Lessons Learned from the Gansu

Basic Education Project (GBEP)

Cambridge Education

December 2006
Table of Contents

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................5

1. CONTEXT OF GBEP ...............................................................................................6

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................6

1.2 Project Scope .......................................................................................................6
1.3 The Situation in 1999...........................................................................................7

2. ACHIEVEMENTS OF GBEP....................................................................................8

2.1 Hardware..............................................................................................................9
2.2 Software ...............................................................................................................9
2.3 Getting Research into Policy and Practice (GRIPP)..........................................12

3. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROJECT DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND

MANAGEMENT...........................................................................................................14

3.1 Project Design....................................................................................................14

3.1.1 The Strengths of the Design........................................................................15
3.1.2 The Weaknesses of the Design ...................................................................16

3.2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.....................................................................17

3.2.1 Creation of a Common Vision ....................................................................17
3.2.2 Good Planning ............................................................................................18
3.2.3 Good Budgeting ..........................................................................................19
3.2.4 Control of Implementation Quality.............................................................20
3.2.5 Integration of the Activities between Different Outputs.............................21
3.2.6 Project Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................22
3.2.7 Capacity Building .......................................................................................24
3.2.8 Creating a Culture of Innovation ................................................................25
3.2.9 Strong Consultancy Support .......................................................................27
3.2.10 Overall Cost Effectiveness...................................................................29

3.3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT............................................................................30

3.3.1 Project Management Structure....................................................................30
3.3.2 The Role of PPMO......................................................................................31
3.3.3 Leadership by the DFID Team ...................................................................32
3.3.4 Consultancy Management...........................................................................33

4. LESSONS LEARNET FROM UNSUCCESSFUL ACTIVITIES ...............................34

4.1 Textbook Revolving Fund .................................................................................34

4.2 Solar Energy Experiment...................................................................................35
4.3 Free Lunch Program ..........................................................................................35
4.4 Reform of Education Finance: Two Commitments and Money Directly
Distributed to Schools..............................................................................................35
4.5 Female Daike Teachers Class ............................................................................36
4.6 Teacher Training Credit Scheme .......................................................................37

2
 4.7 Training of County Governors...........................................................................37
4.8 Initiating SEN and EYE Activities Earlier ........................................................38
4.9 Training Female Community Members Earlier.................................................38
4.10 Teacher Education Reform ..............................................................................39
4.11 Research Program: Giving Young Scholars a chance ....................................39
4.12 Consultancy Capacity Building .......................................................................41

5. CREATING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR SUSTAINED CHANGES.......................41

5.1. Vision................................................................................................................41

5.2 Three Principles .................................................................................................42

5.2.1 Participation ................................................................................................42
5.2.2 Equity..........................................................................................................43
5.2.3 Process ........................................................................................................44

6. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................46

Main References: .........................................................................................................47

3
Abbreviations
CE Cambridge Education
CEP County Education Bureau
CW Civil Works
DFID Department for International Development
EMIS Education Management Information System
EP Education Planning
EYE Early Years Education
GBEP Gansu Basic Education Project
GPED Gansu Provincial Education Department
HTT Headteacher training
IEP Individual Education Plan
MoE Ministry of Education
MTR Mid-Term Review
NER Net Enrolment Rate
NGO Non-Government Organization
NWNU Northwest Normal University
PMO Project Management Office
PPMO Provincial Project Management Office
SDP School Development Planning
SDSG Social Development Support Team
SEN Special Education Needs
SLP School Location Planning
SR Supplementary Readers
SUBEP Support to Universal Basic Education Project
WB World Bank

4
 FOREWORD

The Gansu Basic Education Project (GBEP) was designed in 1998 and implemented
between 1999 and 2006.

The project was deliberately designed to pilot a number of new approaches to

education reform in poor rural areas. Overall, and in all the key areas, it was deemed
to be very successful. But, there were unsuccessful activities too.

Because it was a pilot project, there was a substantial budget for dissemination in
order to share the experiences and lessons learned. This allowed widespread and
detailed knowledge of the project’s experiences to be shared at both a national and
international level.

Many of these lessons have been incorporated into new work in China, both donor
and government funded. It is also generally accepted that many of the lessons learned
are not context-specific and have much wider application to education reform
generally.

At the end of the project in 2006, DFID commissioned Cambridge Education to

produce this report – the authors were the members of the technical assistance
management team. In addition, an accompanying film has been produced and a series
of interviews recorded with key participants in the project – these are available on a
DVD.

We have been privileged to play a part in supporting this innovative and influential
project and are honoured to have been invited to contribute to this reflection on
experience. We hope that it will assist others in both design and implementation of
education projects, whether in China or further afield.

Andy Brock, Consultant Team Leader, Cambridge Education

Hu Wenbin, Consultant Deputy Team Leader, Cambridge Education
Zhao Jing, Consultant Deputy Team Leader, Cambridge Education

5
1. CONTEXT OF GBEP

1.1 Background

The Gansu Basic Education Project (GBEP) was designed to help the Chinese
government to achieve Universal Primary Education (UPE) by 2005 and Universal
Basic Education by 2010 in Gansu Province. The purpose of the project was “to have
more boys and girls entering and completing the primary and junior middle school
cycles in Gansu, especially in the four target counties, and to reduce inequalities
within the educational system” 1 . After six years of implementation, the project
attracted considerable interest especially within the education development
community both at national and international level. By 2006 it was probably the best
known foreign funded education project in China. It was recognised by British PM
Tony Blair, visited by Princess Anne and by Paul Wolfowitz, Head of the World
Bank, and has received many accolades from well known educators.

More importantly though, local people – the beneficiaries – praised the project as
extremely effective compared to many other education projects. Several independent
reviews reported very high degrees of confidence among local respondents in the
sustainability of GBEP initiatives.

GBEP has generated a lot of publicity in local, national and international media. In
turn this has prompted many to ask why GBEP has achieved what it has, how it has
done this and what kind of lessons could be learned by other donors, education
projects and education officials ?

Although there are plenty of success stories in the project, it is also relevant to ask -
are there also lessons from its failures, or aspects that did not work well? What would
the managers of the project do differently now if they had the chance to implement
the project again?

This report tries to address these questions.

1.2 Project Scope

The Gansu Basic Education Project was conceived in 1997 as part of DFID’s new
poverty focused policy for development assistance. A visit by then Secretary of State
for DFID, Clare Short, set the broad agreement for a joint project. A scoping visit by
DFID in 1998 outlined the broad parameters and two design missions led by
Cambridge Education 2 in 1998/99, working with the Gansu Provincial Education
Department (GPED), helped to define the project assistance. The project was formally
launched on 6th December 1999 in Lanzhou.

GBEP operated mainly in four of Gansu’s poorest counties in Linxia Hui

Autonomous Prefecture: Kangle, Hezheng, Jishishan and Dongxiang. Teacher

1
GBEP Logframe 3rd revised version
2
Until 2005 known as Cambridge Education Consultants (CEC) Ltd.

6
training and institutional support was more widely focused on provincial level
organisations. The project was managed by the Gansu Provincial Education
Department with support from a team of international and national consultants
provided by Cambridge Education, UK.

GBEP was designed as a pilot project. It set out to test new approaches to familiar
educational problems including low enrolment rates, especially for minority girls,
high drop-out rates and a poor learning environment. Its aim was to disseminate
successful practice to other parts of Gansu and other poor areas in China.

1.3 The Situation in 1999

The situation of basic education in the four counties in 1999 is evident from pictures
at the time – dilapidated buildings, often unsafe, housing dirty, cold children in
cramped conditions were quite normal. Few teachers had received in-service training
and the only resources in schools were a few textbooks and perhaps the negligible
remains of equipment or books from government or non-government channels. And
yet, parents had to pay considerable sums of money – often as much as a quarter or
their disposable income per child (Bray 2004) - for the privilege of sending their
children to “study” in these schools. Drop-out after grade 2 was significant and it was
rare to find any girls in Grade 4 or beyond.

The most surprising aspect of this system was not that there were low rates of
enrolment and high rates of drop-out, but that so many children attended at all.

Perhaps more alarming than the physical conditions were the psychological conditions
of those in charge of the education system, both educators and officials. Yes, the
system was broken they admitted; yes, many remote schools were dangerous and
understaffed; yes, they openly favoured county and centre schools when handing out
limited resources. But, there was little they could do about it, they were powerless.
There were not enough resources and anyway, who was going to change the system?

Everyone knew change was needed, everyone knew the system was functioning well
below par, but, no one had a plan for what to do about it. All denied responsibility –
the system was to blame (and usually nameless officials at higher levels) – the
overwhelming impression was one of paralysis.

Many attempted to blame the poor for not sending their children to school. “They
don’t value education” was a familiar refrain which occasionally bordered on
discrimination when it was used to explain differences between the Han and other
minority groups.

These arguments led to a vicious circle in which the failure of the poor to spend their
own hard earned cash on this poor quality education became the justification for not
allocating resources to improve the quality of education in minority areas. The
officials who did not subscribe to these arguments were in a minority.

7
2. ACHIEVEMENTS OF GBEP

Faced with such a bleak analysis many commentators regard the scale and scope of
the project achievements as remarkable given the time span of only 6 years. In
particular, it is worthy of note that the achievements of the project are spread across a
very wide range of education areas or disciplines – from reformed teaching practice to
a dramatically improved education management information system.

In this report there is space only to summarise the achievements, but the range of
areas covered shows that the project had an impact on the whole of the education
system in these counties, not just one or two aspects of it. Looking first at the overall
indicators of improvement we find the following:

Outstanding improvement in enrolment rates in primary schools and junior

middle schools, reduced dropout rates and increased completion rates in the
four counties compared to the situation prior to 1999. Overall primary NER
rose by 13% in 6 years and Girls GER by a significant 22%. The project
achieved almost all its targets and exceeded some, especially in girls’
enrolment.

Children have become more confident in their learning and express

significantly more enjoyment in school as a result of the improvements in
making a more child-friendly learning environment. Although in such a short
time changes in learning achievement are hard to attribute to the project, there
is anecdotal evidence suggesting achievement is rising.

More difficult to quantify, but no less significant, has been the changes of
attitudes in all parts of the education service. From teachers who have adopted
and mastered a child centred methodology of teaching; headteachers who have
stronger leadership skills, more democratic management practices and better
communication with their staff and students; and education officials who have
developed stronger professional skills and a new service ethos towards schools.

Most important, given the long term nature of education interventions, has
been the building of local capacity. In many areas capacity has been
strengthened: in teaching ability, in school management, in education
management in bureaus, in research ability in teacher training institutions, in
the ability to develop locally relevant materials, in the understanding of
disadvantage and equity, in the approach to children with SEN, etc. Of course,
the test of this capacity building will be in several years time, but, indications
now suggest it has been far more successfully rooted as a result of this project
than by previous interventions.

