Nicaragua EFA Revised Proposal Nov 21 (All)

Republic of Nicaragua
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports
1
Nicaragua
Education for All – Fast Track Initiative
Country Proposal
November 21, 2002
The proposal was written by: Emilio Porta, Advisor to The Minister of Education,
Culture and Sports of Nicaragua (MECD), Gustavo Arcia, Consultant, Robin Horn, Task
Manager World Bank. The authors acknowledge the support given by the technical staff
of MECD.
2
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 7
I. Profile of Nicaragua........................................................................................................................ 7
A. Poverty and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP).................................................. 8
B. Political Context ................................................................................................................ 8
II. Education for All by 2015 .............................................................................................................. 9
A. Government Commitment to Education for All ................................................................... 9
B. Current Status of Key Indicators versus EFA Targets........................................................... 9
C. Education Sector Performance: 1993-2001........................................................................ 10
Major Achievements in Education .................................................................................... 10
Improving Internal Efficiency and Student Flow ................................................................ 11
Increasing Emphasis on Quality Enhancing Investments .................................................... 12
Chief Constraints to Achieving EFA ................................................................................. 13
Preschool attendance............................................................................................................ 14
D. Key Government Policy Initiatives ................................................................................... 15
School Autonomy in Nicaragua: A Success Story ..................................................................... 15
Other Government Initiatives ................................................................................................... 16
The National Education Plan: 2000-2015 .................................................................................. 17
III. Education Financing ................................................................................................................... 18
Education Expenditures and Education Finance ......................................................................... 18
Private Costs of Public Schooling ............................................................................................. 18
Public Financing of Primary Education ..................................................................................... 19
IV. Conclusions: Key Constraints to Achieving the Targets of Education for All...................... 23
V. Nicaragua's EFA-FTI Program: An Overview........................................................................ 23
EFA-FTI Program Firmly Rooted in National Education Plan. ....................................... 23
A. Sub-Model I: Schooling Improvement Program (Programa de Mejoramiento
Escolar—PME) ................................................................................................................. 24
Objectives and Targets.......................................................................................... 24
Building on the National Education Plan’s Strategies to Improve School Quality.
............................................................................................................................... 24
Indicators and Targets. .......................................................................................... 25
Building on Successful Experience ...................................................................... 25
Levels of Schooling Improvement ........................................................................ 28
Implementation ..................................................................................................... 29
Costs of Implementation and Trajectory of Outcomes ......................................... 32
B. Sub-Model II: Student Scholarship Program (Programa Becas-Escola res) ................. 35
Building on the National Education Plan to Provide Incentives to the Poor. ....... 35
Costs of Implementation and Targets ........................................................................ 37
C. Evaluation and Monitoring EFA Interventions .................................................................. 38
D. Summary of Outcomes and Financial Requirements of Nicaragua's EFA-FTI Program........ 39
E. Financing EFA Interventions through an EFA Trust Fund .................................................. 43
Creation and Management of an EFA -FTI Trust Fund. ............................................................... 44
3
LIST OF TABLES
Key Indicators of EFA Inputs and Outcomes..................................................................................6
Progress on Attaining PRSP Targets...............................................................................................8
Status of EFA/Sector Development Plans Relative to the “Indicative Framework”.......................9
Current and Projected Education Expenditures (% of GDP).........................................................17
MECD budget 1991-2002...............................................................................................................18
MECD sources of external funding, 2000-03 (US$).....................................................................19
MECD: Average per student cost by type of school, 2002.............................................................20
Indicators and Targets Schooling Improvement Program Sub-Model...............................23
Levels of Schooling Improvement..................................................................................................26
School Autonomy and Enrollment in the Atlantic Region..............................................................29
Approximate Cost per School (US$)...............................................................................................30
Annual Costs of implementation, at different periods of time (US$)..............................................31
Indicators and Targets of the Scholarship Sub-Model (Percent of children in poverty).................32
Average number of years of education by poverty level.................................................................33
Proposed Number of Scholarships per Year, 2003-05.....................................................................33
Proposed scholarship amounts.........................................................................................................34
Financial Requirements of EFA Strategy (‘000s US$)...................................................................40
List of Figures
Reasons why children between ages 7-12 do not attend school....................................................13

MECD budget as percent of GDP..................................................................................................18
Public Primary Education Expenditures 2002...............................................................................19
Trajectories of School Improvement..............................................................................................31
Education Map...............................................................................................................................36
Primary School Enrollment with and without EFA..................................................................... 37
Repetition and Dropouts with and without EFA...........................................................................38
MECD Financial Needs for Primary School with and without EFA............................................38
Financing Requirements for EFA and MECD Budget Projections for Sustainability..................39
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nicaragua, a country of 5 million people and a per capital GDP of $450, is the second poorest
country in Latin America. Despite its poverty, Nicaragua has made dramatic improvements in
education. Primary school enrollment has increased, from 79% in 1993 to 113% in 2001 and the
number of years of education among the extreme poor has increased from 2.8 to 3.6 years during the
same period. This achievement has been noted by the World Bank's paper on EFA financing as one of
the top performing countries in the world in terms of the speed with which it is reaching universal
primary education. Moreover, girls' rate of net enrollment in primary (82%) is almost equal to boys' (83
%) and the average number of years of schooling among girls (5.3 years) is higher than for boys (4.5
years). Gender parity is practically achieved.
Although these trends are encouraging, arriving at universal comple tion of primary education
in 2015 cannot be reached without additional financing for the following reasons: (i) Nicaragua's
population is young and growing—with over 50% of population below 16 years of age—the education
system has to keep on expanding in order to maintain its current coverage, (ii) The high repetition and
dropout rates are due to both poverty (demand side factors) and supply side issues (poor quality of
school). About 50% of children not attending school cited poverty as the main barrier to attendance.
Moreover, children in extreme poverty are twice as likely to repeat and dropout than non-poor
children.
At present, the government spends about US$ 82.6 million in primary education, yielding US$95
per primary school student in traditional centralized schools, and US$ 101 per student in autonomous
schools. Of the total primary school budget, about 32% comes from external funding (US$27 million).
Domestic resources pay for teacher’s salaries, which account for 67 % of the recurrent budget. External
resources finance innovative interventions and supplement non-salary recurrent expenditures, such as
textbooks and school materials.
To reach universal enrollment and completion of primary education, domestic Government

resources will pay for existing teachers and for the additional teachers needed to educate new
students in the system. Given the gains in internal efficiency resulting from the proposed EFA-FTI
strategy, it is expected that by 2015, total expenditures on teacher salaries will be lower than the payroll
expenditures without the EFA strategy. However, to reach universal primary completion, it is estimated
that the government will need to spend a total of US$1.7 billion between 2003 and 2015 altogether to
cover recurrent and capital costs. Of this amount, only 11 % (US$ 180 million) will be needed from
external donors . Most of these additional funds needed are required at the beginning of the decade. As
domestic funds increase, external funding needs will decrease, reaching a breakeven point by 2014. The
additional, donor-financed resources needed for universal completion of primary would be used in two
main areas:
§ an incentive fund to improve the quality of schooling, and
§ direct assistance to families of extremely poor children stimulate their enrollment,
attendance, and learning achievement.
By improving internal efficiency and school quality, and reducing repetition, the system will pay
for itself, which will be manifested in a decline of the total financing need by 2014, even with the
tremendous growth of school-age students that the system must accommodate. These improvements will
provide tremendous social benefits. A work force with enhanced basic skills will be far more productive
and therefore a necessary condition for poverty alleviation and economic growth.
5
Nicaragua has the capacity to achieve universal primary completion. Its track record is the
best indicator of its commitment and capacity. It also has created the capacity to monitor and evaluate its
educational progress through a school tracking system, now in operation, which tracks and geographically
maps all information on infrastructure, teachers, and non-salary items, in each and every school in the
country. This tracking system is scheduled to include the tracking of a student assessment system by next
year. The proposed interventions build up on the success of autonomous schools, which have proven to
be successful in improving internal efficiency, parental participation and quality of service delivery. In
addition, autonomous schools will be reinforced to become Model Schools, a successful system now
ending its 8th year pilot phase. There is no greater return than to invest in the human development in a
country that has both the track record and political will to lift its population out of poverty and affirm
their dignity.
Key Indicators of EFA Inputs and Outcomes

1993 (Historical) 2001 (Baseline) 2015 (Target)
Primary Gross Enrollment Ratio 79 113 100
Net Enrollment Girls 81.4 82.6 100
Net Enrollment Boys 77.9 83.4 100
Completion Rate Grade 6 n.d. 70 100
First Grade Repetition Rate 33a 25 6
Number of Primary School 738,000 906,000 1.16 million
Students
Number of Teachers 18,000 23,510 33,200
Pupil Teacher Ratio 41 36 35
Number of Classrooms n.d. 29,733 40,000
Education Spending as % of 2.7 4.3 4.5
GDP
Primary Spending as % of n.d. 58 60
Education Spending
Teacher Salaries as % of 92 67 65
Recurrent Expenditures
Teacher Salaries as Multiple of 1.1 2.5 3.5
GDP per capita
a
Includes children below 6 years of age whose parents send them to first grade.
Expected Results for Outputs and Outcomes – With and Without EFA
2001 2005 2015 (Target)
Increase in access to 1st Grade 90% 95% 100%
without EFA-FTI 90% 90% 90%
Increase gross enrollment 113% 110% 100%
Increase net enrollment 83% 85% 100%
Increase primary completion 87% 90% 98%
Benefits per beneficiary 2003 2004 2005

Total number of beneficiaries 222,602 243,581 245,126
Total EFA-FTI costs $17,898,000 $25,083,000 $32,060,000
EFA-FTI cost-per-beneficiary $80 $103 $131
6
INTRODUCTION
This proposal was prepared by staff at the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports (MECD) and has as
its main objective the inclusion of Nicaragua into the Education for All—Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI).
As such, it is more of a conceptual framework than a detailed guide for implementation. If Nicaragua is
admitted into the EFA-FTI, the Ministry will prepare a detailed program design and implementation
plan1 .
It is important to point out that this proposal builds on the accomplishments of the National Education
Plan 2001-2015 and on the Government’s Poverty Reduction and Economic Strategy Paper (PRSP). As
such, it reinforces the right of Nicaragua’s children to a basic education, as mandated by the Constitution.
Both the National Education Plan and the Poverty Reduction and Economic Strategy were widely
discussed with the citizenry throughout the country, reaching a well-documented consensus on key issues
affecting education and poverty reduction. The National Education Plan was indeed a collaborative
effort between the MECD and more than 3,000 representatives of the education community, and its
resulting document was vetted and validated in a variety of fora across the country. Moreover, the
Government has presented ample evidence of participation by different groups and stakeholders in civil
society in the consultation process for both initiatives. With regard to the EFA-FTI proposal, the
government consulted with key members of the education community. First, during the preparation
stages the main components were presented to all education donors in three occasions—two as a group,
and one individually. The proposal was also discussed in depth with MECD Directors. Once funding is
certain, the proposal will be discussed with parents and schools to refine its implementation mechanisms 2 .
Although the National Education Plan provided an overall strategic framework to guide sector-wide
education reform, it did not articulate specific quantitative targets. In many ways, the EFA-FTI proposal
takes up where the Plan leaves off. For the area of primary education, the proposal specifies indicators,
annual targets, programmatic mechanisms, and next steps for achieving substantial improvement on
critical indicators. Although it does not delineate management and execution processes, the EFA-FTI
proposal has prepared the foundation for implementation.
This proposal presents only a small portion of all that needs to be done to improve education in
Nicaragua. The proposed activities address some key issues of the National Education Plan in the area of
primary education, which have a cost-effective impact on learning and education for all. However, the
MECD is actively working in other areas in order to complement the activities proposed here.
I. PROFILE OF NICARAGUA
A. Country Overview
Nicaragua, a democratic republic in Central America, has a population of 5 million, growing at 2.6
percent per year, with more than 50 % of its inhabitants below the age of 20. It is considered a low-
1
This report benefited from the inputs and suggestions of USAID, UNICEF, SETEC, and World Bank staff. The
MECD staff responsible for the preparation of this document thanks them for their support.
2
It is extremely important to realize that discussing EFA with parents and teachers, before funding is secured, may
create undue expectation and political fallout if funding does not materialize.
7
income country, with a GDP of approximately US$460, and with 45% of the population classified as poor
and 15 % as extremely poor 3 .
A. Poverty and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP)

Nicaragua has made significant progress over the last decade in reducing poverty. The Living Standards
Measurement Surveys (also referred here to here as Encuesta Nacional de Hogares sobre Medición de
Nivel de Vida—EMNV) carried out for Nicaragua in 1993, 1998 and 2001 show a continuous decline in
the proportion of the total population living under the poverty line. The decline in the share of the
population living in extreme poverty is even more pronounced, having fallen from 19.4 percent in 1993 to
15.1 percent in 2001. The decline in poverty was most pronounced in the rural areas, where most of the
poor are concentrated, and especially in the Pacific and Central regions. Besides poverty reduction,
Nicaragua has exhibited significant progress in meeting its other PRSP targets, which are closely linked
to the Millennium Development Goals. This development reflects the overall positive growth
performance during the second half of the 1990s, the priority given by the government to improving the
coverage of basic social services and generous amounts of donor assistance, especially in the aftermath of
hurricane Mitch in 1998.
Progress on Attaining PRSP Targets
Actual Measures PRSP Targets
Poverty Indicators 1993 1998 1999 2001 2001 2015
Data Source On Track?
Extreme Poverty Ratio (%) LSMS 19.4 17.3 15.1 16.0 9.3 yes
Net Primary Enrollement Ratio (%) MECD 75.6 79.6 88.0 77.9 90.0 yes
Maternal Mortality MINSA 148 125 37 yes
Infant Mortality (/1,000 live births) DHS 40 31 21 yes
Child Mortality (/1,000 live births) DHS 50 40 22 yes
Access to Reprod. Health Serv. (%) MINSA 21.0 23.8 22.0 100.0 partly
Chronic Malnutrition (%) LSMS 23.7 19.7 17.8 17.9 7.0 yes
Water Coverage (%) ENACAL 66.5 70.0 69.5 100.0 partly
Sanitation Coverage (%) LSMS 82.6 84.1 86.2 85.0 95.0 yes
Illiteracy Rate (%) LSMS 21.5 18.8 18.7 18.5 10.0 no
National Strategy for Sustained Development (to be implemented by 2005) yes
Source: World Bank, Nicaragua Poverty Assessment Follow-up, 2002.
B. Political Context
In the presidential election of November 4 2001, Enrique Bolaños won by an unexpectedly wide margin
(56 percent of the popular vote versus 42 percent for the runner-up Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega).
These elections mark the third successive peaceful hand-over of political power in Nicaragua since 1990.
The lack of violence during the elections, the clarity of election results and the reconciliatory post-
election stance of the winning candidate have created a climate of optimism and good will for the
incoming government. Upon assuming office, the new Administration began to implement a vigorous
anti-corruption campaign that has resulted in some notable indictments.
3
The figures presented here are drawn from what it is considered the most reliable sources. In some cases they may
differ from MECD figures because they are taken from national household surveys, which reflect the situation of
children more accurately.
8
II. EDUCATION FOR ALL BY 2015
A. Government Commitment to Education for All

Primary education is one of the success stories of Nicaragua’s social policy in recent years. Despite
significant fiscal constraints, Nicaragua has maintained its commitment to the expansion and
improvement of primary education, and has been able to increase its educational performance. This
progress is evidenced by three world-class surveys on living standards. Through successive government
administrations, Nicaragua has kept it firm commitment to raising the educational attainment of its
citizens, with special attention to the poor or otherwise excluded populations.
B. Current Status of Key Indicators versus EFA Targets

Status of EFA/Sector Development Plans Relative to the “Indicative Framework”
Targets, Rationale and Implementation
Value Indicative
Indicator Targets
in 2001 benchmark by 2015 Rationale to get there
Value Date
Resource mobilization
Public domestically-generated revenues as
23% 14-18 18% 2015 IMF agreement
% of GDP4
Public recurrent spending on education as
% of public recurrent discretionary 14% 20 20 2015 HIPC initiative
spending (a)
Public recurrent spending on primary
education as % of total recurrent spending 65% 42-64 65% 2002 Goal Attained
on education (b)
Student flow indicators

Number of children entering first grade as Increase preschool
a percent of age group (seven year old 66% 100 100 2015 supply; reduce
children) (c) overage
Number of seven year old children in first (these figures use a
grade as a percent of age group (seven 44% different methodology
year old children) than EFA standards)
Number of children enrolled in sixth grade Increase multigrade
as a percent of age group (12 year old 87% 100 98% 2015 schools in rural areas;
children)5 (d) targeted scholarships
Number of 12 year old children enrolled in (these figures use a
sixth grade as a percent of age group (12 66% different methodology
year old children) than EFA standards)
4
It must be noted that domestically generated revenues go down because of expected increases in GDP at a
disproportionally higher rate than the growth of government. As the economy grows, the relative share of
government is expected to decrease.
5
This indicator includes repeaters (3%), yielding a completion rate of 95% and a dropout rate of 2%. These figures
are considered more realistic than a 100% completion rate.
9
Status of EFA/Sector Development Plans Relative to the “Indicative Framework”

Targets, Rationale and Implementation
Value Indicative
Indicator Targets
in 2001 benchmark by 2015 Rationale to get there
Value Date
% repeaters among primary school pupils 8.2% 10 8% 2003 Goal attained
Service delivery indicators
Pupil–teacher ratio in publicly-financed Increase multigrade
36 40 35 2005
primary schools (e) schools
Average annual remuneration of primary 3.5 Per Capita GDP Implement new career
2.5 3.0 2005
school teachers:(f): (Low Income) track for teachers
Existing teachers 2.5 n.a.
New teachers 2.5 n.a.
Teachers under different salary regime
n.a. n.a.
(e.g,, hired by the community)
Recurrent spending on items other than
teacher remuneration as % of total 33% 33 33% 2003 Goal attained
recurrent spending on primary education g)
Annual instructional hours for pupils in
900 1000 1000 2005
publicly-financed primary schools
% of pupils enrolled in privately-financed
7% 7% 7% 2015 Goal Attained
primary schools
a/ Discretionary spending is defined as public spending from all sources less debt service (interest payment only).
b/ Includes spending through ministries providing primary and secondary schooling, vocational/technical education and higher education; the
target “indicative” benchmark by 2015 should be calibrated to the length of the first cycle of schooling, i.e. 5 years, 42% if it is 5 years, 50%, if
6 years, 58% if 7 years, and 64% if 8 years).
c/ Defined as non-repeaters in grade 1 as a percentage of the population cohort at the official age of entry to first grade.
d/ Defined as non-repeaters in grade 6 as a percentage of the population cohort whose age is the official age at entry + 5.
e/ Denominator includes only teachers with teaching duties; publicly financed schools refer to those whose teachers are fully paid by the
government, either directly or indirectly.
f/ Refers to teacher remuneration at mid-career; remuneration includes salary and cash value benefits (i.e. pension, health services, transport,
housing and other items paid for by the state).
g/ Spending on items other than teacher remuneration include: (i) the remuneration of non-teaching staff in schools, as well as staff at the
district, regional or central levels; (ii) spending on pedagogical materials, maintenance and other running costs, (iii) in -service teacher training;
(iv) running costs of student assessments and examinations; and (v) student subsidies, school feeding and other services included under demand-
side financing.
C. Education Sector Performance: 1993-2001

Major Achievements in Education
The results of the 1998 and 2001 surveys on living standards show that some key indicators related to
human capital accumulation have improved substantially since 1993 (Table 1). Despite a decline on
preschool attendance, the system has shown significant gains in performance. Gross enrollment rates
have steadily and significantly increased among the poor. This is the most important accomplishment in
Nicaragua’s education sector. In particular, the gains shown by the extreme poor—which resulted in
significant reduction of the gap between the poor and the non-poor—are very encouraging, since they
confirm the effectiveness of educational investments and Government commitment for the past decade.
10
Improving Internal Efficiency and Student Flow

§ Literacy increased. The proportion of illiterate people continues to decline. Overall, about
18.7% of the population older than 10 years of age was illiterate in 2001, a figure 2.8 percentage
points lower than in 1993. The biggest gains were found among the rural poor, who show a
reduction of 6.5 percentage points since 1993.
§ Primary school attendance increased. The proportion of children 7-12 years of age who attend
school increased significantly. As a result, the proportion of children not attending dropped
considerably, especially in rural areas, with the biggest gain in primary school attendance found
among the poor. This is perhaps the most improved indicator of success in school coverage
during the last eight years.
§ Gross enrollment rates showed substantial improvement. Consistent with the figures on
school attendance, the gross enrollment rate increased dramatically, gaining 33.7 percentage
points since 1993. Most importantly, the gains were distributed among all poverty groups and in
both urban and rural areas.
§ Net enrollment rates improved. The net enrollment rate—defined as the percent of children of
appropriate age enrolled in primary school—increased a small amount. Between 1993 and 1998
the net enrollment rate remained constant, but improved significantly between 1998 and 2001.
The net enrollment rate for boys increased almost three times the girls’ rate during this period.
§ School attendance increased dramatically among teenagers. Between 1998 and 2001, the
proportion of children between the ages of 13-18 not in school dropped significantly across all
poverty groups.6 However, rural areas showed the most dramatic improvements, since the
proportion of children 13-18 not attending secondary school dropped by more than 45 percentage
points since 1993. This finding is consistent with the large increase in the gross enrollment rate
for primary school reported above, since the problem of overage still persists in Nicaragua.
§ Girl’s schooling attainment levels increased. Overall, the mean years of schooling increased
for girls, but not for boys. However, in rural areas the mean years of schooling increased among
girls and boys by about 1 year. Moreover, among extremely poor boys in rural areas there was a
gain of 2.1 years, which is very significant. Still, girls showed a steady increase in schooling
among all poverty groups.
§ Access improved in rural areas. The distance to school dropped slightly in rural areas, although
the time required to get to school remained more or less the same. Nonetheless, the average time
spent on the way to school is less than 30 minutes across all groups.
§ Repetition declined. Repetition has declined significantly since 1998. In part this is due to the
implementation of a program of automatic promotion between grades 1 to 3. In practice, many
children repeat the first and second grades at the request of parents or in consultation with
teachers, which accounts for the repetition figures reported by the MECD. Nicaragua is in a
curious situation: 6-year olds represent the largest age group in the first grade, even though they
should be in the last year of preschool. As a result, many children in this age group repeat first
grade voluntarily. The presence of so many 6-year olds in first grade ahead of time signals the
need to pay significant attention to preschool and the first year of primary school. The evidence
from the LSMS confirms MECD figures, since repetition has also declined significantly across all
poverty groups. In fact, repetition among the extreme poor in 2001 was less than half what it was
in 1998, and in rural areas, the repetition rate among the rural extreme poor for 2001 was almost
one-third of the rate for 1998.
6
Because of repetition, many children over the age of 12 are still enrolled in primary school.
11
Increasing Emphasis on Quality Enhancing Investments

During this same time period, the Government gave priority to increasing its level of investment in school
quality. The key instrument for this is its school autonomy program. Between 1997 and 2002, the
proportion primary schools that have become fully autonomous under the national school decentralization
program increased from 8.8 percent to 40.1 percent; the proportion of primary students in autonomous
schools is approaching 60 percent, will attain 100 percent by 2007 in accordance with the education
participation law (Ley de Participación Educativa). Research in Nicaragua has demonstrated the positive
contribution of school autonomy to school quality and student achievement. 7 In addition, the Ministry
has given high priority to other quality enhancing investments for all primary schools in the country,
including guaranteed textbooks and learning materials, a revised curriculum, reinforced levels of teacher
training, the introduction of school development planning, and especially the Model Schools Program on
a pilot basis in nearly 200 schools.
The Model School Program. The Model School program, which was developed with the support of
USAID, is a comprehensive school desig n based on a student-centered, constructivist philosophy of
education. (The main requirements of a Model School are outlined in Technical Annex 3.) This design
for primary education reform features an integrated package of interventions for improving cla ssroom
methodologies based on a highly successful Latin American model Escuela Nueva. The Model School
reform package includes re-training teachers to act as learning facilitators (rather than traditional
lecturers); individually paced and self-managed le arning; small-group and peer-directed study; active
learning based on student projects; democratic student government; and very active parent and
community participation in support of local school quality. Model Schools are characterized by lively,
stimula ting classroom environments, and feature enhanced classroom and school libraries; resource
centers for teachers to use for developing classroom materials; and continuous qualitative evaluation. The
Model Schools involve teachers and administrators in the production of teacher-training manuals and
classroom learning materials for use in the program.
Teacher professional development, while not yet completely decentralized, utilizes a local micro-training
approach, and supports the development of teacher quality circles (Micro-Centros de Inter-
Capacitación/MIC’s). Each model school serves as the hub of an in-service training network. The Model
School Master Teachers train other teachers and work with local educators, including school principals
(directores), assistant principals, and municipal education supervisors, who in turn provide leadership for
the MIC’s. The program also includes a strong alliance between the Model Schools and Nicaragua’s
eight Normal Schools, which are responsible for training primary school teachers.
The Government’s emphasis on quality is a direct outgrow of the commitments expressed in the National
Education Plan, which states that the educational system should assure a proper supply of books, didactic
materials, laboratories, equipment and technical pedagogical conditions in schools. Moreover, schools
7
Fuller, Bruce and Magdalena Rivarola. “Nicaragua’s Experiment to Decentralize Schools: Views of Parents,
Teachers, and Principals.” Paper No. 5, Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms.
Development Economics Research Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 1998. King, Elizabeth and Berk
Ozler. “What’s Decentralization Got To Do With Learn ing? The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.”
Working Paper Series 9 on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Policy Research Department, The World
Bank, Washington, D.C. 1998Castro, Vanessa, “Evaluación del Régimen de Autonomía y la Calidad del Servicio
Educativo en 6 Escuelas de las Zonas Rurales Nicaragüenses.” Mayo 1999. King, Elizabeth, Laura Rawlings, Berk
Ozler, Patricia Callejas, Nora Gordon, and Nora Mayorga de Caldera. “Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform: A
First Look.” Paper No 1, Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Policy Research
Department, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 1996.
12
should be safe, equitable and able to promote higher levels of learning. To this end, the MECD’s efforts
should emphasize improvements in all of the qualitative aspects of education, guaranteeing higher
standards in reading, writing, arithmetic, and other essential skills.
Chief Constraints to Achieving EFA
Demand and supply side constraints to school attendance and performance. Judging from the
figures on non-attendance, system coverage has improved significantly since 1998. Moreover, there is
remarkable progress in reducing non-attendance since 1993. In 1993 about 21.5 % of 7-12 year old
children were not in school. This figure is now down to 12.1 %. There is still a large difference between
extreme poor children and the non-poor, but that difference is narrowing gradually: non-attendance
among the extreme poor declined by 17 percentage points in eight years. Yet, almost one-third of
extreme poor children do not attend school. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The
figure below shows that lack of attendance can be explained by two main factors: a financial hardship for
the child's family, which is a demand side issue; and an inadequate school, which is a supply-side issue.
Demand side constraints for the poor. Overwhelmingly, the majority of male children between 7 and 12
years of age cited economic problems as a reason for not attending school. More than 50 % of poor males
cited economic issues (including the need to work in and out of the home) as the main barrier for
attendance, and in the case of extremely poor males in urban areas, this figure increases to 78 %.
Among the rural poor, about 22 % of the males cited the need to work in the fields as a reason for non-
attendance.
Among girls, the reasons for non-attendance are similar, with one important difference: personal security
is a more prominent reason than in the case of boys. Rural families are reluctant to send their girls long
distances over scarcely populated areas given the high level of civil insecurity in the country. As a result,
about 14% of poor girls cited security as a deterrent to school attendance.
13
Reasons why children between ages 7-12 do not attend school
Household work
Over age 3%
Not interested
2% Work/agricultural work
13%
Illnes/handicap 9%
School is full
2%
Others 1%
4% Grade not offered
1%
School is too far

