Progress report: “review of the roles and responsibilities of decentralised level education officers in Rwanda (DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors), detailed training needs assessment of existing officers and creation of a standardised induction programme for new recruits” – assignment under CDF Batch 1

18 February 2014, revised for CDF comments, 11th MarchImke van der Honing, Charlie Goldsmith Associates

2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................................................9

1. PROBLEM STATEMENT, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND OBJECTIVES.....................................................10

2. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................11

3. PROGRESS.......................................................................................................................................17

4. CONTEXT – EDUCATION...................................................................................................................18

5. CONTEXT - INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................22

6. DIAGNOSIS......................................................................................................................................25

7. CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................27

8. CURRENT AND PROPOSED MANDATES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RIS, SEOS, DEOS...........29A) REGIONAL INSPECTORS.............................................................................................................................31B) DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICERS.................................................................................................................35C) SECTOR EDUCATION OFFICERS...................................................................................................................37

9. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH AND NEXT STEPS...........................................................40

10. NEXT STEPS FOR THIS CONSULTANCY ASSIGNMENT.....................................................................42

11. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................43

ANNEX 1 - BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................44

ANNEX 2 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND MEETINGS................................................................................46

ANNEX 3: PRESENTATION TO REB, 7TH FEBRUARY 2014...........................................................................47

ANNEX 4: REVISED ASSIGNMENT PLAN...................................................................................................47

ANNEX 5: DRAFT CIRCULAR TO INVITE DEOS, SEOS AND REGIONAL INSPECTORS TO BRIEFING WORKSHOP ON NEW JOB DESCRIPTIONS...................................................................................................................48

ANNEX 6: DRAFT MINISTERIAL ORDER FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR RIS, DEOS, SEOS.......................................................................................................................................................49

ANNEX 7: REB LESSON EVALUATION TEMPLATE......................................................................................49

3

Executive Summary

This document provides a progress report to February 2014 on the Capacity Development Fund project for a review of the roles and responsibilities of decentralised level education officers in Rwanda (District Education Officers (DEOs), Sector Education Officers (SEOs) and Regional Inspectors (RIs)), a detailed training needs assessment of existing officers and the creation of a standardised induction programme for new recruits.

Problem statement, ToR and Objectives

The ToR sets out the problem at hand: “the DEOs are under the line management of their Districts, specifically the mayors, but they are required to provide the Ministry of Education, and increasingly the REB, with important management information and to oversee the implementation of key policies and strategies. This can cause both a conflict over priorities and time between the Ministry and the District Administration.

“Some of the conflicts are due to the lower priority given to the implementation of education policies and strategies by some of the District Administrations in preference to school construction and local projects that generate funds for the district”.

The objectives of this project set out in the ToR are that “the decentralised level education management positions of DEOs, SEOs and Inspectors will have clearly defined roles... A training needs assessment will be established with defined required training that will lead to the further development of these officials. A standardised induction programme for all new recruits will also have been produced so that any new staff entering these positions will have a comprehensive understanding of their roles and responsibilities”.

The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform their tasks more effectively and efficiently. This will contribute to a more efficient and productive education sector”.

Methodology

Our approach has been based on extensive interviews, over several visits, a participatory workshop held on 7th February 2014 as part of an expanded REB

4

Senior Management meeting, to review the draft proposed roles and responsibilities, a comparative analysis of practice in other African countries in the areas of decentralised education management and subnational government, and an analysis of the management chain.

Progress

This project is a critical path activity for delivery of the ESSP and especially relevant, as an enabler of a range of education quality improvements, to the achievement of headline education results in DFID Rwanda’s Operational Plan, for primary passes and lower secondary enrolment.

This project was envisaged as a 40 working days task, ideally consecutively, from contract signature in May 2013. Clearly, almost nine months from contracting, and despite Charlie Goldsmith Associates having contributed significant numbers of pro bono days, that has not occurred.

While the diagnostic interviews were quickly conducted, the key driver of the delay was the non-availability of the Rwanda Education Board (REB) to hold the workshop on proposed roles and responsibilities for Regional Inspectors, District Education Officers and Sector Education Officers, on several occasions in 2013.

This report sets out how the first of the three elements comprising the project has been delivered, viz the review of the roles and responsibilities of decentralised level education officers in Rwanda (DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors).

The summary Gantt chart in Annex 4 sets out how the remaining two elements of this work, a detailed training needs assessment of existing officers and the creation of a standardised induction programme for new recruits, are now expected to be finished. The training needs assessment will be conducted as part of the regional workshops for RIs, DEOs and SEOs at which the new draft job descriptions will be disseminated. Charlie Goldsmith Associates will use its wider team, including Joanne Ferry, who is based in Rwanda as part of the team on the IfE Ndi Hano project, and Erin Chu, a senior Charlie Goldsmith Associates team member, working with Imke van der Honing, to complete this project over the next 2.5 months, so that it is finished by end May 2014.

Education context

Rwanda has made rapid steps to improve access to education. Quality has not improved as fast, and in certain areas, there have been trade-offs – double-shifting reducing contact time per pupil, curriculum reductions to facilitate increased throughput, for example.

5

Improving the quality of inspection, supervision and management is thus important to delivering better education quality and outcomes, and was established as an objective in the ESSP 2010-15. The posts of DEO and SEO were established and populated in 2006 and 2011 to respond.

Context - Institutional framework

At national government level, MINEDUC is responsible for strategic leadership of the education sector. Management of the operational school system is in the hands of the Rwanda Education Board.

Rwanda is administratively divided geographically into 5 Provinces or Regions, 30 Districts, and 416 Sectors. Rwanda has a decentralised, not a deconcentrated, system of government: that is, District governments are governments in their own right.

Teachers are the largest geographically dispersed workforce of the government. Processing of their pay has been decentralised to district level since 2008. However DEOs exert relatively little direct leverage over teachers and schools in terms of salaries.

Funds for school operating costs (the latter through ‘capitation grants’, based on numbers of pupils) flows directly to schools. For both salaries and capitation grants, we understand that funding reflect statistics submitted by DEOs.

Regional Inspectors are hired by and report to REB. DEOs report directly to District Mayors, and SEOs through the Sector Executive Secretary. All three categories of officer are tied to individual “imihigo” performance contracts by their line of reporting.

Context - Capacity

The 2012 Capacity Needs Assessment highlights capacity weaknesses in some DEOs and SEOs. However, our interviews suggested that capacity was not the critical path element, and that revised job descriptions will not alone solve the problem.

Our Diagnosis

Our observations specifically with regard to the roles and responsibilities of RIs, DEOs and SEOs:

The task of the DEOs is a vital one: the input they provide to planning and budgeting, in particular, as the first line of subnational government involved

6

in implementation, is a fundamental process of government, that is better-resourced in a number of comparable African countries

There is an overlap in tasks between DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors, that can be managed more effectively

DEOs and SEOs currently can face conflicting calls on their time from REB, through the sector line of reporting, and from the priorities of the local governments to which they are directly responsible

Inspection Support Systems, relating to tools, data etc, are still under development/improvement: MLAS, EMIS, Ndi Hano: this means SEOs and DEOs spend a lot of time doing data/reporting tasks that could be automated/routinised, and less time doing supervision…

…but DEOs and SEOs are a potentially transformational resource for education quality, if they have time to provide supportive supervision and coaching to headteachers and schools

Only adjusting Job Descriptions is not a solution There is a need for increased joint (MINALOC, MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, RALGA)

ownership of process and solution

Our general assessment is that SEOs and DEOs are:

Made less effective than they could be by their limited authority over finances of the education sector at their respective levels

As more widely in the Government of Rwanda, more guided by the “imihigo” than the job description, and thus by their direct supervisors rather than their job description: specifically SEOs and DEOs currently report to local government officials, and thus are directed by local non-specialist preferences for education services, rather than by the priorities and values of the ESSP

Cross-cutting recommendations

We make a number of cross-cutting recommendations:

Line management and coordination: We propose a standing cycle of coordination, rather than an assumption that Districts will stay aligned with the ESSP priorities.

Results management: We propose REB issue a template “imihigo” contract for SEOs and DEOs.

Technical capacity: We propose either giving some SEOs responsibilities to support the DEO on district-wide issues, or hiring assistant DEOs with particular technical responsibilities (and not necessarily an education background)

Inspection and supervision: RIs should focus on summative/standards inspection, DEOs on management and coordination at District level, and SEOs on supportive supervision to schools. RIs should retain the right to

7

make unannounced inspections; SEOs should coordinate their supportive supervision cycles with their DEOs.

Information management and analysis: DEOs and SEOs should be equipped with basic IT tools (computers for DEOs, at minimum basic smartphones for SEOs) to enable them to collect, submit, and access in future the education data from their area: ideally, this will be accompanied by web access to EMIS and other government information tools, on the pattern of IPPIS.

Proposed mandates, roles and responsibilities for RIs, SEOs, DEOs

The approach we propose is focused on the education management side, around the division of impartial inspection, on the one hand, and management and supportive supervision on the other, and in terms of public sector management, in better aligning imihigo relationships:

RIs should be roving inspectors, providing impartial and truthful reporting and judgments to REB

DEOs should provide education technical advice to the District Mayors to whom they report, including input to teachers’ HR and payroll processes, and collate planning and budgeting information, working with REB; they should have assistant officers to help them with technical aspects of this role

SEOs should provide supportive supervision of headteachers and schools, and timely reporting for statistics, through the Sector Executive Secretary. Their imihigo should be cosigned by the DEO

Mayors should be formally asked by REB to ensure that not only District Development Plans and Annual Plans but individual “imihigo” performance contracts for DEOs and SEOs are consistent with the ESSP: we propose that REB should issue template “imihigo” contracts to make it easier for Mayors, Executive Secretaries and DEOs and SEOs to comply

Proposed implementation approach

The Job descriptions presented in this document consist of the main tasks and responsibilities to be carried out by the RIs, DEOs and SEOs, and reflect the discussions at the REB Senior Management meeting on 7th February.

