trainers, Supporters and Planners

R13: DESB capacity: the research did much to confirm that DESB training and various forms of support are central to building and sustaining the capacity of VEDCs to be able to be effective. In line with proposals for GPE-2 and with approaches already taken by CIED, UNICEF and other initiatives, it is

recommended to strengthen the focus on the development of cross-departmental teams within DESBs with the capacity to support and monitor all aspects of VEDCs' work, and in particular their ability to: assess schools’ needs through direct consultation and use of statistics and schools’

SDPs; accurately target the VEDCs for different types of training and other kinds of

support; implement training using participatory and ‘on the job’ approaches, based on

needs analysis and on-going self- and participant- evaluation; facilitate lesson-learning between schools and school clusters and with

neighbouring districts. recommended to ensure that all PESS and DESBs have full access (in hard copy,

soft-copy, or via web access) to the full set of current and future manuals concerned with VEDCs, SBM, DESB support to school and District Education Planning.

recommended that further supplementary visual and audio-visual materials are developed, or adapted from existing programmes, which DESBs (as well as PESS and MOES trainers) can use flexibly to support VEDC capacity development

49

9.5 An Enabling Policy, Institutional and Resource Environment for VEDCs

R14 Legislation, policy and dissemination: Once there is consensus on a response to the suggestions made in Recommendations 1-5 regarding the overall parameters of VEDCs, it is

recommended to ensure further dissemination and awareness–raising around VEDCs including: Incorporation of a summary of stipulations on the key purposes, roles and basic

structure of VEDCs into the revised Education Law. Reiteration of these basic stipulations as appropriate within the new ESDP, the

developing SBM framework and design frameworks of GPE-2 and BEQUALs, to encourage a broad shared understanding of VEDCs amongst policy makers, managers and implementers.

Creation of a simple, visual leaflet and poster summarising the purposes, composition and main roles of VEDCs to support the filling of current gaps in understanding and awareness at the school and community levels.

R15: Financing VEDC effectiveness: The research clearly highlighted that VEDC effectiveness is constrained by a lack of resources and, in particular, the lack of monitoring. It is therefore

recommended that, in order to optimise the potential benefits of planned support through GPE-2, BEQUAL and other programmes, every effort is made to address the current lack of recurrent funding for DESBs to carry out their core functions in relation to school support and monitoring (and VEDC support as integral to this)

recommended that consideration be given to a more flexible allocation of PAs to take account of the size of districts (in terms of the number and level of accessibility of schools).

R16: Consultation processes: Finally, it is noted that this research confirmed the ability of VEDC members, parents and disadvantaged community members to express their opinions on matters of education that affect them. Moreover, it highlighted that often, school and community stakeholder groups have different perspectives from those at other levels, but their voices are less often heard in policy discussions. It is therefore

recommended that, in light of the process of decentralisation, consideration be given to how to further establish and institutionalise mechanisms by which VEDCs and primary stakeholders of education have ongoing opportunity to express their views and provide a ‘reality check’ on policy and programme implementation at the grassroots.

I

List of References

ESDP and Lao Government policies and plans relevant to VEDCs Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Draft National Education Law, 2014 Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Minister of Education Agreement No. 2300 on Village

Education Development Committee (VEDC). 3rd September, 2008 Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The National Policy on Holistic Early Childhood Development.

6th December 2010 MoES Education Quality Standards for Primary Education (EQS). MoES, 2013 MOES Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP) of Lao PDR 2011-2015, July 2011. MoES/ GPE The School Meal Programme at a Glance MoES, 2012.

Sector reviews that refer to VEDCs MOES ESDP Joint Sector Review Mission, April 2014 MoES Mid Term Review of the Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP), 2013. Seel, A. ESDP MTR Basic Education Report, July 2013.

VEDC Capacity Development under FTI and other Programmes Global Partnership for Education in Lao PDR/ World Bank. GPE –II Appraisal, August 2014 Government of Australia/ Government of Lao PRD Basic Education Access and Quality in Lao

PDR (BEQUAL) Design Document, 2014. Marshall, J. EFA-FTI Programme Evaluation: An End-Of Project Update on Implementation of the

Five Quality Sub-Components. WB/FTI, August 2014. MOES. Second Implementation Mission for the EFA-FTI and the EDP II-AF, March 2012 MOES. Aide Memoire of MTR of EFA- FTI, October 2012 MOES- Focal Group 3: Various Presentations on Development of and SBM/ Education Planning

Framework, SBM meeting, October 2014. MOES/JICA/CIED Community Initiative For Education Development Project Phase 2 (CIED- II)-

Outline. MOES/ JICA/ CIED End of Phase One Report, MOES 2011 MOES/ JICA/CIED Joint Mid Term Review of CIED-2 (Sept 2012-Aug 2016), 2014. Munro and Howe for Plan International. Strengthening Local Governance and Participation for

the Realisation of Children’s Right to Education, January 2010 to June 2013. Final Evaluation, Plan International, August 2013

Seel A. Evaluation of Plan International in Lao PDR’s Early Education and Development (ECED) Programme. Final Report, January 2012

WB/GPE: Draft training strategy for GPE, April 2014 WB/FTI School Based Management in Lao PDR, Current Condition and Recommendations for the

Future (RAND), 2012

VEDC and SDP Training Materials/ Handbooks The Education Quality Standards for Primary Education, MOES 2013 Orientation for School Development to Meet the Education Quality Standards (Handbook),

MOES, 2013. School Management Handbooks for School Principals Volume 1 School Management Handbooks for School Principals Volume 2 Planning and Budgeting Manual for the Education Sector, MOES, 2013 School Development to Meet the Education Quality Standards: Handbook on Village Education

Development Committees.

II

Background Information King E. and Van de Walle, D. Laos- Ethno-linguistic diversity and disadvantage. Chapter 7 in

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Development. World Bank, March 2010. UNESCO. Gender and Ethnicity in the Context of Equality and Access in Lao Education.

Regional and International Studies Ai Shoraku Educational Movement toward School- Based Management in East Asia: Cambodia,

Indonesia and Thailand. UNESCO GMR, 2008. Boyle, A., Brock, A, Mace J. and Sibbons M. The ‘Costs’ of Sending Children to School. A Six

Country Case Study, Synthesis Report, DFID 2003. Premananda Mishra and Radhakanta Gartia Administration of Elementary Education in Odisha:

Role of Village Education Committee in Voice of Research Vol 2, Issue 3. December 2013. Unknown. How Effectives is School-Based Management in Central Java? A Paper Presented on

the 27th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) in Yogyakarta-Indonesia. January 2014.

1

List of Annexes

Page

A Terms of Reference 1

B Research Committee Members 8

C Research Participants 9

D Research Workplan 11

E List of Core Research Questions (CRQs) 12

F District Information 14

G Matrix of Questions For All Tools

22

2

Annex A: Terms of Reference

1. Background and Rationale Administration and management of the education system in Lao PDR is divided into 17 provinces and the Capital City Vientiane, together comprising 147 districts and some 10,500 villages (2005 Census). The administration was centralized in 1975, decentralized in 1986, and then recentralized 1991. The 1986 decentralization was inadequately planned, making revenue generation and management problematic, as richer provinces did not subsidize poor ones under decentralization1. Recentralization brought strategic planning and fiscal functions of the administration under the central Government2. In 1999, recognizing the difficulties in establishing a fully centralized system and the possible drawbacks, the government moved towards a de-concentrated approach to general administration3. At the central level the education system is administered by the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES). Offices of the Provincial Education and Sports Service (PESS) are responsible for education development within their jurisdiction, including teacher’s supply, inspection and also coordination of support for villages. District Education and Sports Bureaus (DESB) are responsible for education development in their areas, and support villages through pedagogical advisers. Under the guidance of the PESS and DESB, at the local level Village Education Development Committees ensure involvement of the community in village affairs. Education is funded by central, provincial and district authorities. Another decentralization initiative from the top level of the Lao People Revolution Party Politburo and Party Central, No. 03/PPC, (known as 3 builds-Sam sang) was enacted on 15 February 2012. This directive on decentralization has the goal to improve the standard of living in all villages. The Sam Sang pilot project involves 17 provinces, 51 districts and 108 focal villages around the nation. The pilot Three-Builds initiative began in October 2012 with the aim of working closely to monitor programmes, projects and activities at every level to ensure they are being carried out in line with the directive. The aims of the directive, to realise the resolution passed by the Ninth Party Congress, spells out how provinces are to be built up as strategy-making units, districts are to be planning units, and villages are to become development units. The resolution set an ambitious goal to reduce poverty among Lao families to less than ten percent of the population by 2015, and move Laos closer to eradicating poverty by 2020. Decentralization has been one of the most important goals of educational development in Laos. The government has established Village Education Development Committees (VEDCs), and District Education Development Committees (DEDC’s) as key strategic mechanisms under decentralization. Although not yet established and operational in all areas, they will work under the guidance of the Provincial Education Service and District Education Bureau and ensure community engagement in education, as stipulated in The MOES Decree No-2300/MOES.DP/08, dated 3 September 2008. DEDCs comprise 17 members, and it is stipulated that one member is to be the Chief of mass organizations in the District, for example, Lao Women’s Union. VEDCs are composed of the village head, representatives from various organizations (unions, youth and women's groups, etc.). The role of VEDC is described as promoting enrolment, retention, learning achievement and village effectiveness in the management of education. They are the statutory bodies responsible for overseeing the educational development of the children in villages. According to the report by RAND CORPORATION and World Bank most schools in Lao PDR have established a Village Education Development Committee (VEDC) that serves as liaison to the community, raises funds, and participates in many school activities. The Education Sector Development Framework (ESDF) of 2009 sets out a formal role for VEDCs in the School Block Grant scheme4.

