FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: PAD3233 ...documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/789561593309621894/...FOR APublic Disclosure Authorized STRENGTHENING TEACHING-LEARNING AND RESULTS

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: PAD3233

PROGRAM APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$500 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF INDIA

FOR A

STRENGTHENING TEACHING-LEARNING AND RESULTS FOR STATES

P166868

June 2, 2020

Education Global Practice

South Asia Region

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

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Exchange Rate Effective March 31, 2020

Currency Unit = Indian Rupee (INR)

INR 75.39 = US$1

FISCAL YEAR

April 1 – March 31

Regional Vice President: Hartwig Schafer

Regional Director: Lynne D. Sherburne-Benz

Country Director: Junaid Kamal Ahmad

Practice Manager: Mario Cristian Aedo Inostroza

Task Team Leader(s): Shabnam Sinha, Margaret M. Clarke

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

APA Alternate Procurement Arrangement(s)

AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget

BEO Block Education Office

BITE Block Institutes of Teacher Education

BRC Block Resource Centres

BRCC Block Resource Centre Coordinator

CAG Comptroller and Auditor General of India

CD Country Director

CCE Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation

CERC Contingent Emergency Response Component

CPF Country Partnership Framework

CRC Cluster Resource Centre(s)

CRCC Cluster Resource Centre Coordinators

CWSN Children with Special Needs

DIET District Institutes of Education and Training

DISE District Information System for Education

DLI Disbursement-Linked Indicator

DoSE&L Department of School Education and Literacy

DEO District Education Officer

DVHSC Directorate of Vocational Higher Secondary Education

ECE Early Childhood Education

EEP Eligible Expenditure Program

EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return

ESMF Environment and Social Management Framework

FI Financial Intermediaries

FMP Financial Management and Procurement

GER Gross Enrollment Ratio

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GoI Government of India

GP Gram Panchayats

GRS Grievance Redressal Service

IFSA Integrated Fiduciary System Assessment

IPF Investment Project Financing

IVA Independent Verification Agency

KITE Kerala Infrastructure and Technology for Education

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development

MIS Management Information System

MPA Multiphase Programmatic Approach

NAS National Achievement Survey

NGO Non-Government Organization

NIEPA National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration

NROER National Repository of Open Educational Resources

NSQF National Skills Qualifications Framework

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PDO Project Development Objective

PEEO Panchayat Elementary Education Officers

PGI Performance Grading Index

PISA Program for International Student Assessment

PPP Purchasing Power Parity

PPSD Project Procurement Strategy Development

PSSCIVE Pandit Sunderlal Sharma Central Institute of Vocational Education

PTA Parent Teacher Association

RVP Regional Vice President

RMSA Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan

RTE Right To Education

SCD Systematic Country Diagnostic

SCERT State Council for Educational Research and Training

SEQI School Education Quality Index

SIEMAT State Institute of Educational Management and Training

SIG State Incentive Grant

SLAS State Learning Achievement Survey(s)

SLDP School Leadership Development Program

SMC School Management Committee

SMDC School Management and Development Committee

SoP Series of Projects

SORT Systematic Operations Risk-Rating Tool

SSC Sector Skill Council

STARS Strengthening Teaching Learning and Results for States

STEP Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement

SWAp Sector Wide Approach

TE Teacher Education

TLM Teaching Learning Material

TSG Technical Support Group

TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training

VE Vocational Education

VET Vocational Education Training

WDR World Development Report

Table of Contents DATASHEET…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................... 9

A. Country Context ............................................................................................................................................... 9

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context .................................................................................................................. 10

C. Relationship to the CPF and Rationale for Use of Instrument ........................................................................ 14

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 16

A. Government Program ..................................................................................................................................... 16

B. PforR Program Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 17

C. Program Development Objective(s) (PDO) and PDO-Level Results Indicators ............................................... 18

D. Program Components: ................................................................................................................................... 21

E. Disbursement-Linked Indicators and Verification Protocols .......................................................................... 31

III. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 32

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements .......................................................................................... 32

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation................................................................................................................. 34

C. Disbursement Arrangements.......................................................................................................................... 34

D. Capacity Building ............................................................................................................................................ 35

A. Technical (including program economic evaluation)...................................................................................... 36

B. Fiduciary ......................................................................................................................................................... 40

C. Environment and Social .................................................................................................................................. 42

D. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 44

ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK MATRIX ........................................................................................................... 46

ANNEX 2. DISBURSEMENT LINKED INDICATORS, DISBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND VERIFICATION PROTOCOLS ......................................................................................................................................................... 70

ANNEX 3. SUMMARY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 80

ANNEX 4. SUMMARY FIDUCIARY SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 85

ANNEX 5. SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT ................................................... 100

ANNEX 6. PROGRAM ACTION PLAN ................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ANNEX 7. IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT PLAN .................................................................................................... 105

ANNEX 8. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (INVESTMENT PROJECT FINANCING) ........................................................... 107

ANNEX 9. STATE INCENTIVE GRANT MATRIX ..................................................................................................... 112

ANNEX 10. CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS ASSESSMENT................................................................................................ 115

The World Bank Strengthening Teaching-Learning And Results for States (P166868)

Page 1 of 115

DATASHEET

BASIC INFORMATION BASIC_INFO_TABLE

Country(ies) Project Name

India Strengthening Teaching-Learning And Results for States

Project ID Financing Instrument Does this operation have an IPF component?

Environmental Assessment Category (IPF Component)

P166868 Program-for-Results Financing

Yes C-Not Required

Financing & Implementation Modalities

[ ] Multiphase Programmatic Approach (MPA) [ ] Fragile State(s)

[✓] Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) [ ] Fragile within a non-fragile Country

[ ] Small State(s) [ ] Conflict

[ ] Alternate Procurement Arrangements (APA) [ ] Responding to Natural or Man-made Disaster

Expected Project Approval Date Expected Closing Date

24-Jun-2020 31-Dec-2025

Bank/IFC Collaboration

No

Proposed Program Development Objective(s) The Project Development Objective (PDO) of the Operation is to improve the quality and governance of school education in selected states.

Organizations

Borrower :

India

Implementing Agency : Ministry of Human Resource and Development

Contact: Amit Khare

Title: Secretary


Page 2 of 115

Telephone No: 23382587

Email: [email protected]

COST & FINANCING FIN_SUMM_WITH_IPF SUMMARY (USD Millions)

Government program Cost 33,460.00

Total Operation Cost 3,346.00

Total Program Cost 3,321.00

IPF Component 25.00

Total Financing 3,346.00

Financing Gap 0.00

Financing (USD Millions)

Counterpart Funding 2,846.00

Borrower/Recipient 2,846.00

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) 500.00 Expected Disbursements (USD Millions)

Fiscal Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Absolute 0.00 35.00 75.80 91.70 91.90 88.20 117.40

Cumulative 0.00 35.00 110.80 202.50 294.40 382.60 500.00

INSTITUTIONAL DATA

INSTITUTIONAL DATA TBL Practice Area (Lead) Contributing Practice Areas

Education


Page 3 of 115

Climate Change and Disaster Screening

This operation has been screened for short and long-term climate change and disaster risks

SYSTEMATIC OPERATIONS RISK-RATING TOOL (SORT)

Risk Category Rating

1. Political and Governance ⚫ Moderate

2. Macroeconomic ⚫ Low

3. Sector Strategies and Policies ⚫ Substantial

4. Technical Design of Project or Program ⚫ Moderate

5. Institutional Capacity for Implementation and Sustainability ⚫ Substantial

6. Fiduciary ⚫ Substantial

7. Environment and Social ⚫ Moderate

8. Stakeholders ⚫ Moderate

9. Other

10. Overall ⚫ Substantial

COMPLIANCE

Policy

Does the program depart from the CPF in content or in other significant respects?

[ ] Yes [✔] No

Does the program require any waivers of Bank policies?

[ ] Yes [✔] No

Legal Operational Policies

Triggered

Projects on International Waterways OP/BP 7.50 No

Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 No


Page 4 of 115

Safeguard Policies Triggered (IPF Component)

Safeguard Policies Yes No

Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 ✔

Performance Standards for Private Sector Activities OP/BP 4.03 ✔

Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 ✔

Forests OP/BP 4.36 ✔

Pest Management OP 4.09 ✔

Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 ✔

Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 ✔

Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 ✔

Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 ✔

Legal Covenants

Sections and Description A. Institutional Arrangements

The Borrower shall:

(a) vest the overall responsibility for the implementation of the Operation’s activities in the MHRD;

(b) maintain, through the period of implementation of the Operation, the institutional governance mechanism

for the Program at the national level including the Governing Council (chaired by the Minister of MHRD), the

Project Approval Board (chaired by the Secretary of MHRD), and the Bureau of School Education (chaired by the

Additional/Joint Secretary of MHRD);

(c) cause the Selected States to maintain, throughout the period of implementation of the Operation, the

institutional governance mechanism for the Program at the state level including the State Governing Council

(chaired by the Chief Minister or State Education Minister), the Executive Committee (chaired by the Chief

Secretary/Commissioner/Education Secretary of the state), and the State Implementation Society (headed by the

State Project Director);

(d) cause the Selected States to maintain, throughout the period of implementation of the Operation, the

institutional governance mechanism for the Program at the district level including the District Project Office

(headed by the District Education Officer); and

(e) by no later than nine (9) months after the Effective Date, establish and maintain, throughout the period of

implementation of the Operation, a national Program Management Unit (“PMU”) within the MHRD, which unit

shall be provided with competent, experienced and qualified staff, in sufficient numbers and under terms of


Page 5 of 115

reference acceptable to the Bank, and vested with powers, financial resources, functions and competences,

acceptable to the Bank, to serve as the focal unit in the carrying out of the day-to-day implementation of the

Operation.

Sections and Description B. Independent Verification Agent

The Borrower shall:

(a) appoint and thereafter maintain, at all times during the implementation of the Program, independent

verification agent under terms of reference acceptable to the Bank (“Independent Verification Agent”), to verify

the data and other evidence supporting the achievement of one or more DLRs as set forth in the table in Schedule

3 to thisAgreement and recommend corresponding payments to be made, as applicable;

(b) (i) ensure that the Independent Verification Agent carries out verification and process(es) in accordance

with the Verification Protocol; and (ii) submits to the Bank the corresponding verification reports in a timely

manner and in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank; and

(c) in the event there is a need for verification services prior to the appointment of the Independent

Verification Agent in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above, put in place adequate interim arrangement

satisfactory to the Bank and approved in writing by the Bank for verification of the DLRs.

(d) in the event of an Eligible Crisis or Emergency which adversely affects the ability of the Independent

Verification Agent to verify data and evidence in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above, put in place

adequate interim arrangement satisfactory to the Bank and approved in writing by the Bank for verification of the

DLRs.

Sections and Description C. Program Action Plan

1. The Borrower shall:

(a) implement the Program Action Plan agreed with the Bank, in a manner and substance satisfactory to the

Bank; and

(b) refrain from amending, revising, waiving, voiding, suspending or abrogating, any provision of the Program

Action Plan, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written concurrence of the Bank.

2. In the event of any inconsistency between the provision of the Program Action Plan and those of this

Agreement, the provision of this Agreement shall govern.

Sections and Description D. State Incentive Grants (SIG)

1. The Borrower shall produce, approve and adopt the State Incentive Grant Manual (“SIG Manual”) in form


Page 6 of 115

and substance acceptable to the Bank. The Borrower shall thereafter implement and cause each Selected State to

implement theProgram in accordance with the SIG Manual.

2. The Borrower, acting through MHRD, shall enter into a written agreement (“Letter of

Undertaking/Consent”) with each Selected State for the provision of State Incentive Grants (SIGs), under terms

and conditions acceptable to the Bank and in accordance with the SIG Manual, which may include, inter alia, that:

(a) the Selected State commits to the objective of the Program; and undertakes to carry out any activities

under the Program in accordance with sound technical, financial, procurement, managerial, social and

environmental and labor standards, consistent with the minimum requirements set forth in the SIG Manual and

the ESSA, and acceptable to the Bank;

(b) the SIGs shall: (i) be used to undertake activities and finance eligible expenditures as set forth in the SIG

Manual; (ii) not be used to finance any ineligible expenditures (including the exclusions set forth in Section II of

this Schedule) as may be laid down in the SIG Manual; (iii) be disbursed upon the Selected State’s achievement

against the SIG Scorecard as set forth in the SIG Manual; and (iv) have a closing date (end of disbursement period)

not to exceed the date set forth in Section IV.D of this Schedule 2;

(c) the Selected State shall implement its respective activities under the Program, in compliance with the Anti-

Corruption Guidelines for the Program;

(d) the Selected State shall: (i) establish and/or maintain policies and procedures that would allow the

Borrower and/or the Bank to carry out supervision and monitoring the implementation of the Selected State’s

activities under the Program; (ii) prepare and furnish to the Borrower and/or the Bank, all such information that

the Borrower, and/or the Bank shall reasonably request in relation to the Program; and (iii) accept the carrying out

of inspections by the Borrower and/or the Bank for the monitoring of, and in relation to, the carrying out of the

activities under the Program;

(e) the Selected State shall prepare progress reports based on standard reporting templates prepared by the

MHRD on Program activities and submit said reports to the Borrower for consolidation and further submission to

the Bank;

(f) the Selected State shall: (i) maintain records and accounts adequate to reflect, in accordance with sound

accounting practices, the operations, resources and expenditures incurred in the implementation of its respective

activities under the Program; and (ii) have such records and accounts audited in accordance with appropriate

auditing principles consistently applied by an independent auditor;

(g) the Borrower shall have the right to suspend or terminate the right of the Selected State to withdraw and

use the proceeds of the SIG upon any failure of the Selected State to perform its obligations under the Letter of

Undertaking/Consent; and

(h) the Selected State acknowledges and consents to the Borrower’s right of restitution of any amounts

disbursed under the SIG with respect to which fraud and corruption has occurred, or with which an ineligible

expenditure, as may be laid down in the SIG Manual, has been paid.

Sections and Description E. Contingent Emergency Response Mechanism


Page 7 of 115

1. In order to ensure proper implementation of Component 2 of the Project (“CER Component”), the

Borrower shall:

(a) prepare and furnish to the Bank for its review and approval, a Contingent Emergency Response Component

Manual (“CERCM”) which shall set forth detailed implementation arrangements for the CER Component, including:

(i) designation of, terms of reference for and resources to be allocated to, the entity to be responsible for the

coordination and implementation of the CER Component (“Coordinating Authority”); (ii) specific activities which

may be included in the CER Component, Eligible Expenditures required therefor (“Emergency Expenditures”), and

any procedures for such inclusion; (iii) financial management arrangements for the CER Component; (iv)

procurement methods and procedures for Emergency Expenditures to be financed under the CER Component; (v)

documentation required for withdrawals of Emergency Expenditures; (vi) environmental and social safeguard

instruments, including management frameworks, assessments and/or plans for the CER Component consistent

with the Bank’s policies on the matter; and (vii) any other arrangements necessary to ensure proper coordination

and implementation of the CER Component;

(b) afford the Bank a reasonable opportunity to review said proposed CERCM;

(c) promptly adopt the CERCM for the CER Component as shall have been approved by the Bank;

(d) ensure that the CER Component is carried out in accordance with the CERCM, provided however that in the

event of any inconsistency between any of the provisions of the CERCM and those of this Agreement, the

provisions of this Agreement shall prevail; and

(e) not amend, suspend, abrogate, repeal or waive, whether in whole or in part, any provision of the CERCM

without the prior approval by the Bank.

2. After the Borrower has determined that an Eligible Crisis or Emergency has occurred, it shall prepare and

furnish to the Bank for its review and approval, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CERCM, a

Contingent Emergency Response Implementation Plan (“CERIP”) which shall set forth detailed arrangements for

the activation of CERCM, including: (i) specific activities to be financed out of the Emergency Expenditures; (ii)

itemized costs for each expenditure item; (iii) implementation arrangements for the CER Component, as defined in

the CERCM or with proposed amendments; (iv) procurement plan for the CER Component; (v) details regarding

compliance with environmental and social safeguard instruments; and (vi) any other arrangements necessary to

ensure proper implementation of the CER Component.

3. The Borrower shall, throughout the period of implementation of the CER Component, maintain the

Coordinating Authority, with adequate staff and resources satisfactory to the Association.

4. The Borrower shall undertake no activities under the CER Component (and no activities shall be included in

the CER Component) unless and until the following conditions have been met in respect of said activities:

(a) (i) the Borrower has determined that an Eligible Crisis or Emergency has occurred; (ii) the Borrower has

furnished to the Bank a request to include said activities in the CER Component in order to respond to said Eligible

Crisis or Emergency; and (iii) the Bank has agreed with such determination, accepted said request and notified the


Page 8 of 115

Borrower thereof; and

(b) (i) the Borrower has prepared and disclosed all safeguard instruments required for said activities, in

accordance with the CERCM; (ii) the Bank has approved all such instruments; and (iii) the Borrower has

implemented all actions which are required to be taken under said instruments prior to the commencement of

such activities.

Sections and Description F. Withdrawal Conditions for the Project

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section IV.A of this Schedule, no withdrawal shall be made:

(a) under Categories (2) and (3), for payments made in respect of the Project prior to the Signature Date,

except that withdrawals up to an aggregate amount not to exceed US$ 4,750,000 may be made for payments

made prior to this date but on or after July 31, 2019;

(b) under Category (3), unless and until the Bank is satisfied, and has notified the Borrower of its satisfaction,

that all of the following conditions have been met:

(i) the Borrower has determined that an Eligible Crisis or Emergency has occurred, has furnished to the Bank

a request to include certain activities in the CER Component in order to respond to said Eligible Crisis or

Emergency, and the Bank has agreed with such determination, accepted said request, and notified the Borrower

thereof;

(ii) the Borrower has prepared and disclosed all safeguard instruments, acceptable to the Bank, required for

said activities, and has implemented any actions which are required to be taken under said instruments, all in

accordance with the provisions of Section I.F.1(a)(vi) of this Schedule 2 to this Agreement;

(iii) the Borrower has provided sufficient evidence satisfactory to the Bank that the Coordinating Authority has

adequate staff and resources, in accordance with the provision of Section I.F.3 of this Schedule 2 to this

Agreement, for the purposes of said activities;

(iv) the Borrower has adopted a CERCM, in form, substance and manner acceptable to the Bank and the

provisions of said CERCM remain, or have been updated in accordance with the provisions of Section I.F.1(a) of

this Schedule 2 to this Agreement, so as to be appropriate for the inclusion and implementation of said activities

under the respective CER Component; and

(iv) the Borrower has prepared and submitted to the Bank a CERIP, in form, substance and manner acceptable

to the Association, in accordance with the provisions of Section I.F.2 of this Schedule 2 to this Agreement, and the

Bank has reviewed and approved the CERIP.

Conditions


Page 9 of 115

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

A. Country Context

1. Over the past decade India has been one of the fastest growing emerging market economies, but Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth has slowed in the past three years. The current slowdown is due to the combined effects of (i) unresolved domestic issues (impaired balance sheet issues in the banking and corporate sectors, compounded by stress in the non-banking segment of the financial sector), and (ii) significant additional headwinds following the COVID-19 outbreak. These have not only prevented a sustainable revival in private investment, but also affected private consumption in FY19/20. As a result, growth is expected to reach 5 percent in FY19/20. Given the nation-wide lock-down and major disruptions to economic activity in the first quarters of FY20/21, growth is expected to slow again significantly in the current fiscal year, before recovering gradually from FY21/22 onwards. On the fiscal side, the general government deficit is expected to widen to about 7.5 percent of GDP in FY19/20, owing to tax cuts and weak economic activity, and further still in FY20/21 as a result of slow domestic activity and fiscal support to households and firms. However, the current account balance is expected to improve over FY19/20-FY20/21, reflecting mostly a sizeable contraction in imports and a large decline in oil prices. Given this, in spite of recent portfolio capital outflows, India’s foreign exchange reserves are expected to remain comfortable (equivalent to over 10 months of imports). 2. Since the 2000s, India has made remarkable progress in reducing absolute poverty. Between FY11/12 and 2015, poverty declined from 21.6 percent to an estimated 13.4 percent at the international poverty line (US$1.90 per person per day in 2011 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), continuing the earlier trend of rapid poverty reduction. Owing to robust economic growth, more than 90 million people escaped extreme poverty and improved their living standards during this period. Despite this success, poverty remains widespread. In 2015, 176 million Indians were living in extreme poverty, while 659 million—half the population—were below the higher poverty line commonly used for lower middle-income countries (US$3.20 per person per day in 2011PPP). With the recent growth slowdown, the pace of poverty reduction may have moderated. 3. The COVID-19 Pandemic: The COVID-191 pandemic has impacted the globe; more than 1.3 billion students have been displaced from schools and in India alone more than 247 million students have been affected. The current COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in school education: both demand and supply side interventions have been disrupted. It is imperative for India to take steps to (a) mitigate the immediate risks and continue to provide education to all children; and (b) build education resilience as a strategic imperative across the sector. Some 250 million students in the public schooling system have little or no access to schools; schools and training centers are closed or being turned into quarantine centers- posing immediate short term and long-term deficiencies and health hazards. Global value chains have been disturbed, training schedules interrupted; and the changing nature

1 COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. The virus spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose when an infected person coughs or sneezes, so it’s important that you also practice respiratory etiquette (for example, by coughing into a flexed elbow). At this time, there are no specific vaccines or treatments for COVID-19: World Health Organization, 2020


Page 10 of 115

of education delivery, of skilling and employment in a pandemic situation and its aftermath need to be anticipated and addressed. To be relevant, this requires a concerted effort to ensure that programs undertake accelerated preparation of strategic response through some rapid contingency measures. Education being a concurrent subject in the Indian constitution, it is more urgent for the Government of India (GoI) to work with state governments to respond to the crisis.

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context 4. Education is viewed as key to reducing poverty and increasing overall prosperity levels in India. With a relatively young and socio-culturally diverse population, public provision of education plays a key role in providing opportunities for human development. Through its centrally sponsored schemes for school education—Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA)2—the GoI has considerably improved access to elementary and secondary education over the last decade.3 Some 255 million children between the ages of 6 and 17 now attend 1.5 million government, government aided, and private schools in the 28 states and 8 Union Territories that make up India’s federal system.4 5. The education sector in India is substantially decentralized (see Figure 1). Education is a concurrent subject of the Indian constitution;5 the federal government through the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) is the policy setting body; the 28 state governments and 8 Union Territories are the implementing arms. States have flexibility to undertake reforms in accordance with their state contexts through the district and sub-district level institutions and community-based organizations that are open to stakeholder ownership and social audit.

2 Both SSA (basic education program) and RMSA (secondary education program) were supported by the World Bank for over a decade. 3 Pre-school education refers to two years of early childhood education for children 4 to 6 years of age; elementary education refers to primary and upper primary education that ranges from grades 1 to 5 (ages 6 to 11) and grades 6 to 8 (ages 11 to 14); secondary education covers grades 9 and 10 (ages 14 to 16); and senior secondary education encompasses grades 11 and 12 (ages 16 to 18). 4 Government: 1,102,783, Government Aided: 83,787, Private Unaided: 335,776. 5 Under various articles of the Indian Constitution, free and compulsory education is provided as a fundamental right to children between the ages of 6 and 14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Constitution


Page 11 of 115

6. There have been significant gains in school enrolment and attendance in the last decade. As of 2016-17, the elementary gross enrolment ratio (GER) was almost 93.6 percent while the secondary GER stood at 79.4 percent, up from 58 percent in 2009-10. The government’s recent decision to merge SSA, RMSA, and teacher education into one integrated scheme (Samagra Shiksha) is a step toward creating a seamless K-12 system with a focus on enhancing learning at every level.6 Samagra Shiksha builds on the spirit of cooperative, competitive federalism in India and provides greater flexibility to states for school education planning and budgeting, with a view to (a) supporting interventions and innovations that align with the local context and improve education outcomes, (b) facilitating clear development objectives and results by using evidence-based decentralized planning, (c) adopting a whole-school approach, (d) strengthening both vertical and horizontal accountability, and (e) creating opportunities for peer learning. The scheme is being implemented by MHRD through a single State Implementation Society (SIS) at the state level. 7. Gender gap: The thrust on providing primary education has yielded results, with India successfully achieving gender parity in enrolment in primary education. Further, the weighted average for the six participating states under STARS for secondary school completion rate stands at 74.7% percent for boys and 76.7% percent for girls. However, inter-state variations are evident, with completion rates being lower for girl students in Rajasthan (77.27%) and Madhya Pradesh (62.23%) as compared to boys. Despite the narrowing of the gender gap, girls at the secondary level still drop out at a higher level than boys because of lack of parental engagement or community consent, domestic care responsibilities, and other socioeconomic barriers. For boys, the reasons for dropping-out are, the need to start working and earning immediately, financial constraints, lack of interest in school and inability to cope with the curriculum7. Further, a major concern is low levels of transition amongst young women from secondary schools to participation in employment-oriented training courses and ultimately the labor market8. The Female Labor Force Participation (FLFP) rate for India declined to 23.3% in 2017-18, meaning that over three out of four women over the age of 15 in India are neither working nor seeking work. There are a variety of reasons for this, including lack of early guidance on career options, parental/community engagement strategies to address social norms hindering school completion of adolescent girls and the often standardized and traditional nature of available Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) occupations9. The operation will a) improve completion rates at the secondary school level for both adoslecent girls and boys through gender-differentiated interventions and b) address supply and demand side constraints in girls’ participation in the TVET system. 8. There is a growing emphasis on the monitoring of learning outcomes across all levels of schooling, as evidenced by India’s decision to participate in the 2021 administration of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA); the expansion of India’s National Achievement Survey (NAS)10;

6 The provision of school education in India can be viewed as a step by step process, starting from the 1986 National Policy on Education. Samagra Shiksha was introduced to treat school education as a continuum from pre-school, primary, upper primary, secondary to senior secondary levels in order to improve students’ schooling opportunities and learning outcomes. 7 NSSO 73rd round, 2014 8 Based on focus group discussions (FGDs) held at the community level across six states 9 Based on state-level consultations undertaken with administrative officials. 10 NAS is a representative sample of schools from all districts in India aimed at understanding overall learning levels at Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in government and government aided schools. Findings from the NAS are used for formulating policies, planning, and pedagogical interventions to improve student learning.


Page 12 of 115

and the introduction of State Learning Achievement Surveys (SLAS)11 in 27 states. Other positive developments include the introduction of grade-wise learning outcomes to support a shift in curricular focus from content to competencies; the inclusion of two years of Early Childhood Education (ECE) in the new centrally sponsored Samagra Shiksha scheme; and the launch of two new indices for measuring state performance on key education outcomes and governance processes. 9. Despite these achievements, the 2017-18 MHRD Performance Grading Index (PGI)12 shows persistent deficiencies in school retention and completion, learning outcomes, and education sector governance, with deep inter- and intra-state variations in all areas. These deficiencies are linked to a limited focus on ECE (and foundational learning in general); teacher shortages in key geographic locations and subject areas; and overall weaknesses in teacher preparation and accountability. Further, the education system’s ability to act on evidence is limited by weak institutional capacity to design, administer, and analyze data from learning assessments at national and state levels. The Strengthening Teaching-Learning and Results for States (STARS) operation team used the 2017-18 PGI results to identify an appropriate set of states, reflecting Indian diversity, for the operation interventions. These include three states (Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, and Rajasthan) that have already implemented substantive reforms with demonstrable results (“Lighthouse States”) and three other states (Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Odisha) that, in some respects, are not as far along with their reform agendas (“Learning States”). 10. The heterogeneity of schooling provision in India, and the juridically free choice thereof, has affected the pattern of school attendance. Figure 3 summarizes the management and features of the four most common types of schools in India.

