Document of The World Bank Report No. 14997-GUA STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT May 15, 1996 Human and Social Capital Development Group Country Department III Latin America and the Caribbean Region - jj_- Currency Equivalents Currency Unit = Guyanese Dollar (G$) US$1.00 = G$143.00 G$1.00 = US$0.006993 Fiscal Year January I - December 31 School Year September I - June 30 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms ACEO ... . Assistant Chief Education Officer CDIU ... . Curriculum Development and Implementation Unit CEO ... . Chief Education Officer CHS ... . Community High School CIMAT .... Curriculum, Instructional Materials and Assessment Team CPCE .... Cyril Potter College of Education CXC .... Caribbean Examinations Council DEO .... District Education Officer DES ... . District Education Supervisor DCEO .... Deputy Chief Education Officer DPS .... Deputy Permanent Secretary EPU ... . Education Planning Unit EU .... European Union GSS .... General Secondary School GTU .... Guyana Teachers Union ICB .. .. International Competitive Bidding IDA .... International Development Association IDB .... Inter-American Development Bank IRC .. .. Incremental Recurrent Cost LIB .. .. Limited International Competitive Bidding MEC ... . Ministry of Education and Cultural Development MOF ... . Ministry of Finance MPWCR .... Ministry of Public Works, Communications and Regional Development NCB .... National Competitive Bidding NCERD .... National Centre for Education Resources Development PAP .... Public Administration Project PEIP .... Primary Education Improvement Programme (IDB financed) PIU .. .. Project Implementation Unit - iii - PS .. .. Permanent Secretary PSC .... Public Service Commission PT .. .. Primary Top (Secondary Department of Primary School) RA .. .. Regional Administration RDC .... Regional Democratic Council REdO . ... Regional Education Officer RExO .... Regional Executive Officer RMT ... . Reform Management Team SAC ... . Social Awareness Campaign SIAC .... School Improvement Advisory Committee SIMAP .... Social Impact Amelioration Programme SIP .... School Improvement Plan SIS .. .. School Information System SME .... School Mapping Exercise SSEE .... Secondary School Entrance Examinations SSPE .... Secondary School Proficiency Examinations SSRP .... Secondary School Reform Programme TSC .... Teachers Service Commission TA .... Technical Assistance UG .. .. University of Guyana UNICEF .... United Nations Children's Fund UNDP .... United Nations Development Programme - Iv - GUYANA Secondary School Reform Support Project Staff Appraisal Report Table of Contents BASIC DATA SHEET ...................................................... vi CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY ...................................................... vii 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 A. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SETTING ....................................................................1I B. OVERVIEW OF THE EDUCATION SECTOR .....................................................................1 C. MAIN ISSUES IN SECONDARY EDUCATION .....................................................................4 D. GOVERNMENT SECTOR OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY .................................................................... 10 E. IDA'S ROLE AND STRATEGY .....................................................................11 F. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PAST OPERATIONS IN THE COUNTRY/SECTOR ............................................................ 11 2. THE PROJECT ....................................................... 13 A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................... 13 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 13 3. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................... 23 A. PROJECT COST AND FINANCING .................................................................... 23 B. PROCUREMENT .................................................................... 25 C. DISBURSEMENT ..............;26 D. ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ........................... 28 E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................... 29 F. REPORTING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................... 31 G. BENEFITS AND RISKS ............................................... 32 H. ENVIRONMENT ............................................... 33 1. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................... 33 ANNEX I: STATISTICAL TABLES ..................................... 35 ANNEX II: THE EDUCATION SECTOR - ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONAL This report is based on the findings of an identification mission which visited Guyana in September/October 1994 consisting of Messrs./Mmes. Hideki Mori (LASHC, Mission Leader), Michael Potashnik (LASHC) and Lola Williams (Consultant); an pre-appraisal mission in March 1995 consisting of Messrs./Mmes. Hideki Mori, Carolyn Winter (HDD), John Anderson (Consultant) and Gus Brest van Kempen (Consultant), a Jamaica study-tour in March 1995 participated by Messrs./Mmes. Kenneth Hunte (Special Advisor to the Minister), Evelyn Hamilton (Chief Planning Officer), Edward Williams (Assistant Chief Education Officer, CHS), Ruth Downer (Curriculum Development Officer) from Guyana's Ministry of Education and Cultural Development (MEC), accompanied by Bank staff Messrs./Mmes. Hideki Mori, Michael Potashnik, Ginger Reich (LASHC) and Carolyn Winter; visit of Guyanese delegation in May 1995 consisting of Dr. Kenneth Hunte and Mrs. Evelyn Hamilton (Chief Planning Officer, MEC); an appraisal mission in June 1995 participated by Messrs./Mmes. Hideki Mori, Michael Potashnik, Carolyn Winter, Doug Adkins (Consultant), Gus Brest van Kempen, Lola Williams and Adelle Brown (Consultant). Peer reviewers were Messrs./Mmes. Vincent Greany (ASTHR), Alfonso de Guzman (EA3PH) and Carolyn Winter (HDD). Managing Director, Project Advisor and Country Sector-Leader were Messrs. Paul Isenman, Robert Crown and Julian Schweitzer. Administrative and secretarial assistance was provided by Mmes. Nelly Vergara and Lucine Juskalian (LASHC). RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................... 41 ANNEX III: STRUCTURE OF EDUCATION SECTOR AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT .......................... 45 ANNEX IV: SALARY SCALE COMPARISON - CIVIL SERVICE VS. TEACHING SERVICE ................... 49 ANNEX V: PILOT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS ..................................................................................... 51 ANNEX VI: SCHOOL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ..................................................................................... 55 ANNEX VII: MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 59 ANNEX Vill: PLANNED CONSULTANTS' SERVICES ..................................................................................... 63 ANNEX IX: DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES FOR THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 65 ANNEX X: PROJECT COSTS AND EXPENDITURES ..................................................................................... 67 ANNEX XI: DRAFT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................ 77 - vi - BASIC DATA SHEET Guyana Year Source A. General Country Data 1 Population Estimates (Thousand) 806 1992 a 2 Population Projection (Thousand) 900 1992 c 3 GNP per Capita (US$) 525 1994 e 4 Average Annual GNP Growth Rate (1980-91) -3.8 1980-1991 c 5 Area (thousand Km2) 215 1992 a B. Social Indicators 1 Crude birth rate (per 1000) 26 1992 c 2 Crude death rate (per 1000) 7 1992 c 3 Average annual rate of population growth (%) 1.1 1960-1992 c 4 Total Fertility Rate (Births per Woman) 2.6 1987-92 b 5 Infant Mortality Rate (per 1000 live births) 48 1987-92 b 6 Life Expectancy at Birth (years) 64.6 1992 c C. Education Data 1 Gross Enrollment Rates Preschool 71 1988 d Primary 112 1990 c Secondary 58 1990 c Post-Secondary 5.1 1988 d 2 Expenditure Data Total Public Education Spending (% of GDP) 3.5 1994 e Total Public Education Spending (% Total Recurrent Expenditures) 5.9 1994 e Total Public Education Spending (% Total Recurrent Expenditures Net of Debt Services) 12.8 1994 e Shares of Public Education Expenditure Primary (%) 33 1994 e Secondary (%) 25 1994 e Higher (%) 20 1994 e 3 Efficiency Data StudentlTeacher Ratio Primary 34 1990 c Secondary 35 1980-85 b Repetition Rates (%) Primary 4 1987-1992 b Sources and Notes: a) World Development Report, 1994; b) Social Indicators of Development, 1994; c) UNDP Human Development Report, 1994; d) UNESCO Statistical Year Book, 1994. e) Guyana Ministry of Finance and World Bank estimates I - vii - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY Borrower: Republic of Guyana Implementing Agency: Ministry of Education and Cultural Development (MEC) Beneficiary: MEC, Regional and District Education Departments, Students and Teachers of secondary schools including the 12 Pilot Schools. Poverty: Not applicable. Amount: Credit of SDR 11.8 million (US$ 17.3 million equivalent) Terms: Standard IDA terms with 40 years maturity, including 10 years of grace Commitment Fee: 0.50% on undisbursed credit balances, beginning 60 days after signing, less any waiver Financing Plan: See para. 3.5 Map: IBRD 25723 Project ID GY-PA-7269 a 1. INTRODUCTION A. Economic and Social Setting 1.1 Guyana embarked on a radical economic reform in mid- 1988, fundamentally reversing the thrust of its policies of the preceding twenty years. The change was propelled by a protracted period of economic and social decline, caused by excessive reliance on state-led economic activity and highly interventionist policies. Past mismanagement left the country in dire straits, with widespread poverty and dilapidated economic and social infrastructure. Per capita GNP of US$525 (1994) is among the lowest in the Western Hemisphere, and despite the forgiveness of much of its bilateral component, public external debt, at US$2,500 per capita, is one of the world's highest. Guyana needs sustained economic growth to recover lost ground. Recovery from decades of emigration of many of its most skilled citizens will take much longer. 1.2 Guyana's Economic Recovery Program, which was spearheaded by stabilization and adjustment programs with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, has been very successful, despite limited amounts of incremental external assistance. Within three years of commencing the program, the economy responded strongly to the improved macroeconomic management and incentive framework. Real GDP rose by an average of 8% during the four years 1991-1994. Except for bauxite, traditional industries have largely recovered, and gold mining and forestry have grown rapidly with large inflows of foreign investment. The government's current account deficit has reached manageable levels, inflation has been reduced from 100% in 1991 to 16% in 1994, and the exchange rate has stabilized. 1.3 In a context of limited budgetary resources, inefficient use of these resources, and public control of all education services, Guyana's education indicators fell from the highest to among the lowest in the Caribbean. Learning, as measured by examination outcomes, fell sharply, student drop-out rates increased, textbooks and other teaching aides disappeared from schools, and teacher quality fell as qualified and trained personnel left a sector in which salaries declined sharply. 1.4 These conditions continued to worsen in the initial phase of the recovery program, but the new democratically elected Government of 1992 placed new priority on the social sectors and increased budget allocations accordingly. Resources for the sector, however, continue to be low in spite of severely dilapidated infrastructure, a depleted teaching force and diminished institutional capacity. In this context, there is a continuing need for major external assistance. B. Overview of the Education Sector 1.5 Enrollment. Guyana's education system consists of: (a) preschool education of I to 2 years (for 4- and 5-year olds); (b) primary schooling of 6 years duration; (c) secondary schooling of 3 to 5 years; and (d) higher education (comprising the University of Guyana, several technical institutes, a teacher training college and a small "sixth form" program in seven secondary schools). School attendance is compulsory from ages six to fourteen and a half years. 1.6 Currently, primary and secondary education gross enrollment rates are estimated to be about 95% and 60%, respectively, which compare favorably with other Caribbean countries (91% and 55% on the average, respectively). The secondary education enrollment rate is high for a low-income country and comparable to the average of upper-middle income countries (54%). Data from 1990 show that of the 90 to 95% of primary students who continue on to the seventh grade, 86%, 77%, 64% and 30% - 2 - reached grades 8, 9, 10 and 11, respectively. Enrollment in grades 10 and 11 might be even higher but for children streamed out of the system (para. 1.19). A household survey taken in 1992-1993 indicates that the very high demand for places has probably not changed materially since 1988, but with the growth of the informal economy, the labor market benefits of staying in school to receive low-quality schooling are likely to decline drastically in the future for large numbers of young people. An early indicator of possible decline is that only 63% of the enrolled students regularly attend class (1988 data). Table 1.1: Recurrent Education Expenditures, 1994, By Region, (G$m) Center Regions Total Guyana 2 3 4 5 6 10 11,7 .8, 9 Real Western Increase Central President's George- Region 4 Border 1992- Ministry College town Other - Regions Amount % 1994/a Nursery/b 19 29 40 32 15 16 16 9 175 9 152% Prmary/b/c 57 65 98 93 38 115 49 102 617 33 155% Secondary/b/c 62 /d 25 51 59 123 38 22 49 26 16 470 25 133% Post Secondary 381 - - - - - - - - - 381 20 188% Other Education 240 - - - - - - - - - 240 13 93% Total Education 683 101 145 59 261 162 75 179 91 126 1,883 100 142% Culture & Other 96 - - - - - - - - - 96 - 58% Total Ministry 779 101 145 59 261 162 75 179 91 126 1,980 - 133% Source: Guyana Estimates of the Public Sector, 1993 and 1995 and World Bank estimates /a Deflated using changes in the exchange rate and in international prces. /b The distnbution of 1994 expenditures among levels is derved from 1990 data for regions 2,3,5,6,7,10, from the 1993 budget submissions for regions 1,4,8,9, and from 1994 budget data for Georgetown and President's College. /c Expenditures on secondary departments of primary schools are included under prmary. /d External examinations 1.7 Sector Finance. Guyana's economic problems have had serious consequences for the funding of education. Between 1984 and 1992, government recurrent education expenditure declined from 18% to 4%, partly due to heavier debt service obligations, but mostly due to reallocations to other categories of expenditure. The government that came into power in 1992 has increased fiscal effort for education significantly. Real education expenditures for 1994 were 42% higher than for 1992 (Table 1.1). Nonetheless, education was allocated only 6% of recurrent expenditures in 1994, a level still far below comparator countries in the Caribbean and elsewhere (Annex I, Table 6). Educational expenditures were distributed in 1994 as follows: primary (33%), secondary (25%), post-secondary (20%) and nursery and other (22%). 1.8 The years of neglect have left the sector badly weakened, and substantial injections of resources are needed to revitalize it. Resource constraints have had their greatest impact on teacher salaries, which fell below the estimated poverty level in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Low salaries and poor working conditions led to teacher flight, leaving schools understaffed and staffed by unqualified and untrained teachers. By 1990, approximately 40 percent of teachers at the primary and secondary level were in the untrained or unqualified categories. Recognizing the importance of better teacher compensation, the new government financed a large, real increase in teacher salaries at the beginning of 1994 - approximately 70% increase for most grades and somewhat higher increases in some senior grades. 1.9 Reduced education finances have also meant that less resources have been allocated to the purchase of textbooks and other leaming materials. With the exception of those texts recently distributed to students in the upper secondary stream' in the first three years, classrooms are typically devoid of these important materials. During the past two decades, capital expenditures have been minimal and the educational plant at all levels is now severely dilapidated. Present efforts will not rapidly reverse this 'i.e., in the General Secondary Schools (para. 1.17). -3 - dire situation. Education's share of budgeted capital expenditures for 1994 - 7% - was at about the same low level as recurrent expenditures. More than 90% was donor-financed and virtually none was used for secondary schools. 1.10 Performance. Guyana's education system suffers both from poor quality and efficiency. Just how poor is the performance is difficult to assess in the absence of an objective evaluation program. Despite the strong emphasis on testing in Guyana (there are five main national or international tests between ages 11 and 16), only the international test taken at age 16 (Caribbean Examination Council - CXC) is comparable over time. Taken by less-than-20% of Guyanese sixteen-year-olds who are considered to be best-prepared, this exam shows very poor performance compared to students from other Caribbean countries. In 1992 , even with widespread private tutoring, only 10% of those sitting the exam passed the English test and 18% the Math . This compares with the average passing rates for 1 0 other Caribbean countries in 1989 of 36% in English and 33% in Math (Annex 1, Table 7). The scores of Guyanese takers were also on a downward trend of 1-2% per year over the decade prior to 1992. These poor and down-trending results are a crude but clear summary indicator of the deteriorated state of Guyana's primary and secondary schools. If the best students perform at this level, how much worse off must the majority be. 1.11 Internal Efficiency. Data on internal efficiency is sparse, but repetition and dropout rates are reputed to be low in primary school. Low dropout is roughly confirmed by census data. At the secondary level, repetition is also reputed to be low, but a crude estimate for the upper stream for 1990 indicates that repetition may be much higher however - in the 20-25% range. Attendance is also known to be a large problem throughout the primary and secondary years. Incomplete 1988 school survey data indicate that on an average day somewhat less than two-thirds of the secondary students were in attendance (Annex I, Table 9). The secondary attendance problem was generally more severe in the lower streams and the higher grades. One anomaly in this picture, however, was the contrast between the attendance rate for girls in and out of Georgetown. Outside of Georgetown, upper-stream secondary girls had the best attendance rate among all streams and genders (79%); in Georgetown, by contrast, they had the worst rate (50%). This disparity in female attendance rates could indicate the particular influence of gender-specific employment opportunities in the urban labor market. 1.12 Governance of Primary and Secondary Education (Annex II). In 1985, education functions at the primary and secondary levels were decentralized under a broad decentralization program initiated in 1980. The present government has retained this structure, under which, except for Georgetown, school administration and finance are controlled by regional administrations in Guyana's 10 regions. Georgetown's schools are directly administered by the Assistant Chief Education Officer (ACEO), Georgetown but support functions are provided by the central Ministry of Education and Cultural Development (MEC). MEC's chief responsibilities are to set broad sector policy; maintain a national curriculum; develop, procure and distribute textbooks and instructional materials; coordinate national examinations; and monitor education quality nationwide. The regional administrations are appointed bodies consisting of a political council (the Regional Democratic Council) containing representatives from the major political parties in proportion to regional election results and a Regional Executive Officer (RExO) reporting to it. The latter has responsibility for the delivery of various health, agriculture, public works and education services. 1.13 In most regions, deputies in the functional areas - in education, the Regional Education Officers (REdOs) - carry out the day-to-day management of the sector and are charged with carrying out national policies, which are determined by the respective national ministries, as well as regional policies, which -4 - are determined by the regional administrations. In their management of regional school systems, REdOs receive administrative and financial guidance from the RExOs. 1.14 MEC has significant power over appointments, including those of the REdOs. REdOs are civil servants appointed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) after consultation with MEC. MEC then assigns REdOs to the various regions. Similarly, school principals and assistant principals are appointed by the separate Teachers' Service Commission (TSC), instead of the PSC, in consultation with MEC. Except for temporary-teacher appointments, which are made directly by the regional administrations, MEC sets the qualification criteria for teachers at all levels, who are also appointed through the TSC. Teachers are paid according to a national pay scale determined by the government and revised periodically. 1.15 Budget administration in education is weak in Guyana. Although some regional administrations are more systematic than others, as a rule, rational criteria for resource allocation are absent. At the central government level, allocation of budgets to regions for education and other decentralized services has been, until very recently, negotiated directly between MOF and regional administrations with little direct input from MEC and the other line ministries. Under the new practice, MEC is responsible for reviewing and clearing budget submissions from regional administrations before they are sent to MOF. However, MEC lacks appropriate instruments and adequate human resources to carry out its new tasks. As a result, the budgetary influence of the regional administrations is still decisive. MEC has little scope to fund initiatives designed to accomplish national educational priorities, except in Georgetown where budget negotiations with MOF are carried out by the deputy permanent secretary of MEC. This results in widely differing levels of resources provided to individual regions (Annex III, Figure 2). For instance, secondary schools in Region 3, on one side of Georgetown, received about G$8,900 per student in 1994, while those in Region 4, on the other side, received G$6,500 per student. MEC has some influence over regional administrations by means of donor or government financial resources for texts, capital expenditure and special projects, as well as technical resources in areas such as training and curriculum. 1.16 Shortcomings in the structure and operation of the decentralized system have severely weakened educational management and contributed to declining education quality and to inequities in educational opportunities. Because the decentralized system still lacks appropriate instruments to hold regional administrations accountable to the MEC and its clients (students, parents and local citizens), regional education planning can be divorced from both national education policies and local concerns. In this setting, budgeting and management capacity at the school level have been greatly weakened. Although vestiges of an orderly system of school management remain, school principals are unable to employ sound planning and budgeting practices in a context where it is unclear what resources the school will receive in a given year and according to what schedule. C. Main Issues in Secondary Education 1.17 Introduction. Secondary schooling is offered in three streams - General Secondary Schools (GSS), Community High Schools (CHS), and secondary departments of primary schools (Primary Tops- PT). Entrance to the different secondary streams is determined by a student's performance on the Secondary School Entrance Examination (SSEE) taken in the final year of primary school. Students scoring in the top 40 percent generally gain entrance to GSSs where the curriculum ostensibly prepares them to take the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC) examinations and possibly the General Certificate of Education (GCE), a British-based examination, in their fifth year. Lower scoring students gain entrance to the less prestigious four-year CHSs, where the last two years' curriculum is more -5 - vocationally oriented. CHS students take the locally administered Secondary School Proficiency Examination (SSPE) in the third and fourth years. Students who do not take the SSEE, often because they exceed the age limit for the test, are only eligible to attend the secondary departments of primary schools- "primary tops", which provide three years of secondary schooling. Other students, whose parents believe it is impractical for them to travel to a more distant CHS, also enroll in the primary tops. Movement among the three streams is minimal; high CHS/PT scorers on the SSPE given at the end of year 3 are eligible to transfer to a GSS school and ultimately take the CXC examinations, but they must repeat the third year in the GSS. Very few students - less than 50 in the 1990 school year - currently make the transfer. Those not transferring are streamed out of the secondary system after three years in the primary tops and after four years in the CHS. (1) Equity and Access 1.18 The establishment of the CHS system in 1975 was designed to give access to relevant vocational secondary education to children who were not admitted into public secondary schools or who could not afford the fees of non-government schools. The latter were subsequently absorbed into the public school system. Thus, the CHS system was intended to increase access for economically or academically disadvantaged primary graduates and did accomplish this to a certain extent. Ironically, the CHS/PT system is now the main impediment to large numbers of children gaining access to relevant skills and credentials for employment. 1.19 There are several reasons for this. First, because of low mobility to the GSS stream, children who attend CHS and PT schools, with few exceptions, do not have the opportunity to study core academic subjects beyond the 9th grade and thereafter are unable to obtain CXC passes in these subjects, which in Guyana are virtually the only secondary credentials now recognized in the labor market. Nor, in most cases, do they have the opportunity to qualify for admission to the University of Guyana. Because instruction in CHS/PT schools either stops at or does not include significant academic emphasis beyond the 9th grade, they are also poorly positioned to obtain any future locally-administered secondary credential that might gain acceptance in the labor market. 1.20 Second, adequate resources are not available to the CHSs and PTs. Effective pre-vocational secondary education, as traditionally conceived in Guyana and elsewhere, with adequately equipped shops and lower student-teacher ratios, typically requires two-to-three times the resources that effective general secondary education requires. Although available financial analysis has not established how large the financial gaps among the streams are, the CHS/PT streams appear even more starved of resources than the GSS system. Deteriorated or non-existent facilities and lack of experienced vocational teachers allow only a rudimentary implementation of the pre-vocational curriculum. 1.21 Third, even adequately financed pre-vocational education may not prepare students effectively for the labor market. International experience has shown that students in pre-vocational programs typically have poorer labor market prospects, including access to training provided by employers, than general secondary school leavers. 1.22 In theory, the SSEE assigns the less academically-inclined students to prevocational programs more appropriate to their abilities. However, high-stakes tests like the SSEE are poor instruments for student evaluation. Many of the primary school children who are streamed into the CHS and PT schools undoubtedly have the ability to succeed in a general secondary curriculum or could develop it. Some are simply poor test takers or merely had a bad test day. Some are late developers. Others are over-age and -6 - were not allowed to take the test. Finally, a number were displaced by less able children (in SSEE terms) whose families could afford to pay for after-school tutoring. 