northern education initiative plus

z

DISCLAIMER This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Creative Associates International.

Northern Education Initiative Plus Report of Institutional Capacity Assessment of Basic Education Agencies (MoE, SUBEB, BASAME & LGEA) in Bauchi State

Submission Date: August 16, 2017 Contract Number: AID-620-C-15-00002 October 26, 2015 – October 25, 2020 COR: Olawale Samuel Submitted by: James M. Statman, Chief of Party The Northern Education Initiative Plus 38 Mike Akhigbe Street, Jabi, Abuja, Nigeria Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Acknowledgments The Institutional Capacity Assessment for Bauchi State Ministry of Education, SUBEB, BASAME and LGEAs was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission in Nigeria. It was conducted by the Northern Education Initiative Plus (NEIPLUS) in collaboration with the Bauchi State Government. The NEIPLUS is sincerely grateful to the Honourable Commissioner for Education and the entire Top Management of the Ministry of Education (MoE), the Executive Secretary and the Senior Management of State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB), the Executive Secretary and the Management of Bauchi State Agency for Mass Education (BASAME), and the Executive Secretary and the Departmental Directors of 10 focal Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs) for their cooperation during the exercise.

The execution of the assessment was made possible because of the valuable support of the Directors of Planning in all the agencies who provided the venue for the assessment focus group discussions within their organizations and also organized the staff that participated in the exercise.

The Initiative would also like to thank the members of the assessment teams for their contributions, commitment, data collection and analysis, and production of this report.

NEI PLUS looks forward to greater cooperation from the political leadership and the management of the various agencies during the next phase of the institutional capacity building strategy when the findings of the assessment will be translated into concretised actions for implementation.

Table of Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ v Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Goal and Objectives of the ICA .................................................................................................... 3

2. Findings and Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 8 Overall Result (Quantitative) ........................................................................................................ 8 Observable Positive Developments (strengths) ........................................................................... 10 Observable Gaps/Weaknesses ..................................................................................................... 12

3. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 15 Strategic Planning ........................................................................................................................ 16 Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Coordination ................................................................................................................................ 16 Financial Management ................................................................................................................ 16 Teacher Management .................................................................................................................. 17 Social Mobilization ..................................................................................................................... 17 School Support System ................................................................................................................ 17 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................................... 18 Data Management ........................................................................................................................ 18 Procurement and Logistics .......................................................................................................... 18 Governance .................................................................................................................................. 19

4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Annex 1: ICAT Description .............................................................................................................. 20 Annex 2. Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool ............................................................................ 23 Annex 3: Key Informant Interview Guide ......................................................................................... 56 Annex 4: State and LGEA Assessment Scores ................................................................................. 58 List of Figures Figure 1: Assessment Process ............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Overall Institutional capacity assessment scores (as %) .................................................... 10 List of Tables Table 1: State organization and domain areas assessed by ICA.......................................................... 4 Table 2: Domains and relative weights (percentage) toward overall capacity score, by State Agency and Local Authority ................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3: Percentage of points scored in each domain, unweighted, by State Agency and LGEA ...... 8

Abbreviations

AOP Annual Operational Plan BASAME Bauchi State Agency for Mass Education BSG Bauchi State Government CBMC Centre Based Management Committee CBO Community Based Organization CSO Civil Society Organization CoA Chart of Accounts EGR Early Grade Reading EMIS Education Management Information System ESP Education Sector Policy FGD Focus Group Discussion FMIS Financial Management Information System F-MIS Facilitator Management Information System GEP Girls Education Programme HoD Head of Department HoS Head of Service ICA Institutional Capacity Assessment ICAT Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool ICT Information Communication Technology IDIS In-depth Interview IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standard IT Information Technology KII Key Informant Interview KPI Key Performance Indicator LGA Local Government Authority LGEAs Local Government Education Authority LEAs Local Education Authority LESOP Local Education Sector Operation Plan MDA Ministries Department Agency MOE Ministry of Education MTSS Medium Term Sector Strategy NEIPLUS Northern Education Initiatives Plus NMEC National Commission for Mass Education OOSC Out of School Children PTA Parents Teachers Association QA Quality Assurance R&A Reading & Access RARA Reading and Access Research Activity SAME State Agency for Mass Education

SBMC School Based Management Committee SESOP State Education Sector Operation Plan SHoA State House of Assembly SSO School Support Officer SSS School Support Supervisor SUBEB State Universal Basic Education Board STEP State Teacher Education Policy TMIS Teacher Management Information System TLMs Teaching and Learning Materials TPD Teacher Professional Development ToR Terms of Reference TOT Training of Trainers TRD Teacher Recruitment and Deployment TSC Teachers Service Commission TWG Technical Working Group UBEC Universal Basic Education Commission UIS UNESCO Institute of Statistics UNICEF United Nation Children Education Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development

Executive Summary This report documents the findings of the Institutional Capacity Assessment (ICA) carried out between November 15 and 24, 2016 on three state education management institutions and 10 Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs) in Bauchi State. The state agencies are Ministry of Education (MoE), State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) and Bauchi State Agency for Mass Education (BASAME). The 10 LGEAs were Alkaleri, Bauchi, Toro, Ningi, Ganjuwa, Shira, Darazo, Misau, Gamawa and Itas-Gadau. The purpose of the assessment was to measure and describe the managerial, technical and coordination capacity of the state and LGA education institutions to support and sustain access and early grade reading interventions/programs such as those being implemented by NEI Plus. In addition to the use of ICAT, key officials at both levels were interviewed through in-depth interviews to obtain additional information on capacity. In addition, essential documents were reviewed to validate information provided at ICAT sessions. A total of one hundred and fifty five (155) senior government officials from MoBSE, SUBEB, BASAME and LGEAs participated in focus group discussions and in-depth interview sessions.

The assessment focused on 12 key defined areas or domains in the education system, according to each agency’s mandate. These domains included Strategic Planning; Policy and Legislation; Coordination; Financial Management; Teacher Management; Social Mobilisation; Education Management Information System (EMIS); Teacher Management Information System (TMIS); Quality Assurance; Data Management; School Support System; and Administration: Procurement and Logistics.

For all agencies, there is substantial room for improvement across individual domains. Among state agencies, the highest scores were in financial management (from 33 to 71 percent), procurement and logistics (38 percent and 88 percent), coordination (from 25 to 75 percent), and strategic planning (25 to 42 percent). The lowest scores were in teacher management (from 4 to 8 percent) and TMIS (5 and 10 percent). There was notable variation in some domains, with the Ministry reaching 55 percent in data management, compared with just 10 percent for SUBEB. SUBEB, on the other hand, had the highest score in quality assurance, at 38 percent, compared to BASAME’s 0 and the Ministry’s 19 percent.

For the LGEAs, the lowest scores were in policy (from 0 to 25 percent), teacher management (from 0 to 20 percent), and strategic planning (from 8 to 25 percent). There was some consistency across governance scores, with the majority of LGEAs scoring 25 percent or higher. In addition, there was considerable variation within domains. For instance, social mobilization saw some of both the lowest and the highest capacity scores, from 6 percent (Bauchi, Ningi, and Ganjuwa) to 75 percent (Toro). There were promising capacity results in quality assurance for six of the ten LGEAs (ranging from 31 to 50 percent). Respondents attributed these relatively high scores to previous support under NEI and other similar projects, and to the personal commitment of many school support officers (SSOs) who have been using personal resources to undertake school monitoring and supervisory activities.

Overall agency scores take the individual domain scores, discussed above, and apply weights consistent with the importance of each domain for that agency. These weighted scores then were added up, with a total possible score of 100 percent. All agencies fell far short of reaching 100 percent of the capacity to undertake access and reading work in the state. Among state agencies, BASAME had the highest score (32 percent), followed closely by SUBEB (30 percent) and the Ministry (25 percent). Among the LGEAs, Alkaleri and Toro scored 26 percent, followed by Misau (24 percent) and Darazo (20 percent). The LGEAs with the lowest capacity scores were Ningi and Ganjuwa (both 11 percent), Bauchi (12 percent), and Shira (13 percent).

Both state and local agencies have limited institutional capacity to sustain the kind of access and reading work being undertaken by the NEI Plus Initiative. These low scores suggest that significant

investment will be required to take the agencies to the required level of capacity. Most striking are the absence of well-articulated state policy for childhood education (access and reading); lack of strategic and operational plans and effective systems for managing childhood education; poor documentation and coordination; inadequate data management systems, weak social mobilization; and ineffective governance, among others.

The Institutional Capacity Assessment of agencies managing basic education in Bauchi State found that there is an urgent and compelling need to reposition these agencies and their operations for effective management and delivery on their individual and collective mandate. The bedrock of basic education - the Local Government Education Authority (LGEA) - has been weakened considerably, contributing substantially to the problematic state of basic education in the state. NEI Plus requires a comprehensive approach to increasing capacity in the state and LGEA institutions to allow them to meet their basic education mandates.

Although Bauchi State has a costed education strategic plan and annual operations plans, implementation of the plan at the LGEA level was uncommon. Most staff at the LGEA level knew LGEA roles and responsibilities for basic education, but lack the political support, resources, and capacity to operate, as most of these roles have been usurped by state agencies. In spite of the lack of resources, the LGEAs have sustained collaboration with SBMCs and other CBOs, using their platform to mobilise communities for increased enrolment. However, linkage and coordination is weak, as there is no forum for coordinating efforts across institutions involved in managing EGR.

This assessment found that only resources for personnel and overhead are provided at the LGEA level, severely constraining the work that can be done. Generally, in spite of previous technical and financial support to these institutions, they still demonstrate weak capacity to build and maintain systems and structures to support basic education.

NEI+ ICA Report for Bauchi State | 3

I. Introduction Nationwide, in 2015, according to a household education survey, 32 percent of primary school-aged children did not attend school (National Population Commission (Nigeria) and RTI International, 2016). There was considerable variation by residence, with only 19 percent of children in urban areas, and 41 percent in rural areas, not attending primary school. Differences by sex were very small, with near gender parity for the nation as a whole, and by urban/rural residence (67 percent of school-aged girls and 68 percent of boys, nationwide, attended primary school).

The most notable differences in the net attendance rate (NAR) are by geo-political region. The NAR in 2015 was: 45 percent in the North East, and 47 percent in the North West; compared with 76 percent in the North Central; 83 percent in the South South and South West; and 85 percent in the South East (National Population Commission (Nigeria) and RTI International, 2016).

The same household survey asked about reasons for children and youth of primary and secondary-school age either never having attended school, or dropping out of school. The main reasons listed for never having attended included: the school being too far away (23 percent); the need for the child’s labor (21 percent); the monetary costs of schooling (18 percent); poor school quality (14 percent); and the child not being interested in school (10 percent). Similar reasons were cited for children and youth having dropped out of school: the monetary costs of schooling (26 percent); the need for labor (13 percent); poor school quality (13 percent); the school being too far away (6 percent); and engagement/marriage/pregnancy (5 percent). Interestingly, there were minimal differences in reasons for non-attendance and dropout by sex.

Many international development partners have, in the past, provided financial and technical support to reposition education in Northern Nigeria. The gains of these supports need to be consolidated. The Northern Education Initiative Plus (NEI Plus) is a five-year United States Agency for International Development funded project to strengthen the states’ ability to provide quality basic education — especially for girls, orphans and children enrolled in non-traditional schools — and improve children’s reading skills. The project seeks to strengthen LGEAs’ capability to: train and manage teachers; plan, budget and deliver on professional development; ensure school governance; and mobilize community support for learning and the timely distribution of materials. Specifically, NEI Plus is working to strengthen the capacity of basic education agencies in Bauchi and Sokoto States (with a possible third state to be named by USAID) to provide access to quality education and produce improved reading outcomes for more than two million children. The primary beneficiaries include girls, orphans, and out-of-school children.

In these states, there have been efforts to strengthen systems for managing human resources, maintaining infrastructure and equipment, assuring quality, book distribution, and social mobilisation. However, significant gaps remain, in part because of a lack of the required technical and management capacity in these state and LGEA agencies to manage the delivery of quality education. It is in this context that NEI Plus initiated an institutional capacity assessment (ICA) for state and LGA institutions involved in basic education. These agencies include: the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education, the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB), the Bauchi State Agency for Mass Education (BASAME), and Local Government Education Authorities (LGEA). This capacity assessment was conducted using the Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool (ICAT).

Goal and Objectives of the ICA There are major capacity challenges in technical and institutional areas for the state education agencies that NEI Plus supports, and there is an urgent need to develop the capacities of these state institutions in order to improve the delivery of basic education services. Several international partners and non-governmental organisations are working to improve capacity in these areas. This initial capacity


assessment is designed to provide critical information on the current state of affairs, and to inform priority areas for capacity development. The assessment may be repeated to monitor progress over time.

The overall goal of ICA is to assess the capacity of the organizations and to provide recommendations on how to strengthen capacity in key areas. Specifically, the ICA objectives are to:

a) Train key state education agencies (SUBEB, BASAME, LGEAs and Ministry of Education) on the use of the ICAT;

b) Conduct an ICA for education agencies in Bauchi and Sokoto, using the same ICAT instrument;

c) Provide state education agencies with technical assistance in developing capacity building plans to address the gaps identified; and

d) To provide initial technical assistance to the states in documenting and warehousing state ICA processes and results.

ICA Approach and Methodology The assessment was designed with the active involvement of participating agency staff, including in the determination of domains to be covered. These domains are as follows:

Table 1: State organization and domain areas assessed by ICA

Name of Organization Domain Areas Assessed and Rationale Total number of domains

Ministry of Education Strategic Planning, Policy, Coordination, Financial Management, Teacher Management, Social Mobilisation, Quality Assurance and Data Management. Rationale: The Ministry of Education is responsible for formulating and developing education policy for the state education system. The Ministry is not responsible for: teacher recruitment and management; nor for the procurement of basic education learning materials. Hence, teacher management information systems (TMIS) and administration (procurement and logistics) are not included in the ministry assessment module.

8

SUBEB Strategic Planning, Policy, Coordination, Financial Management, Teacher Management, Teacher Management Information System (TMIS), Social Mobilization, Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Administration: Procurement and Logistics. Rationale: SUBEB and BASAME have the same types of responsibilities, with SUBEB responsible for formal schools and BASAME responsible for non-formal leraning centers.

10

BASAME Strategic Planning, Policy, Coordination, Financial Management, Facilitator Management, Facilitator Management Information System (FMIS), Social Mobilization, Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Administration: Procurement and Logistics.

10

LGEAs Strategic Planning, Policy, School Support System, Financial Management, Teacher Management, Social Mobilization, Quality Assurance, Data Management, Administration: Procurement and Logistics, and Governance. Rationale: LGEAs are responsible for implementing national and state education policy in LGEAs, and for governance and school support (including providing supportive school supervision and support for effective coordination).

10

The ICA included a range of data sources and approaches, including focus group discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews (IDIS), document review (obtained as evidence from the participating state agencies), and infrastructure assessment. Data collection took place at participating agencies’ offices with departmental heads and/or their representatives as the respondents, using the Institution Capacity Assessment instrument (see Annex 2: ICA Tool).

