Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of

Document Sample
Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Powered By Docstoc
					Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and
Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in
Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan


Contract No. EDH-I-00-03-00002-00



Submitted to:
USAID Central Asia Regional Office



Submitted by:
DevTech Systems, Inc.


June 27, 2005
Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and
Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in
Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan



Contract No. EDH-I-00-03-00002-00

Submitted to:
USAID Central Asia Regional Office
Almaty, Kazakhstan


Submitted by:
DevTech Systems, Inc.
1700 N. Moore St., Suite 1720
Arlington, VA 22209 USA

Consultant Team:
Richard Dye
Gerald Boardman
Wendy LeBlanc
Azim Bayzoev

June 27, 2005
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................vi
I.    INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
    A. Background .....................................................................................................................1
    B. Methodology ...................................................................................................................2
II. EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CURRENT PROGRAMS ............3
    A. Validity of the pilot school/cluster model - provision of in-service training to a greater
        number of teachers: .........................................................................................................3
    B. Sustainability of the Teacher Training Programs............................................................13
    C. Effectiveness of the School Management Training in Changing Organizational Behavior
        in Schools......................................................................................................................21
    D. Gender...........................................................................................................................28
    E. Effectiveness and Sustainability of Community Involvement Approaches .....................29
    F. Complementarity of Inputs in Pilot Schools under the Different Components and
        Program Cohesion .........................................................................................................36
    G. Advocacy and Association Development .......................................................................36
    H. Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, Indicators, Assessing Learning Outcomes, and
        the Impact of Teacher Training on Attendance and Completion.....................................37
    I. USAID Comparative Advantage in Current Assistance Areas........................................39
    J. Comparative Analysis of Different Models for Quality Improvement as Used by
        Different Implementing Partners....................................................................................40
    K. Policy Initiatives............................................................................................................43
    L. Summary Comments on PEAKS and IBET ...................................................................44
    M. PEAKS Program Management.......................................................................................44
III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FUTURE INVOLVEMENT .......................................44
    A. Original and Current Validity of USAID’s Education Sector Strategy and Approach.....44
    B. Current Policy, Capacity, and Donor Environment ........................................................46
    C. Issues or Areas that May Require USAID Intervention to Ensure Sustainability of Quality
        Improvements, Given the Basic Education Investments to Date, with Special Reference
        to Policy Reform and Teacher Training .........................................................................49
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................50
    A. Recommendations for PEAKS during the Extension Period:..........................................50
    B. Recommendations for the Next Strategy Period, 2007-2011 ..........................................51
    C. Budget...........................................................................................................................52

APPENDICES:

A.   Research Project Methodology
B.   Sampling Matrix
C.   School Management and Community - Country Comparison
D.   School Management and Community - Uzbekistan Data
E.   School Management and Community - Tajikistan Data

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                                                         i
DevTech Systems, Inc.


F.   School Management and Community - Kyrgyzstan Data
G.   Teacher Best Practices Data
H.   Teacher Questionnaire Data
I.   Persons Consulted
J.   Documents Consulted
K.   Research Instruments
L.   Team Schedule




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                   ii
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                     ABBREVIATIONS

Abt           Abt Associates
ACCELS        American Council for Collaboration in Education and Language Study
ADB           Asian Development Bank
AED           Academy for Educational Development
AIP           Association of Independent Providers – Novel School
AKF           Aga Khan Foundation
AKHP          Aga Khan Humanities Project
ALM           Active Learning Materials
ALPG          Active Learning for Primary Grades (Save the Children Tajikistan)
BRAC          Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee
CEC           Community Education Committee
C-EMIS        Community Education Management and Information System
CLO           Child-led organizations (including Children’s Clubs)
DED           District Education Departments
EFA           Education For All
EFWG          Education Finance Working Group
EMP           Education Modernization Project (World Bank)
ESDP          Education Sector Development Project
EU            European Union/European Commission
FEIS          Foundation for Support of Educational Initiatives
HRD           Human Resource Development
IBET          Improving Basic Education in Tajikistan (USAID/AKF)
IR            Intermediate Result
IT            Information Technologies
IE            Inclusive Education
IFES          International Foundation for Electoral Systems
IPD           Institute for Professional Development
ISSA          International Step-by-Step Association
ITLM          Interactive Teaching Learning Materials
KAE           Kyrgyz Academy of Education
KIPD          Khorog Institute for Professional Development
KSA           Knowledge, Skills, and Attitude
KSPU          Kyrgyz State Pedagogical University
LCMD          Low Cost Materials Development
M&E           Monitoring & Evaluation
MOE           Ministry of Education
MSDSP         Mountain Society Development Support Program
NERA          National Education Reform Association
NGO           Non-Governmental Organization
Oblano        Oblast (Provincial) Educational Department
OSI           Open Society Institute
PAC           Project Advisory Committee
PC            Parents Committee
PDS           Professional Development School

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                   iii
DevTech Systems, Inc.


PEAKS         Participation, Education and Knowledge Strengthening in CA
PIU           Project Implementation Unit
PMP           Performance Monitoring Plan
PTA           Parent-Teacher Association
Raiono        Raion (District) Education Department
REP           Rural Education Project (World Bank)
RWCT          Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking
SBC           School-Based Curriculum
SbS           Step-by-Step program
SCUK          Save the Children, United Kingdom
SCUS          Save the Children, United States
SFF           Student Friendly Furniture
SI            School Improvement
SP            School Parliament
SP            Social Partnership
SRC           School Rehabilitation Committee
START         Strategic Technical Assistance for Results with Training (USAID)
TAR           Technical Assistance Report
TOT           Training of Trainers (Training of Facilitators/Mentors)
TPD           Teacher Professional Development
TTI           Teacher Training Institute
UNDP          United Nations Development Program
UNICEF        United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID         United States Agency for International Development
USD           U.S. Dollar
VWG           Voucher Working Group
VS            Voucher System
WB            World Bank
WG            Working Group
WFP           World Food Program (UN)




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                   iv
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This review of USAID/CAR’s basic education program in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan has benefited greatly from the cooperation and collaboration of a great many
dedicated people.

•      Ministry of Education and provincial and district education officials and staff in all three
       countries who very generously made themselves available for interviews and questions.
•      The CAR Mission staff who direct and support the project, Ms. Jessica Leonard and
       Carina Omoeva, deserve special thanks for the guidance, insight, and information they so
       freely provided, as well as for their assistance with myriad practical arrangements.
•      USAID Country Representatives and education staff in the three countries, who provided
       invaluable support, assistance, and advice and participated in numerous key meetings.
•      The Chief of Party for the Academy for Educational Development/PEAKS, Mr. Terry
       Giles, the PEAKS partners, and staff who cooperated fully with information, suggestions,
       and other assistance as needed, including accompanying the team on site visits.
•      The IBET Project Director, Shazeen Virani, and her staff, who provided excellent
       briefings and materials and assisted with site visits.
•      The PEAKS and IBET school directors, teachers, and staff, who are on the front lines of
       the project, were most helpful in sharing their experiences and their expertise.
•      Our thanks also to the students, parents, School Education Committee and PTA members,
       and others in the various school communities who participated in this study. May their
       dreams of providing quality education to current and future generations of the
       community’s children become reality.
•      Last, but not least, very grateful appreciation is given to all the people of the three
       countries who received us so graciously and whose dedication, hard work, and desire for
       educational improvement and reform inspires us all.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 v
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.     BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

USAID/Almaty contracted DevTech Systems to conduct a mid-term evaluation of its basic
education programs in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The objectives of the evaluation
were to:
1) Assess the effectiveness and sustainability of USAID-assisted approaches to improving
   quality and increasing access to primary and secondary education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
   and Uzbekistan and make recommendations for possible program adjustments.
2) Review USAID’s basic education assistance strategy and make recommendations on future
   assistance priorities in the education sector.

The USAID Basic Education program seeks to address major challenges in Central Asian
education systems through two cooperative agreements: The Participation, Education, And
Knowledge Strengthening Project (PEAKS) implemented by the Academy for Educational
Development (AED), and the Improvement of Basic Education in Tajikistan (IBET) project, a
Tajikistan-only activity implemented by the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF). The program was
started with post-9/11 supplementary funding, initially for three years (calendar years 2003-
2005). Subsequently, the PEAKS agreement was extended for another year-and-a-half, through
June 2007.

The main project under the Basic Education Strategic Objective, PEAKS, technically operates in
four countries of the region: Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The
program in Turkmenistan, however, has been very limited. Therefore, the evaluation focused on
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Though PEAKS was discussed at length in advance with the three countries, received their
official approval, and the ministries of education are represented on the Project Advisory
Committees (PACs), the relationship of the project to the respective national education systems
has been limited. The main responsibility for the project is in the hands of a consortium of
international and local NGOs and international consulting firms, which, for the most part, have
worked directly with the pilot schools and communities. Consortium members included an
umbrella organization (AED, and four partners: The Open Society Institute (OSI), Save the
Children United Kingdom (SCUK), Save the Children United States (SCUS), and Abt Associates
(Abt).

The other project in USAID’s basic education program, IBET, is a Tajikistan only project. It is
also a consortium-run project, including the Mountain Society Development Support Program
(MSDSP), the Khorog Institute for Professional Development (KIPD), and the Aga Khan
Humanities Project (AKHP). Prior to the initiation of IBET, AKF assistance had focused on
strengthening key existing government education resources in the original project area, notably
the KIPD but also the local education departments, and only subsequently began to introduce
modern methods, strengthened subject matter curricula, and innovative, low-cost materials into
pilot primary schools. IBET built on this earlier work by giving support and direction to the latter
activities and expanding the project area to include schools in two other provinces (Khatlon and

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 vi
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Rasht). The basic IBET model is a triangle - a Core School and two nearby Satellite Schools,
with all three sharing a common Resource Center. The training, monitoring, and follow up work
is done, in coordinated fashion, by a combination of the IPD staff, district officials, and the main
teacher trainers from the core schools.

Methodology

The team employed a range of data collection methods. The primary tool was a structured data
collection effort designed to identify and rate the level of usage of best practices, distilled from
experiences in other countries, by key school and community stakeholders. The instruments
which formed part of the research project were administered during a matrix of site visits to PDS
and cluster schools and their respective communities. School visits included interviews with
teachers, school administrators, students, parents, and representatives of community education
committees and parent-teacher associations. In addition, teacher questionnaires were
administered and classroom observations were conducted. Action plans and parent committee
meeting minutes were also reviewed. (See Appendices A and B for further details.)

Additional data was collected through meetings with a wide range of other key stakeholders,
including leaders and staff of the three Ministries of education, regional and district education
departments, teacher training institutions, AED and the other implementing partners, the World
and Asian Development Banks, NGOs, other education donors, and USAID staff in Almaty,
Bishkek, Dushanbe, Tashkent, and Washington. In addition, the team reviewed an extensive list
of background documents.


II.    EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CURRENT PROGRAM

A.     Validity of the pilot school/cluster model - provision of in-service training to a
       greater number of teachers:

The center-piece of the PEAKS program is the Professional Development School (PDS)-Cluster
School model. Under this model, teachers are selected from the PDS schools to receive training
as teacher trainers, who then return to “cascade” their training to other teachers at the PDS and to
teachers in the cluster schools. The team’s research indicated that the majority of the PDS
schools score from moderate to high in the cascading of training to other PDS teachers, but that
there is currently a significant drop-off in cascading between the PDSs and the cluster schools.

To a large extent this is due to the relatively short time that most of the cluster schools have been
involved in the project. (See Section II.) But, other constraints were noted that are more
challenging to the ultimate success of the model. One is the heavy regular load carried by PDS
trainers, especially in schools with multiple shifts, which limits their ability to find time to
provide training and also to get out to the cluster schools on a regular basis for follow up and
mentoring. Other constraints include the lack of arrangements for substitute teachers to enable
some of the training to take place on regular school days, the absence of travel funds to enable
PDS and cluster teachers to move back and forth within the cluster, the often large distances



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  vii
DevTech Systems, Inc.


between PDSs and cluster schools; and the inability of many rural cluster teachers, due to a
variety of cultural and family pressures, to be away from home for extended periods of training.

Another major constraint is that the training provided by PDS trainers to cluster teachers or
others is not currently recognized by the governments as meeting official teacher retraining
requirements and, thus, does not offer any extra compensation to the trainer or lead to
promotions or salary increases for the trainees. Efforts to overcome this last problem are
reportedly underway in all three countries.

B.     Sustainability of the Teacher Training Programs

While the situation is likely to improve with time, the team found that there are built-in
sustainability and replication issues with a model which relies exclusively on the PDS schools
for training, monitoring, and mentoring services. Had the strengthening of the district education
offices to assist them to provide these services – their assigned job – been included in the project
design, in effect combining their resources with those of the PDSs and giving them a sense of
ownership, the prospects for sustainability and replication would be much greater. The district
offices, moreover, are empowered to certify training in which they participate as eligible for
teacher retraining benefits.

Another long-term sustainability issue is the fact that the SbS and RWCT training packages and
materials are copyrighted. While this is not a major problem while OSI, and the local
foundations spun off by the Open Society Institute/Soros Foundation Network, are delivering
services under a sub-agreement with PEAKS, it has the potential to be a major issue when the
project reaches the replication phase. It is likely that at that point, the PEAKS model, to make it
affordable, would be stripped down to its basics, with costs, including training and materials,
being a large factor. The requirement to purchase training services and materials exclusively
from the local SbS and RWCT foundations or licensed affiliates could well be unaffordable and
would certainly restrict options. The situation would change dramatically, if the courses were
officially recognized by the three governments and if the PDSs, TTIs, and other official teacher
training institutions were in effect “licensed” to provide the services, without having to pay
royalties.

Uzbekistan Program Redesign

For reasons unrelated to PEAKS, in the first half of 2004, OSI was denied re-registration in
Uzbekistan, resulting in the need for AED to take responsibility for OSI’s functions and to
redesign the IR-1 and IR-2 programs in that country. The opportunity was taken to redesign key
aspects of the program, some of which had already been identified as needing revision, notably
the need to take greater advantage of the Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs), which in
Uzbekistan, in contrast to the other two countries, continued to enjoy strong government support.
Additionally, arrangements were made with a local foundation, Ziyo, and SCUS to implement
IR-3 community work, alongside similar IR-5 being conducted by SCUS.

The redesign included greater involvement and ownership by government education bodies,
including the TTIs and district education offices, to supplement, but not replace, the PDSs. Also

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                viii
DevTech Systems, Inc.


included was the development, in association with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), of a
distance learning component, accompanied by a network of resource centers, to take both TTI
and PDS training and follow up services to outlying schools, rather than rely on extensive
traveling back and forth within the clusters. An additional component was the development of
new, interactive training programs and materials to replace the OSI products.

The team was impressed with the strategic nature of the redesign and considers it to be well
adapted to Uzbekistan conditions. While it is unlikely the Uzbekistan redesign will turn out to be
fully applicable elsewhere – the situation in each country is different – the direction of change,
especially towards greater integration of the project into the national education system, relating it
to other key donors, and experimenting with new combinations of PDS and other teacher training
and support activities, strikes the team as being on target not only for Uzbekistan but the other
countries as well.

C.     Effectiveness of School Management Training in Changing Organization Behavior
       in Schools

The team’s research showed that there has been considerable positive change in organizational
behavior, which can be attributed at least in part to the project, including school management
training. Included are more participatory management, greater openness and sharing of
information within the school and with the community, greater readiness to take initiative in
developing local school improvement projects, and fund raising. While further progress is still
needed, improved transparency in budgetary and financial matters is occurring. Again, a
difference was noted between PDS and cluster schools, probably due mainly to the relatively
short time the latter have been involved in the project.

In general, the role of the school director was found to be critical to the success of the project,
corroborating experience in similar projects elsewhere. The team believes that additional,
focused training of school administrators, especially in the substantive details of the new
teaching and learning methods, as well as financial management, would be a good investment.
The team was pleased to see that some of this training is part of the Uzbekistan redesign and is
also part of school improvement training.

Regular follow up on management issues by the district inspectors would be helpful in sustaining
behavior changes.

D.     Gender

In general, the team observed positive gender-related behavior on the part of students, teachers,
school administrators, parents, and community organizations supporting the schools. In the
absence of baseline data, it was difficult to measure change, per se, but it is likely that the project
has had an effect, especially in the SbS classes and to a lesser extent in upper grades in schools
where RWCT has been introduced. Again, the role of the School Director was found to be
important for setting the general tone.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                     ix
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Not surprisingly with respect to a variable as socially important and powerful as gender, the
school environment is only one factor influencing gender behavior. But, the project’s impact has
clearly been positive.

E.     Effectiveness and Sustainability of Community Involvement Approaches

The team observed sizable, sustained interactions between the schools and the communities. In
general, community organizations called for in the project design were present and functioning.
Parents were clearly more involved with the schools, particularly participation of SbS parents in
their children’s classes, and a clear increase in school visits and conferences with teachers. Many
of the interactions have focused on the identification and execution of school projects, in which
the community played a significant role in planning, fund raising and monitoring. This may
reflect the emphasis placed on projects by the implementers, SCUK and SCUS, and in the
training provided.

F.     Complementarity of Inputs in Pilot Schools under the Different Components and
       Program Cohesion

Unlike integrated basic education projects in many other countries, which have sought to
demonstrate the efficacy of a uniform package of inputs, PEAKS was designed to simultaneously
test a number of different models, within a single project. In addition, there was no clear pattern
of uniform inputs provided more or less simultaneously across the entire project, even where OSI
was the principal teaching and learning provider and SCUK the primary community
development provider. The geographic coverage and experience of implementing partners
varied, e.g. OSI in Tajikistan. Schools came into the program at different times and benefited
from project inputs accordingly, making comparisons difficult. As noted, the cluster schools, are
still quite new to the project, and to date have only received partial inputs.

The complexity of the project placed an unusual burden on AED to develop mechanisms for
tracking and measuring progress on such a large number of variables, as well as coordinating the
day-to-day activities of the various partners.

G.     Advocacy and Association Development

The original project design included plans to promote the establishment of professional
associations among PEAKS teachers, administrators, and school-related community leaders. At
some point, these plans were dropped. In the team’s view, it would be important to reinstate
them. First of all, the proposed associations would be very helpful for the continued professional
development of their members - a key to sustainability. The associations would also empower
these central actors in the project to take their professional futures in their own hands, promoting
their professional interests and joining with others to advocate for educational development,
reforms, including more adequate funding.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  x
DevTech Systems, Inc.


H.     Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

The team reviewed partner collection plans, the appropriateness and reliability of indicators for
assessing progress, methods for assessing student outcomes, and the impact of teacher training
on attendance and school completion.

In general, it found the M&E design to be satisfactory in establishing a baseline in 2003 and in
measuring the inputs and outputs of the project design focus in the 2004 data collection. For the
remaining project time frame, more effort should be made to assess project impact, and in areas
where C-EMIS is functioning, to set up several tracking programs. The development of fully
adequate methods for assessing student outcomes is still a work in progress, and may not be
attainable in the time frame and with the resources available.

The team believes that PEAKS teacher training has had a positive impact on school attendance
and retention, by removing many of the school-based factors that lead to non/poor attendance
Clearly the total SbS package has positive effects on both, and it is likely that the combined
effect of all project components will improve both. At the same time, it should be recognized that
school attendance and retention are heavily influenced by economic pressures, which are beyond
the school’s control, particularly in rural areas or poor urban neighborhoods.

I.     USAID Comparative Advantage in Current Assistance Areas

USAID/CAR, like USAID missions elsewhere, have inherent advantages, and occasional
disadvantages, that derive from the power and influence of the U.S. This is true in CAR
education, even with the relatively small education budget and USAID/CAR’s recent entry into
the sector.

The Mission’s decision to focus on basic education automatically created other kinds of
comparative advantage, resulting from the fact that world-wide, basic education is USAID’s top
priority in the sector. For example, the Mission benefits from the comparatively large technical
resources available within the Agency in this area, the availability of a well-developed and
flexible range of basic education procurement mechanisms, the existence of numerous USAID
projects in basic education elsewhere to draw upon for lessons learned and best practices, and the
ability to tap a large, national and international pool of technical expertise. It also benefits from
close and long-standing working relations in basic education with other donors, notably the
World Bank.

Another advantage is the way USAID operates, i.e. with but not through government, as the WB
and ADB must do. This enables USAID to be more flexible and responsive and have better
control over the quality of the work and the usage of its funds. It also puts USAID in a unique
position to provide long term, objective technical assistance, as opposed to the Banks, which
have a tendency to provide advice but little sustained assistance in defining and implementing
solutions to problems.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  xi
DevTech Systems, Inc.


J.     Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Models for Quality Improvement

The full report includes tables for each country comparing the different models.

The team was impressed with the IBET model, especially its careful and sustained integration of
the project with local education institutions. The latter, in the team’s view, is a weakness of the
PEAKS model. The OSI/Soros focus on developing and sustaining independent, national
organizations to work on behalf of the schools is a sound, long-term strategy for society as a
whole. But, in the PEAKS context, where scaling up and replication of the project through the
national education systems must be the ultimate goal, there is some conflict between the two
approaches.

The team is critical of SCUK’s rural cluster model in Tajikistan, at least as it has operated under
PEAKS. It is recognized that the model focuses on fostering self-help among some of the poorest
schools in a poor country, which is a commendable objective. But, in practice, few positive
results were observed. The reasons are unclear and may have more to do with management than
the model per se. Nevertheless, at this point, it would be hard to justify recommending making a
new start at developing and testing it.

K.     Policy Initiatives

While it was not an integral part of the original design, PEAKS has been instrumental in
promoting and supporting the testing of two educational finance pilot initiatives. The first is a per
capita school funding scheme, which addresses both equity in school finance and decentralized,
transparent management of school budgets. As a result, the first major experiment with
decentralization of school governance to local boards is now underway in pilot areas in
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The second initiative, which is philosophically quite different, is a pilot test in one district in
Kyrgyzstan of a training voucher scheme. The goal of the pilot is to test whether the introduction
of competition into teacher retraining systems can simultaneously promote the entry into the
system of new, private training providers, while encouraging current providers, especially the
TTIs, to upgrade the quality and relevance of their offerings.

The team supports the first initiative wholeheartedly and believes the second can be useful, so
long as it does not, de facto, lead to the decimation of training capacity in the national education
system which is often the only viable option for many teachers and schools. Both kinds of
training sources are going to be needed in the years ahead.

L.     Summary Comments on PEAKS and IBET

PEAKS overall is an excellent project and by the end of the current agreement will have left
significant marks in the great majority of the schools and communities in which it operates. The
team has been critical of some aspects of the project, but that has strictly been with the goal of
helping it become even stronger and in ways that will increase the likelihood that it will be
institutionalized into national education systems and widely replicated, as it deserves to be.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  xii
DevTech Systems, Inc.



The team was only able to study two IBET schools; thus, is limited in the findings and
recommendations that it can make concerning IBET. In the team’s view, the IBET model is
attractive and the project seems to be on a sound course. The next logical step would be to move
the reform process into the upper grades, through the introduction of something along the lines of
RWCT. If resources are available, the team believes an extension through June 2007 to support
such an effort would be appropriate. If this were done, it would put IBET on the same time table
as PEAKS and open the option in Tajikistan of integrating AKF/IBET into the proposed PEAKS
replication project.

M.     PEAKS Program Management

AED’s management of the PEAKS program has been generally strong. Its primary role at the
outset was to coordinate and bring cohesion to an unusually complicated mix of goals, models,
and implementers in three countries. This did not happen overnight, but the evidence is that the
issues were identified and dealt with in a reasonably sound and timely way. During this initial
period, AED relied primarily on the implementers for their special expertise in each of the
components for which they were assigned lead roles.

The situation was altered significantly with the changes in Uzbekistan in the first half of 2004.
At this stage, de facto, AED began to play a much larger conceptual and technical role. Today, as
the project is challenged to define and work towards its ultimate objectives in a number of areas,
the need for AED leadership is further increased. In the team’s opinion, in order to do this, AED
should consider augmenting its project-specific technical expertise, both in-region and via
consultants on regular visit schedules, particularly in relevant methodologies, materials
development, and related training.

Throughout the project, AED has worked closely and effectively with the governments and key
donors, especially the World Bank, in order to coordinate the project’s work with them and to
seek their understanding and support.


III.   ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FUTURE INVOLVEMENT

A.     The Original and Current Validity of USAID’s Education Sector Strategy and
       Approach

The team believes USAID’s original assumptions were and remain valid but also sees the case
for basic education as even greater than suggested.

The number of beneficiaries is indeed high at this level of education in all three countries and
improvements in access and the quality and efficiency of education are badly needed. But, in
addition to these traditional arguments, there is the fact that targeted, effective interventions in
primary and basic education can help accomplish other things critical to nation-building besides
education per se, including:



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                xiii
DevTech Systems, Inc.


•      The gradual creation of a pool of well-educated, thinking and self-learning future citizens
       and engines of social and economic development.
•      The impact of this kind of modern education in the schools on older children, parents,
       families, teachers, and school and community leaders should not be discounted. If they
       can be brought into the process, they themselves can be energized and converted into
       change agents, with immediate payoffs not only in education but also other sectors.
       Modern basic education approaches also contribute to development of capability to
       organize and implement a wide range of local self-help initiatives.
•      Evidence in a developing country that a failing education system can be and is being
       turned around, can have profound impacts on matters as diverse as the investment
       climate, brain drain, social and gender equality, recruitment of talent to the education
       sector, retention of girls and other potential dropouts in school, and a general public
       perception that an improved future is possible.

B.     The Policy, Capacity, and Donor Environment

Education policies in the CAR region are generally quite good and are improving, but good
policies only create the potential for reform. In general, implementation has been weak. The
main problem is not generally lack of political will, but rather capacity. Skilled education
professionals are scarce in all three countries, and the ability of the ministries of education,
universities, and schools to attract the talent that exists is severely limited by their inability to
pay high enough salaries to compete with opportunities in the private and NGO sectors. The role
of the donors in bidding up the prices also has to be recognized.

On the supply side, the prevalence of low salaries in the education sector acts as a deterrent to
competent young people to specialize in the field.

The donor environment is complex. The collapse of the Soviet Union devastated the economies
of Central Asian republics and eliminated the large subsidies underpinning education, health, and
other social services. International assistance, de facto, is helping to fill some of the resulting
gaps, but that is not and cannot be its goal. Rather, it is to help create new, affordable economic
and social solutions appropriate to the changed national circumstances. Unquestionably, success
in these tasks will depend, in large measure, on success in rebuilding the education systems,
without which, it is hard to imagine that new economic and social programs can be sustained.


IV.    RECOMMENDATIONS

A.     Short-Term Recommendations for PEAKS

A strategic consensus should be reached that the ultimate goal of PEAKS is to become
institutionalized to the maximum extent possible, within the national education systems.

Sharp focus should be maintained during the remaining two plus years of the current agreement
on developing additional project activities and capacities that will be critical to long-term
sustainability and replication, including:

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 xiv
DevTech Systems, Inc.



•    Strengthening PEAKS/AED’s technical capacity, both in-region and via consultants on
     regular visit schedules, to meet new training requirements, as well as to develop new
     teaching and materials packages, as needed.

•    Building much stronger links between the project and the education establishments of the
     three countries, especially the local district education departments and their urban
     counterparts and give them a real sense of ownership. The main need is to expand the DED’s
     role and help equip them to perform it.

•    Providing in-depth training to selected district (and city and town) inspectors and methods
     staffs in the pilot areas to demonstrate that, by equipping them to provide more and better
     professional support to the schools and communities, they can be an integral part of long-
     term sustainability and replications efforts. (See Section IV.)

•    Assigning priority to building long-term, sustainable support strategies for the trained
     teachers, school directors, and parent and community leaders, through a combination of
     district, TTI, and PDS mentoring and assistance, and the development of membership
     associations to support the continued professional development of these key project-assisted
     groups and advocate for their interests and education reform.

•    Incorporating the SCUK rural clusters in Tajikistan, to the extent possible, into the normal
     PEAKS model, beginning with the identification of PDS candidate schools.

•    Resolving the SbS and RWCT copyright issue to either remove it as a barrier to replication or
     to have low-cost PEAKS-developed modules ready for inclusion in the replication design.

•    Executing the re-designed program for Uzbekistan, and carefully assessing the results for
     possible application elsewhere.

•    Finally, towards the end of the agreement, conducting an intensive internal evaluation, with
     the focus on identifying and documenting lessons learned and best practices, to lay the basis
     for replication.

B.      Recommendations for the Next Strategy Period, 2007-2011

     1. Adoption of a three-part strategy
        a. A concentrated five year effort, including a broad consultation and planning phase, to
           demonstrate the reliability of the PEAKS integrated school development approach in
           the three countries.
        b. While maintaining a tight focus on basic education, structuring the remainder of the
           education program around the search for solutions to critical education reform issues.
           Top priority should be given to taking the ongoing educational finance reforms to
           completion. After a priority setting exercise, other critical basic education reform
           issues should be explored for similar treatment. Among the other priority areas to be
           considered are: Pre-service teacher education; school governance; introducing

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               xv
DevTech Systems, Inc.


          modern methodologies into selected curriculum reform areas and textbooks;
          assessment; wider use of appropriate educational technologies; and building a
          national constituency for education reform. Activities would include appropriate
          packages of policy studies, technical assistance, training, and advocacy. The role of
          the universities and possible university partnerships in addressing selected issues
          should be explored.
       c. The development of strategic relationships between USAID and the World Bank and,
          if possible, the Asian Development Bank, to maximize the value of USAID’s limited
          education budget by focusing on strengthening the policy and regulatory environment
          for reform and testing new ideas, while looking to the Banks for the major
          investments.

   2. PEAKS Replication Project
      During the first year, a cooperative effort would be undertaken in each country, including
      the MOE, MOF, PEAKS, USAID, and possibly other donors to design a feasible,
      affordable, demand-driven replication model and strategy, based on core elements of the
      PEAKS experience. In Tajikistan, AKF/IBET should be invited to participate. The main
      drivers of the replication and sustainability effort would be teams seconded from the
      stronger PDSs, district offices, and TTIs. Initial priority would be given to adding school
      clusters in current PEAKS districts, neighboring districts, and areas of special interest to
      USAID.

       Beginning in year two, districts, schools, and communities in the replication areas would
       be offered a chance to compete for a limited number of replication opportunities. The
       governments and the replication beneficiaries would be required to provide cost sharing,
       as well as meeting other selection criteria. USAID would fund the planning phase and
       provide matching support for an initial replication phase, estimated at four years. An
       information and advocacy campaign would accompany the effort to publicize it and lay
       the groundwork for obtaining government, other donor and local sponsor support for
       subsequent phases, with USAID assistance limited to supporting technical and quality
       control and evaluation.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                              xvi
DevTech Systems, Inc.


I.     INTRODUCTION

A.     Background

USAID/Almaty contracted DevTech Systems, to conduct a mid-term evaluation of its basic
education programs in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The objectives of the evaluation
were to:
   1) Assess the effectiveness and sustainability of USAID-assisted approaches to improving
       quality and increasing access to primary and secondary education in Kyrgyzstan,
       Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan and make recommendations for possible program
       adjustments.
   2) Review USAID’s basic education assistance strategy and make recommendations on
       future assistance priorities in the education sector.

The USAID Basic Education program seeks to address major challenges in Central Asian
education systems through two cooperative agreements: The Participation, Education, And
Knowledge Strengthening Project (PEAKS) implemented by the Academy for Educational
Development (AED), and the Improvement of Basic Education in Tajikistan (IBET) project, a
Tajikistan-only activity implemented by the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF). Both implementers
have teams of sub-grantees in charge of specific program components. The program was started
with post-9/11 supplementary funding, initially for three years. Subsequently, the PEAKS
agreement was extended for another year-and-a-half, through June 2007.

 The main project under the Basic Education Strategic Objective, PEAKS, works in four
countries of the region: Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The evaluation
focused on Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

In each of the three countries, the project works through a network of Professional Development
Schools (PDS), eleven in Kyrgyzstan, nine in Uzbekistan, and five in Tajikistan. These schools
were selected among stronger schools with a demonstrated potential to reach out to surrounding
schools and spread the model of teacher professional development, good management, and
parent/community participation to the widest extent possible. Over the course of 2000-2004, 198
cluster schools were selected to become the recipients of training and capacity building from the
PDSs (84 in Kyrgyzstan, 43 in Tajikistan, and 71 in Uzbekistan).

Training is provided in internationally recognized interactive early childhood and critical
thinking methodologies, such as the Open Society Institute’s Step-By-Step (SbS) Program, Save
the Children’s Active Learning in Primary Grades (ALPG) program in Tajikistan, and Reading
and Writing for Critical Thinking (RWCT), another OSI methodology for secondary grades. All
of the methodologies promoted under the USAID program are aimed at switching the focus of
attention in the classroom from the teacher to the student, introducing group work, comparison,
analysis, creativity and self expression among students. The methodologies require a major
professional change on the part of the teachers, who were trained to teach students through
memorization of large quantities of factual information and to use lecture as the main teaching
method. USAID believes that training teachers to use new learner-centered and interactive
methodologies that emphasize analytical thinking in their classrooms will not only improve

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               1
DevTech Systems, Inc.


learning outcomes for the students, contribute to development of attitudes based on inquiry that
are more likely to promote civic engagement, and increase students’ interest in learning and
education overall. Besides the teachers, school directors and deputy directors are trained in the
principles of effective management, such as strategic planning, participatory decision making,
creating sustainable partnerships beneficial for their school, and financial management.

In IBET, which only works in Tajikistan, 13 core schools received training from a local partner
of AKF, the Institute for Professional Development (IPD) in Khorog, Gorno-Badakhshan. An
initial fourteen satellite schools were selected in mid-2004 and began to receive assistance in the
fall of that year. IBET also promotes the use of interactive methods in the classroom; however,
IBET places more emphasis than PEAKS on subject-specific methodologies, and has focused on
providing intensive training to a small number of key teachers in each school.

Parent and community involvement in education is another important area of the Basic
Education program. Community participation in education is a new concept in the CAR region.
During the Soviet period, parents largely left education to the teacher and as long as funding was
sufficient and quality was generally good, there was little need for continuous parental support.
Both PEAKS and IBET promote parent and community participation through the creation of
school-community partnership groups that encourage parental support to improve quality and
access issues at the local level. These groups, among other things, address issues of non-
attendance resulting from poverty or disability through joint action, as well as to help repair vital
school infrastructure, such as classrooms, heating and water supply that influence attendance.
Communities were provided with the materials, skilled labor and engineering oversight, and
were asked to contribute logistical support and unskilled labor as their cost share.

 Another form of school-community collaboration, Social Partnership (SP), is also implemented
by OSI under PEAKS in Kyrgyzstan. The SP groups have a mandate to address school and
community learning and development needs through joint action.

B.     Methodology

The team employed a range of data collection methods. The primary tool was a structured data
collection effort designed to identify and rate the level of usage of internationally recognized best
practices by key school and community stakeholders. The justification for this approach can be
found on P.1 of Appendix A. The instruments which formed part of the research project were
administered during sampling matrices of site visits to PDS and cluster schools and their
respective communities and local education and training institutions. The matrices are included
in Appendix B. School/community site visits included interviews with teachers, school
administrators, students, children’s clubs, parents, and representatives of community education
committees and parent-teacher associations. In addition, teacher questionnaires were
administered, classroom observations were conducted, and action plans and parent committee
meetings minutes were reviewed. For this core data collection, the team divided into two sub-
teams, each of which conducted evaluation site visits to approximately half of the
schools/communities in the sample. Cross validations were made between groups, followed up
by review of action plans, minutes of meetings, and observations. Comparisons among the three
countries are presented, as required by the team’s Scope of Work (SOW).

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                   2
DevTech Systems, Inc.



In all cases, the best practice results presented in the report were obtained on-site, based on
interviews, observations, and cross-validation with available documentation of school and
community activities. A high plus rating indicates that it was observed in 80% or more of the
cases, a high rating in 60-80% of the cases, a moderate rating in 40-60% of the cases, and a low
rating in under 40% of the cases.

Additional data was collected through meetings with a wide range of other key stakeholders,
including leaders and staff of the three ministries of education, regional and district education
departments, a variety of teacher training institutions, AED, AKF, and the other implementing
partners, the World and Asian Development Banks, other education donors, NGOs, and USAID
staff in Almaty, Bishkek, Dushanbe, Tashkent, and Washington. In addition, the team reviewed
an extensive list of background documents.

The team’s schedule, research instruments, list of persons contacted, and documents consulted
are among the appendices to the report. (See Appendices.)


II.    EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CURRENT PROGRAMS

Included in this section are the key questions contained in the scope of work (SOW) related to
effectiveness and sustainability of the current program, followed by discussion,
findings/supporting data and, where appropriate, suggestions.

A.     Validity of the pilot school/cluster model - provision of in-service training to a
       greater number of teachers:

Are the Ministries of Education (MOEs), local district education departments (DEDs), and
teacher training institutes (TTIs) willing to accept the pilot schools/professional development
schools (PDSs) as local training providers, and as an appropriate solution to their country’s
training needs?

The answer is mixed. In Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, for example, the MOE, local DEDs, and
TTIs do not tend to see the pilot (PDS) schools in terms of in-service training providers but
rather as model schools, while in Kyrgyzstan the MOE has adopted two supportive regulations
on PDS training, one to give the PDSs the status of adult training provider, i.e. in-service training
provider, and the other authorizing the use of state funds to pay for training coordinators. In all
three countries, the government training institutions in general indicated that they see the
strengthening of their own capacities to provide quality in-service training and effective
supervision to teachers as key to developing sustainable solutions to their country’s training
needs. Some of the school directors, finally, indicated that in their view the main purpose of their
schools and staff was to provide a quality education for their students, rather that to serve as an
in-service teacher training center.

The team does not believe that these differences, while significant, should be interpreted as an
unwillingness to make appropriate use of the capacity developed in the PDSs, but rather view

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                   3
DevTech Systems, Inc.


that the latter will not be effective unless it is integrated into the larger systems. The challenge
for PEAKS is to respond to this reality by working with the governments to incorporate the
official institutions into the project and vice versa, in ways that complement, rather than compete
with each other. In Uzbekistan, the focus should be on the TTIs. In the other two countries,
where the number of TTIs capable of playing a significant role is small, the primary focus must
necessarily be on the DEDs.

Sustainability Findings
In the three countries, seven of the 14 PDS schools evaluated were rated as “highly sustainable”;
six as “moderately to highly sustainable’ and one as “moderately sustainable” No PDS school
received a sustainability rating of “low”. Of the three countries, the Uzbekistan PDSs are the
strongest with four out of five PDSs rated as “highly sustainable”.1

                                    Table 1: Sustainability of PDS schools

                                              Sustainability of PDS schools


                                             5
                                             4
                                  num ber of 3
                                                                                       Uzbek
                                  schools=14 2
                                             1                                         Tajik
                                             0                                         Kyrgyz
                                                   Highly   Mod/high Moderate
                                                      evaluation rating




The high sustainability ratings for Uzbekistan PDSs, in the team’s judgment, may be due in part
to a high degree of selectivity. The schools that the team visited, presumably representative, were
on the whole of exceptional quality and undoubtedly were so prior to their incorporation into the
project. The Uzbekistan schools also had a longer history of prior involvement with OSI. The
fact that the DEDs and TTIs in Uzbekistan also received relatively high ratings is another
possible factor.

All of the PDS schools were selected based on criteria that showed a history of strong
commitment and interest, strong teaching staffs, and most were urban except in Kyrgyzstan,
where only one was urban. Most had been strong schools during the Soviet era and/or had
received previous international support.


As can be seen from the following table, 10 of the 19 cluster schools in the team’s sample were
rated as moderately sustainable or higher.

1
  Although definitions of sustainability vary, there is some degree of consensus on the elements that contribute to
sustaining development efforts in general. Such elements typically include system-level approaches that encourage
broad participation (participation), financial responsibility (resources), partnerships (partnerships), and an openness
(transparency) that allows individuals greater involvement in decisions that affect their lives (empowerment). These
elements correspond to the five sustainability measures utilized in the CAR evaluation. See Appendices A and K for
definitions of the best practices which the team observed and rated.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                                     4
DevTech Systems, Inc.




                                Sustainability of Cluster Schools
                       5
                     4.5
                       4
                     3.5
                       3
                N=19 2.5                                                           Uzbek
                       2
                     1.5                                                           Tajik
                       1                                                           Kyrgyz
                     0.5
                       0
                            High     Mod/high   Moderate         Low
                                            e valuation rating




The sustainability data for cluster schools accurately reflect the situation at the time of the study.
It is important, however, to note that the cluster schools are relatively new to using active
learning methodologies; though some started in September of 2003, many, especially the rural
schools, only started in September of 2004. Thus, the fact that the cascading of training to them
to date has not been fully effective, particularly in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, should not be taken
as meaning that the model is invalid. Indeed, the team, in making its recommendations for the
remainder of the current agreement, has assumed that the rollout of the cluster schools will be
completed successfully, as planned. But, for this to happen, there is a need to address the
monitoring and follow-up training issues identified below, as well as reaching consensus with the
MOEs on the role of PDS-based training in the larger system.

Are the MOEs, local DEDs, and TTIs prepared to support the pilot schools, if necessary, after
USAID is gone?—why/why not?

At the district level, the MOE will accept these schools as model schools (or lab schools) that can
provide training venues, demonstration classes and effective examples of best practice. If this is
the level of “support” envisioned by USAID, then yes, MOE in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan have stated that they are willing to incorporate the PDS schools into their own pilot
school models. Again, in order to persuade them to do more than this, they need to be given a
stake and sense of ownership of the PDS system.

Evidence of the fact that it should be possible to do this, is the fact that the districts indicate a
strong interest in empowerment, participation and partnership activities with the PDS and cluster
schools, with 40% showing moderate involvement and 25-30% high involvement. Illustrations
derived from the team’s interviews, include:

Uzbekistan
• In one district, a school director from a leading cluster school is hired to coordinate PDS
   training efforts; jointly with the PDS trainers this person is beginning to provide some

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                    5
DevTech Systems, Inc.


    training/mentoring; a local NGO has worked hard to build relationships with school directors
    and the district education head and is cooperating in community mobilizations.
•   A district education head holds discussion sessions with the PDS school leaders, has
    participated in the SI training and the development of several of the school-based action
    plans, and provides school-based supervision - one supervisor visits two schools per week
    and has responsibility for three to four schools.
•   An education head meets with PDS school directors to discuss ways to work together; hosts
    open seminar; promotes between school visits, and encourages schools to send teachers to
    PEAKS.

Tajikistan
• District directors indicate support and visit the PDS and cluster schools on-site, but their staff
   (methodologists and inspectors) have only a basic level of knowledge and need more training
   in order to provide a more supportive/monitoring, mentoring and technical support role.
• Some education heads are knowledgeable about PEAKS/active learning, supportive and
   would like to facilitate awareness sessions for other interested schools in the district but do
   not have sufficiently trained staff to do so.
• The districts recognize a need to work with the TTIs to jointly provide active learning
   methodology training support to the schools, yet the TTIs are even less prepared to serve as a
   training and mentoring provider on the acting learning methodologies than the districts.

Kyrgyzstan
• Many of the district staff have attended seminars and training courses but express a need for
  more formal training to equip them for their jobs; some would like to become trainers.
• In the districts where TTIs still exist, there is interest in working with TTIs, but the latter
  need more knowledge, better management, and trained staff to be of interest.

If not, should the project adjust its approach?

The adjustment in approach should be to focus more strongly on increasing involvement and
related capacity building at the local district education level, particularly in Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan, to help ensure that the PDS training capacities are incorporated into existing MOE
systems. It is not a question of “either or”, but rather one of complementarity and a need to
extend the impact of project training activities to include the development of a critical mass of
trained people in the DEDs to involve and equip them to work within the project framework. The
needs and opportunities vary by country. Uzbekistan is in the strongest position, as evidenced by
its high ratings in a number of categories and the findings of the redesign team. There are major
needs in Tajikistan, with Kyrgyzstan somewhere between the two.

How might this be done?

Identify districts with cooperative directors/heads of education departments that have developed
plans for identifying and using strong schools as in-service training venues, as classroom
demonstration sites, for piloting of new curricula, and as lab schools.



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  6
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Assist with identifying and meeting staff training needs and with the development or refining of
a strategic plan that effectively incorporates PDS and cluster schools into district and TTI
training and professional development activities.

Replication of the PDS model should occur as an integral part of the strengthening of the local
district education departments, and in order to increase their capacity as effective in-service
training providers in each of the three countries.

Is there evidence that by the end of 2005, pilot schools in Kyrgyzstan will be fully capable of
providing good quality training to teachers of their cluster schools?

The capacity of PDSs to provide good quality training to teachers of their cluster schools in all
three countries is dependent on their sustainability ratings. Only two of the Kyrgyzstan PDS
schools were rated as “high” overall. The Kyrgyzstan PDS ratings are as follows:

                   Table 3: Kyrgyzstan – Sustainability Ratings of PDS Schools
    School     Overall   Empowerment   Participation   Networking/    Accountability/   Mobilize
               Rating                                  Partnerships   Transparency      Resources

 Shopokov       High        high           high            high            High           high
 Gym #1
 Boogachi       High        high           high            high            High           high
 (rural)
 Tangatarova    Mod.        mod.           mod.           mod.             Low            mod.
 #14 (co)
 Osh Town       Mod.        mod.           mod.            high            mod.           mod.
 #16 (co)       /High
 Tadjibaev      Mod.        high           mod.            high            mod.           mod.
 (rural)        /High

These ratings, of course, reflect the team’s findings at the time of each visit. They are not
immutable and can be improved.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                    7
DevTech Systems, Inc.


There is currently a clear fall off in sustainability ratings from the PDS to the cluster schools, as
follows:

                       Table 4: Kyrgyzstan – Sustainability Ratings of Cluster Schools
      School        Overall    Empowerment       Participation   Networking/    Accountability/   Mobilize
                    Rating                                       Partnerships   Transparency      Resources
Sokuluk #2           Mod.           mod.             mod.            high            low             low

Chui #78             High           high             high            high            high           high

Koychumanov          Mod.           mod.             mod.           mod.             low            low

Kazybek               Low            low              low           mod.             low            low

Lenin                Mod.           mod.             mod.            low             low            mod.

Toktogul              Low           mod.             mod.            low             low             --

Toktorov              Low            low              low           mod.             low            mod.


Two of the Kyrgyzstan sample PDS schools are rated as highly sustainable (Shopokov and
Boogachi), and two as moderate/highly sustainable (Osh Town #16 and Tadjibaev). Tangatarova
rated as only moderate.

Only Chui #78 is rated as highly sustainable among the cluster schools. Both cluster schools of
Boogachi (Koichumanova and Kazybek) reported problems with training at the PDS, including
problems with distance, having to stay at the homes of PDS school teachers, inability of cluster
school teachers to borrow resources from Boogachi, and a general feeling of resentment at
having to go to Boogachi for in-service training.

Teachers from Kazybek stated that they preferred the district in-service training, and felt that it
was more useful. Cluster school Chui #78’s high performance is directly related to the dynamic
leadership of the school director, as stated clearly by both parents and teachers. Although SbS
teachers from Chui #78 trained at Shopokov, no PDS trainer had yet come to their school to
mentor or observe the difficulties that teachers there are experiencing with effectively managing
the four classroom clusters (two teachers were teaching the same subject to all four clusters of
children).

Cluster school sustainability ratings, like those of the PDSs, are based on what was actually
found at the time of the team’s visit. They do not imply that, if the rollout continues as expected
and other steps taken as needed, they are necessarily unsustainable in the longer run.

What is the current practice related to mentoring?2

At present, PDS schools do not seem to be providing “good quality training to teachers in their
cluster schools”. Teacher ratings for mentoring in Kyrgyzstan were as follows:
2
    Best practice definitions can be found in Appendix K.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                              8
DevTech Systems, Inc.



                                  Table 5: Mentoring—Kyrgyzstan
          Type of School         Number      Teachers        High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                   of      interviewed      80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                                 Schools       N=88
    PDS                             1           14            100%
    PDS cluster schools             2           16            50%      50%

    Co-PDS                         2             10                   100%
    Co-PDS cluster schools         2             10                              100%

    Rural PDS                      2             15                    100%
    Rural PDS cluster schools      3             23                              66.6%    33.3%
                         total     12

Data from the Teacher’s Questionnaire show that Kyrgyzstan teachers rated their experiences in
working in a peer mentoring relationship nearly evenly divided between “very helpful” and only
“somewhat helpful”.

Question 4: “How would you describe your experience in working with another teacher in a
peer mentoring relationship”?

                     Table 6: Peer Mentoring Relationships: Overall Response
                  Country                  N=         very helpful    somewhat       not
                                                                      helpful        helpful
     Uzbekistan                            78            51.1%           35.8%         13.1%
     Tajikistan                            93            56.0%           28.0%         16.0%
     Kyrgyzstan                            104           50.7%           43.8%         5.5%

How should the project adjust its approach to ensure that the mentoring goal is met?

In general, the PDS schools are providing training seminars and workshops on-site at PDS
schools which cluster school teachers must leave their schools to attend. No cluster schools
report that the training provided to date by their PDS is sufficient, particularly in terms of
mentoring and post-training follow-up visits to assist and support teacher trainees who are
experiencing difficulties in implementing the new, learner-centered methodologies.