Although the content is not likely to be contested there is need for further consultation as formally only the RIs are under the direct authority of the REB. The total package will therefore be further discussed with MIFOTRA and MINALOC, after which we would propose that the Minister of Education should send a Ministerial Order formally to implement them.

Training Needs Assessments, the second element in this project, will be combined with presentation of the draft Job Descriptions, in each

8

Region/Provinces, and be delivered between 25th March and 8th April. We expect that some minor adjustments and improvements will be made by the staff presently occupying the positions and most informed on the detail of operating under the Local Authorities, which can inform the final Ministerial Order.

The standard induction pack, the third element in this project, will then be developed based on the needs identified and the feedback of the Job Descriptions, working with REB counterparts.

Next steps for this consultancy assignment

It is proposed that Imke van der Honing and Erin Chu, a senior Charlie Goldsmith Associates colleague, will prepare the training needs assessment tool and draft the operational manuals and induction packages for new and present Inspectors and Education Officers. Joanne Ferry, our Rwanda Country Coordinator, who is based in Kigali full time, will execute the training needs assessments and report back from the regional workshops.

Conclusion

There will always be a tension between top-down planning and a bottom-up “imihigo” approach that responds first to local priorities. This tension can be managed, particularly by orienting DEOs, SEOs and their political masters in local government to the priorities of the ESSP2013, but it cannot be eliminated without a complete change of system that would lose many of the characteristics of local taking of responsibility that have enabled the Rwandan education sector to make such rapid progress.

The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform their tasks more effectively and efficiently”.

Within the organizational constraints of the current distinctive Rwandan decentralisation approach, we have therefore suggested what we believe to be the best intervention in this area, involving not only role clarification but also a set of ongoing practical measures – involving coordination mechanisms and discussion between the levels of government - to support DEOs and SEOs, to “contribute to a more efficient and productive education sector”, and have set out a workplan to deliver the rest of the project on that basis.

9

List of Abbreviations

CDF Capacity Development FundCNA Capacity Needs AssessmentDDG Deputy Director GeneralDEO District Education OfficerDIP Decentralisation Implementation PolicyEDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction

StrategyESSP Education Sector Strategic Plan 2013 – 2018GoRHR

Government of RwandaHuman Resources

IPPIS Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System

JD Job descriptionMIFOTRA Ministry of Public Service and LabourMINALOC Ministry of Local GovernmentMINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic PlanningMINEDUC Ministry of EducationQSD Quality and Standards Department of REBREB Rwanda Education BoardRI Regional InspectorSEO Sector Education Officer

10

1. Problem statement, Terms of Reference and objectives

The ToR sets out the following problem statement: “the DEOs are under the line management of their Districts, specifically the mayors, but they are required to provide the Ministry of Education, and increasingly the REB, with important management information and to oversee the implementation of key policies and strategies. This can cause both a conflict over priorities and time between the Ministry and the District Administration.

“Some of the conflicts are due to the lower priority given to the implementation of education policies and strategies by some of the District Administrations in preference to school construction and local projects that generate funds for the district”.

The objectives of this project set out in the ToR are that “the decentralised level education management positions of DEOs, SEOs and Inspectors will have clearly defined roles. The officials in these positions will fully understand their mandate and responsibilities, as well as their relationship with counterparts, and within the sector as a whole. A training needs assessment will be established with defined required training that will lead to the further development of these officials. A standardised induction programme for all new recruits will also have been produced so that any new staff entering these positions will have a comprehensive understanding of their roles and responsibilities”.

The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform their tasks more effectively and efficiently,. This will contribute to a more efficient and productive education sector”.

The specific tasks assigned were:

1) A review of the current mandate, roles and responsibilities of DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors.

2) The creation of defined job descriptions for the DEOs, SEOs and Inspectors, which are standardised across the entire sector.

3) Conducting participatory workshops with DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors. It is expected to combine Training Needs Assessment (TNA), create common understanding on their mandate, roles and

11

responsibilities, and how their positions interact with each other and with the central agencies and district authorities,

4) Develop a training plan (based on TNA) for delivering the required training, which details a.o. training content, required duration and sequencing,

5) Prepare (draft) terms of reference for potential service providers to carry out the training

6) The creation of a standardised induction pack relevant for all new recruits, so that all new officers appointed can fully understand their roles and responsibilities, mandate and relationships with other decentralised structures

2. Methodology

Organisation of the assignment and information gathering

In phase 1 of the assignment, we took the following steps:

Review literature: ESSPs; Education policies; capacity assessments; documents on Decentralisation; regional and sectoral comparands

Focus group discussions (selected DEOs/SEOs) Key informants interviews (representatives MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, RGB, MINEDUC, REB other actors NGOs Presentation to and feedback from REB

During 2013, we conducted extensive interviews at all levels from sector up to MINEDUC and partners, through a series of visits to Kigali and DEOs and SEOs in their locations. A list of interviewees is given at Annex 2. Our analysis was also informed by our work with DEOs and SEOs for the IfE Ndi Hano project.

A participatory workshop was held on 7th February 2014 as part of an expanded REB Board meeting, to review the draft proposed roles and responsibilities and make comments.

Phase 2 of the assignment will feature:

Participatory needs assessment, through consultation of DEOs and SEOs Draft Training plan for new DEOs/SEOs Draft an induction package for new DEOs/SEOs and procedure to administer and distribute

Education management approach

12

We made a short comparative analysis of practice in other African countries in the areas of decentralised education management (both technical and financial), and inspection and supervision: specifically, we have looked at a range of approaches to separation of summative inspection and formative, or supportive, supervision.

De Grauwe, in various articles, including De Grauwe 2008 (School supervision: a tool forstandardization or for equity? Anton De Grauwe, International Institute for Educational Planning working document) sets out a continuum of approaches to summative inspection and formative supervision, ranging from the ‘classical’ approach of layers of sector management from national government to local level, down through which orders cascade, and up through which information returns, to the ‘central control’ model, in which a central inspection agency – of which the UK’s OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) is a well-known example – inspects standards, but schools have considerable autonomy, and receive some support services from local authorities.

De Grauwe highlights that the classical model is widespread in Africa, because it developed in step with the extension of colonial authority, and some service delivery, to the peripheries. He notes that: “the “classical” supervision service is ineffective because it tends to focus on two almost contradictory tasks (control and support) and because it does not sufficiently separate those who provide services (i.e. the educational administration) from those who evaluate them (the supervisors form indeed part of the administration)”.

It will be important, in implementing the recommendations of this project, to ensure that we do not inadvertently create a “Back to the Future” scenario, by seeking to recreate, in the recently instituted network of DEOs and SEOs, a classical administrative model that is incompatible with the principles of Rwanda’s decentralisation policy.

A recent example of a reform in a regional country is the planned reform of subnational inspection and supervision in DRC. There the World Bank/GPE, Project appraisal document: Support to basic education project, 2013, sets out that one of the project activities focuses on the redefinition of the roles of deconcentrated entities to improve service delivery.

The reform agenda explicitly introduces a package of essential education activities (at all levels of the system) together with the concept of results-based ‘contracts’ and clear outcome indicators:

“Improve system management through (i) the strengthening management at the local/school level; (ii) improved allocation of public sector resources for the operation of offices at the de-concentrated level; (iii) the

13

development of specific actions for more effective involvement of parents and civil society in school management; (iv) strengthening of the capacity of administrative and pedagogical supervisors of educational establishments and teachers; and (v) establishing a system of management by results at all levels of the education system. (p.18).

Performance-based agreements require periodic evaluations of work on the basis of established and agreed upon indicators. In line with the IEP, the GPE will establish “performance” agreements at the sub-provincial level. This is a relatively new concept as very little accountability exists with regard to the management of school fees and the delivery of services.

The sub-provincial offices are directly accountable for implementation. For this reason, their organograms have been revisited and essential tasks redefined in order to ensure implementation at the school level. They will closely monitor the performance of school heads and teachers. Sub-provincial offices and schools will be responsible for reporting on results under the performance-based agreements. At the level of the school, parent committees will be actively involved in approving and monitoring local implementation plans. Existing operations manuals will be adapted and included in the project’s operations manuals. These will be in line with the vision of efficient service delivery as redefined in the package of essential activities, and related post descriptions at the different levels of the implementation chain. (p.58)”

In the practical administration of this task, procedures manuals are being developed to include essential tasks (limited to 4-5 key activities that are important for the quality of education) for all levels of the system and all types of staff (administrators, inspectors).Mulkeen, in his Teachers in Anglophone Africa: Issues in Teacher Supply, Training, and Management, World Bank (2010), highlights the need for well-defined, targeted routine supervision and inspection activities in schools for improving the quality of education (and the subsequent need to design adequate tools):“Inspection of schools serves two main purposes. First, it is a supervision system, monitoring events in schools, identifying difficulties early, and ensuring quality. Second, it serves as a feedback mechanism, providing information to policy makers about the reality in schools. These two roles imply different coverage requirements. An effective supervision system should be able to supervise every school with a reasonable frequency. A feedback system may function effectively by examining a carefully chosen sample of schools, but must develop a synthesis of the findings of relevance for management and feed these to the appropriate points in the education management (p.112).”

14

No one system of inspection and supervision is ipso facto better than others. However, in some contexts, some systems will be clearly more or less consistent with both the wider administrative and political arrangements, and the values and approach of the education system.

