MULTI-COUNTRY EVALUATION OF REGIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND LEADERSHIP AREAS
INCLUDING ALL CHILDREN IN QUALITY LEARNING IN CEE/CIS
2002 - 2012
Terms of Reference
BACKGROUND
For about 10 years now, UNICEF has adopted in the CEE/CIS region a ‘system’ approach to programming
with the view to accompany reforms and contribute to concrete changes at institutional, societal and
individual level. The 2009 and 2010 ‘Mid-Term Review’ submissions to the Executive Board reported a
number of outcome and impact results achieved at country level in the CEE/CIS Region. This represented
a clear evidence that UNICEF’s upstream work in a significant number of countries and sub-regions yields
tangible results not only in terms of system changes (outcome results) but also in terms of changes in
the life of children (impact results).
In April 2012, the Regional Office initiated a participatory process involving all Country Offices in CEE/CIS
with the view to identify few strategic result areas where UNICEF has the capacity to deliver high-quality
and relevant results that contribute to address child rights violations and close equity gaps.
A Regional Knowledge and Leadership Agenda (RKLA) emerged from this process, with a double
purpose:
(1) Inform and guide UNICEF’s future work in CEE/CIS, with a strategic focus on few areas where results
for children can be achieved over the next two-three years across a number of sectors and countries
(prospective approach); and
(2) Generate evidence and document - in an aggregated picture - how UNICEF contributed over the
past decade to outcome and impact results for children in a significant number of countries,
(retrospective approach). This process is expected to contribute to a regional knowledge exchange
agenda and generate mutual learning among countries on practices and strategies in order to inform
the prospective approach.
Philippe TESTOT-FERRY, 10 March 2016
1
The result areas that were selected for the retrospective approach share the following features:
a) They address key violations of child rights in terms of magnitude and/or severity;
b) They explicitly contribute to closing equity gaps (except for results in health and HIV/AIDS, which aim
at universal coverage or overall elimination);
c) They are being achieved in a significant number of countries;
d) And they can be documented and evaluated.
The strategic intent is to explore not only the link between system reforms and reduction in child rights
violations but also to track the reduction or equity gap and assess the extent to which the indicators
related to the most disadvantaged children are catching up with national averages.
For each of the following areas, multi-country evaluations will be undertaken to demonstrate how
reduction of equity gaps and impact results (in terms of changes in the life of children) were made
possible through changes in the national (regional/local) systems and document UNICEF’s contribution
to these changes.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Children’s right to be raised in a family environment (2012)
Juvenile Justice: Children’s right to support to re-integration into society (2013)
Children’s right to early learning / school readiness (2013)
Inclusion of all Out of School Children in Quality Learning (2012)
Children’s right to health: infant and under 5 and mortality (2013)
For each of these areas, Reference Groups (composed of representatives of the Regional Office and
concerned Country Offices) were set up in order to identify common elements and differences in the
country approaches and policy options that led to the achievement of various impact and outcome
results.
The present Terms of Reference concerns the multi-country evaluation planned for the fourth key result
area: Inclusion of all Out of School Children in Quality Learning.
CONTEXT
National average primary school enrolment rates in the CEECIS region are all over 90-95%; thus, nearly
every child enrolls in school at some point in their life. However, the national picture belies sub-national
disparities that leave certain groups of children completely excluded from basic education. There are
3.7 million children of primary and lower-secondary school age and 1.6 million children of pre-primary
school age out of school in CEE/CIS (UNESCO, 2010 GMR); an additional 12 million adolescents are
estimated to be out of school. While on the whole, there are no big gender disparities in access and
participation in basic education, with a few exceptions, notably in Tajikistan and few years ago in Turkey,
gender disparities in learning outcomes (at the disadvantage of boys) particularly in reading but also in
sciences and mathematics, become increasingly reported. Children and adolescents out of school are
those from the most socially, culturally and economically marginalized communities and thus are the
hardest to reach. Major equity gaps in both access to and outcomes of education exist between these
children and their peers from majority populations.
2
The profiles of children that are most likely to be out of school and thus represent the most urgent
challenges for governments and partners in the region are: (a) Children from ethnic minorities, especially
the Roma; (b) Children with disabilities; (c) girls in few countries, and boys in others; (d) Children from
the poorest households; (e) Working children; (f) Children performing below academic standards; (g)
Children of pre-primary age - from all the above groups; (h) Adolescents - from all the above groups; and
(i) Children with multiple disadvantages (for instance, being a girl, from an ethnic minority and living in a
poor household and therefore not being enrolled in pre-primary education).
APPROACH TO INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN CEE/CIS AND KEY RESULTS ACHIEVED
For the past 10 years, the overarching result pursued by UNICEF in CEE/CIS is that “Innovative and
effective approaches for addressing exclusion in education are scaled-up by governments”.
Based on UNICEF’s Education Strategy and MTSP, the vision that has guided UNICEF’s work in education
in CEE/CIS for the past 10 years is that ‘Every child in the region will access and complete basic education
of good quality’. Toward this vision, UNICEF has focused its education interventions in the region on four
long-term (2015) goals, adapted to the specific context of CEE/CIS, in particular the two following ones:
(1) reaching the last 10-15% of children who are out of school; and (2) improving the quality and
relevance of basic education in order to reduce school drop-outs and increase completion/achievement
rates. These two objectives are clearly mentioned in the 2007 Regional Education Strategy Note.
In order to support the long-term vision and goals for education in CEE/CIS, the Regional Office set for
itself the following objective: ‘Establish a programmatic environment that will enable Country Offices to
better position their education programmes, achieve large scale results and remain relevant’. More
specifically, four operational strategies to be supported at regional, sub-regional and country levels were
formulated, as follows:
1. Critical knowledge will be generated, analyzed, packaged and disseminated in order to:


Create a body of evidences on key issues in basic education (exclusion, disparities, quality,
relevance…) that will allow evidence-based advocacy among policy and decision-makers, and
influencing sector reforms;
Create a critical mass of best practices or successful projects within countries that have the
potential to influence and steer changes within education systems.
2. Strategic partnerships with key actors in education at the regional and international levels will be
built or strengthened in order to: (1) mobilize funding and leverage influence towards sector reforms;
and (2) develop programmatic synergies for greater impact of partners’ interventions.
3. Quality assurance and oversight will be provided by the Regional Office in order to improve the
quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of UNICEF country programming approaches in education.
4. Technical assistance will be made available to Country Offices through maintaining and nurturing
high calibre technical expertise at regional and international levels in relevant areas of education.
3
Significant results in terms of changes in children’s life (impact results) have been achieved during this
period in 5 countries: Armenia, Kosovo1, Serbia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.
In Armenia: (1) The number of children in special schools decreased by 60% in 2011-12 compared to
2007-2008 (National Centre for Education Technologies); and (2) The percentage of children with
certified disabilities attending regular schools is 70% (Source: UNICEF Armenia Survey on the access of
children with disabilities to education, health and social protection services); in regions with higher
concentration of inclusive schools (Yerevan and Tavush) where UNICEF programs have been
implemented, the proportion is higher - 75 and 80 % respectively.
In Kosovo, the proportion of drop-outs at primary and lower secondary education levels was divided by
three in 8 years, from 1.67% in 2002/03 to 0.5% 2010/11. In addition, the gender parity index in primary
school increased from 0.79 in 2004 to 0.93 in 2011, hence implying that more girls are now participating
in primary education.
In Serbia, the primary school enrolment of Roma children increased from 66% in 2005 (Source: MICS 3)
to 91% in 2010 (Source: MICS 4).
In The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (TFYRoM), the primary school enrolment of Roma
children increased from 61.1% in 2006 (Source: MICS 3) to 85.6% in 2011 (Source: MICS 4).In addition to
that: (1) Fourth grade student knowledge in numeracy increased by at least 10 per cent against the
baseline; (2) Early grade teachers (1-3 grades) knowledge in numeracy increased by at least 10 per cent
against the baseline; (3) Fourth grade student knowledge in literacy (reading and writing) increased by at
least 10 per cent against the baseline; and (4) Early grade teachers (1-3 grades) knowledge in literacy
(reading and writing) increased by at least 10 per cent against the baseline (Source: assessments in
progress of student outcomes and early grade teacher knowledge).
In Turkey: (1) It is estimated that about 350,000 children (250.000 girls and 100.000 boys) were enrolled
in school as a result of the 2003-2007 Girls Education Campaign (Source: Ministry of National Education);
and (2) Gender disparity in primary education has been reduced from 7.15% in 2003 to 0.37% in 20102011 (Source: Ministry of National Education).
The results listed above – which translate into concrete changes in the life of thousands of children were made possible because of the reforms in education systems achieved over the past 10 years by
governments with the support of their partners, including UNICEF, both at country and regional level.
These concrete changes in the life of children are measured by the following impact indicators:






1
Primary, secondary and pre-primary school enrolment rates, disaggregated by gender, location,
personal characteristics (disability) and ethnicity (Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians) ;
Number/percentage of children out of primary, secondary and pre-primary school, disaggregated by
gender, location, personal characteristics (disability) and ethnicity (Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians) ;
Gender party index;
Percentage of children with special needs attending regular schools versus special schools;
Percentage of increase in grade 4 student outcomes in literacy reading and writing) and numeracy;
Participation in preparatory pre-school programme.
UNSCR 1244
4
RATIONALE
The following section is meant to explain the regional theory of change that led to these impact results,
and to which UNICEF made a contribution. A Theory of change is defined as a “Blueprint of building
blocks needed to achieve the long-term goals of a social change initiative2”. In this case, it refers to the
reduction of equity gaps and impact results achieved through changes in the national (regional/local)
systems, partly due to the contribution of UNICEF.
Theory of Change
The reality is that 10 years ago, there was no explicit theory of change in the CEE/CIS region, neither in
the Regional Office, nor in Country Offices. However, what has guided the work of UNICEF in this region
over the past decade (regional story line or pathway) is a consensus that the progressive realization of
child rights and reduction of equity gaps is best achieved through changes in systems at national/subnational levels, and that sustained UNICEF engagement through its core roles contributes to these
system changes (see also the Generic Theory of Change underlying UNICEF’s approach in the CEE/CIS
region).
So, this TOR attempts to re-construct a regional theory of change which has been implicit (regional
pathway), is based on the mainstreaming the UNICEF Child-Friendly School framework in education
systems at national/regional/local, and which contributed to significant changes in children’s life, as
measured by the impact results listed above. UNICEF being a very decentralized organization (the
Country Programme is central to its work), this theory of change was led, facilitated and supported by
the Regional Office (as described below) and implemented in various ways (but with similar goals: the
progressive realization of child rights and reduction of equity gaps in basic education) by Country Offices.
Since 1995, UNICEF’s work in education globally has been guided by the Child-Friendly School (CFS)
approach. Initially, the CFS concept was presented as an ‘umbrella’ under which the diverse activities
and goals of UNICEF’s work on schools might be consolidated and rationalized. By early 2000, UNICEF
expanded the definition of quality for key elements of child-friendly schools. By the end of 2001, UNICEF
had conceptualized a comprehensive and complex CFS approach which is a framework for rights-based
and child-friendly educational systems and schools, which are characterized as inclusive of all children,
effective for learning, healthy and protective of children, gender-sensitive, and promoting the
participation of children, families and communities.
The CFS concept was designed as a tool for fulfilling the right of children to have access to an education
of good quality. At the national level, for ministries, development agencies, and civil society
organizations, the CFS approach and principles were meant to be used as a human rights-based
normative framework for education policies and programmes, leading to child-friendly education
systems and environments. At the community level, for school staff, parents, and other community
members, the framework was meant to serve as a tool for quality improvement through localized selfassessment, planning and management, and as a means for mobilizing the community around education.
While the number of countries in which UNICEF is promoting and using the CFS approach increased from
33 countries in 2004 to 56 countries in 2007, the CFS package was adapted by UNICEF Country Offices to
2
UNICEF Programme, Policy and Procedure Manual.
5
specific country realities and this has resulted in important variations in its application within UNICEF
programmes. The main issue has been a tendency to overprescribe on child-friendly schools (project
approach) and to under-emphasize normative and upstream work, policy development and capacity
building of duty-bearers (system approach).
The Eastern Asia and Pacific region is the part of the world where UNICEF made the fastest and deepest
progress in promoting and implementing the CFS approach. In 2005, there were more than 800 schools
certified as child-friendly in Thailand, a similar number in the Philippines, and the Regional Office in
Bangkok had developed a set of standards and indicators3 for each of the five components of the CFS
framework.
In the CEE/CIS region, the CFS approach was introduced in the context of the breakup of the Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia, and the beginning of the transition from socialism to pluralist societies, with
education becoming a key vehicle for managing changes in values, respects for child rights and
democratic participation. Since the mid-nineties, the focus in the region has been mainly on the
‘effectiveness’ component of the CFS framework, with the implementation of child-centered
approaches in teaching and learning such as the Active Learning (AL) projects in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia or the Global Education Project in four Central Asian countries.
In some other countries, the focus has been more on the ‘inclusiveness’ component of the CFS
framework, with the Girls Education Campaign (project) in Turkey, as well as the inclusion of children
with disabilities in Armenia or Roma children in Kosovo and Serbia, among other countries.
The transition period also corresponded to and was followed by a phase of wars and conflicts – between
Armenia and Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1994, in countries of the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia & Herzegovina,
Croatia and Slovenia) from 1991 to 1995, the civil war in Tajikistan in the 1990s, the Kosovo war from
1998 to 1999…etc. The impact of these conflicts and the need to restore education services led a number
of UNICEF Country Offices to focus on service delivery (infrastructure, basic commodities and supplies)
and to adopt a fragmented approach.
Indeed, the common feature of education interventions in most of these CEE/CIS countries has been the
project approach (pilot projects) in very small numbers of schools (often 10-15), with low potential for
replication and expansion at national level, and limited impact on education systems. This fact was
confirmed by a number of evaluations commissioned or supported by the Regional Office between 2005
and 2008, such as the multi-country evaluation of Global Education in Central Asia as well as CFS or AL
evaluations and assessments in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia and Moldova.
In the mid-2000s, the acquisition of the EU Candidate status by some countries in the region (mainly in
the Balkans but also previously Turkey) triggered significant education sector reforms and system
changes. In 2005, the Regional Office initiated a Regional Analysis of Education in CEE/CIS (‘Education
for Some More than Others?’), which laid the foundations for a regional vision for Basic Education which,
in turn, were later formalized in the Regional Education Strategy and Regional Education Strategy Note.
In 2006, the Regional Office organized a CFS Study Tour in Thailand for 12 countries involved in
implementing the CFS approach in the region - Armenia, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo,
3
Attig, G. & Hopkins, J. (2006). Assessing child-friendly schools: A guide for program managers in East Asia and the Pacific.
Bangkok: UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office
6
Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan. This study tour
represents a key milestone (or starting point) for the shift made by most countries in CEE/CIS from small
CFS projects to a more systemic approach using the CFS concepts and principles as an overarching
conceptual framework for policy development and sector reform rather than for applying them at school
level only. Returning from Thailand, a number of countries undertook evaluations or assessments of
their CFS projects (as mentioned above), some decided to scale up their initiatives (Azerbaijan,
Uzbekistan), and others initiated a system approach, working at various levels (central, regional, local)
and with different components of education sectors (policy and planning, curriculum, pedagogic centres,
teachers training, assessment departments …); this has been the case in Macedonia Serbia and Turkey.
Between 2006 and 2009, all Regional Education Network Meetings and technical support (country
missions, external expertise) provided by the Regional Office have been occasions to emphasize the
importance to phase out of project-focused approaches, to mainstream the CFS appraoch and principles
in national education laws and policies, and to work strategically and synergistically with different subsectors of education systems in support education reforms. Country Offices have systematically been
encouraged by the Regional Office to move away from service delivery-type of interventions towards
more upstream strategies such as, evidence-based knowledge generation and advocacy, capacity
development, cutting-edge technical assistance and partnerships building.
Since 2006, the Regional Office has managed to obtain significant amounts of Education Thematic
Funding (around $ 5 million per year on average) to support such a programmatic shift and has
systematically prioritized UNICEF Country Offices focusing their programming on system changes. Unlike
other sectors in UNICEF Country Programmes, the Education Sector in the region has benefitted from a
modest but regular and more predictable funding. This has certainly helped shaping the education
programming landscape in a more strategic manner in CEE/CIS.
Following these shifts at country level, the Regional Office carried out a Regional Study on the
Development of Standards for Quality Basic Education, covering 8 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Turkey and Uzbekistan). This study involved a
stock-taking of where these countries were in terms of their basic education standards and proposed
recommendations as well as a roadmap to develop new standards or revise existing ones. This study
represented an important contribution to the system changes that took place in Armenia, Kosovo,
Macedonia and Turkey (see country theories of change in annex), and which contributed to the impact
results reported above. Such contribution is well documented in a recent article published by Clair,
Miske and Patel in the European Education Journal.
The work initiated at country level was supported by regional positions and guidance such as the two
Regional Position Papers on Inclusive Education for Roma children and children with disabilities.
The Regional Office also initiated a reflection in CEE/CIS on the quality of education and equity in
learning outcomes through the production and dissemination of two Regional Analyses of PISA results
(2006 and 2009). One of the key findings of the 2006 regional PISA analysis was that Estonia, an ex-CIS
country, managed to achieve both quality of education (in terms of learning outcomes) and equity. The
finding is the same in 2009).
In 2010, the Regional Office organized a study tour in Estonia, during which representatives of various
departments of the Ministry of Education (curriculum, teachers training, assessment…) presented the
system approach adopted by the government to reform its soviet-inherited education sector over the
7
past two decades. A survey of the 15 country delegations (UNICEF staff, MoE counterparts, and NGO
representatives) which participated in the study tour (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, BiH, Kazakhstan,
Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan) revealed that 30% of them had used or were planning to use the lessons learnt from the
Estonian experience.
The Background Information formulated by the countries participating in this multi-country evaluation
and attached in annex (country pathways) provide more details on how system changes, to which
UNICEF made a contribution together with its partners, led to a greater inclusion of out of school
children in quality learning. The regional theory of change stems from the combination of regional
guidance and leadership, and initiatives with country initiatives.
This multi-country evaluation is justified by the willingness of the Region to further assess the impact
results reported by Country Offices and validate the regional theory of change (pathway) outlined
above (in particular the contribution of UNICEF that led to these results but also the lessons learnt,
including the not so good ones).
The multi-country evaluation comes at a time of funding scarcity when UNICEF is increasingly requested
to demonstrate how the organization achieves tangible results and makes a difference in children’s life in
countries (particularly in middle-income countries) where financing and supply transactions are not any
more the main development commodities and take a secondary role compared to leveraging alliances
and partnership for public sector reforms and supporting civil society engagement to improve social
norms and attitudes towards children.
While the main user of the multi-country evaluation will be the Regional Office and the five concerned
Country Offices, the 16 other Country Offices in CEE/CIS will also benefit from the lessons learned.
Utilization: The multi-country evaluation report will be used at the regional level to inform the Regional
Knowledge and Leadership Agenda (prospective approach) as well as the forthcoming MTR and Country
Programming processes. More specifically, its findings and recommendations will inform the Regional
Out of School Children and Adolescents Initiative (which Conceptual Framework is the backbone of the
prospective approach for including all children in quality learning) and guide the work of the Reference
Group. The multi-country evaluation will also be used at a more global level to showcase the work
carried out in the CEE/CIS region to include out of school children in quality learning, in UNICEF
Headquarters (notably through the Regional MTR Reports to the Executive Board) as well as among
partners and donors. The presentations or launches of flagship regional knowledge products (such as the
regional reports on quality education and learning outcomes) as well as other regional political or
regional conferences will be used as opportunities to raise the visibility of the results achieved by
countries in CEE/CIS with the support of UNICEF and its partners.
The primary audience for the multi-country evaluation will be UNICEF Senior management at
Headquarters, members of UNICEF’s Executive Board, strategic partners and donors; among donors, the
government of Norway which is the main provider of Education Thematic Funding not only for UNICEF
globally but also for the CEE/CIS region, will be a key recipient and beneficiary of the evaluation. A
secondary audience will be governments and partners at country level.
The Reference Group will be responsible for ensuring that best use of the findings of the multi-country
evaluation will be made.
8
The Regional Leadership Agenda has adopted the global UNICEF Monitoring of Results for Equity
(MoRES) framework. MoRES and its determinant analytical framework (Annex 2) will help linking
UNICEF’s support to the strengthening of policies and systems to concrete changes in the lives of
children. The MoRES determinant analysis will be explicitly used to identify which bottleneck were
removed and how. In addition, by using the MoRES framework, the multi-country evaluation will
document impact results (L4 indicators); assess and demonstrate how outcome results in terms of
system changes (L3 – MoRES determinants) contributed to the impact results; and document how
UNICEF had an influence on changes in the children's lives through its contribution (L2) to system
changes. Such contributions would belong to the following core roles:






Policy advise and technical assistance – through well-designed UNICEF positions (based on local,
regional, international best practices) on key issues, supporting the development of the normative
frameworks related to specific national legislation, policy or programme as well as private sector
standards that can improve equity;
Modeling – through well designed demonstration models meant to provide the required evidence
for policy advice and advocacy;
Facilitating national dialogue towards child friendly social norms – bringing together government,
private sector and civil society, as well as convening stakeholders with different interests and
perspectives to enhance public debate, participation and action around equity and child rights;
Enabling knowledge exchange – fostering horizontal cooperation and exchange of experience
among countries and regions on ‘what works’ for enhancing child well-being and equity;
Monitoring and evaluation – assisting independent assessments and analyses of the realization of
child rights and the reduction in equity gaps in child well-being;
Leveraging resources from the public and private sectors – accompanying and re-directing reforms,
including those supported by the EU, IFIs, bilateral organizations and national/multi-national
corporations.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
In view of the key results achieved by some countries in CEE/CIS in addressing child rights violations and
reducing equity gaps in basic education, and based on the Regional Theory of Change described above,
the purpose of the multi-country evaluation is two-fold:
1. Demonstrate and assess the extent to which UNICEF's contribution to programme interventions
which, at both regional and country level, address major child rights violations in education and
reduce equity gaps, led to impact results for children – in terms of reduction in the number of
children out of school and improved quality of education/learning outcomes; and
2. Generate learning on practices, innovations and models across a critical mass of countries addressing
similar issues - to be used during various UNICEF country programming processes (MTRs, CPDs...etc).
More specifically the multi-country evaluation has the following objectives:
a) Document and report on impact results (in terms of changes in children's life) and reduction of
equity gaps, as demonstrated by surveys, administrative data or other sources of information;
9
b) Assess and demonstrate - through an in-depth review of government and partners' interventions how such results were made possible through systems changes (removal of system bottlenecks) at
national and/or local levels; and
c) Document the contribution of UNICEF to these system changes.
In view of the diversity of results and programme interventions being reported and documented
(inclusion of children with disabilities in Armenia, Roma children in Kosovo and Serbia, and girls in
Tajikistan…), the multi-country evaluation will also be a good opportunity to assess UNICEF’s success in
tailoring its programming approaches to the qualitative differences between inequities, with the goal to
improve future programming by adapting it to the specific groups of children out of school.
SCOPE AND FOCUS
Timeline
The impact and outcome results that will be analyzed and documented, as well as the reforms and
system changes that led to them and UNICEF’s contribution have been achieved during a period of about
10 years (2002-2012). So, 10 years will represent the timeline of the multi-country evaluation. There is
no relation between this timeline and UNICEF’s Country Programme cycles.
Geographic scope
The planned evaluation will have a multi-country dimension under a regional umbrella. It will
geographically focus on five countries: Armenia, Kosovo4, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Serbia and Turkey.
The selection of these countries is a result of a thorough consultative process between the concerned
Country Offices and the Regional Office. The countries that were eventually selected are those for which
the Regional Office and Country Office agreed that it is possible to demonstrate and document
retrospectively that UNICEF contributed to system changes that in turn resulted in a reduction of child
rights violations and equity gaps in education.
Focus of the evaluation
The multi-country evaluation will focus on the inclusion of out-of-school children, primarily in terms of
equity in access to basic education but will also consider quality learning – and particularly equity in
learning outcomes – as a key determinant of inclusion. ‘Basic Education’ will be understood as primary
and lower-secondary education. A multi-country evaluation of early learning and school readiness will
take place separately.
The intent of the multi-country evaluation is not to undertake country level evaluations that would be
compiled and summarized at regional level. It is neither to evaluate each specific intervention within one
key result area in the way a project or a programme evaluation would be carried out.
4
UN SCR 1244
10
The idea is to have a strategic multi-country approach to validate the regional theory of change
outlined above and document UNICEF's contribution to similar results (inclusion with child rights
violations and equity gaps reduction) in a group of five countries addressing issues of exclusion from
education.
The focus of this formative evaluation covers issues at the core of UNICEF engagement in CEE/CIS and its
conclusions and recommendations will be used to inform UNICEF engagement in this area not only in
countries covered by this exercises but also the other countries in the Region and beyond where this will
be relevant. The evaluation will have a clear focus on impact.
Limitations to the evaluation
In course of preparing the TOR, an evaluability assessment was conducted with all countries included in
the evaluation. All concluded that despite some data gaps (mainly related to level of disaggregation)
there are enough data available to conduct adequately the multi-country evaluation (see annex 1). There
are reliable data to inform the baseline as well as the situation of children in the most recent years
covered by the evaluation. It has to be noted that data sources being different from country to country,
trends analysis will be preferred over comparison. In some cases results of MICS surveys will constitute a
major source of data while in others national statistics will be the main source data. The Evaluation will
also take into consideration that depending the country situation not all impact indicators identified will
be observed in all countries.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The multi-country evaluation will, in priority, assess UNICEF’s contribution to impact and outcome
results for children (good/bad practices, innovations and models as well as strategies that work and can
be scaled up or replicated) in terms of their relevance to the child rights and equity agenda,
effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability (as defined by OECD/DAC).
In addressing the evaluation questions below, the multi-country evaluation will have to establish clear
linkages between impact results for children, system changes and UNICEF’s contribution.
Impact

Do the impact results reported by countries in terms of greater inclusion and improved quality of
education really represent a change in the lives of children, in terms of the realization of their right
to quality basic education and/or reduction of equity gaps?

