Results-Driven Management Model for Education: advances in academic achievement in school
State Secretariat of Planning and Management

A. Problem Analysis

 1. What was the problem before the implementation of the initiative?
Public education in Brazil’s 27 states has historically been deficient, which has led many people with higher income levels to attend private schools. The majority of students in public schools are youth from low-income families. Denied access to quality education, they end up with low levels of academic achievement in school. A diagnosis carried out in 2011 indicated the main problem in the state secondary education system in Pernambuco, which is the state government’s responsibility, is weak levels of academic achievement in schools as compared to other states. Students in secondary education are in the age range of 15-17 years attending their last three years of school. Pernambuco occupied the 16th position– among 27 states- for the Compulsory Education Development Index– IDEB, scoring 3.1, on a scale of 0-10, as compared to top state’s score of 4.0. The IDEB is the national index that measures the quality of education in the country every two years. The state’s score had practically stagnated from 2009 to 2011, moving from 3.0 to 3.1. The main evaluation conducted by the Ministry of Education - intended to measure students’ learning and serving as a component to calculate the IDEB- showed that students had difficulties in attaining higher academic achievement levels in Mathematics and Portuguese. Another component used to calculate the IDEB– the school dropout rate– also indicated that Pernambuco was deficient. Pernambuco was then subpar in the two key measurements of quality in compulsory education: low evaluation scores and elevated school dropout rates. The school dropout rate in Pernambuco was 12.7% in 2010, with fourteen states in the country– out of 27 - having better rates. Thus, students had serious difficulties in writing and textual comprehension, as well as trouble solving basic mathematic equations. Given parents’ low levels of income and limited education, students were left on their own to handle homework assignments. Similar to other states, Pernambuco had invested in building and equipping schools in years prior to 2011, in addition to some initiatives towards pedagogical improvements. In spite of this, the Compulsory Education Development Index– IDEB– an index assessed every two years- had only increased by 3% in 2011. It was evident that the structural improvements needed to be supported by a new approach to management focused on results and targeting critical areas related to academic achievement. Five key problems were identified regarding the management methodology at the time: i)Lack of data and indicators regarding schools; ii)Lack of a system to more frequently monitor and evaluate achievement levels in the State Secondary Education System iii)Lack of more challenging goals for schools, plus the absence of an organizational culture for tracking and monitoring results to allow corrections; iv)Little interaction between schools and students’ families; v)Gaps between classroom reality and school administrators (i.e Principals), making them unaware of which students were experiencing difficulties, who in turn were denied tutorial support in related curricular content. Pernambuco’s faced the challenge to resolve these problems to significantly improve academic achievement in schools throughout the State Secondary Education System.

B. Strategic Approach

 2. What was the solution?
Facing unsatisfactory results for education in Pernambuco, in 2011 the Governor decided to focus efforts on the State Secondary Education System, assigning the Secretariat of Planning and Management with the task of planning and developing a management methodology in partnership with the Secretariat of Education: the Results-Driven Management Model for Education. This methodology sought principally to improve the achievement levels of students in the State Secondary Education System, as measured by the IDEB- Compulsory Education Development Index. To do so, a management methodology guided by results was created and put into practice in schools so as to foment new managerial and pedagogical practices– and thus reach better academic achievement. The Results-Driven Management Model for Education was created, bringing a new management methodology to the Secretariat of Education, regional education administrators and school administrators and their teams. It was essential to infuse the philosophy of seeking results into school management practices in order to address two critical aspects for improved results:i)Increase achievement levels of students, in objective tests such as the one carried out by the Ministry of Education; ii)Reduce school drop-out rates. The Results-Driven Management Model for Education consists of implementation of a management methodology, whose process encompasses i)situational diagnosis ii)definition of indicators and goals iii)implementation of an electronic dashboard; iv)monitoring, evaluation, and guidance for effective decision-making. The Model established a schedule of periodic meetings at the strategic, tactical and operational levels, coordinated by the Secretariat of Planning and Management. A Management Committee was created and convened by the Governor, who oversees the strategic meetings, serving as a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the State Secondary Education System. Indicators are used to demonstrate the performance of each school, forming the foundation for subsequent concession of bonuses to teachers and education professionals: the Bonus for School Performance-BDE. Fundamental to this process and investment is the understanding that administrators should participate actively in planning and management meetings focused on discussions of schools’ results and, based on their assessment, plan strategies that should be adopted to improve their managerial and pedagogical practices, and as a consequence, the indicators. The electronic dashboard is the tool that allows systematization of results of selected indicators, and conveys relevant information to the Governor, regional education administrators, school administrators and their teams. The Model was developed so as to offer administrators at all levels, systematic information on achievement levels in the State Secondary Education System, enabling better planning, evaluation of plans and related corrections capable of strengthening school administration and management. Revising the criteria used for calculating goals for schools has brought greater clarity for everyone involved. Buy-in meetings ensure commitment to jointly developed goals and help bring managers from the Secretariat of Education closer to schools. Indicators are used to evaluate the school’s capacity to offer essential services to students and build closer ties with the community. The levels of deliberation- strategic, tactical and operational- serve to guarantee consistency between what is decided at the governmental level and what is transmitted at the intermediate level, and ultimately what is carried out at operational level. Evaluation at multiple levels is capable of resolving problems of all natures and degrees of complexity. This set of simple protocols sought to guarantee quality school services,quickly detecting and correcting problems in schools and recuperating the importance communities give to their schools, bringing with it a sense of belonging to and collaboration with these institutions. These aspects were essential in reducing school drop-out rates and improving academic achievement levels which, together, have the potential to leverage better results in the State Secondary Education System through the IDEB-Compulsory Education Development Index.

