Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: 23296

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT(SCL-431 10)

ON A

LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 62.5 MILLION

TO THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF

BRAZIL

FOR THE

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - FUNDESCOLA I

11/24/2001

Brazil Country Management UnitHuman and Social Development Sector Management UnitLatin America and the Caribbean Region

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of theirofficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bani authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective October 30, 2001)

Currenicy Unit = BRAZILIAN REAL (R$)R$1.00 = US$ 0.37

IJS$ 1.00 = RS2.71

FISCAL YEARJanuary 1 December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

COEP State-based Project Executive Coordination (Coordena,cao Estadual Executiva doProjeto)

CONSED National Council of State Education Secretaries (Conselho Nacional de SecretariosEstaduais de Educa,co)

Cw Center-West region of Brazil, Comprising the states of Goias (GO), Mato Grosso (MT),and Mato Grosso do Sul (MS), but excluding the Federal District

DGP Central Project Coordination Unit (Dire,do Geral do Projeto)FNDE National Education Development Fund (Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da

Educa,co)Fundescola School Improvement Program (Programa Fundo de Fortalecimento da Escola)Fundef Fund for the Development and Maintenance of Basic Education and Teacher Valorization

(Fundo de Desenvolvimento e Manuten,do do Ensino Fundamental e Valorizaao doMagist&rio)

GDE School Development Group (Grupo de Desenvolvimento Escolar)GT Technical Group (Grupo Tkenico)IBGE Brazilian Census Bureau (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica)ICB Intemational Competitive BiddingICR Implementation Completion ReportINEP National Institute for Educational Research and Studies, a MEC-based agency (Instituto

Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais).LDB National Education Law (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases de Educa,do Nacional)MEC Brazilian Ministry of EducationMOS Minimum Operational StandardsMOIP Project Operations and Implementation Manual (Manual de Opera,ces e Implementa,cao

do .Projeto)N North region of Brazil, comprising the states of Acre (AC), Amazonas (AM), Amapa

(AP), Para (PA), Rondonia (RO), Roraima (RR), and Tocantins (TO)NCB National Competitive BiddingNE Northeast region of Brazil, comprising the states of Alagoas (AL), Bahia (BA), Ceara

(CE), Maranhao (MA), Pemambuco (PB), Paraiba (PE), Piaui (PI), Rio Grande do Norte(RN), and Sergipe (SE)

NEBE Northeast Basic Education Project (I and II)OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPAE State Action Program (Programa de A,do do Estado)PAM Municipal Action Program (Programa de A,do Municipal)PAZ Microregion Action Plan (Programa de ASdo 7onal)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

PDE School Development Plan (Projeto de Desenvolvimento Escolar)PGS Secretariat Business and Management Plan (Plano de Gestao da Secretaria)PME School Improvement Project (Projeto de Melhoria da Escola) initiated under PDEPNLD National Textbook Program (Programa Nacional do Livro Didatico)PPO Research and Operationalization Program of Education Policies (Programa de Pesquisa e

Operacionlizaado)PRASEM Municipal Education Secretariats Support Prograrn (Program de Apoio aos Secretarias

Municipais de Educaao)PTA Annual Work Plan (Plano de Trabalho Anual)SAEB National System for Basic Education Evaluation (Sistema Nacional de Avaliaqao da

Educafao Basica)SEED Secretariat of Distance Education (Secretaria de Educa9do a Distdncia)SIED Integrated Education Inforrnation System (Sistema Integrado de Infomaqoes

Educacionais)SPA Planning and Monitoring System (Sistema de Planejamento e Acompanamento)SEF Secretariat of Fundamental Education (Secretaria de Educaqdo Fundamental)SEE State Education Secretariat (Secretaria Estadual de Educaaiio)SME Municipal Education Secretariat (Secretaria Municipal de EducaaJo)UE School Council (Unidade Executora)UNDIME National Association of Municipal Education Managers (Unido Nacional dos Dirigentes

Municipais de Educa9&o)ZAP Priority Attention Zone

Vice President: David de FerrantiCountry Manager/Director: Vinod Thomas

Sector Manager/Director: William ExpertonTask Team Leader/Task Manager: Robin Horn

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in theperformance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed withoutWorld Bank authorization.

BRAZILBR- Fundescola I

CONTENTS

Page No.1. Project Data I2. Principal Performance Ratings 13. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 24. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 45. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 116. Sustainability 137. Bank and Borrower Performance 148. Lessons Learned 159. Partner Comments 1610. Additional Information 24Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 25Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 26Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 28Annex 4. Bank Inputs 29Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 30Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 31Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 32

Project ID: P050762 Project Name: BR- Fundescola I

Team Leader: Robin S. Horn TL Unit: LCSHE

ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: December 19, 2001

1. Project Data

Name: BR- Fundescola I L/C/TFNumber: SCL-43110Country/Department: BRAZIL Region: Latin America and

Caribbean RegionSector/subsector: EP - Primary Education

KEY DATESOriginal Revised/Actual

PCD: 10/15/1997 Effective: 08/30/1998 08/30/1998Appraisal: 12/15/1997 MTR:Approval: 04/02/1998 Closing: 06/30/2001 06/30/2001

Borrower/lImplementing Agency: GOV. OF BRAZIL/FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATIONOther Partners:

STAFF Current At AppraisalVice President: David de Ferranti S. Javed BurkiCountry Manager: Vinod Thomas Gobind Nankani

Sector Manager: Xavier E. Coll Julian SchweitzerTeam Leader at ICR: Robin Hom and Andrea Guedes Robin HornICR Primary Author: Thomas Luschei; Andrea C.

Guedes

2. Principal Performance Ratings

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Safisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, H4L=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=HighlyUtnlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible)

Outcome: S

Sustainability: L

Institutional Development Impact: SU

Bank Performance: S

Borrower Performance: S

QAG (if available) ICRQuality at Entry: S

Project at Risk at Any Time: No

3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry

3.1 Original Objective:The development objective of FUNDESCOLA I was to strengthen primary schools and the publicinstitutions that are responsible for them within a coordinated management framework, in order to increasethe participation, promotion and graduation rates, and achievement levels of children in the North andCenter-West capital microregions of Brazil (henceforth referred to as "Priority Attention Zones").FUNDESCOLA I was the first of several projects that would attend to educational needs in the threepoorest regions of Brazil - the North, Northeast, and the Center-West.

The overall FUNDESCOLA Program, which was agreed to in principle by the World Bank and thegovernment of Federative Republic of Brazil in October, 1997, was to be phased in between 1998 and2008. The first step was the current project, FUNDESCOLA I -- designed to address Program start-up.It was to pilot school-based initiatives, instruments, and strategies, inaugurate the equity-enhancing"minimum operational standards" model for school improvement, launch the school-based developmentprocess to increase school effectiveness, and disseminate these initiatives and other school quality models tostate and municipal secretariats throughout the North and Center-West regions. In addition, it was toutilize a new approach to implementation support based on the "Priority Attention Zone" approach, inwhich adjacent municipalities, grouped into microregions, would collaborate with their state governmentsand the Ministry of Education on collectively improving the quality of the schools in their jurisdictions.FUNDESCOLA II, to begin in 2000, would expand the Program into all nine Northeast states and triplethe number of municipalities receiving priority support. With FUNDESCOLA II, the initiatives and toolsdeveloped under FUNDESCOLA I were to be incorporated into an explicit school improvement strategv,which would be propagated throughout the Northeast, North, and Center-West states and municipalitieswith semninars, workshops, demonstration projects, and especially through the implementation of thestrategy by thousands of schools. The third phase of the program, FUNDESCOLA III, would be launchedin 2002. FUNDESCOLA III would emphasize the integration of FUNDESCOLA school improvementrefornns into the structures and routines of local governnents' education secretariats. In addition tosupporting the firther expansion of FUNDESCOLA I and II initiatives, FUNDESCOLA III would developa variety of structured teaching and learning models for diverse schools and population groups, build thecapacity of local governments to support the sustained improvement of school quality and studentachievement, and through incentives and partnerships, promote the permanence of these reforms. In thisway, the Program would address the sustainability of Fundescola-based school improvement by localgovernments.

3.2 Revised Objective:not applicable.

3.3 Original Components:

The total project costs of FUNDESCOLA I were estimated to be US$125 million, (US$62.5loan). These costs were to be divided among four components:

1. Raising schools to minimum operational standards (72.2%) intended to raise thequality of sub-standard schools up to, at least, a minimally acceptable level in terms ofeducational materials, teaching staff, equipment, furniture and facilities.

2. Establishing a School Development Process (4.2%) designed to promote anintensive school-based institutional development and strategic planning process,culminating in the implementation of the school's development plan.

- 2 -

3. Planning and Providing Additional School Places (3.4%) meant to establishmethodologies for more rational planning and provision of school facilities.

4. Strengthening Education Management and Project Administration (20.2%)aimed at increasing management capacity of municipal and state secretariats ofeducation; fostering conununity participation and support for the project; strengtheningnational education information systems and programs; and supporting projectcoordination and implementation.

3.4 Revised Components:not applicable.

3.5 Quality at Entry:Satisfactory. The FUNDESCOLA I design was consistent with the CAS sector goal of universalschooling in grades one to eight by 2007 as well as the Government's emphasis on imnprovingprimary education and decreasing regional inequities in educational achievement. The projectwas based on the results of A Call to Action: Combating School Failure in the Northeast ofBrazil, a report produced collaboratively by the Ministry of Education (MEC), the World Bank,and UNICEF, and on lessons learned from Northeast Basic Education Projects. The findings andrecommendations of the study served as the foundation for the project's objectives and its fourcomponents. The implementation arrangements were based on the lessons from the prioreducation projects. Finally, the implementing agency drew upon its significant experience inplanning and executing the project.

