Document ofThe World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: 24347

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT(SCL-43330)

ON A

LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$1 15.0 MILLION

TO THE

MEXICO

FOR PHASE I OF A

BASIC EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

05/31/2002

Human Development Sector Management GroupCountry Management Unit for Colombia, Mexico and VenezuelaLatin American and the Caribbean Regional Office

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of theirofficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authonzation.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective February 28, 2001))

Currency Unit = New Peso (MS)MS I0 = USS 0.10

USS 1.0 = MS 9.69

FISCAL YEAI,January I - December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AGE School Management Support (Apoyo a la Gestidn Escolar)APL Adjustable Program LoanATP Technical Pedagogic Assistants (Asistentes Tecnico Pedag6gicos)

COMPRANET Internet Procurement Mechanism (Sistema Electronico de ContratacionesGubernamentales)

CAS Country Assistance StrategyCONAFE National Council for Educational Development (Consejo Nacional de Fomento

Educatrvo) of SEPDGE General Directorate for Evaluation (Direcct6n General de Evaluaci6n) at SEP

DGEI General Directorate for Indigenous Education (Direccidn General de EducacrinIndigena) at SEP

DGPPP General Directorate for Planning, Programming, and Budgeting (Direccl6nGeneral de Planeacitn, Programacion. y Presupuesto) at SEP

FDI CONAFE's Institutional Development Fund (Fondo de Desarrollo Instirucional)FMR Financial Monitonng Report (Informe de Monitoreo Frnanciero)

IADB InterAmencan Development Bank (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo)IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Banco lIternacional

para Reconstrucci6n y Desarrollo)ICB Intemational Competitive Bidding (Licitaci6n lnternacional)

INEA National Instituto for Adult Education (Instituto Nacionalpara la Educacidn deAdiltos) of SEP

INEGI Nationa Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information (Instituro ,Vacional deEstadistica Geografla e Informatica)

MIS Management Information System (Sistema de lnformaci6n de Gesn6n)MXN Mtexican Peso (Peso Wericano)

NAFIN National Financing Agency (Nacional Ftnanciera. S N.C.)NCB National Competitive Bidding (Licitac6on Prtibca Nacional)

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPAD Project Appraisal Document (Documento de Evaluacrin de Proyecto)

PARE Pnmary Education Project (Programa para Abanr el Re-ago Educattio) (Ln3407-ME, 1991)

PAREB Second Primary Education Project (Programa para lbatir el Rezago enEducact6n Bdsnca) (Ln 3722-ME. 1994)

PAREIB-I Basic Education Development Project, APL I (Programa para Abatir elRe-ago en Educaci6n lnicialy Basica) (Ln. 4333-ME, 1998)

PAREIB-II Basic Education Development Project, APL2 (Programa para Abatnr elRe-zago en Educact6n Inicial y 8asica)

PI ARE Integral Program of Education (Programa Integral para Reducir el RezagoEducativo) IDB-financed

PNE National Education Program (Programa Nacional de Educacidn)Posprimaria CONAFE's Rural Community-Based Lower Secondary Education Program

PRODEi Initial Education Project (Proyecto para el Desarrollo de la Educaci6n Inicial)(Ln. 3518-NME, 1992)

PROGRESA Education, Health, and Nutrition Program (Programa de Educaci6n. Salud. yAhimentacikn) at SEDESOL

SECODAM Secretanat for Control and Administrative Development (Secretaria deContralorta y Desarrollo Administratnvo)

SEByN Undersecretariat of Basic and Normal Education (Subsecretaria de EducacidnBeisica y Normal) at SEP

SEP Secretanat of Public Education (Secretaria de Educaci6n Piiblica)SEPEs State Level Secretanats of Public Education (Secretar/as Estatales de Educaci6n

Ptiblica)

SHCP Secretanat of Finance and Public Credit (Secretaria de Hacienda y CreditoPiibl1io)

Telesecundaria TV-Based Lower Secondary Education Program

Vice President. David De FerrantiCountry Manager/Director Olivier Lafourcade

Sector Manager/Director: Xavier CollTask Team Leader/Task Nlanager Eduardo Velez Bustillo

MEXICOBASIC EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: PHASE I

CONTENTS

Page No.1. Project Data I

2. Principal Performance Ratings 1

3 Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 1

4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4

5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 11

6. Sustainability 12

7. Bank and Borrower Performance 12

8. Lessons Leamed 14

9. Partner Comments 16

10. Additional Information 17

Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 18

Annex 2 Project Costs and Financing 22

Annex 3 Economic Costs and Benefits 24

Annex 4. Bank Inputs 25

Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 27

Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 28

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 29

Project ID P040199 Project Name MX: BASICEDUC.DEVELOPMENT PHASE I

Team Leader: Eduardo Velez Bustillo TL Unit: LCCIC

ICR Tvpe: Core ICR Report Date- June 20, 2002

1. Project Data

Name: MX: BASIC EDUC.DEVELOPMENT PHASE I L/C1/T Number. SCL-43330Country/Department: MEXICO Region Latin America and

Caribbean RegionSector/subsector. EP - Primary Education

KEY DATESOriginal Revised/Actual

PCD 04/30/1997 Effective 01/04/1999 06/29/1999

Appraisal 03/25/1998 MTR:

Approval 06/04/1998 Closing 06/30/2001 12/31/2001

Borrower/Implenientzig Agency. MEXICAN GOVERNMENT/SECRETARIAT OF EDUCATION (SEP)Other Partners National Council for Education Development (Consejo Nacional de Fomento

Educativo (CONAFE)); State-level Secretariats of Education (SEPEs)

STAFF Current At AppraisalVice President. David De Ferranti Shahid Javed BurkiCountry Manager. Olivier Lafourcade Olivier LafourcadeSector Manager. Marito Garcia Jamil SalmiTeam Leader at ICR. Eduardo Velez Bustillo Maria Madalena R. Dos SantosICR Primarv Author. Anna Sant'Anna and Nydia

Maraviglia

2. Principal Performance Ratings

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=HighlyUnlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible)

Outcome: S

Sustainability: HL

Institutional Development Impact SU

Bank Performance: S

Borrower Performance S

QAG (if available) ICRQuality at Entry: S

Project at Risk at Any Time. No

3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry

3 1 Original Objective

The project is the first phase of a three-phase program supported by an Adaptable Program Loan (APL)

approved by the Board on June 4, 1998. The purpose of the APL is to support implementation of theGovernment's compensatory education program, as outlined in National Education Program (PNE) of thecurrent and fonner Administrations (Education Development Program 1995-2000 -- "Programa deDesarrollo Educativo - 1995-2000" and National Education Program 2001-2006 -- "Programa Nacionalde Educacion 2001-2006"). The PNE intends to raise the level and quality of schooling in Mexico,bringing the country's education indicators substantially closer to other OECD countries. Thecompensatory programs are implemented through CONAFE (Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo),which targets under-served communities. These communities tend to be rural, poor, indigenous, andmarginalized urban areas.

The basic education strategy of the PNE focuses on the classroom and on the school. The program isstructured along six main lines: (a) promote equity, ensuring that all children have equal opportunity toattend and stay in school and to complete basic education; (b) compensate for social and regionalinequalities by channeling incremental resources to the most disadvantaged students at risk of failing atschool; (c) use flexible, nontraditional modalities to reach all groups through diversified attention tocultural and linguistic groups; (c) improve the quality of the educational process and student learningachievements, ensunng that all students gain basic knowledge and develop the intellectual abilities, values,and attitudes necessary to pursue full personal and family lives, act as competent and committed citizens,participate in productive work, and have the basic conditions to continue to learn throughout their lives; (d)improve pre-service and in-service training of teachers; and (e) reformn the organization of basic education,ensuring better articulation between levels, and more efficient use of resources. A more completediscussion of the Government basic education sector program appear in Annex 4 of the Project AppraisalDocument (PAD) for the Basic Education Development (PAREIB) Project (Report No: 17535-ME, datedMay 7, 1998).

Phase I of the APL was supported by a US$115.0 million loan (Ln. 4333-ME), which closed on December31, 2001, after one six month extension. Key performance indicators for Phase I would function as"triggers" for Phase II. These triggers are listed in Annex 1. The specific objectives of Phase I were to:

o Expand and improve efficiency and quality of rural lower secondary education by supporting distanceeducation (telesecundaria) and by developing a new model of community-based rural education (posprimaria);

o Develop and implement improved school-based management strategies and improve the supervisionsystem at the primary school level;

o Design and pilot new education modalities to better meet the needs of migrant children, children aged9-14 in urban marginal areas who are out of school, and indigenous children in general primaryschools; and,

o Strengthen institutional capacity for system management and for planning, programming, andevaluation at the federal and state levels.

Although the overall PAREIB program covers all levels of initial and basic education nationwide,PAREIB-1 interventions at the primary education level were only complementary to those supported bySecond Primary Education Project (Programa para Abatir el Rezago en Educaci6n Basica - PAREB, Ln.3722-ME) and the Integral Program of Education (Programa Integral para Redtucir el Rezago Educativo -PIARE) financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), both of which supportedcompensatory interventions at the primary school level.

- 2 -

3 2 Revised Objective.The project objectives were not revised.

