[xls]iati.dfid.gov.ukiati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/7156011.xlsx · web viewbetter teacher...
TRANSCRIPT
PESP 2 Log-Frame
IMPACT Impact Indicator 1
Literacy rate, Punjab Planned 62%Achieved 62% 62%
SourcePSLM Survey ('12-'13)
Impact Indicator 2
Planned 40.20%Achieved 40.20% 40.20%
SourceMICS 2011
Impact Indicator 3
Real GDP growth per capita, Pakistan Planned 4.30%Achieved 2.30% 4.30%
SourceWorld Bank, State Bank of Pakistan Annual Report
OUTCOME Outcome Indicator 1 Assumptions
Planned Girls: 87%, Boys: 89%Achieved Girls: 87%, Boys: 89%
SourceNielsen, Household survey (Jan 2014)
Outcome Indicator 2
Planned Girls: 78%, Boys: 82%Achieved Girls: 78%, Boys: 82%
SourceNielsen, Household survey (Jan 2014)
Outcome Indicator 3
Planned
Achieved
SourceASER survey; PMIU; Independent bi-annual assessment
Outcome Indicator 4
Student attendance PlannedAchieved 90.00%
SourcePMIU monthly data
INPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) Other (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)
INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs)
OUTPUT 1 Output Indicator 1.1 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourceTAMO progress reports, annual reviews, and external evaluations/ assessments, PMIU monthly data
Output Indicator 1.2 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourceTAMO DFC Quaterly Audit of MEA visits, PMIU data
IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 1.3 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved All schools: 51 (weighted)
SourceFinance Department, Govt of Punjab.
OUTPUT 2 Output Indicator 2.1 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourcePTB workplan, TAMO Reports on PTB, Roadmap reports, TPV of Textbooks Development process and procurement system.
Output Indicator 2.2
Planned
Achieved
SourceBi-annual assessment report
Output Indicator 2.3 Assumptions
Integrity of PEC exams Planned
Achieved
SourceThird party validation
Output Indicator 2.4 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourceThird party review.
IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 2.5 Assumptions
Planned 14% 13% 11% 10%
Achieved16% 15%
SourcePMIU
OUTPUT 3 Output Indicator 3.1 Assumptions
Improved school infrastructure Planned
AchievedSourcePMIU monthly data
Output Indicator 3.2 Assumptions
Planned
AchievedSourceTACE progress reports, third party validation reports, TAMO monitoring
IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 3.3 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourcePMIU school census
OUTPUT 4 Output Indicator 4.1 Assumptions
Planned
AchievedSourceHousehold survey, TAMO Reports
Output Indicator 4.2 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourceTAMO Reports
IMPACT WEIGHTING (%) Output Indicator 4.3 Assumptions
PlannedAchieved
SourcePIEF progress reports
OUTPUT 5 Output Indicator 5.1 Assumptions
Planned
AchievedSourceHousehold survey, TAMO reports
Output Indicator 5.2 Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourceTAMO Reports
PROJECT NAME PUNJAB EDUCATION SECTOR PROGRAMME 2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
More educated people in Punjab making a positive social and economic contribution
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Secondary school participation rate, Punjab
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
More children in school, staying longer, and learning more
Increased participation rate for primary school aged population (ages 5-9)
-Government stays stable and in place
- Macro-economic situation (both at national & provincial level) improves and economic growth accelerates;
- Political and security situation in the country improves;
- No major humanitarian disaster in the provinces;
- Institutional risks related to devolution/ recentralisation and formation of new administrative areas are appropriately mitigated;
Girls: 87%, Boys: 89%
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Increased participation rate for secondary school aged population (ages 10-16)
Girls: 78%, Boys: 82%
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Improved student outcomes: -Percentage of students able to read a sentence in Urdu (source: ASER / LND drive)-Percentage of students able to conduct simple mathematical computations (source: ASER / LND drive)-Average score on DfID funded 6 monthly assessment-Optional: Average PEC scores for Grades 5 & 8 (2016 onwards)
Grade 3 that can read: 26%; Grade 3 that can do double digit subtraction: 31%
Grade 3 that can read: 26%; Grade 3 that can do double digit subtraction: 31%
Grade 3 that can read: 26%; Grade 3 that can do double digit subtraction: 31%
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Better managed, more accountable education system
Number of districts with effective, targeted system wide performance management system
Performance management system initiated in at least 1 district.
Performance management system nitiated in at least 2 district.
Performance management refined based on learnings from pilot and scaled up
Capacity developed for 18 of 36 districts in system level performance management
Capacity developed for all 36 districts in system level performance management
Stakeholders, including political leadership and bureacracy are accepting and supportive of need to implement performance management and willing to support in providing incentives and enforcing consequences
Appropriate national and international consultants are available
District leadership provides commitment and resources to ensure implementation of performance management
Tenure and longevity of officials enables continuity of reform
Devolution of provincial and district functions and powers not reversed
No performance management system in place.
No performance management system in place.
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Frequency of MEA visits and better reliability of data collected
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system successfully piloted in 8 Districts with a minimum of two rounds of data collection.
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system rolled out in all 18 districts.
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system rolled out in all 36 districts.
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system continued
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system continued
Availability of field coordinators and access granted to conduct school audits
PMIU actively addresses MEA reporting errors
72% of schools covered by MEA visits
Paper based data collection system compiled at end of month
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Percentage of Functional School Councils covering monthly meetings, expenditure of grants/ budgets and improvement in teacher presence
All schools: All schools: All schools: All schools: Availability of capable and effective audit to assess and evaluate spending
Administration supportive of audits and collaborative
All schools: 33 (weighted)
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Better teacher performance and better teaching
Number of new textbooks, teacher guides, and workbooks developed in line with new curriculum
Work on 3 model textbooks & workbooks developed and approved by PTB
Improved SOPs and criteria for manuscript review defined based on model textbooks
Diagnostic of PTB's procurement process and opportunities for improvement indentif ied and quantified
Implementation of recommended improvements to procurement process
Printing and distribution of textbooks on time for 2015-16 year
Development of a detailed budget forecast for fiscal year 2015-16
Tender development of grade 1 Urdu, and grade 2-5 Urdu, English, math, science/general knowledge manuscripts & workbooks (for 2016-17)
International publishers and top local publishers invited to participate in tender process
Implementation of new SOPs and criteria during manuscript review
Printing and distribution of textbooks on time for 2016-17 year
Teacher guides developed for all new textbooks developed
Diagnostic of accounting, audit, and governance processes
Implementation of recommendations for accounting, audit, and governance
Tender development of grade 6-10 Urdu, English, math, science manuscripts & workbooks (for 2017-18)
Diagnostic of new textbooks introduced
Printing and distribution of textbooks on time for 2017-18 year
Implementation of recommendations for accounting, audit, and governance
Printing and distribution of textbooks on time for 2018-19 year
Current curriculum complexity exceeds required student learning outcomes at each grade level; simplification and prioritization of curriculum will enable critical student learning outcomes to be taught to allow students to learn at the right level for their grade
Current textbooks are not structured correctly in terms of pedagogy and content and need to be redesigned to ensure students are able to absorb content
Teaching in schools improves when teachers provided easy to use, scripted lesson plans and teacher guides
Textbooks do not meet acceptable standards of pedagogy and content appropriateness
Textbooks do not meet acceptable standards of pedagogy and content appropriateness
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Bi-annual learning assessment system in place.
First test conducted at acceptable standard of quality and reliability
Baseline levels of student learning established
Independent student assessment conducted to acceptable standard twice during year
Improvement targets for Outcome indicator 3 defined
Independent student assessment conducted reliably on bi-annual basis
Independent student assessment conducted reliably on bi-annual basis
Independent student assessment conducted reliably on bi-annual basis
No province-wide independent assessment of student learning in schools
No province-wide independent assessment of student learning in schools
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
PEC exams administered under new, devolved invigilation system
PEC exams administered incorporating learnings from 2015 examinations
PEC exams executed reliably with incorporated learnings through the report of TPV.
PEC exams executed reliably with incorporated learnings from 2016 examinations
Current PEC exam results are not an accurate measure of student performance
New plan will dis-incentivize cheating
PEC exam conduct unreliable with frequent instances of leakage and cheating
PEC improvement plan developed and approved by School Education Department
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Quality and delivery of teacher training and mentoring.
DTE attendance >95%. Develop DTE strategy
DTE attendance at 100%
Pilot strategy in 2 districts
Expand implementation to 9 districts
Expand implementation to 18 districts
Expand implementation to 36 districts
Full time management of DTEs and improved DTE training and performance management will enable DTEs to provide better coaching to teachers
DTE attendance: 94%. No full time district and cluster level administration for DTEs. No clear DTE KPIs and performance management
DTE attendance at 94%. No full time district and cluster level administration for DTEs. No clear DTE KPIs and performance management
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Teacher absentee rates in government schools
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Better learning environment
Drinking water: Available: 99%,
Functional: 99%; Toilets: Available: 98%, Functional: 97%; Walls:
Available: 93%, Functional: 92%;
Electricity: Available: 85%, Functional: 84%
Drinking water: Available: 99%, Functional: 99%; Toilets: Available: 98%, Functional: 97%; Walls:
Available: 93%, Functional: 92%; Electricity: Available:
85%, Functional: 84%
All districts with a functioning of facilities >90% or a clear plan to improve functioning of facilities to >90% within the current school year
All districts with functioning of facilities >90%
All districts with functioning of facilities >95%
All districts with functioning of facilities >95%
All districts with functioning of facilities >95%
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Number of schools rehabilitated to iinternational standards
Schools - 4099
Classrooms - 8871
Schools - 2957
Classrooms - 5957
Schools - 2900
Classrooms - 5047
Schools - 1909
Classrooms - 3123
Schools - 11865
Classrooms - 23000
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Reduction in classrooms with multigrade teaching
Complete rationalization of teachers; syndicate and finalize decision to do alternate year entry and double shifting with SED; complete pre-planning and school identification by compiling list of schools with multi-grade, along with the classroom and teacher requirement in each; use list to identify (i) schools for launch of AYE (ii) schools for double shifting; (iii) remaining schools for construction of classrooms and provision of newly hired teachers; syndicate lists and roll out mechanisms with SED; plan out schedule of classroom construction over next 4 years, in concert with IMC initiative; secure funding from GoPb for classroom construction project and for hiring teachers
Launch AYE and double shifting; start construction of classrooms as per budget release schedule; start hiring of teachers
Continue construction of classrooms and hiring of teachers as per budget release schedule
Continue construction of classrooms and hiring of teachers as per budget release schedule
Complete construction of classrooms and hiring of teachers
No multi-grade classrooms
3.8 million children in multi-grade classrooms; requirement of 20k classrooms and 20k net newly hired teachers (after accounting for retirements) to eliminate most severe instances of multi-grade
3.8 million children in multi-grade classrooms; requirement of 20k classrooms and 20k net newly hired teachers (after accounting for retirements) to eliminate most severe instances of multi-grade
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Improved access to schools, especially in priority districts
Participation rate (primary, middle, secondary) disaggregated by gender in priority districts.
