· Web viewLEG assessment task teams may consider reporting on the assessment findings, decision...

Tools for Local Education Groups – LEGs:

LEG Self-Assessment &Performance Feedback

Draft for piloting Updated 11 December 2019

This is a draft of a LEG self-assessment tool and performance feedback tool as per the GPE Board July 2019 decision to pilot a diagnostic tool that enables LEGs to assess how well they are functioning and agree on (any) improvement actions. The tool will be piloted by volunteer countries between November 2019 and April 2020.

LEG self-assessment tool and feedback performance instrument

11 December 2019

Contents

Part I: Approach 2

What is the Local Education Group?What is this document about?

What is the LEG self-assessment tool?Why conduct a LEG self-assessment?What is the structure of the tool?How to use it? How to analyze the assessment results to inform improvement actions?

What is the performance feedback tool?

Why should LEG members use the performance feedback tool?How to use it?

Part II: LEG self-assessment tool 7

Strategic effectivenessOrganizational capacitiesCollaborative capacities

Summary of assessment results

Part III: Performance feedback tool 15

Ministry of EducationNational development partnersInternational development partnersCoordinating agencyGrant agentGPE Secretariat

ANNEXES: 18

1. Supplement for tailoring the LEG self-assessment tool2. Templates for follow-up on LEG self-assessment results

2


11 December 2019

I. Approach

What is the Local Education Group?

A Local Education Group (LEG) is a country-led coordinating structure/platform for education sector planning and dialogue. The LEGs are not a separate mechanism set up for GPE processes but are broader education aid coordination and policy dialogue forums which most countries have before joining the Partnership. GPE promotes their strengthening. These platforms or groups are named differently in each country but are called “LEGs” by the GPE as a generic term. LEGs are at the core of GPE’s country-level model, to support a single country-led process and strengthen decision-making for effective and inclusive policy dialogue.

What is this document about?

As expressed in GPE 2020 Strategic Objective 2, one of GPE’s key aims is to support mutual accountability through effective and inclusive policy dialogue and monitoring for the education sector. While the LEG is at the heart of GPE’s country-level model and process, there has been no tool thus far to help LEGs strengthen their effectiveness. - LEGs first should be clear about what they want to achieve, and how members should work together to support those goals. However, LEGs are dynamic; the way a LEG functions changes over time because of variables such as changes in membership and country context. To work better together, LEGs should periodically assess their collaboration and make any adjustments to the way they work. This document contains two tools to facilitate this: 1) the LEG Self-Assessment Tool; and 2) the Performance Feedback Tool.

The two are intended to be complementary and mutually supporting.

The LEG Self-Assessment Tool is designed to stimulate a collective reflection on the actions that need to be taken to improve LEG effectiveness.

The Performance Feedback Tool is designed to facilitate assessment of individual (i.e. by stakeholder/institution) LEG members’ performance and adherence to their accountabilities for course correction, through dialogue.

Taken together, the tools are intended to stimulate dialogue within the LEG for greater effectiveness and enhanced mutual accountability.

3


11 December 2019

A quick introduction to the tools is available in PowerPoint format here.

What is the LEG self-assessment tool?

This tool seeks to enhance inclusive, harmonized policy dialogue to contribute to the broader goal of improving access to and quality of education. GPE2020 Strategic Objective 2 is to support mutual accountability through effective and inclusive sector policy dialogue and monitoring, and the LEG self-assessment tool aims to support this objective through increased clarity on shared objectives and expectations from one another as partners.

As LEGs are dynamic and continuously evolving, a LEG should periodically assess its effectiveness in relation to its objectives. In order to promote responsiveness and agility in contributing to national education policy processes, the LEG self-assessment tool solicits the views of LEG members and frames dialogue on LEG effectiveness. The intent is to enable a shared understanding of whether the LEG is advancing towards agreed policy dialogue and sector coordination goals, and to help define what can be done to strengthen partnership.

Why conduct a LEG self-assessment?

Whether the tool is used in an environment with emerging, well-defined and/or well-functioning LEGs, the self-assessment allows LEGs to:

Conduct a diagnostic of the LEG through a structured and targeted dialogue Use the assessment results to prioritize and implement actions to improve the LEG’s strategic

effectiveness, along with organizational and collaboration capacities. Review, strengthen or establish LEG Terms of Reference (TORs), Memorandum of Understanding

(MoU), Partnership Agreement or the equivalent to clarify roles and responsibilities and provide clarity on collaboration mechanisms, LEG objectives, and expectations of LEG members.

Monitor and document how the LEG evolves from year to year, and report progress on policy dialogue to the broader stakeholder groups.

