organizational assessment of education network
TRANSCRIPT
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 1
Organizational Assessment of Education Network, Philippines, Inc.
Using Organizational Capacity Development Tool (OCD)
Rebecca S. Gaddi, Ph. D1 and Flora C. Arellano2 1University of the Philippines, School of Labor and Industrial Relations.
2Faculty of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Abstract. Education assessment and evaluation of a country is technically done led by a government team,
most often the Department or Ministry of Education. Brief history of education assessment in the
Philippines (by Magno) shows the trends of how Philippine educational formal system has been assessed
and evaluated correspondingly. This paper will focus on the experiences of non-government activities to
advocate for reforms in the educational system in the Philippines. Through the efforts of Education
Network, Philippines (E-Net), recent organizational assessment and evaluation efforts, with support from
Save the Children Fund, will be shared.
Keywords: Philippine education history, alternative learning system, non-formal education, education
reform advocacy
INTRODUCTION
A Brief Timeline of Education Assessment in the
Philippines Education in the Philippines cannot be viewed as
something monolithic. Hence, assessing it cannot
be done in one-way form either. Composed of more
than 7,000 islands, the Philippines is the second
largest archipelago, next to Indonesia. The
Philippines is also the world’s 12th most-populous
country with more than 103 million people as of
2016. Majority are Christians (roughly 80%) having
been colonised by Spain for more than three
centuries. After Spain, the United States occupied
the Philippines (1898) for five decades and became
independent in 1946. U.S. colonialism had a great
impact on the Philippine educational system - the
use of the English language, the politico-legal
system, and how the economy runs (Macha,
Mackie & Magaziner, 2018).
Very recently (2013), the Philippine education
system was expanded from 10 years to 12 years, to
include broadening and substantiating its contents
to fortify Filipino endogenous character and
prepare for global challenges. Looking back to the
1920s while the Philippines was still under the U.S.
rule, a Monroe Survey of 1926 was conducted to
assess the educational status of Filipinos under an
American educational system. Briefly, results
showed, the Filipino students were at par with their
American counterpart in Sciences and
Mathematics; that materials should be adapted to
Philippine life; secondary education did not prepare
for life and recommended training in agriculture,
commerce and industry; that higher education
should be concentrated in Manila; English should
be the medium of instruction, but local dialect in
teaching character education; almost all teachers
(95%) were not professionally trained for teaching;
and private schools except under the religious
groups were found unsatisfactory (Magno, 2010).
Several other assessments followed: Economic
Survey (studied the economic condition of the
Philippines); Prosser Survey (on vocational
education); other government-commissioned
surveys (on the quality of education); UNESCO
Survey (looked at educational situation to set as
guide to planners). The more recent are: the
EDCOM report of 1991 (marked high school drop
outs showing level of mastery in certain
competencies); the Philippine Education Sector
Study (PESS-1999) which recommended a more
targeted program of college and university
scholarships; the Fund for Assistance to Private
Education (FAPE) which initiated the testing and
guidance programs; the Center for Educational
Measurement (CEM) to improve quality of formal
education and effectiveness for teaching and
student guidance; the Asian Psychological Services
and Assessment Corporation (APSA) which
committed to the delivery of excellent and focused
testing technologies and competence-development
programs to academe and industry (Magno, 2010).
This paper shows the role of civil society
organizations in influencing government policies to
reform education and participate in assessment to
make effective its participation in governance, using
organizational capacity development tool.
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 2
METHODOLOGY
Methodology used is qualitative research. This
is secondary data gathering of historical assessment
and evaluation of Philippine educational system. I
am zooming in on alternative learning system as a
form of non-formal education, particularly
experiences of the Education Network Philippines
(E-Net). E-Net is a non-government organization
composed of around 80 member organizations
around the Philippines doing advocacy work for
education reform. Particularly, E-Net focuses on
education financing and active participation of local
communities in increasing budget for education,
changing curricula, and open data for access to
people.