18%
Lack of money There are no teachesrs

35%
4%
Lack of personal security
3%
Family problems
5%
Source: EMNV 2001
Supply side constraints for the poor. Supply constraints are defined as the lack of classroom space, the
lack of teachers, or the lack of school materials in sufficient quantities as to deter children from attending
school. In addition, the perceived inadequacy of the school curriculum can also be included as a supply
constraint. Urban males in extreme poverty cited a lack of interest in school (16.3 %) as an important
reason for non-attendance. Among girls, the reasons for non-attendance are similar, with one important
difference: personal security is a more prominent reason than in the case of boys. Rural families are
reluctant to send their girls long distances over scarcely populated areas given the high level of civil
insecurity in the country. As a result, about 14% of poor gir ls cited security as a deterrent to school
attendance.
Preschool attendance
The proportion of 4-6 year olds in preschool declined significantly between 1998 and 2001. Although the
LSMS sample sizes for each group in the table was small, suggesting caution in the assessment of the
figures, the differences are too large to ignore. Still, if one counts the proportion of 4-6 year olds
attending primary school (mostly in first grade), the proportion of this age group enrolled in school is
significant: 56.7%.
System Equity: Girls education and attention to indigenous populations
Given that education is a right, and an end in itself, it is necessary to maximize access permanence in the
education system for the entire school age population, complementing universal access with higher levels
14
of quality. In particular, key strategies underlying this objective are: Access to free, compulsory primary
education of good quality at least through sixth grade, for all boys and girls, prioritizing children in
poverty, as well as those in ethnic minority populations. To ensure the equitable access to education, in
particular for children in poverty, Nicaragua will have to improve on those factors internal to the school
that affect learning, and also implement interventions and financial transfers for poor families to elevate
the levels of investment in their education.
Girl’s education is not a problem in Nicaragua. In general, the gross enrollment rates for females are
higher than for males. An exception is the rural area of the Atlantic, where the gross enrollment rate for
females is slightly less than for males. However, since the net enrollment rate for females is higher, the
overall rate of females to males in school is higher in al regions except Managua and the urban area of the
Pacific region.
Ethnic equity in Nicaragua is a complex issue due to the confounding factor of difficult physical access to
those rural areas populated by ethnic minorities, mixed with the issue of language. The Nicaragua
education system uses language other than Spanish to indicate ethnicity. Less than 6% of the population
speaks a mother tongue other than Spanish, such as English and Miskito. In the urban areas of the
Atlantic educational access is comparable to the rest of the country, but in the rural areas of the Atlantic,
where ethnic minorities live intermingled with the mestizo mainstream, access is more difficult. But in
summary, the issue of equity in education seems to apply in particular to the rural population of the
Atlantic Coast, indicating the need for targeted interventions to improve the mean years of education of
the population and their access to schools and well-trained bilingual teachers, books, pedagogical
materials 8 .
D. Key Government Policy Initiatives

School Autonomy in Nicaragua: A Success Story
The Government has defined two main goals in education: to increase the coverage of basic education and
to improve education quality. In the case of autonomy, the National Education Plan calls for the creation
of systems of good governance and management of education capable of rapid response, promotion of
participation, and accountability. This statement implies the transfer of responsibilities to schools to
strengthen their autonomy and management capacity, the allocation of the necessary resources, and the
delivery of the technical and human resources necessary to complement schools functions.
Expansion and consolidation of school autonomy.
Nicaragua is the only country in the hemisphere that has a legislated policy to give school councils
(composed of parents—with majority vote, teachers, and the school principal) autonomous control over
public education finances (including teacher salaries) and school management. The objectives of school
autonomy are: (i) to increase community participation in school management: (ii) increase local
efficiency in resource use, and (iii) increase local accountability. Autonomous schools receive a fiscal
transfer that is administered by the school council. This transfer is based on a formula that takes into
account the number of students, the location of the school, and the school record for repetition and
dropouts. The Government believes that school autonomy will continue to yield improvements in
educational performance due to better local accountability and more parental support of learning
activities. About 80 percent of primary school students are enrolled in autonomous schools. Overall,
8
About 24.5 % of 7-12 year olds in the rural Atlantic region do not attend school, while in urban areas only 7.7 % of
this age group do not attend school. This latter figure is similar to the urban areas in the rest of the country. Source:
EMNV 2001.
15
external research carried out in 1996 and 1997 on the educational impact of school autonomy in
Nicaragua has shown that the internal efficiency in autonomous schools is better than in centralized
schools, but there are complaints about the lack of understanding of the rules of autonomy among parents
and teachers, an issue being addressed with communication and training programs. Evidence from the
1998 and 2001 household surveys indicate that “voluntary” fees imposed by school councils in
autonomous schools have a negative effect on parental support, and only a small impact on school
finances9 . Schools with good leadership on part of the school director have shown the most gains in
internal efficiency. 10
Other Government Initiatives
Rehabilitation and replacement of school infrastructure
In collaboration with the Social Investment Fund (FISE), the Ministry has expanded the quality of
primary school infrastructure in rural areas. Schools due for rehabilitation are selected with the help of a
poverty map based on the 1998 LSMS, but this system is in the process of change, with the MECD
assuming more control over the choice of schools. This increase in MECD participation is a direct
response to past difficulties in ensuring an efficient supervision of infrastructure quality at the local level.
Expansion of preschool coverage.
The Ministry of Education is supporting a program to expand preschool access through community
preschools, hoping to cover close to 30% of preschool age-children by the end of 2002. The community
preschools system includes the training of mothers as preschool caregivers, nutritional assistance, and
preventive health care. The strategy to promote the expansion of preschool coverage by supporting the
community preschool model was selected because of its cost-effectiveness: The cost per student is less
than 50 % of the cost of formal preschools 11 , making it possible to expand coverage more rapidly than
would otherwise be possible. Although preschool enrollment declined during 2000 and 2001, this decline
has reversed slightly in 2002. The causes of the decline are not yet known, but a probable cause is the
difficult economic climate in rural areas due to the coffee crisis and the 2001 drought.
Curricular reform.
The MECD has modified its primary school curriculum to make it less encyclopedic and more oriented to
basic math, reading, and writing skills. It has also expanded the provision of textbooks and school
materials with external funds. However, textbooks are still lacking in more isolated areas. The Ministry is
revising the curriculum and teaching methods in teacher training schools, and improving in-service
training. Now the MECD is planning to revise the curriculum to include learning elements more pertinent
to the real life of students, with the aim of improving the link between formal education and real life
problems.
Model School Program.
The Model School program’s conception of an effective school sets a high standard for all the nation’s
schools. It has a mature programmatic framework, adapted to Nicaraguan conditions. The model is a
Nicaraguan adaptation of basic education reforms underway throughout the Hemisphere in the general
tradition of the highly successful Colombian Escuela Nueva school reform movement. In response to the
9
Arcia, Gustavo, 2002. “Improving Human Capital under Fiscal Constraints: Primary Education in Nicaragua:
Evidence from the 1993, 1998 and 2001 Surveys on Living Standards.” Background paper for this proposal. See
the technical annex in this document.
10
See footnote 2, above, for references related to the impact of school autonomy on student outcomes.
11
Arcia, Gustavo and Vanessa Castro, 1999. “Evaluación del Programa de Atención Integral a la Niñez
Nicaragüense (PAININ).” Consulting Report, Inter American Development Bank, Managua.
16
success of the BASE Project Model School reforms, this year the Government of Nicaragua announced its
intention to expand the Model School program at least ten-fold over the next several years.
With encouragement and support from the World Bank, USAID and international partners, Nicaragua
began a school autonomy program in the early ‘90s. The basic Model School formula 12 is an integral
approach that involves teachers, parents, and community members in all reform areas. Strong emphasis
on school autonomy and community participation – in support specifically of education quality, as well as
local school administration – is a distinguishing feature of the Nicaraguan model of the contemporary
Hemispheric primary education reform movement in the Escuela Nueva tradition.
Modernization of central administration and assessment.
The MECD is in the process of modernizing central administration and planning through two
mechanisms: (i) a system for measuring and reporting student achievement, and (ii) an Integrated
Management Information System containing education statistics, administrative and budgetary
information, and information on student achievement. Achievement testing on a regular basis is now in
the process of implementation.
Conclusions
So far, the Government’s strategy has increased the supply of schools in rural areas, increased the
participation of parents in school affairs, improved the supply of educational resources and services to the
schools, raised per student expenditures, and has begun to have an impact on educational outcomes (as
measured by promotion rates and some limited student testing efforts.13 Although other elements of the
strategy are in progress and/or their effects will be felt in a few years, a remaining concern now is to
assure that improvements in school quality continue, and that the impact of these improvements are
socially equitable.
The National Education Plan: 2000-2015
The Ministry of Education has prepared a long-term plan for public education, which reflects the views of
most stakeholders in the sector and discusses some new areas that had not been covered in previous
strategic efforts. The Plan, as it is informally known, emphasizes eight basic principles, which are then
translated into strategic objectives. The Plan is ambitious but it follows the trends in education reform in
the rest of Central America and the Caribbean. The MECD was extremely successful in generating a
broad consensus among a diverse group of stakeholders with different—and sometimes conflicting—
interests. Close to 3,000 people had an opportunity to give an opinion on the Plan. In part, this success
was due to the inclusive nature of the dialogue, in which everyone’s voice was reflected in the interim
documents. Another part of the success was due to the generation of discussion without a budget
constraint, which in turn resulted in the support of all stakeholders at the Plan’s presentation. The MECD
now has begun the second phase of the Plan: setting priorities to configure them to the constraints of the
education budget. The principles, policies, and strategies set out in the Plan, although lacking in
implementation mechanisms, are consistent with the pursuit of the Education for All targets.
12
(1) A basically eclectic learner-centered pedagogical approach with a generally constructivist theoretical
orientation; (2) Involvement of teachers, principals and local education official in all aspects of design; (3)
democratic student, parent, and community governance; (4) active parental and community involvement in support
of school quality; (5) active teaching and learning with emphasis on small-group and peer-directed learning; (6) new
teacher manuals, student workbooks, and other learning materials in keeping with the program; (7) classroom and
school libraries; (8) resource centers for teachers; (9) a changed, enriched classroom environment; (10) continuous
qualitative assessment and evaluation.
13
A national assessment system has been designed and is going into implementation during the next 6 months.
17
III. EDUCATION FINANCING

Education Expenditures and Education Finance
Education expenditures have two components: private and public. Nicaragua’s social sector
strategy has addressed both, through targeted subsidies to families in poverty, and through
increased educational expenditures.
Private Costs of Public Schooling
The evidence from the review of the sector’s performance clearly indicates a strong negative link between
poverty, enrollment and performance. Although public schooling is free, parents are asked to contribute
with some fees—which are supposed to be optional—and to cover the cost of registration, uniforms,
school snacks, and transportation. Overall, the average annual expenditure per primary student in a public
school by a family was approximately US$28 in 2001, varying from US$19 per student per year among
poor families to US$39 among non-poor families. Among poor families the real per student cost is about
the same as in 1998, while for non-poor families the cost has increased 25% from three years ago. The
cost of public education to poor families is significant, but of lower budgetary impact than in 1998. The
total cost of sending a child to a primary public school represents about 2.9 % of the non-food
expenditures of poor households. This is substantially lower than in 1998, when the education cost per
student represented 6.3 % of the non-food expenditures.
18
Public Financing of Primary Education

Following the recommendations of donors, Nicaragua has continued to support the financing of basic
education. Since it is a small economy, the government still has a large share of GDP, albeit a declining
one. It is expected that by 2005 the government’s share of GDP will be 30 %. At the rate it is declining,
by 2015 the size of government should be between 18 and 20% of GDP, which is considered an
appropriate share.Education expenditures account for almost 4% of GDP, of which the largest share is for
primary education.
Current and Projected Education Expenditures (% of GDP)

2002 2003 2004 2005
Central Government Expenditures 33.3 31.9 30.6 30.4
Recurrent 23.2 22.3 19.9 19.4
Capital 10.1 9.6 10.7 11.0
Total Education Expenditures 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.9
Recurrent 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6
Capital 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Primary Education 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.2
Recurrent 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8
Capital 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Source: IMF agreement of July 2002 and Directorate of Finance, MECD.
Capital expenditures figures provided by the National System of Public Investment
(SNIP), Ministry of Finance.
Although the budget allocations to education have increased, funding had remained relatively stable as a
proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). (see statistical annex for details). It is important to
note that the budget projections of the Ministry of Finance already include funds from the HIPC initiative.
Total HIPC funding for Nicaragua for the period 2001-2003 is estimated at US$ 60 million per year, of
which 5% is scheduled for improving education, particularly the funding of autonomous schools and
infrastructure. Because HIPC funds are channeled through the national budget, they are already included
in the MECD budget projections.
19
Fig. 4. MECD Budget as Percent of GDP
5.00%
4.50%
4.00%
3.50%
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Total funding for the MECD—and for education in general—increased in dollar terms between 1996 and
2000 (Table14). In 2001 and 2002 the rate of growth in the education budget declined slightly due to the
severe fiscal constraints faced by the Government in light of the drastic reductions in international coffee
prices, the onset of a drought in 2001, and the need to repay large amounts of short-term internal debt.
These events had a substantial negative impact on fiscal revenues and on the rate of growth education
budget. By 1998 the MECD was able to spend between around US$15 million per year in activities
funded by external donors. This amount represented around 15 % of the MECD budget. For 2002 these
funds increased to US$32.7 million, or 30 % of the budget.
MECD budget 1991-2002

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
MECD ('000s of US$) 49 62 57 61 72 74 101 106 101 105
Primary education (‘000s 30 38 35 38 45 48 68 73 72 77
of US$)
% of MECD 61 62 62 62 63 65 67 69 71 73
expenditures
Source: MECD expenditures: Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Exchange rate: Central Bank. Primary
education expenditures: Constructed and estimated from various sources.
In 1999 and 2000 the Government faced a serious crisis in the private banking sector, forcing it to finance
a bail out with short-term bonds. These bonds, whose value is of around US$ 900 million, had a maturity
of three years. Now that payments are due the Government had to reduce its operating expenses by 15%
in order to maintain is fiscal deficit in check. However, the education budget was protected as much as
possible, suffering a lower reduction than the rest of the Central Government. The fiscal problem posed
by the short-term internal debt is still an obstacle in the current negotiations between the Government and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, both the Government and the IMF are trying to find a
way to refinance the debt and schedule repayment at a more reasonable pace.
MECD expenditures in 2002 are expected to reach US$ 105 million. About 73% of these expenditures,
about US$ 77 million, are for primary education. About 65% of the primary education budget is assigned
to teacher salaries, and 15% is for infrastructure (Fig. 5). The current budget shares for primary education
20
are now better distributed than in the early 90s when teacher salaries amounted to 92 % of recurrent
expenditures14 , versus 76% in 2002.
Fig. 5. Public Primary Education Expenditures, 2002
Teachers
65%
Admin.Exp
3%
Food
6%
Materials
5%
Training
5% Capital Exp.
15%
Scholarships
1%
B. Education Funding from External Sources.
A significant portion of Nicaragua’s public expenditures in education comes from external sources. Some
of these funds come from large projects in basic education (i.e.: APRENDE I and II, with World Bank
funding; and BASE I and II with USAID funding), secondary education, and adult education. Most of the
external funds have been allocated to improvements in basic education quality and coverage, through the
distribution of textbooks and educational materials, the construction or rehabilitation of rural schools;
teacher training; curricular reform, and the development of new instructional model (i.e.: Escuelas
Modelo).
MECD sources of external funding, 2000-03 (US$)

Funding Source 2000 2001 2002 2003
(Projected) (Programmed)
World Bank, Basic Education (APRENDE II) 2,234,131.00 6,049,536.00 14,959,673.00 22,000,000.00
World Food Program (School Lunch) 527,176.00 1,937,000.00 1,824,803.00 1,982,250.00

UNICEF - Basic Education 368,507.00 299,318.00 214,181.00 659,119.00
European Union -- Support to Education (Project
ASEN y PRRAC) 3,569,566.00 3,750,398.58 1,327,596.13 4,697,467.62
14
Arcia, Gustavo, Miriam Quispe-Agnoli, and Carlos Gargiulo, 1994. "Recuperación de costos para la
capacitación de maestros y la producción y distribución de material educativo." (Cost Recovery in Teacher
Training and in the Production and Distribution of Educational Material). Research Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1994.
21

Funding Source 2000 2001 2002 2003
Inter American Development Bank - Education
Reform 39,946.00 27,670.00 607,434.00
organization of American States 3,500.00
USAIND - Basic education (BASE II) 3,229,392.00 3,720,579.00 723,321.00 2,119.00
Luxenbourg - Teacher training 58,550.00 75,300.00 27,650.00 7,157.00
Japan - Primary scholl construction 4,620,909.00 8,919,364.00 2,957,710.00
Spain (Project AECI) 2,851.00 192,327.00
Finland--Bilingual ed., Atlantic Region 166,233.00 223,753.00 692,009.00
TOTAL 14,608,231.00 24,957,674.58 19,334,998.13 33,797,592.62
Exchange rates: 2000: C$ 13.10 = 1 US$; 2001: C$13.40 = 1 US$; 2002: C$14.20 = 1 US$; 2003: C$14.98 = 1
US$. Source: Office of External Projects. MECD
C. Government Expenditures per Primary School Student

Nicaragua has made significant progress in improving primary education funding, even in the face of
severe fiscal problems. Total per student expenditures for primary average US$ 97, which are
significantly lower than per student expenditures in neighboring countries, but much better than in 1998 15 .
In 1998 the average recurrent expenditure per student was approximately US$ 55, which led the
Government to aggressively seek additional funding for recurrent expendit ures. As a result, recurrent
expenditures per student have increased to US$ 83, allowing for better teacher pay and for a better
distribution of non-salary expenditures in books and pedagogical material16 .
MECD: Average per student cost by type of school, 2002

Total cost Total cost Recurrent cost Capital
cost
Type of public school Cordobas US$ US$
Centralized 1,304 91 79 12
Autonomous 1,447 101 84 17
Model School—Centralized 1,977 138 125 12
Model School—Autonomous 1,855 129 112 17
Multigrade—Centralized 1,304 91 79 12
Multigrade—Autonomous 1,447 101 84 17
Model School—Multigrade Autonomous 598 42 24 17
Model School—Subsidized private 1,312 91 89 3
Subsidized private 825 58 55 3
Average per student expenditure 1,388 97 83 14
Source: Estimated from data from the Office of the Director of Finance, MECD
15
In comparison, recurrent expenditures for 2000 in El Salvador and the Dominican Republic, with much larger
GDP per capita than Nicaragua, hover around US$130 per primary school student. Source: Arcia, 2000. Op. cit.,
pp-19-20.
16
Teachers in Nicaragua received a 28% nominal increase in pay in 2001. However, their salary is still considered
relatively low by members of the education community. The current salary amounts to approximately 2.5 times the
GDP per capita, while advocates of better salaries argue that it should be 3.5 times the GDP per capita. This is an
issue that merits analysis to determine what should be a fair teacher salary given the salaries of other people with
similar levels of education and experience.
22
IV. CONCLUSIONS: KEY CONSTRAINTS TO ACHIEVING THE TARGETS OF

EDUCATION FOR ALL
Supply side issues.
The main area for improvement—and one of the core components of the proposed EFA strategy—is in
the area of school quality . In particular, it is very important to improve the quality of school resources to
help improve teacher performance. These resources include the quality of the school infrastructure, the
quality and availability of textbooks and pedagogical materials, and the quality of training and
professional development for multigrade teachers.
In the area of quality the MECD is scheduled to begin measuring student achievement, the results of
which will be reported widely in order to generate more awareness of geographical priorities, and to
complement the climate of local accountability framed by the school autonomy program. Also, the
MECD needs to improve its efforts to expand the scope and quality of training on the school autonomy
program to make autonomy more effective for the poor.
Demand side issues.
In terms of access, the main effort by the MECD—and the other core component of the EFA strategy—is
to help families in extreme poverty defray the direct and indirect costs of educating their children. Direct
costs are the cost of uniforms, school materials, transportation, and food. Indirect costs are the wages
earned by children. Both are significant barriers to school attendance. As a result, the MECD must
implement a program of scholarships targeted to extremely poor children, and to complement this
program with school lunch or other school feeding program that have shown to have a significant positive
impact on school attendance in the past.
V. NICARAGUA'S EFA-FTI PROGRAM : AN OVERVIEW

EFA-FTI Program Firmly Rooted in National Education Plan.
The actions that are proposed below to achieve the targets of the Education for All Fast Track Initiative
are firmly based on the objectives and strategies put forward in the Nicaragua’s National Education Plan
2000-2015, along with the government’s 2001 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. The key principle of
the EFA-FTI proposal is:
“Given that education is a right, and an end in itself, it is necessary to maximize the
possibilities of access to, and permanence in, the education system for the entire
population, especially for school age children, assuring access to education with
higher levels of quality.”
-- National Education Plan 2000-2015
It is on this basis that the EFA-FTI proposal gives it’s top priority to the aggressive expansion of existing
programs that promote equity of schooling opportunities and incentives and support mechanisms to
steadily improve the quality of these opportunities.
23
A. Sub-Model I: Schooling Improvement Program (Programa de Mejoramiento

Escolar—PME)
Objectives and Targets
Objective : The objective of this program is to help assure that all children, especially children from poor
families, can effectively complete sixth grade before their 13th birthday. The program will pursue this
objective by providing funding and guidelines for school councils or other stakeholders to raise the
learning conditions in their schools, step by step, in order to more effectively:
a. Attract children in the community to attend their school,

b. Motivate children to attend school on a daily basis,
c. Provide students and teachers with adequate levels of textbooks, varied library books, and
other instructional materials;
d. Engage parents and children in their school and the educational process;
e. Stimulate teachers to improve instruction and monitoring of student progress, and ultimately;
f. Offer children substantially better opportunities to learn and acquire skills.
Research and experience in Nicaragua and internationally point to these factors as key determinants of
student performance. By raising learning conditions, and by involving the stakeholders in the process of
continuous improvement, schools will be better able to advance more students each year to higher grade
levels with increased levels of learning achievement, and help assure they can graduate from sixth grade
at the correct age. Moreover, by targeting a more intense package of technical assistance to schools
serving the poorest children and to those located in the Atlantic Coast, this program will raise the equity
of learning opportunities across the country, as well as provide the most disadvantaged children with the
skills and knowledge needed to rise out of poverty.
Building on the National Education Plan’s Strategies to Improve School Quality.