Suggestions:
• Diagnostic follow-up is essential to being responsive to difficulties encountered by teachers
   when applying new knowledge, skills and attitudes surrounding learner-centered
   methodologies. Monitoring of cluster school teachers, should be improved, which will lead to
   earlier identification of normal difficulties involved with effectively implementing learner
   centered methodologies.
• Train a larger number of teachers in cluster schools so that a “critical mass” is reached in
   terms of a majority of the teachers going through the training and experiencing similar
   difficulties. A larger group will be better able to work together to try new strategies and will
   be more supportive of each other, especially with support and encouragement from a strong


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  9
DevTech Systems, Inc.


    director. In smaller schools, a “critical mass” is probably all teachers, not just one or two. In
    the larger schools, half or more of the teachers should, if possible, be trained.
•   Involve more MOE District staff, especially DED methodologists and supervisors. These are
    the key staff that visit the schools and observe and critique teachers as part of their daily job
    responsibilities. These MOE staff should be active participants in all PEAKS trainings, and a
    majority of methodologists should be trained in each District—not merely one or two. In
    addition, begin serious training for these supervisors in up-to-date supervisory techniques
    (structured observation techniques, active learning, student-centered methodologies,
    managing the learner-centered class, use of effective lesson plans, assessing student
    portfolios, etc) so that they can become active participants in both in-service teacher training
    and, most importantly, training follow-up in the teachers’ schools.

Are the mechanisms in place to ensure that the PDS (in all countries) have the skills, the
commitment, and the resources to train others?

As the following tables indicate, the picture is mixed.

                                       Table 7: PDS Ratings
                                    Uzbekistan             Tajikistan          Kyrgyzstan
    ¹level of skills                   high                moderate           moderate to high
    ²level of commitment              high +               moderate                high
    ³resources                         low                    low                  low
    ¹level of skill = Question 2 of Teacher’s Questionnaire (using learner-centered methodologies)
    plus interview/best practice learning environment, and teaching/learning activities)
    ²level of commitment = best practice behavior for empowerment at the school level
    ³resources = training support resources

                                    Table 8: Level of Resources
    Training support resources            Uzbekistan       Tajikistan          Kyrgyzstan
    release time from PDS                        no           no         limited to a few schools
    substitute teacher for trainer’s class       no           no         limited to a few schools
    incentive pay                                no           no                     no
    transport costs                              no           no                     no
    lodging costs                                no           no                     no
    meals                                        no           no                     no
    training supplies provided                    ?            ?                      ?
    copies of training materials                  ?            ?                      ?
    preparation time                             no           no                     no
    ? = training costs which must be absorbed by someone—not clear who pays for this

In addition to the above-cited factors, constraints to quality training include:
• if training held during vacation or holidays, trainers must “contribute” their own personal
    time
• teachers sometimes lack training experience and confidence
• distance to cluster schools is often excessive
• teachers in multiple shift schools have little time
• heavy workload in schools; teachers already busy with teaching duties

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                     10
DevTech Systems, Inc.


•   no preparation time for trainers during the school day
•   low pay for teachers

The levels of skills, commitment and training resources vary among countries. However, the lack
of sufficient training support resources is a serious constraint to all PDS teacher-trainers’ abilities
to provide consistent, high-quality training and mentoring to cluster school teachers.

What can be done by USAID to alleviate this issue?

PEAKS and the PDSs should jointly determine what short-term steps need to be taken to
alleviate the problems, in particular, the lack of substitute teachers to allow some training at least
to take place on regular school days and the lack of travel funds, so that the PDS training model
can receive a fair test. Government education staff, at all levels, should be involved in these
discussions, as government must be a part of any long-range solutions.

Is there a conflict between the program’s efforts in local teacher training NGO capacity building
and the PDS capacity building?

The answer to this question is that the potential for conflict exists but that there seems to be a
desire on all sides to find ways to avoid it.

The central long-term sustainability issue is the fact that the SbS and RWCT training packages
and materials are copyrighted. While this is not a major problem while OSI, and the local
foundations spun off by the Open Society Institute/Soros Foundation Network, are delivering
services under a sub-agreement with PEAKS, it has the potential to be a major issue when the
project reaches the replication phase. It is likely that at that point, the PEAKS model, to make it
affordable, would be stripped down to its basics, with costs, including training and materials,
being a large factor. The requirement to purchase training services and materials exclusively
from the local SbS and RWCT foundations or licensed affiliates could well be unaffordable and
would certainly restrict options.

This situation would change dramatically, of course, if 1) the training courses were recognized
by the governments and 2) the PDSs, TTIs, and other official training providers were “licensed”
to provide them, without any requirement to pay royalties. Efforts to obtain recognition are
reportedly underway in all three countries.

The NGO situation varies by country. For better or worse, the NGO issue basically doesn’t arise
in Uzbekistan. In Kyrgyzstan, NGOs are relatively strong and increasingly offer alternatives to
government services, but the general environment seems to favor reaching an eventual
accommodation and a reasonable division of labor between the sectors.. It is in Tajikistan where
the NGOs, especially if backed by donors, run the most risk of unduly displacing government
and weakening the latter’s ability to develop needed capacity and control.

Given the lack of financial resources in the sector, is it realistic to expect that both can be
sustainable?


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                    11
DevTech Systems, Inc.


It is probably realistic to expect both to be sustainable in Kyrgyzstan, especially if the donor
community continues to use NGOs on a regular basis. The uncertainty in Uzbekistan relates to
the government’s current and future policies with respect to the NGO sector. In Tajikistan, the
NGOs generally remain dependent on international assistance and are likely to remain so, though
the OSI/SF-related institutions are actively pursuing strategies to become self-sufficient.

The training voucher scheme has as one of its expected results assisting local NGOs to provide
some portion of government-funded in-service teacher training.

What can be the long-term expectations of the PDSs?

Briefly, the long-term expectations are as follows:
• Overall (in all three countries) the PDS is a good concept when implemented properly. That
    is, the PDS provides a holistic model of high-quality education. The main focus is on the
    delivery of quality education to its students, a well-trained, cooperative and professional
    teaching staff, dynamic and empowered school leadership and strong commitment and
    support from parents and community members.
• Although a foundation piece for student achievement, with improved critical thinking and
    problem-solving skills, learner-centered methodology is just one component in the dynamics
    of a successful school. Most PDSs have been built on a solid foundation of older, highly
    successful Soviet schools, and the long-term work of organizations like OSI and the Soros
    Foundation in improving the quality of teaching and learning at these model schools.
• PDS’ responsibilities as providers of in-service teacher training seem to be an overlay on the
    dynamics of already successful schools. Underpaid teachers now have additional
    responsibilities for training less skilled colleagues at sometimes distant cluster schools.
• In the long term, PDS schools will at a minimum function as model schools, as seven of the
    14 schools are highly sustainable and six of the other seven schools are moderately to highly
    sustainable. The goal of PEAKS, however, should be to promote their incorporation, both
    conceptually and actually, into the national education systems.

                        Table 11: Summary of PDS Sustainability Ratings
                         # of PDS           Highly         Moderately to       Moderately
                          schools        Sustainability       Highly          Sustainability
                                                           Sustainability
   Uzbekistan                5                 4                 1
   Tajikistan                4                 1                 3
   Kyrgyzstan                5                 2                 2                  1

Again, the sustainability ratings above are based on current situations and can be influenced by
future program decisions, e.g. the planned RWCT training in Tajikistan.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               12
DevTech Systems, Inc.


B.     Sustainability of the Teacher Training Programs

Is there evidence to demonstrate that the USAID methodology training programs will be
integrated into country teacher training policies and philosophies?

Interviews with MOE staff at various levels, and with TTI staff in all three countries,
demonstrated an awareness of the importance of active learning and an understanding of best
practices in the modern classroom.

MOE staff are well aware of the enormous need and huge backlog for effective and up-to-date
in-service training. The level of interest is high, and all three MOEs are committed to improving
the quality of in-service teacher training. All three MOEs also recognize the value of the USAID
and other donor-sponsored support for teacher training while realistically recognizing their own
lack of capacity (technical, material and financial) to respond to teachers’ training needs.

Uzbekistan MOE collaboration on the PEAKS redesign project is evidence of the Ministry’s
ability to be creative and responsive in terms of looking at alternative approaches to in-service
teacher training.

In addition, in Tajikistan, the MOE, teachers, school directors, and community/parents are all
well aware that SbS is not sufficient, and want to extend these new student centered
methodologies into the upper grades.

A successful example of integrating active learning methodologies into the training policies and
philosophies of the regional and district level of MOE, as well as two Institutes of Professional
Development (IPD), is the Tajikistan IBET project implemented by AKF. Prior to the project,
AKF began introducing these methodologies in the Khorog IDP, rather than at the school level,
and developed good working relations with local education officials, which provided a good
basis for subsequent work with the schools under IBET.

Kyrgyzstan’s MOE has traditionally supported integrating               active,   learner-centered
methodologies into both primary and secondary classrooms.

If not, what additional steps should be taken to advance this issue?

Additional steps which would advance the commitment to integrating these methodologies into
each country’s teacher training policies and philosophy might include:
• creation at the local or district level of advocacy associations for teachers, school
   administrators, parents; and/or school-related community organizations.
• involvement of MOE staff at all levels and in all activities (materials development, teacher
   training, teacher observation and supervision, teacher mentoring, etc.) in order to create a
   “critical mass” of informed and supportive MOE personnel;
• encouraging TTIs and other providers of subject-oriented in-service teacher training to
   incorporate course modules on how active learning methodologies can be effectively used to
   teach different subjects;


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                              13
DevTech Systems, Inc.


•   regular and frequent meetings with high-level MOE staff to brief them on progress at local
    levels in order to increase understanding and ownership of these changes at the national
    level; and
•   policy dialogue with MOE in furtherance of changing training policies and philosophies.

How effective are the training programs in changing teacher behavior?

Training programs, in isolation, do not change teacher behavior. Behavior change is highly
dependent on successful use of the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in training programs.
Behavior change is also a developmental process that takes place over time. This is why follow-
up and support soon after the completion of the training, and then at regular intervals, is critical
in providing reinforcement for positive behavior change, early identification of normal
difficulties with using new skills and knowledge, and positive feedback on successes.

Mentors and trainees should share criteria for successful behavior change. For example,
Ferghana Valley TTI trainers and their teacher trainees prepare a “trainee action plan” during the
training. The TTI trainers then make follow-up visits within a month of the completion of
training, observe trainees’ classes based on the action plan criteria, and give the trainees
structured feedback. This is a successful and proven strategy for changing teacher behavior.

Are teachers adopting the underlying philosophy of student-centered teaching, instead of just
focusing on the more visible aspects of the methodologies?

Classroom observation and teacher interviews show that SbS teachers have most frequently
adopted the underlying philosophy of student-centered teaching. In addition to incorporating the
visible elements of active learning (rearranging desks and using new teaching/learning materials)
most of these teachers showed a high degree of effectiveness in managing the cluster-based
primary classroom. They could also express clearly the values of adopting a learner-centered
approach, and enumerate the clear benefits to student participation and learning achievement.

RWCT teachers showed a lower level of use of student-centered methodologies and creating
good learning environments. Importantly, in some cases there were too few trained teachers to
constitute a critical mass. Another factor is that RWCT teachers and students in grades 5 and
higher change rooms throughout the day, so that an RWCT teacher doesn’t have the opportunity
to display students’ works or often even to rearrange the furniture from traditional rows into
more learner friendly clusters.

The importance of involving a critical mass, preferable a majority of the teachers at a school
(whether SbS or RWCT, and particularly in rural areas) in the training program cannot be
overstated. These teachers can then work together, without a sense of isolation, to implement
changes in teaching behaviors. At the same time, all school officials should participate in all
trainings in order to provide support for the teachers. Within six months to a year, school
leadership with the support of parents and community should ensure that all teachers be trained
and are effectively implementing either SbS or RWCT. This avoids the problem of divisions
among teachers which the team observed in some schools – those using new learner-centered
methodologies, versus the traditionalists.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 14
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Data from the Teacher Questionnaire show the following regarding levels of teacher cooperation,
and support from the school director:

Teacher cooperation in implementing new methodologies:

Question 6. “How would you describe the other teachers in your school in cooperating to
implement the new, student-centered methodologies”?

                                      Table 12: Overall response:
                  Country                  N=     very helpful    somewhat           not
                                          257                     helpful           helpful
     Uzbekistan                             60        60.2%           34.8%            5.0%
     Tajikistan                             93        50.0%           45.0%            5.0%
     Kyrgyzstan                             104       55.3%           42.0%            2.7%


The highest response of “very helpful” came from Uzbekistan teachers, and this supportive
environment is reflected in the higher sustainability ratings of both PDS and cluster schools in
Uzbekistan. Tajikistan’s lower rating of “very helpful” teachers may indicate the problems many
of the cluster schools are having with effectively using learner centered methodologies.

The two IBET schools visited responded to the same question much differently:

Question 6. “How would you describe the other teachers in your school in cooperating to
implement the new, student-centered methodologies”?

                                      Table 13: IBET Response
                 IBET School             N=15 very helpful        somewhat           not
                                                                  helpful           helpful
      Rogun #4     (IBET core)             N=7        100%             0%               0%

      Rogun #3     (IBET satellite)        N=8       87.5%             12.5%            0%

These schools show a notably higher level of cooperation than the other school models in
Tajikistan.

Attitude of school director:

Another key factor in support of teachers working to introduce active learning and student
centered methodologies into their classrooms is the attitude of the school director. The more
positive and stronger the support of the school leader, the more likely that teachers will be able to
work together to overcome normal difficulties associated with change, and successfully use
learner centered methodologies in their classrooms on a regular basis. Teachers responded to
question 7 of the Teacher Questionnaire as follows:



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  15
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Question 7: “How would you describe the attitude of the school director in encouraging teachers
to use the new, student-centered methodologies”?

                                   Table 14: Overall Response:
                  Country                N=      very          somewhat               not
                                        257   supportive       supportive          supportive
     Uzbekistan                           60      80.0%            20.0%               0%
     Tajikistan                           93      72.6%            23.2%              4.2%
     Kyrgyzstan                          104      70.9%            25.5%              3.6%


Again, teachers in Uzbekistan described their school directors as being highly supportive; only
teachers in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan responded “not supportive” to this question. Teachers
from the two Tajikistan IBET schools responded 100% that their school director was “very
supportive”.

There were a few schools where teachers were on board but the school director and/or the
parents and community were not and the resulting sustainability was affected.

                                 Table 15: Effectiveness Rating
                          school     teachers community/         school         resulting
                                                   parents      director      sustainability
        Uzbekistan    Kokand #42    high+        moderate      moderate       moderate
        Tajikistan    Kolkhozobod high           low           low            low
                      #50
        Kyrgyzstan    Koychumanov high           moderate      moderate       moderate

What changes can be expected in teaching styles within the timeframe of the current program,
and what other, or additional help should be envisioned to secure the sustainability of those
changes?

The changes that can be expected are highly dependent on the variables discussed above.
Training of a majority of teachers in a school, inclusion of school leaders in training, a clear plan
for training follow-up and support for teacher-trainees, parent awareness training, student
support, and a high degree of parent/community involvement and support are all important and
integral to achieving sustainable changes in teaching styles.

The school director and parents need to show continual support for the teachers as it is the
teacher who must implement the active learning methodologies.

Do teachers believe that the new methodologies produce better learning outcomes?

The teacher interview guide includes a section on best practice in using learner centered
methodology, and the following questions are included for the teachers to answer:
•     Are these methodologies suitable for your students?
•     Do the students like these methodologies?
•     Are the students learning more effectively?

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  16
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Teachers in all three countries responded positively to those questions, and cited increases in
students’ achievements, the fact that slower learners were achieving more as part of mixed
groups and as a result of peer coaching and assistance, and that most learners responded to the
challenges of doing well in their groups. Motivation levels were higher and positively influenced
student achievement.

As regards usage at both PDS and clusters school levels, the interview results are summarized in
Tables 16 and 17.

                      Table 16: Using Learner Centered Methodologies—PDSs
            Country           Number     Teachers      High +    High      Moderate      Low
                                 of     interviewed   80-100%   60-80%     40-60%       0-40%
                              schools      N=101
   Uzbekistan                    5           34         80%       20%
   Tajikistan                    4           28         50%       50%
   Kyrgyzstan                    5           39         20%       60%        20%

                Table 17: Using Learner Centered Methodologies—Cluster Schools
            Country           Number     Teachers      High +    High      Moderate     Low
                                 of     interviewed   80-100%   60-80%     40-60%      0-40%
                              schools      N=94
   Uzbekistan                    5           42        60%                   20%         30%
   Tajikistan                    5           19                   40%       40.0%       20.0%
   Kyrgyzstan                    7           49        28.6%                57.2%       14.3%

Teachers in PDS schools were rated more highly at using learner centered methodologies, and
the current high drop off rate from PDS school ratings to cluster school ratings is clearly
noticeable. Teachers in Uzbekistan rated most highly, both in PDS and cluster schools.

Do parents and students believe the same and what do they cite as evidence?
What evidence is there to suggest that the new methodologies result in greater interest in
learning on the part of students?

Parents believe that learning results have improved, but the evidence cited is often indirect. They
say, for example, that students are more motivated, that they spend more time monitoring their
children’s homework and talking to their children’s teachers, that they make more class visits to
see how their child is doing and take greater interest in their children’s performance and level of
achievement.

Student comments are even more indirect, i.e. they like school more, therefore they must be
learning more. A sample of student comments included the following:
• Yes, it’s fun, not boring, and we can help each other.
• We work together and share things. If I have a problem, I can as my friend, or I can help him
    if he needs help.
• We work on problems together and sometimes I think of the answer first and help my
    friends. But sometimes my friends help me when I’m stuck.


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                17
DevTech Systems, Inc.


•   We all work together in reading and in math, and I like this because I can say my own ideas
    and we often laugh and have fun
•   I like working in groups when everyone has something to do, like be the timekeeper or the
    recorder or presenter.

During interviews with secondary students (grades 5 and above) in all three countries, almost all
of the students stated that they were more interested in learning as a result of learner-centered
methodologies. Secondary students’ comments included:
• they liked working together in groups and enjoyed different roles during group work (e.g.,
    recorder, timekeeper, reporter or presenter)
• school was more enjoyable and more interesting
• they enjoyed helping each other and were challenged to complete the tasks together
• they felt freer to express and support their opinions and felt more confident
• they liked doing different types of tasks, like making flip charts, developing role plays,
    preparing debates.

Have these methodologies encouraged attendance of students, who otherwise might not have
attended school regularly?

The new methodologies, as well as PEAKS components directed to the students, such as school
parliaments and clubs, have had a positive effect on attendance. This was evidenced by
numerous comments made by the children themselves, as well as some parents, and comments
by teachers and staff involved with the extra-curricular activities. It is not possible for the team
to quantify the impact of these particular factors, as attendance, in general, is not a major
problem in most schools through Grade 9, unless there are special circumstances like agricultural
harvest periods.

The following comments by school directors on student attendance outline the main factors
influencing attendance.

Uzbekistan
Attendance was very high – no unusual absences or problems; 95-98 % improved attendance;
new methods have affected attendance; parents are warned and paid a visit on attendance issues;
now at 97-98% attendance; students were going into the markets during market day and this has
been corrected – local neighborhood committee helped solved this problem; talked with parents
of the non-attending students.

Tajikistan
More of a problem in the upper grades, especially in the winter; more boys than girls do not
attend due to economic reasons; involvement of the community and parents seems to be the best
method to resolve attendance problems; teachers are working with parents to collect food and
support from interested groups for low-income families to help with clothes, supplies and related
expenses; provision of lunch through WFP is helping the attendance issue as many times
children come to school hungry; health care, parental support, and some school-related cost
items are an issue for the poor families.


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 18
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Kyrgyzstan
Some problems with upper grade children – need for the children to help in agriculture, pasturing
and harvesting; problems during the agricultural season and in the winter season; in the case of
non-attendance – we call the parent in and talk with the parent or sometimes we have a member
of the parent committee visit the parent in the home; for non-performing students, we call parent
in and ask parent to sit in class of non-performing students and either teacher or school official
talks with parent; use of student diaries with follow-on request of parent signature.

Some teachers in Uzbekistan complained that the required volume of information mandated by
the curriculum and rigid student assessment requirements do not allow them to use the new
methods regularly.

Four of the secondary school teachers interviewed in Uzbekistan did bring up the problem of the
amount of information in the curricula in the higher grades. They felt that interactive methods
were not appropriate for the “difficult subjects”, such as physics, higher levels of math,
chemistry. This shows a basic misunderstanding of “active learning” and “student-centered
methodologies”. A possible solution is to give teachers trained in RWCT additional training
focusing on using learner-centered methodologies in science and math, and training in how to
adapt assigned texts to a variety of learner-centered activities. Two teachers in Kyrgyzstan made
the same comments regarding “hard subjects” and the perceived inappropriateness of using
student centered methodologies (Kazybek, in At Bashi district) in those classes.

Basically, the presence of these issues indicates, more than anything, the fact that many teachers
are in the early stages of achieving full domination of the new methodologies.
However, if teachers believe that these new methodologies are not compatible with the texts
assigned and the curriculum, they will not use them. Teachers need to understand that active
learning methodologies can be integrated into subject studies and that this will improve student
learning.

One solution is to present specific workshops and seminars that focus on combining subject
presentation and active student-centered methodologies, and with using examples from the
assigned texts. These seminars and workshops should be designed using these texts and the
curriculum as the base for integrating effective active learning methodologies and materials. The
team was glad to see that this will be a key aspect of further module design in Uzbekistan and
that the issue will be included in the June trainings in Tajikistan.

No teachers commented on rigid student assessment requirements in Uzbekistan or in either of
the other two countries.

Are the learning resource centers located in the pilot schools achieving their goal of
disseminating best pedagogy to a wide teacher audience?

In all three countries, Learning Resource Centers (LRCs) most benefit the teachers of the PDS
schools where the LRCs are located. Almost all cluster school teachers report that they are not
allowed to use or borrow resources from these LRCs. Sometimes teachers from PDS also report



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               19
DevTech Systems, Inc.


that they are not allowed to take the books home to read and use, but must use them in the LRC
room.

The LRCs are being used by the teachers at the PDS schools and they all appreciate having these
resources available. Only the IBET Core Schools have LRCs that are being actively and
extensively used by teachers from satellite schools, through a well defined system of signing out
materials, and accountability for borrowing and returning teaching resources. PDS schools in all
three countries would benefit from developing a clear set of procedures for learning how to
manage the lending and use of materials in the LRC, particularly to teachers from cluster
schools.

Are they being used to the extent that would justify expansion in the same schools and into other
schools?

PDS schools may need other types of resource materials. A needs assessment should be prepared
by teachers in those schools. The expansion of LRC materials to cluster schools in all three
countries is an excellent idea and teachers from these schools, particularly the cluster schools
that are fairly distant from their PDS, would benefit greatly.

In Uzbekistan—look at the redesigned teacher training approach and make conclusions and
recommendations regarding its feasibility and appropriateness.

Uzbekistan Program Redesign

For reasons unrelated to PEAKS, in the first half of 2004, OSI was denied re-registration in
Uzbekistan, resulting in the need for AED to take responsibility for OSI’s functions and to
redesign the IR-1 and IR-2 programs in that country. The opportunity was taken to redesign key
aspects of the program, some of which had already been identified as needing revision, notably
the need to take greater advantage of the Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs), which in
Uzbekistan, in contrast to the other two countries, continued to enjoy strong government support.
Additionally, arrangements were made with a local foundation, Ziyo, and SCUS to implement
IR-3 community work, alongside similar IR-5 being conducted by SCUS.

The redesign included greater involvement and ownership by government education bodies,
including the TTIs and district education offices, to supplement, but not replace, the PDSs. Also
included was the development, in association with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), of a
distance learning component, accompanied by a network of resource centers, to take both TTI
and PDS training and follow up services to outlying schools, rather than rely on extensive
traveling back and forth within the clusters. An additional component was the development of
new, interactive training programs and materials to replace the OSI products.

The team was impressed with the strategic nature of the redesign, that is, its potential to remove
many of the constraints to the PDS-Cluster School model identified elsewhere. The team is not
certain that the precise distance learning approach being tested will work as expected, but there
are a number of backup options that can be turned to, if necessary, to get the job done.



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               20
DevTech Systems, Inc.


While it is unlikely the Uzbekistan redesign will turn out to be fully applicable elsewhere – the
situation in each country is different and, in general, the situation in Uzbekistan is the most
favorable – the direction of change, especially towards integrating national education bodies into
the project, strikes the team as likely to add substantially to sustainability and replication
prospects.

Close monitoring of the materials and delivery process will need to be done followed by further
revisions and materials development. Simultaneously, it will be important to support the training
modules with on-site training teams. If the process unfolds successfully, further development of
a few pilot modules for school officials and the community/parents should be developed in the
area of community mobilization along with a module or two for the students (e.g., Children’s
Clubs and School Parliaments). Design teams could be put together utilizing representative
school officials, parents and children along with a community mobilization NGO, such as Ziyo.

A priority in reviewing the redesign plan and materials is to ensure the inclusion and active
participation of MOE staff at the regional and district level and of key TTI staff, whenever
possible, to guarantee ownership, effective implementation, sustainability, and replication of
effective in-service teacher training.

C.     Effectiveness of the School Management Training in Changing Organizational
       Behavior in Schools

This section responds to the evaluation questions contained in the scope of work (SOW) related
to effectiveness and sustainability of the school management training in changing school
behavior followed by discussion, findings/supporting data and, where appropriate, conclusions.
Utilizing a structured interview/focused group methodology along with a review of action plans,
minutes of recent meetings, and a cross-validation with the parent and teacher groups, five
effectiveness ‘best practice’ focus areas related to school management were rated; i.e.,
empowerment, participation, networking/partnerships, accountability/transparency and
mobilizing resources. (See Appendix L for best practice definitions.) Each of these focus areas is
discussed in accordance with the SOW outline.

Is there evidence of strategic planning and organizational management skills on behalf of school
directors that did not exist before?

Change is a process. Rather than mandating change through new polices and procedures, which
may or may not ever be implemented, this view of change as a process entails focusing on the
implementation of ‘best practices’ actions targeted to achieving specific ends and examining
results along the way. Clearly, the school management in the sample schools is focusing on
specific behaviors related to expected results. Included are illustrative empowerment and
networking ‘best practices’ identified by school management in the three countries:




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               21
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Uzbekistan
School director regularly visits classes (Uchkuprik #8, Tashkent #98, Tashkent #114), supports teachers
(Dangara #12, Tashkent#145, Almalik#5), works to create awareness and training opportunities for both
teachers and parents (Akkurgan #6, Uchkuprik #8), maintains an open-door policy where teachers and
parents can visit anytime (Kokand #42, Tashkent #114, Uchkuprik #8), encourages non-trained teachers
to observe and try some of the active learning techniques (Uchkuprik #8), supports in-school and
between school mentoring (Tashkent #145, Tashkent #114, Tashkent # 98, Kokand #42), holds open
seminars where parents and teachers may attend (Tashkent #98, Uchkuprik #8, Akkurgan #6), and
mentors Parent and/or CEC/SRC Committee heads ((Tashkent #145).

School director facilitates sharing through open seminars, discussion sessions, class visits, newsletters
(Akkurgan #6), etc. within and between schools and at the district/city education office and at director
meetings and through collaborative involvement by the director and staff members in training and
seminar/workshop opportunities in the area (Akkurgan # 6, Uchkuprik #8).




Tajikistan
School officials participate in the SbS trainings as well as the SI trainings (Bakhtar #26, Vahdat #4);
provide instructional leadership and are actively involved in the instructional process and supportive of
the teachers in understanding and using the active learning process (Bakhtar #26, Vahdat #4) and help to
continuously identify and provide relevant information (Bakhtar #26, Khairakum #14); work with a
council of teachers (Tashkent #145, Akkurgan #6, Uchkuprik #8), encourage the active participation of
the community in the education meetings, men and women (Vahdat #140); help to ensure that all
participate in the needs assessments, action plans, and decision process (Vahdat #140, Vahdat #4); and
work with the village/neighborhood committee and share information (Vahdat #140, Vahdat #4,
Khairakum #14).

School director shares information at the district level meetings with the other directors (Kolub #12,
Vahdat #4, Vahdat #140); allows use of school facilities for local activities, i.e., conferences and
elections (Khujand #9) and access to computer room (Kairakum #14, Vahdat #140, Vahdat #4); invites
district education officials to seminars and trainings (Kolub #2, Vahdat #4, Vahdat #140); encourages
the school to participate in regional, national and international trainings and exchanges and identifies
potential international donors (Kairakum #14); allows materials from resource center to be shared with
neighboring schools (Rogun #4); and maintains close cooperation with local government (Vahdat #4,
Vahdat #140).




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                       22
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Kyrgyzstan
School officials provide awareness sessions for parents and ask for input on a regular basis – monthly
class parent meetings and/or open forums (Shopokov #1, Chui #78, Boogachi); maintain open door
policy for teachers, community/parents, and students (Chui #78); assist local education committee in
preparing and implementing an action plan and provide progress reports (Boogachi, Tadjibaev), hold
regular staff meetings and include teacher input in school decisions (Chui #78), and support
inclusiveness on committees (Osh Town #16, Toktogul, Boogachi).

School officials develop relationships and share experiences with other schools (Osh Town #16, Lenin,
Chui #78, Boogachi, Tadjibaev); show support for the school parliament, Children’s Club and other
school-related social partnerships (Chui #78, Boogachi); include each of the schools in the cluster as a
training venue (Boogachi); work to create a separate room - parent/CEC and/or School
Parliament/Children’s Club (Osh Town #16, Koychumanov); facilitate sharing through open
seminars/discussion sessions, class visits, and district-level training and seminar/workshops (Tadjibaev,
Chui #78), maintain communication with alumni from the school (Shopokov #1, Kazybek, Toktogul
#49).



Overall, school management (PDS and cluster schools) are currently demonstrating effective
practice of the empowerment and networking/partnerships skills as follows:

                           Table 18: School Management Current Practices
          School Management              # of         High +       High        Moderate       Low
     Current Practice by Country        schools      80-100%      60-80%       40-60%        0-40%
    Uzbekistan
        empowerment                       10           60%          30%          10%          0%
       networking/partnerships            10           50%          30%          10%          10%
    Tajikistan
       empowerment                        13            8%          61%          8%           23%
       networking/partnerships            13           38%           8%          46%          8%
    Kyrgyzstan
       empowerment                        12           25%          33%          25%          17%
       networking/partnerships            12           17%          50%          25%          8%


As is evident from the table, Uzbekistan school management is much further along in its
development (90% and 80% ratings on current practice above 60% on empowerment and
networking/partnerships, respectively) than Tajikistan (69% and 46% on empowerment and
networking/partnerships, respectively) and Kyrgyzstan (58% and 67% on empowerment and
networking/partnerships, respectively). The evaluators were told that many of these skills were
new to the school management, especially in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, but were not able to
verify this.

If so, are there any constraints for administrators in utilization of these skills?

The key is continued reinforcement through refresher training and monitoring, especially in
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, where only about two thirds of the school management are at the


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                       23
DevTech Systems, Inc.


60% current practice level. With no reinforcement, many of the school management will fall
below the 50% level in the use of their newly acquired management skills.

Are directors better able to mobilize resources through fundraising and parent outreach
activities to address a particular school need?

With limited government resources, there is a greater demand on the local community to
mobilize resources through fundraising and community support activities. School directors play a
large role in making this happen. Urban schools have more resources and opportunities than rural
schools. In both cases, PEAKS, through project inputs and a variety of special efforts, has made
a significant contribution to the ability of project schools to undertake such projects.

The team assessed best practices in this area (See Appendix C for definitions). The results were
as follows:

                           Mobilizing Resources-All Schoold/PDS and Cluster


                40%
                35%
                30%
                25%
                                                                          Uzbekistan N=10
                20%
                                                                          Tajikistan N=13
                15%
                                                                          Kyrgyzstan N=12
                10%
                 5%
                 0%
                        high +     high      moderate      low




Uzbekistan was a little higher on current practice followed by Tajikistan and then Kyrgyzstan.
Actually, all are relatively low with only about half the schools demonstrating a sustainable level
(above 60%/high+ and high categories combined) of performance on mobilizing resources –
Uzbekistan-55%, Tajikistan-53% and Kyrgyzstan-46%.

The difference is more of a rural vs. urban difference as noted in the table below. Seventy-four
per cent of the urban schools were above 60% in their ratings compared to only 34% of the rural
schools. This may be related to the fact that rural communities have fewer resources to mobilize.
Most of the resources mobilized in rural areas related to infrastructure improvements. There was
more variety in the urban schools. School alumni are often a key source, again mostly in urban
areas.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                24
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                     Mobilizing Resources-Rural vs. Urban School-Communities


               40%
               35%
               30%
               25%
               20%                                                        Rural N=18

               15%                                                        Urban N=17

               10%
                5%
                0%
                        high +     high      moderate     low




Is there increased confidence among parents than before, that the funds collected will be used
wisely?

Mobilizing local resources is a new area of emphasis for many of the schools although many of
the urban center schools have previously been soliciting non-budget resources for basic school
and special need students through contributions, assessment of fees, and use of volunteer
unskilled labor for those who could not contribute. With the USAID grants for infrastructure and
the development of the Community Education Committees and School Rehabilitation
Committee, there has been a greater emphasis placed on the role of the community in mobilizing
local resources in support of local school needs. The communities have actively participated in
these projects mostly through unskilled labor and with some contributions and fund raising.

Of the 35 school-communities visited, only three had registered local board of trustee types of
governing boards which had the authority to have a bank account and handle money. In the other
cases, the money was handled by the CEC or PTA. In all cases, there were parent oversight
committees to ensure the proper accounting and public reporting out of the non-budget resources.
The school officials and parents were very conscientious in carrying out this responsibility
because of past regional history related to corruption. Additionally, because of increased
participation and involvement of the community/ parents in the school decision-making process
as discussed in the section on community involvement, the parents have direct input into
determining school needs and priorities and, thus, use of these funds.

Is there evidence that decision making became more participatory?

All the school-communities were rated for ‘best practice’ for participatory decision-making, as
follows: (See Appendix C for definitions.)




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                             25
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                     Table 19: Participation– All Schools/PDS and Cluster
         Country           Number       Number       High +       High       Moderate       Low
                          of Schools   of Groups    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%        0-40%

    Uzbekistan               10            17         47%          35%          19%           0%
    Tajikistan               13            14         17%          40%          17%          26%
    Kyrgyzstan               12            17         23%          23%          45%           8%


Results showed that the current practice related to participatory decision-making was above the
60% level in 82% of the Uzbekistan schools, 57% of the Tajikistan schools, and 46% of the
Kyrgyzstan schools. Consequently, there is evidence that about half or more of the schools are
using participatory techniques with Uzbekistan leading the way.

Below are illustrative participation ‘best practices’ identified by school management in each of
the three countries:


Uzbekistan
School officials consult with stakeholder groups, hold open forums, assist local education committee in
preparing and implementing an action plan, provide progress reports, hold regular staff meetings,
include teachers input in school decisions, work with Council of Teachers, and support inclusiveness on
committees.




Tajikistan
School officials share information with staff in school-wide meetings and with the education committees
on a regular (bi-weekly or monthly) basis, input is solicited, and all have an opportunity to speak;
discussions are held on what has been achieved, short-term goals to be attained and important issues;
annual open forums are held with community/parents to share expenditure reports, provide information
on the performance/status of the school and determine a priority of needs; and action plans are
developed and implemented in cooperation with staff and community/parents.




Kyrgyzstan
School officials provide awareness sessions for parents and ask for input on a regular basis – monthly
class parent meetings and open forums; maintain open door policy for teachers, community/parents, and
students; assists local education committee in preparing and implementing an action plan, provide
progress reports, hold regular staff meetings, include teacher input in school decisions, work with
Council of Teachers, and support inclusiveness on committees.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                     26
DevTech Systems, Inc.


If so, can that be attributed to USAID efforts?

It is difficult to determine precisely at what stage the schools were in their development of
participatory decision-making prior to PEAKS but, clearly this was an area of weakness the
project was designed to address. Currently, there is awareness of the concept and content of
participatory techniques and many of the school officials are now using them on a regular basis,
especially some of the community mobilization techniques; e.g., community drama, SWOT
analysis, and PRA.

Increased student participation was observed across the board in the classrooms, clubs, school
parliaments where they exist, and in CECs. This is an important finding not just for the children
but also for their parents and siblings.

Additionally, some of the parent participation activities mentioned by the community members
and cross-validated between the groups and by action plans, review of dairies and meeting
minutes that are now occurring were as follows:

•   More parents are maintaining a home environment that encourages school attendance and
    learning (Tashkent #98, Tashkent #145, Vahdat #4, Boogachi, Sokuluk #2, Chui #78);
•   More parents are providing space for their child to study, are monitoring homework, and
    engaging their child in discussions related to schooling (Tashkent #145, Tashkent #119,
    Tashkent #98, Uchkuprik #8, Vahdat #140, Vahdat #4, Sokuluk #2, Chui #78);
•   More families are providing for the health and guidance of child – nutrition and clothing
    (Tashkent #114, Kolub #2, Khairakum #14, Osh Town #16, Chui #78, Kazybek, Boogachi);
•   More parents are attending school meetings (Tashkent #145, Tashkent #98, Vahdat #140,
    Rogun #3, Kolub #2, Kazybek, Koychumanov, Sokuluk, Chui #78);
•   Parents are providing input in school decision making relative to school needs and school
    priorities during open forums and parent committees (Tashkent #145, Tashkent #98, Ganchi
    322, Vahdat #4, Kolub #2, Shopokov #1, Sokoluk, Chui #78, Boogachi); and
•   Parents are visiting school/observing classes more (Uchkuprik #6, Tashkent #145, Tashkent
    #119, Ganchi #29, Vahdat #4, Kolub #2, Boogachi, Chui #78)

What else could be done by USAID to strengthen the management capacity in schools?

Without question, the most important step that USAID and others could take in the school
management area is to promote national policies delegating greater responsibility to the schools
and by law or decree require the establishment of local governing boards for all schools. The per
capita school finance pilot projects offer an immediate opportunity to move in this direction.

The two weakest ‘best practice’ effectiveness areas identified by the team were accountability
and mobilizing local resources (see Appendix C for definitions); thus, additional training in both
of these areas would be very beneficial. Typically, these are the two most difficult areas to
change at the school-community level. The District can also play a support role in these two
areas and should be included in any training provided. These focus areas also have implications
for replication and mainstreaming the project within national education systems.


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               27
DevTech Systems, Inc.


In addition, the identification, training and on-going support of local community leaders as
change facilitators is a key element in strengthening the management capacity in schools. It is
important that those potential local leaders be identified and on-going training be provided to
assist them to be active in the support of their schools. Thus, an important element for
strengthening the management capacity of the school-community change process is that local
leader participation support structures be developed and implemented, whether by the central
government, district or community.

D.     Gender

Question: In traditional classrooms, girls are usually more active than boys and demonstrate
slightly better performance on tests. Are the new methodologies affecting the gender dynamic in
the classroom, and if so, how? Please provide illustrations of the change, if it occurs, and
suggest solutions if the impact is adverse for any gender.

During each site visit, the team observed gender dynamics in the classrooms, between
administrators and teachers, within children’s clubs and parliaments, between parents and
community groups and administrators/teachers, and within parent and community groups. The
measurement of project impacts was very difficult, as no baseline data were available. The
results are summarized below.

Students. In the majority of cases, positive gender dynamics were observed. In SbS primary
grades, there has been a clear positive effect. Observations in SbS classrooms clearly showed
boys and girls working together and generally equally active. Small group work by mixed sexes
has contributed to this outcome, as has the active teaching method and the interesting lessons.

The results in upper grades taught by project-trained teachers are less dramatic, but there, also,
boys and girls were observed working together and for the most part participating equally.
Gender dynamics in traditional upper grade classrooms observed by the team, were noticeably
different. In the majority of cases, girls were less assertive and less active than boys. This was
especially the case in Tajikistan, where project interventions have been limited to Grades 1-4,
and all upper grades are being taught in traditional ways with traditional classroom layouts (two
students per bench, no mixing of sexes.

A relatively high proportion of girls in Tajikistan drop out of school after grade 9, when
attendance is no longer compulsory. While this cannot be attributed solely to the lack of AL
approaches in the upper grades, it is a possible factor that will be put to the test once RWCT is
introduced. Interestingly, in schools where children’s clubs and/or school parliaments are active,
girls tend to be more active than boys.

The decision to introduce RWCT in Tajikistan project schools, thus, may help improve retention
of girls after Grade 9, as well as provide a more supportive classroom environment for students
who have gone through the SbS program.

Teachers. In all three countries, the teachers are predominantly women, primarily for economic
reasons. However, there are noticeably more male teachers in the rural areas, with the reason


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               28
DevTech Systems, Inc.


being that there are few job opportunities and that men, as the main supporters of the family,
should have them.

Female teachers with project training were observed to be generally more confident and assertive
in the classroom and in interactions with school administrators than teachers without such
training.

Female rural teachers find it difficult to travel to attend training at PDSs. Training needs to be
provided in their school or nearby cluster schools. The proposed distance learning scheme for
teachers in Uzbekistan, in part, is an attempt to deal with this problem.

Parents. Mothers are usually the parent who supervises homework and goes to the school,
whenever the presence of a parent is required. Where the mother also has to work to support the
family, the responsibility is often assumed by older siblings. Many of the men work in other
countries, and send money to support the family. Social attitudes are slowly changing, however,
and men, especially in urban areas, are gradually interacting more with the school.

Not surprisingly with respect to a variable as socially important and powerful as gender, the
school environment is only one factor influencing gender behavior. But, the project’s impact has
clearly been positive.

E.       Effectiveness and Sustainability of Community Involvement Approaches

Influence of community involvement activities on school-community relationship?

Five effectiveness ‘best practice’ focus areas related to community involvement were rated:
empowerment, participation, networking/partnerships, accountability/transparency and
mobilizing resources. Together these ‘best practice’ effectiveness measures form a sustainability
measure for community involvement. (See Appendix C for best practice definitions.)
Specifically, the evaluators looked at both the participation of the local education committee
members in initiating actions to address school concerns/school improvement plans as well as
parent participation through parent volunteers in the school.

The results are summarized in the following table:

                           Table 20: Community Involvement Current Practices
         Community Involvement             # of      High +     High     Moderate      Low
      Current Practice by Country         schools   80-100%    60-80%    40-60%       0-40%
     Uzbekistan
         local committee/participation      5        40%        40%            10%     0%
         parent volunteer/participation     9        33%        56%            10%     11%
     Tajikistan
        local committee/participation        6        0%        33%            33%     33%
        parent volunteer/participation      10       30%        40%            0%      30%
     Kyrgyzstan
        local committee/participation        5       40%        20%            40%      0%
        parent volunteer/participation      11       18%         0%            73%      9%



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               29
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Examples of interactions with the schools derived from the team’s instruments and observations
include:


Uzbekistan-illustrative interactions with the school
Increased interest and involvement by parents– thanks to community mobilization efforts (Dangara #12-
want more parent training, Tashkent #98-parents very satisfied, Tashkent #145-more monitoring of
homework); increased enhancement of interest of students and quality of education (Akkurgan-youth
group donations, Tashkent #114-more students applying for higher education, Uchkuprik #8-action plan
includes quality item); parents are volunteering/assisting with classes (Tashkent #114-helping with
visual aids, Uchkuprik #8-assisting in material development, Akkurgan-assisting in material
development and school projects); assisting in attendance issues (Uchkuprik #8-other parents meet with
the parents of the non-attending students and involvement of local police station, Tashkent#145-parents
talk with parents), and helping to raise funds for school activities (Tashkent #114-textbooks, school
supplies and clothes, Tashkent #145-provided fax machine and electrical work, Akkurgan-youth group
donated 2 globes and microscope, Almalik-; occasionally responding to a special needs child – e.g., a
disabled child is being taught in the house (Kokand #42) – parents had observed this elsewhere and
initiate an action to do this in their school along with providing clothes, books and materials for the
children (Tashkent #114, Tashkent #98); good relationship between CEC and local neighborhood
committee (Uchkuprik #8-community based agreement, Kokand #42-solved attendance issues and
infrastructure problems, Tashkent #114-assisteed in setting up a Public council).



Tajikistan- illustrative interactions with the school
Community assists school with visual aids-Ganchi #22 and Vahdat #4-material development; volunteers
for infrastructure projects (Ganchi #22, Rogun #3 & #4, Kolub #2); assist in identification and
implementation of school improvement actions (Khujand #9-meeting to identify more ways to bring
community into the school, Kairukum #14-meetings to strategize for ways to productively involve the
community/parents in the school more; use of the community as a resource for the school (Ganchi #22-
storytelling and cultural demonstrations by community members in the school, Rogun #4-provide
science supplies and one man was especially pleased that he could share some experiences with a class,
Chui #4--a woman from the community now shares how to make handicrafts; collaboration with
neighboring communities/schools – currently some of this taking place informally (Khujand #9-
cooperation with religious leaders and neighboring community to write a proposal, Kolkhozobod-
monitoring of performance, Kairakum- assisting with some of the social problems, Khujand #15-sharing
of school facilities, Kolub #2-more joint school cooperation with city education department).



Kyrgyzstan-illustrative interactions with the school
Parents beginning to be empowered-more active in decision making (Shopokov-action plan reviewed
monthly, Chui #78-six meetings with director per year, Koychumanov-strategies for more involvement,
Toktogul-more active alumni support); help in arranging community activity space in school - parent
room, resource work room, space for school parliament and children’s club (Koychumanov, Osh Town
#16); work on weekends on facilities and grounds (Tadjibaev, Toktorov); starting to volunteer to help
teachers and in preparing visual aids (Chui #78, Osh Town #16, Lenin), help with non-attendance issues
(Boogachi, Koychumanov, Tadjibaev), meet and interact with teachers – in and outside of the classroom
(Boogachi, Chui #78, Tangatarova #14, Osh Town #16); and help in arranging sports competition and
excursions (Tangatarova #14, Osh Town #16).


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                     30
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Uzbekistan participation was the highest with 80% of the schools above the 60% current practice
level in both local committee participation and parent volunteer participation; followed by
Tajikistan with high parent volunteer participation (70% of the schools above 60% on current
practice) but a lower local education committee participation (33% of the schools); and
Kyrgyzstan with a low parent volunteer participation (18% above 60% current practice) and a
better local education committee participation (60%). Clearly, the community/parents are having
a very direct influence on school-community activities in Uzbekistan but more work appears to
be needed in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to obtain a more sustainable level.

The team’s observations generally support the research data. The team observed sizable,
sustained interactions between the schools and the communities. In general, community
organizations called for in the project design were present and functioning. Parents were clearly
more involved with the schools, particularly SbS parents in their children’s classes, and there
appeared to be a clear increase in school visits and conferences with teachers. Many of the
interactions, of course, have focused on the identification and execution of school projects, in
which the community played a significant role in planning, fund raising and monitoring. This
may reflect the emphasis placed on projects by the implementers, SCUK and SCUS, and in the
training provided.

Is there a sense of unity, mutual support and ownership in tackling critical issues?

As the following table illustrates, the answer varies by country. Cooperation/partnerships
between the community and the school were extremely high in Uzbekistan, which was showing
100% current practice above the 60% level (46% at high plus & 54% at high), followed by
Tajikistan with 60% of their schools demonstrating current practice above the 60% level (20% at
high plus & 40% at high), and Kyrgyzstan at 45% above the 60% level (18% at high plus and
27% at high). Clearly Kyrgyzstan needs more work in this area and Tajikistan, as well, could use
more training and practice in implementing ‘best practice’ cooperation/partnerships between the
school and community. (See Appendix C for definitions.)


                     Community Involvement--cooperation/partnerships

          60%

          50%

          40%
                                                                            Ubekistan (N=9)
          30%
                                                                            Tajikistan (N=10)
          20%                                                               Kyrgyzstan (N=11)

          10%

           0%
                   High +       High       Moderate       Low




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                31
DevTech Systems, Inc.


What are the relevant illustrations?

Below are some illustrations drawn from the team’s research of cooperation/partnerships
demonstrating unity, mutual support and ownership in tackling school issues.


Uzbekistan

School director facilitates sharing through open seminars, discussion sessions, class visits, newsletters,
etc. within and between schools and at the district/city education office and through collaborative
involvement in training and seminar/workshop opportunities.

Parents and community stakeholders encourage other parents and community members, whether they
have a child in the school or not, to visit the school and get involved in school-related activities and
network and share experiences with the school and community.

Teachers employ an open door policy along with involvement in school-level, PDS-related, and
community/district-level learning events.




Tajikistan

School director coordinates with the local neighborhood committee allowing the local committee to use
the school facilities for conferences and elections; allows community access to computer room; includes
District education officials in seminars and trainings; identifies potential donors and shares information;
allows materials from resource center to be shared with neighboring schools; maintains communication
with alumni from school; and maintains close cooperation with local community and government.

Parents visit school and classes; hold regular open forums with the community; provide support to
disabled and needy families and children in the attendance area; show cooperation with local authorities
by including representation on the education committees; meet with parent committee from neighboring
community and share experiences about how they each did their work; and participate in school and
District-level trainings/workshops.

Teachers conduct open classes; include teachers and parents in training/awareness sessions; invite
parents to visit classes to better understand the new methodologies; hold cluster meetings with teachers
from the other schools; and identify and utilize available community human and material resources.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                         32
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Kyrgyzstan

School officials show support for the school parliament, Children’s Club and other school-related social
partnerships - partnerships take a lot of hard work, need to work at it; create a separate parent room in
the school; facilitate sharing through open seminars, discussion sessions, class visits, and newsletters
within the school and community; and develop relationships and share experiences with other schools.

