External final evaluation of the Lesotho primary education program : consultant's final report

Though shortened by a year due to the closing of the USAID Mission, the project was a success. Major achievements include the enactment of the far-reaching Education Act of 1995, first published 1/17/96; a significant reduction in the number of underage children in Standard 1; progress in reducing the number of overage children in primary education; and establishment of a policy to restrict the number of repetitions in Standards 1-7. In addition, PEP completed the first 3.5 year cycle of training uncertified practicing teachers, adding 450 qualified teachers to the Teaching Service, and completed the first 3-year cycle of training unqualified head teachers, adding 105 qualified head teachers to the primary education system. The structure of the National Teacher Training College was reorganized to include three divisions: primary education, junior secondary education, and inservice education, each staffed with coordinators. PEP also increased the capacity of the Educational Management Information System (EMIS), which provides data on primary education for use in policymaking and budgeting. Finally, PEP helped construct new and refurbish some existing primary school classrooms in 5 of the 10 districts, revise and pilot test in 50 schools the syllabi for Standards 1-7, and plan a new curriculum database that will help the National Curriculum Development Centre to improve syllabi instructional materials and inservice programs for teachers. A Standard 3 Achievement test was developed that can be used to monitor effectiveness of primary school curriculum midway through its course. Procedures and programs for the Primary School Leaving Examination were updated. The following lessons were learned. (1) The greater the initial collaboration between donor and host government in determining Conditions Precedent (CPs), the greater the possibility of partnership. To this end, the donor should provide TA to the recipient throughout the project and not merely serve as an inspector. (2) Flexibility in determining host country compliance with CPs should be encouraged where political developments have taken place in the host country. At times, the CPs should be reworked. In the present case, the change from a military to a democratic government more than a year into the Education Program appeared to penalize the Government of Lesotho (GOL) and the Ministry of Education (MOE); the practice of democracy requires more extensive consultation to pass new legislation than do the practices of non-democratic governments. In general, there was nearly total support for requiring CPs for increments of donor funding, and for considering such CPs as essential to implementing educational reform. (3) When donors impose policy and institutional reforms requiring incremental changes but then withdraw support prematurely (as in this project), the host country is left without the wherewithal to complete its agenda. (4) USAID refilled the project officer position 6 times during the PEP's 5-year lifetime. This confused the MOE, as the six officers had varying views of how strictly to judge compliance with CPs. In this case, minutes of meetings between donor(s) and GOL/MOE is essential to reducing confusion of both parties on interpretation of CPs. (5) In multi-donor projects, it is important that collaboration and consultation occur on a regular, face-to-face basis between donors, and between donor(s) and recipients throughout the life of the project to foster and sustain a spirit of partnership. USAID/World Bank collaboration during the last 4 years was not as close as during the preparatory years.