12.07.2015 Views

Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong><strong>Program</strong>Report Prepared by:John Gillies, Luis Crouch, Ana FlórezEl Salvador, July 2010


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Table <strong>of</strong> ContentsList <strong>of</strong> Acronyms 4Introduction 5General Questions 6Research Team 6<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> Methodology 6Literature <strong>Review</strong> 7Consultative Groups 7Individual and Group Interviews 7National Frame <strong>of</strong> Reference: ‘Vamos a la Escuela’ (Let’s Go to School) SocialEducation Plan 2009-2014 8<strong>Program</strong>matic Frame <strong>of</strong> Reference: <strong>EDUCO</strong> and its Contribution to <strong>the</strong> SalvadoranEducation System 10<strong>EDUCO</strong> and o<strong>the</strong>r Types <strong>of</strong> School Organization 10Beginning and Development <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> 12Summary <strong>of</strong> Historic Literature Using Statistical Methods 15<strong>EDUCO</strong> in 2010 17Educational Achievements 17Access and Coverage 21Administrative and Institutional School Management 21Administrative Management 21School Management 23Community Participation 23The Role <strong>of</strong> School Principals 25Human Resources Management 26Teacher Selection and Hiring 26Employment Stability 28Abuses and <strong>the</strong> Grievance System 28Accountability 29Legal Framework 30In Summary: a problematic parallel system exists in ACE and CDE schools 32Discussion <strong>of</strong> Options (not prioritized) 33Options that Maintain a Bifurcated System 35Option A. Continue <strong>EDUCO</strong> as it Currently Exists 35Option B. Keep <strong>EDUCO</strong> with Changes in Teacher Hiring 36Option C. Keep <strong>EDUCO</strong> with Changes in <strong>the</strong> Nature and Responsibilities <strong>of</strong> ACEs,Stressing Governance over Administration and Management 37Establishing a National Unified Combined System 392


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Option D. Create a Convergent System with Accountability, Stability, and Flexibility 39Option E. Eliminate <strong>EDUCO</strong> 42Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Options 44Conclusion 46Proposal for <strong>the</strong> Implementation <strong>of</strong> a Unified System to Improve <strong>the</strong> Quality<strong>of</strong> Education 48References 58AnnexesAnnex 1. History <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> 63Annex 2. Resource Assessment 67Annex 3. Governance and Management 69Annex 4. Matrix <strong>of</strong> Implementation Phases for Unification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EducationSystem 73Annex 5. Individuals Interviewed 81TablesTable 1. Differences and Similarities between ACEs and CDEsTable 2. History <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong>Table 3. Statistical Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Relative Effectiveness <strong>of</strong> ACE SchoolsTable 4. <strong>EDUCO</strong> salary table, adjusted to <strong>the</strong> scale for traditional-system teachersTable 5. Summary <strong>of</strong> options and <strong>the</strong>ir impact on education stakeholdersTable 6. Summary <strong>of</strong> options3


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010List <strong>of</strong> AcronymsACEAsociación Comunal para la Educación (Community Education Association)AFPAdministradora de Fondo de Pensiones (Pension Fund Administrator)AEDAcademy for Educational DevelopmentCDAConsejo Departamental de Alcaldes (Departmental Council <strong>of</strong> MayorsCDEConsejo Directivo Escolar (School Administration Board)CECentro Escolar (public school)CECEConsejo Educativo Católico Escolar (Catholic School Educational Council)CIEConsejo Institucional Educativo (Institutional Educational Council)DIGESTYCDirección General de Estadística y Censos (National Statistics and CensusBureau)<strong>EDUCO</strong>Educación con Participación de la Comunidad (Education withCommunity Participation)EQUIP2 Education Quality Improvement <strong>Program</strong> 2FEPADEFundación Empresarial para el Desarrollo Educativo (Business Foundationfor Educational Development)FLACSOFacultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Latin American Faculty<strong>of</strong> Social Sciences)INSAFORPInstituto Salvadoreño de Formación Pr<strong>of</strong>esional (Salvadoran Institute forPr<strong>of</strong>essional Training)IPSFAInstituto de Previsión Social de la Fuerza Armada (Social Welfare Institute<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Armed Forces)ISSSInstituto Salvadoreño del Seguro Social (Salvadoran Social Security Institute)MINEDMinistry <strong>of</strong> Education <strong>of</strong> El SalvadorPAESITAPrueba de Logros de Aprendizaje para Educación Básica (Basic EducationLearning Achievement Test)PEAPlan Escolar Anual (Annual School Plan)PEIProyecto Educativo Institucional (School Education Project)PMPPerformance Monitoring PlanRTIResearch Triangle InstituteSIM<strong>EDUCO</strong>Union <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> TeachersSINEASistema Nacional de Evaluación de los Aprendizajes (National LearningAssessment System)UNESCOUnited Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural OrganizationUNICEFUnited Nations Children’s FundUSAID/El Salvador United States Agency for International Development/El Salvador4


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010IntroductionThis report presents <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> a strategic review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Education with Community Participation (<strong>EDUCO</strong>)<strong>Program</strong>. The Ministry <strong>of</strong> Education (MINED) <strong>of</strong> El Salvador requested this review from <strong>the</strong> Streng<strong>the</strong>ningBasic Education <strong>Program</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The strategicreview was commissioned from <strong>the</strong> Education Quality Improvement <strong>Program</strong> 2 (EQUIP2), led by <strong>the</strong> Academyfor Educational Development (AED) in partnership with <strong>the</strong> Research Triangle Institute (RTI).<strong>EDUCO</strong> has been internationally recognized for its impact on expanding primary education coverage inmany rural and low-income communities in El Salvador. <strong>EDUCO</strong> has influenced <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> similarstrategies in o<strong>the</strong>r countries, including Honduras and Guatemala. However, since <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong> began in1991, <strong>the</strong> Salvadoran education system has developed significantly and, <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> challenges it faces havechanged. In this context, this strategic review set out to examine <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> and its policies,both positive and negative, with regard to <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> education system in <strong>the</strong> coming five to ten years.This strategic review is a study <strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> policies, procedures, and practices implemented in <strong>EDUCO</strong> respondto <strong>the</strong> current and future needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> education system. This analysis will assist MINED in determining how<strong>the</strong> policy decisions made today can contribute to improving <strong>the</strong> education system that <strong>the</strong> country needsin <strong>the</strong> coming five-year period and in <strong>the</strong> coming decade. This review is not an evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong>’ssuccess in meeting its objectives. It presents a range <strong>of</strong> options proposed by <strong>the</strong> research team, not for <strong>the</strong>purpose <strong>of</strong> evaluating <strong>EDUCO</strong> against its objectives, but ra<strong>the</strong>r to look toward <strong>the</strong> future and see how <strong>the</strong>lessons learned by this <strong>Program</strong> can serve <strong>the</strong> country.This report includes a proposal for implementation that MINED requested from <strong>the</strong> research team following apresentation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> options detailed herein. This proposal was developed for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> exploring in detail<strong>the</strong> processes and costs to implement <strong>the</strong> option that <strong>of</strong>fers <strong>the</strong> greatest possibility <strong>of</strong> setting a new course forEl Salvador’s schools. This publication is a translation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> original document that was written in Spanish.5


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010General QuestionsThis review posed <strong>the</strong>se general questions: Is <strong>EDUCO</strong>, as it has been designed and is currently beingimplemented, an effective means for El Salvador to attain its educational goals for 2014 and beyond?If this is not true, what changes would be necessary for El Salvador to be in a position to meet its educationalgoals, especially for <strong>the</strong> neediest groups?To answer <strong>the</strong>se general questions, <strong>the</strong> strategic review addresses three sub-questions:Are students at <strong>EDUCO</strong> Community Education Association (ACE) schools learning in <strong>the</strong> same way asstudents in o<strong>the</strong>r, non-<strong>EDUCO</strong> schools, such as School Administration Board (CDE) schools?What are <strong>the</strong> characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> ACE schools and teachers, as compared to o<strong>the</strong>r schools?How is MINED organized around <strong>EDUCO</strong>? Does this organizational structure contribute to ensuringhigh quality education?Research TeamThe research team for this review was made up <strong>of</strong> John Gillies, Vice President and Director <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Global Education Center <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Academy for Educational Development (AED); Luis Crouch, VicePresident and Chief Economist at <strong>the</strong> Research Triangle Institute (RTI); and Ana Flórez, EducationSpecialist and Project Director <strong>of</strong> EQUIP2 El Salvador in Washington for AED.<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> MethodologyToge<strong>the</strong>r with MINED, <strong>the</strong> research team developed <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> work and work plan. The work plansuggested <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> a participatory, practical methodology that could serve as a guide for conducting apolicy analysis. Along <strong>the</strong>se lines, <strong>the</strong> work plan included several phases:• Literature review.• Formation <strong>of</strong> two high level consultative groups.• Visits to schools with different school administration bodies.• An open consultation process (group interviews) in <strong>the</strong> country’s 14 departments.• Interviews with individuals directly or indirectly involved in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong>.• Development and analysis <strong>of</strong> options for <strong>EDUCO</strong>.• Plan for <strong>the</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study’s results.6


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Literature <strong>Review</strong>The research team assembled empirical evidence, which included <strong>the</strong> cataloging <strong>of</strong> information fromdifferent primary and secondary sources, MINED databases, working documents, studies, and evaluationsthat provided information on <strong>the</strong> workings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong> from its beginning to <strong>the</strong> present. Theprocess used analogies <strong>of</strong> similar situations in o<strong>the</strong>r fields and examples <strong>of</strong> cases from o<strong>the</strong>r countries.As part <strong>of</strong> this assemblage, <strong>the</strong> research team conducted analysis and discussion sessions with <strong>the</strong> consultativegroups and interviewed defenders and detractors <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong> alike. This review was not anattempt to conduct an exhaustive review <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> literature, but ra<strong>the</strong>r to identify <strong>the</strong> most prominentpapers and those that used <strong>the</strong> greatest scientific rigor in trying to compare <strong>EDUCO</strong> using statisticalmethods. The comparative literature that was found was more abundant at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong>than in more recent years and is valuable for recounting <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s history. However, few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> studiesare comparative. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> team based its conclusions on <strong>the</strong> most rigorously comparative studies,although <strong>the</strong>y are not as recent as would have been desired.Consultative GroupsMINED, USAID, and <strong>the</strong> research team formed two groups <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionals who volunteered to provideinformation used in <strong>the</strong> analysis. An Advisory Group was comprised <strong>of</strong> Francisco Antonio HernándezGonzález and Andrés Adelmo Flores, representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ANDES 21 de Julio teachers’ organization;Jorge Alberto Villegas and Tito Beltrán Ramírez, representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bases Magisteriales teachers’movement; Manuel de Jesús Molina and Francisco Javier Zelada, representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union <strong>of</strong><strong>EDUCO</strong> Teachers (SIM<strong>EDUCO</strong>); and Rolando Marín, representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Education Council.The Consultative Group was comprised <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> specialists and academics who, in <strong>the</strong>ir individualcapacity, have worked supporting educational issues. These pr<strong>of</strong>essionals were Ana Mercedes Castro,Alberto Barillas, Helga Cuéllar, Oscar Picardo, Felipe Rivas, and Agustín Fernández. The two groupscontributed to ensuring that <strong>the</strong> appropriate issues would be taken up, and would not be forgotten ormisinterpreted, and that all issues that arose would be backed by information. The groups contributed,decisively, to defining “what is important about <strong>EDUCO</strong>.” They put forth <strong>the</strong>ir options, points <strong>of</strong> view,and <strong>the</strong>ir pros and cons, from <strong>the</strong>ir own standpoints. Their participation included providing feedback on<strong>the</strong> research team’s proposals, fostering dialogue and proactive discussion about issues related to EDU-CO that aim at <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> education.Individual and Group InterviewsThe research team visited, on multiple occasions, central level MINED <strong>of</strong>ficials, several departmentalMINED <strong>of</strong>fices, and a sample <strong>of</strong> schools with different school organization bodies. Simultaneously, anopen consultation was held in <strong>the</strong> 14 departments to capture <strong>the</strong> sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stakeholders directly involvedin rural public schools, including parents, teachers, students, school principals, and communityleaders. Some 220 people participated, from both <strong>EDUCO</strong> and schools with CDEs.7


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010The research team was aided by two local consultants: Lorena de Varela and Alberto Barillas. Theconsultants helped to refine <strong>the</strong> information collection process. Lorena de Varela help to reconstruct<strong>the</strong> history and development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong>, and Alberto Barillas aided with <strong>the</strong> individual and groupinterviews and school visits. During this process, <strong>the</strong> EQUIP2 Project team—Yolanda Aceituno, VicenteMéndez, Yohanna de Mazariego, Joel Guzmán, and Gustavo Quan—worked tirelessly to ensure accessto a broad range <strong>of</strong> information and to <strong>the</strong> voices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stakeholders who are part <strong>of</strong> this process.Throughout this strategic review, <strong>the</strong> research team benefitted from <strong>the</strong> leadership <strong>of</strong> Antonieta Harwood,Project Director <strong>of</strong> EQUIP2 El Salvador, and Carmen María de Henríquez, Human DevelopmentOfficer, USAID/El Salvador.<strong>Strategic</strong> Line 2BASIC AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESSAdequate physical environmentsIt should be noted that this strategic review does not necessarily respond to a consensus <strong>of</strong> all those interviewedor <strong>of</strong> those who assisted during <strong>the</strong> process, but ra<strong>the</strong>r it reflects what <strong>the</strong> three authors learnedand <strong>the</strong>ir opinions.Curriculum in function <strong>of</strong> learningAccreditation and certificationNational Frame <strong>of</strong> Reference: ‘Vamos a la Escuela’ (Let’s go toSchool) Social Education Plan 2009-2014In this section, <strong>the</strong> research team, with an eye to <strong>the</strong> general questions being asked by this strategicreview, analyzes <strong>the</strong> correlations among <strong>the</strong> different elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan to establish<strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>EDUCO</strong> does or does not aid in <strong>the</strong>se goals. It should be noted that this study didnot conduct an explicit review <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> elements in <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan and <strong>the</strong>ir implementation,which would have been beyond its scope. The purpose <strong>of</strong> this analysis was to conduct a moregeneral review, to understand <strong>the</strong> direction that MINED is taking in <strong>the</strong> field <strong>of</strong> education, and be able tocompare this with <strong>the</strong> characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> program.Along <strong>the</strong>se lines, it is noteworthy that <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan proposes <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> astudent-centered educational plan that focuses on <strong>the</strong>ir cultural, social, economic, political, and environmentalneeds, and those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir families and communities, to foster <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> a broad,deep-seated national identity, including a historical-cultural component. This student-centered approachis geared to <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> a citizenry imbued with a democratic culture, worthy humanist values,and scientific and technological knowledge that can be applied to <strong>the</strong> resolution <strong>of</strong> problems in differentcontexts (MINED, 2009).The Social Education Plan is comprised <strong>of</strong> three primary, interrelated elements, as shown in Figure 1: 1)five driving forces, 2) seven strategic lines, and 3) seven flagship programs.8


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Figure 1. ‘Vamos a la Escuela’ (Let’s go to School) Social Education Plan 2009-2014Driving Forces and <strong>Strategic</strong> Lines <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ModelPr<strong>of</strong>essionaladvancement anddevelopment <strong>of</strong>school teachersand principalsMajor researchand efficientresourcemanagementSource: MINED, 2009Research, Science, and Technologyintegrated into educationStreng<strong>the</strong>n Higher EducationStreng<strong>the</strong>n curriculum and institutional management <strong>of</strong>schoolsRelevant curriculum and significant learningEquity in access and retention in <strong>the</strong> education systemEfficiency inParticipationcentral andSocial pact for <strong>of</strong> teachers,departmentaleducation families, andeducationalcommunitiesadministrationContinuingeducation foryouth and adultsMonitoring andevaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>education planFor <strong>the</strong> research team, from a technical perspective, <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan appears to reflect severalessential elements <strong>of</strong> an effective education system, which <strong>the</strong> international literature on schooleffectiveness confirms. In <strong>the</strong> words <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan, <strong>the</strong>se are:• Equity in student access and retention.• Learning-based curriculum.• Streng<strong>the</strong>ning and support <strong>of</strong> teachers and principals as part <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional advancement.• Streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>of</strong> curriculum and institutional management <strong>of</strong> schools• Streng<strong>the</strong>ning and participation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educational community (MINED, teachers, families,and local communities) in institutional and curriculum management.Along with <strong>the</strong>se essential elements, <strong>the</strong> research team found o<strong>the</strong>r elements that streng<strong>the</strong>n learning:a system for evaluation <strong>of</strong> learning tied to <strong>the</strong> curriculum, <strong>the</strong> design <strong>of</strong> a pr<strong>of</strong>essional developmentpolicy for teachers (linking initial training, continuing education, an evaluation system, and an incentivesystem), timely instructional guidance for teachers, <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> educational materials forstudents and teachers, <strong>the</strong> guarantee <strong>of</strong> safe school facilities in good condition, an expanded schoolday, and tutoring. Even though <strong>the</strong>se are only mentioned in <strong>the</strong> Plan, <strong>the</strong>y are all fundamental elementsfor improving quality and equity in a student-centered education system.The Social Education Plan also mentions three elements that <strong>the</strong> research team considers importantto highlight, since <strong>the</strong>y refer specifically to <strong>the</strong> situation <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> and <strong>the</strong>refore help to put thisreview in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Plan. Paraphrasing <strong>the</strong> Plan, <strong>the</strong>se elements are:9


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010• Development <strong>of</strong> a culture <strong>of</strong> teacher performance evaluation (focusing on classroom practice andstudent academic outcomes), as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> strategic line for teacher advancement.• Pr<strong>of</strong>essionalization <strong>of</strong> teacher supervision responsibilities and streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong>principals (from <strong>the</strong>ir selection, appointment, advising, and evaluation), as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> strategicline for streng<strong>the</strong>ning school institutional and curriculum management.• Encouraging <strong>the</strong> participation <strong>of</strong> teachers, families, and local communities in schoolimprovement and in <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> strategies to improve school performance.The Social Education Plan emphasizes streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> participation and supervisory capacities <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> local school administration bodies, especially parents, as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> strategic lineto streng<strong>the</strong>n institutional and curriculum management in schools and as a driving force. Henceforth,we will use <strong>the</strong>se goals and elements from <strong>the</strong> Plan to ascertain <strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>EDUCO</strong> is or is notconsistent with <strong>the</strong> Plan. We remind <strong>the</strong> reader that <strong>the</strong> idea is not to evaluate <strong>EDUCO</strong> based on originalgoals, but ra<strong>the</strong>r based on social goals or needs.<strong>Program</strong>matic Frame <strong>of</strong> Reference: <strong>EDUCO</strong> and its Contribution to<strong>the</strong> Salvadoran Education SystemIn this section, <strong>the</strong> research team placed <strong>EDUCO</strong> in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing types <strong>of</strong> school organizationin El Salvador. Hence, it reconstructed <strong>the</strong> history and development <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> based on a literaturereview, meetings with <strong>the</strong> Committees, and interviews with stakeholders who participated in <strong>the</strong>creation <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> and stakeholders who have aided in its development. In addition, <strong>the</strong> team visitedschools and conducted interviews that inquired into <strong>the</strong> general perception <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> that participantshave developed over its history <strong>of</strong> more than 17 years. For <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> organizing <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s developmentin a simple manner, <strong>the</strong> research team divided <strong>the</strong> 17 years <strong>of</strong> its history into four main periods:1990-1994, 1995-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005-2009. Following is a brief overview, accompanied by asummary in Table 1.<strong>EDUCO</strong> and O<strong>the</strong>r Types <strong>of</strong> School OrganizationTo explain how <strong>the</strong> education system is organized, it needs to be understood that El Salvador has differenttypes <strong>of</strong> school administration bodies for its over 6,000 schools—public and private, rural andurban: <strong>the</strong> Consejos Directivos Escolares (CDE: School Administration Boards); Consejos EducativosCatólicos Escolares (CECE: Catholic School Educational Councils), which are government subsidizedprivate schools; Asociaciones Comunales para la Educación (ACE: Community Education Associations)for <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools; and Consejos Institucionales Educativos (CIE: Institutional Educational Councils),which operate in prisons. These bodies have similarities and differences among <strong>the</strong>m: <strong>the</strong>y are mainlydifferentiated by <strong>the</strong>ir membership and responsibilities. For this review, <strong>the</strong> research team focused on10


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010comparing CDEs and ACEs because both are public, both are present in rural areas (although CDEs alsooperate in cities), and <strong>the</strong>y account for <strong>the</strong> vast majority <strong>of</strong> schools that have been available to <strong>the</strong> publicuntil now.There is one crucial difference, which is part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current debate, related to human resources management.ACEs have <strong>the</strong> mandate to hire and fire teachers and administrative personnel (provided that <strong>the</strong>processes used comply with MINED regulations). In contrast, CDEs do not have this authority and,<strong>the</strong>refore, have to request <strong>the</strong> mediation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tribunal Calificador (Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession)and Junta de la Carrera Docente (Board <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession) for <strong>the</strong> assignment <strong>of</strong> teachers andfor disciplining <strong>the</strong>m.The following table lists similarities and differences between ACEs and CDEs:Table 1. Differences and Similarities between ACEs and CDEsLegal frameworkSchool organizationPresident <strong>of</strong> schoolorganization bodyAdministrative andfinancial functionsMaintain goodfunctioning <strong>of</strong>classroom sections<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educationallevel under <strong>the</strong>irresponsibilityUnified teacher careerladder for all teachersACEACE Regulations. Notmentioned in any lawACE Governing Board,comprised solely <strong>of</strong> parentsA parentPlanning and implementingschool budgetResponsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEYesCDEGeneral Education Law, TeachingPr<strong>of</strong>ession Law, and CDERegulationsGoverning Council, comprised<strong>of</strong> school principal, parents,teacher representative, and studentrepresentativeSchool principal, acts as legalrepresentativePlanning and implementing schoolbudgetNot <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CDETeacher selection ACE Board and MINED Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>essionTeacher hiring ACE Board and MINED MINED (Wage Law)TransfersNot applicableYesCourt <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>essionand MINED11


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Unified accrual <strong>of</strong>service time for all ApplicableApplicableteachersPension Not applicable ApplicableLife insurance /Employee credit unionApplicableApplicableHealth insuranceSalvadoran Social Security Bienestar Magisterial (Teachers’Institute (ISSS)Welfare health system)Rural incentive Applicable ApplicableYear-end bonus Applicable ApplicableAnnual severancepaymentTeacher retirementApplicableACE Board and MINEDSource: Prepared by authors using MINED information, 2008.Not applicableBoard <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession,Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>essionand MINEDDuring <strong>the</strong> interviews and consultation, <strong>the</strong>re was obviously a lot <strong>of</strong> confusion, even among <strong>the</strong> teachers<strong>the</strong>mselves, about <strong>the</strong> similarities and differences between <strong>the</strong> two types <strong>of</strong> school organization bodiesand about conditions for teachers in <strong>the</strong> schools. This confusion is common among teachers, and alsoamong many parents and school principals. Confusion also exists about <strong>the</strong> roles and responsibilities <strong>of</strong>ACEs and CDEs.Beginning and Development <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong>In its 17 years <strong>of</strong> history, <strong>the</strong>re have been constant changes and modifications to <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s policies,procedures, and support. Table 2 compares four main periods in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong>’s history. An interestingaspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s history, beyond <strong>the</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> coverage, is that it has maintained <strong>the</strong> involvement<strong>of</strong> parents, especially in rural areas. Annex 1 describes <strong>the</strong> different stages <strong>of</strong> its development in greaterdetail.It is important to stress that <strong>EDUCO</strong> has evolved throughout its history. The strategic review presentedin this document is part <strong>of</strong> an evolving process, and does not necessarily represent a radical break with<strong>the</strong> past.12


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Table 2. History <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong>1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009ACEs 1,334 1,722 2,098 2,133Teachers 2,316 4,703 7,381 8,020Students 74,112 237,280 378,208 389,554AccessSchooladministrationParent training1st to 3rd,progressivelyadding grades to6thACE GoverningBoard with aparent as president(teachers andstudents do notparticipate)1 ACE training peryear, 40 hoursFrequent parents’school meetingsIncreased to 9th gradeCDE and CECE(principal presidesover councils),students participate1 ACE training peryear, 40 hoursFrequent parents’schoolCoverage continuesACE continuestoge<strong>the</strong>r with CDEand CECE with o<strong>the</strong>rmodelsTraining sporadic andnot for 100% <strong>of</strong> ACEsIntermittent parents’schoolIncreased to highschoolCIE (for prisonschools)Adult literacy No data No data No data2 ACE trainingsIntermittent parents’schoolAnnual contract Annual contract Annual contract Annual contractNo transfers or No transfers or No transfers or No transfers orexchanges exchangesexchangesexchangesDo not accrueDo not accrue service Do not accrue service <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers’service time; notime; no promotions time; no promotions career ladder createdpromotionsTeacher statusTeachertrainingMaterials andinstructions forACELife insuranceEmployee Credit Employee Credit Employee CreditUnionUnionUnionISSS healthISSS/ Teachers’ISSS health insurance ISSS health insuranceinsuranceWelfare health systemAnnual severancepaymentAnnual severancepaymentAnnual severancepaymentAnnual severancepaymentYear-end bonus Year-end bonus Year-end bonus Year-end bonusNo rural incentive $40 rural incentive $40 rural incentive $40 rural incentiveTeacher trainingTeacher training 1-2 No exclusive teacher <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers1-2 times/year, 40times/year, 40 hours training for <strong>EDUCO</strong> integrated intohoursteacher pr<strong>of</strong>essionaldevelopment systemSimple materials Simple materials Updating <strong>of</strong> materials(making <strong>the</strong>mcomplex)Updating <strong>of</strong> materials,attempt to “return” tosimple13