What is the structure of the tool?

The self-assessment tool is organized into three sections that are aligned with three dimensions of LEG effectiveness1:

1 These three dimensions have been identified through the recent GPE research on effective multi-stakeholder partnerships and are embedded in the recently developed Guiding Principles towards effective Local Education Groups. This document will be made available online as related guidance on the following link when ready: https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/leg-self-assessment-tool-and-performance-feedback-instrument

4

https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/leg-self-assessment-tool-and-performance-feedback-instrument


https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/introducing-leg-pilot


11 December 2019

1. Strategic effectiveness: assesses the LEG’s effectiveness in promoting desired policy dialogue outcomes connected to national education goals and sector plans.

2. Organizational capacities: includes strategies, resources and actions that the LEG leverages to perform and fulfil its functions effectively, enabling it to be ‘fit-for-purpose.’

3. Collaborative capacities: relates to leadership and stewardship of the LEG and healthy partnership dynamics among all members. Cohesive and successful LEGs require that all partners share a genuine commitment to inclusive dialogue towards the achievement of education sector plan targets. Each LEG member should have the responsibility to contribute to sustaining a conducive environment for collaboration and to respect core values including mutual accountability.

Following the three assessment sections, a summary analysis table and optional follow-up action tables are available to facilitate analysis of results and identification of priority actions.

Annex 1 presents supplemental questions for LEGs who wish to undertake a deeper analysis.

How to use it?

The LEG self-assessment tool has been designed to be:

Flexible and adaptable to LEG members’ own preference and diverse country contexts. It is available in Word, Excel, and online survey (TBD) formats, so that LEGs can decide on the preferred format. It has different sections and a supplement that can be combined to ensure relevance.

Completed at the LEG’s own pace, desired scope and modality (see figure below). LEGs can choose whether to answer all questions or select some of them, depending on their needs. They can also decide if they wish to complete it individually or collectively as shown in Figure 2 below. The assessment does not need to be completed in one sitting. The LEG should decide what scope and modality to use depending on the time and capacity of the LEG members to complete the assessment.

5

Organizational capacities Collaborative

capacities

LEG effectiveness

Organizational capacities

Collaborative capacities

Strategic Effectiveness

LEG effectiveness

Strategic effectiveness



11 December 2019

Figure 2: Scope and modalities to complete the LEG self-assessment

Who is responsible for applying the LEG-self assessment and analyzing the results? Under the leadership of the Ministry of Education, each LEG should appoint a task team to be responsible for the assessment (referred to as LEG assessment task team in the rest of this document). This team will define the assessment’s scope and modality, ensure its adequate application, compile and analyze the results.

Who participates in the LEG self-assessment? LEG members, including those in key leading roles from the government and from the development partners, should commit to participate in the assessment either collectively or individually. This will help ensure that the tool is applied adequately and that results represent the views of most actors.

What to do after the LEG self-assessment? It is important for the LEG to define in advance how results will be shared among LEG members and used to establish improvement actions. Thus, open and systematic discussions are encouraged to ensure that LEG members own, and agree on, proposed follow-up actions to increase their effectiveness (see below).

The LEG self-assessment tool is found in Part II and is also available in Excel and in PowerPoint formats2, and supplement for tailoring the LEG self-assessment tool in Annex 1.

How to analyze and use the LEG self-assessment results for improvement?

While the dialogue and decisions taken during the assessment planning are important for the success of the exercise, following the assessment, agreement on what to do next will be critical to its overall usefulness. To this end, stakeholder discussions might look at:

2 Resources mentioned in this document will be made available online when ready on the following link: https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/leg-self-assessment-tool-and-performance-feedback-instrument

6

Use all or some questions collectively as a LEG (e.g. in a workshop/or in the

run-up to a JSR)

Use all or some questions through a small task team, and share/validate with the

LEG (e.g. discuss most important points with LEG)

Use all or some questions individually, and discuss

results openly with all LEG members

Analyze results and agree on

follow-up actions



11 December 2019

What were the most critical areas for improvement identified by the assessment exercise? Critical areas include those scored below 3 points on average in the LEG self-assessment.

Which of these areas should be prioritized with concrete follow-up and actions? Are the necessary resources (financial, technical, and time) available to follow-up on the agreed

priorities?

Follow-up templates. A simple template is provided in annex 2 to assist LEG members in identifying priorities and establishing a clear and realistic action plan. The agreed action points can directly be recorded through existing channels, such as LEG minutes or the LEG action plan.