Schooling Options in India

Type of School Management Features

Private-Aided and -Unaided

Private-Aided

• Receive funding from government as grant-in-aid

• Government controls recruitment of teachers and pays their salaries

• Private operators comply with government norms to maintain their fees within a stipulated limit

• Considerable variation in quality Private-Unaided

• Receive no government assistance, set their own fees, and range from high fee private schools catering to middle and upper-class children to low-fee private schools serving the poor

• Unlike government schools, private-aided and unaided schools predominantly offer their instruction in English, which significantly drives the demand for “English Medium” private schools in India.

• Among the private-unaided schools, low-fee schools are independently owned and operated by local entrepreneurs who aim to serve the working poor and lower income families by charging lower fees.

11 SLAS is designed by individual states to assess the learning achievements of students at the elementary stage of education in government, government aided, and recognized schools in the state. 12 MHRD’s PGI is an assessment tool designed to highlight education outcomes, service delivery, and accountability levels across states. It comprises 70 indicators covering domains such as quality, learning outcomes, access, equity, and governance.


Page 13 of 115

Schooling Options in India

Type of School Management Features

Government or local body schools

Publicly funded and managed by the government or the local body (urban/rural)

Infrastructure, teachers, other entitlements like uniforms, textbooks etc. funded by government

Centrally managed government schools - Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalayas

Directly funded and managed by national government through autonomous societies

Infrastructure, teachers’ other entitlements provided by govt; dedicated regional teacher training centers; full K-12 education provision

11. The quality of education varies across and within different types of schools in India. Although, as is typical worldwide, outcomes closely track school funding levels and the income levels of students’ parents, disaggregated data reveal that certain government school networks, such as the Navodyaya Vidyalayas (NVs)13 and Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs)14, achieve better outcomes than other schools with similar funding and income profiles. NVs and KVs have a pass percentage (senior secondary school leaving examination) of 99.7 percent as compared to the national average of 98.8 percent. A closer look at the governance and management processes used by NVs and KVs reveals the following lessons that can, in principle, be replicated in all schools—and which have been incorporated in the STARS design:

• Decentralized academic planning and management, with annual inspection of schools across academic and administrative areas;

• Rigorous teacher preparation and ongoing professional development; all teachers must undergo at least one 21-day in-service course every five years, supplemented by rigorous continuing professional development through regional training centers;

• Effective teacher incentives through monetary and non-monetary means, leading to motivated teachers (KVs);

• An emphasis on ensuring school readiness; while KVs offer education from Grade 1 onward and have no preschool provision, reception and transition for new students is planned and delivered meticulously (a six-week, activity-based, ‘school readiness program’ develops the core competencies and skills of all children attending primary school);

• Strategic partnerships with non-state actors; KVs have partnered with various organizations (e.g., Intel Corporation, Microsoft, and Oracle) to impart Information Technology skills to teachers and children across all schools).

Box 1. What Makes an Effective School? Global Evidence on Education System Improvement Global evidence suggests that interventions found to improve school systems can be classified into three

13 NV is a school system for gifted students in India. It is run by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, an autonomous organization under the MHRD, GoI. 14 KV Sangathan is a system of central government schools in India that are run directly by the MHRD, GoI.


Page 14 of 115

categories: (a) supply side interventions, such as high quality physical infrastructure, teaching and learning materials, and human resources; (b) incentives for changing preferences and behaviors, such as payment incentive schemes for teachers, conditional cash transfers and school vouchers for parents, and merit-based scholarships for students; and (c) participatory and community management interventions aimed at promoting decentralization of reforms and improving governance systems. Additionally, studies underscore the need to assess learning as a guide and metric for improving education systems. The lack of quality preschool education and foundational learning has also been found to exacerbate poor performance and poor learning outcomes, as many children are entering primary school unprepared to learn (Masino, S. & Nino-Zarazua, M., 2016).

12. The design of STARS reflects the lessons learned from functioning of effective schools in India and globally. The Project is consistent with the World Bank Group Country Partnership Strategy FY18-22 discussed by the Board on July 25, 2018 (Report No. 126667-IN).

a. The What: STARS will focus on key factors expected to have a transformational impact on service delivery through improved decentralized planning and management. Operation components, identified with the support of analytical tasks conducted during project preparation, will include strengthening early education; improving learning assessment systems; strengthening classroom instruction and remediation; improving teacher development and school leadership; facilitating school-to-work/higher education transition; and strengthening governance and decentralized management.

b. The How: Using India’s powerful federal structure, STARS will focus on enhancing state capability. While the balance will tilt significantly toward support to states, select components of the transformational national Samagra Shiksha scheme will be supported at the federal level.

C. Relationship to the CPF and Rationale for Use of Instrument 13. Reflecting the Country Partnership Framework (CPF)15, STARS repositions World Bank support for school education in India in two key ways: (a) from supporting large national programs to more state-level engagements; and (b) from supporting schemes to strengthening systems. The India Country Partnership Framework (2018-2022) has three major objectives: (i) promoting resource efficient growth; (ii) enhancing competitiveness and enabling job creation, and (iii) investing in human capital. In particular, the Bank’s support to the education sector under STARS is built around selective engagement with transformational national programs (e.g., Samagra Shiksha) while at the same time developing strong state partnerships to improve implementation capability and address state-specific development priorities. 14. The proposed support under STARS is in the form of a hybrid operation with two lending instruments: (a) a Program component using the Program for Results (PforR) instrument, and (b) a technical assistance (TA) component and a Contingent Emergency Response Component using the Investment Project Financing (IPF) instrument.

15 India: FY18-22; Report No. 126667-IN, July 25, 2018 discussed at the Board on September 20, 2018


Page 15 of 115

• The PforR component will facilitate major reforms at the state level through a set of Disbursement-Linked Indicators (DLIs) (see Annex II for the DLIs, and their arrangements and verification protocols). It is anticipated that the selected states would undertake significant initiatives to strengthen ECE as this is now a critical theme of the draft new National Education Policy. This focus is expected to drive the anticipated learning outcomes enhancement at grade 3. Further, support to the states will include improving completion of secondary level education, with more students expected to take the Grade 10 school leaving examination as a consequence. The largest portion of the PforR financing will be for decentralized management and enhanced state implementation capacity. A State Incentive Grant (SIG) scorecard will be used to incentivize states to meet project outcomes with respect to (a) strengthening delivery of education services, and (b) progressing on two additional components of their choice based on state priorities. The SIG matrix is aligned with the intermediate outcome indicators in the Results Framework.

• The IPF TA component is a more flexible financial instrument to help MHRD procure services that will spur the reform agenda. This includes the hiring of agencies at the national level to circumvent capacity and human resource constraints and to ensure that a high-quality firm can be hired as the Project Management Unit (PMU) using national and international contracting methods that might not otherwise be possible using country systems. As STARS will encourage innovations and non-traditional partnerships for education service delivery, the IPFTA will also help the government create frameworks/methodologies to explore charter schools, direct benefit transfers for school choice, reforms in ECE systems, technology to improve governance, and so forth.

• The IPF instrument will also include a Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) that can be used for providing immediate response to an eligible crisis or emergency as needed.

15. Rationale for use of PforR. STARS covers a wide range of activities with different entities, albeit with the common goal of enhancing outcomes in the education sector. A major challenge will be to develop institutional capacity to plan, coordinate, fund, monitor, and evaluate these diverse activities, and adjust them in response to experience. The PforR lending instrument presents several design and implementation advantages over alternatives, including:

• Ensuring a sharper focus on the most important results that GoI wants to achieve by linking World Bank funding directly to the achievement of those results rather than to inputs;

• Leveraging and strengthening the country systems (including financial management, procurement management, and social and environmental systems management) that are needed for the Program to achieve its objectives;

• Incentivizing states to focus on delivering results, while providing them flexibility to innovate and develop their own systems; and

• Strengthening MHRD’s focus on output and outcome monitoring and the development of an independent and credible verification system for school education that can be implemented by both central and state governments.


Page 16 of 115

16. Rationale for use of IPF TA Component. The TA component helps build MHRD capacity by (a) establishing a PMU to strengthen their skills in financial management, planning, and Program coordination; (b) supporting MHRD to improve their Program design and pilots; and (c) supporting Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), impact evaluation, and third-party assessments/validation of implementation activities and Program outcomes. 17. Rationale for a CERC under the IPF instrument: A CERC will be added to STARS to enable the operation to be more responsive any natural, manmade, and health disasters. It will help the government respond to situations leading to loss of learning such as school closures/infrastructure damage; inadequate facilities and technology for facilitating remote learning etc. The CERC component would facilitate the rapid recategorization of financing, and the utilization of streamlined financing request procedures. This component would be implemented in accordance with the Bank's Special Considerations under IPF through OP 8.00, Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies and all expenditures would be appraised, reviewed and found to be acceptable to the World Bank prior to any disbursements. Disbursements would be made against a positive list of critical goods (both domestic and imported) or for the procurement of goods and consulting services (including audit costs) required to support the immediate technical assistance for response and recovery needs of the GoI. The proposed WBG response to COVID-19 will include emergency financing, policy advice, and technical assistance, building on existing instruments to support addressing the education sector and broader development impacts of COVID-19. The allocation to this component will be finalized in discussion with MHRD.

18. Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF): In addition to the PforR and IPF TA instruments and given the interest of philanthropic organizations to partner with the Bank to achieve large scale impact through government systems, the Bank will set up an MDTF linked to STARS. The MDTF will be managed by the Bank and will work as a pooled resource for additional financing to undertake initiatives that are innovative and may not adhere strictly to government norms and funding thresholds. The initial grantee to the MDTF has been J P Morgan who have invested $ 10 million into the MDTF for a period of five years and the focus for this particular donor would be on school to work transition strategies and skills development. This could also encourage innovations to be agreed with the donor.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

A. Government Program

19. STARS will support the Government’s larger school education program, the centrally sponsored Samagra Shiksha. The scheme reorganizes the existing parallel management structures of the SSA, RMSA, and teacher education schemes into a unified structure and administrative mechanism, pooling together existing and additional personnel at the national and subnational levels. The vision of the scheme is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education from pre-school to senior secondary stage.16 Its major objectives are to provide quality education and enhanced learning outcomes; bridge social and gender gaps in school education; ensure equity and inclusion at all levels of school education; ensure minimum standards in schooling provisions; promote vocationalization of education; support states in implementing the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009; and strengthen and upgrade the State Institutes of Education and District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) as

16 Although not a primary program driver, this vision aligns with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal for Education.


Page 17 of 115

nodal agencies for teacher training. The scheme is being implemented as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme by the Department of School Education and Literacy, MHRD through a SIS in each state.

B. PforR Program Scope

20. The PforR component under STARS will support strategically identified components of Samagra Shiksha. This will include (a) providing support at the federal level to critical areas for improving education outcomes nationally, such as learning assessment systems and governance; and (b) strategically engaging in six states to foster innovative approaches that will help meet the development objectives of the operation, whether through improving existing reform initiatives or sharing successes and financing their expansion.

21. Program Financing: The Samagra Shiksha scheme that is being implemented across all states and union territories has an overall estimated budget allocation of US$36 billion for 2019-25. The STARS Program is carved out of Samagra Shiksha, with a focus on those elements of the scheme that will most directly support school education enhancement. STARS supports MHRD at the federal level and six pilot states at the sub-national level through a combination of ongoing and new reforms/interventions. The cost of the STARS operation is $3.35 billion, which will be financed by: (a) GoI financing of US$ 1.79 billion; (b) states’ contributions of US$ 1.06 billion over the operation period; and (c) World Bank financing of US$ 500 million over a period of five years from the date of effectiveness. The Bank’s financing comprises US$ 475 million using the PforR instrument and a US$ 25 million IPF TA component. A Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) linked to the IPF component will be introduced for responding to disaster management and resilience in response to an emergency. The Bank’s contribution through the PforR instrument will thus account for about 14 percent of the total relevant estimated expenditures. The STARS Program expenditure framework is derived from a current baseline (supported through Center and states’ budgets) and estimates for FY19–25 interventions.


Page 18 of 115

Source Amount (US$ M)

% of Total

Borrower/Recipient

GOI funding 1,789 53.43

States’ Funding 1,057 31.64

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) PforR Component 475 14.19

Total Program Cost 3,321 99.25

IBRD IPF Component 25 0.75

Total Operation Costs 3,346 100

C. Program Development Objective(s) (PDO) and PDO-Level Results Indicators

22. The Program Development Objective (PDO) of the operation is to improve the quality and governance of school education in selected states. 23. The PDO-Level Indicators are:

• Percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in select states

• Secondary school completion rate in select states (weighted average based on grade 9 enrolment)

• Improved governance in select states (as measured by select indicators from MHRD’s Performance Grading Index)

24. The Intermediate Outcome Indicators are:

• Strengthening Early Years Education o Percentage of teachers trained in ECE, and early reading and numeracy o Percentage of preschool classes/ECE centers with relevant Teaching-Learning

Material (TLM)

• Improving Learning Assessment Systems o Participation in international standardized learning assessment o Strengthened learning assessment systems and capabilities at national and state

levels

• Improving teacher performance and classroom practice o Strengthened in-service teacher training (cumulative) and teacher knowledge in

select states o Percentage of schools implementing learning enhancement program for upper

primary and secondary grades in select states

• Strengthening School-to-Work Transition o Career guidance program for improved transition from school to further education

and careers; positively targeting adolescent girls o Labor-market relevant courses offered at the secondary and higher secondary stages

• Governance and Decentralized Management for Improved Service Delivery o Improved teacher management in select states


Page 19 of 115

o Strengthened school management in select states o Improved education service delivery in select states through partnerships

STARS Results Chain

Summary of Disbursement-Linked Indicators DLI 1. Increase in students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in select states DLI 2. Improvement in secondary school completion rate in select states

DLI 3. Improvement in governance index scores in select states DLI 4. Strengthened learning assessment systems

DLI 5. Partnerships developed to facilitate cross-learning between states DLI 6. State-level improved service delivery


Page 20 of 115

25. Theory of Change—and the selection of DLIs: Although the education sector in India is making strong advances, it faces systemic challenges that, left unaddressed, will forestall needed reforms. 26. Early Years Education: There are persistently low levels of learning in the early grades that result in substantial numbers of children moving to upper grades without acquiring even the basics of reading and writing. Inadequate ECE programs yield poor basic cognitive and language competencies in the early years, which influence subsequent learning levels. Adding two years of quality ECE can generate a return as high as US$ 25 for every US$ 1 invested.17 Hence ECE is a critical part of the reform agenda for improving school outcomes in India as well as for achieving the STARS PDO. Strengthening early years education constitutes the first Results Area of STARS. The State Incentive Grants (SIGs) (DLI 6) will motivate ECE provision with financial incentives. DLI 1 is expected to be a direct outcome of a robust ECE program. 27. Learning Assessment Systems: Although India has a national learning assessment program, there is a need to enhance the validity and credibility of the results. Moreover, since India has not fully participated in an international learning assessment, it is difficult to evaluate the learning outcomes of the education system in a comparative sense. India’s participation in PISA 2021 will be a major step forward in this respect, and thus it has been included in the second Results Area and is being incentivized through DLI 4. 28. Teacher performance and classroom practice: Improving learning outcomes depends on quality classroom instruction and a prepared teaching workforce. Thus, the third Results Area will support teacher development and school leadership activities in the selected states, along with a strong school remediation program based on the use of instructional technology and innovative mechanisms to enhance classroom instruction and learning. As noted earlier, boys tend to drop-out of secondary schools due to lack of interest in schools and being unable to cope with the curriculum. The proposed remediation program under STARS will consider the specific needs of boys, especially from Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) to improve completion rates across participating states. This is being supported through the DLI matrix in two ways: DLI 3 (improving governance index scores) ensures that teacher management systems and teacher presence will be fostered under STARS, with the latter’s attendance and deployment being monitored. Further, the SIGs under DLI 6 will financially incentivize states to see that teachers are provided with need-based training to understand the requirements of adolescent boys from vulnerable groups, especially through transparent online portals providing a menu of training modules. Teachers’ subject and pedagogical knowledge will be evaluated and used to revise the in-service training modules, thus strengthening in-service teacher training and making it more teacher-owned. Learning enhancement programs and remedial programs to improve student outcomes will also be supported. DLI 6 will also finance establishment of online teaching medium, web conferencing tools, developing oonlike study materials, introducing tablet-based learning and realigning with the digital driven workld of education. 29. Secondary Education: For many children, secondary education is the stage when they leave school and enter the workforce. Further, adolescent girls are identified as a primary beneficiary under the proposed STARS operation. Much of women’s participation in the labor force is concentrated in subsistence agriculture, unpaid family work, and informal work. Interventions are needed to expand young women’s options early on, create value, and generate income through early exposure to vocational

17 World Bank. 2016. Value for Money from Public Education Expenditure on Elementary Education in India.


Page 21 of 115

training, career counselling, mentoring, and handholding through adolescence. Targeted human capital investments at early stages for adolescent girls could also result in higher female wage employment in high-growth sectors as well as self-employment. Empirical evidence suggests that interventions designed to strengthen young women’s educational and employment outcomes are likely to be most effective by including elements addressing both social and economic empowerment. 18 30. There is recognition that adolescent girls need to be provided with varied options and guided approaches, both vocational and academic in nature, to support them while they are in secondary school and enable their transition to the workforce. Clarifying and standardizing vocational education training (VET) systems, credit transfers and equivalence, and career counselling approaches through effective coordination between the skills development and school education sectors are key to helping adolescent girls make a smooth transition. These factors are covered under DLIs 3 and 6. 31. Research indicates that whether students can complete secondary schooling is affected by a complex set of factors on the supply and demand sides. Supply-side factors include availability of and distance to secondary schools, availability of adequate infrastructure (girls’ toilets, for instance) and human resources (subject teachers, for instance). Demand-side factors include ability to cope with secondary level academic work, level of interest in studies, financial security, and so on. Secondary school completion rates in STARS states range from 87 percent in Kerala to 62 percent in Madhya Pradesh. The available administrative data indicates a slight downward trend in secondary school completion in some selected states between 2014-15 to 2016-17. In Madhya Pradesh, the completion rate dropped from 67 percent in 2014-15 to 62 percent in 2016-17; in Rajasthan, it went from 89 percent to 78 percent during the same time period. Part of this downward trend can be attributed to efforts to improve the accuracy of administrative data. Under STARS, each state is expected to not only stabilize the downward trend of secondary school completion rates but also improve their completion rate by at least 2 percentage points over the project period. States will be incentivized to achieve larger improvements in grade 10 completion beyond the 2-percentage point increase as indicated by the scalable nature of the corresponding DLI. The target represents a significant increase in the absolute number of students across STARS states completing grade 10 over the project period. The operation will also track progress in completion rate by gender in all selected states. 32. Governance: Most importantly, STARS focuses on better and expanded decentralized frontline delivery channels (operationalized through DLIs 3 and 6), without which improved education outcomes will be difficult to achieve. The theory of change underpinning STARS is also based on the premise that strategic partnerships with non-state actors will be an important factor in improving public school governance and service delivery. D. Program Components: 33. The STARS Program has two results areas: a national component that supports efforts to improve overall monitoring and measurement activities in the Indian school education system and a state component with five sub-components. The operation offers flexibility to the six states to choose from among the five sub-components on offer depending on their state-level context and needs. In addition, the operation only requires states to focus on implementing a core set of key activities in their chosen

18 Providing out-of-school adolescent girls with skills: World Bank (2016).


Page 22 of 115

areas that they feel are critical for their state specific reform agenda.

Results Area1: National Component Results Area 2: State Component

1. Improving and tracking secondary school completion rates

2. Fostering reforms in governance and monitoring improvement in states’ governance scores through the SIGs

3. Strengthening learning assessment systems at the national level

1. Strengthening ECE 2. Improving learning assessment systems 3. Improving teacher performance and classroom

practice 4. Strengthening the school-to-work/higher

education transition 5. Strengthening governance and decentralized

management

34. State Flexibility and Choice: Within this given subset of Program sub-components for the States, the operation will offer additional flexibility to states to choose from among the Results Areas on offer depending on their state-level context and needs. In addition, the operation requires States to focus on implementing only a core set of key activities in their chosen Results Areas that they feel are critical for their state specific reform agenda. This choice and State flexibility for choosing options within the overall Program envelope is the hallmark of the operation. Importantly, states will be encouraged to use their own models of institutional arrangements and incentives for implementing these activities – e.g., different models for creating state assessment cells (states may wish to use the State Councils of Education Research and Training (SCERTs) to start with); different approaches to on-the-job training for teachers (technology based or outsourced training models); and different kinds of partnerships with non-state actors ( in ECE, whole school reform, service delivery, or teacher reform).

Results Area 1: National Component

35. At the national level, four goals will frame STARS support to MHRD. The first goal is to strengthen MHRD’s national data systems to capture robust and authentic data on retention, transition, and completion rates. This effort will be complemented by financial assistance to incentivize states to undertake reforms that will enhance quality and governance so that the resulting improved retention, completion, and transition rates will be reflected in the national data base (the Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE) Plus or UDISE+ for short). The DLIs, especially through the proposed SIGs, will help drive this reform agenda. 36. Second, STARS will support MHRD in improving states’ PGI scores, again by incentivizing states’ governance reform agendas through SIGs, with financial support from STARS. 37. Third, the operation will support the strengthening of learning assessment systems. Specifically, STARS will supply multi-year financing for India’s participation in PISA 2021, including establishing an independent National Assessment Center to manage that participation (e.g., undertaking preparatory activities leading up to the 2021 administration such as familiarizing teachers and students with the process, and conducting analytical and dissemination activities leading up to and following the release of the international and country reports in 2022). It also will help build technical capacity in the following areas: (a) developing technical standards for national assessment exercises; (b) creating high-quality test items aligned with competency-oriented learning standards; (c) drawing statistically sound samples; (d)


Page 23 of 115

developing standardized procedures and operational manuals for test administration; and (e) analyzing and reporting on assessment results in technically robust and policy-relevant ways. 38. Fourth, STARS will support MHRD’s efforts to designate a an institution for sharing of best practices/learnings of STARS states with other states. Among the tasks of such a center would be to leverage the experiences of states selected for the operation by collecting, curating, and sharing these experiences with other states through online portals (e.g., Shagun19 and DIKSHA20), social and other media engagement, technical workshops, state visits, and conferences. The National Learning Center will be encouraged to prioritize the dissemination and sharing of state experiences in three areas to start with—early childhood education, learning assessment, and governance. The center will also be encouraged to partner with regional entities such as universities, think tanks, Indian Institutes of Technology, and Indian Institutes of Management to create a national network that can share states’ experiences across the country. 39. Under STARS, the focus will be on support to the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) through its national component through its key institutions, such as the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and the Central Board of Secondary Education, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration and National Informatics Center to enhance existing structures and help strengthen new ones for improved education delivery and improved school environment. Support in capacity building of educational personnel and frontline education delivery mechanisms for actual education delivery would be included. Results Area 2: State Component

40. RA 2.1: Strengthening Early Years Education: Samagra Shiksha expands on the government’s existing early years learning program (Padhe Bharat Badhe Bharat), which covers grades one and two (ages six to eight), by providing guidelines for the introduction into government schools of two years of ECE (ages four to six). States are devising different approaches to meeting this new challenge. Some have introduced preschool classrooms in their government schools, which means that planning, management, and delivery of ECE will be under the purview of the state education department. Others have co-located Aanganwadis (Integrated Child Development Services Centers) on government school premises, with a view to strengthening existing channels of multi-sectoral service delivery. Under this model, planning, management, and delivery of ECE will be under the joint purview of state departments of education and of women and child development. 41. STARS will support activities and initiatives that are compatible with the ECE service delivery models adopted by individual states. The unifying focus will be on providing students in each state with learning opportunities that cater to their individual needs. In particular, STARS will assist states to improve the quality of their foundational learning by providing support for:

• Enhanced classroom layouts that are (a) child friendly, developmentally appropriate, and

19 Shagun portal is a portal used by MHRD to monitor progress on key policy reforms and programs while simultaneously capturing and sharing of best practices from States and UTs. 20 DIKSHA (diksha.gov.in) was launched by MHRD as a digital platform for teachers across in India that would allow them to create and share teaching-learning resources for advanced peer to peer learning etc.


Page 24 of 115

stimulating; (b) support children’s learning through direct sensory encounters with their surroundings; and (c) have a positive effect on interactions between teachers and students;

• Developmentally appropriate curricula supported by standardized Teaching-Learning Material (TLM) kits;

• In-service professional development opportunities for state, district, sub-district, and school-level education staff through also development and running e-learning platforms in response to COVID-19 or similar shocks;

• Parental engagement strategies to enhance parents’ awareness of the importance of ECE; and

• Administrative and academic monitoring tools/platforms to support implementation of activities, with a view to tracking progress and supporting continuous improvement at both at the school and system level.

42. Monitoring of states’ progress in strengthening early years education will focus on the development of teacher training modules for ECE teachers and facilitators and the percentage of ECE teachers and facilitators who receive training on those modules; the development of early reading and numeracy teacher training modules and the percentage of grades 1-2 teachers trained using these; and the development and dissemination of TLM for ECE and grades 1-2. 43. RA 2.2: Improving Learning Assessment Systems: All of the selected states intend to use STARS funds to set up or strengthen state-level assessment cells that can design and manage state-level assessment surveys; build teacher capacities for competency-based assessment and continuous comprehensive evaluation; and manage state-level implementation of national assessment exercises. In each state, support will be provided in the following areas where states have requested assistance:

• Creation of an assessment cell/State Assessment Centre, with the help of expert assessment agencies, to support the National Assessment Centre;

• Enhancement of teacher capacity to carry out and use data from Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) and other classroom-based assessment activities, including in multi-grade/multi-level and other challenging classroom environments;

• Creation of online item banks to support teachers’ formative, diagnostic, and summative assessment activities by aligning them with key learning outcomes/competencies/benchmarks;

• Developing a technology-enabled assessment platform that allows teachers to create assessments (using an online item bank) as well as manage, analyze, and use data from assessments;

• Improving the quality and utility of various assessments (e.g., NAS, SLAS, and examinations) for identifying individuals or groups of students in need of learning enhancement activities, and for measuring the effectiveness of those learning enhancement activities.


Page 25 of 115

44. Support will also be provided to State Boards to conduct similar reviews and reforms of their examination programs. All this work will be informed by a 2019 World Bank review of examination practices and reforms around the world as well as by the expertise and experience acquired by the Central Board for Secondary Education through its support for the capacity building of teachers and students undertaking the PISA 2021 test.