 3. How did the initiative solve the problem and improve people’s lives?
Results-driven management applied to education is new to public service in Brazil, where it is not usually established in a clear way what the expected results are. With the implementation of the Results-Driven Management Model for Education, the focus became students’ levels of achievement in the State Secondary Education System, through objective evaluations and other educational indicators. Further, the approach utilized by the Results-Driven Management Model for Education is innovative as a model for monitoring and evaluating public policies in education, which has traditionally been deprived of techniques and methodologies in results-driven management. Through the Results-Driven Management Model for Education, innovations have been adopted in a pioneering manner - such as mock tests for the Ministry of Education test - and jointly developed goals with broad buy-in between state government and schools. The Model is creative in that it establishes a Results-Driven Management Unit consisting of analysts from the Secretariat of Planning and Management, physically operating in the Secretariat of Education, to foment interaction among professionals from the areas of management and education, thereby guaranteeing that the Model is effectively implemented in concert with the actions carried out by the Secretariat of Education.

C. Execution and Implementation

 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.

D. Impact and Sustainability

 10. What were the key benefits resulting from this initiative?
The Results-Driven Management Model for Education produced highly relevant benefits towards improving education: elevation of achievement levels and the retention of students in school. When comparing 2013 with 2011, an increase of 16.1% was observed in the results from the IDEB – Compulsory Education Development Index, which is the principal indicator for measuring the quality of education in the country. There was also a 59% reduction in the school dropout rate from 2010 to 2013. The IDEB – Compulsory Education Development Index evaluation is carried out every two years in every Brazilian state and evaluates the academic achievement levels of students in Portuguese and Mathematics. In 2011, the result for the State Secondary Education System was 3.1, falling below the national average of 3.4. Based on this result, Pernambuco was ranked 16th among all the states in the country. In 2013, the result for the State Secondary Education System rose to 3.6, placing Pernambuco above the average in Brazil, which remained at 3.4. Further, the state jumped to 4th place among the national ranking and to 1st place among all the states in the Northeast region of the country. Another significant benefit resulting from the Model was the reduction in school dropout rates. In 2010, Pernambuco had a school dropout rate of 12.7% in the State Secondary Education System, ranking15thin the country. In 2013, the school dropout rate fell to 5.2%, putting Pernambuco at the top of the national ranking with the lowest school dropout rate in the country, ahead of Sao Paulo, which had been ranked in 1st place since 2007. Attaining the country’s lowest school dropout rate indicates that students in the State Secondary Education System in Pernambuco recognize that school services have improved and feel motivated to continue studying. Greater attractiveness of schools not only optimizes academic achievement, but also contributes to improvements regarding other social indicators, such as the reduction in violence among youth. If the substantial improvement in the Compulsory Education Development Index– IDEB is an external indication of improvement in achievement levels in the public school system, the significant reduction in school dropout rates is our greatest measurement for students’ satisfaction with school. These two significant results demonstrate that the Results-Driven Management Model applied to Education in 2011 brought forth what was missing for the State Secondary Education System to be able to take the jump forward that it took in regards to quality. The improvement in students’ academic achievement levels demonstrates that the quality of teaching and learning has improved, and that school has become more attractive. In turn, students are induced to remain in school. Classes become more interesting, students begin to attend classes more frequently and more actively participate in school projects, and the community becomes a real partner to the school by collaborating as much as it can. This improvement occurred through a vision acquired by administrators and teachers, where the results obtained on a regular basis are used to guide the schools decisions and actions. This involves an understanding that these results should shed light on the problem at hand so that the school can focus on solutions and greater attention to the students that have the greatest need for help. This new management methodology, with its focus on results and directed at critical areas of performance, allows schools that were benefiting from investments but unable to improve its results to now rise to a higher standard of quality at the national level. The effective participation of students’ families and members of the school community was essential to attaining these results. This active participation continues to be strengthened by the management tools from the Results-Driven Management Model for Education, which works towards transparency and collaboration as assumptions for the improvement of academic achievement levels in the State Secondary Education System. Based on these results of improvement in students’ academic achievement level and reduction of school dropout rates, the Results-Driven Management Model for Education demonstrates that it is generating significant benefits for students in Pernambuco and for public education in the state.