3.3 Original Components

The project had two main components:

Component A: Quality Improvements in Initial and Basic Education (US$126.5 million equivalent or84 percent of total project cost with contingencies). Project activities were directed to schools andcommunities ranked at the bottom of CONAFE's targeting index that were not receiving assistance fromother programs. Specific interventions included: (a) expanding compensatory education activities andproviding quality inputs to increase internal efficiency and improve student achievement primarily atlower-secondary level but also at initial and preschool levels; and (b) improving primary schoolmanagement and efficiency through developing school projects (Proyectos Escolares), enhancingcommunity and parent participation, and modernizing the organization and implementation of thesupervision system.

This component would finance: (i) educational matenals and equipment for students, teachers, and schools;(ii) training for teachers, supervisors and principals; (iii) support to parent's associations and schoolcouncils in school-based management activities; (iv) improvement of the school supervision function; and(v) construction or rehabilitation of school infrastructure.

Component B: Strengthening Institutional Capacity at Federal and State Levels. (US$23.5 million or16 percent of total project cost with contingencies). This component aimed to strengthen the managementcapacity of key sector entities at both federal and state levels. Activities planned included (a) at Federallevel, (i) strengthening the national evaluation system and (ii) designing and piloting appropriate basiceducation models for migrant children, out-of school children aged 9-14 in urban marginal areas, andindigenous children attending regular schools; and (b) at state level, strengthening the role of the StateSecretariats of Education (SEPEs) in the provision of education services by reinforcing their capability formanagement including planning, programming, budgeting, and monitoring and evaluation, through thedevelopment and implementation of state specific Strategic Development Plans (Planes EstrategicosRectores) and the delivery of basic education services through support for state-generated institutionaldevelopment proposals.

This component would finance: (i) technical assistance to develop the national assessment and evaluationsystem; (ii) studies and pilot tests for innovative programs; (iii) a fund to support the states in implementingtheir institutional development proposals and other state-generated initiative (Institutional DevelopmentFund - Fondo de Desarrollo Institucional (IDF); and (iv) incremental operational costs to support projectadministration.

3 4 Revised Components:There is enough flexibility in the APL to adapt program implementation to changing circumstances and inways that would improve the achievement of objectives and optimize outcomes. The two basic componentswere not changed, but a greater emphasis was placed in supporting rural lower-secondary education thanoriginally envisaged. This change responded to a significant increase in demand generated by theGovemment-financed PROGRESA program (Education, Health, and Nutrition Program -Programa deEducaci6n, Salud, y Alimentaci6, recently renamed Opportunities - "Oportunidades") which provides, amongother benefits, financial incentives to families to send their children to school, combined with the improved

-3 -

performance of rural primary schools supported by PAREB and PIARE. As a result, the coverage ofpreschool education was substantially reduced. In 2001, the coverage of initial education was expandedmore than three-fold by the inclusion of an additional 15 states. No formal amendment to the legaldocuments of Loan 4333-ME was necessary to allow for these changes.

3.5 Quality at Entry.

ICR Rating: Satisfactory

The APL objectives and the specific objectives for Phase I were consistent with the Govenmuent's PNE andthe Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS, of 1996 and the CAS Progress Report of March 26, 1998).The CAS education priorities were to improve the quality and efficiency of basic education, particularly inthe poorest states with high dropout and repetition rates, and to raise the quality of school entrants throughimprovement of preschool education. The project also addressed the CAS concern for modernizing publicadministration, by supporting initiatives to strengthen the ability of states to deliver educational services.As indicated in section 3.1 above, the APL design addressed all the main priorities of the governmenteducation sector program.

The APL design appropnately built on eight years of Bank experience through three loans that supportedcompensatory programs for initial and basic education. This assistance evolved from a state-by-sateapproach, into a better integrated program of national scope based on a broad policy framework. As part ofAPL preparation, a large cross-section of stakeholders was consulted through a social assessment and theirinputs were incorporated in the design of the program.

The main risks identified included: (a) continuity of government support for school-based management, (b)the effective utilization of newly acquired skills by the administrative staff trained under the project; and (c)whether or not the states would receive adequate support during project implementation. Measures tominimize these risks were appropriately taken, including (i) promotion of ownership and initiative by theSEPEs and by individual schools through increased participation; (ii) assignment of responsibility forimproving management capacity at state level to the SEPEs; and (iii) establishment of a fluid process ofconsultations and advice involving administrative and technical personnel at federal and state levels.

Design options were discussed in detail with the government during project preparation, including the prosand cons of APL compared to a traditional investment loan and a national focus compared to aconcentration on the poorest states. The national approach was strongly favored as the most effective wayof addressing deficiencies in basic education. The APL option was considered best to ensure programcontinuity over a sufficiently long period of time to irnpact on the system as a whole. The flexibilityprovided by the APL would permit adjustments that might be required in response to changing needs andpolitical priorities. The emphasis on innovation at the state level was preferred over the alternative ofprogram unifornity, as it promotes ownership and improves the fit between investment and local needs.The most salient limitation of the project design was the complexity of the rules applied to the IDF.

4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs

4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective:

ICR Rating: SatisfactoryLoan 4333-ME was approved June 4, 1998 and became effective a year later in June 29, 1999.Nevertheless, implementation started in 1998 and project costs incurred during the first year wereretroactively financed. The loan closing date was extended by six-months, from June 30th to December 31,

-4 -

2001. To improve coverage, efficiency and quality of initial education, to strengthen the managementcapacity of education agencies at federal and state levels, and to promote innovative forms of servicedelivery were the main objectives of the project. The following paragraphs examine the extent to which theproject achieved these objectives.

Coverage. Phase I achieved most of its service coverage objectives, although not all original targets weremet due to the reallocation of funds to finance improvements in rural lower-secondary schools. As a result,the objective of substantially expanding coverage of preschool education fell short of expected targets andwas postponed to Phase 11. Table I below provides the relevant figures.

Table 1: Achievement of Coverage ObjectiveEducation Serices Appraisal Target .. Actual. Percentage of;.

- . . . -. . ~~ ~~~~~~~r . AppraisalInitial education (families) 87,334 304,440 348.6Preschool education (students) 656,500 31,413 4.8Rural lower-secondary education:

Telesecundaria 231,000 147,508 63.9Posprimaria 8,025 9,575 119.3

Source CONAFE, "Informe del Termno de la Implementaci6n del Programa parm Abatir el Re7ago en Educaci6n Inicial y Basica" May 2002

In school year 1998-1999 the number of students enrolled in the project telesectndarias was 82,722, threeyears later that enrollment had grown by 78.3 percent to 147,508. Meeting the appraisal target would havemeant almost tripling enrollment, which seems in retrospect over ambitious. Nevertheless, the actualachievement of the project in increasing coverage of distance lower-secondary education is highlysignificant and represents 46 percent of the growth in national enrollment in the same period, as indicated inAnnex 1.

Efficiency. Efficiency gains in lower-secondary education were successfully achieved, except in the caseof increased completion rates, possibly because it is too early to measure the impact of the project on thecompletion of a 4-year program of study. Of the specific efficiency indicators measured, all but one showa positive trend, as indicated in Table 2 below and in Annex 1.

Table 2: Achievement of Efficiency Objective.Education Se'rices : .i-: Baseline: - -Prject Schools - Percentage 5

I - .*~~~. '..nn.~~~99,n.7. F., n n ,i, - - B- i; '-i- ;- | i '; f1 99& 8 .- 1 9)i (2000-O'lN (:riie-'10

Rural lower-secondary education:Telesecundaria:(a) increase enrollment 82,722 147,508 \* +78.3(b) reduce repetition rates \** 1.5% 0.5% -66.7

(c) reduce failure rates \** 21.1% 4.8% -77.2

(d) reduce dropout rates \** 9.7% 9.0% -7.2

(e) increase completion rates \** 76.1% 72.1% -5.2'/ Enrollment figures refer to school year 2001-2002'*/ Project schools compared to national ratesSource CONAFE, "Informe del Term ino de la Implementaci6n del Programa para Abatir el Rezago en Educaci6n Inicial y Basica" May 2002

Quality. The analysis of student achievement test results in telesecundarias supported by the project isconsidered premature. Although the implementation period of the project covered the full lower-secondarycycle, its impact can only be measured in a longer term. Such an assessment will be made upon completionof PAREIB-I1. Nevertheless, other quality improvements in service delivery were observed and are be

-5 -

discussed in the context of each component.

Innovative Models. The design and development of a community-based post-primary educational model(posprimaria) proved very successfully in expanding educational opportunities for people living in verysmall rural communities (population below 500). Also successful were new education models for migrantchildren and indigenous children attending general schools. All these three pilot program are nowincorporated into the regular education program. Less successful were the attempts at servingout-of-school youngsters between the ages of 9 and 14 living in marginal urban areas, and the novelinitiative of stimulating inter-state competition through the Institutional Development Fund. Details onthese various activities are given in section 4.2.

Management Capacity. Project implementation shows that the capacity of the states to deliver basiceducation services has improved, particularly with respect to the administration of procurement, financialmanagement, the provision of technical support to teachers and school supervisory teams at the primaryeducation level, and the proper use of evaluation and regional planning instruments. Managementimprovements can be in part attributed to the preparation of Strategic Institutional Development Plans (Planes Rectores Estrategicos) used to guide training and to prioritize technical assistance at state level.However, improvements are still needed in the areas of policy analysis, consolidation of supervisionsystems, and education innovations such as new pedagogic models and science education, among others.

