Progress report: “review of the roles and responsibilities of
decentralised level education officers in Rwanda (DEOs, SEOs and
Regional Inspectors), detailed training needs assessment of existing
officers and creation of a standardised induction programme for new
recruits” – assignment under CDF Batch 1
18 February 2014, revised for CDF comments, 11th March
Imke van der Honing, Charlie Goldsmith Associates
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................... 9
1.
PROBLEM STATEMENT, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND OBJECTIVES.................................................... 10
2.
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 11
3.
PROGRESS .................................................................................................................................... 17
4.
CONTEXT – EDUCATION ................................................................................................................ 18
5.
CONTEXT - INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 22
6.
DIAGNOSIS ................................................................................................................................... 25
7.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 27
8.
CURRENT AND PROPOSED MANDATES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RIS, SEOS, DEOS........... 29
REGIONAL INSPECTORS .............................................................................................................................. 31
B)
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICERS .................................................................................................................. 35
C)
SECTOR EDUCATION OFFICERS .................................................................................................................... 37
A)
9.
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH AND NEXT STEPS.......................................................... 40
10.
NEXT STEPS FOR THIS CONSULTANCY ASSIGNMENT ................................................................... 42
11.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 43
ANNEX 1 - BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 44
ANNEX 2
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND MEETINGS .............................................................................. 46
ANNEX 3: PRESENTATION TO REB, 7TH FEBRUARY 2014 ........................................................................ 47
ANNEX 4: REVISED ASSIGNMENT PLAN ................................................................................................. 47
ANNEX 5: DRAFT CIRCULAR TO INVITE DEOS, SEOS AND REGIONAL INSPECTORS TO BRIEFING WORKSHOP
ON NEW JOB DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 48
ANNEX 6: DRAFT MINISTERIAL ORDER FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR RIS, DEOS,
SEOS .................................................................................................................................................... 49
ANNEX 7: REB LESSON EVALUATION TEMPLATE .................................................................................... 49
2
Executive Summary
This document provides a progress report to February 2014 on the Capacity Development
Fund project for a review of the roles and responsibilities of decentralised level
education officers in Rwanda (District Education Officers (DEOs), Sector Education
Officers (SEOs) and Regional Inspectors (RIs)), a detailed training needs assessment of
existing officers and the creation of a standardised induction programme for new
recruits.
Problem statement, ToR and Objectives
The ToR sets out the problem at hand: “the DEOs are under the line management of their
Districts, specifically the mayors, but they are required to provide the Ministry of
Education, and increasingly the REB, with important management information and to
oversee the implementation of key policies and strategies. This can cause both a conflict
over priorities and time between the Ministry and the District Administration.
“Some of the conflicts are due to the lower priority given to the implementation of
education policies and strategies by some of the District Administrations in preference to
school construction and local projects that generate funds for the district”.
The objectives of this project set out in the ToR are that “the decentralised level education
management positions of DEOs, SEOs and Inspectors will have clearly defined roles... A
training needs assessment will be established with defined required training that will lead
to the further development of these officials. A standardised induction programme for all
new recruits will also have been produced so that any new staff entering these positions
will have a comprehensive understanding of their roles and responsibilities”.
The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational
management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform
their tasks more effectively and efficiently. This will contribute to a more efficient and
productive education sector”.
Methodology
Our approach has been based on extensive interviews, over several visits, a participatory
workshop held on 7th February 2014 as part of an expanded REB Senior Management
meeting, to review the draft proposed roles and responsibilities, a comparative analysis of
3
practice in other African countries in the areas of decentralised education management
and subnational government, and an analysis of the management chain.
Progress
This project is a critical path activity for delivery of the ESSP and especially relevant, as an
enabler of a range of education quality improvements, to the achievement of headline
education results in DFID Rwanda’s Operational Plan, for primary passes and lower
secondary enrolment.
This project was envisaged as a 40 working days task, ideally consecutively, from contract
signature in May 2013. Clearly, almost nine months from contracting, and despite Charlie
Goldsmith Associates having contributed significant numbers of pro bono days, that has
not occurred.
While the diagnostic interviews were quickly conducted, the key driver of the delay was
the non-availability of the Rwanda Education Board (REB) to hold the workshop on
proposed roles and responsibilities for Regional Inspectors, District Education Officers
and Sector Education Officers, on several occasions in 2013.
This report sets out how the first of the three elements comprising the project has been
delivered, viz the review of the roles and responsibilities of decentralised level education
officers in Rwanda (DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors).
The summary Gantt chart in Annex 4 sets out how the remaining two elements of this
work, a detailed training needs assessment of existing officers and the creation of a
standardised induction programme for new recruits, are now expected to be finished. The
training needs assessment will be conducted as part of the regional workshops for RIs,
DEOs and SEOs at which the new draft job descriptions will be disseminated. Charlie
Goldsmith Associates will use its wider team, including Joanne Ferry, who is based in
Rwanda as part of the team on the IfE Ndi Hano project, and Erin Chu, a senior Charlie
Goldsmith Associates team member, working with Imke van der Honing, to complete this
project over the next 2.5 months, so that it is finished by end May 2014.
Education context
Rwanda has made rapid steps to improve access to education. Quality has not improved
as fast, and in certain areas, there have been trade-offs – double-shifting reducing contact
time per pupil, curriculum reductions to facilitate increased throughput, for example.
Improving the quality of inspection, supervision and management is thus important to
delivering better education quality and outcomes, and was established as an objective in
4
the ESSP 2010-15. The posts of DEO and SEO were established and populated in 2006 and
2011 to respond.
Context - Institutional framework
At national government level, MINEDUC is responsible for strategic leadership of the
education sector. Management of the operational school system is in the hands of the
Rwanda Education Board.
Rwanda is administratively divided geographically into 5 Provinces or Regions, 30
Districts, and 416 Sectors. Rwanda has a decentralised, not a deconcentrated, system of
government: that is, District governments are governments in their own right.
Teachers are the largest geographically dispersed workforce of the government.
Processing of their pay has been decentralised to district level since 2008. However DEOs
exert relatively little direct leverage over teachers and schools in terms of salaries.
Funds for school operating costs (the latter through ‘capitation grants’, based on numbers
of pupils) flows directly to schools. For both salaries and capitation grants, we understand
that funding reflect statistics submitted by DEOs.
Regional Inspectors are hired by and report to REB. DEOs report directly to District
Mayors, and SEOs through the Sector Executive Secretary. All three categories of officer
are tied to individual “imihigo” performance contracts by their line of reporting.
Context - Capacity
The 2012 Capacity Needs Assessment highlights capacity weaknesses in some DEOs and
SEOs. However, our interviews suggested that capacity was not the critical path element,
and that revised job descriptions will not alone solve the problem.
Our Diagnosis
Our observations specifically with regard to the roles and responsibilities of RIs, DEOs and
SEOs:


The task of the DEOs is a vital one: the input they provide to planning and budgeting,
in particular, as the first line of subnational government involved in implementation, is
a fundamental process of government, that is better-resourced in a number of
comparable African countries
There is an overlap in tasks between DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors, that can be
managed more effectively
5





DEOs and SEOs currently can face conflicting calls on their time from REB, through the
sector line of reporting, and from the priorities of the local governments to which they
are directly responsible
Inspection Support Systems, relating to tools, data etc, are still under
development/improvement: MLAS, EMIS, Ndi Hano: this means SEOs and DEOs
spend a lot of time doing data/reporting tasks that could be automated/routinised,
and less time doing supervision…
…but DEOs and SEOs are a potentially transformational resource for education
quality, if they have time to provide supportive supervision and coaching to
headteachers and schools
Only adjusting Job Descriptions is not a solution
There is a need for increased joint (MINALOC, MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, RALGA)
ownership of process and solution
Our general assessment is that SEOs and DEOs are:


Made less effective than they could be by their limited authority over finances of the
education sector at their respective levels
As more widely in the Government of Rwanda, more guided by the “imihigo” than the
job description, and thus by their direct supervisors rather than their job description:
specifically SEOs and DEOs currently report to local government officials, and thus are
directed by local non-specialist preferences for education services, rather than by the
priorities and values of the ESSP
Cross-cutting recommendations
We make a number of cross-cutting recommendations:





Line management and coordination: We propose a standing cycle of coordination,
rather than an assumption that Districts will stay aligned with the ESSP priorities.
Results management: We propose REB issue a template “imihigo” contract for SEOs
and DEOs.
Technical capacity: We propose either giving some SEOs responsibilities to support
the DEO on district-wide issues, or hiring assistant DEOs with particular technical
responsibilities (and not necessarily an education background)
Inspection and supervision: RIs should focus on summative/standards inspection,
DEOs on management and coordination at District level, and SEOs on supportive
supervision to schools. RIs should retain the right to make unannounced inspections;
SEOs should coordinate their supportive supervision cycles with their DEOs.
Information management and analysis: DEOs and SEOs should be equipped with basic
IT tools (computers for DEOs, at minimum basic smartphones for SEOs) to enable
6
them to collect, submit, and access in future the education data from their area: ideally,
this will be accompanied by web access to EMIS and other government information
tools, on the pattern of IPPIS.
Proposed mandates, roles and responsibilities for RIs, SEOs, DEOs
The approach we propose is focused on the education management side, around the
division of impartial inspection, on the one hand, and management and supportive
supervision on the other, and in terms of public sector management, in better aligning
imihigo relationships:




RIs should be roving inspectors, providing impartial and truthful reporting and
judgments to REB
DEOs should provide education technical advice to the District Mayors to whom they
report, including input to teachers’ HR and payroll processes, and collate planning and
budgeting information, working with REB; they should have assistant officers to help
them with technical aspects of this role
SEOs should provide supportive supervision of headteachers and schools, and timely
reporting for statistics, through the Sector Executive Secretary. Their imihigo should be
cosigned by the DEO
Mayors should be formally asked by REB to ensure that not only District Development
Plans and Annual Plans but individual “imihigo” performance contracts for DEOs and
SEOs are consistent with the ESSP: we propose that REB should issue template
“imihigo” contracts to make it easier for Mayors, Executive Secretaries and DEOs and
SEOs to comply
Proposed implementation approach
The Job descriptions presented in this document consist of the main tasks and
responsibilities to be carried out by the RIs, DEOs and SEOs, and reflect the discussions at
the REB Senior Management meeting on 7th February.
Although the content is not likely to be contested there is need for further consultation as
formally only the RIs are under the direct authority of the REB. The total package will
therefore be further discussed with MIFOTRA and MINALOC, after which we would
propose that the Minister of Education should send a Ministerial Order formally to
implement them.
Training Needs Assessments, the second element in this project, will be combined with
presentation of the draft Job Descriptions, in each Region/Provinces, and be delivered
between 25th March and 8th April. We expect that some minor adjustments and
improvements will be made by the staff presently occupying the positions and most
7
informed on the detail of operating under the Local Authorities, which can inform the
final Ministerial Order.
The standard induction pack, the third element in this project, will then be developed
based on the needs identified and the feedback of the Job Descriptions, working with REB
counterparts.
Next steps for this consultancy assignment
It is proposed that Imke van der Honing and Erin Chu, a senior Charlie Goldsmith
Associates colleague, will prepare the training needs assessment tool and draft the
operational manuals and induction packages for new and present Inspectors and
Education Officers. Joanne Ferry, our Rwanda Country Coordinator, who is based in
Kigali full time, will execute the training needs assessments and report back from the
regional workshops.
Conclusion
There will always be a tension between top-down planning and a bottom-up “imihigo”
approach that responds first to local priorities. This tension can be managed, particularly
by orienting DEOs, SEOs and their political masters in local government to the priorities of the
ESSP2013, but it cannot be eliminated without a complete change of system that would
lose many of the characteristics of local taking of responsibility that have enabled the
Rwandan education sector to make such rapid progress.
The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational
management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform
their tasks more effectively and efficiently”.
Within the organizational constraints of the current distinctive Rwandan decentralisation
approach, we have therefore suggested what we believe to be the best intervention in this
area, involving not only role clarification but also a set of ongoing practical measures –
involving coordination mechanisms and discussion between the levels of government - to
support DEOs and SEOs, to “contribute to a more efficient and productive education
sector”, and have set out a workplan to deliver the rest of the project on that basis.
8
List of Abbreviations
CDF
Capacity Development Fund
CNA
Capacity Needs Assessment
DDG
Deputy Director General
DEO
District Education Officer
DIP
ESSP
Decentralisation Implementation Policy
Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Strategy
Education Sector Strategic Plan 2013 – 2018
GoR
HR
Government of Rwanda
Human Resources
IPPIS
Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System
JD
Job description
MIFOTRA
Ministry of Public Service and Labour
MINALOC
Ministry of Local Government
MINECOFIN
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
MINEDUC
Ministry of Education
QSD
Quality and Standards Department of REB
REB
Rwanda Education Board
RI
Regional Inspector
SEO
Sector Education Officer
EDPRS
9
1. Problem statement, Terms of Reference and objectives
The ToR sets out the following problem statement: “the DEOs are under the line
management of their Districts, specifically the mayors, but they are required to provide
the Ministry of Education, and increasingly the REB, with important management
information and to oversee the implementation of key policies and strategies. This can
cause both a conflict over priorities and time between the Ministry and the District
Administration.
“Some of the conflicts are due to the lower priority given to the implementation of
education policies and strategies by some of the District Administrations in preference to
school construction and local projects that generate funds for the district”.
The objectives of this project set out in the ToR are that “the decentralised level education
management positions of DEOs, SEOs and Inspectors will have clearly defined roles. The
officials in these positions will fully understand their mandate and responsibilities, as well
as their relationship with counterparts, and within the sector as a whole. A training needs
assessment will be established with defined required training that will lead to the further
development of these officials. A standardised induction programme for all new recruits
will also have been produced so that any new staff entering these positions will have a
comprehensive understanding of their roles and responsibilities”.
The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational
management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform
their tasks more effectively and efficiently,. This will contribute to a more efficient and
productive education sector”.
The specific tasks assigned were:
1) A review of the current mandate, roles and responsibilities of DEOs, SEOs and
Regional Inspectors.
2) The creation of defined job descriptions for the DEOs, SEOs and Inspectors, which
are standardised across the entire sector.
3) Conducting participatory workshops with DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors. It
is expected to combine Training Needs Assessment (TNA), create common
understanding on their mandate, roles and responsibilities, and how their positions
interact with each other and with the central agencies and district authorities,
10
4) Develop a training plan (based on TNA) for delivering the required training, which
details a.o. training content, required duration and sequencing,
5) Prepare (draft) terms of reference for potential service providers to carry out the
training
6) The creation of a standardised induction pack relevant for all new recruits, so that
all new officers appointed can fully understand their roles and responsibilities,
mandate and relationships with other decentralised structures
2. Methodology
Organisation of the assignment and information gathering
In phase 1 of the assignment, we took the following steps:





Review literature: ESSPs; Education policies; capacity assessments; documents on
Decentralisation; regional and sectoral comparands
Focus group discussions (selected DEOs/SEOs)
Key informants interviews (representatives MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, RGB,
MINEDUC, REB other actors NGOs
Presentation to and feedback from REB
During 2013, we conducted extensive interviews at all levels from sector up to MINEDUC
and partners, through a series of visits to Kigali and DEOs and SEOs in their locations. A
list of interviewees is given at Annex 2. Our analysis was also informed by our work with
DEOs and SEOs for the IfE Ndi Hano project.
A participatory workshop was held on 7th February 2014 as part of an expanded REB
Board meeting, to review the draft proposed roles and responsibilities and make
comments.
Phase 2 of the assignment will feature:




Participatory needs assessment, through consultation of DEOs and SEOs
Draft Training plan for new DEOs/SEOs
Draft an induction package for new DEOs/SEOs and procedure to administer
and distribute
Education management approach
We made a short comparative analysis of practice in other African countries in the areas of
decentralised education management (both technical and financial), and inspection and
11
supervision: specifically, we have looked at a range of approaches to separation of
summative inspection and formative, or supportive, supervision.
De Grauwe, in various articles, including De Grauwe 2008 (School supervision: a tool for
standardization or for equity? Anton De Grauwe, International Institute for Educational
Planning working document) sets out a continuum of approaches to summative
inspection and formative supervision, ranging from the ‘classical’ approach of layers of
sector management from national government to local level, down through which orders
cascade, and up through which information returns, to the ‘central control’ model, in
which a central inspection agency – of which the UK’s OFSTED (Office for Standards in
Education) is a well-known example – inspects standards, but schools have considerable
autonomy, and receive some support services from local authorities.
De Grauwe highlights that the classical model is widespread in Africa, because it
developed in step with the extension of colonial authority, and some service delivery, to
the peripheries. He notes that: “the “classical” supervision service is ineffective because it
tends to focus on two almost contradictory tasks (control and support) and because it does
not sufficiently separate those who provide services (i.e. the educational administration)
from those who evaluate them (the supervisors form indeed part of the administration)”.
It will be important, in implementing the recommendations of this project, to ensure that
we do not inadvertently create a “Back to the Future” scenario, by seeking to recreate, in
the recently instituted network of DEOs and SEOs, a classical administrative model that is
incompatible with the principles of Rwanda’s decentralisation policy.
A recent example of a reform in a regional country is the planned reform of subnational
inspection and supervision in DRC. There the World Bank/GPE, Project appraisal
document: Support to basic education project, 2013, sets out that one of the project
activities focuses on the redefinition of the roles of deconcentrated entities to improve
service delivery.
The reform agenda explicitly introduces a package of essential education activities (at all
levels of the system) together with the concept of results-based ‘contracts’ and clear
outcome indicators:

“Improve system management through (i) the strengthening management at the
local/school level; (ii) improved allocation of public sector resources for the operation
of offices at the de-concentrated level; (iii) the development of specific actions for
more effective involvement of parents and civil society in school management; (iv)
strengthening of the capacity of administrative and pedagogical supervisors of
educational establishments and teachers; and (v) establishing a system of
management by results at all levels of the education system. (p.18).
12