All these achievements have been aided by a design which aimed for a change in the
education system not just one or two areas. Other projects in China have only tended
to focus on building schools or training teachers. GBEP was unusual in the breadth of
the interventions designed – over 14 different aspects of the education system. And it
was the combination of changes being made in many aspects of the education system
at the same time, together with the fact that many of the same educators and officials

8
were involved in several interventions at the same time - that created an accelerator
effect for change in Gansu.

In total GBEP supported change in more than a dozen areas of the education system
all of which could be categorised under the headings: Hardware, Software and
Getting Research into Policy and Practice (GRIPP).

2.1 Hardware

Sustainable and Improved School Building Programme (Civil Works)

The Civil Works programme provided for the building or rehabilitation of over 200
schools. The design used was modified from local designs and improved. Simple
changes such as lower blackboards (so children could use them), south facing and
larger windows plus false ceilings (to improve heat retention and reduce use of coal)
improved water supply and cleaner toilets. Additional facilities were provided for
disabled students in the form of ramps and handrails leading into classrooms and in
toilets.

Creating an Enriched Learning Environment for Children

Besides the buildings, some of the funds were allocated to providing learning
materials for children, plus many cards and coloured paper for early year teachers to
make participatory activities for / with children.

Taking account of the demands for reference books, especially new curriculum related
books for teachers, the project also funded new books for teachers and teaching
research staff to update their knowledge. Project provided equipment for physical
education were extremely popular in schools. For example : table tennis, basketball,
and inexpensive children’s games equipment such as hoops and skipping ropes. All
these made the school and playground to be a happy place and attractive to local
communities. It is notable that the procurement process was participatory so that
teachers, headteachers and children had some voice in deciding what to buy. The
project specially provided RMB 2,000 to each school through a programme called
‘Happy Campus’ – designed to attract children to school by making the environment
welcoming and fun.

2.2 Software

Improved Education Management through School Development Planning

School Development Planning (SDP) brought schools and local communities together
to create a unified approach to the school’s development. It changed the relationship
between the school and the county from a traditionally “top down” one to a more
“bottom-up” one. It did this by giving schools more involvement in their own
development. It also changed the relationship between schools and communities by

9
bringing them closer together and focusing on some of the social development aspects
of education that prevent children entering, staying and achieving in schools.

Implementation of the New National Curriculum through Participatory

Approaches to Teaching

GBEP improved the way primary and junior middle school teachers are trained and
focused especially on strengthening teachers’ ways of teaching rather than content
knowledge. It did this by introducing participatory approaches in training and
analysis, by exposing trainers to new ideas, new materials and new ways of teaching
and - most importantly - by focusing on the needs of the child. Emphasis was also
placed on using locally available and low cost materials in all teaching, and on
ensuring that disadvantaged groups of pupils (such as girls or slow learners) were
given greater consideration by teachers. These new approaches reinforced and were
reinforced by the interventions in EYE, SEN and Supplementary Readers.

Experimental Strategies to Improve Access Especially for Girls

GBEP piloted a number of different access strategies both small and large scale. Of
these, the most important was the scholarships programme. This programme provided
support to over 11,000 primary and 3,000 junior middle school pupils. Each pupil
received a scholarship for their whole time in school. Selection criteria were
developed locally that prioritised the poorest and most disadvantaged children such
that 70% of the support went to girls and 70% to minority children. After the second
year of the project all new scholarships were given to minority girls as these were
clearly the most disadvantaged group.

Other strategies piloted included providing free lunch to children, posting female
teachers to remote schools, encouraging the development of child friendly campuses
(called the Happy Campus programme), training female community members, setting
up social development support groups etc. All the strategies had a joint impact on
helping to improve the enrolment rate, completion rate, and reduce the drop-out rate.

Strengthened Retention Through a Focus on Early Years’ Education (EYE)

EYE concentrated attention on improving the ability of teachers to teach children in

Grade 1 and 2 in order to provide a solid foundation and counter the tendency fro high
levels of drop out in Grade 3. Through these approaches children have more fun in
learning at the beginning stage of schooling, increasing their motivation to attend and
learn. GBEP achieved this by training teachers to use a more child-centred teaching
methodology and to create a more child-friendly classroom environment. The project
provided half-hexagonal desks to students, encouraging group activities and
participatory learning, provided big books for whole class teaching often developed
by local teachers and researchers using locally relevant content.

New Approaches to Children with Special Education Needs (SEN)

Training and development of materials in SEN raised the awareness of children with
special education needs widely among teachers, headteachers, education officials as
well as community members. It also changed local peoples’ attitudes and brought

10
many disabled children into mainstream schools where before local wisdom said they
should stay at home or go to special schools. It did this by developing SEN modules
both for teacher training and headteacher training; by training all the teachers and
headteachers with SEN module; by introducing Individual Education Planning (IEP)
to schools in the project areas so that SEN children were viewed as individuals with
special needs ; and by setting up SEN group in each county to support all the activities
in this component.

Improved Resources for Teachers and Children through Locally Relevant

Supplementary Readers (SR)

This innovation aimed to improve the language ability of students in poor and
minority areas. It developed 24 pictures books that aimed to be helpful to language
acquisition while also focusing attention on social issues such as gender and ethnic
discrimination, disability and the environment. The development of these materials
was influenced by findings of a project in 2002 examining the representation of ethnic
minorities and women in national textbooks 3 . The Supplementary Readers were
written by local people and aimed at the majority Muslim population being served –
they were warmly welcomed right because of this character. This development gave
practical support to teachers in Grades 1 to 4 who were introducing participatory
approaches – these books was accompanied by a teachers guide with practical
suggestions and exercises teachers could use.

Greater School Autonomy through Head Teacher Training (HTT)

Support to improved Headteacher Training helped build management and leadership

capacity substantially in the four target counties. Combined with training and
interventions in SDP and inspection the headteacher training has led to a noticeable
improvement in schools own ability to self develop. The training did this by
developing a set of short, practical training modules for all serving and newly
appointed head teachers in the 671 primary schools and 47 secondary schools. The
modules were delivered separately over two-years and comprised: 1) Teaching
Support, 2) Education Equity, 3) Monitoring and Evaluation on School Development,
4) Special Education Needs, 5) Whole School Reform, 6) School Leadership and
Management, 7) School Reform and Development Sustainability.

Stronger Focus on Standards and Achievement through a New Approach to

Inspection

Changing the way schools did development planning and taught the new national
curriculum without changing the inspection system would have led to a mismatch
where inspection was looking at the wrong things. So, GBEP developed and
implemented a new inspection system that focuses on children’s achievement and
asks how well teaching and learning and school management are contributing to this.
Much of the evidence to answer these questions is gained through classroom
observation, with the School Development Plan providing evidence of the quality of
management. The project supported the development of an Inspection Framework

3
“Gender analysis of the textbooks and teaching materials in K-9 schools and informal adults’
literacy learning” founded by the Ford Foundation, 2000-2003

11
and an Inspection Guidance Manual both of which are available to schools as well as
inspectors. Inspectors were drawn from project counties and non-project counties (to
allow for independence of judgements) and also included some headteachers (who
benefited from learning about other schools and were able to provide advice from
their own experience).

Introduction of Evidence Based County Education Planning (EP)

After two years of School Development Planning and the introduction of a new EMIS
system, it was clear that County level education planning was needed to capture the
changes taking place and point the direction for the future. Key officials in each
county education bureau were trained and produced a 3 year rolling County Education
Plan. A set of Planning Guidelines was produced and County Education staff became
more aware of their role as coordinators and champions of change.

Better Data Management through an improved Education Management

Information System (EMIS)

A comprehensive approach to the local EMIS introduced by the project focused on

gathering data at student rather than school level. This has allowed for a much richer
data set including the ability to follow pupils as they change school or drop out.
Through this improved and expanded EMIS, county education officials and
headteachers have a much clearer idea of the problems they face in enrolment and
retention, can target students or groups of students who have difficulties and can tailor
their strategies more effectively.

An Objective System of School Location Planning (SLP)

SLP was introduced to introduce an objective and data based system of choosing the
most needy areas to build, rehabilitate or expand schools. Prior to this, the decisions
on school location were not made in a transparent manner and often led to
unnecessary duplication.

Increased Funds for Equipment and Training through County Education Budget
Reform

GBEP also aimed to reform the way in which County Education Bureaus budgeted for
education. A commitment from each county to increase overall spending on education
and increase the proportion of spending devoted to non-personnel costs was included
as a condition in the project. At the end of the project, the counties have committed
themselves to sustaining this level of funding thereby offering the prospect of
sustained change being funded. Distribution of funds to schools was developed
through the use of a formula based on student numbers which gave more value to the
students in the most disadvantaged schools.

2.3 Getting Research into Policy and Practice (GRIPP)

12
Research in this context is defined quite widely to include traditional studies, reviews
and surveys but also planning and policy making that uses objective evidence as the
main base of decision making.

Adjusting Policy and Practice According to Objective Evidence

GBEP set up a good system to adjust policy and practice according to the findings of
periodic monitoring as well as annual reviews and specially appointed independent
reviews.

For example, regular monitoring of the textbook revolving fund found that there were
severe problems in implementation. This led to a review which recommended
cessation of the activity.

A specially commissioned review of the scholarships programme in the second year

of the project produced evidence of imperfect targeting of minority girls. This review,
combined with baseline data that highlighted minority girls as the most disadvantaged
group in the project area, led to a decision to allocate all new scholarships (from
children graduating) to minority girls.

The county level education planning activity used participatory meeting with
headteachers to inform the county planners about key bottlenecks in the system.
These were built into the county education plans in the targets and actions to be
funded over succeeding years.

In daily project management, the close monitoring jointly by the consultant team and
PMO officials provided many strong pieces of evidence for policy making and
adjusting practice (see 3.2.5 Project Monitoring and Evaluation section for details).

Research Focused on Practical Issues

Through the research component, the research capacity of local researchers and
research institutions was improved. GBEP set up 10 research topics all related to
project activities, such as ‘Action Research on Girls’ Education’, ‘The Impact of
Participatory Teaching in Normal Schools’ ‘Education Cost Sharing Research’, etc.
As a result local researchers began to focus on education practice and real problems in
rural education instead of academic and theoretical research.

The project also supported 50 students to undertake a specially designed Masters

Degree programme in primary education. Many of these students were from the four
project counties. All were required to do their dissertations on an aspect of primary
education in the project area. These best of these were selected for publication.

As the Chinese saying goes: “among ten fingers, some are longer than others”.
Likewise, among all the components above, there are some differences in term of
scope, success and sustainability, but overall, the successes in each component have
reinforced the efforts in other components and helped create an integrated approach to
education system reform.

13
3. LESSONS LEARNT FROM PROJECT DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND
MANAGEMENT

3.1 Project Design

One of the most important elements of GBEP was the well-designed structure of the
project. Because the project only covered 4 counties it was also easier to design a
series of interventions that were comprehensive in scope.