4 2 Ouitputs by components:

Component A: Quality Improvements in Initial and Basic Education. ICR Rating: Satisfactory(US$ 189.0 million or 88 percent of total project costs and 50 percent above the appraisal estimate). Themain activities of this component were: (a) training; (b) school-based management; (c) school supervision;(d) infrastructure works and the provision of school equipment and didactic materials. Cost increases werelargely due to an expanded construction program. The achievements under each of these sub-componentsare listed in Annex I and summarized below.

A.1 Training of teachers, principals and community trainers. The main achievement of thissub-component was the technical training of telesecundaria teachers and principals in the use of newequipment and didactic materials. Some states took the initiative of contracting universities to deliver partof that training, as for example in the case of computer training in Chiapas. Training was also provided tocommunity trainers and the entire operational structure responsible for the posprimaria program in eachstate, including state coordinators and educational technical assistants. During school year 2000-2001CONAFE and Federal Secretariat of Public Education (Secretaria de Educacion Publica - SEP) developeda new strategy to complement in-service training for primary teachers based on lessons leamed fromPAREB. The strategy consists in providing technical assistance in the classroom to complement formaltraining, establishing the base for in-service teacher training reform planned for PAREIB-Il. The newtraining strategy eliminates the need for teachers to leave the school in order to receive training, does notrequire financial assistance for teacher travel, fosters collaboration among the various members of thetechnical group at the school level and, more importantly, helps ensure that newly acquired skills arerelevant to the conditions of the school and are effectively applied in the classrooms. All training targetsestablished at appraisal were surpassed, as indicated in Annex 1.

A.2 Strengthening school management at local and school levels. This sub-component aimed atstrengthening school-based management through the support of school projects (Proyectos Escolares) inprimary schools. The development of the normative guidelines for school projects was the responsibility ofSEP, through the General Directorate for Educational Research (Direcci6n General de Investigacion

-6 -

Educativa - DGIE). This activity was successfully completed with financing from the regular SEP budget.School projects are now a regular activity in primary schools across the country, greatly surpassing theappraisal target of developing 200 school projects. Other activities carried out under this sub-componentwere not origmally planned and include teacher performance incentives and financial support for parentassociations and school councils (Apoyo a la Gesti6n Escolar - AGE) in primary schools not supported byother compensatory programs, to complemented activities carried out under PAREB.

A.3 Strengthening school supervision. The purpose of this sub-component was to facilitate the fullparticipation of the school supervisory team in meeting the pedagogic needs of teachers and schools undertheir jurisdiction. The strategy was part of the preparation of in-service teacher training reform and wouldalso help implement the school projects. One of the main problems of school supervision is the highturnover of the supervisory staff and the resulting need to train new staff in multi-grade pedagogictechniques that are the most appropriate for incomplete rural schools. This problem is compounded byfewer than needed school visits by the supervisor, given the remote location of project schools. Projectsupport for school supervision improvements fell short of the appraisal targets and consisted mainly inproviding supervisors with perdiem to facilitate school visits and equipping supervisory offices with apackage of educational materials, again complementing actions carried out under PAREB.

A.4 Civil works, equipment and didactic materials. (a) Infrastructure. Infrastructure improvementsbenefited telesecundaria schools, as planned. The implementation of this sub-component continued thesuccessful experience of PAREB by relying on the local community, municipal and state agencies for theplanning, managing and carrying out new construction and rehabilitation of school facilities. Communityconstruction creates local jobs and promotes effective involvement of parents in the education of theirchildren. Almost all targets for new construction were met and those for rehabilitation were largelysurpassed, as shown in Annex 1; (b) Equipment. Telesecundarias received considerable amount of newequipment, namely: workshop and laboratory equipment, new or replacement furniture, TV and VCRs,computers and software, printers, tape recorders, and ancillary facilities such as EDUSAT signal receivers,solar power installations and power surge regulators. All equipment targets were surpassed. The increasewas needed in view of the cancellation of an IADB loan which aimed at equipping telesecundarias; (c)Didactic materials. Telesecundarias and posprimarias received packages of didactic materialsappropriate for schools, albeit in reduced amounts. These school packages were a complex mix of hightechnology and basic materials, a basic library of 80 titles, encyclopedia, dictionaries, computer manualsand teaching aids such as world atlas, biology, chemistry, physics, geometry and mathematic kits. Theprovision of educational materials for posprimaria trainers surpassed the appraisal target as did those forinitial education parents and instructors, commensurate to the expanded coverage of these two programs.Educational materials for lower-secondary school teachers and for pedagogic assistants were not provideddue to procurement delays.

-7 -

Component B: Strengthening Institutional Capacity at Federal and State Levels, 11CR Rating:

Satisfactory (US$25.5 million or 12 percent of total project costs). Planned managementimprovements at the federal level were related to the evaluation and regional planning systems at

SEP, the consolidation of CONAFE's management information system, and the development ofpilot programs to test new educational models for migrant children, indigenous children attending

general schools, and out-of-school youngsters in marginalized urban areas. At state level, the

institutional strengthening strategy emphasized the preparation of strategic institutionaldevelopment plans (Planes Estrategicos Rectores) using part of a new Institutional Development

Fund (FDI) and the carrying out of the institutional development proposals presented by the states

for competitive selection among states and for financing by the second tier of the FDI. The

objectives of this component were met except for one pilot program and the use of the second tierof the FDI, as explained below.

B. 1 Institutional strengthening at the federal level:(a) Evaluation system. SEP's General Directorate for Education Evaluation (Direcci6n General deEvaluacion Educativa - DGE) has developed over the years technically sophisticated student achievementtests for primary and secondary education. The task at hand was to provide states with the necessaryequipment and trained staff to operate state-level evaluation units able to apply and analyze studentachievement tests. This was accomplished in all 31 states, although the advances still need to beconsolidated, particularly in the following areas: (i) further staff development at state level; (ih) expansionof the database to include both initial and basic education (which now covers mandatory preschooleducation); (iii) identification of the characteristics of the supply and the demand for education at thedifferent levels; and (iv) analysis and dissemination of information on the learning achievement of studentsand their determinants, making results available at the local and school levels. These further enhancementsare planned for PAREIB-II.

(b) Regional planning system. School mapping is a key instrument in educational planning which hasadvanced in Mexico to high levels of excellence. PAREIB-I, through SEP's Directorate General ofPlanning, Programming and Budget (Direcci6n General de Planeaci6n, Progra?naci6n y Presupuesto -DGPPP) made significant advances towards the goal of providing accurate cartographic information forstate-level planning purposes by: (i) updating cartographic and geo-educational information for all 31states; (ii) using INTERGRAPH platform to process the information for educational planning purposes;(iii) developing procedures to update geo-educational information; (iv) organizing workshops in each of the31 states on the INTERGRAPH applications; (v) developing a territorial catalogue which makes SEP's andINEGI's (National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics - Instituto Nacional de Estadistica,Geografla e Inform6tica) databases compatible; (vi) expanding the geo-educational database with data onrelated sectors, including health, nutrition and urban development; and (vii) improving the analyticalcapacity of five pilot states to produce topographic and micro-planning models. Phase II will continuesupporting this process to further enhance the regional planning system (see Annex 2, Basic EducationDevelopment Phase II, Report No. 23295-ME).

(c) Consolidafion of CONAFE's management information system (MUS). CONAFE has madesignificant progress in adapting its MIS for the production of Project Management Reports (PMRs). All31 states have linkages with the central system and state staff received appropriate training to operate thesystem. Independent consultants conducted a financial management assessment of CONAFE andconfirmed that the agency has the tools and the necessary skills for satisfactory project financialmanagement. The system will be further enhanced during PAREIB-II, to improve the integration oftechnical, procurement and financial data, among other measures.

- 8 -

(d) Pilot programs. Three pilot programs were planned and two were successfully completed, namely (i)education of migrant children, and (ii) inter-cultural program for indigenous children attending generalschools. In the case of education of migrant children, the pilot was carried out by SEP's Under Secretariatfor Basic and Normal Education (Subsecretaria de Educaci6n Basica y Normal - SEByN). The problemaddressed by this pilot is the temporary and multi-destination nature of agricultural migration by ruralfamilies and their children. The pilot led SEP to adjust the national normative framework to facilitate theaccess of migrant children to public schools services at the locality of origin and at the various migrationdestinations, specifically ensunng that the school work done by the child in one locality is given credit inthe other, thus reducing significantly the grade repetition rate for these children. The inter-cultural programfor indigenous children attending general schools was piloted in four states by SEP's Directorate Generalfor Indigenous Education (Direcci6n General de Educaci6n Indigena - DGEI). This pilot concluded that

the best strategy to institutionalize a multi-cultural teaching approach in general primary schools is to alloweach state to expenment with the modality that best responds to the ethnic composition of their schoolpopulation. DGEI prepared national guidelines for this purpose and states are now successfully developingtheir own specific models. The third pilot program aimed to develop solutions for providing educationalservices to out-of-school youngsters (ages 9-14) living in marginalized urban areas. The onginal idea wasto rely on the National Institute for Adult Education (Instituto Nacional para la Educaci6n de Adultos-

INEA) to carry out this pilot. However, policy changes at MNEA mandated the Institute to restrict itsattention to adults, thus blocking the possibility of it working with adolescents. A suitable replacementexecuting agency was not found and the pilot was cancelled. The problem however, remains a centralconcern at SEP and possible solutions will be examined during PAREIB-II through metropolitan areastudies m Mexico City and possibly elsewhere.

