Local education groups Tools for LEG selfassessment and

Local education groups Tools for LEG self-assessment and performance feedback 1 1

Note for users Guidance for using the tools is provided in the Word version. This slide deck is the Power. Point version of the tools for use in workshop or smaller group settings. It can be used in combination with the Excel format for the visualization of results. The performance feedback tool is also available in Survey Monkey. The slide deck has the following sections: 1 LEG effectiveness and principles. . . . 3 2 LEG self-assessment tool. . . . . 6 3 Results and visualization. . . . . 26 4 Performance feedback tool …………………. . ………… 31 5 Supplement for tailoring the tool …. . . . . 41 2 2

1 LEG effectiveness and principles 3 3

LEG effectiveness Agreed policy dialogue functions serving shared goals and priorities Arrangements making the LEG ‘fit-for-purpose’ Strategic effectiveness Organizational capacities Collaborative capacities 4 Behaviors, values and commitments underpinning healthy partnership dynamics

s G C es LE DO cipl tive in ec Pr eff d ar w to 5

2 The LEG self-assessment tool Note that section 5 has supplemental assessment questions to tailor to tool 6

Rating scale 5 = Practice/feature/behavior is strong 4 = Practice/feature/behavior is relatively strong 3 = Practice/feature/behavior is promising 2 = Practice/feature/behavior is rare FOR RATING SCALE 1 = Practice/behavior/feature does not occur N/A= Non Applicable, when question is not found relevant for the specific LEG or context Responses to assessment questions/questions can also be done in narrative form, rather than rating or in combination with the rating. 7

Strategic effectiveness 8

Supporting policy development, implementation and monitoring Is this function a key priority for the LEG and its members? [average] If so, how and to what extent is this function pursued in practice? The LEG facilitates/provides inputs for the development and implementation of a country-led national education sector plan 1 -5 LEG members exchange knowledge about sector plan implementation and discuss policy successes and implications of specific or emerging challenges in their meetings 1 -5 The LEG engages in the organization of government-led joint sector reviews, or the equivalent, to monitor the implementation of the sector plan 1 -5 Sector dialogue is generally evidence-based (e. g. informed by analysis, including gender analysis, thematic studies, policy reviews, evaluations, equity-based disaggregated data, etc. ) 1 -5 The LEG pays specific attention to supporting the development, implementation and monitoring of quality and equity targets, gender responsiveness and the needs of vulnerable population groups 1 -5 9

Addressing education financing and resource use [average] Is this function a key priority for the LEG and its members? If so, how and to what extent is this function pursued in practice? LEG acts as a platform to discuss the costs and financing of the ESP/TEP, including the financing of specific quality and equity targets 1 -5 LEG monitors government financial commitments and domestic spending effectiveness 1 -5 LEG monitors donor financial commitment and external pledges, disbursements, spending effectiveness, predictability of financing, and loans/debt 1 -5 The LEG supports identification of new sources to finance the plan from national budget, donors and CSOs, and private sector 1 -5 LEG members advocate for higher investments in the education sector 1 -5 10

Promoting harmonization and alignment [average] Is this function a key priority for the LEG and its members? If so, how and to what extent is this function pursued in practice? Development partners strive to harmonize their support (i. e. decrease the number of standalone programs) and increase the use of national public financial management systems to channel aid 1 -5 Development partners align their respective financial contributions to a country-owned and partner-endorsed ESP/TEP 1 -5 Development partners align their respective technical contributions to a country-owned and partner -endorsed ESP/TEP 1 -5 LEG members discuss the scope of projects, approaches, harmonization of technical support, and fitting funding modalities to support country systems 1 -5 11

Fostering mutual accountability for results Is this function a key priority for the LEG and its members? [average] If so, how and to what extent is this function pursued in practice? The LEG uses ESP operational tools (results framework, annual action plans) as shared frameworks to focus on delivery and acceleration of results in ESP/TEP priority areas 1 -5 LEG members are transparent and timely in sharing information on their progress towards their sectoral or thematic commitment and spending 1 -5 LEG meetings advance strategic dialogue and exchange around bottlenecks of the sector to support steady implementation of the ESP 1 -5 LEG members support, technically and/or financially, the production of sound analysis to inform ESP/TEP monitoring efforts 1 -5 LEG members support the organization of regular Joint Sector Reviews to review sector results and recommend any corrective actions, informed by sector performance reporting 1 -5 12