1.23 While unification of the secondary system would ultimately be the most effective method of reducing the large inequities in Guyana's secondary education system, significant changes in curriculum, student mobility and finance would each help materially in assuring equitable access to education and employment opportunities. Specifically, a fully implemented common curriculum in the three streams, quality improvements in the CHS/PT schools, increased transfers from these schools to GSS schools in all grades, provision for studying academic subjects in CHS/PT schools, and equitably distributed school finance would remove many of the most glaring inequities. (2) Quality Issues 1.24 Poor student achievement in all secondary streams is a consequence of interrelated deficiencies in school curricula, teacher and school-administrator training, textbook and instructional-material availability, and school equipment and infrastructure. Low performance levels in secondary schools is also a consequence of weak primary-school preparation. 1.25 Curriculum. The curriculum for all secondary streams in Guyana is supposed to be based on the CXC syllabus for each subject area. Although National Fourth Form Achievement Test syllabi do exist, in practice, no national curriculum guides have been distributed to teachers, and little attention has been given to the idea of a national curriculum in recent years. Few CHS/PT students receive the fourth and fifth year instruction in the CXC syllabi that is given in the GSSs. In the CHSs and PTs, teachers use eclectic sources for instructional guidance. Only the five-year GSS course attempts to actually prepare students to take the academic CXC examinations. The results cited above indicate a conspicuous lack of success. Instruction for the first three years in the GSSs is now based on texts recently produced by MEC with UNDP financing and, where available, outdated NCERD curriculum guides and CXC syllabi. Teacher curriculum guides corresponding to the texts have not been widely distributed. In most cases, overall achievement levels in the CHS/PT schools are even more inferior to those of the GSS schools than the differing ability levels of students would suggest, particularly in the critical areas of Language Arts and Math. Major variations among schools exist in instructional time allocated for these core subjects. While prevocational subjects are a prominent element in the curriculum of the CHS/PT schools (GSS schools also have compulsory prevocational studies), the results of the SSPE, taken at the end of the third year by CHS/PT students, indicate that few students have significant vocational competencies to compensate for serious basic education deficiencies. 1.26 Prior to the distribution of the GSS texts for grades 7-9, the overall approach of the curriculum in all streams had been based largely on rote learning by drill and copying into exercise books, which were, along with chalk, in short supply in many schools. Developing a common curriculum with a multi-level approach for a student population with varying learning skills, especially in Language Arts and Math, is a challenge now urgently facing Guyana. 1.27 The Teaching Force. Approximately 60% of the teachers in both the GSSs and CHSs are either university graduates (16%) or have completed a course of teacher training (44%), with the graduates concentrated in the GSS schools. No information is available about the teachers in PT schools. Massive emigration of skilled Guyanese has hollowed out the teacher corps as well as other institutions in Guyana. Although Guyana does not face inefficiencies in teacher utilization (teacher-student ratios of about 1:35), high teacher turnover rates and the decline in general educational standards have markedly -7 - reduced the average skill level of secondary teachers compared to fifteen years ago. Data on teacher qualifications do not distinguish the level of training and many of the graduates and trained teachers in secondary schools have only primary training. Thus, few have the academic background necessary for the secondary subjects they teach. As a consequence, there is very low productivity in most classrooms, particularly in the CHS and PT schools, in terms of teaching and learning vis-a-vis the content and skills indicated by the formal curriculum. 1.28 The recent large real salary increase for teachers (para. 1.8) has improved teacher morale somewhat, but salaries that are still low compared to private and foreign employment, dilapidated, unsafe, unsuitable school buildings, lack of teaching materials and other supplies, high student and teacher absenteeism, and limited access to in-service training continue to make it very difficult for the government to attract and retain skilled teachers. A TS17 principal, for instance, now typically earns about US$3,200 per annum, including allowances. This is only about US$1,200 more than a recently hired, trained, graduate teacher earns and just a few hundred dollars more than a secondary school graduate with three CXC passes earns in the private sector. Consequently, steps need to be taken in the future to improve teachers' working conditions in the schools and to enhance their teaching skills. 1.29 Lacking training in pedagogy and in the subjects they teach, most teachers are unable to engage students in active learning or cover anything approaching the appropriate curriculum. Visits to classrooms indicated a very passive approach to teaching - students sitting at desks copying exercises or problems the teacher had written on the board and the teacher sitting at the desk observing the students or doing other work. Very little lecturing, explaining, demonstrating or discussing subjects with the class or circulating among students to check on student progress was taking place. Further, the time spent learning is significantly less than the actual time period allocated for the class. 1.30 Good supervision and technical support are key elements in curriculum reform. At present, however, teachers and schools receive inadequate support. Technical support should be provided as part of routine supervision by the principal or department head, by education officers in the regional offices, and by trained resource teachers. Generally this is not happening. The lack of supportive supervision contributes to the low observed productivity in the classroom. 1.31 For all the reasons cited, major attention needs to be paid to upgrading the teaching force. Care in recruitment needs to be made to reduce teacher turnover and, thus, to retain the results of costly in- service training. 1.32 Textbooks and other Teaching Resources. Except for the new texts used in GSS grades 7-9, teacher and student resources are in very short supply in all schools, particularly in the CHS/PT schools. The scarcity of resources is also acute in prevocational subjects of the curriculum: industrial arts, technical drawing, sheet metal, wood working, etc. The MEC/UNDP text book project produced a complete series of textbooks for grades 7-9 in eight subject areas using course outlines based on CXC syllabi. However, the new textbooks are not being used in CHS and PT schools. Production runs are too small even for effective GSS use, and MEC considers them too advanced for CHS and PT students. For the most part, instruction in the CHS/PT schools is based primarily on the use of exercise books. MEC needs to identify appropriate textbooks for CHS and PT students either by adapting the existing textbooks or identifying others. The lack of texts in CHS/PT schools, together with their availability in GSS schools, is a major educational and equity concern. An emergency supply project, partly funded by the Government of Canada in 1990 for five years in response to the acute shortage in the prior years, has relieved the situation temporarily. However, sustainable budgetary provision of educational supplies of all kinds needs to be provided by the Government. - 8 - 1.33 School Facilities and Equipment. School facilities are generally dilapidated, overcrowded, unsafe and lacking furniture, laboratory equipment, shop and other instructional equipment. A large percentage of school buildings are constructed of wood. A 1992 MEC survey of secondary school facilities, with about three-quarters of the schools responding, indicated that the median age of school buildings was 37 years and that 55% of the GSS buildings and 45% of the CHS buildings were in very poor condition and in need of immediate replacement or rehabilitation due to extensive damage to roofs, foundations, stairs and floors. Eighty-six percent of the schools cited serious roof problems. To assess the full seriousness of the situation, an up-to-date, complete facilities survey by independent consultants is urgently needed. 1.34 Another facilities problem related both to original school design and to overcrowded conditions is that most schools lack single-classroom space, where the teacher and class can engage in vocal, lively learning activities without disrupting other classes. Large open space classroom areas with individual classes divided by chalkboards seriously constrain active, student- centered instruction. 1.35 Finally, school security presents a critical facilities problem with important community relations overtones. Virtually all schools in Guyana have experienced very serious security problems and have lost many of their few movable assets and even structural elements from the school buildings. The worst of these crises occurred in 1990, when failure to negotiate national security contracts led to the withdrawal of virtually the entire security force. Major deficiencies in perimeter fences and other building security devices and the lack of secure storage space need to be corrected if improved learning supplies and equipment are to be retained. Even more important is the development of a supportive community environment to make it difficult for thieves to operate with impunity. (3) Secondary School Finance 1.36 The GSS and CHS secondary streams absorbed 25% of total government expenditure on education (Table 1.1). No estimate is available for the expenditure on primary tops, but if unit cost were one-half of that for the other streams, the percentage for secondary education would be 29%. In percentage terms, this is within the desirable range according to international norms, but it should not obscure the central financial fact that Guyana's annual expenditure per secondary student remains at a very low level - an average of US$65 per student in GSS/CHS - and even less (US$48 per student) when expenditures on President's College and CXC subsidies are removed (Table 1.2). 1.37 Despite data limitations which preclude a detailed analysis, unit expenditures are significantly less in CHS than in GSS, and substantially less in the PT stream even than in the CHS stream. This is probably true even when the 25% of total combined GSS and CHS expenditures on President's College and CXC subsidies, which primarily benefit some GSS students, are disregarded. There is also considerable variation among schools within all streams. Informal inspection suggests that the ranges of school unit costs in both CHS and GSS overlap considerably, with a number of CHS schools receiving unit allocations above large numbers of GSS schools. Within the GSS stream, seven schools, such as Queens College in Georgetown, offer small higher education courses to a total of only about 150 students. These two-year, "sixth-form" courses are designed to prepare students for the GCE A-Level examination, which is required for entry into the University of the West Indies and UK (but not US) universities. Undoubtedly, these sixth-form programs and the Grade 7-1 1 programs in the same schools have much higher then average unit costs. GSS schools at the bottom of the financial ladder, conversely, receive unit financial allocations well below the GSS average. Similarly, the least-well-financed CHS - 9 - and PT schools receive allocations below the average for their streams and far below the national average. Correcting this inefficient and inequitable situation will require timely school-level financial data, rational budget procedures (para. 1.38), and resistance to special pleading at the regional level. 1.38 As a concomitant of more equitable budgeting among schools, the allocation of educational finance among the regions also needs to be rationalized. At present, there are substantial, hard-to-justify variations in average expenditure per secondary school student among the regions. For instance, Regions 4 (outside of Georgetown) and 6 received only 67% as much per student as Regions 2 and 3 in 1994 (Table 1.2). Budget allocation procedures and budget negotiations should be based primarily on standard unit costs for both equity and efficiency reasons. Table 1.2: Secondary Expenditures Per Student, GSS and CHS Streams, 1994, By Region Region 2 3 4 5 6 10 Western Other Border President's George- Region Regions Total College tow n 4 (1,7,8,9) Guyana Including President's College and Prorated External Exams G$ nil./a 27.2 61.3 59.9 143.1 45.2 27.7 62.1 28.0 16.2 470.3 UnitCostGS'000/b 10.5 8.9 196.9 7.4 6.5 7.9 6.6 11.9 13.3 8.9 Unit Cost USS 76 4 64.1 1,427 0 53.7 46.7 57.3 47.5 85.9 96.4 64.7 Relative Unit Cost /c 118% 99% 2,206% 83% 72% 89% 74% 133% 149% 100% Not Including President's College or Prorated External Exams GS nril. 25.2 50.9 - 123.2 37.6 21.9 48.6 26.2 15.6 349.3 Unit Cost G$'000/b 9.8 7.4 6.4 5.4 6.3 5.1 11.1 12.8 6.7 Unit Cost USS 70.8 53.3 - 46.2 38.9 45.4 37.2 80.3 92.5 48.3 Relative Unit Cost 147% 110% 0% 96% 81% 94% 77% 166% 191% 100% Source: World Bank estinates Note: For General Secondary and Cornrnunity High Schools. Does not include expenditures for secondary enrolment in prirnary schools and adrrinistrative expenditure included in the central ryinistry budget. /a. Includes cost of external exarminations prorated by GSS 5th Form enrollrrent. /b 1990-1991 enrollnent used, except for President's College, since later enrollrrent data unavailable. /c Calculation rmade not including the cost for Presidents College in the total. 1.39 Budget procedures should also be flexible enough to deal with the special needs of schools serving remote regions. Undoubtedly, the western border regions (1,7,8,9), whose schools service vast, sparsely populated interior regions, require higher unit allocations, especially when residential facilities are involved. There has not been any budget analysis based on differential unit costs to indicate whether unit allocations, which were 71% above the national average in 1994, are appropriate. Appropriate budget formulas for schools serving remote regions would not only systematize allocations to these regions but could also be used to assure equitable finance to schools serving remote populations in several other regions. (4) Organization and Management 1.40 The organization of secondary education in Guyana is complex. The regional structure dominates line functions in administration and educational-finance (para. 1.12), except in Georgetown, where MEC assumes the line functions of the regional administrations. The regional education officers (REdOs) do not usually have deputies for secondary education; instead, they have subordinate district education officers (DEOs) and district education supervisors (DESs), who, in turn, deal with primary and secondary schools within their districts. However, no regional or even district officers are charged with overseeing secondary education exclusively. - 10- 1.41 Despite the dominance of line functions by the regional administrations, MEC does have several significant line roles in personnel selection, curriculum decisions, and investment in the regions. Once staffing needs are determined by the regional administrations and affirmed in the budget process, for instance, MEC through the Chief Education Officer (CEO) and the deputy chief education officer for administration (DCEO/Admin) has de facto control of all permanent appointments, including those of the REdOs, DEOs, school principals and non-temporary teachers.2 MEC also specifies the curricula to be taught in all secondary schools. Lastly, MEC typically decides where and how donor-funded and other special projects will be administered and provides funds for them through its budget. 1.42 MEC's role in staff functions in the regions is considerably larger than its role in line functions, and it has wide responsibility for the functions listed in para. 1.12 At present, MEC administers secondary education-through three officers, with each secondary stream having its own assistant chief education officer (ACEO). There are ACEOs for GSS, CHS and primary (including primary tops), who report to the DCEO/Admin. In light of Guyana's goals of unifying the secondary education system, MEC needs to institute new management arrangements to more effectively deal with such questions as a common curriculum, criteria for rational resource allocation, mobility among the streams, equity in the development of teaching materials, and improvement in MEC lines of authority to secondary schools in the regions. The line administrative structure in secondary education in the regions is also surprisingly paralleled in the administration of Georgetown schools, which are administratively fully under MEC. Here, an ACEO for all levels of Georgetown schools reports directly to the DCEO/Admin, and the three ACEOs handling staff functions for secondary education have no line authority over him or her. 1.43 Equally important to the reform of secondary education at the national and regional levels will be the decentralization of budget authority and accountability to school principals. Once school budgetary allocations are determined on the basis of systematic, rational criteria, principals need to be made responsible for designing and carrying out efficient educational programs that are consistent with national policies, for producing effective student learning outcomes, and for skillfully administering school budgets. 1.44 Public service reform is high on the Government's agenda and is being supported by the IDA under the Public Administration Project. Enhancing the ability to retain key technical and managerial staff is an objective of public management reform generally. In the area of education, MEC has found it extremely difficult to retain key educational resource staff who are essential to the implementation of educational reform in the areas of curriculum, training, assessment, and learning resources. A key issue of educational management is therefore how to recruit and retain skilled personnel in these areas. D. Government Sector Objectives and Strategy 1.45 The Government has assigned priority to the development of its human resources, noting that the continued expansion of the productive sector and the country's ability to compete in international markets will depend on a well-educated labor force and that rehabilitation of the education sector will be required to achieve this. 1.46 In the education sector, the Government policies aim at: (a) strengthening the institutional capacity and increasing the efficiency of publicly financed education (b) enhancing the quality of 2 Dejure appointment power is vested in the Teacher Service Commission. - 11 - services delivered in the basic education cycle, which consists of primary education and the first three years of secondary level education; (c) ensuring a more equitable distribution of educational opportunities and resources, and (d) utilizing budgetary resources more efficiently. The Government believes that the highest returns to educational investments can be obtained from investments in the basic education cycle and has sought to focus resources accordingly. 1.47 The MEC has drawn up a Five-Year Education Plan, which identifies these priorities and specifies how these objectives will be addressed. This document provides a basic framework within which the proposed project can support education improvement and reform. The Government has already started a process of education reform at the primary level through the IDB-supported Primary Education Improvement Programme (PEIP). The Government also applied for Project Preparation Facility for the proposed project in 1994. E. IDA's Role and Strategy 1.48 IDA involvement in the proposed project is fully consistent with the overall Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for Guyana, which was discussed at the Board on December 15, 1993. The CAS identified, among others, the following objectives: (a) to assist the Government in refocusing and strengthening the public sector to improve delivery of public services, especially human resources development; (b) to play a catalytic role in developing sector strategies and policies as well as in providing framework for mobilizing resources from other donor agencies; and (c) to support the rehabilitation of education facilities; and (d) to complement the PEIP. 1.49 In line with the above mentioned objectives, the SIMAP project (financed by C2358, US$10.30 million, Project ID: GY-PA-7254 with IDB cofinancing), a social-fund-type project designed to mitigate the effects of macro-economic adjustment, has supported a variety of activities since 1993, including the preparation of a medium-term strategic plan for the education sector (IDA-financed component) and the rehabilitation of primary education facilities (IDB-financed component). The Bank Group also supported, in April, 1994, a national workshop on human resource development. This provided a forum for discussion of MEC's strategy plan for the sector by interested parties, including teachers, principals, representatives of regional administrations, teachers' unions and the general public. 1.50 The project would fully incorporate the objectives identified by the CAS and complement ongoing IDA assistance by: (i) developing measures to improve the quality and efficiency of lower secondary education and testing them at a limited number of schools in order to gain acceptance before expanding to the rest of the system, which is highly complex; (ii) supporting rehabilitation and repair of schools; and (iii) enhancing the Government's ability to design, plan for, and implement sustainable education reforms. F. Lessons Learned From Past Operations In the Country/Sector 1.51 The proposed project would be the third education project financed by the World Bank Group in Guyana. The First Education Project (CO139:US$2.9 million + L0583:US$2.9 million) implemented in the early 1970s engineered the diversification of the secondary school program as well as the strengthening of guidance and testing services. On the other hand, the Second Education Project (C0544: US$4.0 million + LI 106: US$8.00 million) from the mid-70s to the early-80s was only partially successful. One of the objectives was to establish the CHS system in order to replace PTs. Although the project established 8 model CHSs, they were not in operation by the time of loan closing when over 30% - 12 - (US$2.6 million) of the IBRD loan amount was canceled. The Second Education Project also suffered from the lack of counterpart funds, weak managerial capability, difficulties in procuring architectural services and delays in implementing civil works. 1.52 An IDB-financed PEIP has disbursed only about US$7 million of the US$44.6 million loan since the agreement was signed in 1991. This is mainly because: (i) the PEIP's civil works component had to be almost completely redesigned; and (ii) the project implementation unit has been virtually independent--both physically and administratively--from MEC, and the synergy between the two has been severely limited. 1.53 Experience from the past thus suggests that projects in Guyana are likely to experience slow implementation and disbursement, mainly due to weak institutional capacity of public agencies and the Government's strict procurement review procedures (para. 3.35). Also in the past, projects often required comprehensive reformulation, suffering from overly complex design and over-dependence on conditionalities for control. On the other hand, projects which are simple in design, with well focused priorities, and flexible in implementation would have the best chance of success. There would also be a need to integrate project administration closely into the existing organizational structure in order to build institutional capacity and local ownership, thus increasing the chance of sustaining the project's impact. - 13 - 2. THE PROJECT A. Project Objectives 2.1 The primary objective of the project is to assist the Government to initiate a long-term, multi- phased education reform program to improve quality, relevance, equity and efficiency to secondary education in Guyana. More specifically, the project would aim to: (i) develop measures to improve the quality and efficiency of lower secondary education and test them at a limited number of schools in order to gain acceptance before extending the reform to the rest of the system; (ii) improve the school environment by supporting rehabilitation and repair of schools; and (iii) enhance the ability of national and regional institutions to design, plan for, and implement sustainable education reforms. B. Project Description 2.2 The project would have the following three components: (i) Educational Program Quality; (ii) School Environment; and (iii) National and Regional Institutional Strengthening. (1) Educational Program Quality Component (US$2.5 million, 15% of baseline cost) 2.3 A key goal of educational reform in Guyana is to provide all children with an effective and relevant basic education, irrespective of the school stream they are attending. However, to achieve this goal, Guyana needs to identify cost-effective improvements which can be implemented on a nation-wide basis. The objectives of this component are to: (i) introduce decentralized, cost-effective, sustainable, integrated, school-based quality improvements; and (ii) develop, test and implement new and more relevant multi-level common curricula in four core subjects for the lower secondary level (Grades 7-9). For these purposes, twelve pilot schools have been selected by the Government from all streams and several geographic regions. At each school, a School Improvement Plan (SIP), incorporating school- based management concepts, would be prepared and implemented in accordance with guidelines and budget advice provided by MEC and the regional administrations (Annex V). The new curricula would be tested in pilot schools, revised accordingly and new curriculum guides would eventually be distributed to all secondary schools in Guyana. 2.4 Pilot schools would receive project inputs in the form of: (i) newly developed multi-level curricula in four core subjects for Grades 7-9; (ii) increased availability of textbooks and other instructional materials and equipment; (iii) in-service training of teachers for delivering the curriculum effectively and efficiently; (iv) training and support of principals in effective school management, including educational leadership and community mobilization. In addition, in light of the severely dilapidated condition of many of the pilot schools, rehabilitation of school facilities and acquisition of furniture are supported under the School Environment component (para. 2.23) in order to adequately support the implementation of the improved educational program. 2.5 Support of School Management. Each pilot school principal would prepare a school improvement plan (SIP) and revise it annually on a rolling three-year basis. It would contain, inter alia: (i) a description of the school's student population and teaching staff, including quantitative and qualitative information; (ii) objectives for student learning outcomes and the rationale for them, (iii) priority areas to be improved in educational quality and infrastructure with quantitative and qualitative targets; (iv) strategies to take advantage of project inputs in improving identified areas; (v) implementation strategies and sequencing, (vi) strategies to effectively involve and obtain support from - 14- teachers, students, parents and the community, (vii) negotiated arrangements for greatly increased opportunities for students to move the pilot school and accessible schools offering upper-secondary education (if this is not available in the pilot school), and (viii) a detailed budget for the use of discretionary funds following broad MEC guidelines. In formulating their SIPs, pilot schools would be required to seek input from students, parents, community leaders, and employers. School and community participation would be formalized for each school in a small-membership School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC), which would participate in preparing the SIP and would approve it before submitting it for further approval by the REdO and the ACEO/Secondary. 2.6 The SIP would be prepared in accordance with MEC's SIP Guidelines, which would be drawn up and kept current by the ACEO for Secondary Education after widespread consultation at national regional, school and community levels. In assuming this responsibility, the ACEO/Secondary would receive policy guidance from the Reform Management Team (RMT; para. 3.20) comprising senior government officials, technical assistance from the Project Secretariat in the form of a school-based management specialist (para. 2.7) and budgetary guidance from the DPS/MEC, the regional administrations and the Ministry of Finance. The SIP Guidelines would describe, inter alia: (i) what to be included in a SIP (objectives, strategies, time-based implementation plans, management arrangements, base-line and progress indicators, etc.); (ii) how to establish a SIAC and formulate a SIP; (iii) the SIP cycle (formulation, approval, implementation); (iv) roles and responsibilities of the MEC/Project Secretariat and the Regional Administrations in providing assistance to schools, and how a school can obtain such assistance; (v) reporting requirements and supervision arrangements. The MEC has submitted the first draft SIP Guidelines for IDA's review in late November, 1995. At negotiations, the Government provided a revised draft for IDA's review, and agreed on further revisions to be made before the guidelines are finalized (para. 3.40 (h)). Furnishing of the SIP Guidelines acceptable to IDA is a condition of effectiveness (para. 3.41 (c)). 