Posprimaria. Perhaps the most successful pilot program developed through the project was the one aimedat finding innovative ways of providing post primary education in small, isolated, rural areas. The pilotresulted in the creation of the posprimaria program, which started with 32 learning centers in 8 states andexpanded to 321 centers in 25 states by the end of project implementation. The unique feature of theposprimaria is that it allows young people who are out of school but who want to learn, to pursue theirgoal without having to leave the communities where they live and work. Some 46 percent of theparticipants in this program were over 15 years old and not all of them had completed primary education.In fact, the learning centers are used by all who want to learn, independently of age or pnor formaleducation. In other words, it functions as a rural community version of a life-long learning center. Thisunforeseen development made the training of instructors particularly difficult, and also complicated theselection of the appropriate equipment and educational materials to be provided for each center. Thepedagogic approach of the posprimaria emphasizes the following key points: (i) teaching must ensure theacquisition of basic reading, writing, language and math competences; (ii) the leaming process had to becentered in the area of interest of each student, rather than follow a standard curriculum, thus strengtheningmotivation and developing individual learning initiative; (iii) all participants who wish to obtain formalcredit for their learning achievements are encouraged to be certified by taking the appropnate INEAstandardized national test. The certification option was taken by approximately 10 percent of theparticipants, who successfully met the requirements of primary (46 percent) and secondary (54 percent)education. The program will continue to expand and be perfected with government and IADB financing. Anumber of Latin American countnes, including Brazil, expressed interest in replicating this model.

(c) Studies. Several studies were financed by the project that were not originally planned but thatresponded to demands from SEP and the states. The most important of these studies are: (i) "Evaluationof the participation of parents in the management of primary schools," carried out by the Regional Centerfor Adult Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (Centro de Cooperaci6n Regional para la

-9-

Educacion de Adultos en America Latina y el Caribe - CREFAL). This evaluation confinned the positiveimpact produced by the involvement of parents in the education of their children; (ii) "Design of the samplefor the evaluation of the initial education program." This study, carried out by the DGE at SEP, effectivelyprepared the survey that will generate historical series for the analysis of the impact of the initial educationprogram, to be carried out dunng Phase II; and (iii) "Extemal evaluation of the Posprimaria Program"carried out by an international consultant, concluded that the approach adopted by CONAFE to bring postprimary education to the most remote small rural settlements is both highly innovative and successful indeveloping basic competences among the people and in teaching them to continue learning on their own.The posprimaria is now part of the regular CONAFE community education program and will continueexpanding with financing from IADB, effectively complementing the formal national education network.

B.2 Institutional strengthening at the state Level. The actions planned for this sub-component weresuccessfully carried out, except for the use of FDI resources to finance state proposals on a competitivebasis. Specific achievements of the technical assistance and training provided to the states include: (i)Preparation of strategy plans for institutional development in 20 states using resources from the first tier ofthe FDI. These plans included a diagnostic of administrative strengths and weaknesses and provedinstrumental in focusing and prioritizing institutional development activities that were subsequently carriedout by the states. In the 20 states that had strategic plans, the project supported management training atstate level based on the plan's recommendations. In the other 11 states, management training responded tothe demand of the respective SEPEs and incorporated the recommendations provided by the Secretariat forControl and Administrative Development (Secretaria de Contraloria y Desarrollo Administrativo -SECODAM) for the reform of public administration nationwide. The resulting training model has beeninstitutionalized by CONAFE under the title "Training for Education Management" (Capacitaci6n para laGerencia Educativa); (ii) The academic development of telesecundarias was supported, in all states, by aTechnical State Group (Grupo Tecnico Estatal - GTS) established with project assistance. The GTSgreatly facilitated the coordination of actions at state level with SEP's General Directorate ofTelesecundarias (Direcci6n General de Telesecundaria, DGT). During implementation, it was evidentthat the demand for administrative training permeates all levels of the SEPEs organization, and trainingshould not have been limited to management staff. With respect to the competitive part of the FDI fund,implementation experience indicated that the formula for selection of proposals was excessivelycomplicated; also deficient were the arrangements for the technical analysis of the proposals. These faultydesign aspects made the implementation of the program not viable; the fund has been re-designed forimplementation during Phase II.

4.3 Net Present Value/Econonmic rate of retuirn.An economic analysis of the outcomes of the project was not done, particularly because of the short periodof project implementation that does not allow enough time for the project benefits to be properly measured.Nevertheless, the marked increment in the number of students who now have access to lower-secondaryeducation and the improved efficiency of the telesecundarias will have an important positive impact in theearnings of the students when they enter the labor force. The earning differential between individuals withcomplete primary education and those with complete secondary education is estimated now in Mexico at 17percent.

4.4 Financial rate of returnN/A

4.5 Institutional development impact:The project had clearly improved the institutional capacity to deliver educational services at federal andstate levels. Not to repeat the institutional analysis presented in section 4.2, it suffices to say that the

- 1 0 -

education decentralization process has been significantly advanced, to the benefit of school children. Alsonoteworthy is the increased ability of the system to devise new methods to eliminate exclusion ofdisadvantaged children and to adapt national norms and models to the specific needs of the clientpopulation. It bodes well for the sector the effective collaboration that took place between federal and stateauthorities, between public and private stakeholders, and among federal agencies throughout projectimplementation. As in the case of PAREB, several initiatives of PAREIB-I have been institutionalized aspart of the national education program, as for example the posprimaria, the school projects, the migrantchildren education, and the inter-cultural approach in general primary schools. Much needs still to be donebut future improvements will have a solid basis upon which to build.

5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome

5 I Factors outside the control ofgovernment or inmplementing agency:

Project implementation was not especially affected by factors outside the control of the government.

5.2 Factors generally subject to government control:Notwithstanding the strong support given by the government to the project objectives and activities, and thesatisfactory provision of budgetary resources for project implementation, the pace of project execution wasaffected by the delays in liberating the approved budgets on the part of the Secretariat of Finance (Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito Piublico- SHCP). This has been a recurrent problem, year after year,leading to an effective reduction of investment (estimated at 30 percent) notwithstanding the institutionalcapacity for executing the project at one-hundred percent level. One particularly problematic aspect of theuntimely liberation of resources is that it causes the delays in starting the procurement process. In thefuture, it would be desirable that such delays be minimized. It would also be desirable to avoid extensivedelays in complying with the project effectiveness conditions, especially ensuring timely signing of the loanagreement immediately after Board approval.

5.3 Factors generally subject to imnplementing agency control.

SEP, CONAFE and the SEPEs, as project executing agencies, and NAFIN in its capacity as the Borrower,demonstrated consistent diligence and efficiency in carrying out the project. The Bank has been providedwith regular implementation reports, legal covenants were fully complied with, and adjustments to theproject design were systematically discussed with the project team before a formal proposal was presentedto the Bank. Also noteworthy is the fact that, at the initiative of CONAFE, project objectives andactivities were amply publicized and disseminated at the state and local levels, strengthening ownership andimproving the project implementation process. The staff of SEP and CONAFE staff, although subject toperiodic changes, was technically competent and committed to the project, and the policy framework wasconsistently maintained. While the overall performance of the project implementing agencies is consideredgood, there are areas that need improvement. In particular: (i) more intensive collaboration between SEPand CONAFE; (ii) further improvements in procurement planning to permit the Bank prior-review processto occur in timely fashion; and (iii) more attention to incorporating the results of evaluation studies andstakeholder assessments into program design and implementation.

5.4 Costs andfinancing:Project costs ascended to US$214.5 million equivalent, or 43 percent above appraisal estimates. As aresult, the share of Bank financing was reduced from a planned 77 percent to 54 percent. The additionalcost, fully financed with government funds, was mostly associated with increases in program coverage andexpansion of works and goods procured under the project. These additional expenditures, however, werefully justified in view of the higher demand for lower-secondary and initial education in the project states.All external project audits were presented on time and were unqualified. The project disbursement schedulewas initially slow on account of the loan effectiveness delay. This however, was fully compensated for

- 1 1 -

once the loan was declared effective in June 1999. The initial disbursement delays did not substantiallyaffect the start of project implementation in 1998.

6. Sustainability

6.1 Rationalefor sustainability ratingICR Rating: Highly LikelyThe strategy and programs introduced by the project are highly likely to be sustained not only becausemany of them have been adopted as national policy and/or regular program, and are being implementedusing funds from the education budget, but also because the project was capable to build a solidinstitutional base for the management of education. Also notable is the level of coordination achievedbetween the main external donors active in Mexico in the education sector. Lessons learned through IADBand Bank-financed projects have been shared and put to good use. No duplication of efforts has occurredand increasingly more cost-effective solutions have been found for the education problems addressed by thecompensatory programs. Ultimately, the best sustainability indicator is when Mexico no longer needscompensatory education programs because the levels of equity, efficiency and quality of basic educationhas been sufficiently improved to generate standards of excellence sustained by each of the states. Thephasing out of the program in schools that have already substantially improved their performance will startwith PAREIB-II.

6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations.The project activities undertaken under the project are being refined and expanded by the government withand without assistance from external donors. Phases II and III of PAREIB will provide the necessarycontinuity and support to consolidate program activities on a national scale, reaching higher levels ofintegration of targeting mechanisms, operational efficiency, and measurable quality improvements.

