Framework of the BESP

The framework of BESP has been based on a number of documents and concepts. These include the National Education Policy 2009, the Education for All (EFA) and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) targets. An important addition has been inclusion of Article 25A of the Constitution that has made school education a fundamental right. The Article subsumes the EFA and MDG targets and if implemented effectively, promises to transform the education policy framework in Pakistan. The BESP has set its sights on long term achievement of the target while keeping the 25A framework as the basic guideline.

5.1. National Education Policy 2009


National Education Policy was prepared in 2009 by the erstwhile Federal Ministry of Education. Theoretically it is the extant national policy although its status remains unclear after the 18th Constitutional Amendment that has devolved education to the provinces. The policy itself was prepared through a widespread consultative process with involvement of stakeholders from all over Pakistan. All the provincial governments were involved. The BESP has used the policy recommendations of the NEP as the basis for strategy development as most of them were seen as appropriate responses to the diagnosis of the Situation Analysis.

5.2. Article 25A


Article 25A of the Constitution considers education for children aged 5 to 16 into the list of ‘Fundamental Rights’.

The Article provides space for implementation through allowing the provinces and the federal government to legislate as per local needs and limitations. The law for implementation of the article needs to consider three critical areas:

1.	Definition of free education.
2.	Accountability mechanism for the statute.
3.	Practical timelines.

Definition of free education has implications for financial resources, while accountability mechanisms have to be within the socio-political realities and implementation capacity of the state. Implementation of the law cannot be undertaken in the short term and a future statute may include a realistic timeframe to allow for adjustment of resource allocation and capacity of the government.

The current draft law developed by the Department of Education defines ‘free’ comprehensively and includes “stationary, school meal and transport”. It also favours persuasion as a critical tool for implementation and, understandably, takes a relatively soft approach to accountability. It does not place any timeline on implementation.

The article covers areas of access and quality (and relevance). A possible indicator framework for its implementation has been shown in Table 5.1 below. It clarifies the potential of 25A beyond the mere increase in enrolment.

Table 5.1 reveals that the scope of the article transcends mere access. The sector plan follows a similar span with the recognition that achievement of the targets of Article 25A will take much longer than the 5 year period covered under the present BESP.

The implications of the article include not only transition of the current approach to education service delivery but also re-order the complete public policy paradigm in the country. Resource requirements in terms of both access and quality will be met only through some crowding out in other sectors and more effective domestic resource mobilization at both the federal and the provincial level. It should also be a factor in future negotiations of the National Finance Commission (NFC).

5.3. Implementation and Monitoring Process


BESP will be implemented as a rolling plan reviewed annually. Operational plans will be prepared for each financial year in consultation with the P&D and Finance departments and relevant donor partners. It will be reviewed at various levels with the highest oversight body headed by the Chief Secretary. If the standing committee on education is set up in the provincial assembly then the latter will form the highest oversight forum.

Implementation of the sector plan will require political support and capacity development to ensure a transition from the current approach to service delivery. The implementation process includes strategies that will co-opt political and community oversight apart from inclusion of other key stakeholders. The Plan also provides for capacity assessment and development processes for the various organisations. The Implementation Strategy for BESP has three main strands:

1.	Oversight and Monitoring
2.	Dissemination
3.	Decentralisation

Oversight and Monitoring

5.3.1. Oversight and Monitoring


A multi-tiered oversight and monitoring mechanism will be developed that will include a high level oversight committee, a technical committee and a donors’ coordination process.

The oversight mechanism will be of a two-tiered committee model supported by the Policy Planning and Implementation Unit (PPIU) as the secretariat for monitoring and reporting. The higher level oversight committee will review performance periodically on the basis of the Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) included in the sector plan. The committee will consist of:

1.	Chief Secretary
2.	Secretary Secondary Education
3.	Secretary Higher Education
4.	Secretary Social Welfare
5.	Secretary Labour and Manpower
6.	Secretary Finance
7.	Secretary P&D
8.	Two Vice Chancellors
9.	Director Colleges
10.	Director Schools 
11.	Focal Person PPIU (Secretary)
12.	Two members from civil society (at least one from the business community)

The committee will meet twice a year to review progress.