1 Fiscal Decentralization in the People’s Democratic Republic of Laos, Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, Juan Luis Gomez and Guevera Yao 2006-Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. 2 MOES, 2000 and April 2008. 3 MOES 2002; April 2008 4 School Based Management in Lao PDR, Current Condition and Recommendations for the Future,

3

The MOES Decree No-2300/MOES.DP has given direction that the role of the District Education Development Plan (DEDC) is to supervise and guide planning of the District Education Development Plan; monitor emerging problems in local education and provide solutions; support the VEDC to engage with the community; and encourage community participation (through the provision of labour and resources); and provide opportunities for underprivileged students to enroll in schools. The VEDC’s have a similar level of responsibilities that include, but are not limited to: collecting data on total number of families (including poor families) and facilitate their inclusion and completion of basic education; and summarize, research and analyze problems in education (including students, teachers, buildings, materials). Under the Education for All Fast Track Initiative program, VEDCs were formed and trained in XX villages across XX provinces and XX Districts from 200X to 2013. At the same time, Development partners such as Unicef, Plan International and other INGOs have been forming and training VEDCs in their target areas (Plan trained over 145 VEDCs involving 878 village authorities in three districts of Bokeo Province between 2009 and 2013). Village Education Development Committees (VEDCs) have been trained in their general roles and responsibilities, in school development planning (as a basis for school grants), as well as in relation to the various other strategies (mobile teacher programme, school feeding etc.). Others have not yet been reached. Other than training, VEDC effectiveness seems to depend on a range of factors, including capacity and education level of its members and community factors including local dynamics, whether a village is nucleated or dispersed, culturally and linguistically homogenous or heterogeneous and so on. There is some evidence of communities becoming more aware of the importance of educating girls and supporting the school and teachers more actively. However, there continue to be significant challenges in ensuring regular and meaningful participation of whole communities (not just a few committee members) and of more disadvantaged parents in particular. The Mid Term Review (MTR) of the Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP) July 2013 found that the Village Education Development Committees (VEDC) and District Education Development Committees (DEDC) and District Bureaus of Education have not received adequate training and awareness to effectively fulfill their roles under decentralization. The MTR recommended strengthening VEDCs and DEDCs to improve their capacity to fulfill their roles under decentralization with a focus on the rights of women and children and child protection. It also found that as school principals have undergone training in ways of assisting their VEDC to undertake community mobilization to increase demand for education, evidence of impact in terms of increased participation or attendance at VEDC meetings or in improved school improvement plans etc should be collected.

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To evaluate the effectiveness of Village Education Development Committees and their contribution towards achieving the Education Quality Standards (EQS) at school level;

To assess the level of representation of women and the poorest within the VEDC structure and other governance issues related to support and management of the VEDCs, DEDCs and PEDCs

To assess the sustainability of the VEDCs and the various government and development partner initiatives for forming and training VEDCs

Target audience: The study is intended to inform the review/revision of VEDC’s guidelines, and therefore has the MoES and development partners involved in Education policy as its main target audience. The study will also inform the design of development partner programs that include significant components on VEDC strengthening, such as the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) II proposal.

4

2. Scope of Work 2.1 Scope The study will be consisting of:

A survey of VEDC members in a number of schools across the four provinces (Bokeo, Phongsaly, Xiengkhouang and Saravane) on what type of support they provide to school development planning and on what role they play in achieving the Education Quality Standards. This will include consideration of VEDC involvement in fund-raising and mobilization of community labour but also interventions relating directly to teaching and learning (e.g. on teacher attendance, availability of teaching and learning materials, and evidence of learning outcomes such as student report cards)

A study on the establishment, functionality inclusiveness and governance of the VEDCs in the same selected village school and communities;

A survey in the same selected sample schools with the teachers, school principals and other community members on how they see the role of the VEDC, for cross referencing

A participatory, child friendly survey with students from the same village schools on support they get from VEDCs, for further cross referencing

A series of qualitative, in depth interviews with a smaller number of teachers/principals and VEDCs in the same village schools and communities for a qualitative cross reference

In depth interviews with Provincial Education Development Committees;

In depth interviews with District Education Development Committee;

In depth interviews with other agencies who are supporting VEDCs, if there are any

2.3 Specific tasks of the Consultants The Consultant team will:

i) Undertake research essential for the assignment ii) Design the survey instruments and questionnaires, iii) Conduct with MoES staff the piloting exercise, iv) Revise survey sample, instruments and questionnaires in the light of the pilot v) Train MoES staff on the research survey v) Oversee the implementation of the research survey v) Analyse data and evidence from the survey and develop findings and recommendations vi) Write the final report vii) Present main findings and recommendations of the study prior to report finalization

The main survey will be carried out by MoES staff

2.3. Output

The following output will be required:

A report of maximum 30 pages, including an executive summary, two simple case studies (both good and bad VEDC practices), and recommendations;

Annexes, including all data collection instruments, list of interview and observations, details of the sampling (including the village sampling frame);

A summary report to each participating DESB and PESS on preliminary findings after completed data collection and a basic analysis in their district / province.

5

One-day workshop including a presentation of the study, with the main focus on the findings and the recommendations in Vientiane after first draft report has been produced;

Publication of the final report in both Lao and English; and

The complete data set (hard copy and soft copy). The report will concisely describe the main findings and practical recommendations for improving the revision of VEDCs’ guide and manual particularly their roles and responsibilities and other support needed from stakeholders. The methodology, the sample, the instruments, the data collection processes, and technical details will be given in the Annexes. The study team will report to DPPE-MOES, UNICEF and Plan Laos’ Program director. 2.4 Time Frame The study should be finished within 15 weeks, starting in early/mid 2014. An indicative work plan is as follows:

Week 1-2, detailed method design, including development of tools for presentation to Plan, UNICEF and MOES for review and approval.

Week 3, study preparation, including document review and revision of study tools and instruments;

Week 4-5, preparation and training team for field work and data collection,

Week 6, field testing, revising the tools and improve

Week ,7,8,9,10,; data collection, processing, analysis,

Week, 11,12 production of first draft reports;

Week 13, Preparation and conduct of 1-day workshop in Vientiane;

Week 14, 15, Completion of final report in both Lao and English. Note: this time frame can be adjusted according to the need.

3. Study Inputs The Research Team should comprise three people (two international and one national) with the following experience and qualifications: All three experts should have the following background

1. A graduate degree or equivalent professional qualification in economics, social development or education management; a research based post-graduate qualification is preferred

2. A minimum three of years’ work experience (five for the team leader) in education or community development;

3. Experience of study and research in social sector development with a focus on education 4. Experience of interviewing children particularly from different ethnic groups 5. Proficiency in English is essential and knowledge of Lao is an advantage for the international

experts The International experts should have experience of Laos or similar countries in the ASEAN or wider Asia Pacific region. In addition the team leader should have experience of leading and managing on similar studies All members of the Research Team must agree to follow Plan International’s Child Protection Policy.

6

Plan Laos will support and facilitate the Research Team by providing access to all related reports and data required to undertake the assignment, including access to files, paper or computer based, necessary for the efficient conduct of the study. Working space and administrative support will be provided at the Plan Laos field offices and headquarters office as needed. The consultants will provide their own computers. In delivering the outputs, the consultant will work closely with Plan Laos staff and provide support to them to assist in delivering the above outputs and to strengthen their capacity to understand and utilize the findings of the study.

4. Methods and Approach 4.1 Data Sources The study shall be carried out in consultation with DPPE-MOES. Saravane, Xiengkhouang, Phongsaly and Bokeo have been taken as representatives of provinces from the South (Saravane), middle (Xiengkhouang), north (Bokeo) and extreme north (Phongsaly) of the country. The selection of the districts and villages will be decided when the team is formed with the assistance of the PESS and DESB, preferably the sample districts and villages should combine with non-poor, poor, and poorest and the districts and villages with no external assistance and those that have received assistance. The Research Team will design and develop the assessment instruments, to be approved by Plan Laos, MOES, DPPE and UNICEF, and piloted, evaluated, and revised if necessary before the main field data collection. A 5-day training program for MOES, DESB and PESS staff for the field investigators will be suggested because MOES, DESB and PESS staff will act as investigators, will be assigned the responsibility of collecting data. The first two days of the training will focus on the strategy of data collection, coding procedure and use of data collection tools. The next two days will be spent on visit to local villages for providing hands-on experience to field investigators. The last day will be devoted on manual scrutiny of field schedules and debriefing. Table of participants for the 5-day training program

Work station # of participants

MOES-DP (Department of Planning) and

MOES- ESRC (Education and Sports Research Center)

MOES-DPPE (Department of Preprimary and Primary Education) 1

MOES-RIES (Research Institution for Education and Science) 1

MOES-ESQAC (Education Standard and Quality Assurance Centre) 1

1

MOES-DI (Department of Inspection)

PESS 4x1

DESB- 4x2

7

4.2 Sampling The study will be conducted in two districts in each of the following provinces- Saravane, Xiengkhouang, Phongsaly and Bokeo. The selection of the sample districts will be done in collaboration between the Research Team, DPPE, UNCEF and Plan Laos. Judgment of purposeful sampling will be used. The sampling frame for village sample will be the list provided by the DESB covering all villages in the districts, with an indication for each village of the number of VEDC members.