7. Bank and Borrower Performance

Bank7. 1 Lending:

I[CR Rating: SatisfactoryPAREIB was first APL in the education sector at the Bank. The preparation process was experimental buthighly effective in mobilizing the participation of all stakeholders, in devising measures to hedge risks, andin ensuring the necessary flexibility to implement a complex and large program without undue difficulties.The Bank team involved in project preparation has highly competent as were the external consultants whocontributed specific technical analyses. The team was clearly centered in Mexico and counted with theparticipation of a national technical advisory group which played the role of quality control and offacilitator of inter-institutional collaboration. In a large country such as Mexico, this particular projectpreparation format proved an essential element for the subsequent success in project implementation. Moreattention could have been paid to engaging state educational authorities in the early stages of projectpreparation, but time constraints were impediments. Bank analysis of financial management, procurementcapacity, implementation readiness and technical design was thorough. Monitoring and evaluationindicators were designed to allow for the partial evaluation of outcomes in each phase, with an in-depthevaluation at the completion of Phase III. This option was chosen instead of a phase by phase in depthevaluation, because the changes in education quality indicators take a rather long time to mature and theduration of each program phase is comparatively short to permit capturing the full benefits of the program.

7.2 Supervision:

- 12 -

ICR Rating: SatisfactoryThere were seven supervision missions dunng the 30-month period of project implementation. Allsupervision missions rated implementation as satisfactory. The missions were well staff and planned, andwere able to deal with programmatic changes proposed by the government in competent and timely fashion,obviating the need for unnecessary legal amendments. Compliance with Bank safeguard policies, and withlegal, financial and procurement norms, was systematically verified by project supervision missions, andconcrete recommendations were made when deficiencies were observed. The Mexican resident missionstaff significantly contributed to the improvement in the quality of supervision observed in the case of thisproject. Moreover, several field visits were conducted to ascertain project advancements at the local leveland to listen to suggestions from civil society and state authorities. Although Bank supervision missionsalso systematically consulted with the higher authorities at SEP, more attention could have been paid tooptimize the collaboration by organizing periodic workshops with the technical staff of the Undersecretariatof Basic and Normal Education, whose inputs are vital for the achievement of the long term projectobjectives.

7.3 Overall Bank peiformance

ICR Rating: SatisfactoryOverall, Bank performance was satisfactory. Possibly more concerted efforts to understand the restrictionsfaced by the states and by CONAFE in complying with the requirements of the FDI could have resulted inits redesign and application before project closing, better preparing for the expanded application of suchfund during Phase II.

Borrower7.4 Preparation.

ICR Rating: SatisfactoryThe performance of the government in preparing the project was satisfactory. Special efforts were made toanalyze all lessons learned from previous operations and to apply these lessons in the design of the newnational program. The states were given a role in micro-planning selected aspects of the project, in linewith the process of education decentralization. The technical staff from SEP and CONAFE whoparticipated in project design were highly competent and mutually reinforcing, in their effort to strengthenthe project design and to reach inter-agency consensus in support of project interventions. Theircollaboration with the Bank team was highly effective.

7.5 Government implementation performance:

ICR Rating: SatisfactoryThe Government satisfactorily carried out project implementation. Budgetary authorities were responsiveto the increased project costs and provided sufficient budget to reach its expanded goals. Nevertheless, asalready mentioned in section 5, delays in liberating the budget resulted in project implementation delaysthat could have been avoided.

7 6 Implementing Agency:

ICR Rating: SatisfactoryCONAFE and the SEPEs were able to manage well a large construction program and an also large andcomplex procurement process. In both cases, performance was very satisfactory. In the case ofprocurement, for example, CONAFE's procedures to acquire computers for telesecundarias was rated best

- 13 -

practice in the Latin American and Caribbean Region. CONAFE and SEPEs also took the lead, with Bankassistance, in introducing intemet procurement during project implementation (COMPRANET). Given thevery large databases that characterize the education sector in Mexico, CONAFE demonstrated goodcapacity to timely process information necessary to monitor project activities. As in the case of PAREB,project planning, budgeting and operations were professionally carried out by CONAFE. Perhaps the mostoutstanding example of satisfactory implementation performance was the ability of CONAFE to embarkinto innovative initiatives and to mobilize state and federal support for carrying them out.

7 7 Overall Borrower performance:I1CR Rating: SatisfactoryThe government demonstrated its strong commitment toward education equity by financing the expansionof compensatory programs and by fully supporting the project objectives. The government staff at federaland state levels have shown general administrative efficiency in carrying out the necessary actions toimplement the project. There was less political will to move decisively in disseminating the results ofstudent achievement evaluations. However, the new Administration is committed to this goal and measuresare being taken to make the best use of the results of evaluations.

8. Lessons Learned

The lessons learned from the implementation of the PAREB pertaining to targeting mechanisms, the needfor well designed outcome indicators, in-service teacher training reform, community and especially parentsparticipation, apply to this project as well but will not be repeated here (see ICR for Ln. 3722-ME; see alsothe Project Appraisal Document for the Basic Education Phase II, Report No. 23295-ME). The additionallessons drawn from the experience of this project are:

The APL instrument is especially well suited for achieving program objectives that require long terminvestments, such as improvements in the quality of basic education. This is so, because the APLfavors consistency in the overall policy framework, which in turn helps sustain program activities overtime. The APL also promotes periodic evaluations of partial achievements during the implementationof the program, facilitating timely corrections. The experience of the first phase of PAREIB showsthat working within an overall policy framework is crucial for the success of the project, particularlywhen changes in Administration take place. The Mexican govemment is very supportive of the use ofthis lending instrument for selected sectors, as it recognizes the value of the flexibility it affords and thebenefits of incorporating in subsequent program phases the lessons learned from earlier phases. Theuse of the APL in this case, proved that triggers should be fewer in number, should focus the mostimportant aspects of the project, and should be designed in ways that lead to reliable measures. Thistype of trigger should replace the long array of output indicators that characterized the early APLs,such as this one.

Overall success requires flexibility to adapt program interventions to local needs and evolvingexperience. Successful approaches tend to include allowances for adaptation to improve the fitbetween design and the particular needs of local contexts. PAREIB-I demonstrated the value of suchflexibility. Diversity in the approaches taken by different states contributes to enriching the learningexperience of the program itself, allowing for cross-fertilization from state to state and for thedevelopment of an improved overall strategy. Within the basic framework provided by the GovermmentNational Education Program 2000-2006, PAREIB-II will retain the flexibility to adjust to local needsand will directly stimulate innovative policies at state level, through the Basic Education InnovationFund.

- 14 -

Education Federalism. Mexico has decentralized to the states the function of providing universalbasic education since 1992. PARE, PAREB and PAREIB-I supported this decentralization policy withtechnical assistance to strengthen the capacity of the states to deliver both regular and compensatoryeducation programs. The experience of PAREIB-I in this respect, taught two important lessons. First,technical assistance should be directed at certain key policy reformns, such as integration of theadministration of basic education, and rationalization of operations through the elimination offunctional duplication at state level. Second, allowing the states to seek assistance from the federallevel to address their specific problems is useful, but very often is side-tracked into simply providingadditional funding for routine administrative functions. In other words, instituting a demand drivenmechanism is not enough to efficiently foster education federalism. Instead, it is important to provideincentives at the state level to generate innovation, thereby national program can be appropnatelyadjusted to the state context, reinforcing the fact that the states are indeed responsible for the educationoutcomes within their borders. The revised design of the Basic Education Innovation Fund will seek tomeet this goal in PAREIB-II.

Pilot Programs. The basis of successful pilot programs seems to be the availability of pertinentresearch findings to orient the selection of appropriate intervention which the pilot will test, as well asthe necessary institutional base to carry out the pilot. It is not enough to identify a pressing problem.For example, while the problem of street children who are not working or attending school in marginalurban areas is an acute one, particularly taking into account the highly urbanized Mexican context; apilot program to address their needs (planned for PAREIB-I) did not succeed without the necessaryresearch and institutional bases. Clearly, it is not advisable to "jump into action" without a definedprogram design and implementation mechanisms. At a minimum, the failed experience in PAREIB-I inthis area served to highlight the importance of the problem. Street children now command a key placewithin SEP's program, not only through the creation of a special comnmittee to address the problem, butalso as part of the National Education Program for the current Administration. PAREIB-II will buildupon this experience by supporting a study of basic education in marginalized areas of Mexico City,with the goal of identifying specific interventions that will help retain poor urban children in school andimprove the quality of the education they receive.

Poverty and Monitoring and Evaluation. The relationship between education and income in Mexico,as elsewhere, is positive. Economic rates of returns are positive for all levels, even after a significantexpansion of the education system. Given the strong emphasis on poverty alleviation in Mexico, theBank regularly monitors the relationship between education and the incidence of poverty.Systematically, education attainment exerts a very powerful negative effect on the probability of beingpoor. Every year of additional education decreases by 5 percent the chance of an individual to beclassified as poor. Now that Mexico has reached a good coverage at the primary education level, thefocus of priority investment in the sector is, at the margin, to increase quality of pnmary education butalso coverage and quality of preschool and lower secondary education. This is a central objective ofPAREIB-II.

