Terms of Reference for Review of the Early Childhood Education Sub-Sector in Solomon Islands

Transcription

1 Terms of Reference for Review of the Early Childhood Education Sub-Sector in Solomon Islands 1) Purpose of Assignment To conduct an ECE subsector review to guide the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MEHRD) in determining the most effective, sustainable and efficient education investment for young children in Solomon Islands that would result in improved policy, planning, budgeting, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in this sub-sector. 2) Background In , MEHRD participated in a joint UNICEF/World Bank Situation Analysis (SITAN) of the ECCE sub-sector. 1 The SITAN analyzed policies associated with an ECCE sub-sector (education, health, nutrition, WASH, child protection), as well as the quality of implementation in the areas of policy/legislation, and governance; human resources; curriculum, child assessment, and environment; performance monitoring and assessment; and community partnerships. Per the SITAN, The Government of Solomon Islands recognizes the importance of providing early learning opportunities for young children. In 2008, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MEHRD) endorsed a National Early Childhood Education Policy Statement, targeting ages 3-5, which states its commitment to develop a quality Early Childhood Education sector. This commitment has been reflected in both the National Education Action Plan, , and the Education Strategic Framework, However, the statement clearly identified in relation to quality practice, the payment and training of teachers, relevant curriculum, effective management, community awareness about the value of ECCE and children s access and participation in ECCE as challenges to the implementation of ECCE services. In the National Development Strategy, , ECE is recognized as a community-based system based on partnerships between government, churches, communities, and private enterprises; yet a standardized syllabus is mentioned as a needed strategy to improve and maintain education standards. The most recent Net Enrolment Rate (NER) figures in ECE were 30.5% in 2013, dropped from 32.5% in According to the 2011 SIEMIS, of the 1,313 total ECCE teachers, only 35% (456) are trained, leaving 65% (857) teachers without training. In April 2015 MEHRD records that there are 960 ECE teachers on the MEHRD payroll. Of this number, pending entry of SINU 2015 Graduation data, 57% (544) are trained. Of the remaining 43% (416) who have yet to complete training, almost all (96%; 399) have done introductory training, known as Field Based Training (FBT). There may still be some teachers in ECE 1 The SITAN was a joint report using World Bank s SABER: Systems Approach For Better Education Results" tool and UNICEF Pacific s NSA-ECD: National Situation Analysis Early Childhood Development tool. 2 Solomon Islands Education Management Information System (SIEMIS), 2011

2 Centres recorded against the Primary School Payroll. Teachers in Prep are recorded on the Primary Payroll. The total number of ECE Centres functioning in Solomon Islands is unknown at this time. For example, there were 556 ECEs operating in 2008 (337 registered, 219 unregistered), and 540 in 2011 (232 registered, 308 unregistered), but this had dropped to 467 in 2013 (338 registered, 129 unregistered). In April 2015 MEHRD can confirm that there are 283 registered ECE Centres It is recognised that SIEMIS data returns for ECE Centres is an issue because MEHRD is not fully aware of the numbers of ECE Centres that exist that are not receiving MEHRD funding and has not been able to verify the numbers of children enrolled in centres. Only registered ECE Centres are entitled to salary funding and school grants. In addition to existing ECE Centres that target young children aged 3-5 years, a preparatory prep year exists before formal enrolment into Primary Year 1. Prep was originally introduced in the late 1990s. In 2009, as the Early Childhood Education (ECE) sector was growing, the decision was taken to phase out the Prep Year. However, no plan for phasing out of prep was produced nor were the practicalities of this exercise communicated to schools. The result is that schools still have the prep year; a current consultancy focusing on Prep is presently underway, with results being included as a document review for the purpose of this TOR. MEHRD is in the midst of determining how best to move forward. There is a new Education Bill currently being finalised that will now include provisions that relate specifically to ECE. Also, MEHRD is preparing the design of a new Education Strategic Framework and a National Education Action Plan (NEAP) for 2016 onwards. Additionally, it intends to strengthen Provincial Education Action Plans (PEAP) by improving the quality of planning so that they are based on what Education Authorities are capable of implementing and with a reliable budget. The World Bank will be supporting costing of the new NEAP so it is important that the review can link with this activity so the various scenarios that will be explored can be costed and their affordability assessed. Consequently, there is a need for an ECE subsector review to guide the MEHRD in determining the most effective, sustainable and efficient investment for young children in Solomon Islands that result in more improved policy, planning, budgeting, implementation and M&E. To date, several studies have been recently conducted. Among them was the cost and financing of ECE carried out in This concluded that the implementation of the current ECE policy without the abolition of Prep classes was unaffordable but extending ECE opportunities to all five year-olds was likely to be able to be possible if existing education budget levels were continued. The situation analysis of preparatory education (report 2015) concluded that there was not educational justification for the continuation of Prep and recommended that reforms occur that transferred the current status of Prep to being considered the final year of ECE. As mentioned earlier, there has also been a situation analysis of early childhood development (ECD) and education (2014) providing insights into the current services provided to young children in Solomon Islands. These are important resource documents for the ECE sub-sector review. The need for and timing of the required ECE sub-sector review aligns with the Pacific Regional Council for Early Childhood Care and Education s (PRC4ECCE) recent development of the Pacific Guidelines for the Development of National Quality Frameworks for ECCE: Programming for Ages Three to Five. These Guidelines, formally endorsed by all 13 Pacific Island Education Ministers in April 2014, provide

3 governments with direction during ECE policy reviews, and advice on how to support early childhood as a collaborative sub-sector. The timing of this TOR also aligns with discussions on the post-2015 proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a specific goal and indicator related to early childhood: Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote life-long learning opportunities for all, with the related target of by 2030 ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education. 3) Scope of Work MEHRD has identified 6 potential scenarios that need to be investigated in order to make an evidenced base decision regarding future support to the ECE sub-sector. The proposed scenarios to be investigated by the MEHRD team with the support of a consultant are as follows: Scenario 1: Five year olds to attend current, existing preparatory classes using existing teachers that are paid by MEHRD with this being designated as the final year of ECE, moving 6 year olds in Prep to Year 1; while at the same time ensuring revised curriculum and teacher training reform. How can this option be rolled out nationally? What would be the implications for MEHRD? Is it affordable? Assuming scenario 1 is viable, explore further the following scenarios and what impact they could have on implementing Scenario 1 nationally and provide courses of action and recommendations: Scenario 2: Identify the best option for situation where there is an ECE Centre (children and teachers) catering for 3-5 year olds attached to a primary school. Note: If the ECE Centre is registered, then teachers are paid by the Government. Scenario 3: Explore options for 5 year old children in ECE Centres that are NOT attached to a primary school or schools with no existing prep, including equitable funding support from MEHRD so these children are not disadvantaged Scenario 4: Explore options for 5 year old children without current access to any community-based ECE Centres nor a Primary Schools due to distance or isolation? Are composite ECE and early grades options feasible and how can financial viability be assessed based on the numbers of children in that community? Scenario 5: Schools with no ECE Centres close by nor a Prep class. Scenario 6: What are the range of support options for 3-4 year olds in and out of ECE Centres currently supported by communities and/or MEHRD. This is based on an assumption that MEHRD will be concentrating its resources on ensuring expansion of access to quality ECE opportunities for 5 year olds Scenario/Features 7: Other scenarios or features that are not identified in this TOR that may be of significance to achieving the purpose of this review. For example: why is the current model for ECE using only one shift a day, when most countries use two shifts a day. This Terms of Reference is organized in such a way that it provides questions for the MEHRD team and its consultants to research within each of the five system components identified by PRC4ECCE s Pacific Guidelines that contribute to quality ECCE programming, as seen in the accompanying graphic.