Are these results supported by reliable and validated primary data (surveys, administrative data,
evaluations, assessments)?

Have the strategies used by countries led to impact results (a greater realization of children’s right to
education and significant reduction of equity gaps)?

What has been UNICEF’s contribution to government’s policy formulation, implementation or fine
tuning through its work in terms of knowledge generation, evidence-based advocacy and policy
advice, and technical support?
11

Based on an analysis of UNICEF’s influence on policy at country level – where has UNICEF’s influence
been the strongest and most effective? Is it in: a) supporting policy development; b) building
capacity to implement policy; c) setting norms and standards that help monitor and fine tune
implementation; evidence-based advocacy and communication for development; or e) design and
pilot innovative models that can be replicated and incorporated in national or sub-national
programme design?

Have the regional initiatives initiated by the Regional Office influenced and impacted the strategies
and interventions implemented at country level to reduce equity gaps in education?

More specifically, what has been the influence and/or impact of the Regional Office’s support and
advice to Country Offices’ education strategies and interventions in terms of knowledge generation
(regional position papers, technical guidance, regional studies and evaluations, study tours …),
capacity development (study tours, regional education network meetings …), technical assistance
(country visits, provision of external expertise…), partnerships building (regional events, leveraging
influence and funding) and Communication for Development (C4D campaigns)?

How can UNICEF improve its policy influencing impact?
Relevance

Have UNICEF’s interventions at country level that were designed to influence inclusive policies and
system changes, been specifically targeted the most marginalized children, those children whose
right to education is violated, in particular children with disabilities, Roma children, girls, children
from poor rural areas, children performing below academic standards, and children with multiple
disadvantages?

Have UNICEF’s interventions and approaches that were designed to reduce equity gaps and child
rights violation in education been relevant to prevailing education sector policies and international
standards?

Have UNICEF’s interventions and approaches that were designed to reduce equity gaps and child
rights violation in education been relevant to the work and programmes of national partners?
Effectiveness

How effective have been government’s interventions in removing system bottlenecks that
determined or contributed to the exclusion of marginalized children from education (use of the
UNICEF MoRES Determinant Analytical Framework)?

How effective have been UNICEF’s strategies – both at regional and country level - in contributing to
the removal of such bottlenecks?
12

Have there been opportunities for programmatic synergies between UNICEF’s interventions and
those of its development partners that contributed to increase the effectiveness of government’s
efforts to remove system bottlenecks to inclusive education?

Which are the system bottlenecks that have not been addressed by either the government or its
partners (including UNICEF), or which the government and its partners have not been able to
remove? And what are the reasons for that?

More specifically, which strategies – among UNICEF’s core roles – have been the most effective in
contributing to remove system bottlenecks to inclusive education: policy advice and technical
assistance, modeling, facilitating national dialogue towards child-friendly social norms, enabling
knowledge exchange, monitoring and evaluation, leveraging resources from the public and private
sectors?

In particular, how effective has UNICEF been in influencing the formulation, adoption and
enforcement of inclusive education policies, strategies and action plans (at both national and local
level) targeting the most marginalized and excluded children?

How effective has UNICEF been in monitoring and evaluating the enforcement and implementation
of such policies, strategies and action plans (particularly at local level)?

How effective has UNICEF been in modeling and piloting (together with government counterparts
and other partners) inclusive education interventions that have a potential to be replicated,
expanded and scaled up?
Efficiency

Have UNICEF’s resources invested in support of more inclusive education policies and plans been
used in a strategic and cost-effective manner?

More specifically, has UNICEF been successful in playing a catalytic role and using its meager core
resources strategically to leverage partners’ funding for inclusive education reforms?

Would there have been a more cost-effective way to obtain the expected results?

How efficient has UNICEF been in modeling and piloting (together with government counterparts
and other partners) inclusive education interventions that have a potential to be replicated,
expanded and scaled up?

Is UNICEF properly staffed and equipped to play an effective role at country level and influence the
development and support the implementation of meaningful inclusive policies and reforms in the
education sector?

Have there been gaps – and if yes, how large are they – between the design of UNICEF’s
interventions at country level and the realities of implementation? For instance, have UNICEF’s
recommended strategies such as child-centered approaches resulted in a greater inclusion of
marginalized children in education?
13

Have there been overlaps between UNICEF’s interventions and those of its development partners
that have undermined the effectiveness of government’s efforts to achieve a greater inclusion of
marginalized children in education?

What have been the coordination mechanisms between the government and UNICEF and its
partners – if any – and how have they contributed to the removal of system bottlenecks to inclusive
education?

Has UNICEF’s equity agenda and targeting of marginalized and excluded children, been aligned to
governments’ policies/reform agendas and priorities of other duty bearers and partners?

What is the level of awareness of the major partners with regards to UNICEF’s programme goals and
strategies at country level?

If not, has UNICEF been successful in leveraging governments’ political will and financial resources to
address child rights violations and equity issues in terms of access to and outcomes of education,
and focus on the inclusion of the most vulnerable groups?

Has UNICEF been successful in creating alliances, mobilizing partners, donors and other duty bearers,
and triggering national partnerships towards greater equity and inclusiveness in education?

In other words, has UNICEF been successful in making governments’ reforms and partners’ priorities
more relevant to the realization of the right of all children to be included in quality learning?
Sustainability

Are there indications that the impact results (greater inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable
children in basic education) will or won’t be sustained over time in countries where they took place?

And have the system changes that led to these impact results been sustained in countries where
they took place? And if not, what are the bottlenecks to the sustainability of these results?

In working towards the removal of system bottlenecks to the inclusion of out of school children in
quality learning, has UNICEF acquired a comparative advantage to contribute in a significant way to
the sustainability of these results?
Human rights-based approach to programming

To which extent a human-rights based approach to programming has been applied in the design and
implementation of education sector reforms and has strengthened the impact of such interventions?
The Evaluation Team will be responsible to ensure that the multi-country evaluation reflects UNICEF’s
human rights-based approach to programming – principles, policies and standards stated in the UNEG
Guidance on Integrating human-rights and gender equality in evaluation (see link below) and complies
with the organization’s commitment to gender mainstreaming as expressed in the Policy on Gender
Equality and the Empowerment of Girls.
14
http://www.uneval.org/documentdownload?doc_id=980&file_id=1294
Evaluation questions will be further refined and additional ones will be incorporated by the Evaluation
Team – if required - during the inception phase. Responses to the evaluation questions will have to be
pitched at a strategic and regional level so that the evaluation does not get lost in in-depth analysis of
individual project activities.
EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODS
The approach followed from the onset of the evaluation will be as participative as possible. Stakeholders
will participate to the evaluation through discussions, consultations, provide comments on draft
documents and some will reply to the recommendations made by the evaluation in the management
response. In gathering data and views from stakeholders, the evaluation team will ensure that it
considers a cross-section of stakeholders with potentially diverse views to ensure the evaluation findings
are as impartial (or representative) as possible.
The evaluation will employ relevant internationally agreed evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.
The methodology should demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of
information sources (e.g. stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, etc.) and using a mixed
methodological (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, participatory) to ensure triangulation of information
through a variety of means.
The evaluation will be based on analysis of secondary data and on primary data collection. As much as
possible, secondary data will be assessed during the pre-mission phase to start addressing evaluation
issues and identifying the information gaps prior to the in-country mission. In view of the information
already available at both country and regional levels (see list of key information sources in Annex 1) it is
not expected that the Evaluation Team will need to undertake a major survey; it may be however
necessary to dig into existing ones (especially the results of the recent MICS survey completed). The
evaluation team will also be expected to conduct interviews and focus groups in UNICEF as well as with
external stakeholders in Countries or at regional level (as relevant).
Inception Phase: The first step of the evaluation process will be the inception phase during which the
Evaluation Team will develop an evaluation framework based on the TOR (regional theory of change,
UNICEF’s regional core roles and strategies, evaluation questions). For each of the questions and most
probably sub-questions, the evaluation team will develop indicators to inform the responses and identify
the corresponding means of verification. On that basis, the team will develop a detailed methodology
based on the key elements identified above. In addition, the Evaluation Team will assess potential
limitations to the evaluation work and in particular the availability and reliability of data.
A Desk Review of all possible evidence available at regional and country level in relation to impact and
systems results, reduction of equity gaps and theory of change in the area of inclusive education will be
undertaken. The desk review will of course not be limited to UNICEF documentation (CPDs, COARs, MTR
reports, SITANs, strategy notes, studies, evaluation and survey reports (MICS) but will also cover
government and partners’ documents, including external evaluations, surveys (DHS, LLHS…),
assessments, studies, policy documents, strategy papers, plans of action national education plans, PRSPs,
reports and publications produced by the World Bank and the EU, existing analyses of the education
15
sector, CRC and CEDAW reports and comments/observations, evaluations and documentation of projects
implemented by other partners … Survey results, administrative data or other available data sources will
be verified and analyzed to confirm the assumption that changes in children’s lives (impact) and
reduction of equity gaps have indeed occurred during the past decade ; evaluations and other
assessment reports will be used to demonstrate how system changes and UNICEF’s contribution to them
led to changes in the lives of children; and other documents will be used to explain and support the
theory of change.
Country visits will be carried out in the five concerned countries in order to fill knowledge gaps and carry
out a rigorous triangulation of the information collected through the desk review: key informant
interviews and consultations will take place with education policy makers, planners and administrators
(officials from MOE, statistical departments, EMIS …) as well as donors (European Union, GIZ, USAID,
World Bank …) and other partners/stakeholders in the field of education (UN, OSI, ISSA …). Country visits
are not country level evaluations and there are no plans to have separate country reports. However, the
Evaluation Team may be requested to provide a debriefing to the CO at the end of each country mission
(the RO could be video-linked) and present specific findings and possible suggestions which are country
specific. The Evaluation Team could also be asked to provide at the end of the mission a short memo or a
PowerPoint presentation.
The possibility of sequencing the country missions will be explored. The evaluation work may begin
with a “pilot” country mission in which the whole external Evaluation Team will be included, and whose
results will help consolidating the evaluation framework and overall approach to the country mission.
Then, the other four country missions may take place simultaneously with only one international team
member, assisted by national expertise. This will help making best use of the external Evaluation Team
and reducing the evaluation timeframe. Another advantage will be to validate the evaluation framework
based on country realities.
General considerations: The methodology of the multi-country evaluation will be in line with the United
nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards. UNEG Norms and Standards. The multi-country
evaluation will rely, to the extent possible, on already available data.
Plans for use and dissemination of the findings of the multi-country evaluation will be made at a later
stage.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
During country visits, local stakeholders may be involved in the evaluation process, in particular at the
planning stage as well as during the validation process. If needed, the UNICEF Country Representatives
may wish to establish a Local Reference Group composed of key stakeholders, the Evaluation Team and
UNICEF Education Chiefs/Specialists, in order to facilitate and guide the evaluation process.
The national experts/research institutes that will be hired by the external consulting firm (with possible
support from UNICEF Country Offices) will provide local technical support before and during the field
missions. The involvement of national experts/research institutes will contribute to a greater ownership
of the concerned countries for the evaluation work.
16
Both the Regional Office and concerned UNICEF Country Offices will be involved in the dissemination of
the findings of the multi-country evaluation. National stakeholders will be associated to this process of
dissemination of the results of the evaluation.
EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION AND COMPETENCIES
In view of the purpose, scope, focus of the evaluative work, the multi-country evaluation will be
conducted by an external institution or consulting firm with expertise in evaluation of education
programmes and projects, education statistics, education policies, education planning, quality of
education and coordination of research work.
The consulting firm/institution will have to put together a multidisciplinary team of experts – led by an
Evaluation Expert - in order to cover the different aspects of the multi-country evaluation. The number
of members of the Evaluation Team will be discussed based on the technical and financial proposals that
will be submitted through the bidding process. The external Evaluation Team will be assisted before and
during their field missions by national expertise (national experts/research institutes). The core
competencies required from the external experts will be the following:







Advanced degree in Educational Sciences, Programme Planning and Management or related
fields;
8-10 years of professional experience at the national and international level.
Previous experience of multi-country evaluations of national education programmes, policies,
strategies and plans; experience in developing/analyzing policies to enhance equity (including
gender) in education systems an asset;
Ability to work in an international environment; previous experience of working in CEE & CIS
countries an asset.
Excellent analytical and report writing skills.
Familiarity with UNICEF’s mission and mandate an asset.
Excellent mastering of English.
While it is understood that there will be a team of experts with different competencies, the specific
nature of the expertise required will be discussed once technical proposals will be submitted.
ACCOUNTABILITIES
The Multi-Country Evaluation is a regional undertaking led by the Regional Office for CEE/CIS.
At the regional level, the Reference Group (chaired by the Turkey Country Office and composed of the
Regional Education Advisor and Education Chiefs/Specialists of participating countries) will provide a
general oversight on the evaluation work. The Regional Education Advisor and Regional Monitoring and
Evaluation Advisors will provide technical advice and supervision to the external evaluation team.
The Regional Office Management Committee will ensure that the evaluation process is in line with the
regional evaluation guidance.
17
The UNICEF Office of Evaluation, as well as Programme Division/Education Section (HQs), and the
Innocenti Research Center (IRC) will play an advisory role at specific points of the evaluation process
(review of these TOR, inception and evaluation reports …).
At country level, the UNICEF Country Offices will provide the Evaluation Team with the technical
assistance and logistical support required in the design, planning, and organization of the evaluation
work. The UNICEF Country Offices (and Local Reference Groups, where they exist) will be responsible for
organizing the field visits, meetings, consultations and interviews, for providing access to the
government counterparts, donors and partners, and for coordinating the work at country level with
other stakeholders.
The Evaluation Team will be responsible for conducting the desk review of the project, organizing the
technical preparation of the field visits, undertaking the country visits and producing the deliverables.
While it is not expected that vulnerable children will be requested to participate in the evaluation, the
Evaluation Team will ensure that the evaluation process is ethical, in line with UNEG Ethical Guidelines.
http://www.uneval.org/search/index.jsp?q=ETHICAL+GUIDELINES
Possible responsibilities of the national experts/research institutes – which will be part of and work
under the guidance and supervision of the Evaluation Team - could include the following:
 Assist in the preparatory work of the multi-country evaluation in advance of the arrival of the
international expert;
 Assist the international experts in the design of the questionnaires for the meetings and interviews;
 Collect all available documentation for the evaluation;
 Coordinate and support evaluation activities: field visits, meetings, consultations, interviews;
 Brief the international experts about key issues relevant to the national education systems;
 Participate in the analysis of country level data and information;
 Comment on the intermediate and final evaluation reports and provide inputs/recommendations;
 Accomplish other tasks to assist the international experts as required.
The UNICEF Country Offices and local reference group may wish to organize a debriefing meeting during
which the findings of the evaluation work will be presented by the Evaluation Team. The UNICEF
Regional Office and concerned Country Offices will approve the final product and arrange its
dissemination.
PRODUCTS TO BE DELIVERED
Deliverables
The main deliverables will include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The Inception Report
The main Evaluation Report,
A brief Advocacy Note summarizing key findings and recommendations from the main report; and
A Power Point Presentation of the evaluation report.
18
The evaluation report – in both its format and content - will have to comply with the UNICEF Evaluation
Report Standards, which will be made available to the Evaluation Team at the beginning of the
assignment. UNEG Norms and Standards
UNICEF reserves the right to withhold all or a portion of payment if performance is unsatisfactory, if
work/outputs are incomplete, not delivered of for failure to meet deadlines.
Structure of the Evaluation Report
Structure of the Inception Report
Response to the TOR
Evaluation Framework
Methodology
Potential limitations of the evaluation according to data availability and reliability
Structure of the Evaluation Report (Tentative)
Title Page
Table of content
List of Acronyms
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Object of the Evaluation
Evaluation Purpose, Objectives and Scope
Evaluation Methodology
Findings
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Recommendations
Annexes
The structure of the final report will be further discussed with the Evaluation Team (during the Inception
Phase).
19
Evaluation Process and Tentative Time Frame
1. Preparation Phase
Terms of Reference (TOR)
03/09/12 – 05/10/12: Preparation of 1st draft TOR – Evaluation Manager5 with support of Regional
M&E Advisor;
08/10/12 – 21/12/12: Review of draft TOR – Regional/HQs M&E Quality Assurance System, including
the Reference Group;
07/01/13 – 08/02/13: Revision and preparation of 2nd draft TOR (based on comments from
regional/HQs review) - Evaluation Manager;
18/02/13 – 11/03/13: Final review and finalization of the TOR - Evaluation Manager; Regional M&E
Advisor;
05/03/13
: Final approval of the TOR – Evaluation Committee Chair;
Budgeting and Evaluation Team Contracting
05/11/12 – 21/11/12: Identification of potential consulting firms/institutions (regional and global
rosters, informal networks …) – Evaluation Manager;
18/03/13
:
Sending Call for Proposals to potential consulting firms/ institutions with a 3
week timeframe to respond – Evaluation Manager;
08/04/13 – 26/04/13: Review of technical and financial proposals; checking of references; review of
previous evaluation reports; phone interviews; budget preparation and review;
preparation of a recommendation to the Evaluation management Committee Evaluation Manager with support of Regional M&E Advisor;
29/04/13 – 03/05/13: Meeting of the Evaluation Management Committee; Final approval of the
Budget and Selection of the Evaluation Team – Committee Chair;
06/05/13 – 17/05/13: Contract approval and Issuance of contract to selected Evaluation Team –
Contract Review Committee and Regional HR Team.
5
Regional Education Advisor
20
2. Evaluation Phase
Evaluation Launch
2-3 days
:
Briefing of the Evaluation Team; handing over of key documents, information
sources and contacts at both regional and country levels – Evaluation Manager
and Reference Group;
:
Discussion of the TOR (in particular the evaluation approach and methodology,
as well as research criteria and questions, and the format and quality of the
report – Evaluation Manager and Regional M&E Advisor.
:
Review of key documents; clarification of the theory of change provided in the
TOR; development of an Evaluation Framework and Evaluation Methodology
(based on the theory of change and evaluation questions) – Evaluation Team;
:
Preparation of a 1st draft Inception Report – Evaluation Team;
:
Review of the draft Inception Report and sharing of comments with the
Evaluation Team – Evaluation Manager, Regional M&E Advisor, Reference Group
and Regional M&E Quality Assurance System;
:
Revision and preparation of Final Inception Report (based on comments
received) – Evaluation Team;
:
Approval of Final Inception Report before next steps can take place – Evaluation
Manager, Regional M&E Advisor and Reference Group.
:
Review of the relevant documentation (as described in the Section above on
Evaluation Process and Methods, p.11) – Evaluation Team.
:
One week-visit to the five participating countries (need to explore the possibility
of sequencing country missions as described in the Section above on Evaluation
Process and Methods, p.13) – Evaluation Team.
Inception Phase
1 month
Desk Review
11/2 month
Country Visits
11/2 month
21
Report Writing
2 months
:
Preparation of 1st draft Evaluation Report – Evaluation Team;
:
Review of 1st draft Evaluation Report – Evaluation Manager, Regional M&E
Advisor, Reference Group and Regional M&E Quality Assurance System;
:
Revision and preparation of 2nd draft Evaluation Report (based on the first
round of comments – Evaluation Team;
:
Review of 2nd draft Evaluation Report – Internal stakeholders and expected
users;
:
Consultation/Workshop with key internal /external stakeholders, expected
users, and Evaluation Team in order to present the main findings and
discuss/validate the recommendations of the multi-country evaluation –
Evaluation Manager, Regional M&E Advisor, Reference Group;
:
Revision and preparation of final draft Evaluation Report (based on the second
round of comments and workshop results – Evaluation Team;
:
Final review/finalization of the Evaluation Report and presentation to the
Evaluation Management Committee – Evaluation Manager and Regional M&E
Advisor;
:
Meeting of the Evaluation Management Committee; Approval of the Final MultiCountry Evaluation Report – Committee Chair.
3. Management Response and Communication Strategy (to be discussed with Regional Office
management)
ESTIMATED RESOURCE REQUIREMENT
Funding requirement can only be estimated once financial proposals will be received from potential
consulting firms and institutions, which will take place in April 2013.
22
ANNEX 1
LIST OF KEY INFORMATION SOURCES
Below is a non-exhaustive list of references that will be useful sources of information for the multicountry evaluation. Additional evaluation, survey and assessment reports as well as studies, policy
documents strategy papers, plans of action and other publications exist at country level and will be made
available to the Evaluation Team prior to the start of the multi-country evaluation.
-
Key Equity Results for Children in CEE/CIS (the “Poppy Strategy”)
UNEG – Standards for Evaluation in the UN System
UNEG – Norms for Evaluation in the UN System
UNEG – Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation
UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation
MoRES: Concept Note
MoRES: Determinant Analytical Framework
UNICEF CEE/CIS: Regional Knowledge and Leadership Agenda – Generic Theory of Change underlying
UNICEF’s approach in the CEE/CIS region
UNICEF Programme Policies and Procedures (PPP) Manual – Section on Project Piloting
Regional Education Strategy
2007 Regional Education Strategy Note
Theory of Change: Mapping in the 5 target countries
Regional Report on Out of School Children – UNICEF Geneva, 2012
Kosovo ROOSCAI Report, UNICEF Geneva, 2012
Kosovo ROOSCAI, Case Study, UNICEF Geneva, 2012
Turkey: Out of School Children report, UNICEF Turkey, 2012
Regional Position Paper – The Right of Roma Children to Education, UNICEF, 2009
Regional Position Paper – The Right of Children with Disabilities to Education, 2011
Sub-Regional Formative Evaluation of the Global Education Project (2002-2005) in the CARK Region
Developing Standards for Quality Basic Education in CEE/CIS, UNICEF Geneva, 2010
Armenia: Survey on the access of children with disabilities to education, health and social protection
services, UNICEF Armenia, 2012
Evaluation of Inclusive Education Policies and Programmes in Armenia, UNICEF Armenia, 2009
An Assessment of Armenia’s Child¬-Friendly School Pilot Projects and CFS Standards, UNICEF
Armenia, 2009
School Wastage Study: Focusing on Student Absenteeism in Armenia, UNICEF Armenia, 2008
Kosovo, CFS Project Evaluation, ProMAN, 2004
Evaluative Review of Active Learning in Serbia & Montenegro, 1994 – 2004
Evaluation of the “Developmental and Educational Centers in 11 Municipalities of South Serbia”
Program, CETI, 2004
Comprehensive Analysis of Primary Education in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, UNICEF
Belgrade, December 2001
Serbia: MICS 3 and MICS 4 reports, UNICEF
TFYROM: assessment (in progress) of student learning outcomes and early grade teacher knowledge,
2012
Child-Friendly Schools - A Situation Analysis for Macedonia, 2007
Standards for Effective Inclusive Schools, TFYROM, 2005
23
-
Evaluation of the Interactive Learning Project, TFYROM, June 2003
Evaluation Report of Girls’ Schooling Advocacy Campaign and Materials ‘Haydi Kizlar Okula’ , UNICEF
Turkey, 2004
Girls’ Education Campaign, Turkey, External Evaluation, ProMAN, Draft Report, UNICEF Geneva 2006
Child Rights and Quality Education – Child-Friendly Schools in Central and Eastern Europe, European
Education, Clair, Miske and Patel, vol 44, no.2 (summer 2012) pp. 5-22
… and more to be added at a later stage.
24
ANNEX 2
UNICEF MORES DETERMINANT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Determinants
Description
Comment
Enabling environment
Social Norms
Widely followed social
rules of behavior
This sub-category refers to social rules of behaviors
that are widely followed within a society. While
these vary according to contexts, it will be essential
to identify social norms that result in discrimination
or exclusion and that may be common across
different contexts. Addressing these social norms is
critical to realizing children’s rights, changing
behavior and practices that constrain the fulfillment
of rights, or creating demand for services
Legislation / Policy
Adequacy of laws and
policies
This refers to the existence and implementation of
laws and policies at different levels of society. In
each country, we must focus our monitoring on the
legal and policy issues that promote or deter our
objectives. In some cases, national legislation may
be a critical factor; in others, the subnational policy
framework may represent a crucial bottleneck
Budget / Expenditure
Allocation and
disbursement of
required resources
The efficient and equitable allocation and utilization
of resources is a common constraint to effective
coverage. The precise nature of this constraint will
vary by context. The bottleneck to be monitored
may be the allocation of resources to a specific
sector of the system, or the allocation for particular
groups (deprived communities), or the actual levels
of expenditure.
Management /
Coordination
Roles and accountability
/ coordination /
partnerships
While the term “governance” has broad and varied
connotations, we are focusing on the bottlenecks
that obstruct accountability and transparency, as
well the impediments to coordination and
partnership.
25
Supply
Availability of essential Essential commodities /
Inputs required to
commodities /inputs
deliver a service or
adopt a practice
Most services, facilities and practices require a
certain amount of essential commodities or inputs
to function.
Access to adequately
staffed services,
facilities and
information
Physical access
(services, facilities,
information)
This refers to the target population’s physical
access to the relevant services, facilities and
information. Depending on the sector, the most
critical determinant for access may relate to
infrastructure, the presence of qualified personnel,
the information channels, or a combination of these
factors
Financial access
Direct and indirect cost
of services /practices
Financial barriers often prevent deprived groups
from utilizing available services or adopting certain
practices. These barriers can be direct (e.g. user
fees, purchase of required inputs by households) or
indirect (cost of transportation, time, etc.).
Social and cultural
practices and beliefs
Individual / community
beliefs, awareness,
behaviors, practices,
attitudes
Social and cultural barriers may prevent deprived
groups from using services or adopting practices.
These factors include social practices that reflect
social roles and responsibilities (e.g. children with
disabilities are a source of shame and should be
hidden) and individual or collective beliefs about
cause and effect that support customary practices
(e.g. the colostrum will harm the newborn). These
factors may affect service access and provision (e.g.
language, attitudes of providers regarding different
ethnic groups).
Demand
26
Timing and continuity
of use
Completion / continuity
in service, practice
The effectiveness of a service, practice, or other
intervention generally depends on the continuity of
use over the medium to long term. While many
target groups may start using a specific service or
facility or adopting a desired behavior, it is often
the case that participants drop out after a period or
do not complete all the required aspects or steps.
Note that while some financial and socio-cultural
barriers can be measured directly, others are
measured indirectly by measuring the actual
utilization of the service or the adoption of the
practice.
Quality
Quality of care
Adherence to required
quality standards
(national or
international norms)
While quality is subject to interpretation across
contexts, for our purposes, “quality” implies
adherence to the minimum required standards, as
defined by national or international norms
27
ANNEX 3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ARMENIA
Question 1: What is the impact result your office is planning to report on and document? An impact
result is expressed in terms of changes in children's life and reduction of equity gaps, and is
demonstrated by surveys, administrative data or other valid sources of information.
Quantitative results:



The number of children in special schools decreased by 60% in 2011-12 compared to 2007-2008.
(Source: National Centre for Education Technologies);
The number of children with certified special education needs receiving additional state budgetfunded support in inclusive schools increased from 0 in 2006 to 1700 in 2011-2012 (Source: National
Centre for Education Technologies (NACET), Medical-Pedagogical-Psychological needs assessment
center);
The percentage of children with certified disabilities attending regular schools is 70%. In regions
with higher concentration of inclusive schools (Yerevan and Tavush) where UNICEF programs have
been implemented, the proportion is higher - 75 and 80 % respectively (Source: UNICEF Armenia
Survey on the access of children with disabilities to education, health and social protection services).
Qualitative results:
The 2009 Evaluation of Inclusive Education Programmes and Policies in Armenia identified the following
impact level results:



The Inclusive Education programmes were effective for promoting social inclusion and demystifying
stereotypes associated with children with disabilities;
The Inclusive Schools have developed strong special education teams (including special educators,
psychologists, and speech therapists), expertise with regard to children with disabilities and a
willingness and intent to implement inclusive practices;
The Inclusive Education programmes in existence have been highly efficient in introducing the
philosophy and goals of Education for All (EFA), promoting the need for the de-institutionalization of
children with special needs. Model schools were created as examples of a structure required for
systematic reform of basic education.
Question 2: What is (are) the indicator(s) measuring the impact result being reported and documented?



Proportion of children with special education needs attending inclusive schools;
Percentage decline in the number/proportion of children attending special schools;
Percentage of children with disabilities attending regular schools.
28
Question 3: What are the system changes (removal of system bottlenecks) at national and/or local levels
- as a result of government and partners' interventions - that made the above-mentioned impact result
possible?




The Law on Education of Persons with Special Education Needs was adopted in 2005, making the
legislative basis for the promotion of inclusive education;
A budget line “Inclusive Education” was introduced in 2006 in the State Budget enabling, additional
financing for children with certified special education needs;
A pilot program (financed by Mission East) was implemented in the Tavush region with an
alternative financing mechanism enabling all schools to offer services to SEN children and
introducing the institute of teacher’s assistant;
Teacher training modules on inclusive education were developed, and trainings were conducted for
the teaching body of the inclusive schools.
Evaluations


Hunt, P. F. (2009) - Evaluations of Inclusive Education Policies and Programmes in Armenia, UNICEF.
Yerevan;
Sebeh, A. (2012) - Evaluation of the Tavush pilot program.
Question 4: What are the interventions supported by UNICEF that contributed to the above-mentioned
system changes - and therefore, to the impact result and equity gap reduction?



Five model inclusive schools and Community Centers developed with support from UNICEF between
2001 and 2005 which as resource hubs for capacity development, providing training and mentoring
services to teachers, parents and staff;
Between 2006 and 2008, UNICEF supported a project ‘Capacity building of inclusive schools’ in eight
schools in Yerevan, the capital city, and in Tavush region. The objective of the project was to provide
quality education services to students with special education needs through the improvement of
accessible infrastructure and transportation, and the development of materials and of the
methodological basis (teaching methods and didactic materials) of inclusive schools;
Study visits, conferences, seminars, discussions, trainings, on various aspects of inclusive education
were organized for government and NGO representatives. Although the impact of separate events is
hard to determine, cumulatively they have shaped a more favorable opinion among key stakeholders
towards inclusive education.
Evaluation: Hunt, P. F. (2009) - Evaluations of Inclusive Education Policies and Programmes in Armenia,
UNICEF. Yerevan.
Current Interventions (these programmes are recent and cannot therefore be linked with impact
retrospectively, but are relevant for prospective evaluation.

A module on inclusive education was introduced in the training package of preschool teacher
preparation for the newly established kindergartens in 4 regions. Agreement has been reached with
the implementing partner to extend and enrich the module for the new programme in 2012-2013 in
4 more regions;
29









