Setting Plan
Targets: School Education
By
Dr. K. Biswal
Associate Professor
Department of Educational
Planning
National
University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA)
17-B, Sri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi-110016, India
E-mail:kkbiswal@nuepa.org.
1.
Introduction
Broadly, planning as a process of
working out future course of action based on rational decisions aims at
attaining a set of commonly agreed upon objectives/developmental goals. In
the planning exercise, these objectives are then translated into clearly
defined quantitative ‘targets’ with specific time frames. In other words,
targets are what the plan intends to achieve, given the national development
framework and diagnosis of the educational situation in the base year and a
preliminary assessment of available resources. Linking itself to the overall
development framework, the target setting process focuses attention on, and
reflects the planners’ view of the improvements which needs to be made in
the education sector. They also provide measures for demonstrating progress
and success.
Given the developmental goals,
targets must be informed by an accurate evaluation of what are currently
being achieved along with related development problems and priorities. Plan
targets are different from general statements. A statement becomes a target
when:
-
What is to be achieved is stated clearly and unambiguously;
-
It is expressed as far as possible in measurable and quantifiable terms;
and
-
The time frame is specified.
For example, ‘improving retention
rate of girls at primary level by 2010’ is a general statement. Such a
statement would not lead us anywhere in assessing the outcomes of the plan
interventions aimed at improving the retention rate of girls in primary
education. This statement becomes a target when is expressed as, ‘increasing
the survival rate of girls to grade VI in Cambodia by eight percentage
points over the base year survival rate by 2010’. This target is measurable
and has been expressed in terms of a performance indicator (i.e. survival
rate). It also has a reference period, which would help assess progress
towards its achievement. Not that all targets can be expressed in
quantitative terms. In such cases, targets expressed in qualitative
statements should be qualified by identifying the proxy indicators that may
help monitor progress towards the target.
Needless to mention that, target
setting forms a critical step in the plan formulation process. Targets and
indicators should not be confused with wider educational goals and
objectives. They are not ends in themselves. At best their use helps to
improve performance and enhance accountability. Planning the ways in which
targets will be reached in the education sector should contribute to
identifying better resource allocations and working practices. Greater
accountability is a positive check on politicians, managers and teachers.
Moreover, developmental goals in any country are generally set through a
political process, which may or may not be based on any technocratic
planning model. It may be based on past trends (inertia) or political
decision to shift the past trends of development in a given sector,
including education. Goals are the outcomes of the policy planning process.
Whereas planning primarily aims at implementing policies so as to achieve
the intended sectoral or sub-sectoral developmental goals. In a way, a
developmental goal in the education sector is a given variable to the
planner whereas plan targets are dynamic, which changes with the actual
performance of the education sector. For example, in the Cambodian context,
universalization of basic education may be considered a developmental goal,
which is a constant variable to the planner, while enrolment targets are
dynamic in the sense that they may change every year depending on the actual
participation rate of the relevant age group children, growth rate of child
population, internal efficiency of the school system, etc.
2.
Targets need to be SMART
Plan targets need to be SMART (S:
Specific; M: Measurable; A: Achievable; R: Realistic; and T: Time-bound).
Targets must focus on key development priorities in the education sector.
They should be set in the context of the plan of action being developed and
also take into consideration the socio-economic environment in which the
plan is to be executed. It is important to note that the pace of development
in education is generally slow. The capacity of the education system,
therefore, should not be overestimated, which may lead to setting
unrealistic targets that have little likelihood of success. Target setting,
therefore, should take into consideration a whole lot of related factors
that may influence results of the plan interventions including expected
inputs by stakeholders; use of data and information relevant to geographic
area and target population; expert assessment of the problems and issued
addressed; staff experience and capacity in estimating what is realistic to
achieve within a defined time frame based on research and past performance
of comparable programs and activities; consideration of available expertise,
institutional arrangements as well as resources for monitoring and
evaluation; parallel and collaborative work of other public and private
sector influences on outcomes; and after all, the environment for plan
implementation.
3. Target setting in a decentralized educational
planning framework
The methodology of plan
formulation in a decentralized planning framework deals with the techniques
of diagnosis, including estimation and interpretation of performance and
other indicators; projection of school age population, enrolment and
teachers; building alternative scenarios and target setting; design and
elaboration of development strategies and interventions; estimation of
additional infrastructure, manpower, teaching-learning material, etc.;
planning for implementation; and costing of planned interventions and
activities. It is, therefore important to note that target setting as a
distinct stage in the planning exercise is closely linked to the preceding
stages (i.e. diagnosis and projections). At the same time, it influences
significantly the course of action in the subsequent stages of plan
formulation. For example, while the overall development objective and the
results of the diagnosis and projection exercises in the education sector
form the basis for setting enrolment targets, the enrolment targets once set
would largely determine the estimation of requirements in terms of
infrastructure, teachers, teaching-learning materials, etc. An inappropriate
enrolment target may lead to under or overestimation of schooling
requirements.
