4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
As a public policy to improve academic achievement levels in the State Secondary Education System, the Results-Driven Management Model for Education adopted these steps- among others- to implement its strategies and reach its main goal.
i)Creation of the Executive Management Committee for the Results-Driven Management Model for Education; ii)Creation of the Results-Driven Management Unit in the Secretariat of Education; iii) Conducting assessments of the state education system and critical factors; iv)Definition of evaluation criteria, indicators, semiannual mock tests and monitoring methodology; v)Joint development and buy-in for goals with the 17 Regional Education Administration Units, responsible for schools in 17 regions in the state; vi)Definition of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.
The first step entailed creation of the Executive Management Committee for the Results-Driven Management Model for Education, led by the State Governor and comprised of the Secretariat of Education, Secretariat of Planning and Management, Executive Secretaries from the Secretariat of Education, Executive Secretary for Results-Driven Management from the Secretariat of Planning and Management, and Administrators from the 17 Regional Education Administration Units.
The second step involved creation of the Results-driven Management Unit, comprised of a general manager and analysts from the Secretariat of Planning and Management. This team was placed inside the Secretariat of Education to assist in generating data and defining desired results and process indicators. Graphic visual panels and reports from the electronic dashboard are produced for schools as management tools to track and convey the status of key indicators and enable analysis of results.
The third step involved conducting a deepened and detailed situational diagnosis and analysis of education in the state, taking into account structural and legal aspects, academic achievement, resources, and organizational culture. This revealed the critical need to reduce school drop-out rates and increase academic achievement levels of students, measured by objective tests, to attain greater educational quality.
The fourth step was establishment of evaluation criteria, indicators and monitoring methodology, defining: i)bimonthly tracking and monitoring of results by the Executive Management Committee for the Results-Driven Management Model for Education; ii)indicators for analysis; iii)meeting formats at various levels to develop strategic alignment, which is essential for a program with a scope of 763 schools; iv)conducting mock exams every semester – towards systematic tracking of students’ achievement levels, providing input to guide actions in schools. This complements the assessment carried out annually since 2008 – the IDEPE Pernambuco Educational Development Index, following the same methodology as the IDEB – Compulsory Education Development Index, with the latter conducted nationally every two years.
The fifth step involved changing criteria adopted for goals within the existing Bonus for School Performance – BDE [Bônus de Desempenho Escolar], and revising the manner in which goals are jointly developed. This process was transformed into a participatory one, directly involving all players through a broad meeting in which the Secretariat of Planning and Management presented the rules for committing to goals, and where the Secretary of Education and director of each school personally signed a document committing them to these goals. In this annual meeting, the Secretary of Education presents actions planned for each region, eliciting suggestions and requests from school administrators towards strengthening planned actions.
The sixth step involved monitoring results and practices inside schools in accordance with the process agreed upon in the broad meetings to determine goals and ensure shared commitment. This stage entails meetings at the strategic, tactical and operational levels. The Model is constantly evaluated and revisited annually through a series of meetings with the Secretariat of Planning and Management and the Secretariat of Education, during which suggestions for continual improvement from all actors are evaluated.
|
|
5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
The following actors were engaged in implementing the Results-Driven Management Model for Education: i) State Governor; ii) Secretariat of Planning and Management; iii) Secretariat of Education; iv) Regional Education Administration Units; v) State Secondary Education System Schools; vi) State Secondary Education System Students; vii) Family members and communities from school districts.
The Governor charged the Secretary of Planning and Management with creating a management model capable of driving academic achievement levels higher in the public school system. To do so, the Secretariat of Planning and Management created the Unit for Results-Driven Management in Education. Together with Secretariat of Education staff, they formulated a model involving administrators from Regional Education Administration Units (17 operational units responsible for managing and monitoring schools regionally), school administrators, teachers, students, and their families.
Regional Education Administration Unit administrators, secondary school administrators, teachers, education specialists, and analysts from the Secretariat of Planning and Management were direct implementers of actions under the Results-Driven Management Model for Education.