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 201014MINEDsupport forschoolsTargeting <strong>of</strong>rural, remoteschoolsMINEDorganizationFinancialadministrationFundingSchool budgetComplementand supportprogramsBoostSupervisorsThe most remoteschools are visitedCoordinators <strong>of</strong>pilot project underdirect supervision<strong>of</strong> EducationMinisterCreation <strong>of</strong>NationalAdministrationOfficeExternal fundsNonexistent,transferredfrom projects orprogramsSchool snackRole <strong>of</strong> womenSupervisorsThe most remoteschools are visitedCreation <strong>of</strong> NationalEducation OfficeNationalAdministration Officeand departmental<strong>of</strong>ficesGovernment <strong>of</strong> ElSalvador fundsNonexistent,transferred fromprojects or programsIntegrated classroom,acceleratedclassroom, libraries,school snackWorld prize forexcellenceChange toPedagogical GuidanceSystemFar-away schoolsvisited lessMINED downsizedNationalAdministration Officeand departmental<strong>of</strong>ficesOwn funds and IBRD(International Bankfor Reconstructionand Development)fundsNonexistent,transferred fromprojects or programsIntegrated classroom,acceleratedclassroom, libraries,school snackSource: Created by <strong>the</strong> authors using information from MINED and interviews.Quality monitoringsystem developedwith <strong>the</strong> ‘What RouteShould We Take?’strategy, and withit <strong>the</strong> monitoringteams that includepedagogical advisers,management advisers,and middle schoolsupervisors.Creation <strong>of</strong> EffectiveSchool Networks<strong>Program</strong>Creation <strong>of</strong> Officefor Educationwith CommunityParticipationProcessing agents atdepartmental level toaid modernization <strong>of</strong>paymentModernization <strong>of</strong>banksGovernment <strong>of</strong> ElSalvador funds andtrust fundSchool Budget forACEs and CDEs.$12 more perstudent, covers ACEtransportation supportfor a total <strong>of</strong> $25(CDEs receive $12per student)PEI (SchoolEducation Project)and PEA (AnnualSchool Plan), ‘QueRuta Tomamos‘(WhatRoute Should WeTake)’, school snack,and all precedingitems15th anniversarycelebration withsupport <strong>of</strong> President


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Summary <strong>of</strong> Historic Literature Using Statistical MethodsThe research team summarized <strong>the</strong> existing literature, focusing on studies that use statistical methodsthat control or adjust for advantages or disadvantages that ACE schools might have in comparison toCDE schools. This was not meant to be an exhaustive literature review, but ra<strong>the</strong>r an overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>most prominent work that has been done and that which has attempted to most carefully control foradvantages and disadvantages, using statistical methods. For reasons beyond <strong>the</strong> team’s knowledge, agreater number <strong>of</strong> rigorous comparative studies were done during <strong>the</strong> program’s first decade and fewstudies have been completed recently. Therefore, this review has a certain inevitable bias toward olderdata.The analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> specialized literature revealed that most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> studies found <strong>the</strong> same results. Thefirst study in this line is that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> El Salvador Evaluation Team (1995) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World Bank. Despite notconducting a multivariate statistical analysis, it concluded that <strong>EDUCO</strong>, for that year, achieved resultsonly a little worse in its schools despite most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools having much less favorable conditions, asign <strong>of</strong> good value added (results only a little worse when conditions are considerably worse).The first evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> outcomes that meets <strong>the</strong> condition <strong>of</strong> controlling for o<strong>the</strong>r variables ina multivariate context is <strong>the</strong> evaluation done by Jiménez and Sawada (1998) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> World Bank. Thatstudy used <strong>the</strong> scores from a cognitive assessment <strong>of</strong> third grade children as an evaluation variable. Theresults revealed that <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools with socioeconomic and institutional disadvantages (less educatedparents, deficient facilities) had slightly worse results than <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools. It is importantto note that this refers to <strong>the</strong> situation over 10 years ago.Interestingly, and consistent with <strong>the</strong> situation more than a decade later, is that both <strong>the</strong> difference inadvantages and <strong>the</strong> cognitive difference were slight. For example, in <strong>the</strong> difference in advantages, <strong>the</strong>percentage <strong>of</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs who had been through basic education in non-<strong>EDUCO</strong> schools was 56%, while itwas 51% in <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools. With regard to <strong>the</strong> cognitive difference, <strong>EDUCO</strong> was at a 0.18 point disadvantage,based on a 3.66 average, which is relatively little. As has been found, for some advantages,<strong>the</strong> differences give <strong>the</strong> advantage to <strong>EDUCO</strong>, but not in o<strong>the</strong>r cases. For example, <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachersseem to have more years <strong>of</strong> education, but less experience (which is logical if <strong>the</strong>y are younger).In this same study, Jiménez and Sawada use a sophisticated correction to compare <strong>EDUCO</strong> and non-<strong>EDUCO</strong> schools. When controlling or correcting for socioeconomic and infrastructure disadvantages,<strong>the</strong> authors ask: if <strong>EDUCO</strong> seems to have better cognitive outcomes, is it because <strong>EDUCO</strong> parents aresimply more involved; that is, are <strong>the</strong>y different, and <strong>the</strong>refore is what is observed and put forward asgreater efficiency in <strong>EDUCO</strong> only a selection effect? After <strong>the</strong>se corrections (for <strong>the</strong> correlation witho<strong>the</strong>r advantages or disadvantages, and those for selection bias), Jiménez and Sawada conclude that<strong>the</strong>re is no significant difference in cognitive achievement between <strong>EDUCO</strong> and non-<strong>EDUCO</strong> schools. 11 Not only are <strong>the</strong> outcomes not statistically significant, but if <strong>the</strong>y were, <strong>the</strong>y would not be substantially significant, since we are talking about an “<strong>EDUCO</strong>effect” equal to no more than 3% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> base score in <strong>the</strong> test used.15


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010However, setting a pattern for outcomes that repeat in subsequent studies, <strong>the</strong>y found that around someimportant “process” variables, such as teacher absences (and which presumably have some impact onachievement), <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools have a clear advantage. In this study, and again in common with manyo<strong>the</strong>r studies, <strong>the</strong> R-square statistic is low; that is, this is a context in which we do not have a clear explanation<strong>of</strong> why <strong>the</strong> children’s cognitive outcomes vary. It is possible that <strong>the</strong>re are too few variablesbased on <strong>the</strong> “micro” characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teaching process, and that <strong>the</strong>y are trying to model or explainoutcomes based only on socioeconomic or “input” variables and not a sufficient number <strong>of</strong> variables thatcharacterize <strong>the</strong> pedagogic process in <strong>the</strong> classroom.In ano<strong>the</strong>r paper, Jiménez and Sawada (2003), from <strong>the</strong> World Bank, update <strong>the</strong>ir study and show thattaking into account and controlling for all <strong>the</strong> advantages and disadvantages, <strong>EDUCO</strong> children have alower dropout rate. In this study, <strong>the</strong>y prove that if CDE schools were to have <strong>the</strong> same community participationlevel as <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools, <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> advantage would disappear. Thus, this is specifically<strong>the</strong> element <strong>of</strong> community participation that appears to achieve <strong>the</strong> “<strong>EDUCO</strong> effect.” It is necessary tonote that in this case <strong>the</strong> “outcome” variable <strong>of</strong> interest is <strong>the</strong> dropout rate, not cognitive achievement.However, in contrast to <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> cognitive achievement, <strong>the</strong> important substantive significance, notonly <strong>the</strong> statistical significance, is high (more than 20%).Ano<strong>the</strong>r study that effectively controls, statistically, <strong>the</strong> ACE-CDE comparison at <strong>the</strong> middle schoollevel is Rodríguez (2005), commissioned by MINED. The advantage <strong>of</strong> this study is <strong>the</strong> wealth <strong>of</strong> datait produced, and, <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> variety <strong>of</strong> factors for control, or comparison, it uses. By including municipaldata, not just school data, it also makes use <strong>of</strong> hierarchical modeling to control for certain types<strong>of</strong> errors. This study points out that, in general, ACE schools have results at least equal to CDE schools,and perhaps better in some areas, especially when controlling for outcomes based on o<strong>the</strong>r associatedfactors. However, just as in many o<strong>the</strong>r studies, it makes little mention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> substantive significance <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>se differences. It does <strong>of</strong>fer data that alert readers can use to judge for <strong>the</strong>mselves. For example, incases where <strong>the</strong> ACE outcomes are better (e.g. Table 11), <strong>the</strong> difference between ACE and CDE schools,although statistically significant, is around 1% or 2%, which is small in substantive terms.The last study to mention is Di Gropello (2006), from <strong>the</strong> World Bank, which shows, in a tabular multivariatecontext (not regression) that <strong>the</strong> difference in cognitive achievement between <strong>EDUCO</strong> andnon-<strong>EDUCO</strong> schools is small and favors <strong>EDUCO</strong>, even though <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools have socioeconomicdisadvantages.The conclusions from <strong>the</strong> specialized literature indicate that <strong>EDUCO</strong> has a positive and statisticallysignificant effect on a number <strong>of</strong> variables, including community participation and teacher attendance.These, in turn, have an impact on educational achievement, whe<strong>the</strong>r this is measured using variablessuch as dropout rate, or directly using cognitive achievements. However, <strong>the</strong> marginal impact, evencontrolling for <strong>EDUCO</strong> disadvantages (e.g. greater poverty in <strong>the</strong> areas where <strong>EDUCO</strong> has a greaterpresence), tends to not be substantively large. As will be seen below, <strong>the</strong> conclusion <strong>of</strong> our statisticalanalysis, which uses a multivariate analysis and statistical controls, is similar to <strong>the</strong> previous studies.16


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010<strong>EDUCO</strong> in 2010Following <strong>the</strong> review <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s history and development and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> historic statistical studies, <strong>the</strong>research team <strong>the</strong>n studied <strong>the</strong> most recent available data in order to determine <strong>the</strong> <strong>Program</strong>’s currentparameters. This is an important step because, on <strong>the</strong> one hand, <strong>the</strong> studies on <strong>EDUCO</strong> are not veryrecent—<strong>the</strong> most recent one available is from 2006—and on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, because <strong>the</strong> stakeholdersconsulted and interviewed had different sources <strong>of</strong> information and perceptions. In <strong>the</strong> followingsection, we present <strong>the</strong> findings related to <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s educational achievements, <strong>the</strong> administrative andinstitutional management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principals, and human resources management.Educational AchievementsAfter summarizing <strong>the</strong> specialized literature, <strong>the</strong> research team conducted an original analysis to <strong>of</strong>fer amore concise and direct summary based on more recent data. It should be noted that this analysis doesnot pretend to be more complete than any o<strong>the</strong>r previously conducted study.To present a statistical summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relative effectiveness <strong>of</strong> ACE schools with regard to educationalachievement, <strong>the</strong> research team used a logical procedure to ask three questions:• Which are <strong>the</strong> country’s best rural schools, with regard to cognitive outcomes?• Do <strong>the</strong> ACEs dominate among <strong>the</strong>se schools with greater frequency than among all schools?• If <strong>the</strong>y do dominate, do <strong>the</strong>y do so because <strong>the</strong>y have certain advantages in relation to <strong>the</strong> set<strong>of</strong> schools that are not outstanding, and/or in relation to CDE schools that also stand out? Or,on <strong>the</strong> contrary, do <strong>the</strong>y predominate among <strong>the</strong> best schools despite having greater disadvantages that CDE schools? If <strong>the</strong> answer to this second question is “yes,” <strong>the</strong>n it can be concludedthat <strong>EDUCO</strong> is relatively efficient.The team answered <strong>the</strong>se questions and summarized <strong>the</strong> principal findings in <strong>the</strong> literature very briefly,and using a single primary database. The database is not based on a sample, but ra<strong>the</strong>r uses all <strong>the</strong> ruralACE and CDE schools (or, at least, all those for which a complete data set could be constructed, using<strong>the</strong> MINED statistical system). Several conclusions, explained below, can be drawn from Table 3,which illustrate some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most relevant points in this review.The ACEs are more predominant in <strong>the</strong> group <strong>of</strong> best schools than among all rural schools. On <strong>the</strong>one hand, ACE schools account for approximately 55% <strong>of</strong> all rural public schools. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand,<strong>the</strong>y account for 65% or 69% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> best schools, depending on how narrowly “best” is defined (top 5%,top 3%, or top 20). It is a bit surprising that <strong>the</strong>y also predominate slightly among <strong>the</strong> worst 5%, but area minority among <strong>the</strong> 20 worst.17


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010ACE and CDE schools achieve almost exactly <strong>the</strong> same average level <strong>of</strong> performance on <strong>the</strong> thirdgrade “PAESITA” standardized achievement test: 5.7. Likewise, <strong>the</strong> variability among ACE schoolsis similar to <strong>the</strong> variability among CDE schools. It is important to point out that, since ACE and CDEschools achieve exactly <strong>the</strong> same grade (emphasizing, however, that ACE schools achieve this despitebeing located in much poorer communities), and since <strong>the</strong> variability among ACE schools ranges from4.7 to 6.9 points (this refers to <strong>the</strong> range among <strong>the</strong> schools in <strong>the</strong> 5th to 95th percentiles) and amongCDE schools it ranges from 4.8 to 6.8 points, it is evident that <strong>the</strong> important variability in El Salvadoris “within” each type <strong>of</strong> school ra<strong>the</strong>r than between <strong>the</strong>m. This suggests, as will be repeatedly stressedin this report, that <strong>the</strong>re are considerable problems with quality control, standards, and accountabilitythroughout <strong>the</strong> system.However, ACE schools achieve <strong>the</strong> same average as CDE schools despite having significant socialdisadvantages. The proportion <strong>of</strong> ACE schools that are in municipalities with high, severe extremepoverty is almost double <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> CDE schools in municipalities with this poverty level (37%vs. 21%). The average poverty level in those municipalities is, also, slightly higher: 24.8% vs. 19.8%.Then, ACE schools operate at a disadvantage due to poverty. However, as <strong>the</strong>y have <strong>the</strong> same outcomesas CDE schools, <strong>the</strong>y appear to be more efficient; <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>fer, along <strong>the</strong>se lines, greater value added.ACE schools seem to have more resources and supplies per student than CDE schools, although<strong>the</strong>y lack equal physical infrastructure compared to CDE schools. They are quite similar to CDEschools with regard to <strong>the</strong> nominal quantity and quality <strong>of</strong> teachers. ACE schools have a nominal disadvantage,naturally, because <strong>the</strong>y do not have pr<strong>of</strong>essional management with authority (<strong>the</strong> principals arenot responsible for <strong>the</strong> school). Then, with regard to advantages in resources, ACE and CDE schoolsare similar, in a net sense (better equipped, but worse infrastructure for ACE schools). Annex 2 explainshow <strong>the</strong> index for resources per student and for infrastructure was calculated.Being an ACE school means reducing <strong>the</strong> student-teacher ratio by 10 (or from 7 to 10, dependingon <strong>the</strong> model). 2 This implies, or reinforces, <strong>the</strong> idea that being an ACE school confers on <strong>the</strong> schoola degree <strong>of</strong> cost-effectiveness, or value-added, that is comparatively advantageous. It must be admitted,however, that <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> both <strong>the</strong>se variables is quite low in absolute terms: we are talking abouta matter <strong>of</strong> 1% in points on <strong>the</strong> PAESITA test. Then, to a certain extent, if this type <strong>of</strong> data is credible(and it does appear to be so), it is important to stress that <strong>the</strong> “secret” to educational improvement is notachieved by a “magic bullet” in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> structural change, nor with <strong>the</strong> “magic bullet” <strong>of</strong> reducing<strong>the</strong> teacher-student ratio. The only thing we wish to stress here is that when comparing two factors oropinions, nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> which is “magic” on its own, it is interesting to see that being a CDE school createsa decrease in cost-effectiveness equivalent to increasing <strong>the</strong> student-teacher ratio by 10.On this last point, <strong>the</strong>re is a lot <strong>of</strong> literature on how to try to improve <strong>the</strong> academic performance <strong>of</strong>schools by trying to lower <strong>the</strong> student-teacher ratio. In general, <strong>the</strong> best schools tend to have a lowerstudent-teacher ratio, but it is difficult to know if this is a correlation or a cause. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, it is182 A very simple regression analysis was done to inquire into this point. This analysis takes as <strong>the</strong> dependent variable third-grade academic achievement,and as “associated factors” or “controls” being or not being an ACE school (as a binomial or dummy variable), student-teacher ratio, teacher qualification,resources/student, poverty level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> communities, and school infrastructure. The coefficient <strong>of</strong> being or not being an ACE school shows that being or notbeing an ACE school means, with regard to its impact on student achievement, reducing <strong>the</strong> student-teacher ratio by 10.


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010known that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> best education systems have had, especially in <strong>the</strong>ir development phases, higherstudent-teacher ratios than those that El Salvador has at present. The worldwide debate on this issuecontinues. Never<strong>the</strong>less, be that as it may, <strong>the</strong> fact is that <strong>the</strong> worst schools in El Salvador stand out forhaving a higher student-teacher ratio than <strong>the</strong> best ones. All <strong>of</strong> this is important because <strong>the</strong> intention<strong>of</strong> this analysis is to compare <strong>the</strong> “effect” <strong>of</strong>, or, ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> correlation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> student-teacher ratio withachievement, in comparison with <strong>the</strong> factor <strong>of</strong> “being an ACE school,” to try to obtain a comparativeidea <strong>of</strong> what it could mean to “be or not to be an ACE school.” It is worth noting that on this point, weare not recommending lowering <strong>the</strong> student-teacher ratio as education policy.In balance, it can be argued that ACE schools are at a disadvantage (poverty and resources) in relationto CDE schools, but that <strong>the</strong>y never<strong>the</strong>less achieve more or less <strong>the</strong> same outcomes, at least in <strong>the</strong> lowergrades. This implies that ACE schools achieve a little better “value added,” which should be <strong>of</strong> interestto <strong>the</strong> government.Table 3. Statistical Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Relative Effectiveness <strong>of</strong> ACE Schools 3Proportion<strong>of</strong> total(%)3rdGradePAESITA Test25-75Range5-95RangeExtreme Poverty(Average)% <strong>of</strong> schoolsin municipalitywith high severeextreme povertyResources/StudentStudents/TeacherTeachers withdegree, medianper school (nottotal percentage)Index <strong>of</strong>infrastructuresupply (mean, notmedian)All rural schoolsACE 55% 5.7 5.32, 6.24 4.74, 6.89 24.8 37% 8 33.2 100% 3.3CDE 45% 5.7 5.31, 6.09 4.79, 6.76 19.8 21% 5.3 32 100% 4.4Top 20ACE 65% 7.7 7.63, 8.75 7.55, 9.03 28.2 38% 7.8 28 100% 2.2CDE 35% 8.8 7.71, 9.42 7.65, 9.62 16.4 14% 12.5 20 100% 2.6Top 3% (114)ACE 69% 7.2 7.08, 7.5 7.0, 8.75 28.2 44% 8.3 25.5 100% 2.8CDE 31% 7.1 7.07, 7.52 6.99, 9.42 23.2 29% 6.9 22.3 100% 2.7Top 5% (188)ACE 68% 7.1 6.92, 7.35 6.85, 7.69 27.7 43% 8.3 26 100% 2.9CDE 32% 7 6.93, 7.18 6.84, 8.98 22.7 27% 6.3 24.9 100% 3.2Bottom 5% (190)ACE 60% 4.6 4.42, 4.69 4.18, 4.75 29 49% 8.1 34.3 100% 3.2CDE 40% 4.6 4.47, 4.7 4.12, 4.75 24.3 26% 5.1 36.7 100% 4.1Bottom 20ACE 40% 4.1 3.83, 4.18 3.69, 4.18 37.5 75% 8.1 25.3 100% 2.8CDE 60% 4.2 4.06, 4.18 3.52, 4.25 29.3 50% 5.4 37.3 100% 2.8Source <strong>of</strong> data: Analysis by authors, based on primary data provided electronically by MINED, with <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> data onpoverty, which come from FISDL-DIGESTYC-FLACSO-Technical Secretariat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Presidency-Inter-American DevelopmentBank-World Bank on poverty mapping. 4 Note that <strong>the</strong> database that was used for this analysis is a subset that onlyincludes <strong>the</strong> schools for which poverty data could also be found, which was over 95% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. This is a data set with “complete”variables, but with a slightly lower number <strong>of</strong> cases than it would have been possible to achieve if <strong>the</strong> poverty factorhad not been taken into account—but that factor is, <strong>of</strong> course, important. We point this out to explain why a simple analysiswith <strong>the</strong> complete data set would possibly give slightly different results.3 It is important to note that this table only compares ACE and CDE schools. There are also CECE, private, and o<strong>the</strong>r undefined rural schools, but <strong>the</strong>y arevery few (approximately 3%--among CECE and private, CECE are less than 1%-- and it is not possible to use <strong>the</strong>m to generalize statistically. Therefore,a subset <strong>of</strong> data was created that included only ACE and CDE schools—some 3,700 schools).19


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010ACE schools are smaller than CDE schools and this could hamper efficient provision <strong>of</strong> certain inputs.Research using <strong>the</strong> MINED database shows that ACE schools average approximately 150 students, andCDE schools average 280 students (based on <strong>the</strong> subset with complete data; it is possible that an examination<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire database for this factor alone would produce slightly different numbers). This is asignificant difference and hampers (or increases <strong>the</strong> cost) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> efficient provision <strong>of</strong> fixed-cost resources,including <strong>the</strong> human resource <strong>of</strong> a principal who can work full time. This is precisely one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>reasons why, as can be seen in <strong>the</strong> table, that ACE schools have more resources per student: with fewerstudents per school, <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> resources per student increases, especially for “fixed” resources.However, it is vitally important that, in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> input that represents <strong>the</strong> vast bulk <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system’scost, <strong>the</strong> teachers, ACE schools are not less efficient. In contrast to what seems to be a common opinion,ACE schools do not have a lower student-teacher ratio than CDE schools, as Table 3 illustrates.Third and sixth grade scores are comparable with those in CDE schools, although CDE-school scoresare higher in ninth grade. The research team used <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> standardized tests in <strong>the</strong> National LearningAssessment System (SINEA), which test language and math in 3rd, 6th, and 9th grade (every threeyears), to compare achievement in ACE and CDE schools (Figure 2). Beyond <strong>the</strong> comparison betweenACE and CDE schools, <strong>the</strong> data show that average scores are low and that that student scores at <strong>the</strong> upperlevel are very low, a situation common among all schools. What is certain is that teaching qualityshould improve in all schools.Figure 2. Test Scores for 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders in 200820Source: SINEA, MINED 20084 The most complete downloadable source for poverty data was found by <strong>the</strong> authors at http://www.care.org.sv/pages.php?Id=47, on May 2, 2010. O<strong>the</strong>rsources tend to have more partial data. Coverage: <strong>the</strong> entire analysis refers exclusively to rural areas. Only <strong>the</strong> ACE-CDE comparison was analyzed; privateschools were not included. Time: all data are <strong>the</strong> most recent available, and <strong>the</strong>refore are not all from <strong>the</strong> same year. Poverty data, for example, are notbeing constantly updated, and <strong>the</strong>re was a slight discrepancy <strong>of</strong> one year among some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> data provided to <strong>the</strong> authors. This does not materially affect<strong>the</strong> conclusions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analysis. See <strong>the</strong> annex on <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> indicators for provision <strong>of</strong> equipment and infrastructure. In all cases, <strong>the</strong> data refer to<strong>the</strong> central tendency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> row; that is, <strong>the</strong> central tendency <strong>of</strong> ACE or CDE schools, in each row (<strong>the</strong> top 20, <strong>the</strong> best 5%, etc.). The only exception is <strong>the</strong>first column, which only shows <strong>the</strong> breakdown <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group in each row by ACEs and CDEs. Thus, looking at <strong>the</strong> first row, <strong>the</strong> average PAESITA test gradein CDE schools in <strong>the</strong> entire rural area is 5.7, and CDE schools make up 45% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> row for “all rural schools.” Measures used: in all cases, <strong>the</strong> median isused, not <strong>the</strong> mean, unless specified. This is done to avoid bias from outliers.