LEG guidance. Guiding Principles towards Effective Local Education Groups are availble as general LEG guidance and background document on LEG effectiveness. Practical guidance to further support LEGs in operationalizing the effectiveness principles will be made available to participants during the pilot in draft form and be further developed as one of the expected outputs of the pilot considering the LEG assessment results and feedback from LEG assessment task teams.

A Repository of Practices will also be made available, with examples of LEG country documents, in particular examples of partnership frameworks from GPE member countries (LEG ToR, MoU or the equivalent).

LEG performance review and planning linked to the Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs). LEG assessment task teams may consider reporting on the assessment findings, decision points and/or suggested roadmap as part of the JSR process and sector reporting, or during the JSR sessions to solicit thoughts for moving forward and ensure information dissemination around the assessment.

Follow-up templates are found in Annex 2. Guiding principles toward effective LEGs and LEG Repository of Practices are available online3, while practical LEG guidance will be further developed through the pilot.


7



11 December 2019

What is the Performance Feedback Tool?

The Performance Feedback Tool is a simple diagnostic tool that allows LEG members to reflect on their own individual performance and contributions to the LEG. It is designed to stimulate open and transparent discussion and to identify areas for improvement along with follow-up actions for all LEG members to revamp their performance.

Why should LEG members use the Performance Feedback Tool?

To be effective, it is key that all LEG members are committed to fostering mutual accountability and promoting continuous improvement. Only by holding each other accountable can the partnership function successfully, both at the country-level and at the global level. In this sense, the Performance Feedback Tool provides an opportunity for a structured and transparent conversation around concrete features to support LEG members to fulfill their expected roles successfully and thrive. Concretely, and in line with the Partnership’s Charter, the proposed template includes questions on the role and performance of the Government, the coordinating agency, and the GPE grant agent, and other LEG members.

In addition, underpinning the principle of mutual accountability, the Tool also includes the role and performance of the GPE Secretariat in relation to key actors in-country, as it is important to be clear on expectations from the GPE Secretariat (which may slightly differ from one country to another),, and to provide feedback on the performance of the Secretariat in delivering.

How to use it?

Similar to the LEG self-assessment, LEG members can decide how to use the Performance Feedback Tool. Modalities to complete it include:

Collective application: through open and transparent discussions around each other’s performance, LEG members identify strengths and areas for improvement and commit to foster LEG effectiveness and mutual accountability.

Individual basis: LEG members prefer to keep their individual responses anonymous and complete the tool separately followed by an open and transparent discussion on performance results. LEG members define together areas for improvement and commit to enhance their contributions to the partnership, while they continue to hold each other accountable.

8


11 December 2019

Figure 3: Modalities to complete the Performance Feedback Tool

During the pilot phase, the GPE Secretariat can provide external consultant support to manage the completed tool(s), aggregate responses and analyze results, and where appropriate and as requested by the LEG, facilitate LEG members’ discussions around feedback provided, if needed to address performance concerns and enhance partnership collaboration.

The Performance Feedback Tool is found in Part III and also available in Excel, PowerPoint4 and SurveyMonkey5


5 Please contact designated country lead at GPE Secretariat regarding access to Survey Monkey

9

LEG members respond collectively to questions through open

discussion

LEG members respond to questions anonymously on an individual basis and can receive external support to

aggregate the data

Discuss results openly and agree on follow-up actions to

improve performance



11 December 2019

II. LEG self-assessment tool

The self-assessment tool presents each of the three dimensions of LEG effectiveness followed by specific topics, core questions, and features that are considered important to an effective LEG.

Some of the questions are relevant to all LEGs while others may ask about functions, issues, and priorities that may not be applicable to your LEG. These questions first ask whether a specific issue is a priority for the LEG, soliciting a yes or no response. If an area is determined to be a priority, then a number of questions follow about how the priority works in practice. If the area is not a priority, then you should skip that section. Explanations and open responses are also recommended.

Using the scale from 1-5, rate how strong the LEG practices, features and/or behaviors are in a specific area. After you finish assigning a rating to all the areas, calculate the averages of the scores per topic and dimension of LEG effectiveness, and report them into the summary table presented after the LEG self-assessment.

Please note that the rankings are subjective, based on users' own judgements in specific country contexts. The tool and scoring system are therefore not quantitative, but rather a set of prompts to guide reflection and discussion.

The assessment task team can also choose to discard the scoring and use only open responses.