Asssessment Process The assessment was designed and implemented by NEI Plus staff with input from participating institutions. Stakeholders were familiarized with the ICA purpose, roles were clarified, and the tool was


reviewed and modified collaboratively. Logistics were sorted out, including clarifying requirements for the assessment. Most significant was the planning meeting at the state level with a total of 18 participants from the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (MoBSE), State Agency for Mass Education (BASAME), State Universal and Basic Education Board (SUBEB) and the 10 Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs). An important emphasis of the meeting was for the participants to understand that the assessment was designed to measure capacity rather than performance.

Following the planning meeting, the tool was pretested in Gombe with state education institutions (MoE, SUBEB, SAME and LGEAs). Gombe was selected because it is similar to Bauchi and was expected to provide similar conditions. Both the design and content of the instruments and the user-friendliness and function of the application were tested. During the pre-test of the instrument in Gombe, the modification made to the instrument includes the adaptation of language and wording in the instrument to ensure same meaning to all respondents (content validity). Also, the estimated average time for the administration of the instrument is known and the reliability of the instrument is determined.

Below is a schematic presentation of the ICA process.

Figure 1: Assessment Process


ICA Respondents

A total of 13 institutions comprising three state agencies and 10 LGEAs participated in the ICA exercise. Participants details can be find in the annex. A total of 155 participants across all the 10 LGEAs, Ministry of Education, SUBEB and BASAME particiupated in the Focus Group Discusion. Out of the this total number, 7 were selected for Intedpth Interview.

Data Collection Process

The assessor used an online portal created by NEI Plus partner, Value Minds, to record participants’ responses to the questions and to capture other data. The following steps were undertaken:

The assessor logged into the ICAT portal and specified the state, institution, the assessment period, and date of assessment; the assessor then selected the domain to be covered.

1. This action returned an assessment form populated with questions for the given institution. Each question for each standard allowed for five responses, capturing various degrees of capacity development. The assessment is evidence-based, so the assessor was required to conduct interviews, review documents provided by the institution(s) being assessed, and carry out inspections at the institutions being assessed, in order to marshal the information needed to answer each question.

2. When all standards for a domain were completed, the assessor submitted the form and proceeded to the next domain. This process was repeated until all domains were completed.

Domains covered for each agency

Each agency, in both Sokoto and Bauchi states, was assessed on between 8 and 10 domains altogether, as discussed above. These domains differed by agency, according to agency mandate, and each domain was assigned a weight in proportion to the importance of that domain to the agency’s function in supporting access and reading work (of the kind undertaken by NEI Plus) in the state.

A total of eight domains applies to the Ministry, while 10 domains, with the same weights, are relevant to capacity in both SUBEB and BASAME. LGEAs also were assessed across 10 domains, which differ slightly from the domains covered for the state agencies, as they include governance and a school support system. Where a domain was not included for a given agency, such as TMIS for the Ministry, not applicable (NA) appears in the cell. Reading across each row, note that percentages total 100 percent for each agency.

For most domains, there are great similarities across state agencies and the LGEAs in the weight given to various domains. For all groups, for instance, strategic planning has a substantial weight (between 15 and 20 percent) on the overall capacity score; while social mobilization (between 5 and 8 percent) has comparatively low priority. One notable difference in this pattern is the question of policy, which is key for the Ministry, SUBEB, and BASAME (from 18 to 25 percent), but less so for the LGEAs (10 percent).

Table 2: Domains and relative weights (percentage) toward overall capacity score, by State Agency and Local Authority

State Agency

Strategic Planning

Policy Coordination

Financial Management

Teacher Management

TMIS Social Mobilization

Quality Assurance

Data Management

Procurement and Logistics


Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education

20% 25% 6% 12% 10% NA 5% 10% 12% NA

Bauchi State Universal Basic Education Board

15% 18% 6% 12% 10% 6% 5% 8% 10% 10%

State Agency for Mass Education

15% 18% 6% 12% 10% 6% 5% 8% 10% 10%

Local Government Education Authority (LGEA) LGEA

Strategic Planning

Policy School Support System


Teacher Management

Governance

Social Mobilization

Quality Assurance

Data Management


15% 10% 12% 10% 10% 6% 8% 10% 10% 9%

Unweighted scores within each domain

Within each domain, two or more standards were covered. The number of standards sometimes differed across agencies, depending on their responsilibities. For instance, all agencies were assessed on strategic planning. For the Ministry, BASAME, and SUBEB, there were six standards assessed [Current MTSS; Annual Implementation Plan; Departmental Work Plan; Fund Release; Planning Department Capacity; and MTSS (2018- 2020)]. For LGEAs, however, only three standards were assessed under strategic planning (Annual Implementation Plan; Departmental Work Plan; and Planning Unit Capacity).

For each standard in a domain, the possible score ranged from 0 to 4, with scores to be understood as follows:

0 -- Very poor capacity; needs overhaul and review

1 -- Poor capacity; needs significant support

2 -- Acceptable capacity; but in danger of sliding backwards

3 -- Good capacity; appears to be sustainable

4 -- Excellent capacity; does not require support.

These scores, for each domain and for each agency, were calculated as a percentage, as shown in Table 4. For instance, for BASAME, the maximum points that can be scored for strategic planning is 24 points (there are 6 standards in this domain, with a range of 0 points to a maximum of 4 points each). BASAME scored 10 out of 24 points in the domain, so Table 2 shows 42 percent as the score.

In each cell in Table 4, the maximum possible score is 100 percent, which would be achieved only if the state/local actor had achieved the maximum score on each standard under each domain. None of the state/local entities achieved all that is needed in any domain of institutional capacity. Note that this table does not reflect the weights or relative importance attached to each domain for each stage/local agency. Rather, note that Figure 2, discussed below, captures those values, with weights applied (consistent with the relative importance assigned to each domain, as shown in Table 3.)


Findings and Analysis Overall Result (Quantitative)

Table 3: Percentage of points scored in each domain, unweighted, by State Agency and LGEA

State Agency Strategic Planning

Policy Coordination Financial Management

Teacher Management

TMIS Social Mobilization

Quality Assurance

Data Management


Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education

25% 13% 25% 38% 4% NA 38% 19% 55% NA

State Universal Basic Education Board

38% 0% 25% 71% 4% 5% 13% 38% 10% 88%

Bauchi State Agency for Mass Education

42% 38% 75% 33% 8% 10% 38% 0% 30% 38%

Local Government Education Authority (LGEA) LGEA Strategic

Planning Policy School

Support System


Teacher Management

Governance

Social Mobilization

Quality Assurance

Data Management


Darazo 8% 0% 38% 6% 0% 33% 13% 38% 30% 38% Shira 8% 0% 19% 6% 20% 25% 13% 13% 10% 25% Bauchi 17% 25% 0% 13% 5% 33% 6% 6% 10% 13% Ningi 8% 0% 19% 19% 0% 33% 6% 6% 10% 13% Ganjuwa 8% 13% 19% 6% 0% 25% 6% 6% 15% 13% Alkaleri 8% 25% 38% 13% 25% 8% 56% 50% 10% 38% Toro 25% 0% 38% 6% 15% 42% 75% 31% 10% 38% Misau 33% 13% 13% 44% 25% 0% 19% 38% 25% 13% Itas-gadau 8% 13% 19% 13% 10% 0% 25% 50% 25% 25% Gamawa 8% 13% 25% 13% 20% 17% 13% 38% 35% 0%


As Table 4 shows, for all agencies, there is substantial room for improvement across domains. No agency, in any domain, demonstrated 100 percent of the capacity required to support access and reading interventions in the state. In its consultations, the ICA team established 40 percent as the minimum percentage required to show some capacity in an area, and 75 percent or higher as demonstrating considerable capacity in a domain (see following section of the report). Based on those milestones, there are some promising enabling conditions, as discussed below, as well as some concerning conditions.

Among state agencies, the highest scores were in financial management (from 33 to 71 percent), procurement and logistics (38 percent and 88 percent), coordination (from 25 to 75 percent), and strategic planning (25 to 42 percent). The lowest scores were in teacher management (from 4 to 8 percent) and TMIS (5 and 10 percent). There was notable variation in some domains, with the Ministry reaching 55 percent in data management, compared with just 10 percent for SUBEB. SUBEB, on the other hand, had the highest score in quality assurance, at 38 percent, compared to BASAME’s 0 and the Ministry’s 19 percent.

For the LGEAs, the lowest scores were in policy (from 0 to 25 percent), teacher management (from 0 to 20 percent), and strategic planning (from 8 to 25 percent). There was some consistency across governance scores, with the majority of LGEAs scoring 25 percent or higher. In addition, there was considerable variation within domains. For instance, social mobilization saw some of both the lowest and the highest capacity scores, from 6 percent (Bauchi, Ningi, and Ganjuwa) to 75 percent (Toro). There were promising capacity results in quality assurance for six of the ten LGEAs (ranging from 31 to 50 percent). Respondents attributed these relatively high scores to previous support under NEI and other similar projects, and to the personal commitment of many school support officers (SSOs) who have been using personal resources to undertake school monitoring and supervisory activities.

Percentage scores overall

The ICAT was designed to produce scores for each domain, as discussed above, and for each agency as a whole. In calculating the overall score, the weights, corresponding to the relative importance of each domain, were applied. The total ICAT score is understood as a percentage, so if an agency had an overall score of 100, that would mean it had met all requirements across all domains. The approach taken to estimating the overall score is as follows:

1. Estimate the points scored for each domain, weighted: (the possible points to be contributed by the domain, out of 100 points) x (the percentage of points scored in the given domain) = the weighted score for that domain. For example, because strategic planning has a weight of 20 percent for the Ministry, that means that a possible 20 points could go toward the total for that domain. In Bauchi, the Ministry got 25 percent of the total possible points in that domain (unweighted), so the (weighted) points for that domain toward the overall Ministry institutional capacity score is calculated as 20 x 0.25 = 5 points.

2. Do the same calculation for all the other domains, for each agency, and sum the points, to get the overall weighted score, which is understood as a percentage of the total points possible.

Figure 2 presents the overall scores, by agency, out of 100. Among state agencies, BASAME had the highest score (32 percent), followed closely by SUBEB (30 percent) and the Ministry (25 percent). Among the LGEAs, Alkaleri and Toro scored 26 percent, followed by Misau (24 percent) and Darazo (20 percent). The LGEAs with the lowest capacity scores were Ningi and Ganjuwa (both 11 percent), Bauchi (12 percent), and Shira (13 percent).

Clearly, both state and local agencies have limited institutional capacity to sustain the kind of access and reading work undertaken by the NEI Plus Initiative. In the planning stages, the ICAT


was designed to categorize agencies by the level of institutional capacity, with the ranges defined as:

a) Under 40 percent: Limited capacity to manage education interventions; b) 40 – 74 percent: Some capacity to manage education interventions.; c) 75 percent or higher: Strong organizational capacity to manage education interventions.

However, given that all the agencies are clustered well below the 40 percent threshold (the average state agency score is 29 percent, and the average LGEA score is 18 percent), these ranges are less useful at baseline than had been anticipated.There is much room for improvement and systems strengthening, across the board, and across all domains

Figure 2: Overall Institutional capacity assessment scores (as %)

Observable Positive Developments (strengths) While there are substantial capacity needs across agencies in Bauchi State, there also are strengths and capacity that can be built upon. Some of these positive developments may be attributed in part to the presence and support of international development partners. Below is discussion of some of these strengths and enabling conditions.

a. Structure for managing basic education • Structures for the management of basic education/early grade reading exist in the

state but are not functioning optimally or collaboratively. b. Planning system for managing basic education • The state developed a 10-year education sector strategic plan (SESOP) to guide the

delivery of basic, secondary and informal education in the state. The strategy sets out objectives, quality control mechanisms, systems for increasing access to education, and monitoring mechanisms to facilitate implementation at the LGEA level.

• Bauchi LGEAs developed a Local Education Sector Operational Plan (LESOP) under a UNICEF initiative, but the LESOP has not been implemented across the LGEAs.

c. Policies and Guidelines availability

25

3032

20

13 12 11 11

26 2624

19 18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


• Bauchi state government has various education policy guidelines on formal and informal education (e.g. State Policy on SBMC, Teacher Recruitment and Deployment (TRD) guidelines, Quality Assurance (National Guidelines) etc.), but there is no evidence these policies have been operationalized.

• The Ministry, SUBEB, and BASAME have copies of the 2012-2014 MTSS, but there has been no revision or updating of the document.

• School-based Management Committees (SBMCs) exist and are functional in some schools. However, many are performing below expectations at least in part because of inadequate support from the LGEAs.

• Community-based Management Committees (CBMCs) exist, but also are not performing well.

d. Data Management • Education Management Information System (EMIS) units exist in MoE, SUBEB,

BASAME and all the LGEAs, but do not perform as intended. • Bauchi state currently uses UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) software to manage,

analyze and report Annual School Census data. • Processes and procedures are in place for data collection and management in

BASAME • A number of LGEA staff have received training in EMIS and all the LGEAs assessed

have an EMIS officer. • EMIS units in some LGEAs have equipment such as computers, printers and a

generator, but they often are nonfunctional or in poor condition.

e. Quality Assurance • Across the LGEAs, there was some evidence of the documentation School Support

Officer activities, despite inadequate funding for school visits. • SUBEB has a supervisory and monitoring mechanism that it uses to follow up on

EGR activities in schools. • UNICEF has developed monitoring tools, a quality assurance checklist, and

evaluation forms; and has trained officers from Alkaleri and Ningi LGEAs. • LGEA staff show the readiness to work if given the required capacity, resources, and

enabling working environment.

f. Human Resources: • Personnel are available in large numbers, especially at the LGEA level. • Some human capacity exists in the Ministry and in SUBEB, as well as to some extent

LGEAs, especially in quality assurance. • LGEA staff demonstrate interest, energy, enthusiasm and the willingness to make

sacrifices in the face of daunting challenges – all these conditions create a window of opportunity for future capacity development support.

• Some trainings have been provided to LGEA staff in EMIS, planning and quality assustance (supervision), which has laid a foundation upon which other capacity building interventions could be built.

g. Administration and procurement: • SUBEB has purchased and distributed some EGD instructional materials to schools,

sponsored a number of reading activities through quiz competitions, and has established reading corners to encourage and promote a reading culture at the basic education level.


Overall state performance

• Ningi and Ganjuwa LGEAs are using school visit supervisory checklists (based on review of completed forms); there is documentation of teachers using instructional materials in Alkaleri.

• 20 SSOs have been trained in each of the 10 LGEAs and are carrying out monitoring and mentoring visits to schools despite funding constraints .

• There is evidence of some level of community participation and collaboration in school and community based management committees in all ten LGEAs assessed. • EMIS units in all LGEAs are functioning to some extent. • There are a number of tools for monitoring and supervision of EGR. • There is evidence of store management and distribution of materials in some LGEAs. • Bauchi state formal and informal education policy and guidelines have been developed.

Observable Gaps/Weaknesses While the assessment reveals some strengths in some domain areas, there still are many gaps in institutional capacity. The state has benefited from a number of projects, such as the USAID-funded Northern Education Initiative project (2009 – 2014), Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA 2014 - 2015), and UNICEF Girls Education Programme (GEP) project, designed to increase access to quality education and education options, and to strengthen management and capacity.