As a follow-up on the ICF training, an international expert will be involved to help the MedicalPsycho-pedagogical Assessment Center of the Ministry of Education to revise Special Education
Needs assessment and individual education planning procedure in line with the best international
practice and ICF-CY framework;
Transformation plans for two special schools in Syunik region will be defined with the involvement of
international expertise;
The MoE National Center for Education Technologies (NaCET) is starting to upgrade the School
Management Information Systems (launched and piloted in academic year 2011-2012 by UNICEF in
259 schools) in order to use it in all schools of Armenia in 2013. NaCET succeeded in ensuring World
Bank loan support for the upgrading of the system and school trainings. The relevance of SMIS in
inclusion is 2-folded - a) it will allow gathering and analyzing data on children with special needsUNICEF will advise the working group on what needs to be included b) it will allow to identify out-ofschool children by comparing the school registrations system with the population registry - UNICEF
will support NaCET on the development of a synchronization module;
As a follow-up of the joint project with UNESCO IITE Moscow - a seminar on the use of ICTs for
Inclusive Education for practitioners- UNICEF Armenia and UNESCO plan to have pilot ICT projects in
participating inclusive schools to facilitate the education process of children with special education
needs in inclusive settings;
As a part of the joint inter-agency initiative UNICEF will be supporting National Institute of Social
Research (under Ministry of Social Issues) to conduct additional qualitative research on the
education of children with disabilities based on the issues identifies in UNICEF survey;
UNICEF aims to ensure that protocols of cooperation among services in Lori and Tavush target
children with disabilities, by defining mechanisms of exchange of information, referral and/or joint
action;
Community workers (promoting schooling of children with disabilities is a major part of their TOR) of
Tavush region -the region where all the schools were recognized as inclusive as a part of a successful
pilot- were involved in the ToT on integrated social services and case management. This will allow
them to better understand the work of case managers and cooperate with them effectively once the
latter their activities in the region;
For the first time, a large-scale survey on the access of children to disabilities to services was carried
out that revealed their level of access to education and predicting factors of exclusion (type of
disability, residence in rural areas, placement in orphanages, gender etc.);
A number of communication initiatives are planned in Fall 2012 to support inclusion of children with
disabilities:
- Upon the launch of the survey, followed by a parliamentary hearing, findings will be widely
disseminated to stakeholders, media and the general public;
- The ‘I have rights’ component of the International Film Festival for Children and Youth,
supported by UNICEF Armenia, will be dedicated to children with disabilities;
- UNICEF will have special nominations in the media award for best coverage on the issues of
children with disabilities (on themes like inclusive education, institutionalization and out-ofschool children).
 The Government of Armenia endorsed a programme on the introduction of Integrated Social
Services System in Armenia and a pilot programme on provision of Integrated Social Services. This
progressive reform, strongly advocated for and supported by UNICEF, that introduces the institution
of case management, will have key implications for inclusion- as it will replace the current nonfunctioning child protection system that is responsible for out-of-school children, and will enable the
creation of continuum of services throughout the life cycle of children with disabilities.
30
ANNEX 4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
KOSOVO6
Question 1: What is the impact result your office is planning to report on and document? An impact
result is expressed in terms of changes in children's life and reduction of equity gaps, and is
demonstrated by surveys, administrative data or other valid sources of information.
Available data calculated by the EMIS department of the MEST show that the proportion of drop-outs at
primary and lower secondary education levels was divided by three in 8 years, from 1.67% in 2002/03 to
0.5% 2010/11. In addition, the gender parity index in primary school increased from 0.79 in 2004 to 0.93
in 2011, hence implying that more girls are now participating in primary education. Despite the decrease
of newborns per every year, there has been noted a positive trend in gross enrollment of preschool
children, including pre-primary level. Data on Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian shows a positive trend in
enrolment in Kosovo in general and in most of the target municipalities of UNICEF. Since 2004 there has
been increase in absolute number of RAE children enrolment in compulsory education, e.g. the numbers
doubled in 5 municipalities, whereas the number of RAE children enrolled in pre-primary education
increased in 2011 compared to 2004( source: MEST/EMIS DI Database).
Question 2: What is (are) the indicator(s) measuring the impact result being reported and documented?
(1) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates of Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian children.
(2) Percentage of drop out students at primary and lower secondary education; Survival rate.
(3) Primary school enrolment rate of children with special needs; Preprimary school enrolment rate; age
of children reached by ECD.
Question 3: What are the system changes (removal of system bottlenecks) at national and/or local levels
- as a result of government and partners' interventions - that made the above-mentioned impact result
possible?
A strong legal and policy framework with regard to non-discrimination and an inclusive society has been
created and consistency of national legislation on education with international agreements (UNCRC,
Salamanca Statement, UNCRPD, etc.) has been achieved. This has translated into a number of policy
documents in the education sector. The main education strategic document is the Kosovo Education
Strategic Plan 2011-16, which aims to establish an inclusive, equitable and quality education system
alongside the Kosovo Curriculum Framework, the National Strategy for the Integration of Roma, Ashkali
and Egyptian, National Strategy for Drop-Out Prevention 2009-2012, Strategic Plan for Inclusive
Education for children with special educational needs in Pre-University Education in Kosovo 2010 – 2015
6
UNSCR 1244
31
etc. Based on these strategic documents, the legislative framework has been strengthened and the PreUniversity Education Law regulates compulsory schooling from age 6 to completion of ISCED 2 (end of
lower secondary education), free compulsory schooling, teaching in all languages of instruction in levels
ISCED1,2,3, duty to enroll students with disabilities , free textbooks for all students in compulsory
education, etc.
The EMIS has become functional and the capacity of EMIS has been strengthened to report on students
drop out and some other key education indictors. A teacher licensing system has been created and the
professional development of teachers regulated through the introduction of accredited in-service
teacher training programme, including teacher training on inclusiveness. Pre-service teacher training
programme have started to be reviewed and few inclusive education modules have started to be
introduced in the Faculty of Education. Curriculum in preschool, primary and secondary education has
been reformed and, based on the recently endorsed Kosovo Curriculum Framework; the content-based
curriculum is being shifted towards competence-based curriculum. The segregation of schools is being
gradually replaced with the introduction of a more inclusive education system for children with
disabilities with transformation of special schools into resource centers, creation of attached classes
within regular schools to support inclusive practices within regular classes. The investments in school
infrastructure contributed to reduction of number of shifts in schools and thus enabled a better and
safer school environment.
Question 4: What are the interventions supported by UNICEF that contributed to the above-mentioned
system changes - and therefore, to the impact result and equity gap reduction?
Technical assistance to MEST for curriculum review has been provided during the period 2001-2011.
New concept and philosophy of the curriculum was introduced with the Kosovo Curriculum Frameworka white paper for discussion in 2001, followed with the subject curriculum review for preschool, primary
and secondary education until 2007, based on the principles of child friendly school concept (childcenteredness, child rights, inclusiveness , lifelong learning etc.. As per recommendations and the
findings of the above mentioned report, the Kosovo Curriculum Framework was officially endorsed in
2011 and recognized as the most important reform of the sector plan 2011-2016, which represents a
profound change in educational thinking. Donors: UNHSTF/Japanese Government, Dutch Government.
The Child Friendly School (CFS) Initiative introduced in 35 primary schools in the year 2002 , scaled up
to additional 48 schools in 2003 and by the end of the year 2005 reached almost 100 primary schools or
almost 10% of primary schools. CFS initiative helped to translate the CFS concept into the quality basic
education standards in 2012. DONORS: UNHSTF, Dutch Government, German NatCom, USAID.
The CFS initiative has been organized through the following areas of intervention:
a) Education of girls, Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian children and prevention of students drop out: Local
and central authorities’ capacities have strengthened on addressing the issue of students drop out,
with active involvement of parents through established 60 parent teacher councils at school level,
organized in within 5 parent teacher associations at municipal level during 2002-2005. All of this
resulted in the development of two year plans in selected municipalities as well as the National
Prevention and Response Plan on Students Drop-Out 2009-2014 (in 2007 and 2008). Furthermore, a
specific plan has been developed to target the most vulnerable children, such as Roma, Ashkali and
Egyptian (RAE) children with a focus on RAE girls in particular. Implementation of the action plans
32
were supported with an intervention kit provided to all schools in Kosovo and a model was piloted;
school-based prevention and response teams were created as per this model, consisting of parents,
teachers and school directors, which have been regulated officially through administrative
instruction issued by MEST in 2012, and have started to be introduced as a mechanism to address
the issue of drop out at school and municipal level.
b) Education of children with disabilities: Interactive teaching and learning for children with disabilities
was introduced in primary schools with attached classes since 2002. The model has been piloted for
a number of years and only recently recognized by MEST as an in-service teacher training
programme for inclusive education. The training programme currently contributes to teacher
professional development and is part of the teacher licensing requirement. Since 2002, different
awareness raising campaign have been carried out on the importance of education of children with
disabilities and the need for proper identification and assessment of children with disabilities. In
2005 UNICEF supported central authorities to develop a plan for identification assessment and
education of children with disabilities as well as a draft manual to regulate the function and the role
of multidisciplinary teams.
c) The impact of the creation of prevention of violence in school network has been in increased
awareness about the issue of prevention of violence in schools, increased participation of students in
decision making processes for 70 per cent, development of school development plans with
incorporation of specific measures for prevention and response to violence in school, etc. During
2011 the prevention of violence in school has been expanded to 20 municipalities in 476 primary and
lower secondary schools with involvement of 214,200 students and with a total of 42,840 families
benefiting directly from the intervention. A violence prevention network has been created at school,
municipal and regional level. 476 primary and lower secondary schools have created child rights
committees, developed their five year development plans, which include the issues of child rights
and prevention of violence. Seven municipalities and two regions have created violence prevention
inter-sectorial groups that consist of representatives from schools, municipal officials (education,
health, and social welfare), police, and civil society and jointly drafted a protocol for prevention of
violence in school.
d) The ‘Life Skills Based Education’ (LSBE) programme has been accredited by MEST as a basic teacher
training programme that contributes to the teacher licensing. During 2006-2010, LSBE became an
optional subject for students attending eighth grade across the 500 lower secondary schools
throughout Kosovo and to effectively deliver this kind of education, UNICEF supported the training of
500 teachers and the development of a teacher’s manual and student’s handbook for 15 modules. In
addition, the model has been taken into consideration during the process of curriculum
development framework and specific expertise has been provided for incorporation of the life skills
based education within the identified key Learning Outcomes in the seven Learning Areas as
structured by the new Kosovo Curriculum Framework to be applied from pre-school to uppersecondary education, including both general and vocational education: Communication and
expression, Mathematics, Sciences, Society and Environment, Health and welfare, Life and work.
Education Planning: Technical assistance has been provided to MEST and to the Education Management
System (EMIS) on evidence based planning. In this context, since 2007 the DevInfo database has been
created and regularly updated. During 2009 and 2010 UNICEF contributed to the establishment of
baseline data on key education indicators and supported capacity development of MEST / EMIS on
development of conceptual framework of education indicators, publication of the education Indicators
33
Framework and Key Education Baseline Indicators. During 2011 Education planners within MEST and
municipal official responsible for data collection benefited from a basic training on statistical survey
data analysis and thus a core group of local experts identified to be further specialized on evidence
based planning. Donors: Dutch Government
Capacity development on early childhood education during the period 2001-2011 in creation of a
preschool section within the MEST administrative structure, introduction of community based early
childhood education as an alternative form of ECD service for preschool children in 20 rural locations and
Standards of Community Based Education Centers developed and endorsed by MEST (in 2003,
)development and official endorsement of the Preschool Education Law (in 2005), development of
preschool education curriculum for children of age 3-6 (in 2006), development of Early Learning
Development Standards (2007 onwards) and assessment of early childhood development in Kosovo
conducted in 2011 with the University of Yale (Joined Hands- Better Childhood, Yale University The
Edward Zigler Center of Child Development and Social Policy, 2011). Donors: WB, UNHSTF/Japanese
Government, Dutch Government.
Resource material:

Kosovo Education Strategy Plan , 2011-2016
http://www.masht-gov.net/advCms/documents/KESP_2011_2016.pdf

Kosovo Curriculum Framework , MEST 2011

Early Learning Development Standards in Kosovo, MEST 2011
http://www.masht-gov.net/advCms/documents/ELDS_report_ENG_for%20WEB.pdf

Joined Hands Better Childhood, UNICEF, Yale University , The Edward Ziegler Center of Child
Development and Social Policy, 2011
http://www.unicef.org/kosovo/Joined_Hands_ENG_web.pdf

Justice Denied, UNICEF , 2010
http://www.unicef.org/kosovo/Eng

Strategy for Integration of Roma, Ashkalija, Egyptian Communities in Kosovo, Education Component
2007-2017,
http://www.masht-gov.net/advCms/documents/Strategy_English_07017.pdf

Violence against children in schools, UNICEF 2005
http://www.unicef.org/kosovo/kosovo_media_pub_educ.007.04.pdf
34
ANNEX 5
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
Question 1: What is the impact result your office is planning to report on and document? An impact
result is expressed in terms of changes in children's life and reduction of equity gaps, and is
demonstrated by surveys, administrative data or other valid sources of information.





The primary school enrolment of Roma children increased from 61.1% in 2006 (Source: MICS 3) to
85.6% in 2011 (Source: MICS 4).
4th grade student knowledge in numeracy increased by at least 10 per cent against the baseline;
Early grade teachers (1-3 grades) knowledge in numeracy increased by at least 10 per cent against
the baseline;
4th grade student knowledge in literacy (reading and writing) increased by at least 10 per cent
against the baseline (evaluation to take place in October 2013);
Early grade teachers (1-3 grades) knowledge in literacy (reading and writing) increased by at least 10
per cent against the baseline (evaluation to take place in October 2013).
Question 2: What is (are) the indicator(s) measuring the impact result being reported and documented?



Primary school enrolment rate disaggregated by gender, ethnicity (Roma) and geographic location.
Percentage of increase in student outcomes (in grade 4) and early grade (1-3) teacher knowledge in
numeracy; preliminary results of the evaluation are already available and show an increase in
student outcomes and improvement in teachers knowledge over the expected 10%.
Percentage of increase in student outcomes (in grade 4) and early grade (1-3) teacher knowledge in
literacy (reading and writing); the results of the evaluation will be available in October 2013 only.
Question 3: What are the system changes (removal of system bottlenecks) at national and/or local levels
- as a result of government and partners' interventions - that made the above-mentioned impact result
possible?
Interventions introduced by the Government aimed at increasing access and completion of primary and
secondary education include: Extension of compulsory primary education from eight to nine years,
introduction of compulsory secondary education, provision of Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) to all
students from families on social assistance (SPIL project, WB loan) aimed to facilitate secondary
education enrollment and attendance, introduction of scholarship and mentorship scheme for all Roma
children attending secondary education, free textbooks provided to all primary and secondary education
students, and provision of free legal assistance and assistance for birth and civic registration in eight
Roma information centers across the country.
35
Interventions undertaken by the Government aimed at improving quality of education include:
development of a concept for primary education, revision of curricula for primary education,
development of a concept for general secondary education, introduction of Life Skills Based Education
(LSBE)- the subject is now taught to all primary and secondary education children as a compulsory
subject, development of a new methodology for developing textbooks, and adoption of the law on
revision of textbooks, school-self-evaluation and development of school improvement plans as tools to
support whole school development introduced in all primary schools (WB loan) and framework for
Inspection integrating CFS standards is being used to inspect the work in all primary schools (USAID),
Education Management Information System established, but is not yet functioning (WB loan, Education
Modernization Project EMP), a model of teacher professional development and certification established
(USAID and UNICEF), and in-service teacher training programmes on numeracy, literacy included in the
BED national programme for in-service teacher training for all primary schools.
Question 4: What are the interventions supported by UNICEF that contributed to the above-mentioned
system changes - and therefore, to the impact result and equity gap reduction?
Child-Friendly School (CFS) standards (1) were seen as a framework that could help UNICEF add value to
government and partners (WB and USAID) efforts and investment in education reform (2). More
specifically, CFS helped the government in the articulation of a national vision for quality reforms in
education based on child rights implementation. A baseline study against the CFS (3) was conducted,
which identified the gaps in providing quality education to children. As a follow up two main directions
were pursued:
2006- 2012
1. CFS mainstreaming in policies: Law on primary education (4) and new concepts for primary and
secondary general education (5,6)were revised and now fully reflect commitment to inclusiveness,
effectiveness, gender equality, participation, respect for child rights and multiculturalism. A second
level commission in the Bureau of education Development (BED) reviewed the drafted curricula in all
primary education subjects to ensure alignment with CFS standards. To address the need for quality
and relevant education, and to provide children with opportunities to build skills needed for life (to
cope with everyday challenges), LSBE was introduced as a compulsory subject in the new primary
and secondary education curricula. UNICEF supported the development of the LSBE curricula (7),
teacher training manuals (8) and materials and training of all primary and secondary education
teachers in the country. The WB supported school-self-evaluation (9) was revised to ensure
alignment with CFS. Methodology for textbook development (10) was developed based on CFS
standards. Donors: UNICEF thematic funds, MDG-F funds (Spanish Government), IKEA.
2008- 2015
2. Specific support to address major gaps in providing quality education identified in the CFS baseline
study was provided in7:
7
In addition to these two areas, specific support was provided in areas of multiculturalism (contributing to CFS dimension on
multiculturalism) and reduction of school violence (contributing to CFS dimension on safe and protective school environment).
36

Numeracy/literacy teacher instruction for grades 1-3- CFS baseline indicated a gap in quality
education instruction which was manifested with low student performance in international
testing (PIRLS and TIMMS). UNICEF supported more in-depth analysis (curricula, teacher
instruction) and supported the development of new teacher training programmes (11) based on
the latest research for teacher professional development. The training of all primary education
teachers in grades 1-3 is through cascade training as a new model for teacher professional
development based on the latest research (12) and rigorous certification of teacher
competencies. To date 47% and 51% of 1-3 grade primary education teachers are trained, with
the aim to cover all lower grade primary education teachers in the country by 2014. All teacher
training faculties have incorporated the programme in their syllabi. A rigorous monitoring and
evaluation system that will help measure impact in students outcomes in numeracy/literacy
(impact on children‘s lives) established: baseline studies (13) were conducted and progress to be
measure every 3 years. Donors: UNICEF thematic funds.