It should be noted however that, despite the solid analytic and operational basis on whichFUNDESCOLA I was designed, the project teamn faced difficulties in the development of two ofthe project's initiatives: the "minimum operational standards" model and the Proformaciio teacherdevelopment program. The project design team proposed a simple and transparent checklist ofinputs and services, a "pre-defined, minimal set of educational materials, teaching staff,equipment, furniture, and facilities" to be used in any school to assess whether it was operating atleast at a functional level, and to specify what would be needed to bring the school up to thatlevel. The Ministry, on the other hand, developed a more sophisticated set of instruments andmeasures. First, the Ministry introduced the "School Facilities Survey," which would assess allaspects of school infrastructure in great detail. Second, the Ministry's "Guidelines for MinimumOperational Standards" was a comprehensive manual, rather than a checklist, specifying in detailthe full set of pre-requesites for schools to be considered operational. This divergence betweenthe two concepts was resolved by the time of the project's launch. The operational manualspecifies that the Minimum Operational Standards component should prioritize the opportunity tolearn standards in classroom. Consequently, the component focused on teacher development andqualification for uncertified teachers, textbooks (which were financed directly by counterpartfunds, outside of the project), classroom furniture and equipment, and school-managed renovationof many of these classrooms.

The difficulties with Proformaqdo resulted from the fact that the original program developedduring preparation did not anticipate the extent of local support needed by teachers, particularly

- 3 -

given that the majority reside and work in somewhat isolated settings, during the certificationprogram. Consequently, the costs of the program were significantly underestimated duringproject preparation. During project implementation, the program was reoriented, which resultedm an overspending of this subcomponent during implementation.

4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs

4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective:SATISFACTORY. The project's development objectives were met as measured by the three keyperformance indicators. The first key indicator was to increase enrollment rates of childrenattending schools that meet Minimum Operational Standards from an initial estimate of less thanten percent to over 50 percent in all targeted areas by June 2001. According to the latest projectprogress reports, 10,975 classrooms in the North and Center-West Priority Attention Zones wereequipped according to Minimum Operational Standards, representing a total enrollment of558,447 students, or 41 percent of the children in the targeted areas. The project fell short ofmeeting this goal because the initial state of schools' infrastructure and their availability of inputswas far worse than expected. Such infornation only became available once school levelinformation was collected, between project approval and the finalization of the ImplementationManual.

The second key indicator of the project was to increase enrollment rates of children attendingschools with implemented School Development Plans (PDE) from less than two percent to over50 percent in all participating Priority Attention Zones. Actual enrollment in schools with suchplans exceeded estimates, reaching 1,200,115 students, or 54 percent of primary aged children inthe targeted areas.

The project's third key indicator was to promote the elaboration and implementation ofcoordinated municipal/state education action programs in at least half of the participatingmunicipalities. These Microregion Action Programs combined state-level action programs withmunicipal programs to coordinate and prioritize objectives into a single plan at the microregionallevel. FUJNDESCOLA I exceeded this goal, as integrated "Microregion Action Programs" weredeveloped by officials in all ten of the Priority Attention Zones through forums, consisting ofmayors, state Secretaries of Education, representatives of the state-based offices of the Ministryof Education (which have since been de-activated) and the state President of the NationalAssociation of Municipal Education Managers (UNDIME).

Additionally, the project's development objectives envisioned that its actions would lead to anincrease in participation, promotion and graduation rates, and achievement levels in the PriorityAttention Zones. While the project cannot exclusively be credited for changes in those indicators,it is noteworthy to examine their progress in the project's targeted areas.

A comparison of 4th and 8th grade enrollments in the Priority Attention Zones reveals significantgrowth from 1996 to 2000. Total 4th grade enrollments grew by 15.6 percent and 8th gradeenrollments by 33.9 percent in those areas. Enrollment in the entire North region grew by aslightly higher percentage in both the 4th and 8th grades. In the Center-West Priority AttentionZone, both 4th and 8th grades outpaced enrollment in the region as a whole. Likewise,

- 4 -

graduation rates in the North and Center-West regions, as measured by the ratio between 8thgrade graduates and 1st grade enrollments, increased significantly between 1997 to 1999. Theratio climbed from 12 percent to 17 percent in the North, and from 26 percent to 46 percent in theCenter-West, compared to 29 percent to 38 percent in Brazil.

In Brazil, primary level students' achievement levels are measured by the National System forBasic Education Evaluation (SAEB). Average 4th grade achievement in mathematics andPortuguese decreased throughout Brazil between 1995 and 1999. Analysis of the declines in testscores carried out by Brazil's National Institute for Educational Research and Studies suggest thatthree factors accounted for the small but significant drop in achievement nationwide: (a) adramatic increase in primary school enrollment (Brazil attained universal primary enrollmentduring this period) meant that children from the poorest families, with the least amount of socialcapital and school-preparedness, attended school for the first time; (b) greater efforts on the partof local governments to promote slower learners (rather than force them to repeat a grade level);and (c) changes in the test instrument. Nonetheless, in the North and Center-West regions thedecreases in achievement levels measured by SAEB were lower than the declines for Brazil as awhole. For example, the decrease in 4th grade Portuguese achievement was 7 percent in theNorth and 6.6 percent in the Center-West, compared to the national average of 8.1 percent. Inmathematics, decreases in proficiency were 2.3 percent in the North and 3.2 percent in theCenter-West, compared to 5.2 percent in Brazil.

4.2 Outputs by components:The three sector issues addressed by FUNDESCOLA I were: improving school quality;expanding school access; and improving school and system management. The first two projectcomponents, raising schools to minimum operational standards and establishing a schooldevelopment process, addressed school quality. The third component, planning and providingadditional school places, was directed toward expanding access, and the fourth componentaddressed improvement of educational management and administration.

SATISFACTORY. Raising Schools to Minimum Operational Standards. Brazil's 1996National Education Law guarantees that every public school in the country meets acceptableminimum standards. FUJNDESCOLA I attempted to operationalize this concept as a set ofeducational materials, teaching staff, equipment, furniture, and facilities that would constitute afunctioning school. In place of the checklist envisioned in the PAD, the School Facilities Surveybecame the instrument to measure minimum operational standards. The Ministry helpedmunicipal and state secretariats of education use this instrument to survey all 4,164 primaryschools in the Priority Attention Zones. The schools were then classified and prioritizedaccording to their level of need and their readiness to receive inputs. In terms of classroom inputsand school-managed facilities repairs, the project met all of the goals established in theimplementation manual for the first subcomponent.

The second subcomponent, educating and certifying teachers, addressed the problem of the largeshare of uncertified teachers in the targeted areas. The project's goal of offering 25,000 placesthrough the teacher certification program, Proformaqdo, was met. Because the certificationprogram is made up of 4 modules, each lasting one semester, only a relatively small share ofteachers who entered the program during project implementation were expected to graduate

- 5 -

before project completion. As of project completion, 1,347 teachers were certified and another26,025 teachers were enrolled in Proformaqdo and will be completing their certification under thefollow-up operation. Proformafao faced significant delays and difficulties during its initialstages. The costs of the program were substantially underestimated during project preparation,resulting overspending of this subcomponent. While the estimated costs in the PAD forProformaqdo was $300,000, by project completion, expenditures on this action exceeded $10million. The underestimation resulted from a restructuring of the original program design in orderto provide local support to the participants and to finance all of the materials and videos. Therevised design followed England's "Open University" model, which entailed providing teacherswith personalized support throughout their certification. The Proforma do team also experienceddifficulties with some municipalities' failure to comply with their participation agreements,particularly with respect to paying and providing transportation to program tutors. Given theimportance of trained teachers (as required by the National Education Law that was passed intolaw in December 1997), FUNDESCOLA I financed these additional costs through reallocationfrom other disbursement categories, and the Ministry contributed over $10 million in additionalcounterpart funding to cover the difference. In other words, the Ministry demonstrated itscommitment and ownership of Proformaqdo's objective, despite the difficulty that localgovernment's had to meet their financial obligations. Neither the World Bank nor the Borrowerhas an adequate solution to the question of how to leverage greater compliance from localgovernments with respect to their obligations when they have no formal agreement with the Bank.Alternatives are being sought during the preparation of the FUNDESCOLA III, but under allcircumstances, the partners are seeking a resolution that does not have a negative impact on thefimctioning of schools or the provision of educational services delivered to children.

Regardless of the implementation issues addressed during the execution of Proformaqao, itsvisible success has pushed the municipalities into demanding an expansion of the program toteachers not targeted by the project. Consequently, the Ministry has agreed to fullyinstitutionalize thev Proformaqdo program, including assuming its costs with reliance on loanfunds, and it anticipates the certification of at least 13,835 lay teachers by December 2001.

The third subcomponent, supplving of basic furniture and equipment to schools, addressed theinadequate classroom environment learning in terms of furniture and equipment. As stated earlier,one of the three project development objectives in the PAD was to increase enrollment in schoolsmeeting Minimum Operational Standards to at least 50 percent in all participating PriorityAttention Zones. By project completion, enrollment in these schools reached 41 percent of the1.2 million targeted primary students in the targeted areas. The Project's Implementation Manualmodified the target for this component to be more realistic, yet still ambitious. According to themanual, by project's completion 5,800 primary school classrooms would be equipped according tothe Minimum Operational Standards. In fact, 10,975 classrooms, serving 558,447 students, metthese standards. Difficulties in providing schools with furniture arose in both procurement anddelivery. Many state secretariats had little experience in competitive bidding procedures, andvendors had problems in meeting the new technical specifications and the project's exigentprototype testing, causing delays in acquisitions and delivery to school sites. To address theproblem, the Ministry carried out a significant training effort in procurement procedures,improving the efficiency of the procurement agencies in the states with regard to furniture.

- 6 -

Nonetheless, the major advance in this area is the negotiations with the federal agency thatmandates national standards for a variety of products--INMETRO. In the follow-up operation,FUNDESCOLA II, this agency has agreed to introduce compulsory standards for any newstudent furniture for primary schools (grades 1-8). Any new bidding document forFUNDESCOLA will require these standards and it will be the responsibility of the vendor to getINMETRO's stamp of approval.

