Project Administration Memorandum

The project administration memorandum is an active document, progressively updated and revised as necessary, particularly following any changes in project or program costs, scope, or implementation arrangements. This document, however, may not reflect the latest project or program changes.

Project Number: 34285 (Loan Number 2220)April 2008

Samoa: Education Sector Project II

Education Sector Project II (ESP II)

Project Implementation and Administration Manual

1 December 2006

Government of Samoa

ADB . AusAID . NZAID

i

PREAMBLE

The Project Implementation and Administration Manual (PIAM) is a guide to the Development Partners (DP), Executing Agency (EA), Implementation Agency (IA) and other Donors on the agreed implementation and administration requirements of the Development Partners. The PIAM provides concise and detailed aspects of project implementation as follows:

I. specifies roles and responsibilities of the Development Partners, EA, IA and consultants for the various actions required forsatisfactory project implementation;

II. contains a logical framework, including subsequent revisions that confirm the goal, purpose, outputs, activities, inputs, targets, indicators, key assumptions, and risks;

III. provides a framework and checklist for monitoring progress to allow remedial actions and midstream modifications to meet project objectives;

IV. promotes systematic monitoring and evaluation of project objectives, and assessment of impacts on project beneficiaries through surveys, studies, and periodic and midterm reviews;

V. provides the format and instructions for the EA and implementing agency to periodically update the project performance report in its current revised format; and

VI. references ADB’s Anticorruption Policy, indicating how ADB may be contacted about allegations of corruption and fraud.

ii

SECTION 1: TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 Contents

Annexes:Annex 1 - Glossary

Section 2 Project Summary

A ADB Processing Activities B Amount and Terms of Loan C Conditions of Loan Effectivity D Summary

Section 3 Project Description

A ObjectivesB OutcomesC Project CostD Implementation PeriodE Project Composition – Cross Cutting Issues F Detailed Description of Components

Section 4 Design and Monitoring Framework

Section 5 Cost Estimates and Financing Plan

A Cost EstimatesB Financing PlanC Partial Administration Services D NZAID and AusAID Contributions

Section 6 Implementation Arrangement and Schedule

A Project Management B Education Steering Committee C Coordinating Development Partner D Implementation Period E Feasibility and Sustainability

Annexes:Annex 1 - MESC Organisation ChartAnnex 2 - Project Management and Implementation ArrangementsAnnex 3 - Implementation Schedule Annex 4 – ESP II Secretariat Charter Annex 5 – ESP II Project Management Strategy

Section 7 Consultants

A Basic Principles B Anti Corruption Policy C Conflict of Interest D Eligibility E Requirements under the Project F ADB’s Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS)

ProceduresG Monitoring the Consultant Recruitment Process

Annexes:Annex 1 - Summary of Consulting Services RequirementsAnnex 2 - Outline Terms of Reference Annex 3 - Summary of Quality Cost Based SelectionProcedures (QCBS) for Loan Projects Annex 4 – Consultant Recruitment Activity Monitoring (CRAM)Annex 5 – Using CRAM for Loan Projects

Section 8 Procurement

A Introduction and General Principles B Procurement Arrangement under the Project

a. ADB Procedures for International Competitive Bidding (ICB) b. National Competitive Bidding (NCB)

C Government of Samoa NCB Procurement Procedures D MisprocurementE Procurement Contract Monitoring F Intellectual Property

Annexes:Annex 1 – List of ADB Member Countries Annex 2 – Indicative Procurement Packages Annex 3 – Procurement under International Competitive Bidding (with no Prequalification) Annex 4 - Procurement under International CompetitiveBidding (with no Prequalification) Annex 5 - Procurement Contract Monitoring SheetAnnex 6 – Project Procurement Strategy Annex 7 – Building Procurement Options for the MESC Headquarters Building

Section 9 Disbursement

A General Principles of Disbursement under ESP II B Basic Principles of ADB Loan Disbursement C ADB Loan Regulations D Loan Cancellation

2

E Disbursement Arrangements under ESPII F Guidelines and Practices G Requirements for Disbursement H Allocation of Loan Proceeds I Imprest Fund Procedure J Special Purpose Account Procedure K Direct Payment L Other Instructions M PCSS Number N Statement of Expenditure (SOE) Procedure O Co Financing P Disbursement Reports

Annexes:Annex 1 – Disbursement Letter from ADB Annex 2 – Example of Comfort Letter an Imprest AccountAnnex 3 – Withdrawal Application – Initial Advance Annex 4 – Estimate of Expenditure for Imprest Account Annex 5 – Withdrawal Application - Replenishment Annex 6 – Special Purposes Account Reconciliation StatementAnnex 7 – ADB Summary Sheet Annex 8 – Withdrawal Application – Direct Payment/ReimbursementAnnex 9 – Summary Sheet for Direct Payment / ReimbursementAnnex 10 – Withdrawal Application - Replenishment Annex 11 – SOE Summary Sheet Annex 12 – ESP II Operation of Special Purpose Account

Section 10 Project Monitoring and Evaluation

A Monitoring and Evaluation B Annual Plans C Monitoring and Evaluation Systems D Project Reviews and Reports E Risk Management

Annexes:Annex 1 – Monitoring and Evaluation Annex 2 – Pro Forma of the ESP II Quarterly Project Progress ReportAnnex 3 – ESP II Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Annex 4 – Risk Management Matrix Annex 5 – Annual Plan Year 1 Annex 6 Annual Plan Year 2

3

Section 11 Reports

A IntroductionB Content and Format C Reports Required by Development Partners D Progress Performance Reports (PPR) E Project Completion Report (PCR) F Contract Awards and Disbursement Projections

Annexes:Annex 1 – Framework and Guidelines in Calculating Project Progress Annex 2 - Contract Award and Projections Worksheet

Section 12 Audit Requirement

A IntroductionB ADB Specific Audit Requirements C Audit Objective and Scope D Monitoring Compliance with Submission of Audited

Project Account

Annexes:Annex 1 – Letter on Financial and Audit Requirements Annex 2 – Audit Completion Checklist Annex 3 – Model Audit Opinion for a Non-Revenue Earning Project

Section 13 Loan Agreement

Section 14 Anti-Corruption Policies of ADB

Section 15 Design Changes

Section 16 Implementation Of The Associated Technical Assistance Project

A Impact and Output B Cost and Financing C Methodology and Key Activities D Implementation Arrangements

Annexes:Annex 1 – Design and Monitoring Framework Annex 2 – Technical Assistance for the NationalTeacher Development Framework - Terms of Reference for Consultants

Section 17 Key Persons Involved in the Project

Section 18 Report and Recommendation of the ADB President

Section 19 Consolidated Funding Arrangement

Section 20 Partner Harmonisation Framework

4

Section 1 Annex 1

PIAM GLOSSARY

ACEO Assistant Chief Executive Officer ADB Asian Development Bank AMU Asset Management Unit APPR Annual Progress Performance Report AusAID Australian Agency for International Development C-DP Coordinating Development Partner CDT Component Design Team CEDC Community Education Development Coordinator CEO Chief Executive Officer CFA Consolidated Funding Arrangement CLC Community Learning Centre CMAD Curriculum Materials and Assessment Division CSD Corporate Services Division EA Executing Agency EBU Education Broadcasting Unit ESC Education Steering Committee ESP Education Sector Project ESPP MESC Strategic Policies and Plan July 2006 – June 2015 DP Development Partners FBEAP Forum Basic Education Action Plan FedMM Forum Education Ministers Meeting FOE Faculty of Education GoS Government of Samoa HQ HeadquartersHRD Human Resource Development ICB International Competitive Bidding ICT Information and Communication Technology IPTDE In-Service and Pre-Service Teacher Development Expert/s ISP Institutional Strengthening ProjectJRM Joint Review Mission LCB Local Competitive Bidding M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDGs Millennium Development Goals MESC Samoa Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture METI Matuaile’o’o Environment Trustee Incorporated MOF Samoa Ministry of Finance NAPF National Assessment Policy Framework NAPFS National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist NCPF National Curriculum Policy Framework NTDF National Teacher Development Framework NUS National University of Samoa NZAID New Zealand Agency for International Development OCEO Office of the Chief Executive Officer PAM Project Administration Manual

5

PCMS Procurement Contract Monitoring System PCR Project Completion Report PE Physical Education PEMP Primary Education Materials Project PEO Principal Education Officer PHF Partner Harmonization Framework PDD Project Design Document PID Project Implementation Document PIAM Project Implementation and Administration Manual PMT Project Management Team PPRD Policy, Planning and Research DivisionPRIDE Pacific Regional Initiative in the Delivery of Education PSSC Pacific Secondary School Certificate QCBS Quality- and Cost-Based Selection QPPR Quarterly Project Performance Reports RFPs Requests for Proposal RMIT Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology RRP Regional Report to the President SAS Schools’ Assessment Specialist SBEC Small Business Enterprise Centre SDS Strategy for the Development of Samoa 2005-2007 SMART Student Assessment Management and Achievement Record

TransferSOD School Operations Division SOE Statement of Expenditure SPBEA South Pacific Board of Educational Assessment SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SQA Samoa Qualifications Authority SRO School Review Officers SSECRP Samoa Secondary Education Curriculum and Resources Project SUNGO Samoa Umbrella for Non Governmental Organisations SWAp Sector Wide Approach TA Technical Assistance TORs Terms of Reference TTT Training and Technology Transfer UNDP United Nations Development Program USP University of the South Pacific

6

SECTION 2: PROJECT SUMMARY

A. ADB Processing Activities

a. PPTA No./Title: Education Sector Project II

4256-SAM

b. PPTA Amount $350,000c. PPTA Utilization $341,351d PPTA Approval Date 16 December 2003 e. PPTA Closing Date 28 March 2006 f. Fact-Finding 30 May – 6 June 2005 g. MRM 14 July 2005 h. Appraisal Mission 10-25 August 2005 i. SRC Meeting 14 November 2005 j. Loan Negotiations 17-19 November 2005 k. Board Approval 16 December 2005 l. Loan Signing 5 June 2006

Component Design Mission 5 June 2006 Inception Mission 9-23 June 2006 Loan Effectiveness 14 August 2006 MESC HQ Feasibility Missions 13-29 June 2005 Design Appraisal Mission September 2006 Loan Closing Date 30 June 2013

B. Amount and Terms of Loan and Grant

a. Loan Amount SDR 5.655 million (approx. US$8.060

million)b. Terms 32 years c. Percent of Commitment Charge 1% and 1.5% d. Grace Period 8 years e. First Payment Due Date 15 May 2014 f. Last Payment Due Date 15 November 2037 g. Grant Co-Financing:

AusAIDNew Zealand

US$8.60 million US$8.60 million

h. Government of Samoa contribution

US$4.74 million

Section 2 1

C. Conditions of Loan Effectivity

Article VI of the Loan Agreement specifies the following as additional conditions for loan effectiveness:

(a) Section 6.01 - The Co-Financing Agreement1 satisfactory to ADB, shall have been duly executed and delivered on behalf of each of the Borrower, AusAID and NZAID and shall have become effective on each such party in accordance with its terms, subject only to the effectiveness of the Loan Agreement.

(b) Section 6.02 – For purposes of Section 9.02(D) of the Loan Regulations, to be included in the opinion or opinions to be furnished to ADB: the Co-Financing Agreement has been duly authorized or ratified by, and executed and delivered on behalf of, each of the Borrower, AusAID and NZAID, and is effective upon each party in accordance with its term, subject only to the effectiveness of the Loan Agreement.

D. Summary

PartnerGovernment / Borrower

Independent State of Samoa

Classification Targeting classification: Targeted intervention Sector: Education Sub sector: Education sector development Theme: Inclusive social development Sub themes: Human development, other vulnerable groups

EnvironmentAssessment

Category C: Environmental implications were reviewed. The Project is unlikely to have adverse environmental impacts. Construction of school buildings and the MESC headquarters will follow the Government of Samoa’s environmental planning guidelines.

Rationale Despite many positive achievements in education since 1995, the quality of education as measured by test results and functional literacy remains disappointing. The Samoa primary education literacylevel one (year 4) and two (year 6) tests, which assess students at risk of not reaching literacy and numeracy standards, as well as year 8 examinations, indicate unsatisfactory results. For example, in year 4, students at risk in English increased from 29% in

1 This document is now called the Consolidated Funding Arrangement (CFA), signed on 29 May 2006.

Section 2 2

1997 to 51% in 2003; in year 6, students at risk in numeracy increased from 63% in 1997 to 71% in 2003. In year 8, raw scores in all five subject areas tested declined. At the secondary level, scores on the year 12 examination in the 15 subject areas declined over the 5 years between 1997 and 2002, although they increased in most subjects in 2003. Although questions may be asked about the reliability, validity, and suitability of these tests to accurately measure changes in student performance over time, fundamental problems are affecting school education in Samoa. These include low capacity to provide high-quality learning opportunities and learning environment in government schools, and ensure these are available to all students, and are delivered efficiently. In addition, a large number of students enrolling in primary education do not complete the 8-year program. Dropout and repetition rates are high, indicating inefficiency in the school system.

While upgrading of primary schools is supported by European Union and Japan International Cooperation Agency micro projects, no such financing is available for upgrading and rehabilitating secondary schools in rural areas. While the education sector is an explicit budget priority, available resources are often not managed cost-effectively. In recent years, financing of basic and secondary education has decreased, which may have contributed to the decline in performance levels. The Government’s education policy development unit is weak, and needs substantive capacity building in making sound policies for managing service delivery effectively.

The Project addresses several priority areas in education service delivery. The conditions of learning are unsatisfactory especially in disadvantaged areas. Textbooks are not always available in the quantities required, the primary curriculum is over 25 years old and is not integrated with the new secondary curriculum, and many teachers are unfamiliar with effective instructional practice. A new secondary school curriculum has been adopted, but teachers need training and technical support to implement it

Section 2 3

and adopt new teaching methods in the classroom. External support has been mainly through projects, but coordination of externally assisted and Government-funded programs has often been poor. The Project will continue and complement support initiated under the first Education Sector Project (ESP I) and other externally funded projects to address these issues, and focus on effective coordination through the Government’s leadership.

Impact and Outcome

The Project supports the establishment of a more equitable and effective education system that enhances learning outcomes of young people for further study, work, and adult life. The specific outcome will be enhanced quality of education by improving the curriculum; assessment; learning materials; teaching practice; and equitable access to trained teachers, facilities, furniture, and equipment. The Project will focus on the gaps in educational service provision for children from disadvantaged areas. It will specifically target secondary schools in rural areas not supported by the ESP I, and provide system wide support for enhancing equity, quality, relevance, efficiency and sustainability of service delivery for primary and secondary education.

The Project will align the financial contributions and engagement of three development partners: the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), and New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), with a Government-led sector development program. The implementation arrangements are designed to promote greater local ownership, alignment with local systems, and aid harmonization as agreed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2005. These arrangements will have a longer term outcome on sustainable capacity building.

Cost Estimates The total cost of the Project is estimated at US$30.00 million equivalent. Of this amount, the foreign exchange cost is estimated at US$19.92 million equivalent (66.4%), and the local currency cost at US$10.08 million equivalent (33.6%).

Financing Plan ADB will provide a loan of US$8.06 million

Section 2 4

equivalent, or 26.8% of the total project cost. The loan will finance US$6.28 million equivalent of the foreign exchange cost (31.5%) and US$1.78 million equivalent of the local currency cost (17.7%). AusAID and NZAID will each provide grant co-financing of $8.60 million equivalent (28.7% of the total cost). The grant co-financing will be partially administered by ADB and subject to ADB guidelines and procedures for procurement of goods and services of consultants. The Government will contribute the remaining US$4.74 million equivalent, or 15.8%.

AusAID = Australian Agency for International Development. NZAID = New Zealand Agency for International Development. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

US$ million Item Foreign

ExchangeLocal

Currency TotalCost

Percent

ADB 6.28 1.78 8.06 26.8

AusAID 6.63 1.97 8.60 28.7NZAID 6.63 1.97 8.60 28.7Government of Samoa 0.38 4.36 4.74 15.8

Total 19.92 10.08 30.00 100.0

Loan Amount and Terms

A loan of US$8.06 million from ADB’s Special Funds resources will be provided. The loan will have a 32-year term including a grace period of 8 years, with an interest charge of 1% per annum and 1.5% per annum thereafter. The Project will finance activities in the education sector through a project loan modality.

Period of Utilization

Until 30 June 2013

Estimated Project Completion Date

31 December 2012

Executing Agency Samoa Ministry of Finance

ImplementationArrangements

The Project will be managed and implemented under a single framework. The Implementing Agency will be the Samoa Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture (MESC). Strategic direction and oversight for the Project will be provided by the Education Steering Committee. MESC will have overall responsibility for day-to-day management of project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and

Section 2 5

reporting of progress. At the operational level, the Project will be managed by the MESC Core Executive, comprising the chief executive officer and assistant chief executive officers, and supported by the Office of the Chief Executive Officer and a project coordinator. All elements of the Project will be implemented through the existing MESC organisational structure. Responsibility for each component will rest with the appropriate Assistant Chief Executive Officer and be implemented by staff of the relevant division.

The project implementation structure for the Project aligns with the MESC structure. The current project management team, established for ESP I, is planned to become an integral part of MESC’s organisationalstructure as an assets management unit. It will have responsibility for procurement of goods and services for all the components, and overall responsibility for day-to-day coordination and management of component 3 implementation, monitoring, evaluation of progress, and reporting to the MESC Core Executive Group. An effective project management and monitoring system will be crucial to project implementation. Consulting services will be provided to strengthen capacity of the Core Executive to deliver the Project and future development projects effectively under component 5.

Procurement All goods and services financed under the Project will be procured in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines for Procurement and the Government’s guidelines for procurement acceptable to the DP. The contract for MESC headquarters estimated to cost more than US$1,000,000 will be awarded following ADB’s International Competitive Bidding procedures. All the other contracts under the Project will be awarded following national competitive bidding in accordance with Government procedures acceptable to the DP.

ConsultingServices

The Project will provide about 428 person-months of domestic consulting and 150.5 person months of international consulting services. All international and associated domestic consultants will be selected and recruited in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the

Section 2 6

Use of Consultants and other arrangements satisfactory to the DP for engaging domestic consultants. All international consulting services will be provided by either firms or individuals, in each case determined by MOF. The domestic consulting services will cover all services except for the project implementation. The Project will use Quality- and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) method for recruitment of firms. The Project will provide consultant services for primary curriculum development, assessment system, information communication technology, audio visual specialist, bilingual, primary subject area specialist, advocacy, pre-service and in-service teacher development, public opinion assessment, education equipment procurement, civil works, education research methods, education sector expenditure review, education sector planning, and project management monitoring, and evaluation.

Project Benefits and Beneficiaries

The Project focuses on systematic improvement in the quality of service delivery through improved curriculum, development and delivery of learning materials, development of a national assessment system, improved teacher training and better learning environments. The long-term benefits will be derived from stronger institutional capacity delivering improved learning outcomes. About 40,000 primary school students will benefit from quality improvements through the Project. Schools with a large number of pupils at risk of dropping out will be targeted. These interventions are expected to strengthen Samoa’s human resources and provide an opportunity for poor people to participate in and benefit from development.

About 15,000 secondary students will benefit from more relevant multimedia learning materials in science and agricultural science. Students on the islands of Savai’i and Upolu will benefit from the services of itinerant design technology and agriculture science teachers. The school environment of selected secondary schools and three colleges in disadvantaged areas will be upgraded to the national standard. Offering relevant, well-taught curriculum is an important incentive in

Section 2 7

attracting and keeping students in school. Qualitative system improvements, through relevant curriculum and better learning environments, will result in higher test results, and lower dropout and repetition rates. The existence of a high-quality district secondary school will improve primary school participation and completion rates, and complement investments in parent and community advocacy campaigns.

MESC’s capacity will be strengthened through the provision of a new headquarters building that will improve the management environment and increase productivity. Further the Project will provide support for research and evaluation programs which will generate reliable measurement indicators and support evidence based policy development. This will improve the Government’s policy and planning development capacity and delivery of services. The Project will also strengthen MESC’s capacity in the day-to-day management, evaluation, monitoring, and implementation of development projects, leading to opportunities for a sector wide approach in the future.

Risks and Assumptions

The Government is highly committed to ensuring equity, quality, efficiency, relevance and sustainability in education. This requires more resources targeted at poor communities. However, political pressures may constrain this and the ability to rationalize the system to use resources cost-effectively. The development and implementation of appropriate policies to use resources equitably and efficiently is required. During project implementation, dialogue with the Government will seek equitable distribution, sustainable and cost-effective use of resources. The Project does not foresee any major social risks, and will ensure benefits independent of gender and enhance equity by targeting low-performing schools.

Sustainability risks include: (i) insufficient recurrent budgets to finance non-salary recurrent inputs, especially in the primary and secondary sub-sectors; (ii) deterioration of facilities due to lack of maintenance; (iii) low return of investments in teacher training due to attrition from the teaching

Section 2 8

force; and (iv) future underutilization of new secondary facilities due to internal migration.

To mitigate risks, the Project will (i) provide substantial support to materials development, teacher training, and other quality enhancements as a bridging strategy to provide continuity, while assisting the Government to develop an overall policy for the education sector and a financing framework that will assure adequate support to basic education operation and maintenance costs (reflected in the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture Strategic Policies and Plan, 2006–2015); (ii) support development of policies and procedures for maintenance and protection of assets (addressed as part of the Strategic Policies and Plan framework); (iii) through technical assistance (TA) attached to the Project, build capacity for teacher development - housing incentives may attract and retain the teachers in the system and improvements in physical work environments and the introduction of innovative teaching techniques will improve teacher job satisfaction; and (iv) improve efficiency by rationalizing school provision. ADB will continue policy dialogue for rationalization of the education system to release scarce resources, and will assist MESC in developing student flow and simulation models to ensure that investments in civil works are appropriately sited.

TechnicalAssistance

ADB will provide an additional $350,000 equivalent as a TA grant from the ADB-funded TA program. The TA will establish a framework for developing effective approaches for teacher development programs essential for longer term sustainability of the project activities (Appendix 5 of the RRP provides details of the TA). The grant will cover the entire foreign exchange cost of $281,000 and $69,000 equivalent of the local currency cost. The Government will contribute $100,000 equivalent to finance the remaining local currency cost.

Section 2 9

SECTION 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Objectives The ESP II Project supports a six year program that integrates infrastructure-based activities and funding research studies, activities focusing on curriculum development and teacher training, and the construction of the MESC headquarters building.

The overall Project Impact (goal)1 is to help GoS establish a more equitable and effective education system that will enhance learning outcomes of young people for further study, work, and adult life. The objectives of the Project are linked to the achievement of relevant Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and are consistent with the intentions of the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan July 2006-June 2015, and other national strategies. The Project also supports the objectives of the MESC Corporate Plan 2006-2009.

ESP II focuses on primary and secondary education, but in addition, is explicitly designed to build the capacity within MESC and other GoS agencies required to handle a full sector-wide funding approach for education by strengthening in particular the capacity for policy analysis, monitoring and evaluation, procurement and financial management.

The project is expected to make a major contribution to achieving the GoS and MESC priorities and targets for the sector by increasing equitable access to primary and secondary education and improving the quality of teaching and learning and strengthening the national capacity for policy development program, design and implementation.

B. Outcomes The Project outcome will be the enhanced quality of education through improving the curriculum, assessment procedures, learning materials, and teaching practice; and providing equitable access to trained teachers, facilities, furniture, and equipment.

Quality improvement is central to reaching the project outcomes and will be supported by improvements in the curriculum, assessment procedures, learning materials, and teaching practice; and the provision of equitable access to trained teachers, facilities, furniture, and equipment. In addition, Project implementation explicitly supports capacity building of MESC staff to ensure that by the end of the project they will be able to undertake all Project planning, management and delivery tasks expected in the context of a sector-wide

1 The terms ‘Impact’ and ‘Outcome’ at the higher levels of analysis used in the ADB RRP more or less correspond to the Project’s

‘goal’ and purpose’ in standard design documents

Section 3 1

approach. The outcomes, outputs and targets/indicators are included and referenced in the Design and Monitoring Framework (Section 4).

The Design and Monitoring Framework outlines how the various activities arestructured into outputs and components, and how they relate to the Project’s performance targets and indicators. These are, in turn, linked to the higher level outcomes anticipated from ESP II. The PIAM’s revised framework, component structure and implementation schedule reflects MESC’s wishes for an integrated program. It more closely reflects actual implementation, improves sequencing and will facilitate monitoring and evaluation over the course of the Project. The indicators and targets in the Design and Monitoring Framework are organized so that the output can be clearly related to the higher-level outcomes and against the Project’s goal and purpose. A separate Risk Management Matrix (Section 10 Annex 4) has been developed to include mitigation strategies, and how risk will be addressed in the Project in order to strengthen the original matrix.

Communities will be important stakeholders in monitoring these outcomes. It isassumed that Project-specific monitoring and evaluation processes and tools will be utilized by donors and MESC to ensure that these communities will be active participants in commenting on and analyzing Project impact.

C. Project Cost The PIAM updates the Project costs and their distribution between the components. However the broad proportions of funds directed to infrastructure, curriculum, teacher training and so on have been maintained as specified in the ADB RPP of December 2005. Further detail is provided within original parameters and details have been clarified as needed. The construction costs are based on global 2005 estimates; they have not been upgraded to reflect the higher than expected 2006 price increases. The flexibility of Project delivery will mitigate most of the impact of these sudden changes in costs. A full cost schedule by component and type of expenditure (following the ADB format), with projected cash flow for the six years of the Project is contained in Section 6.

Annual Plans will reflect a logical sequencing of the project activities indicating the milestones, and risks. A 6-year implementation schedule reflecting the linkages between various activities will be important to highlight how project activities work together to achieve the Project outcomes.

D. Implementation Period The Project will be implemented over 6 years, however most activities under the components are scheduled for the first five years commencing from financial year 2006/07. The major activities scheduled for Year 6 are related to finalising

Section 3 2

school construction and completion of building inspections. Project completion is therefore timed for financial year 2011/12. ADB loan effectiveness occurred on 14 August 2006, and Project completion is scheduled for December 2012. The Implementation Schedule (in summary and component detail form) for the Project is included in Section 6.

E. Project Composition - Cross Cutting issues Gender has been incorporated throughout the Project components and in key outcomes and indicators in the Design and Monitoring Framework. Gender issues affect in particular components 1 and 2, where gender sensitive curriculum and learning materials will be developed and gender sensitivity training will be carried out. In addition some gender training in relation to Component 3 has been incorporated because of the nature of gender participation, construction and procurement practices in Samoa and elsewhere in the world. Gender issues will become part of research activities and analysis under Component 4, particularly in the area of the first two priority research projects (teacher effectiveness and student low achievement and completion rates, which suggest that boys are disengaging from formal education). Further gender related issues might be developed as part of additional research programs. Finally, under Component 5, as management of ESP II will involve all members of the Core Executive, and is likely to provide positive role models for women and men within MESC.

Similarly all ESP II activities and components will incorporate human rights considerations. ESP II supports MESC goals and objectives that relate to human rights principles and are contained in sector and corporate plans. The Project will continue to advocate for the rights of the child in access to and equity of educational opportunities through all components. Teaching practices and curriculum development will be developed in line with human rights principles. Prior to the development of any module, manual or program, overarching principles, including human rights, treatment of minorities and gender principles, as well as project specific requirements, will be made explicit.

Active community participation will allow all to comment, assess and explore progress and concepts as part of the Project, which is essential in promoting and valuing civil society. This will be achieved largely through the normal operating practices used to engage educational communities by the SOD through its Communication Strategy and overall operational practices. All schools have parent bodies and through formalised mechanisms are able to monitor educational service delivery and contribute to policy development. As part of the Project, MESC will inform and involve communities about the progress of the Project, in all its facets, including construction, curriculum, assessment and improved pedagogical expectations of teachers. The pilot project at Fagaloa aims to provide the community with broad access to formal

Section 3 3

and informal educational opportunities and provide them with mechanisms to make government accountable.

F. Detailed Description of Components

The Project has five components:

1. Introducing curriculum reform and assessment systems; 2. Developing effective teachers; 3. Improving access to quality education; 4. Strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy

analysis, and planning; and 5. Strengthening capacity to implement and manage development

projects

Component 1: Introducing Curriculum Reform and Assessment Systems This component will ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn and acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes specified in the national curriculum. It also provides opportunity for continuing education aimed at strengthening families and communities. Many of the activities under this component are the continuation and extension of work of previous projects. For example, the Primary Education Materials Project (PEMP) and the Samoa Secondary Education Curriculum and Resources Project (SSECRP) both assisted in the development of new curriculum and instructional materials.

Output 1.1 New Primary Curriculum The new curriculum and the related instructional materials will emphasise more active, child-centred learning activities in the classroom, and assessment techniques essential for high-quality learning. The Project will support - through the provision of consulting services and training - the development of a curriculum for Years 1 to 8 that will support more effective instruction and be consistent with MESC’s bilingual education policy, the National Curriculum Policy Framework, and the National Special Needs Policy. A subject statementwill be developed for each of 9 subjects in both English and Samoan languages. These will integrate values articulated in the National Curriculum Policy Framework and assist students experiencing learning difficulties and those with special needs. The new curriculum will be supplied in both print and CDROM formats.

The subject statement and curriculum support development process is designedto provide opportunities for consultation with interested individuals and relevant stakeholder groups during the curriculum review, writing brief development and subject statements and support materials development phases. It is further

Section 3 4

designed to strengthen local capacity for sustainable curriculum and materials development.

The main features of the process include national primary subject committees to fulfil and endorsement, review and monitoring role. The membership of subjectcommittees includes experienced teachers from both government and non-government schools, lecturers from the National University of Samoa with subject specific expertise, lecturers from the FOE, representatives of specific interest groups such as special needs associations, the medical profession, suicide prevention groups and so on. These committees report to the National Curriculum Council through the ACEO of the Curriculum Materials and Assessment Division (CMAD). The relevant CMAD adviser acts as the executive officer for each Subject Committee.

Primary curriculum and materials writers will be contracted to assist MESC in developing a curriculum statement and a teachers’ manual for the specified primary curriculum area. The writers will work in consultation with the relevant subject committee, the Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist whose main tasks are to provide expert advice on directions, approaches, formats, development, and quality assurance processes; a Subject Specialist/Reviewer who will provide technical advice, review and provide feedback to the writers and subject committees on the development of each subject curriculum statement and teachers’ manuals; and the Language and Bilingual Specialist who advises on the implications of first and second language development for curriculum development and teaching approaches.

The process builds and strengthens the established structures MESC has been using over the last ten years for curriculum and materials production through both the PEMP and SSECRP projects. International assistance is limited to the position of Curriculum and Materials Specialist, while in all other key roles, it is expected that local capacity will be available.

The design, implementation and review processes of curriculum reform ensure there is strong Samoa ownership of the developments through strengthening capacity for active participation and growing the human resource capacity forself-reliance.

Output 1.2 Adequate Supply of Learning Materials and Teacher Manuals The Project will improve MESC’s capacity for producing audiovisual learning materials. The development of supplementary graded readers in Samoan and English is an important objective to support implementation of the new primary curriculum and the bilingual education policy. These will cover a range of topics, which will thematically link with other subjects in Science, Mathematics, Social Studies, Health, Physical Education, Visual, Performing Arts and Music, as well

Section 3 5

as the everyday lives of students. A strategic plan will be developed to ensure that readers are constantly written and prepared.

The Project will support the provision of learning materials in the form of a general learning kit and a Science kit for each Year level. Curriculum support materials, in the form of teachers’ manuals, will be developed and provide teachers with sequenced instructional activities related to outcome objectives. These will be organised on a subject basis to support the scope and sequence of learning within each subject and include integrated units where cross-curriculum learning is deemed logical and appropriate. Along with instructional activities, sample assessment tasks and student work samples will assist in benchmarking student performance and help teachers to assess student progress and growth. The teachers’ manuals will be compiled at each Year level in loose-leaf folders that remain the property of the school. The teachers’ manuals will be supplied in both print and CDROM formats. The curriculum review and renew process will ensure that gender stereotypes, if any, are removed from the content of the curriculum support materials. Further, supplementary material for Special Needs Education will be developed to assist these students with the new Primary curriculum. The Project will provide consulting services and training to support these activities.

At the secondary level, an important priority is the introduction of multimedia methods for Science and Agricultural Sciences education. Currently the country has a shortage of trained secondary teachers in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Agricultural Science. Although the teacher is the critical component in learning, students can still learn through means other than face-to-face instruction. New multimedia approaches for learning including video, learning software for computers, radio, and television have considerable potential to enhance learning. The capacity of the Education Broadcasting Unit will be developed through project-provided consulting services and training to prepare multimedia materials for Science and Agricultural science. In-service training will be conducted to introduce the multimedia materials. Results will be evaluated, and if successful, production can be expanded to other subject areas.

As previously mentioned, the design utilises an integrated approach as far as it is possible and appropriate. The ongoing system of teacher training provides one illustration of the integration principle. The content, timing and approach to teacher training are drawn from a number of sources: the formal performance appraisal of teachers; the monitoring of the quality of teaching and learning program, and the yield of project activities. The resulting mix is a program of on-going in-service training that is supplied through national workshops, clusters of schools with common needs, school-based workshops for individual schools, and individual teacher fellowships. The SOD of MESC collects the data, and through analysis determines the annual program of in-service training through balancing the various needs. Some of the activities in Component 2, Developing

Section 3 6

Effective Teachers are aimed at strengthening the Ministry’s capacity to analyse teacher quality data and match this to relevant training programs.

Output 1.3 Community Partnerships Program for Demand Generation and Improved Learning Outcomes The subcomponent will provide technical support for a home-school literacy partnership for one pilot school, and the development of the Fagaloa community education learning centre program. The pilot will be implemented in two phases: Phase 1 will involve around 6-12 months of consultations and planning, while Phase 2 will be implementation of the pilot program itself.

The home-school partnership program is drawn from recognition that schools bythemselves have been unable to meet the basic literacy education needs of all students and the need therefore to involve the communities in literacy education. The partnership focuses on enhancing student literacy achievement through strengthening teachers and principals skills in using student achievement data. Parents and the community will also be helped to understand and use student achievement data to help students do better. An important feature of the program targets capacity building at various levels. The professional competence and literacy facility of teachers will be targets of systematic professional development programs. School principals will be trained on how to become professional school leaders with a thorough understanding of reading and writing and their overall assessment of the school’s strengths as well as ways in which the school should be organised and the teachers supported to achieve the best literacy results. School communities will also undergo specific training to raise their literacy levels as well as how they can best support their children in learning the appropriate literacy skills and knowledge. The MESC staff will receive capacity building in the area of literacy policy development, implementation and monitoring.

Activities will result in strengthened families and communities with high expectations and support for the learning of their family members, including those with special education needs. Project activities will support a community learning centre (constructed under Component 3) that encourages involvement, sparks interest, and develops community capacity. A resources kit will be developed to suit the specific needs of the school-community partnership. Alternative means of delivery will be considered, as will the involvement of other GoS departments and agencies and tertiary institutions. Programs will be developed and implemented for priorities identified by the community that may include continuing education, livelihood and income-generation activities. The partnerships program will be built on principles of ownership, continuity and sustainability. Consultative structures will be established and supported to ensure the community is fully involved in conceptualising, planning, implementing and evaluating the programs.

Section 3 7

Research will be undertaken in Phase 1 to obtain valid and reliable data to inform the development of the program and to evaluate its impact (see under Component 4). It is expected that the pre-program research will include consideration of the following:

� baseline demographics, education statistics and outcomes, GoS current and future development plans for Fagaloa district; household surveys covering populations, involvement in education, occupational features, migratory patterns, socio-economic, community attitudes/perceptions and levels of interest and support for the program;

� development priorities; levels of literacy in school population, teacher quality, practice; and

� whole school environment and professional culture.

The evaluation of impact will be informed by stakeholders’ views of targets and performance standards. Evaluation of impact will inform future developments of the program in Fagaloa and its potential for implementation in other communities.

Output 1.4 National Assessment Policy Framework The introduction of a new primary curriculum and expected changes in the way students move to further education and employment necessitate changes to the examination system. The assessment and examination policies and systems will be reviewed, including the purpose and continuing use of the Year 8 examination.

A national assessment policy framework will be developed to reflect current curriculum reforms including bilingual education, the recent assessment reforms as a result of the Samoa Secondary Education Curriculum and Resources Project (SSECRP), and allow the monitoring of progress in student learning over time. The current functions, administration structures, and processes of the assessment unit will be reviewed. The national assessment policy framework will take into account proposed changes to the Pacific Senior School Certificate administration, introduction of a regional Form 7, links to post-school recognition, and work of the Samoa Qualifications Authority. The Project will provide consulting services and training support.

In the assessment reform work, local counterparts will be recruited to workclosely with the National Assessment Framework Specialist, the Information Specialist and the School Assessment Specialist. The counterparts will allow the Samoa’s capacity to be built in these areas, allows project activities to progress whilst ensuring the important work of national assessment management and administration is not hampered by project activities. The school assessment focus is on developing capacity at school level for policy implementation.

Section 3 8

Scheduling and Resourcing The Implementation Schedule in Section 6 shows the sequence of activities in Component 1.

Sequencing attempts to align related activities in this component and across components to minimise overload, include capacity building and to maintain connectedness within the overall program. A key consideration with regard to the scheduling of curriculum, materials, assessment, and training outputs is the timing and scope of school level implementation. MESC has placed full-scale implementation of the new primary curriculum in the year 2010. On this basis, drafts of curriculum statements and teachers’ manuals are scheduled for completion by May 2008. The schedule allows for trialling curriculum and teachers’ manuals in selected schools from June to September 2008. The outcome of the trials will inform any final revisions to the documents before printing which will be completed by June 2009.

Pre and in-service training will take place in the remainder of 2009 to familiarise teachers with curriculum changes before full implementation in 2010. The scheduling of activities will be aligned with those of Component 2. Many of the same staff will be involved in both sets of activities. The timing of assessment activities, learning materials development and training are also linked to the development and implementation of the curriculum. This ambitious timetable will place some pressure on resources of the teaching service and may disrupt school operations during 2009.

The consultations for the community partnerships program/Fagaloa pilot havestarted and will continue throughout the duration of the Project. Phase 1 recruitment, research and program development will begin early in 2007, and will be the focus of the activities for the rest of the year. This period will involve planning and consultation, with the aim of developing a viable and cost-effective pilot program for implementation from the beginning of 2008, i.e. under Phase 2. At present, the PIAM includes technical assistance (national consultants) for this development period, although draft TORs for other national consultants have been made available to MESC. The planning and scheduling of assistance to support the pilot program will be developed and costed in more detail by CMAD and the MESC Core Executive once Phase 1 is completed. An indicative costing is provided, based on one means of delivering the pilot program through national consultants, however this should not necessarily be used for funding allocation.

To ensure the curriculum remains current, curriculum review is co-ordinated by the CMAD advisers based on their school visit discussions and observations. Data is compiled and reported to the subject committees who make

Section 3 9

recommendations to MESC. Formal curriculum review is expected to be undertaken by MESC every five years or earlier if the need arises.

This component will use a range of national and international consultants. The primary curriculum will be written and reviewed by local educators with assistance from an international Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist. Other international personnel include a Bilingual Education and Language Specialist, Multimedia Specialist, Assessment Framework Specialist, Schools Assessment Specialist, and an Assessment Information System Specialist. All of the inputs for the community partnership program will be procured locally. Initially this will consist of three research and program development consultants for a period of 6 months. Additional community program staff will be scheduled over a four-year period following design and approval of their inputs. These costs (i.e. those of the second and subsequent years of the Fagaloa pilot) are estimated in the Implementation and Cost Schedules. Provision is made in the resource allocation for community consultation protocols.

Terms of Reference for all consulting services under this component are included in Annex 2 of Section 7.

Component 2: Developing Effective Teachers Teachers are at the core of efforts to improve the quality of education and the level of student learning. Of greatest importance are teachers’ content knowledge, quality of their pedagogical approaches, and effectiveness of the instructional support they receive at the school itself. To be pedagogical leaders, teachers need a strong institutional framework around them, consisting of a modern and relevant curriculum, an adequate supply of high quality instructional materials, an integrated assessment system that values teacher judgments’, ongoing professional development and supportive leadership structures.

In Component 2, the ACEO, SOD of MESC will be responsible for the management of all inputs and activities. Component 2 outputs are closely linked to those described in Component 1: Curriculum Reform and Assessment Systems. As the new primary curriculum is being written, trialed and implemented, teachers will be supported through training to implement new content and pedagogical and assessment practices. Similarly the development of new multimedia materials to support the teaching of science at secondary level (Years 9-12) as well as the proposed Senior Colleges (Year 13) will both provide ongoing assistance to the recently developed secondary curriculum and, provide the means to link new pedagogical and assessment reform across primary and secondary stages of schooling. In addition teachers will be consulted and supported when the new assessment policy and system is

Section 3 10

developed and implemented. Efforts to improve severe teacher supply shortages will be achieved through 10 targeted teacher fellowships and an intensive summer school course program for aspiring primary teachers.

The objective of this component is to ensure that teachers implement the national curriculum, using effective pedagogical approaches and high quality instructional materials, linked to a national assessment policy. These objectives align with the strategic objectives outlined in the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan. To achieve this system wide outcome by 2010 will require close linkages with the activities implemented under Component 1.

Output 2.1 The Formulation of a National Teacher Development FrameworkThe improvement of teacher quality is one of the priorities in the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan. Currently, teacher education and professional development is delivered in various institutions, with a range of qualifications offered and held by Samoan teachers. The quality of teaching varies throughout Samoa and there is a chronic teacher shortage. The MESC Strategic Policies and Plan has comprehensive strategies to support the goal of improving teacher quality, including formulating a national teacher development policy or framework. The National Teacher Development Framework (NTDF) will help MESC establish greater consistency and clarity in professional standards and provide for an overarching management framework for the ongoing development of teachers in Samoa.

As part of ESP II, the ADB is providing TA to develop the NTDF and support the objective of improving the quality of the teaching service. This associated TA (see Section 16) will provide the basis for a teacher development policy that will guide the development of a cohesive and integrated approach to the delivery of pre and in service teacher training and provide continuous support for further developing teachers’ professional skills. It will also establish an institutional capacity-building framework for the management of teacher development and make recommendations on minimum standards for teacher competencies. It will (i) revise the design of the in-service teacher training planned under ESP II and inform future in-service teacher training activities planned; (ii) serve as a quality indicator for this activity; and (iii) assist the linking of in-service training with quality pre-service training. Recommendations and guidelines to be developed by the TA for teacher management will further enhance MESC capacity to engage with other stakeholders to better coordinate the production and supply of effectively trained teachers. As there has been considerable progress in better harmonisation of provision between the main suppliers of pre and in service teacher training, namely the SOD and NUS, the TA will serve to further strengthen those relationships, resulting in a better supply of ably qualified teachers.

Section 3 11

However as the implementation of the TA has been delayed, some preparatory assistance to support both the TA and the broader delivery of Component 2 under ESP II will be provided. As soon as the TA is completed, a review of the TA recommendations will be integrated with current ESP II planning. Additional consultancy services will assist MESC to strengthen the capacity of its officers in the SOD by improving their analytical and policy making responses to current teacher professional development needs, drawing on existing but non-diagnosed teacher performance appraisal data. Proposals for system wide planning of teacher development programs will begin based on the analysis of existing data. Data analysis will also link in with activities proposed in Component 4 - strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning. In addition, the Project will prepare Principals and School Review Officers (SROs), through information seminars and workshops in their quality assurance role during implementation. Support will be given directly to NUS to realign current pre-service courses to meet MESC priorities. Work will start on developing standards to better monitor and improve teacher and SRO performance at both the school and system level. The Project will provide consulting services to support these activities.

Output 2.2 Increased number of primary teachers, agricultural science, food technology, visual arts and design technology teachers Teacher shortages are impacting negatively on quality provision in schools. Reasons for teacher shortages include relatively poor salaries and conditions of employment, qualification barriers to entry, lack of capacity at training institutions, better career prospects in other professions and migration of teachers overseas. While the development of the NTDF will examine and analyse the reasons for the shortage in more detail, the Project can support a number of interventions to meet, in the short-term, some of the demand for additional teachers and skills upgrading of existing teachers. More sustainable teacher development and training programs, emerging from the NTDF, will require a longer lead in time that may lie outside the immediate Project period.

At the primary sub-sector there is an urgent need to increase the number of teachers, especially in rural areas. The Project will support the development and implementation of an intensive three-month program to train 100 new primary teachers over four years. A Primary Teacher Educator will plan, develop and deliver a three-month summer course for 25 aspiring primary teachers each year for four years. Candidates for entry may have previous experience in village primary schools, in early education or as volunteer teacher aides. This course will be implemented through the FOE, and will be fully integrated with Government of Samoa teacher training systems. While there is a risk that graduates will be considered as ‘second tier’ teachers, courses will therefore be fully accredited and recognised within Samoa, as objectives and quality assurance processes will be developed by the Primary Teacher Educator in consultation with MESC, NUS and the FOE. All teachers who

Section 3 12

successfully meet course requirements will be employed by MESC immediately after the summer school. Supervision in the classroom will be undertaken by Principals and School Review Officers.

To help the Government address severe teacher shortages in many subject areas at the secondary sub-sector, the Project will provide 10 fast track teacher fellowships. Originally all fellowships were to be in the agricultural science subject area, as outlined in the RRP. However in detailed discussions with MESC during the concept design mission of May – June 2006, MESC indicated that providing all fellowships in one subject area would not address teacher shortages in that or other areas of need. Concern was expressed that many other subjects which were experiencing teacher shortages and were of equal importance to MESC in the implementation of their strategic policies, such as supporting the development of the visual arts and food and textile areas, were not being adequately represented. Furthermore, MESC indicated that during initial discussions associated with the development of the RRP, there had been little opportunity to explore the implications of the decision made to allocate all ten fellowships in the one area. Hence, MESC determined that while their preferred option was to seek additional fellowships to address other areas of teacher shortages, the most acceptable position for them was to split the fellowship program into four subject areas, even though it was recognised that impact would be lessened.

The fellowships will now be provided in four areas of learning: three in agricultural science, two in food and textiles, three in visual arts and two in design and technology. Agriculture science and food and textiles will be the first priority developed immediately. A second round of course development for visual arts and design technology will begin one year later. If there are additional funds available for more fellowship programs, and assuming that the fellowship program has been reviewed and considered successful, then the Core Executive may request additional places in subsequent years of the Project.

The fellowship program will consist of a 2-year fast-track training program jointlyimplemented by NUS and University of the South Pacific. Upon graduation, the fellowship students will be bonded as government teachers for 2 years. The Project will provide consulting services to develop the course program and monitor outcomes for effectiveness and quality.

At one stage, MESC had identified the creation of ‘itinerant teachers’ to meetshortages in some subject areas. However, subsequent discussions with MESC during the design process noted that this strategy was no longer a high priority for inclusion in the Project. The use of itinerant teachers in Samoa is an issue of staffing policy, rather than one of increasing numbers to meet demand, which is the aim of this output under the component. Reference to this issue is

Section 3 13

in part addressed in the MESC Corporate Plan where a strategy to register a pool of relieving teachers is identified as a priority.

Output 2.3 Pre- and In-Service Training for New Initiatives Teacher training for new initiatives is critically important to their successful implementation in the classroom. The Project will generate, under Component 1 activities, a range of new initiatives that will impact on both pre- and in-service training. Curriculum and assessment materials and associated teacher manuals will be developed under Component 1, while teacher training modules to support their introduction will be developed under Component 2. As noted, close integration in the design of the above between Components 1 and 2 is essential to successfully implement these reforms and initiatives. Further, close liaison with the staff of NUS/FOE is needed for both this output and Output 2.2.

The key initiatives under this output include:

� Training primary school teachers as the new primary curriculum statements, teacher manuals, and learning materials become available in 2009;

� Training of teachers in the use of new multimedia materials for secondary science subjects;

� Teachers trained to use new assessment practices; and � A cadre of core trainers that can be used to improve ongoing curriculum

and professional development needs beyond ESP II itself.

One of the first tasks under this output is to select and train a cadre of core trainers to train teachers in all learning areas, assessment systems and the use of multimedia materials. Previously a separate output, MESC determined during the design process that the core trainers were critical to the outcome of Output 2.3 as their focus will be on supporting the phased implementation of the new primary curriculum and secondary science multimedia materials. Hence their inclusion as part of Output 2.3 rather than under a separate component is supported by the Project. These well-prepared teacher trainers will provide training in subject-specific instructional strategies and introduce content with which teachers are not sufficiently familiar. Core trainers will be trained in two cycles, each of one-week duration on: (i) subject specific instructional strategies, curriculum strands and scope and sequences across and within the curriculum and (ii) new assessment practices. Those involved in the development of new materials and systems will support core trainers.

As the new primary curriculum is being developed under Component 1, current teachers will be involved in the development of the curriculum itself, its trialing and the subsequent development of teacher guides and learning materials. Core trainers will more than likely be the learning area curriculum writers themselves and will participate in the development of teacher training modules

Section 3 14

that they will deliver during the cycle of training needed for full curriculum implementation. Module development will be consistent in structure and use a common framework developed by consultants involved in the Project.

Training of the core trainers will commence in July 2008, while the materials are being printed. All teachers will be trained, using the materials themselves and the specially developed modules during 2009. Existing MESC systems and providers will implement the training program. All materials will be procured and delivered to schools ready for the start of the 2009 school year. Full implementation will start in January 2010. Training in classroom assessment practices will be implemented at the same time as the new curriculum itself, thus linking teaching and learning with formative assessment practice. Core trainers will draw on the assessment materials developed as part of the teacher manuals in Component 1 (Output 1.2) and also incorporate into the teacher-trainer modules. .Training to support the introduction of the new science multimedia materials in secondary schools will follow a similar model. All secondary science teachers will be trained by December 2007 in preparation for the 2008 school year.

As teacher professional development is linked to ongoing curriculum reform and is a continuous and cyclical process, this output will further enhance the development of systems, processes and capacity throughout MESC, other relevant institutions and individuals beyond ESP II. In addition, ESP II will continue to build on the outcomes and processes developed through the Samoa Secondary Education Curriculum and Resources Project (SSECRP)

Output 2.4 In-Service Teacher Development and School-Based Support Routine teacher training is essential to bring about sustainable improvements in instructional practice. MESC will use the school as the vehicle for ongoing professional development for teachers and focus on system wide priorities. The Project will support a combination of training programs and courses to improve general teaching skills, provide subject cluster content training, and ensure school-based support for improved teaching as a follow-up to the training. Every teacher will be exposed to in-service training for an average of 10 days a year. The use of teacher performance data and the school improvement process to plan routine in-service programs was developed through the ISP, is considered sound, and ‘adds value’ to existing MESC operations.

To integrate ongoing teacher professional development with school improvement, a consultant will be recruited and deployed in Year 1 of the Project. Initially focusing on SOD staff, s/he will analyse existing data that is gained through annual teacher performance appraisals and support SOD capacity building. SOD capacity in the area of improved performance data analysis, grouping and clustering data and preparing system wide responses to

Section 3 15

key priorities, identified in this Project through the annual planning process, but in a broader context through the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan, will be strengthened. Primary Principals, School Review Officers (SRO) and the Secondary Principals Association will be included in all activities as part of the Project. The consultant will work with these groups to ensure that they become MESC’s key change agents in improving teacher quality and overall school performance and as such will participate in information seminars, briefings and workshops.

Professional Development programs will be packaged and developed using existing providers – NUS and the SOD team. The consultant will work with MESC to identify options for the implementation of programs, monitoring and quality assurance. Principals will become more involved in delivery and quality assurance. The SOD will collect data and report on outcomes quarterly and commence the annual planning cycle to coincide with the Samoan budget process and financial year.

Scheduling and Resources The Implementation Schedule in Section 6 outlines all the activities for the component. Some scheduling may alter if the ADB TA on the NTDF is delayed (i.e. after December 2006).

A Teacher Development Policy Analyst will be engaged for 12 months (six months in Year 1, three in Year 2 and three in Year 3) to support work over three years associated with five key tasks:

1. begin building capacity among MESC staff to analyse teacher performance data and develop and implement appropriate system wide responses;

2. planning for the development, implementation and monitoring of pre-service teacher education courses;

3. support NUS in their realignment of their teacher training courses;4. support MESC in their response and review of the ADB TA on the NTDF;

and5. support MESC in monitoring and evaluating teacher performance.

National In-service and Pre-service Teacher Development Experts will be engaged for a combined total of 24 months over three years. Two will be deployed concurrently in Year 1 to develop the Agricultural Science and Food and Textile courses (8 months in total), while the remaining two will be deployed concurrently in Year 2 (8 months in total) to design fellowship courses in visual arts and design and technology. An additional one month per expert will be allocated in Year 1 or 2 to support the work of the Teacher Development Specialist in reviewing aligning NUS pre-service courses as well as supporting developing train the trainer modules to support the training of teachers in new curriculum initiatives. An additional month will be allocated to each to support

Section 3 16

the overall monitoring and evaluation of all fellowship programs in the first three years of the Project. Their main tasks are to:

b. develop and then support the implementation of, the fellowship courses proposed;

c. monitor the quality and impact of the new fellowship courses; d. support the NUS FOE in reviewing pre-service courses to meet

new demands; and e. prepare with other specialists a train the trainer course for core

trainers to be used to train teachers in new curriculum initiatives.

The Primary Teacher Educator will be deployed in Year 2 (five months), Year 3 (four months), Year 4 (three months) and Year 5 (four months). In Year 2 two months will be allocated to course development and three for delivery and assessment. In Year 3, a review of the program to improve the quality of the course for the following year will occur in January. A summer school of three months will occur in each of the four years and a final review of the program will occur at end of Year 5. The main tasks of the Primary Teacher Educator are to:

� develop and then deliver the intensive short term primary teacher education course;

� develop supplementary materials for use by the beginning teachers in their first year; and

� monitor the quality and impact of the new courses.

The School Improvement Advisor will be engaged in Year 1 (four months), Year 2 (two months) and Year 3 (two months). The work of the School Improvement Advisor and Teacher Development Policy Analyst will be closely linked and coordinated.

The School Improvement Advisor will:

� be responsible for strengthening capacity within MESC, particularly in linking improved teacher quality to school performance and improvement;

� planning for the development, implementation and monitoring of teacher and principal professional development programs/ courses;

� link routine teacher professional development to school improvement, by building on the outcomes of the Institutional Strengthening Project; and

� recommend, develop and support the monitoring of the impact of workshops for principals and teachers on areas such as, school leadership and management, assessment, timetabling and scheduling, monitoring teaching, reporting and performance appraisals.

All consultant positions will report directly to the ACEO of the SOD andcontribute to overall monitoring and evaluation of the Component.

Section 3 17

Terms of Reference for all consulting services under this component are included in Annex 2 of Section 7.

Component 3: Improving Access to Quality Education The aim of this component is to increase access and equity in the education sector in Samoa, primarily through a construction program for secondary schools. The focus of school construction will be on secondary schools as, under ESP I and other donors (most notably JICA), construction focused on primary and secondary schools. ESP II will repair and rebuild the remaining secondary schools that were not covered under ESP I. Additional construction includes a new headquarters for MESC, four teacher houses (a pilot program - packaged with the schools) and the pilot community learning centre at Fagaloa. As well, furniture and equipment will be provided to schools in support of reconstruction, and materials will be procured as part of the development of curriculum under Component 1. Support will also be provided to MESC for improving maintenance of infrastructure assets.

Component 3 will be implemented by the Asset Management Unit of MESC (formerly the PMT for ESP I). The head of the Asset Management Unit will be responsible to the Core Executive for successful implementation of activities. At the Appraisal Workshop in September 2006, contracting strategies and options were determined.

The priority in this program is the repair and reconstruction of three senior secondary colleges, with the aim of introducing the Form 7 (matriculation) equivalent, in line with Government education policies and plans. Outcomes will include (i) improved teaching and learning environments in target schools, (ii) better teacher quality and student learning performance due to the availability of teachers, equipment and materials, (iii) a better management environment and greater productivity and safety for MESC staff, (iv) efficient and effective procurement for the Project and (v) improved systems for maintenance.

The results of the Fagaloa community learning centre and teacher housing trials will be evaluated by PPRD under Component 4, and the results will feed into MESC policy development and planning.

There is concern that costs in this component may be underestimated. Construction costs are volatile in Samoa given the boom in constructionassociated with the preparations for the South Pacific games in 2007. However, there may be greater efficiencies and cost savings once this construction is completed and equipment remains in the country. The contracting process for the first schools ‘package’ will provide MESC with more accurate price data, and this can be used to adjust the scope and timing of subsequent construction

Section 3 18

and furniture procurement, and the adjustment of budgets. This will need to be done regularly through the Project period. In terms of materials, again, the costs will need to be revised at the inception of the Project and through the Project period as the new learning materials are developed and tender prices are obtained.

Output 3.1 MESC Headquarters A new building, at the Government’s Malifa compound in Apia, is required to enable MESC to deliver effective education services. The construction of a new headquarters building for MESC will increase productivity and occupational health and safety for the Ministry. The Project will support the design (funded by AusAID/NZAID) of the new MESC headquarters. A design contractor commenced work in May 2006. A value management workshop was held in Apia in September 2006. The results of that workshop are the MESC Headquarters Contracting Strategy and a Procurement Options Paper. These are included in the PIAM. It is recommended under this Strategy that the Project proceed with a lump sum contract approach. In these circumstances, the workload on the Asset Management Unit will be minimised, however a Civil Works Specialist (engineer/architect) will be engaged to assist the Unit, with details and terms of reference to be developed by the current design contractor. The TORs for this Specialist have been developed by the HQ Design Team and are included in Annex 2 of Section 7.

Output 3.2 Improved Secondary School Facilities and a Community Learning Centre The Project will support upgrading of:

� 9 secondary schools � 3 secondary colleges � 1 secondary school, Fagaloa School, as a pilot community learning

centre

At Fagaloa, the Project will finance the refurbishment of existing classrooms into specialist rooms and make this school a pilot community learning centre. The centre will promote relevant technical skills including information and communication technology, mathematics for regular students, further education for out-of-school youth, and adult education.

In each secondary school, administrative and library blocks, science laboratories, design and textile workshop, and toilet blocks are required; in a number of cases, classroom blocks are also required. School design and construction will include provision for full access facilities for special needs children to attend school, and adequate provision will be made for sanitation facilities suitable for girls. It is one of the key outcomes in the Strategy for the

Section 3 19

Development of Samoa to provide access for special needs students. These specific needs for each school will be identified during the consultation process with communities and school committees.

School/college construction, the Fagaloa pilot and the teacher housing pilot will be packaged in five discrete ‘elements’ (i.e. one package per year) to reduce the workload on MESC and the associated procurement responsibilities for the asset Management Unit. The Asset Management Unit will prepare Requests for Proposal (RFPs), other tender documents and contract consulting services for the design of the colleges and schools as well as for the superintendence during the construction. In this, the Unit will be supported by a second Civil Works Specialist, who will also undertake capacity building for staff in the management of civil works contracts.

Under ESP I, most school reconstruction took place in Apia. Under ESP II and in order to promote improved access for students in rural areas, MESC has prioritised school reconstruction to focus on those schools in outlying and more remote areas. Schools identified for refurbishment and reconstruction were selected after extensive consultation with local communities.

Output 3.3 Pilot Provision of Houses for Teachers in Rural Areas The feasibility of attracting teachers to rural primary schools in less favourable locations will be tested by providing housing in four villages where teachers in certain subject areas are in short supply. The houses will be built within existing school compounds. The Project will establish a strategy for selecting house locations and upon construction of the houses an evaluation procedure to measure the success of the sub-component. The MESC Corporate Plan and Government policies include a commitment to the provision of teacher housing in remote areas.

Output 3.4 Procurement of Goods and Services Furniture, equipment, and learning material packages will be provided to the 13 target schools. Procurement of goods will be in accordance with those agreedunder the CFA, which follow ADB procurement guidelines and the often tighter criteria contained in the GoS procurement processes. Learning materials are those developed under Component 1, to be procured by the Asset Management Unit. Consulting services support will be provided for strengthening the Asset Management Unit to implement activities under this component.

In the first few months of ESP II, standardised RFPs and contracts, and the alignment of these with GoS systems will be implemented under Component 5. Given the importance of procurement for other activities across all components, the design includes capacity to bring this assistance forward. It will be imperative that the standardised documents conform to GoS Procurement

Section 3 20

Guidelines and ADB procedures where agreed. The Project Procurement Strategy in Annex 6 of Section 8 covers this in more detail. It is worth noting that the World Bank is currently assisting the GoS in reviewing and updating the Procurement Guidelines, expected to be finalised by December 2006.

The Asset Management Unit will be supported by a Procurement Specialist and an Education Equipment Specialist to develop procurement skills and expertise associated with education equipment specifications. In ESP I, a number of factors may have contributed to isolating staff of the Asset Management Unit and the remainder of MESC, resulting in limited overall sustained procurement capacity. ESP II therefore will focus on developing counterparts and especially management systems (involving the whole of MESC) to ensure the organisation is well placed to assume a greater role in sector wide approaches in future. While capacity building and institutional strengthening is an overarching activity under ESP II, Output 3.4 will support the mentoring and training of other MESC staff as well as those of the Asset Management Unit. It will be very important to engage MESC at the Core Executive level in relation to tasks such as community consultations and planning for school construction, identifying teaching and student needs and numbers, and the effective procurement and delivery of equipment.

Note that all procurement of ICT equipment will need to be approved by the Information Technology section of Corporate Services Division, to ensure that specifications meet MESC policies and standards for such equipment. Any decisions made on procurement of ICT equipment will need to reflect the overall MESC ICT policy and strategy, which is planned but yet to be developed and the work of other donors, such as the ADB and UNDP, who are supporting stand alone ICT pilot projects in the education and community sectors2.

Output 3.5 MaintenanceThe Project will finance the maintenance costs of school facilities upgradedunder the Project, teachers’ houses, and MESC headquarters; and revise existing policies and procedures for the sustainable maintenance of school facilities. The Project will help review and revise the School Facilities Handbook, as well as financing the consultation process associated with engaging school committees and other stakeholders in planning and operating a school maintenance program.

The Project is financing the maintenance of schools using the local communities involved (kind in cash) and GoS contributions (cash). MESC policy is that all schools are to develop school maintenance plans, where schools contribute in cash or kind. The implementation of the policy is not consistent throughout Samoa, is often done on a school-by-school basis and processes are still being developed and informed. Communities often have limited funds available. Once 2 Refer to Section 3 of the PDD and the ADB RRP for details of donor projects.

Section 3 21

the Project is finished, all 13 schools supported by ESP II will adhere to MESC policy in relation to school maintenance. Within this component, Project-supplied technical advisers will be able to support MESC in developing a more sustainable approach to implementing this maintenance policy.

Output 3.6 Improved tendering and contract management The DPs have agreed that under ESP II, maximum use will be made of Government systems, which incorporate the use of ADB procurement processes. In ESP I, the Asset Management Unit handled procurement of goods and services. Because ESP II involves components implemented by other Divisions, MESC have requested that changes be made to Project procurement, with the intention of aligning it more closely with activity implementation. As well, the increased use of GoS systems means that there are a range of different capacity building needs in the Asset Management Unit, the ESP II Secretariat and other Divisions.

MESC have indicated that Project procurement, using GoS procedures and following ADB guidelines in tendering and contract management, will be handled as follows within the agency:

� the implementing Division prepares the terms of reference or other specifications (for material, equipment or consulting services);

� the ESP II Secretariat receives the request and ensures that it meets Project parameters (Annual Plan, budget, quality of documentation), or needs to be referred to the Core Executive for approval;

� the ESP II Secretariat uses the appropriate procurement guidelines to develop a procurement strategy, and determine if the activity needs to go to tender or can use direct purchase;

� direct purchase is handled by the Corporate Services Division, as per normal MESC purchasing;

� if tendering is required, the specifications are sent to the Asset Management Unit for preparation of tendering documents (i.e. the RFP) and draft contracts (using standard templates); and

� after contract signature, the contract is returned to the originating Division for management and administration by the appropriate ACEO.

While the Asset Management Unit (formerly the PMT) has experience from ESP I in project-related procurement, this capacity is limited to a range of procurement packages for civil works, school materials and equipment. Further, the PMT was heavily supported by external technical assistance and there was limited integration of these processes with the other Divisions within MESC. Under ESP II, the Asset Management Unit will be responsible for procurement delivery; however each Division will now have a greater role in determining the scope, type and strategy used for procurement, including that of consulting services. The process outlined above will require knowledge and expertise in

Section 3 22

drafting specifications and in contract management across all Divisions and in the ESP II Secretariat.

The Project will provide consulting services to support strengthening and understanding of the ADB incorporated tendering and contracting processes within MESC. The focus will be on building capacity for the Asset Management Unit and the ESP II Secretariat, although elements of this sub-component will involve staff from other Divisions. A Tendering and Contracting Specialist will assist MESC to:

� develop and implement standard Request for Procurement formats, based on GoS Procurement Guidelines (based on ADB templates and procedures) for the main Project procurement packages, such as civil works, equipment, school materials and consulting services;

� develop and implement standard contract templates (based on the ADB template) for use within the Project, including clearance of general and specific conditions with the relevant GoS agencies;

� manage the proposed consultants register, with updating as required; and

� implement a series of capacity building workshops for MESC staff in the drafting of terms of reference and procurement specifications, and for contract management.

It will be important that this support is provided at an early stage of Project implementation. It is possible that MESC will have obtained assistance prior to project implementation, especially in the areas of developing standard RFP and contract documents, and also in establishing a register of consultants. However these will still need to be refined and the processes of developing, using and updating standard documents transferred to the appropriate MESC staff.

Scheduling and Resources The scheduling of activities within this component is summarised as follows:

a. Design, tendering and construction of the MESC Headquarters Building,which will occur in the first 2 years;

b. Design, tendering and construction of Secondary Schools and Collegeswhich will occur over the six years of the project, with five major ‘packages’ of construction, one per year;

c. Design, tendering and construction of Teacher Housing, planned to start in Year 2 then be undertaken in Years 3 and 4, where possible packaged with schools;

d. Construction of the Fagaloa pilot program community learning centre, with timing dependent on the community consultation process and approval of the pilot program and costs;

e. Procurement of equipment, furniture for schools, in Years 2 to 5;

Section 3 23

f. Procurement of learning materials in line with the curriculum development schedule for Component 1; and

g. Procurement of equipment, supplies and materials for the Asset Management Unit occurring throughout the life of the project

The above activities and their timing are set out in the Implementation Schedule at Section 6. Resources for Component 3 will be in the form of consulting services for the management of the various construction packages (through contracted international and national firms providing a range of supervisionservices). This includes:

A. Contract Supervision of the MESC HQ building construction; B. Support for civil works associated with the school building

program; and C. Design and contract supervision of the construction of schools,

colleges and teacher housing.

Individual consulting services for strengthening the Asset Management Unit in procurement functions will be provided by the Project, focusing on general procurement and procurement of learning materials. It will be important that consulting services are focused on capacity building as much as technical support. The experience of ESP I demonstrated that consultants should have capacity building skills, and that Project activities should be delivered by MESC staff, with support from consultants where required. On the job training using Project activities as the learning process, is the preferred method of delivery.

Terms of Reference for all consulting services for this component are included in Annex 2 of Section 7.

Component 4: Strengthening Capacity to Undertake Research, Evaluation, Policy Analysis, and PlanningAs the education system develops and performance expectations increase, education policies, plans, and investments programs are becoming increasingly complex. The policy emphasis is shifting from the expansion of access to the improvement of quality; however in an environment of increasingly constrained resources this makes improvements in the efficiency in service delivery imperative. At the same time, MESC aims to exercise increased leadership in policy development and reduce its reliance on external assistance. To cope with the demands of policy analysis and planning, and strengthen national capacity, the Project will support a range of training and capacity building activities, and fund a program of research and evaluation focused on short and medium term education sector priorities. The Project will build on the work of ESP I and the ISP in developing skills for sector-wide evaluation of education services and programs, and for specific aid-funded interventions.

Section 3 24

This component will be implemented by the Policy, Planning and Research Division (PPRD), and be managed by the ACEO. It is designed to (i) strengthen the national capacity for research and evaluation, which will provide a stronger basis for evidence-based policy development; (ii) strengthen the capacity of staff to analyse education data, identify priority issues for action, plan remedial interventions and policy reforms, and monitor implementation; and (iii) support a learning-by-doing capacity-building strategy, which will provide staff with the opportunity to carry out research and evaluation studies, plan education reforms, and design remedial interventions with decreasing external technical support. Thus, one of the key outcomes will be an experienced group of national professionals within MESC and elsewhere in Samoa with research, evaluation and policy expertise.

To this end, it is intended that this component will strengthen capacity in research, evaluation and policy development within MESC and other institutional bodies and individuals involved in the same. An expected 30 personnel will directly benefit from activities under Component 4 of this Project.

Output 4.1 Improved National Capacity for Research and EvaluationCapacity building under this component is integrated with a five-year research and evaluation program. Research and evaluation priorities will be determined by MESC, and the program will be flexible enough to take into account policy imperatives emerging from the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan. Output 4.1 will be the main vehicle for developing a strong capacity within MESC, through the PPRD, to determine, conduct/manage and evaluate research initiatives relevant to ESP II. Outputs 4.2 and 4.3 will ultimately support the broader goal, as articulated under this output – improved national capacity for research and evaluation – by identifying specific priorities to help build this capacity in policy development and planning and analysing sectoral impact.

Under this output, the Project will support the capacity building of MESC/PPRD staff and a range of staff from institutions such as the NUS (now merged with Samoa Polytechnic) and other Government agencies (where relevant) involved in planning for the sector to expose them to the latest techniques in education research and analytical methodologies. This may include the newly formed Research and Development Institute. The total number of people involved in capacity building activities may be quite large (up to 30 has been suggested), hence the use of several workshops in Samoa and a number of study tours to ensure that coverage is adequate to meet both specific and general needs.

To provide this opportunity for research-based learning, the Project will finance a minimum of five field studies, with at least one scheduled per year of the Project, commencing in 2006/07. In addition, the Project will finance the evaluation of selected ESP I interventions, and evaluations of a number of pilot

Section 3 25

studies to be implemented through ESP II. A further opportunity exists in building capacity for policy review and implementation, where a mid-term review of the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan is due in 2010. This review may (depending on Government priorities at the time) include a review of public expenditure in the education sector.

The Government has long standing protocols for the conduct of research studies in Samoa, however these tend to apply to outside researchers. A more direct matter for MESC to consider is how education sector research should be conducted, in terms of ensuring independence of the research results, and the conduct of studies within schools, students, families and communities. The design and development of the research and evaluation program in this component could be an opportunity to address these issues.

Capacity building for this component will use a mixture of approaches, including short-term consulting services, workshops on research topics and work attachments/study tours. An initial activity will be a capacity building/human resource development (HRD) and skills assessment of staff from PPRD, together with identified counterparts at NUS or other institutions. These are seen as the ‘core group’ for education research an evaluation in Samoa. The results from this needs/skills assessment will be used to develop capacity building plans for individual staff members, based on current and expected job responsibilities and linked to staff performance assessment systems used within MESC and the GoS.

The development of the research and evaluation program (see below) will use this needs/skills assessment for planning and implementing capacity building activities for PPRD staff. The conduct of research activities will include training/capacity building workshops associated with the program and linked to specific skills gaps and more general needs identified in the broader stakeholder group. As well, the Project will seek out opportunities for short-term work placements in regional countries for PPRD staff. Study tours on specific topics would also be of benefit, to ensure that Samoa (MESC and NUS primarily) is keeping abreast of current research, evaluation and policy approaches.

For example, it is clear that Samoa could benefit from sharing research and policy development experience in areas such as effective teaching methodologies and causes of low achievement with educational systems in New Zealand, Fiji and Australia. Institutional partnerships with agencies such as New Zealand’s Education Review Office could also be facilitated through the existing Treaty of Friendship between MESC and the Ministry of Education in New Zealand. Other possibilities include the Centre for Education Research (NZ), Institute of Education at the University of the South Pacific, the Australian Council for Educational Research and various state government education departments and peak bodies in Australia.

Section 3 26

In order to facilitate improved capacity in research and evaluation, relevant MESC staff will need access to new software and better hard ware, as much of their existing stock is not appropriate for the increased demand and expectation associated with producing high quality research based analysis. Hence other assistance requested by PPRD includes updated equipment for the Division, including specific software for processing and managing data. As noted above, existing equipment and software is old, requires updating and is unsuitable for fieldwork and conducting field and community surveys (e.g. there are limited numbers of laptop computers).

Output 4.2 Research and evaluation program with results used for policy development and planning The development of this program will be implemented in parallel with the needs/skills assessment noted above and will ensure that policy development and planning is enhanced through improved research (Output 4.1). Of the two priorities originally listed in the RRP, the first has been retained while the second has been omitted because other needs (in this case the need to analyse the decline in achievement and non-completion rates) were seen to be more immediate and critical in light of the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan. Therefore the two main priorities for research and evaluation in the first two years of ESP II are:

� The evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching, and the role of school principals and school review officers (Year 1); and

� Analysis of causes of low achievement and non-completion, and preparation of corrective policy and action plans (Year 2).

Three more studies will be determined by MESC following a review of the research and evaluation program at the end of Year 2, and in accordance with any needs emerging from the MESC Sector Policies and Plan and the Project. The development of the research and evaluation program will be led by PPRD, with consultation with the ESP II Secretariat and across the other Divisions of MESC, and with stakeholders such as NUS. The MESC Core Executive will need to approve the initial research program prior to implementation. Subsequent research and evaluation activities will be included in Annual Plans for the Project, which are subject to Core Executive and ESC endorsement. There is capacity within the Project budget to outsource parts or elements of the research and evaluation program, and the use of external agencies or private companies will need to be determined as part of planning each of the research and evaluation studies.

The first area identified for research is consistent with the aims of Components1 and 2, i.e. improving the teaching and learning environment and teacher quality. The effectiveness of teaching is an area where little research has been

Section 3 27

done in Samoa, however it was the basis for programming interventions in ESP I and again in this second phase. It is also a high priority for national education systems in the region, so the scheduling of this research topic is timely. The second research and evaluation priority, scheduled for Year 2, reflects the policy concern that there is considerable variation in, and a low average level of, student learning achievement in Samoa; as well as the persistent presence of about 20% of children of school age who do not complete their primary education. The causes need to be clarified to provide a solid foundation for the formulation of an effective policy response and to plan remedial interventions.

Consulting services will be provided by the Project to assist PPRD in the development of the research and evaluation program. The objectives of this assistance will be to work with PPRD staff to ensure that agreement is reached on defining the terms of reference for the research studies, selecting an appropriate methodology/approach, carrying out capacity building workshops, arranging work placements/study tours as required, developing institutional linkages and ensuring PPRD has capacity to collect, analyze and publish data and results.

Output 4.3 Improved capacity to evaluate the impact of sectoral initiatives Capacity building will be used to strengthen the ability of MESC staff to evaluate the impacts of sectoral interventions. Improved capacity will empower the PPRD and other relevant divisions, agencies and institutions to determine scarce resource allocations to areas of greatest need. Capacity building in the areas of education research, evaluation and policy, as explored under Output 4.1, will strengthen management systems in the sector and support the move towards a sector-wide approach for education funding in Samoa. Improved evaluation systems, processes and capacity will enable the PPRD and others to adequately evaluate the impact of all sectoral initiatives and thus provide evidence based dialogue for developing future policy direction.

To begin the process of building capacity in impact evaluation, the Project willfund evaluations of ESP I and ESP II activities, which will be carried out by PPRD staff. ESP I provided some support for developing evaluation capacity in PPRD, however there has been considerable staff turnover since then, and a changed policy environment since the preparation of the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan. MESC Core Executive and senior staff of PPRD/other Divisions now have greater responsibility for assessing performance and reporting to Government and donors.

Other identified MESC priorities for capacity building include:

� Assessing the impact of ESP I support to secondary schools on the effectiveness of instruction in project-supported schools, including agricultural science and design technology programs, which will be

Section 3 28

conducted as part of the research and evaluation program activity on teacher effectiveness (see above), and completed in Year 1;

� Evaluating pilots and policy experiments financed by the Project in the second phase, including the community learning centre in Fagaloa (to be scheduled), and the provision of teacher housing upon completion (Years 5 and 6); and

� Professional report writing, linked to both Project and sector responsibilities.

� Any linkages related to the research studies conducted under Output 4.2

The results of the Project evaluations will feed into general policy development for MESC, and will inform the implementation of activities in ESP II. Evaluation of the pilots will give MESC solid, evidence based information on which to make decisions regarding teacher housing and community learning programs. The need for other evaluations will become apparent as ESP II progresses, and these will form part of the research and evaluation program in future years.

Scheduling and Resources The scheduling of activities within this component includes:

� Capacity building needs/skills assessment for PPRD/NUS staff; � Delivery of equipment; � Design of the research and evaluation program, with priorities identified

for Years1 and 2, and approval by MESC Core Executive; � Capacity building plans for PPRD/NUS staff, associated with the

research program, approved by Core Executive; � Conduct of the first research study, including capacity building

workshops and work placements/study tours; � Two one day workshops for senior MESC staff on professional report

writing;� Analysis of results and publication/dissemination of findings; � Conduct of the second research study (Year 2); � Review of capacity building, the research/evaluation program design and

implementation (at the end of the second study in Year 2); and � Conduct of the third and subsequent research/evaluation studies (in Year

3 onwards).

These activities and their timing are summarised in the Implementation Schedule in Section 6 Annex 3. Consulting services for the needs/skills assessment and the design of the research program is required before the first research study. A consultant with appropriate skills would be made available by the Project to assist PPRD. This would comprise around 8 months of support over the first three years of the Project. The consultant would also be able to facilitate the development of linkages to institutions in other countries, conduct

Section 3 29

workshops as well as advise on the purchase of appropriate software and other equipment. This person could return to deliver further workshops, and assist with the review at the end of the second research study. PPRD/NUS staff (or the outsourced person/organisation) would undertake the conduct of the research studies, with the consultant acting as a ‘mentor’ or reference when required, and assisting with the capacity building workshops.

The funding of the research/evaluation studies covers all local preparatory costs, survey design, distribution, travel and expenses, data analysis and publication. There is sufficient flexibility in the costs for MESC to consider engaging national consultants (i.e. outsourcing) to undertake some of the data collection and reporting. Capacity building workshops will be delivered in Samoa according to needs determined through the skills analysis and the scheduling of the program. Work placements and study tours include all travel and subsistence costs for PPRD/NUS staff.

Terms of Reference for all consulting services under this component are included in Section 7 Annex 2.

Component 5: Strengthening Capacity to Implement and Manage Development Projects Given the importance of the education sector in Samoa and the presence of several funding agencies, the Government has indicated it wants to move to a sector-wide approach for education, and in the longer term, budget support. This requires capacity to manage development projects and external support that is increasingly provided on a programmatic basis and with progressive harmonisation of procedures for financial management, procurement, reporting on expenditures, input delivery, and progress in meeting development objectives and performance targets.

Component 5 is designed to assist MESC in building and institutionalising capacity to achieve this goal. To ensure more effective and efficient implementation, activities in this component will help ensure (i) coordination of implementation between the different components and overall program management, (ii) monitoring of implementation, expenditure, input delivery, and their integration in the government finance and reporting system; (iii) implementation of robust mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of progress; and (iv) strengthening of procurement systems, specifically tendering and contracting.

The intended outcome of Component 5 is to strengthen Government systems and capacity, firstly for the efficient administration of Government contributions, and secondly to facilitate increased development partner alignment with GoS systems. Elements of these systems were strengthened under previous

Section 3 30

projects, while MESC has undertaken an organisational restructure in order to centralise and consolidate management of ESP II. The Project Management Strategy in the PDD demonstrates how the processes for managing ESP II inputs are aligned with existing GoS and MESC management systems and procedures.

Output 5.1 Improved Strategic Management and Coordination of ImplementationResponsibility for coordination and strategic Project management rests with the ESC and the MESC Core Executive (see Section 6). The Project will be delivered through the MESC management structure, with Divisions and functional units responsible for implementing the components. To ensure effective coordination, MESC has established an ESP II Secretariat, which will have the role of coordinating Project administration and reporting.

The Education Consultant in the Office of the CEO convenes the Secretariat, in her role of ESP II Program Coordinator. Component 5 will therefore support the operations of the ESP II Secretariat, as well as two key functional areas – Corporate Services Division (for Project financial management) and the Asset Management Unit (for Project procurement). Staff from these areas will be seconded to the ESP II Secretariat for the duration of the Project. These issues and arrangements are also covered in the PDD - Project Management Strategy.

As noted, the main role of the ESP II Secretariat is Project coordination, the preparation and financial estimates and reporting, the preparation of performance reports, briefings and reports for the Core Executive and ESC, and the single point of contact for all operational matters pertaining to the Project. A draft Charter for the ESP II Secretariat outlining these roles and responsibilities has been developed (see Section 6).

The role of ESP II Secretariat in servicing the ESC is crucial to strategicmanagement of the Project3. The Secretariat’s role will be to provide both MESC Core Executive and the ESC with relevant and timely information on which to base decisions related to Project implementation, approval of activities and endorsement of documents, particularly Annual Plans, progress reports and financial statements. Where possible, these have been closely integrated with existing corporate planning, budget preparation and reporting mechanisms used by MESC.

The Project will provide funds for the purchase of equipment, software and materials for the ESP II Secretariat in order for them to carry out their role. Capacity building will be aligned with the technical and operational elements of sub-components 5.2 to 5.4, focusing on project and financial management, monitoring and evaluation, reporting and procurement. It will be the 3 NB: The ESC Charter will also have to be revised for ESP II.