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Number of children in school supported through the Punjab Education Foundation (cumulative) i) EVS ii) NSP iii) FAS
(i) 358,000 ii) 111,000 iii) 430,000
(i) 483,000 ii) 149,000 iii) 650,000
(i) 608,000 ii) 195,000 iii) 932,000
(i) 733,000 ii) 257,000 iii) 1,288,000
(i) 150,000 ii) 62,000 iii) 155,000
(i) 250,000 ii) 83,000 iii) 267,000
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Number of children supported through Punjab Inclusive Education Program
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Enhanced demand for education
Number of children supported through financial aid, disaggregated by gender, level of education
Baseline (January 2013)
Milestone 1 (February 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015
Milestone 42016
Milestone 52017
Target 2018
Number of households directly reached with behaviour change messages under social mobilization campaign in priority districts
No communication plan in place
Communication plan draft complete
Roll out communication plan in priority districts
X households attended presentation
X households attended presentation
No communication plan in place
No communication plan in place
Punjab Education Sector Program ( PESP) II - Logical Framework
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Logical Framework - Process ( All updates highlighted in bright yellow)
Logical Framework - PESP II
Definitions and Calculations
Supporting Evidence (SE) - Outcome Indicator 1 & 2
Supporting Evidence (SE) - Outcome Indicator 3
Supporting Evidence (SE) - Output Indicator 1.1
Supporting Evidence (SE) - Output Indicator 4.1 & 5.3
Supporting Evidence (SE) - Output Indicator 4.2
Supporting Evidence (SE) - Output Indicator 5.2
Supporting Evidence (SE) - Output Indicator 3.3
Logical Framework - Output Risk
PESP II - Logframe - Process
PESP II - Logframe Process
Logical Framework
Overall aim of PESP II Impact Level Impact Statement
Specific aims PESP II is contributing towards. Outcome Level Outcome Statement
Output Level
Output Level
Exact delivery objectives of PESP II Output Level Output Statement
Output Level
Output Level
PESP II - Logframe Process
Logical Framework
1 More educated people in Punjab making a positive social and economic contribution
1 More children in school, staying longer, and learning more
1 Better managed, more accountable education system
2 Better teacher performance and better teaching
3 Better learning environment
4 Improved access to schools, especially in priority districts
5 Enhanced demand for education
PESP II - Logframe Process Internal Programming and Monitoring/Evaluation of PESP II
Indicators Baselines Milestones(2012/2013) (2014 - 2017)
Impact Indicators 1, 2 & 3
Outcome Indicators 1, 2, 3 & 4
Output Indicators 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3
Output Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 & 2.5
Output Indicators 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3
Output Indicators 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3
Output Indicators 5.1, 5.2 & 5.3
Data Sources
Means of Verification (MoV)
Underlying Assumptions (Theory of Change)
Internal Programming and Monitoring/Evaluation of PESP II
Targets(2018/2019)
Quarterly Review by DFID - TAMO
1 Revision of Milestones/Targets
2 Modification/Improvement of Indicators
PESP II Log-Frame - Updated version 10 September 2015
IMPACT Impact Indicator 1 Attribution/Project
Literacy rate, Punjab Government of Punjab Planned 62% 62% 63% 63% 64%Achieved 62% 62% 62%
SourcePSLM Survey
Impact Indicator 2 Attribution/Project
Government of Punjab Planned Girls: 63% Boys: 66% Girls: 65% Boys:68%
Achieved
SourceNielsen Household Survey
Impact Indicator 3 Attribution/Project
Real GDP growth per capita, Pakistan Planned 4.30% 4.30% 4.60% 5.00% 5.00%Achieved 2.30% 4.30% 4.30%
SourceWorld Bank
PROJECT NAME
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
More educated people in Punjab making a positive social and economic contribution
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Secondary completion rate (proxy by students aged 15-16 enrolled in school)
Girls: 63%Boys: 66%
Girls: 64% Boys:67%
Girls: 68%Boys: 70%
Girls: 63%Boys: 66%
Girls: 63%Boys: 66%
Girls: 63%Boys: 66%
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Government of Pakistan
OUTCOME Outcome Indicator 1 Attribution/Project Assumptions
Planned
Achieved
SourceNielsen Household Survey
Notes* See Sheet 5 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Outcome Indicator 1 & 2' for additional detail.Outcome Indicator 2 Attribution/Project
Planned
Achieved
SourceNielsen Household Survey
Notes* See Sheet 5 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Outcome Indicator 1 & 2' for additional detail.Outcome Indicator 3 Attribution/Project
Planned
Achieved
SourceDFID / TAMO Six Monthly Grade 3 assessment
Notes* See Sheet 6 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Outcome Indicator 3' for disaggregated ( March and September ) SLO Milestones.Outcome Indicator 4 Attribution/Project
Student attendance Government of Punjab Planned
Achieved 90.00% 92.00%
SourcePMIU Monthly Data
Notes* Achievement against this indicator shall be computed as a rolling average rather than on a month-by-month basis - hence, the relevant milestone for each year is maintaining > 90 % twelve month average student attendance.
INPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) Other - WB (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)420.5 5,815 217 6382.5 5.49%
INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs) Barbara Payne (BP) , Javed Malik (JM) , Aliya Usmani (AU) , Ahmed Malik (AM) , Fahad Suleri (FS) , Omar Mukhtar (OM) , SDA [pending appointment] (MS) , Shamas Bajwa (SB), Laura Norris (NS)
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
More children in school, staying longer, and learning more
Participation rate for primary school aged population (ages 5-9)
Participation rate for primary school aged population (ages 5-9) in 11 priority districts*
TAMO - SED - Special Education Department - PMIU
Punjab average:Girls: 87%, Boys: 89%
Punjab average:Girls: 88.5%, Boys: 91%
Punjab average:Girls: 89.5%, Boys: 92.5%
Punjab average:Girls: 92%, Boys: 94%
Punjab average: Girls: 94%, Boys: 96%
-Government stays stable and in place
- Macro-economic situation (both at national & provincial level) improves and economic growth accelerates;
- Political and security situation in the country improves;
- No major humanitarian disaster in the provinces;
- Institutional risks related to devolution/ recentralisation and formation of new administrative areas are appropriately mitigated; - Maintaining children' attendance and learning outcomes becomes more of a challenge as more and more children enter and are retained in schools
Punjab average: Girls: 85.1%, Boys: 88.4%
Priority districts: Girls: 74.4%, Boys: 80.8%
(Nielsen Survey November 2012)
Punjab average: Girls: 87.0%, Boys: 89.4%
Priority districts: Girls: 76.8%, Boys: 82.7%
(Nielsen Survey November 2013)
Punjab average:Girls: 88.3%, Boys: 90.3%
Priority districts: Girls: 80.2%, Boys: 84.7%
(Neilson Survey: January 2015)
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Participation rate for secondary school aged population (ages 10-16)
Participation rate for secondary school aged population (ages 10-16) in 11 priority districts*
TAMO - SED - Special Education Department - PMIU
Punjab average:Girls: 78%, Boys: 82%
Priority districts:
Punjab average: Girls: 80%, Boys: 84%
Priority districts:
Punjab average: Girls: 82%, Boys: 86%
Priority districts:
Punjab average: Girls: 82%, Boys: 86%
Priority districts:
Punjab average: Girls: 82%, Boys: 86%
Priority districts:
Punjab average: Girls: 76.2%, Boys: 80.8%
Priority districts: Girls: 61.0%, Boys: 71.6%
(Nielsen Survey November 2012)
Punjab average: Girls: 77.6%, Boys: 81.5%
Priority districts: Girls: 64.7%, Boys: 73.1%
(Nielsen Survey November 2013)
Punjab average:Girls: 79.6%, Boys: 83.8%
Priority districts: Girls: 67.5%, Boys: 76.9%
(Neilson Survey: January 2015)
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Student learning outcomes: Average scores by subject for March and September six-monthly assessments ( Grade 3 students)
TAMO - SED - PMIU - DSD
Percentage of Grade 3 students that achieve specific SLOs for each subject English, Math, and Urdu
Milestones for 2015 onwards to be developed after establishing baseline
Percentage of Grade 3 students that achieve specific SLOs for each subject English, Math, and Urdu *
Math: 65%English: 59%Urdu: 56%
Percentage of Grade 3 students that achieve specific SLOs for each subject English, Math, and Urdu *
Math: 68%English: 62%Urdu: 59%
Percentage of Grade 3 students that achieve specific SLOs for each subject English, Math, and Urdu *
Math: 71%English: 65%Urdu: 62%
Percentage of Grade 3 students that achieve specific SLOs for each subject English, Math, and Urdu *
Math: 74%English: 68%Urdu: 65%
Grade 3 that can read: 26%; Grade 3 that can do double digit subtraction: 31%
Grade 3 that can read: 26%; Grade 3 that can do double digit subtraction: 31%
Percentage of Grade 3 students achieving core Grade 2 SLOs:
March 2015 Assessment Scores: Math: 67%English: 53%Urdu: 56% September 2014 Assessment Scores: Math: 57%English: 58%Urdu: 50%
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
90% attendance rate maintained every month*
90% attendance rate maintained every month*( 90 % boys schools ; 90 % girls schools)
90% attendance rate maintained every month*( 90 % boys schools ; 90 % girls schools)
90% attendance rate maintained every month*( 90 % boys schools ; 90 % girls schools)
90% attendance rate maintained every month*( 90 % boys schools ; 90 % girls schools)
90.3% [12 month average to Nov 2014]
BP TL (0.5) JM (1) AU (1) AM (1) FS (0.5) OM (0.5) SDA (0.5) SB (0.5) LN (0.5)
OUTPUT 1 Output Indicator 1.1 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - SED - PMIU Planned
Achieved
SourceTAMO progress reports, External evaluations/ assessments, PMIU monthly data
Notes
** Including alignment with regular EDO Conferences
Output Indicator 1.2 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - RM - PMIU Planned
Achieved
SourceTAMO DFC Quarterly Audit of MEA visits, PMIU data & MEA checklists, TPV Data Quality Reports
Notes* In light of the successful rollout of the tablet based real time data collection system in all 36 districts in Y1, these milestones have been revised upwards as of May 2015 ( note for the Annual Review in Jan 2016)
** For detail on the exact processes for verification of data quality and robustness, see the " Target Definition" against Output Indicator 1.2 in Sheet 4 titled " Definitions and Calculations".