The fourth and fifth subcomponents promoted the participation of school councils in carrying outimprovement investments and rehabilitation of physical facilities. These subcomponents includeddirect financial transfers to schools with more than 20 students and with a school council in placeso they could purchase their own teaching and operational material according to the minimumoperational standards checklist. The goal for this subcomponent--all schools with more than 20students in the targeted areas to establish a school council and directly purchase teaching andoperational materials--was met. These actions carried out by the school council contributedtremendously to strengthening institutional capacity and financial autonomy at the school level.Likewise, the last subcomponent included financing school-managed rehabilitation of physicalfacilities that authorized school councils to carry out small and targeted physical repairs andimprovements according to criteria established in the Minimum Operational Standards program.Implementation and monitoring of this subcomponent was excellent because of the on-lineinformation system with digitized photographs of each work under implementation. The project'sgoal was the rehabilitation of 5,800 classrooms benefiting 400,000 students. The project farsurpassed this goal, repairing 12,616 classrooms benefiting almost 900,000 students.

HIGHLYSATISFACTORY Establishing a School Development Process. This componentpromoted the development of a school-based development program, to be designed andimplemented by a school team consisting of teachers, parents, community, and the local schoolcouncil. After identifying school needs, the team prepared and implemented a SchoolDevelopment Plan (PDE) to improve the school's organization, management, and learningenvironment, and to contribute to raising student achievement. Based on the needs identified inthe PDE, the team proposed a School Improvement Subproject (PME), which was then funded bythe project. This component was by far the most successful one of this project, generating muchunanticipated demand on the part of local schools and municipal governments. During projectimplementation, the Ministry and Bank team tried to accommodate such demand through theprovision of training to more schools and by financing more School Improvement Subprojectsthan originally planned. Thus, this component 's actual cost of $11.5 million was about twice ashigh as the appraisal estimate of $5.2 million. Again, like Proformaqao, the Ministry's managedthe additional activities and these additional costs by making adjustments within the loan amount,and without requiring additional loan funds.

The first subcomponent under this component was the design of School Development Plans. Theproject's goal was to have School Development Plans implemented in 401 schools, and thetraining of 1,300 school administrators, monitors, and technicians of state and municipalsecretariats in the elaboration and implementation of such plans. By project closing, 1,724schools had Development Plans in place, and 5,172 administrators, monitors and technicians hadbeen trained.

-7-

The second subcomponent was the financing of School Improvement Subproiects. SchoolImprovement Subprojects consisted of the operationalization of a strategy to address needsidentified in the School Development Plans. The project's goal was the implementation of 401Improvement Plans. By project closing, 1,513 schools had signed agreements and receivedresources requested in their Improvement Plans. Those plans were monitored by technicaladvisors, who were hired by the project's implementation unit at the Ministry of Education toassist in the development and implementation of the school development process. Municipalsecretariats were directly responsible for assisting schools in preparing Development Plans andassessing the proposed Improvement Plans.

A series of World Bank supervision teams visited numerous schools with Development Plansthroughout the project's life, including at completion, and reported that the program was wellimplemented and well received by schools and state secretaries of education. Schools with PDEsappeared to provide a positive and dynamic learning environment where teachers workedcollaboratively with a common and clear objective and placed the focus of instruction on thestudent. Teachers and principals reported that the process of preparing a School DevelopmentPlan helped them to identify school performance problems and use resources better. Studentsclearly recognized positive changes in their schools and noticed that their parents had becomemore involved in school life. The popularity of the School Development Plan was evident in therapid expansion of its methodology. There is evidence that parents are actively choosing toenroll their children in schools with PDEs over other schools. Principals and teachers frommunicipal schools quickly demanded and adopted the School Development Plan, originallytargeted to state schools. The program was also expanded to a set of Priority Attention Zonesnot originally envisioned in the project. Additionally, five states (Acre, Mato Grosso, Goias,Tocantins and Ceara) have adopted the program as a model for all schools in their states, and arefinancing the expansion with their own resources. The National Institute for EducationalResearch carried out an evaluation of the School Development Plan activity in 2000 and foundstatistically significant improvements in student learning in PDE versus non PDE schools. Underthe follow-up operation, FUNDESCOLA II, an external group of researchers from StanfordUniversity is evaluating the implementation and impact of the School Development Plan program.

UNSATISFACTORY Planning and Providing School Places. This component's objective wasto develop school microplanning methodologies to contribute to increased access and studentretention in schools in targeted areas. The microplanning adopted by the project is a combinationof School Mapping and the Geographic Infonnation Systems that support decision makers on therationalization of local school networks. The goals for the first subcomponent were thedevelopment and testing of urban and rural microplanning systems and training of municipal andstate education secretaries in the use of microplanning software. Microplanning was initiated inurban zones of all municipalities in the Priority Attention Zones as a prototype, that includeddatabases for 1996, 1997 and 1998, and maps that were obtained, converted to digital forms andstructured to be used as Geographic Information Systems. The digital maps, which combinecensus and school location data, were introduced for reviewing and updating to municipal andstate education secretaries in 80 municipalities. In rural zones, microplanning was also initiated

- 8 -

but not completed due to the lack of adequate maps of these regions. In June 2001 an agreementwas reached with the Brazilian Census Bureau (IBGE) to produce maps of rural zones for thePriority Attention Zones of the follow-up operation, FUNDESCOLA II. The training ofmunicipal and state secretaries of education in microplanning, was not completed because theadopted microplanning software had its production discontinued during project implementation.For that reason, the software's substitution and implementation of Microplanning' s final versionwas replanned for the follow-up operation.

The second subcomponent was developing and testing standard architectural plans. The goalsincluded the preparation of architectural plans for new school facilities in each state and theconstruction of up to three model schools based on these plans. This subcomponent was partiallyimplemented, with architectural projects developed for urban schools of 12-, six-, and four-roomschools and rural schools of two and four rooms. However, the resources and time were notsufficient for the prototypes to be actually built. The fact that these prototype schools were notbuilt had no negative impact of the project's attainment of its development objectives. Resourcesprogrammed for this subcomponent were reallocated to cover the overruns of other projectcomponents as indicated above.

It is important to point out that the delays in the implementation of this component did notinterfere with the Project's ability to achieve its development objective because the results fromthe microplanning and testing of architectural plans were meant to be inputs into the preparationof the FUNDESCOLA II and III projects rather than time-critical for FUNDESCOLA I. In fact,the results of the microplanning activity from FUJNDESCOLA I demonstrated a much lower needfor additional school buildings than originally expected. This led to a decision to eliminate schoolconstruction from FUJNDESCOLA III.

SATISFACTORY Strengthening Education Management and Project Administration. Thefourth and last component of FUNDESCOLA I was designed to increase management capacity atschools and municipal and state secretariats of education; foster community participation andsupport for the project; strengthen national education information systems and programs; andsupport project coordination and implementation. The first of five subcomponents was tostrengthen the state and municipal secretariats, enabling them to support the school-baseddevelopment process. To this end, the project financed the Municipal Education SecretariatsSupport Program (PRASEM). This program began under the Northeast Basic Education ProjectIII, the precursor of FUNDESCOLA I, in order to disseminate the project concept and objectivesand related legislative reforms to municipal and state secretaries of education. UnderFUNDESCOLA I, ten PRASEM conferences were held, in which 597 state and municipalsecretaries, as well as 202 financial secretaries and 35 mayors were trained in educationlegislation, financing and management. PRASEM leadership was also instrumental in developinga manual and software for public teacher career planning and payment. The career planningprogram provided municipal and state secretaries with a coherent strategy to assess and payteachers fairly according to their training and experience. The Career Planning Manual waswelcomed by municipal and state education secretaries.

The second subcomponent, providing specialized teaching and learning improvement programs,

-9-

promoted the expansion of Escola Ativa, the rural education program piloted under the NortheastBasic Education Project III. Modeled after Colombia's Escuela Nueva program, Escola Ativafeatures a modular curriculum designed for multi-grade classrooms in remote schools outside thePriority Attention Zones. The goal for this subcomponent was to extend the program to 210schools, benefiting 8,400 students in the targeted areas. The program's expansion was very wellreceived and it reached 943 schools, or four times its original target, and 31,814 students, morethan three times as many students as originally planned. Monthly supervision of Escola A tivaschools by technical supervisors, as well as visits by the Ministry's staff, revealed enthusiasm forthe program on the part of students, teachers, and parents. Several missions visited Escola Ativaschools throughout project implementation and reported the program to be well implemented.School activities were centered on students, and they appeared to enjoy their school experience;teachers reported a reduction in absenteeism and greater parental participation. Popularity of theprogram prompted the Ministry of Education to adopt the program for rural schools nationwide.Despite the popularity of this program, it should be noted that, as a result of procurement ordelivery delays, Escola A tiva textbooks have often arrived after the school year had begun.Under the current (follow-on) operation, FUNDESCOLA II, the procurement procedures forthese books are being initiated an additional 6 months earlier.

The third subcomponent, fostering community participation, aimed to inform and mobilizecommunities around the objectives and methods of the project. To accomplish this goal, projectcommunications personnel produced an internet site, videos, monthly newsletters, and trainedjournalists in the strategies and objectives of the project. A beneficiary assessment currently beingcarried out as part of FUNDESCOLA III preparation will help evaluate the impact of theseactions.

The fourth subcomponent, strengthening national education information systems and programs,promoted the continued development of Ministry-sponsored programs to measure and improveschool quality. The National System for Basic Education Evaluation (SAEB), which wasrefocused and improved under the Northeast Basic Education Project III, continued to evolve intoa state of the art system that measures student achievement in the final grade of each educationcycle. While FUNDESCOLA I supported SAEB's 2001 application, institutionalization of theassessment system under the Ministry's National Institute for Educational Research and Studies isexpected to occur by 2002. Project goals called for the revision of the assessment system'scurricular reference matrices, and for a quality review of the school census system, conductedunder the Integrated Education System. Both goals were achieved and the Integrated EducationSystem, which compiles information about individual students at every school in the nation, hasbecome an important component in the yearly compilation of the Brazilian School Census.