 11. Did the initiative improve integrity and/or accountability in public service? (If applicable)
One of the key pillars for sustaining the Results-Driven Management Model for Education is its institutional foundations. This has been built around a structured career path for management that seeks to maintain and enhance management practices and tools: the Analysts for Planning, Budget and Management, who work within the Secretariat of Planning and Management, are career public servants, nominated after they pass public service examinations. They are professionals physically based in the Secretariat of Education for the purpose of managing the Results-Driven Management Model for Education and monitoring strategic actions and key investments. Public recognition is also extremely relevant for sustaining the strategy. It is this recognition that lends legitimacy to the Model and brings with it stability, avoiding the effects of political changes that could otherwise put an end to an initiative recognized by citizens. Adoption of tools that favor transparency and social control, such as publications in the online transparency portal, open administrative practices in the schools, and the Secretariat of Education’s website, all contribute to and optimize the process of legitimization. One essential step for the maintenance of the successful practices is the legal underpinnings created for the Results-Driven Management Model for Education. Several legal pillars have been established, such as the Complementary State Law no. 141 [Lei Complementar Estadual nº 141], which provides the legal framework for the Integrated Model for Management under the Pernambuco State Executive Branch, and the Decree no. 39.336, dated April 25, 2013, which establishes Public Value as an objective for State Programs and creates guidelines for Results-Driven Management. The latter also establishes the execution of Results-Driven Pacts within the scope of the State Executive Branch. Creating a legal structure for the managerial implementation of the Results-Driven Management Model establishes a fundamental framework, while taking care not to leave it overly rigid, so as to allow for continual improvements. The Model’s approach and implementation process is entirely replicable in other municipalities, given the multitude of similarities in the educational context. The state acquired expertise that will enable technical transfer to other municipalities through the civil servants working in the public administration. The results-driven management tools are clear and objective. There are no impediments to adopting the same model at the federal level. Other states have already sought out the Secretariat of Education and the Secretariat of Planning and Management to become familiar with the Results-Driven Management Model for Education, in order to replicate the Model in their public education systems. The states of Goiás, Espírito Santo and the Distrito Federal have already made technical visits to Pernambuco to this end. The possibility of creating a chamber of municipal coordination is currently under analysis. This mechanism would have the potential to integrate actions between the involved states and provide a mechanism for the exchange of experiences. Another promising possibility would be working in conjunction with consortia of municipalities, as this institutional structure broadens the possibilities for resolving regional problems.

 12. Were special measures put in place to ensure that the initiative benefits women and girls and improves the situation of the poorest and most vulnerable? (If applicable)
The Results-Driven Management Model for Education fomented a deep change in the public school system in the state of Pernambuco, principally in relation to the manner in which administrators and professionals in education began to deal with information on performance related to their activities: focusing on the improvement of students’ academic achievement levels and subsequent results. Actions within the Model were assimilated with different degrees of acceptance among the actors directly or indirectly involved. There were also different levels of comprehension in regards to the Model’s tools and techniques, which led to disparate results among similar schools. Though the Model did enable fundamental improvements over a short period of time, some lessons have been observed and contribute to enriching comprehension of the initiative. The first lesson is that the creation and implementation of results-driven management involves a change in organizational culture. There are methodologies and terms with which education professionals were previously unfamiliar, such as: establishing goals, monitoring meetings, tracking of indicators, analysis of percentages, etc. The use and mastery of such terms require a maturation process as they not only become incorporated into vocabulary, but also into these professionals’ routine practices. Another lesson learned is that the purpose of the Model is not just attaining better numbers, but rather ensuring that transformations occur in the school learning environment. Even with the intense engagement and integration of technical teams to develop strategies towards addressing specific problems, it was never forgotten that the main focus was to improve the teaching and learning processes, which would in turn lead to better results. The Model encouraged education professionals to more effectively prepare their classes through improved planning, focus on the gaps in their students’ knowledge levels and utilization of appropriate tools that made classes more attractive. In terms of recommendations, it is pertinent to highlight the importance of support and commitment at the highest level. The Secretariat of Planning and Management was given the responsibility for developing, putting into place and coordinating the Results-Driven Management Model for Education, addressing all the implications and technical dimensions of the project. However, without the leadership of the Governor in prioritizing the project in all its phases of planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation, the initiative would not have flourished and attained the visible and impactful results. Another recommendation is to adopt a systematic process of intensive monitoring of the actions carried out under the initiative. In the case of the Results-Driven Management Model for Education, this has been a great challenge, demanding discipline and perseverance to ensure that the schedule of monitoring meetings is structured and fully accomplished, as well as guaranteeing strict follow-through on the deliberations and decisions generated in these meetings. The Results-Driven Management Model for Education prioritizes this item to ensure continuous tracking and monitoring of its principal indicators, in order to ensure the analysis of difficulties encountered and subsequent definition of corrective actions.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   State Secretariat of Planning and Management
Institution Type:   Government Department  
Contact Person:   Vivianne Camara
Title:   Mrs.  
Telephone/ Fax:   558131840092
Institution's / Project's Website:  
E-mail:   vivianne.camara@seplag.pe.gov.br  
Address:   1377, Aurora Street - Santo Amaro
Postal Code:   50040090
City:   Recife
State/Province:   PE
Country:  

          Go Back

Print friendly Page
video porno.. brasileiros xxx xhamster