Seqaep Af Project Paper - Negotiated

Document of
The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: 80615-BD
PROJECT PAPER
ON A
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CREDIT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 172.8 MILLION
(US$ 265 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
TO THE
THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH
FOR A
SECONDARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCESS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
October 31, 2013
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.
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective September 30, 2013)
Currency Unit = Taka
Taka 77.88 = US$1
US$1.53407 = SDR 1
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AC
ACT
ACF
AD
ADB
AF
APD
BANBEIS
BBS
BISE
BP
BSK
CAS
CCT
CONTASA
DA
DD
DEO
DG
DID
DLI
DO
DPHE
DPP
DRH
DSHE
EACM
EL
EMF
EMP
FAPAD
FMS
FMA
FSSAP
FY
Additional Class
Additional Class Teacher
Award Conformation Form
Assistant Director
Asian Development Bank
Additional Financing
Additional Project Director
Bangladesh Bureau of Education Information and Statistics
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education
Bank Procedures
Bishwo Shahitto Kendro
Country Assistance Strategy
Conditional Cash Transfer
Convertible Taka Special Account
Designated Account
Deputy Director
District Education Officer
Director General
Difference in Difference
Disbursement Linked Indicator
Development Objective
Department of Public Health and Engineering
Development Project Proforma
Developing Reading Habit
Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education
Education Awareness and Community Mobilization
English Language
Environmental Management Framework
Environmental Management Plan
Foreign Aided Project Audit Disclosure
Financial Management Specialist
Financial Management Analyst
Female Secondary School Assistance Project
Fiscal Year
ii
GAAP
GO
GOB
HIES
HOI
HT
ICT
IDA
IE
IFC
IFR
IPF
KPI
LASI
LGED
MEW
M&E
MIS
MoE
MoF
MoPA
MoU
MPO
MTR
NPV
OP
OARF
PAD
P-RAMS
PD
PDO
PMT
PMTA
PPR
PPT
PTA
RCT
RD
RDPP
RT
SESDP
SEQAEP
SMC
SMF
SSC
SWAp
TDP
TA
USEO
Governance and Accountability Action Plan

Government Order
Government of Bangladesh
Household Income and Expenditure Survey
Human Opportunity Index
Head Teachers
Information Communications Technology
International Development Association
Impact Evaluation
International Finance Corporation
Interim Financial Report
Investment Project Financing
Key Performance Indicator
Learning Assessment in SEQAEP Institutions
Local Government Engineering Department
Monitoring and Evaluation Wing
Monitoring and Evaluation
Management Information System
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Public Administration
Memorandum of Understanding
Monthly Pay Order
Mid-Term Review
Net Present Value
Operational Policies
Operational Risk Assessment Framework
Project Appraisal Document
Procurement Risk Assessment management system
Project Director
Project Development Objective
Proxy Means Testing
Proxy Means Testing Administrator
Public Procurement Rules
Project Preparation Team
Parent-Teacher Association
Randomized Control Trial Design
Regression Discontinuity Design
Revised Development Project Performa
Resource Teacher
Secondary Education Sector Development Project
Secondary Education Quality and Access Enhancement Project
School Management Committee
Social Management Framework
Secondary School Certificate
Sector Wide Approach
Tribal Development Plan
Technical Assistance
Upazila Secondary Education Officer
iii
Vice President:
Country Director:
Sector Director:
Sector Manager:
Task Team Leaders:
Philippe H. Le Houerou
Johannes C.M. Zutt
Jesko S. Hentschel
Amit Dar
Ayesha Y. Vawda and Dilip Parajuli
iv
BANGLADESH
ADDITIONAL FINANCING SECONDARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCESS
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
CONTENTS
PROJECT PAPER DATA SHEET ............................................................................................................ vi
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
II.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCING ................................. 1
III.
PROPOSED CHANGES ................................................................................................................ 3
IV.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 6
Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring......................................................................................... 10

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description ..................................................................................................... 17
Annex 3: Project Costing by Component ................................................................................................. 24
Annex 4: Summary of Impact Evaluation Study ...................................................................................... 25
Annex 5: Implementation Arrangements .................................................................................................. 27
Annex 6: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangement .......................................................... 30
Annex 7: Procurement Arrangements ...................................................................................................... 33
Annex 8: Safeguards ................................................................................................................................. 37
Annex 9: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) .................................................................. 39
Annex 10: Governance and Accountability Action Plan (GAAP) ........................................................... 41
Annex 11: List of New Upazilas under SEQAEP AF .............................................................................. 43
Annex 12: PMT Scheme ........................................................................................................................... 46
Annex 13: Economic Analysis.................................................................................................................. 49
BANGLADESH
ADDITIONAL FINANCING SECONDARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCESS
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (P146255)
PROJECT PAPER DATA SHEET
Basic Information - Additional Financing (AF)
Country Director: Johannes C.M. Zutt
Sectors: Secondary Education (92%);
Sector Director: Jesko S. Hentschel
Public Admin Educ (8%)
Sector Manager: Amit Dar
Themes: Education for All (100%)
Team Leader: Ayesha Y. Vawda and Dilip Parajuli
Environmental category: B
Project ID: P146255
Expected Closing Date: December 31,
Expected Effectiveness Date: January 1, 2014
2017
Lending Instrument: IPF
Joint IFC: NA
Additional Financing Type: Scale-up and Cost Overrun
Joint Level: NA
Basic Information - Original Project
Project ID: P106161
Environmental category: B
Project Name: Secondary Education Quality & Access Enhancement Expected Closing Date: June 30,
Project
2014
Lending Instrument: SIL
Joint IFC: NA
Joint Level: NA
AF Project Financing Data
[ ] Loan [X] Credit [ ] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other:
Proposed terms: 40-year maturity with a 10 year grace period
AF Financing Plan (US$m)
Source
Total Amount (US $m)
Total Project Cost:
280
Cofinancing:
Borrower:
15
Total Bank Financing:
IBRD
265
IDA
New
Recommitted
Client Information
Recipient: The Peoples Republic of Bangladesh,
Economic Relations Division, Ministry of Finance, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Responsible Agency: Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE), Ministry of Education (MOE),
Dhaka, Bangladesh
AF Estimated Disbursements (Bank FY/US$m)
FY
Annual
Cumulative
2014
35
35
2015
65
100
2016
65
165
Project Development Objective and Description
vi
2017
65
230
2018
35
265
Project development objective: The key project development objective is to improve quality of
education and monitor learning outcomes systematically, and to increase access and equity in project
upazilas.
Under the proposed Additional Financing, there is no change to the Project Development Objective.
Project description: The Additional Financing for SEQAEP Project will support four components,
including, (i) improving quality, (ii) improving equitable access, (iii) strengthening institutional capacity,
and (iv) establishing an effective monitoring and evaluation system.
Safeguard and Exception to Policies
Safeguard policies triggered:
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01)
[X]Yes [X] No
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10)
[X]Yes [ ] No
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)
[ ]Yes [X] No
Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?
Have these been endorsed or approved by Bank management?
vii
[ ]Yes [X] No
[ ]Yes [ ] No
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Executive Directors to provide an Additional Financing
(AF) in an amount of US$265 million to the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh for the Secondary Education
Quality and Access Enhancement Project (SEQAEP, PID: P106161, IDA Credit 4475-BD).
2.
The proposed AF would: (i) extend the current SEQAEP project to December 2017 and implement the
expanded project activities (across more schools and for more students within SEQAEP upazilas) to deepen the
impact of a well-performing project; (ii) initiate replication of successful activities in 90 additional upazilas for
national roll-out of successful SEQAEP interventions; and (iii) allow adequate time for Ministry of Education
(MOE) to evaluate and institutionalize successful interventions from the ongoing project under a more
harmonized secondary education sector program that the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) is planning to
initiate by 2018.
II.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCING
3.
Background: Bangladesh pioneered the use of conditional cash transfers for girls education with the
launch of the Female Secondary School Assistance Program (FSSAP) in the early 1990s. The intervention led
to a fourfold increase in female schooling, reversing the gender-gap (female to male ratio of 1.2:1) within a
decade. However, access disparities across income groups remained unaddressed (these were especially
pronounced for poor boys) and there were growing concerns about high dropout rates for both boys and girls
(particularly for the poor) and low learning achievements. Building on the success of the earlier interventions
and to address the remaining challenges, GOB launched SEQAEP in 2008, with IDA Credit financing of
US$130.7 million and government counter-part funding of US$25 million. The project was approved on July
1, 2008 and declared effective on September 4, 2008. The project development objective is to improve the
quality of secondary education, systematically monitor learning outcomes, and to increase access and equity in
project upazilas. There are four project components: improving quality, improving equitable access,
strengthening institutional capacity, and establishing an effective monitoring and evaluation system. The
project provides Proxy Means Testing (PMT)-targeted stipends and tuition to economically poor girls and
boys, and quality-enhancing incentive grants to schools, teachers and students (in grades 6-10) in some 7,000
secondary schools and madrasahs from 125 Upazilas1 (sub-districts) in the country. SEQAEP is one of the
largest development projects under MOE. Currently, the secondary education sector receives about US$1,000
million total budget from GOB, of which US$140 million (14% of total budget) is allocated as development
budget2. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are the main development partners in the
sector. To consolidate different projects under a unified sector plan and a more harmonized support, GOB is
planning to launch a Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) in the sector from 2018.
4.
Development Objectives: The project is on track to meet its development objective (see Table 1
below for an update on progress in the original project outcome indicators). The end of project target, the end
of FY 2013, set for the number of students appearing in the Secondary School Completion (SSC) exam and the
secondary school completion rates have already been surpassed. Gender parity (boys to girls ratio) was 0.87 in
2012 against an end-of-project target of 0.92 and the percentage share of poor in secondary enrollment was
38% in 2010 (HIES data) against an end-line target of 39%. Two rounds of learning assessments are expected
to be completed by 2013 (one already completed and second round in progress).
In 2008, there were 122 upazilas under SEQAEP. Because of splits of administrative areas, there are currently 125 SEQAEP upazilas
(covering one-fourth of countrys 480 rural upazilas).
2
IDA support of $26m per year ($131m for five years) in the ongoing SEQAEP project is about 3% of total secondary education budget and
19% of the development budget. The proposed AF IDA support of $66m per year ($265m for four years) would be about 7% of total budget and
about 47% of the development budget in secondary education.
5.
Implementation Progress: 100% of the original credit amount has been disbursed and both the PDO
and IP ratings are Satisfactory. Satisfactory progress has been recorded in the implementation of all project
sub-components. Proxy Means Testing (PMT) stipend and tuition program (under Access component), having
completed five rounds of beneficiary-selection and award-disbursements, is the most advanced and has
surpassed original targets. To date, 1.8 million students (about 3.8 million school years) have benefited from
the targeted stipends and tuition for secondary education in Bangladesh, and 57 percent of these beneficiaries
are girls. The quality component, so far, has benefited another 0.83 million students through performancebased monetary incentives (0.28 million), additional classes in English and Mathematics (0.1 million), and the
Reading Habit Program (0.45 million). The Monitoring and Evaluation Wing (MEW), under the Directorate of
Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE), now coordinates key M&E activities. Completed M&E activities
include five rounds of annual school census, two rounds of PMT validation and institutional verification
surveys, and two rounds of impact evaluation surveys. Importantly, the first ever systematic assessment of
student learning assessment in secondary education was completed in July 2012.
6.
Impact Evaluation: Findings from a rigorous impact evaluation study3, carried out 2 years after the
project start, suggest that there is significant causal impact of the PMT stipends program on secondary school
enrolments, and the effects are most pronounced among children from socio-economically disadvantaged
families. The estimates suggest that children eligible to receive PMT-stipends are 21 percentage points more
likely to be enrolled in secondary school than they would have not been able to receive the PMT-stipends. The
impact is even more pronounced for boys (28 percentage points) and girls (26 percentage points) from the
poorest two quintiles. In terms of learning outcomes, overall student test scores improved by 0.25 standard
deviations between the two rounds of survey but there was no significant net impact on stipend recipients. It is
important to note that the PMT-stipends attracted the poorest students into project schools and yet showed test
score improvement for these beneficiaries. The finding is consistent with evidence from other studies that
show that Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) does not automatically increase student learning in the short-run.
Annex 4 provides a summary of the impact evaluation study.
7.
Rationale: The main rationale for the proposed AF is for IDA to maintain its support for a successful
SEQAEP project, which contributes directly towards GOBs commitment to enhancing opportunities for
disadvantaged children, bringing them into the productive force for further economic growth of the country,
and providing them with the tools to combat poverty. The project is well aligned with the National Education
Policy (2010), Sixth Five Year Plan (2010/11-2014/15), the Perspective Plan 2021, and the Banks Country
Assistance Strategy.
8.
Suitability of AF: The proposed AF meets the eligibility criteria under OP10.00. The ISR ratings for
implementation progress (IP) and Development Objectives (DO) over the most recent 12 months have been
rated moderately satisfactory or better. The project impact, as evidenced from the results recorded in the
ISRs, is consistent with targets set out in the PAD. There has been substantial compliance with key legal
covenants, including fiduciary and safeguards. Alternatives to AF approach including processing of a new
operation, repeater operation, reallocation of cost savings and financing by borrower and/or other donors
were considered. AF was preferred because: (a) the AF processing would bring procedural gains to the
borrower; (b) expanded and scaled-up activities can be accommodated in the borrowers existing
implementation arrangements; and (c) the proposed AF activities are consistent with the project DOs and
strategically aligned with the CAS.
The World Bank (2012). Bangladeshs Secondary Education Quality and Access Enhancement Project: Interim Impact Evaluation Report
Human Development Department, South Asia Region, Washington, DC. Impact evaluation is a sub-component of Monitoring and Evaluation in
the project design. PMT-targeted stipends program was randomly phased-in (half of upazilas in the first year and the other half the following
year). The randomized phased-in approach, coupled with baseline and follow-up household and school level surveys, allows the evaluation to
establish the causal impact of SEQAEP stipends on secondary school enrolment and learning outcomes.
3
III.
PROPOSED CHANGES
9.
PDO: The Project Development Objective of the proposed AF project will remain unchanged and will
continue to be to improve the quality of secondary education, systematically monitor learning outcomes, and
to increase access and equity in project upazilas.
10.
AF Coverage: The ongoing project covers some 7,000 institutions from 125 rural upazilas (subdistricts) representing 61 districts (out of 64 districts) and all seven divisions in the country. The AF project
would extend the operation into 90 additional upazilas from 50 districts, thus covering a total of 215 upazilas
(out of the 484 rural upazilas in the country) representing all 64 districts. The project will continue to focus on
rural areas, rural institutions and rural children. The selection of 90 additional most deprived upazilas (not
supported by other development partners) is based on their ranking on the human opportunity index (HOI)
which combines the school participation rate and completion rate in the respective age-group and the factors
associated with schooling opportunity in each upazilas (Annex 11 New Upazila List for SEQAEP AF).
11.
AF Beneficiaries: SEQAEP AF will finance: (i) continuation of SEQAEP interventions that benefit
students and institutions in 125 project upazilas; and (ii) expansion of SEQAEP interventions in 90 new
upazilas. The direct beneficiaries of SEQAEP AF would be 11,500 institutions from 215 upazilas which
provide education to over 4.5 million students annually. The project would directly benefit poor students,
teachers, school management committees and parent teacher associations (PTAs) in the project supported
institutions.
12.
AF Design: The four project components will remain the same as in the original project: (i) improving
quality, (ii) improving equitable access, (iii) strengthening institutional capacity, and (iv) establishing an
effective monitoring and evaluation system. Based on lessons learnt from the ongoing operation and in view of
mainstreaming into the secondary SWAp planned from 2018, the AF project will aim to strengthen, expand
and institutionalize key project interventions. Component 1 (quality) would include expansion of institutional
achievement award to nation-wide coverage, addition of science subject to the currently supported English and
mathematics under the additional classes sub-component, and expansion of the developing the reading habit
scheme to all project institutions. The PMT-based stipends scheme (under component 2) would be
strengthened through an updated PMT scoring formula and modified application booth operations to minimize
exclusion and inclusion errors and through the use of student cash card for more efficient stipends
disbursement. Under component 3, the AF would strengthen the role of school management committees
(SMC) and parent teacher associations (PTAs) through the provision of SMC and PTA grants for school-level
ICT monitoring, social audits and education awareness and community mobilization activities. Detailed
Project Description under the AF is in Annex 2.
13.
Component 4 (M&E): Component 4 (Establishing an effective Monitoring and Evaluation system)
will be strengthened under the AF in two main ways. First, the AF project would equip the Monitoring and
Evaluation Wing (MEW) the focal agency for the component - with required financial and technical
assistance support so that it can carry out the assigned activities autonomously. Second, the AF would elevate
the importance of key activities under the component to the status of Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs)
(described below under DLI section).
14.
Results Framework: Outcome indicators, intermediate outcome indicators, and their targets have
been revised to reflect scaled-up and enhanced project activities (see table 1 below). One of the KPIs from the
original project, SSC pass rate, would be discontinued under the AF since the SSC examinations carried out by
8 different regional boards in the country do not have the same standards and SSC pass rates have fluctuated
across time and boards, thereby putting the credibility of the indicator to measure competency based learning
levels. The project would continue to track the SSC pass rate, but as an intermediate indicator. A new KPI, a
core indicator, would be on the total number of direct project beneficiary students, broken down into total
number and the share of females. Details on the modified Results Framework and Monitoring arrangements
are shown in Annex 1.
Table 1: Key Performance Indicators
PDO Level Results Indicators
Baseline
(2008)
Progress to date
(AY 2012)
Original Target
(FY 2013)
Revised Project
End Target
(AY 2017)
20
29 (2011)
27
34 (2015)
1. Completion rate in grade 10 (%) in project upazilas

(a) Proportion of 16-20 year-old primary completers
who have completed grade 10
(b) Percent of G6 entrants who have passed SSC exam
2. Number of students appearing in SSC (000) in
project areas
(a) Total students
(b) Poor
3. SSC pass rate (%) in project areas
(a) Poor
(b) Non-Poor
4. Monitor learning levels in secondary schools (in
Bangla, Maths and English)
28
46
38
50
187
-
292
97
220
70
G8
(SEQAEP)
38
72
Grade 6 & 8
(SEQAEP area)
485
160
KPI
Discontinued
under AF
Grade 6 & 8
Nationally
5. Gender parity (male-female) in enrollment in grades

6 to 10 increases in project upazilas
0.82
0.87
0.92
0.92
6. Percentage share of poor children in total enrolment

in secondary schools (%) in project areas
30
38 (2011)
39
41 (2015)
7. Total number of direct project beneficiary students:

(a) total number (000), (b) share of female (%)
30
65
89 (for all)
2,200
54%
Note: SSC pass rate, discontinued as KPI, will be tracked as intermediate indicator.
(new indicator)
4,242
53%
15.
AF Project Period: The AF project would be implemented over a four-year period, beginning in
January 2014 and ending in December 2017 to cover four academic years, in line with the proposed roll-out of
the secondary education SWAp program from early 2018. In the first year, AY2014, current project
interventions will continue in existing 125 upazilas and preparatory activities will be carried out in additional
90 upazilas for roll-out from AY2015.
16.
Project Cost and Financing: The total project cost for SEQAEP AF is estimated to be US$280
million, and represents an increase of about 80% relative to the original project size of US$156 million (the
increase, in large part, is accounted for by scaled-up project coverage to 90 additional upazilas relative to 125
original upazilas). The ongoing project financing includes IDA support of US$131 million and the AF project
would receive an additional IDA support of US$265 million. Table 2 below shows project component costing
and financing for the original project and the AF project4.
Table 2: Project component cost and financing (US$ million)
Original
Changes with
Component Cost
Cost
AF
1. Improving Education Quality
37.4
72.3
2. Improving Equity and Access
106.7
179.6
3. Strengthening Institutional Capacity
9.9
21.4
4. Establishing an Effective Monitoring and Evaluation System
1.7
7.0
Total Cost
155.7
280.3
IDA Financing Amount
130.7
265.0
84%
95%
IDA Financing Share (%)
4
Revised Total
Cost
109.7
286.3
31.3
8.7
436.0
395.7
91%
As seen in table 2, while component 2 (on access and equity) would continue to receive the largest amount of resources under the AF, other
three components (quality, institutional capacity and M&E) would see higher percentage increases (relative to their amounts in the original
project).
17.
AF Financing: The total IDA credit, under the investment project financing (IPF) lending instrument,
would be US$265 million, of which US$215 million would be transaction-based and US$50 million would be
reimbursed on the basis of: (a) actual expenditure pre-financed by the government, and (b) achievement of the
agreed performance targets (DLIs). Project component costing and financing under the AF are shown in table
3 below.
Components
Table 3: AF Project Costing and Financing (US$ million)