4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of return:The economic analysis carried out during the preparation of the FUNDESCOLA Project coveredthe full program (consisting of FUJNDESCOLA I, II, and III). The cost-benefit analysis ofFUNDESCOLA was undertaken in the following manner: (i) a flow model was estimated foreach participating microregion; (ii) a historical trend was applied to project how the flow ofstudents would look without the project; (iii) the impact of the project on this flow was estimatedusing the two key variables described above; (iv) the difference between the two flows was taken;(v) given this difference, the savings in enrollment and increases in academic achievement were

- 1 0 -

calculated ; (vi) these savings and increases were converted into two monetary flows up to theyear 2012 using per student cost and private rate of return to education; and finally (vii) theinternal rates of return for each of the two flows were calculated for five to ten and 15 years ofproject life. The assumptions made during the preparation of FUNDESCOLA I have proven tobe consistent with reality, namely that improvements in school quality contribute substantially toreductions in repetition, making the project cost-effective. A thorough and independentcost-benefit analysis of the impact of the school-development process is currently underway withfinancing from FUNDESCOLA II. Results should be available by June, 2002.

4.4 Financial rate of return:

not applicable

4.5 Institutional development impact.-

SUBSTANTIAL. The project promoted institutional development by acting as an incubator forinnovative programs that are being or have been institutionalized by the Ministry of Education,State Secretariats of Education, Municipal Secretariats of Education, and schools. The projectdirectly supported institutional development of municipal and state education systems through theMicroregion Forum program and the Municipal Education Secretariats Support Program(PRASEM). The Forum provided an environment for defining state and local needs, aggregatingmunicipal indicators, and establishing benchmarks for sector improvement and monitoring. Thisresulted in substantial integration of education policies and initiatives in municipal governmentsand helped these secretariats of education organize their administration of schools to bettersupport school improvement rather than control. The Forum improved local governments'transparency by consolidating and publishing each municipality's revenues and expenditures oneducation services. Finally, the Forum increased the commitment on the part of municipaleducation secretariats to FUNDESCOLA-type goals and objectives. The PRASEM contributedsignificantly to municipal institutional development goals as well. As discussed above, PRASEMis an intensive seminar series served all of the targeted municipalities in the Priority AttentionZones of the project, as well as the overwhelming majority of municipalities in the 10 statesserved by the project. An evaluation of the programn by the United Nations DevelopmentProgram concluded that PRASEM contributed substantially to the sector management capacitiesand sector planning skills of the chief education officers (Secretaries of Education) of thesehundreds of municipalities. The project also had a significant impact on institutional developmentof hundreds of schools. The chief examples of this is the utilization of school strategic planning inthe School Development Plan program. In addition, several states and large municipalities haveexpanded the FUNDESCOLA-type School Development Plan approach to all of their schools.Other evidence of institutional development impact can be found in the student assessmentsystems financed by FUNDESCOLA through 2001 and to be integrated into the Ministry ofEducation by 2002. The Ministry expects to integrate the Proformaaiio and Escola Ativaprograms into its regular operations.

5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome

5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency:

Noncompliance of state and municipal governments. This factor is outside the control of theimplementing agency. Brazil's Fiscal Responsibility Law prohibits the transfer of federal funds tostate and municipal governments that are out of compliance (inadimplente) with fiscal and legal

- 1 1 -

requirements. Requirements for cornpliance include the completion of ten documents andcertifications confirming fiscal solvency and legal capacity. The decentralization of schoolfinancing under the project, while promoting greater local autonomy, was slowed bynoncompliance. Transfer of funds for locally managed programs was often delayed for two tothree months while compliance issues were addressed.

Currency Fluctuation. The exchange rate of the real to the dollar at the outset of projectimplementation was 1.14:1. By project closing, the rate had climbed to 2.3:1, a 75 percentchange. Crises in Asia and Russia affected the Brazilian economy and currency; in January 1999the government adopted a floating exchange rate. Economic crisis in Argentina in 2001 alsoplaced downward pressure on the value of the real. While currency stability during the first halfof project implementation was a positive factor, increasing fluctuation and devaluation became aproblem during the second half. Currency differences between the dollar and the real affectedproject implementation since the Bank's commitment charge increased with each depreciation ofthe real and because the Government's counterpart contribution had to increase in terms of thelocal currently to correspond to the agreed percentage of the Loan Agreement.

Political Changes. The project placed a great deal of emphasis on building capacity at the locallevel. During project implementation, 70 percent of mayors in the areas attended to by the projectwere replaced. New mayors and mtnicipal education secretaries had to be trained in projectconcepts and methodologies.

5.2 Factors generallv siubject to government control:Political Climate for Education Reform. Project planning and implementation were positivelyinfluenced by education reforms begun by the Cardoso Administration in 1995. Continuation inoffice of the President and Minister of Education for the duration of the project provided a stablepolitical climate and continued support. The administration's focus on the improvement ofprimary education aligned with project objectives and several political reforms strengthenedimplementation. Reforms included: (1) approval of the 1996 National Education Law, whichredefined the educational roles and responsibilities of each government level; (2) creation of theFund for the Development of Fundamental Education and Valorization of Teachers, whichguaranteed minimum per student expenditures for all primary students of R$333 (about US$133);(3) increased financial autonomy at the school level; and (4) improvement in the assessment ofschocl quality and student achievement with the student assessment system.

5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control:Beneficiary Participation. Schools and municipalities were involved in almost every aspect ofthe project. The Priority Attention Zone model promoted collaboration between states andmunicipalities and established municipal education secretaries and mayors as important actors inproject implementation. The program to support Municipal Education Secretariats reinforcedcollaboration and disseminated project information to municipalities. Programs such as theSchool Development and Improvement Plans, and the School-Based Rehabilitation promotedplanning, decision making, and fiscal responsibility at the local level. The School DevelopmentPlan and Escola Ativa programs also increased parental participation in schools. Word of mouthabout these programs reached beyond the original targeted areas, and schools and parentsrequested their expansion to new areas. Observations by Bank and Government staff found that

- 12 -

schools and communities developed a sense of ownership of the new programs, an importantelement in the long-term sustainability of project activities.

Improved Monitoring of Project. A computerized planning and monitoring system monitored thefinancial side of the project, providing Ministry staff with up-to-date information on transfers toschools for all of the programs financed by the project. The Ministry also developed an on-linesupervision system which helps the project assure the quality of the school managed rehabilitationactivity. Finally, the National Institute for Educational Research and Studies contributed to themeasurement of project quality with the collection of longitudinal data to gauge the effectivenessof the School Development Plan program.

5.4 Costs andfinancing:With the exception of the Proformaado program and the establishment of School DevelopmentPlans, which implemented more activities than planned, or which experienced cost overruns,project execution followed projections closely. Moreover, nearly all of the project's physicalimplementation targets were attained or substantially exceeded. Partly to finance these additionalphysical targets and cover underestimated costs, the Ministry of Education contributed anadditional $13 million of counterpart funds resulting in a final project cost of $138 million. Withrespect to the IBRD loan for the FUNDESCOLA I project, 100 percent was disbursed by theclosing date.

Both the Ministry of Education and the Bank operations staff in Brasilia agreed that procurementand disbursement procedures and performance improved substantially from NEBE III toFUNDESCOLA I. One reason for this improvement was the significant accumulated experienceand proficiency among the project's financial staff. At the state level, extensive training inprocurement procedures at the state-based Project Executive Coordination has resulted in moreefficient acquisition of goods and services. Despite the difficulty that some state officialsexperienced in completing procurement forms in English, it has become clear that a "culture ofimplementation" at the state level was developed, in which rigorous shopping and biddingrequirements have begun to replace more traditional methods of awarding contracts.

Despite improved financial management under FUNDESCOLA I, disbursement delaysoccasionally slowed project implementation. Reasons for these delays included: turnover of Bankdisbursement staff in Brasilia, the Bank's slowness in adjusting the disbursement system to reflectan agreed reallocation of the loan proceeds, difficulties that the UNDP had (the UNDP was theBorrower's executing agency for activities implemented directly by the DGP) in followingappropriate procurement procedures, and issues of noncompliance on the part of state andmunicipal governments. Closer monitoring and improved communications between the Borrowerand the Bank successfully addressed the problems with disbursement delays. Regarding UNDP,in mid-2000 the Bank procurement team in Brasilia and the UNDP organized a working group tosolve all differences in understanding between UNDP procedures and Bank procurementguidelines. This arrangement has already made substantial progress towards solving anymisunderstandings or differences between the two international agencies and assures thatprocurement procedures detailed in the Loan Agreements are being followed. Finally, issuesrelated to the non-compliance of local governments, which blocks transfers of funds to municipalor state schools in a given jurisdiction are caused by factors beyond the control of the project.

- 13-

Specifically when a municipality or state government is overdue on any obligation to the federalgovernment, the "Law of Fiscal Responsibility" (Law Complementar 101/2000, approved May2000) bars transfers of funds from any federal ministry or agency to that local government (orentities for which it is legally responsible, as in the case of schools) until the obligation is met.Consequently, the only way FUNDESCOLA has found to manage this issue is by preparing, inadvance, all necessary documentation and authorizations for the transfer to be made, monitoringthe non-compliance status on a regular basis, and then proceeding immediately with the transfer assoon as the status turns from "non-compliance" to "compliance."

6. Sustainability

6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating:LIKELY. A number of project activities have been institutionalized at the state and federal levels.As mentioned earlier, the School Development Plan program has been adopted by several states inall their schools, under the states' own financing. The National System for Basic EducationEvaluation and the Integrated Education Information System will be fully integrated into theMinistry by 2002. Additionally, the Ministry intends to incorporate the Proformaaio and EscolaAtiva programs into its regular operations. Increased management capacity and communityinvolvement through the school-based programs should also act to sustain project activities, asmunicipalities become more aware of their rights and responsibilities and develop channelsthrough which to act on them.