Rating scaleT

Potential responses to the features of LEG effectiveness on a range from 1 to 5:

5 = Practice/feature/behavior is strong4 = Practice/feature/behavior is relatively strong3 = Practice/feature/behavior is promising 2 = Practice/feature/behavior is rare1 = Practice/behavior/feature does not occur

N/A = Non Applicable – when question is not found relevant for the specific LEG or context

10


11 December 2019

LEG self-assessment tool


Supporting policy development, implementation and monitoring Average

Is this function a key priority for the LEG and its members? -

If so, how and to what extent is this function pursued in practice6? -

- The LEG facilitates/provides inputs for the development and implementation of a country-led national Education Sector Plan (ESP)/Transitional Education Sector Plan (TEP)

1-5

- LEG members exchange knowledge about ESP/TEP implementation of and discuss policy successes and implications of specific or emerging challenges in their meetings

1-5

- The LEG engages in the organization of government-led joint sector reviews, or the equivalent, to monitor the implementation of the ESP

1-5

- Sector dialogue is generally evidence-based (e.g. informed by analysis, including gender analysis, thematic studies, policy reviews, evaluations, equity-based disaggregated data, etc.)

1-5

- The LEG pays specific attention to supporting the development, implementation and monitoring of quality and equity targets, gender responsiveness and the needs of vulnerable population groups within the ESP/TEP

1-5

Notes on ‘why’ where practices/features/behaviors are ‘rare’ or ‘do not occur’:

Addressing education financing and resource use


If so, how and to what extent is this function pursued in practice? -

- The LEG acts as a platform to discuss the costs and financing of the ESP/TEP, including the financing of specific quality and equity targets

1-5

- The LEG monitors government financial commitments and domestic spending effectiveness

1-5

- The LEG monitors donor financial commitment and external pledges, disbursements, spending effectiveness, predictability of financing, and loans/debt

1-5

- The LEG supports identification of new sources to finance the plan from national budget, donors and CSOs, and private sector

1-5

- LEG members advocate for higher investments in the education sector 1-5


6 If this function is not a priority, skip this section.

11


11 December 2019

Promoting harmonization and alignment



- Development partners strive to harmonize their support (i.e. decrease the number of standalone programs) and increase the use of national public financial management systems to channel aid

1-5

- Development partners align their respective financial contributions to a country-owned and partner-endorsed ESP/TEP

1-5

- Development partners align their respective technical contributions to a country-owned and partner-endorsed ESP/TEP

1-5

- LEG members discuss the scope of projects, approaches, harmonization of technical support, and fitting funding modalities to support country systems

1-5


Fostering mutual accountability for results



- The LEG uses ESP operational tools (results framework, annual budgets and action plans, etc.) as shared frameworks to focus on delivery and acceleration of results in ESP/TEP priority areas

1-5

- LEG members are transparent and timely in sharing information on their progress towards their sectoral or thematic commitment and spending

1-5

- LEG meetings advance strategic dialogue and exchange around bottlenecks of the sector to support steady implementation of the ESP

1-5

- LEG members support, technically and/or financially, the production of sound analysis to inform ESP/TEP monitoring efforts

1-5

- LEG members support the organization of Joint Sector Reviews at least annually to review sector results and recommend any corrective actions, informed by sector performance reporting

1-5


Other functions

- Does the LEG have other functions, or different priorities, not covered in the above and taking up time of the LEG meeting?

Notes on ‘what’ these functions are, where the functions are not already covered in the above:

12


11 December 2019

- How well does the LEG perform these functions? 1-5

Notes:

Added value of LEG functions

- LEG members perceive the LEG functions as adding value for overall sector progress 1-5

- LEG members perceive the LEG functions as adding value for them and their own organizations / institutions and serving shared goals and interests

1-5

Notes:

Agreed functions and strategic priorities of the LEG are clearly articulated in a LEG ToR, MOU, partnership agreement or the equivalent

1-5

Notes:


Clarity of mandate, functions and objectives Average

Does the LEG have a clear mandate and agreed functions? -

- LEG members share a common vision for the role and mandate of the LEG, reflected in documents such as LEG ToR, MoU, partnership framework, Charter etc.

1-5

- LEG’s core functions and membership were agreed through a process of stakeholder dialogue and consensus-building around how the LEG can best add value

1-5

- LEG mandate and functions as may be contained in the TORs or equivalent document reflect realistic and achievable objectives

1-5

- Risks and mitigation measures have been considered (e.g. any possible overlap with other bodies, any undesired distortions, unnecessary transaction costs)

1-5


Inclusion and engagement Average

Is the LEG inclusive of key education stakeholders and are their roles clear? -

- The LEG is reflective of key players in the education sector and other actors 1-5