Output Indicator 1.3 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - SED - PMIU Planned 50% schools
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Better managed, more accountable education system
Number of districts with effective*, targeted system-wide performance management system
Performance management approach developed and pilot district selected.*
1) Performance management system expanded to cover all 36 districts entailing regular monthly Pre-DRC and re-aligned/ restructured DRC meetings covering new metrics and LND scorecard ** (2) Pilot of Re-engineered business processes in 2 districts commences June/ July 2015 and implemented by May 2016
1) PMS (Pre-DRCs) strengthened and institutionalized as a permanent tier (2) Diagnostic of performance management system (re-engineered business processes) conducted and learnings identified for further refinement based upon evaluation. Post-refinement, this component of the PMS is expanded to another 5 districts
Performance management refined based on learnings from full year roll out
Capacity developed for 18 of 36 districts in system level performance management (Re-engineered business processes)
1) PMS (Pre-DRC) fully institutionalized (2) Capacity developed for all 36 districts in system level performance management (re-engineered business processes)
Stakeholders, including political leadership and bureaucracy are accepting and supportive of need to implement performance management and willing to support in providing incentives and enforcing consequences
Appropriate national and international consultants are available
District leadership provides commitment and resources to ensure implementation of performance management
Tenure and longevity of officials enables continuity of reform
Devolution of provincial and district functions and powers not reversed
No system-wide effective performance management in place.
No system-wide effective performance management in place.
Year 1 Achievements for select components of this indicator are as follows - (1) Performance Management System (PMS) in the form of improved follow up routines (called Pre-DRC Meetings) designed and soft pilot executed in 2 districts of Sheikupura and Bahawalpur
* The Performance Management System (PMS) has two components: (i) Efficient follow up routines (Pre-DRCs) and (ii) Re-engineered business processes of Educational manager offices at district level. In order to benefit from a province-wide implementation process, the approach against this milestone has been re-focused on effective follow-up routines across all 36 districts in Year 1, while the groundwork for the 2 pilot districts (Rahimyar Khan & Hafizabad) has been completed. For additional detail on the process steps, see Sheet 7 titled "Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 1.1".
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Frequency of MEA visits and better reliability of data collected
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system successfully piloted in 8 Districts with a minimum of two rounds of data collection.
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system rolled out in all 36 districts. * Data verified ( for sufficient robustness and quality).** As a test for quality of collected MEA data, the maximum variation between audit data ( from DFC spot checks or TPVs) and collected MEA data for the same schools should be within +/- 10 %
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system rolled out in all 36 districts. * Data verified ( for sufficient robustness and quality).** As a test for quality of collected MEA data, the maximum variation between audit data ( from DFC spot checks or TPVs) and collected MEA data for the same schools should be within +/- 10 %
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system continued * Data verified ( for sufficient robustness and quality).** As a test for quality of collected MEA data, the maximum variation between audit data ( from DFC spot checks or TPVs) and collected MEA data for the same schools should be
90% school visit rate maintained every month
Tablet based real time data collection system continued * Data verified ( for sufficient robustness and quality).**
As a test for quality of collected MEA data, the maximum variation between audit data ( from DFC spot checks or TPVs) and collected MEA data for the same schools should be within +/- 10 %
Availability of field coordinators and access granted to conduct school audits
PMIU actively addresses MEA reporting errors
97% of schools covered by MEA visits
72% of schools covered by MEA visits
Paper based data collection system compiled at end of month
96% [12 month rolling average to Nov 2014 exl Aug & Sept].
(Compares with 94% to Nov 2013.)
Full transition to tablet based real time data collection system in all 36 districts.
IMPACT WEIGHTING 15%
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Functional Primary School Councils as measured by -Regular meetings held*-Actual utilization of funds
Incremental increase of 5 % over baseline for both components of the indicator ( Regular meetings held and Actual Utilization of funds)
Incremental increase of 10 % over baseline for both components of the indicator ( Regular meetings held and Actual Utilization of funds)
Incremental increase of 15 % over baseline for both components of the indicator ( Regular meetings held and Actual Utilization of funds)
Incremental increase of 20 % over baseline for both components of the indicator ( Regular meetings held and Actual Utilization of funds)
Availability of capable and effective audit to assess and evaluate spending
Administration supportive of audits and collaborative
TAMO - SED - PMIU
Achieved All schools: 33 (weighted) All schools: 51 (weighted)
SourcePMIU monthly data
Notes Risk Rating
* At least two meetings per quarter - Migration from paper-based records to Tablets has initially restricted visibility on regular meetings held, and data will be available once the Tablet is updated. NSB Budget utilization serves as a proxy for school council fund utilization and is tracked through the Tablet system. High
Functional Primary School Councils as measured by -Regular meetings held*-Actual utilization of funds
Meetings; 44%Expenditure: 34%Attendance: 36%
TAMO not yet started working with School Councils due to delays with TACE and CSO.
Milestone not achieved.
OUTPUT 2 Output Indicator 2.1 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - PMIU - PCTB Planned
Achieved
SourcePCTB workplan, TAMO Reports on PCTB, Roadmap reports, TPV of Textbooks Development process and procurement system.
Notes* Printing of textbooks for a given school year is managed by PCTB and starts from November of the preceding calendar year ( till March), while PMIU is responsible for the distribution of the textbooks in March.Output Indicator 2.2 Attribution/Project
TAMO - RM Planned
Achieved
SourceTAMO Assessment Report, DFC Spot Checks or TPV (whichever is applicable)
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Better teacher performance and better teaching
New teaching and learning materials developed in line with new curriculum
Work on 3 model textbooks & workbooks developed & approved by PCTB
Improved SOPs and criteria for textbook review defined based on model textbooks
Diagnostic of PCTB's procurement process and opportunities for improvement identified and quantified
TAMO supports PCTB in the development of Grade 2 and 3 Urdu, English, math, textbooks (for 2016-17) *
Printing of textbooks by PCTB (November 2015) and distribution of textbooks by PMIU (March 2016)
TAMO supports PCTB in the development of Grades 4 and 5 textbooks (for 2017-18)*
Printing of textbooks by PCTB (November 2016) and distribution of textbooks by PMIU (March 2017)
Printing of textbooks by PCTB and distribution of textbooks by PMIU on time for 2017-18 year
Printing of textbooks by PCTB and distribution of textbooks by PMIU on time for 2018-19 year
Current curriculum complexity exceeds required student learning outcomes at each grade level; simplification and prioritization of curriculum will enable critical student learning outcomes to be taught to allow students to learn at the right level for their grade
Current textbooks are not structured correctly in terms of pedagogy and content and need to be redesigned to ensure students are able to absorb content
Teaching in schools improves when teachers provided easy to use, scripted lesson plans and teacher guides
Textbooks do not meet acceptable standards of pedagogy and content appropriateness
Textbooks do not meet acceptable standards of pedagogy and content appropriateness
The milestone itself has not been met; however, this is because a much better approach was agreed/adopted. Progress includes:
Detailed plan developed, BRAC engaged, School Education Department and PCTB approved plan. Textbooks and teacher guides developed for English and maths with further work planned for Urdu and general studies materials. (Textbook design now brought in-house, developing one model textbook at a time.)
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Six -Monthly learning assessment system in place
First test conducted at acceptable standard of quality and reliability ( Grade 3)
Baseline levels of student learning established
Independent student assessment successfully conducted to acceptable standard twice during year (Grade 3)
Assessment expanded to cover PEF schools, Daanish Schools, and other private schools in September 2015
Independent student assessment conducted reliably on six- monthly basis, ensuring robustness and reliability (Grade 3)
Independent student assessment conducted reliably on six - monthly basis, ensuring robustness and reliability (Grade 3)
Independent student assessment conducted reliably on six - monthly basis, ensuring robustness and reliability (Grade 3)
No province-wide independent assessment of student learning in schools
No province-wide independent assessment of student learning in schools
September baseline established for six - monthly independent assessment - ensuring data robustness, quality and validity.
