FOREWORD

The heavy inflow of refugees since 2016 has made Uganda one of the
largest refugee hosting countries in the world. While this massive
refugee influx in itself makes up an exceptional humanitarian crisis in
the recent years, it should be also considered as a ‘children’s crisis’
where 61% of the total refugee population are estimated to be children
under the age of 18 years old. The children in the host communities in
Uganda are equally affected by this influx, as the number of refugees
are exceeding the host community population in some of the districts in
the West Nile region.
The Government of Uganda has been serving as a model example in the international community by
granting refugees in Uganda asylum and access to the same rights as its citizens, including the right to
education. This was committed through several policies and frameworks, such as the Refugee Act
2006, Refugee Regulations 2010, Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework for Uganda and the
Education Sector Strategic Plan 2017-2020.
No one chooses to become a refugee, and we therefore treat the most vulnerable children who were
forced to flee from their country of origin with dignity, as much as we do to our children in Uganda.
With no distinction, education is hope among refugee children as well as for children from host
communities. Education brings a sense of normalcy to their lives after being affected by severe
circumstances. It provides protection mechanisms to these children in challenging conditions, and
helps them to cope with the difficult situation as well as building the foundation to reach the full
potential of their lives. As such, education is an essential enabler to break the vulnerability created by
conflict and displacement.
This Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host-Communities in Uganda was developed against
this background; in order to ensure improved learning outcomes for increasing numbers of refugee
and host-community children and adolescents across Uganda. The plan is a product of the concerted
efforts of various stakeholders, including the Ministry of Education and Sports, donors, Civil Society
Organizations and the United Nation Organizations, through the contribution of financial support,
technical expertise and practical input.
It is our sincere hope that Uganda will be supported by Partners to ensure that all children in the
country will be provided with opportunities to access inclusive, quality education at all levels, through
implementation of this Plan. Even at the Early Childhood Development (ECD) level, which in Uganda
is primarily a responsibility of the private sector, this Plan provides a mechanism for Government to
extend services to refugee and host communities in the form of ECD regulation, standards setting and
quality assurance.

Janet K. Museveni
FIRST LADY AND MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS

2
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities (ERP) in Uganda is a product of the
concerted efforts of various stakeholders who have contributed financial support, technical expertise
and practical input.

The Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) appreciates Education Cannot Wait (ECW) for providing
the impetus for the development of this plan and the local Education Development Partner Working
Group for their collaboration in the formulation of the plan. MoES also recognizes and acknowledges
the relentless support from UNHCR and UNICEF, who served as co-chairs to the MoES on the ERP Task
Team. The Task Team included the following individuals from various organizational partners and the
MOES is highly appreciative of their enormous contribution. Joseph Kajumba (MoES); Dorothy
Ssekimpi (MoES); Michael Ssozi (MoES); Azaria Mwesigwa (MoES); Darlson Kusasira (Office of the
Prime Minister); Linda Jones (UNHCR); George Gena (UNICEF); Tomoko Nakajima (UNICEF); Elsa
Bokhre (UNHCR); Phil Elks (DFID); Ash Hartwell (USAID); Diana Sekaggya-Bagarukayo (World Bank);
John Solecki (ECW); David Hartstone (ECW); Mackenzie Monserez (Save the Children); Victor Kiwujja
(UNICEF); Mary Hanlon (UNHCR); Emmanuel Curuma (Windle International Uganda), Diane Naluyima
(Windle International Uganda); Luka Fraschini (Save the Children); Fuyuki Kawasaki (WFP); Catherine
Gimono (WFP), Victoria Kisaakye (UNESCO); Laura Ivey (Save the Children); Thierry Foubert (BTC);
Gregory Acar (BTC); Laura Taminau (BTC); Lucy Strickland (UNHCR); and Semine Lykke Brorson
(UNICEF).

Special thanks to the Education in Emergency Working Group, consisted of various Civil Society
Organizations which are implementing education response programmes in the refugee hosting
districts, for providing feedback and inputs to the plan and the costing model.

The development of this Plan benefitted from the engagement of an ERP Reference Group, composed
of representatives from Uganda’s development and humanitarian response partners. The ministry
would like to specifically extend its gratitude to DFID, USAID and the World Bank, which provided
technical support for the development of the plan and thorough review for quality assurance, as well
as drafting the structure and funding modalities for implementation of the plan. The Ministry would
also like to thank the numerous organizations which provided support for the development of this
plan, including ECW, ECHO and JICA.

The product of this enormous effort should go a long way in improving learning outcomes for both
refugee and host community learners who are in dire need of education.

3
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this Plan is to set out a realistic and implementable plan to ensure improved learning
outcomes for increasing numbers of refugee and host-community children and adolescents across
Uganda. This purpose is described in the introduction. This Plan shows how an average of 567,500
learners per year can be reached with improved education services, for three and half years. This will
cost around USD 389 million in total.

The Plan begins with a situation analysis, which shows the immense and growing needs of the refugee
and host community children, across all levels of education. With current levels of funding, the quality
of education and the number of places in school, falls well short of the aspirations of the communities.
In some settlements, each classroom often has over 200 learners. Under the leadership of the Ministry
of Education and Sports, this Plan can help to shape a response to these needs.

The policy context is presented. This Plan is designed to implement the strategies and principles which
guide Uganda’s refugee response and education system.

A theory of change has been developed to guide this response. The overall ambition of this Plan is to
improve learning outcomes for the refugees and their hosting communities. This will be achieved
under three groups of activities: Improved Equitable Access to Inclusive Relevant Learning
Opportunities, Improved Delivery of Quality Education Services and Training, and Strengthened
Systems for Effective Delivery. A key assumption is that sufficient funding becomes available to
provide quality education, which can improve learning.