Inclusive Education (2010-2015) – more in-depth assessment conducted to inform a system
approach to IE (14). Based on the findings and recommendations, teacher capacity to deliver IE
was identified as the most critical gap to be addressed. UNICEF supported development of five
modules and TOT based on these modules. ICF- CY framework is being introduced as a
framework for providing services to children with SEN and inter-sectoral cooperation, as well as
revision of the work of the commission for categorization that determines eligibility to services.
On the demand side, UNICEF supported the establishment of a parent resource center by
supporting capacity building for their engagement in advocacy, helping other parents,
demanding and accessing services for children with disabilities. Next steps are to start
implementation of IE in schools, as well as organization of and access to specialized services in
the community, supporting the development of sub-laws, funding formula, and data collection
by building on the already developed EMIS (currently not fully functional).

Multiculturalism and inter-ethnic relations in education (2009-2012) - UNICEF conducted a
baseline study to identify the capacity gaps of the education system at all levels in promoting
multiculturalism and inter-ethnic relations in education (15). Based on the study, key strategic
areas of intervention were selected- at curricular level - support to introduction and
implementation of the mandatory subject in primary and secondary education – development of
LSBE curricula, teacher manuals and introduction in in-service training program (16);
development of methodology for textbook development based on CFS (17), piloting of a model
of extracurricular activities in selected primary and secondary schools(18) and opening and
functioning of 4 youth centers. The programme has shown positive results in terms of impact at
the level of students participating in extracurricular activities and sustainability of supported
interventions (19).

Teacher Professional Development (2010-2015) -work with teacher training faculties on
including numeracy/literacy teacher instruction programmes in their syllabi led to a debate
about the need for alignment of pre-service and in-service teacher training, and drafting of
teacher competencies for numeracy/literacy by University Professors. The process will be used
to develop more general teacher competencies which will also include competencies related to
IE. UNICEF will provide this support in partnership with USAID in the new project on TPD
(planned to start early 2013)
37
Reference materials
(1) CFS standards;
(2) CFS Macedonia case study- http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/MK_CFS_CaseStudy(3).pdf
(3) CFS baseline study- Child Friendly School: A situation analysis for TFYR Macedonia
http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/CFS_BASELINE_STUDY_FINAL_ENG(4).pdf
(4) Law on primary education (2008)
(5) Concept for primary education (2008)
(6) Concept for secondary general education (2011)
(7) LSBE curricula: Primary LSBE curriculum 1-3 grades: http://bro.gov.mk/docs/osnovnoobrazovanie/zivotni_vestini.pdf
 LSBE curiculum 4-6: http://bro.gov.mk/docs/ivvi.pdf
 LSBE curiculum 7-9: http://bro.gov.mk/docs/viiix.pdf
 Secondary LSBE curriculum 1-4 year: http://app.bro.gov.mk/docs/np/ozv_nastavnaprograma.pdf
(8) Five LSBE Teacher training manuals in two languages of instruction (Macedonian and Albanian)
http://umd.gov.mk/priracnici.aspx
(9) School-self-evaluation manual
(10)Methodology for textbook development: http://bro.gov.mk/docs/Biro%20za%20obrazovanie%20%20koncepcija%20za%20izrabotka%20na%20ucebnik%20mk%20-%20za%20na%20web.pdf
(11)Teacher training manuals in numeracy and literacy
(12)Jan Westrick (2011) Transforming Early Literacy Instruction: An Effectiveness Study of the Local
Literacy Provider Training Program in Macedonia European Education, vol. 43, no. 4 (Winter 2011–
12), pp. 62–87B
(13)Baseline studies- numeracy and literacy:
 Literacy: http://mcgo.org.mk/pdf's/Konecen_Izvestaj_jazicnapismenost_ANG_WEB.pdf
 Numeracy: http://mcgo.org.mk/pdf's/Final-UNICEF%20Matematics%20Project%20Eng..pdf
(14)Inclusive education part of Child-Friendly School Framework:
http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/INCLUSIVE_REPORT_ENG.pdf
(15)
Multiculturalsim and Inter-ethnic relations in Education (UNICEF 2009)
http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/Study_ENGsm(1).pdf
http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/New_MKVersionsm2.pdf
http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/New_ALBVersion-gg1.pdf
(15)Life Skills Based Education manuals:
 for primary schools: http://umd.gov.mk/priracnici.aspx
 for secondary schools:
http://app.bro.gov.mk/docs/rabotni_listovi/Rabotni%20listovi%20za%20uchenici%20za%20post
avuvanje%20na%20web.pdf
(16)Methodology for textbooks review:
http://bro.gov.mk/docs/Biro%20za%20obrazovanie%20%20koncepcija%20za%20izrabotka%20na%20uc
ebnik%20mk%20-%20za%20na%20web.pdf
http://bro.gov.mk/docs/Biro%20za%20obrazovanie%20%20koncepcija%20za%20izrabotka%20na%20uc
ebnik%20ALB%20-%20za%20na%20web.pdf
(18)
Multicultural workshops manuals:
 http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/english_multi(3).pdf
 http://www.unicef.org/tfyrmacedonia/multi_mak.pdf
(19)
Evaluation of the MDG-F UN Joint Programme on Strengthening inter-ethnic dialogue and
cooperation in FYR Macedonia.
38
ANNEX 6
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SERBIA
Question 1: What is the impact result your office is planning to report on and document? An impact
result is expressed in terms of changes in children's life and reduction of equity gaps, and is
demonstrated by surveys, administrative data or other valid sources of information.
The primary school enrolment of Roma children in Serbia increased from 66% in 2005 (MICS 3) to 91% in
2010 (MICS 4).
Question 2: What is (are) the indicator(s) measuring the impact result being reported and documented?


Primary school enrolment rate disaggregated by gender, ethnicity (Roma) and geographic location;
Participation in preparatory pre-school programme.
Question 3: What are the system changes (removal of system bottlenecks) at national and/or local levels
- as a result of government and partners' interventions - that made the above-mentioned impact result
possible?
(1) Strengthening the Knowledge Base
a. 2005 MICS3 with Roma sample – this survey presented statistically significant and reliable data
on Roma and confirmed high levels of disparity. Data were also used for advocacy of all partners
and state actors committed to inclusive education, the basis for development of the legal
framework in 2008 and later for EU projects and state measures for social inclusion;
b. MICS4 2010 data - Slow increase in preschool enrolment is being used to advocate for greater
attention to and investment in this area within the national Education Strategy and for planning
of UNICEF’s early childhood development (ECD) interventions. The preliminary data sets were
used for: the preparation of the draft National Education Strategy; the Opinion of the European
Commission (EC) on Serbia’s Candidacy; Consultations on Roma in Serbia organized by the EC in
2011;
c. DevInfo database – this database gathers information from available surveys (household surveys,
MICS and census data) and administrative statistics and has enabled wider use of data for policy
development;
d. Roma Education Fund (REF), Open Society Foundation, Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction
Unit – large number of studies and policy impact assessments on measures targeting Roma.
39
(2) Improving strategic and regulatory framework
a. Strategic documents recognized Roma as vulnerable group and suggested measures for
advancing their position: Poverty Reduction Strategy -2003, Action plans for Advancing Status of
the Roma – 2005, the Strategy for Advancing the Status of the Roma 2009;
b. Newly Government adopted laws foster Roma inclusion - Law on Foundations of the Education
System (2009) and Law on Preschool Education (2010). The most important novelties regarding
Roma inclusion include the introduction of the free of charge preparatory preschool programs
and extension of obligatory schooling to 9 years, anti-discriminatory enrolment policy and
introduction of an Individual Education Plan.
(3) Improving quality
a) 2002 – up to now - Development of system for Professional Development of Teachers – In
service teacher training;
b) 2002 – up to now - Active Learning contributed to enhancement of teacher competencies in
general and their understanding of child-centered teaching and learning approaches in
particular;
c) Roma language with elements of the national culture, introduced in elementary schools is
currently realizing for 723 students in 27 elementary schools in 14 local governments in
autonomous province of Vojvodina;
d) High Professional Studies School "Mihajlo Palov" in Vrsac from 2010 educate teachers in the
Roma and Serbian language;
e) 2002 – up to now NGO projects aimed at Roma inclusion –– changing school ethos, improving
teacher competencies and piloting Roma assistants– Equal Chances in primary and in Secondary
Education – Found for an Open Society and Pestalozzi Foundation in the partnership with NGO
Center for Interactive Pedagogy;
f) Piloting Roma assistants, 2003-2009, Open Society Foundation, Roma Education Fund (REF),
OSCE (from 2006).
(4) Community mobilization and improvement of community services
a) Establishment of Inter-sectoral Committees - MoES, MLSP, MoH 2009 – up to now - Intersectoral committees that abolished categorization of children in special schools established and
functional in 149 LSGs;
b) 2009 – 2012 - Campaign for promotion of enrolment of Roma children in Serbia into the PPP and
first grade of primary school;
c) Local Action Plans for Roma Education - local partnerships for educational inclusion of Roma
children through municipal and school grants - Currently 94% of municipalities are implementing
at least one project for inclusive education; projects are supported through MoES/WB loan;
d) Roma Health Mediators, 2008-ongoing (MoH, EU,OSCE,WB/DILS, OSI, UNICEF) – are introduced
with an aim to improve access of Roma, primarily to health services but also to other social
services and rights;
e) Birth registration, 2007-2012 (UNICEF, UNHCR) - Birth Registration of vulnerable groups, but
primarily Roma through provision of free legal aid, public awareness campaign and advocacy for
revision of legislation;
f) Strengthening capacities of Roma NGOs, 2002 up to now - Open Society Foundation, REF,
UNICEF.
40
(5) Affirmative measures
a) Affirmative actions since 2005 for enrolment of Roma – MoES;
b) Secondary education enrolment of Roma through affirmative action: 40 children in 2005 increase to 483 in 2011-12;
c) Higher education enrolment of Roma through affirmative action- doubled from 2006-07 to 170
in 2011-12, and budget provides in this school year scholarships for 590 pupils and 240 students;
d) Scholarship mechanism in Province of Vojvodina (860 students 2007-2011) – REF - evaluation
available;2010 – up to now - Second Chance programme MoES/EU funds;
e) Scholarships for Roma students - 2002- up to now - Open Society Foundation, REF.
Question 4: What are the interventions supported by UNICEF that contributed to the above-mentioned
system changes - and therefore, to the impact result and equity gap reduction?
(1) Strengthening the Knowledge Base
a) MICS3, 2005 with Roma sample – this survey presented statistically significant and reliable data
on Roma and confirmed high levels of disparity. Data were also used for advocacy of all partners
and state actors committed to education inclusion, the basis for development of the legal
framework in 2008 and later for EU projects and state measures for social inclusion. Donor: GP
HQ, Canada, RR, SIDA Sweden; Budget: $ 175,100.
b) MICS4 2010 data - Slow increase in preschool enrolment is being used to advocate for greater
attention to and investment in this area within the national Education Strategy and for planning
of UNICEF’s early childhood development (ECD) interventions. The preliminary data sets were
used for: the preparation of the draft National Education Strategy; the Opinion of the EC on
Serbia’s Candidacy; Consultations on Roma in Serbia organized by the EC in 2011. Donor: GP HQ,
GS HQ, RR;
Budget: $ 448,100.
(2) Improving the strategic and regulatory framework
a) Vital contribution to the articulation of the first strategic document of Serbia in 2003.
Preparation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy that was the first strategic document for socioeconomic development on Serbia (UNICEF person was seconded to education team) that
recognized Roma as vulnerable group and defined Roma specific measures in the area of
education, health and social protection; Support to development of the National plan of Action
for children (2004) and support to the establishment of national Child Rights Council. These
documents served as a basis for development of the legal framework in 2008. Donor:
Luxemburg, Canada; Budget: $ 151,100.00.
(3) Improving quality
a) UNICEF, 2002 – up to now - Active Learning contributed to enhancement of teacher
competencies in general and their understanding of child-centred approach in particular. Donor:
Switzerland, Ireland, Luxemburg, Swiss Committee, German Committee, Canada, Netherlands,
UNDP-JP (SDC, SIDA, and Norway), USA BPRM, SDC, Thematic Education; Budget: $ 843,000.
41
b) UNICEF, MoES - Under the Serbian presidency of the Roma Decade, UNICEF was the initiator and
one of the organizers of the 2009 big Regional Conference in Belgrade on the right of Roma to
quality Education. The conference Outcome Document was a very important step for revising of
measures aimed at education inclusion of Roma. Donor: Thematic Education; Budget: $ 44,800.
(4) Community mobilization and improvement of community services
a) 2002 – 2009: Development Education Centres (DEC) as community based support to Roma
children’s inclusion, contributed to reforms in inclusive education and to the quality of the
teaching/learning process but also to mobilization of the community to support social inclusion
of Roma children. This was done primarily through modelling and sharing good practice, and
through effective awareness raising, capacity building and community outreach. The project was
implemented in 10 municipalities in South Serbia. Donor: USA BPRIM, Swiss Committee, German
Committee, Luxemburg, Ireland, Swiss Development Cooperation, RR; Budget: $ 1,027,750.
b) 2009 – 2012: Expanding access to education through public campaigns which focused on
increasing the enrolment rate of Roma children in PPP and in mainstream primary education,
and ensuring equal access and information to the Roma population on the new legal provisions,
implemented in 82 municipalities. The campaign was carried out through a partnership involving
the MoES, Ministry of Human and Minority Rights, Public Administration and Local SelfGovernments, Roma Education Fund, OSCE, Fund for an Open Society, Serbia, and UNICEF.
Donor: Swiss Development Cooperation; Budget: $ 9,000.
c) 2008-ongoing: Roma Mediators were introduced with an aim to improve access of Roma,
primarily to health services but also to other social services and rights. One of the main roles of
the mediators is to identify children who are out of the education system and help with their
enrollment. In 3 years, mediators provided services to more than 120.000 Roma, more than 40%
of them being children. Other partners contributing to this program were OSCE, OSI and WB
through DILS project. Donors: UNDP-JP (SDC, SIDA, Norway),Telenor; Budget: $ 76,000.
d) 2007-2012 (UNICEF, UNHCR) - Birth Registration of vulnerable groups, but primarily Roma was
facilitated through targeted national public awareness campaign, free legal aid for Roma
families and support in subsequent birth registration process. The model for the subsequent
registration and advocacy of UN and NGO partners resulted in simplification of procedures for
the subsequent registration, particularly for children. Birth registration was secured for around
1000 children as a basis for attainment of their rights, including a right to education. Donors:
SDC, Ireland, GS HQ, UNDP-JP(SDC, SIDA, Norway); Budget: $ 346,800.
42
ANNEX 7
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TURKEY
Question 1: What is the impact result your office is planning to report on and document? An impact
result is expressed in terms of changes in children's life and reduction of equity gaps, and is
demonstrated by surveys, administrative data or other valid sources of information.
Gender disparity in primary education has been reduced from 7.15% in 2003, to 0.37% in 2010-2011
(MONE Statistics). During the four years of the Girls Education Campaign, it was announced by MONE
that about 350,000 (250.000 girls and 100.000 boys) children were enrolled in school as a result of the
Campaign.
According to the e-school data (administrative data), 19,990 students were enrolled in catch-up
education program as of April 2010, with class information available for 12,876 of them. Out of those
who have completed CEP, 6,063 were successfully mainstreamed in primary school classes with their
peers and 3,909 students were transferred to formal education institutions according to their
performance. The provinces with the largest number of children attending catch-up education are
Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır and Istanbul. E-School data shows that 40.3% of these registered students were
already in school but three years behind their peers; 29.2% were children who had never been enrolled
in any school before catch-up education; and 18.7% were students who were constantly absent from
school. There is no data for 11.8% of registered students in e-school with regard to which target group
they belong to.
Question 2: What is (are) the indicator(s) measuring the impact result being reported and documented?