Next round to be conducted in Feb/March 2015 and expanded to PEF.
Assessment to be conducted on 7th - 8th Oct in Government and PEF schools, and between 18th - 30th Oct in Care, TCF schools. ( Updated on 10th Sept 2015)
Output Indicator 2.3 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO -PEC Planned
Achieved
SourceAnnual TAMO PEC Exam Analysis, TPV Reports
Output Indicator 2.4 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO -DSD Planned
Achieved
SourcePMIU, TAMO TPV Report
Notes
** The stated quality drive refers to the current DTE process of visiting schools for 2 consecutive days to mentor and train teachers.Output Indicator 2.5 Attribution/Project Assumptions
SED - PMIU Planned
92% 90%* 90%* 90%* 90%*
Achieved
92% 92%
SourcePMIU monthly data
Notes Risk Rating* The teacher attendance targets for Milestones 3 onwards were modified ( Post April 2015) to 90 % from the original level of 92 % - The figure of 92 % teacher attendance was not correct as it did not incorporate sick/casual leave, and hence did not serve as a relevant milestone. Medium
Better teacher performance and better teaching
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Improved integrity of PEC exams with reduced cheating and leakage, and improved test design and content quality
PEC improvement plan developed and approved by School Education Department
Strengthened PEC exam development process - PEC exams administered under new, robust invigilation system and with improved quality of marking -
PEC exams administered incorporating learnings from 2015 examinations, and with improved quality of marking
PEC exams executed reliably with incorporated learnings through the report of Third Party Validation
TBD post 2016, based on TPV results
Current PEC exam results are not an accurate measure of student performance , because of fraud during invigilation, logistics, and marking
New plan will dis-incentivize cheating and better manage transparency of exam
Successful rollout dependent on robust item bank, embedded experts, and psychometric evaluation of exam structure
PEC exam conduct unreliable with frequent instances of leakage and cheating
PEC exam conduct unreliable with frequent instances of leakage and cheating
Detailed PEC improvement plan developed, version approved w/c 17th November.
PEC is introducing improvements to exam content and conduct leading up to the February 2015 exams, including development of a new item bank and a new devolved model to significantly reduce cheating.
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Quality and delivery of teacher training and mentoring.
Refine DTE schedule based on robust coaching model, and define proper monitoring mechanism for DTE visits to establish true baseline*
DTE attendance at 90% *
Year 1 quality drive launched**
Maintain DTE attendance at 90%*
Refine quality drive initiative based on learnings from Year 1
Maintain DTE attendance at 90%*
Refine quality drive initiative based on learnings from Year 2
Maintain DTE attendance at 90%*
Refine quality drive initiative based on learnings from Year 2
Full time management of DTEs and improved DTE training and performance management will enable DTEs to provide better coaching to teachers
No full time district and cluster level administration for DTEs. No clear DTE KPIs and performance management
DTE attendance at 94%, but at 2 visits a month. No full time district and cluster level administration for DTEs. No clear DTE KPIs and performance management
* The current metric used to monitor this indicator is no longer valid, as DTEs are now engaged in a quality drive which requires them to engage a school for 2 consecutive days to mentor and train teachers - An improved metric would be to directly track the number of teachers trained, and this can be incorporated after discussing the validity of data on teachers trained compiled by the DSD. Tracking the increase in the number of Professional Development (PD) days would not add value to the milestones as PD days are conducted only quarterly, and increasing their frequency to monthly would be highly disruptive for the teachers. As a temporary measure, the impact of the quality drive on teacher training and mentoring can be gauged indirectly through the DSD's existing system of monthly quality drive tests of students and the ongoing Literacy and Numeracy (LND) assessments.
IMPACT WEIGHTING 30%
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Teacher attendance rates in government schools
Trainings and accountability will lead to improved teacher attendance - Maintaining teacher attendance and learning outcomes becomes
92.27% [12 month average to Nov 2014]
Compared with 91.93% to Dec 2014
OUTPUT 3 Output Indicator 3.1 Attribution/Project Assumptions
RM-PMIU Planned All districts with functioning of facilities >90%
Achieved
SourcePMIU monthly data
Output Indicator 3.2 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TACE Planned
Achieved TACE not yet started TACE not yet started
SourceTACE progress reports
Notes
Output Indicator 3.3 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TACE - SED - PMIU Planned
Achieved
Source Risk RatingPMIU school census Medium
Notes* This indicator should be optimally stated in terms of ' Schools with multigrade owing to (1) overcrowding due to insufficient classrooms, and (2) overcrowding due to insufficient teachers'.** Milestones set after consultation with SED on July 10th 2015, and are in line with the government's planning figures for classroom construction and teacher recruitment plans. For details on how the total teacher and classroom requirement, please visit Sheet 11 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 3.3'
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Better learning environment
Improved availability and functioning of basic school facilities
All districts with a functioning of facilities >90% or a clear plan to improve functioning of facilities to >90% within the current school year
All districts with functioning of facilities >95%
All districts with functioning of facilities >95%
All districts with functioning of facilities >95%
Presence of basic facilities is critical to getting students to come to and stay in school
Drinking water: Available: 99%, Functional: 99%; Toilets: Available: 98%, Functional: 97%; Walls: Available: 93%, Functional: 92%; Electricity: Available: 85%, Functional: 84%
Drinking water: Available: 99%, Functional: 99%; Toilets: Available: 98%, Functional: 97%; Walls: Available: 93%, Functional: 92%; Electricity: Available: 85%, Functional: 84%
Achieved. Two districts below 90% with clear plan in place
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Aggregate number of classrooms constructed or rehabilitated to international standards
(Indicator & milestones modified in Nov 2015)
Implementation Phase workplan finalised and TACE rolling into implementation.
1) 10 Dangerous School Buildings*
- 8 dangerous school buildings reached milestone 5 level;- 2 dangerous schools reached milestone 4 level
2) 367 primary, elementary and high schools*:
- 217 schools: Milestone 1 level completed;- 150 schools: reached Milestone 2 level
To be agreed in February 2015**
To be agreed in February 2015**
To be agreed in February 2015**
Partially Achieved. A comprehensive workplan has been completed. TACE is ready to start construction work, but the implementation phase has not yet started due to contractual difficulties.
*Refer to TACE workplan for specific detail of milestones expected by 2nd week January.** To be agreed once revised contract is agreed by February 2016.
IMPACT WEIGHTING 15%
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Classrooms with multigrade teaching* Identify districts
Identify list of schools for alternative year entry and double shifting
Create four year plan for classroom construction
Number of primary teachers to be hired to help address multigrade due to insufficient teachers = 13,000** Number of additional classrooms required to help address multigrade due to insufficient classrooms = 20,000**
Number of primary teachers to be hired to help address multigrade due to insufficient teachers = 25,000** Number of additional classrooms required to help address multigrade due to insufficient classrooms = 20,000**
Number of primary teachers to be hired to help address multigrade due to insufficient teachers = 22,000** Number of additional classrooms required to help address multigrade due to insufficient classrooms = 25,399**
Ensure primary teacher hiring process is completed
Difficult for teachers to reach all students in multigrade classrooms; students do not get enough individual attention
Success dependent on hiring of enough new, qualified teachers and building of infrastructure.
3.8 million children in multi-grade classrooms; requirement of 20k classrooms and 20k net newly hired teachers to eliminate most severe instances of multi-grade
3.8 million children in multi-grade classrooms; requirement of 20k classrooms and 20k net newly hired teachers to eliminate most severe instances of multi-grade
Partially achieved. Districts identified. Infrastructure Plan proposes research into multi-Grade and multi-shift teaching. Milestone not reflective of the agreed approach to planning.
OUTPUT 4 Output Indicator 4.1 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - PEF - CSOs Planned
Achieved
SourceCSO submitted enrolment database and PEF independent verification of enrolled students
Notes* Output Indicator 4.1 was modified since the last Annual Review in Jan 2015, and is not the same indicator as the one used in that Annual Review. ** CSO-led enrolment initiative developed and agreed*** Total TAMO supply-side target of 83,000 children to be enrolled in new schools in 2 districts ( Rahimyar Khan & Muzaffargarh) - Please see Sheet 8 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 4.1 & 5.3'Output Indicator 4.2 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - PEF Planned (i) 358,000 ii) 111,000 iii) 430,000
Achieved
SourcePEF, TAMO Reports
Notes* Milestone 2 was incorrectly calculated, and successive milestones have been calculated correctly and confirmed.
*** Gender disaggregated targets ( edited in August 2015) are based on the current PEF ratio of 55 % boys : 45 % girls for all children enrolled in PEF programmes.
Output Indicator 4.3 Attribution/Project Assumptions
Planned 0 PIEP PIU established and fully functional 31,000 63,000 90,000
Achieved 0 0
Source Risk RatingPIEP progress reports from special education dept.; PEF and TAMO TPV Reports Medium
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Improved access to schools, especially in priority districts
Additional children enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led supply side interventions*
32,000 out of school children enrolled in new schools in 2 priority districts ( Rahimyar Khan and Muzaffargarh) ***
Cumulative 49,000 out of school children enrolled in new schools in 2 priority districts ( Rahimyar Khan and Muzaffargarh) ***
Cumulative 66,000 out of school children enrolled in new schools in 2 priority districts ( Rahimyar Khan and Muzaffargarh) ***
Cumulative 83,000 out of school children enrolled in new schools in 2 priority districts ( Rahimyar Khan and Muzaffargarh) in priority districts ***
PEF is targeting districts where no alternative schools are available (through NSP program)
GET and BRAC,signed on to drive enrolment by establishing new schools in remote areas in 2 priority districts in collaboration with PEF's New School Program. **
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)*
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Number of children in school supported through the Punjab Education Foundation (cumulative) i) EVS ii) NSP iii) FAS
(i) 350,000 ** ii) 115,000 ** iii) 1.3 million (Boys: (i) 192,500 (ii) 63,250 (iii) 715,000 - Girls ( i) 157,500 (ii) 51,750 (iii) 585,000)***
(i) 475,000** ii) 169,000** iii) 1.42 million (Boys: (i) 261,250 (ii) 92,950 (iii) 781,000 - Girls ( i) 213,750 (ii) 76,050 (iii) 639,000)***
(i) 600,000** ii) 212,000** iii) 1.55 million (Boys: (i) 330,000 (ii) 116,600 (iii) 852,500 - Girls ( i) 270,000 (ii) 95,400 (iii) 697,500)***
(i) 725,000 ii) 281,000** iii) 1.7 million (Boys: (i) 398,750 (ii) 154,550 (iii) 935,000 - Girls ( i) 326,250 (ii) 126,450 (iii) 765,000)***
PEF continues to receive same level of funding
EVS: 122,198NSP: 59,024FAS: 1,176,023
(as of June 2013)
EVS: 208,247NSP: 87,822FAS: 1,299,855
(as of June 2014)
Discrepancies in logframe targets makes assessing progress difficult. [Note: PEF also has its own targets for March 2015: EVS: 108,000 additional children; NSP 28,000 additional children; and FAS: 112,000 additional children.]
Progress as at Nov 2014:(i) 215,213 (93,015 additional) (ii) 88,107 (29,083 additional) (iii) 1,254,615 (93,015 additional)
Progress against PEF’s own March 2014 Targets:Of the three 2013/14 PEF targets only EVS was achieved.
** Original EVS Milestones were based on reporting at the start of the school year - Current EVS Milestones have been revised to reflect reporting in line with the Jan DFI D Annual Review. A similar update has been made to NSP Milestones. - For more detail, please refer to Sheet 9 titled " Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 4.2"
IMPACT WEIGHTING 30%
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Number of children supported through Punjab Inclusive Education Program (cumulative)
TAMO - Special Education Department - PEF
PIEP enrols students with severe disabilities in special programs and students with mild disabilities in regular schools
PC-1 approved, Programme Implementation Unit being established, PIEP to be piloted in districts Bahawalpur and Muzaffargarh
OUTPUT 5 Output Indicator 5.1 Attribution/ProjectBaseline
Assumptions
LUMS - PEEF Planned (i) 260 ii) 7000 (i) 310 ( ii) 6500 * (i) 53 ii) 6000 * (i) 58 ii) 500 * (i) 0 (ii) 0 *
Achieved No scholarships awarded
SourceLUMS/PEEF Quarterly Reports
Notes* For complete detail on the deconstructed targets, please refer to Sheet 10 titled " Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 5.1"Output indicator 5.2 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - PEF - CSOs Planned
Achieved
SourceCSO Reports, TPV results
Notes
* Social mobilization campaign designed and pilot initiated in these 2 priority districts ( Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar) ** Total TAMO demand-side target of 217,000 children to be enrolled in new schools in 2 districts ( Bahawalpur & Bahawalnagar) - Please see Sheet 8 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 4.1 & 5.2'Output indicator 5.3 Attribution/Project Assumptions
TAMO - SED Planned
Achieved Not achieved.
Source Risk RatingTAMO Communication Strategy, Perception Survey Reports Medium
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Enhanced demand for education
No of (i) tertiary level scholarships for poor and able student (boys: girls) (ii) higher secondary scholarships for poor and able girls per year. i) 526 (276 LUMS + 250
PEEF)ii) 7,500
Achieved (against both the original targets and queried logframe targets)
i) 325 new scholarships in 2014 vs the agreed target of 260
(846 scholarships in total)
ii) 8,500 new scholarships (vs the agreed target of 7,000).
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Additional children ( Ages 6 - 11 ) enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led demand side interventions
30,000 additional out of school children enrolled in 2 priority districts ( Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar) **
Cumulative 93,000 additional children enrolled in 2 priority districts ( Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar) **
Cumulative 156,000 additional children enrolled in 2 priority districts ( Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar) **
Cumulative 217,000 additional children enrolled in 2 priority districts ( Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar) **
No social mobilization campaign in place
No social mobilization campaign in place
SPO on-board to run social mobilization campaign in 2 priority districts: Bahalwapur and Bahawalnagar *
IMPACT WEIGHTING 10%
Baseline 2012/13
Milestone 1 (January 2014)
Milestone 2 (November 2014)
Milestone 32015/16
Milestone 42016/17
Milestone 52017/18
Target 2018/19
Communication events held, materials distributed, disaggregated by type of audience
Initial communication strategy articulated, communication specialist mobilized and embedded with SED
Develop communications materials for SED to distribute amongst teachers and field staff regarding the overall reform process and objectives - Conduct a Baseline Perception Survey to measure current attitudes of public towards the reform process
Improve the general awareness of the reform process and acceptability amongst the public ( publish the annual communications publication, individual sub-component communication for each workstream on results achieved ) - Measure shift in reform attitudes and perceptions through the Follow-up Perception Survey.
Continue working towards improving the general awareness of the reform process and acceptability amongst the public - Measure shift in reform attitudes and perceptions through the Follow-up Perception Survey.
Public knowledge and acceptance of the reform process has increased, leading to greater public support for the public school education system in Punjab, as measured by the Final Term Perception Survey on reform attitudes and perceptions of the general public. Conduct a retrospective communications event on the entire PPBP initiative.
No communication plan in place
No communication plan in place
Indicator Description Definition Source Reporting frequency Report Availability Target Basis ( where applicable)Impact Indicator 1 Literacy Rate Literacy rate for population in Punjab aged 10 and above PSLM Survey Not applicable
Impact Indicator 2 Secondary completion rate Nielsen Household Survey Six - Monthly Not applicable
Impact Indicator 3 Real GDP growth per capita, Pakistan Real growth in GDP at constant 2010 factor prices World Bank Annually Not applicable
Outcome Indicator 1 Participation rate for primary school aged population (ages 5-9) Nielsen Household Survey Six - Monthly
Outcome Indicator 2 Participation rate for secondary school aged population (ages 10-16) Nielsen Household Survey Six - Monthly
Outcome Indicator 3 Student learning outcomes
Outcome Indicator 4 Student attendance PMIU monthly data Quarterly
Output Indicator 1.1 Quarterly
Output Indicator 1.2 Frequency of MEA visits and better reliability of data collected Quarterly
Output Indicator 1.3 Functional Primary School Councils PMIU monthly data Annually
Output Indicator 2.1 New teaching and learning developed in line with new curriculum Quarterly
2 years - (PSLM survey is carried out every other year)
Pending confirmation of PSLM extension for 2015/2016.
Average participation rate of 15 and 16 year olds, disaggregated by gender--Calculated as: Total 15 and 16 year olds surveyed and attending school / Total population of 15 and 16 year olds surveyed
Nielsen Household Survey - Wave 7 ( July 2015)
Global Economic Prospects (GEP) Reports - June 2015 and December 2015
Average participation rate of 5 to 9 year olds, disaggregated by gender-- Calculated as: Total 5 to 9 year olds (inclusive) surveyed / Total population of 5 to 9 year olds surveyed
Nielsen Household Survey - Wave 7 ( July 2015)
Target participation rate ( ages 5- 9) based on the CM's 2018 goals
Average participation rate of 10 to 16 year olds, disaggregated by gender-- Calculated as: Total 10 to 16 year olds (inclusive) surveyed / Total population of 10 to 16 year olds surveyed
Nielsen Household Survey - Wave 7 ( July 2015)
Target participation rate ( ages 5- 9) based on the CM's 2018 goals
Aggregate percentage score for each subject tested (Math, English, Urdu)
Calculated as:Average of students' performance against each SLO tested for a given subject. Performance on a given SLO is measured as percentage of students correctly answering the questions covering the SLO.
For each subject, the average of the aggregates for the September and March assessments is taken.
DFID / TAMO Six - Monthly Grade 3 assessment
Six-Monthly measurement; Annual reporting
Six - Monthly Assessment Reports by DFID/TAMO for Grade 3 in September 2015
End target for average student performance for each SLO is at 85 %, and the milestones that lead to this target are successively higher until the target is achieved by the 2018/2019 school year.
Twelve month rolling average of Grades 1 to 12 students monthly attendance (Punjab average)
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Maximum student attendance rate set at 90 % ( accounting for sick and casual leave) - ( Gender disaggregated targets have a +/- 1 % point variation)
Number of districts with effective, targeted system wide performance management system
An 'effective' peformance management system implies the following: (1) Pre-DRC Meetings held (2) Correct structure of the Pre-DRC (3) Alignment of the DRC in a phased manner with the Pre-DRC (4) Alignment of DRC and EDO Conference (5) Digitization of Data at EDO Level - For more detail on the process flow for this indicator, please refer to the worksheet titled ' Output Indicator 1.1 - process'
TAMO progress reports, External evaluations/ assessments, PMIU monthly data
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Based on the CM's 2018 goal for a better managed, more accountable education system in all districts of Punjab
Twelve month rolling average of MEA visits - Data reliability assessed through (1) DMO monitoring of data collection process through MEA checklist from PMIU (2) PMIU data checks on collected data, followed by TPV on data quality - An additional measure to check the reliability of the collected data is the use of unannounced spot checks ( 2 dedicated weeks across all districts) conducted by DFCs of schools recently visited by MEAs ( subject to the existing workload of activities handled by DFCs in the field).
TAMO DFC Quaterly Audit of MEA visits, PMIU data & MEA checklists, TPV Data Quality Reports
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
The target of 90 % for the MEA school visit rate is the maximum sustainable attendance rate for MEAs on ground.