13


11 December 2019

influencing education sector development Ministry(ies) of education at the national level representing the various sub-

sectors and key implementing agenciesYes/No

Ministry of Finance Yes/No

Multilateral agencies Yes/No

Bilateral agencies Yes/No

International NGOs and foundations Yes/No

Local CSOs/NGOs (CSO coalitions, parents’ associations, disabled peoples’ associations) including those that participate in the Education Campaign Coalition

Yes/No

Teachers’ organizations Yes/No

Representatives of non-public educational providers Yes/No

Additional: Ministries such as planning, health, civil service, women’s affairs, academic institutions

Yes/No

Additional: Representatives of sub-national and local levels of government Yes/No

Notes on representation:

- The roles of LEG members are specified and build on partners’ strengths, experiences and willingness to support inclusive, transparent and accountable education sector dialogue, planning and monitoring

1-5

- The engagement and inputs from all members effectively feed into the policy dialogue 1-5


Governance arrangements Average

Are LEG governance and management practices set to serve the functions of the LEG effectively? -

- The LEG builds on existing structures, linking up to thematic/sub-sector groups and other coordination bodies, and decentralized LEGs, if relevant

1-5

- The size and structure of the core LEG are kept manageable so as not to jeopardize effective functioning

1-5

- There is clarity on the consultative role of the LEG (as a body) versus decision-making authorities (i.e. the government & each member’s own organization)

1-5


Working arrangements Average

14


11 December 2019

Are the LEG working arrangements are effective and efficient? -

- The LEG has a clear, structured and resourced workplan 1-5

- LEG members (core, broader, thematic or technical sub-groups) meet at agreed frequency and relevant LEG members are present

1-5

- Relevant information is accessible and communicated in a timely and effective manner to facilitate collaboration and to enable LEG members to participate constructively (including the provision of translation services when needed to ensure local stakeholders’ involvement)

1-5

- Meetings are documented, and minutes circulated, and followed-up 1-5


Monitoring of LEG performance and learning Average

Are processes in place for the LEG to regularly monitor its own partnership performance? -

- LEG members agree to the need for mechanisms to assess the progress of the partnership, and on the scope, purpose, indicators and modalities of LEG monitoring

1-5

- The LEG monitors its own performance on a regular basis – such as through status reporting of LEG planned activities, or use of this LEG Self-assessment Tool

1-5

- The LEG monitors partnership dynamics on a regular basis – such as through the use of the Performance Feedback Tool

1-5

- The LEG adjusts its strategic priorities, organizational and collaborative ways of working as a result of the monitoring and organizational learning

1-5


Organizational features that make the ‘LEG fit-for-purpose’ are clearly articulated in a LEG TOR, MOU, partnership agreement or the equivalent

1-5

Notes:

Collaborative effectiveness

Governament leadership and partner ownership Average

15


11 December 2019

Does the government demonstrate commitment to the LEG governance, working arrangements, functions and desired outcomes?

-

- The LEG is chaired by a high-level Ministry of Education official(s) (such as Minister, Permanent Secretary or Secretary General)

1-5

- Units within line ministries support activities within the technical working groups through staffing and/or resources.

1-5

- The government has sufficient resources (financial, staff, time, and technical) to fulfill its leadership roles and take ownership of strengthening sector dialogue

1-5

- The roles of the LEG chair and the lead agency/coordinating agency are agreed to, and clear to other LEG members

1-5

- The government leads by example with gender balance and representation of women at senior levels within the LEG

1-5

- The distribution of leadership and policy dialogue roles works well in practice, and are adjusted as needed

1-5


Healthy partnership dynamics Average

Do partnership behaviors and engagement foster the shared values of the LEG? -

- There is a transparent process for selecting the lead agency/coordinating agency, including a clear term so that different agencies can serve

1-5

- There is a transparent process for selecting the Grant Agent for GPE funding 1-5

- The coordinating/lead agency acts as a broker, mobilizing and keeping policy dialogue processes flowing and fostering healthy partnership dynamics

1-5

- LEG members have a formal or informal code of practice or shared values underpinning partner behaviors and engagement in the LEG

1-5

- LEG members generally perceive their engagement in the LEG as meaningful (their respective inputs are considered, and they are able to influence decisions)

1-5


Collaborative features underpinning partnership dynamics are clearly articulated in a LEG ToR, MOU, partnership agreement or the equivalent

1-5

Notes:

1-5, N/ASummary of LEG self-assessment results

16


11 December 2019

The table below helps summarize the assessment results7. This should be filled out after all sections of the actual assessment have been completed. The average scores (or N/A) for each topic for all respondents (when applied individually) should be reported into this table. Averages indicate how strongly LEG performs in each of the dimensions of LEG effectiveness and in the associated topics, according to respondents.