An Equitable Road to Quality Improvement. The Schooling Improvement Program is structured
around the National Education Plan’s focus on systematic and equitable enhancement of school quality.
In particular, the Plan stresses the importance of… “improving all of the qualitative aspects of education
and guaranteeing higher standards of schooling to promote well recognized and measured learning levels,
especially in reading, writing, arithmetic, and essential practical competencies.” (The Plan, p. 33). The
Plan adds that this improvement would include the: “creation of a safe school setting that benefits from
an equitable distribution of educational resources chosen to promote higher levels of learning and the
attainment of well defined learning levels” (The Plan, p. 33, italics added), and “assuring books, didactic
materials, laboratories, equipment and technical pedagogical conditions in schools” (The Plan, p.33).
A Decentralized Model of Quality Improvement. In addition, the approach to be used in this model is
tightly linked to Nicaragua’s decentralized model of education management. In particular, by giving the
power and responsibility for school improvement to parent-managed school councils, the Schooling
Improvement Program is structured around the principles of “systems of good governance and
management of schooling capable of rapid response, promotion of participation, and accountability. (The
Plan, p. 38). More to the point, the National Education Plan 2000-2015 specifies the importance of:
24
(a) “modernizing the educational institution, which implies the transfer of responsibilities to
schools to strengthen their autonomy and management capacity… “ (The Plan, p. 38);
(b) “introducing strategic planning into education management with flexible schemes that build
capacity to identify problems, develop viable solutions, implement these solutions, and evaluate
the results” (The Plan, p. 38);
(c) “supporting schools with technical assistance to help them develop schooling improvement
projects…” (The Plan, p. 38);
(d) “establishing norms and mechanisms that guarantee the effective participation of both mothers
and fathers, teachers, students, teacher organizations, representatives of local government, the
private sector, churches, and ethnic communities in decentralized practices of planning,
management, and implementation of schooling processes” (The Plan, p. 40); and finally,
(e) “establishing mechanisms that guarantee the optimal, transparent, and rational use of human
and material resources” (The Plan, p. 40).
Indicators and Targets.
The indicators and targets in this sub-model are that by year 2015, all schools will have succeeded in
raising their standards up to at least a minimum level of quality, referred to as the Fundamental Level, and
58 percent of the nation’s schools will have surpassed this level to at least the next higher level—the
Satisfactory Level. It is expected that many of the schools attaining the Satisfactory Level will have
advanced to superior levels, including the status of Model School.17
Indicators and Targets of the Schooling Improvement Program

Sub-Model
Indicators Year
Standards of School Improvement 2002 2005 2008 2015
Below fundamental level 70% 56% 37% 0%
Fundamental level 19% 33% 41% 43%
Satisfactory level or higher 10% 12% 21% 58%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
At least at fundamental level 30% 45% 62% 100%
Superior levels (above Satisfactory) 2% 3% 5% 22%
Building on Successful Experience

The Schooling Improvement Program should be seen as an extension and expansion of existing,
recognized, and positively evaluated programs currently under implementation by the Ministry of
Education. In particular, the Ministry has been successfully managing two different interventions that
have helped school councils, and in fact the broader school community, raise the conditions of learning of
their schools.
a. Building on the Model Schools. The Model School Program is a long-term effort to
improve the quality of primary education in Nicaragua by promoting modern teaching
methodologies and community support for schools. In developing nations where primary
education is in crisis, the cause is virtually always antiquated teaching methods, not just
economic deprivation. In most failing primary systems, teachers are still trying to teach
17
See chart, below, “Levels of Schooling Improvement,” for a description of the characteristics of each level.
25
young children by lecturing at them from the front of the room while the children sit in rows,
passive and often uncomprehending, copying from the chalkboard into notebooks, chanting
in unison, and memorizing by rote. Economic development aside, it would not occur to
elementary school teachers in nations with developed education systems to use century-old
teaching methods, because teachers were not taught that way themselves.
Modern active- learning methods are used throughout the national network of 170 Model
Schools. Model School classrooms are organized so that students spend most of the school
day working together in pairs and small groups. Teacher guides, study guides and learning
materials are developed by model school teachers for piloting in the model schools and
eventual use nationwide. The Model Schools have strong student governments, and parents
and communities participate actively in managing the schools and working to improving
school quality.
Active student participation in learning in the Model Schools increased in 2001 by 11.7% in
graded and 33.7% in multigrade classrooms. Parent and community participation is over
90% of parents in most Pacific/Central Region Model Schools; Model School retention rates
exceed 90%; and Model School completion rates exceed the national average by 20%. The
BASE II mid-term evaluation report (June 2002) calls the Model School program an
“integrated and coherent reform effort involving all aspects of the primary school system in
Nicaragua, which is having an extremely positive effect ”. The report characterizes the best
of the Model Schools as “not only a national, but international model of what a ‘good’
primary school should look like.”
a. Building on Fondo Sonrisa. One of these interventions is Aprende’s Fondo Sonrisa. Under
implementation since 1999, this intervention provides a small fund to students, their parents, and
teachers to make their schools a more attractive place for students by financing extra-curricular
projects that otherwise could not be realized at the school. Examples of projects that have been
financed through this fund include: school newspapers, soccer fields, school plays, field trips, school
vegetable gardens, science projects, musical bands, folklore dancing groups, and art workshops.
Schools have successfully planned, implemented, and supervised thousands of projects financed with
this fund. The Ministry has recently modified the Fondo Sonrisa program with the addition of a
requirement that the school prepare its own School Development Plan (PDE). This simple but
powerful instrument helps bring together students, teachers, principal, and parents in an effort to
diagnose the school’s key problems with respect to student learning and initiate a strategic planning
process to raise student outcomes. It should be noted that Fondo Sonrisa is also a vehicle for the
implementation of other projects funded by other donors, such as UNICEF, which provide additional
technical and financial support to participating schools.
18
b. Extending the SIMCEP-model of parent-managed implementation beyond infrastructure. The
Schooling Improvement Fund will also build on lessons and the ongoing implementation experience
of the SIMCEP model of school maintenance and rehabilitation. This model engages the school
councils of autonomous schools to lead the school improvement process. Although the SIMCEP
18
SIMCEP stands for Sistema de Mantenimiento de Centros Escolares Primarios.
26
model has been limited to infrastructure improvements, the model can be expanded to include other
aspects of school quality. Until today, it has helped hundreds of school councils identify
infrastructure problems, formulate a physical plant improvement project, contract local workers and
purchase building materials, supervise the renovation, and maintain accounting records. The
SIMCEP model has yielded both increased community involvement and enthusiasm for the school
improvement effort, and has demonstrated efficient implementation capacity of the school councils,
and a transparent management of the funds. In the proposed Schooling Improvement Program,
schools assessed as suffering from extremely poor or unsafe physical conditions will be included in
an expanded SIMCEP program in order to attain the Fundamental Level standard. In addition, the
same financing and community engagement mechanisms will be employed to mobilize the school
staff and parents themselves to undertake the necessary investment with resources from the fund to
attain higher standards of quality.
Both of these programs operate with clear rules, simple instruments that facilitate the planning and
implementation of the required actions by parents, teachers, and even primary school children, and
routine monitoring and reporting at all levels, from the school level up to the Ministry and external
donors.
In addition to these interventions, the Ministry has developed, with the support of the Inter-American
Development Bank, USAID and the World Bank, a well structured, up-to-date, geographically based
school information system that captures information on, and helps monitor, school conditions and quality
levels.
Sub-Model Description. The Schooling Improvement Program integrates the best elements of these
three initiatives to create a unified framework aimed to systematically raise the conditions of learning in
Nicaragua’s schools. The program’s objective is to help all children complete a good quality primary
school education by the time they are 13 years of age. To support this objective, as further detailed
below, the program defines a series of school improvement standards, provides a fund to finance school
improvement, supports schools in their capacity to organize and administer themselves, and engages
parents and other local stakeholders in the process of raising their school up to the next higher standard.
The Ministry will disseminate the standards throughout the country as simple guidelines that would
include wall charts for schools and municipal delegations, self-administering checklists, and user friendly
manuals to guide and help implement the preparation of budgets and to monitor implementation. The
program will be reinforced with an aggressive communication campaign. In addition, the Ministry will
contract an external body to be responsible for certifying the school’s attainment of each level.
Focus on Equity. One of the principal objectives of the School Improvement Program is to improve the
educational equity in Nicaragua. Tens of thousands of children are enrolled in schools that do not offer
even the most minimal learning opportunities that are available to children attending schools elsewhere in
the country. These disadvantaged children are enrolled in schools that lack qualified teachers, reading
books and other didactic material, adequate classrooms with appropriate furniture and usable chalkboards,
functional roofs, windows, walls, toilets, or water service. It is not just the fact that schools in these
appalling conditions exist, but that they exist in the same country and even in the same municipalities
where good schools may also be found. In many parts of the country quite good, even excellent public
schools can be readily identified. These schools may not be "first world" schools in every sense, but they
are schools to which middle-class parents from any country in the world would be happy to send their
children. This disparity exists in part because the government or donors have invested in some schools
27
while allowing many other schools to operate below any kind of minimum level of functioning. Because
children tend to frequent schools that reflect residential patterns of economic differentiation, the schools
at which these manifestly substandard conditions exist tend to be attended by children from families
living at or below the poverty line. Inadequate learning opportunities compound the deleterious effect of
learning deficits. Moreover, even if students attending substandard schools somehow manage to progress
through the school cycle, they do so while being less prepared and motivated than their peers. In this
way, substandard schools contribute to grade repetition and to student disaffection, ultimately inhibiting
the chances of the poor to escape from poverty.
Standards of Schooling Improvement. Obviously, just brin ging schools up to a minimum level of
functioning is not sufficient to guarantee an education that prepares graduates for the competitive global
economy. Nicaragua needs to embark on a program that generates higher and higher levels of school
improvement. The Standards of Schooling Improvement Program establishes a series of standards, in
which each schooling improvement standard symbolically represents a step on a ladder of improvement.
The components of each level are designed to be easy to measure by non-professionals. The Ministry of
Education has defined a set of initial standards for improving the conditions of learning in Nicaragua’s
schools. These standards will be consulted with Nicaraguan stakeholders as they are being finalized for
implementation. Once established, the Ministry will disseminate the standards throughout the country as
simple guidelines that would include wall charts for schools and municipal delegations, self-administering
checklists, and user friendly manuals to guide and help implement the preparation of budgets and to
monitor implementation. The program will be reinforced with an aggressive communication campaign.
In addition, the Ministry will be responsible, either directly or through the assistance of third parties, for
certifying the school’s attainment of each level.
The following chart specifies this preliminary proposal. It is important to point out that attaining the
Fundamental Level will be relatively easy for most schools to achieve without much external support
(except in the Atlantic Coast). To achieve the Fundamental Level should only require between US$ 2,000
and US$ 8,000 per school (depending on school size and baseline conditions). Raising the school to
successively higher standards will require additional investment and increasing levels of technical
assistance and support from the Ministry or from other organizations.
Levels of Schooling Improvement

Fundamental Level Satisfactory Level Superior Levels
School School prepares simple School staff and school School sets short and long-
Development “School Development Plan” community implement the term goals and targets,
(to determine investments “School Quality Self monitors them together with
required to raise standard) Assessment” Instrument consejo
Management School is autonomous or School council (consejo) School management
meets conditions to become meets regularly throughout the information system,
autonomous. School council year to take decisions and computerized in larger
meets regularly. manage funds and works in schools. Management of
consensus with teachers and routine processes in place.
the student council.
Pedagogic Most likely traditional, but all Familiarity with Model School School adopts “Model
Model students use textbooks design and other pedagogical School” (all required
additions compatible with it. elements) program or other
comprehensive schooling
improvement program
Educational School has classroom book School has “Model School” As needed for the Model
28
Levels of Schooling Improvement

Fundamental Level Satisfactory Level Superior Levels
Materials corners or school library, package of instructional School program or other
textbook set, consumables for materials. A desk and chair comprehensive schooling
all students, basic teacher for every student, with improvement program
materials, chalk. appropriate ergonomic
characteristics.
Security & Protection against rain and School can be closed and Functioning electricity,
Infrastructure vandals, secure place for locked, assures security school security in place,
materials, parent involvement. conditions (fence if connection to town water
(35% need some type of necessary). and sewage--if available —
physical improvement)* are in place.
Health Safe drinking water, separate Annual screening and medical Full integration of children
toilet facilities for boys and referral for hearing, vision, with special needs,
girls with hygienic conditions. and other health problems, including teaching aides.
mainstream special needs Immunization and oral
students. Separate toilet hygiene programs in place.
facilities for every 45 children.
Safe wastewater and solid
waste disposal.
Teachers and Teachers for every class, School finances teacher All teachers have completed
Teacher cross-teacher observation training based on results from training consistent with the
Development once per month. PDE, self-assessment tests. "Model School Program" or
other school improvement
design. All teachers
formally qualified.
Monitoring of School records and posts daily School sends home report School attains promotion &
Results attendance, rates of repetition, cards twice per year, and completion rate targets
and graduation. reports routinely to parents on annually agreed upon with
failing or frequently absent MECD, without decreasing
students. School administers standardized test scores.
standardized test
Enrollment Accept all children who want School offers all grade levels, School offers preschool to
to enroll, up to capacity. so that any student can all students requesting it
Student/ teacher ratio between complete 6th grade, School
25:1 and 40:1 refers children below 7 years
to preschool
Estimated US$ 5,000 per school. US$ 8,000 per school US$8,000 for each level
investment per Schools requiring SIMCEP (includes training and
school investment would need an technical assistance to adopt
additional US$ 14,000 pedagogic designs)
* Repairs are required at hundreds of schools with inadequate roofing, water permeated floors or standing water inside
classrooms during rains, precarious infrastructure, lack of basic furniture or storage for books and other didactic material.
Implementation
Implementation of the Model School Design. As indicated in the above table, full adoption of the
Model School program, by both rural multi-grade schools and also urban schools, would automatically
move beneficiary schools up into the “Superior” level on the above School Improvement Scale.
29
The 170 Model Schools are the cornerstone of the MECD strategy for replication and sustainability of the
school reforms supported by the international donors. Each Model School serves as the hub of an in-
service training network. A corps of Model School Master Teachers train other teachers and work with
local educators, including school principals (directores), assistant principals, and municipal education
supervisors, who in turn provide leadership for the MIC’s. The program also includes a strong alliance
between the model schools and Nicaragua’s eight Normal Schools, which are responsible for training
primary school teachers. Other replication features include the 1,100 Project-supported teacher quality
circles (MIC’s); full incorporation of Nicaragua’s eight Normal Schools into the reform effort; resource
centers for local development of learning materials by teachers; and close collaboration and involvement
of local school-community councils and regional, municipal, and local Ministry administrators and
technical personnel.
It is important to point out the mechanisms of how to support the implementation of the Model School
Program under this decentralized Schooling Improvement Program have yet to be discussed with the
stakeholders and operators of the current pilot program functioning in 174 schools. For example, it is
expected that while many of the resources can be transferred to schools for them to acquire the material
and pay for the required elements of the Model School Program (including training and technical
assistance to the school), some type of guaranteed quality control of the support services would need to be
managed from a more centralized le vel to assure adequate services.
Implementation for Autonomous Schools . With the exception of schools on the Atlantic Coast (see
below), schools will need to become autonomous to participate in the Schooling Improvement Program.
EFA-FTI will finance the transitional and annual costs of upgrading schools into the autonomous legal
framework (see below).
For autonomous schools, parent councils will be responsible for raising the standard for their school.
Specifically, they will:
a. Self diagnose on the school’s conditions and comparison with the standards to categorize the
conditions of learning currently offered by the school, which will be facilitated by the preparation
of a School Development Plan (PDE);
b. Identify the next level the school needs to pursue;
c. Determine the school’s deficiencies with respect to the standard;
d. Design and submit a budgeted improvement project (using the simple instruments referred to
above) to raise the school to the next higher level;
e. Obtain funding to implement the schooling improvement project;
f. Request Ministry certification of standard attainment. Certification process administered by an
external body.
g. Once the school is certified at a given level, it can pursue the next higher level of quality.
h. Schools must be recertified every three years to ensure continuous compliance with the standards
of its certified level.
Each autonomous school is eligible to have one school improvement project funded per year. The fund
would finance between US$5000 and $30000, with each school eligible to benefit from the fund no more
than once per year.
30
Implementation for Non-Autonomous Schools in the Atlantic Coast.19 Few schools located in the
Atlantic Coast are participating in the autonomy program. Consequently, they would not be able to
participate in the same implementation arrangements as those described previously. Nonetheless, the
conditions in these schools are among the worst in the country, as are the indicators of student outcomes
in the Atlantic Coast schools. At the same time, numerous NGOs, community, religious, and other
organizations have been actively engaged in supporting, expanding, or even operating schooling in the
region. They have demonstrated their commitment, competence, and pragmatism, time and time again.
Yet, these organizations lack resources to improve the schools they are supporting and expand their
assistance to additional ones, and they lack a common framework for improving the quality and results of
these schools.
Since school autonomy has developed slowly in the Atlantic Region, the MECD would adapt the
implementation of the fund to the real conditions present on this region of the country. Currently, only
4% of the schools, and 10% of enrollment, participate in the autonomy program. It is estimated that 3 of
every 10 children between the ages of 7 and 12 in the Atlantic do not attend primary school. In fact, the
North and South Sub-Regions of the Atlantic, show primary coverage rates of 78% and 63%,
respectively. In absolute terms, using data from 2001, it is estimated that there are more than 32,000
children age 7-12 out of the school system in the Atlantic Region. This number is important because the
population of children it represents 13% of the national total and 32% of the national total of the children
outside the schools system.
School Autonomy and Enrollment in the Atlantic Region

Non- Primary Primary
Autonomous Enrollment Autonomous Enrollment
Schools (Non Auto.) Schools (Autonomous)
RAAN 893 59,073 25 3,970
RAAS 840 58,093 46 7,631
Source: Directorate of Statistics, MECD.
Given these conditions and needs, the Schooling Improvement Program in the Atlantic Coast has been
modified to set up a special fund to be accessed only by schools located in this region, under slightly
different rules, which would allow cooperating alliances with diverse NGOs and Churches to offer a
variety of services. Parent councils will be responsible for raising the standard for their school.
Accordingly, in this region, the implementing agent is the locally active organization rather than the
school council.
Eligibility. Organizations and associations wishing to participate in the program will need to demonstrate
their commitment and ties to the school or schools they are supporting. This may include the presentation
of an agreement or other evidence of an arrangement between the school and the organization, with
signatures from parents, teachers, and the leadership of the organization in question. In this respect, once
the organization proves its legitimacy, it would follow the same steps as the school council in a normal
autonomous school set up, with the following functions:
a. Compare the school’s conditions with the standards to categorize school conditions, and the
preparation, with the participation of parents and teachers, of a School Development Plan (PDE);
b. Identify the next level the school needs to pursue;
c. Determine the school’s deficiencies with respect to the standard;
19
For further information please reefer to Technical Annex 6
31
d. Design and submit a budgeted improvement project (using the simple instruments referred to
above) to raise the school to the next higher level;
e. Obtain funding to implement the schooling improvement project;
f. Request Ministry certification of standard attainment.
g. Once the school is certified at a given level, the organization can pursue the next level of quality.
A detailed description of this approach is included in the Annex.

Costs of Implementation and Trajectory of Outcomes
Cost per school. The weighted average amount to finance per school is less than US$ 10,000 annually,
including approximately 2,000 schools that will require SIMCEP-type infrastructure investments of US$
15,000 each to raise the schools up to the minimally functional level with respect to their physical plant.
The proposed cost per school reflects only those factors that involve financial expenditures. However,
many quality-related factors only require a better application of existing resources, and thus require
minimal resource outlays. In fact, only a few cells in the quality improvement matrix required significant
funding per school. Also, the proposed actions can be implemented in parallel at the speed allowed by
local conditions.
Approximate Cost per School (US$)

Up to Fundamental level without infrastructure improv. 5,000
Up to Fundamental level, with infrastructure improv. 15,000
Up from Fundamental to Satisfactory level 8,000
Up to Superior levels 8,000
Trajectory of Implementation and Outcomes. Given that the program design is an adaptation of
activities currently under implementation, but that the scope of the current projects relatively limited,
implantation and expansion of the School Improvement Program is expected to proceed slowly at first as
the institutions currently managing the core activities will need to modify certain operational components
to expand coverage, particularly in the areas of monitoring, supervision, and audit.
Satisfactory Level
Fundamental Level
Schools below this line

require SIMCEP investment
to attain Fundamental Level
32
Initial implementation will be focused on reducing the largest disparities in the system and
simultaneously capitalizing on expanding programs for which the Ministry has most experience.
Consequently, the emphasis during these first few years will be on helping improve the inputs and
physical conditions of the schools furthest below Fundamental standard. As depicted in Figure 1, schools
councils of “substandard schools” (colored gray in the figure) would receive grants on a priority basis to
raise their schools up to the Fundamental level or eventually higher (colored black). Many of these
schools would require some infrastructure improvements via the SIMCEP model. A smaller number of
schools at the Fundamental level or higher would also be eligible to move up to higher levels.
Given this priority, it is expected that the first few years will be characterized by a relatively rapid rise in
the number of schools attaining the Fundamental level, but slower growth rate of schools attaining higher
levels. As the institutions arrangements are stabilized, and technical teams are expanded, the trajectory
of school improvement for all levels above "Below Fundamental" should grow at and increasing rate at an
as depicted in the graphic below.
Trajectories of School Improvement

2002-2015
6000
Number of Schools
5000
Below Fundamental level
4000
Fundamental level
3000
Satisfactory level
2000
Superior levels
1000
0
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Year
33
Investment costs. The investment costs related to improved school quality are shown below, following
the implementation trajectory depicted in the graph. The costs are presented in three and four-year
intervals to facilitate the evaluation of the investment package. The annual resource requirements are
listed in Table A12 in the statistical annex.
Investment costs of implementation, at different periods of time (US$)

Period of Time
2003-05 2006-08 2008-11 2011-15
Below Fundamental level with infrast. 2,311,932 7,671,580 2,283,933 2,141,291
Below Fundamental level w/o infrast. 275,230 2,739,850 7,341,214 4,697,729
Satisfactory level 1,542,072 3,930,938 8,289,417 7,600,645
Superior levels or higher 1,666,829 1,277,902 3,922,382 7,691,166
Total 5,796,063 15,620,269 21,836,946 22,130,830
The EFA-FTI Schooling Improvement Program is composed of two cost components: (1) the
investment costs of the Schooling Improvement Program (as described above), and (2) the
annual costs associated with school classification under the funding formula regulations. The
investment costs include the costs of upgrading the schools to fundamental and higher standards,
including infrastructure, equipment, material, and training costs. The annual costs are related to
the distribution of enrollment into schools with higher unit costs on the basis of current funding
formulas. A prerequisite for participating in the Schooling Improvement Program is that the
school functions under Nicaragua’s autonomous schools legal framework. Funding formula
regulations, established to assure sustainable financing for autonomous schools, stipulate slightly
higher per-student costs for autonomous schools, associated with consumable materials and
support. In particular, as centralized schools are reclassified as autonomous schools, unit costs
increase by US$9 (10%) per student. As centralized multigrade schools become autonomous
multigrade schools, which in turn become autonomous multigrade model schools, unit costs
increase by $9 (10%) and $36 (38%), respectively. As a result, during the first few years of the
EFA-FTI program, investment costs represent a smaller share of the Schooling Improvement
Program than the recurrent costs due to the funding requirements of autonomous schools. This
trend is reversed in later years (starting in 2011) as the additional impact of autonomy is
absorbed by the ordinary MECD budget.
The total costs of the Schooling Improvement Program until 2005 are portrayed in the chart
below.
EFA-FTI Schooling Improvement Program: Total Costs until 2005 (US$ millions)
2002 2003 2004 2005
EFA Schooling Improvement Program—Investment Costs 0 $1,932 1,932 1,932
EFA Schooling Improvement Program – Annual Costs 0 8,111 15,117 21,910
EFA Schooling Improvement Program—Total Costs 0 10,043 17,049 23,842
34
B. Sub-Model II: Student Scholarship Program (Programa Becas-Escolares)
The Government is aware of the need to implement subsidiary actions in favor of the poorest populations
in order to increase their permanence in school, especially by means of necessary financial transfers to
families to reduce the opportunity cost of studying instead of working. It is essential that only families in
need receive the transfers, avoiding the capture of these subsidies by less needy families or by
opportunists.
Objectives, Indicators and Targets : The objective of this initiative is to substantially increase the
number and proportion of poor children who successfully complete primary school. In Nicaragua, a
child’s school attendance is a function of his level of poverty status, which in turn has a direct
influence on his/her likelihood of repeating a grade or dropping out of school. The scholarship programs
create a new structure of opportunities for the poor. The leading indicators are the rates of preschool
participation, primary school enrollment, grade promotion, and sixth grade completion of children living
in conditions of extreme poverty. The targetsfor each of these indicators are given in the following table:
Indicators and Targets of the Scholarship Sub-Model

(Percent of children in poverty)
Indicator Year
2002 2005 2008 2015
Net primary enrollment rate 81 85 93 98
Completing primary 41 44 60 95
Obtaining preschool 26 35 50 60
Average promotion rate 70 75 85 96
Building on the National Education Plan’s Strategies to Provide Incentives to Poor

Families.
The National Education Plan clearly emphasizes the critical importance of providing financial support for
the poorest families in Nicaragua as incentives for enrolling and maintaining their children in school. “To
assure the equity of access to education, in particular for children in poverty, Nicaragua will not only need
to develop those factors internal to the school that affect learning, but also to implement interventions and
financial transfers for poor families to elevate the levels of investment in their education” (The Plan, p.8).
The National Education Plan is even more explicit. The government will need to: “Implement subsidiary
actions in favor of the poorest populations in order to increase their permanence in the education process,
especially by means of necessary financial transfers to families to reduce the opportunity cost of studying
instead of working. It is essential that these transfers are received only by those families in need,
avoiding the capture of these subsidies by less needy families or by opportunists (p. 29).
Background
Although Nicaragua has reduced the incidence of extreme poverty, the direct and indirect costs of
schooling are still the biggest barrier to school attendance: 51% of children out of school do not attend
because of financial problems. Given this barrier, there is a need to implement demand subsidies targeted
to children in extreme poverty, who are the most affected by the financial difficulties faced by their
families.
Building on Successful Experience. The government has recognized the need to help extremely poor
families defray the cost of sending their children to school. In Nicaragua, two pilot programs of this
35
nature have been implemented over the past 3 years, both with success: The Social Protection Network
(Red de Protección Social—RPS) and the MECD’s Beca program. The MECD has been directly
involved in the implementation of both programs.
Sub-Model Description. The proposed intervention is an expansion of The Ministry of Education

Project Aprende II´s “Beca Program," in combination with the RPS. The scholarship program will
provide subsidies targeted to extremely poor children between the ages of 6 and 12. Each beneficiary
family could benefit with up to three scholarships, provided that all their school-age children attend
school. Children who are 6 years of age will receive benefits only if they attend preschool education. It
has already been pointed out that the early enrollment of these children negatively affects the internal
efficiency of the primary education system. Furthermore, to reduce the incentive to repeat in order to
prolong the receipt of benefits, children who fail a grade will be excluded from the program.
To target beneficiaries more effectively the Ministry will use the Government’s poverty map, which is
based on the most recent empirical evidence from surveys on living standards. In addition, the MECD
will establish clear mechanisms to select families in rural areas, and reduce the potential for exclusion or
erroneous inclusion. According to the 2001 survey on living standards, approximately 75 per cent of the
population in extreme poverty lives in rural areas and have an average of less than two years of education.
Average number of ye ars of education by poverty level