Strategic Planning:

This domain centers on capacity of all the MDAs and LGEAs to provide strategic direction for the state education response through planning (development of strategic and operational plans) and implementation. However, all agencies assessed have weak capacity in planning; none of them operates according to a plan. This finding suggests that the culture of operating by plans has not been established across these agencies. Although copies of state MTSS, SESOP and LESOP documents were seen during the assessment, there was no evidence of the use of these documents at any level. Feedback from the group discussions revealed that the process of developing LESOP was not participatory, but rather was produced by a consultant without any local (LGEA) input. Consequently, there was no drive and commitment to the implementation of these plans; nor was there a mechanism to follow up on state and LGEA implementation of these plans.

Most of the institutions assessed showed no evidence of departmental annual or quarterly work plans. In SUBEB and BASAME, where work plans were seen, the plan was not costed and there was no evidence of the link between the plan and activities implemented.

This situation is even worse at the LGEA level where activities were done on an ad-hoc basis. There is no funding for planning, and in fact the only funding is the monthly release to cover personnel and overhead. It is therefore not surprising that LGEAs depend entirely on directives from SUBEB to undertake any activity.

Policy Environment:

The policy domain focuses on the availability of Bauchi State Reading and Access Policies either as a separate document or integrated into another macro-level education policy in the state. The Ministry, which should take the lead in the formulation of policy, has not initiated any action in this regard. The Ministry seems not to have identified its roles and responsibilities in relation to EGR, which explains the nearly passive stand of the Ministry in matters relating to EGR. One example is the absence of a clear-cut or well defined oversight role for the Ministry in managing both reading and access.


In addition, most guidelines required to standardize operations relating to teachers’ recruitment and deployment are in place but not implemented, while there has been no training of teachers in reading, performance management, continuous assessment, or other areas. At the LGEA level, operations are activity-driven and not based on the knowledge of the state policy on basic education (reading and access). Also, the State Teacher Education Policy (STEP), developed with support from NEI with the goal of building teacher capacity, was not implemented adequately.

Coordination:

This domain looked at strengthening coordination of the education sector, including reading and access activities, at all levels. The assessment found poor linkage and coordination of activities and programs at the state and LGEA levels. Under NEI, the state was supported in its establishment of Technical Working Groups and a Steering committee to coordinate basic education, but there is no evidence that these groups still exist. Previously, the NEI Plus project supported the state to establish a number of EGR TWGs including Reading, Access, State Education Account, Monitoring and Assessment but the leadership of these state agencies still see the agencies as being part of NEI Plus. In addition, there is a development partners’ forum managed by the Ministry of Budget, Economic and Planning. However, this platform serves the purpose of information sharing, especially on the activities of development partners, and discussing likely areas of assistance to government rather than serving as a coordination mechanism for EGR and access. SUBEB invites LGEAs for meetings on an occasional basis, and there are no minutes taken at these meetings, so the ICA assessment team was unable to ascertain the purpose it serves, review decisions taken, and so on.

Financial Management:

SUBEB gets funding from UBEC (special grants for specific projects), the state annual budget, and donor agencies working in the state. The Ministry and BASAME derive their funding mainly from annual state allocation. The Ministry and SUBEB received funding in 2015 to implement some basic education activities, but the funding for SUBEB was grossly inadequate and severely constrained the ability of SUBEB to deliver on its mandate. For instance, the poor operationalization of the MTSS was attributed to the lack of funding.

The Ministry seems not to have identified and defined its functions in relation to EGR and, as such, has made no direct provision for it. In addition, there are no provisions for early grade reading or related activities in the budget of any of the institutions assessed.

As discussed earlier, LGEAs have no financial autonomy, and are not involved in budget planning exercises. Rather, the LGEAs depend on occasional funding of specified activities by SUBEB. SUBEB does not involve the LGEAs in its budget preparatory process, which leaves the LGEAs handicapped in performing their statutory responsibilities. The LGEAs have only one sub-head (Personnel and Overhead) source of funding, to fund personnel, overhead and related costs. There is no funding for technical activities.

Teacher Management:

The silent involvement of the Ministry in Teacher Management might be related to the ambiguity in the role the Ministry plays in teacher recruitment, deployment and professional development vis-à-vis the roles and responsibilities of Teaching Service Commission, SUBEB and the LGEAs. In reality, recruitment, training and deployment is more or less determined and guided by other considerations that may be outside the control of these agencies. This may have been responsible for recruitment, deployment and training of teachers not based on needs of the schools.

LGEAs are not involved in data collection or teacher management, including recruitment, deployment and capacity development, despite the fact that these are suupposed to be shared


responsibiliies between TSC, SUBEB and LGEAs. The assessment also revealed that the state is not using the Teacher Recruitment and Deployment guidelines developed during NEI; recruitment and deployment of teachers is influenced by political considerations at the LGEA level.

Lastly, the state education sector has no system for undertaking needs assessments for teacher training. The LGEAs are not involved in identifying and selecting teachers to be trained as this is done by SUBEB using the directory of teachers obtained from the LGEAs. There was no evidence that the government at any level has provided funding for teacher training, and most efforts have been undertaken largely with support from implementing partners through NEI Plus, RARA, and UNICEF. The fact that the entire process is managed directly by SUBEB with no involvement of LGEAs has reduced LGEAs to mere spectators in the business of managing teachers.

Social Mobilization

The domain looks at the interrelationships and linkages between the basic education system and community participation and involvement. The assessment founds that collaboration between SUBEB and the LGEAs and the various community structures and other relevant stakeholders was inconsistent and unstructured. All the institutions assessed were said to be aware of the SBMC and CBMC framework, but there was no documented evidence of support to these structures. Nor was support (technical and financial) provided to these structures to enable them to function effectively. There was evidence of involvement of some Community Based Organizations (CBOs) in the annual campaign on girl child enrollment at the LGEA level, and some involvement of traditional and religious institutions in SBMCs and CBMCs in Ningi and Ganjuwa LGEAs. Though copies of the SBMC guidelines were seen in Ningi and Bauchi, most of the LGEA staff were unaware that the guidelines existed.

School support officers were trained across the LGEAs and were conducting monitoring and mentoring visits to schools despite the constraints, including the lack of funding. Another constraint is the absence of a well-articulated communication strategy to guide implementation of community mobilization enrolment activities.

All the SBMCs seem to exist more on paper than in actuality, with little documentation of activities. Most SBMCs said they were involved in promoting education through local radio discussion programmes and collaboration with women’s groups.

Quality Assurance and School Support System:

In SUBEB and at the LGEA level, some unstructured supervisory reports were available. Documentation of monitoring and supervision visits and their use for decision making was very weak. One respondent said he had a copy of the National Quality Assurance guidelines which he received during the state dissemination forum, but its use was not in evidence.

The lack of required technical and management capacity and leadership by the relevant authorities at the state and LGEA levels has undermined the state institutions’ fulfilment of their mandates in human resources management, infrastructure and equipment, quality assurance, book distribution and other necessary functions.

The Quality Assurance Officers send quality assurance reports to SUBEB and keep copies at the LGEA level. It was not clear, though, whether or how the information was used at the LGEA level.

Teacher Management Information System (TMIS):

The Teacher Management Information System (TMIS) is in SUBEB, but the system is not used. The computers and other TMIS tools were not available at the state level, and there is no linkage with the LGEAs which are the custodians of data at the local level. At the time of the assessment,


there were no trained staff to manage the department and coordinate data for decision-making. No effort had been made to reactivate the unit to enable SUBEB to operate optimally.

Data Management (Education Management Information System):

The Ministry has a functional EMIS unit, which has been collecting, analyzing, reporting and providing data to other departments for planning and decision making. However, data on reading have not been incorporated into the existing data management system. In SUBEB, processes and procedures are in place for data collection but it is not clear whether the process has started. The LGEAs lack capacity to develop and manage the system that generates and makes data available for decision making. LGEAs do not have a strong structure or capacity to lead the process. For instance, some LGEAs have only one desktop computer in place, an M&E Officer who was not well trained, and do not have performance indicators for reading. Across all LGEAs, the limited data management effort was traced to the support from NEI, which supported capacity building in the EMIS unit/team, and the provision and installation of some equipment.

Administration: Procurement and Logistics:

This domain focused on two areas of administration, procurement and logistics, with focus on the procurement and distribution of reading materials. The procurement policy was available at the state level, but was not being operationalized by the state agencies, despite the fact that all the agencies have the designated staff and facilities for procurement. In SUBEB there was evidence of procurement but there was insufficient information to establish whether it was in compliance with procurement procedures. In addition, management of materials was a major concern as most of the materials in stock were damaged.

The LGEAs have no role in materials procurement but have a defined process for receiving, storing and distributing resource materials received from the state. The LGEAs shared store issuing vouchers, store receive vouchers, and store ledger books used to document the process. However, distribution has been hampered by a lack of the needed financial resources and vehicles for distribution. As a matter of fact, schools typically were expected to make personal arrangements to pick up their consignments.

Governance:

This domain focused on the structure, roles, and responsibilities of LGEAs in the management of early grade reading. There was said to be an operational guide for LGEAs, but no LGEAs had a copy. None of the LGEAs performs as articulated in the law that established LGEAs. However, LGEAs have an organogram showing the structure and flow of authority of the LGEAs including the responsible unit/person for reading and a schedule of duties of staff with roles and responsibilities defined for the unit responsible for reading activities.

There are community structures such as SBMCs and PTAs that the LGEAs collaborate withon outreach and campaigns to promote enrolment, retention and completion. The LGEAs have not developed a database of the various stakeholders that the LGEA is collaborating with in advancing the goal and objectives of reading and access activities. The same pattern was observed with LGEA engagement with CSOs at the community level for community mobilization and outreach to increase enrolment, which is done on ad-hoc basis.

3. Recommendations This assessment found that the state education institutions and the LGEAs overaall have limited capacity to fulfil their mandates. Despite many international development partners providing financial and technical assistance to the state to improve access to quality childhood education and improve reading outcomes, the state institutions have not demonstrated the sustainability of these investments. It is therefore


important that the recommendations presented below are considered in order to develop the necessary capacity to manage basic education in an effective and sustainable manner.

Strategic Planning - Provide technical assistance to the state to review and update the state basic education

Medium Term Education Sector Strategy (MTSS), with the inclusion of reading and access activities, and using budget planning tools.

- Ensure that state and local authorities derive their annual operational plan from the state MTSS, and that they implement and monitor plans effectively.

Policy - Provide technical assistance to the state to develop appropriate policies and guidelines to

standardize basic education operations, and to improve early grade reading outcomes (including a policy on reading and on access (an enrolment framework), and training in implementation).

- Support Bauchi State in disseminating the reading and access policies to relevant stakeholders.

- Support Bauchi State to review, develop and implement guidelines for recruitment, deployment, appraisal and capacity development of teachers and head teachers.

Coordination - Support the Ministry/SUBEB to establish and institutionalize an inter-agency collaboration

platform (comprising the Ministry, SUBEB, BASAME, LGEAs, Ministry of Local Government, CSOs involved in education and other relevant stakeholders) with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, meeting schedule, documentation and reporting, and implementation of decisions taken.

- Support LGEAs to establish a platform for engaging and interacting with stakeholders and critical gatekeepers in their domains for increasing enrolment, retention and completion.

- NEI Plus should provide technical support to all basic education coordination platforms and use the forum of development partners to push for harmonization of interventions, consultations, sharing of learning, and effective collaboration.

Financial Management - Strengthen state stakeholder involvement for education budgeting (Ministry of Budget and

Economic Planning, Finance, State Education Agencies, House of Assembly and Civil Society Organizations) and in advocating for adequate resources for EGR and for the release of funds.

- Incorporate reading and access fully into operations of SUBEB, BASAME and LGEAs; build capacity in in charts of account.

- Train heads of finance and accounts in SUBEB, BASAME and LGEAs charts of account and expenditure tracking and reporting activities related to reading and access.

- Provide technical assistance to the state to facilitate and conduct resource mapping and development of a resource mobilization strategy and action plan. The Ministry, SUBEB, BASAME and LGEAs can make use of the plan to explore alternative funding opportunities for funding activities.


Teacher Management - Build the capacity of the state education agencies in the implementation of Teacher

Recruitment and Deployment guidelines.

- Support LGEAs in more active roles in the recruitment of teachers by conducting needs assessments and submitting such reports to SUBEB for implementation. In addition, LGEAs should be empowered to redistribute teachers based on documented need.

- Support LGEA participation in the selection of teachers for training, including consulting and receiving recommendations from head teachers.

- Develop and share operational guidelines for managing Master Trainers and Trainers for EGR to enhance standards of operation and improve quality of the service.

- Support LGEAs in the maintenance of an updated database of TOTs and teachers trained in EGR.

- Institutionalize the use of a TMIS in SUBEB and across the LGEAs.

- Support BASAME to facilitate development of Facilitator Management Information System (F-MIS).

Social Mobilization - Support the development of state guidelines for conducting social mobilization, and provide

adequate orientation to LGEAs on its implementation.

- Strengthen capacity of LGEAs and SBMCs to conduct social mobilization activities effectively and collaboratively. Social mobilization activities should be directed at strategic individuals and groups, including district and village heads, and religious leaders. Include community dialogue/town hall meetings, integration into religious preachings/activities, and special community events.

- Support SUBEB and LGEAs to produce relevant materials to support Access and Reading campaigns at the community level.

- Strengthen School Services department/unit in SUBEB and LGEA to provide the required support to SBMCs to enable them undertake local advocacy, mobilization and documentation of their activities.

- Support the translation of the SBMC policy into Hausa and distribute to all SBMCs.

- Reconstitute non-functional SBMCs, and those active SBMCs should be supported to maintain and increase the tempo of activities.

- Support LGEAs to maintain an updated database of SBMCs, PTAs and CBOs.

School Support System - Develop a standard checklist for supervisory visits.

- Strengthen the use of Technology supported EGR protocol/checklist for school visit to observe reading in early grades and access.

- Establish a forum for interaction, sharing lessons and learning and dissemination of feedback of the school support supervisors and volunteers trained on mentoring reading for P1-P3 classes.


- Build capacity of LGEA SSOs and other relevant stakeholders on mentoring reading in schools for Early Grade classes.

- Develop TORs for school support supervisors and provide orientation.

Quality Assurance - Support SUBEB to develop a simplified version of Quality Assurance guidelines, printed

and distributed, and orientation provided to Quality Assurance Officers and School Support Officers for effective implementation.

- Support SUBEB and LGEAs to review and update a package of tools for conducting quality assurance and supervisory functions.

- Strengthen capacity of Quality Assurance and School Support Officers in their support and mentoring of teachers.

- Consider developing, producing and distributing Operational Guidelines/Handbook for School Support Officers/Quality Assurance Officers at LGEA level. The purpose would be to standardize operations, sharpen their interventions, and ultimately increase their performance and effectiveness

Data Management - Engage the Ministry, SUBEB and LGEA management to provide necessary equipment and

infrastructure (servers, additional computers and software) for data processing and storage.

