PROJECT INFORMATION DOCUMENT (PID)
APPRAISAL STAGE
Report No.: AB4694
Project Name
/ Basic Education Project - Phase TwoRegion / EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Sector / Primary education (35%);Secondary education (35%);Pre-primary education (25%);General public administration sector (5%)
Project ID / P107845
Borrower(s) / REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Ministry of Finance
5 Mustakillik Sq.
Uzbekistan
100008
Tel: (998 71) 233-7073, 139-1132 Fax: (998 71) 144-5643
Implementing Agency
Ministry of Public Education
Uzbekistan
Environment Category / [ ] A [ ] B [X] C [ ] FI [ ] TBD (to be determined)
Date PID Prepared / April 20, 2009
Date of Appraisal Authorization / April 29, 2009
Date of Board Approval / June 25, 2009
1. Country and Sector Background
Uzbekistan is the fifth largest country in terms of territory in the former Soviet Union, and with 27 million inhabitants, the third largest population. It gained independence in 1991 and in 2007 the Atlas Gross National Income (GNI) per capita was estimated at US$730. Uzbek authorities have chosen a gradual approach to economic reform to minimize the social costs of transition. This gradualist state-led development approach, in which features of an open-market economy are introduced to the command and control system in a step-by-step manner, contrasts with the majority of transition countries who reformed much more quickly. Uzbekistan has a young and predominantly rural population – 65 percent of the total population lives in rural areas. Most of the poor are rural dwellers.
Uzbekistan’s economic strategy includes a strong focus on the maintenance of basic public services. Education spending for 2007 accounted for 25.1 percent of the total budget, and 7.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), considerably above the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average. The current situation is, however, a late response to the relative neglect experienced by the education sector during the early 1990’s. Real expenditures for education fell early in the transition, and recovered to pre-transition levels starting from 2001. Nonetheless, questions remain about the efficiency and labor market relevance of the current high public spending on education.
Until 2004, education expenditures concentrated on new programs to upgrade secondary vocational education, while acute funding shortages remained in general education (currently grades 1-9). The centerpiece of the Government’s education reform was the National Program for Personnel Training (NPPT), launched in 1997. This program fundamentally restructured secondary and higher education with the intention of providing the new skills required in the global economy.[1] At the same time, it aimed to raise the skill levels of future labor-market entrants by extending the duration of compulsory education from nine years to twelve years. This heavy investment in secondary vocational education resulted in general school education being largely neglected.
Meanwhile, enrollment and attendance rates in general education remain high at above 96 percent for all communities, with small variation by geographic location, and only a 2-3 percentage point difference between the communities with the highest and lowest rates. The main factors that hinder improvement of learning/teaching quality in general secondary schools are lack of teachers’ professional competence to promote active engagement by students in their own learning, insufficient and outdated equipment in classrooms and special rooms, poor provision of modern teaching aids, and ineffective use of available teaching aids and information technologies. Few schools have been able to create a stimulating atmosphere to encourage students to be masters of their learning and teachers to apply new teaching/learning methods, and to cooperate and to share best practice. And those few schools are not in the rural areas where most of the schools are located and the majority of the population resides.
There are also definite disparities in human and material resources between urban and rural schools. Schools in rural communities that are remote from both the rayon and oblast center fare the worst, in many instances receiving as little as half the share that is received in urban schools. For instance, only 38 percent of schools in these communities have sufficient numbers of rooms or desks, as compared to roughly 80 percent in urban schools. In addition only 37 percent of schools have sufficient number of teaching manuals as compared with 64 percent in urban areas – the latter by no means an acceptable level. The urban/rural disparities in school and teacher characteristics have a disproportionate effect on the poor, primarily because poverty is more prevalent in rural areas (the last poverty assessment in 2003 suggested 29.8 percent of poor in rural areas, compared to 22.6 percent in urban).