In the Rwandan context, the Regional Inspector teams have an obvious role, as Inspectors largely independent of a line management function, directly under the REB, rather than part of subnational government, and with specialist subject skills within their teams, to perform an inspection and standards role. The DEOs and SEOs, being accountable to local government, have an obvious role in locally supportive and responsive supervision and coaching of the schools, directly into whose hands the majority of resources flows.

Public sector management approach

The approach to analysis of the management chain we have used is one based on principal-agent theory (qv Simson: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8410.pdf), and the ‘typology of common governance constraints’ set out in Wild et al 2012 (Wild, L., Chambers, V., King, M., Harris, D. (2012) Common constraints and incentive problems in service delivery, Research Paper, London: ODI). The principal-agent approach looks at the incentives on actors in each case, the extent to which these do or do not flow in a direct chain, and the extent to which actors have the financial and human resources to take and manage responsibilities.

Wild et al’s ‘typology’ is shown below:

Figure 1: Typology of common governance constraints – Wild et al

15

We focus in this work particularly on avoiding ‘policy incoherence’ between the requirements of a ‘top-down’ planning approach, like the ESSP, and the local prioritisation and taking of responsibility of the ‘imihigo; approach, which Wild et al specifically praise: “there are effective forms of monitoring, including the Imihigo system, an unusual formof multi-level performance contract that utilises both rewards and sanctions and draws on concepts of honour and shame, with historical roots in the former kingdom of Rwanda. This uses both strong top-down pressures, ultimately from President Kagame, but also engagement by local populations (Chambers and Golooba-Mutebi, 2012). This means incentive structures exist for service providers, with sanctions including the possibility of being fired and rewards existing through performance-based financing”.

Smoke, P. (2003) Decentralisation in Africa: goals, dimensions, myths and challenges, Public Administration and Development, 23 (1), pp. 7-16) highlights that in Africa, decentralization processes have often led to mismatches between fiscal, political and administrative responsibilities – e.g. political decentralization without fiscal authority or design of fiscal transfers without clarity on expenditure (e.g. South Africa, Mozambique) – which have

16

compromised service delivery outcomes. In our work on these job descriptions, we have been particularly keen to ensure that RIs, DEOs and SEOs’ responsibilities do not exceed the financial and administrative leverage they have.

Another important process aspect stressed by Smoke (2003) is “coordination between different actors involved in the decentralization process. Ministries of Local Government or Home Affairs are usually at the forefront of decentralization reforms but other agencies also play a central role: Ministries of Finance have responsibilities for decentralizing revenues and defining financial transfers to local levels, and sectoral ministries have a major role in the devolution of administrative responsibilities in their specific fields. Yet, one of the greatest difficulties in most decentralization efforts in Africa has been coordination of all the actors involved and the failure to build linkages between the different components of decentralization”.

Our approach to these job descriptions has again been aimed at ensuring that the needs of the education sector are not prioritised at the expense of good and democratically accountable coordination at local level.

The task of the DEOs is a vital one: the input they provide to planning and budgeting, in particular, as the first line of subnational government involved in implementation, is a fundamental process of government, that is better-resourced in a number of comparable African countries

Horizontal span of control approach

The Provincial/Regional level of government has minimal executive function; rather, it is the Districts that are the first, and key, line of subnational service delivery management, as confirmed in the ESSP.

Rwanda is exceptional, among African countries, in having a relatively large number of first line subnational units, and second line units below them, having 30 Districts, and 416 Sectors, in a country of 11m people, as compared to, for example:

10 States, and 79/80 Counties in South Sudan, with a roughly equivalent population, commonly estimated at 11m

14 Districts, and 149 Chiefdoms in Sierra Leone, with a population of 6m people

190 Districts and x Counties in Uganda, with a population of 28m people 11 Provinces, and almost 600 Zones, in DRC, with a population of the order

of 70m 36+1 States in Nigeria, with a population of almost 170m

17

It is important, in making comparisons, to thus make comparison to the right level: in some of these countries, the first-line service delivery organisations are full State Ministries, with staffs of up to 100, rather than, as in Rwanda a single District Education Officer!

Guiding principles

Bringing together the education and public sector management approaches described, in proposing roles and responsibilities, we believe that a relevant review/redefinition of roles and responsibilities of decentralized entities in a context of a systemic shift from centralized, top-down dynamics to increased local accountability for better quality service delivery is likely to build on the following guiding principles (GPs):

1. Prioritizing activities2. Refocusing activities and limiting their number3. Reducing process complexity 4. Defining results-based accountability5. Establishing simplified reporting mechanisms

Centralized systems have a predisposition for defining roles in view of maintaining power and control over its citizens; mandates are therefore formulated as bureaucratic arrangements with little attention for end-results and improving the quality of services. A precondition for effective decentralization processes is a consensus on a sort of roadmap reform agenda that sets phased-in, gradual changes and realistic expectations for redefined roles and end-objectives. Mandates at this stage should therefore focus first on essential activities that have the potential to improve (i) the piloting of the education system; and (ii) the quality of the teaching and learning process.

3. Progress

In May 2013, the consultant made a literature review on the system of decentralised (or devolved) education officers specifically in Rwanda. This included review of the Education Sector Strategic Plans, but also further literature on the implementation of the decentralisation policy in Rwanda. The main documents reviewed are ESSP 2013-2017 (and 2010-2015) and the Education Capacity Needs Assessment report of 2012, which are specific about the expected roles as well as the actual roles of the decentralised education officers. On decentralisation; Decentralisation Implementation Plan 2011-2015,

18

(revised) Decentralisation Policy (2012) and Sectoral decentralisation in Rwanda (2013) were reviewed.

In June 2013 the consultant visited Rwanda and carried out interviews with key informants from MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, MINALOC, RGB and REB Semi structured group discussions were held with two groups of SEOs and DEOs in Kigali and Huye (where DEOs and SEOs were engaged in data entry for EMIS). In October a further group discussion was held with a group of Regional Inspectors. Extensive discussions were held with VVOB and VSO at different points in time between June and November 2013. Additional information was received through informal discussions and email with/from "Imbuto" and "Red een kind").

An informal discussion was held with an Executive Secretary of a sector in Rumango. In general Local Government staff was difficult to access in June when the consultant came to Rwanda to meet key informants as most local government staff was extremely engaged in the "Imihigo" discussions.

Two presentations to the REB Board were scheduled but cancelled by the REB Board in Autumn 2013. By the time REB was available, the lead consultant, Imke van der Honing, was not able to travel to Rwanda, on account of his security-critical responsibilities for a major DFID-funded education project in the Republic of South Sudan, which is currently suffering serious civil strife.

The proposed roles and responsibilities were finally presented to the REB Board on 7th February 2014. The next steps section below describes how the project will be finished in the next two and a half months.

4. Context – education

Access, quality and policy

The Rwanda Government places a high priority on Education, with most policies elaborated in the second Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS2) and Education Sector Strategic Plan 2010 and now the five year ESSP 2013-14 to 2017-18 (ESSP2013).Rwanda has made rapid steps to improve access to education (from 57% in 2001 to more than 95% of school age children in 2010).

ESSP2013 (p16) sets out that the Primary NER continues to improve for both girls and boys and, at 96.5%, and has surpassed the 2012 target of 95%. If

19

progress continues to be made, Rwanda will be on track to meet the MDG target of 100% net enrolment by 2015. The NER for girls (98%) remains higher than for boys (95%). Quality has not improved as fast, and in certain areas, there have been trade-offs – double-shifting reducing contact time per pupil, curriculum reductions to facilitate increased throughput, for example – which are candidly addressed in ESSP2013.

Improving the quality of inspection, supervision and management is important to delivering better education quality and outcomes, and was established as an objective in the ESSP 2010-15: “Strengthening the institutional framework and management capacity for effective delivery of education services at all levels (Objective 7 ESSP). The posts of DEO and SEO were established and populated in 2006 and 2011 to respond.

ESSP 2013 sets out an ambitious plan to scale up from nine to twelve years’ basic education, and a number of quality initiatives in order to do so, that are primarily focused on increased resource flows and target-setting, rather than on inspection/supervision and the DEOs and SEOs’ role, and include:

‘double shifting’ in primary schools (some students come to school in the morning, and others come in the afternoon)

specialisation of teachers – a long term measure to create specialist ‘language’ or ‘maths’ teachers who would then teach these subjects to a number of years of students; and

reduction in the number of courses taught in basic education to 5 – English, Maths, Science, Kinyarwanda and General Paper.

The language of instruction in the early years of primary education (P1 to P3) is Kinyarwanda; from P4 onwards it is English

Renewed emphasis on the importance of early childhood development

Measures to improve teacher motivation and retention were introduced in 2007, including increases in salaries. However, although secondary school teachers do receive a living wage, for primary school teachers the wage is still low by regional and local standards (see Bennell 2008). Quality of education remains a major challenge for the Rwandan Education system. There is a shortage of qualified teachers, with only 65% of primary school teachers and 35% of secondary school teachers holding credentials (IPAR, 2012b).Inspection, supervision, education management

The rapid expansion of the education sector, and the extent to which expansion outstripped management numbers and capacity meant that

20

supervision and inspection in the 2000s became cursory and based on checklists rather than on managing quality in an organic way.The appointment of the Regional Inspectors, subject specialists employed by REB to provide inspection across all schools, and then the DEOs and 416 SEOs, under the management of the District Mayors and Sector Executive Secretaries respectively, provided some rapid additional human resource to increase inspection and supervision capacity.The DEOs and SEOs are in a problematic position because: they are not answerable to REB, but to their local authorities headteachers are not directly line-managed by the SEOs, but are

accountable to the sector executive secretaries and thence to the District Mayor

REB has expressed its concern that in case there are complaints parents will come to REB/MINEDUC not to local government – ie, effectively it is held accountable for something it cannot manage. REB staff also informally suggest that in order to achieve results to fulfil “imihigo” these results are in some cases only achieved on paper.The diagram below, based on one produced by REB colleagues, photographed below, articulates the present position, and adds on some principal information flows, showing clearly the extent to which DEOs and SEOs do not have financial authority over schools in their area, and are torn between their sectoral and local government chains of accountability.