Achievement and sustainability of organizational and operational changes require continuousreinforcement of ownership and participation throughout project design and implementation.Experience of PAREIB-I shows the importance of incorporating all key players (SEP, CONAFE,SEPEs, parents, among others), involved in the program. SEP and CONAFE took leading roles in thepreparation of the program and both have remained actively involved in monitoring, assessing progressand adjusting its design. Support for parents' participation in key aspects of school management duringPAREIB-I was highly successful both in empowering parents and in improving the accountability ofteachers to the communities in which they work.

- 15 -

Identification of the factors that contribute most to student learning is key. Appropriate policiesand relevant sector interventions require a capacity not only to assess student learning outcomes, butalso to identify which factors produce the best results, and which interventions are most effective inensuring the presence of those factors. While the diagnostic capabilities of states and central units haveimproved, they require continued attention, particularly in the poorest states. PAREIB-II willstrengthen the capacity to evaluate learning outcomes at the federal and state levels, and mostimportantly, will provide for the systematic dissemination of learning achievement test results at theschool level.

The design of schemes involving inter-state competition needs careful planning and probing forpolitical feasibility prior to implementation. The Institutional Development Fund included in thisproject is a case in point of less than satisfactory preparation leading to failure, in spite of what seemedbasically a good idea. Several important aspects were not addressed when designing this particularinnovation, namely: (i) political considerations make inter-state competition in Mexico highly risky;(ii) the operational rules of any new activity must be sufficiently clear to be readily absorbed by allparties involved; highly complex rules that combined competition with equity considerations proved tohave no legitimacy at state level; (iii) procedures need to be streamlined to encourage potentialparticipants to embark in non-traditional endeavors; the likelihood of spending too much time andresources in trying out a new federal initiative possibly discourages the participation of the states; (iv)sufficiently well know and competent technical staff should be made responsible for judging proposalsoriginated from the states, especially when the winning proposals are to be competitively funded;preferably these staff should be placed at the highest levels of authority within the national educationsector; and (v) federal authorities need to be prepared to provide technical assistance to the statesduring the introductory phase of a new program, otherwise undue difficulties may lower the quality ofthe proposals. This sub-component was revised for implementation during Phase II taking into accountthese aspects.

9. Partner Comments

(a) Borrower/iniplementing agencyGENERAL COMMENTS ON

THE IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (ICR) OFLOAN 4333-ME IPAREIIB]

The report presents - in a clear and succinct manner, the actions of greater relevancedeveloped by PAREIB, highlighting more the achievements and advances than the weaknessesin the implementation of these programs.

o This compensatory education program advanced substantially, by providing distanceeducation (telesecundaria) reaching and surpassing, in almost all the cases, the objectives andthe agreed targets, especially with respect to educational infrastructure and school equipment.

In general terms, the results of the objectives and commitrnents with the World Bank werequalified as satisfactory; however, the following aspects require continued strengthening:

o Among the weaknesses of the project the following are highlighted. The high rotation of

- 16 -

agents in school supervision, causes a decrease in the school visits, affecting the operation ofthe school projects. With respect to institutional development, the area of evaluation of thequality of education needs to be strengthened, both in the methodology of teaching and in theassessment of student achievement. There is a lack of indicators to measure the impact of theproject and the learning achievement of the students. The financial and normative authoritiesof the Mexican Government (SHCP and SEP) should make their best effort to comply withfuture budgetary commitments agreed to, and to provide the funds in an opportune way,through good planning mechanisms.

* Among the aspects that can still be improved, the following are cited. A normative andconsistent framework supporting the achievement of the program objectives, needs to besustained. Greater involvement of participant agents. Better achievement indicators. Themodernization of the competences of teachers can be more effectively achieved when astrategy or plan of technical support in the classroom is combined with training.

(b) Cofinanciers:NA

(c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector).NA

10. Additional Information

- 17 -

Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix

Outcome/Impact Indicators:Baseline - Actual

Indicator - 1998-1999 2000-2001 - - Change.!--. t'',---.¢;, .' ' L .: . - ,, - ' ' ', (A) (B) (A)-(B) _O_

Increase enrollment rates in lower secondary schoolsProject telesecundarias 82,722 147,508 64,786 +78.3National telesecundarias 913,609 1,053,462 139,853 +15.3

Increase completion rates in lower secondary schoolsProject telesecundarias 76.7% 72.1% 4.6 -6.0National lower secondary schools 76.1% 76.3% 0.2 +0.3

Reduce repetition rates in lower secondary schoolsProject telesecundarias 1.0% 0.5% 0.5 -50.0National lower secondary schools 1.5% 1.3% 0.2 -13.3

Reduce dropout rates in lower secondary schoolsProject telesecundarias 8.1% 9.0% 0.9 +11.1National lower secondary schools 9.7% 8.5% 1.2 -12.4

Reduce failure rates in lower secondary schoolsProject telesecundarias 11.9% 4.8% 7.1% -60.0National lower secondary schools 21.1% 20.0% 0.1% -0.5

Triggers for API1II

. i'' lhdicator . Appraisal Target . .. . . Acrual/Latest EstimateSun.imary:)OF 16 triggers, 14 iere fullUycor'plied withi or surpassed; 2 triggers were only pariially'met.o 60% of civil works o 7,968 buildings o 6,667 building (83.8% of target)o 80% of goods o 3,532 procurement o 7,598 actions (I 15% of target)

implemented actionso 60% training plan o 59,000 teachers and o 96,648 teachers and supervisors trained

implemented supervisors trained (164% of target)o 80% of target schools o Initiatives by teachers o Completed. The model has been expanded to

started school projects supported by training all national primary schools(Proyectos Escolares) and supervisors

o Evaluation system: 0 Report 0 SEP report completedbaseline study, action o Baseline 0 Baseline completedplan, including o Action plan 0 Action plan completeddissemination strategy ___

o Regional Planning o Action plan to be 0 Regional Planning system satisfactorilysystem: basic system prepared by SEP completedinstalled at centrallevel and action plan

-18 -

* Pilot Programs * Progress report and Three pilot programs were implemented and haveaction plans on four (4) been incorporated into the regular program:pilot programs * Education for migrant children

* Inter-cultural program for indigenous childrenattending general schools

* Rural secondary education (Posprimaria)* The pilot program for out-of-school 9 to 14

year old children in marginal urban areas wasnot implemented because the agency originallydesignated to carry it out (INEA) legallychanged its mandate, restricting services toadults.

* Institutional * 60% of funds The FDI implementation consisted of two parts:Development Fund disbursed, participation (a) Basic Fund to prepared State Strategic Plans;(FDI) of at least 15 states, and (b) Competitive Fund to support institutional

progress report and development initiatives identified in the strategyaction plan plans and proposed by the states.

* Part (a) of the FDI was completed* Part (b) was postponed to APL-2 with a

revised design because the original designproved inadequate.

* Policy framework for * Policy continuity * The new Administration has confirmed itscompensatory policy commitment.education programsmaintained

* Targeting mechanism * Assessment of * Targeting mechanisms proved effective andeffectiveness and use of were systematically used.targeting mechanism

* Beneficiary * Carry out beneficiary * CONAFE carried out yearly beneficiaryAssessment assessment assessments, the results of which are

incorporated in the annual investmentprogram.

* CONAFE financial * Progress under * An in-depth financial management assessmentmanagement CONAFE's financial of CONAFE was carried out during the

management preparation of APL-2. Results show thatimprovement action CONAFE has a satisfactory financialplan management systems and procedures.

* State level financial * Action plans for the 17 * All participating states received technicalmanagement capacity participating state assistance in procurement and financial

management, successfully carrying out theiraction plans.

* Evaluation system at * Evidence of utilization * All states participate in the national learningstate level of improved evaluation achievement evaluation system for primary

systems in at least 15 and lower secondary education.states

* Strategic State Plans * Evidence of preparation * 20 states have successfully completed strategicof strategic plans for at plans for institutional development.least 15 states

- 19 -

o Counterpart funds o Evidence of adequate o The availability of counterpart funds has notproject counterpart been a problem during implementation.funds Moreover, Government financing exceeded

appraisal estimates by 184%.