2.7 In order to assist the pilot schools in developing and implementing their SIPs, the project would provide school management and participatory management specialists to: (i) brief the pilot school principals in participatory-planning techniques, (ii) assist them in assembling their SIACs and preparing planning workshops at each school and (iii) help them prepare their SIPs. The school management specialist would also assist the MEC in updating the SIP Guidelines. Besides providing the specialists, the Project Director and his/her staff would give the schools continuous hands-on technical assistance in developing their SIPs and would approve their SIPs for use of project funds prior to submission to higher levels. 2.8 In order to assist school-level initiatives, the project's counterpart funds would set aside a small discretionary fund for each school to be operated and accounted by the school principal. The annual allocation to each school for this fund would be equivalent, at the outset of the project, to no less than US$3 per student. The fund could be used to purchase goods and services (i.e., library books, un- budgeted maintenance, equipment replacement) in accordance with the SIP Guidelines. The pilot schools would specify in their SIPs what these funds and any other school-controlled funds would be used for and how they would improve learning outcomes. At negotiations, the Government agreed that it will provide annual budget support, equivalent to at least US$3.00 per student on the average, to pilot school discretionary funds for uses specified in their approved SIPs as part of the Government's counterpart funds for the project. (para. 3.40 (a)). 2.9 Training of Principals, Deputy Principals and Department Heads. The effectiveness of school managers in designing and justifying financial support for school improvement programs would be one of the key elements in the success of these programs. One important criterion for the selection of - 15 - pilot schools has been the quality of leadership of the principal. Further training in school management, including financial and information management, educational leadership, communications skills, and community relations would also be an essential element in the success of the school improvement programs. The project would support training seminars specifically directed at school administrators. School administrators would join regional and MEC administrators in more general management training (para. 2.27), and participate in teacher training as appropriate (para. 2.18). In addition, school administrators would receive direct training in the process of developing their school SIPs and carrying out the project. They would receive direct guidance from the Project Director and his staff, from the specialists in school-based management and participatory management (para. 2.5), educational finance (para. 2.26), and from the curriculum (para. 2.14) and supervision teams (para. 2.20). 2.10 Introduction of a Common Curriculum. To improve efficiency and equitable access to quality basic education, the project would support the development of a common curriculum for Grades 7-9 and its implementation in the pilot schools. The common curriculum would use multi-level and cross- curricular approaches that presuppose that students of varying skill levels can pursue a common core of knowledge in most subject areas (Annex VI). The new curricula would be developed in conjunction with the identification of suitable, off-the-shelf supporting texts and other curricular materials, where possible. The project would provide technical assistance to the MEC's National Centre for Educational Resources Development (NCERD). As the existing NCERD is severely understaffed, the project would assist the NCERD in staffing up for the proposed project work program. Also to assist NCERD in recruiting and retaining qualified education specialists, the project would provide supplemental allowance from the counterpart funds for selected posts, as listed in Annex VIII. 2.11 Formulation of a common curriculum in four core subjects would be carried out in the following sequence: (i) language arts and mathematics; and (ii) science and social studies. Development and implementation of the curriculum guides would be on a two-year cycle, whereby the first year would be devoted to writing the guide, followed in the second year by test piloting in the project schools. Input from students, parents, teachers and employers would be sought at various stages. Although only the pilot schools would receive intensive, continuous curriculum support under the project, the curriculum guides would be finalized following test-piloting and distributed to all secondary schools in Guyana. By the end of Year 5 of the project, all four core subjects would have been written, piloted and distributed. 2.12 The project would not directly finance a new pre-vocational curriculum. Technological subject matter would be included in the science curriculum. In addition, the project would support the exploration of alternatives such as the resource and technology curricula being used elsewhere in the Caribbean through workshops and study tours. The project would be prepared to finance the cost of implementing such curricula at a select number of pilot schools on an experimental basis. 2.13 The structure and content of the common curriculum would be related to the curriculum and achievement objectives developed through the UNICEF-funded Minimum Levels of Attainment project. For each subject, the curriculum review would: (i) examine the scope, sequence and articulation of content and skills from primary level through secondary school; (ii) review appropriate off-the shelf texts and other curricular materials that might form a cost-effective basis for further curriculum development and specification of instructional methodologies; (iii) select instructional methodologies and alternative textbooks and instructional materials for all grades and levels, and (iv) identify appropriate mechanisms of continuous assessment of student learning for each grade. 2.14 The Curriculum Development and Implementation Unit (CDIU) of the NCERD is responsible for developing and implementing curriculum at the primary and secondary levels of the educational - 16- system as well as the preparation of national examinations. For each of the four core subjects, Curriculum, Instructional Materials and Assessment Teams (CIMAT) would be established to produce the new curriculum guides and develop the basic library list (para. 2.16). Each CIMAT would comprise of (i) a senior subject specialist, and a subject specialist from NCERD; and (ii) seven practicing teachers (including one reading specialist) who would work part-time and be paid an honoraria. NCERD's Learning Resources Unit would provide periodic assistance to CIMATs. It is expected that CIMATs would confer the teams in the other core subjects in order to achieve cross-curricular consistency. In addition, the project would fund consultants who would visit Guyana approximately every two to three months to assist in curriculum implementation and field supervision. Reflecting the sequencing strategy of curriculum development (para. 2.11), a CIMAT would be established first for each of Language Arts and Mathematics, and then for Science and Social Studies. At negotiations, the Government agreed to establish CIMATs for Language Arts and Math no later than December 1, 1996, and for Science and Social Studies, no later than September 1, 1998 (para.3.40 (b)). The project would fund each of the CIMATs for two years, initially. If needed, funding for the teams would be extended for an additional two-year period, beyond which MEC would either take over their funding or terminate them. In order to strengthen the MEC's curriculum development capability, the project would finance professional development activities such as study tours, conferences, etc. 2.15 The project would also provide technical assistance to the NCERD's Test Development Unit in the form of a short-term specialist in educational assessment to (i) assist the unit to design and implement continuous assessment in the classroom and (ii) examine the structure of testing affecting secondary students from the SSEE onward. 2.16 Provision of Textbooks and Other Instructional Materials. The project would provide the pilot schools with a basic library of textbooks and teaching and learning materials, as specified for each subject by the CIMAT (para. 2.14), to equip all students in the pilot schools with adequate curricular resources. Books and materials would be procured by the Project Secretariat, and distributed to schools by the Book Distribution Unit of NCERD through the applicable regional education department, until a textbook policy is developed and adopted (para. 2.17). The ProcurementlFinance Coordinator of the Project Secretariat would assume management responsibility for the procurement and distribution of books and learning materials. While the texts and learning materials would be provided to students at no charge, the schools would enforce an effective policy on student financial responsibility for lost or damaged books. The project would fund a textbook specialist to help develop the basic library list and other textbook-related functions. Additional assistance would be sought from other Bank-financed projects in the Caribbean. CIMATs, with the assistance of the textbook specialist, would consult extensively with pilot school principals and teachers in developing the basic library list. In most cases, more than one text in a subject area would be selected, allowing schools to choose among alternative texts to promote different program emphases. The review would begin with textbooks produced and distributed under a recently completed UNDP-funded Textbook Program. Textbooks produced and/or widely used in the region would also be considered. 2.17 The project would also support NCERD's Learning Resources Unit in defining an appropriate overall textbook policy framework for Guyana, specifying how texts are to be selected, purchased, distributed, replaced, re-selected and funded. The textbook specialist, funded by the project, would help NCERD define and implement the overall textbook policy. At negotiations, the Government agreed to adopt and implement such a textbook policy no later than September 1, 1996 (para 3.40 (c)). 2.18 In-Service Teacher Training. In spite of the presence of some dedicated and skilled teachers, the prevailing capacity of Guyana's teachers in both subject content and pedagogy is limited. Extensive - 17- in-service training from the outset would therefore be an essential element in pilot school improvement. Pedagogical emphasis would be placed on multi-level and team-teaching methods. The Project Director, in collaboration with the ACEO/Secondary, would have overall responsibility for in-service training activities in the pilot schools. In-service teacher training services provided by the project would be carried out by the University of Guyana (UG) or a training institution acceptable to the IDA under a contract with the project and would be coordinated with relevant secondary training activities conducted by other institutions. The project would finance two consultants to assist the training institute in: (i) the development and implementation of in-service training programs and (ii) the training of field supervisors in effective classroom observation, monitoring and evaluation. In the course of developing and implementing the teacher training programs, the UG itself would be strengthened by the extensive technical assistance provided by said consultants. Consequently, the UG would be able to provide critical long-term sustainability in teacher training after project completion. 2.19 For each pilot school, the project would finance: (i) preparation of detailed teacher-training needs assessments based on the SIP; and (ii) the design and implementation of an in-service training program to address the identified training needs. The in-service training program would focus training resources on teachers who can be expected to remain with the secondary school system. Training would include subject content, use of instructional resources, classroom management, pedagogy, and use of the new curriculum guides as they become available. In-service training would comprise a summer residential program, workshops in the regions throughout the year held either at a central pilot school or a resource center and on-going classroom supervision (Annex VI). 2.20 Supervision. Good supervision and technical support of teachers is key to developing and maintaining quality teaching and learning. Throughout the period during which pilot schools receive continuous support, overall supervision of these schools would be carried out by the Project Secretariat. Under the management of the Project Director, the project would fund three full-time supervision teams (Annex VI). The project would finance technical assistance to train the supervision teams in: (i) effective classroom observation; and (ii) providing technical support to teachers and administrators on best pedagogical practices, classroom motivation and discipline techniques, use of new curriculum, use of instructional materials, student assessment methodologies, development of student feedback system, record keeping and collaborative teaching methods. The supervision team leader would provide supervision reports on school visits to the Project Director with copies to ACEO/Secondary and the REdO. 2.21 Performance Monitoring. The ultimate success of the reform program (i.e., improved achievement scores, student matriculation rates into upper secondary grades, acquisition of meaningful work, etc.) can only be detected towards the end of the project, and needs to be assessed at the school level. In order to build a basis for impact evaluation, the pilot schools would be required to continuously monitor and update: (i) school indicators, such as student and teacher attendance, the use of textbooks and other learning materials, progress in teacher training and supportive supervision, and other efficiency indicators; and (ii) indicators of student learning outcomes measured through continuous assessment. Initially, these indicators would be supplied as part of the baseline information to be included in the SIP. Initial and updated indicators would be verified by the pilot school supervision teams (para. 2.20). The Project Secretariat would assume overall responsibility to ensure that these indicators are aggregated for all pilot schools by the school information system (para. 2.29). A partial and a comprehensive analyses on changes in student performance and achievements would be carried out prior to the Mid-Term Review (para. 3.31) and upon the completion of implementation, respectively with assistance from a project- financed evaluation specialist (para. 3.29). - 18- (2) School Environment Component (US$11.2 million, 68% of baseline cost) 2.22 Learning at most schools (both primary and secondary) has been seriously hindered by: (i) severe decay of buildings and facilities, which frequently poses physical dangers and sanitation problems (para. 1.33); and (ii) overcrowding. Comprehensive rehabilitation (including reconstruction and extension) of about 40 primary schools (roughly 10% of all primary schools in the country) is expected to start under the IDB-financed PEIP this year. At the secondary level, limited repair work has been done or is planned at about 10 schools (roughly 10% of GSSs and CHSs; including 5 of the 12 pilot schools) under such programs as CPFP (EU financed) and SIMAP (IDB/IDA financed). Basic furniture such as student desks and chairs, bookcases, blackboards, and desks for teachers and support staff are generally inadequate and in poor repair. Equipment necessary to teach scientific and technological topics is almost entirely absent from schools. The inadequate security structures of most schools have also meant that much instructional material and equipment has been subject to theft. a) Pilot Schools Subcomponent (US$5.2 million, 32% of baseline cost) 2.23 In order to adequately support improvement of education at the pilot schools, the project would support: (i) building rehabilitation and renovation; (ii) extension; (iii) construction of multi-purpose laboratories; and (iv) acquisition of furniture. Because pilot schools would receive project inputs in the forms of textbooks and other instructional materials (para. 2.16) as well as furniture and equipment, security structures would be provided as part of the rehabilitation and renovation. b) Emergency School Repair Subcomponent (US$6.0 million, 37% of baseline cost) 2.24 The project would reserve funds for emergency repair works at non-pilot secondary schools based on the needs for: (a) structural repairs (structural frame, foundations and walls); (b) roof repairs (including weather proofing, insulation, sound separation); (c) life-safety exiting provisions (including stairs); and (d) essential repairs of utility systems, including electrical system, potable water distribution system, sewerage system and toilet blocks. Schools with the most serious life-safety violations would rate highest for inclusion among the list of schools to be repaired under this component. Such needs would be assessed through the Nationwide Physical Facilities Survey (2.28), which would include the development of criteria, agreeable to IDA, to select secondary schools to be supported. Such criteria should include: (i) repair needs identified through the Survey; (ii) student enrollment; (iii) history of repair work in recent years; (iv) regional equity; and (v) urban-rural equity. The 12 pilot schools would be ineligible under this subcomponent. (3) National and Regional Institutional Strengthening Component (US$2.1 million, 13% of baseline cost) 2.25 The project would support a number of interventions designed to improve education sector performance through strengthening of budget planning, organization and management, the school information system, nationwide physical facility survey, social awareness campaigns, and preparation for a follow-up project. 2.26 Budget Planning. During the appraisal, GOG confirmed that MEC is now responsible for the review and clearance of regional education budget submissions prior to the MOF approval, and this was reconfirmed at negotiations (para. 3.40 (d)). However, MEC lacks rational allocation criteria as well as - 19- staff to facilitate the allocation of scarce resources in the education sector. The project would support the development and implementation of new budgeting guidelines, which would treat individual schools as a basic planning unit and establish rational and clear resource allocation criteria (i.e., formula based on number of students, availability of instructional materials, remoteness of location, etc.). The project would fund an education finance specialist to assist with the preparation of the guidelines. The specialist would train and work closely with the staff of the DPS/Finance, liaise closely with all the main actors in school finance including MOF, RExOs, REdOs and in MEC, the DCEO/Admin., and help the principals of pilot schools develop school-based budget systems to complement strengthened school management. The purchase or development of a user-friendly computer application, which would facilitate budgeting exercises would be supported as part of the school information system (para. 2.29). 2.27 Organization and Management. The project would support the development and implementation of strategies to improve overall effectiveness of education administration. Such strategies would be built on pertinent work carried out in the past and at present, including: (i) the draft Desk Manual for Education Managers developed by MEC with technical assistance from UNICEF; and (ii) relevant activities undertaken by the ongoing IDA-financed Public Administration Project. More specifically, the project would finance consultants for: (a) increasing scope and depth of analyses carried out by said work; (b) developing a long-term strategy and a detailed short-medium-term plan to improve management effectiveness; and (c) training of MEC and regional education department staff in general management skills (e.g., communication skills, priority management, information/file management, use of office technology, and effective leadership) and educational administration subjects (such as budget practice and school-based management systems). These activities would be closely coordinated with Budget Planning Strengthening (para. 2.26) and the upgrading of the School Information System (para. 2.29). Office equipment including PC workstations, photocopying machines, fax machines and additional telephone lines would also be provided by the project. 2.28 Nationwide Physical Facilities Survey. Dilapidation of school buildings and facilities as well as overcrowding (paras. 1.33, 2.22) would continue to be serious problems. In order to assist the Government in identifying capital investment priorities and carrying out resource planning, the project would support a detailed nation-wide survey of secondary school infrastructure to be completed during the first year of project implementation. The survey would select, based on criteria and methods agreeable to IDA, representative samples of schools offering secondary education to be examined. Such criteria and methods to select samples will be made as a part of the Project's Operational Manual (para. 3.41 (a)). Physical examinations of the sample schools would be preceded by the development of school design guidelines, including prototype design standards. The guidelines and standards would be used by physical examination teams as an objective point of reference. Information generated through the survey would become part of the School Information System (para. 2.29). It would also be used to develop objective criteria to determine the eligibility and priorities of secondary schools to be supported under the School Environment subcomponent of the project (para. 2.24). As a condition of disbursement against the Emergency School Repair subcategory, the Government will complete the Nationwide Physical Facility Survey in the following sequence: (a) development of school design guidelines and standards satisfactory to IDA; (b) completion of the physical examinations of the selected samples and publication of survey reports; and (c) development and adoption of criteria, satisfactory to IDA, to be used to select schools for emergency repair (para. 3.43). 2.29 School Information System. Lack of information on individual schools has been a major obstacle in sector management. In order to improve quality and availability of information on schools, a school mapping exercise (SME) was initiated in 1993 with the assistance of SIMAP. The SME has - 20 - completed initial data collection in all regions except Regions 1, 8 and 9. For data processing, the IDB- supported PEIP has provided MEC with several personal computers. 2.30 The project would support the continuation of SME, and data collection in the remaining regions. Furthermore, the project would finance the establishment of the School Information System (SIS), which would be a permanent mechanism to compile, process and store information on: (a) individual students, (b) student learning outcomes assessed on a sample or census basis; (c) teachers and staff; (d) teaching methods and curricula, (e) textbooks, other instructional materials, equipment, and furniture; (f) school sites and buildings; and (g) communities and school catchment areas. At present there are three major data collection points in MEC (in the Education Planning Unit [EPU], the Finance Division, and the Personnel Division). The upgraded SIS would be located in the EPU and headed by a School Information Officer, who would be hired under the project and financed by the proposed IDA credit on a declining basis (para. 3.15). S/he would report to the Chief Planning Officer. At negotiations, the Government agreed to hire the Schools Information Officer under terms of reference acceptable to IDA no later than September 1, 1996 (para. 3.40 (e)). REdO Offices would assume the function of regional focal points for the SIS. The project would also finance a short-term management information systems specialist who would: (i) analyze in detail the flow of information to and from schools, regional administrations, and national agencies; (ii) develop a medium-long term computerization strategy; (iii) in conjunction with said strategy, develop detailed design specifications of SIS enhancement, including data structure and flow, hardware and software, application programs, prototype screen & report formats, communications and networking structure, and training. Based on the specifications developed, a firm would be contracted to implement the SIS package, which would include computer hardware & software, additional application programs (if any to be developed), operational manuals, communication devices and security devices. Computerization would be carried out by the project in MEC and all REdO offices as well as the 12 pilot schools in order to test school level feasibility. SIS design and implementation would be closely coordinated with relevant activities under Budget Planning (para. 2.26), Organization and Management Strengthening (para. 2.27) and Nationwide Physical Facility Survey (para. 2.28). 2.31 Social Awareness Campaign. Given the wide-spread impact of the reform program on students, parents, educators, employers and the general public, a social awareness campaign (SAC) would be financed under the project to: (i) properly assess and reflect the views and concerns of stake- holders in the reform process; and (ii) inform the public about reform objectives, benefits, implementation strategies and progress made. The SAC would be carried out by a consulting firm specialized in social marketing on contract to the Project Secretariat. The SAC would employ press releases, discussions on TV and radio, newsletters, other media, community workshops, national conferences, retreats for decision makers, etc., and closely collaborate with the school-based- management specialist (para. 2.7) in order to assure stake-holder participation. Furthermore, as part of its assignment, the firm would advise the Project Director on the views of various segments of the public and how these views should affect the reform process. 2.32 Preparation of Phase II Project. As the initial phase of a long-term secondary education reform, the present proposed project would support the preparation of a second-phase project. A Phase II project would: (i) provide direct assistance to a larger number of schools in implementing the curricula of 4 core subjects and supporting school-based management; (ii) develop and support the implementation of curricula for subjects not covered by the proposed project (Phase I project), including Resource and Technology; and (iii) introduce reform measures at the upper-secondary level (grades 10 and I 1). Preparation of the Phase II project would be carried out by the Project Secretariat and MEC staff under the guidance of the RMT with project financed technical assistance. The preparation could commence as soon as the Phase I project has maintained performance highly satisfactory to IDA for over 12 months. - 21 - Semi-annual IDA supervision missions (Annex VII, Table 3) would assess project performance based on the agreed performance indicators (para. 3.29) and discuss with GOG the timing to start the preparation. - 23 - 3. IMPLEMENTATION A. Project Cost and Financing 3.1 Project costs. The total cost of the project, including physical and price contingencies, is estimated at US$19.3 million or G$2,755 million. Baseline costs and contingencies are calculated at US$16.3 million and US$3.0 million equivalent, respectively. The foreign exchange component is expected to be 49% of total project costs. The breakdown of costs by project component is shown in Table 3.1. A detailed breakdown of project expenditures by component is provided in Annex X, Table 1. Table 3.1: Project Cost Summary by Component Components Project Cost Summary (USS Million) Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs A. iducation Program Quality 0.6 1.S 2.5 74 15 B. School Environment Pilot Schools 2.9 2.2 5.2 43 32 Emergency School Repair 3.4 2.6 6.0 43 37 Subtotal School Environment 6.3 4.8 11.2 43 68 C. National and Regional Institutional Strengthening Institutional Strengthening 0.2 1.1 1.3 85 8 Project Management 0.5 0.2 0.8 32 5 Subtotal National and Regional Institutional Strengthe 0.7 1.4 2.1 65 13 D. PPF Refinancing - 0.6 0.6 100 3 Total BASELINE COSTS 7.7 8.6 16.3 53 100 1Fysical Contingencies 0.3 0.3 0.5 49 4 Price Contingencies 1.8 0.6 2.4 24 14 Total PROJECT COSTS 9.8 9.5 19.3 49 118 3.2 Basis of Cost Estimates. Project costs are estimated at 1995 prices. Estimated school rehabilitation costs for the project are based on unit prices derived from cost analyses for the rehabilitation of similar facilities from a sample of current contracts. Costs of equipment, furniture, and materials are based on the prices of similar items procured in Guyana by the MEC. Cost of training, local and international consultants, and other services reflect local or international rates, as applicable. Cost estimates for textbooks are based on current costs and costing standards used by the MEC. 3.3 Contingency Allowances. Physical contingencies (averaging 4% baseline costs) are estimated at 10% for pilot school related civil works and goods. No physical contingencies are assumed for services, emergency school repair component, and administrative expenditures. Price contingencies (averaging 14% of baseline costs) are estimated on the basis of expected annual international and local price increases of 2.6% and 9.0%, respectively, throughout the life of the project. Total contingencies represent 18% of baseline costs. 