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Access and CoverageApproximately 55% <strong>of</strong> rural public schools are <strong>EDUCO</strong> ACE schools and 45% are traditionalCDE schools (not including o<strong>the</strong>r kinds <strong>of</strong> schools). Of <strong>the</strong> more than 6,000 schools in El Salvador,close to 4,000 are public schools in rural areas.<strong>EDUCO</strong> has traditionally expanded coverage in preschool and first cycle (grades 1-3) in all its schools.Over <strong>the</strong> history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> program, it has increased enrollment in second and third cycle (grades 3-6 and7-9 respectively) and has even managed to create some high school programs.Administrative and Institutional School ManagementAdministrative ManagementMINED allocates more money to ACE school budgets than to CDE schools. From <strong>the</strong> central level,MINED transfers resources for all schools from <strong>the</strong> school budget, to cover expenses submitted byschools in <strong>the</strong>ir annual purchasing plans (<strong>the</strong>se specify services to be hired, cafeteria leasing, materials,facilities, teacher hiring in some cases, etc.). MINED determines <strong>the</strong> per-student allocation. CDEschools receive US$13 per student per year. ACE schools receive <strong>the</strong> same US$13, plus an additionalUS$12 as a rural differential and to support <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE’s Parent-Teacher Association.Both ACE and CDE schools must submit an annual accountability report and budget settlement <strong>of</strong>MINED transfers to <strong>the</strong> educational community and <strong>the</strong> corresponding Departmental Education Office.The annual accountability report should contain <strong>the</strong> goals and objectives attained, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> childrenand young people benefitted, revenue received, expenses, and <strong>the</strong> balance as <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> date <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> report, allbased on <strong>the</strong> Annual School Plan and school budget (MINED, 1997, 1998).Some administrative processes are more complex for ACE schools than CDE schools and cause abureaucratic burden at <strong>the</strong> Departmental Education Offices and at <strong>the</strong> central level. The researchteam met with several members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Departmental Education Offices, including <strong>the</strong> operations agents(agente tramitador), to try to understand if <strong>EDUCO</strong> was causing a greater bureaucratic burden than CDEschools for financial administration.With regard to financial administration, <strong>the</strong> Departmental Education Offices help ACE schools withpayroll procedures and necessary procedures in representation <strong>of</strong> ACE schools, and prepare all correspondingback-up reports. This is a complex process, given <strong>the</strong> frequency (monthly) and <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>entities related to <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> teachers’ wages and benefits.21


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010The operations agent updates personnel movements, deductions, and leave time, and prepares teacherpayroll. These payrolls are for <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> wages, income tax to <strong>the</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Treasury, socialsecurity contributions to <strong>the</strong> ISSS, pension contributions to AFP and IPSFA pension funds, and now contributionsto <strong>the</strong> Teachers’ Welfare health system for teachers who are in transition from <strong>the</strong> ISSS. Thisis a drawn out process that depends on <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> teachers per school in each department; accordingto <strong>the</strong> ACEs’ judicial status and <strong>the</strong> Labor Code, ACEs are <strong>the</strong> party recognized by ISSS, pension funds,etc. for doing business. This process does not apply to CDEs, because those teachers are paid directlyby MINED in a system that is already established and where MINED acts as <strong>the</strong> party recognized byo<strong>the</strong>r entities.The complexity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process is due to <strong>the</strong> dual, and somewhat odd, contracting system for teachersused by <strong>the</strong> ACEs: <strong>the</strong>y are employees <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE, but <strong>the</strong> ACE does not process <strong>the</strong> payroll, ra<strong>the</strong>r thisis done by MINED. This necessarily makes <strong>the</strong> system convoluted.School administrative and financial procedures are complex. In <strong>the</strong> interviews with principals,teachers, and MINED <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> central level and from <strong>the</strong> Departmental Education Offices,over half agreed that, in general, administrative and financial management procedures are numerous andcomplex for all schools, regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir administrative body. A review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> procedural manuals forACEs and CDEs showed that <strong>the</strong>y are prescriptive, and even though <strong>the</strong>y do not leave out a single process(and even include all forms that must be filled out for different procedures), it confirmed <strong>the</strong> feeling<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interviewees that <strong>the</strong> administrative burden is excessive. An excessive administrative burdentends to diminish <strong>the</strong> ability and time that principals have to devote to exercising educational leadershipcentered on student learning.In <strong>the</strong> school visits <strong>of</strong> April 2010, most ACE members said that <strong>the</strong>y know some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> financial functions<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir position. In general, <strong>the</strong>y mentioned <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> making purchases, accompanying<strong>the</strong> principal to MINED, and taking care <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools’ property and resources. However, most statedthat on financial issues handled by <strong>the</strong> ACEs, <strong>the</strong>re is a lot <strong>of</strong> involvement by <strong>the</strong> principal, who preparesall <strong>the</strong> required documentation, even when this is an acting principal, since many <strong>EDUCO</strong> schoolsdo not have an appointed principal. In some cases, it was mentioned that <strong>the</strong> parents only sign <strong>the</strong> documents.O<strong>the</strong>r parents said that since <strong>the</strong>y had been ACE members previously and knew <strong>the</strong> procedures,<strong>the</strong>y could and in fact had assumed <strong>the</strong> administrative role with less involvement by <strong>the</strong> principal. In<strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CDEs, <strong>the</strong> interviewees said that <strong>the</strong>y do not feel involved, since <strong>the</strong> principal prepareseverything and is <strong>the</strong> person responsible.The ACEs and CDEs do appear to function, although with difficulties, according to <strong>the</strong> literatureconsulted. According to a census done in 2006, 90% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs submitted <strong>the</strong>ir accountability reportin 2006, and 79.8% submitted <strong>the</strong>ir annual budget settlement according to procedure and did not receiveany objections. The percentage <strong>of</strong> ACEs that did not turn in <strong>the</strong> information is explained by a lack <strong>of</strong>knowledge <strong>of</strong> procedure or lack <strong>of</strong> access to documents because <strong>the</strong>y were tied up in additional process-22


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010es (FLACSO, 2006). The research team did not have comparative data on this issue for <strong>the</strong> CDEs.Both <strong>the</strong> CDEs and ACEs have a notable need for constant administrative assistance on proceduralissues, according to <strong>the</strong> literature and interviews. For example, a survey <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> CDE, ACE,and CECE schools done in 2005 found that 85.4% <strong>of</strong> CDE-school principals and teachers expressed aneed for greater training and administrative support from MINED. Likewise, 92.4% <strong>of</strong> ACE presidentsand teachers expressed <strong>the</strong> same need (Parra, 2005). This difference “exists” ma<strong>the</strong>matically, but is notsubstantially significant: almost all schools—CDE and ACE alike—need help. The survey by <strong>the</strong> DepartmentalEducation Offices also confirmed that 84% agreed that <strong>the</strong> models are efficient in <strong>the</strong> end, butunderscored <strong>the</strong> need for administrative assistance on management processes in all schools, independent<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model, to increase efficiency. Interviewees insisted on <strong>the</strong> need for streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> administrativeand financial functions <strong>of</strong> all schools.School ManagementFor <strong>the</strong> most part, <strong>the</strong> relationship between teachers and ACE is cordial and constructive. Accordingto one study in <strong>the</strong> literature, in interviews <strong>of</strong> 2,000 ACE members and school principals, 74%defined <strong>the</strong> relationship between teachers and ACE as cordial, constructive, and geared toward problemsolving. For 18%, it was cordial, but not necessarily focused on problem solving. For 3.6%, <strong>the</strong> relationshipcentered exclusively on administrative affairs, and <strong>the</strong> remaining 3.3% said it was a tense relationshipdue to parent interference in teachers’ work. According to 11%, <strong>the</strong> teacher-ACE relationshipneeded to improve and 18% thought that <strong>the</strong> ACEs should not have <strong>the</strong> authority to evaluate teachers(FLACSO, 2006). During <strong>the</strong> visits made by <strong>the</strong> research team to schools and in <strong>the</strong> interviews, mostteachers, principals, and parents said that <strong>the</strong> relationship was positive, cordial, and constructive.Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parents interviewed thought that it was important to continue to manage and overseefunds and be responsible for teacher hiring. It should be noted that in this same study, 84.8%<strong>of</strong> ACE-school teachers consulted said <strong>the</strong>re had been conflicts between teachers and parents over <strong>the</strong>administrative and financial administration that is <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs.The research team did not have access to empirical data on requests and complaints related to <strong>the</strong> functioning<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs or teachers, since no specific body exists to track information specific to ACEs.Community ParticipationInternational research has consistently emphasized <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> parent and community engagementas a factor for improving education. This factor has been central to many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reforms undertaken inEl Salvador and has been included in <strong>the</strong> organizational structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs and CDEs. The SocialEducation Plan 2009-2014 identified, both in <strong>the</strong> driving forces and in <strong>the</strong> strategic lines, <strong>the</strong> importance<strong>of</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>ning participation by <strong>the</strong> educational community (MINED, teachers, families, and local communities)in institutional and curriculum management (MINED, 2009).23


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010According to <strong>the</strong> literature reviewed, ACE members visit <strong>the</strong> school more than once a week onaverage, which is three to four times more than for CDEs. In addition, in <strong>the</strong> schools visited andinterviews done for this review, <strong>the</strong> time that ACE and CDE members invest in helping <strong>the</strong> schools wasestimated. In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> ACEs, parents said <strong>the</strong>y spend from five to 10 hours per week if <strong>the</strong>y are on <strong>the</strong>Governing Board, while CDE parents said <strong>the</strong>y spend three hours per week on <strong>the</strong> school. Independent<strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> school has an ACE or CDE, parents said that <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong>y spend on <strong>the</strong> school increaseswhen <strong>the</strong>re are special celebrations, fundraising activities, parties, etc.Between 60-80% <strong>of</strong> parents interviewed attend parent meetings and many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m participate indifferent activities in <strong>the</strong> schools. The activities that parents are primarily involved in, independent <strong>of</strong>whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are ACE or CDE schools, are related to food preparation, cleaning <strong>the</strong> school, repairs at<strong>the</strong> school, preparation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PEI, purchases, fundraising activities, and accompanying <strong>the</strong> teacher toMINED and o<strong>the</strong>r agencies on school business. ACE parents participate in teacher hiring and <strong>the</strong> financialmanagement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school, activities in which <strong>the</strong> CDE parents interviewed are not involved.Half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs actively participate in <strong>the</strong> schools’ vision and planning. Both ACEs and CDEshave <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> working with <strong>the</strong> educational community to develop <strong>the</strong> educational vision <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> school and <strong>the</strong> annual activities plan. These plans are known as <strong>the</strong> PEI and PEA, respectively. Accordingto <strong>the</strong> literature, half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs have demonstrated active participation in planning and implementation<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PEI and PEA. One third (34%) <strong>of</strong> ACEs meet frequently to evaluate progress with <strong>the</strong>plan.In <strong>the</strong> literature reviewed, great weight is definitely given to parent participation in <strong>the</strong> ACE and its contributionto <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> social capital. This was confirmed in <strong>the</strong> words <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parents <strong>the</strong>mselves in<strong>the</strong> interviews, where <strong>the</strong>y highlight <strong>the</strong> priority <strong>the</strong>y give to education, <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir childrenhaving a better future, and <strong>the</strong> role <strong>the</strong>y have as parents, which <strong>the</strong>y internalize because <strong>the</strong>y feel a sense<strong>of</strong> ownership toward <strong>the</strong> school.The issue <strong>of</strong> participation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educational community provokes controversy in <strong>EDUCO</strong> becauseACEs have greater direct participation in school administration and in handling teacher hiring. In addition,according to <strong>the</strong> econometric studies done, it is precisely this factor that gives <strong>the</strong> ACE-schoolsa certain advantage. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main points <strong>of</strong> reference has to do with <strong>the</strong> volunteer time that parentsinvest in school management. According to <strong>the</strong> research team, parents spend on average two millionvolunteer hours on school support activities per year. This represents enormous social capital that, ifunderappreciated, could undermine trust in <strong>the</strong> government.The ACE and CDE approaches to school governance and administration differ in strategies forimproving access to and quality <strong>of</strong> education. According to <strong>the</strong> literature, <strong>EDUCO</strong> develops a strongsense <strong>of</strong> ownership, acceptance, and governance by <strong>the</strong> community to ensure that <strong>the</strong> school effectivelyresponds to <strong>the</strong> needs and interests <strong>of</strong> its primary clients—parents and <strong>the</strong> community. However, it24


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010combines <strong>the</strong> functions <strong>of</strong> school governance and administration in <strong>the</strong> organization run by <strong>the</strong> community.In most cases, this way <strong>of</strong> organizing school management implies a lack <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional educationalmanagement, because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> governing board that administers <strong>the</strong> school. However, on<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, this somewhat confusing blend <strong>of</strong> management and governance has <strong>the</strong> advantage that itcan ensure greater teacher accountability to <strong>the</strong> community. 5For its part, <strong>the</strong> CDE is organized so that <strong>the</strong> entire community can participate, since it includes <strong>the</strong> entireeducational community—teachers, students, and parents—and is under <strong>the</strong> leadership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school’sprincipal. In this case, CDE schools appear to have pr<strong>of</strong>essional school management because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>appointment <strong>of</strong> school principals and teachers hired by <strong>the</strong> government. However, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, ithas much weaker instruments for making it responsible or accountable to <strong>the</strong> community. To a certainextent, <strong>the</strong> fundamental balance between <strong>the</strong> two school administration entities lies in <strong>the</strong> school’s accountabilityand pr<strong>of</strong>essional management.The Role <strong>of</strong> School PrincipalsAccording to <strong>the</strong> regulations for ACEs, school principals are not responsible for school administration;this falls to <strong>the</strong> parents on <strong>the</strong> ACE Governing Board. However, in reality many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parentsinterviewed (in our focus groups and in <strong>the</strong> literature) admit that <strong>the</strong> principals and teachers <strong>of</strong>ferassistance with this job. It is probable that this “help” varies from being simply and truly just help, to inessence performing <strong>the</strong> duties, depending on many extremely complex factors. CDE school principalsare responsible for administrative and educational management and are <strong>the</strong> presidents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CDEs. Inthis case, <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> authority and autonomy <strong>of</strong> ACE and CDE school principals can beseen, at least “in <strong>the</strong>ory,” although in practice <strong>the</strong> entities appear to be more than <strong>the</strong> “<strong>the</strong>ory” or regulationssay. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interviewees mentioned cases <strong>of</strong> abuse <strong>of</strong> authority in <strong>the</strong> CDEs by principals.That is, in <strong>the</strong> ACEs <strong>the</strong> parents have responsibility, but at times do not use it; in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CDEs,<strong>the</strong> principals have <strong>the</strong> responsibility, but at times abuse it and do not answer to <strong>the</strong> parents. What iscertain is that this situation shows that <strong>the</strong>re is a vacuum in <strong>the</strong> roles and responsibilities in <strong>the</strong> exercise<strong>of</strong> school management and confusion between <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> governance and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> daily management <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> schools in both school models. In reality, what is occurring is that <strong>the</strong>re is more variability withregard to accountability and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> government and management “within” <strong>the</strong> ACE model and“within” <strong>the</strong> CDE model than between <strong>the</strong> models. This suggests that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools suffer from arelative lack <strong>of</strong> standards and training. Thus, <strong>the</strong> differences come from <strong>the</strong> idiosyncrasies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> particularschools and communities ra<strong>the</strong>r than from <strong>the</strong> models <strong>the</strong>mselves, which signals a lack <strong>of</strong> qualitycontrol and standardization by <strong>the</strong> government.Not all ACE schools (or CDE schools) have an appointed principal. According to <strong>the</strong> most recentdata, <strong>the</strong>re are only 530 appointed principals in ACE schools, while in CDE schools, <strong>the</strong>re are 969. InACE schools, 1,403 teachers who have not been appointed as principal are acting as such, in comparisonwith 711 in CDE schools. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, in ACE schools <strong>the</strong> leadership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principal is relatively5 This report very frequently makes a distinction between “governance” and “management” and insists that, in part, <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> school governance inEl Salvador is that <strong>the</strong> laws and regulations do not clearly distinguish between <strong>the</strong>se functions. This is a relatively technical issue, and <strong>the</strong>refore is notexplained in detail in <strong>the</strong> body <strong>of</strong> this document. Annex 4 contains a complete explanation.25


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010weak. Principals do not have adequate incentives or support to do <strong>the</strong>ir work. This situation is moreevident in ACE schools than in CDE schools, although both systems are affected. This situation is worrisome,since <strong>the</strong> international literature points out <strong>the</strong> proven importance <strong>of</strong> having a principal in eachschool who has been appointed, and is fully empowered to manage <strong>the</strong> school and be <strong>the</strong> pedagogicleader <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers. If most principals are teachers acting as principals, who do not feel <strong>the</strong>y haveenough power or monetary remuneration to exercise <strong>the</strong> position and to also teach class, and where, asin El Salvador, being a principal means having a large bureaucratic burden, it is very unlikely that principalscan do <strong>the</strong>ir jobs well.There are differences in <strong>the</strong> selection, hiring, and renewal <strong>of</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> principals between ACE andCDE schools. ACE-school principals, just like ACE-school teachers, are hired on annual contracts andat <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year <strong>the</strong> ACE and <strong>the</strong> community determine whe<strong>the</strong>r to renew <strong>the</strong> contract, which is,<strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> most hard-hitting way <strong>of</strong> evaluating <strong>the</strong>ir performance. In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> CDEs, principalscan be appointed for up to five years, and <strong>the</strong>ir terms can be renewed, if <strong>the</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir work by<strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Teachers, <strong>the</strong> School Governing Council, and <strong>the</strong> Student Council, in accordance with<strong>the</strong>ir respective regulations, is favorable. In any case, <strong>the</strong> Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession must issuea judgment (Article 46). The Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession has <strong>the</strong> responsibility to administer <strong>the</strong>instruments that evaluate <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respective position and to make <strong>the</strong> decision to acceptor reject renewals. To give an example, in 2009, <strong>the</strong> Court renewed 53 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 85 applications submittedby principals (Tribunal Calificador, 2010). This issue merits a separate analysis. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, <strong>the</strong>issue <strong>of</strong> principals and <strong>the</strong>ir appointments is confusing, but in addition, in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> CDE schools, <strong>the</strong>irrenewal can lead to charges <strong>of</strong> favoritism and even power struggles in <strong>the</strong> school between those whowant to renew <strong>the</strong> principal’s contract and those who do not. These struggles (at times partisan, involvingparty or trade union politics) are a disadvantage in CDE schools and tend to discourage conscientiousparents and attract less conscientious parents to <strong>the</strong>se struggles. All this pr<strong>of</strong>oundly impairs <strong>the</strong>educational mission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school and is a much more common problem in CDE schools than in ACEschools.In short, <strong>the</strong> administrative, financial, and managerial differences among schools, and <strong>the</strong> difference in<strong>the</strong> performance evaluation processes for principals between ACE and CDE schools, are relevant issuesthat will be considered in <strong>the</strong> options, given <strong>the</strong>ir impact on learning.Human Resources ManagementTeacher Selection and HiringAt present, ACE and CDE school teachers belong to <strong>the</strong> career ladder system, <strong>the</strong> same salaryscale applies to <strong>the</strong>m, and <strong>the</strong>ir work history is on record at MINED. They are classified into twolevels based on academic training and into six 5-year categories according to <strong>the</strong> teachers’ length <strong>of</strong>26


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010service. This results in <strong>the</strong> salary scale shown in Table 4. According to <strong>the</strong> data reviewed, most teachersare at level 2, category 5; that is, <strong>the</strong>y have 5-10 years <strong>of</strong> experience. Important to note here is that <strong>the</strong>reis no division between ACE and CDE teachers with regard to <strong>the</strong> career ladder.Table 4. <strong>EDUCO</strong> salary table, adjusted to <strong>the</strong> scale for traditional-system teachersCategory Level SalaryOvertimeRuralIncentiveDecree633TotalAccruedRentISSSAFPPensionTotalPayment4 1 617.63 200 40 857.63 68.42 20.57 53.6 715.044 1 617.63 40 657.63 43.57 19.73 41.1 553.234 2 561.48 200 40 801.48 57.05 20.57 50.09 673.774 2 561.48 40 601.48 38.3 18.04 37.59 507.555 1 571.88 200 40 811.88 58.03 20.57 50.74 682.545 1 571.88 40 611.88 39.28 18.36 38.24 5165 2 519.89 200 40 759.89 53.15 20.57 47.49 638.685 2 519.89 40 559.89 34.4 16.8 34.99 473.76 1 519.89 200 40 759.89 53.15 20.57 47.49 638.686 1 519.89 40 559.89 34.4 16.8 34.99 473.76 2 472.63 200 40 25 737.63 51.07 20.57 46.1 619.896 2 472.63 40 25 537.63 32.32 16.13 33.6 455.58Source: MINED, 2009Salary differences between ACE and CDE school teachers result in ACE teachers receiving moremoney. According to <strong>the</strong> Wage Law, teachers in El Salvador receive remuneration composed <strong>of</strong> a basewage and a year-end bonus. There is a difference between <strong>the</strong> year-end bonus for teachers covered by<strong>EDUCO</strong> and those under <strong>the</strong> Wage Law. In <strong>EDUCO</strong>, <strong>the</strong> year-end bonus is calculated based on <strong>the</strong>length <strong>of</strong> service at <strong>the</strong> same ACE school, according to <strong>the</strong> Labor Law (for example, a teacher with 3-10years <strong>of</strong> service would receive a year-end bonus <strong>of</strong> $379.95). Wage Law teachers receive a year-endbonus that is a fixed, equal amount ($288.45) for all teachers, according to <strong>the</strong> Budget Law.<strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers, who are governed by <strong>the</strong> Labor Law, receive a severance payment at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>year (indemnización) corresponding to one month’s base wage. For level 2, category 5 teachers, thismeans an additional $510 that teachers in <strong>the</strong> Wage Law system do not receive.Although all teachers, without exception, do receive a benefits package, <strong>the</strong>re are differences in<strong>the</strong> packages for <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers and Wage Law system teachers. <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers have healthinsurance through <strong>the</strong> ISSS, which covers <strong>the</strong> family group until age 18, and for which MINED pays7.5% as <strong>the</strong> employer’s contribution. Wage Law teachers are covered by <strong>the</strong> Teachers’ Welfare healthsystem, which covers <strong>the</strong> family group with children up to age 21, children with a disability with no age27


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010limit, and contributes to burial expenses and recreation (Ley Bienestar Magisterial, 2007). MINED paysan additional $3.06 for <strong>the</strong> family group benefit to ISSS. At present, <strong>the</strong> Teachers’ Welfare Law is beingput into effect, which includes <strong>the</strong> gradual absorption <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers starting in 2010.Employment StabilityContradictory opinions were found regarding employment stability and <strong>the</strong> annual contract. In<strong>the</strong> interviews, at least half <strong>the</strong> interviewees belonging to <strong>the</strong> ACE system acknowledged fears about <strong>the</strong>existence <strong>of</strong> teachers who, upon attaining job stability, would <strong>the</strong>n use that to “relax” or to “take it easy,”and that without <strong>the</strong> “pressure” exercised by parents, this situation could worsen. O<strong>the</strong>r principals interviewed(4 out <strong>of</strong> every 10) said that by having worked for years in a context that demands complyingwith contracted schedules and responsibilities, being continuously under observation, doing communitywork, etc., <strong>the</strong>y internalize a culture that <strong>the</strong>y surely would not abandon when moving to a new form <strong>of</strong>administration and contract. They also mention pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism and ethics as guarantees <strong>of</strong> this.It was found that a large number <strong>of</strong> ACE teachers remain in <strong>the</strong>ir positions on average over sixyears beyond <strong>the</strong> annual contract. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues that cause controversy in <strong>EDUCO</strong> is <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong>employment stability and <strong>the</strong> ability to dismiss ACE-school teachers. On employment stability, accordingto <strong>the</strong> information obtained by this research team, in visits to schools and in <strong>the</strong> individual and groupinterviews, teachers were found who have been working in <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools for more than 17 years.Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m have been in <strong>the</strong> schools from six to 17 years. Thus, <strong>the</strong> fear <strong>of</strong> job instability is, althoughreal, <strong>the</strong> fear <strong>of</strong> a possibility, or an infrequent reality, ra<strong>the</strong>r than a regular reality. (However, <strong>the</strong> lack<strong>of</strong> contractual tenure for ACE-school teachers does make it difficult for <strong>the</strong>m to obtain loans that usejob stability as <strong>the</strong> equivalent <strong>of</strong> collateral.) As this review was performed, <strong>the</strong> President <strong>of</strong> El Salvadorsigned a decree providing employment stability for <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers in 2009 and 2010 (Diario Oficial,Decreto 62, 2009). This means that teachers cannot be dismissed and that <strong>the</strong> same teachers will continuein 2010.Abuses and <strong>the</strong> Grievance SystemNo hard evidence was found <strong>of</strong> an unusual trend in dismissals <strong>of</strong> ACE-school teachers. Withregard to perceptions about dismissals, in some cases interviewees said <strong>the</strong>re had been 300 to 400 cases<strong>of</strong> annual dismissals in ACE schools. However, most interviewees said that no more than 50 cases wereaddressed by <strong>the</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> Labor. Several interviewees said that <strong>the</strong> dismissals did not go through,because <strong>the</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> Labor uses judges who are only located in San Salvador, which delays <strong>the</strong>process. The research team did not find empirical evidence to support (or refute) <strong>the</strong>se statements. Ingeneral, a tendency was noted among teachers to say that yes, it is true that <strong>the</strong>re are dismissals andabuses, but, ironically, “not in my school.” Or, that if <strong>the</strong>re had been dismissals in <strong>the</strong>ir schools <strong>the</strong>y hadbeen justified, and only in “o<strong>the</strong>r” schools had <strong>the</strong>re been unjustified dismissals.28


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010ACEs do not have a systematic grievance filing mechanism, and <strong>the</strong>refore grievances are not documented.There appears to be little information about where teachers and parents from ACE schools canturn with a complaint or legal action. This creates confusion and reduces <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> finding a reliableinterlocutor in <strong>the</strong> system.Many CDE schools have problems with abuses <strong>of</strong> power, poor procedures, and poor relationsbetween principals and teachers. Although <strong>the</strong> research team visited <strong>the</strong> Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>essionand one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Boards <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession in San Salvador to understand <strong>the</strong> movements <strong>of</strong>teaching personnel and how <strong>the</strong> disciplinary system and sanctions are handled, it did not find empiricaldata applicable to <strong>the</strong> entire system that could provide a picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school environment and <strong>the</strong>relationships among teachers, principals, and school administration entities. However, <strong>the</strong> interviewsheld in <strong>the</strong>se institutions seem to indicate that most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> complaints in <strong>the</strong> CDE schools (which are notexclusively public schools) are related, for <strong>the</strong> most part, to <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> teachers from <strong>the</strong>ir positionswithout following procedures and poor relations between principals and teachers. A small number involvedchallenges over job positions and prior suspensions. For example, <strong>the</strong> Court received 117 grievancesfrom 2008 to 2010 (data provided by <strong>the</strong> Court, 2010). Most interviewees shared <strong>the</strong>ir perceptionsand agreed that many cases involving abuse <strong>of</strong> authority, physical and sexual abuse, and o<strong>the</strong>r problems,are not reported for fear <strong>of</strong> reprisals. There is no systematic grievance filing mechanism in ACE schoolsthat would enable <strong>the</strong>ir documentation and validation.To gain a general idea <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> types <strong>of</strong> requests and grievances submitted to MINED, <strong>the</strong> research teamlooked at <strong>the</strong> statistics for 2010 from MINED’s public services <strong>of</strong>fice, which had records <strong>of</strong> 363 cases,most related to improper charges, retention <strong>of</strong> documents, refusal <strong>of</strong> enrollment, conflicts, and abuse.These involve a small percentage <strong>of</strong> teachers; however, once again, it is possible <strong>the</strong>re has been underreportingfor fear <strong>of</strong> reprisals. As <strong>the</strong> data is not broken down by School Administration Entity, it is notpossible to identify cases particular to ACE schools. However, it does appear to be true that in CDEschools <strong>the</strong>re is an unproductive labor and human relations environment that to a certain extent errsby creating anxiety and resentment that is <strong>the</strong> mirror image <strong>of</strong> what appears (at times) to occur in ACEschools.The research team tried to analyze <strong>the</strong> rate <strong>of</strong> teaching personnel movements in CDE schools to compare<strong>the</strong>m to ACE schools. No data was found that enabled comparing <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> new positions createdeach year, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> teachers retiring each year, or <strong>the</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> transfers, exchanges, interimteachers, or data disaggregated by rural or urban area, etc.AccountabilityCDE school principals want tools to require improvements in teachers. On this issue, four out <strong>of</strong>every 10 CDE school principals said that in <strong>the</strong>ir schools <strong>the</strong>re are some teachers whose recurrent “actingout,” noncompliance with job responsibilities, etc. are such that <strong>the</strong>y would like to have <strong>the</strong> means29