Key representatives of the community are included on the school education committee; parents actively
monitor homework and provide supportive home environment; parents and community stakeholders
encourage other parents and community members to and get involved in school-related activities,
whether they have a child in the school or not; and network and share experiences with community
members in other communities utilizing the active learning methodologies.

Teachers make every effort to visit the cluster schools; employ an open door policy along with
involvement in community-level and city/district-level active learning events.


Many school-community groups, such as Community Education Committees, Social Partnership
groups, and Parent Committees have received more than a year of training and capacity
building through projects addressing school needs. Have they by now emerged as important
stakeholders in the education process, able to affect the quality of education and management in
their school?

The answer is a mixed one. The team observed situations where local community groups had
developed to the stage implied by the question and a greater number which may have been active
in carrying out their anticipated functions but could not be described as independent forces
effectively monitoring the schools and acting on their perceptions thereof. Again, there were
significant differences among countries.

The use of ‘best practices’ for empowerment of the local education committees and the
empowerment of parents in decision making was rated as follows: (See Appendix C for best
practice definitions.)

                      Table 21: Community Involvement and Current Practices
        Community Involvement            # of         High +       High        Moderate       Low
     Current Practice by Country        schools      80-100%      60-80%       40-60%        0-40%
    Uzbekistan
        committee empowerment              5           40%          60%           0%           0%
        parent empowerment                 9           44%          56%           0%           0%
    Tajikistan
       committee empowerment               6            0%          33%          33%          33%
       parent empowerment                 10           20%          30%          20%          30%
    Kyrgyzstan
       committee empowerment               5           40%          40%          10%           0%
       parent empowerment                 11            0%          27%          73%           0%

Uzbekistan empowerment was the highest with 100% of the schools above the 60% current
practice level in both local committee empowerment and parent empowerment/involvement in

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                       33
DevTech Systems, Inc.


decision making; followed by Tajikistan with high parent empowerment but low committee
empowerment and Kyrgyzstan with high committee empowerment and low parent
empowerment. Kyrgyzstan has a ‘board of trustees’ in two school-communities (Shopokov #1
and Chui #78) which are functioning extremely well and influencing the results and Tajikistan
has three rural communities, Ganchi #22, Rogun #3 and Rogun #4 (the latter two being IBET
schools), where parents are very active but the education committees are not as strong, which is
influencing the results.

If not, what can be done over the next year to strengthen their role?

The team recommends that the approach to the community component over the coming year be
revised, putting the emphasis on two critical structural actions. The first is to develop a project-
wide association of community group leaders and members. It is believed that an association
would increase interest and participation. It also would provide a channel for future community
mobilization training, professional development, and advocacy, as well as enhance prospects for
sustainability. The second would be to promote the creation of a new, decentralized school
governance system, with primary responsibility assigned to the communities. (See answer to the
next question for additional comment on this issue.)

What are school and community long-term expectations of these newly created school-
community groups?

This question is difficult to answer as long-term planning is a short-coming of the current
education committees, as most have been consumed with dealing with immediate concerns and
issues and have been project driven. Only about half of the current committees are sustainable
unless something is done. Where communities have developed a more comprehensive action
plan/school improvement plan, sufficient resources continues to be at the heart of the issue.

Again, the best long-term solution observed by the evaluators is a new school governance
system. The team saw a few examples of the ‘board of trustee’ approach where the board is
registered, has a bank account, and can directly mobilize and manage financial resources. With
this responsibility comes both academic and financial accountability and transparency. The
governance issue should be a long-term expectation and high priority policy issue for USAID.

Do the school and community see a future role for the groups?

The answer will depend on progress toward the association and governance objectives mentioned
above. These in turn will depend on the emergence of local change leaders and on the leadership
of the school director. An equally important question is how does the government see the future
role of the groups? and what will be the government’s role and responsibility? The role that the
government plays in supporting local community leaders, community mobilizations, and the
school is one of the main keys to their future.

Is any additional assistance required to ensure that the community groups can fulfill the role
identified above?



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 34
DevTech Systems, Inc.


USAID assistance on the association and governance issues will be critical. In addition, the role
that the DED and the local government play in supporting local community leaders and the
school will be important factors in sustaining community involvement, ownership and change.
The District is the main official link between the school and the central government; thus, the
type and frequency of contacts and support between this office and the local school is critical.
Local leader competence, motivation and commitment are directly affected by the activity of this
office.

Is there support for those community initiatives on the part of the local and central government
that would make it possible for larger-scale replication?

The team did not encounter any resistance to this area of the project. Indeed, strong interest in
the community development component was expressed in many of the Districts visited, and the
Ministries of Education are generally supportive.

Below are the ratings for sample Districts in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan on the three
effectiveness focus areas of empowerment, participation, and networking/partnerships, including
communities.

                          Table 22: District Involvement Current Practices
         District Involvement           # of       High +      High      Moderate      Low
     Current Practice - Overall       Districts   80-100%     60-80%     40-60%       0-40%
   Uzbekistan
       empowerment                       1         100%         0%            0%         0%
       participation                     1          0%          0%           100%        0%
      networking/partnerships            1         100%         0%            0%         0%
   Tajikistan
      empowerment                        7          14%         29%          14%         43%
      participation                      7           0%         29%          29%         43%
      networking/partnerships            7           0%         29%          43%         29%
   Kyrgyzstan
      empowerment                        4           0%         25%          50%         25%
      participation                      4           0%         50%          25%         25%
      networking/partnerships            4          25%         50%          0%          25%

    Overall
      empowerment                       12          17%         25%          25%         33%
      participation                     12           0%         33%          33%         33%
      networking/partnerships           12          17%         33%          25%         25%


As noted, overall District empowerment and networking/partnerships are at 52% and 50%
effectiveness based on the 60% cutoff figure followed by participation at the 33% level. The
sample is small but the trend is clear with about half of the Districts showing some effectiveness
in empowerment and networking and about a third showing some effectiveness in participation.
These are encouraging trends.

What can the project do to assist the government in replicating community initiatives?


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               35
DevTech Systems, Inc.


The answer to this question is encompassed in the replication recommendations in Section IV.
The key contribution the project can make to persuading governments to replicate the
community and other project initiatives is to work with the governments and others to develop
consensus on and design replication projects tailored to each national situation. The team
recommends that this process begin toward the end of the current project and that it be the
central focus of any follow-on project.

F.     Complementarity of Inputs in Pilot Schools under the Different Components and
       Program Cohesion

How well do inputs in pilot schools under different components complement each other? Is there
clear understanding among stakeholders of the holistic approach taken by the programs, that is,
that the different components are parts of a comprehensive USAID effort?

Unlike integrated basic education projects in many other countries, which have sought to
demonstrate the efficacy of a uniform package of inputs, PEAKS was designed to simultaneously
test a number of different models, within a single project. In addition, there was no clear pattern
of uniform inputs provided more or less simultaneously across the entire project, even where OSI
was the principal teaching and learning provider and SCUK the primary community
development provider. The geographic coverage and experience of implementing partners
varied, e.g. OSI in Tajikistan. Schools came into the program at different times and benefited
from project inputs accordingly, making comparisons difficult. Some schools, principally cluster
schools, are still quite new to the project, and to date have only received partial inputs. Further
complicating an already complicated picture is the fact that a number of PDS schools,
particularly in Kyrgyzstan, were beneficiaries of earlier, related OSI activities.

Nonetheless, it is possible to say that in PDS schools where all five components were present and
for a long enough time to make a difference, that is, where the whole school approach was
clearly followed in a sustained way, the results were clearly positive. In other words, the
components, when applied as intended, are indeed complementary and the observed results are
greater than the sum of the parts. This is an important finding for the future, including both the
remainder of the current agreement period and a possible, subsequent replication phase. It
suggests that if the bulk of the unevenness of the project’s progress to date can be ironed out by
mid-2007, as the team believes it can, a sound basis for replication will exist.

G.     Advocacy and Association Development

USAID has employed a number of strategies to build capacity of independent groups, such as the
teacher training membership associations or local school-community partnerships. Is it feasible
to bring these groups together to create a broad-based advocacy body that could foster quality
improvement and engage in dialogue on policy issues? If so, what can be done by USAID to
advance in this direction?

PEAKS’ strategy in this area has focused on strengthening local professional NGOs that will
sustain networks of innovative teachers and education professionals engaged in the PEAKS
activities and mission and that will carry project activities forward into the future. During the
extension period, these NGOs, will also continue to provide professional development for new

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                36
DevTech Systems, Inc.


teachers, mentoring trainers working from PDS sites, working to ensure the quality of training,
and developing professional standards for innovative teaching methods.

In early 2004, in Kyrgyzstan a group of three NGOs, including a large English language training
School, came together, with OSI help, to register the Association of Independent Providers –
Novel School (AIP). The number of members has since grown to seven and there are fifteen
pending applications for membership, reportedly including eleven PDSs. Through arrangements
with the MOE and the KAE, which are members of its Advisory Council, the Association’s
members are expected to be able to provide officially recognized training and to certify teacher
trainers. OSI currently pays half of the association’s costs, with the other half provided by the
members.

While AIP is well-positioned to provide valuable services to its members, especially if it can
assure that members can offer certified courses, in the team’s judgment it cannot take the place
of individual professional membership associations for teachers, school directors, and
community leaders. The latter are needed to empower their members to advocate for educational
reform, as well as their professional interests, and assist them to keep their professional skills up-
to-date.

The project does not seem to have the development of this other kind of professional associations
as a priority at the present time. The team believes the matter should be urgently reconsidered.
Under present circumstances, it may be more difficult to accomplish in Uzbekistan than in the
other two countries, but the need there is as great or greater, so Uzbekistan should be included in
whatever feasibility studies are launched.

Once the additional associations have been created and are functioning, they and the AIP should
form the core of an effort to establish National Education Reform Associations (NERAs) in each
of the three countries. The functions of the NERAs would be primarily information and
advocacy. Their members would be education, private sector, and civil society organizations,
which share the conviction that creation of a modern, effective, and efficient education system is
central to success in a globalizing world.

H.     Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, Indicators, Assessing Learning
       Outcomes, and the Impact of Teacher Training on Attendance and Completion

The contractor will review the SO 3.4 PMP and implementing partner data collection plans, and
make recommendations regarding the appropriateness and reliability of indicators for assessing
progress towards performance goals, including recommendations on how to best assess student
outcomes resulting from PEAKS inputs and how to better assess the impact of teacher training
on attendance and completion.

The team’s review of the SO3.4 PMP included discussions with the implementer regarding the
rationale for the choice of performance indicators, refinement of data collection instruments,
methodology for analyzing the data, and the success of the overall plan for collecting data from
PEAKS partners.



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                   37
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Findings: The SO3.4 PMP performance indicators were developed in cooperation between
USAID and AED and finalized in 2004. Baseline data collection took place in September 2003.
The first round of data collection for project impact took place in April/May 2004 to measure the
result of project inputs during the 2003 to 2004 academic year. Many of the PEAKS cluster
schools in all three countries are implementing student-centered learning for the first year (2004
to 2005) so the data collection instruments, procedures and methods of calculation should remain
the same in order that valid comparisons can be made between the results of the 2004 data
collection and the results of the 2005 data collection exercise.

The performance indicators remain appropriate and valid, and the second major round of data
collection to assess performance is presently underway (May 2005). The M&E teams have
developed valid and reliable instruments, data collection procedures and sample sizes.

The main implementer, AED, developed a solid overall data collection plan for the other
implementing partners and ensured that all partners understood the rationale, instruments, and
data collection procedures through a series of M&E workshops for the partners. A monthly
partners meeting is held to discuss M&E activities. The national PEAKS team in each country
uses this collaborative data collection plan to accumulate the data required for project reporting
purposes. All IR outcomes are incorporated into partners’ annual work plans.

The AED M&E team has continued to refine the instruments, data collection and compilation
methods utilized for teacher observation, teacher quality, parent surveys, assessing the level of
critical thinking skills among grade 8 students, and financial reform. The weighting mechanisms
are questionable – they treat nominal data as interval data - but the process is good. The idea is to
track stages of development, i.e. to clearly define each stage of development and track
distribution changes rather than averages.

The IBET program being implemented by AKF has a solid M&E component, including a
baseline implemented after the IBET intervention began, and a good on-going system of data
collection which includes director, teacher and student assessments, and an excellent mentoring
checklist with clear criteria. Training results are also well documented and teachers are tracked
throughout the school year.

Factors affecting attendance: USAID requested recommendation on how to better assess the
impact of teacher training on attendance and completion. Any studies or comments regarding
completion rate are premature at this stage in the project implementation, however, the role of
the teacher vis-à-vis student attendance problems can be discussed. The training level of the
teacher is not nearly as important a variable as is “teacher behavior”. It is the attitude and
behavior of teachers that positively or negatively affect students, rather than their level of
training.

Three studies by SCUK in Kyrgyzstan examined a variety of factors affecting student
attendance: Educational Problems of Ak Muz Village in At Bashy District (preliminary report,
2003); Educational Problems of Naryn Town, Naryn Oblast (preliminary report, 2003), and C-
EMIS Report: Survey conducted in Beshik Jon Village, Bazar Korgon Rayon, Djalal Abad
Oblast (2004).

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  38
DevTech Systems, Inc.



All three studies found that the major factors in children’s non-attendance at school included:
lack of warm clothing/shoes, need to help with agriculture, need to help in household or parents’
business, no textbooks or stationary, sudden illness and long distance to travel to school.

Teacher behavior, or “dislike of teacher” was cited infrequently (1 to 4%) by both students and
parents. Indeed, all three studies indicate that teachers are part of the solution, rather than part of
the problem, as in each village teachers often went to visit the homes of non-attending students
in order to ascertain the reasons for non-attendance, and to assist in solving these problems
whenever possible.

In all three countries, many parents commented during interviews that their children had a more
positive attitude about attending school when they were in classes featuring the learner centered
methodologies, particularly SbS. Indeed, some parents of SbS students reported that the children
wanted to go to school even when ill.

Suggestions:

1. PEAKS M&E staff in each country select a small sample of data submitted by the various
partner implementers through their data collection plans to check for reliability and validity.

2. PEAKS works with training providers in all three countries to ensure that a comprehensive
plan for the assessment of individual trainees based on the training goals and objectives is
provided for each training session, and that the assessment plan is kept on file in the relevant
PEAKS office. This will ensure that successful trainees have acquired the necessary knowledge,
skills and attitude (KSA) for training follow-up evaluation and assessment in their schools.

3. PEAKS M&E staff begins to investigate setting up tracking programs in each country where
C-EMIS is being implemented in order to follow the progress of an appropriate sample of
program beneficiaries, including representatives of students, teachers, school leaders and
community/parents.

4. PEAKS begins to develop more detailed indicators for assessing school accountability and
transparency, under the school management component.

5. PEAKS continues to work on the development and refinement of their impact indicators (e.g.,
teacher quality index, parent satisfaction index, student achievement, institutional accountability
index, and education policy reform index) and on tracking sustainability.

I.     USAID Comparative Advantage in Current Assistance Areas

The Issue: Whether USAID has a comparative advantage in the areas where USAID is providing
assistance.

The U.S. is a large education donor in the CAR region, and its superpower status gives it added
weight in dealing with the governments, as well as substantial influence over one of the major

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                    39
DevTech Systems, Inc.


donors, the World Bank (WB). (This at a time when the ADB and WB are on the verge of
initiating or have recently initiated sizable new programs of high relevance to PEAKS and
broader basic education development strategies throughout the region.)

USAID’s education work worldwide is focused heavily on basic education development. As a
consequence, it has an unusually rich pool of experience and talent to call on in this area. There
is nothing like it in other areas, where staff and expertise have basically left the Agency.

With PEAKS already on the ground and with two years of experience, USAID has an existing,
established basic education development program with a strong presence in the three countries, a
record of effective coordination with other donors, especially the WB, and good credibility and
relationships with the three governments. (The IBET program gives USAID additional presence
in TJ.) In other words, USAID is now a recognized and valued player in the sector.

Another advantage is that while government relationships are generally good and PEAKS
receives official support for its education work from all three countries, USAID directly controls
its resources and most implementation mechanisms, that is, it does not channel its resources
through the governments. This gives it added flexibility and better quality control. This does not
seem to be a major problem with the governments, provided they are kept informed and
involved.

A further advantage enjoyed by USAID is the ability, through a range of procurement
instruments, to relatively quickly tap a deep and diversified global pool of specialized skills in
education development, including ready access to the largest and deepest higher education
system in the world.

J.     Comparative Analysis of Different Models for Quality Improvement as Used by
       Different Implementing Partners

The contractor will take note of the different models for quality improvement under the USAID
Basic Education program (across country, and as used by different implementing partners) and
provide a comparative analysis of their strengths and weaknesses, in addressing program
priorities outlined above.”

Models for quality improvement under the USAID basic education program are illustrated in the
following tables:




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               40
DevTech Systems, Inc.

a) Uzbekistan
      Description of model                       Strengths                              Weaknesses
PDS plus cluster schools          1. PDS fit criteria of strong schools,   1. Cluster schools currently weaker
(implementer was OSI until late   well organized and well run
2004)
                                  2. Staff of PDS usually well trained     2. Distance of cluster schools from
                                                                           PDS often constrains good mentoring
                                                                           and interaction of PDS/cluster school
                                                                           teachers
                                  3. Competent school leadership           3. Cluster schools show a current
                                  supportive of changes                    shortfall in in-service training,
                                                                           training follow-up and
                                                                           community/parent involvement
                                  4. PDS usually have a good               4. Constraints on PDS teachers
                                  environment of teacher cooperation       include lack of substitutes, lack of
                                                                           release time, heavy work load,
                                                                           problem of multiple shift schools,
                                                                           travel expenses, adequate training
                                                                           prep time
                                  5. PDS show high sustainability          5. Relationships with local district
                                                                           education department often not
                                                                           strong
                                                                           6. Cluster schools were mixed with
                                                                           about 60% showing high
                                                                           sustainability potential
                                                                           7. Need to train a “critical mass” of
                                                                           teachers (at least a majority at each
                                                                           grade level) to provide support and
                                                                           peer cooperation

b) Tajikistan
     Description of model                       Strengths                               Weaknesses
PDS plus cluster schools          1. Most PDS fit criteria of strong       1. Cluster schools weaker, teachers
(implementer: OSI)                schools, well organized and well run     have received less training
                                  2. Intra-school mentoring rated as       2. Lack of inter-school contacts due
                                  high                                     to many teacher constraints
                                  3. School leadership—                    3. Ties with local department of
                                  Moderate to high leadership              education or rayon not strong; school
                                  demonstrated in the PDS schools          leadership needs more training
                                  4. SbS classes well received and         4. Many SbS teachers having
                                  teachers are doing well                  problems implementing the full SbS
                                                                           model
                                  5. PDS show sustainability potential     5. Most of the cluster schools were
                                  but still need more work.                rural schools, some just getting
                                                                           started – majority were not
                                                                           demonstrating sustainability potential
                                                                           yet
                                                                           6. Need to train a “critical mass” of
                                                                           teachers (a majority at each grade
                                                                           level) to provide support and peer
                                                                           cooperation
Rural cluster model               1. Teachers in rural areas have          1. Rural cluster schools weak, with
(implementer: SCUK)               received some training                   problems in implementing student-
                                                                           centered methodology


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                                 41
DevTech Systems, Inc.

     Description of model                         Strengths                             Weaknesses
                                   2. Community interest beginning to      2. Poor understanding of interactive
                                   develop due to involvement in           learning on the part of implementers
                                   infrastructure projects
                                   3. One rural cluster school was         3. Impact of training after two years
                                   showing some sustainability due to      very limited
                                   strong school leader and
                                   community/parent involvement
                                                                           4. Absence of stronger PDS school
                                                                           limits transfer of training content
IBETS core school plus satellite   1. Strong links with local department   1. Weaker links with community
(implementer: AKF)                 of education officials and              groups
                                   methodologists
                                   2. Inclusion of professional mentors    2. Criteria limit the number of
                                   from IPDs                               schools that can be included in this
                                                                           model
                                   3. Workable model of core school        3. Questionable that it is replicable
                                   plus two nearby satellite schools       on a wide scale
                                   4. Sharing of resources and TLM
                                   through well-organized lending
                                   system
                                   5. Sustainability was high – shows
                                   that model can work in rural schools
                                   if implemented properly

c) Kyrgyzstan
     Description of model                        Strengths                              Weaknesses
PDS plus cluster schools           1. PDS schools are strong, well         1. Cluster schools currently
(implementer: OSI)                 established and well organized          functioning at a lower level due to a
                                                                           variety of constraints
                                   2. Well trained and professional        2. Poor mentoring to date; only one
                                   teaching staff                          example of PDS teachers helping
                                                                           cluster school teachers at their
                                                                           schools
                                   3. Supportive school leadership         3. Weak links with local education
                                   which encourages teachers to            departments and local TTIs
                                   implement student centered
                                   methodologies
                                   4. Parents are supportive of SbS        4. Cluster schools need more work –
                                   activities                              sustainability mostly moderate to low
                                   5. PDS schools demonstrated high        5. Need a “critical mass” of teachers
                                   sustainability                          trained to encourage sustainability
Potential/rural PDS plus cluster   1. PDS schools are strong and well      1. Distances between PDS and
(implementer: OSI)                 organized                               cluster schools too great for effective
                                                                           mentoring by PDS
                                   2. Teaching staff has a fairly high     2. Cluster schools so far not positive
                                   level of training                       about their training experiences at
                                                                           PDS
                                                                           3. Little sharing of resources from
                                                                           PDS to cluster schools
                                                                           4. Need to train a “critical mass” of
                                                                           teachers at each grade level in order
                                                                           to provide peer support



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                                   42
DevTech Systems, Inc.

     Description of model                    Strengths                              Weaknesses
Co-PDS plus clusters           1. Strong school leadership in the two   1. Community involvement in cluster
(implementer: OSI)             Co-PDS schools observed                  schools comparatively weak so far;
                                                                        likewise teacher training, monitoring
                               2. Combined resources of the two Co-     Co-PDSs do not have a clear division
                               PDSs impressive                          of labor

Experience with the PEAKS PDS-based models has been generally very positive. If one factors
in the complexity of the project design, the tight time frames within which the project has
functioned and the fact that the rollout of the cluster schools has been quite recent and project
inputs are only now being systematically applied, the performance is impressive.

The team was impressed with the IBET model, especially its careful and sustained integration of
the project with local education institutions. The latter, in the team’s view, is a weakness of the
PEAKS model. The OSI/Soros focus on developing and sustaining independent, national
organizations to work on behalf of the schools is a sound, long-term strategy for society as a
whole. But, in the PEAKS context, where scaling up and replication of the project through the
national education systems must be the ultimate goal, there is some conflict between the two
approaches.

The team is critical of SCUK’s rural cluster model in Tajikistan, at least as it has operated under
PEAKS. It is recognized that the model focuses on fostering self-help among some of the poorest
schools in a poor country, which is a commendable objective. But, in practice, few positive
results were observed. The reasons are unclear and may have more to do with management than
the model per se. Nevertheless, at this point, it would be hard to justify recommending making a
new start at developing and testing it.

K.     Policy Initiatives

While it was not an integral part of the original design, PEAKS has been instrumental in
promoting and supporting the testing of two educational finance pilot initiatives. The first is a per
capita school funding scheme, which addresses both equity in school finance and decentralized,
transparent management of school budgets. As a result, the first major experiment with
decentralization of school governance to local boards is now underway in pilot areas in
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The second initiative, which is philosophically quite different, is a pilot test in one district in
Kyrgyzstan of a training voucher scheme. The goal of the pilot is to test whether the introduction
of competition into teacher retraining systems can simultaneously promote the entry into the
system of new, private training providers, while encouraging current providers, especially the
TTIs, to upgrade the quality and relevance of their offerings.

The team supports the first initiative wholeheartedly and believes the second can be useful, so
long as it does not, de facto, lead to the decimation of training capacity in the national education
system which is often the only viable option for many teachers and schools. Both kinds of
training sources are going to be needed in the years ahead.


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                           43
DevTech Systems, Inc.


L.     Summary Comments on PEAKS and IBET

PEAKS overall is an excellent project and by the end of the current agreement it will have left
significant marks in the great majority of the schools and communities in which it operates. The
team has been critical of some aspects of the project, but that has strictly been with the goal of
helping it become even stronger and in ways that will increase the likelihood that it will be
institutionalized into national education systems and widely replicated, as it deserves to be.

The team did not do a sufficiently extensive study of the IBET project to develop reliable finding
and recommendations. In the team’s view, the IBET model is attractive and the project seems to
be on a sound course. The next logical step would be to move the reform process into the upper
grades, through the introduction of something along the lines of RWCT. If resources are
available, the team believes an extension through June 2007 to support such an effort would be
appropriate. If this were done, it would put IBET on the same time table as PEAKS and open the
option in Tajikistan of integrating AKF/IBET into the proposed PEAKS replication project.

M.     PEAKS Program Management

AED’s management of the PEAKS program has been generally strong. Its primary role at the
outset was to coordinate and bring cohesion to an unusually complicated mix of goals, models,
and implementers in three countries. This did not happen overnight, but the evidence is that the
issues were identified and dealt with in a reasonably sound and timely way. During this initial
period, AED relied primarily on the implementers for their special expertise in each of the
components for which they were assigned lead roles.

The situation was altered significantly with the changes in Uzbekistan in the first half of 2004.
At this stage, de facto, AED began to play a much larger conceptual and technical role. Today, as
the project is challenged to define and work towards its ultimate objectives in a number of areas,
the need for AED leadership is further increased. In the team’s opinion, in order to do this, AED
should consider augmenting its project-specific technical expertise, both in-region and via
consultants on regular visit schedules, particularly in relevant methodologies, materials
development, and related training.

Throughout the project, AED has worked closely and effectively with the governments and key
donors, especially the World Bank, in order to coordinate the project’s work with them and to
seek their understanding and support.


III.   ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FUTURE INVOLVEMENT

A.     Original and Current Validity of USAID’s Education Sector Strategy and Approach

This section addresses the assumptions underlying USAID’s decision to target basic education,
as outlined in the team’s SOW.
The team believes these assumptions were and remain valid but also believes the case for basic
education is even greater than indicated.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                               44
DevTech Systems, Inc.


The number of beneficiaries is indeed high at this level of education in all three countries and
improvements in access, quality and efficiency of education are badly needed. But, in addition to
these traditional arguments, targeted, effective interventions in primary and basic education can
help accomplish other things critical to nation-building besides education per se, including:

•      The gradual creation of a pool of well-educated, thinking and self-learning future citizens
       and engines of social and economic development.
•      The impact of this kind of modern education in the schools on older children, parents,
       families, teachers, and school and community leaders should not be discounted. If they
       can be brought into the process, they themselves can be energized and converted into
       change agents, with immediate payoffs not only in education but also other sectors.
       Modern basic education approaches also contribute to the development of capacity to
       organize and implement a wide range of local self-help initiatives.
•      Evidence in a developing country that a failing education system can be and is being
       turned around, can have profound impacts on matters as diverse as the investment
       climate, brain drain, social and gender equality, recruitment of talent to the education
       sector, retention of girls and other potential dropouts in school, and a general public
       perception that an improved future is possible.

Although it is tempting to extend this fundamental effort to modernize the learning process back
at least a year into the final year of pre-primary, particularly in countries where children start
school at the relatively late age of seven, the team agrees that even highly successful pilot efforts
at this level are unlikely to be scaled up significantly in the CAR region, given the severe
shortage of local resources for educating the current primary school population. (An alternative
would be a much more modest investment in piloting innovative, low-cost home-based child
development modules for clusters of homes in given neighborhoods, as BRAC has been doing in
Bangladesh.)

Vocational and technical training investments are costly and should not be undertaken until they
can be closely linked to a viable national economic development strategy. The team did not look
into this sector, but as the resources available for USAID work in the education sector are small
in relation to the cost of VAT training and there is little clarity on the exact kind of VAT
capacity that is needed, it seems that the assumption remains valid. Another factor discouraging
intervention in this area is the strong interest of the European Union’s TACIS program in this
sector.

The higher education sector presents a more complicated picture. The facts outlined in the
original assumption appear to be true. But, the question remains whether the large investments
being made in higher education in the region are providing an adequate level of return to national
development, including basic education development. In particular, targeted efforts to engage the
region’s universities in helping resolve seemingly intractable education sector problems of
teacher preparation, recruitment, and retention could be a good investment. University
partnerships might play a useful role in this regard. The recently restructured ALO university
partnership program would offer an easy and relatively quick mechanism for exploring the
possible benefits of such arrangements, similar to what the American International Health


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  45
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Alliance does in the health sector, and ALO, if desired, could help the Mission develop a
targeted solicitation through its (ALO's) Special Initiatives window.

B.     Current Policy, Capacity, and Donor Environment

Policy
Any discussion of education policy in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan has to begin by
noting that by and large, the policies are quite good. Laws and decrees exist that make liberal use
of modern concepts like integrated school development, interactive teaching, decentralization,
community involvement, transparency and accountability, etc. and that show a reasonably good
understanding of their meaning. In many cases, the ideas have been tested by earlier pilot
projects.

The problem is, of course, that better policies and even pilot projects at best create only the
potential for reform. The record of converting them into real and sustained change in national
education systems in Central Asia is, on the whole, poor. There are two closely related reasons
for this: lack of money and weak capacity. There can also be lack of political will to reform and
there is always resistance to reform by people and groups who are doing quite well with the
system as it is, but they are not the main constraining factors.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in Central Asia and other poorly-resourced areas of the region
eliminated the massive social subsidies, including for education, that the Soviet system brought
with it, while at the same time devastating their economies. In a few cases, oil or other special
advantages have created offsetting economic development and with it, public revenue to fund at
least some restoration of health, education, and other public services, but this has not generally
been the case in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, or Uzbekistan.

In the absence of locally-generated development, external aid, much of it based on geopolitical
calculations, has become very important. Loans, grants, and remittances from the growing
number of citizens of the three countries that have either emigrated or are working temporarily
abroad are the main sources of cash to the region. The combined resources coming from abroad
cannot, of course, replace the transfers inherent in the Soviet system, but they are large enough to
have major impacts on policy and capacity.

As a consequence, international aid agencies have disproportionate influence on governments,
their policies in areas of interest to the donors, and the ways the connections between policies
and action play themselves out. Tajikistan has become a prime example of a donor-driven
environment. Kyrgyzstan also displays some of these same characteristics, while Uzbekistan
seeks to share in the largesse, while trying to make sure donor influence does not become too
great or destabilizing.

Capacity and Sustainability
As noted, the capacity of the education establishments in all three countries is low. The
explanation is not basically the quality of national human resources, but rather the lack of money
to enable the MOE to attract the best people. In other words, if the financial picture were



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 46
DevTech Systems, Inc.


different, better people would be on the job at the MOE, and from the perspective of donors,
making a large difference in the working environment.

International aid programs, with their own implementation needs and the ability to pay high
salaries in comparison with local norms, directly employ much of the local talent still in the
region. In order to ensure the success of their investments, donors also subsidize government
agencies, presumably on a temporary basis, to ensure that their projects receive high-level
attention and are executed by competent people.

Another variable is the growing strength of the private sector and civil society. This has been a
priority of many donors, including USAID, and a specialty of some, such as the Soros group of
organizations. These efforts focus on creating alternatives to government in the short run while
seeking to influence governments to become more democratic and effective in the long term - a
not wholly consistent position.

USAID obviously cannot solve the resource problem, except in limited ways within project
budgets. Nor are the efforts of various donors, including the Banks, to strengthen the quality of
management of the educational system likely to make any dramatic changes in the near term.
Therefore, USAID’s work in the sector must be planned and proceed on the assumption that
government capacity will remain low.

Modest investments at the margin, however, can make a significant difference. For example,
because teachers are so poorly paid, even modestly improved recognition and compensation can
substantially increase motivation and performance. As a case in point, if PEAKS can resolve the
problem of lack of certification of PDS training, it would have two important effects. The first
would be to empower PDS trainers, in association with the district/city departments of education,
to provide officially recognized teacher training services, which would provide them with both
status and some income. Secondly, it would mean that teachers who receive district and city
DED-approved training provided by PDS trainers, would be eligible for promotions and salary
increases.

Is effective development work in cooperation with the public sector possible under these
circumstances? The answer is yes, but it has to focus on the feasible, not the ideal, and it has to
limit its contributions to critical, non-recurring investments and eschew subsidizing recurrent
expenses. In the case of an integrated school development program like PEAKS, this means
working with existing government structures and funding inputs, such as training and modern
materials, that in the future can be provided by the regular system at affordable costs, thus
demonstrating that modest investments can produce significant increases in productivity, with
manageable cost increases.

 In essence, projects like PEAKS, at their best, seek to create more positive cost-benefit ratios at
critical points in the system. If enough of these positive ratios are created and the recurrent cost
increases can be kept low, a legitimate basis for sustainability and replication is established. If
not, the projects are likely to go on the shelf, along with their predecessors.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 47
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Donor Environment
The basic education donor communities in the three countries are relatively small, but, from
USAID’s point of view, significant. This is because at present and for the first time ever, both the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB) are on the scene in Central Asia
with sizable involvements in improving basic education systems. The World Bank is the
newcomer, having previously focused on the health sector, while ADB concentrated on
education. The change is a fortuitous one for USAID, as the WB is more open to collaboration
and has closer relations with USAID in Washington and around the world. It has created an
opportunity to develop a more strategic relationship between USAID and the Banks in education.

The team recommends that USAID/CAR enter into negotiations with the ADB and WB aimed at
creating a strategic partnership in order to strengthen the education policy environment in
Central Asia. Negotiations could begin in Almaty, with the formation of a working group
charged with preparing a joint discussion paper encompassing a number of specific high priority
ideas and issues, such as the teacher question, and drafting a proposed division of labor for
subsequent review and consideration by the regional offices and the respective headquarters in
Washington and Manila.

The bedrock of a possible strategic relationship is the fact that while the ADB and WB have
money and an increasingly flexible array of program mechanisms, they lack capacity to field
long and short-term technical assistance teams on relatively quick notice across a wide range of
fields and topics. These, on the other hand, are areas in which USAID has a significant
comparative advantage. Among the contributions USAID might make are action-oriented policy
studies, providing technical advice for the design and execution of pilot programs, and arranging
for in-country and overseas training/study tours for key policy makers.

AED has sought to coordinate with the ADB and WB and there are a number of existing
collaborative arrangements at local levels. PEAKS’ field experience also has been drawn on in
the design of the WB’s new Rural Education Project in Kyrgyzstan. It is now imperative that this
collaboration be taken to a new, strategic level. Prompt action is needed, as the ADB is well
along in conceptualizing substantial new programs for the sector, and the WB’s new programs
are getting underway. Areas of interest to USAID in the two Bank new programs include teacher
training (both pre-service and in-service), educational finance, textbooks, student assessment,
school mapping, and infrastructure development.

Donor coordination by governments in the region is uniformly weak. Even in Kyrgyzstan, where
an International Advisory Council on Education was established to assist the MOE to coordinate
donor inputs, with the Minister of Education as Chair and the Representative of the ADB as
Deputy Chair, the results reportedly have been meager. One of the reasons for this is that the
tenure of ministers of education in KG is typically short, including the minister who launched the
Council. Coordination by donors is more frequent and successful, though more often consist of
arrangements to work together in pursuit of specific joint interests rather than strategic
partnerships. .




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                 48
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Attitudes of Governments to Donor Involvement in Selected Areas of Education
The Scope of Work seeks the team’s input on the region’s governments’ attitudes toward donor
involvement in certain sensitive areas in the education sector, including curriculum restructuring,
textbooks, and student assessment reform. Based on interviews with the ADB and WB and other
key donors in the countries visited by the team, there are significant differences in this regard
among the three governments. In Uzbekistan, policy, curriculum, textbook, and assessment are
all areas where the government, while avowedly open to cooperation, appears to be proceeding
very carefully and the added value of donor involvement in these areas, de facto, may be low.
Although the Tajikistan government may harbor some concerns along these lines, especially
after the events in Kyrgyzstan, its needs are so great and its capacity so low, that there appears to
be ample space for donors to operate. In Kyrgyzstan, the previous government was relatively
open to cooperation, viz the major components in all the above areas in the proposed ADB Third
Education Project and the textbook and assessment components of the World Bank’s upcoming
Rural Education Project. The position of the interim government on the question is not clear, but
it has signaled its intention to observe all prior agreements, including those with the ADB and
WB.

C.     Issues or Areas that May Require USAID Intervention to Ensure Sustainability of
       Quality Improvements, Given the Basic Education Investments to Date, with Special
       Reference to Policy Reform and Teacher Training

The team’s responses to this question are included in Section IV.

D.         The Case for USAID Involvement in Basic Education in the CAR Region

Based on the team’s observations of the PEAKS project, as well as its collective experience
elsewhere, the team feels strongly that carefully designed, integrated interventions to reform and
restore basic education systems, like PEAKS, have two kinds of impacts which are relatively
quick and go beyond the direct educational benefits. They are:
• The creation of pools of new stakeholders in the education system, i.e. teachers, school
    administrators, parents, and community leaders who are energized and can be converted into
    change agents for education reform.
• Replacement of despair over the collapsed education systems that these stakeholders see all
    around them with hope that they can and are being improved. Over time, perceptions that
    education reforms are real and progressing can have profound impacts on matters as diverse
    as restoring community pride, recruitment of talent to the education sector, retention of girls
    and other potential dropouts in school, raising public attitudes toward the future, and even
    improving the investment climate and reducing brain drain.

USAID, at comparatively low levels of direct investment, can have a disproportionate impact on
the sector, by using its sizable influence to leverage other funds. But, it can only do that if it
remains at the table.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  49
DevTech Systems, Inc.



IV.      RECOMMENDATIONS

A.       Recommendations for PEAKS during the Extension Period:

1. Reach strategic consensus that the ultimate goal of the project is to institutionalize it within
   the education systems of the national education systems and then focus sharply during the
   remaining two plus years of the current agreement on strengthening the most critical
   elements for sustainability and replication.

2. Increase AED’s project-specific technical expertise, both in-region and consultants on
   regular visit schedules, in relevant methodologies, materials design, and training.

3. Build stronger links between the project and the education establishments of the three
   countries, especially the local district education departments and their urban counterparts and
   give them a real sense of ownership. There is currently substantial contact and
   communication, but no clear agreement on the DEDs’ role, which needs to be expanded and
   help supported to enable them to perform it.

4. As part of a strategy to give greater involvement and ownership to district (and city and
   town) inspectors and methods staffs in the pilot areas, offer additional training to better equip
   them to provide professional support to the schools and communities.

      A special regional training course should be designed for this purpose, including modules on
      inter-active learning, school management, community mobilization, supervision, monitoring,
      and evaluation. A two-tier approach is suggested, with the first tier being a general survey of
      the curriculum for regional and district directors and education heads, as well as
      methodologists and inspectors. As part of the second tier, the methodologists and inspectors
      would receive in-depth training in the curriculum. Training teams should include senior,
      experienced PDS trainers. If possible, videos illustrating good and bad practices should be
      prepared to be shown in both tiers. Towards the end of tier two, trainees could engage in role
      playing exercises, perhaps in a session again involving their superiors.

5. Give priority attention to building long-term, sustainable support strategies for the trained
   teachers, school directors, and parent and community leaders, through a combination of
   district and PDS mentoring and assistance, and the development of membership associations
   to support their continued professional development and advocate for their interests and
   education reform.

6. Resolve the SbS and RWCT copyright issue to either remove it as a barrier to replication or
   to replace these training modules with new PEAKS modules.

7. Execute the re-designed program for Uzbekistan.

8. Continue the two education finance pilots, according to plan.



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                                  50
DevTech Systems, Inc.



9. Finally, towards the end of the agreement, do an extensive internal evaluation, with the focus
   on identifying and documenting lessons learned and best practices, to lay the basis for
   replication.

B.      Recommendations for the Next Strategy Period, 2007-2011

1. Adoption of a three-part strategy:

     a. A concentrated effort to demonstrate the replicability of the PEAKS integrated school
     development approach in the three countries.

     b. While maintaining a tight focus on basic education, structuring the remainder of the
     education program around addressing critical education reform issues. Included would be
     taking the ongoing educational finance reforms to completion and exploring and moving
     forward, as needed, with other critically needed reforms, for example, internal efficiency
     issues, school governance, pre-service teacher education, the content and methodology of
     selected curriculum reforms, assessment, and building a national constituency for reform .
     Activities would include appropriate packages of policy studies, technical assistance,
     training, and advocacy. The role of the universities and possible university partnerships in
     addressing selected issues should be explored.

     c. The development of strategic relationships between USAID and the World Bank and the
     Asian Development Bank, to maximize the value of USAID’s limited education budget by
     focusing on strengthening the policy and regulatory environment for reform and testing new
     ideas, while looking to the Banks for the major investments.

2. PEAKS Replication Project

During the first year, a cooperative effort would be undertaken in each country, including the
MOE, MOF, PEAKS, USAID, and possibly other donors to design a feasible, affordable,
demand-driven replication model and strategy, based on core elements of the PEAKS
experience. In Tajikistan, AKF/IBET should be invited to participate.

The main drivers of the replication and sustainability effort would be teams seconded from the
stronger PDSs, district offices, and TTIs, where they are active participants in the project
(principally in Uzbekistan). Initial priority would be given to adding school clusters in current
PEAKS districts, neighboring districts, and areas of special interest to USAID.

Beginning in year two, districts, schools, and communities in the replication areas would be
offered a chance to compete for a limited number of replication opportunities. The governments
and the replication beneficiaries would be required to provide cost sharing, as well as meeting
other selection criteria.

USAID would fund the planning phase and provide matching support for an initial replication
phase, estimated at four years. An information and advocacy campaign would accompany the

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                              51
DevTech Systems, Inc.


effort to publicize it and lay the groundwork for obtaining government, other donor and local
sponsor support for subsequent phases, with USAID assistance limited to supporting technical
and quality control and evaluation.

C.     Budget

Three levels of budget are proposed: A recommended base budget and higher and lower
alternatives.

Base Budget: 2007-2011                                                  $(000s)

PEAKS wind down & transition - Year 1                                      750
Replication planning and development of training modules – Year 1          750
Replication project – Phase One (rollout – 40 clusters) years 2-5        8,000
Replication project – Phase Two (evaluation, analysis) year 5              500
Education reform initiatives – Years 1-5                                 4,500
Education reform information and advocacy projects – beginning year 2    2,000
Program management for new activities                                    2,000

                                                         Total          18,500

Alternative Higher Budget

Add teacher education improvement projects – 1 per country               6,000

                                                         Total          24,500

Alternative Lower Budget

Reduce replication target to 30 clusters                                (2,000)
Reduce education reform initiatives                                     (1,500)

                                                         Total          15,000




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan                          52
DevTech Systems, Inc.


 Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming
            Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
                            Contract No. EDH-I-0-03-00002-00

Appendices


A.   RESEARCH PROJECT METHODOLOGY........................................................................2
B.   SAMPLING MATRIX ........................................................................................................4
C.   SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: COUNTRY COMPARISONS ............9
D.   SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: UZBEKISTAN DATA .....................17
E.   SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: TAJIKISTAN DATA........................37
F.   SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: KYRGYZSTAN DATA ...................58
G.   TEACHER BEST PRACTICES DATA ............................................................................79
H.   TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE DATA ............................................................................87
I.   PERSONS CONSULTED .................................................................................................98
J.   DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ........................................................................................121
K.   RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS........................................................................................123
L.   FINAL TEAM SCHEDULE............................................................................................146




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                                            1
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



                          A. RESEARCH PROJECT METHODOLOGY

The evaluators used a ‘best practice’ methodology and a sustainability index linked to the ‘best
practice’ measures. The community ‘best practice’ measures were based on a series of ‘best
practices’ for involving communities in education programs (Rugh and Bossert, 1998), distilled
from the experiences of six USAID sponsored projects worldwide, and adapted and field tested
in a USAID project in Ghana (Boardman, 2000). The ‘best practices’ for school officials and
government education personnel were based on ‘best practices’ measures developed as part of a
USAID project in Ghana (Boardman, 2003) and the ‘best practices’ for teaching and learning
were adapted from a series of ‘best practices’ measures developed as part of a USAID sponsored
project in South Africa (Evans, 1996) and in Ghana (Evans, 2005). These ‘best practice’
measures were then modified by the evaluators (LeBlanc and Boardman), adapted to the context
of the PEAKS project, and re-formatted to be used in a structured interview/focus group setting.
The sustainability index was based on the five effectiveness focus areas of empowerment,
participation, partnerships, transparency/accountability and resource mobilization/ financial as
identified from the USAID literature (Chesterfield, 1998) and adapted to the school/community
education context in Ghana (Boardman, 2000) and in Afghanistan (Boardman, 2004). The use of
a ‘best practice’ approach allowed for a standard measure of effectiveness and sustainability for
each of the schools and provided a base for comparisons both within and between countries.

A teacher questionnaire (developed by Leblanc) was also used, which consisted of seven
questions focusing on teacher satisfaction level with PEAKS in-service training and peer
mentoring relationships, frequency of use of student-centered methodologies, level of
cooperation among teachers, attitude of school director, and frequency of meetings with parents.
One question focusing on rating the usefulness of in-service training materials was discarded.
Teachers completed the questionnaire after the teacher interview anonymously. Other teachers
who had participated in the PEAKS training but were not in the focus group interview also had
an opportunity to complete the questionnaire, to ensure that all teachers felt that they had a
chance to participate in the evaluation. The questions included the same general areas of the
interviews (in-service training, learner-centered methodologies, peer mentoring relationships,
level of cooperation among teachers, attitude of school director, and meetings with parents) in
order to obtain quantitative data to use when rating interview responses. Validity of self-
administered questionnaires asking respondents to rate their level of satisfaction regarding
various situations is usually high; respondents answer anonymously, individually and silently,
and can take their time and reflect on an appropriate answer. Additionally, a student interview
guide adapted to the PEAKS project was developed and utilized.

The school official interviews included the school director and one or more deputies if available.
The education committee/parent interviews included the head and one/two members of the
Community Education Committee (CEC) where the committee existed, a member of the School
Rehabilitation Committee (SRC) or subcommittee, and two or three members and the head of the
Parent Committee (PC). The teacher interviews included a sample of five teachers, if available,
using the active learning methodologies, a classroom observation and teacher observation. If
possible, the teacher questionnaire was administered to ten teachers, including those who
participated in the interview and a few additional teachers who had participated in the active

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                2
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


learning or critical thinking training. The student interviews include a sample of students from
the active learning classes and selected students from the Children’s Club and/or School
Parliament.

Parent empowerment is the ability to act; that is, community members/parents are actively
involved in the school decision-making process, feel confident to act and understand their roles
and responsibilities. Parent participation is volunteering, attendance at meetings, participation in
the identification of needs and concerns, and assisting in school development activities and
action plans. The latter is usually a first step prior to empowerment which results when the
parent understands his/her role and is taking initiating actions either as an individual or as a
member of a committee.

The schools sampled included representation of each of the PDS/cluster models used in the three
countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan and a representation of the corresponding
clusters schools associated with a PDS school. See Appendix B for a copy of the CAR Education
Evaluation School Sampling Matrix and for a copy of the CAR Education Government Sampling
Matrix. Selected members of USAID and other donors were also interviewed. See Appendix J
for a complete list of all of the persons interviewed.

1.     Boardman, G. (2000). Community-School Alliances Project: A Compendium of Project Papers,
       Newton, Massachusetts: USAID Sponsored, Education Development Center, Inc.
2.     Boardman, G. (2004) Literacy and Community Empowerment, Newton, Massachusetts: USAID
       Sponsored, Education Development Center, Inc.
3.     Chesterfield, R. (1998). A System for Monitoring the Sustainability of Girls’ Education
       Initiatives. Washington, DC: USAID Sponsored, Juarez and Associates
4.     Evans, L. (1996). Primary Education Project, Albany, New York: USAID Sponsored, State
       University of New York and Ohio University, Athens, Ohio
5.     Evans, L. (2005). Education Equality for All, Newton, Massachusetts: USAID Sponsored,
       Education Development Center, Inc.
6.     Rugh, A. and Bossert, H. (1998). ABEL Project, Involving Communities in the Delivery of
       Education Programs, Washington, DC: Creative Associates International




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  3
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                      B. SAMPLING MATRIX

Included are the school and the government institution sampling matrices for Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

                                  School Sampling Matrices

                                           Uzbekistan
Date          School     Rural/   School Name      Language Data Collected
Visited       Type       Urban

04 April      PDS +      U        Parvoz           Uzb/Rus     *full school evaluation
2005
15 April      cluster    R        Tashlak #11      Uzb         full school evaluation
2005
14 April      cluster    R        Uchkuprik #8     Uzb         full school evaluation
2005
13 April      PDS +      R        Dangara #12      Uzb         full school evaluation
2005
15 April      cluster    R        Kokand #42       Uzb         full school evaluation
2005
13 April      PDS +      U        Tashkent #145    Uzb/Rus     full school evaluation
2005
10 May        cluster    U        Tashkent #114    Uzb         full school evaluation
2005
11 May        cluster    U        Tashkent #98     Uzb/Rus     full school evaluation
2005
16 April      PDS        U        Almalik #5       Rus         full school evaluation
2005
16 April      PDS        R        Akkurgan #6      Uzb         full school evaluation
2005

* Full school evaluation = school visit which includes interviews with school leaders, teachers,
Community Education Committee (CEC) and School Rehabilitation Committee (SRC)
leaders/members (where such committees exist) parents/parents’ committees, students, members
of Children’s club (if school has a club), completion of Teacher Questionnaire, classroom visits,
and teacher observations.