3.4 Foreign Exchange Component. Direct and indirect foreign exchange costs are estimated at about G$1,353 million (US$9.5 million equivalent), including contingencies. Based on an analysis of expenditures of similar projects in Guyana, the foreign exchange component for the major categories was estimated as follows: civil works and furniture 50%; office technology equipment and vehicles, 100%; other goods 95%; internationally-recruited consultants 100%. 3.5 Financing Plan. An IDA credit of US$17.3 million equivalent would finance 90% of total project costs, excluding taxes (Table 3.2). The relatively high share of IDA support is deemed necessary due to the substantial deterioration of Guyana's capacity to mobilize domestic resources, given high debt - 24 - servicing requirements. Because all contracts through MEC are tax and duty exempt, the project cost estimates exclude local taxes. At negotiations, the Government gave assurance that it would provide annual project counterpart funds (para. 3.40 (f)). Table 3.2: Project Financing by Component (USS Million) Components by Financiers International Government of Development Local Guyana Association Total For. (Excl. Amount % Amount % Amount % Exch. Taxes) A. Education Program Quality 0.4 13.8 2.6 86.2 3.0 15 .6 2.1 0.9 B. School Environment Pilot Schools 0.8 105 6.4 89.5 7.2 37.4 2.7 4.5 Emergency School Repair 0.7 11.5 5.3 88.5 6.0 31.2 2.6 3.4 Subtotal School Environment 1.4 10.9 11.8 689.1 132 686 53 7.9 C. National and Regional Institutional Strengthening Institutional Strengthening 0.1 4.5 1.4 95.5 1.5 7 7 1.3 0.2 Project Management 0.0 0.0 1.0 100.0 1 0 5.3 0.3 0.7 Subtotal National and Regional Institutional Strengthe 0.1 2.7 2.4 97.3 2,5 13.0 1 5 1.0 D. PPF Refinancing - 0.0 0.6 100.0 0.6 2.9 0 6 - Total Disbursement 1.9 10.0 17.3 90.0 19.3 100.0 9.5 98 3.6 Incremental Recurrent Costs. Because the project aims for qualitative improvements rather than the expansion of coverage, incremental recurrent costs (IRC) generated by the project are expected to be small (Table 3.3). IRC would be generated mainly by increases in building maintenance, maintenance and operation of equipment, SIP support funds, replacement of books and instructional materials, miscellaneous supplies, and MEC staff. These costs are projected to grow from US$0.05 million in 1997 to US$0.17 million in 2003 (final project year). In IDA's judgment, the government would be in a position to absorb these costs, estimated at 0.7% of its education budget after the project is completed, assuming the govemment increases its education expenditures by some 5% annually during the duration of the project3. Table 3.3: Project Generated Incremental Recurrent Cost (IRC) Incremental Recurrent Cost Totals IncludIng Contingencies (USS Million) IDA Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 1. Pilot Schools SIP Support Funds 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 Building and Furniture Maintenance - - - 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.16 Replacement of Books and Instructional Materials 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 Subtotal Pilot Schools 0.02 0.03 0.03 U.06 0.06 0. 0 0.07 0.36 2. Aftercare of Em ergency School Repair - - - 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.19 3. Administrative and Miscellaneous Expenditures Maintenance and Operation 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.13 MEC Supplemental Staff /e 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.16 Subtotal Adm InIstrative and M lscellaneous Expenditures 0.03 0.03 0U04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.30 Subtotal lncrem ental Recurrent Cost O.O5 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.15 019 1 0.17 U.6s As % of Annual Recurrent Expenditures in Educaiton 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% Am ount to be Flinanced by IDA D.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.25 Average IDA Financing % of Incremental Rec. Cost 45.5% 48.2% 50.2% 29.0% 24.3% 22.7% 22.7% 29.4% 3.7 Direct Input to Pilot Schools. Total baseline investment in the 12 pilot schools are estimated to be US$6.3 million (38% of total project baseline costs) supporting rehabilitation, furniture, textbooks, other learning materials and equipment, teacher and administrator training, and SIS related equipment. 3 In 1994, GOG increased its recurrent education budget by 23% and by 33% in 1995. Since real annual GDP growth has been over 8% during the past three years, the projected annual increase in the recurrent education budget is rather conservatively estimated at 5%. - 25 - Assuming that the investment is amortized in 15 years, some 25,000 students would spend approximately 4 years at the 12 pilot schools. In this scenario, the average investment cost would be US$251 per student for a 4-year education, or US$63 for each year spent by a student at a pilot school. Average annual incremental recurrent costs per student are estimated to be less than US$12 for supporting building maintenance, maintenance and operation of SIS and learning equipment, SIP, replenishment of damaged or lost furniture, textbooks and other instructional materials, and miscellaneous supplies. B. Procurement 3.8 Procurement Assistance. The Project Secretariat in MEC would be responsible for the procurement of project-funded inputs for both the MEC and the pilot schools as set-forth in the procurement summary in Table 3.4. As a condition of effectiveness, a Procurement/Finance coordinator with qualifications satisfactory to IDA would be hired within the Project Secretariat to facilitate procurement (para. 3.41 (d)). The project would also finance the hiring of civil works supervision firms and procurement agents (Annex IX). Table 3.4: Summary of Proposed Procurement Arrangements Procurement Arrangements USS million l.C.B la N.C.B.\b Other Total A. civil Works 1.0 5.9 3.U Wc 9.9 (1.0) (5.6) (2.9) (9.4) B. Goods - 0.2 \d 1.7 \e 1.9 - (0.2) (1.7) (1.9) C. Consultants' Services - - 6.9 6.9 (5.5) (5.5) D. Training and Operating Expenditures - - 0.6 0.6 (0.6) (0.6) Total 1.0 6.1 12.2 19.3 (1.0) (5.8) (10.6) (17.3) Note: Figures in parenthesis are the respecti%e amounts financed by Intemational Deweiopment Association \a Intemational Competithke Bidding \b National Competitihe Bidding \c Three quotations up to an aggregate contract value of US$3.0 million \d School and office fumiture le LIB for the School Information Systems, Computer Equipment, Books (textbooks and reading books) as well as other instructional materials and equipment. Intemational Shopping up to an aggregate amount of US$150,000, and National Shopping up to an aggregate amount of US$50,000. 3.9 Civil Works contracts for the rehabilitation of schools are expected to cost US$100,000 or more and less than US$1.0 million will be awarded in accordance with National Competitive Bidding Procedures (NCB), which must not discriminate against overseas bidders and are acceptable to IDA, up to an aggregate contract value of US$5.9 million. GOG is already using standard bidding documents for works under on-going projects financed by the IDA and IDB. These would be employed under the proposed project and adapted as necessary. Contracts estimated to cost US$1.0 million or more would be awarded in accordance with International Competitive Bidding (ICB) procedures. Only one pilot school is expected to fall under the ICB category. Smaller works, which cannot be grouped into packages of US$ 100,000 or more, would be procured under lump-sum, fixed price contracts awarded on the basis of quotations obtained from three qualified contractors in response to a written invitation up to an aggregate contract value of US$3.0 million. - 26 - 3.10 Goods to be procured under the project would include office technology equipment, the school information system, fumiture, books (textbooks and library books), other instructional materials and equipment, and vehicles. The School Information Systems (para. 2.30) and any other office technology equipment would be procured using Limited International Bidding (LIB) among manufacturers with established service facilities in Guyana or neighboring countries. Books (textbooks and reading books) as well as instructional materials and equipment would also be procured using LIB procedures. Furniture would be procured in accordance with NCB procedures, and grouped whenever possible in packages of US$50,000 or more but less than US$ 100,000. For smaller purchases, International Shopping procedures may be used up to an aggregate amount of US$150,000 for contracts valued at less than US$50,000, and National Shopping procedures up to an aggregate amount of US$50,000 for contracts valued at less than US$10,000. 3.11 Consultants' Services will be contracted in accordance with the provisions of the Guideline for the Use of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers and by the World Bank as Executing Agency, dated August 1981. The Guideline also apply to the hiring of MEC supplemental staff, including the School Information Officer (para. 2.30). Consultant services to be procured under the project are listed in Annex VIII. 3.12 Prior Review. Prior IDA review would be required before bids are invited, and before final decisions on contract awards are made for the following procurement actions: (a) all ICB and LIB procurement; (b) all civil works contracts estimated to cost US$500,000 or more; (c) the first NCB procurement in each of civil works and goods every year; (d) all consultants' services estimated to cost US$50,000 or more if provided by a firm, and US$10,000 or more if provided by an individual; (e) all consultants' services contracted using the direct contracting (single-source) procedure; (f) any amendment of contracts resulting in the increase of the contract value beyond the review limits set in (a) through (d) above; and (g) assignment of a critical nature as reasonably determined by IDA. The review described here would provide for prior review by IDA of approximately 60% of the total value of IDA- financed contracts. Random ex-post review of all other contracts will be carried out by IDA supervision missions. Table 3.6 summarizes applicable procurement procedures and review requirements. C. Disbursement 3.13 Disbursement Profile. The proceeds of the credit are projected to be disbursed over a seven- and a-half-year period, based on the standard disbursement profile for education projects in the region. Accordingly, the project is expected to be completed by June 30, 2003, and the Closing Date would be December 31, 2003. The Govemment has expressed its intention, however, to implement the project over a five year period. A forecast of disbursements is shown in Table 3.5. Table 3.5: Disbursement Forecast US$ million equivalent IDA Fiscal Year FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Annual Disbursement 1.6 3.9 4.0 3.7 2.2 1.1 0.8 Accumulated Disbursement 1.6 5.5 9.5 13.2 15.4 16.5 17.3 3.14 Required Documentation. Disbursement against the following expenditures would require the submission of complete documentation: (a) all expenditures requiring ICB and LIB procurement; (b) all civil works contracts valued at US$500,000 or more; (c) the first expenditure requiring NCB - 27 - procurement in each of civil works and goods every year; (d) all consultants' services contracts valued at US$50,000 or more if performed by a firm, and at US$10,000 or more if performed by an individual. Disbursement against expenditures other than those specified in (a) through (d) in the above, and those against activities not undertaken by contracts will be made on the basis of Statement of Expenditures (SOE). Documentation would be retained by the MEC and would be made available for IDA staff review and the auditors. Applicable documentation requirements by contract value are summarized in Table 3.6. Table 3.6: Summary of Requirements for Procurement and Disbursement Applicable Required Procurement Review of Documentation for IDA Contract Value/a Procedure /b Procurement by IDA Disbursement/c Civil Works US$1,000,000 or more ICB Prior Review Corrplete Documentation Less than US$1,000,000 but US$500,000 or more NCB Prior Revew Corrplete Documentation Less than US$500,000 but US$100,000 or more First contract each year NCB Prior Review Conmp,ete Documentation Second and subsequent contracts each year NCB Random Ex-post Review SOE Less than US$100,000 Three quotations Random EK-post Review SOE Goods US$100,000 or more ICB Prior Review Cormplete Documentation Less than US$100,000 but US$50,000 or more For School I Office Furniture First contract each year NCB Prior Review Corrplete Docurentation Second and subsequent contracts each year NCB Random Ex-post Review SOE For Goods other than School I Office Furniture LIB Prior Review Coniplete Documentation Less than US$50,000 but US$10,000 or more International Shopping Random Ex-post Review SOE Less than US$10,000 National Shopping Random Ex-post Review SOE Consultants' Services /d For Consulting Firms All single-source contracts regardless of contract valu Consulants' Service Prior Review Corrplete Documentation US$50,000 or more Consulants' Service Prior Review Corrplete Documentation Less than US$50,000 (not single-source contract) Consulants' Service Random Ex-post Review SOE For Individual Consultants US$1 0,000 or more ConsuKants' Service Prior Review Complete Documentation Less than US$10,000 Consultants' Service Random Ex-post Review SOE All critical assignments as determ Ined by IDA Consultants' Service Prior Review Corniete Documentation Training and Operating Expenditures N/A Random Ex-post Review SOE Xa ApplicaDle to 0o0t estirated value and any amendment \b ICB-nternational Competitive Bidding; LIB-Limited International Competitive Bidding; NCB-National Competitive Bidding \c SOE-Statement of Expenditure \d Prior Review of Terms of Reference is required regardless of contract value 3.15 Disbursement Percentages. Disbursement percentages of IDA credit against eligible expenditures would be: (a) for civil works, 85%; (b) for goods, 100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory cost) and 85% of local expenditures; (c) for consultants' services, 100%; (d) for training, 100%; (e) for operating expenditures, 85%. Consultants' Service includes, inter alia, Project Secretariat staff and practicing teachers contracted for CIMATs on a part-time basis. MEC supplemental staff includes Schools Information Officer (para. 2.30). Project allowance for existing government posts (salary top-ups) would be fully provided from GOG counterpart funds, and ineligible for IDA disbursement. The proposed allocation of credit proceeds by disbursement category are presented in Table 3.7. 3.16 Special Account. To facilitate project implementation, the Special Account (SA) opened in the Bank of Guyana or in a commercial bank acceptable to IDA would be maintained and managed by MEC. The authorized allocation would be US$1.2 million corresponding to about four months of estimated - 28 - project expenditures. The initial deposit would be limited to US$500,000, with the full amount of the authorized allocation to be released when disbursements have reached SDR 2 million. Applications for replenishment of the special account would be submitted on a monthly basis or when one-third of the amount deposited has been withdrawn, whichever occurs earlier. Documentation requirements would follow the same procedures described in para. 3.14. In addition, monthly bank statements of the SA would be submitted with each replenishment application. Table 3.7: Disbursement Category and Suggested Allocation of Credit Proceeds Credit Disbursementcategory Amount Percentage of IDA F'nancing (USS million equivalent) A. Clvil Works 1. Pilot Schools 4.64 85% 2. Energency School Repair 4.45 85% B. Goods 1. Piot Schools /a 0.81 100% of foreign expendtures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory costs) and 85% of ocal expenditures 2. Other /b 0.62 100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory costs) and 85% of local expendiures C. Consultants Services 1. Assistance in the Development of School hnprovement Plans 0.10 100% 2. School Design Guideline/Standard and Nationw ide Rhyslcal Faciliy 0.07 100% Survey 3. Other /c 3.51 100% D. Training 0.41 100% E. Operating Expenditures 1. MEC Supplemental Staff /d 0.15 85% 2. Project Secretariat /e 0.15 85% F. PPF Refinancing 0.55 Unallocated 1.87 Total 1 7.34 \a Textbooks, reading books, other instructional materiel and equipment, and furnture \b Including the SE package (hardw are, softw are, appication development and training) \c Including architecturalVengineering design and supervision of works for Piot Schools and Erergency School Repair \d School kiformation Officer \e Utilities, Cornrunications, Equipment Maintenance and Operation, and Supplies D. Accounting and Auditing 3.17 The MEC would keep project expenditure accounts, in accordance with internationally accepted accounting practices. The Project Secretariat would employ a Procurement/Finance Coordinator to maintain the project accounts under the supervision of the MEC's Deputy Permanent Secretary (Finance). 3.18 Project accounts would be audited by an independent auditor acceptable to the IDA. GOG would provide copies of audited statements to the IDA within six months of the end of each fiscal year. The auditor's report would include opinions and comments, as necessary, on the project accounts and on methods employed in compiling the statements of expenditure, their accuracy, the relevance of supporting documents, their eligibility for financing in terms of the project's credit agreement, and the standards of record-keeping and internal controls related to the foregoing. As a condition of credit effectiveness, the Government would contract audit services with an independent auditor whose qualifications and terms of reference are satisfactory to IDA for the first year of the project (para. 3.41 (b)). - 29 - E. Project Management and Implementation 3.19 Project Preparation and Readiness for Implementation. The proposed project was identified by IDA staff who visited Guyana in September, 1994. It has been prepared by the Government, with the assistance of the Project Preparation Facility and IDA staff. Preparation has been supported by PPF P858-0. 3.20 The Secondary School Reform Program. The Project would be the first phase of a fifteen-year Secondary School Reform Program (SSRP), which would require the long-term involvement of MEC, its specialized units NCERD and CPCE, the University of Guyana, regional administrations, MOF, and MPWCD. During project preparation, MEC assembled a reform management team (RMT), composed of a number of senior MEC officials, including the Permanent Secretary, the Chief Education Officer and other relevant MEC officers as well as a representative from MOF. The RMT has been and would be the policy-setting group for the project. The management of secondary education was unified under the ACEO/Secondary since September, 1995 when the post of ACEO/CHS was vacated. At negotiations, GOG agreed to: (i) prepare, no later than December 31, 1996, an action plan satisfactory to IDA to maintain the unity and cohesion of the management of secondary education, and (ii) commence, no later than December 31, 1997, the implementation of the plan under the project. (para. 3.40 (g)). 3.21 Borrower Ownership. Throughout project preparation, careful measures have been taken to establish borrower-ownership of the project and to ensure stakeholder participation. Immediately following the preappraisal mission in March, 1995, the IDA financed a one-week study tour participated by four senior MEC officials to Jamaica, where Bank-financed Education IV (L2899-JM) and Reform of Secondary Education (ROSE; L3580-JM) projects have been implemented. Besides learning from the Jamaican experience in secondary education reform, MEC staff and IDA staff engaged in intensive discussions on detailed project design and strategies to complete project preparation. Overall criteria for the selection of pilot schools were agreed on during this visit (para. 3.41 (a); Annex V). In addition, two key MEC officials visited IDA headquarters in Washington for a period of two weeks and worked with IDA staff to finalize the white-cover SAR as well as to learn about relevant Bank-funded educational reforms in other countries. 3.22 Stakeholder Participation. Based on the agreed-on strategies, MEC has carried out extensive consultations with stakeholders, including principals, teachers, parents, regional administrations, local employers, Guyana Teacher's Union, Teachers Service Commission, etc. through formal and informal meetings. Pilot schools were revisited and some of them were replaced. This consultative process has began to tear down the strong sense of despair, which has been perpetuated by the prolonged neglect of education and widespread in Guyana's education community, and is building momentum towards sound education reform. The project, designed to promote decentralization of decision making and resource management to the school and community level, would further encourage stakeholder participation. 3.23 Project Management. The project itself would be managed by a project director, who would report to the Permanent Secretary of Education and would be a member of the RMT. He or she would be responsible for the implementation of project activities and would manage the project through a small Project Secretariat, which would be staffed with an Administrator, a Procurement/Finance Coordinator, a Civil Works Coordinator, two administrative assistants, a secretary and a driver. The project director would consult closely with the ACEO/Secondary and would manage individual project activities through the individual MEC managers responsible, such as the Assistant Directors for Curriculum Development, Learning Resources, and Test Development in NCERD for curriculum matters, the Chief Planning Officer, for the School Information System, and the pilot school principals for School Improvement - 30 - Plans. The project would finance the salaries, office technology equipment, furniture and operational costs of the Project Secretariat. As a condition of credit effectiveness, the Government would have established the Project Secretariat, and appointed and posted the Project Director and the two Coordinators of the Project Secretariat, with skills and experience satisfactory to IDA (para. 3.41 (d)) 3.24 Education Program Quality. Developing and implementing pilot School Improvement Plans under the project would be the responsibility of the pilot school principals and the School Improvement Advisory Committees, under the SIP Guidelines developed and kept current by the ACEO/Secondary (para. 2.6). The Project Director, other Secretariat staff, and consultants would provide the schools with hands-on technical assistance in preparing SIPs. 3.25 The ACEO/Secondary would have overall responsibility for policy, planning and implementation of training activities in the secondary schools in consultation with the REdOs and school principals. All secondary training activities under the project would be managed by the Project Director in close coordination with the ACEO/Secondary. The Learning Systems Committee under the DCEO/Development would provide coordination among all pre- and in-service training activities. The Project Director, with assistance from the Project Secretariat, would oversee both the project's training activities for pilot school managers and its in-service training activities for pilot school teachers. Training activities under the project for pilot school principals and senior managers, REdOs, DEOs and DESs would be designed and carried out by MEC, MOF and other government personnel and a school management specialist. Residential in-service teacher training would be contracted out to a training institution under a Training Agreement with the project acceptable to IDA (para. 3.41 (a)). The Project Director would supervise this contract. 3.26 Curriculum and textbook activities would be coordinated by the Assistant Directors for Curriculum Development and Learning Resources, NCERD. Individual core-subject Curriculum, Instructional Materials and Assessment Teams (CIMATs), composed of relevant NCERD curriculum and textbook specialists, would carry out project activities in curriculum and instructional materials. Three full-time supervision teams would be created to provide continuing curriculum support and training to the pilot schools. The teams would consist of members from UG's training operation (teacher trainers and subject specialists) and the regional education office (typically the DEO or DES). Designated personnel from the Inspectorate would visit schools periodically. The Procurement/Finance Coordinator would assume the overall responsibility to oversee the delivery of goods to pilot schools or any other applicable recipient (para 2.16). 3.27 Civil Works. The Project Director and Civil Works Coordinator would be involved in assisting the pilot schools develop the civil works components of their SIPs. Once MEC, the regional administration, and the Project Secretariat have approved a SIP, including the civil works component, the Civil Works Coordinator, with assistance from a consulting engineering/architectural firm, would prepare and drawings and bidding documents for the pilot schools and assist the Project Secretariat in supervising the civil works carried out under the project. Appointment and posting of a Civil Works Coordinator whose qualification is acceptable to IDA is a condition of effectiveness (para. 3.41 (d)). As a condition of disbursement against the civil works component, the Government would contract an engineering/architectural firm for assistance in the preparation of drawing and bidding documents and supervising construction (para. 3.42). 3.28 Project Launch Workshop. To initiate project implementation, a project launch workshop to review the project and provide specific types of training for the project participants, would be held - 31 - following Board approval. Participants would be persons with significant responsibility under the project, including Project Secretariat and other MEC personnel, regional officers, pilot school principals and deputy principals, and selected officials from other ministries and agencies.. Project personnel, IDA staff and selected specialists would lead workshop sessions. The topics to be covered would include: (i) a detailed review of project design; (ii) a description of how all parts of the project fit together and contribute to overall project goals; (iii) project management (i.e., Bank procurement and disbursement procedures, financial management, a team approach to project management, auditing, reporting requirements, monitoring and evaluation, and computer topics); (iv) a review of the major conceptual elements underpinning project interventions (e.g., school-based management concepts, educational finance, curriculum theory, international availability of appropriate teaching materials, training methods and objectives, and school supervision practice), and (v) clarification of the tasks and responsibilities of all project participants. F. Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation 3.29 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). Draft project monitoring indicators prepared by MEC were reviewed during appraisal. At negotiations, GOG submitted a revised list of the project's monitoring/performance indicators (para. 3.40 (h)). The adoption of the project's monitoring indicators acceptable to IDA as part of the operating manual is a condition of effectiveness (para. 3.41 (a)) To assist the Project Secretariat and MEC, the project would fund an education project monitoring and evaluation specialist, under terms of reference acceptable to IDA, to carry out independent: (i) Mid-Term Evaluation; and (ii) Implementation Completion Evaluation. 