- Build the capacity of SUBEB and BASAME on the use of the technology-supported EGR school support checklist tool and analysis and use of data from the observation visits.

- Update capacity for efffective EMIS periodically through on-the-job training and mentoring.

- Produce and distribute data collection tool for TMIS to SSOs to assist EMIS officers to collect and forward the data at agreed intervals.

- NEI should collaborate with MOE, SUBEB and BASAME to generate/update indicators on EGR and integrate them into the data collection system.

- Train at least 2 staff from each agency in EMIS and TMIS.

- Develop operational guidelines should for on- the-job training and mentoring by NEI Plus.

- Support the Ministry, SUBEB, BASAME and LGEAs in maintaining an updated database of staff and teachers’ trained in any area related to EGR (Quality Assurance, Finance, Planning, Facilitation, Budgeting, Expenditure Tracking, etc.).

Procurement and Logistics - Enhance the technical capacity of Ministry of Education, SUBEB, BASAME, and LGEAs

to set out an effective distribution system and improve stores.

- Improve allocation and release of resources for educational logistics at all levels (State-LGEA/LGA- School).

- Support state book distribution committee, storekeepers, education secretaries, area coordinators, SBMCs, CBMCs, and others at LGEA level to ensure good monitoring, tracking and reporting of distribution at all levels; adhere to the book repacking and distribution flow model; and maintain a paper trail to track delivery of books.


Governance - Undertake a review of strategic roles and responsibilities of MOE, SUBEB and LGEAs in

managing basic education (EGR) to establish issues that form the basis for strategic advocacy to the political leadership on repositioning institutional architecture for effectively managing basic education (EGR).

- Advocate at the highest political leadership on possible ways of repositioning LGEAs to perform their strategic functions as set out in the enabling law that established the LGEAs.

- Facilitate high-level advocacy with policy makers and decision makers on the inclusion of LGEAs in the State Annual Financial Planning through annual budget allocation to LGEAs.

4. Conclusion USAID’s Northern Education Initiative Plus uses a holistic approach in addressing critical supply and demand gaps that affect learning, teaching, management, parental participation and responsiveness to children’s needs. The Institutional Capacity Assessment of the key state and local education institutions responsible for delivering effective teaching and learning at primary level documents the limited capacity of these institutions to function effectively and fulfil their responsibilities in virtually all areas, especially in improving quality, social mobilisation, planning, and policy development. There are areas of promising capacity, but on the whole, there are substantial unmet capacity needs.

Despite previous support to reading and access activities by donor partners in the state, the state actors still appear not to have a clear understanding of how an EGR program can be managed and implemented. It is evident that reading activities are not yet integrated into state and local activities. In addition, financial resources required for effective implementation of both access and EGR activities, especially at the LGEA level, are not available . Nor are the reading policy and operational guidelines to drive the implementation in place.

It is important that a stakeholders’ forum is organised to build consensus on policy issues, standards, coordination and linkages, and governance issues for a more effective response to EGR requirements. Community support systems need be energised and re-energised through effective linkage and capacity development in SMBCs, CBMCs, PTAs and CBOs to support community-level advocacy and mobilisation. In addition, key gatekeepers such as community and religious leaders, and other critical groups should be engaged. The community environment should facilitate increased enrolment, retention and completion of basic education.

It also is important that the required political will at the highest level is generated for the institutionalisation and sustainability of EGR and access efforts. NEI Plus and other development partners need to engage political leadership to generate the required interest and obtain demonstrable commitment to capacity building and to the overall work in education.


Annex 1: ICAT Description

Section 1: Principles The ICAT is a tool designed to assess capacity, not to measure performance. The principles that informed the ICAT included:

• Subjectivity should be minimised. • Domains in the tool should be minimised and simplified. • Weighting should be applied to the domains to give a more 'balanced' view of institution capacity. • A threshold should be set to measure performance and progress. • It is reviewed annually and necessary improvements made.

It is difficult to develop a single tool that can be used for every kind of organisation. There are some domains and core standards that should be assessed for every organisation but many are specific to different kinds of organisations such as government line ministries (LM), faith-based organisations (FBO), Civil Society Organisations (CSO), and Networks of Organisations (NO). Separate modules have been developed for assessing the different categories of stakeholders based on their mandate:

o State Ministry of Education o State Universal Basic Education Board o State Mass Education Agency o Local Government Education Authority

Section 2: Structure The outline and structure of the tool is identical for all of the modules. The content is specific to each different category of organisation. THE TOOL MUST ALWAYS BE READ AND COMPLETED FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. This will become clearer in the following explanations and will also help to avoid jumping to conclusions when scoring. The tool is provided in Excel files (each with a stated version in the title):

Domains A ‘Domain’ is purely a ‘principle area’ of Institutional/organizational capacity required to fulfil the mandate, and is used to focus strengthening efforts. Provision was made for 10 domains. SUBEB, BASAME and LGEAs have 10 domains while MOE assessment tools have 8 domains.


o Each domain will have sub-domains with assess standard (ideal practices) within each sub-domain.

The domains and the sub-domains in the assessment are designed to be adaptable according to the organization’s context.

Assessed Standards In each domain, a number of critical issues are identified as standard elements of “capacity”. Provision was made in the design template for 6 assessed standards in each domain. Most domains have less than 6 standards identified for assessment. Capacity Measurement Categories In order to reduce subjectivity in scoring the assessed standards in each domain, each has five clearly stated “capacity measurement categories”, viz:

0 - Very poor capacity; needs overhaul and review 1 - Poor capacity; needs significant support 2 - Acceptable capacity; but in danger of sliding backwards 3 - Good capacity; appears to be sustainable 4 - Excellent capacity; does not require support

A text description which explains what is expected in order to score the allocated points has been developed and clearly stated in each of the capacity measurement categories. From 0 where there is no capacity to 4, the content noted in the Performance Categories describes a greater depth of capacity associated with the Assessed Standard. Score The tool is designed so that assessors may allocate only ONE score for each Assessed Standard (0-4). Fractions will not be accepted, only whole numbers from 0 to 4. The maximum score for a domain depends on the number of Assessed Standards for which capacity is being measured. If there are 6 and the maximum score per standard is 4, then the domain maximum score is 24. The score of a domain is therefore a pure maths equation: • If there are 4 questions and each can score 0-4, then the maximum possible score is 16. • If there are 2 questions and each can score 0-4, then the maximum possible score is 8. • Etc. Domain Weighting This is clearly not a fair way to compare the proficiency of the Institutions, so the scores are weighted to reflect the real priorities: • The collective weight of all Domains has been set at 100%. • If there are 5 Domains and all have the same weight (equal importance and priority), then each is

weighted 20% (5 x 20 = 100). • If there are 10 Domains and all have the same weight (equal importance and priority) then each is

weighted 10% (10 x 10 = 100), etc.

The programming in the model converts the score to the percentage so that the comparison is fair and reflects the real priorities: • If there are 4 questions and each scores 3, then the score is 12, and • If there are 5 Domains and this Domain is weighted 20%, then the weighted score will be 12/16 x 20 =

15 (contributes 15% to the 100% total possible score). • If there are 4 questions and each scores 3, then the score is 12, but


• If there are 10 Domains and this domain is weighted 10%, then the weighted score will be 12/16 x 10 = 7,5 (contributes 7,5% to the 100% total possible score).

Assessed Standards Weighting Finally, each question can be weighted if all questions are deemed to be important but some are more important than the others. Each standard that is assessed has been separately weighted depending on the priority attributed by the Initiative Project. Each standard’s weighting can be changed by the Initiative Project as the priorities change, as long as the collective weight within the domain does not exceed the number of questions x 1. This weighting is very sensitive, and care should be taken not to use too wide a range. It is suggested that a range of 0,8 to 1,2 is more than wide enough to promote the priorities. The present tool is set so that there are a few weighted questions too. They show question scores of 1,1 while others in their Domains are down-rated to 0,9. In this ICAT, it is important to concentrate on the percentages weighting per Domain. The scores are not of themselves of any consequence.


Annex 2. Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool

Ministry of Education (MOE)

Domain 1: Strategic Planning

Assessed Standard: 1.1 - MTSS (Current) SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Costed MTSS not available 0 2 Costed MTSS available 1 3 Costed MTSS available and widely disseminated among stakeholders 2 4 Costed MTSS available and used for preparing annual budget 3

5 Costed MTSS available and used for preparing annual budget and MOE oversees the implementation of the MTSS 4

Assessed Standard: 1.2 - Annual Implementation Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Ministry of Education has no Annual Operational Plan 0 2 Annual operational Plan available and derived from MTSS 1 3 Annual operational plan activities are costed including reading and access activities 2 4 Annual operational plan approved but not implemented 3

5 Annual operational plan approved, fully implemented, reviewed/updated at midterm and progress documented 4

Assessed Standard: 1.3 - Departmental work plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No departmental work plan incorporating reading and access related activities 0 2 Departmental work plan exists but not derived from the Ministries annual implementation plan 1

3 Departmental work plan exists, derived from the Ministries annual implementation plan but not used 2

4 Departmental work plan exists, derived from the Ministries annual implementation plan and used but implementation not documented 3

5 Departmental work plan exists, derived from the Ministries annual implementation plan, used and implementation documented 4

Assessed Standard: 1.4 - Fund Release

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Ministry of Education has no approved budget 0 2 Ministry of Education has approved budget but no release 1 3 Less than 50% of approved budget released to Ministry of Education by the State Government. 2 4 Above 50% of approved budget expended by Ministry of Education 3

5 Ministry of Education has budget line for reading and access related activities. Funds allocated and released for reading and access related activities. 4

Assessed Standard: 1.5 - Planning Department Capacity SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Planning department staff are not in place 0


2 Planning department staff are in place but not trained on MTSS and operation plan development. 1

3 Planning department staff in place, but most not fully trained on MTSS and operation plan development tools (Projections: List of reading and access, cost norm) 2

4 Most Planning department staff trained on MTSS and operation plan development tools 3

5 Planning department staff has capacity to use tools and procedures to develop MTSS, operational plan and monitor progress of implementation 4

Assessed Standard: 1.6 - MTSS (2018-2020) SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 MTSS development plan and resources not yet Identified 0 2 MTSS Development Plan and Resources Identified 1 3 Organize Planning meeting among Stakeholders towards development of costed MTSS 2 4 Development of draft costed MTSS with reading and Access incorporated 3

5 Validation of plan conducted with stakeholders including Civil Society Organization and Implementing partners. Costed MTSS plan approved (By State Assembly) 4

Domain 2: Policy Assessed Standard: 2.1 - Reading Policy

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No Reading Policy in place 0

2 Draft Reading Policy developed (includes language of instruction, time for reading instruction and reading standard / benchmarks but does not include early grade Pupil teacher ratio; reading textbook reader ratio; and early grade reading books produced in Hausa available in draft

1

3 Reading Policy developed and presented for approval (includes language of instruction, time for reading instruction and reading standard / benchmarks, early grade Pupil teacher ratio; reading textbook reader ratio; and early grade reading books produced in Hausa)

2

4 Reading Policy approved (includes language of instruction, time for reading instruction and reading standard / benchmarks, early grade Pupil teacher ratio; reading textbook reader ratio; and early grade reading books produced in Hausa available, but not yet disseminated to stakeholders

3

5

Reading Policy disseminated to stakeholders (includes language of instruction, time for reading instruction and reading standard / benchmarks, early grade Pupil teacher ratio; reading textbook reader ratio; and early grade reading books produced in Hausa) available, disseminated to stakeholders and fully in use

4

Assessed Standard: 2.2 - Access Policy

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No Access Policy in place 0 2 Draft Access Policy developed. 1 3 Access Policy developed and presented for approval. 2 4 Access Policy approved. 3 5 Access Policy disseminated to stakeholders. 4

Domain 3: Coordination Assessed Standard: 3.1 - Ministry of Education supports coordination of Early Grade Reading TWGs in the State Reading TWGs in the State

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No EGR TWGs / Coordination platform 0 2 EGR TWGs / Coordination platforms established with clear TORs but no meetings held 1


3 EGR TWGs / Coordination platforms established with clear TORs with irregular meetings 2

4 EGR TWGs / Coordination platforms exits with clear TORs meet regularly but decision not implemented 3

5 EGR TWGs / Coordination platforms exist meet regularly decisions fully implemented and making impact on early grade reading. 4

Assessed Standard: 3.2 - Ministry of Education coordination of state education agencies

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No forum of education agencies 0

2 Forum of education agencies exists with clear terms of reference (including early grade reading) but no meetings held 1

3 Forum of education agencies exists with clear terms of reference (including early grade reading) meeting irregular 2

4 Forum of education agencies exists with clear terms of reference (including early grade reading) , meet regularly, reports are written but not disseminated 3

5 Forum of education agencies exists meet regularly, reports written and disseminated and used for decision making and actions for improvement 4

Domain 4: Financial Management Assessed Standard: 4.1 - Cost accounting protocol and procedures

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Chart of accounts disaggregating expenditure on readings and access (Reading material and

Teacher Professional Development training) not available 0

2 Chart of account disaggregating expenditure on readings and access (Reading material and Teacher Professional Development training) developed, but not yet approved. 1

3 Chart of accounts and disaggregation protocols approved. 2

4 Expenditures are tracked, disaggregated and reported costs according to Chart of Accounts and protocols. 3

5 Staff provided update on cost of accounts and procedure for cost reporting 4

Assessed Standard: 4.2 - Budget SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No funds budgeted for reading and access related activities 0 2 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities 1 3 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities and fund allocated 2

4 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities and fund allocated but considered inadequate when compared with requirements 3

5 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities, fund allocated and considered adequate when compared with requirements 4

Assessed Standard: 4.3 - Budget Release

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No funds budgeted for reading and access related activities 0 2 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities 1 3 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities and fund allocated 2 4 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities and fund allocated but considered

inadequate when compared with requirements 3

5 Budget line exists for reading and access and related activities, fund allocated and considered adequate when compared with requirements 4


Assessed Standard: 4.4 - Reading and Access Expenditures SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No fund available for access and reading and related activities 0 2 No fund expended on access and reading and related activities 1 3 Fund expended on access and reading related activities from the budget but grossly inadequate 2

4 More than 50% of fund approved for access and reading and related activities expended as approved 3

5 100% release secured and expended on access and reading and related activities 4

Assessed Standard: 4.5 - Financial Reporting SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No financial report available 0 2 Financial report available but no information on reading and access activities 1 3 Financial report available and has information on reading and access activities 2 4 Financial report with information on access and reading available but considered inadequate 3

5 Financial report with information on access and reading available and considered adequate based on requirements 4

Assessed Standard: 4.6 - Finance and Account Capacity

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Finance and account unit staff are not in place 0

2 Finance and account unit staff in place, but most not trained on Chart of account and manual disaggregating expenditure on readings and access (reading material development and teacher professional development training)

1

3

Most Finance and account unit staff fully trained on Chart of account and manual disaggregating expenditure on readings and access (reading material development and teacher professional development training); expenditure are properly documented according to approved financial guidelines.