The follow-up operation, FUNDESCOLA II, implemented in 1999, is scheduled to close in June2004. The project continues the basic components of FUNDESCOLA I in an expanded targetarea, along with the addition of Promoting Communication and Social Mobilization as a separatecomponent. FUNDESCOLA III, currently under preparation, is incorporating lessons learnedduring the implementation of the two previous operations while still promoting the concept ofincreased school autonomy and minimum operation standards in the classroom.

The unknown variable in project sustainability is the possibility of political or economic instability.A change in political leadership after national elections in October 2002 may diminish federalcommitment to project objectives and could affect national programs. Economic instability,particularly resulting from the international recession that seems to be at the outset, coulddiminish the government's ability to continue activities related to the project, and could weakenparents' resolve to forego possible earnings while sending their children to school.

6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations:As stated earlier, several of the activities financed by the project are being incorporated into theMinistry of Education and are expected to be part of its regular operations. There has been closecollaboration between the project's implementation unit and other Ministry's office, including theparticipation of the project's director in the Minister's frequent meetings with his line staff.Additionally, project activities have been highly participatory and have generated ownership at themunicipal, state, and school level, and at the school level. Finally, the project is being followed bytwo operations, with similar activities.

7. Bank and Borrower Performance

- 14 -

Bank7.] Lending:

Highly Satisfactory. Project planning incorporated lessons learned from the project'spredecessor, NEBE III, and accurately assessed the management capacity of the implementingagency. Project planning was informed by the results of A Call to Action and project componentsidentified and addressed the key issues in improving the provision of primary education in theneediest regions of Brazil.

7.2 Supervision:

Satisfactory. The Bank maintained a positive relationship with the borrower and implementingagency, and supervision missions aided the implementing agency in identifying problems andrefocusing project objectives. Despite the task manager's transfer back to headquarters from hispost in Brasilia during the initial stages of the project, local Bank staff maintained closecommunication with the implementing agency. Additionally, the presence of the CMUJ in Brasiliaprovided the Borrower with more procurement support.

7.3 Overall Bankperformance:

Satisfactory. Well defined and well targeted activities, focus on project objectives, andappropriate support toward their completion fostered a positive relationship between Bank andBorrower and ultimately led to a timely and successful completion of the project.

Borrower7.4 Preparation:

Satisfactory. The quality of the federal and state data was excellent for planning purposes.Likewise, municipal data was good at the macro level, but not available at the school level untilproject implementation. For that reason, a few of the project indicators were not realistic.Notwithstanding, between the period of project approval and the finalization of theImplementation Manual, school level data was collected and monitoring indicators wereappropriately revised to reflect the new information. These revised indicators, which werespecified in the Implementation Manual, were realistic, consistent with the objectives set out inthe PAD, and set clear standards for accountability within the project's implementation team.

7.5 Government implementation performance:

Highly Satisfactory. The December 1996 Education Law and a national focus on primaryeducation provided strong support effective implementation. Education remained a key area ofthe Cardoso administration and the Minister of Education and his team were highly involved insupporting and promoting the concepts implemented by the project.

7.6 Implementing Agency:

Satisfactory. Professionalism and a high level of management capacity contributed to satisfactoryproject implementation. The implementation unit was particularly strong in the areas of financingand supervision. Project implementation data were up-to-date and available to project staff. Yetuse of data was not uniform across the coordination units. The overlapping schedule of thefollow-up operation, FUNDESCOLA [I, made the measurement of project results andexpenditures for the ICR more complicated and time consuming.

7.7 Overall Borrower performance:

- 15 -

Highly Satisfactory. Government support, comprehensive planning, consistent evaluation, andsubstantial achievement of project objectives merited a highly satisfactory rating overall for thisindicator.

8. Lessons Learned

Working with local governments. State and municipal governments, rather than the Ministry ofEducation, are directly responsible for delivering basic education in Brazil, thus making thempartners in implementing projects such as FUNDESCOLA I. Recognizing this fact during projectdesign and implementation ensured the political support for the project's goals on the part of localgovernments. The project's direct work with municipalities and schools through the PRASEMprogram and the microregional fora demonstrated the importance and efficacy of bottom-uppolicies. It also ensured that project implementation responded to the changing needs of themunicipalities. Moreover, itremoved political partisanship from the project's decisionmakingprocesses, thus increasing the likelihood of sustainability. Finally, by working with groups ofneighboring municipalities in the Priority Attention Zones, rather than with individualmunicipalities, the project encouraged municipal and state governments to be more transparentwith one another, to collaborate, and to seek joint solutions to their educational problems.

School level interventions. Empowering schools through direct interventions was designed togenerate greater school commitment to the project's goals and greater chances of success. TheSchool Development Plan required the school community to conduct a complete diagnosis of itsproblems and prepare a strategy to address those. Specific actions of that strategy were thenfinanced with funds from the School Improvement Subprojects. An initial evaluation of 158schools, including 55 schools with the PDE intervention and the remainder without PDEs,concluded that students enrolled in schools with PDEs tend to perform better on assessment tests.The research shows that those students also perform better with respect to other dependentvariables such as student's report card scores and student promotion rate (both based on teacher'sown assessment of student achievement rather than the standardized tests).

The necessity to define criteria and procedures to expand the project during itspreparation. The popularity of several of FUNDESCOLA I's programs presented theGovernment with a new dilemma: how to manage success. The project's design did not delineateexplicit strategies for expanding the project, so expansion occurred on an ad hoc basis. In somecases, as with the expansion of the School Development Plan program to new Priority AttentionZones, the project brought its full training and financial resources to bear. In other cases, such asthe adoption of the School Development Plan program by state education secretariats, theGovernment could offer only advice and some technical assistance. In still other situations, aswith the request by schools outside the project's scope for assistance in implementing EscolaAtiva, the Government simply had to refuse assistance due to financial constraints. In response tothese issues, the PAD for FUNDESCOLA II addresses expansion with more explicit proceduresand criteria.

Importance of Long-Term Programs. FUNDESCOLA I was prepared on the basis ofexperience of the NEBE II project, incorporating lessons learned under that project andcontinuing to support successful initiatives. Likewise, FUNDESCOLA II and III, the follow-up

- 16-

operations to this project, continue building on the successes of previous operations. Thepreparation of the FUNDESCOLA Program as three different projects gave the Bank and theBorrower greater flexibility to respond to emerging and/or not anticipated needs of the sector, hasenabled better targeting of beneficiaries, and has increased the likelihood of the project's actionsbeing sustained after the Program ends. Given the time necessary to implement educationchanges that have a real impact in the classroom, which significantly contrasts with the highturnover of key government decision-makers, the long-term strategy of a Program allows forcapacity building among technical people and at the local levels of Government. Finally, the longand overlapping implementation schedule should provide sufficient time for innovative programsto take root, flourish, and become institutionalized.

9. Partner Comments

(a) Borrower/implementing agency:

1) Introduction

This report aims to complement the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) ofFUNDESCOLA I by providing a qualitative and analytic summary of the project's planning andimplementation, focusing on the relationships between FUNDESCOLA I, II, and III within thepresent educational scenario. The relationship between these and previous World Bank financedprojects is also addressed.

This document describes FUNDESCOLA I's context and activities, based on specific formscompleted by the Central Project Coordination Unit (DGP) of FUNDESCOLA. The WorldBank's detailed analysis in the ICR should supplement the internal project analysis regardingachievement of project targets, financial performance, and implementation of components.

Though this report tries to provide a broad view of the Project, treating it as the first stage of alarge scale Program, it remains limited to the performance of FUNDESCOLA I. It assumes thatthe other stages of the Program (FUNDESCOLA II - under implementation; FUNDESCOLA III- under preparation) should be later analyzed within their specific reports.

- 17 -

2) Positive outcomes

The most outstanding aspect of FUNDESCOLA I is its innovative design as the first and decisivestep in the implementation of the FtUNDESCOLA Program. FUNDESCOLA I emphasizes thatschool management is critical to the viability and consolidation of the ongoing educationalreforms in Brazil.

Reflecting the importance of this aspect of the program, the Ministry of Education hasimplemented a new model for its basic education projects, based on political context, as well as anew constitutional and legal rule to manage basic education. The model is also based on theexperiences gained from the implementation of the Second and Third Northeast Basic EducationProjects (Projeto Nordeste), which were derived not only from the implementation and auditingreports, but also from a series of studies carried out during the project's implementation(published as "A Call to Action" in 1996).

The FUNDESCOLA program aims to operationalize and complement the Government's recenteducation reforms by presenting new strategies, which are locally oriented and concentrated onproduct development. This approach breaks with the way projects had previously been carriedout, where most were considered to be an additional source of funds to meet fragmenteddemands.

The FUNDESCOLA program has initiated a new phase for the design and implementation ofbasic education projects from the Ministry of Education (MEG): the design of the project's phases(as recommended by COFIEX) will be carried out concurrently with its implementation and by thesame team. This seems extremely appropriate to the present political and economic context (ofstability), as well as to the educational context (of rapid changes, e.g. in the mechanisms offinancing basic education). In this way, FUNDESCOLA I has benefited from the lessons learnedduring the Northeast Project and has influenced the dynamic planning process of FUNDESCOLAII, which was an enriching process of learning, adjusting, and changing course.

The FUNDESCOLA program emphasizes and implements educational management at the schoollevel. Already an issue in the Northeast Project, educational management was only dealt withthen at the system level (State/Municipal), which is also present in FUNDESCOLA through theestablishment of Priority Attention Zones (micro-regions defined by the IBGE). In addition,FUNDESCOLA has developed a decision-making forum, consisting of mayors and StateSecretaries of Education, to select the schools that will benefit from the Project's investments.