Summary of assessment resultsStrategic effectiveness – agreed functions Average of 1.a-d

Supporting policy development, implementation and monitoring 1-5

Addressing domestic and external financing and resource use 1-5

Promoting harmonization and alignment 1-5

Fostering mutual accountability for results 1-5

Other functions Yes/No

Added value of LEG functions 1-5

Organizational capacities – ‘fit-for-purpose’ Average of 2.a-e

Clarity of mandate, functions and objectives 1-5

Inclusion and engagement 1-5

Governance arrangements 1-5

Working arrangements 1-5

Monitoring of LEG performance and learning 1-5

Collaborative capacities – behavior, values, commitment Average of 3.a-b

Leadership and ownership 1-5

Partnership dynamics 1-5

Relating to partnership agreement (LEG ToR, MoU or the equivalent)

Agreed functions and strategic priorities of the LEG are clearly articulated 1-5

Organizational features that make the ‘LEG fit-for-purpose’ are clearly articulated 1-5

Collaborative features underpinning partnership dynamics are clearly articulated 1-5

7 5 = Practice/feature/behavior is strong | 4 = Practice/feature/behavior is relatively strong | 3 = Practice/feature/behavior is promising | 2 = Practice/feature/behavior is rare | 1 = Practice/behavior/feature does not occur

17


11 December 2019

III. Performance Feedback Tool

The Performance Feedback Tool for LEGs presents statements that reflect high-performance for LEG members/stakeholders in their roles. This includes LEG members’ intended responsibilities for

sector dialogue, and in the design, implementation, and monitoring of the Education Sector Plan, including education programs financed with GPE grants.

These LEG members include: government institutions (e.g. Ministry of Education or equivalent), coordinating agency, and all types of development partners. For countries with GPE grant funding, they also include grant agents for GPE grants. Although not a LEG member, the GPE Secretariat is also included to provide better future support to countries.

If the LEG plans to (first) fill out the Performance Feedback Tool individually by each LEG member, to allow institutions to provide feedback independently, rate on a scale of 1-5 how LEG members fulfill their role in a specific area. After you finish assigning a score from 1-5 to all the areas, calculate the averages of the scores per LEG member.

If the LEG prefers to fill out the Performance Feedback Tool collectively to facilitate common reflection, use the statements below as guiding questions to discuss LEG members’ performance. In this case, LEG members may decide together not to use the scoring system.

Either way, note that the rankings are subjective, based on users' own judgements in specific country contexts. The tool and scoring system are therefore not quantitative, but rather a set of prompts to guide reflection and discussion.

The LEG assessment task team can also choose to discard the scoring and use only open (narrative – written or oral) responses. The team can also further tailor the tool to better reflect the institutional context and key actors in it.

Ministry of Education Average

- The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to undertake its leadership roles effectively and take ownership of strengthening sector dialogue

1-5

- The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to an inclusive and effective policy dialogue mechanism

1-5

- The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to securing the financing for the implementation of the ESP

1-5

- The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to achieve greater aid alignment and harmonization

1-5

18


11 December 2019

- Where Ministry is the implementer of GPE grants, it demonstrates its commitment to ensure smooth implementation of approved program with adequate resource management

1-5 or NA

- Where Grant Agent is the implementer of GPE grants, the Ministry does its utmost to provide the necessary conditions to enable smooth implementation of the grant(s)

1-5 or NA

Notes:

National partners (e.g. CSOs/NGOs, teachers’ associations….) Average

- National partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector planning process

1-5

- National partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector implementation and monitoring process

1-5

- National partners demonstrate their commitment to align to national systems, including greater use of public financial management systems to channel financial support, and to better harmonize among themselves

1-5

- National partners inform the government about funding commitments and actual disbursements and shares relevant information and evidence from programs with the LEG

1-5

Notes:

International partners (bilateral, multilateral partners, and INGOs, foundations…) Average

- International partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector planning process

1-5

- International partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector monitoring process

1-5

- International partners demonstrate their commitment to align to national systems, including greater use of public financial management systems to channel financial support, and to better harmonize among themselves

1-5

- International partners inform the government about funding commitments and actual disbursements and shares relevant information and evidence from programs with the LEG

1-5

Notes:

Coordinating Agency

- The CA fosters good relationship between DPs and government, and facilitates harmonized coordination and policy dialogue that is collaborative, effective, and inclusive of NGOs/civil society

1-5

19


11 December 2019

- The CA effectively leads/coordinates DPs in the development, independent appraisal, endorsement, implementation, and joint monitoring of government-owned quality sector plans

1-5

- The CA effectively supports GPE grant development and monitoring process in collaboration with the LEG