45. Monitoring of states’ progress in improving their learning assessment systems will focus on the creation of state assessment cells; the development of teacher training modules on CCE and classroom assessment; the development of learning outcomes-based online item banks for use by teachers; and the training of teachers on CCE and classroom assessment. 46. RA 2.3: Improving Teacher Performance and Classroom Practice: Most selected states have already begun using SLAS and NAS results to inform their needs assessments with respect to teacher training. This feedback mechanism will be enhanced under STARS through investments in national- and state-level capacities to assess learning. In addition, STARS will support a dedicated package of teacher development, school leadership, and learning enhancement activities in the selected states to further enhance instruction and learning. 47. Teacher Development: STARS will support states to develop information and communications technology (ICT)-enabled approaches (online and offline) to enhance teachers’ access to subject matter-specific and pedagogical trainings. These training opportunities may be self-paced or provided at regular intervals by the State Council for Educational Research and Training, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), or the Block Institutes of Teacher Education (BITE)/Block Resource Centers (BRC) and followed up with appropriate teacher assessments that can in turn inform future trainings. Such efforts will include attention to the following:

• Strengthening the infrastructure and facilities at DIETs and BITEs/BRCs, including for the transformation of DIETs into centers for academic leadership and experiential learning;

• Facilitating peer learning by leveraging social media (and other IT-enabled) platforms and developing forums for face to-face interaction;

• Reducing the amount of time sub-district level education staff invest in administrative functions, thereby allowing BRCs and Cluster Resource Centers (CRCs)21 to play a more active role in need-based in-service training, onsite support, academic supervision, and mentorship of teachers (more details provided in Results Area 2.5 below); and

• Harnessing the potential of technology and its better utilization in the teaching-learning process inside classrooms by providing technical assistance to assess the digital competencies of teachers and teacher educators, and to develop operational guidelines to enhance same; this will enable state governments to better understand the professional development needs of teachers and make better investment decisions around ICT-enabled interventions.

21 BRCs are teacher training bodies at the block level and CRCs are onsite support institutions created to cater to grade 10-12 schools in a cluster; both are crucial in teacher capacity enhancement.


Page 26 of 115

• Building capacity of teachers, BRCs and CRCs towards early identification of the needs of adolescent boys and girls especially in geographically excluded areas with high presence of SC, ST population. BRCs along with schoolteachers and school management committees (SMCs) will monitor potential dropouts amongst ST boys and form ground strategies to regularly engage with parents and communities on adolescent issues, block-level school completion targets and potential career opportunities.

48. Classroom Instruction and Learning Enhancement Programs: STARS will support state initiatives to improve the quality of classroom instruction; encourage non-state actor partnerships, where appropriate, particularly in the area of learning enhancement programs; and provide technical inputs to enhance the quality of learning enhancement programs—in all cases, in ways that emanate from and are relevant to each state’s context and linked to learning outcomes identified by the state. In addition, STARS will support states in improving the availability of resources (ICT-enabled and offline) for learning enhancement activities, and enable states to develop learning level-aligned supplementary worksheets that allow teachers to provide academic support that corresponds to each student’s learning levels/needs and thus provides a structured path for bringing the student up to grade-level learning standards. 49. School Leadership: The School Leadership Development Program created by the National Institute for Education Planning and Administration will be used to train a large pool of resource persons (master trainers). States will be encouraged to revive their State Institute of Education Management and Training/state nodal institute of education planning and management to provide in-service capacity building support to head teachers and school principals. 50. Using technology to improve teacher management and education: Technology portals such as Sunbird and other open source portals and platforms will be used to create capabilities for delivering content; tracking usage; supporting teachers to collect, manage and use student learning data; and supporting teachers in remedial exercises. Platform selection will be undertaken in consultation with MHRD and the states. Resources will be subject matter specific, and will focus on pedagogical training, content for class preparation and classroom use, curricula and learning-level supplementary worksheets for students, and banks of formative assessment items. Digital platforms like DIKSHA will support ECE strengthening through the creation of high quality ECE content and blended learning materials as well as parental orientation and outreach materials; and through facilitating peer-to-peer learning of ECE workers and pre-primary teachers. Using technology especially for linking to COVID-19 and similar shocks as sustainable solutions from mid- to long-term would be critical. 51. Monitoring of states’ progress in improving teacher development and classroom practice will focus on the percentage of elementary and secondary teachers receiving needs-based training and the actions taken by states to evaluate and improve the quality of that training (e.g., through teacher assessments and classroom observations); the percentage of schools implementing approved learning enhancement programs based on identified learning outcomes for upper primary and secondary grades; the availability of resources (ICT-enabled and/or offline) for teachers for learning enhancement activities); and the preparation and delivery of leadership development/training plans for BRC and CRC Coordinators, head teachers, and principals.


Page 27 of 115

52. RA 2.4: Strengthening School-to-Work Transition: Vocational education and school-to-work transition is still at a nascent stage in India. STARS will undertake a modest approach and address the following identified tasks: 53. Career Counselling initiatives: As part of the GoI’s efforts to universalize secondary education, there is recognition that students need to be provided with more varied options and guided approaches that are both vocational and academic in nature. STARS will thus support GoI efforts to encourage states to provide carefully targeted career counselling efforts at the secondary and senior secondary levels, with two critical components (both of which will have to be continually evaluated/refined): (a) career education in which students learn about the world of work and develop career management skills through classroom teaching and other activities (such as direct work experience), and (b) career advice on a one-to-one basis, either universally or on demand. A prerequisite for the latter, in particular, is a cadre of career guidance professionals experienced in labor market issues (as distinct from more general social/psychological counselling). Strong links between schools and local employers will help introduce students to the world of work. 54. In-school vocational education with market relevance: Standardizing VET training, skills development structures, and assessment systems will be crucial for effective coordination between the skills development and education sides of the school system. Although the Ministry of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, through its public private partnership (PPP) body, the National Skills Development Corporation, has set up a strong cadre of employer-led Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), these have but a weak connection to the school system. STARS will encourage the introduction of work benches/multi-skilling centers in schools, which would be closely linked with the SSCs to ensure that the trades being introduced in schools are tightly connected to the labor market. Further, STARS will also ensure that there is effective and relevant training of the vocational education instructors/trainers to reduce the theoretical nature of VET and enhance its links to the labor market and employers. Building credible systems of evaluation, equivalence, institutional accreditation, and apprenticeship will be supported. This will build on synergies with the Ministry of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship, GOI. 55. A major concern is low female participation in TVET programs, and a decrease in female labor force participation in the labor market, highlighting the importance of supporting adolescent girls’ transition from school to work. There are a variety of reasons for this, including early marriage, domestic work obligations, and the often standardized and traditional nature of available TVET occupations. The operation will provide special attention to supply and demand side constraints in girls’ participation in the TVET system. The operation will support targeted interventions to make training programs sensitive to the constraints faced by adolescent girls, especially in rural areas and Schedule V areas of participating states. Within the set of targeted interventions, bolstering girls’ participation and avoiding gender stereotyping will be a key challenge. Girls, especially the poorest, also often face constraints related to time availability and mobility. Interventions to strengthen women’s training and employment outcomes are likely to be most effective by including elements addressing socio emotional/life skills within training interventions. International experience suggests that multicomponent programs—which combine training with a set of complementary services (information, counselling, and capital)—often have larger impacts on girls’ and women’s employment and earning outcomes. Demand-side interventions can focus on increasing access to information, ongoing social support, and financial assistance (be it cash or in-kind).


Page 28 of 115

The GoI’s direct benefit transfer (DBT) platform can enable Aadhaar-linked cash incentives to boost participation of women and other target groups.

56. The program will invest in creating a gender-disaggregated baseline of dropouts (since there are data gaps) to understand the variations among out-of-school adolescent girls and boys and support their school-to-work transition. Maharashtra and Odisha will undertake actions targeting girls by offering life-skills training in schools for adolescent girls (class 7-9), which will include fundamentals on (a) digital literacy, (b) financial literacy and (c) reproductive health and hygiene. States will also develop an awareness and communication campaign in collaboration with MHRD to effectively engage with parents and communities and prevent drop-outs of adolescent girls, focus on meeting completion targets at the secondary level and simultaneously encourage their participation in TVET programs. Further, the occupational standards and job roles offered by MHRD under vocational training for secondary schools will be reviewed to refocus skills courses in Logistics, Banking and Financial Services and Insurance (BFSI), Health, IT and IT Enabled Services (ITeS), and other high-growth sectors that offer girl students a growth path toward becoming economically productive. This will be based on a quick need assessment. 57. To cater to the specific needs of boys, especially from vulnerable groups, states will also offer career counselling facilities at the block/cluster level for secondary schools as well as exposure to a professional work environment, specifically tailoring these interventions for girls’ and boys’ students. MHRD will use behavior change and interactive communication models targeting communities (e.g., audio-visuals in local language, creative messaging on social media channels, strengthening of platforms for regular parental engagement of adolescent girls, and boys and promote vibrant youth clubs led by girl students to promote retention and completion of secondary education. At the state level, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Maharshtra will target ST boys through a roadmap for Educationally Backward Blocks (EBBs) and aspirational districts to prevent dropouts and encourage participation in TVET courses. This will be achieved through a) awareness campaigns to engage parents/communities, b) enrolment in TVET courses, c) improving access to digital learning resources and c) monitoring drop-outs at the community level through SMCs. 58. RA 2.5: Governance and Decentralized Management for Improved Service Delivery: Building on the India CPF22, STARS will focus on enhancing state capability to improve service delivery. The goal will be to focus on the ‘last mile’ of service delivery, and through this, to facilitate the Samagra Shiksha implementation scheme, which calls for bottom-up planning led by district-level education functionaries while maintaining schools as the centers for planning and budgeting. STARS will incentivize states to invest in teacher management systems that facilitate the rationalization of teacher deployment and the monitoring of teachers, with a view to improving overall efficiency and teacher effectiveness. It will also invest in building the capacity of education functionaries at the sub-district level to provide teachers with concurrent academic support and supervision, and to carry out school-level monitoring that can help improve the quality of teaching-learning transactions in the classroom. The operation’s investments towards strengthening governance and decentralized management will be directed at improving quality of education service delivery in the classrooms. Key initiatives will include the following. 59. Reinforcing the District as the unit of educational planning and management: STARS will focus on the district as the unit of decentralized planning and implementation. This will facilitate planning that is

22 India: FY18-22; Report No. 126667-IN, July 25, 2018 discussed at the Board on September 20, 2018


Page 29 of 115

more transparent and participatory. The District Project Office of Samagra Shiksha, which works in close collaboration with the SIS, will prepare evidence-based, participatory Annual Work Plans and Budgets (AWP&B), and monitor physical and financial planning and implementation progress for the operation. At the sub-district level, Block Education Offices (BEOs) that have administrative responsibility for the schools will be encouraged to work in close collaboration with BRCs23 and CRCs24 on academic support. Close coordination with the School Management Committees (SMCs), that have representation from the local authority (the local level elected government) will be strengthened for school management and implementation oversight. The SMC will undertake community mobilization, prepare school development plans, identify out-of-school children, monitor students’ and teachers’ attendance, and also look into strategies to improve learning outcomes. 60. Strengthening Crucial Institutions at Sub-District Level: At the sub-district level, BEOs and BRCs will be strengthened to undertake broader academic supervision and support the CRCs on academic support for teachers. Under STARS, the role of CRCs will be evolved to include monitoring and evaluation of schools. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) in the United Kingdom will serve as an example of the kinds of capabilities and roles to be developed at the CRC level. CRC Coordinators (who are primarily from the cadre of senior teachers) are an important link in ensuring the quality of learning outcomes at the school level. However, their role has devolved to largely data gathering and reporting (80 percent of their time), which is detracting from the academic support they are supposed to provide to classroom teachers. Decentralized management will be encouraged by supporting pilots in select states under STARS to strengthen these institutions.

61. Effective Teacher Management: STARS will support states to enhance the transparency of their teacher management processes. This will include support for developing IT systems to maintain electronic teacher records and facilitate transparent recruitment and transfers of teachers. Such sophisticated technological solutions would be urther strengthened or greater resilience to shocks and disaster response specially COVID-19 kind of pandemics/health hazards. Support also will be provided for developing and deploying teacher performance evaluation standards. The IT systems developed for teacher management will allow for the maintenance of online records of teacher performance and the production of analytics required to inform policy reforms and academic interventions directed towards improving teacher performance. 62. Partnering with Non-state Actors: Partnerships with non-state actors are increasingly being adopted as reform initiatives by states. STARS will encourage such partnerships as a way to combine the strengths of the public sector with the management approach of the private sector. STARS will support in creating national frameworks and incentivizing states through the SIG in undertaking innovative pilots/programs in this area for quality improvement and service delivery enhancement in school education. Potential pilots could be:

23 BRCs are primarily resource centers for onsite academic support to elementary level teachers. They function as a venue for teacher training, material development, community mobilization, action research, and organization of different activities for teachers and students. 24 CRCs are academic centers located closest to the schools/teachers. Each CRC manages a cluster of 10-12 schools, providing teachers with classroom based academic support, and facilitating peer to peer learning amongst teachers.


Page 30 of 115

• Whole School Approach: Working with an aggregator or network of school operators, this would involve the private provider/private philanthropy taking over the school operations and management. The school would follow the national curriculum but have the flexibility to use its own pedagogic approaches and teacher training while retraining government schoolteachers.

• Outsourcing Specific Services: This would include recruitment of NGOs/non-state operators to undertake certain services for quality improvement, with a particular focus on teacher training and school leadership.

• Support Services of Management Firms/NGOs: These would largely be expected to be in areas related to decentralized academic and administrative management and monitoring, school leadership, and strengthening educational management.

• Direct Benefit Transfers for School Choice: School vouchers or other direct benefit transfer mechanisms could be explored to ensure that parents and students are empowered to choose a well-functioning and accountable school, whether private or public.

• Developing technology-based tools and resources to drive digital education; this would include developing dynamic digital materials like images, audio and video, tablet based learning and online teaching instructions in order to establish digital education ecosystems. Developing a cluster of digital ecosystems will be taken as pilot projects with well charted monitoring systems.

63. Building a National Framework. To date, states have been undertaking partnerships in an ad hoc fashion, yielding mixed results. STARS will also facilitate the creation of a national framework for partnerships with non-state actors, including guidance for (a) identifying the schools and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to be brought under the partnership, and (b) developing Key Performance Indicators for onboarded partners. STARS will encourage states to explore different models of partnerships with fund allocation through SIG allocated for fostering non-state actor partnerships in selected states. 64. The monitoring of states’ progress in strengthening governance and decentralized management for improved service delivery will focus on capacity building support to school principals and head teachers, BRCs, and CRCs; close engagement of non-state actors (private sector and non-government organizations) for improving the quality of service delivery across the various areas covered under the operation; and improved teacher management systems to facilitate transparency in recruitment, deployment, transfers, and promotions. Progress on these intermediate outcomes is expected to result in better classroom supervision and academic support for teachers; improved planning, and performance self-evaluation at the school level; and an increase in the percentage of teachers being recruited, transferred, or promoted through online, transparent, publicly accessible systems. These indicators form the basis of the governance index (PDO indicator) that will be used to track state-level performance in the area of governance and service delivery. This index is a subset of MHRD’s Performance Grading Index (PGI) and thus closely aligns with the priorities identified by the national and state governments. Improvements in these indicators should in the medium term, result in improvement in quality of classroom instruction. In the long term, the improvement would be crucial for sustaining and scaling any improvements in education outcomes envisioned under the operation.


Page 31 of 115

Box 2. Governance Index – Indicators

The governance index (PDO indicator) is based on a set of nine indicators listed below: A. Indicators tracking gains from initiatives related to strengthening of teacher management systems, rationalization of teacher deployment, and transparency in teacher hiring and promotion: 1. Percentage of Upper Primary schools meeting norms of subject-teacher as per the Right to

Education Act 2. Percentage of Secondary Schools who have teachers for all core subjects 3. Percentage of average daily attendance of teachers recorded in an electronic attendance

system 4. Number of new teachers recruited through a transparent online recruitment system as a % of

total number of new teachers recruited 5. Number of teachers transferred through a transparent online system as a % of total number of

teachers transferred 6. Number of head-teachers/principals recruited through a merit-based selection system as a % of

total number of head-teachers/principals recruited 7. Percentage of academic positions filled in state and district academic institutions (SCERT/SIE &

DIETs) at the beginning of the given academic year B. Indicators tracking the impact of initiatives focused on capacity building of sub-district level education functionaries (BRCs and CRCs) and school principals and head teachers for improved school level planning, monitoring and management: 8. Percentage of schools that have completed self-evaluation and made school improvement plans

during the financial year 9. Percentage of schools visited for academic inspections

E. Disbursement-Linked Indicators and Verification Protocols 65. For the PforR component of STARS, disbursement will be conditional on the achievement of specific results, measured by the DLIs summarized in the discussion on Program Development Objectives and PDO-Level Results Indicators. The choice of each DLI and the DLI values for each year are based on (a) the signaling role of the indicator (that is, the extent to which it signals the implementation of a critical action, output, or outcome in the results chain); (b) the perceived need to introduce a strong financial incentive to deliver the activity, output, or outcome; (c) practical aspects of verifying achievement; and (d) GoI capacity to achieve the DLI during the implementation period. 66. The DLIs will be annually reviewed and verified by an Independent Verification Agency (IVA) to be contracted by MHRD using terms of reference satisfactory to the World Bank. (See Annex 2 for further details.) The DLIs will be verified through pre-identified disclosed data sources (e.g., UDISE+, National Achievement Surveys, desk reviews, etc.), and the periodic IVA reports will serve as the basis for assessing progress toward achievement of the DLI targets and for disbursement authorization by the World Bank.


Page 32 of 115

The IVA report will also form the basis for the MHRD to present DLI claims to the World Bank and to release funds to the states based on their performance on the SIG scores. The SIG scorecard has been developed as a quantitative instrument for grading states on very specific outcomes that would move the education reform agenda in the overall results areas. The detailed SIG Scorecard will form the basis for baseline setting and subsequent target verification for DLI 6. The World Bank will further review the evidence base for all DLIs during implementation.

III. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements 67. National-Level Administrative Structure: Samagra Shiksha reorganizes the existing management structures of SSA and RMSA into a unified administrative mechanism, pooling together existing and additional personnel at national and sub-national levels. At the center, Samagra Shiksha is overseen by a Governing Council chaired by the Minister of Human Resource Development, a Project Approval Board (PAB), and the Bureau of School Education. The Council provides policy direction and facilitates center-state coordination, while the PAB, chaired by the Secretary, School Education and Literacy, MHRD, maintains full financial power to approve state plans, sanction budgets, and implement the program. The Bureau of School Education, chaired by the Additional/Joint Secretary, School Education and Literacy, appraises, evaluates, finances, and supervises planned interventions at the national, state, and district levels. Other MHRD bodies that comprise the administrative structure and provide technical and academic input at the national level are the NCERT, NIEPA, National Council for Teacher Education, National Council for Protection of Child Rights, and Technical Support Group (TSG).

Administrative Governance Structure of Samagra Shiksha*

* ECCE: Early Childhood Care and Education; MIS: Management Information System; PMS: Project Monitoring System; RTE: Right

to Education; TE: Teacher Education; VE: Vocational Education.


Page 33 of 115

68. At the state level, the education scheme is implemented through the SIS that is accountable to a Governing Council. The Council is headed by the Chief Minister/State Education Minister, and its Executive Committee is chaired by the Chief Secretary/Commissioner/Education Secretary of the State/Union Territory. Representation of Finance and Planning Departments on the Governing Council and Executive Committee resolves issues of coordination and convergence and facilitates better decision-making. The SIS, through the State Project Office and State Project Director, establishes linkages with district and sub-district level structures, NGOs, state government, national bureau of school education, and other concerned stakeholders, and is also responsible for effective monitoring and training and capacity building of personnel. Additionally, the SIS is underpinned by a high degree of interdepartmental convergence, including coordination with the Department of Finance, Department of Public Works, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Water Resources, Department for Women and Child Development, and others. Other state-level bodies that compose the administrative structure and provide technical and academic input at the state level are the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), State Institute of Educational Management and Training (SIEMAT), and TSG of the SIS. 69. District-Level Structure: At the District level, the District Project Office is responsible for implementing and reviewing the progress of the program. Depending on the state, it is chaired by the District Collector/Magistrate/Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad25. The District Project Office is

headed by the District Education Officer (DEO) and comprises representatives from the district education departments, NGOs, as well as technical specialists. The DEO, who also performs the duties of the District Project Coordinator, is responsible for preparing Annual Work Plans and Budgets (AWP&B), liaising with the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) to jointly oversee the function of the Block Resource Centers (BRCs) and Cluster Resource Centers (CRCs), monitoring progress

and status of project implementation, and ensuring regular trainings of teachers/school heads, members of the School Management Committee (SMC)/School Management and Development Committee (SMDC), and BRCs and CRCs.

25 Zilla Parishad is the third tier of the governance system. Zila Parishads are elected bodies constituted through local body

elections.


Page 34 of 115

70. Block-Level Administration: At the Block level, the administrative structure is headed by the Block Education Officer (BEO), who is responsible for facilitating the creation of a School Development Plan in coordination with the block/cluster resource persons, SMCs/SMDCs, headmasters, teachers, etc. Additionally, the BEO is responsible for capacity building, academic supervision, and onsite support to field-level cadre, and monitoring and implementation of school education programs at the grassroots level. BRCs and CRCs provide academic support at the block and cluster levels, respectively, and SMCs/SMDCs, comprising of members from the local authority, parents, and teachers, assist with school-level monitoring and implementation through community mobilization, preparing school development plans, conducting Social Audits, and monitoring students’ and teachers’ attendance.

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation 71. MHRD’s Education Management Information System (EMIS), the Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+), and the National Achievements Surveys will be the primary data source for monitoring project outcomes. The PGI will be used to track progress on key governance indicators in selected states. Implementation Support Missions (ISMs), as in-depth program implementation review mechanisms will be undertaken twice a year. One ISM will be a field-based mission while the second one will be a desk review. The Bank will share the ISM findings with the MHRD to be able to review project progress biannually. Additional interim reviews will be conducted as required. 72. To better understand factors and interventions contributing to improvements in quality, MHRD and the states will be encouraged to undertake studies/impact evaluations for implementation effectiveness. Examples of such evaluations are (a) teaching and learning (including classroom observations and time-on-task ) studies to assess teacher practices or effective methods for teacher training, including the use of digital content for training and teaching and learning, (b) early childhood education assessments (e.g., of school readiness at the beginning of formal schooling and the quality of ECE centers), and (c) service delivery reviews (determinants of quality across different school types, the use of technology to improve service delivery, etc.). Although the IPF-TA component will be a tool that MHRD can use to undertake such evaluations, STARS will encourage states to have concurrent M&E as a key component of project implementation (PforR financing will cover such costs). C. Disbursement Arrangements

73. STARS will use DLIs for program management and disbursement.26 Most of the DLIs are scalable, with funds being disbursed in proportion to the achievement of the DLI. Where actions are not achieved in any particular year, the allocated amount will be carried over to the subsequent year. Conversely, if targets are reached before deadlines, disbursement may be made earlier, after clearance from the World Bank. The SIG aims to encourage states to undertake demand-driven planning and increase their capacity for school development, in alignment with the national strategy. The SSDPs will be aligned to SIG criteria (annex 9) that will be the basis for the release of funds to the states.

26 Annex 2 shows, in indicative form only, the proposed annual financial allocations across DLIs. Estimated amounts for each DLI are dependent on assumptions made for projected performance year on year; actual disbursement will be dependent on performance achieved.


Page 35 of 115

From the second year onward, the grant amounts will depend on state performance against the SIG criteria, which are outlined in the DLI verification protocol for DLI 6. MHRD will be encouraged to follow a standard annual cycle of disbursement, the first step of which is linked to the beginning of GoI’s fiscal year (April 1-March 31). Thus, the IVA exercise will start in April and end by September 30 every year. The computation of states’ scores on the SIG Scorecard will be completed by June 30 every year, while release of the grant amount will be made after the DLI claim has been submitted and the results are verified by the Bank. State funds will be governed by scalability with fast performing states being rewarded with early funding. If a state is unable to use the financing, the funds may be reallocated. 74. For the TA component and CERC component (IPF), Bank funds will be used to pay for ‘specific expenditures,’ such as consulting services; non-consulting services; goods procured; training and operating costs of the PMU, MHRD, and other entities assisting in the implementation of the Program; and select pilots. These payments will follow the World Bank’s fiduciary rules and guidelines. Disbursements under the TA component will be made primarily as reimbursements based on Interim Unaudited Financial Reports to be submitted on a quarterly basis. Disbursement under CERC component would be made against a positive list of critical goods (both domestic and imported) or for the procurement of goods and consulting services (including audit costs) required to support the immediate response and recovery needs of the GoI. Disbursement to any new IA27 under CERC component, shall be subject to rapid fiduciary assessment.

Some Initiatives of MHRD to meet the COVID-19 lockdown situation affecting school education:

Integration of use of technology with education system along with cyber security.

Developing digital classrooms as an instructional modality - Operation Digital Board.

Inclusion of virtual vocational training, virtual labs and skill development courses.

Multi-mode access to education using web portals, mobile apps, TV channels, Radio, Podcasts etc.

Developing quality e-contents in local languages.

Developing a framework for enhancing learning within and outside the classroom, and for assessments in the era of digital education.

Framing of Online/Digital Education Guidelines addressing the digital divide.

D. Capacity Building

75. Capacity building initiatives will be of two kinds. MHRD may wish to undertake knowledge-sharing visits or missions to countries that offers examples of good practices in learning assessment; school and vocational education regulation; decentralized management; innovative use of technology for educational reform; and partnerships with non-state actors and the private sector. These visits would also include state entities and major program implementation agencies. In addition, there may be opportunities for India to share its own developments and growth with countries wanting to learn from its experience. This will be supported under the Lighthouse India initiative, where both international and state-level exchanges would be encouraged.