Extreme Poor Poor Non Poor
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural
% Population 25 75 46 54 73 27
Average years of 2.42 1.68 4.11 2.53 6.61 3.78
education
Moreover, survey figures indicate that more than 45,000 children in extreme poverty did not attend
school, and that 46.1 % of them did not attend school for lack of money and 11.1 % because they were
doing domestic and agricultural work. To those in extreme poverty one has to add another 40,000
children in poverty (but not extreme) who could also qualify for this assistance.
Coverage. During the first three years of this program, about 60,000 children per year will receive the
proposed scholarships. Assuming some errors in targeting of 15 % results in a program that would cover
nearly 30,000 children in extreme poverty and nearly 25,000 in poverty (not extreme)20 . To implement
the targeted distribution of these scholarships the MECD will coordinate with the Red de Protección
Social (RPS), the Government’s social safety net in order to enhance their current health funding. The
mechanism of implementation will be prepared by the MECD and may include the direct targeting of
scholarships or the use of a contractor.
Proposed Number of Scholarships per Year, 2003-05

2003 2004 2005
Extreme poor 28,000 29,400 30,870
Poor 23,000 24,150 25,358
Error 7,650 8,033 8,434
20
Errors in targeting may occur from errors in the selection procedure, or from deliberate attempts to include all
children in poor communities. Past experience with the RPS indicates that by including all children in areas where
the non-poor population is small considerably reduces social problems and helps increase the effectiveness of the
program.
36
TOTAL 58,650 61,583 64,662
The proposed target of 60,000 scholarships will cover all children who cannot attend school because of
economic hardship 21 . Targeting students via the RPS will be relatively simple, since the program will
cover only those students who are not attending school for economic reason22 .
Costs of Implementation and Targets
The average amount to finance per student would be less than US$ 140 annually, which will cover the
direct costs of schooling, plus the wages forgone by working children of poor families23 . Since the
forgone wages are different as children become older, the level of compensation would also increase.
This measure will stimulate school attendance throughout the entire primary level. The amount to be
financed according to the age of the children is detailed below.
Proposed scholarship amounts

Age Amount per child (US$/year)
7 90
8 90
9 90
10 120
11 130
12+ 140
To compensate schools for the added work involved in the local management and supervision of the
program, the MECD will give each schools an annual transfer of US$ 15 per student enrolled in the
scholarship program. To guarantee transparency, the MECD will impose administrative sanctions to any
school director found manipulating school information to increase benefit capture. To this end, the
MECD will employ a system of random audits throughout the year.
The program will invest about US$ 8 million per year for the first three years. This amount will be
reduced at approximately the same rate as poverty, ensuring that its overall objectives are not distorted,
and guaranteeing the sustainability of school financing after the EFA initiative ends.
21
It must be remembered that 102,285 children 7-12 years of age do not attend school. About 52,000 cited
economic reasons for their nonattendance. Assuming a reasonable targeting error, 60,000 scholarships should cover
them all.
22
The RPS has already worked on developing short protocols in which key observable variables (such as access to
potable water, or the mother’s years of education) can be used as proxy variables for poverty during the
identification process. However, the MECD will work with the RPS to develop its own econometric estimates to
reflect the specific requirements of the scholarship program.
23
Initial estimations indicate that working children older than 10 years have an opportunity cost of less than US$120
per year, and a direct cost of US$ 24 per year. Children under 10 years usually have child-care duties (taking care of
younger siblings) which impose an indirect opportunity cost on families at times of peak labor demand. See: Arcia,
Gustavo, 1999. “A Cost-Effective Method for Targeting Social Safety Net Benefits.” CAER II Discussion Paper
No. 64, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
37
EFA-FTI Scholarship Program Costs: Total Costs until 2005 (US$ millions)
2002 2003 2004 2005
EFA Scholarships 0 7,855 8,034 8,217
Survey data indicates that extreme poverty is being reduced at a rate of 5 % per year. It is expected that
the amount given in scholarships will be gradually reduced to approximately US$ 5 million in 2015. A
more detailed listing of the program costs is presented in the Technical Annex.
Other Implementation Issues. The MECD will revise the operational manual of its Becas APRENDE
program and define the mechanisms for implementation in collaboration with the RPS. The scholarship
holders shall comply with the eligibility criteria established by the MECD and shall fill in the application
forms for funds that the MECD will provide to them at municipal delegations. Monetary transfer will be
distributed every six months. The mother (primarily) or the family head will sign an agreement
guaranteeing school attendance during the entire academic year and that their children will have free time
to study and do their homework. In this same document, the scholarship holder will sign the agreement
whereby he/she will attend school.
The local School Council will sign an agreement with the MECD, whereby it will ensure promises that all
beneficiaries will be admitted to school and that beneficiary children will receive the same quality of
education as everyone else in school. In addition the school well inform the MECD and the parents on
the child’s school performance. The School Council will keep a copy of both agreements and they will
witness the monetary transfers to beneficiary families. The MECD will give participating schools
additional funding to cover the additional costs implied by the increase in attendance.
C. Evaluation and Monitoring EFA Interventions

To evaluate progress in the implementation and effectiveness of EFA, the MECD will use regular yearly
evaluations done by external consultants. In addition, regular monitoring will be done through existing
instruments, such as the Educational Map. During 2001 the MECD implemented the first version of an
Educational Map at the national level. The map contains a cartographic digital database of the entire
country, with a digital record of 100% of all schools, infrastructure information, student registration,
performance and teacher registration and, the capability to store and process all other available
information. The Educational Map allows MECD staff to analyze education information from the micro
to the national level. The Educational Map will be used to administer, monitor, and evaluate field
information on the Beca Program and on the School Improvement Program. This information will be
updated continuously, at the same rate as the programs are being implemented, since data for the MAP
will come from participating schools.
38
Enrollment Deficit 2001

RAAN
NUEVA SEGO VIA JINOTEGA
MADRIZ
ESTELI
MATAGALPA
CHINA NDEG A
LEO N
BOACO
Children RAAS
out of
MASAYA CHONTALES
school MANA GUA
GRA NAD A
0-5000
CARAZO
5000-10000
RIVAS
10000-15000
RIO SAN JU AN
15000-20000
D. Summary of Outcomes and Financial Requirements of Nicaragua's EFA-FTI Program
The main outcome of EFA is the improved education of all primary school-age children. This outcome
embodies not only universal access to education, but also significant improvements in education quality.
39
Primary School Enrollment with and without EFA
1,250,000
1,200,000
1,150,000
1,100,000
Students
1,050,000
1,000,000
950,000
900,000
850,000
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
With EFA Without EFA
As a result, enrollment under EFA would most likely be lower than enrollment under current trends,
because the gains in education quality will translate into gains in internal efficiency. Thus, it is expected
that by 2015 Nicaragua would have a little more than 1 million students in primary school, which would
be about 50,000 student less than under current trends. However, as seen in the graph below, the number
of repeaters and dropouts would be substantially smaller under EFA. Under current trends, the number of
repeaters and dropouts will exceed 100,000 and 45,000 respectively. Under EFA the number of repeaters
would be less than half the above figures.
40
Repetition and Dropouts with and without EFA
140,000
120,000
100,000
Repeaters with EFA

80,000
Repeaters without EFA
Droputs with EFA
60,000
Dropouts without EFA
40,000
20,000
0
02
06
08
10
14
4
2
200
201
20
20
20
20
20
By 2015 the MECD would need a Primary School budget of about US$ 140 million, which would almost
double the current budget. However, this is a reasonable projection in light of the rate of growth of the
student population, and the increased cost requirements of the EFA initiative. Fortunately, if the MECD
increases its Primary School budget by 5 % a year, it would reach the same target by the time the EFA
initiative ends.
MECD Financial Needs for Primary School with and

without EFA (US$)
1,250,000
1,200,000
1,150,000
1,100,000
1,050,000
With EFA
Without EFA
1,000,000
950,000
900,000
850,000
800,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
41
MECD projections indicate that the supply side of the EFA strategy, the Schooling Improvement Program
(including the incremental costs associated with funding autonomous schools, would require
approximately US$ 10 million in 2003, increasing to about US$ 17 million in 2004, and stabilizing at
around US$ 24 million per until 2008. Beginning in 2009 the additional funds required to implement
EFA begin to decline, since the MECD budget increases begin to catch up with its financing
requirements, reaching a break-even point in 2014. It is assumed that the MECD will continue its efforts
at expanding the budget for primary education. Otherwise, the EFA initiative would be unsustainable.
These cost only refer to the provision of educational services and do not include the cost of scholarships.
Under the assumption of an annual 5 % increase in the Primary School budget, the MECD would not
need direct EFA assistance for operations by the year 2014. However, once the cost of the scholarships
program is included, the break-even point changes to 2015.
The demand side of the EFA strategy—the scholarship program—would require US$ 7.8 million in 2003,
US$ 8 million in 2002 and in 2003, and stabilizing at around US$ 6 million per year after 2008.
Beginning in 2009 the additional funds required to implement EFA begin to decline, since the MECD
budget would begin to catch up with its financing requirements, reaching a break-even point in 2014.
Financing Requirements for EFA and MECD Budget Projections for

Sustainability
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
'000s US$
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
-20,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total Cost under EFA MECD Budget Projections

MECD Financing Needs under EFA Demand subsidies
Total EFA financing
The costs of the demand side scholarships peak at approximately US$ 8.2 million in 2005, and begin
declining steadily until they reach a level of US$ 4.5 million per year in 2015. This decline is based on
the assumption that with economic growth, and the poverty reduction trends from the past 10 years, it is
reasonable to project a net reduction in the required funding for scholarships, since the number of poor
people —and the extremely poor in particular—are also expected to decline.
42
Adding the cost of the School Improvement Program with the Scholarship Program yields an approximate
total cost US$ 17.9 million in 2003, increasing to US$ 25 million in 2004 and to US$ 32 million in 2005
and declining until the break-even point—indicating sustainability—in 2015.
The total cost of the EFA initiative in Nicaragua is summarized below.
Financial Requirements of EFA Strategy (‘000s US$)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
a. Projected Costs 82,041 92,084 103,192 114,293 118,498 122,772 126,257
b. MECD Budget 82,041 82,041 86,144 90,451 94,973 99,722 104,708
b.1 EFA Schooling
Improvement Program—
Investment Costs 0 1,932 1,932 1,932 5,207 5,207 5,207
b.2 EFA Schooling
Improvement Program –
Annual Costs 0 8,111 15,117 21,910 18,318 17,844 16,342
c. EFA Schooling
Improvement Program—Total
Costs (a-b) 0 10,043 17,049 23,842 23,525 23,050 21,549
d. EFA Scholarships 0 7,855 8,034 8,217 7,846 7,474 7,102
e. Total EFA financing (c+d) 0 17,898 25,083 32,060 31,370 30,524 28,652
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
a. Projected Costs 129,641 133,000 134,863 136,788 138,753 140,737 142,730
b. MECD Budget 109,943 115,441 121,213 127,273 133,637 140,319 147,335
b.1 EFA Schooling
Improvement Program—
Investment Costs 7,279 7,279 7,279 5,533 5,533 5,533 5,533
b.2 EFA Schooling
Improvement Program –
Annual Costs 12,418 10,280 6,372 3,982 -416 -5,115 -10,137
c. EFA Schooling
Improvement Program—Total
Costs (a-b) 19,697 17,559 13,651 9,514 5,116 418 -4,605
d. EFA Scholarships 6,730 6,359 5,987 5,615 5,243 4,872 4,500
e. Total EFA financing (c+d) 26,428 23,918 19,638 15,130 10,360 5,290 -105
The net result is that—for EFA to achieve its goals—both the MECD and the EFA initiative must work in
tandem: the MECD by ensuring a steady increase in primary education funding—as well as the efficient
implementation of EFA programs—and EFA by ensuring a firm commitment to education funding—even
if it is tied to performance.
E. Financing EFA Interventions through an EFA Trust Fund

Based on the positive experience obtained in financial management from the Aprende Project, it is
recommended that the funds needed to implement the EFA program be managed using a Financial
Management Report. The MECD already has a system in use that has been working for more than three
years, yielding satisfactory results.
43
Creation and Management of an EFA-FTI Trust Fund.

§ The donors will create a trust fund for financing the EFA initiative.
§ Special Account. All deposits from donors would be deposited in a local Special Account to finance
EFA programs and activities.
§ Program Management Reports would be implemented as a means to request and withdraw funds from
this EFA Special Account. These reports would contain detailed information about the physical and
financial progress of EFA's activities, during the trimester, year to date, and cumulative from the
beginning of the program, as well as the projected cash flow needed for the next six months of
operation. The indicators for each of the sub-models would be tracked and linked to expenditures.
By using the Project Management Reports, the EFA management unit will have the necessary
administrative elements to manage the inflows and outflows of funds, and to report on these activities
as well as current balances.
§ All Program Management Reports would be submitted to a multidonor supervisory body (to be
determined after EFA approval), which will be responsible to review and approve the reports, to
allow future disbursements to occur.
§ The Special Account will be opened in a commercial bank, to receive exclusively the funds
withdrawn from de program.
§ Funds deposited in the Special Account will be periodically transferred to a local currency account,
from which all local payments will de made to finance the programs current activities.
§ The EFA implementation unit will maintain separate accounting records, considering all the
necessary elements to be audited as requested by the donors.
F. Proposal Risks and Mitigating Measures
There are three main risks involved in the implementation of EFA FTI: Macroeconomic, Fiscal, and
logistical.
Macroeconomic risks refer to the potential for a lower than expected economic growth, which would
exert undue financial pressure on parents, which would in turn reduce school enrollment. Since the model
proposed here involves the implementation of demand-side financing, through scholarships targeted to the
poor, the Government would expand this component as the problem unfolds. The idea behind this
mitigating measure is that the temporary setback of an economic contraction should not stop human
capital accumulation, since education is the key factor for future productivity. The advantage of the EFA
FTI is that the Government would have already in place the mechanism to deal with this risk.
Fiscal risk refers to the potential reductions in domestic education funding that may arise if revenues are
lower than expected, or if other sectors in the budget (i.e.: internal debt payments) crowd out education
funding allocations. To alleviate the negative impact of this risk the Ministry of Education will invoke
the PRSP agreement with the IMF, in which HIPC funds and domestic resources are primarily allocated
to education. This would help protect education spending by enrolling the support of donors and the IMF
in the funding of primary education.
Logistical risks refer to the problems that may arise from implementing the EFA strategy. To reduce this
risk the MECD will incorporate the key implementation indicators of EFA into its management
information system, allowing for the rapid detection of implementation problems.
44
Nicaragua
Education for All – Fast Track Initiative
Country Proposal Technical Annexes
November 21, 2002
Annex Page 1
Table of Contents: Technical Annexes
TECHNICAL ANNEX 1: ESTIMATION OF EFA COSTS ...................................................3
TECHNICAL ANNEX 2: COSTS OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.....11
TECHNICAL ANNEX 3: REQUIREMENTS FOR A MODEL SCHOOL ..........................14
TECHNICAL ANNEX 4: 2001 LIVING STANDARDS MEASUREMENT SURVEY-

SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................14
TECHNICAL ANNEX 5: SOCIAL POLICY UNDER CONSTRAINTS.............................31
TECHNICAL ANNEX 6: SCHOOLING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN THE

ATLANTIC COAST....................................................................................................................56
TECHNICAL ANNEX 7: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION

PLAN 2001-2015 .......................................................................................................................61
Annex Page 2
TECHNICAL ANNEX 1: ESTIMATION OF EFA COSTS
There are 5771 primary schools in the country. Of those, about 70% need to be improved to achieve the
Fundamental Level in 2003 (Table A1). By 2015 all primary schools in the country would be at or above
the Fundamental Level and 58% would be at or above the Satisfactory Level.
Table A1. Indicators and Targets of the Schooling Improvement Fund

Sub-Model
Indicators Year
Below fundamental level 70% 56% 37% 0%
Fundamental level 19% 33% 41% 43%
Satisfactory level or higher 10% 12% 21% 58%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
At least at fundamental level 30% 45% 62% 100%
Superior levels (above Satisfactory) 2% 3% 5% 22%
Under this proposed schedule, more than 4,000 schools would have to be upgraded during the curse of the
EFA initiative (Table A2). It is assumed that the number of schools would increase at a rate sufficient to
ensure an average of 35 students per classroom. This student/classroom ratio would yield close to 8,000
schools by the year 2015. Funding for the implicit increase in the number of schools would also be
funded by EFA. The projected number of schools will be sufficient to cover the enrollment projections
under the EFA strategy. The enrollment projections will be presented in EFA Model section in this
Annex.
Table A2. Number of Schools Targeted under the Schooling Improvement Fund
Sub-Model
Indicators Year
Below fundamental level 4,040 3,820 2,724 0
Fundamental level 1,206 2,292 3,018 3,474
Satisfactory level or higher 525 833 1620 4798
Total 5,771 6,945 7,362 8,272
The necessary enrollment projections, and the corresponding costs under the EFA strategy, were obtained
with the aid of a simple projection model of student flows. This model can be summarized as follows:
Annex Page 3
Structure of the EFA Projection Model
The model begins by estimating the number of students entering the 1st grade, which is calculated as the
rate of new entrants to the 1st grade relative to the number of 7 year olds in the country.
i1,t = Pi,t /POP 7t (1)
where i1,t represents the intake rate for the first grade in year t, P1,t represents the new entrants to the 1st
grade in year t, y POP7,t is the 7 years of age cohort in year t. The repetition rate is estimated by:
rg,t = Rg,t+1 /Eg,t (2)
where r is the repetition rate, R is the number of repeaters, E is total enrollment, g is the grade and t is the
year. The rate of promotion is calculated by:
pg,t = Pg+1,t+1 /Eg,t (3)
p is the promotion rate. As a result, the dropout rate dg,t is a residual estimated by:
dg,t = 1- rg,t - pg,t (4)
Enrollment projections are estimated by the standard student flow from one grade to the next. First grade
enrollment is equal to the net entry plus repeaters:
E1,t = i1,t *POP 7,t + r1,t -1 *E1,t -1 (5)
While enrollment in subsequent grades is estimated by:
Ej,t = pj-1,t -1 *Ej-1,t -1 + rj,t -1 *Ej,t -1 (6).
Empirical and estimated data
The initial transition rates required by the model are from MECD statistics, while the transition rates for
subsequent years are extrapolated from the goals outlined in the EFA initiative. Table A3 presents the
transition rates for selected years1 . This table shows that first grade enrollment is a lot higher than the
number of 7 year olds in the country. This is due to the high proportion of 6 year olds enrolled in the first
grade, which in turn increases the rate of repetition to 25% for the first grade2 . Following EFA goals, the
numbers of students enrolled approach the size of the 7-year-old cohort by the year 2015.
1
The complete model is available on request.
2
This rate is taken from the 2001 survey on living standards. Official MECD statitisc indicate a 15% rate of
repetition for the 1st grade. However, this statistic hides a methodological issue in which many repeaters are
classified as drop outs.
Annex Page 4
Table A3. Summary EFA Model—Transition Rates for Selected Years

2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015
Pop. 7 year olds 154,634 156,668 158,711 160,743 174,933 189,098 213,663
1st . grade enrollment 231,304 230,281 229,257 228,234 226,187 223,117 218,000
1st . grade repetition 58,057 54,745 51,433 48,121 41,497 31,561 15,000
Apparent Intake Rate 1.1204 1.1204 1.1204 1.1205 1.0558 1.0130 0.9501
Repetition Rates 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015

1st grade 25.10% 23.63% 22.16% 20.69% 17.75% 13.35% 6.00%
2d grade 14.30% 13.58% 12.87% 12.15% 10.72% 8.58% 5.00%
3rd grade 8.80% 8.35% 7.91% 7.46% 6.57% 5.23% 3.00%
4th grade 9.30% 8.82% 8.33% 7.85% 6.88% 5.42% 3.00%
5th grade 6.20% 5.95% 5.71% 5.46% 4.97% 4.23% 3.00%
6th grade 4.00% 3.92% 3.85% 3.77% 3.62% 3.38% 3.00%
Promotion Rate 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015

1st grade 69.00% 70.85% 72.69% 74.54% 78.23% 83.77% 93.00%
2d grade 82.00% 82.92% 83.85% 84.77% 86.62% 89.38% 94.00%
3rd grade 84.00% 84.85% 85.69% 86.54% 88.23% 90.77% 95.00%
4th grade 86.00% 86.69% 87.38% 88.08% 89.46% 91.54% 95.00%
5th grade 85.00% 85.77% 86.54% 87.31% 88.85% 91.15% 95.00%
6th grade 87.00% 87.62% 88.23% 88.85% 90.08% 91.92% 95.00%
Drop Out Rate 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015
1st grade 5.90% 5.52% 5.15% 4.77% 4.02% 2.88% 1.00%
2d grade 3.70% 3.49% 3.28% 3.08% 2.66% 2.04% 1.00%
3rd grade 7.20% 6.80% 6.40% 6.00% 5.20% 4.00% 2.00%
4th grade 4.70% 4.49% 4.28% 4.08% 3.66% 3.04% 2.00%
5th grade 8.80% 8.28% 7.75% 7.23% 6.18% 4.62% 2.00%
6th grade 9.00% 8.46% 7.92% 7.38% 6.31% 4.69% 2.00%
Under the above assumptions, the enrollment projections are estimated for the period 2003-15. These
projections—by grade—are shown in Tables A4 and A5. Currently the system enrolls about 900,000
students in primary schools. Given the assumed improvements in the transition rates—direct products of
the EFA strategy—enrollment is expected to reach 1.1 million students by 2015. These students would
be distributed in different types of schools, again, following the improvements envisioned by the EFA
strategy.
Current enrollment is distributed among centralized and autonomous schools, and subsidized private
schools. The desired trend is for enrollment to increase in those schools considered as Model Schools,
which would have the characteristics discussed in the School Improvement Program in the EFA proposal.
Moreover, in rural areas the desired trend would be to enroll students in Multigrade Model schools, under
Annex Page 5
the rules of school autonomy. The differences in enrollment by type of school have direct implications
for costs, since each type of school has different per student expenditures, with the Model schools
investing more per students that other school types.
Table A4. Summary EFA Model—Population and Enrollment Projections for Selected Years
2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015
Population projection by age group
6 154,634 156,668 158,711 160,743 174,933 189,098 213,663
7 151,273 153,728 156,212 158,726 171,387 185,265 209,332
8 147,688 150,586 153,529 156,532 167,606 181,177 204,713
9 143,985 147,295 150,683 154,152 163,673 176,926 199,910
10 140,060 143,853 147,748 151,754 159,528 172,445 194,847
11 135,802 140,236 144,801 149,512 155,098 167,657 189,437
12 132,310 136,859 141,554 146,404 151,240 163,486 184,724
Enrollment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015

1st grade 231,304 230,299 229,446 228,701 224,396 220,527 215,022
2d grade 176,011 183,510 186,774 189,489 193,254 198,536 207,214
3rd grade 156,321 157,388 164,618 168,886 175,984 183,459 197,151
4th grade 131,383 142,892 145,441 152,477 161,541 171,642 188,650
5th grade 109,875 119,531 130,698 134,232 146,723 159,666 179,978
6th grade 99,593 97,301 106,263 117,110 128,844 145,818 170,618
Total 904,487 930,920 963,241 990,895 1,030,742 1,079,647 1,158,633
Projected distribution of enrollment

by type of school 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015
Regular Centralized 16.13% 10.76% 5.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Regular Autonomous 38.29% 33.86% 29.43% 25.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Centralized, Model School 2.26% 1.51% 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Autonomous, Model School 5.07% 11.72% 18.36% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 35.00%
Multigrade Centralized 12.68% 8.46% 4.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Multigrade Autonomous 14.55% 9.70% 4.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Multigrade Autonomous, Model School 0.00% 13.83% 27.67% 41.50% 50.00% 55.00% 55.00%
Subsidized Model School 0.08% 1.72% 3.36% 5.00% 5.00% 8.00% 8.00%
Subsidized Regular School 9.17% 6.61% 4.06% 1.50% 3.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Other 1.76% 1.84% 1.92% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
As a result of the desired trends in enrollment, it is expected that by the year 2015 enrollment will be
concentrated in Model Autonomous Schools (mostly in urban areas) and in Model Multigrade
Autonomous Schools (mostly in rural areas). As Table A4 shows, 55 % of the students would be in
Annex Page 6
Model Multigrade Autonomous Schools, and 35 % in Model Autonomous Schools. The remaining
students would be in subsidized private schools, which—while of limited coverage—yield significant
financial savings to the MECD because of a significantly lower cost per student to the Government.
Table A5. Summary EFA Model—Enrollment Projections by Type of School for Selected Years
Type of School 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 2015
Regular Centralized 145,932 100,131 51,804 0 0 0 0
Regular Autonomous 346,334 315,213 283,484 247,724 103,074 0 0
Centralized, Model School 20,471 14,046 7,267 0 0 0 0
Autonomous, Model School 45,884 109,060 176,828 247,724 309,222 377,877 405,522
Multigrade Centralized 114,724 78,718 40,725 0 0 0 0
Multigrade Autonomous 131,592 90,292 46,713 0 0 0 0
Multigrade Autonomous,
Model School 0 128,777 266,497 411,221 515,371 593,806 637,248
Subsidized Model School 703 15,998 32,358 49,545 51,537 86,372 92,691
Subsidized Regular School 82,925 61,554 39,070 14,863 30,922 0 0
Other 15,923 17,132 18,496 19,818 20,615 21,593 23,173
Total 904,487 930,920 963,241 990,895 1,030,742 1,079,647 1,158,633
Given the above enrollment projections, the next step is to estimate the required funding. Using MECD
data for 2002 the cost per student was calculated for each type of school. Fortunately, the experience with
Model schools under USAID’s BASE project, as ell as information on infrastructure costs from the
SIMCEP, allowed for an accurate estimate of per student cost (Table A6).
Table A6. Summary EFA Model—Estimated