Output Indicators:Indicator Appraisal Actual % of

Target TargetA: Quality Improvements in Initial and Basic Education

Coverage of initial education (families) 87,334 304,440 348.6Coverage of initial education (children) NA 365,328 NACoverage of preschool (students) 656,000 31,413 4.8Coverage of rural secondary education:

o Posprimaria (students) 8,025 9,575 119.3o Posprimaria (schools) 321 383 119.3o Telesecundaria (students) 231,000 147,508 63.9o Telesecundaria (schools) 6,200 6,061 97.8

A. 1 Trainine - All trainees 59A448 97.297 163.7o Teachers 49,000 86,150 175.8o Principals 10,000 10,498 105.0o Community trainers 448 649 144.9

A. 2 School-based managemento School projects (Proyectos Escolares) 200 200 100.0o Teacher Incentives NA 13,454 NAo School management support (AGEs) NA 37,819 NA

A. 3 Strengthening school sunervisiono Perdiem for supervisors 4,853 4,002 82.5o Perdiem for sector chiefs NA 634 NAo Package of materials for supervision offices 7,285 0 0

A.4 School Infrastructure: Civil works, equipment, didactic materialsDidactic Materias - All packages 324,250 311.667 96.1

o Initial Edu Parents 87,334 304,440 348.6o Pedagogic Assistants 1,426 0 0o Teachers 93,135 0 0o Classrooms 123,942 0 0o Schools 18,413 6,469 35.1o Instructors and Trainers 576 7587 131.6

New construction and furniture: All units 7.968 6.677 83.8o Classrooms 3,984 4,532 113.8o Latrines 2,390 593 24.8o Bathrooms 1,594 1,516 95.1o Offices NA 16 NAo Storage rooms NA 15 NAo Libraries NA 5 NA

Rehabilitation: All units 5$898 18.631 315.9o Classrooms 3,984 14,398 361.4o Bathrooms 1,754 4,209 240.0o Libraries 160 24 15.0

- 20 -

Equipment: All equipment 4,919 7,598 154.5o Workshops 80 158 197.5o Laboratories 160 60 37.5o Vehicles 50 50 100.0o Replacement school furmiture 3,795 4,802 126.5o Bookshelves 381 544 142.8o TV and VCRs 216 318 147.2o Tape recorders 237 341 143.9o EDUSAT signal receivers NA 110 NAo Power surge regulators NA 135 NAo Computers NA 598 NAo Printers NA 336 NAo Solar power installations NA 110 NAo Expansion of solar power installations NA 36 NA

B. Institutional StrengtheningB. I At Federal Level

Evaluation systemo Number of participating states 31 31 100.0o Comparative study of rural schools I I 100.0

Reaional Planningo Number of participating states 31 31 100.0o States using geo-reference planning tools 20 20 100.0

Pilot Programso Migrant children I I 100.0o Children age 9-14 in urban marginal areas I 0 0o Inter-cultural program for indigenous children in general schools 1 I 100.0

Studieso Comparative Study of Rural Schools I I 100.0

B.2 Institutional Strengthening at State Levelo No. states receiving training, technical assistance and advice to

technical staff and middle and higher management in SEPEs 17 17 100.0o Design and implementation of state-specific strategic plans (

Planes Estrategicos Rectores) (FDI-a) 20 20 100.0o Institutional Development Fund (FDI-b) 15 0 0

B.3 Proiect Managemento Regional project launch seminars 4 4 100.0o National project launch seminar I I 100.0

- 21 -

Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing

Project Costs by Componet (in US$ million equivalent) \i- . . - E stimae - ~Pere ntage

---. ' . ', Componento N . . , - Appraisal Estimate Acrual.Latesi-Estimate of AppraisalA. Quality Improvements in Initial and Basic

EducationA. 1 Training 27.2 32.1 118.0A.2 School Management 1.4 24.6 1757.1A 3 School Supervision 8.6 1.0 11.63A.4 Infrastructure, equipment & didactic materials 89.3 131.3 147.0

B. Strengthening Institutional Capacity at Federal andState Levels 14.7 9.0 61.2

C. Project Management 8.8 16.5 187.5

Total Project Costs 150.0 214.5 143.0I/ The latest estimate of Project costs by componeLnt was based on annual cost in current Mexican Pesos transformed in US dollars usmg the following average exchange

rates 1998 = 9 1357, 1999 = 9 5605, 2000 = 94556. 2001 = 93425

Project Costs b Procurement Arrangements (in US$ million equivalent) \i-_ - - : S - * Appraisal Estimate. .:. - - ActualLalest Estimate . _- _ -

Categones ICB NCB . . Other 2 NBF- Total : ICB NCB Otner 2 NBF. Total

Works 0 0 0 0 524 0 0 52 4 0.0 0.0 80 5 0 0 80 5(0.0) (0 0) (36 7) (0 0) (36.7) (0 0) (0 0) (62.3) (0 0) (62 3)

Goods 1 9 17.1 14.8 0 0 33.8 0 0 34 5 16 3 0 0 50 8(1.3) (12 0) (9 8) (0 0) (23.1) (0 0) (11.6) (5 5) (0 0) (17 1)

Training 0 0 0 0 27.2 0 0 27.2 0.0 0 0 32.1 0 0 32.1(0 0) (0 0) (24.5) (0 0) (24 5) (0.0) (0 0) (20 8) (0 0) (20 8)

Other 00 00 18 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0.0 34.6 0 0 34 6ServtCeS (0 0) (0 0) (17 7) (0 0) (17 7) (0 0) (0 0) (1 8) (0 0) (1.8)

Operabonal 0 0 0 0 18 6 0 0 18 6 0 0 0 0 16 5 0 0 16 5Costs (0 0) (0.0) (13 0) (0 0) (13 0) (0 0) (0.0) (13.0) (0.0) (13 0)

Total 1 9 17 1 131 0 0 0 150 0 0.0 34.5 180 0 0.0 214 5(1 3) (12.0) (101 7) (0 0) (115 0) ( 00) (11.6) (1034) (0.0) (115.0)

I/ Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the Bank loan2/Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of contractedstaff of the project management offices, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs relatedto managing the project.

- 22 -

Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent)Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of

Components Estimate Estimate AppraisalBank Gov. Bank Gov Bank Gov.

A. Quality Improvements in Initial and BasicEducation 95.0 315 101.4 87.6 106 7 278.1

B. Strengthening Institutional Capacity at Federal 13.8 0.9 8.5 0.5 61.6 55.6and State Levels

6.2 2.6 5.1 I1 4 82.3 438.5C. Project Management

TOTAL 115.0 35 0 115.0 99.5 100.0 284.3

- 23 -

Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits

An economic analysis of PAREIB-I was not carried out due to the short duration of projectimplementation. The analysis will be done upon completion of Phase-III of the program when benefits canbe reliably measured.

-24 -

Annex 4. Bank Inputs

(a) Missions.Stage of Project Cycle No. of Persons and Specialty Performance Rating

(e.g. 2 Economists, I FMS, etc.) Implementation DevelopmentMonth/Year Count Specialty Progress Objective

(dentification/PreparationJanuary 1996 5 1 Sociologist, 2 Education

Specialists, 2 Economists.May 1997 2 2 Education SpecialistsAugust 1997 3 Educ. Specs., I Economist, I

Assistant, I lawyerNovember 1997 10 2 Educ Specs., I Soc. Sector

Spec., 2 Assistants, 2Economists, I Operations Spec.,I FM Spec., I lawyer

Appraisal/NegotiationMarch 1998 8 2 Education Spec., I Soc.

Sector Specialist, ISociologist, I Assistant, IProc. Spec., I OperationsSpec., I Economist.

April 1998 1 1 Architect S

SupervisionJan.-Feb. 1999 7 2 Educ. Spec., I Sociologist, S S

2 Proc. Spec., I Economist, IFM Spec.

July 1999 6 2 Educ. Spec., I Economist, 2 S SAssistants, I Lawyer

June 2000 8 2 Educ. Specs., I Soc. Sector S SSpec., 5 Architects

July-August 2000 3 1 Sociologist, I Soc. Sector S SSpec., I Accountant

December 2000 4 1 Sociologist, 1 Soc. Sector S SSpec., I Proc. Spec., I FMSpec.

February 2001 6 1 Sociologist, I Soc. Sector S SSpec., I Proc. Spec., IEconomist, I FMSpec., IAssistant.

Sept.-Oct. 2001 2 1 Sociologist, I IT Spec. S S

ICRMarch 2002 3 1 Sociologist, I Soc. Sector

Spec., I Educ. Spec., IEconomist.

- 25 -

(b) Staff:

Stage of Project Cycle Actual/Latest Estimate

No. Staff weeks US$ ('000)

Identification/Preparation NA 3.6Appraisal/Negotiation NA 1.2Supcrvision NA 1.4ICR NA 0.5Total NA 6.7

(*) The budget system does not record the number of staff weeks.(**) Dollar figures by stages of project cycle are estimated because the budget system distinguishes onlybetween lending and supervision phases.

-26 -

Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components

(H=Hlgh, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Ncgligible, NA=Not Applicable)

RatingO Macro policies O H OSUOM O N * NAO Sector Policies O H * SU O M ON O NAL Physical * H OSUOM O N O NAEl Financial O H OSUOM O N * NAOI Institutional Development 0 H 0 SU 0 M 0 N 0 NAO Environmental 0 H 0 SU 0 M 0 N * NA

SocialOI Poverty Reduction * H OSUOM O N O NAO Gender O H OSUOM O N * NAI Other (Please specify) O H OSU O M O N * NA

L Private sector development 0 H O SU O M 0 N * NAI Public sector management 0 H * SU 0 M 0 N 0 NA

OIOther (Please specify) O H O SU OM O N * NA

- 27 -

Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance

(HS=Hilghly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory)

6.1 Bank performance Rating

O Lending OHS OS OU OHUEl Supervision OHS OS OU OHUOI Overall OHS OS OU O HU

6.2 Borrower performance Rating

LII Preparation OHS OS O U O HUOI Government implementation performance O HS O S 0 U 0 HUEl Implementation agency performance O HS O S 0 U 0 HUI Overall OHS OS OU OHU

- 28 -

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents

A. Project Completion ReportCONAFE (Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo). 2000. "Informe del Termino de la Implementaci6n -Mexico Programa para Abatir el Rezago en Educaci6n Inicial y Bcisica (Pr6stamo 4333-ME) " May..