It is the emphasis on school management that distinguishes FUNDESCOLA from formerinitiatives. This is particularly true for the first project, which maintains its "focus on the school"by designing strategies, applying tools, and implementing actions geared towards serving theschool unit directly. This approach, aside from its more efficient allocation of resources, hasstarted to show its effectiveness, as reflected in the measures of educational outcomes.

One of the characteristics of FUNDESCOLA I, in the context of the FUNDESCOLA Program, isthat it was a pilot project in the North and Center -West regions. In fact, some of the importantinitiatives of FUNDESCOLA such as Escola Ativa and PDE, were piloted on a small scale in theNortheast Region as part of the Northeast Basic Education Project (NEBE II and III). However,it was in FUNDESCOLA that these pioneering activities were first brought to scale in the selectedmunicipalities. It is important to mention that, before the project's implementation, some states

- 18-

had already adopted a systematic allocation of funds directly to the schools. Moreover,FUNDESCOLA I had initiated the implementation of the concept of "Raising Schools toMinimum Operation Standards", which called for each school to have at least the minimum ofpedagogical resources, sufficient materials, appropriate facilities, and qualified teachers, and waspiloted in the states of Mato-Grosso do Sul and Goias.

Moreover, within the Secretariats of Education, some actions that had been initiated by theNortheast Basic Education Projects in 1996 have been expanded to the North and Center-Westregions, for instance PRASEM (Municipal Education Secretariats Support Program) under theFUNDESCOLA Project. PRASEM has been expanded to all municipalities, and the SIIG(Integrated Management Infornation System) has reached some of the states in the beneficiaryregions.

Regarding the principles by which the Project is managed, these were the major gains:

a) Effectiveness

FUNDESCOLA's actions geared towards strengthening school management were generallysuccessful. The schools that have adopted the management and pedagogical strategiesrecommended and monitored by FUNDESCOLA have shown positive results. Theimplementation of the School Development Plan (PDE) in urban schools has contributed to betterschool organization, as well as to improvements in community participation in school activities.These developments may also be related to learning improvements already being observed in thebeneficiary schools. In the rural schools, the Escola Ativa strategy has had positive effects on thebehavior and attitudes not only of the students, but also of teachers and parents.

The success of both strategies was reflected in the fact that some states and municipalitiessurpassed their expected targets. Furthermore, there was an expansion of some programs beyondthe originally targeted areas.

b) Equity

As previously mentioned, FUNDESCOLA I was the first to initiate and implement the concept of"raising schools to minimum operational standards". This unprecedented initiative was focused ondealing with a critical aspect of the Brazilian educational system: inequity in the provision ofeducational services.

The reforms at the classroom level carried out by FUNDESCOLA have proven to be moreefficient than those implemented by the Education Secretariats in former projects, for thefollowing reasons: a) reforms are based on the School Facilities Survey, which has technicallyidentified the school needs relative to the Minimum Standards; b) target areas were prioritized asZAPs by their respective forums; c) activities were contracted out and monitored by the SchoolCouncils; and d) technical assistance was provided by FUNDESCOLA supervisors.

Even though the degree of expansion of this initiative was smaller than those of previousadministrations, the results were significant. The results were particularly positive when the statesand municipalities complemented the resources so that they would reach the entire school, ratherthan individual classrooms.

Another important initiative to reduce the inequality of school inputs was the provision of basic

- 19 -

furniture and equipment for the classroom. The State Secretariats, using the School FacilitiesSurvey, were in charge of the bidding process to supply operational materials for teachers andstudents, and the municipal administration was responsible for the product's delivery and receipt inthe municipal schools. FUNDESCOLA promoted quality control in goods' specification, not onlyin the manufacturing process, but also upon receipt of the products. It is important to point outthat this initiative has expanded to the vendors and to the entities responsible for the goods'certification, with the expectation of establishing quality standards.

c) Alignment

There is a strong degree of alignment between FUNDESCOLA I and the MEC's policies andprograms that directly support schools (e.g., PDDE, PNLD, PCN) and local initiatives thatstrengthen school autonomy. Similarly, it is noteworthy that the project also complements recentlegislation, particularly the National Education Law (LDB) and the Fund for the Development andMaintenance of Basic Education and Teacher Valorization (FUNDEF), which focus onmunicipalities for the provision of public basic education services in the country.

Likewise, the ongoing expansion of the Municipal Education Secretariats Support Program(PRASEM) and the launching of ProformaSdo have contributed to compliance of legislation. Theformer is an on-site management training program, and the latter a distance learning program forteacher training; both meet the demands of a growing number of professionals.

Both programs have fostered important partnerships not only within the constitutional limits ofMEC, but also with governmental and non-governmental organizations. PRASEM enabled betterintegration with the National Education Development Fund (FNDE), improved the dialoguebetween UNDIME and UNICEF, and strengthened the ties with the community by promoting theparticipation of the FUNDEF's councils in the training program. After being piloted underFUNDESCOLA, Proformaqdo continued under the coordination of the Secretariat of DistanceEducation (SEED) and the MEC. Even during its pilot phase, Proforma;do began to showpotential as an important tool in teacher certification at the "magisterio" level (to teach the firstfour grades of primary school) and for lay teachers in the beneficiary regions.

FUNDESCOLA I also provided financial support to INEP/MEC for the improvement andconsolidation of their institutional systems for evaluating students' learning outcomes in basiceducation (SAEB), as well as their systems for conducting the school census (SIED).

3) Main Problems

Even though the program was innovative, the changes promoted by the project were met almostentirely without resistance from the participants, especially at the municipal level. The project'soverall planning was generally well received by the participant municipalities, as evidenced at theProject Launching Seminar. The conceptual and operational changes in the Northeast BasicEducation Project were not initially understood by some state governments, whose opinions werebased on the experience the Northeast states had with the former project.

The main problems were related to the management and operation and surfaced during theproject's implementation. They are summarized in the four following groups.

The most frequent problem faced by the project coordination teams concerned the state andmunicipal structures that support the project's implementation. This problem tends to be bigger

- 20 -

than those identified at the school level. While high turnover of personnel, especially in municipalschools, has been identified as a factor that has reduced the project's impact, the primaryobstacles to project implementation were the lack of technicians and poor operating conditions inthe State and Municipal Secretariats that were supposed to support and direct the schools. Infact, the insufficient number of educational planning technicians was identified as the main reasonfor the failure to carry out micro planning training.

The second group of problems is related to the bidding processes, particularly for theprocurement of school equipment, which have included the contractors, the company responsiblefor the quality standards, the executing agencies, and the financial agency (the World Bank).Generally, these processes were delayed in all phases of procurement. The furniture industry wasresponsible for most of the delays because it was not prepared to meet the new technicalrequirements. The IPT caused the next most delays: it did not have enough personnel to analyzethe models and samples (which had to be resubmitted if the specifications were not met). Also, theState Secretariats of Education, responsible for the procurement, in many instances either had notprioritized the bidding processes, or had problems following the rules of the borrowing contract.In addition, the World Bank would sometimes postpone the "no objection". Finally, the MunicipalSecretariats were not available very often to transport the purchased goods to schools in due time.

In sum, as a result of the frequent and sequential delays, many times the furniture and equipmentwould arrive at the schools long after the changes in the classrooms had been concluded.

A set of problems not directly attached to FUNDESCOLA I, but which are common to thetransfer of funds from the federal government to the states and municipalities (and their schools),comes from the breach of contract by the implementing agencies. When a state or a municipality isbeing held accountable, or is not duly allocating federal funds, an impediment to receive newtransfers arises. This problem had occurred in previous projects and continued to occur inFUNDESCOLA I.

Finally, despite the constant improvements since the Northeast Project in project monitoring bythe Central Project Coordination Unit (DGP), FUNDESCOLA still does not have atechnologically developed and integrated information system that allows for the fast and reliablecreation of management reports about the project 's development.

Because of the Project's complexity and scope, the systems made available duringFUNDESCOLA are widely diverse in terns of details and structure. This diversity manifests itselfin detailed versions of some actions, but short versions of others. It allows computerizedprocessing of some data or information, but, in other instances, it allows only for manual datacross-checking. Also, the identification of actions financed by different loan contracts is slow andinaccurate. In sum, there were difficulties in aggregating data and monitoring the project as awhole.

4) Main implemented solutions

The main difficulties in the implementation of FUNDESCOLA I can be overcome within theproject itself or during subsequent projects. In fact, the continuous improvement of actions andinitiatives is part of the basic premise of the FUNDESCOLA Program. As such, this reportexamines how each project deals or intends to deal with the most important questions that have

- 21 -

emerged since the start of the Program's implementation.

- 22 -

First, FUNDESCOLA is trying to assist the implementing agencies to become more involved andengaged in the project's actions. This is done by means of training, technical meetings,workshops, and events that focus on their level of responsibility. The Seminarios de Calibraaoand the PRAZAP's are noteworthy within this context.

Moreover, the Central Project Coordination Unit (DGP) of FUNDESCOLA I has been promotingthe training of technical teams from the State Based Project Executive Coordination (COEP),School Development Groups (GDE), and also from other sectors of the Secretariats of Education,so that they can act more effectively: a) when supporting schools with PDE, PME, PAPE, EscolaAtiva and PDDE; b) by using the available data from the LSE to support its own policies; c) inthe management and accountability of the funds transferred to schools; d) in the projectmanagement at the state level; e) in carrying out the bidding processes according to World Bankrules.

In addition, considering the strong expansion of the PDE and Escola Ativa in some states, theDGP has increased the number of technical assistants and monitors to support such initiatives.

However, there is another dimension to the problem that subsequent projects will need to dealwith: the integration of actions financed by FUNDESCOLA with the processes of theSecretariats. We understand that the Secretariats respond in a different way to the project; somedemonstrate greater interest and capacity to adopt FUNDESCOLA's strategies within theirpolicies than others. The Program treats the Secretariats that support FUNDESCOLA differently,particularly in the beginning of FUTNDESCOLA II and during the preparation of FUNDESCOLAIII. FUNDESCOLA establishes cooperation agreements with these Secretariats and providestechnical cooperation by means of a strategic planning process.