The Education Network, Philippines Inc. and Its
Accomplished Activities Education Network Philippines, Inc. (E-Net) is
a network of 150 civil society organizations (CSOs)
which coalesced in 1999 to advocate for education
reforms in the Philippines. The Dakar Framework
for Action 2000 became the take-off point of E-Net
to pursue the track towards initiating changes in
education policies, financing, curriculum change,
teachers’ development and other related concerns
surrounding education. E-Net’s primary concerns
are: Early Childhood Care and Development
(ECCD), Formal Education and Alternative
Learning System. Cutting across these broad
concerns are: Gender in Education and
Governance and Financing in Education. Among
the strategies used are budget advocacy and
partnerships for education.
Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI)
Through E-Net’s Alternative Budget Initiative
(ABI), education national budget increased almost
triple across ten years since 2007.
These increases were the result of national
advocacy participated in by E-Net. At the local
level, E-Net’s member organizations engaged in
calling for education financing through the Local
School Board (LSB) and Local Development
Council (LDC). The goal in engaging the local
government is to make sure the special education
fund levied from 1% of the real property tax is
appropriately used for education purposes only. It is
also a way to remind the local government units of
their shared responsibility with the national
government in financing education priorities.
Partnership for EFA (Education for All) “Education for All, All for Education” is the
catchphrase slogan introduced by E-Net to mobilize
different sectors – government agencies, private
sector and civil society organizations – to join in the
EFA movement across the country. There were
three layers of partnerships launched. First,
‘internal partnership’ where E-Net member
organizations were enjoined to conduct researches,
agenda building, capacity enhancing activities, and
information dissemination. Second, is the ‘external
partnership’ which is working with government
agencies and institutions. The best practice
mechanism is where E-Net sits as co-chair of the
Department of Education in the national
implementation of EFA National Plan of Action in
the country. Third, is E-Net’s global partnership for
EFA through technical assistance from other
international organizations helping support its
national agenda for education reform and seek
accountability from the government.
Important Education Milestone Over the years, the improvement in Philippine
education situation can be partially attributed to the
efforts of the civil society groups and the private
sector. The Philippine government acknowledges
this. The E-Net has been religious in its advocacy to
reform education as sampled by some significant
achievements.
The enhanced basic education program or K-12
which is now being implemented for five years
already. Related to this is the passage of the
Kindergarten Act, expansion of the Alternative
Learning System to Abot-Alam program, multi-
lingual-based education, indigenous people’s
education, madrasah education, and the child
protection policy which directly benefits the
marginalized, excluded and vulnerable members of
our society. In essence, E-Net realized, in its 15
years of existence, that to succeed in its advocacies,
efforts should focus on engaging the government
using the mechanisms and spaces accessible to civil
society. Very crucial is to sustain organized groups
towards building critical mass es through
campaigns, influencing policies relevant to
education reform, lobbying, monitoring
government actions to ensure efficient allocation
and use of budget for education, specially for the
marginalized and unreached.
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 3
Alternative Learning System (ALS) One important aspect of the Philippine
educational system is the Alternative Learning
System (ALS). The Department of Education has
made this a established part of the System making it
the ‘pathway’ to a “second chance” to
strengthening human capital out of the school drop
outs, adults and out of school children and youth
(OSCY). The ALS enrollees take accreditation and
equivalency (A & E) examinations after which
when passed, they receive certificates, synonymous
with government credentials giving them access to
higher education, vocational training and better
employment prospects.
The number of out-of-school youth in the
Philippines is one of the highest in ASEAN
countries, according to an ILO and ADB report in
2014 (E-Net, 2018). In 2013, the Philippine
Statistics Authority released its data on the number
of students aged 5-17, not attending school reached
3.249 million. It is like 1 in every 10 Filipinos aged
6-24 are out of school. As studied, poverty is one of
the top reasons why students are dropping out.
Sadly, more boys are leaving schools than girls.
Out of the 17 regions in the Philippines, the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) has the highest incidence of school drop
outs due to the conflict situation and natural
disasters happening. The National Capital Region
(NCR) drop out rate has increased by 77% in years
2012 – 2013 (E-Net, 2018).
Across the country, 53% of the OSCYs are from
families whose income is at the bottom 30% based
on per capita income (Table 3). The last column of
Table 3 shows the cumulative number of OSCYs in
the lowest income bracket (First, Second, Third
decile).