5. Submission of Tender The following shall be submitted with the tender:

1. Proposed work program (20%); 2. Detailed CVs of team member that will carry out the work (40%); 3. Details of previous experiences in carrying out similar work (20%); and 4. Proposed cost and time frame for delivery (20%)

Please note the tender will be evaluated on the basis of quality and cost in accordance with the above weighting.

8

Annex B: Research Committee Members

Research Committee (ERSC and MOES)

Agencies managing/ funding the study

Somxay Inthansone

Plan Laos Education and Early Childhood Care and Development Programme Manager

Andrew Hill Plan Laos Programme Director

Mona Girgis Plan Laos Country Director

Somchit Duanpangya Plan Laos

Nidsavathvong, Phonesavanh

Plan Laos

Sihabud, Khamponh Plan Laos

Phoutha Plan Laos Provincial education manager,

Emmanuelle Abrioux UNICEF Chief- Education

Siemphone Buakhamvongsa UNICEF

Sengarun Budcharern UNICEF

Keoamphone Souvannaphoum

Childfund Laos

Chris Mastaglio Childfund Laos

9

Annex C: Research Participants

Name Organisation Delegation/ Role

Research Consultants

Amanda Seel Freelance Team Leader

Nic I’Anson Freelance Research specialist- international

Soukkasem Lomathmanivong

Freelance Research specialist- national

Government Stakeholders (Focal group members and interviewees)

Mr Lytou

Mme Bounpeng

Mr Vimoune DOF

Mme Dara Phankhom DOF

Mme Kampaseuth Kitignavong

DOP

Ms Khamkhouane Vannasouk

DOI

Mr. Khoen DPPE

Phongsaly

Sanevanxay PESS Director

Ounkham PESS Head of Pre Primary and Primary

Phonexay PESS Training Officer

Khamvone PESS Technical Officer

??? PESS Technical Officer

Khamxay Boun Neua DESB Director

Khamsouvan Boun Neua DESB Deputy Director

Khamphat Boun Neua DESB Head of PP&P

??? Boun Neua DESB Trainer

??? Boun Neua DESB PA

Saynouphap Bouen Neua DEDC Deputy Governor (Appointed head of DEDC)

Khamman Koua DESB Director of Education

Sengduen Koua DESB Deputy Head of PP&P

Bounmy Koua DESB PA

Bokeo Province

Yikham PESS Dep Director

Bounsoung PESS PA, Trainer

Xaysathien Ton Peung DEDC Deputy Governor

Somsay Ton Peung DEDC & DESB

Director of Education

Souvan Ton Peung DESB Deputy Director of Education

Lattanaphone Ton Peung DESB Head of Teacher Training Unit

Thongchanh Ton Peung DESB Head of Unit of PP&P

Nonglack Ton Peung DESB PA

Phongsavanh Pha Oudom DEDC Deputy Governor

Somnith Pha Oudom DESB Director

Saly Pha Oudom DESB Inspector

10

Khamtan Pha Oudom DESB PPE

Vanthong Pha Oudom DESB PA

Sonetpheth Pha Oudom DESB TE

To add: Saravan Xieng Khouang

11

Annex D: Research Workplan

Dates (Mon-Sun)

Start-up activities and consultations

Four Research Elements

Literature Review

Lesson-learning from policy-makers and training initiatives

Field research planning, training

and execution

Analysis and Reporting

Amanda Nic

Week 1 6-12 Oct

Preparation and travel

Briefing

Meeting with ERSC

15th Oct

Meeting with partners 20th Oct

SBM meeting 24th Oct

Presentation to

FG 4 28th Oct

Review of literature, data-bases

etc. to inform

research design

(and for triangulati

on)

Research framework and

workplan

Week 2 13-19 Oct

Prepare for interviews, read

training materials (Amanda)

Outline planning and

identification of key tools (Nic)

In Laos

In Laos

Week 3 20-26th Oct

Interviews in VTE (Amanda)

Detailed planning and tool

design (Nic)

Ongoing recording, developing earlier

report sections and training review

sections etc.

Week 4 27th Oct- 2nd

Nov

Pilot draft tools 29th-

30th Oct (Amanda)

Week 5 3rd- 9th Nov

Writing up interviews and appraisal of

training materials, further written questionnaires?

(Amanda)

Revise tools and plan training workshop (Amanda and Nic)

Week 6 10-16 Nov

Finalise tools and training plans

(Amanda and Nic sss

Week 7

17-23 Nov

Training including pilot

Ongoing analysis as data comes in

Initial Findings workshop- 12th December 2014

In Laos In Laos

Week 8 24-30 Nov

FIELD RESEARCH Week 9

1-7 Dec

Week 10 8-14 Dec

Analysis and data entry

Week 11 14-21 Dec

Week 12 22 Dec-4th Jan*

Further analysis and synthesis

Preparation of draft report, submission

by Fri 23rd Jan

Week 13 5th-11th Jan

2015

Week 14 12th-18th Jan

2015

February 2015

Consultation on

Draft

March 2015 Final Report

12

Annex E: List of Core Research Questions

1. VEDC functionality (roles, structures and communications) CRQ 1.1 How familiar are different stakeholders with VEDC policy, legislation and guidelines

(relevant to their position/ level)? CRQ 1.2 How familiar are different stakeholders with VEDC policy, legislation and guidelines

(relevant to their position/ level)? CRQ 1.3 How do VEDCs themselves- and other stakeholders- view VEDC’s most important roles

and achievements? CRQ 1.4 How do VEDCs deal with selection, briefing and turnover? CRQ 1.5 How are VEDCs currently composed? What are different perspectives on equity (by

gender, ethnicity and ‘disadvantage’) in terms of VEDC membership and what measures might improve this?

CRQ 1.6 What are respective roles of DEDCs/ DESBs in relation to VEDCs and what are typical patterns of interaction and communication?

CRQ 1.7 How do VEDCs interact with the wider community, including through Parents Associations/ PTA s or other means?

CRQ 1.8 What are the different arrangements in place for incomplete schools that either have their own VEDC, share a VEDC or do not have a VEDC?

CRQ 1.9 What has been any effect of the 3-build policy on the way VEDCs function in those villages?

2. VEDCs roles in school management and SDP CRQ 2.1 To what extent is the policy/ practice of SDP (SIP) established in schools? CRQ 2.2 What is an appropriate involvement of VEDCs in school development planning and

budgeting and how are they currently involved? CRQ 2.3 To what extent and in what ways do VEDCs encourage the wider community to make

different kinds of contribution to school development??

3. VEDC support to access and equity CRQ 3.1 Overall, are VEDCs having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout and,

if so, how are they achieving this? CRQ 3.2 How are VEDCs involved in gathering data on enrolment and drop out and what kinds of

information do they gather? CRQ 3.3 What kinds of things do VEDCs do (based on their information or otherwise) to include

children in school and help those with problems? CRQ 3.4 What are the experiences of VEDCs involved in specific access initiatives (of government

or DP) for example the school meals programme, community ECD, child protection, facilities provision etc.?

4. VEDC support to quality of teaching and learning CRQ 4.1 Overall, are VEDCs having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout and,

if so, how are they achieving this? CRQ 4.2 To what extent and in what ways do VEDCs monitor or support teachers and their

teaching, for example their attendance, approaches to discipline or the learning outcomes of students?

CRQ 4.3 To what extent and in what ways do VEDCs help to bridge the linguistic and cultural gaps between the school and children’s homes?

13

5. VEDC Capacity Development, Training and Support CRQ 5.1 What are capacity-related constraints to VEDC effectiveness and what, therefore, are

priorities to build the capacity of VEDCs CRQ 5.2 To what extent, in what ways and how effectively have current VEDCs been trained

(across the research districts) and in what key areas? CRQ 5.3 How could VEDC training be improved in terms of approach, content and logistical

arrangements? CRQ 5.4 To what extent have school directors been trained in areas that relate to how they train,

work with and/or support VEDCs? CRQ 5.5 How could school directors have their own capacity built, to be able to better orientate

and support VEDCs? CRQ 5.6 Which DESB officers are most involved in giving on-the job support VEDCs, to what

extent are they trained in their roles and what is their approach (e.g. use of checklists etc.)?

CRQ 5.7 How could the relevant DESB officers have their own capacity built, to be able to better orientate and support VEDCs?

CRQ 5.8 How far are the various manuals and handbooks to support VEDCs directly, or support school principals and/or DESB to work with VEDCs available to the relevant people at each level and to what extent are they used and found to be helpful?