Another aspect, which has been constantly improved, is the specification for classroom furniture.Initially, the project demanded a review of the technical specifications and purchasing process. Italso promoted increased involvement of the implementers not only at the receiving end, but alsoby generating a change in the contract with the IPT. This change brought about the creation of anexclusive team to meet the demands of FUNDESCOLA, the issuance of papers to expedite theprocess, and monitoring of the production line and segregation of samples in all the factories. Thenext phase, to be implemented by FUNDESCOLA II, will deal with INMETRO's certification ofthe student set, guaranteeing a specific quality standard at the national level.

With respect to the minimum standards, there are two noteworthy activities that FUNDESCOLAII is implementing: a) the review and improvement of the LSE, including a new round with visualreading of forms, review of the technical and classification criteria, redefinition of the reports toassess schools according to minimum standards, etc ... ; b) the implementation of a pilot programfor School Preservation, including booklets and orientation materials for teachers and students.

5) Lessons Learned

The experiences of the team responsible for FUNDESCOLA I's design and implementation haveshed light on some of the project's assumptions. The team has also been raising questions thatwere not previously considered, but are extremely important for defining subsequent projects andguaranteeing the continuity and sustainability of their actions. This chapter presents the mainconclusions derived from the implementation of FUNDESCOLA I.

- 23 -

The project's results are visible in the schools. The educational data and indicatorsavailable in Brazil today allow for measuring the improvements in schools, with respect tothe project's contributions. Moreover, the ongoing testimonials, visits, reports, studies,and research reveal the management and, in many instances, pedagogic changesexperienced by the participating schools. Despite significant levels of skepticism, theproject has even obtained surprisingly positive results in the multi-grade rural schools(possibly the neediest in Brazil).

* Technical assistance to the schools is essential to the project's success. Among all theinterventions financed by the project, the orientation, follow-up, and support provided bythe technical assistants, monitors, supervisors, whether from FUNDESCOLA or theSecretariats of Education, are considered necessary conditions for the school team toinitiate and develop their tasks assigned by the project.

* The schools respond to management changes more rapidly than the Secretariats ofEducation. The project design has been carried out with this assumption. It has becomeevident that the Secretariats of Education have difficulties with following up on schoolsthat implement the project's strategies. In some cases, this situation motivates theSecretariats, and they organize themselves differently in order to follow the schools'dynamics. Further, they have volunteered to expand the actions to other schools and, insome cases, make these actions universal.

* The institutional and political capacity varies among the Secretariats of Education. Thereare many explanatations for how an organization responds to external forces. In the caseof FUNDESCOLA, there are two sources of "pressure" for changes to occur in theSecretariats of Education: a) school autonomy, as previously mentioned; b) project normsand guidelines, which specify minimum operational and technical conditions for theproject to be implemented. The response from the Secretariats of Education variessignificantly, depending on the managerial capacity of a particular organization. Thechanges in the Secretariat's teams may affect the project's implementation. Since theduration of the FUNDESCOLA program lasts longer than a state or municipal politicalterm, new possibilities for participation arise.

Most Secretariats of Education have limited capaciy to carry out a process of schoolimprovement. The majority of the Secretariats of Education, due to historical andadministrative characteristics, are not adequately equipped to manage a school system.Generally, system management is divided by function (planning, personnel, finance,educational, material, etc ... ), which does not provide a broad view of the school as asocial organization receiving social services. The Secretariat's technical teams experienceddifficulties in absorbing some of the proposed planning mechanisms for their schoolnetworks. They also had difficulty with the lack of monitoring tools to measure theschool condition (in terms of inputs, processes and results). FUNDESCOLA I did notstop serving these states and municipalities, but instead promoted technical support so thatall could benefit from the first phase of the Program. That said, the persistence of suchdifficulties deserves attention from subsequent projects.

- 24 -

* The sustainability of a school improvement process depends on the formal commitmentby the Secretariats to include this process in their daily activities. The institutionaldecision to adopt the strategies recommended by FUNDESCOLA I, as well as toincorporate or transform them into policy, requires an administrator with a vision andstrong leadership capacity. This commitment should be reflected in actions and measures,which exceed the limits of the administrator's term. Authority should be given to schoolprincipals, and the community should be involved in the decisions that affect the schoolunits. FUNDESCOLA I and FUNDESCOLA II deal with this aspect when selecting statesand municipalities as partners.

* Establishing a culture of quality for minimum school inputs requires integrated actionswithin the client-vendor chain. The provision of high quality school furniture andequipment is not limited to the specifications in the procurement process. Beneficiariesmust be informed and aware of the short and long term advantages of providing schoolswith goods that meet the user's demands; equally, the standardization and certification ofproducts and manufacturers is necessary to guarantee a regular and adequate supply.FUNDESCOLA I has initiated the standardization and quality control process for schoolfurniture, which will be extended to subsequent projects by training and guiding thebuyers, carrying out anthropometrical studies, and promoting a review of the technicalstandards that regulate the sector.

6) Conclusions and Recommendations

FUNDESCOLA has satisfied its objective to launch a school-centered approach to schoolmanagement. It has tested, developed, and applied tools and strategies that have brought aboutsignificant changes in the way schools are managed, how some of their inputs are acquired andproduced, how teachers are qualified, and, in some cases, how the teaching -learning process isdeveloped. Additionally, it has provided education managers with opportunities to update theirskills, as well as to participate in training in the new ways the state and municipal systems workand cooperate. In sum, the project has enabled a significant number of the people, who areresponsible for providing basic education in the two least developed regions of the country, toimprove the quality of their schools and, consequently, the quality of education.

Product expansion, such as in the case of the School Development Plan (PDE) and the EscolaAtiva, represents the potential of the strategies proposed by the project. This expansion is acomponent of FUNDESCOLA II, which, aside from introducing a new PAZ, will serve theNortheast Region in the same capacity.

At the same time, the development of the model requires that the intervention within the schoolsbe broader and deeper. Support for the school projects resulting from the PDE should beextended for a longer period of time. Also, the concept of minimum standards should be appliedto other environments and school inputs, including new teaching/learning strategies to supportteachers in the classroom. These initiatives have been designed and implemented, some byFUNDESCOLA II, others by FUNDESCOLA III.

However, as identified in the first project, all of these activities can only be developed and

- 25 -

sustained if they are institutionally incorporated and consolidated. In other words, thesustainability of the FUNDESCOLA Program depends on the institutionalization of its strategies,tools, and products, and the success of translating them into educational policies.

The experience gained with FUNDESCOLA shows that the greatest challenge for subsequentprojects will be to develop mechanisms and systems for the public (federal, state and municipalgovernments), private (manufactures of school inputs: books, furniture, etc...), andnon-governmental (entities representing municipal and states education administrators) sectorsthat will guarantee the progress and continuous improvement of the actions prescribed andfinanced by the Program.

In sum, it would be the role of the state and municipal partner-governments to implement systemsand mechanisms for planning, financing, monitoring, and evaluating their school networks, withinthe models defined by the Program. These partners would become examples of the comprehensiveadoption of the model to strengthen schools.

It would be the role of the Federal government, through the Ministry of Education, to create aformal structure of institutional arrangements that would guarantee the expansion and progress ofthe Program's actions to the non-participant states and municipalities. Moreover, federalregulatory entities would play an important role in guaranteeing the quality of specific educationalinputs produced by the private sector.

Finally, non-governmental organizations such as UNDIME, in partnership with MEC, would beresponsible for the continuity and expansion of the refresher courses and training for the municipaladministrators, mayors, and the community. The courses and training would address legislationand basic education finance and management, as described in the beginning of FUNDESCOLA Iand in the development of FUNDESCOLA II.

In this way, aside from retaining the original features of the Program (its focus, scope, andtechnical and administrative limitations pertinent to the program's own creation), otherpossibilities exist to expand the Program's gains to a larger number of beneficiaries.

The completion of FUNDESCOLA I has generated a demand for the expansion, deepening, andconsolidation of its achievements. Subsequent projects must balance these dimensions, whichmay conflict, but are essential to the Program's success.

Antonio Augusto de Almeida NetoCoordenador Tecnico do Programa FUNDESCOLA

(b) Cofinanciers:

(c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector):

10. Additional Information

- 26 -

Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix

Outcome I Impact Indicators:

_ ndicatorlMatrix Projected In last PSR ActuaVLatest Estimate1. Increase enrollment rates in schools that Over 50% in participating Priority Attenfion 41% of children in schools equipped withmeet minimum operational standards. Zones minimum operational standards2. Increase enrollment rates in schools with Over 50% in participating Priority Attenbon 54% of children in schools with Schoolimplemented Schooi Development Plans. Zones Devebpment Plans3. Elaboration and implementation of At least 50% of participating municipalities 100% participation.coordinated municipalstate education actionprograms.

Output Indicators:

Indicator/Matrix Projected in last PSR Actual/Latest Estimate1. Schools with Minimum OperationalStandards (MOS)1.1 Survey of physical infrastructure in all primary schools in Priority Attenton Zones 4,164 schools (100%)primary schools of North and Center-West1.2 Places offered for training of lay teachers 25,000 27,3721.3 Primary school classrooms in Priority 5,800 10,975Attention Zones equipped according to MOS1.4 Primary schools with more than 20 100% 95.6%students receiving cash transfers to carry outsmall maintenance1.5 Primary classrooms of the Priority 5,800 12,616Attention Zones prepared to receive fumitureunder Minimum Operational Standards2. Establishing a School DevelopmentProcess2.1 Schools in Pority Attention Zones with 401 1,724school development plan implemented2.2 School Improvement Subprojects (PME) 401 1,513implemented in Priority Attention Zones3. School places provided3.1 Urban and rural microplanning systems 100% 50% (urban zones)developed and tested3.2 Architectural projects elaborated and 10 states 100%development3.3 Methodology for testing model elaborated 0%architectural projects4. Strengthening education managementand project administration4.1 State and municipal decision-makers no specific target set 1,285 key decision-makers trained (includinginformed about education reforms taking mayors, secretaries of finance, andplace secretaries of education)4.2 Schools with Escola Ativa program 210 9434.3 Population in general informed about population informed process underwayFUNDESCOLA4.4 Student Assessment System in place; implemented implementedThe Education Information System revisedand implemented.