Other functions [average] Does the LEG have other functions, or different priorities, not covered in the above and taking up time of the LEG meeting? How well does the LEG perform these functions? YES/NO 1 -5 Added value of LEG functions [average] LEG members perceive the LEG functions as adding value for overall sector progress 1 -5 LEG members perceive the LEG functions as adding value for them and their own organizations / institutions and serving shared goals and interests 1 -5 13

Partnership frameworks Agreed functions and strategic priorities of the LEG are clearly articulated in a LEG To. R, MOU, partnership agreement or the equivalent 1 -5 14

Organizational capacities 15

Clarity of mandate, functions and objectives [average] Does the LEG have a clear mandate and agreed functions? LEG members share a common vision for the role and mandate of the LEG, reflected in documents such as LEG To. R, Mo. U, partnership framework, Charter etc. 1 -5 LEG’s core functions and membership were agreed through a process of stakeholder dialogue and consensus-building around how the LEG can best add value 1 -5 LEG mandate and functions as may be contained in the TORs or equivalent document reflect realistic and achievable objectives 1 -5 Risks and mitigation measures have been considered (e. g. any possible overlap with other bodies, any undesired distortions, unnecessary transaction costs) 1 -5 16

Inclusion and engagement [average] Is the LEG inclusive of key education stakeholders and are their roles clear? The LEG is reflective of key players in the education sector and other actors influencing education sector development 1 -5 • Ministry(ies) of education at the national level representing the various sub-sectors and key implementing agencies YES/NO • Ministry of Finance YES/NO • Multilateral agencies YES/NO • Bilateral agencies YES/NO • • International NGOs and foundations YES/NO Local CSOs/NGOs (CSO coalitions, parents’ associations, disabled peoples’ associations) including those that participate in the Education Campaign Coalition YES/NO • Teachers’ organizations YES/NO • Representatives of non-public educational providers YES/NO • Additional: Ministries such as planning, health, civil service, women’s affairs, academic institutions YES/NO • Additional: Representatives of sub-national and local levels of government YES/NO The roles of LEG members are specified and build on partners’ strengths, experiences and willingness to support inclusive, transparent and accountable education sector dialogue, planning and monitoring 1 -5 The engagement and inputs from all members effectively feed into the policy dialogue 1 -5 17

Governance arrangements [average] Are LEG governance and management practices set to serve the functions of the LEG effectively? The LEG builds on existing structures, linking up to thematic/sub-sector groups and other coordination bodies, and decentralized LEGs, if relevant 1 -5 The size and structure of the core LEG are kept manageable so as not to jeopardize effective functioning 1 -5 There is clarity on the consultative role of the LEG (as a body) versus decision-making authorities (i. e. the government & each member’s own organization) 1 -5 18

Working arrangements [average] Are the LEG working arrangements effective and efficient? The LEG has a clear, structured and resourced workplan 1 -5 LEG members (core, broader, thematic or technical sub-groups) meet at agreed frequency and relevant LEG members are present 1 -5 Relevant information is accessible and communicated in a timely and effective manner to facilitate collaboration and to enable LEG members to participate constructively (including the provision of translation services when needed to ensure local stakeholders’ involvement) 1 -5 Meetings are documented, and minutes circulated, and followed-up 1 -5 19

Monitoring of LEG performance and learning Are processes in place for the LEG to regularly monitor its own partnership performance? [average] LEG members agree to the need for mechanisms to assess the progress of the partnership, and on the scope, purpose, indicators and modalities of LEG monitoring 1 -5 The LEG monitors its own performance on a regular basis – such as through status reporting of LEG planned activities, or conduct of this LEG Self-assessment Tool 1 -5 The LEG monitors partnership dynamics on a regular basis – such as through the use of the Performance Feedback Tool 1 -5 The LEG adjusts its strategic priorities, organizational and collaborative ways of working as a result of the monitoring and organizational learning 1 -5 20

Partnership frameworks Organizational features that make the ‘LEG fit-forpurpose’ are clearly articulated in a LEG TOR, MOU, partnership agreement or the equivalent 1 -5 21

Organizational capacities 22

Government leadership and partnership ownership Does the government demonstrate commitment to the LEG governance, working arrangements, functions and desired outcomes? [average] The LEG is chaired by a high-level Ministry of Education official(s) (such as Minister, Permanent Secretary or Secretary General) 1 -5 Units within line ministries support activities within the technical working groups through staffing and/or resources 1 -5 The government has sufficient resources (financial, staff, time, and technical) to fulfill its leadership roles and take ownership of strengthening sector dialogue 1 -5 The roles of the LEG chair and the lead agency/coordinating agency are agreed to, and clear to other LEG members 1 -5 The government leads by example with gender balance and representation of women at senior levels within the LEG 1 -5 The distribution of leadership and policy dialogue roles works well in practice, and are adjusted as needed 1 -5 23

Healthy partnership dynamics [average] Do partnership behaviors and engagement foster the shared values of the LEG? There is a transparent process for selecting the lead agency/coordinating agency, including a clear term so that different agencies can serve 1 -5 There is a transparent process for selecting the Grant Agent for GPE funding 1 -5 The coordinating/lead agency acts as a broker, mobilizing and keeping policy dialogue processes flowing and fostering healthy partnership dynamics 1 -5 LEG members have a formal or informal code of practice or shared values underpinning partner behaviors and engagement in the LEG 1 -5 LEG members generally perceive their engagement in the LEG as meaningful (their respective inputs are considered, and they are able to influence decisions) 1 -5 24

Partnership frameworks Collaborative features underpinning partnership dynamics are clearly articulated in a LEG To. R, MOU, partnership agreement or the equivalent 25 1 -5

3 Results and visualization 26

0. 0 Supporting policy development, implementation and monitoring 0. 0 Addressing domestic and external financing and resource use 0. 0 Promoting harmonization and alignment 0. 0 Fostering mutual accountability for results 0. 0 Other functions 0. 0 Added value of LEG functions 0. 0 Organizational Capacities 0. 0 Clarity of mandate, functions and objectives 0. 0 Inclusion and engagement 0. 0 Governance arrangements 0. 0 Working arrangements 0. 0 Monitoring of LEG performance and learning 0. 0 Collaborative Capacities 0. 0 Leadership and ownership 0. 0 Healthy partnership dynamics 27 0. 0 r e 1 l o pl Exce T am in PP Ex d on ed in se liz Ba fina Summary of results Strategic Effectiveness

Partnership Frameworks (LEG To. R or the equivalent) [average] Agreed functions and strategic priorities of the LEG are clearly articulated 0. 0 Organizational features that make the ‘LEG fit-for-purpose’ are clearly articulated 0. 0 Collaborative features underpinning partnership dynamics are clearly articulated 0. 0 28

e 2 el pl Exc am n Ex d o se Ba Summary of Assessment Results y Supporting policy development, implementation and monitoring Addressing domestic and external financing and resource use Promoting harmonization and alignment Fostering mutual accountability for results Other functions Added value of LEG functions Clarity of mandate, functions and objectives Inclusion and engagement Governance arrangements Working arrangements Monitoring of LEG performance and learning Government leadership and partner ownership Healthy partnership dynamics 1 29 2 3 4 5

T e 3 P pl in P am e Ex aliz n fi To Rating scale 5 = strong 4 = relatively strong 3 = promising 2 = rare 1 = does not occur 30

4 Performance feedback tool This tool can be used independently or as a complement to the LEG assessment tool, dimension 3 on partnership dynamics. As a tool for dialogue, it can be used without ratings with responses summarized in narrative form. The Survey Monkey version of the tool can be used to enable an anonymous 360 degree feedback loop. 31

Overview This tool is comprised of a series of statements linked to the roles of key actors/LEG stakeholders in the GPE Partnership and aligned with the GPE Charter. It is divided into seven sections: • Ministry of Education • National partners • International partners • Coordinating agency • Grant agent – ESPDG • Grant agent - ESPIG/Multiplier • GPE Secretariat 32

Performance feedback tool 33

Ministry of Education The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to undertake its leadership roles effectively and take ownership of strengthening sector dialogue 1 -5 The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to an inclusive and effective policy dialogue mechanism 1 -5 The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to securing the financing for the implementation of the ESP 1 -5 The Ministry demonstrates its commitment to achieve greater aid alignment and harmonization 1 -5 Where Ministry is the implementer of GPE grants, it demonstrates its commitment to ensure smooth implementation of approved program with adequate resource management 1 -5 Where Grant Agent is the implementer of GPE grants, the Ministry does its utmost to provide the necessary conditions to enable smooth implementation of the grant(s) 1 -5 34

National partners (e. g. CSOs/NGOs, teachers’ associations…. ) National partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector planning process 1 -5 National partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector implementation and monitoring process 1 -5 National partners demonstrate their commitment to align to national systems, including greater use of public financial management systems to channel financial support, and to better harmonize among themselves 1 -5 National partners inform the government about funding commitments and actual disbursements and shares relevant information and evidence from programs with the LEG 1 -5 35

International partners (bilateral, multilateral partners, and INGOs, foundations…) International partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector planning process 1 -5 International partners provide meaningful and effective support to government-led sector monitoring process 1 -5 International partners demonstrate their commitment to align to national systems, including greater use of public financial management systems to channel financial support, and to better harmonize among themselves 1 -5 International partners inform the government about funding commitments and actual disbursements and shares relevant information and evidence from programs with the LEG 1 -5 36

Coordinating Agency - lead agency The CA fosters good relationship between DPs and government, and facilitates harmonized coordination and policy dialogue that is collaborative, effective, and inclusive of NGOs/civil society 1 -5 The CA effectively leads/coordinates DPs in the development, independent appraisal, endorsement, implementation, and joint monitoring of government-owned quality sector plans 1 -5 The CA effectively supports GPE grant development and monitoring process in collaboration with the LEG 1 -5 The CA communicates in a timely and effective manner with the Ministry 1 -5 The CA communicates in a timely and effective manner with the LEG partners and facilitates sharing of sector and grant updates/key documentation 1 -5 The CA communicates in a timely and effective manner with the GPE Secretariat 1 -5 37

Grant Agent - ESPD The GA supports the government in consultation with the CA to set out an agreed roadmap of activities and a realistic planning timeline for the ESP process 1 -5 The GA provides sector planning and capacity development support to the government in accordance with the approved grant application 1 -5 The GA works in collaboration with the government to ensure timely implementation of ESPDG activities, including addressing implementation issues 1 -5 The GA coordinates with the LEG to ensure the LEG is consulted in accordance with planning process 1 -5 38

Grant Agent - ESPIG/Multiplier The GA supports the government to develop quality ESPIG application in consultation with the LEG 1 -5 The GA supports the government in implementing the ESPIG in an effective manner 1 -5 The GA actively supports the timely monitoring of the ESPIG implementation, and reports to the LEG and the Secretariat as per planned and agreed mechanisms 1 -5 The GA supports the Ministry in sharing broad progress of the ESPIG implementation and the policy implications with the LEG 1 -5 The GA actively supports the sector process (including system building, sector planning, and inclusive policy dialogue) as a DP and a member of the LEG 1 -5 The GA works with the Secretariat to facilitate joint problem solving, keeping the Secretariat informed on performance of the ESPIG 1 -5 39

GPE Secretariat The GPE Secretariat provides timely and relevant support to sector-level processes (i. e. development, appraisal/endorsement, implementation and monitoring of sector/plan) including relationship brokering, based on the needs of the country 1 -5 The GPE Secretariat provides timely and relevant support to GPE grant processes (i. e. development, implementation and monitoring of GPE grants application) including relationship brokering, based on the needs of the country 1 -5 The GPE Secretariat communicates in a timely and effective manner with the CA/GA/MOE 1 -5 The GPE Secretariat keeps abreast of sector and grant level developments as a basis for providing relevant inputs to country 1 -5 40

5 Optional: Supplement for tailoring the LEG self-assessment tool The following questions can be used to tailor the assessment by adding questions to, or replacing questions, in the previous slides 41

The LEG pays attention to issues of other sectors affecting the education system (e. g. health, water, sanitation, hygiene, child protection, public finance…) LEG’s dialogue benefits from practices and lessons from other countries with similar challenges through research, knowledge sharing, peer learning, or benchmarking LEG activity and focus on the ESP are consistent and balanced throughout the whole policy cycle (planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation) l l ta na en io m pt le - o pp s Su tion es Qu [Supporting policy development, implementation and monitoring] 1 -5 1 -5 [Addressing domestic and external financing and resource use] The LEG provides a platform for members to engage in dialogue, and enhance understanding, around the various stages of the budget cycle 1 -5 The policy dialogue is informed by data of actual expenditures and helps assess whether policy priorities are adequately funded 1 -5 The LEG advocates for increased domestic financing with the ministry of finance (or others as relevant such as the Parliament or ministry of civil service) 1 -5 42

[Promoting harmonization and alignment] The LEG contributes to the discussion of standards for harmonized sector reporting in view of reducing multiple reporting lines and donor reporting needs 1 -5 The dialogue and coordination through the LEG are perceived as worth the effort towards reducing transaction costs and achieving benefits of harmonization 1 -5 In emergency settings, efforts are made to ensure that the education cluster and the LEG work in harmony, or share information on programming and priorities 1 -5 [Fostering mutual accountability for results] Annual sector plan implementation reports are produced by the government, and supported by LEG members as needed, and used as key reference in JSRs 1 -5 The LEG takes forward JSR recommendations as the core agenda of topics for dialogue and reviews the extent to which follow-up has been actioned 1 -5 The LEG plays a role in contributing to greater institutional and domestic accountability and information sharing around the implementation of the ESP 1 -5 The Ministry of Education demonstrates its commitment to public accountability and transparency 43 by making sector documents available to the public in a timely manner 1 -5

l l ta na en io m pt le - o pp s Su tion es Qu [Clarity of mandate, functions and objectives] The expectations and limits to the LEG’s mandate are clearly communicated to the stakeholder community and known by LEG member 1 -5 The LEG functions and objectives are reviewed by stakeholders on a regular basis to take onboard the evolving education and development context 1 -5 The benefits and value expected to be created/being created through the LEG outweighs the ‘costs’ of participation put into the LEG 1 -5 In fragile contexts, the work of the LEG is well coordinated with specialized policy dialogue mechanisms (e. g. donor reviews, emergency clusters, CSO platforms) 1 -5 44

[Inclusion and engagement] Criteria for participation and process for joining the LEG exist and are communicated as relevant 1 -5 The LEG has ‘onboarding’ practices in place (informally or formally) for new LEG members to reduce adverse effect of frequent staff-turn over 1 -5 Representation is at an appropriately senior level and empowered by their respective organizations to make commitments/decisions related to collaboration on the LEG 1 -5 Ministries of education and development partners deploy financial and logistical support to stakeholder groups that would otherwise be unable to participate 1 -5 Country contexts are factored in – In fragile/crisis situations where time is limited, the ministries of education may not be able to consult in-depth 1 -5 [Governance arrangements] Transparent management practices reassure LEG members about how decisions are taken and generate trust in the LEG as an entity 1 -5 If needed, key governance actors receive guidance and support to carry out their expected roles as they relate to ensuring partnership effectiveness 1 -5 45

[Working arrangements] A dedicated LEG Secretariat is resourced with sufficient staffing and funding to focus on the organization of meetings, agenda setting and other routine tasks and support 1 -5 Mechanisms are in place to mobilize evidence for the policy dialogue as relevant 1 -5 Working arrangements recognize the limitations or restrictions on travel (national, sub-national, etc. ) in low capacity countries, FCAS and emergency situations 1 -5 [Monitoring and learning] The monitoring is participatory and involves a cross-section of LEG members 1 -5 Learning draws from experience from LEGs in other countries to accelerate the uptake of relevant LEG practices and avoid common pitfalls 1 -5 The results of LEG performance monitoring are transmitted to the wider community (for instance through the JSR or as an item in the annual implementation report) 1 -5 46

l l ta na en io m pt le - o pp s Su tion es Qu [Leadership and ownership] There is sufficient consensus among national stakeholders on various policy issues and during discussions to move forward on various priority areas 1 -5 There is true commitment from the government and DPs to use LEG meetings as a forum to discuss changes required to improve policy and its implementation 1 -5 There is true commitment from both the government and DPs to using the LEG (including JSRs) as a platform to discuss changes required to improve policy and its implementation 1 -5 Recommendations from the LEG are owned by stakeholders and effectively feed into addressing challenges in the ESP planning, implementation and monitoring 1 -5 47

l l ta na en io m pt le - o pp s Su tion es Qu [Healthy partnership dynamics] LEG members work to build trust through an understanding of each other’s needs, expectations and requirements – respecting respective institutions’ positions and mandates 1 -5 Dialogue is conducted in an environment that allows for open discussion of perspectives and engagement without fear for judgement 1 -5 There is sufficient consensus among national stakeholders on various sector policy issues to move forward on various priority areas during LEG discussions 1 -5 There is a protocol for mediation and resolution of disagreements, which is applied when needed 1 -5 48