Project Performance Audit Report

Marivic P. Dela Cruz

Description

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK PPA: BAN 23152 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ON THE PRIMARY EDUCATION SECTOR PROJECT (Loan 1026-BAN[SF]) IN BANGLADESH November 2000CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency Unit – Taka (Tk) At Appraisal At Project Completion At Operations Evaluation Tk1.00 = $0.029 $0.024 $0.018 $1.Tk34.56 Tk42.45 Tk54.80 ABBREVIATIONS ADB − Asian Development Bank BRAC − Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee DPE − Directorate of Primary Education DPEO − district primary education officer EA − executing agency EFA − Education for All FGD − focus group discussion GER − gross enrolment ratio GPS − government primary school GEP − General Education Project KRA − key result area LCB − local competitive bidding MIS − management information system MOE − Ministry of Education NER − net enrolment ratio NFPE − nonformal primary education NGO − nongovernment organization NORAD − Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation OEM − operations evaluation mission PCR − project completion report PIMU − project implementation management unit PMED − Primary and Mass Education Division PPAR − project performance audit report PTA − parent-teacher association SIDA − Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SMC − school management committee TA − technical assistance UNDP − United Nations Development Programme UNICEF − Unitions Children’s Fund UNFPA − United Nations Population ...

Informations

• Publié par: Nushong
• Nombre de lectures: 18
• Langue: English

Extrait

  ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK              

PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT   ON THE   PRIMARY EDUCATION SECTOR PROJECT (Loan 1026-BAN[SF])   IN   BANGLADESH             November 2000

PPA: BAN 23152

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS   Currency Unit – Taka (Tk)    At Appraisal At Project Completion At Operations Evaluation Tk1.00 = $0.029 $0.024 $0.018 $1.00 = Tk34.56 Tk42.45 Tk54.80   ABBREVIATIONS    ADB− Asian Development Bank BRAC− Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee DPE− of Primary Education Directorate DPEO− district primary education officer EA− agency executing EFA− for All Education FGD− focus group discussion GER− gross enrolment ratio GPS− primary school government GEP− Education Project General KRA− result area key LCB− competitive bidding local MIS− management information system MOE− Ministry of Education NER− enrolment ratio net NFPE− nonformal primary education NGO− organization nongovernment NORAD− Agency for Development Cooperation Norwegian OEM− operations evaluation mission PCR− project completion report PIMU   − project implementation management unit PMED− Primary and Mass Education Division PPAR− project performance audit report PTA− parent-teacher association SIDA   − International Development Cooperation Agency Swedish SMC− school management committee TA− assistance technical UNDP− United Nations Development Programme UNICEF− United Nations Children’s Fund UNFPA− Nations Population Fund United UPE− primary education universal   NOTES    fiscal year (FY) of the Government ends on 30 June.(i) The    (ii) Theschool year (SY) starts in January. (iii) In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.  

     

2

Operations Evaluation Office, PE-555

CONTENTS

BASIC DATA   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   I. BACKGROUND    A. Rationale  B. Formulation  C. Purpose and Outputs  D. Cost, Financing, and Executing Arrangements  E. Completion and Self-Evaluation  F. Operations Evaluation   II. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE    A. Formulation and Design  B. Cost and Scheduling  C. Consultant Performance, Procurement, and Construction  D. Organization and Management   III. ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT PURPOSE    A. Operational Performance  B. Performance of the Operating Entity   IV. ACHIEVEMENT OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS    A. Socioeconomic Impact  B. Environmental Impact  C. Impact on Institutions and Policy   V. OVERALL ASSESSMENT    A. Relevance  B. Efficacy  C. Efficiency  D. Sustainability  E. Institutional Development and Other Impacts  F. Overall Project Rating  G. Assessment of ADB and Borrower Performance   VI. ISSUES, LESSONS, AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS    A. Key Issues for the Future  B. Lessons Identified  C. Follow-Up Actions   APPENDIXES  

Page ii iii 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 19

As per ADB Loan Documents 81.64 23.96 68.31 50.79 0.00

  Actual 62.44 22.38 54.14 37.80 14.16

BASIC DATA Primary Education Sector Project (Loan 1026-BAN [SF]) PROJECT PREPARATION/INSTITUTION BUILDING TA No. TA Name Type Person-Months Amount($)Approval Date 1136-BAN    Pri S m ec a t r o y  r  Education  PPTA  100,000 10 March 1989     1359-BAN I S n tr st e it n u g ti t o h n e a n l i   n    g    of     AOTA 59.0 400,000 21 August 1990  Directorate of Primary Education     KEY PROJECT DATA($ million)   Total Project Cost Foreign Exchange Cost ADB Loan Amount/Utilization  SDR ADB Loan Amount/Cancellation   KEY DATES Expected Fact-Finding   Appraisal Loan Negotiations Board Approval Loan Agreement Loan Effectiveness 19 Nov 1990 First Disbursement Project Completion 31 Dec 1995 Loan Closing 31 May 1996 Months (effectiveness to completion) 59.27   KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS(%) PCR PPAR Appraisal Economic Internal Rate of Return — — — Financial Internal Rate of Return — — —   BORROWERGovernment of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh   EXECUTING AGENCYPrimary and Mass Education Division   MISSION DATA   Type of Mission No. of Missions Fact-Finding 1 Appraisal 1 Project Administration  Consultation 1  Inception 1  Special Loan Administration 3  Review 6  Project Completion 1

Actual 4-26 Jul 1989 16 Sep-6 Oct 1989 11-16 Jul 1990 21 Aug 1990 25 Oct 1990 10 Apr 1991 22 Jul 1991 31 Jan 1997 17 Jun 1997  69.79

No. of Person-Days 115 105   5 10 29 50 43

Operations Evaluation

5

1

30

— = not calculated, ADB = Asian Development Bank, AOTA = advisory and operational technical assistance, BAN = Bangladesh, PCR = project completion report, PPAR = project performance audit report, PPTA = project preparatory technical assistance, SDR = special drawing rights, TA = technical assistance.  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 The Primary Education Sector Project was only the second financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in support of primary education. It supported the Government’s commitment to achieve the twin goals of universal primary education and the eradication of illiteracy by the year 2000. At the time of appraisal (1989), more than 70 percent of the country’s 106 million people were illiterate, with significant differences between males and females, and between urban and rural populations. The gross enrolment ratio at the primary level (ages 6-10) was about 64 percent and the cohort survival rate up to Class 4 was only about 34 percent. The Project was approved in 1990. Its overall objective was to bring about equitable access to, and improve the quality and efficiency of, primary education. Equitable access was to be achieved through the provision of 272,400 pupil places in 1,050 new schools and 67,000 places in 2,240 nonformal primary education centers, more than 90 percent of which were to be located in remote rural areas. Quality was to be improved through implementing the revised curriculum, training teachers and administrators, providing textbooks, and rehabilitating dilapidated buildings. The Project covered only Chittagong Division (later divided into Chittagong and Sylhet divisions) as the other divisions were already covered by the World Bank and other aid agencies. Project formulation and design were consistent with, and relevant to, the Government’s goals and priorities as well as with ADB’s lending strategy. The Project aimed to achieve a number of objectives, specifically access and equity, quality, efficiency, and development of institutional capacity in primary education. However, aware of limitations of time, and of financial and other resources, the Government chose access and equity as its primary objective for the subsector at the time, effectively deferring the attainment of quality-related objectives. Thus, the Project essentially became an education-access project with ADB partners taking on most of the “software components,” i.e., United Nations Children’s Fund and United Nations Development Programme for staff development and local training, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and Directorate General for Development Cooperation for nonformal primary education, United Nations Population Fund for family planning, and Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation for textbook production. The total project cost was estimated at $81.6 million equivalent at appraisal of which the “hardware” components accounted for about 70 percent. ADB provided a loan of $68.31 million from its Special Funds resources. The actual cost of the Project at completion was $62.44 million equivalent (76 percent of the original estimate). Of this amount, the Government financed $8.31 million equivalent (13 percent), and ADB contributed $54.14 million (87 percent). The Project was completed in January 1997 with a delay of about 12 months. A project completion report, prepared in June 1998, concluded that the Project achieved most of the objectives set at appraisal and rated the Project as generally successful. The assessment, while being generally objective, would have been more balanced if it had pointed out the various deficiencies in quality and efficiency which were already evident at the time of the Project Completion Review Mission. Primary education enrolment in the project area rose from 3.96 million children in 1991 to 5.08 million children in 1998, an average increase of 3.7 percent per annum compared with the national average of 4.3 percent per annum during the same period. Correspondingly, the gross enrolment ratio in the project area rose from 64 to 95.2 percent during this period, a

2

significant achievement indeed. The net enrolment ratio was much lower at 80.8 percent, which implied that some 1.02 million children in the project area who were supposed to be in school were still out of school. Participation of girls in primary education has already come close to parity with boys but little has changed with respect to other disadvantaged groups, particularly ethnic minorities and children in slum areas. The Government’s strategic choice to provide access and, to some extent, equity in primary education, took its toll on the quality of education and internal efficiency. In order to accommodate the influx of pupils as a result of the Government campaign for universal primary education, all schools in the country had to go on a two-shift operation, significantly reducing contact hours by about 45 percent for Classes 1-2 and 50 percent for Classes 3-5. Class sizes were also allowed to increase to as many as 60-90 pupils per class. The pupil/teacher ratio rose to 59.3:1 nationally, and even as high as 107:1 and 91:1 in schools in Chittagong and Sylhet, respectively. The attendance rate remained low at 60-65 percent. However, the dropout rate was reduced from 59.3 percent in 1991 to 35 percent in 1998, while the completion rate increased from about 40 to 73 percent during this period. The increased qualification levels of teachers did not seem to have a significant impact on quality under these conditions. On average, the proportion of pupils who achieved basic learning competencies was only about 51.4 percent nationally, but this was lower in Chittagong and Sylhet at 40.6 and 36.3 percent, respectively. The time to complete the primary education cycle was also reduced from 8.9 years in 1991 (due to repetition) to 6.6 years in 1998. On the whole, with an 81 percent net enrolment rate, a 73 percent completion rate, and 51 percent of pupils achieving basic learning competencies, only about 30 percent of children leave primary school with the basic learning competencies.   During the last five years, the share of budgetary allocations for government primary schools has declined significantly and, consequently their share of enrolment numbers. Most of the growth has been absorbed by nongovernment schools where the Government provides only minimal support. On a per capita basis, the Government spent Tk953 per pupil in government schools and only Tk159 per pupil in nongovernment schools in 1998. This enabled the Government to realize significant savings. However, the quality of education is deteriorating. What is needed is a quantum leap in investments in classrooms and teachers, much more than what is programmed in the Perspective Development Plan. If quality is to be improved, class sizes and the pupil/teacher ratio need to be reduced, and contact hours increased. To achieve this, the Government has to contend not only with the incremental growth in enrolment, but also with the backlog, which is an even more daunting challenge. This is also a challenge to the Government’s partner development agencies, including ADB. Despite these problems, the Project continues to be relevant and consistent with the Government’s priorities as well as with ADB’s lending strategy, particularly the overarching objective of poverty reduction for Bangladesh. The Project has also achieved its primary objective of improving access to primary education and partly addressed the issue of equity. It has delivered the project inputs at less cost than estimated and shows very high utilization of the capital assets put in place, although the overall system efficiency is low. Sustainability of the gains achieved remains uncertain because of the magnitudes of resources still required, particularly in meeting demands for quality improvement. Other development impacts, especially on gender issues and on community participation, are noteworthy. Given all these considerations, the Project is rated as successful.

 

A. Rationale

3

I. BACKGROUND

1. The Primary Education Sector Project was only the second financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in support of primary education. 1  was part of the overall General It Education Project (GEP) of the Government of Bangladesh in support of its commitment to achieve universal primary education (UPE)—Classes 1-5, and the eradication of illiteracy by the year 2000 as contained in the Perspective Development Plan (1980-2000). 2 At the time of   appraisal (1989), more than 70 percent of the country’s 106 million people were illiterate, with significant differences between males and females, and between urban and rural populations. The gross enrollment ratio (GER) at the primary level (ages 6-10) was about 64 percent and the cohort survival rate up to Class 4 was only about 34 percent. The Government requested assistance from ADB for the subsector in 1980. However, it was only in 1988 that ADB was able to respond following the approval of the education paper 3  that recommended broadening the scope of ADB assistance.

B. Formulation

2. ADB provided technical assistance (TA) in March 1989 to prepare the Project within the framework of the UPE program for implementation under the Government’s Fourth Five-Year Plan (1990-1995). 4 At the time of project preparation, there were four administrative divisions in Bangladesh (today there are six). As the World Bank and other donor agencies were already assisting Dhaka, Khulna, and Rajshahi divisions (1980-1990), 5  Government requested for the ADB assistance to cover Chittagong Division. In 1989, Chittagong was divided into 15 districts with a total population of 28.5 million. There were 10,780 government primary schools (GPSs) with 3.1 million pupils (44 percent of these were girls). The Project was appraised in September- October 1989 and the loan became effective on 10 April 1991 (after three extensions). A project framework has been constructed for the purpose of this study and is shown in Appendix 1. A follow-up project (the second project) was approved on 22 May 1997. 6  

C. Purpose and Outputs

3. As part of the national UPE program, the overall objective of the Project was to assist the Government in (i) increasing equitable access to, and improving the quality, relevance, and efficiency of primary education; and (ii) addressing major issues in the subsector. Access to schools by disadvantaged rural children, especially girls, was to be increased through the provision of 272,450 new places in 1,050 new schools, and 67,000 new places in about 2,240 nonformal primary education (NFPE) centers (run by nongovernment organizations                                                 1 2 3 FS(N :)6-BA 102Loan   S bues Primary Education S e e t c a t r o g r e   t P   r y o e j a e r c   toved on 21 Augus t9109 . ll iofn y acerit.6002 ot  on, appr.3  fo milli   f e   r r e o   $ r  8 h 6 ttaoida , ci  quently, the Government moved th    Education and Development in Asia and the Pacific,ADB, approved in October 1988. 4  TA 1136-BAN:Primary Education Sector Project ch 1989., rov 5 h Sw, ised s’ndnuFihC erdloWlr daBknp orej  Two  po de01 nraM r fo00$100,0ap,  tide ynUoisnN tacofiere ed bnancm 041$ rw noillideuns ctfoP GEr  International Development Cooperation Agency, and United Nations Development Programme, and provided assistance to these three divisions. 6  Loan 1521-BAN(SF):Second Primary Education Sector Project, for $100 million, effective 9 December 1997.

4

[NGOs]). Quality and relevance of education were to be improved and internal efficiency raised through (i) implementing a revised primary education curriculum, (ii) training 60,800 teachers and school administrators, (iii) providing 16.4 million textbooks, (iv) replacing 980 dilapidated school buildings with new ones, and (v) strengthening the management capability of school administrators. The scope of civil works under the Project was increased due to the need to rehabilitate additional schools that suffered severe damage in a cyclone in April 1991. The Project comprised about 270 small subprojects and components (Appendix 2 shows appraisal versus actual delivery of project inputs). An advisory TA was implemented, four years after its approval, to develop and establish a management information system (MIS) (including benefit monitoring and evaluation), to conduct research studies for the formulation of policies and strategies for UPE, and to provide computer hardware and training for government staff. 7  

D. Cost, Financing, and Executing Arrangements

4. The total project cost at appraisal was estimated at $81.6 million equivalent, with a foreign exchange component of $24 million including $1.8 million in service charges (about 29 percent) and a local currency component of $57.7 million (about 71 percent). Of the total cost, the “hardware” components accounted for 71.5 percent (civil works, 43 percent; and equipment, instructional materials, and furniture, 28.5 percent). ADB provided a loan of $68.3 million from its Special Funds resources (84 percent of the total project cost). The Government was to finance part of the local currency cost estimated at $13.3 million equivalent from its own annual appropriation and from various aid agencies. At the time of appraisal, the Government advised ADB that it was seeking grant financing from other aid agencies for some of the components covered by the Project, and that a reallocation of the loan would need to be carried out once the grants had been committed. It is not possible to separate the contributions of other cofinancers, i.e., Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), as these are part of the bigger GEP. Details of the project cost and financing plan during appraisal are shown in Appendix 3. 5. The Ministry of Education (MOE) was the original Executing Agency (EA) for the Project. The Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) within the MOE was tasked with overall planning and organization. Because the Project was part of the national UPE program, funded by a host of aid agencies, a project coordination unit was established to ensure smooth coordination with various external and government agencies. For day-to-day implementation and administration, a project implementation management unit (PIMU) was established in Dhaka, headed by a full- time project director and assisted by a full staff complement. To establish a presence for monitoring project implementation at the division and district levels, the offices of the DPE deputy director and the 15 district primary education officers (DPEOs) in Chittagong were designated as division and district project coordination units, respectively. In 1992, the Primary and Mass Education Division (PMED), created directly under the office of the prime minister, took over the role of the EA. The DPE and the project coordination unit were subsequently transferred to PMED. Except for some initial transition problems due to the change to PMED as EA, the original executing arrangements essentially remained intact.

                                                7  TA 1359-BAN:of the Directorate of Primary EducationInstitutional Strengthening , for $400,000, approved on 21 August 1990.

E. Completion and Self-Evaluation

5

6. The Project was completed in January 1997. A Project Completion Review Mission was fielded in April 1998 and the project completion report (PCR) was circulated in June 1998. The PCR concluded that the Project had substantially achieved its objectives as set at appraisal. Equitable access to primary education was enhanced through the construction of 2,476 new school buildings with a total capacity of 667,950 pupil places, as well as the repair of 705 existing schools with a total capacity of 176,500 pupil places. These schools were mostly in rural and disadvantaged areas in Chittagong and Sylhet divisions where many ethnic minorities live. This contributed to the increase in the national GER from 76 in 1991 to 96.5 in 1998. Quality was supposed to have improved through implementing the revised curriculum, in-service training of teachers, printing 27.7 million sets of textbooks, and upgrading primary training institutes, although the other aid agencies funded and implemented these components. Management capability was strengthened through the training of 750 education officers and staff at the division, district, and thana (subdistrict) levels. This was also funded by UNDP and UNICEF (Appendix 2). Loan covenants were generally complied with except for the adoption of the policy of one teacher per class for all classes, and for the filling of staff vacancies (to ensure that the vacancy rate did not exceed 10 percent). The Government is addressing both of these issues under the second project. 7. The PCR noted that there were significant delays in loan effectiveness (three extensions) and in project inception due to the need to resurvey the initial selection of project sites. At the time, a number of aid agencies provided assistance for the post-cyclone rehabilitation of some primary schools that overlapped with some selected schools to be financed under the Project. 8 The selection of sites for the construction of new schools had to go through a lengthy approval process involving several administrative layers from thana education committee to district, division, and finally, central level committee. The PCR gave no explanation for the four-year delay in implementing the TA. 8. Given all the above considerations, the PCR rated the Project as generally successful. It also considered the performance of MOE and PMED to be good, the overall performance of the PIMU to be effective, and the performance of ADB to be satisfactory. Generally, the PCR assessment of the project performance was objective, but its assessment would have been more balanced if it had pointed out the shortcomings in the areas of quality and efficiency which were already evident at the time of the Project Completion Review Mission.

F. Operations Evaluation 

9. This project performance audit report (PPAR) presents an assessment of the Project’s effectiveness in terms of achieving its objectives, generating benefits, and ensuring the sustainability of its operations. It discusses issues of current relevance to the sector, identifies lessons, and presents follow-up actions that need to be taken by the Government and/or ADB. The choice of this Project for evaluation was timely and appropriate in view of the shift in the education portfolio of ADB toward a greater emphasis on basic education from the late 1980s. In the period 1990-1999, 12 projects in direct support of primary or basic education in 10 developing member countries (DMCs) of ADB have been approved in the total amount of

                                                8  These included European Union, Islamic Development Bank, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and the governments of Italy and Japan. These were not party to GEP.