Transaction-based
DLI-based IDA financing and
Total cost
IDA financing
GOB contribution
72
53
19

3. Strengthening Institutional
Capacity
4. Establishing an Effective
Monitoring and Evaluation System
180
146
34
21
12
Total
280
215
65
Note: Of the amount not financed through IDAs transaction-based credit, IDA will reimburse up to US$50 million through DLIfinancing upon achievement of agreed DLI targets and actual expenditures on eligible expenditure items pre-financed by GOB.
18.
Disbursement-Linked Indicators: The main rationale for using DLI-based disbursements for a
portion of AF credit is to provide incentives to the Government to strengthen M&E activities and
institutionalize the M&E system. The DLIs are focused on M&E system strengthening that is expected to bring
significant gains to improving service delivery, governance and accountability, and outcomes under all project
components. Appropriate attention to and timely implementation of key actions to achieve the DLIs will
directly contribute towards achieving the PDO and also generate downstream impact on the sustainability of a
strong M&E arrangement for the entire secondary education sector, particularly for the expected roll-out of
SWAp from 2018. The three DLIs are: (i) a systematic learning assessment is carried out periodically and on a
nationally representative sample, (ii) Monitoring and Evaluation Wing (MEW) is institutionalized and brought
under revenue budget at project end; and (iii) M&E surveys are conducted as scheduled and corrective actions
are taken based on the findings of the surveys. The detailed results, pricing, and protocol (definition,
responsible agencies, formality of process, and verification) are presented in table 3 in Annex 2.
19.
The total value of the DLIs over the life of the AF project is priced at US$50 million. DLI-based
financing is relatively small, representing only 19% of total IDA support, and at the same time denotes a
reasonably large enough incentive amount for the government to focus on achieving the agreed DLI targets.
DLI-based disbursement would be used to finance eligible expenditure items under the project that are not
financed by IDAs transaction-based credit. These eligible items are in three project components (as seen in
table 3 above) and includes performance-based incentive awards under component 1; general stipends (nonPMT stipends) and tuition grants under component 2; and SMC and PTA grants under component 3. The
particular eligible expenditure items have been chosen to be under the DLI-financing for the following reasons:
they are currently being fully financed by the government counterpart funding (such as tuition grants, nonPMT general stipends); they are part of the nationwide expanded coverage that the government is keen on
including in its regular budget (such as performance-based incentives); and they are those school grants that
the government is introducing to strengthen school level capacity and accountability (such as SMC and PTA
grants). All these items would be pre-financed by the government and up to US$50 million would be
reimbursed from IDA as incentive for the DLI achievements. The detailed table on the financing categories
under the transaction-based and the DLI-based financing is provided in Annex 6 (Financial management and
disbursement arrangements).
20.
Implementation arrangements: Under guidance from an inter-ministerial Steering Committee
chaired by MOE Secretary, DSHE would be responsible for AF project implementation. DSHE will continue
to be supported by two units: SEQAEP Unit headed by a Project Director and MEW, headed by a Director, and
reporting to the Director General, DSHE. As in the current project, project management and implementation
capacity will be augmented through the use of several government and private specialized partner agencies (for
example, services in areas such as PMT, disbursement of funds, reading habit program, additional support in
EL and Math, Science, and data processing services etc.). The key actors at the field level such as school headteachers, School Management Committees (SMCs), Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) and Upazila
Secondary Education Offices (USEOs) would work with guidance from Zonal Directors and District Education
Offices. During the AF project period, implementation arrangements, including those for school grants, will be
further streamlined to prepare for the proposed SWAp roll-out from 2018. Annex 5 presents detailed
implementation arrangements.
21.
Original IDA Financing: As mentioned earlier, 100% of original IDA credit is disbursed and this
includes US$7.5 million that is in the Designated Account (DA) still to be fully documented. This amount is
expected to be fully documented by the Original Financing Closing Date (June 30, 2014). Therefore, the
Financing Agreement for the original IDA Credit 4475-BD will not be amended. Furthermore, the updated The
Environmental Management Framework (EMF) and the Social Management Framework (SMF) for the AF
project, described in the safeguards section below, will apply to activities financed under the AF IDA credit,
and not to activities financed by the original IDA credit.
IV.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY
A. Economic analysis
22.
The results of the economic analysis for the AF suggest that the project remains economically
justified. The main sources of data and parameter estimates used in the analysis come from SEQAEP
Monitoring and Information System (MIS), HIES 2010, the impact evaluation study of SEQAEP (2009-2010),
and the detailed costing exercise for SEQAEP Project Paper. Cost streams associated with the four-year
SEQAEP AF period include the AF project costs, private costs that comprise direct household outlays as well
as opportunity costs for schooling, and costs for additional teacher positions due to increased enrolments. The
benefits come from primarily two sources: improved access and retention in secondary education resulting in
increased number of secondary school (grade 10) completers who earn higher wages (relative to noncompleters) and increased quality and relevance of education resulting in higher productivity and earnings for
all grade 10 completers (relative to grade 10 completers of non-SEQAEP supported institutions). Based on a
discount rate of 12 percent for the benefit and cost streams, the present discounted value of benefits is
estimated to be $1,827 million while the present discounted value of costs is estimated to be $838 million;
therefore, the net present value (NPV) of program benefits is $990 million. The internal rate of return (IRR)
associated with this NPV is 22 percent. A large part of the benefits accrue from wage-premium for SEQAEP
secondary school completers. Annex 13 provides further details on the economic analysis.
B. Technical feasibility
23.
Quality Component: The objectives of this component remain the same, but the AF will further
strengthen, expand and institutionalize activities in view of mainstreaming them into the secondary SWAp
from 2018. The incentive schemes for encouraging rural students, teachers and institutions to reach and
maintain better performance have been enhanced both in terms of the monetary amount and nation-wide
coverage of institution achievement award. Additional Class (AC) implementation will be strengthened with
technical assistance (TA) support based on the lessons learned that the current modality is too labor intensive.
Science subject will be added to the current two subjects (English and Mathematics) to address the most
problematic subjects in terms of students learning achievement. Developing reading habit (DRH) scheme will
be expanded to additional 90 upazilas. Under the AF, the learning assessment sub-component would cover
nationally representative samples.
24.
PMT Stipends Component: The AF project will support the PMT stipends and tuition program in
current 125 project upazilas from second semester of AY2013 (until the AF project closes) and in 90 new
upazilas from AY2015. Current PMT beneficiaries in 125 upazilas will continue to receive stipends upon a full
and independent validation of the fulfillment of education compliance criteria. The new PMT beneficiaries
(into grade 6 from AY2014) and 90 new upazilas (in all grades from AY2015) will be selected using the
updated PMT formula. A modified PMT application booth operations carried out, in conjunction with the PMT
validation exercise, is expected to reduce exclusion and inclusion errors. Details on the PMT stipends scheme
are presented in Annex 12. In view of GOBs interest to mainstream the PMT scheme nationally under a single
harmonized stipend program, the new beneficiary selection threshold will be the bottom 2 quintiles of welfare
distribution (with coverage of about one-third of total enrolment in grades 6-10)5. PMT stipends will be
disbursed to individual students via banking system, including use of cash card, upon receipt of verified
compliance information from the institutions that students enrolled in.
25.
M&E Component: As mentioned above, the Monitoring and Evaluation component will be
strengthened through (a) provision of required financial and TA support to MEW to enable it to autonomously
carry out M&E and learning assessment activities; and (b) the selection of key M&E areas (Learning
Assessment, Institutionalization of MEW, and Project Monitoring and Evaluation surveys and activities) as
DLIs to emphasize the importance of M&E system for the project and the entire secondary education sector.
This component will be implemented by MEW with support from project MIS cell at Bangladesh Bureau of
Educational Information and Statistics (BANBEIS) and other specialized agencies. The agreed DLIs would be
linked to disbursement of the portion of IDA credit that is not transaction-based. The DLIs, their pricing and
detailed protocol are described in Annex 2. FM arrangement associated with the DLIs is described in Annex 6.
C. Fiduciary and Safeguards
26.
Procurement: In terms of procurement arrangements under the proposed AF, the d key consultancy
packages would be continued under AF with amendment of contracts. The AF project would continue the
contracts with Bishwo Shahitto Kendro (BSK) for providing technical support to the implementation of
developing the reading habit scheme. The use of DLI-based financing for the portion of IDA credit is not
expected to affect procurement arrangements in the project. For procurement of goods, the implementing
agency is expected to use the e-procurement system, developed and managed by Bangladesh Central
Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU). Annex 7 provides detailed procurement arrangements.
27.
FM: FM arrangements would follow the current mechanism for the transaction-based credit portion.
Transaction-based portion of the AF credit will flow through two separate Designated Accounts (DAs): DA-A
will be managed by the SEQAEP Unit (operated by Project Director) and will be used to finance activities
under components 1 through 3 (except for component 1.4). A separate DA-B will be managed by DG, DSHE
to meet the input based expenditures of component 4 and sub-component 1.4 of the project (to achieve the
DLIs). For DLI-based portion of the credit, IDA will disburse the value of the DLI(s) to the Government
treasury once one or more DLIs are achieved. Disbursement under DLI based financing will be made on the
basis of reimbursement of eligible expenditures not less than the value of DLIs. Disbursement for DLIs
attained for any year including such disbursements in the previous years will not exceed the total eligible
expenditures on a cumulative basis. Detailed FM arrangements for both the transaction-based and DLI-based
components are in Annex 6.
5 Currently, the cutoff is 50th percentile of income distribution and coverage is about 40% of enrolments. The proposed reduction of coverage in
the AF is to align with the current non-SEQAEP stipends programs (which cover only 30% of girls and 10% of boys, effective coverage of about
20% of all) and in view of sustainability after the harmonization of the stipend schemes in 2018.
28.
Safeguards: Since there will be no new safeguards triggers raised, existing legal covenants will
continue to apply. The Environmental Management Framework (EMF) and the Social Management
Framework (SMF) have been updated to reflect expansion into new upazilas and disclosed through appropriate
channels. Annex 8 elaborates on the safeguards arrangements in the AF project.
29.
Social safeguards: In accordance with OP 4.10 Indigenous People and the SMF, the AF project will
continue to include all tribal students, regardless of poverty status, under the targeted PMT stipend scheme.
The PMT MIS would continue to maintain database on tribal students enrolment, retention and education
achievement and periodically provide summary analysis. Similarly, the project extends stipend support to all
disabled students. In terms of gender, the AF project would introduce grants to schools to incentivize Parent
Teacher Associations (PTAs) to carry out community campaigns against girls eve teasing and encourage safe
movement of girls between homes and schools. Since the AF project extends to new upazilas, the education
awareness and community mobilization sub-component will also focus on the social safeguards aspects.
30.
The project does not trigger OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement since there is no requirement for private
land acquisition, displacement of people from public or private lands or adverse impact on livelihoods.
Construction activities, installation of tube-wells and latrines are carried out strictly within school premises.
31.
Environmental safeguards: As in the original project, operational policy OP/BP 4.01 will continue to
be triggered and the current Environmental category B will remain the same under the AF. The AF projects
improving school facilities sub-component will provide safe drinking water (tube-wells, shallow tube-wells
and other alternative sources) and sanitation facilities (twin latrines for boys and girls with running water
facilities) to targeted schools based on agreed guidelines and provisions in the EMF. On a pilot basis, the
activities will include WASH block with modern amenities to one school in each of the newly selected upazila
(school selected based on needs). Activities would also include testing of existing and new project school tubewells for arsenic, and manganese contamination, bacteriological tests for alternative sources of water and
distribution of awareness and communication materials. Beneficiary institutions will be selected on need-basis
and DPHE will provide technical services for safe water testing of tube-wells and other activities. The EMF
guidelines will ensure that construction and works for water and sanitation facilities be carried out following
community participation procedures. The pilot WASH block will be constructed under direct supervision of
DPHE. The EMF will be part of the annually renewable cooperation agreement between the project and each
beneficiary school.
D. Risks:
Risk Rating Summary Table
Low
Stakeholder Risk
Implementing Agency Risk
Substantial
- Capacity
Substantial
- Governance
Project Risks
Moderate
- Design
Moderate
- Social & Environment
Moderate
- Program and Donor
Moderate
- Delivery Monitoring and
Sustainability
Moderate
Overall Implementation Risk
32.
Risks associated with the AF project are not expected to change in any significant manner compared to
those under the current project. Given the prevailing political situation, country risk remains substantial.
Despite the implementation agency capacity issues, project implementation risk is moderate in view of project
design and implementation arrangements with TA support agencies that make the implementation risk as
moderate and manageable.
33.
PMT-based stipends scheme is the largest component in terms of project financing. To minimize the
potential inclusion (when non-poor are incorrectly included) and exclusion errors (when poor are incorrectly
excluded), the PMT selection process combines household visit based validation exercise immediately after
receiving the applications at the field level, and allowing an appeals mechanism for those who may have been
incorrectly excluded. The project also has a provision to carry out education awareness on the eligibility
criteria (poverty and educational) and to mobilize the community including the SMCs and PTAs to ensure that
stipend recipients are in fact from economically poor households and also complying with the educational
criteria for continued eligibility. School grants (for various activities) constitute the next largest financing
category in the project. The project design includes appropriate measures to ensure that the selection criteria as
well as the compliance criteria (on funds utilization) are strictly followed. An important instrument to ensure
this is the award confirmation form (for both stipends and grants) that is processed using information sent from
schools, verified by upazila education officials, and monitored by independent surveyors.
34.
FM risk is substantial given the project design which delivers stipends and grants to a large number of
students and schools. Procurement risk is also substantial given that the implementing agency has shortage of
skilled procurement staff and the project is not immune to systemic issues affecting procurement efficiency
and performance. SEQAEP AF is expected to address FM issues with placement of a full-time FMS specialist,
trained accounts officers, disbursement cell at Agrani Bank, disbursement of funds through the Banking
system including the use of cash card that enables immediate reconciliation of project funds, requirements for
reconciliation reports from the bank branches, use of compliance monitoring including ICT-based schemes and
audits (FAPAD, forensic, and social audits at the school/community level). Procurement risk would be
managed through deployment of qualified procurement consultant to represent all procurement committees;
training of procurement officers and project staff; prior and post-reviews of procurement contracts by the Bank
team; monitoring by the World Bank team on the accountability of procurement staff and consultants vis--vis
project director and MEW director; use of e-procurement for goods; and disclosure of all procurement
transactions on project website (see Annex 9 on ORAF, new to the AF project, for details).
35.
The AF introduces a Governance and Accountability Action Plan (GAAP) to address key
governance and accountability risks that have been identified at the project level for which a number of
mitigation measures have been proposed. The overall responsibility for the GAAP implementation will rest
with the DSHE, SEQAEP Unit and MEW and the GAAP will be monitored regularly against agreed actions as
reflected in the project progress reports and semi-annual World Bank mission aide memoires. (Annex 10 for
GAAP).
Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

A. Results Framework
Revisions to the Results Framework
PDO
Current (PAD)
To improve the quality of secondary education, systematically
monitor learning outcomes, and to increase access and equity in
project upazilas
Comments/
Rationale for Change
Proposed
No change
Proposed
change*
Continued
Increased target to reflect additional financing
Continued
Removed as
KPI,
but
retained as
intermediate
indicator
Continued
Removed as KPI because SSC examinations and results

fluctuate across time and 8 different boards and do not
measure the competency-based learning levels. It is
however tracked as IO
Continued
Adjusted target to reflect additional financing
Continued
New
Newly added as per core indicator requirement
Proposed
change*
Continued
2. Number of institutions receiving SSC institution award

3. Number of additional classes in mathematics, English & Science
('000)
4. Number of student members of reading habit program ('000)
5. SSC pass rate in project upazilas
Continued
Continued

Continued
New

Was KPI under the ongoing project, now IO under AF
6. Number of eligible poor girls receiving stipend ('000)

7. Number of eligible poor boys receiving stipend ('000)
Continued
Continued

8. % of schools with safe drinking water in project upazilas

9. % of schools with separate latrines for boys and girls in project
upazilas
10. Proportion of project schools with functional PTA
Continued
Continued

Continued
11. Implementation progress of quality, access, and capacity

building components are regularly disseminated
Continued
PDO indicators
Current (PAD)
1. Completion rate in grade 10 (%) in project upazilas
(b) Proportion of 16-20 year-old primary completers who have
completed grade 10
(b) Percent of G6 entrants who have passed SSC exam
2. Number of students appearing in SSC (000) in project areas
(a) Total students
(b) Poor
3. SSC pass rate (%) in project areas
(a) Poor
(b) Non-Poor
4. Monitor learning levels in secondary schools (in Bangla, Maths

and English)
5. Gender parity (male-female) in enrollment in grades 6 to 10
increases in project upazilas
6. Percentage share of poor children in total enrolment in secondary
schools (%) in project areas
7. Total number of direct project beneficiary students: (a) total
number, (b) share of female (%)
Intermediate Results indicators
Current (PAD)
1. Number of poor students receiving SSC pass award ('000)
10
B. REVISED PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Project Development Objective (PDO): To improve the quality of secondary education, systematically monitor learning outcomes, and to increase access and equity in project upazilas
UOM
Core
PDO Level Results Indicators
Baseline
Original
Project
Start
(2008)
Cumulative Target Values

Progress
To Date
(2012)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
1. Completion rate in grade 10 (%) in

project upazilas
(a) Proportion of 16-20 year-old
primary completers who have
completed grade 10
(b) Percent of G6 entrants who have
passed SSC exam
2. Number of students appearing in
SSC (000) in project areas
(a) Total students
(b) Poor
4. Monitor learning levels in secondary
schools (in Bangla, Maths and English)
5. Gender parity (male-female) in

enrollment in grades 6 to 10 increases
in project upazilas
6. Percentage share of poor children in
total enrolment in secondary schools
(%) in project areas
7. Total number of direct project
beneficiary students
(a) total number (000)
(b) share of female (%)
20
28(2011)
27
33
28
46
38
47
48
49
Num
187
-
292
97
220
70
300
102
380
140
470
150
Process
G8
G6 & 8
Num
0.82
0.87
0.92
50
BBS;
MEW
485
160
Annual
SSC Exam
Result
SEQAE
PU from
BISE
G6 & G8
National
Twice
2014-17
Sample
MEW
0.91
Annual
BANBEIS
Annual
Census
BANBE
IS
30
36
(2011)
Househ
old
survey
years
2005 HIES
2010 HIES
2012 EHS
2015 HIES
39
39
MEW
Num
%
2,200
54%
2,224
54%
2,288
54%
4,030
54%
4,150
54%
4,242
53%
Annual
BANBEIS
Annual
Census
BANBE
IS
G6 & G8
National
0.89
Househ
old
survey
years
Respon
sibility
for
Data
Collecti
on
2005 HIES
2010 HIES
2015 HIES
0.88
Freque
ncy
Data
Source/
Methodolog
y
0.90
Comments
(a) MTR: Target

frequency revised;
consistency of source
introduced
(b) MTR: New indicator
MTR: New indicator

AF: Definition of poor
revised according to new
PMT cut-off
MTR: Bangla included;
Year of assessment
revised
AF: National sample
starting 2015
MTR: No change
AF: Target to be
readjusted based on actual
progress and addition of
new upazilas
MTR: Target frequency
revised; source has been
clarified
AF: Non change
AF: Introduced as per core
indicator requirement
AF covers from 2014-2017. Targets for 2013 for all indicators were set by the original PAD and/or updated at MTR in 2011, and they are kept here for indicative purpose. KPI3 (SSC pass rates) is removed as KPI
and is now tracked as IO.
11
Core
Intermediate Results and Indicators