To address these issues, a School Education Development Program (SEDP), adopted by Presidential decree in May 2004, shifted the focus onto general education. Up until this time the Bank had maintained policy dialogue on education sector policies through a Living Standard Assessment (LSA) and Public Expenditure Review (PER) encouraging the government to shift the focus of their education programs towards general school education. A major breakthrough took place in May 2004 when the Government put forward the SEDP shifting the focus to general education.
2. Objectives
The overall objective of BEP2 is to continue supporting GoU’s efforts to improve effectiveness of teaching and learning through (1) targeted interventions in selected general secondary education schools and preschools in rural poor areas; (2) development of institutional capacity to assess student learning; and (3) adoption of predictable and transparent school budgets in selected oblasts.
3. Rationale for Bank Involvement
The Basic Education Project (BEP), initially one loan but later changed into a two-phase Adaptable Program Loan (APL), was designed to support the implementation of the SEDP. While the Government of Uzbekistan has focused its resources on school rehabilitation and construction, international financial institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and bilateral donors are providing support to other program components. The APL is complementary to ongoing reforms in the education sector while at the same time it strengthens pro-poor aspects of the Government’s SEDP by targeting the rural poor. Moreover, BEP is piloting a new mode of engagement with the government, whereby local citizens, stakeholders, and project beneficiaries are more closely and directly involved in project design and implementation. The first phase of the APL (BEP1) helped to build capacity, while the second phase (BEP2) will build upon and extend the capacity to encourage greater education reform.
From 2004 to 2009, SEDP invested $1.3 million in construction and rehabilitation of school buildings, provision of equipment (including IT equipment) and learning materials. The program was financed primarily by direct budget financing and funds of a targeted extra-budgetary School Development Fund accumulating an earmarked sales tax of 1 percent. Donor financing of US$200 million also provided support to the SEDP, including teacher training, equipment and learning materials.
4. Description
As BEP was originally designed as one loan, the design of BEP2, the second phase, is tightly tied to the first phase, building upon the capacity developed and lessons learned in implementation of the first phase to help the MoPE to implement new activities and foster broader education reform. The project combines targeted interventions to rural poor schools with interventions designed to make systemic change in the Uzbek education system.
The second phase of the program continues to have five closely related components grouped in two main areas. The first area consists of three interrelated components that are all oriented toward the improvement of learning and teaching conditions in general secondary schools located in rural and poor areas (Components 1, 2 and 3). [2] Learning materials, teacher training, school board activation and school improvement grants are targeted to project schools. The second area consists of two components that are oriented towards improving the efficiency, management and monitoring capacity of the sector (Components 4 and 5). These components develop a system of national assessment of student learning; build capacity for MoPE to monitor and evaluate; and implement and refine per capita financing of schools.
Component 1: Providing Learning Materials and Resources for Grades Five through Nine (Total estimated cost US$ 23.9 million of which IDA is US$ 22.5 million). The objective of this component is to improve the quality of teaching and learning in project schools through effective use learning materials and resources acquired under the project.
Compoent 2: Strengthening School-Based Training for Teachers and Directors in Schools and Preschools (Total estimated cost US$ 1.5 million of which IDA is US$ 1.4 million). The objective of this component is to change teaching in project schools and preschools towards a more interactive student-centered approach to improve learning outcomes.
Component 3: Strengthening School Boards and Providing Competitive Grants to Selected Schools for School Improvement (Total estimated cost US$ 2.9 million of which IDA is US$ 2.8 million). The objective of this component is to increase further the involvement of school boards in project schools and provide competitive funding for school improvement.
Component 4: Improving Education Financing, Budgeting and Management (Total estimated cost US$ 0.6 million of which IDA is US$ 0.4 million). The objective of this component is to improve education financing, budgeting and school management in selected oblasts.
Component 5: Support for Project Management and Results Management (Total estimated cost US$ 1.0 million of which IDA is US$ 0.9 million). The objective of this component is to implement national assessment of student learning and evaluate project effectiveness.
5. Financing
Source: / ($m.)BORROWER/RECIPIENT / 1.9
International Development Association (IDA) / 28
Total / 29.9
6. Implementation
The project will continue to be implemented directly by the MoPE, building on the capacity and knowledge developed under BEP1 regarding Bank procedures and the project. The Deputy Minister, as Project Director, will be responsible for overall leadership, management and oversight of the project with Heads of Departments responsible for implementation of specific components. The MoPE’s Department of Development and Organization of Education in General Schools will have overall implementation and coordination for Components 1 and 5; the Department for the Organization of Activities of Educational Institutions will have overall implementation and coordination for Components 2 and 3; and the MoPE’s Department of Financing, Accounting and Reporting will have overall implementation and coordination for Component 4. The Department of School Endowment (DSE) and the Finance and Accounting Department (FAD) will work with the teams on procurement and financial management issues.
To provide needed help and expertise in implementing the project, BEP2, like BEP1, will finance local consultants with relevant skills and experience. The support from the local consultants will help ensure that the MoPE implements the project in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Financing Agreement, the Project Appraisal Document, the Grants Manual and the Project Operations Manual.
7. Sustainability
The sustainability of the project depends on three key aspects: (1) GoU’s ownership of the project; (2) fiscal sustainability and cost effectiveness of project; and (3) institutional capacity building of technical and fiduciary staff.
The APL is a response to the GoU’s request to complement their financing plan of the SEDP. In addition, it supports the GoU’s move to per capita financing of schools. All project activities will be implemented through existing structures of the MoPE and thus, they will become an integral part of the MoPE’s normal plan of activities and program. Moreover, BEP2 builds on capacity already developed and documented under BEP1.
- Lessons Learned from Past Operations in the Country/Sector
A key lesson learned in BEP1 is that implementation in Uzbekistan always takes a long time due the highly hierarchical and controlled environment, including slow and lengthy decision making and procurement processes.
In addition, given that BEP includes some significant changes in how the MoPE, local schools and communities operate, including collecting and using data and the participation of communities in decision making, implementing these kinds of changes take even longer. The MoPE and the GoU have to understand and accept what is involved, including exactly what the changes are and why they will be beneficial.
The time to implement, especially the long lag in startup, emphasized the need for as much work up front as possible to meet implementation readiness conditions. Having early agreement on key specifics—such as the eligible list of learning materials under component 1 and the Grants Manual under component 4—is important so that implementation can begin more quickly.
Another lesson was the importance of bringing in the international experience of other countries so that the Uzbeks could see concrete examples of countries who have already reformed in the same areas as covered by BEP.
A final lesson concerned the learning curve for the MoPE as an implementing agency for a Bank-financed project. BEP1 was the first Bank financed education project and the first that the MoPE has enacted without a PIU, so the MoPE was learning both Bank procedures and how to implement without a PIU.
- Safeguard Policies (including public consultation)
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project / Yes / No
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) / [ ] / [x]
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) / [ ] / [x]
Pest Management (OP 4.09) / [ ] / [x]
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) / [ ] / [x]
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) / [ ] / [x]
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) / [ ] / [x]
Forests (OP/BP 4.36) / [ ] / [x]
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) / [ ] / [x]
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)[*] / [ ] / [x]
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) / [ ] / [x]
- List of Factual Technical Documents
· PAD for Uzbekistan Basic Education Project – Phase I
· The Basis for the Achievement of Strategic Goals, UNESCO, September, 2000.
· Doing Business around the World, 2004 (World Bank);
· The Public Expenditure Review (World Bank, 2005).
· Uzbekistan Regional Panel Survey, 2004.
· Republic of Uzbekistan: Living Standards Assessment Update, The World Bank
· Welfare Improvement Strategy Paper (2005-2010)
· World Development Indicators (2005)
- Contact point
Contact: Maureen Anne McLaughlin
Title: Lead Education Specialist
Tel: (202) 473-5860
Fax:
Email:
- For more information contact:
The InfoShop