Annual Cost per Student by Type of School (US$)
Regular Centralized 85
Regular Autonomous 94
Centralized, Model School 130
Autonomous, Model School 121
Multigrade Centralized 85
Multigrade Autonomous 94
Multigrade Autonomous, Model School 130
Subsidized Model School 86
Subsidized Regular School 54
Other 123
Total expenditure estimates by type of school are shown in Table A7. The estimates show that by 2015
the MECD would need a Primary level budget of about US$ 140 million, which would almost double the
current budget. However, this is a reasonable projection in light of the rate of growth of the student
Annex Page 7
population, and the increased cost requirements of the EFA initiative. Fortunately, as it will be seen later,
if the MECD increases its Primary budget by 5 % a year, it would reach the same target by the time the
EFA initiative ends.
Table A7. Summary EFA Model—Projected Costs by Type of School and Year (US$)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Regular Centralized 12,467,394 8,554,499 4,425,751 0 0 0 0
Regular Autonomous 32,656,324 29,721,948 26,730,109 23,358,235 16,679,907 9,719,015 6,588,082
Centralized, Model School 2,652,344 1,819,905 941,545 0 0 0 0
Autonomous, Model School 5,552,005 13,196,286 21,396,243 29,974,567 33,635,753 37,415,919 40,157,393
Multigrade Centralized 9,801,215 6,725,101 3,479,295 0 0 0 0
Multigrade Autonomous 12,407,992 8,513,740 4,404,665 0 0 0 0
Model School 0 16,741,049 34,644,564 53,458,774 60,119,803 66,998,202 70,393,342
Subsidized Model School 60,434 1,375,468 2,782,086 4,259,833 4,345,584 4,431,134 5,406,598
Subsidized Regular School 4,485,233 3,329,299 2,113,191 803,930 1,230,169 1,672,516 1,133,723
Other 1,958,533 2,107,201 2,274,967 2,437,601 2,486,670 2,535,624 2,578,178
Total Cost for Primary 82,041,473 92,084,496103,192,417114,292,940118,497,886122,772,411126,257,316
Projected Costs by Type of School and Year (US$)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Regular Centralized 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regular Autonomous 3,344,574 0 0 0 0 0 0
Centralized, Model School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Autonomous, Model School 42,919,407 45,723,069 46,363,658 47,025,151 47,700,874 48,382,851 49,068,110
Multigrade Centralized 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Multigrade Autonomous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Model School 73,778,815 77,194,792 78,276,306 79,393,112 80,533,943 81,685,333 82,842,264
Subsidized Model School 6,404,463 7,426,206 7,530,249 7,637,687 7,747,436 7,858,200 7,969,498
Subsidized Regular School 575,558 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 2,617,729 2,655,933 2,693,143 2,731,567 2,770,818 2,810,432 2,850,237
Total Cost for Primary 129,640,546133,000,000134,863,357136,787,518138,753,071140,736,817142,730,110
The model does indeed assume that the MECD will continue its efforts at expanding the budget for
primary education. Otherwise, the EFA initiative would be unsustainable. Table A8 shows the direct
financing needs of the MECD under the EFA initiative. These cost only refer to the provision of
educational services and does not include the cost of scholarships. The complete cost package is
presented in the next table.
Under the assumption of an annual 5 % increase in the Primary school budget, the MECD would not need
direct EFA assistance for operations by the year 2014. However, as will be seen later, once the cost of the
scholarships program is included, the break-even point changes accordingly.
Annex Page 8
The results of the model projections indicate that the supply side of the EFA strategy would require US$
10 million in 2003, increasing rapidly to US$ 18 million in 2004, and stabilizing at around US$ 24
million per until 2008. Beginning in 2009 the additional funds required to implement EFA begin to
decline, since the MECD budget increases begin to catch up with its financing requirements, reaching a
break-even point in 2014.
Table A8. Summary EFA Model—MECD Direct Financing Needs under EFA Strategy under Current
Expenditure Trends (in ‘000s US$)
2,002 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007 2,008
Total Cost of Primary
Education under EFA
Strategy 82,041 92,084 103,192 114,293 118,498 122,772 126,257
Projected MECD funding 82,041 82,041 86,144 90,451 94,973 99,722 104,708
Financing Needs under EFA
Strategy 0 10,043 17,049 23,842 23,525 23,050 21,549
MECD Direct Financing Needs under EFA Strategy under Current Expenditure Trends (in ‘000s US$)
2,009 2,010 2,011 2,012 2,013 2,014 2,015

Total Cost of Primary
Education under EFA
Strategy 129,641 133,000 134,863 136,788 138,753 140,737 142,730
Projected MECD funding 109,943 115,441 121,213 127,273 133,637 140,319 147,335
Financing Needs under EFA
Strategy 19,697 17,559 13,651 9,514 5,116 418 -4,605
The last cost estimation involved combining the direct cost of education under EFA—the supply side of
the problem—with the demand assistance to poor families, to arrive at a total cost of EFA for Nicaragua.
The total cost of the EFA strategy is presented in Table A9. Total EFA funding required for 2003 is
approximately US$ 20 million, increasing to US$ 35 million in 2005 and declining until the break-even
point—indicating sustainability—in 2015.
Table 9 includes the funding allocated to the demand subsidies. These funds peak at approximately 10
million between 2003 and 2005, and begin declining steadily until they reach a level of US$ 6 million per
year in 2015. This decline is based on the assumption that with economic growth, and the poverty
reduction trends from the past 10 years, it is reasonable to project a net reduction in the required funding
for scholarships, since the number of poor people —and the extremely poor in particular—are also
expected to decline.
The net result is that—for EFA to achieve its goals—both the MECD and the EFA initiative must work in
tandem: the MECD by ensuring a steady increase in primary education funding—as well as the efficient
implementation of EFA programs—and EFA by ensuring a firm commitment to education funding—even
if it is tied to performance.
Annex Page 9
Table A9. Total Cost Requirements under the EFA Strategy (in ‘000s US$)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Cost Requirements for EFA 82,041 92,084 103,192 114,293 118,498 122,772 126,257
MECD Budget Projections 82,041 82,041 86,144 90,451 94,973 99,722 104,708
MECD Financing Needs
under EFA Strategy 0 10,043 17,049 23,842 23,525 23,050 21,549
Demand subsidies 0 7,855 8,034 8,217 7,846 7,474 7,102
Total EFA financing 0 17,898 25,083 32,060 31,370 30,524 28,652
Total Cost Requirements under the EFA Strategy (in ‘000s US$)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cost Requirements for EFA 129,641 133,000 134,863 136,788 138,753 140,737 142,730
MECD Budget Projections 109,943 115,441 121,213 127,273 133,637 140,319 147,335
MECD Financing Needs
under EFA Strategy 19,697 17,559 13,651 9,514 5,116 418 -4,605
Demand subsidies 6,730 6,359 5,987 5,615 5,243 4,872 4,500
Total EFA financing 26,428 23,918 19,638 15,130 10,360 5,290 -105
Annex Page 10
TECHNICAL ANNEX 2: COSTS OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Table A10. School Improvement Program Targets

Number of Schools by Type
Standards of School Improvement 2002 2005 2008 2011 2015
Below Fundamental level 4,040 3,820 2,724 1,092 0
Fundamental level 1,206 2,292 3,018 3,434 3,474
Satisfactory level 525 625 1,252 2,419 2,978
Superior levels or higher 0 208 368 858 1,820
Total 5,771 6,945 7,362 7,804 8,272
Periods of Time 2003-05 2006-08 2008-11 2011-15

Number of years 3 3 3 4
Percent requiring SIMCEP 70% 50% 10%
Total additional Fundamental 220 1,096 1,631 1,092
Up to Fundamental needing SIMCEP 165 548 163 153
Up to Fundamental w/o SIMCEP 55 548 1468 940
Additional from Fundamental to
Satisfactorio 308 786 1658 1520
Additional from Satisfactorio to Superior 208 160 490 961
Total in multiyear period 737 2042 3780 3574
Table A11. Required funding for the School Improvement Program per 3-year Periods
Cost per school US$
Below Fundamental level w/Simcep 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000
Below Fundamental level w/o Simcep 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Satisfactory level 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Superior levels or higher 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
Total Amounts per 3-year Period 2003-05 2006-08 2009-11 2012-15
Below Fundamental level w/Simcep 2,311,932 7,671,580 2,283,933 2,141,291
Below Fundamental level w/o Simcep 275,230 2,739,850 7,341,214 4,697,729
Satisfactory level 1,542,072 3,930,938 8,289,417 7,600,645
Superior levels or higher 1,666,829 1,277,902 3,922,382 7,691,166
Total 5,796,063 15,620,269 21,836,946 22,130,830
Annex Page 11
Table A12. Required Annual Funding for School Improvement Program

Total Amounts per Year 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007 2,008 2,009
w/Simcep 770,644 770,644 770,644 2,557,193 2,557,193 2,557,193 761,311
w/o Simcep 91,743 91,743 91,743 913,283 913,283 913,283 2,447,071
Satisfactory level 514,024 514,024 514,024 1,310,313 1,310,313 1,310,313 2,763,139
Superior levels or higher 555,610 555,610 555,610 425,967 425,967 425,967 1,307,461
Total 1,932,021 1,932,021 1,932,021 5,206,756 5,206,756 5,206,756 7,278,982
Total Amounts per Year 2,010 2,011 2,012 2,013 2,014 2,015Total
w/Simcep 761,311 761,311 535,323 535,323 535,323 535,323 14,408,735
w/o Simcep 2,447,071 2,447,071 1,174,432 1,174,432 1,174,432 1,174,432 15,054,023
Satisfactory level 2,763,139 2,763,139 1,900,161 1,900,161 1,900,161 1,900,161 21,363,072
Superior levels or higher 1,307,461 1,307,461 1,922,791 1,922,791 1,922,791 1,922,791 14,558,278
Total 7,278,982 7,278,982 5,532,708 5,532,708 5,532,708 5,532,708 65,384,109
Annex Page 12
Table A13. MECD costs per activity and type of school, 2002 (US$)
Admin Teacher
Admin. Costs School lunch Materials Capital Inv. Scholarships Training Salaries Salaries Total
Regular Centralized 220,675 1,466,338 1,044,130 1,715,746 193,105 347,432 498,577 7,361,439 12,626,767
Regular Autonomous 149,128 1,647,281 1,086,412 5,635,442 160,954 1,368,942 518,743 22,656,001 33,073,775
Centralized, Model School 30,955 205,688 333,611 240,674 27,087 776,577 69,403 1,033,149 2,686,190
Autonomous, Model School 19,757 218,242 471,938 746,618 21,3241,098,572 68,726 3,001,608 5,627,029
Multigrade Centralized 173,483 1,152,756 820,839 1,348,827 151,808 273,132 391,209 5,787,910 9,926,481
Multigrade Autonomous 56,662 625,896 412,790 2,141,224 61,155 520,139 197,100 8,608,300 12,566,603
Multigrade Autonomous, Model School 1,229 13,577 11,512 46,448 1,327 17,237 4,276 18,193 112,569
Subsidized Model School 422 0 8,137 1,909 0 18,941 1,991 30,240 61,217
Subsidized Regular School 49,728 0 366,356 225,181 0 149,174 234,890 3,566,961 4,542,563
Other 4,361 0 1,323 52,245 0 480 10,590 1,346,848 1,411,485
Total 706,399 5,329,779 4,557,048 12,154,314 616,760 4,570,624 1,995,505 53,410,649 82,634,680
SOURCE: DIRECTORATE OF FINANCE, MECD

Table A14. MECD per student expenditures, per activity and type of school, 2002 (US$)
Admin Teacher
Admin. Costs School lunch Materials Capital Inv. Scholarships Training Salaries Salaries Total
Regular Centralized 3 10 7 12 1 2 3 50 85
Regular Autonomous 1 5 3 16 0 4 1 65 94
Centralized, Model School 3 10 16 12 1 37 3 50 130
Autonomous, Model School 1 5 10 16 0 24 1 65 121
Multigrade Centralized 3 10 7 12 1 2 3 50 85
Multigrade Autonomous 1 5 3 16 0 4 1 65 94
Multigrade Autonomous, Model School 1 5 4 16 0 6 1 6 39
Subsidized Model School 3 0 11 3 0 27 3 42 86
Subsidized Regular School 3 0 4 3 0 2 3 42 54
Annex Page 13
TECHNICAL ANNEX 3: REQUIREMENTS FOR A MODEL SCHOOL
The Model School program is a results-based educational quality intervention that depends principally on
teacher training rather than commodity inputs. The per-school investment required to produce a
Satisfactory- or Superior- level school (Technical Annex 2, “Costs of the School Improvement Program,”)
using the Model School methodology will vary depending on each school’s baseline characteristics, so the
cost projections shown in Annex 2 are necessarily projected averages.
Table A14a below shows characteristics which should be measured formatively using a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methodologies to track progress and to determine total investment requirements
by school, in keeping with the School Improvement Program classification system. Table A14b shows
illustrative commodity inputs for an appropriately equipped Model School (these also will vary according to
each school’s start- up condition).
Table A14a: Objective Criteria for use in Applying Model School Program Training
and Commodity inputs, and Measuring Progress under the School Improvement
Classification System
1. Learner-centered active-learning methodology clearly is the predominant
pedagogical approach in every classroom.
2. A variety of student learning styles and paces are in evidence in every
classroom.
3. Individualized, small- group, and peer-directed learning are in evidence in
every classroom.
4. Teachers observably comprehend the ir roles and manage their classrooms as
learning facilitators and learning-resource managers.
5. Active, productive, inclusive, and democratic student government is in
evidence.
6. School and/or classroom libraries are present and in use.
7. Learning resources centers are present and in use in every classroom.
8. Hands-on learning projects are in evidence.
9. Most teachers are active participants in MIC’s (teacher quality circles).
10. Systematic and participatory curricular and pedagogical planning is in
evidence involving participation by both teachers and community members.
11. Active, productive family and community participation is present in support
of school quality.
12. The school autonomy program is active and viable in support of both school
management and school qua lity.
13. Resource Centers are adequately equipped and supplied, and are conveniently
available to and actively used by teachers.
14. Active participation by a broad base of experienced and capable teachers is
taking place in developing learning materials and peer- in-service training
materials.
Annex Page 14
15. Students self- instructional learning guides are present and in use in every
classroom.
16. Teacher training Modules are available to all teachers and are used by
teachers.
17. Locally developed academic content and learning materials are in use,
appropriate to local cultural and other realities.
18. Teachers are trained in and carrying out qualitative continuous student
assessment.
19. Flexible promotion is in place and functioning.
20. There is observable evidence of teacher and student sensitivity to and
acceptance of ethnic, physical, and other personal differences.
Table 14b: Typical/Illustrative Training and Commodity Inputs for a Model School
Workshops
4 Workshop with Department and Municipal Delegates
4 Five-day Workshops for teachers
2 Workshops for Parents
3 Workshops for Teacher Training Schools
4 Workshops with NERA Directors
4 Meetings in the Training Mini Centers (Minicentros de Intercapacitación)
1 Meeting with parent leaders
1 Meeting with successful leaders of successful Training Mini Centers
1 Meeting with outstanding studetns of Mathematics and Spanish
2 Meetings with parents from successful schools
Field visits
Rural Forum
Documents
13 Interactive Modules for teacher training
10 information sheets for parents
Information Bulletins
Pedagogical Materials
1 Mathematics Learning kit
Instructional games
Pedagogical writing boards for each child
School Libraries: 120 books, bookcases, tables, and chairs
Sport Equipment
Baseball and basketball
Annex Page 15
School Orchard
Set of tools
School Nutrition
Kitchen equipment
Non Salary Incentives

Teacher’s briefcase with educational material
Briefcases for parents
Shirts and caps for teachers and parents
School Projects
Mini- financing of School Councils as an incentive for the improved implementation
of academic and physical projects.
Other: Materials for the preparation of pedagogical aids and First Aid Kit
Annex Page 16
TECHNICAL ANNEX 4: 2001 LIVING STANDARDS MEASUREMENT SURVEY-SUMMARY
Table A15. Nicaragua 2001: Gross Enrollment Rates by gender

Pre-school1 Primary 2 Secondary 3
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
All 1.8 1.5 2.1 113.3 115.0 111.6 62.4 56.6 68.4
Extreme Poor 3.0 * * 101.7 99.7 103.7 14.6 10.6 19.7
Not Extreme Poor 1.5 * * 116.0 118.3 113.6 72.1 67.2 77.1
Poor 2.0 2.4 1.6 112.6 112.5 112.6 34.3 30.0 39.2
Non-poor * * * 114.1 117.8 110.4 88.1 83.4 92.5
Urban * * * 115.1 118.1 112.0 83.2 79.3 87.1
Extreme Poor * * * 101.7 102.1 101.2 26.8 19.7 34.6
Not Extreme Poor * * * 116.4 119.7 113.0 87.6 84.2 90.9
Poor * * * 118.6 120.3 116.8 56.6 53.6 60.2

Non-poor * * * 113.0 116.7 109.0 95.4 92.7 97.8
Rural 2.4 2.6 2.1 111.2 111.2 111.2 34.3 28.6 40.9
Extreme Poor 3.4 * * 101.8 98.8 104.4 10.6 7.9 14.4
Not Extreme Poor 2.7 * * 115.3 116.2 114.4 44.4 38.5 50.9
Poor 2.9 3.5 * 108.8 107.6 110.1 20.7 15.6 26.6

Non-poor * * * 117.2 120.6 113.9 65.6 58.4 74.1
Quintile
Poorest 2.5 * * 107.9 107.2 108.5 18.9 13.8 25.0
II * * * 119.1 120.0 118.2 45.5 43.7 47.7
III * * * 113.3 118.0 108.7 61.9 51.8 72.7
IV * * * 118.5 122.6 114.5 91.4 88.8 93.8
Richest * * * 106.4 106.3 106.5 103.9 106.4 101.7
Zone
Managua * * * 119.9 123.8 115.1 84.9 86.7 83.3
Pacific- Urban * * * 114.8 121.4 108.3 84.8 77.0 92.9
Pacific - Rural * * * 122.9 122.9 122.8 48.2 40.0 56.6
Pacific - Total * * * 118.7 122.1 115.3 67.2 59.2 75.4
Central - Urban * * * 106.9 102.3 111.0 80.4 77.5 83.4
Central - Rural 2.6 * * 103.9 106.0 101.9 23.6 17.0 32.4
Central - Total 3.0 * * 105.1 104.6 105.4 46.5 39.6 54.7
Atlantic- Urban * * * 117.8 118.0 117.4 72.2 57.8 89.0
Atlantic - Rural * * * 105.1 99.6 110.2 18.2 17.2 19.2
Atlantic - Total * * * 110.7 108.1 113.3 42.3 36.2 48.8
1
number in pre-school/ number of 4-6 yrs old (Number of observations=2)
2
number in elementary school/ number of 7-12 yrs old
3
number in secondary school/ number of 13-17 yrs old
* n<10
Annex Page 17
Table A16. Nicaragua: Net Enrollment Rates by gender
Primary 2 Secondary 3
Total Male Female Total Male Female
All 83.0 83.4 82.6 42.9 38.5 47.5

Rural 79.0 78.5 79.5 22.8 19.3 26.8
Urban 86.4 87.4 85.3 57.8 54.0 61.6
Poorest 74.1 73.6 74.6 14.1 10.3 18.8

II 84.3 83.3 85.3 30.0 28.5 31.8
III 85.1 86.6 83.7 43.4 39.9 47.1
IV 88.1 87.3 88.9 62.5 54.6 69.7
Richest 86.6 90.3 82.1 70.9 73.6 68.5
Managua 88.3 90.2 85.9 59.9 60.6 59.4

Pacific- Urban 86.5 88.9 84.2 56.5 48.6 64.7
Pacific - Rural 90.6 90.6 90.5 34.5 27.9 41.3
Pacific - Total 88.5 89.7 87.2 45.9 38.6 53.4
Central - Urban 81.8 77.6 85.4 58.2 52.6 64.0
Central - Rural 71.9 72.2 71.7 15.2 13.3 17.6
Central - Total 75.7 74.2 77.0 32.5 28.0 37.9
Atlantic- Urban 87.9 91.6 84.0 43.0 40.8 45.6
Atlantic - Rural 73.7 68.4 78.7 10.5 6.9 14.0
Atlantic - Total 80.0 79.1 80.9 25.0 22.7 27.4
Total
Extreme Poor 70.4 73.2 71.2 10.5 7.3 14.8
Not Extreme Poor 85.9 88.8 86.7 49.5 45.7 53.3
Poor 79.3 78.9 79.7 24.0 21.1 27.3
Non-poor 87.2 88.5 85.8 60.2 55.9 64.2
Urban
Extreme Poor 72.2 67.0 72.1 19.9 11.3 29.4
Not Extreme Poor 87.8 83.2 82.9 60.8 57.5 63.9
Poor 84.5 84.7 84.4 39.9 38.6 41.4
Non-poor 87.5 89.1 85.9 66.0 62.0 69.6
Rural
Extreme Poor 69.7 65.8 72.8 7.5 6.1 9.5
Not Extreme Poor 83.0 83.4 83.6 29.3 25.7 33.3
Poor 76.1 75.3 77.0 14.3 10.4 18.8
Non-poor 86.2 86.9 85.6 42.3 39.7 45.4
2
number 7-12 yr olds in elementary school/ number of 7-12 yrs old
3
number 13-17 yr olds in secondary school/ number of 13-17 yrs old
* n<10
Annex Page 18
Table A17. Nicaragua 2001: Reason for Not attending School by gender (7 - 12 year olds only)
Extreme Poor Not Extreme Poor Poor Non-poor

Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male
Age 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.1 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.0 3.2 1.6
Not interested 16.3 19.4 18.7 11.9 8.5 9.7 13.0 14.6 14.2 14.0 6.0 10.1
Domestic Duties 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Work in fields 0.0 17.7 13.6 4.8 23.0 16.6 4.6 22.0 17.5 0.0 10.0 4.9
No vacancy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Level not offered 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.2 2.0 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.0 5.6 2.7
Distance 0.0 8.8 6.7 1.3 18.3 12.3 0.0 12.7 9.4 2.9 22.5 12.5
Insufficient Teachers 0.0 3.6 2.8 0.0 4.2 2.7 0.0 4.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Insufficient Security 0.0 0.7 0.5 10.6 5.2 7.1 0.0 0.8 0.6 24.5 20.1 22.4
Family problems 0.0 4.4 3.4 4.0 5.7 5.1 1.8 5.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 2.5
Monetary problems 78.4 43.2 51.4 60.8 21.4 35.3 73.6 32.9 43.4 49.5 21.4 35.7
Other 5.3 2.2 2.9 5.1 6.7 6.1 5.5 3.7 4.2 4.3 11.2 7.7
Female
Age 2.6 3.1 3.0 10.6 0.0 4.0 2.9 1.8 2.1 17.7 0.0 10.6
Not interested 0.0 25.7 19.8 16.4 9.5 12.1 10.4 18.3 16.3 11.7 14.2 12.7
Domestic Duties 0.0 2.2 1.7 8.6 4.1 5.8 2.0 3.1 2.8 13.1 3.6 9.3
Work in fields 2.3 8.5 7.1 5.5 4.6 4.9 1.2 6.8 5.4 10.8 5.1 8.5
No vacancy 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 2.7 0.0 1.3 1.0 6.4 0.0 3.8
Level not offered 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.0 2.7 1.6 0.0 2.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Distance 0.0 17.5 13.5 2.6 21.7 14.4 0.0 17.8 13.4 5.1 34.6 16.9
Insufficient Teachers 0.0 4.1 3.1 0.0 7.6 4.7 0.0 6.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Insufficient Security 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 4.6 2.8 0.0 1.5 1.2 0.0 18.5 7.4
Family problems 6.8 8.2 7.9 1.6 5.2 3.9 5.1 6.9 6.4 0.0 5.7 2.3
Monetary problems 88.3 26.9 41.0 49.8 30.5 37.8 78.5 31.5 43.2 31.9 2.9 20.3
Other 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.7 7.3 5.2 0.0 2.4 1.8 3.4 15.4 8.2
Annex Page 19
Table A18. Nicaragua 2001: Percent Not Attending School
Percent not attending school

7 - 12 yrs 13 - 18 yrs 7 - 18 yrs
All 12.1 37.2 24.0
Extreme Poor 27.7 62.2 43.0
Not Extreme Poor 8.5 32.2 19.9
Poor 18.6 49.9 32.5
Non-poor 4.6 25.8 15.3
Urban 6.9 25.9 16.2
Poor 12.5 36.5 23.1
Non-poor 3.6 21.1 12.6
Rural 18.1 52.6 33.8
Poor 22.4 58.0 38.3
Non-poor 7.2 40.3 22.9
Quintile
Poorest 24.0 57.0 38.7
II 14.1 43.8 27.1
III 9.4 39.7 23.6
IV 4.2 23.2 13.6
Richest 1.9 19.0 11.2
Zone
Managua 4.0 23.5 14.5
Pacific - Urban 6.3 28.4 16.6
Pacific - Rural 6.2 46.3 24.8
Pacific - Total 6.3 36.9 20.5
Central - Urban 11.7 26.9 19.0
Central - Rural 25.8 57.9 40.3
Central - Total 20.5 45.3 32.0
Atlantic- Urban 7.7 35.3 19.3
Atlantic - Rural 24.5 55.7 37.3
Atlantic - Total 17.1 46.5 29.3
Source: 2001 LSMS data
Annex Page 21
Table A19. Nicaragua 2001: Pre -school attendance of children 0-3 & 4-6 years old
0-3 years 4-6 years