As mentioned above, different components were inter-related and supported each

other. For example, as the pilot EMIS programme began to be established, the SDP
training and guidance from the CEBs was modified to make sure this new source of
data was fed into the school plans. Those plans in turn form the basis of the new
inspection system – in fact they are the first document inspectors request on their visit
to schools. The inspectors reports that are then produced highlight areas of strength
and weakness across the county and aggregated judgements drawn from these inform
county education planning.

SDP and Interrelationships

Teacher
Inspection Training Access to
school

SDP HTT

EMIS Civil
Scholar-
Works
ships

County Happy
Planning Campus
Two
Ed. C’ttments
Policies

The independent consultants leading a review of the GBEP learning environment

commented: “All in all, it is difficult to conceive of a project that could have been
better linked: in conception and in practice. The impact that ‘joined up thinking’
has had on project success, in itself deserves to be recognised as a key lesson for

14
anyone who wishes to be inspired by, and build upon, the GBEP project
experience.”4

3.1.1 The Strengths of the Design

What I appreciated most in this project was that, before the project was launched, the
participatory needs analysis was carried out, even before the baseline study. GBEP
was not an imported project, but a localised one.

Prof. Zheng Xinrong, social development consultant, interviewed by China

Development Brief.

What were the strengths of the GBEP design? Three key elements can be identified:

Firstly, the design process itself was participative. A good deal of effort was made to
ensure that different stakeholders were involved and their voices could be heard. All
three design missions involved consultation workshops, participative sessions on
developing the logframe and discussions about the draft project memorandum. This
was the first step for most local people to understand that they would have ownership
in the project.

The second element was the flexible approach characteristic of DFID projects. For
example, despite not favouring provision of civil works in principle, the DFID team
realised that ensuring commitment from local beneficiaries and stakeholders would be
easier if their key request was met part way. Thus, 30% of the project funds were
allocated to building and rehabilitating new schools. This proved to be a farsighted
move as it allowed some early wins in the project – communities were inspired to
participate by seeing schools being built, officials could point to tangible successes
and SDP started well because the pilot schools were mostly receiving civil works.

Left at this GBEP would be no different from many other projects in China. But, the
civil works programme was also used as a vehicle for other initiatives in the project.
Firstly, raising the standards of design, construction and maintenance of schools.
Strict quality criteria were applied to design and construction and, as a result, much
better buildings were built. Policies were developed on health, hygiene and
maintenance and training given to teachers and headteachers which led to sustainable
improvements. Secondly, in many cases villagers were inspired by the new buildings
to both send their children to school and to take part in SDP because they were proud
of the new schools. Finally, the civil works programme was used to introduce the idea
of the “child friendly school”. Emphasis was put on designing grounds and play
equipment that created a child-friendly learning environment.

DFID projects are generally very flexible. Changes can be made to activities all the
way through the project life if a strong justification can be made. This encourages a
spirit of experimentation because failure means change, not rejection.

4
David Smawfield, Yongfeng Du, Building Children’s Schools: Transforming the Learning
Environment. Gansu Children’s Publishing House,2006

15
The third positive aspect of the design was unintended – namely that the same
members of the design team became the core members of the implementation team.
Cambridge Education helped design the project and then won the contract to provide
TA support during implementation. This ensured a much higher degree of continuity
than normal and avoided the common phenomenon of consultants in the
implementation phase trying to change the project design (often because they do not
understand the background).

Learning Points:
• Good design came from a participative design process and a flexible DFID
approach which helped to create some early wins.
• Consistency of personnel between the consultant design team and the
consultant implementation team enabled a smooth start.

3.1.2 The Weaknesses of the Design

The main weakness of the design was that it was too short. There were only two visits
of two weeks by the consultancy team – to help design a £14 million project.
Participation was initiated but to a limited extent.

Linked to this was the difficulty of getting good and reliable data. County officials
were even reluctant to take the project design team to teaching points and village
schools for fear of losing face. The weakness of the data gathered led to a lot of work
having to be done on revision of the project logframe in the first 9 months of the
project.

The final design visit was by a DFID Appraisal team. This team changed several key
elements of the project memorandum – for example, the description of the two
commitments. Without the support of knowledgeable national consultants on this
team the result appeared to be fine in English but when translated into Chinese was
unclear. The first three visits by the finance consultants were spent renegotiating with
all stakeholders what the two commitments meant. What was finally agreed and acted
on bears little relation to what is written in the Project Memorandum.

Another issue was the limited preparation done by DFID to explain to the GPED how
this project would differ from what they were used to – especially World Bank
projects. In particular, the role of consultants was very unclear and yet they played a
pivotal role in both technical support and management. This led to many difficulties
in the first year of the project.

Finally, the design suffered from a weakness common to most projects –

overestimation of local capacity. Assumptions were made about the ability of local
officials and educators to shoulder responsibilities under the project that turned out to
be quite inaccurate. Assumptions were also made that GPED would make good staff
available (because GPED gave such assurances at design). However, in the early
years there was a lack of continuity of key staff since the staff assigned found their
work was not recognised when being considered for promotion and there was no
additional reward for the extra work required.

16
Learning points:
• A short design may limit the participation of stakeholders.
• Local knowledge is very important and the involvement of a national
specialists – especially where finance is concerned – is essential
• Better preparation and training for clients in DFID’s expectations from
projects and the use of consultants would be very helpful.
• A better understanding of how project experience is regarded within the
local HR system is essential for understanding the motivation of local staff
to work on projects.

3.2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

In any project, implementation is more difficult than design. Implementation requires

great commitment and professionalism at every stage - including good planning,
controlling the budget ; integrating different parts of the project ; coordinating human
resources ; managing consultancy ; building local capacity, etc. Design deals with the
larger picture and the overall direction. The devil is in the details.

3.2.1 Creation of a Common Vision

At the start of GBEP, although there was a Logframe which had been agreed by all
stakeholders, its specific meaning was quite differently interpreted by different parties
at the beginning of the project. The purpose level statement was:

“To have more boys and girls entering and completing the primary and junior
middle school cycles in Gansu, especially in the four target counties, and to
reduce inequalities within the educational system”

This statement was a kind of vision for the project – but, it was too short and
expressed in language that was too technical to really communicate a vision easily
understood and widely shared. In addition, the design process was so short that there
was insufficient time to build a consensus of what this meant. Thus, there was a
vision, but it would be difficult to claim there was a shared vision at the beginning of
the project.

Logframes are very useful reference and management tools, but they are also a
shorthand for a very complex set of inputs, processes and outputs. To be effective
they need to be interpreted in broadly the same way by all participants. In the case of
GBEP that interpretation was formed over the first 18 months or so of the project life
- but, it was not an easy process. It came about through continual debate and
disagreement about the meaning of specific outputs, the activities intended to achieve
them and the processes by which that should be done.

Through this process of discussion and disagreement, which mainly involved

consultants and PMO staff at all levels but also drew in DFID and a wider range of

17
GPED staff, and through trying to agree the focus and priority of activities, agreement
was gradually forged on what the vision of the project was.

Most importantly, the common vision was forged over time, through working together
on common activities and agreeing on common principles that underlay the vision
(see section 5 for more detail on the principles).

Learning Points:
• An important element of success lay in creating a common vision for what
the project was to achieve. That vision had to be shared, or at least accepted
by the majority, in order to be of use.
• Communicating the vision requires expressing it in language that is more
accessible to a wide range of stakeholders

3.2.2 Good Planning

GBEP aimed to change every aspect of basic education. It created a culture that
changed attitudes among many different people, such as teachers, headteachers and
even civil works planners. Building a school is not only about creating a building but
about putting children at the centre of the design. This never happened in other
projects before.

Mr. Bai Tianyou. The deputy head of PPMO in GBEP and current head of PMO in
GBEP II.

As mentioned above, GBEP’s design aimed to bring systematic interventions. And it

was really through the annual planning process that those interventions were carried
out in a coordinated way. What needed to be done, how much and at what time were
very carefully considered and calculated by the PMO and consultant team every year.
In the early stages, the consultant management team tended to lead the discussion but
after 3 years the PMO led the discussion and the consultant management team
provided comments and suggestions for revision.

During the discussion, every activity in each component was carefully reviewed
according to its progress and practicality. This included looking critically at some
activities and asking whether they were needed even if they were already in the plan
and budget. Each year some activities were completely cut while others, not thought
of during design, were added.

In total in GBEP, there were more than 100 activities, so this planning meeting would
usually take at least 2 or 3 days. Before the planning meeting, the PMO also used
participatory methods to involve key staff in the county PMO and prefecture PMO to
help to draft the initial plan. Thus, people at different levels would have some
ownership of the plan and the commitment to turn it into practice.

The annual plan and budget was submitted to DFID/GPED in October before the
project annual review took place. It would then be revised after DFID/GPED
reviewed the project to reflect any weakness or aspects DFID thought to need

18
improving. Before the end of the year, DFID/GPED would approve the annual plan
and it would become an important guide during implementation the following next
year.

This plan would also be periodically reviewed by DFID, the PMO and the consultant
management team to update the progress of the work. The consultant management
team would also make the consultancy input plan and timetable according to this plan.

Learning Point:
• Taking the annual planning process seriously and trying to involve people
from different levels of the project so they would have ownership and
commitment to implement the plan is important.

3.2.3 Good Budgeting

Our evaluation identified major lessons from which policy-makers and practitioners
could learn in other countries on ways to reduce the economic burden of education on
poor households, and thus on ways to help achieve the goal of quality basic education
for all.”

Mark Bray, Director, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning

(IIEP). Independent consultant to review GBEP efforts at reducing the cost of
education.

In tandem with the annual planning process was the annual budgeting process. During
the meeting, the detailed budget was made according to the needs of each activity.
During the discussion, the budget of each activity was thoroughly reviewed and
questioned. In the case of hardware procurement, these questions were always more
searching since it is much easier to spend a large amount of money in procurement in
a short time, but for capacity building - where the money may be better used - much
greater management effort is required but the spend may be less. For example, if we
organise training for 100 teachers, the cost might be the same as procuring 30 to 40
sets of desks and chairs, but the effort and organisation needed for procurement may
be much less.

The budget was attached to the annual plan and reviewed periodically. The draft
budget would be submitted to DFID/GPED for approval. When the budget and annual
plan were approved, PMO were able to follow this plan and budget and operate the
project without further approval from DFID, except where large capital items such as
civil works and large scale procurement were involved. DFID also contracted an
independent financial consultant to review the procurement process and provide
training to the PMO.

In the case of civil works and procurement of large capital items, a separate letter
jointly signed by the PMO and consultant management team would be submitted to
DFID for approval. This proved to be a very effective system — on the one hand the
PMO had a certain flexibility to implement activities, on the other hand, DFID
controlled and double-checked large scale items. This system also offered good
protection to the PMO who may have experienced some pressure from senior officials

19
to spend project fund on activities not strictly relevant to the project – this often
happened in other projects. Through these checks and balances, the PMO was in a
very strong position to follow the project financial handbook.