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010to significantly and effectively sanction <strong>the</strong>m in a timely manner and even to dismiss teachers when <strong>the</strong>irregular conditions recur. At least four out <strong>of</strong> every 10 principals said that in CDE schools <strong>the</strong> steeringentities have few mechanisms for demanding improvements on <strong>the</strong> job, especially when teachers demonstrate“unwillingness, incompetence, and unhealthy behavior,” in <strong>the</strong> words <strong>of</strong> one principal. (In ACEschools, in contrast, <strong>the</strong>re are complaints that teachers are abused. In CDE schools, <strong>the</strong>re are complaintsthat teachers are abusive.) All <strong>of</strong> this implies that CDE and ACE schools suffer from diametricallyopposite or complementary ills, and that <strong>the</strong>re are advantages and disadvantages to both models. Thisconclusion is vital to understanding <strong>the</strong> why <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> options spelled out below.Principals said that <strong>the</strong> education system has not taken actions to set examples to o<strong>the</strong>r teachers, evenwith teachers with <strong>the</strong> worst behavior. In addition, <strong>the</strong>y said that <strong>the</strong>re is a need for some actions <strong>of</strong> thistype so that teachers in general can see <strong>the</strong> consequences <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir actions and job performance.Principals said that on several occasions <strong>the</strong>y have had teachers who do not meet <strong>the</strong>ir expectations,demonstrate incompetence, unwillingness, or o<strong>the</strong>r improper behavior. In response to this, <strong>the</strong>y verballyreprimand <strong>the</strong>m. When this does not have a positive effect, <strong>the</strong>y have continued with disciplinaryactions (publically reprimanding <strong>the</strong>m again, doing so in writing, etc.). When this also fails, <strong>the</strong>y have<strong>the</strong>n informed <strong>the</strong> instructional advisers or supervisors. When this also fails to bring about <strong>the</strong> desiredresults or <strong>the</strong> cases are very serious, <strong>the</strong>y file formal grievances. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intervieweesalleged that principals sometimes tend to be authoritarian or arbitrary, and that <strong>the</strong>y represent “factions”(bandos) <strong>of</strong> teachers. Schools, in many cases, seem to be divided into “factions” and principals seem totake <strong>the</strong> side (or in fact, represent) one faction or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. Schools seem to be <strong>the</strong> site <strong>of</strong> clashes ra<strong>the</strong>rthan teamwork. This ailment appears to be more common in CDE schools. From <strong>the</strong>re, what is importantis not so much whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> regulations provide principals with <strong>the</strong> necessary procedures forbeing able to discipline teachers, but ra<strong>the</strong>r that school governance in general seems to lead to tensionsand conflict and creates an environment where teamwork is difficult.In general, <strong>the</strong> situation gives <strong>the</strong> impression that, if <strong>the</strong> school does not have a community to which it isclearly and specifically accountable in a concrete way, regarding goals that are standardized and regulatedby <strong>the</strong> Ministry, groups within <strong>the</strong> school have <strong>the</strong> luxury <strong>of</strong> fighting among <strong>the</strong>mselves instead<strong>of</strong> trying to work toward a common goal. This appears to occur less in ACE schools. In general, however,it does appear that school governance, and <strong>the</strong>refore school labor relations in El Salvador, tend tobe fraught with tension. In ACE schools, this can manifest itself as tension among groups <strong>of</strong> teachers,between teachers and principals, etc. However, this tension appears to be common to all schools.Legal FrameworkThere are bottlenecks in <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession Law and in <strong>the</strong> legal defense processes for teachers,which have a negative impact on students’ rights to an education. According to <strong>the</strong> interviewees,a formal complaint has a certain time period for being formally accepted and <strong>the</strong> respondent30


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010notified. The latter <strong>the</strong>n tends to counter-complain and involve <strong>the</strong> principal and <strong>the</strong> school itself in <strong>the</strong>process. Principals told <strong>of</strong> varied circumstances where counter-complaints harmed <strong>the</strong>ir personal andpr<strong>of</strong>essional lives, despite only having attempted to punish teachers who were not doing <strong>the</strong>ir job. Thiscan mean, among complaints, counter-complaints, and appeals, a lot <strong>of</strong> time spent on exhausting andconfronting teachers in <strong>the</strong> schools. Therefore, many withdraw <strong>the</strong>ir complaints and attempt to negotiatewith <strong>the</strong> teachers involved in <strong>the</strong> problematic situation.Negotiations in CDE schools <strong>of</strong>ten relate to attempts to transfer a teacher to ano<strong>the</strong>r school or declare<strong>the</strong> position underutilized, to get rid <strong>of</strong> an undisciplined teacher (or perhaps simply a teacher belongingto a faction “opposed” to <strong>the</strong> principal’s or o<strong>the</strong>r teachers’ faction). The latter resource is detrimental to<strong>the</strong> schools because <strong>the</strong> teacher will not be replaced. In addition, this is a sign <strong>of</strong> a severe problem withgovernance and human relations in CDE schools. In cases where complaints result in a decision, principalssaid that <strong>the</strong>y generally “reward <strong>the</strong> bad teachers,” putting <strong>the</strong>m in schools that are better located,closer to cities or to where <strong>the</strong>y live.With this, <strong>the</strong> principal is left with <strong>the</strong> sensation <strong>of</strong> having lost <strong>the</strong> battle and not having resolved <strong>the</strong>situation, given that <strong>the</strong> teacher leaves <strong>the</strong> school but not <strong>the</strong> system and will continue causing problemsfor o<strong>the</strong>r students and communities. ACE school principals, upon hearing <strong>the</strong> comments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir CDEschool colleagues, said that <strong>the</strong>se cases that “reward <strong>the</strong> bad teachers” would not have been tolerated inACE schools and that <strong>the</strong> parents would have immediately resolved <strong>the</strong> situation, since <strong>the</strong> regulationsgive <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> authority to act.31


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Summary: A Problematic Parallel System Exists in ACE and CDE-SchoolsCDE school principals are interested in ensuring a good level <strong>of</strong> teacher performance, but lack<strong>the</strong> necessary support to do so. In general, CDE school principals suggest that <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>essionLaw should be amended to enable inducing teachers to maintain a good level <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional work.This would also require changing <strong>the</strong> models <strong>of</strong> governance, to give schools a greater sense <strong>of</strong> “outwardresponsibility,” which would tend to put a halt to <strong>the</strong> wear and tear from having <strong>the</strong> luxury to allow internalbattles. Moreover, no less than half <strong>the</strong> people interviewed said <strong>the</strong>y would be in agreement withbeing able to dismiss an employee following an evaluation and repeated reprimands. However, opinionwas divided about <strong>the</strong> possibility, if <strong>the</strong> law were amended, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principal being <strong>the</strong> one to assume <strong>the</strong>responsibility <strong>of</strong> evaluating and dismissing <strong>the</strong> teacher. They proposed that <strong>the</strong> ACEs or CDEs couldformally suggest possible sanctions before a competent entity (one that acts conscientiously, and not <strong>the</strong>way <strong>the</strong>y have up until now), leading to <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> dismissal.El Salvador is leaning in two directions at <strong>the</strong> same time. On <strong>the</strong> one side, it <strong>of</strong>fers <strong>the</strong> ACE schools, amodel <strong>of</strong> education that gives <strong>the</strong> responsibility for running <strong>the</strong> school to <strong>the</strong> parents, who participate activelyand exercise relatively effective accountability. They have <strong>the</strong> administrative, financial, and hiringresponsibility and manage human resources, in accordance with special regulations for ACE schools.Here, <strong>the</strong>re are not many appointed principals and those who do exercise this role do not have <strong>the</strong> correspondingleadership or <strong>the</strong> incentives to do it well. This ACE model serves relatively poor communities,ensures coverage for <strong>the</strong>se students, and attains academic achievement equivalent to <strong>the</strong> traditional educationalmodel, despite inferior working conditions. CDE schools represent <strong>the</strong> more traditional model.They are run by principals who are responsible for managing <strong>the</strong> school and who are accompanied bya governing council that has parent, teacher, and student members. With this type <strong>of</strong> representation,parents cannot demand effective accountability, which enables CDE schools, in many cases, to be placesfor clashes and conflict more than for serving students. It should be noted that among CDE schools, notall have an appointed principal, and many principals, whe<strong>the</strong>r appointed or acting, have not been fullytrained for <strong>the</strong>ir roles, and receive little ongoing support. In CDE schools, nei<strong>the</strong>r principals nor parentshave <strong>the</strong> authority to hire or fire teachers, at least according to <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession Law, and have togo through o<strong>the</strong>r institutional channels to select or remove teachers. In this CDE model, students learnonly as well as ACE school students, despite not being as poor and despite having, in general, betterconditions, which suggest that <strong>the</strong> CDE model is not as efficient as <strong>the</strong> ACE model. To a certain degree,it could be said that both ACE and CDE schools have problems, but <strong>the</strong> problems are, up to a point, mirrorimages <strong>of</strong> each o<strong>the</strong>r. ACE schools achieve greater accountability and greater efficiency, but createanxiety among teachers. CDE school teachers have longer tenure, but also have less discipline, because<strong>the</strong>re is less community power, and <strong>the</strong>refore, are less efficient (<strong>the</strong>y have equal achievement despitehaving better conditions).32


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> fact that this parallel or bifurcated system exists means that citizens have a very asymmetricalrelationship with <strong>the</strong> government, and this minimizes any sense among <strong>the</strong> public that <strong>the</strong>yare equal in <strong>the</strong>ir production relations in <strong>the</strong> education sector, and that <strong>the</strong>y have a shared destiny. Thishampers <strong>the</strong> political development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nation and <strong>the</strong> sense <strong>of</strong> national unity, in a country where <strong>the</strong>feeling <strong>of</strong> a shared destiny is precisely one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rarest <strong>of</strong> social goods.Along <strong>the</strong>se lines, <strong>the</strong> primary concern should not be how to solve <strong>the</strong> problems and situations in ei<strong>the</strong>rschool administration entity, but ra<strong>the</strong>r how to improve <strong>the</strong> functioning and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> all schools.Therefore, to achieve greater school effectiveness, it is worthwhile to rethink school governance in allschools, for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> achieving greater job stability, but without losing accountability. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore,to attain a unified system, which is desirable for reasons <strong>of</strong> political and social development, itis appropriate to think <strong>of</strong> solving <strong>the</strong> problems that remain in <strong>the</strong> ACE and CDE schools through <strong>the</strong>creation <strong>of</strong> a model that enables extracting greater discipline and accountability from those who are inservice to <strong>the</strong> community, but, also, greater pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism in management, more stability for teachers,and a greater sense <strong>of</strong> a shared destiny in <strong>the</strong> educational life <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country.It would also be possible to make partial improvements, especially in <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> model. As wasalready explained, our task was not to recommend an ideal solution, but ra<strong>the</strong>r to present an array <strong>of</strong> optionsfor improving <strong>the</strong> situation. The next section presents all <strong>the</strong> options across a wide range.Discussion <strong>of</strong> Options (not prioritized)With <strong>the</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current situation in <strong>EDUCO</strong>, <strong>the</strong> research team proposes an array <strong>of</strong> five policyoptions to be discussed with decision-makers in El Salvador. These options are not presented in order <strong>of</strong>priority, nor with any specific recommendation. Three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> options continue with a bifurcated system,and three would result in a unified system. Only one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> options (in our opinion) would increasequality in all <strong>the</strong> country’s schools. The proposed options are:Maintain Parallel SystemsOption A: Continue <strong>EDUCO</strong> as it currently exists.Option B: Keep <strong>EDUCO</strong> with changes in teacher hiring to increase <strong>the</strong>ir stability.Option C: Keep <strong>EDUCO</strong> with changes in ACEs, stressing governance over administration and management.Establish a Combined, Unified National SystemOption D: Unified governance combining <strong>the</strong> advantages <strong>of</strong> both ACE and CDE models.Option E: Eliminate <strong>EDUCO</strong> and turn all <strong>the</strong> ACEs into CDEs.33


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Eliminate CDEs and turn all CDEs into ACEs. (This option is <strong>the</strong>oretically possible, but is not consideredrealistic, and <strong>the</strong>refore was not analyzed in <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> this paper).Table 5. Summary <strong>of</strong> options and <strong>the</strong>ir impact on education stakeholdersOption A .Continue<strong>EDUCO</strong> asit currentlyexists.Option B.Change ACE roleOption C.Change ACE roleOption D.Create combinedsystemOption E.Eliminate<strong>EDUCO</strong>TeachersNo change<strong>EDUCO</strong> teachersabsorbed underWage Law. ACEsselect teachers,but do not dismiss<strong>the</strong>m.No changeAll teachers belongto a unified system.Explore alternative<strong>of</strong> allowing hiring <strong>of</strong>teachers on contract.Teachersabsorbed underWage Law.Governance No change No changeSchooladministrativemanagementNo changeNo changeRole <strong>of</strong> ACEsreduced tokeep focus ongovernance, notadministration.Administrativeresponsibilityshifts to principal,and each ACEschool will have aprincipal.Create new systemthat would apply to allschools to empowera parents’ council togovern, principals tomanage, with greaterstability for teachersthan <strong>EDUCO</strong>, butmore demands thanCDEs.School managementunder principal’scontrol.Eliminate ACEsystem andturn all schoolsinto CDEschools.Management<strong>of</strong> all schoolsunder a CDE.FinancesNo changeElimination <strong>of</strong>annual severancepayment toteachers.Hiring and training<strong>of</strong> principals forACE schools.Hiring and training<strong>of</strong> principals for allschools. Annualseverance payment toteachers by choice.Teachers can chooseto be school orMINED employees.Elimination<strong>of</strong> annualseverancepayment toteachers.MINEDPayments throughregular system.Payments throughregular systemexcept teachers whovoluntarily choose tobe school employees.Paymentsthrough regularsystem.SchoolsaffectedNone Only <strong>EDUCO</strong> Only <strong>EDUCO</strong> All schools Only <strong>EDUCO</strong>34


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Following is an explanation <strong>of</strong> each option that evaluates its advantages and disadvantages. Implications<strong>of</strong> implementation by MINED are explained for each option, such as changes in laws, budget allocations,personnel restructuring, etc.Options that Maintain a Bifurcated SystemOption A. Continue <strong>EDUCO</strong> as it Currently ExistsThis option would continue existing policy in which <strong>the</strong> ACEs, run by <strong>the</strong> community, manage financialand administrative activities, govern <strong>the</strong> schools, and assume general accountability for teacher performance.Likewise, annual teacher contracts that <strong>the</strong> ACE administers and renews would be maintained.Finally, MINED, through <strong>the</strong> Departmental Education Offices, would continue issuing payment <strong>of</strong>wages to teachers on a monthly basis. This option would not affect CDE schools. The advantages anddisadvantages <strong>of</strong> this option are as follows:Access to educationAdvantagesContinues in rural, high povertyareas. Can quickly respond toemerging needs with <strong>the</strong> ACEs’expeditious procedures. Canachieve Social Education Plangoals in ACEs.DisadvantagesSituation for access to middleand high school levels is unclear.Specific studies are needed oncoverage at <strong>the</strong>se levels.QualityAdministrative andinstitutional managementLearning will not be radicallyaffected. ACE schools wouldcontinue performing at a levelcomparable to CDE schools.Local government andaccountability in ACE schoolsremain. The school budgetremains, which is higher forACE schools.The main problem wouldcontinue to be that students arenot learning what <strong>the</strong>y needto learn in ei<strong>the</strong>r ACE or CDEschools. Their test grades are stillvery low.Schools continue withoutpr<strong>of</strong>essional administrationwith leadership. MINEDwould continue with a highadministrative burden in itsdepartmental <strong>of</strong>fices.Human resources managementACE school teachers wouldcontinue attending schoolsmore. Annual contracts remain.Teachers receive more money inannual severance payments andyear-end bonuses.Teachers would not have <strong>the</strong>option to transfer. Tension overjob stability would continue.There is no system for complaintsand grievances.35


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> Option AWith this option, <strong>the</strong>re would be no need to change current practices.Option B. Keep <strong>EDUCO</strong> with Changes in Teacher HiringThis option would continue <strong>the</strong> current system <strong>of</strong> administration, financial management, and schoolgovernance by <strong>the</strong> ACEs, but without <strong>the</strong> specific power to renew teacher contracts each year. Teacherswould be hired directly by <strong>the</strong> Ministry, which would be <strong>the</strong>ir employer. The payment <strong>of</strong> wagesto teachers would be unified through <strong>the</strong> regular salary system. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> ACE would continuedirectly governing and administering <strong>the</strong> school, but would lose <strong>the</strong> accountability tool it has in contractrenewal. MINED would have to absorb all <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers. This option would not affect CDEschools. The advantages and disadvantages <strong>of</strong> this option are as follows:AdvantagesDisadvantagesAccess toeducationSimilar to Option A, access to education in ruraland poor areas maintained. Timely responseto urgent needs maintained, with <strong>the</strong> ACEs’expeditious procedures. Marginal communitieswould continue to have a means to ensureappropriate coverage. Social Education Plangoals maintained in <strong>the</strong> ACEs.Unclear how to increase middle and highschool coverage.QualityUncertainty and a potential disadvantage.If accountability through <strong>the</strong> potential fornon-renewal <strong>of</strong> contracts ensures bettereducational outcomes, and <strong>the</strong>re is a lack<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r accountability mechanisms, <strong>the</strong>n,without this tool, learning would not improveor could decrease.AdministrativeandinstitutionalmanagementReduction in work load for MINED at <strong>the</strong>departmental level. School budget wouldhave to be maintained. School managementwould remain <strong>the</strong> same, except without parentmonitoring <strong>of</strong> teachers for contract renewal.This could waste all <strong>the</strong> capacity developedin those parents who have extensiveexperience in school management. It will benecessary to ensure that <strong>the</strong>ir support in <strong>the</strong>schools continues.In reducing accountability, <strong>the</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Social Education Plan that streng<strong>the</strong>nscommunity participation in <strong>the</strong> ACEs wouldnot be met.36HumanresourcesmanagementTeachers would have job stability by being hireddirectly by MINED. MINED would have somesavings on salaries from elimination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annualseverance payment.Teachers would receive health care through <strong>the</strong>Teachers’ Welfare system. 6Teachers would receive less money since<strong>the</strong>y would not receive an annual severancepayment, and <strong>the</strong>ir year-end bonus wouldbe lower. The nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accountabilityrelationship with <strong>the</strong> school would change,and it is uncertain what impact not havingthis accountability could have on teacherattendance and performance and <strong>the</strong>reby, onstudent achievement.


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> Option BImplementing this option would involve a significant administrative process to address <strong>the</strong> individualtransfers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> almost 8,000 teachers who would be switched from one-year contracts to being hiredby MINED. A decision would be needed as to whe<strong>the</strong>r transfer would be automatic or based on certainperformance criteria and conditions. The transition calendar should be coordinated with <strong>the</strong> fiscal yearplanning calendar. The change in policy and <strong>the</strong> transition process will be confusing for <strong>the</strong> ACEs and<strong>the</strong> affected teachers. To reduce problems, a substantial investment in a public relations and communicationsplan will be necessary. Even more important will be <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> a large-scale trainingand orientation program for Departmental Education Offices, school principals, and ACEs to inform<strong>the</strong>m about <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> change. It will also require <strong>the</strong> revision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE manual andprocedures for hiring and firing teachers as well as several adjustments to <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession Law.Option C. Keep <strong>EDUCO</strong> with Changes in <strong>the</strong> Nature and Responsibilities <strong>of</strong> ACEs,Stressing Governance over Administration and ManagementThis option changes <strong>the</strong> regular work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs. It takes away <strong>the</strong>ir day-to-day responsibility forschool administration, financial resources management (purchasing plan, school budget, etc.) and reduces<strong>the</strong> ACE’s involvement in teaching as an element <strong>of</strong> teacher supervision. Changing <strong>the</strong> ACEs’ regularwork could be achieved by appointing principals with positions, who would assume <strong>the</strong> daily administrativeand managerial responsibility for <strong>the</strong> school. Since it might not be realistic to appoint fulltimeprincipals, it might be necessary to review school facilities and enrollment, because it could be possibleto be creative and identify a principal for a group <strong>of</strong> small schools. The role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs would change:<strong>the</strong>y would be responsible for <strong>the</strong> strategic decisions involving <strong>the</strong> school, setting educational goals, setting<strong>the</strong> school’s mission and vision, and approving plans and budgets, as guarantors <strong>of</strong> governance, but<strong>the</strong>y would not manage resources or daily activities. The ACE Governing Board would participate in<strong>the</strong> school’s management and direction. The ACE would participate in school planning; it would monitorstudents’ academic achievement and would carry out an accountability function, advocating for <strong>the</strong>school.In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers, <strong>the</strong>y would continue to be hired on annual contracts and would continue tobe liable to dismissal, but <strong>the</strong>se processes would be pr<strong>of</strong>essionalized under <strong>the</strong> principal’s direction;performance reviews would be handled toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> school principal, based on clear performancestandards. Any change or improvement in educational outcomes in <strong>EDUCO</strong> would be achieved through<strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> clearer standards and tools for performance evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools’ teachers andprincipals. MINED would continue managing two teacher payment systems, but would clarify <strong>the</strong> roles<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principal and <strong>the</strong> ACE in management and governance. This option would only apply to <strong>EDUCO</strong>schools; <strong>the</strong> CDE system would not undergo any changes. The advantages and disadvantages <strong>of</strong> this optionare as follows:6 The status <strong>of</strong> specific benefits for teachers, such as inclusion in <strong>the</strong> Teachers’ Welfare system, could not be conclusively determined, as <strong>the</strong>¡¢¡£team heard different explanations and opinions.¤¥37


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010AdvantagesDisadvantagesAccess toeducationSimilar to Options A and B, access to education inrural and poor areas is maintained. Timely response toemerging or changing needs is still possible, using <strong>the</strong>ACE’s expeditious procedures. This model can <strong>of</strong>feran alternative for middle and high school, by having apr<strong>of</strong>essional principal in charge <strong>of</strong> school management,instead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE as <strong>the</strong> management entity. SocialEducation Plan goals can be met.QualityAdministrativeandinstitutionalmanagementHumanresourcesmanagementThe introduction <strong>of</strong> better qualified and trained principalsinto <strong>the</strong> schools would improve educational quality,especially if this is done toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> accountabilityand responsibility provided by teachers under contract.This requires school principals to be duly trained andsupported.The presence <strong>of</strong> a principal in charge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school’sday-to-day management instead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE can improve<strong>the</strong> school without sacrificing accountability andresponsibility.There would be clear standards and monitoring systemsfor managing teacher and principal performance.Accountability could improve. It requires ensuringgreater MINED involvement in <strong>the</strong> schools. SocialEducation Plan goals on pr<strong>of</strong>essionalization <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> principal and on <strong>the</strong> capacities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schooladministration entities can be met.Teachers maintain <strong>the</strong>ir annual contracts but <strong>the</strong>irperformance evaluation will no longer be <strong>the</strong>responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE, but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principaltoge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> ACE; this will ensure a more technicalevaluation <strong>of</strong> teaching methods.Teachers would continue to receive more money because<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual severance payment.The Social Education Plan goal for teacher performancecan be met.High costs for MINED, sinceit will have to ensure positionsfor principals and continuingeducation on relevant topics.MINED’s bureaucratic burdenis maintained. There wouldbe a significant increase in <strong>the</strong>costs required to place andtrain a sufficient number <strong>of</strong>principals.The school budget mightdecrease because <strong>the</strong> ACE’srole would be smaller.It would take time to refine anaccountability system as part <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> ACE’s and principal’s newroles.There would be no jobstability, although <strong>the</strong>rewould be less anxiety with<strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionalization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>evaluation.38


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> Option CImplementation <strong>of</strong> this option would involve a significant administrative process to revise <strong>the</strong> by-laws <strong>of</strong>all <strong>the</strong> ACEs, hire and place school principals, and train each principal and <strong>the</strong> ACEs in <strong>the</strong>ir new rolesand responsibilities. Development <strong>of</strong> transparent personnel evaluation systems for teachers and principalswould require a significant level <strong>of</strong> specialized assistance, pilot testing <strong>the</strong> new systems, and <strong>the</strong>irgradual introduction. It would take one to two years for full implementation to be complete.The change in policy and <strong>the</strong> transition process would be confusing for <strong>the</strong> ACEs and <strong>the</strong> affected teachers.Explaining <strong>the</strong> change in policy would require a substantial investment in a public relations andcommunications plan. It would also require a large-scale training and orientation program for departmentalteams, school principals, and <strong>the</strong> ACEs, to inform <strong>the</strong>m <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> change. Itwould be necessary to revise <strong>the</strong> ACE manual, its procedures, and several laws and decrees.Establishing a National Unified Combined SystemOption D. Create a Convergent System with Accountability, Stability, andFlexibility, Using <strong>the</strong> Advantages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs and CDEs for all <strong>of</strong> El Salvador’sSchoolsThis option takes <strong>the</strong> best <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE and CDE models to unify <strong>the</strong> education system. It would createan administrative structure that unifies all <strong>the</strong> schools and is used in all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are currentlyACE or CDE schools.By unifying <strong>the</strong> administrative structure, each school would have an appointed principal, who would beresponsible for <strong>the</strong> school. Principals would be in charge <strong>of</strong> managing <strong>the</strong> school on a day-to-day basisand would be responsible for pedagogical leadership. They would not be allowed to teach a grade orto hold <strong>the</strong> position as an honorary principal. Small schools could have a teacher appointed or couldreceive support from a principal for a group <strong>of</strong> schools. Principals would have to be trained and orientedon issues relevant to <strong>the</strong>ir role.The role that <strong>the</strong> community and parents would play would not be administrative, but ra<strong>the</strong>r would bea role <strong>of</strong> governance, which would be to make <strong>the</strong> school responsible for meeting its goals. The modelwould involve improved, stronger governance based on <strong>the</strong> community, but with pr<strong>of</strong>essional managementand less community involvement in daily management or administration. In this capacity, thisoverhauled structure would maintain its role <strong>of</strong> supervision <strong>of</strong> attendance and tardiness <strong>of</strong> teachers andprincipals; it would continue providing support to schools through <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> food and repairs.It would have an <strong>of</strong>ficial role in <strong>the</strong> teachers’ performance review or evaluation, which could result in39