CICO/CDI Pre-school CICO/CDI Pre-school School
All 1.8 6.0 2.3 28.8 27.9
Extreme Poor 0.6 3.8 1.4 22.1 17.6
Not Extreme Poor 2.1 6.6 2.5 30.5 30.6
Poor 1.7 3.4 2.2 24.3 24.0
Non-poor 1.9 9.4 2.4 34.9 33.2
Urban 1.7 7.5 2.9 32.4 32.4
Extreme Poor 0.6 0.9 0.7 18.9 18.7
Not Extreme Poor 1.8 8.1 3.1 33.8 33.8
Poor 1.9 2.6 3.5 26.6 28.9
Non-poor 1.6 10.7 2.5 36.6 35.0
Rural 1.9 4.3 1.6 24.9 23.0
Extreme Poor 0.6 4.7 1.6 23.2 17.3
Not Extreme Poor 2.6 4.2 1.7 25.7 25.9
Poor 1.6 3.9 1.5 22.9 21.0
Non-poor 2.8 5.8 2.2 30.7 28.8
Quintile
Poorest 1.3 3.2 1.5 21.1 19.3
II 1.8 3.3 2.8 27.1 29.6
III 2.8 4.8 2.1 29.6 28.1
IV 1.9 8.9 3.1 33.4 35.0
Richest 1.2 14.9 2.2 43.2 34.3
Zone
Managua 1.3 8.3 2.7 33.0 34.3
Pacific - Urban 1.9 5.6 1.5 37.7 33.5
Pacific - Rural 0.6 5.1 1.3 29.2 30.6
Pacific - Total 1.2 5.3 1.4 32.3 32.0
Central - Urban 2.8 8.8 6.1 28.5 31.3
Central - Rural 3.2 4.9 2.4 24.7 20.0
Central - Total 3.1 6.3 3.6 25.9 23.7
Atlantic- Urban 1.6 6.6 1.2 29.2 27.8
Atlantic - Rural 0.0 1.2 0.5 16.4 14.4
Atlantic - Total 0.6 3.3 0.8 22.2 20.5
Note: Using data from Section 4a

Source: LSMS 2001
Annex Page 22
Table A20. Nicaragua 2001: Primary school repetition rates,

percent with no books and mean number of days absent
Repetition (%) No books Days absent
(%)
All 8.2 11.3 4.4

Poor 9.4 14.4 4.2
Non-poor 6.8 7.7 4.6
Urban 7.5 9.4 4.5
Poor 10.4 13.0 4.4
Non-poor 5.6 7.2 4.6
Rural 9.0 13.5 4.2
Poor 8.7 15.4 4.1
Non-poor 9.6 9.0 4.5
Quintile
Poorest 9.4 19.6 4.3
II 9.3 9.4 4.2
III 7.7 9.9 4.2
IV 7.9 8.3 4.5
Richest 4.9 6.0 4.9
Zone
Managua 7.8 6.4 5.5
Pacific- Urban 10.1 9.8 3.7
Pacific- Total 10.7 7.6 3.9
Source: LSMS 2001
Annex Page 23
Table A21. Nicaragua 2001: Secondary school repetition

rates, percent with no books and mean number of days absent
Repetition No books Days absent

(%) (%)
All 5.9 27.5 4.3

Poor 3.8 31.1 4.4
Non-poor 6.6 26.2 4.3
Ur ban 6.3 27.4 4.4
Poor 3.1 30.8 4.6
Non-poor 7.2 26.5 4.4
Rural 4.4 27.7 4.0
Poor 5.0 31.5 4.1
Non-poor 4.0 24.9 3.9
Quintile
Poorest 4.1 29.7 4.4
II 1.9 32.0 4.7
III 6.7 31.6 3.9
IV 4.9 24.0 4.0
Richest 8.8 25.5 4.7
Zone
Managua 6.5 31.6 5.6
Pacific - Total 5.5 20.4 3.9
Source: LSMS 2001
Annex Page 24
Table A22. Nicaragua 2001: Percent Illiterate (10 years and older) and Average
Years of Schooling (10-19 years old)
Means years of schooling (10-19 years old)

Illiterate (10 Total Male Female
years and up)
All 18.7 4.9 4.5 5.3

Extreme Poor 41.3 2.6 2.4 2.9
Not Extreme Poor 15.2 5.4 5.0 5.7
Poor 29.4 3.6 3.3 3.9
Non-poor 10.8 6.1 5.8 6.5
Urban 10.9 5.9 5.5 6.2
Extreme Poor 35.5 3.2 2.8 3.6
Poor 19.4 4.5 4.3 4.7
Non-poor 7.7 6.5 6.1 6.8
Rural 30.4 3.6 3.3 3.9
Extreme Poor 43.2 2.4 3.6 2.6
Poor 35.7 3.0 2.8 3.3
Non-poor 20.4 5.0 4.8 5.2
Quintile
Poorest 38.8 2.8 2.6 3.1
II 23.4 4.2 4.0 4.4
III 18.5 4.9 4.5 5.4
IV 12.2 5.9 5.6 6.1
Richest 4.9 7.3 6.9 7.6
Zone
Managua 7.8 6.4 6.0 6.7
Pacific- Urban 10.1 5.8 5.6 6.0
Pacific - Rural 20.5 4.6 4.2 5.0
Pacific- Total 14.7 5.2 5.0 5.5
Central - Urban 17.5 5.5 5.0 6.1
Central - Rural 37.5 3.0 2.7 3.2
Central - Total 29.1 4.0 3.6 4.4
Atlantic- Urban 15.6 4.6 4.3 5.0
Atlantic - Rural 37.7 2.7 2.5 2.9
Atlantic - Total 27.4 3.6 3.3 3.8
Source: LSMS 2001
Annex Page 25
Table A23. Nicaragua 2001: Percent literate ( 15-24 years and 15 years and older) and ratio
of Females to Males(literate and in school)
Literate Literate (15 Ratio of Literate Ratio of Girls to Boys

(15-24 years and Females to Males in Primary and
years) older) (15-24 years) Secondary education
All 86.4 77.7 104 101

Extreme Poor 65.6 51.1 87 114
Not Extreme Poor 89.8 81.5 106 100
Poor 76.1 64.5 91 101
Non-poor 94.3 86.7 112 101
Urban 93.9 86.4 110 98
Extreme Poor 74.6 54.7 101 99
Poor 88.0 75.0 85 94
Non-poor 96.0 90.3 120 101
Rural 75.7 64.1 93 106
Extreme Poor 63.3 50.0 83 120
Poor 69.1 57.9 96 108
Non-poor 88.9 74.9 89 104
Quintile
Poorest 67.2 53.6 92 109
II 81.5 70.9 95 95
III 88.0 77.1 95 104
IV 94.7 84.6 109 105
Richest 98.1 93.8 122 94
Zone
Managua 96.1 89.3 110 87
Pacific- Urban 95.1 87.3 97 98
Pacific - Rural 86.1 73.2 97 108
Pacific- Total 91.0 81.1 97 102
Central - Urban 89.3 79.7 126 116
Central - Rural 68.4 57.3 98 106
Central - Total 76.8 67.0 110 111
Atlantic- Urban 86.9 79.3 100 102
Atlantic - Rural 68.3 57.6 82 118
Atlantic - Total 76.6 67.9 90 110
Note: Literate is defined as those who can read and write

Source: LSMS 2001
Annex Page 26
Table A24. Nicaragua 1993: Percent literate ( 15-24 years and 15 years and older) and ratio
of Females to Males(literate and in school)
Literate Literate (15 Ratio of Literate Ratio of Girls to Boys

(15-24 years and Females to Males in Primary and
years) older) (15-24 years) Secondary education
All 82.3 76.3 109 98

Extreme Poor 65.5 52.2 96 111
Poor 75.1 62.7 105 103
Non-poor 93.8 87.3 113 94
Urban 94.3 87.7 112 97
Extreme Poor 81.6 69.9 92 108
Poor 89.8 79.6 107 96
Non-poor 96.3 90.9 114 97
Rural 70.5 57.8 105 100
Extreme Poor 60.4 47.1 97 110
Poor 65.4 52.0 103 109
Non-poor 84.5 72.5 109 82
Quintile
Poorest 66.2 52.8 95 111
II 77.1 65.6 114 100
III 88.3 77.8 107 99
IV 93.0 85.0 107 98
Richest 96.8 91.7 121 87
Zone
Managua 92.2 86.1 105 92
Pacific- Urban 94.6 88.4 108 96
Pacific - Rural 84.4 68.3 106 100
Pacific- Total 90.5 81.1 108 97
Central - Urban 92.7 84.2 109 108
Central - Rural 61.2 48.8 111 103
Central - Total 73.7 62.9 110 105
Atlantic- Urban 94.5 85.7 167 106
Atlantic - Rural 56.6 48.6 99 95
Atlantic - Total 75.8 67.4 137 101
Source: LSMS 1993
Annex Page 27
Tabl e A25. Nicaragua 1998: Percent literate ( 15-24 years and 15 years and older) and
ratio of Females to Males(literate and in school)
Literate Literate (15 Ratio of Literate Ratio of Girls to

(15-24 years and Females to Males Boys in Primary
years) older) (15-24 years) and Secondary
education
All 85.6 77.3 109 108

Extreme Poor 65.0 55.5 91 92
Poor 76.0 64.5 104 101
Non-poor 93.7 86.6 113 115
Urban 94.2 87.2 115 110
Extreme Poor 81.2 67.5 101 101
Poor 88.2 77.7 105 96
Non-poor 97.9 92.6 119 117
Rural 75.4 64.5 101 106
Extreme Poor 63.9 56.8 88 89
Poor 72.5 62.3 103 105
Non-poor 86.2 77.4 97 108
Quintile
Poorest 68.0 57.3 93 96
II 79.5 66.8 115 106
III 90.5 78.3 103 107
IV 90.4 84.4 113 104
Richest 97.1 91.5 118 127
Zone
Managua 96.2 88.9 112 110
Pacific- Urban 93.3 86.9 110 103
Pacific - Rural 86.9 73.0 111 111
Pacific- Total 90.2 80.5 110 106
Central - Urban 92.3 84.4 127 130
Central - Rural 65.8 56.3 94 98
Central - Total 74.9 66.4 107 110
Atlantic- Urban 88.1 78.0 102 114
Atlantic - Rural 64.2 54.8 106 93
Atlantic - Total 76.4 66.7 104 106
Note: Literate is defined as those who can read/write

Source: LSMS 1998
Annex Page 28
Table A12. Nicaragua: Gross Enrollment Rates

1993 1998 2001
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
All 118.1 115.4 121 21.6 22 21.3 107.3 106.9 107.6 57 49.9 63.7 113.3 115.0 111.6 62.4 56.6 68.4
Extreme 75.9 72.7 79.1 4 2.7 5.5 89.1 87.3 91.1 11.3 8.6 14.8 101.7 99.7 103.7 14.6 10.6 19.7
Poor
Poor 97.3 93.9 100.9 12.4 11.6 13.2 102.3 101.7 103 26.4 21.9 31.3 112.6 112.5 112.6 34.3 30.0 39.2
Non-poor 144.9 142.6 147.5 31.8 34.3 29.5 113.1 113.3 112.9 86.6 81.5 90.9 114.1 117.8 110.4 88.1 83.4 92.5
Urban 138.6 136.1 141.3 30.3 31.3 29.3 113.1 112.4 113.8 79.4 73.5 84.6 115.1 118.1 112.0 83.2 79.3 87.1
Extreme 90.5 89.9 91.1 10.3 na na 95.6 94.3 96.9 21.5 17.8 26.1 101.7 102.1 101.2 26.8 19.7 34.6
Poor
Poor 122.6 119.8 125.8 21.5 19.8 23.4 110.1 106.7 113.7 44.3 45.1 43.5 118.6 120.3 116.8 56.6 53.6 60.2
Non-poor 147.7 145.6 149.9 34.9 38 32.1 114.8 115.8 113.9 94.7 87.7 100.5 113.0 116.7 109.0 95.4 92.7 97.8
Rural 93.4 90.2 96.7 9.7 9.9 9.5 100.9 101 100.9 30 23.7 36.5 111.2 111.2 111.2 34.3 28.6 40.9
Extreme 71.9 68.3 75.6 2.2 na 3.7 86.9 85.2 89.1 8 5.7 11 101.8 98.8 104.4 10.6 7.9 14.4
Poor
Poor 83.5 79.1 88 6.7 6.6 6.8 98.3 99 97.6 17.2 10.5 24.8 108.8 107.6 110.1 20.7 15.6 26.6
Non-poor 134.1 131.6 137.2 19.7 21 18.3 108.5 106.8 110.2 62.6 63.1 62.2 117.2 120.6 113.9 65.6 58.4 74.1
Annex Page 29
Table A13. Nicaragua: Net Enrollment Rates

1993 1998 2001
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
All 75.6 74.4 76.8 15.5 15.8 15.2 79.6 77.9 81.4 36.8 31 42.3 83.0 83.4 82.6 42.9 38.5 47.5
Extreme Poor 55.3 51.7 58.8 3.6 2.5 4.9 65.1 62.7 67.9 8.1 5.8 11.1 70.4 73.2 71.2 10.5 7.3 14.8
Poor 66.6 64 69.4 9.4 8.7 10.2 75.6 73.5 77.8 18.8 14.5 23.6 79.3 78.9 79.7 24.0 21.1 27.3
Non-poor 87.2 87.7 86.6 22.2 24.4 20.2 84.4 83.2 85.5 54.3 49.6 58.1 87.2 88.5 85.8 60.2 55.9 64.2
Urban 84 84.3 83.6 21.5 22.5 20.6 84.1 82.9 85.3 53.1 49.1 56.7 86.4 87.4 85.3 57.8 54.0 61.6
Extreme Poor 64.7 63.9 65.5 9.9 na na 68.1 65.9 70.5 15.1 13 17.7 72.2 67.0 72.1 19.9 11.3 29.4
Poor 77.8 77.9 77.8 16 14.7 17.5 80.4 79 81.9 30.8 29.6 32.1 84.5 84.7 84.4 39.9 38.6 41.4
Non-poor 87.5 88.1 86.8 24.4 27.1 22 86.2 85.2 87.1 62.8 58.7 66.1 87.5 89.1 85.9 66.0 62.0 69.6
Rural 65.5 62.4 68.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 74.8 72.5 77.2 17.2 11 23.7 79.0 78.5 79.5 22.8 19.3 26.8
Extreme Poor 52.7 48.7 56.9 1.8 na 2.9 64.1 61.7 66.9 5.9 3.5 8.9 69.7 65.8 72.8 7.5 6.1 9.5
Poor 60.5 56 65 5.4 5.1 5.7 73.1 70.5 75.7 12.8 7.2 19.1 76.1 75.3 77.0 14.3 10.4 18.8
Non-poor 86 86.2 85.8 13.3 14.5 12 79.7 78.1 81.4 28.8 22.4 34 86.2 86.9 85.6 42.3 39.7 45.4
Annex Page 30
TECHNICAL ANNEX 5: SOCIAL POLICY UNDER CONSTRAINTS
Improving Human Capital under Fiscal Constraints: Primary Education in Nicaragua
Evidence from the 1993, 1998 and 2001 Surveys on Living Standards
1. Introduction
Primary education is one of the success stories of Nicaragua’s social policy. Despite significant
fiscal constraints Nicaragua has been able to improve its educational performance, as evidenced by
three surveys on living standards. This paper reports the main advances in education during the last
decade, and lays out the main challenges for the near future. As such, it is based on data from the
1993, 1998 and 2001 Living Standards Measurement Surveys (LSMS), and data from the Ministry
of Education (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deportes—MECD) and other sources. The
purpose of the paper is to identify key education issues that need to be addressed by the
Government and donors, in order to reach the Millennium Development Goals set out for 2015.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents an summary of the problems affecting the
education sector, particularly public education, and the actions taken by the Government to address
such problems. Section 3 presents the empirical evidence from the 1993, 1998 and 2001 LSMS on
educational outcomes and their association with the different poverty levels. This section reviews
key educational indicators such as enrollment, repetition, and dropout rates by poverty level, the
private costs of public education and the impact of these costs on family expenditures at different
levels of poverty. Section 4 reviews Government expenditures in primary education, including an
analysis of per student expenditures. Section 5 presents the main conclusions and recommendations.
2. Overview of the Education Sector
The education sector of Nicaragua is characterized by the following issues: (i) Inadequate school
coverage, especially in poor rural areas, where almost one-third of extremely poor children between
7-12 years of age do not attend elementary school. Less than 30% of preschool-age children attend
preschool. Although primary school coverage from grades 1 to 3 is 92%, this rate drops to less than
50% by grade 6. In rural areas a large proportion of primary schools do not go beyond the fourth
grade; (ii) Low Teacher Quality. The system of teacher training and retention needs a major
reform. Poor teaching quality stems from the poor quality of pre-service teacher training, the high
incidence of non-accredited teachers in the system, and the low rates of retention of good teachers.
The sector has problems in attracting and retaining good teachers, due mainly to low salaries, but
the absence of a good system of teacher accountability makes salaries a weak instrument for
improving teaching quality. (iii) Weak administrative efficiency at the central level. There is a
weak connection between school autonomy and a centralized MECD, which acts as a centralized
ministry outside of the financial autonomy program. (iv) Low Managerial Capacity at the central
and local levels. Despite progress in budget planning and in the financial management of fiscal
Annex Page 31
transfers to autonomous schools, the managerial performance of MECD’s Program Directors

remains low because of lack of training, deficient managerial information in the system, inadequate
statistics, and unclear roles and responsibilities. Also, most school directors lack managerial and
human resource management skills. (v) Weak Planning, Research, Evaluation, and Statistical
Capacity due to lack of technical personnel. (vi) No feedback mechanisms of policy impact on
decision making at the central and local levels and low capacity for communicating system
performance to decision makers and parents in ways that promote accountability and participation.
2.1 Addressing the Problems of Public Education: The Government’s Goals and Strategies
The above problems are known to the Government, which has defined two main goals in education:
to increase the coverage of basic education and to improve education quality. To achieve these
goals the MECD has defined a strategy that combines the following components:
Expansion and consolidation of school autonomy. The objectives of school autonomy are: (i) to
increase community participation in school management; (ii) increase local efficiency in resource
use, and (iii) increase local accountability. Autonomous schools receive a fiscal transfer that is
administered by a local school council in which parents are a majority. This transfer is based on a
formula that takes into account the number of students, the location of the school, and the school
record for repetition and dropouts. The Government believes that school autonomy will lead to
steady improvements in educational performance due to better local accountability and more
parental support of learning activities. All secondary school students, and 80 percent of primary
school students, are covered by school autonomy. The success of school autonomy has been mixed.
Overall, internal efficiency in autonomous schools is better than in centralized schools. Still, there
are complaints about the lack of understanding of the rules of autonomy among parents and
teachers. Schools with good leadership on part of the school director have shown the most gains in
internal efficiency34 . Although secondary schools require a monthly fee from parents, primary
school families are asked fees on a voluntary basis. Even this voluntary fee is expected to be
waived in the near future, because of the opposition of parents.
Rehabilitation and replacement of school infrastructure. In collaboration with the Social

Investment Fund (FISE), the MECD has expanded the quality of primary school infrastructure in
rural areas. Schools due for rehabilitation are selected with the help of a poverty map based on the
1998 LSMS, but this system is in the process of change, with the MECD assuming more control
3
Fuller, Bruce, and Magdalena Rivarola, 1998. “Nicaragua’s Experiment to Decentralize Schools: Views of
Parents, Teachers, and Directors.” Paper No. 5, Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education
Reforms. Development Economics Research Group, The World Bank, Washington DC.
4
King, Elizabeth, Laura Rawlings, Berk Özler, Patricia Callejas, Nora Gordon, and Nora Mayorga de
Caldera, 1996. “Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform: A First Look.” Paper No. 1, Working Paper Series
on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Policy Research Department, The World Bank, Washington
D.C. King, Elizabeth, and Berk Özler, 1998. What’s Decentralization Got To Do With Learning? The Case
of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform. Paper No. 9, Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of
Education Reforms. Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Annex Page 32
over the choice of schools. Little funding has been earmarked for the rehabilitation and
replacement of secondary schools, although recently FISE has given a significant grant to the city of
Managua for this purpose.
Modernization of central administration and planning. The MECD is in the process of modernizing
central administration and planning through two mechanisms: (i) a system for measuring and
reporting student achievement, and (ii) an Integrated Management Information System containing
education statistics, administrative and budgetary information, and information on student
achievement. Achievement testing on a regular basis is now in the process of implementation.
Expansion of preschool coverage. The MECD is expanding preschool access through community
preschools, hoping to cover close to 30% of preschool age-children by 2001. The community
preschools system includes the training of mothers as preschool caregivers, nutritional assistance,
and preventive health care. Although preschool enrollment declined during 2000 and 2001, this
decline has reversed slightly in 2002.
Curricular reform. The MECD has modified its primary school curriculum to make it less
encyclopedic and more oriented to basic math, reading, and writing skills. It has also expanded the
provision of textbooks and school materials with external funds. However, textbooks are still
lacking in more isolated areas. The Ministry is revising the curriculum and teaching methods in
teacher training schools, and improving in-service training. Now the MECD is plannin g to revise
the curriculum to include learning elements more pertinent to the real life of students, with the aim
of improving the link between formal education and real life problems.
So far, the Government’s strategy has increased the supply of schools in rural areas, increased the
participation of parents in school affairs, and improved per student expenditures. Although other
elements of the strategy are in progress and/or their effects will be felt in a few years, a remaining
concern now is education quality. MECD and parents recognize that teacher quality, the quality of
the classroom environment, and the quality of teaching must improve.
The National Education Plan.
The MECD has prepared a long term plan for public education which reflects the views of most
stakeholders in the sector and discusses some new areas which had not been covered in previous
strategic efforts. The Plan, as it is informally known, emphasizes eight basic principles, which are
then translated into strategic objectives. These principles and strategic objectives are presented in
Box 1. The Plan is ambitious but it follows the trends in education reform in the rest of Central
America and the Caribbean. The MECD was extremely successful in generating a consensus
among a diverse group of stakeholders with different—and sometimes conflicting—interests. Close
to 3,000 people had an opportunity to give an opinion on the Plan. In part, this success was due to
the inclusive nature of the dialogue, in which everyone’s voice was reflected in the interim
documents. Another part of the success was due to the generation of discussion without a budget
constraint, which in turn resulted in the support of all stakeholders at the Plan’s presentation. The
MECD now has begun the second phase of the Plan: setting priorities to configure them to the
constraints of the education budget.
Annex Page 33
Box 1. Principles, Policies and Strategies of the National Education Strategy

Principles Policies Strategies
1. Education is an obligation of the State The State will promote the demand 1. Expand and maintain literacy programs
and a fundamental human right. This for education and it will diversify and projects.
implies universal access and opportunity to educational services to fulfill 2. Expand education coverage, especially in
all. demand needs. rural areas, all the way to sixth grade.
3. Improve the quality and relevance of
education.
2. Education fosters social, environmental, The State, in collaboration with civil 1. Reinforce the formation of values and the
ethical, civic, human, and cultural values society, must find the resources to participation of families and the community.
that shape national identity and respect of guarantee an integral education 2. Transform schools into centers for the
religious, political, ethnic, cultural, leading to human development. practice of democracy.
psychological, and gender diversity.
3. Education is a fundamental investment Orient education programs toward 1. Strengthen and expand technical and
for achieving human, economic, scientific, human capital formation and vocational education.
and technological development increase the availability and equity of 2. Reform the secondary school curriculum
resources assigned to them. to relate it to the job market and to tertiary
education.
3. Reform tertiary education.
4. Promote awareness of the need to fund
education at a level of 6% of GDP
4. Parents and civil society have the right Create favorable conditions for the 1. Strengthen parent’s councils, student
and obligation to participate in the participation of parents and society government, and local organizations to
education process of their children. in education. foster their involvement in education.
2. Consolidate academic and administrative
decentralization and school autonomy.
Annex Page 34
5. Teachers are key factors in the The State and civil society will 1. Update teacher’s skills with in-service
education process; they have a right to promote teacher’s well being, raise training at Normal Schools and Schools of
working and living conditions in accord their professional standards, salary, Education.
with their role. and working and living conditions. 2. Reform the Ley de Carrera Docente
(Teaching Career Law) to improve teacher’s
welfare.
3. Implement projects that increase monetary
incentives to teachers.
6. Students are in control of their own Organize curricula, learning 1. Improve and expand school infrastructure
learning. methods, teaching materials and to make it more conducive to learning.
forms of evaluation to better assist 2. Reform curricula to allow for more
students in their learning process. student involvement in the learning process.
3. Implement educational standards that
promote education quality and equity.
4. Implement a national system for the
measurement and evaluation of academic
achievement.
5. Implement an information system to assist
student in the evaluation of their aptitudes
for work.
6. Provision of textbooks and school
materials to all primary students in public
schools.
7. Education is an integrating process; all Promote the development of an 1. Create a commission for the planning and
education subsystems should be linked to integrated system with curricular and evaluation of curricula in the three educational
form a unique national system. operational links among the subsy stems.
subsystems.
8. Education must function under a system Promote the creation of 1. Modernize the entire education system.
of administration and management that is organizational structures that link all 2. Develop an Information System that
coordinated, decentralized, participative, the participatory processes in the ensures an efficient administration and
efficient, and transparent. development of education policy and management.
accountability.
Source: Consejo Nacional de Educación, 1999. “Estrategia Nacional de Educación.” Managua
Annex Page 35
3. Education and Poverty: A Review of Sector Performance, 1993-2001
The results of the 1998 and 2001surveys on living standards show that some key outcome indicators
related to human capital accumulation have improved substantially since 1993 (Table 1). Despite a
significant decline on preschool attendance, the system has shown significant gains in
performance5 . Below is a summary of the most important changes in educational outcomes since
1993:
§ Literacy increased. The proportion of illiterate people continues to decline. Overall, about
18.7% of the population older than 10 years of age was illiterate in 2001, a figure 2.8
percentage points lower than in 1993. The biggest gains were found among the rural poor, who
show a reduction of 6.5 percentage points since 1993.
§ Preschool attendance decreased. The proportion of 4-6 year olds attending preschool is higher
than in 1993, but substantially lower than in 1998. Part of the reason is that about one-half of 6-
year old children attending school enter first grade instead of a preschool program. However,
there is still reason to worry for the overall decline in preschool enrollment within this age
group. The largest drop in preschool enrollment was found among the non-poor.
§ Primary school attendance increased. The proportion of children 7-12 years of age who attend
school increased significantly. As a result, the proportion of children not attending dropped
considerably, especially in rural areas, with the biggest gain in primary school attendance found
among the poor. This is perhaps the most improved indicator of success in school coverage
during the last eight years.
§ Net Enrollment Rates improved. The net enrollment rate—defined as the percent of children of
appropriate age enrolle d in primary school—increased a small amount. Between 1993 and
1998 the net enrollment rate remained constant, but improved significantly between 1998 and
2001. The net enrollment rate for boys increased almost three times the girls’ rate during this
period.
§ The Gross Enrollment rate showed substantial improvement. Consistent with the figures on
school attendance, the gross enrollment rate increased dramatically, gaining 33.7 percentage
points since 1993. Most importantly, the gains were distributed among all poverty groups and
in both urban and rural areas.
§ School attendance increased dramatically among teenagers. Between 1998 and 2001, the
proportion of children between 13-18 not in school dropped significantly across all poverty
§ groups. However, rural areas showed the most dramatic improvements, since the proportion of
children 13-18 not attending secondary school dropped by more than 45 percentage points since
5
Table 1 figures highlighted in bold italics indicate areas of significant change.
Annex Page 36
1993. This finding is consistent with the large increase in the gross enrollment rate for primary
school reported above, since the problem of overage still persists in Nicaragua.
§ Girls education improved. Overall, the mean years of schooling increased for girls, but not for
boys. However, in rural areas the mean years of schooling increased among girls and boys by
about 1 year. Moreover, among extremely poor boys in rural areas there was a gain of 2.1
years, which is very significant. Still, girls showed a steady increase in schooling among all
poverty groups.
§ School access improved in rural areas. The distance to school dropped slightly in rural areas,
although the time required to get to school remained more or less the same. Nonetheless, the
average time spent on the way to school is less than 30 minutes across all groups.
Tabl e 1. Comparison of key educational indicators, 1993 and 1998