Performance-based agreements require periodic evaluations of work on the basis of
established and agreed upon indicators. In line with the IEP, the GPE will establish
“performance” agreements at the sub-provincial level. This is a relatively new concept
as very little accountability exists with regard to the management of school fees and
the delivery of services.
The sub-provincial offices are directly accountable for implementation. For this
reason, their organograms have been revisited and essential tasks redefined in order
to ensure implementation at the school level. They will closely monitor the
performance of school heads and teachers. Sub-provincial offices and schools will be
responsible for reporting on results under the performance-based agreements. At the
level of the school, parent committees will be actively involved in approving and
monitoring local implementation plans. Existing operations manuals will be adapted
and included in the project’s operations manuals. These will be in line with the vision
of efficient service delivery as redefined in the package of essential activities, and
related post descriptions at the different levels of the implementation chain. (p.58)”
In the practical administration of this task, procedures manuals are being developed to
include essential tasks (limited to 4-5 key activities that are important for the quality of
education) for all levels of the system and all types of staff (administrators, inspectors).
Mulkeen, in his Teachers in Anglophone Africa: Issues in Teacher Supply, Training, and
Management, World Bank (2010), highlights the need for well-defined, targeted routine
supervision and inspection activities in schools for improving the quality of education
(and the subsequent need to design adequate tools):
“Inspection of schools serves two main purposes. First, it is a supervision system,
monitoring events in schools, identifying difficulties early, and ensuring quality. Second, it
serves as a feedback mechanism, providing information to policy makers about the reality
in schools. These two roles imply different coverage requirements. An effective
supervision system should be able to supervise every school with a reasonable frequency.
A feedback system may function effectively by examining a carefully chosen sample of
schools, but must develop a synthesis of the findings of relevance for management and
feed these to the appropriate points in the education management (p.112).”
No one system of inspection and supervision is ipso facto better than others. However, in
some contexts, some systems will be clearly more or less consistent with both the wider
administrative and political arrangements, and the values and approach of the education
system.
In the Rwandan context, the Regional Inspector teams have an obvious role, as Inspectors
largely independent of a line management function, directly under the REB, rather than
part of subnational government, and with specialist subject skills within their teams, to
13
perform an inspection and standards role. The DEOs and SEOs, being accountable to local
government, have an obvious role in locally supportive and responsive supervision and
coaching of the schools, directly into whose hands the majority of resources flows.
Public sector management approach
The approach to analysis of the management chain we have used is one based on
principal-agent theory (qv Simson: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publicationsopinion-files/8410.pdf), and the ‘typology of common governance constraints’ set out in Wild
et al 2012 (Wild, L., Chambers, V., King, M., Harris, D. (2012) Common constraints and
incentive problems in service delivery, Research Paper, London: ODI). The principal-agent
approach looks at the incentives on actors in each case, the extent to which these do or do
not flow in a direct chain, and the extent to which actors have the financial and human
resources to take and manage responsibilities.
Wild et al’s ‘typology’ is shown below:
Figure 1: Typology of common governance constraints – Wild et al
14
We focus in this work particularly on avoiding ‘policy incoherence’ between the
requirements of a ‘top-down’ planning approach, like the ESSP, and the local prioritisation
and taking of responsibility of the ‘imihigo; approach, which Wild et al specifically praise:
“there are effective forms of monitoring, including the Imihigo system, an unusual form
of multi-level performance contract that utilises both rewards and sanctions and draws on
concepts of honour and shame, with historical roots in the former kingdom of Rwanda.
This uses both strong top-down pressures, ultimately from President Kagame, but also
engagement by local populations (Chambers and Golooba-Mutebi, 2012). This means
incentive structures exist for service providers, with sanctions including the possibility of
being fired and rewards existing through performance-based financing”.
Smoke, P. (2003) Decentralisation in Africa: goals, dimensions, myths and challenges, Public
Administration and Development, 23 (1), pp. 7-16) highlights that in Africa,
decentralization processes have often led to mismatches between fiscal, political and
administrative responsibilities – e.g. political decentralization without fiscal authority or
design of fiscal transfers without clarity on expenditure (e.g. South Africa, Mozambique) –
which have compromised service delivery outcomes. In our work on these job
descriptions, we have been particularly keen to ensure that RIs, DEOs and SEOs’
responsibilities do not exceed the financial and administrative leverage they have.
Another important process aspect stressed by Smoke (2003) is “coordination between
different actors involved in the decentralization process. Ministries of Local Government
or Home Affairs are usually at the forefront of decentralization reforms but other agencies
also play a central role: Ministries of Finance have responsibilities for decentralizing
revenues and defining financial transfers to local levels, and sectoral ministries have a
major role in the devolution of administrative responsibilities in their specific fields. Yet,
one of the greatest difficulties in most decentralization efforts in Africa has been
coordination of all the actors involved and the failure to build linkages between the
different components of decentralization”.
Our approach to these job descriptions has again been aimed at ensuring that the needs of
the education sector are not prioritised at the expense of good and democratically
accountable coordination at local level.
The task of the DEOs is a vital one: the input they provide to planning and budgeting, in
particular, as the first line of subnational government involved in implementation, is a
fundamental process of government, that is better-resourced in a number of comparable
African countries
Horizontal span of control approach
15
The Provincial/Regional level of government has minimal executive function; rather, it is
the Districts that are the first, and key, line of subnational service delivery management, as
confirmed in the ESSP.
Rwanda is exceptional, among African countries, in having a relatively large number of
first line subnational units, and second line units below them, having 30 Districts, and 416
Sectors, in a country of 11m people, as compared to, for example:





10 States, and 79/80 Counties in South Sudan, with a roughly equivalent population,
commonly estimated at 11m
14 Districts, and 149 Chiefdoms in Sierra Leone, with a population of 6m people
190 Districts and x Counties in Uganda, with a population of 28m people
11 Provinces, and almost 600 Zones, in DRC, with a population of the order of 70m
36+1 States in Nigeria, with a population of almost 170m
It is important, in making comparisons, to thus make comparison to the right level: in
some of these countries, the first-line service delivery organisations are full State
Ministries, with staffs of up to 100, rather than, as in Rwanda a single District Education
Officer!
Guiding principles
Bringing together the education and public sector management approaches described, in
proposing roles and responsibilities, we believe that a relevant review/redefinition of
roles and responsibilities of decentralized entities in a context of a systemic shift from
centralized, top-down dynamics to increased local accountability for better quality service
delivery is likely to build on the following guiding principles (GPs):
1. Prioritizing activities
2. Refocusing activities and limiting their number
3. Reducing process complexity
4. Defining results-based accountability
5. Establishing simplified reporting mechanisms
Centralized systems have a predisposition for defining roles in view of maintaining power
and control over its citizens; mandates are therefore formulated as bureaucratic
arrangements with little attention for end-results and improving the quality of services. A
precondition for effective decentralization processes is a consensus on a sort of roadmap
reform agenda that sets phased-in, gradual changes and realistic expectations for
redefined roles and end-objectives. Mandates at this stage should therefore focus first on
essential activities that have the potential to improve (i) the piloting of the education
system; and (ii) the quality of the teaching and learning process.
16
3. Progress
In May 2013, the consultant made a literature review on the system of decentralised (or
devolved) education officers specifically in Rwanda. This included review of the
Education Sector Strategic Plans, but also further literature on the implementation of the
decentralisation policy in Rwanda. The main documents reviewed are ESSP 2013-2017
(and 2010-2015) and the Education Capacity Needs Assessment report of 2012, which are
specific about the expected roles as well as the actual roles of the decentralised education
officers. On decentralisation; Decentralisation Implementation Plan 2011-2015, (revised)
Decentralisation Policy (2012) and Sectoral decentralisation in Rwanda (2013) were
reviewed.
In June 2013 the consultant visited Rwanda and carried out interviews with key
informants from MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, MINALOC, RGB and REB Semi structured group
discussions were held with two groups of SEOs and DEOs in Kigali and Huye (where
DEOs and SEOs were engaged in data entry for EMIS). In October a further group
discussion was held with a group of Regional Inspectors. Extensive discussions were held
with VVOB and VSO at different points in time between June and November 2013.
Additional information was received through informal discussions and email with/from
"Imbuto" and "Red een kind").
An informal discussion was held with an Executive Secretary of a sector in Rumango. In
general Local Government staff was difficult to access in June when the consultant came to
Rwanda to meet key informants as most local government staff was extremely engaged in
the "Imihigo" discussions.
Two presentations to the REB Board were scheduled but cancelled by the REB Board in
Autumn 2013. By the time REB was available, the lead consultant, Imke van der Honing,
was not able to travel to Rwanda, on account of his security-critical responsibilities for a
major DFID-funded education project in the Republic of South Sudan, which is currently
suffering serious civil strife.
The proposed roles and responsibilities were finally presented to the REB Board on 7th
February 2014. The next steps section below describes how the project will be finished in
the next two and a half months.
17
4. Context – education
Access, quality and policy
The Rwanda Government places a high priority on Education, with most policies
elaborated in the second Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
(EDPRS2) and Education Sector Strategic Plan 2010 and now the five year ESSP 2013-14 to
2017-18 (ESSP2013).
Rwanda has made rapid steps to improve access to education (from 57% in 2001 to more
than 95% of school age children in 2010).
ESSP2013 (p16) sets out that the Primary NER continues to improve for both girls and
boys and, at 96.5%, and has surpassed the 2012 target of 95%. If progress continues to be
made, Rwanda will be on track to meet the MDG target of 100% net enrolment by 2015.
The NER for girls (98%) remains higher than for boys (95%).
Quality has not improved as fast, and in certain areas, there have been trade-offs – doubleshifting reducing contact time per pupil, curriculum reductions to facilitate increased
throughput, for example – which are candidly addressed in ESSP2013.
Improving the quality of inspection, supervision and management is important to
delivering better education quality and outcomes, and was established as an objective in
the ESSP 2010-15: “Strengthening the institutional framework and management capacity
for effective delivery of education services at all levels (Objective 7 ESSP). The posts of
DEO and SEO were established and populated in 2006 and 2011 to respond.
ESSP 2013 sets out an ambitious plan to scale up from nine to twelve years’ basic
education, and a number of quality initiatives in order to do so, that are primarily focused
on increased resource flows and target-setting, rather than on inspection/supervision and
the DEOs and SEOs’ role, and include:





‘double shifting’ in primary schools (some students come to school in the morning,
and others come in the afternoon)
specialisation of teachers – a long term measure to create specialist ‘language’ or
‘maths’ teachers who would then teach these subjects to a number of years of
students; and
reduction in the number of courses taught in basic education to 5 – English, Maths,
Science, Kinyarwanda and General Paper.
The language of instruction in the early years of primary education (P1 to P3) is
Kinyarwanda; from P4 onwards it is English
Renewed emphasis on the importance of early childhood development
18
Measures to improve teacher motivation and retention were introduced in 2007, including
increases in salaries. However, although secondary school teachers do receive a living
wage, for primary school teachers the wage is still low by regional and local standards (see
Bennell 2008).
Quality of education remains a major challenge for the Rwandan Education system. There
is a shortage of qualified teachers, with only 65% of primary school teachers and 35% of
secondary school teachers holding credentials (IPAR, 2012b).
Inspection, supervision, education management
The rapid expansion of the education sector, and the extent to which expansion
outstripped management numbers and capacity meant that supervision and inspection in
the 2000s became cursory and based on checklists rather than on managing quality in an
organic way.
The appointment of the Regional Inspectors, subject specialists employed by REB to
provide inspection across all schools, and then the DEOs and 416 SEOs, under the
management of the District Mayors and Sector Executive Secretaries respectively,
provided some rapid additional human resource to increase inspection and supervision
capacity.
The DEOs and SEOs are in a problematic position because:


they are not answerable to REB, but to their local authorities
headteachers are not directly line-managed by the SEOs, but are accountable to the
sector executive secretaries and thence to the District Mayor
REB has expressed its concern that in case there are complaints parents will come to
REB/MINEDUC not to local government – ie, effectively it is held accountable for
something it cannot manage. REB staff also informally suggest that in order to achieve
results to fulfil “imihigo” these results are in some cases only achieved on paper.
The diagram below, based on one produced by REB colleagues, photographed below,
articulates the present position, and adds on some principal information flows, showing
clearly the extent to which DEOs and SEOs do not have financial authority over schools in
their area, and are torn between their sectoral and local government chains of
accountability.
19
Figure 2: diagram of relationships between GoR education sector actors with data flows
MINEDUC
local governments
DG REB
Finance
Mayor
DDG QSD
RI
DEO
Executive
Secretary
Sector
SEO
Schools
legend:
inspection
Emis data
Plan/budget
Capitation grants
Figure 3: diagram of relationships between GoR education sector actors with data flows – original
drawn by REB colleagues
20
ESSP2013
ESSP2013 has relatively little to say about DEOs and SEOs in the context of education
quality – its approach to quality is focused on basic input ratios – time taught under
double-shifting, pupil-teacher ratios, qualified teacher supply textbook and other resource
coverage.
Section 2.5.4ff:
“educational service delivery fall into the District Education Offices’ responsibilities.
These include:










Preparation of the Five-Year District Education Development Plan and the Three-Year
District Education Strategic Plan
Implementation of education policy and strategic plans
Preparation of the budget and MTEF
Monitoring and evaluation of activities in education
Recruitment, deployment and payment of permanent teaching staff, within ceilings set
by MINECOFIN
Provision of information on employed teachers to MINEDUC through REB
Provision of all education statistics
Transfers of teachers and students within the same district
Follow-up of NGO education-related activities and reporting back to Provinces and
MINEDUC
Monitoring of school financial reports, use of capitation grants, teachers’ salaries and
school feeding.
“Sector & Cell
The Presidential Order No. 57/01 of 15/10/2006 makes the Sector a direct service
provider to the population and collection of data and information needed by higher levels
for development planning. At the sector level, educational responsibilities are performed
by a Sector Education Officer (SEO).”
We note that the list of responsibilities of DEOs makes limited reference to the line of
reporting of DEOs, to the District Mayors – almost as if they where in a classical
administrative management approach, reporting to REB – and is highly focused on their
reporting duties to the centre, to the exclusion of responsibilities for quality.
On planning, ESSP2013 notes that: “MINEDUC has worked with districts during the
elaboration of the ESSP and their DDPs, with consultations on the education sector goals
and strategic outcomes. Accordingly DDPs have been elaborated based on the identified
21
education sector priorities and outcomes. The District priorities for the next five years will
be focused on the following areas in line with the education sectors overarching goals and
sector outcomes…
“As set out in Section 3.4.4, DEOs are responsible for formulating district level annual
action plans which form part of the wider District Development Plan. The education
elements are in line with the priorities set out in the ESSP. Plans are validated by District
Education Committees chaired by the Mayor or the Vice-Mayor for social affairs.”
As described elsewhere, our interviews suggested that, in fact, in some cases District
priorities are perhaps less aligned to ESSP2013 priorities than these statements might
suggest.
ESSP2013 also provides a helpful suggestion, that SEOs should take an increasing role in
supportive supervision of quality, rather than merely funnelling information:
“With decentralisation and public service reforms a number of responsibilities now lie
with District Education Officers (DEOs). These include the implementation of policy and
strategic plans, preparation of district plans and budgets, monitoring and evaluation of
education activities and school financial reports, and teacher recruitment and transfers.
There has also been decentralisation of procurement of teaching and learning materials.
Sector Education Officers (SEOs) have been recruited to support DEOs in carrying out
these activities and to improve linkages between the district education office and schools.
However there is potential for their role to also support head teachers in improving
quality at school level, rather than only providing administrative support to DEOs”.
5. Context - institutional framework
Decentralised government
At national government level, MINEDUC is responsible for strategic leadership of the
education sector. Management of the operational school system is in the hands of the
Rwanda Education Board.
Rwanda is administratively divided geographically into 5 Provinces or Regions, 30
Districts, and 416 Sectors. Rwanda has a decentralised, not a deconcentrated, system of
government: that is, District governments are governments in their own right, with the
different sectors within them under the leadership of the District Mayor, rather than being
local emanations of national government, reporting to the sector ministries at national
level.
22
Teachers are the largest geographically dispersed workforce of the government.
Processing of their pay has been decentralised to district level since 2008. However, since
we understand salaries flow direct to teachers’ bank accounts, and are managed by the
District HR teams through IPPIS, reporting to the Mayor, DEOs exert relatively little direct
leverage over teachers and schools in terms of salaries.
Funds for school operating costs (the latter through ‘capitation grants’, based on numbers
of pupils) flows directly to schools. For both salaries and capitation grants, we understand
that funding reflect statistics submitted by DEOs.
Regional Inspectors are hired by and report to REB. DEOs report directly to District
Mayors, and SEOs through the Sector Executive Secretary. All three categories of officer
are tied to individual ‘Imihigo’ performance contracts by their line of reporting.
DIP 2011-2015, National Decentralization Policy 2012 and Revised Decentralisation policy 2013
(draft)
Decentralisation has been a key policy of the Government of Rwanda (GoR) since 2000
when the National Decentralisation Policy was adopted. The main thrust of the policy
was, and is, to ensure equitable political, economic, and social development throughout
the country, and to be a cornerstone of the fight against poverty by increasing people’s
participation in the planning and management of the development process.
Since inception of the policy the GoR decided that the implementation of the strategy
should be carried out in phases. The first phase (2001 to 2005) aimed at establishing
democratic and community development structures at the District level and was
accompanied by a number of legal, institutional and policy reforms, as well as democratic
elections for local leaders.
The second phase (2006 to 2010) was conceived after a territorial restructuring in 2005,
which considerably reduced the number of administrative entities (from 11 to 4 provinces
(plus Kigali), 106 to 30 districts, 1545 to 416 sectors), and aimed at consolidating progress
on national priorities and deepen the decentralisation process by enhancing effectiveness
in service delivery to communities.
In the latest Revision of the DIP, the Revised Decentralisation Policy 2013 (draft), GoR has
realised that the increased responsibilities of the Local Governments for the
implementation of the service delivery have not sufficiently been matched with resources,
both financial and human.
The revised decentralisation policy promises to revitalise the decentralisation policy (DIP),
which is expected to create increasing autonomy of the local governments. It is indicated
that the government will strive to adjust boundaries between existing local governments
23
in order to create viable units of local government. These local governments are expected
to elaborate not only their own plans (District Development Plan) and budgets, which are
expected to contribute towards the National EDPRS and achieve their goals. The local
governments will also have to elaborate district sector plans and strategies. This will be a
clear and additional responsibility for the sector officers in the local government.
The revised policy refers to the provincial level as a level of government with deliberately
limited implementation capacity, and more focus on support, guidance and coaching and
coordination of the district governments. This is assumed also to be the case for the service
delivery sectors.
The revised policy is very clear that all service sectors will report through the local
government channels, but there is reference to the need to communicate faster (direct) on
technical issues concerning the sectors.
The National Decentralization Policy (June 2012) sets out that Phase III of the National
Decentralization Policy will focus on re-energizing the decentralization policy (p.11);
assessment of current policy shows the need for more clarity about current roles and
mandates at provincial, district and sector levels and that is important to document and
continuously update a roster of assignments and functions (p.14). Analysis of the current
situation shows that devolution of roles and responsibilities to lower levels raises the issue
of redefining and refocusing mandates (among others, HR management): the role of
district needs to be redefined to increase focus on planning, strategic oversight and
coordination of the Sectors (p.15).
The following excerpts all highlight the need for better delineation, clarification of roles,
including coordination, supervision, implementation, PFM and reporting:



To enhance effectiveness and efficiency in the planning, monitoring, and delivery of
services by promoting joint development planning between central and local
governments and ensuring that service delivery responsibilities and corresponding
public expenditure are undertaken at the lowest levels possible (p.25)
Presently however, there is still some unclear division of roles and responsibilities,
with some levels being over-loaded with responsibilities yet under-funded and understaffed: The Government shall ensure that the decentralized functions are clarified, even as
they are progressively devolved, and the roles and responsibilities assigned to each level are
clear, and that all actors have a common understanding of what is expected to be performed by
each level (p.27)
Ensure that all delegated and de-concentrated functions from the central to local
governments are clearly articulated and that the delegating entity has provided the
required resources, commits to supervising such activities, and is held accountable.
(p.28)
24


Build systems at central level that guide and support decentralization, and robust
administrative systems in Local Governments that are capable of attracting and
managing resources effectively and efficiently in accordance with public financial
management procedures (p.28).
Reporting, Accountability and Feedback mechanisms. The Government will ensure
that the policy is well communicated to, understood and implemented by
stakeholders. The Ministry of Local Government, designated as the lead institution for
overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the policy will develop
appropriate strategies for communication and reporting, that emphasize two-way
dialogue, effective feedback mechanisms, results-based monitoring, evidence-based
reporting and multiple stakeholder involvement. The existing structures and
platforms for accountability will be reinforced to make them more effective, especially
for communities and non state actors to actively engage in the Policy implementation
(p.42)
6. Diagnosis
This section draws together our diagnosis, and makes some overall recommendations
about management processes in the education sector. The next section then elaborates
those into individual proposed roles and responsibilities for the RIs, DEOs and SEOs, and
is then followed by a set of proposed steps for putting both sets of recommendations into
effect.
Observations
Our observations specifically with regard to the roles and responsibilities of RIs, DEOs and
SEOs:





There is an overlap in task between DEOs and SEO, and possibly with Regional
Inspectors, that can be managed more effectively
DEOs and SEOs currently can face conflicting calls on their time from REB, through the
sector line of reporting, and from the priorities of the local governments to which they
are directly responsible
Inspection Support Systems, relating to tools, data etc, are still under
development/improvement: MLAS, EMIS, Ndi Hano: this means SEOs and DEOs
spend a lot of time doing data/reporting tasks that could be automated/routinised,
and less time doing supervision…
…but DEOs and SEOs are a potentially transformational resource for education
quality, if they have time to provide supportive supervision and coaching to
headteachers and schools
Only adjusting Job Descriptions is not a solution
25