The detailed Plan and Budget is presented to deliver the improvements envisaged in the theory of
change. Activities have been carefully prioritised to ensure that this Plan is ambitious yet realistic, so
that the Plan can guide implementation. Targets have been set to show improvements in education
which can be achieved.

The Plan will be managed by the Ministry of Education and Sports, involving a wide range of
stakeholders in decision making. The Plan should harness the work of all actors from policy makers to
those implementing programmes.

Financing for the Plan will be provided through a range of channels. Over time, donor financing should
become increasingly aligned behind the Plan.

High quality monitoring and evaluation will be embedded into this Plan, to guide implementation and
allow for an ongoing-gong process of prioritisation of activities.

This refugee crisis will be protracted. Sustainability is built into this Plan, particularly through
strengthening government capacity, at national and local level, to lead and manage the response.

4
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword................................................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. 3
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 4
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 5
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 6
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2. Situation Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 9
3. Rationale and Policy Context ............................................................................................................ 21
4. Theory of Change .............................................................................................................................. 24
5. Plan and Budget ................................................................................................................................ 28
6. Management ..................................................................................................................................... 40
7. Financing ........................................................................................................................................... 44
8. Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 45
9. Risk Management: Social, Environmental, Sustainability ................................................................. 46
Annex A: Supporting Data of the Situational Analysis .......................................................................... 48
Annex B: Activities Included in the Plan ............................................................................................... 49
Annex C: Details of the Costing Model ................................................................................................. 55
Annex D: Detailed Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................... 57
Annex E: Terms of Reference of the Steering Committee .................................................................... 60

Cover Page: UNICEF (2017) Children learning how to count in English in Bidi Bidi Refugee Settlement
in Yumbe district in Uganda 1 March, 2017.

5
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

ACRONYMS
AEP Accelerated Education Programmes
BTC Belgian Technical Cooperation
BTVET Business, technical and Vocational Education and Training
CCTs Coordinating Centre Tutors
CRRF Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework
ECD Early Childhood Development
ECW Education Cannot Wait
EMIS Education Management Information System
EiEWG Education in Emergencies Working Group
GER Gross Enrolment Rate
GPS Global Positioning System
HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
ICT Information and communication technologies
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation
INEE International Network for Education in Emergencies
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MHM Menstrual Hygiene Management
MLA Measuring Learning and Achievement
MoES Ministry of Education and Sports
NDP II Uganda’s Second National Development Plan
NFE Non-formal education
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
PLE Primary Leaving Examination
PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio
ReHoPE Refugee and Host Population Empowerment
RIMS Refugee Information Management System
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SGBV Sexual and Gender Based Violence
UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VTI Vocational Training Institutes
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WFP World Food Programme
WHS World Humanitarian Summit

6
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities (“Education
Response Plan”) is to set out a realistic and implementable plan to ensure improved learning outcomes
for increasing numbers of refugee and host-community children and adolescents across Uganda. The
timeframe for this Plan starts in January 2018 and runs to June 2021. The period January 2018 to June
2018 is considered year zero with the first full year of the Plan starting in line with the Uganda’s budget
year in July 2018. The Plan is designed to be a three-year rolling plan; with each year that passes, the
achievements, lessons learned and challenges are reviewed and an additional year added to the
planning cycle. Year zero (January to June 2018) comprises both direct implementation of the priorities
and activities set out in this Plan as well preparatory work, analysis and studies to inform ongoing
implementation in year 1 (July 2018 – June 2019).

At a cost of USD 389 million and in line with potential levels of funding over 3.5 years, the
Education Response Plan will reach just over 567,500 refugee and host community learners per
year.

In line with the Government of Uganda’s policy towards refugees, the Comprehensive Refugee
Response Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals, a core principle of the Education
Response Plan is to ensure that all refugee children and adolescents as well as children within host
communities have access to good quality education at all levels, irrespective of the country of origin
of refugees and their location within Uganda. It is important to note, however, that the Education
Response Plan is designed to be realistic and implementable based on existing and potential resource
flows. With this in mind, a process of careful staging and prioritisation has been essential.

The Education Response Plan is designed within the context of the Education Sector Strategic Plan
(2017-2020). Under Objective One of the Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP), the sector sets out
the need to develop and implement response programs for the provision of quality education to
refugees and the host communities. This creates a clear entry point for all refugee interventions in the
education sector in Uganda.

The Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) for Uganda was launched at a high-level
meeting in Kampala in March 2017. The purpose of the CRRF is to harness a whole-of-society approach
in responding and finding solutions to refugee crises in Uganda, building on existing initiatives and
policies.

The CRRF is part of an enabling policy environment including the Refugee Act 2006 and the Refugee
Regulations 2010, which state that refugees have access to the same public services as nationals,
including education services. Further, Uganda’s Second National Development Plan (NDP II) aims to
assist refugees and host communities by promoting socioeconomic development in refugee-hosting
areas. This is supported by the United Nations through the Refugee and Host Population
Empowerment (ReHoPE) initiative developed in collaboration with the World Bank and the Settlement
Transformation Agenda (STA) that requires the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) to develop and
implement a Refugee Settlement Transformative Agenda and provides an entry for the decentralized
districts to make provisions for the refugees.

7
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

First Lady and Minister of Education and Sports with Refugees Minister Hon. Hillary Onek (right), Refugees State
Minister Hon. Musa Ecweru (far left) and UNHCR Representative in Uganda Mr. Joel Boutroue (left) while visiting
Balakara P/S in Bidi Bidi Refugee Settlement in Yumbe District in August, 2018

8
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

2. Situation Analysis

Education in Uganda is guided and regulated by The Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-
Primary) Act, 2008. This outlines the structure of education in Uganda by defining four levels of
education: (a) pre-primary education; (b) primary education; (c) post primary education and training;
and (d) tertiary and university education.

The Ugandan Education Act 2008 states that ‘primary education shall be universal and compulsory for
pupils aged 6 (six) years and above which shall last seven years. This includes refugee children.

The Government of Uganda currently gives highest priority to the expansion and strengthening of
access and quality in primary education, post primary education and training, which is reflected in the
costed activities of this Plan. The Government of Uganda undertakes its role as a regulatory authority
in pre-primary education, while the implementation of pre-primary education is the duty of parents
and guardians 1. These services are in refugee-hosting areas majorly established and offered by non-
state actors contributing to the fulfilment of the Early Childhood Development (ECD) Policy, 2007.

This analysis starts with an overview of the situation faced by refugees and host communities in
Uganda. Further analysis is then presented by sub-sector and theme. A detailed baseline study will be
conducted during the first year of implementation to fill in the data gap.

2.1 Overview
Uganda has a long history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. Currently, Uganda hosts
approximately 1.4 million refugees making it Africa’s largest refugee hosting country and one of the
five largest refugee hosting countries in the world. Most recently, throughout 2016 and 2017, Uganda
was impacted by three parallel emergencies from South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), and Burundi. As of December 2017, there are 1,395,146 refugee and asylum seekers in Uganda,
which translates to 36 refugees per 1,000 inhabitants. Among the total refugees, 1,037,898 are from
South Sudan.

More than 50% of the refugee population in Uganda is located in refugee settlements in the West Nile
region. In the 5 districts in the West Nile there are almost a million refugees making up 32% of the
population, while in the Districts of Adjumani and Moyo refugees now make up well over half of the
total population. More than 400,000 refugees live in the central and southern districts of Hoima,
Kyegegwa, Kamwenge, Isingiro, and in Kampala.

The unprecedented mass influx of refugees into Uganda in 2016 and 2017 has put enormous pressure
on the country’s basic service provision, in particular health and education services. Refugees share
all social services with the local host communities. The refugee hosting districts are among the least
developed districts in the country, and thus the additional refugee population is putting a high strain
on already limited resources.

In line with the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF), embraced by the Government
of Uganda in 2017, there is need for coordinated education service delivery. This entails a paradigm
shift from a mainly humanitarian focus to developing integrated services for the long term.

1 The Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act, 2008 p. 15.

9
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

2.2 Overall Education Situation of the Refugee and Host Communities

In Uganda, there are 34 refugee-hosting sub-counties in 12 districts, namely, Yumbe, Moyo, Arua,
Adjumani, Koboko, Lamwo, Kiryandongo, Hoima, Kamwnge, Kyegegwa, Isingiro and Kampala (list of
34 sub-counties are in Section 5). The table below shows all refugee children and youth within the
specified age range according to Refugee Information Management System (RIMS), including refugees
from South Sudan, DRC, Burundi and other countries. The population data for host communities
covering 3-24 year olds in the 34 refugee hosting sub-counties is from the UBOS 2014 Census.

Table 1: School-Aged Population 2 in the 12 target areas (as of November 2017)

Host
Education level Refugee Total
Community*
3-5 year-olds* 164,795 119,572 284,367
6-12 year-olds* 370,303 245,766 616,069
13-17 year-olds* 147,020 163,192 310,212
18-24 year-olds* 116,079 105,376 221,455
TOTAL 798,197 633,906 1,432,103
*In the Ugandan Education System, 3-5 years is for non-compulsory pre-primary, 6-13 years for primary level,
14-18 years for secondary level and 18-24 for post-secondary level.

At the time of publication, refugee enrolment data is available for the 8 out of 12 refugee hosting
districts, namely Adjumani, Arua, Isingiro, Kamwenge, Kiryandongo, Kyegegwa, Moyo and Yumbe 3. As
Table 2 describes, there are currently more than 616,000 school age children among the refugee
population in these 8 refugee hosting districts. Of these children, 43% (around 267,000) enrol in any
kind of education services. Gross enrolment rate (GER) among refugee children stands at 39% for pre-
primary, 58% for primary, and 11% for secondary (UNHCR, 2017). Among these, females represent
approximately half of all the children enrolled in pre-primary programmes and primary schools.
However only a third of the children enrolled in secondary schools are female.

In the host community in the 34 refugee hosting sub-counties in the 12 districts, there are more than
520,000 school age children, among which 66% (around 349,000) are enrolled in school (EMIS, 2016).
Although the GER in primary school is relatively high, access to pre-primary is particularly showing a
challenging situation, together with access to secondary schools.

Table 2: Gross enrolment of Refugee and Host Community by level (September 2017)
Gross % female of
Gross
Group Education Level Population Enrolment gross
enrolment
Rate (GER) enrolment
Refugee Primary School (6-12 year old) 334,259 194,532 58.2% 47%
(in 8 districts) Secondary School (13-17 year old) 131,782 14,878 11.3% 33%
Total 616,523 267,337 43.4%
Host Primary School (6-13 year old) 245,766 296,767 120.8% 49%
Community Secondary School (14-18 year old) 163,192 29,232 17.9% 42%
(34 sub-counties
in 12 districts) Total 528,530 348,861 66.0%

2The school-aged population is presented according to UNHCR’s age brackets for education data. The refugee school-aged
population figure is based on UNHCR data, while host community enrolment data is from Uganda’s National Household
Survey (2016-17 p.33).
3 At the time of publication, enrolment data for Kampala, Hoima, Koboko and Lamwo was not readily available for

refugees. Baseline study will be conducted during the first year of implementation to fill in the data gap.