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010<strong>the</strong> dismissal <strong>of</strong> a teacher if <strong>the</strong>re were sufficient pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> inappropriate conduct or substandard performance,in a way that would be more expeditious than <strong>the</strong> convoluted system in <strong>the</strong> CDEs at present.For teachers, this option presents <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering two or three types <strong>of</strong> contracts, somethingthat would have to be decided at <strong>the</strong> stage <strong>of</strong> developing a specific design for this option. One optionwould be for teachers to have total job stability and be employees <strong>of</strong> MINED (but evaluated in amore rigorous fashion and with community participation, and with <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> more expeditiousdismissal than at present). Ano<strong>the</strong>r option would be <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> renewable, three or five year contracts;this would mean that <strong>the</strong> contracts would ensure <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> receiving an accumulated severancepayment every three or five years, a year-end bonus, and enable access to loans. New teachers would behired for five years as a trial period. The trial period would be administered by using one-year renewablecontracts, which would include <strong>the</strong> severance payment and year-end bonus. At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> fiveyears, appropriate performance reviews would be done and <strong>the</strong> contract would be renewed. In this case,teachers would have <strong>the</strong> option <strong>of</strong> gaining greater job stability, but without receiving <strong>the</strong> severance payment,or to remain on a contractual basis with three to five year contracts and <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> severance.In any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se scenarios, teachers would be paid through MINED. However, ano<strong>the</strong>r option, for someteachers who might prefer it, or if <strong>the</strong>re are no o<strong>the</strong>r options because <strong>of</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> positions, <strong>the</strong> teachercould be employed by <strong>the</strong> community, as in fact already occurs in some CDE middle schools. In contrastto ACE schools, however, entering into this type <strong>of</strong> contract would have to be by mutual expediency,and would not be an essential part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new governance system, as it is in <strong>the</strong> current ACE system.This option involves <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> performance standards for teachers and principals. Suchstandards would be shared by <strong>the</strong> overhauled community participation structure, which would use <strong>the</strong>mfor evaluations. There would be periodic reviews. MINED would clarify its labor relationship withteachers and would absorb <strong>the</strong> hiring and payment <strong>of</strong> teachers (except if it were decided to permit <strong>the</strong>option <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community directly employing some teachers, as currently occurs in some cases), unify itsrelationship to community participation, and would make its internal structure much more effective andefficient. The advantages and disadvantages <strong>of</strong> this option are as follows:40


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Access toeducationAdvantagesSimilar to Options A, B, and C, access to education in ruraland poor areas would be maintained. This model might even<strong>of</strong>fer an alternative for middle and high schools. As it affectsall schools, it could improve access at all levels. This optionwill have <strong>the</strong> greatest impact on <strong>the</strong> access goal in <strong>the</strong> SocialEducation Plan.DisadvantagesQualityAdministrativeandinstitutionalmanagementHumanresourcesmanagementThe combination <strong>of</strong> accountability exercised by parents,pr<strong>of</strong>essional management by <strong>the</strong> principal, and betterpr<strong>of</strong>essional teacher performance would have a significantimpact on <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> education and student learning. Thesestructural elements alone are not sufficient to produce a greatimprovement in school quality. However, in combination with<strong>the</strong> SINEA evaluation system, <strong>the</strong> curriculum and textbooks,planning <strong>of</strong> school improvement (PEA/PEI), and bettertechnical supervision could substantially improve studentlearning and attain <strong>the</strong> goals set out in <strong>the</strong> Social EducationPlan.This option unifies <strong>the</strong> system and <strong>the</strong> relationship <strong>of</strong> citizensto <strong>the</strong> education system. It creates a single administrativesystem for all schools with <strong>the</strong> best <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs, CDEs, ando<strong>the</strong>rs. Greater leadership by principals. School governmentwould improve for all ACE and CDE schools. This wouldprovide a degree <strong>of</strong> accountability and responsibility in allregular schools that has not existed before and a degree <strong>of</strong>stability and predictability that has not existed before in ACEschools. In general, each community could hold schools,school principals, and teachers accountable for <strong>the</strong> results <strong>the</strong>yachieve or fail to achieve. Clear standards and roles. Clearperformance standards, which can be periodically reviewed.Community participating in governance, in demanding results,and in providing a climate conducive to an effective school.Goals in <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan that seek to streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community and <strong>the</strong> principal can be met.It helps teachers advance because it values good performance,and <strong>the</strong>reby contributes to achieving <strong>the</strong> goals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SocialEducation Plan. Teacher choice: to join <strong>the</strong> Wage Lawsystem or continue with 3-5 years contracts, which would berenewed, providing <strong>the</strong> option <strong>of</strong> keeping severance payments.The element <strong>of</strong> choice in this option has practical as well asethical advantages. It does not force teachers into particularsituations, but enables better teachers to opt for highersalaries under <strong>the</strong> expectation that <strong>the</strong>y will meet or exceedexpectations.Clear performance standards for teachers can improve <strong>the</strong>school environment.Costly for MINED becauseit requires staff positionsfor principals, trainingfor principals, and greaterMINED support for schools.Costs for MINED becauseit includes a modern, up-todateresource managementsystem that will allowteachers to choose fromdifferent alternatives, whichwill be applied equitably toall teachers independent <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> system <strong>the</strong>y choose.41


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> Option DThis option would constitute an enormous change in policy and in <strong>the</strong> system and would have to beimplemented carefully over an extended period <strong>of</strong> time. Implementation <strong>of</strong> this option would requirean enormous administrative, financial, organizational, and legal commitment, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> politicalwill <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stakeholders in <strong>the</strong> education system.Just <strong>the</strong> hiring and training <strong>of</strong> a sufficient number <strong>of</strong> school principals is an ambitious initiative thatwould require financial as well as managerial support. The policy change and <strong>the</strong> transition processwould be confusing for <strong>the</strong> ACEs and <strong>the</strong> CDEs, parents, students, school teachers and principals, and<strong>the</strong> communities and public opinion in general. To reduce problems <strong>the</strong>re would need to be a substantialinvestment in a consultation, public relations, and communications plan. It would also be necessaryto carry out a large-scale support and orientation program for supervisors, school principals, teachers,students, and parents, so that <strong>the</strong>y would understand <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> change and be proactivestakeholders. Inviting o<strong>the</strong>r actors, such as universities, <strong>the</strong> private sector, mayors and governors, <strong>the</strong>press, and <strong>the</strong> international community, among o<strong>the</strong>rs, can bring forces toge<strong>the</strong>r and build significantconsensus around unifying <strong>the</strong> education system.To achieve <strong>the</strong> unification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> education system it is fundamental to work toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> teacherunions, so that <strong>the</strong>y will be builders <strong>of</strong> this change, which will ensure streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> teachers and<strong>the</strong>ir pedagogic role and <strong>the</strong>ir incentives, for <strong>the</strong> clear purpose <strong>of</strong> improving learning. Administratively,MINED would have to look at each teacher individually to determine <strong>the</strong>ir status for including <strong>the</strong>min <strong>the</strong> new system. In this option, it would be necessary to invest in a strong social auditing system.Likewise, it would be necessary to invest in a transparent, efficient grievance and complaints system thatenables citizens, parents, teachers, principals, and students to feel that <strong>the</strong>ir grievances and complaintsare being addressed by MINED entities following clear procedures with time limits on <strong>the</strong> response.The system would require reviewing, in <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> clear standards, teacher performance and <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession Boards and Court, so that <strong>the</strong>se entities are effective. This option requires anin-depth review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legal framework: overturning <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> executive decree, amending <strong>the</strong> TeachingPr<strong>of</strong>ession Law, reviewing <strong>the</strong> applicability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulations for basic education and for <strong>the</strong> conformation<strong>of</strong> teachers’ councils, and o<strong>the</strong>r MINED standards and regulations, to ensure a clear road inMINED guidelines. This transformation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educational administrative system would require at leastfive years <strong>of</strong> transition and support.Option E. Eliminate <strong>EDUCO</strong>This option would eliminate <strong>the</strong> ACEs, taking away <strong>the</strong>ir legal status, and turn all ACEs into CDEs.The labor relationship would no longer be between ACEs and teachers, but ra<strong>the</strong>r between MINEDand teachers. To some extent, this option, toge<strong>the</strong>r with Option A, would have <strong>the</strong> least impact on <strong>the</strong>country’s education system. It would sacrifice <strong>the</strong> accountability <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> without adding anything <strong>of</strong>42


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010substance regarding quality; although it would create greater job stability, in exchange, however, for notdemanding anything more than <strong>the</strong> CDEs currently demand. It would not affect <strong>the</strong> schools currentlymanaged under <strong>the</strong> CDE model. The advantages and disadvantages <strong>of</strong> this option are as follows:AdvantagesDisadvantagesAccess toeducationIt is possible that once this approach is eliminated, poor,rural schools will be at a disadvantage for obtainingaccess to resources, help in creating a new school, orpriority for obtaining teachers. It would eliminate <strong>the</strong>expeditious system <strong>the</strong> ACEs have to create teacherpositions and to create sections. It would affect <strong>the</strong> goals<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan.QualityAdministrativeand institutionalmanagementHuman resourcesmanagementMoving all <strong>the</strong> schools into <strong>the</strong>CDE system would reduce <strong>the</strong>administrative burden <strong>of</strong> MINEDon <strong>the</strong> processing agents, but<strong>the</strong> bureaucratic burden wouldremain high.It would reduce <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong>wages <strong>of</strong> 8,000 teachers because<strong>the</strong>y would stop receiving moneyfrom severance payments, but<strong>the</strong>y would feel more stable.This option would probably substantially decrease<strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> education in <strong>the</strong> ex-<strong>EDUCO</strong> schools. Itwould widen <strong>the</strong> gap <strong>of</strong> inequity and would decrease <strong>the</strong>probability <strong>of</strong> meeting <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan’s goals.This set <strong>of</strong> changes would eliminate <strong>the</strong> accountabilitystructure that exists in <strong>EDUCO</strong> without replacing itwith any functional alternative. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country’sschools would have weak systems for accountabilityand responsibility to parents and communities, with <strong>the</strong>consequence that <strong>the</strong> tensions prevailing in <strong>the</strong> CDEswould now prevail in all schools. This would be a bigchange for <strong>the</strong> schools run by <strong>the</strong> ACEs. The ACEswould lose much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir power and <strong>the</strong> volunteer parentswould be left idle. It could affect <strong>the</strong> school environmentand have a negative impact on achieving <strong>the</strong> goals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Social Education Plan.Implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> Option EEliminating <strong>EDUCO</strong> would require a substantial investment in time and resources by MINED to manage<strong>the</strong> change and its institutional and political costs. To prevent significant upheaval in <strong>the</strong> schoolsystem, a highly organized transition process would be needed. Implementing this option would involvea significant administrative process that could cope with <strong>the</strong> individual transfers <strong>of</strong> each one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approximately8,000 teachers who would switch from one-year contracts to a different system. This would43


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010also require a substantial administrative effort, to change <strong>the</strong> by-laws <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs in each municipality,set up <strong>the</strong> CDE structure in each <strong>of</strong> more than 2,000 schools, and train principals and communities innew procedures and roles.The change in policy and transition process would be confusing for <strong>the</strong> ACEs and <strong>the</strong> teachers affected,as well as for <strong>the</strong> students and parents and public opinion in general. To reduce problems would requirea substantial investment in a public relations and communications plan. It would also require a largescaletraining and orientation program for supervisors, school principals, and ACEs to inform <strong>the</strong>m <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> change.Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> OptionsThe following table (Table 6) summarizes <strong>the</strong> different options presented here:Table 6. Summary <strong>of</strong> optionsOptionOption A.Continue<strong>EDUCO</strong> asit currentlyesistsTable 6. Summary <strong>of</strong> optionsParallel SystemsOption B.<strong>EDUCO</strong> withchanges inteacher hiringImpact and contribution for improving educationAccess in ruraland poor schoolsStudent learningTeacher attendanceGrade repetitionRetention000000----00Impact and contribution for improving educationOption C.<strong>EDUCO</strong> withchanges in ACEs,stressing governance0++++Option D.The best <strong>of</strong> both+++++++++Unified SystemsOption E.Eliminate <strong>EDUCO</strong>--------Quality, learning,equity, efficiencyNo change inei<strong>the</strong>r ACEsor CDEs.Lessaccountability inACEs; possiblylower parentmotivation; nochange in CDEs.Better administrationand focus ongovernance in ACEs;no impact on CDEs.Significant impacton ACEs andCDEs to improveadministration,clear rules, flexiblemanagement.Less accountabilityin ACEs and lowerlearning potential;loss <strong>of</strong> motivation <strong>of</strong>parents in ACEs; moreteacher absences. Noimpact on CDE rules.44


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Administration and managementFinancial impactSchoolsTeachersMINEDAdministrativeburdenMINEDSchoolsAccountabilityOverall impact onteacherscommunity000000000--+++++---Unknown--Net impact on efficiency <strong>of</strong> administration and managementFinancial impact,accountability,administrativeburdenNo change inei<strong>the</strong>r ACEsor CDEs.Savings forMINED fromlower teachersalaries andmore efficientadministration.Loweraccountability.Unclear impact onteachers—lowersalary, moresecurity. Noimpact on CDEs.Cost implications and complexity <strong>of</strong> implementationTimelineCostLegalBureaucraticCommunication000001 year-------Net implications <strong>of</strong> implementing optionEasiestand leastexpensive.Source: Prepared by authorsMedium costand complexity.40% <strong>of</strong> ruralteachers must betransferred andpositions created.Regulations mustbe changed in2,200 ACEs andpeople trained onchanges. Intensivecommunicationsprogram.-0++++0+Better schooladministration andbetter division <strong>of</strong>responsibilities. Fewertransfers to ACEs. Noimpact on CDEs.2-3 years--------Medium costand complexity.Regulations mustbe changed in 2,200ACEs and train <strong>the</strong>min new role. Intensivecommunicationsprogram.Depends on policiesDepends on policies---+++++++++Financial impacton schools dependson policies. Betteraccountability,role clarity, andefficiency for allACEs and CDEs.5 years------------Greater costand complexity.Amend GeneralEducation Lawand TeachingPr<strong>of</strong>ession Law.Effect on ACE/CDE regulationsin each school andstatus <strong>of</strong> all ACEand new teachers.----+++++--Unknown--Savings for MINEDfrom lower teachersalaries and fewertransfers to ACEs.More efficient as asingle system. Loweraccountability. Parentslose motivation. Noimpact on CDEs.1 year--------Medium cost andcomplexity to changeteachers and ACEs,but only for <strong>EDUCO</strong>schools.+++ Positive impact (maximum +++, medium ++, minimal +). Maximum implies great impact on all schools (ACE and CDE). Medium and minimal meansimpact on one model or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, or moderate impact.--- Negative impact (maximum - - - , medium - -, minimal -).0 Neutral impacts. Does not change or improve current situation.45


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Several comments must be made about Table 6:The column for Option A has “0” in all rows because it is being judged relative to <strong>the</strong> current situation.A rapid analysis and count <strong>of</strong> “+” versus “-” symbols can lead to <strong>the</strong> conclusion that <strong>the</strong> research teamhas a strong, implicit preference for Option D. Concluding this would be inappropriate for two reasons.First, recommending preferred options was not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this review—<strong>the</strong> decision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>route to take is an issue that Salvadorans need to resolve. (It is, however, important to mention that <strong>the</strong>impression <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research team is that <strong>the</strong> stakeholders interviewed and <strong>the</strong> focus groups used to probeopinion are coming to <strong>the</strong> conclusion that Option D is <strong>the</strong> one that has <strong>the</strong> fewest problems, and <strong>the</strong> onethat shows a way toward <strong>the</strong> future, despite its high design and implementation costs. This is somethingthat <strong>the</strong> research team perceived between <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> first draft <strong>of</strong> this paper was submitted and thisversion.) Second, <strong>the</strong> symbols cannot be added up without weighting <strong>the</strong> scores in <strong>the</strong> rows and eachstakeholder will have a different weight for <strong>the</strong> rows. Briefly, <strong>the</strong> table shows that this option, althoughit has good benefits, also has relatively high costs (although <strong>the</strong> net benefit is positive). However,precisely because <strong>the</strong> option has so many “+” and “-”, this is an intellectually appealing option, and itshould stimulate careful examination and dialogue. (Which it has done, as can be demonstrated between<strong>the</strong> submission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first draft <strong>of</strong> this paper and this version.)ConclusionBased on <strong>the</strong> general questions posed for this review, <strong>the</strong> research team presents some answers:Is <strong>EDUCO</strong>, as it has been designed and is currently being implemented, an effective means for ElSalvador to attain its educational goals for 2014 and beyond?The response apparently is that it is not, but nei<strong>the</strong>r is <strong>the</strong> CDE system. Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> ACE nor CDE systemsare sufficient for attaining <strong>the</strong> expected goals. There are problems <strong>of</strong> governance and managementacross <strong>the</strong> sector, and especially in rural and low income areas. A bifurcated system has inefficienciesand is bureaucratically burdensome and does not create a sense <strong>of</strong> a “shared destiny” as a nation. However,<strong>EDUCO</strong> represents three historical achievements that many countries seek:• A culture <strong>of</strong> community participation as a social norm.• Accountability to parents.• Educational opportunities for <strong>the</strong> poorest in <strong>the</strong> population.It is extremely important that no solution squander <strong>the</strong>se achievements, or fail to appreciate <strong>the</strong> enormoussocial capital that has been invested to produce <strong>the</strong>se achievements.46


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010What changes would be necessary for El Salvador to be in a position to meet its educational goals,especially for <strong>the</strong> neediest groups?The changes necessary are included in <strong>the</strong> array <strong>of</strong> options that have been presented in this paper. Insummary, it would be necessary to:• Eliminate parallel systems and implement changes in all schools to make <strong>the</strong> system effectiveand to create a greater sense <strong>of</strong> shared destiny among citizens.• Improve <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional leadership <strong>of</strong> school principals.• Change <strong>the</strong> employment conditions for teachers and unify <strong>the</strong> payment system.• Establish a transparent, effective performance evaluation system for teachers, principals, andsupervisors.• Establish a transparent and effective system for mutual accountability among all stakeholders:teachers, principals, parents, and <strong>of</strong>ficials.• Ensure that <strong>the</strong> model clearly distinguishes between governance and management, and that <strong>the</strong>latter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se be pr<strong>of</strong>essionalized.As has been proposed in this paper, <strong>the</strong>re are a variety <strong>of</strong> options to be considered. The research teamonly focused on some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, in particular those that truly have an overall impact on improving education.On a final note, policy changes are times <strong>of</strong> great opportunity and, at <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>of</strong> great uncertainty.Policy changes can be developed using knowledge and lessons from <strong>the</strong> past to improve <strong>the</strong> future. At<strong>the</strong> same time, policy changes can be detrimental to stakeholders directly involved in <strong>the</strong> system. Effectivepolicy changes attempt to extract clear lessons from <strong>the</strong> past, to continue what is good, and changewhat should reasonably be changed. With any policy change, it is not enough to have <strong>the</strong> “ideal” policy;its effective, consistent implementation is also necessary.The changes in <strong>EDUCO</strong> would directly affect over 55% <strong>of</strong> rural schools in El Salvador. They wouldaffect <strong>the</strong> lives <strong>of</strong> over 8,000 teachers, 300,000 students, 2,200 ACEs, and <strong>the</strong>ir communities. The socialinvestment in <strong>EDUCO</strong> is significant; citizens have donated over two million hours <strong>of</strong> volunteer laboreach year in all parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country to improve <strong>the</strong>ir schools and lives. This social capital is a valuablegood and should be respected.Any policy and experience brings with it <strong>the</strong> opportunity to learn, grow, and improve. This was <strong>the</strong>main factor that encouraged <strong>the</strong> research team that conducted this review. (Our intention has been tocontribute to <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> continuous improvement in El Salvador. We hope that it is useful for that.)47


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Proposal for <strong>the</strong> Implementation <strong>of</strong> a Unified System to Improve <strong>the</strong>Quality <strong>of</strong> EducationRationaleThe following proposal is <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> a request made by Vice Minister <strong>of</strong> Education Eduardo BadíaSerra to USAID and <strong>the</strong> research team on July 7th, 2010 asking that in addition to presenting <strong>the</strong> optionsresulting from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re also be some recommendations about <strong>the</strong> processes and costs<strong>of</strong> implementing <strong>the</strong>se options.The research team, based on its conversations with <strong>the</strong> Salvadoran public, in <strong>the</strong> interviews, in <strong>the</strong> focusgroups with teachers, principals, parents, and students, with educators, specialists, <strong>the</strong> Advisory andConsultative Groups, <strong>the</strong> National Council on Education, and <strong>the</strong> press, got a good sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> thoughts<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Salvadoran people, who appear to be interested in a change in course for education in <strong>the</strong> country.This opinion makes one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> options stand out as <strong>the</strong> most viable. Option D <strong>of</strong>fers <strong>the</strong> greatest possibilitiesfor setting a new course for Salvadoran schools. None <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> options is free <strong>of</strong> problems, butOption D appears to be <strong>the</strong> least conflictive and, at <strong>the</strong> same time, has <strong>the</strong> greatest potential for making anew, historic shift in <strong>the</strong> country to ensure <strong>the</strong> improvement in <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> learning for all Salvadoranchildren. However, this option also has <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> having <strong>the</strong> most complex “route to implementation.”Due to this, <strong>the</strong> research team, without <strong>the</strong> Ministry having made a final decision, has identified this OptionD as <strong>the</strong> “working hypo<strong>the</strong>sis,” and explored <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> its implementation.It is <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research team to stress very clearly that <strong>the</strong> purpose underlying this pr<strong>of</strong>oundchange in <strong>the</strong> education system should be <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> learning. Education is centered in<strong>the</strong> classroom, because that is where learning occurs and where educated societies are created. It is herewhere children develop <strong>the</strong>ir foundations for having a healthier life and where <strong>the</strong>y have <strong>the</strong> opportunityto develop <strong>the</strong>ir creative and critical skills for making knowledge-based decisions. However, an educatedsociety does not only mean <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> knowledge acquired by its citizens, but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> possibilityfor applying that knowledge to improving <strong>the</strong>ir quality <strong>of</strong> life and to ensure opportunities for all. Itis <strong>the</strong> conviction <strong>of</strong> society in <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> an equitable, high quality education that begins in <strong>the</strong>classroom.Definition <strong>of</strong> Option D. Create a convergent system with accountability, stability,and flexibility based on <strong>the</strong> advantages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs and CDEs, for all <strong>the</strong> country’sschoolsThis option takes <strong>the</strong> best <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACE and CDE models to unify <strong>the</strong> education system with <strong>the</strong> purpose<strong>of</strong> improving <strong>the</strong> learning <strong>of</strong> all students in public schools in El Salvador. It would create a structure48


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010that unifies and is implemented in all schools, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are currently ACE or CDE schools or haveano<strong>the</strong>r type <strong>of</strong> school organization. This option would have three primary areas <strong>of</strong> intervention: schoolmanagement, school governance, and human resources management.The primary changes in <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong> schools are managed would be seen in <strong>the</strong> day-to-day managementunder <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> a pr<strong>of</strong>essional principal and in <strong>the</strong> school’s governance, in a structured manner,held by parents organized in a school governing board. This means that schools would maintain<strong>the</strong>ir autonomy, but now with a more organized structure, with a clear role for management by <strong>the</strong> principaland governance by <strong>the</strong> educational community and an accountability system that works.The pr<strong>of</strong>essional principal is <strong>the</strong> person in charge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> daily management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school. The principal’sroles are to ensure <strong>the</strong> students learn, that MINED guidelines are observed, that <strong>the</strong> school’s staffis well trained, and that <strong>the</strong>y do a high-quality job. The principal should create a culture <strong>of</strong> equality and<strong>of</strong> high expectations for all students; implement <strong>the</strong> school’s vision; exercise pedagogical leadership andguidance; be accountable to <strong>the</strong> governing body or board <strong>of</strong> governance; evaluate, along with o<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>the</strong>school’s performance, to identify priorities for continuous improvement; develop policies and practices;ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively to reach <strong>the</strong> school’s objectives; and resolvemanagement issues as <strong>the</strong>y arise, such as <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> financial resources, budget implementation,inventory and control over school equipment, furnishings and facilities, and facilities maintenance.School governance corresponds to a governing body or a governance board in which a group <strong>of</strong> parentswho represent all <strong>the</strong> parents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school meet monthly or quarterly to make certain that <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> school ensures <strong>the</strong> promotion <strong>of</strong> high standards <strong>of</strong> educational achievement and that <strong>the</strong> school is responsiblein meeting its goals. Along <strong>the</strong>se lines, <strong>the</strong> governance board has <strong>the</strong> responsibility for establishing<strong>the</strong> school’s strategic lines, vision, mission, and code <strong>of</strong> conduct; adopting <strong>the</strong> budget based on<strong>the</strong> school’s plans; and reviewing <strong>the</strong> school’s final expenditure audit. This governing body is <strong>the</strong> bodyin charge <strong>of</strong> asking <strong>the</strong> school principal for an accounting and would have a role in teacher performancereviews or evaluations. The school governance board is <strong>the</strong> representative <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> parents and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>educational community. Therefore, it should also be accountable to <strong>the</strong>m.In addition to representation on this governance board—which consults with <strong>the</strong> educational community—parentswill continue to participate on committees, teams, and in o<strong>the</strong>r activities in support <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>school; e.g., aiding in food preparation, taking care <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school’s facilities, and helping <strong>the</strong>ir childrenwith homework and o<strong>the</strong>r learning activities.In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> human resources management, this option presents <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering two orthree types <strong>of</strong> contracting—something that would have to be decided upon at <strong>the</strong> design stage. One type<strong>of</strong> contract is that teachers would have total job stability and be MINED employees (but evaluated morerigorously, with community participation and <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> more expeditious dismissals than at present).In ano<strong>the</strong>r type <strong>of</strong> contract, teachers would have three or five year renewable contracts; this means49