Language = Language of instruction




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               4
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                           Tajikistan
Date Visited   School      Rural/    School Name    Language Data Collected
               Type        Urban
18 April       PDS +       U        Khujand #9      Taj/Ru/Uz *full school evaluation
2005
18 April       cluster     U        Khujand #15     Taj        interview with school director, SbS
2005                                                           teachers
19 April       cluster     U        Khairakum #14   Taj        full school evaluation
2005
18 April       rural       R        Ganchi #22      Taj        full school evaluation
2005           cluster
18 April       rural       R        Ganchi #29      Taj        interview with school director,
2005           cluster                                         parents, children’s club, student
                                                               interviews, classroom and teacher
                                                               observation
21 April       IBET        R        Rogun #4        Taj        full school interview
2005           core +
21 April       IBET        R        Rogun #3        Taj        interview with school leaders, AL
2005           satellite                                       teachers, parents and CEC
                                                               members
23 April       rural       R        Khoroson #10    Taj/Uz     discussions with teachers, school
2005           cluster                                         leaders, District Education
                                                               Department (DED) rep to CEC,
                                                               classroom evaluation
23 April       rural       R        Khoroson #29    Taj        discussions with teachers, school
2005           cluster                                         leaders, CEC head and DED
                                                               representative, classroom
                                                               evaluation
22 April       PDS +       U        Vahdat #4       Taj        full school evaluation
2005
25 April       cluster     U        Vahdat #140     Taj        full school evaluation
2005
21 April       cluster     R        Kolkhozobod     Taj        full school evaluation
2005                                #50
22 April       PDS         U        Bokhtar #26     Taj/Uz     full school evaluation
2005
24 April       PDS         U        Kolub #2        Taj         full school evaluation
2005


* full school evaluation = school visit which includes interviews with school leaders, teachers,
Community Education Committee (CEC) and School Rehabilitation Committee (SRC)
leaders/members (where such committees exist) parents/parents’ committees, students, members
of Children’s club (if school has a club), completion of Teacher Questionnaire, classroom visits,
and teacher observations.

Language = Language of instruction



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                     5
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                           Kyrgyzstan
Date visited   School        Rural/    School        Language   Data collected
               Type          Urban Name
29 April       traditional   U      Shopokov         Rus        *full school evaluation +
2005           PDS +                Gymnasium # 1               observation
                                                                of RWTC teacher training
29 April       cluster       U      Sokuluk School   Rus        full school evaluation
2005                                #2
30 April       cluster       U      Chui School      Kyrg       full school evaluation
2005                                #78
03 May         Co-PDS        R      Tangatarov #14   Kyrg       full school evaluation
2005           “A”+
 03 May        cluster       R      Lenin School     Rus        full school evaluation
2005
 04 May        Co-PDS        R      School #16       Rus        full school evaluation
2005           “B” +
 04 May        cluster       R      Toktogul #49     Kyrg       teacher interview, parent interview,
2005                                                            school leadership interview
03 May         Potential/    R      Naryn--Ak-       Kyrg       full school evaluation
2005           rural PDS            Muz:
               +                    Boogachi
                                    School
03 May         cluster       R      Koichumanov      Kyrg       full school evaluation
2005
04 May         cluster       R      Kazybek          Rus        full school evaluation
2005
06 May         rural PDS     R      Tadjibaev        Kyrg       full school observation
2005           +
06 May         cluster       R      Toktorov         Kyrg       full school evaluation
2005

* full school evaluation = school visit which includes interviews with school leaders, teachers,
Community Education Committee (CEC) and School Rehabilitation Committee (SRC)
leaders/members (where such committees exist) parents/parents’ committees, students, members
of Children’s club (if school has a club), completion of Teacher Questionnaire, classroom visits,
and teacher observations.

Language = Language of instruction




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                       6
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                            Government Institution Sampling Matrix

                                              Uzbekistan
Date visited    Institution type   Institution name           Data collected
12 April 2005   MOPE               Ministry of Public         Interviews w/deputy and 3dept. heads
                                   Educ.

11 April 2005   Region             Tashkent                   Interview w/director
14 April 2005   Region             Ferghana                   Interview w/director

16 April 2005   District/Fin.Sem. Akkurgan                    Observation of seminar
18 April 2005   District          Uchkuprik                   Interview w/director

12 April 2005   CTTI               Central Tchr.Trng. Inst.   Interview w/director & 2 staff
12 April 2005   RCE                Republic Center for        Interview w/deputy
                                   Educ.
14 April 2004   TTI                Ferghana                   Interview w/director


                                              Tajikistan
Date visited    Institution type   Institution name           Data collected
20 April 2005   MOE                Ministry of Education      Interview w/two deputies

23 April 2005   Region             Kurgan-Tube                Interview w/head & deputy
18 April 2005   Region             Khujand                    Cancelled due to MOE protocol

18 April 2005   District           Ganchi                     Interview w/director
19 April 2005   City educ.dept.    Kairakum                   Interview w/director
21 April 2005   District           Rogun                      Interview w/director
21 April 2005   District           Kolkhozobod                Interview w/director
22 April 2005   District           Shurabad                   Interview w/director
24 April 2005   City educ.dept.    Kulob                      Interview w/director
25 April 2005   City educ.dept.    Vahdat                     Courtesy w/director, mtg. 3 method.
                                                              staff
24 April 2005   CTTI               Central Tchr. Trng.        Interview w/director & staff
                                   Inst.
24 April 2005   TTI                Kulob-Inst. Prof. Dev.     Interview w/director
26April 2005    Ped. Sc. Inst.     Dushanbe                   Interview w/director




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                     7
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                           Kyrgyzstan
Date visited    Institution type   Institution name        Data collected
29 April 2005   MOE                Ministry of Education   Interview w/head Rep. Medical Ped.
                                                           Comm./ex head of school depts./ MOE
30 April 2005   Region             Bishkek                 Interview w/head/educ. dept.
29 April 2005   District           Sopokov                 Interview w/director & deputy
29 April 2005   District           Ak Bashi                Interview w/director
29 April 2005   District           Uzgen                   Interview w/deputy director
29 April 2005   KAE                Kyrgyzstan              Interview w/KAE Pres.
                                   Acad./Educ.
29 April 2005   TTI/IT lab         Bishkek                 Interview w/TTI director & visit IT lab
29 April 2005   TTI                Osh-Inst. Prof. Dev.    Interview w/director & deputy




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                     8
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                C. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: COUNTRY
                                 COMPARISONS

Included are the ‘best practice’ definitions utilized for the evaluation; the country comparison
‘best practice’ and ‘sustainability’ ratings for Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan for the PDS
and Cluster schools; and the IBET Tajikistan ‘best practice’ and ‘sustainability’ ratings.


Best Practice Definition for Empowerment:

School director and other school officials actively work with local leaders, groups and teachers
to improve the teaching and learning process; school officials and teachers are actively involved
in improving their understanding of the teaching and learning process; participate in in-service
training, feel confident to act, and have the skills and commitment to implement the program and
to teach and train others.

Local education committee understands their role and responsibilities and actively works with
the local leaders and groups and school personnel to improve school facilities and the teaching
and learning process; community members are actively involved in the school decision- making
process and feel confident to act; fair representation of women, members have a good
relationship with school authorities and staff; and members participate in in-service activities.

Schools give parents, including women, meaningful roles in the school decision making process
and provide parents with support and information.

School director supports teachers and teachers have regular, relevant and locally-based teacher
training with up-to-date learner centered methodologies and best practices with all teachers in
school benefiting from in-service training.


Best Practice Definition for Participation:

School director/school officials solicit information/input about timely issues from
community/school leaders and other relevant government bodies; use participatory planning to
make a plan/document, able to formulate and communicate a school position, plans and
conducts meetings with agendas, keeps records, takes actions based on consensus, and is guided
by democratic principles.

Local education committee meets frequently, has an agenda, keeps records, makes and
implements meaningful decisions using participation management; uses participatory methods in
identifying school needs and in initiating actions to address school concerns; has an action plan;
consults with stakeholder groups on a regular basis, and invites the active participation of
stakeholders in meetings.

Family members supervise and assist their children at home with homework assignments and
other school-related needs and activities and encourage school attendance and learning.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                9
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Teachers actively participate in the use of the new, student-centered methodologies with the full
support and encouragement of the director.


Best Practice Definition for Networking/Partnerships:

School director is an initiator and advocator of quality education and forms
networks/partnerships with other groups, schools and education bodies in support of education
activities.

Local education committee develops productive links with school, other communities, external
agencies, and district education authorities to the benefit of their school.

Parents and community members work together towards the improvement of the school; school
dialogs with parents about the value of education and helps families and community groups to
provide services to the community.

Teachers have regular meetings with colleagues and school administration to work together to
create positive learning environments; build solid relations with parents and community
education committee; and have the opportunity to share ideas and discuss progress with
colleagues in nearby schools.


Best Practice Definition for Accountability/Transparency:

Processes and strategies are implemented to provide performance monitoring and evaluation of
learning improvement programs, learning results are documented, reports provided, and
information disseminated and utilized in follow-on decision process.

Project updates and reports of fund raising and expenditures are made at the education
meetings and shared with the stakeholders; stakeholders actively participate and express their
views; teachers assess school performance on a continual basis and share reports; parents
supervise student and teacher attendance, and teachers enforce good discipline.

Parents show an active interest in the school and request updates on children’s performance.
Parents and teachers have cordial relationships and interact frequently, both inside and outside
the school setting.

Teachers talk to community members and parents of their students about progress.


Best Practice Definition for Mobilizing Resources:

Processes and strategies are implemented in providing a sound financial system and a
transparent process for delivery of the education program.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              10
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Local education committee identifies school needs and mobilizes local and district resources
(human, material, financial) to meet these needs; takes initiative to maintain and improve school
through self-help projects; raises funds for further development of school, organizes unskilled
labor, and makes appeals to individuals, agencies and organizations for donations/assistance.

Parents volunteer, provide unskilled labor, logistical support, cash, and materials to help meet
the needs and functions of the school.

                       Comparison of Best Practice Ratings – PDS Schools

Empowerment – PDS ratings
         Country            Number       Number      High +    High     Moderate      Low
                           of Schools   of Groups   80-100%   60-80%    40-60%       0-40%

    Uzbekistan                 5              17     53%       47%         0%          0%
    Tajikistan                 4              14     14%       50%        36%          0%
    Kyrgyzstan*                5              17     35%       41%        23%          0%

*1 traditional PDS + 2 Co-PDS + 2 Rural PDS

Participation – PDS ratings
         Country            Number       Number      High +    High     Moderate      Low
                           of Schools   of Groups   80-100%   60-80%    40-60%       0-40%

    Uzbekistan                 5              17     53%       35%        12%          0%
    Tajikistan                 4              14     21%       64%        14%          0%
    Kyrgyzstan*                5              17     35%       29%        35%          0%


Networking/Partnerships– PDS ratings
         Country            Number       Number      High +    High     Moderate      Low
                           of Schools   of Groups   80-100%   60-80%    40-60%       0-40%

    Uzbekistan                 5              17     53%       47%         0%          0%
    Tajikistan                 4              14     36%       21%        42%          0%
    Kyrgyzstan*                5              17     41%       47%        12%          0%


Accountability/Transparency– PDS ratings
         Country            Number       Number      High +    High     Moderate      Low
                           of Schools   of Groups   80-100%   60-80%    40-60%       0-40%

    Uzbekistan                 5              17     41%       41%        12%          6%
    Tajikistan                 4              14     36%       50%        14%          0%
    Kyrgyzstan*                5              17     18%       41%        35%          6%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              11
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Mobilize Resources– PDS ratings
           Country              Number         Number         High +          High    Moderate    Low
                               of Schools     of Groups      80-100%         60-80%   40-60%     0-40%

    Uzbekistan                      5             12            33%            33%      33%       0%
    Tajikistan                      4             10            20%            70%      10%       0%
    Kyrgyzstan*                     5             12            33%            17%      50%       0%




                         Comparison of Best Practice Ratings –Cluster Schools

Empowerment – Cluster ratings
           Country              Number         Number         High +          High    Moderate    Low
                               of Schools     of Groups      80-100%         60-80%   40-60%     0-40%

    Uzbekistan                      5             17            35%            41%      24%       0%
    Tajikistan*                     7             21            5%             29%      19%      47%
    Kyrgyzstan**                    7             22            9%             23%      59%       9%

*4 traditional clusters, 3 rural clusters (total schools – 7)
**2 traditional clusters, 2 Co-PDS clusters, 3 rural clusters (total schools - 7)

Participation – Cluster ratings
           Country              Number         Number         High +          High    Moderate    Low
                               of Schools     of Groups      80-100%         60-80%   40-60%     0-40%

    Uzbekistan                      5             17            41%            35%      24%       0%
    Tajikistan                      7             21            14%            24%      19%      43%
    Kyrgyzstan                      7             21            14%            19%      52%      14%


Networking/Partnerships– Cluster ratings
           Country              Number         Number         High +          High    Moderate    Low
                               of Schools     of Groups      80-100%         60-80%   40-60%     0-40%

    Uzbekistan                      5             17            45%            9%       27%      18%
    Tajikistan                      7             20            25%            20%      25%      30%
    Kyrgyzstan                      7             22            23%            32%      32%      14%


Accountability/Transparency– Cluster ratings
           Country              Number         Number         High +          High    Moderate    Low
                               of Schools     of Groups      80-100%         60-80%   40-60%     0-40%

    Uzbekistan                      5             17            29%            35%      23%      12%
    Tajikistan                      7             21            9%             19%      29%      43%
    Kyrgyzstan                      7             21            9%             19%      29%      43%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                         12
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Mobilize Resources– Cluster ratings
          Country           Number       Number         High +           High        Moderate      Low
                           of Schools   of Groups      80-100%          60-80%       40-60%       0-40%

   Uzbekistan                  5           17             33%            25%           33%          8%
   Tajikistan                  7           15             13%            7%            33%         47%
   Kyrgyzstan                  7           14             14%            29%           21%         36%




Comparison of Sustainability Ratings – PDS Schools

Uzbekistan – Sustainability ratings*
   School       Overall    Empowerment    Participation    Networking/         Accountability/   Mobilize
                Rating                                     Partnerships        Transparency      Resources
 Parvoz          High          high             high           high                 high           high

 Dangara        Mod.           high             mod.             high               mod.           mod.
 #12            /High
 Tashkent       High           high             high             high               high           high
 #145
 Almalik         High          high             high             high               high           mod.
  #5
 Akkurgan        High          high             high             high               high           high
 #6

Tajikistan – Sustainability ratings
   School       Overall    Empowerment    Participation    Networking/         Accountability/   Mobilize
                Rating                                     Partnerships        Transparency      Resources
 Khujand #9      Mod.          mod.             high           mod.                mod.            high
                 /High
 Vahdat #4       High          high             high            mod.                high           high

 Bokhtar        Mod.           mod.             mod.            mod.                high           mod.
 #26            /High
 Kolub #2       Mod.           mod.             mod.            mod.                mod.           high
                /High

Kyrgyzstan – Sustainability ratings
    School      Overall    Empowerment    Participation     Networking/        Accountability/   Mobilize
                Rating                                      Partnerships       Transparency      Resources
 Shopokov        High          high             high            high                high           high
 Gym #1
 Boogachi           High       high             high             high               high           high
 (rural)
 Tangatarova        Mod.       mod.             mod.             mod.                low           mod.
 #14 (co)
 Osh Town        Mod.          mod.             mod.             high               mod.           mod.
 #16 (co)        /High
 Tadjibaev       Mod.          high             mod.             high               mod.           mod.
 (rural)         /High



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                             13
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

*High rating - current practice of 60-100%; Moderate rating - current practice of 40-60%; Low rating – current
practice of 0-40%; Overall rating: high - majority of the ratings at the high plus (above 80%) or high (60-80%)
level; moderate to high - majority of the ratings at the moderate level (40-60%) and the remaining ratings at the high
or high plus level; moderate - majority of the ratings at the moderate level and a mix on the other categories; low -
majority of the ratings at the low level (under 40%).


Comparison of Sustainability Ratings – Cluster Schools

Uzbekistan – Sustainability ratings
    School       Overall    Empowerment        Participation    Networking/     Accountability/       Mobilize
                 Rating                                         Partnerships    Transparency          Resources
 Tashlak #11      Low             mod.             mod.             low              low                 low

 Uchkuprik         High           mod.              high             high             high               high
 #8
 Kokand #42        Mod.           mod.             mod.             mod.              mod.               mod.

 Tashkent          High           mod.              high             high             high               high
 #114
 Tashkent          High           high              high             high             high               high
 #98

Tajikistan – Sustainability ratings
     School       Overall    Empowerment        Participation    Networking/      Accountability/      Mobilize
                  Rating                                         Partnerships     Transparency         Resources
 Khujand #15       Low             low               low            mod.               low               mod.

 Khairakum          Low            low               low              low               low               low
 #14
 Ganchi #22         Mod.           mod.             mod.              high             mod.               high
 (rural)            /High
 Ganchi #29          Low           low               low              low               low               low
 (rural)
 Khoroson 10        Low            low               low              low               low               low
 /29 (rural)
 Vahdat #140        High           high              high             high              high              mod.

 Kolkhozobod        Low            low               low              low               low               low
 #50




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                                   14
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Kyrgyzstan – Sustainability ratings
    School          Overall    Empowerment     Participation   Networking/     Accountability/   Mobilize
                    Rating                                     Partnerships    Transparency      Resources
 Sokuluk #2          Mod.           mod.           mod.            high             low             low

 Chui #78             High          high           high             high            high           high

 Koychumanov          Mod.          mod.           mod.             mod.            low            low

 Kazybek              Low           low            low              mod.            low            low

 Lenin                Mod.          mod.           mod.             low             low            mod.

 Toktogul #49         Low           mod.           mod.             low             low             --

 Toktorov             Low           low            low              mod.            low            mod.




Comparison of Best Practice and Sustainability Ratings –IBET Schools/Tajikistan

Empowerment - Core & Satellite ratings*
         Tajikistan            Number       Number         High +      High        Moderate       Low
                              of Schools   of Groups      80-100%     60-80%       40-60%        0-40%
   IBET Core                       1           3            33%         67%          0%            0%
   IBET Satellite                  1           3            33%         67%          0%            0%


Participation – Core & Satellite ratings
         Tajikistan            Number       Number         High +      High        Moderate       Low
                              of Schools   of Groups      80-100%     60-80%       40-60%        0-40%
   IBET Core                       1           3            33%         67%
   IBET Satellite                  1           3           100%


Networking/Partnerships– Core & Satellite ratings
         Tajikistan            Number       Number         High +      High        Moderate       Low
                              of Schools   of Groups      80-100%     60-80%       40-60%        0-40%
   IBET Core                       1           3            67%         0%          33%            0%
   IBET Satellite                  1           3            67%         33%          0%            0%


Accountability/Transparency– Core & Satellite ratings
         Tajikistan            Number       Number         High +      High        Moderate       Low
                              of Schools   of Groups      80-100%     60-80%       40-60%        0-40%
   IBET Core                       1           3             0%        100%          0%            0%
   IBET Satellite                  1           3            33%         67%          0%            0%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                             15
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Mobilizing Resources– Core & Satellite ratings
         Tajikistan           Number         Number         High +         High        Moderate          Low
                             of Schools     of Groups      80-100%        60-80%       40-60%           0-40%
    IBET Core                     1             2            50%            0%          50%               0%
    IBET Satellite                1             2           100%            0%           0%               0%


Sustainability*– Core & Satellite ratings
    School     Overall     Empowerment         Participation      Networking/      Accountability/     Mobilizi
               Rating                                             Partnership      Transparency           ng
                                                                                                       Resource
                                                                                                           s
    IBET        High             high               high              mod.               high            mod.
    Core
    IBET        High             high               high              high               high             high
    Satellit
    e

*High rating - current practice of 60-100%; Moderate rating - current practice of 40-60%; Low rating – current
practice of 0-40%; Overall rating: high - majority of the ratings at the high plus (above 80%) or high (60-80%) level;
moderate to high - majority of the ratings at the moderate level (40-60%) and the remaining ratings at the high or
high plus level; moderate - majority of the ratings at the moderate level and a mix on the other categories; low -
majority of the ratings at the low level (under 40%).




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                                  16
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


           D. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: UZBEKISTAN DATA

Included are some overall notes followed by specific information on each of ‘best practice’
effectiveness measures and some general comments related to the District and TTI.

The set of schools selected for implementation of the USAID/PEAKS basic education active
learning program in Uzbekistan were identified based on criteria which included a strong
commitment to education, sufficient resources, and an interest in being an exemplary or model
school. In each case the OSI staff interviewed the school officials and teachers prior to final
selection for implementation of the Step by Step program and/or RWCT (reading and
writing/critical thinking) methodology. All were large schools located in urban or peri-urban
areas except Dangara #12, which is classified as a rural school.

Since the schools were already leaders in the field of education, they were unique and replication
to other schools without similar resources and a commitment to education will be difficult. The
PEAKS schools in Uzbekistan will provide excellent lab schools or model schools for observing
and training in the use of the proper implementation of the Step by Step and Reading and
Writing Critical Thinking active learning techniques and can serve as a model for any
neighboring cluster schools with a similar commitment and resources, especially if the local
government education officials are supportive.

       Sample Evaluation Schools    grade   # of     men     women      # of     boys     girls
             for Uzbekistan         level   staff                      pupils
   1. Parvoz        (PDS)            1-11    60       10       50       874       541     333
   2. Tashlak #11     (cluster)      1-11    67       12       55       907       427     480
   3. Uchkuprik #8    (cluster)      1-11    100      23       77       1490      826     664
   4. Dangara #12 (PDS)              1-11    73       13       60       1286      610     676
   5. Kokand #42      (cluster)      1-9     58       7        51       860       388     472
   6. Tashkent #145 (PDS)            1-11    64       6        58       1538      721     817
   7. Tashkent #114 (cluster)        1-9     79       3        76       1673      801     872
   8. Tashkent #98    (cluster)      1-11    54       5        49       1115      569     546
   9. Almalik #5    (PDS)            1-11    35       1        34       860       367     493
   10.Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)             1-9     68       10       58       1406      750     656

   Average – school size                     66       9        57       1201      600     601


The Uzbekistan evaluation sample contained 10 schools, five traditional PDS schools and five
cluster schools. The cluster schools were associated with the PDS schools as noted in the table
above. The schools contained an average of 1200 students with almost an equal distribution of
boys and girls. Over 80% of the teachers were women. Twenty five school officials and 46
education committee members and/or parents were interviewed from the 10 schools.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  17
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


General Notes

School Leadership/Training
Most of the school directors along with a deputy had attended one or more orientations and
trainings in (SbS, RWCT, IE, SI and PEAKS) and some had attended all of the trainings and
were now including more of their deputies; orientations were being provided through meetings in
Tashkent or at the District; attendance at workshops on rehabilitation has been good; financial
meetings at District were good; there was need for more teachers to attend the trainings - many
of the directors are encouraging other teachers to observe the active learning classes and attend
the open sessions; seminars are held during breaks and most teachers are participating; some of
the teachers had participated in the SbS program before PEAKS and PEAKS is providing value
added; sharing in open workshops is held through the District and at different schools, which has
been helpful; when PDS and cluster schools are close, and more sharing of experiences is
possible. One school had hired a SbS trainer from another school, which facilitated its
implementation greatly.

School Attendance
Very high – no unusual absences or problems; new methods have effected attendance; parents
are warned and paid a visit on attendance issues; attendance is improved and is now at 97-98%
attendance; previously students were going into the markets during market day and this has been
corrected – local neighborhood committee helped solved this problem by talking with the parents
of the non-attending students.

Main Issues
Need for extension of SbS methods into upper grades; need for more infrastructure/ building
repairs - roofing problem/leakage; some non-performing students – need to approach students
doing poorly and try to help; need to provide more assistance for disabled children; need to
improve the quality of teachers and of teaching; and equipment needs - would like to have a
resource center with computers.

Education Committees/Training
Usually CEC has 9-12 members and is elected; typically more males on the committee because
handled through elections; PTA can be large with up to 30-40 members, mostly women, usually
meets every quarter but some meet monthly and more often as needed – sometimes overall PTA
group with representatives from each class and sometimes class PTAs corresponding to the
students in class; some PTAs have open membership to all parents at every meeting; there is an
overlap of CEC and PTA committees and a need for a clearer definition of roles and
responsibilities; also some schools have community support groups with different titles, which
essentially are PTAs with some added community representation.

Training is through workshops, visiting of classes and from the meetings; drama is used to
illustrate issues and provide an orientation – it has been well received; in a few schools the
school director and/or deputy is mentoring the PTA and/or CEC head – this is good but in other
cases where the director or deputy heads up the CEC this slows the empowerment of the
community in their leadership development; in several schools the PC functions like a CEC with
an infrastructure subcommittee.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              18
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Recent Items & Actions
Attendance related issues; infrastructure/school repairs; fundraising, meeting the needs of
disabled or special needs children; school activities and field trips; training of parents in Latin
script; quality of teachers and quality of teaching; professional development of teachers; setting
up a canteen; promotion of students; non-budget financial expenditure reviews; scheduling of
parents at school.

Action Plan
Yes, always existed and many times posted, committee always happy to show the action plan
along with the mapping of community attendance area; evaluator always reviewed a couple of
the actions and related activities to cross-validate with what the director was saying and found
they were in agreement with the director.

Interaction with the School
Increased interest and involvement by parents – thanks to community mobilization efforts;
increased enhancement of interest of students and quality of education; parents are assisting with
classes, attendance problems, and helping to raise funds for school activities; occasionally
responding to a special needs child – e.g., a disabled child is being taught in the house – parents
had observed this elsewhere and initiate an action to do this in their school along with providing
clothes, books and materials for the child; good relationship between CEC and local
neighborhood committee.

General Comments and Suggestions
Much effort is needed by teachers and students to implement the program – not for everyone;
good to have kindergarten program to get children ready; need for more parent involvement in
material development & involvement of community as resource persons; sharing teacher
experience between neighborhood schools is good; teachers love the program; city education
department is providing some supervision but mostly just participating; school friends are
assisting a disabled child with clothes, tutoring, and socialization - nice to see this; student views
are changing; there is more involvement of parents; mutual relationship of parents/teachers and
sharing in decision-making has been good; local neighborhood committee has been active in
school issues, Children’s Club is active – a youth group bought 2 globes and microscope for
school; many positive comments related to Ziyo’s work - Ziyo has been working closely with
school leaders and District.


Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level -- Empowerment

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of empowerment-related ‘best practice’ activities in Uzbekistan. The
rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                   19
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      Uzbekistan School, Type &    Respondents    High +    High    Moderate    Low
          Responding Group          per group    80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
   1. Parvoz         (PDS)
      school leaders                    3          X
      PC/parents                        5                    X
      teachers                          5                    X
   2. Tashlak #11      (cluster)
      school leaders                    2                    X
      CEC/SRC                           6                    X
      teachers                          5                              X
   3. Uchkuprik #8     (cluster)
      school leaders                    3          X
      CEC/SRC                           2          X
      PC/parents                        5          X
      teachers                         10                              X

   4. Dangara #12 (PDS)
      school leaders                    3                    X
      CEC/SRC                           2                    X
      PC/parents                        2                    X
      teachers                          5          X
   5. Kokand #42     (cluster)
      school leaders                    3                              X
      CEC/SRC                           2                    X
      PC/parents                        5                    X
      teachers                          8                    X

   6. Tashkent #145 (PDS)
      school leaders                    2          X
      PC/parents                        4          X
      teachers                          9          X
   7. Tashkent #114 (cluster)
      school leaders                    4          X
      PC/parents                        3                    X
       teachers                         8                              X
   8. Tashkent #98   (cluster)
      school leaders                    2          X
      PC/parents                        5          X
      teachers                         10                    X

   9. Almalik #5     (PDS)
      school leaders                    1                    X
      PC/parents                        5                    X
      teachers                          8          X
   10. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)
      school leaders                    2          X
      CEC/SRC                           2          X
      PC/parents                        3          X
      teachers                         10                    X

   Average for PDS schools         Groups=17      53%       47%       0%        0%
   Average for Cluster schools     Groups=17      35%       41%       24%       0%

   Average for All schools         Groups=34      44%       44%       12%       0%

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming       20
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Findings

Eighty eight percent of the school officials, education committee members/parents, and teachers
were implementing ‘best practice’ behaviors related to empowerment 60% or more of the time.
The PDS schools were higher in empowerment than their cluster schools, 100% of the PDS
schools were above the 60% level in empowerment while 76% of the cluster schools were at this
level. In two of the five cluster schools the school leader needs to encourage more involvement
of teachers in in-service activities and the community/parent component needs strengthening.

The school leaders were strong in all of the PDS schools although in three of five PDS schools,
additional work could be done to develop and/or strengthen the CEC. All had active Parent
Committees and one (Tashkent #114) had a Public Council.

General Discussion

In general, it was found that education meetings were usually held about once per month, more
often if needed. The committees ranged from six to 14 active members although some parent
committees included an open membership and would have up to 30-40 parents attending on a
regular basis. Typically the school officials had participated in the school improvement/financial
management and leadership training as well as the Step by Step modules and a sample of 5-25
teachers had completed the Step by Step modules. Most members of the education committees as
well as parents had either attended an active learning awareness training session and/or visited an
active learning classroom. All, at least, had an awareness of the active learning strategies and
most had detailed knowledge of the methods being used and were directly involved in the
various program activities. All of the schools had action plans and a mapping of the community
attendance area. About half had these items publicly displayed on a wall in the school. All of the
education committees asked could produce minutes of their meetings and were able to identify
the issues discussed at their last meeting along with actions taken. Common issues recently
discussed were: attendance, fund raising for infrastructure/ building repairs such as roof leaks
and heaters, school uniform, providing an education for special students, equipment
needs/computers & materials/space for a resource center, education quality/teaching and
learning, and awards/promotions/school performance.

All were positive about the active learning program and indicated that attendance was better;
enrolment up; children, teachers and parents were happy with the new program; interest in
school had improved; student behavior was better; and student, teacher and parent attitudes
toward education were increasingly more positive. The whole community was taking an interest
and starting to get involved.

The most common question was related to a need for continuation of the active learning in the
upper grades and for the need for inclusion of some vocational courses in the 9-11 classes. There
is a need for more training for parents/orientation to new teaching methods and a need for more
training for Council members – suggested that more training in the content of the new methods
and better information on other project components would help parents/Council members do a
better job in working with the school and helping their children; non-traditional meeting held for

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                21
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


first time; more parents are now monitoring homework and interacting with the children at home
on education matters; summer camps would be good; English language training is desired; and
upper grade parents want the same program as first grade.

Some suggestions are as follows: school director and parents need to provide on-going support
for the teachers using the new methodologies; every effort needs to be made by the director to
include the upper level teachers in the active learning awareness sessions to prepare for
cmntinuity and follow-through in the upper grades; school officials need to contilue to make
every effort to involve the government education officials in awareness activities as the support
of the government is a necessity for a sustainable program; empowerment of the whole school
community is the goal (teachers, parents, school officials, and students) - all are equal
stakeholders in the process and all must be empowered if the active learning model is going to
succeed; and a community leader needs to head the CEC and Parent Committee if the
community is to assume ownership.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

Schoml director regularly visits classes, supports teachers, works to create awareness and
training opportunities for both teachers and parents, maintains an open-door policy where
teachers and parents can visit anytime, encourages non-trained teachers to observe and try some
of the active learning techniques, supports both intra and inter-school mentoring, holds open
seminars where parents and teachers may attend, and mentors Parent and/or CEC/SRC
Committee heads.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Members are encouraged to visit classes and attend awareness sessions, use drama to present
issues to education committee, inclusive representation on the committees – men and women,
and school officials/teachers are advisory only. Parents express need for more training in the
content of the new methods, which will help them do an even better job in working with the
school and helping their child. Parents state it is absolutely essential that all parents be involved
with the school as community support is the driving force that will motivate the school. Parents
show support for the teachers and support for the Children’s Club and youth civil government
groups.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers observe each other, use mentoring and peer coaching, are supported and facilitated by
director as learning the new methodologies takes time and effort, attend trainings and awareness
sessions, work as a team, try the new methodology techniques whether selected for training or
not, develop a positive working relationship with parents.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  22
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Participation

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of participation-related ‘best practice’ activities in Uzbekistan. The
rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

      Uzbekistan School, Type &     Respondents    High +    High       Moderate      Low
          Responding Group           per group    80-100%   60-80%      40-60%       0-40%
   1. Parvoz         (PDS)
      school leaders                     3                     X
      PC/parents                         5                     X
      teachers                           5          X
   2. Tashlak #11       (cluster)
      school leaders                     2                                 X
      CEC/SRC                            6                                 X
      teachers                           5                                 X
   3. Uchkuprik #8      (cluster)
      school leaders                     3                     X
      CEC/SRC                            2          X
      PC/parents                         5          X
      teachers                          10                     X

   4. Dangara #12 (PDS)
      school leaders                     3                                 X
      CEC/SRC                            2                     X
      PC/parents                         2                                 X
      teachers                           5          X
   5. Kokand #42     (cluster)
      school leaders                     3                                 X
      CEC/SRC                            2                     X
      PC/parents                         5                     X
      teachers                           8          X

   6. Tashkent #145    (PDS)
      school leaders                     2          X
      PC/parents                         4          X
      teachers                           9          X
   7. Tashkent #114     (cluster)
      school leaders                     4          X
      PC/parents                         3                     X
      teachers                           8          X
   8. Tashkent #98      (cluster)
      school leaders                     2          X
      PC/parents                         5                     X
      teachers                          10          X

   9. Almalik #5     (PDS)
      school leaders                     1                     X
      PC/parents                         5                     X
      teachers                           8          X
   10. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)
      school leaders                     2          X
      CEC/SRC                            2          X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              23
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      PC/parents                         3            X
      teachers                          10                        X

   Average for PDS schools          Groups=17        53%         35%          12%          0%
   Average for Cluster schools      Groups=17        41%         35%          24%          0%

   Average for All schools          Groups=34        47%         35%          18%          0%

Findings

Using the traditional PDS/Cluster model for implementation of the PDS/SbS and RWCT
methodologies for the evaluation schools selected in Uzbekistan, the school director, teachers
and local education committees/parents have been encouraged to be active participants in the
education process. Overall, 82% of the school officials, education committee members/parents
and teachers were implementing ‘best practice’ behaviors related to participation 60% or more of
the time. The PDS schools were higher in participation than their cluster schools, 88% of the
PDS schools were above the 60% level in participation while 76% of the cluster schools were at
this level. Two of the five cluster school stakeholder groups could still use additional work on
participation activities to reach a more sustainable level, in particular the school leaders and
parents. Teachers seem to be more active but need support from the school leaders and parents.

General Discussion

Active and positive participation by all stakeholders (community, school leader, teachers and
students) is one of the first steps in improving the school learning environment. Full participation
will lead to increased understanding, trust, commitment, and ownership. New leaders and
support players will emerge helping to build a unified team with a vision and purpose for the
school. All stakeholders need to participate in in-school activities, after-school activities, as well
as community mobilization projects.

The use of community drama has been an effective technique for presenting school issues in a
non-confrontation way and to draw an interest to the issue. Community mobilizations have been
very effective and have resulted in community-wide school-improvement plans. An active
school-wide parent committee and/or an active community education committee have been most
helpful although additional training and mentoring is needed in order to further activate these
committees. Initially, it is recommended to choose one or two manageable and visible issues and
try for an early success. Success breeds success. The more difficult issues can be tackled later
once the systems are in place. Keep the student in mind as the various activities, projects and/or
programs are discussed. Always ask what the impact or benefit will be to the student.

 All stakeholders (community/parents, school leaders, teachers and students) plus the
government education officials, including directors and key staff, such as the methodologist, at
the District, TTI faculty, and officials from the Region and Ministry of Education including the
Minister, Central TTI and Republic textbook/material development center need to participate and
support, at least at an awareness level if not a working level, the active learning methodologies
for the model to be replicable and sustainable. All need to participate in the awareness-level
activities.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                   24
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Refresher activities, including open door classes, workshops, and other awareness seminars need
to be an on-going and an integral part of the active learning program, especially at the cluster
level, as there was about a 15% reduction in the participation level from the PDS to the cluster
schools as the result of the cascade model.

The Step by Step program emphasizes two key teachers to be trained, next four and then eight as
the program is implemented. This seems to work in the larger/urban school where there are more
teachers but in the smaller/rural school all teachers need to participate in the program as soon as
possible for team unity or a status division will develop impeding implementation.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School director consults with stakeholder groups, holds open forums, assists local education
committee in preparing and implementing an action plan, provides progress reports, holds
regular staff meetings, includes teacher input in school decisions, works with Council of
Teachers, and supports inclusiveness on committees.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Parents encourage school attendance, monitor homework, provide study space for student,
observe classes, volunteer/provide support to teachers, actively participate in school committees,
assist in helping in attendance issues related to low-income families, participate in awareness
workshops, and engage teacher and school director in discussions related to school
improvements.

Best Practice Illustration: Teachers

Teachers participate in new methodology trainings and awareness workshops, have good
relations with parents, engage parents in discussions related to school improvement, work as a
team, have a good relationship with the director, and assist in after school activities.


Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level – Networking/ Partnerships

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of networking/partnerships-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Uzbekistan. The rating was done by the evaluator using a focus group/

      Uzbekistan School, Type &    Respondents    High +       High      Moderate       Low
          Responding Group          per group    80-100%      60-80%     40-60%        0-40%
   1. Parvoz         (PDS)
      school leaders                    3                        X
      PC/parents                        5                        X
      teachers                          5            X
   2. Tashlak #11      (cluster)
      school leaders                    2                                                X
      CEC/SRC                           6                                    X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                25
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      teachers                          8                                        X
   3. Uchkuprik #8      (cluster)
      school leaders                    3       X
      CEC/SRC                           2       X
      PC/parents                        5       X
      teachers                          5       X

   4. Dangara #12 (PDS)
      school leaders                    3                  X
      CEC/SRC                           2                  X
      PC/parents                        2                  X
      teachers                          6       X
   5. Kokand #42     (cluster)
      school leaders                    3                             X
      CEC/SRC                           2                             X
      PC/parents                        5                  X
      teachers                          5       X

   6. Tashkent #145    (PDS)
      school leaders                    2       X
      PC/parents                        4                  X
      teachers                          7       X
   7.Tashkent #114      (cluster)       4
      school leaders                    3       X
      PC/parents                                X
      teachers                                  X
   8. Tashkent #98     (cluster)
      school leaders                    2       X
      PC/parents                        5       X
      teachers                                             X

   9. Almalik #5     (PDS)
      school leaders                    1                  X
      PC/parents                        5                  X
      teachers                          9       X
   10. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)
      school leaders                    2       X
      CEC/SRC                           2       X
      PC/parents                        3       X
      teachers                          5       X

   Average for PDS schools          Groups=17   53%      47%          0%         0%
   Average for Cluster schools      Groups=17   58%      12%         18%        12%

   Average for All schools          Groups=34   56%      29%         9%         6%



Findings

Using the PDS/Cluster school model for implementation of the PDS/SbS and/or RCT model for
the schools selected in Uzbekistan, the school director, teachers and local education
committees/parents are forming partnerships and showing networking behaviors. Overall, 85%

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming       26
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


of the school officials, education committee members/parents, and teachers are implementing
‘best practice’ behaviors related to networking/ partnerships 60% or more of the time. The PDS
schools were higher in networking/ partnerships than their cluster schools, 100% of the PDS
schools were above the 60% level in networking/ partnerships while 70% of the cluster schools
were at this level. Two out of five of the cluster schools still need to work on
networking/partnerships activities to reach a sustainable level.

General Discussion

A mechanism needs to be initiated for the cluster-level community stakeholders to link with the
PDS community stakeholders either through an open seminar or informal relationships if the
communities are close enough together. A district level advocacy association may be a
possibility. The community stakeholders are interested and want to be involved; thus, more
mechanisms for linkages need to be developed both between the school and the community as
well as between the PDS and cluster communities. Many of the parents have a basic
understanding of the new methodologies but more awareness opportunities for parent and
community stakeholders should be developed; e.g. involve parents in development of local
materials supporting the new methodologies, use community people as resource persons in the
classroom, all PC and CEC members need to visit the active learning classroom.

Only in Tashkent #145 are the PDS staff visiting their cluster schools and providing mentoring;
thus, the cluster schools needs to create opportunities for their staff to visit the PDS more. The
linkage needs to be initiated by the cluster school as most PDS schools are also serving as a
model or lab school for a wider range of schools than just the cluster school.

The PDS schools need to be the link to the District/district/city education (DED) office and
initiate district-level linkages and seminars to draw more schools outside the cluster schools into
the active learning methodologies. The District can help in doing this but first must be provided
with additional awareness opportunities, which the PDS can help do. For sustainability purposes,
it is absolutely essential that the District/district/city education department director understand
the new methodologies and take a proactive position related to the new methodologies. It is
especially important that the district-level methodologists are brought on board.

Lastly, a linkage to the Teacher Training Institutes needs to be established – again this might be
done by the PDS in collaboration with the city/district education departments. The linkage with
existing government education institutions has been a weakness of the PDS/SbS model and more
should be done here.

Some suggestions are as follows: more linkages between the PDS and the cluster schools –
possibly, this can be done by choosing a network of schools that are closer together so school
and community linkages can be established more easily; more involvement of parents in the
school (both in-school and out-of-school activities) through open-door policy, involvement in
student activities, volunteering to help in the classroom, assistance in material development, and
availability as class resource persons; more networking by school officials, teachers and the local
education committee with the local neighborhood committee and other local groups with an
interest in education is important as a holistic approach to education is the goal (teachers,

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                27
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


community/parents, school officials, and students); increased effort by school officials to involve
the government education officials in awareness activities aq the involvement and support of the
government education institutions is needed if the program is going to sustain; greater
involvement of the district/city education department director and the methodologists; and a
stronger linkage to the Teacher Training Institutes needs to be established especially by the PDS,
possibly in joint collaboration with the DED.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School director facilitates sharing through open seminars, discussion sessions, class visits,
newsletters, etc. within and between schools and at the district/city education office and at
director meetings and through collaborative involvement by the director and staff members in
training and seminar/workqhop opportunities in the area.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Parents and community stakeholders need to encourage other parents and community members,
whether they have a child in the school or not, to visit the school and get involved in school-
related activities and network and share experiences with community members in other
communities utilizing the active learning methodologies.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teacher employs an open door policy along with involvement in school-level, PDS-related, and
district/city-level active learning events.


Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level – Accountability/ Transparency

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of accountability/transparency-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Uzbekistan. The rating was done using a focus group/ structured interview.

      Uzbekistan School, Type &    respondents    High +       High      Moderate       Low
          Responding Group          per group    80-100%      60-80%     40-60%        0-40%
   1. Parvoz         (PDS)
      school leaders                    3                       X
      PC/parents                        5                       X
      teachers                          5                       X
   2. Tashlak #11    (cluster)
      school leaders                    2                                                X
      CEC/SRC                           6                                                X
      teachers                          5                                    X
   3. Uchkuprik #8 (cluster)
      school leaders                     3                      X
      CEC/SRC                            2                      X
      PC/parents                         5          X
      teachers                          10                                   X


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                28
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

   4. Dangara #12 (PDS)
      school leaders                   3                                                X
      CEC/SRC                          2                                    X
      PC/parents                       2                                    X
      teachers                         5            X
   5. Kokand #42     (cluster)
      school leaders                   3                                    X
      CEC/SRC                          2                                    X
      PC/parents                       5                                    X
      teachers                         8            X

   6. Tashkent #145 (PDS)
      school leaders                   2            X
      PC/parents                       4            X
      Teachers                         9                        X
   7. Tashkent #114 (cluster)
      school leaders                   4                        X
      PC/parents                       3            X
       teachers                        8                        X
   8. Tashkent #98    (cluster)
       school leaders                   2                       X
       PC/parents                       5           X
       teachers                        10                       X

   9. Almalik #5     (PDS)
      school leaders                   1                        X
      PC/parents                       5                        X
      teachers                         8            X
   10. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)
      school leaders                    2           X
      CEC/SRC                           2           X
      PC/parents                        3           X
      teachers                         10                       X

   Average for PDS schools         Groups=17      41%         41%          12%         6%
   Average for Cluster schools     Groups=17      29%         35%          23%         12%

   Average for All schools         Groups=34      35%         38%          18%         9%



Findings

Using the PDS/Cluster school model for implementation of the PDS/SbS and RWCT model for
the schools selected in Uzbekistan, the school director, teachers and local education
committees/parents are showing some effectiveness in accountability/ transparency in their
actions. Overall, 73% of the school officials and education committee members/parents are
implementing ‘best practice’ behaviors related to accountability/transparency 60% or more of the
time. The PDS schools were higher in accountability/transparency than their cluster schools,
82% of the PDS stakeholder groups were above the 60% level in accountability/transparency
while 64% of the cluster school groups were at this level. All of the schools need additional work



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               29
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


on the accountability/transparency effectiveness factor, especially the cluster schools in order to
reach a more sustainable level.

General Discussion

The accountability/transparency focus area is usually one of the last areas to be developed in the
implementation of a social change. Empowerment and participation are typically the first stage
followed     by     networking/linkages      and    then    by    mobilizing      resources   and
accountability/transparency. To date the cluster schools have focused on the empowerment and
participation effectiveness factors with some mobilization of local resources; consequently,
accountability/ transparency has been a lower priority during these early stages of
implementation of the active learning methodologies and related holistic school development
process. Accountability/transparency is important in both the academic and financial areas as it is
the key to building trust in the school system. Since Uzbekistan doesn’t have a national testing
program, except at the university admissions level, the assessment of academic performance is
left to the schools. Likewise with financial transparency, school budgets have been the
responsibility of the district/city education department except for non-budget (local resources)
items; consequently, any priority given to these areas has also been left to the leadership of the
school director. With an increasing emphasis being placed on financial management and
decentralization in decision making, including greater mobilization and utilization of local
resources, more and more emphasis should now be placed on the accountability/transparency
function.

Several suggestions are as follows: education committee/parents need to hold school
academically and financially responsible by requesting periodic financial and student
performance reports, need for school director and deputies to participate in additional training
and seminars on financial management, need for school directors and deputies to participate in
additional training and seminars on school-based monitoring and evaluation techniques, need for
school to provide more opportunities for teacher and parent dialog, especially in the cluster
schools, need for school director and CEC/PC and teachers to dialog on their role and
responsibility related to accountability/transparency, especially in cluster schools, and school
director should take the lead in initiating accountability and transparency strategies in the school
and serve as a role model for the teachers, students and community/parents.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School director regularly visits classes, evaluates teachers, reviews lesson plans, monitors
student behavior, monitors attendance, provides progress reports to teachers, parents and
community on student academic performance and non-budget expenditures, conducts program
evaluations, hold class and student competitions/olympiadas, and publicly presents/posts
learning results.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Parents visit classes, observe and talk to students and teachers about progress, review student
portfolios, monitor homework, encourage school to hold recognition ceremonies for students and

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 30
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


teachers, encourage periodic school-level testing, e.g., through the CEC and PC request quarterly
and end of year reading and writing performance reports, and request progress and expenditure
reports on use of non-budget funds.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers use track student attendance and behavior, utilize continuous assessment, student
portfolios, testing, observation, class activities, and assignments in monitoring student
performance.


Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level – Mobilize Resources

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of the mobilizing of resources-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Uzbekistan. The rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

      Uzbekistan School, Type &      Respondents    High +    High      Moderate      Low
          Responding Group            per group    80-100%   60-80%     40-60%       0-40%
   1. Parvoz         (PDS)
      school leaders                      3                    X
      PC/parents                          5                    X
   2. Tashlak #11        (cluster)
      school leaders                      2                                            X
      CEC/SRC                             6                                X
   3. Uchkuprik #8       (cluster)
      school leaders                      3          X
      CEC/SRC                             2          X
      PC/parents                          5          X
     Uchkuprik (District)                 1                                X

   4. Dangara #12 (PDS)
      school leaders                      3                                X
      CEC/SRC                             2                                X
      PC/parents                          2                    X
   5. Kokand #42     (cluster)
      school leaders                      3                                X
      CEC/SRC                             2                                X
      PC/parents                          5                                X

   6. Tashkent #145 (PDS)
      school leaders                      2          X
      PC/parents                          4          X
   7. Tashkent #114 (cluster)
       school leaders                     4                    X
       PC/parents                         3                    X
   8. Tashkent # 98 (cluster)
      school leaders                      2          X
      PC/parents                          5                    X

   9. Almalik #5      (PDS)

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              31
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

     school leaders                     1                                    X
     PC/parents                         5                                    X
   10. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)
     school leaders                     2                        X
     CEC/SRC                            2            X
     PC/parents                         3            X

   Average for PDS schools         Groups=12       33%         33%          33%         0%
   Average for Cluster schools     Groups=12       33%         25%          33%         8%

   Average for all schools         Groups=24       33%         29%          33%         4%



Findings

Using the PDS/Cluster school model for implementation of the PDS/SbS and/or the RWCT
model for the schools selected in Uzbekistan, the school directors, teachers and local education
committees/parents from the school/communities are showing some effectiveness on the
mobilizing resources factor but not as high as on the other focus areas. Overall, 62% of the
school officials and education committee members/parents are implementing ‘best practice’
behaviors related to utilizing resources 60% or more of the time. The PDS schools were higher in
utilizing resources than their cluster schools, 66% of the PDS schools were above the 60% level
in empowerment while 58% of the cluster schools were at this level. About a third of the PDS
and cluster school stakeholders still need additional work on utilizing resources to reach the high
effectiveness level of implementation, which is the level needed for sustainability.