GBEP kept a good balance of so-called ‘hardware’ and ‘software’. The fund for
buildings/ furniture (‘hardware’) was about £3.6 million - about 25% of the total
project fund of £14 million. 75% of the fund was used for improving access, teaching
and learning, management, research and dissemination (‘software’). The balance of
hardware and software seemed appropriate and people started to value the ‘software
input’ of GBEP. Thus, when DFID decided to expand GBEP initiatives across Gansu
province (SUBEP), both the Vice Governor of Gansu and the Director of Gansu PED
insisted on putting all the funds to ‘software’.5 This is a good example where good
practice had a very positive impact on policy making (GRIPP).

Learning Point:
• How to best use the budget is a big challenge in all projects. GBEP carefully
used the budget according to the project needs and kept a very good balance
between ‘software’ and ‘hardware’ so that funds were effectively allocated to
benefit the most important stakeholders - disadvantaged children in poor
areas.

3.2.4 Control of Implementation Quality

The most important reason for GBEP’s success was its reliance on people. The people
in PMO and GPED are open-minded and hard-working, the consultants are
outstanding and highly-committed. There was good communication among DFID,
PMO and the consultant team. All these elements of people involved led to the high
quality of the implementation in GBEP.

Liu Yang, Project Manager of DFID China

The annual workplan laid out what the implementers of the project should do, but did
not define the details of how to do it. This was defined by the PMO staff and
consultants responsible for different project outputs who would prepare a plan for
implementation approved by the PMO and Consultant Management teams. One of the
key factors in the success of GBEP lay in this detailed planning, control and
monitoring of the quality of project initiatives.

In China, many projects are implemented by issuing orders and instructions from the
upper levels of government to the lower levels. These orders are rather general and
often vague – their interpretation is left to the implementers. Hence, there is often
wide variability in the outcomes of government initiatives at the local level which is
attributable to the imprecise nature of the initial orders and poor monitoring.

GBEP helped to establish a mechanism for controlling the implementation process of

any project activity. Every activity was analysed in detail prior to commencement of
the activity and only when this had been done was the activity initiated. For

5
Interview DFID project manager, Liu yang.

20
example, before any training activities took place, the following questions would be
clarified often through several rounds of discussion:

Why is the training needed?

Are there any currently available training materials or do new materials need
to be developed?

Who will be the trainers?

Where to organise the training (county or provincial level)?

How many classes with how many trainees and trainers?

How will the training quality be monitored and evaluated?

The Provincial PMO (PPMO) and the consultant team would work together closely on
the timing and quality control of each step. These were also the steps followed to
decide at which stage and how much consultancy inputs would be needed. The work
of the PPMO and consultant team did not stop after issuing notices about what to
do, but continued in work with the county staff on the process of how to implement
these project activities. This ensured that the PPMO and the consultant team had
timely information on the quality of every activity and also the support needs of the
local people. This is also a good way to change the policy and the practice according
to the current lessons learnt from the project activities, such as textbook recycling
programmer, free lunch pilot, solar energy experiment (See section 4 for details) .

Learning Points:
• Quality control is a key element in project implementation. It starts from
planning but goes across the whole process of implementation. Good quality
control needs high commitment and high professional skills.
• Closely monitoring the quality provided good feedback which helped ‘getting
research into policy and practice’ (GRIPP).

3.2.5 Integration of the Activities between Different Outputs

Although GBEP is close to the end, its fruit will stay in the poor mountain areas for
ever. As a female teacher, I will keep the project vision in mind and attract more girls
into school, using participatory teaching in the classroom so children can enjoy
learning in a happy atmosphere. I hope the seeds of GBEP can take root, bring forth
buds, blossom out and produce fruit.

Kan Lanlan (the project beneficial )

GBEP took a holistic view of reforming the education system. This was demonstrated
by a series of well-thought out and well paced activities in a comprehensive approach.
It was expected that the effects from all the activities would not be a simple ‘1+1=2’
but be a ‘1+1>2’.

For example, when the participatory teaching concept and methodology were
introduced, it was not just up to the teacher training component to expand and
consolidate the new teaching practice. Actually, before the teachers training
component started to provide training to the teachers, the SDP component had already

21
introduced the participation concept to headteachers so they could provide support to
teachers and encourage using participatory approach in schools.

Right after the teachers were trained with the participatory teaching, the headteachers
were trained specifically on how to provide support to teachers in the introduction of
child-centred teaching. Later, a teaching support system was established within the
education administration system. The staff of the teaching research offices of the CEB
were trained to provide regular on-site support to the teachers in classroom teaching
with the new methods.

Following this, the inspection framework was developed using indicators about the
changes in classroom teaching practice. Inspectors were trained to evaluate the
effectiveness of the new teaching practices and help teachers to improve classroom
teaching. Through these well-timed, systematic and reinforcing activities, the
participatory teaching concept and practice was introduced and consolidated gradually
and successfully.

This integration required a lot of coordination and very close working relationships
between PMO staff and consultants. In some cases consultants and PMO staff made
inputs to two, three or even four components at the same time – allowing them to
share the information across components and find connections. One of the key roles
of the consultant management team was to brief the consultants about what was
happening in other parts of the project to make sure there was coordination and avoid
duplication. [See TA management for details.]

Learning Point:
• This systematic intervention strategy could only be realised through the
integration of the activities between different outputs. This integration had
to be actively managed by PPMO and consultants.

3.2.6 Project Monitoring and Evaluation

When people ask me what I do in Gansu I tell them that it is the first project I have
worked in where change has been clearly visible in the schools and children. Most
importantly, in the early years classrooms, we have also seen changes in the
environment, in teacher attitudes and in children’s learning achievement. This is due
to the hard work of everyone in the project: the cooperative and intelligent support of
the project government officials, the excellent management and smooth running of the
team and the cooperation and enthusiastic response of trainers and teachers.

Dr Brigid Smith, Consultant for Early Years and Team Leader of Mid-Term Review

One of the strengths of the GBEP implementation was the emphasis on a variety of
both formal and informal monitoring mechanisms. A series of different arrangements
ensured that the quality of implementation was continuously under review. In the last
two years of the project life increasing emphasis was placed on using external
evaluations to summarise project progress in specific areas and highlight
sustainability issues. Some of the key monitoring and evaluation measures included:

22
Annual Report of PMO: Every October, the PPMO would submit an annual project
progress report to DFID/GPED. The process of writing this report was also a process
of reviewing the project progress. In the first year, the PPMO’s report was very
simple and general. Gradually, a system was developed by the PPMO that required
the county PMOs to write their own reports which were then summarised by the
Prefecture PMO. The PPMO used this report as the basis for its own report.

Over a number of years these reports developed from being simple statements of facts
(activity x implemented successfully) to reports of progress adducing evidence. They
gradually changed from focusing only on the inputs to describing how the inputs were
leading to achievement of the desired outputs.

Annual review by DFID: The annual review organised by DFID played an important
role in the overall review of project progress. Since the annual report from the PPMO
already gave a clear picture of the project progress and evidence for it, DFID’s visit
would mainly check whether the report accurately reflected the situation, and would
question whether the evidence produced was robust. On each occasion DFID would
include in their team some independent national and international consultants, with
different professional backgrounds, who would look with fresh eyes at the project and
often provide valuable suggestions for planning by PPMO and consultants.

Consultant Reports: Consultants were required to write reports to a standard template

for every input. Briefing and debriefing meetings were held with the PMO to identify
issues. An action matrix in each report identified the key actions that needed to be
taken in the following weeks and months and identified those responsible. This matrix
would usually be the focus of the briefing meeting on the next consultancy visit. All
reports were sent to the PMOs at Prefecture and County levels in Chinese to keep
project staff fully informed. This kind of systematic reporting assisted greatly in
targeting interventions at the right time and in the right way to the right groups.

Baseline and End of Project Evaluation: GBEP was unique in being able to
conduct a universal baseline survey and a universal end of project evaluation. The
baseline gave valuable quantitative and qualitative information which was used to
revise the project logframe and adjust the direction of the project (for example, the
decision to give scholarships only to minority girls from the second year of the project
was heavily influenced by the data collected from the baseline survey). Because the
baseline was a universal sample (all schools, all teachers and headteachers were
covered) the end of project evaluation (also a universal sample) was able to report
with very high degrees of confidence on the changes that had taken place in the 6-year
project life. There was no question of statistical bias, of incorrect sampling etc.

Internal Review Workshops: At the same time, the PPMO and the consultant team
organised review workshops for various major project activities, such as SDP,
teacher training, inspection etc. These workshops were organised at critical stages in
the project life to summarise lessons and provide guidance on the adjustment of the
interventions.

External Reviews: Besides the regular internal reviews, GBEP did use external
reviewers for the main interventions at the middle or near the end of the programs.

23
These external reviews produced ‘third eye’ observations on project activities. Many
useful lessons and recommendations from the external reviews helped the PPMO and
the consultant team to adjust the project activities. There are six external reviews
including: SDP, cost reduction, learning environment improvement, teacher training,
management, free lunch piloting and all the reports were published or printed for
disseminating GBEP lessons internally and externally.

International Conferences: GBEP organised two international conferences: one

focused on SDP, the other one focused on teacher education, early years’ education
and SEN. Organising these conferences was very time consuming, but helped the
project and brought in some new ideas from the experience of other projects and
other countries.

Learning Point:
• GBEP had a very comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system which
made sure the project implementation was going in the right direction but
also allowed for the modification according to reality.

3.2.7 Capacity Building

I have learned a lot from GBEP and my leadership has improved greatly. I think, no
matter what I do in the future, I will benefit from the advanced educational ideas and
professional management methods of GBEP throughout my life. If every project could
achieve what GBEP has, the education in rural minority areas would develop as
rapidly as the growth of sesame flowers.

Dong Caiyun (Head teacher from Chuimatan Primary School, Jishishan County)

One of the frequent comments on the project by the DFID project manager, by the
director of the PMOs, by headteachers, by teachers and by officials was that local
capacity improved substantially.

Only when long term capacity building is taken as a key aim, will there be the
patience to invest in processes – and this is where the short, sharp shock approach of
mass training in many projects fails to introduce sustainable change.

Capacity building takes time. However, it was not easy for local people to understand
the ways to achieve it. Take materials development as an example. In the first month
of the project, teacher training consultants mapped out a proposed timetable for
creating new in-service teacher training courses, that envisaged a 9 month process
from start to finish. The PMO teacher training counterparts responded by saying they
thought it could be done in 3 months. They were right. It could be done in three
months if one or two professors in NWNU were given the responsibility to write the
materials. But, the results would be a set of quite academically focused materials, that
had involved few people in their making and would be quite divorced from the reality
of the classroom teaching situation in these poor minority counties. There are plenty
of such materials available in the market.

24
Instead, GBEP set up writing teams consisting of local teachers, local normal school
teachers and university / normal school teachers - all guided by national and
international consultants. These writers, in turn, trained the trainers who, in turn,
trained the teachers. The same approach applied to training of headteachers, SDP
training, inspection training, etc). By the end of project, each county had built up its
capacity to use local trainers to deliver almost all training modules (14 modules in
teacher training, 7 in headteacher training, 3 in SDP, etc). They did not need to rely on
professors from universities. A large group of trainers was now qualified to do the job.

Capacity building also needs mentoring and repeated chances to try new methods and
approaches. It cannot be done in a single shot of training. GBEP provided several
kinds of learning opportunities for teachers, headteachers and officials to build
capacity. There were overseas study visits for teacher training group members which
provided the first exposure to new ideas in practice. On their return several training
and writing workshops were held by consultants to build on the experience gained on
the tour.

There were also some study visits to Shanghai, Guangdong, Yunnan, Beijing, Sichuan
and Shanxi to study the national experience of female head teachers, social
development support groups, special education needs etc. More important is that
every team has a lot of involvement in project activities to improve their practice in
reality, such as developing materials, being trainers, monitoring the project activities,
writing reports, representing GBEP experiences in national or international
conferences. During the process, consultants working closely and regularly with local
teams were able to gradually mentor educators and increase their capacity in different
professional areas.

Learning Points:
• Only when long term capacity building is taken as a key aim, will there be
the patience to invest in processes.
• Capacity building also needs mentoring and repeated chances to try new
methods and approaches.

3.2.8 Creating a Culture of Innovation

GBEP was trailblazing in many ways and we all experienced challenges at every turn
during the initial years. However, as piloting successes and replicable lessons began
to show the benefits for education in Gansu, many of those involved in the project
began to believe in the reforms. The pilots and innovations have now become regular
practices.

Sue Milner, former Education Adviser to DFID China

As a pilot project, innovation was a strong characteristic of the project. To every

problem identified in the project, the PMO and consultants always asked: should we
try a new method? Why did the former way not work? Is there any other possibility to
make things improve?

25
It is understandable that at the start people hesitated to try new methods because there
was the risk of failure. What GBEP achieved was to show what positive benefits
innovation could bring to education practice, as well as emphasise that failure also
offered good lessons, both to the project areas and for other places in China.

In short, GBEP created a culture where innovation created more openness to change ;
a culture where people were willing to try new things and take the risk of failure.

As local officials, teachers’ and headteachers’ willingness to test new methods

increased through this new culture, GBEP initiated many new pilots, most of which
were successful. Belief is an important part of change and the fact that local people
approached new pilots positively, rather than with a spirit of resistance, may have
contributed to their chance of success.

One of the enemies of piloting is self-humiliation and lack of confidence. Local

people were used to taking negative views of their undeveloped (“luo hou” in Chinese)
education situation because they were far behind other areas in China. Though they
were pushed to try new thing in the beginning of the project, later they found they had
gone further ahead than many developed areas of China in trying education initiatives
despite being from economic poor areas. This gave them great confidence.

For example, in the fourth year of the project, one group of SDP representatives from
GBEP joined a conference in Shanghai where they intended to learn some good
lessons from a well known “developed area”. This they did, but, they also found that
in several respects, they were more advanced in implementing SDP and using
participatory methods in teaching than the educators from other places including
Shanghai. This message was disseminated widely in project areas inspiring local
people to continue their innovative practice.

It would be a long list if we recorded every pilot supported by the project. Take access
issues as just one example. There are many different reasons why parents don’t send
children, especially girls, to school: lack of money, poor school buildings; schools
without toilets for girls; few female teachers ; poor teaching quality ; irrelevant
curriculum etc. The range of initiatives GBEP undertook to address this issue
included:

providing scholarships to poor students 70% of them distributed to minority

girls

piloting providing hot water to students for better hygiene and to counter the
very dry conditions

piloting free lunch in four schools leading to dramatic increases in retention

allocating small funds to schools to build “happy campuses” to make a child-
friend environment, having a significant impact on the demand for schooling
from children

building schools with clean toilets, and female teachers’ dormitories to make
posting of female teachers more possible.

posting female teachers to remote schools to encourage enrolment of girls
especially minorities

Providing in-service training to Daike teachers and a diploma course to female
Daike teachers to increase the number of female teachers in remote schools

26

Providing special teacher training programmes for female head teachers

Providing training to female community members to encourage them to send
their children to schools

Developing a Social Development Handbook to raise awareness of gender and
discrimination with pictures and simple sentence distributed to communities.

Printing several posters encouraging parents to send children to school and put
these up in schools and local communities

In isolation these pilots might have had a limited impact. Taken together their impact
was significant.

Learning Points:
• Failures also offered good lessons In GBEP failure meant change not
rejection.
• One of the characteristics of GBEP piloting is that several piloting initiatives
often supported each other – leading to a reinforced impact.

3.2.9 Strong Consultancy Support

The reason that GBEP had a big impact nationwide, is that many innovative practices
were carried out in the project which wouldn’t have happened without consultants’
involvement. Other projects, which have had limited impact, only followed or imitated
former practice without relevance to local people or innovation due to lack of strong
professional support.

Prof. Zhu Yimin, National Consultant of EMIS

Education consultancy is a new occupation in China. It is even difficult to find a

Chinese term for consultant. In projects, consultants are always referred to as
‘experts’. To some extent, this is right because there are few full-time or freelance
consultants in China, so most of national consultants are professors or researchers in
universities.

The DFID model of consultancy support is quite different to that of other agencies
working in China and of the MoE itself. Because DFID invests so heavily in the soft
side of projects and seeks openly to foster change, they recognise that professional
support is essential in the early stages of a project to stimulate the changes being
initiated. Thus, a considerable proportion of the project funds (about 25%) were spent
on consultancy support, the majority of this on national consultancy.

To a certain extent, the success of GBEP came from the sound integration of
international experiences with the local needs. This relied heavily on the capabilities
of the national consultants interpreting the best international practice under local
circumstances. GBEP has produced a group of excellent national consultants which
did not exist before in the education sector as, before GBEP started, consultancy
service was quite a vague concept. Now, these consultants are active in many other
projects and fields. They have not only expanded GBEP lessons and experiences but
also helped to develop the consultancy service in this very conservative sector.

27
Although many national consultants got their initial consultancy experience in GBEP,
they were very outstanding academics or talented young scholars in their professional
areas before they became involved in GBEP. Most of them came from top universities
like Peking University, Beijing Normal University and Tsinghua University (similar
status as Cambridge University, Institute of Education, Oxford University). That did
not mean their approach was very academic. On the contrary, they are academics who
are interested in rural education and want to contribute to change the reality in poor
areas. They all have fulltime professorships and plenty of invitations from many
projects in big cities in China and overseas. Gansu would be the least interesting place
for travelling or working for most of these experts if their interests were not really in
professional and development issues. That is to say, there is a similarity among GBEP
consultants – they are both highly professional and highly dedicated.

The importance of national consultants in GBEP cannot be overstressed. They built a

bridge between international best practice and the local situation. They helped
international consultants to understand which part of international experience could be
used in project areas, while at the same time helping local people understand the value
of the international and national experience.

It is sometimes mistakenly thought that national consultants work as interpreters for

international consultants. In GBEP all national consultants were professionals in their
own right. What interpreting they did was not of the words coming out of the mouths
of international consultants but the concepts and ideas and knowledge of good
practice in their heads. Using appropriate Chinese language, concepts and images they
were able to explain help these international values, principles and practices to be
adapted to local circumstances.

One of the consultants who worked in the Ministry of Education and the World Bank
commented that:

“Before I joined GBEP, I thought a consultant’s role was thinking up some

good ideas then giving these to the local people to implement. In fact, in
GBEP, consultants needed to work very closely with local people to discuss
and find solutions. Consultants don’t do by themselves, they support local
people to do by themselves.”

What national consultants brought in the project is not only their knowledge in
professional areas but also the new trend in national education reform. For example,
the national consultant for teacher training was also in charge of teacher training for
new national curriculum reform. The project benefited from the experience she
brought from the national project and local teachers felt that they were working in line
with national reforms - even starting to use participatory teaching methods earlier than
some other areas.

It was this unique combination of international, national and local expertise which lay
at the heart of much of the success of GBEP. National consultants were the pivotal
factor, but most of them also learned a great deal from international consultants about
good international practice and about professional approaches to practical project
work. But no matter how effective this combination was, without keen and dedicated
local counterparts (officials, headteachers, teachers etc.), GBEP could not have been

28
successful. All three parties working in concert were able to make effective
contributions that resulted in successful project initiatives.

Managing the professional aspect of the consultancy was a big task. Many GBEP
consultants commented on the support they got from the management team. One
international consultant said:

‘GBEP was tightly managed, but not over-managed. You felt the presence of
the leadership even when it was physically out of town. Even so you felt
trusted and your professionalism respected, but you had to earn that respect. It
was never taken for granted. Consultant advice was sought and seemingly
valued, creating a culture of mutual respect and project ownership.
Significant, too, was the expectation that consultants would have knowledge
of the overall project, not just their own component. They needed to
understand, and be able to articulate ideas and strategies for progressing the
GBEP as a whole.’

Learning Points:
• The unique combination of international, national and local expertise was a
crucial element of the success of GBEP.
• Strong support and management of consultants controlled the quality of
consultancy.

3.2.10 Overall Cost Effectiveness

GBEP, which is funded by the British government, used very little money in hardware
and equipment and all procurement was considered to be for the benefit of children,
not for showing off. Most of the funds went to teacher training. This project could
provide an idea to our government on education investment. The money is not the
most difficult element for local government. However, if there was 1 million Yuan
available, how many officials would like to put it in education, to the poorest
schools ?

National representatives’ speech in National Congress, 20066

An independent review of GBEP tried to establish whether the interventions were cost
effective. The conclusions were very positive though some of the data was difficult to
interpret. The difficulty in such an integrated project is identifying the specific impact
of a particular investment on a particular output (e.g. an investment to train a teacher
on the learning achievement of a child when separate inputs such as improved school
management and more reference books may also directly impact).

Some people argue that a lot of investment was put in a small area, but, the
achievements were also significant including the influence on other projects. Many of
the greatest long term outputs of the project may be either immeasurable (e.g. the

6
http://news.sohu.com/20060309/n242216023.shtml

29
influence on quality improvement in another province of using GBEP training
materials) or may impact far in the future (a girl who graduates from primary school
with a GBEP scholarship who goes on to raise herself and her family out of poverty).