14

Annex F District Information Phongsaly a): Boun Neua District Information

District information

District Name

Boun Neua District code 205 District population

21080/10302

Total number of

primary schools in

district

Complete 37

Incomplete 22

Name of agencies or

projects that support

education in the District

WFP Please list the names of the main ethnic groups that live in the district

Phounoy/Singsali, Akha, Tai Leu, Tai Dam, LaoSeng,Yao, Ho,Khmu and Sida

Is it a 3 Build District ? Yes -please put * by the names of any schools in 3-build villages

Yes (Phonehome)

Names of TTC researchers

Louangnamtha Aeleng, …

Name (and dates) of consultants

NIC 24-26 Nov 14

Name of MOES team member

Souksakhone Name (and dates) of Plan or Childfund supporters

Phouttha 24-26 Nov 14

Schools for the Research

School Name School Code

Urban, rural-

road or rural off

road?

Number of pupils

Complete or

incomplete school

?

Please mention any project that

has supported this school

(e.g. FTI or an INGO)

Please name the main ethnic

groups present in the community

1. Phonehome 10205022 Urban 223/102 C RtR,WFP,EFA/FTI

Phounoy, Khmu, Ho and Akha

2. Phonesavang 10205020 Urban 115/51 C WFP Phounoy, Khmu and Akha

3. Sentham 10205006 Sub-urban

58/21 C WFP, RtR Phounoy

4. Houayyung 10205026 Rural 71/33 C WFP Akha

5. Ngayneu 10205005 Rural 75/37 C WFP Tai Leu

6. Namyongneu 10205069 Rural 64/24 C WFP Akha, Lao Seng

7. Somboun 10205019 Rural 52/24 C WFP Phounoy

8. Lak 69 10205043 Rural (447/205)131/59

C WFP Akha

9. Namhoy 10205052 Rural 99/47 C WFP Akha

10. Houaysoung 10205067 Rural 24/XX I WFP Akha

Tota

l

Urban= 3 Rural=6 Off-road=1

Complete=9 Incomplete=1

15

b) Khoua District Information

District information

District Name

Khoua District code 203 District population

27002

Total number of

primary schools in

district

Complete 53

Incomplete 40

Name of agencies or

projects that support education in the District

EFA/FTI,RTR, LABEP,

school meal

(WFP), EU

Please list the names of the main ethnic groups that live in the district

Lao, Tai Leu, Tai Dam, Khmu, Pala Akha, Yang, Akha, Phounoy

Is it a 3 Build District ? Yes -please put * by the names of any schools in 3-build villages

No

Names of TTC researchers

Louangnamtha Saykham,…

Name (and dates) of consultants

NIC 27-28 Nov 14

Name of MOES team member

Phoudthong Name (and dates) of Plan or Childfund supporters

Phouttha 27-28 Nov 14

Schools for the Research

School Name

School Code

Urban, rural-road or rural off

road?

Number of pupils

Complete or

incomplete

school ?

Please mention any project that has supported

this school (e.g. FTI or an INGO)

Please name the main ethnic groups present

in the community

11. Natoun 10203025 Urban 106 C EFA/FTI, RtR, school meal

Lao, Phounoy, Khmu, Pala Akha, Tai Leu, Yang

12. Houayyang 10203033 Urban 59 C EFA/FTI, RtR, school meal

Lao, Phounoy, Khmu, Pala Akha, Tai Leu, Yang

13. Phonexay 10203095 Urban 58 C EFA/FTI, school meal

Lao, Phounoy, Khmu, Pala Akha, Tai Leu, Yang

14. Sinxay

10203007 Rural 56. C EFA/FTI, RtR, school meal

Lao, Phounoy, Khmu, Pala Akha, Yang

15. Laolee

10203097 Rural 120 C EFA/FTI, LABEP, school meal

Pala Akha

16. Lisoutay

10203081 Off road 45 I EFA/FTI, school meal

Pala Akha

17. Bouamphan 10203118 Rural 69 C EFA/FTI, RtR, school meal

Lao, Khmu, Pala Akha, Yang

18. Houaypa

10203046 Rural 46. C EFA/FTI, RtR, school meal

Khmu

19. Chalakao

10203066 Rural 113. C EFA/FTI, school meal

Pala Akha

20. Chalamai

10203055 Rural 117. C EFA/FTI, school meal

Pala Akha

Tota

l

Urban= 3 Rural=6 Off-road=1

Complete=9 Incomplete=1

16

Bokeo c) Pha Oudom District Information

District information

District Name PhaOudom District code 504 District population

41,690/20,946

Total number of primary schools in

district

Complete 46

Incomplete 21

Name of agencies or projects that

support education in the

District

Plan, EFA FTI, SESDP (ADB), NCA, ECE

Please list the names of the main ethnic

groups that live in the district

Lao, Tai Leu, Tai Dam, Khmu, Hmong, Lamed

Is it a 3 Build District ? Yes -please put * by the names of any schools in 3-build villages

Yes

Names of TTC researchers

Louangnamtha Noy Sengkeo,…

Name (and dates) of consultants

NIC 4 Dec 14

Name of MOES team member

Outtha Name (and dates) of Plan or Childfund supporters

Phouttha 4 Dec 14

Schools for the Research

School Name School Code

Urban, rural-

road or rural off

road?

Number of pupils

Complete or

incomplete school

?

Please mention any project that

has supported this school (e.g. FTI or

an INGO)

Please name the main

ethnic groups

present in the

community

21. Thinkeo 10504004 Urban 335/184 C Plan Lao, Khmu, Lamed

22. Kaenkham 10504056 Urban 341/181 C Plan Khmu

23. Hangdoy 10504037 Urban 130/50 C Plan, EFA/FTI Khmu, Hmong

24. Mokkhakang 10504010 Rural 145/65 C Plan Khmu

25. Kang 10504006 Rural 179/87 C Plan,EFA FTI Khmu

26. Viengphatthana 10504043 Rural 339/149 C Plan Khmu, Hmong

27. Vangleck 10504114 Rural 219/109 C Plan, EFA FTI Lamed

28. Namyao 10504054 Rural 265/124 C Plan

Lao, Lamed, Khmu, Hmong

29. Hadnam 10504001 Rural 85/44 C EQIPII, Plan Lao, Lamed

30. Hadkham 10504144 Off road 24/17 I Plan Lamed

Tota

l

Urban= 3 Rural=6 Off-road=1

Complete=9 Incomplete=1

17

d) Ton Pheung District Information

District information

District Name

Tonpheung District code 502

District population

6-10 years: 1314people

Total number of

primary schools in

district

Complete 32

Incomplete 2

Name of agencies or

projects that support

education in the District

EGIV_2 Please list the names of the main ethnic groups that live in the district

Is it a 3 Build District ? Yes -please put * by the names of any schools in 3-build villages

No

Names of TTC researchers

Louangnamtha Khid,…

Name (and dates) of consultants

NIC 1-3 Dec 14

Name of MOES team member

Chittakone Name (and dates) of Plan or Childfund supporters

Phouttha 1-3 Dec 14

Schools for the Research

School Name School Code

Urban, rural-road

or rural off road?

Number of pupils

Complete or

incomplete school ?

Please mention

any project that has

supported this school (e.g. FTI or an INGO)

Please name the main ethnic groups present in

the community

31. Tonpheung 1050200

2

Urban 442 C Mixed-Lao Tai, Khmu, Yao, Hmong

32. Mokkachok 502020 Urban 143 C Khmu

33. Donesavanh 502005 Urban 45 C Tai Lue

34. Donethad 502037 Rural 261 C EGIV-2 Hmong

35. Khounbong 502027 Rural 154 C Yao

36. Mayphatthana 502036. Rural 127 C EGIV-2 Yao

37. Houayong 502043 Rural 55 C EGIV-2 Lahu Shi

38. Namfa 502041 Rural 87 C Lahu Na

39. Houaylom Nok 502048 Rural 93 I Lahu Na

40. Houaytang 502029 Off road 17 I Tai Leu

Tota

l

Urban= 3 Rural=6 Off-road=1

Complete=8 Incomplete=2

18

Xieng Khouang e) Khoun District Information

District information

District Name

Khoun District code 0904 District population

34,071/ 16,849f

Total number of

primary schools in

district

Complete- 43 Incomplete- 17 Total- 59 Number of villages-77

Name of agencies or

projects that support

education in the District

IFA-FTI PRF

Please list the names of the main ethnic groups that live in

the district

Lao, Hmong, Khmu

Is it a 3 Build District? Yes -please put * by the names of any schools in 3-build villages

No

Names of TTC researchers

Syphak Phakphommavy Sonephet Sounvanna Mongly TongSorSua PaiWa YiaYeng

Name (and dates) of consultants

Soukkasem 24+26/11/14 Amanda 24/11/14 and Phouva

Name of MOES team member

Bounnay Gnouttitham

Name (and dates) of Plan or Childfund supporters

Phetsadakhom

Schools for the Research

School Name School Code

Urban, rural-road or rural off

road?

Number of pupils

Complete or incomplete

school ?