27 Other than existing IAs under the P4R program and the TA component.


Page 36 of 115

IV. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

A. Technical (including program economic evaluation)

76. Strategic relevance: The proposed operation is strategically relevant because it addresses India’s educational goals and is fully aligned with the CPF28. By addressing India’s education outcome issues, it also addresses the global learning crisis because India represents a large segment of the global school population. It draws upon the CPF and the Systemic Country Diagnostic (SCD)29 which highlight the need to address issues around system strengthening in the education sector. The emphasis placed on ECE and early learning in these documents aligns with the global push to ensure that the human capital accumulation story begins in the early years and that the skills developed during these years become the building blocks to help individuals prepare to meet the new age requirements of technology and the changing nature of work. STARS also focuses on the need for improved decentralized governance and accountability mechanisms, especially for improved teacher quality; quality assurance systems in the vocational training sector; sub-district level institutional systems strengthening; and enhanced engagement of non-state actors in addressing long-term problems with local ownership. 77. Technical soundness: The operation addresses the key determinants (emerging from cutting-edge sectoral research) that affect learning: (a) ensuring early and well-prepared enrolment in physically and technically adequate schools; (b) providing professionally prepared and motivated teachers, whose skills are continually updated with pertinent training/professional development; (c) strengthening implementation and management capacity throughout the education system so that schools and communities can together properly facilitate teaching and learning; and (d) prioritizing support for the virtuous circle (regularly refined in light of experience) of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (including the use of learning metrics to guide improvements in system performance).30 78. Program Expenditure Framework: The 2019-25 estimated Samagra Shiksha expenditure is $36 billion. As previously noted, STARS supports school education enhancement under this framework through a hybrid operation. The cost of the STARS operation is US$ 3.35 billion, which will be financed by (a) GoI financing of US$ 1.79 billion; (b) states’ contributions over the operation period of US$ 1.06 billion; and (c) World Bank financing of US$ 500 million over a period of five years from the date of effectiveness. The Bank’s financing comprises US$ 475 million using the PforR instrument and a US$ 25 million IPF TA component. The Bank’s contribution through the PforR instrument will thus account for about 14 percent of the total relevant estimated expenditures. 79. Funding predictability is high and risks to the Program Expenditure Framework arising out of budget constraints is considered low. Overall funding for Samagra Shiksha at GoI level rose from INR 261

28 India: FY18-22; Report No. 126667-IN, July 25, 2018 discussed at the Board on September 20, 2018 29 Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) reports are prepared by World Bank Group staff in close consultation with national authorities and other stakeholders. The SCD is a diagnostic exercise to identify key challenges and opportunities for a country to accelerate progress towards development objectives that are consistent with the twin goals of ending absolute poverty and boosting shared prosperity in a sustainable manner. It is intended to become a reference point for client consultations on priorities for World Bank Group country engagement. As of June 30, 2014, SCDs are required prior to sending a Country Partnership Framework (CPF) to the Board. 30 World Bank. 2018. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. Washington, DC: World Bank.


Page 37 of 115

billion (US$ 3.9 billion) in FY16/17 to INR 363 billion (US$ 5.4 billion) in FY19/20, with matching increases in budgeted commitments at the state level.31 This is likely to continue in the years to come as school education remains a national priority, as is Samagra Shiksha within that sector.32 80. The Program Expenditure Framework is based on the current baseline and associated estimations for interventions. Samagra Shiksha is implemented as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme covering all states and Union Territories, routed through a single SIS at the state level. The scheme’s center/state fund-sharing is 90:10 for North-Eastern, hilly States and vulnerable states; it is 60:40 for all other states. Each state produces a single plan for the entire school education sector and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme is accounted for in the State Budget as a separate line. The program outlay for Samagra Shiksha at Central and state levels reflects a unified vision for school education in line with the Samagra Shiksha Framework for Implementation. Further, on an annual basis, the states submit an Annual Work Plan and Budget proposal for Samagra Siksha to GoI. This is a detailed plan for approval by GoI’s Project Approval Board (PAB). Once approved, it is adopted as a detailed budget by SIS. The STARS expenditure costs are derived from the budgeted expenditures of MHRD and the participating states for Year 0 (i.e., FY18/19) and extrapolated for the next five years. 81. The STARS Program cost includes the cost of ongoing reforms attributable to interventions under the STARS Program and thereby essential to achievement of the Program results. The Program funds will primarily be focused on incremental support under components related to ‘governance strengthening’ and ‘quality enhancement.’ The former includes setting up of state-level nodal institutions for education management, development of education MIS and teacher management systems, and training and capacity building of district-, block-, and cluster-level education cadre. The latter will include provision of ECE, strengthening of learning enhancement programs, provision of need-based in-service training for teachers, establishment and operation of state assessment cells, and provision of vocational education to children who are not in school. A large part of the funding will be directed toward institutional strengthening and systems development. In most of the selected states, block- and cluster-level education cadre positions are currently vacant. Given the critical importance of decentralized, last-mile, support to schools and teachers, the operation will also provide financial support toward salary costs of block- and cluster-level education staff. Block- and cluster-level support represents 26 percent of the Program’s projected cost. The table below shows the overall Program expenditure composition by state and economic classification of expenditures.

31 This is equivalent to an annual average increase of some 8.84 percent in nominal terms over the period, substantially greater than the period’s average annual inflation rate of about 5 percent—thus, helping to ensure significant real increases in Samagra Shiksha budgets. 32 The union budget allocated INR 948 billion (US$ 13.17 billion) for the education sector in 2019-20, an increase of nearly INR 100 billion (US$ 1.39 billion) from the previous year’s budget estimates. Of the total INR 948 billion education budget, INR 565 billion (US$ 7.85 billion) has been pegged for the school sector, of which INR 363 billion (US$ 5.04 billion) is allotted to Samagra Shiksha.


Page 38 of 115

STARS Framework by Programmatic Composition of Expenditures ($ million) for FY19-25

Economic Expenditure Classification

Mah

aras

htr

a

Raj

asth

an

Mad

hya

Pra

de

sh

Od

ish

a

Ke

rala

Him

ach

al

Pra

de

sh

MH

RD

Pfo

rR

Pro

gram

Early Years Education - - - 0.15 3.78 1.15 - 5.08

Learning Assessment Systems 3.84 0.04 0.02 0.36 0.49 0.69 - 5.44

Teacher Education 249.25 218.08 232.54 317.57 50.74 85.43 - 1,153.61

Quality Intervention 378.56 580.29 620.99 133.30 35.42 109.74 - 1,958.31

Vocational Education and Training

26.76 38.89 31.47 20.95 - 55.36 - 173.44

National-Level Quality Intervention

-

-

- - - - 50.00 50.00

Total 658.41 837.31 885.01 472.34 190.43 252.37 50.00 3,345.88

82. The PforR Expenditure Program will be implemented through the budgets of the implementing agencies in accordance with established systems for accounting and reporting. The Government’s primary planning and control tool is the Annual Budget. No expenditure can be incurred until it is reflected in the budget and approved by the Parliament. However, multiple tiers of planning and implementation mechanisms and their limited capacities to prepare and manage budgets often results in inadequate planned budgeting and consequent delays in fund releases and lower budget execution rates. IBRD funding will flow under a separate budget line item under the respective Demand for Grant of Funding Implementing Departments of MHRD and the six participating states, earmarking externally aided/STARS operation. MHRD will release funds to the six participating states under the administrative control of the respective state Education Department. At the state level, implementation is the responsibility of the State Implementation Society (a Special Purpose Vehicle under the administrative control of the respective state’s Education Department) with units at the state, district, block, cluster, and school levels. Once the annual budget is allotted by the respective Finance Departments, the implementing departments have the autonomy to undertake procurement and spend the budget allocations on budgeted Program activities. (Annex 4 analyzes the relevant financial management (FM) and procurement systems with respect to ensuring proper utilization of Program funds.) All expenditures are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), with expenditures of Societies being subject to audit by firms selected by CAG. 83. Economic Analysis: A cost-benefit analysis for STARS shows a high economic rate of return. Considering the benefits accruing from an improvement in grade 3 language scores, secondary school completion rates, and key governance processes, the analysis yields a Net Present Value of US$ 12.5 billion and an Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) of 16.0 percent. 84. Economic Benefits: The calculation of the operation’s economic benefits is based on the anticipated achievements against the three PDO indicators and covers three factors.


Page 39 of 115

• Increased secondary school completion rates. After factoring in labor force participation33 (53.9 percent) and unemployment rates34 (2.6 percent), the expected wage differential for an elementary versus secondary school completer was used to monetize the benefits to be derived from improvements in the secondary school completion rate. The annual wage differential is estimated at about US$ 107.35 It is estimated that the operation will yield an additional 377,000 students completing secondary schooling and appearing for grade 10 examinations.

• Improved grade 3 language scores. A standard deviation36 (21.33) improvement in learning levels is expected to lead to an 18 percentage-point increase in wage earnings for elementary school completers upon joining the workforce.37 If the operation were to realize its target of improving grade 3 language scores by an average of two percentage points across the selected states, the average annual increase in wages is estimated at about US$ 8.43.

• Improved government processes. A markup was added to the aforementioned wage increase for elementary school completers to account for the impact of anticipated improvements in governance processes. This markup is based on the correlation38 (0.338) between states’ current learning levels and their scores on an index measuring state performance on key governance processes. If the operation were to realize its target for states’ average improvement on the governance index, the markup would be 6.2 percent. Correspondingly, the expected increase in wages would be US$ 8.95. It is estimated that close to 38.4 million grade 3 completers would benefit from this improvement in learning levels.

85. Economic Costs: The economic costs considered while estimating the EIRR included the overall operation cost, including World Bank financial assistance and financial commitments from central and state governments. This investment is estimated to be US$ 3.35 billion spread across the opertation period of five years. 86. Sensitivity Analysis: A sensitivity analysis shows that improvement in grade 3 language scores is the key driver of economic returns under the operation. If the operation delivers a grade 3 language score improvement that is one percentage point less than the envisioned target, the EIRR would fall to 11.8 percent. On the other hand, a one percentage point overachievement would yield an EIRR of 19.1 percent. Effects of changes in learning outcomes and secondary school completion rates on the Economic Internal Rate of Return are summarized in the table below.

33 Source: Weighted average of labor force participation rates recorded under the Report on Employment-Unemployment Survey 2013-14 of the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Government of India; weighted using Census of India 2011 population data for the 15-64 age group. 34 Source: World Bank data. 35 Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Sample Survey 68th Round. 36 MHRD’s National Achievement Survey 2017-18. 37 Aslam, M., A. De, G. Kingdon, and R. Kumar (2010) “Economic Returns to Schooling and Skills – An analysis of India and Pakistan, Mimeo, RECOUP Project, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. 38 Source: Correlation of quality (learning outcomes) scores and governance processes (scores) from MHRD’s Performance Grading Index.


Page 40 of 115

Grade 3 Language Score Improvement

Completion Rate Improvement

1 percent 2 percent 3 percent

1-point shortfall 11.1 percent 11.8 percent 12.9 percent

Target 15.5 percent 16.0 percent 16.9 percent

1-point overachievement 18.6 percent 19.1 percent 19.9 percent

B. Fiduciary 87. The Integrated Fiduciary System Assessment (IFSA) of the arrangements under the PforR Program concludes that the present country systems, together with proposed mitigation measures, will provide reasonable assurance that financing proceeds will be used for the intended purpose—although the fiduciary risk of the Program is rated Substantial. The IFSA, in line with the World Bank’ s Policy for PforR and related Directives, identified key fiduciary risks that may affect the Program’s development outcomes and recommended system improvement and capacity strengthening mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the life of the Program (see Annex 4 for more details). 88. Fiduciary management arrangements under the PforR component will follow GoI’s existing scheme for implementing Samagra Shiksha, including in the six participating states. The overarching fiduciary framework will be governed by GoI’s Financial Management and Procurement (FMP) Manual for Samagra Shiksha, dated August 2018. The Manual has adequate provisions for budgeting, funds flow, accounting, procurement, and audits. The Manual is subject to the overriding provisions of GoI’s General Financial Rules 2017. Each participating state has also issued rules, manuals, and guidance for financial and procurement management at various levels. The governing rules of the states were found to be comprehensive; however, implementation needs strengthening. With respect to procurement, the IPF TA component will be governed by Bank Procurement Regulations, including with respect to a Project Procurement Strategy for Development and procurement plan.

89. The PforR Program will be implemented through the budgets of the implementing agencies and follow established systems for accounting and reporting. MHRD will release funds to the six participating states under the administrative control of the respective state Education Department. Once the annual budget is allotted by the respective FD, the implementing departments have the autonomy to undertake procurement and spend the budget allocations on the budgeted Program activities. The Program’s primary planning and control tool is the Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWP&B). No expenditure can be incurred until reflected in the AWP&B and approved by the Project Approval Board (PAB) at GoI. However, multiple tiers of planning and implementation and their limited capacities to prepare and manage budgets often results in inadequate planned budgeting and consequent delays in fund releases and lower budget execution rates. 90. The incremental Program funds will flow under a separate budget line earmarking externally aided/STARS project funding both for GoI and the participating states. The incremental Program funds shall flow from MHRD to the states per the pre-defined terms of the incentive-based grant between the center and the states. Program expenditures will be recorded in the existing accounting system, per internal guidelines and procedures. For independent assurance on the usage of funds, reliance will be


Page 41 of 115

placed on the audit report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on the accounts of Union Government to be submitted to the Bank within 12 months of the close of the fiscal year. For states, the annual audit report of the respective SIS will be submitted to the Bank within six months of the end of the fiscal year. 91. The scope of procurement will include goods (teaching and learning materials, computers, furniture) and works (school infrastructure, water supply, boundary walls, sanitation facilities and services) under the PforR Program, and consulting services (including third party verification of results and auditors) under the TA component. Procurement will be carried out using e-procurement systems for works, capital goods, and consultancy services at both the center and state levels. These e-procurement systems undergo annual security and integrity checks. In addition, both the center and states will use the GoI e-procurement system (GeM) for procurement of common-use goods and services. E-procurement and GeM will be used under both the PforR and IPF components. The Program is not expected to procure any contracts valued at or above Operational Procurement Review Committee thresholds (US$ 75million for works, US$ 50 million for goods and non-consulting services, and US$ 20 million for consultant services), which are based on a “Substantial” risk assessment. 92. Disbursement Arrangements: The Bank will disburse Program funds to GoI on satisfactory achievement of the DLIs, as verified by an Independent Verification Agency following the agreed verification protocol. On certification, the Ministry of Finance will communicate the achievement of the disbursement-linked results to the World Bank in the form agreed with the Bank. Under the TA Component, disbursement will involve reimbursement of actual expenditures against the agreed activities. The reporting to the Bank will be in the form of Interim Unaudited Financial Reports. Based on the World Bank’s approval letter, disbursement requests will be submitted to the World Bank by the Controller of Aid, Accounts, and Audit using the World Bank’s e-Business platform. The funds will be disbursed by the World Bank to GoI under the IBRD loan terms, which in-turn will be released by the GoI to the six states per the agreed financing norms between Central Government and the State Government. 93. Governance and Accountability Systems: Under the larger governance framework of India, all government departments and agencies are covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, through its state offices, conducts annual compliance audits of state education directorates and performance audits of SIS at regular intervals. The audit-related queries/concerns are reported to the State Assembly and Public Accounts Committee for recommendations and actions. MHRD will conduct post-procurement reviews for participating states annually as required by the FM&P Manual and share the reviews with the Bank. (Terms of reference for the audit will have been agreed with the Bank prior to negotiations.) Those procurement agencies under the Program that do not have a dedicated procurement complaint redressal system will be required to set up a centralized complaint redressal system with a web-based interface to receive complaints, and clearly define rules, business standards, and the role of authorities in dealing with complaints. 94. Applicability of the World Bank’s Anti-Corruption Guidelines to the Operation. The Program (PforR Program) will be subject to the Bank’s Governance and Anti-Corruption Guidelines,39 which shall apply to all activities within the Program boundary. As there is no distinction between World Bank-funded activities and Government-funded activities within the Program boundary, these guidelines shall be

39 “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Program-for-Results Financing,” dated February 1, 2012 and revised on July 10, 2015.


Page 42 of 115

applied in an unrestricted manner to all activities within the Program boundary. Requirements under these guidelines include, but are not limited to, (a) borrower’s obligation to inform the World Bank about all fraud- and corruption-related allegations and investigations, (b) the World Bank’s right to conduct administrative enquiries with regard to fraud and corruption allegations, (c) the ineligibility of World Bank-debarred firms for contract awards, and (d) avoidance of conflicts of interest between contracts procured under PforR and IPF components. 95. Integrated Risk Assessment—Fiduciary Risks: The IFSA fiduciary risk is rated as Substantial. The accumulating years of school education program implementation (SSA, RMSA, and TE) have resulted in a constant strengthening of systems and procedures. However, considering the multiplicity of spending/executing agencies (States, Districts, and Sub-districts) and diverse capacity across these agencies, there are persistent implementation constraints. The main challenges lie in further strengthening public financial management arrangements to enhance their efficiency and improve compliance with rules and regulations, thereby strengthening accountability. The areas for focused attention in the short and medium terms are (a) enhanced effectiveness of planning, budgeting, and fund flow processes; (b) adequacy of staffing and capacity building of fiduciary staff; (c) strengthened monitoring through internal and external independent reviews at various levels; (d) enhanced transparency through complete roll-out of the Public Financial Management System (PFMS) up to the school level; (e) effective integration of books of accounts (of SSA, RMSA, and TA) under Samagra Shiksha; (f) dedicated complaints redressal system for procurement ; (g) strengthening contract management for delivery of goods and works; and (i) applying PforR policy exclusions, particularly with respect to exclusion of Bank-debarred firms and high-value contracts. C. Environment and Social 96. The proposed support under STARS is in the form of a hybrid operation comprising of a Program component using the Program for Results (PforR) instrument, and a technical assistance (TA) component using the Investment Project Financing (IPF) instrument. An Environmental and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA) was undertaken to (a) identify the environment and social effects of the Program, (b) assess the strengths and weaknesses of the legal, institutional, and implementation frameworks, and (c) recommend measures to strengthen national systems and capacity to deliver the PforR in a sustainable manner. The IPF component is primarily devoted to technical assistance activities (support to project management unit, independent verification agency, studies and impact evaluation, and knowledge sharing exposure visits). These activities were also assessed to find no underlying environment and social impacts, and hence no Safeguard Policies are triggered. The Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) under the IPF component will be supporting interventions to develop the capacity to adjust education delivery and training provision in anticipation of; and in response to a medical emergency/ crisis (such as improving online instruction, training and coaching of teachers, supplementary print materials etc.). There are no major environment and social impacts associated with these activities. Santisation and disinfection of schools will be supported under the PforR program, and mititgation measures and recommendations have been identified as part of the ESSA. 97. The findings of the ESSA are based on field visits and at the state, district and school levels, use of checklists on institutional and system needs pertaining to environment and social, and discussions with a large number of key stakeholders, including officials of the State Education Departments, District


Page 43 of 115

and Block level officials, public work departments, and tribal welfare departments. The ESSA also benefited from the experience of the implementation of the previous Environmental Management Framework (EMF) developed under RMSA program of the MHRD. The EMF, which includes the key environmental mitigation actions relevant to interventions under STARS, has been adopted under the Samagra Shiksha Framework and broadened to ECE and vocational training. The Samagra Shiksha Framework also specifies that school buildings under the program must be eco-friendly and confirm to national standards and guidelines on safety. It also prescribes safety precautions for pre-schools. The ESSA builds on the systems already in place and identifies opportunities for strengthening the existing institutional and operational capacities pertaining to environment and social issues in the Education Sector. 98. Potential environmental and social benefits of the Program will include (a) focus on adolescent girls’ through provision of separate toilets for girls, interventions to build life skills, communication models to improve schooling outcomes, and health/hygiene; (b) necessary amenities and access which is sensitive to gender and needs of CWSN (c) creating safe, clean and healthy learning environments. The Government of India already has in place guidelines for school safety to strengthen risk resilience of schools which will be utilized by the Program. The primary environmental risk of the Program arises with the renovating and upgrading classrooms which will have related impacts such as generation of dust and noise, generation of wastes, and occupational health and safety. Poor building design and management could lead to restricted access to people with disabilities; inadequate lighting and ventilation; inadequate water and sanitation facilities; fire and electrical safety risks; lack of attention to disaster-resilience; and exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOC) through building materials used. The key social risks would include maintaining on-campus safety for secondary and senior secondary schools as well as TEIs; and, since Samagra Shiksha and delivery of integrated education from pre-school to class 12 is relatively new, information asymmetries relating to ECE, vocational training, career counselling, can be expected in the short term with vulnerable groups. An environment and social screening will be carried out to ensure no sensitive receptors are being impacted (directly or indirectly) by project activities. 99. The ESSA suggests that these challenges can be addressed during the Program implementation through the following set of actions: (a) An environmental and social management specialist at the PMU level to institutionalize environment, health and safety management under STARS. The specialists will organize regular and periodic training programs for field engineers, BRPs, CRPs and SMCs on the provisions of the Environmental Management Framework relevant to STARS, and School Safety guidelines (b) develop and an adopt awareness and communication strategy to provide information about various Environmental and social aspects integrated in Samagra Shiksha, ECE and vocational courses and career counselling facilities and (c) develop a roadmap for aspirational districts and EBBs. The Program will ensure adequate resources are provided for and effective implementation of social and environmental safeguards systems under the Program. 100. Citizen Engagement: The operation has an all-encompassing provision for citizen engagement. School Management Committees envisaged in the RTE Act includes representation of parents (with mothers occupying more than half the slots), teachers, and principals. As envisioned in the Samagra Framework, these committees will be drivers of community engagement and will play a key role in the mapping exercise as well as preparing School Development Plans in an inclusive manner. States supported under STARS will develop training modules to strengthen capacity of SMC members. Further, per ESSA


Page 44 of 115

recommendations, SMCs will be in-charge of resolving complaints related to safety and addressing security concerns. This should lead to better planning, decision-making, and grievance redressal mechanisms at the school, district, and state levels—or at a minimum, more inclusively determined such mechanisms. 101. Climate Co-Benefits: Three states supported under STARS (Kerala, Maharashtra, and Odisha) have coastlines and are prone to natural disasters, such as floods, cyclones, etc. The schools located around these coastlines especially in Odisha and Kerala are used as evacuation shelters during floods/disasters and also withstand significant damage to learning spaces. The Samagra framework for Implementation40 successfully mainstreams disaster-mitigation measures and environmental good practices across key program interventions. Under STARS, Program interventions will (a) support roll-out of green skills under the vocational/occupational training intervention; (b) support eco-clubs in schools to empower students to participate and take up meaningful environmental activities and projects, and engage their parents and neighborhood communities to promote sound environmental behavior; (c) build capacity among mid-level professionals (e.g., BRPs and CRPs) on evacuation measures in the case of disasters; and (d) promote good practice measures, such as water-harvesting, nurturing kitchen gardens, plantations drives, etc., especially in co-located schools (see Annex 10 for details). D. Risk Assessment 102. Based on the integrated risk assessment carried out during preparation, the overall risk of Program is considered Substantial. The risks relating to sector strategies and policies, institutional capacity for implementation and sustainability, and fiduciary are rated Substantial. 103. Political and Governance: Moderate. The priority and commitment accorded to school education by successive national governments remains high. Samagra Shiksha Program is a flagship program of the Central government with uniform ownership across the States though it is often related to political alignment, which is susceptible to change over time. In addition, project management capabilities vary across States. Hence, the political and governance risks are rated as Substantial. The Project design has incorporated measures to mitigate such risks. Decentralized management systems have been prepared on the basis of clear technical criteria based on government systems. The Project will engage with the States, and sub-State level institutions early to build ownership, clarify roles and responsibility sharing. It also proposes TA support to improve capacities and decentralized management. 104. Macro-Economic Risk is Moderate. Until recently, this would have been rated Low in view of the robust finances and strong fundamentals of the economy. However, the supply and demand disruptions caused by COVID-19 will likely aggravate the economic slowdown and stress in the financial sector. In view of the rapidly evolving circumstances of the pandemic, it is difficult to predict to what extent this will affect the Indian economy and the STARS operation. The macroeconomic risk is therefore rated as Moderate. The World Bank has worked with the GoI to design an emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to monitor the evolution of the situation and to provide adapted support going forward.

40 An Integrated Scheme for School Education, Samagra Shiksha, MHRD 2018


Page 45 of 115

105. The risk relating to sector strategies and policies is rated as Substantial. The merger of SSA, RMSA and centrally sponsored scheme on teacher education into one may likely present some administrative and service delivery challenges during the initial years of implementation. In the event this happens, the World Bank will provide technical assistance and policy guidance, if needed, to help GoI achieve a smooth transition. 106. The risk relating to institutional capacity for implementation and sustainability is rated as Substantial. Some participating states have limited implementation capacity, and a considerable number of technical and fiduciary positions remain vacant at their State Implementation Societies (SISs). A PMU at the center and in the states, supported through the IPF component, will provide such technical assistance as may be needed to the SISs for monitoring project implementation and results. In addition, the less capacity challenged participating states will play an important role in sharing knowledge and experience on overcoming implementation challenges. 107. The Integrated Fiduciary Systems Assessment (IFSA) fiduciary risk is rated as Substantial. The financial management performance in the previous support to SSA and RMSA was rated Moderately Satisfactory. The main reasons were shortcomings with respect to financial management staff at the state and district levels, reliable information on financial data, and quality internal and external audit mechanisms (including resolution of external audit observations). The PMU at the center will hire a procurement expert and a financial management specialist with experience in externally funded projects to manage these fiduciary functions. In addition, a comprehensive training program will be implemented over the life of the project to train the PMU officials at the center and states. STARS will (i) strengthen monitoring through internal and external independent reviews at various levels; (d) enhance transparency through complete roll-out of the Public Financial Management System (PFMS) up to the school level; (e) support effective integration of books of accounts (of SSA, RMSA, and TA) under Samagra Shiksha; (f) include dedicated complaints redressal system for procurement; (g) strengthen contract management for delivery of goods and works; and (h) apply PforR policy exclusions, particularly with respect to exclusion of Bank-debarred firms and high-value contracts. 108. The current COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in school education. The risks from COVID-19 are explained in paragraph 3 of the PAD. The Program design supports addressing the education sector and broader development impacts of COVID-19 through Results Area 2. In addition, the IPF component under STARS includes a Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) that can be used for providing immediate response to an eligible crisis or emergency as needed.

.


Page 46 of 115

Results Framework COUNTRY: India

Strengthening Teaching-Learning And Results for States Program Development Objective(s)

The Project Development Objective (PDO) of the Operation is to improve the quality and governance of school education in selected states.

Program Development Objective Indicators by Objectives/Outcomes

RESULT_FRAME_TBL_ PD O

Indicator Name DLI Baseline Intermediate Targets End Target

1 2 3 4

Percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in selected states

Percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in selected states (Text)

No standardized national assessment providing comparable results over time; and no data on student proficiency levels; baseline to be established in Year 2

National Report for NAS 2017 with state and subject wise scaled scores for Grade 3 published by NCERT.

First administration of national standardized assessment for grade 3 in language and baseline established for percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in language in each selected state.

Assessment results analyzed, published, and findings used to prepare a timebound action plan for each selected state.

No Target.

Second administration of national standardized assessment for grade 3 and at least 2 percentage points increase in students achieving minimum proficiency in language over baseline in each selected state.

Secondary school completion rate in selected states (weighted average based on grade 9 enrolment)

Secondary school completion rate in selected states (weighted average based on

Overall: 75.6%; Female: 76.7%; and Male: 74.7%

(i) UDISE Flash Statistics for 2017-18 with latest data on secondary

No Target. (ii) Secondary school completion rate improved to 76.7%

No Target. (ii) Secondary school completion rate improved to 77.6%

ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK MATRIX


Page 47 of 115

RESULT_FRAME_TBL_ PD O


1 2 3 4

grade 9 enrolment) (Text) school completion rate published and made available for public access; and (ii) Secondary school completion rate improved to 76.0% (overall); 77.0% (female); and 75.0% (male)

(overall); 77.5% (female); and 75.8% (male).