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010that <strong>the</strong> contracts would ensure <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> receiving accumulated severance payments every threeor five years, a year-end bonus, and access to loans. New teachers would be hired for five years as atrial period, which would involve renewable one-year contracts that would include annual severancepayments and year-end bonuses. At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> five years, appropriate performance reviews wouldbe done and <strong>the</strong> contract would be renewed. In this case, teachers would have <strong>the</strong> option <strong>of</strong> attaininggreater job stability, but without severance payments, or remaining on a system <strong>of</strong> 3-5 year contractswith severance payments. In any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se scenarios, teachers would be paid through MINED.Ano<strong>the</strong>r type <strong>of</strong> contracting, for some teachers who might prefer it, or if <strong>the</strong>re are no o<strong>the</strong>r optionsbecause <strong>of</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> positions, would involve <strong>the</strong> teacher being an employee <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community, which isalready <strong>the</strong> case in some CDE middle schools. In contrast to <strong>the</strong> ACEs, however, entering into this type<strong>of</strong> contract would occur by mutual expediency, and would not be an essential part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new governancesystem, as it is with <strong>the</strong> ACEs.A fundamental point in <strong>the</strong> option proposal is <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> performance standards for teachersand principals. These performance standards would be shared by <strong>the</strong> overhauled community participationstructure, which would use <strong>the</strong>m for evaluations. There would be periodic reviews. MINED wouldclarify its labor relationship with teachers and would absorb <strong>the</strong> hiring and payment <strong>of</strong> teachers (exceptif it were decided to permit <strong>the</strong> option <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community directly employing some teachers, as currentlyoccurs in some cases), unify its relationship to community participation, and would make its internalstructure much more effective and efficient.General Considerations on Option DStreng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> education system by unifying its school administration entities is a large-scale proposition.It would signify an enormous change in policy and in <strong>the</strong> system, which would require beingimplemented carefully over an extended period <strong>of</strong> time. The implementation <strong>of</strong> this option assumes anenormous administrative, financial, organizational, and legal commitment, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> politicalwill <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stakeholders in <strong>the</strong> education system.The policy change and transition process could be confusing for all schools, independent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir currenttype <strong>of</strong> school organization. Parents, principals, teachers, and students, toge<strong>the</strong>r with public opinion ingeneral, would be looking for and expecting specific information about what <strong>the</strong> unification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> systemmeans for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, based on <strong>the</strong>ir roles. For <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> reducing problems, a substantialinvestment would be needed in a plan for consultations, public relations, and communications.This change in system would affect over 4,000 public schools, <strong>the</strong>ir teachers, students, families, principals,citizens in general, and MINED itself. Because <strong>of</strong> its magnitude, and because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> importance<strong>of</strong> education to <strong>the</strong> country, and as a democratic and transparent practice, it is necessary to consult thoseinvolved in <strong>the</strong> changes. When <strong>the</strong>re is certainty that what has been consulted on has <strong>the</strong> support <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>citizens, because it was done in a representative way with <strong>the</strong> citizenry itself, and if this is spelled out in50


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010<strong>the</strong> prioritization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> plans, it is more difficult to renege on agreements. There have been significantexperiences where consultations to inform, <strong>of</strong>fer opinions, and <strong>the</strong>n prioritize have served to consolidateinitiatives to monitor <strong>the</strong> commitments made, including, <strong>the</strong>refore, citizen oversight <strong>of</strong> accountability.Inviting o<strong>the</strong>r actors, such as universities, <strong>the</strong> private sector, mayors and governors, <strong>the</strong> press, <strong>the</strong> internationalcommunity, among o<strong>the</strong>rs, can bring forces toge<strong>the</strong>r and build significant consensus aroundunifying <strong>the</strong> education system.To achieve <strong>the</strong> unification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> education system to improve learning <strong>of</strong> all students, ensuring a culture<strong>of</strong> equity, it is fundamental to work toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> teacher unions, so that <strong>the</strong>y will be builders <strong>of</strong> thischange, which will ensure streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> teachers and <strong>the</strong>ir pedagogic role and <strong>the</strong>ir incentives, for<strong>the</strong> clear purpose <strong>of</strong> improving learning. Administratively, MINED would have to look at each teacherindividually to determine <strong>the</strong>ir status for including <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong> new system.Unification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system provides a valuable opportunity for MINED to reorganize its structure, makeit more streamlined and less bureaucratic, and able to quickly respond to <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> students and<strong>the</strong>ir schools, and to concretely implement <strong>the</strong> new way <strong>of</strong> working contained in <strong>the</strong> ‘Vamos a la Escuela’(Let’s go to School) Social Education Plan. MINED can invest in a strong social auditing system,accompanied by a transparent, efficient grievance and complaints system, which would enablecitizens, parents, teachers, principals, and students to feel that <strong>the</strong>ir grievances and complaints are beingaddressed by MINED entities, following clear procedures, with time limits on responses. The systemwould require reviewing, in <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> clear teacher performance standards, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TeachingPr<strong>of</strong>ession Boards and Court, so that <strong>the</strong>se bodies can be effective.It would also be necessary to develop a large-scale support and orientation program for advisers, schoolprincipals, teachers, students, and parents, so that <strong>the</strong>y can understand <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> change,be proactive stakeholders, and internalize it. When speaking here <strong>of</strong> training, <strong>the</strong> concept is inadequatefor what really should happen. MINED’s goal would be for its teams to support <strong>the</strong> schools effectivelyand efficiently, not only on pedagogical issues, but more importantly, in <strong>the</strong> transition and during <strong>the</strong> firstyears, on issues <strong>of</strong> management and governance. MINED teams at <strong>the</strong> departmental level and <strong>the</strong> advisorsare <strong>the</strong> ones who “will take <strong>the</strong> message and put it into daily practice” with <strong>the</strong> schools.Finally, this option requires an in-depth review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legal framework: overturn <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> ExecutiveDecree, amend <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession Law, review <strong>the</strong> applicability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regulations for basic educationand for <strong>the</strong> conformation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> council <strong>of</strong> teachers, and o<strong>the</strong>r MINED standards and regulations, toensure a clear route for MINED guidelines.It is worthwhile underscoring that implementing <strong>the</strong> foreseen changes can be costly, and <strong>the</strong>refore resourcesbeyond MINED’s capacity are needed. Due to this, it is possible that <strong>the</strong>re would be potentialpartners interested in supporting this type <strong>of</strong> change with technical assistance and even with financing;this could be attractive to some cooperation agencies and <strong>the</strong> private sector and society in general.51


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010MINED will need to approach <strong>the</strong>se partners to obtain financing and technical assistance. MINED has avaluable opportunity to invite donors and private enterprise to join in this effort.Steps for ImplementationThe most important thing about <strong>the</strong> steps for implementation is to be realistic about: a) <strong>the</strong> speed <strong>of</strong>change; b) properly sequencing <strong>the</strong> changes, knowing that some are immediate, and o<strong>the</strong>rs gradual; c)deciding who should be involved and lead each aspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> change; d) <strong>the</strong> internal management orcoordination <strong>of</strong> all aspects <strong>of</strong> such a relatively complex change; and e) achieving a unified message thatthis change is being made to improve <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> learning. Precisely because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se considerations,<strong>the</strong> research team has developed a matrix for implementation. It explains and justifies, first, <strong>the</strong> concept<strong>of</strong> each step in <strong>the</strong> implementation. Second, it proposes who should be responsible and a timeframe forimplementation. Third, it explains budgeting issues to keep in mind regarding <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> each step andoutlines how to calculate <strong>the</strong>m, emphasizing that here we are only referring to <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changeitself.The matrix has three main phases: a) <strong>the</strong> macro design; b) preparation for implementation; and c)implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposal in schools. These phases are accompanied by a general cost analysis.It should be noted that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposals are actions that can be taken (and in many cases will bedone) in a general manner. Likewise, this exercise has limits on <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> detail to which <strong>the</strong> researchteam can go and that only those who make <strong>the</strong> decisions in MINED will address this level <strong>of</strong> detail in<strong>the</strong> design phase.Macro design phaseThis is <strong>the</strong> most important and most sensitive phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire process. In this design phase, it is fundamentalto ensure that implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposal takes into account all steps efficiently and doesnot leave out important aspects <strong>of</strong> implementation. This macro design phase is when <strong>the</strong> changes shouldbe properly sequenced.The macro design phase includes <strong>the</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task force inside MINED that will develop <strong>the</strong>work plan for <strong>the</strong> preparatory phase <strong>of</strong> implementation in <strong>the</strong> schools. Responsibility falls on this groupfor defining <strong>the</strong> actions related to <strong>the</strong> budget, and <strong>the</strong> strategies for external consultation, communication,<strong>the</strong> legal framework, and monitoring and evaluation.During this design phase, MINED and <strong>the</strong> stakeholders will made decisions about <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>changes that will be implemented in <strong>the</strong> system. The design phase for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main decisions willinvolve a substantial process <strong>of</strong> consultations with teachers, parents, educators, and o<strong>the</strong>r stakeholdersthroughout society. MINED will form a working team to lead each process—human resources,school management, and governance in <strong>the</strong> new unified structure. This is where <strong>the</strong> composition, choice52


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010mechanism, term <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school governance entity and its functions and responsibilities, etc. will be determined.Here is where it will be decided what <strong>the</strong> relationship will be between <strong>the</strong> school governanceboard and <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parents, whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>y belong to an assembly. The relationship between<strong>the</strong> board and <strong>the</strong> school principal will also be decided. Supervision and accountability processes willbe determined. Here also, a review will be done <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> specific responsibilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principal and <strong>the</strong>mechanisms for accountability, choice, length <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principal’s term, choice mechanisms, and <strong>the</strong> roles<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Boards and <strong>the</strong> Court. The regulatory and legal framework will be clarified.On <strong>the</strong> topic <strong>of</strong> human resources management, <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teacher performance standards and<strong>the</strong>ir application, <strong>the</strong> teachers’ contractual relationship, and <strong>the</strong> coverage <strong>of</strong> principal positions for all <strong>the</strong>schools will be determined in this phase. The Social Education Plan puts forward <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> aculture <strong>of</strong> teacher performance evaluation (with emphasis on classroom practice and students’ academicoutcomes), within <strong>the</strong> strategic line <strong>of</strong> teacher advancement. This is a huge step toward ensuring thatteachers have high expectations about what is expected <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir enormous contribution to<strong>the</strong> future <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country. It is a task <strong>of</strong> transparency to ensure that <strong>the</strong> teachers’ role is clear to society,to parents, and to students, and that it motivates recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> teachers, which producesmore incentives and enables <strong>the</strong> system to attract <strong>the</strong> best teachers. However, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, teacherperformance standards will push MINED and <strong>the</strong> universities to <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>the</strong> best system for developingteacher skills and making <strong>the</strong>m effective instructors. By establishing standards, it will be possible to developa teacher performance monitoring system that is linked to student achievement monitoring, and to<strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> incentives (not only monetary ones) for attaining quality and equity in learning. Onthis point, it will also be decided what employment options teachers will have, in a way that enables asubstantial degree <strong>of</strong> accountability to <strong>the</strong> community. Finally, it will be decided what support structureswill be necessary to support schools and teachers.Once <strong>the</strong> MINED authorities and <strong>the</strong> internal task force in charge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> design make decisions about<strong>the</strong> technical issues, <strong>the</strong> consultation and communications strategy, and monitoring and evaluation, thisphase will conclude with a general work plan and an estimated budget as a final output.Preparatory phaseDuring this preparatory phase, <strong>the</strong> elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposal that were already decided upon during <strong>the</strong>design phase, which will be implemented in <strong>the</strong> third phase, will be developed. In this preparation, <strong>the</strong>following will be defined:• The legal framework necessary for establishing <strong>the</strong> new school organizational structure, and <strong>the</strong>definition, updating, or amendment <strong>of</strong> procedures and roles in <strong>the</strong> schools.• The instruments and documents that are needed for implementing <strong>the</strong> unification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>education system in <strong>the</strong> schools.• The training manuals and plans for principals, parents, advisors, and departmental teams.53


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010•••The consultation plan and its phases.The communications plan.The monitoring plan and those responsible for it.A plan to monitor and follow up on implementation will be established and a timeline with phases forimplementation by department will be determined, with defined time periods. This phase would permit<strong>the</strong> validation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposals with different stakeholders who are involved. For example, trainingmanuals could be validated with a group <strong>of</strong> school principals, or <strong>the</strong> consultation process with cooperationagencies.In this phase, MINED will have <strong>the</strong> real budget with <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> unification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> educationsystem for improving quality. Here, as a political aspect, it will be important for MINED to study<strong>the</strong> advisability <strong>of</strong> seeking partners to fund <strong>the</strong> plan from <strong>the</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Treasury, <strong>the</strong> internationalcooperation community, and <strong>the</strong> private sector.The final product <strong>of</strong> this phase will be <strong>the</strong> instruments and documents that support <strong>the</strong> legal framework,capacity building in MINED, <strong>the</strong> consultation and communications plan, <strong>the</strong> monitoring and followupplan, and <strong>the</strong> resources allowed and available (or at least identified and committed) for making <strong>the</strong>changes.Implementation phaseThis is <strong>the</strong> phase that presents <strong>the</strong> greatest difficulties for planning at this time, in part because <strong>the</strong>macro design is where all <strong>the</strong> decisions will be made that should be taken to <strong>the</strong> schools during implementation.The challenge <strong>of</strong> this phase is to be able to go into <strong>the</strong> schools in an orderly manner with<strong>the</strong> planned changes. Here is where <strong>the</strong> schools should feel that MINED is on <strong>the</strong>ir side and that all <strong>the</strong>elements are in place for <strong>the</strong> transition to be simple and free <strong>of</strong> major hurdles. This phase is where <strong>the</strong>short, medium, and long-term actions should move forward, staying on course. It will not be advisableto change <strong>the</strong> design during implementation. The biggest challenge in this transition is to ensure thatSalvadoran society is informed <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes that are going to take place. Communication should bestraightforward and fluid, but should have a close relationship with <strong>the</strong> public assistance <strong>of</strong>fice. MINEDneeds to prioritize its channels <strong>of</strong> communication—customer service, website, TV, radio, newspapers—to communicate with society and to immediately respond to complaints or suggestions from communities.Likewise, this is <strong>the</strong> phase that will take <strong>the</strong> most time because with <strong>the</strong> new management andgovernance structure, we will learn to work in a new way toge<strong>the</strong>r, requiring new ways <strong>of</strong> thinking andnew attitudes. These changes take time.The research team summarized <strong>the</strong> three phases in <strong>the</strong> process in <strong>the</strong> following table with <strong>the</strong> main stepsto be taken, some time estimates, and very macro costs.54


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Summary <strong>of</strong> phases with estimatesPHASES IN THE PROCESSMacro Design Preparation ImplementationOrganization <strong>of</strong> MINED teams Legal framework Legal structure <strong>of</strong> new school entityClarification <strong>of</strong> changes to Job positions andimplementbudgetTraining on regulationsSchool management andDocumentation,governanceprocedures, manualsTraining for principalsConsultation Communications Training on performance evaluationMonitoring and evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>CommunicationsEvaluationprocessWork plan TrainingEstimated budget Actual budget5 months 6 months 3 yearsCostsThe research team was very impressed with <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> numeric and procedural detail managed by <strong>the</strong>Ministry technical staff, and concludes that it is somewhat inefficient to try to calculate, with numericallyprecise detail, <strong>the</strong> time and costs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> this transition. The team has also discoveredthat some preliminary plans already exist, which are apparently quite detailed, in <strong>the</strong> NationalEducation Office. The research team proposes that this paper be considered by <strong>the</strong> Ministry and that aMinistry team develop an outline <strong>of</strong> a plan based on <strong>the</strong> recommendations presented herein. The teamwould be willing to review and comment on <strong>the</strong> resulting document.The main expenses for <strong>the</strong> transition will be during <strong>the</strong> implementation phase, which would be unlikelyto begin until next year. The nature and magnitude <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expenses would depend on <strong>the</strong> specific optionsdeveloped by MINED, in, for example, <strong>the</strong> employment options for teachers, appointment <strong>of</strong> principals,and most importantly, <strong>the</strong> orientation, training, and continual support for implementing <strong>the</strong> new system.Analytical breakdown <strong>of</strong> costsWith regard to costs, <strong>the</strong> most important thing to do is two kinds <strong>of</strong> analytical breakdowns. In <strong>the</strong> firstplace, it is necessary to separate out <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system, once <strong>the</strong> changes are in place, from <strong>the</strong> cost<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> moving towards <strong>the</strong> new system, meaning <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> implementing <strong>the</strong> change. It isvery possible that a unified system will have “ongoing” costs that are lower than at present. However,at <strong>the</strong> same time, it is inevitable that transition costs will exist that would not have been necessary if <strong>the</strong>decision to change <strong>the</strong> system had not been made. It should also be evident that <strong>the</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> costs<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system once <strong>the</strong> transition has occurred has little or nothing to do with <strong>the</strong> costs and process <strong>of</strong>55


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010<strong>the</strong> transition. These are totally separable, and <strong>the</strong> Ministry has already done a lot <strong>of</strong> work to attain anestimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> opportunity costs. In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> already changed system, almost all relevantcosts are accounting costs or expenses. Opportunity costs, in this case, refer primarily to <strong>the</strong> socialimpact—already explained in <strong>the</strong> section on options.In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> transition costs, <strong>the</strong>se are opportunity costs, although <strong>the</strong>re will also be accountingcosts. This means that <strong>the</strong> change is going to demand an enormous amount <strong>of</strong> work from many technicalmanagerial staff members and from lower level staff members that are already working in <strong>the</strong> Ministry,and whose accounting costs, <strong>the</strong>refore, will not increase. However, undoubtedly, <strong>the</strong>y are going tohave to stop doing, during <strong>the</strong> entire process <strong>of</strong> design and transition, things <strong>the</strong>y o<strong>the</strong>rwise would havebeen doing. Those o<strong>the</strong>r programs inevitably will have to be implemented more slowly or less intensively.Along <strong>the</strong>se lines, it is important that if <strong>the</strong> Ministry takes on this change, that it compile a list<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> time for all <strong>the</strong> staff members who would have to work on <strong>the</strong> change, and make decisions aboutwhat o<strong>the</strong>r functions to put <strong>of</strong>f or to carry out less intensively during <strong>the</strong> changeover period.To summarize, this can be thought <strong>of</strong> as a simple matrix. In <strong>the</strong> columns, we see <strong>the</strong> distinction betweenaccounting and opportunity costs, and in <strong>the</strong> rows we see <strong>the</strong> distinction between <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> systemin transition and those with <strong>the</strong> change already in place.Accounting CostsTypes <strong>of</strong> CostsOpportunity CostsCosts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> unifiedsystem, once <strong>the</strong>transition is completeApplicable. Relatively easy toestimate; it is very probable that<strong>the</strong>y would be less than <strong>the</strong> baselinecosts in <strong>the</strong> current system. (Butnot less than <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> currentsystem if this were to improve as itshould in any case.)Not applicable. It is better tothink <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se in terms <strong>of</strong> socialimpacts.Factors thatproduce <strong>the</strong>costsCosts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong>implementation itselfApplicable (costs <strong>of</strong> training by thirdparties, consultations, etc.).Applicable and high. This is <strong>the</strong>work <strong>of</strong> staff members, and <strong>the</strong>cost in terms <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r programsthat would possibly have tobe implemented more slowly.These opportunity costs could beeconomized on by using moreaccounting costs, by outsourcingsome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> costs to nonpermanentpersonnel employedtemporarily under contract orusing international cooperationresources.56


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Costs associated with <strong>the</strong> system as it currently is and costs associated with a unified systemIt should be clarified that <strong>the</strong> estimates, both <strong>of</strong> costs and <strong>of</strong> steps in implementation, should refer onlyto <strong>the</strong> costs associated with <strong>the</strong> current system versus <strong>the</strong> unified system. They should not be confusedwith o<strong>the</strong>r costs <strong>of</strong> improvements that ideally should be made to improve <strong>the</strong> system, even if <strong>the</strong>re is nostructural change. For example, it is evident that El Salvador should spend more on pr<strong>of</strong>essionalizingmanagement, and on training governance entities. It is also possible that some reengineering <strong>of</strong> systemswould be useful to reduce <strong>the</strong> bureaucracy <strong>the</strong> system currently contains. Thus, <strong>the</strong>re are many expendituresassociated with governance and management that could exist. However, all this would be advisable(or not) to do independently <strong>of</strong> any structural change or unification process. Plus, <strong>the</strong> list <strong>of</strong> thingsthat would be advisable to do is endless. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> exercise <strong>of</strong> estimating <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> unificationshould take into account only those “marginal” or “isolatable” costs strictly associated to unificationitself. O<strong>the</strong>rwise, no boundary can be set between <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> unification and <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> an endless list<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r possible improvements that <strong>the</strong> system should always do or try to do in any case.Once <strong>the</strong> transition has been made, o<strong>the</strong>r costs will arise for labor and <strong>the</strong> school budget. Althoughmany <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se costs have already been budgeted by MINED personnel, this was done under <strong>the</strong> supposition<strong>of</strong> a transition from ACE to CDE systems. It would be necessary to review <strong>the</strong> budget to adjust it to<strong>the</strong> new school governance board.The macro design phase will clarify many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aspects that are not clear at this time, such as teachercontracting options and <strong>the</strong>ir costs, among o<strong>the</strong>rs. Annex 4 contains a matrix that accompanies <strong>the</strong> body<strong>of</strong> this paper and that shows <strong>the</strong> details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation phases.57


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010ReferencesAdministración Local en el <strong>Program</strong>a Educo. El Salvador.Arancibia, J. Balance de la Situación Educativa.Arze, F. J., & Martínez-Vázquez, J. (2004). Descentralización en América Latina Desde una Perspectivade Países Pequeños: Bolivia, El Salvador, Ecuador y Nicaragua.Attias, E., & Basso, M. (1988). Nuestra Aritmética/Cuaderno de Aritmética.Ayala, R. (2005). Evaluación del <strong>Program</strong>a de Educación con Participación de la Comunidad. El Salvador.Basso, M. (2001). <strong>EDUCO</strong>: Correspondencia Varia. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia.Bernasconi, A., Navarro, J. C., Taylor, K., & Tyler, L. (2000). Perspectivas sobre la Reforma Educativa.USAID/BID/HIID.Briones, C. (2005). Diagnostica Censal de las Áreas Administrativas Financieras y Legal de las ACE(2005). El Salvador.Briones, C. (2007). <strong>EDUCO</strong> y Capital Social Comunitario: Una agenda nueva para el desarrollo local.FLACSO. El Salvador.Carrasco, A. (1998). Equidad de la Educación en El Salvador. FEPADE. El Salvador.Carrasco, A. (2000). Equidad de la Educación en El Salvador. CEPAL 70. El Salvador.Carrasco, A., & Flores, I. (1999). Autogestión Escolar: Aumento de la Cobertura Educacional en ZonasRurales Pobres. PREAL. Chile.Carrasco, A., & Flores, I. (2000). Equidad de la Educación y Oportunidades de Bienestar en El Salvador.FEPADE. El Salvador.Castañeda, M. (2006). El Salvador: Las escuelas rurales triplican su inscripción y <strong>of</strong>recen una educaciónde mejor calidad. El Salvador.Chambers-Ju, C. (2006). Después de la Autonomía: <strong>Program</strong>as para Mejorar la Gestión Escolar en ElSalvador, Colombia, Chile y Brasil. PREAL/GD y A. El Salvador.Classen-Bauer, I., Balmore, R., & Ritschel, J. Estudio sobre Ruralidad en Educación Básica. MINED. ElSalvador.Cruz, M.C. (2005). Evaluación de la Educación Popular en las Comunidades para el Desarrollo de Chalatenango.UCA. El Salvador.58


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Cuellar, H. (2003). Consideraciones Financieras sobre la educación en El Salvador. FUSADES. El Salvador.Cuéllar, H. La estrategia Educativa de El Salvador y sus Desafíos.Cuellar-Marchelli, H. (2008). La Estrategia Educativa de El Salvador y Sus Desafíos. FUSADES. ElSalvador.Di Gropello, E. (2005). Análisis Comparativo de la Gestión Centrada en la Escuela en América Central.Banco Mundial. El Salvador.Díaz, H. D. (1992). Evaluación del <strong>Program</strong>a <strong>EDUCO</strong>.Dillinger, W., Estrada, D., & Morales, P. (2001). Experiencias de Descentralización. Banco Mundial.Dirección Departamental de Educación, Cabañas. Pago a Cuenta <strong>EDUCO</strong>. PowerPoint.Educación para todos en El Salvador: Informe de avances y desafíos futuros (2005). Plan Nacional deEducación 2021. El Salvador.<strong>EDUCO</strong>: Teachers and Learners. (1997).El Salvador: Balance de la Situación Educativa (2006). Internacional de la Educación, Oficina Regionalpara América Latina. El Salvador.Guzmán, J., Meza, D., & De Varela, L. (2004). <strong>EDUCO</strong>: Un programa de educación administrado por lacomunidad en las zonas rurales de El Salvador. Banco Mundial. El Salvador.Guzmán, J., Meza, D., & De Varela, L. (2006). <strong>EDUCO</strong>: Escuelas Administradas por la Comunidad enlas Zonas Rurales de El Salvador (1991-2005). El Salvador.Heyman, C., Rodríguez, J., & Simpson, H. (2004). Usos y Necesidades de Información sobre Calidadpara la Gerencia Educativa en El Salvador. MINED/EQUIP1. El Salvador.Impuesto Sobre la Renta Asociaciones Comunales para la Educación (ACE).Informe de Talleres de Opinión: Directores.Informe de Talleres: Maestros opinando sobre educación El sector docente ante el Plan 2021.Informe final: Jóvenes opinando sobre Educación: Plan Nacional de Educación 2021.International Food Policy Research Institute and Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo Económico ySocial (2009). Evaluación Externa del <strong>Program</strong>a Red Solidaria. FOSEP. El Salvador.Larde de Palomo, A. El Salvador: Reforma Educativa, Análisis del Proceso de Descentralización.FUSADES. El Salvador.59