Another important aspect of the
decentralized planning framework is conflict between the bottom-up and
top-down approach to setting plan targets. Often, national targets are
imposed on lower level planning units such as the district in Cambodia,
which then makes the target unrealistic. Because, national targets often
have different implications for different districts. Feasibility of
achieving such targets becomes a major issue at the district level. Such a
top-down approach also goes against the very purpose of decentralized
planning in education which is supposed to be context specific. It is a fact
that availability of resources and expertise do not always ensure desired
results because of the varying resource absorption capacity across
decentralized planning units. Even with the availability of the required
resources the performance of districts may vary significantly because of
lack of other enabling conditions. Moreover, one of the primary objectives
of decentralized planning is to set targets that are realistic, feasible and
relevant to the target population and areas. But, at the same time, plan
targets set at the decentralized planning units can not be free of the
overall sectoral and sub-sectoral targets generally set at the national
level. In such cases, there is a need for dialogue between the policy-makers
at the macro level and planners at the micro level in order to arrive at
plan targets that do not undermine the national goals and also make the
district level targets unrealistic. Ensuring effective two-way communication
mechanisms between macro and micro level planning units becomes important in
the target setting exercise.
4.
Need for disaggregated target setting
Disaggregated target setting at
the district level is another aspect of decentralized planning in education.
The same target at the district level may have varying implications at the
sub-district level – viz., the Communes in Cambodia. For example, in a
district a target of achieving a certain net enrolment ratio in primary
education may have different implications for different Communes. Therefore,
the district targets are to be translated into block wise targets. This is
necessary to make intervention strategies local specific. For example, some
Communes in the district might have already achieved universal participation
in primary education, and in others, participation may found to be a major
issue. In such cases, Communes which have already achieved universal
participation would emphasize more on retention and quality improvement
dimensions while other Communes may need to focus on all components of
universal basic education. Such contextual factors are important to set plan
targets and decide on the intervention strategies at the sub-district
levels.
While setting disaggregated plan
targets in basic education at sub-district levels, there is also a need to
set targets by plan components such as access enrolment, retention,
international efficiency, learning outcomes, capacity building, etc. Within
these components, plan targets should be set by gender, social groups and
location of schools (i.e.) rural and urban. Often, education plans do not
make clear distinction between such disaggregated targets and implementation
schedule of major planned interventions. It may be kept in view that, once
plan targets are set, planners evolved intervention strategies and provide
detailed programmes and projects to be undertaken to reach the plan targets.
Each programme/project consists of a number of activities which again needs
to be carefully planned for execution. Translating these programmes and
projects into an operating time table with clear assignment of roles and
responsibilities of individuals and organizations in the implementation
process is what is called planning for implementation. One of the important
tasks in the planning for implementation is assigning time and resources to
each of the individual activities for their timely completion. Assigning
time to individual activities of education development programme can not be
termed as a plan target. This point needs to be kept in mind while
developing decentralized education development plans.
Given the critical importance of
target setting in formulating decentralized education development plans,
target setting exercise, particularly enrolment target setting should follow
certain standard procedure/methodology. Assumptions of the target setting
exercise should be clearly mentioned in the plan document. All related data
and information used in the target setting exercise should also be mentioned
in the plan document. The procedure/method of setting targets should be
discussed in detail in the plan as this would facilitate justification of
plan targets. Moreover, as far as possible, plan targets should be stated in
absolute numbers and in terms of performance indicators. A suggested format
for presenting targets in a plan document is given below:
Table
1: Suggested format for presenting plan targets [plan component:
universal participation in basic education (rural + urban)]
Sl.
No. |
Description of the target/Indicator |
Base
year status |
Total enrolment
(‘000) |
Plan
target
2008/9 |
Total enrolment
(‘000) |
Additional enrolment |
1.1 |
Net
Enrolment Ratio (Boys + Girls) |
86% |
XXX |
89% |
XXX |
XXX |
1.2 |
Net
Enrolment Ratio (Girls) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Setting enrolment
targets in basic education development plans
Having briefly discussed the
concept of plan target and some aspects of target setting in a decentralized
planning framework in education, an attempt has been made in this section to
discuss one of the alternative methods of setting enrolment targets in basic
education, which is based on projection of school age population and
enrolment in grades I-VI. In this case, the compound growth rate method has
been used for projecting the school age population and enrolment in grades
I-VI. Diagnosis exercise with focus on disaggregated analysis of data at the
VDC and RC levels will help planning team members to set Commune-specific
realistic targets on different aspects of universal basic education in
Cambodia. It may also be noted that annual as well as targets in the base
years need to be set out separately in case of boys and girls, social
groups, rural and urban areas. All this will require projected of school age
population and enrolment both at the Commune and district levels. The
outcome of the diagnosis and projection exercises would play decisive role
in adopting targets on enrolment.