End of project

- 27 -

Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing

Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent)Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage ofEstimate Estimate Appraisal

Project Cost By Component US$ million US$ million1. Raising schools to minimum operating standards 87.14 98.30 112.82. Establishing a school development process 5.16 11.46 222.13. Planning and providing additional school places 4.20 1.10 26.24. Strengthening education management and project 23.83 27.86 116.9administration

Total Baseline Cost 120.33 138.72Physical Contingencies 3.17Price Contingencies 1.50

Total Project Costs 125.00 138.72Total Financing Required 125.00 138.72

Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Appraisal Estimate) (US$ million equivalent)

Procurement MethodExpenditure Category lcs ICB NCB Other N.B.F. Total Cost

1. Works 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 2.50(0.00) (0.20) (0.00) (0.00) (0.20)

2. Goods 30.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.50(17.70) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (17.70)

3. Services 0.00 0.00 20.30 0.00 20.30(0.00) (0.00) (20.30) (0.00) (20.30)

4. School Grants* 0,00 0.00 62.00 0.00 62.00(0.00) (0.00) (15.30) (0.00) (15.30)

5. Administrative 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00Expenses** (0.00) (0.00) (3.00) (0.00) (3.00)

6. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Total 30.50 2.50 85.30 0.00 118.30(17.70) (0.20) (38.60) (0.00) (56.50)

Notes: *School projects, allotments for schools to meet standards, and yearly allotments for schools to maintain standards.**Administrative expenses means incremental operational costs related tot he management and supervision of the

project, including maintenance and supplies, communication services and spare parts for office equipment andvehicles.

Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Actual/Latest Estimate) (US$ million equivalent)

Procurement MethodExpenditure Category ICB NCB Other2 N.B.F. Total Cost

1. Works 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22(0.00) (0.00) (0.18) (0.00) (0.18)

2. Goods 17.70 1.04 0.05 0.00 18.79

- 28 -

(8.63) (0.83) (0.05) (0.00) (9.51)3. Services 17.21 1.48 19.80 0.00 38.49

. (17.21) (1.48) (14.43) (0.00) (33.12)4. School Grants* 0.00 0.00 78.40 2.70 81.10

(0.00) (0.00) (19.60) (0.00) (19.60)5. Administrative 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12Expenses' (0.00) (0.00) (0.09) (0.00) (0.09)

6. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Total 34.91 2.52 98.59 2.70 138.72

(25.84) (2.31) (34.35) (0.00) (62.50)

"Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Loan. All costs include contingencies.

2' Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of contracted staffof the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs related to (i)managing the project, and (ii) re-lending project funds to local government units.

Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent)Percentage of Appraisal

Component Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest EstimateBank Govt. CoF. Bank Govt. CoF. Bank Govt. CoF.

1. Raising schools to 30.00 60.20 33.94 64.36 113.1 106.9minimum operationalstandards2. Establishing a school 3.00 2.30 3.59 7.87 119.7 342.2development process3. Planning and providing 4.30 0.00 0.40 0.70 9.3 0.0additional school places*4. Strengthening education 25.20 0.00 24.57 3.29 97.5 0.0management and ProjectAdministration*

* The PAD did not anticipate counterpart funds for components 3 and 4 at the PAD. However, theGovernment ended up financing US$700,000 in component 3 and US$3.29 million in component 4.

- 29-

Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits

not applicable.

- 30 -

Annex 4. Bank Inputs

(a) Missions: __._.

Stage of Project Cycle No. of Persons and Specialty Performance Rating(e.g. 2 Economists, I FMS, etc.) Implementation Development

Month/Year Count Specialty Progress Objective

Identification/Preparation04/1997 1 Sr. Education Economist

2 Sr. Education SpecialistI Education and HealthI Coordinator

School Improvement Specialist

09/1997 1 Sr. Education EconomistI Sr. Education SpecialistI Education & Health CoordinatorI School Improvement Specialist

Appraisal/Negotiation11/1997 1 Sr. Education Economist

I Sr. Education SpecialistI Education/Health Coord.

12/1997 1 Sr. Education Economist2 Sr. Education SpecialistI Education/Health Specialist1 School Improvement Specialist1 Operations Specialist

Supervision05/1999 1 Sr. Education Economist S S

I Operations Analyst2 Financial Mgmt. Analyst

12/1999 1 Sr. Education Economist S S06/2000 1 Operations Specialist S S

1 Education Specialist10/2000 1 Sr. Education Economist S S

I Education SpecialistI Sr. Education Specialist

(b) Staff:

Stage of Project Cycle Actual/Latest EstimateNo. Staff weeks US$ (000)

Identification/Preparation n/a n/aAppraisalNegotiation n/a 197,145Supervision 35.7 204,213Total 38.2 412,003

- 31 -

Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components

(H=High, SU=Substanbal, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable)Rating

O Macro policies O H OSUOM O N * NAa Sector Policies O H OSUOM O N O NAO Physical OH *SUOM ON ONAO Financial OH OSUOM ON *NALI Institutional Development O H * SU O M O N 0 NALII Environmental O H OSUOM O N * NA

SocialO Poverty Reduction OH O SU * M O N O NALII Gender O H OSUOM O N * NALi Other (Please specify) O H OSUOM O N * NA

LI Private sector development 0 H O SU O M 0 N * NAEl Public sector management 0 H O SU * M 0 N 0 NAO Other (Please specify) O H OSUOM O N * NA

- 32 -

Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory)

6.1 Bank performance Rating

I Lending *HSOS OU OHUO Supervision O HS * S O U O HUEl Overall OHS *S OU OHU

6.2 Borrowerperformance Rating

EL Preparation OHS OS O U O HULI Government implementation performance O HS O S 0 U 0 HUOl Implementation agency performance O HS O S 0 U 0 HUEl Overall OHS OS 0 U 0 HU

- 33 -

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents

DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING PROJECT PREPARATION

A Call to Action: Combatting School Failure in the Northeast of Brazil. World Bank, Brazil Ministry ofEducation, Unicef, December 19, 1997. (World Bank Sector Stuty Report No. 18358-BR). Thisreport summarizes findings and recommendations from thirteen commissioned studies, not listedseparately here.

Avaliacao e Desempenho: Fatores Associados: Resultados da 4a Serie-1999. Relat6rio Prelirninar.Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 2001.

Censo Escolar 1998: Sinopse Estatistica da Educacao Basica. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e PesquisasEducacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 1999.

Censo Escolar 1999: Sinopse Estatistica da Educacao Basica. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e PesquisasEducacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 2000.

Censo Escolar 2000: Sinopse Estatistica da Educacao Basica. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e PesquisasEducacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 2001.

Projeto de Melhoria da Escola. Terceira Edicao. FUNDESCOLA, MEC, Brasilia, 2001.

Sistema Nacional de Avaliacao da Educacao Basica, SAEB/95: Resultados Estaduais. Instituto Nacionalde Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 1997.

Sistema Nacional de Avaliacao da Educacao Basica, SAEB/97: Primeiros Resultados. Instituto Nacionalde Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 1999.

Sistematica de Financiamento do Ensino Fundamental. Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento daEducaq5o--FNDE, MEC, Brasilia, 1997.

Dinheiro na Escola: procedimientos operacionais. Ministerio da Educacao e do Desporto--MEC, Brasilia,1997.

Educaton for All: Evaluation of the Year 2000. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e PesquisasEducacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 2000.

Geografia da Educacao Brasileira (CD-ROM). Instituto Nacional de Estudos e PesquisasEducacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 2000.

"The Financing of Education in Brazil," Sergei Soares, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1999.

STUDIES CARRIED OUT DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Escola Ativa: Capacitaqao de Professores. FUNDESCOLA/MEC, Brasilia, 1999.

Guia de Consulta, Programa de Apoio aos Secretarios Municipais de Educacao (PRASEM). ProjetoNordeste, Banco Mundial, UNICEF, Brasilia 1997.

- 34 -

Manual de Operacionalizaqao: Proforma,co. FUNDESCOLA, SEED/MEC, Brasilia, 2000.

Manual de Opera,co e Implementac,o do Projeto (MOIP): FUNDESCOLA I. Volume I, OrientacoesGerais. FUNDESCOLA, MEC, Brasilia, 1998.

Manual de Operacao e Implementa,co do Projeto (MOIP): FUNDESCOLA I. Volume II, Orientacoes aosEstados e Municipios. FUNDESCOLA, MEC, Brasilia, 1998.

Manual Para Adequa,co de Predios Escolares, Tercera Edicao. FUNDESCOLA, MEC, Brasilia, 2001.

Normas Para Financiamento de Projetos Educacionais no Ambito do FUNDESCOLA. FUNDESCOLA,MEC/FNDE, Brasilia, 1998, 1999, 2000.

"O Plano de Desenvolvimento da Escola e a Gestao Escolar no Brasil: Situacao Atual e Perspectivas."Jose Amaral Sobrinho, FUNDESCOLA, MEC, Brasilia, 2001.

Plano de Carreira e Remunera,co do Magisterio Puiblico. FUNDESCOLA, MEC, Brasilia, 2000.

Project Appraisal Document: FUNDESCOLA I. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Project Appraisal Document: FUNDESCOLA II. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1999.

IMPACT EVALUATION STUDIES

Sistema Nacional de Avaliacao da Educacao Basica, SAEB/99: Resultados 99. Instituto Nacional deEstudos e Pesquisas Educacionais--INEP, Brasilia, 2001.

Avaliacao de Desempenho: Fatores Associados, July, 2001 59 pps. National Institute of EducationResearch (INEP). Impact Analysis of Fundescola's School Development Plan program.

- 35 -

- 36 -