4 The following questions, organized across the five systems components for quality ECCE per the PRC4ECCE s regional Guidelines, are meant to lead the comparison between the different scenarios for the future direction for ECE. These questions were developed during two consultation meetings by key stakeholders from MEHRD and are subject to modification or amendment during the initial phase of the consultancy as part of planning with the review team. To the extent possible, the questions should be investigated and incorporated in the final report. 5. Community Partnerships 4. Performance Monitoring, Assessment 1. Policy, Legislation, Governance Quality 3. Child Assessment, Curriculum, Environment 2. Human Resources 1. Policy, Legislation, Governance Sub-Components Key Questions Key Stakeholders Policy Legislation Elements and Funding and Costing Elements Governance Elements Human Resources Elements Curriculum, Child Assessment and Environment Elements 1.1 In what way can ECE be encouraged and linked to the basic education system? 1.2 What are the legislative support for institutionalization of ECE in SI? What is the current accountabilities of SIG to ECE? 1.3 Reviewing the existing ECE policy, what are the gaps compared to the regional Guidelines, and current implementation? Recommendations? 1.4 What funding options are available and affordable to improve ECE development, within MEHRD? Do policies target support to the most disadvantaged? To young children with disabilities? How can targeting be improved? 2. Human Resources Sub-Component Key Questions Key Stakeholders

5 Teacher Education/ Qualification/ On-going Professional Development Recruitment / Retention Teacher Professionalism What is the capacity within MEHRD national and provincial levels is it sufficient to implement ECE policy and activities? How do teachers access professional development opportunities? How do the current teacher training programs compare and link to each other, and align with current policy and curriculum expectations? SINU APTC Curriculum Development Unit 3. Curriculum, Child Assessment, Environment Sub-Component Key Questions Key Stakeholders Vision/ Principles Curriculum Development Curriculum Delivery Child Assessment (Child Development Outcomes) 3.1 Based on the scenarios, what would be the curriculum options? 3.2 Are there currently Minimum Quality Service Standards (MQSS) for various ECE services (kindy, govt preschool, prep) that define expected quality, per the regional Guidelines? Environment (Minimum Quality Standards) 4. Performance Monitoring and Assessment Sub-Component Key Questions Key Stakeholders Effective implementation of all components is monitored regularly to ensure quality outcomes Is there an overarching body that oversees all implementation across all stakeholders? Where, how, cost? 4.2 Are there clear roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder related to early childhood activities? 4.3 What current reporting systems are in place? Is the information collected useful, who uses/accesses the information reported, and for what purposes? 4.4 What ECE components are currently being captured in the SEIMIS system, and how might it be linked to regional All Ministries Provinical level - 2 or 3 School visits (monitoring)

6 PEDF M&E ECE indicators and improved? 4.5 What system of monitoring and assessment currently exists, and how can it be improved? 4.6 Is MQSS in place for ECE? 5. Family and Community Partnerships Sub-Component Key Questions Key Stakeholders Strategic Communication Community Ownership ECCE of Parent Teacher Associations School/Centre- Based Management (S/CBM) Is there any communication strategy and plan to inform communities of MEHRD policies? What training/programs for parenting education currently exist within MEHRD. 5.7 Are there any public-private partnerships that can be identified to cost-share ECE implementation? ECE Offices (MEHRD, EAs) Child Health Officers School health teams Parents PTAs ECE teachers Health community workers MEHRD also identifies that the current review will be limited due to gaps in current, accurate data about the ECE sub-sector. While data on teachers has improved significantly, there are significant gaps in knowledge in important areas. This includes: the extend of ECE provision in Solomon Islands, what is happening day-to-day at ECEs, what is the state of infrastructure, and teaching and learning resources, what is the impact of Field Based Training, and the overall supply and demand for qualified teachers. Therefore, although the review may set a framework and provide guidance for future policy development and resource allocation, how this can be implemented will depend on better information. This cannot be achieved in this review. Therefore an affordable mapping process is likely to be required. The review is required to provide some further guidance on how this should occur. The JICA volunteer in Isabel Province, Yosuke Hatate, has undertaken an extensive mapping exercise in the province and his expertise. It is expected that as part of the methodology his expertise should be utilised. Appendix Two identifies some options for the mapping process and areas where mapping would be useful. The review is expected to consider these as part of its investigation and reporting on future mapping requirements. 4) Methodology MEHRD will assemble a small team to lead the review with a consultant engaged to assist research and report writing. The details of the requirements of the consultancy are provided in Appendix One of these ToR.

7 The focus is on investigation the above six scenario options within the context of the system components and corresponding key questions that follow. In addition, the TOR is open to a consideration of options or identification of key features that may be included in improved models for ECE delivery. However, if new options or features are identified they must be integrated into the overall research with comparisons of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats provided for MEHRD consideration. Out of this research and analysis of each option, the consultant is expected to provide the MEHRD team and then later the MEHRD with an analytical report and set of recommendations for the way forward for ECE in Solomon Islands. The methodology will be refined once the consultant is engaged, has completed the desk review of the documents identified in Appendix Three, has had an opportunity to be briefed by the Under Secretary National Education Services (NES) and the ECE Head of Division, received any further instructions from the MEHRD Management Team and has had an opportunity to discuss matters with the MEHRD ECE Review Team. The refined methodology will be proposed in the Inception Report for the approval of the Under Secretary NES. Key requirements of the methodology are: 1. A desk review 2. Analysis of existing ECE network provision and identification of important gaps in data and information 3. Inception report that refines the review methodology 4. Field visits and stakeholder consultation 5. Identification of challenges and gaps 6. An Analytical Report 7. An assessment of further mapping requirements necessary to implement effectively and efficiently new ECE policy 5) Review Timeframe Mobilisation of MEHRD resources, including identification of ECE Review Team members and budget, should occur prior to the engagement of the consultant so that the consultant can use her/his time effectively. The consultant is engaged for 45 working days. It is highly desirable that the ECE Sub-sector review aligns with the timing of the NEAP and PEAP design and the World Bank costing support. Therefore, the ECE Review Team should be ready to commence by mid-june ) Review Costs and Responsibilities Consultant Costs UNICEF has agreed to fund the consultant fees up to a maximum amount agreed between itself and MEHRD. MEHRD will engage the consultant using the UNICEF Trust Fund Facility. MEHRD will fund other consultant costs, which include: Per Diem: 60 days (include weekends) x $236 = USD14,160 Flights: USD4,000 In-country travel: USD2,000 All other costs associated with the consultancy are to be met by the consultant.

8 MEHRD Review Team Costs Two MEHRD officers are allocated to the ECE Review Team. The Procurement Unit and Finance Division will, following input from the Under Secretary NES and the methodology contained in the Inception Report (as approved by the Management Team) will propose a budget for MEHRD Review Team costs for Coordination Team approval. MEHRD funding of its share of the review will be allocated from the 372 budget for Prep.