1-5

- The CA communicates in a timely and effective manner with the Ministry 1-5

- The CA communicates in a timely and effective manner with the LEG partners and facilitates sharing of sector and grant updates/key documentation

1-5

- The CA communicates in a timely and effective manner with the GPE Secretariat 1-5

Notes:

Grant Agent – ESPDG w Average

- The GA supports the government in consultation with the CA to set out an agreed roadmap of activities and a realistic planning timeline for the ESP process

1-5

- The GA provides sector planning and capacity development support to the government in accordance with the approved grant application

1-5

- The GA works in collaboration with the government to ensure timely implementation of ESPDG activities, including addressing implementation issues

1-5

- The GA coordinates with the LEG to ensure the LEG is consulted in accordance with planning process

1-5

Notes:

Grant Agent - ESPIG/Multiplier Average

- The GA supports the government to develop quality ESPIG application in consultation with the LEG

1-5

- The GA supports the government in implementing the ESPIG in an effective manner 1-5

- The GA actively supports the timely monitoring of the ESPIG implementation, and reports to the LEG and the Secretariat as per planned and agreed mechanisms

1-5

- The GA supports the Ministry in sharing broad progress of the ESPIG implementation and the policy implications with the LEG

1-5

- The GA actively supports the sector process (including system building, sector planning, and inclusive policy dialogue) as a DP and a member of the LEG

1-5

- The GA works with the Secretariat to facilitate joint problem solving, keeping the Secretariat informed on performance of the ESPIG

Notes:

20


11 December 2019

GPE Secretariat a Average

- The GPE Secretariat provides timely and relevant support to sector-level processes (i.e. development, appraisal/endorsement, implementation and monitoring of sector/plan) including relationship brokering, based on the needs of the country

1-5

- The GPE Secretariat provides timely and relevant support to GPE grant processes (i.e. development, implementation and monitoring of GPE grants application) including relationship brokering, based on the needs of the country

- The GPE Secretariat communicates in a timely and effective manner with the CA/GA/MOE

1-5

- The GPE Secretariat keeps abreast of sector and grant level developments as a basis for providing relevant inputs to country

1-5

Notes:

21


11 December 2019

Annex 1: Supplement for tailoring the LEG self-assessment tool

The following provides additional questions that can be used to tailor the LEG assessment tool and/or deepen the LEG-assessment, so that it best fits country context, LEG interests and length of LEG history and bandwidth for the assessment exercise.

During the preparation for the LEG-self-assessment, the LEG assessment task team can add the supplementary questions to the main tool for a more comprehensive scope, or use them to adapt the main tool, by combining selected questions from the main tool and from these supplementary questions. The purpose of providing the supplementary questions is to provide LEGs operating in a diversity of different contexts the possibility to adapt the tool, by picking and choosing what is most relevant.

The supplementary questions can be answered using the rating system presented in section 1.


Supporting policy development, implementation and monitoring- The LEG pays attention to issues of other sectors affecting the education system (e.g.

health, water, sanitation, hygiene, child protection, public finance…) 1-5

- LEG’s dialogue benefits from practices and lessons from other countries with similar challenges through research, knowledge sharing, peer learning, or benchmarking

1-5

- LEG activity and focus on the ESP are consistent and balanced throughout the whole policy cycle (planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation)

1-5

Addressing domestic and external financing and resource use

- The LEG provides a platform for members to engage in dialogue, and enhance understanding, around the various stages of the budget cycle

1-5

- The policy dialogue is informed by data of actual expenditures and helps assess whether policy priorities are adequately funded

1-5

- The LEG advocates for increased domestic financing with the ministry of finance (or others as relevant such as the Parliament or ministry of civil service)

1-5

Promoting harmonization and alignment

- The LEG contributes to the discussion of standards for harmonized sector reporting in view of reducing multiple reporting lines and donor reporting needs

1-5

- The dialogue and coordination through the LEG are perceived as worth the effort towards reducing transaction costs and achieving benefits of harmonization

1-5

- In emergency settings, efforts are made to ensure that the education cluster and the LEG work in harmony, or share information on programming and priorities

1-5

22


11 December 2019

Fostering mutual accountability for results

- Annual sector plan implementation reports are produced by the government, and supported by LEG members as needed, and used as key reference in JSRs

1-5

- The LEG takes forward JSR recommendations as the core agenda of topics for dialogue and reviews the extent to which follow-up has been actioned

1-5

- The LEG plays a role in contributing to greater institutional and domestic accountability and information sharing around the implementation of the ESP