The Annual Poverty Indicators Survey 2016
(Figure 1 APIS 2016) revealed that the topmost
reasons among OSCYs for not attending school
were marriage or family matters (42.3%), high cost
of education or financial concerns (20.2%), and lack
of personal interest (19.7%). Sex-disaggregating
them, 59.3% females’ main reason was marriage
and family matters; while 36.5% males said lack of
personal interest was their main reason. It is
unfortunate to note that since 2008, the number of
OSCYs increased from 2.7 to 3.8 million (2016
APIS, PSA).
Nationwide, about 53% of OSCYs belong to families whose income fall at the bottom 30% based on their per capita income.
Drop-outs are especially high in the poorest regions. Department of Education (DepEd) data showed that among the country’s 17 regions, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), with one of the highest rate of poverty incidence, also has the highest drop-out rate which increased by 76% comparing SY 2002-2003 and 2012-2013. Even in the National Capital Region (NCR), comparing the same school years, drop-out rate increased by 77%. Additional factors such as natural disasters and conflict situations further aggravate the situation.
Context
The Out-of-School Phenomenon
According to the National Youth Commission (NYC), Out-of-School Children and Youth (OSCY) refers to 7 to 14 years old and not enrolled in any formal or vocational school and 15-24 years old and not enrolled in any formal or vocational school, not formally employed, and not a tertiary level graduate. The Philippines ranks high as one of the countries with a sizable number of OSCY. In a co-publication of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) released in 2014, the Philippines ranked the highest in number in 2012 among 8 ASEAN countries. Even higher than that of Indonesia with a population double than the Philippines.
OSCY numbers continue to grow and drop-out rates have even increased especially in poorer regions of the country. In 2013, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reported that the number of 5-17 years old not attending school was estimated at 3.249M. The recent number, according to PSA’s Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) is 3.8 million or 10 percent of the 39 million Filipinos with age range 6 to 24 years old or 1 in every 10 Filipinos aged 6 to 24 who are out of school. Poverty is the overriding reason for dropping-out as the direct and indirect cost of education continues to grow, even though education is supposed to be free.
Alternative Learning System (ALS) for the Marginalized, Excluded and Vulnerable Sectors (MEVS),
ALS for Lifelong Learning
September 2018 Issue 1
Policy Brief Mezzanine. Casal Bldg.,
15 Anonas St., Project 3,
Quezon City 1102 Philippines
Tel/Fax +632 962 4058
Website: www.enetphil.ph
The Out-of-School phenomenon reflects the over-all socio-economic situation of the country including poverty,
regional inequalities, rapid population growth rate, sluggish economic growth and low absorption of the labor force.
Table 3. Percent Distribution of OSCY by Per Capita Income Decile and Sex:
Philippines, 2016
Decile Male Female Both Sexes Both Sexes
Number of
OSCYs (in '000) 1,184 2,623 3,807
First Decile 23.5 20.2 21.2 21.2
Second Decile 14.7 17.5 16.6 37.9
Third Decile 15.2 14.6 14.8 52.7
Fourth Decile 11.9 11.8 11.9 64.5
Fifth Decile 9.1 12.6 11.5 76.0
Sixth Decile 7.4 10.3 9.4 85.4
Seventh Decile 5.4 6.9 6.4 91.8
Eight Decile 7.9 3.6 5.0 96.8
Ninth Decile 2.8 1.9 2.2 98.9
Tenth Decile 2.2 0.6 1.1 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Philippine Statistics Authority, APIS 2016
According to the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS), the most common reasons among OSCYs for not attending school were marriage or family matters (42.3%), high cost of education or financial concerns (20.2%), and lack of personal interest (19.7%). Marriage or family matters were the main reason among women OSY with 59.3%; while among males, it was lack of personal interest with 36.5%.
Even government interventions such as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) which requires beneficiaries to send their children to school, barely made a dent in addressing the OSCY phenomenon. The number of OSCY had in fact increased since 4Ps started in 2008, from around 2.7 to 3.8 million. (2016 APIS, PSA)
Government Program to Educate the Out-of-School: Non-Formal Education (NFE) and the Alternative Learning System (ALS)
outs to return to formal schooling or obtain an equivalency certificate, which in turn opens opportunities for further education and decent work.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the OSCY are not being reached thru the current program. The total number of beneficiaries is only at less than half a million per year or around 300,000. The program is severely under-resourced and account for less than 1% of the education budget.