As Adrian Davis, the head of DFID China, said when he was interviewed by Dialogue
on CCTV 9:

“By and large we think the project has been extremely successful. We built on our
work in Gansu successfully - so after that, the work being done in Gansu was taken by
us into a project with the World Bank which covers five provinces in the western area.
This is a bigger project, which covers 112 counties—Gansu only covers 4 counties.
We are now working on the national stage with MoE in a further 4 provinces.

So Gansu is being incredibly successful and we certainly consider this money well
spent. The issue is, it is a pilot project. We have spent around £15m (about ¥170m
RMB) providing basic education in 4 counties. That is not sustainable itself and it is
not replicable because it is too much money for each county. But the ideas in it have
been proven, and they can be rolled up for much less money, and that is the real test
of whether the project is or is not successful. We certainly do believe it is.”

Learning Point:
• If we consider all the tangible and intangible achievements of GBEP and its
impact in other areas of China, GBEP can be counted as a cost effective
pilot project.

3.3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Successful project management in GBEP was in large measure due to a strong project
management structure; a flexible and supportive approach by DFID China; a good
working relationship between PMOs and consultants; and solid TA management.

3.3.1 Project Management Structure

The implementation of the project was under the leadership of the Project
Management Office (PMO) set up for this purpose by the GPED and drawing on staff
from different divisions within the GPED. On average about 6/7 staff (most of them
part-time) were involved.

At the prefecture and county levels were PMOs with an average of 5 staff (most of
them part-time) working on the project. All four counties were in the same prefecture
and geographically close to each other though they differed in economic and social
conditions.

Alongside the GPED was the team of education consultants managed by Cambridge
Education. This consisted of a management team of 3 (one international, two national)

30
a core team of about 20 international and national consultants making an average of
three inputs each per year, and a further 20 consultants (mainly national) who made
occasional or very specific inputs.

This structure worked well, though in the first few years of the project it was felt that
there was insufficient support at the provincial level for a project of this size. But a
very positive feature was the way in which staff from different divisions were
involved. This brought knowledge and expertise from those divisions and in turn had
an impact on the other staff working in those divisions.

Learning Points:
• Staffing the PMO from different divisions / sections of the county and
prefecture education bureau worked very well in the four counties in GBEP
because it helped to integrate the project work with their daily work.
• This kind of staffing is much harder to achieve at provincial level. But, if it
is possible the impact is greater in influencing policy and getting research
into practice.

3.3.2 The Role of PPMO

What made the GBEP different though, and in my view highly successful, was the
creation of an environment of genuine trust and partnership amongst everyone
working on the project, the Cambridge Education project management team, their
Chinese counterparts at central and local levels, and the consultant teams,
international and Chinese.
Mike Williams, international consultant of inspection

In GBEP, the PMO and consultant team developed a good and trusting partnership.
They supported each other and served as a challenging function to each other.

However, at the beginning of the project there were many difficulties associated with
the roles of the consultants and the GPED. The Gansu PED had no experience of
working with consultants and could not see why they were needed. They felt they
simply needed the money. It took at least six months before they understood that in
the process of change an external third party is an often essential key to breaking with
the past and doing things in a different way.

In fact, the first PPMO executive director failed to handle the changes with the project
management successfully and experienced great difficulties in managing the project
implementation activities. With the intervention of more senior officials, a new
official in PED was appointed as the replacement and the successor took a more open-
minded approach to piloting. This was a turning point in the project. From then on,
the mutual support between PMO and consultant team was enhanced and the project
was implemented smoothly.

It is also true to say that, especially at the provincial level, many did not see any
benefit to being involved in the project. In the early years this caused a high level of
turnover of staff and an under-capacity within the PMOs. This was partly the result of
a lack of experience of projects with high levels of consultancy support and partly a

31
reflection of the institutional changes that happened in the first two years of the
project such that the GPED’s staffing was cut by 50%.

The result was a mismatch between the PMO structure and the consultancy structure:
a staff of two full time PMO management staff and 2 part-time professional staff
acted as counterparts to a team of almost 25 regular consultants. Consequently,
several PMO staff had to cover several professional areas (e.g. Civil works, SDP and
Teacher training all fell under one person’s remit), whereas the consultancy team was
divided by discipline. In such circumstances building up the PMOs capacity to take
over the work of consultants was a task that was always an uphill struggle.

Nonetheless, despite these structural difficulties, the commitment of the PPMO staff
and the PMO staff at Prefecture and County levels was rarely in doubt and was crucial
to GBEP success. This commitment partly came naturally because of the type of
individuals involved and partly came from the ownership created by GBEP through
the participatory approach – to management as much as professional work.

Learning Point:
• Ideally, projects should be fully integrated into GPED structures, not set up
separately. But, there are systematic problems in managing projects in this
way since they are always short-term and with specific purposes which may
not align exactly with departmental purposes. Unless there is very strong
support from senior officials, such as the head of PED, it is unlikely to
happen.

3.3.3 Leadership by the DFID Team

The relationship between us and Cambridge Education is like a partner or close

friend. DFID is our leader but we always reached mutual understanding to implement
project activities. One of the best things DFID did was to bring the best practices
worldwide to China through international and national consultants. This mechanism
is very successful.

Ms. Ba Jiankun, the head of PPMO in GBEP

One of the most noticeable characteristics of GBEP was the high degree of autonomy
given by the DFID Beijing Office to the PPMO and the consultant team over the
details of project implementation.

DFID would approve the annual work plan and budget presented by the PPMO and
the consultants. However, the DFID review team would not stick simply to the plans
and budget to evaluate project progress. Instead, they would focus on the progress
using the indicators from the project logframe. This allowed the PPMO and the
consultant team to take a flexible and practical attitude towards the implementation of
the project activities. Even the project logframe was revised three times to match the
changes with the implementation progress and achievements.

32
The PPMO and the consultant team enjoyed considerable autonomy to decide the
details of project implementation as soon as the work plan and budget were approved
by DFID. This allowed the PPMO and the consultant team to make timely adjustment
in response to the real needs. This was quite vital for a project like GBEP with
piloting new initiatives at its core.

The DFID relationship with the PED at higher levels also proved to be a helpful tool
for project progress. Difficult issues were often raised by senior DFID staff and
pressure applied to solve ongoing problems. The frequent visits by DFID officials
meant that these issues could not be ignored by GPED officials. This definitely had a
positive impact in the early stage of the project to initiate piloting.

Learning Points:
• GBEP’s success relied heavily on DFID’s flexible approach and DFID’s
trust in consultants and PMOs, which reduced transaction time in adjusting
implementation according to practice.
• DFID formed very good relations with the provincial government and
GPED which brought forth significant support from senior officials, as well
as allowing the project to influence those officials and their policy making.

3.3.4 Consultancy Management

Cambridge Education was contracted by DFID to provide technical support services

through a public bidding process. All the consultants were part-time including the
management team. The main tasks of the management team were:

To support PMO in the project management, such as making annual plans and
budgets and monitoring the progress of project activities.

To manage the consultancy inputs in a range of professional areas

Therefore, the consultants were playing both a professional role – supporting

activities in various components – and a management role, supporting the PPMO but
also representing DFID’s interests. While this was not a conflict of interest it required
some careful diplomacy.

Over time the consultancy support was first varied in favour of national consultant
support and then reduced overall. In the final year of the project most project
activities were managed only by the PMO staff with light monitoring from the
consultant management team.

By the end of the project the PPMO was fully able to manage the project without
consultancy support for management. They still required a mixture of local and
national support for technical activities (such as EMIS, SDP etc.). Management of
consultants, however, was still a little weak at the end of the project since this task
had been fully delegated to Cambridge Education.

Although repeated attempts were made from the MTR onwards to change the
emphasis of the PPMO as receivers of consultancy support to managers of it, the

33
pressure of work and the complexity of the tasks meant that this met with limited
success. For example, only once did a member of the PPMO staff find the time to
write the TOR for a consultancy visit. Comments on TOR were almost never given.
This is not surprising, and, given the relative inexperience of most of the PPMO staff,
their huge workloads, and the strong partnership with Cambridge Education, it would
have been unrealistic to expect much more.

Learning Points:
• If we want PMOs to manage consultancy, it takes time for them to learn how
to do this. A transition period is needed for PMOs and clear targets should
be set at an early stage of the project.
• There is obvious challenge for PMOs since managing consultancy was not a
requirement before the project and is unlikely to be one after the project (in
their daily work), thus, is very difficult to motivate PMOs to see this very
comprehensive and challenging work as an important task for them.

4. LESSONS LEARNT FROM UNSUCCESSFUL ACTIVITIES

As mentioned above, GBEP has created a culture of innovation and freedom from the
pressure of guaranteeing success. Many lessons are learnt from the successful
experience, but also from the failures. The lessons from these unsuccessful aspects
should also be shared with other donors and international organisations. On the other
hand, the project had many choices and decisions which taken now with the fullness
of hindsight might not be the same. That does not imply failure — just the luxury of
experience and knowledge of how the environment has changed.

4.1 Textbook Revolving Fund

GBEP tried to pilot a textbook revolving program to extend the life of textbooks and
reduce the burden on poor families. In less than two years the program was terminated.
The main reasons were that at about the same time the national government began to
substantially expand its programme of providing free textbooks to the poorest
students. In addition, publishers change the textbooks every year so that the poor risk
stigma for using out-of-date books. An additional worry specific to the area included
strongly religious Muslim parents worrying that their children would be using
textbooks used by Han children. 7

Learning Point:
• Government policy changes can overtake pilot experiments and a flexible
approach allows termination of an outdated idea.

7
Mark Bray, Ding Xiaohao and Huang Ping, Reducing the Burden on the Poor: Household
Costs of Basic Education in Gansu, China. The University of Hong Kong, 2004.

34
4.2 Solar Energy Experiment

GBEP piloted a school building in one school in Kangle county with passively heated
solar classrooms (all south facing walls glassed to absorb as much sunshine as
possible) for saving the cost of coal and being environment friendly. At the same
time, the wall was doubled in thickness with improved insulation to reduce heat loss.
An evaluation study showed that the temperature in these classrooms was about 2
degrees Celsius higher than other classrooms heated by coal stoves. However, the
average building cost of the pilot classroom was 25% higher than other ordinary
classrooms. The maintenance cost was also very high. The pilot was not expanded
because of the financial consideration and maintenance difficulties.

Learning Point:
• Short term local budgetary considerations cannot easily be overcome by
long term financial benefits without higher level government intervention.

4.3 Free Lunch Program

GBEP decided to pilot a free lunch programme for all the students in four very poor
schools (two teaching points and two village schools picked because of their very low
enrolment rates) to test whether this would have an impact on enrolment rates. These
schools were selected according to the criteria developed by the SDSG. The cost of
the free lunch for every child was RMB1 Yuan (US$0.125) per day and
approximately RMB200 (US$25) per school calendar year.