School enrolment rate;
Proportion and number of children out of school;
Gender parity index.
Question 3: What are the system changes (removal of system bottlenecks) at national and/or local levels
- as a result of government and partners' interventions - that made the above-mentioned impact result
possible?
Among system changes introduced to address the issue of out of school children in Turkey, in bold are
those directly or indirectly supported by UNICEF and explained further under question 4:

Policies and programmes in the education sector that aim to overcome the personal and familial
causes of exclusion from education include the ‘Hey Girls! Let’s Go to School!’ Campaign, distribution
of free textbooks and provision of free lunches for children and bussing;
43




Social protection policies that are in place:
- Policies aiming to decrease the direct effects of poverty on exclusion from education:
conditional education assistance, assistance for student housing, transportation and boarding,
education material assistance, and scholarships from MONE and DG for Social Aid Foundations;
- Policies aiming to decrease the indirect effects of poverty on exclusion from education: green
card and universal health insurance, and conditional health assistance;
- Policies that target certain groups of children with high risk of exclusion from education:
monthly payments for caring for disabled people, Social Support Programme, projects on child
labor, METİP, and the Social Services and Child Protection Agency’s work targeting children in
need of protection, are worth noting;
Governance and finance aspects of the social protection system include the centralized decision
making approach, inter-agency cooperation, coordination and information sharing, unique financial
structures and sources of revenues of SYDTF and DG for Foundation stand out;
Policies aiming to address the causes of exclusion from education related to the school
environment: development of minimum standards for basic education, efforts to expand basic
education during the early phases of the basic education reform, second chance education,
expansion of pre-primary education, development of the Gradual Absence Management Model,
and free transportation of children with disabilities;
Among the governance and finance practices in the education system that can be considered to be
effective are e-School Management Information System, revenues created to implement the basic
education reform, and the transition to a performance-based budgeting and management system.
Note: The details of above mentioned interventions could be found at UNICEF (2012) Out-of-School
Children Initiative, Turkey Draft Report, 2012 (only for internal use).
Question 4: What are the interventions supported by UNICEF that contributed to the above-mentioned
system changes - and therefore, to the impact result and equity gap reduction?
(1) The ‘Hey Girls Let’s Go to School’ Campaign to Support Girls’ Enrolment (2003-2010-nationwide
implemented and documentation is on-going).
By focusing on girls among the other children who are in the mandatory education age range but are
excluded from education, the campaign aimed to ensure access to quality education for all children.
As a result of the Campaign, the amount of conditional cash transfer for girls increased and fine for
late birth registration was suspended for a temporary period in order to encourage birth registration.
UNICEF’s Role: Had an impact on national priorities by breaking the silence about girls’ exclusion
from education and modeled social mobilization campaign. Several evaluations of the Campaign are
available.
(2) Strengthening existing management information system to monitor out-of school children (2007onwards, nationwide implemented).
Among the goals of the e-School Management Information System, which was established in 2007, is
the continuous monitoring of children who are excluded or are at risk of exclusion. As part of the
System, a comparison can be made between children registered in the population record who reach
44
the age of basic education and children at that age group who are enrolled in school. As a result,
those children who were out-of-school because they were not enrolled were identified; if they were
still residing in Turkey, efforts were undertaken to ensure their enrolment. Using this identification
process through the e-School Management Information System, the number of non-enrolled
children was brought from more than 300,000 in December 2008 down to 100,000 in December
2010. The data is also used for generating provincial report cards that are the basis for monitoring
trends and ensure accountability. The Inter-Agency Cooperation Protocol for Efforts to Monitor
Access to and Attendance in Basic Education Level, which was initiated by the DG for Primary
Education to strengthen and ensure the continuity of inter-agency cooperation, was signed by 17
public institutions and agencies, and came into force in 2011. It is likely that the positive impact of
the Protocol on inter-agency cooperation will be observed in a near future.
UNICEF’s Role: The e-School Management Information System became an important identification
and monitoring tool for non-enrolment and absenteeism as a result of UNICEF advocacy and
technical support.
(3) Catch-Up Education (2006-onwards, nationwide implemented and documented-pending for
clearance from MONE.
The Programme targets 10-to 14-year-olds who did not attend education with their peers, who
either never enrolled or enrolled but dropped-out. Its objective is to equip these children with the
capabilities necessary to attend school with their peers and to end their exclusion from education.
YSÖP is not a continuous education policy of MONE; it was initiated in 2008 as a transitional, timebound policy.
UNICEF’s Role: UNICEF advocated for the policy based on evidence generated from the filed during
the Girls’ Education Campaign. Financially and technically supported to develop and implement the
curricula, preparing the relevant legislation and implementation manual, preparing the curricula and
textbooks, strengthening the human resources for management and implementation at the local
level, trainings and seminars for teachers and inspectors to increase the effectiveness of the
program. Donor: EU
(4) Primary Education Standards nationally adopted (2007-onwords, being documented).
The Basic Education Institutional Standards aim to address the disparities between schools in terms
of the quality of education and to transform all schools into child friendly learning environments.
Basic Education Institutional Standards will identify the current conditions in schools regarding the
management, learning processes and support services, and put forth the difference between the
existing and standard conditions to be the basis for school improvement plan.
UNICEF’s Role: Technical support for developing, testing and expanding minimum standards,
measurement tools and software for primary education institutions and capacity building at the level
of province/district/school to implement the standards provided by UNICEF.
45
(5) The Gradual Absence Management Model developed (2009-onwards).
Aims to support and monitor the education needs of children at risk of absenteeism. In this regard,
functional definitions of absenteeism have been made, risk assessment forms have been prepared,
and action plans have been developed. Its implementation began in August 2011.
UNICEF’s Role: Capacity building and advocacy on how to identify children at risk of non-attendance
and drop out of school system at primary level.
(6) Produce evidence for policy change and modeling of targeted interventions.
UNICEF focused more on producing evidence on most disadvantaged group and problematic areas
especially after making progress in enrolment ratio and strengthening e-school data base to monitor
out-of school children to use for advocacy towards policy changes. The following researches have
been conducted in partnership with the Education Reform Initiative and policy recommendations
were prepared according with the research findings: Financial Management of Primary Education in
Turkey, Basic Determinants of Attendance and Non-Attendance in Primary Education in Turkey, and
Basic Determinants of Transition to Secondary Education, Late Enrolment in Primary Education:
Causes and Recommendations for Prevention, Out of School Children. Most of the recommendations
from late enrolment study were put into practice by MONE such as automatic enrolment of the
children who are at school age, which is pushing school for follow-up and also making them more
accountable.
Meanwhile, the process of developing more targeted intervention such as children in boarding
school, Roma children were supported by UNICEF and resulted in the preparation of an action plan
for improving Boarding Schools and an action plan for improving the education of Roma children.
Both Action Plans were used basis for fund raising efforts of MONE and UNICEF and EU project is in
the pipeline for Roma Children as a result.
UNICEF’s Role: Advocacy for evidence based policy change, capacity building for strategic planning
and modeling.
(7) EU funding mobilized for strengthening pre-primary education.
The Pre-School Education General Directorate and UNICEF have worked closely in exploring the
possibility of EU funding (16M€) which resulted in development of the EU funded project entitled
“Strengthening Pre-School Education”. UNICEF introduced the concept of community-based day care
and pre-school education models to accelerate access in pre-school education, which was accepted
by the Government. As part of the project, standards for pre-school education were developed; the
licensing and inspection systems will be revised in line with these standards. Pre-school curricula for
0-7 are also being revised and will be implemented nationwide after being piloted.
UNICEF’s Role: Leveraging resources and advocacy for alternative policies: provision of technical
support to the Pre-School Education General Directorate in expanding pre-school education and day
care services while improving the quality of education and technical support for expanding
community based pre-primary education and day care services and aligning them with monitoring
system of the Ministry of National Education.
46