Compared to the allocation for every pupil in the formal system, the task of providing education to out of school youth should be equally given priority since lack of access to education is caused mainly by poverty and further deprivation of education perpetuates the cycle of poverty both in urban and rural areas. This can only be addressed by sufficient financing for ALS with at least Php 5,000 per learner inclusive of the modules and funds to increase the number of mobile teachers, learning centers and allowance for instructional managers (IMs). BALS only got an average of 0.19% from the national budget for education, thus inadequate to fully implement its program. Recently, the functions of the former BALS was subsumed in the different bureaus. This further poses a challenge to the effective implementation of ALS programs nationwide.
The Non-Formal Education (NFE) is one of government’s programs to address the education of the out-of-school. Although Non-Formal Education started way back even before the Commonwealth era, it was thru the Governance of Education Act 2001 or R.A. 9155 that the Alternative Learning System (ALS) was recognized as “a parallel learning system to provide a viable alternative to the existing formal education instruction, encompassing both the non-formal and informal sources of knowledge and skills” (Sec. 12.1 Rules XII). The Bureau of Alternative Learning System (BALS) was established to “address the learning needs of the marginalized groups of the population including the deprived, depressed, and underserved citizens”(Sec. 2). Among its goals is to provide an alternative learning system for out of school youth and adults and help improve their socio-economic status by enhancing their basic educational capability through functional education and literacy and continuing education programs.
ALS learners are given learning modules. Equivalency certificates are awarded to those who successfully complete the achievement test at the end of the learning module. The NFE Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E) holds considerable potential for OSCY and school drop-
Page 2 Policy Brief
The government’s response to this increasing
dilemma is the Non-Formal Education and the
ALS. The program covers both non-formal and
informal education to address the learning needs of
those who are deprived and underserved of formal
schooling. The goals of the program include:
(1) to provide alternative learning for out of
school youth and adults; (2) to improve socio-
economic status to enhance their basic educational
capability through functional literacy and
continuing education.
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 4
4 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH
A Second Chance to Develop the Human Capital of Out-of-School Youth and Adults:
The Philippines Alternat ive Learning System
ALS Target Population
Figure 1: Major ALS Components
Figure 2: Age Distribution of ALS Enrollees
ALS learners use their own learning modules
designed appropriately. Examinations are given
and equivalency certificates are issued when
learners passed them. These certificates give way
for the learners to get to higher education and get
more decent jobs. However, ALS faces problems
like lack of financing. This is where E-Net makes its
intervention. One of its advocacies is to push for the
continuing increase in education budget.
Other concerns are not enough teachers,
coordinators and facilitators; overloading (70
learners assigned per teacher); lack of community
learning centers; lack of facilities and low quality of
learning environment; low percentage of completers
and passers; the need to assess, update and monitor
the ALS modules to ensure relevance to the labor
market and widen learners’ opportunity for further
formal education (World Bank Group, 2018).
Assessing E-Net’s Organizational Capacity After 15 years, it is timely for E-Net to look back
and take stock of its accomplishments and
capacities as a national civil society group. In June
23-24, 2016, E-Net management decided to call for
some of its members to conduct an assessment
workshop. The assessment workshop was done
using the Organizational Capacity Development
(OCD) tool, led by Save the Children Fund (SCF).
Why OCD? Working with international civil
society funders is one engagement E-Net tries to do
to broaden its network, knowledge and skills in
international solidarity work. Save the Children
Sweden (SCS), as part of its overarching objective
to strengthen other CSOs, partners with them
towards this strengthening endeavor. SCS see
OCD as a way to understand deeply other groups
working on similar causes. OCD is a ‘structured
and deliberate’ way to gauge a network’s strength
in many aspects. It is only one approach but its
fitness can be easily displayed through the
following steps: assessment, prioritization,
planning, implementation and evaluation.