There is a need for increased joint (MINALOC, MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, RALGA)
ownership of process and solution
Our general assessment is that SEOs and DEOs are:


Made less effective than they could be by their limited authority over finances of the
education sector at their respective levels
As more widely in the Government of Rwanda, more guided by the “imihigo” than the
job description, and thus by their direct supervisors rather than their job description.
The second of these points is not just an issue of the difference between the continuing
tasks set out in a Job Description, and the annual specific actions agreed under “imihigo”
contracts. Nor is it necessarily a fault: an approach to this assignment that produced job
descriptions that gave the education sector ‘everything it could want’ would be a suboptimal one. Specifically, SEOs and DEOs currently report to local government officials,
and thus are directed in the first instance by local non-specialist preferences for education
services, rather than by the priorities and values of the ESSP for delivering quality
education.
This can manifest itself in a focus in “imihigo” on delivering flagship capital investments,
or focusing on an area that is of priority for the District Mayor, and losing focus on the
‘prise en charge’ of education services across the whole District. There can also be a
simple issue of non-specialists not knowing what would make progressive and achievable
“imihigo” contract contents.
We also heard some reports that SEOs were often asked to be part of meetings organised
by executive secretary of the sector as he/she is most capable (highest qualified) staff at
the sector level for minuting etc: SEOs visiting schools was sometimes consequently
deprioritised by the Executive Secretary.
We believe these two points have more impact on how RIs, DEOs and SEOs can and
should perform their roles, than any confusion between RIs, SEOs and DEOs over
inspection and supervision roles. Therefore the theory of change of this project – that
clarifying roles and responsibilities would ensure alignment of priorities, around the
ESSP, all the way down from MINEDUC and REB through the (RIs,) DEOs and SEOs to
the schools, does not fully hold.
A number of practical actions, beyond revisions to roles and responsibilities, can be taken
to better ensure alignment of priorities, and, in particular, to ensure “imihigo” priorities
are set in a way that is well-aligned to the ESSP, including improved and regular
coordination between the education sector and the local authorities, the provision of
template “imihigo” contracts that Districts can be asked to base their locally-specific ones
26
on and/or that step non-specialists through a sensible analytical process. The next
sections set out concrete proposals.
7. Cross-cutting recommendations
We make a set of cross-cutting (ie not individual to one of the three cadres)
recommendations, based on five cross-cutting issues that have been raised either in the
Capacity Needs Assessment or in our recent programme of interviews were.






Line management and coordination mandate and structure of SEOs, DEOs and RIs; formal
coordination between REB/MINEDUC and the education officers under the line
management of the Districts
Results management: "imihigo" and performance management not necessarily in line
with Education priorities
Coordination between national and subnational officials: lTechnical capacity: Technical
capacity of SEOs and DEOs does not always match the job requirements
Inspection and supervision: overlap of work of RIs, DEOs and SEOs, specifically in
relation to "inspection-like" school visits
Information management and analysis: particularly burdens on DEOs and SEOs
Resources: resources available for DEOs and SEOs to carry out their tasks are very
limited
Line management and coordination
Although all officers work in the education sector the RI works under the line
management of REB, which is mandated by MINEUDUC to monitor and support the
implementation of the education policy, and advise on policy formulation. The DEOs and
SEOs however work under the direct line management of the local governments. This is
completely in line with the decentralisation policy and cannot be changed.
There is therefore need to ensure sufficient formal linkages, coordination and
communication between the SEOs and DEOs and other staff working in the education
sector. We make proposals for a standing cycle of coordination, rather than an assumption that
Districts will stay aligned with the ESSP priorities.
Result management
The Capacity Needs Assessment observed, and we concur, that the management of DEOs
and SEOs through “imihigo” by direct superiors, who are not from the education sector,
has led to priorities that are visible, tangible and easy to manage, but do not necessarily
coincide with priorities as stated in the ESSP. We propose REB issue a template imihigo
contract for SEOs and DEOs.
27
Technical capacity of officers
Due to the ongoing decentralisation process changing job requirements over time, DEOs
are acquiring increased Planning and Budgeting responsibilities, but, having been
appointed primarily as education technical officers, cannot necessarily be expected to
possess these skills. Moreover, as set out in the section on horizontal span of control,
above, DEOs face responsibilities that in other African countries whole Ministries or
Departments are expected to discharge, including prepare annual education plans and
budgets as well as education strategies for the local government areas. These plans have to
be based on bottom up planning supported by SEOs. The Education plan will be part of
the district development plan (but has to be a complete plan, including budget as the
districts are expected to generate the resources they require). This point is made in DIP
2013, as well as in ESSP 2013/14, and U/S MINEDUC has informally expressed a desire
for DEOs to take on a role more like a head-of-department, and recognised the staffing
needs that would entail – though these are not yet funded.
We propose either giving some SEOs responsibilities to support the DEO on district-wide issues,
hiring assistant DEOs with particular technical responsibilities (and not necessarily an education
background), or, if funds are not sufficient for additional hiring, for named district staff from other
sectors with the best fit of skills to be assigned to support the DEO – IT and finance being two areas
in which such an arrangement might most obviously work.
Inspection and supervision
A number of interviewees noted that all the officers RIs, DEOs and SEOs did regularly
visit schools in relation to their jobs. In the following chapter the mandate and roles and
responsibilities of the officers is described and effort is made to make sure that overlap is
minimised, and that, at all costs, schools’ operation is not disrupted.
Our headline proposal is that RIs should focus on summative/standards inspection, DEOs on
management and coordination at District level, and SEOs on supportive supervision to schools. RIs
should retain the right to make unannounced inspections; SEOs should coordinate their supportive
supervision cycles with their DEOs, and also perform follow-up to RI/major inspections. To build
their skills and knowledge, it may also be appropriate for SEOs to observe RI inspections.
Information management and analysis at District and Sector level
The SEOs are expected to gather a lot of information from the schools for management
(and planning) purposes of MINEDUC and also MINECOFIN, including EMIS, Capitation
Grant and Budget data.
Most of the information is presently simply gathered and forwarded to other levels. The
fact that SEOs and DEOs (to a lesser extent) do not actually use the information gathered
means there is little incentive to make sure data gathered is correct and timely/regularly
collected.
28
DEOs and SEOs would be better incentivised to collect information accurately if it
remained available to them in a tractable/readily manipulable format (eg rather than
paper reports), and would lose less time to data tasks, if some of this work were
automated. There is a further argument about giving DEOs more authority to act on data
–for example for assignment of staff, or for top-ups for schools with particular needs: this
is more complex, as it has PFM implications: we will discuss in detail with DEOs at the
regional workshops.
We propose that DEOs and SEOs should be equipped with basic IT tools (computers for DEOs, at
minimum basic smartphones for SEOs) to enable them to collect, submit, and access in future the
education data from their area: ideally, this will be accompanied by web access to EMIS and other
government information tools, on the pattern of IPPIS.
8. Current and proposed mandates, roles and responsibilities for
RIs, SEOs, DEOs
Introduction to the mandates roles and responsibilities
This section is structured with an introduction to the issues, followed by, for each cadre, a
comparison of the present and proposed situation.
Based on the initial discussions and field work in June, lists of activities by role had been
drafted and presented to the REB Board meeting in 7th February 2014, and won their
support. These are therefore shown for the record.
Based on further discussions with CDF and in line with the Rwanda Decentralisation
Policy, we were asked to group and simplify some of these activities, and these are shown
as ‘proposed – simplified’.
Introduction to the issues
The main issue concerning the mandates and responsibilities of the RIs, DEOs and SEOs is
that there is a different pace in the reform/decentralisation process. As the
decentralisation takes place the local authorities are given the responsibility for the
implementation of the education service delivery, they are also responsible for the quality
of the services, but the mandate of the inspection and oversight is still with the REB
through the inspectorate (QSD and RIs).
As this is realised additional staff have been employed through the local authorities who
can take on the inspection, but as these newly appointed SEOs are highly qualified as
compared to other staff at the sector level, and new in their jobs, they are not exclusively
used to increase the support and guidance of the schools, teachers and school
management committees as initially envisaged. This is due to the fact that their line
29
managers are not the DEOs, who have a background and experience in education, but the
Executive Secretary of the sector, who has a more general management role and is more
guided by political priorities.
Simultaneously at the REB/QSD something similar happens. The experienced inspectors
are suddenly faced with a new mandate which is less focussed on actual direct school
inspection and much more on guiding and coaching of newly appointed SEOs to carry out
inspections. In the initial stages the coaching is done by providing checklists for
inspection, which gives only the basis, but is not in line with a much more advisory and
participatory inspection, which is generally considered more effective, but not as easy to
teach and learn.
Additional problem is that the RIs will have to work across different institutions, that will
come with different cultures and generally will have less understanding of the
developments and culture within the education sector. The local governments are still
evolving in their roles. In most cases the budgets and resources of the local governments
are not in line with their increasing responsibilities. Local authorities are expected to
generate their own revenue, which is not easy in the social service delivery sectors. The
following sections describe the mandates, roles and responsibilities of the RIs, DEOs and
SEOs respectively. In each section there will be a brief description of the present situation
followed by a description: "ideal situation" that will give opportunities to have some of the
areas as mentioned in the Capacity Needs section (chapter 2) addressed. Please note that it
gives the opportunity only, as MINEDUC and REB have limited control over DEOs and
SEOs.
MINEDUC and REB are mandated to elaborate Job Descriptions for staff in the Education
sector. However as the DEOs and SEOs will be working in, and under the local
governments leadership there is no full control as to what level the proposed job
descriptions will actually be adopted and implemented. Although we give attention to
how this can be done in the sections "ideal situation" this is further elaborated in the next
chapter, with some practical guidelines and tools.
Roles and responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities of RIs, DEOs and SEOs outlined below are based on minimum
tasks (“cahier de charges”) that are structured around essential components of quality
education (education statistics, teacher training, textbooks, school construction, teacher
recruitment and deployment, school supervision, etc) [Guiding Principles 1 and 2 above].
Their formulation should be precise so that their activities can be connected to end-results
and easily measured [GP4]. Reporting mechanisms should be simplified and efficient with
consolidated reports at different levels. [GP5]
30
Results-based contracts should refer to the various roles and responsibilities but also (and
explicitly) to the expected end-results.
a) Regional Inspectors
Present situation
The teams of Regional inspectors are REB field staff assigned to Provinces/Regions, who
operate directly under the DDG for Quality and Standards. The Regional Inspectors
formerly had principal responsibility for carrying out school inspections. With the
increasing workload and the availability of DEOs and SEOs more and more inspections
were carried out at the lower level. The Regional Inspectors further have developed forms
and guidelines that support the DEOs and SEOs to carry out inspections and lessons
observations to certain set standards.
The Regional Inspectors are 5 regional teams (each with 6 inspectors with a pedagogical
responsibility: French/Kiswahili; English; Kinyarwanda, Mathematics, Science and
Physics). They do move in their region, but have recently trained the SEOs to do most of
the actual inspections, though there is no formal relationship between inspectors and
SEOs)
The first results of this training were a sort of ‘tick list’ approach to inspection, with
checklists reportedly about windows, water, toilets and other hardware. Annex 7 below is
the much improved checklist that was developed in 2013 with support of VVOB/Teacher
Development Department, REB, which is potentially highly constructive (though ideally
would have free text fields for inspectors to record brief examples for each section).
But the lack of a clear line of command makes the actioning of inspection findings
difficult. Our impression is that many documents have stuck with the Executive
Secretaries of the sector instead of ending at the RI: and that there should be clear
guidance about which inspections should be counted as ‘local’/supportive supervision,
and which should be shared in detail with RI. In due course, as per our recommendation
above re IT and communications resources for RIs, DEOs and SEOs, inspection and lesson
observation templates of the type shown at Annex 7 are highly suitable for using with
feature/smartphones, so that data can be held in a consistent format, and shared, to the
extent desired, smoothly.
Teachers are recruited through the Local Authorities and thus there is no direct line of
management from RIs (or any other REB officer) to teachers: while the priority is clearly
for local accountability for staff, there needs to be a mechanism for recommendations by
the RIs – for example, concerns about a teacher’s attendance or performance – to be
followed up, and, as appropriate, acted upon, by DEOs To make such a mechanism
effective, there should ideally be a cycle back so that Districts report to RIs the actions they
have taken against each principal inspection recommendation.
31
Proposed situation
The Decentralisation policy (see above) is clear that the "provincial or regional level” is no
longer seen as the highest level of implementation, but as coordinating and supporting the
actual implementing level in the districts.
To create a clear division of roles between RIs, DEOs and SEOs it is advisable that in
principle SEOs will carry out supportive supervision in their sector, as each school is
based in a sector and can be seen as such to have a direct relationship with the SEO.
By supportive supervision, we mean inspection that is primarily intended to support and
develop the practice of the school and teachers on-the-job, and that is not typically used
either as the basis for resource allocation, contractual sanctions, or reporting on national
standards. We use the term here in partial opposition to summative inspection, which is
intended to deliver a judgment on standards in a school, and that will generally feed up to
formal national statistics. RI teams will have a role of impartial inspection and reporting,
to REB and thus to the sector, on standards in schools, and will inspect schools to do so.
They will also be a senior technical and coaching resource for DEOs and SEOs to refer to
in the development of their plans.
The following part of the "proposed situation"(in italics) can only be reached when
suggestions in chapter 6 are adopted.
REB should discuss with MINALOC and MIFOTRA the opportunity to have Regional Inspectors
co-sign on DEOs performance contracts as a measure to ensure that educational sector priorities,
which are less tangible, are given proper attention in the contract and will feature in the work plan
of the DEOs.
The Regional Inspectors will also be effective in ensuring that DEOs and SEOs can be focussed on
their educational sector responsibilities by being present in the work planning sessions in the
districts where Regional Inspectors direction can carry more weight than the DEO's and the
SEO's.
We accept that the DEOs’ role is primarily managerial and administrative, and that of the
RIs, primarily technical: it is for this reason that the RIs are proposed to be co-signatories,
providing a technical input, but not replacing the administrative chain of management as
the principal signatories.
Proposed Mandate for Regional Inspectors
The Regional Inspectors have been mandated to support the implementation of the
education sector policy in the districts and sectors in their region. They are also mandated
to ensure interpretation and explanation of the Rwanda Education Strategy and Policy as
32
elaborated in ESSP 2013-2018. The inspectors are expected to coordinate closely with the
DEOs in their region.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors – as presented to REB, with
minor revisions for reviewer’s proposals
The roles and the responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors should include:
 To participate in the establishment and continuous improvement of the standards
of quality education;
 To participate in the establishment of inspection standards in the region under
his/her supervision
 Ensure quality education services is delivered in the education institutions by
following up on the implementation of the school legislation, the education policy,
the implementation of programs and other official instructions from the Ministry in
the field of education and of school inspection in the region under his/her
supervision
 To coordinate (but not line manage) education inspection activities in the Districts
that fall under his/her jurisdiction;
 Analyse inspection reports from the SEOs in their area, and ensure that DEOs and
SEOs follow up issues raised
 Report the analysis of inspections (looking at issues like education programs,
textbooks, teaching materials and the official examinations as well as possibilities of
their appropriateness to the students) in his region with the Inspector
General/Deputy DG QSD
 Prepare training material for inspectors, DEOs, SEOs to conduct inspections and
lessons observations to set and agreed standards (potentially with RI Quality
Assurance of a sample)
 Conduct summative inspections to a cycle mandated by MINEDUC/REB
 Conduct re-inspections upon the request of DEOs or schools, in case of
disagreement on the outcome of or follow-up to earlier inspections
 Organise monthly meetings with DEOs and SEOs and Mayor or representative to
discuss progress in preparing and implementing the District Education Plan
 Design and disseminate a template format for “imihigo” performance contracts for
DEOs and SEOs that put forward appropriate indicators for quality education
service delivery: final decision on content of contracts will remain with Mayors and
DEOs
 Organise annual events to make inspection visits more effective as supportive to
initiatives to improve quality of education (as opposed to punitive)
 Participate in training activities for education and local government staff, including
(head)teachers aimed at improving quality of education services in the region
under his/her jurisdiction
33

