Analyzing crises and planning for development: the example of South

SudanLeonora MacEwen

IIEP-UNESCOCIES

9 March 2016

Overview

• Analytic framework of an ESA

• Developing a crisis-sensitive ESA in South Sudan: process and findings

• Next steps for the crisis-sensitive ESA in South Sudan

Analytical framework for an ESA

ESA

Context analysis

Analysis of existing policies

Analysis of the education

system performance

Analysis of the

management capacity

Analysis of costs and financing

•Macro-economic•Demographic •Socio-cultural •Politico-institutional •Geographic and climatic

•National development plans•MDGs, EFA,

SDGs

•Access • Internal efficiency•Quality•Equity

•Teachers•Textbook

distribution•Coordination

•By level and type of education •Based on

different funding sources

Developing a Crisis-Sensitive Education Analysis in South Sudan

Step One: Identify and map various the risks

Step Two: Analyze the potential effects of these risks on the education system Step Three: Assess the capacity of the education system to reduce and mitigate the effects of the risks and promote social cohesion

Step One: Identify and Map the Risks

Highest risk High risk Low risk Lowest risk

• Risk index based on:• conflict affected

civilians• death, injury and

disease• food insecurity

and livelihoods• widespread

malnutrition

Source: OCHA composite risk index 2014 and 2015

Step Two: Analyse the effects of these risks on the education system

1. Access - enrolment, school ownership, reasons for non-enrolment

2. Quality –school classroom type, school facilities, curriculum

3. Management – teacher type, PTR, textbook distribution

EMIS coverage in Greater Upper Nile (GUPN) States, 2015

Jonglei Unity Upper Nile

Akobo Covered Abiemnhom Covered Baliet Unsafe

Ayod Covered Guit Unsafe Fashoda Unsafe

Ayod Covered Koch Unsafe Longochuck Unsafe

Bor South Covered Leer Unsafe Maban CoveredCanal No time Mayendit Unsafe Maiwut No timeDuk Covered Mayom Covered Malakal UnsafeFangak Unsafe Panyijiar No time Mayo No timeNyrol Covered Pariang Covered Melut UnsafePibor Covered Rubkona Covered Nasir UnsafePochalla Covered Panyikang UnsafeTwic East Covered Renk CoveredUror No time Ulang Unsafe

ACCESS : GER by sector, in South Sudan, 2009 & 2015

2009 2015 Growth Rate 2009-2015

National with GUPN

GER Primary 72% 57% -21%

GER Secondary (incl Tech) 6% 7% 11%

Without GUPN

GER Primary 64% 72% 13%

GER Secondary (incl Tech) 7% 9% 32%

ACCESS: Distribution of primary pupils, by school ownership and level of risk, 2015

Government Community Religious NGO Private Other/NK

Lowest risk 66% 13% 13% 1% 3% 4%

Low 78% 11% 6% 0% 2% 3%

High 69% 9% 10% 4% 5% 3%

Highest risk 67% 6% 12% 11% 2% 1%

National 72% 10% 9% 2% 3% 3%

ACCESS: Reasons provided by households for non-enrolment of their children, September 2014

Help with household Lack of money Conflict School is closed Insecurity0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

1%

19% 19% 21%

77%

MANAGEMENT : Share of volunteer teachers (%) by sector and by level of risk in Government schools, 2015

Pre-primary Primary Secondary AES0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33% 31%

17%

34%41%

16%

44%

22%

42%

55%

64%

Lowest Low High Highest

MANAGEMENT: Pupil-teacher ratio by sector and level of risk, 2015

Pre-primary Primary Secondary AES -

10

20

30

40

50

60

40 36

16 21

34

49

17

28

35

45

23

31

-

46

35

Lowest Low High Highest

MANAGEMENT: Primary pupils per English textbook, by State and level of risk, 2015

Nb of pupils per

Engl textbook CEQ 2.3 EEQ 2.2 JON* 5.8 LAK 2.3 NBG 2.4 UNI* 7.1 UPN* 3.1 WAR 3.1 WBG 2.6 WEQ 2.3 South Sudan 2.7 WO GUN 2.5

Lowest risk

Low High Highest0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2 3 3

7

Step 3: Assess the capacity of the education system to reduce the effects of the risks and

promote social cohesion

Food Secu-rity and

Livelihoods30%

Not specified14%WASH

9%

Nutrition 8%

Logistics8%

Health 8%

Multi-Sector7%

Protection 4%

Education 3%

Funding Allocation per Cluster, 2015Capacities for risk reduction

• Organizational arrangements• Resource mobilization • School management policies for safety,

resilience, and social cohesion • Infrastructure and equipment • Teacher training• Curricula

New South Sudanese curriculum framework addresses safety and social cohesion

• Key aims – Good citizens, environmentally responsible• Values and principles – commitment to

human rights and gender equity, respect and integrity, peace and tolerance, democracy and national pride• Competencies, including co-operation

and cultural identity• Cross-cutting issues

Next steps for the crisis-sensitive ESA in South Sudan

1. Documenting process used to develop the ESA: •Good stakeholder participation•Availability of data : EMIS, DfID, OCHA, UNHCR,

UNICEF

2. Developing the Education Sector Plan: •Programmes: access, quality, management, post-

secondary •Wider participatory process than ESA•Opportunity for innovative programming