Baseline
Responsi
Target Values
Data
Unit of
Original
Progress
bility for
Frequen
Source/
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Intermediate Results Indicators
Measure
Project
To Date
Data
Comments
cy
Methodolo
ment
Start
(2012)
Collectio
gy
(2008)
n
Intermediate Result 1: To (a) increase education quality through the provision of performance achievement awards to students, teachers and institutions; (b) improve student performance in English Language and
Mathematics; (c) establish a program to develop the reading habit in students; and (d) measure systematically learning levels by administering internationally comparable and national curriculum-based numeracy and
literacy testing, that raise awareness of policy makers and stakeholders and help them adjust policies and interventions accordingly.
MTR: No change
1. Number of poor students receiving
School
SEQAEP AF: target number
Num
55
35
Yearly
57
77
101
105
SSC pass award ('000)
forms
Unit
increased due to additional
upazilas
MTR: Targets updated
2. Number of institutions receiving SSC
School
SEQAEP
Num
349
366
Yearly
AF: Institution award
1440
1440
1440
1440
institution award
forms
Unit
nationalized
MTR: No change,
3. Number of additional classes in
School
SEQAEP AF: AC in additional
Num
292
220
Yearly
100
180
540
720
mathematics, English & Science ('000)
forms
Unit
upazilas and science
subject added
MTR: Updated ,
4. Number of student members of
School
SEQAEP
Num
109
740
Yearly
AF: target increased due
740
1015
1310
1310
reading habit program ('000)
forms
Unit
to additional upazilas
5. SSC pass rate in project areas
%
55
89
AF: New IO
Intermediate Result 2: To increase access and retention of poor girls and boys; ensure their completion of secondary schooling through provision of stipends and tuition based on pro-poor targeting and educational
criteria; and improve school environmental conditions by selectively providing water and sanitation facilities.
PMT &
PMTA,
6. Number of eligible poor girls receiving
Half
MTR: Targets are reset.
Num
517
325
school
SEQAEP
525
575
640
650
stipend ('000)
yearly
AF: PMT cut-off redefined
forms
unit
PMT &
PMTA,
7. Number of eligible poor boys
Half
MTR: Targets are reset.
Num
418
288
school
SEQAEP
410
475
530
550
receiving stipend ('000)
yearly
AF: PMT cut-off redefined
forms
unit
8. % of schools with safe drinking water
Annual
%
93%
95%
95%
95%
96%
96%
Annual
Banbeis
in project upazilas
census
9. % of schools with separate latrines for
Annual
Modified to measure % of
%
96%
98%
98%
98%
99%
99%
Annual
Banbeis
boys and girls in project upazilas
census
schools; targets to be set
Intermediate Result 3: To (a) strengthen the existing structure for managing and implementing the proposed project; (b) develop and strengthen the capacity to implement programs aimed at increasing educational
quality, and to deliver financial support to targeted beneficiaries effectively; (c) strengthen accountability at school and upazila level; and (d) raise education awareness amongst stakeholders with focus on education
quality, targeting, and accountability.
10. Proportion of project schools with
Compliance
%
N/A
20
25
30
40
50
Yearly
MEW
MTR: New indicator.
functional PTA
survey
Intermediate Result 4: To (a) systematically document all project input, process, output, and outcomes; and (b) link project interventions with outcomes.
11. Implementation Progress of quality,
MEW,
MTR: New indicator.
access, and capacity building
Process
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Annual
Partners,
MEW
components are regularly disseminated
SEQAEP
12
C. Arrangement for Monitoring and Evaluation

1.
Given the data-intensive design and the diverse nature of the project components, the results monitoring
arrangement aims to facilitate a systematic and integrated data collection and utilization system. There are five
major agencies in this arrangement: (i) SEQAEP unit; (ii) PMT Administrator (LGED); (iii) external monitoring
agency (BANBEIS); (iv) Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of DSHE (MEW); and (v) independent impact
evaluation survey firm and learning assessment agency. Yet, information from different sources were not
consolidated and analyzed for reliability checks, utilization and timely decision-making. Mid-Term Review (MTR)
mission pointed out the absence of an integrated system of data management and analysis, and streamlined the
various monitoring activities and reorganized the responsibilities as in the following Table.
Table: Data collection, processing, and monitoring schedule
Administrative data
No
1
PMT
Data
Area
PMT
registratio
n
PMT
student
qualificati
on
Incentives,
Additional class,
Reading habit, ISF,
SMC and PTA
Grants, USEO
SSC
Who
Output
Use of data
Info.
Who
Output
Use of data
PMT
welfare
PMTA
PMT
annual
report
PMT
administratio
n
PMT
validation
PMT
validation
report
Correcting PMT
procedures for
better targeting
February
(i) July,
(ii) Dec.
MEW
and
BANB
EIS
-
June
Aug-Sept
ACF
PMTA
ACF
report
20% check
institution
survey
MEW
and
BANB
EIS
20% of
school
verification
report
May
October
Non-PMT
school
grants
SEQAEP
Unit and
BANBEIS
through
USEO
-
-Compliance
check
- Disbursement
check
-To take corrective
measures
Jul.-Aug.
October
SEQAEP
Unit
Jun.-July
Awarding
Aug.
SEQAEP
Unit
through
USEO
March
Administratio
n
School info.
Infra,
enrolment
BANB
EIS
Progress review,
yearly plan
June
BANBEIS
Annual
Census
report
November
MEW
Semiannual
monitori
ng
report
(i) Jan.,
(ii) July
Monitoring
project
June
SSC Info.
May-Jun.
5
School level
information
School
info. Infra,
enrolment
Jan.-Feb.
Overall monitoring
of the project
Verification data
Info.
Consolidati
on of all
info.
April
Awarding
Administratio
n of the
component
Jan.
2.
For the Additional Financing (AF) period, a further enhanced mechanism is going to be implemented for
overcoming remaining difficulties in effective monitoring, which is partly due to heavy reliance on consultants
which jeopardized the data collection and processing when consultants are not available.
3.
Monitoring and Evaluation Wing (MEW) will serve as the focal agency for overall supervision of M&E
activities so as to strengthen the capacity of DSHE to monitor, review and evaluate the project regularly; and
coordinate the dissemination of national assessment of learning achievement, and maintain a repository of
integrated databases, relevant reports and studies. MEW will be brought under revenue budget by 2017 and AF
will provide incentive in the form of results-based disbursement linked to achievement of MEW transfer to revenue
budget.
4.
BANBEIS will establish the Management Information System (MIS) cell for undertaking data processing.
BANBEIS, the MOEs statistical agency that has a pool of technical staff and reliable IT infrastructure in their
office, will be taking a role for collecting and processing data associated with non-PMT related activities, including
Award Confirmation Form (ACF) of non-PMT grants. SEQAEP and BANBEIS will coordinate in these tasks by
13
signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The BANBEIS would also be a partner agency for the MEW
in implementing the field work of these surveys, namely: (a) PMT validation survey, (b) compliance verification
survey, and (c) impact evaluation surveys.
5.
The design of surveys and monitoring activities are also modified for the AF period.
6.
The PMT Validation survey: PMT validation survey would be carried in conjunction with the PMT booth
operations (administered by PMTA) and provide immediate correction on any false reporting by the applicants.
Enumerators deployed by BANBEIS will go to all the booths and randomly verify applications by conducting
household visits. This mechanism is expected to be implemented from 2014 booth operation.
7.
The compliance verification survey: Institutional compliance monitoring survey will be carried out for all
institutions every year in order to verify that beneficiary schools are indeed complying with agreed project
guidelines. The use of ICT, such as smart-phones, would be introduced for compliance monitoring. The results of
the compliance monitoring would be provided to the project unit and USEOs both for implementation support as
well as necessary corrective actions. DSHE will sign an MOU with BANBEIS specifying the deliverables and
service charges.
Impact Evaluation Strategy

8.
Building on the success of the earlier interventions and to address the remaining challenges, the
Government of Bangladesh launched Secondary Education Quality and Access Enhancement Project (SEQAEP) in
2008, with the support of IDA. The project, totaling US$155, million has been implemented in 122 Upazilas of
Bangladesh covering about 6,700 institutions. The overall objective of the SEQAEP is to improve quality of
education and monitor learning outcomes systematically, and to increase access and equity in project upazilas. In
response to successful implementation of the project, SEQAEP is going to be extended with additional US$265
million until 2017.
9.
To evaluate the impact of introduced PMT stipends in 2008, the SEQAEP had an embedded impact
evaluation component in its design. First two rounds of detailed household and school surveys were carried out in
2008 (baseline) and 2009 (first follow-up). The first follow-up survey has discovered positive impact of the PMT
stipends on retention of the students while no impact on the learning outcomes within one year of introducing the
stipend program. The first two rounds of surveys did not assess the impact of the quality interventions because
such interventions started slightly later than the covered period.
10.
In order to evaluate the medium-term impact of the stipends program and the quality interventions, a few
sets of impact evaluation surveys will be carried out during the AF period. Taking into consideration the earlier
surveys, three separate sets of impact evaluation are proposed, including: (i) evaluation of the PMT stipends
program, based on the earlier surveys, and (ii) evaluation of the Additional Classes (AC) program in new project
areas, and (iii) evaluation of Developing Reading Habits program in new project areas. For the evaluation of PMT
stipends, one follow-up survey in old SEQAEP upazilas will be expected in 2014. For AC and DRH, respectively
two rounds of survey, including baseline and follow-up, will be expected in 2013 and 2015 in new project upazilas.
IE surveys for AC and DRH will be carried out in conjunction with implementation arrangements on Learning
Assessment sub-component (1.4) in terms of test items, field level test administration, data processing and data
analysis.
Table 1: Impact Evaluation plans
Survey Years
Baseline
First
Second
year
follow-up follow-up
survey
survey
Evaluation 1: PMT
Stipends
2008
2009
2014
Evaluation 2: AC
2014
2016
Evaluation 3: DRH
2014
2016
Activities to be
evaluated
Treatment
upazilas
Outcome variables
PMT stipends
Old SEQAEP
Upazilas
AC - English and
Math
New SEQAEP
Upazilas
Enrollment,
Learning outcomes
(English, Math)
Learning outcomes
(English, Math)
Developing Reading
Habits
New SEQAEP
Upazilas
Learning outcomes
(Bangla, English)
14
Evaluation 1: PMT stipends program

11.
Background: The Evaluation 1 aims to evaluate the impact of the newly introduced intervention, the PMT
stipend program. The PMT poverty-targeted stipends component was implemented in a phased manner. Of the
total 122 project upazilas, 61 randomly chosen upazilas introduced the scheme during the first year of the project
for cohort entering January 2009, the remaining 61 upazilas from the second year. The randomized phased-in
approach, coupled with baseline and follow-up household and school level surveys, allows the evaluation to
establish the causal impact of SEQAEP stipends on secondary school enrolment and learning outcomes. The
baseline survey was carried out in 2008 and the follow-up survey in 2009. The household sample survey
interviewed 2,400 households, 99 percent of whom were re-interviewed in the follow-up. In addition, the
evaluation survey included school census covering more than 1,550 schools, detailed survey covering about 370
secondary schools, and learning achievement tests for some grade 6 & 8 students. SEQAEP Interim Impact
Evaluation Report 2012 analyzed the baseline and follow-up survey data and the findings suggests that the
SEQAEP stipends scheme had a significant causal impact on secondary school enrolment and no differential
impact on test scores.
12.
Scope of Work during the Additional Financing period: During the Additional Financing period (20142017), one follow-up round of the impact evaluation survey is expected. The objective of the second follow-up
survey is to assess medium-term impact of the PMT stipends on a range of schooling outcomes, including
enrolment, attendance, grade progression, transition to higher levels of education and learning levels. This followup round will survey households, students and schools in the same communities/villages from the baseline and first
follow up round.
Evaluation 2: Additional Classes program
13.
Background: The Evaluation 2 aims to evaluate the impact of the Additional Classes sub-component. This
component aims to: (a) improve classroom teaching-learning processes in English Language (EL), Mathematics
(Math), and Science in targeted project institutions; and (b) assist targeted students in improving their performance
in respective subjects. The objective is to improve learning levels of students in these three subjects that are
identified as the most problematic subjects for secondary school students in the country. This sub-component has
been refined based on lessons learned from two rounds of pilot schemes on support of EL and Math subjects. As of
July 2013, approximately 1,000 Resource Teachers (RTs) have been contracted in EL and Math subjects and
providing AC in 400 institutions in 55 upazilas. The impact evaluation will be focused on the 200 institutions that
start receiving interventions in 2015.
14.
Scope of Work during the Additional Financing period: During the Additional Financing period (20142017), two round of the impact evaluation surveys, including the baseline in 2014 and the following in 2016 are
expected. The objective of this evaluation is to assess impact of AC on learning outcomes of students, especially in
English and Math. The impact evaluation survey will include households, students and schools in target
communities/villages. MEW will carry this IE survey with support from BANBEIS and in conjunction with the
Learning assessment field level test administration.
15.
Impact of AC will be rigorously evaluated by using the Regression Discontinuity (RD) design.
Intervention schools are selected on the basis of low academic performance as measured by SSC examination,
which will be used as an RD index. Sampling will take place around the cut-off score, including treatment
institutions that fall below the cut off and control institutions that stand just above the cut-off score. Institutions are
selected first by upazila level SSC score and then school level SSC score. Thus, the proposed cut-off score would
be subject to the upazila, resulting the design a fuzzy RD. Instruments to be used for assessing learning outcomes
will be English and Mathematics tests developed from LASI to monitor learning outcomes of grades 6-10 students.
For an accurate assessment of the AC impact, the treatment and control schools should not receive the DRH
program for at least 2 years although the schools can receive PMT stipends and other award programs.
Evaluation 3: Developing Reading Habits (DRH) program

16.
Background: The Evaluation 3 aims to evaluate the impact of the Developing Reading Habits (DRH)
program. This activity helps students develop the reading habit, with focus on Bangla and English, using a
participatory approach through establishment of library systems and comprehensive reading programs. The project
15
has so far supported the DRH program in all SEQAEP institutions and 670,000 readers and will continue to benefit
these institutions under AF project.
17.
Scope of Work during the Additional Financing period: During the Additional Financing period (20142017), two round of the impact evaluation surveys, including the baseline in 2014 and the following in 2016 are
expected. The objective of this evaluation is to assess impact of DRH on learning outcomes of students, especially
in Bangla and English. The impact evaluation survey will include households, students and schools in target
communities/villages. MEW will carry this IE survey with support from BANBEIS and in conjunction with the
Learning assessment field level test administration.
18.
Impact of DRH will be rigorously evaluated by using the Randomized Control Trial (RCT) design.
Intervention schools are randomly assigned to treatment and control institutions. Because the DRH program is to
be rolled out to all institutions in the project upazilas, the DRH program will be implemented in phased-in
approach. Control institutions will not receive the DRH program for 2 years in order accurately assess the impact
of the DRH program while they can receive PMT stipends and other award programs. AC program will not be
overlapped in these DRH impact evaluation institutions. The students learning outcomes will be assessed by using
instruments based on LASI Bangla and English module. For estimating externalities in other subjects, Math is also
tested.
16
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description

The key project development objectives continue to be to improve the quality of secondary education,
systematically monitor learning outcomes, and to increase access and equity in project upazilas.
Project Components
Project components and sub-components will be continued in existing 125 SEQAEP project upazilas from 2014
and once preparatory activities are completed in 2014, these interventions will be introduced in 90 additional
upazilas from academic year 2015.
Component 1 Improving Education Quality and Monitoring Learning Levels (Original: US$ 37.4 million,
AF: US$ 72.3 million)
1.
The objectives of this component are to: (a) increase education quality through the provision of
performance achievement awards to students, teachers and institutions; (b) improve student performance in English
Language and Mathematics; (c) establish a program to develop the reading habit in students; and (d) measure
systematically learning levels by administering internationally comparable and national curriculum-based
numeracy and literacy testing, that raise awareness of policy makers and stakeholders and help them adjust policies
and interventions accordingly. The objective of the AF is to further strengthen, expand and institutionalize
activities under this component.
Sub-Component 1.1: Incentive Awards to Students, Teachers and Institutions
2.
This sub-component finances provision of monetary incentives, in the form of awards, to rural students,
teachers and project educational institutions to encourage them to reach and maintain higher levels of achievement.
Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE) will scale-up the incentive schemes in phases to extend
the development impact. These incentives will be evaluated before project completion and the findings will be
used to consider mainstreaming them into secondary SWAp from 2018. Incentives to be provided include:
Best Student Achievement Award: The best performing girl and boy student in the final examination in
Grades 6, 7 and 9 (six in co-educational institutions and three in other institutions), and students achieving
highest grade point average in the junior secondary completion examinations for grade 8 (can be more than
two students in co-education institutions depending upon the number of students who achieve A+ grade) will
receive Taka 1000 per awardee at the annual Upazila Education Fair. The incentive award amount will be
disbursed as school grant.
PMT SSC Pass Award: All Proxy Means Test (PMT) stipend recipient students who have passed the SSC or
equivalent examination have been receiving a one-time incentive of Taka 1,500. Given that SSC graduates
are no longer part of the concerned institutions, both ACF processing and disbursement of awards have been
difficult. In view of this, the AF would support refined ACF preparation through MIS Cell and disbursement
through debit card.
Institution Achievement Award: Institutional Achievement Award (IAA) will be provided to two best
performing schools and one best Madrasa in each Upazila every year. The best performing
institutions/Madrsah in each Upazila will be ranked according to Secondary School Completion
examinations results. SSC results data will be collected from respective BISE boards and processed at
project MIS Cell located at BANBEIS. The awardee institutions can be repeated after a one year gap. The
selected institutions will receive BDT 1,00,000 disbursed as school grant. The award will be distributed as
follows: (a) teacher (15% Math, 15% English, and 30% others); b) Head-teachers (15%)/Assistant HT
(10%); and (c) SMC discretionary (15%). The award scheme would be rolled-out in all upazilas from AY
2014.
Sub-component 1.2: Support for English Language and Mathematics and Science Subject Learning and Teaching
3.
This sub-component aims to: (a) improve classroom teaching-learning process in English Language (EL),
Mathematics (Math) and Science Subjects in targeted project institutions; and (b) assist targeted students in
improving their performance in EL, Math and Science. The objective is to improve learning levels of students in
17
these three subjects that are identified as the most problematic subjects in terms of students learning achievement
in secondary education in the country. This sub-component has been refined based on lessons learned from the
existing Additional Class (AC) intervention. The AC scheme would be evaluated further for replicability and
sustainability under Sector Wide Approach program (SWAp) from 2018.
4.
This sub-component finances (a) provision of additional class grants to project educational institutions for
resource teachers and additional class teachers of English language, sciences and mathematics; (b) organization of
additional classes in Project Educational Institutions before/after regular classes or during holidays; and (c)
provision of management, technical and supervisory services associated with the additional class scheme in said
institutions.
5.
The project will support provision of EL and Math resource teachers (RTs) in the current modality in
AY2014 and EL, Math and Science AC teachers through a refined modality to be fully implemented from
AY2015. Beneficiary institutions under this sub-component are selected in three steps: (a) selection of targeted AC
upazilas from the pool of AF project upazilas (215) based on poverty criteria; (b) identification of inaccessibility in
these upazilas; and (c) selection of low performing institutions on SSC examination results for the past three years.
Currently, additional support in EL and Math subjects is implemented in 400 institutions in 55 upazilas. The
number of target institutions will be gradually increased based on the agreed selection criteria7 from 400 in 2014 to
2,000 by 2017. AC teachers (ACT) will be enlisted by the project based on agreed qualification criteria. Part-time
teachers who are already recruited and are serving in the selected institutions will get priority as ACTs. The
enlisted ACTs will be contracted by SMCs/MMCs and be responsible to take regular subject classes in schools
where there is no subject teacher and take additional classes before or after school hours.
6.
Remuneration for ACTs will be: (i) base regular teacher salary; (ii) AC incentive (5,000 taka per month)
for taking 10 additional classes per month; and (iii) remote upazila incentive (2,000 taka). The remuneration
scheme and contractual arrangements have been designed in view of possible regularization of ACTs which would
require following the government regulations including NTRCA accreditation, into the MOE system at project end.
Disbursement of funds to RTs and ACTs will be made through Agrani Bank based on ACF forms prepared using
data provided and certified by the institutions. SMS tracking monitoring system is being introduced to monitor AC
implementation. MIS Cell will be responsible for ACF preparation.
7.
Given that the current AC modality is too labor intensive and requires a lot of resources, AC
implementation arrangements will be refined with TA support of implementing partner(s). TA/consulting firms
will support development of teaching-learning materials and training modules, training of ACTs, supervision, onsite support to beneficiary institutions, and quality control of ACTs selection process. Implementing partners will
be deployed by the project for this purpose. The implementation will follow agreed procedures and guidelines in
the updated AC operational manual.
Sub-Component 1.3: Developing the Reading Habit
8.
The objective of the sub-component is to help students develop the reading habit, with focus on Bangla
and English, using a participatory approach through establishment of library systems and comprehensive reading
programs. The AF project will support the DRH program in all institutions (6700) in existing 125 upazilas and all
5,000 institutions in the new 90 upazilas. One of the main expected outcomes of DRH is improvement in reading
skills.
9.
The sub-component finances (a) setting up of a reading program at classroom levels for grades 6 to 10, in
project educational institutions; (b) the acquisition of age- and ability-appropriate books in Bangla and English,
including books for awards to high performing student readers; (c) provision of grants to institutions to finance
incentive for librarian and teacher-coordinators to maintain the institutions library and reading program; and (d)
the management, technical and supervisory services associated with the developing reading habit schemes
including annual students reading tests. BSK will continue as service agency. Each institution is expected to have
100 student readers (on average 20 in each grade). The project will have a four-year framework contract with
distributors/publishers which will deliver books to BSK. Packaging and delivery of books to institutions is BSKs
responsibility. Payment to distributors will be conditional on book delivery confirmation from BSK and BSK
service fees will be disbursed upon verification of book delivery to institutions. BSK service contract will be
amended for changed scope of work.
Selection criteria of Upazila is poverty index and inaccessibility and of institutions is SSC pass rate trend from 2011 to 2013 and inaccessibility.
18
Sub-component 1.4: Assessment of Education Quality