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Lindo, H. (2001). Comunidad Participación y Escuelas de El Salvador. El Salvador.López, M. (2005). Una Revisión a la Participación Escolar en América Latina. PREAL. El Salvador.Márquez, C. (2000). El Salvador: <strong>EDUCO</strong> con los padres. UNESCO. El Salvador.Marroquín, W. (2009). ¿<strong>EDUCO</strong> Como Fin Último o Como Parte de un Proceso Integral? El Salvador.Meza, D. (1997). Descentralización Educativa, Organización y Manejo de las Escuelas a Nivel Local: Elcaso de El Salvador. Grupo de Desarrollo Humano, América Latina y la Región del Caribe. El Salvador.Meza, D. (2001). El Salvador: El Caso de <strong>EDUCO</strong>. Banco Mundial. El SalvadorMINED. (1990). Servicios Educativos a Niños Pobres Salvadoreños de 0 a 14 Años. PNUD/UNESCO.El Salvador.MINED. (1991). Modulo para Capacitadores de Educadores de Primer Grado. Banco Mundial/UNICEF.MINED. (1991). Modulo para Capacitadores de Educadores para Parvularia. Banco Mundial/UNICEF.MINED. (1994). Escuela de Padres y Madres <strong>Program</strong>a <strong>EDUCO</strong>. 1995.MINED. (1994). Modulo para capacitadores de Asociaciones Comunales para la Educación (ACE).Banco Mundial/UNICEF.MINED. (1994). Plan de Formación de Maestros de Educación Básica para 1º y 2º Ciclos. El Salvador.MINED. (1995). El Director y la Comunidad. El Salvador.MINED. (1996). Consejo Directivo Escolar.MINED. (1996). Participación de la Comunidad.MINED. Documento #2 Paso a Paso en la Integración y Legalización del Consejo Directivo Escolar(1997).MINED. (1997). Documento # 3 Paso a Paso en la Integración y Legalización del Consejo DirectivoEscolar.MINED. (1997) Documento #4 Paso a Paso en la Integración y Legalización del Consejo DirectivoEscolar.MINED. (1997). Informe de Resultados sobre la Reestructuración de las ACE. El Salvador.MINED. (1997). Ley General de Educación Decreto No. 917. El Salvador.MINED. (2005). Primero Encuentro de Docentes <strong>EDUCO</strong>. PowerPoint.MINED. (2006). 15 Años de <strong>EDUCO</strong>. El Salvador.60


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010MINED. (2009). Propuesta de Absorción de Docentes <strong>EDUCO</strong> al Sistema de Ley de Salarios. El Salvador.MINED. (2010). Oficina Atención al Público. PowerPoint.MINED. <strong>EDUCO</strong>: Una Experiencia para Aprender y Enseñar. El Salvador.MINED. Factores Asociados al Rendimiento de los Estudiantes que se Sometieron a la PAES 2000. ElSalvador.MINED. (2009). Gerencia de Monitoreo, Evaluación y Estadística. Detalle de Directores reportados porCentro Educativo en el Censo de Matricula Inicial 2009. El Salvador.Mora, J. (1992). Análisis Comparativo de Secciones de Primer Grado <strong>EDUCO</strong> y No <strong>EDUCO</strong>. MINED.El Salvador.Moreno, R., Tolentino, M., Ordóñez, M., & Vylder, S. (2000). El Impacto de los <strong>Program</strong>as de Ajuste enla Niñez Salvadoreña. FUNDE. El Salvador.Nosotros Podemos: Guía de Alfabetización. (1985).OEI. Educación Inicial. El Salvador.Oficina Internacional de Trabajo. Educación con Participación de la Comunidad-El Salvador. UNESCO.El Salvador.OIT/UNESCO. Las Iniciativas Nacionales Relativas a la Educación y Formación Rural. El Salvador.OLACEFS. (2008). Auditoria de los <strong>Program</strong>as Sociales. El Salvador.Ortiz, M. (1997). Reseña Sobre la Descentralización de la Educación en el Salvador. MINED. El Salvador.Padres y Madres Encargados y Encargadas Opinando sobre Temas de Educación.Parra, C.F. (1992). Testimoniales de una Experiencia en Marcha.Parra, G. (2005). Informe Final Consultoría sobre “Asistencia Técnica para la Evaluación de la Operatividadde las Modalidades de Administración Escolar Local y Estrategia para el Fortalecimiento de laGestión Escolar.” MINED. El Salvador.Paso a Paso en el <strong>Program</strong>a <strong>EDUCO</strong>. El Salvador.Picardo, O. (2001). Diez Años de Educación de Calidad. El Salvador.Picardo, O., & Victoria, J. (2009). Educación Acelerada El Salvador. FIECC. El Salvador.PREAL (1999). Autogestión Escolar: Aumento de la cobertura educacional en zonas rurales pobres.61


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010PREAL. (2009). ¿Por Qué Apostarle al <strong>Program</strong>a <strong>EDUCO</strong>? PREAL. El Salvador.PREAL/ALFA. (2002). Informe de Progreso Educativo El Salvador. PREAL/ALFA. El Salvador.Procedimientos Administrativos del <strong>Program</strong>a <strong>EDUCO</strong>. El Salvador.<strong>Program</strong>a <strong>EDUCO</strong>. (1991).Rodríguez, J.C. (2006). Estudio Comparado de Resultados de Aprendizajes de las ACE del Nivel Mediocon CDE del Mismo Nivel del Área Rural. Donación Japonesa. El Salvador.Ruiz, M. A., & Mendoza, T. (1995). Informe Final de los Resultados de la Investigación sobre EstadísticasEducativas. Universidad Francisco Gavidia. El Salvador.Sistematización de los Diferentes Procesos del Sistema Escalafonario. El Salvador.Universidad Católica de Occidente. (2004). Calidad, Cobertura e Impacto de la Educación Inicial y Parvulariaen El Salvador. El Salvador.Universidad Francisco Gavidia. (1996). Evaluación Técnica del Proyecto Piloto “Trabajo Comunitariocon las Asociaciones Comunales para la Educación (ACE).” El Salvador.Universidad Pedagógica de El Salvador. (2006). Rural: Educación, familia, y migración en El Salvador.El Salvador.Base de Docentes. 2009.Bases de Centros Escolares. Censo 2008.Bases de Prueba de Logros. 2005.Censo de Diagnostico de las ACE.Comparación <strong>EDUCO</strong>. 2008.Directorio Logros PAES. 2005Directorio Logros PAES. 2005.PAESITA. 2008.62


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Annex 1: History <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong>1990–1994<strong>EDUCO</strong> started in <strong>the</strong> 1990s, as a joint government and society enterprise for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> expanding<strong>the</strong> supply <strong>of</strong> basic and early childhood education for half a million children outside <strong>the</strong> school system,who were primarily in rural areas, and for over 7,000 unemployed teachers.In April 1990, with support from UNESCO, a study was done to design a strategy to address <strong>the</strong> needs<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population. The results showed that models <strong>of</strong> school-community linkages already existed inmany rural areas <strong>of</strong> El Salvador, especially in areas severely affected by <strong>the</strong> civil war. These communitieswere autonomously organized and had <strong>the</strong>ir own funds for hiring teachers, who were more committedto <strong>the</strong>ir work than government teachers. This model contrasted with <strong>the</strong> government’s serviceprovision management processes, where appointing teachers and opening a school would take years andwhere <strong>the</strong> teachers could request transfers and leave <strong>the</strong> school once again without educational services(MINED, 1991, 1994, 1997).In November 1990, with funds from UNICEF, <strong>the</strong> Project to Expand Educational Services began as apilot project that <strong>the</strong> community would manage at <strong>the</strong> local level. MINED created a Special Regulationfor <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> community groups to be in charge <strong>of</strong> educational services at <strong>the</strong> local level,known as Asociaciones Comunales para la Educación (Community Education Associations—ACEs).The ACEs are made up <strong>of</strong> five <strong>of</strong>ficers, chosen from among parents and local leaders: president, vicepresident, treasurer, secretary, and member at large, who could not be reelected for more than two consecutiveterms. Likewise, a Ministerial Accord was created to grant legal status to <strong>the</strong> ACEs. It alsoestablished an agreement and charter between <strong>the</strong> ACEs and MINED that defined <strong>the</strong> responsibilities <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> parties: MINED was responsible for training, monitoring, orientation, and funds; and <strong>the</strong> ACEs wereresponsible for management at <strong>the</strong> local level, hiring <strong>of</strong> teachers, purchasing <strong>of</strong> consumables, and ensuringenrollment and facilities.MINED would transfer money for <strong>the</strong> teachers’ salary, ISSS premiums, contribution to <strong>the</strong> Social HousingFund, life insurance, year-end bonus for teachers, monthly consumables, required reserve for <strong>the</strong>ACE, labor liability, and non-recurring expenses for setting up new sections (MINED, 1994, 1997).<strong>EDUCO</strong> was implemented in six rural communities, with support from 36 parents and an enrollment <strong>of</strong>around 200. An ACE was formed in each school via <strong>the</strong> democratic election <strong>of</strong> its members (primarilywomen). Three <strong>of</strong> its members (president, treasurer, and secretary) were trained by MINED at a 40-hoursession initially. <strong>EDUCO</strong> materials were developed to cover topics including bookkeeping, settlement<strong>of</strong> accounts, and audits, which were designed to make <strong>the</strong> processes easy to do, with support from trainingand monitoring.63


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Teachers chosen by <strong>the</strong> ACEs were hired on annual contracts and a coordination <strong>of</strong>fice was set up inMINED. In short order, <strong>the</strong> pilot project expanded to 130 additional schools.In 1991, with <strong>the</strong> negotiation <strong>of</strong> a World Bank loan, <strong>the</strong> groundwork was prepared for expanding <strong>the</strong>model in three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country’s 14 departments where MINED had high educational deficits. Schoolswere established in 263 communities and 263 ACEs were organized to cover preschool and first grade.To implement <strong>EDUCO</strong> in <strong>the</strong>se 263 communities, MINED trained a group <strong>of</strong> supervisors to monitor it.It also trained a group <strong>of</strong> facilitators who would <strong>the</strong>n train <strong>the</strong> parents who were members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEsand who would receive support materials for training <strong>the</strong> ACEs. MINED also printed teachers’ guidesand <strong>the</strong> necessary legal documents, and designed and established a system for opening bank accounts tohandle funds transfers.By 1993, <strong>EDUCO</strong> had expanded to 1,009 sections and by 1997, it had 6,060 sections covering preschoolthrough seventh grade, with 193,920 students and 4,196 teachers. That same year, MINEDbegan implementing complementary programs in <strong>EDUCO</strong>. It developed “Parent Schools” in 1,759communities and established a single curriculum for all <strong>the</strong> schools in <strong>the</strong> country. Schools were givenlibraries. Alternative, or multi-grade, classrooms were created in 1,043 schools, which taught two ormore grades that had low enrollment. There were also special education classrooms for 258 children,accelerated education, and tele-learning (to <strong>of</strong>fer 7th to 9th grade using television and print materials)for 473 seventh graders (MINED, 1997).1995–1999The expansion <strong>of</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> was accompanied by an internal reorganization <strong>of</strong> MINED. A National EducationOffice was created, which, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> National Administration Office, created <strong>the</strong> groundworkfor coordinating <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> funds and <strong>the</strong> processes that had a bearing on <strong>the</strong> schools.Teacher salaries were covered by national funding sources and teacher benefits were improved: <strong>the</strong>ywere added to <strong>the</strong> Credit Union <strong>of</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> Education Employees, through which <strong>the</strong>y had access t<strong>of</strong>ree life insurance and to optional burial insurance.The first initiative to establish a rural incentive system was implemented. <strong>EDUCO</strong> and traditional teachersworking in rural areas received a salary bonus. This benefit increased <strong>the</strong> average salary for <strong>EDUCO</strong>teachers to 7% above that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teachers in <strong>the</strong> system. In 1997, <strong>EDUCO</strong> received <strong>the</strong> WorldBank’s Award for Excellence in recognition <strong>of</strong> its successful strategy for <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> educationalservices by rural communities, with parent participation. This award opened a window <strong>of</strong> opportunity;many countries in Latin America, including Guatemala and Honduras, wanted to try El Salvador’s experiencein <strong>the</strong>ir own countries.64


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 20102000–2004In 2000, <strong>EDUCO</strong> continued expanding coverage in preschool and basic education. However, <strong>the</strong> literaturereview showed that <strong>EDUCO</strong> did not continue its rising course, although it did remain as a program,which was important in <strong>of</strong>fering educational opportunities in rural areas. It was not possible to clearlyidentify new contributions regarding policy-setting or modernization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system. It appears that attentionwas not paid to <strong>the</strong> administrative issues related to <strong>the</strong> ACEs, pedagogical issues involving studentlearning, or benefits and improved conditions for teachers. The literature shows that <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> teamswere downsized in MINED, which might have contributed to <strong>the</strong> program’s fragmentation.Likewise, <strong>the</strong> training <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs, which had been constant during <strong>the</strong> first 10 years, also appears tohave stopped, and <strong>the</strong>re was no training for teachers on issues related to conditions in <strong>the</strong> rural areaswhere <strong>EDUCO</strong> was in place. However, it does seem that one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most significant changes during thisperiod was to replace <strong>the</strong> existing supervision system with two different systems: one for pedagogicalassistance and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r for administrative assistance. The first was to provide pedagogical support toschool principals (independent <strong>of</strong> model), with <strong>the</strong> intention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principal providing technical guidanceto teachers, and <strong>the</strong> second was for providing administrative support to <strong>the</strong> local school administrationsystems. According to <strong>the</strong> interviewees, this change left <strong>the</strong> ACEs without assistance in <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong>school administration. Technical specialists from <strong>the</strong> Departmental Education Offices had this responsibility;however, <strong>the</strong>re were too few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m for <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> schools <strong>the</strong>y were to serve, as some had tocover over 100 schools.2005–2009In 2005, <strong>EDUCO</strong> went from 11,293 sections to 12,489 sections in one year. MINED created <strong>the</strong> Educationwith Community Participation Division in order to oversee efforts at central and departmentallevels to manage <strong>EDUCO</strong>. During this period, <strong>the</strong> decision was made to focus <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s modernizationand development efforts on human resources. According to <strong>the</strong> literature and opinions <strong>of</strong> interviewees,<strong>the</strong> idea was to streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers so that <strong>the</strong>y would not be at a disadvantage compared toteachers from <strong>the</strong> regular or Wage Law system. To this end, a career ladder was developed for <strong>EDUCO</strong>teachers so that <strong>the</strong>y could accrue service time and be eligible for category advancement that wouldenable <strong>the</strong>m to receive salary raises every five years, independent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir annual contracts. In addition,<strong>the</strong> payment system for teachers was modernized. Teachers in <strong>the</strong> traditional system were being paidby direct deposit into bank accounts tied to a network <strong>of</strong> automatic teller machines (ATMs). However,<strong>EDUCO</strong> teachers would be paid by checks that were delivered in <strong>the</strong> community and <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten had tomake several attempts to find <strong>the</strong> parents that had to sign <strong>the</strong> checks (ACE president and treasurer). Because<strong>of</strong> this, a direct deposit system was set up that enabled access to <strong>the</strong> money via ATM. In addition,<strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Processing Agent was created. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se were accountants, who worked out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Departmental Education Offices (one per department) and were responsible for administering <strong>the</strong> fundstransfers and deposits into teachers’ bank accounts.65


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010As had occurred earlier, <strong>EDUCO</strong> schools were also subject to <strong>the</strong> same programs designed for <strong>the</strong> rest<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country’s schools. MINED implemented an administration system similar to <strong>EDUCO</strong> calledEffective School Networks. Each network was comprised <strong>of</strong> several ACEs and when necessary <strong>the</strong>ypartnered with o<strong>the</strong>r schools that had different types <strong>of</strong> school administrations. Likewise, flexible systemswere established for providing education. During this period, several high school programs wereestablished in rural areas.For <strong>the</strong> research team, <strong>EDUCO</strong>’s history shows that coverage increased over its more than 17 years <strong>of</strong>life. The growth in numbers <strong>of</strong> schools, teachers, and students confirms that <strong>the</strong> participation <strong>of</strong> communitiesin school management and <strong>the</strong> opportunity to hire teachers in a more flexible, effective mannerthan in <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial system has been a fundamental factor in <strong>the</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> educational coverage,especially in rural and low income areas. According to <strong>the</strong> literature reviewed, in <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> system,a school can be created in two months and a teacher hired in one week, while in <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial system, ittakes two to three years to open a school and an average <strong>of</strong> one year for a teacher to obtain a position.66


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Annex 2. Resource AssessmentTo create an approximate indicator for <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> school resources, we took <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> units<strong>of</strong> several types <strong>of</strong> equipment, multiplied <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> units by a nominal or relative number <strong>of</strong> points,added <strong>the</strong> resulting figures to obtain an idea <strong>of</strong> a total score, and divided <strong>the</strong> result to obtain an idea <strong>of</strong> ascore for resources per student, as an indication <strong>of</strong> a type <strong>of</strong> advantage. It is important to highlight thatwhat matters in this case are <strong>the</strong> relative scores, not <strong>the</strong> real value <strong>of</strong> anything. Thus, it is possible towork with approximate unit values. For <strong>the</strong>se purposes, we used <strong>the</strong> following scale <strong>of</strong> unit points.Points for different equipment for a relative assessmentDigital camera 300Computer 800Laptop computer 1000Sound system 200Printer 150Overhead projector 100Multimedia projector 500Radio/tape player 200Video player 300Scanner 200Television 300We stress that <strong>the</strong> absolute scores and <strong>the</strong> precision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se numbers do not matter that much, for severalreasons. First, because errors in some compensate for errors in o<strong>the</strong>rs. Second, because we areseeking information on how a school rates relative to all schools. And third, because in any index <strong>of</strong>this type, <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> each input is highly correlated to <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total, so much so that just <strong>the</strong>collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se data “explains” or “summarizes” 98% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variability among schools, which isdetermined from an analysis <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> inter-correlations among <strong>the</strong> individual indicators. Thus, for ourpurposes, <strong>the</strong> sum total <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong>se indicators is a good indicator <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> resources in <strong>the</strong> schools.67


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010The indicator variables for infrastructure are even simpler, and consist <strong>of</strong> giving one point for each <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> following types <strong>of</strong> infrastructure in <strong>the</strong> school. This is not calculated on a per-student basis, sincewe are just attempting to determine <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se facilities.Working electricityLibraryScience laboratorySupport classroomRecreational spaceSoccer field belonging to <strong>the</strong> schoolBasketball court belonging to <strong>the</strong> schoolMultipurpose roomEnglish laboratoryFarmWorkshops for industrial high school programsClinic for health high school programsStoreroomKitchenKitchen-storeroomAdministrative areaTeachers’ roomSchool clinic68


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Annex 3. Governance and ManagementIn some educational reforms, <strong>the</strong>se concepts are confused, at times with problematic results. For example,when <strong>the</strong>se aspects are not well defined, <strong>the</strong>re is a tendency in governance entities to “meddle”in things that should be <strong>the</strong> task <strong>of</strong> management entities. At a minimum, this causes irritation, and at amaximum, serious dysfunction. There is no reason why, exaggerating only a little, choosing <strong>the</strong> brand<strong>of</strong> c<strong>of</strong>fee to buy for <strong>the</strong> school teachers has to be a democratic decision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parents, yet, when <strong>the</strong> distinctionbetween governance and management is not made, <strong>the</strong> community’s inclination to “micromanage”can go almost this far. This increases transaction costs and decreases efficiency, and at <strong>the</strong> sametime diminishes pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism. This tendency is not seen only at <strong>the</strong> school level, but is also seen, attimes, at <strong>the</strong> highest levels <strong>of</strong> a country, when, for instance, <strong>the</strong> legislative branch <strong>of</strong> a country tries to“micromanage” <strong>the</strong> executive branch.This distinction is important, because in <strong>the</strong> most extensive decentralization models (devolution, autonomy)governance and management take place at <strong>the</strong> same level <strong>of</strong> society, and <strong>the</strong> managementbodies are horizontally accountable to <strong>the</strong> governance entities. For example, <strong>the</strong> school is accountableto <strong>the</strong> parents’ school board (or parents, teachers, and community), for <strong>the</strong> most part. Accountabilityis “horizontal,” at least partially. “Bottom-up” or vertical accountability also exists, but <strong>the</strong> horizontalrelationships take on greater strength in a system with full devolution (to districts, provinces, etc.) and/orautonomy (to schools). With deconcentration, <strong>the</strong>re is a certain freedom <strong>of</strong> action, but accountability isvertical (towards <strong>the</strong> higher levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> education sector). This is <strong>the</strong> essential distinction, for example,between “deconcentration” and “devolution”: <strong>the</strong> former emphasizes bottom-up, vertical accountability,while <strong>the</strong> latter emphasizes horizontal, relatively direct, accountability to <strong>the</strong> citizens in <strong>the</strong> local entity,through <strong>the</strong>ir representative bodies.Ano<strong>the</strong>r reason why distinguishing between governance and management is important is because,in general, at present, <strong>the</strong> thinking is that it is optimal to separate <strong>the</strong>se functions, when and if it ispractical. 8 One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problems with centralism is, precisely, that governance and management onlydiverge at <strong>the</strong> highest level <strong>of</strong> society: accountability by <strong>the</strong> executive level <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sector (<strong>the</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong>Education) to <strong>the</strong> parliament—<strong>the</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> citizens—or to <strong>the</strong> maximum executive <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>cabinet, who having been elected just as <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> parliament were, is also considered <strong>the</strong> people’srepresentative. In dictatorships, management is not separate from governance, even at <strong>the</strong> highest level<strong>of</strong> society (because <strong>the</strong>re are no effective parliaments). In decentralized democracies, <strong>the</strong> idea is to try to“lower” <strong>the</strong> separation <strong>of</strong> governance and management as far as possible (to a certain practical point, <strong>of</strong>course).8 Easy to understand versions can easily be found on <strong>the</strong> Internet. This debate frequently occurs in <strong>the</strong> deliberations <strong>of</strong> non-pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations, and thisdebate is more apropos to school governance than <strong>the</strong> corporate debate. See: http://www.greatboards.org/newsletter/reprints/Great-Boards-fall-2008-reprintdistinguishing-governance-and-management.pdf; http://www.perfres.net/resourcesgovman.asp ; http://www.differencebetween.net/business/differencebetween-management-and-governance/.69


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Ideas associatedwith <strong>the</strong> conceptsAssociatedetymologiesAssociated verbsParallel in publicadministration ingeneralParallel in privateadministration(<strong>of</strong> companies orNGOs)Legal basis<strong>Strategic</strong>perspectiveGovernanceGreek “kubernetes”: a ship’shelmsman. (It is no coincidencethat <strong>the</strong> word cybernetics, <strong>the</strong><strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> automated control, has<strong>the</strong> same origin.)Vigilance, strategize, guidance,relate.Bodies representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>people, legislatures, legitimation,deciders.Board <strong>of</strong> directors, board <strong>of</strong>shareholders (This can be clearlyseen in <strong>the</strong> corporations law <strong>of</strong>almost any country, whe<strong>the</strong>r forpr<strong>of</strong>itor not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it.)Normally has a legal basis, dueto its importance, even at <strong>the</strong>level <strong>of</strong> law or act <strong>of</strong> parliament.Sets strategic lines (at timeswith <strong>the</strong> executive council), setslaws (in <strong>the</strong> formal sense) or <strong>the</strong>code <strong>of</strong> conduct; sets <strong>the</strong> missionand vision; adopts <strong>the</strong> budgetand receives <strong>the</strong> school’s finalexpenditure audit.ConceptsManagementFrom <strong>the</strong> Latin gestus (movement <strong>of</strong> arms orlegs), or manus—manipulate, training <strong>of</strong> ahorse.Plan, purchase, assign, control, produce, sell,monitor, serve.Executive entities, doers.Executive Director (sometimes also amember <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> board <strong>of</strong> directors—<strong>the</strong>point <strong>of</strong> contact between governance andmanagement), and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r managers (head<strong>of</strong> finances, head <strong>of</strong> human resources, head<strong>of</strong> legal department, etc.).Functions without a legal basis in <strong>the</strong> privatesector, with a regulatory basis in <strong>the</strong> publicsector.Implement strategy; implement <strong>the</strong> visionand mission. Transmit financial results,previously approved by <strong>the</strong> governanceboard, to <strong>the</strong> ministry.70


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010EmploymentrelationshipInward- oroutward- lookingperspectiveRelationship toaccountabilityExtent <strong>of</strong>pr<strong>of</strong>essionaltrainingPoints <strong>of</strong>interventionRankingCan express opinionsabout teacher and principalperformance. In <strong>the</strong> privatesector, <strong>the</strong>y hire <strong>the</strong> ExecutiveDirector, but almost never<strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> management. In<strong>the</strong> private sector, as well asin schools, sometimes <strong>the</strong>Executive Director manipulates<strong>the</strong> governance board. Thisis something <strong>the</strong> governmentshould monitor and control,especially in public sectorentities, such as schools.Facing outward; “explains” or“narrates” <strong>the</strong> institution to <strong>the</strong>community, and explains ornarrates <strong>the</strong> community to <strong>the</strong>institution.Accountable from.Not necessary. Any interestedcitizen should be able to do it.Defined in time: meet and“intervene” every monthor quarter; do not casually“meddle” in daily affairs.There is little internal hierarchyin a board <strong>of</strong> directors or <strong>of</strong>governance, and normally <strong>the</strong>reis no hierarchical relationshipbetween levels <strong>of</strong> governance(provincial or state parliamentaryassemblies are not accountableto national assemblies; orlocal school boards are notaccountable to provincial ornational school boards).The Executive normally appoints (not elects)<strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management team, and <strong>the</strong>management team appoints (not elects) <strong>the</strong>regular workers.Primarily facing inwards, <strong>the</strong> chief executive“explains” or “narrates” to his or her ownteam; sometimes interprets what comes from<strong>the</strong> board <strong>of</strong> directors; that is, interprets <strong>the</strong>wishes <strong>of</strong> governance (<strong>the</strong> community) to<strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> management.Accountable to.Should be a pr<strong>of</strong>essional, in general.“Meddling” in daily affairs is his/her reasonfor being.Plenty <strong>of</strong> internal hierarchy (director, subdirector,subject matter heads—languagearts, math, etc.—regular teachers). Andhas a hierarchical relationship with o<strong>the</strong>rlevels (accountable to <strong>the</strong> district, province,or department, and <strong>the</strong>se, in turn, to <strong>the</strong>national Ministry (vertically).71