2

4

Finance and account unit staff fully trained on Chart of account and manual disaggregating expenditure on readings and access (material development and training); expenditure are properly documented according to approved financial guidelines but internal audit control does not exist.

3

5

Finance and account unit staff fully trained on Chart of account and manual disaggregating expenditure on readings and access (material development and training); expenditure are properly documented according to approved financial guidelines but internal audit control exist; and reporting expenditure to the appropriate authority.

4

Domain 5: Teacher Management Assessed Standard: 5.1 - Recruitment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Staffing (teachers) needs assessment not conducted. 0 2 Needs assessment conducted but no staffing (teachers) plan 1 3 Needs assessment conducted and staffing (teachers) plan available. 2

4 Needs assessment conducted staffing (teachers) plan available and recruitment procedures not applied 3

5 Needs assessment conducted staffing (teachers) plan and recruitment procedures fully applied. 4

Assessed Standard: 5.2 - Teacher Deployment SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Deployment procedures and Guidelines not available 0 2 Deployment procedures and guidelines available, but not applied 1


3 Deployment procedures and guidelines includes focus on early grades available but not effectively partially applied 2

4 Deployment procedures and guidelines is available and fully applied 3 5 Established system for deployment is periodically reviewed and updated 4

Assessed Standard: 5.3 - Teacher Professional Development (Capacity Development) SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No teacher professional development training plan 0 2 Teacher Professional Development training plan developed but not use 1 3 Teacher Professional Development training plan developed with appropriate budget for

implementation 2

4 Teacher Professional Development training plan developed with appropriate budget for implementation but implemented partially 3

5 Teacher Professional Development training plan developed with appropriate budget for implementation and fully implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 5.4 - Teacher Professional Development

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development not available 0 2 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development available but not in use 1

3 Annual Plans for teacher in-service professional development is available but no funds to implement 2

4 Annual Plans for teacher in-service professional development funds available but partially implemented. 3

5 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development funds available and fully implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 5.5 - School Heads Professional Development

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management not

available 0

2 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management available but not in use 1

3 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management available but no funds to implement 2

4 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management funds available but partially implemented. 3

5 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management, funds available and fully implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 5.6 - Master Trainer / Teacher Trainer

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No guidelines for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers 0 2 Draft Guidelines for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers exist 1 3 Guidelines approved for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers 2

4 Approved guidelines for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers exist but not implemented 3

5 Approved guidelines for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers exist and fully implemented 4

Domain 6: Social Mobilization

Assessed Standard: 6.1 - Communication and outreach strategy


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No communication and outreach strategy developed 0

2 Communication and outreach strategy for reading and access developed with the stakeholders defined 1

3 Communications and outreach strategy approved and funding secured. 2 4 Communication and outreach strategy enforced 3

5 Platform for feedback on the use of the communication and outreach strategy exists. Used for planning and decision making. 4

Assessed Standard: 6.2 - SBMCs/PTAs/CBMCs

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No operational guideline for

SBMCs/PTA/CBMCs 0

2 Operational guidelines for SBMC/PTA/CBMCs available but not in use 1 3 Operational guidelines for SBMC /PTA/CBMCs available but partially used 2 4 Operational guidelines for SBMC /PTA/CBMCs available. Members have copies and fully used 3

5 Platform for feedback on the use of the communication and outreach strategy exists. Used for planning and decision making 4

Domain 7: Quality Assurance Assessed Standard: 7.1 - Quality Assurance

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Quality assurance guideline not available 0 2 Quality assurance guidelines available (includes provision for EGR) but no compliance 1 3 Quality assurance guidelines available (includes provision for EGR) but partially complied with 2 4 Quality assurance guidelines available (includes provision for EGR) and fully complied with 3 5 Quality assurance guidelines available (includes provision for EGR) and fully complied with and

periodically reviewed and updated 4

Assessed Standard: 7.2 - Package of Monitoring tools

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Monitoring tools not available 0 2 Monitoring tools available but not in use 1 3 Monitoring tools available training provided but tools not used 2 4 Monitoring tools available, training provided, package in use, reports seldom written 3 5 Monitoring tools available, training provided, package in use, reports written and disseminated 4

Assessed Standard: 7.3 - Supervision, Monitoring and Mentoring SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring focusing on early grade reading not conducted 0

2 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring visits focusing on early grade reading not budgeted, staff not trained and visits not conducted 1

3 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring visits on early grade reading not budgeted for, staff trained and occasionally conducted 2

4 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring visits on EGR conducted, funds released occasionally 3

5 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring visits on EGR conducted, funds released and visits yield expected results 4

Assessed Standard: 7.4 - Student Continuous Assessment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No guideline for student continuous assessment 0


2 Guideline for student continuous assessment exists but not implemented 1 3 Guideline for student continuous assessment exists but partially implemented 2 4 Guideline for student continuous assessment exists and fully implemented 3

5 Guideline for student continuous assessment exists. Reports written and disseminated for decision making 4

Domain 8: Data Management Assessed Standard: 8.1 - EMIS-Infrastructure

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Equipment required (computer, printer, power source and internet connectivity) not in place 0 2 Equipment needs, Process for procurement/repairs defined and requests approved 1 3 Request approved, fund provided, some equipment procured, supplied and installed 2 4 All equipment required in place and functioning 3

5 Equipment in place and in use / functioning and there is contingency plan for infrastructure maintenance, upgrade and replacement 4

Assessed Standard: 8.2 - EMIS Unit Capacity

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 EMIS staff not in place 0 2 EMIS staff in place, but most not trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 1 3 EMIS staff trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 2

4 EMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis, reporting as well as using available data for planning and decision making at their level 3

5 Data collected being used for planning and decision making 4

Assessed Standard: 8.3 - Reading and Access data SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on reading and access are not included in data collection instruments 0 2 Reading and access data are included in data collection instruments but not being collected 1

3 Reading and access data are included in data collection instruments but data is not collected on schedule 2

4 Reading and access data are reported and disseminated and partially used for decision making 3

5 Data generated are widely disseminated to all actors, fully used for planning and decision making as well as improving processes and outcomes 4

Assessed Standard: 8.4 - Data Management

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on reading and access not collected 0 2 Some data on reading and access available but not processed and used 1 3 Some data on reading and access available, processed and partially used 2 4 All required data on access and reading available, processed and fully used at all levels 3 5 All data required on reading and access are available and reliable, all agencies have access to

the data and planning and decisions are based on available data 4

Assessed Standard: 8.5 - Reporting

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual report is not produced 0 2 Annual report is produced but no section on access and reading 1

3 Annual report is produced and includes access and reading section but not dis-aggregated and disseminated to stakeholders 2

4 Annual report is produced and includes information on access and reading and dis-aggregated but not disseminated to all stakeholders 3


5 Annual report is available and includes access and reading section, available to all stakeholders and reports helping to monitor progress and initiate improvement actions 4

Organization: State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB)


Assessed Standard: 1.1 - MTSS (Current)

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Costed MTSS not available 0 2 Costed MTSS available 1 3 Costed MTSS available and not implemented 2 4 Costed MTSS available and implemented 3

5 Costed MTSS available and used for preparing annual budget and MOE oversees the implementation of the MTSS stakeholders 4

Assessed Standard: 1.2 - Annual Operational Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SUBEB has no Annual Operational Plan 0 2 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS not costed 1 3 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS is costed but not funded and implemented 2

4 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS is costed, funded and implemented but no reporting done 3

5 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS is costed, funded and implemented and reporting is done 4

Assessed Standard: 1.3 - Departmental Work Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No departmental work plan incorporating reading and access related activities 0

2 Departmental work plan exists but not derived from SUBEB annual implementation plan and not approved 1

3 Departmental work plan exists, derived from derived from SUBEB implementation plan but not used 2

4 Departmental work plan exists, derived from the Ministries annual implementation plan and used but implementation not documented 3

5 Departmental work plan exists, derived from the Ministries annual implementation plan, used and implementation documented 4

Assessed Standard: 1.4 - Fund Release SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SUBEB has no approved budget 0 2 SUBEB has approved budget but unable to secure fund release 1 3 SUBEB is able to secure less than 50% of the approved budget from the SMOE 2

4 SUBEB is able to secure between 50 - 70% of approved budget and disburses to LGEA 3

5 SUBEB is able to secure between 50 - 70% of approved budget and disburses to LGEA 4


Assessed Standard: 1.5 - Planning Department Capacity

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Planning unit staff are not in place 0 2 Most planning unit staff are in place with no clear Job Description 1

3 Most Planning unit staff in place, but most not fully trained on MTSS and operation plan development and tools (Projections: List of reading and access, cost norm) 2

4 Most Planning Unit staff trained on MTSS and operation plan development and tools 3

5 Planning unit Staff has capacity to use tools and procedures to develop MTSS, Operation plan and monitor progress of implementation 4

Assessed Standard: 1.6 - MTSS (2018-2020)

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SUBEB is not aware of the MTSS Development Plan 0 2 SUBEB is aware of the MTSS Development but not participating 1 3 SUBEB is aware and has participated in a number of meetings 2 4 SUBEB has representatives in the MTSS planning and participating in meetings regularly 3

5 SUBEB has representatives in the MTSS planning and participating in meetings regularly and providing feedback to SUBEB 4

Domain 2: Policy

Assessed Standard: 2.1 - Reading Policy

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SUBEB not aware of reading policy in the state 0 2 SUBEB is aware but did not participate in the development of the policy 1 3 SUBEB aware, participated in the development but not implementing the policy 2 4 SUBEB aware, participated in the development and implementing the policy 3 5 SUBEB is aware, participated in the development process, implementing the policy, documenting

and providing feedback to MOE on its application 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SUBEB not aware of Access policy in the state 0 2 SUBEB is aware but did not participate in the development of the policy 1 3 SUBEB aware, participated in the development but not implementing the policy 2 4 SUBEB aware, participated in the development and implementing the policy 3

5 SUBEB is aware, participated in the development process, implementing the policy, documenting and providing feedback to MOE on its application. 4

Domain 3: Coordination

Assessed Standard: 3.1 - SUBEB Coordinates LGEA

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No platform coordination of LGEA 0 2 SUBEB/LGEA coordination platform exists but no terms of reference 1 3 SUBEB/LGEA coordination platform exists with clear terms of reference but not meeting 2 4 SUBEB/LGEA coordination platform exists with clear terms of reference but not meeting 3


5 Functional SUBEB/LGEA coordination platform exists, minutes of meeting available and decisions implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 3.2 - SUBEB effectively coordinates community participation and outreach SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SUBEB has not identified functional CBOs/NGOs to work with to promote reading culture in the

community 0

2 SUBEB has identified functional CBOs/NGOs with interest in reading but not engaging with them 1

3 SUBEB has identified functional CBOs/NGOs with interest in reading and is engaging with them but not supporting community work plan development or community mobilization 2

4 SUBEB has identified functional CBOs/NGOs, develop list of NGOs with experience in reading and supporting community work plan development or community mobilization. 3

5 SUBEB is supporting CBOs/NGOs to develop and implementation of action plans community mobilization and participation in EGR 4

Domain 4: Financial Management

Assessed Standard: 4.1 - Expenditure Tracking

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Chart of accounts and expenditure on readings and access (reading material and teacher

professional development training) not available 0

2 Chart of accounts and expenditure on readings and access (reading material and teacher professional development training) developed, but not in use 1

3 Chart of accounts and expenditure on readings and access (reading material and teacher professional development training) developed and in use 2

4 Expenditures are tracked, dis-aggregated and reported costs according to chart of accounts and protocols 3

5 Expenditures are tracked, disaggregated and reported costs according to chart of accounts and financial reports reporting. 4

Assessed Standard: 4.2 – Budget

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No funds budgeted for reading and access related activities 0

2 SUBEB has no budget line for reading and access activities 1

3 SUBEB has budget line for reading and access activities but funds not allocated 2 4 Budget line exists and funds allocated but not adequate 3 5 Budget line exists and funds allocated and adequate 4

Assessed Standard: 4.3 - Budget Release

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SUBEB not able to secure release of approved budget 0 2 SUBEB not able to secure up to 30% of approved budget 1 3 SUBEB not able to secure up to 50% of approved budget 2 4 SUBEB able to secure up to 50% of approved budget 3 5 SUBEB able to secure up to 90% - 100% of approved budget 4


Assessed Standard: 4.4 - Reading and Access Expenditures

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No fund available for access and reading and related activities 0 2 No fund expended on access and reading and related activities 1 3 Fund expended on access and reading related activities from the budget but grossly inadequate 2



Assessed Standard: 4.5 - Financial Reporting

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No financial report available 0 2 Financial report available but no information on reading and access activities 1 3 Financial report available and has information on reading and access activities 2 4 Financial report with information on access and reading available but considered inadequate 3

5 Financial report with information on access and reading available and considered adequate based on requirements 4

Assessed Standard: 4.6 - Finance and Account Department Capacity

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Finance and account department staff are not in place 0

2 Finance and account department staff in place, but most not trained on Chart of accounts and manual dis-aggregating expenditure on readings and access (material development and training) 1

3 Most Finance and account department staff trained on Chart of accounts and manual dis-aggregating expenditure on readings and access (material development and training). 2

4 Finance and account department staff are following Chart of accounts and dis-aggregation and documentation procedures, but internal audit control is not applied. 3

5 Finance and account unit conducts internal audit control, reports results to the Board, and takes action to address problems. 4

Domain 5: Teacher Management

Assessed Standard: 5.1 – Recruitment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Recruitment norms, procedures and guidelines not available 0 2 Recruitment procedures and guidelines approved and available but no staffing plan 1

3 Recruitment procedures and guidelines approved, staffing plan available but not being implemented 2

4 Recruitment of teachers for early grades is done based on approved staffing plan but not in full compliance with approved guidelines and procedures 3

5 Recruitment of teachers for early grades is done based on approved staffing plan and in full compliance with approved guidelines and procedures 4

Assessed Standard: 5.2 - Teacher Deployment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Deployment procedures and Guidelines not available 0


2 Deployment procedures and guidelines available, but not approved 1

3 Deployment Procedures and Guidelines includes focus on early grades approved, but not effectively applied 2

4 Deployment procedures applied and guidelines followed partially 3

5 Teachers deployed to meet LGEAs needs and following procedures and guidelines for early grades 4

Assessed Standard: 5.3 - Teacher Professional Development SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No needs assessment conducted and no teachers' capacity development plan 0

2 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development in EGR developed and budgeted, but not approved 1

3 n-service professional development plan for teachers approved but fund not available for implementation 2

4 Teachers in-service professional Development Plan approved, some fund available but not adequate for requirements and less than 50% trained in EGR 3

5 Teachers in-service professional Development Plan approved, adequate fund provided to meet all requirements and all teachers trained in EGR 4

Assessed Standard: 5.4 - Teacher Professional Development (Capacity Development) Department/Unit

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Weak capacity to conduct needs assessment and design Teacher Professional Development

training plan 0

2 Relevant staff of the Department identified for training in conducting training needs assessment and designing training for Teachers and School Heads 1

3 Some staff of the Department trained in conducting training needs assessment and designing training for Teachers and School Heads 2