Communities where schools are located, together with students and family members, also engaged in implementing the program. Meetings were held to explain the program, present results on indicators for schools, and address the importance of each one’s role in attaining higher levels of achievement. Families were invited to participate in school meetings and get more involved at home to stimulate students to complete their homework assignments. The community was encouraged to collaborate in school activities, even if symbolically, as a way to express their commitment to improving schools. Many community members got involved by offering their help with whatever was needed, such as painting, gardening, and small repairs. This made them feel like participants in improving their children’s education. Students were stimulated to understand that a positive level of academic achievement meant a better future for them and their families.
|
6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
Human and operational resources were the main resources employed for implementation of the Results-Driven Management Model for Education.
Human resources were the principal means for implementation of the Results-Driven Management Model for Education. Creation of the Results-driven Management Unit was necessary in order to implement the Model, consisting of one General Manager, one Manager, and eleven Planning Analysts, for generating and managing data on the dashboard, developing indicators, producing visual panels with information and graphics on schools’ results, and conducting meetings with schools on monitoring, planning and results. All members of the Results-driven Management Unit are career civil servants in the State Government, placed in the Secretariat of Education to specifically implement this initiative. The annual cost for maintenance of the Results-driven Management Unit is R$1,189,418.00 (Brazilian Reais) which represent the costs for personnel. These human resources were essential for enabling implementation of the Results-Driven Management Model for Education to reach the most basic level: the school itself - also working directly with the Regional Education Administration Units and the management teams in the Secretariat of Education. Technical staff and education specialists placed in the Secretariat of Education headquarters were also essential to implementing the model, as they participated directly in tactical and operational meetings, helping school administrators solve problems as they surfaced.
Operational resources are related to transportation, accommodations and meals for analysts from the Results-driven Management Unit, as they traveled to conduct visits and meetings in Regional Education Administration Units and schools in the entire state. These costs totaled close to R$ 89,500.00 (Brazilian Reais) per year. To save resources when carrying out activities under the Model, existing resources were optimized in schools and Regional Education Administration Units, such as: auditoriums and meetings rooms equipped with air conditioning, furniture for meetings, multi-media projectors, and flipcharts, and other necessary equipment to conduct meetings.
The Bonus for School Performance – BDE was created in 2008. It is paid annually to teachers and other education professionals working in schools and Regional Education Administration Units as an incentive to meet established goals. The rules for concession of the bonus were modified in 2011, through creation of the Results-Driven Management Model for Education. The criteria for establishing goals to be reached were adjusted to better reflect the varied context of different types of schools – their profiles and amount of classes;. This realignment allowed for goals to differ for each school, in that it also took into consideration the level of achievement previously attained by each school in the system. The goals became more challenging, albeit attainable. It is worth noting that the modification of goals linked the bonus did not lead to an increase in government expenditures.
|
|
7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
The most significant products associated with the Results-Driven Management Model for Education are: i)transparently developed goals and broad buy-in among public schools; ii)visual Panels for the management process and goals– visibly displayed in all schools iii)systematic routines for monitoring and evaluation; iv)workshops with schools to exchange successful experiences and best practices.
The first product, transparent goals and buy-in among public schools, enabled commitment to goals by each school administrator through on-site meetings at the beginning of each year in which the Secretary of Education and the Secretariat of Planning and Management explained criteria for calculating goals and provided information about investments planned for each region. School administrators made comments and suggestions, and requests for support to resolve problems. Some school administrators had never had the opportunity to talk personally about education with the Secretary of Education. Communications are clearer, the process is more participatory, and joint commitment to goals is stronger.
The second product, visual panels of the management process and goals in schools, consists of results and process indicators selected for bimonthly tracking and monitoring. Results for these indicators are calculated by the Results-driven Management Unit, utilizing their capacity and instruments in data collection, processing and analysis. Findings are provided to schools and Regional Education Administration Units- both through visual panels and electronic dashboard- for analysis, discussion, and dissemination throughout the school community.
The third product, systematic monitoring and evaluation, consists of meetings at the strategic, tactical and operational levels to monitor and evaluate the State Secondary Education System. Strategically, results are monitored and evaluated by the Model’s Executive Management Committee. Tactically, discussions take place with administrators from priority schools (schools with lower achievement levels in the IDEPE-Pernambuco Educational Development Annual Index) administrators from Regional Education Administration Units, and analysts from the Results-driven Management Unit. Operational meetings are held in schools with administrative teams and teachers.Meetings with school administrators are conducted by the analysts.
