(through clear quality standards and service level expectations) has been provided to local Kiribati companies, in order that they can better understand and meet quality requirements. The following table outlines the engagement with, and benefit to, the Kiribati private sector and businesses. Table 2: KEIP Phase 2 private sector engagement Private Sector Role in KEIP Phase 2 Benefits to Sector and Kiribati Kiribati business and agents provided goods and services to KEIP Use of local companies to increase Kiribati business participation, set quality standards and to seek value for money solutions Provides opportunities for local companies and traders to provide goods or services to KEIP, while at the same time better understanding the quality requirements and warranty obligations Local private building and construction companies built KEIP Phase 2 schools Assemble the kitset school components locally, through Kiribati companies, then tender out the contracts for builders to undertake the site preparation and construction, including WASH facilities and water tanks Increased employment and skill formation for local staff The kitset design is also suitable for non-education buildings, so can provide increased marketing options for local suppliers and builders in residential or commercial buildings Employment Local installers and Island based semi-skilled labour Local labour and support is hired to install the proposed water capture and storage tanks / WASH facilities at the schools Short term employment opportunities and associated skill formation, for work on installing and maintaining water capture and storage and the WASH facilities Kiribati hotels, guest houses, rental owners, supermarkets Suppliers of accommodation and hospitality services to KEIP and managing contractor staff staying in country Increased business turnover, opportunities for more local employment and for staff training 6 Risks Management and Safeguards As part of planning and implementation, a Risk Assessment and Management Tool (in the form of a matrix) was included in the planning and reporting documentation. This matrix was updated regularly and amended to accommodate any emerging risks. When serious risks or constraints emerged, these were communicated quickly to MoE and to DFAT, so that the potential impact on the program or achievements was minimised. The following summary indicates the main strategic and operational KEIP Phase 2 risks and how they were mitigated and managed. The risk management and response is aligned to the unique context in Kiribati, and supported by on-going and regular communications and updates between the Team Leader and the managing contractor. Table 3: Summary of strategic and operational risks for KEIP Phase 2 KEIP Phase 2 Potential Risk Impact if not managed Risk mitigation and actions
Breakdown of Program Activity Costs by Strategy for KEIP Phase II Description of Expenditure Actual Expenditure to 31 March 2016 General Management of KEIP Program Office set up and operation Program Office Operations and Program Management 11,183,339.94 Subtotal: KEIP Management 11,183,339.94 Strategy 1: Supporting Curriculum Development and Implementation Output 1.1 - All Children in Years 1-4 have access to the new curriculum and materials Activity 1.1.1 - Curriculum Development 510,382.47 Subtotal: Strategy 1 510,382.47 Strategy 2: Strengthening the Capacity of Teachers Output 1.2 - All teachers of single and multigrade classes in Yrs 1-4 have increased capacity Activity 1.2.1 - Early years literacy & numeracy 992,281.78 Activity 1.2.2 - Kiribati English Language Program 1,415,483.09 Activity 1.2.3 - KTC Strengthening 118,400.73 Activity 1.2.4 - SLPD Program to support TPD 290,064.82 Subtotal: Strategy 2 2,816,230.42 Strategy 3: Improving School Infrastructure Output 1.3 - More children are learning in rehabilitated classrooms Activity 1.3.1 - Primary School Rehabilitation Plan 6,849,372.01 Subtotal: Strategy 3 6,849,372.01 Strategy 4: Enhancing the School Community Partnership Output 2.1 - More schools have effective partnerships with their communities to develop quality education Activity 2.1.1 - Community Engagement Program 313,256.75 Activity 2.1.2 - Research on Improving Access 157,553.44 Subtotal: Strategy 4 470,810.19 Strategy 5: Strengthening MoE capacity to plan, monitor and improve sector performance Output 2.2 - MoE has greater capacity to plan and monitor the delivery of quality education services Activity 2.2.1 - Support for MoE functions 233,156.36 Subtotal: Strategy 5 233,156.36 KEIP Phase II Total Expenditure 22,063,291.39
who had attended except in South Tarawa where both Teachers and School Leaders estimated a little more than half of all parents had attended a parent teacher interview. Reporting from SED Household Surveys seems to accord well with the estimate of about half of all children’s parents attending teacher parent meetings although the same data also shows parents attending other school meetings and functions in addition to parent teacher meetings. Table 16: Teachers and School Leaders estimates of the proportion of parents who had attended parent-teacher interviews in the last 12 months by island type % Teacher’s Estimate % School Leader’s Estimate Large island 40 55 Small island 9 49 Sth Tarawa 53 52 Total 43 53 Interestingly, 93% of both School Leaders and Teachers rated parent teacher meetings either ‘valuable’ or ‘very valuable’ but again this was subject to considerable variation across locations (see Table 17 and Table 18). Table 17: Number of teacher’s rating of the value of parent-teacher interviews by island type Very valuable Valuable Reasonably Valuable Not Valuable Large island 49 22 8 Small island 15 9 1 Sth Tarawa 45 51 3 1 Total 109 82 4 9 Table 18: Number of School Leader’s rating of the value parent-teacher meeting/discussion about their child’s progress by island category Very Valuable Reasonably Valuable Valuable Large island 15 8 Small island 7 4 3 Sth Tarawa 5 5 Total 27 17 3 The SED also asked questions about how informed the community was about education improvement (See Table 19 and Table 20). Overall 79% of teachers and 87% of School Leaders felt the community was either ‘better’ or ‘much better’ informed the value of education and improvements teachers and the MOE were making. Table 19: Change in how informed Teachers considered the community was about education improvement by island type Much Better Better Slightly Better Same as Before Large island 29 32 4 14 Small island 13 8 3 4 Sth Tarawa 27 56 15 4 Total 69 96 22 22 Table 20: Change in School leaders' how informed Teachers considered the community was about education improvement by island type