3.30 Required Reports and Update of Implementation Plan and Budget. In addition to financial and audit reports specified in 3.18, GOG at negotiations agreed on the following reporting schedules. The Project Director, on behalf of GOG, will submit for IDA's review: (i) no later than March 31 and September 30 each year, a semi-annual reports detailing project activities during the preceding July- December and January-June, respectively, with up-to-date monitoring indicators of the project and the education system as agreed with IDA, starting September 30, 1996; and (ii) no later than October 31 each year starting in 1996, the implementation plan--detailing, inter alia, physical implementation schedule, procurement plan, and the budget request to be submitted for MOF--for the following GOG fiscal year, based on the evaluation of monitoring indicators and in consultation with stakeholders (para. 3.40 (i)). An implementation plan for the first year of the project as well as a five year indicative plan (Annex XI) were reviewed during the appraisal. Updating the implementation plan for the first calendar year to IDA's satisfaction is a condition of effectiveness (Para. 3.41 (e)). The reports and plans mentioned in this paragraph would constitute bases for IDA supervision missions, which are tentatively scheduled for November and May each year. Planned reporting (except audit reports) and supervision schedules are presented as Annex VII, Table 3. 3.31 Mid-Term Review. The project mid-term review is planned for December, 1999, which is 3 years after effectiveness. It would assess the experience gained and lessons learned with the first group of pilot schools and recommend adjustments in project planning and implementation. G. Benefits and Risks 3.32 Benefits. Immediate beneficiaries of the project would be (i) approximately 6,500 students who are currently enrolled in the pilot schools and new entrants; (ii) about 300 teachers and administrators directly involved in the reform program; (iii) some 15,000 students and 700 teachers of other secondary - 32 - schools, which would receive emergency repair services; and (iv) the MEC and regional administrations. A greater number of students and teachers would benefit from an updated and more relevant curriculum, greater availability and quality of textbooks and other instructional materials, and more effective teacher training. The MEC would also benefit from its enhanced capacity for formulating sound sector policies and implementing effective educational programs. This would build a foundation to ensure the sustainability of follow-up activities. Lessons learned and institutions strengthened under the project would be fully utilized in the Phase II project (para. 2.32 and 3.31). In the long run, the economy would benefit from a larger pool of more skilled labor capable of adapting for rapidly changing economic and business scenes and supporting the recent turnabout and growth of the economy. 3.33 Risks and Safeguards. Risks to the project include: (a) weak institutional capacity; (b) slow procurement; (c) continuing high emigration rates among educated population; (d) the uncertainty of public support; and (e) limited availability of counterpart financing. 3.34 Weak Institutional Capacity. This is a public sector wide problem caused primarily by low wage levels, which is being addressed in the on-going IDA funded Public Administration Program as well as other programs supported by various bilateral donors. National and regional administrations suffer from serious shortages of qualified personnel. High staff turnover rates, hindering institutional memory, could seriously disrupt or delay critical project activities. The project would attempt to mitigate such risks by: (i) setting a limited number of attainable objectives, including key elements for institutional strengthening and follow-up operations; and (ii) placing qualified consultants in key sections of the MEC to supplement the ministry's capacity and provide it with institutional continuity throughout the duration of the project. 3.35 Slow Procurement. As a rule, GOG employs strict competitive bidding procedures. Nearly all contracts are required to be advertised, and any contracts over G$6 million (US$42,000) and G$9 million (US$63,000) must be reviewed by the Central Tender Board and the Cabinet, respectively. Although GOG procedures are compatible with IDA guidelines, the low thresholds and slow review processes resulting from weak institutional capacity would hinder project implementation. GOG is currently attempting to streamline procurement procedures with assistance from IDB and UNDP. The project would employ a Procurement/Finance Coordinator in the Project Secretariat and finance the use of procurement agents to minimize the risk (para. 3.8). 3.36 Continuing High Migration Rates Among Educated Population. There is a possibility that some teachers, government staff and better educated secondary graduates trained under the project may simply leave the country. This risk, however, will be mitigated if Guyana sustains high rates of economic growth and improved conditions for teachers. 3.37 Uncertainty in Public Support. Although the Guyanese are, in general, supportive of education, drastic changes may not be well received. Vested interests of certain groups, particularly of those who have benefited most from the present system need to be considered. To generate broad-based support for a long term reform, the project would fund social awareness campaigns and disseminate examples of school level success through the pilot schools program. This would hopefully create a more favorable ground for tackling more challenging and controversial issues at later stages of the reform process. At the school level, SIACs (para. 2.5) are expected to evolve into an institution that would assure sustainability of school improvement by mobilizing parent and community participation. 3.38 Budgetary Constraints Caused by Severe Debt-Service Obligations Could Limit the Availability of Counterpart funds. This risk has been reduced by designing a project with less counterpart funding - 33 - needs. Incremental recurrent costs generated by the project are estimated to be about 5% of annual recurrent education expenditure (para. 3.6), which is within a reasonable and sustainable range considering that economic growth is projected at about 7% a year and that tax revenue is also expected to grow. Strengthening of budget planning (para. 2.26) would contribute directly to sustainability by providing instruments to allocate scarce resources more rationally and efficiently. H. Environment 3.39 Since the project would finance technical assistance and a limited-scale school rehabilitation, it would produce no significant negative environmental impact. No resettlement is expected. An environmental rating of"C" has been given to the Project. I. Agreements Reached and Recommendation 3:40 At negotiations, the Government agreed to the following: (a) To provide annual budget support, equivalent to at least US$3.00 per student on the average, to pilot school discretionary funds for uses specified in their approved SIPs (para. 2.8); (b) To establish a CIMAT for each of Language Arts and Math no later than December 1, 1996, and for each of Science and Social Studies, no later than September 1, 1998 (para. 2.14). (c) To adopt and implement a textbook policy no later than September 1, 1996 (para. 2.17); (d) To maintain MEC's responsibility for the clearance of annual regional education budget submissions prior to MOF approval (para. 2.26). (e) To hire a Schools Information Officer (para. 2.30) under terms of reference acceptable to IDA no later than September 1, 1996; (f) To allocate yearly project counterpart funds as agreed with IDA (para. 3.5); (g) (i) To prepare, no later than December 31, 1996, an action plan satisfactory to IDA to maintain the unity and cohesion of the management of secondary education, and (ii) to commence, no later than December 31, 1997, the implementation of the plan under the project (para. 3.20); (h) To revise the submitted drafts of: (i) the SIP Guidelines (para. 2.6); and (ii) the list of project monitoring indicators (para. 3.29); and, (i) To submit reports in accordance with the agreed schedules (para.3.30). 3.41 As conditions of credit effectiveness, the Government will: (a) Adopt a set of Operational Manuals for the project, satisfactory to IDA, consisting of: (i) pilot school eligibility criteria (para. 3.21; Annex V-para.10); (ii) the model of a - 34 - Training Agreement (para. 3.25); (iii) criteria and methods to select sample schools for the Nationwide Physical Facility Survey (para.2.28); and (iv) monitoring indicators for the Project (para. 3.40 (h)); (b) Contract for audit services with an independent auditor whose qualifications and terms of reference are satisfactory to IDA for the first year of the project (para. 3.18); (c) Submit the SIP Guidelines satisfactory to IDA (para. 2.6); (d) Establish the Project Secretariat and complete the appointment and posting of the Project Director and the two Coordinators, with qualifications and terms of reference satisfactory to IDA, of the Project Secretariat (paras. 3.23 and 3.27); and, (e) Submit the updated implementation plan for the first calendar year of the project satisfactory to IDA (para. 3.30). 3.42 As a condition of disbursement against Civil Works (applicable to both the Pilot School and Emergency School Repair subcategories), the Government would contract with an engineering/architectural firm for assistance in preparing drawings and bidding documents and supervising construction (para. 3.27); 3.43 As a condition of disbursement against the Emergency School Repair sub-category, the Government would complete the Nationwide Physical Facility Survey in the agreed sequence (para. 2.28). 3.44 Recommendation: Subject to the above assurances and conditions, the proposed project would constitute a suitable basis for an IDA credit of US$17.3 million equivalent to the Republic of Guyana for a period of 40 years, including a grace period of 10 years, on standard IDA terms. - 35 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX I: STATISTICAL TABLES Table 1: Secondary School Enrollment, By System, 1990-1991 NO. OF SCHOOL SYSTEM SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT PERCENT OF TOTAL BY SEX MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL Generat Secondary 61 14949 20407 35356 44 56 50 42 58 100% Community High 38 9012 8014 f7026 26 22 24 53 47 100% Secondary Depts of primary 200# 10201 8334 18535 30 23 26 55 45 t00% Total 1 34162 36755 70917 10) 100 13) 48 52 100% Source: MEC. Enrollment data for the years 1991-1992 and 992-1993 were not processed or available at the time of the consultant's m ission Oincl.President'sCollege: #Figurenotavailableduringmission,thisisanorderofmagnitudeguess Table 2: Secondary Enrollment, By Grade, 1990-1991 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL FORMI 9,666 9,576 9,242 50% 50% ID0% 96% 94% 95% FORM II 8,515 8,606 17,121 50% 50%D 100% 86% 86% 86% FORM III 7,449 7,942 t5,391 48% 52% 100% 75% 80% 77% FORMIV 5,929 6,789 12,71B 47% 53% 100% 60% 68% 64% FORM V 2,492 3,699 6,191 40%O 60% X00% 25% 36% 30% FORM VI 111 143 254 44% 56% 1D0% P/ 1/O TOTAL 34,E12 36,755 70,917 48% 52% 100% Source: World Bank estimates based on 1986 Census single-year sample-survey data and the assumption that Form I enrollment systems is 96% of the 12-year-old group. These enrollment rabos can be scaled for alternabve assumptions. - 36- Table 3: Secondary Enrollment, By Region, 1990-1991 REGION 4 2 3 4 5 6 10 WESTERN GEOR BORDER GETO REGIONS WN 117,8,9) GUYANA TOTAL ENROLLMENT 3,602 9,512 10.783 20,351 5,854 13,055 3,965 3,795 70,917 Regional% 5% 13% 15% 29% 8% 18% 6% 5% 100% (PERCENT) GENERAL SECONDARY 35 45 36 61 51 61 52 11 50 COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOLS 37 28 29 34 9 11 7 21 24 PRIMARY TOPS 28 27 35 5 40 28 40 68 26 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: MEC Table 4: Recurrent Educational Expenditures, By Program And By Region, Revised 1992 Budget ($G Million) REGION 2 3 4 5 6 10 TOTAL GUYANA WESTERN BORDER CENTRAL PRESIDENT'S GEORG OTHER REGIONS PROGRAM MINISTRY COLLEGE ETOWN REGIONS 4 (1,7,8,6) AMT % SECONDARY 60' 12 30 37 79 26 12 30 10 6 301 27 PRIMARY 26 38 61 63 22 71 18 41 340 30 NURSERY 9 17 23 22 9 10 6 4 98 9 POST SECONDARY 173 173 15 OTHER EDUCATION 220 220 19 TOTAL EDUCATION 453 46 85 37 163 111 42 t11 34 51 1133 100 CULTUREANDOTHER 142 142 TOTAL MINISTRYf 595 48 85 37 163 il1 42 ill 34 51 1275 Source: Ministry ofFinance and orld Bank's eaimnates. o Univeralty ofGuayna budgetchenneled thmugh Ihe MinisIry ofFinance in 1992. Totl Ministry includesltrese funds. * Extamalexaminatino. Approximailon based on budgetsubmission for1993. - 37 - Table 5: Secondary Recurrent Expenditures And Per-Student Unit Cost, By Region# REGION 2 3 4 6 a 10 WESTERN BORDER PRESIDENT'S GEORG OTHER REGIONS TOTAL COLLEGE ETOWN REGIONS 4 (1,7,5,9) GUYANA INCLUDING PRESIDENTrS COLLEGE AND PRORATED EXTERNAL EXAMS GS MIL' 13 40 37 98 33 18 43 11 7 301 UNIT COST GS'00013 5.2 5.8 123 2 5.1 4.7 5.1 46 4 9 5.7 5.7 UNITCOSTUSS 42 46 986 41 38 41 36 39 46 46 RELATIVE UNIT COST' 104% 115% 2 154% 101% 94% 103% 91% 97% 114% 100% NOT INCLUDING PRESIDENT'S COLLEGE OR PRORATED EXTERNAL EXAMS GS MIL. 12 30 79 26 12 30 10 6 204 UNIT COST GS'000$ 4.5 4 3 4.1 3.7 3.5 3 2 4.1 5 2 3.9 UNITCOSTUSS 36 34 33 29 28 25 33 42 31 RELATIVE UNIT COST 114% 110% 105% 94% 91% 81% 105% 134% 100% Source: World Bank # ForGeneral Secondary and Community High Schools. Does not include expenditures forsecondary enrollment in pmary schools and administrative expenditure included in the central ministry budget. - Includes the cost ofextemal examinations prorated by GSS fifth Form enrollment 13 Unit cost calculated using 1992 budgetfigures and 1990-1991 enrollment data (exceptforPresident's College, which uses 1992 -1993 budget enrollment), since laterenrollmentdata was unavailable. Relative unit costs are calculated using a unit costforthe country that is calculated not including Presidnt's Collage cost. Table 6: International Comparisons In Enrollment And Educational Expenditure Enrollment Central Government Educational Expenditure As % of Central Per capita Govemment GNP Per capita % Age Group in % Age Group in Education Recurrent (USS) Prmary Seconary Expenditure (US$) As % of GNP Expenditures English-Speaking Caribbean Average 3.410 97 ( 68 @ 211 # 5.0 18.5 Middle Income Latin Amenca and the Caribbean Average (1990) 1,338 102 37 232 2.8 15.8 Low Income Countres Average (1990) 303 74 25 67 2.6 13 7 Guyana 1992' 330 98 70 9 2 8 4.5 Guyana 1994' 580 98 70 14 2 4 5 8 Sources: World Bank, World Developmant Report 1992 and other World Bank Documents World Bank estimates, based on GNP estimates of Intemational Monetary Fund and Guyana Estimates of the Public Sector, 1993 and 1995. # Not Including Jamacia. - 38- Table 7: CXC Pass Rates In Core Subjects*, International Comparison, 1989 ENGLISH MATH ENGLISH MATH ENGLISH MATH (Percent) ANTIGUA 51 36 JAMAICA 27 22 GUYANA 12 13 BARBADOS 41 42 ST. KITTS 42 35 BELIZE 30 40 ST, LUCIA 45 32 AVERAGE OF DOMINICA 29 27 ST. VINCENT 38 32 OTHER LISTED CARIBBEAN GRENADA 22 31 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO 38 29 COUNTRIES 36 33 Source: World Bank Percentage of candidates achieving Grades I and 11. Table 8: Secondary Progression Rates, 1990-1991 (Percent - Grade 7 Enrollment = 100) Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade ID Grade 11 BOYS General Secondary Schools IO 92 89 71 66 Community High Schools 100 104 88 70 6 Primary Tops 1D0 74 58 46 0 ALL SECONDARY SYSTEMS 100 88 77 61 26 GIRLS General Secondary Schools 1D0 99 99 86 82 Community High Schools 1)0 1)1 89 77 6 Primary Tops 100 69 56 45 0 ALL SECONDARY SYSTEMS 1D0 90 83 71 39 BOTH SEXES General Secondary Schools 100 96 95 80 75 Community High Schools 1D0 102 88 73 6 Primary Tops 1)0 72 57 45 0 ALL SECONDARY SYSTEMS 100 89 80 66 32 Source: MEC - 39 - Table 9: Secondary Attendance Rates, By Secondary Track, October 1988 BOYS GIRLS FORM I II III IV ALL I II III IV ALL GUYANA All Secondary 68 64 63 57 63 69 64 67 62 65 GSS Country Outside G'town# 80 75 74 74 76 83 77 80 76 79 Georgetown 61 52 54 56 56 56 35 53 54 50 CHS Country Outside G'town# 77 70 65 61 70 76 72 67 66 71 Georgetown 83 64 67 60 69 74 72 67 60 69 TOPS Country Outside G'town# 57 57 54 37 53 58 59 59 44 56 Georgetown 40 53 57 40 49 41 66 70 40 58 Source: Ministry of Education and Cultural Development, schools survey October 988. Note: Form V and V( data are not presented or used in the analysis. #Weightedaverageofusabledatausing 990-1919enrollmentdataasweights: GSS-Regions2,3,4,(notincl. Georgetown),5,6, 1; CHS - the same except excluding Region 3; primary tops - all 1 regions. Table 10: General Secondary School Students, 1990, Repetition Indicators 13-YEAR OLDS 16-YEAR OLDS ROUGH 12-YEAR OLDS PERCENT 14 YEAR OLDS PERCENT REPETITION PERCENT LOWER LOWER THAN PERCENT LOWR LOWER THAN RATE 16-YEAR- THAN FORM I FORM II THAN FORM III FORM IV OLDSQ BOTH SEXES 0 20 27 35 22 GUYANA BOYS 0 22 30 40 26 GIRLS 0 19 24 31 9 Source: MEC @ This rate is constructed on the rough assumptions thatone-third of the 13-year-olds in Form I are repeaters and thatthe increasefrom age 15 in those lowerforms (15%) also comprises repeaters. - 41 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX II: THE EDUCATION SECTOR - ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 1. In 1985 the Government of Guyana decentralized responsibility for the provision and administration of several services to ten newly established Regional Administrations. Education was among these functions. The functions and responsibilities of the different administrative levels are as follows: THE CENTRAL LEVEL The Ministry of Education and Cultural Development 2. Organizational Structure: The MEC is headed by a politically appointed Minister. All positions below the Minister are career civil service positions, including the Permanent Secretary. 3. Responsibilities: The MEC sets national education policy and establishes a national curriculum which all Regional education bodies are meant to adhere to. The MEC is also responsible for monitoring education indicators in the Regions to ensure that serious inequities in education services and quality do not arise. The MEC also selects, funds, procures, and distributes textbooks to all schools. 4. In addition, the MEC is responsible for the administration of all schools in the metropolitan Georgetown area. An Assistant Chief Education Officer (Georgetown) supervises these functions and works within the same terms of reference as a R.Ed.O. 5. Staffing: The MEC cannot directly hire its staff. It prepares advertisements and submits these to the Public Service Commission (PSC) which runs the advertisements and reviews candidates. The PSC short lists candidates for the MEC and recommends which candidate should be selected. In most cases MEC input is, however, obtained during the preparation of the short lists. 6. The MEC currently suffers severe shortages of trained, technically competent staff. This is very largely a consequence of low civil service salaries. The Teacher's Service Commission 7. The TSC is a para-statal body over which the MEC has no direct authority. The functions of the TSC were reduced under the decentralized system when certain functions became the responsibility of the Regional Education Officers (REdOs). Presently, the TSC's responsibilities are to hire and discipline tenured teachers. When a vacancy for a tenured teacher arises in a school, the REdO advises the TSC which places a national advertisement, selects and appoints the candidate. Similarly, if a school experiences problems with a tenured teacher it sends a formal complaint to the REdO who communicates this to the TSC which then reviews the case and decides on appropriate action. - 42 - THE REGIONAL LEVEL 8. In each Region, a Regional Administration is responsible for budgeting and oversight functions of four services, one of which is education. The Regional Administration is headed by a Regional Executive Officer (RExO) who is supported by a staff which varies with the population size of the Region. Political representation in each Region is achieved through a Regional Democratic Council (RDC). Council members of the RDC are politically appointed, reflecting the proportion of votes cast for the different national political parties in that Region during the national elections. The RExO is a civil servant who acts in the capacity of clerk to the RDC. In practice, RDCs in many Regions are weak and uninvolved in the Regional Administration. As a result, RExOs often wield considerable powers. 9. Some combination of councilors in each RDC are meant to participate in an Education Subcommittee whose function is to establish education policy for the Region. These Subcommittees are rarely found in practice, however. In Regions where Education Subcommittees function, the REdO, despite his technical expertise, cannot participate actively to influence the Subcommittees decisions. The REdO is only a silent observer to the Subcommittee meetings. Education administration in each Region is the responsibility of an Education Department which is attached to each Regional Administration. Regional Education Departments 10. Organization Structure: Regional Education Departments are staffed by: * A REdO who is appointed by the MEC (through the Ministry of Public Works), but who reports both to the MEC and the RExO. The REdO is the key education official in the Regions. * One or two District Education Officers who assist the REdO with his duties * One or more Education Supervisors, who inspect schools and monitor performance * In one Region the Education Department employs a Personnel Officer. 11. Responsibilities: REdOs have enormous responsibilities. They are responsible for: implementing national education policy in the Region; preparing the regional education budget; deciding on moneys to be allocated to each school in the Region; paying teacher salaries; negotiating with RExOs for education moneys on a monthly basis; purchasing all supplies and equipment for each school in the Region; supervising all infrastructure rehabilitation programs; monitoring education quality in the region; performing all personnel functions related to school staff, including the appointment of temporary and acting teachers; and, supervising Education Department employees. 12. The REdO's work is made more difficult by the fact that they are accountable to two different bodies -- the MEC(on curriculum and education policy issues) and the RExO. (on finance and infrastructure issues). This bifurcated line of responsibility causes problems and, in practice, most REdOs report almost exclusively to the RExO. This is because of the RExOs' physical proximity and because of their control over the education purse. The MEC cannot directly censure REdOs for poor performance; the Public Service Commission does this at the request of the MEC. It is widely acknowledged that this system works poorly. 13. REdOs prepare the Region's education budget. Although they should liaise with the MEC on the budget preparation there is no requirement that they do so. In practice they do not. In most Regions, REdOs prepare the budget without input from the schools. Budgets are not based on objective criteria such as student enrollment. The REdO's estimated budget is adjusted by the RExO who then submits it, as part of the entire Regional Administration budget, to the MOF. Each Region then negotiate adjustments to the - 43 - proposed budget with the MOF. The agreed-on budget is then transferred by the MOF to the Regional Administration on a monthly basis. The RExO then releases funds to the R.Ed.O. Any moneys un-spent each month are forfeited. 14. Staffing: REdOs are recruited from a pool of senior teachers and headmasters/mistresses and receive no formal training to prepare them for the additional administrative responsibilities. They are recruited by the MEC (through the Ministry of Public Works which has responsibility for advertising and identifying candidates). THE LOCAL LEVEL 15. Schools cannot effectively influence education policy or management decisions. No system is in place whereby principals or teachers can inform or influence REdO or Regional Administration decisions; they must exert influence purely through informal channels. 16. Community participation in the administration and management of schools varies widely across regions and schools. It tends to be weak in all but the best performing schools. Although all schools are meant to have PTAs or school boards they are found principally in better performing secondary schools. PTAs do not seem to work to influence the curriculum or core education issues. Rather, they raise funds for the school. There are no restrictions on the way these funds may be used; they may even be used to supplement teacher salaries. - 45 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX III: STRUCTURE OF EDUCATION SECTOR AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT Figure 1: Ministry of Education and Cultural Development: Management Structure for Basic Education Penaet SeceJ | DeptyChief EdDcpton Officer |jerfDfee,| DepiyCh5fEdcti-on Orn Edi. Fi ...... L De.-lopment (T. /ToHirZ l- | Adrminstraton (T. Bea Hcd)T Assstant Chief Ecation Offi | Assistant Chief Education Officer Stiper-tendent. Exa-n-nUs | || .r i CmH d f | Secondy School Primnry School Assistant Chief Educits- Officer q D,rec--r, NCERD 1 ll Cn.S Worb Cooriuralbr l Inspectorete r R-prmcWy, CPCE _Retonl Education Officer Regional Education Officer (Region ) (Regon 2) | Regionl EduceLion Officcr Regional Education Officer (Region 3) (Region 4) Regional Edtion Officer L-| Regional Education Officer (Reg.gn,) (Region 6) Regional Education Officer Regional Education Officer | (Region9r Rgo,, (Rg-7) (Region 8 Regonl dtiatonOfficrRgonlEuaio fie (RSi ) (Regio 0) A-siatni Chief Education Officer Georgetown - 46 - Figure 2: Financial Structure of Secondary Education System Ministry of Finance Georgetown Other Regions Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Regional Administration Permanent Secretary/Deputy Permanent Secretary (Finance) Regional Executive Officer Assistant Chief Education Officer Regional Education Officer Georgetown District Education Officers District Education Officers District Education Supervisors District Education Supervisors Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals General Secondary Schools Community High Schools Primary Schools with a General Secondary Schools Community High Schools Primary Schools with a Primary Top Primary Top - 47 - Figure 3: Project Secretariat and Coordination Mechanism Assistant Chief Education Officer Project Director Director Secondary rNLCvNCERDl |Applicable Regional ead | Education Officcr r q Finance/Procurement | , Curriculum Development and Coordinator and Implementation Unit *Head Principal Principal Coordinatorks Learning Resources Unit Anna Regina ll 1I L'Aventure !l . Test Development Unit *Head Administrator : Materials Production Unit [ rincipal I Principal I . _ Head ringcp [l Ancpale , Distance Education and Environment Unit ni Principal ll Principal 1l L 1 Dean, Faculty of Education Principal IPrincipal III University of Guyana BelladrumFort Wellington 1i Principal l Principal l Manchester Vrymans Erven Principal n Principal Mackenzie I Dolphin Principal . Principal Tucville lCampbeliville 1. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 49 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX IV: SALARY SCALE COMPARISON - CIVIL SERVICE VS. TEACHING SERVICE Clvil Service Scale Monthly Salary Mldpolnt (GS) Teaching Service Scale l,bUU 1t(A) Junior Teacher/TeacherAide CS 15,8 6,0 TS 1(B) Acting Teacher CS 2 6477 6,5W TS 1(C) Pupil Teacher I 7,000 TS 1(U) Pupil Teacher n 7,0u0 IS 2(A) Temporary unqualined Assistant CS 3 7360 ,000 TS 2(B) Temporary Qualified iII CS 4 8,243 9 TS 2(C) Temporary Qualified 11 Cs 5 9,715 CS 7 1,3 TS 3 Temporary Qualified 1 / Third Teacher 16,5D0 TS 4 Non-Graduate Senior Assitant CS 8 Education Superusor / CPCE: Lecturer If NCERD: Cuniculum Subject Specialist; Education Methdology 17,370 Tutor, Deputy Co-ordinator, Distance Education & Information Unit I REGIONS: Edcuation Supermsor 18,500 TS 5(A) Non-Graduate Senior Master / Non-Graduate Head Master Grade 'D' / Nursery Head of Department 10 S (sB) Non-Graduate Head Master Grade 'E' I Nurcery Non- 19,000 Graduate Head Master Grade 'C' 19,500 rs 6 Untrained Graduate 19,5 TS 7(A) Non-Graduate Deputy Head Master Grade a'B 20,500 lb 7(d) Non-Graduate Head Master Grade 'U' Nursery Non- Graduate Head Master Grade 'B' 21,D I b a(A) I rained Graduate 21,5D0 rs 8(s) Non-Graduate Deputy Head Master Grade A' CS 9 Work-Study Officer I CPCE: Lecturer Il / NCERD:Test 21,609 Development OMcer II 22,500 TS 9 Non-Graduate Head Master Grade 'C' / Nursery Graduate Head Master Grade 'A' 23,50 TS 10 Grnaduate Senior Assistant 24, 5W TS 11 Non-GFaduate Heaa Master Grade a 25l000b 1z -Graduate Senior Mater-Head of uepartment r Nursery Graduate Head Master Grade 'C' 26,500 TS 13 Gmrduate Deputy Head Master Grade '' / Non- Graduate Head Master Grade 'A' lb50 T 14 C3raduate Heand Master Grade I' il Nursery Graduate 27,500 TS 14 Head Master Grade 'B' CS 10 Education Oficr I I CPCE: Senior Lecturer NCERD: Materals DeWlopment Offlicer, Senior Subject 27,556 Specialist ZF,53w TS 15 Graduate Deputy Head Master Grade 'A' 29.750 TS 16 Gnaduruate Hea Master Grade `C I Nuramy Graduae- Head Master Grade 'A' 31,750 Tl 17 Graduate Heed Master Grade 'a' 3377o lb 18 Gnrduate Head Master Grade 'A' CS 11 Superintendent of Examinations; Senior Education Offcer, Schools Inapector / CPCE: Vice Principal / 35,151 REGIONS: Regional Education Officer 35,750 Ts 19 Graduate Sixth Form Head CS 12 Assistant Chid Education Officer; Chief Planning Offlicer / CPCE: Pdncipal / NCERD: Co-ordinator, Distance Educatlon & Information Unit; Leaming 44,867 Resource DeoWopment OMcer, Chief Test DeWipment Officer, Curiculum DeWlopment Officer, Cs 13 Deputy Permanet Secretary; LDeputy (C;hef Education 57 290 Officer / NCERD: Director cS 14 Permanent secretary 7 Chir 'ucation UMicer - 51 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX V: PILOT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS Objectives 1. The proposed project would fund about 12 pilot school improvement plans (SIP) in selected secondary and primary top schools. The SIPs, which would be prepared by the schools themselves, would be expected to have among their objectives to improve school performance in areas such as: (i) increasing student achievement; (ii) reducing repetition and drop-out rates; (iii) dealing with student behavioral problems; (iv) enhancing teacher performance; (v) improving school facilities and, if necessary, reducing overcrowding and, (vii) increasing parent and community participation and support in schools. 