General Discussion

Mobilizing resources is a neu area of emphasis for many of the schools although some of the
urban center schools have previously been soliciting non-budget resources in response to basic
school needs and some special student needs through contributions, assessment of fees, and use
of volunteer unskilled labor for those who could not contribute. With the USAID grants for
infrastructure and the development of the Community Education Committees and School
Rehabilitation Committee there has been a greater emphasis placed on the role of the community
in mmbilizing local resources in support of local school needs. The USAID sponsored
infrastructure projects have included such items as new roofs and/or roofing repair related to
water leaks, installation of water pipelines, repair windows and floors, classroom repair/painting
and plastering, canteen, classroom heaters, new support structure, ceiling repair, new latrines,
planting of trees, and donation of computers, furniture/tables and chairs for active learning
classrooms, and related resource materials. The communities have actively participated in these
projects mostly through unskilled labor, contributions and fund raising to supplement the
identified projects, and through provision of food for lunch for the workers. The participation
and empowerment in mobilizing community interest, involvement and pride in the school has
been significant.

General and financial management of the infrastructure grants was handled directly by a
subcontractor (SAVE US) with the communities providing in-kind labor and matching resources
(up to 45%); consequently, the local education committee (SRC, CEC and/or PC) was limited in

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                32
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


value added management capacity building. The local committee was responsible for the
management of the non-budget resources, unskilled labor and some local logistics. Over site was
provided by a subcontractor engineer. It would have been more effective in terms of capacity
building if the communities had been allowed to assume a greater role in managing either the
project and/or the funds themselves. This takes longer and the funds would have had to be tied to
some kind of a tranche system with close monitoring but the development of the committee
management function, especially empowerment and transparency would have been greater. With
the subcontractor handling the donor contribution/finances and providing the over site engineer,
this limited the capacity of the local education committee to fully develop their management
functions. This was a tradeoff as quality and efficiency in completing the infrastructure projects
was improved through subcontractor management.

The subcontractor offered four trainings with the implementation of the infrastructure project
(community mobilization, proposal development, contract management, and repair &
maintenance). Associated with the trainings, the contractor tried in a limited way to provide
some practical awareness activities. There are definite cultural constraints in Uzbekistan because
of remnants from the soviet era, which made it difficult to provide as much value-added
management capacity building as would be desirable. In the Ferghana region, where the
subcontractor was jointly implementing the community component with ZIYO (community
mobilization NGO group), the community education committees rated stronger on the
transparency and mobilizing resource sustainability focus areas.

Some suggestions are as follows: the community mobilization component needs to be mutually
supportive to the infrastructure and/or a small grants program to provide maximum value-added
capacity building in mobilizing resources; a better investment long-term is the local education
community can manage both the project and the finances, no matter how small as the experience
gained is invaluable in terms of value-added benefits especially related to empowerment,
participation, and transparency. SAVE US did a good job in implementing the infrastructure
component and when combined with the NGO/ZIYO provides a strong community mobilization
support piece. If funding is available, would recommend infrastructure projects be continued in
the poor rural areas, where the need is so great. More financial management and reporting
training is needed for the school director and education committee members. The management
capacity of the CEC/SRC and/or PC/SRC is critical to mobilizing and managing local resources.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

Director participates in financial management training, works with community to actively
mobilize local and district-level resources, works with education committee/parents and staff in
identifying and prioritizing needs, shares financial report of fund raising and expenditures with
staff and community, and presents and displays reports publicly.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Education committee receives training on mobilizing local resources (materials, labor, and
logistics), fund raising strategies, and financial reporting. Parents and community members
provide unskilled labor for school projects, actively participate as volunteers for in-school and

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               33
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


out-of-school activities, participate in development of local resource instructional materials, and
serve as classroom resource persons.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers build cordial relations with parents and participate in fund raising activities along side
parents, students and community.


DISTRICT & TTI Comments - Uzbekistan

Best Practice Definitions for District
Empowerment of Education Officials to Act/Leadership (empowerment): Government
education officials actively work to establish a two-way channel between school/community
leaders and the education system to improve the teaching/learning and school management
process; officials are actively involved in improving their understanding of the teaching/learning
and management process; participate in periodic training, and have the skills and commitment
to provide technical assistance.

Utilize Participatory Planning and Management (participation)
Government education officials meet regularly with community/school leaders and other
relevant government and civil society bodies to solicit information/input about timely education
issues of concern. The various units of the agency conduct regular meetings with agendas,
discuss issues, use participatory planning to make work plans, take actions based on consensus,
and are able to formulate and communicate a policy position.

Financial/Resources: Appropriate process and strategies are implemented in providing a sound
financial system and a transparent process for delivery of the education programs.

Performance Monitoring (transparency/accountability): Appropriate processes and strategies
are implemented to provide performance monitoring and evaluation of learning improvement
programs (e.g., training and materials costs, changes in teacher behavior, improvement in
student learning); results are documented, reports prepared, and information disseminated and
utilized in follow-on decision process.

Networking/Partnerships (partnerships): Education institution/agency is an initiator and
advocator of quality education and forms networks/partnerships with other groups, schools and
education bodies in support of education activities.


     District                      respondents    High +       High      Moderate       Low
                                    per group    80-100%      60-80%     40-60%        0-40%
    Uchkuprik
     empowerment                        1           X
     participation                      1                       X
     partnerships                       1           X
     performance monitoring             1                       X
     resources/transparency             1                                    X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                34
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


   Average for District                5           40%         40%         20%          0%



Illustrative Comments

There are 53 schools in District, eight PDSs; recently hired a school director from a PDS school
to coordinate the District level PDS efforts; jointly with PDS trainers providing
training/mentoring to the schools; local NGO Ziyo has worked hard to build relationships with
school directors and District head and is cooperating.

Empowerment: District director visits the PDS and cluster sites and actively supports the
model, meets regularly with the school directors; PEAKS training – 3staff – SI, 3 staff – SbS and
5 staff – CTTI in-service; provides subject-based training to schools

Participation: Discussion sessions are held with school leaders; participating in SI training and
development of school-based action plans; provides school-based supervision; one supervisor
visits 2 schools/week, has responsibility for 3–4 schools.

Networking: Meetings are held with PDS school directors to discuss ways to work together;
host open seminar - 48 of 53 schools have participated; and encourages between school visits
and for schools to send teachers to PEAKS training.

Transparency/Accountability: Assessment – 24 criteria levels including several supportive of
SbS – cooperation of community.

Resources: Looking for ways to work together with schools & TTI to share resources.


TTI – Ferghana

Three subject-based in-service programs are provided: Humanitarian Political/Economics and
Law; Professional/Pedagogical, and New Technologies of Education; staff includes 83 teachers
(39 males and 44 females), workshops are 12, 18 and 24 days long; approximately 7000
participants per year with 40% male and 60% female; some staff have received interactive
training – 8 staff were supported by the British Council/ Tashkent on the Soros materials; 20
participated in SbS and critical thinking training.

English course participants observe Peace Corp English lessons in the schools; five new
Resource Centers tied to TTI in Region separate from the 14 resource centers referenced by the
CTTI – TTI supports distance education (ADB sponsored) - two floors being upgraded at TTI for
IT center; Pedagogical Institutes train the pre-service teachers – trainees know theory side of
interactive teaching but weak on practice and so need some TTI or in school training; TTIs use
44 pilot or lab schools and, possibly, could use the PDSs if something could be arranged.

TTIs have a working relationship with the Districts/Region/Resource Centers and schools;
District and Region notify TTIs of in-service trainings and joint conferences/forums; District use

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               35
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


TTI staff in some of their trainings as presenters and/or participants; TTI trainers go to Districts
and assist with review of school plans for trainees; some TTI staff go to schools and could
supervise skill applications; need for TTI/trainer, District/ Supervisors, and PDS Trainers to
work together and to coordinate distribution of booklets (100 plus) on methodological proposals
– narrative form.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 36
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



            E. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: TAJIKISTAN DATA

Included are some overall notes followed by specific information on each of the ‘best
practice’ effectiveness measures and some general comments related to the Districts.

The set of schools selected for implementation of the USAID/PEAKS basic education active
learning program in Tajikistan were identified based on different criteria depending on the
model; that is, traditional PDS/cluster, rural cluster, and IBET core/satellite. The PDS/cluster
model was based on criteria which included a commitment to education, sufficient resources, and
an interest in being an exemplary or model school. OSI staff interviewed the school officials and
teachers prior to final selection for implementation of the Step by Step program methodology.
The PDS/cluster schools were larger schools usually located in an urban or peri-urban area,
except for the cluster school of Kolkhozohod #50, which is classified as a rural school. Since
these schools were already leaders in the field of education, they were unique and replication to
other schools without similar resources and a commitment to education will be difficult. The
rural cluster schools were selected based on need and represented more of a traditional rural
school with average staff, multiple infrastructure needs, and limited resources. The IBET schools
were also more traditional schools, many with infrastructure needs and limited resources.

The stronger PDS and cluster schools will provide enhanced opportunities for lab or model
schools for observing and training in the implementation of the Step by Step active learning
techniques and during 2005 -2007 the Reading and Writing Critical Thinking techniques and can
serve as a model for neighboring schools with a similar commitment and resources, especially if
the local government officials are supportive.

       Sample Evaluation Schools         grade   # of    men   women    # of    boys     girls
             for Tajikistan              level   staff                 pupils
   1. Khujand #9       (PDS)              1-11   131     46      85     1684    800       884
   2. Khujand #15      (cluster)          1-11    52     12      40     828     400       428
   3. Kairakum #14     (cluster)          1-11    77     18      59     1432    754       678
   4. Ganchi #22       (rural cluster)    1-11    31     28      3      792     435       357
   5. Ganchi #29       (rural cluster)    1-11    29     28      1      580     298       282
   6. Khoroson #10     (rural cluster)    1-11    53     27      26     1246    743       503
   7. Khoroson #29 (rural cluster)        1-11    38     21      17     270     142       128
   8. Rogun #4        (IBET core)         1-11    19     11      8      170     112       58
   9. Rogun #3        (IBET satellite)    1-11    19     6       13     376     202       174
   10.Vahdat #4       (PDS)               1-11    80     38      42     1494    1036      458
   11.Vahdat #140     (cluster)           1-11    20     9       11     486     274       212
   12.Kolkhozobod #50 (cluster)           1-11    28     22      6      668     334       334
   13.Bokhtar #26     (PDS)               1-11    61     20      41     1559    751       608
   14.Kolub #2        (PDS)               1-11   150     31     119     2567    1340     1193

   Average – school size                          56     22     34     1010      544     466


The Tajikistan evaluation sample contained 14 schools, four traditional PDS schools and four
cluster schools, four rural cluster schools, and two IBET schools. The selected school sample for
the USAID evaluation contained an average of 1010 students with an almost equal distribution of

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 37
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


boys and girls, except for Vahdat #4, which was about 70% boys. Approximately, 60% of the
teachers were women. Within the 14 schools sampled, 28 school officials were interviewed, 8
females and 20 men, and 75 education committee and/or parents were interviewed, 60% males.

General Notes

School Leadership/Training
In most of the schools the director and at least one deputy had participated in the three SbS
trainings – not all had participated in the school improvement (SI) training; most of the school
directors were now planning to send their other deputies to the trainings and to participate in the
SI training the next time it is scheduled; a minimum of two teachers had typically received the
SbS training although, in some cases, up to eight teachers had participated; a few of the teachers
had also been through the TOT training.

School Attendance
More of a problem in the upper grades, especially in the winter; more boys than girls do not
attend due to economic reasons; involvement of the community and parents seems to be the best
method to resolve attendance problems; in some schools teachers are working with parents to
collect food and support from interested groups for low-income families to help with clothes,
supplies and related expenses; providing of lunch through WFP is helping the attendance issue as
many times children come to school hungry; health care, parental support, and some school-
related cost items are the main issues affecting attendance of children from poor families.

Main Issues
Discipline, attendance, uniform, performance tracking, infrastructure and some of the schools,
especially in rural areas, are in miserable condition - no electricity and/or water or proper toilets;
training of the teachers is the most critical although there is a need to continue to strengthen
relations with community, i.e., need for more community awareness programs; SC US has done
a good job in providing some training for the communities (SRCs) although it would have been
better if infrastructure projects could have included more follow-on community involvement in
project management activities from the trainings than occurred; need for more supplies and
materials – especially in the upper grades; schools without resource centers would like to set one
up and would like materials and equipment including a computer or two for their centers; some
children are coming to school hungry, need for canteen service, child care and other related
health issues, i.e., lack of iodine.

Local Education Committees/Training
Typically community education committee (CEC) or parent committee (PC) held their meetings
monthly, with special meetings more often if necessary; in several cases the CEC was only
recently established; one school had a successful self-governance student committee with sub-
committees on internal affairs, attendance, newsletter, grades 7-10, and IFES curriculum 8-9.

Trainings typically included proposal writing, data gathering on school, and fundraising –
community/parents want more trainings; several of the CEC/SRCs had participated in the
training seminars but want more; CECs were typically weak but have potential; need to link
CECs to a network of CECs for sharing experience and reinforcing ‘best practice’ on ‘what

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                   38
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


works’; first training more theoretical and second more practical; use of non-budget resource
funds training has been good.

Recent Items & Actions
Need for heating systems; parents are helping in assistance to the school, especially, attendance
and fundraising; need for more textbooks and resources materials; some schools are beginning to
identify and work with the poor families; repair of primary school roof, community very active
led by mullah, one community has met with district education officer, which shows good
initiative; one community got the police involved in some crime/prostitution issues; still too
much of a focus on making requests rather than on what can we do on our own; attrition is an
issue in some schools; several schools were beginning to include quality in their action plans,
e.g. parents help in proctoring student exams and provide food/coffee during break and request
for school performance information on a more regular basis; need for oven for canteen; need for
flexible scheduling to accommodate cold winters and students who help on the farm.

Action Plan
Each of the schools had action plans - mostly they focused on the physical environment/
facilities and attendance, although some referenced a need to help the poor families; cold
classrooms in the winters was a major issue; no fresh water at school came up several times;
there were a few education quality items, such as, need for more professional training of staff
and need for better and more frequent information on student and staff performance.

Interaction with School
The school needs help with more visual aids – community can help on this; there is need to
continue to work on finding ways to involve the community/parents in the school more; also
need to bring community into the school more as a resource – one man was especially pleased
that he was allowed to talk with the entire class for a few minutes; need for more interaction
between neighboring communities/schools – currently some of this taking place informally
which has been good.

General Comments & Suggestions
There is a need for more management training for the school directors and education committees;
need to train the upper grade-level teachers in the active learning techniques; need for the
addition of vocational training into the upper grades similar to the soviet time; need for pre-
school program and to integrate this program with first grade in the training for continuity; need
for incentives for participating teachers – use of interactive methods is much additional work;
some of the rural teachers thought SbS was too rigid and like PEAKS better; low teacher salaries
is a problem – some communities are providing a small plot of land and/or wheat, potatoes,
and/or stationary as an incentive for teachers; lack of textbooks and learning materials is still a
problem, especially in the rural areas; need for more resources; parents are questioning the
student at home in terms of what they have learned which is new and a positive result;
community/parents feel there has been an improvement in education; and use of town elders to
help identify poor families and to work with these families.

Key questions were how to get more women teachers in the rural schools, the inclusion of more
women on the education committees in the Muslim areas, and the need for vocational/basic skill

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                39
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


training in the upper grades – had this during soviet times – such as learning how to drive a
truck.


Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level -- Empowerment

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of empowerment-related ‘best practice’ activities in Tajikistan. The
rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

       Tajikistan School, Type &         Respondents    High +    High    Moderate    Low
          Responding Group                per group    80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
   1. Khujand #9      (PDS)
      school leaders                          2                    X
      CEC/SRC                                 5                    X
      PC/Parents                              5                              X
      teachers                               10                              X
   2. Khujand #15       (cluster)
      school leaders                          2                                       X
      teachers                                2                                       X
   3. Kairakum #14      (cluster)
      school leaders                          4                    X
      CEC/SRC                                 1                                       X
      PC/parents                              1                                       X
      teachers                               10                              X

   4. Ganchi #22 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                          4                    X
      PC/parents                              5                    X
      teachers                               10                              X
   5. Ganchi #29 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                          1                              X
      PC/parents                              5                                       X
      teachers                                9                                       X

   6/7. Khoroson #10& 29
                   (rural cluster)
      school leaders                          2                                       X
      CEC/SRC                                 2                              X

   8. Rogun #4      (IBET core)
      school leaders                          1                    X
      PC/parents                             10                    X
      teachers                                7          X
   9. Rogun #3        (IBET satellite)
      school leaders                          1                    X
      PC/parents                              2                    X
      teachers                                8          X

   10. Vahdat #4 (PDS)
      school leaders                          6          X
      CEC/SRC                                 3                    X


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming             40
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      PC/parents                        1            X
      Teachers                          6                        X
   11. Vahdat #140      (cluster)
      school leaders                    1                        X
      PC/parents                        1            X
      teachers                          2                        X

   12. Kolkhozobod # 50 (cluster)
   . school leaders                      1                                               X
       CEC/SRC                           4                                               X
       PC/parents                        4                                               X
       teachers                         10                       X
   13. Bokhtar #26      (PDS)
        school leaders                   1                       X
        CEC/SRC                          5                                   X
        teachers                        10                                   X
   14. Kolub           (PDS)
        school leaders                  1                        X
        PC/parents                      7                                    X
        teachers                        9                        X

   Average for PDS schools          Groups=14      14%         50%          36%         0%
   Average for Cluster schools      Groups=13       8%         30%            8%        54%
   Average for Rural Cluster        Groups=8        0%         25%          37%         37%
   Average for IBET                 Groups=6       33%         67%           0%         0%

   Average for All schools          Groups=41      12%         41%          22%         25%



Findings

In implementation of ‘best practice’ behaviors related to empowerment in the sample evaluation
schools in Tajikistan, about half or 53% of the school officials, teachers and local education
committees/parents have been empowered to act at an effective/high level, which means that in
about half the schools empowerment needs more work. About two-thirds or 64% of the school
officials, education committee members/parents, and teachers in the PDS schools are
implementing the ‘best practice’ empowerment behaviors 60% or more of the time while only
38% of the cluster schools were at this level. Correspondingly, the rural cluster schools were at
25% and the IBET schools at 100%. There was about a 25% drop in implementation between the
PDS and cluster schools and an even further drop in the rural cluster schools. The IBET schools
were doing the best in empowerment in their schools. Overall, empowerment needs more work
in the PDS/cluster model schools and in the rural cluster schools. The school leaders need to do
more to involve all of the teachers in the active learning methodology and the community/parent
component needs more strengthening; i.e., more awareness and involvement of the
community/parents in school activities is needed.

General Discussion

The school officials had participated in some of the trainings but not a sufficient amount. They
need to participate in all of the trainings both school improvement and instructional. They are the

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                41
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


leaders of the school and it is their responsibility to be fully knowledgeable about both the
management and instructional processes being used. The IBET model showed the highest level
of empowerment. Some of the unique features of the IBET model were the support and training
provided to the District officials, clusters were within walking distance of each other so the
schools could reinforce and share experiences with each other easily, there was a core school
which had mastered some if not most of the techniques, and the low cost of the materials. This
compares to the rural cluster model which was extremely weak. There was no core or PDS
school just a sharing of weak experiences with no one to demonstrate the correct methods.
Overall, there was about a 25% drop in implementation between the PDS schools and the cluster
schools. The PDS schools were strong schools to begin with even before PEAKS. Most had
strong administrators and teachers. The cluster schools were newer into the active learning
methods. Three of four of the traditional cluster schools were not at a sustainable level in
empowerment. Empowerment and participation are first two key areas for sustainability and
overall empowerment was at only at 53%, meaning about half of schools employing the new
methodologies in Tajikistan are not currently sustainable in empowerment.

In general, most school staff and community members were positive about the active learning
program and indicated that attendance was better and enrolment up but this was not unanimous.
The community is taking an interest and starting to get involved but a lot more needs to be done
to ensure empowerment of the community/parents. The most common question asked of the
interviewer was what is going to happen in the upper grades?

Some suggestions are as follows: Districts need to be more involved so they can provide the
necessary support for the schools especially the cluster school; PDS schools are in a position to
provide open classes, demonstrations of good practice, and in-house training but they are not
able to provide the mentoring and support that is needed to bring the cluster schools up to a
sustainable level; a community leader needs to head the local education committee, not a school
official or teacher; every effort needs to be made by the director to draw the upper grade teachers
into the awareness sessions to prepare for continuity in the active learning methodologies and to
also provide an opportunity for participation in the RWCT program or something similar; and
empowerment of the whole school community needs to be the goal (teachers, parents, school
officials, and students) - all are equal stakeholders in the process and all must be empowered if
the active learning model is going to succeed. Serious consideration needs to be given to
replacing the current subcontractor of the rural cluster model. Four rural schools were looked at
that were using this model and none were effectively implementing the model. IBET is a very
strong model for use in the rural school setting and serious consideration should be given to
extending this model. The replication of this model has good potential.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School officials must participate in all of the SbS trainings as well as the SI trainings. The school
official is the instructional leader and must be actively involved in the instructional process and
supportive of the teachers in understanding and using the active learning process and help to
continuously identify and provide relevant information. The school official also needs to
encourage the active participation of the community in the education meetings, men and women;
provide sufficient time in announcing the meetings, and help to ensure that all participate in the

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  42
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


needs assessments, action plans, and decision process. There is a need to start small with a
manageable project or two and then work toward a more comprehensive plan. The school official
needs to work with the village/ neighborhood committee and share more information.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

School officials, parent committees, Children’s Clubs and teachers must work together to
continue to provide awareness activities; the role and responsibility of the community/ parents in
the school needs to be more clearly defined; need for continued involvement of the community
in infrastructure projects, more awareness seminars are needed for the community, and there
needs to be an emphasize open classes/school visits. A community member should head up the
parent committee, community education committee and school rehabilitation committee, where
they exist, not a school official or teacher. PC, CEC and SRC need to work cooperatively toward
a unified vision. This was not the case in several of the schools.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

All teachers must regularly participate in the in-service training/seminars (SbS/active learning
and IE) and make intra-class visits not just a select few. Trained teachers should organize
trainings and demonstrations for the other teachers in the school and should provide more intra-
school mentoring.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Participation

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of participation-related ‘best practice’ activities in Tajikistan. The
rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

 Tajikistan School, Type & Responding   Respondents    High +     High     Moderate      Low
                   Group                 per group    80-100%    60-80%    40-60%       0-40%
 1. Khujand #9      (PDS)
    school leaders                           2                      X
    CEC/SRC                                  5                      X
    PC/Parents                               5                      X
    teachers                                10           X
 2. Khujand #15       (cluster)
    school leaders                           2                                            X
    teachers                                 2                                            X
 3. Kairakum #14      (cluster)
    school leaders                           4                      X
    CEC/SRC                                  1                                 X
    PC/parents                               1                                            X
    teachers                                10                      X

 4. Ganchi #22 (rural cluster)
    school leaders                           4                      X
    PC/parents                               5           X
    teachers                                10                                 X
 5. Ganchi #29 (rural cluster)


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                43
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

   school leaders                           1                                X
    PC/parents                              5                                           X
   teachers                                 9                                X

 6/7. Khoroson #10& 29
                 (rural cluster)
    school leaders                          2                                           X
    CEC/SRC                                 2                                           X

 8. Rogun #4      (IBET core)
    school leaders                          1                     X
    PC/parents                             10                     X
    teachers                                7           X
 9. Rogun #3        (IBET satellite)
    school leaders                          1           X
    PC/parents                              2           X
    teachers                                8           X

 10. Vahdat #4 (PDS)
    school leaders                          6                     X
    CEC/SRC                                 3                     X
    PC/parents                              1           X
    teachers                                6           X
 11. Vahdat #140 (cluster)
    school leaders                          1           X
    PC/parents                              1                     X
    teachers                                2           X

 12. Kolkhozobod # 50 (cluster)
 . school leaders                           1                                           X
     CEC/SRC                                4                                           X
     PC/parents                             4                                           X
     teachers                              10                     X
 13. Bokhtar #26      (PDS)
      school leaders                        1                     X
      CEC/SRC                               5                                X
      teachers                             10                     X
 14. Kolub           (PDS)
      school leaders                        1                                X
      PC/parents                            7                     X
      teachers                              9                     X

 Average for PDS schools               Groups=14      21%        64%        14%        0%
 Average for Cluster schools           Groups=13      15%        31%        8%         46%
 Average for Rural Cluster             Groups=8       12%        12%        38%        38%
 Average for IBET                      Groups=6       67%        33%        0%         0%

 Average for All schools               Groups=41      24%        39%        15%        22%

FindingS

In implementation of ‘best practice’ behaviors related to the effectiveness measure for
participation in the sample evaluation schools in Tajikistan, about 63% of the school officials,

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming             44
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


teachers and local education committees/parents are participating at an effective/high level,
which means that in about two thirds of the schools, participation is effective and in the other
one-third more work is needed. Eight five percent of the school officials, education committee
members/parents, and teachers in the PDS schools are implementing the ‘best practice’
participation behaviors 60% or more of the time while only 46% of the cluster schools were at
this level. Correspondingly, the rural cluster schools were at 24% and the IBET schools at 100%.
There was about a 40% drop in implementation between the PDS and cluster schools on the
participation effectiveness factor and an even further drop in the rural cluster schools
(approximately a 60% drop). The IBET schools were doing the best in participation in their
schools. In conclusion, participation still needs more work, especially in the cluster schools. The
PDS schools are doing quite well. Overall, school leaders need to do more to get all of the
teachers to participate in the active learning methodologies and the community/parent
component needs to be more active in their involvement in the development and implementation
of the school action plans and overall school activities, with an emphasis on quality as well as
infrastructure.

General Discussion

Active and positive participation by all stakeholders (community, school leader, teachers and
students) is a key step in improving the school learning environment. Full participation will lead
to improved understanding, trust, commitment, and ownership. New leaders and support players
will emerge helping to build a unified team with a vision and purpose for the school. All
stakeholders need to participate in in-school activities, after-school activities, and community
mobilization projects.

Some suggestions are as follows: PRAs, SWAT analysis, and open forums are all good
community mobilization techniques for identifying school needs/issues, especially if they result
in a community-wide school-improvement plan or update; an active school-wide parent
committee and/or an active community education committee is a necessity - training and
mentoring will need to be provided in order to activate these committees; initially, choose one or
two manageable and visible projects for implementation and try for an early success; more
refresher activities including open door classes, workshops, and other awareness seminars need
to be an on-going and integral part of the active learning program, especially at the cluster level,
as there was about a 40% reduction in the participation level from the PDS to the cluster schools;
Districts need to be actively involved from the beginning as they are the key support group
related to any education change in addition to the school leaders and community/parents
themselves; and lastly, always keep the student in mind as the various activities, projects and
programs are discussed and initiated as the students are the primary beneficiaries.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

Information is shared with staff in school-wide meetings and with the education committees on a
regular (bi-weekly or monthly) basis, input is solicited, and all have an opportunity to speak;
discussions are held on what has been achieved, short-term goals to be attained and important
issues; annual open forums are held of community/parents to share expenditure reports, provide



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 45
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


information on the performance/status of the school and determine a priority of needs; and action
plans are developed and implemented in cooperation with staff and community/parents.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Parents maintain a home environment that encourages school attendance and learning; provide
space for child to study, monitor homework, and engage child in discussions related to
schooling; families provide for the health and guidance of child – nutrition and clothing; attend
school meetings; provide input in school decision making relative to school needs and school
priorities during open forums and parent committees; visit school/observe classes; encourage
input from disenfranchised groups

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Monthly meetings with a class-level parent committee to discuss issues and share information;
open class - ask parents to visit class and to observe their child – especially those parents of non-
performing students; open invite for parent volunteers to help with class; use student diaries and
have parents sign off on student performance and review of homework

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Networking/ Partnerships

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of networking/partnership-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Tajikistan. The rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

       Tajikistan School, Type &     respondents    High +      High       Moderate       Low
          Responding Group            per group    80-100%     60-80%      40-60%        0-40%
   1. Khujand #9     (PDS)
      school leaders                      2                                   X
      CEC/SRC                             5                                   X
      PC/Parents                          5                       X
      teachers                           11          X
   2. Khujand #15        (cluster)
      school leaders                     2                                    X
      teachers                           2                                    X
   3. Kairakum #14      (cluster)
      school leaders                     4           X
      CEC/SRC                            1                                                 X
      PC/parents                         1                                    X
      teachers                           5           X

   4. Ganchi #22 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                     4                        X
      PC/parents                         5           X
      teachers                           5                        X
   5. Ganchi #29 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                     1                                    X
      PC/parents                         5                                                 X

   6/7. Khoroson #10& 29

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  46
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

                   (rural cluster)
      school leaders                         2                                       X
      CEC/SRC                                2                                       X

   8. Rogun #4      (IBET core)
      school leaders                         1       X
      PC/parents                            10                            X
      teachers                               6       X
   9. Rogun #3        (IBET satellite)
      school leaders                         1       X
      PC/parents                             2                X
      teachers                              18       X

   10. Vahdat #4 (PDS)
      school leaders                         6       X
      CEC/SRC                                3                            X
      PC/parents                             1       X
      teachers                               6       X
   11. Vahdat #140   (cluster)
      school leaders                         1       X
      PC/parents                             1                X
      teachers                               2                X

   12. Kolkhozobod # 50 (cluster)
   . school leaders                          1                            X
       CEC/SRC                               4                                       X
       PC/parents                            4                                       X
       teachers                              5       X
   13. Bokhtar #26      (PDS)
        school leaders                       1                            X
        CEC/SRC                              5                            X
        teachers                             5                X
   14. Kolub            (PDS)
        school leaders                       1                            X
        PC/parents                           7                X
        teachers                             5       X

   Average for PDS schools               Groups=14   36%    21%         42%         0%
   Average for Cluster schools           Groups=12   25%    17%         33%         25%
   Average for Rural Cluster             Groups=8    25%    25%         12%         38%
   Average for IBET                      Groups=6    67%    16%         16%         0%

   Average for All schools               Groups=40   35%    20%         30%         15%

Findings

In implementation of ‘best practice’ behaviors related to the networking/partnerships
effectiveness factor in the selected sample schools in Tajikistan, 55% of the school officials,
teachers and local education committees/parents were showing a performance level at an
effective/high level, which means that in about 45% of the schools, additional work is still
needed. Fifty seven percent of the school officials, education committee members/parents, and
teachers in the PDS schools are implementing the ‘best practice’ networking/partnership

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming            47
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


behaviors 60% or more of the time while 42% of the cluster schools were at this level.
Correspondingly, the rural cluster schools were at 50% and the IBET schools at 83%.

There was a 15% drop in implementation between the PDS and cluster schools on the
networking/partnership effectiveness factor; thus, there is less of a discrepancy between the PDS
and cluster schools on this factor than on the other factors. In conclusion, more work is needed at
both the PDS and cluster school level on how to network/partner more effectively.

General Discussion

A mechanism is needed for the cluster-level community stakeholders to link more effectively
with the PDS community stakeholders and other cluster communities; e.g., use of the open
seminar/open forum and/or other activities that will increase the informal relationships between
the members if the communities are close together. A district level advocacy association may be
a possibility. The community stakeholders are interested and want to be involved; thus, more
mechanisms for linkages need to be developed both within the school and between
school/communities. Many of the parents have a basic understanding of the new methodologies
but more awareness opportunities for parent and community stakeholders should be developed;
e.g. involve parents in development of local materials supporting the new methodologies and/or
use community people as resource persons in the classroom. All PC and CEC members need to
visit the active learning classrooms.

The PDS staff seldom visit the cluster schools; thus, the cluster schools need to create
opportunities for their staff to visit the PDS more. The linkage needs to be initiated by the cluster
school as most PDS schools are also serving as a model or lab school for a wider range of
schools than just the cluster school.

The PDS needs to be the link to the District/district/city education (DED) office and initiate
district-level linkages and seminars to draw more schools outside the cluster schools into the
active learning methodologies. The District can help in doing this but first must be provided with
increased awareness and training opportunities, which the PDS can help do. It is absolutely
essential that the District/district/city education department director understand the new
methodologies and take a proactive position related to the new methodologies. It is also
especially important that the district-level methodologists are brought on board.

A linkage to the Teacher Training Institutes needs to be established – again this might be done
by the PDS in collaboration with the city/district education departments. The linkage with
existing government education institutions has been a weakness of the PDS/SbS model and more
can be done here.

Additional suggestions are more involvement of parents in the school (both for in-school and
out-of-school activities) through open-door policy, involvement in student activities,
volunteering to help in the classroom, assistance in material development, availability as class
resource persons, etc.; networking by school officials, teachers and the local education
committee with the local neighborhood committee and other local groups with an interest in
education is important as a holistic approach to education is the goal (teachers,

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  48
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


community/parents, school officials, and students); and school officials need to make every
effort to involve the government education officials in awareness activities as the involvement
and support of the government education institutions is needed if the program is going to sustain.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School director shares information at the District level meetings with the other directors;
coordinates with the local neighborhood committee allowing the local committee to use the
school facilities for conferences and elections; allows community access to computer room;
includes District education officials in seminars and trainings; encourages the school to
participate in regional, national and international trainings and exchanges; identifies potential
international donors and shares information; allows materials from resource center to be shared
with neighboring schools; maintains communication with alumni from school; and maintains
close cooperation with local government.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Shows cooperation with local religious authorities by including representation on the education
committees; meets with parent committee from neighboring community and shares experiences
about how they each did their work; participates in District trainings/ workshops and shares
experiences; visits school and classes on a regular basis; holds regular open forums with the
community; and provides support to disabled and needy families and children in the attendance
area.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers conduct open seminars at which they can share their work and experiences with
neighboring schools; conduct open classes; include teachers from the upper grades in the training
and awareness sessions; participate in regional and national competitions; invite parents to visit
classes to better understand the new methodologies; hold cluster meetings with teachers from the
other schools and share experiences; and identify and utilize available community human and
material resources.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Accountability/ Transparency

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of accountability/transparency-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Tajikistan. The rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

       Tajikistan School, Type &    Respondents    High +     High       Moderate      Low
           Responding Group          per group    80-100%    60-80%      40-60%       0-40%
   1. Khujand #9      (PDS)
      school leaders                     2                      X
      CEC/SRC                            5                                  X
      PC/Parents                         5                      X
      teachers                          10          X
   2. Khujand #15       (cluster)
      school leaders                     2                                              X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               49
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      teachers                         2                            X
   3. Kairakum #14       (cluster)
      school leaders                    4                           X
      CEC/SRC                           1                                      X
      PC/parents                        1                           X
      teachers                         10      X

   4. Ganchi #22 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                    4                           X
      PC/parents                        5                X
      teachers                         10                           X
   5. Ganchi #29 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                   1                                       X
      PC/parents                       5                                       X
      teachers                         9                            X

   6/7. Khoroson #10& 29
                   (rural cluster)
      school leaders                   2                                       X
      CEC/SRC                          2                                       X

   8. Rogun #4      (IBET core)
      school leaders                    1                X
      PC/parents                       10                X
      teachers                          7                X
   9. Rogun #3      (IBET satellite)
      school leaders                   1       X
      PC/parents                       2                 X
      teachers                         8                 X

   10. Vahdat #4     (PDS)
      school leaders                   6       X
      CEC/SRC                          3                 X
      PC/parents                       1       X
      teachers                         6       X
   11. Vahdat #140     (cluster)
      school leaders                   1       X
      PC/parents                       1                 X
      teachers                         2                 X

   12. Kolkhozobod # 50 (cluster)
   . school leaders                     1                                      X
       CEC/SRC                          4                                      X
       PC/parents                       4                                      X
       teachers                        10                X
   13. Bokhtar #26       (PDS)
        school leaders                  1                X
        CEC/SRC                         5                X
        teachers                       10                X
   14. Kolub            (PDS)
        school leaders                 1                            X
        PC/parents                     7                 X
        teachers                       9       X


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   50
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

   Average for PDS schools         Groups=14        36%          50%         14%          0%
   Average for Cluster schools     Groups=13        15%          23%         23%          38%
   Average for Rural Cluster       Groups=8         0%           12%         38%          50%
   Average for IBET                Groups=6         17%          83%          0%          0%

   Average for All schools         Groups=41        19%          39%         19%          22%

Findings

In implementation of ‘best practice’ behaviors related to accountability/transparency
effectiveness for the selected sample schools in Tajikistan, 58% of the school officials, teachers
and local education committees/parents were showing a performance level on the
accountability/transparency factor at an effective/high level, which means that in more than 40%
of the schools, additional work is still needed. Eight six percent of the school officials, education
committee members/parents, and teachers in the PDS schools are implementing the ‘best
practice’ accountability/transparency behaviors 60% or more of the time while only 38% of the
cluster schools were at this level. Correspondingly, the rural cluster schools were at 12% and the
IBET schools at 100%. There was almost a 50% drop in implementation between the PDS and
cluster schools on the accountability/ transparency effectiveness factor and an even further drop
in the rural cluster schools (approximately a 74% drop). The IBET schools were doing the best in
accountability /transparency in their schools. The accountability/ transparency effectiveness
factor needs a lot more work, especially in the cluster schools.

General Discussion

The accountability/transparency focus area is typically one of the last areas to be developed in
the implementation of a social change. Empowerment and participation are the first stages in
social change followed by networking/linkages and lastly by mobilizing resources and
accountability/transparency. To date the cluster schools have focused on empowerment and
participation     with     some      mobilization     of     local   resources;      consequently,
accountability/transparency has been a lower priority during these early stages of implementation
of the active learning methodologies and related holistic school development process. With many
of the cluster schools early in their development and struggling with the empowerment and
participation effectiveness factors, interest in accountability/transparency has been a lower
priority. As noted, there is almost a 50% drop in the effectiveness factor in the cluster schools
relative to the PDS schools. Historically, school performance and school budgets have been more
the responsibility of the district/city education department except for non-budget (local
resources) items; thus, any priority given to these areas has been left to the leadership of the
school director. With an increasing emphasis being placed on financial management and
decentralized decision making, including greater mobilization and utilization of local resources,
more emphasis will now need to be focused on the accountability/transparency function.

Some suggestions are as follows: need for local education committees/parents to hold the school
academically and financially responsible by requesting periodic financial and student
performance reports; need for school leaders to participate in additional training and seminars on
accountability and transparency and to share their experiences on current ‘best practices’; need
for the school to provide more opportunities for teacher and parent dialog on quality education,

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  51
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


especially in the cluster schools; and need for school director to take the lead in initiating
accountability and transparency strategies in the school and serve as a role model for the
teachers, students and community/parents.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School officials should provide information on quality of education to parents at general
meetings, which includes the quarterly and annual meetings; provide in-school testing - quarterly
and at the end of curricula; identify outstanding teachers and students - use recognition
ceremonies and public posting of outstanding teachers and students and use Olympia, inter-class
competitions, and student rankings; recognize graduates winning government scholarships; and
provide a process for recognition and follow up of graduates who are successful.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Parents visit school and observe classes; parents monitor homework, school diaries, and
performance portfolios; all members of the education committee sign and approve the financial
reports; reports include proposals for new projects; and reports are presented at public meetings.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers provide information to parents at parent/teacher conferences; teachers discuss school
performance and school quality issues (availability of textbooks, development and availability of
visual aids, use of clusters, class size, active learning techniques) at class and overall parent
committee meetings; and teachers go to neighboring schools to monitor performance and visa
versa which provides a pseudo self-assessment within the system.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Mobilize Resources

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of mobilizing resources-related ‘best practice’ activities in Tajikistan.
The rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

       Tajikistan School, Type &     Respondents    High +      High      Moderate       Low
           Responding Group           per group    80-100%     60-80%     40-60%        0-40%
   1. Khujand #9      (PDS)
      school leaders                      2                      X
      CEC/SRC                             5                      X
      PC/Parents                          5                      X
   2. Khujand #15        (cluster)
      school leaders                      2                                   X
   3. Kairakum #14      (cluster)
      school leaders                      4                                   X
      CEC/SRC                             1                                   X
      PC/parents                          1                                               X

   4. Ganchi #22 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                      4          X
      PC/parents                          5          X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 52
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

   5. Ganchi #29 (rural cluster)
      school leaders                         1                                          X
      PC/parents                             5                                          X

   6/7. Khoroson #10& 29
      (rural cluster)
      school leaders                         2                                          X
      CEC/SRC                                2                                          X

   8. Rogun #4      (IBET core)
      school leaders                          1      X
      PC/parents                             10                             X
   9. Rogun #3        (IBET satellite)
      school leaders                         1       X
      PC/parents                             2       X

   10. Vahdat #4 (PDS)
      school leaders                         6                  X
      CEC/SRC                                3       X
      PC/parents                             1       X
   11. Vahdat #140   (cluster)
      school leaders                         1                              X
      PC/parents                             1                  X

   12. Kolkhozobod # 50 (cluster)
   . school leaders                          1                                          X
       CEC/SRC                               4                                          X
       PC/parents                            4                              X
   13. Bokhtar #26     (PDS)
       school leaders                        1                  X
       CEC/SRC                               5                              X
   14. Kolub          (PDS)                                     X
       school leaders                        1
       PC/parents                            7                  X

   Average for PDS schools               Groups=10   20%       70%         10%         0%
   Average for Cluster schools           Groups=9     0%       11%         56%         33%
   Average for Rural Cluster             Groups=6    33%       0%           0%         67%
   Average for IBET                      Groups=4    75%       0%          25%         0%

   Average for All schools               Groups=29   24%       28%         24%         24%

Findings

In implementation of ‘best practice’ behaviors related to mobilizing resources effectiveness for
the selected sample schools in Tajikistan, 52% of the school officials, teachers and local
education committees/parents are showing a performance level on the mobilizing resources
factor at an effective/high level, which means that in almost half of the schools, additional work
is still needed in this area. Ninety percent of the school officials, education committee
members/parents, and teachers in the PDS schools are implementing the ‘best practice’
mobilizing resources behaviors 60% or more of the time while only 11% of the cluster schools
were at this level. Correspondingly, the rural cluster schools were at 33% and the IBET schools

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               53
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


at 75%. There was almost an 80% drop in implementation between the PDS and cluster schools
on the mobilizing resources effectiveness factor. In conclusion, the mobilizing resources factor is
extremely weak in the cluster schools and needs a lot more work while the PDS schools
demonstrated high plus effectiveness in this area.

General Discussion

This is a new area of emphasis for many of the schools although many of the urban center
schools have previously been soliciting non-budget resources for basic school and special need
students through contributions, assessment of fees, and use of volunteer unskilled labor for those
who could not contribute. With the USAID grants for infrastructure and the development of the
Community Education Committees and School Rehabilitation Committee there has been a
greater emphasis placed on the role of the community in mobilizing local resources in support of
local school needs. The communities have actively participated in these projects mostly through
unskilled labor and with some contributions and fund raising. Participation and empowerment in
mobilizing community interest and involvement has been significant.

The general management as well as the financial management of the infrastructure grants was
handled directly by the subcontractor with the communities providing in-kind labor and
matching resources; consequently the local education committee (SRC, CEC/PC and/or SRC)
was limited in value added management capacity building. The local committee was responsible
for the management of the non-budget resources, unskilled labor and some related local logistics.
Over site was provided by a subcontractor engineer. It would have been more effective in terms
of capacity building if the communities had been allowed to assume a greater role in managing
either the project and/or the funds themselves. It would have taken longer and the funds would
have had to be linked to some kind of a tranche system with monitoring but the potential
development of the management function along with increased sustainability would have been
significant. With the subcontractor handling the donor contribution/finances and providing the
over site engineer, this limited the capacity of the local education agency to more fully develop
their management function.

The subcontractor typically offered some training in conjunction with the implementation of the
infrastructure project (e.g., community mobilization, proposal development, contract
management, and repair & maintenance). Associated with the trainings, the contractor in a
limited way provided some practical awareness activities. There were cultural constraints
because of remnants from the soviet era, which made it difficult to provide as much value-added
management capacity building as would be desirable although it is best if the local education
community can manage, at least, part of the project and the finances, no matter how small. The
experience gained is invaluable in terms of value-added to the related sustainability focus areas.
There is need for additional financial management and reporting training for the school director
and education committee members as the management capacity of the CEC/SRC and/or PC/SRC
is critical to mobilizing and managing local resources.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                54
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Selected schools have been transformed into financial self-management units with little
interference from authorities; school officials participate in financial management training;
school officials participate in preparation and submission of project proposals to potential donors
in collaboration with community; awareness sessions are held with parents on school
involvement/volunteering opportunities; works with community to actively mobilize local and
district-level resources and with education committee/parents and staff in identifying and
prioritizing needs, shares financial report of fund raising and expenditures with staff and
community, and presents/displays reports publicly.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Education committee organizes into subcommittees for fund raising and providing public
information related to progress and accountability/transparency of non-budget resources;
participates in training on mobilizing local resources (materials, labor, and logistics), fund
raising strategies, and financial accountability; and parents and community members provide
unskilled labor for school projects, actively participate as volunteers for in-school and out-of-
school activities, participate in development of local resource instructional materials, and serve
as classroom resource persons.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teaches participate in awareness session on how to use parent volunteers; build cordial relations
with parents and participate in fund raising activities along side parents, students and
community.

DISTRICT Comments - Tajikistan:

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the District Level

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of selected Districts in implementation of ‘best
practice’ education management activities supportive to the PEAKS program.

         Tajikistan Districts       respondents    High +      High      Moderate       Low
                                     per group    80-100%     60-80%     40-60%        0-40%
   1. Ganchi                             1
      empowerment                                               X
      participation                                             X
      partnerships                                              X
      performance monitoring                                                 X
      resources/transparency                                                 X
   2. Kairakum (city educ. dept.)       1
      empowerment                                                                        X
      participation                                                                      X
      partnerships                                                           X
      performance monitoring                                                             X
      resources/transparency                                                             X
   3. Rogun                             1
      empowerment                                   X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                55
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      participation                                              X
      partnerships                                   X
      performance monitoring                                                  X
      resources/transparency                                                  X
   4. Kolkhozobad                       1
      empowerment                                                                         X
      participation                                                                       X
      partnerships                                                            X
      performance monitoring                                                              X
      resources/transparency                                                              X
   5. Shurabad                          1
      empowerment                                                X
      participation                                                           X
      partnerships                                               X
      performance monitoring                                                  X
      resources/transparency                                                  X
   6. Kolub (city educ. dept.)          1
      empowerment                                                             X
      participation                                                           X
      partnerships                                                                        X
      performance monitoring                                                  X
      resources/transparency                                     X
   7. Vahdat (city educ. dept.)         1
      empowerment                                                                         X
      participation                                                                       X
      partnerships                                                            X
      performance monitoring                                                              X
      resources/transparency                                                  X

   Average for empowerment              7           14%         29%         14%          43%
   Average for participation            7                       29%         29%          43%
   Average for partnerships             7                       29%         43%          29%
   Average for perf. monitoring         7                                   57%          43%
   Average for resources                7                       14%         57%          29%

   Average for Districts                35          6%          20%         40%          34%

Findings

Overall only 26% of the Districts are demonstrating a high level (60% or more) of effectiveness
related to the ‘best practice’ categories. The Districts are a little stronger in empowerment at 43%
followed by participation and partnerships, both at 29%, and then performance monitoring and
resources/transparency, where the ratings were almost negligible. Of the seven Districts, only
Rogun and Ganchi showed a high level of effectiveness on the ‘best practice’ measures, and then
only on empowerment, participation and partnerships and only Kolub showed high effectiveness
on resources/transparency, which, in all likelihood, is due to the per capital funding mechanism
being piloted in that District.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 56
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


General Comments

The Districts need to be brought into the loop. Many of the directors are supportive and visiting
the PDS and cluster schools on-site but their staff (methodologist and inspectors) are only at an
awareness level of knowledge and need more training in order to provide a more
supportive/monitoring, mentoring and technical support role. Inspectors do not know how to
evaluate an active learning classroom. Currently, the Districts provide a venue for open seminars
and trainings and will attend the active learning sessions but depend on the PDS trainers and
teachers for content knowledge. Some District directors and officials have participated in the
financial management training seminars. Only in the IBET regions are the District and IPD
directors and staff being sufficiently prepared to perform their role and responsibilities as the
District is a core participant in the IBET model. TTIs are also receiving some training in the
IBET model. Actually, the TTIs should be the primary source of such in-service training but in
Tajikistan they are quite weak. Training certificates are another issue but if the Districts, in
conjunction with the TTIs and PDSs, are able to assume the leadership role then the certificates
can be issued through the District.

Empowerment: Some directors are knowledgeable about PEAKS/active learning, supportive
and facilitating awareness sessions for other interested schools in the Districts but do not have
sufficiently trained staff to be responsive to the interest being expressed; some of the directors
have participated in an orientation to PEAKS and in the financial management training.

Participation: There needs to be a close working relationship between the District, TTIs and
PDSs and cluster schools. Only in the IBET regions are the Districts being provided with
sufficient institutional development to properly perform their role and function related to the new
methodologies. Many of the Districts seem ready and willing to be open and participatory but
lack training.

Networking: The Districts need to work with the TTIs to jointly provide active learning
methodology training support to the schools yet the TTIs are even less prepared to serve as a
training and mentoring provider on the acting learning methodologies than the Districts;
consequently, many of the Districts are developing a working relationship with the PDS and
cluster schools. The Districts seem willing to work with others and could take the leadership in
forming coalitions for change.

Transparency/Accountability: It is the responsibility of the District to monitor and assess
school performance in accordance with the state standards yet many do not sufficiently
understand the active learning methodologies and, thus, are unprepared to assess classroom
performance using the new methodologies.

Resources: The Districts should be providing the textbooks and supportive resource materials
for the active learning methodologies. This is not being done. Many of the schools have more
materials in their resource centers than the Districts. Financial accountability for the school rests
with the District although this is changing with the pilot per capita financing scheme where more
financial responsibility will shift to the school.



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  57
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



           F. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY: KYRGYZSTAN DATA

Included are some overall notes followed by specific information on each of the ‘best
practice’ effectiveness measures and some general comments related to the
Districts/Regions and TTIs.

The set of schools selected for implementation of the USAID/PEAKS basic education active
learning program in Kyrgyzstan were identified based on somewhat similar criteria even though
the models were different; that is, PDS/cluster, Rural PDS/cluster, and Co-PDS/cluster. The
criteria included a commitment to education, sufficient resources, and an interest in being an
exemplary or model school. OSI staff interviewed the school officials and teachers prior to final
selection for implementation of the Step by Step and/or RWCT program methodology. The
Shopokov PDS was an urban school while the other four PDSs, including the two Co-PDSs,
were classified as rural. In most cases, the schools were already leaders in the field of education;
thus, they were unique and replication to other schools without similar resources and a
commitment to education will be difficult.

       Sample Evaluation Schools         grade   # of    men   women     # of      boys    girls
             for Kyrgyzstan              level   staff                  pupils
   1. Shopokov Gym. #1 (PDS)              1-11    67     3       64      1238      619      619
   2. Sokuluk #2             (cluster)    1-11    50     3       57      1014      507      507
   3. Chui #78              (cluster)     1-11    56     6       50      1178      554      624
   4. Boogachi          (PDS/rural)       1-11    71     27      44      847       305      542
   5. Koychumanov           (cluster)     1-11    40     10      30      500       236      264
   6. Kazybek              (cluster)      1-11    98     10      88      1701      763      938
   7. Tangatarova #14 (co-PDS)            5-11    33     12      21      320       128      192
   8. Lenin                (cluster)      1-11    48     10      38      1271      635      636
   9. Osh Town #16      (co-PDS)          1-11    65     0       65      1737      892      845
   10.Toktogul #49        (cluster)       1-11    43     9       34      740       392      348
   11. Tadjibaev        (PDS/rural)       1-11    53     12      41      661       337      324
   12. Toktorov            (cluster)      1-11    76     14      62      1217      605      612

   Average – school size                          58     10      48      1035      497      538


Twelve schools were selected for the USAID evaluation, five PDS schools and seven cluster
schools. As per the sampling matrix (see appendix), the schools represented the three models.
The selected school sample for the evaluation contained an average of 1035 students with an
almost equal distribution of boys and girls. Over 80% of the teachers were women. Within the 12
schools sampled, 23 school officials and 70 education committee and/or parents were
interviewed.

General Notes

School Leaders/Training

Selected comments were as follows: eight teachers & director/deputy received training on social
partnerships & school management/improvement; 10 students received training on school

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                   58
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


parliaments; no SbS or critical thinking training – administration all new; teachers are getting
trained and then desire to move on (Russia & Kazakhstan pay more) - same is true of university
graduates; deputy participated in all SbS trainings; director participated in SI training (TOT); all
12 primary teachers participated in the trainings; all of the school officials attended SI training
and all of the teachers participated in RWCT; school participated in social partnerships training
on relationships between parents and children.

School Attendance

Problem with upper grade children – mostly during the agricultural season and in the winter;
attendance no problem – we call parent in and talk with parent; use of student diaries to
communicate with parents.

Main Issues

Repair of school; need for special music arrangement; invited a parent in for teaching handicrafts
as an after school activity in response to a need; English language teachers are weak – need for
Peace Corp and international exchanges.

General Comments

Logistics and substitutes are issues when working with cluster schools; AK Muz: Boogachi -
70% go on to higher education - of 75 graduates last year 57 went on to higher education, 34
took national test and 12 receive scholarships; would be better to use District than PDS school
for training as the District is more centrally located than the PDS school; better to use
District/director’s subdivisions than the PDS/cluster arrangement – logistically better; mgt. weak
at Kazybek – only Russian school in area and community is holding to traditions; use of uniform
to turn school around – wealthy and poor students equalized; PEAKS and District SI program
same – why use District!; strong leadership by director turned school around; supports PEAKS –
what about the future; ready to compete w/gymnasium.

Local Education Committees/Training

Social Charitable Foundation ‘Araket’ (movement)/Board of Trustees has been set up –
registered with bank account; young men taking leadership roles on CEC; school officials
participating in SI trainings; teachers participated in SbS, RWCT, and social partnerships
training; 2 days in Naryn – mostly on proposal preparation and identifying needs; lack of
parenting skills for parents – need training – lack skills to support their children in school; school
mapping/data base created last month; RWCT and SI training useful especially critical thinking;
most have participated in SC US training; some participation in multi cultural training.

Recent Items & Actions

Construction of some additional seating by a successful businessman; Children’s Club organized
a performance and raised some funds for needy children; planning for joint CEC & SRC – funds
collected and to be collected; quality issues - textbooks and teaching aids, visual aids,

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                   59
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


professional development of staff; textbook problem – also lack of computers & infrastructure
issues; fund raising and rehabilitation issues; need for textbooks and furniture; special program
for orphans - also disabled children in primary grades; project to fence along river bank for
safety; re-roofing project; adjust calendar for agricultural season; textbooks insufficient; heating
system problem; SAVE UK had previously provided some textbooks – associated with SAVE
UK before PEAKS; infrastructure needs include canteen, school auditorium and flooring;
holiday rescheduling issue; need for new uniforms and medical assistance for students from
poor families.

Interaction with School

Children’s Club & CEC – how to equip a classroom as a space for Children’s Club; parents are
empowered; setting up a school parliament; on weekends work on the facilities and grounds;
help with lessons, meetings with teachers, arranging sports competition, excursions, interaction
with teachers outside classroom, and preparing of visual aids.

General Comments & Suggestions

Need to conduct more regional seminars; we are planning to create an association of school
graduates; PC by class – teacher should not be head of class PC; multiple action plans – school
officials/ CEC/Children’s Club and PC need to get together; cost of trips to Bishkek and Naryn;
what happens after PEAKS – expensive program due to logistics and visual aids; low pay of
teachers; teachers are spending own money on visual aids; set up Board of Trustees (registered,
has a charter, has bank account, accountable) – more community ownership; need to tap alumni
support.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level -- Empowerment

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of empowerment-related ‘best practice’ activities in Kyrgyzstan. The
rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

      Kyrgyzstan School, Type &     Respondents    High +      High       Moderate       Low
           Responding Group          per group    80-100%     60-80%      40-60%        0-40%
   1. Shopokov Gym. #1 (PDS)
      school leaders                     3           X
      Board of Trustees                  3           X
      teachers                          12           X
   2. Sokuluk #2        (cluster)
      school leaders                     2                       X
      PC/parents                         2                       X
      teachers                           6                                    X
   3. Chui #78          (cluster)
      school leaders                     1           X
      Board of Trustees                  1                       X
      PC/parents                         4                       X
      teachers                          10           X

   4. Tangatarova #14 (co-PDS)

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 60
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      school leaders                     1               X
      PC/parents                         4                          X
      teachers                          10                          X
   5. Lenin            (cluster)
       school leaders                    1                          X
       PC/parents                       10                          X
       teachers                         10                          X
   6. Osh Town #16 (co-PDS)
       school leaders                    4               X
       PC/parents                        2                          X
       teachers                         10                          X
   7. Toktogul #49     (cluster)
        school leaders                  1                           X
        PC/parents                      2                           X
        teachers                        --

   8. Boogachi       (PDS/rural)
      school leaders                    1        X
      CEC/SRC                           4        X
      PC/parents                        4                X
      teachers                          9        X
   9. Koychumanov       (cluster)
      school leaders                    1                           X
      CEC/SRC                           7                           X
      PC/parents                        1                           X
      teachers                          8                X
   10. Kazybek         (cluster)
      school leaders                     2                                     X
      PC/parents                         1                          X
      teachers                          10                          X

   11. Tajibaev       (PDS/rural)
   .   school leaders                   2                X
       CEC/SRC                          3                X
       PC/parents                       4                X
       teachers                         9                X
   12. Toktorova        (cluster)
       school leaders                    4                                     X
       PC/parents                        8                          X
       teachers                         10                          X

   Average for PDS                  Groups=3    100%    0%          0%        0%
   Average for PDS/cluster          Groups=7     29%    57%        14%        0%
   Average for Co-PDS               Groups=6     17%    33%        50%        0%
   Average for Co-PDS/cluster       Groups=5     0%     0%         100%       0%
   Average for Rural PDS            Groups=8     37%    63%         0%        0%
   Average for Rural PDS /cluster   Groups=10    0%     10%        70%        20%

   Average for All schools          Groups=39   23%     31%        41%        5%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming    61
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Findings

Using the PDS/cluster, Co-PDS/cluster, and Rural PDS/cluster school models for
implementation in selected sample schools in Kyrgyzstan, the school director, local education
committees/parents, and teachers have been encouraged to be actively involved in the education
process. Overall, 54% of the sampled school officials, education committee members/parents and
teachers were implementing effective ‘best practice’ behaviors related to empowerment 60% or
more of the time. The traditional PDS and Rural PDS model were at 100% effectiveness
followed by the Co-PDS at 50%. The PDS/cluster schools were at 86% in empowerment
effectiveness followed by the Rural PDS/cluster at 10% and the Co-PDS/cluster at 0%. Overall,
the PDS schools were at 82% and the cluster schools at 32%, thus, there was about a 50% drop
between the PDS and cluster schools on the empowerment activities. The cluster school
stakeholders all need to work on empowerment activities to reach a more sustainable level.

General Discussion

Typically the school officials had participated in at least one training or awareness session but
only a few had participated in all trainings. Some members of the education committees as well
as parents had either attended an active learning awareness training session and/or visited an
active learning classroom. Most had an awareness of the active learning strategies, while others
had a more detailed knowledge of the methods. All of the schools had action plans. Only a few
schools had the action plans publicly displayed. All of the education committees asked could
produce minutes of their meetings and were able to identify the issues discussed at their last
meeting along with actions taken. Some of the common issues recently discussed were:
attendance, fund raising for needed infrastructure/building repairs such as roof leaks and heaters,
school uniform, need for more textbooks, responding to the needs of the low poverty or disabled
students, equipment needs, and education quality/school performance.

Most were positive about the active learning program and indicated that attendance was better;
enrolment up; children, teachers and parents were happy with the new program although in some
cases feelings were mixed, especially where an insufficient number of teachers had been trained,
director was weak and/or the methodologies were not properly being implemented. The most
common question asked was related to a need for continuation of the active learning in the upper
grades. Parents expressed a need for more training in the content of the new methods and
indicated that more parents be involved.

Some suggestions were as follows: school director and parents need to show continual support
for the teachers as it is the teacher who must implement the active learning methodologies;
empowerment of the whole school community is the goal (teachers, parents, school officials, and
students) - all are equal stakeholders in the process; some communities do not have CECs – if so,
a school-wide parent committee should be established and training provided or, better yet, a
Board of Trustees should be established; every effort needs to be made to involve all teachers in
the awareness sessions/trainings to prepare for continuity in the active learning methodologies
throughout the school; and every effort should be made to involve the government education
officials in all awareness and training activities.



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                62
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Best practice Illustrations: School Officials

School director and deputies have participated in all of the trainings – SbS, SI, RWCT, IE, and
SP; regularly visits the classes, supports teachers in their implementation of the new
methodologies, and provides follow through; maintains an open-door policy where teachers and
parents can visit anytime; some non-trained teachers are observing and trying some of the active
learning techniques; in-school mentoring taking place; open seminars are held where parents and
teachers may attend; director actively working to create awareness and training opportunities for
all stakeholders.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Optimally, the school has set up a registered Board of Trustees with a bank account and
representation from the parents, community, and school parliament; all parents are participating
in the class parent committees with representatives included on a school-wide committee; open
community forums held annually; school improvement/action plan developed with input from all
stakeholders; a strong community education committee that knows and understand its roles and
responsibilities; and members allowed to visit classes, attend awareness sessions, and inclusive
representation on the committees.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

All teachers are included in the in-service active learning and related trainings; observe each
other, use mentoring and peer coaching, are supported and facilitated by the director, attend
trainings and awareness sessions, work as a team, try the new methodologies; and have a positive
working relationship with parents.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Participation

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of participation-related ‘best practice’ activities in Kyrgyzstan. The
rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

      Kyrgyzstan School, Type &      Respondents    High +    High      Moderate      Low
           Responding Group           per group    80-100%   60-80%     40-60%       0-40%
   1. Shopokov Gym. #1 (PDS)
      school leaders                      3          X
      Board of Trustees                   3          X
      teachers                           12          X
   2. Sokuluk #2         (cluster)
      school leaders                      2                    X
      PC/parents                          2                                X
      teachers                            6                    X
   3. Chui #78           (cluster)
      school leaders                      1          X
      Board of Trustees                   1                    X
      PC/parents                          4          X
      teachers                           10          X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              63
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


   4. Tangatarova #14 (co-PDS)
      school leaders                      1                         X
      PC/parents                          4                         X
      teachers                           10              X
   5. Lenin             (cluster)
       school leaders                     1                         X
       PC/parents                        10                         X
       teachers                          10              X
   6. Osh Town #16 (co-PDS)
       school leaders                     4                         X
       PC/parents                         2                         X
       teachers                          10              X
   7. Toktogul #49     (cluster)
       school leaders                    --
       PC/parents                        2                          X
       teachers                          --

   8. Boogachi         (PDS/rural)
      school leaders                     1        X
      CEC/SRC                            4        X
      PC/parents                         4        X
      teachers                           9               X
   9. Koychumanov       (cluster)
      school leaders                     1                          X
      CEC/SRC                            7                          X
      PC/parents                         1                          X
      teachers                           8                          X
   10. Kazybek          (cluster)
      school leaders                      2                         X
      PC/parents                          1                         X
      teachers                           10                                    X

   11.Tajibaev (PDS/rural)
      school leaders                     1               X
      CEC/SRC                            3                          X
      PC/parents                         1                          X
      teachers                           9               X
   12.Toktorov       (cluster)
   . school leaders                       4                                    X
      PC/parents                          8                                    X
      teachers                           10                         X

   Average for PDS                   Groups=3    100%    0%         0%        0%
   Average for PDS/Cluster           Groups=7      43%   43%       14%        0%
   Average for Co-PDS                Groups=6     0%     33%       67%        0%
   Average for Co-PDS/cluster        Groups=4     0%     40%       60%        0%
   Average for Rural PDS             Groups=8     38%    38%       25%        0%
   Average for Rural PDS/cluster     Groups=10    0%     0%        70%        30%

   Average for All schools           Groups=38   24%     24%       45%        8%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming    64
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Findings

Using the PDS/cluster, Co-PDS/cluster, and Rural PDS/cluster school models for
implementation in selected sample schools in Kyrgyzstan, the school director, local education
committees/parents, and teachers have been encouraged to be active participants in the education
process. Overall, 48% of the sampled school officials, education committee members/parents and
teachers were implementing effective ‘best practice’ behaviors related to participation 60% or
more of the time. The traditional PDS model was at 100% effectiveness followed by the Rural
PDSs at 76%, and the Co-PDSs at 33%. The cluster schools were lower with the PDS/cluster at
86% in participation effectiveness followed by the Co-PDS/cluster at 40% and the Rural
PDS/cluster at 0%. Overall, the PDS schools were at 65% and the cluster schools at 40%, thus,
there was about a 25% drop between the PDS and cluster schools on the participation activities.

The cluster school stakeholder groups all need to work on their participation activities to reach a
more effective level. See the ‘best practice’ list for each of the individual stakeholder groups for
an illustrative set of ‘best practice’ participation activities. All stakeholders (community/parents,
school leaders, teachers and students) plus the government education officials, including
directors and key staff, need to participate and support, at least at an awareness level if not a
working level, the active learning methodologies for the model to be replicable and sustainable.

General Discussion

Active and positive participation by all stakeholders (community, school leader, teachers and
students) is one of the first steps in improving the school learning environment. Full participation
will lead to increased understanding, trust, commitment, and ownership. New leaders and
support players will emerge helping to build a unified team with a vision and purpose for the
school. All stakeholders need to participate in in-school activities, after-school activities, as well
as the community mobilization projects.

Included are some suggestions: use of community drama is a good technique to present some of
the school issues in a non-confrontation way and to help create issue awareness and interest;
community mobilizations are excellent, especially if they result in the development and/or an
updated community-wide school-improvement plan; an active school-wide parent committee
and/or an active community education committee are very helpful - training and mentoring will
need to be provided in order to activate these committees; initially, choose one or two
manageable and visible issues and try for an early success, more difficult issues can be discussed
once the process is understood; always ask what the impact or benefit will be to the student; all
stakeholders need to participate in the school related activities, including
understanding/observing the new teaching and learning methodologies, discussion of issues, fund
raising, and development of action plans in order to develop a high quality and participatory
program.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                   65
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School officials provide awareness sessions for parents and ask for input on a regular basis –
monthly class parent meetings and open forums; maintain open door policy for teachers,
community/parents, and students; assists local education committee in preparing and
implementing an action plan, provide progress reports, hold regular staff meetings, includes
teacher input in school decisions, works with Council of Teachers, and supports inclusiveness on
committees.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Regular participation by parents in the school meetings; use of community mobilizations (SWAT
& PRA); input in the development and update of the school action/ improvement/strategic plan;
open classes - parents visit school on a regular basis; participation in parent/community
partnerships; community involvement and support of school projects; improved interaction of
parents and children; monitor student progress/ monitor homework; provide supportive home
environment; encourage school attendance - assist in helping in attendance issues related to low-
income families; volunteer/provide support to teachers, actively participate in school committees,
and engage teacher and school director in discussions related to school improvements.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers interact with parents during monthly class parent meetings; cordial relationship with
school officials, provide input through staff meetings; understand and apply the active learning
methodologies; participate in new methodology trainings and awareness workshops; have good
relations with parents - engage parents in discussions related to school improvement; and work
as a team and assist in after school activities.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Networking/ Partnerships

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of networking/partnership-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Kyrgyzstan. The rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

      Kyrgyzstan School, Type &      Respondents    High +    High       Moderate      Low
           Responding Group           per group    80-100%   60-80%      40-60%       0-40%
   1. Shopokov Gym. #1 (PDS)
      school leaders                      3          X
      Board of Trustees                   3          X
      teachers                           14          X
   2. Sokuluk #2         (cluster)
      school leaders                      2                     X
      PC/parents                          2                     X
      teachers                            6          X
   3. Chui #78           (cluster)
      school leaders                      1                     X
      Board of Trustees                   1                     X
      PC/parents                          4          X
      teachers                           10          X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               66
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


   4. Tangatarova #14 (co-PDS)
      school leaders                    1                           X
      PC/parents                        4                           X
      teachers                          5                X
   5. Lenin             (cluster)
      school leaders                     1               X
      PC/parents                        10                                     X
      teachers                           5       X
   6. Osh Town #16 (co-PDS)
      school leaders                    4                X
      PC/parents                        2                X
      teachers                          5                X
   7. Toktogul #49      (cluster)
       school leaders                   1                                      X
       PC/parents                       2                                      X
       teachers                         5                X

   8. Boogachi       (PDS/rural)
      school leaders                    1        X
      CEC/SRC                           4        X
      PC/parents                        4        X
      teachers                          9        X
   9. Koychumanov       (cluster)
      school leaders                    1                           X
      CEC/SRC                           7                           X
      PC/parents                        1                           X
      teachers                          8        X
   10. Kazybek          (cluster)
      school leaders                     2               X
      PC/SRC/parents                     1                          X
      teachers                          10                          X

   11. Tajibaev       (PDS)
       school leaders                   2                X
       CEC/SRC                          3                X
       PC/parents                       4                X
       teachers                         6                X
   12. Toktorov         (cluster)
   . school leaders                     4                           X
       PC/parents                       8                           X
       teachers                         5        X

   Average for PDS                  Groups=3    100%    0%          0%        0%
   Average for PDS/Cluster          Groups=7      43%   57%         0%         0%
   Average for Co-PDS               Groups=6     0%     67%        33%        0%
   Average for Co-PDS/cluster       Groups=6     17%    33%         0%        33%
   Average for Rural PDS            Groups=8     50%    50%         0%        0%
   Average for Rural PDS/cluster    Groups=10    20%    10%        70%        0%

   Average for all schools          Groups=40   32%     38%        22%        8%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming    67
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Findings

Using the PDS/cluster, Co-PDS/cluster, and Rural PDS/cluster school models for
implementation in selected sample schools in Kyrgyzstan, the school director, local education
committees/parents, and teachers have been encouraged to be active in their
networking/partnerships in the education process. Overall, 70% of the sampled school officials,
education committee members/parents and teachers were implementing effective ‘best practice’
behaviors related to networking/partnerships 60% or more of the time. The traditional PDS and
Rural PDS schools were at 100% followed by the Co-PDSs at 67%. The PDS/cluster was also at
100% in networking/partnership effectiveness followed by the Co-PDS/cluster at 50% and the
Rural PDS/cluster at 30%. Overall, the PDS schools were at 88% and the cluster schools at 56%,
thus, about half of the cluster schools need to continue to work on networking/partnerships to
reach a sustainable level.

General Discussion

An improved network needs to be implemented for the cluster-level community stakeholders to
link more closely with the PDS community stakeholders possibly through regular sharing
sessions or increased informal relationships if the communities are close enough together. A
district level advocacy association may be a possibility. The community stakeholders are
interested and want to be involved; thus, more linkages need to be developed both between the
school and the community as well as between the PDS and cluster communities. Many of the
parents have a basic understanding of the new methodologies but more awareness opportunities
for parent and community stakeholders should be developed; e.g. involve parents in development
of local materials supporting the new methodologies, use community people as resource persons
in the classroom, all PC and CEC members need to visit the active learning classroom.

The PDS staff only occasionally visit the cluster schools; thus, the cluster school needs to create
opportunities for their staff to visit the PDS. The linkage needs to be initiated by the cluster
school. The PDS school needs to be the link to the District/district/city education (DED) office
and initiate district-level linkages and seminars to draw more schools outside the cluster schools
into the active learning methodologies. The District can be helpful in doing this but first must be
provided with increased awareness and training opportunities. The PDS can help do. It is
essential that the District/district/city education department director understand the new
methodologies and take a proactive position related to the new methodologies and it is equally
important that the district-level methodologists are included.

Additionally, a linkage to the Teacher Training Institutes needs to be established – again this
might be done by the PDS in collaboration with the city/district education departments. The
linkage with existing government education institutions has been a weakness of the PDS/SbS
model and more needs to be done. There is a need for more involvement of parents in the school
(both in-school and out-of-school activities) through open-door policy, involvement in student
activities, volunteering to help in the classroom, assistance in material development, availability
as class resource persons is needed.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                68
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School officials develop relationships and share experiences with other schools; show support for
the school parliament, Children’s Club and other school-related social partnerships; include each
of the schools in the cluster as a training venue; explore international exchanges; partnerships
take a lot of hard work – need to work at it; create a separate parent room in the school; facilitate
sharing through open seminars, discussion sessions, class visits, newsletters, etc. within and
between schools, at the district/city education office, and director meetings and district-level
training and seminar/workshop opportunities.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Include key representatives of the community on the school education committee; develop
working relationships with the District; parents actively monitor homework and provide
supportive home environment; assist neighboring education committee (physical proximity is
important) in preparation of proposal; parents and community stakeholders need to encourage
other parents and community members, whether they have a child in the school or not, to visit
the school and get involved in school-related activities; and network and share experiences with
community members in other communities utilizing the active learning methodologies.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers need to make every effort to visit the cluster schools more; employ an open door policy
along with involvement in school-level, PDS-related, and district/city-level active learning
events.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Accountability/ Transparency

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of accountability/transparency-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Kyrgyzstan. The rating was done using a focus group/structured interview.

      Kyrgyzstan School, Type &      Respondents    High +      High       Moderate       Low
           Responding Group           per group    80-100%     60-80%      40-60%        0-40%
   1. Shopokov Gym. #1 (PDS)
      school leaders                      3           X
      Board of Trustees                   3           X
      teachers                           12                       X
   2. Sokuluk #2         (cluster)
      school leaders                      2                                    X
      PC/parents                          2           X
      teachers                            6                                                X
   3. Chui #78           (cluster)
      school leaders                      1                       X
      Board of Trustees                   1           X
      PC/parents                          4                       X
      teachers                           10                       X

   4. Tangatarova #14(co-PDS)

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  69
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      school leaders                     1                          X
      PC/parents                         4                                     X
      teachers                          10                          X
   5. Lenin            (cluster)
       school leaders                    1                          X
       PC/parents                       10                                     X
       teachers                         10               X
   6. Osh Town #16 (co-PDS)
       school leaders                    4                          X
       PC/parents                        2               X
       teachers                         10               X
   7. Toktogul #49    (cluster)
   . school leaders                     --
        PC/parents                      2                                      X
        teachers                        --

   8. Boogachi       (PDS/rural)
      school leaders                    1                X
      CEC/SRC                           4                X
      PC/parents                        4       X
      teachers                          9                           X
   9. Koychumanov (cluster)
      school leaders                    1                                      X
      CEC/SRC                           7                                      X
      PC/parents                        1                                      X
      teachers                          8                           X
   10. Kazybek          (cluster)
      school leaders                     2                          X
      PC/SRC/parents                     1                          X
      teachers                          10                                     X

   11 Tajibaev        (PDS/rural)
       school leaders                   2                X
       CEC/SRC                          3                           X
       PC/parents                       4                           X
       teachers                         9                X
   12. Toktorov         (cluster)
      school leaders                     4                                     X
      PC/parents                         8                          X
       teachers                         10                                     X

   Average for PDS                  Groups=3    67%     33%         0%        0%
   Average for PDS/Cluster          Groups=7    29%      43%       14%        14%
   Average for Co-PDS               Groups=6    0%      33%        50%        17%
   Average for Co-PDS/cluster       Groups=4    0%      25%        25%        50%
   Average for Rural PDS            Groups=8    12%     50%        37%        0%
   Average for Rural PDS/cluster    Groups=10   0%      0%         40%        60%

   Average for All schools          Groups=38   13%     29%        32%        26%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming    70
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Findings

Using the PDS/cluster, Co-PDS/cluster, and Rural PDS/cluster school models for
implementation in selected sample schools in Kyrgyzstan, the school director, local education
committees/parents,         and    teachers     have     been     encouraged      to      implement
accountability/transparency in the education process. Overall, 42% of the sampled school
officials, education committee members/parents and teachers were implementing effective ‘best
practice’ behaviors related to accountability/transparency 60% or more of the time. The
traditional PDS model was at 100% effectiveness followed by the Rural PDSs at 62%, and the
Co-PDSs at 33%. The cluster schools were lower with the PDS/cluster at 72% in
accountability/transparency effectiveness followed by the Co-PDS/cluster at 25% and the Rural
PDS/cluster at 0%. Overall, the PDS schools were at 58% and the cluster schools at 29%, thus,
there was almost a 30% drop between the PDS and cluster schools on the
accountability/transparency activities. All of the groups should continue to work on the
accountability/transparency ‘best practice’ activities, especially the cluster school stakeholders.
See the ‘best practice’ list for each of the individual stakeholder groups for an illustrative set of
‘best practice’ activities.

General Discussion

The accountability/transparency focus area is usually one of the last areas to be developed in the
implementation of a social change. Empowerment and participation are the first stage followed
by networking/linkages and lastly by mobilizing resources and accountability/transparency. To
date the cluster schools have focused on empowerment and participation followed by networking
and some mobilization of local resources; consequently, accountability/ transparency has been a
lower priority during these early stages of implementation of the active learning methodologies
and related holistic school development process. Accountability/transparency is important in
both the academic and financial areas as it is a key to building trust in the school system. Since
Kyrgyzstan doesn’t have a national testing program at the basic education level, the assessment
of academic performance is a responsibility of the schools. Likewise with financial transparency,
school budgets have been the responsibility of the district/city education departments except for
non-budget (local resources) items; thus, any priority given to these areas has been left to the
leadership of the school director. With an increasing emphasis being placed on financial
management and decentralization in decision making, including greater mobilization and
utilization of local resources, more and more emphasis is now being placed on the
accountability/transparency function.

Some suggestions are as follows: education committee/parents need to hold school academically
and financially responsible by requesting periodic financial and student performance reports;
need for school director and deputies to participate in additional training and seminars on
financial management and on school-based monitoring and evaluation techniques; need for
school to provide more opportunities for teacher and parent dialog; and need for school director,
CEC/PC, and teachers to dialog on their role and responsibility related to
accountability/transparency.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  71
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School leaders are creating awareness in the community/parents in regard to academic
performance and financial transparency; request parents of non-performing students to come to
school and observe their child in class; regularly visits classes, evaluates teachers, reviews lesson
plans; monitors student behavior, monitors attendance, provides progress reports to teachers,
reports on non-budget expenditures, holds class and student competitions/olympiadas, and
publicly presents/posts learning results.


Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Parents show an active interest in school performance, ask questions of teachers about quality,
and include quality of education issues in the action plan; provide transparency in fee collection;
use of a parent accounting committee or inspection committee to review non-budget resources;
provide progress reports of expenditures at open end-of-year meeting of parents; use active
learning methodologies in parent meetings; visit classes, observe and talk to students and
teachers about progress, review student portfolios, monitor homework, encourage school to hold
recognition ceremonies for students and teachers, encourage periodic school-level testing and
reporting out of quarterly and end of year reading and writing performance reports, and request
progress and expenditure reports on use of non-budget funds.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers assess their students using observation methods, portfolios, class assignments, team and
daily notes; provide quarterly grades; academic recognition through certificates of honor,
Olympiad, prizes, board of honor, special trips, public recognition; and track student attendance
and behavior.

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the School Level: Mobilize Resources

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of the school leaders, CEC/SRC, PC/parents, and
teachers in implementation of mobilizing resources-related ‘best practice’ activities in
Kyrgyzstan. The rating was done by the evaluator using a focus group/structured

      Kyrgyzstan School, Type &       Respondents    High +     High       Moderate       Low
          Responding Group             per group    80-100%    60-80%      40-60%        0-40%
   1. Shopokov Gym. #1 (PDS)
      school leaders                       3          X
      Board of Trustees                    3          X
   2. Sokuluk #2          (cluster)
      school leaders                       2                                               X
      PC/parents                           2                      X
   3. Chui #78           (cluster)
      school leaders                       1          X
      Board of Trustees                    1          X
      PC/parents                           4                      X



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                  72
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

   4. Tangatarova #14 (co-PDS)
      school leaders                    1                           X
      PC/parents                        2                           X
   5. Lenin             (cluster)
       school leaders                   2                           X
       PC/parents                       2                           X
   6. Osh Town #16 (co-PDS)
       school leaders                   2                X
       PC/parents                       2                           X
   7. Toktogul #49
   (cluster)
        school leaders                  --
        PC/parents                      --

   8. Boogachi       (PDS/rural)
      school leaders                    1                X
      CEC/SRC                           4        X
      PC/parents                        4        X
   9. Koichumanov       (cluster)
      school leaders                    1                                      X
      CEC/SRC                           7                                      X
      PC/parents                        1                                      X
   10. Kazybek          (cluster)
      school leaders                    2                X
      PC/SRC/parents                    1                                      X

   11. Tajibaev       (PDS/rural)
       school leaders                   1                           X
       CEC/SRC                          3                           X
       PC/parents                       1                           X
   12. Toktorov        (cluster)
   . school leaders                     1                X
       PC/parents                       4                           X


   Average for PDS                  Groups=2    100%    0%          0%        0%
   Average for PDS/Cluster          Groups=5      40%   40%         0%        20%
   Average for Co-PDS               Groups=4     0%     25%        75%        0%
   Average for Co-PDS/cluster       Groups=2     0%     0%         100%       0%
   Average for Rural PDS            Groups=6     33%    16%        50%        0%
   Average for Rural PDS/cluster    Groups=7     0%     28%        14%        57%

   Average for All schools          Groups=26   23%     23%        35%        19%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming    73
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Findings

Using the PDS/cluster, Co-PDS/cluster, and Rural PDS/cluster school models for
implementation in selected sample schools in Kyrgyzstan, the school director, local education
committees/parents, and teachers have been encouraged to mobilize resources in support of the
education process. Overall, 46% of the sampled school officials, education committee
members/parents and teachers were implementing effective ‘best practice’ behaviors related to
mobilizing resources 60% or more of the time. The traditional PDS model was at 100%
effectiveness/high plus followed by the Rural PDSs at 49%, and the Co-PDSs at 0%. The cluster
schools were lower with the PDS/cluster at 80% in mobilizing resource effectiveness followed
by the Rural PDS/cluster at 28% and the Co-PDS/cluster at 0%. Overall, the PDS schools were at
50% and the cluster schools at 43%, thus, the Rural PDS and Co-PDS schools along with all
cluster schools need to work on ‘best practices’ related to mobilizing resources to reach a more
effective level.

General Discussion

This is a new area of emphasis for many od the schools although many of the urban center
schools have previously been soliciting non-budget resources for basic school and special need
students through contributions, assessment of fees, and use of volunteer unskilled labor for those
who could not contribute. With the USAID infrastructure and small grants program along with
the development of the Community Education Committees and School Rehabilitation Committee
there has been a greater emphasis placed on the role of the community in mobilizing local
resources in support of local school needs. The communities have actively participated in the
school improvement projects mostly through unskilled labor, contributions and supplemental
fund raising. Participation and empowerment in mobilizing community interest, involvement and
pride in the school has been significant.

The general management as well as the finalcial management of the infrastructure and small
grants were handled directly by the implementing partner with the communities providing in-
kind labor and matching resources (up to 45%); consequently the local education committee
(SRC, CEC and/or PC) was limited in value added management capacity building. The local
committee was responsible for the management of the non-budget resources, unskilled labor and
some related local logistics. Over site on infrastructure was provided by a subcontractor
engineer. Capacity building would have been greater if the communities had been allowed to
assume a larger role in managing the school projects and/or the funds themselves. It would have
taken longer and the funds would have had to be linked to some kind of a tranche system with
monitoring but the development of the committee management function and potential for
sustainability would have been much greater. With the subcontractor handling the donor
contribution/ finances and providing the over site engineer, this limited the capacity of the local
education agency to more fully develop their management functions although there were cultural
constraints because of remnants from the soviet era, which made it difficult to provide as much
value-added management capacity building as would be desirable.

Some suggestions are as follows: community mobilization component needs to be mutually
supportive to the infrastructure and/or a small grants program to provide maximum value-added

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                74
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


capacity building in mobilizing resources; and need for additional financial management and
reporting training for the school director and key education committee members as the
management capacity of the CEC/SRC and/or PC/SRC is critical to mobilizing and managing
local resources.

Best Practice Illustrations: School Officials

School officials maintain alumni records and track alumni support; activate the participation of
the School Parliament and Children’s Club; work with community education committee to
manage more of its own non-budget resources rather than a third party; work to actively involve
the parent committees to identify possible community resources; participates in financial
management training; works with community to actively mobilize local and district-level
resources; works with education committee/parents and staff in identifying and prioritizing
needs; shares financial report of fund raising and expenditures with staff and community,
presents report at meetings and displays reports publicly.

Best Practice Illustrations: Local Education Committee/Parents

Local education committee is working jointly with neighboring community representatives in
sharing experiences and mobilizing resources; clear communication of need, expectation/role
and progress of the community contribution; volunteering to help in after school activities such
as sponsor on school trips; receives training on mobilizing local resources (materials, labor, and
logistics), fund raising strategies, and financial reporting; provide unskilled labor for school
projects, actively participate as volunteers for in-school and out-of-school activities, participate
in development of local resource instructional materials, and serve as classroom resource
persons.

Best Practice Illustrations: Teachers

Teachers build cordial relations with parents and participate in fund raising activities along side
parents, students and community.


DISTRICT Comments – Kyrgyzstan

Analysis of Best Practice Effectiveness at the District Level:

Included is a rating of the ‘current practice’ of selected Districts and Region in implementation
of ‘best practice’ education management activities supportive to the PEAKS program in
Kyrgyzstan. The ratings were done using a focus group/structured interview.

     Kyrgyzstan Region/Districts   Respondents     High +      High       Moderate       Low
                                    per group     80-100%     60-80%      40-60%        0-40%
   1. Shopokov (District)               2
      empowerment                                                             X
      participation                                              X
      partnerships                                               X
      performance monitoring                                                  X

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                    75
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.

      resources/transparency                                                X
   2. Bishkek (Region/educ. dept.)      1
      empowerment                                                           X
      participation                                                         X
      partnerships                                              X
      performance monitoring                                                            X
      resources/transparency                                                            X
   3. Ak Baashi (District)              1
      empowerment                                               X
      participation                                             X
      partnerships                                  X
      performance monitoring                                                X
      resources/transparency                                                X
   4. Uzgen (District)                  1
      empowerment                                                                       X
      participation                                                                     X
      partnerships                                                                      X
      performance monitoring                                                            X
      resources/transparency                                                X

   Average for empowerment              4          0%          25%         50%         25%
   Average for participation            4          0%          50%         25%         25%
   Average for partnerships             4          25%         50%         0%          25%
   Average for perf. monitoring         4          0%          0%          50%         50%
   Average for resources                4          0%          0%          75%         25%

   Overall average                     20          5%          25%         40%         30%

Findings

Overall only 30% of the Districts are demonstrating a high level (60% or more) of effectiveness
related to the ‘best practice’ categories. The Districts were stronger in partnerships at 75%
followed by participation and empowerment at 50% and 25%, respectively. Performance
monitoring and resources/transparency were at 0%. Of the three Districts and one Region, the Ak
Bashi District was the strongest, scoring at the high effectiveness level on empowerment,
participation and partnerships followed by Shopokov District, which scored at the high
effectiveness level on participation and partnerships.

General Comments

Many of the District staff are attending the seminars and trainings at the PDS school and some of
the PEAKS seminars but what is needed is for their staff is to go through the formal training
modules and to become trainers - need for trainers at the District level came up several times.

Some of the Districts are divided into zones or parts with previously identified base schools. The
current PDS/cluster model has not followed this previously organized base school and zone
pattern; thus, logistics and distance has become an issue along with some negative
competitiveness between schools, especially in the rural areas. MOE is on board. The Districts
are interested in working with the TTIs but the TTIs need more knowledge – management and
staff of TTIs not up to speed.

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               76
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



There is a teacher recruitment and supply issue - university graduates unwilling to become
teachers unless offered packages including accommodations and incentives, best teachers are
leaving for other jobs, plus the impact of retirement. If this continues, serious social problems
will result disrupting the movement towards democracy

Empowerment:

Some of the non-cluster schools in the Districts are interested and allowed to attend awareness
sessions; of 1800 teachers in one of the Districts – 30 % have had some awareness through open
seminars.

Uzgen – education officials have received some training orientation.

District at Ak Bashi attended PEAKS training only but very supportive and would like all of his
staff to be tpained as trainers – very willing to work with PEAKS- sees private schools emerging
as an alternative

Participation:

Need to do more to share ‘best practices’; need to continue to develop the CECs and parent
committees; need for manual of ‘best practices’ for teachers, CECs/ PCs, school leaders, etc.;
need for a Methodological Manual for the Districts; weak in participatory planning and
management.

Networking/Partnerships:

Netwmrking is good with the schools within the District as many are already divided in zones;
active networking is going on among the schools; need to help organize the schools to observe
and learn from PEAKS; limited NGO contribution has been helpful; role of TTI is questioned
related to PEAKS.

Transparency/Accountability:

Whole evaluation system currently depends on local school and teacher reports which the system
is unable to verify; seminars are held among groups of schools to compare and share methods
and results – again a need for ‘best practices’ manuals; thinks District level finances are
transparent but questions transparency at local level

Resources:

Need for more salary for trainers; local contributors are critical of covering gaps left by the
public budget; local support more common in urban areas- up to 30% of support costs raised
locally plus up to 25% add on for salaries.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              77
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Region:

Staff have attended two PEAKs seminars; District staff have had more training and involvement;
local NGOs pretty much invisible; some interest in the universities because TTIs are weak; in
principle teachers should receive 25 days of in-service training every five years – currently lucky
if they receive 5 days – was a traditional soviet system that collapsed; would like to help make
model work.

TTI - KAE is an amalgamation of four institutions

Need for USAID to establish better relationships with the state educational institutions –
difficulty is that all international organizations likes PEAKS are temporary – when they leave
most information (experience and knowledge) goes with them- they need to leave more
published information (lessons and best practices) behind about what they have learned; Center
of pedagogical innovation technologies – some attend PEAKS seminars but no regular activity;
TTIs more subject oriented; in order to work more closely with the TTIs, TTIs need more
knowledge

TTI Interview – Osh Institute for Professional Development (IPD)

17,791 teachers in Region – in-service from 1 week to 1 month – majority are women; TTI staff
have received some PEAKS training – would like to cooperate more closely; teacher salaries are
low – hard to motivate; staff- 36 trainers, 68 total staff; dept heads and subject specialists are
experienced teachers (pedagogy combined with subject-normal pre-service training); not
involved in mentoring of PEAKS teachers; TTIs want piece of action; model can be replicated
jointly with TTI and PDS; would like to train their staff on PEAKS. This is one of the better
TTIs and with sufficient investment of project funds could be converted to a useful player.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                78
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                             G. TEACHER BEST PRACTICES DATA

•      Best Practices definition,
•      Best Practices ratings by country
•      Best Practices comparisons among countries

Best Practices and definition for Effective In-Service Teacher Training:
Teachers receive regular, relevant and locally based teacher training; up-to-date learner-
centered methodologies are presented in both theory and practice; training sessions provide a
model of active learning for trainees; all teachers in a school benefit from in-service training.

Best Practices and definition of Effective Peer Mentoring/Coaching:
Training follow-up includes mentoring support at the teacher’s school; focused observations and
post-observation discussions help reinforce newly-acquired KSA and encourage behavior
change; co-teaching and observation of demonstration lessons provide trainees with appropriate
role modeling.

Best Practices and definition of Learning Environment:
The physical classroom environment enhances learning for all of the learners; a “friendly”
arrangement of furniture and/or learners is important as it allows for face-to-face interaction
among learners; Classroom displays of students’ work and of teaching/learning materials also
encourage learning; learners should be free to move around the classroom to get materials, to
use classroom resources, and to work with others.

Best Practices and definition of Using Effective Learner-Centered Methodologies: All
teachers in a school use learner-centered methodologies (LCM) as often as possible; teachers
share ideas and discuss problems regarding using the most effective methodologies with
colleagues and school administrators; teachers benefit from structured observation of their use
of LCM and get feedback and guidance; use methods that actively involve learners in discussion
and problem solving.

Best Practices and definition of Effective Teaching and Learning Activities: Appropriate use of
teaching and learning materials (TLM) by the teacher engages learners in the lesson and helps
learners to understand concepts and use critical thinking skills; select appropriate TLMs and
include them in the lesson plan; choose TLMs related to the lesson, and appropriate for the level
of the learners; TLMs should involve learners in discussion and problem solving.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              79
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                               Best Practices Ratings by Country

                     Best Practices for Uzbekistan—PDS vs. Cluster Schools

In-Service Teacher Training—Uzbekistan
                              Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                              Schools       N=
   PDS                           5           37        20%       80%
   Cluster schools               5           42        40%       40%                20%




Mentoring—Uzbekistan
                              Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                              Schools       N=
   PDS                           5           37        20%      20%        60%
   Cluster schools               5           42                   60%      20%      20%




Learning Environment—Uzbekistan
                              Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                              Schools       N=
   PDS                           5           37        100%
   Cluster schools               5           42                  80%                20%




Using Learner Centered Methodologies—Uzbekistan
                              Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                              Schools       N=
   PDS                           5           37        80%      20%
   Cluster schools               5           42        60%                 20%      20%




Teaching and Learning Activities—Uzbekistan
                              Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                              Schools       N=
   PDS                           5           37        80%       20%
   Cluster schools               5           42        40%       40%                20%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming            80
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


  Best Practices for Tajikistan—PDS, Cluster Schools, Rural Schools and IBET Schools

In-Service Teacher Training—Tajikistan
        Type of School     Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   PDS                        4           28        25%       75%
   PDS cluster schools        4           14        50%       50%
   Rural cluster schools      1           5         100%




In-Service Teacher Training—Tajikistan
        Type of School     Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   IBET core                  1           6         100%
   IBET satellite             1           18        100%




Mentoring—Tajikistan
        Type of School     Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   PDS                        4           28                 100%
   Cluster schools            4           14                   25%      50%      25%
   Rural cluster schools      1           5                            100%




Mentoring—Tajikistan
        Type of School     Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   IBET core                  1           6         100%
   IBET satellite             1           18        100%




Learning Environment—Tajikistan
         Type of school    Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   PDS                        4           28        50%       50%
   Cluster schools            3           14        50%       25%       25%
   Rural cluster schools      1           5                                      100%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         81
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Learning Environment—Tajikistan
         Type of school    Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   IBET core                  1           6         100%
   IBET satellite             1           18        100%




Using Learner Centered Methodologies—Tajikistan
         Type of school    Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   PDS                        4           28        50%       50%
   Cluster schools            3           14                  50%       25%      25%
   Rural cluster schools      1           5                            100%




Using Learner Centered Methodologies—Tajikistan
         Type of school    Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   IBET core                  1           6         100%
   IBET satellite             1           18                  100%




Teaching and Learning Activities—Tajikistan
         Type of school    Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   PDS                        4           28        50%      50%
   Cluster schools            3           14                   50%      25%      25%
   Rural cluster schools      1           5                            100%




Teaching and Learning Activities—Tajikistan
         Type of school    Number     Teachers      High +    High    Moderate    Low
                             of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                           Schools       N=
   IBET core                  1           6         100%
   IBET satellite             1           18        100%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         82
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.