9 Appendix One MEHRD Early Childhood Education Sub-sector Review Support Consultant Terms of Reference A. Key Activities 1 Desk Review: Review documents listed in Appendix Three of the ECE Sub-sector Review ToR 2. Identification of current ECE provision: current primary schools with existing prep classes and teachers paid by MEHRD by province primary schools with attached ECE Centres for 3-5 year olds by each province primary schools with ECE Centres close to them (within 3-4 km or 30 min walk time) communities with no access to ECE Centres and primary schools due to distance 3 ( distance of 10 km or more walking or paddling canoe) Gaps in data and the impact of these gaps on likely review findings 3. Inception report on methodology and design for field visit and consultation with partners and their inclusion in conducting the review 4. Visit schools/field visit that are relevant to analysising possible scenarios and further refine key questions to answer 5. Identify key challenges and further information gaps related to each scenario Wherever applicable, for each scenario the sustainability, effectiveness and efficiency (cost, logistics and administrative matters) should be considered and if the NEAP and PEAP design team and the World Bank costing support inputs are occurring at the same time as the ECE review then there should be close consultation with these teams to avoid gaps and overlaps. 6. Analytical Report A final analytical report with key recommendations to be submitted for MEHRD Management Team approval consistent with the requirements of the ECE Sub-sector Review ToR that includes specific details of required changes to the 2008 ECE Policy if the review recommendations are accepted and that are consistent with any expected requirements of the new Education Act. The report should be in a format so, where possible, key components can be included in the new NEAP. 7. The mapping requirement recommendations and method Appendix Three of the ECE Sub-sector Review ToR provides details of mapping indicators that can be used to inform MEHRD of existing gaps in ECE services and the best way moving forward for ECE implementation. The review should assess this previous work and provide an assessment of further mapping requirements necessary to implement effectively and efficiently new ECE policy. This should only occur during the time the consultant is available if it does not risk jeopardising the quality of the Analytical Report. 3 Criteria for distance to be defined based Proposed TOR ECE Sub-Sector Review April

10 B The detailed deliverables are as follows: 1. An inception report including desk review of research, survey and policy documents. The report should include: project plan (activities and schedule); methodology (data collection tools, data sources, indicators and analysis plan vis-à-vis the key research questions); Annotated outline of the proposed Analytical Report. by end week two 2. Draft reports, which should incorporate specific realistic and achievable recommendations, that could inform design of a national ECE programme based on Scenario 1. The report should include the following: as specified in the Inception Report Be well-structured, logical, clear and complete. This includes an executive summary; findings, conclusions and recommendations based on evidence derived from the analysis; and relevant annexes. A rich selection of relevant tables, charts, maps and quotations ( voices of beneficiaries and other stakeholders) to visualize and illustrate key data, indicators, trends and core messages of the report. 3. Draft analytical report after program team inputs and comments have been incorporated by end of the second to last week of consultancy 4. Presentations (PowerPoint) on key findings and recommendations to key decision-makers. By on Monday of last week of consultancy 5. Final report submitted to the Under Secretary NES based on feedback received at presentation and any further follow up required with key stakeholders. By last day of consultancy Reports should be written in English. Please note that the contractor is responsible for ensuring that final reports are edited and proofread to ensure they are of publishable quality. C Duration of the consultancy An International consultant will be hired for 45 working days (22 days in a month) to starting in mid june 2015 to carry out the tasks outlined in the TOR. National staff from MEHRD will be engaged to provide additional support to the consultant. The World Bank as previous agreement with the MEHRD will carry out additional cost and financing exercises that the consultant should, if possible, incorporate into her/his report. In-country transport will be provided by MEHRD with no additional per diem. D Consultant s Work Place MEHRD will provide workspace during the duration of the contract; consultant is expected to provide their own computer. Proposed TOR ECE Sub-Sector Review April

11 E Qualification(s) or Specialized Knowledge/Experience Required and Responsibilities The individual selected must be able to demonstrate the following education, training, experience, skills and attitude: Masters in education, early childhood education highly recommended. Broadly-based experience of the education sector including early childhood, school readiness, curriculum, early grade literacy and numeracy, language issues ; experience with linkages to health, nutrition, and child protection issues a benefit Experience in similar contexts preferably in the Solomon Islands or Melanesia Research experience including conducting situation analyses or case studies using classroom observation tools and interviews using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Experience in costing of policies and implementation activities Ability to work collaboratively and respectively in cross-culturally settings, working with a range of stakeholders, ministerial and others. Experience in policy development; experience in multi-sectoral coordination considered an asset. Ability to provide mentoring and capacity building to colleagues Excellent written and oral communication skills Proposed TOR ECE Sub-Sector Review April