4 Some staff of the Department trained in conducting training needs assessment and designing training for Teachers and School Heads but yet to assume this responsibility 3

5 Some staff of the Department trained and have been conducting training needs assessment and designing training, planning and coordinating the training of Teachers/ School Heads 4

Assessed Standard: 5.5 - School Heads Professional Development SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No needs assessment conducted and no head teachers' capacity development plan 0

2 Annual Plan for head teachers' in-service professional development in Leadership and School Management developed and budgeted, but not approved 1

3 Annual Plan for School heads in-service professional Development in Leadership and School Management approved but no fund for implementation. 2

4 Annual Plan for School heads in-service professional Development in Leadership and School Management 3

5 Annual Plan for School Heads in-service professional Development Plan approved, fund available and secured and more than 50% of School Heads trained in Leadership and School Management 4

Assessed Standard: 5.6 - Master Trainer/ Teacher Trainer

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No guidelines for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers for EGR 0


2 Draft Guidelines and Plan for recruiting, engaging and Managing Master Trainers submitted but not approved for implementation 1

3 Draft Guidelines and Plan for recruiting, engaging and Managing Master Trainers approved but no fund for implementation 2

4 Approved guidelines and Plan for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers exist but partially funded and implemented 3

5 Approved guidelines and Plan for recruiting, engaging and Managing Master Trainers exist, funded and fully implemented indicating the availability of a functional team of Master Trainers for EGR

4

Domain 6: TMIS Management

Assessed Standard: 6.1 - TMIS-Infrastructure

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Most required equipment (Computer, printer, power source) not in place or functioning 0 2 Equipment needs, Process for procurement/repairs defined and requests approved 1 3 Equipment procured and /or repaired 2 4 Equipment in place and in use / functioning 3

5 Equipment in place and in use / functioning and there is contingency plan for infrastructure maintenance 4

Assessed Standard: 6.2 - TMIS Unit Capacity

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 TMIS staff not in place 0 2 Most TMIS staff in place , but most not fully trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 1 3 Most TMIS staff trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 2 4 TMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis tasks and reporting appropriately 3

5 TMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis tasks and reporting; using information to design programme 4

Assessed Standard: 6.3 - Teacher data related to Reading and Access SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Reading and Access data for Teachers are not included in data collection instruments 0 2 Reading and Access data for Teachers is included in TMIS data collection instruments 1 3 Reading and Access data for Teachers is being collected and processed 2 4 Reading and Access data for Teachers is included in TMIS generated reports 3 5 Reports meet Planning needs to support reading and access 4

Assessed Standard: 6.4 - TMIS Data Management SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on reading and access not collected 0 2 Procedures and manuals developed, but not in use 1 3 Some data on reading and access available, processed and partially used 2 4 All required data on access and reading available, processed and fully used at all levels 3

5 All data required on reading and access are available and reliable, all agencies have access to the data and planning and decisions are based on available data 4


Assessed Standard: 6.5 – Reporting

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual reports is not prepared 0 2 Annual report is produced but no section on access and reading 1




Domain 7: Social Mobilization

Assessed Standard: 7.1 - Reading and Access Outreach and Communication with Stakeholders

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No community outreach and communication strategy developed 0

2 Outreach and communication strategy developed but not disseminated among NGO/ CBO partners 1

3 Outreach and communication strategy developed and disseminated and orientation on its use provided to NGO/ CBO partner 2

4 Outreach and communication strategy developed, disseminated and partial support provided to NGO/ CBO partners to conduct outreach 3



SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SBMC, PTAs, CBMCs exist but not active 0

2 SBMC, PTAs, CBMCs exist but do not have understanding of roles in relation to reading and access 1

3 SBMC, PTAs, CBMCs exist and have full understanding of roles in relation to reading and access but not active yet due to lack of capacity 2

4 SBMC, PTAs, CBMCs exist, have full understanding of roles in relation to reading, have the capacity but not fully functional due to lack of fund 3

5 SBMCs, PTAs, CBMCs are funded to perform their functions, providing report to SUBEB and impact of interventions is visible 4

Domain 8: Quality Assurance

Assessed Standard: 8.1 - Compliance

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Quality Assurance Guidelines not available 0 2 Quality Assurance Guidelines available but do not address EGR 1

3 EGR integrated into Quality Assurance Guidelines and orientation provided but not being implemented 2

4 EGR integrated into Quality Assurance Guidelines, training provided and compliance is evident 3

5 EGR integrated into Quality Assurance Guidelines, training provided, level of compliance is high, reports written and feedback used to take corrective measures 4


Assessed Standard: 8.2 - Monitoring Operational Plan SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Plan for monitoring Operational Plan including EGR and Access not available 0 2 Plan for monitoring Operational Plan including EGR and Access activities developed 1 3 Operational Plan Monitoring package developed 2 4 SUBEB and LGEA trained on the use of monitoring package 3

5 SUBEB monitors LGEA implementation of monitoring operational plan for quality service. Operational Plan monitoring report prepared and distributed with appropriate authority. 4

Assessed Standard: 8.3 - Supervision and Monitoring

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No Supervisory and Monitoring Plan is in place 0 2 Monitoring and Supervisory Plan developed but not implemented due to funding constraints 1 3 Monitoring and supervisory Plan developed but not conducted regularly 2 4 Monitoring and Supervisory Plan developed but conducted regularly but no reports are produced 3

5 Monitoring and Supervisory Plan developed, conducted regularly, reports produced, feedback provided regularly and appropriate actions taken based on findings 4

Assessed Standard: 8.4 - Student Assessment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No guidelines for conducting Student Assessment in EGR 0

2 Students' Assessment Guidelines exist but not implemented due to other factors apart from funding 1

3 Guidelines for Student Assessment exist but no fund for implementation 2

4 Guidelines for Student Assessment exist, appropriate training provided, materials available and required fund provided for conducting periodic students' assessment 3

5 Guidelines for Student Assessment exist, appropriate training provided, materials and fund available, assessment conducted regularly, process and outcome reviewed and appropriate actions taken for improvement

4

Domain 9: Data Management

Assessed Standard: 9.1 - EMIS-Infrastructure

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Equipment required (computer, printer, power source and internet connectivity) not in place 0 2 Equipment needs, Process for procurement/repairs defined and requests approved 1 3 Equipment procured and /or repaired 2 4 Equipment in place and in use / functioning 3


Assessed Standard: 9.2 - EMIS Unit Capacity SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 EMIS staff not in place 0 2 EMIS staff in place, but most not fully trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 1 3 EMIS staff trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 2 4 EMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis and reporting tasks 3


5 EMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis and reporting tasks and generating reports to policy makers. 4

Assessed Standard: 9.3 - Reading and Access data SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on Reading and Access are not included in data collection instruments 0 2 Reading and Access data are included in data collection instruments but not being collected. 1



5 Data generated are widely disseminated to all actors, fully used for planning and decision making as well as improving processes and outcomes 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on reading and access not collected 0 2 Some data on reading and access available but not processed and used 1 3 Some data on reading and access available, processed and partially used 2 4 All required data on access and reading available, processed and fully used at all levels 3





4 Annual report is produced and includes information on access and reading and disaggregated but not disseminated to all stakeholders 3


Domain 10: Administration: Procurement and Logistics Assessed Standard: 10.1 - Reading Materials Procurement Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Materials procurement plan not available 0 2 Materials procurement plan developed but not approved 1 3 Materials procurement plan developed, approved but not in use 2 4 Materials procurement plan developed approved and in use 3 5 Materials procurement plan developed, funding provided and plan implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 10.2 - materials Distribution (School Services) SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Distribution schedule and inventory of received materials not available 0 2 Distribution schedule and inventory of received materials available 1 3 SUBEB procures materials but lacks the facility for timely delivery at designated LGEA 2


4 SUBEB procures materials, has some facilities for timely delivery at designated LGEA but lacks funds for distribution 3

5 SUBEB procures materials, has some facilities for timely delivery at designated LGEA and has adequate funds for distribution to designated sites 4

Organization: State Agency for Mass Education (SAME)


Assessed Standard: 1.1 - MTSS (Current) SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Costed MTSS not available 0 2 Costed MTSS available 1 3 Costed MTSS available and not implemented 2 4 Costed MTSS available and implemented 3

5 Costed MTSS available and used for preparing annual budget and MOE oversees the implementation of the MTSS 4

Assessed Standard: 1.2 - Annual Operational Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SAME has no Annual Operational Plan 0 2 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS not costed 1 3 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS is costed but not funded and implemented 2

4 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS is costed, funded and implemented but no reporting done 3

5 Existing Operational Plan derived from MTSS is costed, funded and implemented and reporting is done 4

Assessed Standard: 1.3 - Departmental work plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No departmental work plan incorporating reading and access related activities 0

2 Departmental work plan exists but not derived from SAME annual implementation plan and not approved 1

3 Departmental work plan exists, derived from SAME implementation plan but not used 2

4 Departmental work plan exists, derived from SAME annual implementation plan and used but implementation not documented 3

5 Departmental work plan exists, derived from SAME annual implementation plan, used and implementation documented 4

Assessed Standard: 1.4 - Fund Release SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SAME has no approved budget 0 2 SAME has approved budget but unable to secure fund release 1 3 SAME is able to secure less than 50% of the approved budget from the SMOE 2

4 SAME is able to secure between 50 - 70% of approved budget and disburses to LGA 3

5 SAME is able to secure between 50 - 70% of approved budget and disburses to LGA 4

Assessed Standard: 1.5 - Planning Department Capacity


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Planning Department staff are not in place 0

2 Planning department unit staff are in place but not trained on MTSS and operation plan development. 1

3 Planning department staff in place, but most not fully trained on MTSS and operation plan development tools (Projections: List of reading and access, cost norm) 2

4 Most Planning department staff trained on MTSS and operation plan development tools 3

5 Planning department staff has capacity to use tools and procedures to develop MTSS, Operation plan and monitor progress of implementation 4

Assessed Standard: 1.6 - MTSS (2018-2020)

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SAME is not aware of the MTSS Development Plan 0 2 SAME is aware of the MTSS Development but not participating 1 3 SAME is aware and has participated in a number of meetings 2 4 SAME has representatives in the MTSS planning and participating in meetings regularly 3

5 SAME has representatives in the MTSS planning and participating in meetings regularly and providing feedback to SAME Leadership 4

Domain 2: Policy Assessed Standard: 2.1 - Reading Policy

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SAME not aware of reading policy in the state 0 2 SAME is aware but did not participate in the development of the policy 1 3 SAME aware, participated in the development but not implementing the policy 2 4 SAME aware, participated in the development and implementing the policy 3

5 SAME is aware, participated in the development process, implementing the policy, documenting and providing feedback to MOE on its application 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SAME not aware of Access policy in the state 0 2 SAME is aware but did not participate in the development of the policy 1 3 SAME aware, participated in the development but not implementing the policy 2 4 SAME aware, participated in the development and implementing the policy 3

5 SAME is aware, participated in the development process, implementing the policy, documenting and providing feedback to MOE on its application. Access Policy disseminated to stakeholders.

4

Domain 3: Coordination

Assessed Standard: 3.1 - SAME Coordinates LGA SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No platform coordination of LGA 0 2 SAME/LGA (Area Coordinators) coordination platform exists but no terms of reference 1

3 SAME/LGA (Area Coordinators) coordination platform exists with clear terms of reference but not meeting 2

4 SAME/LGA (Area Coordinators) coordination platform exists with clear terms of reference but not meeting 3

5 Functional SAME/LGA (Area Coordinators) coordination platform exists, minutes of meeting available and decisions implemented 4


Assessed Standard: 3.2 - SAME effectively coordinates community participation and outreachs

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SAME has not identified functional CBOs/NGOs to work with to promote reading culture in the

community 0

2 SAME has identified functional CBOs/NGOs with interest in reading but not engaging with them 1

3 SAME has identified functional CBOs/NGOs with interest in reading and is engaging with them but not supporting community work plan development or community mobilization 2

4 SAME has identified functional CBOs/NGOs, develop list of NGOs with experience in reading and supporting community work plan development or community mobilization. 3

5 SAME is supporting CBOs/NGOs to develop and implementation of action plans community mobilization and participation in EGR 4

Domain 4: Financial Management Assessed Standard: 4.1 - Expenditure Tracking

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Chart of accounts and expenditure on readings and access (reading material and teacher

professional development training) not available 0

2 Chart of accounts and expenditure on readings and access (reading material and teacher professional development training) developed, but not in use 1

3 Expenditures are tracked, dis-aggregated and reported costs according to chart of accounts and protocols 2

4 Expenditures are tracked, dis-aggregated and reported costs according to chart of accounts and financial reports reporting. 3

5 Staff provided update on cost of accounts and procedure for cost reporting 4

Assessed Standard: 4.2 - Budget SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No funds budgeted for reading and access related activities 0

2 SAME has no budget line for reading and access activities 1

3 SAME has budget line for reading and access activities but funds not allocated 2 4 Budget line exists and funds allocated but not adequate 3 5 Budget line exists and funds allocated and adequate 4

Assessed Standard: 4.3 - Budget Release SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 SAME not able to secure release of approved budget 0 2 SAME not able to secure up to 30% of approved budget 1 3 SAME not able to secure up to 50% of approved budget 2 4 SAME able to secure up to 50% of approved budget 3 5 SAME able to secure up to 90% - 100% of approved budget 4

Assessed Standard: 4.4 - Reading and Access Expenditures SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No fund available for access and reading and related activities 0 2 No fund expended on access and reading and related activities 1 3 Fund expended on access and reading related activities from the budget but grossly inadequate 2




Assessed Standard: 4.5 - Financial Reporting SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No financial report available 0 2 Financial report available but no information on reading and access activities 1 3 Financial report available and has information on reading and access activities 2 4 Financial report with information on access and reading available but considered inadequate 3 5 Financial report with information on access and reading available and considered adequate based

on requirements 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Finance and account department staff are not in place 0

2 Finance and account department staff in place, but most not trained on Chart of accounts and manual dis-aggregating expenditure on readings and access (material development and training) 1

3 Most Finance and account department staff trained on Chart of accounts and manual dis-aggregating expenditure on readings and access (material development and training). 2

4 Finance and account department staff are following Chart of accounts and dis-aggregation and documentation procedures, but internal audit control is not applied. 3

5 Finance and account unit conducts internal audit control, reports results to the Board, and takes action to address problems. 4

Domain 5: Facilitator Management Assessed Standard: 5.1 - Recruitment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Recruitment norms, procedures and guidelines not available 0 2 Recruitment procedures and guidelines approved and available but no staffing plan 1

3 Recruitment procedures and guidelines approved, staffing plan available but not being implemented 2

4 Recruitment of facilitators for Learners is done based on approved staffing plan but not in full compliance with approved guidelines and procedures 3

5 Recruitment of facilitators for learners is done based on approved staffing plan and in full compliance with approved guidelines and procedures 4

Assessed Standard: 5.2 - Facilitator Deployment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Deployment procedures and Guidelines not available 0 2 Deployment procedures and guidelines available, but not approved 1

3 Deployment Procedures and Guidelines includes focus on early grades approved, but not effectively applied 2

4 Deployment procedures applied and guidelines followed partially 3

5 Facilitators deployed to meet LGAs needs and following procedures and guidelines for early grades 4

Assessed Standard: 5.3 - Facilitator Professional Development

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No needs assessment conducted and no facilitators' capacity development plan 0

2 Annual Plan for Facilitator professional development in EGR developed and budgeted, but not approved 1


3 Professional development plan for facilitator approved but fund not available for implementation 2

4 Facilitator professional Development Plan approved, some fund available but not adequate for requirements and less than 50% trained in EGR 3

5 Facilitator professional Development Plan approved, adequate fund provided to meet all requirements and all facilitators trained in EGR 4

Assessed Standard: 5.4 - Facilitator Professional Development (Capacity Development) Department/Unit

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Weak capacity to conduct needs assessment and design Facilitator Professional Development

training plan 0

2 Relevant staff of the Department identified for training in conducting training needs assessment and designing training for Facilitators and Centre Coordinator / Heads. 1

3 Some staff of the Department trained in conducting training needs assessment and designing training for Facilitators and Centre Coordinator / Heads. 2

4 Some staff of the Department trained in conducting training needs assessment and designing training for Facilitators and Centre Coordinator / Heads but yet to assume this responsibility 3

5 Some staff of the Department trained and have been conducting training needs assessment and designing training, planning and coordinating the training of Facilitators and Centre Coordinator / Heads.