To participate in the preparation of the plan of action and budget of inspectorate of
education (QSD).
Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors – simplified
The roles and the responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors in their respective provinces, and in
close collaboration with each other, include:
The mandate of the RIs is essentially one of oversight, support for defining policies and
setting the norms and standards of the system, including for the process of supportive
supervision, providing summative inspections that confirm progress against the
standards, and, by exception, oversight of follow-up measures where a specific
shortcoming has been identified. Their role is NOT one of routine supervision visits to
schools (SEOs) and, from that perspective, the title of RIs should possibly change into
Provincial Education Officer (PEO).





To establish and ensure implementation of minimum education norms and
standards that are in line with the existing national education policy for, among
others, teacher qualification and training, creation and accreditation of schools,
curriculum development, textbook design, construction and equipment of schools,
examinations, and so on;
To design and produce standardized tools/formats for school supervision and data
collection (statistics);
To produce consolidated education statistics of their respective provinces;
To conduct summative inspections to a cycle mandated by MINEDUC/REB;
To analyze consolidated reports from DEOs and SEOs, formulate relevant policy
adjustments and elaborate national or specific action plans;
34
b) District Education Officers
Present situation
The District Education Officers are employed through the Local Authorities, have a job
description through the HR of the Local Government and their tasks have been described
in the "cadre organique" (standard format of MIFOTRA) as suggested by MINEDUC
through Ministerial Order. The DEOs are answerable to the District Mayors, with whom
they sign a performance contract. DEOs have more allegiance to the priorities of the local
government that do not necessarily coincide with the education sector priorities.
The DEO currently has no direct formal working relationship with either the Regional
Inspector nor with the SEO, who is managed by the Sector Executive Secretary. Formally
communication with the first will go through the mayor and the DDG for REB QSD, with
the SEO the communication will be via the mayor and the Sector Executive Secretary, copy
to the DEO.
Proposed situation
According to the revised Decentralisation Policy and ESSP2013 (see citation above) the
DEO is fully in charge of all education activities in the district. This makes him the
superior to all staff in the education sector in the district, including the SEOs, and the
education building officers.
Being the superior to all education staff in the district also makes the DEO a direct
superior to the SEO, which makes it possible for him to sign the performance contract with
the SEO. The Sector Executive Secretary can in this case be the co-signature to the
performance contract: in the event that this were not deemed acceptable in terms of
decentralisation policy, a fallback option would be for the DEO to co-sign the performance
contract of SEOs, with Sector Executive Secretaries as the principal signatory.
Proposed Mandate of District Education Officers
The DEO is the highest Education sector official in the district and as such responsible for
the quality and scope of the education service delivery in the district. He/she has the
mandate to coordinate all activities in the education sector, including activities of NGOs
and CBOs.
Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the District Education Officers – as presented to
REB



Preparation of the Five-Year District Education Development Plan/budget and the
Three-Year District Education Strategic Plan;
Implementation of education policy and strategic plans in the district, and the
alignment of these to the national policies and plans for education;
Preparation of the budget and MTEF for Education;
35