10.
This sub-component aims to systematically measure the quality of learning in Bangla, English and
Mathematics by administering competency-based learning assessment on a sample basis. The results of these
independent assessments will be fed back to policymakers and stakeholders to raise their awareness about the
quality of education, and adjust quality-related policies and interventions accordingly. The long-term vision is to
build the appropriate capacity to mainstream the assessment system. The sub-component finances: (a) the
development of testing instruments for Bangla, English and Mathematics; (b) the administration of such
instruments, and processing and analysis of data; and (c) dissemination/feedback to stakeholders at all levels.
MEW will be the focal agency to carry out this activity with technical assistance from international and national
specialized agencies. One round of assessment has been completed in SEQAEP institutions and another round is
expected to be carried out in 2013. AF will finance at least two additional round of assessment, with nationally
representative samples (i.e. Covering SEQAEP as well as non-SEQAEP areas). Learning assessment is one of the
DLIs in the AF project (details are in Table 3 in this annex).
Component 2 Improving Equity and Access (Original: US$ 106.7 million, AF: US$ 179.6 million)
11.
The objective of this component is to increase access and retention of poor girls and boys; ensure their
completion of secondary schooling through provision of stipends and tuition based on pro-poor targeting and
educational criteria; and improve school environmental conditions by selectively providing water and sanitation
facilities.
Sub-component 2.1: PMT-based Stipends and Tuition to the Poor
12.
This sub-component aims to increase access and retention of poor girls and boys, based on pro-poor
targeting and educational criteria. This sub-component finances: (a) provision of stipends to girls and boys from
poor households in project institutions based on Proxy-Means Testing (PMT)-based pro-poor targeting; (b)
provision of tuition grant to eligible educational institutions on behalf of the PMT stipend recipient students in (a)
above; (c) provision of non-consulting services to administer the PMT scheme; and (d) provision of operating costs
related to the disbursing banks service charges for PMT-based stipends. The AF project will support the PMT
stipends and tuition program in current 125 project upazilas from second semester of AY2013 and in 90 new
upazilas from AY2015.
13.
All students from households in the bottom 4 deciles of welfare distribution (as bottom 40 percent in per
capita households consumption) would receive the stipend benefit. The stipend beneficiaries would include
students in grades 6-10 during the AF project period, which covers 9 semesters (second semester of 2013 and eight
semesters of four academic years 2014-2017). In view of GoBs interest in mainstreaming the PMT scheme
nationally under a single harmonized stipend program, the stipends rates will remain at the current level. PMT
Stipends will be provided to eligible boys and girls twice a year at the stipulated rates given in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Stipend Allowance Rates for PMT-based Stipends Program (in Taka)
Monthly
SSC Exam Fees
First
Second
Grade
Stipend
(annual)
Semester
Semester
100
600
600
6
7
125
750
750
8
160
960
960
9
180
1,080
1,080
10
200
750
1,200
1,950
14.
Repeat Beneficiaries: Current PMT beneficiaries in 125 upazilas will continue to receive stipends upon a
full and independent validation of the fulfillment of education compliance criteria: (a) maintaining 75 percent
average attendance; (b) successful promotion to next grade; and (c) remaining unmarried till completion of
secondary school (grade 10).
15.
New Beneficiaries: New PMT beneficiary students will be selected following criteria (identification of
poor boys and girls using updated PMT formula) and procedures (invitation of PMT applications, PMT booth
operations to collect filled applications, sample validation through household visit surveys, processing of
application data, publication of draft beneficiary list, enrolment confirmation, processing of appeals, and Award
Confirmation Form (ACF) preparation). The new PMT applications in 125 current upazilas (into grade 6 from
AY2014) and 90 new upazilas (in all grades from AY2015) will be processed using the updated PMT formula to
19
ensure that all poor eligible children are selected for PMT stipends (details on PMT scheme is in Annex 12).
Details will be elaborated in the revised PMT Stipends Operations Manual.
16.
ACF for each academic semester is prepared based on compliance information provided by institutions and
certified by USEOs. PMT Stipend will be disbursed via the banking system, including the use of cash card. USEOs
will be accountable in ensuring that compliance information from institution is verified and forwarded to SEQAEP
Unit/PMTA within scheduled date and USEO grant will be linked to these outputs.
17.
Tuition: Tuition support (stipulated rates given in Table 2) will be provided directly to eligible educational
institutions on behalf of all PMT stipend students. During the project period (four academic years of 2014-2017), it
is estimated that more than 5 million student-years of secondary education would benefit from tuition support.
ACF for tuition will be linked to ACF for PMT stipends.
Table 2 Tuition Subsidy for PMT-based Stipends Program (in Taka)
Monthly
First Semester
Second Semester
Grade
Tuition
25
150
150
6
7
25
150
150
8
25
150
150
9
30
180
180
10
30
180
180
18.
Implementation Arrangement: The services of LGED as PMT Administrator will continue until project
ends. PMTA will be responsible for (a) selection of PMT stipend and tuition beneficiaries, (b) ACF preparation for
PMT stipend and tuition beneficiaries, and (c) maintenance of integrated database. For PMT stipends and tuition
benefits each eligible institution (current or new) will be required to enter into an annually renewable Cooperation
Agreement (after physical verification) specifying their commitment to comply with project rules and regulations.
Sub-component 2.2: General Stipends and Tuition Program
19.
This program was phased out in 2010 academic year, after the PMT based stipend and tuition program was
introduced in 125 project Upazilas. Under the AF, this sub-component finances the Governments provision of
ongoing general stipends program in new 90 upazilas in AY2014; the PMT-based scheme will be implemented in
all 215 project upazilas from AY2015.
Sub-component 2.3: Improving School Facilities
20.
This sub-component is intended to attract and retain girls and boys in schools, through the provision (using
community participation) of safe drinking water and sanitation facilities to selective schools based on needs
assessment. The provision of improved school facilities is likely to lead to better health outcomes for children and
increase their aptitude to learn. This sub-component finances: (a) provision school facilities grants to project
institutions for (i) acquisition of safe drinking and twin latrine facilities, and (ii) construction of twin latrines for
boys and girls with running water facilities; (b) the provision of technical advisory services for testing of existing
and new project institutions tube-wells for arsenic, salinity and manganese contamination; and (c) provision of
field test kits for testing activities in (b) above. Beneficiary institutions for the sub-component will be selected on
need-basis. DPHE will provide services for safe water testing of tube-wells including 5% sample laboratory testing
and other technical services such as carrying out awareness programs on school health and sanitation and advisory
services on construction and works for water (tube-wells) and sanitation facilities which will be carried out by
school management committees using community participation procedures as per agreed project guidelines.
Component 3 Institutional Capacity Strengthening (Original: US$ 9.9 million, AF: US$ 21.4 million)
21.
The objectives of this component are to: (a) strengthen the existing structure for managing and
implementing the proposed project; (b) develop and strengthen the capacity to implement programs aimed at
increasing educational quality and to deliver financial support to targeted beneficiaries effectively; (c) strengthen
accountability at school and Upazila level; and (d) raise education awareness amongst stakeholders with focus on
education quality, targeting and accountability.
Sub-component 3.1: Project Management
22.
In order to ensure smooth project implementation, the project management structure will be strengthened.
The overall responsibility for the project lies with the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE), as
20
the implementing agency. It will be assisted by two units: DSHE/SEQAEP Unit, led by a Project Director and
DSHE/Monitoring and Evaluation Wing (MEW), led by a Director. Upazila Secondary Education Office (USEO)
will serve as the focal agency at the field level under the supervision of Zonal Directors and District Education
Offices. MEW is described in Component 4 below. This sub-component finances: (a) technical advisory services,
goods and logistics assistance to SEQAEP Unit to facilitate the carrying out of the different activities under
components 1, 2 and 3; and (b) operating costs to support implementation of same activities.
23.
SEQAEP Unit: The objective of this Unit is to enable DSHE to establish a strong management capacity to
implement project activities. SEQAEP Units main functions will be to plan, manage, implement and coordinate
project activities. In addition, project management and implementation capacity will be augmented through the use
of several government and private specialized partner agencies (for example, services in areas such as PMT,
banking, reading habit program, additional support in EL and Math, Science, and data processing services etc.). As
per original design, SEQAEP Unit will be staffed with a modest number of key technical, procurement, and
financial management staff, and a number of long-term national consultants to provide technical and
implementation support. To enhance horizontal and vertical communication and coordination for smooth project
implementation, the MTR recommended a revised project organogram to account for the provision of Additional
Project Director (professor level), removal of deputy director positions, redeployment of existing positions and
addition of select critical positions. In view of the changed project scope and revised implementation
arrangements, deployment of staff would be adjusted.
24.
Zonal Director, District Education Offices and Upazila Secondary Education Offices (USEOs): SEQAEP
Unit, with support from DSHE, will mobilize field level officials including USEOs to facilitate field level
implementation of project activities. To ensure that the field level tasks are implemented in a timely and effective
manner, SEQAEP will provide grant support of Taka 50,000 annually to cover the operational expenses of USEOs
based on the following results: (i) completion of PMT beneficiary selection scheme together with PMTA (first
trimester payment); (ii) submission of verified institutional data forms for processing first semester stipends and
school grant (second trimester payments); and (iii) submission of verified institutional data forms for processing
second semester stipends and school grants (third trimester). The USEO operating grant will be disbursed in three
installments according to the agreed guidelines in the Implementation Manual.
Sub-Component 3.2: Institutional Capacity Building
25.
The objective is to strengthen the capacity of MoE to provide services at central, district, upazila, and
community levels. Staff development will be an essential part of capacity-building, especially for a project that has
many new and innovative initiatives that require careful monitoring for program learning. In addition, it is planned
that staff capacity at the secondary Upazilas offices be strengthened mainly through focused training. This subcomponent will finance (a) focused orientation and workshops, and (b) in-country and international training. Incountry training will be implemented based on agreed plan and international training will be carried out on
selective basis (with prior concurrence from IDA).
Sub-Component 3.3: School Management Accountability
26.
The objective is to support MoEs efforts to increase accountability and transparency at the school level
through the strengthening of School Management Committees (SMCs) and Madrasah Management Committee
(MMCs) and Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs). Under this sub-component, AF project will finance the
provision of the following grants to project institutions: (a) ICT support grant of Taka 800 per month to all
institutions and SMC/MMCs for use of internet in monitoring and communication; and (b) Social Audit grant of
Taka 5,000 per year to all PTAs to organize parent assembly and disseminate school performance information
through school report card. PTA and SMC activities under this sub-component will be implemented in
coordination with education awareness and community mobilization (sub-component 3.4) to enhance the impact of
other sub-components such as PMT stipends and all quality interventions.
Sub-Component 3.4: Education Awareness and Community Mobilization
27.
The objective is to build and increase awareness among all key stakeholders, with emphasis on the
community and beneficiaries. Since the project places greater focus on quality, due diligence in management and
administration of incentives and grants and pro-poor targeting based on proxy means testing, it is important that
these messages are effectively communicated to all stakeholders. Two types of activities will be supported: (i)
educational awareness programs; and (ii) community mobilization. Activities would include the use of technical
advisory services and multimedia campaign services to identify and deliver key messages, and mobilize PTAs and
SMCs at the community level. The sub-component financing would include provision of EACM grant of Taka
5,000 per year to all PTAs to carry out community/school mobilization activities including campaign against girls
21
eve teasing and for bringing dropouts back to school. The important synergies between sub-components 3.3 and
3.4 can be brought about through focused awareness campaigns, and strengthened roles of the Parent Teacher
Associations (PTAs) and School Management Committees (SMCs).
Component 4 - Monitoring and Evaluation (Original: US$ 1.7 million, AF: US$ 7.0 million)
28.
The objective of this component is to: (a) systematically document all project input, process, output, and
outcomes; and (b) link project interventions with outcomes. The AF will finance the provision of technical
advisory services, equipment and logistical assistance, and operating cost to facilitate the carrying out of activities
under component 4 and sub-component 1.4 (learning assessment).
29.
Monitoring (4.1) and Evaluation (4.2): The objective of sub-component 4.1 is to strengthen capacity to
monitor inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes. Monitoring activities under this sub-component include: (a)
Results monitoring (KPIs and intermediate indicators); (b) System monitoring (EMIS) through annual census of all
project institutions; (c) PMT validation survey (to check accuracy of PMT application information); and (d)
Compliance monitoring survey (compliance of criteria and procedures of all activities). The sub-component 4.2
aims at carrying out rigorous impact evaluation of key project interventions. This involves multiple rounds of
household and school surveys. The baseline survey was carried out in 2008 and the first follow-up of the same
schools and households in 2009. The first phase of the impact evaluation has established the short-run impact of a
Proxy Means Testing (PMT) stipends program. Under the AF, this sub-component finances the provision of
support to evaluate the impact of the Project on access, equity and quality of education through qualitative
assessments and quantitative impact evaluations including the design of evaluation strategy for main project
interventions (PMT, Additional Class, DRH), carrying out of baseline and follow-up surveys, analysis of data and
dissemination of findings.
30.
Implementation Arrangement: Aactivities under this component will be implemented MEW with
support from MIS Cell located at BANBIES. MEW will serve as the focal agency for overall supervision of M&E
activities so as to strengthen the capacity of DSHE to monitor, review and evaluate the project regularly;
coordinate the dissemination of national assessment of learning achievement; and maintain a repository of
integrated databases, relevant reports and studies. This component will be implemented by MEW with support
from project MIS cell at BANBEIS and other specialized agencies. Results monitoring (KPI and immediate
indicators) will be updated by MEW with data from PMTA at LGED, project MIS Cell at BANBEIS, BSK and
SEQAEP Unit/MEW. Annual school census, PMT validation, compliance monitoring and impact evaluation
surveys will be carried out by MEW with support from MIS Cell located at BANBIES. In addition, MIS Cell
located at BANBEIS will support SEQAEP on data processing of non-PMT activities.
31.
PMT validation survey would be carried out in conjunction with the PMT booth operations (administered
by PMTA) and provide immediate correction on any false reporting by the applicants. Institutional Compliance
monitoring would be carried out for all institutions every year in order to verify that beneficiary schools are indeed
complying with agreed project guidelines. The use of ICT, such as smart-phones, would be introduced for
compliance monitoring. The results of the compliance monitoring would be provided to the project unit and
USEOs both for implementation support as well as necessary corrective actions. DSHE will sign an MOU with
BANBEIS specifying the deliverables and service charges. Details of the M&E and MIS activities and
arrangements will be elaborated in M&E Manual.
32.
M&E focused DLIs: The importance of M&E system is elevated even further by triggering a portion of
IDA credit to achievement of key results under this component. These DLIs include carrying out the learning
assessment nationally; bringing MEW under revenue budget at project end, and conducting M&E surveys as
scheduled. Details of these DLIs, pricing and verification arrangements are provided in Table 3 below.
22
Table 3: Disbursement Linked Indicators

Areas
Indicator
Baseline
Learning
Assessment
DLI 1:
Learning
Assessment
carried out
nationally
One round
completed in
SEQAEP
upazilas in
2012
(Responsible
agency: MOE,
MEW/DSHE)
DLI Value
Institutionalizatio
n of MEW
(Responsible
agency:
DSHE/MOE,
MOPA, MOF)
DLI Value
Monitoring &
Evaluation
activities
(Responsible
agency:
MEW/DSHE)
DLI 2: MEW
institutionalize
d and financed
through
revenue
budget
MEW under
SEQAEP
project budget
2013
(Year 0)
MOE to submit
proposal along
with DSHE
organogram to
create new
positions in
DSHEs
permanent
structure to the
O&M wing of
the Ministry of
Public
Administration
(MOPA)
US$7 m
DLI 3:
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
surveys
conducted as
scheduled
Last round of
Impact
Evaluation (IE)
survey in 2009
Total: 12
Total US$50m
2015
(Year 2)
Secondary
education
learning
assessment
carried out on
nationally
representative
sample
US$4 m
Final proposal
for MEW
submitted by
MOE and
received by
MOPA for
processing
US$4 m
MEW proposal,
including job
descriptions
approved by
MOPA and
forwarded to
MOF
US$4 m
Impact
evaluation
baseline survey
conducted
2016
(Year 3)
Report of secondary
education learning
assessment
disseminated
Framework for the
2017 national
learning assessment
approved
US$4 m
MOF concurs with
the proposal
forwarded by
MOPA and informs
MOE.
2017
(Year 4)
All arrangements
made for MEW
staff to be paid
under revenue
budget from
January 2018
MOE issues a
Government Order
to the effect that
MEW would be
transferred to
revenue budget
beginning from
January 2018
2013- DSHE to submit to the Association a copy of the

proposal sent to MOPA
2014- MOE submits to the Association copy of the
receipt of the final proposal by MOPA.
2015- Copy of the decision endorsed by MOPA
forwarded to the Association.
2016- Copy of issued Government Order forwarded to
the Association.
2017- A letter from MOE/DSHE confirming the
arrangements in place for transfer of MEW staff salary
and recurrent cost to revenue budget from January 2018
US$4 m
PMT validation
and compliance
survey
conducted
incorporating
the approved
finding of the
2013 PMT
validation and
compliance
survey reports
US$4 m
DSHE approve the
list of corrective
actions based on
findings of 2015
PMT validation and
compliance survey
reports
US$3.5 m
Impact evaluation
follow-up survey
completed by
March
US$4 m
October 2015
US$4 m
October 2016
US$3.5 m
June 2017
December 2013
January 2014
November 2014
November 2015
November 2016
July 2017
February 2014
1
7m*1=7m
December 2014
3
4m*3=12m
December 2015
3
4m*3=12m
December 2016
3
4m*3=12m
August 2017
2
3.5m*2=7m
23
Protocol/Verification
2014 and 2016- MOE letters approving the learning
assessment frameworks for 2015 and 2017 assessments,
respectively. Framework to include objectives, subjects,
grades, time frame, and implementation arrangements,
including implementing bodies.
2015- Nationally representative sample defined as
relevant grade to be represented at all BISE.
2016- Learning assessment report with proof of
dissemination to key stakeholders
DSHE approve
the list of
corrective
actions based
on findings of
2013 PMT
validation and
compliance
survey reports
US$4 m
October 2014
Last round of
validation in
2010
Last round of
compliance
survey in 2010
DLI Value
Submission of
achievement
report
Verification by
IDA
Disbursement
Number of DLIs
Pricing (US$ m)
2014
(Year 1)
MOE/DSHE to
determine that
learning
assessment be
carried out on
nationally
representative
sample
PMT validation
and compliance
survey conducted
incorporating the
finding of 2015
reports
2014 - DSHE submit survey reports and proof of

corrective action taken based on the respective survey
report to IDA
report to IDA
2016 - DSHE submit proof of corrective action taken
based on the respective survey report to IDA
report to IDA
Annex 3: Project Costing by Component

Academic (calendar) yearly Cost Estimates
By Component
2013-2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
11.1
16.5
20.7
24.0
72.3
52.9
42.2
41.6
42.8
179.6
3. Institutional Capacity Strengthening
4.4
5.7
5.7
5.6
21.5
4. M&E
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
7.0
Total
70.2
66.1
69.8
74.2
280.3
24
Annex 4: Summary of Impact Evaluation Study
1. Objective: To experiment and learn from a newly introduced PMT-targeted stipends program, the
SEQAEP project incorporated an impact evaluation component. PMT-targeted stipends component was
implemented in a phased manner. Of the total 122 project upazilas, 61 randomly chosen upazilas introduced
the scheme during the first year of the project for cohort entering January 2009, the remaining 61 upazilas
from the second year. The randomized phased-in approach, coupled with baseline and follow-up household
and school level surveys, allows the evaluation to establish the causal impact of SEQAEP stipends on
secondary school enrolment and learning outcomes. The baseline survey was carried out in 2008 and the
follow-up survey in 2009. Because the new scheme was targeted to the poor, both boys and girls, the
impacts are estimated by gender and poverty status separately.
2. Findings: Analysis of baseline and follow-up survey data suggests that the SEQAEP stipends scheme
had a significant causal impact on secondary school enrolment (Chart 1).
Boys eligible to receive PMT-stipends are 21 percentage points more likely to be enrolled in
secondary school than they would have had they not been able to receive the PMT-stipends.
The impact is even more pronounced for boys from the poorest households. The enrolment increase
among boys in the bottom two income quintiles is an estimated 28 percentage points. In other words,
close to three out of ten PMT-stipend recipients from poor households would have dropped out in the
absence of the program.
Relative to the FSSAP stipend program, the average effect of the PMT-stipends on girls is 19
percentage points increase in school enrolment. While this is not surprising given a much higher cash
amount in the PMT stipends compared to the FSSAP stipends (two to four times higher depending on
the grade), the magnitude of impact increases with poverty level. PMT stipends program causes girls
from economically poor families 26 percentage points more likely to enrol in secondary school.
For girls from relatively richer households who are now not directly benefiting from the PMT
program, there is no adverse impact of taking away the FSSAP stipends.
Overall, the results appear generally robust across the various alternative specifications. The
magnitudes of the estimated effects of the Bangladesh pro-poor targeted stipends program are
impressive given the relatively low monetary value of the stipend (average stipend amount is $25 per
year, varies by grade). These impacts are higher than those reported for similar programs such as the
PROGRESA CCT program in Mexico but comparable to the ones reported for a poverty targeted
scholarship program in Cambodia.
3. In terms of learning outcomes, overall student test scores improved by 0.25 standard deviations
between the two rounds of survey but there is no differential effect (positive or negative) effects of the
PMT-stipends program. The pattern holds across both subjects English and Mathematics- in grades 6 and
8. Separate estimates for boys, poor boys, girls, and poor girls confirms the same result that the PMTstipends did not have any statistically significant impacts on the students learning after one year of
implementation. The finding is consistent with evidence from other studies that show that CCT does not
automatically increase student learning in the short-run. It is important to point out that PMT stipends
attracted the poorest students into the system and yet had positive improvement in test scores.
25
Chart 1: Net Impact of PMT-based Stipends Program on Secondary School Enrolment
Impact On Enrolment (percentage points)

Poor Boys
All Boys
Poor Girls
All Girls
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Source: Authors calculations.

Note: The impact estimate is derived from difference-difference combined with nearest neighbour matching estimator.
4. Implications: The findings from the IE study have provided the Government and the World Bank with
a number of implications:
Impressive and unambiguous effect of the PMT-based stipends program on increasing secondary
school enrolment among boys and girls alike, particularly for the poor validates the governments
decision to fully implement the PMT-based stipends program in all SEQAEP areas and expand the
program in additional 90 upazilas under the AF.
The finding that there are no short-run impacts of PMT-based stipends on learning outcomes is not
surprising given an interval of only one year between the two survey rounds and a widely held
consensus that quality enhancement is a longer term process. More importantly, the SEQAEP AF has
built in rigorous IE to explore the impacts of major quality interventions such the additional classes
and the reading habit program, on learning outcomes.
The interim impact evaluation focused on outcome indicators associated with school enrolment and
student test scores. However, as with any large-scale operation, implementation process and
institutional arrangements play an influential role in the quality and magnitude of impacts. As such, the
Government of Bangladesh (GOB) and its development partners including the World Bank should also
encourage the process evaluation of the PMT-based stipends scheme in order to refine and
institutionalize the PMT-based identification of poor students, monitoring of educational compliance
criteria to confirm stipend awards, and appropriate procedures to disburse funds through the banking
system. Cost effectiveness analysis is also equally important for any consideration to scale up the
scheme nationwide.
26
Annex 5: Implementation Arrangements

1.
The implementation arrangements under the AF project would largely remain the same with
enhanced role of DSHE as the main implementation agency in view of institutionalization of project
activities. DSHE would continue to be supported by two units: SEQAEP Unit headed by a Project
Director, and MEW, headed by a Director. In order to ensure smooth project implementation, the
project management structure will be strengthened and some refinements in the organogram would be
made. Upazila Secondary Education Office (USEO) will serve as the focal agency at the field level
under the supervision of Zonal Directors and District Education Offices.
2.
SEQAEP Unit: SEQAEP Units main functions will be to plan, manage, implement and
coordinate project activities for sub-components under components 1 (except sub-component 1.4), 2
and 3. As per original design, SEQAEP Unit will be staffed with a modest numbers of key technical,
procurement, and financial management staff, and a number of long-term national consultants to
provide technical and implementation support. To enhance horizontal and vertical communication and
coordination for smooth project implementation, to serve the needs of the expanded project scope,
several key positions have been added, including one Additional Project Director (professor level) and
4 deputy project directors (See Attachment 5a for Job Descriptions of Project Director and Additional
Project Director for SEQAEP Unit).
3.
Monitoring and Evaluation Wing (MEW) will implement sub-component 1.4 (learning
assessment) and 4.1 (monitoring) and 4.2 (evaluation) and serve as the focal agency for overall
supervision of M&E activities so as to strengthen the capacity of DSHE to monitor, review and evaluate
the project regularly; and coordinate the dissemination of national assessment of learning achievement,
and maintain a repository of integrated databases, relevant reports and studies. MEW will be brought
under revenue budget by project end. All activities under component 4 and sub-component 1.4 will be
implemented by MEW. Total number of staff at MEW, including the officer level positions, will be
according to DSHEs staffing proposal to bring MEW under revenue budget.
4.
Participating Specialized Agencies: Under the AF, SEQAEP project will continue to be
supported by the following partner agencies: (a) Local Government Engineering Department (LGED)
for PMT administration, (b) Agrani Bank for funds disbursement, (c) Department of Public Health and
Engineering (DPHE) for improving school facilities sub-component, (d) BANBEIS for M&E activities
(MEW supervised activities) and project MIS (SEQAEP supervised activity), and (e) Bishwo Shahitto
Kendro (BSK) for providing technical support to the implementation of developing the reading habit
scheme. For the continued service, participation agreements (for non-consulting services) and contracts
(for consulting services) would be amended to reflect changed scope of work and project duration. In
addition, technical assistance will be provided by national and international agencies for additional class
sub-component and learning assessment sub-component.
5.
Upazila Level Coordination: SEQAEP Unit, with support from DSHE and from Zonal
Director, District Education Offices, will mobilize upazila secondary education offices for field level
implementation support. SEQAEP will provide grant support to cover USEOs operational expenses
based on following results: (a) completion of PMT beneficiary selection scheme together with PMTA
(first trimester payment); (ii) submission of verified institutional data forms for processing first
semester stipends and school grants (second trimester payment); and (iii) and submission of verified
institutional data forms for processing second semester stipends and school grants (third trimester).
27
6.
Educational Institutions: As in the ongoing project, the AF will ensure that the project enter
into a annually renewable Co-operation Agreement with participating educational institutions (schools
and madrasahs), specifying the obligations of participating educational institutions (e.g. compliance
with project criteria and procedures, level of project support, and reporting requirements). The key
requisite for educational institutions to become eligible for participation in project activities would be
the formation and functioning of a School Management Committee (SMC) and a Parent-Teacher
Association (PTA).
7.
Implementation Manual: The Project would be implemented according to an agreed Project
Implementation Manual (consisting of sub-manuals on different project sub-components, including
PMT Stipends Manual) and detailed agreed guidelines. Agreed amendments to these manuals and
guidelines will be made periodically to incorporate adjustments, as needed, during project
implementation.
8.
GAAP, EMF, SMF: Governance and Accountability Action Plan (GAAP), Environmental
Management Framework (EMF) and Social Management Framework (SMF) would be part of the
implementation arrangements.
28
Attachment 5a: TORs for Key Staff Positions

Position
Key tasks
Project
Director
Provide technical and project management

leadership to a team comprising of staff and
consultants in carrying out project activities under
SEQAEP, including procurement and financial
management, reporting directly to the Director
General, DSHE
Plan, implement, manage, supervise, monitor, and
coordinate all SEQAEP activities
Be responsible for regular reporting on SEQAEP
activities to IDA
Additional
Project
Director
(Proposed)
Provide implementation support to the Project

Director, Assistant Directors and their field-level
officials
Support DSHE to mobilize USEOs for field level
SEQAEP Implementation
Build synergies across components and partner
agencies
Coordinate among all SEQAEP partner agencies
having entered into a Participation Agreement or
Memorandum of Understanding or consultants
engaged in SEQAEP activities
Consolidate component progress reports and
implementation plans
Report directly to the Project Director
29
Education/
Qualifications
Masters Degree,
preferably in the
field of educational
management or
related field
Trained in
educational
development, and
project
management
Experience and Skills
Masters Degree,
preferably in the
field of educational
management or
related field
Trained in
educational
development,
project
management, and
M&E
Minimum 10 years of experience in

education projects, must be from
education cadre (Professor or Associate
Professor level)
Substantial experience in IDA funded
education projects
Proven track record in stipends
program
Proven Experience in coordinating
with various partner agencies
Proven ability to mobilize USEOs in
education projects
Proficiency in writing and speaking
English
Basic computer skills (Word, Excel,
etc.)
Minimum 10 years of project

management and monitoring and
evaluation experience, preferably from
education cadre
Ability to work in foreign aided
projects in a team environment
Ability to coordinate with various
ministries and agencies
Proficiency in writing and speaking
English
Basic computer skills (Word, Excel,
etc.)
Annex 6: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangement

1.
Financial Management Assessment: A financial management assessment has been carried out mainly by
revisiting the institutional capacity and systems of the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE)
under the Ministry of Education (MOE) that have been implementing the ongoing SEQAEP through SEQAEP
Project Unit and MEW wing. The capacity and systems of the country and sector public financial management and
accountability institutions have also been factored into FM assessment. Project financial management functions
have been carried out by project specific FM staff including a Project Financial Management Specialist hired for
the project at the DSHE, like most of the Government departments, does not have an adequate FM organization.
The FM arrangement as agreed for SEQAEP will be applicable for the additional financing as well with add-on
arrangement as reflected in the FM arrangement. The FM arrangement is adequate to meet the fiduciary safeguards
for the project funds and to provide financial support for the smooth project implementation.
Project Financing Arrangements
2.
There will be two financing modalities in SEQAEP Additional Financing (1) direct input based financing
for major part of the project, and (2) DLI based financing for meeting specified performance targets. The total
project cost for SEQAEP AF is estimated to be US$280 million. The total IDA credit would be US$265million, of
which US$215 million would be on traditional input (transaction) based financing and US$50 million that would
be initially financed by the Government, would be reimbursed on the basis of achievement of the agreed
performance targets (DLIs). Project financing by cost-category for the transaction-based IDA credit are shown
below in table 1.
Table 1: Financing Categories (US$ Million) for IDA Credit
Category
1. PMT-based
Stipends
2. School Grants
3. Consultant and nonconsulting services,
training, goods and
operating cost
4. Consultant and nonconsulting services,
training, goods and
operating cost
5. DLI expenditures
Total
IDA
Financing
IDA share
%
Sub-components
129.9
100%
PMT stipends (Component 2.1)
38.7
100%
39.4
91%
School grants for Additional Class (1.2), Reading Habit (1.3), Improving
School Facilities (2.3)
Consulting (firms and individuals) for Additional Class (1.2), DRH (1.3) &
project management (3.1); non-consulting technical assistance from LGED
for PMT stipends and tuition (2.1) and DPHE for school facilities (2.3);
training under capacity building (3.2); goods under component 1,2,3 and
operating costs under PMT stipends (2.1) and project management (3.1).
100%
Consultant and non-consulting services, training, goods and operating cost

under learning assessment (1.4) and M&E (4.1 & 4.2).
50
265
Incentives (awards) under component 1.1, tuition grants under 2.1, General
stipends (non-PMT) under 2.2, and school grants under SMA (3.3) and
EACM (3.4).
3.
Eligible expenditures for reimbursement under the DLI-based IDA credit financing will include the
expenditure items specified under category-5 (DLI expenditures) in table 1 above. It includes Incentives (awards)
under component 1.1, tuition grants under 2.1, General stipends (non-PMT) under sub-component 2.2, and school
grants under SMA (3.3) and EACM (3.4). Economic codes of the eligible expenditure items under DLI expenditure
category would be clearly mentioned in the Governments revised Development Project Proposal (RDPP) and the
AF Financing Agreement between IDA and the Borrower. The reimbursement will be claimed accordingly,
attaching the relevant expenditure statements to the Interim Financial Reports (IFRs).
4.
On achieving one or more DLIs, the Bank will disburse value of the DLI (s) to the Government treasury.
Disbursement under DLI based financing will be made on achievement of DLI targets on the basis of
reimbursement of eligible expenditures not less than the value of DLIs. Disbursement for DLIs attained for any
30
year including such disbursements in the previous years will not exceed the total eligible expenditures on a
cumulative basis.
FM arrangements
5.
Staffing: The project organogram for SEQAEP AF is strengthened by two additional FM personnel: one
consultant Accounts Officer (increasing the current number to 2) at the SEQAEP unit and one Financial
Management Analyst (FMA) at the office of the DG DSHE. The current FM positions, including FMS, Accounts
Officer and Accountants at the SEQAEP unit will need to be confirmed by SEQAEP to ensure the FM support
from the beginning of the AF project. Additionally, a Financial Management Analyst (FMA) will be required at
the office of DG, DSHE in order to provide financial management support for implementing the component 4 and
sub-component 1.4 of the project by MEW. FMAs responsibilities will include keeping books and records,
prepare and submit a separate set of IFRs, assisting the DG, DSHE in operating a separate Designated Account,
and also to help submitting the withdrawal applications for the DLI based part of funding. The FMA will be a
professionally qualified accountant with minimum of 2 years of post-qualification experience and will be
responsible to the DG, DSHE for duly discharging all project FM functions. The TOR for the FMA will be agreed
and the selection of the appointee would be finalized before negotiations in order for the person to be in place right
from the startup of the project. Provision for these FM staff should be reflected in the DPP/RDPP and the
Procurement Plan as applicable.
6.
Designated Account and Fund Flow: IDAs transaction-based project funding on AF will mainly flow
through two separate Designated Accounts (DAs) in the form of Convertible Taka Special Account (CONTASA)
to be opened in Agrani bank. DA-A to be managed by the SEQAEP Unit will be used to finance major activities
(excepting the activities to be implemented by MEW) under the AF. The Project Director shall operate this DA and
submit withdrawal applications for the initial and subsequent advances to the DA and documentation of eligible
expenditures under input based financing. A separate DA-B will be opened and managed by DG, DSHE to meet
the input based expenditures of component 4 and sub-component 1.4 of the project. The Project Director and the
DG, DSHE/ Director, MEW will independently prepare the Request for Authorization to Use their respective
Designated Accounts and will submit the same to the Finance Division of the MOF through the MOE. The DLI
based financing will be disbursed to the Government treasury on submission of Withdrawal Applications by DG,
DSHE based on the Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) attached with statement of eligible expenditures and evidence
of achievement of DLIs. Treasury account details will be provided to IDA at the time of negotiations.
7.
Documentation under original financing: 100% of original IDA credit is disbursed and this includes
US$7.5 million that is in the Designated Account (DA) still to be fully documented. This amount is expected to be
fully documented by the Original Financing Closing Date (June 30, 2014). Therefore, the Financing Agreement for
the original IDA Credit 4475-BD will not be amended.
8.
Disbursement: In order to simplify processes, report-based disbursements using the Interim Financial
Reports (IFRs) will serve as the basis for withdrawal of funds from the IDA credit. Advances would be made to
the Designated Accounts (DAs) for the input based financing part of the credit based on six months projections.
The amount to be disbursed under DLI-based financing, , will be fully on reimbursement basis to be paid to the
Government treasury.
9.
The disbursement on meeting performance targets-DLIs, will also be required to be identified with project
expenditures for the agreed eligible expenditure heads to be evidenced by expenditure prepared and submitted by
DSHE.
10.
Accounting and Reporting: The project will follow GOB Project Accounting Manual in maintaining
books of accounts and in complying with monthly, quarterly and annual financial reporting requirements of various
government agencies as well as the WB. An off the shelf accounting software has been in operation in the original
project to record financial transactions and produce financial information in order to prepare and submit quarterly
interim financial reports (IFRs) acceptable to IDA. The same software will be used in the AF as well. The project
will provide two sets of Interim Un-audited Financial Reports (IFRs), for input and result based financing
respectively. The project has been submitting quarterly IFRs for the original project and this arrangement will
continue for the input-based part of the AF. For the DLI-based activities, quarterly IFRs will be prepared by the
DSHE. Upon achieving the Year 0 result, the DSHE may submit an IFR including expenditures on eligible
expenditure heads for the Calendar Year 2013, or a part of it. From Year 1 onwards, quarterly IFRs will be
prepared and submitted.
31
11.
External Audit: The annual consolidated financial statements of SEQAEP AF including receipts,
expenditures and balance in the DA to be operated by DG, DSHE will be audited by the Foreign Aided Project
Audit Directorate of C&AG and the audited financial statements will be submitted to IDA within six months of the
end of each fiscal year. DG, DSHE assisted by the Financial Analyst will submit its part of the annual project
accounts to the Project Director for its inclusion in the consolidated project financial statements and will be
responsible to meet audit queries on the financial transactions carried out by the MEW. A Statement of Audit
Needs (SAN) will be agreed with the C&AG extending the audit focuses on testing controls preventing corruption
and detecting transactions with corrupt practices. The following audit report will be monitored in the Audit Report
Compliance system (ARCS) see Table 2 below:
Table 2: Audit Arrangements
Implementing Agency
Audit Type
Auditor
Deadline
Directorate of Secondary
Projects Annual Financial
Foreign Aided Project Audit
Six months from
and Higher Education
Statements including IDA and
Directorate under Comptroller &
the end of each
(DSHE)
GOB financed expenditures
Auditor General
fiscal year
12.
There are a few audit observations material to IDA on the original SEQAEP, still to be resolved; therefore,
the project will prepare an action plan and act on to deal with the audit issues by December 2013. Amounts relating
to unresolved audit observation results in questionable costs. At the end of December 2013, the Association will
assess and determine if the amounts relating to these audit observation results into ineligible expenditure. In case
these amounts become ineligible, the project will have to refund the amounts to IDA. Subsequently, upon
successful resolution of the observations, the project will be able to get these amounts back. However, for the AF,
the project shall resolve/settle any audit issues within six months of receiving the final audit report.
13.
Internal Audit on the basis of a TORs agreed with the Bank will be conducted by a reputed firm of
Chartered Accountant for every two years of AF operations. Adequate resource will be included as part of the
project costs. The internal audit for main project had not been completed on a timely manner and there is a backlog
as such the implementation of AF Internal Audit will need special attention.
14.
FM Risks: Overall FM risk is assessed as Substantial mainly due to having project activities dispersed
across the country and new modalities of financing under the SEQAEP AF. The delay in addressing external audit
issues, non-completion of Internal Audit on time, the delay on having the FM staff on board initially and on staff
turn-over and some set back on continuous operation of the computerized accounting system as noted during the
original project operation, have also been factored into overall project FM risk .
15.
Supervision plan: Considering that the overall risk of the projects is Substantial, a formal supervision
mission will be conducted just after the project effectiveness and thereafter at least every six months. However,
and more importantly, the in-country based FMS will provide, as is current practice, on-going FM implementation
support on a regular basis. The supervision mission will provide reasonable assurance that adequate financial
management arrangements are maintained for the project, both at the DSHE and the SEQAEP PMU. There will
also be extended review visits at some of the Upazillas as deemed appropriate. Regular reviews will be carried out
to ensure that the expenditures incurred by the project remain eligible for Banks funding especially for DLI based
financing and the IUFRs are timely submitted with all bank statements along with reconciliations. The project will
be included in the CMUs forensic audit plan.
32
Annex 7: Procurement Arrangements

1.
Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Banks
"Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated January 2011 (Procurement Guidelines);
and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January 2011
(Consultant Guidelines)) and the provisions stipulated in the Project Agreement.
2.
All anticipated major procurement of works and consultants services have been announced in the General
Procurement Notice (GPN), published in the Bank external website and United Nations Development Business
(UNDB).
3.
Procurement Responsibility: The overall responsibility of project implementation would be with DSHE.
4.
Particular Methods of Procurement of Goods and Works: Except as otherwise agreed in the procurement
plan, works and goods may be procured on the basis of International Competitive Bidding. Procurement of Goods
and Works having estimated value less than the ceiling stipulated in the Procurement Plan may follow National
Competitive Bidding (NCB) and Shopping. Direct Contracting (Goods/Works) and Single Source Selection
(Consultants) may be allowed under special circumstances with prior approval of the Bank. NCB would be carried
out under Bank Procurement Guidelines following procedures for Open Tendering Method (OTM) of the Peoples
Republic of Bangladesh (Public Procurement Act 2006 - PPA, 1st amendment to PPA (2009) and The Public
Procurement Rules 2008, as amended in August 2009) using standard bidding documents satisfactory to the Bank.
The Request for Quotation document based on PPA is acceptable to IDA for shopping. For the purpose of NCB
the following shall apply:
Post bidding negotiations shall not be allowed with the lowest evaluated or any other bidder;
Bids should be submitted and opened in public in one location immediately after the deadline for
submission;
Rebidding shall not be carried out, except with the Associations prior agreement;
Lottery in award of contracts shall not be allowed;
Bidders qualification/experience shall be mandatory;
Bids shall not be invited on the basis of percentage above or below the estimated cost and contract award
shall be based on the lowest evaluated bid price of compliant bid from eligible and qualified bidder; and
Single-stage two-envelope procurement system shall not be allowed.
5.
Procurement of non-consulting services: Except as otherwise agreed in the procurement plan, nonconsulting services may be procured on the basis of International Competitive Bidding. Procurement of nonconsulting services having estimated value less than the ceiling stipulated in the Procurement Plan may follow
National Competitive Bidding (NCB). The agencies will carry out such procurement using Bank Guidelines.
6.
Community Participation (CP): Water and sanitation facilities, involving deep tube-wells, shallow tubewells and latrines at the community level estimated cost less than US$5,000 equivalent may be procured through
Community Participation. These works ensure that all students in the schools have access to clean drinking water
and all girls to safe, private sanitation facilities. These works will be spread over widely dispersed geographical
areas across the country and will be implemented throughout the project period through Community Participation
(CP). Similarly, the sanitation works with individual contract of very small amount, estimated to cost less than
US$5,000 equivalent, will be carried out by the community through a School Managing Committee (SMC) in
accordance with agreement between the Project Authority and the SMC, as per existing procedure. A Project
Committee at the community level will plan and implement the actual construction works under the overall
supervision and monitoring by SMC. Communities will contribute 20 percent of the cost of water and sanitation
facilities. In the case of deep tube-wells, communities' contribution will be 10 percent.
7.
Methods of Procurement of Consultants Services: Selection of Consultants will follow the Bank
Consultant Guidelines. The following methods will apply for selection of consultants: Quality- and Cost-Based
Selection (QCBS), Quality-based selection (QBS), Fixed Budget Selection (FBS), Consultants Qualification
(CQ), Least-Cost Selection (LCS), and Single-Source Selection (SSS). Shortlist of consultants for services
estimated to cost less than US$500,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants.
33
The Procurement Plan will specify the circumstances and threshold under which specific methods will be
applicable.
8.
Incremental Operating Costs: These costs will include incremental operating costs for office utilities,
office supplies and stationeries, operation and maintenance of equipment and vehicles, hiring of vehicles, fuel,
office rent, souvenirs, events, bank charges, advertising costs, and salaries and contractual allowances of
contracted staff, but excluding salaries of Government officials.
9.
Assessment of the Agencys Capacity to Implement Procurement: Bangladesh has a nodal procurement
policy agency and a Public Procurement Act (PPA) 2006 with associated Public Procurement Rules 2008 (PPR)
and bidding documents. It created a critical mass of about 39 procurement professionals and, as of now, provided
training to over 4800 staff of about 350 organizations. To sustain the reform, with Banks assistance, the
Government has been implementing a second procurement reform project since late 2007, focusing largely on the
implementation and monitoring of PPA including introduction of e-government procurement at key sector
agencies.
10.
Notwithstanding the above progress over the past years, recently the new Government made a number of
amendments to the PPA, part of which were found not consistent with the Banks Guidelines, and as such the Bank
allowed local procurement using the PPA/PPR with those exceptions.
11.
A procurement capacity assessment of DSHE has been carried out with a view to: evaluate the capability
of the implementing agencies and of the adequacy of systems in place to administer Bank-financed procurement
and assess the risks that may negatively affect ability of the agency to carry out the procurement process. DSHE is
the implementing agency of Secondary Education Quality and Access Improvement Project and has adequate
knowledge on World Bank-financed project. However, in Financial Year (FY) 2011 procurement post review IDA
found inappropriate bidding practices in 23 contracts and declared these contracts as misprocurement. The refund
amount was US$102,684.60 and the refund process is expected to be completed by Negotiations of AF project.
After identification of the inappropriate bidding practice a time bound procurement capacity building action plan
has been implemented and DSHE achieved good result over last two years period. The FY2012 and FY2013
procurement post review reports found no serious anomalies in procurements. However, DSHE still has
weaknesses in bid evaluation and contract management. In addition to adequate staffing for procurement needs,
emphasis also needs to be placed on areas of internal control, documentation, information dissemination,
administration of contract including delivery follow-up, payments, handling complaints etc. The project is rated as
having Substantial-Risk from the procurement operation and contract administration viewpoint. These
assessments and agreed action has been captured in the web based Procurement Risk Assessment Management
System (P-RAMS).
12.
In order to minimize procurement associated risks, the following measures have been agreed with the
Government:
i.
Procurement focal point (PFP) in DHSE: Previous PFP has been transferred and DHSE has nominated a
new procurement focal point for this Project. The appointed focal point will take necessary training, both
on PPR 2008 and Bank Procurement Guidelines. The focal person will help DSHE in day-to-day
procurement follow-up, preparation of periodic procurement reporting and mandatory member of the bid
evaluation committee.
ii. Procurement Consultant: At present DHSE has a qualified procurement consultant as full time basis.
DHSE will continue the service of a qualified procurement consultant as full time basis for the whole
period of the project.
iii. e-Government Procurement (e-GP): Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU) of Bangladesh has
introduced a web-based central e-GP system and it is fully functional. It has been agreed that DHSE will
introduce of e-tendering for goods contracts under this project.
iv. Procurement Training: For a smooth implementation of procurement, adequate procurement training for
relevant staff under DHSE is essential. DHSE will prepare and implement a procurement training plan for
the project.
34
v. Introduce a Procurement Risk Mitigation Plan (PRMP) by DHSE through reports submitted to IDA on a
periodic (semi-annual) basis with a set of features as mentioned below.
13.
The PRMP will have following features:

i. Alert bidders in pre-bid meeting: DHSE through a notification will alert bidders during pre-bid meeting on
consequences of corrupt practices (fraud and corruption, collusion, coercion, etc.). The alert messages,
among others, will include that if bidders are found to have adopted such practices, there may be remedial
actions including debarment from bidding processes in conformity with the Banks Guidelines. For
national competitive bidding, national bidders debarred, under the PPA will not be able to participate. In
addition, in the pre-bid meeting, clarification will be provided to bidders to help preparation of bids
correctly.
ii. Alert internal officers/staff: DHSE will issue alert letter(s) to all relevant staffs notifying them the fraud
and corruption indicators, and the possible consequences of corrupt and similar behavior in procurement
practices and action to be taken against the official staff if they are involved in such practices. Moreover,
DHSE will highlight that, in case of noncompliance or material deviation from IDAs Procurement
Guidelines, IDA may take remedial actions (i.e., withdrawal of funds, declaration of mis-procurement) for
concerned contracts.
iii. Bid opening minutes: During the same day of bid opening, photocopies of the Bid Opening Minutes
(BOM) with the read out bid prices of participating bidders will be submitted by BEC for circulation to all
concerned. For prior review packages, such BOM will be shared with the IDA.
iv. Low competition among bidders and high price of bids: The case(s) of low competition (not solely based
on number of bidders) in ICB and NCB cases, coupled with high-priced bids will be inquired into and
further reviewed by DHSE. The review and decision in this regard would be in the context of qualification
criteria, the contract size (too small or too large), location and accessibility of the site, capacity of the
contractors, etc.
v. Measures to reduce coercive practices: Upon receiving allegations of coercive practices resulting in low
competition, DHSE will look into the matter and take appropriate measures. For prior review contracts,
observations of DHSE will be shared with IDA, along with the evaluation reports. DHSE may seek
assistance from law enforcing agencies to provide adequate security for bidders during bid submission. For
ICB contracts, provision for bid submission through international/national courier services will be allowed
and confirmation of the receipt of the bid will be informed to the bidders through e-mail.
vi. Rebidding: In case of re-bidding, DHSE will inquire into the matter, record and highlight the grounds of
re-bidding (i.e. corruption or similar, high bid prices etc.) along with recommended actions to be taken.
For prior review of cases, all such detailed reports will be sent to IDA.
vii. Filing and record-keeping: DHSE will preserve all records and documents regarding their public
procurement in accordance with provisions of the PPA. These records will be made readily available on
request for audit/investigation/review by the Development Partners and the Government.
viii. Publication of award of contract: DHSE will publish contract award information within two weeks of
contract award on its website and Central Procurement Technical Units (CPTUs) websites with the
following information: identity of contract package, date of advertisement, number of bid documents
sold, number of bids submitted along with names, bid prices as read out at bid opening, name and
evaluated price of each bid, number of responsive bids along with name of bidder, name of bidders
whose bids were rejected and brief reasons for rejection of bids, name of the winning bidder and the
price it offered, proposed completion of date of contract, as well as a brief description of the contract
awarded.
14.
Procurement Plan: A procurement plan covering all major procurement packages for entire life of the
project has been prepared and agreed. It will also be available in the Projects database and in IDAs external
35
website for this project. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with DHSE, at least annually, to
reflect the actual project implementation needs and adjustments thereof.
15.
Review by IDA of Procurement Decisions: The review by IDA of procurement decisions and selection of
consultants will be governed by Appendix 1 of the Banks Guidelines. For each contract to be financed by credit,
the threshold for prior review requirements and post review contracts will be identified in the Procurement Plan.
During the first 18 months of the project, IDA will carry out prior review of the following contracts. This prior
review threshold will be updated annually based on the performance of DHSE:
i.
For Goods. All the ICB Contracts and Direct Contracts irrespective of estimated cost. The NCB Contracts
estimated cost equivalent or more than US$ 1,000,000.
ii.
For Works. All the ICB contracts and Direct Contract irrespective of estimated cost. The NCB Contracts
estimated cost equivalent or more than US$ 10,000,000.
iii. For Non-consulting service. The Contracts estimated cost equivalent or more than US$ 1,000,000.
iv. For Consultants Services. Prior review will be required for consultants services contracts estimated to
cost US$ 500,000 equivalent or more for firms and US$ 200,000 equivalent or more for individuals. All
single-source contracts will be subject to prior review by and in agreement with IDA. All Terms of
References of the consultants are subject to the IDAs prior review.
36
Annex 8: Safeguards
1. The environmental and social safeguard performance is rated as satisfactory based on the due diligence
demonstrated by the implementing agency in the past one year in environmental safeguard implementation.
SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS:
2. As in the ongoing project, the SEQAEP AF project would finance: (i) PMT-targeted stipends to poor girls and
boys to improve equitable access and retention, (ii) grants to institutions (schools and Madrasahs) for enhancing
service delivery and education quality, and (iii) operating and services costs associated with implementation and
monitoring of project activities.
3. The project does not require the acquisition of private land; nor will it displace people from private or public
lands or have any adverse impacts on livelihoods. Hence OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement will not be triggered
for the project. Construction of tube-wells and latrines will strictly be limited to within school premises.
4. The project will operate in areas where tribal people live, and will cater to tribal children. The tribal population
living in the project area is, however, quite small. Out of the 121 upazilas in the Bank-funded project area, only 19
upazilas have significant tribal households: 7.6% of children in those 19 upazilas come from tribal households.
The overall indigenous population in the 121 project upazilas is less than 2%. Nevertheless Bank OP 4.10
Indigenous People has been triggered for this phase of the project as was done for the original project. The existing
legal covenants on the social safeguards would continue to apply. The Social Management Framework (SMF) has
been updated to reflect lessons learned from the previous project and the scaled-up operation in 90 new upazilas.
5. Social Inclusion: The tribal people lives in remote or hilly areas of the country and are found to be among the
poorest quintiles. Hence the AF, like the original project will deem all indigenous children in the project area
eligible for the stipend program, regardless of their individual poverty status. The project adopts a similar policy
towards disabled children as well. Besides this the PMT process is targeted towards the poorest households, based
on clear and objective criteria.
6. The Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) has maintained a database on the enrollment of tribal
children, retention rates and performance since the beginning of the original project. The data is gender segregated.
LGED will continue to collect data in similar fashion, analyze, document and report it regularly to the MOE and to
the Bank. The Bank will receive on a semi - annual basis a report on the above issues. The lessons learned from the
previous reports have been used to update the SMF.
7. Gender: The safety of adolescent girls traveling to school has been a general issue of concern in the subcontinent given the propensity for eave-teasing and in some cases more serious criminal and offensive behavior of
men towards young girls. The project is cognizant of these challenges and based on the learning from the previous
phase will include some preventive measures to improve the safety and security of girls traveling to schools. A
brief assessment will be carried out to understand the types and level of challenges facing the girls and some
options will be explored with the girls, teachers and concerned parents to design preventive measures. For example
the Parent Teacher Associations can together identify clusters and assign a parent to accompany each group of girls
to the schools each week. A group of community elders can be incentivized to form walking-groups for health
benefits and also for accompanying groups of girls to schools. The schools may rent designated rickshaw vans to
pick up students who have to walk from afar. The assessment and recommendations will be incorporated in the
updated SMF.
8. Information and Education Campaign: The project has been engaging with a local NGO to carry out an
Information and Education campaign to raise awareness and mobilize targeted stakeholders. The IEC uses several
modalities as part of its outreach including local media, posters, town-halls, miking and focus groups. In areas
where tribal populations live, the IEC is focused in specific needs and is carried out in local languages in a
culturally compatible manner.
9. Social Accountability: The project will adopt modalities to imbibe and improve social accountability
approaches. The IEC will be used for awareness-raising of these issues as well. Citizens engagement in gauging
37
the success of the project is crucial. Community scorecards, grievance committees and the already established
Parent Teacher Associations can be used as some tools and platforms for example. There are also provisions for
third party monitoring to garner an independent assessment of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS
10. Activities with Environmental Footprint: The AF projects improving school facilities sub-component
will provide safe drinking water (tube-wells, shallow tube-wells and other alternative sources) and sanitation
facilities (twin latrines for boys and girls with running water facilities) to targeted schools based on agreed
guidelines and provisions in the EMF. Beneficiary institutions for tubewell and toilet will be selected on needbasis. On a pilot basis, the activities will include WASH block with modern amenities to one school in each of the
the newly selected 90 upazilas.
11. Possible Environmental Impact & Environmental Category: As in the current project, the main
environmental concern for the proposed AF project is to ensure the provision of safe drinking water and sanitation
facilities to the students. Arsenic content poses the major environmental and health risk. In absence of proper
testing facilities and alternative option, students may be subject to contact with contaminated water in the arsenic
affected areas of the project. The other environmental risks observed from the original projects include: (i) possible
adjacent location of toilets to tube-wells leading to groundwater contamination, and (ii) lack of proper design,
construction and maintenance of tube well and toilet. Considering the nature and magnitude of potential
environmental impacts from installation of sanitation facilities and safe drinking water and scope for successful
implementation of mitigation measure, the proposed operation would be classified as category B for AF.
12. Lessons Learned: The environmental safeguard performance is rated as moderately satisfactory based on
the due diligence demonstrated by the implementing agency in the past one year in environmental safeguard
implementation. The need for strong environmental management will be continued under the AF. Strengthening
monitoring for the ISF, regular reporting on arsenic test and efficient database management are the key areas of
improvement under AF. The project unit will do due diligence in reporting and environmental safeguard
management in the field. A part time Environmental Specialist is deployed in the project and the performance of
environmental management is expected to continue improving under the AF.
13. Approach to ensure Safe Drinking water: Activities would include testing of existing and new project
schools tube-wells for arsenic, and manganese contamination, bacteriological tests for alternative sources of water
and distribution of awareness and communication materials. Given the scope of the additional financing II, the
Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted for the original SEQAEP project adopted by the
implementing agency will also be applicable to the Additional Financing. The EMF outlines the environmental
management procedures that already practiced in original project during the construction period and also in the
operation & maintenance period to minimize the negative impacts and implementation of enhancement measures.
14. Implementation Arrangement: The overall responsibility of project implementation rests with the
Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE) through a Project Unit (SEQAEP Unit). An Additional
Director will be responsible for the overall ISF sub-component. SEQEP will continue the MoU signed with DPHE
to obtain technical services for safe water testing of tube-wells and other activities. Besides the routine monitoring
by field test kits, SEQAEP will hire the services of quality lab to collect and test 5% of total sample by laboratory
analysis method. The annual Arsenic test report and monitoring report should be shared with World Bank with due
diligence. To record and the water quality testing, project will take the support of DPHE and BANBEIS. DPHE
Upazilla level Sub-Assistant Engineer will also support the School Management Committee in supervision of
construction work of water supply and sanitation facilities.
38
Annex 9: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF)

