Rural primary education

PES covers the period 2/83-4/85 and summarizes a special Ministry of Education (MOE) evaluation (PD-AAS-084) based on interviews with MOE and contractor staff and with teachers, directors, superintendents, and trainers. The project will achieve several of its outputs, but not its overall purpose. By 4/86 (the end of a 1-year extension period), the planned 2,100 classrooms will have been built and 700 (vs. a targeted 600) renovated, representing about 90% of national need. The classrooms are of excellent quality, but because of slowness in construction by the MOE, a private firm was hired to build the last 600. Procurement and distribution of furniture and supplies has been a problem; neither MOE systems nor various alternatives tried were fully satisfactory. Only 5 of a planned 600 teacher residences were built, due to lack of community support and teacher reluctance to live in remote areas. The planned nationwide maintenance system was scaled back; a very successful system involving an instruction manual, visits by promoters, and provision of supplies is being implemented in 5 (of 18) departments. A computer-based management information system developed under the project has been so successful that it could serve as a model for other countries. The MOE inservice teacher training unit was enlarged and extensive training given to its staff, who in turn trained 7,637 persons (all departmental supervisors and school superintendents, and 30% of primary school teachers). The training led to improved administrative communication and teacher morale, functioning of the nuclearization model, use of curricular innovations and new teaching techniques, and community participation. Even with these improvements, however, the efficiency of the primary school system as a whole has not improved due to limited host government funding for books, teachers, supervision, and educational innovations. It was learned that: (1) in the education sector, procurement is best performed by the private sector; (2) detailed and realistic planning can reduce costly delays and misunderstandings; (3) political pressure to achieve visible, quantifiable progress may impair educational quality and efficiency; and (4) complex education projects require administrative continuity (the project would have benefited from a competent, forceful long-term project manager).