Calculated as the percentage of School Councils that are functional, where a functional School Council is defined as one that meets both of the following criteria:-Having regular meetings (at least two meetings per quarter)-Ensuring adequate utilization of funds 'Utilization' of funds refers to the actual spending of funds by School Councils. For effective tracking of School Council fund utilization, two important scenarios will be investigated: (1) 'Zero Spending' by dormant School Councils (2) ' Markaz/Tehsil level spending' of Fund Utilization by School Councils ( To distinguish between poor performing Education Managers and poor performing School Councils). (PMIU collects data on number of School Council meetings in 18 non-NSB districts; for these districts each indicator will be weighted 50%. In 18 NSB districts where there is no data on the number of School Council meetings, functionality will be determined based on utilization of funds)
(i) District Budget Execution Reports (BERs) (ii) Provincial Budget Execution Reports (BERs) (iii) NSB Utilization Reports
Based on (1) CM's 2018 goal for a better managed, more accountable education system in all districts of Punjab (2) TAMO PESP II Workplan
Textbook development for a given school year is completed by January of the calendar year and printing of the textbooks by PCTB commences in April of the same calendar year
PCTB workplan, TAMO Reports on PCTB, Roadmap reports, TPV of Textbooks Development process and procurement system.
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Based on (1) CM's 2018 goal for better teacher performance management and teaching (2) TAMO PESP II Workplan
Output Indicator 2.2 Six- Monthly learning assessment system in place Six - Monthly
Output Indicator 2.3 Annually
Output Indicator 2.4 Quality and delivery of teacher training and mentoring PMIU, TAMO TPV Report Quarterly
Output Indicator 2.5 Teacher attendance rates in government schools PMIU monthly data Quarterly
Output Indicator 3.1 Improved availability and functioning of basic school facilities Twelve month rolling average of functioning facilities (Punjab average) PMIU monthly data Quarterly
Output Indicator 3.2 Aggregate number of schools rehabilitated to international standards TACE progress reports Quarterly Target set by DFID
Output Indicator 3.3 Classrooms with multi-grade teaching Percentage of total classrooms with multi-grade teaching PMIU school census Annually PMIU Monthly Data Packs
Output Indicator 4.1 Six- Monthly
Output Indicator 4.2 PEF, TAMO Reports Quarterly
Output Indicator 4.3 Six - Monthly
Output Indicator 5.1 Annually
Output Indicator 5.2 CSO Reports, TPV results Annually
Output Indicator 5.3 Annually
Six - monthly independent assessments ( March & September) of Grade 3 students against specific Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for each subject: English, Math, and Urdu.
TAMO Assessment Reports, DFC Spot Checks
September Six - Monthly assessment Report by Roadmap and TAMO
Based on DFD requirement for a dedicated, independent six - monthly learning assessment plan
Improved integrity of PEC exams with reduced cheating and leakage, and improved test design and content quality
Annual Assessment of PEC Exam Design (through the TAMO PEC Exam Analysis in May) and Annual Assessment of PEC Exam Conduct through Third Party Validation (TPV) Exercises
Annual TAMO PEC Exam Analysis, TPV Reports
Annual Reports on Exam Design and Conduct ( TAMO, TPV) are released in May of each year.
Based on (1) CM's 2018 goal for better teacher performance management and teaching (2) TAMO PESP II Workplan
Twelve month rolling average of DTE visitsQualitative assessment of quality of teacher training / mentoring by TAMO field team
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Maximum sustainable DTE attendance rate was fixed at 90 % but will soon be supplemented by a more qualitative metric/target for assessing improvements in teacher performance.
Twelve month rolling average of monthly teacher attendance (Punjab average)
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Maximum sustainable teacher attendance rate was revised down from 92 % to 90 % in April 2015 - ( Gender disaggregated targets have a +/- 1 % point variation )
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Based on the CM's 2018 goal for a more appropriate environment for learning in all schools, through the provision of basic facilities.
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Bases on Government of Punjab's three year plan for classroom construction and teacher recruitment ( including recruitment record of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014).
Additional children enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led supply side interventions
Cummulative children enrolled in priority districts of Rahimyar Khan and Muzzafargarh in new schools established by CSOs BRAC and GET - For more detail, please refer to Sheet 8 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 4.1 and 5.3'
CSO submitted enrolment database and PEF independent verification of enrolled students
(i) Quarterly Narrative & Financial Report (ii) CSO Monthly Progress Reports (iii) TPV Validation Report
Based on analysis of 2014 Nielsen Survey Results by TAMO - ( Gender disaggregated results are based on the agreed TAMO - CSO contracts with GET, BRAC)
Number of children in school supported through the Punjab Education Foundation (cumulative) i) EVS ii) NSP iii) FAS
Cumulative (actual) student enrolment as reported by PEF - PEF has a different reporting cycle ( March to March) compared to PESP ( Jan to Jan) - For the purpose of the PESP Annual Review in January each year the exact achievement levels against the stated milestones have to be approximated for the remaining March to Dec term ( as additional children enrolled).
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
Targets based on PEF Expansion Plan - Gender disaggregated targets ( added in August 2015) are based on the current PEF ratio of 55 % boys : 45 % girls for all children enrolled in PEF programmes.
Number of children supported through Punjab Inclusive Education Program
Children supported includes additional children enrolled as well as already enrolled children provided support (e.g. assistive devices, aids) under PIEP
PIEP progress reports from special education deptt; PEEF and TAMO TPV Reports
TPV Report expected in August 2015
Targets set by Special Education Department and based on School Education Sector Plan, Article 25 -A of the Constitution of Pakistan and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
No of (i) tertiary level scholarships for poor and able student (boys:girls) (ii) higher secondary scholarships for poor and able girls per year.
Tertiary - level scholarships are offered by the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), while higher secondary scholarhips (merit-based) are offered by the Punjab Educational Endowment Fund (PEEF) against provincial and gender-based quotas.
LUMS/PEEF Quarterly Reports, DFID Reports
LUMS/PEEF Quarterly Reports ( Sept 2015 & Jan 2016)
Targets set by LUMS & PEEF in consultation with DFID
Additional children enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led demand side interventions
Cummulative children enrolled in priority districts of Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar in existing government or PEF schools through social mobilization campaigns and tailored solutions developed by CSO SPO - For more detail, please refer to Sheet 8 titled ' Supporting Evidence (SE) for Output Indicator 4.1 and 5.3'
(i) Quarterly Narrative & Financial Report (ii) CSO Monthly Progress Reports (iii) TPV Validation Report
Based on analysis of 2014 Nielsen Survey Results by TAMO - ( Gender disaggregated results are based on the agreed TAMO - CSO contract with SPO)
Communication events held, materials distributed, disaggregated by type of audience
The perception survey on education reform has two main components: A section to guage the respondent's views and opinions on education reform, and a section to guage the respondent's understanding and awareness of current education reform - The two components can be combined to produce a variety of indices that allow cross-sectional and time-series comparisons of perception across different strata such as gender, age, demographic indicators and occupation.
TAMO progress reports, Perception Survey Reports
TAMO Quarterly Progress Reports ( Sep 2015 and Jan 2016)
To address the communications needs of the Government of Punjab in the implementation of the Education Sector Plan
Outcome Indicators 1 & 2 : Participation Rates ( 5 - 9 & 10 -16)
Nielsen household survey
Participation Rates ( 10 -16) Wave Month Item Female Male
1 Nov-11Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) All Punjab 71.6% 78.6%Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) 11 Priority Districts 56.2% 68.6%
2 Jun-12Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) All Punjab 75.4% 80.7%Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) 11 Priority Districts 61.9% 72.1%
3 Nov-12Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) All Punjab 76.2% 80.8%Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) 11 Priority Districts 61.0% 71.6%
4 Jun-13Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) All Punjab 75.3% 81.3%Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) 11 Priority Districts 58.6% 72.4%
5 Nov-13Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) All Punjab 77.6% 81.5%Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) 11 Priority Districts 64.7% 73.1%
6 Nov-14Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) All Punjab 79.6% 83.8%Participation Rate ( 10 - 16) 11 Priority Districts 67.5% 76.9%
Participation Rates ( 10 -16) Participation Rates ( 5 - 9) Total Wave Month Item Female Male75.3%
1 Nov-11Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) All Punjab 82.5% 86.9%
62.7% Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) 11 Priority Districts 70.1% 77.9%78.2%
2 Jun-12Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) All Punjab 84.4% 87.6%
67.4% Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) 11 Priority Districts 73.3% 79.5%78.6%
3 Nov-12Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) All Punjab 85.1% 88.4%
66.6% Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) 11 Priority Districts 74.4% 80.8%78.5%
4 Jun-13Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) All Punjab 84.6% 87.1%
65.9% Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) 11 Priority Districts 72.4% 78.0%79.7%
5 Nov-13Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) All Punjab 87.0% 89.4%
69.1% Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) 11 Priority Districts 76.8% 82.7%81.8%
6 Nov-14Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) All Punjab 88.3% 90.3%
72.5% Participation Rate ( 5 - 9 ) 11 Priority Districts 80.2% 84.7%
Outcome indicator 3: Government school students learning outcomes
Student Learning Outcomes ( SLOs)*
Actual Assessment Scores Forecasted Assessment Milestones ***
2014/2015 Year 2015/2016 Year
Sep-14 Feb-15 Average Sep-15 Feb-16 AverageOverall Math 57% 67% 62% 60% 70% 65%Number series 92% 88%2 digit add without carry 77% 84%2 digit add with carry 52% 64%3 digit add with carry 43% 58%2 digit sub without borrow 60% 75%2 digit sub with borrow 33% 48%3 digit sub with borrow 30% 32%1 digit multiplication 64% 79%Fractions 63% 73%
Overall English ** 58% 53% 55% 56% 61% 59%Write missing alphabets in a series 92% 88%Match correct words against pictures 73% 74%Write correct words against pictures 54% 46%Complete a basic sentence 46% 36%Comprehension 23% 23%
Overall Urdu 50% 56% 53% 53% 59% 56%Break words into alphabets 62% 55%Join letters into words 36% 50%Write words against pictures 49% 56%Complete sentence 52% 67%Comprehension 50% 52%
* Percentage of Grade 3 students achieving core Grade 2 SLOs
** On average, SLOs for each subject area show progressive improvement across the same school year, with February scores generally higher than the earlier September scores as students become familiar with the format and content. However, English Assessment Scores for February 2015 were lower than September 2014 scores owing to the introduction of a more difficult format of English Assessment.