The evaluation of the pilot found that the student numbers in the pilot schools
increased quite significantly and it was ‘especially obvious that female students’
enrolment rate rose remarkably.’ Further more, ‘retention rates of the four schools
were also high, all above 90%, with some even at 100%. These provide strong
evidence that the free lunch program had a significant effect on attracting students to
come to school.’ 8 Despite these positive findings the pilot was not expanded or
extended because of concerns about the potentially high cost of replicating it and lack
of support from officials.

Learning Point:
• The Free lunch pilot appeared to show a very strong impact on enrolment.
But, political and financial sustainability objections need considerable time
(sometimes several years) to overcome.

4.4 Reform of Education Finance: Two Commitments and Money Directly

Distributed to Schools

8
An Independent Review on School Feeding Program, By Du Yuhong and Ma Guansheng,
2006.

35
The experiment with the Two Commitments proved very difficult, though in time
may be counted successful if the counties all stick to promises to keep the two
commitments going at 2005 levels. Disproportionate management effort was need on
this activity probably because the focus was exclusively on the county level.

GBEP also tried to build a new mechanism to distribute the non-personnel funds to
schools in a more transparent and equitable way. A formula was developed to
calculate how much to give each school. This formula gave higher weight to those
remote schools in such a way that one student in a teaching point would have same
amount of non-personnel budget for four students a county town school. The CEB
were supposed to allocate the non-personnel budget from the “Two Commitments”
and part of the project funds according to the calculation results from the formula.

However, it was very difficult to monitor the flow of the funds as there was no
reliable accounting system from the township centre schools to the remote village
schools and teaching points. Only the township centre schools were legally allowed
to open bank accounts. So, as soon as the funds arrived at the account of the centre
township schools, all onward distribution happened in cash. It was important to
ensure that the township centre schools would really distribute all money to the
attached village schools and teaching points, but this was very difficult to monitor.

On top of this it was stipulated that at least 50% of the funds allocated to schools
should be used in the classroom (for teaching materials, student reference books,
games etc.), but again it was difficult for the project to monitor the effectiveness of
this since all the payment were in cash and there always lack formal receipt to provide
evidence.

Learning Points:
• Reforming county level financing in very poor counties significantly
dependent on transfer from upper levels cannot be done by a focus on the
county level alone. An element of the reform would have needed to address
the provincial level – a task too great for this project.
• Finance reform at county / school level also needs to be integrated into the
ordinary education finance system and needs to be related to school finance
practice. It is difficult to do this if the external policy climate is not
favourable.

4.5 Female Daike Teachers Class

To increase the number of female teachers in remote schools, and following the
recommendation in MTR report, a kind of special training program was organised for
female daike (non-government) teachers to upgrade their qualifications and then send
them back to the villages they came from, as agreed by Prefecture PMO and teachers..

120 were selected to attend the special program organised at a provincial normal
school in Lanzhou. They graduated after two years study. However, the prefecture
policy changed and anyone who wanted to be a teacher should pass the unified exam.
So the job guarantee disappeared.

36
The PPMO and the consultants did everything possible to coordinate the job
assignment for the female teachers with the support from the DFID. However, at the
end of the project there was still no final settlement.

Learning Point:
• Giving the project’s high priority on helping disadvantaged groups, it was a
failure that these female teachers were not treated as promised. The main
reason is the resistance of key local institutions and the lack of stronger
action from the GPED and DFID to ensure commitments were met.

4.6 Teacher Training Credit Scheme

In the early stages of the project a formula was introduced to allocate in-service
training opportunities to teachers. This formula was weighted in favour of remote
schools. The thinking behind the scheme was to create a sustainable model whereby
training opportunities post-project could be allocated easily, especially as it was
intended this would be linked to the funding for schools being channelled through the
SDP process.

However, the system relied on a robust database of teachers and a sound record of the
opportunities they had taken up. This proved to be much harder to establish than first
expected. Database skills at county and prefecture levels were lacking and there was
no system to graft on to – opportunities were allocated according to personal
preference. By the end of the third year of the project it was evident that the system
was not being used.

Learning Point:
• The credit scheme would have been better to be fully integrated into
government’s new system of teachers’ continuing education, then the credits
could be counted in the formal system and motivate teachers to join the
training.

4.7 Training of County Governors

One area where GBEP failed to impact as strongly as it should have, was the
involvement and support of the county governors. A great deal of attention was paid
to trying to involve and influence the county education bureau heads so they were
very active in the project and use participatory approach in their day job more
frequently. But county governors only appeared in annual review or VIP’s visits
without more deep involvement.

Learning Point:
• Although GBEP can’t achieve everything and target every person, but if
more training to county governors had been organised, the impact would be
not only limited in education sector itself and would have aided the work of
the county education bureaus.

37
4.8 Initiating SEN and EYE Activities Earlier

GBEP did not initiate or plan to start SEN and EYE activities until the Mid-Term
Review (MTR). The MTR noticed that Grade 1 and 2 teachers were working under
difficult circumstances (such as very large class sizes and poor teaching conditions)
and they needed further training ‘with special early years participatory teaching
strategies’. At same time, teachers needed much more specific training in handling the
special education needs of different children, especially those with disabilities. The
MTR report made very specific recommendations on launching the SEN and EYE as
the team believed that these interventions would be quite helpful for consolidating the
achievements of GBEP up to that time.

In response to the recommendations, GBEP organised the development of two

modules for training teachers with the special skills: SEN and EYE. The SEN module
was also used for the HT training.

Due to limited time after MTR, the implementation of the SEN and EYE programmes
had to be done at a much quicker pace than other GBEP initiatives. This meant using
a much smaller pilot scale and again restricted the possibilities to build up more
practical experiences at the grass roots level. Since most of the SEN and EYE
training had to be finished in a short period of time, the big training quantity made the
quality control and monitoring also more difficult. As a result of the quick
intervention at much shorter period, the consolidation of the initiatives was negatively
influenced. Even though most of the teachers and HTs had developed some sense in
the areas, the SEN and EYE concepts and practice had not been as widely and
thoroughly embedded in classroom teaching as expected.

Learning Point:
• If the SEN and EYE elements had been considered and built into teachers’
and HT training comprehensively from the very beginning, the impact may
have been greater, sooner.

4.9 Training Female Community Members Earlier

One of the key reasons for the introduction of SDP was to provide access for the
participation of local community members in school management. It was believed
that the capacity of the headteacher to mobilise local people played a vital in of
ensuring the full and effective participation of the community.

However, some groups, especially the most disadvantaged groups such as women,
still experienced difficulties in active participation. To promote the participation of
women in SDP, it was specifically provisioned that there should be at least two
female representatives in the SDP committee. Actually, the poor capacity of the
women contributed to the unsatisfactory participation level. GBEP did not undertake
specific training of female community members until very late in the project life.
This intervention proved to be very effective but came too late.

Learning Point:

38
 • If such capacity building activities of community members had started
earlier, the participation level and quality of SDP might have been even
better.

4.10 Teacher Education Reform

Changing the way of the training and education of teachers in Gansu was essential for
the fundamental and sustainable reform of school classroom teaching. This was a
common understanding developed at very early stage of GBEP design and
implementation. GBEP used different approaches to work in this area including
involving teachers from teacher education institutions in materials development;
setting up an M.Ed program majoring in primary education for 50 teachers from these
institutions, etc.

The teacher education institutions experienced quite a lot of change from the active
involvement of GBEP. The survey of the normal school teachers in Gansu also
indicated somewhat positive effects of the project training to Normal school teachers
on the issues of student centred approaches and social development.

All of these changes have been quite encouraging and some are definitely
fundamental. However, the changes could be even more systematic and thorough if
the GBEP had done more to upgrade the syllabus of the teacher education
institutions. Even though the teacher education institutions were involved in
organizing various training events organised by GBEP, but the project could do
better in trying to help the institutions to reform the way of training future teachers
in a systematic way with the implementation of the new national curriculum.

For example, a special program could have been organised for the purpose with a
team focused on reviewing and changing the structure and contents of the syllabus of
the teacher training institutions; more training could have been arranged on changing
the ideology of the presidents of the teacher training institutions; more specifically
designed training could have been organised for the teachers of the institutions, etc.
The biggest loss in this part was that the Teachers Training Division of GPED was not
very active in this area due to their commitment to other projects.

Learning Point:
• If the teacher training division were as much as involved the inspection
office of GPED were in promoting the new inspection, the change and
upgrading of teacher training institutions from an institutional point view
could have been more profound and significant.

4.11 Research Program: Giving Young Scholars a chance

The research program of GBEP was supposed to do a series of research with topics
related to the project activities. The research would provide practical guidance to the
project implementation and would also have policy implications for the reform and
development of the education system in Gansu. As in other components, GBEP was

39
determined to do the research program with the introduction of innovation both in the
selection of the research topics and the way to organise it.

An advertisement was issued in the public media inviting applications from the
potential researchers national wide. It was planned to build up a pool of national
researchers and then let them provide guidance to the local researchers. The pool was
established but it turned out to be very time consuming process as there were so many
CVs and very few of them would be appropriate to do the practical researches
requested by the project. Most of the researchers in China at that time were very
academic and not many had practical experiences in doing field work. The research
program went painfully slowly.

A few of topics were selected which were directly linked with the project activities,
such as action research on girls education in the project counties. Then, competitive
bidding mechanism was introduced in selecting the researchers. Special preference
was given to those young scholars who usually had limited chances getting the
opportunities and funds in wining research programs. But they were much more open
and quick in learning new research methodologies.

GBEP introduced action research methods and trained the local researchers on using it.
The research process was carefully monitored and supported by the consultants with
training and guidance. Gradually, more and more local researchers built up their
capacity in doing action researches according to local needs. This helped to change
the research style from mainly theoretical interest oriented to be more practice
intervention oriented.

From the very beginning, GBEP was very clear to help building up the local research
capacity with the growth of local researchers. After the mid term review, a new
strategy called Young Scholars Scheme was designed. It aimed to improve the
capacity of the local young researchers. Some research advisors were selected through
restricted bidding to give specific support to each research topic. Consultants,
including research consultants and social development consultants gave constant
support to research teams. This approach was successful since all the young scholars
involved thought they learned a lot and they valued the opportunities which they
rarely got from other channels. Some young scholars said they felt like finishing a
doctoral dissertation when they finished their research reports. If the focus had been
given to young scholars at the very beginning, the whole process may have been
easier.

Learning Points:
• Education researchers experienced in practical research are limited in
China
• Senior scholars often have workloads that are far too great, leading to
reduced quality of outputs. For the sake of sustainability, young scholars are
an appropriate target group for investment. This should be considered at the
very beginning of the project.

40
4.12 Consultancy Capacity Building

One of the most difficult things for TA management in GBEP was finding the right
and qualified national consultants. Best scholars or researchers did not necessarily
become the best consultants. As a consultant, practical experiences and adaptive
capacities were much more important than academic background.

GBEP did not have specific plan for the development of consultancy capacity in
China even though this was the first education project with so many consultancy
inputs. International consultants provided some training and help mainly from acting
as models or mentors, but there was no systematic training of the national consultants.