Annex one: Key Research Focus Areas Key focus Intervention relevant SED (representative data for PS & JSS) CSR (in addition to SED data which will be used in reporting) Early evidence of increasing school engagement SIPs, Curriculum Reform, Infrastructure, School Leadership, TPD, CCT, Strengthening Examinations and Assessment, Inclusive Education Enrolment, attendance, retention, progression and transition data assessment, teacher attendance assessment and error rates Community survey: establish non-enrolment (and error rates) Reconstructed baselines (data records and perception based) Examination of the reasons for the SED results (selected cases) Evidence that better teaching is occurring Curriculum Reform, Infrastructure, TPD, Strengthening Examinations and Assessment, Inclusive Education Teacher and head teacher surveys: - L1-4 teachers trained in the new curriculum they are or have been teaching - extent of coaching and mentoring for better learning outcomes - examination data is used to support teaching and learning outcomes Lesson plan assessment: - lesson planning assessment to identify evidence of learner-centred and tailoring to individuals Assessment of the quality of teaching delivery Assessment of how classroom assessment and examination data is being used to improve learning outcomes In-depth assessment on the quality and nature of tailoring teaching and learning to individuals’ needs especially those at risk (attendance and ed. outcomes) Evidence that peer-to-peer learning emerging in the classroom Curriculum Reform Lesson plan assessment Assessment of volume and nature of peer-to-peer learning Evidence that head teachers are mentoring and coaching teachers, and teachers gaining teaching satisfaction and commitment Curriculum Reform, TPD, Inclusive Education Teacher and head teacher surveys: volume and perception of coaching and mentoring, and satisfaction and commitment School administration data: teacher attendance In-depth assessment on the quality and nature of tailoring teaching and learning to individuals’ needs especially those at risk (attendance and ed. outcomes) Classroom evidence that the new curriculum being applied and teachers have required knowledge and skills Curriculum Reform, Inclusive Education Teacher and head teacher surveys Lesson plan assessment Assessment of the quality of teaching delivery Assessment of the inclusive content Assessment of how classroom assessment is being used to improve learning outcomes
Evidence that school capacity gains are sustainable SIP, Curriculum Reform, School Leadership, TPD, CCT Sustainability assessment i.e. ownership, commitment and resource flows Evidence that school leaders addressing the priority needs of the school School Leadership Assessment that the focus of the head teacher is on the priority needs of the schools (i.e. MoE policy priorities, SIP) Evidence that staff management is improving and its effect on the school School Leadership Teacher and head teacher surveys School administration data: teacher attendance Assessment of the actions of the head teacher to strengthen staff performance and whether this is likely to lead to better classroom delivery Evidence that school leaders are showing a competent understanding of effective school management School Leadership Head teacher survey: time use Assessment of the head teachers’ perceptions and attitudes Evidence that school leaders are showing an ability to adapt to maximise improvements School Leadership Assessment of the extent that head teachers have adapted their management to changes & emerging opportunities Evidence that the PD is meeting the capacity gap of teachers TPD Assessment of teachers’ needs and relevance (and effectiveness) of TDP Evidence that all +L4 teachers have undertaken KELP and are providing appropriate EL teaching in the classroom TPD/KELP Teacher survey: +L4 teacher has completed KELP (and how much training they completed) Assessment of teachers’ EL in-class delivery Early evidence that the DEOs/IECs are making a difference in the schools admin, policy implementation, and problem-solving IECs/DEOs Assessment of whether the interaction between the school/school leader is likely to be fostering improvements in school administration, policy implementation and problem-solving
Evidence that the DEOs/IEC are assisting with, and adding value to consultation IECs/DEOs As above, plus other planned or unintended outcomes Evidence that strong relationships are forming IECs/DEOs As above, but with a focus on whether trust and reciprocity is emerging Evidence that the DEOs/IECs are operating as effective communication intermediaries IECs/DEOs As above, but with a focus on the quality and quantity of the communications being shared between the school - DEO/IEC – MoE (both directions) Evidence that the DEOs/IECs has the requisite knowledge to assist schools IECs/DEOs Assessment whether the DEO/IEC and their PD is aligned to the knowledge needed Communities better informed about education (vision, policy and operation) CCT Community survey Evidence that the right people attended the consultations and received/ understood the key messages CCT Community survey Assessment of whether the community leaders attended and the extent to which they understood the vision, policy and operational direction/work of MoE Early evidence that parents are starting or intending to change their behaviour to better support achievement Strengthening Examinations and Assessment Community survey Evidence that parents and schools are better informed about educational achievement Strengthening Examinations and Assessment Community, head teacher and teacher surveys Assessment as to examination data needs of head teachers and the extent that current data is applicable