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010In El Salvador, <strong>the</strong> innovation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACEs has been a phenomenon <strong>of</strong> great interest to all, and has hadcertain successes that seem empirically undeniable, but also has had certain problems. One aspect rarelymentioned is that <strong>the</strong> ACEs integrate governance with management. It is not clear that this is <strong>the</strong> mostadvisable state <strong>of</strong> affairs, as was mentioned earlier in this paper. To <strong>the</strong> extent that El Salvador seeks toredefine its school governance, it is possible that it will be important to separate what is managementfrom what is governance. In countries where <strong>the</strong>re is clear, effective legislation on <strong>the</strong>se aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>education sector (e.g. England or South Africa), <strong>the</strong> functions <strong>of</strong> a Board <strong>of</strong> Governors are distinguishedfrom <strong>the</strong> boards for pr<strong>of</strong>essional management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school. For example, in England, “<strong>the</strong> governingbody has general responsibility for <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school with a view to promoting high standards<strong>of</strong> educational achievement.” 9 And <strong>the</strong> distinction is clear. For example, “Individual governors do nothave an automatic right to enter <strong>the</strong> school whenever <strong>the</strong>y wish…. Governors should arrange <strong>the</strong>ir visitswith <strong>the</strong> head teacher, who has responsibility for <strong>the</strong> day-to-day management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school.” All thisis explained in English manuals (and in o<strong>the</strong>r countries) with a wealth <strong>of</strong> detail and examples. This isnot to imply that El Salvador has to imitate any <strong>of</strong> this; <strong>the</strong> legislation should correspond to <strong>the</strong> specificneeds and possibilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people. It would be advisable to think all <strong>of</strong> this through well, and to try togain conscious clarity, instead <strong>of</strong> simply supposing that management and governance are <strong>the</strong> same thing,or to not be aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> difference.9 See http://www.governornet.co.uk/linkAttachments/GttL%20Amd%201%20-%20full%20Guide%20with%20full%20links.pdf72


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Annex 4. Matrix <strong>of</strong> implementations for unification <strong>of</strong> systemActivities1. MACRO DESIGN PHASEFormation <strong>of</strong> MINED support teamsDesignation <strong>of</strong>person in charge<strong>of</strong> implementationprocess in MINEDFormation <strong>of</strong> taskforce for macrodesign phaseDescriptionMINED decides which unit and/or personwill head <strong>the</strong> transition process (under hisor her own authority or authority delegatedby a MINED authority) and is accountable toMINED authorities.MINED authorities must find a technicalpr<strong>of</strong>essional to lead <strong>the</strong> detail work andbecome <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> task force, investedwith sufficient authority by <strong>the</strong> MINEDauthorities. The person should have <strong>the</strong>authority to coordinate among existing units.This task force head should be assigned parttimeto this task. It may be necessary for thisperson to have to delegate some <strong>of</strong> his/herdaily responsibilities to o<strong>the</strong>r staff memberswhile heading this process.MINED will form a task force withrepresentatives from 1) <strong>Strategic</strong> Planning(because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> habit and custom that thisgroup will presumably have to coordinate<strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, set goals, etc.); 2)Quality Monitoring, National EducationOffice (because <strong>of</strong> its intrinsic interest andexperience with standards); 3) MINEDManagement Office (because in <strong>the</strong> end<strong>the</strong> effort is about school management andgovernance); and 4) Legal Office.Personsresponsible bylevelsMINED authoritiesMINED authoritiesand task force headEstimated time frameIdentification <strong>of</strong> thisperson: 1 week at most.This person should workconstantly during <strong>the</strong>time this transition andimplementation processtakes. This new functionshould be included in <strong>the</strong>person’s job description.Formation <strong>of</strong> task force: 1week at most.Initial phase <strong>of</strong> work: 2weeks, fulltime.Estimated costsNot applicable (no significantamount <strong>of</strong> effort required, but<strong>the</strong> decision must be made).It may be necessary during allstages to include costs relatedto <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> personnel whowill participate in <strong>the</strong> taskforce, particularly <strong>the</strong> activity’scoordinator.Form supportteams for <strong>the</strong>three technicalareas: humanresources, schoolmanagement, andgovernanceIn addition to <strong>the</strong> task force, it will benecessary to form three sub-groups orcommittees in charge <strong>of</strong> working out <strong>the</strong>details related to <strong>the</strong>se three areas. Thesub-groups should include personnel from<strong>the</strong> Human Development Office, NationalEducation Office, and National Office forDepartmental Management.MINED authoritiesand task force headFormation <strong>of</strong> team: 1week at most.Initial phase <strong>of</strong> work: 2weeks, fulltime.Form supportteams atdepartmental andlocal levelsThe mixed team should have a support teamat <strong>the</strong> departmental and local level that canhelp to validate <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> time andpersons in charge in <strong>the</strong> departments and <strong>the</strong>schools. It can be a small group <strong>of</strong> 5 persons,which includes departmental directors,advisors, and school principals.MINED authoritiesand task force headFormation <strong>of</strong> team: 1week at most.This team should beavailable when called.It does not requireexclusive dedication to<strong>the</strong> work.73


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Determineexternal supportMINED should establish <strong>the</strong> time forexternal support and <strong>the</strong> methodology forworking with <strong>the</strong> task force, to create a mixedsupport team. This team will work first ondeveloping an implementation plan. Here,external technical assistance is contemplated.MINED authoritiesand task force headFormation <strong>of</strong> task force: 1week at most.Initial phase <strong>of</strong> work: 2weeks, fulltime.There might be externalconsultants here and it mightbe necessary to consider <strong>the</strong>costs this would involve,number <strong>of</strong> days per consultant,rate, etc.Design by components (fundamental part <strong>of</strong> macro design phase)The idea is not to make decisions, butto make a final determination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> list<strong>of</strong> decisions to be made about humanDeterminationresources, school management, and<strong>of</strong> substantivegovernance. Although in this phase it ischanges foreseen,MINED authoritiesnot necessary to finalize <strong>the</strong>se decisions,systems andand task force headsince <strong>the</strong> consultation process can firm upregulation to bemany <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, it is important to determinechanged.<strong>the</strong> options with a certain amount <strong>of</strong> detailin order to begin to work on legal andregulatory aspects.1. Human ResourcesHuman resourcesPositions forpr<strong>of</strong>essionalschool principalsGiven <strong>the</strong> sensitivity <strong>of</strong> this issue, it will benecessary to develop a specific plan thatincludes <strong>the</strong> specific policy, its regulations,costs (accounting and opportunity), andimplementation, including instruments,training, and monitoring. At this point,it will be important to make <strong>the</strong> decisionto respond to <strong>the</strong> changes that are strictlynecessary instead <strong>of</strong> taking on a completeoverhaul <strong>of</strong> human resources management.The danger <strong>of</strong> making a macro change isthat <strong>the</strong> system may not be able to withstandso many wide-reaching changes and endup paralyzed. It is better to focus on <strong>the</strong>substantive aspects <strong>of</strong> this transition:positions for principals, teacher contractsand benefits, and teacher performanceevaluation standards.Option D requires all schools to be managedby pr<strong>of</strong>essional principals. This means thatMINED must identify which schools donot have principals with appointments andpositions.The Human Resources Office should havea “map” locating <strong>the</strong> schools and <strong>the</strong>irprincipals. With this organized, MINED canexplore options for reorganizing <strong>the</strong> systemand developing strategic partnerships on thisissue.The plan in this area should include anassessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>information system and <strong>the</strong> human resourcesdatabase, <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> records,and information from universities that<strong>of</strong>fer courses for principals, among o<strong>the</strong>rs.The plan will include <strong>the</strong> accounting andopportunity costs <strong>of</strong> having pr<strong>of</strong>essionalprincipals in <strong>the</strong> schools.Task force head,Human ResourcesOfficeTask force head,Human ResourcesOffice1 month for discussionwith all <strong>of</strong>fices involved.Times vary according todecisions to be made and<strong>the</strong> agreements made.The entire phase maytake approximately 6months.See <strong>the</strong> section on costs in <strong>the</strong>document that introduces thistable.74


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Recruitment andhiring <strong>of</strong> teachers(includingbenefits)For this task, it will be necessary to decideif <strong>the</strong>re will be more than one contractualoption between teachers and schools; thatis, if direct contracts between teachersand school governance structures will bepermitted, for <strong>the</strong> mutual expediency <strong>of</strong>both, but without obligation or ACE-CDEdistinctions, etc., as occurs at present; thus,with freedom and choices for all within asingle overall version <strong>of</strong> governance.Here it will be important to ensure that a“map” is made <strong>of</strong> human resources coveringrecruitment, hiring, and removal <strong>of</strong> teachersand principals.Task force head,Human ResourcesOffice, Legal CounselMonitoringand evaluation<strong>of</strong> teacherperformancePerformance evaluation <strong>of</strong> teachers appearsas a line in <strong>the</strong> Social Education Plan. Inthis line, it is very important to developa proposal for performance evaluationstandards for teachers and principals thatincludes accountability to <strong>the</strong> communityand some clear lines <strong>of</strong> action by MINEDon monitoring and fulfillment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>sestandards. Developing <strong>the</strong>se standards is anambitious project in itself, but it is extremelyimportant and must be done.Task force head,Human ResourcesOffice, support fromexternal technicalassistance. MINEDauthorities shouldbe involved in <strong>the</strong>project.This is a project on its own andwill require a separate detailedbudget.75


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 20102. School Management and GovernanceThe idea is not to make decisions, butto make a final determination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> list<strong>of</strong> decisions to be made about schoolmanagement and governance. Although inthis phase it is not necessary to finalize <strong>the</strong>sedecisions, since <strong>the</strong> consultation processcan firm up many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, it is importantto determine <strong>the</strong> options with a certainamount <strong>of</strong> detail in order to begin to workon legal and regulatory aspects. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>decisions to think about:Determination<strong>of</strong> substantivechanges foreseen,systems andregulations tochange.a. Decide on <strong>the</strong> powers and duties <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> new governance structure. The tentativename <strong>of</strong> School Governing Board (JGE inSpanish) is suggested for <strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> thisexercise.b. Decide on its legal status (what gradeor type <strong>of</strong> legal status will it be given?) andhow will <strong>the</strong> current legal status be changed.c. Decide its numerical make-up(parents, principal, teachers, communitymembers).MINED authoritiesand task force head1 month for discussionwith all units involved.Times vary according to<strong>the</strong> decisions to be madeand on <strong>the</strong> agreementthat comes out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m.This entire phase couldtake approximately sixmonths.See section on costs in <strong>the</strong>document that introduces thissection.d. Decide o<strong>the</strong>r operational parametersfor <strong>the</strong> new governance structure based ona review <strong>of</strong> current guidelines and similarbodies in o<strong>the</strong>r countries.e. Decide what role <strong>the</strong> JGE (or a JGEcommittee) will have in teacher evaluations;decide what level <strong>of</strong> formality will existfor teacher evaluations and what role <strong>the</strong>evaluation will play in <strong>the</strong>ir career.f. Decide on <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principals.g. Decide on time criteria forimplementation. For example, if <strong>the</strong> schoolsthat have an appointed director are <strong>the</strong> firstto begin <strong>the</strong> transition to <strong>the</strong> new system,independent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir current status.h. Decide on responsibilities andmanagement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school budget, keepingin mind <strong>the</strong> unification <strong>of</strong> budget items,and keeping direct transfer <strong>of</strong> funds to <strong>the</strong>schools.76


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Consultation StrategyThe mixed team will develop <strong>the</strong> consultationstrategy. A minimum <strong>of</strong> three openconsultations could be held to reviewissues including human resources, schoolmanagement, governance, and communityroles.StrategydevelopmentAt this point in <strong>the</strong> design phase, decidehow to conduct <strong>the</strong> consultations, and <strong>the</strong>irscope (census survey, random sample surveywith randomness overseen by stakeholders,systematic focus groups). Here, <strong>the</strong> tradeassociations, with <strong>the</strong>ir established channels,can be included to <strong>the</strong> extent possible.It is important to include <strong>the</strong> Ministry’scommunications units from <strong>the</strong> beginning,because if <strong>the</strong>y witness and participate in <strong>the</strong>initial surveys or consultations, it will help<strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong> eventual communications’campaign.Here, an alternative, complementary to <strong>the</strong>consultations could be considered: a writtenconsultation. For example, <strong>the</strong> Ministrycould publish its intentions and requestwritten comment. This “forces” those whohave an opinion to express it more calmlyand well thought out, and decreases <strong>the</strong>tendency to speak just to hear one’s ownvoice.Task force head withsupport from mixedteam, and MINEDcommunicationsunits. Possibleexternal assistance.Approval <strong>of</strong>MINED authorities.Perhaps appointa consultationcoordinator.1 month to designNumber <strong>of</strong> meetings <strong>of</strong> one ormore meeting-days.Number <strong>of</strong> facilitators permeeting.Proportion <strong>of</strong> meetingsfacilitated by high-level MINED<strong>of</strong>ficials.Proportion <strong>of</strong> meetingsfacilitated by mid-level MINED<strong>of</strong>ficials.Proportion <strong>of</strong> meetingsfacilitated by NGOs orconsultants.Person-days for time forlogistical organization permeeting-day.O<strong>the</strong>r costs per meeting-day.Use <strong>of</strong> this informationcan produce expense andopportunity cost data.Calculating opportunity costsis important because it maysuggest <strong>the</strong> need to outsourcesome costs.CommunicationsCommunicationsstrategyThe mixed team would work with MINEDCommunications and with external technicalassistance to design <strong>the</strong> different phases<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> communications strategy: 1) informcountry <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes; 2) inform aboutconsultation process; 3) feedback aboutconsultation; 4) media messages duringsocial marketing campaign about <strong>the</strong> issue;5) final results.Task force head withsupport from mixedteam and MINEDCommunications.Approval <strong>of</strong> MINEDauthorities.1 month to designNumber <strong>of</strong> consultationsessions to be attended byMINED communications staff.Contract (outsource ifnecessary) for communicationsprocess that covers cost <strong>of</strong>design and use <strong>of</strong> media(including possible printmaterials for schools), and/or staff members’ timefor functions that are notoutsourced.Monitoring and follow upDesign <strong>of</strong>monitoring andevaluation strategyOnce <strong>the</strong> implementation plan draft is ready,<strong>the</strong> Planning Office will need to developtarget indicators.This monitoring plan should be aligned toMINED’s pace <strong>of</strong> work to make <strong>the</strong> most <strong>of</strong>all efforts and activities being conducted.It will be important to use MINED’snormal monitoring systems. If <strong>the</strong>se arenot sufficient, additional resources will benecessary, or external technical assistance,at least during <strong>the</strong> first year. MINED canbenefit from using its own informationsystem and aligning monitoring to thissystem.Task force head,planning <strong>of</strong>fice,o<strong>the</strong>r units withmonitoringresponsibilities.2 weeks to designstrategy. However,monitoring shouldcontinue throughout<strong>the</strong> entire process andthrough implementation.See section on costs in thisdocument that introduces thistable.77


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010End <strong>of</strong> design phase: Work plan and resource assessmentAlignment withNational Plan ando<strong>the</strong>r programsWork plan andtime lineUnification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system will require aligningobjective’s from <strong>the</strong> Plan and o<strong>the</strong>r programsand many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir strategic lines.Design <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation Plan willculminate with a working document thatexplicitly lays out all <strong>the</strong> steps in <strong>the</strong> design,spelled out in time and resources, and witha greater level <strong>of</strong> detail than that presentedhere.This is <strong>the</strong> time to make <strong>the</strong> final estimate <strong>of</strong>accounting costs and opportunity costs facingeach unit.Task force head,planning <strong>of</strong>fice,o<strong>the</strong>r units withmonitoringresponsibilities.Task force headsubmits plan toMINED authoritiesfor decision. Itis important that<strong>the</strong> decision on<strong>the</strong> plan’s designbe made swiftlyto ensure that <strong>the</strong>teams involvedkeep motivatedfor <strong>the</strong> work aheadand to maintain<strong>the</strong> intervention’smomentum.2 weeks. It will need tobe looked at toge<strong>the</strong>rwith monitoring.1 weekAssessment <strong>of</strong>available resourcesPotentialpartnershipsOnce decisions have been firmed up on <strong>the</strong>substantive changes to be implemented,<strong>the</strong>re will need to be a budget analysis <strong>of</strong>what is needed to carry out <strong>the</strong> change.This is <strong>the</strong> time to make <strong>the</strong> final estimate <strong>of</strong>accounting costs and opportunity costs facingeach unit.In addition, list tasks that are alreadybeing done, but that will be altered during<strong>the</strong> plan’s implementation period, such asmonitoring and evaluation.With <strong>the</strong> resulting work plan and budget,MINED can study <strong>the</strong> advisability <strong>of</strong> seekingpartners to fund or implement some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>sechanges.Take advantage <strong>of</strong> efforts MINED isalready making to organize its outreachrelationships.MINED authorities,Task force head,MINED FinancialOfficeMINED authoritiesTo be determined. Takeinto account budgetcycles in place inMINED.Depends on politicaltiming.2. Preparatory PhaseThroughout this, it would be best not tobegin to change all o<strong>the</strong>r systems; that is, tonot completely rethink everything related to<strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession, etc., but instead,focus on <strong>the</strong> changes strictly necessaryfor implementing <strong>the</strong> change. This mightrequire an article-by-article review andrevision <strong>of</strong> several laws and decrees, but maynot require a complete overhaul <strong>of</strong> laws andLegal frameworkdecrees.It will be necessary to prepare draftlegislation to amend several articles in<strong>the</strong> law regarding positions for principals,teacher recruitment, and performanceevaluation. The same applies to <strong>the</strong>presidential decree. Working with <strong>the</strong>Legislative Assembly is very important at thisjuncture.Task force head,Human ResourcesOffice, LegalCounsel Office, andMINED authoritiesshould be involvedin <strong>the</strong> projectsince it requirespolitical work with<strong>the</strong> LegislativeAssembly, <strong>the</strong>trade associations,<strong>the</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Treasury, <strong>the</strong>President’s Office,and o<strong>the</strong>rs.Estimate <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>workdays this will require fromMINED personnel, includingLegal Counsel, MINEDauthorities, and o<strong>the</strong>rs.Estimate whe<strong>the</strong>r some <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>se costs can be outsourcedto consultants; if so, estimateworkdays in contact with <strong>the</strong>Legislative Assembly and <strong>the</strong>accounting cost <strong>of</strong> those days.78


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Instruments anddocumentationDevelopment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> guidelines and standardsnecessary for implementation.Teacher performance evaluation guide.Procedural manual on teacher hiring forDepartmental Education Offices, using “Pasoa Paso” (Step by Step) (and o<strong>the</strong>r similarmanuals) as a model. Do <strong>the</strong> same for newgovernance system.Task force head andLegal Counsel OfficeThese costs should include<strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> consultants torevise manuals such as “Pasoa Paso.” Also include <strong>the</strong>opportunity costs, or time, <strong>of</strong>staff members who have towork with <strong>the</strong> Legislature orPresident’s Office, in <strong>the</strong> eventamendments are needed in lawsor presidential decrees.Work planto initiateimplementationMonitoring andevaluation3. Implementation PhaseRevision<strong>of</strong> MINEDproceduresOnce <strong>the</strong> plan is in place with <strong>the</strong> actionsfor implementing <strong>the</strong> necessary changesin principal positions, teacher hiring,and teacher performance evaluation, itwill be necessary to coordinate with <strong>the</strong>macro strategy for communications andconsultations to ensure that <strong>the</strong> changes arecommunicated and that those affected areinvolved.Once <strong>the</strong> assessment is done <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> decisionsthat need to be made about each policyaspect, and about <strong>the</strong> new implementationcharacteristics, assign tasks for each issue too<strong>the</strong>r MINED units. This includes related,semi-independent units such as <strong>the</strong> Court <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession (for example, thoughnot only this).This is <strong>the</strong> time to make <strong>the</strong> final estimate <strong>of</strong>accounting costs and opportunity costs facingeach unit.Monitoring should be determined in <strong>the</strong>macro plan, although it will be necessaryto determine follow-up criteria for specificactions.It will be very important to consciouslyreview <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> MINED, <strong>the</strong> DepartmentalEducation Offices, and <strong>the</strong> schools inmanagement procedures. If MINED isdeveloping a decentralization proposal,aligning this transition with that proposalwill be important for joining forces wi<strong>the</strong>fforts that already exist or are being put intoplace.Task force head,communications,and person in charge<strong>of</strong> consultation.DepartmentalManagement Office.MINED authorities.Task force head.Planning Office.Transition to newschool structureWork with Departmental Education Officesand MINED to ensure <strong>the</strong> transition to <strong>the</strong>new system, in accordance with whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>decision is by size <strong>of</strong> school, by those thathave an appointed principal, or if changescan be made en masse.79


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Training plan forgoverning boardsand principalsExtended training for JGEs and staffmembers on basic functions. Continuingeducation for all schools on <strong>the</strong>ir newfunctions.Aid <strong>the</strong> continuing education processusing <strong>the</strong> mass media (evaluate <strong>the</strong> cost/effectiveness <strong>of</strong> doing this—it may not becost/effective).Number <strong>of</strong> persons to betrained.Time used in training.Determine continuity criteria(1 year intensive, followed bycontinuing education twice ayear).Determine who trainerswill be—advisors, or hiringoutsiders. Here, <strong>the</strong> key isto ensure that MINED haspermanent on-board capacity.It is important to ensure thatefforts are sustainable.Training plan forMINEDMonitoring andevaluationIn <strong>the</strong> training processes currently underway,it will be fundamental for MINED to workwith its teams on a single, unified messageabout <strong>the</strong> content regarding this transitionthat it will be important to provide trainingabout, especially for departmental directors,advisors, MINED staff members, and schoolprincipals.Monitoring should be determined in <strong>the</strong>macro plan, although it will be necessaryto determine follow-up criteria for specificactions.Task force head.Planning Office.Number <strong>of</strong> units to be trained.Training days per unit, during<strong>the</strong> transition (determine howmany years <strong>the</strong> transition willlast), persons to be trained perunit.Size <strong>of</strong> group.Workdays per week per trainer(assume it is not possible towork every day).Proportion <strong>of</strong> trainer timeworking in field.Percentage <strong>of</strong> trainers who areMINED employees.This should be based ontype <strong>of</strong> training (legalization,hands-on training, training-assupervision).80


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Annex 5. List <strong>of</strong> Individuals InterviewedNAME POSITION INSTITUTIONLarry Brady Director USAIDCarl Derrick Assistant Director USAIDCaroll Vásquez Director, Office <strong>of</strong> Human Development USAIDFelipe Rivas Consultative GroupAgustín Fernández Consultative GroupOscar Picardo Consultative GroupAlberto Barillas Consultative GroupHelga Cuéllar-Marchelli Consultative GroupAna Mercedes Castro Consultative GroupSilvia Elena Regalado Advisory Group National Council on EducationRolando Marín Advisory Group National Council on EducationManuel de Jesús Molina Advisory Group SIM<strong>EDUCO</strong> UnionFrancisco Javier Zelada Advisory Group SIM<strong>EDUCO</strong> UnionJorge Alberto VillegasTito Ramírez BeltránFrancisco Antonio HernándezGonzálezAndrés Adelmo FloresAdvisory GroupAdvisory GroupAdvisory GroupAdvisory GroupBases Magisteriales teachers’movementBases Magisteriales teachers’movementANDES 21 de Junio teachers’organizationANDES 21 de Junio teachers’organizationEduardo Badía Serra Vice Minister <strong>of</strong> Education MINEDLorena de Varela ConsultantArgentina García Commission on Culture and Education Legislative AssemblyJohalmo Cabrera Commission on Culture and Education Legislative AssemblyManuel de Jesús Cortez MiraFull MemberQualifying Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TeachingPr<strong>of</strong>ession81


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010Martha Alicia Linares de VaqueranoAna Vilma Herrera de ReyesFull MemberFull MemberQualifying Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TeachingPr<strong>of</strong>essionQualifying Court <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TeachingPr<strong>of</strong>essionMaría Hortensia Cruz de López President Board <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession IHoracio Arnoldo Vaquerano Member Board <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession ILucía Margarita Ramírez Molina Member Board <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teaching Pr<strong>of</strong>ession IJoaquín Samayoa Rector FEPADERobín Agreda National Finances Director MINEDJosé Arturo Martínez Budgeting Chief MINEDLorena Duque de Rodríguez National Education Office MINEDSandra AlasFrancisco QuintanillaNational Office on DepartmentalManagementNational Office on DepartmentalManagementMINEDMINEDNorma Guevara Member <strong>of</strong> Legislature, FMLN party Legislative AssemblyRubén Orellana Mendoza Commission on Culture and Education Legislative AssemblySusana Guadalupe ÁngelGuillermo Antonio MoralesMarina del Tránsito BarillasJosé Roberto TicasJessica Patricia HerreraHead <strong>of</strong> Technical AssistanceHead <strong>of</strong> Technical AssistanceAuxiliary Payment OfficerHead <strong>of</strong> Human DevelopmentHead <strong>of</strong> SystemsHugo López National Legal Counsel Office MINEDMorena Salina Auditing MINEDHéctor CernaNational Office <strong>of</strong> DepartmentalManagementLa Paz Departmental EducationOfficeSan Vicente DepartmentalEducation OfficeSan Vicente DepartmentalEducation OfficeSan Vicente DepartmentalEducation OfficeSan Vicente DepartmentalEducation OfficeMINEDOrbelina Cines Vice President CE José Rodríguez ValleMaría Gloria IzarpateFrancisco Ireneo PerdomoDirectorAssistant DirectorCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,Ahuachapán82


<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EDUCO</strong> <strong>Program</strong>July 2010César Edgardo CastroAna Mercedes DíazAgustín CarlosDomitila RamosMarina Estela Roque CabreraSonia Hernández MartínezTeresa de Jesús HernándezBrenda Lucila García PimentelLisandra Lisseth HernándezSandra Beatriz Henríquez DíazEdith Yaneth Rosario RamosGriselda Carolina Marroquín GirónReyna Isabel Gómez GarcíaJosé Alberto Aguilar GarcíaMelvin Orlando Ruíz RamírezErick Oswaldo HernándezCastanedaAlfredo Alexander GarcíaTeacherAlternate MemberAlternate MemberAlternate MemberAlternate Council MemberTreasurerAlternate MemberSixth GradeFifth GradeSixth GradeFifth GradeSixth GradeSixth GradeSixth GradeFifth GradeSixth GradeSixth GradeCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,AhuachapánCE Cantón Los Tablones,Ahuachapán83

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!