Author: Cambridge Education Ltd and METCON Consultants
“With the aim to continuously improve transparency and use of evaluation, UNICEF Evaluation Office manages the "Global Evaluation Reports Oversight System". Within this system, an external independent company reviews and rates all evaluation reports. Please ensure that you check the quality of this evaluation report, whether it is “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Almost Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory” before using it. You will find the link to the quality rating below, labelled as ‘Part 2’ of the report.”
The basis for the Joint Evaluation lies in the Joint Financing Agreement of 2004 as one of two external evaluations, one at the mid-term and one at the expiry of the Programme.
The purpose of the evaluation is:
To provide information about the outcomes of Education for All (EFA) 2004-2009 that the Ministry of Education and Sports, donors and other education stakeholders can use for policy work and in the design of the School Sector Reform (SSR).
The Joint Evaluation of the EFA Programme 2004 – 2009 was undertaken by a team of five independent consultants, two international and three national, over a period of approximately 10 weeks from November 2008.
As specified in the Terms of Reference, the Joint Evaluation team prepared an Inception Report that was shared with the Government of Nepal (GoN) and the Development Partners (DPs) at an Inception Seminar on November 18th, 2008. After adjustments to the proposals made in the Inception Report, the substantial Programme documentation was studied; evaluation instruments were finalised; various stakeholders were interviewed; primary data was gathered from eight Districts representative of the development zones of Nepal with an emphasis on Districts with low ranking in terms of Human Resource Development Indices. Views on the EFA Programme were elicited from more than 300 people, representing parents, teachers, students, local Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), Village Development Committees (VDCs) and personnel of District Education Offices (DEOs), with a focus on women and disadvantaged groups.
The methodology used combined close study of documentation of the progress of the Programme from conception up to the present time, examination of national trends and the District variations of the key performance indicators with primary data collected from the selected eight Districts and from key stakeholders at the central level. The primary data is qualitative and represents the perceptions of stakeholders from students to development partners. The findings reported in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 emerge from the evaluators’ study of that primary data obtained through discussions and interviews. Causal connections are impossible to tie down with 100% certainty with the methodology adopted because of the lack of controls – for instance the existence of areas of the country where the interventions were not attempted. Thus, care has to be taken in the interpretation of the findings.
Findings are grouped under three headings based on the programme objectives, of Access and Equity, Quality and Efficiency and Institutional Capacity, including Finance, Planning and Audit.
Recommendations, of which there are 31 , are also grouped under the same headings of the findings, with a final trio of recommendations intended for design of the School Sector Reform. Along with each recommendation, Chapter 7 gives suggestions for effecting these recommendations.
PDF files require Acrobat Reader.