B. Bank Staff AssessmentsJunho-Pena, Nahmad, Albano, Aranda & Nielsen. June 1997. Draft. Evaluaci6n Rapida de la Educaci6n

Indigena en los Estados de Oaxaca y Chiapas para el Proyecto de Educaci6n Basica III enMexico.

World Bank. Mexico CAS. 1996, updated March 6, 1998. Report No. R-99-49. November 25.1997. ICR Mexico: Initial Education Project-Ln-3518-ME. Report No. 17192. October 30.

--------- 1998. ICR Mexico: Primary Education Project - Ln-3407-ME. Report No. 17303. January 20.--------- 1998a. Project Appraisal Document for a Basic Education Development (PAREIB) Project. Report

No. 17535-ME.--------- 1999. Poverty Assessment for Mexico.

2001. Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Identity and Poverty in Mexico Urban Profile: An ExploratoryStudy. Green Cover. Report No. 22054-ME. June 12.

--------- 2001 a. Mexico: Basic Education Development Phase 11, Summary Risk Assessment Report onFinancial Management. December 3.

C. OtherCONAFE. (1996-2000). Database. Indigenous Schools Receiving CONAFE Support.--------- 1997a. "Esquema Metodol6gico de Focalizaci6n e Integralidad desarrollado en el Programa para

Abatir el Rezago en Educaci6n Inicial y Basica PAREIB."--------- 1998. "Subcomponente 1.2.1. Proyecto Escolar: Una Estrategia para Transformar Las Escuelas"

March.--------- 1998a. "Subcomponente 11.1 Consohdaci6n de los Sistemas Estatales de Evaluaci6n Educativa".

March.--------- 1998b. "Subcomponente 11.1.3. Estudios. Proyecto: Modelo de Educaci6n Primaria para Nifios

Jomaleros Agricolas Migrantes". March.--------- 1998c. "Subcomponente 11.1.3. Estudios. Proyecto: Modelo de Educaci6n Primaria para

Poblaci6n de Grupo de Edad 9-14 de Zonas Urbanas." March.--------- 1999. Direcci6n General De Educaci6n Indigena, Didactica Bilingiie, Oralidad en Lengua Materna,

Manual Del Maestro, Primaria Indigena. August.--------- 2000a. Acciones Bajo los Subcomponentes de Capacitaci6n Gerencial y Asistencia T6cnica.

Docencia Rural, Proyecto Escolar para Mejorar las competencias basicas, El trabajo en el aula,Manual del Maestro, Primaria General. 1998,1999 y 2000 (Resumen Ejecutivo). August 19.

--------- 2000b. Acciones y metas 98-2000 del Subcomponente I.1.- Mejoramiento de la Calidad De LosServicios De Educaci6n Inicial Y Basica. Compromisos del PAD y Avance De Acciones Y Metas.August.

--------- 2000c. Analisis Comparativo De Indicadores Educativos Entre Escuelas Primarias Atendidas PorAcciones Compensatorias Versus Escuelas Primarias No Atendidas, Contrastaci6n con La MediaEstatal Y Media Nacional, PARE/PAREB. June.

--------- 2000d. Avance de la Ejecuci6n Fisica, Metas Acumuladas desde el inicio del proyecto hasta el 31de Octubre 2000, PAREIB. Programas Compensatorios. November.

--------- 2000e. Avances del Modelo De Proyectos. Coordinaci6n de Programas Compensatorios,Subdirecci6n De Contenidos, Metodos y Materiales. November.

- 29 -

----- 2000f. Colegiado Nacional del Proyecto Posprimaria, Relatoria de la Mesa: El Futuro de laPosprimaria. November.

------- 2000g. Direcci6n General De Educaci6n Indigena, Didactica Bilingiue, Alfabetizaci6n en LenguaMaterna, Manual del Maestro, Primaria Indigena. March.

--------- 2000h. Didactica Bilingiue, Manual del Maestro, Primaria Indigena, Lectoescritura en LenguaMaterna. Direcci6n General De Educaci6n Indigena. October.

--------- 2000i. Docencia Rural, Proyecto Escolar para Mejorar las Competencias Basicas, El Trabajo en elAula, Bitacora de Clases. August.

---------- 2000j. Docencia Rural, Proyecto Escolar para Mejorar las competencias Basicas, El trabajo en elaula, Manual del Maestro, Primaria Indigena. September.

--------- 2000k. Docencia Rural, Proyecto Escolar para Mejorar las competencias Basicas, El trabajo en elaula, Manual del Supervisor, Primaria General. September.

--------- 20001. Docencia Rural, Proyecto Escolar para Mejorar las competencias BAsicas, El trabajo en elaula, Manual del Supervisor, Primaria Indigena. September.

--------- 2000m. Equidad y Calidad en la Educaci6n Basica, la experiencia del CONAFE y laTelesecundaria en Mexico. November.

--------- 2000n. Focalizaci6n del Universo de Atenci6n Compensatoria. Documento preparado para laUCE's Direcci6n de planeaci6n CONAFE. Validaci6n de los Datos Contenidos En El Universo DeAtenci6n Focalizado De Cada Entidad Federativa. October 27.

--------- 2000o. "indices de Permanencia y Rotaci6n de Docentes Incentivados en el Estado de Hidalgo,Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Campeche, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Puebla, San LuisPotosi, Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan". February.

--------- 2000p. Informe de Avances del Modelo de Posprimaria. August.--------- 2000q. Informe de Avances del Subcomponente 11.2 Planes Estrategicos Rectores. August.--------- 2000r. Informe del Estudio: Disefio de una modalidad de atenci6n para poblaci6n infantil agricola

migrante. Direccion General de Investigaci6n Educativa (DGIE) de la Subsecretaria de Educaci6nBasica y Normal (SEByN). August.

--------- 2000t. Informe de los Avances del Proyecto Escolar: Una estrategia para transformar las escuelasDGIE de la SEByN. August.

------ - 2000u. Inicio de cursos 2000-2001, Localidades con 2,500 habitantes o menos, datos obtenidos delcatalogo de centros de trabajo de inicio de cursos 2000-2001. Educaci6n primaria, educaci6n primariarural /urbana. Republica Mexicana, ciclo escolar 2001-2002.

--------- 2000v. Intervenci6n educativa con nihias y nifios indigenas que asisten a escuelas primariasgenerales. Experiencias de los estados de Nuevo Le6n y Guanajuato. August.

---------- 2000w. La Acci6n Compensatoria, Resultados desagregados de indicadores educativos, seriehist6rica, Total PARE, Chiapas, Guerrero e Hidalgo. November.

---------- 2000x. La Acci6n Compensatoria, Resultados desagregados de indicadores educativos, seriehist6rica, Total PAREB, Campeche, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Oaxaca, Puebla, SLP,Tabasco, Veracruz y YucatAn. November.

--------- 2000y. La Educaci6n Inicial dentro de los Programas Compensatorios.---------- 2000z. La Posprimana al Lado De Otros Servicios En Las Comunidades. November.--------- 2000aa. Lineamientos Generales Para La Operaci6n Del Proyecto Posprimaria, Comunitaria

Rural. April.--------- 2000ab. Lineamientos Para El Otorgamiento De Recursos Financieros, Gastos A Comprobar En

Oficinas Centrales. Sistema de Gesti6n Financiera del CONAFE y a nivel estatal. June.--------- 2000ac. Memoria de la Gesti6n 1995-2000. October.--------- 2000ad. Metas POA 2001. Programas Compensatorios. November.2001. Programas Compensatorios, Subdirecci6n de Informaci6n y Seguimiento. June.--------- 2000ag. PAREIB / Lineamientos para el componente 11.2, Fortalecimiento de la Capacidad De

- 30 -

Gesti6n lnstitucional De CarActer Estatal. November.--------- 2000ah. PAREIB Necesidades de Infraestructura, Educaci6n General. Direcci6n De Planeaci6n.

Documento Intemo de Trabajo. November 11.--------- 2000ai. Plan Estrategico Rector, Yucatan, Durango, Nayarit, Queretaro, Quintana Roo, San Luis

Potosi, Sinaloa. Direcci6n De la Unidad de los Programas Compensatorios, Subdirecci6n deFortalecimiento Institucional. October.

--------- 2000aj. Posprimaria Colegiado Nacional Relatoria de la Mesa: La Posprimaria y la Educaci6nComunitaria. November 23.

---------- 2000ak. Posprimaria Comunitaria Rural, Reporte de Evaluaci6n. November.---------- 2000al. Posprimaria, Delegaci6n San Luis Potosi, Mesa 4, El Futuro de la Posprimaria.

November.---------- 2000am. Posprimaria Delegaci6n San Luis Potosi, Mesa 4, La Posprimaria dentro del CONAFE.

November.--------- 2000an. Reuni6n Regional de Evaluaci6n, SEDE: Tijuana Baja California. Sistema Educativo

Estatal en Baja California, Coordinaci6n de Programas Compensatorios / PIARE. September 20.--------- 2000ao. Universo de atenci6n PAREIB (4333-ME ) para el 2001. August.--------- 2000ap. Tres Ai'os de Posprimaria, Comunitaria Rural, Mkxzco. October.--------- 2001a. Avance de la Ejecuci6n Fisica, Metas Acumuladas desde el inicio del proyecto hasta el 31

de diciembre del 2000, PAREIB. Programas Compensatorios. February.--------- 2001b. Ciclo escolar 2001-2002. PAREIB Componente: Recursos Didacticos, Auxiliares

Dida