*** The forecasted milestones for each subject area follow an average annual 3 % point increase, as agreed in the TAMO May Monthly Monitoring Meeting on 17th June 2015.
Forecasted Assessment Milestones ***
2016/2017 Year 2017/2018 Year 2018/2019 Year
Sep-16 Feb-17 Average Sep-17 Feb-18 Average Sep-18 Feb-1963% 73% 68% 66% 76% 71% 69% 79%
59% 64% 62% 63% 67% 65% 66% 70%
56% 62% 59% 59% 65% 62% 62% 68%
** On average, SLOs for each subject area show progressive improvement across the same school year, with February scores generally higher than the earlier September scores as students become familiar with the format and content. However, English Assessment Scores for February 2015 were lower than September 2014 scores owing to
*** The forecasted milestones for each subject area follow an average annual 3 % point increase, as agreed in the TAMO May Monthly Monitoring Meeting on 17th June
Output Indicator 1.1 - Effective District Performance Management System
Phases in Rollout of District PMSYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1A -1 Pre-DRC
1A Effective PMS Follow-up Routines 1A -2 Re-alignment of DRC and Pre-DRC ( New Data Packs)
1A -3 Alignment of EDO Conference with DRC/Pre-DRC
1
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1B Busines Process Improvement (BPR) Design & Concept Pilot in 2 districts ( Rahimyar Khan & Hafizabad) Gradual Phase-Out
Mapping of Existing Processes Data Validation Evaluation of Learnings
Software Development RefinementHR Functions
Software DeploymentStaff Appointment
Capacity BuildingTransfers
Prototype TestingPromotions
Disciplinary Proceedings
Long Term Leave Management
Termination
Effective Performance Management System (PMS)
Outcome indicator 4.1: Additional children enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led supply side interventionsOutcome indicator 5.2: Additional children ( Ages 6 - 11 ) enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led demand side interventions
Type of CSO-led Intervention ( All figures represent number of OOSC)
Supply-side Rahimyar Khan & Muzzafargarh*
( All figures represent number of OOSC)
Demand-side Bahalwapur & Bahawalnagar*
Grand TAMO Target* Based on Nielsen Survey Results 2014** CSO Reporting is from April to April while PEF reports from June to June
Additional Children Enrolled through CSO-led Interventions in Select Priority Districts (Supply-side & Demand-side)
Outcome indicator 4.1: Additional children enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led supply side interventionsOutcome indicator 5.2: Additional children ( Ages 6 - 11 ) enrolled in priority districts as part of CSO-led demand side interventions
Format Year 2** Year 3** Year 4** Year 5**Annual 32,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 Cumulative 32,000 49,000 66,000 83,000 Cumulative (as a % of TAMO Total Supply-side OOSC) 39% 59% 80% 100%
Annual 30,000 63,000 63,000 61,000 Cumulative 30,000 93,000 156,000 217,000 Cumulative (as a % of TAMO Total Demand-side OOSC) 14% 43% 72% 100%
Grand TAMO Target* Based on Nielsen Survey Results 2014** CSO Reporting is from April to April while PEF reports from June to June
Additional Children Enrolled through CSO-led Interventions in Select Priority Districts (Supply-side & Demand-side)
Total TAMO Target 83,000
217,000
300,000
Additional Children Enrolled through CSO-led Interventions in Select Priority Districts (Supply-side &
Outcome indicator 4.2: Number of children in school supported through the Punjab Education Foundation (cumulative) i) EVS ii) NSP iii) FAS
Category Milestones *
(2012/2013) (2013/2014) (2014/2015) Dec-15 (2015/2016) Dec-16 (2016/2017) Dec-17 (2017/2018) Dec-18 (2018/2019)
EVS Education Voucher SchemeAnnual 150,000 50,000 100,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000
Cumulative 150,000 200,000 300,000 350,000 425,000 475,000 550,000 600,000 675,000 725,000 800,000
NSP New Schools ProgrameAnnual 62,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000
Cumulative 62,000 87,000 117,000 117,000 152,000 169,000 197,000 212,000 252,000 281,000 317,000
FAS** Foundation Assisted SchoolsAnnual 1,300,000 - 120,000 - 130,000 - 220,000 -
Cumulative - - 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,770,000 1,770,000 1,770,000
Number of children in school supported through the Punjab Education Foundation ( Cumulative) (i) EVS (ii) NSP (iii) FAS
Outcome indicator 5.1: No of (i) tertiary level scholarships for poor and able student (boys:girls) (ii) higher secondary scholarships for poor and able girls per year.
Institution Category Gender(2013/2014) (2014/2015)
LUMS Tertiary Boys & GirlsAnnual 122 175
Cumulative 122 175
PEEF Tertiary Boys & GirlsAnnual 250 150
Cumulative 250 150
Total Tertiary Boys & GirlsAnnual 372 325
Cumulative 372 325
PEEF Higher Secondary Girls OnlyAnnual 7,500 7,000
Cumulative 7,500 7,000
Number of Tertiary Level Scholarship for Poor and Able Students (Girls & Boys) & Higher Secondary Scholarships for Poor and Able Girls per Year
Outcome indicator 5.1: No of (i) tertiary level scholarships for poor and able student (boys:girls) (ii) higher secondary scholarships for poor and able girls per year.
(2015/2016) (2016/2017) (2017/2018) (2018/2019)
210 53 58 -
385 438 496 496
100 - - -
250 250 250 250
310 53 58 -
635 688 746 746
6,500 6,000 500 -
13,500 19,500 20,000 20,000
Number of Tertiary Level Scholarship for Poor and Able Students (Girls & Boys) & Higher Secondary Scholarships for Poor and Able Girls per Year
Output indicator 3.3: Classrooms with multigrade teaching
Calculation for Overcrowding and Multigrade due to Insufficient Teachers
Assumptions
Step Function For the Number of Teachers Required in Schools with Primary Grades ( Katchi - 5 )
For 30 children or lower
For 31 to 45 children
For 46 to 180 children
For 181 to 300 children
For 301 to 400 children
For more than 400 children, divide enrolment by
Rationalization of filled teachers will take place according to the following schedule:
For 2016, fill in schools with a need for 1 teacher
For 2017, fill in schools with a need for 2 teachers
For 2018, fill in schools with a need for 3 or more teachers
Total additional requirement of teachers to address multigrade ( due to insufficient teachers)
Calculation for Overcrowding and Multigrade due to Insufficient ClassroomsAssumptionsStep Function For the Classroooms required in Schools with Primary Grades ( Katchi - 5 )
For 30 children or lower
For 31 to 45 children
For 46 to 150 children
For 151 to 230 children
For 231 to 310 children
For more than 310 children, divide enrolment by
Provision of classrooms will take place according to the following schedule:
Additional Classrooms required per School1 Classroom 2 Classrooms 3 Classrooms
For 2016, % of schools assisted 100% 50%
For 2017, % of schools assisted 50% 50%
For 2018, % of schools assisted 50%
For 2016, the total number of classrooms required is 25,176
For 2017, the total number of classrooms required is 22,270
For 2018, the total number of classrooms required is 34,401 Total additional classrooom requirement is 81,847
Calculation for Overcrowding and Multigrade due to Insufficient Teachers
Step Function For the Number of Teachers Required in Schools with Primary Grades ( Katchi - 5 )Cut-off level No. of teachers required
30 2
45 3
180 4
300 6
400 8
50
which implies that 13,003 teachers must be hired
which implies that 34,560 teachers must be hired
which implies that 28,717 teachers must be hired
76,280 teachers must be hired
Calculation for Overcrowding and Multigrade due to Insufficient Classrooms
Cut-off level No. of classrooms required30 245 3
150 4230 6310 8
50
Additional Classrooms required per SchoolMore than 3 Classrooms
50%
Output number Output Description Impact Weight (%) Output Performance Impact Weighted Score Risk
1Better managed, more accountable education system
15% 0.0 High
2Better teacher performance and better teaching
30% 0.0 Medium
3Better learning environment
15% 0.0 Medium
4Improved access to schools, especially in priority districts
30% 0.0 Medium
5Enhanced demand for education
10% 0.0 Medium
0.0 ###
Smart GuideTeams should use the guide below to complete the logframe template.
PROJECT TITLEA meaningful, easily understood (plain English) Project Title.IMPACT
OUTCOME
OUTPUTS
Progress against Output milestones and results achieved will be assessed and scored during Annual Reviews and the Project Completion Review.
IMPACT WEIGHTINGOnce you have defined your Outputs, assign a percentage for the contribution each is likely to make towards the achievement of the overall Outcome. The impact weights of all the Outputs will total 100% and each are rounded to the nearest 5%. Impact weightings for Outputs are intended to:
l Promote a more considered approach to the choice of Outputs at project design stage; andl Provide a clearer link to how Output performance relates to project Outcome performance.
INPUTS
INDICATORS
What makes a good indicator?l
l
l
l
l Does not include any element of the targetl
l
l
l
The basic principle is that “if you can measure it, you can manage it”.
Best Practice suggests a maximum of three Indicators per Output.
BASELINEBaselines set the starting point and provide a measure of the situation before your project starts (could be zero if a new project). The baseline is used to measure change and monitor progress.Include a baseline for each of your indicators. The first 6 months of a project may exceptionally be used for assembling baseline data at output level if agreed by your SRO. Use existing data where possible, but check reliability and seek assurances regarding the data quality eg use data from national statistical systems / MIS.