(overall); 78.1% (female); and 77.1% (male).

Improved governance in selected states (measured by select indicators from MHRD’s Perf. Grd. Index)

Improved governance in selected states (as measured by select indicators from MHRD’s Performance Grading Index) (Text)

Himachal Pradesh: 55/123; Kerala: 76/123; Madhya Pradesh: 51/123; Maharashtra: 8/123; Odisha: 42/123; and Rajasthan: 55/123

State performance measurement index developed, state performance assessed, and report released by MHRD for academic year 2018-19.

Governance index score improved by at least 4 points over baseline in each selected state.

No Target.



.


Page 48 of 115

.

Intermediate Results Indicator by Results Areas

RESULT_FRAME_TBL_ IO


1 2 3 4

Strengthening Early Years Education

Percentage of teachers trained in ECE, and early reading and numeracy (Text)

Limited or no (i) ECE, and (ii) early reading and numeracy in-service training opportunities available to teachers.

(i) 20% ECE teachers/facilitators trained per state on ECE training modules in at least 3 selected states.

(i) 40% ECE teachers/facilitators trained per state on ECE training modules in at least 3 selected states.(ii) Early reading and numeracy training provided to 20% of teachers of grades 1-2 per state in at least 3 selected states.



(ii) Early reading and numeracy training provided to 75% teachers of grades 1-2 per state in at least 3 selected states.

Percentage of preschool classes/ECE centers and early grades (grade 1-2) with relevant TLM (Text)

States are yet to develop and notify a standardized package of TLM for preschool classes/ECE centers, and early grades (grade 1-2).

(i) Standardized ECE TLM package available in at least 30% of preschool classes/ECE centers per state in at least 3 selected states

(i) Standardized ECE TLM package available in at least 60% of preschool classes/ECE centers per state in at least 3 selected states. (ii) Standardized TLM package for supporting early reading and numeracy available in at least 30% of schools with grades 1-2 per state in at least 3 selected states.

(i) Standardized ECE TLM package available in at least 80% of preschool classes/ECE centers per state in at least 3 selected states. (ii) Standardized TLM package for supporting early reading and numeracy available in at least 60% of schools with grades 1-2 per state in at least 3 selected states.

(ii) Standardized TLM package for supporting early reading and numeracy available in at least 80% of schools with grades 1-2 per state in at least 3 selected states.

No Target.

Improving Learning Assessment Systems

Participation in international standardized learning assessment (PISA) (Text)

No recent internationally comparable data on student learning levels in

Completion of PISA 2021 Field Trial; and submission of India’s

Completion of PISA 2021 Main Survey.

Public release of National Report for India for PISA 2021.

Detailed analysis of national results for PISA 2021 completed, and

No Target.


Page 49 of 115



1 2 3 4

India field trial report for PISA 2021.

report published highlighting proposed policy actions for India.

Strengthened learning assessment systems and capabilities at national and state levels (Text)

No independent National Assessment Center and/or official assessment cell; and inadequate assessment capabilities in selected states.

(i) Independent National Assessment Center notified (ii) State assessment cell notified, and budget approved in at least 3 selected states.

(i) Review of national examinations with time bound reform action plan completed and report published highlighting proposed reform agenda (ii) Teacher training modules on CCE and classroom-based assessment developed by state assessment cell in at least 3 selected states.

(i) Completed set up of National Assessment Center (ii) At least 20 percent teachers trained per state on CCE and classroom assessment in at least 3 selected states.

(i) Standardized assessment tools aligned with competency-based learning standards developed to measure national levels of student achievement in language and math in grades 3, 5 and 8 (ii) Learning outcomes based online item banks developed for use by teachers in at least 3 selected states.

(ii) At least 50 percent teachers trained per state on CCE and classroom assessment in at least 3 selected states.

Improving Teacher Performance and Classroom Practice

Strengthened in-service teacher training (cumulative) and teacher knowledge in selected states (Text)

Teachers have limited or no access to need based in-service training

Self-assessment/ evaluation of teacher subject knowledge to identify teachers’ training needs in at least 3 selected states

Online portal developed to share menu of training modules for teachers by grade and subject/topic with complementary materials for teachers in at least 3 selected states.

Percentage of teachers completing needs-based training per state in at least 3 selected states, Primary: 20%; Upper Primary: 20%; and Secondary: 20%.

Self-assessment/ evaluation of teacher subject knowledge and findings used to revise in-service training modules in at least 3 selected states.

Percentage of teachers completing needs-based training per state in at least 3 selected states, Primary: 40%; Upper Primary: 40%; and Secondary: 40%

Percentage of schools implementing learning enhancement program for upper primary and secondary grades in selected states (Text)

States lack large scale learning enhancement programs.

Existing learning enhancement programs/pilots reviewed in at least 3 selected states and revised program

Learning enhancement program covers at least 20% of upper primary and secondary schools per state in at least 3 selected states.





Page 50 of 115



1 2 3 4

prepared for roll out.

Governance and Decentralized Management for Improved Service Delivery

Improved teacher management in selected states (Text)

Weak or no teacher management systems and performance evaluation standards.

Online database of teachers with required information developed in at least 3 selected states; and IT architecture developed for electronic teacher attendance system in at least 3 selected states.

Teacher performance standards developed and published in at least 2 selected states.

ACR format for teacher evaluation revised to include objective teacher performance standards in at least 2 selected states.

Transparent online system used for teacher recruitment and transfer decisions in at least 3 selected states.

Teacher performance evaluated based on performance on standards developed in at least 2 selected states

Strengthened school management in selected states (Text)

Limited or no structured in-service professional development opportunities for BRCs, CRCs and School Leaders.

(i) BRC and CRC organizational role and leadership development plan prepared by each selected state (ii) Leadership training plan for Head Teachers and Principals prepared and finalized by each selected state.

(i) At least 20% of BRCCs and CRCCs trained as per plan in each selected state (ii) At least 20% of Head Teachers /Principals trained as per plan in each selected state.



(i) At least 75% of BRCCs and CRCCs trained as per plan in each selected state. (ii) At least 80% of Head Teachers /Principals trained as per plan in each selected state.

Improved education service delivery in selected states through partnerships and school monitoring (Text)

Minimal role of non-government agencies and private service providers in education service delivery in selected states.

Draft regulatory framework for involvement of non-government agencies and private service providers in education service delivery developed in each selected state.

At least 2 partnerships established and implementation initiated to pilot non-government agency and/or private service provider supported innovations.

At least 4 partnerships established and implementation initiated to pilot non-government agency and/or private service provider supported innovations.

No Target.

Non-government agencies and private service providers supported pilot interventions evaluated in each selected state.

Strengthening School-to-Work Transition

Career guidance program for Poor or undefined career A well-defined career At least 20% percent of At least 40% percent of At least 60% percent of At least 75% percent of


Page 51 of 115



1 2 3 4

improved transition from school to further education and careers; positively targeting adolescent girls (Text)

guidance program in existence.

guidance program with trade specific and educational level specific information created in at least 2 selected states.

secondary school students (of which 10 percentage points are adolescent girls) provided with career guidance per state in at least 2 selected states.




Labor-market relevant courses offered at the secondary and higher secondary stages. (Text)

Lack of clarity on statutory regulatory structure for vocational education.

Baseline established for number of 14 to 18-year-old out of school children and identification of schools suitable for school campus-based vocational education pilot in at least 3 states.

School campus-based vocational education pilot initiated in at least 50 schools (with 30% participants being adolescent girls) per state in at least 3 states.



School campus-based vocational education pilot assessed, and strategy developed for upscaling in at least 3 selected states.

Cross-learning Between States

Partnerships developed to facilitate cross-learning between states. (Text)

Platforms/ channels yet to be initiated to facilitate inter-states learning.

MHRD identifies and establishes at least 12 interstate learning partnerships by connecting each selected state with at least two non-selected states.

At least one knowledge sharing workshop held under each inter-state learning partnership.




.


Page 52 of 115

.

Monitoring & Evaluation Plan: PDO Indicators

Indicator Name Definition/Description Frequency Datasource Methodology for Data Collection

Responsibility for Data Collection

Percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in selected states

The indicator focuses on tracking improvement in grade 3 language scores/proficiency using a standardized national level learning assessment based on pre-defined, official, grade specific learning competencies/ standards; and post assessment analysis and utilization of assessment results for planning policy and academic interventions. In this direction, the indicator focuses on the release of state and subject wise scaled scores for Grade 3 from the most recent round of the national level student assessment; timely availability of results from standardized national level student assessments (that will establish indicator baseline and end-line;

Annual (Except Year 4)

Official document/report with subject and state wise student scales scores for Grade 3; and National Level Student Assessment – Test Development and Design Document; and Test Results Reports.

Official documents and reports submitted by MHRD.

MHRD


Page 53 of 115

years 2 and 5); and results analysis to inform policy iterations and academic planning/ interventions (year 3).

Secondary school completion rate in selected states (weighted average based on grade 9 enrolment)

The indicator focuses on tracking improvement in secondary school completion rate. In year 1, the indicator tracks the public release of the final education MIS statistics for the year 2017-18. In years 1, 3 and 5, the indicator tracks the number of students sitting for Grade 10 examinations as a percentage of number of children enrolled in Grade 9 in the previous year.

Years 1, 3 and 5.

MHRD’s school education MIS.

Weighted average for selected states calculated using results reported in MHRD’s school education MIS or any other official document/ data source provided by MHRD.

MHRD

Improved governance in selected states (as measured by select indicators from MHRD’s Performance Grading Index)

The indicator focuses on measuring improvements in state scores/performance (for the six selected states) on an index comprising of indicators that capture reforms in areas related to teacher management; and decentralized (sub-district and school level) governance, monitoring

Annual (except year 3)

MHRD’s official state performance measurement index; any other official document, MIS output or index (approved by MHRD) that provides data

Results reported in MHRD's Performance Grading Index or school education MIS outputs officially shared/ released by MHRD.

MHRD.


Page 54 of 115

and management of school education. In year 1, the indicator tracks the development, administration and release of the second round of an index (with a dedicated component on governance processes) that MHRD uses to measure state performance. This is essential for states to be able to continue to track their performance and accordingly plan initiatives. This index will (at least) include the following indicators: 1. Percentage of Upper Primary schools meeting norms of subject-teacher as per RTE 2. Percentage of Secondary Schools who have teachers for all core subjects 3. Percentage of average daily attendance of teachers recorded in an electronic attendance

on the nine governance process indicators.


Page 55 of 115

system 4. Number of new teachers recruited through a transparent online recruitment system as a percentage of total number of new teachers recruited 5. Number of teachers transferred through a transparent online system as a percentage of total number of teachers transferred 6. Number of head-teachers/principals recruited through a merit-based selection system as a percentage of total number of head-teachers/principals recruited 7. Percentage of schools that have completed self-evaluation and made school improvement plans during the financial year 8. Percentage of schools visited for academic inspections 9. Percentage of academic positions filled in state and district academic


Page 56 of 115

institutions (SCERT/SIE & DIETs) at the beginning of the given academic year In years 2, 4 and 5 the indicator tracks improvement in each selected state’s performance/scores on an index based on the above indicators. .


Page 57 of 115

.

Monitoring & Evaluation Plan: Intermediate Results Indicators

Indicator Name Definition/Description Frequency Datasource Methodology for Data Collection

Responsibility for Data Collection

Percentage of teachers trained in ECE, and early reading and numeracy

The indicator focuses on tracking of teacher’s in-service training in the areas of early childhood education, and early reading and numeracy (grades 1 and 2). It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator.

Annual

Official documents (teacher training manuals) and MHRD’s school education MIS.

Official documents (teacher training manuals) submitted by selected states and state level data from MHRD’s education MIS.

MHRD

Percentage of preschool classes/ECE centers and early grades (grade 1-2) with relevant TLM

The indicator focuses on tracking development and provision of standardized Teaching Learning Material (TLM) for supporting classroom instruction for ECE and for early reading and numeracy (grades 1 and 2). It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator.

Annual (Except year 5)

Official documents (specification for standardized TLM kit) and MHRD’s school education MIS.

Official documents (specification for standardized TLM kit) submitted by selected states and state level data from MHRD’s education MIS.

MHRD

Participation in international standardized learning assessment (PISA)

The indicator tracks key milestones in India’s participation in the

Annual (Except year 5)

Official OECD documents and reports,

Official OECD and MHRD documents, and report submitted by

MHRD


Page 58 of 115

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2021. In this direction, the indicator puts in place targets to ensure timely completion of PISA 2021 field trial and timely submission of India’s field trial report for PISA 2021 (year 1), timely completion of PISA 2021 main survey (year 2), timely public release of National Report for India for PISA 2021 (year 3), and timely development and release of a report that analyzed national results for PISA 2021 and proposes necessary policy actions (year 4)..

and official MHRD documents and reports.

MHRD.

Strengthened learning assessment systems and capabilities at national and state levels

The indicator tracks measures towards strengthening national and state level institutional capacity in the area of learning outcomes assessment; and the use of assessment tools to improve classroom

Annual

Official state government documents and reports and data from MHRD’s school education MIS and state

Official MHRD and state government documents, reports and MIS records submitted by MHRD.

MHRD


Page 59 of 115

instruction. At the national level, the indicator tracks the notification (year 1) and operation (year 3) of an Assessment Agency for developing, implementing, analyzing and reporting learning outcome assessments. In year 4 it tracks timely development of standardized assessment tools aligned with competency-based learning standards developed to measure national levels of student achievement in language and math in grades 3, 5 and 8. Finally, it also tracks timely review of national examinations and the development and publishing of a timebound reform action plan (year 2). At the state level, the indicator tracks the

governments’ official education MIS/reports.


Page 60 of 115

notification of state assessment cells (year 1) that can develop modules for training of teachers in the areas of continuous comprehensive evaluation of student performance and on classroom-based assessments of students learning levels (year 2); and develop learning outcomes based online item banks that teachers can use for classroom-based assessments (year 4). In years 3 and 5, the indicator tracks the percentage of teachers trained on CCE and classroom assessment. At the state level, it also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator.

Strengthened in-service teacher training (cumulative) and teacher knowledge in selected states

The indicator focuses on tracking the development of online portal(s)/channel(s) for provision of need-based teacher training that is

Annual.

Official state government documents and reports and data from MHRD’s

Official MHRD and state government documents, reports, and MIS records submitted by MHRD

MHRD


Page 61 of 115

informed by periodic self-assessments of teachers’ subject knowledge. It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator. In year 1 and 4, the indicator tracks timely completion of self-assessment/evaluation of teacher subject and the use of findings to revise in-service training modules. In year 2, the indicator tracks the timely development and operationalization of online portal(s) that offers teachers with a menu of training modules and complementary resource materials by grade and subject/topic. In year 3 and 5, the indicator tracks data on the percentage of primary, upper primary and secondary provided with

school education MIS, and state governments’ official education MIS/reports.


Page 62 of 115

need-based in-service training.

Percentage of schools implementing learning enhancement program for upper primary and secondary grades in selected states

The indicator focusses on tracking the timely review revision and rollout of existing learning enhancement programs (remedial education initiatives). It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator. In year 1, the indicator tracks the timely review and revision of states’ existing learning enhancement programs. From year 2 to 5, the indicator tracks data on the percentage of school covered under the new/revised learning enhancement program.

Annual

Official state government documents and reports and data from MHRD’s school education MIS and state governments’ official education MIS/reports.


MHRD

Improved teacher management in selected states

The indicator focuses on tracking development and introduction of online platforms and standardized systems/processes for teacher recruitment,

Annual

Official state government documents and reports and data from MHRD’s


MHRD


Page 63 of 115

management, transfers and promotions. It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator. In year 1, the indicator focuses on tracking timely development of an online database of teacher information and an IT architecture for an electronic teacher attendance system. In year 2, 3 and 5, the indicator focuses on tracking development (year 2) of teacher performance standards, revision of teachers’ annual confidential report format to include teacher performance standards (year 3), and use (year 5) of teacher performance standards for teacher evaluation. In year 4, the indicator will track timely development

school education MIS and state governments’ official education MIS/reports.


Page 64 of 115

and roll out of an online portal for transparent teacher recruitment and transfers.

Strengthened school management in selected states

The indicator focuses on tracking initiatives for strengthening the capacity of decentralized, block and cluster level education functionaries; and school leadership in areas of school governance, management and monitoring. It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator. In year 1, the indicator tracks the development of organizational roles and training plans for capacity building of block and cluster level education functionaries (BRCs and CRCs); and the development of training plans for capacity building of school leadership (elementary school head teachers and

Annual

Official state government documents and reports and data from MHRD’s school education MIS and state governments’ official education MIS/reports.


MHRD


Page 65 of 115

secondary/senior secondary school principals). In year 2 to 5, the indicator tracks data on the percentage of BRCs, CRCs, head teachers and school principals trained as per the plans developed in year 1.

Improved education service delivery in selected states through partnerships and school monitoring

The indicator focuses on tracking establishment, operationalization and evaluation of non-state actor (private sector and non-government organization) partnerships in the area of school education governance, management, monitoring, teacher training, school service delivery reform, and overall education service delivery. The indicator will also track development of regulatory frameworks to guide, manage and monitor such partnerships. In year 1, the indicator

Annual

Official state government documents and reports.

Official state government documents and reports submitted by MHRD.

MHRD


Page 66 of 115

tracks the development of a draft regulatory framework for management of partnerships with non-government and private sector organizations. A separate draft framework could be developed by each state or a single draft framework could be developed by MHRD and adopted by the states. In year 2, 3 and 5, the indicator tracks establishment and implementation (year 2 and 3) and evaluation (year 5) of partnerships with non-government and private sector organizations.

Career guidance program for improved transition from school to further education and careers; positively targeting adolescent girls

The indicator focuses on tracking the development and roll out of a career guidance program with trade specific and educational level specific information for providing

Annual

Official state government documents and reports and data from MHRD’s school

Official state government documents, reports and MIS records submitted by MHRD.

MHRD


Page 67 of 115

career counseling services/support to secondary and senior secondary school students. It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator. In year 1, the indicator focuses on development of a career guidance system (online or offline) with trade and education level specific information; and with a focus on adolescent girls In year 2 to 5, the indicator tracks gender disaggregated data on percentage of school students provided with career guidance using a career guidance system.

education MIS and state governments’ official education MIS/reports.

Labor-market relevant courses offered at the secondary and higher secondary stages.

The indicator focuses on tracking the development, implementation and evaluation of pilots in the area of school campus based vocational education for students who in the

Annual.

Official state government documents and reports and data from state governments’

Official state government documents, reports and MIS records submitted by MHRD.

MHRD


Page 68 of 115

absence of such an initiative, would tend to dropout of the formal education system. It also tracks the number of states that implement the activities being tracked through the indicator. In year 1, the indicator tracks the timely computation of a baseline to ascertain number of out of school 14 -18 years old children, and thereby identify the schools where such a pilot should be implemented. In year 2 to 4, the indicator tracks data on the number of schools covered under the pilot; and the percentage share of girls in the number of students enrolled in the school campus based vocational education pilot. In year 5, the indicator tracks the timely completion of an

official education MIS/reports.


Page 69 of 115

assessment/evaluation of the pilot, and the development of a strategy (based on assessment/evaluation results) for scaling up the pilot.

Partnerships developed to facilitate cross-learning between states.

The indicator focuses on tracking the establishment of partnerships for regular exchange of knowledge between the selected states and state not directly covered under the operation. In year 1, the indicator will track the timely establishment of partnerships between state; pairing each selected state with two non-selected states. In year 2 to 5, the indicator will track the organization of at least one knowledge sharing workshop under each inter-state learning partnership.

Annual.

Official MHRD documents and reports and official state government documents and reports.

Official MHRD and state government documents and reports submitted by MHRD.

MHRD

.


Page 70 of 115

.

. .

Disbursement Linked Indicators Matrix

DLI_TBL_MATRIX

DLI 1 Increase in students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in selected states

Type of DLI Scalability Unit of Measure Total Allocated Amount (USD) As % of Total Financing Amount

Outcome Yes Text 50,000,000.00 10.00

Period Value Allocated Amount (USD) Formula

Baseline Baseline not available, to be computed in Year 2

April 2020 to March 2021 (Year 1)

National Report for NAS 2017 with state and subject wise scaled scores for Grade 3 published by NCERT.

7,000,000.00 On target achievement


First administration of national standardized assessment for grade 3 in language and baseline established for percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in language in each selected state.



Assessment results analyzed, published, and findings used to prepare a timebound action plan for each selected state



No result 0.00 No result

April 2024 to March 2025 Second administration of national standardized 30,000,000.00 $2.5 M per state per %age point

ANNEX 2. Disbursement Linked Indicators, Disbursement Arrangements and Verification Protocols


Page 71 of 115

(Year 5) assessment for grade 3 and at least 2 percentage points increase in students achieving minimum proficiency in language over baseline in each selected state.

DLI_TBL_MATRIX

DLI 2 Improvement in secondary school completion rate in selected states


Outcome Yes Text 30,000,000.00 6.00


Baseline Himachal Pradesh 81.1%, Kerala 87.3%, Madhya Pradesh 61.9%, Maharashtra 81.7%, Odisha 74.2% and Rajasthan 77.5%


(i) UDISE Flash Statistics for 2017-18 with latest data on secondary school completion rate published and made available for public access; and (ii) 0.4 percentage points improvement over baseline in each selected state

10,800,000.00 $6 M for (i) & $0.2 M per 0.1 %age point inc per state


No Result 0.00 No Result


1.1 percentage point improvement over baseline in each selected state

8,400,000.00 $0.2 M per 0.1 %age point increase per state




2.0 percentage points improvement over baseline in each selected state

10,800,000.00 $0.2 M per 0.1 %age point increase per state


Page 72 of 115

DLI_TBL_MATRIX

DLI 3 Improvement in governance index scores in selected states


Outcome Yes Text 20,000,000.00 4.00


Baseline Himachal Pradesh: 55/123; Kerala: 76/123; Madhya Pradesh: 51/123; Maharashtra: 8/123; Odisha: 42/123; and Rajasthan: 55/123


State performance measurement index developed, state performance assessed, and report released by MHRD for academic year 2018-19.




7,200,000.00 $0.3 M per one-point increase per state










Page 73 of 115

DLI_TBL_MATRIX

DLI 4 Strengthened learning assessment systems


Intermediate Outcome No Text 25,000,000.00 5.00


Baseline No recent internationally comparable data on student learning levels in India; and no independent National Assessment Centre conducting a standardized national level assessment.


Completion of PISA 2021 field trial and finalization of India’s field trial report for PISA 2021; and Independent National Assessment Centre notified by MHRD.

8,000,000.00 $4 M on achievement of each sub-target


Completion of PISA 2021 Main Survey 4,500,000.00 On target achievement


Public release of National Report for India for PISA 2021



Detailed analysis of national results for PISA 2021 completed and report published highlighting proposed policy actions for India; and Set up of national assessment center completed by MHRD.

8,000,000.00 $4 M on achievement of each sub-target




Page 74 of 115

DLI_TBL_MATRIX

DLI 5 Partnerships developed to facilitate cross-learning between states


Intermediate Outcome No Text 10,000,000.00 2.00


Baseline Channels yet to be initiated to facilitate inter-states learning.


MHRD identifies and establishes interstate learning partnerships by connecting each selected state with at least two non-selected states.



At least one knowledge sharing workshops held under each inter-state learning partnership.











DLI_TBL_MATRIX

DLI 6 State level improved service delivery


Intermediate Outcome Yes Text 340,000,000.00 68.00



Page 75 of 115

Baseline Selected state score on every SIG component is zero percent.


SIG Manual prepared, approved and adopted by MHRD; and Selected State scores 20 percent on at least the ‘strengthened service delivery’ SIG component in accordance with the terms of the SIG Manual

76,000,000.00 US$ 10 M for manual, $5 M for SSD & $3 M each for other comp


Selected State scores 40 percent on at least the ‘strengthened service delivery’ SIG component in accordance with the terms of the SIG Manual

66,000,000.00 $5 M for SSD target & $3 M each for other component’s target










.


Page 76 of 115

.

Verification Protocol Table: Disbursement Linked Indicators

DLI_TBL_VERIFICATION

DLI 1 Increase in students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in selected states

Description

The indicator measures improvement in grade 3 language scores in selected states as measured by their performance on a

national standardized assessment. The indicator also tracks the usage of the assessment results for development of time

bound action plans for the improvement of learning levels. The DLI will be achieved when: Year 1: National Report for NAS

2017 with state and subject wise scaled scores for Grade 3 published by NCERT; and officially shared with selected states by

the MHRD. Year 2: First round of national standardized assessment for grade 3 language is completed by MHRD and

baselines established for the percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in language in each selected state. Year

3: Results from first round of national standardized assessment analyzed, published, and a time bound action plan prepared

for each selected state. Year 4: No DLI target. Year 5: Second round of national standardized assessment for grade 3 in

language completed by MHRD and at least 2 percentage points increase in students achieving minimum proficiency in

language over baseline in each selected state.

Data source/ Agency MHRD’s official communications/ documents; state education departments’ official communications/ documents; and

grade 3 National Standardized Assessment Report.

Verification Entity Independent Verification Agency

Procedure

In year 1, MHRD will formally submit a document published by the NCERT; detailing state and subject wise scaled scores for

Grade 3 from NAS 2017

In years 2 and 5, MHRD will formally submit the assessment framework and assessment report, which will be reviewed for

adequacy.

In year 3, MHRD will formally submit the publicly accessible national standardized assessment results report for grade 3.

MHRD in partnership with the 6 selected states, will also submit an official document that includes a review and analysis of

the assessment results and provides a time bound action plan for improvement of learning levels (over a three-year period).


DLI 2 Improvement in secondary school completion rate in selected states

Description

The indicator tracks the number of students sitting for grade 10 examination as a percentage of number of children enrolled

in grade 9 in the previous year. The DLI will be achieved when: Year 1: MHRD publicly releases the UDISE Flash Statistics

2017-18; and each selected state improves secondary school completion rate by 0.4 percentage points over baseline. Year


Page 77 of 115

2: No DLI target. Year 3: Each selected state improves secondary school completion rate by 1.1 percentage points over

baseline. Year 4: No DLI target. Year 5: Each selected state improves secondary school completion rate by 2.0 percentage

points over baseline.

Data source/ Agency MHRD’s official communications/ documents and MIS data/reports.

Verification Entity Independent Verification Agency.

Procedure

In year 1, the IVA will check if MHRD has publicly released the UDISE Flash Statistics (2017-18)

In year 1, 3 and 5, MHRD will officially submit MIS data for state wise secondary school completion rate.


DLI 3 Improvement in governance index scores in selected states

Description

The indicator tracks improvement on an index comprising of nine ‘governance’ related indicators that are a subset of the set

of indicators used by MHRD for annual performance grading of states. This subset of indicators tracks performance on

teacher management; decentralized school management; school level planning; and human resource adequacy at state and

district level teacher training institutions. The DLI will be achieved when: Year 1: The report of the second performance

grading index (academic year 2018-19) is released by MHRD. Year 2: Each selected state improves its governance index

score by at least 4 points over baseline. Year 3: No DLI target. Year 4: Each selected state improves its governance index

score by at least 8 points over baseline. Year 5: Each selected state improves its governance index score by at least 10 points

over baseline.

