1. Background

The Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2005-2015 was endorsed by the local education group in 2005. First among the plan sector objectives is improving access, efficiency and equity of education and training at all levels.

The ESSP is 177 pages long and is organized in terms of the various sub-components of the education sector such as integrated early childhood care and development (IECCD), basic education, secondary education, technical and vocational training (TVET) and higher education. The plan therefore presents something of a fragmented approach to education sector strengthening.

The plan contains sections on crosscutting issues and activities as well as institutional capacity considerations towards the end of the document. It lacks a comprehensive situation assessment of the sector which identifies the key overarching policies, basic trends, effective interventions and challenges to progress. Instead, situation analyses are included under each sub-section. There is no systematic assessment of educational disadvantage by geographical zone, district or by demographic group which would inform strategic choices to improve educational equity and inclusion. All statistical data presented represent national statistics. There are no disaggregated data presented apart from by gender.

Issues of equity and inclusion occur throughout the plan in the various sections. For example in the section on IECCD, mention is made of poverty, special needs and disadvantaged areas, but no relevant data are provided. In the section on basic education, prominence is given to monitoring gender disparities and addressing HIV. The most comprehensive assessment of the factors that create educational disadvantage is to be found in the section on secondary education where the costs of education, family commitments and income and weather in mountainous areas are mentioned as resulting in non-enrolment or drop out. The section on cross cutting issues includes sub-sections on Special Education, Gender in Education and HIV in the education sector. No data are presented on children with special educational needs, gender issues or children infected with or affected by HIV. MoET’s objective for special education is to advocate inclusion of children with special educational needs/disabilities in to the regular school system at all levels, while recognising the ongoing need for specialised schools for learners with ‘extreme needs’.

The original FTI Endorsement report did not address issues of equity and inclusion. A major focus was the cost structure and the financing of the plan. In evaluating the quality of the plan concerns were raised about how MoET would tackle HIV, the lack of data on orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) and children with special needs and the use of data from the Education Geographic Information system.

An EFA FTI Catalytic Fund Project was prepared in partnership with Irish Aid in July to support the MoET to achieve primary school completion targets through improvements in school infrastructure, improved distribution of qualified teachers, interventions to enhance the quality of teaching and improved access to early childhood education. This will include a targeted intervention, a ‘difficult school allowance package ’ to support designated difficult schools which are most difficult to access. These are mostly small schools in mountainous areas typically lacking any qualified teachers.

A medium term education sector plan has been drafted by MoET for 2009/10-2012/3 and was submitted to the LEG for endorsement during the tool pilot process. The piloting therefore was undertaken too late to have any significant bearing on this process.

2. The piloting process

The piloting of the equity and inclusion tool with the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) in Lesotho took place within the framework of the Joint Technical Review (JTR) for 2009-2010. A 2-day meeting was held for this purpose in Maseru on 14-15 July 2009. It was agreed that the first day would include assessments of education sector performance and the setting of priorities for the mid-term education sector plan. The afternoon of the second day would provide the opportunity to introduce the tool to MoET and to use it to reflect on sector performance as well as to support the development of the mid-term sector plan.

The time allocation for piloting the tool was therefore very short. Participation was limited to MoET staff who had been selected for the Joint Technical Review. This meant that many of the participants had responsibilities for sub-sectors of education beyond primary education including technical and vocational education and training (TVET) and higher education. The time was divided into two sessions. A short introduction to the tool concerning its purpose, structure and contents was given by the consultant. This was followed up by small group work applying the tool to their particular areas of the sector. 

Participants included representatives from the various departments of the MoET and development partners (World Food Programme, Irish Aid, the World Bank, UNICEF and JICA).

2.1 Main findings of the piloting process

The findings are based on plenary discussion of the tool and what the implications were for the education sector plan.  There was broad consensus that the tool was relevant to the needs of the MoET and in particular obtaining a better understanding of the factors which are responsible for educational disadvantage in the country. It was acknowledged that there was a lack of a mechanism for undertaking such crosscutting analysis.

There was broad agreement that the tool was easy to use, with some dissent. It was generally felt that there was a need to rationalise and simplify the tool wherever possible.

One of the most telling comments was ‘Why did we haven’t have this earlier’? There had been a lengthy process of plan preparation for 2009-2012 and the tool could have been used at an earlier stage to influence the content and direction of the plan. There was little time at this stage to bring about major changes in education sector plan strategy.

The tool highlighted the need for better data, including disaggregated data on poverty and remoteness concerning educational disadvantage. There was a need to separate out the factors which result in non-enrolment from those which cause drop out. In particular there was a need to better understand the factors that contributed to children dropping out from primary school.

Lesotho has many policies on education. These need to be better communicated and disseminated. It is difficult at present to understand which policies are in place from the ESSP. Policy dissemination is another critical issue which does not appear to have been adequately addressed in the plan.

The tool facilitated what might be described as policy dialogue between the MoET and the development partners. It was suggested that this might constitute one of its most useful applications. The dialogue brought in to the open issues that do not feature in the ESSP such as gender-based violence and sexual abuse at school and the adequacy of the HIV prevention education curriculum, but are clearly important to education sector development in Lesotho.

The following points were made about the tool with regard to its revision:

• The section on policies (C) needs to include legislation concerning education;
• There is duplication in the section on strategies (D);
• The section on institutional arrangements (E) needs to include mention of institutional capacity. The question about ‘champions for equity and inclusion’ caused difficulty and it was recommended that this be reworded.
• With regard to schools (F), capacity to address equity and inclusion was mentioned as was the importance of infrastructure development in ensuring that schools are welcoming and safe for disadvantaged children;
• The question on parental and community participation (9) was considered to be too complex and recommended for rewording. It was suggested that the term marginalized be replaced by disadvantaged;
• The section on teachers (H) needs to include issues of teacher capacity and deployment. There needs to be mention of teachers’ unions;
• The section on the curriculum (I) needs to include consideration of curriculum reform/development processes and co-curricular activities;
• There needs to be a section for summarising critical issues which have been identified though applying the tool.