10
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

As shown in Figure 1, among the Figure 1: Access to school of Refugee Children

school aged refugee population in (3-17 years) in the 8 out of 12 refugee
the 8 refugee hosting districts, nearly hosting districts
353,000 children aged 3-17 are out of
school (which accounts for 57% of the 352,937 267,337
total school aged children). Among school aged Female Male refugee
the settlements in 8 refugee hosting refugee 179,159 141,779 children
districts, Bidi Bidi, Adjumani, Imvepi children 43% (47%
and Rhino settlements, located in the (51% 57% Female female)
West Nile region and mainly catering female) are Male 125,558 are in
the South Sudanese refugees, have Out of 173,778 school
the largest number of out of school School
children (refer to Chart 1 in Annex A).

Data also shows that 37% of enrolled pre-primary learners, 19% of enrolled primary learners and 25%
of enrolled secondary learners among the refugee population in the 8 districts are overaged4 (refer to
Table 16 in Annex A). This is due to children who have missed school due to conflict, displacement and
other major disruptions. In the case of pre-primary, some of the learners may actually be younger
than the prescribed age, due to parents taking the children to ECD centres for care in the daytime.

The increasing number of refugees have put pressure on schools across education levels, many of
which already faced challenges of poor infrastructure and insufficient teachers. For example, in Yumbe
district, the school- aged population has more than doubled since early 2016 and in some government
primary schools near the refugee settlements, the refugee learners outnumber the learners from the
host community 5. Schools have welcomed and integrated the refugee children. However, the district
education departments do not have sufficient capacity to provide additional facilities and resources
for the current numbers of learners.

The following table presents the teacher and classroom gaps that exist to meet government standards
for children currently enrolled. These figures should be interpreted in the context that there for each
education level is a significant proportion of school children, and that the gap to meet the needs of all
children of school-going age is notably higher.

Table 3: Teacher and Classroom gap analysis of Refugee Hosting Schools and Non-Refugee Hosting
Schools in target areas (November, 2017)
Current Pupil Teacher gap for Current Pupil Classroom gap
Group Education Level Teacher Ratio currently Classroom for currently
(PTR) enrolled* Ratio (PCR) enrolled*
Refugee Hosting Pre-primary (3-5 y/o) 55 1,598 159 2,517
Schools
Primary School (6-12 y/o) 85 1,757 154 3,028
(8 out of 12
districts) Secondary (13-17 y/o) 50 0 143 244
Non-Refugee Pre-primary (3-5 y/o) 24 - 29 115
Hosting Schools
(34 sub-counties
Primary School (6-13 y/o) 60 678 73 550
in 12 districts) Secondary (14-18 y/o) 20 - 45 -
Total 4,033 6,453
*Teacher/ Classroom gap when applying the government standards of PTR/PCR 25:1 for pre-primary (Guidelines for ECD
Centre, MoES 2008) and 53:1 for Primary and Secondary School

4 older than the prescribed age for each grade

5 Yumbe District Education Office Monthly Monitoring Report September 2017

11
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

2.3 Education Analysis by Sub Sector

2.3.1 Pre-Primary Level

Pre-school education is recognised as the first, non-compulsory level of education by the Ugandan
Education Act 2008. The act defines government’s regulatory role in the pre-primary sector and
specifies “pre-primary education to be run by private agencies or persons” and that the financial
provisions for pre-primary education is the responsibility of parents or guardians. The Early Childhood
Development (ECD) Policy (2007) further defines the roles of non-governmental organizations and
local government in the establishment, running and monitoring of community-based ECD centers.

The implementation of pre-primary activities in this Plan has been limited to supporting the mandated
role of the government through inspection, oversight and provision of a regulatory framework for
centre licencing and caregiver training. The Plan includes community mobilisation and awareness
raising around pre-primary, parenting education on Key Family Care Practices and engaging parents
in making play materials with locally available resources. However, the government acknowledges
that the implementation of pre-primary education requires additional resources (e.g. salaries of
caregivers, constructions and materials) which remains within the domain of non-state actors. These
additional resources have not been included in the costing of this Plan.

As detailed in the National Integrated ECD Policy of Uganda (March 2016), pre-primary is the
foundational stage in human development when an individual’s development is most rapid and
profound. These early years are a critical period of adaptability and responsiveness to interventions.
High quality pre-primary programmes can enhance the child’s language, emotional, intellectual and
social skills which are essential for transitioning to formal schooling. Children with these skills and
experiences are more likely to enrol on time, stay in school and perform well.

Provision of pre-primary programmes in the target areas offers an opportunity to address trauma
young children may be suffering and to offer young children a protective environment within an
unfamiliar setting. This sense of normalcy and opportunity to play, socialise and learn is crucial to the
overall development of the child. A safe, stimulating and nurturing environment can foster
transformative gains for young refugees and children from host communities and their families.

Access to pre-primary remains limited in both refugee settlements and host communities. Overall,
more children from refugee community are accessing pre-primary education than children in host
communities: 39% refugee versus 19% host community GER for pre-primary. Among the 39% of
refugee children, 51% are female and 37% of those enrolled are outside of the expected age range.
The higher level of enrolment within the refugee community, is a reflection of the importance given
to the group from a protection perspective. It is noteworthy that ECD centres also suffer from the
challenge of enrolment of older children. This not only crowds the classrooms but also prohibits the
older children from age-appropriate learning.

An estimated 2,517 classrooms and 1,598 ECD caregivers are required to meet the government pupil
classroom ratio standards (25:1) for the children currently enrolled in ECD centres (Guidelines for ECD
Centre, MoES 2008). If all refugee children aged 3-5 years in the target areas are to access quality pre-
primary education, then 5,549 new classrooms and 4,116 new caregivers would be needed in addition
to the current existing resources (as highlighted in Chart 3).

Part of the reason for low pre-primary enrolment within host communities is because pre-primary
programmes provision in Uganda is mainly through the commercial private sector and has been

12
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

centred in urban areas and not been affordable for the local community. In settlements most pre-
primary programmes are through NGO-supported community-based initiatives.