Group Illiterate % 4-6 % Not Net Net Gross % Not Mean Mean Mean Distance Distance
(10 or attendin attendin Enrollmen Enrollmen Enrollmen attendin Years Years Years Primary Primary
more) g pre- g 7-12 t Primary t Primary t Primary g 13-18 School School Schooling (kms) (mins)
years school Boys Girls ing ing Female
Total Male
All Nicaragua
1993 21.5 31.3 21.5 77.9 81.4 79.6 43.0 4.5 4.5 4.6
1998 18.8 44.8 14.3 77.9 81.4 107.3 43.5 4.9 4.7 5.0 0.9 16.1
2001 18.7 28.8 12.1 83.4 82.6 113.3 37.2 4.9 4.5 5.3 0.9 15.1
Difference 93-01 -2.8 -2.5 -9.4 5.5 1.2 33.7 -5.8 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 -1.0
Extreme Poor
1993 44.5 8.3 44.7 71.8 1.9 1.8 2.0
1998 37.6 25.4 32.4 62.7 67.9 89.1 70.0 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.7 25.7
2001 41.3 22.1 27.7 73.2 71.2 101.7 62.2 2.6 2.4 2.9 1.5 23.8
Difference 93-01 -3.2 13.8 -17.0 10.5 3.3 12.6 -9.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 -0.2 -1.9
Poor
1993 33.8 17.4 32.3 57.6 2.8 2.7 2.9
1998 29.6 33.8 21.3 73.5 77.8 102.3 60.7 3.1 3.0 3.2 1.3 21.7
2001 29.4 24.3 18.6 78.9 79.7 112.6 49.9 3.6 3.3 3.9 1.3 19.9
Difference 93-01 -4.4 6.9 -13.7 5.4 1.9 10.3 -7.7 0.8 0.6 1.0 0 -1.8
Non-Poor
1993 10.6 50.9 7.4 26.9 6.1 6.1 6.0
1998 10.4 60.3 6.1 83.2 85.5 113.1 26.7 6.2 6.2 6.3 0.6 12.7
2001 10.8 34.9 4.6 88.5 85.8 114.1 25.8 6.1 5.8 6.5 0.7 12.4
Difference 93-01 0.2 -16.0 -2.8 0.3 0.3 1.0 -1.1 0 -0.3 -0.5 0.1 -0.3
Urban (All)
1993 10.6 48.5 11.3 82.9 85.3 84.1 26.6 5.9 5.9 5.8
1998 10.2 57.1 9.0 82.9 85.3 113.1 28.1 6.2 6.2 6.1 0.4 8.9
2001 10.9 32.4 6.9 87.4 85.3 115.1 25.9 5.9 5.5 6.2 0.6 10.1
Difference 93-01 0.3 -16.1 -4.4 1.5 0 31.0 -0.7 0 -0.4 0.4 0.2 1.2
Urban Extreme Poor
1993 29.0 20.2 35.3 65.9 70.5 68.1 57.7 3.0 3.0 3.0
1998 28.4 32.3 28.5 65.9 70.5 95.6 61.7 3.0 3.1 3.0 0.6 11.4
2001 35.5 18.9 22.9 67.0 72.1 101.7 53.3 3.2 2.8 3.6 1.0 17.2
Difference 93-01 6.5 -1.3 -12.4 1.1 2.1 33.6 -4.4 0.2 -0.2 0.6 0.4 5.8
Urban Poor
1993 17.8 31.7 19.9 79.0 81.9 80.4 37.6 4.1 4.1 4.1
1998 19.6 43.8 15.9 79.0 81.9 110.1 48.5 4.0 4.1 4.0 0.4 9.7
Annex Page 37
Tabl e 1. Comparison of key educational indicators, 1993 and 1998

Group Illiterate % 4-6 % Not Net Net Gross % Not Mean Mean Mean Distance Distance
(10 or attendin attendin Enrollmen Enrollmen Enrollmen attendin Years Years Years Primary Primary
more) g pre- g 7-12 t Primary t Primary t Primary g 13-18 School School Schooling (kms) (mins)
years school Boys Girls ing ing Female
Total Male
2001 19.4 26.6 12.5 84.7 84.4 118.6 12.5 4.5 4.3 4.7 0.8 12.2
Difference 93-01 1.6 -5.1 -7.4 5.7 2.5 38.2 -25.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 2.5
Urban Non-Poor
1993 7.5 59.1 6.3 85.2 87.1 86.2 20.8 6.6 6.7 6.5
1998 6.7 66.2 5.1 85.2 87.1 114.8 19.4 6.9 7.1 6.9 0.4 8.6
2001 7.7 36.6 3.6 89.1 85.9 113.0 3.6 6.5 6.1 6.8 0.5 9.5
Difference 93-01 0.2 -22.5 -2.7 3.9 -1.2 26.8 -17.2 -0.1 -0.6 0.3 0.1 0.9
Rural (All)
1993 38.4 13.0 33.7 72.5 77.2 74.8 65.6 2.5 2.4 2.6
1998 29.8 33.6 20.1 72.5 77.2 100.9 61.9 3.2 3.0 3.4 1.5 25.6
2001 30.4 24.9 18.1 78.5 79.5 111.2 18.1 3.6 3.3 3.9 1.5 23.1
Difference 93-01 -8.0 11.9 -15.6 6.0 2.3 36.4 -47.5 1.1 0.9 1.3 0 -2.5
Rural Extreme Poor
1993 48.8 5.5 47.3 65.9 70.5 68.1 75.8 1.6 1.5 1.6
1998 40.6 23.6 33.6 61.7 66.9 86.9 72.6 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.1 30.2
2001 43.2 23.2 28.6 65.8 72.8 101.8 28.6 2.4 3.6 2.6 1.6 25.8
Difference 93-01 -5.6 17.7 -18.7 -0.1 2.3 33.7 -47.2 0.8 2.1 1.0 -0.5 -4.4
Rural Poor
1993 43.6 10.1 39.0 79.0 81.9 80.4 69.9 2.0 1.9 2.1
1998 35.0 28.7 24.1 70.5 75.7 98.3 66.7 2.6 2.5 2.7 1.7 27.8
2001 35.7 22.9 22.4 75.3 77.0 108.8 22.4 3.0 2.8 3.3 1.5 24.5
Difference 93-01 -7.9 12.8 -16.6 -3.7 -4.9 28.4 -47.5 1.0 0.9 1.2 -0.2 -3.3
Rural Non-Poor
1993 23.6 24.6 11.7 85.2 87.1 86.2 51.2 3.8 3.8 3.9
1998 20.2 47.8 8.7 78.1 81.4 108.5 49.52 4.3 4.1 4.6 1.2 22.3
2001 20.4 30.7 7.2 86.9 85.6 117.2 7.2 5.0 4.8 5.2 1.4 19.6
Difference 93-01 -3.2 6.1 -4.5 1.7 -1.5 31.0 -44.0 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.2 -2.7
Source: LSMS 1993, 1998 and 2001.
The progress in literacy, gross school enrollment, school attendance, and mean years of schooling
show that the additional funding targeted to the preschool and primary school population has paid
off. However, there is plenty of room for additional progress.
3.1 Preschool attendance

The proportion of 4-6 year olds in preschool declined significantly between 1998 and 2001 (Table
2). Although the LSMS sample sizes for each group in the table was small, suggesting caution in
the assessment of the figures, the differences are too large to ignore. Still, if one counts the
proportion of 4-6 year olds attending primary school (mostly in first grade), the proportion of this
age group enrolled in school is significant: 56.7%.
Annex Page 38
Table 3. School attendance of children 4-6 years old (% of all 4-6 year olds)
Preschool Primary school
1993 1998 2001 2001
All 32.6 45.1 28.8 27.9
Urban 50.3 57.6 32.4 32.4
Rural 13.8 33.7 24.9 23.0
Extreme Poor 8.5 25.4 22.1 17.6
Poor 18.6 34.1 24.3 24.0
Non-poor 52.4 60.5 34.9 33.2
Source: LSMS 1993, 1998 and 2001
Another significant point in preschool attendance is the 10 percentage point difference between the
poor and the non-poor in 2001. However, the great variability reported from survey to survey
within and between poverty groups also suggest a closer examination of the LSMS data.
3.2 Enrollment rates
Gross enrollment rates6 have steadily and significantly increased among the poor (Fig. 1). By and
large, this is the main success story in Nicaragua’s education sector. In particular, the gains
shown by the extreme poor—which significantly narrowed the gap between the poor and the non-
poor—are very encouraging, since they confirm the effectiveness of educational investments and
Government commitment for the past decade. Among the non-poor the gross enrollment rate has
increased since 1998. The large drop in the gross enrollment rate of the non-poor shown between
1993 and 1998 is a point that merits examination.
6
The gross enrollment rate is defined as the as the ratio of all students enrolled in primary school to the total
number of 7-12 year olds in the country. Since the system has many children enrolled outside of this age
bracket, this ratio is usually larger than 100%. A ratio lower than 100% indicates problems in education
coverage.
Annex Page 39
Fig. 1 Gross enrollment rates by poverty level
160
140
120
100
Primary 93
%
80 Primary 98
60 Primary 01
40
20
0
All Ext Poor All Poor All Non-poor
Source:
LSMS 1993, 1998, 2001.
For the first time Nicaragua has gross enrollment rates above 100% across all poverty levels.
Although a gross enrollment rate above 100% indicates the presence of overage students, this
statistic strongly suggest significant gains in education coverage, since—as it will be seen later—
repetition rates have declined, and the proportion of children 7-12 not attending school has been
substantially reduced. Rural areas—previously identified as the areas in need of attention—have
benefited the most from the Government efforts at expanding coverage, showing a steady
improvement over the last eight year (Fig. 2), while urban areas show a trend reversal, increasing
again after showing a decline between 1993 and 1998.
In the case of the net enrollment rate 7 —which measures the proportion of age-appropriate children
enrolled in school—there is also an improvement (Fig.3 ). Again, the gain in performance among
the extreme poor narrowed the gap between the poor and the non-poor. In 1998 the net enrollment
rate gap between the poor and the non-poor was 8 percentage points. This difference has been
narrowed to almost 5 points in just three years. In fact, among the extreme poor, the net enrollment
rate increased 10.5 percentage points between 1998 and 2001. Overall, the strength and magnitude
of the improvement among the poor helped generate an overall increase in the net enrollment rate at
the national level.
7
The net enrollment rate for primary education is defined as the ratio of students between 7 and 12 years to
the total number of 7-12 year olds in the country. A ratio of 100% indicates that all children between 7-12 are
enrolled in school.
Annex Page 40
Fig. 3 Net enrollment rates by poverty level
100
90
80
70
60 Primary 93
%
50 Primary 98
40 Primary 01
30
20
10
0
Extreme Poor Poor Non-poor
Source: LSMS 1993, 1998 and 2001
Fig. 2 Gross enrollment rates by location
160
140
120
100 Primary 93
80 Primary 98
60 Primary 01
40
20
0
Urban Rural
Source: LSMS 1993, 1998, 2001
Annex Page 41
3.3 Repetition
Repetition Rates. Repetition has declined significantly since 1998. In part this is due to the
implementation of a program of automatic promotion between grades 1 to 3. In practice, many
children repeat the first and second grades at the request of parents or in consultation with teachers,
which accounts for the repetition figures reported by the MECD. Nicaragua is in a curious
situation: 6-year olds represent the largest age group in the first grade, even though they should be
in the last year of preschool. As a result, many children in this age group repeat first grade
voluntarily. The presence of so many 6-year olds in first grade ahead of time signals the need
to pay significant attention to preschool coverage.
LSMS estimates show repetition rates somewhat higher than official averages8 (Table 4) due to
differences in definition. If a 6-year old drops out of first grade before the end of the school year,
he/she is counted as a drop out. If the same child enters first grade in the same school the following
year, he/she is counted as a new student, even though the child used school resources twice. As a
result, official MECD figures tend to overestimate drop out rates and underestimate repetition rates
in the first grade. First grade repetition is the highest, declining gradually until 6th grade. However,
there are gains in performance, since repetition has consistently declined for every grade since
1997. Coupled with the gains in the gross enrollment rates reported earlier, the lower repetition
rates strongly suggest significant gains in internal efficiency.
Table 4. MECD and LSMS Repetition Rates for Primary School

Grade MECD 1997 LSMS 1998 MECD 2001
1 st 21.5% 25.1% 15.4
2 nd 12.6% 14.3% 8.63
3 rd 10.4% 8.8% 9.06
4 th 8.4% 9.3% 7.4
5 th 6.4% 6.2% 5.43
6 th 3.5% 4.0% 2.69
Source: MECD, 1999, 2001; LSMS, 1998
Repetition rates among the poor. The evidence from the LSMS confirm MECD figures,
since repetition has also declined significantly across all poverty groups. In act, repetition
among the extreme poor in 2001 was less than half what it was in 1998, and in rural areas,
the repetition rate among the rural extreme poor for 2001 was almost one-third of the rate
for 1998 .
8
MECD figures on repetition are from the Dirección de Estadísticas Educativas.
Annex Page 42
Table 5. Repetition rates by poverty level, 1998
Primary
1998 (%) 2001 (%)
8.2
Total
Extreme Poor 14.7 6.5
Poor 13.5 9.4
Non-poor 8.7 6.8
Urban 7.5
Poor 14.5 10.4
Non-poor 8.3 5.6
Rural 9.0
Poor 12.9 8.7
Non-poor 9.9 9.6
Source: LSMS 1998, 2001
3.4 School attendance
Judging from the figures on non-attendance, system coverage has improved significantly since
1998. Moreover, the progress made in non-attendance since 1993 is remarkable. In 1993 about 21.5
% of 7-12 year old children were not in school (Table 6). This figure is now down to 12.1 %.
There is still a large difference between extreme poor children and the non-poor, but that difference
is narrowing gradually: non-attendance among the extreme poor declined by 17 percentage points in
eight years. Yet, almost one-third of extreme poor children do not attend school. This is still a
serious problem that needs to be addressed.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of male children between 7 and 12 years of age cited economic
problems as a reason for not attending school (Table 7). More than 50 % of poor males cited
economic issues as the main barrier for attendance, and in the case of extremely poor males in urban
areas, this figure9 climbs to 78 %. Another important reason cited by the urban males in extreme
poverty is the lack of interest in school (16.3 %). Therefore, between economic reasons and the
lack of interest—which can be interpreted as an indicator of low education quality or as an indicator
of lack of knowledge about the returns to education—the issue of non-attendance among urban
males in extreme poverty can be improved with well targeted interventions. Among the rural poor,
about 22 % of the males cited the need to work in the fields as a reason for non-attendance.
9
It should be noted than in 1998 about 85% of urban extremely poor children cited economic reasons for non-
attendance, which suggest some improvement in this area.
Annex Page 43
Table 6. Percentage of children not attending school

1993 1998 2001
7 - 12 yrs 7 - 12 yrs 7 – 12 yrs
All 21.5 14.3 12.1

Poor 32.3 21.3 18.6
Non-poor 7.4 6.1 4.6
Urban 11.3 9.0 6.9
Poor 19.9 15.9 12.5
Non-poor 6.3 5.1 3.6
Rural 33.7 20.1 18.1
Poor 39.0 24.1 22.4
Non-poor 11.7 8.7 7.2
Source: LSMS 1993, 1998, and 2001
Among females the reasons for non-attendance are similar, with one important difference: personal
security is a more prominent reason than in the case of males. Rural families are reluctant to send
their girls long distances over scarcely populated areas given the high level of civil insecurity in the
country. As a result, about 14% of poor girls cited security as a deterrent to school attendance.
Table 7. Nicaragua 2001: Reason for Not attending School by gender (7 - 12 year olds only)
Extreme Poor Poor Non-poor All
Urban Rural Total Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male
Age 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.0 3.2 1.6
Not interested 16.3 19.4 18.7 9.7 13.0 14.6 14.2 14.0 6.0 10.1
Domestic Duties 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Work in fields 0.0 17.7 13.6 16.6 4.6 22.0 17.5 0.0 10.0 4.9
No vacancy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Level not offered 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.0 5.6 2.7
Distance 0.0 8.8 6.7 12.3 0.0 12.7 9.4 2.9 22.5 12.5
Insufficient Teachers 0.0 3.6 2.8 2.7 0.0 4.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Insufficient Security 0.0 0.7 0.5 7.1 0.0 0.8 0.6 24.5 20.1 22.4
Family problems 0.0 4.4 3.4 5.1 1.8 5.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 2.5
Monetary problems 78.4 43.2 51.4 35.3 73.6 32.9 43.4 49.5 21.4 35.7
Other 5.3 2.2 2.9 6.1 5.5 3.7 4.2 4.3 11.2 7.7
Female
Age 2.6 3.1 3.0 4.0 2.9 1.8 2.1 17.7 0.0 10.6
Not interested 0.0 25.7 19.8 12.1 10.4 18.3 16.3 11.7 14.2 12.7
Domestic Duties 0.0 2.2 1.7 5.8 2.0 3.1 2.8 13.1 3.6 9.3
Annex Page 44
Table 7. Nicaragua 2001: Reason for Not attending School by gender (7 - 12 year olds only)
Extreme Poor Poor Non-poor All
Urban Rural Total Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Work in fields 2.3 8.5 7.1 4.9 1.2 6.8 5.4 10.8 5.1 8.5
No vacancy 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.3 1.0 6.4 0.0 3.8
Level not offered 0.0 1.5 1.1 1.6 0.0 2.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Distance 0.0 17.5 13.5 14.4 0.0 17.8 13.4 5.1 34.6 16.9
Insufficient Teachers 0.0 4.1 3.1 4.7 0.0 6.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Insufficient Security 0.0 2.0 1.5 2.8 0.0 1.5 1.2 0.0 18.5 7.4
Family problems 6.8 8.2 7.9 3.9 5.1 6.9 6.4 0.0 5.7 2.3
Monetary problems 88.3 26.9 41.0 37.8 78.5 31.5 43.2 31.9 2.9 20.3
Other 0.0 0.4 0.3 5.2 0.0 2.4 1.8 3.4 15.4 8.2
Source: LSMS 2001
Overall, the reasons for non-attendance have remained the same as in 1998, but the proportion of
non-attending children has declined, indicating some progress in this area.
3. 5 System Equity: Girls education and attention to indigenous populations
Girls education is not a problem in Nicaragua. In general, the gross enrollment rates for females are
higher than for males. An exception is the rural area of the Atlantic, where the gross enrollment rate
for females is slightly less than for males (Table 8). However, since the net enrollment rate for
females is higher, the overall rate of females to males in school is higher in al regions except
Managua and the urban area of the Pacific region (Table 9).
Table 8. Gross enrollment rates by gender

and region
Total Male Female Total
Managua 119.9 123.8 115.1
Pacific- Urban 114.8 121.4 108.3
Pacific - Rural 122.9 122.9 122.8
Pacific - Total 118.7 122.1 115.3
Central - Urban 106.9 102.3 111.0
Central - Rural 103.9 106.0 101.9
Central - Total 105.1 104.6 105.4
Atlantic- Urban 117.8 118.0 117.4
Atlantic - Rural 105.1 99.6 110.2
Atlantic - Total 110.7 108.1 113.3
Source: LSMS 2001
In the area of girls education one has to be careful distinguishing equity issues on the supply side-
which are mostly absent—from equity issues from the demand side, which can derive from cultural
Annex Page 45
attitudes, or from non-supply barriers, such as low personal security in rural areas. As the data on
non-attendance among females can attest, economic and personal security issues can be barrier to
girls access to education on the demand side.
The collective evidence from Tables 8 and 9 show that girls have equal access to education and –to
a large extent—show better indicators of coverage and literacy. The case of Managua, where girls
remain less in school is a point that merits additional analysis.
Ethnic equity in Nicaragua is a complex issue due to the confounding factor of difficult physical
access to those rural areas populated by ethnic minorities, mixed with the issue of language. The
Nicaragua education system uses language other than Spanish to indicate ethnicity. Less than 6%
of the population speak a mother tongue other than Spanish, such as English and Miskito. In the
urban areas of the Atlantic educational access is comparable to the rest of the country, but in the
rural areas of the Atlantic, where ethnic minorities live intermingled with the mestizo mainstream,
access is more difficult.
Table 9. Nicaragua 2001: Percent literate ( 15-24 years) and ratio of Females to
Males(literate and in school)
Literate Ratio of Literate Ratio of Girls to Boys in
(15-24 Females to Males (15- Primary and Secondary
years) 24 years) education
Managua 96.1 110 87
Pacific- Urban 95.1 97 98
Pacific – Rural 86.1 97 108
Pacific- Total 91.0 97 102
Central - Urban 89.3 126 116
Central - Rural 68.4 98 106
Central – Total 76.8 110 111
Atlantic- Urban 86.9 100 102
Atlantic - Rural 68.3 82 118
Atlantic - Total 76.6 90 110
Note: Literate is defined as those who can read and write. Source: LSMS 2001
In terms of territorial equity—which also suggests a problem with ethnic equity—the Atlantic
region shows a disadvantage, since the mean number of years of schooling is significantly lower in
this region than in the rest of the country. The rural Atlantic region show significantly lower years
of schooling that the rest of the country (Table 10). In the past, the rural Atlantic has posed
significant operational challenges to the MECD, since per pupil costs are much higher than in the
rest of the country, due to the distances involved, the language differences, and the high dispersion
of rural communities10 .
10
In the case of the urban Atlantic, education access has been less of a problem due to the long term
involvement of private institutions, such as the Moravian Church.
Annex Page 46
Table 10. Average Years of Schooling (10-19 years old), 2001
Means years of schooling (10-19 years old)

Total Male Female
Managua 6.4 6.0 6.7

Source: LSMS 2001
In addition, there have been significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining bilingual teachers in
rural areas due to the hard living conditions, the isolation, and the cultural differences. As a result,
the rural Atlantic has lagged the rest of the country in system performance. After 1990, the rural
Atlantic experienced an influx on non-native populations which settled in the region from refugee
camps in the north of Nicaragua. With the new settlements came more assistance in health and
education, which have improved the situation somewhat. Thus, the mean years of schooling—
which reflect medium to long term problems—are lower than in the rest of the country, but school
non-attendance—which reflect short-term responses—show patterns similar to other poor regions in
the country (Table 11).
Table 11. Nicaragua 2001: Percent Not Attending School
Percent not attending school