The second committee (Donor-Government Group) at the secondary education level (and equivalently at the higher education level) will be headed by Secretary Secondary Education (and in case of Higher Education the respective secretary). The composition of the committee will be as follows:

1.	Secretary Education			6.	Director BOC&EC
2.	Focal Person PPIU			7.	Director PITE
3.	Director Schools			8.	Director BACT
4.	Chairman Balochistan Textbook Board	9.	Donors
5.	Chairman BISE				10	Members from civil society, academia etc

The number and members for serial number 10 will be decided by the rest of the committee in its inaugural meeting. This committee will review performance as well as processes involved in implementation. It will meet at least once per quarter to review progress. And will also function as the donor-government joint group for coordination and monitoring.

The committee will be headed by the Secretary Education with one co-chair from the donors group. The terms of reference will be finalised through mutual discussion and agreement.

The highest oversight body will be the Provincial Standing Committee on Education of Provincial Assembly as and when it is formed.

Figure 5.1: Oversight Mechanism for BESP

An important concomitant of the monitoring process will be capacity development of PPIU on a fast track basis as it will function as the secretariat to all of the above committees and as the coordinators of the implementation process. Initially co-opted support from the market may be provided by a donor partner but eventually internal capacity will have to be developed. PPIU will ensure implementation of the Sector Plan in the districts and the specialized agencies at the provincial headquarters. It will develop capacity to disseminate targets and review progress on the basis of identified indicators. Ideally this should place the services of BEMIS at PPIU’s disposal.

Each organisation will be responsible for implementation and monitoring of its own components as shown in the matrices in the annex and figure 5.1. A focal person will be nominated by each agency (i.e BTBB, BOC&ES etc.) for coordinating with the PPIU and reporting on progress against activities and indicators for its component.

Similarly at district level committee headed by the EDO will be formed (see figure 5.1).

Monitoring Indicators	Monitoring Indicators

Two sets of indicators have been developed: operational and high level. The former will be used by individual implementing agency and the PPIU to monitor progress against identified targets and activities given in the ‘Results Matrices’ and ‘Implementation Matrices’ in Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively. The latter will be used for reporting, by the PPIU, for the high level oversight committee. The indicators at the outcome level will be used and have been shown in the Performance Assessment Framework Diagram given in Annex 3.


5.3.2. Decentralisation


Even more critically, implementation of the sector plan needs to cascade to districts and eventually lower tiers. The process will be headed by the District Education Officer as the focal person working with other EFOs and head teachers. Training and orientation will be provided to administrators and head teachers on details of the sector plan. The process of will be continuous (at least once in a year after the initial phase). A monitoring and reporting process will be developed in each district using the indicators for each sub sector included in the log frames provided in the sector plan (districts, in consultation with PPIU, may develop a set of district specific indication a adapted from the strategies level indication.

Indicators	 Indicators

Indicators have been included in the BESP for each strategy. Further indicators can be developed once annual operational plans are prepared. The PPIU and individual implementing entities, to monitor progress on implementation of the BESP, will mostly use the strategy and activity level indicators. The High Level Committee will primarily use the Performance Assessment Framework, with its broad output level indicators, to monitor progress. The PAF has been described in greater detail later in the chapter.

dissemination information

5.3.3. Dissemination


The concepts, targets and indicators of the Sector Plan will be disseminated to teachers, students, head teachers, administrators, civil society, political leadership and media. Multiple tools will be used to ensure the concepts reach grass root level.

Stakeholders’ Strategy

5.4. Stakeholders’ Strategy


A stakeholder mapping was completed on the basis of two components: stakeholders with ‘power’ and/or ‘interest’ to influence the education sector.

Figure 5.2 explains the framework.

Figure 5.2: Stakeholder Analysis

The four quadrants of the figure show the level of influence (or potential influence) of each stakeholder. The most influential being the stakeholders in quadrant 4 with a high interest-high power combination followed by 3, 2 and 1.

The objectives of the stakeholders’ analysis were:
1.	To identify the likely impacts of policies and plan;
2.	To assess the existing or potential conflicts of interest;
3.	To take account of the impacts and various interest when designing policy options, 
	implementation strategies and development actions.
The framework has been used to identify critical stakeholders for the BESP as follows:
1.	High power-High Interest: these become immediate partners in BESP implementation and need to be managed closely
2.	High power-Low interest: These need to be engaged and satisfied to invoke their interest in the process as they
	are important potential influencers. 
3.	Low Power-High Interest: These must be informed on an ongoing basis even if, at this point of time, their lack 
	of power means lower influence. 