2.3.2 Primary School Level

The Universal Primary Education has been implemented in Uganda since 1997 and aspires to provide
inclusive, equitable and quality education for all children.

1) Enrolment
Across schools in Uganda learning outcomes in primary schools are however a major challenge, as
only around half of the children at P6 reached the expected levels in literacy and numeracy
assessments in 2015 6 . Dropout rates remain high at upper primary resulting in low transition to
secondary school, especially for girls. There is also a fairly low survival rate 7 of 32.0% for primary and
a low P7 completion rate 8 of 61.5% (EMIS, 2016). Further, there is limited participation of children
with disabilities and other vulnerable children in schools. In all of these respects the districts hosting
refugees generally perform worse than the average. Whilst education provides a safe space for
refugee children in the daytime, it is through effective learning that the cycles of poverty and conflict
can be challenged and broken.

Primary schools within the host community are already oversubscribed with 120.8% gross enrolment,
indicating a large number of overage children within the schools. This coupled with half of all primary
aged refugee children being enrolled in primary schools has resulted in congestion and poor conditions
in the classrooms. This makes learning difficult for all, and particularly difficult for learners with
disabilities, who may need additional support.

2) Pupil: Teacher Ratio

The average current pupil: teacher ratio in primary schools is 85:1 in refugee hosting schools and 60:1
in non-refugee hosting schools in the target districts. In Bidi Bidi settlement in Yumbe, and Imvepi
settlement in Arua, the pupil teacher ratio raises to 94:1 and 133:1 respectively. This is in the context
of a national average of 43:1 (EMIS, 2016). The current high pupil: teacher ratio in the refugee hosting
districts affects classroom management and has a significant impact on the quality of the teaching and
learning process. An additional 6,987 teachers are required to cater for all children of primary school
age within this Plan’s catchment areas of refugees and host communities across country. To
adequately serve just the currently enrolled learners in settlements in the target areas, an estimated
additional of 1,757 teachers are required to bring the pupil teacher ratio to the government standards
of 53 pupils to 1 teacher in refugee hosting areas (settlement and non-settlement).

3) Teacher training, certification and recruitment

Increasing the number of qualified teachers in primary schools remains a priority intervention in order
to improve the quality of education. However, there are a number of bottlenecks to employ new
teachers. To teach in schools in Uganda, a person must be registered to teach and licenced as set out
in the Education Act. Currently many refugee teachers serve as classroom assistants since their
qualifications are not recognized by Ministry of Education and Sports. This urgently needs to be
addressed. An accelerated approach to re-train, register and licence refugee teachers would
significantly improve the number of teachers in schools in the refugee settlements. Consequently,
better learning outcomes may result from the reduced pupil to teacher ratio. More refugee teachers
will also support children in lower grades to learn in their local language, as per Ugandan policy,

6 Education and Sports Sector Strategic Plan 2017-2020

7 SurvivalRate: P1 (Grade 1) learners reaching P7 (7th Grade)
8 P7 Completion Rate: The ratio of P7 learners who passes the Primary Leaving Examinations (PLE) against the P7 learners

who sat in the exam. The PLE is a requirement to enter Secondary Schools.

13
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

although there is a real challenge with managing language of instruction issues within host community
and settlement areas. This needs more careful analysis.

Whilst there are Ugandans who are licenced to teach and available to be employed as teachers, there
exists a teacher ceiling in government primary schools, which determines the numbers of teachers
that can be on payroll within a district. This ceiling was last raised some years ago, based on the then
Ugandan population in the districts. With population growth and the influx of refugees, modalities
for increasing the number of teachers in refugee-hosting districts above the current ceiling levels are
required.

Even for qualified teachers working in primary schools in the targeted areas, skills in managing large
classes, understanding the different needs of children who may be suffering trauma, teaching children
whose mother tongue is different to their own, being able to support new arrivals and bring individual
children up to the expected level of the class, and understanding the needs of children from different
backgrounds are often limited. The development of the training programme and a training package
for all teachers in refugee hosting areas is required to support children as they transition and adapt to
the Ugandan education system. In addition, teachers, and other school staff, must be educated about
appropriate medical and protection referral pathways available for learners.

4) Bridging programmes
Whilst the South Sudanese primary curriculum is in English and has some similarities to the Uganda
primary curriculum, for the refugees from Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and other
Francophone countries, adjusting to a new curriculum in a foreign language is challenging. In addition,
early grade teaching in the Ugandan Education System should be in mother tongue. In the multi-
linguistic setting of refugee-hosting areas, language bridging courses, community involvement in
schools and engagement of bi-lingual teacher assistants in classrooms are highly relevant strategies
to mitigate these challenges and support inclusive education within the framework of the Ugandan
education system.

5) Prevention of violence in schools

Corporal punishment is illegal in Uganda, however testimonies given during refugee consultations in
the refugee hosting areas indicate it is still practiced, and feelings of discrimination in the classroom
are reported by some refugees. Better training on positive classroom management techniques and
increased monitoring, supervision and support to schools is required to address this for all learners.

6) Planning and financing primary education inclusive of refugees

For existing primary schools, the calculation of school capitation grants does not take into account the
population of refugee children in the area. Therefore, government schools hosting refugees currently
have to stretch these grants further. This moreover means that primary schools which have been
opened in the settlements as community or private/ NGO schools are often fully dependent on donor
funds for running costs including teacher salaries. For sustainability the Ugandan Government will
need to develop a long term plan to transition primary schools to Government ownership and/ or
oversight. Options could include exploring new approaches to partnerships between Government of
Uganda and non-state providers of education.

7) Classroom shortages
Classroom shortages is a key limitation in providing primary education. This is especially valid in the
refugee settlements as presented in Figure 2. Despite concerted efforts by partner agencies to provide
semi-permanent and permanent classrooms, most of the classrooms are still operating in temporary
structures (sometimes under trees) which can be dangerous, especially during rainstorms. Continuous
maintenance of these temporary structures is costly.