12 Appendix Two: Mapping A mapping activity of ECE in Solomon Islands is to be completed. This can be done with a team of national consultants working with provincial level staff, MEHRD staff, or volunteers. The mapping done by a JICA volunteer in Isabel province should be used as a model, as well as lessons learned to improve the data collection process. The below data points for collection include both indicators from the Isabel mapping as well as additional indicators identified as needed value added to this TOR. As much as possible, the data collection and reporting should be aligned and merged with the official SIEMIS data system of MEHRD; for example using SIEMIS as the first-stop in data collection for specific indicators. This mapping deliverable should include the following issues and data points to inform MEHRD on the future direction of ECE activities: Status of ECE Centres - Registration yes/no, # if yes, year established, by who, operated by who, closest primary school (same village yes/no, name, distance, travel time). Distance of ECE centre to local health clinic, health services. Land ownership status. Facility, equipment, etc building (permanent, semi-, leaf, other), toilet (flush, latrine, none), water (piped, roof/rain tank, stream, tippy taps, none), power (main, solar, generator, none). Ability to safeguard resources and maintain classroom set up and decorations (Y = closed and locked doors, locked cabinet, locked storage container; N = shared facilities with others). Meet minimum quality service standards Y/N. Community mother tongue, teacher mother tongue. Enrolment in 2014, expected in 2015, by age and gender, total #. # of children with disabilities aged 2-5 identified in community, enrolled. Compared to census (% NER). Distance house to closest ECE centre. Population projection to Teachers position/role, full-/part-time, duty (teaching, admin, both), training status (qualified, FBT, untrained), employment status (contract, permanent, other), salary (paid SIG, community, other; unpaid). Teaching qualification (Certificate SINU, other; Diploma SINU, other; Bachelors Education; graduate diploma education; Masters education; PhD education; other). Staff house Y/N. # teachers per ECE school, by enrolment, by qualifications. Management School/community based management Y/N. PTA Y/N. Budget Y/N. ECE Centre income (SIG grant; SIG remote grant; salary paid community/sig; provincial grant; SIG student grant; EA grant; school fees; community fund; other). Annual expenditure (resources; salary; utilities; transport; admin; repair and maintenance). Proposed TOR ECE Sub-Sector Review April

13 Appendix Three: Documents for Desk Review Government Documents National Development Strategy, (July 2011) Education Bill 2014, revised (MEHRD) Cost and Financing Study of ECE Situation Analysis of preparatory Education Administrative Policy Document Policies and Strategic Plans o National Education Action Plan o 2008 ECE Policy (MEHRD) o 2013 Schools Literacy Policy and Strategy (MEHRD) o National Children s Policy and Action Plan (MWYCFA) o National Child Health Strategic Plan (MHMS) o Inclusive Education Policy (MEHRD) o National Curriculum Statement (2013), o Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Development and Implementation of the National Curriculum in Solomon Islands (2013) o Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Use of Vernacular Language and English Education in Solomon Islands (2010) Strategic Plans (MEHRD, MHMS, MWYCFA) Monitoring Standards (MEHRD, MHMS, MWYCFA) National Advisory Committee on Children Curriculum framework for ECE ECE Teacher Handbook (Draft) Other relevant documents available on Additional documents as identified by stakeholders for inclusion: o Financing/Budget Reports (MEHRD, MHMS, MWYCFA) o Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks (MEHRD, MHMS, MWYCFA) o Inspectorate Reports (MEHRD, MHMS, MWYCFA) Reports Pacific Guidelines for the Development of National Quality Frameworks for ECCE: Programming for Ages Three to Five (PRC4ECCE; UNICEF Pacific, 2014) Solomon Islands Early Childhood Development SABER-ECD and NSA-ECD Country Report and Executive Summary (UNICEF/World Bank, 2013) Some Key Issues in Early Childhood Education (ECE) Discussion Paper, May 2014 Draft Report on ECE Costing, Minford (2014) Completed report on Preparatory Year Proposed TOR ECE Sub-Sector Review April