Long term goal to which the project will contribute towards achieving. When drafting the impact statement, consider how your project fits with other efforts from DFID and partners to achieve the impact, ie is your project nested within a broader undertaking?
The outcome of your project identifies what will change, who will benefit and how it will contribute to reducing poverty, including contributions to the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) or Climate Change. An assessment of whether your project achieved the Outcome will be included in the Project Completion Review (PCR). Ongoing monitoring of progress against outcome milestones should still take place as an assessment of whether you expect to achieve the Outcome by the end of the programme will be included in Annual Reviews.
Outputs are the specific, direct deliverables of your project. These will provide the conditions necessary to achieve the Outcome. The logic of the chain from Output to Outcome therefore needs to be clear.
Clarification of inputs is a key part of results-chain thinking. Inputs are specified at the country-level in country operational plans and the project information contained in logframes should feed up into these.The input-level boxes show the amount of money provided by DFID and any partners (£) including, where relevant, the government’s own contribution. This only relates to monetary (not in kind) contributions. At Outcome level this is equal to the sum of Inputs for all Outputs. The DFID share at Outcome Level is a simple, pro rata calculation of DFID’s contribution in monetary terms for all outputs.Information should also be provided for the total number of Annual DFID Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) allocated to this project, based on the time individual staff members will spend on the project. It is understood that this may change through the project cycle, and is intended as a management tool.
Indicators are performance measures, which tell us
Specific – what will be measured? And how?Measurable - data can be collected Relevant - to the results chainUseful – for management decision making
Can be disaggregatedGood mix of Already defined -Consider using
Top Tip – select indicators based on relevance to the Results Chain and the availability of data.
If you need to collect your own data - collect baseline data early – as soon as beneficiaries have been identified but before any results are expected.
MILESTONESMilestones are the desired trajectory from baseline to target, helping you to track progress and make changes to underperforming areas. Will depend on sequencing of activities and data availability.Include REALISTIC milestones given resources and capacity.At the output level include annual milestones for each year of the project (or monthly if short term). At outcome & impact level data may not be available annually.
TARGET (DATE)
Targets set the desired point, showing what is achievable within the timeframe available.
The target is often the last year of the project (or month if its short term).
Include targets dissaggregated by sex/geography/income etc where appropriate. Consider using government targets although if they are too ambitious then make a more realistic estimate.
SOURCEEach Indicator will have a data source to verify the results achieved. List the specific data sources i.e. give the specific data collection e.g. named survey / report and avoid just naming the organisation.State the frequency of the data source and ensure consistency with milestones and targets. Check the source can provide disaggregated data as required.Consider and specify the data collection and reporting responsibilities to ensure the results planned and forecast rows in the logframe are updated on a regular basis.
ASSUMPTIONS
RISK RATING
VALUE FOR MONEYEnsure the outputs and outcome projected represent good value for the invested resources, at the beginning of the project, and through its life.
VfM is achieved at different stages of the results chain. Thus for each result we seek to achieve we should aim to have metrics for each of the following:
DFID’s Approach to Value for Money (Smart Guide) provides further advice on ensuring VfM.
Include realistic targets given resources and capacity, the baseline situation, funding available and country/operational context. Project targets might be informed by evidence about what has worked in the past and take into account lessons learned from other projects.
Top Tip - A good Theory of Change will help you think about what is realistic and achievable as it will enable critical reflection of context, external influences & assumptions.
Top Tip - Before using a data source, assess its quality and seek assurances from data providers where needed ie consider its validity, reliability and availability.
Define any assumptions which are linked to the realisation of your project's individual outputs, as well as those which are critical to the realisation of the outcome and impact: these will not all be the same.
Risk ratings are recorded as
Consider including VfM metrics in the logframe (or other documents such as the Delivery Plan) to allow VfM to be measured through the life of the project and to provide assurance at Annual Review.
Economy - Are we (or our agents) buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price? Efficiency - How well are we (or our agents) converting inputs into outputs? (‘Effectiveness - How well are the outputs produced by an intervention having the intended effect? (‘Cost-effectiveness
Teams should use the guide below to complete the logframe template.
PROJECT TITLEA meaningful, easily understood (plain English) Project Title.IMPACT
OUTCOME
OUTPUTS
Progress against Output milestones and results achieved will be assessed and scored during Annual Reviews and the Project Completion Review.
IMPACT WEIGHTINGOnce you have defined your Outputs, assign a percentage for the contribution each is likely to make towards the achievement of the overall Outcome. The impact weights of all the Outputs will total 100% and each are rounded to the nearest 5%. Impact weightings for Outputs are intended to:
Promote a more considered approach to the choice of Outputs at project design stage; andProvide a clearer link to how Output performance relates to project Outcome performance.
INPUTS
INDICATORS
What makes a good indicator?
Does not include any element of the target
The basic principle is that “if you can measure it, you can manage it”.
Best Practice suggests a maximum of three Indicators per Output.
BASELINEBaselines set the starting point and provide a measure of the situation before your project starts (could be zero if a new project). The baseline is used to measure change and monitor progress.Include a baseline for each of your indicators. The first 6 months of a project may exceptionally be used for assembling baseline data at output level if agreed by your SRO. Use existing data where possible, but check reliability and seek assurances regarding the data quality eg use data from national statistical systems / MIS.
Long term goal to which the project will contribute towards achieving. When drafting the impact statement, consider how your project fits with other efforts from DFID and partners to achieve the impact, ie is your project nested within a broader undertaking?
The outcome of your project identifies what will change, who will benefit and how it will contribute to reducing poverty, including contributions to the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) or Climate Change. An assessment of whether your project achieved the Outcome will be included in the Project Completion Review (PCR). Ongoing monitoring of progress against outcome milestones should still take place as an assessment of whether you expect to achieve the Outcome by the end of the programme will be included in Annual Reviews.
Outputs are the specific, direct deliverables of your project. These will provide the conditions necessary to achieve the Outcome. The logic of the chain from Output to Outcome therefore needs to be clear.
Clarification of inputs is a key part of results-chain thinking. Inputs are specified at the country-level in country operational plans and the project information contained in logframes should feed up into these.The input-level boxes show the amount of money provided by DFID and any partners (£) including, where relevant, the government’s own contribution. This only relates to monetary (not in kind) contributions. At Outcome level this is equal to the sum of Inputs for all Outputs. The DFID share at Outcome Level is a simple, pro rata calculation of DFID’s contribution in monetary terms for all outputs.Information should also be provided for the total number of Annual DFID Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) allocated to this project, based on the time individual staff members will spend on the project. It is understood that this may change through the project cycle, and is intended as a management tool.
Indicators are performance measures, which tell us what will be measured not what is to be achieved. Avoid including elements of the baseline or target.
Specific – what will be measured? And how?Measurable - data can be collected Relevant - to the results chainUseful – for management decision making
Can be disaggregated if relevant Good mix of qualitative and quantitativeAlready defined - if relevant include indicators which towards the DRF / OP / ICF KPIs / MDGs. Consider using standard indicators / best practice indicators / learning from other projects
– select indicators based on relevance to the Results Chain and the availability of data.
If you need to collect your own data - collect baseline data early – as soon as beneficiaries have been identified but before any results are expected.
MILESTONESMilestones are the desired trajectory from baseline to target, helping you to track progress and make changes to underperforming areas. Will depend on sequencing of activities and data availability.Include REALISTIC milestones given resources and capacity.At the output level include annual milestones for each year of the project (or monthly if short term). At outcome & impact level data may not be available annually.
TARGET (DATE)
Targets set the desired point, showing what is achievable within the timeframe available.
The target is often the last year of the project (or month if its short term).
Include targets dissaggregated by sex/geography/income etc where appropriate. Consider using government targets although if they are too ambitious then make a more realistic estimate.
SOURCEEach Indicator will have a data source to verify the results achieved. List the specific data sources i.e. give the specific data collection e.g. named survey / report and avoid just naming the organisation.State the frequency of the data source and ensure consistency with milestones and targets. Check the source can provide disaggregated data as required.Consider and specify the data collection and reporting responsibilities to ensure the results planned and forecast rows in the logframe are updated on a regular basis.
ASSUMPTIONS
RISK RATING
VALUE FOR MONEYEnsure the outputs and outcome projected represent good value for the invested resources, at the beginning of the project, and through its life.
VfM is achieved at different stages of the results chain. Thus for each result we seek to achieve we should aim to have metrics for each of the following:
DFID’s Approach to Value for Money (Smart Guide) provides further advice on ensuring VfM.
Include realistic targets given resources and capacity, the baseline situation, funding available and country/operational context. Project targets might be informed by evidence about what has worked in the past and take into account lessons learned from other projects.
- A good Theory of Change will help you think about what is realistic and achievable as it will enable critical reflection of context, external influences & assumptions.
- Before using a data source, assess its quality and seek assurances from data providers where needed ie consider its validity, reliability and availability.
Define any assumptions which are linked to the realisation of your project's individual outputs, as well as those which are critical to the realisation of the outcome and impact: these will not all be the same.
Risk ratings are recorded as Low, Medium or High and are supported by a robust analysis including a risk matrix.
Consider including VfM metrics in the logframe (or other documents such as the Delivery Plan) to allow VfM to be measured through the life of the project and to provide assurance at Annual Review.
Economy - Are we (or our agents) buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price? Efficiency - How well are we (or our agents) converting inputs into outputs? (‘Spending well’)Effectiveness - How well are the outputs produced by an intervention having the intended effect? (‘Spending wisely’)Cost-effectiveness - What is the intervention’s ultimate impact on poverty reduction, relative to the inputs that we or our agents invest in it?