14
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

While on average, the pupil: Figure 2: Primary classroom gaps in the refugee
classroom ratio for primary hosting schools in 8 districts
schools in refugee
settlements is 154:1, there is 3,028 1,596
significant variance across
additional primary
individual settlements. In primary classrooms
Palorinya settlement, the classrooms are 35% available
pupil: classroom ratio is 253:1 required to meet provide 1
and 188:1 in Imvepi the government classroom
settlement 9 . An estimated standards of per 154
3,028 classrooms 10 are 65%
Pupil Classroom primary
needed to bring the current Ratio 53:1 for school
enrolled learners to a pupil currently enrolled learners
classroom ratio of 53:1 as per learners
national standards (in single
shifting). This classroom gap
grows to 5,391 additional classrooms for all primary aged children to be enrolled 11. These figures
represent the national need across refugee settlements and host communities, while the specific
allocation to areas and schools is to be informed by District level gap analysis and planning. Whilst
much progress has been made on trying to increase the cost effectiveness of classroom and school
construction, more needs to be done in order to drive down costs while maintaining quality, including
benefitting from economies of scale and ensuring that decisions on whether to construct permanent
or semi-permanent structures are based on careful analysis of refugee and host community
populations.

8) Textbooks and scholastic materials

Other constraints include, inadequate supply of school materials including desks, text books and
scholastic materials, lack of teacher accommodation, inadequate number of trained head teachers,
and insufficient WASH provision including fully accessible gender segregated toilets. The current pupil
textbook ratio in the refugee hosting schools stands at 1 textbook to 8 pupils, against the government
standard of 1 to 3. As Figure 3
highlights, there is a Figure 3: Primary textbook gaps in refugee hosting
significant gap between the schools in 8 districts (for 4 key subjects)
required number of textbooks
for the refugee and host 210,915 115,822
community learners and the additional textbooks
available textbooks on the textbooks currently
ground. These constraints required to 35% available
contribute to poor learning meet (under the
outcomes. Also, during the government condition of
consultations for this Plan the standards of 65% 1 textbook
lack of any education 1 textbook being
opportunity beyond primary per 3 shared by 8
school was cited as a reason learners learners)
for early drop out from
primary education.

9 UNHCR gaps analysis, September 2017

10 Note that classroom data does not differentiate between temporary, semi-permanent and permanent classroom. There
is a possibility that more classroom will be needed as temporary structure gets easily destroyed
11 These figures are based on single shift schooling as currently practiced in Uganda

15
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

2.3.3 Secondary School Level

Secondary education in Uganda is not compulsory. The Ugandan Government introduced Universal
Secondary Education in 2007. Under the secondary scheme, learners who get specific grades in each
of the four primary school leaving exams can study free in public schools and participate in private
schools. The Government provides a grant for each child to the participating secondary schools,
however the grants are not available to schools for refugee children. There is expected to be one
participating secondary school in every sub-county, however there are still sub-counties without
secondary schools, and this includes sub-counties where the refugees are hosted. The construction
of secondary schools for access to Universal Secondary Education in these sub-counties is a priority
action within the Education and Sports Sector Strategic Plan 2017-2020.

As evidenced in the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2016 and the Ugandan National
Household study 2016/17, successful completion of secondary education is critical in improving
women’s life chances, increasing employment opportunities, preventing child marriage, reducing HIV
infection, delaying early motherhood, decreasing likelihood of being a victim of sexual and gender
based violence (SGBV), and in time leading to women having healthier children and families.

Secondary school provision is Figure 4: Secondary School Gross Enrollment in

limited for refugees and host Target Areas
communities in the refugee hosting 100%
districts. As Figure 4 highlights, 80%
Access to secondary education
73%
among refugee population in the 8 60% 89% 82%
refugee hosting districts remains as 40%
low as 11% with only 33% of these
being girls. Only 18% of the host 20% 27%
11% 18%
community secondary school aged 0%
children in the 8 refugee hosting Refugees Host Community National average
districts are enrolled in secondary Out of School (including the overaged learners enrolled in
schools, which is lower than the Primary School)
Gross Enrollment Rate
national average (27.1%).

One of the bottlenecks for refugees to access secondary schools is the lack of documentation to prove
completion of primary education in their home countries. Even when certificates are available, the
equivalency of the certificates can be unclear and some secondary schools require refugees to
complete the Ugandan primary leavers’ exam to qualify for enrolment. In some areas (but not all)
refugees are treated like other foreign learners and charged fees to take the primary leavers’ exam.

Other constraints to secondary education include, long distances between home and existing
secondary schools, poor facilities including a lack of science laboratories and equipment, lack of
libraries with relevant books, lack of up to date technology and power, and a lack of teachers’
accommodation. Other bottlenecks are similar to those at the primary level; corporal punishment,
lack of a protective supportive environment, language issues (particularly for learners from the
francophone countries), teachers not equipped to deal with the issues associated with teaching
refugees and host community children together, protecting children from harm, building resilience,
and providing psychosocial support and referrals.

For the current secondary school enrolment in the settlements and host community, an estimated
244 additional classrooms are required to meet the government standards of one classroom for every
53 learners. Whilst this analysis shows the number of teachers is enough to meet the number of

16
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

children who are currently enrolled in secondary schools, this does not take into account the specialist
subject teachers often required, and so there is a need for a full analysis of workforce capacity needs.
If all secondary aged children in the area were to attend, the classroom gap and teacher gap grow to
2,342 and 2,071 respectively, to meet the government standards (53:1). However, not all secondary
level learners have the prerequisite primary school leavers’ certificate so this level of provision cannot
be directly inferred from the population figures.