Monitoring and evaluation of activities in education;
To coordinate, analyse and ensure follow up inspectional supportive supervision
activities in the District;
To raise and analyze problems relating to the programmes, textbooks and other
materials, and to review and act on the reports of inspections and other school
visits from SEOs of the District;
To provide, as the senior educationalist, and working through the SEOs, advice and
suggestion to teachers of innovations in learning and teaching in the District under
his/her jurisdiction;
Organise Recruitment, deployment and payment of permanent teaching staff,
within ceilings set by MINECOFIN;
Provision of information on employed teachers to MINEDUC through REB;
Provision of all education statistics, including pupils enrolment and daily
attendance, as well at teachers attendance;
Transfers of teachers and students within the same district;
Follow-up of NGO education-related activities, JADF and reporting back to
Provinces and REB/MINEDUC;
Monitoring of school financial reports, use of capitation grants, teachers’ salaries
and school feeding.
Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the District Education Officers – simplified
The main roles and responsibilities of the District Education Officers include:




To prepare District Education Development/Strategy plans and budgets and
ensure that all education activities in their respective districts are in line with
identified priorities;
To recruit, deploy and pay teaching staff, within budget ceilings set by
MINECOFIN;
To coordinate major education activities such as routine supervision of schools,
textbook distribution, in-service training of teachers, data collection, school
construction or rehabilitation and examinations in line with annual plans and
budgets;
To consolidate (and analyze) reports of SEOs, especially those related to education
statistics and school supervision and transmit/provide consolidated reports to the
RIs;
36
c) Sector Education Officers
Present situation
The SEOs like the DEOs have a summary description as in the "cadre organique". It is
assumed that the individual local governments elaborate specific job descriptions when
recruiting or upon employing SEOs, who report to the Sector Executive Secretary. In
practice even for their HR system, it seems most Sectors use the generic summarised
description as in the “cadre organique”. In some cases where other development actors are
involved, like VSO, working job descriptions have been drafted that are more elaborated
and as such more supportive to the SEOs to be remained focussed on educational
activities.
Although the DEO has district wide responsibility for the education sector the relationship
with the SEO is presently through the local government administrative channels (because
the SEO reports to the Sector Executive Secretary), which can delay information exchange
and lead to distortion of messages and information.
Proposed situation
The DEO is in charge of all education activities in the district. This should de facto make
him a superior to the SEO, even if that can only be argued for the education sectoral
activities that the SEO is expected to carry out and not necessarily for the more
administrative tasks that some SEOs are assigned by their Sector Executive Secretaries
(minute-taking etc – see above).
This new situation would allow the argument that the DEO can actually sign the
performance contract of the SEO or in the least co-sign. Depending on the way forward
the Sector Executive Secretary can either sign or co-sign the SEO's the performance
contract.
Proposed Mandate of Sector Education Officers
The SEO has the mandate to ensure that effective quality education services are delivered
to the people in the sector who are entitled to them. He/she is the contact point for the
schools and other actors in the education sector, and has a role of supportive supervision:
the SEO provides information for decisions on resources and accountability taken by the
District’s Accounting Officer.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities of the Sector Education Officers – as presented to
REB
Support to school administration and school management
 To prepare educational statistics in the Sector, including attendance of teachers and
pupils;
 To make sure that the norms and standards of quality of education are adhered to
37














To support all levels of schools in the Sector making school development plan;
To monitor the implementation of the school development plans in the Sector;
To report to DEO on progress of implementation of school development plans;
To strive to improve the quality of education at all levels except higher education
To prepare and follow up teachers’ recruitment and appointment at all levels of
schools in the Sector;
To organize and maintain teachers training records in the Sector;
To make a follow up on head teachers and teachers performance in the Sector;
To prepare administrative documents required for teachers’ promotion in the
Sector;
To carry out teachers training needs assessment, develop their training plan and
ensure the execution in the Sector;
To manage and advise on teachers career development in the Sector;
To provide advice and suggestion to teachers of innovations in learning and
teaching in the Sector under his/her jurisdiction
To receive and handle specific requests submitted by teachers in the Sector;
To ensure that distribution and the use of school materials, textbooks, at all levels of
schools in the Sector are well done
To participate in the preparation of the District Education work plan, Annual Plan,
Strategic Plan and budgets of the District.
School inspection
 To inspect all levels of schools environment and the teaching and learning of all
subjects taught in schools in the Sector and submit it to the District Education
Officer of the sector and copy to the Sector Executive Secretary;
 To make sure that the curriculum is well followed as stipulated by the authority
that has national curriculum in its jurisdiction
 To forward problems related to the programs, textbooks and other materials as well
as the examinations to the concerned authorities
 Make quarterly and annual education reports in the Sector for the DEO
Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the District Education Officers – simplified

To monitor and ensure implementation of major education activities in their
respective schools in line with national policy, norms and standards; these mainly
are:
 collection of educational statistics;
 in-service training of teachers and head teachers;
 distribution and utilization of textbooks;
 school construction and/or rehabilitation;
38

To support schools and conduct school supervision visits and monitor/assess:
 teacher/head teacher performance;
 attendance rates of pupils/students and teachers;
 role and involvement of school management committees;
 implementation of school development plans;
 school budgets;

To transmit consolidated education statistics and supervision reports to DEOs;
[As part of their results-based contract all parties involved (RIs, DEOs and SEOs) are
expected to comply with fiduciary discipline (as outlined in the procedures manual, still to
be developed) when managing their respective budgets]
Figure 4: Proposed mandates of RIs, DEOs and SEOs
(Example of North province, Burera district)
39
9. Proposed implementation approach and next steps
Dialogue with Local Government through the TNA and JD presentation process
REB/MINEDUC has already engaged with the Regions, and, to some extent Districts and
Sectors. It will be important that there should be engagement with the Districts on be on
the management support for the Local Government Education Officers (DEOs and SEOs)
sought from them and not only on matters of education policy and quality.
The 30 Districts all have a large degree of autonomy and it will be difficult to engage all of
them at the same time and/or to agree with all of them on exactly the same position.
Dialogue will have to start as soon as possible, and, once MINALOC and MIFOTRA have
been consulted, the Training Needs Assessment and draft Job Descriptions presentation
process, bringing together Districts by Province, is an obvious vehicle for this dialogue
over the next two months, ahead of the regular coordination cycle proposed below.
MINEDUC/REB should thereafter make sure the final Job Descriptions are adopted and
legalised through the appropriate channels (see below re Ministerial order).
A standard induction package will be prepared, which will support new staff in
understanding their roles, responsibilities and the environment within which they will be
operating. The package provides also a guide to basic relevant documents for the DEOs
and SEOs to support them in the functioning. The package will also be distributed to SEOs
and DEOs already deployed.
Ministerial Order
MINEDUC and REB do have the mandate to propose standard job descriptions (cadre
organique) via a Ministerial Order, and this is the logical vehicle. But the actual use and
enforcement of the proposed job description will depend on the good will that REB and
MINEDUC are able to create, with MINALOC and colleagues in the Districts and Sectors –
hence firstly the consultations proposed above, and secondly, the ongoing cycle of
coordination meetings proposed below.
Cycle of coordination meetings
As described above, it is not possible to resolve all the issues in the matrix of national
planning and local accountability by division of roles and responsibilities, still less by five
year plans or executive fiat. We therefore propose a cycle of coordination meetings,
below.
40
Figure 5: proposed cycle of education sector/local government coordination meetings
Coordination meetings
Level
who to attend
how often
Region RI, DDG/QSD,
once a year
Mayors, DEOs,
MINALOC rep
District RI, DEO, Mayor
twice a year
check with
planning &
budget cycle
RI, DEO, SEOs,
quarterly
Mayor, SESs
Sector
issues for discussion
ESSP progress,
planning, funding,
priorities in Education
District Education Plan,
Performance contracts,
Budget, statistics, work
plan
Quarterly work plan,
statistics, analysis
inspections, progress
plan
monthly work plan,
and review of progress,
including follow-up to
summative inspections
performance contract,
work plan
RI, DEO, SEOs
monthly
SEO, HTs, SES,
DEO
annual
SEO, HTs, SES,
DEO
SEO, HTs
monthly
monthly work plan
monthly
action plans for school
and sector education
development plans,
statistics
output
DEP agreed, signed
performance contracts
Quarterly work plan
district education work plan
performance contract
signed, sector education
work plan
monthly sector education
work plan
school development plans
updated, sector education
development update
Proposed meeting schedule to improve coordination and common understanding on plans and goals of the education sector in the
districts
Imihigo and information sharing in collaboration
Two priority areas need addressing. In the proposed improvements there are implicitly
two adjustments in the management system in Rwanda of the public sector.


Signing of performance contracts between 3 parties
Sharing information reports directly in the sector
Both suggestions are taking the same point of departure.
Education Officers are expected not only to perform administratively but they are
expected to champion the educational goals and strategies, even when they are more
41
difficult to measure. This can be accomplished by having performance contracts signed by
the educational staff and their administrative as well as sectoral managers.
In the implementation of the education (and possibly other sectors) sector in the district
under the local government one has to distinguish between administrative management
and sectoral management. While accounting officer and political decision processes
cannot and must not be sidestepped, the transmission of education technical information
should not be delayed by going through unnecessary administrative procedures.
Improving technology, and in particular the investments in communications for DEOs and
SEOs proposed above, are making it progressively easier to share information and report
simultaneously with people who need to use them. So in principle MINEDUC/REB
should look for a statement of no objection to share information and reports in the line
simultaneously and not “through” or “via” line management.
10. Next steps for this consultancy assignment
The revised Job Descriptions presented with this document consist of the main tasks and
responsibilities to be carried out by the RIs, DEOs and SEOs. Although the content is not
expected to be contested there is need for further consultation as formally only the RIs are
under the direct authority of the REB. The total package will therefore, now REB’s
approval has been given at the February 7th meeting, be further discussed with MIFOTRA
and MINALOC after which, if there is agreement the Minister of Education can prepare a
Ministerial order streamlining the management of the education services in Rwanda
through REB and the Local Authorities.
It is expected that during the Training Needs Assessment to be carried out (combined with
the presentation of the drafted Job Descriptions) in all the regions/provinces between 25th
March and 8th April, some minor adjustments improvements will be made by the DEOS
and SEOs in post, who are naturally most informed on the intricacies of operating under
the Local Authorities.
It is proposed that Imke van der Honing and Erin Chu, a senior Charlie Goldsmith
Associates colleague, will prepare the training needs assessment and draft the operational
manuals and induction packages for new and present Inspectors and Education Officers.
Joanne Ferry, our Rwanda Country Coordinator, who is based in Kigali full time, will
deliver the training needs assessments.
42
11. Conclusion
The outcome of the first stage of this work is that we do not think the original logical
framework holds completely: there will always be a tension between top-down planning
and a bottom-up ‘imihigo’ approach that responds first to local priorities. This tension can
be managed, particularly by orienting DEOs, SEOs and their political masters in local
government to the priorities of the ESSP2013, but it cannot be eliminated without a
complete change of system that would lose many of the characteristics of local taking of
responsibility that have enabled the Rwandan education sector to make such rapid
progress.
The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational
management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform
their tasks more effectively and efficiently”.
Within the organizational constraints of the current distinctive Rwandan decentralisation
approach, we have therefore suggested what we believe to be the best intervention in this
area to “contribute to a more efficient and productive education sector”, and have set out a
workplan to deliver the rest of the project on that basis.
43
Annex 1 - Bibliography

