7 - 12 yrs 13 – 18 yrs 7 - 18 yrs
Managua 4.0 23.5 14.5
Pacific - Urban 6.3 28.4 16.6
Pacific – Rural 6.2 46.3 24.8
Pacific – Total 6.3 36.9 20.5
Central – Total 20.5 45.3 32.0
Source: LSMS 2001
Annex Page 47
Additional evidence of progress can be found in some indicators of system performance, such as the
repetition rate and absenteeism, which in the Atlantic are within the range of the rest of the country
(Table 12). The only significant difference is in the proportion of students with no books, which is
higher in the Atlantic (urban and rural) than in the rest of the country, reflecting the problem of
serving a population with different languages.
Table 12. Primary school repetition rates, percent with no

books and mean number of days absent
Repetition No books Days absent
(%) (%)
Managua 7.8 6.4 5.5
Source: LSMS 2001
In summary, the issue of equity in education seems to apply to the rural population of the
Atlantic, indicating the need for remedial action to improve the mean years of education of the
population and their access to bilingual books and pedagogical materials.
Education Expenditures
Education expenditures have two components: private and public. Nicaragua’s social sector
strategy has addressed both, through targeted subsidies to families in poverty, and through increased
educational expenditures.
4.1 The Private Cost of Public Schooling
The evidence from the review of the sector’s performance clearly indicates a strong negative link
between poverty, enrollment and performance. Although public schooling is free, parents are asked
to contribute with some fees—which are supposed to be optional—and to cover the cost of
registration, uniforms, school snacks, and transportation. Overall, the average annual expenditure
per primary student in a public school by a family was C$ 392 (approx. US$28) in 2001, varying
from C$264 (approx. US$19) per student per year among poor families, to C$571 (approx. US$39)
Annex Page 48
among non-poor families (Table 13). Among poor families the real per student cost is about the
same as in 1998, while for non-poor families the cost has increased 25% from three years ago11 .
The cost of public education to poor families is significant, but of lower budgetary impact than in
1998. The total cost of sending a child to a primary public school represents about 2.9 % of the
non-food expenditures of poor households. This is substantially lower than in 1998, when the
education cost per student represented 6.3 % of the non-food expenditures.
Table 13. Annual per student expenditures and shares of education expenses by educational level
and poverty group, public schools only, 2001 – Primary School
Annual Household expenses (in Cordobas)
Poverty group School Registration School Uniforms School Text - Total Total Hh
fees bus/food Supplies books education
expenses as a
share of Hh non-
food expenses
All 29.1 6.2 143.4 136.9 69.5 7.8 392.8 2.9
Poor 20.3 4.2 82.2 100.6 52.0 5.1 264.4 2.9
Non-poor 41.3 9.0 228.4 187.5 93.8 11.6 571.5 2.8
Percent of education expenses
Total
All 8.1 2.7 24.3 34.7 27.2 3.1 100.0
Poor 8.2 3.2 19.1 34.0 31.9 3.5 100.0
Non-poor 7.9 2.0 31.1 35.6 20.8 2.5 100.0
Source: LSMS 1998. Budget shares are for households with at least one child in school.
14.35 Cordobas = 1US$
Uniforms and school supplies account for 62% of per student expenses, while voluntary fees
account for 8% of the total. It is interesting to note two things about voluntary fees: (i) they
represent less than 10% of the private cost of public education, but—judging from pres reports—
account for most of the complaints about the cost to parents; (ii) fees are slightly regressive, since
poor families assign a slightly higher portion of their non-food expenditures to education.
11
In 1998 the per student cost among for all families was C$ 360 (US$ 41), varying from C$ 200 (US$ 18)
among poor families, to C$ 528 (US$ 49). See: Arcia, Gustavo, 2000. “Education and Poverty in Nicaragua:
Evidence from the 1993 and 1998 Surveys on Living Standards.” Background paper for the Nicaragua
Poverty Assessment, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Annex Page 49
4.2 Public Financing of Primary Education
Total funding for the MECD—and for education in general—increased in dollar terms between
1996 and 2000 (Table14). In 2001 and 2002 the rate of growth in the education budget declined
slightly due to the severe fiscal constraints faced by the Government in light of the drastic
reductions in international coffee prices, the onset of a drought in 2001, and the need to repay large
amounts of short-term internal debt. These events had a substantial negative impact on fiscal
revenues and on the rate of growth education budget. By 1998 the MECD was able to spend
between around US$15 million per year in activities funded by external donors. This amount
represented around 15 % of the MECD budget. For 2002 these funds increased to US$32.7 million,
or 30 % of the budget.
Table 14. MECD budget 1991-2002

MECD Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Expenditures
MECD (C$millions) 298 416 433 515 678 781 1,186 1,378 1379 1,505
Exchange rate 6.12 6.72 7.53 8.44 9.45 10.58 11.77 13.01 13.68 14.35
MECD ('000s of US$) 49 62 57 61 72 74 101 106 101 105
Source: Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Exchange rate: Central Bank.
Although the budget allocations to education have increased, funding had remained relatively stable
as a proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As shown in Fig. 4, Nicaragua allocated
between 4.3 % of GDP to education in 1999. This proportion has been maintained since that year
despite severe fiscal constraints.
Fig. 4. MECD Budget as Percent of GDP
5.00%
4.50%
4.00%
3.50%
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Source: Office of the Finance Director, MECD
Annex Page 50
In 1999 and 2000 the Government faced a serious crisis in the private banking sector, forcing it to
finance a bail out with short-term bonds. These bonds, whose value is of around US$ 900 million,
had a maturity of three years. Now that payments are due the Government had to reduce its
operating expenses by 15% in order to maintain is fiscal deficit in check. However, the education
budget was protected as much as possible, suffering a lower reduction than the rest of the Central
Government. The fiscal problem posed by the short-term internal debt is still an obstacle in the
current negotiations between the Government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
However, both the Government and the IMF are trying to find a way to refinance the debt and
schedule repayment at a more reasonable pace.
MECD expenditures in 2002 are expected to reach C$ 1,505 million, or approximately US$ 105
million. Of these expenditures, about C$ 1,100 million are for primary education. About 65% of
the primary education budget is assigned to teacher salaries, and about 15% is for infrastructure
(Fig. 5). The current budget shares for primary education are now better distributed than in the
early 90s when teacher salaries amounted to 92 % of recurrent expenditures 12 , versus 76% in 2002.
Fig. 5. Public Primary Education Expenditures, 2002
Teachers
65%
Admin.Exp
3%
Food
6%
Materials
5%
Training
5% Capital Exp.
15%
Scholarships
1%
12
Arcia, Gustavo, Miriam Quispe-Agnoli, and Carlos Gargiulo, 1994. "Recuperación de costos para la
capacitación de maestros y la producción y distribución de material educativo." (Cost Recovery in
Teacher Training and in the Production and Distribution of Educational Material). Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1994.
Annex Page 51
4.3 Education Funding from External Sources.
A significant portion of Nicaragua’s public expenditures in education come from external sources.
Some of these funds come from large projects in basic education (i.e.: APRENDE I and II, with
World Bank funding; and BASE I and II with USAID funding), secondary education, and adult
education.

Funding Source 2000 2001 2002 2003
World Bank, Basic Education (APRENDE II) 2,234,131.00 6,049,536.00 14,959,673.00 22,000,000.00
World Food Program (School Lunch) 527,176.00 1,937,000.00 1,824,803.00 1,982,250.00

UNICEF - Basic Education 368,507.00 299,318.00 214,181.00 659,119.00
European Union -- Support to Education (Project
ASEN y PRRAC) 3,569,566.00 3,750,398.58 1,327,596.13 4,697,467.62
Inter American Development Bank - Education
Reform 39,946.00 27,670.00 607,434.00
organization of American States 3,500.00
USAIND - Basic education (BASE II) 3,229,392.00 3,720,579.00 723,321.00 2,119.00
Luxenbourg - Teacher training 58,550.00 75,300.00 27,650.00 7,157.00
Japan - Primary scholl construction 4,620,909.00 8,919,364.00 2,957,710.00
Spain (Project AECI) 2,851.00 192,327.00
Finland--Bilingual ed., Atlantic Region 166,233.00 223,753.00 692,009.00
TOTAL 14,608,231.00 24,957,674.58 19,334,998.13 33,797,592.62
Exchange rates: 2000: C$ 13.10 = 1 US$; 2001: C$13.40 = 1 US$; 2002: C$14.20 = 1 US$; 2003: C$14.98 = 1
US$. Source: Office of External Projects. MECD
Most of the external funds have been allocated to improvements in basic education quality and
coverage, through the distribution of textbooks and educational materials, the construction or
rehabilitation of rural schools; teacher training; curricular reform, and the development of new
instructional model (i.e.: Escuelas Modelo). As Table 15 shows, external funding for 2002 is
significantly lower than in 2001. Moreover, external funding will also decline further in 2003.
Annex Page 52
4.4 Government Expenditures per Primary School Student
Nicaragua has made significant progress in improving primary education funding, even in the face
of severe fiscal problems. Total per student expenditures for primary average US$ 97, which are
significantly lower than per student expenditures in neighboring countries, but much better than in
1998 13 . In 1998 the average recurrent expenditure per student was approximately US$ 55, which led
the Government to aggressively seek additional funding for recurrent expenditures.
Tabl e 16. MECD: Average per student cost by type of school, 2002
Total cost Total cost Recurrent cost Capital
cost
Type of public school Cordobas US$ US$
Centralized 1,304 91 79 12
Autonomous 1,447 101 84 17
Model School—Centralized 1,977 138 125 12
Model School—Autonomous 1,855 129 112 17
Multigrade—Centralized 1,304 91 79 12
Multigrade—Autonomous 1,447 101 84 17
Model School—Multigrade Autonomous 598 42 24 17
Model School—Subsidized private 1,312 91 89 3
Subsidized private 825 58 55 3
Average per student expenditure 1,388 97 83 14
Source: Estimated from data from the Office of the Director of Finance, MECD
As a result, recurrent expenditures per student have increased to US$ 83, allowing for better teacher
pay and for a better distribution of non-salary expenditures in books and pedagogical material.
13
In comparison, recurrent expenditures for 2000 in El Salvador and the Dominican Republic, with much
larger GDP per capita than Nicaragua, hover around US$130 per primary school student. Source: Arcia,
2000. Op. cit., pp-19-20
Annex Page 53
5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
The public education sector of Nicaragua has made remarkable progress in improving primary
education among the poor. Additional progress has been made in the area of educational attainment
in rural areas, especially among the extreme poor Still, the problems of education quality and
access remain large. The following matrix (Table 17) summarizes the main problems associated
with the supply and demand for public education, and the strategic alternatives open to the MECD.
Table 17. Summary of Supply and Demand Problems and Strategies in Public Education
Supply Problems Main Determinants Possible Strategy
Low access above the 4th grade in • Low per student expenditures § Expand multigrade schools
rural areas, and inadequate in teachers and materials § Increase budget for materials
infrastructure • High proportion of defective § Continue infrastructural
infrastructure improvements
• High population growth in
rural areas
Low quality of teaching • Inadequate training § Create a new
• Low incentives tied to salary/performance career
performance track
• Lack of a teacher evaluation, § Improve leadership and
selection, and retention system managerial training of school
directors
§ Reform system of teacher
training to attract better
entrants
Low managerial and technical • MECD still centralized § Reform MECD based on
capacity of MECD • Low managerial and technical decentralization pilot
capacity at municipal and school § Expand current financial,
levels statistical, and management
• Insufficient capacity for information systems
education policy analysis at § Establish staff performance
MECD measures and incentives
Demand Problems Main Determinants Proposed Strategy
High drop out rates above the 4th • Need to work § Means based scholarship
grade; high non-attendance among • Inadequate curricula programs
extreme poor • Educational expenses § Expand provision of school
materials
§ Consolidate new curricula
§ Expand school feeding
programs
Low parent participation • Weaknesses in school § Strengthen school autonomy
autonomy program training at local level
• Lack of parents experience in § Implement system of
governance issues academic achievement testing
and reporting
§ Strengthen leadership training
of school directors
Annex Page 54
Supply side issues. In the area of quality there is a pressing need to measure student achievement
and to report those measures in order to generate more awareness of geographical or group
priorities, and to complement the climate of local accountability framed by the school autonomy
program. Relatedly, the MECD must continue its efforts to expand the scope and quality of training
on the school autonomy program to make autonomy more effective for the poor. Also, the MECD
must continue working on improving teacher quality and begin a process of teacher quality
measurement—however imperfect—to be able to monitor the effectiveness of its training, selection,
and reward methods for teachers.
Demand side issues. In terms of access, there is a need to look at the gaps in primary grades in rural
areas, where the number of schools that do not offer a program above the 3rd or the 4th grade is still
large. The MECD must begin an aggressive expansion of multigrade programs and multigrade
teachers in rural areas to alleviate the demand problem.
Annex Page 55
TECHNICAL ANNEX 6: SCHOOLING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN THE

ATLANTIC COAST
Objective of the Project
To improve educational processes in the Nicaraguan Caribbean Coast focusing in the primary
bilingual education or multicultural.
Goals
1. Provide funds to improve access, quality, academic and/or linguistic achievements of

students in schools in the Nicaraguan Caribbean Coast through the following activities:
a. analysis of their reality

b. create a plan for encourage changes in organization, administration and execution
of educational processes
c. create a plan to evaluate the learning process
d. create a plan to evaluate the results of the project
2. Attend directors and teachers so that they commit to their professional development, to
the academic and technological innovation, the implementation evaluating processes of
learning of the program and to allow the dissemination and multiplication of its process
and results
Selection of School Initiatives
1. Select school initiatives based on the following criteria:

• Development of a plan to increase the registration and the retention of students in
the schools
• Development of the communicative abilities in L1 and L2, programs that
incorporate communication skills and not the development of grammatical
knowledge
• Academic development in L1 (for grades 1 to 3) with integration of the oral
expression, reading and writing.
• Read to learn in L1 and L2 in 4-6 grades.
• Oral expression and written in L1 and L2
• Thematic units that integrate subjects
• Flexible promotion
• Differentiated instruction (attention for linguistic and academic development)
Annex Page 56
• Development of the academic abilities in L1 and L2 of teachers in “escuelas

modelos” by means of implementing programs at distance that include the
following elements:
Ø Audio-tapes
Ø Videos
Ø Learning modules
Ø Direct instruction to promote interaction
• Development of a team of instructors that assist others teachers in the school with
the proper training
• Development of the director as a leader
• Elaboration of easy to make didactic materials
• Integration of incentives for director and teachers (monetary, technological and
materials for their classrooms and/or continuation of their professional careers)
• Programs that provide children with meals (breakfast and/or lunch)
• Programs that integrate the community in the educational processes. These
processes should be specifically identified and can incorporate the following
activities:
Ø Develop of didactic material, especially with elements found in the local
environment
Ø Provide the community with student lunches
Ø Provide assistance in the classroom with regard to the transmission of
traditions, values and other ethnic -cultural elements of the community
• Implementation of constructivist methodologies and strategies
• Technological innovation
• Ability to continue with the educational process once the project is finish.
Organizational and Administrative processes
1. Provide funds for school initiatives by means of proposals presented by the following entities:
Schools Councils, Organisms of the Civil Society (OSC) and the project of the World Bank.
Responsibilities of the Involved Entities in the Project

1. The school council is responsible to elaborate the analysis of its schools reality and to develop a
plan to promote school innovations including its organization, administration, and implementation
of the initiative and the evaluation of the learning and the results of the project.
2. The OSC assumes the responsibility of assisting the schools councils (not less than three
schools) to fill the application to request the funds of EFA, to present the application, to make
any changes if necessary, and to involve to the community in the process of the preparation,
Annex Page 57
implementation and continuous evaluation of results. The organism also assumes a roll to
supervise attendance, services provided, materials, etc. obtained with funds of this project.
3. The project of the World Bank has the responsibility of designing the budget, the evaluation
of the program and the dissemination of the results to promote the expansion of the program.
•
• The relationship among the schools, the OSC and the project of the World Bank is that of a
team that although each one of them has a different role, they are carried out in a continuous
interaction and mutual assistance.
•
• The schools working intimately with the OSC in the preparation and execution of the activities
of the project, but the financial responsibility is of the project of the World Bank, that is to say
that the OSC and the schools do not receive funds directly, but rather services, equipment and
materials.
•
• Representatives of the schools, OSC, and the project of the World Bank revise the budget each
semester. This process is evaluated annually.
•
• By means of the OSC, the schools requests services, equipment and materials directly to the
OSC, which continues the process by making a direct request to the project of World Bank.
Annex Page 58
Central and
Regional
MECD
Group of
schools
NGO World Bank

Organización
of the Civil
Society
The central and regional MECD supervise all the schools activities and participates in their
evaluations.
The educational commissions and the secretaries of education in the regional governments’
participate in the selection of the educational initiatives of EFA and in the dissemination of the
results of these projects for their replica.
Annex Page 59
Administration of the Fund
The schools receives services, equipment, materials and incentives (financial and professionals)
The OSC receives a percentage of the funds administered by the schools based on the
accomplishment of the goals of the school initiatives.
The MECD receives allowances, means of transport and other expenses incurred in the supervision
work, training for teachers and evaluation of the projects. It also receives the necessary equipment
to develop its duties.
The project administrator (World Bank), has the responsibility of the financial administration and
the supervision of the whole project.
Annex Page 60
TECHNICAL ANNEX 7: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION

PLAN 2001-2015
The objectives of the National Education Plan are to provide the country with a reference
framework as a guideline for the changes in the educational system, to face the challenges to
overcome poverty and to strengthen the modernization of the State in order to contribute in an
equitable manner to a sustainable development of the country. The Plan is searching specifically to
define the principles of the Nicaraguan education for the next fifteen years, promoting a
participatory process for the articulation of the different education subsystems among themselves,
formal and informal, and with the social and economic environment.
Given the reference framework nature of the current plan, it does not incorporate projects and
programs as such, which should be thought and created by the stakeholders of the educational
system in a coherent way due to their dynamic and changeable characteristics.
Likewise, the Plan is conceived as a State -Nation Plan with the aim to guaranteeing the
continuance, governance and legitimacy of the educational policies for the next fifteen years and to
frame the allocation of the internal resources and the international assistance within the Plan.
The Plan has been created in a participatory way, involving all types of organizations and taking as
a reference the National Strategy for Education, the need of a greater social and human capital for
the its sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty as well as the strategies of the
Government in order to give priority to education as an indispensable means for the reduction of the
said poverty.
The internal analysis of the education system shows deficiencies in coverage and lack of physical
and financial capacity to attend the population in the compulsory school age range, as well as to
absorb the vegetative increase of the population.
Poverty and extreme poverty are some of the main causes for the absence and desertion at school.
There is an underassessment of the training given to technicians on behalf of the Nicaraguan

society. 14
One of the most felt problems is the lack of an appropriate curriculum, which does not answer the
needs of the regions, specially the rural areas and the autonomous regions of the Atlantic Coast.
Due to the weak macroeconomic conditions during the last decades, teachers do not have adequate
wages nor a social recognition of their work, which do not favor any motivation for performance.
14
Source INATEC, 1999.
Annex Page 61
The expenditures and investments in basic and primary education are continuing being too low. It
is necessary to increase national and international resources in order to have a positive impact on
the coverage and quality of the education, specially in the most vulnerable socioeconomic sectors.
The type and quality of the current education in Nicaragua has diverse impacts on the population
incomes, consequently, in the poverty levels according to the type of sector and regional locations
where people live.
However, the educational levels attained have a positive influence on the income, having a more
positive effect in the formal sector than in the informal, in particular with lower levels of
education. 15
The level of poverty has a strong and negative influence on the access to the different levels of the
current educational system. The poorer the less opportunities to have access to the educational
programs. In fact, the continuance of the pupils in the current educational system is a funnel
according to the poverty.
In conclusion, the analysis and type of the current educational system is not encouraging because it
reproduces the structure of poverty and tends to keep the economic and social disparities.
The continuation and expansion of the same type of education will not contribute substantially to
solve the serious problem of poverty and of human and social capital.
The plan is based on nine general principles of the Nicaraguan education which are:
Principle No. 1:
The education is a fundamental human right. The State has the unavoidable obligation to guarantee
equal opportunities of access and promotion to all, as it has been established in the Constitution.
Principle No. 2:
The education creates and forges a human being and its social, environmental, ethic, civic,
humanistic and cultural values, and is addressed to the strengthening of our national identity.
Reaffirms the respect to a diversity of religions, policies, ethnic groups, cultures, psychologies and
genders and to the rights of others to live in peace and harmony. In this sense, the education will
contribute to create and strengthen our Central American identity.
Principle No. 3:
The education will be a comprehensive, continuous and permanent process, organized in a national
system articulating the different subsystems, ways and levels of the educational chores.
15
Interaction of socioeconomic and sociodemographic factors with education, Silvio D’Franco, 2000.
Annex Page 62
Principle No. 4:
The education will be governed according to an articulate, decentralized, participative, efficient,

transparent, administrative and managerial system, as a guarantee of the social impact of education,
without adversely affecting the autonomy of the university.
Principle No. 5:
The school is the meeting place for men and women teaching and learning and the center where the
technical and pedagogical process of management and participation are integrated.
Principle No. 6:
The education is an investment for a person and is fundamental for the human, economic, scientific
and technical development of the country; therefore, a close relationship between education and
work should be established.
Principle No. 7:
The pupils are the architects of their own learning, in permanent interaction with their teachers and
fellow students at school and with the environment.
Principle No. 8:
The teachers are key factors and the main protagonists of the educational process; they have the
right to living and working conditions according to the dignified mission they exercise.
Principle No. 9:
It is the duty and the right of parents, institutions, organizations and other members of the Civil
Society to actively participate in the planning, management and evaluation of the educational
system, within the national, multicultural and multiethnic reality.
On the basis of the analysis, the National Strategic Plan for Education and the
principles, the strategic guidelinesof the Educational System are:
§ To increase the quality of learning.
§ To safeguard dignified conditions and give refresher courses to teachers.
§ To give emphasis to innovation, science and technology.
§ To promote more relevance and diversity to the education.
Annex Page 63
§ To increase coverage, access and equity to the education.
§ To strengthen institutional modernization and educational management.
More specifically, it is necessary to design and organize the educational system in such a way that it
will allow the individuals to stay within the system and to integrate themselves into a useful way to
our society with contents, abilities and skills to learn, with attitudes and values for their personal,
social and productive lives. For all the students, each year of education will be, at the same time, a
means and an end in itself, in such a way that they will get the expertise that will be useful for the
rest of their lives.
The education should be focused in competence that will also serve the informal sector from a
regional, local and cultural context. In addition, the basic education should guarantee the
satisfaction of the needs to learn, both in their instrumental aspects (writing, reading, calculus), as in
the theoretical and practical knowledge, values, skills and abilities that will make possible the
insertion of the individuals into the social life.
The education should be implemented as a social and economic means through the new national
educational system, where the needs of the different groups of the country are taken into account,
specially those of the poorest, with the extension and the diversification of the education, with
lateral outlets and regional relevance, in addition to safeguarding a fairness access and the
continuance of the educational system.
In order to implement the above, not only the internal factors of the school affecting the
performance and provoking the desertion should be focused but also the strategies guaranteeing the
necessary transfers and interventions in the family and in the communal environment so that the
investment in education can be carried out for the benefit of poorest.
It is also important to safeguard the quality of learning as part of the relevance for the productive
insertion and the democratic exercise of the graduates of the education system at all levels and
modalities.
The National Educational Plan requires to contemplate educational programs and initiatives and non
traditional training, allowing to improve the entrance into the existing working positions through the
relevant instruction and incorporating at the same time the non formal methods and experiences of
the education.
It is of the utmost importance to implement a permanent training to qualify and keep the labor force
up-to-date at all levels, trying to attain a connection between the supply and demand of knowledge
and skills, specially in the most dynamic sectors of the economy.
To implement the education, it is fundamental to boost scientific and technological innovations at

different levels, specially at the higher and technical educational subsystems, which will allow to
narrow the gap between education, work and a sustainable development.
Annex Page 64
Teachers and principles are the key elements at any school; therefore it is indispensable to
implement for them permanent training courses and to recognize their social and economic status.
The student should be the center of attention and the builder of his own learning.
The Plan is aimed at creating the governance mechanisms, emphasizing the overview of the
country, the participation of the population specially of parents the decentralization and the
flexibility in order to adapt them to the new changes.
In summary, the Plan is searching for the creation of a relevant system for the development of a
strong and sustainable society, with more fairness, in order to attain deep and permanent democratic
structures. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to have a comprehensive basic and technical
education with an enlarged coverage.
The higher education should play a key role to promote the generation, adaptation and adoption of
knowledge and technologies that will contribute to the development and to the alleviation of
poverty.
If it is true that the State, at all different levels, is very much responsible for the planning,
administration and funding of the educational system, the attainment of the objectives, strategies
and goals of a plan of this nature will only be possible with a great national commitment to
education, which once implemented should become a territorial, sectorial and inter-sectorial
commitment with the design of programs and projects financed with internal and external funds.
Annex Page 65
LETTERS OF SUPPORT

Nicaragua EFA Revised Proposal Nov 21 (All)

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Nicaragua EFA Revised Proposal Nov 21 (All)

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Republic of Nicaragua

Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports

Education for All – Fast Track Initiative

November 21, 2002

Reasons why children between ages 7-12 do not attend school....................................................13

To reach universal enrollment and completion of primary education, domestic Government

Key Indicators of EFA Inputs and Outcomes

Benefits per beneficiary 2003 2004 2005

A. Poverty and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP)

II. EDUCATION FOR ALL BY 2015

A. Government Commitment to Education for All

B. Current Status of Key Indicators versus EFA Targets

Student flow indicators

Status of EFA/Sector Development Plans Relative to the “Indicative Framework”

C. Education Sector Performance: 1993-2001

Improving Internal Efficiency and Student Flow

Increasing Emphasis on Quality Enhancing Investments

Reasons why children between ages 7-12 do not attend school

School is too far

Lack of money There are no teachesrs

Source: EMNV 2001

D. Key Government Policy Initiatives

III. EDUCATION FINANCING

Public Financing of Primary Education

Current and Projected Education Expenditures (% of GDP)

Fig. 4. MECD Budget as Percent of GDP

MECD budget 1991-2002

Fig. 5. Public Primary Education Expenditures, 2002

B. Education Funding from External Sources.

MECD sources of external funding, 2000-03 (US$)

World Food Program (School Lunch) 527,176.00 1,937,000.00 1,824,803.00 1,982,250.00

MECD sources of external funding, 2000-03 (US$)

C. Government Expenditures per Primary School Student

MECD: Average per student cost by type of school, 2002

IV. CONCLUSIONS: KEY CONSTRAINTS TO ACHIEVING THE TARGETS OF

Demand side issues.

V. NICARAGUA'S EFA-FTI PROGRAM : AN OVERVIEW

-- National Education Plan 2000-2015

A. Sub-Model I: Schooling Improvement Program (Programa de Mejoramiento

a. Attract children in the community to attend their school,

Building on the National Education Plan’s Strategies to Improve School Quality.

Indicators and Targets of the Schooling Improvement Program

Building on Successful Experience

Levels of Schooling Improvement

Levels of Schooling Improvement

School Autonomy and Enrollment in the Atlantic Region

A detailed description of this approach is included in the Annex.

Approximate Cost per School (US$)

Schools below this line

Trajectories of School Improvement

Investment costs of implementation, at different periods of time (US$)

B. Sub-Model II: Student Scholarship Program (Programa Becas-Escolares)

Indicators and Targets of the Scholarship Sub-Model

Building on the National Education Plan’s Strategies to Provide Incentives to Poor

Sub-Model Description. The proposed intervention is an expansion of The Ministry of Education

Average number of ye ars of education by poverty level

Proposed Number of Scholarships per Year, 2003-05

TOTAL 58,650 61,583 64,662

Proposed scholarship amounts

C. Evaluation and Monitoring EFA Interventions

Enrollment Deficit 2001

NUEVA SEGO VIA JINOTEGA

E1,t = i1,t POP 7,t + r1,t -1 E1,t -1 (5)

Ej,t = pj-1,t -1 Ej-1,t -1 + rj,t -1 Ej,t -1 (6).