2.3.4 Vocational Skills Training

Vocational Skills training can benefit adolescents and youth who may not be able, or do not choose,
to join the formal education system. With the aim to improve the quality, relevance and efficiency of
the skills provision system in Uganda, the MoES adopted a Strategic Plan for BTVET in 2012, ‘Skilling
Uganda’ (2012-2021). The Strategy highlights the importance of skills development for both economic
and social progress. The main purpose is to create employable skills and competencies relevant to
the labour market. “Skilling Uganda” foresees an open system for skills training for all Ugandans, thus
including ensuring equitable access to skills training for youth in refugee and host communities. This
strategic plan uses some of the principles such as providing adapted non-formal training, flexible
learning arrangements, and redesigning relevant and qualitative non-formal assessment and training
packages (ATP’s).

Many youths have limited access to the local labour market. Formal and non-formal vocational
training will provide important opportunities to acquire productive skills that can enable them to
engage in a meaningful occupation and earn a living. Both refugees and host communities have
however very limited access to formal Business, Technical and Vocational Education and Training
(BTVET), due to high entry requirements (learners can only access formal BTVET at craft levels after
completing senior four), unattainable tuition fees, lack of adaptation to the refugee context, and
limited provision.

2.3.5 Out of School Adolescents and Youth

There remains a large population of children, adolescents and youth in both the refugee settlements
and host communities who have limited learning opportunities, either because they have missed the
opportunity for schooling due to protracted crisis and are too old to join the formal schools, or they
do not have the necessary examination certificates. This lack of opportunity for the adolescents and
youth could easily lead to negative coping mechanisms and social instability. Education interventions
are particularly important to build social cohesion between the refugees and host communities, and
between different refugee groups. The profile and needs of these adolescents and youth varies and
different interventions should be taken into consideration to meet the needs of the learners.

Accelerated education programmes present opportunities for children who are unable to enrol in the
formal primary school system. Scaling up accelerated education programmes will help increase overall
school enrolment and reduce the number of over aged children currently enrolled in primary schools,
currently estimated at 19% (approximately 38,000 learners in the 8 refugee hosting districts). Several
different accelerated education programmes exist in Uganda. These vary in the curriculum used and
the time to complete the course. Plans are underway to harmonise the accelerated education
programmes across the settlements, based on a review of learners’ needs, and to revise the
curriculum to ensure it is relevant and up to date. This work can help to shape the interventions
implemented under this Plan. Other smaller non-formal education programmes are provided on a
project basis in the settlements. For example, adolescents who have dropped out of secondary school
can benefit from computer-based self-paced learning helping them to transition into the Ugandan

17
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

secondary school system. Computer based learning will also serve as a platform to reinforce
knowledge. For example, there is an ongoing pilot using ICT to help girls improve their maths and
science skills.

Life skills teaching can complement education or training. Out of school adolescents and youth are
more vulnerable to protection and health risks, including early marriage, teenage pregnancy, unsafe
sexual relationships and violence as well as HIV/AIDS. Schools and places of informal learning can
provide life skills training in a safe and protective environment, appropriately equipped with WASH
infrastructure.

2.4 Priority Issues across Education Levels

2.4.1 Gender Based Violence, Sexual Abuse and Exploitation

Gender issues cut across all levels of education. Girls are more likely to drop out of school earlier in
both the refugee and host communities. This is partly due to costs of education, the typical practice
of prioritising boys access to education over girls, children being taken out of school to perform income
generating activities, plus pressures for early marriage, teenage pregnancy, the distance to schools
and the prevalence and fear of SGBV in or on the way to schools meaning that parents/ guardians
chose not sending girls to school as a protective measure, and cultural norms. One fifth of females
over the age of 15 in Uganda have experienced some form of SGBV 12. Among the 18 to 24 year old
youth, 1 in 3 girls (35%) and 1 in 6 boys (17%) experienced sexual violence during their childhoods 13.
In addition, a number of refugees in Uganda are survivors of SGB and other forms of violence,
experienced in their home countries, whilst travelling to Uganda and in Uganda itself. Prevention of
and response to incidents of SGBV remains a key issue in the education sector. Keeping girls and boys
in education in a safe protective learning environment, with the appropriate psychosocial support is
seen as a measure to help children heal and equip them for better opportunity in life. In addition, a
gender imbalance exists across the education system. Many teachers and head teachers are male,
school management committees are mainly male, and most supervisors / inspectors of school are
male.

Menstrual hygiene management is an issue for girls, particularly in the refugee settlements and access
to and disposal of sanitary materials in schools remains a problem. The high cost of suitable products
mean that some girls are missing school every month, which can impact on learning. Many of the
schools do not have an adequate number of adolescent friendly WASH facilities.

2.4.2 School Feeding

During consultations with district stakeholders in the refugee response in West Nile region and South–
Western region, participants shared experience of children not being able to concentrate in the
classroom due to hunger and some children not regularly attending school and even dropping out due
to lack of food during the school day.

In accordance with the MoES Guidelines on School Feeding and Nutrition Intervention Programme
(2013) and in conforming with the Education Act (Article 13, sub-section 5(2c)), the responsibility of

12Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (2016)

13Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (2015) Uganda Violence Against Children Survey; Findings from the
National Survey, Kampala, Uganda. UNICEF

18
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

providing feeding at school is that of parents and guardians. A parent-led school feeding programme
ensures an in-kind contribution of food by parents/guardians and/or a cash contribution for school
food. School Food Committees (SFC) are set up at the school-level and are ultimately accountable for
all school finances and food contributions. The MoES fully acknowledge the role of (parent-led) school
feeding and nutrition as a tool for enhancing and strengthening access to quality education.