Almost all those stakeholders with interest, rights, resources, powers and abilities who can influence the plan have been involved during the process and analyzed for figure 5.3.

During the course of interaction with educationist, teachers, administrators and community members it was found that each group has diverse ideas towards education and its reforms. The low internal efficiency of the existing multifaceted education system and low quality delivery to the market effect the cognitive development of children and youth of the society and impede the economic growth of the country.

Professionals in education despite being the potential benefactors of reforms have no authority and powers to play a proactive role in the transformation process. Middle level management (Directorates & District) are mainly concerned with the efficiency of the system but face resource and powers limitations. However, both the stakeholders are strong proponent of educational reforms.

Legislators, Finance and P&D departments, “where the powers lie” have reservations with the competing demands of public expenditures and resource constraint. Their response has been weak which reveals a careful approach as to not over burden the exchequer. In case of legislators a coalition of champions has not been developed to support reforms in the provincial assembly even as individual political figures continue to strive for educational improvements.

Students, teachers, parents, PTSMCs and private institutions are the direct educational beneficiaries of the reforms who have no authority to play a proactive role in reform process but their keen interest includes the benefits drawn from purposeful quality education e.g. social and financial benefits. The weakness flows from a general disempowerment of the society and therefore the inability to impact policy and practice of the state. Sprouting of private schools has been a response to low confidence in the public sector. The latter are also emerging as a key stakeholder in education service delivery.

Based on the above and other detail discussion in figure 5.3 has been produced for the stakeholders strategy for the sector plan.

In order to win support for the reform process the implementation process for the BESP will need to adopt the following stakeholders’ strategy:

1.	Include all members of quadrant 2 in dissemination. Specifically target for dissemination and deliberations
	the following groups:
a.	Political parties
b.	Teachers’ Associations
c.	P&D and Finance
2.	Support strengthening of the members of quadrant two through specific reforms and actions envisaged in the sector plan. 

Effective success of these stakeholders strategies imperative implementation of the sector plan.

5.5. Risk Assessment


Balochistan has serious security problems which limit mobility that may be required for reform. The situation also poaches a large chunk of government funds which leaves a smaller share for other sectors, including education. As a country emerging into a democratic process the understanding of evolution of education issues in the political arena is limited. The ownership of education reform at the political level with understanding is a pre-requisite to successful implementation of the BESP. It has been built into the implementation process of the Plan.

A major source of resistance to all change will be the teachers associations and their inclusion in the reform process is imperative. While these are some of the overarching risks strategy and strategic objective level risks have been highlighted in the results matrix in Annex 1, wherever a need was felt.

In the matrix below, wider, macro level risks and risk mitigation strategies have been given.

Performance Assessment Framework

5.6. - Performance Assessment Framework


Decision-makers at all levels need to quantify the variation in education system performance, identify factors that influence it and ultimately articulate policies that will achieve better results in a variety of settings. Some of this variation is due to differences in education system performance. Differences in the design, content and management of education systems translate into differences in a range of socially valued outcomes such as quality of education, responsiveness or fairness. Performance of sub-components of system, such as by levels, Primary, secondary or formal or non formal and also by thematic areas such as access and equity, curriculum implementation and learning achievements also need to be assessed.

It is believed that a meaningful, comparable, convincing and operational framework for assessing education system performance is vital for the work of top level management, development agencies and donors.

The basic framework model is simple but comprehensive. It requires the implementers of education sector plan (ESP), and/or others responsible for development, to analyze and respond realistically and collaboratively to four essential questions. They are:

1.	What are the essential competencies (efficiency) and outcomes (impact) after the completion of the plan? 
2.	What are the performance indicators that define those outcomes? 
3.	What are the most effective ways to achieve the plan objectives? And, 
4.	What are the most effective ways to document the performance and achievements (monitoring) and provide feedback 
	(performance evaluation) that direct stakeholders benefitted as a result of plan implementation?

The model given below has been suggested for use by the highest oversight bodies. The indicators are high level (output level) while other indicators for routine monitoring have been included in the relevant log frame indicators in Annex 1.

5.6.1.	Performance Assessment Framework

The initial values of the indicators below have been picked from various sources. In some cases the values are not currently available and will be obtained through specific initiatives (or studies). These include ‘reading ability’ and ‘teacher absenteeism’.

Download Balochistan Education Sector Plan whole document