Conceptually, OCD is different from Capacity
strengthening; Individual capacity development;
Institutional support. Save the Children Sweden’s
purview of OCD is that: capacity strengthening
process is owned by the organization; the starting
point of the OCD process is a holistic analysis of
the organization with well documentation; and
there is a clear plan to address results of OCD.
Hence, OCD was agreed upon to be the tool with
support and attendance from E-Net’s management,
staff and member organizations.
There are different ways to build capacities
through civil society’s programs and partnerships.
They are: peer networking and exchange of
experiences; targeted trainings and capacity
strengthening activities provided by Save the
Children (as partner); partnership dialogues,
consultations, feedback among partners; joint
evaluation and learning exercises; and learning by
doing. The OCD is apart from the abovementioned
modes which specifically is a targeted approach to
capacity development cum planning and
implementation.
As implemented, there was an initial discussion
with E-Net and member organizations about the
upcoming OCD workshop. Participants to the
workshop were identified and informed. The areas
for capacity assessment were : connectivity (basis of
unity, terms of membership, basic structure);
leadership & management (set of rules and
procedures, decision-making processes, coalition
staffing, managing participation, division of roles);
technical capacities (policy/advocacy expertise,
communication skills, tangible non-human
resources, resource development skills, etc.);
adaptability (ability to monitor the advocacy policy
environment, planning mechanisms, monitoring
and evaluation, etc.). The other two areas for
capacity assessment are: child participation and
thematic child rights.
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 5
To be able to deepen understanding of the areas
of capacity assessment, there were sets of questions
listed and answered during the workshop. See
Annex 1.
RESULTS OF THE OCA
The Self- Assessment Score for E-Net as a
coalition shows Connectivity with the highest score
3.0 (average); followed by Leadership/
Management and Technical Capacities 2.8
(average); Adaptability 2.6 (average); Child
Participation 2.0 (average); Child-Rights1.0
(average).
The high score for Connectivity reflects the
coalition’s strength in linkaging and networking
which was really the focus in the more recent years,
specially, engaging the Department of Education in
its ‘education reform’ advocacy, ‘education
financing’ and ‘increase education budget’ projects.
Targeted score for Connectivity, as shown, is ‘5’
indicating the highest priority for E-Net.
As a coalition, E-Net was successful in bringing
in people together – individual advocates, people’s
organizations, local and national NGOs,
International NGOs, teachers’ unions and
academicians. The common element amongst them
is education forall, education reforms and human
rights. It is also strong in knowledge sharing and
capacity-building.
E-Net though, has yet to improve in efficient
documentation, internal networking among its
members, a more functional work coordination,
communication and information system and
feedback. Organizational principles and VMG
(vision, mission, goals) are not well-articulated
amongst its member organizations. Rules and
policies are not as encompassing, hence, there is a
need to review.
As a coalition, E-Net has limited financial
resources limiting also its projects and activities. It
is also lacking in information database about other
civil society groups.
Leadership/Management and Technical
Capacities show the next highest score 2.8
(average). There is lack of inclusivity in decision-
making, specially the coalition members. Decisions
were communicated but not consulted. The
coalition structure does not respond well to the
needs of the member organizations, in the sense
that, the existing working committee by issues and
concerns emanate from the secretariat at the
national level, but does not encompass local
concerns of some member organizations. As a
result, member organizations in the provinces were
not well mobilized.
In terms of Technical Capacities, which also got
a score of 2.8 (average), E-Net was found to be
weak in children’s rights, lacking specifically in
programs related to it. As assessed, E-Net focused
more on national issues concerning education
reform; engaging the Philippine Senate and House
of Representatives for education financing. E-Net
has certain degree of expertise in research, writing,
and facilitating fora and workshops. However, the
member organizations’ skills on these aspects were
not as developed. Part of technical capacities is
being adept with certain important issues of
indigenous peoples in the Philippines, like,
providing schools for the lumads (an indigenous
group found in Mindanao).
Adaptability got a score of 2.6 (average).
Member organizations expect E-Net to be more
responsive in quick action processes to issues being
launched by the local organizations. Scores for
Child Participation is 2 (below average) and 1 (low)
for Thematic-child rights, respectively. More work
has to be done on these aspects.