21

Figure 2: diagram of relationships between GoR education sector actors with data flows

legend:inspectionEmis dataPlan/budgetCapitation grants

Figure 3: diagram of relationships between GoR education sector actors with data flows – original drawn by REB colleagues

MINEDUC

Mayor

DEOExecutive Secretary

Sector

SEO Schools

FinanceDG REB

DDG QSD

RI

local governments

22

ESSP2013

ESSP2013 has relatively little to say about DEOs and SEOs in the context of education quality – its approach to quality is focused on basic input ratios – time taught under double-shifting, pupil-teacher ratios, qualified teacher supply textbook and other resource coverage.Section 2.5.4ff:“educational service delivery fall into the District Education Offices’ responsibilities. These include: Preparation of the Five-Year District Education Development Plan and the

Three-Year District Education Strategic Plan Implementation of education policy and strategic plans Preparation of the budget and MTEF Monitoring and evaluation of activities in education Recruitment, deployment and payment of permanent teaching staff, within

ceilings set by MINECOFIN Provision of information on employed teachers to MINEDUC through REB Provision of all education statistics Transfers of teachers and students within the same district Follow-up of NGO education-related activities and reporting back to

Provinces and MINEDUC Monitoring of school financial reports, use of capitation grants, teachers’

salaries and school feeding.“Sector & Cell

The Presidential Order No. 57/01 of 15/10/2006 makes the Sector a direct service provider to the population and collection of data and information needed by higher levels for development planning. At the sector level, educational responsibilities are performed by a Sector Education Officer (SEO).”

We note that the list of responsibilities of DEOs makes limited reference to the line of reporting of DEOs, to the District Mayors – almost as if they where in a classical administrative management approach, reporting to REB – and is highly focused on their reporting duties to the centre, to the exclusion of responsibilities for quality.

On planning, ESSP2013 notes that: “MINEDUC has worked with districts during the elaboration of the ESSP and their DDPs, with consultations on the education sector goals and strategic outcomes. Accordingly DDPs have been elaborated based on the identified education sector priorities and outcomes. The District

23

priorities for the next five years will be focused on the following areas in line with the education sectors overarching goals and sector outcomes…

“As set out in Section 3.4.4, DEOs are responsible for formulating district level annual action plans which form part of the wider District Development Plan. The education elements are in line with the priorities set out in the ESSP. Plans are validated by District Education Committees chaired by the Mayor or the Vice-Mayor for social affairs.”As described elsewhere, our interviews suggested that, in fact, in some cases District priorities are perhaps less aligned to ESSP2013 priorities than these statements might suggest.

ESSP2013 also provides a helpful suggestion, that SEOs should take an increasing role in supportive supervision of quality, rather than merely funnelling information:

“With decentralisation and public service reforms a number of responsibilities now lie with District Education Officers (DEOs). These include the implementation of policy and strategic plans, preparation of district plans and budgets, monitoring and evaluation of education activities and school financial reports, and teacher recruitment and transfers. There has also been decentralisation of procurement of teaching and learning materials. Sector Education Officers (SEOs) have been recruited to support DEOs in carrying out these activities and to improve linkages between the district education office and schools. However there is potential for their role to also support head teachers in improving quality at school level, rather than only providing administrative support to DEOs”.

5. Context - institutional framework

Decentralised government

At national government level, MINEDUC is responsible for strategic leadership of the education sector. Management of the operational school system is in the hands of the Rwanda Education Board.

Rwanda is administratively divided geographically into 5 Provinces or Regions, 30 Districts, and 416 Sectors. Rwanda has a decentralised, not a deconcentrated, system of government: that is, District governments are governments in their own right, with the different sectors within them under the leadership of the District Mayor, rather than being local emanations of national government, reporting to the sector ministries at national level.

24

Teachers are the largest geographically dispersed workforce of the government. Processing of their pay has been decentralised to district level since 2008. However, since we understand salaries flow direct to teachers’ bank accounts, and are managed by the District HR teams through IPPIS, reporting to the Mayor, DEOs exert relatively little direct leverage over teachers and schools in terms of salaries.

Funds for school operating costs (the latter through ‘capitation grants’, based on numbers of pupils) flows directly to schools. For both salaries and capitation grants, we understand that funding reflect statistics submitted by DEOs.

Regional Inspectors are hired by and report to REB. DEOs report directly to District Mayors, and SEOs through the Sector Executive Secretary. All three categories of officer are tied to individual ‘Imihigo’ performance contracts by their line of reporting.DIP 2011-2015, National Decentralization Policy 2012 and Revised Decentralisation policy 2013 (draft)

Decentralisation has been a key policy of the Government of Rwanda (GoR) since 2000 when the National Decentralisation Policy was adopted. The main thrust of the policy was, and is, to ensure equitable political, economic, and social development throughout the country, and to be a cornerstone of the fight against poverty by increasing people’s participation in the planning and management of the development process.

Since inception of the policy the GoR decided that the implementation of the strategy should be carried out in phases. The first phase (2001 to 2005) aimed at establishing democratic and community development structures at the District level and was accompanied by a number of legal, institutional and policy reforms, as well as democratic elections for local leaders.

The second phase (2006 to 2010) was conceived after a territorial restructuring in 2005, which considerably reduced the number of administrative entities (from 11 to 4 provinces (plus Kigali), 106 to 30 districts, 1545 to 416 sectors), and aimed at consolidating progress on national priorities and deepen the decentralisation process by enhancing effectiveness in service delivery to communities.

In the latest Revision of the DIP, the Revised Decentralisation Policy 2013 (draft), GoR has realised that the increased responsibilities of the Local Governments for the implementation of the service delivery have not sufficiently been matched with resources, both financial and human.

The revised decentralisation policy promises to revitalise the decentralisation policy (DIP), which is expected to create increasing autonomy of the local

25

governments. It is indicated that the government will strive to adjust boundaries between existing local governments in order to create viable units of local government. These local governments are expected to elaborate not only their own plans (District Development Plan) and budgets, which are expected to contribute towards the National EDPRS and achieve their goals. The local governments will also have to elaborate district sector plans and strategies. This will be a clear and additional responsibility for the sector officers in the local government. The revised policy refers to the provincial level as a level of government with deliberately limited implementation capacity, and more focus on support, guidance and coaching and coordination of the district governments. This is assumed also to be the case for the service delivery sectors.The revised policy is very clear that all service sectors will report through the local government channels, but there is reference to the need to communicate faster (direct) on technical issues concerning the sectors.The National Decentralization Policy (June 2012) sets out that Phase III of the National Decentralization Policy will focus on re-energizing the decentralization policy (p.11); assessment of current policy shows the need for more clarity about current roles and mandates at provincial, district and sector levels and that is important to document and continuously update a roster of assignments and functions (p.14). Analysis of the current situation shows that devolution of roles and responsibilities to lower levels raises the issue of redefining and refocusing mandates (among others, HR management): the role of district needs to be redefined to increase focus on planning, strategic oversight and coordination of the Sectors (p.15).The following excerpts all highlight the need for better delineation, clarification of roles, including coordination, supervision, implementation, PFM and reporting: To enhance effectiveness and efficiency in the planning, monitoring,

and delivery of services by promoting joint development planning between central and local governments and ensuring that service delivery responsibilities and corresponding public expenditure are undertaken at the lowest levels possible (p.25)

Presently however, there is still some unclear division of roles and responsibilities, with some levels being over-loaded with responsibilities yet under-funded and under-staffed: The Government shall ensure that the decentralized functions are clarified, even as they are progressively devolved, and the roles and responsibilities assigned to each level are clear, and that all actors have a common understanding of what is expected to be performed by each level (p.27)

26

Ensure that all delegated and de-concentrated functions from the central to local governments are clearly articulated and that the delegating entity has provided the required resources, commits to supervising such activities, and is held accountable. (p.28)

Build systems at central level that guide and support decentralization, and robust administrative systems in Local Governments that are capable of attracting and managing resources effectively and efficiently in accordance with public financial management procedures (p.28).

Reporting, Accountability and Feedback mechanisms. The Government will ensure that the policy is well communicated to, understood and implemented by stakeholders. The Ministry of Local Government, designated as the lead institution for overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the policy will develop appropriate strategies for communication and reporting, that emphasize two-way dialogue, effective feedback mechanisms, results-based monitoring, evidence-based reporting and multiple stakeholder involvement. The existing structures and platforms for accountability will be reinforced to make them more effective, especially for communities and non state actors to actively engage in the Policy implementation (p.42)

6. Diagnosis

This section draws together our diagnosis, and makes some overall recommendations about management processes in the education sector. The next section then elaborates those into individual proposed roles and responsibilities for the RIs, DEOs and SEOs, and is then followed by a set of proposed steps for putting both sets of recommendations into effect.

Observations

Our observations specifically with regard to the roles and responsibilities of RIs, DEOs and SEOs:

There is an overlap in task between DEOs and SEO, and possibly with Regional Inspectors, that can be managed more effectively

DEOs and SEOs currently can face conflicting calls on their time from REB, through the sector line of reporting, and from the priorities of the local governments to which they are directly responsible

Inspection Support Systems, relating to tools, data etc, are still under development/improvement: MLAS, EMIS, Ndi Hano: this means SEOs and DEOs spend a lot of time doing data/reporting tasks that could be automated/routinised, and less time doing supervision…

27

…but DEOs and SEOs are a potentially transformational resource for education quality, if they have time to provide supportive supervision and coaching to headteachers and schools

Only adjusting Job Descriptions is not a solution There is a need for increased joint (MINALOC, MINEDUC, MIFOTRA, RALGA)

ownership of process and solution

Our general assessment is that SEOs and DEOs are:

Made less effective than they could be by their limited authority over finances of the education sector at their respective levels

As more widely in the Government of Rwanda, more guided by the “imihigo” than the job description, and thus by their direct supervisors rather than their job description.

The second of these points is not just an issue of the difference between the continuing tasks set out in a Job Description, and the annual specific actions agreed under “imihigo” contracts. Nor is it necessarily a fault: an approach to this assignment that produced job descriptions that gave the education sector ‘everything it could want’ would be a sub-optimal one. Specifically, SEOs and DEOs currently report to local government officials, and thus are directed in the first instance by local non-specialist preferences for education services, rather than by the priorities and values of the ESSP for delivering quality education.

This can manifest itself in a focus in “imihigo” on delivering flagship capital investments, or focusing on an area that is of priority for the District Mayor, and losing focus on the ‘prise en charge’ of education services across the whole District. There can also be a simple issue of non-specialists not knowing what would make progressive and achievable “imihigo” contract contents.

We also heard some reports that SEOs were often asked to be part of meetings organised by executive secretary of the sector as he/she is most capable (highest qualified) staff at the sector level for minuting etc: SEOs visiting schools was sometimes consequently deprioritised by the Executive Secretary.

We believe these two points have more impact on how RIs, DEOs and SEOs can and should perform their roles, than any confusion between RIs, SEOs and DEOs over inspection and supervision roles. Therefore the theory of change of this project – that clarifying roles and responsibilities would ensure alignment of priorities, around the ESSP, all the way down from MINEDUC and REB through the (RIs,) DEOs and SEOs to the schools, does not fully hold.

A number of practical actions, beyond revisions to roles and responsibilities, can be taken to better ensure alignment of priorities, and, in particular, to ensure “imihigo” priorities are set in a way that is well-aligned to the ESSP,

28

including improved and regular coordination between the education sector and the local authorities, the provision of template “imihigo” contracts that Districts can be asked to base their locally-specific ones on and/or that step non-specialists through a sensible analytical process. The next sections set out concrete proposals.

7. Cross-cutting recommendations

We make a set of cross-cutting (ie not individual to one of the three cadres) recommendations, based on five cross-cutting issues that have been raised either in the Capacity Needs Assessment or in our recent programme of interviews were. Line management and coordination mandate and structure of SEOs, DEOs

and RIs; formal coordination between REB/MINEDUC and the education officers under the line management of the Districts

Results management: "imihigo" and performance management not necessarily in line with Education priorities

Coordination between national and subnational officials: lTechnical capacity: Technical capacity of SEOs and DEOs does not always match the job requirements

Inspection and supervision: overlap of work of RIs, DEOs and SEOs, specifically in relation to "inspection-like" school visits

Information management and analysis: particularly burdens on DEOs and SEOs

Resources: resources available for DEOs and SEOs to carry out their tasks are very limited

Line management and coordinationAlthough all officers work in the education sector the RI works under the line management of REB, which is mandated by MINEUDUC to monitor and support the implementation of the education policy, and advise on policy formulation. The DEOs and SEOs however work under the direct line management of the local governments. This is completely in line with the decentralisation policy and cannot be changed.

There is therefore need to ensure sufficient formal linkages, coordination and communication between the SEOs and DEOs and other staff working in the education sector. We make proposals for a standing cycle of coordination, rather than an assumption that Districts will stay aligned with the ESSP priorities.

29

Result managementThe Capacity Needs Assessment observed, and we concur, that the management of DEOs and SEOs through “imihigo” by direct superiors, who are not from the education sector, has led to priorities that are visible, tangible and easy to manage, but do not necessarily coincide with priorities as stated in the ESSP. We propose REB issue a template imihigo contract for SEOs and DEOs.

Technical capacity of officersDue to the ongoing decentralisation process changing job requirements over time, DEOs are acquiring increased Planning and Budgeting responsibilities, but, having been appointed primarily as education technical officers, cannot necessarily be expected to possess these skills. Moreover, as set out in the section on horizontal span of control, above, DEOs face responsibilities that in other African countries whole Ministries or Departments are expected to discharge, including prepare annual education plans and budgets as well as education strategies for the local government areas. These plans have to be based on bottom up planning supported by SEOs. The Education plan will be part of the district development plan (but has to be a complete plan, including budget as the districts are expected to generate the resources they require). This point is made in DIP 2013, as well as in ESSP 2013/14, and U/S MINEDUC has informally expressed a desire for DEOs to take on a role more like a head-of-department, and recognised the staffing needs that would entail – though these are not yet funded. We propose either giving some SEOs responsibilities to support the DEO on district-wide issues, hiring assistant DEOs with particular technical responsibilities (and not necessarily an education background), or, if funds are not sufficient for additional hiring, for named district staff from other sectors with the best fit of skills to be assigned to support the DEO – IT and finance being two areas in which such an arrangement might most obviously work.

Inspection and supervisionA number of interviewees noted that all the officers RIs, DEOs and SEOs did regularly visit schools in relation to their jobs. In the following chapter the mandate and roles and responsibilities of the officers is described and effort is made to make sure that overlap is minimised, and that, at all costs, schools’ operation is not disrupted. Our headline proposal is that RIs should focus on summative/standards inspection, DEOs on management and coordination at District level, and SEOs on supportive supervision to schools. RIs should retain the right to make unannounced inspections; SEOs should coordinate their supportive supervision cycles with their DEOs, and also perform follow-up to RI/major inspections. To build their skills and knowledge, it may also be appropriate for SEOs to observe RI inspections.

30

Information management and analysis at District and Sector levelThe SEOs are expected to gather a lot of information from the schools for management (and planning) purposes of MINEDUC and also MINECOFIN, including EMIS, Capitation Grant and Budget data.Most of the information is presently simply gathered and forwarded to other levels. The fact that SEOs and DEOs (to a lesser extent) do not actually use the information gathered means there is little incentive to make sure data gathered is correct and timely/regularly collected.DEOs and SEOs would be better incentivised to collect information accurately if it remained available to them in a tractable/readily manipulable format (eg rather than paper reports), and would lose less time to data tasks, if some of this work were automated. There is a further argument about giving DEOs more authority to act on data –for example for assignment of staff, or for top-ups for schools with particular needs: this is more complex, as it has PFM implications: we will discuss in detail with DEOs at the regional workshops.We propose that DEOs and SEOs should be equipped with basic IT tools (computers for DEOs, at minimum basic smartphones for SEOs) to enable them to collect, submit, and access in future the education data from their area: ideally, this will be accompanied by web access to EMIS and other government information tools, on the pattern of IPPIS.

8. Current and proposed mandates, roles and responsibilities for RIs, SEOs, DEOs

Introduction to the mandates roles and responsibilities

This section is structured with an introduction to the issues, followed by, for each cadre, a comparison of the present and proposed situation.Based on the initial discussions and field work in June, lists of activities by role had been drafted and presented to the REB Board meeting in 7th February 2014, and won their support. These are therefore shown for the record.Based on further discussions with CDF and in line with the Rwanda Decentralisation Policy, we were asked to group and simplify some of these activities, and these are shown as ‘proposed – simplified’.Introduction to the issues

The main issue concerning the mandates and responsibilities of the RIs, DEOs and SEOs is that there is a different pace in the reform/decentralisation process. As the decentralisation takes place the local authorities are given the

31

responsibility for the implementation of the education service delivery, they are also responsible for the quality of the services, but the mandate of the inspection and oversight is still with the REB through the inspectorate (QSD and RIs).

As this is realised additional staff have been employed through the local authorities who can take on the inspection, but as these newly appointed SEOs are highly qualified as compared to other staff at the sector level, and new in their jobs, they are not exclusively used to increase the support and guidance of the schools, teachers and school management committees as initially envisaged. This is due to the fact that their line managers are not the DEOs, who have a background and experience in education, but the Executive Secretary of the sector, who has a more general management role and is more guided by political priorities.

Simultaneously at the REB/QSD something similar happens. The experienced inspectors are suddenly faced with a new mandate which is less focussed on actual direct school inspection and much more on guiding and coaching of newly appointed SEOs to carry out inspections. In the initial stages the coaching is done by providing checklists for inspection, which gives only the basis, but is not in line with a much more advisory and participatory inspection, which is generally considered more effective, but not as easy to teach and learn.

Additional problem is that the RIs will have to work across different institutions, that will come with different cultures and generally will have less understanding of the developments and culture within the education sector. The local governments are still evolving in their roles. In most cases the budgets and resources of the local governments are not in line with their increasing responsibilities. Local authorities are expected to generate their own revenue, which is not easy in the social service delivery sectors. The following sections describe the mandates, roles and responsibilities of the RIs, DEOs and SEOs respectively. In each section there will be a brief description of the present situation followed by a description: "ideal situation" that will give opportunities to have some of the areas as mentioned in the Capacity Needs section (chapter 2) addressed. Please note that it gives the opportunity only, as MINEDUC and REB have limited control over DEOs and SEOs.

MINEDUC and REB are mandated to elaborate Job Descriptions for staff in the Education sector. However as the DEOs and SEOs will be working in, and under the local governments leadership there is no full control as to what level the proposed job descriptions will actually be adopted and implemented. Although we give attention to how this can be done in the sections "ideal situation" this is further elaborated in the next chapter, with some practical guidelines and tools.

32

Roles and responsibilities

Roles and responsibilities of RIs, DEOs and SEOs outlined below are based on minimum tasks (“cahier de charges”) that are structured around essential components of quality education (education statistics, teacher training, textbooks, school construction, teacher recruitment and deployment, school supervision, etc) [Guiding Principles 1 and 2 above]. Their formulation should be precise so that their activities can be connected to end-results and easily measured [GP4]. Reporting mechanisms should be simplified and efficient with consolidated reports at different levels. [GP5]Results-based contracts should refer to the various roles and responsibilities but also (and explicitly) to the expected end-results.a) Regional InspectorsPresent situation

The teams of Regional inspectors are REB field staff assigned to Provinces/Regions, who operate directly under the DDG for Quality and Standards. The Regional Inspectors formerly had principal responsibility for carrying out school inspections. With the increasing workload and the availability of DEOs and SEOs more and more inspections were carried out at the lower level. The Regional Inspectors further have developed forms and guidelines that support the DEOs and SEOs to carry out inspections and lessons observations to certain set standards. The Regional Inspectors are 5 regional teams (each with 6 inspectors with a pedagogical responsibility: French/Kiswahili; English; Kinyarwanda, Mathematics, Science and Physics). They do move in their region, but have recently trained the SEOs to do most of the actual inspections, though there is no formal relationship between inspectors and SEOs)The first results of this training were a sort of ‘tick list’ approach to inspection, with checklists reportedly about windows, water, toilets and other hardware. Annex 7 below is the much improved checklist that was developed in 2013 with support of VVOB/Teacher Development Department, REB, which is potentially highly constructive (though ideally would have free text fields for inspectors to record brief examples for each section).But the lack of a clear line of command makes the actioning of inspection findings difficult. Our impression is that many documents have stuck with the Executive Secretaries of the sector instead of ending at the RI: and that there should be clear guidance about which inspections should be counted as ‘local’/supportive supervision, and which should be shared in detail with RI. In due course, as per our recommendation above re IT and communications

33

resources for RIs, DEOs and SEOs, inspection and lesson observation templates of the type shown at Annex 7 are highly suitable for using with feature/smartphones, so that data can be held in a consistent format, and shared, to the extent desired, smoothly.Teachers are recruited through the Local Authorities and thus there is no direct line of management from RIs (or any other REB officer) to teachers: while the priority is clearly for local accountability for staff, there needs to be a mechanism for recommendations by the RIs – for example, concerns about a teacher’s attendance or performance – to be followed up, and, as appropriate, acted upon, by DEOs To make such a mechanism effective, there should ideally be a cycle back so that Districts report to RIs the actions they have taken against each principal inspection recommendation.

Proposed situation

The Decentralisation policy (see above) is clear that the "provincial or regional level” is no longer seen as the highest level of implementation, but as coordinating and supporting the actual implementing level in the districts.To create a clear division of roles between RIs, DEOs and SEOs it is advisable that in principle SEOs will carry out supportive supervision in their sector, as each school is based in a sector and can be seen as such to have a direct relationship with the SEO.By supportive supervision, we mean inspection that is primarily intended to support and develop the practice of the school and teachers on-the-job, and that is not typically used either as the basis for resource allocation, contractual sanctions, or reporting on national standards. We use the term here in partial opposition to summative inspection, which is intended to deliver a judgment on standards in a school, and that will generally feed up to formal national statistics. RI teams will have a role of impartial inspection and reporting, to REB and thus to the sector, on standards in schools, and will inspect schools to do so. They will also be a senior technical and coaching resource for DEOs and SEOs to refer to in the development of their plans.The following part of the "proposed situation"(in italics) can only be reached when suggestions in chapter 6 are adopted.REB should discuss with MINALOC and MIFOTRA the opportunity to have Regional Inspectors co-sign on DEOs performance contracts as a measure to ensure that educational sector priorities, which are less tangible, are given proper attention in the contract and will feature in the work plan of the DEOs.

34

The Regional Inspectors will also be effective in ensuring that DEOs and SEOs can be focussed on their educational sector responsibilities by being present in the work planning sessions in the districts where Regional Inspectors direction can carry more weight than the DEO's and the SEO's.

We accept that the DEOs’ role is primarily managerial and administrative, and that of the RIs, primarily technical: it is for this reason that the RIs are proposed to be co-signatories, providing a technical input, but not replacing the administrative chain of management as the principal signatories.Proposed Mandate for Regional Inspectors

The Regional Inspectors have been mandated to support the implementation of the education sector policy in the districts and sectors in their region. They are also mandated to ensure interpretation and explanation of the Rwanda Education Strategy and Policy as elaborated in ESSP 2013-2018. The inspectors are expected to coordinate closely with the DEOs in their region.Roles and Responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors – as presented to REB, with minor revisions for reviewer’s proposals

The roles and the responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors should include: To participate in the establishment and continuous improvement of the

standards of quality education; To participate in the establishment of inspection standards in the region

under his/her supervision Ensure quality education services is delivered in the education

institutions by following up on the implementation of the school legislation, the education policy, the implementation of programs and other official instructions from the Ministry in the field of education and of school inspection in the region under his/her supervision

To coordinate (but not line manage) education inspection activities in the Districts that fall under his/her jurisdiction;

Analyse inspection reports from the SEOs in their area, and ensure that DEOs and SEOs follow up issues raised

Report the analysis of inspections (looking at issues like education programs, textbooks, teaching materials and the official examinations as well as possibilities of their appropriateness to the students) in his region with the Inspector General/Deputy DG QSD

Prepare training material for inspectors, DEOs, SEOs to conduct inspections and lessons observations to set and agreed standards (potentially with RI Quality Assurance of a sample)

Conduct summative inspections to a cycle mandated by MINEDUC/REB Conduct re-inspections upon the request of DEOs or schools, in case of

disagreement on the outcome of or follow-up to earlier inspections

35

Organise monthly meetings with DEOs and SEOs and Mayor or representative to discuss progress in preparing and implementing the District Education Plan

Design and disseminate a template format for “imihigo” performance contracts for DEOs and SEOs that put forward appropriate indicators for quality education service delivery: final decision on content of contracts will remain with Mayors and DEOs

Organise annual events to make inspection visits more effective as supportive to initiatives to improve quality of education (as opposed to punitive)

Participate in training activities for education and local government staff, including (head)teachers aimed at improving quality of education services in the region under his/her jurisdiction

To participate in the preparation of the plan of action and budget of inspectorate of education (QSD).

Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors – simplified

The roles and the responsibilities of the Regional Inspectors in their respective provinces, and in close collaboration with each other, include:

The mandate of the RIs is essentially one of oversight, support for defining policies and setting the norms and standards of the system, including for the process of supportive supervision, providing summative inspections that confirm progress against the standards, and, by exception, oversight of follow-up measures where a specific shortcoming has been identified. Their role is NOT one of routine supervision visits to schools (SEOs) and, from that perspective, the title of RIs should possibly change into Provincial Education Officer (PEO).

To establish and ensure implementation of minimum education norms and standards that are in line with the existing national education policy for, among others, teacher qualification and training, creation and accreditation of schools, curriculum development, textbook design, construction and equipment of schools, examinations, and so on;

To design and produce standardized tools/formats for school supervision and data collection (statistics);

To produce consolidated education statistics of their respective provinces;

To conduct summative inspections to a cycle mandated by MINEDUC/REB;

To analyze consolidated reports from DEOs and SEOs, formulate relevant policy adjustments and elaborate national or specific action plans;

36

b) District Education OfficersPresent situation

The District Education Officers are employed through the Local Authorities, have a job description through the HR of the Local Government and their tasks have been described in the "cadre organique" (standard format of MIFOTRA) as suggested by MINEDUC through Ministerial Order. The DEOs are answerable to the District Mayors, with whom they sign a performance contract. DEOs have more allegiance to the priorities of the local government that do not necessarily coincide with the education sector priorities. The DEO currently has no direct formal working relationship with either the Regional Inspector nor with the SEO, who is managed by the Sector Executive Secretary. Formally communication with the first will go through the mayor and the DDG for REB QSD, with the SEO the communication will be via the mayor and the Sector Executive Secretary, copy to the DEO. Proposed situation

According to the revised Decentralisation Policy and ESSP2013 (see citation above) the DEO is fully in charge of all education activities in the district. This makes him the superior to all staff in the education sector in the district, including the SEOs, and the education building officers.Being the superior to all education staff in the district also makes the DEO a direct superior to the SEO, which makes it possible for him to sign the performance contract with the SEO. The Sector Executive Secretary can in this case be the co-signature to the performance contract: in the event that this were not deemed acceptable in terms of decentralisation policy, a fallback option would be for the DEO to co-sign the performance contract of SEOs, with Sector Executive Secretaries as the principal signatory.Proposed Mandate of District Education Officers

The DEO is the highest Education sector official in the district and as such responsible for the quality and scope of the education service delivery in the district. He/she has the mandate to coordinate all activities in the education sector, including activities of NGOs and CBOs.Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the District Education Officers – as presented to REB

Preparation of the Five-Year District Education Development Plan/budget and the Three-Year District Education Strategic Plan;

37

Implementation of education policy and strategic plans in the district, and the alignment of these to the national policies and plans for education;

Preparation of the budget and MTEF for Education; Monitoring and evaluation of activities in education; To coordinate, analyse and ensure follow up inspectional supportive

supervision activities in the District; To raise and analyze problems relating to the programmes, textbooks

and other materials, and to review and act on the reports of inspections and other school visits from SEOs of the District;

To provide, as the senior educationalist, and working through the SEOs, advice and suggestion to teachers of innovations in learning and teaching in the District under his/her jurisdiction;

Organise Recruitment, deployment and payment of permanent teaching staff, within ceilings set by MINECOFIN;

Provision of information on employed teachers to MINEDUC through REB; Provision of all education statistics, including pupils enrolment and daily

attendance, as well at teachers attendance; Transfers of teachers and students within the same district; Follow-up of NGO education-related activities, JADF and reporting back to

Provinces and REB/MINEDUC; Monitoring of school financial reports, use of capitation grants, teachers’

salaries and school feeding.Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the District Education Officers – simplified

The main roles and responsibilities of the District Education Officers include:

To prepare District Education Development/Strategy plans and budgets and ensure that all education activities in their respective districts are in line with identified priorities;

To recruit, deploy and pay teaching staff, within budget ceilings set by MINECOFIN;

To coordinate major education activities such as routine supervision of schools, textbook distribution, in-service training of teachers, data collection, school construction or rehabilitation and examinations in line with annual plans and budgets;

To consolidate (and analyze) reports of SEOs, especially those related to education statistics and school supervision and transmit/provide consolidated reports to the RIs;

38

c) Sector Education OfficersPresent situation

The SEOs like the DEOs have a summary description as in the "cadre organique". It is assumed that the individual local governments elaborate specific job descriptions when recruiting or upon employing SEOs, who report to the Sector Executive Secretary. In practice even for their HR system, it seems most Sectors use the generic summarised description as in the “cadre organique”. In some cases where other development actors are involved, like VSO, working job descriptions have been drafted that are more elaborated and as such more supportive to the SEOs to be remained focussed on educational activities.Although the DEO has district wide responsibility for the education sector the relationship with the SEO is presently through the local government administrative channels (because the SEO reports to the Sector Executive Secretary), which can delay information exchange and lead to distortion of messages and information.Proposed situation

The DEO is in charge of all education activities in the district. This should de facto make him a superior to the SEO, even if that can only be argued for the education sectoral activities that the SEO is expected to carry out and not necessarily for the more administrative tasks that some SEOs are assigned by their Sector Executive Secretaries (minute-taking etc – see above). This new situation would allow the argument that the DEO can actually sign the performance contract of the SEO or in the least co-sign. Depending on the way forward the Sector Executive Secretary can either sign or co-sign the SEO's the performance contract.Proposed Mandate of Sector Education Officers

The SEO has the mandate to ensure that effective quality education services are delivered to the people in the sector who are entitled to them. He/she is the contact point for the schools and other actors in the education sector, and has a role of supportive supervision: the SEO provides information for decisions on resources and accountability taken by the District’s Accounting Officer.Proposed Roles and Responsibilities of the Sector Education Officers – as presented to REB

Support to school administration and school management To prepare educational statistics in the Sector, including attendance of

teachers and pupils;

39

To make sure that the norms and standards of quality of education are adhered to

To support all levels of schools in the Sector making school development plan;

To monitor the implementation of the school development plans in the Sector;

To report to DEO on progress of implementation of school development plans;

To strive to improve the quality of education at all levels except higher education

To prepare and follow up teachers’ recruitment and appointment at all levels of schools in the Sector;

To organize and maintain teachers training records in the Sector; To make a follow up on head teachers and teachers performance in the

Sector; To prepare administrative documents required for teachers’ promotion in

the Sector; To carry out teachers training needs assessment, develop their training

plan and ensure the execution in the Sector; To manage and advise on teachers career development in the Sector; To provide advice and suggestion to teachers of innovations in learning

and teaching in the Sector under his/her jurisdiction To receive and handle specific requests submitted by teachers in the

Sector; To ensure that distribution and the use of school materials, textbooks, at

all levels of schools in the Sector are well done

To participate in the preparation of the District Education work plan, Annual Plan, Strategic Plan and budgets of the District.

School inspection To inspect all levels of schools environment and the teaching and

learning of all subjects taught in schools in the Sector and submit it to the District Education Officer of the sector and copy to the Sector Executive Secretary;

To make sure that the curriculum is well followed as stipulated by the authority that has national curriculum in its jurisdiction

To forward problems related to the programs, textbooks and other materials as well as the examinations to the concerned authorities

Make quarterly and annual education reports in the Sector for the DEO

Proposed roles and Responsibilities of the District Education Officers – simplified

40

To monitor and ensure implementation of major education activities in their respective schools in line with national policy, norms and standards; these mainly are:

collection of educational statistics; in-service training of teachers and head teachers; distribution and utilization of textbooks; school construction and/or rehabilitation;

To support schools and conduct school supervision visits and monitor/assess:

teacher/head teacher performance; attendance rates of pupils/students and teachers; role and involvement of school management committees; implementation of school development plans; school budgets;

To transmit consolidated education statistics and supervision reports to DEOs;

[As part of their results-based contract all parties involved (RIs, DEOs and SEOs) are expected to comply with fiduciary discipline (as outlined in the procedures manual, still to be developed) when managing their respective budgets]

Figure 4: Proposed mandates of RIs, DEOs and SEOs(Example of North province, Burera district)

41

Regional Inspector

(RI)

BureraDEO

GakenkeDEO

GicumbiDEO

MusanzeDEO

RulindoDEO

17 sectors17 SEOs

BungweSEO

ButaroSEO

CyanikaSEO

Schoolcluster

(5-20 schools)

Schoolcluster

(5-20 schools)

Schoolcluster

(5-20 schools)

OversightPolicy

Norms and standards

ManagementCoordination

Supervisionand monitoring(school visits)

Mandates

ConsolidatedSEO reports

ConsolidatedDEO reports

feed intofeed into

Reportingcircuit

ConsolidatedRI reports

42

9. Proposed implementation approach and next steps

Dialogue with Local Government through the TNA and JD presentation process

REB/MINEDUC has already engaged with the Regions, and, to some extent Districts and Sectors. It will be important that there should be engagement with the Districts on be on the management support for the Local Government Education Officers (DEOs and SEOs) sought from them and not only on matters of education policy and quality.The 30 Districts all have a large degree of autonomy and it will be difficult to engage all of them at the same time and/or to agree with all of them on exactly the same position. Dialogue will have to start as soon as possible, and, once MINALOC and MIFOTRA have been consulted, the Training Needs Assessment and draft Job Descriptions presentation process, bringing together Districts by Province, is an obvious vehicle for this dialogue over the next two months, ahead of the regular coordination cycle proposed below.MINEDUC/REB should thereafter make sure the final Job Descriptions are adopted and legalised through the appropriate channels (see below re Ministerial order).A standard induction package will be prepared, which will support new staff in understanding their roles, responsibilities and the environment within which they will be operating. The package provides also a guide to basic relevant documents for the DEOs and SEOs to support them in the functioning. The package will also be distributed to SEOs and DEOs already deployed.Ministerial Order

MINEDUC and REB do have the mandate to propose standard job descriptions (cadre organique) via a Ministerial Order, and this is the logical vehicle. But the actual use and enforcement of the proposed job description will depend on the good will that REB and MINEDUC are able to create, with MINALOC and colleagues in the Districts and Sectors – hence firstly the consultations proposed above, and secondly, the ongoing cycle of coordination meetings proposed below.Cycle of coordination meetings

As described above, it is not possible to resolve all the issues in the matrix of national planning and local accountability by division of roles and responsibilities, still less by five year plans or executive fiat. We therefore propose a cycle of coordination meetings, below.

43

Figure 5: proposed cycle of education sector/local government coordination meetings

Coordination meetingsLevel who to attend how often issues for discussion outputRegion RI, DDG/QSD,

Mayors, DEOs, MINALOC rep

once a year ESSP progress, planning, funding, priorities in Education

District

RI, DEO, Mayor twice a year check with planning & budget cycle

District Education Plan, Performance contracts, Budget, statistics, work plan

DEP agreed, signed performance contracts

RI, DEO, SEOs, Mayor, SESs

quarterly Quarterly work plan, statistics, analysis inspections, progress plan

Quarterly work plan

RI, DEO, SEOs monthly monthly work plan, and review of progress, including follow-up to summative inspections

district education work plan

Sector SEO, HTs, SES, DEO

annual performance contract, work plan

performance contract signed, sector education work plan

SEO, HTs, SES, DEO

monthly monthly work plan monthly sector education work plan

SEO, HTs monthly action plans for school and sector education development plans, statistics

school development plans updated, sector education development update

Proposed meeting schedule to improve coordination and common understanding on plans and goals of the education sector in the districts

Imihigo and information sharing in collaboration

Two priority areas need addressing. In the proposed improvements there are implicitly two adjustments in the management system in Rwanda of the public sector.

Signing of performance contracts between 3 parties Sharing information reports directly in the sector

Both suggestions are taking the same point of departure.

44

Education Officers are expected not only to perform administratively but they are expected to champion the educational goals and strategies, even when they are more difficult to measure. This can be accomplished by having performance contracts signed by the educational staff and their administrative as well as sectoral managers.In the implementation of the education (and possibly other sectors) sector in the district under the local government one has to distinguish between administrative management and sectoral management. While accounting officer and political decision processes cannot and must not be sidestepped, the transmission of education technical information should not be delayed by going through unnecessary administrative procedures. Improving technology, and in particular the investments in communications for DEOs and SEOs proposed above, are making it progressively easier to share information and report simultaneously with people who need to use them. So in principle MINEDUC/REB should look for a statement of no objection to share information and reports in the line simultaneously and not “through” or “via” line management.

10. Next steps for this consultancy assignment

The revised Job Descriptions presented with this document consist of the main tasks and responsibilities to be carried out by the RIs, DEOs and SEOs. Although the content is not expected to be contested there is need for further consultation as formally only the RIs are under the direct authority of the REB. The total package will therefore, now REB’s approval has been given at the February 7th meeting, be further discussed with MIFOTRA and MINALOC after which, if there is agreement the Minister of Education can prepare a Ministerial order streamlining the management of the education services in Rwanda through REB and the Local Authorities.

It is expected that during the Training Needs Assessment to be carried out (combined with the presentation of the drafted Job Descriptions) in all the regions/provinces between 25th March and 8th April, some minor adjustments improvements will be made by the DEOS and SEOs in post, who are naturally most informed on the intricacies of operating under the Local Authorities.

It is proposed that Imke van der Honing and Erin Chu, a senior Charlie Goldsmith Associates colleague, will prepare the training needs assessment and draft the operational manuals and induction packages for new and present

45

Inspectors and Education Officers. Joanne Ferry, our Rwanda Country Coordinator, who is based in Kigali full time, will deliver the training needs assessments.

11. Conclusion

The outcome of the first stage of this work is that we do not think the original logical framework holds completely: there will always be a tension between top-down planning and a bottom-up ‘imihigo’ approach that responds first to local priorities. This tension can be managed, particularly by orienting DEOs, SEOs and their political masters in local government to the priorities of the ESSP2013, but it cannot be eliminated without a complete change of system that would lose many of the characteristics of local taking of responsibility that have enabled the Rwandan education sector to make such rapid progress.

The overall result of this project was due to be that “these decentralised level educational management officers have a better understanding of their roles and will be able to perform their tasks more effectively and efficiently”.

Within the organizational constraints of the current distinctive Rwandan decentralisation approach, we have therefore suggested what we believe to be the best intervention in this area to “contribute to a more efficient and productive education sector”, and have set out a workplan to deliver the rest of the project on that basis.

46

Annex 1 - Bibliography

Zeitlin, A., Bategeka, L., Guloba, M., Kasirye, I., & Mugisha, F. (2011). Management and motivation in Ugandan primary schools: Impact evaluation final report.

Wong, M., Pradhan, M., Gaduh, A., Suryadarma, D., Artha, R., Alishjabana, A., et al. (2011). Improving Educational Quality through Enhancing Community Participation: Results from a Randomized Field Experiment in Indonesia.

Antonowicz, L., Wood, J., Lesne, F., & Stassen, S. (2010). Africa Education Watch: good governance lessons for primary education. Transparency International. Berlin: Transparency International.

Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H., & Santibáñez, L. (2009). Decentralized Decision-making in Schools : The Theory and Evidence on School-based Management. The World Bank. The World Bank.

Bennell P. with Ntagaramba J.: Teacher motivation and incentives in Rwanda: A situational analysis and recommended priority actions: December 2008

Caldwell, B. (2005). School-based management, Education policy series. UNESCO IIEP.

De Grauwe, A. (2001). School supervision in four African countries ( No. Vol. 1: Challenges and Reforms). UNESCO IIEP.

De Grauwe, A. (2007). Transforming School Supervision into a Tool for Quality Improvement. International Review of Education , 53, 709–714.

Government of the Republic of Rwanda. (2013). Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013 - 2018: Shaping our development. Government of the Republic of Rwanda, Kigali.

IPAR. (2012a). Observatory Report: The Rwandan Education and Skills System. Institute of Policy Analysis and Research, Kigali.

IPAR. (2012b). School funding and equity in Rwanda: An interim discussion paper. Institute of Policy Analysis and Research, Kigali.

Mulkeen, A. (2010). Teachers in Anglophone Africa - Issues in Teacher supply, training and management. Development Practice in Education. Washington: The World Bank.

MINALOC (2010). Decentralisation Implementation Plan 2011 - 2015. Ministry of Local Government, Kigali

MINALOC (2012). Revised Decentralization Policy. Ministry of Local Government, Kigali

MINEDUC (2008). Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2008 - 2012. Ministry of Education, Kigali.

MINEDUC (2010). Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2010 - 2015. Ministry of Education, Kigali.

47

MINEDUC (2013). Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2013/14 - 2017/18 (draft). Ministry of Education, Kigali

Mott MacDonald. (2012). Rwanda Education Capacity Needs Assessment. Department for International Development. Kigali: DfID.

RGB (March 2013). Sectoral Decentralisation in Rwanda. Rwanda Governance Board, Kigali

Simson, R. (2013). Unblocking results case study - addressing pay and attendance of health workers in Sierra Leone. Overseas Development Institute, Centre for Aid and Public Expenditure. London: ODI.

Tavakoli, H., Simson, R., Tilley, H., & Booth, D. (2013). Using aid to address governance constraints in service delivery. Overseas Development Institute, Politics and Governance. London: ODI.

48

Annex 2 List of interviewees and meetings

Name position InstitutionMarc van der Stouwe CDFPieter Feenstra CDFClaver Yisa CDFSylvestre Musingamana CADEA LtdEgidia Uwera CADEA LtdJanvier Gasana Director Quality Standards Department REBTheodore Mboneza Regional Inspector Kigali City REBCamille Kanamugire Regional Inspector Southern Region REBMohamed Mugemangango Regional Inspector REBHalyanimana Augustin Regional Inspector REBJohnsonNdayambaje Regional Inspector REBFortune Kuburimana Regional Inspector REB

Jean de Dieu NtaganiraPedagogical Inspector of English Kigali City REB

Delphine Uwimana Pedagogical Inspector Kigali City REBLambert Haridintwal SEO in Kycikuro districtClaire Dusabingabirem SEO in Kycikuro districtAnathalie Uzamukunda SEO in Kycikuro districtCyldiom Masenwesho SEO in Kycikuro districtPlacidie M Mbarubukehe SEO in Kycikuro districtBurakari Kimenyi DEO in Kycikuro districtDesire Rugengamanzi SEO Kayonza Murama sectorCharles Namara Mugabo DEO Kayonza districtAlexis Bigira DEO Gisagare districtEmilien Ntagwabira SEO in Muhoya districtValerien Hakizimana DEO Muhoya district

Charles Havuguziga Director of AdministrationNyarugenge District, Kigali City

Anatole Nsengumukiza legal department MINEDUCEric Niyongabo Ag Director Policy, M&E MINEDUCJeanine marengo National Project Coordinator CapEFA MINEDUC-UNESCO Rwanda

BonaventureUwamahoroDirector Planning Reform and Capacity Building MIFOTRA

Sylvain NtirampebaReform Policy and organisation Analysis Officer MIFOTRA

Bob Gakire Territorial Administration Analyst MINALOC

49

Faustin MinaniAdvisor Decentralisation and Good Governance GIZ-RGB

Emile Rudasingwa Programme Coordinator VVOB

Hans ZultSenior Advisor School Management & Leadership VVOB

Ruth Mbabazi Kabutembe Education programme manager VSOMartin Booth ELA Gasangara district VSOFrancis Ssennoga Chief Executive Officer/consultant IMA

Annex 3: presentation to REB, 7th February 2014

Attached.

Annex 4: revised assignment plan

week commencing 2014Activities outputs results responsible 10/2 17/2 24/2 3/3 10/3 17/3 24/3 31/3 7/4 14/4 21/4 28/4

Review mandate and roles, responsibilities RIs, DEOs and SEOs; present proposed job descriptions

Updated job descriptions for RIs, DEOs and SEOs

Consultant/ Imke van der Honing

Feedback from REB on JDs REB

ppt to MINEDUC, MINALOC and other stakeholders highlighting the areas of concern

REB

New job descriptions approved and agreed by all stakeholders

REB/ MIFOTRA

Organise regional

workshops, explaining

proposed roles and revised

job descriptions

for all RIs, DEOs and

Kigali City Consultant/ Joanne Ferry, Erin Chu and

REB

25

Northern Region 27

Southern Region 1

Eastern Region 3

Eastern Region 8

50

SEOs

Conduct Capacity needs assessment for RIs, DEOs and SEOs

Needs assessment activities included in Regional workshops

Consultant, Joanne Ferry

Report on training needs for RIs, DEOs and SEOs

Consultant; Joanne Ferry and Erin Chu

Draft training plan based on training needs, and draft ToR for a service provider to conduct trainings

Consultant, Erin Chu

Create a standard

induction pack for the specific staff clarifying

roles, responsibilities

and relationships

for the specified officers

Review of relevant documentation

Consultant, Erin Chu

Consultation with REB

Consultant, Erin Chu and REB

3 standard induction packs for each RIs, DEOs and SEOs

Consultant, Erin Chu

Plan for dissemination and distribution of induction packs

Consultant, Erin Chu

Annex 5: Draft circular to invite DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors to briefing workshop on new job descriptions

- Draft Circular for DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors -

CDF and REB are calling for all DEOs, SEOs and Regional Inspectors from ............... Region for a one day workshop to further discuss:

1 The proposed Job Descriptions for Regional Inspectors, DEOs and SEOs, specifically in relation to the ongoing reforms of the Education Sector.

2 The training needs required in order to fulfill the revised Job description3 Any future challenges relating to applying the proposed Job Descriptions

The draft Job Descriptions are attached and you are expected to go through them and understand them in order to fully participate in the discussions during the day. These discussion will further shape the

51

Education Sector in order to be prepared for the challenges to implement the Education Sector Strategic Plan in your area.

The programme of the workshop

08:30 - 08:45 Welcome by CDF and REB representatives08:45 - 09:15 Introduction of the programme; ground rules, objectives expected outcome and follow up09:15 - 10:15 group work on strength and weaknesses of proposed Job Descriptions, plus plenary

presentation10:15 - 10:45 BREAK 10:45 - 12:30 Edit proposed Job Description based on comments, with specific attention to fit with Local

Government structures12:30 - 12:45 Plenary presentation of Participatory Skills and Training needs assessment12:45 - 13:30 LUNCH BREAK13:30 - 15:00 Participatory Skills and Training needs assessment (for each function, group work)15:00 - 15:30 BREAK15:30 - 16:30 Review of possible challenges and solutions in working according to the proposed Job

Descriptions

Attached outline of the proposed Job description for Regional Inspector, District Education Officer and Sector Education Officer

Annex 6: Draft Ministerial Order for implementation of Job Descriptions for RIs, DEOs, SEOs

To follow.

Annex 7: REB Lesson Evaluation template

52