Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strategic Review of the EDUCO ProgramJuly 2010General QuestionsThis review posed these general questions: Is EDUCO, 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 the neediest groups?To answer these general questions, the strategic review addresses three sub-questions:Are students at EDUCO Community Education Association (ACE) schools learning in the same way asstudents in other, non-EDUCO schools, such as School Administration Board (CDE) schools?What are the characteristics of EDUCO ACE schools and teachers, as compared to other schools?How is MINED organized around EDUCO? Does this organizational structure contribute to ensuringhigh quality education?Research TeamThe research team for this review was made up of John Gillies, Vice President and Director of theGlobal Education Center of the Academy for Educational Development (AED); Luis Crouch, VicePresident and Chief Economist at the Research Triangle Institute (RTI); and Ana Flórez, EducationSpecialist and Project Director of EQUIP2 El Salvador in Washington for AED.Strategic Review MethodologyTogether with MINED, the research team developed the scope of work and work plan. The work plansuggested the use of a participatory, practical methodology that could serve as a guide for conducting apolicy analysis. Along these lines, the work plan included several phases:• Literature review.• Formation of two high level consultative groups.• Visits to schools with different school administration bodies.• An open consultation process (group interviews) in the country’s 14 departments.• Interviews with individuals directly or indirectly involved in the Program.• Development and analysis of options for EDUCO.• Plan for the dissemination of the study’s results.6
Strategic Review of the EDUCO ProgramJuly 2010Literature ReviewThe research team assembled empirical evidence, which included the cataloging of information fromdifferent primary and secondary sources, MINED databases, working documents, studies, and evaluationsthat provided information on the workings of the Program from its beginning to the present. Theprocess used analogies of similar situations in other fields and examples of cases from other countries.As part of this assemblage, the research team conducted analysis and discussion sessions with the consultativegroups and interviewed defenders and detractors of the Program alike. This review was not anattempt to conduct an exhaustive review of all the literature, but rather to identify the most prominentpapers and those that used the greatest scientific rigor in trying to compare EDUCO using statisticalmethods. The comparative literature that was found was more abundant at the beginning of the Programthan in more recent years and is valuable for recounting EDUCO’s history. However, few of the studiesare comparative. Therefore, the team based its conclusions on the most rigorously comparative studies,although they are not as recent as would have been desired.Consultative GroupsMINED, USAID, and the research team formed two groups of professionals who volunteered to provideinformation used in the analysis. An Advisory Group was comprised of Francisco Antonio HernándezGonzález and Andrés Adelmo Flores, representatives of the ANDES 21 de Julio teachers’ organization;Jorge Alberto Villegas and Tito Beltrán Ramírez, representatives of the Bases Magisteriales teachers’movement; Manuel de Jesús Molina and Francisco Javier Zelada, representatives of the Union ofEDUCO Teachers (SIMEDUCO); and Rolando Marín, representative of the National Education Council.The Consultative Group was comprised of a group of specialists and academics who, in their individualcapacity, have worked supporting educational issues. These professionals were Ana Mercedes Castro,Alberto Barillas, Helga Cuéllar, Oscar Picardo, Felipe Rivas, and Agustín Fernández. The two groupscontributed to ensuring that the 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 EDUCO.” They put forth their options, points of view,and their pros and cons, from their own standpoints. Their participation included providing feedback onthe research team’s proposals, fostering dialogue and proactive discussion about issues related to EDU-CO that aim at the quality of education.Individual and Group InterviewsThe research team visited, on multiple occasions, central level MINED officials, several departmentalMINED offices, and a sample of schools with different school organization bodies. Simultaneously, anopen consultation was held in the 14 departments to capture the sense of the stakeholders directly involvedin rural public schools, including parents, teachers, students, school principals, and communityleaders. Some 220 people participated, from both EDUCO and schools with CDEs.7
Page 1 and 2: Strategic Review of the EDUCOProgra
Page 3 and 4: Strategic Review of the EDUCO Progr
Page 5: Strategic Review of the EDUCO Progr
Page 57 and 58:
Strategic Review of the EDUCO Progr
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
show all

Strategic Review of the EDUCO Program - EQUIP123.net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?