Learning Point:
• Ideally, if a training program were developed and carried out to cover a
much bigger pool of potential national consultants before GBEP was
launched, the growth of education consultancy capacity and the support to
the project – and to the whole education system - would be even stronger.

5. CREATING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR SUSTAINED CHANGES

The forgoing sections summarise the lessons learnt from the stages of the project
cycle and from unsuccessful activities.

Underpinning all the successful activities was an environment created as the project
grew which stimulated, encouraged and supported change. This environment could
not have been achieved without a reasonably consistent and common understanding –
a vision - of the purpose of the project and principles which should inform project
activities.

There is little that is new in stating this. At the heart of all successful projects will be a
shared vision, common principles and good leadership to communicate these. But,
projects can easily lose sight of their larger aims by concentrating only on the
implementation of activities.

In understanding and reviewing the reasons for the successes of GBEP it is important
then to focus on the shared vision and common principles and how these were
achieved. In such a comprehensive project it would have been easy for the project
mangers to become overwhelmed by the detail of project activities. Why did this not
happen?

5.1. Vision

The vision of the project was the summary of what was hoped to be achieved. In
technical terms this was the purpose level statement of the logframe. In lay terms to
increase access for poor children and make the education system fairer for all.

41
In practical terms this actually translated into the adherence to a number of
principles. These principles of the project were established through agreed
approaches to activities, to who should participate in those activities and what should
be the outcomes of the activities.

Broadly speaking those principles can be defined as: participation, equity and
attention to process.

5.2 Three Principles

What GBEP did in making these three principles central to the practical application of
the project’s aims was to provide a framework within which education change and the
reasons for it could be understood and justified within the arena of rural basic
education.

It’s not surprising therefore, that it took at least 18 months to 2 years before it could
be said that a majority of project participants understood and accepted these
principles. And the main reason it took so long is that principles like these cannot be
disseminated – they have to be demonstrated.

5.2.1 Participation

The community members were saying that it was the first time they were consulted
about school development issues. They began to participate more positively instead of
with a passive attitude. The Community members realised that they are the owners of
the school and their contribution would attract more children coming to schools.

Northwest Normal University team of Case Study during the Mid-term Review

In designing the project one of the key weaknesses identified by all parties was a lack
of participation in the education system. Schools were often described as if they were
spaceships sent by the government with no connection to the community except as a
place where children went. Decision-making was described as being entirely top-
down. Headteachers felt they were caretakers not managers of schools.

Thus, the key and underlying theme of almost all project activity from the very start
was participation. This started from parents and children being involved in school
development planning and extended to officials and county governors taking part in
training and discussions about how best to change the education system. Special
emphasis was put on the participation of women and girls and of ethnic minority
groups.

However, there is a perennial problem of using participation to engender change since

many of the people participating have a vested interest in the status quo. In particular,
local officials and those whom the system advantages see change as a threat to their
positions fearing even that they may lose their jobs.

42
GBEP addressed this by training these local officials and using them as facilitators for
the training of others. By doing so the project effectively made them responsible for
the success or failure of change. Consequently, whether project initiatives then
succeeded or failed often bore a close connection with the degree of support from
these officials and the degree to which they saw it as beneficial to them or to the
communities they served (especially their superiors).

Some examples of how this worked in practice included:

• All training was required to have a gender balance of participants.

• Teacher training writing teams were made up of ordinary teachers from rural
schools, education officials and university professors.
• The SDP training materials emphasised community participation in making
school plans as the core of the new approach.
• Social Development Support Groups (SDSG) set up in each county had
representation from several officials within the county education bureau.
• Decision making on annual planning was extended to a wide group of people
where previously it would have been confined to a handful

The impact of this emphasis on participation has been far reaching. In the classroom
teachers have been transforming their relationships with pupils and their own
understanding of teaching though the use of participatory teaching pedagogies;
officials have been changing the way in which they hold meetings and make decisions
and finding that participation makes for better policy making and parents and children
have been forming new and closer bonds with the schools serving them through their
participation in the planning process.

Learning Point:

• By defining participation widely and putting it at the heart of the way in

which the project activities were approached it became a defining
characteristic of the project. The project was therefore not only promoting
the virtues of participation but showing it in the way it approached all
activities.

5.2.2 Equity

The girls in our village used to help their parents on the farm. They couldn’t go to
school and envied those pupils at school. Since the start of GBEP, they can go to
school and study with the boys together.

Ma Jinhua’s letter to Tony Blair after meeting him in July 2003

Equity also underpinned all of the activities the project supported. The conception of
equity the project supported lay at the heart of the innovation being introduced in

43
Gansu and was, and probably still is, the most controversial aspect. In this area, as in
many rural areas of China, the commonly accepted definition of equity would be
characterised as a horizontal one – namely the equal treatment of unequal groups.

For example : if there are 10 scholarships available to poor children in a remote

school, the local conception of equity would suggest that roughly five boys and five
girls should benefit.

It was in this environment that the project tried to introduce a vertical conception of
equity. Vertical equity is the unequal treatment of unequal groups. Using the specific
example above, vertical equity would suggest that either all, or the vast majority, of
the 10 scholarships should go to girls. The argument would be that, while boys were
also disadvantaged, girls suffer from a historical legacy of disadvantage and
discrimination (an unequal group) that justifies a disproportionate weighting towards
them (unequal treatment). There is abundant statistical and qualitative data to show
this. Moreover, this is a worldwide phenomenon, not only a rural Chinese one.

This was a radical approach and one that caused much debate and disagreement. At
first local administrators and educators were reluctant to accept this principle because
it challenged the way in which resources were traditionally distributed. And the way
resources were traditionally distributed was based on a cultural understanding of
equity which was rooted in the welfare of the common good, of the group above all
else – especially above the individual.

Hence the principle observed was: if there are limited resources, give something to
everyone. The project’s conception of equity is rooted in an understanding of equity
as it relates to individual choice and opportunity. It is based on the understanding that
to achieve equity in deeply inequitable circumstances requires righting historical
disadvantages, it requires breaking the traditional pattern. Therefore, some groups and
some individuals need to be prioritised.

Over time, and with the gradual increase in regular evidence from SDP, from EMIS,
from independent reviews etc. the resistance to prioritising support to the most
disadvantaged even in situations where poverty is relative, weakened and changed to
support.

Learning Points:
• Prioritising disadvantaged groups in areas where poverty is relative requires
constant discussion and sometimes external support.
• Cultural conceptions of equity need to be understood and respected while
debate is engaged
• Robust data is essential in convincing some about the need to prioritise.

5.2.3 Process

When I reviewed the last six years’ experience in school development planning, there
was a mixture of sour, sweet, bitter and spicy. I felt deeply that the process was more
important than the result. The process of these six years is the development of

44
ourselves, as well as schools.

Wang Guocai, the SDP coordinator in Jishishan County

One of the mantras of the project in the first few years became “the process is as
important as the results”. That processes were as important (not more important) than
results became an important principle and was frequently referred to. Why?

From the very start GBEP set out to experiment – it was a pilot project and that is why
basing its efforts on only four very poor counties was seen as justified. The piloting of
many different initiatives in teacher training; access; financial reform; education
management etc. was not just about the results but about the way in which those
results were arrived at.

What did this mean? It meant that the project created an environment for
experimentation; an environment where it was accepted that things could fail or where
there could be flexibility of things did not seem to be working. It created an
environment where decisions were taken to do things a longer way because it would
improve capacity rather than a short way which would achieve quicker results that
would not be as long lasting.

Of course, process is intimately linked to participation since this is one of the key
processes in any kind of change – wider involvement in the process of change may
initially slow down the speed of change, but in the long run it creates change whose
roots are deeper and more substantial than change dictated by orders.

Some other examples of how this has worked in practice include:

• Materials development teams in teacher training, inspection, headteacher

training, SEN etc. were all required to act as master trainers and thereby find
out how their materials are actually received.
• The development of new approaches e.g. the textbook revolving fund
programme (which tried to reduce the costs of textbooks to poor students) and
the school feeding programme (which tried to raise enrolment through
providing a nutritious lunch) was done on a pilot basis with regular monitoring
reports and independent reviews.
• Annual reviews of the project were done on a systematic basis with data
collected to provide evidence for change. This was strengthened through the
establishment of a student based EMIS. Failures as well as successes were
pinpointed and wide discussion of the draft reviews was undertaken before
report wring was completed.

Learning Points:
• The processes were as important as the results.
• Wider involvement in the process of change may initially slow down the
speed of change, but in the long run it creates change whose roots are
deeper and more substantial than change dictated by orders.

45
6. CONCLUSIONS

GBEP’s greatest successes lay in the improvement and development of the human
resources in the local education system. The same officials, same headteachers and
same teachers are there today, but they see and do things differently now. With the
right factors and conditions available, this success is replicable.

It is time consuming to change people’s ideologies and attitudes in the education

sector, but this is also where the most rewarding and sustainable achievements are to
be found. People who embrace change rarely turn back and thus, to some extent,
sustainability is guaranteed.

GBEP’s experiences and lessons show that software improvements in the education
system decide the success and sustainability of any education initiatives aimed at
improving education services in poor rural areas.

46
Main References:
• End of Project Report, By Provincial Project Management Office, 2006.
• Middle Term Review Report, By Provincial Project Management Office, 2003.
• Reducing the Burden on the Poor: Household Costs of Basic Education in
Gansu, China. By Mark Bray, Ding Xiaohao and Huang Ping,The University
of Hong Kong, 2004.
• Building Children’s Schools: Transforming the Learning Environment. By
David Smavfield, Du Yongfeng, Gansu Children’s Publishing House, 2006.
• An Independent Review of School Development Planning in Gansu. By
Amanda Seel, Lanzhou University Press, 2004.
• Review of the Inspection Component of GBEP, By Mike Willams, Zhang
Renhong, 2006.
• Independent Review of GBEP on Impacts on Management, By Chu Hongqi,
Liu Xudong, 2006.
• Review of the Two Commitments of GBEP, By Wang Rong, Liu Mingxing,
2006.
• Teacher Training Component Review of GBEP, By Peter Morgan, Xiang Beili,
Ma Yunpeng, 2006.
• School Feeding Review Report, By Du Yuhong, Ma Guansheng, 2006.
• Internal Review of Headteacher Training Component of GBEP, By Ian Hume,
Yang Xiaowei, Tao Jianling, 2006.
• Project Completion Report: Economic Review, By Malcolm Mercer, Ding
Xiaohao, 2006.
• Case Study of GBEP, By Northwest Normal University, 2006.
• Student Achievement Report, By Yang Ming, 2006.
• End of Project Evaluation: School Survey Report, 2006.
• End of Project Evaluation: Teacher Survey Report, 2006.
• End of Project Evaluation: Consultants’ Reflection Collection, 2006.

47