Please mention any project that

has supported this school

(e.g. FTI or an INGO)

Please name the main ethnic groups present

in the community

41. SyPhom 01 U 318 C None Lao and Hmong, khmu

42. Phosy 04 U 205 C None Lao and Hmong, Kmu

43. Nongnam 36 U 177 C IFA-FTI Hmong

44. Nong 77 R 43 C N/A Hmong

45. Poung 30 R 184 C PRF Hmong

46. Houyloun 42 R 117 C IFA-FTI Hmong

47. Pakha 45 R 100 C IFA-FTI Hmong

48. Nasom 39 R 100 C PRF Lao, Hmong

49. Xamkouang 90 R 65 C PRF Hmong

50. Houyhok 18 O-R 39 I PRF Hmong

Tota

l Urban= 3 Rural=6 Off-road=1

Complete=9 Incomplete=1

19

f) Nongkhet District Information

District information

District Name

Nonghet District code 0903 District population

38,175

Total number

of primary schools

in district

Complete- 80

Incomplete- 23

TOTAL- 103

Name of agencies or

projects that support

education in the District

Childfund

PRF UDIN

Please list the names of the main ethnic groups that live in the district

Hmong Lao

Khmu

Is it a 3 Build District ? Yes -please put * by the names of any schools in 3-build villages

No

Names of TTC researchers

Viengkham Yang Viengkhan Seng-Athit Khaovilay Sayaphone

Name (and dates) of consultants

Amanda 25-27/11/14

Name of MOES team member

Mr. Vanthong

Name of Plan or Childfund supporters

Phouva 25/11-4/12/2014.

Schools for the Research

School Name School Code

Urban, rural-road or rural

off road?

Number of pupils

Complete or incomplete

school ?

Please mention any project

that has supported this school (e.g. FTI

or an INGO)

Please name the main ethnic

groups present in the community

51. Thamxay 001 Urban 335 Complete ChildFund Hmong & Lao

52. Khangphanien 184 Urban

184 Complete PRF IFAD

Hmong, Lao and Khmu

53. Nonghet Tai 092 Urban 186 Complete ChildFund IFAD

Lao and Hmong

54. Keobone 019 Rural 286 Complete PRF Hmong

55. HouyKhong 025

Rural 139/ 61 Complete PRF Lao and Khmu

56. Phouhuaxang 076

Rural 198/92 Complete PRF Hmong

57. Thamthao 069 Rural -Remote 144 Complete

IFAD, PRF Hmong

58. Chamuen 004 Rural 37 Complete

RED-Cross Lao and Khmu

59. Pha Ean 037 Rural 175 Complete

PRF ChildFund

Hmong

60. HouyLen 027 Off-road Rural 25/17

IC None Khmu

Total Urban= 3 Total Rural=6 Total off-road= 1

Total complete=9 Total incomplete=1

20

Saravan g) Lao Ngam District Information

District information

District Name

Lao Ngam District code 1407 District population

????

Total number

of primary schools

in district

Complete 61

Incomplete 33

Total 94

Name of agencies or

projects that support education in the District

FTI VFI

EDF-Lao SVA ECE

JICA (CIED-1) Others?

Please list the names of the main ethnic groups that live in

the district

Souay, Laven, Lao, Katang, Katu, Taoy, Phouthai

Is it a 3 Build District ? Yes -please put * by the names of any schools in 3-build villages

Yes(NongKae)

Names of TTC researchers

Somchit Phommany Latsamy Chantavong Keobounthavong Khambounmy Asai Sayalathvonsy

Name (and dates) of consultants

Soukkasem 04/12/14 Amanda 04/12/14

Name of MOES team member

Mrs Bounheng Syvongsa Name (and dates) of Plan or Childfund supporters

Siphoutone Chittavong

Schools for the Research

School Name School Code

Urban, rural-

road or rural off

road?

Number of pupils

Complete or

incomplete

school ?

Please mention any project that has supported

this school (e.g. FTI or an INGO)

Please name the main ethnic groups present in

the community

61. None Kham 098 Urban 414 C World Bank, UNICEF

Lao, Souay, Laven

62. Lao Ngam 001 Urban 193 C 1. VFI Lao, Souay, Laven, TaOy

63. Ban Pao 022 Urban 135 C JICA Lao, Souay, Laven

64. Horkong 011 Rural 228 C JICA, EDF-Lao Souay, Lao

65. Ban Ngew

026 Rural 131 C JICA, EDF-Lao Lao, TaOy, Souay

66. Tabang 075 Rural 116 C SVA Lao, Souay

67. Puekyai 054 Rural 156 C FTI,EDF-Lao

Laven, Souay, Phouthai

68. Dong Bang 049 Rural 123 C VFI,EDF-Lao Lao, Souay

69. Nongkea* 005 Rural 397 C Wold Bank, EDF-Lao

Lao

70. Sixiengmai ?? Off road 51 I Laven, Phouthai

Tota

l

Urban= 3 Rural=6 Off- road=1

Complete=9 Incomplete=1

21

h) Ta Oy District Information

District information

District Name

Ta Oy District code 1402 District population

30,298 (15,174 f)

Total number of

primary schools in

district

Complete 54 Incomplete 3

Total 57

Name of agencies or

projects that support

education in the District

VFI, FTI, PRF,Oxfam, ADB, World Concern

Please list the names of the main ethnic groups that live in the district

Katang, TaOy, Pako, Lao

Is it a 3-Build District ? Yes -please put * by the names of any

schools in 3-build villages

No

Names of TTC researchers

Pangkone Phonephilavanh Skianda Saysabong Phouk Luanxayavong Lamngeun Khamkounmeuang

Name (and dates) of consultants

Soukkasem 01/12/14 Amanda 01/12/14

Name of MOES team member

Mr. Keoudone Vongsavangthong

Name (and dates) of Plan or Childfund supporters

Bounpeng Sichalern

Schools for the Research

School Name School Code

Urban, rural-

road or rural off

road?

Number of pupils/ no. female

Complete or

incomplete school?

Please mention any project that has supported

this school (e.g. FTI or an INGO)

Please name the main ethnic groups

present in the community

71. Tedsaban 11402005 U 184/86 C Lao, TaOy, Katang

72. Talung LaLao 11402047 U 168/91 C PRF TaOy, Katang

73. Houhayo 11402021 U 70/34 C ADB TaOy, Katang

74. Laxeng ?? R ?? C ??

75. Pachoudone 11402014 R 164 /63 C VFI Pako

76. Kape ?? R ?? C ??

77. Tahouak 11402058 R 127/51 C ADB Pako

78. Bongnam 11402046 R 121/58 C VFI TaOy

79. Kamoune 11402001 R 73/37 C World Concern TaOy

80. Thonghatai 057 O-R ?? I Ta Oy only

Tota

l

Urban= 3 Rural=6 Off- road=1

Complete=9 Incomplete=1

22

Annex G: Matrix of Questions For All Tools 1. CRQ CATEGORY 1 (Research Objectives 1.1 and 2) - VEDC Functionality

MOES/DP/ PESS TOOL 1

DESB/DEDC TOOL 2

School Director TOOL 3

Teachers TOOL 4

Students TOOL 5

Village Chief TOOL 6

VEDC Members TOOL 7

Villagers TOOL 8

CRQ 1.1 How familiar are different stakeholders with VEDC policy, legislation and guidelines (relevant to their position/ level)?

1.1.1 Do you feel familiar with the legislation and policy on VEDCs’ composition and roles? (1.) Very/ Somewhat/ not really

1.1.1 Do you feel familiar with the policy directive on VEDCs? Very/ Somewhat/ Not really

1.1.1 Do you know about the policy directive about how villages should form VEDCs? Very/ Somewhat/ Not really

X

X

1.1.1 Do you know about the policy directive about how villages should form VEDCs? Very/ Somewhat/ Not really

X

X

CRQ 1.2 To what extent do schools have a VEDC established and what is their internal functioning (meetings, decision-making)?

1.2 To what extent do you think that VEDCs understand what roles they should be carrying out? (1.3a)

1.2.1 How far do you think that VEDCs are established in your district? Very well/ average/ not too well

1.2.2 Is there an established VEDC in the school? Y/N 1.2.3 How many times has the VEDC met in the last 12 months? 1.2.4 Who decides what to discuss in meetings? 1.2.5 Who makes the final decision about what the VEDC will do?

1.2.2 Is there an established VEDC in the school? Y/N

X

1.2.2 Is there an established VEDC in the school? Y/N 1.2.4 Who decides what to discuss in meetings? 1.2.5 Who makes the final decision about what the VEDC will do?

1.2.4 Who decides what to discuss in meetings?

1.2.2 Is there an established VEDC in the school? Y/N . . . . . 1.2.6Are you aware of who is in the VEDC for this school? Don’t know/ know some members/ know them well

23

MOES/DP/ PESS TOOL 1

DESB/DEDC TOOL 2

School Director TOOL 3

Teachers TOOL 4

Students TOOL 5

Village Chief TOOL 6

VEDC Members TOOL 7

Villagers TOOL 8

CRQ 1.3 How do VEDCs themselves- and other stakeholders- view VEDC’s most important roles and achievements?

1.3.1 What do you consider to be the most important roles of VEDCs? (1.2)

1.3.1 What do you consider to be the 3 most important achievements of VEDCs in your district?

1.3.1 What are the 3 biggest achievements of the VEDC in the last 12 months?

1.3.1 What are the 3 biggest achievements of the VEDC in the last 12 months?

X

1.3.1 What are the 3 biggest achievements of the VEDC in the last 12 months?

1.3.1 What are the 3 biggest achievements of the VEDC in the last 12 months?

1.3.1 What are the 3 biggest achievements of the VEDC in the last 12 months?

CRQ 1.4 How do VEDCs deal with selection, briefing and turnover?

1.4.1 In your experience, how significant are the following constraints to VEDC effectiveness? An important constraint/ somewhat a constraint/ not a constraint a) High turnover b) Overburdened by too many roles /committees c) VEDC too hierarchical, some members cannot participate fully d) Poor links between complete and incomplete schools e) Members do not reflect the composition of the wider community (1.4)

1.4.1 In your experience, how significant are the following constraints to VEDC effectiveness? An important constraint/ somewhat a constraint/ not a constraint a) High turnover b) Overburdened by too many roles /committees c) VEDC too hierarchical, some members cannot participate fully d) Poor links between complete and incomplete schools e) Members do not reflect the composition of the wider community (1.4)

1.4.2 (Referring to the table of VEDC members)- do you think that high turnover of VEDCs is a problem? Big/sometimes/not really 1.4.3 Do you have an approach to orientate/ brief new members? Y/N and brief detail.

1.4.4 How are teacher members selected to be in the VEDC?

X

1.4.2 (Referring to the table of VEDC members)- do you think that high turnover of VEDCs is a problem? Big/sometimes/not really 1.4.3 Do you have an approach to orientate/ brief new members? Y/N and brief detail.

1.4.5 How are members selected to be in the VEDC?

X

24

MOES/DP/ PESS TOOL 1

DESB/DEDC TOOL 2

School Director TOOL 3

Teachers TOOL 4

Students TOOL 5

Village Chief TOOL 6

VEDC Members TOOL 7

Villagers TOOL 8

CRQ 1.5 What are different perspectives on equity (by gender, ethnicity and ‘disadvantage’) in terms of VEDC membership and what measures might improve this?

1.5.1 Do you think the composition of VEDCs (as in current guidelines): a) Right number of members? b) Female representation? c) Disadvantaged members? If no, what changes would you suggest? (1.5)

1.5.1 Do you think the composition of VEDCs (as in current guidelines): a) Right number of members? b) Female representation? c) Disadvantaged members? If no, what changes would you suggest?

X

X

X

1.5.1 Do you think the composition of VEDCs (as in current guidelines): a) Right number of members? b) Female representation? c) Disadvantaged members? If no, what changes would you suggest?

X

X

CRQ 1.6 What are respective roles of DEDCs/ DESBs in relation to VEDCs and what are typical patterns of interaction and communication?

1.6 What do you understand to be the respective roles of the DEDC and DESB in relation to VEDCs?

1.6.1a Is there a DEDC established in this district? Y/N 1.6.1b (DEDC only) DO you have copies of DEDC meeting minutes for last 12 months? 1.6.2 What do you understand to be your (i.e. the DESB/DEDC) roles in relation to VEDCs? 1.6.4 Typically, how many times a year would your DESB/DEDC meet with each VEDC?

1.6.5 How may times are year does the VEDC normally meet with: -The DESB -The DEDC

X

X

1.6.5 How may times are year does the VEDC normally meet with: -The DESB -The DEDC

X

X

25

CRQ 1.7 How far are parents associations continuing to be active in schools and supporting VEDCS?

1.7 What do you understand to be the role of Parent Associations in relation to VEDCs?

1.7.1 How commonly are PAs established at the schools in your district? Very common/ sometimes/ never

1.7.2 Is a PA established here? 1.7.3 If so, how much does the PA support the communication of the VEDC with the community? Very important contribution/ some contribution/ not much contribution

1.7.2 Is a PA established here? 1.7.3 If so, how much does the PA support the communication of the VEDC with the community? Very important contribution/ some contribution/ not much contribution

X

1.7.2 Is a PA established here? 1.7.3 If so, how much does the PA support the communication of the VEDC with the community? Very important contribution/ some contribution/ not much contribution

1.7.2 Is a PA established here? 1.7.3 If so, how much does the PA support the communication of the VEDC with the community? Very important contribution/ some contribution/ not much contribution

1.7.2 Is a PA established here? 1.7.3 If so, how much does the PA support the communication of the VEDC with the community? Very important contribution/ some contribution/ not much contribution

CRQ 1.8 What are the different arrangements in place for incomplete schools that have their own VEDC, share a VEDC or do not have a VEDC?

X

X

1.8.1 How does the VEDC liaise with the incomplete schools in the cluster? 1.8.2 (incomplete schools only) How does the VEDC liaise with the mother school?

X

X

1.8.1 How does the VEDC liaise with the incomplete schools in the cluster? 1.8.2 (incomplete schools only) How does the VEDC liaise with the mother school?

X

X

26

CRQ 1.9 What has been any effect of the 3-build policy on the way VEDCs function in those villages?

1.9.1 Have you seen any benefit yet from the 3-Build policy with regards to improving VEDC effectiveness? A. Not yet B. Small impact C. Significant impact (1.8a) 1.9.2 If you identified a small or significant impact of 3B- please give an example. (1.8b)

1.9.1 Have you seen any benefit yet from the 3B policy with regard to VEDC impact? a) Not yet, too soon b). Small impact c). Significant impact 1.9.2 Give an example of how it has helped

1.9.1 Have you seen any benefit yet from the 3B policy with regard to VEDC impact? a) Not yet, too soon b). Small impact c). Significant impact 1.9.2 Give an example of how it has helped

X

X

2.14.1 Have you seen any benefit yet from the 3B policy with regard to VEDC impact? 2.14.2 Give an example of how it has helped

X

X

CRQ CATEGORY 2 (Research Objective 1.2)-VEDC roles in school management and SDP

CRQ 2.1 To what extent is the policy/ practice of SDP (SIP) established in schools?

To what extent is the policy of SDP (SIP) established in schools? Most schools currently have an SDP that follows the set format/ Most schools currently have some kind of SDP / Most schools do not have any kind of SDP (2.1) For schools that have made an SDP, to what extent do they keep a copy for reference? Most schools have a copy

2.1.0a Please show me if you have copies of SDPs for schools in your district? None/Some/All 2.1.0b if yes: do the SDPs follow an established format? Y/N

2.1.1 Does the school have a current SDP/SIP? Yes/ No 2.1.2 What are the top 3 priorities (or objectives) in the

2.1.1 Does the school have a current SDP/SIP? Yes/ No 2.1.2 What are the top 3 priorities (or objectives) in the

X

2.1.1 Does the school have a current SDP/SIP? Yes/ No 2.1.2 What are the top 3 priorities (or objectives) in the

2.1.2 What are the top 3 priorities (or objectives) in the

2.1.1 Do you know if the school has a SDP/SIP? 2.1.2 If you do, what are some high priorities for

27

of their SDP and use it to guide school development/ Most schools have a copy of their SDP but do not really use it to guide school development/ Most schools just give their SDP to the DESB and do not keep a copy (2.2)

SDP for improving the school?

SDP for improving the school?

SDP for improving the school?

SDP for improving the school?

improving the school?

CRQ 2.2 What is an appropriate involvement of VEDCs in school development planning and budgeting and how are they currently involved?

2.2 In which aspects of the SDP cycle do you think that VEDC members (other than the school director) (i) should be involved? and (ii) are actually involved?- often/ sometimes/never:

Making a general assessment of the school situation?

Using the EQS score-sheet?

Identifying priority issues?

Identifying strategies?

Raising funds from the community

Writing the SDP?

Identifying expenditures

2.2.1 In which aspects of the SDP process do you think that VEDC members (i) should be involved? (ii) are involved? a. Making a

general assessment of the school situation?

b. Using the EQS score-sheet?

c. Identifying priority issues?

d. Identifying strategies/ solutions?

e. Identifying expenditures related to the strategies?

f. Writing the SDP?

g. Raising funds from the community

2.2.1 Same as DESB 2.2.2 What is your most recent EQS score? A. NOT DONE B. Scored but not available C. Or score: (1-168):

2.2.1 Same as DESB

2.2.3 Did you take any part in the SDP process?: a. Making a

general assessment of the school situation?

b. Using the EQS score-sheet?

c. Identifying priority issues?

d. Identifying strategies/ solutions?

X

X

2.2. 1 Same as DESB

2.2.4 As far as you know, did any parents or villager participate in making the SDP?

28

related to the strategies?

Preparing the school budget?

Making a Village Education Development Plan (for ECE and NFE) that fits with the SDP?

(In written questionnaire as 2.3. For PESS, used same as DESB)

h. Managing the school block grant?

i. Preparing the school budget?

j. Making a Village Education Development Plan (for ECE and NFE) that fits with the SDP?

CRQ 2.3 To what extent and in what ways do VEDCs encourage the wider community to make different kinds of contribution to school development?

2.3 To what extent do you consider that functioning VEDCs are so far effective in increasing the participation of communities? Not at all/ some effect/ very strong effect If an effect, please give an example that you know about.

2.3.1 Which 3 areas of SDP implementation does the wider community most often get involved in?

Funds

Labour

Materials for building

Donating resources for teaching/learning

Other- please specify

2.3.1 Which 3 areas of SDP implementation does the wider community most often get involved in?

Funds

Labour

Materials for building

Donating resources for teaching/learning

Other- please specify

X

2.3.2 How often do your parents come into schools for a meeting or event a. very often b. Now and then c. Never

2.3.1 Which 3 areas of SDP implementation does the wider community most often get involved in?

Funds

Labour

Materials for building

Donating resources for teaching/learning

Other- please specify

2.3.1 Which 3 areas of SDP implementation does the wider community most often get involved in?

Funds

Labour

Materials for building

Donating resources for teaching/learning

Other- please specify

2.3.1 Which 3 areas of SDP implementation does the wider community most often get involved in?

Funds

Labour

Materials for building

Donating resources for teaching/learning

Other- please specify

2.3.3 Are community contributions easily manageable/ a little difficult to manage/ too much?

29

CRQ CATEGORY 3 (Research Objective 1.3)- VEDC contribution to access/equity/inclusion

3.1 Overall, are VEDCs perceived to be having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout and, if so, how are they achieving this?

3.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout? Not at all/ some effect/very strong effect 3.1.2. Give a first hand example (2.5)

3.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout? Y/N 3.1.2. Give a first hand example (2.5)

3.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout? Y/N

3.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout? Y/N

X

3.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout? Y/N

3.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout? Y/N

3.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on enrolment and preventing dropout? Y/N

3.2 How are VEDCs involved in gathering data on enrolment and drop out and what kinds of information do they gather?

3.2.0 Do you have a school map with detail about the local population? No map/ map but not detail/ map with some detail/ very detailed map 3.2.1 How does school gather information on enrolment? A. EMIS format B. map C. register D. local knowledge E. other 3.2.2 Does it include information on: OOSC/ Gender/ Disability/ Ethnicity/ Orphans/ Other

3.2.1 How does school gather information on enrolment? A. EMIS format B. map C. register D. local knowledge E. other 3.2.2 Does it include information on: OOSC/ Gender/ Disability/ Ethnicity/ Orphans/ Other

X

3.2.1 How does school gather information on enrolment? A. EMIS format B. map C. register D. local knowledge E. other 3.2.2 Does it include information on: OOSC/ Gender/ Disability/ Ethnicity/ Orphans/ Other

30

3.3 How to VEDCs support follow up of vulnerable children and those at risk of not enrolling or dropping out?

3.3.1 Do VEDC members ever visit children’s homes to follow up on why they are not attending? Y/N 3.3.2 What does the VEDC do to help disadvantaged children to enrol/ stop them dropping out?

3.3.3 Do teachers sometimes work with the VEDC to try to prevent dropout Y/N? 3.3.4 What do you do to help children who have problems staying in schools?

3.3.5 What happens if a student has problems or drops out of school? Does someone visit to persuade them to return? 3.3.6 If yes, who visits? Community or VEDC member/ SD or teachers/ Another parent/ Another student .

3.3.1 Do VEDC members ever visit children’s homes to follow up on why they are not attending? Y/N 3.3.2 What does the VEDC do to help disadvantaged children to enrol/ stop them dropping out?

3.3.1 Do VEDC members ever visit children’s homes to follow up on why they are not attending? Y/N 3.3.2 What does the VEDC do to help disadvantaged children to enrol/ stop them dropping out?

3.3.1 Do VEDC members ever visit children’s homes to follow up on why they are not attending? Y/N 3.3.2 What does the VEDC do to help disadvantaged children to enrol/ stop them dropping out?

3.4 What role to VEDCs play in managing special access programmes, for example school meals programmes, ECD etc.

3.4.1 Do you have any special programmes (activities) in the school or community that support children’s enrolment: a. School readiness/ playgroup/ ECE b. School meals programme c. Community construction/ latrines/ water d. Others

3.4.1 Do you have any special programmes (activities) in the school or community that support children’s enrolment: a. School readiness/ playgroup/ ECE b. School meals programme c. Community construction/ latrines/ water d. Others

3.4.1 Do you have any special programmes (activities) in the school or community that support children’s enrolment: a. School readiness/ playgroup/ ECE b. School meals programme c. Community construction/ latrines/ water d. Others

31

CRQ CATEGORY 4 (Research Objective 1.4)- VEDC contribution to quality and teaching/ learning

MOES/DP/ PESS TOOL 1

DESB/DEDC TOOL 2

School Director TOOL 3

Teachers TOOL 4

Students TOOL 5

Village Chief TOOL 6

VEDC Members TOOL 7

Villagers TOOL 8

4.1 To what extent are VEDCs so far having in impact on the quality of teaching and learning and what strategies do they use to do this?

4.1.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are having a positive impact on teachers and their teaching? 4.1.2 Give a first hand example of (2.6 a and b)

4.1.1 Do you feel that VEDCs are having a positive impact on improving teaching and learning? 4.1.2 Please give an example of how they do this.

4.1.1 Do you feel that VEDCs are having a positive impact on improving teaching and learning? 4.1.2 Please give an example of how they do this.

4.1.1 Do you feel that VEDCs are having a positive impact on improving teaching and learning? 4.1.3 Does the VEDC monitor teachers’ attendance? 4.1.4 Does the VEDC monitor teachers work in the classroom? 4.1.5 Does the VEDC monitor teachers’ use of disciplinary measures?

4.1.6 Do teachers ever use reward in the classroom or school? Y/N 4.1.7 If yes, tell us the 3 most common methods of rewarding your teachers use in class 4.1.8 Do teachers ever use punisment in the classroom or school? Y/N 4.1.9 If yes, tell us the 3 most common methods of punishment your teachers use in class

4.1.1 Do you feel that VEDCs are having a positive impact on improving teaching and learning? 4.1.2 Please give an example of how they do this.

4.1.1 Do you feel that VEDCs are having a positive impact on improving teaching and learning? 4.1.3 Does the VEDC monitor teachers’ attendance? 4.1.4 Does the VEDC monitor teachers work in the classroom? 4.1.5 Does the VEDC monitor teachers’ use of disciplinary measures?

4.1.1 Do you feel that VEDCs are having a positive impact on improving teaching and learning? 4.1.3 Does the VEDC monitor teachers’ attendance? 4.1.4 Does the VEDC monitor teachers work in the classroom? 4.1.5 Does the VEDC monitor teachers’ use of disciplinary measures?

4.2 To what extent and in what ways do VEDCs help to bridge the linguistic and cultural gaps between the school and children’s homes?

4.2.1 Do you believe that VEDCs are strengthening the links between the school and the culture(s) and customs of their villages? Give a first hand example (2.7a and b)

4.2.1 Does VEDC ever support bringing any local culture into school?

4.2.2 Does the community and the school ever do cultural things together, for example celebrate local or national festivals together? Y/N

4.2.1 Does VEDC ever support bringing any local culture into school?

4.2.2 Does the community and the school ever do cultural things together, for example celebrate local or national festivals together? Y/N

32

CRQ CATEGORY 5 (Research Objective 3) VEDC Capacity –Building (training and support)

MOES/DP/ PESS TOOL 1

DESB TOOL 2

School Director TOOL 3

Village Chief TOOL 6

VEDC Members TOOL 7

5.1 What are capacity-related constraints to VEDC effectiveness and what, therefore, are priorities to build the capacity of VEDCs?

5.1.1 In your experience, how significant are the following capacity- related constraints to VEDC effectiveness? Important constraint/ somewhat a constraint/ not really a constraint

VEDC members not well-educated

VEDC members are not trained

VEDC training not very effective

Some of the systems (e.g. EQS/ SDP) too complicated

Not enough written guidance to support VEDCs in their work

Not enough support from school principals

Not enough support from DESBs

Not enough monitoring of VEDCs by DEDCs

(3.1a) Other (3.1b) 5.1.2 Taking account of the constraints and important areas you have identified, what would you recommend as the three top priorities to build the capacity of VEDCs? (3.2)

5.1.1 How important are the following constraints on making VEDCs effective? Important constraint/ somewhat a constraint/ not really a constraint a) VEDC members are not well-

educated b) VEDC members are not well

trained c) Some of the systems (e.g.

EQS/ SDP) are too complicated

d) There is not enough written guidance to support VEDCs in their work

e) School principals are not able to support VEDCs well

f) The DESB does not have enough funding to support schools well

g) The DESB does not have enough staff to support schools well

h) The DESB staff do not know in detail how to support VEDCs

5.1.2 Taking account of the problems, what would you recommend as the three top priorities to build the capacity of VEDCs?

5.1.1 How important are the following constraints on making VEDCs effective? Important constraint/ somewhat a constraint/ not really a constraint a) VEDC members are not well-

educated b) VEDC members are not well

trained c) Some of the systems (e.g.

EQS/ SDP) are too complicated

d) There is not enough written guidance to support VEDCs in their work

e) School principals are not able to support VEDCs well

f) The DESB does not have enough funding to support schools well

g) The DESB does not have enough staff to support schools well

h) The DESB staff do not know in detail how to support VEDCs

5.1.2 Taking account of the problems, what would you recommend as the three top priorities to build the capacity of VEDCs?

5.1.1 How important are the following constraints on making VEDCs effective? Important constraint/ somewhat a constraint/ not really a constraint a) VEDC members are not well-

educated b) VEDC members are not well

trained c) Some of the systems (e.g.