   Best Practices for Kyrgyzstan—PDS, Cluster Schools, Co-PDS, Potential/rural PDS

In-Service Teacher Training—Kyrgyzstan
          Type of School         Number      Teachers     High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                   of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                                 Schools       N=88
    PDS                             1           14        100%
    PDS cluster schools             2           16                 100%

    Co-PDS                         2           10                  100%
    Co-PDS cluster schools         2           10                  100%

    Rural PDS                      2           15         50%       50%
    Rural PDS cluster schools      3           23                  66.6%     33.3%
                         total     12



Mentoring—Kyrgyzstan
          Type of School         Number      Teachers     High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                   of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                                 Schools       N=88
    PDS                             1           14        100%
    PDS cluster schools             2           16        50%       50%

    Co-PDS                         2           10                  100%
    Co-PDS cluster schools         2           10                            100%

    Rural PDS                      2           15                  100%
    Rural PDS cluster schools      3           23                            66.6%     33.3%
                         total     12



Learning Environment—Kyrgyzstan
          Type of School         Number      Teachers     High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                   of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                                 Schools       N=88
    PDS                             1           14        100%
    PDS cluster schools             2           16        50%                 50%

    Co-PDS                         2           10                  100%
    Co-PDS cluster schools         2           10                            100%

    Rural PDS                      2           15          50%      50%
    Rural PDS cluster schools      3           23         33.3%              33.3%     33.3%
                         total     12




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               83
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Using Learner-Centered Methodologies—Kyrgyzstan
          Type of School         Number      Teachers     High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                   of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                                 Schools       N=88
    PDS                             1           14        100%
    PDS cluster schools             2           16        50%                 50%

    Co-PDS                         2           10                  100%
    Co-PDS cluster schools         2           10                            100%

    Rural PDS                      2           15         50%       50%
    Rural PDS cluster schools      3           23                            66.6%     33.3%
                         total     12          88



Teaching and Learning Activities—Kyrgyzstan
          Type of School         Number      Teachers     High +    High    Moderate    Low
                                   of      interviewed   80-100%   60-80%   40-60%     0-40%
                                 Schools       N=88
    PDS                             1           14        100%
    PDS cluster schools             2           16        50%                 50%

    Co-PDS                         2           10                  100%
    Co-PDS cluster schools         2           10                    50%      50%

    Rural PDS                      2           15         50%       50%
    Rural PDS cluster schools      3           23                  33.3%     33.3%     33.3%
                         total     12          88




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               84
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                     Best Practices Ratings among Countries
    PDS schools—Comparison of Best Practices Ratings among Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
                                    Kyrgyzstan

In-Service Teacher Training—PDS ratings
             Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate        Low
                                    of        interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%         0-40%
                                  Schools         N=
     Uzbekistan                      5             37          20%         80%
     ¹Tajikistan                     4             28          25%         75%
     ²Kyrgyzstan                     5             39          40%         60%
¹IBET core school not included
²1 traditional PDS + 2 Co-PDS + 2 rural PDS = 5; (“potential/rural PDS” classified as “rural PDS”)


Mentoring—PDS ratings
             Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate        Low
                                    of        interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%         0-40%
                                  schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                       5             37          20%          20%         60%
    Tajikistan                       4             28                      100%
    Kyrgyzstan                       5             39          20%          80%



Learning Environment—PDS Ratings
             Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate        Low
                                     of       interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%         0-40%
                                  schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                       5             37         100%
    Tajikistan                       4             28         50%          50%
    Kyrgyzstan                       5             39         40%          60%



Using Learner Centered Methodologies—PDS ratings
             Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate        Low
                                     of       interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%         0-40%
                                  schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                       5             37          80%         20%
    Tajikistan                       4             28          50%         50%
    Kyrgyzstan                       5             39          20%         60%          20%



Teaching and Learning Activities—PDS ratings
             Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate        Low
                                     of       interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%         0-40%
                                  schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                       5             37          80%         20%
    Tajikistan                       4             28          50%         50%
    Kyrgyzstan                       5             39          40%         60%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                             85
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



    Cluster schools--Comparison of Best Practice Ratings among Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
                                       Kyrgyzstan

In-Service Teacher Training—Cluster School Ratings
              Country               Number       Teachers        High +        High    Moderate    Low
                                        of      interviewed 80-100% 60-80%             40-60%     0-40%
                                     schools        N=
    Uzbekistan                          5            42            20%          80%
    ¹Tajikistan                          5           19                        60.0%    40.0%
    ²Kyrgyzstan                          7           49                        85.8%    14.3%
¹4 PDS cluster schools + 1 rural cluster = 5; IBET satellite school not included
²2 PDS cluster schools + 2 Co-PDS cluster schools + 3 rural cluster schools = 7



Mentoring—Cluster School Ratings
              Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate    Low
                                     of        interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%     0-40%
                                   schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                        5             42                      60.0%       20.0%     20.0%
    Tajikistan                        5             19                                  80.0%     20.0%
    Kyrgyzstan                        7             49                      14.3%       71.5%     14.3%



Learning Environment—Cluster School Ratings
              Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate    Low
                                     of        interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%     0-40%
                                   schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                        5             42                      80.0%                 2.00%
    Tajikistan                        5             19                      40.0%       20.0%     40.0%
    Kyrgyzstan                        7             49         28.5%                    57.2%     14.3%



Using Learner Centered Methodologies—Cluster School Ratings
              Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate    Low
                                      of       interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%     0-40%
                                   schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                        5             42          60.0%                   20.0%     20.0%
    Tajikistan                        5             19                      40.0%       40.0%     20.0%
    Kyrgyzstan                        7             49          28.6%                   57.2%     14.3%



Teaching and Learning Activities—Cluster School Ratings
              Country              Number       Teachers       High +       High       Moderate    Low
                                     of        interviewed    80-100%      60-80%      40-60%     0-40%
                                   schools         N=
    Uzbekistan                        5             42         40.0%        40.0%                 20.0%
    Tajikistan                        5             19                      40.0%       40.0%     20.0%
    Kyrgyzstan                        7             49         14.3%        28.6%       42.9%     14.3%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                          86
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                           H. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

A. Comparison of responses among countries
B. Response analysis by country

A. Comparison of responses among Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan teachers (PDS
                                and cluster schools)

Question 1: “How would you evaluate the in-service training that you have received under the
PEAKS program”?
Overall response
1. Evaluation of in-service training
                  Country               N=      excellent      very    average poor
                                                               good
    Uzbekistan                          78       25.5%         57%      17.5%      0%
    Tajikistan                          93       21.7%        49.5% 20.5%         8.3%
    Kyrgyzstan                         104       23.8%        53.5% 22.7%          0%



Question 2: “In your classroom, how often do you use the new student-centered methodologies
that you learned during your PEAKS training”?
Overall response:
Question 2. Using student-centered methodologies
                 Country                 N=       4/5      once a      once or never
                                                times        day       twice a
                                                a day                   week
     Uzbekistan                           78    45.8%      37.8%       12.4%      4%
     Tajikistan                           93    39.2%      37.6%        17%      6.2%
     Kyrgyzstan                          104    34.5%       42%        23.5%      0%



Question 4: “How would you describe your experience in working with another teacher in a
peer mentoring relationship”?
Overall response:
Question 4. Peer mentoring relationships
                Country              N=  very helpful    somewhat       not
                                                         helpful        helpful
     Uzbekistan                       78     51.1%          35.8%         13.1%
     Tajikistan                       93     56.0%          28.0%         16.0%
     Kyrgyzstan                      104     50.7%          43.8%          5.5%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         87
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Question 6. “How would you describe the other teachers in your school in cooperating to
implement the new, student-centered methodologies”?
Overall response:
Question 6. Teacher cooperation in implementing new methodologies
                Country              N=      very helpful somewhat       not
                                                          helpful       helpful
     Uzbekistan                        78       62.6%        33.4%         4%
     Tajikistan                        93       50.0%        45.0%         5%
     Kyrgyzstan                       104       55.3%        42.0%        2.7%



Question 7: “How would you describe the attitude of the school director in encouraging teachers
to use the new, student-centered methodologies”?
Overall response:
Question 7. Attitude of school director
                 Country               N=        very        somewhat              not
                                              supportive     supportive        supportive
     Uzbekistan                         78        80.8%           19.2%            0%
     Tajikistan                         93        72.6%           23.2%           4.2%
     Kyrgyzstan                        104        70.9%           25.5%           3.6%



Question 8: “How often do you talk to parents of your students about their progress”?
Overall Response:
Question 8. Teacher’s contact with parents
               Country                  N=       every once/twice         only at never
                                                  day     a week          parent-
                                                                          teacher
                                                                         meeting
   Uzbekistan                            78     18.6%        64.9%         16.5%      0%
   Tajikistan                            93     20.2%        61.3%         18.5%      0%
   Kyrgyzstan                           104     18.1%        46.5%         35.4%      0%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming            88
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


B. Response analysis by country
                                    Uzbekistan
        Teacher’s Questionnaire—response analysis of questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8

In-service teacher training:
Question 1: “How would you evaluate the in-service training that you have received under the
PEAKS program”?
Uzbekistan
                  School                N=      excellent      very    average poor
                                        78                     good
    1. Parvoz         (PDS)              5         20%         80%       0%        0%
    2. Tashlak #11    (cluster)          5          0%         20%      80%        0%
    3. Uchkuprik #8 (cluster)           10         10%         50%      40%        0%
    4. Dangara #12 (PDS)                 5         40%         60%       0%        0%
    5. Kokand         (cluster)          8         25%         75%       0%        0%
    6. Almalik #5      (PDS)             8         50%         50%       0%        0%
    7. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)               10         10%         60%      30%        0%
    8. Tashkent #145 (PDS)               9        44.4%       55.5%      0%        0%
    9. Tashkent #114 (cluster)           8         25%         50%      25%        0%
    10. Tashkent #98 (cluster)          10         30%         70%       0%        0%

                              average    N=78      25.5%      57%      17.5%      0%


Using student-centered methodologies:
Question 2: “In your classroom, how often do you use the new student-centered methodologies
that you learned during your PEAKS training”?
Uzbekistan
                   School                  N=      4/5     once a      once or never
                                           78    times       day       twice a
                                                 a day                  week
     1. Parvoz         (PDS)                5     60%        40%         0%       0%
     2. Tashlak #11    (cluster)            5     0%         40%         20%      40%
     3. Uchkuprik #8 (cluster)             10     20%        40%         40%      0%
     4. Dangara #12 (PDS)                   5     80%        20%         0%       0%
     5. Kokand         (cluster)            8    62.5%      37.5%        0%       0%
     6. Almalik #5      (PDS)               8     75%        25%         0%       0%
     7. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)                 10     60%        20%         20%      0%
     8. Tashkent #145 (PDS)                 9    33.3%      55.5%       11.1%     0%
     9. Tashkent #114 (cluster)             8    37.5%       50%        12.5%     0%
     10. Tashkent #98 (cluster)            10     30%        50%         20%      0%

                              average    N=78    45.8%      37.8%      12.4%      4%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         89
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Peer mentoring relationships:
Question 4: “How would you describe your experience in working with another teacher in a
peer mentoring relationship”?
Uzbekistan
                 School           N=     very helpful    somewhat       not
                                  78                     helpful        helpful
     1. Parvoz          (PDS)       5         60%            40%            0%
    2. Tashlak #11      (cluster)      5        0%            20%           80%
    3. Uchkuprik #8     (cluster)     10       10%            70%           20%
    4. Dangara #12       (PDS)         5       40%            40%           20%
    5. Kokand           (cluster)      8       75%            25%            0%
    6. Almalik #5        (PDS)         8      87.5%          12.5%           0%
    7. Akkurgan # 6      (PDS)        10       80%            20%            0%
    8. Tashkent #145      (PDS)        9      33.3%          55.5%         11.1%
    9. Tashkent #114      (cluster)    8       75%            25%            0%
    10. Tashkent #98      (cluster)   10       50%            50%            0%

                              average N=78    51.1%          35.8%         13.1%



Teacher cooperation:
Question 6: “How would you describe the other teachers in your school in cooperating to
implement the new, student-centered methodologies”?
Uzbekistan
                 School              N=         very    somewhat           not
                                     78     supportive  supportive      supportive
     1. Parvoz         (PDS)            5        80%         20%
     2. Tashlak #11   (cluster)         5        20%         40%           40%
     3. Uchkuprik #8 (cluster)         10        20%         80%            0%
     4. Dangara #12 (PDS)               5       100%         0%             0%
     5. Kokand        (cluster)         8       87.5%       12.5%           0%
     6. Almalik #5      (PDS)           8        75%         25%            0%
     7. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)             10        10%         90%            0%
     8. Tashkent #145 (PDS)             9       88.8%       11.1%           0%
     9. Tashkent #114 (cluster)         8        75%         25%            0%
     10. Tashkent #98 (cluster)        10        70%         30%            0%

                             average N=78     62.6%          33.4%          4%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming     90
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Attitude of school director:
Question 7: “How would you describe the attitude of the school director in encouraging teachers
to use the new, student-centered methodologies”?
Uzbekistan
                  School               N=         very         somewhat           not
                                       78      supportive      supportive      supportive
      1. Parvoz          (PDS)          5        100%              0%             0%
      2. Tashlak #11    (cluster)       5         40%              60%            0%
      3. Uchkuprik #8 (cluster)        10         30%              70%            0%
      4. Dangara #12 (PDS)              5        100%              0%             0%
      5. Kokand         (cluster)       8        100%              0%             0%
      6. Almalik #5       (PDS)         8        100%              0%             0%
      7. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)            10         70%              30%            0%
      8. Tashkent #145 (PDS)            9        100%              0%             0%
      9. Tashkent #114 (cluster)        8        87.5%            12.5%           0%
      10. Tashkent #98 (cluster)       10         80%              20%            0%

                           average N=78          80.8%            19.2%           0%


Teachers’ contact with parents:
Question 8: “How often do you talk to parents of your students about their progress”?
Uzbekistan
                School                  N=       every once/twice         only at never
                                         78       day     a week          parent-
                                                                          teacher
                                                                         meeting
   1. Parvoz         (PDS)               5        0%          80%           20%       0%
   2. Tashlak #11    (cluster)           5        0%          40%           60%       0%
   3. Uchkuprik #8 (cluster)             10       20%         60%           20%       0%
   4. Dangara #12 (PDS)                  5        40%         60%           0%        0%
   5. Kokand         (cluster)           8        25%         75%           0%        0%
   6. Almalik #5      (PDS)              8       12.5%       87.5%          0%        0%
   7. Akkurgan # 6 (PDS)                 10       0%          80%           20%       0%
   8. Tashkent #145 (PDS)                9       33.3%       44.4%         22.2%      0%
   9. Tashkent #114 (cluster)            8        25%        62.5%         12.5%      0%
   10. Tashkent #98 (cluster)            10       30%         60%           10%       0%

                             average    N=78     18.6%       64.9%        16.5%      0%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming            91
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


TAJIKISTAN—Teacher’s Questionnaire—response analysis

In-service teacher training:
Question 1: “How would you evaluate the in-service training that you have received under the
PEAKS program”?
Tajikistan
                  School                N=      excellent     very     average poor
                                        93                    good
    1. Khujand #9      (PDS) +          10         10%         80%      10%        0%
    2. Khujand #15     (cluster)         2          0%         0%        0%       100%
    3. Khairakum #14    (cluster)           10      10%        50%      40%       0%
    4. Ganchi #22       (rural cluster)     10      10%        50%      40%       0%
    5. Ganchi #29       (rural cluster)     9      44.4%      55.5%     0%        0%
    6. Rogun #4         (IBET core) +       7      71.4%      28.6%     0%        0%
    7. Rogun #3         (IBET satellite)    8       75%        25%      0%
    8. Vahdat #4        (PDS) +             6       0%        66.7%    33.3%      0%
    9. Vahdat #140      (cluster)           2       0%         50%      50%       0%
    10. Kolkhozobod #50 (cluster            10      30%       40%       30%       0%
    11. Bokhtar #26                         10      10%       70%       20%       0%
    12. Kolub #2                            9       0%       77.7%     22.2%      0%
                              average      N=93    21.7%     49.5%     20.5%     8.3%



Using student-centered methodologies:
Question 2: “In your classroom, how often do you use the new student-centered methodologies
that you learned during your PEAKS training”?
Tajikistan
                   School                  N=      4/5     once a      once or never
                                           93    times       day       twice a
                                                 a day                  week
     1. Khujand #9      (PDS) +            10     40%        20%         30%      10%
     2. Khujand #15     (cluster)           2     0%         50%         50%      0%
     3. Khairakum #14 (cluster)            10     30%        40%         30%      0%
     4. Ganchi #22      (rural cluster)    10     20%        50%         20%      10%
     5. Ganchi #29      (rural cluster)     9    11.1%      44.4%       33.3%     0%
     6. Rogun #4        (IBET core)+        7    87.5%      14.3%         0%      0%
     7. Rogun #3        (IBET satellite)    8     75%        25%          0%      0%
     8. Vahdat #4       (PDS) +             6    66.7%      33.3%         0%      0%
     9. Vahdat #140     (cluster)           2     50%        50%          0%      0%
     10. Kolkhozobod #50 (cluster          10     40%        50%         10%      0%
     11. Bokhtar #26 (PDS)                 10     50%        30%         20%      0%
     12. Kolub #2       (PDS)               9    44.4%      44.4%        11.1     0%
                                 average N=93 39.2%        37.6%         17%     6.2%

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         92
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Peer mentoring relationships:
Question 4: “How would you describe your experience in working with another teacher in a
peer mentoring relationship”?
Tajikistan
                 School                N=  very helpful  somewhat       not
                                       93                helpful        helpful
     1. Khujand #9        (PDS) +       10      50%           40%           10%
     2. Khujand #15       (cluster)      2      0%             0%          100%
     3. Khairakum #14 (cluster)         10      50%           30%           20%
     4. Ganchi #22     (rural cluster)  10      20%           60%           20%
     5. Ganchi #29     (rural cluster)   9    22.2%          55.5%        22.2%
     6. Rogun #4      (IBET core) +      7     100%            0%           0%
     7. Rogun #3      (IBET satellite)   8     100%            0%           0%
     8. Vahdat #4       (PDS) +          6    83.3%          16.7%          0%
     9. Vahdat #140 (cluster)            2     100%            0%           0%
     10. Kolkhozobod #50 (cluster)      10      40%           40%           10%
     11. Bokhtar #26 (PDS)              10      50%           50%           0%
     12. Kulob #2        (PDS)           9    55.5%          44.4%          0%
                              average N=93     56%            28%          16%

Teacher cooperation:

Question 6: “How would you describe the other teachers in your school in cooperating to
implement the new, student-centered methodologies”?
Tajikistan
                 School               N=     very helpful somewhat       not
                                      93                  helpful       helpful
     1. Khujand #9       (PDS) +       10         50%          40%         10%
     2. Khujand #15      (cluster)      2          0%          50%         50%
     3. Khairakum #14 (cluster)        10         40%          60%         0%
     4. Ganchi #22    (rural cluster)  10         40%          60%         0%
     5. Ganchi #29    (rural cluster)   9        33.3%        66.6%        0%
     6. Rogun #4     (IBET core) +      7        100%           0%         0%
     7. Rogun #3     (IBET satellite)   8        87.5%        12.5%        0%
     8. Vahdat #4      (PDS) +          6        66.7%        33.3%        0%
     9. Vahdat #140 (cluster)           2        100%           0%         0%
     10. Kolkhozobod #50 (cluster      10         10%          90%         0%
     11. Bokhtar #26 (PDS)             10         50%          50%         0%
     12. Kulob #2       (PDS)           9        11.1%        77.7%       11.1%
                             average N=93         50%          45%         5%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming     93
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Attitude of school director:
Question 7: “How would you describe the attitude of the school director in encouraging teachers
to use the new, student-centered methodologies”?

Tajikistan
                 School               N=  very                somewhat           not
                                      93  supportive          supportive      supportive
     1. Khujand #9       (PDS) +       10     100%                0%              0%
     2. Khujand #15      (cluster)      2      0%                 50%            50%
     3. Khairakum #14 (cluster)        10      70%                30%             0%
     4. Ganchi #22    (rural cluster)  10      40%                60%             0%
     5. Ganchi #29    (rural cluster)   9    44.4%               55.5%            0%
     6. Rogun #4    (IBET core) +       7     100%                0%              0%
     7. Rogun #3    (IBET satellite)    8     100%                0%              0%
     8. Vahdat #4      (PDS) +          6     100%                0%              0%
     9. Vahdat #140 (cluster)           2     100%                0%              0%
     10. Kolkhozobod #50 (cluster)     10      80%                20%             0%
     11. Bokhtar #26 (PDS)             10      70%                30%             0%
     12. Kulob #2       (PDS)           9    66.6%               33.3%            0%
                             average N=93    72.6%               23.2%          4.2%



Teachers’ contact with parents:

Question 8: “How often do you talk to parents of your students about their progress”?
Tajikistan
                 School                 N=       every once/twice         only at never
                                         93       day     a week          parent-
                                                                          teacher
                                                                         meeting
    1. Khujand #9      (PDS) +           10       40%         30%           30%       0%
    2. Khujand #15     (cluster)         2        0%          50%           50%       0%
    3. Khairakum #14 (cluster)           10       50%         40%           10%       0%
    4. Ganchi #22     (rural cluster)    10       20%         50%           30%       0%
    5. Ganchi #29     (rural cluster)    9        0%         55.5%         44.4%      0%
    6. Rogun #4      (IBET core) +       7       14.3%       71.4%         14.3%      0%
    7. Rogun #3     (IBET satellite)     8        25%        62.5%         12.5%      0%
    8. Vahdat #4     (PDS) +             6        50%         50%           0%        0%
    9. Vahdat #140 (cluster)             2        0%         100%           0%        0%
    10. Kolkhozobod #50 (cluster         10       0%          80%           20%       0%
    11. Bokhtar #26 (PDS)                10       10%         80%           10%       0%
    12. Kulob #2      (PDS)              9        33.3        66.6          0%        0%
                              average N=93      20.2%        61.3%         18.5%      0%


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming            94
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
 DevTech Systems, Inc.


               KYRGYZSTAN—Teacher’s Questionnaire—response analysis

 Question 1: “How would you evaluate the in-service training that you have received under the
 PEAKS program”?

 Kyrgyzstan—In-service teacher training
                    School                 N=         excellent       very   average   poor
                                           104                        good
     1. Shopokov #1      (PDS) +            12          50%           50%     0%       0%
     2. Sokuluk #2       (cluster)          6           0%           66.6%   33.3%     0%
     3. Chui School #78 (cluster)           10          50%           50%     0%       0%
     4. Tangatarov # 14 (Co-PDS)+           10          40%           60%     0%       0%
     5. Lenin School #5 (cluster)           10          10%           40%     50%      0%
     6. School # 16     (Co-PDS) +          10          0%            70%     30%      0%
     7. Toktogul #49      (cluster)        *nd           nd            nd      nd      nd
     8. Boogachi School (potential/rural    9          66.7%         33.3%    0%       0%
     PDS) +
     9. Koychumanov (cluster)               8          12.5%         62.5%    25%      0%
     10. Kazybek         (cluster)          10          0%            50%     50%      0%
     11. Tadjibaev       (rural PDS) +      9          22.2%         66.6%   22.2%     0%
     12. Toktorov        (cluster)          10          10%           40%     50%      0%
                                  average N=104        23.8%         53.5%   22.7%     0%
 *no data from Teacher Questionnaire

 Question 2: “In your classroom, how often do you use the new student-centered methodologies
 that you learned during your PEAKS training”?

 Kyrgyzstan-Using student-centered methodologies
               School                      N=              4/5 x a      once a   once or    never
                                           104              day          day     twice a
                                                                                  week
1. Shopokov #1     (PDS) +                      12          50%         41.7%      8.3%       0%
2. Sokuluk #2      (cluster)                     6          50%          50%        0%        0%
3. Chui School #78 (cluster)                    10          60%          40%        0%        0%
4. Tangatarov #14 (Co-PDS) +                    10          30%          40%       30%        0%
5. Lenin School #5 (cluster)                    10          10%          60%       30%        0%
6. School # 16    (Co-PDS) +                    10          10%          60%       30%        0%
7. Toktogul #49   (cluster)                     *nd          nd           nd        nd        nd
8. Boogachi School (potential/rural PDS) +       9         88.8%        11.1%       0%        0%
9. Koychumanov (cluster)                         8          25%          25%       50%        0%
10. Kazybek        (cluster)                    10          10%          60%       30%        0%
11. Tadjibaev      (rural PDS) +                 9         44.4%        44.4%     11.1%       0%
12. Toktorov       (cluster)                    10           0%          30%       70%        0%
                                    average   104          34.5%         42%      23.5%       0%
 *no data from Teacher Questionnaire

 Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              95
 Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Question 4: “How would you describe your experience in working with another teacher in a
peer mentoring relationship”?

Kyrgyzstan-Peer mentoring relationships
                   School              N=    very helpful   somewhat         not
                                       104                    helpful      helpful
     1. Shopokov #1       (PDS) +      12      83.3%          16.7%          0%
     2. Sokuluk #2        (cluster)     6      33.3%          66.6%          0%
     3. Chui School #78 (cluster)      10       80%            20%           0%
     4. Tangatarov #14 (Co-PDS) +      10       60%            40%           0%
     5. Lenin School #5 (cluster)      10       20%            60%          20%
     6. School # 16      (Co-PDS) +    10       60%            40%           0%
     7. Toktogul #49       (cluster)   *nd       nd             nd           nd
     8. Boogachi School                 9      88.8%          11.1%          0%
     (potential/rural PDS) +
     9. Koychumanov (cluster)           8       25%           75%            0%
     10. Kazybek          (cluster)    10       10%           60%           30%
     11. Tadjibaev        (rural PDS)   9      77.7%         33.3%           0%
     +
     12. Toktorov         (cluster)    10       20%           70%          10%
                               average 104     50.7%         43.8%         5.5%
*no data from Teacher’s Questionnaire

Question 6. “How would you describe the other teachers in our school in cooperating to
implement the new, student-centered methodologies”?

Kyrgyzstan-Teacher cooperation in implementing new methodologies
                 School                    N=        very     somewhat           not
                                           104     helpful      helpful        helpful
1. Shopokov #1     (PDS) +                  12      100%          0%             0%
2. Sokuluk #2      (cluster)                6       33.3%       66.6%            0%
3. Chui School #78 (cluster)                10       70%         30%             0%
4. Tangatarov #14 (Co-PDS) +                10       60%         40%             0%
5. Lenin School #5 (cluster)                10       50%         50%             0%
6. School # 16    (Co-PDS) +                10       70%         30%             0%
7. Toktogul #49     (cluster)              *nd        nd          nd             nd
8. Boogachi School (potential/rural PDS)    9       100%          0%             0%
+
9. Koychumanov (cluster)                    8        50%         50%                0%
10. Kazybek        (cluster)                10        0%         80%               20%
11. Tadjibaev      (rural PDS) +            9       55.5%       44.4%               0%
12. Toktorov       (cluster)                10       20%         70%               10%
                                   average 104     55.3%         42%               2.7%
*no data from Teacher Questionnaire

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming          96
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.




Question 7: “How would you describe the attitude of the school director in encouraging teachers
to use the new, student-centered methodologies”?

Kyrgyzstan—Attitude of school director
                  School              N=          very          somewhat         not
                                      104      supportive       supportive    supportive
     1. Shopokov #1       (PDS) +      12        100%               0%           0%
     2. Sokuluk #2        (cluster)    6         83.3%            16.7%          0%
     3. Chui School #78 (cluster)      10        100%                0           0%
     4. Tangatarov #14 (Co-PDS) +      10         80%              20%           0%
     5. Lenin School #5 (cluster)      10         80%              20%           0%
     6. School # 16      (Co-PDS) +    10         80%              20%           0%
     7. Toktogul #49       (cluster)  *nd          nd               nd            nd
     8. Boogachi School                9         88.9%            11.1%          0%
     (potential/rural PDS) +
     9. Koychumanov (cluster)          8          50%              50%            0%
     10. Kazybek          (cluster)    10          0%              60%           40%
     11. Tadjibaev     (rural PDS) +   9         77.7%            22.2%           0%
     12. Toktorov         (cluster)    10         40%              60%            0%
                              average 104        70.9%            25.5%          3.6%
*no data from Teacher’s Questionnaire

Question 8: “How often do you talk to parents of your students about their progress”?

Kyrgyzstan—Teacher’s contact with parents
              School                      N=            every    once/       only at    never
                                          104            day     twice a     parent-
                                                                 week        teacher
                                                                             meeting
 1. Shopokov #1     (PDS) +                    12      33.3%      66.6%        0%       0%
 2. Sokuluk #2      (cluster)                   6        0%       33.3%       66.6%     0%
 3. Chui School #78 (cluster)                  10       40%        60%         0%       0%
 4. Tangatarov #14 (Co-PDS) +                  10       10%        40%         50%      0%
 5. Lenin School #5 (cluster)                  10       40%        50%         10%      0%
 6. School # 16    (Co-PDS) +                  10       30%        50%         20%      0%
 7. Toktogul #49 (cluster)                     *nd       nd         nd          nd       nd
 8. Boogachi School (potential/rural PDS) +     9        0%       66.7%       33.3%     0%
 9. Koychumanov (cluster)                       8      12.5%       50%        37.5%     0%
 10. Kazybek        (cluster)                  10        0%        40%         60%      0%
 11. Tadjibaev      (rural PDS) +               9      33.3%      44.4%       22.2%     0%
 12. Toktorov       (cluster)                  10        0%        10%         90%      0%
                                    average    104     18.1%      46.5%       35.4%     0%
*no data from Teacher’s Questionnaire

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              97
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                   I.   PERSONS CONSULTED

                                 Washington – 6 April 2005

Save the Children U.S.
Ms. Chloe O’Gara

AID/W
Ms. Luba Fajfer (EGAT/ED)
Mr. Patrick Collins (EGAT/ED)

AED
Mr. Rudi Klaus
Ms Deanna Handel
Mr. David Benedetti
Mr. S. Duncan Rowley


                            Uzbekistan, Tashkent—11 April 2005
USAID
Mr. James Bonner
Ms. Jessica Leonard
Ms. Carina Omoeva
Ms. Ilgiza Sharipova

AED/PEAKS
Mr. Kamol Jiyankhodjaev
Mr. Damir Safir
Ms. Matluba Umurzakova

Save the Children
Ms. Khanifa Rassulova

Abt Associates
Ms. Matluba Khakimova

World Bank
Ms. Dilnara Isamiddinova, Human Dev. Operations Officer/Economist

Asian Development Bank
Mr. Donneth Walton, Sr. Portfolio Mgt. Specialist
Ms. Zulfia Karimova, Portfolio Mgt. Officer

UNICEF
Ms Yulia Narolskaya



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   98
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


MOE, Tashkent Region
Mr. Zikreyakhodjayev Zukhirovich, acting director, Region education department
Mr. Vakilov Abduyusupovice, deputy director


                                          12 April 2005
National Ministry of Education
Mr. Ulugbek Abruev, deputy minister
Mr. Bakhadir Shamsiyer, head of human resources department
Mr. Abdusamator Abeldumajid, monitoring and school construction
Mr. Daminov Hikmat, head of international cooperation/donor coordinator
Mr. Tursunov Mirsaidovich, head of org. activities of school education institutions

Central Teacher Training Institute
Mr. Latipov Bobosidiq, head of the TTI
Ms. Tukhtarova Hayotkhon, expert/English teacher

Republic Center for Education
Mr. Turdiyev Narziqul, deputy director of the RCE


                                      13 & 16 April 2005
Redesign Experts
Mr. Gladishev Valeriy, school director, Tashkent School #145
Ms. Larisa Nikitina, teacher, Tashkent School #145
Mr. Eraliev Kulmukhammad, school director, Akkurgan #6
Ms. Rayanova T. M., deputy director, Akkurgan #6
Ms. Nargiza Hasanova, teacher, Akkurgan #6

Tashkent School # 145
School Leaders
Mr. Gladishev Valeriy, school director
Ms. Shetipina Irina, coordinator of the international projects
Ms. Kalybayeva Marina, member of parent committee
Ms. Larisa Nikitina, teacher

PC
Akzamova Larisa, head of PC
Balayan Anjela, member
Pakhimova Flora, member
Arkhipova Nataliya, member

Teachers
Ms. Kadisheva Alla
Ms. Kadisheva Nataliya
Ms. Plotnick Svetlana

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming      99
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ms. Pak Irina
Ms. Khaziyeva Olga
Ms. Serjan Olga
Ms. Tsoy Elena

Dangara
Dangara School #12

Teachers
Ms. Feruza Solieva, head of primary studies
Ms. Namuna Khasanova
Ms. Guljamol Vakhobova
Ms. Dilbar Omonova
Ms. Shokhsanaman Ganieva
Mr. Nodir Bozorova

Dangara School Parents
Mr. Farkhodjon Kamolov
Ms. Ominakhon Juraeva
Ms. Feruzakhon Solieva

Dangara Community Education Committee (CEC)
Mr. Mukhmmadkhuja Akhmedova, chairman
Mr. Karimjon Vakhobov, community member
Ms. Rozakhon Turgunova, member
Ms. Feruza Solieva, member
Mr. Isakjon Rakhmonov, Head of MOE District Department of Education

Ziyo NGO
Ms. Muborak Asrakulova, director
Ms. Aziza Ermotova, social worker
Ms. Dildora Azimova, social worker
Ms. Zamira Temirbaeva, coordinator
Ms. Ziyoda Normadova, social worker
Ms. Linura Bekbulatova, social worker
Mr. Bakhrom Abidjanov, coordinator
Mr. Oybek Gulchaiev, social worker
Mr. Asad Soliev, social worker
Mr. Ulugbek Yusufjanov, financial officer
Ms. Rahima Gulchieva, Inclusive Education coordinator


                                   Ferghana 14 April 2005

Parvoz School
School Leaders

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   100
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ms. Galina Akopdjanova, director
Ms. Alexandra Kuznezova, deputy director
Ms. Mahabbat Matkarimova, deputy director

Teachers
Ms. Laylo Yusopova, senior teacher
Ms. Svetlana Kolotushkina
Ms. Ezoza Baiganova
Ms. Valentina Golbek
Ms. Zoya Yugay
Ms Svetlana Batirova

MOE, Ferghana Region
Mr. Mukhammad Khodjaev, head of the department of education
Mr. Nosirjon Khakimov, deputy head of Region education department
Mr. Nurutdin Madrakhimov, project specialist, education department

Uchkuprik School #8
School Leaders
Mr. Pulatov Usmon, school director
Ms. Jurayeva Dilorom, deputy

CEC and PC
Mr. Kholmatora Sorokhon, head of CEC
Mr. Satimov Tulanboy, member
Mr. Palvanov Naromon, member
Mr. Kholmirzoyer Ulugbek, head of PC
Ms. Abdusamatora, member
Ms. Mamadiyeva Robat, member

Teachers
Ms. Pulatova Dilafruz
Ms. Jurayeva Sanobar
Ms. Khusaanova Olima
Ms. Mamadaliyeva Magusuda
Ms. Mirzoyeva Adolat

MOE Uchkuprik District
Mr. Yuldashev Solijon Valuyevich, director

Ferghana Teacher Training Institute (TTI)
Mr. Bobosodyk Latipov, Rector
Ms. Khayothon Tukhtarova, English teacher




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   101
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                  Tashlak 15 April 2005
Tashlak School #11

School Leaders
Mr. Umarali Eminov, school director
Mr. Rustam Badalov, PEAKS coordinator
Mr. Karimova Rukiyakhom, deputy director

Teachers
Ms. Motabor Turdukulova
Ms. Mamlakat Gofurova
Ms. Anora Hoshimova
Ms. Gulbahor Shokirova
Ms. Mavluda Halilova
Ms. Freuza Aunova
Ms. Humora Ahmadalieva

CEC and SRC
Ms. Karimova Rukiyakhon, CEC leader
Ms. Zarifa Masoliyeva
Ms. Ruqia Karimova
Mr. Yulduz Mmajonova
Mr. Rustamjon Badalov

Parents
Ms. Kimyokhon Saidova
Ms. Zulfiya Turgunbayeva
Ms. Maujuda Toiboyeva
Mr. Ismoin Toshaliyev

Save the Children, US
Ms. Khanifa Rasulova, program manager
Mr. Iqbol Akhajohov, community mobiliser
Mr. Khairulla Sofibaev, engineer
Ms. Aziza Akbarova, financial officer


                                           Kokand
Kokand School #42

School Leaders
Ms. Egamova Zulkhumpor, director
Ms. Abdunazarova Gulra’no, deputy director
Ms. Egamberdiyera Yulduz, deputy director

CEC and PC

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   102
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ms. Normatora Gulnora, head of PC
Ms. Igamberdiyera Farogat, member
Ms. Ochildiyera Mahfuzakhon, member
Ms. Borliyera Dilbar, member
Ms. Yuldashera Komila, member
Ms. Tuychiyeva Yuldus, head of CEC

Teachers
Ms. Bomurodova Yasnoska
Ms. Zokiriva Kamalova
Ms. Tuychiyera Yu
Ms. Jurayera Nurieva
Ms. Alimova Shamanova


                                 Almalik 16 April 2005
Almalik School #5

School Leaders
Ms. Zinayida Fazylova, director
Ms. Zemphera Asanova, deputy director

Teachers
Ms. Elena Vetochkina
Ms. Lyubov Ershova
Ms. Olga Montsova
Ms. Mukaddam Yuldasheva
Ms. Ekaterina Afanasyeva
Ms. Elena Tigai
Ms. Elza Kim
Ms. Lyudmila Pak

Parents
Ms. Ekatarina Venera
Ms. Irina Yu
Ms. Lyudmila Fyodorova
Ms. Aliya Shakirova
Ms. Vera Saparigakueva
Ms. Olga Ibragiova
Ms. Larisa Musina


                                        Akkurgan
Akkurgan School #6

School Leaders

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   103
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Mr. Yoraliyer Q.N., director
Ms. Rayanova T.M., deputy
Ms. Abdiyeva D.Kh., deputy

CEC and PC
Mr. Jurayev Bakhtiyor, CEC member
Mr. Abdukhalilov Abdulla, CEC member
Ms. Ergasheva Dilbar, PC member
Ms. Boyjumayeyeva, PC member
Ms. Mahmudova Gulchehra, PC member

Teachers
Ms. Abdugaffarova Mamlakat
Ms. Akhmedora Fazailat
Ms. Khasanaova Nargiza
Ms. Bakhramova Mavluda
Yusupaliyeva, Inobat


                                  Tajikistan—18 April 2005
Ganchi
Ganchi School #22

School Leaders
Mr. M Jurayev, director
Mr. B Razzogov, deputy director
Mr. B Jurayev, deputy director
Mr. A Rahimov, organizer

Teachers
Mr. Bobo Ganiyer
Mr. Sayohaddin Sultonov
Mr. Tohirjon Azizov
Mr. Shuhrat Kuchiboyev
Mr. Tolibjon Rahimov

CEC and Parent Committee
Mr. Yusufkhuja Saidov
Mr. Pakhimboy Kurborov
Mr. Masim Azizov
Mr. Odiljon Azizov

Ganchi School #29

School Leaders
Mr. D Hojiyev, director

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   104
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Mr. R Ashurov, deputy director
Mr. Rahim Rahimov
Mr, Rashid Ashurov
Mr. Huseyn Hajiyer
Mr. Hukmon Rahmator
Mr. Sultan Fayziyer


Parent Committee
Mr. Khasan Khodjiyer
Mr. Zayniddin Nadaliyev
Mr. Yunus Yunusor
Ms. Davlat Jumlayeva

Ganchi District Education Department
Mr Mirsharob Komilov, director
Mr. Davron Usmonov, pshchologist


                                       Khujand
Khujand School #9

School Leaders
Mr. Akrom Ahmedov
Ms. Sodborg Haiforova
Ms. Molika Dadoboeva
Ms. Salima Ahmedova

Teachers
Ms. Bahri Sobirova
Ms. Marvi Saradbekova
Ms. Malohat Usufova
Ms. Mahbube Kosimova
Ms. Hairi Shamsieva
Ms. Sharofat Homidova
Ms. Faroghat Abdugoferova
Ms. Mavlude Mirzoeva
Ms. Rohat Nabieva
Ms. Masuda Karimova
Ms. Salimo Ahmedova

Parents
Ms. Malohat Usulova
Ms. Muborak Kamolova
Ms. Bahriniso Sobirova
Ms. Zebohon Alimova

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   105
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ms. Farida Hosanzoda

CEC
Ms. Zakiya Juraboeva
Ms. Mahabbat Olivomo
Ms. Rana Azizhojaeva
Ms. Shoira Sharipova
Ms. Monziera Rahimova

Khujand School #15

School Leaders
Mr Avaz Faizullalvion, director

Teachers
Ms. Saboat Mahmudova
Ms. Sharipova Gulbahor


                                      Kairakum
City Education Department
Ms. Gorono Kasimova,

Khairakum School #14

School Leadership
Ms. Mavjudakhon Akhunova
Ms. Muborak Khamroboyeva
Ms. Muyassara Rakhimova
Ms. Rano Sultonova

Teachers
Ms. Urunova Rukhsatov
Ms. Robiya Majidova
Ms. Munira Qoriyeva
Ms. Rahbaroy Ganiyeva
Mr. Abdulhakim Khalilov

CEC/SRC
Ms. Majidova Abduvalievna

Parents/Parent Committee
Mr. Shokirovich Khamroev




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   106
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                       20 April 2005

USAID

Mr. Peter Argo, Country Director
Ms. Angela Franklin Lord, USAID/CAR, Director, HE
Ms. Mavjuda Nabieva
Mr. Bill McClaren, Deputy Controller, USAID/CAR

Ministry of Education
Mr. Babaev Khabibullo, First Deputy Minister
Ms. Nasriddinova Shohmurodovna, Deputy Minister

Aga Khan Foundation
Mr Kishwar Abdulalishoev
Ms. Marhabo Tobekova
Mr. Gillomnosir Qurbonov
Ms. Nafisa Gulshoeva
Ms. Shazeen Virani
Ms. Nuha Aqlan
Mr. Davlatyor Dumakhonov
Mr. Hanif Virani
Mr. Zaman Velji
Mr. Zuloby Mamadfozilov

PEAKS
Mansura Mamadalieva, Deputy Director
Katherine Lapham, OSI
Jannie Goedkoep, SCUK
Nargis Rahmanova


                                 Ragun 21 April, 2005

District Education Department
Mr. Qadam Haidarov, director

Ragun School #4
School Leadership
Mr. M. Sholchaev

Teachers
Ms. Masumoi Oeva
Ms. Jumagul Pirova
Ms. Qhumri Olimova
Ms. Muskigul Rasulova

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   107
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ms. Mamida Hakimova
Mr. Nazrullo Khorkashov

Parent Committee
Mr. Davilatbek Sobirov
Mr. Sunatullo Ibrohimov
Mr. Nematullo Davlatov
Mr. Odinakhuja Ismonov
Mr. Sijoat Rizoev
Mr. Islom Nemonov
Ms. Tatyana Savchenka
Mr. Saidnazar Mirzoev
Mr. Lutfllo Homidov
Mr. Saidbek Saraev

Ragun School # 3
School Leadership
Mr. Abdulahad Yatimov, school director
Ms. Salomat Umarshoeva, deputy director
Ms. Zanjira Ghiyasova, deputy directof

Teachers
Ms. Mehrubon Nazarova
Ms. Begim Nazarova
Mr. Abdurasul Rahimov
Ms. Sarvinoz Zarifoua
Ms. Nuriniso Mastibekova
Ms. Gulboza Zarifova
Ms. Gulniso Sadriddinova
Ms. Saida Rahmatova
Ms. Mahrukhsor Rahimova
Ms. Sitora Usmonova
Ms. Fariza Umarova
Ms. Zaraishon Ghairatova
Mr. Bahrullo Shukrulloev
Ms. Fazila Umarova
Mr. Jamoliddin Saidov
Ms. Tojinoso Rahimova

Parent Committee
Mr. Abdsalom Yatimov, head of parent committee
Mr. Hasan Yorov
Mr. Saifullo Ialilov
Mr. Mahmadkholil Davlatov
Mr. Khuboyor Isoev



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   108
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


PEAKS/Korgon-Tyube
Ms. Salomat Hamajanova
Ms. Zainab Boboeva, SCUK


                                   Kolkhozobod School #50

School Leaders
Mr. Nazriddin Sharipov, Director

Teachers
Ms. Laylo Shomirzoyeva
Ms. Mohpari Gulova
Ms. Ziyoda Tagoyeva
Ms. Bibirajab Sohibova
Mr. Khayrullo Hakimov

Parents, CEC, and SRC
Mr. Dodarjon Sharipov, Head of PTA
Ms. Oyjon Mirhamiddova
Mr. Mohmadsodiq Jumaev
Mr. Lughmon Faizev
Mr. Begijon Kululov
Mr. Saidashraf Sharipov, Head of Friendship Club
Ms. Rajabgul Najmuddinova
Mr. Dovudkhija Nazriev, Head of CEC
Ms. Jumagul Juraeva

Khatlon Region Education Department
Mr. Khonali Qurbanzoda, Head
Mr. Safarbek Tagaibekov, Deputy Head

Kolkhozobod District Education Department
Bobo Kirov, Head


                                    Vahdat 22 April, 2005
Vahdat School # 4

School Leaders
Mr. Farhad Rahmatulloev, director
Mr, Muhammadjon Kakroev, deputy director

Teachers
Ms. Aziza Eshonova
Ms. Qurbonoi Vohidova

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   109
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ms. Gulchehra Zafarova
Ms. Mehrinogor Boboeva
Mr. Zaidullo Sodiqov
Ms. Taghoigul Sadulloeva

CEC/Parent Committee
Mr. Sadriddin Farkhov
Ms. Savri Mirzoeva
Ms. Salima Tabarova
Ms. Saili Qodirova

Bokhtar School # 26

School Leadership
Mr. Qurbomad Ikramov, Director
Mr. Juma Sharipov

Teachers
Mr. Jum’aali Sharipov
Ms. Quarasoch Sharipov
Mr. Kholmatjon Yogubov
Ms. Ruzigul Odinayeva
Ms. Dilbar Safarova

CEC
Kholmahmad Yoqubov
Jumaali Sharpov
Rusigul Odinayeva
Dilbar Safarova
Hurinuso Musavvirova


                                   Khorosan 23 April 2005

Khorosan School #10
School Leadership
Mr. Bakhtior Qhodiaov, director

Khorosan School #9
Mr Imomiddin Aminov, director
Ms. Saida Abdullaeva, deputy, director for primary

SAVE/UK
Ms. Zainab Boboeva, Area Program Manager
Ms. Masura Nematova, field officer



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   110
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                         24 April, 2005
Kolub City Education Department
Mr. Davlat Amirov

IPD Kolub
Ms. Maghfirat Abdulloeva, Director
Ms. Tamara Kholaeva
Mr. Khushvakht Bozorov
Ms. Malohat Bozorova
Ms. Sabohat Dostieva

Shurobod District Education Department
Mr. Rahmonkhuja Mirzoev, Head

IPD Khorog
Ms. Nolisa Gulshaeva, Deputy Director
Ms. Ulfatmu Otambekova
Mr. Jobir Mulkamonov
Mr. Shajtut Khomidov


                                      Vahdat 25 April, 2005

City Education Department
Mr Rajabmurod Jalilov, director
Mr Sulaymon Mahmurodov

City Education Department Methodologists
Mr. Nasrullo Mukaramov
Mr. Kamol Manunov
Mr. Saidol Murtaozoqulov

Vahdat School # 140
School Leadership
Mr. Ghairat Gadoev, school director

Teachers
Ms. Niso Mukhtorova
Ms. Ibodat Sodulloeva

Parents Committee
Mr. Shodiboi Ziyoev, head




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   111
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Kolub School 25

School Leaders
Mr. Jamsheed Baboev, Director
Mr. Avaz Karimov, Deputy

PTA and Parents
Mr. Avaz Karimov, Head of PTA
Ms. Zebi Rahimova
Ms. Digul Gafurova
Ms. Mosharif Begmatova
Ms. Khatichano Davlatova
Mr. Bobo Bobaev
Mr. Siraj Boboev
Ms. Jamila Zubaidova

Executive Board of the President, Tajikistan
Mr. Faizullo Khushvakhtov, Head,
Department of Science and Education


                                      26 April 2005
MOE
Mr. Zarif Sharipov, Deputy Minister
Abdujabbor Rahmonov

World Bank
Ms. Saudat Bazarova
Mr. Farrukh Khamraliev

GTZ
Mr. Christian Reichard,

Republican TTI
Ms. Khairiniso Temirova, Head

PSI
Mr. Ubaidullo Zubaidov, Director

Save the Children (UK)
Ms. Yannie Gaudkoop
Ms. Faroghat Mirzoeva

OSI
Ms. Tatyana Abdushukurova

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   112
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ms. Kate Lapham
Mr. Nazar Dastamboev

CARE
Genevieve Abel, Country Director
Samad Goibov

Save/US
Mr. Michael McGrath
Mr. Tom McCormack


                            Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan 27 April 2005

PEAKS
Mr. Terry Giles, COP
Ms. Raya Ushurova. KG Coordinator
Ms. Larisa Veselevo
Ms. Antonina Satalova
Ms. Tatiana Ten
Ms. Olga Zues

Soros Foundation
Mr. Valentin Deichman

SCUK
Ms. Asfia Mirasova

SCUS
Ms. Begaim Eralieva

USAID
Mr. Myrza Karimova

28 April 2005
MOE
Mr. Nur Uluu Bosbol
Mr. Anatoly Ivannicov

USAID
Mr. Clifford Brown, Country Reperesentative

World Bank
Ms. Asel Sargazakova




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   113
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                             Bishkek Shopokov 29 April 2005

Shopokov Gymnasium School # 1

School Leaders
Ms. Demina Maximovna
Ms. Svetlana Serveevna

District Education Department
Mr. Emilbekovich Emilbekov, head
Ms. Lyudmila Petrovna, deputy


Teachers
Ms. Marina Gorbatenko
Ms. Bereza Chargymbaeva
Ms. Ludmila Shmatko
Ms. Chinara Kozubekova
Ms. Taisia Ivanova
Ms. Erica Dzotsoeva
Ms. Anarz Dandybaeva
Ms. Elena Azarova
Ms. Aspira Doulbaeva
Ms. Natalia Diachenko
Ms. Svetlana Vashchenko
Ms. Nna Lushikova
Ms. Larisa Lupacheva
Ms. Olga Smoliava

Social (Public) Charitable Foundation “Araket” NGO (instead of CEC)
Ms. Madezhda Mashenko
Mr. Aleksandr Vashenko
Ms. Nataliya Petruchik

Sokuluk School #2
School Leaders
Ms. Marina Papilina, head
Ms. Aleynikova Lyubov, deputy

Teachers
Ms. Svetlana Porteschenova
Ms. Marfana Oleova
Ms. Tatania Karimova
Ms. Mertaz Oporieva
Ms. Elena Tsova



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   114
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Ministry of Finance
Ms. Jumagul Sabyrova

Kyrgyzstan Academy of Education
Mr. Kadyrbek Kaldybaev, President
Mr. Kadyr Iptarov, Schools Center (ex-TTI)

Inclusive Education Resource Center
Ms. Galena Ayilchiev, Ex-Heads of Schools Dept., MOE

Foundation for Educational Initiatives Support
Mr. Alexsandr Ivanov, Director
Ms. Saule Khamzina

Step-by-Step Foundation
Ms. Gulnur Sultanalieva, Director


                                        1 May 2005
Chui Region Education Department
Mr. Mukash Bazarkulov, Head


                                        3 May 2005
Tangatarova School

School Leaders
Mr. Karybek Eshmatov, Director
Mr. Kasymjan Kambarov, Deputy
Mr. Kanat Pirmatov, PEAKS Coordinator

Teachers
Ms. Damira Ganiyeva
Ms. Bakhtigul Akshatova
Ms. Ayzada Momuneyeva
Ms. Elmira Sherikbayeva
Ms. Kalis Madaminova