4

Assessed Standard: 5.5 - Non Formal Learning Centre Heads Professional Development

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No needs assessment conducted and no centre coordinators' capacity development plan 0

2 Annual Plan for centre coordinators' professional development in Leadership and Centre Management developed and budgeted, but not approved 1

3 Annual Plan for centre coordinators' professional Development in Leadership and Centre Management approved but no fund for implementation. 2

4 Annual Plan for School centre coordinators' professional Development in Leadership and Centre Management approved and fund secure for implementation but implementation yet to commence 3

5 Annual Plan for School centre coordinators' professional Development Plan approved, fund available and secured and more than 50% of Centre Coordinator's trained in Leadership and School Management

4

Assessed Standard: 5.6 - Master Trainer / Facilitator Trainer

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No guidelines for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers for EGR 0

2 Draft Guidelines and Plan for recruiting, engaging and Managing Master Trainers submitted but not approved for implementation 1

3 Draft Guidelines and Plan for recruiting, engaging and Managing Master Trainers approved but no fund for implementation 2

4 Approved guidelines and Plan for recruiting engaging and Managing Master Trainers exist but partially funded and implemented 3

5 Approved guidelines and Plan for recruiting, engaging and Managing Master Trainers exist, funded and fully implemented indicating the availability of a functional team of Master Trainers for EGR

4

Domain 6: F-MIS Management Assessed Standar: 6.1 - FMIS-Infrastructure

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Most required equipment (Computer, printer, power source) not in place or functioning 0


2 Equipment needs, Process for procurement/repairs defined and requests approved 1 3 Equipment procured and /or repaired 2 4 Equipment in place and in use / functioning 3


Assessed Standard: 6.2 - FMIS Unit Capacity

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 FMIS staff not in place 0 2 Most FMIS staff in place, but most not fully trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 1 3 Most FMIS staff trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 2 4 FMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis tasks and reporting appropriately 3

5 FMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis tasks and reporting; using information to design programme 4

Assessed Standard: 6.3 - Facilitator data related to Reading and Access

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Reading and Access data for facilitators are not included in data collection instruments 0 2 Reading and Access data for facilitators is included in FMIS data collection instruments 1 3 Reading and Access data for facilitators is being collected and processed 2 4 Reading and Access data for Facilitators is included in FMIS generated reports 3 5 Reports meet Planning needs to support reading and access activities 4

Assessed Standard: 6.4 - F-MIS Data Management SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on reading and access not collected 0 2 Procedures manuals developed, but not in use 1 3 Some data on reading and access available, processed and partially used 2 4 All required data on access and reading available, processed and fully used at all levels 3







Domain 7: Social Mobilization Assessed Standard: 7.1 - Reading and Access Outreach and Communication with Stakeholders

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No community outreach and communication strategy developed 0 2 Outreach and communication strategy developed but not disseminated among NGO/ CBO

partners 1


3 Outreach and communication strategy developed and disseminated and orientation on its use provided to NGO/ CBO partner 2



Assessed Standard: 7.2 - Centre Based Management Committees (CBMCs)

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 CBMCs exist but not active 0 2 CBMCs exist but do not have understanding of roles in relation to reading and access 1

3 CBMCs exist and have full understanding of roles in relation to reading and access but not active yet due to lack of capacity 2

4 CBMCs exist, have full understanding of roles in relation to reading, have the capacity but not fully functional due to lack of fund 3

5 CBMCs are funded to perform their functions, providing report to SAME and impact of interventions is visible 4

Domain 8: Quality Assurance Assessed Standard: 8.1 - Compliance

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Quality Assurance Guidelines not available 0 2 Quality Assurance Guidelines available but do not address EGR 1

3 EGR integrated into Quality Assurance Guidelines and orientation provided but not being implemented 2

4 EGR integrated into Quality Assurance Guidelines, training provided and compliance is evident 3

5 EGR integrated into Quality Assurance Guidelines, training provided, level of compliance is high, reports written and feedback used to take corrective measures 4

Assessed Standard: 8.2 - Monitoring Operational Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Plan for monitoring Operational Plan including EGR and Access activities not available 0 2 Plan for monitoring Operational Plan including EGR and Access activities developed 1 3 Operational Plan Monitoring package developed 2 4 SAME and LGA trained on the use of the monitoring package 3

5 SAME monitors LGA implementation of monitoring operational plan for quality service. Operational Plan monitoring report prepared and distributed with appropriate authority. 4

Assessed Standard: 8.3 - Supervision and Mentoring

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No Supervisory and Monitoring Plan is in place 0 2 Monitoring and Supervisory Plan developed but not implemented due to funding constraints 1 3 Monitoring and supervisory Plan developed but not conducted regularly 2 4 Monitoring and Supervisory Plan developed but conducted regularly but no reports are produced 3

5 Monitoring and Supervisory Plan developed, conducted regularly, reports produced, feedback provided regularly and appropriate actions taken based on findings 4

Assessed Standard: 8.4 - Learners Assessment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No guidelines for conducting Learners Assessment in EGR 0


2 Learners' Assessment Guidelines exist but not implemented due to other factors apart from funding 1

3 Guidelines for Learner Assessment exist but no fund for implementation 2

4 Guidelines for Learner Assessment exist, appropriate training provided, materials available and required fund provided for conducting periodic learners' assessment 3

5 Guidelines for Learner Assessment exist, appropriate training provided, materials and fund available, assessment conducted regularly, process and outcome reviewed and appropriate actions taken for improvement

4

Domain 9: Data Mangement Assessed Standard: 9.1 - EMIS-Infrastructure

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Equipment required (computer, printer, power source and internet connectivity) not in place 0 2 Equipment needs, Process for procurement/repairs defined and requests approved 1 3 Equipment procured and /or repaired 2 4 Equipment in place and in use / functioning 3



SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 EMIS staff not in place 0 2 EMIS staff in place, but most not fully trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 1 3 EMIS staff trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 2 4 EMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis and reporting 3

5 EMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis and reporting tasks and generating reports to policy makers. 4

Assessed Standard: 9.3 - Reading and Access data

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on reading and access are not included in data collection instruments 0 2 Reading and access data are included in data collection instruments but not being collected 1



5 Data generated are widely disseminated to all actors, fully used for planning and decision making as well as improving processes and outcomes - 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data on reading and access not collected 0 2 Annual report is produced but no section on access and reading 1 3 Annual report is produced and includes access and reading section but not dis-aggregated and

disseminated to stakeholders 2




SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual report is not produced 0


2 Annual report is produced but no section on access and reading 1




Domain 10: Administration: Procurement and Logistics Assessed Standard: 10.1 - Reading Materials Procurement Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Materials procurement plan not available 0 2 Materials procurement plan developed but not approved 1 3 Materials procurement plan developed, approved but not in use 2 4 Materials procurement plan developed approved and in use 3 5 Materials procurement plan developed, funding provided and plan implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 10.2 - Reading Materials Distribution (School Services) SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Distribution schedule and inventory of received materials not available 0 2 Distribution schedule and inventory of received materials available 1 3 SAME procures materials but lacks the facility for timely delivery at designated LGA 2

4 SAME procures materials, has some facilities for timely delivery at designated LGA but lacks funds for distribution 3

5 SAME procures materials, has some facilities for timely delivery at designated LGA and has adequate funds for distribution to designated centre 4

Organization: Local Government Education Authority (LGEA) Domain 1: Strategic Planning Assessed Standard: 1.1 - Annual Implementation Plan

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual implementation plan with costed activities on reading and access derived from MTSS

documents is not available in the LGEA 0

2 Annual implementation Plan with costed activities on reading and access derived from MTSS documents is available in the LGEA but not funded 1

3 Annual implementation plan with costed activities on reading and access derived from MTSS documents is available in the LGEA but not funded 2

4 Annual implementation plan with costed activities on reading and access derived from MTSS documents is available and being implemented but fund available not adequate 3

5 Implementation of annual plan is fully funded and being implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 1.2 - Departmental work plan SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No departmental work plan 0 2 Departmental work plan exists but does not include reading and access related activities 1

3 Departmental work plan exists but does includes reading and access related activities but not in use 2

4 Departmental work plan exists but does includes reading and access related activities but partially implemented but progress not documented 3

5 Departmental work plan exists includes reading and access related activities, totally implemented and progress and lessons learned documented 4


Assessed Standard: 1.3 - Planning Unit Capacity

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Planning department exist but staff are not in place 0

2 Planning department staff in place, but not trained on MTSS and implementation plan development 1

3 Planning department staff trained but not yet leading the development of annual implementation and departmental work plan 2

4 Planning department staff have the capacity to lead the development of annual implementation and departmental work plans 3

5 Planning staff leading the development of annual implementation and departmental plan, monitor implementation and providing feedback on performance 4

Domain 2: Policy Assessed Standard: 2.1 - Use of State's Reading Policy documents and guidelines to guide reading interventions

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 LGEA is not aware and does not have copies of the State Reading policy documents 0

2 LGEA has copies of the State Reading policy document and guidelines but no training and no evidence of use 1

3 LGEA has copies of State Reading policy document and guidelines, have been trained in the use of the documents but make use of the documents inconsistently 2

4 LGEA has copies of State Reading policy documents and guidelines, have been trained in the use, staff have copies and use them appropriately. Documents are available and accessed by staff to use

3

5 LGEA uses State Reading policy documents and guidelines to guide response at LGA level. Technical staff have their own copies of the document and can relate it to their jobs, ensure compliance in schools and document progress

4

Assessed Standard: 2.2 - LGEA effectively coordinates implementation of State Enrolment Drive Framework

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 LGEA is not aware and does not have copies of the State Enrolment Drive Framework documents 0

2 LGEA has copies of the State Enrolment Drive Framework documents, but not available to staff and no evidence of use of the documents 1

3 LGEA has copies of the State Enrolment Drive Framework documents and staff have copies. The documents are used inconsistently with low involvement of relevant stakeholders to support enrolment drive campaign

2

4 LGEA has copies of the State Enrolment Drive Framework documents. Staff have copies of the documents. Financial provision made for implementation is inadequate 3

5

LGEA has copies of the State Enrolment Drive Framework documents and fund is available for implementation. The documents are used appropriately and all key education stakeholders participate in the enrolment drive campaign towards improving access to Basic Education in the State. There is evidence that mobilization drive is yielding positive result

4

Domain 3: School Support System Assessed Standard: 3.1 - School Support System

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 School support officers are in place yet School support system is weak 0

2 School support system has been strengthened with trained officers but officers not performing optimally yet (e.g. not mentoring teachers in early grade reading) 1

3 School support system has been strengthened with trained officers but officers not performing optimally yet (e.g. not mentoring teachers in early grade reading) 2


4 School support system is effective as SSOs are trained and deploying capacity accordingly by mentoring teachers and supporting reading activities but activities not documented 3

5 School support system is fully established, staff visiting to support schools and teachers, progress documented and interventions yielding maximum impact 4

Assessed Standard: 3.2 - Procedures Manual

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Procedures manual for schools visit to observe reading in early grades and access tracking in

schools are not available 0

2 Procedures manual for schools visit to observe reading in early grades and access tracking in schools are available but not in use 1

3 Procedures manual for schools visit to observe reading in early grades and access tracking are used by the SSOs during school visit 2

4 Feedback is given to teachers after inspection and second visits are made to schools by the SSO 3 5 Feedback is given to teachers after inspection and second visits are made to schools by the

SSOs 4

Assessed Standard: 3.3 - Protocol & Instrument

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Checklist for visits to schools to observe reading in early grades and carry out access tracking are

not available. 0

2 Checklist for visits to schools to observe reading in early grades and carry out access tracking are available but not in use. 1

3 Checklist for visits to schools to observe reading in early grades and carry out access tracking are available and used by the SSOs during school visit. 2

4 Data on checklist is aggregated and analyzed with reports prepared but reports not disseminated 3

5 Reports prepared with recommendations used to improve reading and access activities at early grade schools. 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Reports is disaggregated format after visit not produced 0 2 Reports of school visits showing disaggregated information are prepared and submitted 1

3 Reports of school visits are produced and disseminated but no forum exist to discuss implications for quality improvement 2

4 Reports of school visits provide basis for feedback to stakeholders, decisions are made collectively but not implemented to improve quality of delivery 3

5 Reports are produced and available for initiating quality improvement actions. Implemented actions yielding the desired result 4

Domain 4: Financial Management Assessed Standard: 4.1 - Cost accounting protocol and procedures guide

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Chart of accounts with disaggregated expenditure on reading and access (reading material

development and teacher professional development training) not available 0

2 Chart of accounts and manual disaggregating expenditure on reading and access (Reading material and Teacher Professional Development training) developed 1

3 Chart of accounts and manual disaggregating expenditure on reading and access (Reading material and Teacher Professional Development training) developed, but not being implemented 2

4 Expenditures are tracked, disaggregated and reported costs according to chart of accounts and protocols 3


5 Staff and stakeholders are provided update on expenditure, performance reviewed, key decisions taken and implemented to improve expenditure tracking 4

Assessed Standard: 4.2 - Budget

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No funds budgeted for reading and access related activity 0 2 Fund budgeted for reading and access activities but not approved 1 3 Fund budgeted for reading and access activities approved but no release 2 4 Fund budgeted for reading and access activities approved but less than 50% released 3

5 Fund budgeted for reading and access activities approved more than 50% released and utilised for the purpose meant for 4

Assessed Standard: 4.3 - Financial Reporting

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No financial report is produced 0 2 Financial report produced but not reflecting expenditure on access and reading produced 1 3 Financial reports partially document reading and access expenditure 2 4 Financial reports fully document reading and access expenditure 3