Several
alternative methods are available for setting enrolment targets. Grade ratio
or grade transition and compound growth rate are some such alternative
methods. The grade transition method depends on indicators determining the
student flow and help set grade-wise enrolment targets. The compound growth
rate method can be used to set enrolment targets both for grade I and grades
I-VI. It is the simplest method of setting enrolment targets which requires
data on enrolment in the base year, share of under and overage children in
the total enrolment in the base year, information about past trends in the
growth of enrolment and share of under and overage children in total
enrolment due to repetition, late entry in grade I and grades I-VI, child
population in the relevant age group, past trends in the growth rate of
child population, share of private sector in the total enrolment (if any)
and share of in or out-migrants in the total enrolment, particularly in
urban areas.
For example, assuming
that the required data and information are available, if the job is to
develop a perspective plan for universalization of six years of basic
education by 2015 in one of the districts in Cambodia, and given the
national target to universalize participation (6-11 age group) in basic
education by 2012/13, the enrolment target setting exercise based on the
compound growth rate method can follow the following steps:
Step
I: Project the 6-11 age group child population (based on the
assumed growth rate) for the target year (2012) following the compound
growth rate method {(Pn = P0 [1+ (r/ 100)]n}
separately by Commune, sex and rural urban areas.
Step II: Consider
the projected child population in 2012 as total enrolment of 6-11 age group
to have 100% NER.
Step
III: Based on the past trends in the share of under and overage
children in the total enrolment in grades I-VI and proposed plan
interventions to stabilize entry age to grade I and improve internal
efficiency of basic education, assume a certain share of under and overage
children in the total enrolment in grades I-VI in 2012/13.
Step IV: Adjust the
projected total enrolment of all age groups in grades I-VI in 2012/13 by
taking into consideration the presence of under and overage children in the
total enrolment. For example, if the share of under and overage children in
the total enrolment in grades I-VI in 2012/13 in a Commune is assumed to be
12%, then the share of the projected enrolment in grades I-VI in the total
enrolment in that year becomes 88%. We now know the expected enrolment of
6-11 age group children in 2012/13, which is 88% of the total enrolment. The
next job is to find out what would the total enrolment?
Step V: Taking the
base year enrolment figures (actual) for grades I-VI and the adjusted total
enrolment for grades I-VI in 2012/13, estimate the Commune-wise required
average annual growth rates of enrolment between the base and target years
to achieve universal participation in basic education 2012/13.
Step VI: Using the
estimated average annual growth rates of enrolment and the base year actual
enrolment, set year-wise enrolment targets following the base year.
Step VII: If the
private sector has a visible share in the basic education sub-sector, adjust
the year-wise projected enrolment in grades I-VI by taking the most likely
share of private sector in the total enrolment.
Some of the issues we need to
reflect on are that:
§
Can we use GER to set
enrolment targets in basic education where the goal is to universalize
enrolment of the relevant age group population?
§
Should we consider
dropouts in setting enrolment targets in basic education?
§
How to take into account
migration of child population while setting enrolment targets in basic
education in urban areas?
Needless to mention that methods
for setting enrolment targets for subsequent levels of education will be
different as it depends not only on the growth of relevant age group
population but also the internal efficiency of the preceding level of
education.
6.
Setting enrolment targets in basic education: A practical exercise
The task is to universalize
enrolment of 6-11 age group children in grades I-VI in one of the districts
in Cambodia. The planning team needs to set commune-wise disaggregated
enrolment targets following the compound growth rate method. The basic
information relating to child population and enrolment in various communes
in the hypothetical district are given in Table 2.
Table
2: Commune-wise child population (6-11 age group), average annual
growth rate of child population, enrolment in grades I-VI in the base year
and share of under and overage children in the total enrolment in grades
I-VI in District XX in Cambodia
Commune |
6-10 age group population, 2007 |
Average annual growth rate between
2007-2015 |
Total enrolment (all age groups) in
grades I-V in 2007/08 |
Percentage share of under and
overage children in grades I-V, 2007/08
|
Enrolment Target
(in absolute numbers)
|
2008/09 |
2009/10 |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
C1 |
34845 |
2.12 |
35592 |
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
C2 |
28165 |
1.98 |
28459 |
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
C3 |
24220 |
2.34 |
24729 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
C4 |
20986 |
2.11 |
21106 |
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
C5 |
5421 |
2.56 |
5650 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
District |
113637 |
-- |
115536 |
-- |
|
|
|
|
|
Further, the total enrolment in
grades I-VI will grow at an average annual growth rate between 2007-08 and
2012/13. The percentage share of under and overage children in grades I-VI
will be uniformly brought down to 6% across all Communes in the district in
2012/13.
Based on the above data and
assumptions, set the Commune-wise yearly enrolment targets for
universalizing participation in basic education in the district by 2012/13: