1. Background

The Ministry of Education, Science and Youth Policy (MoESYP)  of the Kyrgyz Republic has developed its education strategy for the period 2006-2010 as an integral part of the Country Development Strategy (2006-2010). This was appraised and endorsed by the FTI in 2006.

The FTI appraisal and endorsement report contains no systematic approach to assessing equity and inclusion. In fact, there is no mention of education disadvantage arising from poverty, gender or disability. However, a number of important related issues are noted. These include:

• Child health and the rising number of children living with HIV;
• More attention to be paid to the outcomes of the Rural Education Programme;
• ECD only benefits affluent children;
• Interventions should be concentrated on selected regions in the country where school attendance and achievement are the worst;
• Gender disaggregated data collection and analysis by MoESYP has only just begun

2. The Piloting Process

The duration of the piloting process in the Kyrgyz Republic was almost two months and comprised 5 stages. It was by far the most structured approach among the three participating countries.  The five stages enabled a more inclusive and comprehensive piloting process. They were as follows:

2.1.  Preparation (1-15 May 2009). A multi-stakeholder seminar was organized on the objectives, structure and content of the tool and how it could be piloted in the Kyrgyz context. Participants included representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES); Kyrgyz Education Academy, universities, the Asian Development bank, UNICEF, Save the Children and local NGOs. However not all stakeholders were able to participate. The Ministries of Labour and Social protection for example were not represented. 

Representatives of organization working in the fields of girls’ education, children with disabilities, working children, ethnic minorities, street children, orphans and other vulnerable children (OVC), urban slums, remote rural communities and teaching practitioners. Women were strongly represented at the seminar (25 out of 31 participants).

The seminar provided the occasion for the setting up of the Local Education Group (LEG). This was clearly a significant outcome of the process. It is interesting to conjecture whether the setting up of a task-based LEG is likely to be more dynamic and committed than one that has been bureaucratically established to meet donor requirements.

Two objectives were locally set for the piloting process, indicating strong ownership. The first objective was to support the use of the tool in shaping policy and strategy within the education sector plan. The second was to evaluate the usefulness of the tool and improve it on the basis of feedback from users. The piloting process would be guided by a number of principles including inclusion and involvement of all relevant stakeholders, a strong focus on gender issues.

2.2.  Using the tool (20-May- 3 June 2009). The first meeting of the LEG focused on how they would use the tool and formulated a strategy accordingly. Weekly working meetings were held. A multi-disciplinary dialogue was maintained on equity and inclusion. Information from stakeholders working with vulnerable groups of children was collected, analysed and discussed.

2.3. Data collection and analysis (3-10 June 2009). Data were analysed. The structure and content of the tool were assessed in the process.

2.4. Revision of the tool (10-17 June). A revised version based on local piloting experience was produced.

2.5. Piloting Report prepared and presented (17-24 June).

3. Main findings of the piloting process

The main conclusion reported by the LEG was that piloting the Equity and Inclusion tool was a relevant and timely task. The tool highlights disadvantaged children and their right to quality education and was found to be particularly useful for assessing the situation of disadvantaged children in the country. It raised the profile of the issues involved, facilitated cooperation between different agencies in the education sector as well across sectors. Participants felt that the tool would help in shaping policy, strategy and planning in addressing issues of equity and inclusion.

While almost all respondents who completed the pilot evaluation instruments agreed on the relevance of the tool for plan preparation and adds value to the process, detailed feedback indicated that the structure and content of the tool needed to be adapted and adjusted. Such adaptation would be necessary to customize it to the Kyrgyz context. This was a specific recommendation.

Levels of user satisfaction with the tool were generally positive. The questionnaire revealed the following results (N=30):

• 66% considered the tool easy to use;
• 96% considered the tool relevant to plan preparation; 83% thought it added value and 100% found it relevant for the FTI;
• 70% agreed that the tool covered the relevant issues; 84% that it asked the right questions and 100% that it identifies issues that require further research;
• 92% agreed that the tool provides sufficient guidance on monitoring and evaluation;
• 94% (of which 36% strongly) agreed that the tool helps in identifying strategies to enhance equity and inclusion and 100% that it improves the evaluation and endorsement process.

There were high levels of satisfaction reported on the tools adequacy in specific issue areas:

• Gender (92%);
• Disability (100%);
• HIV and child health (84%);
• Civil society participation (100%)

The main areas of contention identified in the questionnaire responses were:

• Ease of use (34% found it difficult to use);
• Coverage of relevant issues (29% reported that it did not cover all the relevant issues);
• Helpfulness in resource allocation (34% did not find it helpful);
• Child labour (41% did not consider it handles issues adequately).

It was felt that some issues in the tool are too broad and it is hard to give clear answers to the questions relating to them. Participants felt that there is need for some open-ended questions to replace closed questions.

It was mentioned that not all agencies in the education sector are competent to answer all of the questions.

3.1  Situation Analysis

Specific comments were made on the questions provided in the toolkit for undertaking a situation assessment on the status of equity and inclusion.

It was felt that the situation assessment process can draw the attention of government agencies and the general public to the problems of equity and inclusion. 

The main suggestions for revision are recorded below:

• There is a need to separate out issues relating to inequities in primary enrolment and completion;
• The concept of ‘champions’ for equity and inclusion needs to be reconsidered/replaced;
• Disadvantaged settings need to be considered as well as the disadvantaged child;
• Equality of opportunity for men as an issue was raised;
• With regard to how the curriculum supports inclusion and equity, it is necessary to start with assessing if they are included at all, and whether they are included in educational standards;
• The issue of how children who do not go to school are monitored.

3.2 Planning process and prioritisation

There were relatively few comments provided on the planning column of the tool. The following suggestions were made for revision of the tool:

• Include what strategies need to be considered at family, community and national level to promote equity and inclusion in education.
• What interventions are required with regard to educational standards?
• The issue of education of remote mountainous areas.

The application of the tool resulted in a number of recommendations being made for strengthening equity and inclusion in the education sector plan. These are listed below:

• Include the principles of equity and inclusion in the unified state educational standard curricula for mainstreamschools;
• Revise the pre- and in-service service training programmes of teachers, school administrators and education managers to include issues of equity and inclusion;
• Establish capacity at the Kyrgyz Academy of Education for developing training and methodological guidebooks on inclusion and equity;
• Establish psychological, medical and educational units at rayon level (city) to identify vulnerable groups of children and coordinate interventions;
• Appoint a psychologist in each mainstream school;
• Undertake public advocacy on equity and inclusion issues;
• Create conditions in schools to facilitate the inclusion of children with special needs e.g. ramps, recreation rooms, special education needs equipment;
• Develop various alternative approaches to educating different groups of vulnerable children;
• Provide recommendations to the National Statistical Committee to include data about children from vulnerable groups in mainstream schools in statistical reports.