Parents Committee and Parents
Mr. Adilbek Jolborsov, Chair PC
Mr. Abdolim Bektashev
Ms. Nazira Matraimova, Parents Fund Accountant




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   115
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Lenina School

School Leadership
Ms. Yudina Adreevna

Teachers
Ms. Aynura Dikanbayeva
Ms. Aygul Sultanova
Mr. Nikolay Shitinin
Ms. Gulshan Begimkulova
Ms. Valentina Prokhoretz

Parents Committee
Mr. Momunjan Usmanov, Chair
Ms. Zamira Aitbaeva
Ms. Sazida Myrzaeva

Parents
Ms. Akmaral Urinova
Ms. Nazgul Mamatalieva
Ms. Aigul Mamatova
Ms. Venera Razzakova
Ms. Venera Kadyrahunova
Ms. Yryz Satybololieva
Ms Venera Adynulova

Toktogul School

School Leaders
Mr. Adilbek Adanov, Deputy Director

Teachers
Ms. Nazgul Manapova
Ms. Salima Isakova
Ms. Mukadas Bekbotayeva
Ms. Saltana Uraimova
Ms. Kasiyat Butabayeva

Parents Committee
Mr. Kenesh Moldotashev, Chair
Mr. Kalen Mamakaev, Deputy

Uzgen District Education Department
Mr. Duishen Nazirbaev, Deputy Head




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   116
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                       4 May 2005
Tajibai School

School Leaders
Mr. Mamatkalil Temirolev, Director
Mr. Asidol Babakulov, Deputy
Ms. Leuza Baboryeola, PEAKS Coordinator

Teachers
Ms. Roza Ergesheva
Ms. Adolat Babakulova
Ms. Papikhan Tursunaliyeva
Ms. Gulmayram Sulaymanova
Ms. Anargul Dosmatova

CEC
Ms. Nazgul Tairova, CEC Deputy Chair
Ms. Kalima Abdykadyrova, SRC Chair
Ms Tanzilya Sadirova, Family and Children Coordinator
Mr/ Taalaibek Sadirov, Local Govt. Representative

Parents Committee
Ms. Abiba Kalilova

Tokturov School

School Leaders
Mr.Bargybai Katimov
Mr.Omurzok Maksyrov
Ms. Jypar Kalyeva
Ms. Aitash Kasyboeva
Ms. Asida Ismailova Deputy
Mr. Jenishbai Abdurasulov, PEAKS Coordinator

Teachers
Ms. Svetlana Dolotbayeva
Ms. Zukhra Kurbanbayeva
Ms. Turdikhan Shamurzayeva
Ms. Guliba Samiryeva
Ms. Gulnaz Batyrova

Parent Teacher Association
Ms. Batma Atabaeva, Chair
Ms. Busaiva Ismailova
Ms. Gulmira Bektoshova



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   117
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Parents Committee
Mr. Jenishbek Abdurousulov, Chair
Ms. Shairgul Kambarova
Ms. Motobar Kajomberdieva
Mr. Abdrazak Maatkulov
Mr. Japar Nurmatov

Nookat District Education Department
Mr. Abdimitalip Payazov


                                       5 May 2005

Regional Institute for Professional Development of Teachers (Osh)
Mr. Tolantbek Matikeev, Director
Mr. Bekktursun Kokonev, Deputy


                                       May 6 2005

Osh Town School # 16

School Leaders
Ms. Ludmila Klykova, Director
Ms. Elizaveta Bubenova, Deputy

Teachers
Ms. Linara Yenaliyeva
Ms. Irinia Romanova
Mr. Rasul Azimov
Ms. Akmur Sadykova
Ms. Manzura Artykova

Parents Committee
Ms. Elena Zvereva
Ms. Tamara Kasymbekova

                                       May 7 2005

Asian Development Bank
Ms. Asel Chynngysheva, Project Implementation Officer

Center for Educational Assessment and Teaching Methods
Ms. Inna Valkova, Director
Mr. Konstanin Titov



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   118
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Association of Independent Providers – Novel School
Ms. Gulnara Nazarbekova, Director


                                      8 May 2005
Abt Associates (Almaty)
Ms.Sheila O’Dougherty, Health Reform Program


                                        10 May 2005
USAID/CAR
Mr. Michael Fritz, Acting Mission Director
Mr. John Morgan, Program Officer
Ms. Mary Norris, Team Leader EF
Mr. Lewis Tatem, Sr. Economist, EF
Ms. Erin Nicholson, EF


                            Tashkent, Uzbekistan 10 May 2005

Tashkent School # 114

School Leadership
Ms. Mastura Ubaydullaeva, director
Ms. Feruza Tulahujaeva, deputy
Ms. Durdona Khodjaeva, deputy
Ms. Aziza Rasulova

Teachers
Ms. Muazzam Muzafarova
Ms. Gavhar Ismoilova
Ms. Adolat Valihonova
Ms. Durdona Khodjaeva
Ms. Mamura Rahimova
Ms. Fatima Abdullaeva
Ms. Mashkura Holmuhamedova
Ms. Faridahon Tuhtamisheva

Parents/CEC
Mr. Sharif Sakikov, Public Council
Ms. Feruza Rajabova
Ms. Madina Usmonova
Ms. Shohida Khakhazarova
Ms. Zahra Yuldasheva




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   119
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                        11 May 2005

Tashkent School #98

School Leadership
Ms. Alla Tsaruryan, director
Ms. Lola Abdullaeva, deputy

Teachers
Ms. Guzal Askarova
Ms. Roza Saitbekova
Ms. Alevtina Katerinish
Ms. Suraya Teshovoeva
Ms. Sayora Sultanova
Ms. Muhabbat Narzikulova
Ms. Dilorom Toshmetova

Parents
Ms. Margarita Ikramova
Ms. Marhamat Ziyamuhamdoova
Ms. Dildora Halmuhamedova
Ms. Zuhra Karimova

                                        May 12 2005

USAID
Ms. Susan Fritz, Democracy/Conflict Mitigation
Ms. Nadezhda Yegay, Civic Education

                                        13 May 2005
USAID DEBRIEFING
Ms. Angela Lord, Team Leader, HE
Mr. Kerry Pelzman, Deputy, HE
Mr. John Floyd, Contract Officer
Mr. Bill MacLaren, Deputy Controller
Ms. Aigul Berdygulova, Program Office
Mr. Andreas Hlimberg, HE
Ms. Khorlan Ismailova, HE
Ms. Nadya Yegay
Ms. Saskia Funston
Ms. Laurel Fain HE




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming   120
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



                                J. DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

PEAKS Documents by country:

Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan Annual Report, 2005 (January to December, 2004)
Kyrgyzstan Annual 2004 Matrix (January 2005)
Kyrgyzstan Country Activity Plan—Year 2005
Kyrgyzstan Country Activity Plan—Year 2004
Kyrgyzstan Quarterly Report, April to June, 2004
Kyrgyzstan Quarterly Report, July to September, 2004
Kyrgyzstan Quarterly Report, October to December 2004

Tajikistan
IBET Tajikistan Country Activity Plan, Third Year, Aga Khan Foundation
Tajikistan Annual Report, January 2005 (2004 Activities)
Tajikistan Country Activity Plan—Year 2005
Tajikistan Country Activity Plan—Year 2004
Tajikistan Country Activity Plan, Revised (May 2004), Second Year, Aga Khan Foundation
(IBET Work plan)
Tajikistan Quarterly Report, April to June, 2004
Tajikistan Quarterly Report, October to December, 2004

Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan Annual Report: January 2005 (2004 Activities)
Uzbekistan Country Activity Plan—Year 2004
Uzbekistan IR1 and IR2 Redesign Proposal
Uzbekistan Quarterly Report, April to June, 2004
Uzbekistan Quarterly Report, July to September, 2004
Uzbekistan Quarterly Report, October to December, 2004

Other PEAKS documents:
Droeber, J. and Abdyrahman, N. c-EMIS ( Community – Based Education Management
Information System) Report Survey conducted in Beshik Jon Village, Bazar-Korgon District,
Djalal Abad Region, Kyrgyzstan, 26 May – 3 June 2004.
AED PEAKS Program Description
Program Description: Aga Khan Foundation
Proposal for Extending PEAKS in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (PEAKS Project
Partners), August, 2004

USAID documents:
Education in Tajikistan: USAID/E&, Draft Study. September, 2004.
SO 3.4: Improved Quality of and Access to Basic Education in Target Areas; SO Overview of
the Results Framework (Performance Monitoring Plan).
USAID CAR Results Framework—2004

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming            121
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


USAID 2004 Report—Narrative—Kyrgyzstan
USAID 2004 Report—Narrative—Tajikistan
USAID 2004 Report—Narrative--Uzbekistan

Other documents:
Aga Khan Foundation—Evaluation, Learning and Communication Unit. Final Report: Baseline
Survey, Improving Basic Education in Tajikistan (IBET). July, 2004.
American Institutes for Research. The 2000-2001 Evaluation of the Reading and Writing for
Critical thinking Project. September, 2001.
Harris, C. and Dyer, A. Global Education: Interim Project Review and Field Test Observations,
Tashkent, Ferghana and Andijan, Uzbekistan. UNICEF, 2004.
International Step by Step Association. Step by Step Program and Teacher Standards for
Preschool and Primary Grades. 2002.
Open Society Institute—Education Support Program. Education Development in Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan: Challenges and Ways Forward. April, 2002.
Silova, Anna. The Right to a Quality Education: Creating Child-Friendly Schools in Central
Asia. UNICEF, 2002
UNICEF. Global Education in Uzbekistan. April, 2004.




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         122
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                  K. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

                          1.     School Leadership Interview Guide


Directions: The School Leadership Interview Guide Instrument is intended as a guide to help in
identifying and implementing effective ‘best practice’ management strategies in the
administration and delivery of the education process. The ratings need to be an honest and open
reflection of the official in response to the question, Current Practice – How are we Doing? At
the end of each item, the interviewer should provide a rating as to the percent of time the school
leaders are currently implementing the stated ‘best practice’.

Background Information

Date: ______________                                Interviewer:
___________________
Country: __________            District: __________              Region:
___________
School: ______________________________

Interviewed:
School Director: _____               Male___ Female___
Deputy/Assistant: _____        Male___ Female___
Head Teachers: _____                 Male___ Female___

1.     School Size: # of teachers: _____ # of pupils________

2.     What PEAKS training has administrators received?

______________________________________________________________________________

3.     What PEAKS training has teachers received?

______________________________________________________________________________

4.     How is school attendance?

______________________________________________________________________________

5.     What are the main school issues?

______________________________________________________________________________

6.     Ask after interview - Any Further Comments, Suggestions for Other Issues?

______________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              123
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


1.     Empower Staff to Act/Leadership (quality and empowerment)

Best Practice: School director and other school officials actively work with local leaders,
groups and teachers to improve the teaching and learning (T & L) process; school officials and
teachers are actively involved in improving their understanding of the teaching and learning
process, participate in in-service training, and feel confident to act; fair representation of
marginalized groups and women, and have the skills and commitment to implement the program
and to teach and train others.

Is school director/officials actively involved in instructional process?        Yes         or
No/explain
Are school officials and teachers engaged in periodic in-service training?      Yes         or
No/explain
Are school officials and teachers active in implementing the program?           Yes         or
No/explain
Are teachers active in providing mentoring and training to others?       Yes or No/explain
Are officials/teachers representative; include marginalized groups & women? Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%      60 to 80%      80 to 100%


2.     Utilize Participatory Planning and Management (participation)

Best Practice: School director/officials solicit information/input about timely issues from
community/school leaders and other relevant government and civil society bodies; use
participatory planning to make a plan/document, able to formulate and communicate a school
position, plans and conducts regular meetings with agendas, keeps records, uses participatory
management, takes actions based on consensus, and is guided by democratic principles.

Are school, staff & local needs considered in making a plan/document? Yes or No/explain
Is representative input (including marginalized groups/women) solicited? Yes or No/explain
Do officials know and understand how to use participatory methods?       Yes or No/explain
Are meetings conducted using participatory management?            Yes or No/explain
Is staff active in the education decision-making process?                Yes or No/explain
Is progress on actions/plans reported out and shared among staff? or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%      60 to 80%      80 to 100%


3.     Financial/Resources (resources and transparency)

Best Practice: Appropriate process and strategies are implemented in providing a sound
financial system and a transparent financial process for delivery of the education program.



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming             124
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Has director/officials participated in financial management training?       Yes or No/explain
Has director/officials been able to mobilize local resources?        Yes or No/explain
Are there plans to identify other alternative financial funding sources?    Yes or No/explain
Does staff and public have input into the budget planning process? Yes or No/explain
Are income & financial reports shared with staff and public?                Yes or No/explain
Are financial procedures and processes clearly communicated to staff?       Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%   60 to 80%     80 to 100%
4.     Performance Monitoring (transparency/accountability)

Best Practice: Appropriate processes and strategies are implemented to provide performance
monitoring and evaluation of learning improvement programs (e.g., training and material costs,
changes in teacher behavior, improvement in student learning); learning results are documented,
reports prepared, and information disseminated and utilized in follow-on decision process.

Is a plan in place to collect data on new learning programs?              Yes or No/explain
Are new learning methodologies and programs being assessed?               Yes or No/explain
Are reports of the learning results prepared?                      Yes or No/explain
Are learning results disseminated (internally and/or externally)?         Yes or No/explain
Are the learning results being utilized during program modifications?     Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%       60 to 80%      80 to 100%


5.     Networking/Partnerships (partnerships)

Best Practice: The school is an initiator and advocator of quality education and forms networks/
partnerships with other groups, schools and education bodies in support of education activities.

Are coordinated actions w/other schools & institutions planned and initiated? Yes or No/explain
Does the school share resources (materials/trainers) with other schools?       Yes            or
No/explain
Is school willing to continue to work in a shared relationship with others?   Yes or No/explain
Is the school able to continue implementation without outside assistance?     Yes or No/explain
Does the school commit ‘matching’ resources to partnership projects?           Yes            or
No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%       60 to 80%      80 to 100%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                125
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                     2.     Parent Committee/Parent Interview Guide


Directions: The Parent Interview Guide is intended as a guide to help parents to identify and
implement ‘best practice’ in their participation and involvement in improving the delivery of
their local education program. Selected questions will be asked related to each of the ‘best
practice’ items during a group interview to elicit responses related to current practice on the
items. A judgment will then be made by the interviewer in determining the percent of time the
parents are performing the stated ‘best practice’. Space is provided for the explanations given
during the discussions sessions.

Background Information

Date: ______________                              Interviewer:
____________________________
Country: __________                 District: __________ Region:
________________________
Community:
_________________________________________________________________________

Interviewed:
PTA Head: _____              PTA Members: _____                     Other Parents: _____

1.     # of Active PTA Members: _____              Males: _____          Females: _____

2.     Meetings Held (how often): _____

3.    Recent                          Items                          Discussed:
______________________________________________________________________________

4.    Recent                           Actions                          Taken:
______________________________________________________________________________

6.    Training                                                        Received:
______________________________________________________________________________

7.     Describe the type of interactions you have with the school

______________________________________________________________________________

8.     Ask after interview - Any Comments, Suggestions for Other Issues?

______________________________________________________________________________


1.     Learning at Home (quality and participation)

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming           126
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



Best Practice: Family members supervise and assist their children at home with homework
assignments and other school-related needs and activities.

Do parents provide quiet, well-lit, and supervised space for study? Yes or No/explain
Do parents provide a table/desk and chair for studying at home?     Yes or No/explain
Do parents monitor homework?                                        Yes or No/explain
Do parents engage children in discussions related to schooling?     Yes or No/explain
Do parents provide for school needs (fees, uniform, books, pencils)?Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100%
_____________________________________________________________________

2.     Communicating (quality and transparency)

Best Practice: Parents show an active interest in the school and request regular updates on
children’s performance. Parents and teachers have cordial relationships and interact frequently,
both inside and outside the school setting.

Do parents make special efforts to visit school regularly?        Yes or No/explain
Do parents feel free to observe and assist in the school?         Yes or No/explain
Do parents discuss children’s performance with teachers?          Yes or No/explain
Do parents understand and discuss new methodologies with teachers?Yes or No/explain
Do teachers keep parents informed of school activities?           Yes or No/explain
Do parents and teachers interact outside school activities?       Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100%
______________________________________________________________________________

3.     Cooperating (parent and school partnerships)

Best Practice: Parents and community members work together toward the improvement of the
school. The school dialogs with parents about the value of education and helps families and
community groups to provide services to the community.

Is infrastructure maintained and school grounds kept safe and tidy?       Yes or No/explain
Are parents satisfied with the quality of teaching?                       Yes or No/explain
Do parents support teachers; provide food, accommodation, farm land?Yes or No/explain
Do parents support the new teaching methodologies?                        Yes or No/explain
Do parents help in development of local curriculum materials?             Yes or No/explain
Does the school dialog with parents about value of education?             Yes or No/explain
Are school facilities, adult literacy classes,etc. available to community?Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              127
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


0 to 20%    20 to 40%   40 to 60%   60 to 80%   80 to 100%
______________________________________________________________________________

4.     Volunteering and Support (resources)

Best Practice: Parents volunteer, provide unskilled labor, logistical support, cash, and materials
to help meet the needs and functions of the school.

Do parents volunteer to help with in-school activities?             Yes or No/explain
Do parents volunteer to help with after school activities?          Yes or No/explain
Do parents volunteer to help with school non-attendance issues? Yes or No/explain
Do parents volunteer to provide unskilled labor for school projects?Yes or No/explain
Do parents volunteer to help with fund raising?                     Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%


5.     Decision Making (quality and leadership)

Best Practice: Schools give parents, including women, meaningful roles in the school decision-
making process and provide parents with support and information.

Are parent-teacher and other education committee meetings held? Yes or No/explain
Do parents attend & actively participate in the committee meetings?Yes or No/explain
Are women active participants in the education committee meetings?Yes or No/explain
Are key issues identified and discussed at the meetings?           Yes or No/explain
Are non-attendance issues discussed at the meetings?               Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%


6.     Parenting (optional/access and participation)

Best Practice: Families provide for the health and guidance of children and maintain a home
environment that encourages school attendance and learning.

Are children fed before they go to school?                         Yes or No/explain
Do children complete household chores before they go to school?    Yes or No/explain
Are household chores distributed fairly among boys and girls?      Yes or No/explain
Are school attendance and punctuality good?                        Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              128
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                              3.     CEC/SRC Interview Guide

Directions: The CEC/SRC (Community Education Committee/School Rehabilitation
Committee) Interview Guide is intended as a guide to help local education committees to identify
and implement ‘best practice’ in their participation and involvement in improving the delivery of
their local education program. The ‘best practices’ will be translated and provided to the
respondents as a guide. Selected questions will be asked related to each of the ‘best practice’
items during a group interview to elicit responses related to current practice on the items. A
judgment will then be made by the interviewer in determining the percent of time the
respondents are performing the stated practice.

Background Information

Date: ______________                               Interviewer:
___________________________
Country: __________           District: __________              Region:
___________________
Community:
_________________________________________________________________________

Interviewed:
CEC Head: _____                                     SRC/Subcommittee:
_____________________
Members: _____                                      Members: _____

1.     # of Active Members: _____                   Males: _____            Females: _____

2.     Meetings Held (how often): _____

3.    Recent                          Items                          Discussed:
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

______________________________________________________________________________
_______

4.    Recent                           Actions                          Taken:
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

______________________________________________________________________________
_______

5.    Action Plan Developed: _________              Being                         Implemented:
_____________________



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming             129
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


6.    Training                                                                        Received:
_____________________________________________________________

7.    Infrastructure          Projects                       Being                Implemented:
________________________________________

8.     Ask after interview - Any Comments, Suggestions for Other Issues?

______________________________________________________________________________
_______

______________________________________________________________________________
_______


1.     Empower Local People to Act/Leadership (empowerment)

Best Practice: Local education committee understands their role and responsibilities and
actively works with the local leaders and groups and school personnel to improve school
facilities and the teaching and learning process; community members are actively involved in the
school decision-making process and feel confident to act; fair representation of women and
marginalized groups, members have a good relationship with school authorities and staff, and
members participate in in-service training.

Do members know and accept their roles/responsibilities?          Yes or No/explain
Are members active in planning of school activities?                     Yes or No/explain
Are members active in school decision-making process?                    Yes or No/explain
Is committee representative; includes women and marginalized groups? Yes or No/explain
Does the committee have a good relationship with school director & staff?Yes or No/explain
Do members have access to periodic training?                             Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?

0 to 20%      20 to 40%      40 to 60%      60 to 80%      80 to 100%


2.     Utilize Participatory Planning and Management (participation)

Best Practice: Local education committee meets frequently, has an agenda, makes and
implements meaningful decisions using participatory management; uses participatory methods in
identifying school needs and in initiating actions to address school concerns; stakeholder groups
are consulted on a regular basis and are actively involved in the meetings; action plans are
prepared, and records of meetings kept.

Does the committee meet regularly?                            Yes or No/explain
Do members know and understand how to use participatory methods?     Yes or No/explain

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming             130
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Does committee plan/conduct meetings using participatory management? Yes or No/explain
Does the committee consult with stakeholders on key issues?            Yes or No/explain
Does the committee develop and implement school/local action plans?    Yes or No/explain
Are records kept of the meetings?                               Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?

0 to 20%      20 to 40%      40 to 60%     60 to 80%      80 to 100%


3.     Mobilize Resources (resources)

Best Practice: Local education committee identifies school needs, mobilizes local and district
resources (human, material, financial) to meet these needs, takes initiative to maintain and
improve school through self-help projects, raises funds for further development of school,
organizes unskilled labor, makes appeals to individuals, agencies and organizations.
Does committee identify and prioritize needs?                              Yes or No/explain
Does committee take actions to maintain/improve school environment? Yes or No/explain
Does committee mobilize unskilled labor to support school projects?        Yes or No/explain
Does committee regularly organize programs to raise funds?                 Yes or No/explain
Does committee make appeals to individuals & agencies for assistance? Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%      60 to 80%      80 to 100%


4.     Monitoring of Funds and School Performance (transparency/accountability)

Best Practice: Project updates and reports of fund raising and expenditures are made at the
education meetings and shared with the stakeholders; stakeholders actively participate and
express their views; teachers assess school performance on a continual basis and share reports;
parents supervise student and teacher attendance, and teachers enforce good discipline.
Are project progress reports provided at education meetings?              Yes or No/explain
Are fund raising and expenditure reports shared with stakeholders? Yes or No/explain
Are members able to express their views related to the reports?           Yes or No/explain
Does community push for evidence of reading/writing?                      Yes or No/explain
Do parents regularly visit school to check on children’s progress? Yes or No/explain
Do parents supervise children’s attendance?                        Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%      60 to 80%      80 to 100%


5.    Linkages   with    Neighboring       Communities,           External     Agencies     &
Education/Government Authorities (partnerships)



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming           131
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Best Practice: Local education committee develops productive links with other communities,
external agencies, and district education authorities to the benefit of their school; district officials
attend community and school functions; community members regularly attend project meetings
and workshops with other development agencies and make appeals for assistance.
Does committee have working relationships with other communities?              Yes or No/explain
Does committee share results ‘what works’ with other communities?              Yes or No/explain
Does committee have working relationships with other agencies?                 Yes or No/explain
Does committee have working relationship with district education office? Yes or No/explain
Do district officials attend community/school functions?                       Yes or No/explain
Does community commit ‘matching ’resources to education projects?              Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%          60 to 80%       80 to 100%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                    132
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                   4.      Teacher Interview Guide

Country: __________________             District: _____________ Region: ______________________

School: ________________________________                  ____PDS or ____cluster

Date: _____________________                 Interviewer: ___________________________________

Directions: The Teacher Interview Guide is intended as a guide to help teachers identify and implement
“best practice’ in their participation and involvement in in-service training, classroom teaching skills, and
school/community relationships. You should use your best judgment in determining whether you are
performing the stated practice.

Background Data:

1. Number of teachers in focus interview group: ________              =    ____M and ____F

2. Grade levels taught: ______ 1 to 3          ______ 4 to 6      ______ 7 and above

3. In what years did the teachers begin teaching? ___________              __________       __________

        __________        __________        __________         __________        __________

Questions for teachers at PDS Schools:

4. What are your mentoring and/or training responsibilities?


5. How have you used the Resource Boxes at your school?


6. What do you think of the PEAKS model of in-service training?


Questions for teachers at Cluster Schools:

4. Describe the mentoring and/or coaching you have received from PDS trainers.


5. How have you used the Resource Boxes at your school?


6. Do you like this model of in-service teacher training? ___Yes ___No Explain




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                        133
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


1. Effective In-Service Teacher Training

Best Practice: Regular, relevant and locally-based teacher training provides teachers with up-
to-date learner centered methodologies and best practices; mentoring and peer coaching
programs help teachers put theories into practice; all teachers in a school benefit from in-service
training.

1. Were the training topics useful in your classroom teaching?      Yes/No/Explain
2. Was the amount of training you received sufficient?              Yes/No/Explain
3. Did you have the chance to actively participate in the training? Yes/No/Explain
4. Is the PEAKS in-service training model effective?                Yes/No/Explain
5. Is peer coaching used at your school?                            Yes/No/Explain
6. Did all the teachers at your school receive in-service training? Yes/No/Explain
7. Where did you receive your in-service training?
8. What suggestions do you have to improve in-service teacher training?




Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%

2. Learning Environment

Best Practices: The physical learning environment enhances learning for all the learners; a
“friendly” arrangement of furniture (if available) and/or learners is important as it allows for
interaction among learners; a positive physical environment contributes to a stimulating
environment for learning; classroom displays of students’ work and of teaching and learning
materials also encourage learning; learning is enhanced when teachers encourage interaction
among learners and they are free to move around the classroom to get materials, to use classroom
resources and to work with others.

1. Have you arranged your classroom furniture to create a stimulating learning environment?
                                                                         Yes/No/explain
2. Is students’ work displayed in the classroom?                         Yes/No/explain
3. Are learning materials displayed in the classroom?                    Yes/No/explain
4. How do you encourage your students to be actively involved in the lesson?
                                                                         Yes/No/explain
5. Can learners move around the classroom to work with others?           Yes/No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%


3. Using Learner-Centered Methodologies



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming               134
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


Best Practice: All teachers in a school use learner-centered methodologies as often as possible;
teachers share ideas and discuss problems regarding creating good learning environments with
their colleagues and school administrators; teachers benefit from structured observation,
feedback and guidance; they have access to personnel and resources to assist with overcoming
constraints.

1. How often do you use learner-centered methodologies over a day’s teaching time?
2. Are these methodologies suitable for your students?               Yes/No/Explain
3. Do the students like these new methodologies?                     Yes/No/Explain
4. Are you using the teaching/learning aids you received during your training?
                                                                     Yes/No/Explain
5. Are your students learning more effectively?                      Yes/No/Explain
6. Do all teachers at your school meet to discuss creating good learning environments?
        (how often)                                                  Yes/No/Explain
7. Do you meet with school administrators to discuss these topics? Yes/No/Explain
8. Are you receiving feedback and/or guidance to help you use effectively what you have
learned?                                                             Yes/No/Explain
9. How have you worked to overcome problems related to using these new methodologies?

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%

4. Teaching and Learning Activities

Best Practices: Appropriate use of teaching and learning materials (TLM) by the teacher
engages learners in the lesson and helps learners to understand concepts and use critical thinking
skills; select appropriate TLMs and include them in the lesson plan; choose TLMs related to the
lesson and appropriate for the level of the learner; use methods that actively involve learners in
discussion and problem solving.

1. Do you include TLMs in your lesson plan?                           Yes/No/explain
2. Do you use TLMs in each of your classes?                           Yes/No/explain
3. Do you choose methods that actively involve the learners?          Yes/No/explain
4. Do these methods help learners develop critical thinking skills?   Yes/No/explain
5. Do these methods help learners learn problem solving?              Yes/No/explain
6. Do you make your own low-cost teaching materials?                  Yes/No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%


5. Relations with School Administration, Parents/Community Groups, Neighboring Schools

Best Practice: Teachers have regular meetings with colleagues and school administration to
work together to create positive learning environments; build solid relations with parents and
community education committees by meeting regularly to discuss student progress, attendance,

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              135
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


and school problems; have the opportunity to share ideas and discuss progress with colleagues in
nearby schools.

1. Do teachers meet regularly to discuss how to create good learning environments?
                                                                      Yes/No/Explain
2. Do teachers and school administrators work together to solve problem?
                                                                      Yes/No/Explain
3. Do teachers share resources and ideas?                             Yes/No/Explain
4. Are teachers given enough time during the day to work together? Yes/No/Explain
5. Has the school director observed your class?                       Yes/No/Explain
6. Have parents been involved in discussing school matters?           Yes/No/Explain
7. Do parents have enough chances to participate in school matters? Yes/No/Explain
8. Do you meet with parents regularly to discuss their children’s progress?
                                                                      Yes/No/Explain
Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%       20 to 40%      40 to 60%      60 to 80%       80 to 100%

Open Ended Questions:

1. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me?




2. Do you have any comments, suggestions or issues that you would like to discuss?




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming            136
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                          5.     Teacher Observation Data Sheet

Country: _________ District: ________________ Region: ________________________
School: ___________________________ (___PDS or ___cluster) Grade level: ____________
Date: ___________              Observer: ______________________________________

Which in-service training courses with PEAKS has the teacher completed? ___none
SbS      ___module 1 ___module 2 ___module 3 ___module 4
RWCT ___module 1 ___module 2 ___module 3
Inclusive Education (IE) ___module 1 ___ module 2 ___module 3
1. Teacher uses a lesson plan during class ____ yes ____no
2. If ‘yes’, ____plan developed by teacher, or _____prepared by someone else
3. Teacher uses teaching aids. ____ yes ____ no If ‘yes’, check type of teaching aid used
____ flashcards                       ____pictures
____ chart/diagram                    ____ models
____ realia (describe: ___________________________________________________________)
____ other (describe: ___________________________________________________________)

4. Teacher asks “WH-questions” to elicit students’ thinking skills. ____ yes ____ no
5. Teacher allows students enough ‘pause time’ to think before answering ___yes ____no
6. Teacher effectively manages other students trying to interrupt. ____ yes ____ no
7. Teacher uses pair work. ____ yes ____ no
8. Teacher uses group work ____ yes ____ no
     If ‘yes’ to 7 and/or 8,
9. Teacher moves around to give feedback during students’ activities ____yes ____ no
10. Teacher times pair/group work so that the majority of pair/groups have the time to present
their work to the rest of the class. ____ yes ____ no
11. Teacher ensures that all students actively participate in the lesson. ____ yes ____ no
     If ‘no’ to 11,
 12. _____% of students actively participated
13. Do girls and boys participate in equal numbers? ____ yes ____ no
     If ‘no” to 13,
14. ____% of girls participated actively ____% of boys participated actively
15. During the lesson, teacher assessed students’ understanding ____ yes ____no
16. Overall, about what was the amount of “teacher talk” during the lesson?
      ____less that 40% ___40% to 60% ___60% to 80% ____80% to100%

Comments/Notes:
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming          137
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.



                        6.     Classroom Observation Data Sheet

Country: _________ District: ________________ Region: _________________________
School: __________________________ (___PDS or ___cluster) Grade level: ____________
Date: ___________                     Observer: ________________________________

1. Number of students registered: _______    Number of students in attendance: _______

2. Number of boys in class: ___________     Number of girls: _________

3. Type of furniture: _____desk/chair  _____bench desk for _____ pupils
4. Seating conditions:
_____ seriously overcrowded (students with no desk space)
_____ moderately overcrowded (extra student at bench desk)
_____ not overcrowded (each student has a seat/desk space)
_____ empty desks and seats
                                    Condition of classroom
        Item           Good Fair Poor                  Comments
    5. walls
    6. floors
    7. ceiling
    8. windows
    9. lighting
    10. blackboard
    11. door
    12. desks
    13. bookcase

14. Furniture arrangement: _____rows _____ clusters _____other (describe)
15. Are there coat hangers for students’ coats? ____yes ____no
16. Does the teacher have adequate chalk?      _____ yes ____ no
17. Does the teacher have blackboard erasers? ____ yes    ____ no
18. Do the students each have a textbook? ____ yes      _____no
       If no, _______ books per ______ students
19. Learning aids displayed in classroom:
____poster/chart/diagram ____map _____picture(s) ____ pocket chart
____calendar____ other (describe:_______________________________________________

20. Students’ work on display: ____ homework ____ drawings ____projects
____maps ____other (describe: __________________________________________________)
21. Student supplies: about ________% of students with notebooks
  About________% of students with pencil/pen
  About________% of students with slate boards
  About________% of students with cDistricts/colored pencils


Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         138
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


22. Classroom resources: Note any other resources that are in the classroom.
____ dictionary
____ books ( number and type: ___________________________________________________)
____ educational toys/equipment ( describe: _________________________________________)
____ clay
____ other ____________________________________________________________________

23. Is the classroom heated in winter? ___yes ___no If yes, type of heating ________________

24. Has the classroom been repaired as the result of a CEC or SI committee action plan or
school improvement plan? ____ yes       ____no
If yes, describe repairs: __________________________________________________________

25. Does the school have a library? ___yes ___no If yes, describe
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________


Comments/Notes:
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming        139
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


        7.     Interview Questions for Children’s Clubs Focus Groups (20 minutes)

Country: _________ District: ________________ Region: ________________________
Community:_______________________________
Date: ___________              Interviewer: ____________________________________

1. Number of members: __________ = _____M and _____ F
2. Grade levels: _____ from grades 1 to 3 ____ from grades 4 to 6 ____ from grade 7 above
3. How often does the group meet? ____________
4. Briefly describe members’ roles and responsibilities:


6. What types of training have the members received? Describe


7. How has this training been beneficial?


8. What community and educational issues are the Children’s Clubs dealing with?


9. Does the Children’s Club have an Action Plan? What activities has the Children’s Club
undertaken?


10. How does the Children’s Club benefit:
 1) parents
 2) the community in general
 3) the school,
 4) members of the club

11. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me?


12. Do you have any comments, suggestions or issues that you would like to discuss?




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming       140
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                   8.     Government Education Official Interview Guide

Directions: The Government Education Official Interview Guide Instrument is intended as a
guide to help in identifying and implementing effective ‘best practice’ management strategies in
the administration and delivery of the education process. The ratings need to be an honest and
open reflection of the official in response to the question, Current Practice – How are we
Doing? Based on the interview, the interviewer should use their best judgment in determining
the percent of time the officials are performing the ‘best practice’.

Background Information

Date: ______________                                        Interviewer:
___________________
Country: __________                  District: __________                  Region:
___________

Interviewed:                 #Male___     #Female___
Director: _____              Unit Heads: _______
Deputy/Assistant: _____      Other Education Officials: _____

1.    What PEAKS training has education officials received?
______________________________________________________________________________
_______
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

2.    What is the current role of the District/Region related to the PEAKS program?
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

3.    Is the use of PDS/cluster schools a good model as a local training provider?
______________________________________________________________________________
_______
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

4.    What should be the long-term role of the District/Region related to supporting the
PDS/cluster schools as a local training provider?
______________________________________________________________________________
_______
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

5.     What should be the role of the NGOs related to the PDS/cluster schools as a local
training



Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming             141
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


provider?_____________________________________________________________________
_______
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

6.     What should be the role of the TTIs related to the PDS/cluster schools as a local
training provider?
______________________________________________________________________________
_______
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

7.     Is any teacher certification planned or being provided for the PEAKS training
participation?
______________________________________________________________________________
_______
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

8.    Ask after interview - Any Further Comments, Suggestions for Other Issues?
______________________________________________________________________________
_______

1.     Empower Education Officials to Act/Leadership (quality and empowerment)

Best Practice: Government education officials actively work to establish a two-way channel
between school/community leaders and the education system to improve the teaching/learning
and school management process; officials are actively involved in improving their understanding
of the teaching/learning and management process, participate in pepiodic training, feel confident
to act; fair representation of marginalized groups and women, and have the skills and
commitment to provide technical assistance.

Are officials actively involved in the PDS process?                   Yes or No/explain
Are officials supportive of the new teaching methodologies?                  Yes or No/explain
Are officials engaged in the participatory management training?              Yes or No/explain
Are officials active in providing resources (materials/technical assistance)?Yes or No/explain
Are officials representative; i.e., include marginalized groups & women? Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%


2.     Utilize Participatory Planning and Management (participation)

Best Practice: Government education officials meet regularly with community/school leaders
and other relevant government and civil society bodies to solicit information/input about timely

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming                 142
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


education issues of concern. The various units of the agency conduct regular meetings with
agendas, to discuss issues, use participatory planning to make work plans, take actions based on
consensus, are guided by democratic principles, and are able to formulate and communicate a
policy position.

Is community/school and other agency input solicited?                     Yes or No/explain
Are the needs representative (include marginalized groups and women)? Yes or No/explain
Do officials know and understand participatory methods?            Yes or No/explain
Are meetings conducted using participatory planning & management?         Yes or No/explain
Is progress on actions/plans reported out and shared among officials?     Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%


3.     Financial/Resources (resources and transparency)

Best Practice: Appropriate process and strategies are implemented in providing a sound
financial system and a transparent financial process for delivery of the education program.

Have education officials participated in financial management training? Yes or No/explain
Are financial procedures and processes clearly communicated to staff?     Yes or No/explain
Does staff and public have input into the budget planning process? Yes or No/explain
Are income & financial reports shared with staff and public?              Yes or No/explain
Are internal audit reports discussed and/or shared with staff?            Yes or No/explain
Are there plans to identify alternative school financial funding sources? Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%   60 to 80%     80 to 100%
4.     Performance Monitoring (transparency/accountability)

Best Practice: Appropriate processes and strategies are implemented to provide performance
monitoring and evaluation of learning improvement programs (e.g., training and material costs,
changes in teacher behavior, improvement in student learning); learning results are documented,
reports prepared, and information disseminated and utilized in follow-on decision process.

Is a plan in place to collect data on new learning programs?           Yes or No/explain
Are the new learning methodologies and programs being assessed? Yes or No/explain
Are learning results prepared and made ready for dissemination?        Yes or No/explain
Are learning results disseminated (internally and/or externally)?      Yes or No/explain
Are the learning results being utilized during program modifications?  Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%        60 to 80%      80 to 100%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming              143
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


5.     Networking/Partnerships (partnerships)

Best Practice: Education institution/agency is an initiator and advocator of quality education
and forms networks/partnerships with other groups, schools and education bodies in support of
education activities.
Are coordinated actions w/other groups & institutions planned and initiated? Yes or No/explain
Does institution have a coordinating unit for donor/partnership projects?     Yes or No/explain
Can institution provide partner assistance w/current workload & finances? Yes or No/explain
Does institution share results ‘what works’ with other education bodies?      Yes or No/explain
Does institution provide school material, training/supervision support?       Yes or No/explain

Current Practice – How are we doing?
0 to 20%      20 to 40%     40 to 60%      60 to 80%      80 to 100%




Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming           144
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                               9.      Teacher Questionnaire

Teacher questionnaire—translated into Russian and administered to 104 teachers.
(Question 5 was not clear to the respondents so was eliminated.)
Country: ____________         Raion: ____________ Oblast: _______________
School Name: ___________________Grade level taught: ______ Gender ___M ____F

Directions: Please read each question or statement and then choose the answer you feel best
expresses your own experiences.

How would you evaluate the in-service training that you have received under the PEAKS
program? (Please check [√] in front of the best response)
____excellent____very good____average____poor

In your classroom, how often do you use the new student-centered teaching methodologies that
you learned during your PEAKS training?
____4 or 5 times a day____once a day
____ once or twice a week ____ never

3. Are you presently working in a peer mentoring relationship? ____yes _____ no If “yes”,
please answer question 4:

How would you describe your experience in working with another teacher in a peer mentoring
relationship:
____ very helpful ____ somewhat helpful ____ not helpful

Think about your in-service training. What are the most important aspects of that training?
(Order the from 1=most important, 2=second most important, 3=third most important, 4=fourth
most important, 5=fifth most important)
_____ receiving new teaching aids and learning materials
_____ sharing ideas with other teachers
_____ learning the importance of student-centered methodologies
_____ rearranging the classroom for better student participation
_____ receiving better teaching manuals

How would you describe the other teachers in your school in cooperating to implement the new,
student-centered methodologies?
_____ very supportive ______ somewhat supportive _____ not supportive

How would you describe the attitude of the school director in encouraging teachers to use the
new, student-centered methodologies?
_____ very supportive ______ somewhat supportive _____ not supportive

How often do you talk to parents of your students about their progress?
____ every day ____                                 ____ once or twice a week
____ at formal parent-teacher meetings only         ____ never

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming         145
Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
 DevTech Systems, Inc.



                                                    L. FINAL TEAM SCHEDULE

                                                          May 25, 2005


                               TEAM 1 (Dye)                   TEAM 2 (Boardman)

             3/15-
               4/5                          Preparatory Work at Home

                                                  Washington
                                      AM – Team briefing and work session
              4/6 Wed              PM – Meetings with recommended DC contacts

                                       AM – Continue meetings with contacts
              4/7 Thu                   PM – Continue team work sessions

                                                AM – Team Meeting
              4/8 Fri       Evening – Travel to Tashkent (arrive late evening of Saturday)
              4/9 Sat                                 Travel

                                                                                             Planning &
                             Team Meeting, discussions with EZ Solutions, and materials      Materials
Uzbekistan   4/10 Sun                               preparation                              Preparation

                      AM - USAID & PEAKS                                                     Briefings &
             4/11 Mon PM - Region Ed. Dept.            AM – USAID & PEAKS.                   fieldwork

                       AM – MOPE
                       PM – WB, ADB, &
                       UNICEF                          AM – MOPE
             4/12 Tues Travel to Dangara               PM – TTI & RCE                        Fieldwork

 Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan,   146
 Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
 DevTech Systems, Inc.



                         AM - Dangara #12 (PDS)       AM – Tashkent #145 (PDS)                Fieldwork &
             4/13 Wed    PM - Ziyo NGO                PM – Travel to Ferghana                 Travel

                         Ferghana: AM – Parvoz
                         School (PDS)                 AM - Uchkuprik #8 school;
             4/14 Thu    PM – Region Ed. Dept.        PM - Focus groups                       Fieldwork

                         AM – Tashlak #11
                         PM – Focus groups &
                         SCUS
                         Travel to Tashkent           AM –Kokand #42                          Fieldwork &
             4/15 Fri                                 Travel to Tashkent                      Travel

                                                      Akkurgan #6 (PDS) & joint mtg with
                                                      Educ. Finance staff of District Ed. &
                         Almalik #5 (PDS)             Finance Depts.
             4/16 Sat    Travel to Khujand            Travel to Khujand                       Fieldwork & travel
                         Khujand: AM – Meeting
                         with EZ to prepare program                                           Fieldwork
                         & materials PM – Team      Khujand: AM - Meeting with EZ             Preparations & Team
Tajikistan   4/17 Sun    review                     PM – Team review                          Review

                      Khujand: AM – School #9         Ganchi: AM – School #22 & District
                      (PDS)                           Ed. Dept.                               Fieldwork
             4/18 Mon PM: School .#15                 PM: School #29

                         AM – Unable to meet with     Kairakum: AM - School #14
                         Reg. Ed. Dept, & TTI         & District Ed. Dept.                    Fieldwork,Travel &
                         Fly to Dushanbe – 4:00 PM    Fly to Dushanbe – 4:00 PM               Fieldwork
             4/19 Tue    Meet with EZ Solutions       Meet with EZ Solutions                  preparations

             4/20 Wed    Dushanbe: AM – USAID & Dushanbe: AM – USAID & MOE                    Briefings & Travel

 Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan,   147
 Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
 DevTech Systems, Inc.


                         MOE                          PM – AKF, followed by travel to
                         PM – AKF & PEAKS             Rogun (Boardman & LeBlanc

                          Kholkhozobod: Cluster       AM – Core school #2
                         school # 50 & District Ed.   Lunch – District Ed. Dept
                         Dept. (Dye and Bayzoev)      PM – TTI & LRC
             4/21 Thu    Travel to KT                 Travel to Dushanbe                   Fieldwork

                         Bokhtar # 26 (PDS) &         Vahdat School #4 (PDS) & District
                         District Ed. Dept.           Ed. Dept.
             4/22 Fri    Return to KT                                                      Fieldwork
                         KT Region Ed. Dept.          Khoroson Schools # 10 & 9
             4/23 Sat    Travel to Kolub                                                   Fieldwork & Travel

                         AM – City Ed. Dept, Kolub                                         Data work &
             4/24 Sun    IPD. Khorog IPD, & DED        Data work                           Fieldwork


                      School #2 (PDS) & City
                      Ed. Dept.                                                            Fieldwork,
                      Travel to Dushanbe                                                   Travel, & Data
             4/25 Mon President’s Admin.              Data Work                            Work

                         ADB,
                         WB, GTZ , CARE &             Republican TTI. PSI, SAVE/UK,
             4/26 Tue    SAVE/US                      OSI, & SAVE/US                       Fieldwork

                         Fly to Bishkek & meet with
                         EZ                           Fly to Bishkek and meet with EZ
Kyrgyzstan   4/27 Wed    4:00 PEAKS                   4:00 PEAKS
                         MOE, USAID. WB,                                                   Country briefings,
                         USAID/CAR Intermediate       USAID, PEAKS, & Intermediate         USAID/CAR
             4/28 Thu    Briefing, & Mtg. W/Terry     Briefing                             Intermediate Briefing, &

 Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan,   148
 Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                        Giles (Dye)                                                       Fieldwork

                        Min. Finance, KAE-TTI,
                        Lab. of Innovative
                        Technologies., FIES, SbS      AM – Chui: Shopokov Gymnasium
                        Foundation, & Mtg with       #1 (PDS) (SP) & District Ed. Dept.
           4/29 Fri     Terry Giles (Dye)            PM - Sokoluk School # 2              Fieldwork

                        Work on preliminary
           4/30 Sat     findings                     Work on research project             Team work in hotel

             5/1 Sun    Chui : Region Ed. Dept.         Work on research project          Fieldwork & Research



                     Work on findings & travel                                            Team wprk in
             5/2 Mon to Osh                          Work on research & travel to Naryn   hotel & travel

                        AM - Uzgen: Tangatarova
                        (PDS) (SP)
                        PM – Lenina cluster
                        school, mtg. with District   AM - Ak-Muz: Boogachi School
                        Ed. Dept., &                 (PDS) PM – Ak-Moyun
            5/3 Tue     Toktogul cluster school      Koichumanova Sxhool                  Fieldwork

                        AM – Nookat: Tajibai
                        School (PDS) IE training     AM – Kazybek school Atbashy
                        PM - Toktorova cluster       cluster
                        school & mtg. with DED       PM – District Ed. Dept. & possibly
             5/4 Wed    Deputy Head                  Region Ed. Dept.                     Fieldwork

             5/5 Thu    Data work & report           Travel to Bishkek & data work        Travel & Data Work
             5/6 Fri                                 AM – Chui School # 78                Fieldwork & Travel

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan,   149
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
DevTech Systems, Inc.


                        AM - School # 16, Osh        PM - RWCT TOT
                        (PDS)

                        Fly to Bishkek

                        AM – ADB, ACCELS,
                        Assoc. of Independent
                        training Providers, & mtg.
                        With RWCT trainer                                                  Fieldwork & Research
             5/7 Sat    PM - Report                  Work on research project              Project
                        Report & prep. for Almaty                                          Report, Data Analysis &
             5/8 Sun    briefings                    Data analysis & tentative findings    prep. for Almaty

                     Dye leaves for Almaty for
                     USAID briefings & mtgs.
                     & report preparation            Boardman leaves for Almaty for
                     through 5/17                    USAID mtgs. On 5/10 and 5/11
                     Bayzoev leaves for Almaty       travel to the U.S.,
             5/9 Mon and Dushanbe                    LeBlanc leaves for Tashkent           Travel

                    Dye and Boardman: mtgs
                    & briefings in USAID, incl.
                    Acting Mission Dir., other       LeBlanc visits 2 cluster schools of   Meetings, Briefings, &
           5/10 Tue SO teams, and Prog. Office       PDS Tashkent # 145                    Fieldwork
                    Bayzoev leaves for
                    Dushanbe, Boardman
                    returns to the U.S., & Dye
                    continues USAID/CAR
                    mtgs., works on draft
                    report, and prepares for                                               Report. Prep. for
           5/11 Wed 5/13 debriefing                  LeBlanc continues Tashkent work       Briefing, & Fieldwork
           5/12 Thu Dye continues as above             LeBlanc returns to Bishkek          Fieldwork                 Fieldwork
           5/13 Fri USAID debriefing                   LeBlanc conducts final data work    Debriefing & final data   Fieldwork

Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan,   150
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
 DevTech Systems, Inc.


                                                                                           work

Kazakhstan    5/14 Sat    Dye incorporates 5/13 feedback Leblanc continues data work       Briefings and Data Work    Fieldwork


                        LeBlanc travels to Almaty (Sun)
             5/15- Sun- Dye prepares for final debriefing (Sun-Mon)                        Travel & Final
              5/17 Tue Final debriefing Tue)                                               Debriefing

   5/18 Wed      Dye & LeBlanc depart for U.S. (early AM)

   5/24 Mon     Draft Executive Summary due in Almaty

   5/31 Tue     Draft report due in Almaty




 Evaluation of USAID Basic Education Program and Assessment of Future Programming Priorities in Education in Kyrgyzstan,   151
 Tajikistan and Uzbekistan