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 6
The E-Net Strategic Plan
Setting the priorities, E-Net needs to have
deeper discussions and clarity on advocacies to
surface and how to address them. There seems to
be hindering blocks because of the
comprehensiveness of the concerns E-Net is trying
to cover – from formal education, non-formal,
informal, and the MEVs (marginalized, excluded,
vulnerable). Part of the suggestions is to relate
future work to the SDG4 target which is about
‘quality education’ for all worldwide. Be more
specific and operational, but in the context of E-Net
being a national advocacy group, not service
provider.
Emanating from E-Net’s OCD plan, it
highlights Child Rights Advocacy through training
and IEC (information, education, campaigns) on
issues facing Filipino children, e.g., bullying in
schools and outside the school; corporal
punishment; and promoting positive discipline.
Another approach is the ‘learning by doing’
where youth will be organized so they can actually
participate in activities using local schools and
community mechanisms to promote children’s
rights.
Part of the plan is to advocate for increased
child investment and accountability; strengthened
child rights programming amongst E-Net member
organizations; and established partnerships with
local government units (LGUs) and private sector
in the promotion of children’s rights, development
education and financing.
EPILOGUE When E-Net conducted the Organizational
Capacity Development, it was clear to its leaders
that there are constraints. One dominant constraint
is the number of member organizations who can
join in the assessment. Second, is the focus of
existing programs and projects undertaken by the
individual E-Net member. This aspect resulted in
diverse ways of looking at the coalition’s capacities
as a national organization (structures, values,
overall vision and goals), rather than at the
individual organizational level.
*****
REFERENCES
Education Network Philippines, Inc. Alternative
Learning System (ALS) for the
Marginalized, Excluded and Vulnerable
Sectors (MEVS), ALS for Lifelong Learning.
Policy Brief, Issue I, September 2018.
Igarashi, Takiko. 2018. A second chance to develop the
human capital of out-of-school youth and adults :
the Philippines alternative learning system
(English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank
Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/e
n/539131530792186404/A-second-chance-
to-develop-the-human-capital-of-out-of-
school-youth-and-adults-the-Philippines-
alternative-learning-system
Macha, W., Mackie, C. and Magaziner, J. (2018).
Education in the Philippines. World
Education News and Reviews. Published
March 6, 2018. Retrieved from:
https://wenr.wes.org/2018/03/education-
in-the-philippines
World Bank Group. A Second Chance to Develop
the Human Capital of Out-of-School Youth
and Adults: The Philippines Alternative
Learning System. Education Policy Note.
No. 1, May 2018.
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 7
ANNEX 1
THE ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT (OCA)
QUESTIONNAIRE
AREAS OF
CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT
NO
.
LEAD QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS IF THE
ANSWER IS ‘YES’ / OR THINGS
TO CONSIDER FOR SCORING
CONNECTIVITY
1 Do all members share a
common purpose for the
network?
Is there a clear goal? Is it written? Can
the coalition articulate why it is the
appropriate vehicle for addressing the
goal (as opposed to another coalition or
working individually)? Is it well
communicated? Is it used to direct
actions and set priorities? Is it regularly
reviewed and updated? What levels of
work are required to meet this goal (e.g.
local, national, international)? Is the
coalition already engaging in all these
levels?
2 Does the coalition have
clear terms of
membership?
What are the backgrounds and
experiences of the members? Are there
any criteria for membership? Who is not
connected but should be? Is there a
membership application process? Can
the members strategically help achieve
coalition goals (including time,
resources, influence, trust, etc.)
3 Does the coalition have a
functioning structure?
What are the different structures in place
(e.g. organigram, committee system,
etc.) What is the basis of this structure
and what flows through it? Are they
efficiently meeting the needs of the
coalition? Are they regularly adjusted to
meet the changing needs and priorities?
4 Is there a distinct culture
or way of working within
the coalition?
What are the coalition’s core principles
and/ or values? In what ways are these
manifested? Are these pervasive across
the coalition membership? How are
these values facilitating or hindering the
work of the coalition?
LEADERSHIP
AND
MANAGEMENT
5 Does the coalition adopt
a set of internal rules and
procedures?