Stage: Appraisal
1. Project Stakeholder Risks
1.1. Stakeholder Risk
Rating Low
Description:
Risk Management:
Primary stakeholders in the project are

secondary educational institutions,
communities, and the Government. Given
SEQAEP is a third generation education
project building on the success of the
pioneering female school stipends program,
there is very limited stakeholder risk.
Expansion of the project to new institutions in
new upazilas and new school communities
would demand greater communication for
them to understand the project interventions.
Continued dialogue with relevant stakeholders, including different levels of Government and
local communities/schools through community mobilization, communications, consultations,
and regular follow up.
Resp:
Client
Stage:
Preparation &
Implementation
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequency: Status:
Not Yet Due
2. Implementing Agency Risks (including fiduciary)

2.1. Capacity
Rating Substantial
Description:
Risk Management:
Key risk is competency and continuity in the

position of the project director, MEW Director
and their capacity to effectively manage
staffing, consultants, implementing partners
and field level stakeholders.
SEQAEP implementation arrangement includes partnerships with other government agencies

(LGED, Agrani Bank, BANBEIS, DPHE) and specialized agencies such as Biswo Shahitto
Kendro (BSK) to provide technical and managerial support in implementation of various
components under the project. SEQAEP AF would continue to employ implementing partners.
There will be some refinements in the organogram to reflect the enhanced DSHE role and
recommendations from the Mid-Term Review. The Bank will be involved in continuous
Other risks include staff vacancies and limited dialogue with the counterparts to see that project staffing, specially project director and MEW
capacity in administrative, technical and
Director, is appropriately managed. The project also would have technical assistance from
fiduciary aspects of project implementation.
individual consultants for FM, procurement, communication and M&E including ICT technology.
This becomes even more important when the
Resp:
Stage:
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequency: Status:
project plans to scale up operation in
Both
Implementation
Not Yet Due
additional institutions and upazilas under AF.
2.2. Governance
Rating Substantial
Description:
Risk Management:
Providing grants/stipends to schools and

students are a critical element of the project.
Therefore, the main governance issues
emanate from potential misrepresentation of
data to identify project beneficiaries and once
identified, in transferring funds to potential
beneficiaries.
Project will follow agreed guidelines and procedures as per Project Operations Manual.
Selection of PMT stipends beneficiaries already follows a systematic targeting scheme (Proxy
Means Testing) carried out by a third party PMT Administrator (LGED) and also involves
appeals and validation schemes. Selection of schools would be based on data from independent
sources (such as BANBEIS or Exam Boards) and also on verification process. Disbursement of
stipends and grants are based on award confirmation form (ACF) system that collects and
processes data on compliance criteria for each student and school every academic semester.
Resp:
Client
Stage:
Implementation
Fraud and Corruption (sub-category of

Governance risk)
Rating Substantial
Description:
Risk Management:
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequency: Status:
Not Yet Due
Financial management (FM) risk is substantial

given the project design which delivers
stipends and grants to a large number of
students and schools.
SEQAEP AF addresses FM issues with placement of a full-time FMS specialist, trained

accounts officers, disbursement cell at Agrani Bank, disbursement of funds through the Banking
system including the use of cash card that enables immediate reconciliation of project funds,
requirements for reconciliation reports from the bank branches, use of compliance monitoring
including ICT-based schemes and audits (FAPAD, forensic, and social audits at the
Procurement risk is also substantial given that school/community level).
the implementing agency has shortage of
Procurement risk would be managed through deployment of qualified procurement consultant
skilled procurement staff and the project is not to represent all procurement committees; training of procurement officers and project staff;
immune to systemic issues affecting
prior and post-reviews of procurement contracts by the Bank team; monitoring by the World
procurement efficiency and performance.
Bank team on the accountability of procurement staff and consultants vis--vis project director
and MEW director; and disclosure of all procurement transactions on project website.
Resp:
Client
Stage:
Implementation
39
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequency: Status:
Not Yet Due
3. Project Risks
3.1. Design
Rating Moderate
Description:
Risk Management:
The main risk associated with the AF project is

the uncertainty with institutionalizing key
project
interventions
(PMT
stipends,
developing reading habit (DRH), additional
classes (AC) support in English, Science and
Maths
subjects),
sustaining
M&E
arrangements and continued buy-in for DLIs in
certain areas of project implementation.
In order to consolidate and institutionalize these interventions (PMT, AC, DRH) and M&E
arrangements, it is important that the AF provide appropriate incentives and adequate time.
Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs) in the AF will be used to link portion of the IDA
funding to a set of agreed outputs/indicators for the consolidation/institutionalization. Details
of the DLI modality including indicators, pricing, and verification and fund-flow
arrangements have been discussed and agreed with the borrower.
Resp:
Client
Stage:
Implementation
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequenc
y:
Status:
Not Yet Due
3.2. Social and Environmental
Rating Moderate
Description:
Risk Management:
Implementation agency may have limited

capacity to review and update the existing
social and environmental guidelines for safe
drinking water and sanitation facilities in LCs,
and a social inclusion plan to address gender,
IP and poverty.
SEQAEP AF will continue to use existing safeguard policies. It will continue to benefit from
partnership with DPHE on monitoring of environmental guidelines on sanitation and safe
drinking facilities and with LGED PMTA on inclusion of IP, poverty and gender in the
selection and tracking of student stipend beneficiaries.
Resp:
Both
Stage:
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequency: Status:
In Progress
3.3. Program and Donor
Rating Moderate
Description:
Risk Management:
Because of multiple discrete projects in

secondary education, there may be issues of
coordination.
The ongoing SEQAEP project coves specific geographic areas (125 upazilas and 7000 schools)
and the main interventions such as the PMT stipends, and quality grants/incentives schemes are
quite unique to SEQAEP. The scaling-up of these interventions in 90 additional upazilas is
being managed carefully through: (i) use of objective criteria (such as the human opportunity
index) to select the upazilas from government stipend project areas; and (ii) phased-in
implementation in these upazilas taking into account the existing capacity of the implementing
agency. In general, long-standing partnership between GOB and IDA (since the early 90s) and
mutual commitment is expected to support both project preparation and implementation.
GOBs interest in scaling-up SEQAEP to

additional 90 upazilas requires objective
selection of these new upazilas.
Resp:
Bank
Stage:
Preparation &
Implementation
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequency: Status:
In Progress
3.4. Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Rating Moderate

Description:
Risk Management:
Field level service delivery and monitoring

relies on the role of SMCs/PTAs and USEOs
to carry out their management, monitoring and
communications functions.
In addition to the central level partnerships with specialized agencies, the proposed AF project
will provide results-based grants to USEOs as incentives/operating expenses to carry out data
collection, verification and timely submission to project unit and its implementing partners. AF
project would provide PTA school grants to enable PTAs to mobilize communities (EACM),
and carry out social audits; SMC school grants to enable internet-based communications with
project and implementing partners (ICT grants), and to mobilize matching grants to implement
institutional facility (ISF).
Resp:
Client
Stage:
Implementation
4. Overall Risk
Implementation Risk Rating: Moderate
40
Recurrent:
Due Date:
Frequency: Status:
Not Yet Due
Annex 10: Governance and Accountability Action Plan (GAAP)

1.
Project preparation has identified the following key governance and accountability risks at the project level for which
a number of mitigation measures are proposed in the GAAP Matrix. While the overall responsibility for the GAAP
implementation will rest with the DSHE, SEQAEP Unit and MEW, the GAAP will be monitored regularly against agreed
actions as reflected in the project progress reports and semi-annual World Bank mission aide memoires (Table 1 on risks and
mitigating actions).
2.
Project Management and Capacity. SEQAEP project implementation depends critically on capacity of the Project
Unit to effectively manage staffing, consultants, implementing partners and field level stakeholders. Staff vacancies, frequent
turnovers and limited capacity in administrative, technical and fiduciary aspects make it imperative that the government
partner with specialized agencies in service delivery and monitoring aspects. This becomes even more important when the
project plans to scale up operation in additional institutions and upazilas under AF. While the partner agencies will deliver
services in certain areas, an effective governance interface between the project management and these specialized agencies to
ensure their accountability will also be key to the success of the project.
3.
Field Level Capacity and Accountability. The key actors at school level are head-teachers, school management
committee (SMCs), Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) and Upazila Secondary Education Offices (USEOs) with guidance
from Zonal Directors and District Education Offices. It is important that head-teachers, SMCs and PTAs are strengthened with
clearly assigned roles and responsibilities, particularly in the use of school grants for school level interventions and ensuring
compliance with the renewable Cooperation Agreement signed with SEQAEP Unit. Proper selection of stipend recipient
students, following the criteria for receiving stipend, implementation of various quality enhancing measures, including
additional classes and other activities at the field need close monitoring and supervision from various actors. Building their
capacity to effectively discharge these responsibilities will be important. It will be equally important to put in place monitoring
and verification mechanisms to ensure that criteria and procedures for beneficiary selection (across all sub-components) are
enforced.
4.
Financial Management. As per design, the project delivers grants and stipends to a large number of schools and
students, with the potential risk of misuse of the grants and misrepresentation of the data (e.g., inflating student number). FM
risk is substantial. It is necessary to manage this risk carefully from DSHE as well as at the school and upazila level.
5.
Procurement Capacity and Transparency: Procurement risk is also substantial given that the implementing agency
has shortage of skilled procurement staff and the project is not immune to systemic issues affecting procurement efficiency
and performance. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that there is adequate procurement capacity and transparency in
procedures.
6.
Social Accountability: Transparency and Citizens Participation.
Given project interventions are at
school/community level, there are challenges associated with public information disclosure, citizens oversight and vigilance,
inclusion of various groups of people including ethnic and religious minorities, grievance redress mechanism, and clarity in
roles and reporting arrangements. Much of it comes from political interference in school governance and mostly through
SMCs. While the schools need political support in their respective communities, caution needs to be taken to ensure
transparency in all these areas. SMCs will be trained on their roles and responsibilities to fend off undue extraneous
interferences. SEQAEP also relies strongly on PTAs for school level monitoring (teacher attendance, funds utilization, social
audits) and community participation. Thus, it is important to continue supporting PTAs and SMCs in a systematic manner with
adequate resources.
41
Table 1: GAAP Matrix for SEQAEP AF

Issues / Risk
Mitigating Actions to be taken
Agency
Responsible
Project Management and Capacity

1. Key risk is competency and continuity in the
position of the project director, MEW Director
and their capacity to effectively manage
staffing, consultants, implementing partners
and field level stakeholders.
1.1 Continuous dialogue between GOB and WB to ensure that project staffing,
especially Project Director, MEW Director and other key positions, are filled with
candidates meeting qualification mentioned in job description.
1.2 Financing Agreement will include the requirement for adherence to agreed TORs
with respect to deployment and transfer of a Project Director and MEW Director.
World Bank
MOE
DSHE
MEW
2. Other risks include staff vacancies and limited

capacity in administrative, technical and
fiduciary aspects of project implementation.
This becomes even more important when the
project plans to scale up operation in additional
institutions and upazilas under AF.
2.1 Project would continue to have specialized implementing partners such as LGED
PMTA, BSK for quality improvement, BANBEIS for project MIS Cell and Agrani Bank Technical
for funds disbursement which will take up responsibilities based on comprehensive Assistance
ToRs. Their activities will be monitored both by stakeholders at the field such USEOs, agencies
SMCs and PTAs and from the project office.
2.2 Competent individual consultants for FM, procurement, and M&E including ICT
technology will be employed.
Field Level Capacity and Accountability

3. Without adequate support and incentives for
SMCs/PTAs and USEOs to carry out their
management, monitoring and communications
functions, service delivery and monitoring at
the field level will not be effective.
3.1 AF the project will provide operating expenditure grants to USEOs as incentives to
carry out data collection, verification and timely submission to project unit and its
implementing partners. SMCs and PTAs receive school grants to mobilize communities
(EACM), carry out social audits, and operate internet-based communication with project
and implementing partners. SMCs and PTAs will be trained to perform these
responsibilities.
4. There is potential for misreporting on PMT 4.1 PMT stipend selection includes application booth operations at the field level,
applications and on school level data to computerized scoring of welfare status, validation exercise to address inclusion errors,
influence improper selection of students and appears process to address exclusion errors, and compliance monitoring to verify
schools for various project interventions.
educational eligibility. Selection of schools for targeted programs would be based on
verified data and compliance with agreed guidelines.
Financial Management
5. FM risk is substantial given project design that
delivers grants and stipends to a large number
of schools and students, with the potential for
misuse of the grants and misrepresentation of
the data (inflation of student number).
5.1. Establishment of Disbursement Cell at Agrani Bank

5.2. Deployment of a full-time FMS consultant as chief of FM Unit
5.3. Yearly full compliance monitoring of all SEQAEP institutions receiving project
benefits by MEW with support from project MIS cell
5.4. Disbursement of funds through the banking system including the use of cash card
that enables immediate reconciliation of project funds
5.5. FAPAD Audits
5.6. Annual social audit by PTAs
5.7. Prior clearances by World Bank for workshops and training
5.8. Setting up and use of computerized financial system
Procurement Capacity and Transparency

6. Procurement risk is also substantial given that 6.1. Full-time qualified procurement consultant to support both procurement units at
the implementing agency has shortage of
SEQAEP Unit and MEW and to work in all procurement committees
skilled procurement staff and the project is not 6.2. Monitoring by the World Bank team on the accountability of procurement staff and
immune to systemic issues affecting
consultants vis--vis project director and MEW director
procurement efficiency and performance.
6.3. Prior and post-reviews of procurement contracts by the Bank team
6.4. Disclosure of all procurement transactions on DSHE website
Social Accountability: Transparency and Citizens Participation
7. There are challenges associated with public 7.1 Project implementing agency to comply with RTI (right to information) and
information disclosure, citizens oversight and disseminate information to community through various channels (such as school report
vigilance, grievance redress mechanism, and card, community events related to schools, display of school performance in public
clarity in roles and reporting arrangements.
places in schools, communities and upazila offices and project website).
8.1 Bank Team to monitor compliance of project activities as per approved project
8. There is potential for political interference at Implementation Manual; SMCs/PTAs to be strengthened through SMC/PTA grants
the SMC level, therefore, SEQAEP also relies (ICT-based communication, social audits); SMCs and USEOs to display school
strongly on PTAs for school level monitoring performance information (physical and financial) at a publicly visible place; and SMS
(teacher attendance, funds utilization, social monitoring of teacher absenteeism, receipts of stipends and grants, utilization of grants
audits) and community participation.
9.1 Award Conformation Forms (ACF) the instrument used by the project to confirm
the awards and disburse the funds - would verify that grants in previous semesters were
9. Potential risks on compliance with grants utilized appropriated as per Cooperation Agreement.
utilization at the school level
42
SEQAEP Unit
DSHE/MEW
USEOs
SEQAEP Unit
LGED,
SMC
PTA
DSHE
SEQAEP Unit
MEW
Project MIS Cell
Agrani Bank
Other
Implementing
Partners,
Audit firms,
MOE
DSHE
SEQAEP
MEW
DSHE
SEQAEP Unit
World Bank
SMCs
PTAs
USEOs
RTs
BANBEIS
Annex 11: List of New Upazilas under SEQAEP AF
1.
Human Opportunity Index (HOI) is considered as the targeting indicator to rank upazilas for the
following :
HOI combines schooling opportunity (both school participation and completion in secondary level for
appropriate age-group) as well the circumstances (or determinants) that are correlated with schooling
opportunity using MICS 2009 household survey data collected by BBS.
HOI serves the purpose of the project development objective that is to improve equitable access and
completion of secondary education for children from under-served areas. It accounts for the factors that
are associated with opportunity of access and completion (poverty, education, location, gender and other
household features) in one indicator. It is based on opportunity and equality framework which attempts to
combine average rate of secondary education opportunity and how equally this opportunity is distributed
in that upazila.
HOI methodology is widely accepted and is used in more than 50 developing countries (in Latin America,
Africa and South Asia including Bangladesh).
HOI is based on MICS data that is representative at the upazila level. MICS provides comprehensive
information of children who either have never enrolled or dropped out of school as well as their
household level variables (poverty proxy indicators, parents education, siblings, geographic, and gender).
2.
All upazilas are first ranked from most to least disadvantaged ones as measured in terms of HOI.
Existing SEQAEP upazilas and ADB supported upazilas are excluded from eligibility for new SEQAEP
upazilas. Some adjustment has been made to reflect the need for a geographic balance. At least one upazila
per district is selected, with a few exceptions. Based on this, the list of 90 upazila is presented in Table 1
below.
Table 1: Additional Upazilas under AF project
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Division
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Sylhet
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
District
Habiganj
Habiganj
Habiganj
Maulvibazar
Sunamganj
Sunamganj
Sunamganj
Sunamganj
Sunamganj
Sunamganj
Sunamganj
Sunamganj
Sylhet
Sylhet
Bogra
Dinajpur
Gaibandha
Kurigram
Naogaon
Natore
Nilphamari
Pabna
Panchagarh
Rangpur
Sirajganj
Upazila
AJMIRIGANJ
BAHUBAL
MADHABPUR
RAJNAGAR
BISHWAMBARPUR
CHHATAK
DAKSHIN SUNAMGANJ
DERAI
JAGANNATHPUR
JAMALGANJ
SULLA
TAHIRPUR
JAINTIAPUR
SYLHET SADAR
SHIBGANJ
BIRAL
PALASHBARI
CHAR RAJIBPUR
ATRAI
SINGRA
NILPHAMARI SADAR
FARIDPUR
DEBIGANJ
TARAGANJ
ROYGANJ
43
HOI Score
5.7
16.2
7.2
16.1
8.7
8.8
8.1
13.3
12.8
9.5
9.3
3.2
10.4
14.6
12.8
14.6
12.9
9.7
11.7
12.4
13.1
15.9
13.6
14.7
12.2
Overall Rank
8
78
15
76
26
27
21
60
53
32
30
2
35
66
54
67
56
33
45
51
58
73
62
69
48
No.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Division
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Rajshahi
Khulna
Khulna
Khulna
Khulna
Khulna
Khulna
Khulna
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Dhaka
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
District
Sirajganj
Sirajganj
Thakurgaon
Bagerhat
Chuadanga
Jessore
Khulna
Kushtia
Magura
Satkhira
Dhaka
Faridpur
Gopalganj
Kishorganj
Kishorganj
Kishorganj
Kishorganj
Kishorganj
Kishorganj
Madaripur
Manikganj
Munshiganj
Mymensingh
Narayanganj
Narsingdi
Netrakona
Netrakona
Netrakona
Netrakona
Rajbari
Shariatpur
Tangail
Bandarban
Bandarban
Bandarban
Bandarban
Bandarban
Bandarban
Brahmanbaria
Chandpur
Chittagong
Comilla
Cox's Bazar
Cox's Bazar
Cox's Bazar
Cox's Bazar
Khagrachhari
Khagrachhari
Khagrachhari
Khagrachhari
Khagrachhari
Noakhali
Rangamati
Rangamati
Rangamati
Rangamati
Upazila
ULLAH PARA
SHAHJADPUR
RANISANKAIL
SARANKHOLA
CHUADANGA SADAR
KESHABPUR
RUPSA
KHOKSA
MAGURA SADAR
DEBHATA
KERANIGANJ
SALTHA
GOPALGANJ SADAR
AUSTAGRAM
BAJITPUR
BHAIRAB
ITNA
KATIADI
MITHAMAIN
KALKINI
SINGAIR
TONGIBARI
GAURIPUR
BANDAR
NARSINGDI SADAR
ATPARA
KHALIAJURI
MADAN
NETROKONA SADAR
GOALANDA
SHARIATPUR SADAR
MADHUPUR
ALIKADAM
LAMA
NAIKHONGCHHARI
ROWANGCHHARI
RUMA
THANCHI
ASHUGANJ
HAIM CHAR
SITAKUNDA
TITAS
COX'S BAZAR SADAR
KUTUBDIA
PEKUA
RAMU
DIGHINALA
LAKSHMICHHARI
MAHALCHHARI
MANIKCHHARI
PANCHHARI
SUBARNACHAR
BAGHAICHHARI
BARKAL
BELAI CHHARI
JURAI CHHARI
44
HOI Score
14.1
14.3
16.1
13.3
12.1
20.3
18.6
16
22.1
17
19.5
11.3
15.4
5.8
11.2
14.6
6.6
8.6
7.2
18.4
19.9
19.7
15.3
4.5
12.7
10.5
7.3
9.2
13.2
14.9
11.2
15.9
5.3
7.3
4.1
11.9
2.7
4.2
11.2
14.1
20.2
16.7
12.8
9.9
5.2
11.2
9.3
6.1
11.5
8.4
13
13.7
7
8.5
6.9
7.5
Overall Rank
64
81
77
61
47
88
83
75
90
80
84
43
72
9
39
68
11
25
16
82
86
85
71
5
52
36
17
29
59
70
40
74
7
18
3
46
1
4
41
65
87
79
55
34
6
42
31
10
44
22
57
63
14
24
13
20
No.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Division
Chittagong
Chittagong
Chittagong
Barisal
Barisal
Barisal
Barisal
Barisal
Barisal
District
Rangamati
Rangamati
Rangamati
Barguna
Barisal
Bhola
Bhola
Bhola
Patuakhali
Upazila
KAWKHALI (BETBUNIA)
LANGADU
NANIARCHAR
PATHARGHATA
HIZLA
BURHANUDDIN
LALMOHAN
MANPURA
KALAPARA
HOI Score
12.2
8.9
10.9
21
12.3
10.8
6.8
7.3
17.3
Overall Rank
49
28
38
89
50
37
12
19
81
Source: Calculation of HOI using Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey of 2009 (MICS 2009), fielded by Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
(BBS).
45
Annex 12: PMT Scheme