Data source/ Agency MHRD’s official communications; disclosed report; and MHRD education MIS.


Procedure

In year 1, MHRD will formally submit the documents detailing the design (including scoring methodology), data collection

and validation, and results of the second performance grading index.

In year 2, 4 and 5, MHRD will formally submit the raw data used for computing scores; either along with the publicly

accessible version of the year performance grading index report; or as a standalone electronic spreadsheet in case the index

is not computed/released in the particular year.


Page 78 of 115


DLI 4 Strengthened learning assessment systems

Description

The indicator tracks India’s planning, preparation, and participation in the Programme for International Student Assessment

(PISA) 2021. Further, it tracks the extent to which the institutions established to manage India’s participation in PISA 2021,

and the investments made in their capacity development, are leveraged to enhance the national standardized assessment

program. The DLI will be achieved when: Year 1: Field trial for PISA 2021 is completed and field trial report finalized; and

notification of the establishment of a national assessment center that can manage India's national level student assessment

as well as India's participation in international level student assessments. Year 2: PISA 2021 main survey is completed. Year

3: India’s national report for PISA 2021 is publicly released and designated Assessment Agency is operational. Year 4: A

detailed analysis of national results for PISA 2021 is completed, and report published by MHRD highlighting proposed policy

actions for the country; and setup of the national assessment center is completed by MHRD. Year 5: No DLI target.

Data source/ Agency PISA reports/ documents and MHRD’s official communications/ documents.


Procedure

In years 1 to 4, for PISA-related DLI targets, MHRD will officially submit the Field Trial report for PISA 2021; the PISA main

survey completion report; and India’s national report for PISA 2021. For Assessment Agency-related DLI targets, MHRD will

submit the official document designating an Assessment Agency for managing international and national assessments in

India.


DLI 5 Partnerships developed to facilitate cross-learning between states

Description

The indicator tracks the extent to which initiatives, learning and materials developed by selected states are shared with

non-selected states to facilitate adaptation and replication of best practices. The DLI will be achieved when: Year 1: MHRD

identifies and establishes at least 12 interstate learning partnerships by connecting each selected state with at least two

non-selected states. Year 2: At least one knowledge sharing workshops held under each inter-state learning partnership.

Year 3: At least one knowledge sharing workshops held under each inter-state learning partnership. Year 4: At least one

knowledge sharing workshops held under each inter-state learning partnership. Year 5: At least one knowledge sharing

workshops held under each inter-state learning partnership.

Data source/ Agency MHRD’s and state education departments’ official communications/ documents.


Page 79 of 115


Procedure

In Year 1, MHRD will submit a document listing out the various inter-state partnerships proposed under the operation along

with the rationale for each proposed partnership.

In year 2 to 5, MHRD will submit a brief report summarizing the learning objective for each workshop held, the lessons/best

practices shared/discussed, and a listing of any resource material shared between the states.



Description

The indicator tracks state performance and progress on a state incentive grant scorecard. The DLI will be achieved when:

Year 1: State Incentive Grant Manual prepared, released and adopted by MHRD; and at least one selected state scores 20

percent on at least the ‘Strengthened Service Delivery’ SIG component in accordance with the terms of the SIG Manual Year

2: At least one selected state scores 40 percent on at least the ‘Strengthened Service Delivery’ SIG component in

accordance with the terms of the SIG Manual Year 3: At least one selected state scores 60 percent on at least the

‘Strengthened Service Delivery’ SIG component in accordance with the terms of the SIG Manual Year 4: At least one

selected state scores 80 percent on at least the ‘Strengthened Service Delivery’ SIG component in accordance with the

terms of the SIG Manual Year 5: At least one selected state scores 100 percent on at least the ‘Strengthened Service

Delivery’ SIG component in accordance with the terms of the SIG Manual

Data source/ Agency MHRD’s official documents/ communications; state education departments’ official documents/ communications; and

MHRD education MIS and state education MIS.


Procedure

In year 1, MHRD will submit the State Incentive Grant Manual

In year 1 to 5, MHRD with support from states will share the data/information on various SIG scorecard components and

indicators. The IVA will validate the data/information submitted and compute the indicator and component wise scores. For

data/information validation, the IVA will rely on a combination of government notification/ documents; and disclosed

education MIS. .


Page 80 of 115

ANNEX 3. SUMMARY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

COUNTRY : India Strengthening Teaching-Learning And Results for States

109. Strategic Relevance: STARS is strategically relevant to India as it mirrors three important priority areas that are relevant to the country.

a. The Project is consistent with the World Bank Group Country Partnership Strategy FY18-22 discussed by the Board on July 25, 2018 (Report No. 126667-IN). It embodies the tenets of the CPF by repositioning the school education sector in two ways: it moves (i) from supporting large national programs to more state level engagements (ii) shifts from supporting schemes to strengthening systems. Drawing upon the CPF, the sector reinvents itself- from primarily serving as a “lending Bank” to playing the role of a “leveraging Bank”- leveraging government fiscal programs and crowding in non-state actor collaborations for complementary activities for improved educational service delivery. It includes selective engagement with the transformational national programs like the Samagra Shiksha while developing strong strategic state partnerships to improve implementation capability and address state-specific development priorities. Not all states can be covered in this manner; the focus has been on a group of states that are representative of Indian diversity; these include some ‘Learning States’ (that need to still move up the educational reform agenda) some ‘Lighthouse States’ (that have nudged the reform process substantively with demonstrable results).

b. Addressing the global learning crisis: The school education strategy draws significantly from the

WBG flagship reports- the World Development Report (WDR- 2018), Learning to Realize Education’s Promise; and The Changing Nature of Work (WDR 2019). It addresses what matters most for improving learning: ensuring that all children are off to a good start and prepared to learn at school; building teacher’s skills and motivation through effective professional development; strengthening implementation and management capacity throughout the education system and prioritizing support through use of learning metrics to guide improvements in system performance. These are embedded in the operation design.

c. Bank as a Knowledge Partner: Evidence Based Operation Design: The contours of STARS have

been formed with evidence-based studies to guide operation design. (i)State selection is based on grading indices prepared by the MHRD (Performance Grading Index) and the NITI AYOG (School Education Quality Index)- it defines the Learning and Lighthouse States. (ii) Strategic areas of support have been identified based on a study of global and national schools on What makes an Effective School (public, private, private-aided). (iii) Fiscal transfers to states would be defined by exploring public expenditure reviews on school education at different stages in the states. (iv) India’s examination reform process has been guided by global experiences and how major cognate countries have addressed the issue. (v) School to Work transition strategies are being worked out in convergence with the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, GOI and the MHRD to eliminate regulatory overlaps, bidding on synergies of employer connect agencies like the National Skills Development Corporation and Sector Skills Councils under the MSDE. (vi) Activities for leveraging technology in education have been identified according to the World Bank’s Education Technology Approach Paper and strategy for disruptive


Page 81 of 115

technologies that are in turn based on global experiences and research on integration and use of technology in teaching and learning.

d. Addressing post COVID-19 priorities would be supported; MHRD is already taking some key initiatives like use of digital resources/modifying the academic calendar/examination reform. The CERC component will approximately provide strategic technical assistance to help devise solutions to the emergent crisis in school education.

110. Project Development Objective: The Program Development Objective of the Operation is to improve the quality and governance of school education in selected states 111. PDO Level Indicators include:

• Percentage of students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in select states

• Secondary school completion rate in select states (weighted average based on grade 9 enrolment)

• Improved governance in select states (as measured by select indicators from MHRD’s Performance Grading Index)

112. Project Scope: The Operation will be aligned to the Government’s larger school education program, the centrally sponsored scheme of Samagra Shiksha. The World Bank PforR program under STARS will be moving away from a sector wide approach of supporting the entire centrally sponsored scheme of Samagra Shiksha, towards supporting strategically identified components of Samagra Shiksha the government’s school education program. The scope of STARS will be to carve out areas of support from the Samagra Shiksha that would include (i) providing support at the federal level to strategically critical areas for meeting requirements of improving education outcomes like strengthening early childhood education, learning assessment systems and governance reform (ii) strategically engage in 6 select states of India to bring to scale carefully chosen components and innovative approaches that would help meet the development objective of the program. This tiered approach will address challenges of Learning States that need more support to improve their reform initiatives (Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Odisha) and share the success of the more progressive Lighthouse States (Himachal Pradesh, Kerala and Rajasthan) to scale up their reform initiatives and strengthen areas that need support financing. 113. Technical Soundness: The operation presents the key issues as its key components that are globally recognized as addressing matters that affect learning; STARS will focus two major areas: a national component and a state component with five sub-components:

National Component State Component

• Efforts towards improving and tracking school completion

rates at secondary levels

• Monitoring improvement in governance scores of states

through incentivizing reforms through State Incentive

Grants

• Strengthening Early Years Education

• Improving Learning Assessment Systems

• Improving Teacher Performance and Classroom Practice

• Strengthening School to Work/ Transition;

• Strengthening Governance and Decentralized


Page 82 of 115

• Strengthening Learning Assessment Systems at the

national level

• National Learning Center, that will leverage the

experiences of the states selected for the operation by

collecting, curating, and sharing these experiences with

other states

Management

114. The components can be categorized under the following critical areas of support:

(i) Ensuring that all Children are off to a Good Start and prepared and motivated to learn at school

through addressing the issue of improved learning in the early years. STARS will support activities and initiatives that are compatible with the ECE service delivery models adopted by individual states. The unifying focus will be on providing students in each state with learning opportunities that cater to their individual needs. In particular, STARS will assist states to improve the quality of their foundational learning by providing support for: enhanced classroom processes are child friendly, developmentally appropriate, and stimulating; provide developmentally appropriate and standardized Teaching Learning Material (TLM) kits; in-service professional development opportunities for state, district, sub-district, and school-level education functionaries and parental engagement strategies to enhance parents’ awareness of the importance of ECE. Technology based mobile app will be used for monitoring of classroom processes in the early years to ensure greater teachers time on task and developmentally appropriate practices being followed in the classrooms.

(ii) Strengthening assessment and use of learning metrics to guide improvements in education

performance: STARS will support strengthening learning assessment systems in India through firstly a multi-year support for India’s participation in PISA 2021 that would for the first time be able to benchmark the education outcomes of Indian students at the international level. Secondly, in order to strengthen national assessment systems, STARS will support the creation of a National Assessment Center that would manage India’s participation in PISA while also provide technical capacity building; stakeholder awareness raising; and preparatory activities leading up to the 2021 administration of PISA. Further, the PISA experience will be used to strengthen institutional arrangements and technical design for national assessment in India. Specifically, support will be provided to: (a) create an independent national center for assessment; (b) develop technical standards for national assessment exercises; (c) build capacity to develop high-quality test items aligned with competency-oriented learning standards; (d) build capacity to draw statistically sound samples and develop standardized procedures and operational manuals for test administration; and (e) build capacity to analyze and report on assessment results in technically robust and policy-relevant ways. Support will be provided for an external review of the Grades 10 and 12 examinations overseen by the Central Board for Secondary Education, with an eye to identifying and implementing reforms to make them more competency-based.

(iii) Building teacher’s skills and motivation through effective professional development and

enhancing classroom instructional processes: The STARS operation will support states to develop alternative, ICT-enabled approaches (online and offline) to enhance teachers’ access to subject matter-specific and pedagogical trainings. These training opportunities may be self-paced or provided at regular intervals by the State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT),


Page 83 of 115

District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), and/or Block Institutes of Teacher Education (BITE)/Block Resource Centers (BRC) and followed up with appropriate teacher assessments that can in turn inform future trainings. Peer learning by leveraging social media (and other IT-enabled) platforms would be supported and forums for face to-face interaction would be provided. STARS will support state initiatives to improve the quality of classroom instruction; encourage non-state actor partnerships, where appropriate, particularly in the area of learning enhancement programs; and provide technical inputs for enhancing the quality of programs. Specifically, STARS will facilitate further strengthening of learning enhancement strategies in a way that is relevant to each state’s context. All learning-enhancement programs will emanate from, and be linked to, the learning outcomes identified in the state. Further, School Leadership Development Programs (SLDP) created by the NIEPA will be used to train a large pool of resource persons (master trainers).

(iv) Strengthening Implementation and Management Capacity at Decentralized Levels for Improved

Governance: STARS will focus primarily on strengthening governance systems for service delivery reform. One major shift will be the focus on the district as the unit of educational planning and management. This will ensure that the planning is more transparent and participatory. The District Project Office (DPO) of Samagra Shiksha, which works in close collaboration with the SIS, will prepare evidence based participatory Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B), and monitors physical and financial implementation progress. At the sub-district level, Block Education Offices (BEOs) that have administrative responsibility for the schools will be encouraged to work in close collaboration with Block Resource Centers (BRCs)41 and Cluster Resource Centers (CRCs) on academic support. Close coordination with the School Management Committees (SMCs), that have representation from the local authority (the local level elected government) will be strengthened for school management and implementation oversight. SMC will undertake community mobilization, prepare school development plans, identify out of school children and monitor students’ and teachers’ attendance and also look into strategies to improve learning outcomes. Secondly and importantly, crucial institutions at sub-district level will be provided special support. At the sub-district level, Block Education Offices (BEOs) that have administrative responsibility for schools will be encouraged to work in close collaboration with Block Resource Centers (BRCs) and Cluster Resource Centers (CRCs) on academic support for teachers. The role of CRCs will be evolved to include monitoring and evaluation of schools. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) in the United Kingdom will serve as an example for the kinds of capabilities and roles to be developed at the CRC level. This holistic reform efforts will be measured through enhancements in the improved the scores on the Performance Grading Index (PGI) through incentivizing states for governance reform through the State Incentive Grants financed through STARS.

115. Technical Assistance (TA): An IPF based TA component of $ 25 million will be provided to build the capacity of MHRD through some major initiatives that will be rolled out by the MHRD and managed by the MHRD. Key areas of support would be as follows:

41 Primarily, BRCs seek to be resource centers for onsite academic support to the teachers of elementary level. They function as a venue for teacher training, material development, community mobilization, action research works and organization of different activities or competitions among teachers and students and store all data.


Page 84 of 115

Action Broad Tasks

Hiring of an agency as program management unit (PMU) in MHRD

Strengthen existing capacities in financial management, planning, and program coordination etc. (b) provide support to MHRD to help improve their program design and pilots; and (c) support M&E, impact evaluation, and third-party assessments/validation of implementation activities and program outcomes

Pilot projects/initiatives on key areas of the project

ECE, teacher reform, learning assessments, decentralized management; partnerships with non-state actors etc

Knowledge Sharing/National and International Exposure Visits

Identification of best practices in key areas identified with the World Bank

116. Institutional arrangements and governance structure: STARS will have the MHRD as the implementing partners at the national level; along with the Samagra unified structure and administrative mechanisms that have pooled together existing and additional personnel at national and sub-national levels. Samagra Shiksha is governed at the Centre by a Governing Council chaired by the Minister of Human Resource Development, a Project Approval Board, and the Bureau of School Education. The Governing Council provides policy direction and facilitates center-state coordination, while the PAB, chaired by the Secretary, School Education and Literacy, MHRD, maintains full financial power to approve state plans, sanction budgets, and implement the program. The Bureau of School Education chaired by the Additional/Joint Secretary, School Education & Literacy, appraises, evaluates, finances, and supervises national, state, and district level planned interventions. At the State level, the scheme will be implemented through the SIS that is accountable to a Governing Council, headed by the Chief Minister/State Education Minister and an Executive Committee, chaired by the Chief Secretary/Commissioner/Education Secretary of the State/UT. The SIS, through the State Project Office and State Project Director will help establish linkages with district and sub-district level structures, NGOs, state government, national bureau, and other concerned stakeholders, and is also responsible for effective monitoring and training and capacity building of personnel.


Page 85 of 115

ANNEX 4. SUMMARY FIDUCIARY SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT


Section 1: Conclusions, Scope and Risk

117. The Integrated Fiduciary System Assessment (IFSA) of the arrangements under the PforR Program concludes that the present systems together with proposed mitigation measures will provide reasonable assurance that financing proceeds will be used for the intended purpose, with due attention to the principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. The salient features of the STARS Program are: the Program uses the Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSE&L), GoI and the six selected States42 own procurement and financial management systems; the Program seeks to strengthen some of these systems; and the number of contracts and the value of expenditure under the Program is relatively small when compared to the scale of the government’s ongoing national Samagra Shiksha (SS) program and other operations of MHRD at the GoI and the six PS. For the detailed IFSA, please refer to the “Detailed IFSA Report”. 118. The IFSA covered FM, Procurement, and Fraud & Corruption (F&C) aspects. The IFSA was conducted in accordance with the principles governing PforR Programs as set out in the World Bank’s internal guidelines. In addition to DoSE&L-GoI, the assessment covered a sample of nodal/ program implementing departments/agencies of the designated participating states (of the State of Odisha, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala) and desk review of all PS. The nodal departments/agencies that formed a part of the sample field visits are considered representative of the spectrum of institutional capacities and implementation arrangements. The Program FM systems have been assessed for the effectiveness of planning, budgeting, accounting, internal controls, funds flow, financial reporting, and auditing procedures. The Program procurement systems are assessed to the degree to which the planning, bidding, evaluation, contract award, and contract administration arrangements and practices provide reasonable assurance that the PforR Program will achieve intended results through its procurement processes and procedures. The IFSA also considers how the PforR Program Systems handle the risks of fraud and corruption, including use of complaint mechanisms, and how such risks are managed and/or mitigated. 119. The fiduciary risks are considered ‘Substantial’. The IFSA reviewed the existence and adequacy of existing rules, policies, and procedures and the extent of their implementation to gain assurance that the Program objectives shall be met. The years of the school education programs (SSA, RMSA & TE) have resulted in constant strengthening of systems and procedures. However, considering the multiplicity of spending/ executing agencies (States, Districts and Sub-district levels) and diverse capacity across these agencies, there are persistent implementation challenges. The main challenges lie in further strengthening PFM arrangements to make them more efficient and improving compliance with rules and regulations, thereby strengthening accountability. The key areas identified under the IFSA for focused attention in the short/ medium term are:

42 Maharashtra, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.


Page 86 of 115

i. Strengthened planning to enhance budgetary and fund flow efficiency to strengthen service delivery. A wide divergence between approved AWP&B, GoI’s program budget and actual expenditure at states has been a recurrent theme. A substantial gap between the approved AWP&B and actual annual expenditure may be a result of multiple PFM bottlenecks (planning, budgeting, and fund flow arrangements) with a probable impact on the expenditure efficiency under the program. An operational review of program planning (in sample states) is required to assess the impact of these gaps on program activities and to identify counteractive actions that may be taken to address the mismatch between budget, actual releases, and final expenditures.

ii. Enhance Internal Audit function to strengthen systemic bottlenecks effecting service delivery.

While a system of internal audit is present in all the states, an adequate focused review by way of an internal audit system is lacking. In the majority of States, it is either: (i) not commensurate with the size of operations; (ii) conducted with delay; or (iii) the observations are not complied with on time. As significant reliance is placed on the existing internal controls at the IAs, effective regular internal audit is a desired tool for fiduciary assurance. The States, under the guidance of the MHRD should develop a risk based, thematic area focused Internal Audit approach, with a well-defined roadmap for compliance.

iii. Large vacancies in financial management staffing at sub-district level needs to be addressed to

improve downstream financial management and controls: On an average, states are functioning at approximately 70% of the sanctioned strength. There is a probable risk of inadequate accounting functions or inappropriate utilization of technical resources through additional charge for finance function. States to reassess sanctioned positions and roll-back vacancies, as required. The finalized vacancies to be filled in a time-bound manner with professionally competent personnel. Hence, the States to assess the vacancies and prepare a time-bound plan for addressing the same.

iv. Enhanced transparency at sub-district level to support effective utilization of program funds:

The sub-district level continues to maintain manual books of accounts with persistent delays and internal control issues. As a way forward, Public Financial Management System (PFMS) should be used to transfer funds till the school level and the utilization certificates (forming basis for accounting at sub-district level) should be generated through PFMS.

v. Effective integration of books of accounts of SSA, RMSA, and TA to support precision of financial

data. Samagra Shiksha, an amalgamation of SSA, RMSA, and TA is implemented from FY 2018-19. The books of accounts of the three schemes are in the process of integration. It is imperative that a single set of accounting books is prepared under the converged program. Further, in order to ensure the precision of accounting information flowing out of the converged accounts, it is imperative that the statutory audit observations highlighted in the past under the individual schemes are adequately addressed/ resolved. The World Bank will provide technical support using Program funds allocated for training activities to develop and implement good practices to strengthen the FM systems.

120. Procurement exclusions: Under the Program, none of the proposed procurement contracts are anticipated to be above the Operations Procurement Review Committee (OPRC) threshold (US$75 million


Page 87 of 115

for works, US$50 million for goods and non-consulting services, and US$20 million for consultant services), which are based on a “substantial” risk rating.

Section 2: Institutional Framework for Program Implementation 121. Institutional arrangements for Program activities will follow the existing schema for implementing SS by the GoI and the six selected states and is reliant on the use of country systems. The Samagra Shiksha program is implemented as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS)43 by the Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSE&L) under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and routed through a single SIS at the State level. It is a pan India program and is implemented in all the 36 states. The STARS Program, which is conceptualized as a focused intervention to support school education enhancement under the existing implementation framework of SS will be executed by the DoSE&L, GoI and the 6 selected states namely, Odisha, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala. 122. Fiduciary arrangements for SS are laid out in the Manual for Financial Management and Procurement (FMP)44 for Samagra Shiksha Scheme. With a view to provide guidance and uniformity in the mode of release and utilization of funds, budgeting and financial reporting, accounting and auditing requirements, and procurement procedures, etc. under the scheme, the MHRD has developed an FMP manual for the use of the States/ UT governments and implementing agencies. Hence, the FMP manual establishes a broader uniformity in the implementation fiduciary arrangements across States. The STARS program will also follow the principals laid out in the manual. 123. The Program will be implemented by the GoI and the 6 selected states through their respective nodal departments/ agencies implementing Samagra Shiksha. DoSE&L will play the role of PMU. Activities proposed for implementation by the selected states will be executed by the SIS with the support of district/sub-district offices/ agencies, as applicable, following the arrangements established for implementing Samagra Shiksha at the respective State level. Each of the Program implementing SISs will be responsible for the entire PFM cycle of planning, budgeting, budget execution, procurement, accounting/payments, and auditing for their respective PS. 124. At the central level, a PMU/TSU has been established in the DoSE&L, GoI to support implementation of the STARS Program which will be adequately staffed with key technical and operational specialists, including Financial Management and Procurement specialists. It will be responsible for Program planning and coordination across the six selected states; FM and procurement of central government activities, including consolidation of financial information at the national level; monitoring of social and environmental aspects; monitoring and evaluation; and communications. The Central PMU will also provide support to the state implementing agencies in building requisite capacity in these areas as relevant or needed.

43 Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) are schemes that are implemented by state governments of India but are largely funded by the Central Government with a defined State Government share. 44 Wide letter dated September 12, 2018, MHRD has issued FMP manual for the converged Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. The manual is developed on the lines of the existing FMP manuals of SSA and RMSA. Web link: http://samagra.mhrd.gov.in/docs/FMP.pdf

http://samagra.mhrd.gov.in/docs/FMP.pdf


Page 88 of 115

125. At the PS level the integration under Samagra Shiksha scheme is yet to be fully effective. This may have an impact on the integrated effectiveness to improve service delivery, which is the vision under Samagra Shiksha. On 28 March 2018, the Cabinet Committee45 of Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved an Integrated Scheme for School Education as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS), called Samagra Shiksha. Samagra Shiksha reorganizes the existing parallel management structures of the SSA, RMSA, and TA into a unified structure and administrative mechanism, pooling together existing and additional personnel at national, state, district and sub-district level. FY 2018-19 was the first year of convergence. While detailed guidelines have been issued by the MHRD at the center, the states still continue to assess the requirements and develop plans, procedures, and guidelines to improve convergence under Samagra Shiksha. Hence, the PS are at various stages of integration. 126. The total cost of the PforR Program is US$ 3.35 billion, of which the IBRD Financing is US$500 million. The STARS Program is carved out of the Government’s Samagra Shiksha program to support school education enhancement under the existing framework, by targeting the MHRD at the federal level and six pilot participating States46 in India, through a combination of investments in ongoing and new reforms/interventions. The cost of the PforR Operation (STARS) is US$ 3.35 billion which will be financed by (a) MHRD, GoI financing (national support) of US$1.79 billion; (b) States’ contribution over the operation period of US$ 1.06 billion; and (c) World Bank financing of US$500 million. The World Bank financing of US$500 million to the MHRD will be over a period of five years from the date of effectiveness of the Operation. The proposed World Bank financing comprises of a US$ 475 million assistance to the Program using the PforR instrument and a US$25 million TA component (“Project”) using the IPF instrument. The World Bank’s contribution through the PforR instrument will thus account for about 15 percent of the total estimated expenditure of the Program. Section 3: Review of Public Financial Management Cycle 127. The overall assessment of the PFM cycle under Samagra Shiksha has been detailed in the following paragraphs. For state specific information, please refer to the detailed IFSA report. 128. Use of Country Systems: The Fiduciary systems in STARS PforR Program are proposed to be predicated on extant country systems. STARS Program is to be implemented at the GoI and six selected states. The Program will, therefore, be influenced by the extant GoI/ state fiduciary systems. The GoI/ state’s own systems (such as use of GFR’s, the budget manuals, procurement rules, treasury codes, delegation of financial powers and staffing) will also influence the Program systems. The overarching framework of FM systems across selected states may be similar (State budget, treasury, financial rules and program FMP Manual, etc.) but the rules and regulations and/or the practices vary slightly across the selected states. 129. The procurement activities under the PforR part of the Program will be governed by government procurement rules at various levels of implementation. The key governing document for the Program is the Financial Management and Procurement (FM&P) Manual issued by the MHRD dated August 2018. The Manual itself is subject to overriding provisions as contained in the GFR 2017 and Manual for Procurement of Services dated 2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance, GoI. The FM&P Manual also allows

45 MHRD Letter dated 3 April 2018 on Samagra scheme 46 Participating States (PS) are Maharashtra, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.