Zeitlin, A., Bategeka, L., Guloba, M., Kasirye, I., & Mugisha, F. (2011). Management
and motivation in Ugandan primary schools: Impact evaluation final report.
Wong, M., Pradhan, M., Gaduh, A., Suryadarma, D., Artha, R., Alishjabana, A., et al.
(2011). Improving Educational Quality through Enhancing Community Participation:
Results from a Randomized Field Experiment in Indonesia.
Antonowicz, L., Wood, J., Lesne, F., & Stassen, S. (2010). Africa Education Watch: good
governance lessons for primary education. Transparency International. Berlin:
Transparency International.
Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H., & Santibáñez, L. (2009). Decentralized
Decision-making in Schools : The Theory and Evidence on School-based Management.
The World Bank. The World Bank.
Bennell P. with Ntagaramba J.: Teacher motivation and incentives in Rwanda: A
situational analysis and recommended priority actions: December 2008
Caldwell, B. (2005). School-based management, Education policy series. UNESCO IIEP.
De Grauwe, A. (2001). School supervision in four African countries ( No. Vol. 1:
Challenges and Reforms). UNESCO IIEP.
De Grauwe, A. (2007). Transforming School Supervision into a Tool for Quality
Improvement. International Review of Education , 53, 709–714.
Government of the Republic of Rwanda. (2013). Economic Development and Poverty
Reduction Strategy 2013 - 2018: Shaping our development. Government of the Republic
of Rwanda, Kigali.
IPAR. (2012a). Observatory Report: The Rwandan Education and Skills System.
Institute of Policy Analysis and Research, Kigali.
IPAR. (2012b). School funding and equity in Rwanda: An interim discussion paper.
Institute of Policy Analysis and Research, Kigali.
Mulkeen, A. (2010). Teachers in Anglophone Africa - Issues in Teacher supply, training
and management. Development Practice in Education. Washington: The World Bank.
MINALOC (2010). Decentralisation Implementation Plan 2011 - 2015. Ministry of Local
Government, Kigali
MINALOC (2012). Revised Decentralization Policy. Ministry of Local Government,
Kigali
MINEDUC (2008). Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2008 - 2012. Ministry of Education,
Kigali.
MINEDUC (2010). Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2010 - 2015. Ministry of Education,
Kigali.
MINEDUC (2013). Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2013/14 - 2017/18 (draft). Ministry
of Education, Kigali
44




Mott MacDonald. (2012). Rwanda Education Capacity Needs Assessment. Department
for International Development. Kigali: DfID.
RGB (March 2013). Sectoral Decentralisation in Rwanda. Rwanda Governance Board,
Kigali
Simson, R. (2013). Unblocking results case study - addressing pay and attendance of
health workers in Sierra Leone. Overseas Development Institute, Centre for Aid and
Public Expenditure. London: ODI.
Tavakoli, H., Simson, R., Tilley, H., & Booth, D. (2013). Using aid to address
governance constraints in service delivery. Overseas Development Institute, Politics
and Governance. London: ODI.
45
Annex 2
List of interviewees and meetings
Name
position
Institution
Marc van der Stouwe
CDF
Pieter Feenstra
CDF
Claver Yisa
CDF
Sylvestre Musingamana
CADEA Ltd
Egidia Uwera
CADEA Ltd
Janvier Gasana
Director Quality Standards Department
REB
Theodore Mboneza
Regional Inspector Kigali City
REB
Camille Kanamugire
Regional Inspector Southern Region
REB
Mohamed Mugemangango
Regional Inspector
REB
Halyanimana Augustin
Regional Inspector
REB
JohnsonNdayambaje
Regional Inspector
REB
Fortune Kuburimana
Regional Inspector
REB
Jean de Dieu Ntaganira
Pedagogical Inspector of English Kigali City
REB
Delphine Uwimana
Pedagogical Inspector Kigali City
REB
Lambert Haridintwal
SEO in Kycikuro district
Claire Dusabingabirem
SEO in Kycikuro district
Anathalie Uzamukunda
SEO in Kycikuro district
Cyldiom Masenwesho
SEO in Kycikuro district
Placidie M Mbarubukehe
SEO in Kycikuro district
Burakari Kimenyi
DEO in Kycikuro district
Desire Rugengamanzi
SEO Kayonza Murama sector
Charles Namara Mugabo
DEO Kayonza district
Alexis Bigira
DEO Gisagare district
Emilien Ntagwabira
SEO in Muhoya district
Valerien Hakizimana
DEO Muhoya district
Charles Havuguziga
Director of Administration
Nyarugenge District, Kigali City
Anatole Nsengumukiza
legal department
MINEDUC
Eric Niyongabo
Ag Director Policy, M&E
MINEDUC
Jeanine marengo
National Project Coordinator CapEFA
Director Planning Reform and Capacity
Building
Reform Policy and organisation Analysis
Officer
MINEDUC-UNESCO Rwanda
Territorial Administration Analyst
Advisor Decentralisation and Good
Governance
MINALOC
BonaventureUwamahoro
Sylvain Ntirampeba
Bob Gakire
Faustin Minani
MIFOTRA
MIFOTRA
GIZ-RGB
46
Emile Rudasingwa
VVOB
Hans Zult
Programme Coordinator
Senior Advisor School Management &
Leadership
Ruth Mbabazi Kabutembe
Education programme manager
VSO
Martin Booth
ELA Gasangara district
VSO
Francis Ssennoga
Chief Executive Officer/consultant
IMA
VVOB
Annex 3: presentation to REB, 7th February 2014
Attached.
Annex 4: revised assignment plan
week commencing 2014
Activities
Review
mandate and
roles,
responsibilities
RIs, DEOs and
SEOs; present
proposed job
descriptions
Organise
regional
workshops,
explaining
proposed roles
and revised
job
descriptions
for all RIs,
DEOs and
SEOs
outputs results
Updated job
descriptions for RIs,
DEOs and SEOs
Feedback from REB
on JDs
ppt to MINEDUC,
MINALOC and other
stakeholders
highlighting the areas
of concern
New job descriptions
approved and agreed
by all stakeholders
Kigali City
responsible
Consultant/
Imke van der
Honing
17/2
24/2
3/3
10/3
17/3
24/3
31/3
7/4
14/4
21/4
28/4
REB
REB
REB/ MIFOTRA
25
Northern Region
27
Southern Region
Eastern Region
10/2
Consultant/
Joanne Ferry,
Erin Chu and
REB
1
3
Eastern Region
8
47
Conduct
Capacity
needs
assessment for
RIs, DEOs and
SEOs
Create a
standard
induction pack
for the specific
staff clarifying
roles,
responsibilities
and
relationships
for the
specified
officers
Needs assessment
activities included in
Regional workshops
Report on training
needs for RIs, DEOs
and SEOs
Draft training plan
based on training
needs, and draft ToR
for a service provider
to conduct trainings
Review of relevant
documentation
Consultation with
REB
3 standard induction
packs for each RIs,
DEOs and SEOs
Plan for
dissemination and
distribution of
induction packs
Consultant,
Joanne Ferry
Consultant;
Joanne Ferry
and Erin Chu
Consultant, Erin
Chu
Consultant, Erin
Chu
Consultant, Erin
Chu and REB
Consultant, Erin
Chu
Consultant, Erin
Chu
Annex 5: Draft circular to invite DEOs, SEOs and Regional
Inspectors to briefing workshop on new job descriptions
- Draft Circular for DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors -
CDF and REB are calling for all DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors from ............... Region for a one day
workshop to further discuss:
1
2
3
The proposed Job Descriptions for Regional Inspectors, DEOs and SEOs, specifically in relation to
the ongoing reforms of the Education Sector.
The training needs required in order to fulfill the revised Job description
Any future challenges relating to applying the proposed Job Descriptions
The draft Job Descriptions are attached and you are expected to go through them and understand them in
order to fully participate in the discussions during the day. These discussion will further shape the
48
Education Sector in order to be prepared for the challenges to implement the Education Sector Strategic
Plan in your area.
The programme of the workshop
08:30 - 08:45
08:45 - 09:15
09:15 - 10:15
10:15 - 10:45
10:45 - 12:30
12:30 - 12:45
12:45 - 13:30
13:30 - 15:00
15:00 - 15:30
15:30 - 16:30
Welcome by CDF and REB representatives
Introduction of the programme; ground rules, objectives expected outcome and follow up
group work on strength and weaknesses of proposed Job Descriptions, plus plenary
presentation
BREAK
Edit proposed Job Description based on comments, with specific attention to fit with Local
Government structures
Plenary presentation of Participatory Skills and Training needs assessment
LUNCH BREAK
Participatory Skills and Training needs assessment (for each function, group work)
BREAK
Review of possible challenges and solutions in working according to the proposed Job
Descriptions
Attached outline of the proposed Job description for Regional Inspector, District Education Officer and
Sector Education Officer
Annex 6: Draft Ministerial Order for implementation of Job
Descriptions for RIs, DEOs, SEOs
To follow.
Annex 7: REB Lesson Evaluation template
49
50