2. The 12 pilot SIPs constitute the first stage of a long-term nation-wide program to improve the quality of Guyana's secondary schools. Consequently, they are intended to be both cost-effective and replicable on a large scale given Guyana's limited financial and human resources. In financial terms, each pilot plan would include funding over a three-year period for inputs for: (i) teacher training, (ii) textbooks and learning resources, and (iii) physical improvements. These inputs would be provided by the MEC directly to the school on the basis of the SIP. In addition, each pilot school would be provided a small amount of discretionary funding, equivalent to US$3.00 per student per year, for three years, for direct investment by the school administration for school improvement initiatives not provided by the MEC directly. Financial Arrangements 3. Each pilot school would be expected to mobilize supplementary financial and other support for their SIPs from their respective Regional Executive Officers (RExO) and their local communities. Accordingly, community representatives and parents would be invited to serve on a School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC) with the principal, teachers and students, which each school would be required to establish for preparing their plans. The RExOs in turn, would be asked to commit funds in support of the plan and to sustain the investments in school improvements following the first three years of project funding. The amounts of recurrent funding required by each school following the pilot project will be calculated during preparation of the SIPs. Management 4. The management arrangements for the SIPs are as follows. The Project Director would have overall responsibilities within MEC for the implementation of SIPs as for all other aspects of the project. Developing and implementing SIPs under the project would be the responsibility of the pilot school principals and the SIAC assisted by the DEO and REdO. MEC support for different aspects of SIPs would be the direct responsibility of the Assistant Chief Education Officer (ACEO ) Secondary and the respective MEC regular line managers of departments and/or contractors. - 52 - SIP Approval and Funding 5. The SIP would be submitted by school principals to the Regional Education Officer who, in consultation with the Project Director and the ACEO (Secondary), would be responsible for the final approval of the SIPs in accordance with evaluation guidelines which would be developed by the Project Director and the ACEO (Secondary). Monitoring and Support 6. The SIPs would be monitored by a team comprised of the ACEO (Secondary), the Project Director and other persons called upon for specific assignments, i.e. teacher training. Civil works would be monitored by the Project Engineer and an independent firm hired by the project. Guidelines 7. The ACEO (Secondary) would prepare guidelines with the assistance of the Project Director, for school administrators and others on the formulation, implementation and monitoring of SIPs. The guidelines would be prepared with the help of principals, teachers, community leaders and MEC staff. The SIP guidelines would provide guidance on matters such as: (i) the role of principals, teachers, students and the community in the SIP planning and implementation process; (ii) role and functions of a School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC) ; (iii) how to define basic problems and objectives of the School Improvement Plan; (iv) how to prepare a budget; (v) support to be provided by MEC and (vi) scheduling for preparing and implementing a SIP. 8. The MEC would issue guidelines and indicative budget figures to guide pilot schools in preparing their SIPs. The SIPs are to be kept simple, but would be expected to include, inter alia: (i) a description of the school's student population and teaching staff, including quantitative and qualitative information; (ii) objectives for student learning outcomes and the rationale for them, (iii) priority areas to be improved in educational quality and infrastructure with quantitative and qualitative targets; (iv) strategies to take advantage of project inputs in improving identified areas; (v) implementation strategies and sequencing, (vi) strategies to effectively involve and obtain support from teachers, students, parents and the community, (vii) negotiated arrangements for greatly increased mobility between the pilot school and geographically accessible schools offering upper-secondary education, and (viii) a detailed budget for the school, within MEC guidelines and RA requirements, to finance the planned school improvements. 9. The MEC would organize orientation and training in the SIP guidelines for principals, teachers, the SIAC and District Education officers. 10. Twelve pilot schools were chosen by the MEC during project preparation, following visits and interviews with school officials and based on the following criteria: (i) strong leadership of the principal; (ii) willingness of the teachers; (iii) geographic diversity and easy accessibility from Georgetown to facilitate management and monitoring; and (iv) participation of the three main types of secondary schools. - 53 - 11. The following schools have been identified as initial 12 pilot school improvement projects: Table 1: Profile of Pilot Schools Number of Teachers Type of Number of (Full Time Name School \a Region \b Students Equivalent) Anna Regina CHS 2 739 43.0 L'Aventure PT 3 149 12.0 Uitv4ugt PT 3 524 18.0 Annandale GSS 4 580 32.3 Belladrum CHS 5 614 34.0 Fort Wellington CHS 5 160 11.2 Manchester CHS 6 361 18.0 Vrymans Erven CHS 6 406 16.3 Mackenzie G3S 10 657 31.0 Dolphin CHS GI 721 23.4 lucville PT GT 919 35.0 Campbelhoille CHS GI 560 -1.0 \a CRS - CorrnniFty High School; iSbs (- eneral Secondary School; PT - Prirnary Top (Secondary Departnment of a Prmary School) \b GT - Georgetow n 12. The mid-term review would assess the experience and lessons learned with the first group of pilot schools and recommend needed adjustments in the planning and implementation of the project in subsequent years. The mid-term review would also decide whether funding for additional pilot schools would be provided from the unallocated portion of the project. I - 55 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX VI: SCHOOL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 1. Guyana critically needs to upgrade the knowledge and skills of secondary school students' through a reform of curriculum, teacher training and increased availability of textbooks and instructional materials. The three-tier secondary school structure is both inefficient and inequitable. While the overall quality of education is sub-optimal, General Secondary Schools (GSS) have higher quality teachers, buildings and teaching materials while the Community High Schools/Primary Tops (CHS/PT), particularly the PTs, have deficiencies in all educational inputs.. The primary factors contributing to poor quality include (i) passive approach to teaching,; (ii) focus on compartmentalized content-driven curriculum; (iii) lack of adequate support resources and (iv) absence of a whole school approach to teaching. 2. The overall purpose of the curriculum reform is to update the content and approaches to teaching and learning to modify the existing program in light of changes in the demand on education. Specifically, the curriculum reform would (i) develop-and implement a common curriculum; (ii) provide appropriate teacher training to support the curriculum and (iii) provide supporting instructional materials and textbooks. CURRICULUM 3. The foundation of the curriculum reform is a curriculum using multi-level and cross-curricular approaches to teaching and learning. The multilevel approach presupposes that students of varying skills' level can pursue a common core in most subject areas. The curriculum would respond to the variety of students because many students categorized as "slow-learners" may have no other disability but the inability to read. The cross curricular approach would assist in strengthening language skills, which are very weak, by incorporating reading, writing and oral expression into other core subjects. At the same time, problem solving, interpretation of data and use of quantitative information would be reinforced in the language component of the curriculum. Common concepts and/or areas of content are consolidated so they are not taught in isolation. An integrated approach to the curriculum would result in school learning more relevant to learners' needs. While this project would not finance pre-vocational education, the MEC would begin to review the pre-vocational curriculum with respect to the development of the common curriculum for the four core areas. Support for students' eventual transition to the work place would be addressed by career education concepts integrated throughout the curriculum. School guidance counselors would provide leadership in this aspect of the curriculum. 4. Currently, all schools have similar core curriculum however implementation and instructional practices differ significantly. The main difference in the GSS and the CHS/PT schools lies in the quality of education with respect to teacher qualifications and resources available to students and teachers. The GSS follows the CXC syllabi however test results are extremely low. Of those students taking the CXC examination, only 12% and 13% received Grade I and II in English and Math respectively. This compares with an average of 35 and 40% in other Caribbean countries. The CHS/PT schools have a less academic approach to the curriculum, however students do not receive the necessary minimum basic and pre-vocational skills needed required for further training /apprenticeships. CHS/PT student achievement levels are very low with serious deficiencies, particularly in Language and Math. - 56 - 5. The academic core is composed of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. Differences between the GSS and CHS/PT include; (i) GSS require a foreign language; (ii) English in GSS is divided in two classes - English and Literature and in the CHS/PT divided between English and Reading and (iii) CHS/PT teach integrated science while the GSS Grade 9 teach separate subjects, i.e. biology, chemistry. Differences in the pre-vocational curricula lie primarily in the time- tabling and duration of classes . 6. Language Arts: Students enter Grade 7 with varying levels of skills and competencies in language. While students have some measure of proficiency in English enabling them to pass the SSEE, the majority of youth are underachieving in the skills required for reading, writing and learning as they move through lower secondary school. As a result, critical English language deficiencies exist at the end of all secondary schools, particularly the CHS/PT. The new curriculum would be designed to integrate the existing GSS and the CHS/PT English course structures with emphasis placed on content and instructional approaches that would improve learning. Incorporating new trends in teaching English, such as the whole language approach, would increase achievement levels. The key concept in the design of the Language Arts curriculum would be not only the development of English language proficiency but the providing opportunities for students to apply them in meaningful and realistic context in and out of the school environment. 7. Mathematics: Student performance in math is somewhat stronger than in English language. Nevertheless, the math curriculum in both the GSS and CHS/PT for Grades 7-9 is ambiguous in terms of content. The new math curriculum would adopt a more active approach to learning math concepts through experimenting and constructing real-life problems solving scenarios. The variety, level and sequencing of topics would be developed in close coordination with the primary school math and the patterns of student achievement levels up through Grade 6. In addition, linkages would be developed between math and other areas of study, including science, social studies and pre-vocational subjects. 8. Science: The existing science curriculum is limited by a lack of appropriate space and equipment and a very theoretical approach to content. The new curriculum would focus on hands-on, process- oriented experiences emphasizing the use of science process skills to solve practical problems. Activities are designed using a group approach so that students work cooperatively and all students can benefit from the experiences. 9. Social Studies: Changes in the social studies curriculum would include (i) more history and geography instruction in regions beyond the Caribbean and (ii) development of more problem-solving and critical thinking activities rather than the existing memorizing of information approach. 10 For each subject, Curriculum, Instructional Materials and Assessment Teams (CIMAT), responsible for producing the new curricula, would be established in NCERD under the Assistant Director of the Curriculum Development and Implementation Unit (CDIU). Each CIMAT would produce guides for Grades 7-9 during the two year preparation and piloting cycle. Extensive school technical support and supervision would be provided to the pilot schools. Guides would be produced in the following sequence: (i) Language Arts and Mathematics and (ii) Social Studies and Science. Developing the curriculum on a subject basis, rather than a grade level basis, allows for more integration of the curriculum between grades. 11 The CIMAT would comprise of (i) a senior subject specialist (team leader) and subject specialists from CDIU; (ii) seven practicing teachers, including a reading specialist, representing all - 57 - school types, and (iii) when needed, a methodology tutor from NCERD's Learning Resources Unit and staff from the Test Development Unit. The CIMAT would: (i) finalize broad curriculum statements and develop detailed curriculum based on the review of existing curriculum and instructional materials available both domestically and internationally; (ii) develop and update a list of books and instructional materials; (iii) if necessary, develop additional instructional materials where no existing materials were considered to be appropriate; and (iv) assist the field supervision teams. Each CIMAT would be expected to confer with curriculum specialists in the other core subjects, particularly the members of other CIMATs as they are formed, in order to develop consistent cross-curricular elements. The project would fund external curriculum and subject specialists who would (i) organize workshops on curriculum design and development; (ii) visit Guyana approximately every two to three months to supervise preparation of curriculum guides and (iii) provide assistance to supervision teams.. Professional development opportunities, i.e. study tours, conferences for curriculum specialists would be financed by the project in order to develop the capacity of NCERD. 12. The final guides and instructional materials would be distributed to all schools, however only the pilot schools would receive technical and supervisory support from the project. Other schools would depend on principals and teachers to assist in the proper delivery of the new curriculum. IN SER VICE TEA CHER TRAINING 13. The effectiveness of the common curriculum, or any other curriculum, is clearly dependent upon the teachers' knowledge of the subject matter and appropriate pedagogical skills. A large percentage of the current teaching force of Guyana lacks appropriate training. The reasons for the low productivity in the classroom appear to be related to (i) poor teacher subject knowledge; (ii) insufficient pedagogical skills; (iii) lack of instructional materials; (iv) low salaries despite recent increases; and (v) absence of a school team approach to teaching. Qualified teachers and administrators have either moved to the private sector where salaries are better or left the country. 14. Classroom observations in the CHS/PT schools indicate that teachers, irrespective of subject matter or grade, have a very passive approach to teaching. Students were seated at their desks copying passages, exercises or problems the teachers had written on the board. Teachers remained seated either observing students or doing other work. Very little lecturing, explaining, demonstrating or discussing the subject or circulating among students to check on student progress takes place. Group work, role playing, experimentation, discussions or project work is not common. As a result, the time students spent actually involved in learning appears to be significantly less than the actual class period. Review of teachers' weekly Scheme Books reveal limited content coverage indicating that less than the formal curriculum is being followed. 15. Although curriculum development would take several years, teacher improvement programs would be initiated as soon as possible. The project would contract the in-service teacher training to a training institute acceptable to IDA, where, under the direction of the Project Director, a training program would be developed in collaboration with other education institutions. External consultants would assist in the development, preparation and implementation of in-service training programs and the training of field supervisors. The technical assistance would also strengthen the training institute, NCERD and supervision teams. The Project Director, in collaboration with the ACEO/Secondary, would coordinate teacher training activities with other project components. 16 All pilot school head-teachers and teachers would participate in the in-service training activities which would focus on subject content, use of learning resources, classroom and administrative - 58 - management and pedagogical skills. Other training instruments would include study tours, fellowships and conferences to familiarize curriculum specialists with current education trends and philosophies. The teachers would also participate in workshops on time management, administration and teams leaderships along with principals and other administrators. 17. In-service training would include: (i) a twelve (12) day summer residential workshop for teachers; (ii) a 10-day summer residential program for head teachers and deputy head teachers; (iii) monthly content and methodology workshops, servicing a cluster of pilot schools at a time, for teachers throughout the academic year; (iv) school-based training activities convened by the supervision teams; and (v) regular school and classroom supervision and technical support. SUPERVISION TEAM 18 The success of any curriculum reform rests on the ability of each school to absorb change and adopt new approaches to teaching and learning. However, this includes not only pedagogical skills but also planning and management at school/teacher level. Along these lines, strong supervision and technical support is key to developing and maintaining quality teaching and learning. At present, this does not exist in Guyana. Teachers and schools receive very little technical support which contributes further to very low productivity in the classroom given the high proportion of untrained teachers. 19 The project would finance three supervision teams to provide continuing curriculum support and training to the pilot schools. Supervision methodologies and strategies would be designed and developed collaboratively by supervision teams, NCERD, the Project Director, the ACEO/Secondary and the training institute. Internationally recruited consultants (in teacher training, curriculum development, subject specialists, and performance assessment) would assist in developing, and implementing training programs in effective classroom observation and supervision techniques as well as monitoring supervision teams in the field approximately every 3 to 4 months. 20 The project, under the management of the Project Director, would finance three supervision teams per subject, comprised of a teaching training specialist (team leader), subject specialists (Reading and Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies), a DEO or DES from the district of the pilot school, and periodically, a member of the Inspectorate. Supervision would include hands-on assistance to teachers and administrators in classroom observation, motivation and discipline techniques, new curriculum emphases, use of appropriate materials, student assessment methodologies, development of student feedback mechanisms, record keeping, collaborative teaching methods etc. Supervision teams would: (i) visit schools every six weeks for 2 days (totaling 32 days per pilot school per year); (ii) prepare 2 supervision reports each semester for the review of the Project Director, ACEO/Secondary and REdOs; (iii) collaborate with other supervision teams and the CDIU to identify training needs and prepare training materials. 21. Student learning outcomes woud be measured through continuous assessment techniques. Initially monitoring indicators would include results from a set of diagnostic tests and supplemented by other baseline information included in School Improvement Plans. Those indicators would be veryfied by the supervision teams. In addition, the TDU would: (i) develop diagnostic tests; (ii) collaborate with supervision teams in assisting pilot school teachers in continuous assessment; and (iii) develop a Form III assessment test. The project secretariat would assume overall responsibility for monitoring these activities. - 59 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX VII: MONITORING AND EVALUATION 1. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are needed to ensure effective use of project inputs in developing revitalized, more efficient pilot schools and to provide continuous feedback for the schools, concerned government agencies and IDA. These mechanisms would assess changes in the quality of educational processes and environments and the resulting changes in student performance. 2. Evaluation of the project would be done periodically as part of the semi-annual reporting to IDA by the Project Secretariat. The project would also have a mid-term review conducted by the Project Secretariat after three years and six months. This review would be an input into IDA's Mid-Term Review. Preparatory work and documentation, which would include the design of the review, would be contracted out to an independent organization acceptable to IDA. The review would evaluate the performance of the pilot schools, of project management and of the curriculum, training, textbook, civil works, public awareness and institutional strengthening activities of the project. Independent input into the Mid-Term Review would be essential in order to assess Guyana's capacity to implement and sustain an effective country-wide secondary school reform program, design subsequent phases of the reform program and provide a rationale for or against continued IDA assistance. Additional monitoring of the project would be conducted by IDA supervision missions. Report due dates and a tentative schedule of IDA supervision missions are presented in Table 3. 3. Evaluation of pilot school performance would make use of baseline information developed by the specialist in school-based management, who would be working with individual schools in developing their SIPs. This information would be in the form of an analytical report presenting quantitative and qualitative information about the pilot schools as of the beginning of the project. Evaluation of pilot school performance would be based on assessment of changes in classroom, school and community indicators in the pilot schools) by the project's pilot-school supervision teams, which would visit pilot schools approximately every six weeks to monitor progress at the school level (see below). Student performance, based on a set of desired learning outcomes developed in the ongoing UNICEF-funded Minimum Levels of Attainment project, would be assessed through continuous assessment mechanisms built into the curriculum and the teacher training components of the project. Supervision team reports would be submitted to the Project Director, the ACEO Secondary and the school's REdO. Classroom. School And Community Performance Indicators Classroom (Table 1 and Table 2) Introduction of new teaching practices. Introduction of continuous assessment for measuring student achievement. Links between continuous assessment and instruction Improvement in language development, numeracy and reading as measured against Minimum Levels of Attainment. Motivation of students. Promotion to upper secondary grades. Establishment and maintenance of records for monitoring student achievement. Reduction in drop-out rates for Grades 7,8,9. Improved staying-on rates after Grade 9. - 60 - Table 1: Input/Process Indicators - In-Service Teacher Training 1996 1997 1998 1999 Contract for 1996 U.G Contract for 1997 - Annual Training Plan Comprehensive 2001 for 300 teachers Training Programme Annual Training Plan Trained in Curriculum 100 Teachers Trained Annual Training Plan Content 400 Teachers and Curriculum Content 200 Teachers trained Heads of Department in Curriculum Content Effective Trained 12 Principals Trained in implementation of SIP Management SIP Minimum of 32 days Reading levels of Reports per year schoolbased in students improved. methodology 12 Deputy Heads Trained Minimum of 10 days residential training for core subjects -teachers of pilot schools Table 2: Input/Process Indicators - Improvement of Student Assessment 1996 1997 1998 1999 - Finalize lists of Pre-test and parallel Draft form Three test Form 3 Test students indicators tests in Language Arts - ready for piloting Reading and Continuous assessment - identification of Mathematics Final Drafts of Pre and procedures for Science continuous assessment Post test in Reading - and Social Studies procedures Students research Language Arts - Continuous assessment Mathematics Pre and Post test for Draft lists of Students test scores Social Studies and indicators Teachers trained in test Science. Teachers trained in construction Modified Jamaican continuous Assessment Teachers trained in Reading Test -Reading etc assessment of Social Studies and Science. School Documentation and implementation of SIP. Staff development linked to SIP. Improved staff and student attendance rates. Quality of budget submissions to REdO. Use of school-controlled funds Maintenance of infrastructure. School security indicators. Community Formation of SIAC. Involvement of parents and community in preparation of SIP. Community involvement in implementation of SIP. - 61 - Improved support from parents and school community. Employment and employability of school leavers. Table 3: Report Due Dates and Tentative Plan for IDA Supervision Missions Tentative Dates of IDA Document Supervision Year Due Dates Mission Notes I va AUgUSI P'iRet Launcn VVorKsnop I M, m-ocurmen Aevisor, ulsDursemen! uTTicer/Analyst, ArcnIec., i-kiance Specialist, Education Reform Specialist, Evaluation Specialist) September 30 Semi Annual Progress Report Due October 31 Implementation Plan for the Following Year Due November Supervision Mission (TM, Country Economist/Education Finance Specialist, Architect, Education Reform Specialist) 1997 March 31 Semi Annual Progress Report Due May Supervision Mission (TM, Teacher Training Specialist, Curriculunr'Teacher Training Specialist) September 30 Semi Annual Progress Report Due October 31 Implementation Plan for the Following Year Due November Supervision Mission (TM, Country Economist/Education Finance Specialist, Architect, Education Reform Specialist) 1SS8 March 31 Semi Annual Progress Report Due May Supervision Mission (TM, Teacher Training Specialist, Curriculum/Teacher Training Specialist) Septem ber 30 Semi Annual Progress Report Due October 31 Implementation Plan for the Following Year Due November Supervision Mission (TM, Country EconomistEducation Finance Specialist, Architect, Education Reform Specialist) 1SSS March 31 Semi Annual Progress Report Due May Supervision Mission (TM, Teacher Training Specialist, CurriculumtTeacher Training Specialist) Septem ber 30 Mld-TermlSeml-Annual Report from the Project Secretariat October 31 Implementation Plan for the Following Year Due November Mid-Term Evaluation (OED Evaluator, Archiect, Education Finance Specilist, Curriculum Specialst, Teacher Traiing Specialist, Management Specialist, Country Officer/Economist, TM) ZuOO March 31 Seml Annual Progress Report Due May Supervision Mission (TM, Teacher Training Specialist. Curriculum/Teacher