1. The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) introduced a poverty-targeted stipend program to address large
disparities across different income groups in Secondary Education Quality and Access Enhancement Project
(SEQAEP) that covers 125 upazilas in the country. Under SEQAEP, proxy-means testing (PMT) method, which
generates a welfare score for applicants based on a set of observable household characteristics, was developed and
implemented. PMT stipends and tuition program is detailed in the PMT stipends manual (fuller description of the
PMT scheme is found in the original project appraisal document (PAD)). Implementation experience (including
validation exercise) on the PMT selection process indicates that some non-poor students are incorrectly included
in and some poor-children are incorrectly excluded from the scheme. As part of the continuous effort to enhance
targeting efficiency (to reduce inclusion and exclusion errors), PMT beneficiary selection procedures, including
specific measures such as PMT formula, awareness, booth operations, training and data processing has been
updated during the Mid-Term Review in 2011. It was discussed and agreed during the Additional Financing (AF)
pre-appraisal mission that the implementation of PMT stipend program and technical properties of PMT model
should be further reviewed and updated as part of the continuous effort to enhance targeting efficiency and
improve implementation.
2. Implementation of PMT program: Implementation of the PMT stipends scheme has been successfully
managed by the PMTA under LGED. While no substantial changes are required, a few marginal changes are
proposed based on lessons learnt. The proposed changes will be incorporated in the revised PMT stipends manual.
3. PMT Validation: SEQAEP has implemented two rounds of PMT validation surveys in 2009 and 2010. These
surveys aimed (i) to validate if the information provided by applicants are accurate or not, and (ii) to estimate the
size of inclusion and exclusion errors. Findings from the PMT validation surveys indicate that the overall
inclusion error during implementation is about 14%. These surveys have been implemented by a consulting firm
after the booth operation has been completed.
4. Under the AF project, the PMT validation would be conducted immediately after or during the booth
operation to be more effective in preventing potential false reporting by applicants. Under the proposed new
arrangement, PMT validation enumerators will join the booth operation and conduct validation by visiting
randomly selected applicants households. Any intentional false reporting would result in ineligibility of their
applications, and potentially ineligibility of the all applicants from the same booth if such a false reporting occurs
systematically for a large proportion of applicants in the same booth. The applicants who are declared through
validation would not be able to apply for the PMT for two years. The purpose of the sanction is for strengthening
deterrence for false reporting. Therefore, it is the communitys and the PTAs responsibilities to ensure that all the
applicants correctly understand these rules and provide honest information.
5. This PMT validation mechanism is expected to be implemented from 2013 booth operation. A consulting firm
would be expected to undertake the task on a sample basis in 2013 for testing if the mechanism would work. From
2014, it is expected that BANBEIS would take the responsibility and conduct the validation checks on a census
basis.
6. Update of the PMT model: The weights in the welfare scores in the PMT model were originally determined
using a statistical regression analysis of consumption expenditure based on the Household Income and
Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2005, and were updated at the Mid-Term Review by using HIES 2010. The AF
mission has reviewed and updated the PMT model by revising the list of variables used for predicting the poverty
status and their weights. The model continues to be constructed on HIES 2010. The list of variables has been
updated in order to simplify the data collection while maintaining the technical accuracy of the PMT model. Main
changes include: (a) reduction of the number of variables for simplicity of data collection, (b) modifying the way
of asking questions to minimize reporting errors, (c) changing the weights of the variables as a result of above
46
mentioned changes, (d) introducing mock questions that are asked to households but not used in the model in
order to manage the effect of potential false reporting, e) reflecting geographical difference in poverty level
through district level weights, and f) modifying the PMT cut-off of the poor to reflect decreasing trend of national
poverty rate. The definition of the poor is defined as the households below the national poverty line (40th
percentile of PMT score is 7.44046; log of per capita consumption). The PMT questionnaire will be updated for
taking these changes into consideration. The updated weights of the variables as well as the district-level weights
are shown in Table 1.
Table 1-1: Weights of each variable for PMT
Variable
-0.1631
0.0847
0.2580
-0.0883
-0.0596
-0.0348
-0.0385
0.0549
-0.1060
-0.1374
-0.1654
-0.1899
-0.2248
0.1153
0.0832
0.0673
0.1035
-0.0664
0.1196
0.2577
HIES 2010
MTR
-0.0879
0.0435
0.1272
-0.1006
-0.0590
-0.0390
-0.0627
0.0803
-0.1017
-0.0574
-0.1021
-0.1888
-0.2033
0.0943
0.0411
0.0157
0.0379
-0.0434
0.1431
0.2476
0.0470
0.0696
0.1281
0.2376
-0.0985
-0.1786
-0.2638
0.0721
0.1162
0.1804
0.3015
-0.0998
-0.1518
-0.2199
-0.1729
-0.3048
-0.3961
-0.4676
-0.5165
-0.5500
-0.5924
-0.6374
0.0798
0.1088
0.1907
0.1154
0.2671
0.1486
-0.0387
7.4876
0.5800
-0.1469
-0.2672
-0.3642
-0.4501
-0.5222
-0.5632
-0.5946
-0.6337
0.0718
0.1668
0.1920
0.1184
0.2322
0.1443
-0.0430
7.4384
0.5078
HIES 2005
Division grouping: Khulna, Barisal, Rajshahi

Total land owned > 0 & <= 1.5 acres
Total land owned > 1.5 acres
Head Agriculture day laborer
Head Non-Agriculture day laborer
Non Head Agriculture day laborer in HH
Non Head Non-Agriculture day laborer in HH
Own at least three Cattles
Wall-CI Sheet/Wood
Wall-Mud Brick
Wall-Hemp/hay/bamboo
Roof-CI Sheet/wood
Roof: Hemp/hay/bamboo
Sanitary-Water Seal-Pacca Toilet
Permanent Kacha Toilet
Temp Kacha Toilet
Own Tubewell for Drinking Water
No electricity
TV
Own Home Phone
Mobile Phone
Bicycle
Number of rooms in house is 2
Number of rooms in house is 3
Number of rooms in house is 4 or more
Children <15yrs in household=1
Children<15yrs in household=2 or 3
Children<15yrs in household=4 or more
Number of Adults >=15 yrs is 2
Number of Adults >=15 yrs is 6 or more
Household size (2 members)
Household size (9 or more members)
Head education level - grade 5 to 9 completed
Head education level - SSC_HSC
Head education level - BA plus
Spouse education level - SSC_HSC
Spouse education level - BA plus
Remittance from Abroad
Distressed Household Head
Constant
R-squared
47
HIES 2010 AF
0.0965
-0.0772
-0.0561
0.0796
-0.0680
-0.0811
-0.1496
-0.1902
-0.2288
-0.0397
0.1285
0.1468
0.0509
0.1137
0.1792
0.3204
-0.2169
-0.3841
-0.5791
-0.1089
-0.1889
-0.3186
-0.3838
-0.4219
0.0692
0.1724
0.2207
0.1072
0.2419
0.1555
-0.0378
0.5674
Table 1-2. District-level PMT weights

District
Bandarban
Barguna
Barisal
Bhola
District
Weights
8.1244
8.0734
7.7054
8.0554
District
Pabna
Rangamati
Jessore
Thakurgaon
District
Weights
8.0101
8.0823
7.7292
8.0292
District
Nilphamari
Sunamganj
Netrokona
Pirojpur
District
Weights
8.0345
8.1475
8.0845
7.7206
Bogra
8.0014
Jhenaidah
7.9457
Ghazipur
7.9667
Brammonbaria
Chandpur
Chittagong
Netrokona
Sylhet
Cox's Bazar
8.0054
7.6824
8.1264
8.0834
8.1693
8.107
Khagrachhari
Khulna
Kishoreganj
Narail
Kushtia
Norshingdi
8.0823
7.9335
8.1238
8.0586
8.3324
8.0819
Naogaon
Habiganj
Noakhali
Magura
Manikganj
Meherpur
8.0632
8.1339
8.3417
7.7421
8.0297
8.0682
Dhaka
Nawabganj
Moulvibazar
Tangail
All other
districts
8.0112
8.0212
8.0897
8.0087
7.8573
7. Exclusion and Inclusion Errors and Misreporting: Using the updated PMT model with eligibility cut-off
score at 40th percentile, exclusion error is estimated to be 32 percent, of which, 71 percent falls in the 3rd or 4th
decile groups, and inclusion error is estimated to be 22 percent, of which, 67 percent belongs to the 5th and 6th
decile groups (Table 1-3). Incidence of errors from the proposed PMT model is higher than that from the previous
model estimated in 2008; however, the model is estimated to minimize the systemic measurement error and bias
occurred during the implementation of 4 years of PMT operation. Certain variables, such as type of toilet and
household size, would decrease exclusion errors and inclusion errors of PMT model, however, validation exercise
conducted in 2011 found that these variables are likely to be misreported, leading to exclude the targeted poor and
include the non-poor. Therefore, these variables are excluded from the model. Furthermore, we expect the
enhanced community mobilization and PMT booth operation to guide the targeted poor would prevent the
exclusion bias and, at the same time, PMT validation exercise would minimize the inclusion bias from intended
misreporting.
Table 1-3. Distribution of Beneficiaries and Predication Errors at 40th percentile cut-off score
Distribution of
Decile
Cumulative
Distribution of
Included
(Actual
Distribution of
Excluded Poor
Beneficiaries
Consumption)
Beneficiaries
(exclusion error)
(Inclusion error)
1
25
9
2
46
20
3
64
31
4
78
40
5
87
41
6
93
26
7
96
16
8
99
11
9
100
5
10
100
2
Total
100
100
100
8. Disbursement of stipends: Disbursement procedures including processing of ACF forms and disbursement
of stipends to students would be refined in the updated PMT stipends manual and would also reflect changes
including the use of cash card to remit the funds to address some of the potential governance issues and to enable
immediate reconciliation of funds. Agrani Bank would continue to provide the disbursement services and their
participation agreement would be amended to account for increased scope and refined procedures.
48
Annex 13: Economic Analysis

1. The economic analysis presented in this annex is an assessment of future benefits and costs associated with
the Bangladesh SEQAEP project activities during the AF period, 2014-2017. Costs include program costs and
private costs that comprise direct household outlays as well as opportunity costs for schooling. Similarly, the
benefits are taken to be those changes in the quantity, quality and reduction in internal inefficiency of education
produced over the period as a result of SEQAEP AF. The main sources of data used in the analysis come from
SEQAEP MIS, HIES 2010 and the cost tables for SEQAEP AF. The economic analysis presented here focuses
on Additional Financing period, 2014-2017.
I.
Benefits of SEQAEP
2. For the purpose of this analysis, benefits from the following two sources are quantified:
i.
improved access to and retention in secondary education of the poor by providing them stipends,
resulting in increased number of secondary school (grade 10) completers who earn higher wages
(relative to non-completers);
ii.
increased quality and relevance of education through improved education quality resulting in higher
productivity and earnings for all grade 10 completers (relative to grade 10 completers from nonSEQAEP institutions).
3. Underlying the analysis is the projection of: (a) non-poor students completing grade 10 in SEQAEP
institutions and (b) poor students completing grade 10, based on improved internal efficiency due to SEQAEP.
Increased retention rate through the pro-poor stipend program is estimated as 20% according to impact
evaluation studies of SEQAEP interventions conducted during 2009-2010, and it is assumed the increased
internal efficiency for non-poor students due to education quality interventions to be 3%. These estimates are
used to calculate the number of grade 10 completers during the project periods. The projections of grade 10
completers and impacts of SEQAEP on number of grade 10 completers are shown in Table 1. The number of
students completing grade 10 over the four years due to SEQAEP is estimated about 135 thousand and these
students would not have completed the secondary cycle without SEQAEP intervention.
Table 1: SEQAEP Grade 10 completers and its impact on the number of Grade 10 Completers
2014
2015
2016
2017
Non-poor Grade 10 Completers
226,498
497,775
667,540
704,740
Poor Grade 10 Completers
65,051
213,456
355,172
499,373
Impacts on Number of Completers
24,335
67,580
104,411
135,112
4. The grade 10 completers will earn the wage-premium compared to the primary completers who have not
completed grade 10. Wage level of grade10 completers is estimated from HIES 2010 and then projected to
account for inflation for future years (the earning differential in 2010 is estimated to be about Taka 33,800 or
US$433 per person annually). 5 percent of wage of grade 10 completers for quality premium due to increased
relevance through SEQAEP quality interventions applies to all grade 10 completers. The benefit stream accruing
from life-time earnings for the four cohorts is assumed to continue for 33 years (even though a typical primary
completer will earn beyond 33 years, discounting will make the values insignificant beyond this time).
II.
Costs of SEQAEP
5. SEQAEP costs are estimated based on projected the stipend beneficiaries and number of institutions expected
to be supported for quality interventions, and monitoring and evaluation cost estimates. Four-year cost estimates,
shown in table 2 below, total about US$1,148 million (per student cost US$74). Per student private household
49
expenditure of secondary education is about US$101 in 2010 as estimated using HIES 2010 data and projected
for future years. From the same data, opportunity cost (forgone earnings) per student per year while attending
school is estimated to be US$433 per student for grade 5 completers aged 14 to 17 years old in 2010, and it is
assumed that 50 percent of non-schooling children would work for wage. Schooling cost and opportunity cost are
accounted for the students who would have not enrolled in school in the absence of SEQAP interventions.
Finally, cost of teacher salary added in order to account for the increased number of teachers needed due to
increased enrollment.
Table 2: SEQAEP Costs and Household Costs (US$ million)
2013-14
2015
2016
2017
III.
Total
SEQAEP Project Cost
70
66
70
74
280
Private HH Schooling Cost
33
62
68
75
239
Opportunity Cost
71
132
146
161
510
Teacher Salary
19
32
33
34
119
Total Cost
193
292
317
344
1,148
Net Present Values of Benefits and Costs and Internal rate of Return
6. Based on a discount rate of 12 percent for the benefit and cost streams described above, the present
discounted value of benefits for the base-case scenario is estimated to be $1,827 million while the present
discounted value of costs is estimated to be $838 million, and therefore the net present value (NPV) of program
benefits is $990million. The internal rate of return (IRR) associated with this NPV is 22 percent. Discounted
present values of each sources of benefit and cost streams in the base case scenario are shown in table 3 below.
As expected, large part of the benefits accrue from quality premium for SEQAEP secondary school completers.
In terms of costs, household education and opportunity cost constitutes the largest category.
Table 3: Discounted Present Values of Benefits and Costs streams, SEQAEP program 2014-2017
Category
US$ million
Grade 10 completers
952
Relevance/Quality premium
875
Total Benefit (PV)
1,827
Household Education and Opportunity Cost
550
Project Cost
200
Teacher Salary
88
Total Cost (PV)
838
Net Present Value
990
Internal Rate of Return

22%
Note: Discount Rate of 12% is used in deriving the DPVs
7. In table 4 below, we present a sensitivity analysis of IRR and NPV under different scenarios allowance for
varying employment rate (external efficiency) and progress in internal efficiency. Under the base case with
assumption that SEQAEP secondary school completers would have 5 percent higher wage than non-SEQAPE
secondary school completers and retention rate of poor student is 20 percent higher with PMT stipend program
(base case scenario), the IRR is 22%. As seen in the table 4 below, IRR varies between 19% and 22% under
varying scenarios.
50
Table 4: Sensitivity analysis of IRR under multiple scenarios

External Efficiency
Internal
Efficiency
20 % increased retention rate,

poor student (base case)
5 % Quality Premium
(base case)
22%
3 % Quality Premium
(low case)
19%
23%
19%
15 % increased retention rate,

poor student (low case)
8. The above results, including the robustness analysis, with the IRR - ranging from 19% to 22%, clearly suggest
that SEQAEP is expected to be a sound investment. In fact these are conservative lower-bound estimates, given
that they do not yet account for externality benefits arising from healthier, more educated and a more equitable/
inclusive society.
51

Seqaep Af Project Paper - Negotiated

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Seqaep Af Project Paper - Negotiated

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Document of

The World Bank

Governance and Accountability Action Plan

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCING ................................. 1

PROPOSED CHANGES ................................................................................................................ 3

APPRAISAL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 6

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring......................................................................................... 10

Project Development Objective and Description

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCING

1. Completion rate in grade 10 (%) in project upazilas

5. Gender parity (male-female) in enrollment in grades

6. Percentage share of poor children in total enrolment

7. Total number of direct project beneficiary students:

Table 3: AF Project Costing and Financing (US$ million)

1. Improving Education Quality

2. Improving Equity and Access

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

Increased target to reflect additional financing

Increased target to reflect additional financing

Removed as KPI because SSC examinations and results

Adjusted target to reflect additional financing

Adjusted target to reflect additional financing

Newly added as per core indicator requirement

Increased target to reflect additional financing

2. Number of institutions receiving SSC institution award

Increased target to reflect additional financing

Increased target to reflect additional financing

6. Number of eligible poor girls receiving stipend ('000)

Increased target to reflect additional financing

8. % of schools with safe drinking water in project upazilas

Adjusted target to reflect additional financing

Adjusted target to reflect additional financing

11. Implementation progress of quality, access, and capacity

Increased target to reflect additional financing

4. Monitor learning levels in secondary schools (in Bangla, Maths

Adjusted target to reflect additional financing

B. REVISED PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

PDO Level Results Indicators

Cumulative Target Values

1. Completion rate in grade 10 (%) in

5. Gender parity (male-female) in

(a) MTR: Target

MTR: New indicator

Intermediate Results and Indicators

C. Arrangement for Monitoring and Evaluation

Impact Evaluation Strategy

Evaluation 1: PMT stipends program

Evaluation 3: Developing Reading Habits (DRH) program

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description

Sub-component 1.4: Assessment of Education Quality

Table 3: Disbursement Linked Indicators

2013- DSHE to submit to the Association a copy of the

2014 - DSHE submit survey reports and proof of

Annex 3: Project Costing by Component

1. Improving Education Quality

2. Improving Equity and Access

3. Institutional Capacity Strengthening

Annex 4: Summary of Impact Evaluation Study

Chart 1: Net Impact of PMT-based Stipends Program on Secondary School Enrolment

Impact On Enrolment (percentage points)

Source: Authors calculations.

Annex 5: Implementation Arrangements

Attachment 5a: TORs for Key Staff Positions