The fourth product, workshops on best practices, entails working meetings where schools with stronger results and structure similar to other schools are invited to share projects and strategies employed to improve achievement levels. School administrators learn about what has worked in other schools and are able to make appropriate changes in their schools. This practice has allowed school administrators to share simple ideas to improve results. Coffee break offered at the end of the workshop gives time to interact informally and build linkages among participants.
|
|
8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
While the Results-Driven Management Model for Education is focused on monitoring and evaluation to improve achievement levels in the public school system, the Model also has its own mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating its own activities. These mechanisms are at three levels: i)operational, carried out directly by analysts from the Results-Driven Management Unit and the immediate manager; ii)managerial, carried out by the General Manager for Results-Driven Management Unit; iii) and executive, under the coordination of the Secretary of Planning and Management, Secretary of Education, and Executive Secretary of Results-Driven Management.
The operational mechanism involves weekly meetings between the Results-driven Management Unit team and its immediate manager where brainstorming techniques are utilized in association with analysis of operating environments, working to detect problems and define corrective actions.Focus is on the monitoring of their own activities carried out externally with education administrators. The analysts evaluate activities carried out in the field in conjunction with schools, assessing whether the approach they use when working with administrators from the Regional Education Administration Units is appropriate, if school administrators are adequately adhering to- and understanding- the Model, if they are following through on actions defined in meetings, and if the pedagogical teams, teachers and students are collaborating(making suggestions and actively working on actions defined in meetings).
In the management mechanism, the General Manager for Results-Driven Management Unit systematically tracks and monitors analysts’ work daily routines. Focus is on monitoring tasks that analysts carry out internally within the Results-Driven Management Unit. The role of the General Manager is to identify, address and correct actions, proposing improvements in order to correct deviances observed. The General Manager monitors the processes through which analysts work within the Model, such as producing the visual panel graphics, analysis and monitoring of indicators, meetings with administrators, discussion of results, and monitoring the completion of follow-on actions defined in meetings. This General Manager constantly evaluates if the Unit is carrying out its activities successfully so as to foment the appropriate adjustments.
The executive mechanism consists of annual meetings between the Governor, Secretary of Planning and Management, Secretary of Education, and Executive Secretary of Results-Driven Management. These meetings address monitoring of institutional issues within the Model that need to be adjusted, as well as monitor and evaluate aggregate results, making decisions to reorient and adjust the Model itself, including indicators,goals and guidelines for action. Suggestions from all involved actors are evaluated at this time.
|
|
9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
The main obstacles to implementation of the Results-Driven Management Model for Education were: i) cultural barriers; ii)lack of a single system for data on education; iii)learning deficits of students coming from the Primary School System; iv)the size of the State Secondary Education System, totaling 763 schools.
First, cultural barriers were faced in implementing the Model. Results-driven management is still a recent initiative within public administration. For this reason, some cultural barriers and resistance among more conservative professionals made it difficult for schools to quickly assimilate the Model into their institutions. This problem was ameliorated through meetings with Regional Administration Units, where presentations were made and uncertainties clarified.
Second, the lack of a single system to provide data on schools made it difficult to carry out assessments and develop action plans. The solution encountered was to consolidate information from different data sources for use within the Model. The Secretariat of Education had acquired a system for educational information in 2010 that was not being utilized on a large scale by schools. It was thus necessary to convince school administrators about the importance of inputting data into the system and subsequently using the system as a database linked to the Model so that the analysts could enter data and information into the electronic dashboard.
Third, learning deficiencies of students coming from the Primary School System, prior to their secondary education, remains an obstacle. However, the adoption of full-day schooling and the use of technology-based tools were essential to helping students reach higher levels of achievement.
Another significant difficulty is the physically scope of the State Secondary Education System. Taking results-driven management to hundreds of schools required placement of analysts to work in the field, prioritizing certain schools based on their results, and a logistical effort to reach schools located throughout the state.
|