Section 3 31

Secretariat’s role to ensure that the systems developed are implemented across all other components, and that the Project adheres as much as possible to the MESC management, financial, monitoring and reporting systems.

The intended outcome of Component 5 is to strengthen Government systems and capacity, firstly for the efficient administration of Government contributions, and secondly to facilitate increased donor alignment with Government systems.

Output 5.2 Integrated Financial Management SystemThe Project partners have agreed on a single funding mechanism for ESP II. MOF will establish a Special Purpose Account for the Project, to be managed by MESC. A Project Management Specialist will be provided by the Project to assist MESC to:

� assist in the development, integration and implementation of Project management strategies within the ESP II Secretariat and the MESC Core Executive, as requested;

� develop a chart of accounts and operational guidelines for the Special Purpose Account, aligned to MESC and GoS’s own chart of accounts and based on similar guidelines developed for these kinds of accounts in other Government agencies;

� assist MESC to develop a standardised financial and progress reporting package (using Excel) for the Special Purpose Account that will generate financial information on Project expenditure in the formats required for reporting to Core Executive, the ESC and MOF; and

� integrate financial reporting with reporting on procurement and project performance. Once the new financial management system (GOFAR) is complete (see below), then all financial reporting will be aligned with MESC and the GoS’s own systems.

Reporting formats will be aligned with MESC and Project requirements and the overall Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, which have been deemed acceptable to the other DPs. Staff of the ESP II Secretariat and Corporate Services Division will be involved in developing the Account guidelines and associated reporting system, and training will be delivered ‘on the job’ using real processing examples.

On 1 July 2005, the Government adopted a new financial management system (GOFAR) that will eventually incorporate a ‘project management’ module for use by agencies implementing donor-funded projects. This module is not operational, and until refinements to GOFAR are made in the course of 2006/07 the Special Purpose Account will need to use the ‘manual’ MOF procedures and systems. When GOFAR module is ready, the Project will provide additional consulting services In Year 2 to transfer the management of the Special

Section 3 32

Purpose Account to the GOFAR system, therefore integrating it even more closely with Government systems.

Output 5.3 An Effective Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting System The Project will have a single monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system that meets the needs of the Government and the DPs. ESP I developed a Project Performance Monitoring System, which had a separation of responsibilities between the former PMT (monitoring inputs, activities and outputs) and PPRD (evaluation). Under ESP II, this role is assumed by the Secretariat. However it is apparent that since the release of the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan, there is a requirement for a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for the education sector as a whole. It is proposed that the Project assist MESC to develop such a framework, which will incorporate systems that meet the broader needs of GoS, the ESC and MESC, with those associated with Project-related interventions.

Under ESP I, a ‘project tracker’ database’ was developed for use by MESC staff. MESC also operates a number of management information systems, including an Education Management Information System known as Manumea, a human resource system (Pelican), examinations (Examiner), a baseline checklist for school facilities (Surveyor), as well as operating finances through public sector wide systems such as GOFAR. The aim of this sub-component will be to ensure that information from these systems can be easily and readily utilised to support Project reporting, not to duplicate or replace existing systems.

MESC has requested support to develop a standardised performance monitoring, evaluation and reporting system for the sector and for ESP II, which builds on the systems developed for ESP I. However, the new system will have to be adapted and redefined to meet the new requirements for whole of Government/sector level and multi-donor reporting. These requirements include:

� reviewing the monitoring and evaluation arrangements and establishing the key performance indicators for the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan;

� developing sector and ESP II implementation benchmarks and the monitoring and evaluation framework (linked to the sector and Project outcomes, targets and indicators);

� identifying data requirements for monitoring and measuring performance; � identifying data collection methods and responsibilities; � preparing annual plans, quarterly progress and performance reporting

against each of the components and the project completion report; and � producing standard report formats and procedures for dissemination of

results.

Section 3 33

Because MESC management of the Project involves a greater range of personnel, capacity building in monitoring and evaluation will be expanded to include the Core Executive, staff of all component implementing Divisions, as well as the ESP II Secretariat. The ESP II Secretariat has the role of coordinating collection of, bringing together and analysing component monitoring information and producing the quarterly and annual project performance reports. Under Component 4, professional report writing workshops, aimed at building capacity for a range of senior MESC staff, will be delivered.

Assistance in this component will consist of a Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist to assist MESC to review existing systems (including developing the comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework), establish the requirements of the system’s users (Core Executive, ESC, MOF and DPs) and determine how these can be integrated into the single reporting system. The progress reporting cycle is similar to that of financial reporting, therefore the system must be capable of incorporating a range of MESC operational and Project data, both performance related and financial. The Project will provide the Specialist early in the first quarter to review and establish the new systems and assist with the first round of standardised reports. The Specialist will return later in Year 1 to review systems and assist MESC in preparing the second Annual Plan. Capacity building workshops for monitoring, evaluation and reporting will be conducted, and include staff from ESP II Secretariat and other Divisions responsible for Project implementation.

Scheduling and Resources Component 5 activities and their timing are summarised in the Implementation Schedule of Section 6, and the Project Management Strategy in the PDD. Consulting services represent about 12 person months of assistance, with an emphasis on the first quarter of the Project. The consultants for financial management and monitoring and evaluation would need to return when the GOFAR system is available and when the second Annual Plan is being prepared, respectively. The terms of reference for all consulting services are included in Section 7 Annex 2.

Capacity building workshops will be delivered in Samoa according to needs determined through the work of the consultants. Workshops are likely to be informal, as much of the training will be on the job for staff of the ESP II Secretariat, Asset Management and other Divisions. Equipment costs include those for establishing the Secretariat and purchasing Project-wide assets including office equipment and the Project vehicles, which will be managed by the ESP II Secretariat for the duration of the Project.

Section 3 34

SECTION 4: DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting

Mechanism

Assumptionsand Risks

Impact

A more equitable and effective education system that enhances learning outcomes of young people for further study, work, and adult life

By 2015:

� 100% net primary enrolment

� 100% of children, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary education (MDG)

� Eliminate gender disparity at all levels of education (MDG)

� 85% total secondary net enrolment

� 100% functional literacy rates

� Increased enrolment at the tertiary education level

� Improved employment rates of high school graduates

� United Nations (humandevelopmentindex) report

� GoS/SPC MDGs statistics andreports

� MESC statistics

� FBEAP reports and meetings

� NUS and University of the South Pacific data and reports

� Labour market survey

Assumption

� Government develops sector plan and financing framework for the sector that assures adequate resources for recurrent costs, including non-salary inputs for basic and secondary education to ensure long-term sustainability

Risks

� External economic shocks reduce revenues available for education

� Political and budget priorities do notinclude education

Section 4 1

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting

Mechanism

Assumptionsand Risks

Outcome

Enhanced quality of education

� Performance targets (by 2011): A new national assessment system is in place covering core subjects for different years at regular intervals

� Primary and secondary schools teachers effectively use new instructional methods and classroom assessments

� Subject teachers in agricultural science, food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology are available and use effective instructional strategies

� Secondary science teachers have multi media materials available and these are used effectively in the classroom

� 90% of the students achieve national benchmarks on standardized tests

� Primary drop out rates reduce by 25% and transition rate into secondary increases by 10%

� Net enrolment rates in rural schools increase

� Implementation reviews, progress performancereports, completion report, results from research andevaluation studies under Component 4

� Classroom observations of teacher and student interactionand school processes, teacher effectiveness study under Component 4

� Reports of principals andschool review officers

� Test results

� Assessment of learning outcomesusing new assessment system

� MESC statistics

� Results of study into causes of low achievement under Component 4

Assumptions

� Government commitment to address inequities in access, retention, and achievement is sustained

� Terms and conditions of teacher service will be sufficientlyattractive to recruit and retain qualified and motivated staff

Risks

� Political and public support will not be sufficient to support implementation of required reforms

� Project activities cannot addressissues of rural school enrolment

Section 4 2

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting

Mechanism

Assumptionsand Risks

Outputs

1. Introducing curriculum reform and assessment systems

1.1 New bilingual primary curriculum for Samoan, English,social studies, maths, science, social science, arts, PE/Health, visual arts, performing arts and music

1.2 Adequate supply of learning materialsand teacher manuals

1.3 Pilot Community partnerships program

� All students have access to a complete set of learning materials as specified in curriculum

� CMAD equipped with and able to use,appropriate equipment for the production of print and non-print materials.

� Materials available in schools beginning in2009 with teacher training in 2008

� Production of teacher manuals following completion of curriculum, per schedule above

� Curriculum statements produced by December 2008

� Fagaloa Community Learning Centre (CLC) pilot implemented and evaluated by December 2011

� Home School Literacy

� JRM reports

� Project progress reports

� Procurement and distributionschedule

� Principal and school review officers school reports

� MESC statistics

� Community ConsultationReports

� CLC Participation rates and trends.

� Research and evaluation studies

Risks

� Procurement of textbooks and learning materials is delayed

� Procurement of teacher manuals delayed

Risks

� Location and design assumptions are flawed

� Community disengaged re

Section 4 3

1.4 National assessment policy framework and systems.

Program evaluated by December 2010

� Policy framework by December 2007

� CMAD staff trained and using systems effectively

� New Database for MESC combining examination and testing applications

� Valid and reliable assessments of student learning implemented starting in 2009

under Component 4.

� Project progress reports

� MESC statistics and reports generated on annualexaminations and tests

process and outcomes

� Community learning centre no longer a priority

Assumption

� Sufficient and appropriate expertise can be assigned

Risk

� Lack of resources and capacity limits effective and sustainableimplementation

Section 4 4

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting

Mechanism

Assumptionsand Risks

2. Developing Effective Teachers

2.1 Formulation of a National TeacherDevelopment Framework

2.2 Increased number ofagricultural science, food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology teachers

2.3 Completion of effective pre- and in-service training to support new initiatives.

� Framework adopted by December 2007

� Development of an implementation plan for the Framework by March 2008

� 2-year NUS program operational by January2007

� Full NUS graduate fellowship programcompleted by December 2009 and all graduates placed in schools in January 2010

� Trained cadre of teacher trainers in new primary curriculum by June 2008

� Primary teachers trained in new curriculum by December 2008

� Trained cadre of teacher trainers in new science multimedia materials by June 2007

� Science teachers trained in new multimedia materials by December 2007

� All teachers are trained on new classroom assessment practices by June 2009

� National Assessment Training Planimplemented by December 2009

� TA and Project progress reportsand joint reviews

� MESC statistics

� Evaluation of fellowship programby March 2010 and initial impact assessment by June 2011

� Project progress reports

� School review officers’ reports

� Training and in-service evaluations

� Research and evaluation studies

� Student learning outcome data available from 2010

Risks

� Content of the Framework not current as a result of delays in finalising a start date, causing delays in the implementation of the TA.

� MESC having little control over scheduling of activities placing additional demand on its staff in implementingComponent 1 and other sub-components.

� Impact of the Fellowship program dissipated by inclusion of a large number of subjects for a limited number of fellowships

Assumption

� Component 1 proceeds as planned.

Section 4 5

2.4 Effective continuous in-service teacher development and school-basedsupport

� Secondary Principals Association in operation

� All teachers participate routinely in pre- and in-service training programs

� All pre- and in-service training courses staffed with trained instructors and delivered with 90% satisfactory rating

� SOD staff trained in techniques and systemsto assess school performance and improvement by December 2006

� SOD staff routinely use systems to assess school performance and recommend school improvement strategies from 2007

� Project progress reports

� Reports from Associationseminars

� School Improvement Plans

� Teacher Performance Plans and Appraisal

� School Review Officer reports.

� Training and in-service evaluations.

� Project progress reports

� SOD performance appraisal records

� School Improvement Plans

� School Review Officer reports

Risks

� Adoption of new instructional practices is slower than anticipated

� Adoption of new assessment techniques is slower than anticipated.

Assumptions

� Impact assessment is undertaken to assess training effectiveness

� SOD staff will have sufficient capacity and time to complete training/mentoring.

Section 4 6

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting

Mechanism

Assumptionsand Risks

3. Improving access to quality education

3.1 MESC headquartersconstructed

� Better management environment and greater productivity and safety for MESC staff

� Staff absenteeism reduced

� Increased use of information technology

� Reduced operational costs

� Project progress reports

� MESC statistics

Risks

� Present construction boom and increase of costs of commodities world wide will cause budget to be be exceeded

3.2 Improved secondary school facilities

� Improved learning environments in 3 secondary colleges

� Project progress reports

� Construction reports and project database

� Over commitment of construction industries for South Pacific games and other infrastructure may slow down school construction program

� Improved learning environments in 9 secondary schools plus Fagaloa pilot

� Evaluation of Fagaloa pilot under Component 4

� 13 secondary schools (including Fagaloa)renovated, furnished, and equipped

� Construction reports and contractorassessments/building inspections

� Project database � Evaluation of Fagaloa pilot

3.3 Teachers’ houses at four primary schools in rural areas

� More qualified and experienced teachers areattracted to rural areas

� 4 houses are designed constructed

� Construction reports � Building Contracts � Evaluation report under Component 4 about pilot program for teacher housing

Assumptions

� Teacher housing in remote locations is acost effective means of attracting staff

� Sites are selected by MESC and agreed with School Communities

3.4 Procurement of Goods and Services

� Efficient and effective procurement systems

� Procurement reports� Project reports,

� Curriculum sets out requirement for

Section 4 7

developed and in use � Each school is provided with furniture, equipment and learning material packages, on time and within budget

� Students have access to improved learningmaterials and equipment

school assessments � Evaluations

learning materials� Standard School design criteria set furniture and equipment needs

� Highly qualified TA explicitly focused on capacity building will be available

3.5 Improved maintenance

� Policies developed and operational plans in place by 2005

� Funding for operational maintenance provided in each year of the Project

� System reviewed, developed and in use

�� Project progress reports

� Annual Plans

� Communities are willing and able to mobilize resources to undertake the maintenance of schools

Section 4 8

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ ReportingMechanism

Assumptionsand Risks

4. Strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning

4.1 Improved national capacity for researchand evaluation

4.2 Research and evaluation program with results used for policy development and planning

4.3 Improved capacity to evaluate the impact of sectoral initiatives

� Capacity building needs of MESC and other institutions staff assessed, associated training and technical assistance program delivered and results determined (from 2006/07 through 2007/08)

� Design and implementation of five research studies based on MESC priorities implemented from 2006/07 through 2009/10 with results integrated into policies and planning

� Evaluations of pilots supported by the Project (by 2010) and support from ESP I and other evaluation studies demonstrate increased sectoral evaluation capacity

� Needs analysis completed

� Capacity building assessments undertaken and results obtained

� Reseach and evaluation program design prepared

� Research and evaluation studies and results published anddisseminated

� Evaluation reports prepared

� Project progress reports and findingsof joint review missions

� Review of capacity building andresearch/evaluationprogram in Year 2

Assumption

� Highly qualified technical assistancefocused on capacity building will be available

Risks

� Number of qualified MESC and other staff is too limited to ensure sustained capacity

� Cooperative arrangements with other institutions are feasible and complementary resources are available

Section 4 9

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ ReportingMechanism

Assumptionsand Risks

5. Strengthening capacity to implement and managedevelopmentprojects

5.1 Improved strategic management and coordination of implementation

5.2 Integrated financial managementsystem

5.3 Effective performancemonitoring, evaluation, and reporting system

5.4 Tendering and contract management procedures and systems established and operational

� Progress toward the Project’s developmentobjectives is on schedule and within budget

� Program management structure operational and effective, including Secretariat and committees

� Financial management system established, Special Purpose Account operational by end of the first quarter and integrated with government finance and reporting system by Year 2

� Project progress reports produced on time and providing relevant information to project management and Development Partners

� Tendering procedures meet GOS and ADB guidelines and deliver goods and services effectively and on time

� JRMs, GoS assessments of MESC capability, sectoral plans and reviews, GoS budget

� Sector Plan mid term review (2010)

� Financial reports, audit reports

� Annual Plans and performanceprogress reports

� Financial reports, contractorassessment reports, Annual Plans, analysis of lead and processing times

Assumptions

� Progress towards sector approach is compatible with donor strategies

� Donors are able to agree on financingand management arrangements

� Highly qualified TA focused on capacitybuilding will be available

Risks

� Multiple donors increaseadministration and transaction costs forMESC/MOF

�Current limitations of GoS financial system (GOFAR)

Section 4 10

SECTION 5: COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCING PLAN

A. Cost Estimates

1. The total cost of the Project is estimated at US$30.00 million equivalent including taxes and duties, interest charges on the ADB loan of US$8.06 million,and physical and price contingencies. The foreign exchange cost is estimated at US$19.92 million (66.4%) and the local currency cost at US$10.08 million equivalent (33.6%) of the total project cost. Table 1 presents a summary of the cost estimates. Allocation of Loan Proceeds under ‘Section 9: Disbursement’ provides details.

Table 1: Project Cost Summary (US$ million)

ComponentForeign

ExchangeLocal

CurrencyaTotalCost

A. Baseline Costs 1. Introducing curriculum reform and

assessment systems

2.34 0.96 3.30

2. Developing effective teachers 0.49 0.57 1.063. Improving access to quality education 13.46 6.20 19.664. Strengthening capacity to undertake

research evaluation, policy analysis, and planning

0.43 0.30 0.73

5. Strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects.

0.59 0.26 0.85

Subtotal (A) 17.31 8.29 25.60

B. Contingencies 1. Physical Contingenciesb

1.54 0.75 2.29

2. Price Contingenciesc 0.78 1.04 1.82Subtotal (B)

Subtotal (A + B)

2.32

19.63

1.79

10.08

4.11

29.71Interest Charges during Implementationd 0.29 0.00 0.29

Total 19.92 10.08 30.00a Including taxes and duties of $3.16 million (Appendix 7 of RRP). b Physical contingencies are estimated at 0% for salary, 10% for construction, and 5% for other costs. C In relation to local currency costs, price contingencies are estimated at 10% for construction costs and

3.5% for other costs. For foreign exchange costs, price increases are estimated at 2.8% for 2006 and at 1.9% thereafter.

d Interest charges are computed at annual rate of 1% (semi-annual compound rate of 0.5%). Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Section 5 1

Table 2: Project Cost Summary (Revised September 2006) (US$ million)

ComponentForeign

ExchangeLocal

CurrencyaTotalCost

A. Baseline Costs 1. Introducing curriculum reform and

assessment systems 1.517 2.600 4.1172. Developing effective teachers 0.900 0.683 1.5833. Improving access to quality education 12.000 5.580 17.584. Strengthening capacity to undertake

research evaluation, policy analysis, and planning

0.400 0.4010.801

5. Strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects.

0.450 0.178 0.628

Subtotal (A) 15.267 9.442 24.709

B. Contingencies 1. Physical Contingenciesb 1.000 1.501 2.5012. Price Contingenciesc 1.000 1.500 2.500

Subtotal (B)

Subtotal (A + B) 5.001

Interest Charges during Implementationd 0.29 0.00 0.29

Total 17.557 12.443 30.00a Including taxes and duties of $3.16 million. b Physical contingencies are estimated at 0% for salary, 10% for construction, and 5% for other costs. C In relation to local currency costs, price contingencies are estimated at 10% for construction costs and

3.5% for other costs. For foreign exchange costs, price increases are estimated at 2.8% for 2006 and at 1.9% thereafter.

d Interest charges are computed at annual rate of 1% (semi-annual compound rate of 0.5%). Source: Modified by CDT to align with ADB total estimates. NB: The PDD contains more detailed forecast

costings for each component, and for total Project expenditure.

B. Financing Plan

2. The Government has requested a loan of US$8.06 million from ADB’s Special Funds resources to help finance the Project. The loan will have a term of 32 years including a grace period of 8 years, and an interest rate of 1% per annum during the grace period and 1.5% per annum thereafter.

3. The loan, which will cover approximately 26.8% of the total project cost, will finance US$6.28 million equivalent of the foreign exchange cost (31.5% of total foreign exchange cost) and $1.78 million equivalent of the local currency cost (17.7% of the total local currency cost). Interest during development will be capitalized as indicated in Table 1.

4. The total cost of the Project is estimated at US$30.0 million equivalent including taxes and duties, interest charges on the ADB loan, and physical and price contingencies. The total amount net of taxes and duties is US$26.84

Section 5 2

million. Parties have agreed to provide contributions in the following amounts and percentages. (CFA-24)

5 The Government will provide US$4.74 million (15.8% of total cost) which is the total of taxes and duties estimated at US$3.16 million and other financing of US$1.58 million. Samoa shall provide sufficient funds to meet expected expenditure forecast for the following financial year. Samoa will fund its contributions through annual appropriations from the Parliament. (CFA 25-26)

6 AusAID and NZAID will each provide grant funds of US$8.60 million equivalent (28.7% each of total cost).1 NZAID and AusAID will provide their respective contributions through the provision of acquittal based grant funding. Under this Arrangement NZAID and AusAID each agree to provide funding for a period of six years from the date of execution of this Arrangement to 31 June 2012. This will be provided by way of official development assistance, and is subject to their respective Parliaments providing annual appropriations of sufficient amounts for the purpose of supporting the implementation of the Project. (CFA-28)

7. The financing plan is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Financing Plan

PartnerForeign

ExchangeUS$ million

LocalCurrency

US$million

TotalContributions

(up to) US$ million

Percentageinclusive of

taxes

Samoa $0.38 $4.36 $4.74 15.8%

ADB $6.28 $1.78 $8.06 26.8%

NZAID $6.63 $1.97 $8.6 28.7%

AusAID $6.63 $1.97 $8.6 28.7%

$19.92 $10.08 $30 100%

8. The percentage figure above includes taxes and duties estimated atUS$3.16 million. Samoa will finance all taxes and duties. The amount of financing, excluding taxes and duties to be provided by Samoa is US$1.58 million. Disbursement amounts and ratios are set out in the Appendix 1 of the CFA (CFA 25).

1 See also table on Allocation of Loan Proceeds under Disbursement.

Section 5 3

C. Partial Administration Services

9. ADB, AusAID and NZAID agreed to the following co-financing obligations to coordinate the utilization of the contributions provided by ADB, AusAID, and NZAID for the Project. Parties acknowledge that by incorporating the partial administration obligations into the CFA, as opposed to a separate Co-financing Agreement, it is a departure from ADB’s standing operating procedures. Parties agree that this approach is a pilot only for the duration of the Project, and may not be used as a precedent for future co-financing arrangements between the DPs, or with respect to the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness without thorough evaluation and only with the concurrence of each DP. (CFA-43)

10. The grants from Australia and New Zealand will be partially administered by ADB in accordance with procedures outlined in ADB Doc. R289-03.2 (CFA 44)

D. NZAID and AusAID Contributions

11. NZAID and AusAID will provide their respective contributions through the provision of acquittal based grant funding. Under this Arrangement NZAID and AusAID each agree to provide funding for a period of six years from the date of execution of this Arrangement to 31 June 2012. This will be provided by way of official development assistance, and is subject to their respective Parliaments providing annual appropriations of sufficient amounts for the purpose of supporting the implementation of the Project.

D1. Conditions of AusAID/NZAID Grant Funding (CFA 29-39)

12. In providing such grant funding under this Arrangement the followingconditions will apply. In signing this Arrangement Samoa agrees to be bound by these conditions. The terms of the grant funding and these conditions (clauses 29 to 38) are legally binding upon NZAID, AusAID and Samoa. The Parties agree that there shall be no implied or direct liability, or legal recourse to ADB for the fulfilment of conditions set out in paragraphs 28 to 39.

13. Samoa agrees to use the grant funding solely for the purpose for which ithas been given. The purpose for which the funding has been given is in relation to eligible expenses incurred in the implementation of the Project. If Samoa uses the funds for anything other than the agreed purpose, Samoa undertakes to reimburse such funds to NZAID and AusAID in the proportions in which they were originally given.

2 ADB. 2003. ADB-Administered Grant Cofinancing Partial Administration Modality and Related Service Charges.

Manila.

Section 5 4

14. NZAID and AusAID agree to deposit an initial advance into Samoa’s Special Purposes Account. The advance is intended as a float to allow Samoa to incur Project eligible expenditure. The amount of the advance is to be agreed by NZAID, AusAID and Samoa following the production of the Annual Plan for year one of the Project. NZAID and AusAID will each contribute to the advance in a sum that represents 42.1% of the amount determined. Samoa will contribute to the advance in a sum that represents 15.8% of the amount determined. In determining the initial advance required NZAID, AusAID and Samoa acknowledge that the Annual Budget for year one of the Project may include additional costs to be incurred prior to 1 July 2006 which may be taken into account for the purposes of determining a sufficient level of advance for the initial implementation of the Project. AusAID, NZAID and Samoa each agree to pay their respective shares regarding the initial advance within two weeks of signing this Arrangement. .15. Samoa undertakes to refund to NZAID and AusAID any funds, which remain unspent at the end of the period to which this funding relates in the proportions in which they were originally given.

16. Where Samoa, NZAID or AusAID breaches a material condition of these Conditions of grant funding and the breach is not remedied to the others’ satisfaction within a reasonable period of time, then, subject to prior discussion with, ADB, either Samoa, NZAID or AusAID may terminate their obligations in respect of the grant funding immediately by giving the party in breach one month’s notice in writing. Such notice in writing shall be copied to ADB.

17. Before making any subsequent payments following the provision of the advance both NZAID and AusAID must be satisfied as to Samoa’s performanceunder this Arrangement, and in particular all reporting requirements, and may, subject to prior discussion with ADB, withhold payment, in whole or in part, where either one or both are not so satisfied.

18. Payment of grant funds will be made in US$. Samoa will bear any associated exchange rate risk.

D2. Other Contributions

19. Both NZAID and AusAID will provide additional funding to support the Project, namely they will jointly meet the costs associated with the development of the Project Implementation Document and the design of MESC head quarters to be incorporated into the PIAM.

20. AusAID will take the lead in commissioning the work described in the foregoing paragraph and will contract directly with consulting contractors.

Section 5 5

AusAID will consult with NZAID, Samoa and ADB in relation to the terms of reference and the selection and letting of these contracts.

21. NZAID undertakes to meet up to half of the contract price in relation to each of the contracts referred to in the foregoing paragraph. NZAID and AusAID shall agree the exact amount once the contract prices are known. AusAID shall advise NZAID by way of a written communication (e-mail is sufficient) of the sums due. NZAID will then arrange payment as agreed by the two partners.

Section 5 6

SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

A. Project Management

The Project Management Strategy developed during the workshop on 14-15 September 2006 is included as Section 6 Annex 5.

Executing Agency - The Ministry of Finance (MOF) will be the Executing Agency for the Project, and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MESC) the Implementing Agency.

Education Steering Committee - The Education Steering Committee (ESC) will provide strategic direction and oversight for the ESPII implementation. The ESC will meet whenever necessary, but not less than once every quarter.

Implementing Agency – MESC will have overall responsibility for the day-to-day management of project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting of progress. The Project will be implemented through the MESC Core Executive, comprising the CEO and ACEOs, and the Office of the Chief Executive Officer (OCEO), where the Education Consultant also acts as the ESP II Program Coordinator (see Section 6 Annex 1 – Ministry of Education, Sport and Culture Organizational Chart). The responsibility for each component will rest with the appropriate ACEO and be implemented by staff of the relevant division.

The establishment of an ESP II Secretariat will provide support for project management, with membership drawn from the Corporate Services Division (CSD) and the Asset Management Unit (formerly the ESP I PMT). These staff will perform the administrative and financial management functions for the Project. Procurement tasks will be carried out by the Asset Management Unit (see Section 8 – Procurement). Project implementation, utilizing the MESC organizational structure, and coordinated by the ESP II Secretariat, is represented by the diagram in Section 6 Annex 2 -– Project Management and Implementation Arrangements.

The Program Coordinator will act as the Chairperson of the ESP II Secretariat.Other staff members seconded from other parts of MESC include:

� Principal Accountant (from CSD) � Budget Accountant (from CSD) � Principal Project Accountant (from Asset Management) � Project Assistant Accountant (from Asset Management) � Project Officer (new position) � Executive Assistant (from OCEO) – in a support role � Principal Information Technology Officer

The role of the ESP II Secretariat will be to coordinate all project inputs, oversee project financial management, prepare draft project documentationand coordinate project monitoring/reporting. The functions of the ESP II

Section 6 1

Secretariat are described in Section 6 Annex 4 – ESP II Secretariat Charter.The Secretariat will not be a decision-making body, but will support the MESC Core Executive and the ESC to perform their project management roles effectively. A network of specialized sub committees, described below, further supports elements and activities within each component.

The ESP II Secretariat will prepare the draft Annual Plans, Quarterly and annual Project Performance Reports, manage the project’s Special Purpose Account, undertake the coordination of MESC monitoring and evaluation, and be the contact point for the MOF on day to day project management issues. Technical assistance will be provided in the initial stages to strengthen capacity of the MESC management structure to deliver the Project effectively. This technical assistance is described under Component 5 in Section 3 - Project Description and is primarily associated with:

� developing MESC capacity in financial management for the Special Purpose Account and associated reporting;

� developing the monitoring/evaluation and reporting system within MESC, and reporting on project performance to management

� strengthening and standardizing procurement and contract management within MESC associated with implementation of ESP II components.

The Curriculum, Materials, and Assessment Division (CMAD) will be responsible for the implementation of Component 1. Management of Component 1 is supported by the Curriculum and Assessment sub committees, both chaired by the ACEO for CMAD. The Schools Operations Division (SOD) is responsible for implementation of Component 2. The In-service Training sub committee will support management of Component 2, under the ACEO for SOD as the Chair. These sub committees have broad representation from within MESC, school review officers and principals, the NUS, the National Assessment Council and the Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA).

The Project Management Team (PMT) established for the ESP I, will be designated as the Asset Management Unit, and is now an integral part of MESC’s organizational structure. The Asset Management Unit will have responsibility for procurement of goods and services for all components, including developing and finalizing tenders and contracts, and will have and overall responsibility for implementation of Component 3. The Unit is supported by the Tenders Evaluation sub committee, which includes management and specialist staff from within MESC, as well as representatives from other Government agencies such as Ministry of Works, Attorney Generals and MOF. An Education Infrastructure sub committee has also been established to guide the school building program associated with Component 3. The head of the Asset Management Unit chairs both these sub committees.

The Planning, Policy, and Research Division (PPRD) will implement Component 4 relating to developing a research and analytical capacity as well as policy and planning. The Policy, Planning and Research sub committee will support the ACEO, and will have a broad representation drawn

Section 6 2

from within MESC, plus tertiary education institutions and other Government agencies.

B. Education Steering Committee

The ESC will undertake the following tasks:

� approve Project progress reports, endorse proposed operational plans and support the development of Project budgets;

� provide overall policy and strategic guidance on project implementation and decide on corrective action, if needed;

� ensure that Project implementation is in accordance with Samoa education sector policies and plans; and

� resolve issues and conflicts that may emerge.

The ESC is composed of a Chair (the Government Ombudsman); and representatives from MOF, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Public Service Commission, SQA, Ministry of Works, NUS and other members yet to be determined. The Coordinating Development Partner (C-DP, see C – below) is also a member of the ESC. The CEO of MESC is an ex-officio member of the ESC, and will make meeting arrangements, with the OCEO providing support and secretariat services.

C. Coordinating Development Partner

ESP II will be delivered under a Consolidated Funding Agreement (CFA) between the Development Partners (DPs) and the GoS. A copy of the CFA is at Section 18.

A C-DP will be appointed to support coordination amongst the DPs and the GoS, and to act as the focal point of communication between all the Project Partners. This role will be rotated between the DPs on an 18-month cycle, orsuch other timeframe as agreed. This role will be taken in the first instance by NZAID. The coordination role will not prevent other parties communicating directly with each other where required.

The CD-P will be a member of the ESC, but will also be responsible for liaising between the parties and coordinating the inputs of the DPs. In addition, the CD-P will assist in facilitating the DPs’ approval of the GoS’s choice of auditor and liaise in relation to the timing of audit and production of the audit report.

During the implementation of the Project, the Project Partners will establish agreed contact points.

D. Implementation Period

The Project will be implemented over 6 years, however most activities under the components are scheduled for the first five years commencing from

Section 6 3

financial year 2006/07. The major activities scheduled for Year 6 are related to finalizing school construction and completion of building inspections. Project completion is therefore timed for financial year 2011/12. ADB loan effectiveness occurred on 16 August 2006 and project completion is scheduled for December 2012. The Project’s implementation schedules, covering overall project implementation, construction under Component 3 and consulting services inputs are at Section 6 Annex 3.

E. Feasibility and Sustainability

Overall FeasibilityProject objectives are aligned with, and complement the SDS 2005-07, the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006-2015, the MESC Corporate Plan 2006-09 and the program budgets of the GoS. GoS have demonstrated their commitment to the education sector and the provision of adequate counterpart funding. Implementation is, as far as possible, integrated with existing GoS and MESC processes for planning, budgeting and decision-making.

ESP II is built on work already undertaken in ESP I, and other donor-funded interventions such as the Institutional Strengthening Project (ISP), and other curriculum and materials projects previously funded by AusAID and NZAID. The types of activities planned for the Project are therefore familiar to MESC staff, and the process of implementation has been successfully trialled over the previous 5-10 years.

ESP II consists of five separate components that are mutually reinforcing. Although the implementation of ESP II faces a significant number of risks, there are several features of the Project design that contribute to overall feasibility and achievement of the goal and purpose. These features include:

� Coherence: As noted, the Project supports GoS education sector goals and objectives, and consists of an integrated set of activities that are relatively straightforward, and have previously been implemented effectively by GoS and MESC.

� Organisational Fit: MESC and MOF have requested that the Project be delivered through MESC and GoS systems, and the organisational structure of MESC is reflected in the implementation approach. Project objectives are aligned with, and complement, national development, sector plans and budgets of the GoS.

� Capacity Building is maintained: The Project has capacity building elements that seek to improve management and skills within counterparts, notably MESC and in school communities;

� Capacity Building resources are available: Project inputs relating to capacity building, and which rely on additional staff resources, can be resourced relatively easily within the country and from the region.

� Capacity of Local Construction Industry: At the local level, construction capacity is available to undertake the civil works program.

� Realistic time frame: The time frame for the achievement of objectives is realistic – the program can commence immediately following formal agreement between DPs and GoS.

Section 6 4

� Activity Integration: The project will support the MESC goal of improving the quality of education by linking interventions in curriculum, assessment, teacher training, research and development and facilities/maintenance management.

The design of ESP II takes into account the issue of what is the core business of MESC, and further, what will be done ‘in house’ and what can be contracted or ‘outsourced’. The resources available to MESC and GoS are limited, the size of the country and the education system precludes many forms of expertise and skills being retained within the agency. For example, it would be inappropriate for MESC to have a permanent staff of curriculum writers or materials developers. Similarly, the agency does not do enough capital works to justify full time staff with construction management expertise.

As a result, the Project provides a good opportunity for these services to be carried out through external funding. The move towards a sector approach will need to include discussions with DPs on how GoS might finance these types of activities (especially capital works) in future. The future sustainability of other ongoing activities (commenced under ESP II) will need to be assessed to ensure that there are sufficient resources available. It is unlikely that the progress towards a SWAp will end at the conclusion of the Project, and that donor support will still be available post-2012.

Manageability of the ProjectThere is commitment at the senior levels of GoS to the project. An implementation unit has already been set up within MESC (the ESP II Secretariat), and the organisational units (i.e. MESC Divisions) responsible for each component already exist and have substantial experience and expertise in the management and delivery of Project activities. The design of the Project takes into account the revised organizational structure proposed in the MESC Corporate Plan, and the roles and responsibilities of each Division and section within the agency. Each ACEO will be responsible for ensuring the milestones and outputs in their respective components are being completed within the budget and planned timeframe.

School community participation will be a feature of the management of the facilities design development as well as maintenance. School communities will be integrated within the school facilities design process as well as taking the leading role in the maintenance planning and subsequent maintenance of the facilities. The participation of the school community will be a pre-condition to any facilities upgrade.

Technical FeasibilityThe program is considered to be technically feasible as it has the advantage of drawing on the experience gained under ESP I and other projects. The sub-components of the project are, in the main, designed to utilise and draw on local resources as required and where necessary the skills of international consultants will be commissioned.

Section 6 5

Financial and Economic Feasibility A cost benefit analysis of the program has not been conducted, nor have economic and financial rates of return been calculated. However, it is understood that donor support for improving school-based education is a sound investment, and has significant future returns for Samoa, and for individual students and their families and communities.

Some 50% of the budget is related to provision of infrastructure (headquarters and school facilities civil works). The construction of a new headquarters building is important for the GoS strategy to improve the operational effectiveness of the Ministry. Presently MESC management team is distributed in various buildings on the Malifa compound and in the Teuila Hotel (across the road from the main compound). By moving the staff from the hotel, considerable recurrent costs will be deferred until the building requires recurrent maintenance. Two of the main design criteria for the HQ are that: the building is energy efficient (to reduce operating costs) and the building can be maintained with available local skills and resources. It is considered that while these two criteria will increase the immediate capital cost, it will reduce the longer term operational and maintenance costs to MESC. The HQ design team will look at the operational and recurrent costs as part of their brief.

The construction of the new secondary colleges and schools will be predicated on the implementation of maintenance plans run by each school committee. As part of the revision to the School Facilities Planning Handbook the Core Executive will undertake a review how to strengthen the school committees and in particular what the GoS will allocate to school maintenance from its annual education budget.

Section 6 6

The Table below indicates a sample of activities that are being undertaken through ESP II and the likely impact on future MESC budgets.

ProjectActivity

Requirements Project Resources Future Funding Options/Impact on Recurrent Budget

PrimaryCurriculumDevelopment

Curriculum and materialsspecialists (national and international)

Full funding under Component 1

Periodic revisions of curriculum, either donor-funded or allocation within GoS budget

In-serviceteachertraining

Teacher trainers, course materials, linked to curriculum revisions,consultant trainers

Full funding under Component 2

Part of regular MESC budget, trainers can be outsourced Backfilling or use of substitute teachersfunded by MESC

Teacherfellowships

10 teacher fellowships forspecialised subjects

Full funding of course costs and living allowances

Backfilling of teachers during training funded by MESC Further fellowships to be funded fromdonors or regular budget

New primary teachers

100 new teachers (25 per year)

Training funded under Component 2, salary costs covered by MESC

Salary costs to be borne by MESC as part of regular budget

Teacherhousing pilot

Construction of 4 houses

Full costs of construction and supervision under Component 3, MESC to cover maintenance and teacher costs

Review of pilot to see if cost-effective MESC to include maintenance of houses in budgetSalary costs borne by MESC

SecondarySchoolConstruction

Construction of 12 facilities

Full costs of construction and supervision under Component 3, some initial funding to support school communitymaintenance

MESC and school community to bear future maintenance costs

Fagaloa pilot Planning and construction of community learning centre

Full construction costs plus funding of communityconsultation and research (national consultants) under Components 1 and 3

Review of pilot to determine cost-effectiveness and impactMESC (or donors) to estimate and plan for any further development of community learning centres

Section 6 7

Institutional FeasibilityThe Project involves the interaction by MESC with MoF as well as community groups in the target school districts. MESC will manage the Project, and will coordinate ESP II activities with those of other donors, such as JICA and EU, who are involved in some school classroom micro projects.

The Project will develop the skills and resources of participating agency and the community groups, especially with the Fagaloa pilot and the secondary school committees involved in construction activities. The existing MESC management structure allows for substantial community level input to planning and delivery, and this will be strengthened and supported through the Project. Skills and management will be improved at the school, SRO and national levels of MESC, as well as MOF.

Using GoS agencies, school staff and school communities should have a positive impact on maintaining school facilities beyond the life of the Project. However, this maintenance of school facilities will ultimately depend on the recurrent resources available and the ongoing commitment by the school communities.

GenderMaterials & Curriculum: MESC has gender inclusive policies that will be reflected in the curriculum design and selection of learning materials in Component 1. A national assessment system will similarly include gender considerations in the development and implementation of standardised tests.

Staffing: All MESC policies related to professional development recruitment and promotion under Component 2 will be reviewed to reflect gender equality.

School facilities: During the school design process the designers will be asked to ensure the schools are designed and specified so as to make sure all students will have clean and secure toilets.

Poor performance by boys: PPRD will ensure that an analysis is undertaken with a view to highlight the disparities in education between the genders in both mission schools and government schools. The disparity in results will be used develop a program so as to overcome problems being experienced by boys. This will be included in the research study into causes of low achievement scheduled for Years 2 and 3.

Pilot Programs: MESC will detail design any pilot studies to ensure gender equality is taken into account. For example, the Samoa SchoolNet and Community Access Pilot Program will be set up so as to enable access by both girls and boys as well as by women and men.

Environmental ImpactThe Project is expected to have a neutral effect on the environment. All buildings and other construction will conform to Samoa’s environmental regulations and standards. Improvements to existing school sanitation will

Section 6 8

Section 6 9

probably have a small positive effect on immediate school and village environments.

Features to Promote SustainabilityThe Project will strengthen GoS’s systems and management and accordingly will improve the sustainability of the education sector goals and Project achievements. The sustainability of the program will be enhanced by:

� Donor engagement with the GoS focused on the issue of improving the quality of education;

� Planning and implementation of the Project is aligned with existing GoS/MESC processes;

� Supply of consultancy services to augment and build MESC capacity; � Effective, consultative and interactive decision-making using the MESC

management structure;� Active involvement of local communities in facilities design and

maintenance delivery, and � Use of GoS resources and systems wherever possible.

Sec

tion

6 A

nnex

1

Min

istr

y o

f E

du

ca

tio

n,

Sp

ort

s a

nd

Cu

ltu

re O

rga

nis

ati

on

Ch

art

– (

Pro

po

se

d u

nd

er

ne

w C

orp

ora

te P

lan

)

Off

ice

of

the

Ch

ief

Ex

ec

uti

ve

Off

ice

r (O

CE

O)

Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division (CMAD)

School Operations Division (SOD)

Asset Management Division (AMD)

Policy, Planning and Research Division (PPRD)

Corporate Services Division (CSD)

Sports Division (SD)

Culture Division (CD)

Information and Communication

Technology Division (ICTD)

Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA)

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

(C

EO

)

Sec

tion

6 10

Sec

tion

6 A

nnex

2

PR

OJ

EC

T M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

ND

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N A

RR

AN

GE

ME

NT

S

Sec

tion

6 11

Min

istr

y of

Edu

cati

on, S

port

s an

d C

ultu

re (

ME

SC)

Impl

emen

ting

A

genc

y)

ME

SC C

ore

Exe

cuti

ve

Component 4

Research, Evaluation, Policy

Analysis and Planning

Component 3

Improving Access to Quality

Education

Component 2

Developing Effective Teachers

Pro

ject

Par

tner

ship

M

inis

try

of F

inan

ce

(MO

F)–

(Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy)

, AD

B,

Aus

tral

ia, N

ew Z

eala

nd

Join

t R

evie

w

Mis

sion

s

ES

P I

I S

ecre

tari

at

(Pro

ject

Coord

inat

ion)

Curr

iculu

m M

ater

ials

and

Ass

essm

ent

Div

isio

n

(CM

AD

)

Sch

oo

l O

per

atio

n

Div

isio

n (

SO

D)

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t U

nit

(AM

)

Po

licy

Pla

nn

ing

an

d

Res

earc

h D

ivis

ion

(PP

RD

)

Component 1

Curriculum and Assessment

Edu

cati

on

Stee

ring

Com

mit

tee

Leg

end: F

un

din

g a

gen

cies

and t

he

MO

F

wil

l m

eet

wit

h E

du

cati

on

Ste

erin

g

Co

mm

itte

e (E

SC

) m

em

ber

s an

d

oth

er r

ele

van

t st

akeh

old

ers

to h

ave

dia

log

ues

on

str

ateg

ic,

po

licy

an

d

pro

gra

m m

atte

rs.

T

he

ES

C w

ill

pro

vid

e st

rate

gic

dir

ecti

on

and

over

sig

ht

for

the

Pro

ject

. A

ll c

om

ponen

ts o

f th

e

Pro

ject

wil

l b

e im

ple

men

ted

thro

ug

h t

he

exis

tin

g M

ES

C

org

aniz

atio

nal

str

uct

ure

.

12

Sec

tion

6 A

nnex

3 (

14 p

ages

)

Sec

tion

6

Section 6 Annex 4

ESP II Secretariat

Charter

Background

ESP II is a jointly financed development project with the objective of establishing a more equitable and effective education system in Samoa that will enhance learning outcomes of young people for further study, work, and adultlife. The Project will be financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), AusAID, NZAID and the Government of Samoa, through a Consolidated Funding Arrangement (CFA) that outlines the working arrangements and respective contributions of the Project Partners.

Specific outcomes of the Project will be the enhanced quality of education through improving the curriculum, assessment procedures, learning materials, and teaching practice; and providing equitable access to trained teachers, facilities, furniture, and equipment. The Project has five components:

1) Introducing curriculum reform and assessment systems;

2) Developing effective teachers;

3) Improving access to quality education;

4) Strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning; and

5) Strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects.

The Executing Agency for ESP II is the Ministry of Finance (MOF), while the Implementing Agency is the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC).

MESC will have overall responsibility for the day-to-day management of project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting of progress. The Project will be implemented through the MESC Core Executive, comprising the CEO and ACEOs, and the Office of the Chief Executive Officer (OCEO), where the Education Consultant also acts as the ESP II Program Coordinator. The responsibility for each component will rest with the appropriate ACEO and be implemented by staff of the relevant division.

With these fundamental requirements in mind, the Government will establish project management arrangements that provide the necessary management oversight for ESP II. Overall strategic and policy direction for the education

Section 6

sector rests with the Education Steering Committee (ESC), which will be re-convened for ESP II and have a membership drawn from Government, other education stakeholders in Samoa, the DPs and the wider community.

The establishment of an ESP II Secretariat will provide support and coordinationfor project management in MESC, with membership drawn from the Corporate Services Division (CSD) and the Asset Management Unit (formerly the ESP I PMT). These staff will perform the administrative and financial management functions for the Project.

The roles and responsibilities of the ESC and the ESP II Secretariat, and theirrelationships are covered in more detail in the PIAM.

Membership and Role of the ESP II Secretariat

Responsibility for the coordination of ESP II is vested in a Secretariat whose core membership is drawn from MESC. The Education Consultant in the OCEO, in her role as ESP II Program Coordinator, will Chair the Secretariat. Staff members, drawn from other parts of MESC, include:

� Assistant Chief Executive Officer of Corporate Services Division

� Principal Project Accountant (from Asset Management Unit)

� Principal Accountant (from CSD)

� Project Assistant Accountant (from Asset Management Unit - new position)

� Senior Asset Management Officer (from CSD)

� Project Officer (new position)

� Executive Assistant (from OCEO) – in a support role

� Principal Information Technology Officer

The role of the ESP II Secretariat includes:

� Providing advice and information to the MESC Core Executive to support effective decision making with regard to the Project;

Section 6 27

� Ensuring that Project progress and component activity implementation proceed on schedule and in the approved manner;

� Coordinate and undertake planning for all Project inputs;

� Oversight of Project financial management, including working closely with staff of CSD in the operations of the Project Special Purpose Account;

� Coordinate project monitoring and evaluation, and prepare project reports for the Core Executive and ESC on a regular basis;

� Providing appropriate direction/support to the Divisions responsible for component activity implementation in matters relating to operational management, use of resources and Project funding;

� Be the main contact point and respond to day-to-day enquiries related to Project management from the MOF and DPs.

ESP II Secretariat Tasks

The main task of the ESP II Secretariat is the effective coordination of project implementation within MESC. The Secretariat will:

� Coordinate Project inputs, such as technical assistance, materials and equipment and the school construction elements of ESP II, in line with approved Annual Plans, implementation schedules and budgets;

� Refer any issues affecting Project implementation to the Core Executive in a timely manner;

� Prepare financial reports, including those of the Special Purpose Account, for approval by Core Executive and the ESC, before forwarding to MOF and DPs;

� Prepare project performance reports, including the draft Annual Plans, Quarterly and annual Project Performance Reports, and the Project Completion Report for approval by Core Executive and the ESC, before forwarding to the MOF and DPs; and

The ESP II Secretariat will monitor implementation of Project activities, and receive regular information on performance, expenditure and acquittal of funds.

Section 6 28

The secretariat will also coordinate any Project reviews, such as the JRMs, or other evaluations initiated by the GoS or the DPs.

The Secretariat will act in accordance with the mandate set out in the PIAM for ESP II, the CFA between the ADB and the three governments, and all relevant GoS and MESC policies, instructions and regulations.

Section 6 29

Section 6 Annex 5

ESP II Project Management Strategy

ESP II MANAGEMENT FEATURES

� The MOF is the EA.

� ESP II will be implemented through MESC as IA and not through a Managing Contractor or a donor agency.

� Policy and strategic directions are the responsibility of the ESC.

� Involvement and liaison with Development Partners (DPs) through the C-DP on the ESC.

� Project Management and overall implementation responsibility rests with the Core Executive.

� Component and activity implementation is the responsibility of the relevant ECEO, Head of Asset Management Unit or the Project Coordinator of the ESP II Secretariat supported by 8 Committees. These Committees are as follows:

Curriculum Sub-Committee – Component 1. Assessment Sub-Committee – Component 1. In-service Training Sub-Committee – Component 2. Education Infrastructure Sub-Committee – component 3. Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee – Component 3. Policy, Planning and Research Sub-Committee – Component 4 ESP II Secretariat – Component 5 Fagaloa Sub-Project Sub-Committee

MESC will submit this list of Sub-Committees to Cabinet for their consideration and approval.

� Support for the Core Executive and ESP II coordination is the responsibility of the ESP II Secretariat. The ESP II Secretariat has been developed by MESC and was discussed and endorsed at the Design Appraisal Workshop

Section 6 30

(Annex E 3)

� Management of facilities design development and maintenance will involve school community participation.

During the Design Appraisal Workshop the management requirements of ESP II and MESC were compared and proposals for the incorporation of ESP II requirements into specific MESC processes were endorsed.

PLANNING PROCESSES

ESP II Planning Process

MESC will prepare a forward program/operating plan every 12 months for the subsequent financial year in accordance with the PDD. (Annual Plan) This will be prepared by March of each year in accordance with the GoS/MESC planning and budget cycle. The Annual Plan is to include:

i. description of activities to be implemented in the next 12 months, by component, with performance targets and dates for completion where relevant;

ii. a revised implementation schedule for activities by component; and iii. estimated costs for activities by type of expenditure, including a list of

schools planned for upgrading, and an associated procurement plan for all components.

The Annual Plan will also provide estimates of the operation and maintenance budget and identify the amount of counterpart funds to be provided. The ESP II Secretariat will prepare the Annual Plan for approval by the Core Executive and endorsement by the ESC.

MESC Planning Processes

Under the MESC Planning Process each ACEO prepares their divisional plan in accordance with the MESC Corporate Plan. The divisional plan describes the activities, resource required, activities timeline and the budget estimates. Each divisional plan is then forwarded to the MESC Planning Office who amalgamates them into a MESC Draft Annual Plan. This Draft Annual Plan is then reviewed through the Corporate Planning Committee. During this review process the budget requirements are also reviewed by CSD staff in the light of the MESC budget for the subsequent financial year. A report on the Draft Annual Plan is forwarded to the Core Executive for their consideration and action. When the MESC budget is confirmed the Core Executive confirms the

Section 6 31

Annual Plan and the ACEOs then require their staff to prepare their individual management plans.

ProposalThat the ESP II planning processes be integrated into the MESC planning processes.Each Core Executive member will prepare their plan with two sections:

� Part A. MESC activities financed from the MESC budget.

� Part B. ESP II activities financed from the Special Purpose Account.

The processes of the MESC Corporate and Annual Management Planning Handbook should be followed and the present Annual Management Plan Template should be utilized. This template lists the activities and tasks to be performed by quarter and identifies the resources required categorized as operating expenses, personnel and capital funds.

In developing these activities the Core Executive member will be able to ensure that the allocation of all the resources available to them can be scheduled in such a way that all activities can be achieved.

Part A will then be reviewed by the MESC Corporate Planning Committee while Part B will be reviewed by the ESP II Secretariat. At the conclusion of these reviews both Part A and Part B will be re- amalgamated into a single MESC Annual Plan for the consideration of the Core Executive and the ESC. This will result in all sections of the MESC being fully informed of the total sum of all of MESC activities.

ESP II Initial Annual Plan

The initial Annual Plan is to cover the remaining months of the 2006/07 financial year. The PDD includes an Indicative Annual Plan for 2006/07 which assumes that the ESP II would commence on 1 July 2006.

ProposalThe Core Executive member responsible for each component should review their section of the Indicative Annual Plan from the PDD and submit a revised plan for their Component to the ESP II Secretariat for review. Subsequent to this review the ESP II Secretariat will amalgamate the Component Plans into a revised ESP II Annual Plan 2006/07 for submission to the Core Executive and the ESC for consideration and approval. This revised Annual Plan should be

Section 6 32

submitted to the first Joint Review scheduled for later in 2006. All Quarterly Reporting for 2006/07 should be against this revised Annual Plan.

ANNUAL REPORTS

ESP II Annual Report

The ESP II Annual Progress Performance Report (APPRs) will review progress and impact, examine sustainability of outcomes and will outline what is to be funded under the Project. They will include: 1) a report on project progress over the previous 12 months (from the second

annual Plan onwards); 2) an evaluation of activities and impacts resulting from the Project, with

identification of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement.

MESC Annual Report

MESC is required to submit an Annual Report to GoS. Each ACEO prepares a report on progress against their past annual divisional plan and submits the report to the PPRD for consolidation into the MESC Annual Report. PPRD then forward the consolidated Annual Report to the Core Executive for consideration prior to submission to the Minister and to Cabinet.

The MESC Annual Report reports on the achievements and initiatives for the past planning year as well as providing the Annual Plan for the subsequent year. The financial statements and performance are included.

ProposalThat the Annual Reporting processes of ESP II are incorporated into the MESC Annual Reporting processes. Each Core Executive Member to prepare an annual report of progress against their Annual Plans in two parts:

� Part A. MESC funded activities.

� Part B. Special Purpose Account funded activities.

Part A will be submitted to the PPRD for review and consolidation into a MESC Annual Report. PART B will be submitted to the ESP II Secretariat for review and consolidated into an Annual Report of ESP II activities. After these reviews the two parts will be re-amalgamated into one document for the consideration of the Core Executive for consideration to the ESC, the Minister and the Cabinet.

Section 6 33

REPORTING REGIMES

ESP II Reporting Regime

Quarterly Performance Progress Reports (QPPRs)The QPPR is to contain information on Program progress, risk and issues. To be prepared by each Component head and reviewed by the ESP II prior to consolidation into an ESP II QPPR for submission to Core Executive and the ESC.

Statement of Expenditure (SOE) A SOE is to be prepared on the ESP II Special Purpose Account (SPA) quarterly not later than 30 days after the end of the quarter.

Project Completion Report (PCR)MESC will produce a PCR within 3 months of the completion of the Project.

MESC Reporting Regime

Monthly Summary Progress Report This is submitted to Core Executive together with monthly expenditure byDivision to the activity level.

Quarterly Progress ReportThis is prepared by each ACEO and reviewed by the Corporate Planning Committee prior to submission to the Core Executive within 2 weeks of the end of the Quarter. Any activity that has not been achieved as planned is noted and reasons given for non achievement with recommended action. This includes statement of expenditure for the quarter by Division to the activity level and the remaining available budget.

ProposalThat the ESP II reporting requirements be incorporated into the MESC processes using their formats in a similar way to the planning proposal above. The reports on the respective MESC budget funded activities to be Part A and ESP II activities funded by the Special Purpose Account to be Part B of each report.

Part A to be reviewed by PPRD and Part B to be reviewed by the ESP II Secretariat. The statement of expenditure for Part A will be compiled by CSD and for Part B it will be compiled by the ESP II Secretariat.

Section 6 34

The consolidated Quarterly Report to be submitted to the Core Executive and the ESC.

ESP II REVIEW PROCESS

Joint Review Missions (JRM)

The first JRM will be conducted by the end of 2006 then there will be a JRM annually.The JRM will include an examination of the budgetary allocations, operation and maintenance costs, staffing and other incremental recurrent costs, implementation arrangements, and achievements under the Project. The review includes assessing progress in each component, identifying difficulties and constraints, and determining ways to overcome them. MESC management, specifically the CEO and ACEOs, will be a primary source of information for these reviews.

Mid Term Review (MTR)

A joint MTR will be conducted during the third year of implementation and will: (i) review the scope, design, and project management and implementation

arrangements;(ii) assess the effectiveness of any pilot programs; (iii) assess performance against targets and benchmarks; (iv) review lessons and experiences with implementation of each component; (v) review compliance with the loan agreement and bilateral funding

agreement(s); and (vi) recommend any changes in project implementation, if required.

It is anticipated that Joint Reviews and the Mid Term Review will be scheduled to occur prior to the development of the Annual Plan, so that any recommendations can be incorporated into the following year’s activities.

Section 6 35

SECTION 7: CONSULTANTS

A. Basic Principles

1. Consultants will be recruited following the Guidelines on the Use ofConsultants by Asian Development Bank and Its Borrowers dated April 2006, as amended from time to time, a copy of which was provided to the Borrower and Executing Agency during loan inception. (LA, Schedule 5, para. 5; CFA para 53; PHF para. 6(ii)). Inserted text from 12 June meeting: In line with the agreements signed, ADB consultant procedures will be used for the initial start of the program. At the time of the first 6 monthly review and following reviews, emphasis should be on ensuring that there is integration of GoS systems (including contracting of consultants) for eventual use given that the appropriate capacity building has taken place

2. Terms of Reference, Person Specification, Assignment Durations and Selection Criteria for each international and national consultant for ESP II are listed in Section 7 Annex 2.

3. The policies on recruiting consultants as agreed between the DPs and Government of Samoa are based on the following 6 main considerations:

� need for high quality services; � need for economy and efficiency; � need to give all qualified consultants an opportunity to compete in

providing the services financed by ADB; � ADB’s interest in encouraging the development and use of national

consultants from developing member countries (DMCs); � need for transparency in the selection process; and � need for increasing focus on anticorruption and observance of ethics

4. Under ESP II, all consulting services contracts will be performance based. That is, payments to the consultant are triggered on achievement of selected milestones signifying that certain project deliverables (e.g. an outcome of outputs defined in the project design and monitoring framework) have been completed. Contract milestones will be identified in the Terms of Reference for the assignment and be specified in the Scope of Services and Basis of Payment of the final The responsible officer in MESC (usually the Assistant CEO for the relevant component) will verify that the outputs or outcome has been achieved.

Section 7 1

B. Anticorruption Policy

5. Consistent with each Party’s commitment to good governance, accountability, and transparency, each Party reserves the right to investigate, directly or through its agents, any alleged corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices relating to the Project. To support these efforts, Parties acknowledge to be bound by ADB’s Anticorruption Policy. In particular, all contracts financed by Samoa in connection with the Project will include provisions specifying the right of any DP to audit and examine the records and accounts of MOF and all contractors, suppliers, consultants, and other service providers as they relate to the Project. (CFA, para 60)

6. The Development Partners (DPs) require the consultants, borrowers, EAs, and beneficiaries, under ADB-financed projects to observe the highest standards of ethics during the consultant selection process and in executing contracts. If DPs decide that representatives of a consultant, a borrower, an EA, or a beneficiary, engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices during consultant selection or the execution of a contract, ADB may take any of the steps listed in section 1.23 of the Guidelines on the Use of Consultants.Staff should refer allegations of corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive behaviour to the Integrity Division.)

7. During Project implementation, the Government shall follow, through MOF and MESC, ADB’s Anticorruption Policy, it being understood that the DPsreserve the right to investigate, directly or through its agents, any alleged corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices relating to the Project. The Government shall ensure, through MOF, that (a) periodic inspections of the contractors’ activities related to fund withdrawals and settlements are carried out, (b) relevant provisions of ADB’s Anticorruption Policy are included in all bidding documents for the Project, and (c) all contracts financed by the DPs in connection with the Project include provisions specifying the right of the DPs to audit and examine the records and accounts of MOF/MESC and all contractors, suppliers, consultants and other service providers as they relate to the Project.

C. Conflict of Interest

8. The DPs consider a conflict of interest to be a situation in which a party has interests that could improperly influence that party’s performance of official duties or responsibilities, contractual obligations, or compliance with applicable laws and regulations. A conflict of interest may contribute to or constitute a prohibited practice under the ADB’s anticorruption policy. ADB will take appropriate steps to address conflicts of interest and may reject a consultant selection if it decides that a conflict of interest has flawed the integrity of the selection process.

Section 7 2

9. Examples of circumstances in which the DPs will not select a consultant or approve a borrower’s selection include:

� Conflict between consulting activities and procurement of goods, works or services - A consulting firm or individual consultant that has been engaged by ADB or a borrower to provide goods, works or services (other than consulting services covered by the Guidelines) for a project, shall be disqualified from providing consulting services related to those goods, works or services.;

� Conflict among consulting assignments – Consulting firms or individual consultants shall not be hired for any assignment that, by its nature, may be in conflict with another assignment of the firm or individual. For example, consulting firms or individual consultants hired to prepare engineering design for an infrastructure project shall not be engaged to prepare an independent environmental assessment for the same project, and consulting firms or individual consultants assisting a client in the privatization of public assets shall neither purchase, nor advise purchasers of, such assets. Similarly, consultants hired to prepare terms of reference (TORs) for an assignment shall not be hired for the assignment in question.

� Relationship with borrower’s staff – Consulting firms or individual consultants that have a business or family relationship with a DP’s staff member or with a borrower’s staff who are directly or indirectly involved in any part of (i) the preparation of the TOR of the contract; (ii) the recruitment process for such contract; or (iii) supervision of such contract may not be awarded a contract, unless the conflict stemming from this relationship has been resolved in a manner acceptable to ADB throughout the recruitment process and the execution of the contract.

10. Consultants should not bid for assignments when they have an actual or potential conflict of interest. A consultant also should not bid for an assignment when the schedule conflicts with or overlaps the schedule for another of the consultant’s assignments.

D. Eligibility

11. To foster competition, the DPs permit firms and individuals from all ADB member countries to offer consulting services for the project. Any conditions for this participation shall be limited to those that are essential to ensure the firm’s capability to fulfil the contract. However, the following considerations will also be taken into account:

Section 7 3

� Consultants will be excluded if, by an act of compliance with a decision of the United Nations Security Council, Samoa prohibits any payments to any country, person or entity. Where Samoa prohibits payments to a particular consultant or for particular goods by such an act of compliance, that consultant may be excluded.

� Government-owned enterprises and institutions in Samoa may participate only if they can establish that they: (i) are legally and financially autonomous, (ii) operate under commercial law, and (iii) are not dependent agencies of the Government. As an exception, when the services of government-owned universities or research centres in the borrower’s country are unique and exceptional nature, and their participation is critical to project implementation, the DPs may agree on the hiring of those institutions on a case by case basis.

� Government officials and civil servants may only be hired under consulting contracts, either as individuals or as members of a team of a consulting firm, if they: (i) are on leave of absence without pay; (ii) are not being hired by the agency they were working for immediately before going on leave; and (iii) their employment would not create a conflict of interest.

� A consultant declared ineligible by the DPs in accordance with provisions of the Guidelines shall be ineligible to be awarded an ADB/DP-financed or administered contract during such period of time as the DPs shall determine.

E. Requirements under the Project

12. The Project will provide about 150.5 person-months of international consulting services and 428 person-months of domestic consulting services which are summarized in the attached Annex 1 of this Section 7 called Summary of Consulting Services Requirements. All international and associated domestic consultants will be selected and recruited in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants and other arrangements satisfactory to ADB for engaging domestic consultants. All international consulting services will be provided by either firms or individuals, in each case determined by Ministry of Finance (MOF). The domestic consulting services will cover all services except for the project implementation. See also Annex 6 of Section 8 – the ESP II Project Procurement Strategy.

13. The Project will use ADB’s quality-and-cost-based (QCBS) selection method for recruitment of firms. The Project includes a flexible provision for a pool of international and domestic consultancies for MOF to meet additional needs arising during project implementation, including small consulting service

Section 7 4

contracts for supervision of civil works. See Section 7 Annex 2 for the Outline Terms of Reference.

F. ADB’s QCBS Procedures

14. The firm(s) shall be selected and engaged by MOF, in consultation with MESC, using QCBS method in accordance with the following procedures. A summary of QCBS procedures are provided at Annex 3 of this Section.

(a) Invitation for technical and financial proposals. The invitation to submit technical and financial proposals (hereinafter

called the Request for Proposals or RFP) and all related documents shall be approved by ADB before they are issued. For this purpose, three copies of the draft RFP, the names of consultants to be short-listed, the proposed criteria for evaluation of both proposals, a draft consultancy contract, and other related documents shall be submitted to ADB. A period of at least 35 days shall be allowed for submission of both proposals. A copy of the final RFP as issued, together with all related documents, shall be furnished to ADB for information promptly after issuance. The validity period for the technical and financial proposals as provided in the RFP shall usually not exceed three months from the date specified for submission of the technical and financial proposals. The approval of ADB shall be obtained for any request to extend such validity period. Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the validity period, including any extensions, shall not exceed a maximum total period of six months. If the contract is not signed within the validity period in accordance with the Guidelines on the Use of Consultants, the selection shall be invalid and the selection and engagement process as provided in this paragraph shall be followed again.

(b) Evaluation and scoring of technical proposals.Immediately after the technical proposals have been evaluated and scored, approval of ADB shall be obtained to the evaluation and scoring of the technical proposals. For this purpose, ADB shall be furnished with three copies of the technical proposals.

(c) Public opening of financial proposals.The financial proposals of the firms whose technical proposals meet the minimum qualifying technical score shall be opened publicly after adequate notice is given to such firms or their representatives to attend the opening of the financial proposals.

(d) Evaluation and scoring of financial proposals and ranking of technical and financial proposals.

Section 7 5

After the financial proposals have been evaluated and scored, the ranking of the technical and financial proposals shall be made. Before negotiations are started with the first-ranked consultants, approval of ADB shall be obtained to the evaluation and scoring of the financial proposals and the ranking of the technical and financial proposals. For this purpose, ADB shall be provided with three copies of (i) the evaluation and scoring of the financial proposals and (ii) the ranking of the technical and financial proposals.

(e) Execution of contract.After the conclusion of negotiations but before the signing of the contract,ADB shall be furnished with the contract as negotiated for approval. Promptly after the contract is signed, ADB shall be furnished with three copies of the signed contract. If any substantial amendment of the contract is proposed after its execution, the proposed changes shall be submitted to ADB for prior approval.

15. The individual consultants shall be selected and engaged by MOF, in consultation with MESC, in accordance with the following procedures:

(a) A list of the candidates together with their qualifications and their ranking and a draft contract shall be furnished to ADB for approval before the selection of consultants.

(b) Promptly after the contract is signed, ADB shall be furnished with the evaluation of the candidates and a brief justification for the selection, together with three copies of the signed contract.

(c) If any substantial amendment of the contract is proposed after its execution, the proposed changes shall be submitted to ADB for prior approval.

16. ADB’s procedures for recruitment of individual consultants - The domestic consultants for the services referred in paragraph 1 (except for the services referred in (m)) shall be selected and engaged in accordance with procedures acceptable to ADB, and the selection and engagement of the domestic consultants shall be subject to the approval of ADB with regard to their competence and experience for carrying out the assignment. As soon as the proposals received have been evaluated but before negotiations are started with the consultants selected for negotiations, ADB shall be furnished with three copies of (i) a list of consultants invited; (ii) an evaluation of the proposals (together with one set of the first-ranked proposal); and (iii) justification for the selection. After the conclusion of negotiations but before the signing of the contract, the contract as negotiated shall be furnished to ADB for approval. Promptly after the contract is signed, ADB shall be furnished with three copies of the signed contract. If any substantial amendment of the contract is

Section 7 6

proposed after its execution, the proposed changes shall be submitted to ADB for prior approval.

17. The Borrower shall ensure that all ADB-financed contracts with consultants contain appropriate representations, warranties and, if appropriate, indemnities from the consultants to ensure that the consulting services provided do not violate or infringe any industrial property or intellectual property right or claim of any third party.

18. The individuals shall be selected and engaged by MESC in consultation with MOF, using the Government of Samoa Financial Management Act, Procurement Guidelines and Treasury Instructions and following the Quality Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method in accordance with the following procedures. These procedures apply to both international and national consultants. A summary of QCBS procedures is provided at Section 7 Annex 3.

GoS QCBS Procedures (a) Identification of Need and Preparation of Terms of Reference (TORs)19. Assistant CEOs responsible for implementation of Project components will identify the need for technical assistance. The need for technical assistance must be in line with achievement of Project outputs and within the Project’s budget parameters for the component in question. TORs for international and national consultants required for the first two years of the Project are included in Annex 2 of Section 7. Additional technical assistance and consulting services, if required, will need inclusion in the relevant Annual Plan for that year, or by separate approval from MESC Core Executive.

20. The relevant ACEO will prepare draft TORs for consulting services based on the identified need and the intention of the Project design and/or Annual Plan. The TORs are forwarded to the ESP II Secretariat. The ESP II Secretariat decides if the request needs further approval from the Core Executive, by checking against the approved Annual Plan, budget parameters and component implementation schedule. If already approved, or after approval by the Core Executive, the ESP II Secretariat develops a procurement strategy, following GOS Procurement Guidelines, Treasury Instructions and ADB Guidelines where relevant. The procurement strategy outlines the scoring methods to be used for evaluation of tenders (based on position’s selection criteria), the relative weighting of the technical and financial proposals, the minimum qualifying score, how the tendering process will be conducted, the timeframes involved and the approval/delegations required.

The TORs, together with the procurement strategy, are forwarded to the Asset Management unit, where an RFP is prepared and invitation to tender/advertising arranged.

Section 7 7

(b) Invitation for technical and financial proposals.21. The invitation to submit technical and financial proposals (hereinafter called the Request for Proposal or RFP) and all related documents will be in a standard format approved by ADB, and detailed in Section 8 - Procurement. Invitations to tender, using the standard RFP and contract documentation, will take place through public advertising in Samoa and overseas through the Project’s consultants register, the ADB website and resources such as the Development Gateway.

22. The validity period for the technical and financial proposals as providedin the RFP shall usually not exceed three months from the date specified for submission of the technical and financial proposals. If the contract is not signed within the validity period, the selection shall be invalid and the selection and engagement process as provided in this paragraph shall be followed again.

(c) Evaluation and scoring of technical proposals. 23. Evaluation of technical proposals is undertaken by the MESC Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee, chaired by the head of the Asset Management unit, and which includes representatives from MOF, Ministry or Works and the Attorney General. Technical proposals are scored and ranked according to specific criteria. The RFP shall clearly state the scoring and weighting system to be used by the Sub-Committee.

(d) Opening of financial proposals.24. The Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee, following technical assessment, shall open the financial proposals of proposals where the technical score meets a minimum qualifying threshold.

(e) Evaluation and scoring of financial proposals and ranking of technical and financial proposals.

25. After the financial proposals have been evaluated and scored by the Sub-Committee, the final ranking of the technical and financial proposals shall be made. The top three ranked proposals shall be forwarded in a submission to the appropriate delegate for approval. This submission will be prepared by the Asset Management unit.

(f) Government of Samoa approval26. Approval of the selection by an appropriate delegate is required under Government of Samoa Procurement Guidelines and Treasury Instructions (Purchasing Authorities Table).

27. Approval requires, for contracts over a total value of SAT 20,000 (approximately US$7,000), a Requisition Order (Ty.11), which must include:

� Three written quotes from suppliers of goods and services (i.e. the final ranking of the first three consultants according to the Tenders Evaluation

Section 7 8

Sub-Committee). The ‘quotes’ include the technical proposal addressing the selection criteria and financial proposals in the format requestedunder the RFP;

� Departmental analysis based on specification of service or work required, including the assessment by the Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee;

� Recommendation giving full justification for the selection of contractor/consultant to undertake specific work, i.e. the assessment by the Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee and the final ranking based on the technical and financial proposals;

� Purchase Order or Ty.1 that asks for cancellation required written justification;

� Separate VAGST, and any discounts from the total contract sum to be clearly shown on Ty.11

� Purchase of capital items and goods not subject to withholding tax except for services and contract payment claims. These are to be verified by the Ministry of Revenue

� Specify and confirm availability of funding and Output Code clearly on Ty.11/Ty.1

28. Approval delegations are based on the expected total value of the contract. These financial limits are:

� over SAT 500,000 – Cabinet and subject to Tenders Board approval; � SAT 200,000 to SAT 500,000 – Tenders Board � SAT 100,000 to SAT 200,000 – Minister of Finance � SAT 75,000 to SAT 100,000 – Minister of Education � SAT 50,000 to SAT 75,000 – Financial Secretary � Below SAT 50,000 – CEO MESC

(g) Execution and Approval of contract.29. Following approval of procurement by the delegate, and after the conclusion of contract negotiations with the consultant, but before the signing of the contract, MESC will forward the final contract (as negotiated) for clearance by the office of the Attorney General. This is required under Government of Samoa policies and regulations. If any substantial amendment of the contract is proposed after its execution, the proposed changes and/or variations shall be re-submitted to the Attorney General for further clearance.

(h) Signature of contract and contract management/administration.30. Following clearance of the final contract by the office of the Attorney General, the Minister of Education will sign the contract on behalf of the Government of Samoa. The contract, then signed by both parties, will be returned to the originating ACEO, through the ESP II Secretariat for management. Contract management includes verification of achievement of

Section 7 9

outputs under performance based contracts, and forwarding of invoices for payment to the ESP II Secretariat.

(i) Debriefing31. Upon request, the ESP II Secretariat will arrange a debriefing for successful and unsuccessful bidders with members of the Tenders Evaluation Sub committee.

G. Monitoring the Consultant Recruitment Process

32. The EA and the ADB will use a Consultant Recruitment Activity Monitoring (CRAM) frames for loans to monitor the activities in recruiting the consultant and to avoid delays. CRAM identifies the main activities in the recruitment process, the time normally required for each activity and target dates for completing each activity. The EA and user division staff responsible for completing each activity and for monitoring the recruitment process use CRAM to identify delays and take prompt action to get the recruitment process back on schedule. Annex 4 of this Section provides an example of a CRAM frame and Annex 5 is a flow chart of the CRAM process.

Section 7 10

Section 7 Annex 1

SUMMARY OF CONSULTING SERVICES REQUIREMENTS

Intl = international Nat = National

Component Expertise Person-months Cost

($’000) Intl Nat Intl Nat

Primary Curriculum and Materials

Development Specialist

12 264

Curriculum and Materials Writers 54 270

Subject Specialists/Reviewer 36 180

Language and Bilingual Education

Specialist

7 154

Multi-Media Specialist 12 264

Multi-Media Science Counterpart 6 30

Technology Specialist 6 30

Assessment Framework Specialist 12 264

Assessment Framework Counterpart 24 120

Assessment Information System Specialist 10 220

School Assessment Specialist 10 220

School Assessment Counterpart 12 60

Fagaloa: Education Development

Coordinator (Phase 1)

6 30

Fagaloa: Home-school literacy Program

Developer (Phase 1)

6 30

Fagaloa: Community Learning Centre

Program Developer (Phase 1)

6 30

Fagaloa: Community Researcher (Phase 1) 6 30

1: Curriculum and Assessment

Unallocated: Fagaloa: Phase 2 226 1130

Teacher Development Policy Analyst 12 264

School Improvement Advisor 8 176

In-service and Pre-service Teacher

Development Experts

24 120

2: Teacher Development

Primary Teacher Educator 16 80

Civil Works Specialist Services (HQ) 13.5 297 3: Improving Access to Quality

Education Civil Works Specialist Services (Schools) 14.5 319

Education Equipment Specialist 5 110

Procurement Specialist 14.5 319

Procurement Systems Specialist 4 88

4: Research, Evaluation and Policy Research and Evaluation Specialist 8 176

5: Project Management Project Management Specialist 4 88Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist 4 88

Total 150.5 428 3311 2140

Section 7 11

Section 7 Annex 2

OUTLINE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Component 1: Curriculum and Assessment

1.1 Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist (International, 12 person months, intermittent over two years) Reference Number:

Background

The Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO of Curriculum Materials Assessment Division (CMAD). The Consultant will assist MESC to develop and publish the primary curriculum for Years 1 to 8 in nine subjects, and teachers’ manuals for each year level.

The Consultant has oversight for the curriculum and materials development to ensure consistency and timely delivery of outputs. The main tasks of the Consultant will be in development management planning, co-ordination, training and monitoring to facilitate the development of curriculum statements and teachers’ manual. The Consultant will provide expert advice on directions, approaches, formats, development, and quality assurance processes, monitor ongoing curriculum and teachers’ manual development processes and outputs, and develop implementation processes.

The Consultant will work in consultation with the ACEO CMAD and key stakeholder groups established for curriculum and assessment developments.

The Consultant inputs are to follow a schedule set by the ACEO CMAD.

Duties

In particular, the Consultant will:

i. Consolidate the primary curriculum review findings as conducted by the CMAD advisers, identify lessons learned and outline implications for the new primary curriculum and assessment

ii. Review secondary curriculum statements to determine links with primary curriculum statements with regard to content, organization, coverage and progression, assessment

iii. Analyze key policy documents: National Curriculum Policy Framework, 2006-2015 Education Policies and Strategies to identify policies, guiding principles, and implementation arrangements

Section 7 12

iv. Design a development management plan for the subject curriculum statements and teachers’ manuals including the development timeline up to the implementation trials, shows inputs and outputs, various consultations, and risk management strategies

v. In consultation with subject primary and secondary advisers, and subject committees, develop writing briefs for subject curriculum statements and teachers’ manuals that take account of the National Curriculum Policy Framework, existing schemes, PEMP materials, the secondary subject curriculum statements, findings of the review phase, and current international curriculum practice and content

vi. Facilitate consultation on the writing briefs with key groups including the National Curriculum Council, revise as required

vii. Assess curriculum writing needs, liaise with the Language and Bilingual Education Specialist to plan, co-ordinate and facilitate training of writing teams on curriculum approaches and writing

viii. Co-ordinate the writers’ inputs, monitor their outputs and provide timely feedback to writers, and reporting to the ACEO CMAD, in particular any areas of risks and recommended strategies

ix. Co-ordinate the inputs of the international subject area specialists x. Monitors curriculum development processes and outputs and evaluates

curriculum and teacher’s manuals in terms of curriculum principles xi. Maintain consultation with national and international experts on content

and performance standards xii. Develop the criteria for the evaluation of the subject curriculum

statements and teachers’ manuals in consultation with the Language and Bilingual Education Specialist, writing teams and subject committees

xiii. Prepare formats for consultations on draft documents, consolidate the findings of consultations on the drafts into a report for MESC and writing teams, co-ordinate the modifications of the draft documents in response to consultation feedback

xiv.Co-ordinate the typesetting, editing, design, layout and printing of the approved curriculum statements and teachers’ manual

xv. Provide technical advise and assistance to the Dean and Faculty of Education to structure and align teacher training courses with curriculum and assessment reforms

xvi.Co-operate in any project reviewxvii. All Consultant activities are to be coordinated through Component 1

Project Management Unit

Qualifications and Experience

� A post graduate degree in education at least at the Masters level with an emphasis on curriculum, assessment, policy or other relevant field;

� Research publications in curriculum, assessment, policy, education materials, bilingual education;

Section 7 13

� Extensive experience at a senior level in the conduct of development projects including design, monitoring and evaluation;

� Extensive international and regional experience in the development and production of national curriculum standards, assessment, curriculum materials, the conduct of pre-service and in-service training of principals, teachers, monitoring and review of curriculum at national and school level;

� Specialized curriculum expertise in at least two subject areas; � Experience with education institutions, in particular, teacher education

institutions, preferably in the South Pacific region, and awareness of the possibilities and limitations of curriculum reform, materials development and implementation in small island nations;

� Experience with publication and printing of educational materials;� Knowledge of Samoa education policy and practice, awareness of the

Samoa socio-cultural education context at national level and its international relationships in education at regional and global levels;

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally with counterpart personnel

� High level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and facilitation skills

Key Selection criteria

� A post graduate degree in education at least at the Masters level with an emphasis on curriculum, assessment, policy or other relevant field;

� Demonstrated capacity a senior level in the conduct of development projects including design, monitoring and evaluation, lead a team and co-ordinate different inputs to meet the required goals;

� Significant international and regional experience in the development and production of national curriculum standards, assessment, curriculum materials, the conduct of pre-service and in-service training of principals, teachers, monitoring and review of curriculum at national and school level, publication and printing of educational materials

� Specialized curriculum expertise in a subject area; � Significant experience with teacher education institutions and reform of

teacher education in relation to school curriculum changes, preferably in the South Pacific region;

� Significant experience in development contexts, and awareness of the possibilities and limitations of curriculum reform, materials development and implementation in small island nations;

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills.

Section 7 14

1.2 Curriculum and Materials Writers (Nine Nationals, 54 person months, intermittent over one year)

Background

The Primary Curriculum and Materials Writers will be assigned to the Ministry ofEducation, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO of Curriculum Materials Assessment Division (CMAD).

The Primary Curriculum and Materials writer will assist the MESC in developing a curriculum statement and a teachers’ manual for the specified primary curriculum area. The curriculum statement describes what students are expected to know and be able to do and value as a result of learning in each curriculum area. The teachers' manual will support the provision of a regular, on-going in-service program that updates the skills and knowledge of individual teachers in order to implement the new primary curriculum as well as addressing school-wide changes that are needed.

The Primary Curriculum and Materials writer will work in consultation with the relevant subject committee, the Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist and key stakeholder groups established for curriculum and assessment developments.

DutiesThe Primary Curriculum and Materials writer will:

i. Liaise with the Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist to clarify terms of reference, establish work schedules, and the writing briefs for the curriculum statement, and teachers’ manual

ii. Participate in writer’s briefings, training and review meetings as required iii. Prepare and supply the specified primary curriculum statement, and

teachers’ manual according to the specifications of the writing brief iv. Plan and facilitate with the assistance of the CMAD subject adviser

subject committee meetings to develop and review curriculum statements,

v. Plan, design and facilitate with the assistance of the CMAD subject adviser, and PEO Teacher Development pre-service and in-service training programs on the curriculum and teachers’ manual when required plan,

vi. Plan and facilitate with the assistance of the CMAD subject adviserpublic consultation meetings on draft subject curriculum statements and teachers’ manuals

vii. Assist in the trial of draft materials, analyse and process trial feedback viii. Assess the appropriateness and relevancy of consultation feedback

considering contextual features such as teacher and system factors, and the justification for the approach taken in the curriculum statements

Section 7 15

ix. In consultation with subject committee make modifications to the draft documents following consideration of trial and consultation feedback

x. Provide quality check during the editing, design and layout processes xi. Maintain timely communication and response to communication with

relevant parties xii. Maintain efficient records of development processes, complete reports of

all subject committee meetings, public consultations, trials, pre-serviceand in-service training conducted

Qualifications and Experience

� A post graduate qualification at the Masters level in education or a graduate degree in the subject area;

� Significant teaching experience in the primary levels, contribution to school improvement and leadership;

� Demonstrated capacity in curriculum review, and educational materials development;

� Demonstrated capacity in teacher development; � Demonstrated competence in writing in both Samoan and English; � Demonstrated capacity to work as a member of a team, to work with

development committees; � Demonstrated capacity to meet deadlines; � Knowledge of Samoa’s national level policies and strategies in

education; � Demonstrated competence in communication, report writing, computer

and facilitation skills; � Demonstrated capacity in the use of computer programs for materials

development;� Demonstrated capacity in teacher education.

Key Selection Criteria

� At least a Bachelor’s degree in the subject area; � Significant teaching experience in the primary levels, contribution to

school improvement and leadership; � Demonstrated capacity in curriculum review and educational materials

development;� Demonstrated capacity to work as a member of a team, to work with

development committees; � Demonstrated capacity to meet deadlines; � Demonstrated competence in writing in both Samoan and English; � Computer literate;� Demonstrated capacity in teacher education.

Section 7 16

1.3 Subject Specialist Reviewer (9 Nationals, 4 person months, intermittent over one year) Reference Number:

Background

The Subject Specialists/Reviewer will report to the ACEO of Curriculum Materials Assessment Division (CMAD).

The role of Subject Specialist/Reviewer is to work collaboratively with the Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist, Curriculum and Materials Writers, and subject committees to provide technical advice and feedback to the development of each subject curriculum statement and teachers’ manuals. The role also reviews the drafts of identified primary curriculum statements to ensure that they are consistent with MESC policies, regional and international best practice. Criteria for the review are provided by MESC and include five categories: Policy framework, Context, Coverage and Progression, Presentation, Assessment.

The work of subject specialist / reviewer ensures that the curriculum and teachers’ manuals are consistent with Samoa’s goals and aims of education, and international standards for each discipline.

Duties

The Subject Specialists/Reviewer will

i. Liaise with Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist to clarify roles, terms of reference, establish communication links, procedures and schedules

ii. Review key policy documents relevant to the curriculum: MESC National Curriculum Policy Framework, MESC National Assessment Policy Framework (in development)

iii. During the drafting phase, provide expert advice and feedback to the Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist and writers on subject specific curriculum approaches, content, scope and sequence, assessment formats and processes

iv. Using agreed criteria review the completed draft primary subject curriculum statements in English and Samoan languages

v. Provide a written report of review findings with recommendations vi. Recommend approaches to pre-service and in-service training for

implementationvii. Maintain timely response to all communication

Section 7 17

Qualifications and Experience

� A post graduate qualification at least at the Masters level in education; � At least a graduate degree in the subject area with current or recent

experience in subject related developments; � Demonstrated capacity in curriculum development and review,

assessment, and educational materials development; � Demonstrated capacity in teacher development; � Demonstrated competence in writing in both Samoan and English; � Demonstrated capacity to meet deadlines; � Knowledge of Samoa’s national level policies and strategies in

education; � Demonstrated competence in communication, report writing,

Key Selection Criteria

� At least a graduate degree in the subject area, demonstrated leadership in the subject with current or recent experience in subject related developments;

� Demonstrated capacity in curriculum development and review, assessment, educational materials development, and teacher education;

� Demonstrated capacity to meet deadlines; � Demonstrated competence in writing in both Samoan and English

Section 7 18

1.4 Language and Bilingual Education Specialist (International, 7 person months intermittent over two years)

Background

Samoa’s National Curriculum Policy Framework (NCPF: 2005) makes explicitstatements about educators’ obligations to language development and bilingual education. It establishes the principles and guidelines for languages in education in the Samoa context where there is a strong first language, Samoan, and a policy of phasing in instruction in the second language, English. On this basis, a number of important considerations need to underpin any development work in curriculum, materials, assessment, teaching and learning practices. These include the relationship between first and second language and the development of Samoan and English language competence for successful school learning, and the advancement and maintenance of Samoan language.

The Language and Bilingual Education Specialist will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO of Curriculum Materials Assessment Division (CMAD).The Specialist will assist the MESC implement the NCPF principles and guidelines in the development and implementation of the primary education curriculum, materials, assessment and bilingual approaches. The specialist will need to provide expert advice and assistance in implementing practices that support first and second language development for successful school learning, and provide expert advice on the advancement and maintenance of Samoan language.

Duties

Specifically the Consultant will:

i Review the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006-2015, the National Curriculum Policy Framework (2005), and identify all implications for primary education of the languages and bilingual policy;

ii Develop and conduct training for writers and subject committees on the theoretical frameworks on language proficiency, communicative language ability and the implications for approaches to curriculum specification, teaching and learning materials, and assessment;

iii Develop and conduct training workshops for writers and subject committees on first and second language acquisition and development, bilingual language competence and academic achievement, and the implications for the development of the Samoan language curriculum and English as a second language curriculum, and optimum conditions in school practice;

Section 7 19

iv Provide advice and direction to the writers and subject committees on the development of curriculum, materials, assessment and teaching practices to effectively implement the bilingual policy;

v Prepare guidelines for writers and subject committees to ensure the curriculum, materials, assessment and teaching practices promote the advancement and maintenance of Samoan language;

vi Provide advice to CMAD, writers, and subject committees, prepare guidelines to ensure the curriculum, materials, assessment and teaching practice are inclusive of the range of bilinguals in the school population;

vii Provide advice to CMAD, writers and subject committees consistent with the NCPF and Special Needs Policy on how curricula, materials, assessment and teaching practices can respond to the language needs of special needs students at school;

viii Undertake linguistic analysis of the drafts of curriculum, teaching and learning materials and advise writers on language issues;

ix Provide expert advice to the MESC and developers of supplementary readers on grading both English and Samoan readers;

x Develop the strategy which includes a research component, costings, and establish processes for grading Samoan reading materials ;

xi Assist the MESC School Operations Division and CMAD to prepare a plan and schedule to implement the primary education curriculum, materials and assessment within the bilingual policy guidelines;

xii Assist writers develop IST materials and facilitation strategies for implementing the primary education curriculum, materials and assessment consistent with the bilingual policy guidelines;

xiii Assist the MESC School Operations Division and CMAD to develop and conduct training of principals, school review officers, and trainers to implement the primary education curriculum within the bilingual policy guidelines;

xiv Assist the MESC PPRD and CMAD to design and implement the monitoring and evaluation framework for the primary education curriculum implementation within the bilingual policy guidelines

Qualifications and Experience

� Formal qualifications at least at the Masters level in Applied Linguistics, Bilingual Education, English as Second Language;

� Demonstrated capacity and currency in research at a senior level in languages education, language policy in education, language acquisition, development and maintenance;

� Demonstrated capacity in bilingual/second language contexts: in the development and production of national curriculum standards in English as a second language, a Pacific first language, curriculum materials evaluation, the conduct of pre-service and in-service training of

Section 7 20

principals, teachers, monitoring and review of curriculum at national and school level;

� Significant experience and knowledge of best practice in assessment within bilingual education contexts;

� Significant experience in the grading of readers; � Awareness of Samoa’s socio-cultural context, policies and strategies in

education; � Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally and across different

teams efficiently and effectively; � Demonstrated competence in report writing and facilitation skills.

Key Selection Criteria

� Formal qualifications at least at the Masters level in Applied Linguistics, Bilingual Education, English as Second Language;

� Demonstrated capacity and currency in research at a senior level in languages education, language policy in education, language acquisition, development and maintenance;

� Demonstrated capacity in bilingual/second language contexts: in the development and production of national curriculum standards in English as a second language and Pacific first language, bilingual assessment, curriculum materials evaluation, the conduct of pre-service and in-service training of principals, teachers, monitoring and review of curriculum at national and school level;

� Significant experience in the grading of readers; � Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally and across different

teams efficiently and effectively.

Section 7 21

1.5 Multi Media Specialist

Background

The Multimedia Specialist will report to the ACEO Curriculum Materials and Assessment Division (CMAD). S/he will work in close collaboration with the staff of the CMAD, in particular the Education Broadcasting Unit and Secondary Science Curriculum Specialists and the Technology Specialist and Multimedia Science Counterpart. S/he will be responsible for planning, scoping and developing multimedia materials to support the science curriculum in secondary schools and build capacity within the EBU and CMAD.

Duties

The Multimedia Specialist will:

i With the ACEO CMAD, establish a multimedia science subjectcommittee, prepare TOR and overall time and task schedule;

ii After consultation with CMAD, science curriculum writers and experts, science teachers, the subject committee, Education BroadcastingUnit (EBU) and FoE NUS, prepare a briefing paper on the overall structure, sequence, format and outline for the production of multi-media learning materials in science;

iii Review available multi-media production facilities available to MESC,existing school replay equipment and make recommendations on the most cost-effective ways to produce multiple copies of high quality multi-media learning materials that can be used in schools;

iv Provide a report on refurnishing the EBU to support multi-media production, advise on the procurement of new equipment, devise a maintenance program and expertise needed by production staff to ensure long-term sustainability;

v Once equipment is procured train EBU staff and other counterparts in their use and maintenance;

vi Plan, develop and implement a workshop on multimedia materialsdevelopment processes to build local counterpart capacity so that they are able to assist in planning, designing and producing learning materials using multi-media production techniques;

vii Identify open source materials and images that can be used in multimedia episodes/units and advise on potential procurement of existing culturally appropriate materials;

viii With the Multimedia Science Counterpart, plan the content and images to facilitate the production of planned instructional episodes using appropriate and available technology;

ix Prepare sample units and trial with a focus group consisting of teachers, academics, principals, SROs and CMAD science curriculummanagers and review accordingly; With the Multimedia Science

Section 7 22

Counterpart, develop and build multimedia materials based on feedback from the trial and translate all scripts produced into audio-visual and multimedia learning materials using appropriate multi-media production technology and provide a master copy of each episode;

x With the Multimedia Science Specialist, support the SOD and CMAD to develop a Teachers Information Manual to guide teachers in the effective use of multimedia materials in the classroom;

xi Produce multiple copies of each unit/episode for distribution to schools;

xii Review the content, impact and quality of the materials after implementation; and

xiii Prepare draft reports on component 2 activities as directed by the ACEO CMAD, and submit for review and approval by the ESP 11 Steering Committee. It is likely that reports will be on the following areas: (i) report on the current state of existing equipment/facilities used by EBU and schools, advise on the procurement of new equipment, devise a maintenance program and expertise needed by production staff to ensure long-term sustainability; (ii) prepare and present detailed outlines of all materials and their structure, sequence, format, budget and cost effectiveness for all multimedia products proposed for years 9-13 within timelines provided; (iii) produce all actual master copies of the materials planned and; (iv) review of the effectiveness of the process, content and quality of teaching of the course.

Qualifications and Experience

� Appropriate post graduate qualifications in technology, science or education;

� Proven leadership skills in developing teams who have limited production technical knowledge;

� Proven experience and expertise in the development of multimedia and CD ROM education materials;

� Proven ability to work with a range of multimedia software programs, experience in using computer mediated communication tools, audio and video production and pre- and post-production including editing;

� A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and consultants;

� Proven ability to train others and build capacity among counterparts; and � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts

Key Selection Criteria

� A post graduate degree in technology, education or science;

Section 7 23

� Excellent communication skills (written and verbal) in English, high-level interpersonal skills and a demonstrated ability to lead a team with limited multi-media production technical knowledge;

� Proven experience and expertise in the development of multimedia and CD ROM education materials, including an ability to work with a range of multimedia software programs, experience in using computer mediated communication tools, audio and video production and pre- and post-production including editing;

� Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with curriculum experts, educators and writers to develop student cantered units of work in secondary science; and

� International experience in developing effective multi-media learning resources for schools and experience working in other developed and lesser-developed countries.

Section 7 24

1.6 Multi Media Science Counterpart

Background

The Multimedia Science Counterpart will report to the ACEO CurriculumMaterials and Assessment Division (CMAD). S/he will work in close collaboration with the staff of the CMAD, in particular the Education Broadcasting Unit and Secondary Science Curriculum Specialists and the Technology Specialist and International Multimedia Specialist. S/he will be responsible for writing and sequencing the content of the multimedia secondary science materials and in collaboration with the Multimedia and Technology specialists, produce multi-media learning materials (print, audio and visual) that present topics in science.

Duties

The Multimedia Science Counterpart will:

i Review the science curriculum statements for the secondary school developed by the SSECRP and identify content and teaching methods in each subject for Years 9 to 13;

ii Liaise with ESP 11 Assessment specialists and CMAD to keep abreast of assessment reforms proposed under Component 1;

iii After consultation, assist the Multimedia Specialist to prepare a briefing paper on the overall structure, sequence, format and outline of all multimedia products proposed for years 9-13 and present for discussion to the multimedia science subject committee;

iv With staff from CMAD, IT unit, subject committee and international consultant, review scope and sequence of science knowledge outcomes for students from years 9 -13 to identify topics and subject matter from the curriculum statements to be developed into multi-media instructional learning episodes for use in secondary classrooms reflect the required scoped science knowledge;

v Prepare unit outlines and templates that will be used and assist in the development and implementation of a workshop for the subjectcommittee and present key content headings and some written trial units for review;

vi Work with the Multimedia Specialist (International) to prepare scripts for the instructional episodes that can support fundamental knowledge and skills in science and so explain, inform, instruct and assist understanding of essential content in each of these subjects;

vii With the Multimedia Specialist, plan the content and images for production for each package of material and learn about the processesinvolved in pre-production, production and post-production of multi-media instructional learning materials;

Section 7 25

viii Assist in the pre-production, production and post-production processes; ix Assist in the trial of materials/units with a focus group consisting of

teachers, academics, principals and CMAD science curriculummanagers and review accordingly;

x Develop final units and then consult with relevant staff of CMAD and SOD to plan and coordinate the reproduction from master copies of print and multi-media material and plan their distribution to secondary schools;

xi Assist in the development and implementation of a plan for pre- and in-service teacher training programs to use the multimedia materialseffectively in the classroom and the development of a Teacher Information Manual to accompany materials;

xii Provide advice and assist in the evaluation of the content, impact and quality of multi-media learning materials distributed to schools.

xiii Prepare draft reports on Component 2 activities as directed by the ACEO CMAD, and submit for review and approval by the ESP 11 Steering Committee. It is likely that reports will be on the following areas: (i) report on the topics and subject matter from the curriculum statements and science learning outcomes that will be developed into multi-media instructional learning units for use in secondary classrooms; (ii) prepare and present detailed outlines of all materials and their structure within timelines provided; (iii) write all materials for multimedia development and; (iv) review the effectiveness of the process, content and quality of teaching of the course.

Qualifications and Experience

� Appropriate post graduate qualifications in science and education and demonstrated ability to use computer technology and appropriate software;

� Proven experience and expertise in the development of secondary science curriculum and materials and an understanding of the construction of learning materials based on sound pedagogical principles;

� Demonstrated experience in curriculum review and or development in an educational environment;

� Practical teaching experience in secondary school science and high quality written skills in Samoan and English languages; and

� A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and consultants

Section 7 26

Key Selection Criteria

� A post graduate degree in education and/or science demonstrated ability to use computer technology and appropriate software;

� Excellent understanding of science curriculum 9 -13, and experience in developing and interpreting science knowledge outcomes for secondary science students;

� Proven capacity to develop units of work to meet the required scoped science knowledge;

� Excellence in science teaching and curriculum development; � Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with curriculum experts,

educators and writers to develop student cantered units of work in secondary science; and

� Proven ability to work within tight timelines to achieve results

Section 7 27

1.7 Technology Specialist

Background

The Technology Specialist will report to the ACEO Curriculum Materials and Assessment Division (CMAD). S/he will work in close collaboration with the staff of the CMAD, in particular the Education Broadcasting Unit and Secondary Science Curriculum Specialists, the MESC Printing Unit, graphic arts staff, IT Unit staff, the Multimedia Specialist and Multimedia Science Counterpart. S/he will be responsible for planning and developing technology solutions to support the development of multimedia materials as well as building capacity within the EBU and CMAD in the use of appropriate production technology.

Duties

The Technology Specialist will:

i With the Multimedia Specialist and Multimedia Science Counterpart, work with staff of the CMAD and the EBU to design, adapt and develop effective production facilities and systems to cater for improved and increased production of educational learning materials;

ii Work with printing unit staff, graphic artists, information technology staff,EBU and CMAD staff to develop procedures to coordinate and improve the production of learning materials;

iii Review the current systems of production of audio-visual materials, educational broadcasts and multimedia materials and make recommendations on ways to improve and expand production through better planning and coordination and improved capability in multimedia design;

iv Train CMAD and EBU staff and other interested stakeholders in the use of new procured equipment and assist in the planning, development and implementation of a workshop on multimedia materials development processes and products;

v With the Multimedia Science Counterpart, plan the technology support needed to develop each episode/unit of multimedia material;

vi With the Multimedia Specialist support the building of multimedia episodes based on the written content provided by the Multimedia Science Counterpart;

vii Record images and audio/visual content for the use in multimedia episodes and identify open source materials and images that can be used;

viii Assist in the review of the impact and quality of the materials after implementation; and

ix Prepare draft reports on component 2 activities as directed by the ACEO CMAD, and submit for review and approval by the ESP 11

Section 7 28

Steering Committee. It is likely that reports will be on the following areas: (i) effectiveness of workshops and training of staff in equipment use; (ii) produce all actual master copies of the materials planned and; (iii) complete an annotated record of all images, audio files used and copy onto a master files.

Qualifications and Experience

� Appropriate qualifications in technology to facilitate the effective operation of all aspects of educational materials publication;

� Proven experience and expertise in the use of multimedia equipment, including but not limited to video, DVD, CDs, internet, audio tape, broadcast and digital images;

� Recent educational or commercial experience in publication, knowledge of offset printing techniques, application of computer technology in small-scale publishing and an ability to work with a range of multimedia software programs such as Flash and In Design;

� A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and consultants;

� Proven ability to train others in technology usage, including desktop publishing using computer technology; and

� Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts

Key Selection Criteria

� A post graduate degree in design, technology or project management; � Recent educational or commercial experience in publication, knowledge

of offset printing techniques, application of computer technology in small-scale publishing;

� Proven experience and expertise in the development of multimedia (CD ROMs, audio and video) education materials, including an ability to work with a range of multimedia software programs such as Flash and In Design;

� Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with curriculum experts, educators and writers to develop student cantered units of work in secondary science; and

� Excellent communication skills in Samoan and English and high level interpersonal skills

Section 7 29

1.8 Assessment and Examination Framework Specialist (International, 12 person months intermittent over two years)

Background

The Specialist will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division. The Specialist will assist MESC to develop a national assessment system that supports learning and recognises achievement as described by the curriculum framework, and which facilitates recognition of achievement by post-school stakeholders. The main tasks of the Specialist will be to assist MESC to review current assessment arrangements and, in consultation with national and regional stakeholders to develop a National Assessment Policy Framework composed of a coherent set of philosophies, purposes, policies, tools and practices that support equitable and relevant education in Samoa. The Specialist will develop implementation strategies including systems development within MESC and awareness and training programs for MESC staff, teachers, and related groups to support the implementation, to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the project and to recommend and develop improvements to the project if required. With respect to the technical inputs provided, the Specialist will provide formal and informal training to MESC staff as appropriate.

Duties

The Consultant will:

1. In consultation with MESC, the Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA), South Pacific Board of Educational Assessment (SPBEA), the National Assessment Council and taking into account the new curriculum developments in Samoa, and the proposed regional development of a Form 7 (Yr14) certificate and the delegation of the management of the Pacific Senior School Certificate (PSSC) to countries; review the purpose, relevance and operation of the current national assessment system and recommend improvements.

1.1. Review the purpose, relevance and operation of current Year 1-13 national assessment system;

1.2. Review current assessment modes in relation to the new curriculum policies and structure;

1.3. Review the recognition of achievement and progression; 1.4. Review the current administrative structures, functions and processes of

the MESC Assessment Unit 1.5. Report findings and recommendations.

Section 7 30

2. Based on the agreed recommendations and in consultation with MESC, SQA, SPBEA, the National Assessment Council, FOE and other stakeholders design a National Assessment Policy Framework (NAPF) covering all levels of schooling from Yr1-13 and including links to post school recognition.

2.1. Recommend the purposes, policies, and practices necessary for a National Assessment Policy Framework

2.2. Recommend a canon of national assessments providing the purpose, scope, and mode of assessments for each event

2.3. Document all the components of the national assessment canon including assessment design, development, publication, administration,marking, recording and reporting

2.4. Report design recommendations to stakeholders

3. Based on agreed recommendations develop exemplar instruments for assessment against the new primary curriculum;

3.1. Working with subject committees map the learning outcomes of the new curriculum

3.2. Recommend the appropriate assessment regime 3.3. Develop exemplar assessment instruments 3.4. Develop the trial and implementation plan and strategies including links

with FOE

4. In association with MESC develop implementation strategies for the NAPF and associated systems

4.1. In consultation with the School Assessment Specialist and the Information Systems Specialist identify institutional and procedural capacity building

4.2. Provide advice to assist the Information Systems Specialist define the purpose and options for information systems development

4.3. Recommend the organisational structures and terms of reference, and the job descriptions for all staff needed to operate the recommended assessment framework

4.4. Identify the training needs of all staff and role holders in the assessment process

4.5. Design a publicity campaign for the NAPF covering publicity and consultations with stakeholders including regional organisations such as SPBEA, USP, scholarship sponsors such as NZ and Australia; any organisational restructuring; retraining; establishment of monitoring and review process; in-service training;

4.6. Provide advice to the School Assessment Specialist for developing in-service training

Section 7 31

Qualifications and Experience

The consultant will need to have:

� A post-graduate qualification at the Doctorate/PhD level in educational assessment;

� Demonstrated capacity and currency in research at a senior level in assessment development and practice;

� Demonstrated capacity in national level policy development, implementation and review;

� Significant experience in curriculum mapping, national assessment and test construction;

� Experience of working in developing countries, preferably small island nations, or with Pacific Island populations in own country;

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � Demonstrated competence in report writing, computer and facilitation

skills.

Key Selection Criteria

� A post-graduate qualification at the Doctorate/PhD level in educational assessment;

� Demonstrated capacity and currency in research at a senior level in assessment development and practice;

� Demonstrated capacity in national level policy development, implementation and review;

� Significant experience in curriculum mapping, national assessment and test construction;

� Experience of working in developing countries, preferably small island nations, or with Pacific Island populations in own country

Section 7 32

1.9 National Assessment Policy Framework Counterpart (National, 12 person months intermittent over two years)

Background

The National Assessment Policy Framework Counterpart will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEOCurriculum, Materials and Assessment Division. The Counterpart will work closely with the National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist (NAPFS).

This position adds capacity to CMAD to facilitate the work of the National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist and to be able to maintain the momentum of implementation when the NAPFS is not in country.

The main tasks of the Counterpart will be to assist MESC to review current assessment arrangements and, in consultation with national and regional stakeholders to develop a National Assessment Policy Framework and implementation strategies including systems development within MESC and awareness and training programs for MESC staff, teachers, and related groups to support the implementation.

In this role the Counterpart is expected to work full time while the NAPFS is in country and to be available to co-ordinate / facilitate any of the pre and post mission activities.

Duties

The Counterpart will assist the National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist to:

(i) Review the purpose, relevance and operation of the current national assessment system and recommend improvements;

(ii) Co-ordinate, assist in the facilitation of stakeholder consultations, process and report on the outcomes of the consultation;

(iii) Provide contextual information to support the design of a National Assessment Policy Framework (NAPF);

(iv) Co-ordinate and assist in the facilitation of subject committee consultations to develop exemplar instruments for assessmentagainst the new primary curriculum;

(v) Contribute to the development of implementation strategies for the NAPF and associated systems and to assist implementation;

(vi) Assist in the design and implementation of a publicity campaign for the NAPF covering publicity and consultations with stakeholders;

Section 7 33

(vii) Assist ACEO CMAD to co-ordinate MESC activities and staff engagement to ensure that MESC is fully informed and capable of adopting the developments;

(viii) All Counterpart activities are to be coordinated through Component 1 Project Management Unit

Qualifications and Experience

The counterpart will need to have:

� A postgraduate qualification in education with emphasis on assessment or other relevant field such as a subject area;

� Demonstrated capacity in national education policy development; � Significant experience in developing and implementing national school

assessment policies; � Demonstrated capacity in national assessment and test construction; � Demonstrated competence in Samoan and English communication skills,

competent report writing, computer and facilitation skills

Key Selection Criteria

� A postgraduate qualification in education or other relevant field; � Demonstrated capacity in national education policy development; � Significant experience in developing and implementing national school

assessment policies; � Demonstrated capacity in national assessment and test construction; � Demonstrated competence in Samoan and English communication skills,

competent report writing, computer and facilitation skills.

Section 7 34

1.10 Information Systems Specialist (International, 10 person months intermittent over two years)

Background

The Specialist will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division. The Specialist will assist MESC to develop a national assessment system that supports learning and recognises achievement as described by the curriculum framework, and which facilitates recognition of achievement by post-school stakeholders. The main tasks of the Specialist will be to assist MESC to review current information systems related to school assessment and, in consultation with national and regional stakeholders develop and implement information systems to support the National Assessment Policy Framework. The systems will include central databases, systems to transfer student assessment data to the SPBEA, and a comprehensive Student Assessment Management and Achievement Record Transfer (SMART) disk based system including achievement records database and tools to assist teachers to plan, administer, record, analyze and use student achievements to improve learning. With respect to the technical inputs provided, the Specialist will provide formal and informal training to MESC staff as appropriate.

Duties

In particular, the Specialist will:

1. In consultation with MESC staff, the National Assessment Council, the National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist and the Schools Assessment Specialist, identify the information system needs of the proposed National Assessment Policy Framework

1.1. Review the National Assessment Policy Framework documentation 1.2. In consultation with SQA identify the requirements for post-school

recognition of student achievement 1.3. identify the information system needs of the Student Assessment

Management and Record Transfer system (SMART)

2. Review current information systems against the identified information system needs

2.1. review the current information systems and practices in the MESC particularly within the Assessment Unit

2.2. with the Schools Assessment Specialist review the information systemsand practices within primary and secondary schools in Samoa

Section 7 35

2.3. review the current systems of transferring assessment information between schools and MESC and MESC and SPBEA

3. Develop information systems development options

3.1. In consultation with MESC staff, the National Assessment Council, the National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist, the Schools Assessment Specialist, SQA and SPBEA develop costed information systems options

4. On the basis of an agreed option and in consultation with stakeholders and users develop and recommend system design specifications to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment for acceptance.

4.1. Prepare software specifications and equipment specifications 4.2. In consultation with the National Assessment Policy Framework

Specialist and the Schools Assessment Specialist recommend institutional structures, staff roles and job descriptions, and procedures necessary to manage assessment information systems

4.3. Prepare and implement a support and maintenance strategy for MESC with particular emphasis on recurrent costs and requirements

5. Implement design

5.1. Develop system software 5.2. Design and program all relevant software modules for the national

assessment information system 5.3. Design and program the Student Assessment Management and

Achievement Record Transfer package 5.4. Design and program all data entry interfaces 5.5. Design and program all pre-formatted reports and graphical outputs

identified as necessary to support the utilization of the information system;

5.6. Prepare systems documentation; 5.7. Design data collection procedures; 5.8. Prepare User Manuals for the system modules 5.9. Develop equipment specifications and recommend for tendering 5.10. Install systems, test and make necessary modifications 5.11. Develop disaster recovery procedures and a data sharing strategy

6. Develop and provide training for technical support.

6.1. Prepare a training program for the MESC information system operators for the various systems and procedures as appropriate

6.2. Implement the training program for counterpart staff and assess its effectiveness

Section 7 36

Qualifications and experience

� Demonstrated capacity and significant experience in developing and implementing educational information systems at national level and school level;

� Significant experience of working in developing contexts, preferably small island nations;

� Capacity to work cross-culturally; � Knowledge of Samoa education policy and practice, awareness of the

Samoa socio-cultural education context at national level and its international relationships in education at regional and global levels;

� Demonstrated competence in communication, facilitation, and report writing skills;

� Significant experience in working across different teams and with stakeholder groups

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity and significant experience in developing and implementing educational information systems at national level and school level;

� Significant experience of working in developing contexts, preferably small island nations;

� Capacity to work cross-culturally; � Demonstrated competence in communication, facilitation, and report

writing skills

Section 7 37

1.11 Schools’ Assessment Specialist (International, 10 person months intermittent over two years)

Background

The Specialist will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division. The Specialist will assist MESC to develop a national assessment system that supports learning and recognises achievement as described by the curriculum framework, and which facilitates recognition of achievement by post-school stakeholders. The main tasks of the Specialist will be to assist MESC to review current assessment arrangements and practices in schools, and to strengthen school assessment management practices to support the National Assessment Policy Framework. The Specialist will assist schools to develop and implement assessment policies, tools and practices that ensure that students are assessed fairly and consistently and are provided with feedback to improve their performance. The Specialist will develop implementation strategies, awareness and training programs for MESC staff, teachers, and related groups. With respect to the technical inputs provided, the Specialist will provide formal and informal training to MESC staff as appropriate.

Duties

The Schools’ Assessment Specialist will:

1. Review the current school assessment environment in schools of all levels against the requirements of the National Assessment Policy Framework and of primary schools in relation to the new curriculum.

1.1. Review the policies, procedures and assessment regime requirements documented in the National Assessment Policy Framework

1.2. Review the curriculum assessment maps and regimes 1.3. Review current assessment practices in schools at all levels 1.4. In association with the Information Systems Specialist detail the

procedures used by the MESC and in particular the Assessment Unit to inform schools of assessment requirements, to gather data from schools, to analyse the data and to provide feedback to schools

1.5. Identify necessary policies, tools and procedures to ensure schoolsmanage and administer assessment fairly and consistently

1.6. Report findings and recommend systems developments

2. On the basis of the above reviews and in consultation with MESC, the National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist, and the Information System Specialist recommend formats, exemplars and tools that should be included on the Student Assessment Management and Achievement Report Transfer (SMART) disk and on tools and

Section 7 38

procedures to be adopted by the Assessment unit to improve school assessment practice.

3. On the basis of the above reviews and in consultation with MESC, the National Assessment Policy Framework Specialist, and the Information System Specialist prepare and implement a training program for schools to ensure the development and implementation of high quality assessment practices consistent with the NAPF.

3.1. Conduct a training needs analysis of School Review Officers, school principals, and teachers in relation to the policies, procedures and assessment regime requirements documented in the National Assessment Policy Framework

3.2. Prepare training programs and materials aimed at ensuring school assessment practices are consistent with the requirements of the NAPFand of the new curriculum

3.3. Prepare training of trainers program and materials; 3.4. Establish training of trainers program 3.5. In association with the MESC, oversee the pilot the training program and

materials with a sample of schools 3.6. Make any necessary modifications to training packages

Qualifications and experience

� A post-graduate qualification at the Masters level in educational assessment;

� Demonstrated capacity or awareness of current research on education assessment;

� Significant experience in working with school management, teachers, parents to strengthen school assessment practice;

� Demonstrated capacity in developing assessment instruments, assessment systems for recording, analyzing, using students achievement data to improve learning and teaching practice;

� Experience of working in developing countries, preferably small island nations, or with Pacific Island populations in own country;

� Knowledge of Samoa education policy and practice, awareness of the Samoa socio-cultural education context at national level and its international relationships in education at regional and global levels;

� Capacity to work cross-culturally with counterpart personnel; � Demonstrated competence in communication, facilitation skills, report

writing.

Key Selection Criteria

Section 7 39

� A post-graduate qualification at the Masters level in educational assessment;

� Demonstrated capacity or awareness of current research on educational assessment;

� Significant experience in working with school management, teachers, parents to strengthen school assessment practice;

� Demonstrated capacity in developing assessment instruments, assessment systems for recording, analyzing, using students achievement data to improve learning and teaching practice;

� Experience of working in developing contexts, preferably small island nations, or with Pacific Island populations in own country;

� Capacity to work cross-culturally with counterpart personnel.

Section 7 40

1.12 Schools’ Assessment Counterpart (National, 12 person months intermittent over two years)

Background

The Schools’ Assessment Counterpart will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division. The Counterpart will work closely with the Schools’ Assessment Specialist (SAS).

This position adds capacity to CMAD to facilitate the work of the Schools’ Assessment Specialist and to be able to maintain the momentum of implementation when the SAS is not around.

The main tasks of the Counterpart will be to assist MESC to review current assessment arrangements and practices in schools, and to strengthen school assessment management practices to support the National Assessment Policy Framework. The Counterpart will assist in the work with schools to develop and implement assessment policies, tools and practices that ensure that students are assessed fairly and consistently and are provided with feedback to improve their performance. The Counterpart will assist in the development of implementation strategies, awareness and training programs for MESC staff, teachers, and related groups.

In this role the Counterpart is expected to work full time while the SAS is in country and to be available to co-ordinate / facilitate any of the pre and post mission activities.

Duties

The Counterpart will assist the Schools’ Assessment Specialist to:

(i) Review the current school assessment environment in schools of all levels against the requirements of the National Assessment Policy Framework and of primary schools in relation to the new curriculum;

(ii) Recommend formats, exemplars and tools that should be included on the Student Assessment Management and Achievement Report Transfer (SMART) disk and on tools and procedures to be adopted by the Assessment unit to improve school assessment practice;

(iii) Contribute to the preparation and implementation of a training program for schools to ensure the development and implementation of high quality assessment practices consistent with the NAPF;

(iv) Co-ordinate, assist in the facilitation of stakeholder consultations, process and report on the outcomes of the consultation;

(v) Provide contextual information to support the work of the Schools’ Assessment Specialist;

Section 7 41

(vi) Assist ACEO CMAD to co-ordinate MESC activities and staff engagement to ensure that MESC is fully informed and capable of adopting the developments;

(vii) All Counterpart activities are to be coordinated through Component 1.

Qualifications and Experience

The Counterpart will need to have:

� A postgraduate qualification in education; � Knowledge of Samoa’s education policies and practice, including in

particular policies and strategies for school management, school improvement and performance;

� Significant experience at senior level in school management, school policies development and implementation;

� Demonstrated capacity in teacher education development and implementation, and provision of training to principals and School Review Officers;

� Demonstrated capacity in national assessment and test construction, analysis, reporting and using data to improve learning and teaching;

� Experience in school monitoring and review; � Demonstrated competence in Samoan and English communication skills,

competent report writing, computer and facilitation skills

Key Selection Criteria

� Knowledge of Samoa’s education policies and practice, including in particular policies and strategies for school management, school improvement and performance;

� Significant experience at senior level in school management, school policies development and implementation;

� Demonstrated capacity in teacher education development and implementation, and provision of training to principals and School Review Officers;

� Demonstrated capacity in national assessment and test construction, analysis, reporting and using data to improve learning and teaching;

� Demonstrated competence in Samoan and English communication

Section 7 42

1.13 Community Education Development Coordinator (One National, 6 months initially in Phase 1, followed by 18 months in Phase 2) Reference Number:

Background

The Community Education Development Coordinator (CEDC) will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division.

The main tasks of the CEDC will be to assist MESC to develop and effectively implement the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Program for demand generation and improved learning outcomes. The CEDC provides direction, guidance, community liaison and oversight of the program development and implementation.

In the initial phase of the program, the CEDC is expected to be based at Fagaloa for at least three days on a weekly basis with the remaining time at MESC. This arrangement will be reviewed after the initial phase.

The role of the CEDC requires extensive and ongoing consultation with the community of Fagaloa to ensure the program is relevant and supported by the community. The consultations and reporting to the community will at all times be under the leadership of the MESC Core Executive.

The CEDC will work closely with the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Task Force.

Duties

The Community Education Development Coordinator will

i. In consultation with MESC Core Executive and the Fagaloa community develop agreed processes and structures for working with the community including communication mechanisms

ii. In consultation with the Fagaloa community, MESC, other sectors and agencies, co-ordinate and facilitate the planning processes to arrive at a 3 year strategic plan, and monitoring and evaluation framework for the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Program that encompasses two strands: (1) Home-school literacy partnership, and (2) Community Learning Centre

iii. Develop the annual plans, coordinate the inputs for implementation, monitoring and evaluation against the annual plans, identify risks, develop and implement risk management strategies

iv. In association with MESC develop the annual budget for the FagaloaCommunity Education Partnerships Program

Section 7 43

v. Co-ordinate and facilitate consultations with the various community stakeholder groups to identify needs, ensure the program is relevant, timely and supported by the community; prepare reports that identify issues from consultations and the actions to be taken in response to those issues

vi. Prepare draft writing briefs for the program developers and consultcommunity and MESC on their suitability, modify draft writing briefs as required

vii. Identify procurement needs and in association with MESC coordinate acquisition in a timely and effective manner

viii. Monitor expenditure patterns and provide recommendations for actions ix. Facilitate the links between the community, MESC and other sectors and

agencies to meet program needsx. Coordinate and monitor program development and implementation for

the two strands to ensure coherence of programs between the two strands

xi. Coordinate and facilitate Task Force meetings xii. Provide a short monthly report to the ACEO CMAD in the first six months

of the program and thereafter on a schedule agreed with the ACEO CMAD

xiii. Assist MESC with reporting to the Fagaloa community

All CEDC activities are to be coordinated through Component 1.

Qualifications and Experience

� Demonstrated capacity in education strategic planning, program coordination, management, monitoring and evaluation, budget preparation and reconciliation;

� Significant experience in working with communities on development projects;

� Knowledge of procurement systems; � Experience in working across different sectors and agencies; � Bilingual in Samoan and English with high level competence in Samoan

language;� Demonstrated competence in fa’asamoa protocols associated with

village consultations; � Demonstrated capacity in report writing, and computer literacy; � Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for

periods of time.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity in education strategic planning, program coordination, management, monitoring and evaluation, budget preparation and reconciliation;

Section 7 44

� Significant experience in working with communities on development projects;

� Bilingual in Samoan and English with high level competence in Samoan language, and protocols associated with village consultations;

� Demonstrated capacity in report writing, and computer literacy; � Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for

periods of time

Section 7 45

1.14 Program Developer: Home-school literacy partnership (One National, 6 person months full time in Phase 1) Reference Number:

Background The Program Developer will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division.

The main tasks of the Program Developer will be to assist MESC to develop and effectively implement the Home-School Literacy Partnership for the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Program.

The indicative primary goals of the Home-School Literacy Partnership are to (1) improve literacy quality and outcomes for all students in Fagaloa, and (2) enhance equitable educational participation and achievement for students with literacy difficulties. Three objectives have been identified for discussions with the Fagaloa community: (1) to establish and maintain home-school literacy partnerships, (2) to develop literacy leadership in schools, and (3) to develop effective school and home monitoring of students’ literacy progress.

Based on the above indicative goals and objectives, the Program Developer will work to an agreed writing brief provided by the ACEO CMAD.

It is expected that the Program Developer will participate and assist in thefacilitation of community consultations to identify needs, confirm goals and objectives, and identify special features of the Fagaloa context that will impact on program choices and implementation.

The work of the Program Developer will be coordinated by the Community Education Development Coordinator in association with the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Task Force.

DutiesIn particular, the Program Developer will

(i) Assist in the planning and facilitation of community consultations to identify needs, confirm goals and objectives, and identify special features of the Fagaloa context that will impact on program choices and implementation;

(ii) Review all documents relevant to the development of the program. These include the 2006-2015 Education Policies and Strategies, the draft Proposal for Home-School Literacy Partnership, the school census data on the MESC Manumea data base, examination data;

(iii) Ensure the education goals and principles of the MESC Education Policies and Strategies 2006-2015, and the vision of the Fagaloa

Section 7 46

community guide the selection of program components and implementation;

(iv) Develop the Home-School Literacy Partnership for the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Program following the agreed writing brief provided by the ACEO CMAD;

(v) Identify personnel and resource requirements for the implementation, and in consultation with the ACEO CMAD and the Community Education Development Coordinator, identify procurement options and develop costings;

(vi) Confirm all technical assistance and develop terms of reference; (vii) Develop the implementation schedule; (viii) Assist the Community Education Development Coordinator develop

the monitoring and evaluation framework; (ix) Provide a report to the ACEO CMAD against the above terms of

reference at the end of mission

All activities of the Program Developer are to be coordinated through Component 1.

Qualifications and Experience

� Significant experience in educational program design and evaluation � Knowledge of Samoa education policy and practice � Substantial experience in literacy development and literacy assessment

across the range of age groups in the school and community � Demonstrated knowledge of school-wide approaches to school

improvement� Proven experience in working with communities � Highly literate in both in Samoan and English � Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for

periods of time

Key Selection Criteria

� Significant experience in educational program design and evaluation � Substantial experience in literacy development and literacy assessment

across the range of age groups in the school and community � Demonstrated knowledge of school-wide approaches to school

improvement� Proven experience in working with communities � Highly literate in both in Samoan and English � Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for

periods of time.

Section 7 47

1.15 Program Developer: Community Learning Centre: (One National, 6 person months in Phase 1 over one year)

Background

The Program Developer will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division.

The main tasks of the Program Developer will be to assist MESC to develop and effectively implement the Community Learning Centre program for Fagaloa.

The Centre will promote relevant technical skills which may include Information Communication Technology (ICT), communication subjects, Mathematics for regular students, second chance education for out-of-school youth, and adult education in programs such as Tourism, Small Business Training, Fisheries, Horticulture, Textiles and Food technology, Visual and Performing Arts, Crafts and so on. The Community Learning Centre encourages involvement, sparks interest, and develops community capacity. The activities in this initiative are aimed at strengthening families and communities with high expectations and support for the learning of family members, including those with special education needs.

Based on the above indicative goals and objectives, the Program Developer will work to an agreed writing brief provided by the ACEO CMAD.

It is expected that the Program Developer will participate and assist in thefacilitation of community consultations to identify needs, confirm goals and objectives, and identify special features of the Fagaloa context that will impact on program choices and implementation.

The work of the Program Developer will be coordinated by the Community Education Development Coordinator in association with the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Task Force.

Duties

In particular, the Program Developer will

(i) Assist in the planning and facilitation of community consultations to identify needs, confirm goals and objectives, and identify special features of the Fagaloa context that will impact on program choices and implementation;

(ii) Liaise with relevant agencies to obtain data on existing initiatives in Fagaloa and outcomes;

Section 7 48

(iii) Consult research findings on the Fagaloa community and take these into account in program design;

(iv) Ensure the education goals and principles of the 2006-2015 Education Policies and Strategies, and the vision of the Fagaloa community guide the selection of program components and implementation;

(v) Consult relevant agencies and providers such as NUS Institute ofTechnology, MESC Culture Division, Women in Business, Ministry of Women and Community Development, SBEC, SUNGO, METI etc to assess program provisions, relevance to Fagaloa, and capacity to assist in the implementation of programs for Fagaloa;

(vi) Design the program for the Fagaloa Community Learning Centre following the agreed writing brief provided by the ACEO CMAD;

(vii) Identify personnel and resource requirements for the implementation, and in consultation with the ACEO CMAD and the Community Education Development Coordinator, identify procurement options, and develop costings;

(viii) Develop an inventory of potential providers for the program components;

(ix) Confirm all technical assistance and develop terms of reference; (x) Develop the implementation schedule; (xi) Assist the Community Education Development Coordinator develop

the monitoring and evaluation framework ; (xii) Provide a report to the ACEO CMAD against the above terms of

reference at the end of mission

All activities of the Program Developer are to be coordinated through Component 1.

Qualifications and Experience

� Significant experience in educational program design and evaluation � Knowledge of Samoa education policy and practice � Knowledge of Samoa Development Strategies � Substantial experience in program design for community development,

continuing education, adult education and for out-of-school youth � Proven experience in working with communities � Highly literate in both in Samoan and English � Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for

periods of time

Key Selection Criteria

� Significant experience in educational program design and evaluation � Substantial experience in program design for community development,

continuing education, adult education and for out-of-school youth

Section 7 49

� Demonstrated capacity to conduct sector-wide consultations and networking for program design purposes

� Proven experience in working with communities � Highly literate in both Samoan and English � Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for

periods of time

Section 7 50

1.16 Community Researcher: (One National, 6 person months in Phase 1 over one year)

Background

The Community Researcher will be assigned to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) and will report to the ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division.

The main tasks of the Community Researcher will be to assist MESC to obtainvalid and reliable data to inform the development of the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Program, and to evaluate its impact. The evaluation results will inform future developments of the program in Fagaloa and its potential for implementation in other communities.

The Program has two strands: (1) Home-school literacy partnership, and (2) the Community Learning Centre. The activities of the program are aimed at strengthening families and communities with high expectations and support for the learning of family members, including those with special education needs.

It is expected that the pre-program research will include consideration of the following: baseline demographics, education statistics and outcomes, GOS current and future development plans for Fagaloa district; household surveys covering populations, involvement in education, occupational features, migratory patterns, socio-economic, attitudes/perceptions and levels of interest and support for the program; development priorities; levels of literacy in school population, teacher quality, practice and whole school environment and professional culture. The evaluation of impact will be informed by stakeholders’ views of targets and performance standards.

The work of the Community Researcher will be coordinated by the Community Education Development Coordinator in association with the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Task Force.

Duties

The Community Research Officer will

(i) In consultation with Fagaloa Community, the ACEO CMAD, PPRD, Taskforce, Statistical Services Division MOF, NUS Centre for Samoan Studies and other relevant agencies design a research program including to inform the Fagaloa Community Education Partnerships Program, and to evaluate its impact; obtain approval for the research program and the implementation schedule;

Section 7 51

(ii) Develop an appropriate human research ethics approval system and facilitate consultation with MESC, Taskforce, Fagaloa Community for its approval;

(iii) Develop research methodology options and gain approval; (iv) Prepare and obtain approval for research instruments; (v) Identify information system requirements for data processing; (vi) Conduct research – coordinating data collection, data processing; (vii) Analyze results and produce draft research reports that identify

findings, implications, and recommendations for program development;

(viii) Facilitate consultation to discuss results and recommendations; (ix) Revise and submit final research reports; (x) Produce management reports concerning progress against research

program and identify issues that impact on program implementation; (xi) Design impact evaluation research program, instruments and

procedures.

All activities of the Community Researcher are to be coordinated through Component 1.

Qualifications and Experience

� Significant understanding of Samoa’s socio-economic context and issues facing rural communities

� Substantial experience in the design, conduct and reporting of research with emphasis on social and educational themes

� Proven experience in the use of research findings to develop policies and strategies

� High levels of biliteracy in English and Samoan � Demonstrated capacity to co-ordinate and work with communities to

undertake the research � High level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills � Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for

periods of time

Key Selection Criteria

� Substantial experience in the design, conduct and reporting of research with emphasis on social and educational themes

� Proven experience in the use of research findings to develop policies and strategies

� High levels of bi-literacy in English and Samoan � Demonstrated capacity to co-ordinate and work with communities to

undertake the research

Section 7 52

� High level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and facilitation skills

� Demonstrated capacity to work flexibly and in different locations for periods of time

Section 7 53

Component 2: Developing Effective Teachers

2.1 Teacher Development Policy Analyst (One International, 7 person-months, intermittent over two years)

Background

A key priority in the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 – 2015 (ESPP) is the development of a high quality, motivated teacher workforce. Improved teacher quality is critical if student learning outcomes are to be improved. A number of strategies are identified in the ESPP to strengthen overall quality (teaching and learning) and access (places, supply and deployment). These include strengthening the quality of teaching at primary school level, improving pre-service and in-service teacher education, adopting continuous professional development practices and accrediting teacher education courses and programs. The formulation of a National Teacher Development Framework (NTDF) is proposed. The ADB is directly supporting the development of a NTDF by providing Technical Assistance (TA) to MESC, scheduled for 10 months beginning late 2006. Strengthened MESC capacity to analyze and respond to teacher development needs systemically is also needed.

The Teacher Development Policy Analyst will work in close collaboration withthe staff of the School Operations Division (SOD) and School Review Officers (SRO) of the MESC, the National University of Samoa (NUS) and the University of South Pacific (USP). S/he will be responsible for supporting overall teacher development activities of the ESP II related to component 2 and support MESC in implementing strategies derived from the ADB TA on NTDF. The Teacher Development Policy Analyst will report to the ACEO SOD.

Duties

The Teacher Development Policy Analyst will:

i Review the relevant MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 – 2015 aggregated data from teacher appraisal conducted by the SOD in 2005, any work undertaken under the ADB TA for the National Development Framework and consult with all relevant stakeholders in order to identify and report on key trends and emerging issues;

ii Assess the capacity of the SOD staff by preparing, conducting and analyzing a TNA and conducting structured interviews with all staff and the ACEO SOD, in order to prepare a Professional Development Plan and Training Schedule for SOD staff in the first year of ESP 11 implementation;

iii Prepare and conduct workshops for staff from SOD, NUS, USP and the Policy, Planning Research Division (PPRD) on data collection, analysis and policy development for teacher training needs at pre-service ;

Section 7 54

iv Provide one on one mentoring to the SOD and other stakeholders to support continuous learning needs resulting from workshop activities;

v Liaise with the School Improvement Advisor and the In-Service and Pre-service Teacher Development Experts to support MESC planning for the development of national integrated seminars/training programs for teachers’ professional development priorities;

vi Support NUS Faculty of Education (FoE) to prepare for the implementation of the fellowship program under this component and to support the realignment of existing pre-service teacher training courses within the FoE to ESP 11 initiatives.

vii Assist the SOD in years 2 – 4, in the planning, implementation and review of the activities and recommendations arising from the ADB TA for the NTDF;

viii Develop proposals to link pre-service and in-service teacher educationbased on NTDF recommendations and in consultation with the FoE, NUS;

ix In consultation with the ASEO SOD and the ESP11 Secretariat, planand assist in developing a framework to monitoring and evaluate all component 2 activities and their impact on the ESP;

x Prepare draft reports on Component 2 activities as directed by the ACEO SOD, and submit for review and approval by the ESP 11 Steering Committee. It is likely that reports will be on the following areas: (i) the evaluation and impact of interventions for the improvement of integrated pre-service teacher education courses designed to enhance teacher quality; (ii) a program implementation schedule to accommodate approved recommendations derived from the ADB TA for the NTDF; (iii) recommendations regarding the realignment of NUS FoE pre-service courses and implementation of the teacher fellowship program; (iv) report on the effectiveness of all initiatives undertaken under Component 2 on the impact on teacher quality and; (v) review and recommendations on improving the monitoring and evaluation teacher performance and reporting this against the M&E framework for Component 2.

Qualifications and Experience

� A post graduate degree in education with an emphasis on teacher education, research and evaluation or public policy;

� Experience in the capacity building of education ministry staff and working within education systems and teacher training institutions;

� Demonstrated capacity to support the development of strategies to improve teacher quality through evidence based research;

� Experience in developing strategies for delivery and implementation of pre and in service teacher training programs to support national/agency reform programs;

Section 7 55

� Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts and an understanding of Pacific islands or Samoan culture and how it impacts on educational planning and delivery;

� A working knowledge of Sector Wide Programs and experience working in a multi-donor environment;

� A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and counterparts.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively and successfully with counterparts to build improved capacity within education systems, particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

� Substantial experience in leading and managing research and evaluation programs to support the development of policy and strategy to improve teacher quality;

� Significant experience in leading the planning for the development of national programs in pre service teacher training programs/course delivery; their implementation and evaluation to support educational agency reform programs;

� A post graduate degree in education with an emphasis on teacher education, research and evaluation or public policy;

� Demonstrated knowledge and experience of sector wide programming, corporate planning and monitoring and evaluation. .

Section 7 56

2.2 School Improvement Advisor (International, 8 person-months, intermittent over three years)

Background

A key priority in the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 – 2015 (ESPP) is the development of a high quality, motivated teacher workforce. Improved teacher quality is critical if student learning outcomes are to be improved. A number of strategies are identified in the ESPP to strengthen overall quality (teaching and learning) and access (supply and deployment). These include strengthening the quality of teaching at primary school level, improving pre-service and in-service teacher education, adopting continuous professional development practices and accrediting teacher education courses and programs. The formulation of a National Teacher Development Framework (NTDF) is proposed. The ADB is directly supporting the development of a NTDF by providing Technical Assistance (TA) to MESC, scheduled for 10 months beginning late 2006. Strengthened MESC capacity to analyze and respond to teacher development needs systemically is also needed.

The School Improvement Advisor will work in close collaboration with the staff of the School Operations Division (SOD) and School Review Officers (SRO) of the MESC and primary and secondary principals. S/he will be responsible for supporting overall ongoing professional development of teachers. The School Improvement Advisor will report to the ACEO SOD.

Duties

(i) Review the relevant MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 – June 2015, aggregated data from teacher appraisal conducted by the SOD in 2005, any work undertaken by the Teacher Development Specialist and consult with all relevant stakeholders in order to identify and report on key trends and emerging issues;

(ii) Review the School Improvement Program developed under ISP, analyze for lessons learnt and consult with stakeholders to re-define and renew for broader usage under ESP 11;

(iii) Prepare and conduct workshops for staff from SOD on data analysis processes to develop integrated system wide professional development packages to respond to emerging priorities;

(iv) Provide one on one mentoring to the SOD staff to support continuous learning needs resulting from workshop activities;

(v) With the SOD staff and the SROs, assist in the development of system wide strategies and planning to respond to ongoing teacher professional development needs within the school system;

Section 7 57

(vi) Support the development and monitor the impact of, a sustainable and accountable National School Based In-Service Program for all teachers;

(vii) Liaise with the Teacher Development Policy Analyst and the In-Service and Pre-service Teacher Development Experts to support MESC planning for the development of integrated and cohesive seminars/training programs for principals and SRO’s for the implementation of system wide professional development priorities;

(viii) Prepare and conduct workshops for all principals and SRO’s on national program priorities for all teachers;

(ix) Prepare draft reports on Component 2 activities as directed by the ACEO SOD, and submit for review and approval by the ESP II Steering Committee. It is likely that reports will be on the following areas: (i) the evaluation and impact of interventions on the SOD and SOR capacity to provide and implement system wide responses to improve the quality of teaching; (ii) the benefits, rationale, structure and sustainability of the national school based in-service program for all teachers; (iii) the effectiveness of Principal forums, programs and capacity to monitor quality of school based in-service and; (iv) review, renew and assess the effectiveness of the School Improvement Program for principals and teachers.

Qualifications and Experience

� A postgraduate degree in education with an emphasis on research and evaluation or public policy;

� Experience in the successful capacity building of education ministry staff and working within education systems;

� Demonstrated capacity to support the development of strategies to improve school performance through evidenced based research;

� Expertise in planning national programs to improve teacher quality that support national/agency reform programs;

� Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts; an understanding of Pacific islands or Samoan culture and how it impacts on educational planning and delivery;

� A working knowledge of Sector Wide Programs experience working in a multi-donor environment;

� A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and counterparts.

Section 7 58

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively and successfully with counterparts to build improved capacity within education systems, particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

� Demonstrated capacity to develop national policy and implementation plans to improve and monitor teacher quality and school improvement;

� Significant experience in leading the planning for the development of national principal and teacher professional development programs/course delivery; their implementation, sustainability and evaluation to support educational agency reform programs;

� A postgraduate degree in education with an emphasis on research and evaluation or public policy;

� Demonstrated knowledge of sector wide programming, corporate planning and quality assurance.

Section 7 59

2.3 In-Service and Pre-Service Teacher Development Experts (Four Nationals, 24 person-months, intermittent over three years.)

Background

A key priority in the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 – 2015 (ESPP) is the development of a high quality, motivated teacher workforce. Improved teacher quality is critical if student learning outcomes are to be improved. A number of strategies are identified in the ESPP to strengthen overall quality (teaching and learning) and access (places, supply and deployment). These include strengthening the quality of teaching at primary school level, improving pre-service and in-service teacher education, adopting continuous professional development practices and accrediting teacher education courses and programs. The formulation of a National Teacher Development Framework (NTDF) is proposed. The ADB is directly supporting the development of a NTDF by providing Technical Assistance (TA) to MESC, scheduled for 10 months beginning late 2006. Strengthened MESC capacity to analyze and respond to teacher development needs systemically is also needed.

The In-Service and Pre-Service Teacher Development Expert/s (IPTDE) will work in close collaboration with the staff of the School Operations Division (SOD) of the MESC and the National University of Samoa (NUS). They will be responsible for developing courses in four fellowship programs: agricultural science, food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology. Each IPTDE will take responsibility for one fellowship program and assist in NUS review of pre-service course alignment. The IPTDEs will report to the ACEO SOD.

Duties

The IPTDEs will:

(i) With the Teacher Development Policy Specialist, reaffirm SOD commitment to nature, scope and sequencing of the fellowship program;

(ii) Review existing plans for the proposed fellowship areas and analyze similar courses within and outside Samoa;

(iii) Establish a course development committee, prepare TOR andoverall time and task schedule;

(iv) Draft and prepare the course sequence and draft outline, including content, sequence, teaching methodologies, assessment criteria and equipment and materials need;

(v) Write the courses, review with course development committee and SOD and modify accordingly;

Section 7 60

(vi) Trial courses with a focus group of current secondary teachers, principals and potential fellowship applicants and review accordingly;

(vii) Liaise with the SQA to ensure compliance with standards and gain accreditation;

(viii) Prepare course teachers to implement the course and support the M&E strategy developed by the Teacher Development Policy Specialist;

(ix) Support NUS Faculty of Education (FoE) to prepare for the implementation of the fellowship program under this component and to support the realignment of existing pre-service teacher training courses within the FoE to ESP initiatives.

(x) Assist the SOD in preparing for implementation of the recommendations made through the ADB TA for the NTDF;

(xi) Assist the SOD and NUS in monitoring and reviewing the qualityand impact of the fellowship courses; and

(xii) Prepare draft reports on component 2 activities as directed by the ACEO SOD, and submit for review and approval by the ESP II Steering Committee. It is likely that reports will be on the following areas: (i) present an outline of the fellowship course(s) at inception; (ii) prepare and present detailed course fellowship program(s), materials, assessment criteria and structure within timelines provided and (ii) review of the effectiveness of the process and content of each fellowship course.

Qualifications and Experience

� A post graduate degree in education with an emphasis on teacher education;

� Experience in developing teacher education courses that can be fast tracked and accredited;

� Experience in developing pre and in service teacher training programs; � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts; � Thorough understanding of Samoan education, its goals, institutions and

Education Sector Plan; � A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and

consultants

Key Selection Criteria

� A post graduate degree in education with an emphasis on teacher education;

� Demonstrated capacity in planning teacher education courses, managing course committees and successfully consulting with all stakeholders;

Section 7 61

� Appropriate qualifications and substantial experience in preparing high quality teacher education courses, particularly in one or more of the following areas: agricultural science, food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology; and

� Significant experience in developing pre service teacher training programs within timelines and to specified outputs and quality; and

� A working knowledge of current MESC education programs, initiatives, plans and reforms as they relate to the school education sector.

Section 7 62

2.4 Primary Teacher Educator (One National, 16 person-months, intermittent over four years.)

Background

A key priority in the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 – 2015 (ESPP) is the development of a high quality, motivated teacher workforce. Improved teacher quality is critical if student learning outcomes are to be improved. A number of strategies are identified in the ESPP to strengthen overall quality (teaching and learning) and access (places, supply and deployment). These include strengthening the quality of teaching at primary school level, improving pre-service and in-service teacher education, adopting continuous professional development practices and accrediting teacher education courses and programs. The formulation of a National Teacher Development Framework (NTDF) is proposed. The ADB is directly supporting the development of a NTDF by providing Technical Assistance (TA) to MESC, scheduled for 10 months beginning late 2006. Strengthened MESC capacity to analyze and respond to teacher development needs systemically is also needed.

The Primary Teacher Educator will work in close collaboration with the staff of the School Operations Division (SOD) of the MESC and the National University of Samoa (NUS). S/he will be responsible for developing and implementing a three month intensive course to train new primary teachers. The intensive course will be conducted using a summer school format and prepare graduates to teach in Samoan primary schools immediately. The Primary Teacher Educator will report to the ACEO SOD.

Duties

The Primary Teacher Educator will:

(i) With NUS and SOD, establish a course development committee, prepare TOR and overall time and task schedule;

(ii) After consultation with the Teacher Development Policy Specialist, the ACEO and the FOE, NUS prepare a briefing paper on the purpose, structure, format, costing and benefit to present to the specially convened course development committee;

(iii) Prepare a detailed course outline for an intensive three month program for aspiring primary teachers for review;

(iv) Draft and prepare the course sequence and overview of course content, sequence, assessment criteria, teaching methodologies and equipment and materials for course delivery;

(v) Write the courses and review with course development committee and SOD and modify accordingly;

Section 7 63

(vi) Trial courses with a focus group consisting of current and former primary teachers and primary principals and review accordingly;

(vii) Liaise with the SQA to ensure compliance with standards and gain accreditation

(viii) Prepare supplementary activities and guides to be used in the first year of the teachers employment;

(ix) Deliver and review the course within the timelines specified;Review the content, impact and quality of the course, its teaching methodology and course materials with the FOE, NUS and the SOD for the following year support the collection and analysis of data for the overall M&E strategy developed by the Teacher Development Policy Specialist; and

(x) Prepare draft reports on component 2 activities as directed by the ACEO SOD, and submit for review and approval by the ESP II Steering Committee. It is likely that reports will be on the following areas: (i) present an outline of the intensive; (ii) prepare and present detailed course program, materials, assessment criteria and structure within timelines provided and; (ii) review of the effectiveness of the process, content and quality of teaching of the course.

Qualifications and Experience

� A postgraduate degree in education with an emphasis on teacher education, particularly in the primary sub-sector;

� Experience in developing short term intensive teacher education courses;

� Experience in developing pre and in service teacher training programs; � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts; � Thorough understanding of Samoan education, its goals, institutions and

Education Sector Plan; � A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and

consultants

Key Selection Criteria

� A post graduate degree in education with an emphasis on primary teacher education;

� Demonstrated capacity in planning teacher education courses, managing course committees and successfully consulting with all stakeholders;

� Appropriate qualifications and substantial experience in preparing high quality teacher education courses and supplementary course materials for aspiring primary teachers;

� Significant experience in developing pre service teacher training programs within timelines and to specified outputs and quality; and

Section 7 64

� A working knowledge of current MESC education programs, initiatives, plans and reforms as they relate to the school education sector.

.

Section 7 65

Component 3: Improving Access to Quality Education

3.1 Civil Works Specialist Services for MESC HQ Building (International, 13 months full time)

Background

The Asset Management Unit within MESC is currently staffed with personnel who have little experience in the management of major projects. One of the aims of this Project is to address this shortcoming and to increase the capacity of this Branch to manage building projects. The staffing levels will increase during the construction phase of the project and the successful technical assistant will be required to work within the Branch and train and educate the staff in the management of building projects in Samoa with particular emphasis on those associated with the rest of Output 3. As noted in Section 3.1 of the PDD for the project, the Headquarters Building is one of the largest building contracts to be let by MESC and will require specialist assistance in the administration of the contract.

Duties

1. Assist the AMU in the advertising for prequalification of tenderers, the selection of preferred tenderers, the selection of preferred tenderers and management of the issuing of all tender documents and compliance with ADB Procurement Guidelines.

2. Assist the AMU in the receipt and evaluation of all tenders, overseeing the selection and engagement of the successful contractor including the finalisation of the written contract and the assembly of all contract documents.

3. Assist the AMU in the initiation of the Civil Works.

4. Establish a management process that allows MESC to discharge theirresponsibilities under the building contract and the Loan Agreement with ADB. This will also include liaising with other relevant authorities and departments within the GoS such as the MOF, ADB, AusAID and NZAID. This management process should be computer based with flexibility to cope with the flow of information within the Unit and between external parties including the Contractor, Employer’s Representative, Clerk of Works, MOF and the DPs.

5. To establish training programs for the staff and conduct regular workshops in the management of building projects in Samoa.

6. To assist MESC in the selection and procurement of furniture and equipment necessary for this building and for its incorporation into the works.

Section 7 66

7. To assist MESC in the selection and procurement of specialist consultants for architectural and engineering services to act as the Employers Representative under the FIDIC Contract.

8. To assist MESC in the selection and procurement of a Clerk of Works for the project.

9. Liaise with the Asset Management Unit in carrying out their duties as the representative of MESC under the building contract.

10. The management of the Employers Representative and the Clerk of Works and any other consultants who may be engaged on the project from time to time.

11. To assist MESC in the financial management of all aspects of the projectincluding those relating to: the FIDIC Building Contract; contracts for the supply of furniture and equipment; and contracts with consultants.

12. To assist MESC with any decanting of existing premises and temporaryaccommodation for staff associated with the vacating of existing premises scheduled for demolition under the building contract.

13. To coordinate with MESC and the other occupants on the Malifa Compound relating to the building works.

14. To assist with the preparation and submission of all reports required or arising from all the above activities. It is anticipated that there would be a need for at least monthly reports to MESC, the MOF and the DPs. These Reports will be submitted to the ESP II Secretariat prior to transmission to the Core Executive and ESC for approval.

Qualifications and Experience

1. Be highly competent in written and spoken English. Some proficiency in Samoan would be an advantage.

2. Have good communication skills.

3. A tertiary qualification in architecture, engineering or building and eligible for membership of the professional body for their profession.

4. A minimum of 15 years experience in the administration of building contracts in general with at least 10 years in the Pacific. Some experience in Samoa would be an advantage. References from at least three referees are required.

Section 7 67

5. Experience with FIDIC Conditions of Contract.

6. Experience with the requirements of ADB in loans associated with building projects.

7. Be prepared to work full time in Apia for the currency of the engagement. Recreational leave outside the annual period of building shutdown will only be allowed with the written agreement of MESC and MoF.

8. Have professional indemnity insurance for a minimum of ST$10,000,000

Key Selection Criteria

� Experience in the management of major building projects with knowledge of ADB guidelines and FIDIC conditions of contract. (25 points)

� Experience in development assistance projects with previous experience within the Pacific and Samoa an advantage (20 points)

� Appropriate professional qualifications (10 points) � Demonstrated capacity and experience in training and capacity building

(20 points) � Excellent written and oral communications skills. (15 points) � Remuneration (10 points)

Section 7 68

3.2 Civil Works Specialist Services for Schools (Local, some 6 - 8 packages will be contracted during the course of the project)

Note: For details of number of packages, which have been planned as well astheir likely timing, refer to Section 6 Annex 3 – Implementation Schedule.

Background

The Asset Management Unit of MESC will need to procure and manage civilworks for the schools, colleges and teacher houses in accordance with GoS and ADB procurement guidelines. The building contracts for the school facilities will require special services for the design of the facilities as well as the contract administration during the construction phase. An important element of the work will be assisting MESC with the school community consultations during the design process.

Duties

To be set out by the MESC Asset Management Unit based on procedures and guidelines established during ESP I. Each design package will need to be tailored in consultation with MESC staff and approved by Core Executive

Qualifications and Experience

To be set out by the MESC Asset Management Unit based on procedures and guidelines established during ESP I and the needs identified with during consultations with MESC staff.

Key Selection Criteria

To be set out by the MESC Asset Management Unit based on procedures and guidelines established during ESP I. Special consideration will need to given to the firms experience in consulting with school communities as part of an overall design process.

Section 7 69

3.3 Civil Works Specialist – Schools (One International, 12 person-monthsfull time then 2.5 months intermittent over two years)

Background

The Asset Management Unit of MESC will need to procure and manage civilworks in accordance with GoS and ADB procurement guidelines. The procurement of goods will be undertaken using ADB’s international competitive bidding procedures when the value exceeds $1 million; If less then $1m then local competitive bidding in accordance with GoS procedures acceptable to ADB will be used. The MESC HQ building will be in excess of $1m whilst some 8 to 10 other construction packages will be less than $1m. The civil works for the schools and housing construction packages will involve a pre-requisite design services by domestic consultants. During construction of the schools and houses the domestic consultants will provide construction supervision.

The Civil Works Specialist will work with staff of the Asset Management Unitand be responsible to the head of the unit.

Duties

The Civil Works Specialist will during the first 12-month full time phase will:

(i) Review the procurement procedures developed for ESP I and ESP II and make recommendations for ongoing updates;

(ii) Review the ESP II Project procurement plan and makerecommendations for the plan to be updated;

(iii) Assist the head of the Assets Management Unit prepare a trainingstrategy and professional training program for all the staff within the Assets Management Unit in order to improve their ability to manage civil works.

(iv) Assist the Assets Management Unit to prepare regular reports,about the civil works being undertaken by builders, for incorporation in other project reports, Annual Plans et al;

(v) Assist the Assets Management Unit to prepare regular reports,about the design work and construction supervision work being undertaken by domestic consultants, for incorporation in other project reports, Annual Plans et al;

(vi) Prepare and conduct workshops, for MESC staff, about the contract management procedures and guidelines;

(vii) In consultation with the Assets Management Unit and the ESP II Secretariat, plan and assist in developing a framework to monitor and evaluate all activities related to civil works and in particular help establish key performance indicators.

Section 7 70

The Civil Works Specialist will during the second part time phase will:

(i) Assess the performance of the Assets Management Unit and provide recommendations regarding any trends arising from the key performance indicators.

(ii) Assist the Assets Management Unit with the preparation of the civil works elements in the Annual Plan.

(iii) Provide one on one mentoring support to the Assets Management Unit staff.

Qualifications and Experience

� A degree in engineering, architecture or building � Knowledge and experience in school construction and site supervision for

school facilities; � Highly developed capacity building, mentoring and training skills; � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts, with

Government or on externally funded civil works projects.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated knowledge of using project and contract management procedures for both local and international purchase of civil works

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively with counterparts to build improved capacity particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

� Demonstrated ability to run capacity building programs and to provide one on one mentoring;

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills.

Section 7 71

3.4 Education Equipment Specialist (One International, 2 person-months full time then 3 months full time after gap of some 18 months)

Background

The Assets Management Unit of MESC will need to procure educationequipment, supplies and learning materials based on a new curriculum being finalised. The procurement goods will be undertaken using local competitive bidding in accordance with GoS procedures acceptable to ADB will be used. The procurement of goods for the schools will be staged to allow materials to be available when the construction of school facilities is completed. In order for the procurement to be undertaken various lists of materials will need to be developed and agreed with the other units in MESC in order for the procurement packages to be developed.

The Education Equipment Specialist will work with staff of the Asset Management Unit and be responsible to the head of the unit.

Duties

The Education Equipment Specialist, during the first 2-month full time phase, will:

(i) Review the equipment materials lists developed during ESP I and for ESP II;

(ii) Assist relevant MESC officers in developing and finalizing their equipment and material requirements, based on the curriculum details and specifications available;

(iii) Assist the Assets Management Unit to prepare a ‘packaging’ strategy which will be most efficient for purchase, supply and distribution to schools;

(iv) Prepare material and equipment lists for inclusion in relevant tender documents;

(v) Assist the Assets Management Unit and the ESP II Secretariat in planning a framework to monitor and evaluate all activitiesrelated to curriculum materials and school equipment.

The Education Equipment Specialist, during the second 2-month full time phase, will:

(vi) Review the completed equipment materials lists developed during the intervening 18 month gap;

(vii) Assist relevant MESC officers in developing and finalizing their equipment and material requirements for the completed and finalized curriculum update;

Section 7 72

(viii) Prepare material and equipment lists for inclusion in tender documents;

(ix) Assist the Assets Management Unit and the ESP II Secretariat to review curriculum materials and equipment.

Qualifications and Experience

� A degree in a relevant area, or equivalent qualifications and work experience;

� Knowledge of Government of Samoa procurement systems; � Experience in the procurement of education materials and in working with

suppliers;� Knowledge and experience in transport and distribution of school equipment

and materials; and� Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts, with

bilateral or multilateral donor agencies, and/or on civil works projects involved with the procurement of school equipment and materials.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated ability to identify and quantify the equipment and materials necessary to support curriculum and school requirements;

� Experience in developing procurement specifications and source school equipment and materials;

� Demonstrated knowledge of education materials procurement in Samoa and the region; and

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills.

Section 7 73

3.5 Procurement Specialist (One International, 12 person-months full time then 2.5 months intermittent over two years)

Background

The Assets Management Unit of MESC will need to procure goods and services in accordance with GoS procurement guidelines. The procurement of goodswill be undertaken using ADB’s international competitive bidding procedures when the value exceeds $1 million and national competitive bidding in accordance with GoS procedures. The MESC HQ building will be in excess of $1m whilst some 8 to 10 other construction packages will be less than $1m. As well there will be a number of recurring procurement packages for school furniture, equipment, supplies and learning materials.

The Procurement Specialist will work with staff of the Asset Management Unit and be responsible to the head of the unit.

Duties

The Procurement Specialist during the first 12-month full time phase will:

(i) In conjunction with MESC staff, review the Project’s procurement procedures and standardized tendering and contract documents prepared under Component 5;

(ii) Review the Project’s procurement plan for all components; (iii) Assist the unit to prepare regular procurement reports for

incorporation in other project reports, Annual Plans et al; (iv) Assist the unit in developing and documenting standardized

tendering and contract documents for MESC. (v) Assist the unit in evaluating bids, preparing Bid Evaluation

Reports (BER)(vi) Provide training and support for the staff of the Asset

Management Unit to enable them to undertake the initial procurement action that is required to commence the work.

(vii) Prepare and conduct workshops, for MESC staff, about the MESC procurement procedures and guidelines;

(viii) Provide one on one mentoring to the Asset Management Unit staff to support continuous learning about the Project procurement system;

(ix) Assist other Divisions within MESC with their respective procurement needs;

(x) In consultation with the Assets Management Unit and the ESP II Secretariat, plan and assist in developing a framework to monitoring and evaluate all activities related to the procurement

Section 7 74

of goods and services and in particular help establish key performance indicators.

The Procurement Specialist will during the second part time phase will:

(xi) Assess the performance of the Asset Management Unit and provide recommendations regarding any trends arising from the key performance indicators.

(xii) Assist the Asset Management Unit with the preparation of the procurement elements in the Annual Plan;

(xiii) Provide one on one mentoring support to the Asset Management Unit staff.

Qualifications and Experience

� A degree in a relevant area, or equivalent qualifications and work experience;

� Knowledge of GoS procurement systems, and knowledge of ADB systems is desirable;

� Experience in the development and use of tendering and contracting procedures, using ADB-style documentation;

� Ability to provide hands on and other forms of capacity building for MESC staff;

� Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts, with bilateral or multilateral donor agencies, and/ procurement of school equipment and materials.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated knowledge of using procurement procedures for both local and international purchase of goods and services;

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively with counterparts to build improved capacity particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

� Demonstrated ability to develop and implement capacity building programs and provide one on one mentoring;

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills.

Section 7 75

3.6 Procurement Systems Specialist

One International, 4 person-months, over 1 year

Background

Component 5 is designed to assist MESC in building and institutionalizingcapacity to achieve this goal. To ensure more effective and efficient implementation, activities in this component will help ensure (i) coordination of implementation between the different components and overall program management, (ii) monitoring of implementation, expenditure, input delivery, and their integration in the government finance and reporting system; (iii) implementation of robust mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of progress; and (iv) strengthening of procurement systems, specifically tendering and contracting.

The project partners have agreed that under ESP II, maximum use will be made of GoS systems including Project procurement. Because ESP II involves components implemented by other Divisions, changes will be made to Project procurement, with the intention of aligning it more closely with activity implementation. The increased use of GoS systems means that there are a range of different capacity building needs in the Asset Management Unit, the ESP II Secretariat and other Divisions. Currently, the GoS is reviewing the existing Procurement Guidelines with assistance from the World Bank. The findings of this review are expected to be available before December 2006.

The Procurement Systems Specialist will report and be responsible to the Head of the Asset Management Unit. He/she will also work closely with the ESP II Secretariat Assistant Chief Executive Officers responsible for Project implementation and, under guidance, be required to liaise with staff of the Ministry of Finance and the office of the Attorney General.

Duties

The Procurement Systems Specialist will:

(i) Develop systems that are in line with GoS procurement procedures, ADB requirements and other Development Donors needs.

(ii) Review tendering and procurement under ESP I, and confirm the framework and procedures proposed for ESP II (i.e. the Project Procurement Strategy) will meet DPs’ requirements and standards;

(iii) Within one month of commencement, assist MESC to develop andimplement standard Request for Procurement formats, based on revised GoS and ADB Procurement Guidelines for the main Project procurement packages, such as civil works, equipment, school materials and consulting services;

Section 7 76

(iv) Within two months of commencement, assist MESC to develop and implement standard contract templates (based on the ADB template) for use within the Project, including clearance of general and specific conditions with the relevant GoS agencies;

(v) Advise the Head of the Asset Management Unit, ESP II Secretariat, and the relevant ACEOs on the content and delivery of standard procurement packages for school equipment and learning materials to be funded under various components of the Project;

(vi) Work collaboratively with staff of the AMU and Divisional staff within MESC to develop and implement the new procurement systems for ESP II, consistent with GoS requirements and the needs of DPs;

(vii) Ensure that a complete set of procurement systems is in place for undertaking all procurement activities.

(viii) Assist the AMU to manage the consultants register, with regular updating as required;

(ix) Over a period of three months following commencement, design and deliver a series of capacity building workshops for MESC staff in the drafting of terms of reference and procurement specifications, the new procurement documentation and in contract management.

(x) During all assignments, train staff of MESC as required, on an ‘on the job’ basis, in the operations of the procurement systems; and

(xi) Act as mentor to the head of the Asset Management Unit and other ACEOs and their staff on an ‘as required’ basis in relation to procurement management undertaken by MESC staff.

Qualifications and Experience

� A degree/equivalent qualifications in a relevant field or work experience in procurement for international development or for Government;

� Knowledge of, and experience in, international development tendering and procurement using Government systems or those of donors;

� Experience in developing standard templates for tendering and contracting, and using these templates to obtain goods and services;

� Experience in consulting with a wide range of staff members to determine user requirements for procurement;

� Experience in on the job capacity building of staff; � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts; � A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and

counterparts; and � Understanding of ADB tendering/procurement procedures is desirable.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively with counterparts to build improved capacity in procurement, particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

Section 7 77

� Substantial experience in procurement for international development projects and familiarity with developing standardized tendering and contracting documentation that can be used effectively by counterparts;

� Experience in procurement for the education sector and in sector wide projects is desirable;

� Experience with ADB procurement procedures is desirable; � A degree, equivalent qualification or work experience in a relevant field

or work experience in procurement for international development projects or for Government;

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills.

Component 4: Strengthening Capacity to Undertake Research, Evaluation, Policy Analysis, and Planning

4.1 Education Research and Evaluation Specialist

One International, 8 person-months, over 2 years

Background

Component 4 of ESP II is designed to (i) strengthen the national capacity for research and evaluation, which will provide a stronger basis for evidence-based policy development; (ii) strengthen the capacity of staff to analyze education data, identify priority issues for action, plan remedial interventions and policy reforms, and monitor implementation; and (iii) support a learning-by-doing capacity-building strategy, which will provide staff with the opportunity to carry out research and evaluation studies, plan education reforms, and design remedial interventions with decreasing external technical support. Thus, one of the key outcomes will be an experienced group of national professionals within MESC and elsewhere in Samoa with research, evaluation and policy expertise.

The Education Research and Evaluation Specialist will report and be responsible to the Assistant Chief Executive Officer, Policy Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture, Government of Samoa.

Duties

The Education Research and Evaluation Specialist will:

Section 7 78

(i) Work collaboratively with staff of the Policy, Planning and Research Division (PPRD) of MESC to develop and implement a program of research and evaluation related to priority education issues and linked to the implementation of ESP II activities

(ii) Within one month of commencement, undertake a capacity building needs and skills analysis for PPRD staff engaged in research and evaluation, and produce a capacity building plan (for approval by MESC Core Executive) to address any skills and human resource development gaps identified. The capacity building plan will include a range of approaches, as described in the ESP II design and meeting the immediate and medium term needs of the organization

(iii) Within two months of commencement, assist PPRD to develop terms of reference, identify stakeholders, design research methodologies, surveys and plans of action for implementing the first two research and evaluation studies already identified and planned for Year 1 and Year 2 of the project

(iv) At the same time, integrate the approved capacity building and HRD plan developed in (ii) into the planned research and evaluation activities scheduled for (iii)

(v) Conduct a minimum of two capacity building workshops for staff of PPRD and invited stakeholders leading up to the first research and evaluation study, with follow up workshops planned and delivered according to need and the scheduling of other PPRD activities and the research and evaluation study to be completed in Year 2

(vi) Arrange and conduct, under guidance from the ACEO PPRD and Core Executive, two capacity building workshops for senior MSC staff on professional report writing, relating to their responsibilities under the Project and for the education sector

(vii) Following approval of the research and evaluation program, assist PPRD and stakeholders in the conduct of the first research and evaluation study on teacher effectiveness in Year 1 of the Project, including advising on managing surveys, data analysis, interpretation and preparation of results and reports

(viii) Assist MESC to establish links and working relationships with education research institutions and agencies in regional countries, with the aim of capacity building and sharing knowledge and information

(ix) Act as mentor to the ACEO of PPRD and her staff on an ‘as required’ basis in relation to the conduct of the research and evaluation program, which will be carried out by PPRD staff

(x) Design (as part of the capacity building plan in ii) and arrange a series of work attachments and study tours for MESC/PPRD staff to these institutions and agencies, based on needs, the research program schedule and availability of staff

Section 7 79

(xi) Assist PPRD and stakeholders in the conduct of the second research and evaluation study on causes of low achievement in Year 2 of the Project, including advising on data analysis, interpretation and preparation of results and reports

(xii) At the end of the second research and evaluation study, undertake a review of the research program and associated capacity building and report to PPRD and MESC Core Executive on the implications for the remainder of the research program, including the conduct of evaluations of any ESP II pilot programs.

Qualifications and Experience

� A post graduate degree in education with an emphasis on research and evaluation or policy development;

� Experience in the development of education research studies and programs, especially in relation to teacher effectiveness and student performance;

� Knowledge of survey methodologies, data analysis and interpretation and awareness of current issues and practices in education research;

� Experience in undertaking staff and/or workplace assessment to identify capacity building needs and develop capacity building plans to address skills gaps;

� Ability to design and implement capacity building and/or training workshops in research and evaluation methodologies;

� Ability to conduct workshops in professional report writing; � Experience in on the job capacity building of staff; � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts; � A working knowledge of Sector Wide Programs. � A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and

counterparts; and � An understanding of Pacific islands or Samoan culture and how it

impacts on educational planning and delivery.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively with counterparts to build improved capacity within education systems, particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

� Substantial experience in research and evaluation to support the development of education policies;

� Significant experience in developing, planning and implementing research studies and in assessing and publishing results;

� Experience in teaching professional writing skills for report writing in the public sector or international development context;

Section 7 80

� A post graduate degree in education with an emphasis on research, evaluation and policy development;

� Demonstrated knowledge of sector wide programming, corporate planning and monitoring and evaluation;

� Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills.

Section 7 81

Component 5: Strengthening Capacity to Implement and Manage Development Projects

5.1 Project Management Specialist

One International, 4 person-months, over 2 years

Background

Component 5 is designed to assist MESC in building and institutionalizing capacity to achieve this goal. To ensure more effective and efficient implementation, activities in this component will help ensure (i) coordination of implementation between the different components and overall project management, (ii) monitoring of implementation, expenditure, input delivery, and their integration in the government finance and reporting system; and (iii) implementation of robust mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of progress.

The Project Management Specialist will report and be responsible to the Program Coordinator, ESP II Secretariat, Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture. He/she will also work closely with the ACEO, Corporate Services Division and, under guidance, be required to liaise with staff of the Ministry of Finance.

Duties

The Project Management Specialist will:

(i) Work collaboratively with staff of the ESP II Secretariat, Corporate Services Division and the Divisions responsible for implementing Project components to operationalise ESP II project management procedures, including alignment of planning, management and reporting systems with existing MESC processes and procedures;

(ii) Work collaboratively with staff of the ESP II Secretariat and Corporate Services Division of MESC to develop and implementa financial management system for ESP II that is consistent with GoS policies and meets appropriate financial legislation and regulations

(iii) Within the first month after commencement, develop a chart of accounts and operational guidelines for the Project’s Special Purpose Account, based on similar guidelines developed for these kinds of accounts in other Government agencies;

Section 7 82

(iv) Within two months of commencement, assist MESC to develop a standardised financial reporting package (using Excel) for the Special Purpose Account that will generate financial information on Project expenditure in the formats required for reporting to Core Executive, the ESC and the MOF);

(v) By the end of the first assignment, assist the ESP II Secretariat to produce the first quarterly project and financial reporting package for the Core Executive, MOF and ADB;

(vi) During all assignments, train staff of MESC (and MOF) as required, on an ‘on the job’ basis, in the operations of the project and financial management system;

(vii) Following successful development and implementation of the GOFAR system’s project management module, undertake a second assignment to transfer the Special Purpose Account to the new system; and

(viii) Act as mentor to the ESP II Program Coordinator, ACEO of CSD and their staff on an ‘as required’ basis in relation to the project and financial management systems which will be operated by MESC staff.

Qualifications and Experience

� A degree or equivalent qualifications or work experience in accounting with an emphasis on project management and/or Government financial management practices;

� Knowledge of Government finance regulations and operating principles, and ability to transfer these into instructions and guidelines;

� Experience in the development of financial reporting packages (using Microsoft Excel) and in designing reporting formats;

� Experience in consulting with a wide range of staff members to determine user requirements for project management and accounting systems;

� Experience in on the job capacity building of staff; � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts; � A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and

counterparts;� Understanding of ADB loan management and financial reporting systems

is desirable.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively with counterparts to build improved capacity in project and financial management, particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

Section 7 83

� Substantial experience in Government corporate planning, accounting and familiarity with developing charts of accounts and interpreting financial guidelines/regulations;

� Experience in using Microsoft Excel to manage accounts and produce standardized reporting packages for use by finance staff and management;

� A degree or equivalent qualification or work experience in accounting with an emphasis on Government financial management practices; Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally;

� High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and facilitation skills.

Section 7 84

5.2 Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

One International, 4 person-months, over 1 year

Background

Component 5 is designed to assist MESC in building and institutionalising capacity to achieve this goal. To ensure more effective and efficient implementation, activities in this component will help ensure (i) coordination of implementation between the different components and overall program management, (ii) monitoring of implementation, expenditure, input delivery, and their integration in the government finance and reporting system; and (iii) implementation of robust mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of progress.

MESC will utilise a single monitoring and evaluation system for the educationsector that meets the needs of the GoS and the DPs, for both general and Project-specific reporting. MESC has requested technical assistance to develop the system, which is based on the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan, the ESP II design and builds on existing systems and those developed for ESP I. However, the new system will have to be adapted and redefined to meet the new requirements for international, national (Government) and multi-donor reporting.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will report and be responsible to the Program Coordinator, ESP II Secretariat, and MESC. He/she will also work closely with the Assistant Chief Executive Officers responsible for Project implementation and, under guidance, be required to liaise with staff of the Ministry of Finance.

Duties

The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will:

(i) Work collaboratively with staff of the ESP II Secretariat and Divisional staff within MESC to develop and implement a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for MESC and ESP II that is consistent with GoS requirements and meets the needs of DPs;

(ii) Within the first two months after commencement, review keyperformance indicators for the Strategic Policies and Plan, ESP II implementation benchmarks and establish the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework;

(iii) At the same time, identify data requirements for monitoring and measuring performance, develop key performance indicators for the monitoring and evaluation of performance and identify data collection methods and responsibilities;

Section 7 85

(iv) Assist the ESP II Secretariat to coordinate information collection for the initial quarterly progress and monitoring and evaluation reports. This will involve on the job training for staff in MESC responsible for component implementation;

(v) Assist the ESP II Secretariat to develop and standardise report formats (including Annual Plans and the Project Completion Report) and procedures for dissemination of results.

(vi) By the end of the first assignment, assist the ESP II Secretariat to produce the first quarterly reporting package for the Core Executive, MOF and DPs;

(vii) In March 2007, undertake a second assignment of one month to assist the ESP II Secretariat to develop and produce the Project’s second Annual Plan;

(viii) During all assignments, train staff of MESC as required, on an ‘on the job’ basis, in the operations of the monitoring and evaluation system; and

(ix) Act as mentor to the ESP II Program Coordinator, and otherACEOs and their staff on an ‘as required’ basis in relation to the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework which will be operated by MESC staff.

Qualifications and Experience

� A degree/equivalent qualifications or work experience in international development, public sector management or similar field;

� Knowledge of, and experience in, international development project monitoring and evaluation frameworks for multi-donor projects (preferably in the education sector), developing data collection, analysis and designing reporting formats;

� Experience in consulting with a wide range of staff members to determine user requirements for M&E systems;

� Experience in on the job capacity building of staff; � Experience working in the Pacific or developing country contexts; � A capacity and willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders and

counterparts; and � Understanding of ADB loan management and project progress reporting

systems is desirable.

Key Selection Criteria

� Demonstrated capacity to work collaboratively with counterparts to build improved capacity in performance management, particularly in Pacific island or like country environments;

� Substantial experience in monitoring and evaluation systems and familiarity with developing standardised monitoring and evaluation

Section 7 86

frameworks, data collection and reporting systems that can be used effectively by counterparts;

� Experience in the education sector and sector wide projects is desirable; � Experience with ADB monitoring and reporting systems is desirable; � A degree, equivalent qualification or work experience in international

development, public sector management, or education management; � Demonstrated capacity to work cross-culturally; � High-level communication skills, competent report writing, computer and

facilitation skills.

Section 7 87

Section 7 Annex 3

Summary of Quality-and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) Procedures for Loan Projects (for Firms)

No. Preliminary Work

(i) Preparation of the TOR and cost estimates

(ii) Advertising

(iii) Preparation of a long list of consultants

(iv) Preparation of the RFP and shortlist of consultants

FIRST Submission to ADB

(v) Issuing of the RFP

(vi) Receipt of Proposals

(viii) Evaluation of Technical Proposals

SECOND Submission to ADB

(viii) Public opening of financial proposals

(ix) Evaluation of financial proposals

(x) Ranking of proposals

THIRD Submission to ADB

(xi) Copy of signed contract sent to ADB

(xii) Publication of the award of contract

(xiii) Debriefing

Section 7 88

Section 7 Annex 4

A. Loan No. and Title Last edited by:B. Contract Budget (US$)

C. Selection Method onD. Type of Technical Proposal

E. Executing Agency (EA)

F. EA Contact Person

G. Loan Supervision Division of RM

H. ADB Project Officer

I. ADB COCS Officer

J. Actual Date of Short-Listing (SL) by EA

NORM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 EA submitting shortlist to ADB 10 07-06-05 10 11-05-05 -17 -17 -27 -272 ADB CSC-SL meeting 7 14-06-05 17 20-05-05 9 -8 2 -253 Signing of the CSC-SL minutes 5 19-06-05 22 25-05-05 5 -3 0 -254 ADB sending approval of the shortlist to EA 2 21-06-05 24 26-05-05 1 -2 -1 -265 EA issuing RFP 7 28-06-05 31 06-06-05 11 9 4 -226 Proposal submission 45 12-08-05 76 01-08-05 56 65 11 -117 EA CSC-EV meeting 21 02-09-05 97 17-11-05 108 173 87 768 EA submitting technical evaluation report to ADB 10 12-09-05 107 04-01-06 48 221 38 1149 ADB CSC-EV meeting 7 19-09-05 114 03-03-06 58 279 51 16510 Signing of CSC-EV meeting 5 24-09-05 119 07-03-06 4 283 -1 16411 ADB sending approval of technical evaluation to EA 2 26-09-05 121 07-03-06 0 283 -2 16212 EA issuing invitation for public opening 7 03-10-05 12813 Public opening 14 17-10-05 14214 EA signing of overall ranking minutes and submitting to ADB 21 07-11-05 16315 ADB-CSC-OR meeting 7 14-11-05 17016 Signing of CSC-OR minutes 5 19-11-05 17517 ADB sending approval of overall ranking to EA 2 21-11-05 17718 EA issuing invitation for contract negotiations 3 24-11-05 18019 Commencement of contract negotiations 14 08-12-05 19420 Completion of contract negotiations 14 22-12-05 20821 EA submitting negotiated contract to ADB 21 12-01-06 22922 ADB approval of the negotiated contract 5 17-01-06 23423 EA signing of the contract 14 31-01-06 24824 Consultant mobilization 14 14-02-06 262

262Footnotes:a. Activity NORMS [column 3] are based on calendar daysb. The base date for planning and monitoring is the date of Short-Listing by EAc. PLANNED dates, days and cumulative days [columns 5 and 6 respectively] are derived from the NORMS and are computed as calendar daysd. ACTUAL achieved dates [column 7] are input by the responsible project officer from the concerned User Divisione. DEVIATIONS are computed in calendar days and cumulative calendar days [columns 10 and 11]

Guide for completing CRAM sheet:a. Row A-J and column 2-6 are completed by ADBb. Columns 7and 8 are completed by the EAc. Columns 8-11 are automatically generated by ADB's CRAM System based on Column 7 inputs

Total number of days

Responsible

StaffCal. Days

Deviation

DaysCum. Days

Cum. Days

Initials: Project Assistant: Initials:

Full

Consultant Recruitment Activity Monitoring (CRAM)

2,800,000QCBS

Explanation and ActionActivity Cal. Days

ActualAchived

DateDays

Planned

Dates

Section 7 89

Section 7 Annex 5

Evaluates CRAM frames annually and if requred,

proposes recomm endation for streamlining recrui tm ent

process.

W hen the recruitment process is completed, makes a hard copy of CRAM frame

and places i t in the project file and sends a copy to EA.

Receives a completed CRAM fram e and inserts it into the

project file.

Assigns a staff to be responsible for monitoring recruiment process, if not

already done.

When the recruitment process is com pleted, stores com pleted CRAM frames in

database.

Distributes CRAM frames on a monthly basis to Directors

of user divisions.

Receives Monthly CRAM frames and forward copies to the EA. Takes action when

needed.

Receives Monthly CRAM frames and takes action when

needed.

Inputs actual date of each activi ty. Takes appropriate action where actual date exceeds planned date.

Inputs explanation/reason and action taken.

Checks planned activity on daily basis and sends

reminder to the user division for action if p lanned activity is

not achieved on schedule.

Assigned staff reports to ADB the actual date of each activity

under EA's supervision and explains any delays.

During fact- finding/appraisal m ission, ADB proejct officer discusses with the EA the consultant recuitment schedule based on CRAM targets.

Receives a CRAM frame for logging in the system.

Inputs scheduled short lis ting date in the system to generate

recuitment schedule. Sends the CRAM frame with recruitment schedule to EA.

Receives the CRAM fram e with recruitment schedule for confirmation at CSC-SL.

USER DIVISIONCOSO

USING CRAM FOR LOAN PROJECTS

Sends the confi rmed CRAM frame to ADB together with

shorlitst and RFP documents.

Executing Agency

Develops a standard CRAM template

Receives the CRAM frameCreates a CRAM frame by

inputting loan data

Section 7 90

SECTION 8: PROCUREMENT

A. Introduction and General Principles

1. The Consolidated Funding Agreement (CFA) signed between the Government of Samoa, the ADB, AusAID and NZAID requires that all goods and services financed under the Project are to be procured either in accordance with ADB’s Procurement Guidelines or Samoa guidelines for procurement acceptable to ADB. Samoa agrees that in relation to the contracting of consulting services ADB’s Guidelines on the use of Consultants will apply. (CFA 53)

2. Procedures applicable to ADB-financed procurement are derived from principles in the Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank (theCharter), from experiences of ADB and other multilateral and bilateral development financing institutions, and from generally accepted rules of sound commercial practice. These principles and procedures are contained in the Guidelines for Procurement under Asian Development Bank Loans (copy of which will be provided by ADB during Inception Mission). A list of ADB member countries is at Annex 1 of this Section.

3. Procurement for ADB-financed projects must conform to five basicprinciples:

a) proceeds of ADB financing can be used only for procurement of goods and works supplied from, and produced in, member countries of ADB;

b) the need for economy and efficiency in the implementation of the project, including procurement of the goods and works involved;

c) giving all eligible bidders from developed and developing countries the same information and equal opportunity to compete in providing goods and works financed by ADB;

d) encouraging the development of domestic contracting and manufacturing industries in the country of the borrower; and

e) importance of transparency in the procurement process.

Workshops involving key stakeholders, including the DPs have been undertaken to finalise procurement practices for ESP II. A Project Procurement Strategy for ESP II has been developed (see Annex 6 of this Section). Specific procurement approaches for the MESC Headquarters building sub-component are also detailed in Annex 7 of this Section.

Section 8 1

B. Procurement Arrangement under the Project

4. Procurement under the Project falls into two main categories:

a) International Competitive Bidding (ICB) for all contracts valued atmore than US $1.0 million; and

b) National Competitive Bidding (NCB) for procurement of other goods and services with a contract value of less than US $1.0 million

5. The contract for the MESC headquarters estimated to cost more than $1.0 million will be awarded following ADB’s international competitive bidding procedures (see also Annex 7). All other Project contracts (Annex 2 of this Section) under the Project will be awarded following national competitive bidding in accordance with the GoS procedures. Each contract awarded on the basis of national competitive bidding will be subject to ADB’s retroactive approval, provided that if the award or terms of any such contract are not approved by ADB, the GoS will not use the loan proceeds to finance the contract and will provide financing from its own or other resources.

6. Recruitment of consulting and contractor services - The procedures for recruitment of consulting services are covered separately in Section 7 – Consultants.

In the selection of civil works contractors, single-responsibility turnkey (including design-build) contractors or supply-and-installation contractors where the CIF cost of goods to be used for the permanent works under such contracts is less than 60% of the total cost of such works, eligible domestic contractors, as defined in Attachment to Schedule 4 of the Loan Agreement (Preference to Domestic Contractors), through ICB may be granted a margin of preference.

7. Advance Procurement Action - For early commencement of project implementation and as requested by the GoS, ADB approved advance procurement action for civil works, covering invitation of bids, bidding, and bid evaluation, but not including contract awards. The GoS has been advised that approval of the advance action does not commit ADB to financing the Project.

(a) ADB Procedures for International Competitive Bidding 8. International Competitive Bidding (ICB) is the normally required mode of procurement under ADB financing which would be used for civil works contracts to cost the equivalent of more than $1.0 million, as described in Section II of the Guidelines for Procurement. The flowchart for ICB is at Annex 3 of this Section and cover both pre-qualification and no pre-qualification procedures.

� For contracts to be awarded on the basis of ICB, there shall be submitted to ADB, as soon as possible, and in any event not later than 90 days

Section 8 2

before the issuance of the first invitation to bid for the Project, a General Procurement Notice (which ADB will arrange to publish separately) in such form and detail and containing such information as ADB shall reasonably request. ADB shall be provided the necessary information to update such General Procurement Notice annually as long as any goods and works remain to be procured on the basis of international competitive bidding.

� For contracts to be awarded on the basis of ICB, procurement actions shall be subject to review by ADB in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter IV of the Guidelines for Procurement. Each draft invitation to bid, to be submitted to ADB for approval under such procedures, shall reach ADB at least 21 days before it is issued and shall contain such information as ADB shall reasonably request to enable ADB to arrange for the separate publication of such invitation.

� In comparing bids under ICB, a margin of preference may be provided, at the option of the Borrower and in accordance with the provisions of the Attachment to Schedule 4 of the Loan Agreement, for civil works to be carried out by eligible domestic contractors, as defined by ADB.

(b) National Competitive Bidding1

9. Civil works contracts estimated to cost the equivalent of less than $1,000,000 and each supply contract for equipment or materials estimated to cost the equivalent of less than $1,000,000 may be awarded on the basis of national competitive bidding (NCB) procedures among contractors in accordance with the standard procurement procedures of the Borrower and acceptable to ADB. In Samoa, the Government’s Financial Management Act, Procurement Guidelines and associated Treasury Instructions will be used. In general, no pre-qualification will be required, and is generally discouraged for NCB.

10. Promptly after each contract is awarded, ADB shall be furnished with three copies of the contract and the bids evaluation report for a post facto review by ADB. If the award or the terms of the contract are not approved by ADB, the GoS shall not use the proceeds of the Project to finance such contract and the Borrower shall provide financing from its own resources or other sources. In the event that any payment is made from the Project proceeds to finance any such contract, the Borrower shall refund such payment(s) to the DPs. The flowchart for NCB is attached at Annex 4 of this Section. `11. Treatment of Foreign Bidders under NCB - Contractors from all member countries are entitled to apply for prequalification or to bid for contracts 1 Formerly referred to as Local Competitive Bidding (LCB) under Schedule 4, Para 6 (Procurement) of the

Loan Agreement and Appendix 10 of RRP on Indicative Procurement Packages.

Section 8 3

under NCB. ADB requires the borrowing DMC to permit such participation, but foreign bidders must adhere to local procedures acceptable to ADB, including using the local language and paying in local currency, if required by the bidding documents. Under NCB, the delivered cost of materials including import duties and other taxes may be used when comparing bids. ADB's domestic preference policy does not apply to NCB.

12. Using ADB Standard Bidding Documents for NCB –The GoS will develop standard bidding and contract documentation for NCB which in turn are based on the standard bidding documents for ICB. Once prepared and approved, the use of standard bidding documents will be mandatory.

13. International Advertising - Bidding of NCB contracts estimated at $500,000 or more for goods and related services or $1,000,000 or more for civil works is advertised concurrently with the general procurement notices in the Business Opportunities section of adb.org. Prequalification, if used for NCB contracts, is similarly advertised.

14. ADB Review of Procurement Documents - For ESP II, the first draft English language version of the procurement documents should be submitted for ADB review and approval regardless of the estimated contract amount. ADB-approved procurement documents should be used as a model for all procurement financed by ADB for the project, and need not be subjected to further review unless specified in the procurement plan, or required under special arrangements.

15. Approval of Contract Award under NCB - ADB will review the bid evaluation report (BER) and award of contract on a post-facto basis. The GoS must submit copies of the BER and signed contract in English to the concerned sector division or resident mission for post review as soon as possible following contract award. The GoS should be advised that ADB reserves the right to refuse Project financing for the contract if it is found during post review that the procurement has not been conducted in accordance with the ProcurementGuidelines, or other provisions specified in the CFA.

C. Government of Samoa NCB Procurement Procedures (see the Project Procurement Strategy at Annex 6)

16. ACEOs responsible for implementation of Project components willidentify the need for procurement. The need for procurement must be in line with achievement of Project outputs, match the approved procurement packages (see Section 8 Annex 2) and be within the Project’s budget parameters for the component in question. Additional procurement outside the approved packages, if required, will need inclusion in the relevant Annual Plan for that year, or by separate approval from MESC Core Executive and the DPs.

Section 8 4

17. The relevant ACEO will review and prepare the formal procurement request and forwards this to the ESP II Secretariat. The ESP II Secretariat decides if the request needs further approval from the Core Executive, by checking against the approved Annual Plan, budget parameters and component implementation schedule. If already approved, or after approval by the Core Executive, the ESP II Secretariat develops a procurement strategy, following GoS Procurement Guidelines, Treasury Instructions and ADB Guidelines where relevant. The procurement strategy outlines the scoring methods to be used for evaluation of tenders, the relative weighting of the technical and financial proposals, the minimum qualifying score, how the tendering process will be conducted, the timeframes involved and the approval/delegations required.

18. The procurement request, together with the procurement strategy, is then forwarded to the Asset Management Unit, where an RFP is prepared and invitation to tender/advertising arranged.

(a) Invitation for technical and financial proposals.19. The procurement strategy for ESPII requires further discussion between GoS and DPs to take into account the use of Direct Purchase or National and International Shopping provisions of the Government of Samoa Procurement Guidelines. Direct Purchase or single tender would normally be used for buying small, off-the-shelf items valued at less than SAT 10,000, or where the item is only available from a single supplier or standardization is important.

20. Local and International Shopping may be appropriate where the items are available from only a limited number of suppliers (such as schooltextbooks). Local and International Shopping is subject to the provisions of reasonable competition, and wherever practicable, advertising will be used. The bids received will be subject to the evaluation process outlined below.

21. In general, all invitations to bid and procurement notices will be advertised in a widely circulated newspaper, and internationally for contracts valued over US$500,000, or those where a local supplier may not be available.

22. For large purchases and contracts (such as school construction/civil works), with value above SAT 200,000, a copy of the advertisement must be lodged with the Tenders Board and all bids will be submitted to the Secretary of the Tenders Board. Bids must be deposited in the appropriate Tender Box at the Ministry of Finance. The Tenders Board will administer the selection process for these contracts.

23. The invitation to submit technical and financial proposals (hereinafter called the Request for Proposal or RFP) and all related documents will be in a standard format approved by ADB. Invitations to tender, using the standard

Section 8 5

RFP and contract documentation, will follow Government of Samoa practice and take into account the procurement strategy and the ADB Guidelines.

24. Contractors wishing to submit bids for building and civil works procurement are required to be registered with the Ministry of Works and graded into categories according to their assessed capacity.

25. The validity period for the technical and financial proposals as providedin the RFP shall usually not exceed three months from the date specified for submission of the technical and financial proposals. If the contract is not signed within the validity period, the selection shall be invalid and the selection and engagement process as provided in this paragraph shall be followed again.

(b) Bid opening, evaluation and scoring of technical proposals25. For large contracts using the Tender Board process, opening and evaluation of technical proposals is undertaken by the Tenders Board.

26. Other bids are received in MESC and are opened and assessed by the Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee, chaired by the head of the Asset Management Unit, and which includes representatives from MOF, Ministry or Works and the Attorney General. Technical proposals are scored and ranked according to selection criteria. The RFP shall clearly state the criteria, scoring and weighting system to be used by the Tenders Board and the Sub-Committee.

(c) Opening of financial proposals27. The Tenders Board will arrange public opening of bids for large contracts. For smaller contracts, the Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee, following technical assessment, shall open the financial proposals of the individuals whose technical proposals meet the minimum qualifying technical score.

(d) Evaluation and scoring of financial proposals and ranking of technical and financial proposals

28. After the financial proposals have been evaluated and scored by the tenders Board or Sub-Committee, the final ranking of the technical and financialproposals shall be made. The top three ranked proposals shall be forwarded in a submission to the appropriate delegate for approval. For non-Tenders Board procurement, this submission will be prepared by the Asset Management Unit.

(e) Government of Samoa approval29. Approval of the selection of suppliers and contractors by an appropriate delegate is required under Government of Samoa Procurement Guidelines and Treasury Instructions.

Section 8 6

30. Approval requires, for purchases of capital items and assets over a total value of SAT 5,000, a Requisition Order (Ty.11), which must include:

� Three written quotes from suppliers of goods and services (i.e. the final ranking of the first three bidders according to the Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee). The ‘quotes’ include the technical proposal addressing the criteria and financial proposals in the format requested under the RFP;

� Departmental analysis based on specification of the capital items/assets, including the assessment by the Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee;

� Recommendation giving full justification for the selection of the supplier or contractor, i.e. the assessment by the Tenders Evaluation Sub-Committee and the final ranking based on the technical and financial proposals;

� Purchase Order or Ty.1 that asks for cancellation required written justification;

� Separate VAGST, and any discounts from the total contract sum to be clearly shown on Ty.11

� Purchase of capital items and goods not subject to withholding tax except for services and contract payment claims. These are to be verified by the Ministry of Revenue

� The CEO/Head of Department to approve Ty.11 and recommendations for the purchase

� Specify and confirm availability of funding and Output Code clearly on Ty.11/Ty.1

31. Approval delegations are based on the expected total value of the contract. These financial limits are:

� over SAT 500,000 – Cabinet and subject to Tenders Board approval;

� SAT 200,000 to SAT 500,000 – Tenders Board � SAT 100,000 to SAT 200,000 – Minister of Finance � SAT 75,000 to SAT 100,000 – Minister of Education � SAT 50,000 to SAT 75,000 – Financial Secretary � SAT 5,000 to SAT 50,000 – CEO MESC � Below SAT 5,000 – Designated Output Manager

(f) Execution and Approval of contract.32. Following approval of procurement by the delegate, and after the conclusion of contract negotiations with the consultant, but before the signing of the contract, MESC will forward the final contract (as negotiated) for clearance by the office of the Attorney General. This is required under GoS policies and regulations. If any substantial amendment of the contract is proposed after its

Section 8 7

execution, the proposed changes and/or variations shall be re-submitted to the Attorney General for further clearance.

(g) Signature of contract and contract management/administration.33. Following clearance of the final contract by the office of the AttorneyGeneral, the Minister of Education will sign the contract on behalf of the Government of Samoa. The contract, then signed by both parties, will be returned to the originating ACEO, through the ESP II Secretariat for management. Contract management includes verification of receipt of supplies and services, and forwarding of invoices for payment to the ESP II Secretariat.

(h) Debriefing34. Upon request, the ESP II Secretariat will arrange a debriefing for successful and unsuccessful bidders with members of the Tenders Evaluation Sub Committee.

D. Misprocurement

35. If procurement is not carried out in accordance with the ADB’s Procurement Guidelines, the financing agreement, or procurement plan, misprocurement is declared. Normally, the portion of the financing allocated to the misprocured contract is cancelled. The decision as to whether or not to cancel financing is based on the circumstances, looking at such factors as the parties involved, the intent, and whether or not remedies are possible. Simple mistakes or technicalities that do not substantively affect the procurement process may not trigger misprocurement. For example, a failure to apply the correct period of advertising, if determined to be an oversight, may be permitted if it is found that the advertising met its intended purpose of notifying potential bidders and ensuring competition.

36. In some instances, rebidding is a preferred solution to cancelling the financing for a misprocured contract. This would be done where non-compliance to agreed procedures cannot be remedied, but where such noncompliance is an oversight or not the fault of the EA. For example, if a contract was not advertised on adb.org, and it was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EA (perhaps it was the fault of the advertiser), then rebidding might be the best solution. Decisions on rebidding would similarly be based on intent, seriousness of the noncompliance, and whether rebidding is a suitable remedy to problems caused. Such decisions should be taken in consultation with ADB’s Counsel and Procurement Specialist.

37. Where post review procedures are used, misprocurement may still be declared if it is found that the procurement was not carried out in accordance with agreed procedures. Rebidding would not normally be possible, because the review would be conducted after execution of the contract. The ADB’s

Section 8 8

Procurement Guidelines are more permissive in the case of post review, saying that misprocurement "may" be declared. Therefore, the options would be to either not declare misprocurement, or declare it and cancel the financing for the contract.

E. Procurement Contract Monitoring

38. Procurement contract monitoring system (PCMS) (Annex 5 of this Section) serves as a tool to benefit the GoS in monitoring the timeliness of each procurement processes. It covers the stages from prequalification (where used), procurement documentation, invitation for bid, bid evaluation, and contract awards. The PCMS also records total contract amount approved by the Project2, and total contract amount awarded. Clarification is sought from the GoS whenever there is a difference between these two amounts. Task duration for each activity specified in the Procurement Guidelines and bidding documents is the basis for computing delays. Delays are flagged to highlight problem areas and the need for closer monitoring and timely contract awards necessary to ensure smooth implementation and project progress.

F. Intellectual Property

39. The GoS shall ensure that all Project-financed goods and services procured (including without limitation all computer hardware, software and systems, whether separately procured or incorporated within other goods and services procured) do not violate or infringe property right or claim of any third party.

40. The GoS shall ensure that all Project-financed contracts for the procurement of goods and services contain appropriate representations, warranties and, appropriate indemnities from the contractor or supplier with respect to the matters referred to in paragraph 11.

2 The PCMS could be used for other Donor funded procurement.

Section 8 9

Section 8 10

Section 8 Annex 2

INDICATIVE PROCUREMENT PACKAGES

ID Description Indicative Procurement packages Qty Packages Amount

(US$ million) Procurement

Mode

A Civil Works A1 MESC HQ Building 1 1 7.137 ICBA2 Colleges & Secondary Schools 13 9 6.807 NCBA3 Teacher Houses 4 2 0.320 NCBA4 Procurement of Materials & Equipment see below A5 Maintenance Provisions 13 29 0.060 NCB

Sub-Total (A) 14.324

B Vehicles 3 1 0.258 Sub-Total (A) 0.258

C GoodsC1 School Furniture, Equipment and Supplies various 4 2.799 NCBC2 Learning Materials various 4 1.282 NCBC3 IT Equipment various 4 0.264 NCBC4 Furniture for Primary/Secondary/Colleges various 4 0.913 NCB

Sub-Total (A) 5.258

D Consulting Services D1 Contract Administration Service for HQ Bldg 1 1 0.251 ICBD2 Contract Administration Service for Schools 13 6 0.681 NCBD3 Contract Administration Service for Houses 4 2 0.032 NCBD4 Specialist Samoan Services various TBA 2.062 ADB/GoSD5 Specialist International Services various TBA 3.014 ADB/GoSD6 Workshops various TBA 0.969 NCBD7 Training various TBA 0.580 NCB

Sub-Total (A) 7.588

Total 27.428 ICB = International Competitive Bidding NCB = National Competitive Bidding, IT = Information technology TBA =To Be Advised GoS = Government of Samoa ADB = Asian Development Bank

Source: Detailed Cost Estimates from ESP II PDD v3

Section 8 11

Section 8 Annex 3

Section 8 12

Section 8 Annex 4

Section 8 13

Section 8 Annex 4

Section 8 14

Section 8 Annex 5

Section 8 15

Section 8 Annex 5

Section 8 16

Section 8 Annex 6

Project Procurement Strategy

The PIAM Requirements for procurement were discussed and endorsed by MESC at the Design Appraisal Workshop on 14-15 September 2006 as indicated below.

It was noted that the World Bank is assisting the MoF to develop new Tender Board Guidelines and a Procurement Manual by the end of 2006. It was stressed at the Workshop that the mobilisation of the Procurement Systems Specialist and the Procurement Specialist should be a high priority in order to develop ESP II procurement systems and documentation consistent with the new MOF Guidelines and Manual.

Goods and ServicesAll goods and services financed under the Project will be procured under the ADB's Guidelines for Procurement and the GoS guidelines for procurement acceptable to ADB.

All contracts under US$1,000,000 for the Project will be awarded following local competitive bidding in accordance with GoS procedures acceptable to ADB.

Present GoS financial limits:� Over SAT 500,000 - Cabinet and subject to Tenders Board approval;� SAT200,000 to SAT 500,000 – Tenders Board; � SAT 100,000 to SAT 200,000 – Minister of Finance;� SAT 75,000 to SAT 100,000 -Minister of Education; � SAT 50,000 to SAT 75,000 – Financial Secretary;� Below SAT 50,000 – CEO MESC

All contracts over SAT100, 000 are subject to the Tender Board processes.

Final contract are to be cleared by the Attorney General and signed by the Minister of Education.

MESC HeadquartersThe contract for MESC headquarters estimated to cost more than US$1,000,000 will be awarded following ADB’s international competitive bidding procedures.

Consulting Services

Section 8 17

All international and associated domestic consultants will be selected and recruited for the initial start to the program in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants and other arrangements satisfactory to ADB for engaging domestic consultants. To be reviewed at the time of the first six monthly JRM.

All international consulting services will be provided by either firms or individuals, in each case determined by the MOF.

The Project will use quality - and cost-based selection (QCBS) method forrecruitment of firms. All consulting services will be performance based with payments to the consultant made on the achievement of selected milestones specified in the contract and verified by the responsible officer (ACEO, Head of Asset Management Unit, Program Coordinator ESP II Secretariat).

Agreed considerations for recruitment of consulting services: � need for high quality services; � need for economy and efficiency; � need to give all qualified consultants an opportunity to compete in providing

the services financed by ADB;� ADB’s interest in encouraging the development and use of National

consultants from developing member countries (DMCs); � need for transparency in the selection process; and � need for increasing focus on anticorruption and observance of ethics.

Total consulting services requirements - International 150.5 person months, national 428 person months.

Given the onerous procurement responsibilities of the Asset Management Unit,the transfer of the procurement of consulting services to the ESP II Secretariat was discussed and will be further considered by MESC when the Procurement System Specialist and Procurement Specialists are mobilized.

Procurement Roles and Responsibilities

Civil Works The responsible section for all civil works procurement is the AssetManagement Unit. When they have certified accounts they will forward them to the ESP II Secretariat to process payment.

Consulting Services The Component Head will: � develop the Terms of Reference for the consultant/s; � decide whether to advertise locally and/or international;

Section 8 18

� decide whether to advertise for an individual or to advertise for a firm to provide a team of consultants;

� determine the type of contract to be used-milestone based, output based. � determine the schedule of payments; and � certify payment of accounts.

Goods and Services The Component Head will: � develop the specifications of the goods and services to be procured;� decide whether to advertise locally and/or international;� determine the schedule of payments; and � certify the receipt of the goods and services and the payment of accounts.

The Asset Management Unit will manage the tendering and the contracting process for the procurement of the goods and services. The ESP II Secretariat will process payment of accounts certified by the Component Head.

Section 8 19

Section 8 Annex 7

Section 8 20

Samoa Education Sector Program II

Preparation of Detailed ImplementationDocuments for MESC HQ Building

BUILDING PROCUREMENT OPTIONS FOR THE MESC HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

19 September 2006(amended 5 October 2006)

Prepared by

RMIT International Pty Ltd

in association with

The Irwin Alsop Group

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 1 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

REPORT ON BUILDING PROCUREMENT OPTIONS FOR THE MESC HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

PREAMBLEAs part of the Detailed Design for the MESC Headquarters Building (Schedule 1 Scope of Services, Clause 5.4 (d)), the consultants are required to provide a report with recommendation on contracting models, namely

“Option A: Single contract. Prepare the Tender Documents for a building and fit out including specifications, standard clauses and schedules as required for FIDIC – Short Form of Contract and International Procurement (as per ADB Guidelines).

and

Option B: Supervised Management of Subcontractors including works supervisor and procurement services. Prepare sub-contractor Tender Documents for the building and fit out including specifications, standard clauses and schedules as required for FIDIC – Short Form of Contract and International Procurement (as per ADB Guidelines) and AusAID.”

AusAID, by their email (Isolde Macatol dated 4th August 2006 at 11.38am) requested the Procurement Options Report include and further expand/detail their discussions on the following;

“ a. Outline of the various identified options for procurement of services to construct and commission the facility together with discussion in sufficient detail on the pros and cons (opportunities and risks) associated with each identified option

b. Recommendation on the preferred option from a) with rationalec. Assessment and brief commentary of likely impact on construction costs

related to timing of proposed building construction with particular emphasis on significant events in Samoa such as the South Pacific Games

d. Assessment and brief commentary on the likely impact on construction costs related to fixing the period of construction and commissioning.

e. Recommendations on C&D (with rationale) to AusAID and GoS for decision making on the timing of and time allowed for construction of the facility.”

At a Workshop conducted on 21 and 22 September in Samoa, a further Option was added being:

Option C: An extension of Option B but with a procurement agent employed by MESC who would use an imprest account to pay subcontractors directly without the need to follow the payment procedures with MESC and the Ministry of Finance necessary in Option B.

This report responds to that request.

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 2 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

It is also noted that, the project delivery must be within the Partner Harmonization Framework Agreement dated 29 May 2006 and the Consolidated Funding Arrangement also dated 29 May 2006, the ADB Procurement Guidelines and the requirements of the Government of Samoa Tender Board.

These requirements would also need to be followed in the selection and appointment of the core technical consultants who will assist the MESC Project Management Unit in the implementation of the building project.

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 3 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

CONTENTS

1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Driving Factors ............................................................................................. 4

1.3 Impact on MESC .......................................................................................... 4

1.4 Procurement Selection ................................................................................. 5

2 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 5

3 The Project .......................................................................................................... 5

4 Objectives and Requirements ............................................................................. 5

5 Selecting the right Contractor/Construction Manager.......................................... 6

5.1 Criteria.......................................................................................................... 6

6 Analysis of Driving Factors in selection of Contractor/Construction Manager .... 7

6.1 Relative size and complexity of the project .................................................. 7

6.2 Availability of qualifying contractors both locally and internationally............. 7

6.3 Industry Resources ...................................................................................... 8

6.4 Market Conditions ........................................................................................ 8

6.5 Client Objectives .......................................................................................... 9

7 Description of Options and other factors ............................................................. 9

7.1 Option A - Single Contractor with lump sum contract ................................... 9

7.2 Option B - Construction Manager ............................................................... 10

7.3 Option C - Construction Manager with Procurement Officer ...................... 11

7.5 Other Factors ............................................................................................. 12

7.5.1 Construction Period ................................................................................ 12

7.5.2 Timing of Project..................................................................................... 12

7.5.3 Period of Contract................................................................................... 13

8 Analysis of Options............................................................................................ 14

9 Assessment of Options...................................................................................... 17

10 Recommendation........................................................................................... 18

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 4 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

1 Summary

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Report is to review the procurement options available to MESC with reference to the driving factors and to advise MESC on the impact that each of these options has on their ability to manage the project.

The information presented is based upon current conditions and future expectations of the market using the expertise of professional consultants within Samoa and Australia.

1.2 Driving Factors

The driving factors that need to be taken into consideration for this project are:

1. Relative size and complexity of the project for the industry in Samoa and overseas

2. Available qualifying contractors both locally and internationally

3. Industry Resources in Samoa (subcontractors and suppliers)

4. Tender market Conditions

5. Client Objectives

1.3 Impact on MESC

For this project, a Project Management Unit (PMU) within MESC has been established with future support from technical advisors. Currently, there is limited capacity within the PMU to manage projects and the associated procurement and the development of the skills necessary for project management will take a considerable time.

The impact on the ability of MESC to manage the project is assessed against the following criteria:

1. MESC’s ability to manage the project bearing in mind that they will also have a major task in managing all other aspects of the project. This has significant obligations on them to manage the procurement of all consultant services as well as numerous school buildings and staff houses.

2. Risks to MESC in terms of time, cost and quality of construction.

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 5 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

1.4 Procurement Selection

No one solution is right all the time and the best procurement method must be chosen to reflect a balance that optimises an outcome for all the objectives while recognising the driving factors mentioned in 1.2 above.

This report is specific to the MESC Headquarters Building at the Malifa Compound.

2 Introduction

While there are numerous different procurement options available, the choice of a procurement method is dependent on what weighting is given to the various criteria used. In this Report, weighting is biased towards providing a procurement method which has a low risk to MESC, has minimum impact upon their scarce resources and delivers a project on time, within budget and to a specified standard.

Each procurement strategy has advantages and disadvantages. This report explains the merits of each in the context of procuring a construction method for the new headquarters building for the Education Sector Programme and investigates the method most likely to fulfil the Projects Objectives/Requirements.

3 The Project

The Project comprises the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new Headquarters building of approximately 4500m2 with a Project Budget of ST$20m.

Space requirements are needed for general office, training, meeting/conference rooms, service rooms, canteen, ablutions and other spaces. The building shall house approximately 220 staff and needs to have flexibility for future changes.

4 Objectives and Requirements

The Project Objectives have been established by MESC and AusAID and are as follows:

1. To create a good quality, modern new office building located on the existing education grounds at Malifa premises and which fulfils the following requirements:

� To provide modern office accommodation for the MESC that meets their functional needs for now and future requirements

� Uses appropriate materials for the tropical climate of Samoa with low long term maintenance costs and for resistance to cyclones and seismic activity

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 6 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

� Improving access to quality education (through upgraded school facilities and improved equipments) and construction of a new headquarters for MESC.

2. Additional Project Specific Requirements have been stated as follows:

� A building with a high level of technical input to achieve a workable, sustainable and energy efficient building design.

� Use materials that are durable and suitable for local tradespeople, which will maximise employment of local sub-contractors.

� Determine the most efficient design and contracting options � An effective and technically and culturally appropriate building for MESC � The budget has been determined and any overrun on this project will

reduce funds from other components of the Education Sector Program.

The choice of a procurement strategy will be considered in relation to all of the above Project Objectives and Requirements.

5 Selecting the right Contractor/Construction Manager

5.1 Criteria

Critical to achieving the Project Objectives is the selection of the Contractor/Construction Manager. Criteria to be evaluated considered in the selection process include:

� Competence – they shall have a proven track record in the delivery of projects on time and budget, and to the Client’s total satisfaction

� Experience – they must be experienced in the construction of similar building types. There is a relatively small number of Contractors/ConstructionManagers operating in the Pacific region with this particular experience.

� Local Experience – they shall preferably be experienced in working in the Pacific Islands and in Samoan governmental processes.

� Financial capacity to fund the project for periods of up to 3 months, to obtain and provide securities in the form of bonds, bank guarantees or cash retention and to obtain appropriate levels of insurance.

� Quality – an ability to deliver a project of an internationally accepted quality, and as set out in the relevant quality codes and have an approved Quality Assurance program.

� Availability – the current workload of the Contractor/construction Manager shall be a major consideration. They must demonstrate that they have sufficient available resource to undertake a prestigious construction project in Apia in the required timescales. Their Project Team identified from their resources shall be of high calibre and have relevant and proven experience in multi storey and Pacific Island construction.

� Commitment and Interest – they must view this as a prestigious project and Client and be fully committed to its successful delivery

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 7 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

The pre-qualification registration for contractors and construction managers, whatever Option is adopted, must be very explicit to ensure that the selection process allows each of the above criteria to be evaluated. It is noted that the requirements of ADB, the Government of Samoa through their Tender Board and AusAID in the procurement of projects can be quite lengthy. In order to mitigate any delays, the procurement process should be commenced as soon as possible.

We also note that the Government of Samoa’s Attorney General’s Department does not accept standard forms of contract and allowance should be made in the procurement process for their review, comment and adoption of the proposed FIDIC Short Form of Contract.

6 Analysis of Driving Factors in selection of Contractor/Construction Manager

Driving factors are pertinent in considering procurement methodology. The following gives a brief description of each one’s contribution:

6.1 Relative size and complexity of the project

The size of the project would almost certainly preclude most local contractors from bidding. The co-ordination of building services and elements adds a degree of complexity not often encountered in Samoa.

The cost would also preclude most if not all local contractors. This constraint could be overcome by local contractors teaming up with international contractors to allow for the required financial and management resources needed for this project. However recent experience suggests that this is a very limited option due to the next driving factor.

For construction managers, the size is not so much an issue as appropriately qualified operators do not have the same constraints as Head Contractors. It is possible that either local or international construction managers would be available and suitable.

6.2 Availability of qualifying contractors both locally and internationally

The usual pool of available qualifying contractors with experience in the Pacific Islands is currently tight due to demand not only in the Islands but also throughout Australasia in general. Contractors are asking the question: “Why go over to another Island country where risk is significant and demand on management resource greater when more money can be made locally with less risk and required resource?” This is a commercial reality that has manifested itself clearly in recent times and the availability of international contractors does not appear to be increasing.

To make it worthwhile as an opportunity cost an international contractor would add a premium not only for risks but also to make up for the lost opportunity in its homeland that is sure to be profitable.

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 8 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

Due to the next two Driving factors local contractors are already in short demand.

Construction managers, again are not subject to the same constraints as they are more mobile and have far less overheads.

6.3 Industry Resources

It is well known that the local industry resource needed by local contractors is limited or not existent at all. This is true whether it is financial, management, plant or skilled trades people. Thus the industry is lacking in fundamental things such as: short term credit facility, Quantity Surveyors/Project Managers, qualified Foreman and carpenters, cranage and shore-loading/scaffolding to name a few. Specialist trades for building services, structural steel, and cladding are also in demand.

For a contractor this is a major issue and trades from overseas may need to be drawn upon.

For a construction manager, this is more of a problem as they would be relying more on local resources and would not have the long term relationship with subcontractors that contractors would enjoy.

6.4 Market Conditions

Currently construction demand is high both locally and internationally. Contractor margins are on the rise and in some cases wildly exaggerated. Collaboration between contractors is high and there is a tendency to be selective upon what to bid. Hence the market is currently dysfunctional where demand for construction is outstripping qualified supply and prices are increasing across the board to reflect this growth.

The Australasian Construction market is such that all major contractors currently have a solid workload and consequently do not need to aggressively pursue new Contracts. The tendering of any new Contract can be an expensive process for a Contractor in terms of resource and time costs and therefore any invitation to tender must be made sufficiently attractive to ensure a positive response.

The current situation with the South Pacific Games, which are to be held late 2007, is that as of September 2006 all games projects are well underway, with the exception of the Apia Park project which is about to start construction, and with other significant projects under construction the construction industry generally is very buoyant.

Indications are that following these projects there are a number of commercial and residential projects, and three 4/5 Star hotels proposed. For the next two years, these known and projected projects in Samoa will see a continuation of this situation.

Nevertheless, a major internationally funded project is seen as a desirable, safe and prestigious building contract to have.

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 9 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

These market conditions equally affect contractors and construction managers in their bidding for work as they are competing for resources both locally and overseas in a market which is overheated.

6.5 Client Objectives

The objectives of the client to have a good quality project, maximise local resources, while being restrained to a budget that has proven to be tight, challenges the above driving factors even further and contributes significantly as its own driving factor.

Quality and time goals determine the resources needed and the cost at which these must be purchased. These in turn give rise to risk and opportunity premiums that reflect commercial reality. In simple terms, if a quality product is required one must be prepared to pay for this and this could be significant if other driving factors as above are at work.

This factor would be equally significant in the selection of a contractor or construction manager.

7 Description of Options and other factors

While the following three options will each have different demands upon MESC, they all will require a minimum level of performance from the Project Management Unit. They will need to be able to respond quickly to requests from their consultants and advisors and adopt a flat management system which requires minimum consultation with the Unit and MESC. There are very specific time limits within the Building Contract and failure to comply with them may lead to at the least, frustration within the construction team and at worst, claims for extension of time and substantial cost penalties.

7.1 Option A - Single Contractor with lump sum contract

With a single contractor, bids would be obtained using International Competitive Bidding (ICB) in accordance with the protocols established by ADB and as agreed between ADB and the Government of Samoa. Until these protocols are agreed, it is pointless estimating the time required for this process other than to say that it could be quite extensive with possible implications on the timing of the project. With ICB, bidding would be provided by selected contractors who would prepare their bids using prices obtained from a wide range of subcontractors to provide the best value for money while still achieving a quality product.

With a single Lump Sum contract, the contractor assumes full responsibility for all subcontractors, quality, cost management and programming, supply of materials and equipment, insurances and staffing and site accommodation. Their fee for these risks and responsibilities includes allowances for site facilities and staff, off site head office costs, profit as a percentage of the total project cost and all risks. There is only one contract for the client to consider with payments normally on a monthly basis. The

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 10 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

FIDIC Short Form of Contract – 1999 would be appropriate for this form of procurement.

The relationships between the various parties can be shown as follows:

Designers MESC Ministry of

Finance

PMU TechnicalAssistant

Clerk of Works

Architectural& Engineering Consultants

Contractor

Subcontractors

The client’s responsibility is to manage the cost plan and budget authorisations, cash flow management, approvals of changes, colour schedules, performance of consultants, procurement of fittings and equipment and to ensure payments are made on time and as certified. Other responsibilities of a lesser nature and which apply equally to all options are; supply of information when requested; approval of prices for variations and any matters for which they are responsible under the terms of the contract.

7.2 Option B - Construction Manager

A construction manager would be appointed for a fixed fee using protocols as agreed between the ADB and the Government of Samoa. This is likely to be through ICB. The FIDIC Short Form of Contract – 1999 would be appropriate for this form of procurement. Their fee for these responsibilities includes allowances for site facilities and staff and off site head office costs and profit as a percentage of their fee.

When appointed, the construction manager would be responsible for the tendering and letting of subcontracts which could be either with the client or themselves and for the management and organisation of all site accommodation and staffing and the overall management of the construction phase of the project. They would also be responsible for all programming, cost control, management of variations and quality of work. Tendering of subcontract works would be undertaken progressively throughout the period of the project which would provide the opportunity to modify scope of later trades to either maintain budget or if earlier trades were under budget, to include additional works funded from these savings. While the pool of subcontractors from whom prices would be obtained would be smaller than in Option

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 11 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

A, pricing would still be relatively keen. The quality of the end product may be slightly less than in Option A if key trades are not sufficiently skilled in Samoa.

Lines of command are not as clear as with a single contractor.

The relationship between the various parties can be shown as follows:

Designers MESC Ministry of

Finance

PMU Technical

Assistant

Clerk of Works

Architectural& Engineering Consultants

ConstructionManager

Subcontractor

The client would be responsible for insurances, management of construction manager, approval of all subcontracts, payment of monies to construction manager and subcontractors and the financial viability of subcontractors in the event of their financial failure in addition to the responsibilities listed in Option A.

7.3 Option C - Construction Manager with Procurement Officer

This option is similar in all respects to Option B with the exception of the appointment of a Procurement Officer who is responsible for the management of all subcontractors’ contractual matters covering engagement and payment instead of these being the responsibility of the client. This Procurement Officer would have access to an impressed account which would need to be established by the Ministry of Finance with authority to pay subcontractors from this account without the need to go through the processes in Option B where the client writes individual cheques to each subcontractor.

The FIDIC Short Form of Contract – 1999 with necessary modifications would be appropriate for this form of procurement.

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 12 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

The relationship between the various parties can be shown as follows:

MESC Ministry of

Finance

PMU Technical

Assistant

Clerk of Works

Architectural & EngineeringConsultants

ConstructionManager

Procurement Officer

Subcontractors

The risks to the client and construction manager are the same as for Option B.

7.5 Other Factors

7.5.1 Construction Period

For Option A, using an international contractor, the probable construction period would be 15 months. In the unlikely event that a local contractor or joint venture contractors were engaged, the period could be as long as 21 months.

For options B and C, the period is likely to be midway between the above ie 18 months.

7.5.2 Timing of Project

As noted earlier, the construction industry in Samoa and Australasia is currently operating at full or near full capacity and is likely to continue in this manner for the foreseeable future.

The current work associated with the South Pacific Games and other major projects in Samoa will continue for at least another 12 months. It is noted that the existing

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 13 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

large Fale is proposed to be used as a Mess Hall for the Games. This would involve deferral of its demolition and excising from the construction site during the Games. This could be achieved with relative ease as it is not in a location which would affect the construction of the Headquarters Building being at the edge of the new car park.

This workload will maintain the pressure on local and other subcontractors and suppliers with the result that prices for scarce resources will continue to be high.

Under these circumstances the deferral or otherwise of the project is unlikely to achieve any lowering of prices and the recommendation is that the project proceed as programmed but with a start date that minimises any time during the wet season from December to February.

7.5.3 Period of contract

We record that tender documents nominate an 18 month construction period and that tenderers be given the option of nominating, in addition, other construction times and alternate prices to suit.

The nomination of a set construction period may not preclude local or less experienced international contractors from bidding but could result in progress problems later in the contract . Historically, local contractors and subcontractors have had difficulty in managing time and international contractors not experienced in Samoa may underestimate the resources required to complete the project within the nominated time.

If Option A (a single contractor) is adopted, and pre-qualification processes ensure that inexperienced or inappropriate tenderers are eliminated, the nomination of a set construction period of say 18 months should not have any adverse effect upon tendering. The option of allowing tenderers to nominate alternative times and prices should be continued.

If Option B or C is adopted, it may be more prudent to allow tenderers to nominate their own time so that maximum use of local resources is possible.

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 14 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

8 Analysis of Options

8.1 Option A – Single Contractor with a Lump Sum contract

Criteria Comment

Pricing by tenderers All tenderers bidding competitively but once tender documents are issued there is little opportunity for modifying scope to meet budget. Any negotiations would need to be after tender when the competitive basis is reduced. International and joint venture contractors would have a greater range of subcontractors from whom to obtain prices during the tender period than local contractors and may provide lower prices for these trades. Their margins and profit expectations however would be greater. There is a high degree of cost certainty before project commences however pricing is always subject to market conditions which can vary rapidly between pre-tender estimates and the tender period. In Samoa there has in recent times only been a limited number of international contractors willing to bid on projects. Under these conditions, the competition diminishes however it still offers value for money as the subcontractor pool remains large. While the contract is called fixed lump sum, it is always opportunity for the entreprenuring international contractor to claim extra costs under the contract for a variety of reasons. Historically, these extra costs could be in the order of 5-10% of the contract sum. This is the best understood method of procurement in Samoa and is the form of procurement usually adopted by AusAID.

Construction time If international contractor then time may be reduced If local contractor or joint venture time will be greater

Quality of work If international contractor, generally of a high standard as experience, resources and knowledge of materials highSame for joint venture If local contractor, it will be more difficult to achieve the same standard because of lack of experience and resources

Changes in scope After contract signed, any changes in scope would need to be addressed as a variation which would not be competitively priced although schedule of rates priced at tender would be used. Variations would be subject to margins. Often difficult to realise savings at their real value. Any discrepancies in documents are at MESC’s risk and can lead to substantial claims by contractors.

Buildability Contractor responsible for all aspects of project including management of risk in building works

Employment of local subcontractors

If international contractor there is no control by MESC over whether local subcontractors used. For local or joint ventures there is a better chance that local subcontractors will be used

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 15 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

Criteria CommentRisk to MESC Time - Only risk is for delays caused by MESC in handing

over the site, changes to scope of work, stopping work for MESC reasons. Cost - Only risk is for changes in scope where contractor may overcharge if applicable schedule of rates are not available. Contractor bears all risks for subcontractor costs and fluctuations in the market for the supply of labour and materialsQuality - Responsibility for the quality of construction rests with the Contractor

Impact on MESC If a traditional contracting approach is adopted where MESC would be represented by an consultant agent to administer the contract on their behalf, the impact upon the resources of MESC and more appropriately, the workload of the Project Management Unit (PMU) would be minimal. The PMU would only be required to respond to matters which relate to MESC’s use of the building and the processing of claims for payments and approval of variations. This could be managed by the PMU with the support of the technical assistants proposed in the Program.

8.2 Option B – Construction management

Criteria CommentPricing by tenderers As the construction manager would issue tender documents

progressively, there is the opportunity of modifying the scope of works in later trades to take advantage of any savings or over expenditure in earlier trades.Unfortunately, the final cost is not known until the last trade is let and this process is not fully understood by all subcontractors in Samoa. The option of advancing or deferring the tendering of trades is another advantage of this approach where fluctuations in market conditions can be mitigated and value for money achieved. This is slightly offset by the fact that the pool of subcontractors is slightly smaller than in Option A. As the construction manager is on a fixed fee there is a real saving in overheads and profit compared to Option A. As indicated in the Value Management workshop, a saving of approximately ST$1,200,000 is achievable in profit reductions that an international contractor might expect.

Construction time Because the construction manager does not have the strong ties with subcontractors that an international contractor would have, subcontractors are less likely to give them a high priority in their work schedule. This means that the construction managers program has to allow for delays in the availability of subcontractors and the supply of labour and materials. The end result of this is that the construction time

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 16 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

Criteria Commentis often longer than for Option A.

Quality of work There is no reason why the quality of work for this option should be any less than for Option A

Changes in scope Greater flexibility in managing changes in scope of work and variations particularly in the earlier period of the contract when later trades have not been let. Less risk for discrepancies in documents as progressive letting can allow time to correct documents before tendering. Also by negotiating directly with the subcontractor there are no contractors margins to include.

Buildability Construction manager not fully responsible for all risks. MESC would be responsible for any costs associated with delays, subcontractor financial failure and insurances. Opportunity to involve subcontractors in modifications in approach to suit their systems.

Employment of local subcontractors

Greater opportunity to employ local subcontractors and suppliers however this could be a disadvantage if local resources are not able to deliver the quality required within the time allowed

Risk to MESC Time - MESC would be responsible for any delays and cost which might be applicable to these delays Cost - MESC responsible for all costs on the project due to fluctuations in the market for the supply of labour and materials as well as for insurances and financial failure of subcontractorsQuality – Responsibility for quality rests more with MESC than with the construction manager.

Impact on MESC There would be a significantly greater impact upon mesc with this option than in Option A. The workload for the PMU would include regular liaison with the construction manager, processing of all subcontract agreements, claims for payment and approvals of all variations as well as the day to day supply of information associated with the project

8.3 Option C – Construction management with procurement agent

Criteria CommentPricing by tenderers Same as for Option B Construction time Same as for Option B Quality of work Same as for Option B Changes in scope Same as for Option B Buildability Same as for Option B Employment of local subcontractors

Same as for Option B

Risk to MESC Time - Same as for Option B Cost - Same as for Option B Quality - Same as for Option B

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 17 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

Criteria CommentImpact on MESC Slightly less than Option B as construction manager would

take responsibility for all payments and processing of claims.

9 Assessment of Options

The following table summarises the rating of each criteria for the three procurement methods as either High (H), Medium (M) or Low (L):

Criteria Option A Option B Option C

Pricing by tenderers H M M

Construction time H M/L M/L

Quality of work H H/M H/M

Changes in scope L H/M H/M

Buildability H M M

Employment of local subcontractors

M/L H H

Risk to MESC

Time

Cost

Legal liability

L

M

L

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

Impact on MESC L H M

MESC Education Sector Programme Page 18 of 18 Proposed New Headquarters Building, Apia

10 Recommendation

While there are advantages and disadvantages in the three systems considered, it would appear that a recommendation depends upon the weighting given to the various criteria.

If quality of construction, certainty of price, time and low impact upon the resources of MESC are considered the most important criteria, then Option A would appear to be the preferred option.

On the other hand, if budget, involvement of local subcontractors and a preparedness to carry certain risks is considered more important, then Option B or Option C would appear to be preferred with Option C having slightly less impact upon MESC.

It is noted that at Workshops in Apia on 21 and 22 September 2006, these issues were discussed and debated by AusAID and MESC with reference to a draft copy of this Report and the general conclusion was that Option A was preferred.

It is therefore recommended that the project be procured using an Internationally Competitively Bid process in accordance with Guidelines for Procurement which are yet to be agreed between the Government of Samoa and ADB.

While these Guidelines are likely have reduced timelines to those required by ADB in their Procurement Guidelines the time required could still be substantial and therefore the processes required should be implemented without any undue delay.

SECTION 9: DISBURSEMENT

A. General Principles of Disbursement under ESP II

1. Disbursement for ESP II will follow the arrangements of the Consolidated Funding Agreement (CFA) between the Government of Samoa and Development Partners. It relates to a donor harmonized sector wide approach for the development and implementation of the Samoa Education Sector Project II (ESPII or Project). It sets out the implementation arrangements, operational processes, financial commitments and legal obligations of the Government and Development Partners (CFA-3). A copy of the CFA is included in Section 18.

2. The Government of Samoa and ADB have separately entered into the ADB Loan Agreement. In case of conflicts or inconsistencies between Samoa and ADB in relation to the interpretation of the Loan Agreement the provisions of the Loan Agreement shall prevail. In cases of conflict or inconsistencies between the Government and Development Partners in relation to the interpretation of the CFA, the provisions of the CFA shall prevail. (CFA-4)

3. The total cost of the Project is estimated at $30.00 million equivalent including taxes and duties, interest charges on the ADB loan, and physical and price contingencies. The total amount net of taxes and duties is $26.84 million. The GoS and DPs have agreed to provide contributions in the following amounts and percentages (CFA-24):

PartnerForeign

ExchangeUS$ million

LocalCurrency

US$million

TotalContributions

(up to)US$ million

Percentageinclusive of

taxes

Samoa $0.38 $4.36 $4.74 15.8%

ADB $6.28 $1.78 $8.06 26.8%

NZAID $6.63 $1.97 $8.6 28.7%

AusAID $6.63 $1.97 $8.6 28.7%

$19.92 $10.08 $30.00 100%

4. The percentage figure above includes taxes and duties estimated at US$3.16 million. Samoa will finance all taxes and duties. The amount of financing, excluding taxes and duties to be provided by Samoa is US$1.58 million. (CFA-25)

5. Samoa shall provide sufficient funds to meet expected expenditure forecast for the following financial year. In addition to the amounts stated above Samoa will also contribute up to US$100,000 for the provision of TA for teacher development programs. Samoa will fund its contributions through annual appropriations from the Parliament. (CFA-26)

Section 9 1

6. ADB contributions and the legal obligations between ADB and the Government of Samoa are contained in the separate Loan Agreement and are subject to ADB’s Special Operations Loan Regulations (1 May 2004). NZAID and AusAID each agree to provide funding for a period of six years. This will be provided by way of official development assistance grants. (CFA-27)

7. For the purposes of ESP II, the GoS and DPs have agreed to make payments into a Special Purpose Account owned and operated by the GoS. The Special Purpose Account has been established as an interest bearing, US dollar account at the Central Bank of Samoa. The GoS will use the funds in the account only to meet eligible expenditures under the Project. All interest accrued on the account will be applied against eligible Project expenditure. Regular account reconciliations, no less than quarterly, will be provided by GoS to the DPs. The bank and details of the Special Purpose Account will be communicated to all DPs by Samoa as soon as is reasonably possible after the account has been opened. (CFA-39-42)

8. NZAID and AusAID agree to deposit an initial advance into the Special Purpose Account. The advance is intended as a float to allow Samoa to incur Project eligible expenditure. The amount of the advance is to be agreed by NZAID, AusAID and GoS following the production of the Annual Plan for Year 1 of the Project. NZAID and AusAID will each contribute to the advance in a sum that represents 42.1% of the amount determined. Samoa will contribute to the advance in a sum that represents 15.8% of the amount determined. (CFA-31)

9. Further payments into the Special Purpose Account will follow the procedures outlined below, which are based on ADB Loan Disbursement principles and practices. ADB will provide funds for the Special Purpose Account on a reimbursement basis. Subsequent payments of grants by AusAID and NZAID will be aligned with Withdrawal Applications and Statements of Expenditure against the ADB Loan requirements. The Executing Agency will forward these to ADB who will agree with the other DPs for replenishment of the Special Purpose Account according to agreed proportions under the CFA.

B. Basic Principles of ADB Loan Disbursement

10. The Articles of Agreement establishing ADB (the Charter) state three main principles of disbursements for development projects:

a) Proceeds of the ADB loan shall be used only for the purposes for which the loan was approved with due attention to consideration of economy and efficiency;

b) The Borrower shall be permitted by ADB to draw its funds only to meet expenditures in connection with the Project as they are actually incurred;

Section 9 2

c) The proceeds of any loan, investment or other financing provided by ADB shall be used only for the procurement in member countries of goods and services produced in member countries unless specifically permitted by its Board of Directors.

11. All disbursements under the ADB loan will be carried out in accordance with ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook dated January 2001 (copy to be provided to the EA). The Borrower can withdraw loan funds only after the Loan Agreement becomes effective. Effectivity Date is the date, as determined by ADB, when all conditions of effectiveness of the Loan Agreement have been fulfilled by the borrower and disbursements may be made from the loan account. Basic Principles of Grant Disbursement are detailed in CFA-30 to CFA-34.

12. Taxes - No withdrawals from the Loan Account shall be made in respect of any local taxes.

C. ADB Loan Regulations

13. General standard terms and conditions governing loans made by ADB are in the Special Operations Loan Regulations (copy will be provided to the EA). These documents are expressly incorporated in the associated loan agreements. If any provision of the loan agreement is inconsistent with the provisions of these regulations, the provision of the loan agreement governs. The Loan Agreement sets out the loan’s terms and conditions.

D. Loan Cancellation

14. Provisions for loan cancellation, suspension, and acceleration of maturity are contained in Section 8.01 of the Loan Regulations which provides that after consultation with ADB and with the concurrence of the guarantor, ifany, the borrower may, by notice to ADB, cancel any amount of the loan which has not been withdrawn. The effective cancellation date is when ADB receives the borrower’s notice of such cancellation.

15. Under Section 8.03 of the Loan Regulations, ADB may also, by notice to the Borrower and the guarantor, if any, cancel1 any un-withdrawn amount of the loan when:

a. the borrower’s right to make withdrawals from the loan account has been suspended for a continuous 30 days;

b. ADB determines, at any time and after consultation with the borrower, that any amount of the loan will not be required for the purposes of the project; or

1 The effective date of cancellation is the date of such notice by ADB to the borrower or the date specified

in the notice to the borrower.

Section 9 3

c. An amount of the loan remains un-withdrawn from the loan account by the closing date. Upon giving such notice, ADB cancels any un-withdrawn amount of the loan.

E. Disbursement Arrangements under ESP II

16. All disbursements under the ADB loan will be carried out in accordance with ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook. All disbursements by NZAID and AusAID will be carried out in accordance with the conditions of the grant funding (paragraphs 29 to 38). Statement of Expenditure procedures are outlined in CFA-48 to CFA-52.

F. Guidelines and Practices

General Guidelines 22. The Borrower is responsible for implementing the project according to the Loan Agreement and other Agreements including the CFA. ADB, on its part, monitors the project and reviews its progress in conjunction with the other DPs to ensure that the project funds are spent as agreed upon.

23. When the loan becomes effective, the loan amount is not paid to the borrower. Instead, a loan account is opened in ADB’s books in the name of the borrower and the loan amount is credited to that account. Withdrawal from the account is approved only after fulfilment of the requirements indicated under Basic Requirements below.

Disbursement Letter 24. Disbursement Letter (see Annex 1 of Section 9) will be dispatched by the Disbursement Division as soon as the Loan Agreement is signed. It outlines the disbursement procedures and other related arrangements for financial administration of the project.

G. Requirements for Disbursement

Basic Requirement 25. The first withdrawal application from the loan account requires that:

(i) ADB declared the loan agreement effective;

(ii) The Borrower submits to ADB sufficient evidence of the authorityof the person(s) who will sign the withdrawal applications on behalf of the Borrower, together with the authenticated specific signature of each authorized person before the first withdrawal application is sent to ADB. (Any subsequent change in the list of authorized representatives must be reported immediately and authenticated specimen signatures of new representatives must also be provided); and

Section 9 4

(iii) Disbursement conditions as specified in the loan agreements are met.

Withdrawal Application

26. For all withdrawals, ADB must receive a withdrawal application in the prescribed form. A withdrawal application is a written request from the Borrower to ADB to pay funds against the Borrower’s loan account. No withdrawal application will be entertained after the loan closing date. The loan closing date is the date ADB may terminate the right of the borrower to make withdrawals from the loan account. Expenditures incurred after the loan closing date will not be financed under the loan.

27. A withdrawal application is consists of:

(i) the application itself, in letter form, in 2 copies; (ii) summary sheet(s) for each category claimed; and (iii) supporting documents, if required.

Instructions for Accomplishing the Withdrawal Application 28. The following should be complied with.

(i) Submit a separate application for each currency requested. (ii) For reference and identification by the computer system, number

each withdrawal application consecutively. The withdrawal application number should not exceed 5 digits or characters, such as 00001 or A0001, etc.

(iii) The Project Manager may assign an alpha identification for each Donor. Each Donor is identified by an alpha coding and the withdrawal applications are numbered in continuous consecutive series such as 0001 or A001

(iv) Consolidate all claims for “reimbursement” and “imprest fund” replenishment/liquidation until the amount being withdrawn is at least US$100,000, or unless otherwise agreed to by ADB.

(v) Indicate the payee’s complete name. (vi) Indicate the complete name and address of the designated

payee’s bank, including the name of a branch office, where applicable, and the payee’s account number.

(vii) Be sure to indicate the complete name and address of the payee bank’s correspondent bank in the country of the currency of payment where applicable, and the account number of the payee’s bank.

H. Allocation of Loan Proceeds

29 The CFA table in Section A and Schedule 3 of the Loan Agreement,which sets forth the categories of goods and services and other items to be

Section 9 5

financed out of the proceeds of the Loan and the allocation of amounts of the Loan to each such Category.

30. The items of the categories and subcategories listed in the table below shall be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan on the basis of the percentages set forth in the Table.

31. The amount interest during construction is for financing the interestcharge on the Loan during implementation period. The interest charge will be disbursed by ADB to itself.

Allocation and Disbursement by inanciers

ADB AusAID AID Gov. o Samoa1 TotalItem Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount

Civil Works 4.780 26.0% 5.290 29.0% 5.290 29.0% 2.910 16.0% 18.270 60.9% Vehicles 0.110 26.0% 0.120 29.0% 0.120 29.0% 0.060 16.0% 0.410 1.4% Learning Materials 0.520 26.0% 0.570 29.0% 0.570 29.0% 0.320 16.0% 1.980 6.6% Equipment 0.930 26.0% 1.030 29.0% 1.030 29.0% 0.550 16.0% 3.540 11.8% Consulting Services & Workshops 1.340 26.0% 1.490 29.0% 1.490 29.0% 0.850 16.0% 5.170 17.2% Implementation Mgt. Cost 0.038 26.0% 0.041 29.0% 0.041 29.0% 0.020 16.0% 0.140 0.5% Incremental O&M Cost 0.052 26.0% 0.059 29.0% 0.059 29.0% 0.030 16.0% 0.200 0.7% Total Pro ect Costs 7.770 26.0% 8.600 29.0% 8.600 29.0% 4.740 16.0% 29.710 99.0% Interest During Implementation 0.290 0.290 1.0% Total Disbursement 8.0 0 2 .8 8. 00 28.7 8. 00 28.7 4.740 15.8 30.000 100.0

1 Taxes and duties to be financed by the Government of Samoa.

I. Imprest Fund Procedure

32. To facilitate disbursements and project implementation under the loan, an imprest account may be established by the Government in a bank

Section 9 6

acceptable to ADB. The initial amount to be deposited to the imprest account by ADB should not exceed $300,000 or the estimated 6 months eligible project expenditures, whichever is lower.

33. The imprest fund procedure is one where ADB makes an advance disbursement from the loan account for deposit to an imprest account (the Account) to be used exclusively for ADB’s share of eligible expenditures. An imprest account may be established by the Ministry of Finance (MOF), at a commercial bank acceptable to ADB, immediately after loan effectiveness (optional). Detailed arrangements to establish and operate the imprest account and the statement of expenditure procedure will be in accordance with ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook.

34. The main objective for establishing the Account is to help MOF reduce cash flow difficulties in pre-financing project expenditures thereby facilitating project implementation.

J. Special Purpose Account Procedure

35. To facilitate disbursements and project implementation under the loan, a Special Purpose Account has been established by the Government of Samoa.

36. The Special Purpose Account procedure is one where NZAID and AusAID make an advance payment to cover anticipated expenditure for Year 1 of the Project, based on the Annual Plan. The main objective for establishing the Special Purpose Account is to help the Government of Samoa reduce cash flow difficulties in pre-financing project expenditures thereby facilitating project implementation. Upon receipt of withdrawal applications and Statements of Expenditure, the ADB will prepare a review and recommendation for reimbursement for the GoS and other DPs, outlining the funding requirements and proportions to be advanced to the Special Purpose Account. Copies of all financial statements and progress reporting will also be forwarded to the other DPs.

37. A diagram of the funding arrangements for the Special Purpose Account is at Annex 12 of Section 9.

Comfort Letter (for Imprest Account) 38. If an ADB imprest account is maintained in a commercial bank, a comfort letter (Annex 2 of Section 9) is required to protect the interest of both the borrower and ADB. The letter confirms that the commercial bank shall not assert any claim to set off, seize, or attach amounts on deposit to the Account to satisfy amounts due to the commercial bank by the Borrower.

Requirement (for replenishment) 39. A signed withdrawal application for imprest fund (Annex 3 of Section 9) must be submitted to ADB together with a statement of the estimated ADB share of project expenditures (Annex 4 of Section 9). The initial amount to be

Section 9 7

deposited in the imprest account will not exceed $300,000 equivalent which is reflected in the Loan Agreement.

Liquidation/Replenishment 40. Replenishment to the imprest account/Special Purpose Account will be supported by appropriate withdrawal application and related documentation (Annex 5 of Section 9). The statement of expenditure procedure may be used to reimburse eligible expenditures and liquidate advances for individual payments not exceeding the equivalent of $50,000.

41. As eligible expenditures are incurred and paid from the Account, the Borrower requests liquidation/replenishment of the Account by submitting a withdrawal application duly supported by documents, as required under the reimbursement procedure and the corresponding bank statement and reconciliation statement (Annexes 6 and 7 of Section 9). Withdrawal application must be prepared in the currency of the Account.

42. The implementing agency (MESC) will normally prepare, on a quarterly basis or earlier, each Withdrawal Application and SOE report. MESC will also prepare for

(a) AusAID and NZAID the bank reconciliation statement for liquidation of the Special Purpose Account; and

(b) ADB the bank reconciliation statement for reimbursement. The EA will review, approve and submit the statements on behalf of the GoS. There are no restrictions on the frequency of Withdrawal Applications and SOEs submitted by Samoa.

43. The following expenditures are ineligible for all Project financing: customs duties and other taxes on imported goods; taxes; land costs; local insurance premiums; working capital other than incremental and initial working capital; interest and charges (including bank charges) and other than those on the ADB loan for ESPII, and for expenditures not directly connected to ESPII.

K. Direct Payment

44. It is a procedure whereby ADB, at the borrower’s request, pays a designated beneficiary directly.

45. A signed withdrawal application (Annex 8 of Section 9) must be submitted to ADB together with a summary sheet (Annex 9 of Section 9) and the required supporting documents. Direct Payment requires, in all cases, a contract or confirmed purchase order (if not submitted earlier to ADB), indicating the amount and date of payment due.

46. Where ADB opts to make a direct payment to a contractor, ADB will advise the other DPs of the total amount due together with a breakdown of the proportional share (in US$), the contractor details, and information identifying

Section 9 8

the contractor’s bank account where payment is to be made. Each DP will then make payment direct to the contractor in the amounts determined. (CFA47)

L. Other Instructions

47. The withdrawal application’s signed original copy is submitted to ADB. Supporting documents may be submitted as photocopies.

48. Alterations on the application forms are initialled by the borrower’s authorized representatives.

M. PCSS Number

49. The Procurement Contract Summary Sheet (PCSS) number is assigned by ADB for identifying a particular contract approved by the borrower and submitted to ADB under the loan. The PCSS includes the following:

� ADB contract number; � Date of contract approval; � Mode of procurement; � Name of contractor or supplier; � Terms of payment and currency of contract; and � Percentage of ADB financing.

50. On checking the details of payment made under a particular withdrawal application from the ADB Loan Financial Information System (LFIS) Website, the EA will use the PCSS Number under a particular loan number.

N. Statement of Expenditure (SOE) Procedure

51. SOE is a procedure requiring no submission of supporting documentation. The procedure derives its name from the SOE form which is submitted with the withdrawal application. The SOE replaces the usual supporting documents and the summary sheet (Annexes 10 and 11 of Section 9).

52. In the SOE, the borrower certifies that:

� Expenditures have been incurred and paid for under the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement; and

� Records are maintained and are available for examination by ADB disbursement/review missions and independent auditors.

53. The following conditions must exist before the borrower can use the procedure:

Section 9 9

� Impracticability of Full Documentation – The SOE procedure is used where it is impractical to require full documentation. This may apply to EA operating costs or expenditures related to small civil works contracts scattered over a wide area.

� Borrower’s Capability – The borrower must have sufficient administrative and accounting capabilities to prepare and maintain proper SOE records and make them readily available for examination.

� Audit Requirements – The borrower must be capable of arranging for periodic or annual audits of SOE transactions as part of the project’s audit.

O. Co-financing

Partial Administration Services 54. ADB, AusAID and NZAID hereby agree to the following co-financing obligations to coordinate the utilization of the contributions provided by ADB, AusAID, and NZAID for the Project. Parties acknowledge that by incorporating the partial administration obligations into this CFA, as opposed to a separate Co-financing Agreement, it is a departure from ADB’s standing operating procedures. Parties agree that this approach is a pilot only for the duration of the Project, and may not be used as a precedent for future co-financing arrangements between the DPs, or with respect to the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness without thorough evaluation and only with the concurrence of each DP. (CFA-43)

55. The grant funding provided by NZAID and AusAID shall be partially administered by ADB in accordance with procedures outlined in ADB Doc. R289-03.2 (CFA-44)

AusAID and NZAID shall each pay, in addition to their agreed grant funding contributions, to ADB a service fee of $30,000 in order to meet the costs associated with ADB’s partial administration services with respect to disbursement and procurement of goods and services. The service fee shall be paid into the following bank account (CFA-45):

Name of Bank : Citibank, N.A. New York, USA Account Name : Asian Development Bank Account Number : 36205905 Swift Code : CITIUS33

56. Payment of the service fee will be made as follows (CFA-46):

� US$15,000 within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of the first partial administration services provided by ADB in relation to AusAID and NZAID grant funding; and

2 ADB. 2003. ADB-Administered Grant Cofinancing Partial Administration Modality and Related Service

Charges. Manila.

Section 9 10

� US$15,000 within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of final partial administration services provided by ADB in relation to AusAID and NZAID grants.

P. Disbursement Reports

57. Borrower, EA, and Donors are given information on the status of loan disbursement in:

� semi-monthly listings of loan disbursements (see page 120 of the Handbook);

� statement of withdrawal vouchers; and � statements of amount capitalized.

58. The above reports and other information are available online at LFIS website at URL://lfis.adb.org. For access to the loan information website, requests may be sent by e-mail to lfis@adb.org.

59. The Borrower and the EA will provide ADB with the current names,mailing, and e-mail addresses of contact persons who should receive the reports. An updated list of contact persons is to be sent to ADB immediately whenever there are changes in contact persons or addresses.

Section 9 11

Section 9 Annex 1

Disbursement Letter from ADB to be dispatched by Controller’s Department as soon as the loan is signed.

Section 9 12

Section 9 Annex 2

(EXAMPLE OF A COMFORT LETTER FOR AN IMPREST ACCOUNT)

Date

Disbursement Operations Divisions The Controller’s Department ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK No. 6 ADB Avenue 0401 Mandaluyong City Philippines

Dear Sir / Madam:

Loan No. 2220-SAM(SF): Education Sector II Project

1. We refer to the procedure of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for disbursement of loans for ADB investment projects and program loans through advances to special deposit or imprest accounts opened by ADB Borrowers or other beneficiaries of such loans.

2. It is our understanding that, in furtherance of the provision in the ADB’s Articles of Agreement designed to ensure that the proceeds of any loan are used only for the purposes for which the loan was granted, ADB provides in its loan agreements and supplementary disbursement documents that ADB must approve of the placement of funds in such accounts and of the terms and conditions thereof.

3. From time to time, (name of depository bank) opens accounts, of the nature described above, for or at the request of ADB member Barrowers or their central banks or other Barrower of beneficiary entities. Recognizing that ADB has an interest in safeguarding the use of such funds for the purposes of projects and programs, we are pleased to confirm that (name of depository bank) will not assert any claim to set off, seize or attached amounts on deposit in such accounts to satisfy amounts due (name of depository bank) except and only to the extent necessary to protect its portion in such instances where a third party takes steps to attach such funds. In the event that the third party has attached funds in any such account, (name of depository bank) will inform ADB immediately of such attachment and, will cooperate, as appropriate, with ADB and its efforts to seek the removal of such attachment(s).

4. We understand that this representation will be relied upon by ADB in approving future account arrangements and the placement of funds advanced thereto.

Yours sincerely,

_______________________

Authorized Officer, Head Office (Name of Depository Bank)

Section 9 13

Section 9 Annex 3

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Withdrawal Application

(Form ADB-IFP)

Date : ADB Loan No. : 2220-SAM(SF) Application No. : 001

Type of Disbursement : Initial Advance (Imprest Account)

TO : Asian Development Bank P.O. Box 789 0980 Manila, Philippines ATTN. : Controllers Department-Disbursement Division

Sir/Madam:

1. In connection with the Loan Agreement dated ==(to be determined)== between the Asian Development Bank and the undersigned Borrower, Government of Samoa, please pay from the Loan Account:

In US Dollars Three Hundred Thousand(Currency Name) (amount to be paid in figures)

2. The undersigned certifies and agrees as follows: a. the said amount is required or payment of eligible expenditures as described in the attached Estimate

of Expenditure Sheet from June to December 2006; b. any advances by ADB to the Imprest Fund may be limited to a sum smaller than the amount

requested for advances or replenishment, allowing the Fund to be gradually reduced and fully documented prior to loan closing date;

c. the undersigned has not previously withdrawn or applied for withdrawal of any amounts from the said Loan Account nor obtained or will obtain any loan, credit, or grant for the purpose of fully or partially meeting the expenditures described in the Estimate of Expenditure sheet or Summary sheet;

d. the expenditure described in the attached Estimate of Expenditure sheet or Summary Sheet are to be made for the purposes specified in the Loan Agreement and in accordance with its terms and conditions;

e. promptly within 6 months after the payment(s), the undersigned will furnish proof satisfactory to the Bank to liquidate and document the advance;

f. for expenditures to be liquidated on the basis of a Statement of Expenditures (SOE), all authenticating documents will be retained in the location shown on the individual SOE and will be made available fore review by auditors and Bank representatives upon request;

g. as of the date of this application, there is no existing default under the Loan Agreement, the Project Agreement or the Guarantee Agreement, if any; and

h. if any funds withdrawn pursuant to this application are returned, the current value of such funds will be applied as credit to the Loan Account or, if the amount is small, applied to the next loan service payment date.

3. PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS a. Payee’s Name and Address

� Payee’s Name : Education Sector Project II (ESPII) � Payee’s Address : Apia, Samoa

b. Name and Address of Payee’s Bank and Account Number

� Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Payee’s Account No. : � SWIFT Code :

c. Correspondent Bank (If Payee’s Bank is not located in the country whose currency is claimed, enter the name and address of their bank’s correspondent in the country whose currency is to be paid.) � Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Account No. of Payee’s Bank : � SWIFT Code :

d. Special Payment Instructions or References:

4. This application consists of one page including two pages of Expenditure or Summary Sheet(s).

Government of Samoa: By: ____________________________ Name of Borrower Signature of Authorized Representative

Full Name and Title of Authorized Representative

Section 9 14

Section 9 Annex 4

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ESTIMATE OF EXPENDITURE FOR IMPREST ACCOUNT

(Form ADB-IFP-EES)

Sample Only

ADB Loan No.: 2220-SAM(SF): EPSP II Date: 15 June 2006

Category No.3 : 02A Estimate Sheet No.: 1 of 2

Application No.: 0001 – IA Initial Advance

ContractNo.

ContractDate

Description of Goods and Services

ContractAmount

Estimated Amount Of Expenditures4

(in Samoan Tala)

Exchange Rate

EstimatedAmount

In US Dollar Equivalent

Office Equipment 500,000 300,000

Total this page 500,000

_____Government of Samoa________________

___________________________________ Name of Borrower Authorized

Representative

3 A separate Estimate of Expenditure Sheet should be used for each category.

4 Refer to terms of payment for each contract and indicate the amount needed in the currency of expenditure. The

amount in this column should not exceed the corresponding amount in the column “Contract Amount”.

300,000 From previous page Total estimated expenditure 500,000 300,000 Percentage of expenditures to be financed by ADB 26% 26%Amount eligible for ADB financing 130,000 78,000 Account balance Amount request 130,000 78,000

Section 9 15

Section 9 16

Section 9 Annex 5

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Withdrawal Application

(Form ADB-IFP)

Date : ADB Loan No. : 2220-SAM(SF) Application No. : 002 Type of Disbursement : Replenishment

TO : Asian Development Bank P.O. Box 789 0980 Manila, Philippines ATTN. : Controllers Department-Disbursement Division

Sir/Madam:

1. In connection with the Loan Agreement dated ==(to be determined)== between the Asian Development Bank and the undersigned Borrower, Government of Samoa, please pay from the Loan Account:

US$80,000 Eighty Thousand Dollars (Currency Name) (amount to be paid in figures)

2. The undersigned certifies and agrees as follows: a. the said amount has been paid for eligible expenditures as described in the attached Summary

Sheet(s);b. any advances by ADB to the Imprest Fund may be limited to a sum smaller than the amount

requested for advances or replenishment, allowing the Fund to be gradually reduced and fully documented prior to loan closing date;

c. the undersigned has not previously withdrawn or applied for withdrawal of any amounts from the said Loan Account nor obtained or will obtain any loan, credit, or grant for the purpose of fully or partially meeting the expenditures described in the Estimate of Expenditure sheet or Summary sheet;

d. the expenditure described in the attached Summary Sheet(s) were made for the purposes specified in the Loan Agreement and in accordance with its terms and conditions;

e. for expenditures to be liquidated on the basis of a Statement of Expenditures (SOE), all authenticating documents will be retained in the location shown on the individual SOE and will be made available fore review by auditors and Bank representatives upon request;

f. as of the date of this application, there is no existing default under the Loan Agreement, the Project Agreement or the Guarantee Agreement, if any; and

g. if any funds withdrawn pursuant to this application are returned, the current value of such funds will be applied as credit to the Loan Account or, if the amount is small, applied to the next loan service payment date.

3. PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS c. Payee’s Name and Address

� Payee’s Name : Education Sector Project II (ESPII) � Payee’s Address : Apia, Samoa

d. Name and Address of Payee’s Bank and Account Number

� Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Payee’s Account No. : � SWIFT Code :

e. Correspondent Bank (If Payee’s Bank is not located in the country whose currency is claimed, enter the name and address of their bank’s correspondent in the country whose currency is to be paid.) � Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Account No. of Payee’s Bank : � SWIFT Code :

f. Special Payment Instructions or References:

4. This application consists of one page including two pages of Expenditure or Summary Sheet(s).

Government of Samoa: By: _____________________________________ Name of Borrower Signature of Authorized Representative

_______________________________________ Full Name and Title of Authorized Representative

17

Secti

on

9 A

nn

ex 7

A

SIA

N D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

BA

NK

SU

MM

AR

Y S

HE

ET

(F

or D

irec

t P

aym

ent/

Rei

mbu

rsem

ent/

Liq

uida

tion

)

Dir

ect

Pay

men

t

R

eim

bu

rsem

en

t

L

iqu

idati

on

(AD

B-D

RP

-SS

)

(A

DB

-RM

P-S

S)

(AD

B-I

FP

-SS

)

Su

mm

ary

Sh

eet

No

. D

ate:

AD

B L

oan

No

. 2

22

0-S

AM

(SF

) S

up

po

rtin

g D

ocu

men

ts A

ttac

hed

(p

leas

e m

ark

wit

h a

n x

)

No

. &

Tit

le o

f C

ateg

ory

/Su

b-C

ateg

ory

A

pp

lica

tio

n N

o.

Item

No.

No

. &

Dat

e

of

Co

ntr

act/

PO

PC

SS

No.

Des

crip

tio

n o

f G

oo

ds

&

Ser

vic

es

Nam

e a

nd

Ad

dre

ss o

f

Su

pp

lier

Dat

e o

f

Pay

men

t

(Du

e)

Am

ou

nt

Pai

d/P

ayab

le

Nat

ure

of

Pay

men

t

Mad

e 1

Co

ntr

act/

PO

2

Inv

oic

e/C

laim

R

ecei

pt

Bil

l o

f

Lad

ing

Cer

tifi

cate

3

To

tal

Am

ou

nt

Pai

d/P

ayab

le

% o

f A

DB

Fin

an

cin

g

Am

ou

nt

Req

ues

ted

fo

r W

ith

dra

wal

Ed

uca

tio

n S

ecto

r P

roje

ct I

I

Nam

e a

nd

Desi

gn

ati

on

of

Au

tho

rize

d R

epre

sen

tati

ve

1In

dic

ate

agai

nst

each

ite

m,

wh

eth

er t

he

pay

men

t is

a d

ow

n p

aym

ent,

or

an i

nst

alm

ent

pay

men

t (i

f so

, th

e n

um

ber

of

inst

alm

ent)

2In

cas

e th

is w

as s

en

t ea

rlie

r, i

nd

icat

e th

e re

fere

nce

of

the

earl

ier

lett

er i

n t

he

foo

tno

te u

sin

g (*

)

3In

cas

e o

f ci

vil

wo

rks

con

trac

t

4E

nsu

re t

hat

am

ou

nt

in t

he

last

pag

e o

f su

mm

ary

sh

eet

agre

es w

ith

th

e s

um

in

dic

ated

in

th

e ap

pli

cati

on

.

Sec

tion

9

Section 9

Section 9 Annex 8 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Withdrawal Application

(Form ADB-DRP/RMP) Date : ADB Loan No. : 2220-SAM(SF) Application No. : Type of Disbursement : DDirect Payment Reimbursement TO : Asian Development Bank

P.O. Box 789 0980 Manila, Philippines

ATTN. : Controllers Department-Disbursement Operations Division (CTDO)

Sir/Madam:

1. In connection with the Loan Agreement dated 1 June 2004 between the Asian Development Bank and the undersigned Borrower, Republic of the Fiji Islands, please pay from the Loan Account:

___________ _______________________ (Currency Name) (amount to be paid in figures) (The said amount is required for payment or reimbursement of eligible expenditures in the said currency as described in the Attached Summary Sheet/s.)

2. The undersigned certifies and agrees as follows: a. These expenditures were/are/will be made for the purposes specified in the Loan Agreement and the undersigned has not

previously withdrawn from the Loan Account nor obtained or will obtain any other loan, credit, or grant for the purpose of fully or partially meeting these expenditures.

b. The good or services have been procured in accordance with the Loan Agreement and the cost and terms of the purchase thereof are reasonable and in accordance with the relevant contract(s).

c. The goods or services were or will be produced in and supplied by a member country of ADB as specified in the attached Summary Sheet/s

d. For expenditures claimed on the basis of a Statement of Expenditures (SOE), all authenticating documents have been retained in the location shown on the individual SOE Summary Sheets and will be made available for review by auditors and ADB representatives upon request.

e. As of the date of this application, there is no existing default under the Loan Agreement, the Project Agreement or the Guarantee Agreement, if any.

f. If any funds withdrawn pursuant to this application are returned, the current value of such funds will be applied as credit to the Loan Account or, if the amount is small, applied to the next loan service payment due.

3. PPAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS

e. Payee’s Name and Address � Payee’s Name : � Payee’s Address : f. Name and Address of Special Purpose Account and Account Number � Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Payee’s Account No. : � SWIFT Code : g. Correspondent Bank (If Payee’s Bank is not located in the country whose currency is claimed, enter the name and address of

their bank’s correspondent in the country whose currency is to be paid.) � Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Account No. of Payee’s Bank : � SWIFT Code : h. Special Payment Instructions or References:

4. This application consists of __(number) of page(s) including ___(number) page(s)__ of Summary Sheet(s).

Government of Samoa By: Signature of Authorized Representative

Print Full Name and Title of Authorized Representative

Sec

tion

9

Sec

tion

9 A

nnex

9

ASI

AN

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T B

AN

K

SUM

MA

RY

SH

EE

T

(For

Dir

ect

Pay

men

t/R

eim

burs

emen

t/L

iqui

dati

on)

Dir

ect

Pay

men

t

R

eim

bu

rsem

en

t

L

iqu

idati

on

(AD

B-D

RP

-SS

)

(A

DB

-RM

P-S

S)

(AD

B-I

FP

-SS

)

Su

mm

ary

Sh

eet

No

. D

ate:

AD

B L

oan

No

. 2

22

0-S

AM

(SF

) S

up

po

rtin

g D

ocu

men

ts A

ttac

hed

(p

leas

e m

ark

wit

h a

n x

)

No

. &

Tit

le o

f C

ateg

ory

/Su

b-C

ateg

ory

A

pp

lica

tio

n N

o.

Item

No.

No

. &

Dat

e

of

Co

ntr

act/

PO

PC

SS

No.

Des

crip

tio

n o

f G

oo

ds

&

Ser

vic

es

Nam

e a

nd

Ad

dre

ss o

f

Su

pp

lier

Dat

e o

f P

aym

ent

(Du

e)

Am

ou

nt

Pai

d/P

ayab

le

Nat

ure

of

Pay

men

t

Mad

e 1

Co

ntr

act/

PO

2

Inv

oic

e/C

laim

R

ecei

pt

Bil

l o

f

Lad

ing

Cer

tifi

cate

3

To

tal

Am

ou

nt

Pai

d/P

ayab

le

% o

f A

DB

Fin

an

cin

g

Am

ou

nt

Req

ues

ted

fo

r W

ith

dra

wal

Ed

uca

tio

n S

ecto

r P

roje

ct I

I

Nam

e a

nd

Desi

gn

ati

on

of

Au

tho

rize

d R

epre

sen

tati

ve

1.

Ind

icat

e ag

ain

st e

ach

ite

m,

wh

eth

er t

he

pay

men

t is

a d

ow

n p

aym

ent,

or

an i

nst

alm

ent

pay

men

t (i

f so

, th

e n

um

ber

of

inst

alm

ent)

2.

In c

ase

this

was

sen

t ea

rlie

r, i

nd

icat

e th

e re

fere

nce

of

the

earl

ier

lett

er i

n t

he

foo

tno

te u

sin

g (*

)

3.

In c

ase

of

civ

il w

ork

s co

ntr

act

4.

En

sure

th

at a

mo

un

t in

th

e la

st p

age o

f su

mm

ary

sh

eet

agre

es w

ith

th

e s

um

in

dic

ated

in

th

e ap

pli

cati

on

.

Section 9

Section 9 Annex 10

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Withdrawal Application

(Form ADB-IFP) Date : ADB Loan No. : 2220-SAM(SF) Application No. : 004 Type of Disbursement : Replenishment TO : Asian Development Bank P.O. Box 789 0980 Manila, Philippines ATTN. : Controllers Department-Disbursement Division Sir/Madam: 1. In connection with the Loan Agreement dated ==(to be determined)== between the Asian Development Bank and the

undersigned Borrower, Government of Samoa, please pay from the Loan Account: US$90,000 Ninety Thousand Dollars

(Currency Name) (amount to be paid in figures)

2. The undersigned certifies and agrees as follows: a. the said amount has been paid for eligible expenditures as described in the attached Summary Sheet(s); b. any advances by ADB to the Imprest Fund may be limited to a sum smaller than the amount requested for advances or

replenishment, allowing the Fund to be gradually reduced and fully documented prior to loan closing date; c. the undersigned has not previously withdrawn or applied for withdrawal of any amounts from the said Loan Account nor

obtained or will obtain any loan, credit, or grant for the purpose of fully or partially meeting the expenditures described in the Estimate of Expenditure sheet or Summary sheet;

d. the expenditure described in the attached Summary Sheet(s) were made for the purposes specified in the Loan Agreement and in accordance with its terms and conditions;

e. for expenditures to be liquidated on the basis of a Statement of Expenditures (SOE), all authenticating documents will be retained in the location shown on the individual SOE and will be made available fore review by auditors and Bank representatives upon request;

f. as of the date of this application, there is no existing default under the Loan Agreement, the Project Agreement or the Guarantee Agreement, if any; and

g. if any funds withdrawn pursuant to this application are returned, the current value of such funds will be applied as credit to the Loan Account or, if the amount is small, applied to the next loan service payment date.

3. PPAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS

a. Payee’s Name and Address � Payee’s Name : Education Sector Project II (ESPII) � Payee’s Address : Apia, Samoa

b. Name and Address of Special Purpose Account and Account Number

� Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Payee’s Account No. : � SWIFT Code :

c. CCorrespondent Bank (If Payee’s Bank is not located in the country whose currency is claimed, enter the name and address of their bank’s correspondent in the country whose currency is to be paid.) � Bank Name : � Bank Address : � Account No. of Payee’s Bank : � SWIFT Code :

d. Special Payment Instructions or References:

4. This application consists of one page including two pages of Expenditure or Summary Sheet(s). Government of Samoa: By: Name of Borrower Signature of Authorized Representative Full Name and Title of Authorized Representative

Sec

tion

9

Sec

tion

9 A

nnex

11

ASI

AN

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T B

AN

K

SOE

SU

MM

AR

Y S

HE

ET

(F

or D

irec

t P

aym

ent/

Rei

mbu

rsem

ent/

Liq

uida

tion

) F

or t

he p

erio

d Ju

ne t

o Se

ptem

ber

2006

Rep

len

ish

men

t

R

eim

bu

rsem

en

t

L

iqu

idati

on

SO

E S

hee

t N

o.

01

A

DB

Lo

an N

o.:

22

20

-SA

M(S

F)

Cat

ego

ry/s

ub

-Cat

ego

ry:

02

B

Ap

pli

cati

on

No

.

00

04

D

ate:

Pro

cure

men

t P

arti

cula

rs o

f P

aym

ent

AD

B F

inan

cin

g

Co

ntr

act

Item

No

Des

crip

tio

n o

f

Go

od

s an

d

Ser

vic

es

Nam

e a

nd

Ad

dre

ss

of

Su

pp

lier

Date

Am

ou

nt

(US

$)

Bil

l

No.

Date

Am

ou

nt

of

Bil

l

Ret

enti

on

Mo

ney

Tax

es

Am

ou

nt

Pai

d

Co

st o

f A

DB

Fin

anci

ng

Ex

chan

ge

Rat

e

US

$ E

qu

iv

Ch

arg

ed t

o

IA

Pai

d b

y

Ch

eck

No

Rem

ark

s

1D

esk

To

p

Co

mp

ute

r

AA

AC

o3

0Ju

n0

6

80

000

0

01

xx

xx

80

000

0

50

00

2S

oft

ware

B

BB

Co

xx

xx

45

000

1

23

xx

xx

45

000

0

20

00

3P

eri

ph

era

lsX

XX

Co

xx

xx

65

000

1

25

xx

xx

65

000

0

27

00

4N

ote

bo

ok

YY

Y C

o

xx

xx

20

000

3

33

xx

xx

20

000

0

80

0

(AD

B-I

FP

-SS

)

1.

Ind

icat

e ag

ain

st e

ach

ite

m,

wh

eth

er t

he

pay

men

t is

a d

ow

n p

aym

ent,

or

an i

nst

alm

ent

pay

men

t (i

f so

, th

e n

um

ber

of

inst

alm

ent)

2.

In c

ase

this

was

sen

t ea

rlie

r, i

nd

icat

e th

e re

fere

nce

of

the

earl

ier

lett

er i

n t

he

foo

tno

te u

sin

g (*

)

3.

In c

ase

of

civ

il w

ork

s co

ntr

act

4.

En

sure

th

at a

mo

un

t in

th

e la

st p

age o

f su

mm

ary

sh

eet

agre

es w

ith

th

e s

um

in

dic

ated

in

th

e ap

pli

cati

on

.

(Not

e: P

repa

re o

ne s

umm

ary

shee

t pe

r D

evel

opm

ent

Par

tner

(A

DB

/Aus

AID

/NZ

AID

))

Section 9 Annex 12

ESP II Operation of Special Purpose Account

(CDT to update/revise)

Special Purpose Account

GoS

AusAID

NZAID

GoSExpenditures

Withdrawal Application/

SOE

Review and Recommendation

for reimbursement

ADB

(Advance)

Section 9

Section 9 Annex 6

Special Purpose Account Reconciliation Statement

Loan No. 2220-SAM(SF)

Education Section Project II (ESPII)

Application No.:Account No. :Bank Name :Bank Address :

US$1 Outstanding Amount Advanced to the Special Purpose

Account 300,000.00

2 Amount in Special Purpose Account as of (report date)per attached Bank Statement 150,000.00

3 Add: Amount of eligible expenditures documented/claimed in attached Withdrawal Application No.____ 105,000.00

4 Add: Amounts claimed in previous applicationscredited at date of bank statement:

Application No. Amount …. ……..

5 Add: Total expenditures withdrawn from Special Purpose Acct butnot yet claimed for replenishment (indicate details)

a. Computers 15,000.00 b. Textbooks 30,000.00

Totals 45,000.00

6 TOTAL ADVANCE ACCOUNTED FOR 300,000.00

Explanation of any discrepancy between totals appearing in lines 1 and 6 above (e.g.

earned interest credited to the account, bank charges, etc.)

Date: Signature: Authorized Representative Title:

IA ReconStatement

SECTION 10: PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

A. Monitoring and Evaluation ESP II is firmly located within the GoS education sector policies and strategies as outlined in the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 - 2015. While the Plan itself covers the main elements of the education sector, it does not provide detail in terms of monitoring and evaluation approaches to be used by GoS in assessing performance against international, national or sector targets and objectives. Nor are regular sectoral evaluation procedures used by the GoS at the central agency level, apart from some limited assessment through the budget process or ad hoc reviews when strategies are being formulated. It is understood that the GoS intends to use the development of sector plans as a means of instigating a more effective system of performance measurement. The regional PRIDE project, based at USP, will be supporting Pacific island states to introduce better evaluation approaches for measuring implementation, as a follow up to support provided for the development of sector plans.

The Project will support MESC to develop an effective monitoring and evaluation system for both broader uses and for ESP II, taking into account the current limitations of broader GoS sector-wide evaluations, particularly the limited amount of resources and expertise available in MoF and MESC to undertake full scale evaluations on a regular basis. The systems developed for monitoring and evaluation within the Project will need to be compatible with any Government-wide systems yet to be developed, and should be capable of identifying the contribution that ESP II activities make towards the achievement of sector goals and objectives. As discussed in the previous section, under Component 5 the Project will provide support for the enhancement of existing monitoring and evaluation systems, and the development of a comprehensive framework for monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

Monitoring and evaluation will be a responsibility of the Implementing Agency. Annex 1 of this Section outlines the roles and responsibilities for each Division and unit within MESC in relation to monitoring and evaluation. The Diagram at Annex 3 of this Section provides a simplified overview of monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the Project. The ACEO responsible for implementation of a component (and the Program Coordinator in the case of Component 5) will also be responsible for the monitoring of project inputs, performance of consultants and sub contractors and reporting on progress towards outputs and outcomes. Monitoring and evaluation will use existing systems and procedures (and data sources, particularly for measuring learning outcomes).

The Monitoring and Evaluation Framework will enhance the ADB reporting system (agreed in the CFA and PHF), and be linked to the MESC cycles for planning, budgeting and reporting. This is necessary to provide so that a single system can provide relevant and timely information for decision-making by MESC, ESC and the DPs.

Section 10 1

All Project progress reports will form part of a single operative framework for monitoring and evaluation. It will be the task of ESP II Secretariat (with support from the M&E consultant) to align these reporting formats with existing MESC monitoring processes. The Project Management Strategy (Section 6 Annex 5) outlines this in more detail.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Framework should therefore identify the type of information to be collected for each component, and the process of collection, along with responsibility. Some standard monitoring tools that could also be adapted for use by MESC include consultant/adviser work plans, training evaluation templates, project progress reports etc. The PRIDE Project’s Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (draft) has prepared a set of templates that could be easily and readily adapted for use in ESP II. Existing data collection within MESC will be utilised, particularly for information on schools, teacher development, learning outcomes and assessment results, which are available on various EMIS systems. The monthly, quarterly and annual progress report cycles provide the basis for monitoring and evaluation information collection. These are described in detail in Section 6 Annex 5and summarised below.

The ESP II Secretariat will coordinate Project-related monitoring and evaluation, and compile the standard reports for the Core Executive. In addition, the Secretariat will have a role in aggregating component level information into Project-wide monitoring and evaluation, and assessing performance against the goal and purpose objectives. This form of higher-level progress reporting (e.g. through the annual PPR) happens on a yearly basis, linked to, and included in the development of the Project’s Annual Plans. A diagrammatic representation of the M&E processes envisaged for ESP II is contained in Annex 3 of this Section.

B. Annual Plans In line with the Government budget cycle, every 12 months, MESC will prepare a forward program/operating plan for Project expenditure for the following financial year, to be known as an Annual Plan. This is expected to take place in March (for the following fiscal year starting in July). The first Annual Plan, prepared for the Project Design Document (PDD) had a commencement date of 1 July 2006. It formed the basis of the first payment from Australia and New Zealand into the Project Special Purpose Account, under the arrangements in the CFA. This Annual Plan will be amended by MESC during the inception phase, due to delays in commencement. Subsequent Annual Plans will be used by the DPs to maintain an adequate balance in the Special Purpose Account to cover anticipated expenditure in the following period.

The PDD also contained a draft Annual Plan for Year 2 of the Project. Copiesof draft Annual Plans prepared for the PDD for Years 1 and 2 are contained in Annex 5. Timing of activities in these sample Plans is based on the Implementation Schedules in Section 6 Annex 3.

Annual Plans will also review progress and impact, consistent with MESC’sannual cycle of reporting to GoS. In general, Annual Plans will include:

Section 10 2

(i) a report on project progress over the previous 12 months (from the second Annual Plan onwards);

(ii) and evaluation of activities and impacts resulting from the Project, with identification of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement;

(iii) description of activities to be implemented in the next 12 months, by component, with performance targets and dates for completion where relevant;

(iv) a revised implementation schedule for activities by component; and (v) estimated costs from the Special Purpose Account for forward

activities by type of expenditure, including a list of schools planned for upgrading, and an associated procurement plan for all components;

(vi) estimates of the operation and maintenance budget and identify the amount of counterpart funds to be provided.

The ESP II Secretariat will compile and prepare the draft Annual Plan, based on plans developed by each of the ACEOs responsible for component implementation. It is anticipated that Joint Reviews and the Mid Term Review will be scheduled to occur prior to the development of the Annual Plan, so that any recommendations can be incorporated into the following year’s activities.

C. Monitoring and Evaluation Systems MESC has a monitoring and evaluation system that will be strengthenedthrough ESP II to provide improved and reliable indicators for assessing project progress (Annex 1 of this Section). Monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken by MESC and coordinated by the ESP II Secretariat. Regular monitoring and reporting within each component will be under the direction of the ACEO or unit head responsible for implementation. Project progress reporting from MESC to the Project Partners will take place through the MESC Core Executive and be endorsed by the Education Steering Committee before being forwarded to the EA and DPs. Financial reporting will be aligned with progress reporting so that the Project provides a comprehensive ‘whole of project’ update on a quarterly basis.

Quarterly Project Performance Reports (QPPRs), in the agreed format (see B below, Annex 2 and also Section 11 – Reporting), will contain information on project progress, risk and issues. As part of the second and subsequent Annual Plans, MESC will provide a consolidated Project Performance Report (PPR) on achievements for the previous 12 months. In general, this will be an aggregation of quarterly reports, together with an assessment of broader impacts and progress towards outcomes. The process of quarterly and annual reporting will include monitoring and evaluation of implementation performance, management information, and achievement of project outputs and outcomes, using the performance indicators contained in the Design and Monitoring Framework. MESC will monitor project activities using data and feedback from the divisions responsible for implementing components, financial and management information, performance against civil works and

Section 10 3

consulting services contracts and data received from schools and communities.

MESC will monitor and evaluate project outcomes, in accordance with the schedule and terms of reference agreed upon by the Project Partners. Performance evaluations will examine the impact of project interventions on learning outcomes, as can be measured by standardized assessment.

D. Project Reviews and Reports During the first year of the Project, the Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will conduct a semi-annual review of project performance. In subsequent years of the Project, the Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will conduct at least one joint review per year. This Joint Review will include an examination of the budgetary allocations, operation and maintenance costs, staffing and other incremental recurrent costs, implementation arrangements, and achievements under the Project. The review includes assessing progress in each component, identifying difficulties and constraints, and determining ways to overcome them. MESC management, specifically the CEO and ACEOs, will be a primary source of information for these reviews.

In addition, the Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will jointly conduct a Mid Term Review during the third year of implementation. This review will:

(i) review the scope, design, and project management and implementation arrangements;

(ii) assess the effectiveness of any pilot programs; (iii) assess performance against targets and benchmarks; (iv) review lessons and experiences with implementation of each

component; (v) review compliance with the loan agreement including covenants

and bilateral funding agreement(s); and (vi) recommend any changes in project implementation, if required.

Quarterly Project Performance Reports (QPPRs) will contain information on project progress, risk and issues. Annex 3 of this Section contains pro-forma guidelines for content and completion. As part of the second and subsequent Annual Plans, MESC will provide a consolidated Project Performance Report (PPR) on achievements for the previous 12 months. In general, this annual assessment will be more than an aggregation of quarterly reports, and will examine performance against impacts and measure progress towards higher-level outcomes. The process of quarterly and annual reporting will include monitoring and evaluation of implementation performance, management information, and achievement of project outputs and outcomes, using the performance indicators contained in the Project logframe. As noted, MESC will monitor project activities using data, reports and feedback from the Divisions responsible for implementing components, financial and management information, performance against civil works and consulting services contracts and data received from schools and communities.

Section 10 4

The role of the quarterly and annual PPRs is to provide relevant and timely information for the GoS and DPs to enable objective project planning, including information for the preparation and endorsement of subsequent Annual Plans. The annual PPR will take the form of a more extensive review and evaluation, looking at achievement and sustainability of outcomes. This is an integral component of the Annual Plan process. Reporting will allow the GoS, DPs and other stakeholders to assess the extent to which the Project is meeting its implementation and development expectations. Where relevant, performance evaluations will examine the impact of project interventions on learning outcomes, as can be measured by standardised assessment and other techniques.

E. Risk Management ESP II contains a number of areas of uncertainty and risk, which reflects thedifficulties of working with a Project that uses a sector wide approach, has multiple donors, a unique funding arrangement, uses different delivery systems (ADB and GoS) and originates from two separate design processes. Some risks have the potential to impact significantly on Project outcomes. Risk mitigation and minimisation approaches are listed in Annex 4 - Risk Management Matrix. ‘Samoa Education Sector II – Appraisal Report for Project Design Document Version 2.0, September 2006’ produced by independent consultant Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM, Frank Peck) also discusses risk management issues for ESPII (pages 16-19) and this report should be taken into consideration when managing and monitoring risks.

Section 10 5

Section 10 Annex 1

Monitoring and Evaluation

1. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will assist MESC to develop a comprehensive M&E Framework for the education sector in Samoa, based on the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan 2006-2015. At present, this Plan lacks explicit information on monitoring and evaluation. The M&E Framework should incorporate GoS requirements for reporting on education outcomes at the international, regional (Pacific) national and local school/community level. International targets include the MDGs, EFA and sustainable development objectives. Regional objectives are those outlined in the Forum Basic Education Action Plan (FBEAP), agreed to by the Forum Education Ministers meeting (FEdMM) or otherwise endorsed at the regional level. National objectives, targets and key performance indicators will need to be developed, based on the Strategic Policies and Plan.

Monitoring and evaluation of the Project is designed to assess the extent to which planned Project activities are accomplished and outputs attained. The GoS will use results from monitoring and evaluation to improve performance in the Project and across the education sector. MESC’s monitoring and evaluation framework will be reviewed and updated (under Component 5) and the process of performance measurement and progress reporting undertaken by Ministry staff responsible for project implementation and coordination.

The major change from ESP I will be a comprehensive ‘whole of sector’ approach to monitoring and evaluation that includes a larger range ofstakeholders and has a significant role for MESC management, particularly the ACEOs responsible for activity and component implementation. A crucial aspect of developing the updated system, therefore, will be to identify existing sources of data, particularly those for school, teacher and student performance. An analysis of user requirements, the types and level of information needed for effective decision-making by the MESC Core Executive and ESC, and reporting to MOF and DPs, will be important to define at an early stage.

The M&E Framework will contain a performance framework for both higher level and Project reporting. The performance framework will include qualitative and quantitative performance indicators and outlines how GoS/MESC and Project level outcomes are linked with the broader regional and international targets. The other features of the M&E Framework will include:

� A monitoring and reporting system that is simple and accurate, and can be used by MESC management, as well as ACEOs, contractors and others.

� A clear delineation of the types of monitoring and reporting required, and the assignment of responsibility for collection and dissemination.

� An emphasis on information that is relevant, timely and can be used for effective decision-making at all levels.

Section 10 6

� Aligning monitoring and evaluation processes with Project management, to streamline procedures and make effective use of resources.

� A set of standardised M&E tools and reporting formats.

2. Monitoring and Review of General Project Activities

The updated system will include the elements of monitoring and evaluation specified here for each component. Further, it will be integrated with other Project reporting systems, notably financial reporting. Monitoring will be ongoing, and will be formally reported to the GoS and DPs through the Project’s quarterly reporting and annual planning process.

The GoS and DPs will participate in JRMs at regular intervals through the lifeof the Project. These will ideally coincide with production of MESC performance information from the monitoring and evaluation system – for example following the production of the Project Performance Report and Annual Plan. A midterm and final evaluation of the Project’s activities will jointly be conducted to provide further information on project progress and completion for the GoS and DPs.

Monitoring and evaluation for the Project will be the responsibility of the MESC Core Executive, with support and coordination provided by the ESP II Secretariat. The Project will supply assistance under Component 5 to help review and establish systems for ESP II. The main activities are the following:

(i) Establish project implementation benchmarks and performance indicators; (ii) Identify data requirements for monitoring performance;(iii) Identify data collection methods/instruments; (iv) Identify feedback mechanisms (sharing of results);(v) Conduct periodic monitoring as required; (vi) Prepare quarterly and annual Project Performance Reports and Annual

Plans;(vii) Prepare a Project Completion Report; (viii) Assist in developing terms of reference for the midterm review; (ix) Assist in facilitating the midterm review; (x) Assist in developing the terms of reference for the final project review; and (xi) Assist in facilitating the final Project review.

Component 1Monitoring and evaluation of Component 1 activities will focus on thedevelopment of primary curriculum statements, multimedia materials for science and agricultural science, the pilot community learning center and the introduction of a national assessment policy framework. Progress toward the objective will be measured by monitoring the development of curriculum statements and materials for the target subject areas, input availability (delivery of textbooks and learning materials), the effectiveness of the pilot program, and the development and adoption of standardised assessment.

The responsible unit is the Curriculum Materials and Assessment Division, with support from the ESP II Secretariat. The main activities are the following:

Section 10 7

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for development of curriculum statements;

(ii) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for materials development;

(iii) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for the Fagaloa community learning center pilot program;

(iv) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for the nationalassessment policy framework and systems;

(v) Specify performance targets and performance indicators, and the implementation schedule, based on the Design and Monitoring Framework;

(vi) Determine the frequency for formal reporting (how often it will be conducted) in line with the quarterly and annual reporting system;

(vii) Identify how Curriculum, Material, and Assessment Division will monitor activities and outputs, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when, and by whom;

(viii) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected;

(ix) Monitor the work of any technical advisers, other consultants and/or contractors;

(x) Conduct monitoring on a regular basis and report results to the Core Executive through the ESP II Secretariat using MESC standard monitoring and reporting processes.

Component 2Monitoring and evaluation of Component 2 activities will focus on implementation of the teacher development framework, and the conduct and evaluation of pre- and in-service training. Progress in teacher development will be monitored through reports on the delivery of training programs, studies using classroom observation protocols, and the analysis of reports of school principals and school review officers. The effectiveness of the Fellowship programs for specific subject areas will also be assessed.

The responsible unit is the School Operations Division, with support from the ESP II Secretariat. The main activities are the following:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for implementing the fellowships program;

(ii) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for design and implementation of pre- and in-service teacher training;

(iii) Specify performance targets and performance indicators, and the implementation schedule, based on the Design and Monitoring Framework;

(iv) Determine the frequency of formal reporting (how often it will be conducted) in line with the quarterly and annual reporting system;

(v) Identify how the School Operation Division will monitor activities, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when, and by whom;

(vi) Develop (or adopt existing) standard training evaluation formats for trainers and participants;

(xi) Conduct follow-up evaluation in schools to assess effectiveness and impact of training;

Section 10 8

(xii) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected;

(xiii) Monitor the work of any technical advisers, other consultants and/or contractors;

(vii) Conduct monitoring on a regular basis and report results to the Core Executive through the ESP II Secretariat using MESC standard monitoring and reporting processes.

Component 3Component 3 monitoring and evaluation will focus on implementation of the MESC Headquarters building, the planned school construction and rehabilitation activities, procurement, including provision of furniture and equipment for schools, the construction of teacher housing and the development of improved maintenance systems and procedures. The Asset Management Unit will have overall responsibility for monitoring and evaluation under this component, but will engage supervising architect/engineers to monitor and evaluate technical aspects of building construction.

The responsible units are the Asset Management Unit, with support from the ESP II Secretariat. The main activities are the following:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for the component;

(ii) Specify performance targets and performance indicators, and theimplementation schedule, based on the Design and Monitoring Framework;

(iii) Determine the frequency of formal reporting against outputs (how often it will be conducted) in line with the quarterly and annual reporting system

(iv) Identify how Asset Management Unit will monitor activities, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when and by whom;

(v) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected;

(vi) Monitor the work of any technical advisers, other consultants and/or contractors;

(vii) Conduct monitoring on a regular basis and report results to the Core Executive through the ESP II Secretariat using MESC standard monitoring and reporting processes.

Component 4Monitoring and evaluation will examine the development of MESC capacity in the areas of policy, research and evaluation. This will include results from capacity building assessments of staff, evaluations conducted as part of the research and evaluation program, and evaluations of specific ESP I and ESP II activities (including pilot activities).

The responsible units are the Policy Planning and Research Division (PPRD) with support from the ESP II Secretariat. The main activities are the following:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for the component;

Section 10 9

(ii) Specify performance targets and performance indicators, and the implementation schedule, based on the Design and Monitoring Framework;

(iii) Determine the frequency of formal reporting against outputs (how often it will be conducted) in line with the quarterly and annual reporting system

(iv) Identify how PPRD will monitor activities, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when and by whom;

(v) Assist the Project and other component managers to access and utiliseEMIS data collected and maintained on MESC databases, including information on schools, teacher performance, learning outcomes and standardized assessment results;

(vi) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected;

(vii) Monitor the work of any technical advisers, other consultants and/or contractors;

(viii) Conduct monitoring on a regular basis and report results to the Core Executive through the ESP II Secretariat using MESC standard monitoring and reporting processes.

Component 5Monitoring and evaluation will assess the effectiveness of support to MESC management for the delivery of the Project. Outputs will include the development of effective and efficient financial management, establishment of quality performance measurement and reporting systems and improved procurement and contract management.

The responsible units are the ESP II Secretariat and the Core Executive. Themain activities are:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for the component;

(ii) Specify performance targets and performance indicators, and theimplementation schedule, based on the Design and Monitoring Framework;

(iii) Determine the frequency of formal reporting against outputs (how often it will be conducted) in line with the quarterly and annual reporting system

(iv) Identify how ESP II Secretariat will monitor activities, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when and by whom;

(v) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected;

(vi) Monitor the work of any technical advisers, other consultants and/or contractors;

(vii) Conduct monitoring on a regular basis and report results to the Core Executive using MESC standard monitoring and reporting processes.

Section 10 10

Section 10 Annex 2

Pro Forma of the ESP II Quarterly Project Progress Report

A. Introduction and Basic Data Provide the following:

� ADB loan number, project title, borrower, executing agency(ies), implementing agency(ies);

� total estimated project cost and financing plan; � status of project financing including availability of counterpart

funds and co-financing; � dates of approval, signing, and effectiveness of ADB loan; � original and revised (if applicable) ADB loan closing date and

elapsed loan period based on original and revised (if applicable) loan closing dates; and

� date of last JRM.

B. Utilization of Funds (ADB Loan, DP Grants, and Counterpart Funds) Provide the following:

� cumulative contract awards financed by the Project (commitment of funds to date), and comparison with time-bound projections (targets);

� cumulative disbursements from the Special Purpose Account (expenditure to date), and comparison with time-bound projections (targets); and

� reestimated costs to completion, need for reallocation within Project expenditure categories, and whether an overall project cost overrun is likely.

C. Project Purpose Provide the following:

� status of project scope/implementation arrangements compared with those in the PIAM, and whether major changes have occurred or will need to be made;

� an assessment of the likelihood that the immediate development objectives (Project purpose) will be met in part or in full, and whether remedial measures are required based on the current project scope and implementation arrangements;

� an assessment of changes to the key assumptions and risks that affect attainment of the development objectives; and

� other Project developments, including monitoring and reporting on environmental and social requirements that might adversely affect the project's viability or accomplishment of immediate objectives.

Section 10 11

D. Implementation Progress Provide the following:

� assessment of project implementation arrangements (i.e. project management performance by MESC);

� information relating to other aspects of the implementing agency’s operations that may impact on the implementation arrangements or Project progress;

� progress or achievements in implementation since the last progress report;

� assessment of the progress of each project component, such as:

� achievement of outputs; � recruitment of consultants and their performance; � procurement and delivery of goods and works (from

preparation of detailed designs and bidding documents to contract awards); and

� the performance of suppliers, manufacturers, and contractors for goods and works contracts;

� assessment of progress in implementing the overall Project to date in comparison with the original implementation schedule; and

� an assessment of the validity of key assumptions and risks in achieving the quantifiable implementation targets.

E. Compliance with Covenants Provide the following:

� compliance with policy loan covenants such as education sector reform initiatives and government/public sector wide reforms, and the reasons for any noncompliance or delay in compliance;

� compliance with financial loan covenants including financial management, and the provision of audited project accounts or audited financial statements; and

� compliance with project-specific loan covenants associated with implementation, environment, and social dimensions.

F. Major Project Issues and Problems Summarize the major problems and issues affecting or likely to affect implementation progress, compliance with covenants, and achievement of immediate development objectives. Recommend actions to overcome these problems and issues (e.g., changes in scope, changes in implementation arrangements, DP performance and reallocation of loan and grant funds).

Section 10 12

Section 10 13

Section 10 Annex 3

Diagram: ESP II Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

I.

Endorsement

Approved Reports and Annual Plans

Draft Annual Plans and Compiled reports

Monitoring and evaluation information

EducationSteering

Committee

MESC Core Executive

JointReview

Missions

ESP II Secretariat

Com

pone

nt 1

CM

AD

Com

pone

nt 2

SO

D

Com

pone

nt 3

AM

U

Com

pone

nt 4

PP

RD

Com

pone

nt 5

Monitoring and evaluation of Project activities, EMIS data, reports from consultants and sub contractors

Executing Agency (MOF)

Project Partners

GoS, ADB, AusAID, NZAID

Sec

tion

10 A

nnex

4

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t M

atri

x

Key

L =

Like

lihoo

d

(5 =

Alm

ost c

erta

in

1 =

Rar

e)

C =

Con

sequ

ence

(5

= S

ever

e

1 =

Neg

ligib

le)

R

= R

isk

Leve

l (4

= E

xtre

me,

3 =

Hig

h, 2

= M

ediu

m, 1

= L

ow)

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

R

isk

A.

Impa

ct o

n th

e P

roje

ct

LC

RR

isk

Tre

atm

ent

Res

pons

ibili

tyT

imin

g

1.

Cof

inan

cing

ar

rang

emen

ts

and

use

of A

DB

sys

tem

s ar

e no

t ef

fect

ive

for

deliv

erin

g a

qual

ity P

roje

ct

Mul

tiple

don

ors

incr

ease

ad

min

istr

atio

n an

d tr

ansa

ctio

n co

sts

for

ME

SC

/MoF

Dev

elop

men

t P

artn

ers

� In

flexi

bilit

y of

des

ign

to

resp

ond

to s

ecto

ral

prio

ritie

s an

d m

isal

loca

tion

of r

esou

rces

�

Edu

catio

n ou

tcom

es n

ot

achi

eved

� R

educ

ed e

ffect

iven

ess

of

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

� U

se o

f dup

licat

e sy

stem

s �

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g no

t un

dert

aken

or s

usta

ined

�

Mov

e to

war

ds s

ecto

r fu

ndin

g m

odel

is im

pede

d�

GoS

bla

med

for

impl

emen

tatio

n de

lays

24

3�

ES

C a

s th

e fo

rum

for

dial

ogue

and

pol

icy

nego

tiatio

n w

ith

Dev

elop

men

t Par

tner

s �

Use

of A

nnua

l Pla

ns a

nd

impr

oved

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

to a

dd

flexi

bilit

y to

im

plem

enta

tion

� G

radu

al s

hift

tow

ards

use

of

GoS

sys

tem

s in

stea

d of

AD

B

� E

nsur

e ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

is p

art o

f all

TO

Rs

for

cons

ulta

nts

� P

lann

ing

and

budg

etin

g al

igne

d w

ith G

oS s

yste

ms

� R

epor

ting

agai

nst t

arge

ts

Dev

elop

men

t P

artn

ers

Ong

oing

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Ann

ual

PP

R

Join

tR

evie

wM

issi

ons

Qua

rter

lyE

SC

mee

tings

Sec

tion

10

14

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

2.

Leve

l of

re

sour

ces

and

GoS

com

mitm

ent

to

the

educ

atio

n se

ctor

is

no

t ad

equa

te t

o su

ppor

t P

roje

ct a

ctiv

ities

Leve

l of

G

oS

com

mitm

ent

to

secu

re

annu

al b

udge

t pr

ovis

ion

for

proc

urem

ent

of

cons

umab

le

item

s no

t ad

equa

te

GoS

, ext

erna

l �

Cou

nter

part

fund

s no

t av

aila

ble

� P

roje

ct s

ched

ule

dela

yed

� E

duca

tion

outc

omes

not

ac

hiev

ed�

Inef

fect

ive

impl

emen

tatio

n of

act

iviti

es d

ue to

in

avai

labi

lity

of

cons

umab

les.

24

3�

Mon

itorin

g of

GoS

bu

dget

, alig

nmen

t of

Pro

ject

act

iviti

es w

ith

sect

oral

prio

ritie

s �

Pro

gres

s be

rep

orte

d re

gula

rly(m

onth

ly/q

uart

erly

)�

Ann

ual P

lan

timed

with

G

oS b

udge

t pre

para

tion

� E

ngag

emen

t in

polic

y an

d pl

anni

ng b

y D

evel

opm

ent

Par

tner

s th

roug

h E

SC

�

Ens

ure

flexi

bilit

y in

P

roje

ct s

ched

ule

to m

eet

shor

t ter

m p

robl

ems

Dev

elop

men

t P

artn

ers,

GoS

Ann

ual

Pla

n an

d bu

dget

Qua

rter

lyE

SC

mee

tings

Ong

oing

Sec

tion

10

15

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

3.

Con

stru

ctio

n co

sts

incr

ease

sub

stan

tially

E

xter

nal,

Pro

ject

des

ign

� H

Q d

esig

n ca

nnot

be

impl

emen

ted

� S

choo

l con

stru

ctio

n pr

ogra

m is

red

uced

�

Oth

er a

ctiv

ities

hav

e bu

dget

s re

duce

d�

Com

mun

ity a

nd s

taff

expe

ctat

ions

not

met

�

Edu

catio

n ou

tcom

es n

ot

achi

eved

� P

oor

cons

truc

tion

stan

dard

s�

Non

-con

form

ance

to

cons

truc

tion

stan

dard

s

44

4�

Sch

ools

tend

ered

in

sequ

ence

of p

acka

ges,

en

ablin

g ad

just

men

t of

cost

s fr

om y

ear

to y

ear

whe

re r

equi

red

� C

apac

ity to

am

end

desi

gns

to m

eet b

udge

t lim

its�

Pre

-con

stru

ctio

n st

rate

gy

for

the

loca

tion

and

deliv

ery

of te

achi

ng

durin

g bu

ildin

g pr

oces

s �

Ince

ptio

n re

port

to a

sses

s co

st in

crea

ses

Dev

elop

men

t P

artn

ers,

GoS

ME

SC

App

rova

l

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Sec

tion

10

16

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

4.

ME

SC

is

no

t a

ble

to

m

an

ag

e t

he

Pro

jec

t

Pro

cu

rem

en

t o

f e

xp

ert

a

nd

te

ch

nic

al

as

sis

tan

ce

is

de

laye

d

ME

SC

�

Pro

ject

man

agem

ent a

nd

impl

emen

tatio

n af

fect

ed

� D

elay

s in

Pro

ject

sch

edul

e �

Dev

elop

men

t Par

tner

di

ssat

isfa

ctio

n�

Mov

e to

sec

tor

fund

ing

mod

el im

pede

d�

Edu

catio

n ou

tcom

es n

ot

achi

eved

� D

elay

s to

impl

emen

tatio

n of

Com

pone

nt a

ctiv

ities

�

Res

ched

ulin

g of

act

iviti

es

in th

e de

sign

24

3�

Ass

essm

ent o

f ME

SC

ca

paci

ty u

nder

take

n by

C

ompo

nent

Des

ign

Tea

m

� C

ompo

nent

3 a

ctiv

ities

in

tegr

ated

into

Cor

e E

xecu

tive

Pro

ject

m

anag

emen

t �

Act

iviti

es in

des

ign

sche

dule

d to

be

deliv

ered

ac

cord

ing

to M

ES

C

capa

citie

s an

d re

sour

ce

avai

labi

lity

� C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

for

ME

SC

und

er C

ompo

nent

5�

Fas

t-tr

ack

proc

urem

ent

proc

ess

utili

sed

� E

ffect

ive

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

ME

SC

M

oF/D

evel

opem

ntP

artn

ers

Sup

port

in

first

quar

ter

Qua

rter

lyE

SC

mee

tings

Join

tR

evie

wM

issi

ons

Sec

tion

10

17

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

5.

Mai

nten

ance

of

in

fras

truc

ture

an

d eq

uipm

ent

is

not

satis

fact

ory

Com

mun

ities

ar

e un

will

ing

and

able

to

m

obili

se

reso

urce

s to

un

dert

ake

the

mai

nten

ance

of s

choo

ls

GoS

/ME

SC

� N

ew fa

cilit

ies

requ

ire

addi

tiona

l rec

urre

nt c

osts

th

at a

re to

o ex

pens

ive

or

not a

vaila

ble

� Im

prov

emen

ts to

lear

ning

en

viro

nmen

ts a

re n

ot

achi

eved

or

are

not

sust

aina

ble

� Im

plem

enta

tion

dela

ys

due

to in

clem

ent w

eath

er

cond

ition

s

34

3�

HQ

des

ign

to in

corp

orat

e lo

w r

ecur

rent

cos

t fe

atur

es�

Mai

nten

ance

focu

s in

all

scho

ol b

uild

ing

activ

ities

�

Effe

ctiv

e co

mm

unity

and

sc

hool

com

mitt

ee

cons

ulta

tions

as

part

of

desi

gn p

roce

ss

� A

ssis

tanc

e fo

r re

view

and

fu

rthe

r de

velo

pmen

t of

mai

nten

ance

sys

tem

s �

Rev

iew

Sch

ool F

acili

ties

Han

dboo

k�

Insu

re a

ll S

choo

l B

uild

ings

HQ

Des

ign

Tea

m,

Dev

elop

me n

t P

artn

ers,

ME

SC

Sch

ool

c om

mitt

ees

App

rova

lof

H

Q

desi

gn

App

rova

lof

sc

hool

de

sign

s

Pro

ject

repo

rtin

g

Ong

oing

Sec

tion

10

18

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

6. P

ilot p

rogr

ams

are

not

succ

essf

ul

and

are

not

cost

effe

ctiv

e

Pro

ject

act

iviti

es c

anno

t ad

dres

s is

sues

of

rura

l sc

hool

enr

olm

ent

Loca

tion

and

desi

gn

assu

mpt

ion s

for

Fag

aloa

ar

e fla

wed

, co

mm

unity

di

seng

aged

an

d co

mm

unity

le

arni

ng

cent

re

no

long

er

a pr

iorit

y

Pro

ject

des

ign

� D

iver

sion

s of

Pro

ject

re

sour

ces

from

oth

er

prio

rity

area

s �

Mis

use

of M

ES

C a

nd

othe

r co

unte

rpar

t re

sour

ces

� N

o fu

ndin

g to

rec

ruit

proj

ect o

ffice

rs to

sup

port

wor

k of

eac

h co

mpo

nent

�

Unc

lear

tech

nica

l sp

ecifi

catio

n s fo

r eq

uipm

ent

32

3�

Effe

ctiv

e pl

anni

ng a

nd

cons

ulta

tions

for

pilo

t pr

ogra

ms

such

as

Fag

aloa

and

teac

her

hous

ing

� M

axim

um le

vels

of

fund

ing

iden

tifie

d pr

ior

to

impl

emen

tatio

n of

pilo

t �

Eva

luat

ion

of p

ilots

bef

ore

com

mitm

ent o

f fur

ther

re

sour

ces

� In

clus

ion

of e

valu

atio

ns in

P

PR

D p

rogr

am

ME

SC

PP

RD

Yea

r 1

and

2

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Eva

luat

ion

in

late

rye

ars

of

Pro

ject

Sec

tion

10

19

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

7. C

ompo

nent

act

iviti

es

not s

eque

nced

pro

perly

Pro

cure

men

t of

te

xtbo

oks

a nd

lear

ning

m

ater

ials

is d

elay

ed

Pro

cure

men

t of

tea

cher

m

anua

ls d

elay

ed

ME

SC

, P

roje

ct d

esig

n�

Del

ays

to im

plem

enta

tion

of n

ew c

urric

ulum

, de

ploy

men

t of t

each

ers

and

supp

ly o

f equ

ipm

ent

and

mat

eria

ls

� T

rain

ed te

ache

rs n

ot

avai

labl

e w

hen

requ

ired

� R

esou

rces

not

use

d ef

fect

ivel

y

34

3�

Des

ign

is n

ow m

ore

inte

grat

ed w

ith g

reat

er

who

le o

f age

ncy

cont

rol

thro

ugh

ME

SC

Cor

e E

xecu

tive

� C

oord

inat

ion

by E

SP

II

Sec

reta

riat

� A

ppro

pria

te A

CE

Os

resp

onsi

ble

for

impl

emen

tatio

n�

Ten

der

for

equi

pmen

t be

pack

aged

in s

mal

ler

pack

ages

to a

ttrac

t co

mpe

titio

n an

d fa

st tr

ack

the

requ

ired

equi

pmen

t �

Com

pone

nt 1

and

2

activ

ities

pla

nned

cohe

rent

ly

ME

SC

AC

EO

s

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Sec

tion

10

20

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

8.

Sch

ools

no

t ab

le

to

cope

w

ith

incr

ease

d de

man

d

Ext

erna

l�

Cla

ssro

om le

arni

ng

envi

ronm

ents

affe

cted

�

Edu

catio

n ou

tcom

es n

ot

achi

eved

24

3�

Prio

rity

in c

onst

ruct

ion

give

n to

sec

onda

ry

scho

ols,

allo

win

g fo

r tim

e to

pla

n ef

fect

ivel

y �

‘Fas

t Tra

ck’ t

each

er

trai

ning

pro

gram

for

prim

ary

scho

ols

give

n pr

iorit

y�

Effe

ctiv

e sc

hool

faci

lity

plan

ning

sys

tem

s �

Sch

ool a

sses

smen

t in

clud

es p

olic

y de

cisi

ons

on e

duca

tion

prov

isio

n fo

r th

e w

hole

dis

tric

t, ra

tiona

lisin

g fa

cilit

ies

amon

gst c

lose

ly lo

cate

d sc

hool

s

ME

SC

Ong

oing

Tra

inin

g in

Y

ears

1

and

2

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Sec

tion

10

21

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

9.

Gen

der

and

spec

ial

need

s is

sues

no

t fu

lly

addr

esse

d in

P

roje

ct

plan

ning

and

del

iver

y

Pro

ject

desi

gn,

ME

SC

� E

duca

tion

sect

or

outc

omes

(an

d M

DG

s) n

ot

achi

eved

� P

oor

qual

ity c

urric

ulum

an

d te

ache

r tr

aini

ng�

Inap

prop

riate

faci

litie

s co

nstr

ucte

d�

Inte

rven

tions

poo

rly

guid

ed (

e.g.

Fag

aloa

)

23

2�

Gen

der

inte

grat

ed w

ith

curr

icul

um d

esig

n an

d de

liver

y of

trai

ning

�

Res

earc

h an

d ev

alua

tion

prog

ram

to in

clud

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of g

ende

r,

incl

udin

g te

ache

r ef

fect

iven

ess

and

caus

es

of lo

w a

chie

vem

ent,

feed

ing

into

pol

icy

deve

lopm

ent

� P

re-c

onst

ruct

ion

plan

ning

ta

kes

into

acc

ount

spe

cial

ne

eds

faci

litie

s �

Pilo

t pro

gram

s to

sp

ecifi

cally

add

ress

ge

nder

issu

es

ME

SC

PP

RD

Ong

oing

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Eva

luat

ion

resu

lts

inY

ears

2

and

3

10.

Lack

of

re

sour

ces

and

capa

city

lim

its

effe

ctiv

e an

d su

stai

nabl

eim

plem

enta

tion

of

natio

nal

asse

ssm

ent

syst

em

ME

SC

�

Edu

catio

n ou

tcom

es n

ot

achi

eved

and

are

not

m

easu

rabl

e�

Man

agem

ent o

f tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng in

Sam

oa is

no

t bas

ed o

n va

lid o

r re

liabl

e da

ta

23

2�

Pro

ject

ass

ists

ME

SC

to

deve

lop

a sy

stem

that

is

appr

opria

tean

d ca

n be

us

ed w

ithin

exi

stin

g re

sour

ces

and

recu

rren

t co

sts

� In

tegr

atio

n an

d al

ignm

ent

with

teac

her

trai

ning

un

der

Com

pone

nt 2

ME

SC

CM

AD

Ong

oing

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Join

tR

evie

wM

issi

ons

Sec

tion

10

22

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

A

. Im

pact

on

the

Pro

ject

L

CR

Ris

k T

reat

men

t R

espo

nsib

ility

Tim

ing

Ris

k

11.

Del

ay

in

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e N

atio

nal

Tea

cher

D

evel

opm

ent

Fra

mew

ork

as s

tart

dat

e fo

r A

DB

TA

has

yet

to

be fi

nalis

ed

AD

B�

ME

SC

hav

e lit

tle c

ontr

ol

over

sch

edul

ing

of

activ

ities

pla

cing

add

ition

al

dem

and

on s

taff

in

impl

emen

ting

Com

pone

nt

1�

Cur

ricul

um a

nd

asse

ssm

ent o

utco

mes

not

ac

hiev

ed�

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

re

com

men

datio

ns n

ot

man

aged

33

3�

Dev

elop

flex

ibili

ty in

se

quen

cing

of a

ctiv

ities

thro

ugh

Ann

ual P

lan

proc

ess

� A

dditi

onal

con

sulti

ng

serv

ices

to a

ssis

t CM

AD

in

com

pone

nt

impl

emen

tatio

n pr

ior

to,

and

afte

r, F

ram

ewor

k de

velo

pmen

t

ME

SC

CM

AD

Ong

oing

AD

B

TA

R

epor

t

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

12.

Impa

ct

of

the

Tea

cher

F

ello

wsh

ip

prog

ram

di

ssip

ated

by

in

clus

ion

of

a la

rge

num

ber

of s

ubje

cts

for

a lim

ited

num

ber

of

fello

wsh

ips

Pro

ject

desi

gn,

ME

SC

� W

ill h

ave

a lim

ited

affe

ct

on te

ache

r su

pply

due

to

leng

th o

f pro

gram

(2

year

s) a

nd s

mal

l num

ber

of a

war

ds (

10)

22

2�

Rev

iew

of s

ubje

ct a

reas

an

d st

affin

g pr

iorit

ies

prio

r to

sel

ectio

n of

pa

rtic

ipan

ts

� B

ase

sele

ctio

n on

sub

ject

ar

ea n

eeds

�

Rev

iew

and

eva

luat

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of

fello

wsh

ip p

rogr

am

ME

SC

Ong

oing

Yea

r 1

Yea

rs

3 an

d 4

Sec

tion

10

23

24

II.

RIS

K E

VE

NT

S

ourc

e of

R

isk

A.

Impa

ct o

n th

e P

roje

ct

LC

RR

isk

Tre

atm

ent

Res

pons

ibili

tyT

imin

g

13.

Ado

ptio

n of

ne

w

inst

ruct

iona

l pr

actic

es i

s sl

ower

than

ant

icip

ated

Ado

ptio

n of

ne

w

asse

ssm

ent

tech

niqu

es

is

slow

er

than

an

ticip

ated

Pro

ject

des

ign

Impl

emen

tatio

n sc

hedu

le

� D

elay

in in

trod

uctio

n of

te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

impr

ovem

ents

�

Ach

ieve

men

t of e

duca

tion

outc

omes

del

ayed

23

2�

Des

ign

now

take

s in

to

acco

unt c

apac

ity a

nd

reso

urce

s of

ME

SC

�

Nat

iona

l con

sulta

nts

(out

sour

cing

) us

ed to

re

duce

impa

ct o

n M

ES

C

staf

f wor

kloa

d

ME

SC

Ong

oing

Ann

ual

Pla

ns

Join

tR

evie

wM

issi

ons

14. N

umbe

r of

qua

lifie

d M

ES

C a

nd o

ther

sta

ff is

to

o lim

ited

to e

nsur

e su

stai

ned

capa

city

for

rese

arch

and

eva

luat

ion

Siz

e of

ag

ency

,P

roje

ct d

esig

n

� C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

inte

rven

tions

are

lim

ited

� P

olic

y de

velo

pmen

t lim

ited

beca

use

of in

adeq

uate

re

sear

ch b

ase

23

2�

PP

RD

to d

eter

min

e ho

w

rese

arch

and

eva

luat

ion

shou

ld b

e co

nduc

ted,

in

clud

ing

outs

ourc

ing

and

ethi

cal r

esea

rch

polic

ies

� P

rogr

am d

esig

ned

and

impl

emen

ted

base

d on

H

RD

req

uire

men

ts o

f P

PR

D a

nd N

US

, and

ab

ility

to p

artic

ipat

e

� R

evis

e P

PR

D

orga

nisa

tiona

l str

uctu

re

ME

SC

/NU

SC

apac

itybu

ildin

gan

alys

is

Des

ign

of

rese

arch

prog

ram

(Yea

r 1)

App

rova

lof re

sear

chpr

ogra

m(Y

ear

1)

15. C

urre

nt li

mita

tions

of

GO

S fi

nanc

ial s

yste

m

(GO

FA

R)

for

Spe

cial

P

urpo

se A

ccou

nt

GoS

/MoF

� In

terim

fina

ncia

l sys

tem

ne

eds

to b

e es

tabl

ishe

d �

Tra

nsfe

r to

GO

FA

R a

t a

late

r da

te

41

2�

Man

ual s

yste

m

intr

oduc

ed p

rior

to

mod

ule

of G

OF

AR

bei

ng

avai

labl

e in

Yea

r 2

ME

SC

/MoF

Im

med

iate

Sec

tion

10

Section 10 Annex 5

ESP II

ANNUAL PLAN

YEAR 1

2006/07

Section 10 25

CONTENTS

1. Project Activities

2. Inputs Table

Annex A: Implementation Schedule

Annex B: Summary Cost Schedule

Section 10 26

1. PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The project is due to commence on 1 July 2006, and is scheduled to run for six years. The annual plan for year 1 (2006/07) is outlined below, by component, inputs, outputs and activities. The ministry of education, sports and culture (MESC) will implement the project, while the ministry of finance (MoF) is the executing agency.

The period from July 2006 to June 2007 will primarily focus on project mobilisation, including developing and implementing systems for project management, financial management and monitoring/reporting. A recommendation from the component design team for direct engagement of consulting services for selected positions under component 5 is assumed. Project management includes the reconvening of the education steering committee and the establishment of the ESPII secretariat. The ESPII secretariat has staff seconded from the corporate services division and asset management unit. These are also detailed in component 5. Equipment to support project implementation will be purchased, and work will commence in recruiting consulting services, for all components.

For the period January to June 2007, work will commence in Components 1-5 as detailed below. The Second Annual Plan for 2007/08 will be prepared in February/March 2007, in line with the financial year cycle and the Government of Samoa budget. The ESC will meet quarterly to review financial and performance reports from the Project, before these are forwarded to the MOF and DPs.

The Inputs Table specifies the consulting services requirements for Project implementation for Year 1, while the Implementation Schedule shows the sequencing of key activities for each component.

Component 1: Curriculum Reform and Assessment Systems

The Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division (CMAD) will implement this component. The key outcomes for this component are the development of a new national curriculum for primary schools, with all students having access to a complete set of learning materials, and the national assessment system. In 2008, the Fagaloa community learning center pilot will be implemented.

Output 1.1: New bilingual primary curriculum for Samoan, English, Social Studies, Maths, Science, PE/Health, Visual Arts, Performing Arts and Music

The main outcomes will be new bilingual primary curriculum statements for nine subjects: Samoan, English, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, Health and Physical Education, Visual Arts, Performing Arts, and Music. The curriculum will be produced in print copy and CD formats. In the first two years, the Project will support the production of draft curriculum statements. Printing will be completed by December 2009 followed by in-service training in preparation for school implementation in Term 1, 2011.

In the period January to June 2007, CMAD will review the terms of reference for consulting services associated with curriculum development. This includes a mixture of international expertise with specialist national consultants, who will undertake most of the writing for the subject areas. Recruitment action will be through the approved Project procurement process initially using ADB systems. Work in this period will also commence on establishing writing panels/subject committees for each of the learning areas where curriculum is being developed.

All activities under this Output will begin in Year 2 with the assistance of the consultant.

Section 10 27

Output 1.2: Adequate supply of learning materials and teacher manuals

Learning materials to be produced include supplementary graded readers for Years 4 to 8, general learning kits and a Science kit for each of Years 1 to 8, audio-visual materials for senior levels in Agricultural Science and Science. Audio-visual materials include video, learning software for computers, radio, and television. To support teachers implement the curriculum, teachers’ manuals will be developed and supplied in both print and CD formats.

In the period January to June 2007, CMAD will review the terms of reference for consulting services associated with development of learning materials. Recruitment action will be through the approved Project procurement process using ADB systems. In Year 1 the activities focus on recruiting consultants for multimedia materials. The major activities associated with this output commence in Year 2.

Output 1.3: Pilot Community partnerships program

The Fagaloa community partnership program will establish a home-school literacy partnership and the development of the Fagaloa community education learning center program. Consultative structures will be established and supported to ensure the community is fully involved in conceptualizing, planning, implementing and evaluating the programs. Research will be undertaken in Phase 1 to obtain valid and reliable data to inform the development of the program, and to evaluate its impact. Evaluation of impact will inform future developments and implementation of the program in Fagaloa under Phase 2 and its potential for implementation in other communities.

During Year 1, MESC will consult with the Fagaloa community in order to plan for the implementation of the pilot scheme in 2008. Community consultations will commence in December 2006 and run through to December 2007 (Year 2).

Output 1.4 National assessment policy framework and systems

Activities in this output will result in a national assessment policy framework with new assessment systems. New assessment instruments will be developed. Information systems to support the National Assessment Policy Framework will be developed. The systems will include central databases, systems to transfer student assessment data to the SPBEA, and a comprehensive Student Assessment Management and Achievement Record Transfer (SMART) disk based system including achievement records database and tools to assist teachers to plan, administer, record, analyse and use student achievements to improve learning. The schools will develop and implement assessment policies, tools and practices that ensure that students are assessed fairly and consistently and are provided with feedback to improve their performance. Strategies, awareness and training programs for MESC staff, teachers, and related groups will be implemented.

A review of national assessment systems is planned for July 2008 (Year 3). No action for this output is anticipated in Years 1 and 2.

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 1:

- Recruitment of consultants commences (April 2007). - Establishment of writing panels/subject committees

COMPONENT 2: DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE TEACHERS

Section 10 28

The objective of this component is to ensure that teachers implement the national curriculum, using effective pedagogical approaches and high quality instructional materials, linked to a common and national assessment policy. The Project's activities will be part of the broader MESC efforts to improve the quality of teaching services, outlined in the recently completed MESC Education Strategic Policies and Plan 2006 – 2015. The School Operations Division (SOD) will implement this component.

Output 2.1 Formulation of a National Teacher Development Framework

The ADB is funding an associated Technical Assistance (TA) mission to develop a National Teacher Development Framework (NTDF), details of which are contained in the RRP of November 2005. Originally scheduled for June 2006, the TA will commence by March 2007. To support the TA and to begin developing the capacity of the SOD staff, activities in Year 1 of the Project include procuring office equipment by the fourth quarter of Year 1 (2006-2007) and planning for the expected commencement of the ADB TA.

Output 2.2 Increased Number of agricultural science, food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology teachers

Four fellowship courses are to be developed and conducted over two and a half years. The one activity in this output in Year 1 is the recruitment of two of the four In-service and Pre-service Teacher Development consultants. These will be in the areas of Agricultural Science and Food and Textiles.

Output 2.3 Completion of effective pre and in service training to support new initiatives

There are no activities planned for this output in Year 1 while the new primary curriculum and multi media materials are being developed under Component 1.

Output 2.4 Effective continuous in service teacher development/school based management

Routine integrated and targeted professional development tied to school improvement programs is the focus of improving capacity under this output. There are no activities planned for this output in Year 1. Those activities originally scheduled for Year 1 are now part of the Year 2 activities.

Key Outcomes/Indicators for Component 2: - Development of National Teacher Development Framework commenced

Component 3: Improving access to quality education

The Assets Management Unit (AMU) will implement this component. The key outcomes for this component are the provision of a new headquarters building for MESC, 3 secondary colleges, Fagaloa community learning center, 9 secondary schools, 4 teacher houses, procurement of goods & services as well as improved procedures and resources for school maintenance.

Output 3.1: Construction of MESC headquarters

In May 2006 AusAID awarded a contract to Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) for the design of the MESC Headquarters building [HQ], which is to be completed together with all tender documentation by the end of December 2006. The construction of the HQ will be tendered under the ADB international competitive bidding procurement guidelines. AusAID will assist the AMU in procuring a firm to

Section 10 29

undertake consulting services to supervise the tender process and the letting of the construction contract (April to August 2007). MESC will appoint a consulting service firm for the contract administration and quality assurance during the HQ construction period. This consulting service firm is expected to be available on a fulltime basis during the HQ construction period. The construction of the HQ is expected to commence in November 2007 (Year 2) and continue till about January 2009 (Year 3).

Output 3.2: Improved secondary school facilities

In the period July 2006 to June 2007, AMU, CMAD and SOD will jointly undertake a consultation process with the Fagaloa community in order to develop an agreement to build a community learning centre. If the consultation with Fagaloa shows that the community has the resources and willingness to support the center, construction will be given priority and moved forward to 2008.

Three secondary colleges have been given priority in the schools building program. In the period April 2007 to August 2007, AMU will procure a firm to undertake the consulting service for the design, contract administration and quality assurance for the college construction packages. The scope of services (sometimes called Terms of Reference) for the design services firm will need a detailed review prior to the award of the contract.

In the period September 2007 to June 2008 (Year 2) the colleges will undergo a design process. The college design process will be a consultative process involving all the stakeholders, namely: AMU, CMAD, SOD, design services firm, PTA, local community as well as the potential school users. In this same period, AMU and other stakeholders will procure consultants for the design and supervision.

Output 3.3: Teachers’ houses at four primary schools in rural areas

In the period from January to June 2007 the Core Executive will undertake the following preliminary activities in order to initiate this output:

- Analyse teacher requirements in rural areas - Review the MESC housing policy and amend if necessary - Undertake a needs analysis. - Decide location for houses and construction priority

Output 3.4: Procurement of Goods and Services

During the fourth quarter of Year 1 (April to June 2007) the AMU will procure the project vehicles. Once the Procurement Specialist is commissioned in April 2007, the AMU will coordinate the tendering phase of the following goods to be procured under the Project:

- All ESP II schools’ specified learning materials - Learning materials for Libraries - All ESP I and II Furniture, - Tools, machineries and equipment - IT Equipment and others

During the fourth quarter of Year 1 (April to June 2007) there will be a high priority to procure specialist consulting services to augment the AMU staff. The specialists required are a Procurement Specialist, Procurement Systems Specialist, Civil Works Specialist and Education Equipment Specialist.

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 3:

Section 10 30

- Successful recruitment of specialist consultants, on time and within budget - Design of HQ completed in December 2006 - Procurement of project vehicles is completed and within budget. - Teacher house locations selected - First consultation with the Fagaloa community to discuss a community learning

center achieved (as under Component 1).

Component 4: Strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning

The Policy, Planning and Research Division (PPRD) will implement this component. The outcomes for this component include increased capacity for research and evaluation, the completion of at least five major research studies that contribute to sectoral analysis and policy development, and the completion of specific evaluation studies associated with ESP I and ESP II activities.

4.1 Improved National Capacity for Research and Evaluation

In the period from July 2006, PPRD will review the terms of reference for the Education Research and Evaluation Specialist, and commence recruitment action to mobilise the consultant by October 2007 (Year 2). From July 2006 to June 2007, PPRD will arrange the specifications and coordinate the purchase of urgently needed equipment, including specialised software, for the Division.

4.2 Research and Evaluation Program with Results used for Policy and Planning All activities under this Output will take place in Year 2 (2007-2008).

4.3 Improved Capacity to Evaluate the Impact of Aid-funded Interventions All activities under this Output will take place in Year 2 (2007-2008).

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 4: - Successful recruitment of consultant, on time and within budget - Purchase of equipment

COMPONENT 5: STRENGTHENING CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Component 5 is associated with Project management, and in developing MESC’s capacity to implement donor-funded programs. The key outcome will be effective management of ESP II, with the aim of moving towards a sector-wide approach in education.

5.1 Improved Program Management and Coordination of Implementation

MESC will recruit staff and establish the ESP II Secretariat by 1 July 2006. The Secretariat will arrange the purchase and delivery of equipment for staff members in the final quarter of Year 1 (April-June 2007).

5.2 Integrated Financial Management System

A Project Management Specialist will be recruited by the final quarter of Year 1 (April - June 2007). The consultant will work with the ESP II Secretariat and Corporate Services Division (CSD) staff to develop integrated project management systems as well as a chart of accounts and operational guidelines for the Special Purpose Account, in time for the first quarterly SOE/report. The consultant will also assist

Section 10 31

MESC to develop standardised reporting packages for Project finances and assist in the preparation of the initial reports. The Auditor General will audit Project finances on an annual basis.

5.3 An Effective Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System

A Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will be recruited by the final quarter of Year 1 (April-June 2007). The consultant will assist MESC to identify performance benchmarks and key performance indicators for the sector and the Project, identify data sources and responsibility for collection and reporting and develop monitoring and evaluation framework, which can be used for generating MESC/GoS and Project reports as required. The consultant will also assist MESC to develop the annual performance reports and the Second Annual Plan during April – June 2007.

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 5: - Successful recruitment of consultants, on time and within budget - Financial management systems and operational handbook developed and

implemented - Systems and procedures meet audit requirements and standards - Monitoring and evaluation framework developed, with standardised reporting

system used across all components - First quarterly progress report and first annual performance report developed

Section 10 32

2. Inputs Table – Year 1

Component Inputs Dates

From To

1: Curriculum and Assessment Fagaloa Community Partnership Pilot Program

- -

Teacher Development Policy Analyst - - School Improvement Advisor - -

2: Teacher Development

In-service and Pre-service Teacher Development Experts

- -

Civil Works Specialist Services (HQ) April 07 June 08 3: Improving Access to Quality Education Civil Works Specialist Services

(Schools) - -

Civil Works Specialist (General) - -

Education Equipment Specialist - -

Procurement Specialist April 07 June 08

Procurement Systems Specialist April 07 July 07

4: Research, Evaluation and Policy

Education Research and Evaluation Specialist

- -

5: Project Management Project Management Specialist April 07 July 07

Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist April 07 July 07

Section 10 33

Section 10 Annex 6

ESP II

INDICATIVE ANNUAL PLAN

YEAR 2

2007/08

Section 10 34

CONTENTS

1. Project activities

2. Inputs table

Annex a: implementation schedule

Annex b: summary cost schedule

Section 10 35

1. PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The project commenced on 1 July 2006, and is scheduled to run for six years. The indicative annual plan for year 2 (2006/07) is outlined below, by component, inputs, outputs and activities. The ministry of education, sports and culture (MESC) implements the project, while the ministry of finance (MOF) is the executing agency.

The period from July to December 2007 (i.e. the first six months of year 2) carries over a number of activities commenced in year 1, while new activities are mobilized. Year 2 also sees the start of major activities in construction under component 3, notably the MESC headquarters building and the secondary colleges. Scheduling of these activities will depend on progress in year 1, hence these dates and timings are indicative only.

The Third Annual Plan for 2008/09 will be prepared in February/March 2008, in line with the financial year cycle and the GoS budget. The Education Steering Committee (ESC) continues to meet quarterly to review financial and performance reports from the Project, before these are forwarded to the MOF and DPs.

The Inputs Table specifies the consulting services requirements for Project implementation for Year 2, while the Implementation Schedule shows the sequencing of key activities for each component.

Component 1: Curriculum Reform and Assessment Systems

This component will be implemented primarily by the Curriculum, Materials and Assessment Division (CMAD). The key outcomes for this component are the development of a new national curriculum for primary schools, with all students having access to a complete set of learning materials, and the national assessment system. In 2008, the Fagaloa community learning center pilot will be implemented.

Output 1.1: New bilingual primary curriculum for Samoan, English, Social Studies, Maths, Science, PE/Health, Visual Arts, Performing Arts and Music

The focus of activities in Year 2 is on writing the curriculum for nine subjects, completing the quality assurance processes, and trialing the draft curriculum statements. Writers will be trained and writing briefs are confirmed (Sept - Nov 2007), existing curriculum and materials will be reviewed (Sept – Nov. 2007), curriculum in 9 subjects will be drafted (January – August 2008). This includes consultations on the drafts to confirm content, coverage, progression and practical applications.

Management structures and processes including timelines will be established by December 2007.

The rest of the activities outlined below under this Output extend into Years 3, 4 and 5 but are mentioned here to provide an early indication of the sequence of activities that follow soon after Year 2. External review processes will be started in September 2008 (Year 3), and completed by the end of October 2008. The draft curriculum will be trialed in selected schools from January 2009 and completed in April 2009 (Year 3). The feedback from the consultations, external review, and trials will be used to revise the drafts as required in the later part of the third year (May-June 2009) before proceeding to desktop publishing and printing from July to December 2009 (Year 4).

It is anticipated that these timelines will result in the published curriculum statements being available to schools and Faculty of Education NUS in February 2010 (Year 4)

Section 10 36

to begin the pre-service and in-service training programs to prepare trainees and teachers for school implementation in 2011, Year 5 of the Project.

Output 1.2: Adequate supply of learning materials and teacher manuals

Following recruitment of consultants in Year 1, CMAD staff and consultants will develop a Readers Strategic Plan during April – June 2008. Activities will focus on recruiting developers for supplementary graded readers during this period. It is anticipated that the developers for the readers will constitute a single procurement package that includes all stages of origination, publishing and printing. Recruitment and implementation is coordinated with activities under Component 1, so that materials development can follow the process of curriculum writing. The outline of a Teachers Manual will be developed concurrently. Three titles in Samoan and English for Years 4 to 8 (15 titles altogether) will be drafted and prepared for printing around December 2008 (Year 3).

Equipment for the Education Broadcasting Unit will be procured (Sept – Dec 2007). Planning for the development of audio-visual materials will be underway (January – June 2008).

Output 1.3: Pilot Community partnerships program

Year 2 activities focus on recruitment and establishment of management and coordinating structures (October – December 2007. Year 2 also focuses on Phase 1 program development, training, consultations and in particular monitoring and evaluation. This includes research completed and endorsed by MESC and Fagaloa (October 2007 – March 2008), developing the home-literacy partnership program and the community learning centre program (April - June 2008), developing the monitoring and evaluation framework with the community (April – June 2008). The research element of Phase 1 will commence in January 2008. Equipment and materials for the pilot program under Phase 2 will be procured January – June 2008.

Output 1.4 National assessment policy framework and systems

Activities under this output will not take place in Year 2 but rather will be the focus of Year 3 following the completion of the primary curriculum statements.

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 1: - Successful recruitment of consultants, on time and within budget - Draft curriculum subject statements for consultation - Readers Strategic Plan and Teachers Manual - Coordination and management systems for Fagaloa pilot - Management structures for curriculum writing.

Component 2: Developing Effective Teachers

Output 2.1 Formulation of a National Teacher Development Framework

SOD will review the terms of reference and commence recruitment (April 2007-September 2007), of the International Teacher Development Policy Analyst. The consultant will be on board in February 2008 and will assist SOD to guide the implementation of NTDF recommendations by developing an Implementation Plan in February 2008.

The consultant will work with SOD to analyze teacher performance data and identify teacher development priorities. Other work includes conducting information seminars

Section 10 37

for principals, SROs and FOE, NUS on national teacher development priorities and to continue capacity building initiatives to support MESC monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance and link to work undertaken by PPRD under Component 4. The consultant will also assist SOD and FOE to develop proposals to link pre-service and in-service teacher education and supporting NUS in redeveloping pre-service teacher education courses to better align them with MESC initiatives in curriculum and in-service training.

Output 2.2 Increased Number of agricultural science, food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology teachers

The two In-service and Pre-service Teacher Development consultants recruited in September 2007 will work with SOD, NUS and USP staff to prepare course outlines and detailed courses for Agricultural Science and Food and Textiles Technology by February 2008. The fellowships will be advertised and promoted and participants will be selected by January 2008, and implementation of the first courses will commence in March 2008.

Output 2.3 Completion of effective pre and in service training to support new initiatives

There are no activities under this Output in Year 2. Rather, activities to support new curriculum initiatives developed under Component 1 such as Train the Trainers course using the newly developed primary curriculum and teachers’ guide, the new multi-media science packages and the policy documents or concepts paper on the integration of the new assessment system to improve classroom practice will be the focus as soon as the relevant Component 1 activities are completed.

Output 2.4 Effective continuous in service teacher development/school based management

Routine integrated and targeted professional development tied to school improvement programs is the focus of improving capacity under this Output. A School Improvement advisor will be recruited by February 2008. The consultant will assist SOD staff to continue to build capacity in analyzing school performance and improvement measures using existing Samoan systems and accountability processes from February – May 2008. Other activities include developing a sustainable national in-service training program/strategy by May 2008 that is evidence-based, establishes benchmarks and indicators for monitoring and evaluation and ensures ongoing linkages with NUS, CMAD and PPRD. The consultant will also assist SOD to conduct workshops/programs for principals, SROs and other institutional stakeholders on the national program in May 2008.

In Year 3 (2008-2009), SOD will continue the strategy to link all teacher professional development to school improvement processes. This includes ongoing workshops/programs for principals, SROs and other institutional stakeholders on the national program, implementing the national strategy for routine in-service training, and monitoring and evaluation.

Key Outcomes/Indicators for Component 2: - Successful recruitment of consultants, in time and within budget. - National Teacher Development Framework and Implementation Plan - Fellowship Program implemented and includes two subject areas and one intake

of participants. - Workshops and capacity building delivered - National In-service training programme strategy.

Section 10 38

Component 3: Improving access to quality education

This component will continue to be implemented by the Assets Management Unit. The key outcomes for this component are the construction of a new headquarters building, three secondary colleges, Fagaloa community learning center, nine secondary schools, and four teacher houses, as well as procurement of goods and services and improved procedures and resources for school maintenance.

Output 3.1: Construction of MESC headquarters

The construction of the HQ is expected to commence in November 2007 and will continue throughout 2008 with completion expected in January 2009 (Year 3)

Output 3.2: Improved secondary school facilities

Fagaloa Community Learning Centre: Work undertaken in Year 2 will depend on consultation with the Fagaloa community, undertaken as part of Component 1.

Secondary Colleges: In the third quarter of Year 2 the design process will be completed (February 2008). The completion of the design process will enable the building tenders to be undertaken in the period March 2008 to August 2008. Each of the three colleges will have a separate building contract in order to provide a size of contract that local contractors can manage. Construction of the colleges is expected to start in September 2008 and be completed in April 2009 (Year 3).

Output 3.3: Teachers’ houses at four primary schools in rural areas

In the period from February to June 2008 the design consultant firm for the first 2 houses will be recruited and will take part in a consultative design process in July and August of 2008 (Year 3). The consultative design process will involve all the stakeholders, namely: AMU, CMAD, SOD, design services firm as well as the school committees.

Output 3.4: Procurement of Goods and Services

Goods: In Year 2, procurement of the following goods will continue and delivery to the schools will depend on the completion of schools’ rehabilitation and construction works:- All ESP II schools’ specified learning materials - Learning materials for libraries - All ESP I and II furniture - Tools, machineries and equipment - IT equipment

The second round of procurement of school furniture, equipment and supplies will proceed in the last quarter of Year 2 (April-June 2008).

Consulting Services: The consultants: Procurement Specialist, Civil Works Specialist (HQ) and the Procurement Systems Specialist will be mobilized and will be at post from April 2007 through to early 2008 and will have completed the full time phase of their contracts by the last quarter of the year (May 2008). Short-term support visits will commence in the last quarter of Year 3. Output 3.5: Improved procedures and resources for school maintenance.

Year 2 focuses on the update of the School Facility Planning Handbook commencing in April 2008 and the final version expected in April 2009.

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 3:

Section 10 39

- Award of contract in October 2007. - MESC HQ building construction commences (November 2007). - Design process for the three secondary colleges will be completed with signing of

agreements by all stakeholders by end of Year 2. - Consultations with the Fagaloa community completed in the fourth quarter of

Year 2 (April to June 2008). Signed agreements will be distributed upon completion.

- Design plans for teacher houses finalized by the third quarter of Year 2. - Civil Works Specialist for HQ building and Procurement Specialist issue progress

reports of their work by end of Year 2. Completion reports will be submitted at the end of their full-term contracts.

- An update on progress of the School Facility Planning Handbook in the last quarter of Year 2 (about April 2008).

Component 4: Strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning

4.1 Improved National Capacity for Research and Evaluation

The Education Research and Evaluation Specialist will be on board in October 2007. From October 2007, the consultant will work with PPRD on a Capacity Building/Skills Gap analysis for PPRD staff and other education research stakeholders in Samoa. This will lead to a Capacity Building/HRD Plan by December 2007, which will be forwarded to MESC Core Executive for approval.

It is anticipated that the consultant can arrange to conduct at least one capacity building workshop for PPRD in February 2008, and arrange for a professional report-writing workshop for senior MESC staff in the same period. The latter workshop will be coordinated with the ESP II Secretariat and be linked with the responsibilities of staff for reporting Project progress.

Looking towards Year 3, the Capacity Building/HRD Plan will continue to be implemented, including the delivery of Capacity Building Workshops (2) in the first quarter of the year (July and August 2008), a second professional report writing workshop in August 2008 and the first work attachments and study tours for PPRD and stakeholders in the second quarter of the year (September and October 2008). The Education Research and Evaluation Specialist (ERE Specialist) will facilitate these exercises.

4.2 Research and Evaluation Program with Results used for Policy and Planning

At the same time as developing the Capacity Building/HRD Plan (October –December 2007), the consultant will work with PPRD to design the Research and Evaluation Program, which will be subject to Core Executive approval. This will involve reviewing and assessing existing information collected and compiled by PPRD and other Divisions. Once the Research and Evaluation Program is approved, PPRD and the consultant will begin planning for the first research and evaluation study (February – May 2008), concentrating on developing a methodology, approaches to data analysis and scheduling activities.

The Teacher Effectiveness study developed in October/November 2007 will commence, and results will be collected, analysed and assessed by May 2008, with support from the consultant. In November 2008 (Year 3), work will commence on the second study (causes of low achievement), with development of a research methodology, and an implementation plan.

4.3 Improved Capacity to Evaluate the Impact of Aid-funded Interventions

Section 10 40

While developing the research and evaluation program (October – December 2007), PPRD and the consultant will integrate the ESP I and ESP II specific tasks, such as the pilot programs. Note: The specified ESP I evaluation (impact of ESP I on teacher performance) will be combined with the teacher effectiveness study in Output 4.2. The evaluation of ESP II pilot studies is scheduled for later years of the Project.

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 4: - Successful recruitment/mobilization of consultant, on time and within budget. - Capacity Building/Skills Gap Analysis and HRD Plan are undertaken on time and

within budget. - Study on teacher effectiveness undertaken and results analysed and available. - Five Year Research and Evaluation Program - Design of first research and evaluation study

COMPONENT 5: STRENGTHENING CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

5.1 Improved Program Management and Coordination of Implementation

ESP II Secretariat providing accurate and timely information to Project management for effective decision-making.

5.2 Integrated Financial Management System

Quarterly financial reports produced. Systems meet audit requirements.

5.3 An Effective Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System

Quarterly performance reports produced. Annual performance report and Third Annual Plan prepared (February – March 2008)

Key Milestones/Indicators for Component 5:

- Quarterly financial and performance reports - Annual performance report and Annual Plan

Section 10 41

2. Inputs Table – Year 2

Component Inputs Dates

From To

Primary Curriculum and Materials Development Specialist

Aug 07 Jan 08

Nov 07 Aug 08

Curriculum and Materials Writers Sep 07 Jan 08

Nov 07 Aug 08

Subject Specialists/Reviewer Sep 08 Nov 08

Language and Bilingual Education Specialist

Feb 08 May 08

Feb 08 May 08

Multi-Media Specialist Aug 07 Feb 08

Oct 07 Mar 08

Multi-Media Science Counterpart Aug 07 Feb 08 May 08

Oct 07 Mar 08 May 08

Technology Specialist Aug 07 Feb 08 May 08

Sep 07 Mar 08 May 08

Assessment Framework Specialist July 08Feb 09

Sept 08 Jun 09

Assessment Framework Counterpart July 08 Feb 09

Sept 08 Jun 09

Assessment Information System Specialist

Oct 09 Feb 09

Dec 09 Apr 09

School Assessment Specialist Feb 09 Mar 09

1: Curriculum and Assessment

School Assessment Counterpart Feb 09 Mar 09

Fagaloa Community Partnership Pilot Program Phase 1

July 07 Jun 08

Teacher Development Policy Analyst Feb 08 May 08

School Improvement Advisor Feb 08 May 08 In-service and Pre-service Teacher Development Experts

Sept 07 Feb 08

2: Teacher Development

Primary Teacher Educator - -

Civil Works Specialist Services (HQ) April 07 Jan 08 3: Improving Access to Quality Education Civil Works Specialist Services

(Schools) Sept 07 Aug 08

Civil Works Specialist (General) - -Education Equipment Specialist - -

Procurement Specialist April 07 June 08

Procurement Systems Specialist April 07 July 07

4: Research, Evaluation and Policy

Education Research and Evaluation Specialist

Oct 07 Feb 08

Dec 07 May 08

5. Strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects

Programme Management Specialist

Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist

Mar 08 Feb 08

Mar 08 Mar 08

Section 10 42

SECTION 11: REPORTS

A. Introduction The Consolidated Funding Arrangement (CFA) for ESP II requires the Government of Samoa (GoS) to provide Development Partners (DPs) with reports and information on the Project on a regular basis. These reports include periodic progress reports (every quarter) that enable project management, allow the GoS and DPs to monitor project progress, and to become aware of problems during implementation, and assess whether the immediate and longer term project objectives will be met. In general, MESC will be responsible for reporting. Reports will be forwarded to the Executing Agency and DPs through the Core Executive and the Education Steering Committee. Within MESC, the responsibility for collecting financial and performance information and for report coordination rests with the ESP II Secretariat.

B. Content and Format The content of the progress reports will include sufficient information in summary form to be useful to MESC Core Executive and the ESC for project management, and to the GoS and DPs as funding agencies. The purpose of the reports is to enable project management, the GoS and DPs to monitor the latest progress, become aware of current problems, and assess whether the project’s immediate objectives will be met.

As part of the MESC project monitoring and evaluation system, implementing Divisions will be responsible for the preparation of more detailed reports. The structure, content and frequency of these reports will be determined in detail through the development of the Project’s Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (see Section 10). The general framework and guidelines for calculating project progress are included at Annex 1 of Section 11.

Information in Divisional reports will be compiled and edited by the relevantACEO and then forwarded to the ESP II Secretariat. Simple charts such as a bar or milestone charts to illustrate implementation progress, a chart showing actual versus planned expenditures, and the relationship between physical and financial performance will be used. The Secretariat is responsible for preparing summary reports according to the formats agreed in the monitoring and evaluation system and for forwarding these to the MESC Core Executive, ESC, MOF and DPs for information or decision making as required.

When the Core Executive, ESC, GoS or DPs require detailed information (such as background to a particular problem), this will be included as an appendix.

Section 11 1

C. Reports Required by Development Partners The following reports are required by the DPs:

Description Originator Due Date

Statement of Expenditure (SOE)

MESC, through MOF

Not later than 30 days after each period

Quarterly Progress Performance Report (QPPR)

MESC, through ESC and MOF

Not later than 30 days after each period

Unaudited Project Special Purpose Account

MESC, through ESC and MOF

Not later than 3 months after the close of each financial year

Audited Project Special Purpose Account

Auditor General, through MESC, ESC and MOF

Not later than 6 months after close of each financial year

Annual Plan, containing consolidated PPR

MESC, through ESC and MOF

Every 12 months, in March

Contract Awards and Disbursement Projections

MESC, through ESC and MOF

Every January of the year during implementation

Project Completion Report MESC, through ESC and MOF

Within 3 months of project completion.

D. Progress Performance Reports MESC in association with MOF will prepare and submit to DPs quarterly and annual Project Performance Reports concerning institutional development, financial aspects, procurement of services, design and preconstruction activities, and construction of all civil works included in the project. The reports will identify problems and difficulties encountered during implementation and summarize the Project’s financial accounts consisting of expenditures during the reporting period, year to date, and total to date. The reports will be submitted not later than 30 days after the end of the period covered by each report.

The Quarterly Project Performance Report (QPPR) is described in Section 10 – Monitoring and Evaluation, and pro-forma guidelines for completion are included at Annex 2 of Section 10. These reports will indicate, among other things:

(i) the progress made and problems encountered during the quarter; (ii) steps taken or proposed to be taken to remedy these problems; (iii) the proposed program of activities; and (iv) expected progress during the following quarter.

The annual Project Performance Report (PPR) will be attached to the Annual Plan. It will take a broader view of project progress, noting achievement of outcomes, as well as outputs. The format will follow that of the ‘Implementation Progress’ section of the QPPR, and will also include

Section 11 2

assessment against Impact and Outcome level performance targets, using performance indicators from the Design and Monitoring Framework.

E. Project Completion Report (PCR) To facilitate evaluation of the Project, MESC (in consultation with MOF) will prepare within 3 months of physical completion of the project, a Project Completion Report (PCR) that will comprehensively cover details of project implementation, costs and potential benefits, and any other information that may be requested by the DPs.

F. Contract Awards and Disbursement Projections Effective monitoring of Project implementation requires accurate projectionsof contract awards, commitments, and disbursements. Comparison of such projections with the actual figures helps identify impediments to implementation progress and remedial measures. Accurate disbursement projection will help Project management, the GoS and DPs improve financial management, cash flow, and program/portfolio management.

The DPs will distribute the projections worksheet (based on the ADB’s QP-01 in Annex 2) in either hard copy or electronic form by the second week of March each year through the Executing Agency (MOF), so that MESC can complete projections of contract awards, commitments, and disbursement for the following financial year. MESC and MOF will submit the completed QP-01 to the DPs for project implementation by the second week of each financial year, following acceptance of the forward program and budget in the Annual Plan.

NB: Using information received from the EA, the ADB prepares annual projections of contract awards, commitments, and disbursement (with quarterly breakdowns) for all projects it administers (for loans approved up to 31 December each year).

Section 11 3

Section 11 Annex 1

Framework and Guidelines in Calculating Project Progress

A. Introduction 1. To ensure that all implementation activities are reflected in measuring implementation progress against the project implementation schedule, the term "physical completion” in the Q/PPR has been changed to "project progress.”

2. Physical and pre-commencement activities are considered in calculating project implementation progress. These activities, which may include recruitment of consultants, capacity building, detailed design, preparation of bid and prequalification documents, etc., could constitute a significant proportion of overall implementation and therefore should be counted.

3. Each activity in the implementation schedule will be weighted according to its overall contribution (using time as a reference) to progress of project implementation. These weights will then be used to calculate the percentage of project progress along the entire time span of the project. This is to provide a holistic view of the pace of implementation.

B. Framework for Compiling Activity List and Assigning Weights 4. As implementation activities and their corresponding weights will varyaccording to the type of project, sector, and country. MESC, through the development of the monitoring and evaluation system for ESP II, will be responsible for determining and including them in component level monitoring and reporting. The ESP II Secretariat will compile results from the various components for inclusion in the relevant Q/PPR. To ensure consistency with ADB requirements, the following framework has been established; its application will be monitored through the Q/PPR.

C. Compilation of Activity List 5. MESC will identify major implementation activities and include them in the implementation schedule, which is attached as an appendix in the PIAM. The implementation schedule should follow the critical path of the project’s major activities in project implementation taking account of various country, sector, and project constraints.

D. Assignment of Weights 6. Corresponding weights for each activity should be assigned to ensure that “project progress" measures the percentage of achievement (non-financial except when the project has credit components) for all events during the entire duration of the implementation schedule. To avoid disproportionate

Section 11 4

assignment of weights, to the extent possible these should be evenly distributed along the implementation schedule. When activities are concurrent, avoid “double counting.”

E. Computation of Project Progress 7. Once all activities are identified and corresponding weights assigned, project progress should be calculated using the following steps:

(i) Determine the actual percentage progress (non-financial) of each activity.

(ii) Multiply these percentages by the assigned weight of each activity to arrive at the weighted progress.

(iii) Add up the resulting weighted progress of all activities to determine the project progress.

Page 3 of this Appendix provides an illustration of this calculation using a generic sample implementation schedule and this Appendix, page 4 a specific example in the education sector.

Section 11 5

Implementation Schedule with Activities and Weights

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5

A

a

B

b

Cd

c

De f

E

A C

T I

V I

T I

E S

1. Sum of all weights should equal 100 percent (a+b+c+d+e+f+g = 100%)2. When calculating the percentage of “project progress,” all completed activities should be counted as accomplished, regardless of when they

were scheduled to be completed. For example, when calculating the percentage of “project progress” after year 3, if activity D is completed inyear 3 rather than in year 2, it should still be included in the computation.

3. Total weight of each activity is as follows: Activity A–a; Activity B–b; Activity C–c; Activity D–d; and Activity E–e + f +g4. Project progress of a project is the summation of the actual percentage of progress for each activity multiplied by the total weight of each

activity.

Section 11 6

Section 11 7

Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4(a)

AssignedWeight

(b)Actual

Progress

(a) x (b)WeightedProgress

Sample Implementation Schedule

Establish PIU 5% 100% 6%

Establish Accreditation Board, etc. 5% 0% 0%

Appoint Staff and Budget 4% 75% 3%

Adopt Architecture Plans 2% 100% 2%

Shortlist Consulting Firms 6% 100% 6%

Prepare Fellowship Program 6% 76% 4%

Prepare Civil Works Tendering 30% 0% 0%

Civil Works: Classrooms, Dorms, etc. 6% 0% 0%

Procurement of Furniture and Equipment 16% 10% 2%

Field Work of Consultants 7% 0% 0%

Provide Fellowships 6% 0% 0%

Conduct Study Tours 6% 0% 0%

Provide Curriculum Standards 6% 0% 0%

Total Weight 100%Imp. Progress 24%

(a) Assigned weight for each activity(b) Actual progress of each activity(a) x (b) weighted progress for each activityProject progress = sum of all weighted progress for each activity

Sec

tion

11 A

nnex

2

Sec

tion

11

8

Sec

tion

11 A

nnex

2

PR

OJ

EC

T:

LO

AN

NO

.S

EG

ME

NT

NO

.F

UN

DS

(O

CR

, S

F)

QP

QP

QP

QP

QA

QA

QA

QA

QP

QP

QP

QP

QA

QA

QA

QA

1 In

acc

orda

nce

with

the

allo

catio

n of

loan

pro

ceed

s as

def

ined

in th

e lo

an d

ocum

ents

, or

any

othe

r de

atile

d br

eakd

own

if fo

und

usef

ul.

QA

= Q

uart

erly

Act

ual (

alre

ady

awar

ded/

com

mite

d/di

sbur

sed,

whe

n pr

ojec

tions

are

pre

pare

d).

QP

= Q

uart

erly

Pro

ject

ed (

to b

e aw

arde

d/co

mm

ited/

disb

urse

d), w

hen

proj

ectio

ns a

re p

repa

red)

.

CO

UN

TR

Y (

Ac

ron

ym

)

Ref

.Li

ne no.

Cat

egor

y1

CO

NT

RA

CT

/CO

MM

ITM

EN

T IT

EM

1

QU

AR

TE

R 3

Mon

th A

war

ded/

C

omm

ited

or T

o be

A

war

ded/

Com

mite

dQ

PD

isbu

rsem

ent

Am

ount

Rel

ated

to

the

Con

trac

t/ C

omm

itmen

t (6)

Con

trac

t Val

ue/

Com

mitm

ent (

5)

Dis

burs

emen

tA

mou

nt R

elat

ed

to th

e C

ontr

act/

Com

mitm

ent

(10)

=(2+

4+6+

8)

Con

trac

t Val

ue/

Com

mitm

ent

(9)=

(1+3

+5+7

)

QU

AR

TE

R 4

Mon

th A

war

ded/

C

omm

ited

or T

o be

A

war

ded/

QP

Dis

burs

emen

tA

mou

nt R

elat

ed to

th

e C

ontr

act/

Com

mitm

ent (

8)C

ontr

act V

alue

/ C

omm

itmen

t (7)

QA

QP

QA

Dis

burs

emen

tA

mou

nt R

elat

ed to

th

e C

ontr

act/

Com

mitm

ent (

2)Q

A

Mon

th A

war

ded/

C

omm

ited

or T

o be

A

war

ded/

Com

mite

dQ

PD

isbu

rsem

ent

Am

ount

Rel

ated

to

the

Con

trac

t/ C

omm

itmen

t (4)

Con

trac

t Val

ue/

Com

mitm

ent (

3)Q

A

Mon

th, Y

ear

Con

trac

t Aw

arde

dC

ontr

act V

alue

(B

ank

Fin

ance

d)

Mon

th A

war

ded/

C

omm

ited

or T

o be

A

war

ded/

Com

mite

dC

ontr

act V

alue

/ C

omm

itmen

t (1)

1 2 3 4 75 6 8 9 10 11 12 13

TO

TA

L P

RO

JEC

TE

D F

OR

TH

E

YE

AR

___

____

QU

AR

TE

R 2

TO

TA

L O

F T

HIS

PA

GE

__

_ O

F _

__

PA

GE

S

GR

AN

D T

OT

AL

(L

AS

T P

AG

E)

QU

AR

TE

R 1

Con

trac

ts A

war

ded

on P

revi

ous

Yea

r (s

)

1514

WO

RK

SH

EE

T F

OR

QU

AR

TE

RL

Y A

ND

YE

AR

LY

CO

NT

RA

CT

AW

AR

DS

/CO

MM

ITM

EN

TS

AN

D D

ISB

UR

SE

ME

NT

PR

OJ

EC

TIO

NS

($

Mil

lio

n)

Ref

. PA

I Nos

. 4.1

3. Is

sued

in J

uly

1992

and

6.1

. Iss

ued

in O

ctob

er 1

990

PR

OJ

EC

TIO

NS

MA

DE

IN

:

(Mon

th, Y

ear)

SECTION 12: AUDIT REQUIREMENT

A. Introduction

The Development Partners have signed a Consolidated Funding Arrangement (CFA) for ESP II. Under the CFA, the Government of Samoa will be responsible for arranging a regular audit of project finances. Project accounts (i.e. the Special Purpose Account), financial statements, Statements of Expenditure (SOEs), and bank account records will be audited annually by auditors acceptable to all Development Partners. Samoa will be responsible for commissioning the audit and meet the costs from Project funds. The Development Partners have further agreed that the Auditor General of Samoa is an acceptable auditor, and that the frequency of audits should be not less than annually.

The Coordinating Development Partner (C-DP) will make arrangements for the conduct of the audit on behalf of other Development Partners, asspecified below. The auditors’ report and copies of the certified accounts and related financial statements - including compliance with ADB Loan project covenants and relevant clauses of the CFA and the use of the bank accounts - will be submitted to Development Partners in English not later than 6 months after the end of the fiscal year to which they relate. Development Partners, if desired, may undertake additional financial audits and/or financial management and systems reviews.

B. ADB Specific Audit Requirements

Article 14 (xi) of ADB's Articles of Agreement (the Charter) provides that ADB loan proceeds be used only for the purposes for which the loan was approved with due attention to economy and efficiency. To meet these requirements, executing agencies (EAs) are to submit audited project accounts (APA) regularly during project implementation, and, in some cases, until the loan has been fully repaid. Requirements would be defined by the ADB letter as shown in the attached sample as Section 12 Annex 1.

A management letter, by reporting entity, is also required. The management letter is a report on the internal controls and operating procedures of the entity covering all aspects included during the normal course of the audit. For non-revenue generating EAs, a management letter should be provided covering internal controls and procedures associated with the maintenance of project accounts and preparation of APA.

ADB’s revised audit requirements as defined in the Guidelines for the Financial Governance and Management of Investment Projects financed by Asian Development Bank (the Financial Guidelines), are consistent with both the OECD-DAC Good Practices Paper on Financial Reporting and Auditing (Dec 2002) and the Framework for Collaboration Among Participating

Section 12 1

Multilateral Development Banks on Financial Reporting and Auditing (Feb 2003).

C. Audit Objective and Scope An audit’s overall objective is for the auditor to express an opinion as to whether the financial statements present a true and fair view of the projectand, where applicable, of the EA, or are similarly presented fairly in all material respects, in conformity with International Audit Standard (IAS) or other ADB-accepted standards, and applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year.

The auditor’s opinion is necessary to establish the credibility, or otherwise, ofthe financial statements of an EA. The examination should be of such scope and depth to allow the auditor to give an opinion and make a report on the veracity, accuracy and fairness as regards the presentation of the financial statements of an EA.

a. Requirement The Development Partners (through the C-DP) require GoS and MOF (the EA) to have the required financial statements for each year audited by an independent auditor acceptable to Development Partners, and in accordance with standards on auditing that also are acceptable to Development Partners (see attached letter). An Audit Checklist (Section 12 Annex 2) has been prepared by ADB to guide the auditor on the items required by the Development Partners in the audit of the project expenditures. Furthermore, an audit of such financial statements should include:

(i) an assessment of the adequacy of accounting and internal control system with respect to project expenditures and other financial transactions, and to ensure safe custody of project-financed assets;

(ii) a determination as to whether GoS and project implementing entitieshave maintained adequate documentation on all relevant transactions;

(iii) confirmation that expenditures are eligible for financing and identification of any ineligible expenditures; and

(iv) compliance with ADB loan covenants and Development Partners’ requirements for project management.

An audit report must include: (i) title of the auditor; (ii) date of the report; (iii)addressee (EA and/or IA); (iv) identification of the financial information audited; (v) a reference to auditing standards or practices followed; (vi) an expression of opinion, including a qualification; disclaimer or declining of an opinion, on the financial information; (vii) the auditor’s signature; (viii) auditor’s address; and (ix) date of signing of the report.

b. Audit Procedures Auditors engaged to audit project expenditures should understand the projectand the entity being audited, including the contents of the Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP), the Project Implementation and Administration Manual (PIAM) and legal agreements.

Section 12 2

The Development Partners expect audits to include: (i) an examination of assets and liabilities; (ii) an examination of commitments and contingent liabilities; (iii) confirmation of debtors, creditors and inventory; (iv) an audit of statement of expenditure procedures [SOEs (where required)] as part of the overall project audit; and (v) an audit of the Special Purposes Account and (vi) an audit of the imprest accounts (as applicable). Audited financial statements provided to Development Partners in accordance with the ADB Loan Agreement and the CFA should be accompanied by the report of the auditor that contains their opinion on the financial statements. An example of typical auditor reports and unqualified opinions is provided in Section 12 Annex 3.

c. Auditor Selection and Appointment The Development Partners will ask GoS to remove unacceptable restrictions, or otherwise arrange for an acceptable audit to be conducted. GoS is responsible for the selection, appointment and performance of an auditor. The Development Partners wish to be informed by GoS of an ongoing or proposed appointment of an auditor, who should meet required standards in terms of independence, experience and competence. More specifically, Development Partners will indicate the acceptability of an auditor in the form of “no objection”.

An auditor to be acceptable to Development Partners must be:

(i) impartial and independent of the control of the entity to be audited and of the person appointing them. In particular, they should not, during the period covered by the audit – be employed by, serve as directors of, or have family, financial, or close business relationships with the entity, except as auditors, during the period of the audit;

(ii) well established and reputable, use procedures and methodsconfirming with international audit standards and employ adequate staff with appropriate skills and competence required for their responsibilities;

(iii) experienced in types of assignments they are to undertake for the project; and

(iv) able to fulfill their terms of reference within the specified timetable.

As noted, the Auditor General of Samoa is defined as meeting theseconditions for acceptance.

D. Monitoring Compliance with Submission of APA

a. Three months before the Due DateThe Development Partners remind the EA and implementing agency (IA)three months before APA or AFS is due.

b. On the Due Date When the APA or AFS is not received by the due date, the Development partners will immediately write to the EA and IA stating that the APA or AFS is overdue and, if it is not received within six months, requests for new contract

Section 12 3

awards and disbursement such as new replenishment of the Special Purpose Account, processing of new reimbursement, and issuance of new commitment letters will not be processed.

c. Six months after Due Date When the APA or AFS is not received within six months after the due date,Development Partners will hold processing of requests for new contract awards and disbursement such as new replenishment of the Special Purpose Account, processing of new reimbursement, and issuance of new commitment letters. The Development Partners inform the EA and IA of their actions and advises that if the situation is not remedied within next six months, subsequent grant monies and the loan may be suspended.

d. Twelve months after the Due Date When the APA or AFS is not received within 12 months after the due dates, the Development Partners determine whether grants and the loan are to be suspended. Specifically, with joint reference to the Regulations, ADB will recommend loan suspension to ADB Management.

Section 12 4

Section 12 Annex 1

Date

Ms/r _____________ Project Manager Education Sector Project II Apia, Samoa

Dear Ms/r ____________:

AusAID/NZAID Grant and ADB Loan No. 2220-SAM (SF): Education Sector Project II

Financial Reporting and Auditing Requirements

1. This letter is generally to seek your timely compliance with the loan covenants and the Consolidated Funding Arrangement and the quality of financial information as required by the Development Partners. ADB's Financial Reporting and Auditing of Projects Financed by ADB is enclosed to guide you. You will note (para 4 below) that the audit for 200x will become due by end June 200x.

2. The Development Partners refer you to the fact that the ADB, by its Charter, is required to ensure that the proceeds of any loan made, guaranteed, or participated in by ADB are used for the purposes for which the loan was approved. The Development Partners and ADB require accurate and timely financial information from partners/borrowers to be assured that expenditure was for the purposes stated in the approved project documents and the loan agreement.

3. For this particular project, the requirements are stipulated in the Consolidated Funding Arrangement for ESP II and Article IV, Section 4.02 of the Loan Agreement between ADB and Government of Samoa.

4. The following are the main requirements:

� Development partners require the EA to maintain separate project accounts and records exclusively for the Project to ensure that the loan and grant funds were used only for the objectives set out in the approved project documents, the CFA and the Loan Agreement. The first set of project accounts to be submitted to Development Partners covers the fiscal year ending 200x. As stipulated in the Loan Agreement, they are to be submitted up to June of each year that is 6 months after the end of the fiscal year. *** AS WE ARE USING THE GoS FISCAL YEAR AS PER SECTION 10 ANNEX – PLEASE ADJUST DATES ACCORDINGLY For this loan, the deadline is by June 200x. A sample report format with explanatory note is attached as Annex A.

� The accounts and records for the Project are to be consistently maintained by using sound accounting principles. Please stipulate that your auditor is to express an opinion on whether the financial report has been prepared using international or local generally accepted accounting standards and whether they have been applied consistently.

Section 12 5

Development Partners prefer project accounts to use international accounting standards prescribed by the International Accounting Standards Committee. Please advise your auditor to comment on the impact of any deviations by the Ministry of Finance from international accounting standards.

� Please ensure that your auditor specifies in the Auditor's Report the appropriate auditing standards, and direct them to expand the scope of the paragraph in the Auditor's Report by disclosing the key audit procedures followed. Your auditor is also to state whether the same audit procedures were followed for all supplementary financial statements submitted.

Development Partners wish that auditors conform to the international auditing standards issued by the International Federation of Accountants. In cases where other auditing standards are used, request that your auditor indicate in the Auditor's Report the extent of any differences and their impact on the audit.

� The auditor's opinion is also required on whether

- the proceeds of the grant funds and ADB's loan have been utilized only for the Project as stated in the approved project documents, the CFA and the Loan Agreement;

- the financial information contains data specifically agreed upon between Government of Samoa and Development Partners to be included in the financial statements;

- the financial information complies with relevant regulations and statutory requirements; and

- compliance has been met with all the financial covenants contained in the ADB Loan Agreement and the CFA.

� The Auditor's Report is to clearly state the reasons for any opinions that are qualified, adverse, or disclaimers.

� Actions on deficiencies disclosed by the auditor in its report are to be resolved by Government of Samoa within a reasonable time. The auditor is to comment in the subsequent Auditor’s Report on the adequacy of the corrective measures taken by the Ministry of Finance.

5. Compliance with these requirements will be monitored by review missions and during normal Project supervision, and followed up regularly with all concerned, including the external auditor.

Yours sincerely,

Ms/r ________________ PositionCoordinating Development Partner

Cc: Other Development Partners

Section 12 6

Section 12 Annex 2

AUDIT COMPLETION CHECKLIST

(To be completed by Auditor of Non-Revenue and Revenue Earning EA/Borrower and returned with the auditor’s report)

I. CHECKLIST OF ITEMS TO BE REPORTED TO DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

A. Accounting/Auditing Standards

YES NO N/A Ref.

1. Was the audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards? For revenue earning EAs/Borrowers, do the financial statements indicate whether generally accepted accounting principles were applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year.

B. Opinion/Findings

YES NO N/A Ref.

2. Does your audit report include an opinion as required by the Development Partners on the: � utilization of loan funds? � compliance with specific covenants? � use of imprest funds? � statement of expenditure procedures? � conformity with agreed procurement guidelines? (e.g. No

splitting of payments to avoid approval thresholds)

In addition, for revenue earning EAs/Borrowers, does your audit report include an opinion covering all the applicable financial statements?

3. Are significant findings included in detail, such as:

� utilization of loan proceeds (e.g. diversion of Special Purpose Account funds, utilization for aspects where counterpart funds should have been used, etc.)

� project implementation (delays, bottlenecks, procedural lapses in procurement to the extent it comes to your attention)

� statement of expenditures [also refer to Section IIA5(b) of this checklist].

� Special Purpose Account [also refer to Sections IIA1(b) and IIA5(c) of this checklist].

� agreed upon matters by the Development Partners and Borrower that require special audit attention.

� for revenue earning EA/Borrower, significant increases/decreases in balances in financial statements between past/present fiscal year, significant bad debts, unrecorded liabilities, etc.

� others

4. Did your audit examine the efficiency of systems of internal control? If so, does your audit report disclose any material deficiencies or weaknesses in the accounting system or overall system of internal control.

Section 12 7

II. CHECKLIST OF AUDIT PROCEDURES THAT WERE PERFORMED

A. Project Funds

1. Utilization of Project funds YES NO N/A

a. Were funds utilized for the purpose as indicated in the approved project documents and loan agreement?

b. Were funds, including withdrawals from the Special Purpose Account, used against aspects meant to be funded out of counterpart funds?

2. Bank/Special Purpose Account

YES NO N/A

a. Where applicable, were funds received from different sources kept in different cash books and bank accounts (e.g. Development Partners funds kept separately from counterpart funds)

b. Was reconciliation of balances per cash book and per bank account performed regularly, including the Special Purpose Account? Were balances independently checked by the auditor?

c. Is the bank account maintained in the name of the institution and not in a personal name? Is separate bank account maintained in the name of any officials in addition to the above? If so, has any withdrawal been made for credit to the above account?

d. Were checks kept in sequential order and were any missing checks reported to the Project Manager/Director? Was action taken on stale checks?

3. Procurement

YES NO N/A

a. Was International Competitive Bidding/International Shopping/Local Competitive Bidding/Direct Purchase or Single Tender/Limited Tendering or Repeat Order/Force Account followed as per approved GoS and/or ADB’s guidelines?

b. Was approval obtained from GoS and/or ADB for relevant procurement, whenever required?

c. Were contracts split to avoid prior approval from GoS and/or ADB?

d. In regard to supplementary contract(s), was price allowed significantly higher than that in the original/main contract?

4. Payments authorized by EA/Borrower

YES NO N/A

a. Were expenditures prepared/signed by Project Accountant and authorized by Project Manager/Director or the designated staff? Indicate any finding based on review of propriety of expenditure.

b. Where applicable, were payments claimed in running bill reconciled to the measurement book?

c. Where applicable, was there any monitoring mechanism for ensuring the full recovery of mobilization advance?

5. Withdrawal Application

YES NO N/A

a. Were withdrawal applications submitted in anticipation of expenditure?

b. In case of claims under SOE, were amounts split to avoid submission of supporting documents.

c. Was request for Special Purpose Account (replenishment/first request) submitted when the need for funds would arise much later?

Section 12 8

B. BORROWER’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(This section to be completed by Auditor of Revenue Earning EA/Borrower only)

1. Balance Sheet – Fixed Assets

YES NO N/A

a. Were the categorization and analysis of assets representative of the entity’s interest and activities, e.g. � Land? � Buildings? � Equipment, machinery? � Vehicles?

b. Were fixed assets under construction shown separately?

c. Was there a schedule attached of gross fixed assets, accumulated depreciation provision and net fixed assets:

� In operation? � Not in operation?

Was there a schedule attached for changes in asset holdings in year, concerning:

� Sales? � Revaluations, and basis for it? � Changes in depreciation provision?

d. Was accumulated depreciation shown with depreciation rates and basis of calculation in supporting schedules?

e. Were disclosures made of assets � Leased out? � Pledged?

f. In cases of revaluation of fixed assets and/or restatements of foreign long-term debt, was sufficient information provided to reconstruct both sides of the revaluation entries?

2. Balance Sheet - Current Assets

YES NO N/A

a. Was the total of current assets revealed?

b. Was there an adequate analysis of current assets, e.g.

� Prepaid expenses? � Depositors on contracts? � Receivables? � Inventories? � Marketable securities? � Short-term bank deposits? � Cash - at banks? � Cash - in hand?

c. � Were receivables adequately analyzed, aged and classified between key classes of debtors?

� Where practical, were accounts receivable confirmed and appropriate follow-up steps taken, including second requests and alternative procedures.

If a significant number and amount of accounts receivable were not confirmed, were other appropriate auditing procedures performed.

d. Did marketable securities exclude medium/long-term investments?

e. Was a bad and doubtful debt allowance indicated? Have actual bad debts been written off?

Section 12 9

f. Were physical inventories observed at all locations where material amounts were located?

Where the physical inventory is taken at a date other than the balance sheet date, did the auditor consider inventory transactions between the inventory date and the balance sheet date.

Were there adequate tests of: (a) clerical accuracy of the inventory; (b) costing methods and substantiation of costs used in pricing all elements of the inventory; and (c) purchase cut-off (goods in transit at the balance sheet date are recorded in the proper accounting period).

Were analytical procedures used to test the overall valuation of inventories?

Was there a suitable analysis among:

� Manufacturers’ product for sale? � Materials and goods for incorporation in manufacturing

progress? � Materials and goods for maintenance? � Work-in-progress?

Indicate the basis of valuation.

3. Balance Sheet – Investments and Other Assets

YES NO N/A

a. Were investments detailed in supporting schedules, with basis of valuation, revaluation, losses and yields?

b. Were deferred charges and pre-operating expenses shown with amortization rates and accumulated amortization, where appropriate?

c. Was goodwill or intangibles shown with valuation basis?

4. Balance Sheet - Equity

YES NO N/A

a. Was there an adequate analysis of equity, e.g.

� Authorized capital? � Paid-in-capital? � Share premiums? � Shares outstanding? � Government or other public authority contributions? � Surpluses from

Appropriate earnings? Unappropriated earnings? Revaluations?

b. Was there a statement of shareholders equity?

Section 12 10

5. Balance Sheet - Long Term Debt

YES NO N/A

a. Were current maturities excluded and shown as current liabilities?

b. Were all amounts due and payable but not repaid to lenders disclosed?

c. Was there a comprehensive schedule of long-term debt, showing, among other things, for each outstanding loan:

� Original amount borrowed? � Interest rate, grace and repayment period and other

relevant terms, (e.g. secured debt)? � Currency in which debt is repayable and conversion rates,

if applicable, at date of borrowing and current? � Gross amount outstanding and current currency

conversion, if applicable. � Long-term debt transactions in year? � Current maturities? � Maturities due and payable, but not paid?

6.. Balance Sheet - Current Liabilities

YES NO N/A

a. Was total of current liabilities shown and suitably analyzed, e.g.

� Current maturities of long-term debt? � Short-term borrowings? � Consumer deposits? � Taxes due? � Accounts payable?

manufacturing or process? maintenance?

� Accrued and other liabilities?

7. Balance Sheet - Other Liabilities

Yes No N/A

a. Were relevant other liabilities adequately described and analyzed, including such matters as:

� Pensions and other Employee Benefits? � Deferred Taxation?

b. Were the analysis of the foregoing and the format of the balance sheet items in accordance with sound accounting practices?

c. Were contingent liabilities and pledges disclosed?

d. Were reserve funds (e.g. pension funds), adequately classified, explained and legally utilized and provided for?

e. Were any suspense accounts fully explained?

f. Was there an adequate description of verification procedures for fixed and movable assets and inventories?

g. Was a statement of adequacy of insurance required?

h. Did the auditor perform an adequate search for unrecorded liabilities?

Section 12 11

8. Income Statement

Yes No N/A

a. Did the construction of the revenue, expenditure and other key items of this statement and supporting data provide satisfactory financial evidence of the results of activities conducted by the entity?

b. Did the statement provide statistical data on sales or other performance:

� Manufacturing costs? � Sales costs? � Operating costs? � Maintenance costs? � Administration costs? � Depreciation? � Non-operating income (analyzed)? � Amortization of deferred charges, etc?

c. Were unusual items clearly shown, e.g.,

� Exchange gains or losses? � Profit or losses on sale of assets? � Profits or losses from adjustments made to reflect

changing prices and/or inflation?

d. Did the statement include any items relating to other fiscal years (e.g. prior-year adjustments), and are these separated from the report year?

e. Was the net income relating to the fiscal year’s operations clearly demonstrated before inclusion of other items, as in (c) or (d) above?

f. Was the allocation of Net Income clearly demonstrated?

g. Did the auditor consider: (a) the entity’s revenue recognition policy; and (b) unusual transactions.

9. Statement of Sources and Applications or Funds

YES NO N/A

a. Did the statement provide a clear description of the flow of funds?

b. Did the transactions shown tie back to the Income Statement and Balance Sheet, with appropriate reconciliations necessary?

Approved by:

_____________________________ Auditor

Section 12 12

Section 12 Annex 3

Model Audit Opinion for a Non-Revenue Earning Project

To: Borrower (or Designated Agency)

1. We have audited the accompanying financial statements (pages____ to ____) of the ___________ Project financed under the Consolidated Funding Agreement for ESP II and the Asian Development Bank Loan #______ as of December 31, 20___, and for the year then ended.

2. These financial statements are the responsibility of the management of the Ministry of Finance as the Executing Agency (EA). Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the accompanying statements based on our audit. We conducted our examination in accordance with International Standards on Auditing. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of misstatement. Our audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audit also includes assessing the accounting principles and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

3. The Ministry of Finance’s policy is to prepare the accompanying statements in the format agreed between the Development Partners and the Government of Samoa as noted in the Consolidated Funding Arrangement for ESP II, other approved project documentation, the Project Implementation and Administration Manual and the Minutes of Negotiations for the Loan, [on a cash receipts and disbursements basis in which cash is recognized when received and expenses are recognized when paid, rather than when incurred] / [on an accruals basis in which expenses are recognized when incurred and revenue is reported when income is due.]

4. In our opinion, (A) the aforementioned financial statements and appended notes that were also the subject of the audit, fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the ESP II as at__________20__ and the results of its operations for the year ended _________ 20__, in conformity with ____________ accounting standards, applied on a basis consistent in all material respects with that of the previous year; (B) the Government of Samoa has utilized all proceeds of the grant funds provided and loan withdrawn from the Development Partners only for purposes of the Project as agreed between the Development Partners and the Government of Samoa in accordance with approved project documentation, the CFA and the Loan Agreement; and no proceeds of the loan or grant funds have been utilized for other purposes; and (C) the Government of Samoa was in compliance as at the date of the balance sheet of the year of audit with all financial covenants of the Consolidated Funding Agreement and the Loan Agreement.

Section 12 13

5. In addition:

(a) (i) With respect to Statements of Expenditures, adequate supporting documentation has been maintained to support claims to the Asian Development Bank for reimbursements of expenditures incurred; and (ii) which expenditures are eligible for financing under Loan Agreement No. ____ and the CFA.

(b) (i) The Special Purpose Account (page __) give a true and fairview of the receipts collected and payments made during the year ending ___; and (ii) these receipts and payments support Special Purpose Account liquidations/replenishments during the year.

6. [(a) and (b), above, are to be provided where the Loan Agreement and the CFA requires separate Special Purpose Account and Statement of Expenditures audits and audit opinions.]

Section 12 14

SECTION 14: ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES OF ADB

1. It is the ADB policy to require the Borrowers (including beneficiaries of ADB loans), as well as bidders/suppliers/contractors under ADB-financed contracts, observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement and execution of such contracts.

2. In line with this policy, the ADB defines, for the purposes of thisprovision, the terms set forth below as follows:

(a) “corrupt practice” means the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly, of any thing of value to influence the action of any party in the procurement process or the execution of a contract;

(b) “fraudulent practices” means a misrepresentation or omission of facts in order to influence a procurement process or the execution of a contract;

(c) “collusive practices” means a scheme or arrangement between two or more bidders, with or without the knowledge of the borrower, designed to influence the action of any party in a procurement process or the execution of a contract;

(d) “coercive practices” means harming or threatening to harm, directly or indirectly, persons, or their property to influence theirparticipation in a procurement process, or affect the execution of a contract.

3. The ADB will reject a proposal for award of contract if it determinesthat the bidder recommended for award has directly or through an agent, engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices in competing for the contracts in question.

4. The ADB will cancel the portion of the loan allocated to a contract for goods or works if it at any time determines that representatives of the borrower or a beneficiary of ADB-financing engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices during the procurement or the execution of that contract, without the borrower having taken timely and appropriate action satisfactory to the ADB to remedy the situation.

5. The ADB will sanction a party or its successor, including declaring ineligible, either indefinitely or for a stated period of time, to participate in ADB-financed activities if it at any time determines that the firm has, directly or through an agent, engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices in competing for, or in executing, an ADB-financed contract.

6. The ADB will have the right to require that a provision be included in bidding documents and in contracts financed by ADB, requiring bidders, suppliers and contractors to permit ADB or its representative to inspect their accounts and records and other documents relating to the bid submission and

Section 14 1

contract performance and to have them audited by auditors appointed by ADB.

7. With the specific agreement of ADB, a beneficiary of ADB-financing may introduce an undertaking of the bidder to observe, in competing for and executing a contract, the country’s laws against fraud and corruption (including bribery), as listed in the bidding documents. ADB will accept the introduction of such undertaking at the request of the borrowing country, provided the arrangement governing such undertaking are satisfactory to ADB.

8. When the contract is to be financed wholly or partly by ADB, the contract documents shall include an undertaking by the contractor that no fees, gratuities, rebates, gifts, commissions, or other payments, except those shown in the bid, have been given or received in connection with the procurement process or in contract execution.

9. ADB considers a conflict of interest to be a situation in which a party has interests that could improperly influence that party’s performance of official duties or responsibilities, contractual obligations, or compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and that such conflict of interest may contribute to or constitute a prohibited practice under the anticorruption policy. In pursuance of the anticorruption policy’s requirement that borrowers (including beneficiaries of ADB-financed activity), as well as bidders, suppliers, and contractors under ADB-financed contracts, observe the highest standard of ethics, ADB will take appropriate actions to manage such conflicts of interest or may reject a proposal for award if it determines that a conflict of interest has flawed the integrity of any procurement process.

10. A copy of the ADB’s Anticorruption Policy brochure will be provided during the inception mission.

Section 14 2

SECTION 15: DESIGN CHANGES

The Component Design Team worked with MESC and MOF staff during May– June 2006 to note any changes in priorities, and to finalize outputs, scheduling and resources for Components 1 to 5. AusAID also held further PDD Review Mission workshops with MESC and other stakeholder staff on 14-15 September 2006 as part of internal requirements for AusAID. The results of this mission have been incorporated in the PDD Version 3 and the relevant sections of the PIAM. The development of the MESC Strategic Policies and Plan and the proposed organizational restructure of MESC under the Corporate Plan have been reflected in the new project management and delivery arrangements. Some component elements also differ. The following is a short summary of these changes since the RRP of December 2005, while Section 3 - Project Description and Section 6 – Implementation Arrangements describe the final design outcomes.

A. Project Management One of the principles of the Project is to use the MESC organizationalstructure for management and implementation. Previous designs included support for Project management being channeled to the Core Executive and the Division heads responsible for component implementation through Component 5 activities. The Office of the CEO would be the main coordinating point, and services would be provided by the Corporate Services Division (e.g. for Project finances).

MESC proposed a slight adjustment to the original design, and have established an ESP II Secretariat to coordinate Project implementation functions, administer Project finances and monitoring evaluation. The role and functions of the ESP II Secretariat are described in more detail in Section 6. The creation of the ESP II Secretariat provides MESC with a more effective means of coordinating activities across all components, supports the MESC Core Executive and the Education Steering Committee and there is now a single unit responsible for Project financial management and monitoring/evaluation.

The consequences for the design are a reduction in Component 5 technical assistance (as a result of the development of sector and corporate plans) and a focus on strengthening the functions of the ESP II Secretariat in areas of financial management, monitoring and evaluation and procurement. This reflects the increased emphasis on implementation by MESC, with positive outcomes for sustainability and capacity to implement future programs.

Project management arrangements were finalized at the workshops in September 2006 and a Project Management Strategy developed for MESC (see Section 6 Annex 5).

Section 15 1

B. Design and Monitoring Framework The Project’s Design and Monitoring Framework (Section 4) has been amended to reflect changes to individual component outputs. The naming of components has been retained, however some changes have been made to performance indicators and methods of measurement, to take into account the improved monitoring and evaluation system, the use of Annual Plans and the reporting cycle. Greater use is now made of QQT (quantity, quality, time) indicators. Risks and assumptions have also been reviewed and adjusted.

C. Special Purpose Account The Consolidated Funding Arrangement contains provision for a single Project Special Purpose account to manage funds from the Government and Development Partners. A single performance measurement and reporting system has also been agreed. This has resulted in minor changes to the design of Component 5 to build MESC capacity in the short term to manage the new procedures. As well, changes have been made to disbursement and reporting arrangements under the Project, with an emphasis on regular quarterly reimbursements and grants for the Special Purpose Account, and quarterly progress reports. These are detailed in Section 9 – Disbursement,Section 10 – Project Monitoring and Evaluation and Section 11 – Reports.

D. Procurement Agreement between the Government and Development Partners to make increased use of Government of Samoa systems has resulted in changes to procurement procedures, for both goods and services and consulting services. In addition, there is now greater MESC Core Executive oversight and decision-making on Project procurement across all components. The revised arrangements are contained in Section 8 – Procurement, including a Project Procurement Strategy that resulted from consultations at the September workshop.

E. Annual Plan MESC will produce an Annual Plan for each year of the Project. The Annual Plan replaces the ‘operational plans’ or ‘review and forward program’ in previous designs. The Annual Plan aligns more closely with Government of Samoa and Development partner budget cycles. Annual Plans seek approval for project activities to be funded in the following 12 month period, and will contain a modified Project performance report, outlining progress against outcomes and outputs for the previous period. Approval and endorsement of Annual Plans at the Education Steering Committee also provides Development partners (through the Coordinating Development Partner) with an opportunity for policy dialogue at the sectoral level.

F. Teacher Training Fellowships (Component 2)

Section 15 2

The original proposal to implement 10 two-year fellowship programs in Agricultural Science has changed. After consultation with MESC Core Executive and in light of the recently released Education Sector Plan, it was agreed that fellowships should be spread more broadly across areas of critical teacher shortage, including food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology. Hence four subject areas are to be covered under the fellowship program: agricultural science, food and textiles, visual arts and design and technology.

G. Primary Teachers (Component 2) A further urgent need is to support the training and deployment for new primary teachers throughout Samoa. Four short term intensive courses over four years (1-4) to train new primary teachers will occur. This will enable the deployment of 100 additional teachers (25 per year) to schools throughout Samoa.

H. Teacher Development Framework (Component 2) The delay to the associated ADB TA on the National Teacher DevelopmentFramework will require rescheduling of Component 2 activities. The TA was originally planned to develop an overarching framework prior to the implementation of ESP II so as to provide consistency and guidance in all matters related to teacher development, deployment and management. As such the new design proposes that some Project TA will be used to prepare the SOD for implementation of both Components 1 and 2. This is scheduled to occur within the first six months of Project implementation.Recommendations from this TA will inform the overall planning and management of Component 2. Additional TA (six consultant months) is also provided in years 2-4 to support the implementation of the recommendations. As the details of the recommendations are unknown at the time of writing, it is proposed that some unallocated TA be attached to this component.

I. Research and Evaluation (Component 4) Under Component 4, the research and evaluation studies have been brought together in a single program. This provides MESC with improved ability to identify and prioritize research areas, and to link more effectively with the work of other Components, and the specific evaluation needs under ESP II. Capacity building will also be more closely associated with the conduct of the research and evaluation program.

J. MESC Headquarters Building This sub-component forms part of Component 3. In September 2006, a value management workshop was held in Samoa that examined options for contracting and procurement. The results of this workshop, affecting procurement approaches are included in Section 8 Annex 7.

Section 15 3

SECTION 16: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASSOCIATED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT (TA NO. 4738-SAM)

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE NATIONAL TEACHER DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

A. Impact and Output

1. The TA is to help the Government develop a comprehensive system for development and management of high-quality teachers. The outputs will be (i) an institutional structure with necessary legislation to manage and monitor the quality of teacher development; (ii) a set of policies and procedures to manage all activities associated with teacher development, quality, and supply; (iii) an agreed financial planning, management, and monitoring system for the reform of teacher development with detailed budgeting and funding options; and (iv) an agreed partnership between all stakeholders involved in teacher development. The TA output will be presented in a single comprehensive report compiled from the individual reports. The design and monitoring framework is attached in Section 16 Annex 1.

B. Cost and Financing

2. The total cost of the TA is estimated to be $450,000 equivalent, of which $281,000 is the foreign exchange cost and $169,000 equivalent the local currency cost (Table A5.2). The Government has asked the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to finance $350,000 (78%) equivalent, covering the entire foreign exchange cost and $69,000 equivalent of the local currency cost. The TA will be financed on a grant basis by ADB’s TA funding program. The Government will finance the balance of the local currency cost, equivalent to $100,000, to finance the remaining local currency cost.

C. Methodology and Key Activities

3. The TA will be undertaken over 10 months in two phases. During the first phase, stakeholder consultation will be undertaken to ensure ownership of the recommendations included in the reports and the eventual national teacher development framework (NTDF). This will involve five formal workshops to consider alternative approaches to developing and managing an NTDF. During phase one, existing education documents; census data on teacher recruitments and student enrollments; teacher supply; demand, and quality; available financial resources; and absorptive capacity of teacher development activities will be reviewed. The review will cover capacity and quality of all teacher training institutions in the country and the programs offered by them. A short sample survey will be conducted to collect disaggregated data for net teacher demand and supply, academic and teaching qualifications, demands for subject specialization, teacher incentive schemes, support from education administrators, and issues related to quality service provision. The

Section 16 1

information will be used to identify the extent of the gap between teachers’ current competencies and those expected to implement the new curriculum, and interventions required for the development of an NTDF that would ensure capacity for sustained development and management of well-trained teachers.

4. During the second phase, the TA will assist the Government in developing a policy framework to help articulate the NTDF by outlining its priorities for pre- and in-service teacher development. The policy framework will include minimum standards for (i) academic and professional competencies for primary and secondary teachers and for each subject; (ii) teacher training institutional/organizational capacity to deliver appropriate types and levels of teacher training programs; and (iii) monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance for initial registration plus periodic reviews. The framework will include (i) guidelines for articulation between pre- and in-service and other professional upgrade training programs; (ii) guidelines for accrediting in-service and professional upgrades to formal qualifications; (iii) guidelines to develop teaching portfolios to evaluate classroom-based performance of teachers; (iv) guidelines to monitor institutional collaboration, joint projects with schools and/or teacher professional organizations in respective areas; (v) guidelines for teacher remuneration and incentive schemes to ensure equity and fair distribution of teachers through the country; and (vi) guidelines for establishing a system of teacher registration and accreditation. The policy framework and procedures will be developed through a consultative process involving all stakeholders. The Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) will hold a 2-day formal workshop involving technical experts, teachers, parents, private sector partners in education, e.g., National University of Samoa, church schools, non-government organizations, private schools, and other policymakers, to seek feedback from the stakeholders regarding the contents of the teacher development policy framework. The feedback will be incorporated in the final product covering teacher development policy reform and major activities with estimated budget, time frame, and targets for teacher development for the next decade.

5. Furthermore, the TA will help the Government begin the process of aligning current teacher training programs to the new quality, efficiency, and sustainability standard. It will help develop: (i) appropriate legislation to implement teacher registration and in-service teacher performance monitoring, (ii) teacher competencies, (iii) processes for monitoring institutional capacity to provide appropriate quality teacher training programs, (iv) a manual of policies and procedures for national teacher development decision making, and (v) a reporting mechanism. The TA scope will not undertake the full development and implementation of the actions identified, but it will provide a strong platform for MESC to work from.

6. The consultants’ will provide one comprehensive report that integrates all aspects from two individual reports for each phase. The first of the two individual reports will include (i) a brief description of the current approach to teacher development and management based on relevant disaggregated data obtained for the surveys and focus

Section 16 2

groups; (ii) a detailed, but concise and focused analysis of key issues related to quality, efficiency, and cost effectiveness; (iii) concise analysis of causes related to the issues; and (iv) a short description of past performance of the Government and external assistance in teacher development including in-service teacher training and lessons learned. It will (i) provide a set of quality indicators, with baseline values, expected targets with time frame, and monitoring mechanism; and (ii) formulate of a set of recommendations for the conceptualization and development of an NTDF.

7. The second individual report will include policy guidelines including the rationale, processes, and exemplars for (i) developing teacher standards and competencies for primary, secondary, and subject specializations; (ii) monitoring institutional standards and capacity to develop, deliver, and monitor appropriate training programs; (iii) guidelines for accrediting in-service and professional upgrade programs to formal qualifications; (iv) guidelines to develop teaching portfolios to evaluate classroom-based performance of teachers; (v) guidelines to monitor institutional collaboration, and joint projects with schools and/or teacher professional organizations in respective areas; and (vi) guidelines for teacher remuneration and incentive schemes to ensure equity and fair distribution of teachers throughout the country.

D. Implementation Arrangements

8. The Ministry of Finance will be the Executing Agency and MESC the Implementing Agency for the TA. MESC will appoint a senior staff member as coordinator for all matters pertaining to the TA. Five counterpart staff, three from MESC and two from the Faculty of Education of the National University of Samoa, will be appointed to work closely with the international consultants to provide assistance and advice, and help formulate the final documents. The existing Education Steering Committee will be involved to advice on all policy and legal issues associated with the TA. If needed the committee could be expanded to include members to oversee specific areas of TA implementation. The committee will meet at least three times (at the beginning, middle, and end of TA) to provide guidance.

ADB will engage four international and five domestic consultants with experience in all aspects of the specified scope of work. The international consultant group will comprise (i) a teacher education planning and institutional development specialist who will be the team leader (4.5 person-months), (ii) a teacher education/quality assurance specialist (3.5 person-months), (iii) a legislation and policy development expert (1 person-month), and (iv) a financial planning specialist (1 person-month). The domestic consultants will be (i) an education administration and policy specialist (4 person-months), (ii) a teacher education specialist (3 person-months),(iii) a participatory planning specialist (1.5 person-month), (iv) a teacher training specialist (2.5 person-months), and (v) a finance and legal specialist (1.5 person-months). The consultants will be selected through a firm in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants and other engagement

Section 16 3

arrangements for domestic consultants acceptable to ADB. Section 16 Annex 2 provides the detailed terms of reference for the consultants.

9. The TA will be implemented over 10 months. It is expected to start in June 2006 and be completed by April 2007.1 The team leader and the teacher education/quality assurance specialist will prepare a TA implementation plan. Within 4 weeks after starting the TA, the team leader will submit a brief inception report summarizing initial findings, identifying specific issues, and suggesting changes to the methodology and program, if any. The consultants will submit (at the end of week 30) a draft final report to Asian Development Bank, Australian Agency for International Development, European Union, Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture, Ministry of Finance, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; and New Zealand Agency for International Development for comments before the workshop with all the stakeholders. The consultants will submit three hard copies each of all the reports in a single compact disc (3 copies each) to ADB, one copy each to the other development partners, and six copies to the executing and implementing agencies.

Table A5.2: Cost Estimates and Financing Plan ($'000)

Foreign Local TotalItem Exchange Currency Cost

A. Asian Development Bank Fund Financing1. Consultants

a. Remuneration and Per Diem i. International Consultants 191.0 0.0 191.0 ii. Domestic Consultants 0.0 47.0 47.0

b. International and Local Travel 60.0 4.0 64.0c. Reports, Studies, and Communications 0.0 3.0 3.0

2. Seminars and Conferences 0.0 10.0 10.03. Representative for Contract Negotiationsa 5.0 0.0 5.04. Contingencies 25.0 5.0 30.0

Subtotal (A) 281.0 69.0 350.0B. Government Financing

1. Office Accommodation and Transport 0.0 30.0 30.02. Remuneration and Per Diem for Counterpart

Staff0.0 50.0 50.0

3. Others 0.0 20.0 20.0 Subtotal (B) 0.0 100.0 100.0 Total 281.0 169.0 450.0

a. Includes cost of travel and per diem of government observer invited for contract negotiations. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

1 Synchronizing the work of this TA to match with the teacher training activities under the loan Project will be useful as the TA work

provides minimum standards for teacher competency at various levels of the school system and subject type.

Section 16 4

Section 16 Annex 1

Technical Assistance - Design and Monitoring Framework

Design Summary Performance Indicators/Target Monitoring Mechanisms

Assumptions and Risks

Impact Ensure that a high-quality teaching force staffs primary and secondary schools so that Education for All and Millennium

Development Goals can be achieved by 2015 and provide expanded opportunities for quality secondary education

� More than 80% of primary and secondary teachers implement the new curriculum by 2015 using child-centered instructional strategies

� Retention, promotion, and transition rates significantly improved above the current baseline level by 2015 (Technical assistance [TA] consultants will determine the baseline and target)

� Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) statistics

� School review officer reports

� Observationalstudies

Assumption

� MESC and Faculty of Education are able to resolve the current tension and work collaboratively

Risk

� New curriculum does not supports effectiveinstructionalstrategies

Outcome

A strategic, cost-effective and comprehensive approach to teacher recruitment, initial training, and sustained development

� Current situation of teacher development, deployment, and instructional effectiveness assessed

� Policies options for continuous in-service teacher training and support analyzed, with special attention to the needs of beginning teachers and under qualified teachers

� Analysis of the institutional requirement for effective management of teacher recruitment, deployment, and development

� The investment and recurrent cost implications of the major policy options and action plans are estimated

� Student assessment and test results

� Annual budget allocation

� MESC annual monitoring indicators under benefit monitoring and evaluation

� Technical assistance (TA) reports

Risk

� The Government will not be able to prioritize and sustain reform with support from key stakeholders

Outputs

Teacher development framework, policies, and procedures.

Action plans, with phased and costed investment programs

Government review of report and decision on teacher policy

� Proposal for a national teacher development framework (NTDF)

� Phased action plans for teacher recruitment, initial training, and continued professional development

� Estimates of investment and recurrent cost of action programs

� Management and monitoring system and institutional framework for the supporting the operations of NTDF agreed

� Sample of expected teacher competencies

� Teacher registration and performance

� The inception, midterm, and final report

� Government’s endorsement and acceptance of the Teacher Development Framework issuing an official notice.

Assumptions

� Addressing the education quality and efficiency issues remains the Government’spriority

Section 16 5

Design Summary Performance Indicators/Target Monitoring Mechanisms

Assumptions and Risks

appraisal guidelines

� Revised Government policy ready for implementation

Inputs

Consultants

Counterpart staff

� 10 person-months of international consulting services and 12.5 person-months domestic consulting funded by Asian Development Bank

� Steering committee, technical working group from the Ministry of Finance

� Consultants’ invoices

� TA reports

� Audit report

Section 16 6

Section 16 Annex 2

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE NATIONAL TEACHER DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

OUTLINE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CONSULTANTS

1. The piggybacked technical assistance (TA) to Education Sector Project II (ESP II) deals with the long term capacity building for the teacher development involving the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC), Faculty of Education at the National University of Samoa (NUS), and other stakeholders associated with teacher development in the country. The Government is cognizant of the current ad hoc approach to managing teacher development (pre- and in-service training) and recognizes that it is inefficient and/or ineffective and in need of urgent and significant reform.

2. The TA will be undertaken in two phases. Firstly, as part of the consolidation process, existing education legislation and regulations for teacher development, recruitment and management of teachers, as well as institutional collaborations, should be reviewed with a view to advice and assist the stakeholder workshops. Secondly, considering the sensitivity associated with the reform of teacher development the workshops are intended to encourage broader stakeholder participation and subsequent ownership of some form of a National Teacher Development Framework (NTDF) and its associated structures, functions and responsibilities. To implement the TA, 10 person-months international and 12.5 person-months domestic consulting services will be required.

A. International Consultants (10 person-months)

Teacher Education Planning and Institutional Development Specialist –Team Leader (International, 4.5 person months)3. The consultant will be a specialist in generic issues in teacher development with expertise in education strategic planning and institutional development. The consultant should have strong background in dealing with issues of education systems development, expansion and capacity building. The Government recognizes that human and systems capacity building is just as important as physical capacity and thus intends to identify how best to continue the teacher development reform in a manner that will ensure continued sustainable improvements in educational outcomes. The tasks and outputs of the consultant will be:

(i) Review existing provisions for teacher development and management. It should capture the roles and responsibilities of teacher development organizational units, committee structures, decision making processes such as teacher

Section 16 7

recruitment policies, awarding of scholarships, teacher remunerations/promotion and incentives schemes, teacher workload, and other special duties;

(ii) Assess current government education policy, priority and reform needs byreviewing organizational structures involved in teacher development and management, and suggest possible reform initiatives to the stakeholder meeting;

(iii) Make presentation to stakeholders on the need for collaboration by all to support the Government’s priorities to provide a regular supply of highly training teachers;

(iv) Assess the capacity of key teacher development and management institutions/organizational units to clarify roles and responsibilities at different levels, including stakeholder influence in decision making and resource use of education services;

(v) Undertake consultation with other related projects undertaken by other donor agencies and the Government to develop a coherent understanding of current and planned activities in teacher development;

(vi) Identify training needs for capacity development at different levels focusing on financial and strategic management pertaining to teacher development and the various education line agencies, and propose modalities of training and retraining programs to strengthen institutional and operational capacities;

(vii) Propose improvements in the education management information system (EMIS)with focus on teacher performance, supply and demand, policy analysis, system monitoring, and making data accessible for analysis and assessment. Include examples of models from other development countries;

(viii) Plan and conduct stakeholder workshops, obtain feedback and revise recommendations;

(ix) Assist the MESC working group in preparing the NTDF and the policies and procedures;

(x) Coordinate the activities of other international and national consultants and advise on approaches and targets; and

(xi) Review reports of other team members and compile the three reports outlined in the outputs of the TA.

Teacher Education/Quality Assurance Specialist (3.5 person-months)4. Samoa has recently undertaken major changes within the sector in curriculum development, school rehabilitation, teacher/learning materials development and management reform, but has yet to see the changes expected in students’ performance. The Government recognizes the central role of teachers in achieving anticipated outcomes for the reform initiatives to meet its education for all (EFA) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The consultant will be dealing with specifics of teacher development, accreditation and quality improvement. The tasks and outputs of the will be:

(i) Conduct a comprehensive needs analysis of pre- and in-service teachers. The review should capture the roles, responsibilities and workload of teachers, resource and support provided to teachers, knowledge and skills upgrading;

Section 16 8

(ii) Conduct an audit of the teacher development institutional capacity: review the structures and their roles and responsibilities, committee and their roles and responsibilities, training programs and staff profile and other special duties;

(iii) Prepare a presentation to discuss the gap in competencies, share international experience in developing teachers’ competencies- a mix of academic and professional competencies, evaluation and monitoring of teacher competencies as quality assurance mechanism;

(iv) As part of the teacher quality improvement review the teacher certificate processes (licenses currently issued by MESC) for issuing of teaching licenses and criteria used for judging performance;

(v) Advise and assist local specialist and MESC in exploring alternative measures of teacher performance, e.g., teacher professional portfolios as evidence of performance rather than just time based and student achievements;

(vi) Advise and assist MESC and NUS to develop a procedure for considering in-service training for credits into formal university programs;

(vii) Review teacher data collected by the EMIS in the MESC and advise additional variable that is necessary to better manage the supply and demand of teachers;

(viii) Design and facilitate stakeholder workshops to identify expected baseline standard for teachers and note all feedback and revise recommendations and approach;

(ix) Design and facilitate stakeholder workshops to identify possible teacher competencies. The stakeholders should include MESC, FOE, teacher professional associations; parents’ representative; representatives from mission school system and other stakeholders;

(x) Explore, through consultations with MESC and NUS, options for strengthening and building capacity in FOE which is the primary teacher training institution in the country;

(xi) Identify key issues with regards to human and systems capacity to improve teacher quality, assist MESC to develop draft policy guidelines to address the issues;

(xii) Explore options such as school based training, distance education, classroom-based/practitioner-based research and learning as alternative models for teacher training;

(xiii) Prepare a detailed report with recommendations with examples for the necessarytasks and documentations; and

(xiv) Assist the team leader prepare the three reports noted as output from this TA.

Legal and Education Policy Development Specialist (1 person- month) 5. The consultant will bring to the policy and institutional development extensive experience in formulating legislation to implement the re-conceptualized teacher development and management process in Samoa. The consultant will advise the Government (MESC and PSC) on the pitfalls of certain approaches based on experiences of other countries. The consultant will in collaboration with other international consultants:

Section 16 9

(i) Review current policies and legislation covering teacher recruitment, performance appraisals including unsatisfactory performance and advice on an objective, merit based and transparent systems;

(ii) Design and conduct workshop on the nature and the purpose of sound legislationto ensure sustainability of the innovative approach to teacher development and management;

(iii) Through a consultative process assist local counterpart, MESC and PSC explore draft legislations to support the implementing of the new teacher registration and quality assurance processes;

(iv) Through a consultative process assist local counterpart, MESC and PSC and other team members explore and draft policy guidelines and procedures for improving the capacity to deal with the changes;

(v) Prepare a report outlining the key activities undertaken and outcomes achieved and also actions to be undertaken under a future loan project; and

(vi) Draft sections of her/his input and assist the team leader to compile the three reports

Financial Planning Specialist (1 person-month)6. To ensure sustainability of the new approaches to teacher development and management of the new structures and processes, professional and support staff and equipment for the secretariat is necessary. In order for the Government to appreciate the cost implications associated with the changes a detailed financial analysis and cost forecast will be prepared by the consultant. In collaboration with the team leader and other team members, the consultant will:

(i) Review the current funding mechanism for teacher development in the country;(ii) Analyze the cost effectiveness of the current model and compare with models

from other developing countries;(iii) Prepare a report of the review for the local counterpart/working group, team

members and the MESC;(iv) Develop funding model to simulate the projected cost implications for the new

approach to teacher development and management;(v) Review and advice on the cost implications for upgrading and building capacity at

FOE to design and deliver high quality training programs;(vi) Prepare a report outlining the key activities undertaken and outcomes achieved

and also actions to be undertaken under a future loan project;(vii) Draft sections of input and assist the team leader to compile the three reports,(viii) Liaise with other members of the team to coordinate and ensure coherence; and(ix) Assist the team leader in compiling the report.

Section 16 10

B. Domestic Consultants (12.5 person-months)

Education Administration and Policy Specialist (4 person-months) 7. The institutional structures and functions of current teacher development and management systems will be reviewed. The consultant will bring extensive local insights to the review process and assist the international consultants in accessing necessary reports and government documents and developing a deeper understanding of the current situation. The specific tasks will include:

(i) Identify and review all government reports, policy guidelines and procedures related to institutional structures and their functions;

(ii) Advise and assist the international team on process of decision making on issues such as teacher recruitments, training, quality assurance and remunerations;

(iii) Advice international consultants on cultural sensitivity attached to reforming teacher development, act as a critical friend and assist them understand the local practices;

(iv) Advise and assist with organizing stakeholder workshops and focus groups;(v) Participate in all senior government level meetings regarding the project and

provide critical feedback;(vi) Assist the team leader in writing discussion papers and the final reports as per

the outputs of this TA; and(vii) Assist the team leader coordinate the domestic consultants and other local

support staff.

Teacher Education Specialist (3 person-months)8. Teacher quality is a central issue for the Government in achieving its EFA and MDGs. The consultant will assist the international counterpart in undertaking a comprehensive review of current processes and identify baseline teacher competencies that assured high quality teachers for general education schools. Specific tasks include:

(i) Assist the international counterpart conduct a comprehensive needs analysis of pre- and in-service teachers to identify gaps and make a presentation to all stakeholders;

(ii) Review the current teacher quality improvement process including the issuing of teaching certificate process (licenses currently issued my MESC) in terms of criteria used for judging performance;

(iii) Review teacher data collected by the EMIS in the MESC and advise additional variable that is necessary to better manage the supply and demand of teachers;

(iv) Design and facilitate stakeholder workshops, note feedback and revise recommendations and approach;

(v) Assist the international counterpart explore options for strengthening and building capacity in FOE which is the primary teacher training institution in the country;

(vi) Assist the international counterpart plan and hold meeting with key stakeholder groups individually and as interest groups;

Section 16 11

(vii) Identify key issues with regards to human and systems capacity to improving teacher quality, assist MESC to develop draft policy guidelines to address the identified issues; and

(viii) Assist the team leader prepare the three reports noted as output from the TA

Participatory Planning Specialist (1.5 person-months) 9. In accordance with local practice and the increasing recognition by international agencies of the importance of wider stakeholder involvement to increase ownership, transparency and sustainability of reforms this TA will involve significant participatory meeting and stakeholder consultations. The consultant will play a central role in the outcomes of this TA. Specifically the tasks will include:

(i) Assist the international consultants plan and facilitate focus groups and stakeholder workshops;

(ii) Identify key stakeholder groups, key individuals from each stakeholder group and arrange meetings and focus groups/workshops;

(iii) Organize the logistics of planning the workshops and stakeholder focus group meetings;

(iv) Advise the international consultants of cultural sensitivity and cultural protocol;(v) Assist international consultants to facilitate the workshops and prepare report

summarizing key outcomes; and(vi) Write summary reports for each workshop and focus group meeting held.

Teacher Training Specialist (2.5 person-months) 10. The operational issue related to teacher training needs also need to be analyzed from local perspective and expectations. The consultant will provide the international counterpart alternative views to current problems encountered with the development and supply of high quality teachers to all schools. The specific tasks will include:

(i) Conduct a comprehensive needs analysis of pre- and in-service teachers. The review should capture the roles and responsibilities, workload of teachers, resource and support provided to teachers, knowledge and skills upgrading;

(ii) Assist the international counterpart design and facilitate stakeholder workshop to identify possible teacher competencies;

(iii) Review current training programs for relevance to new curriculum and compare to international practices;

(iv) Review current teacher training programs and compare with international programs;

(v) Assist international consultants conduct workshops on international experience in developing teachers’ competencies (a mix of academic and professional competencies), evaluation and monitoring of teacher competencies as quality assurance mechanism;

Section 16 12

(vi) Advise and assist MESC to explore alternative measures of teacher performance, e.g., teacher professional portfolios as evidence of performance rather than just time based;

(vii) Advise and assist MESC and NUS to develop a procedure for considering in-service for credits into formal university programs; and

(viii) Design and facilitate stakeholder workshops, note feedback and revise recommendations and approach.

Finance and Legal Specialist (1.5 person-months) 11. Establishing a sustainable and high quality teacher development system in Samoa will require some changes to organizational structures, human resources supplies and equipment and facilities. All of these have financial implications which the consultant, working in collaboration with the international counterpart, will review and make projections. Specifically the tasks will include:

(i) Assist the international counterpart review current funding mechanism for teacher development and analyze the cost effectiveness of the model;

(ii) Compare the finding with models from other developing countries and review the policies assumption and legislations;

(iii) Assist the international counterpart to develop a model to simulate the cost implication for the new approach to teacher development and management including cost implications for upgrading and building capacity at FOE to design and deliver high quality training programs;

(iv) Assist with the design and facilitation of workshops on the nature and the purpose of sound legislation to ensure sustainability of the innovative approach to teacher development and management;

(v) Assist MESC and MOF, through a consultative process, to appreciate the long term return from adopting new innovating approaches to financing education;

(vi) Prepare a report outlining the key activities undertaken and outcomes achieved and also actions to be undertaken under a future loan project; and

(vii) Assist with drafting related sections and assist the team leader to compile the three reports.

Section 16 13

Section 17 1

SECTION 17: KEY PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT

Government of Samoa

ame Title mail address Phone a o. Ms. Hinauri Petana Chief Executive Officer

Ministry of Finance

Mr. Tupae CEO, Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture

Ms. Noumea Simi Asst. CEO Ministry of Finance

noumea.simi@mof.gov.ws

Taut�pilimai Levaopolo T. Esera

Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Education, Sports & Culture

Tupae@lesamoa.net or Samoamesc@lesamoa.net

Tel: +685 21911 Fax: +685 21917

Laititi Su’a Assistant CEO, Corporate Services Division, MESC

Laititi@lesamoa.net Tel: +685 21911 Ext: 602

Lufi Taulealo ACEO School Operations Division, MESC

l.taulealo@mesc.gov.ws Tel: +685 21911 Ext 706

Leti Ngg Cho Head of Asset Management Unit (AMU), MESC

Ieti.nggcho@lesamoa.net Tel: +685 21911 Ext. 761

Marie Toalepaialii ACEO Policy, Planning and Research, MESC

Mbtoalepaialii@lesamoa.net Tel: +685 21911 Ext. 721

Doreen Roebeck ACEO Curriculum, Materials and Assessment, MESC

Droebeck@lesamoa.net Tel: +685 31344

Nu'ufou Petaia MESC Consultant

Nuufou@lesamoa.net Tel: +685 21911 Ext. 755

Mose Fulu ACEO Culture

Mosefulu@hotmail.com Tel: +685 21911 Ext. 790

Fepulea’i Sinapi Moli CEO, Samoa Qualifications Authority

Smoli@lesamoa.net Tel: +685 21911 Ext 758

Seumanutafa Semi Epati ACEO Sports

Epatijr@hotmail.com Tel: +685 21911 Ext. 787

2Section 17

Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)

ame Title mail address Phone a o. Ms Amanda Roberts First Secretary,

Development Cooperation, Apia

Amanda.roberts@ausaid.gov.au Tel: +685 23411 ext 704 Fax: +685 26872

Leota Valma Galuvao Senior Activity Manager, Education

Valma.galuvao@ausaid.gov.au Tel: +685 23411 ext 718 Fax: +685 26872

Ms. Sue Kelly Director, Pacific Health, Education & Environment Section

Sue.Kelly@ausaid.gov.au

Tel: +61 2 6206 4382 Fax: +61 2 6206 4636

Mr Sinna Sinnaparujar Country Program Manager, Samoa

Sinna.Sinnaparujar@ausaid.gov.au Tel: +61 2 6206 4909 Fax: +61 2 6206 4636

Ms. Isolde Macatol Pacific Education Program Pacific Health, Education & Environment Section AusAID Canberra

isolde.macatol@ausaid.gov.au

Tel: +61-2 6206 4632 Fax: +61-2 6206 4636

Mr. Tony Newman Manager, Pacific Contracts Section

Tony.newman@ausaid.gov.au

Mr. Chris Tyrrell Government Solicitor Chris.Tyrrel@ausaid.gov.au

New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID)

ame Title mail address Phone a o. Ms. Sarah Wong Samoa Programme

Manager, Wellington Sarah.Wong@mfat.govt.nz

Tel: +64 4 439 8759 Fax: +64 4 439 8513

Ms. June Ralston Manager, Contracts Unit, Wellington

June.Ralston@mfat.govt.nz

Tel: +64 4 439 8259 Fax: +64 4 439 8514

Mr. Philip Hewitt NZAID Manager, NZHC, Apia

Philip.Hewitt@mfat.govt.nz

Tel: +685 21711 extn 216 Fax: +685 20086

Mr David Coleman Education Adviser, Wellington

David.Coleman@mfat.govt.nz

Tel: +64 4 439 8594 Fax: +64 4 439 8513

Asian Development Bank (ADB), Pacific Department

ame Title mail address Phone a o. Mr. Philip Erquiaga Director General, Pacific

Department perquiaga@adb.org Tel: +632 632 6085

Fax: +632 636 2442 Mr. Indu Bhushan Director, Pacific Operations

Division ibhushan@adb.org Tel: +632 632 6125

Fax: +632 636 2442 / 2446 Ms. Kowsar Chowdhury Education Specialist kchowdhury@adb.org Tel: +632 632 6125

Fax: +632 636 2442 / 2446 Ms. Susan I. Francisco Operations Officer sifrancisco@adb.org Tel: +632 632 6357

Fax: +632 636 2442 / 2446

Board of Directors

SUMMARY PROCEDURE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY R341-05 25 November 2005

Proposed Loan and Technical Assistance Grant Education Sector Project II (Samoa) 1. The Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP: SAM 34285) on a proposed loan and technical assistance grant to Samoa for the Education Sector Project II is circulated herewith, together with the (Draft) Loan Agreement. 2. This Report and Recommendation should be read with Samoa: Country Strategy and Program Update (2005-2006), which was circulated to the Board on 13 August 2004 (DOC.Sec.M64-04). 3. In the absence of any request for discussion and in the absence of a sufficient number of abstentions or objections (which should be communicated to The Secretary by the close of business on 16 December 2005), the recommendation in paragraph 97 of the Paper will be deemed to have been approved, to be so recorded in the minutes of a subsequent meeting of the Board. Any notified abstentions or objections will also be recorded in the minutes. For Inquiries: I. Bhushan, Pacific Department (Ext. 6125) K. Chowdhury, Pacific Department (Ext. 6320) The attached document has a restricted distribution until it has been approved by the Board of Directors. Following such approval, the document will be available to the public.

Report and Recommendation of the Presidentto the Board of Directors

Project Number: 34285 November 2005

Proposed Loan and Technical Assistance Grant Samoa: Education Sector Project II

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 15 Oct 2005)

Currency Unit – tala (ST)

ST1.00 = $0.384 $1.00 = ST2.600

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank AusAID – Australian Agency for International Development CEO – chief executive officer EPSP – Education, Sports and Culture Policy and Strategic Plan ESP I – Education Sector Project I GDP – gross domestic product MESC – Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture MOF – Ministry of Finance NUS – National University of Samoa NZAID – New Zealand Agency for International Development OCEO – Office of the Chief Executive Officer SATVETI – Samoa Association of Technical and Vocational Education

Training Institution SDS – Strategy for the Development of Samoa SOE – statement of expenditure SPELL – Samoa primary education literacy level TA – technical assistance

NOTE

In this report, "$" refers to US dollars

Vice President J. Eichenberger, Operations 2 Director General P. Erquiaga, Pacific Department Director I. Bhushan, Pacific Operations Division, Pacific Department

Team leader K. Chowdhury, Education Specialist, Pacific Department Team member Paul-Edouard Clos, Office of the General Counsel

CONTENTS Page

LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY i

MAP vii

I. THE PROPOSAL 1

II. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITES 1A. Performance Indicators and Analysis 1B. Analysis of Key Problems and Opportunities 2

III. THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5A. Impact and Outcome 5B. Outputs 5C. Special Features 11D. Cost Estimates 12E. Financing Plan 12F. Implementation Arrangements 13

IV. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND RISKS 17A. Benefits 17B. Risks 18

V. ASSURANCES 19A. Specific Assurances 19B. Condition for Loan Effectiveness 20

VI. RECOMMENDATION 20

APPENDIXES 1. Design and Monitoring Framework 22 2. Education Sector and Subsector Analysis 27 3. External Assistance to the Samoan Education Sector 32 4. Lessons Learned 34 5. Technical Assistance for the National Teacher Development Framework 37 6. Characteristics of Secondary School Upgrading Needs 42 7. Detailed Cost Estimates 43 8. Organizational Structure of Project Management and Implementation Arrangement 45 9. Implementation Schedule 46 10. Indicative Procurement Packages 48 11. Summary of Consulting Services Requirements 49 12. Project Monitoring and Evaluation 50 13. Summary Poverty Reduction and Social Analysis 53 14. Summary Economic and Financial Analysis 55 15. Summary of Financial Management Assessment 60

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIXES (available upon request) A. Memorandum of Arrangement B. Outline Terms of Reference C. Financial Management Assessment–Supporting Details D. Outline Terms of Reference for the Technical Assistance

LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY

Borrower Independent State of Samoa

Classification Targeting classification: Targeted intervention Sector: Education Subsector: Education sector development Theme: Inclusive social development Subthemes: Human development, other vulnerable groups

Environment Assessment

Category C: Environmental implications were reviewed. The Project is unlikely to have adverse environmental impacts.

Project Description

The Project will help the Government continue its efforts to ensure that school education (grades 1–13) enhances equitable learning outcomes to prepare competent young people for further study, work, and adult life. The Project supports the Government’s education policies and the Strategy for the Development of Samoa, 2005–2007, which identifies improvements in learning achievement of primary and secondary students to ensure functional literacy as a national priority goal. The Project will improve quality of learning for primary and secondary school children. Curriculum for all subjects from years 1 to 8 will be improved. New multimedia methods will be developed for teaching science subjects in years 9 to 13. All primary teachers will receive training in the use of the new curriculum and assessment system. School environments of selected secondary schools in rural areas will be upgraded to national standards.

The Project has five components: (i) introducing curriculum reform and assessment systems; (ii) developing effective teachers; (iii) improving access to quality education; (iv) strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning; and (v) strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects. The Project is designed to establish a learning environment that provides all children with an equal opportunity to learn at a higher level, while increasing the cost-effectiveness of service provision. The Project will contribute to eliminating inequity by minimizing regional disparities in access to quality education, and promoting equitable learning outcomes. Improving access to quality primary and secondary education in poor communities is expected to reduce income deprivation and hardship.

Rationale Despite many positive achievements in education since 1995, the quality of education as measured by test results and functional literacy remains disappointing. The Samoa primary education literacy level one (year 4) and two (year 6) tests, which assess students at risk of not reaching literacy and numeracy standards, as well as year 8 examinations, indicate unsatisfactory results. For example, in year 4, students at risk in English increased from 29% in 1997 to 51% in 2003; in year 6, students at risk in numeracy increased from 63% in 1997 to 71% in 2003. In year 8, raw scores in all five subject areas tested declined. At the secondary level, scores on the year 12 examination in the 15 subject areas declined over

ii

the 5 years between 1997 and 2002, although they increased in most subjects in 2003. Although questions may be asked about the reliability, validity, and suitability of these tests to accurately measure changes in student performance over time, fundamental problems are affecting school education in Samoa. These include low capacity to provide high-quality learning opportunities and learning environment in government schools, and ensure these are available to all students, and are delivered efficiently. In addition, a large number of students enrolling in primary education do not complete the 8-year program. Dropout and repetition rates are high, indicating inefficiency in the school system.

While upgrading of primary schools is supported by European Union and Japan International Cooperation Agency micro projects, no such financing is available for upgrading and rehabilitating secondary schools in rural areas. While the education sector is an explicit budget priority, available resources are often not managed cost-effectively. In recent years, financing of basic and secondary education has decreased, which may have contributed to the decline in performance levels. The Government’s education policy development unit is weak, and needs substantive capacity building in making sound policies for managing service delivery effectively.

The Project addresses several priority areas in education service delivery. The conditions of learning are unsatisfactory especially in disadvantaged areas. Textbooks are not always available in the quantities required, the primary curriculum is over 25 years old and is not integrated with the new secondary curriculum, and many teachers are unfamiliar with effective instructional practice. A new secondary school curriculum has been adopted, but teachers need training and technical support to implement it and adopt new teaching methods in the classroom. External support has been mainly through projects, but coordination of externally assisted and Government-funded programs has often been poor. The Project will continue and complement support initiated under the first Education Sector Project (ESP I) and other externally funded projects to address these issues, and focus on effective coordination through the Government’s leadership.

Impact and Outcome

The Project supports the establishment of a more equitable and effective education system that enhances learning outcomes of young people for further study, work, and adult life. The specific outcome will be enhanced quality of education by improving the curriculum; assessment; learning materials; teaching practice; and equitable access to trained teachers, facilities, furniture, and equipment. The Project will focus on the gaps in educational service provision for children from disadvantaged areas. It will specifically target secondary schools in rural areas not supported by the ESP I, and provide systemwide support for enhancing equity, quality, relevance, and efficiency of service delivery for primary and secondary education.

The Project will align the financial contributions and engagement of three development partners: the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian

iii

Agency for International Development (AusAID), and New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), with a Government-led sector development program. The implementation arrangements are designed to promote greater local ownership, alignment with local systems, and aid harmonization as agreed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2005. These arrangements will have a longer term outcome on sustainable capacity building.

Cost Estimates The total cost of the Project is estimated at $30.00 million equivalent. Of this amount, the foreign exchange cost is estimated at $19.92 million equivalent (66.4%), and the local currency cost at $10.08 million equivalent (33.6%).

Financing Plan ADB will provide a loan of $8.06 million equivalent, or 26.8% of the total project cost. The loan will finance $6.28 million equivalent of the foreign exchange cost (31.5%) and $1.78 million equivalent of the local currency cost (17.7%). AusAID and NZAID will each provide grant cofinancing of $8.60 million equivalent (28.7% of the total cost). The grant cofinancing will be partially administered by ADB and subject to ADB guidelines and procedures for procurement of goods and services of consultants. The Government will contribute the remaining $4.74 million equivalent, or 15.8%.

$ million

ItemForeign

ExchangeLocal

Currency Total Cost Percent

Asian Development Bank 6.28 1.78 8.06 26.8 AusAID 6.63 1.97 8.60 28.7 NZAID 6.63 1.97 8.60 28.7 Government of Samoa 0.38 4.36 4.74 15.8 Total 19.92 10.08 30.00 100.0

AusAID = Australian Agency for International Development, NZAID = New Zealand Agency for International Development. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Loan Amount and Terms

A loan of $8.06 million from ADB’s Special Funds resources will be provided. The loan will have a 32-year term including a grace period of 8 years, with an interest charge of 1% per annum and 1.5% per annum thereafter. The Project will finance activities in the education sector through a project loan modality.

Period of Utilization Until 30 June 2013

Estimated Project Completion Date

31 December 2012

Executing Agency Ministry of Finance

Implementation Arrangements

The Project will be managed and implemented under a single framework. The Implementing Agency will be the Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture (MESC). Strategic direction and oversight for the Project will be provided by the Education Steering Committee. MESC will have overall responsibility for day-to-day management of project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting of progress. At the operational

iv

level, the Project will be managed by the MESC Core Executive, comprising the chief executive officer and assistant chief executive officers, and supported by the Office of the Chief Executive Officer and a project coordinator. All elements of the Project will be implemented through the existing MESC organizational structure. Responsibility for each component will rest with the appropriate assistant chief executive officer and be implemented by staff of the relevant division.

The project implementation structure for the Project aligns with the MESC structure. The current project management team, established for the ESP I, is planned to become an integral part of MESC’s organizational structure as an assets management unit. It will have responsibility for procurement of goods and services for all the components, and overall responsibility for day-to-day coordination and management of component 3 implementation, monitoring, evaluation of progress, and reporting to the MESC Core Executive Group. An effective project management and monitoring system will be crucial to project implementation. Consulting services will be provided to strengthen capacity of the Core Executive to deliver the Project and future development projects effectively under component 5.

Procurement All goods and services financed under the Project will be procured in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines for Procurement and the Government’s guidelines for procurement acceptable to ADB. The contract for MESC headquarters estimated to cost more than $1,000,000 will be awarded following ADB’s international competitive bidding procedures. All the other contracts under the Project will be awarded following local competitive bidding in accordance with Government procedures acceptable to ADB.

Consulting Services The Project will provide about 122 person-months of domestic consulting and 103 person months of international consulting services. All international and associated domestic consultants will be selected and recruited in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultantsand other arrangements satisfactory to ADB for engaging domestic consultants. All international consulting services will be provided by either firms or individuals, in each case determined by MOF. The domestic consulting services will cover all services except for the project implementation. The Project will use quality- and cost-based selection (QCBS) method for recruitment of firms. The Project will provide consultant services for primary curriculum development, assessment system, information communication technology, audio visual specialist, bilingual, primary subject area specialist, advocacy, pre-service and, in-service teacher development, public opinion assessment, education equipment procurement, civil works, education research methods, education sector expenditure review, education sector planning, and project management monitoring, and evaluation.

Project Benefits and Beneficiaries

The Project focuses on systematic improvement in the quality of service delivery through improved curriculum, learning materials, assessment systems, and teacher training. The long-term benefits will be derived from stronger institutional capacity delivering improved learning outcomes.

v

About 40,000 primary school students will benefit from quality improvements through the Project. Schools with a large number of pupils at risk of dropping out will be targeted. These interventions are expected to strengthen Samoa’s human resources and provide an opportunity for poor people to participate in and benefit from development.

About 15,000 secondary students will benefit from more relevant multimedia learning materials in science and agricultural science. Students on the islands of Savai’i and Upolu will benefit from the services of itinerant design technology and agriculture science teachers. The school environment of selected secondary schools and three colleges in disadvantaged areas will be upgraded to the national standard. Offering relevant, well-taught curriculum is an important incentive in attracting and keeping students in school. Qualitative system improvements, through relevant curriculum and better learning environments, will result in higher test results, and lower dropout and repetition rates. The existence of a high-quality district secondary school will improve primary school participation and completion rates, and complement investments in parent and community advocacy campaigns.

MESC’s capacity will be strengthened by improving staff’s research and analytical work, as well as their ability to generate reliable measurement indicators. This will improve the Government’s policy and planning development capacity and delivery of services. The Project will also strengthen MESC’s capacity in the day-to-day management, evaluation, monitoring, and implementation of development projects.

Risks and Assumptions

The Government is highly committed to ensuring equity, quality, efficiency, and relevance in education. This requires more resources targeted at poor communities. However, political pressures may constrain this and the ability to rationalize the system to use resources cost-effectively. The development and implementation of appropriate policies to use resources equitably and efficiently is required. During project implementation, dialogue with the Government will seek equitable distribution and cost-effective use of resources. The Project does not foresee any major social risks, and will ensure benefits independent of gender and enhance equity by targeting low-performing schools.

Sustainability risks include (i) insufficient recurrent budgets to finance nonsalary recurrent inputs, especially in the primary and secondary subsectors; (ii) deterioration of facilities due to lack of maintenance; (iii) low return of investments in teacher training due to attrition from the teaching force; and, (v) future underutilization of new secondary facilities due to internal migration.

To mitigate risks, the Project will (i) provide substantial support to materials development, teacher training, and other quality enhancements as a bridging strategy to provide continuity, while assisting the Government to develop an overall policy for the education sector and a financing framework that will assure adequate support to basic education operation and maintenance costs (reflected in the Government’s next

vi

Education, Sports and Culture Policy and Strategic Plan, 2006–2014); (ii) support development of policies and procedures for maintenance and protection of assets (addressed as part of the Education Policy and Strategic Plan framework); (iii) through technical assistance (TA) attached to the Project, build capacity for teacher development—housing incentives may attract and retain the teachers in the system and improvements in physical work environments and the introduction of innovative teaching techniques will improve teacher job satisfaction; and (iv) improve efficiency by rationalizing school provision. ADB will continue policy dialogue for rationalization of the education system to release scarce resources, and will assist MESC in developing student flow and simulation models to ensure that investments in civil works are appropriately sited.

Technical Assistance

ADB will provide an additional $350,000 equivalent as a TA grant from the ADB-funded TA program. The TA will establish a framework for developing effective approaches for teacher development programs essential for longer term sustainability of the project activities (Appendix 5 provides details of the TA). The grant will cover the entire foreign exchange cost of $281,000 and $69,000 equivalent of the local currency cost. The Government will contribute $100,000 equivalent to finance the remaining local currency cost.

I. THE PROPOSAL

1. I submit for your approval the following report and recommendation on (i) a proposed loan, (ii) the proposed administration under the terms of partial administration by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) of a grant to be provided by the Government of Australia in an amount not exceeding the equivalent of $8.60 million, and (iii) the proposed administration under the terms of partial administration by ADB of a grant to be provided by the Government of New Zealand in an amount not exceeding the equivalent of $8.60 million to the Government of the Independent State of Samoa for the Education Sector Project II. The report also describes a technical assistance (TA) for establishing capacity for teacher development, and if the Board approves the proposed loan, I, acting under the authority delegated to me by the Board, will approve the TA.

II. RATIONALE: SECTOR PERFORMANCE, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITES

2. In 2003, the Government asked the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to provide TA1 to prepare a follow-on project to the Education Sector Project (ESP I).2 The Project is included in the country strategy program update (2005–2006),3 which prioritizes investments in education as an important means of addressing hardship in Samoa. The design and monitoring framework is attached in Appendix 1.

A. Performance Indicators and Analysis

3. Samoa became independent in 1962. It has an open but small economy. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita exceeds $1,400, and increased by 3.4% annually from 1995 to 2002. Poverty is not regarded as a problem: private remittances from the 35% of the population living abroad are substantial (17% of gross national income) and the extended family system functions as an effective means of redistributing income. External aid represents 14.5% of gross national income (2002). Samoa ranks fifth in the region on both indexes of the United Nations Development Programme: Pacific human development index and human poverty index, and 75th worldwide on the human development index. Lack of opportunity and income vulnerability, often exacerbated by external economic shocks and natural disasters, contribute to hardship in rural areas, particularly in the island of Savai’i.

4. Education is a high priority of the Government. Achievements include an adult literacy rate of 98.7%, the highest in the region. Virtually all children have access to primary education and almost 90% of grade 8 completers enter secondary education. Gender disparities have been eliminated at the primary level and are declining at the secondary. Samoa’s first long-term education development plan4 focused on equity, quality, relevance, and efficiency as central objectives. Past investments have given priority to (i) providing textbooks and learning resources for primary education; (ii) developing a new secondary curriculum and textbooks; (iii) improving facilities and equipment and teacher training; (iv) enhancing special needs education; (v) expanding early childhood education;(vi) developing a bilingual language policy;

1 ADB. 2003. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for Preparing the Education Sector Project

II. Manila. 2 ADB. 2000. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan and

Technical Assistance Grant to the Independent State of Samoa for the Education Sector Project. Manila. 3 ADB. 2004. Country Strategy and Program Update (2005–2006): Samoa. Manila. 4 MESC.1995. Education Policy and Planning Project, Education Policies1995–2005, Education Strategies 1995-

2005. Apia, Samoa.

2

and (vii) strengthening the management capacity of the Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture (MESC). Appendix 2 provides an analysis of the education sector.

5. Yet, significant challenges persist. The Strategy for the Development of Samoa 2005–2007 identifies improvements in primary and secondary education as a national priority goal. Increased public expenditure on education development (4.5% of gross domestic product and 15% of total government expenditures in 2002) does not yet provide the educational outcomes envisaged. Almost 25% of students enrolling in primary education do not complete the 8-year program. In grade 1, 7% of students drop out each year and about 5% repeat. Repetition and dropout rates in grades 4 and 8 remain high. At the secondary level, about 70% of students entering grade 9 continue to grade 12, but less than half of 12th graders advance to grade 13.

6. Variations in student learning achievement are significant. Student performance in private and mission schools is better than in government schools. Low retention and poor learning is prevalent among students who are poor and live in rural areas. They are often poorly prepared when they enroll; the schools they attend do not offer quality opportunities to learn; and their parents can only provide limited support and allow students to drop out when facing difficulties. The result is that less than 25% of each age cohort completes 13 years of education. Many others end their formal education poorly prepared for further learning or for work.

B. Analysis of Key Problems and Opportunities

7. Quality learning opportunities are not available to all students. A recent review of the education sector identified several issues: (i) poor primary curriculum and assessment practices, (ii) lack of competent teachers in bilingual education, (iii) limited availability of instructional materials, (iv) shortage of well-trained teachers, (v) substandard school infrastructure in disadvantaged areas, and (vi) limited management capacity of MESC.

8. Curricula, Teaching, and Assessment Practice. The primary curriculum is over 25 years old. An updated curriculum policy framework and subject and year-level curriculum statements emphasizing more active, child-centered learning activities in the classroom; strengthening of pedagogical teaching skills; and a range of classroom assessment techniques are essential for high-quality teaching and learning. The Government intends to develop an integrated curriculum for primary years 1–3 and subject-specific curricula in seven subject areas for years 4–8. Work is still needed to renew the primary curriculum; provide teachers’ manuals, textbooks, and learning materials; and design related in-service training programs. The Samoa primary education literacy level tests and the reported examination results do not provide effective feedback on student performance on specific test items. A high priority is attaining a bilingual program, producing graduates fluent in Samoan and English.

9. Competent Teachers in Bilingual Education. The medium of instruction and competent teachers in bilingual education are major issues, as a high level of English competence is required for success in examinations. Officially, all teaching in years 1–3 is in Samoan. In year 4, English is introduced. By year 7, all instruction is supposed to be primarily in English. At the secondary level, English is expected to be the language of instruction. In many classrooms a mix of Samoan and English is used, mainly because teachers do not have enough competency in English to use English as a medium of instruction.

10. Instructional Materials. The supply of learning materials is insufficient and largely dependent on aid projects. The MESC recurrent budget provides for reprinting of primary school textbooks to ensure a new supply every 5 years. Toward the end of the 5-year period, a severe shortage of textbooks occurs. Books are typically shared and students are often forced

3

to copy materials from the blackboard. Many primary teachers have been trained in more learner-centered teaching and assessment methods, but the textbooks do not reflect such approaches. The new curriculum framework (1–13) requires new textbooks, student workbooks, and other learning materials. Moreover, supplementary materials such as readers (in Samoan and English) and audiovisual materials are in short supply. These shortages limit the ability of teachers to implement instructional practices that new curricula call for, and limit teaching effectiveness.

11. Teacher Shortage. Well-trained teachers with adequate skills to transmit knowledge and manage classrooms are in short supply. Low salaries and limited opportunities for professional development make attracting well-qualified secondary graduates into teaching, and then retaining them, difficult. The merger of the former Western Samoa Teacher Training College with the National University of Samoa (NUS) changed course offerings for preservice training. These changes have adversely affected the effectiveness of teacher development programs as basic lesson planning and delivery skills do not receive adequate attention. In-service training often provided by aid-supported projects is uncoordinated and lacks sustainability. At the secondary level, the anticipated growth in enrollment requires an increase in the output of the preservice programs with significant shortages expected in sciences, economics, and accounting. Teachers also require training in the new curriculum. Quality improvement initiatives are unlikely to succeed without in-service training, in-school support to teachers, effective monitoring by principals and school review officers, and cooperative projects with NUS to effectively provide examples of good practices for the benefit of both pre- and in-service teacher education.

12. Substandard School Infrastructure. Nearly every village has a primary school, jointly supported by the Government and the community. Each district has a secondary school with the bigger districts having two. Recent community consultations identified the condition of school facilities as an important source of dissatisfaction. Although many primary schools and some secondary schools have been upgraded in recent years, several schools in poorer areas still operate in facilities that do not meet national standards. Schools have an acute shortage of desks and chairs. A system of preventive maintenance of the assets is required to protect the investments.

13. Capacity to Manage the System. The recently completed Institutional Strengthening Project, funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), worked to strengthen MESC’s capacity to manage the education system. The relatively sophisticated education management information service developed provides detailed education statistics, but they are not always effectively used. Only four research studies were conducted during the last 10 years. The Policy, Planning, and Research Division of MESC prepared the Strategic Policy, Research, and Development Projects Framework (October 2003) and Guidelines for Managing and Conducting MESC’s Research Projects (2004). MESC now wants to involve external agencies in education research that is ethical and of high quality, respects cultural values, causes minimum disruption to students’ learning, is of benefit to education in Samoa, and available to MESC.5 This provides the possibility of contracting out research, but the staff of the Policy, Planning, and Research Division will need training in designing, monitoring, and assessing the quality of policy research and evaluation. Policies and procedures for development planning by schools and communities have been piloted, but need to be extended and supported by training and financial resources. School management committees have been established, but their roles and responsibilities need to be clarified and their 5 MESC. 2003. Strategic Policy, Research, and Development Projects Framework; MESC. 2004. Guidelines for

Managing and Conducting MESC’s Research Projects. Apia, Samoa.

4

capacities developed. The potential of information and communication technology in strengthening the capacity of education sector management needs to be developed.

14. Equity, the Central Challenge. Issues of participation and quality are related to the core issue of equal opportunities for all students to learn, and acquire the knowledge and skills specified in the curriculum. Low education performance is closely related to economic hardship. A World Bank study suggests that the likelihood of children from the lowest quintile of households reaching secondary education is low. Poor parents have difficulty paying school fees, especially at the secondary level. Poor students attend preschools less frequently and have a home environment unable to support schooling. Thus, children of poor families perform less well in school and often drop out early.

15. External Support and Lessons Learned. External funding concentrates heavily on the education sector (Appendix 3) and the lessons to be learned from these interventions are significant (Appendix 4). AusAID, European Union, Japan International Cooperation Agency New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), United Nations agencies, and others have been involved in a number of education projects. Their funding has included important support for curriculum development, teacher training, instructional materials, and capacity building. The European Union and Japan International Cooperation Agency have provided support for primary school construction. ADB, with the Government and school committees, has allocated $7 million for civil works, furniture, equipment, library materials, and teacher training as part of the ESP I. Twelve secondary schools and seven primary schools were rehabilitated and/or expanded. Furniture, equipment, learning materials, and library resources were provided, and secondary teachers trained in coordination with the NZAID-supported Samoa Secondary Education Curriculum and Resources Project. The experiences of ADB and other funding agencies in Samoa have been positive, although uncoordinated interventions and the short-term nature of projects weakened the overall impact. The key lesson of the experience is that well-targeted investments can improve the quality and equity of education provision, but effective implementation of these initiatives at the school level is of central importance and requires special attention. The Project was prepared in coordination with the major funding agencies in the education sector to avoid duplication in efforts and move toward a more comprehensive sector approach. This aligns with the harmonization principles contained in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2005.

16. Government Priorities. The Government is committed to achieving Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals. The Government recognizes that quality improvement in education service provision, using a sector approach, is essential to achieve its long-term objectives. To this end, it may need to review resource allocations to different education subsectors, ensure that basic education is funded at the level necessary for achieving the Education for All and Millennium Development Goal targets, and use resources with optimal efficiency. Measures need to be taken to rationalize the education system to release scarce resources for the operation and maintenance of schools.

17. ADB Strategy. ADB’s education strategy in Samoa supports the Government’s overall strategies and reflects the Government’s sector priorities. The Project has been formulated within the framework of the Government’s economic and public sector policies. It will support interventions that aim at improving access of disadvantaged children to quality schooling to enhance their education performance, which in turn will reduce hardship. It recognizes the importance of strengthening the capacity of the Government to design and implement education programs and reforms. It intends to build on the progress that has already been realized by the Government with the support of bilateral funding agencies and ADB. Although ideally the Project should have been designed after the formulation of the Education, Sports

5

and Culture Policy and Strategic Plan, 2006–2014 (EPSP),6 the Project is based on priority areas already identified in the SDS and the EPSP. Work toward developing the EPSP framework is well under way, and the design of the Project is flexible to incorporate any priority areas that are not yet addressed. ADB will continue its policy dialogue with the Government and support the development of a policy environment that prioritizes equitable opportunities to learn. It will also continue dialogue on reforms in the education sector that would provide resources for operation and maintenance of schools.

18. ADB is implementing TA for the Samoa SchoolNet and Community Access Pilot Project.7 The TA is designed to improve the quality and efficiency of education by providing access to global information through improved access to information and communication technology, especially in rural areas. The pilot project is designed to demonstrate the applicability of SchoolNet and community access, as well as improved teacher training and materials through distance learning.

III. THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A. Impact and Outcome

19. The Project is to establish an equitable and effective education system that will enhance learning outcomes of young people for further study, work, and adult life. The specific outcome will be enhanced quality of education by improving the curriculum, assessment procedures, learning materials, and teaching practice; and providing equitable access to trained teachers, facilities, furniture, and equipment. The Project will focus on bridging the gaps in educational service provision for children from disadvantaged areas by specifically targeting secondary schools in rural areas not supported by the ESP I and other aid-assisted projects. It will also support a major effort to strengthen the national capacity for education research and evaluation, and MESC’s capacity to manage development projects and implement policy reforms.

B. Outputs

20. The Project has five components: (i) introducing curriculum reform and assessment systems; (ii) developing effective teachers; (iii) improving access to quality education; (iv) strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning;, and (v) strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects. Outputs of component 1 are (i) new primary curriculum, (ii) adequate supply of learning materials and teacher manuals, (iii) community partnerships program, (iv) national assessment policy framework, and (v) new assessment systems. For the second component, the outputs will be (i) national teacher development framework, (ii) increased number of agricultural science teachers, (iii) pre- and in-service training for new initiatives, (iv) development of a cadre of trainers, and (v) continuous in-service teacher development and school-based support. The outputs of component 3 will be (i) improved secondary school facilities and a community learning center, (ii) improved procedures and resources for school maintenance, (iii) pilot provision of houses for teachers in rural areas, and (iv) construction of MESC headquarters. The outputs of component 4 will be (i) improved national capacity for research and evaluation, (ii) analysis of the causes of low achievement and noncompletion, and preparation of a plan of 6 The formulation of the next EPSP will be assisted by ADB TA grant funding and will be built on the findings of the

ADB-supported education sector study (ADB. 2004. Education Sector Study. Manila). 7 ADB. 2003. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for Supporting the Samoa SchoolNet and

Community Access Pilot Project. Manila (TA 4305-SAM for $600,000, approved on 19 December 2003).

6

action for follow-up, and (iii) strengthened MESC capacity for policy analysis and planning. The outputs for the component 5 are (i) improved strategic program management and coordination of implementation, (ii) integrated financial management system, and (iii) an effective project performance monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system.

1. Component 1: Introducing Curriculum Reform and Assessment Systems

21. This component will ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn and acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes specified in the national curriculum.

22. New Primary Curriculum and Assessment System. The new curriculum and the related instructional materials will emphasize more active, child-centered learning activities in the classroom, and assessment techniques essential for high-quality learning. The Project will support—through the provision of consulting services and training—the development of a curriculum for years 1 to 8 that will support more effective instruction and be consistent with MESC’s bilingual education policy, the National Curriculum Policy Framework, and the National Special Needs Policy. A subject statement will be developed for each learning area. These will integrate values articulated in the National Curriculum Policy Framework and assist students experiencing learning difficulties and those with special needs.

23. Adequate Supply of Learning Materials and Teacher Manuals. The Project will improve MESC’s capacity for producing audiovisual learning materials. The development of supplementary readers in Samoan and English is an important objective to support implementation of the bilingual education policy; the Project will support the provision of learning materials and teaching manuals. These will cover a range of topics, which will thematically link with other subjects in science, mathematics, social science, health, physical education, and music, as well as the everyday lives of students. The curriculum review and renew process will ensure that gender stereotypes, if any, are removed from the content of the textbooks. A strategic plan will be developed to ensure that readers are constantly written and prepared. The Project will provide consulting services and training to support these activities. Curriculum support materials, in the form of teachers’ manuals, will be developed and provide teachers with sequenced instructional activities related to each achievement objective. They will be organized on a subject basis to support the scope and sequence of learning within each subject and include integrated units where cross-curriculum learning is deemed logical and appropriate. Along with instructional activities, sample assessment tasks and student work samples will assist in benchmarking student performance and help teachers to assess student progress and growth.

24. At the secondary level, an important priority is the introduction of multimedia methods for science and agricultural sciences education. Currently the country has a shortage of trained secondary teachers in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and agricultural science. Although the teacher is the critical component in learning, students can still learn through means other than face-to-face instruction. New multimedia approaches for learning including video, learning software for computers, radio, and television have considerable potential to enhance learning. The capacity of the education broadcasting unit will be developed through project-provided consulting services and training to prepare multimedia materials for science and agricultural science. In-service training will be conducted to introduce the multimedia materials. Results will be evaluated, and if successful, production can be expanded to other subject areas.

25. National Assessment Policy Framework. The introduction of a new primary curriculum and expected changes in the way students move to further education and

7

employment necessitate changes to the examination system. The assessment and examination policies and systems will be reviewed, including the purpose and continuing use of the year 8 examination; the assessment system will be reformed. A national assessment policy framework will be developed to reflect current curriculum reforms including bilingual education and allow the monitoring of progress in student learning over time. The current functions, administration structures, and processes of the assessment unit will be reviewed. The national assessment policy framework will take into account proposed changes to the Pacific secondary school certificate administration, introduction of a regional form 7, links to post-school recognition, and work of the Samoa Qualifications Authority. The Project will provide consulting services and training support.

26. Community Partnerships Program for Demand Generation and Improved Learning Outcomes. The subcomponent will provide technical support for a home-school literacy partnership for two pilot schools: in-service training on literacy leadership, and the development of the Fagaloa community learning center program. Activities under this subcomponent will result in strengthened families and communities with high expectations and support for the learning of their family members, including those with special education needs. It will result in a community learning center that encourages involvement, sparks interest, and develops community capacity.

2. Component 2: Developing Effective Teachers

27. Teachers are at the core of efforts to improve the quality of education and the level of student learning. Of greatest importance are teachers’ content knowledge, quality of their pedagogical approaches, and effectiveness of the instructional support they receive at the school itself. The objective of this component is to ensure that teachers implement the national curriculum using effective instructional strategies. The Project's activities will be part of the broader MESC efforts to improve teacher deployment and management by establishing a pool of relief teachers, experiment with itinerant teachers, introduce school-based monitoring of quality, and establish formal staff appraisal procedures.

28. National Teacher Development Framework. TA will be provided to develop a national teacher development framework (Appendix 5). This will provide the basis for a teacher development policy that replaces the current ad-hoc approach to pre- and in-service training with one that is coherent, aims at continuous support for improving teachers’ professional skills, and establishes an institutional capacity-building framework for the management of teacher development. The TA recommendations and outcomes will be taken up in several activities of the Project. First, the TA recommendations on minimum standards for teacher competencies will (i) directly guide the design of the in-service teacher training planned in the Project; (ii) serve as a quality indicator for this activity; and (iii) assist the articulation of in-service training with quality preservice training. Second, recommendations and guidelines to be developed by the TA on management will enhance MESC capacity to engage with other stakeholders to better coordinate the production and supply of effectively trained teachers. The Project will support activities recommended under the TA findings as agreed with the Government.

29. Increased Number of Agricultural Science Teachers. To help the Government address the severe shortage of agricultural science teachers, the Project will support fellowships for a 2-year fast-track training program jointly implemented by NUS, Samoa Polytechnic, and University of the South Pacific. Upon graduation, the fellowship students will be bonded as government teachers for 2 years. The Project will provide 10 agricultural science fellowships and consulting services to develop the training program

8

30. Pre- and In-Service Training for New Initiatives. Teacher training for new initiatives is critically important to their successful implementation in the classroom. Most important will be training primary school teachers as the new primary curriculum statements, teacher manuals, and learning materials become available in 2008–2010. The Project will prepare and support a detailed plan for new curriculum training.

31. Development of a Cadre of Trainers. Well-prepared teacher trainers to provide training in subject-specific instructional strategies and to introduce content with which teachers are not sufficiently familiar are key to the in-service training strategy. The Project will support TA and training workshops for training trainers.

32. In-Service Teacher Development and School-Based Support. Routine teacher training is essential to bring about sustainable improvements in instructional practice. The Project will support a combination of training programs and courses to improve general teaching skills, provide subject cluster content training, and ensure school-based support for improved teaching as a follow-up to the training. Every teacher will be exposed to in-service training for an average of 10 days a year.

3. Component 3: Improving Access to Quality Education

33. Improved Secondary School Facilities and a Community Learning Center. The Project will support upgrading of nine secondary schools and three fully Government-funded colleges.8 In addition, in one secondary school, Fagaloa School, the Project will finance the refurbishment of existing classrooms into specialist rooms and make this school a pilot community learning center. The center will promote relevant technical skills including information and communication technology, mathematics for regular students, second chance education for out-of-school youth, and adult education. Consulting services support will be provided for strengthening the project management team, which will become the assets management unit of MESC, to implement activities under this component. In each secondary school, administrative and library blocks, science laboratories, design and textile workshop, and toilet blocks are required; in three cases, classroom blocks are required. School design and construction will include provision for full access facilities for physically challenged children to attend school. Furniture, equipment, and learning material packages will be provided. Appendix 6 lists the schools to be upgraded.

34. Pilot Provision of Houses for Teachers in Rural Areas. The feasibility of attracting teachers to rural primary schools in less favorable locations will be tested by providing attractive housing in four villages where teachers in certain subject areas are in short supply. The houses will be built within existing school compounds. The program will be evaluated at the end of year 2.

35. MESC Headquarters. The Project will support the design and construction of the new MESC headquarters at the Government’s Malifa compound. The new building will enable effective operation of MESC to deliver quality education support services.

36. Maintenance. The Project will finance the maintenance costs of school facilities upgraded under the Project, teachers’ houses, and MESC headquarters; and develop new policy and procedures for sustainable maintenance of school facilities.

8 These colleges are actually secondary schools, but fully funded by the Government.

9

4. Component 4: Strengthening Capacity to Undertake Research, Evaluation, Policy Analysis, and Planning

37. This component will focus on the Government’s capacity to formulate appropriate policies to make the education system more effective, efficient, and responsive to clients’ needs. It is designed to (i) strengthen the national capacity for research and evaluation, which will provide a stronger basis for evidence-based policy development; (ii) strengthen the capacity of MESC staff to analyze education data, identify priority issues for action, plan remedial interventions and policy reforms, and monitor implementation; and (iii) support a learning-by-doing capacity-building strategy, which will provide national staff with the opportunity to carry out research and evaluation studies, plan education reforms, and design remedial interventions with decreasing external technical support. Thus, an experienced group of national professionals will be available for MESC to call on for specialized technical work.

38. Improved National Capacity for Research and Evaluation. The Project will support the training of 30 staff of MESC, NUS, Samoa Polytechnic, and other institutions and agencies to expose them to the latest techniques in education research and analytical methodologies to strengthen capacity and quality of education research. To give them the opportunity to apply their skills, the Project will finance five field studies. Priority topics identified are (i) evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching, and role of school principals and school review officers; and (ii) strategies for vocational training. Topics for three more studies will be agreed during implementation.

39. A similar capacity-building approach will be adopted to strengthen the national capacity for evaluation of the impact of specific interventions, pilots, and experiments including the pilot experiment under the Project. Priorities identified are (i) impact of ESP I support to secondary schools on the effectiveness of instruction in project-supported schools, including agricultural science and design technology programs, to be completed by the midterm review; and (ii) pilots and policy experiments financed by the Project, including the community learning center in Fagaloa, and the provision of teacher housing, upon completion of these pilots. Three more evaluation studies may be identified during implementation. The Project will support seminars and/or workshops for the design, conduct, and review of the evaluation process by providing (i) consulting services, (ii) training workshops, (iii) operational costs, (iv) equipment, and (v) field study costs. Studies will be commissioned on the basis of a competitive peer review process.

40. Analysis of Causes of Low Achievement and Noncompletion, and Preparation of a Plan of Action. A central education policy concern is the considerable variation in, and the low average level of, student learning achievement; as well as the persistent presence of about 20% of children of school age who do not complete their primary education. The causes need to be clarified to provide a solid foundation for the formulation of an effective policy response and plan remedial interventions. The Project will support the cost of the study, workshops, and consulting services.

41. Strengthening of MESC’s Capacity for Policy Analysis and Planning. As the education system develops and performance expectations increase, education policies, plans, and investments programs are becoming increasingly complex. The policy emphasis is shifting from the expansion of access to the improvement of quality, but in an environment of increasingly constrained resources, which makes improvements in the efficiency in service delivery imperative. At the same time, MESC aims to exercise increased leadership in policy development and reduce its reliance on external TA. To cope with the demands of policy analysis and planning, and strengthen national capacity, the Project will support training and

10

capacity-building focused TA. An important task will be to conduct a review of the efficiency of public education expenditures.

5. Component 5: Strengthening Capacity to Implement and Manage Development Projects

42. Given the importance of the education sector and the presence of several funding agencies, the Government wants to move to a sector approach for education. This requires national capacity to manage development projects and external support that is increasingly provided on a programmatic basis with progressive harmonization of procedures for financial management, procurement, reporting on expenditures, input delivery, and progress in meeting development objectives and performance targets. This component is designed to assist MESC in building and institutionalizing capacity to achieve this goal. To ensure more effective and efficient implementation, the component will help ensure (i) coordination of implementation between the different components and strategic program management, (ii) monitoring of implementation, expenditure, input delivery, and their integration in the government finance and reporting system; and most importantly, and (iii) implementation of robust mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of progress of the Project’s development objectives and performance targets.

43. Improved Strategic Program Management and Coordination of Implementation.Responsibility for coordination and strategic program management functions will rest with the MESC Core Executive. The development of the EPSP will provide the Government and MESC with a long-term strategic vision for the education sector. To ensure that the Project and future aid interventions are consistent with this framework and are able to respond to Government and MESC priorities, the Project will provide high-level technical advice and other capacity building to the Core Executive and other parts of the MESC organization. The main form of assistance will be the availability of a strategic adviser, who will work, as required, directly with the chief executive officer (CEO) and other members of the Core Executive. Other capacity-building assistance may include specialized training programs for senior staff (with less formal training), study tours and/or access to overseas study through distance learning programs. In response to MESC’s requests, the Project will provide technical advice and other capacity-building support for up to 18 person-months of international consulting services and 30 person-months of domestic consulting services, complemented by the provision of equipment.

44. Integrated Financial Management System. On 1 July 2005, the Government adopted a new financial management system (government finance and reporting system) that is more flexible and able to produce information and reports requested by funding agencies. However, the involvement of cofinanciers in the Project does mean that some existing systems within MESC will have to be adapted for project-specific needs. This subcomponent will support MESC to establish and implement an integrated reporting framework under the government finance and reporting system that meets both the Government and funding agency information requirements. This will include activities such as developing guidelines for the Project’s special purpose account (if utilized), designing a chart of accounts for project expenditure, and setting up project-specific reporting.

45. Effective Project Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting System.The Project will have a monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system that meets the needs of the Government and the development partners. MESC has the capacity to collect and report performance information for the Government within the context of the budget cycle. The Project will build on these existing systems and procedures, and support MESC to strengthen capacity in performance measurement and reporting for the sector.

11

46. Assistance will consist of technical advice to establish the requirements of the users (Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID) and determine how these can be integrated into current reporting systems and capacity building for staff involved in data collection, compilation, analysis, and reporting. Other assistance may include support for regular review of the performance framework and development of the initial review and forward program.

C. Special Features

47. Continuity of the ESP I and Other Aid-Funded Projects. The impact of education interventions takes a long time to be realized. Therefore, the Project takes a long-term approach to addressing education issues in Samoa by building on earlier projects by various funding agencies. The project design is built on an extensive sector review, and identified gaps and good practices to avoid duplication with earlier initiatives, and to build on progress. Until now, almost all the major bilateral funding agencies supported curriculum and teacher training, but in a piecemeal manner. Hence, outcomes were uneven in terms of real learning achievements. Project design involved a participatory approach and close coordination with all the bilateral and multilateral agencies, as well as nongovernment organizations, civil society members, public and private school teachers, and church groups. In addition, meetings and workshops were held, and survey and study findings disseminated. International and domestic consultants were used to design the Project. These domestic consultants, who were teachers and professors, analyzed the education sector issues extensively, identified the shortcomings and helped design a project that is desirable by the Government. The Project will pursue policy, institutional, and systematic development required for sustainable improvement in learning achievement and efficiency. ADB is also supporting the Government in preparing a new 9-year educational policy framework.9

48. Building Stronger Linkages between Quality Inputs and Outcomes. The project design focuses on learning achievement as the key to project success. The design takes into account how to evaluate the impacts of new curriculum, assessment system, and in-service teacher training on learning achievements. The TA will focus on establishing sustainable capacity for teacher development. It will identify indicators for teacher effectiveness at the classroom level. The outcomes of various quality inputs will be evaluated for the project impact. Although the staff of the Curriculum, Material, and Assessment Division have experience with secondary curriculum development and primary learning materials development through previous work with projects, new content will be introduced as well as new approaches integrating learning assessments with the curriculum. The project design emphasizes the importance of making learning enjoyable by using student-centered learning and modern multimedia materials. To address equity issues and improve learning outcomes, approaches to bilingual education will be introduced.

49. Cooperation with Bilateral Funding Agencies and Harmonization with the Government System. Extensive consultations were taken to avoid the cofinanciers taking a piecemeal approach to the education system. In addition, the Project focuses on harmonizing the procurement processes and reporting systems with the Government system and regulations. The cooperation between cofinanciers and the harmonization of the reporting and procurement systems will reduce the transaction costs for the Government, and burden of multiple reporting. This Project will be financed by ADB, AusAID, NZAID, and the Government applying a cofinancing approach and harmonization principles. The implementation arrangements are

9 ADB. 2004. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for the Education Policy and Strategic Plan.

Manila (TA 4433, approved in November). The EPSP and its relationship to the Project are discussed in detail in the aide memoire of the May-June 2005 Fact-Finding Mission.

12

designed to promote greater local ownership, alignment with local systems, and aid harmonization as agreed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2005. These arrangements will have a long-term outcome for sustainable capacity building. Supplementary Appendix A includes the joint memorandum of arrangement by all parties.

D. Cost Estimates

50. The total cost of the Project is estimated at $30.00 million equivalent including taxes and duties, interest charges on the ADB loan of $8.06 million, and physical and price contingencies. The foreign exchange cost is estimated at $19.92 million (66.4%) and the local currency cost at $10.08 million equivalent (33.6%) of the total project cost. Table 1 presents a summary of the cost estimates. Appendix 7 provides details.

Table 1: Project Cost Summary ($ million)

Component Foreign

ExchangeLocal

CurrencyaTotal Cost

A. Baseline Costs 1. Introducing curriculum reform and assessment systems

2.34 0.96 3.30

2. Developing effective teachers 0.49 0.57 1.06 3. Improving access to quality education 13.46 6.20 19.66 4.Strengthening capacity to undertake research evaluation, policy analysis, and planning

0.43 0.30 0.73

5. Strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects.

0.59 0.26 0.85

Subtotal (A) 17.31 8.29 25.60

B. Contingencies 1. Physical Contingenciesb

1.54 0.75 2.29

2. Price Contingenciesc 0.78 1.04 1.82 Subtotal (B)

Subtotal (A + B)

2.32

19.63

1.79

10.08

4.11

29.71Interest Charges during Implementationd 0.29 0.00 0.29

Total 19.92 10.08 30.00 a Including taxes and duties of $3.16 million (Appendix 7). b Physical contingencies are estimated at 0% for salary, 10% for construction, and 5% for other costs. C In relation to local currency costs, price contingencies are estimated at 10% for construction costs and 3.5% for

other costs. For foreign exchange costs, price increases are estimated at 2.8% for 2006 and at 1.9% thereafter. d Interest charges are computed at annual rate of 1% (semiannual compound rate of 0.5%). Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

E. Financing Plan

51. The Government has requested a loan of $8.06 million from ADB’s Special Funds resources to help finance the Project. The loan will have a term of 32 years including a grace period of 8 years, and an interest rate of 1% per annum during the grace period and 1.5% per annum thereafter.

52. The loan, which will cover approximately 26.8% of the total project cost, will finance $6.28 million equivalent of the foreign exchange cost (31.5% of total foreign exchange cost) and $1.78 million equivalent of the local currency cost (17.7% of the total local currency cost). Interest during development will be capitalized as indicated in Table 1. The Government will

13

provide $4.74 million (15.8% of total cost) including taxes and duties, and AusAID and NZAID will each provide grant funds of $8.60 million equivalent (28.7% each of total cost). The grants from Australia and New Zealand will be administered by ADB in accordance with procedures outlined in Board Paper R289-03, ADB-Administration Grant Cofinancing: Partial Administration Modality and Related Service Charges, approved 29 December 2003. The financing plan is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Financing Plan ($ million)

ItemForeign

ExchangeLocal

Currency Total Cost Percenta

Asian Development Bank 6.28 1.78 8.06 26.8 AusAID 6.63 1.97 8.60 28.7 NZAID 6.63 1.97 8.60 28.7 Government of Samoab 0.38 4.36 4.74 15.8

Total 19.92 10.08 30.00 100.0

AusAID = Australian Agency for International Development, NZAID = New Zealand Agency for International Development. a Project costs including interest charges during implementation, but net of taxes and duties, are $26.84

million. In accordance with Schedule 3 of the Loan Agreement; this portion of costs will be financed by the Asian Development Bank ($8.06 million, 30%), AusAID ($8.60 million, 32%), NZAID ($8.60 million, 32%) and Government of Samoa ($1.58 million, 6%). The Government of Samoa will finance all taxes and duties.

b Committed from the budget. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

F. Implementation Arrangements

1. Project Management

53. The Ministry of Finance will be the Executing Agency for the Project, and MESC the Implementing Agency. The Education Steering Committee will provide strategic direction and oversight for the Project. The committee comprises a chair; the Government ombudsman; and representatives from Advisory Committee for Special Needs Education, MESC, MOF, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, National Council of Churches, National Council of Early Childhood Education of Samoa Inc., NUS, Post-Primary Principals Association, and Samoa Polytechnic. The CEO of MESC is an ex-officio member of the committee, while the Office of the CEO (OCEO) provides support and secretariat services. The committee will meet whenever necessary, but not less than once every quarter. It will (i) approve project progress reports, endorse proposed operational plans, and support the development of project budgets, (ii) provide overall policy and strategic guidance on project implementation and decide on corrective action, if needed, (iii) ensure that project implementation is in accordance with Government education sector policies and plans, and (iv) resolve issues and conflicts that may emerge.

54. MESC will have overall responsibility for the day-to-day management of project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting of progress. At the operational level, the Project will be managed by the MESC Core Executive, comprising the CEO and assistant CEOs, and supported by the OCEO and a project coordinator. All components of the Project will be implemented through the existing MESC organizational structure. Consulting services will be provided to strengthen capacity of the Core Executive to deliver the Project and other future development projects effectively under component 5, which will be more transient in nature. The responsibility for each component will rest with the appropriate assistant CEO and

14

be implemented by staff of the relevant division. They will prepare the 6-monthly review and program of activities to be financed by the Government, ADB, AusAID and NZAID and liaise on project implementation matters with ADB, AusAID and NZAID.

55. The Curriculum, Material, and Assessment Division will be responsible for delivery of component 1, and the School Operation Division for component 2. The current project management team, established for the ESP I, is planned to eventually become an integral part of MESC’s organizational structure as an assets management unit. It will have responsibility for procurement of goods and services for all components, and overall responsibility for implementation of component 3. The Planning, Policy, and Research Division will implement component 4 relating to developing a research and analytical capacity as well as policy and planning. OCEO or MESC Core Executive will be responsible for implementation of component 5. Two subcommittees will be established under components 2 and 3: (i) in-service training subcommittee consisting of assistant CEOs for School Operation Division and Curriculum, Material, and Assessment Division, an OCEO representative, and principal education officers for in-service training and primary and secondary curriculum; and (ii) infrastructure subcommittee composed of an OCEO representative, the head of the project management team, all assistant CEOs, and representatives from the Ministry of Works and MOF. The proposed organizational structure is attached in Appendix 8.

2. Implementation Period

56. The Project will be implemented over 6 years. Loan effectiveness is planned for February 2006, and project completion for December 2012. An implementation schedule is attached in Appendix 9.

3. Procurement

57. All goods and services financed under the Project will be procured in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines for Procurement and Government guidelines for procurement acceptable to ADB.10 The contract for the MESC headquarters estimated to cost more than $1,000,000 will be awarded following ADB’s international competitive bidding procedures. All other contracts under the Project will be awarded following local competitive bidding in accordance with Government procedures. Each contract awarded on the basis local competitive bidding will be subject to ADB’s retroactive approval, provided that if the award or terms of any such contract are not approved by ADB, MOF will not use the loan proceeds to finance the contract and will provide financing from its own or other resources. The project management team will be responsible for all procurement. The indicative procurement packages are listed in Appendix 10.

58. Advance Procurement Action. For early commencement of project implementation and as requested by the Government, ADB approved advance procurement action for civil works, covering invitation of bids, bidding, and bid evaluation, but not including contract awards. The Government has been advised that approval of the advance action does not commit ADB to financing the Project.

10 Government of Samoa, Tender Board. 2003. Guidelines for Government Procurement by Public Tender. Apia,

Samoa: Treasury Department (February).

15

4. Consulting Services

59. The Project will provide about 103 person-months of international consulting services and 122 person-months of domestic consulting services. All international and associated domestic consultants will be selected and recruited in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants and other arrangements satisfactory to ADB for engaging domestic consultants. All international consulting services will be provided by either firms or individuals, in each case determined by MOF. The domestic consulting services will cover all services except for the project implementation. The Project will use the quality- and cost-based selection method for recruitment of firms. The Project includes a flexible provision for a pool of international and domestic consultancies for MOF to meet additional needs arising during project implementation, including small consulting service contracts for supervision of civil works. The indicative summary of consulting inputs is in Appendix 11. The Project will provide consultant services for primary curriculum development, assessment system, information communication technology, audiovisual specialist, bilingual, primary subject area specialist, advocacy, pre-service and, in-service teacher development, public opinion assessment, education equipment procurement, civil works, education research methods, education sector expenditure review, education sector planning, and project management monitoring, and evaluation. Supplementary Appendix B includes the outline terms of reference.

5. Anticorruption Measures

60. ADB’s Anticorruption Policy was explained to and discussed with the Government and MOF. Consistent with its commitment to good governance, accountability, and transparency, ADB reserves the right to investigate, directly or through its agents, any alleged corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices relating to the Project. To support these efforts, relevant provisions of ADB’s Anticorruption Policy are included in the Loan Regulations and the bidding documents for the Project. In particular, all contracts financed by ADB in connection with the Project will include provisions specifying the right of ADB to audit and examine the records and accounts of MOF and all contractors, suppliers, consultants, and other service providers as they relate to the Project.

6. Disbursement Arrangements

61. All disbursements under the ADB loan will be carried out in accordance with ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook. To facilitate disbursements and project implementation, an imprest account will be established by the Government in a bank acceptable to ADB. The initial amount to be deposited to the imprest account by ADB should not exceed $300,000 or the estimated 6 months eligible project expenditures, whichever is lower. Statement of expenditure (SOE) procedures will be used to liquidate the imprest account.

62. SOE procedures will be used to reimburse eligible expenditures under activities funded by ADB, and to liquidate advances provided to the imprest account in accordance with the Loan Disbursement Handbook. Each individual payment reimbursed or liquidated by ADB under the SOE procedures will not exceed $50,000 equivalent. On a quarterly basis or earlier, MOF will prepare and provide the SOE report for liquidation of the imprest accounts and withdrawal application to ADB for replenishment.

63. AusAID and NZAID grant funds will be deposited directly into a special account to be established by the Government. Under the partial administration arrangement, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will review the quarterly SOE reports and disburse funds based on 6-month forward plan from the Government. Information on all disbursement decisions made to the

16

project by all donors will be shared with all other project donors. Eligibility of expenditures to be financed under the project shall be in accordance with ADB Loan Disbursement Handbook.

7. Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting

64. MESC will maintain separate records and accounts for all expenditures to be financed by the Project in accordance with sound accounting principles. They will specify the expenditures for all activities and identify all expenditures to be financed by the Project. Project accounts, including financial statements, SOEs, and imprest account records, will be audited annually by auditors acceptable to all development partners. The auditors’ report, and copies of the certified accounts and related financial statements, including compliance with project covenants and the use of the imprest accounts, will be submitted to all partners in English not later than 6 months after the end of the fiscal year to which they relate. Additional financial audits and financial management and systems reviews may be undertaken by ADB, AusAID, and NSAID in accordance with agreed-upon rules and regulations.

65. MESC will prepare a single report each quarter on all implementation activities in a format acceptable to all the project cofinanciers. MESC will provide these reports to the cofinanciers as well as each member of the Education Steering Committee, within 30 days after the end of the applicable period. Within 3 months after physical completion of the Project, MESC will submit a project completion report to ADB, AusAID, and NSAID.

8. Project Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

66. Operational Plans. In line with the Government budget cycle, every 6 months MESC will prepare a forward program/operating plan for the following 6 months. This is expected to take place in March (for the following fiscal year starting in July) and in October (at the time of the Government budget review). The operational plan will outline what is to be funded under the Project. It will include (i) data on the proposed allocations to primary and secondary education by salary and nonsalary items; (ii) status of agreed-upon policy reforms and covenants; (iii) fully costed project activities proposed for each subcomponent, with performance targets; and (iv) a list of secondary schools targeted for upgrading during the year. The plan will also provide estimates of the operation and maintenance budget and identify the amount of counterpart funds to be provided. The review and forward program will be the primary mechanism for the Government to request funding from AusAID and NZAID.

67. Monitoring and Evaluation. MESC has a monitoring and evaluation system that will be strengthened to provide improved and reliable indicators for assessing project progress (Appendix 12). As part of the 6-monthly review and forward program cycle (para. 63), MESC will provide a report on performance targets for the previous 6 months along with the forward program plan. The process will include monitoring and evaluation of implementation performance, provide management information, and assess the impact of the Project on learning outcomes. Project performance monitoring will focus upon project implementation plans and targets and their execution, achievements, and progress toward project performance indicators. For example, indicators such as school enrollments; deployment of science teachers to underprivileged regions; examination results, including ongoing school-based assessment system; and the effectiveness of trained teachers in implementing new curriculum and assessment system will be used. MESC will monitor project activities using data and feedback from schools, and data received from consultants.

68. MESC will monitor and evaluate the project outcomes, in accordance with the schedule and terms of reference agreed upon, by the Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID.

17

Performance evaluations will examine the impact of project interventions on learning outcomes, as can be measured by standardized assessment.

9. Project Review

69. During the first year of the Project, the Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will conduct a semiannual review of project performance. In subsequent years of the Project, the Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will conduct at least one joint project review per year. This joint project review will include an examination of the budgetary allocations, operation and maintenance costs, staffing and other incremental recurrent costs, implementation arrangements, and achievements under the Project. The review includes assessing progress in each component, identifying difficulties and constraints, and determining ways to overcome them. MESC management, specifically the CEO and assistant CEOs, will be a primary source of information for these reviews.

70. In addition, the Government, ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will jointly conduct a midterm review during the third year of implementation. This will (i) review the scope, design, and project implementation arrangements; (ii) evaluate pilot programs; (iii) assess performance against targets and benchmarks; (iv) review lessons and experiences with implementation of each component; (v) review compliance with the loan agreement and bilateral funding agreement(s); and (vi) recommend any changes in project implementation, if required.

IV. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND RISKS

A. Benefits

71. The Project will support developing new primary curriculum in Samoan, English, social sciences, mathematics, and science, with supporting learning materials and extensive in-service teacher training. The assessment system will be reformed and strengthened and the capacity to design and produce high-quality learning materials established. These interventions are expected to improve rural students’ learning, thus ensuring they acquire language skills, have more opportunities for further education and training, and are able to perform better in the formal labor market. More than 40,000 primary school students will benefit from investments. Children in disadvantaged areas will be the principal beneficiaries.

72. The Project will support more equitable provision of qualified teachers. For primary schools, the Project will support a pilot to retain qualified teachers in schools in remote rural locations. The upgrading of secondary school facilities in disadvantaged districts to national standards will include provision of equipment and furniture, and operation and maintenance funds. The primary beneficiaries will be 15,000 rural children enrolled in secondary schools of a national standard. This is expected to also improve primary school completion rates.

73. Impact on Poverty and Gender. Improved access to better education and training will increase the participation of the disadvantaged in the formal labor market. By targeting rural locations, gains will also flow into the local economy. Male participation in higher education and retention in rural areas will be improved. Special education needs will be fully taken into account in the new curricula and upgraded school facilities.

74. Environment and Social Safeguards. The Project will involve upgrading and rehabilitating existing school facilities and MESC headquarters, with no negative environmental or resettlement impact. No land acquisition or resettlement is required under the Project. All the land for the schools is already at the existing school sites and adequate for the

18

additional classrooms for new subject curricula. The summary poverty reduction and social analysis is in Appendix 13.

75. Economic Benefits and Financial Sustainability. International evidence finds a high social and economic return to primary and secondary education investment. In Samoa, participation in secondary education is a prerequisite for entry into the formal labor market. In 2000, a study on the private sector workforce found that 93% of the private sector workforce had secondary education. Overseas remittances by Samoans working abroad constitute about 17.4% of national income and educational qualifications are required for successful emigration. Better education will help disadvantaged groups benefit economically from the Project. The anticipated social benefits are the foundation for Samoa’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.

76. Despite considerable Government efforts, the education sector is dependent on external assistance grants to finance development as well as nonsalary recurrent costs. In recent years between 20% and 45% of total sector funding has been in the form of grants and loans. During the Fact-Finding Mission, a financial analysis and projection model was developed, which suggests that with growth in the economy the Government will likely be able to sustain the recurrent costs of the system within the next decade. Funds for proposed operational and debt repayments are clearly identified in the project financing framework and will be reflected in future Government budgets. Appendix 14 provides additional details on the economic analysis, and financial and sustainability analyses.

77. The Project will provide bridging support to allow continuity in the provision of critical quality inputs. Policy analysis and dialogue during the preparation of the next 9-year plan will include education sector financing and sustainability issues. The Project will provide operational financing, and research and training programs aimed at strengthening policy and strategy development to support improved aid coordination and transition to a sector approach.

78. Financial Management Assessment. A review of the financial management systems of MOF and MESC was completed.11 This review and a World Bank financial management assessment conducted by a qualified accredited financial management specialist under the Cyclone Emergency Recovery Project in April 2004,12 indicate that the financial management systems and procedures proposed for the Project meet ADB’s requirements. A summary is presented in Appendix 15 with supporting details provided in Supplementary Appendix C.

B. Risks

79. Increasing Pressure on the Recurrent Budget. In Samoa, new investments must be carefully assessed for their impact on the provision of nonsalary recurrent inputs. The Project provides support for materials development, teacher training, and other quality enhancements and adopts a bridging strategy that provides continuity. The development of a sector policy and financing framework with sustainable operation and maintenance costs—supported by ADB and other development partners under the EPSP—will address this risk.

80. Investments in Civil Works May Not be Maintained. Many communities cannot meet the costs of utilities and routine maintenance of buildings and equipment does not occur. This

11 Financial assessment of MOF and MESC was undertaken during the Fact-Finding Mission for the Project from 30

May to 14 June. 12 Independent State of Samoa; Cyclone Emergency Recovery Project; Financial Management Assessment

Summary; Report No. T-7622.

19

risk will be partly offset by the sector policy framework being developed, which will provide policies and procedures for maintenance and asset protection.

81. Investments in Teacher Training May Be Lost through Attrition. Retention of teachers with expertise is difficult, as they are in demand by the private sector and/or other Government ministries. Teacher training, particularly in information and communication technology, may contribute to attrition from the profession and investments could be lost. Under the Project (and through building capacity for teacher development, policy development, and strategic planning), the Government will assess teacher development issues and develop strategies to address them. Improvements in physical work environments and the introduction of innovative teaching techniques are expected to improve teacher job satisfaction.

82. Facilities May Be Underutilized Due to Patterns of Internal Migration. Some secondary schools have very low enrollments and are in close proximity. In such instances, efficiency could be improved by rationalizing school provision. A detailed forecast of future demand for secondary schools to be upgraded under the Project has been undertaken. ADB, AusAID, and NZAID will continue policy dialogue on rationalization of the education system and will assist MESC in developing student flow and simulation models for more efficient investments in civil works.

V. ASSURANCES A. Specific Assurances

83. In addition to the standard assurances, the Government has given the following assurances, which are incorporated in the legal documents.

84. The government will commission an external review of the efficiency of procurement methods and contracts packaging for equipment and materials procured under ESP I and discuss the findings during the Project inception and agree with the ADB, AusAID, and NZAID on the remedial measures to be taken based on such review prior to engaging in procurement under this Project.

85. Within 12 months of loan effectiveness, the Government will (i) develop an evidence based Education, Sports and Culture Policy and Strategic Plan (2006-2014) for the education sector, including impact studies on poverty alleviation and targeted support to the economically disadvantaged; (ii) provide a copy of such strategic plan to ADB, AusAID, NZAID, and other relevant development partners for review and comments prior to tabling such plan for cabinet approval; (iii) consider comments from ADB, AusAID, and NZAID prior to tabling such policy and plan for approval; and (iv) table it for cabinet approval.

86. Within 3 year of loan effectiveness, the Government will (i) develop a policy and strategy on teacher supply and demand and conditions of service based on, inter alia, (a) the findings and recommendations of the supply and demand study supported under ESP I;13 (b) analyses and recommendations that will emerge from the TA for National Teacher Development Framework, (c) findings of pilot projects on teacher housing financed under the Project, (ii) provide the policy and strategy to ADB and bilateral donors for review and comments, (iii) consider comments from ADB and the bilateral donors prior to tabling such policy and strategy for approval, and (iv) table it for cabinet approval (v) and implement it in accordance with its terms.

13 ADB. 2000. Technical Assistance to the Independent State of Samoa for preparing the Education Support

Project. Manila; Rawlinson, Ralph. 2002. Teacher Supply and Demand. Samoa.

20

87. Within 3 years of loan effectiveness, the Government will ensure that a system to assess student learning outcomes and the impact of the project investments is in place. This will include developing a sample based standardized system for the assessment of student learning that will be used as a baseline for reporting of progress towards key performance indicators.

88. The Government will cause submission of a satisfactory maintenance plan by the respective communities as a condition precedent to their schools being upgraded under the Project.

89. The Government will take, and shall cause MOF and MESC to take, all necessary measures, including the provision of additional funds, to ensure that sufficient counterpart funds are made available and provided for the Project in a timely manner.

90. Within the Project period, the Government will develop and implement a plan for the rationalization of schools to ensure resources are used cost-effectively.

91. MESC will cause the contractors to maximize the employment of local persons in particular those who suffer hardship, who meet the job and efficiency requirements for the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of Project facilities. Contractors shall be required to give due consideration to the contribution of local women for the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of Project facilities.

92. The Government will ensure that the Project will not entail any involuntary resettlement.

93. Within 3 years of loan effectiveness, the Government will have (i) developed comprehensive action plans satisfactory to ADB to mainstream information and communication technology education in secondary schools, and (ii) taken appropriate measures based on the lessons learned from the ADB-supported SchoolNet pilot project (footnote 6) to expand outreach to rural areas.

94. Within 3 years of loan effectiveness, the Government will develop and implement a plan for every child to have a complete set of textbooks that will address issues of finance, procurement, storage, distribution, and school based policies to extend the life of textbooks. The Government will allocate adequate funding in the education budget for financing the development and implementation of this plan.

95. The Government shall jointly undertake with ADB, AusAID, and NZAID two reviews of the Project in the first year of Project Implementation, a review of the Project each subsequent year and a midterm review of the Project at the end of the third year of Project Implementation.

B. Condition for Loan Effectiveness

96. The Government shall have entered into a binding agreement with AusAID and NZAID for the cofinancing of the Project.

VI. RECOMMENDATION

97. I am satisfied that the proposed loan would comply with the Articles of Agreement of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and, acting in the absence of the President, under the provisions of Article 35.1 of the Articles of Agreement of ADB, I recommend that the Board approve:

(i) the loan in various currencies equivalent to Special Drawings Rights 5,655,000 to the Independent State of Samoa for the Education Sector Project II from

21

ADB’s Special Funds resources with an interest charge at the rate of 1.0% per annum during the grace period and 1.5% per annum thereafter; a term of 32 years, including a grace period of 8 years and such other terms and conditions as are substantially in accordance with those set forth in the draft Loan Agreement presented to the Board;

(ii) ADB administering the grant under the terms of partial administration modality in an amount not exceeding the equivalent of $8,600,000.0 to be provided by the Government of Australia for the purposes of partly funding the Project; and

(iii) ADB administering the grant under the terms of partial administration modality in an amount not exceeding the equivalent amount of $8,600,000.0 to be provided by the Government of New Zealand for the purposes of partly funding the Project.

JOSEPH B. EICHENBERGER Vice President 23 November 2005

22 Appendix 1

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting Mechanism

Assumptions and Risks

Impact

An equitable and effective education system that enhances learning outcomes of young people for further study, work, and adult life

Outcome

Enhanced quality of education

By 2015: � 100% net primary enrollment

� 85% secondary enrollment

� 100% functional literacy rates

� Increased enrollment at the tertiary education level

� Improved employment rates of high school graduates

� Performance targets (by 2011): A new national assessment system is in place covering core subjects in different grades at regular intervals.

� Most primary and secondary schools teachers effectively use new instructional methods and classroom assessments.

� Subject teachers in mathematics, science, and agricultural science are available and the majority use effective instructional strategies.

� 80% of the students demonstrate a desirable level of mastery on standardized tests.

� Retention rates in primary education increase by 10%; transition rate into secondary increases by 5%

� United Nations (human development index) report

� Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) statistics

� National University of Samoa (NUS) and University of the South Pacific data and reports

� Labor market survey

� Implementation reviews and completion report

� Classroom observations of teacher and student interaction and school processes

� Reports of principals and school review officers.

� Assessment of learning outcomes using new assessment system

Assumption

� Government develops financing framework for the sector that assures adequate resources for recurrent costs, including nonsalary inputs for basic and secondary education to ensure long-term sustainability

Risks

� Deterioration of facilities due to lack of maintenance

� Discontinued dissemination of new learning materials, teaching methodologies and learning assessment systems after the Project ends

Assumptions

� Government commitment to address inequities in access, retention, and achievement is sustained.

� Terms and conditions of teacher service will be sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain qualified and motivated staff.

� New curriculum provides framework for effective instruction

� Principals and school review officers train teachers effectively to implement the new curriculum

Risks

� Political and public support will not be sufficient to support implementation of required reforms.

Appendix 1 23

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting Mechanism

Assumptions and Risks

� Proportion of students enrolled in secondary schools from the two lowest income quintiles increases significantly

� Household surveys � Mathematics and science teaching improvement program will not be implemented as anticipated

� Proportion of students enrolled in rural secondary schools increases significantly

� MESC statistics

� Complete curriculum statements for Samoan and English in 2007–2008; mathematics, social studies, and science 2008–2009; and arts and physical education-health 2009–2010

� Quarterly project monitoring and implementation progress report

Assumption

� Sufficient staff with appropriate expertise can be assigned to develop curriculum statements and learning materials

Outputs

1. Curriculum reform and assessment systems

1.1 New primary curriculum for Samoan, English, social studies, math, science, social science, arts, PE/Health

1.2 Adequate supply of learning materials and teacher manuals

1.3 Community partnerships program

1.4 National assessment policy framework

1.5 New assessment systems

� All students have complete set of learning materials as specified in curriculum

� Materials available in schools beginning in 2006–2007 with teacher training in 2007–2008

� Production of teacher manuals following completion of curriculum by 1 year, per schedule above

� Materials produced by 2008

� Fagaloa community learning center pilot implemented and evaluated

� Policy framework by December 2006

� Valid and reliable assessments of student learning implemented starting in 2008

� Joint review mission reports

� Principal and school review officers school reports

� Research and evaluation studies

� MESC statistics

Risk

� Procurement of textbooks and learning materials is delayed.

2. Developing effective Teachers

2.1 Activities recommended under the strategic framework for teacher development

2.2 Increased number ofagricultural science teachers

2.3 Pre- and in-service training supports new initiatives

� National teacher development framework adopted by June 2007

� Assessment system by January 2008

� 2-year NUS program operational by January 2006

� All teachers are trained on new curriculum and classroom assessment practices

� Implementation progress reports and joint reviews

� School review officers’ reports

� MESC statistics

� Research and evaluation studies

Training and in-service evaluations

Assumptions

� National teacher development framework guides policy

� In-service training and school-based support are mutually reinforcing to help teachers master new curriculum and effective instructional strategies

24 Appendix 1

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting Mechanism

Assumptions and Risks

2.4 Trained teacher trainers in subject matter

2.5 Continuous in-service teacher development and school-based support

� All teachers participate routinely in pre- and in-service training programs; school review officers and principals ensure school level follow up

� All pre- and in-service training courses staffed with trained instructors

Risk

Adoption of new instructional practices are slower than anticipated

3. Improving access to quality education

3.1 Improved secondary school facilities

3.2 13 secondary schools (including Fagaloa) renovated, furnished, and equipped

3.3 Improved maintenance

3.4 New policy and procedures for the maintenance of school facilities

3.5 Teachers’ houses at four primary schools in rural areas

3.6 MESC headquarters constructed

4. Strengthening capacity to undertake research, evaluation, policy analysis, and planning

4.1 Improved national capacity for research and evaluation

4.2 Causes of inequitable access and performance identified

4.3 Improved MESC capacity for education policy analysis and planning

� Two schools per year upgraded over the first 5 years of the Project and three schools during the last year

� Policies developed and operational plans in 2005 with funding for operation and maintenance provided in each year of the Project

� Two houses completed in 2006/07 and additional two in 2007/08

� Completed in 2007

� Design and implementation of six research studies implemented in 2007/08 through 2008/09 demonstrate improved capacity to carry out research

� Evaluations of pilots supported by the Project (by 2010) and support from the Education Sector Project I (ESP I) for agriculture science and design technology (by midterm review), and other evaluation studies demonstrate increased national evaluation capacity

� Study completed, validated, and submitted to MESC for consideration and follow-up by midterm review

� Implementation progress reports and findings of joint review missions

� Implementation progress reports and findings of joint review missions

Assumption

� Communities are willing and able to mobilize resources for teacher housing in remote locations

Risk

� Over commitment of construction industries for South Pacific games may slow down school construction program

Assumption

� Highly qualified technical assistance explicitly focused on capacity building will be available.

Risk

� Number of qualified national staff is too limited to ensure sustained capacity.

Appendix 1 25

Design Summary Performance Targets Data Sources/ Reporting Mechanism

Assumptions and Risks

5. Strengthening capacity to implement and manage development projects

5.1 Effective coordination and strategic program management

� Policy Planning, and Research Division staff effectively lead policy development, planning, implementation, and adjustment of education policy and strategic plan with limited external technical assistance (TA)

� Progress toward the Project’s development objectives is on schedule and within budget

� Financial and contract management reporting integrated in national government finance and reporting system

� Government reviews of SDS and sector planning

� Implementation progress reports

� Joint review mission report

Assumptions

� Highly qualified TA explicitly focused on capacity building will be available

5.2 Integrated financial management system

5.3 Performance monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system for the Project

� Timely reporting on progress toward program development objectives and performance targets and indicators

� Government finance and reporting and special purpose account reports

� Education statistics and learning assessment data will not be available in the first year of the Project

Activities with Milestones

1.1 Strengthen the curriculum implementation unit by 2006 with additional staff resources and equipment, including the recruitment of consultants (48 person-months of international consulting services and 72 person-months of domestic consulting services) to conduct workshops and studies and develop new curriculum in stages by 2008.

1.2 Recruit consultants to conduct workshops and produce policy and materials for bilingual education for years 1–6 by 2005/06 and evaluation by 2006/07.

1.3 Establish, equip, and train staff of materials production unit in mid-2006.

1.4 Design and produce high-quality learning materials for new curriculum and deliver to schools by 2006/07 and evaluated by 2007/08.

1.5 Recruit consultants and procure equipments, develop capacity to produce multimedia materials for science and agricultural science by 2006/07.

1.6 Develop a national assessment framework.

2.1 Provide 10 fellowships in agricultural science education including 8 person-months of domestic consulting service.

2.2 Provide routine in-service training for every teacher every year starting in 2006.

2.3 Provide targeted training to support implementation of new curriculum.

3.1 Conduct workshop to develop least-cost model(s) for school construction by 2006.

3.2 Design, construct, furnish, and equip nine rural secondary schools by 2010 (two schools per year).

Inputs ($ million)

ADB: $8.06 AusAID: $8.60 NZAID: $8.60 Government: $4.74

26 Appendix 1

3.3 Conduct workshops, develop guidelines, and provide operation and maintenance funding for maintenance by 2005.

3.4 Conduct community awareness campaign to mobilize support and resources for teacher houses and awareness of the importance of education and the new curriculum by 2005/06; secure commitment of community resources by 2006/07.

3.5 Construct four teachers’ houses by 2006/07; additional 10 houses by 2007/08.

3.6 Construct MESC headquarters.

4.1 Strengthen capacity for education research through training and research support, implement and review five field studies ongoing until 2009, and implement about five evaluation studies.

4.2 Implement research on causes of low achievement and completion.

4.3 Provide technical support and training to strengthen capacity for education policy analysis and planning.

5.1 Provide strategic and technical support, including workshops and training, to strengthen program coordination and management skills, and establish project systems and procedures

5.2 Assist in developing guidelines and procedures for integrating project financial management with Government systems

5.3 Provide capacity building for MESC for establishing and operating a performance framework for the Project.More precise performance indicator will be agreed when household survey data analysis is complete.

Appendix 2 27

EDUCATION SECTOR AND SUBSECTOR ANALYSIS

A. Overview

1. The education system in Samoa consists of 8 years of compulsory primary (ages 5–14 years), 5 years of secondary (15–19), and 4 years of higher education. National examinations are held in years 8 and 12. For year 13, a regional examination provides access to the university preliminary year. The National University of Samoa, Samoa Polytechnic, and some other postsecondary institutions in Apia offer postsecondary education. The Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture (MESC) is responsible for policy formulation, guidance, and supervision of all government schools and institutions. Village committees run and secondary schools and are responsible for setting, collecting, and spending school fees; constructing and maintaining buildings; and providing consumables. The Government funds teachers’ salaries, some consumables, and initial sets of textbooks every 5 years for primary schools. The exceptions are four government senior colleges, one on Savai’i and three on Upolu, which are fully government funded.

2. The Government has made considerable progress since adopting education policies and strategies for 1995–2005. Among them are development and provision of textbooks and learning resources for primary education, a new secondary curriculum, upgrading of facilities in primary and secondary schools, establishment of an education resource center on Savai’i, and expansion of special needs education and early childhood education. MESC management capacity has been strengthened. A comprehensive management information system has been developed. Long-term policies and strategies have been elaborated in a framework designed for future policy, strategy, and corporate planning.

B. Access and Equity

3. Generally children throughout Samoa have access to primary and secondary education. Gender equity is not a serious issue. However not all children participate. In 2004, 40,137 students were enrolled in primary education (69% of the age group) up from 39,639 in 2003. Available data indicate that net enrollment in primary education declined from 77% in 1995 to 69% in 2004. Since 1995, the participation rate (gross enrollment rate in primary education has remained around 97%. Between 1995 and 2004, secondary enrollment increased by 11% from 13,298 to 14,766. The net enrollment rate has progressively improved from 36% to 43%. While the female primary enrollment rate was lower (48%), female secondary enrollment was higher (52%). Of the 160 primary schools, about 9% are church schools and 3% are private schools. Of the 46 secondary schools, 41% are church schools and 4% are private schools; the remainder are public schools.

4. About 84% of year 1 entrants were retained at year 8 (retention rate), and 88% of year 8 graduates went on to year 9 (transition rate), up from 82% in 1994/95. In 2004, 77% of year 9 entrants completed year 12 and 57% of the year 12 graduates continued on to year 13, an increase of 10% from 1995. However, more than half of the year 13 students do not complete schooling.

5. Every village has a primary school. Clusters of villages make up districts and each district has a secondary school with the bigger ones having two. Theoretically access to schools should not be an issue. Recent community consultations identified the condition of school facilities as an important source of dissatisfaction. Although many primary schools and some secondary schools have been upgraded in recent years, schools in the poorer areas still operate in facilities that do not meet national standards, often without proper classrooms and equipment. Substandard schools convey an image of poor quality service, create an apathetic teaching and

28 Appendix 2

learning environment, and can result in low student learning and high dropout. Access and equity in education are also related to languages of instruction, particularly English in the later years of schooling. Although predominantly in Samoan in the first 3 years of primary grades, English competency becomes a major factor toward late primary and all of secondary school. National policy requires pluralistic bilingualism; the acquisition of English while maintaining and developing Samoan. Rural children have less access to social conditions that enable greater competency and fluency in English. Although English seems to play a major part in formal schooling, Samoan must be equally addressed because Samoan competency becomes crucial in adulthood when people take on various roles in their families, in the workplace, and in society at large. Bilingualism is therefore a key factor in access and equity. Access is also limited due to other factors such as inability to pay (hardship), migration, and social priorities other than education upon which expenditures are made.

C. Quality

6. Graduates have low levels of functional literacy and numeracy. This results from an education system that fails to prepare students for higher learning. Achievement tests conducted at primary level (Samoa primary education literacy level [SPELL] one, SPELL two, and the year 8 examination) and at secondary level (year 12 examination) indicate that achievement is below expectations and, in a number of subject areas, declining. The SPELL one test results show that a record 57% of children are at risk in year 4. Since 1995, improvements have been made in Samoan literacy, but 30% of children are still at risk of not achieving the required literacy level; in numeracy, 33% are at risk. The SPELL two test results (for year 6 students) are even more of a concern. Results in English deteriorated from 14% at risk in 2001 to 57% at risk in 2003. For Samoan, they declined slightly from 14% to 16%; while the numeracy results increased from 55% in 2001 to 73% in 2003. However, an analysis of district figures shows disparities that point to faults in the tests, If MESC continues to use these tests they must be re-examined and validated. The assessment system needs careful reexamination.

7. The mean (raw) scores on the year 8 examinations in all subjects from 1997 to 2002 show a steady decline in all mean scores. On a scale of 100, English declined from 42 to 37, Samoan 59 to 47, mathematics 30 to 28.7, basic science 39 to 24.8, and social science 42 to 25.8. SPELL one and two and the year 8 examinations indicate declines in quality. More year 4 and 6 students are at risk and year 8 examination results continue to decline. By these more direct and objective measures of education quality, the situation in primary grades is a serious concern.

8. Students completing secondary school and passing examinations to enter postsecondary and university courses are deficient in basic numeracy and literacy skills. Many secondary schools do not offer one or more applied subjects due to lack of teachers, materials, or equipment. At secondary level, scores on the year 12 examination generally declined over the 5 years between 1997 and 2002, but increased in 2003. If this trend is maintained, it could reflect the efforts of recent projects aimed at improving the quality of secondary education.

9. The primary school curriculum is problematic; it is about 25 years old. Also absent are clear guidelines of expected learning outcomes set for literacy and numeracy skills, as well as social and cultural skills that children should master as they progress through primary school. An updated curriculum policy framework and subject and year-level curriculum statements that emphasize more active, child-centered learning activities in the classroom, strengthening of pedagogical teaching skills, and a range of classroom assessment techniques, is essential for high-quality teaching and learning. The Government intends to develop an integrated curriculum for primary years 1–3 and subject-specific curricula in seven subject areas for years 4–8, which take into account bilingual needs. Ensuring citizens are fluent in both Samoan and English is an

Appendix 2 29

objective of the Government, and an effective bilingual policy and program is a priority. A secondary education curriculum framework for years 9–13 is being implemented. The primary curriculum needs to be reviewed; teachers provided with manuals, textbooks, and learning materials; and related in-service training programs designed. More effective instructional practice will also have to include an effective use of assessment. Modern assessment strategies have been introduced in recent curriculum projects supported by development partners. These are, however, not yet widely applied.

10. The supply of learning materials to schools to date has largely been dependent on projects undertaken by external assistance agencies with the Government. Present quantities are insufficient. Books are typically shared, remain in school, and generally are not available for homework and personal study purposes. Shortages have been reported to force students to copy material from the blackboard. Many primary teachers have been trained in more learner-centered teaching and assessment methods, but learning materials are still based on the older curriculum. The new curriculum framework (years 1–13), including the introduction of bilingual education in primary schools, will create a significant need for new textbooks, student workbooks, and other learning materials. Moreover supplementary materials such as readers (in Samoan and English) and audiovisual materials are in short supply. Shortages of teaching and learning resources unfavorably affect teaching effectiveness and impair the ability of teachers to use new improved teaching practices that the new curricula call for.

11. Teachers play the leading role in delivering quality education. Well-trained teachers with adequate skills to transmit knowledge and manage classrooms are in short supply. Primary teacher attrition rates are as high as 5% annually. Unless corrective action is taken to reduce attrition, the output of the preservice program will need to double. At the secondary level, the growth in enrollments will require an increase in the output of the preservice programs. Significant shortages can be expected in sciences, economics, and accounting. In addition, teachers need to be trained in the new curriculum that will be introduced.

12. The importance of having well-trained teachers is realized and the Government has implemented a number of projects aimed at improving teaching. The Primary Education Materials Project Phase I (1998-2000) and Phase II (2000-2004) have provided in-service training for 2,753 primary school teachers. The Samoa Secondary Education Curriculum and Resources Project and Education Sector Project I provided in-service training for 2,489 secondary teachers. However, some teachers express a lack of understanding of how to put new curriculum and teaching methods into practice in the classroom.

D. Efficiency

13. The trend in repetition rates (the percentage of children remaining in the same grade) in primary education has been variable over the years. Rates for some grades have increased; others have decreased. The average repetition rate in primary schools has fluctuated between 1.1% and 2.1%. In 1995, the rate was 2.0%, in 2003 it was 2.1%, and in 2004 1.7%. Repetition rates in secondary schools also have generally improved since 1995, but remain high at the upper grades. Repetition rates are highest for years 12 and 13 where screening examinations are imminent.

14. In 2003, the repetition rate was high in years 1 (6%) and 8 (4%), 11 (5%), 12 (10%), and 13 (9%). The dropout rate in years 1–2 was 5%, and increased to 9% in years 8–9. The secondary school dropout rate was high in years 10–11 (12%) and 12–13 (38%), indicating that more than half of secondary school students drop out before completing the cycle. The trends are positive, but the high dropout from year 1 is a concern given the objective of primary education for all. Dropout in years 8–9 through 12–13 has improved but remains high. The high dropout in years 12–13 can be attributed to students discontinuing their education after the

30 Appendix 2

Pacific senior secondary certificate. One main cause of dropping out is the low level of learning outcomes, as demonstrated in the year-end examinations. Another cause seems to be related to high tuition fees. The factors affecting education quality are many and are interlinked, hence difficult to untangle. It is clear that curriculum, materials, assessment systems, pre- and in-service teacher training, and Samoan language of instruction are among the important factors.

15. Two other indicators are often used for efficiency: completion and transition rates. Completion rate is difficult to calculate for lack of data. A rough recalculation indicates about 75.6% children entering year 1 will complete year 8 after 8 years and 35.5% of youth entering year 9 will complete year 13 after 5 years. The transition rate from primary to lower secondary has increased since 1996. However, the rate from lower to upper secondary education has declined. The transition rate from year 12 to year 13 has increased since 1996, but in 2003 remained the same as it was in 1999. In 2004, the rate increased markedly from 52% to 57% due perhaps to efforts to extend year 13 to all secondary schools.

E. Relevance

16. The education system serves two labor markets: internal and external. The internal labor market centers upon agriculture, fishery, construction and transportation, and small business. Manufacturing and services sectors have been increasing recently. Yet, few formal wage paying positions are available in the country for highly trained technicians or skilled workers. As a result, a large number of Samoans (35.4% of the resident population of Samoa) live overseas and many hold such jobs. The funds they repatriate represent about 17.4% of national income. Many Samoan youth also study in universities overseas prior to returning to the country. The education system, therefore, must serve two client groups with different aspirations and choices. An effort is being made to do so by replacing the two-track secondary education system with a system providing a compulsory general education with elective applied subjects. Providing the basic general knowledge and skills needed to move to higher levels of education, while at the same time providing relevant job skills, is challenging.

17. Providing secondary students with a good general education helps make them trainable. It also prepares them for higher education. Providing skills training in addition to general education can be valuable as well, but the course content must remain relevant. It is suggested that, the Government should assign qualified teachers; increase budget; and improve teaching of applied subjects such as agriculture science, design technology, carpentry, and textile at the secondary level to make the system effective.

18. An average of about 4,350 youth leave school each year. The majority enter the labor force, but few find formal employment. Primary production allows a livelihood for many Samoans, yet increased Government investment is needed in technical education aimed at improving sector productivity. Low investment in agricultural skill reinforces the low image that work in the primary sector has among people. Therefore, government investment in this area would be both pro-poor and growth oriented.

F. Finance

19. Education, consistently the largest single item in the national budget, averaged between 15.5% and 19% per annum during the past 5 years. External assistance through grants for specific programs is provided by many donors. ADB is the only lending agency. Parent contributions to primary and secondary education through fees are minimal. Fees are determined by individual school committees. Generally the income is sufficient only to pay for basic utilities.

20. An important issue concerns the high level of salary expenditure in the recurrent budget. At about 95%, it is well above that of most countries (with the exception of other Pacific

Appendix 2 31

countries). Very few resources are left for other operational expenditures. This is a concern in view of the need to raise the morale of teachers and the need for new teachers. The inability of many communities to provide funds for school maintenance is another concern. As the education sector is already a primary recipient of government budgetary support, opportunities for increasing overall government expenditure on education may be limited. The only likely opportunities for generating additional resources may be improvements in efficiency.

G. Management

21. MESC is responsible for education policy, planning, and administration of government primary and secondary schools. It liaises with churches and private schools to which the Government provides an annual per capita grant (ST2,550,000 in 2004/05). Early childhood education and special education remain outside MESC administration, but the status is being reviewed and may be administered by MESC in the near future. Operational administration of MESC is the responsibility of the chief executive officer (CEO) who oversees the work of seven divisions: (i) school operations; (ii) curriculum materials and assessment; (iii) policy, planning, and research; (iv) corporate services; (v) sports; (vi) culture; and (vii) Savai’i divisions. An assistant CEO heads each division. Management oversight within MESC is the responsibility of the Core Executive, which meets weekly and consists of the CEO (chair), assistant CEOs, head of the Institutional Strengthening Project, and manager of the Education Sector Project I project management team. Policies are implemented by way of corporate planning, introduced on a tri-annual basis from 2000. The effectiveness of implementation is reviewed annually and prior to the preparation of the next medium-term corporate plan.

22. MESC has prepared a school management and organization manual. The manual outlines the responsibilities of the community, school committee, school principal, parents, students, and school review officer. Facilities and equipment maintenance procedures are described. It outlines the school annual plan. Schools will prepare annual plans in collaboration with school committees. These include school improvement plans, budgets, curriculum, and maintenance plans. A minimum standard baseline checklist has been developed and can be used to identify schools where management, leadership, or other training may still be required.

23. Despite major undertakings, weaknesses remain, hampering efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. The education management information system is operating effectively, and provides detailed education statistics, but they are not always used and uncertainties remain on key indicators such as gross and net enrollment rates. The assessment system needs to be revised to be useful for managing and monitoring quality. The research capacity needs to be strengthened if it is to help address key questions of education policy. Innovations need to be piloted, evaluated, and when successful, expanded nationwide Policies and procedures for school and community development planning have been developed and piloted. They need to be implemented and supported by training and financial resources. School management committees have been established but their roles and responsibilities need to be clarified and their capacities developed. The potential of information and communication technology in strengthening the capacity of education sector management needs to be developed.

24. An important management challenge is to increase the effectiveness of external aid to the sector. The short–term focus of projects, overlap and duplication of objectives and investments, fragmentation of effort, and multiple planning and reporting requirements weaken the overall impact of aid. Aid coordination has improved in recent years, but the Government needs to take a leadership role and agencies need to agree formally on arrangements to align agency objectives and Government priorities and harmonize procedures and processes for a sector approach including joint reviews and cofinancing.

32 Appendix 3

EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE TO THE SAMOAN EDUCATION SECTOR

FundingSource Subsector Duration

Amount($) Description

ADB Primary and Secondary

2000 (Grant) 820,000

Facilities, training, and materials

Primary and Secondary

2004 (Grant) 350,000

Project preparatory technical assistance for Education Sector Project II

Primary and Secondary

2000–2004 (Loan) 7,000,000

Education Sector Project II

Primary and Secondary

2005 (Grant) 600,000

Samoa SchoolNet and Community Access Pilot Project

Education Sector 2005 (Grant) 150,000

Education Policy and Strategic Plan

Total grants 1,920,000 Total loan 7,000,000

AusAID ECE 2001 23,000 Upgrade facilities

Primary 1999–2004 2,960,000 Quality materials production for years 1–8 Primary 2000–2002 52,000 Furniture and renovation of facilities Primary 2000 1,000 Health-promoting school activities Primary 2000–2002 14,000 Water tanks for Falefitu primary Primary 2001 3,000 Book publication Primary 2004 183,000 Develop curriculum statements

Secondary 2000 7,000 Construction and upgrading of new facilities Secondary 2000 5,000 Furniture and renovations of facilities Secondary 2000–2001 21,000 Construction and upgrading of facilities Secondary 2001 1,000 Bus shelter at Nuuausala College Secondary 2002 1,000 Water supply for St. Joan of Arc Secondary 2002 2,000 Computers and printers for Leiifiifi

Voc/Tech 1999–2002 1,295,000 Strengthen Samoa Polytechnic programs

Management 1999–2004 2,553,000 Develop management systems and upgrade skills Management 2004 88,000 Reproduction of damaged curriculum materials Management 2005–2006 1,144,000 Support construction of new headquarters

Total 8,353,000

AusAID (ongoing) Training Ongoing 1,511,800 Training, development, and sponsorship South Pacific Board

of Education Assessment

Ongoing 20,300 Promote regional cooperation in education

Total 1,532,100

Canada Fund

ECE 2000–2002 18,000 Construction and upgrading of facilities

Primary 2001–2002 52,000 Construction and renovation of facilities Secondary 2001–2002 61,000 Construction and renovation of facilities Postsecondary 2000–2003 40,000 Provision of vehicle

Postsecondary 2001 31,000 Construction and renovation of facilities Postsecondary 2002–2003 6,000 Curriculum for Uesiliana Vocational Training

Center Special Education 2001 4,000 Computers and software for SNES

Special Education 2002 11,000 Refurbish Loto Taumafai Center for Disabled Total 223,000

Appendix 3 33

FundingSource Subsector Duration

Amount($) Description

European Union

ECE 2000–2001 6,000 Construction of facilities

Primary 2000–2004 1,315,000 Construction and renovation of facilities

Secondary 2000–2001 203,000 Construction and renovation of facilities Secondary 2000–2001 8,000 Furniture

Total 1,532,000

JICA MESC 2001 367,000 Upgrade printer for MESC

Primary 2000–2003 553,000 Construction and renovation of facilities Primary 2002 35,000 Writing and publishing books

Primary/Secondary 2002–2004 974,000 Reconstruction and refurbishment of 12 schools

Postsecondary 2003 6,000 Sewing machines for Punaoa o Tumua school Postsecondary 2004–2005 10,000,000 Construction and renovation of facilities

Special Needs 2001–2003 300,000Strengthen community-based and nongovernment organizations in service delivery

Total 12,235,000

LDS Primary 2003 121,000 Primary school development Total 121,000

NZAID Secondary 1999–2004 3,238,000Develop uniform, single-stream secondary curriculum

Secondary 2003–2004 165,000 Develop resource center to serve schools on Savai’i and rural Upolu

Management 2004–2005 831,000 Develop and review curriculum

Postsecondary 2000–2002 247,000Develop new course in horticulture, hospitality, and tourism

Management 2004 89,000 Reproduce damaged curriculum materials Management 2005–2006 884,000 Support construction of new headquarters

Total 5,454,000

NZAID(ongoing)

Training Ongoing 2,111,000 Support training, development, and sponsorship

UNDP ECE 1999–2003 160,000 Implement ECE strategies with community links ECE and Primary 1999–2003 281,000 Adapt basic education and life skills program to

local situation and improve basic education Special Needs

Education 1999–2003 166,000 Mainstream SNE curricula and facilities including

teacher training Other 2000–2004 300,000 Strengthen nongovernment organization ability to

deliver services Other 2004–2006 551,000 Establish the authority to set standards for

qualification and training Total 1,458,000

UNDP (ongoing)

Other Ongoing 283,000 Support for teacher development activities

WHO (ongoing)

Training Ongoing 412,000 Support for medical students and other trainees in health related fields at the Fiji School of Medicine

ADB = Asian Development Bank, AusAID = Australian Agency for International Development, ECE = early childhood education, JICA = Japan International Cooperation Agency, LDS = Latter Day Saints, MESC = Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture, NZAID = New Zealand Agency for International Development, UNDP = United Nations Development Programme, SNE = special needs education, tech = technical, voc = vocational, WHO = World Health Organization. Source: Asian Development Bank.

App

endi

x 3

34 Appendix 4

LE

SS

ON

S L

EA

RN

ED

Pro

jec

tO

bje

cti

ve

Le

ss

on

Le

arn

ed

A

cti

on

Ta

ke

n

Asi

an D

evel

opm

ent

Ban

k (A

DB

)-fu

nded

E

duca

tion

Sec

tor

Pro

ject

I (E

SP

I)

Incr

ease

acc

ess

to

high

-qua

lity

and

rele

vant

edu

catio

n in

ef

ficie

ntly

man

aged

pr

imar

y an

d se

cond

ary

scho

ols.

Sub

stan

tive

time

coul

d be

sav

ed b

y pr

epar

ing

a te

mpl

ate

to b

e us

ed fo

r al

l su

bpro

ject

app

rais

al r

epor

ts, t

ende

r do

cum

ents

, and

con

trac

ts fo

r ci

vil w

orks

to

be

appr

oved

by

the

atto

rney

gen

eral

’s

offic

e.

A te

mpl

ate

was

pre

pare

d to

use

for

subp

roje

ct a

ppra

isal

rep

orts

, ten

der

docu

men

ts a

nd c

ontr

acts

to b

e en

dors

ed

by th

e at

torn

ey g

ener

al.

With

the

early

200

2 pu

blic

ser

vice

re

form

, all

arch

itect

ural

and

con

stru

ctio

n su

perv

isor

y w

ork

had

to b

e ou

tsou

rced

. O

utso

urci

ng w

as a

new

exp

erie

nce

for

the

ES

P I.

The

liab

ility

per

iod

mus

t be

incl

uded

in th

e ne

w c

ontr

act.

The

liab

ility

per

iod

will

be

incl

uded

in

futu

re c

ontr

act a

gree

men

ts.

Stu

dent

s an

d te

ache

rs a

re n

ot u

sing

the

equi

pmen

t (co

mpu

ters

) du

e to

lack

of

tech

nica

l sup

port

and

/or

mai

nten

ance

. T

echn

ical

sup

port

sho

uld

be e

nsur

ed fo

r in

stal

latio

n of

com

pute

rs a

nd o

ther

so

phis

ticat

ed o

ffice

equ

ipm

ent.

Mai

nten

ance

sup

port

sho

uld

be m

ore

read

ily a

vaila

ble.

The

Pro

ject

will

ens

ure

that

tech

nica

l su

ppor

t is

prov

ided

for

inst

alla

tion

of

com

pute

rs a

nd o

ther

sop

hist

icat

ed o

ffice

eq

uipm

ent.

Thr

ough

reg

ular

sup

ervi

sion

, th

e P

roje

ct w

ill e

nsur

e th

at m

aint

enan

ce

supp

ort i

s re

adily

ava

ilabl

e an

d pr

oper

m

aint

enan

ce is

obs

erve

d to

avo

id

mis

hand

ling

of e

quip

men

t. T

hrou

gh

scho

ol s

uper

visi

on a

nd tr

aini

ng, t

he

scho

ol r

evie

w o

ffice

rs a

nd s

choo

l pr

inci

pals

will

be

aske

d to

allo

w s

tude

nts

to u

se th

e co

mpu

ters

. C

omm

uniti

es in

dis

adva

ntag

ed a

reas

of

ten

cann

ot p

rovi

de n

eces

sary

furn

iture

fo

r th

eir

scho

ols.

Thi

s ha

s re

sulte

d in

so

me

scho

ols

havi

ng th

e ne

cess

ary

furn

iture

, whi

le in

oth

ers

stud

ents

are

si

tting

on

the

floor

bec

ause

the

com

mun

ity c

anno

t affo

rd to

pro

vide

the

need

ed fu

rnitu

re.

The

Pro

ject

will

pro

vide

bet

ter

plan

ning

in

the

allo

catio

n an

d di

strib

utio

n of

fu

rnitu

re. A

full

set o

f fur

nitu

re s

houl

d be

pr

ovid

ed to

sch

ools

sup

port

ed b

y th

e P

roje

ct e

ither

by

the

com

mun

ity o

r, if

not

po

ssib

le, b

y th

e P

roje

ct.

Pro

ject

s ar

e su

cces

sful

whe

n th

e A

n as

sura

nce

will

be

obta

ined

from

the

App

endi

x 3A

ppen

dix

5 35

Appendix 4 35

Pro

jec

tO

bje

cti

ve

Le

ss

on

Le

arn

ed

A

cti

on

Ta

ke

n

turn

over

of e

xper

ienc

ed s

taff

from

the

proj

ect m

anag

emen

t tea

m is

red

uced

.T

his

is a

lso

true

for

expe

rienc

ed te

ache

s as

wel

l. T

o re

tain

exp

erie

nced

sta

ff,

sala

ries

mus

t be

mat

ched

with

the

mar

ket a

nd a

new

sal

ary

follo

wed

by

the

proj

ect m

anag

emen

t tea

m.

Gov

ernm

ent t

hat n

ew s

alar

y st

ruct

ure

by

the

Pub

lic S

ervi

ce C

omm

issi

on s

houl

d be

follo

wed

for

hirin

g of

the

proj

ect

man

agem

ent t

eam

.

Giv

en th

e nu

mbe

r of

stu

dent

s in

Sam

oa,

rela

tivel

y sm

all n

umbe

rs o

f mat

eria

ls a

re

requ

ired

for

proc

urem

ent.

The

num

bers

of

ten

are

too

smal

l to

attr

act t

he a

ttent

ion

of in

tern

atio

nal b

idde

rs u

sing

in

tern

atio

nal s

hopp

ing.

The

refo

re, e

ither

th

e qu

antit

ies

need

to b

e in

crea

sed

by

com

bini

ng o

rder

s fo

r ot

her

com

mod

ities

or

dire

ct p

rocu

rem

ent s

houl

d be

allo

wed

. D

irect

pro

cure

men

t is

now

bei

ng

appr

oved

by

AD

B if

the

orde

r is

item

ized

.

The

se le

sson

s w

ill b

e us

ed d

urin

g th

e pr

ocur

emen

t.

Aus

tral

ian

Age

ncy

for

Inte

rnat

iona

lD

evel

opm

ent

(Aus

AID

)-fu

nded

P

rimar

y E

duca

tion

Mat

eria

ls P

roje

ct I

and

II

Impr

ove

qual

ity o

f pr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion

by

prov

idin

g le

arni

ng

mat

eria

ls.

A c

ompr

ehen

sive

cur

ricul

um fr

amew

ork

is e

ssen

tial b

efor

e de

velo

ping

lear

ning

m

ater

ials

and

teac

hers

’ man

uals

; it w

ill

impr

ove

the

impa

ct o

n st

uden

t lea

rnin

g.

Tea

cher

s al

so n

eed

to b

e tr

aine

d in

im

plem

entin

g ne

w le

arni

ng m

ater

ials

.

The

Pro

ject

will

hav

e a

com

preh

ensi

ve

curr

icul

um fr

amew

ork

to in

trod

uce

new

cu

rric

ulum

, lea

rnin

g m

ater

ials

, tea

chin

g m

anua

l, an

d co

rres

pond

ing

in-s

ervi

ce

trai

ning

.

Effe

ctiv

e ad

optio

n of

ped

agog

ical

pr

actic

es b

y te

ache

rs a

s a

resu

lt of

the

intr

oduc

tion

of n

ew m

ater

ials

and

in-

serv

ice

cour

ses

need

to b

e ev

alua

ted

on

an o

ngoi

ng b

asis

to e

nsur

e te

ache

r ef

fect

iven

ess.

The

Pro

ject

will

hav

e a

syst

em o

f qu

antit

ativ

e an

d qu

alita

tive

(cla

ssro

om

obse

rvat

ion)

res

earc

h/as

sess

men

t to

eval

uate

the

impa

ct o

f new

cur

ricul

um

and

in-s

ervi

ce te

ache

r tr

aini

ng o

n st

uden

t lea

rnin

g ou

tcom

es.

Impa

ct o

f new

cur

ricul

um a

nd in

-ser

vice

tr

aini

ng o

n st

uden

t lea

rnin

g ac

hiev

emen

ts s

houl

d be

ass

esse

d by

st

anda

rdiz

ed a

sses

smen

t.

The

Pro

ject

will

dev

elop

sta

ndar

dize

d te

st in

stru

men

ts fo

r as

sess

ing

lear

ning

ou

tcom

es.

36 Appendix 4

Pro

jec

tO

bje

cti

ve

Le

ss

on

Le

arn

ed

A

cti

on

Ta

ke

n

Ass

essm

ent o

f lea

rnin

g an

d pl

anni

ng

inte

rven

tion

prog

ram

s to

add

ress

stu

dent

le

arni

ng d

iffic

ultie

s is

impo

rtan

t to

impr

ove/

equa

lize

lear

ning

out

com

es fo

r sp

ecia

l nee

ds s

tude

nts.

The

Pro

ject

will

add

ress

the

issu

e by

ex

pand

ing

the

rang

e an

d qu

ality

of

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t, st

uden

t fee

dbac

k,

and

repo

rtin

g on

stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t. It

will

pro

vide

rem

edia

l pro

gram

s fo

r st

uden

ts e

xper

ienc

ing

lear

ning

di

fficu

lties

. N

ew Z

eala

nd A

genc

y fo

r In

tern

atio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t-fu

nded

S

amoa

Sec

onda

ry

Edu

catio

n C

urric

ulum

an

d R

esou

rces

P

roje

ct

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

se

cond

ary

educ

atio

n cu

rric

ulum

, pro

duct

ion

of le

arni

ng m

ater

ials

, an

d in

-ser

vice

tr

aini

ng.

In-s

ervi

ce tr

aini

ng in

the

use

of n

ew

curr

icul

um is

effe

ctiv

e in

impr

ovin

g st

uden

ts’ a

chie

vem

ents

. G

over

nmen

t sho

uld

lead

in p

rovi

ding

in

tegr

ated

cur

ricul

um fr

amew

ork

for

pres

choo

l thr

ough

sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion.

The

Pro

ject

will

dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t ne

w c

urric

ulum

and

in-s

ervi

ce te

ache

r tr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams

to tr

ain

scho

ol

prin

cipa

ls a

nd s

choo

l rev

iew

offi

cers

, an

d th

roug

h th

em th

e sc

hool

teac

hers

, in

the

use

of n

ew c

urric

ulum

.

Aus

AID

-fun

ded

Inst

itutio

nal

Str

engt

heni

ng P

roje

ct

Str

engt

hen

inst

itutio

nal a

nd

man

agem

ent

info

rmat

ion

syst

em.

To

be s

ucce

ssfu

l an

inte

grat

ed d

atab

ase

need

s to

be

deve

lope

d.

The

Pro

ject

will

str

engt

hen

the

curr

ent

syst

em b

y un

dert

akin

g a

num

ber

of p

ilot

proj

ects

. Dev

elop

an

inte

grat

ed

data

base

.M

aint

ain

a ba

lanc

e be

twee

n qu

antit

ativ

e an

d qu

alita

tive

perf

orm

ance

indi

cato

rs.

Tho

roug

h an

alys

is is

nee

ded

for

a m

ore

accu

rate

rea

ding

of p

artic

ipat

ion,

ef

ficie

ncy,

and

qua

lity.

The

Pro

ject

will

str

engt

hen

rese

arch

and

pl

anni

ng c

apac

ity.

D

evel

opin

g ed

ucat

ion

polic

ies

and

allo

catin

g m

ore

reso

urce

s fo

r im

prov

ing

qual

ity o

f ed

ucat

ion.

Qua

lity

educ

atio

n ca

nnot

be

achi

eved

m

ainl

y by

sch

ool i

mpr

ovem

ent o

r be

tter

curr

icul

um. I

mpr

ovin

g th

e qu

ality

is a

cr

ossc

uttin

g is

sue

and

dem

ands

a

holis

tic a

ppro

ach.

AD

B h

as p

rovi

ded

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

to a

ssis

t the

Gov

ernm

ent i

n de

velo

ping

a

com

preh

ensi

ve p

olic

y fr

amew

ork,

fin

anci

ng fr

amew

ork,

and

9-y

ear

stra

tegi

c pl

an.

Appendix 5 37

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE NATIONAL TEACHER DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

A. Issues

1. Critical issues noted in the country’s development strategies for 2002–2004 and 2005-20071 are (i) uncoordinated approach to teacher development and supply of well-trained teachers, (ii) lack of national standards for teacher competencies, (iii) inadequate subject and pedagogical knowledge and skills to encourage higher order learning, and (iv) insufficient knowledge of contemporary classroom management practices. These issues contribute to (i) low levels of student achievements and of functional literacy and numeracy, even among the high-school graduates; (ii) inequitable access to quality schooling among the disadvantaged; (iii) high repetition and dropout rates; (iv) higher turnover of teachers; and (v) irrelevant curriculum.

2. Teacher quality is one reason for the low quality of education. While the curriculum is being modernized and new teaching resources are being developed, a similar investment is not being made in teacher development. As a result, both pre- and in-service teacher training has not kept pace with the rapidly changing knowledge, skills, and dispositions required by the new curriculum, teaching approaches, and teaching resources. Given the urgency of the concern about teacher quality, recent teacher training interventions have targeted in-service training supported by external funding, which are not sustained. Such project-based training provides temporary relief but also creates a gap between pre- and in-service teacher training and different levels of teacher proficiency. The technical assistance (TA) will help the design and development of the teacher training activities planned in the Education Sector Project II.

3. To increase the efficiency of the education system, long-term prioritized and sequenced sector reform, and teacher development need to be addressed the Strategy for the Development of Samoa, 2002-2004. Such an approach with an investment plan will allow better coordination of education assistance, and responsiveness of education services to supply appropriately trained teachers for the different grades and subject specialization.

II. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

A. Impact and Output

4. The TA is to help the Government develop a comprehensive system for development and management of high-quality teachers. The outputs will be (i) an institutional structure with necessary legislation to manage and monitor the quality of teacher development; (ii) a set of policies and procedures to manage all activities associated with teacher development, quality, and supply; (iii) an agreed financial planning, management, and monitoring system for the reform of teacher development with detailed budgeting and funding options; and (iv) an agreed partnership between all stakeholders involved in teacher development. The TA output will be presented in a single comprehensive report compiled from the individual reports. The design and monitoring framework is in Table A5.1.

B. Cost and Financing

5. The total cost of the TA is estimated to be $450,000 equivalent, of which $281,000 is the foreign exchange cost and $169,000 equivalent the local currency cost (Table A5.2). The Government has asked the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to finance $350,000 (78%) equivalent, covering the entire foreign exchange cost and $69,000 equivalent of the local currency cost. The TA will be financed on a grant basis by ADB’s TA funding program. The 1 Government of Samoa. 2002. The Strategies for Development of Samoa, 2002-2004. Economic Opportunities for

All. Treasury Department Economic Policy Planning Division. Apia; The Strategies for Development of Samoa. 2005-2007. Treasury Department Economic Policy Planning Division. Apia, Samoa.

38 Appendix 5

Government will finance the balance of the local currency cost, equivalent to $100,000, to finance the remaining local currency cost.

C. Methodology and Key Activities

6. The TA will be undertaken over 10 months in two phases. During the first phase, stakeholder consultation will be undertaken to ensure ownership of the recommendations included in the reports and the eventual national teacher development framework (NTDF). This will involve five formal workshops to consider alternative approaches to developing and managing an NTDF. During phase one, existing education documents; census data on teacher recruitments and student enrollments; teacher supply; demand, and quality; available financial resources; and absorptive capacity of teacher development activities will be reviewed. The review will cover capacity and quality of all teacher training institutions in the country and the programs offered by them. A short sample survey will be conducted to collect disaggregated data for net teacher demand and supply, academic and teaching qualifications, demands for subject specialization, teacher incentive schemes, support from education administrators, and issues related to quality service provision. The information will be used to identify the extent of the gap between teachers’ current competencies and those expected to implement the new curriculum, and interventions required for the development of an NTDF that would ensure capacity for sustained development and management of well-trained teachers.

7. During the second phase, the TA will assist the Government in developing a policy framework to help articulate the NTDF by outlining its priorities for pre- and in-service teacher development. The policy framework will include minimum standards for (i) academic and professional competencies for primary and secondary teachers and for each subject; (ii) teacher training institutional/organizational capacity to deliver appropriate types and levels of teacher training programs; and (iii) monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance for initial registration plus periodic reviews. The framework will include (i) guidelines for articulation between pre- and in-service and other professional upgrade training programs; (ii) guidelines for accrediting in-service and professional upgrades to formal qualifications; (iii) guidelines to develop teaching portfolios to evaluate classroom-based performance of teachers; (iv) guidelines to monitor institutional collaboration, joint projects with schools and/or teacher professional organizations in respective areas; (v) guidelines for teacher remuneration and incentive schemes to ensure equity and fair distribution of teachers through the country; and (vi) guidelines for establishing a system of teacher registration and accreditation. The policy framework and procedures will be developed through a consultative process involving all stakeholders. The Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) will hold a 2-day formal workshop involving technical experts, teachers, parents, private sector partners in education, e.g., National University of Samoa, church schools, nongovernment organizations, private schools, and other policymakers, to seek feedback from the stakeholders regarding the contents of the teacher development policy framework. The feedback will be incorporated in the final product covering teacher development policy reform and major activities with estimated budget, time frame, and targets for teacher development for the next decade.

8. Furthermore, the TA will help the Government begin the process of aligning current teacher training programs to the new quality, efficiency, and sustainability standard. It will help develop: (i) appropriate legislation to implement teacher registration and in-service teacher performance monitoring, (ii) teacher competencies, (iii) processes for monitoring institutional capacity to provide appropriate quality teacher training programs, (iv) a manual of policies and procedures for national teacher development decision making, and (v) a reporting mechanism. The TA scope will not undertake the full development and implementation of the actions identified, but it will provide a strong platform for MESC to work from.

Appendix 3Appendix Appendix 55 39

9. The consultants’ will provide one comprehensive report that integrates all aspects from two individual reports for each phase. The first of the two individual reports will include (i) a brief description of the current approach to teacher development and management based on relevant disaggregated data obtained for the surveys and focus groups; (ii) a detailed, but concise and focused analysis of key issues related to quality, efficiency, and cost effectiveness; (iii) concise analysis of causes related to the issues; and (iv) a short description of past performance of the Government and external assistance in teacher development including in-service teacher training and lessons learned. It will (i) provide a set of quality indicators, with baseline values, expected targets with time frame, and monitoring mechanism; and (ii) formulate of a set of recommendations for the conceptualization and development of an NTDF.

10. The second individual report will include policy guidelines including the rationale, processes, and exemplars for (i) developing teacher standards and competencies for primary, secondary, and subject specializations; (ii) monitoring institutional standards and capacity to develop, deliver, and monitor appropriate training programs; (iii) guidelines for accrediting in-service and professional upgrade programs to formal qualifications; (iv) guidelines to develop teaching portfolios to evaluate classroom-based performance of teachers; (v) guidelines to monitor institutional collaboration, and joint projects with schools and/or teacher professional organizations in respective areas; and (vi) guidelines for teacher remuneration and incentive schemes to ensure equity and fair distribution of teachers throughout the country.

D. Implementation Arrangements

11. The Ministry of Finance will be the Executing Agency and MESC the Implementing Agency for the TA. MESC will appoint a senior staff member as coordinator for all matters pertaining to the TA. Five counterpart staff, three from MESC and two from the Faculty of Education of the National University of Samoa, will be appointed to work closely with the international consultants to provide assistance and advice, and help formulate the final documents. The existing Education Steering Committee will be involved to advice on all policy and legal issues associated with the TA. If needed the committee could be expanded to include members to oversee specific areas of TA implementation. The committee will meet at least three times (at the beginning, middle, and end of TA) to provide guidance.

12. ADB will engage four international and five domestic consultants with experience in all aspects of the specified scope of work. The international consultant group will comprise (i) a teacher education planning and institutional development specialist who will be the team leader (4.5 person-months), (ii) a teacher education/quality assurance specialist (3.5 person-months), (iii) a legislation and policy development expert (1 person-month), and (iv) a financial planning specialist (1 person-month). The domestic consultants will be (i) an education administration and policy specialist (4 person-months), (ii) a teacher education specialist (3 person-months),(iii) a participatory planning specialist (1.5 person-month), (iv) a teacher training specialist (2.5 person-months), and (v) a finance and legal specialist (1.5 person-months). The consultants will be selected through a firm in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants and other engagement arrangements for domestic consultants acceptable to ADB. Supplementary Appendix D provides the detailed terms of reference for the consultants.

13. The TA will be implemented over 10 months. It is expected to start in June 2006 and be completed by April 2007.2 The team leader and the teacher education/quality assurance specialist will prepare a TA implementation plan. Within 4 weeks after starting the TA, the team leader will submit a brief inception report summarizing initial findings, identifying specific issues,

2 Synchronizing the work of this TA to match with the teacher training activities under the loan Project will be useful

as the TA work provides minimum standards for teacher competency at various levels of the school system and subject type.

40 Appendix 5

and suggesting changes to the methodology and program, if any. The consultants will submit (at the end of week 30) a draft final report to Asian Development Bank, Australian Agency for International Development, European Union, Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture, Ministry of Finance, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; and New Zealand Agency for International Development for comments before the workshop with all the stakeholders. The consultants will submit three hard copies each of all the reports in a single compact disc (3 copies each) to ADB, one copy each to the other development partners, and six copies to the executing and implementing agencies.

Table A5.1: Design and Monitoring Framework

Design Summary Performance Indicators/Target Monitoring Mechanisms

Assumptions and Risks

Impact Ensure that a high-quality teaching force staffs primary and secondary schools so that Education for All and Millennium

Development Goals can be achieved by 2015 and provide expanded opportunities for quality secondary education

� More than 80% of primary and secondary teachers implement the new curriculum by 2015 using child-centered instructional strategies

� Retention, promotion, and transition rates significantly improved above the current baseline level by 2015 (Technical assistance [TA] consultants will determine the baseline and target)

� Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (MESC) statistics

� School review officer reports

� Observational studies

Assumption

� MESC and Faculty of Education are able to resolve the current tension and work collaboratively

Risk

� New curriculum does not supports effective instructional strategies

Outcome

A strategic, cost-effective and comprehensive approach to teacher recruitment, initial training, and sustained development

� Current situation of teacher development, deployment, and instructional effectiveness assessed

� Policies options for continuous in-service teacher training and support analyzed, with special attention to the needs of beginning teachers and underqualified teachers

� Analysis of the institutional requirement for effective management of teacher recruitment, deployment, and development

� The investment and recurrent cost implications of the major policy options and action plans are estimated

� Student assessment and test results

� Annual budget allocation

� MESC annual monitoring indicators under benefit monitoring and evaluation

� Technical assistance (TA) reports

Risk

� The Government will not be able to prioritize and sustain reform with support from key stakeholders

Outputs

Teacher development framework, policies, and procedures.

Action plans, with phased and costed investment

� Proposal for a national teacher development framework (NTDF)

� Phased action plans for teacher recruitment, initial training, and continued professional development

� Estimates of investment and recurrent

� The inception, midterm, and final report

� Government’s endorsement and acceptance of the Teacher

Assumptions

� Addressing the education quality and efficiency issues remains the Government’s priority

Appendix 3Appendix Appendix 55 41

Design Summary Performance Indicators/Target Monitoring Mechanisms

Assumptions and Risks

programs

Government review of report and decision on teacher policy

cost of action programs

� Management and monitoring system and institutional framework for the supporting the operations of NTDF agreed

� Sample of expected teacher competencies

� Teacher registration and performance appraisal guidelines

� Revised Government policy ready for implementation

Development Framework issuing an official notice.

Inputs

Consultants

Counterpart staff

� 10 person-months of international consulting services and 12.5 person-months domestic consulting funded by Asian Development Bank

� Steering committee, technical working group from the Ministry of Finance

� Consultants’ invoices

� TA reports

� Audit report

Table A5.2: Cost Estimates and Financing Plan ($'000)

Foreign Local TotalItem Exchange Currency Cost

A. Asian Development Bank Fund Financing1. Consultants

a. Remuneration and Per Diem i. International Consultants 191.0 0.0 191.0

ii. Domestic Consultants 0.0 47.0 47.0 b. International and Local Travel 60.0 4.0 64.0 c. Reports, Studies, and Communications 0.0 3.0 3.0

2. Seminars and Conferences 0.0 10.0 10.0 3. Representative for Contract Negotiationsa 5.0 0.0 5.0 4. Contingencies 25.0 5.0 30.0

Subtotal (A) 281.0 69.0 350.0 B. Government Financing

1. Office Accommodation and Transport 0.0 30.0 30.0 2. Remuneration and Per Diem for Counterpart Staff 0.0 50.0 50.0 3. Others 0.0 20.0 20.0

Subtotal (B) 0.0 100.0 100.0 Total 281.0 169.0 450.0

a Includes cost of travel and per diem of government observer invited for contract negotiations. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

42 Appendix 6

CHARACTERISTICS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL UPGRADING NEEDS

Name of School/College Students Teachers Repetition

Rate Urban/Rural

Aleipata Secondary 241 8 9 Rural Falealili Secondary 260 10 6 Rural Safata Secondary 225 9 0 Rural Lefaga Secondary 89 9 8 Rural Aanal Secondar 264 16 14 Rural Sagaga Secondary 195 13 0 Semirural Ituo Tanel Secondary 182 11 0 Rural Atofi o Taoa Secondary 338 14 7 Rural Savaii Sisito Secondary 239 10 4 Rural Samoa College 785 38 2 Rural Avele College 661 37 10 Rural Vaipouli College (Savai’i) 294 17 0 Rural

Source: Asian Development Bank.

Appendix 7 43

Ta

ble

A7

.1:

Ex

pe

nd

itu

res

by F

ina

nc

iers

(in

clu

din

g c

on

tin

ge

nc

ies

) ($

mill

ion)

Asia

n D

evelo

pm

en

tG

overn

men

t o

fT

ota

l (e

xclu

din

gT

ota

l

Ban

kA

usA

IDN

ZA

IDS

am

oa

du

ties a

nd

taxes)

Du

ties &

(in

cl.

Item

Am

ou

nt

%A

mo

un

t%

Am

ou

nt

%A

mo

un

t%

Am

ou

nt

%T

axes

ata

xes)

1. C

ivil

wor

ks4.

7829

.95.

2933

.05.

2933

.00.

654.

116

.01

61.4

2.26

18.2

72.

Veh

icle

s0.

1129

.70.

1232

.40.

1232

.40.

025.

40.

371.

30.

040.

413.

Lea

rnin

g m

ater

ials

0.52

28.9

0.57

31.7

0.57

31.7

0.14

7.8

1.80

6.7

0.18

1.98

4. E

quip

men

t0.

9328

.91.

0332

.01.

0332

.00.

237.

13.

2211

.90.

323.

545.

Con

sulti

ng s

ervi

ces

and

wor

ksho

ps1.

3427

.71.

4930

.81.

4930

.80.

5210

.74.

8416

.60.

335.

176.

Impl

emen

tatio

n m

anag

emen

t cos

ts0.

0430

.80.

0430

.80.

0430

.80.

017.

70.

130.

50.

010.

147.

Incr

emen

tal O

&M

cos

ts0.

0527

.80.

0633

.30.

0633

.30.

015.

60.

180.

60.

020.

20T

ota

l P

roje

ct

Co

sts

7.77

29.3

8.60

32.4

8.60

32.4

1.58

6.0

26.5

599

.03.

1629

.71

Inte

rest

dur

ing

impl

emen

tatio

n0.

2910

0.0

00

00

00

0.29

1.0

00.

29T

ota

l D

isb

urs

em

en

t8.

0630

.08.

6032

.08.

6032

.01.

586.

026

.84

100.

03.

1630

.00

Aus

AID

= A

ustr

alia

n A

genc

y fo

r In

tern

atio

nal D

evel

opm

ent,

incl

. =

incl

udin

g, N

ZA

ID =

New

Zea

land

Age

ncy

for

Inte

rnat

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t, O

&M

= o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

. a

The

Gov

ernm

ent o

f Sam

oa w

ill fi

nanc

e ta

xes

and

dutie

s.S

ourc

e: A

sian

Dev

elop

men

t Ban

k es

timat

es.

44 Appendix 7

Table A7.2: Expenditures by Component (Including Contingencies) ($ million)

Curriculum

Reform and

Assessment

Systems

Teacher

Development

Improving

Access to

Quality

Education

Strengthening

Capacity to

Undertake

Research,

Evaluation,

Policy Analysis

and Planning

Strengthening

Capacity to

Implement and

Manage

Development

Projects Total

I. Investment Costs

A. Civil works

Construction 0 0 18.11 0 0 18.11Design & supervision 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.16

0 0 18.28 0 0 18.28B. Vehicles 0 0 0.40 0 0 0.40C. Goods

1. School furniture and equipmentNewly constructed schools 0 0 2.72 0 0 2.72Supplies 0 0 0.10 0.03 0 0.14Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Learning materials 1.68 0 0.31 0 0 1.983. Other equipment

IT equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0Office equipment 0.29 0.12 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.69

1.97 0.12 3.38 0.05 0.01 5.53D. Consulting services, workshops

and training

1. Specialist servicesSamoan experts 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.70International experts 1.16 0 0.63 0.24 0.43 2.46

2. Workshops 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.35 0.38 1.033. Training 0 0.94 0 0 0.03 0.97

1.72 1.13 0.69 0.72 0.91 5.17E. Implementation management costs

Salaries 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.03Travel 0 0 0.06 0.06 0 0.12

0 0 0.09 0.06 0 0.15Total Investment Costs 3.69 1.24 22.84 0.83 0.92 29.52II. Recurrent Costs

Incremental O&M 0 0 0.19 0 0 0.19Total Recurrent Costs 0 0 0.19 0 0 0.19Total Project Costs 3.69 1.24 23.02 0.83 0.92 29.71

Taxes 0.25 0.14 2.64 0.09 0.04 3.16Foreign Exchange 2.60 0.57 15.34 0.49 0.64 19.63

Subtotal (D)

Subtotal (E)

Item

Subtotal (A)

Subtotal (C)

IT = information technology, O&M = operation and maintenance. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Appendix 8 4545

App

endi

x 7

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

ST

RU

CT

UR

E O

F P

RO

JE

CT

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

AN

D I

MP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

AR

RA

NG

EM

EN

T

Ed

uc

ati

on

Ste

eri

ng

Co

mm

itte

e

Min

istr

y o

f E

du

ca

tio

n,

Sp

ort

s a

nd

Cu

ltu

re (

ME

SC

) Im

ple

me

nti

ng

Ag

en

cy)

(OC

EO

) S

ec

reta

ria

t to

C

ore

an

d P

roje

ct

Financial Management

Component 4 Research, Evaluation,

Policy Analysis and Planning

Component 3 Improving Access to Quality

Education

Component 2 Developing Effective

Teachers

Component 1 Curriculum and Assessment

Pro

jec

t P

art

ne

rsh

ip

Min

istr

y o

f F

ina

nc

e

(MO

F)–

(Ex

ec

uti

ng

A

ge

nc

y),

AD

B,

Au

str

ali

a,

Ne

w

Ze

ala

nd

Jo

int

Pro

jec

t R

ev

iew

Com

pone

nt 5

S

tren

gthe

ning

Cap

acity

Cur

ricul

um M

ater

ials

and

A

sses

smen

t Div

isio

n (C

MA

D)

Sch

ool O

pera

tion

Div

isio

n (S

OD

) P

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t T

eam

(P

MT

) P

olic

y P

lann

ing

and

Res

earc

h D

ivis

ion

(PP

RD

)

Cor

pora

te S

ervi

ce

Div

isio

n (C

SD

)

Lege

nd: Fun

ding

age

ncie

s an

d th

e M

OF

w

ill m

eet w

ith E

duca

tion

Ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

(E

SC

) m

embe

rs a

nd o

ther

rel

evan

t st

akeh

olde

rs to

hav

e di

alog

ues

on s

trat

egic

, pol

icy

and

prog

ram

m

atte

rs.

T

he E

SC

will

pro

vide

str

ateg

ic

dire

ctio

n an

d ov

ersi

ght f

or th

e P

roje

ct. A

ll co

mpo

nent

s of

the

Pro

ject

will

be

impl

emen

ted

thro

ugh

the

exis

ting

ME

SC

or

gani

zatio

nal s

truc

ture

.

46A

ppen

dix

1 46 Appendix 9

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

SC

HE

DU

LE

Acti

vit

ies

2006

2007

A.

Co

mp

on

en

t 1

Pri

mary

Cu

rric

ulu

m

1.R

ecru

itmen

t of c

onsu

ltant

s2.

Dev

elop

men

t of m

ater

ials

3.D

evel

opm

ent o

f tea

cher

man

uals

4.P

urch

ase

of m

ater

ials

and

equ

ipm

ent

Nati

on

al A

ssessm

en

t

1.R

ecru

itmen

t of c

onsu

ltant

s2.

Dev

elop

men

t of f

ram

ewor

k3.

Impl

emen

tatio

nC

om

mu

nit

y P

art

ners

hip

Pro

gra

m

1.D

evel

opm

ent o

f pilo

t 2.

Fag

aloa

com

mun

ity p

rogr

amB

Co

mp

on

en

t 2

Str

ate

gic

Fra

mew

ork

fo

r T

each

er

Develo

pm

en

t

Ag

ricu

ltu

re S

cie

nce F

ello

wsh

ips

1.S

elec

tion

proc

ess

2.P

lace

men

tP

re a

nd

in

serv

ice T

rain

ig f

or

New

In

itia

tives

1.D

esig

n an

d pr

epar

e co

urse

s2.

Impl

emen

t tra

inin

gR

ou

tin

e In

-serv

ice T

rain

ing

(IS

T)

1.D

esig

n an

d pr

epar

e co

urse

s2.

Impl

emen

ting

Tra

inin

g

2012

2011

2010

2008

2

009

Appendix 9 47A

ppen

dix

6

Acti

vit

ies

2006

2007

CC

om

po

nen

t 3

Pre

pare

Su

bp

roje

ct

Ap

pra

isalR

ep

ort

in13

Sch

oo

lsD

eta

ilD

esig

n1

Rec

ruit

Loca

lCon

sulta

nts

2A

rchi

tect

ural

Des

ign

&B

idD

ocum

ents

Bid

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Su

perv

isio

n1.

Rec

ruit

Loca

lCon

sulta

nts

for

Sch

ools

2.S

iteS

uper

visi

on o

fSch

ools

Su

perv

isio

n1.

Rec

ruit

Loca

lCon

sulta

nts

for

HQ

ME

SC

2.S

iteS

uper

visi

on o

fHQ

ME

SC

DC

om

po

nen

t4

1.R

ecru

itC

onsu

ltant

sfo

r E

duca

tion

Res

earc

h2.

Impl

emen

tRes

earc

h3.

Inte

rnat

iona

lTra

inin

g4.

Tec

hnic

alS

uppo

rt a

ndT

rain

ing

for

Edu

catio

n P

olic

yE

Co

mp

on

en

t5

Str

ate

gic

Co

ord

inati

on

an

dM

an

ag

em

en

t1.

Rec

ruitm

ent o

f con

sulta

nts

2.D

eliv

ery

ofS

uppo

rtP

rogr

amIn

teg

rate

dF

inan

cia

lM

an

ag

em

en

tS

yste

m1.

Rec

ruit

Con

sulta

nts

for

Edu

catio

n R

esea

rch

2.A

dapt

GO

SP

roce

dure

s an

dIm

plem

entR

epor

ting

Sys

tem

Perf

orm

an

ce M

on

ito

rin

g, E

valu

ati

on

an

dR

ep

ort

ing

Syste

m1.

Ass

ista

nce

toP

repa

re 6

Mon

thly

Rev

iew

and

Forw

ard

Pro

gram

FR

ep

ort

ing

, M

on

ito

rin

g&

Evalu

ati

on

1.Q

uart

erly

Rep

orts

2.R

evie

w M

issi

on3.

Mid

-Ter

m R

evie

w4.

Pro

ject

Com

plet

ion

Rep

ort

2012

2008

2009

2010

2011

GO

S =

Gov

ernm

ent o

f Sam

oa, H

Q =

hea

dqua

rter

s, M

ES

C =

Min

istr

y of

Edu

catio

n, S

port

s, a

nd C

ultu

re.

Sou

rce:

Asi

an D

evel

opm

ent B

ank

estim

ates

.

48 Appendix 10

INDICATIVE PROCUREMENT PACKAGES

Item Quantity

Revised Amount

($million) Packages

Procurement Mode

A. Civil Works

1. Rehabilitation of secondary schools and colleges 13 7.196 10 LCB

2. Construction of teacher houses 4 0.320 2 LCB

3. Construction of the new MESC Headquarters 1 7.387 1 ICB

Subtotal (A) 14.903

B.Equipment and Resources for Secondary Schools and Colleges

a 1. Information Technology equipment

(computers, printers and UPS) 0.277 1 LCB 2. Science equipment 0.101 1 LCB 3. Vocational pedagogic equipment 0.047 1 LCB 4. Furniture commercial 0.160 1 LCB 5. Tools and equipment 0.246 1 LCB 6. Homeware items 0.040 1 LCB 7. Appliances 0.020 1 LCB 8. Garden equipment 0.017 1 LCB 9. Agriculture equipment 0.048 1 LCB 10. Agriculture supplies 0.016 1 LCB 11. Welding equipment 0.041 1 LCB 12. Furniture local 0.067 1 LCB 13. Photocopiers and fax machines 0.042 1 LCB 14. Visual arts 0.027 1 LCB 15. Stationery 0.175 1 LCB 16. Office equipment: Library 0.027 1 LCB

Subtotal (B) 1.351

C.Furniture for Primary/Secondary and Colleges

a 1 Classroom, office, library 0.973 1 LCB

Subtotal 0.973

D. Equipment for Project Implementationa

1. Office equipment (computers, printers, photocopier) 0.225 1 LCB

2. Vehicles 3 0.095 1 LCB Subtotal (C) 0.320

E. Learning Materialsa

1. Learning materials and books 0.278 1 LCB Subtotal (D) 0.278

Total 17.825ICB = international competitive bidding, LCB = local competitive bidding, MESC = Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture, UPS =uninterrupted power supply. Local competitive bidding will follow procedures in Government of Samoa Tender Board, "Guidelines for Government Procurement Public Tender.” Treasury Department, February 2003) acceptable to the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Bids will be invited from at least three bidders representing more than one member country of ADB. Local dealers of international firms are also eligible to bid.a Actual quantities and amounts to be determined while preparing the subproject appraisal reports. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Appendix 11 49

SUMMARY OF CONSULTING SERVICES REQUIREMENTS

Component Expertise Person-months

Cost

($’000)

Intl Local Intl Local

1 : Curriculum and Assessment Primary Curriculum Specialist 4 6 88 30 Primary Curriculum External Reviewer 8 40 Primary Curriculum Materials Project Specialist

4 6 88 30

Assessment Specialist 6 12 132 60 Information and Communication

Technology Specialist 4 4 88 20

Audio Visual Specialist 2 4 44 20

Bilingual Specialist 3 2 66 10

Primary Learning Subject Area Specialists

3 2 66 10

2: Teacher Development Advocacy Specialists 2 6 44 30 In-Service and Pre-service Teacher Development Expert

6 6 132 30

Public Opinion Assessment Expert 2 5 44 25

3: Improving Access to quality education

Education Equipment Procurement Specialist

2 6 44 30

Civil Works Specialist 7 10 110 30

4: Strengthening Research & Policy

Education Research Methods Expert 4 5 88 25

Education Sector Expenditure Review Expert

3 4 66 20

Sector Planning Expert 4 5 88 25

5: Strengthening Capacity to Implement and Manage Development Projects

Project Implementation Specialists 40 880

Curriculum Development Expert 3 22 66 110 Education Equipment Procurement

Specialist 2 6 44 30

Organizational Review Specialist 2 3 44 15

Total 103 122 2,266 610

Intl = international. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

50 Appendix 12

PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

A. Monitoring and Review of General Project Activities

1. Monitoring and evaluation of general project activities will be designed to assess the extent to which planned project activities are accomplished and outputs attained. The Government will use results from monitoring and evaluation to improve performance in the Project and across the sector. A performance framework will be established (under component 5.3) and will be maintained by the Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture (MESC). An important aspect of the framework will be to identify user requirements and the types and level of information needed for effective decision making by the Government, including the Education Steering Committee and MESC Core Executive.

2. The performance framework will include the elements of monitoring and evaluation specified here for each component. Further, it will be integrated with standard Government reporting systems. Monitoring will be ongoing, and will be formally reported to the Government and funding agencies through the Project’s review and forward program process.

3. The Government and development partners will participate in a joint program review at regular intervals through the life of the Project that will ideally coincide with MESC’s 6-monthly assessment against the performance framework. A midterm and final evaluation of the Project’s activities will also be jointly conducted to provide information for the Government and development partners.

4. The responsible unit is the Core Executive and the main activities are the following:

(i) Establish project implementation benchmarks and performance framework. (ii) Identify data requirements for monitoring performance. (iii) Identify data collection methods/instruments. (iv) Identify feedback mechanisms (sharing of results). (v) Conduct periodic monitoring as required. (vi) Prepare monitoring reports and the review and forward program. (vii) Assist in developing terms of reference for the midterm review. (viii) Assist in conducting the midterm review. (ix) Assist in developing the terms of reference for the final project review. (x) Assist in conducting the final project review.

B. Component 1

5. Monitoring and evaluation of component 1 activities will focus on the development of primary curriculum and learning assessment systems, multimedia materials for science and agricultural science, and bilingual materials development. Progress toward the objective will be measured by monitoring input availability (textbooks and learning materials), as well as outcomes (retention rates, standard assessments of learning achievement, examination results, and transition rates). Other activities and their outputs will be considered as general activities and monitored under component 3.

6. The responsible units are the Curriculum Materials and Assessment Division and Core Executive. The main activities are the following:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for materials development. (ii) Determine the frequency for formal reporting (how often it will be conducted) in line

with the project performance framework and associated benchmarks. (iii) Identify how activities and outputs will be monitored by Curriculum, Material, and

Assessment Division, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when, and by whom. (iv) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected.

Appendix 12 51

(v) Conduct monitoring and report results to the Core Executive through MESC’s standard reporting processes.

C. Component 2

7. Monitoring and evaluation of component 2 activities will focus on implementation of the teacher development framework, specifically the conduct and evaluation of pre- and in-service training. Progress in teacher development will be monitored through reports on the delivery of training programs, studies using classroom observation protocols, and the analysis of reports of school principals and school review officers.

8. The effectiveness of the Agricultural Science Fellowship program will also be assessed.

9. The responsible units are the School Operation Division and Core Executive. The main activities are the following:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for implementing agricultural science fellowships.

(ii) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for design and implementation of pre- and in-service teacher training.

(iii) Determine the frequency of formal reporting (how often it will be conducted) in line with the project performance framework and associated benchmarks.

(iv) Identify how activities will be monitored by the School Operation Division, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when, and by whom.

(v) Develop (or adopt existing) standard training evaluation formats for trainers and participants.

(vi) Conduct follow-up evaluation in schools to assess effectiveness and impact of training.

(vii) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected. (vi) Conduct monitoring and report results to the Core Executive through MESC’s

standard reporting processes.

D. Component 3

10. Component 3 monitoring and evaluation will focus on implementation of planned school construction and rehabilitation activities, and quality of construction and rehabilitation. Provision of furniture and equipment for schools will also be monitored. The project management team will have overall responsibility for monitoring and evaluation under this component but will hire supervising architect/engineers under subcontracts to monitor and evaluate school construction and rehabilitation. Monitoring and evaluation will also cover the capital works, supply, and installation of any printing equipment for MESC. Under component 3, the new MESC headquarters will be constructed at the Government’s Malifa compound. The new building will enable effective operation of MESC to deliver quality education support services.

11. The responsible units are the project management team and Core Executive. The main activities are the following:

(i) Based on a review of the Education Sector Project I, specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for implementing school construction and rehabilitation.

(ii) Determine the frequency of formal reporting against outputs (how often it will be conducted) in line with the project performance framework and associated benchmarks.

(iii) Identify how activities will be monitored by the project management team, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when, and by whom.

52 Appendix 12

(iv) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected. (v) Monitor the work of subcontracted supervisors and review reports. (vi) Conduct monitoring and report results to the Core Executive through MESC’s

standard reporting processes.

E. Component 4

12. Monitoring and evaluation will examine the development of MESC capacity in the areas of policy development, data analysis, and research. This will include assessment of the pilot studies, which may cover areas such as housing for primary teachers and itinerant secondary teachers.

13. The responsible units are the Policy Planning and Research Division and Core Executive. The main activities are the following:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for the component, including an assessment of capacity-building needs of MESC staff.

(ii) Determine the frequency of formal reporting against outputs (how often it will be conducted) in line with the project performance framework and associated benchmarks.

(iii) Identify how activities will be monitored by the Policy Planning, and Research Division, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when and by whom.

(iv) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected. (v) Monitor the work of any subcontracted supervisors and review reports. (vi) Conduct monitoring and report results to the Core Executive through MESC’s

standard reporting processes.

F. Component 5

14. The monitoring and evaluation will assess the effectiveness of support to MESC for the delivery of the Project. Outputs will include the provision of strategic advice, effective and efficient financial management, and establishment of quality performance measurement and reporting systems.

15. The responsible units are Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Policy Planning and Research Division, and Corporate Service Division. The main activities are:

(i) Specify the schedule, sequencing, activities, and outputs for the component, including an assessment of capacity building needs of MESC staff.

(ii) Determine the frequency of formal reporting against outputs (how often it will be conducted) in line with the project performance framework and associated benchmarks.

(iii) Identify how activities will be monitored by MESC, i.e., what will be monitored (indicators), when, and by whom.

(iv) Identify issues and questions to be examined and type of information to be collected. (v) Conduct monitoring and report results to the Core Executive through MESC’s

standard reporting processes.

Appendix 13 53

SUMMARY POVERTY REDUCTION AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS

A. Linkages to the Country Poverty Analysis

Sector identified as a national priority in the country poverty analysis? Yes

Is the sector Identified as a national priority in country poverty partnership agreement? Yes

Contribution of sector/subsector to reduce poverty in the country:

Samoa does not have abject poverty, but pockets of poverty and poverty of opportunity exist, including lack of education and access to health services, lack of economic assets and employment opportunities, social exclusion, and political marginalization. Vulnerability is another major factor contributing to poverty. While the gross enrollment rate is quite high, net enrollment is only 69% at the primary level, and completion rates are low. Most people lack access to quality primary and secondary education, resulting in high repetition and dropout rates, making the system very inefficient. Even students who complete the full cycle of primary and secondary education often lack the skills required by the economy or for self-employment. Thus, dropouts and out-of-school youth continuously add to the ranks of the vulnerable, ultimately falling prey to social ills, exclusion and poverty.

The Government’s education policies and strategies for 1995–2005 focus on major education reforms, and these have successfully completed a number of activities. Enrollment rates in Samoa are very impressive compared with those in other Pacific countries. Still, the gains have not been equally shared. Poor students drop out without acquiring useful skills. The Project will address the gaps in the education sector by providing better school facilities, especially refurbishing primary schools and expanding the unified secondary education system in poor rural areas, renewing the primary curriculum, providing textbooks for secondary students, strengthening pre- and in-service teacher training programs, and improving the examination and assessment system. The Project will address factors that contribute to dropping out and inefficiency.

B. Poverty Analysis Poverty Classification: General intervention

Unemployment and absence and/or lack of appropriate schooling in rural and urban communities are cited as two major causes of hardship among youth. An emerging trend of increased dropout rates among youth in both rural and urban areas is perceived, resulting in an increasing number of unemployed youth with little prospect of securing good paying jobs. In rural areas, migration of the young population to urban areas has left large tracts of plantation lands idle. Rural children have generally more limited access to secondary education. Only 22% of the population is concentrated in urban Apia, and the majority (48%) of the population lives in predominantly rural areas (northwest Upolu and Savai’i).1

Eighteen of the 46 secondary schools are based in Apia with eight located in northwest Upolu. The Apia schools tend to be much larger than the others, and the quality offered considered to be much better. Therefore, the demand for schooling in Apia is high, and as a result schools in Apia are larger. Schools in rural areas often operate from low-quality facilities and learning inputs, which create considerable inequity in the access to secondary education among the disadvantaged group. The Project will improve access to quality secondary education by improving school environments with better classrooms, facilities, equipment, and trained teachers.

The emerging pattern is dissatisfaction of communities with the poor state of health facilities and services as well as the state of most school facilities in Upolu. The lack of market opportunities for agricultural produce and communication facilities were the primary source of dissatisfaction for communities consulted in Savai’i. Overall, the perceived lack of infrastructure/services and/or poor quality, has significantly contributed to hardship in the communities. Lack of commitment to customer service by government departments was perceived to be a primary reason for the nondelivery and/or deterioration in the quality of needed services and existing facilities.

Consultations identified the following community priorities to address causes of hardship in society: (i) reduction of cost of living, (ii) accessibility of loan assistance, (iii) support for agriculture development, (iv) provision of services and infrastructure especially education, and (v) access to housing assistance. In addition, the following capacity-building needs were identified to strengthen community efforts in addressing hardship in the community: (i) business skills, (ii) cattle-farming skills, (iii) fund raising, (iv) safe drinking water, (v) school improvement activities, (vi) nutrition education, (vii) road maintenance, (viii) computer literacy, and (ix) management skills for village councils.

The Project would improve the delivery of education services and improve the negotiation power of the graduates. Knowledge on school improvement activities were identified as necessary to improve education quality for village children, while improved knowledge on nutrition will promote overall health standards for families in the villages. Knowledge of computer use will facilitate access to unlimited opportunities provided by information technology. The primary beneficiaries will be children from rural and economically disadvantaged households. About one fifth (20.3%) of all households are estimated to have per capita expenditure below the basic needs poverty line. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) will support the renovation and equipping of secondary schools in rural and disadvantaged

1 Abbott, D. 2002. Discussion Papers, Poverty and Hardship Assessment. Manila. ADB. 2002. Technical Assistance

for National Poverty Reduction Strategies for Pacific Developing Member Countries. Manila (TA 6002-REG, September).

54 Appendix 13

areas, and ensure that an additional teacher is provided with incentives for the teacher to continue working in rural areas by providing housing. All the project-supported schools will be provided with learning environments at the national standard.

C. Participation Process

Participation strategy required: Yes

The project design was based on broader stakeholders’ participation, including key national, district, and village policymakers. Consultations through focus group meetings and workshops were conducted with different education and training agencies, local leaders, civil society, communities, and nongovernment organizations. Besides workshops to discuss the issues, timely consultations with government staff were held during the technical assistance (TA). School teachers, principals, parents, and students were consulted during TA implementation. The timing, venue, and method of organizing public consultations were arranged so that disadvantaged groups can attend and have a chance to speak out. Special attention was paid to consultations with local people about the selection of school sites and of beneficiaries.

The full participation of project beneficiaries and stakeholders in the whole project cycle started with the project design stage and will continue throughout project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Special measures will ensure the participation of females and local communities in project design implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The public awareness campaign will support the successful implementation of new curriculum and learning assessment systems, participation for demand generation, as well as village community involvement in monitoring the upgrading of school facilities and support through counterpart funding.

D. Gender Development

Strategy to maximize the impact on women: Samoa has no gender disparities in access to education. In fact, more girls enroll in secondary schools than boys. The majority of teachers are female. However, to empower the parents, especially mothers in making decision on their children’s education and demand quality education, mothers will be included in e school committees. In addition, awareness-raising activities under the Project will include mothers and female members of the extended family to understand the value of education and enable them to demand quality education for their children.

Has an output been prepared? No.

E. Potential Issues

Subject Significant, Not Significant, Uncertain, None

Strategy to Address Issues Plan Required

Resettlement No resettlement is anticipated.

The Project will only involve rehabilitation of the existing school facilities. Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement is not required. Therefore a resettlement plan is not necessary.

None

Affordability Significant. Disadvantaged people suffer from poverty of opportunity—lack of access to jobs, education, and health services. Those who do not have jobs, skills, or cash suffer. The direct and indirect costs of education may become more unaffordable for these disadvantaged groups, especially for secondary education. The increasing dropout rates in recent years may be indicative of high fees and other costs. The Project will improve access to quality education particularly for poor students.

Yes

Labor Not significant. The Project will not require any staff reduction, but will provide pre- and in-service teacher training.

The Project will support development and implementation of a new curriculum, assessment system, learning materials, and in-service teacher training. These interventions are oriented to enhance skills required for employment in the formal labor market, and expected to improve employment opportunities of school graduates.

No

Indigenous Peoples None The Project is targeted to improve the access to quality and efficiency of education of disadvantaged groups. It will address the language of instruction issue to improve learning outcomes of the disadvantaged students in remote villages.

No

Other Risks and/or Vulnerabilities

Not significant No issues are expected.

Appendix 14 55

SUMMARY ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

A. The Macroeconomic Context

1. Samoa’s economy is open but small; real growth of gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 3.75% over the past 4 years. The medium-term outlook is for 3–4% economic growth. Governance standards are high, with a commitment to sound macroeconomic management and public sector reform. While the economy continues to rely heavily on external assistance in the form of grants and soft loans, the cost of servicing external debt has been declining steadily, decreasing by 11% between 2003/04 and 2004/05. The economy is also helped by large remittances from Samoans living overseas, primarily in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Migration for new employment amounted to 4,000–5,000 annually between 1998 and 2002. The country has a clear vision for economic and social development in the medium term. The Strategy for the Development of Samoa (SDS) for 2005–2007 was completed in January 2005 and includes a commitment to restrain the annual overall budget deficit to no more than 3.5% of GDP and to annual inflation rates of less than 3.0%.

B. The Sector Context

2. The Government has identified education as a priority area for economic and social development and to alleviate hardship; education is consistently the largest single item in the national budget, averaging 16.1% over the past 5 years.1 Support to education typically represents over 4.5% of GDP, which is extremely high by regional and international standards.2

The Education Sector Project II is clearly aligned with Government policy priorities and is directly responsive to priorities articulated in the SDS. The SDS identifies seven strategic objectives in education and the Project addresses six of these as follows: (i) project components 1 and 2, strengthening community support for education, improving curriculum and assessment practices; improving teacher quality, and supplying improved teaching materials (SDS objectives 1 through 4); (ii) component 3, upgrading school facilities and improved equipment (SDS objective 5); and (iii) under components 4 and 5, strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture (SDS objective 6).

3. Indicators point to financial stress within the education sector, despite the high level of government support and substantial international development assistance. This is particularly the case in the recurrent budget and in support to basic education. Analysis of expenditure data combined with estimates of inflation, suggest that per student expenditure at the primary level decreased by over 15% in the past 4 years.3 The decline in support to basic education appears to be driven primarily by patterns of resource allocation within the education sector (Table A14). It indicates that primary’s share of the total education budget has decreased from 44.2% to 35.7%, during the past 4 years.

4. The high proportion of the recurrent budget required to meet salary costs is also a concern. At about 95%, it is above that of most countries (with the exception of other Pacific countries), limiting resources for operational expenditures. The lack of teachers in some areas is significant, especially for secondary education and the subject areas of mathematics, sciences, and agriculture. The teaching profession does not attract the most talented and qualified students. Both constraints are related to low wages; low esteem of teaching as a profession; and 1 This excludes allocations to the Ministry of Finance whose vote covers a range of statutory commitments. In part,

education’s share of the budget also reflects the high level of external grant assistance directed to the sector. 2 The high share of GDP reflects, in part, the impact of external grants to education relative to other sectors. 3 The ADB Pacific Department database has a discontinuity in base years for the consumer price index. This analysis

combined ADB data for 2001 through 2003 with Government of Samoa estimates of inflation for the third quarter of 2003.

56 Appendix 14

in some instances, poor working conditions. In May 2005, the Government announced substantial increases in public sector salaries (ranging from 30%–42%). Given that salaries constitute such a large share of the education budget; these adjustments may place further strain on operating budgets.

Table A14: Trends in Government Resource Allocation within the Education Sector by Subsector

(%)

Year Primary Secondary Polytech NUS Other

2001 44.2 14.7 7.9 17.2 16.1 2002 40.8 13.4 7.7 16.1 22.0 2003 37.9 13.2 7.0 15.2 26.8 2004 35.7 13.3 7.1 15.8 28.0

NUS = National University of Samoa, Polytech = polytechnic. Source: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture.

5. The Project will address the issue of nonsalary recurrent inputs in the short- to medium-term under component 1. At present, provision of teaching and learning materials and in-service teacher training is primarily externally financed. Component 1 of the Project will provide continuity of these critical resources. The Government provides few resources for school maintenance as this is a community responsibility. Many communities (especially rural and low-income) are not able to provide sufficient funds for appropriate school maintenance. The Project will ensure sufficient allocations for operation and maintenance at the schools supported under component 2. Component 3 will strengthen policy analysis and planning and will assist the Government in developing long-term strategies to address this issue.

6. The effectiveness of project-based external assistance is a concern. Samoa’s education sector received substantial external support under the Education Sector Project I and other initiatives.4 Aid coordination and the effectiveness of these activities are also a concern. The Government reaffirmed that the Project will be managed and implemented under a single framework. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) will be assisting the Government in developing a comprehensive education policy framework and strategic plan. The issues of aid coordination, options for moving toward a sector-wide approach, and external on-budget support for recurrent costs will be included in this initiative.

C. Demand Analysis

7. Social demand for education is high, especially at the secondary level. Although enrollment in secondary education is not compulsory, between 1995 and 2004 secondary enrollment increased by 11%. At present only 43% of the secondary age cohort is enrolled and the Project will help address anticipated secondary enrollment growth, especially in rural areas. In rural areas, when quality of education services is poor, demand diminishes as parents have to pay for higher fees and bear other direct costs.

8. The pattern of demand at the primary level is less clear. Although primary education is compulsory, data suggest that net enrollment in primary education declined from 77% in 1995 to 69% in 2004. The causes of this decline are unclear and may have implications for the demand for secondary places. However, one explanation could be that the management information system reporting is not reliable. Another explanation may be that with declining quality, parents

4 Appendix 3 provides a summary of external assistance.

Appendix 14 57

do not value education. The Project will strengthen the information system and will have an awareness program for parents and community.

9. The growth of secondary education has, in turn, led to growth in demand for places at tertiary institutions. This is a major factor in the increasing financial stress evidenced at the primary level. The Government has placed a cap on support to the National University of Samoa. Little research has been done on the price elasticity of postsecondary education and willingness and ability to pay fees that represent economic costs.

D. Economic Rationale

10. Internationally, the economic rationale for public sector involvement in the finance and provision of basic education is well-established and applies to Samoa. International research has demonstrated the high social rate of return to basic education. As of 2001 approximately 50,000 people were in the formal workforce in Samoa accounting for 25% of the total workforce. Those employed in the private sector and receiving higher average incomes also report higher levels of secondary education (93%) and of these, 21% report postsecondary qualifications. Workers in the informal sector have lower educational attainment with 61% with secondary education and 15% with tertiary. The Government sees investment in human capital as imperative for growth: “The creation of employment opportunities through economic growth needs to be matched by the creation of a workforce with education and skills to meet the demands of employers.”

11. The Samoan education system is a combination of public, church, and private providers. Most Government schools have a high degree of community participation in school management. Most primary schools and all but four secondary schools are viewed as the property of the community with the Government providing teachers. The Project will build upon the principles of public-private-partnership and strengthen delivery and improve quality in approximately 23% of Samoa’s secondary schools. Through support of policy analysis and policy dialogue, the Project will assist the Government in evaluating cost-recovery alternatives for postsecondary education, and in this way, will improve the economic efficiency and viability of the system.

E. Alternative Analysis and Efficiency Issues

12. In close consultation with stakeholders, a range of alternative project designs were analyzed. The project design reflects substantial evolution from the feasibility study, with ADB playing a smaller role in the renovation and construction of the primary schools. ADB will finance rehabilitation and upgrading of almost all the identified secondary schools and colleges. The European Union and Japan International Cooperation Agency will support primary school construction and rehabilitation through their microfinancing projects. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID) agreed to finance activities under a redesigned component 1.

13. The Project will provide support to quality improvement and increasing efficiency resulting in learning outcomes. The sector study indicates that prior investments have not always been effective, especially at the primary level. One of the key findings of the review is that to achieve efficient and effective outcomes, all aspects of education need to be addressed suggesting benefits from adopting a singular sector approach. For example, previous projects failed to recognize the need to retrain teachers to be able to capture the benefit of improved curricula and teaching materials; and likewise projects failed to address issues of attrition from schools, the needs of rural pupils, and the ability to attract teachers into rural areas. Lessons from past projects also highlight that while benefits can be substantial the lack of holistic and well-sequenced interventions means most projects fail to deliver expected benefits and are simply not sustained beyond the life of the project.

58 Appendix 14

F. Benefits and Costs

14. The primary beneficiaries will be children from rural and economically disadvantaged households. About one fifth (20.3%) of all households had per capita expenditure below the basic needs poverty line. ADB will support the renovation and equipping of nine secondary schools and three colleges, as well as the refurbishment of Fagaloa School to create a pilot community learning center. In addition, the provision of teacher housing will increase the supply of teachers in disadvantaged areas.

15. Education in Samoa will continue to rely on external assistance for some time. The Project will be an integral part of that assistance and will provide skill strengthening for 1,900 teachers, 300,000 student learning sets, and 10,500 teacher manuals. Further, a total of 9 secondary schools with a total roll of nearly 2,200 students (16% of total secondary enrollment) will be upgraded to provide more efficient service delivery.

16. The education system of Samoa serves two labor markets: internal and external. The internal labor market consists of public sector employment, agriculture, fishery light manufacturing, and the services sector (especially tourism). Overseas remittances by Samoans working abroad constitute about 17.4% of national income (excluding in-kind remittances). In rural Samoa only 17% of households receive income from wages and salaries. Households in rural areas have limited access to services, and fewer opportunities for income generation. Moreover, a much lower proportion of households in remote areas receive remittances from abroad.5

Educational qualifications are correlated with successful emigration. By improving education in rural and disadvantaged communities, the Project will contribute to poverty reduction.

G. Sustainability

17. The Project will provide bridging support to allow continuity in provision of critical quality inputs (including instructional materials and teacher training) that cannot be financed by the Government, in the short-term. This will avoid an interruption of services while longer term strategies are developed and agreed. During the Fact-Finding Mission, a projection model was developed to extrapolate past trends in economic growth and sector finance, and to project anticipated costs and resources likely to be available to the sector (Figure A14). All values are in constant 2004/05 tala. The target level for resources required is set at the highest level over the previous 5 years. Estimates of fiscal capacity are based on assumptions about the growth of GDP and education’s share of GDP. Combining “resource envelope” projections with projections of likely future costs provides a basis for assessing the potential for long-term financial sustainability. The model suggests that, with economic growth and continuity in education’s share of GDP, existing programs could be sustainable from Government sources (including loans but excluding grants) in about 10 to 11 years.

H. Sensitivity and Risk Analyses

18. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the model and a range of assumptions regarding inflation (provided by the International Monetary Fund and the Government) and growth of GDP (World Bank, ADB, and the Government) over 13 years. Projections of the time needed to attain financial sustainability are robust across the range of likely assumptions.

5 Forty percent of households in Apia receive remittances, compared with 25% in rural Savai’i.

Appendix 14 59

Figure A14: Projections of Financial Sustainability:

Projected Capacity to Fully Fund Education Sector (Revenue and Loans)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,00099

/00

00/0

1

01/0

2

02/0

3

03/0

4

04/0

5

05/0

6

06/0

7

07/0

8

08/0

9

09/1

0

01/1

1

11/1

2

12/1

3

13/1

4

14/1

5

15/1

6

16/1

7

17/1

8

Fiscal Year

Co

ns

tan

t 2

00

4/0

5 T

ala

('00

0)

Target

Capacity

Sustainability

I. Distribution Analysis

19. The primary beneficiaries will be children from rural and economically disadvantaged households. About one fifth (20.3%) of all households had per capita expenditure below the basic needs poverty line. The Project will improve educational quality nationally and component 2 will specifically target disadvantaged and rural populations.

J. Monitoring and Evaluation

20. Details of the monitoring and evaluation plan are provided in Appendix 12. Responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of each component will rest with each relevant Ministry of Education, Sports, and Culture unit.

60 Appendix 15

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT

1. A review of the financial management systems of the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Executing Agency and the Ministry of Education Sports and Culture (MESC), the Implementing Agency, was completed during the Fact-Finding Mission (20 May to 14 June 2005). The mission found that the financial management systems of MOF and MESC meet international standards for financial management, accounting, and auditing; and was confident that the systems will meet the requirements of Asian Development Bank (ADB). The assessment was based on a range of prior analyses:

2. ADB conducted a financial management assessment (FMA) during preparation of the Education Sector Project I. The analysis concluded that “ADB-sponsored Treasury Institutional Strengthening Project has been very successful. It has led to clearly enhanced internal control procedures: these have facilitated improved internal control and have resulted in significant improvements in transparency, accountability and disclosure. Senior staff in the Department of Treasury impressed as being well-qualified, serious and committed: they fully understand and accept that ADB's requirements must be satisfied. It is evident that co-operation between the Department of Treasury and the Department of Education works well”.

3. Details of the assessment, which covers over 80 specific aspects of the Government’s FMA system, are included in Supplementary Appendix B.

(i) Financial records of the Education Sector Project I was audited annually. Findings of all four audits are as follows:

“Our examination was carried out in accordance with International Standards … In our opinion, the Statements and supporting Schedules have been properly drawn up so as to present fairly the Project’s transactions … for the actual expenditures incurred and reimbursed against the Loan account.”

(ii) ADB reviewed the MOF and MESC financial management system as part of the Education Sector Project I completion report (Section B). The ADB analysis found that the Government was in compliance with ADB requirements in all areas of the assessment. A final audit will be conducted at the end of December 2005.

(iii) The World Bank conducted an FMA of Government systems in April 2004, in preparation for a cyclone emergency relief project. The objective of the assessment was to determine whether the project had in place an adequate financial management system as required by the World Bank under OP/BP 10.02. The assessment recommended minor changes in management procedures (which have been implemented) and concluded that the project did meet minimum World Bank financial management requirements.

(iv) The ADB Fact-Finding Mission conducted an additional FMA using the ADB knowledge management guidelines and the toolkit checklist for FMA. This exercise confirmed earlier assessments that Government systems meet international standards and are acceptable to ADB.