Training Specialist) Septem ber 30 Semi Annual Progress Report Due October 31 Implementation Plan for the Following Year Due November Supervision Mission (TM, Country EconomistUEducation Finance Specialist, Architect, Education Reform Specialist) 7001 March 31 Semi Annual Progress Report Due May Supervision Mission (TM, Teacher Training Specialist, Curriculum/Teacher Training Specialist) September 30 Semi Annual Progress Report Due October 31 Implementatlion Plan for the Following Year Due November Supervision Mission (TM, Country Economist/Education Finance Specialist, Architect, Education Reform Specialist) 2002 March 31 Semi Annual Progress Report Due May Supervision Mission (TM, Teacher Training Specialist, CurriculumtTeacher Training Specialist) Septem ber 30 Semi Annual Progress Report Due October 31 ImplementatIon Plan for the Following Year Due November Supervision Mission (TM, Country Economist/Education Finance Specialist, Architect, Education Reform Specialist) 2003 March 31 semi Annual Progress Report Due May Supervision Mission (TM, Teacher Training Specialist, Curriculum/Teacher Training Specialist) - Septem ber 30 Semi Annual Progress Report Due Dacem ber 31 Implementation Completion Report Due I i - 63 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX VIII: PLANNED CONSULTANTS' SERVICES Number Suggested of Estimated Type of Type of Cost to Recruitment Contract Total Staff Cost to Position I Type of Work Contract la the Project Financed by Pool lb s Weeks Project (USS) School M anagem ent Support Participatoryibchool-based Management Specialist ST-I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International t 72 180,000 Total School M anagem ant Support 1 72 180,000 Curriculum Devalopm ant and Im plem *ntation, Teacher Training, Field Support - Learning Kesources otticer ic NIA - Ou; Proj. Allow ance tUI (I UU%) NCtLU/Mtt; 1 15b W,b/ -Assist Director, CDIU \c N/A - GOG Proj. Allow ance GOG (100%) NCERD/MEC 1 260 4,345 -Chief Test Deveiopment Officer Xc N/A - GOG Proj Allow ance GOG (100%) NCERD/MEC 1 156 2,607 -Senior subject specialists lc N/A - GOG Proj. Allow ance GOG (100%) NCERD/MEC 3 780 26,303 -Subject specialists \c N/A - GOG Proj. Allow ance GOG (100%) NCERD/MEC 4 832 17,686 -Test development officer lc N/A - GOG Proj. Allow ance GOG (100%) NCERD/MEC 1 156 4,486 -Methodology tutor \c N/A - GOG Proj. Allow ance GOG (100%) NCERD/MEC 1 156 2,653 Teachers (for w riting curricula) PT-I Honoraria IDA (100%) Teachers 28 2,912 32,455 Textbook Specialist ST-I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) nternational 1 28 70,000 Curriculum Specialist ST-I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 24 60,000 Subject Specialists ST-I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 4 96 240,000 Test/Assessment Specialist ST-I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 32 80,000 University of Guyana (Teacher Training) LT-F Consultant Fee IDA (100%) Local I 10 200,000 Teacher Training Specialist ST-I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 2 64 160,000 Field supervision team members LT-1 Consultant Fee IDA (100%) Local 7 1,820 107,386 TOtal NGeRK 67 7,482 1,010,525 Project Se cr tarlat td Project Director L r-r 1onsultant F-ee IUA (0IU% ) Local 1 2bu IzJ,Uu Administrator LT-1 Consuhtant Fee IDA (100%) Local 1 260 104,000 Finance/Procurement Coordinator LT-1 Consultant Fee IDA (100%) Local 1 260 104,000 Civil Works Coordinator LT-1 Consultant Fee IDA (100%) Local 1 260 104,000 TotaI Froject secretarIat 4 1,O40 435,50u M EC Operations Support Schools information Otticer la Li-1 tonsultant Fee IUA (61% ) Local 1 26b0 130,DD Education Finance Specialist LT-1 Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 104 260,000 Total m et. operattona Support 2 354 30s,00s Institutional Strengthening and Project M anagem ent Management Strengthening l-ii` Consultant i-ee WJA (lUU%) international 1 27 b8,bUU SIS Design ST-F Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 16 40,000 School Mapping/Physical Facility Survey ST-F/I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 4 10,000 School Mapping/Physical Facility Survey ST-F/I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) Local 1 16 8,000 Engineering Design Firm ST-F Consultant Fee IDA (100%) Local 1 18 27,000 Public Aw areness Campaign LT-F Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 150,000 Project Monitoring and Evaluation ST-F/I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 20 50,000 Preparation of Phase Il Support - 1 ST-I Consultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 13 32,500 Preparation of Phase II Support - 2 ST-I Consultent Fee IDA (100%) Local 1 13 6,500 External Auditor ST-F Cons ultant Fee IDA (100%) International 1 15 37,500 Total Institutlonal utrangtnening and rroject Managament 1U 142 42 IT,000 TOTAL 74 9,100 2,445,028 la ST-I (Short Term Individual); LT-I (Long Term Individual; ST-F (Short Term Firm); LT-F (Long Term Firm); NA-GOG (Not Applicable; GOG Staff) PT-I (Part-Time Individual). Firm includes non-profit or public organizations and academic institutions Xb "International" includes Guyanese nationals w ith qualtflcations that meet applicable international standards. \c Special Project Allow ance w ould be paid from GOG counterpart funds during their assignment to the Project. Xd In addition, Project Secretariat w ould employ 2 local support staff. Xe Supported by IDA on a declning basis. I - 65 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX IX: DRAFr TERMS OF REFERENCE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES FOR THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT A. BACKGROUND 1. The Government of Guyana (GOG) has requested the International Development Association (IDA) to provide a credit equivalent to US$17.3 million in order to finance the proposed Secondary School Reform Project (SSRP, or the Project). The Project would be implemented by the Ministry of Education and Cultural Development (MEC), and would have three major components: (i) Educational Program Quality, (ii) School Environment; (iii) National and Regional Institutional Strengthening. 2. The Educational Program Ouality component would: (a) introduce curriculum unification for the first three years of secondary education; (b) improve the quality and availability of relevant textbooks and instructional materials; (c) enhance knowledge and skills of secondary school teachers; (d) promote school-based initiatives and community participation; (e) assist the preparation of a School Improvement Plan (SIP); and (f) provide direct financial assistance in a small amount to individual schools, based on the evaluation of SIPs on competitive bases. 3. The School Environment component would carry out comprehensive rehabilitation of 12 pilot schools and emergency repair of other secondary schools. 4. The National and Regional Institutional Strengthening would: (a) assist the MEC in further developing and adopting the SSRP; (b) strengthen the managerial capacities of sector institutions through training activities, i.e., seminars, work-shops, on-the-job training, and the provision of domestic and international scholarships; (c) fill the capacity gaps through technical assistance and consulting services; (d) provide relevant goods, facilities and equipment. B. SCOPE OF WORK 5. For procurement of goods as well as works and related incidental services, the consultant will: (i) prepare bidding documentation, including technical specifications, bid evaluation criteria, qualifying requirements, contract conditions related to security, warranties, liquidated damages, payment terms, preparation of purchase orders etc.; (ii) based on procedural requirements of the GOG and financiers, notify/advertise procedures, identify potential suppliers, and prepare short lists of potential contractors; and (iii) assist the MEC in the receipt, opening and evaluation of bids, carry out post qualification of bidders, and prepare bid evaluation reports to be submitted to the relevant Government authorities and financiers for concurrence. 6. For the selection of and contracting with consultants, the consultant will: (i) prepare terms of reference, proposed short lists, letters of invitation for proposals, questionnaires, draft contracts etc.; (ii) based on procedural requirements of the GOG and financiers, notify/advertise procedures, identify - 66 - candidates, and prepare short lists of potential contractors; (ii) assist the MEC in the receipt and evaluation proposals, prepare evaluation reports, and negotiate with selected firms/consultants. 7. For monitoring and administration of contract performance, the consultant will: (i) set up efficient payment procedures, (ii) resolve claims and disputes; (iii) evaluate suppliers' performance; (iv) enforce liquidated damages and remedies for non-performance. 8. The consultant should be an experienced professional, preferable with a technical background and with extensive experience in all facets of large and complex international procurement, consultant evaluation and selection and contract administration in multilaterally funded operations. The consultant should also have a good knowledge of banking procedures linked to trade financing and of shipment and insurance practices. Experience in training would be desirable. The consultant should have excellent command of English. Access to an overseas home office to provide specific expert advise, if required, would also be desirable. To ensure the impartiality of his/her advise, the consultant (including his or her home office, if any) must not in any way be affiliated with business entities that are currently providing, or are seeking to provide, other goods or services to Guyana. C. TIMING AND EXPECTED TA OUTCOMES. 9. Procurement activities are already in progress in the MEC, and the consultancy is therefore required immediately. - 67 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX X: PROJECT COSTS AND EXPENDITURES Table 1: Components Cost Summary Guyana Secondary School Reform Project % % Total Components Project Cost Summary (GS Million) (USS M llion) Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs A. Educatlon Program Quality 92 264 356 0.54 1.55 2.49 74 13 B. School Environm ent Pllot Schools 418 321 738 2.92 2.24 5.16 43 32 Emergency School Repalr 490 369 859 3.42 2.58 6.01 43 37 SubtotalSchoolEnvironment 907 690 1,597 6.35 4.82 11.17 43 68 C. National and Regional Institutional Strengthening hlstlutbonalStrengthenhig 29 161 190 0.20 1.13 1.33 85 8 Project Management 75 35 111 0.53 0.25 0.77 32 5 Subtotal National and Regional Inatitutio 104 196 300 0.73 1.37 2.10 65 13 D. PPF Refinancing - 79 79 - 0.55 0.55 100 3 TOtal 1AUELINIetOUT5 1,104 1,229 2,333 r./Z 8.59 15.31 53 100 Physical Conthigencles 44 41 85 0.31 0.29 0.60 49 4 Price Contingencies 254 82 337 1.78 0.58 2.35 24 14 Tot PRKOJCT GOSTO 1,40z 1,353 2,755 9.A0 9.46 19.26 49 118 Table 2: Components by Financiers Giuyana Secondary School Reform Project (GS Mllion) Components by Financea r International Government of Development Local Guyana Association Total (Excl. Duties & Amount % Amount % Amount % or. Exch Taxes) Taxes A. coucallon rrogram wUUUSy aWa lJ.0 /1U.t OO.d 43U. I 5.b bot. 3lJ.b BE School Environm ant Fibt Schools 107.7 10.5 922.3 89.5 1,030.0 37.4 386.8 643.2 Emergency School Repar 98.8 11.5 759.9 88.5 858.8 31.2 369.0 489.8 Subtotal School Environment 206.5 10.9 1,682.3 89.1 1,888.8 68.6 75j.8 1,133.0 C. National and Regional Institutional Strengthening hsttutionaiStrengthenuig 9.5 4.5 202.2 95.5 211.7 7.7 180.7 310 Project Ahnagement 0.0 - 145.1 100.0 145.1 5.3 391 106.1 Subtotal National and Regional Institutional Strongthening 9.5 2.7 347.3 97.3 356.8 13.0 219.7 137.0 D. PPF Refinancing - - 78.7 100.0 78.7 2.9 78.7 - I 0151 .AeDUrMOm lni 0.0 lU.U X,4tY.U YU.U e,/D4.b) 1UU.U 1,303.U 1,4U1.b - Guyana Secondary School Reform Project (USS Mlillion) Components by Flnanciers Intornational Government of Development Local Guyana Association Total For. (Excl. Duties & Amount S Amount % Amount % Exch. Taxes) Taxes A. eoucalon rrogram UaUIIIy U.4A 13.0 W.Ou o.z 3J.U1 10.b Z.UY U.wz EL School Environmant Pilot Schools 0.75 10.5 6.45 89.5 7.20 37.4 2.70 4 50 - Em,ergency School Repac 0.69 1 `1.5 5.31 88.5 6.01 31.2 2.58 3.42 Subtotal School Environmant 144 10.9 11.76 89.1 13.21 68.6 5.29 7.92 C. National and Reglonal Instltutonal Strengthening histtutlonal Strngthening 0.07 4.5 1.41 95.5 1.48 7.7 1.26 0.22 ProjectManagement 0.00 - 1.01 100.0 1.01 5.3 0.27 0.74 Subtotal Natlonal and Regional inatItutonal Strengthening 0.07 2.7 2.43 97.3 2.49 13.0 1.54 0.96 D. PPF Refinancing - - 0.55 100.0 0.55 2.9 0 55 - 10ImglLlrJUrFmenl ---TwJ WU.U lt.J4 WM I lY.Zo lUU.U Y.4b V.ou - 68 - Table 3: Disbursements by Semesters and Government Cash Flow (US5 Mililon) (GS Ml1llon Financing Available Financing Available Costs to International Costs to be Inernational be Development Financed Government of Guyana Development Financed Government of Guyana IDA Fiscal Year Association Project Cumulative Association ProJect Cash Cumu at ve Semester Ending Amount Costs Cash Flow Cash Flow Amount Costs Flow Cash Flow r-Y97 Dec. 31, 96 0.81 0.86 (0.04) (0.04) 116.2 122.9 (5.4) (5.4) Jun. 30, '97 0.81 0.86 (0.08) (0.12) 116.2 122.9 (11.2) (16.6) FY98 Dec. 31, '97 1.94 2.10 (0.08) (0. 19) 277.4 300.8 (11.2) (27.7) Jun. 30, '98 1.94 2.10 (0.13) (032) 277.4 300.8 (18.3) (46.0) FY99 Dec. 31, '98 2.01 2.18 (0.13) (0.45) 287.4 312.2 (18.3) (64.4) Jun. 30, '99 2.01 2.18 (0.16) (0.61) 287.4 312.2 (22.9) (87.2) FY00 Dec. 31, '99 1.85 2.04 (0.16) (0.77) 264.1 292.1 (22.9) (110.1) Jun. 30, 00 1.85 2.04 (0.18) (0.95) 264.1 292.1 (25.7) (135.9) FY01 Dec. 31, '00 1.10 1.25 (0.18) (1.13) 156.6 179.0 (25.7) (161.6) Jun. 30, 01 1.10 1.25 (0.17) (1.30) 156 6 179.0 (24.7) (186.3) FY02 Dec. 31, '01 0.56 0.69 (017) (1.48) 80.0 98.0 (24.7) (211.1) Jun. 30, '02 0.56 0.69 (0 16) (1.63) 80 0 98.0 (22.2) (233.3) FY03 Dec. 31, '02 0.40 0.51 (0.16) (1.79) 57.8 72.2 (22.2) (255.5) Jun. 30, '03 0.40 0.51 (0.14) (1.93) 57.8 72.2 (20.4) (276.0) Iotal 1.34 19.26 (1.93) (1.93) 2,479 0 2,754.5 (276.0) (Z/b.U) Table 4: Project Components by Year - Total Including Contingencies Guyana Secondary School Reform Project Project Com ponents by Year -- Totals Including Contingencies Totals Including Contingencies (GS Mlllion) IDA Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total A. Education Program Quality 24.5 96.2 101.1 94.3 57.0 33.0 24.2 430.3 B. School Envlronm ent Pilot Schools 51.5 228.3 243.3 232.3 139.4 78.4 56.9 1,030.0 Emergency School Repair 49.9 207.7 207.7 187.5 107.1 58.3 40.5 858.8 Subtotal School Environment 101.4 436.1 451.0 419.8 246.5 136.7 97.3 1,888.8 C. National and Regional Institutlonal Strengthening b,stitutionalStrengthening 13.6 47.5 48.9 45.0 27.5 16.5 12.5 211.7 Project Management 27.5 21.9 23.3 25.1 27.0 9.8 10.5 145.1 Subtotal National and Regional Institutlonal Strengtheni 41.2 69.3 72.2 70.1 54.5 26.3 23.0 356.8 D. PPF Refinancing 78.7 - - - - - 78.7 Total PROJECT COSTS 245.8 601.6 624.4 584.3 3b8.0 119b. 144.5 2,754.6 Guyana Secondary School Reform Project ProJe ct C om porntents b y Ye ar *- Totals In clu dIn g C o ntin ge n cle s TotalIs In clu dIn g Co ntingae*n cles (US$ M Ililon ) IDA Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total A. Educetion Program t uality 0.10 0.63 0.34 0.32 0.41 0.23 0.10 1.48 B. School Environm * nt Pllot Schools 0.36 1.60 1.70 1.62 0.97 0.55 0.40 7.20 Emergency School Repair 0.35 1,45 1.45 1.31 0.75 0.41 0.28 6.01 Subtotal School Environment 0.71 3.05 3.15 2.94 1.72 0.96 0.68 13.21 C. National end Regional Institutional Strengthening Instftutional Strengthening 0.10 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.19 0.12 o,og 1.48 Project Management 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.07 0.07 1.01 Subtotal National and Regional Institutional Strengthenl 0.29 0.48 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.18 0.16 2.49 D. PPF Refinancing 0.55 - - - - - 0.55 TOtle PROJ T CUZI 1.72 4.21 4.37 4.U9 2.50 1.37 11.1 19.Zb - 69 - Table 5: Expenditure Accounts by Components - Total Including Contingencies (US$ million) Guyana Secondary School Reform Project Notlonel and Regional Expenditure Accounts by Components - Totas tncluding Contingencies School Environment Institutional (USS Milbon) Education emrgency Strengthening Program Pilot School nsu lulloneal roje cc PPF Gusltty Schools Repair trngthenin Management Refinancing Total I. nivestment Costa2 A. Educational Program improvement and institutional Strengthening 1. School Inform stion System SE Design and npiemntation Supervisbn 0n05 005 SE Equpmennt knstallatbn, Support and Training 0.44 0 44 Subtotal School Inform atlon System 050 0 50 2. Goods Office Technology Equprment (except under SB) /a 0 03 0 02 0.04 0 03 0 12 Vehicles 0 e - - - 050 Furnkure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal Goods 0.09 0.02 0.04 0 03 0.10 3. Services SeniDr Level Cons utant 0.72 0.70 0 12 1.54 Mtddle Level Consnutant 0.44 0.05 0.9 0.47 1.66 Subtotal Sorvices 1.16 0.75 0 82 0.47 3. 20 Cubtotal Educational Program Im pronem ent and Institutlonal Strengt 1.2 - 1.27 0 ao 0.50 3.86 B Pilot Schools: Physical Plent and Goods 1. Physical Plant Improvement Cbv Works 5 70 5 70 Enghneerhng Oesign. Monagenent and Supervision 1.09 0 10 Subtotal Physlcal Plant tmpronement - 6 79 6 79 2. Goods /b Books. Other instruclinal Materlels and Equipment Ic 1.04 1.04 Furnlure 0.23 0.23 Subtotal Goods 1.04 0.23 1.27 Subtotal Pilot Schools: Physical Plant and Goods 1.04 7.02 8.06 C. Emergency School Repair CiVS Works - 4.07 4 97 Engkneering Design, Management nd SupervbIon 0.54 0.84 Subtotal Emorgency School Repair S. I 5.681 0 Seminars. Workshops snd Training Id 045 - - 0.00 0.05 0 60 Total Invstment Costs 2.74 7 02 5.81 1.27 0.66 0.00 18.25 1. Recurrent coats A. Incremental Recurrent Expenditures 1. Pilot Schools SP Support Funds 015 015 Buoling and Furnlure Maintenance 0.16 0.16 Replacement of Books and Instructional Meterials 0.06 o 0.06 Subtotal Pilot Schoole 0.20 0.16 . . . . 0.36 2. Aflercare of Emergency School Repair 0.19 0.19 3. Administrative end Miscellaneous Expenditures Mainlenance end Operatbn 0.06 0 02 0 05 0 13 MEC Supplemental Staff/n 0.16 0.16 SubtotaiAdministrrtive and Mlsceilaneous Expenditures 0.06 0.02 0.21 0.30 Subtotel Incremental Recurrent Expenditures 0.26 0 l 0.19 0.21 . 0 65 B. Project Secretariat Maintenance and Operation 0.01 0 . 0.01 0.01 Suppies, Conwmuncatlons, Transportalon 0.15 0.15 Subtotal Project Secretariat 0 01 0.15 0.16 Total Recurrent Costs 0.27 016 0.16 0.21 0.15 1.01 tOtal PRUJ ICO CUTa T U1 r zu e1u1 U- U-55 1 215r Taxes Foreign EKchange| 2.09 | 2.70 j 2.68 1.20 0.27 0.55 9.46 1a Except Office Technology Equipment procured under the School lnformrtion Syslem pscksge lb Except Office Technology Equlpment procured under the School kiformetln System package /c Textbooks, lbrary books, and other instructional moterleis and equipment /d Workshops, Sefinars. etc. le School information Officer - 70 - Table 6: Expenditure Accounts by Components - Total Including Contingencies (G$ million) Guyana Secondary School Reform Project National and Rgional Expenditure Accounts by Com ponents - Totals Including Contingencies School Ennlronmenl Inslltullonal (G$ Mkion) Educatlon Iergency Strengthening Program Piloa School Institutional Pro ecC PPF nQuality Schools Repair trangthenin Management Refinancing Total I. Invatm entustsaf A. Educational Program Improvement and snattutionai Slrenglhening 1. School InformatIon System SS Design and npimenlation Supervisin 7ie 7.0 SS Equipment, hnstaftin, Support and Training 63.3 633 Sublotal School Information System 70.9 70.9 2. Goods Office Technooigy Equpment (excepi under SS) Ia 4.8 2.8 5.3 4.3 17.3 Vehicles 6.3 - - 8.3 Furnsure 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 .5 Subtotal Goods 13.3 3 0 5.5 4.3 26.1 3. Services Senior Level Consultant 102. 6 99.7 17.7 - 220.1 Middle Level Consuftant 83.8 7 5 99.1 87.3 237.5 Subtotal Servicsa I6 .2 107.2 1 18.8 87.3 457.8 Subtotal Educatlonal Program Improvement and institutlonal Strengt 179.5 - 181.1 122.4 71.8 554.5 B Pllot Schools: Physical Plant and Goods 1. Physical Plant improvement Civi Works - 815.8 815.8 Engineering Design, Managemni end Supervision 155. 155.8 Subtotal Phyalcal Plant Improvement - 971.2 971.2 2. Goods lb Books. Other Instructional Malerils and Equipment Ic 148.3 - 148.3 Furnfture 32.7 32.7 Subtoltl Goods 148 3 32.7 181.0 Subtotal Pilot School: Phyalcsl Plant and Goods 148.3 1t003.9 1 ,152.2 C. Emergency School Repair Clvil Works - - 710.2 710.2 Engineering Design, Manugoment and Supervisin 1 20.7 1 t 20.7 subtotal Em ergency School Repalr - 831.0 831.0 D Seminars, Workshops and Training Id 64.1 - - 0.7 7.2 72.0 Total Investment Cosls 392.0 1,003.9 831.0 1e1 1 123.1 78.7 2,609.7 I .Recurrent CosTs A. hncremenlal Recurrent Expenditures t. Pilot Schools SF Support Funds 21.1 21.1 Building and Furnture Maintenance - 23.0 23.0 Replacoment of Books and Instructional Materiab 7.9 7.9 Subtotal Pilot Schoole 29.0 23.0 - 52.0 2. Aftercare of Emergency School Repair - - 27.8 - 27.8 3. Admlnistrative and MIscotiansous Expenditures Maintenance and Operatlin 8.5 3.1 - 7.2 1 8.8 MEC Suppiemental Staff 1e - 23.4 23.4 SubottalAdmnslatrative and M scala neous Expenditures 8.5 3.1 - 30.6 42.2 Subtotal incrementalRecurrent Expenditures 37.5 28.1 27.8 30.8 122.0 B. Project Secretariat Maintenance and Operation 0.8 9 . . 0.8 1.7 Supples, Communicationr, Transportation . 21.3 21.3 Subtotal Project Secretariat 0.9 . 22.0 22.9 Total Recurrent Costs 38 4 281t 27.8 30.8 22.0 144.9 rOtCt PKUJEC I U0 3 43u I3I -USUu2 14511 3S.( 7 Z'Tr Tf Taxes - - - - - Forelgn Exchange 2918.7 38I .8 369.0 180.7 39.1 78 .7 11353.0 \s Except Offico Technology Equipment procured under the School informtion Sysnem package 1b Except Office Technology Equipment procured under the School kiformtion Syofem package \c Textbooks hibrary books, and other instructional mtelerlab and equipment d Workshop., Seminars, etc. \e School information Offter - 71 - Table 7: Expenditure Accounts Project Cost Summary Guyana Secondary School Reform Project % % Total Expenditure Accounts Project Cost Summary (GS Million) (USS Mllion) Foreign Base Local Forelgn Total Local Foreign Total xchang Costs t. investment Coats A. Educatlonal Program Improvement and Institutional Strengthening 1. School Information System SIS Design and Implementation Supervision - 6.9 6.9 - 0.05 0.05 100 - SIS Equipment, kistallation, Support and Training - 54.4 54.4 - 0 38 0.38 100 2 Subtotal School Information System - 61.3 61 3 - 0 43 0.43 100 3 2. Goods Office Technology Equipment (except under S1S)/a - 15.8 158 - 011 0.11 100 1 Vehicles - 7.2 7.2 - 0.05 0.05 100 Furniture 0 2 0.2 0 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 Subtotal Goods 0 2 23.1 23 3 0.00 0.16 0.16 99 1 3. Services Senior Level Consultant - 198.6 198.6 - 1.39 1.39 100 9 Middle Level Consultant 120 5 67.3 187 8 0.84 0.47 1.31 36 8 Subtotal Services 120 5 265 9 386.4 0.84 1 86 2.70 69 17 Subtotal Educational Program Improvement and Institutional Strengt 1207 3503 471.0 0.84 2.45 3.29 74 20 B. Pilot Schools: Physical Plant and Goods 1. Physical Plant Improvement Civil Works 293.9 293.9 587.7 2.05 2.05 4.11 50 25 Engineering Design, Management and Supervision 99.9 - 99 9 0 70 - 0.70 - 4 Subtotal Physical Plant Improvement 393.8 2939 687.6 2.75 2.05 4.81 43 29 2. Goods /b Books, Other Instructional Materials and Equipment Ic 6.3 119 6 125 9 0 04 0 84 0.88 95 5 Furniture 12.3 12.3 24 7 0.09 0 09 0.17 50 1 Subtotal Goods 18.6 131.9 150 5 0.13 0 92 1.05 88 6 Subtotal Pilot Schools: Physical Plant and Goods 412.4 425.8 8381 2.88 2.98 5.86 51 38 C. Emergency School Repair Civil Works 355 1 355.1 710 2 2.48 2 48 4.97 50 30 Engineering Design, Management and Supervision 120.7 - 120.7 0.84 - 0.84 - S Subtotal Emergency School Repair 4759 3551 831.0 3.33 2.48 5.81 43 36 D. Seminars, Workshops and TraIning Id 31.2 205 51.8 0.22 0.14 0.36 40 2 Total Investment Costs 1,0402 1,151 7 2,191.9 7.27 8.05 15.33 53 94 ll. Recurrent costs A. Incremental Recurrent Expenditures 1. Pilot Schools SIP Support Funds 10.0 10 0 20 1 0 07 0.07 0.14 50 1 Building and Furniture Maintenance 11.5 11 5 23 0 0.08 0.08 0.16 50 1 Replacement of Books and Instructional Materials - 7 9 7 9 - 0 06 0.06 100 - Subtotal Pilot Schools 21.5 29 4 510 0.15 0 21 0.36 58 2 2. Aftercare of Emergency School Repair 13.9 13.9 27.8 0.10 010 0.19 50 1 3. Administrative and Miscellaneous Expenditures Maintenance and Operation - 18.8 18.8 - 0.13 0.13 100 1 MEC Supplemental Staff /a 23.4 - 23.4 0.16 - 0.16 - 1 Subtotal AdmInistrative and Miscellaneous Expenditures 23.4 18.8 422 0.16 0.13 0.30 44 2 Subtotal Incremental Recurrent Expenditures 58.9 62.1 121.0 0.41 0.43 0.85 51 5 B. Project Secretariat Maintenance and Operation - 1.7 1 7 - 0.01 0.01 100 Supplies, Communications, Transportation 4 5 13.5 18.0 0 03 0.09 0.13 75 1 Subtotal Project Secretariat 45 15.2 19.7 0.03 0.11 0.14 77 1 Total Recurrent Costs 63.4 77.3 140.6 0.44 0.54 0.98 55 6 0t15 BAStLINtCLUblTb 1,Iu3 0 1,Z2Y.U Z,33z.0 ( (z 0.0w 1i 3.1 J0. iU Physical Contingencies 43 9 41 5 85.4 0 31 0.29 0.80 49 4 Price Contingencies 254 2 82 5 338.6 1 78 0.58 2.35 24 14 I OtaIVKURJtLt; I Loub I b 1 ,41J1 t 1,353 rJ Z. 14.6 Y teu Y 40 1W 10 4W ila \a txcept tJrtice iecnnology uquipment procurea unaer tne scnooi ntormation bystem pacKage \b Except Office Technology Equipment procured under the School Information System package \c Textbooks, library books, and other instructional materials and equpment \d Workshops, Seminars, etc \e School Information Officer - 72 - Table 8: GOG Counterpart Fund Expenditure Account by GOG Fiscal Year Guyana: Secondary School Reform Project GOG Counterpart Funds Expenditure Accounts by Years -- Totals Including Contingencies Totals Including Contingencies (USS M llion) GOG Fiscal Year 1996 2000 10Z1 z20z 2003 total 1. Investment Costs A. Educatlonal Program Improvement and Institutional Strengthening 1. School Information System SIS Design and lIrpleeontabon Supervision - SIS Equipment, hstallation, Support and Training | Subtotal School Information System 2 Goods Office Technokgy Equipment (except under SIS)la la Vehicles Furniture Subtotal Goods 3. Services Senior Level Consultant Middle Level Consutant (incl. salary top-up of NCERD staff) 0.004 0.012 0016 0.020 0.022 0.016 0.010 0.005 0.105 Subtotal Services u 004 U0.12 U0.lb u.020 U.022 .0115 U.UiU OU.Ub u.010 Subtotal Educatlonal Program Improvement and institutional Strengthening 0.004 U.012 00Ulb 0.020 0Uu22 .0.UUl0b UU1U U .Uob MUD EL Pilot Schools: Physlcal Plant and Goods 1. Physical Plant Improvement avil Works 0.011 0.061 0107 0.121 0.108 0.074 0.049 0020 0.552 Engineering Design, Management and Supervision - - - - - - - - - Subtotal Physical Plant Improvement ur1 1 Us61 U.10u o U.121 UAW U.U4 U.U49 U.020 U0bbZ 2. Goods /b Books, Other Instructonal Materials and Equipment /c - Furnnure Subtotal Goods Subtotal PllotSchools Physical Plantand Goods Uou1 UUb U0.1u 0.121 0.Iu0 U0U04 U.04w 0.ulu U.002 C. Erergency School Repair Ovil Works 0.012 0.059 0.099 0.106 0.090 0.059 0.037 0.014 0.475 Engineering Design, Management and Supervision - - - - - - - - Subtotal Ernergency School Repair U U12 o.00 0Y 0.106 U9 UYU 0U u 009 0.0J/ U0U14 U.4/1 D. Serriners, Workshops and Training Id Total Investment Costs out/ U0132 U.22i 0.247 U.22u U.149 0.09U -700 1.1 II. Recurrent Costs A. Incremental Recurrent Expenditures 1. Pilot Schools SIP Support Funds 0 009 0.015 0.017 0.018 0.021 0.025 0.028 0.015 0.148 Building and Furniure Maintenance - - - 0.012 0.036 0.055 0.062 0.030 0.194 Replacenent of Books and Instructional Materials 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.006 0.061 Subtotal Pilot Schools U.UUY U.1 t 0 U.21 0.038 uU.bb U0UY4 U1u4 U0.U1 U4Au 2. Aftercare of Emrrgency School Repair - - - 0.015 0.043 0.067 0.075 0.036 0 235 3. Administrative and Miscellaneous Expenditures Maintenance and Operahon 0 001 0.004 0.011 0.018 0.027 0.034 0.034 0.015 0.144 MEC Supplemental Staff /e 0 001 0.002 0.002 0 002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.016 Subtotal Administrative and Miscellaneous Expenditures |u.00 Uo.ot U0.12 0.020 U.U29 U0.U2 0.u2 U0.U1I U.1fU Subtotal Incremental Recurrent Expenditures 0 U011 Uu24 0u.02 0.012 U.14u U.19 U.21ti U1u4 0./19 EL Project Secretariat Maintenance and OperaDon Supplies, Communications, Transportabon Subtotal Project Secretariat Total Recurrent Coats o ou1I U0.4 U0.u05 U.0U 0.14u U1Y U.zlb U.104 U.190 Total PROJECT COSTS j .U03 U0.10 0.2bt 03.20 U.tu U.34b U.011I 0.143 1.92U \a Except Office Technology Equipment procured under the School Inforrrmtion System package \b Except Office Technology Equipment procured under the School hformetion System package \c Textbooks, library books, and other instructional materials and equiprrnnt \d Workshops, Serinars, etc \e School Information Officer - 73 - Table 9: Expenditure Account by Financiers Guiyena- Secorndary School Reform Project , (GS Mlillion) (LIS$ Mlillon) Bxpandfture Accounts by Rnanclers irianotitinalo I International Government of Development ' Local Government of Development Local Guyana As sociation Total (Excl. Guyana As sociation Total For. (Excl. Amount # Amount % Amount # or. Exch Taxes) Amount % Am ount # Amount % Exch. Tatxes) L investment Costs A. Educational Program Improvement and Institutional Strengthening 1. School Information System SIS Design and hptmentabon Supervision - - 7.6 100.0 7 6 0.3 7.6 -0.05 100.0 0.05 0.3 0.05 SES Equipment, hstelatiDn, Support and Trairin 63.3 100.0 63.3 2.3 63.3 0.44 100.0 0.44 2.3 0.44 SubtotalSchool InformationSystem - - 70.9 100.0 70.9 2.6 70 9 -0.50 100 0 0.50 2.6 0.50 2 Goode Office Technology Equrrent (except urider$IS) /a - - 17 3 100.0 17.3 0.6 17.3 - - - 0.12 100.0 0.12 0.6 0.12 Vehicls - - 8.3 100.0 8.3 0.3 8.3 - - - 0.06 100.0 0.06 0.3 0.08 Frni'ture 0.0 - 0.5 1W0.0 0.5 - 0.2 0.3 0.00 - 0.00 100.0 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Subtotal Goods 0 0 - 26.1 100.0 26.1 0.9 25.8 0.3 0.00 - 0.18 100.0 0.18 0.9 0.18 0.00 3. Servkes SenliDrLevel Consultant - - 220.1 100.0 220.1 80 220 1 - - - 1.54 1W0.0 1.54 8.0 1.5.4 MiddleLevel onsultant 22.1 9.3 215.4 90.7 237.5 8.6 67.3 170.2 0.15 9.3 1.51 90.7 1.66 86 0.47 1.19 SubtotdlS rvices 22.1 4.8 435.4 95.2 457 5 16.6 287.3 170.2 0.15 4.8 3.04 95 2 320 16.6 2.01 1.19 Subtotal Educational Program Improvement and Instttutonal Strength 22.1 4.0 532. 