5 Financial reports fully document reading and access expenditure, provide analysis, disseminated among stakeholders and reporting informing financial planning for the following year 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Finance and account department staff are not in place 0 2 Finance and account staff in place but not trained on chart of account 1 3 Finance and Account staff trained but not applying skills yet 2 4 Finance and Account staff trained and applying skills as required 3

5 Finance and Accounts staff have become pro-active and effective in the performance of their functions 4

Domain 5: Teacher Management Assessed Standard: 5.1 - Teacher Recruitment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Staffing (teachers) needs assessment not conducted, no staffing plan but teachers are recruited 0

2 Needs assessment conducted but no staffing (teachers) plan and no recruitment guidelines, yet teachers are recruited 1

3 Needs assessment conducted with staffing (teachers) plan, but recruitment not based on staffing plan and existing guidelines. 2

4 Needs assessment conducted staffing (teachers) plan available and recruitment undertaken but not in full compliance with established/ approved guidelines 3

5 Needs assessment conducted, staffing (teachers) plan in place and recruitment procedures fully applied. 4

Assessed Standard: 5.2 - Teacher Deployment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Deployment procedures and guidelines not available 0 2 Deployment procedures and guidelines available, but not applied 1 3 Deployment procedures and guidelines available but partially applied 2 4 Deployment procedures and guidelines is available and fully applied 3 5 Established system for deployment is periodically reviewed and updated 4


Assessed Standard: 5.3 - Teacher Professional Development SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development not available 0 2 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development available but not in use 1

3 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development is available but no funds to implement 2

4 Annual Plans for teacher in-service professional development funds available but partially implemented. 3

5 Annual Plan for teacher in-service professional development funds available and fully implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 5.4 - School Heads Professional Development

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management not

available 0

2 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management available but not in use 1

3 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management available but no funds to implement 2

4 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management funds available but partially implemented. 3

5 Annual plan for in service professional development in leadership and school management, funds available and fully implemented 4

Assessed Standard: 5.5 - Master Trainer / Teacher Trainer

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Team of Master Trainers to support EGR and positive learning not available 0

2 Team of Master Trainers in place and guidelines for MT to support EGR and positive learning not available 1

3 Team of Master Trainers in place, guidelines for MT to support EGR and positive learning available but not in use. Funds not secured for implementation 2

4 Team of Master Trainers in place, guidelines for MT to support EGR and positive learning available and in use and some fund secured to support them implement their mandate 3

5 Team of Master Trainers in place, guidelines for MT to support EGR and positive learning available and in use, adequate fund secured to support them implement their mandate and efforts making impact

4

Domain 6: Social Mobilization Assessed Standard: 6.1 - Outreach /Communication/ Stakeholders

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No communication and outreach strategy developed 0

2 Communication and outreach strategy for reading and access developed with the stakeholders defined but no implementation 1

3 Communications and outreach strategy approved and some funding secured to support implementation 2

4 Communication and outreach strategy enforced but no documentation of progress and lessons learned 3

5 Platform for feedback on the use of the communication and outreach strategy exists. Used for planning and decision making 4



SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 No operational guideline for

SBMCs/PTA/CBMCs 0 2 Operational guidelines for SBMC/PTA/CBMCs available but not in use 1 3 Operational guidelines for SBMC /PTA/CBMCs available, copies distributed but partially followed 2 4 Operational guidelines for SBMC /PTA/CBMCs available. Members have copies and fully used 3

5 Operational guidelines for SBMC/PTA/CBMCs available. Members have copies and fully used and feedback from implementation are used for decision making 4

Assessed Standard: 6.3 - Capacity Development SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Annual Plan for training SBMCs/PTA members in strategies to expand access and improve

reading is not available 0

2 Annual Plan for training SBMCs/PTA members in strategies to expand access and improve reading is available but not funded 1

3 No fund provided for implementing Annual Plan for training SBMCs/PTA members in strategies to expand access and improve reading 2

4 Fund available inadequate for the training of SBMCs/PTA members in strategies to expand access and improve reading 3

5 SBMCs/PTA members have the required capacity to implement mandate, performing effectively and efforts yielding impact 4

Assessed Standard: 6.4 – Monitoring

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Monitoring not being undertaken 0 2 No Plan but monitoring is done on an ad-hoc basis also due to lack of fund 1

3 Monitoring Plan available but not followed and as such undertaken occasionally without the use of approved tools 2

4 Monitoring plan available and implemented, tools used for supervision but no reports 3

5 Monitoring plan fully implemented, tools used for supervision, reports are available and used for decision making 4

Domain 7: Quality Assurance Assessed Standard: 7.1 - Quality Assurance Guideline Implementation

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Quality Assurance Guideline exists but copies not available at the LGEA level 0 2 Quality Assurance guidelines available but no orientation for staff and as therefore not in use 1

3 Quality Assurance guidelines available, orientation provided to staff, implementation plan exists but not implemented 2

4 Quality Assurance guidelines available, orientation provided to staff, implementation focusing on EGR in progress but no reports to provide feedback 3

5 Quality assurance guidelines being implemented focusing on EGR, progress documented and disseminated and corresponding actions taken to improve quality of delivery of EGR. 4

Assessed Standard: 7.2 - Monitoring Tools

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Package of Monitoring tools not available 0 2 Package of Monitoring tools available, no training and tools not in use 1 3 Monitoring tools available, training provided but tools not used 2 4 Monitoring tools available, training provided, package in use, reports seldom written 3 5 Monitoring tools available, training provided, package in use, reports written to inform decision 4


Assessed Standard: 7.3 - Supervision, Monitoring and Mentoring (EGR) SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring of teachers focusing on early grade reading not conducted 0

2 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring of teachers focusing on early grade reading not budgeted, staff not trained and visits not conducted 1

3 Supervision, monitoring and mentoring of teachers on early grade reading not budgeted for, staff trained and occasionally conducted 2

4 Staff have capacity for supervision, monitoring and mentoring on EGR, fund released occasionally for conducting related activities but outcomes not documented 3

5 Staff demonstrating capacity in supervision, monitoring and mentoring on EGR, outcomes documented, interventions yielding expected results and follow up actions initiated and implemented

4

Assessed Standard: 7.4 - Student Continuous Assessment

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 LGEA not aware of approved guidelines for Students' Continuous Assessment 0 2 LGEA aware but not implementing the guidelines 1 3 Guidelines for student continuous assessment exists but partially implemented 2 4 Guidelines for student continuous assessment exists and fully implemented 3

5 Guideline for student continuous assessment fully implemented, reports written and disseminated for decision making 4

Domain 8: Data Management Assessed Standard: 8.1 - EMIS-Infrastructure

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Equipment required (computer, printer, power source, software and internet connectivity) not in

place 0

2 Equipment needs identified but no fund to procure 1 3 Request approved, fund provided, some equipment procured, and installed, operations not fully

computerized but no internet connectivity 2

4 All equipment required in place and functioning, operations computerized, relevant training received by staff and fund available for internet subscription 3

5 Equipment in place and in use / functioning and there is contingency plan for infrastructure maintenance, upgrade and replacement. Internet subscription paid when due and operations going on without any disruption

4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 EMIS staff not in place 0 2 EMIS staff in place, but most not trained on data collection, analysis and reporting 1

3 EMIS staff trained on data collection, analysis and reporting but still demonstrating average capacity 2

4 EMIS Staff performing data collection, analysis, reporting optimally as well as making data available for planning. 3

5 EMIS staff performing data collection, analysis and reporting tasks and generating reports to policy makers. Data collected being used for planning and decision making 4

Assessed Standard: 8.3 - Reading and Access data

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Reading and Access indicators are not included in data collection instruments 0 2 Reading and Access indicators are included in EMIS data collection instruments 1


3 Reading and access data are included in data collection instruments but data is not collected 2 4 Reading and access data are included and being collected on schedule but data is not verified 3

5 Reading and access data are included and being collected as scheduled, data is complete, verified and disseminated to stakeholders for decision making. 4


SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Data collected on reading and access not being used at LGEA level 0 2 Data collected on reading and access but staff have no skills in data utilization at the LGEA level 1

3 Data collected on reading and access, staff have been trained but data utilization at the LGEA level is below average 2

4 Staff demonstrate above average capacity in data management at LGEA level 3

5 Reliable and Timely data available especially on reading and access, its accessible and being used for planning, decision making at LGEA level. 4



3 Annual report is produced and includes access and reading section but not disseminated to stakeholders 2

4 Annual report is produced and includes information on access and reading and disseminated to all stakeholders 3


Domain 9: Administration: Procurement and Logistics Assessed Standard: 9.1 - Materials Procurement

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 Procurement policy not in place 0 2 Procurement policy developed but not in use. 1 3 Procurement undertaken but not in compliance with approved policy/guidelines 2

4 Procurement undertaken in partial compliance with approved policy/guidelines. Procurement materials not distributed as expected 3

5 Procurement undertaken in full compliance with approved policy/guidelines stock management documented, distribution to end-users tracked and managed. 4

Assessed Standard: 9.2 - Materials Distribution (School Services)

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 LGEA does not have system in place to distribute teaching and learning materials to schools. 0 2 LGEA distribute teaching and learning materials in an ad-hoc basis 1 3 LGEA has established a system for distributing teaching and learning materials but not functional

though distribution takes place 2

4 LGEA has established a system for distributing teaching and learning materials not fully functional 3

5 LGEA has a fully functional system for distributing teaching and learning materials. LGEA assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of the system and take actions as necessary based on feedback.

4

Domain 10: Governance Assessed Standard: 10.1 - LGEA Secretariat roles and responsibilities

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score


1 LGEA has not defined and documented its roles and responsibilities 0

2 LGEA Secretariat understands roles and responsibilities in relation to reading and access but not performing them 1

3 LGEA Secretariat understands its roles and responsibilities but lacks the capacity and financial resources to perform them 2

4 LGEA has the capacity but inadequate resources to perform assigned roles and responsibilities 3

5 LGEA has the capacity and adequate resources to perform assigned roles and responsibilities. LGEA performing them with evidence of positive outcome and impact 4

Assessed Standard: 10.2 - Advocacy to stakeholders (District, Village Education committee)

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 LGEA has neither identified nor created a database of stakeholders in the community 0 2 LGEA has identified and created a database of stakeholders in the community but has not

undertaken any advocacy activity. 1

3 LGEA has a database of stakeholders (such as traditional rulers, community gate keepers, women leaders, politicians, philanthropists, e.t.c) and has started engaging them on access and reading issues through periodic advocacy but not in an organized manner

2

4 LGEA has built strong relationship with stakeholders, engage them in an organized manner on reading and access issues from time to time but no evidence or report of such advocacy activities. 3

5 Stakeholders responding and cooperating with LGEA, they are making the environment enabling, mobilizing communities for more positive attitude to education of their children 4

Assessed Standard: 10.3 - LGEA effectively coordinates community participation and outreaches

SN Capacity Measurement categories Score 1 LGEA has not identified functional CBOs to work with on outreach programme 0

2 LGEA has focal points in at least 4 departments, has identified functional CBOs to work with on community outreaches programme but is not engaging with them 1

3 LGEA has focal points in at least 4 departments, has identified functional CBOs to work with on community outreach programme and is engaging with them but not supporting community mobilization towards reading and access activities

2

4 LGEA has focal points in at least 4 departments, has identified functional CBOs to work with on community outreach programme, supporting community mobilization towards reading and access activities

3

5 LGEA effectively coordinating activities of CBOs partners, providing required support, participates in their outreach activities and using feedback from them to address community concerns 4

Page 1 of 1


Annex 3: Key Informant Interview Guide S/N Questions Comment / Response 1 Describe the process of developing the following

a. MTSS, b. Operational Plan c. Departmental Plans developed?

2 What type of training has been provided to relevant staff in the Ministry to strengthen their capacity in managing the various aspects of this project as it relates to EGR?

3 How are the needs of schools identified before recruitment of teachers are undertaken? Probe for the frequency of needs assessment and development of staffing plan focusing on teaching staff requirements in all schools

4 How is the capacity development need of teachers determined? How often are teachers trained? What type of training has been given to teachers involved in Early Grade Reading? How many teachers have been trained in the last one year? Who provided the support for the various training conducted for teachers?

5 What challenges are associated with budgeting and securing the release of approved fund?

6 What are the other sources through which the Ministry/SUBEB/SAME/LGEA secure funding to supplement allocation from the state government?

7 What capacity gaps have you identified at the levels below that may negatively affect the project

d. School e. Ministry/SUBEB/SAME/LGEA f. Community g. CSOs

8 What are possible challenges that this project may face at various levels?

h. School i. Communities j. State Agencies k. Local Government

9 How can these challenges be pro-actively addressed to minimize or mitigate the likely negative impact?

10 How have communities been participating in the mobilizing for enrolment and management of education and schools in the State? Probe for specific contributions


11 What capacity development interventions will be required for the following to be able to implement mandate under this project

l. Teachers m. School Heads n. Communities o. State Government Agencies p. Local Government

12 How can the agencies working in early child hood education collaborate more and be coordinated? What are the challenges associated with collaboration and coordination and how can this be addressed?

13 How can data collection and utilization be improved upon at all levels – Schools and Government Agencies


Annex 4: State and LGEA Assessment Scores


Darazo LGA, Bauchi


SHIRA LGA, BAUCHI


BAUCHI LGA, BAUCHI


NINGI LGA, BAUCHI


GANJUWA LGA, BAUCHI


ALKALERI LGA, BAUCHI


TORO LGA, BAUCHI


MISAU LGA, BAUCHI

ITAS-GADAU LGA, BAUCHI


GAMAWA LGA, BAUCHI

ANNEX 5: ICA Respondent Participating Agencies and Respondents in Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

State Institutions Participants Ministry of Education (MoE)

• Directors of Planning, Research and Statistics; • Director of Quality Assurance; • Director of Policy, • Director Exam • Director of School services • Director of Administration and Personnel, • Director of Finance and Accounts; • Head of EMIS Unit.

State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB)

• Directors of Planning, Research and Statistics; • Director of Quality Assurance;


• Director of Administration and Human Resource, • Director of Finance and Accounts; • Head of EMIS & Research Unit; • Director of Social Mobilization • Director of School Services • Head of Training • Director of Education support services • Director of Upper Basic

Bauchi State Agency for Mass Education (BASAME)

• Directors of Planning, Research and Statistics; • Director of Administration and Personnel, • Director of Basic Literacy • Head of Post Literacy • Head of Mass Literacy • Director of Programs • Head of Social Mobilization • Director of Finance and Accounts; • Head of EMIS Unit

10 Local Government Education Authority: Assessed LGEAs (Dange-Shuni, Gada, Gwadabawa, Shagari, Sokoto South, Tambuwal, Tangaza, Wamako, Wurno, Yabo.

Minimum of 8 - 14 participants participated in each of the LGEAs FGD which cut across Senior Manager and Junior staff of the LGEAs. Below is the list of cadre of staff that participated in the FGD:

• Executive Secretary, • Head of Planning, Research and Statistics, • Head of Quality Assurance; • School Support Officers • Finance and Accounts • Administration and Personnel • Procurement and Logistics Officer • Storekeeper Officer • EMIS Officer • Head of Social Mobilization Unit