1-5

- The Ministry of Education demonstrates its commitment to public accountability and transparency by making sector documents available to the public in a timely manner

1-5

Organizational effectiveness

[Clarity of mandate, functions and objectives]

- The expectations and limits to the LEG’s mandate are clearly communicated to the stakeholder community and known by LEG members

1-5

- The LEG functions and objectives are reviewed by stakeholders on a regular basis to take onboard the evolving education and development context

1-5

- The benefits and value expected to be created/being created through the LEG outweighs the ‘costs’ of participation put into the LEG

1-5

- In fragile contexts, the work of the LEG is well coordinated with specialized policy dialogue mechanisms (e.g. donor reviews, emergency clusters, CSO platforms)

1-5

[Inclusion and engagement]

- Criteria for participation and process for joining the LEG exist and are communicated as relevant

1-5

- The LEG has ‘onboarding’ practices in place (informally or formally) for new LEG members to reduce adverse effect of frequent staff-turn over

1-5

- Representation is at an appropriately senior level and empowered by their respective organizations to make commitments/decisions related to collaboration on the LEG

1-5

- Ministries of education and development partners deploy financial and logistical support to stakeholder groups that would otherwise be unable to participate

1-5

- Country contexts are factored in – In fragile/crisis situations where time is limited, the ministries of education may not be able to consult in-depth

1-5

[Governance arrangements]

- Transparent management practices reassure LEG members about how decisions are taken and generate trust in the LEG as an entity

1-5

23


11 December 2019

- If needed, key governance actors receive guidance and support to carry out their expected roles as they relate to ensuring partnership effectiveness

1-5

[Working arrangements]

- A dedicated LEG Secretariat is resourced with sufficient staffing and funding to focus on the organization of meetings, agenda setting and other routine tasks and support

1-5

- Mechanisms are in place to mobilize evidence for the policy dialogue as relevant 1-5

- Working arrangements recognize the limitations or restrictions on travel (national, sub-national, etc.) in low capacity countries, FCAS and emergency situations

1-5

[Monitoring and learning]

- The monitoring is participatory and involves a cross-section of LEG members 1-5

- Learning draws from experience from LEGs in other countries to accelerate the uptake of relevant LEG practices and avoid common pitfalls

1-5

- The results of LEG performance monitoring are transmitted to the wider community (for instance through the JSR or as an item in the annual implementation report)

1-5

Collaborative effectiveness

[Leadership and ownership]

- There is sufficient consensus among national stakeholders on various policy issues and during discussions to move forward on various priority areas

1-5

- There is true commitment from the government and DPs to use LEG meetings as a forum to discuss changes required to improve policy and its implementation.

1-5

- There is true commitment from both the government and DPs to using the LEG (including JSRs) as a platform to discuss changes required to improve policy and its implementation

1-5

- Recommendations from the LEG are owned by stakeholders and effectively feed into addressing challenges in the ESP planning, implementation and monitoring

1-5

[Partnership dynamics]- LEG members work to build trust through an understanding of each other’s needs,

expectations and requirements – respecting respective institutions’ positions and mandates

1-5

- Dialogue is conducted in an environment that allows for open discussion of perspectives and engagement without fear for judgement

1-5

- There is sufficient consensus among national stakeholders on various sector policy issues to move forward on various priority areas during LEG discussions

1-5

- There is a protocol for mediation and resolution of disagreements, which is applied when needed

1-5

24


11 December 2019

Annex 2: Follow-up templates

Prioritization grid

The following grid can assist in transitioning from the self-assessment tool towards a focused plan ofaction to address weaker/priority areas to strengthen the LEG effectiveness.

Step 1: List the features/practices/behaviors from the self-assessment exercise that scored 1-3. Step 2: Discuss which of the responses/issues need to be addressed as priorityStep 3: Note down the selected priorities (and use these to outline an action plan – see 2 below)

Strategic functions ScoreUrgency of

solving issueHIGH/LOW

Feasibility of implementation

HIGH/LOW

Availability of resources8

YES/NO[List here all items scored from 1-3 in the detailed LEG self-assessment]

Selected priorities:

Organizational capacities ScoreUrgency of



HIGH/LOW

Availability of resourcesYES/NO


Collaborative capacities ScoreUrgency of



HIGH/LOW

Availability of resourcesYES/NO


8 Expertise, time, money

25


11 December 2019

Action Plan Template

The template below can be used (and adapted) for outlining how the selected priorities will be addressed.

Action Step Results Potential challenges Responsible Timeline

26

· Web viewLEG assessment task teams may consider reporting on the assessment findings, decision...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewLEG assessment task teams may consider reporting on the assessment findings, decision...