What are the existing internal rules and
procedures? In what form is it
documented? Is it well communicated?
Is it strictly enforced? Is it regularly
reviewed and updated?
6 Is there a system of
decision-making?
Who are involved in the decision-making
process? Is the process institutionalized? Is there a process of consultation? Are the decisions communicated?
7 Does the coalition have a
convening body or
designated individuals
responsible for
coordination?
How are they identified/ designated?
What is the composition? Do they have
written functions and responsibilities?
Are there terms and conditions of their
engagement in the coalition? Are there
mechanisms in place to assess/evaluate
their performance?
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 8
8 Is membership
participation managed
well?
What are the various venues and spaces
where the members can participate? Are
they involved in decision-making? What
role/s do they take in implementing
activities of the coalition? How do they
provide feedback?
9 Is there a clear system for
delegating roles and
responsibilities?
How are they delegated? Are tasks fairly
divided among members and staff? Is the
coalition’s work continuously and
efficiently delivered because of division
of roles?
ADAPTABILITY
10
Does the coalition adapt
to the changing policy
environment related to
its basis of unity?
Is the coalition constantly monitoring the
policy/ advocacy environment? How? Has the coalition ever made strategic decisions related to shifting priorities and emerging
trends in the past? Please cite examples.
11 Does the coalition adapt
a system of planning?
In what cases does the coalition conduct
planning? How frequent? What kind of data and information are used? Does it have a strategic plan (or equivalent)?
12 Is there a systematic way
of evaluating the
coalition’s performance
and its members?
Are there clear indicators of progress/ interim outcomes for the network and are
they understood and measured by members? How are they measured? Does
the coalition evaluate me mbers, taking into consideration their skills, commitment, contribution and
effectiveness? Are there mechanisms where members can create knowledge and insights together?
TECHNICAL
CAPACITIES
13 Does the coalition have
advocacy expertise?
What kind of advocacy work is the
coalition engaged in (e.g. influencing
policy development, influencing policy implementation)? How is it being
undertaken? Is advocacy part of the planning process of the coalition? Is there a person/ committee/ member responsible
for it? Are there resources allocated for it? Are there materials produced to support the coalition’s advocacy? Do the members
have the capacity to undertake advocacy work in their levels of work (e.g. local,
national, international)?
14 Does the coalition have a
defined set of technical
expertise required to
undertake its core work?
What are these? Is there a system/
mechanism in place to assess the level of the coalition’s and members’ capacities in
terms of these expertise? Are there
capacity-building initiatives intended for the members and staff? If yes, who provides them and how are the recipients/
participants selected? How frequent are capacity-building activities done?
15 Does the coalition adopt
internal and external
communication strategy?
Are there internal communication lines that complement the coalition’s structure?
How are important information shared among members? Is inter-member communication promoted? How? Can the
coalition attract stakeholders to publicize/ promote its work and draw attention to its advocacy?
Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
ICEAP 2018 9
16 Does the coalition have a
necessary resources to
sustain itself?
What types of resources does the
coalition have (e.g. human, material/
physical, financial, social, etc.)? How
diverse and stable are they? How are
members contributing resources to the
coalition? Is there a focal person/
committee assigned to manage the
coalition’s resources? Is there a resource
development plan adapted to the
coalition’s context?
17 Does the coalition have a
system to manage its
financial resources?
Is there a financial management system
in place for internal control,
documentation and reporting? Please
provide details and descriptions.
THEMATIC –
CHILD RIGHTS
18 Does the coalition carry
out child rights
programming?
Are there any staff trained and well
versed about Child Rights
Programming? Is a situational analysis
being carried out to identify children’s
rights violations? Are the results used in
defining programs and strategies? Are
there tools. Modules and guidance
documents developed to build capacity
on CRP? What is the organization’s
commitment to child rights? How are
children viewed within the organization?
CHILD
PARTICIPATION
19 Does the coalition
support the participation
of children in its
programming?
Is child participation incorporated in the
organization’s program designs? Is it
budgeted? Are there any staff trained
and well versed about child
participation? Are there tools, modules
and guidance documents developed to
build capacity on child participation?
Are there children involved in key
phases of program cycle?