EQS/ SDP) are too complicated

d) There is not enough written guidance to support VEDCs in their work

e) School principals are not able to support VEDCs well

f) The DESB does not have enough funding to support schools well

g) The DESB does not have enough staff to support schools well

h) The DESB staff do not know in detail how to support VEDCs

5.1.2 Taking account of the problems, what would you recommend as the three top priorities to build the capacity of VEDCs?

5.1.1 How important are the following constraints on making VEDCs effective? Important constraint/ somewhat a constraint/ not really a constraint a) VEDC members are not well-

educated b) VEDC members are not well

trained c) Some of the systems (e.g.

EQS/ SDP) are too complicated

d) There is not enough written guidance to support VEDCs in their work

e) School principals are not able to support VEDCs well

f) The DESB does not have enough funding to support schools well

g) The DESB does not have enough staff to support schools well

h) The DESB staff do not know in detail how to support VEDCs

33

5.2 To what extent, in what ways and how effectively have current VEDCs been trained (across the research districts) and in what key areas

5.2.1 If you have been involved in delivering training for VEDCs, what topics have you included? Roles and responsibilities/ EQS/ making SDP/ SBG and financial management/ supporting enrolment/ supporting teaching and learning/ supporting community participation/ other (3.3) What in your experience are the three most important things that VEDCS should understand as a result of training (up to 3) (3.4.a) What in your experience are the three most important things that VEDCS should be able to do as a result of training (up to 3) (3.4.b)

5.2. 1 If you have been involved in delivering training for VEDCs, what topics have you included? Roles and responsibilities / EQS/ making SDP/ SBG and financial management/ supporting enrolment/ supporting teaching and learning/ supporting community participation/ other 5.2. 4 Do you have Workshop/ training reports for these trainings?

5.2. 0 Have the VEDC members in your school received any training in the last two years: Most/ a few/none 5.2. 2 Please name the trainings that the members have received 5.2.4 Do you have Workshop/ training reports for these trainings?

5.2. 2 Please name the trainings that the members have received

5.2.3 Have you had any VEDC training in the last two years? 5.2.4 Please name the trainings that the members have received

5.3 How could VEDC training be improved in terms of approach, content and logistical arrangements?

5.3.2 What approaches and methods have you found effective for training of VEDCs? (3.4)

5.3.1 What do you think are 3 main areas where VEDCs should receive further training? 5.3.2 Where is the best location to train VEDCs: In their own village/ In a cluster of nearby villages/ at the district centre/ don’t know 5.3.3 How useful are these methods for training VEDCs?: Very helpful/ somewhat helpful not helpful don’t know (not tried)

a) Lecture method? b) Participatory methods? c) Working together on a

real task (e.g. making SDP during training)?

5.3.1 What do you think are 3 main areas where VEDCs should receive further training? 5.3.2 Where is the best location to train VEDCs: In their own village/ In a cluster of nearby villages/ at the district centre/ don’t know 5.3.3 How useful are these methods for training VEDCs?: Very helpful/ somewhat helpful not helpful don’t know (not tried)

a) Lecture method? b) Participatory methods? c) Working together on a

real task (e.g. making SDP during training)?

5.3.2 Where is the best location to train VEDCs: In their own village/ In a cluster of nearby villages/ at the district centre/ don’t know

5.3.1 What do you think are 3 main areas where VEDCs should receive further training? 5.3.2 Where is the best location to train VEDCs: In their own village/ In a cluster of nearby villages/ at the district centre/ don’t know

34

5.4 To what extent have school directors been trained in areas that relate to how they train, work with and/or support VEDCs?

If you have been involved in delivering training (school directors), what topics have you included? (3.3)

5.4.1 If you have been involved in delivering training for school principals, what topics have you included that relate to VEDC? Roles and responsibilities/ EQS/ making SDP/ SBG and financial management/ supporting enrolment/ supporting teaching and learning/ supporting community participation/ other 5.4.0- workshop reports

5.4.2 Have you yourself had any training that has helped you in your work with VEDCs? 5.4.3 If so, please name the main topics of the training (up to 3)

X X

5.5 How could school directors have their own capacity built, to be able to better orientate and support VEDCs?

5.5.1 What should be the role (if any) of the following people in supporting VEDCs

School Principals of incomplete schools?

School Directors of complete schools?

and what would help these people to give better support to VEDCs? (3.8)

5.5.1 What do you think are 1-2 main areas where school directors should receive further training to help them work with VEDCs 5.5.3 What adaptions do you think are needed for training school principals of incomplete schools?

5.5.2 In what areas would you like to have (further) training (up to 3)?

5.5.2 In what areas would you like to have (further) training, related to VEDCs (up to 3)?

5.6 Which DESB officers are most involved in giving on-the job support VEDCs, to what extent are they trained in their roles and what is their approach (e.g. use of checklists etc.)?

5.6.1 What should be the role (if any) of the following people in supporting VEDCs (ii) what would help these people to give better support to VEDCs?

Pedagogy Advisers of DESB

DPPE department of DESB

Other members of DESB

The DEDC What would help these people give better support to VEDCs? (3.8)

5.6.1 Which officers in your district most often make visits to schools to support VEDCs?

Pedagogy Advisers of DESB

DPPE department of DESB Other members of DESB 5.6.2 What methods do DESBs use when they make support visits: (tick)

a. Discussion of issues with only myself

b. Discussion with VEDC members

5.6.2 What methods do DESBs use when they make support visits: (tick) a. Discussion of issues with only

myself b. Discussion with VEDC

members c. Give written comments and

advice d. Complete a standard

inspection checklist e. Help us to make SDP f. Help us to implement our

SDP

5.6.2 What methods do DESBs use when they make support visits: (tick) a. Discussion of issues with only

myself b. Discussion with VEDC

members c. Give written comments and

advice d. Complete a standard

inspection checklist e. Help us to make SDP f. Help us to implement our

SDP

5.6.2 What methods do DESBs use when they make support visits: (tick)

a) Discussion of issues with only myself

b) Discussion with VEDC members

c) Give written comments and advice

d) Complete a standard inspection checklist

e) Help us to make SDP f) Help us to implement

our SDP

35

c. Give written comments and advice

d. Complete a standard inspection checklist

e. Help us to make SDP f. Help us to implement

our SDP g. Help us to do EQS

scoring h. Give us a mini-training

about a problem or task i. Explain some content of

the school management handbook or VEDC handbook

j. Other (please specify) 5.6.3 Are visit reports available? None/ some schools/ all schools

g. Help us to do EQS scoring h. Give us a mini-training about

a problem or task i. Explain some content of the

school management handbook or VEDC handbook

j. Other (please specify)

g. Help us to do EQS scoring h. Give us a mini-training about

a problem or task i. Explain some content of the

school management handbook or VEDC handbook

j. Other (please specify)

g) Help us to do EQS scoring

h) Give us a mini-training about a problem or task

i) Explain some content of the school management handbook or VEDC handbook

j) Other (please specify)

5.7 How could the relevant DESB officers have their own capacity built, to be able to better orientate and support VEDCs?

5.7.1 Is there any training or other support you need to support VEDCs more effectively? (Suggest up to 3 things)

5.7.2 Would you like the DESB to (y/n):

Make more frequent support visits

Spend more time at the school/community during the support visit?

Make some changes to what they do during the support visit?

5.7.3 If yes, what changes?

36

5.8 How far are the various manuals and handbooks to support VEDCs directly, or support school principals and/or DESB to work with VEDCs available to the relevant people at each level and to what extent are they used and found to be helpful?

5.8.0 What SMB and VEDC training and support materials are familiar to you? VEDC training package/ MOES SM handbooks 1 and 2/ MOES SBM guidelines/ MoES EQS guidelines/ supplementary extension materials/ Other (3.6) What kind of training materials and support materials have you found to be most helpful for School Principals to learn how to work with and support VEDCs? (3.7a) What kind of training materials and support materials have you found to be most helpful for other VEDC members to learn how to implement their roles? (3.7b)

5.8.0 Do you have copies of the following documents? (tick)

a. MOES School Management Handbook for Principals – Vol 1 2013

b. MOES School Management Handbook for Principals – Vol 2 2013

c. MOES VEDC Handbook 2013

d. MOES EQS for Primary Schools 2013

e. School Block Grant Manual

f. Handbook for making district development plan 2013.

5.8.1 How useful do you find the various handbooks that relate to the work of schools and VEDCs? Very helpful/ somewhat helpful/ not very helpful/ don’t know

5.8.0 Do you have copies of the following documents? (tick)

a. MOES School Management Handbook for Principals – Vol 1 2013

b. MOES School Management Handbook for Principals – Vol 2 2013

c. MOES VEDC Handbook 2013

d. MOES EQS for Primary Schools 2013

e. School Block Grant Manual

5.8.1 How useful do you find the various handbooks that relate to the work of schools and VEDCs? Very helpful/ somewhat helpful/ not very helpful/ don’t know

5.8.1 How useful do you find the various handbooks that relate to the work of schools and VEDCs? Very helpful/ somewhat helpful/ not very helpful/ don’t know

5.8.1 How useful do you find the various handbooks that relate to the work of schools and VEDCs? Very helpful/ somewhat helpful/ not very helpful/ don’t know