Page 89 of 115

for the application of State and Panchayati Raj rules at state level. The Manual is comprehensive and provides detailed implementation arrangements and items to be procured at various levels of implementation. The Manual requires use of open tender as the default method of procurement for contracts estimated above INR 2.5 million. It has clear provisions for the delegation of powers, eligibility of bidders, fraud and corruption, conflict of interest and requirements for audits, and post reviews of procurement activities on an annual basis. Since different rules are applicable at various levels of implementation with the Manual providing overarching guidance, it is suggested that the priority of the applicable rules be clearly indicated in the Manual so that the basis of accountability is clear at each level. 130. Planning and Budgeting: The process of annual budgeting at the GoI and the selected states, including re-appropriations and revisions, is well defined and streamlined, governed by the extant rules and regulations. Samagra Shiksha is a pan India program and is implemented in all the 36 states. The fund sharing pattern for the scheme between Centre and States is in the ratio of 90:10 for North-Eastern and Hilly States and Jammu and Kashmir, while it is 60:40 for all other States. States bring a single Plan for the entire school education sector and the program is accounted for in the State Budget itself as a separate line. Further, on annual basis the States submit an Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWP&B) proposal for Samagra Siksha to the GoI. This is a detailed component wise plan for approval by Project Approval Board (PAB) at the GoI. The approved PAB plan is adopted as the detailed budget by the SIS. 131. Planning procedure at States: As per the program FMP manual, each District prepares their respective AWP&B based on the individual sub-district (school, cluster, and block) annual plans. These district plans are then consolidated at the state SIS level, laying out the planned expenditure under the program. The consolidated plan is placed before the PAB of the MHRD for approval. However, the AWP&B gets approved by the PAB only in the first six month of the respective financial year. Hence, at the State level, the Budget provision is made in the State budget for state and central share on an estimated basis as per the expenditure of the previous financial year. However, multiple tiers of planning and implementation and their limited capacities to prepare and manage budgets often result in inadequate planned budgeting and consequent delays in fund releases and lower budget execution rates. 132. Variation in budget out-turns often results in the reprioritization of required expenditure with increased focus of program norm-based expenditure with probable impact on actual ground level needs of the individual program implementing entities beyond these norms. Divergence between approved AWP&B, MHRD/ State budgets, releases, and the actual expenditure has been a recurrent theme. Even though annual and mid-term plans are developed for sub district levels, AWP&B primarily focuses on program norms with a limited focus on priorities emerging from mid-term program planning. A substantial gap between the approved AWP&B and actual annual expenditure may be a result of multiple PFM bottlenecks (planning, budgeting, and fund flow arrangements) with a probable impact on the expenditure efficiency under the program. The impact of short releases on program activities needs to be measured and enhanced procedures should be devised to minimize this mismatch.

133. At the GoI and the six selected states, the incremental budgetary support under STARS will be budgeted under a separate budget line earmarking externally aided/ STARS project funding. The MHRD will release funds to the six participating States under the administrative control of the respective State Education Department. Once the annual budget is allotted by the respective FD, the implementing


Page 90 of 115

departments have the autonomy to undertake procurement and spend the budget allocations on the budgeted Program activities. The Program’s primary planning and control tool is the Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWP&B). No expenditure can be incurred until reflected in the AWP&B and approved by the Project Approval Board (PAB) at the GoI. 134. In line with the budget structure of Samagra Shiksha, additional identified47 budget head (at “Detailed Head” level) will be created under the Samagra Shiksha scheme earmarking externally aided funding for the program. At the “Object Head” level, the budget coding system followed by the GoI will allow for project specific activities to be incorporated in a manner that will facilitate the accounting and reporting of expenditures from the PAO’s consolidated ‘Monthly Accounts’ itself. The incremental Program activities at the selected states will be separately identified in the annual budget of the nodal implementing department consolidated in the annual State budget. This will facilitate incremental Program related budgets and corresponding expenditures to be separately identified, accounted, and reported both in the annual budgets and in the accounts of the selected states. The annual budget estimates (BE) of the selected states will be established in close consultations with the GoI, with due consideration to the year-wise disbursement linked indicators (DLIs) established in the program legal covenants for release of the Bank funds. The overall STARS Program budget is clearly identified as a sub-set of the AWP&B. The detailed IFSA includes the breakdown of the programmatic composition of the expenditure envisaged at the GoI and the 6 selected states. 135. Based on the activities identified in the Program boundary, the main procurable items are grouped into three categories:

a) Procurement of Goods: Equipment, computers, furniture, textbooks, library books, uniforms, TLE, TLM, other materials, supplies, commodities, etc.;

b) Procurement of Civil Works: School infrastructure and facilities like new PS, UPS, Residential Schools, KGBV building, ACR, HM Room, BRC/URC, CRC, Drinking water, Toilets, Girls Toilet, Ramps, Handrail, Electrification, Retrofitting, Boundary wall/ fencing, Major Repairs, etc.;

c) Procurement of Consultancy Services: Hiring of services including academic, technical, and

resource support provided by institutions/organizations in all areas, research studies, third party quality evaluation of civil works, auditors, etc.

136. Funding predictability is high, and risks to the Program Expenditure Framework arising out of budget constraints is considered as low. The STARS Program cost constitutes a relatively small portion of the overall Samagra Shiksha budget and is well aligned with the government priorities both at the GoI and the PS levels. Overall funding to Samagra Shiksha at the GoI level has shown an increase from INR 261 billion (US$3.9 billion) for FY16-17 to INR 363 billion (US$5.4 billion) for FY19-20, with a matching increase in budgeted commitments at State level. This is equivalent to an annual increase of over 8.84 percent on average in nominal terms over the four years considered. The average annual inflation at the national level for the same time frame was about 5 percent, thereby projecting a commitment to ensure significant and real increases in the Samagra Shiksha budgets. This is very likely to continue in the years

47The annual budget circulars for FY 2018-19 and FY 2017-18 provide that the provision for externally aided projects may be made under identifiable heads segregated from other items of expenditure.


Page 91 of 115

to come as school education continues to be a national priority. The union budget allocated INR 948 billion for the education sector in 2019-20, an increase of nearly ₹100 billion from what 2018-19 budget estimates had pegged for the sector. Of the total ₹948 billion education budget, ₹565 billion crore has been pegged for the school sector of which the bulk of the allocation (INR 363 billion) is allotted to Samagra Shikha. 137. Budget transparency: The annual budgets of the GoI and the States are public documents and are accessible on the GoI48/PS government websites. Additionally, AWAP&B are available on the SS central website49. 138. Treasury management and funds flow against Program expenditure framework: The total cost of the STARS PforR Program is US$ 3.35 billion, of which the IBRD Financing is US$500million. The expenditure under the program will be incurred both at the MHRD, GoI and the six selected states’ end. As Samagra Shiksha is a CSS, its fund sharing pattern between Centre and States is in the ratio of 90:10 for North-Eastern and Hilly States and Jammu and Kashmir, while it is 60:40 for all other States. Hence, under STARS the fund sharing pattern shall be 90:10 for Himachal Pradesh and 60:40 for the rest of the selected states. Estimated fund flow sources supporting the Program expenditure framework have been broadly summarized in the table below:

Indicative Fund Flow for Program Expenditure Framework at Central and State Level (in US$ million)

Economic Expenditure Classification

Mah

aras

htr

a

Raj

asth

an

Mad

hya

Pra

de

sh

Od

ish

a

Ke

rala

Him

ach

al

Pra

de

sh

MH

RD

, Go

I

Pfo

rR

Pro

gram

Early Years Education - - - 0.2 3.8 1.2 - 5.1

Learning Assessment Systems 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 - 5.4

Teacher Education 249.3 218.1 232.5 317.6 50.7 85.4 - 1,153.6

Quality Intervention 378.6 580.3 621.0 133.3 135.4 109.7 - 1,958.3

Vocational education and training 26.8 38.9 31.5 21.0 - 55.4 - 173.4

National level Quality Intervention - - - - - - 50.0 50.0

Total 658.4 837.3 885.0 472.3 190.4 252.4 50.0 3,345.9

States Contribution 263.4 334.9 354.0 188.9 76.2 25.2 - 1,242.6

GoI Contribution 395.0 502.4 531.0 283.4 114.3 227.1 50.0 2,103.2

139. The fund flow design under Samagra Shiksha is shown in the following diagram. The details are laid out in the FMP Manual.

48 www.indiabudget.gov.in 49 http://seshagun.gov.in/pab-minutes

http://seshagun.gov.in/pab-minutes


Page 92 of 115

140. At the Central Level - Fund transfer to selected states: The MHRD will release funds through PFMS under the administrative control of the respective State’s nodal department. On release of the central share, the state government will release the central funds along with the matching state share to the designated Bank account of the SIS. Annually, funds will be resealed in two – three tranches as detailed out in the FMP manual. The incremental Program funds will flow under a separate budget line earmarking externally aided/ STARS project funding both at the GoI and at the selected states. The incremental Program funds shall flow from the MHRD, GoI to the six selected states as per the pre-defined terms of the incentive-based grant between the center and States. 141. At the State level - Fund transfer to District and sub-district level: Fund flows and payments are governed by the Treasury Rules/Code and periodic circulars issued by the Finance Department of the respective selected states. Depending on the sanction orders of the Nodal department and the MHRD, the SIS will transfer the funds to the districts as per the AWP&B. According to the existing practices of the selected states, fund flows under Samagra Shiksha are a mix of both the treasury and bank operations and the processes vary across selected states. Further, PFMS is at various stages of implementation. In the absence of a transfer through PFMS, funds will be released by the State office to the districts and by the district offices to schools and BRCs/CRCs through electronic transfers. Delays in releases/ transfers from state treasury are sometime due to multiple reasons like treasury procedures, States fiscal stain on account of unforeseen eventuality, (in Kerala, the floods of 2017 have led to delays across board), state elections etc. 142. The sub-district level continues to maintain manual books of accounts with persistent delays and internal control issues. As a way forward, PFMS should be used to transfer funds till the school level and the utilization certificates (forming basis for accounting at sub-district level) should be generated through PFMS. This will enhance transparency at the sub-district level to support effective utilization of the program funds. The central government has mandated all fund transfers under CSS to follow through PFMS. State Governments are also required to use PFMS platform for flow to sub-district levels. In case the State Government uses its own Financial Management System, they should ensure that all data is externally uploaded to PFMS. The states were at various stages of implementation under RMSA and SSA. However, all of them are presently struggling to converge rollout of PFMS under Samagra Shiksha. Hence, centralized support from the MHRD is required to effectively transfer funds and generate utilization


Page 93 of 115

certificates through PFMS portal.

143. Procurement Processes and Procedures: Procurement will be carried out using e-procurement systems for works, capital goods, and consultancy services at both the center and state level. These e-procurement systems undergo security and integrity checks annually. In addition to e-procurement systems, both the center and state level will also use Government e-Market place portal (GeM) for procurement of common use goods and services. E-procurement and GeM will both be used under PforR and IPF component. 144. Procuring entities have put in place a formalized delegation of powers for the approval of tender awards for various thresholds and this was found to be in practice. However, procuring entities do not have designated staff to handle procurement activities and procurement activities are handled by Finance staff on an adhoc basis. The absence of designated staff could lead to poor targeting for capacity building and inconsistent record keeping as various staff members handle the same processes. This could also lead to delays in procurement and low budget utilization which could impact on the timely achievement of results. It was agreed that each procuring entity will designate a nodal officer responsible for procurement activities. At the center, the MHRD further plans to hire a Program Management Unit that would include a Procurement Specialist as one of the experts. 145. The Manual requires procuring agencies to prepare procurement plans. The assessment did not find the practice of systematic procurement planning prior to the start of procurement activities. However, procurement is initiated through a formalized sanction process based on budget availability and then advertised online through the e-procurement system. All procurements are based on approved annual work plans and budgets. 146. Works procurement is carried out by Public Works Departments (PWD) or similar mandated units at various levels. PWD has bidding documents and formalized procedures and institutional arrangements for supervision of works. However, there are no model/standard documents for goods or services and procuring entities have used different forms that are available to them from different sources. Internal audit findings indicate that in many instances the contracts used were incomplete leading to diluted obligations on suppliers and service providers. It is suggested that the MHRD advise all procuring entities of key provisions to be included in a contract and strengthen contract management arrangements. This could be included as part of the Manual. 147. The Manual requires financial audits including examination of the manner in which goods, works, and services are procured. Financial audits are carried out annually by independent firms. The report highlights matters relating to the sanctioning process and contract implementation but is silent on the procurement process. The Manual also requires the MHRD to undertake an annual procurement review of activities on a sample basis. The Ministry reported that this had been practiced in the past but was not done in FY19 because of the merger of the primary and secondary programs. Plans were underway to restart annual procurement post reviews using an independent firm. MHRD will share findings of the post procurement review in Year 2 of implementation. It is also suggested that the Ministry enforce the terms of reference for financial audits to include manner in which goods, works, and services are procured.


Page 94 of 115

148. Procurement rules at various levels including the FM&P manual provides for bidders to complain. At the same time, the Government of India enacted the Right to Information Act 2005 which mandates entities to provide information on request. The MHRD and each of the participating states have grievance redressal mechanisms anchored at the Chief Minister level for all types of grievances and these systems are functional. Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have in addition designated nodal officers to deal with procurement related complaints. Since procurement related complaints pertain to time bound decision points in the procurement process, the appointment of a designated nodal officer was considered necessary and suggested for timely resolutions of complaints. It was agreed that all participating states will designate a nodal officer to receive procurement related complaints and channel them through established structures for resolution of complaints. Tender award information will also be published on their websites. The MHRD will share the number and nature of complaints received at various levels of implementation on an annual basis and highlight any specific reactions taken to mitigate against regular complaints. The post procurement review will also examine and highlight the complaints redressal mechanism. 149. The FM&P manual has adequate provisions on fraud, corruption, and conflict of interest. The Bank informed the MHRD and the six states that the World Bank debarred firms are ineligible to be awarded a contract under the Program. The Bank will share a web link for procuring entities to check the debarred firms. The MHRD will share incidences related to fraud and corruptions with the Bank and the Bank will make administrative enquiries relating to fraud and corruption, where necessary. 150. Accounting and Financial Reporting: Accounting is done on cash basis using government systems. Accounting, bookkeeping, and financial reporting at the selected states is primarily guided by the FMP Manual, Treasury Rules, Financial Rules, Budget Manual, etc. Books of accounts for the program are maintained following ‘double entry method based on mercantile system’ of accounting. A Chart of Accounts (standard activity list) is used to enable data to be captured and classified by expenditure center and type of expenditure. This is used by all implementing entities (up to the district level) to ensure consistency in recording/ reporting of information. Accounts are maintained electronically as well as manually at the state, district, and block levels. Tally software has been used since 2005 and the software is also implemented at block offices. At the school level, accounts are maintained manually. Many states have started using off-the-shelf accounting software for recording and compiling information. Some states are taking the independent initiative of developing integrated accounting software for the whole state, which may be highlighted to other states as good practice. 151. Maintenance of accounts by schools needs focused attention. Instances of deficient record-keeping were noted: (i) primary books were not maintained adequately, (ii) payments were made through cash or self-cheque, (iii) there were inadequate supporting documents for incurred expenses, and (iv) SMCs were not covered by the statutory audit. Hence, for enhanced transparency at sub-district level and to support the effective utilization of the program, PFMS should be used to transfer funds till the school level and the utilization certificates (forming basis for accounting at sub-district level) should also be generated through PFMS. 152. Financial Management Staffing and Capacity Building: At the center, the MHRD is staffed with a Financial Advisor and a Chief Controller of Accounts who have the overall responsibility for financial management/ book keeping of the department, respectively. They are adequately supported by qualified


Page 95 of 115

and trained staff. Further, a Director is designated in the School Education Bureau as the person responsible for Financial Management and Procurement aspects. He is supported by a team consisting of GoI staff and consultants from TSG to support the financial management functions under Samagra Shiksha. They are responsible for review, monitoring, and capacity building of the program staff at the state level. In addition, a Finance professional will be appointed in the PMU at the GoI under the STARS Program. The appointments will be based on the ToR agreed with the Bank. 153. At the state, the state finance controller is responsible for implementation of financial management arrangements at the SIS level, as well as for monitoring the FM systems at the district/sub-district levels. Further, appropriate staffing structure has been laid out in the FMP manual at the district and sub-district levels. In addition, subsequent to convergence, the states are at various stages of integrating the human resource requirement. However, on an average, states are functioning at approximately 70-80 percent of the sanctioned strength. There is a probable risk of inadequate accounting functions or inappropriate utilization of technical resources through additional charge for finance function, specifically at sub-district level. 154. As per the program norms, a minimum of 5 days training to accounts and audit staff is conducted in all states. The accounts staff trained at the district level provide training to staff at the block level, who in turn provide training to staff at the cluster and school level. However, external reviews continue to highlight that there is a need to evolve the training practices to enhance the effectiveness of these trainings. Hence, it is essential that need based, thematic area wise training should be conducted. The training plans should take cognizance of the observations highlighted by independent reviews. 155. Internal Controls (Including Internal Audit): The internal control framework is well defined and established both at the GoI and selected states. At the national level, these are detailed in GFR 2017, the Government Accounting Rules, 1990, and the Central Government (Receipts & Payments) Rule. At the states, these are detailed in their respective budget manuals, financial rules, treasury code, delegation of powers, etc. At the central level, a computerized treasury system supports the generation of budget head linked expenditure reports on a real-time basis and a mechanism is prescribed for periodic reconciliations of transactions and accounts with State treasury and AG (A&E). Oversight over compliance with internal controls is vested with the head of the department and the Finance Department and is also reviewed by the C&AG during annual audits. The MHRD, GoI has a well-established internal audit structure which will undertake the internal audit of the program at the central level. 156. Internal Control Environment at state level: At states, oversight over compliance with internal controls is largely vested with the Executive Committee and the project director at the States and is also reviewed by the C&AG during performance audits of the societies. Controls at the selected states are well defined, though there are deviations in their applications. Hence, internal controls remain an area of concern both from compliance and review perspective. Not only does the statutory audit review continues to highlight systemic discrepancies, there also remains a lack of adequate focused review by way of internal audit system. While the system of internal audit is present in all states, in majority of them it is either (i) not commensurate with the size of operations, (ii) conducted with delay, or (iii) the observations are not complied with on time.


Page 96 of 115

157. Governance and Accountability Systems. Under the larger governance framework of India, all government departments and agencies are covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) through its State offices carries out annual compliance audits of state education directorates and performance audit of the SIS at regular intervals. The audit- related queries are reported to the State Assembly and Public Accounts Committee for recommendations and actions. Financial audits will include manner in which procurement is carried out and MHRD will hire an independent firm to carry out post procurement reviews as required by the Program Manual. Terms of reference for the audit will be agreed with the Bank prior to negotiations. Some of the procurement agencies under the Program do not have a dedicated procurement complaint redressal system. Implementing agencies would be required to designate staff to receive complaints and set up a centralized complaint redressal system with a web-based interface to receive complaints and clearly define rules, business standards, and role of authorities in dealing with complaints. This will ensure that procurement complaints are dealt with in a time bound manner. 158. Applicability of the Anti-Corruption Guidelines of the World Bank to the operation. The Program (Program boundary of big ‘P’) will be subject to the Bank’s Governance and Anti-Corruption Guidelines namely the “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Program-for-Results Financing, dated February 1, 2012 and revised on July 10, 2015, which shall apply to all activities within the Program boundary. As there is no distinction between World Bank funded activities and Government funded activities within the Program boundary, these guidelines shall be applied in an unrestricted manner on all activities within the Program boundary. Requirements under these guidelines include but are not limited to (i) borrower’s obligation on informing the World Bank about all fraud- and corruption-related allegations and investigations, (ii) the World Bank’s right to conduct administrative enquiries with regards to fraud and corruption, (iii) ineligibility of World Bank debarred firms for contract awards, and (iv) avoidance of conflicts of interest between contracts procured under PforR and IPF components. These requirements have been discussed with the MHRD and all participating states. 159. External Audits: Audit of government departments is carried out by the C&AG of India. The selection, duties, and powers of the C&AG are enshrined in the Constitution and are guided by the C&AG’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971, supported by Regulations on Audit and Accounts, 2007. The C&AG, as the Supreme Audit Institution in India (SAI), is a member of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions and follows international auditing standards of the SAIs. Besides compliance audit, the C&AG conducts performance audits. The reports of the C&AG are scrutinized by the legislative committees both at the center and the states. The offices of the Accountant General (Audit) at the state level support the audit of state departments. The C&AG is assessed to have sufficient capacity to produce reliable audit reports providing assurance about the use of Program funds. For independent assurance on the usage of funds, reliance will be placed on the audit report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India on the accounts of Union Government to be submitted to the Bank within twelve months of the close of the financial year. 160. The Program audit will follow the exiting audit arrangements at States. Audits of SISs is conducted by firms of Chartered Accountants empaneled with the CAG. Selection of the firm of Chartered Accountants is based on criteria (specified in the Manual) which assess the size of the firms in terms of the number of staff and relevant experience. Audits are carried out in accordance with TORs documented in the Manual and which meet requirements of the Bank. For States, the annual audit report of the


Page 97 of 115

respective SIS, including schedule of reporting expenditure against approved AWP&B will be submitted to the Bank within nine months of the end of the financial year. Audited Accounts/Audit Report will be furnished to GOI by the States, who in turn will provide the Bank with copies of these State Audited Accounts/Audit Reports within nine months of close of the Financial Year i.e. by December 31st.

161. Disbursement Arrangements: The key principles guiding the World Bank disbursement of DLIs are as follows:

• The DoSE&L and the 6 PS will pre-finance expenditures for the Program using its own budgetary resources through the identified budget lines of the Program Expenditure Framework.

• The DoSE&L will prepare technical reports to document the status of achievement of DLIs. The technical reports will be verified by an IVA, appointed by DoES&L as per terms of reference agreed with the World Bank.

• On validation of DLIs by an IVA, DoSE&L will communicate the achievement of DLIs and corresponding DLI values to the World Bank along with supporting documents. In case, the DLI target set out in any year is not achieved, it may be rolled over for future years till such time the DLI target is achieved.

• In the case of non-scalable DLIs, the World Bank will disburse the DLI value only upon full achievement of the DLI target. In the case of scalable DLIs, if partially achieved, the World Bank may authorize withdrawal of an amount lesser than the DLI value allocated to the said DLI target. The remaining amount of the DLI may be disbursed once the DLI target value is fully achieved.

• In case the of non-achievement of any DLI target (scalable or non-scalable), the World Bank may reallocate the proceeds of the Loan to another DLI, in consultation with DoSE&L.

• The World Bank will issue an official letter to DoSE&L endorsing the achievement of the DLI target and value.

• The DoSE&L will submit the disbursement claim of the DLI value to the CAAA in the GoI.

• The CAAA will submit the disbursement claim to the World Bank and the funds will be disbursed by the World Bank to the GoI under IBRD loan terms.

• In the last year of the Program, DoSE&L and the six PS in coordination with the World Bank, will reconcile the audited program expenditure (incurred under identified budget lines) with the DLI amounts disbursed by the World Bank. Any shortfall in the Program expenditure in relation to DLI disbursement will be adjusted from the final DLI claim.


Page 98 of 115

Section 4: Program FM Systems and Capacity Improvements

Program Systems and Capacity Improvements

Risk Mitigation action Timing Type of action (PAP, DLI, etc.)

Need for strengthened planning

An operational review of program planning (in sample states)

Year-2 Recommendation

Lack of adequate financial management staffing at sub-district level

States to assess the vacancies and prepare a time-bound plan for addressing the same.

Year 1 PAP

Integration of books of accounts of SSA, RMSA and TA not yet done.

Effective integration by marinating single book of accounts for Samagra Shiksha and by adequately addressing/ resolving the statutory audit observations highlighted in the past under the individual schemes.

Year 2 Recommendation

Need for robust Internal Audit and compliance system

The States, under guidance of MHRD should develop risk based, thematic area focused Internal Audit approach, with well-defined roadmap for compliance.

Year 2 PAP

Limited transparency at sub-district level

Public Financial Management System (PFMS) used to transfer funds and generate utilization certificate till 80% of the school level.

Year 3 PAP

Capacity constraint to implement procurement with no staff designated to procurement function

Each implementing agency designate procurement staff to procurement function and train them. Post procurement review report will include availability of designated staff, percentage volume of procurement executed against plan and average procurement cycle time for procurement activity

Year 1 PAP

Financial audits do not include review of procurement process and post procurement reviews not carried out as required

Internal audits will include process review of procurement activities in compliance with rules on sample basis. MHRD will carry out procurement post review and share report with the Bank starting with Yr2

Year 2 PAP

General grievance system exists but there are no dedicated arrangements to receive and review complaints in a time bound manner

MHRD and each participating state will be designated nodal officer to deal with procurement complaints. Allow registration of complaints through web-based portal. Set up mechanism for tracking, review and disposal of complaints. Share with the Bank complaints received and dealt with as part of Program monitoring report and post procurement review report.