4 96.0 554.5 20.1 384.0 170.5 015 4.0 3 72 96.0 3.88 20.1 2.89 1.19 EL P ot Schools: Physical Plant and Goods 1. Physia kPlRant Improvement CivilvVorK 81.6 10.0 734.0 90.0 8`15.6 29.6 357.8 457.7 0.57 10.0 5.13 90.0 5.70 29.6 2.50 3.20 ErsheftDesign, Maknaffent andSupervision - - 155.6 100.0 155.6 56 - 155.6 - - 1.09 100.0 1.09 5.6 - 1.09 Subtotal Phy kal Plant Improvement 81.6 8 4 889.6 91.6 971.2 35.3 357.8 613 4 0.57 8 4 6 22 91.6 6.79 35 3 2.50 4.29 2. Goods lb Books. 0lw instructionsalMaterials and Equipffent /c 00 - 148.3 1W0.0 148.3 5.4 139 0 9.4 0.W0 - 1.04 1W0.0 1.04 5.4 0.97 0.07 Furnitue 0.0 - 32.7 100.0 32.7 12 14.3 18 3 0.W - 0.23 1W0.0 0.23 1.2 0.10 0.13 Subtotal Goods 0.0 - 181.0 1W0.0 181.0 6.6 153.3 27.7 0.W0 1.27 1W0.0 1 27 6.6 1.07 0.19 Subvtotal Ptot Schools:Physical Plant and Goods 81.6 7.1 1,070.7 92.9 1,152.2 41.8 511.2 641.1 0 57 7.1 7.49 92.9 a806 418 3.57 4.48 C. Emnergency School Rspair (i vovrks 71.0 10.0 639.2 90.0 710.2 258 355.1 355 1 0,50 10 0 4.47 90.0 4.97 25.8 2.48 2.48 EngweerhgDesign, Managernent aridSupervision - - 120.7T 100.0 120.7 44 - 120.7 - - 0.84 1W0.0 0.84 4.4 - 0.84 SubtotalErnergency School Repair 71.0 8.5 759.9 91 5 831.0 30.2 355.1 475.9 0.50 8.5 5.31 91.5 5.81 30.2 2.48 3.33 D. Semlnww, vU:rhops and Training /d 0.0 - 72.0 1W0.0 72.0 2.6 23.4 48.5 0.W0 - 0 50 1W0.0 0.50 2.6 0.16 0.34 Tota llnvestment Costs 174 7 6.7 2,435.0 93.3 2,609.7 94.7 1,273.8 1,335.9 1.22 6.7 17.03 93.3 18.25 94.7 8.91 9 34 11. necurrent coasts A. Incremental fcurrent Expenditures 1. Pllot S'chools SP Support Funds 21.1 1W0.0 - - 21.1 0.8 10.5 10.5 0.15 1W0.0 - - 0.15 0.8 0.07 0.07 BukWgand Furnitre iantenanrve 23.0 100.0 - - 23.0 0.8 11.5 11.5 0.16 1W0.0 - - 0.16 0.8 0.08 0.08 Fepwnwnt of B4ook and hnstructbDnal Materials 7.9 1W0.0 - - 7 9 o03 7 9 0.06 1W0.0 - - 0.08 0 3 0.08 Subtotal Ptlot Schools 52.0 1W0.0 52 0 19 29.9 22.0 0.36 1W0.0 0.36 1.9 0.21 0.15 2. Aftercare ofEmwrgency School Repair 27.8 1W0.0 - - 27.8 1,0 13.9 13.9 019 1W0.0 - - 0.19 1.0 0.10 0.10 3. Admtnbstrnive and MlseeHaneous Expenditures MaItnWance and Operation 18.8 1W0.0 - - 18.8 0.7 18.8 - 0.13 1W0.0 - - 0.13 0.7 0.13 NEC Sup,obmentalStafft/e 2.3 10.0 21.1 90.0 23 4 0.9 - 23.4 0.02 10.0 0.15 90.0 0.16 0.9 - 0.16 SubtotalAdministrative and Miscellaneous Expenditures 21.1 50.0 21 1 50.0 42.2 1.5 18.8 23.4 0.15 50.0 0.15 50.0 ,0.30 1.5 0.13 0.16 SubtotalIncremental Rcuffent Expenditures 100.9 82.7 21.1 17.3 122.0 4.4 62 6 594 0.71 82.7 0.15 17 3 0 85 44 0.44 0.42 EL ProJect Secretariat MWintenance and Operation - - 1.7 1W0.0 17 01 17 - - - 0.01 1W0.0 0.01 0.1 0.01 Supples, CoDmmunrcations. Transportation e o 21.3 100.0 213 0 8 14 9 6.4 0.W - 015 100.0 0.15 0.8 0.10 0.04 Subtotal ProJect Secretariat 0.0 22.9 1W0.0 22 9 0.8 16.6 6.4 0.W0 0.16 1W0.0 0.16 0.8 0.12 ° 04 Total Recurrent Costs 100.9 69.6 44.0 30.4 144.9 5 3 79 2 65.7 10.71 69.6 0 31 30.4 1.01 S53 0.55 0.46 Total Elsbursement - 2/b.b lU.O 2,4t90U 900 Z./04.b IUUU 1,33'.1 1,401.b I1S3 10.0 1it34 90.0 19.26 1U1J.0 9.46 WM6 -a txcepILt uice ecnnologybup,ment procured under the SChookI orrrvton System pachage lb Except Office Technology Equipmnt procured under the School htfornmetion System package \c Texttok, lbrary boohr., and other mnstructional rraterials and equipment vd Workshops, Seminars, etc. be School khfornmation Officer - 74 - Table 10: Expenditure Accounts by Year - Total Including Contingencies Giuyana Secondary School Reform Project Expenditure Accounts by Years -- Totals Including Contingencies Totals Including Contingencies (GS Million) Totals Including Contingencies (US$ Million) IDA Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total I. investment Costs A. Educational Program Improvement and Institutional Strengthening 1. School Information System StS Design and Ipiementation Supervision 0.4 1.8 1.9 1.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 7.6 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 SISEquipmrentl,hstlaabon. Support and Training 3.6 15.2 15.6 14.1 7.9 4.1 2.8 63 3 0 02 0 11 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.44 SubtotalSchool Information System 4.0 17 1 17.5 15.8 88a 4.5 3.1 70 9 0 03 0 12 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.50 2. Goods OfficeaTechnology Equipmnlot(exceptlunder SSb)/a 10,1 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.0 0 5 0.3 17.3 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.12 Vehicles 0.S 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.4 8.3 ° °° 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 Furniture 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal Goods 10.7 3.9 4.0 3.6 2.0 1.0 0.7 26.1 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.18 3. Service a Senior LevelConsullant 14.6 51.1 52.3 47.5 27.7 15.4 11.4 220.1 0.10 0.36 0.37 0.33 0.19 0.11 0.08 1.54 MiddbaLevel Consullant 85.1 31.3 34.1 35.0 30.0 11.4 10.5 237.5 0.60 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.08 0.07 1.66 Subtotal Services 99.7 82.4 86.4 82.4 57.7 26.9 22.0 457.5 0.70 0.58 0.60 0.58 0.40 0.19 0.15 3.20 Subtotal Educational Program Improvement and Institutional Strengt 114.5 103.4 107.9 101.9 68.6 32.5 25.8 554.5 0.80 0.72 0.75 0.71 0.48 0.23 0.18 3.88 S. Pilot Schools: Physical Plant and Goods 1. Physical Plant Improvement Civi Works 42.2 186.5 197.8 184.7 107.0 56.9 40.4 815.6 0.30 1.30 1.38 1.29 0.75 0.40 0.28 5.70 EngineeringDesign.Managenient and Supervision 7.5 34.1 37.2 35.7 21.2 11.6 8.4 155.6 0.05 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.06 1.09 Subtotal Physical Plantlm prove m ent 49.8 220.6 235.0 220.4 128.2 68.5 48.8 971.2 0.35 1.54 1.64 1.54 0.90 0.48 0.34 6.79 2. Goods lb Books, Other Istructional Materials and Equipment /c 8.3 35.5 36.6 33.1 18.6 9.6 6 6 148.3 0.06 0 25 0.26 0.23 0.13 0.07 0.05 1.04 Fumiture 1.7 7.5 7.9 7.4 4.3 2.3 1.6 32.7 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.23 Subtotal Goods t0 0 43.0 44.5 40.5 22.9 1 1.9 8.2 181.0 0.07 0.30 0.31 0.28 0.16 0.08 0.06 1.27 Subtotal Pilot Schools: Physical Plant and Goods 59.7 263.6 279.5 260.9 151.2 80.3 57.0 1,152.2 0.42 1.84 1.95 1.82 1.06 0.56 0.40 8.06 C. Emergency School Rtepair Civil Works 42.6 177.6 177.6 156.3 85.2 4286 28.4 710.2 0.30 1.24 1.24 1.09 0.60 0 30 0.20 4.97 Engineering Design, Managemient and Supervision 7.2 30.2 30.2 26.6 14.5 7.2 4.8 120.7 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.84 Subtotal Emergency School Repair 49.9 207.7 207.7 182.8 99.7 49.9 33.2 831.0 0.35 1.45 1.45 1.28 0.70 0.35 0.23 5.81 D.Serrinars, Workshops and Training/d 11.1 14.4 15.4 14.6 8.6 4.6 3.3 72.0 0.08 0.10 0 11 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.50 Total Investment Costs 235.1 589.1 610.6 560.2 328.0 167.3 119.3 2,609.7 1.64 4.12 4.27 3.92 2.29 1.17 0.83 18.25 II. Kecurrent Costs A. Incremental Rtecurrent Expendltures 1. Pilot Schools SP Support Funds 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 21.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 Budding and Furnilure Maintenance - - - 3.9 6.1 7.0 6.0 23.0 0,03 0.04 0 05 0.04 0.16 Replacerrent of Books and Istructional Materials 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.3 7,9 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 Subtotal Pilot Schools 3.3 3.7 4.0 8.3 10.8 11.6 10.2 52.0 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.36 2. Aftercare of Emergency School Repair - - - 4.7 7.4 8.4 7.2 27.8 - - - 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.19 3. Administrative and Mliscellaneous Expenditures Maintenanceaand Operation 0.3 1.4 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.1 18.8 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.13 MEC Supplerrental Staff he 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 23.4 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.16 Subtotal Administrative and Miscellaneous Expenditures 3.8 4.9 5.8 6 8 7.3 7.3 6.4 42.2 0.03 0 03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.30 Subtotal Incremental ReCurrent Expenditures 7.1 8.6 9.8 19.8 25 5 27.3 23.8 122.0 0.05 0 06 0.07 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.85 B, Project Secretariat Maintenance and Operation 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 1 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Supplies, Cofmrnnicatbons, Transportation 3,5 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.1 1.2 1 2 21.3 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.15 Subtotal Project Secretariat 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.5 1.4 1.4 22.9 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 01 0.01 0.16 Total Recurrent Costs 10.7 12.5 13.8 24.1 30.0 28.7 25.2 144.9 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.18 1.01 I Otal rHWJECTCIU105S 245.8 601.6 5z4.4 584.J J58.u lYb.u 144.0 2, tt4.t 1 1z 4.21 4.31 4.UY ;!.bu 1.3t 1.u1 19.;eb %a cxcept rUffice Ileennology tquipment procured under the School hlformratbon System packeage lb Except Office Technology Equipament procured under the School Informrabon System package vc Textbooks, library books, and other instructional miaterials and equipffent vd Workshops, Serrinars, etc. ve School hnformewtion Officer - 75 - Table 11: Disbursement Accounts by Financiers -Guyana Secondary School Reform Project (G$ MIllion) (US$ Mlllion) Disburseme nt Accounts by Financiers InternatIonal InternatIonal Government of Development Local Government of Development Local Guyana Association Total (Excl. Guyana Association Total For. (Excl. Amount % Amount % Amount % or. Exch Taxes) Amount % Amount % Amount % Exch. Taxes) A. Clvil Works 1. Plot Schools 81.6 10.0 734.0 90.0 815.6 29.6 357.8 457.7 0.57 10.0 5.13 90.0 5.70 29.6 2.50 3.20 2. Energency School Repair 71.0 10.0 639.2 90.0 710.2 25.8 355.1 355.1 0.50 10.0 4.47 90.0 4.97 25.8 2.48 2.48 Subtotal Civil worKs 152.5 0. 1,373.2 V0.0 1,525.8 55.4 113.0 112.3 1.0 10.0 Y.50 90.0 10.57 s5.4 4.99 5.65 B. Goods 1. Plot Schools /a 0.0 - 173.4 100.0 173.4 6.3 146.2 27.2 0.00 - 1.21 100.0 1.21 6.3 1.02 0.19 2. Other hb 0.0 - 92.7 100.0 92.7 3.4 91.9 0.8 0.00 0.65 100.0 0.65 3.4 0.64 0.01 SUbtotal Goods 0.0 255.1 1s0.0 251.1 9.7 235.1 2W.D 0.00 - 1.85 100.0 1.6 9.7 1.57 0.20 C. Consultants Services 1. Assistance in the Devealprmnt - - 17.1 100.0 17.1 0.6 17.1 - - - 0.12 100.0 0.12 0.6 0.12 of School kvWovement Plans 2. School Design - - 13.9 100.0 13.9 0.5 7.6 6.3 0.10 100.0 0.10 0.5 0.05 0.04 Guidehne/Standard and Nationw ide PhysicaI Facilty Survey 3. Other /c - 621.1 100.0 621.1 22.5 203.0 418.1 - - 4.34 100.0 4.34 22.5 1.42 2.92 Subtotalconsultants Services - 552.1 100.0 852.1 23.7 221.7 424.S - - 4.55 100.0 4.55 23.7 1.59 2.S1 D. Training 0.0 - 64.8 100.0 64.6 2.4 16.3 48.5 0.00 - 0.45 100.0 0.45 2.4 0.11 0.34 E. Operating Expendltures 1. MECSuppbementalStaff/d 123.0 84.8 22.0 15.2 145.0 5.3 63.5 81.5 0.86 84.8 0.15 15.2 1.01 5.3 0.44 0.57 2. ProjectSecretariatle 0.0 - 22.0 100.0 22.0 0.8 15.7 6.4 0.00 - 0.15 100.0 0.15 0.8 0.11 0.04 Subtotal operating Expenditures 1Z3.0 73.6 44.0 z6.4 167.0 6.1 79.2 87.8 0.85 73.6 0.31 26.4 1.17 5.1 0.55 0.51 F. PPF Refinancing - - 78.7 100.0 78.7 2.9 78.7 - . - 0.55 100.0 0.55 2.9 0.55 Total 275.6 10.0 2,479.0 90.0 2,754.6 100.0 1,353.0 1,401.6 1.93 10.0 17.34 90.0 19.26 100.0 9.46 9.80 Xa Textbooks, reading boOkS, other instructional material and equipment, and furniture \b hlckding the SIS package (hardw are, softw are, application development and training) \c hnckiding architecturaVengineering design and supervision of w orks for Pilot Schools and Emergency School Repair vd School hnformation Officer ve Utilites, Communications, Equipment Maintenance and Operation, and Supplies - 76 - Table 12: Procurement Accounts by Year Guyana 3econdary School Reform Project Procurement Accounts by Years Totals Including Contingencies (GS Million) Totals Including Contingencies (US$ Million) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 1. Civil Works 80.4 344.8 355.5 322.8 182.1 94.3 65.2 1445.1 0.56 2.41 2.49 2.26 1.27 0.66 0.46 10.11 2. Goods 20.1 62.1 64.2 58.3 32.8 17.0 11.7 266.2 0.14 0.43 0.45 0.41 0.23 0.12 0.08 1.86 3. Consultants Services 77.6 176.2 186.1 191.4 144.1 96.2 77.4 949.0 0,54 1.23 1.30 1.34 1.01 0.67 0.54 6.64 4. Training and Operating Expe 14.8 18.3 19.5 18.8 13.0 5.8 4.5 94.7 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.66 Total 192.9 601.4 625.3 591.3 372.0 213.3 158.8 2,755.0 1.35 4.21 4.37 4.13 2.60 1.49 1.11 19.27 Table 13: Procurement Accounts by Financiers Guyana Secondary School Reform Project (G$ Million) (US$ Million) Procurement Accounts by Financiers Intemational IntematIonal Govemment of Development Local Govemment of Development Local Guyana Association Total (Excl. Guyana Association Total For. (Excl. Amount % Amount % Amount % For. Exch. Taxes) Amount % Amount % Amount % Exch. Taxes) 1. Civil Works 72.2 5.0 1,372.8 95.0 1,445.0 52.5 675.2 769.8 0.50 5.0 9.60 95.0 10.10 52.5 4.72 5.38 2. Goods - - 266.2 100.0 266.2 9.7 238.2 28.0 - - 1.86 100.0 1.86 9.7 1.67 0.20 3. Consultants Services 203.2 21.4 745.7 78.6 948.9 34.4 414.7 534.2 1.42 21.4 5.21 78.6 6.64 34.4 2.90 3.74 4. Training and Operating Expen 0.0 0.0 94.8 100.0 94.8 3.4 39.9 54.9 0.00 0.0 0.66 100.0 0.66 3.4 0.28 0.38 Total 275.4 10.0 2,479.5 90.0 2,754.9 100.0 1,368.0 1,386.9 1.93 10.0 17.34 90.0 19.27 100.0 9.57 9.70 - 77 - GUYANA SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM PROJECT ANNEX XI: DRAFT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN GUYANA: Secondary School Reform Project / Work Program Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Annex Xl (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan ar1 I Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jul 6 Project Secretariat 25.4w Dec 29 Jul 6 Designation of the Civil Works 25.4w Dec 29 Coordinator Jul 6 Prepare TOR 7d Jul 14 Jul 6 Search and identify a candidate 5.8w Aug 15 Jul 14 Send TOR for IDA's no objection Od Jul 14 Jul 17 If Satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Jul 21 objection Jul 17 Draft a contract 1w Jul 21 Aug 15 Send a draft contract and the Od Aug 15 candidate's CV to IDA for no _ r Aug 16 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Aug 22 objection Aug 23 Negotiate and sign the contract with 1w Aug 29 the candidate Aug 29 Send a copy of the signed contract to Od Aug 29 IDA l Sep 1 Civil Works Officer in place 17.2w Dec 29 Jul 6 Designation of the 25.4w Dec 29 ProcurementUFinance Officer Jul 6 Prepare TOR 3.6w Jul 31 Jul 6 Search and identify a candidate 8.2w Aug 31 Jul 31 Send TOR for IDA's no objection Od Jul 31 Aug 1 If Satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Aug 7 objection ___ ______ Aug 1 Draft a contract lw Aug 7 Aug 31 Send a draft contract and the Od Aug 31 candidate's CV to IDA for no _ Sep 1 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Sep 7 objection Sep 8 Negotiate and sign the contract with 1w Sep 14 the candidate Annex Xl (1): Page 1 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary Scnool Reform Project / Work Program Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Annex Xl (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan Start Task Name Dur | Finish r Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Sep 14 Send a copy of the signed contract to Od Sep 14 IDA Oct 2 Procurement/Finance Officer in place 13w Dec 29 Jul 7 Procurement of OT Equipment for the 12w Sep 28 K - K> Secretariat Jul 7 MEC prepares a list and 8w Aug 31 __2_ _ specifications for the equipment Aug 31 Send the list for IDAs no objection Od Aug 31 Sep 1 Procure the equipment 4w Sep 28 Jul 17 Designation of the Project Director 24w Dec 29 - Jul 17 Send the candidate's CV to IDA for Od Jul 17 no objection Jul 17 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Jul 21 objection Jul 24 MOF sends a letter to IDA indicating 2w Aug 4 the Project Director designate is Aug 15 Formal appointment Od Aug 15 Aug 15 Project Director in place 19.8w Dec 29 Jul 6 In-Service Teacher Training by UG 22.2w Dec 7 K> Jul 6 Training of Teachers 7.8w Aug 29 K _ Jul 6 UG ascertain training needs of ld Jul 6 teachers from the pilot schools Jul 7 UG develops and submits a detailed 2w Jul 20 proposal of the planned summer Jul 21 MEC reviews the plan and prepare a 2w Aug 3 contract Aug 3 MEC sends a draft contract and the Ow Aug 3 CVs of key instructors for IDA's no Aug 4 If satisfactory, IDA gives no objection 1w Aug 10 Aug 16 UG Training Workshop of teachers 2w Aug 29 and department heads, being Sep 1 Training Program for the First Project 8.6w Oct 31 K> K> Year I I Annex Xl (1): Page 2 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary School Reform Project / Work Program Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Annex Xi (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan ar I Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep | Oct Nov Dec Sep 1 MEC prepares a proposal invitation 2.2w Sep 15 Sep 15 MEC submits an invitation of Od Sep 15 proposal for IDA's no objection Sep 18 If satisfactory, IDA gives no objection 1w Sep 22 Sep 25 MEC distributes the invitation to UG 5.4w Oct 31 and any other interested entity / MEC Oct 31 Submit the final proposal to IDA Od Oct 31 Oct 16 Training of Head Masters and Deputies 7.8w Dec 7 K> Oct 16 UG develops and submits a detailed 2w Oct 27 proposal of the planned Head Oct 30 MEC reviews the plan and prepare a 2w Nov 10 contract Nov 10 MEC sends a draft contract and the Ow Nov 10 CVs of key instructors for IDA's no __.__ Nov 13 If satisfactory, IDA gives no objection 1w Nov 17 Dec 1 UG Training Workshop of Head 1w Dec 7 Masters and Deputy Jul 6 Establishment of Supervision Teams 25.4w Dec 29 K> Jul 6 Develop TORs for Supervision Team 2w Jul 19 Members Jul 6 Identify candidates and prepare draft 4w Aug 2 contracts Jul 19 Send TORs for IDA's no objection ov Jul 19 Jul 20 If satisfactory, IDA sends no objection 1w Jul 26 Aug 2 Send draft contracts and CVs of Od Aug 2 candidates for IDA's no objectionl Aug 3 If satisfactory, IDA sends no objection 1w Aug 9 Aug 10 Sign contracts with supervision members 4d Aug 15 Aug 15 Supervision Teams fully established Ow Aug 15 Aug 30 Supervision Team in place 1_7.6w Dec 29 Annex Xl (1): Page 3 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary School Reform Project/ Work Program Ministry of Edu,catIon and Cultural Development Annex Xl (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan ar1 Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Dec 1 Recruitment of an Intemational 4.2w Dec 29 Teacher Training Specialist Dec 1 Prepare TOR 2w Dec 14 Dec 1 Search and identify a candidate 4.2w Dec 29 Dooo ooooo Dec 14 Send TOR for IDA's no objection Od Dec 14 Dec 15 If Satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Dec 21 objection Jul 6 Student Performance Assessment 13.4w Oct 6 Jul 6 Recruitment of an Intemational Student 3.6w Jul 31 Performance Assessment Specialist Jui 6 Prepare TOR 1w Jul 12 Jul 6 Search and identify a candidate 2w Jul 19 Jul 12 Send TOR for IDA's no objection Od Jul 12 Jul13 If Satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Jul19 objection Jul 13 Draft a contract 1w Jul 19 Jul 19 Send a draft contract and the Od Jul 19 candidate's CV to IDA for no Jul 20 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 3d Jul 24 objection Jul 25 Negotiate and sign the contract with 1w Jul 31 the candidate Jul 31 Send a copy of the signed contract to Od Jul 31 IDA Jul 6 Establish a mechanism of collaboration 3d Jul 10 between TDU and CDIU Jul 6 Write to MEC/Jamaica to seek permission 18d Jul 31 to use Milner/Erwin reading test (by July Aug 1 modify Jamaican reading test 23d Aug 31 Sep 1 Administer the reading test (1 st&2nd week 2w Sep 14 Sep.) Sep 25 Workshop 2w Oct 6 Annex Xl (1): Page 4 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary School Reform Project / Work Program Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Annex Xl (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan ar I Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Sep 25 Pre-workshop discussion with the 1w Sep 29 consultant Oct 2 Workshop assisted by the consultant 1w Oct 6 Jul 6 Emergency School Repair and Pilot School 25.4w Dec 29 Rehabilitation Jul 6 Nation-wide survey of school facilities 26.4w Dec 29 Jul 6 Hiring of the 10.2w Sep 14 architecturaUengineering Jul 6 Prepare TOR 3.6w Jul 31 Jul 6 Search and identify a candidate 8.2w Aug 31 Jul 31 Send TOR for IDA's no objection Od Jul 31 Aug 1 If Satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Aug 7 objection Aug 1 Draft a contract 1w Aug 7 Aug 31 Send a draft contract and the Od Aug 31 candidate's CV to IDA for no Sep 1 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Sep 7 objection Sep 8 Negotiate and sign the contract 1w Sep 14 with the candidate _ Sep 14 Send a copy of the signed Od Sep 14 contract to IDA I Sep 15 Survey work 15.2w Dec 29 Jul 6 Development of proto-type design 18.2w Nov 9 standards Jul 6 Hiring of consultant 10.2w Sep 14 \i K) Jul 6 Prepare TOR 3.6w Jul 31 Jul 6 Search and identify a candidate 8.2w Aug 31 Jul 31 Send TOR for IDA's ncs objection Od Jul 31 Aug 1 If Satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Aug 7 objection I I I I Annex Xl (1): Page 5 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary School Refowm Project/ Work Program Minis"y of Educaion and Cuitural Development Annex Xi (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan ari1 Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Aug 1 Draft a contract 1w Aug 7 Aug 31 Send a draft contract and the Od Aug 31 candidate's CV to IDA for no Sep 1 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Sep 7 objecion Sep 8 Negotiate and sign the contract 1w Sep 14 with the candidate Sep 14 Send a copy of the signed Od Sep 14 contract to IDA Sep 15 Design Work 8w Nov 9 Jul 14 Award of contract to the design Od Jul 14 consultants for pilot school civil works Jul 6 Finalization of SIP Guidelines and 15.4w Oct 20 Assistance to schools in preparing SIAC Jul 6 Finalization of SIP Guidelines 13.4w Oct 6 Jul 6 Recruitment of an Intemational 7.8w Aug 29 School-based-management (SBM) Jul 6 Prepare TOR 3w Jul 26 Jul 6 Search and identify a candidate 5.8w Aug 15 Jul 27 Send TOR for IDA's no objection Id Jul 27 Jul 27 If Satisfactory, IDA sends no 0.8w Aug 1 objection Jul 28 Draft a contract 1w Aug 3 Aug 15 Send a draft contract and the Od Aug 15 candidate's CV to IDA for no Aug 16 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Aug 22 objection Aug 23 Negotiate and sign the contract 1w Aug 29 with the candidate Aug 29 Send a copy of the signed Od Aug 29 contract to IDA Aug 30 SBM specialist's work / finalize SIP 5.4w Oct 5 Guidelines satisfactory to MEC Oct 6 MEC submits the final draft SIP 0.2w Oct 6 Guidelines to IDA; I_I_I_I Annex Xi (1): Page 6 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary School Reform Project / Work Program Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Annex Xl (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan ari1 Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jul 6 Support of Participatory School 15.4w Oct 20 \) Management Jul 6 Recruitment of an Participatory 7.2w Aug 24 School Management Facilitator Jul 6 Prepare TOR 3w Jul 26 Jul 6 Search and identify a candidate 5.2w Aug 10 Jul 27 Send TOR for IDA's no objection Id Jul 27 Jul27 if Satisfactory, IDA sends no 0.8w Aug 1 objection Jul28 Draft a contract 1w Aug 3 Aug 10 Send a draft contract and the Od Aug 10 candidate's CV to IDA for no Aug 11 If satisfactory, IDA sends no 1w Aug 17 objection _ Aug 18 Negotiate and sign the contract 1w Aug 24 with the candidate _ Aug 24 Send a copy of the signed Od Aug 24 contract to IDA Aug 30 Facilitator's service 7.6w Oct 20 _ Jul 6 Curlculum Development 25.4w Dec 29 Jul 6 Identify a candidate 8w Aug 30 __ _ _ _ Jul 6 Establish Curriculum Instructional 52d Sep 15 ______________ Materials Teams (CIMTs) Jul 15 Formally designate Curriculum Od Jul 15 Development Officer as Curriculum Jul 17 Draft TOR for Conference (Nov. 16117) 22d Aug 15 Faclitator Aug 30 Send the TOR for IDA's no objection Od Aug 30 Aug 31 IDA gives no objection, if satisfactory 1w Sep 6 Aug 30 Send a draft contract and the CV of the Ow Aug 30 candidate for IDA's no objection I Sep 7 if satisfactory, IDA gives no objection 1w Sep 13 Annex Xl (1): Page 7 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary School Retorn Project/ Work Program Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Annex Xi (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan ar 1 Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Sep 18 CIMTs in place 15w Dec 29 Sep 18 Preparation of of a document discussing 2w Sep 29 the over-arching principle of curriculum Oct 24 In-house discussions of document 3d Oct 26 Nov 16 Conference on the document 2d Nov 17 Dec 8 Start identification of 3 international Od Dec 8 subject consultants (General, Math, Jul 6 Textbooks 25.4w Dec 29 Jul 6 Invite publishers and booksellers to 18d Jul 31 send/display complimentary books Jul 6 Finalize local textbook refinement 25.4w Dec 29 _ _ _ _ Jul 6 Prepare TOR for Intemational Textbook 2w Jul 19 consultant Jul 6 Identify a candidate 13.5w Oct 9 Jul 19 Submit the TOR for IDA's no objection Od Jul 19 Jul 20 If satisfactory, IDA gives no objection 1w Jul 26 Oct 9 Send a draft contract and the CV for IDA's Od Oct 9 no objection Oct 9 If satisfactory, IDA gives no objection 1w Oct 16 Oct 16 Sign the contract with the consultant 1w Oct 23 Oct 23 Consuitant's assistant to the Workshop 1w Oct 30 Preparation Oct 30 Workshop for LRU & other NCERD staff 1w Nov 6 with consultant Jul 7 School Information Systems 25.2w Dec 29 - Jul 7 Continue School Mapping Exercise 25.2w Dec 29 Jul 24 Management Training by MEC 14w Oct 27 Jul 24 Management Workshop for Head Masters 1w Jui 28 and Deputy Head Masters _ Annex Xl (1): Page 8 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP GUYANA: Secondary School Reform Project / Work Program Ministry of Education and Cultural Development Annex Xl (1): Draft: First Year Work Plan arl Start Task Name Dur Finish Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Sep 11 MEC Training Director determines the 1w Sep 15 training needs of DEOs and DESs _ Sep 25 Initial Training of Supervision Team 1w Sep 29 Oct 23 Training Workshop for DEOs and DESs lw Oct 27 _________ by MEC Xl (1): Page_9________________________________________________ Annex XI (1): Page 9 M:\PROJECTS\GUYANA\2ND-EDU.LEN\MAPJ\SSRP-PPF.MPP Guyana Secondary School Reform Support Project Annex XI (2): Draft Five Year Indicative Plan 96 1997 1 1998 1999 2000 2001 WBS Task Name Q3 Q4 0Q Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q 1Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 03 Q4 Ql 02 03 Q4 Ql I School Quality Improvement 1.1 Education Programs 1.1.1 Support of Education Improvement Plans 1.1.2 Introduction of a Common Curriculum 1. '2.1 Equipment 1.1.2.2 Language Arts 1.1.2.3 Mathematics 1.1.2.4 Science 1.1.2.6 Social Studies 1.1.3 Textbooks and Instructional Matierals IJ 1.1.4 In-Service Teacher Training ._-__ 1.2 Infrastructure Support 1.2.1 School Rehabilitation and Expansion (4 schools each in three phases) 2 Institutional Strengthening and Project Management 2.1 School Information Systems 2.2 Budget Planning Strengthening 2.3 Management Strengthening 2.4 Public Awareness Campaign 2.5 Project Evaluation and Preparation of Phase II project 2.6 Project Management, Procurement Support and Auditing . Annex Xl (2): Page 1 \ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I i IBRD 25723 8 ~~~~~~~~~~60 ,Morowhonc iR 52 PMABARUMA 8 <(I < GGUYANA 'IV ~~~~~~PIORT Kk <, KAAITUMA ,ok <2HAHAICA Mi.. VREEN SOECCUS\ BLSH LOT (0PeArRTICAOGUIGNOA NEW AMSTERDAM 0 AA.- ~~~~~~~~~~~~0s oeH.11 KURCIP,NOECERON W L NDEN NIERROA C) Yccrol O / MARA COPRVERTON SSANG | MC KENZ E FRIENDSH6 Skeldo \EBINI \ 1/ 1 /_0 ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PARAD'SE LANDING MAHDA OKWAKWANI i / ~~~HOLh^IGOO) KURUPUKARI MAPUR I LANDING -%\ / / S ~~~U R I N A M E / / , URIAM The boundaries, colors. denominations and any other inform-tion shown 4 - PRIMARY ROADS on th,s mop do not imply, an the part of SECONDARY ROADS The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal TRACKS status of any territory. or any endorsemnent RAILROADS or accepntan of such NATIONAL CAPITAL -Kobonomo boundaries. 0 TOWNS + INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LET EM RIVERS REGION BOUNDARIES INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES WICHABA / 0{ MILES ASAO c 20 LI CO 560 AISHALTON KILOMETERS sO~~ r LUMIDPAU PANAMAM GUYANA / |VENEZUELA et f 7 COLUMB IA ECUDO Area of MopAZ BRAZ IL C P E R U j BOLRiAZA MARCH 1994 IMAGING Report No: 14997 GUA Type: SAR