Year 1 PAP

Absence of model bidding Manual could be updated to include key Year 1 Recommendation


Page 99 of 115

Section 5: FM Implementation Support 162. Identify how the fiduciary team will work with the borrower to monitor implementation progress and address underperforming areas identified in the PAP. Fiduciary support includes:

i. Reviewing implementation progress and working with the task teams to examine the achievement of Program results and DLIs that are of a fiduciary nature.

ii. Helping the borrower resolve implementation issues and carry out institutional capacity building.

iii. Monitoring the performance of fiduciary systems and audit reports, including the implementation

of the PAP.

iv. Monitoring changes in fiduciary risks to the Program and, as relevant, compliance with the fiduciary provisions of legal covenants.

documents/RFP/templates contractual provisions to be included in all contracts. Implementing agencies to standardize and or adopt similar bidding documents for goods, works and services. This will be checked as part of post procurement review

Non-disclosure of award information on websites of implementing agencies

Implementing agencies should disclose tender award information on their websites

Continuous from year1

Recommendation


Page 100 of 115

ANNEX 5. SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT


163. In accordance with the World Bank’s policy on ‘PforR Financing’, the World Bank has conducted an ESSA of India’s existing environmental and social management systems for the education sector. The ESSA describes the extent to which the applicable government environmental and social policies, legislations, program procedures, and institutional systems are consistent with the six core principles of Program for Results Financing and recommends actions to address the gaps and to enhance performance during Program implementation. The ESSA provides a comprehensive review of relevant government systems and procedures that address environmental and social issues associated with the Program. The ESSA concludes that the environmental and social impacts of the Program are moderate. 164. ESSA Preparation: The methodology included review of policies, legal frameworks, program documents, previous safeguards assessments for Bank-financed education programs in India. The ESSA preparation process also included interviews and consultations with experts and officials from MHRD and the State Departments of School Education of Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Further, community members and beneficiaries were consulted across the six participating states. The consultation process included site visits to 25 schools and 2 teacher training institutes in six states with a detailed questionnaire. A consultation workshop on the draft ESSA was held in New Delhi on 4-5, September to establish consensus on PAP actions and recommendations from the ESSA. 165. Key Environment and Social Effects: The ESSA identified the potential risks and opportunities and analyzed the compatibility of the program with respect to the core principles. The ESSA concludes that the environmental and social impacts of the Program are moderate. The Program will invest in minor renovation works inside the school premises (these include construction of new classrooms, toilets, and water facilities) and will not support any civil works activities that will require land acquisition. Five States (Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh) out of the six states supported under STARS have designated Schedule V areas. The governance system under the broader Samagra Scheme and delivery of integrated education from pre-school to class 12 in a continuum is new and includes new intervention areas such as early-childhood education and vocational training. 166. Potential environmental and social benefits of the Program will include (a) focus on adolescent girls’ through delivery of life skills, career counseling programs and behavior and communication models to raise awareness about health/hygiene; (b) necessary modifications to learning spaces sensitive to the needs of girls and CWSN (c) Creating safe, clean and comfortable learning environments; with improved sanitation and hygiene; energy and water conservation, and adequate lighting, safety provisions and waste management. 167. Key environmental effects of the Program are associated with the upgrading classrooms which will have related impacts such as generation of dust and noise and wastes which will need to be managed adequately, along with any occupational health and safety risks. Poor building design and management could lead to restricted access to people with disabilities; inadequate lighting and ventilation; inadequate water and sanitation facilities; fire and electrical safety risks; lack of attention to disaster-resilience; and


Page 101 of 115

exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOC) through building materials used. 168. As part of the delivery mechanism under Samagra, information asymmetries are expected in the short-term among mid-level officials BRPs, CRPs, BEOs, parents, teachers and communities regarding new interventions supported under STARS such as vocational training and ECE; (b)methods to address potential issues of exclusion emerging due to presence of vulnerable households especially in Schedule V areas; (c) inadequate capacity, training and knowledge among SMC members to undertake self-audits and management activities; (d) potential issues of on-campus safety for secondary, senior secondary schools and TEIs s; (d) lack of rigorous beneficiary engagement mechanisms that inform students especially from EBBs, SFDs, LWEs and aspirational districts about vocational/occupational training; (e) lack of focused interventions to address the needs of adolescent girls and boys. 169. To amplify the positive impacts on inclusionary outcomes expected under the Program, the ESSA will focus on recommendations relating to: a) assessment of higher-order infrastructure needs in aspirational districts across select states, b) leveraging the benefits of digital infrastructure and technology equitably in middle schools and secondary schools, c) engagement and capacity building of sub-district level officials (BRPs, CRPs) to identify needs of SC/ST students and adolescent girls in rural areas especially in areas of vocational education, career counselling and other requirements to enable school-to-work transition; and d) usage of behavior change and interactive communication models to spread awareness amongst stakeholders including mid-level professionals, teachers, principals, SMC members about the broader objectives of Samagra, ECE, school-to-work transition and school safety parameters. 170. Overall, the ESSA recommends that the Environmental and Social systems are acceptable for the Program implementation and adopting the PforR instrument. The ESSA finds that there are adequate legal provisions and procedures ingrained in the Samagra Framework to safeguard against the potential adverse impacts of activities related to exclusion, information asymmetries and occupational health and safety issues. An Environmental Management Framework were developed under RMSA funded by World Bank has been brought under the Samagra Shiksha Framework, which covers majority of the aspects under environment health and safety. NDMA school safety policy and guidelines strengthen disaster risk resilience of schools, and national building codes which are an effective instrument providing guidelines for safety and sound building design parameters. 171. The ESSA suggests the following PAP actions for improvement of the environment and social systems. These have been discussed with the MHRD and have been incorporated in the PAP. This includes (a) Institutionalization of environment, social, health and safety aspects in schools by hiring of environment and social specialists in the national PMU for STARS. This will also strengthen the technical capacity to provide trainings and guidance on environment and social risk management measures under the Program (b) a roadmap for aspirational districts is prepared and adopted by states (c) an awareness and communication strategy to engage with stakeholders is prepared by MHRD.

.


Page 102 of 115

ANNEX 6. PROGRAM ACTION PLAN

Action Description Source DLI# Responsibility Timing Completion Measurement

Develop and adopt awareness and communication strategy to:

1) Provide information about various E&S aspects integrated in the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.

2) Early Childhood Education.

3) Vocational courses and career counselling facilities.

Environmental and Social Systems

MHRD in consultation with states

Due Date 29-Dec-2023

MHRD to develop and disseminate at least 5 audio-visual clips.

Roadmap/plan for Aspirational Districts (ADs):

a) Undertake a need assessment to map variations in digital resources & capacity of TEIs;

b) Develop a plan/roadmap for digital resources specifically for EBBs, special focus districts & ADs


States Due Date 28-Jun-2024 Roadmap adopted by STARS states.

Institutionalization of environment and social functions in the national and state education management in selected states through appointment of national level and state level nodal persons for E&S.


MHRD and states Due Date 31-May-2021

Staffing documentation.

Designate nodal officer and staff to

Fiduciary MHRD with States Due Date 31-Mar- Staffing documents and annual Post Procurement Review


Page 103 of 115

carry out procurement and receipt of complaints for each implementing agency, allow for web base submission of complaints, share with the Bank overall number and status of complaints annually as part of PPRR.

Systems 2021 Report (PPRR).

Carry out post procurement review annually starting in year 2 and share the report with the Bank.

Fiduciary Systems

MHRD with States Due Date 31-Mar-2023

Timely submission of report to the Bank.

Exclude high value contracts, debarred firms and share with the Bank any allegations of fraud and corruption.

Fiduciary Systems

MHRD with States Recurrent Continuous On going due diligence by MHRD with States.

Develop risk based, thematic area focused internal audit approach with well-developed road map for compliance.

Fiduciary Systems

MHRD with States Due Date 31-May-2022

Receipt of evidence confirming compliance.

States assess FM vacancies and prepare a time bound plan for addressing them.

Fiduciary Systems

MHRD with States Due Date 31-May-2021

Receipt of the plan.

Roll out Public Financial Management System (PFMS) for transfer of funds and generating utilization certificates at school level.

Fiduciary Systems

MHRD with States Due Date 31-Mar-2023

Generation of utilization certificates at school level.

MHRD to provide access to UDISE Plus for general

Technical MHRD Due Date 30-Sep-2020 Public access available for UDISE Plus


Page 104 of 115

viewing and use by education researchers, education professionals etc.

Provide access to the finalized version of the National Assessment Survey (NAS) data base for use by researchers, education professionals, policy makers etc.

Technical MHRD Due Date 30-Sep-2025 Public access to the finalized NAS data

. .


Page 105 of 115

ANNEX 7. IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT PLAN


172. Strategy and approach for the ISP: In keeping with the PforR approach of this operation, the strategy of the Bank‘s ISP is one of partnership, with MHRD. The Bank will collaborate closely to maximize its comparative advantage and provide the necessary implementation support, beginning with the primary funder, the GOI. In general, the World Bank implementation support will be focused on capacity-building and strengthening of India’s own systems for program development, implementation and monitoring, and for fiduciary oversight, at national and state levels in the select states, including both technical and fiduciary aspects. 173. On a day-to-day basis, MHRD, as the lead implementing agency for the Samagra Shiksha will provide the states selected for the operation with the implementation support they need to reach their education development objectives. At the State level, the Samagra Shiksha SIS will provide implementation support to the District Program Office, which in turn will provide support to the BEO and BRC, CRCs and schools. 174. MHRD’s own M&E system will be the core source of data to monitor physical implementation, particularly the Unified District management Information System Plus (UDISE- Plus). National assessment surveys undertaken through the designated agency will be tracked to understand and track learning outcomes. Implementation Support Plan: The proposed Implementation Support Plan includes a range of technical support, including activities to be carried out by MHRD, the World Bank, and technical and fiduciary specialists. There will be increasing focus on quality interventions and strengthening decentralized management agencies and partnerships with non-state actors. Funding for third party implementation support would come from the Technical Assistance fund, and the World Bank supervision budgets. Given unforeseen disaster situations/pandemic events, remote/alternative implementation support/ verification mechanisms in case of force majeure like COVID-19 would be considered. 175. Implementation support will continue to be provided in part through the Joint Review Missions (JRMs) conducted every six months, in collaboration with MHRD. The Bank will join GoI to review program implementation semi-annually in January and July as per terms of reference agreed between the GoI and the Bank prior to each JRM. The January mission will visit the field in the states selected for the operation. The July mission will primarily carry out desk reviews – with participation of states and other institutions associated with STARS. JRMs will review status of progress and issues related to program planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, including financial management/procurement capacity of states and districts and agree on actions to support the weaker states. The participation in the JRMs by the Bank and GoI will be on the basis of a 50:50 representation. 176. GOI will provide the leadership and coordination of each JRM. The organization of meetings and deliberations in the Delhi leg of each JRM will be the responsibility of GOI and the Bank on a rotational basis.


Page 106 of 115

177. It is expected that throughout the implementation of STARS there will be conferences, workshops and other events through which lessons of experience in implementation will emerge and in which international practices could inform effective implementation. The priorities for World Bank’s implementation support will be identified in consultation with GoI. 178. MHRD Quarterly Monitoring: MHRD will hold quarterly review meetings with heads of the program, quality and finance function from each of the STARS State, to discuss program progress, FM guidelines, internal and external audit observations, financial performance, staffing and training of FM personnel, etc. The Bank will be kept informed of key findings and agreements for next steps to strengthen program management and FM performance in the States.


Page 107 of 115

ANNEX 8. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (INVESTMENT PROJECT FINANCING)


Action Indicative Cost Broad Tasks

Hiring of an agency as program management unit (PMU) in MHRD

US$ 10 million

Strengthen existing capacities in financial management, planning, and program coordination etc. (b) provide support to MHRD and through them to the states selected for the operation to help improve their program design and pilots; and (c) support M&E, impact evaluation, and third-party assessments/validation of implementation activities and program outcomes

Pilot studies/initiatives/impact evaluations on key areas of the project

US$ 10 million ECE, teacher reform, national and international learning assessments, decentralized management; partnerships with non-state actors etc.

Hiring of the Independent Verification Agency (IVA)

US$ 2 million

Third party evaluations of the DLIs:

• DLI 1. Increase in students achieving minimum proficiency in grade 3 language in select states

• DLI 2. Improvement in secondary school completion rate in select states

• DLI 3. Improvement in governance index scores in select states

• DLI 4. Strengthened learning assessment systems

• DLI 5. Partnerships developed to facilitate cross-learning between states

• DLI 6. State-level improved service delivery

Knowledge Sharing/ National and International Exposure Visits

US$ 3 million Identification of best practices in key areas of program relevance identified with the World Bank

Total: US$ 25 Million

Financial Management for IPF component 179. The financial management arrangements are considered to be adequate to account for and report on project expenditure. The assessment determines that the implementation agency namely Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, have acceptable financial arrangements in place for (i) use of funds in an efficient and economical manner for the purposes intended, (ii) preparation of accurate and reliable periodic financial reports, and (iii) mobilizing


Page 108 of 115

independent and competent audit/ assurance arrangements. 180. The objective of this TA is to assist MHRD with US$ 25 million to support in the implementation of STARS Project. In particular, the TA will finance consulting and non-consultancy services, IT systems and goods for project, including (i) Hiring of an agency as program management unit (PMU) in MHRD (USD 10 million); (ii) Pilot studies/initiatives/impact evaluations on key areas of the project (USD 10 million); (iii) Hiring of the Independent Verification Agency (IVA) (USD 2 million); and (iv) Knowledge Sharing/National and International Exposure Visits (USD 3 million). 181. Implementing Arrangements: Institutional arrangements for TA activities will follow the existing schema for implementing Samagra Shiksha, a centrally sponsored scheme. The FM arrangements for the TA follows country systems. The TA will be implemented by Department of School Education (Samagra Siksha Cell), MHRD which is adequately staffed with key technical and operational specialists, including Financial Management and Procurement specialists. MHRD, GoI has a well-established framework of financial codes, treasury codes, rules of procedure, and related regulations governing financial accountability and management. 182. Budgeting, Funds Flow and Accounting: The project will be budgeted as a separate line (earmarking externally aided funding) under the budget of the MHRD to receive funds from the Ministry of Finance, GoI as external aid. Mechanism for flow of funds/payments is well defined and established, governed by the comprehensive rules and regulations at MHRD, GoI. The expenses incurred under TA will be paid by the designated DDO through Pay and Accounts Office from the Program-specific budget heads, in accordance with extant GoI procedures. Flow of funds to any other agency for implementing activities under TA shall be subject to safeguard assessment by the Bank. Accounting will be done on a cash basis using government systems. 183. Internal Audit: The Internal Audit Department (IAD) of MHRD shall audit the expenditure under TA as pert of their regular internal audit of the department. Further, the IAD will issue a separate para specifically to detail the observations for STAR-TA component. 184. External Audit: For independent assurance on the usage of funds reliance will be placed on the audit report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India on the accounts of Union Government to be submitted to the Bank within twelve months of the close of the financial year. 185. Disbursement Arrangements: The applicable disbursement method will be “reimbursement’. The Government will use its budgetary resources to finance the project expenditures. The project will submit quarterly Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IUFR) to the office of CAAA, GoI. The IUFRs will reflect the actual expenditures incurred under the project and the financial report will be submitted to the Bank within 45 days from the end of each calendar quarter. These financial reports will be submitted by CAAA to the World Bank for seeking timely reimbursement. 186. Conclusion: The overall FM risk profile of the arrangements associated with the administration and use of the TA advanced funds is moderate mainly because: (a) relatively small size of the TA fund and limited range of activities; (b) centralized payments and clear assignment of responsibilities within MHRD; and (c) close oversight by the Bank Task Team during the project preparation phase.


Page 109 of 115

Procurement for IPF Component 187. General: Procurement of goods and services under the TA component of the Operation will be carried out in accordance with World Bank Procurement Regulations dated July 1, 2016, revised November 2017 and August 2018 and the provisions of the Financing Agreement. The project will be subject to the World Bank’s Anti-Corruption Guidelines, dated October 15, 2006, and revised in January 2011 and July 2016.

• Department of School Education and Literacy (DSE&L), MHRD, Govt of India is going to establish a PMU, which will be responsible for managing the procurement requirements at Centre and to provide capacity building and staff training where appropriate. To avoid any gaps in implementation capacity, the PMU will need to be established and staffed after project effectiveness with an adequately skilled procurement specialist preferably knowledgeable on World Bank-financed operations, who will assist MHRD officials.

• The World Bank will work with MHRD along with PMU to strengthen the procurement monitoring and oversight functions and will continue to support training and continuous professional development programs to strengthen skills and capacities of staff in the public procurement arena.

• As per the requirement of the Regulations, a Project Procurement Strategy for Development (PPSD) is developed by the borrower. The PPSD requires Borrowers to consider, among other things, the market situation, the operational context, previous experience and the risks present – then from this, determine the right procurement approach that will yield the right type of response from the market. By designing the right procurement approach, there is far more likelihood of the right bidders participating, better bids being received, and an overall increased chance of achieving value for money. Therefore, determining the right procurement approach, informed by appropriate analysis is a critical activity that subsequently impacts every following step of the procurement process, and onwards into Project implementation. Based on PPSD, the procurement plan is prepared, which sets out the process to be followed by the Borrower during project implementation for the procurement of goods, non-consulting and consulting services financed by the Bank under TA component. The Procurement Plan activities will be updated in STEP (Systematic Tracking of Exchanges in Procurement). MHRD officials are already trained on STEP and they have started using it.

• Advance procurement and retroactive financing: Retroactive financing up to an amount of 20% of the TA component will be available under the project, for financing expenditures incurred within 12 months prior to the date of Loan signing to procure eligible activities.

188. Procurement risk assessment: The table below describes major procurement-related risks and the mitigation plan. The risk ratings have been decided based on both the probability of occurrence of various events as well as their likely impact. Based on the risk factors and mitigation measures, the overall residual procurement risk rating for the project is determined as “Substantial”. The residual rating on procurement will be reviewed and updated periodically by the Bank.


Page 110 of 115

Assessed Procurement Risks and Mitigation Measures

Risk Factor Initial Risk Mitigation Measure Completion

Date Residual Risk

Limited capacity and inefficiencies resulting in delays in procurement and contract management processes

High

• Hiring of skilled procurement staffs with Bank procurement knowledge for handling procurement activities

• Monitoring through procurement plan and quarterly reports

• Use of e-Procurement and contract management tools

• Participation in trainings and workshops.

During the first two years of project implementation

Substantial

Non-compliance with agreed procurement arrangements

Substantial

• Training and hand-holding provided by the Bank

• Prior and post reviews by the World Bank

• Internal and external audits

Continuous from year 1

Moderate

External interference in the procurement process

Substantial

• Disclosure of procurement-related information

• Appropriate handling of complaints

Continuous from year 1

Substantial

Overall Risk Substantial Substantial

189. Procurement methods: As indicated in Procurement Plan 190. Record keeping: All records pertaining to award of tenders, including bid notification, register pertaining to sale and receipt of bids, bid opening minutes, bid evaluation reports and all correspondence pertaining to bid evaluation, communication sent to/with the Bank in the process, bid securities, and approval of invitation/evaluation of bids would be retained by Implementing Agencies. 191. Anti-Corruption Measures:

i. Disclosure Requirements: The project shall comply with the disclosure requirements stipulated

in the Banks’ Procurement Regulations for IPF borrowers effective 1st July 2016 for TA

component.

ii. Further, IAs will also publish on their websites any information required under the provisions of

‘suo moto’ disclosure as specified by the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005.

192. Oversight and Monitoring by the Bank. All contracts under TA component not covered under prior review by the Bank will be subject to post review during implementation support missions and/or special post review missions. The World Bank will normally carry out implementation support missions, including review and support on procurement, on a semi-annual basis.


Page 111 of 115

Summary of PPSD 193. PMU in MHRD is the main nodal agency, who will coordinate and monitor the total project and will carry out all procurement under TA component. The procurement of goods and services will be mostly carried out by PMU following Bank Procurement Regulations. However, PMU which is yet to be formed, parse is not having any experience of World Bank funded project. The Procurement Capacity Assessment carried out by Bank staff concluded that the staff in DSE&L has limited experience in World Bank procurement process and procurement staffing arrangements need to be strengthened. As a result, the procurement risk has been assessed as “Substantial”. 194. Brief description of activities to be procured:

• Works: There is no procurement of works, foreseen in this project under TA component.

• Goods, IT System, and Non-Consulting Services: Goods or non-consulting services shall be procured under this Project using the World Bank’s SBDs for all ICP and national SBDs agreed with (or consistent with) the World Bank for all NCP and Shopping. Small-value procurements may be carried out following Direct Contracting in accordance with the provisions stipulated in Bank Regulation.

• Consultancies: Major consultancy services to be procured shall follow the World Bank Procurement Regulations, and standard documents of the World Bank shall be used. The TA component includes several consultancy contracts: (a) Hiring of PMU in MHRD, (b ) Consultancy for M&E (c) Consultancy for Internal & external Audit (d) selection of Independent Agency for DLI verification etc.

195. Procurement Risk Mitigation: As risk mitigation, DSE&L is in the process of hiring a PMU with one

consultant as procurement expert to handle all procurement matters as the prime responsibility. The Bank

Team has provided training and support to DSE&L officials who will be involved in project procurement.

Accordingly, the overall risk for procurement is determined as “substantial” given the lack of Bank

procurement experience on the part of the DSE&L officials.

196. Procurement Methods and prior Review Thresholds in TA component are as indicated in

Procurement Plan.


Page 112 of 115

ANNEX 9. STATE INCENTIVE GRANT MATRIX


# Indicator Score

Component I: Strengthened Early Years Education 0-20

1.1

Percentage of Teachers Trained in ECE: • ECE training modules for teachers/facilitators developed – 2 Points • 20 to 39 percent of teachers/facilitators trained using modules developed – 4 points • 40 to 59 percent of teachers/facilitators trained using modules developed – 6 points • 60 to 74 percent of teachers/facilitators trained using modules developed – 8 points • At least 75 percent of teachers/facilitators trained using modules developed – 10 points

0-10

1.2

Percentage of teachers Trained in Early Reading and Numeracy: • Early reading and numeracy teacher training modules developed – 2 Points • 20 to 39 percent of teachers trained using modules developed – 4 points • 40 to 59 percent of teachers trained using modules developed – 6 points • 60 to 74 percent of teachers trained using modules developed – 8 points • At least 75 percent of teachers trained using modules developed – 10 points

0-10

Component 2: Improved Learning Assessment Systems 0-20

2.1

Strengthened learning assessment systems and capabilities at state level (5 points each): • State assessment cell notified, and budget approved • Learning outcomes based online item banks developed for use by teachers

State Assessment Cell led training of teachers on CCE and classroom assessment • 20 percent to 49 percent of teachers trained on CCE and classroom assessment – 5 points • At least 50 percent teachers trained on CCE and classroom assessment – 10 points

0-20

Component 3: Improved teacher performance and classroom practice 0-20

3.1

(a) Strengthened in-service teacher training (cumulative) and teacher knowledge (elementary): • Online menu of need based teacher training modules developed – 1 point • 20 to 39 percent of primary and 20 to 39 percent of upper primary teachers provided with

need-based training(s) selected from an online portal providing a menu of training modules – 2 points

• At least 40 percent of primary and upper primary teachers provided with need-based training(s) selected from an online portal providing a menu of training modules – 3 points

(b) Assessment of teacher subject knowledge has been conducted and used to revise in-service training modules (elementary): • At least 1 assessment of teacher subject knowledge conducted to inform in-service training

modules – 1 point • At Least 2 assessments of teacher subject knowledge conducted to inform in-service training

modules – 2 points

0-5

3.2

(a) Strengthened in-service teacher training (cumulative) and teacher knowledge (Secondary): • Online menu of need based teacher training modules developed – 1 point • 20 to 39 percent of secondary teachers provided with need-based training(s) selected from an

online portal providing a menu of training modules – 2 points • At least 40 percent of secondary teachers provided with need-based training(s) selected from

an online portal providing a menu of training modules – 3 points (b) Assessment of teacher subject knowledge conducted and used to revise in-service training modules (elementary):

0-5


Page 113 of 115

• At least 1 assessment of teacher subject knowledge conducted to inform in-service training modules – 1 point

• At Least 2 assessments of teacher subject knowledge conducted to inform in-service training modules – 2 point

3.3

Learning Enhancement Program (LEP) for upper primary and secondary grades: • Existing learning enhancement program(s) reviewed, and revised program prepared for roll out

– 2 point • Revised LEP covers 20 to 39 percent of schools with upper primary and secondary sections – 4

points • Revised LEP covers 40 to 59 percent of schools with upper primary and secondary sections – 6

points • Revised LEP covers 60 to 74 percent of schools with upper primary and secondary sections – 8

points • Revised LEP covers at least 75 schools with upper primary and secondary sections – 10 points

0-10

Component 4: Strengthened Service Delivery 0-30

4.1

Strengthened planning and management capacities for decentralized management (BRC and CRC): • Leadership training plan for BRCs and CRCs prepared and finalized by state level nodal

institution for education management and training – 2 points • 20 to 39 percent of BRCs and CRCs trained as per plan prepared – 3 points • 40 to 59 percent of BRCs and CRCs trained as per plan prepared – 5 points • 60 to 74 percent of BRCs and CRCs trained as per plan prepared – 7 points • At least 75 percent of BRCs and CRCs trained as per plan prepared – 8 points

0-8

4.2

Strengthened school management (School Leadership): • Leadership training plan for Head Teachers and Principals prepared and finalized by state level

nodal institution for education management and training – 2 point • 20 to 39 percent of Head Teachers and Principals trained as per plan prepared – 3 points • 40 to 59 percent of Head Teachers and Principals trained as per plan prepared – 5 points • 60 to 74 percent of Head Teachers and Principals trained as per plan prepared – 7 points • At least 75 percent of Head Teachers and Principals trained as per plan prepared – 8 points

0-8

4.3

Partnerships initiated for improved education service delivery: • Draft regulatory framework developed for involvement of non-state actors in education

service delivery – 2 points • At least 2 partnerships established, and implementation initiated to pilot non-government

agency and/or private service provider supported innovations – 6 points • At least 4 partnerships established, and implementation initiated to pilot non-government

agency and/or private service provider supported innovations – 12 points • Evaluation of non-state actor partnership supported pilots completed and report submitted –

14 points

0-14

Component 5: Vocational education and training 0-10

5.1

Career guidance program for improved transition from school to further education and careers: • Career guidance program with trade specific and educational level specific information created

– 1 point • 20 to 39 percent of secondary school students provided with career guidance – 2 points • 40 to 59 percent of secondary school students provided with career guidance – 3 points • 60 to 74 percent of secondary school students provided with career guidance – 4 points • At least 75 percent of secondary school students provided with career guidance – 5 points

0-5

5.2 School campus-based vocational education for out of school children: • State institution designated for initiating, managing and monitoring pilot intervention – 0.5

point 0-5


Page 114 of 115

• Baseline established for number of 14 to 18-year-old OoSC and schools identified for pilot – 1 point

• Pilot initiated in at least 50 schools – 2 points • Pilot initiated in at least 100 schools – 3 points • Pilot initiated in at least 200 schools – 4 points • Pilot assessed, and strategy developed for upscaling – 5 points

Note: Any percentage values being considered for computation of sub-component score under the SIG scorecard

will be used after rounding off to zero decimal.


Page 115 of 115

ANNEX 10. CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS ASSESSMENT


197. An unusually hot and extreme summer months in the next twenty years is projected in India. An increase in intra-seasonal variability in the summer monsoon precipitation of 10 percent is projected. Droughts are also expected to pose an increasing risk in parts of north-western India (Turn Down the Heat, World Bank 2013). Three states supported under STARS i.e. Odisha, Maharashtra and Kerala have a coastline and are prone to natural disasters such as floods, cyclones, etc. The schools located around these coastlines especially in Odisha and Kerala are used as evacuation shelters during floods/disasters and also withstand significant damage to learning spaces. The state of Himachal Pradesh could see an increase in precipitation which will result in flash floods and landslides as well higher temperatures will likely result in melting of glaciers causing flooding. Droughts in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are expected to increase with the rise in temperatures. Natural disasters result in extended- closures of school. It may cause damage to school facilities, including water and sanitation facilities. Schools are also used as shelters during the disasters. 198. The Samagra framework for Implementation50 successfully mainstreams disaster mitigation measures and environmental good practices across key program interventions. Under STARS, the following DLIs support climate mitigation and adaptation co-benefits activities.

DLI Component Climate Actions Incorporated


2

Mitigation: Construction of new or rehabilitated classrooms and toilets will integrate design layouts to ensure natural light, ventilation, seating, display, storage, DRR, energy efficiency measures and environment friendly features. Adaptation: Adaptation measures, including (i) implementing the Guidelines on School Safety Policy, February 2016 prepared by National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) as well as National Building Code; (ii) eco-clubs in schools to empower students to participate and take up meaningful environmental activities and projects; (ii) reach out to influence, engage their parents and neighborhood communities to promote sound environmental behavior; (iii) build capacity in schools and among mid-level professionals such as BRPs and CRPs on evacuation measures in the case of disasters; and (iv) promote good practice measures such as water-harvesting, nurturing kitchen gardens, plantations drives, etc. especially in co-located schools..

DLI 2 Improvement in secondary completion rate in selected states and DLI 6 State level improved service delivery

2

Mitigation: EHS curriculum will raise awareness on climate change mitigation Adaptation: Adaptation measures, including development and implementation of EHS curriculum to support all vocational training courses

50 An Integrated Scheme for School Education, Samagra Shiksha, MHRD 2018

Documents

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: PAD3233 ...documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/789561593309621894/...FOR APublic Disclosure Authorized STRENGTHENING TEACHING-LEARNING AND RESULTS