In the refugee-hosting areas, some parents within both the refugee and host communities struggle to
live up to this responsibility due to their own precarious situation. Accordingly, a number of
organisations in the target areas already support school feeding, including the mobilisation of
communities to provide or produce food for sustainable provision of meals to all children in the school.
While the provision of school meals by Government partners can help improve access to education in
the short term, any school feeding model being developed must build on government ownership, and
encompass clear strategies for long-term sustainability to ensure there are no negative consequences
when external funding ends. Importantly, any modality of supporting school feeding must entail a
sustainable set-up, in which nationals are not made dependent on external humanitarian support. In
addition, any school feeding model should gather and document reliable evidence on its benefits.

School meals are the most common safety net globally. School feeding can alleviate the burden on
parents and mitigate the likelihood of taking or keeping children out of school 14. Providing school
meals generates a high return on investment 15 by increasing enrolment, attendance 16 and completion
rates and improving education outcomes. This is especially evidenced in the increase in enrolment
and attendance rates amongst girls 17, who typically face more barriers to access education. Providing
school meals has also been shown to improve the nutrition status of children, decrease morbidity,
increase learning capacities and boost cognitive development. 18

Where a school feeding programme manages to procure food from local groups of smallholder
farmers, these can gain better access to a stable, institutional market. Such home-grown school meals
programmes can also generate additional economic benefits for the local economy and improve food
security within the community.

2.4.3 Inspection and Support Supervision

Under the decentralized governance system, the local governments are responsible for technical
supervision and inspection of schools under their jurisdiction to ensure compliance to policy
guidelines, provide supportive supervision and coordinate activities of partners. The opening of more
schools in the refugee settlement by partners has increased the areas of operations and most of the
local governments in the refugee hosting districts are overstretched. For example, Yumbe district has
only 3 inspectors and 4 Coordinating Centre Tutors (CCTs) to monitor and supervise 167 primary
schools and ECD centres with a total number of 1,821 teachers and caregivers. In addition, the refugee
response has added an additional 72 primary schools and ECD centres in the refugee settlement with
more than 840 teachers, which has substantially increased the work load for District Local

14 AFRIDI (2009). The Impact of School Meals on School Participation: Evidence from Rural India, Journal of Development
Studies 47(11): 1636-56
15 Every US$1 invested in school meals programmes brings a US$3-10 economic return from improved health, education

and productivity (The School Feeding Investment Case, WFP 2013)

16 KRISTJANSSON ET AL (2016). Costs and cost-outcome of school feeding programmes and feeding programmes for young

children. Evidence and recommendations. International Journal of Educational Development 48:79-83

17 GELLI (2015). School feeding and girls’ enrolment: the effects of alternative implementation modalities in low-income

settings in sub-Saharan Africa, Frontiers in Public Health 3(76)

18 3IE (2016). The impact of education programmes on learning and school participation in low- and middle-income

countries. Systematic Review Summary 7

19
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Governments. Education department staff have multiple new demands on their time, with minimal
financial and technical support, which risks rendering the system overburdened and ineffective.

In view of the large proportion of non-registered ECD centres in the Plan’s target areas, a
comprehensive mapping of ECD centres is a priority to inform local government monitoring, oversight
and licencing.

2.4.4 Learners with disabilities

12% of the Ugandan population are estimated to have a disability. This is higher in urban areas than
rural ones, and higher for women as compared to men 19. Within the settlements, the exact percentage
of refugee learners with disabilities is not yet known. In the recent Uganda Household survey having
a disability was listed as one of the main reasons children did not attend school. With large
overcrowding in classrooms and a lack of specialised teaching staff it is very difficult for teachers to
cater for the individual needs of all learners. There is a lack of materials available to make learning
accessible to all. Many of the temporary shelters and some semi-permanent schools are not fully
accessible, and more accessible latrines need to be provided. In addition, better links can be made
between schools and the various support groups for people with disabilities.

Refugee and Host Community Children such as these from Twajiji Primary School in Yumbe District are the major
target of the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities August 2018

19 Uganda Census, UBOS 2014

20
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

3. RATIONALE AND POLICY CONTEXT

The proposed refugee and host community interventions are premised on a number of international,
regional and national commitments and a number of policies, plans and frameworks by the
government.

WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT: A JOINT PROGRAMME

The first World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) convened in 2016 and put forward an Agenda for
Humanity. In advancing an Agenda for Humanity, the WHS committed to a new way of working in
emergencies and protracted crisis to reduce and end human suffering. It called for cooperation and
collaboration instead of competition; and, for coordination to end fragmentation between
humanitarian and development funding and programming. The WHS also emphasized the need for a
holistic and cross-sectoral approach and encouraged joint programming and multi-year frameworks.
Uganda has been selected as a priority country by Education Cannot Wait (ECW) – a global fund for
education in emergencies established at the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS). The core objectives
of ECW revolve around the call of the WHS, specifically on the provision of catalytic funding in support
of education provision for marginalised children, coordination, cooperation and joint-programming.

DJIBOUTI DECLARATION ON REFUGEE EDUCATION BY MEMBER STATES

As part of the General Assembly commitments, IGAD Heads of State committed to take the lead in
addressing several sectoral problems. At the Djibouti Declaration, of refugee education convened in
December 2017, the member states committed themselves to establish regional minimum education
standards on access and delivery of quality education for pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher
education including TVET and education for people with special needs, to benefit refugees, returnees
and host communities in order to maximize learning outcomes. The Government of Uganda is
implementing these commitments in alignment with the national education sector strategy that
emphasises strengthening of and increased access to primary, secondary and TVET programmes,
within the existing legal framework. This also entails that pre-primary education implemented by non-
state actors and is the financial responsibility of parents and guardians. Member states are also
committed to urge local and international partners to provide sustained and increased support for
infrastructure and capacity building for skills development particularly in refugee hosting areas, and
to integrate the education of refugees and returnees into national education sector plans by 2020.

COMPREHENSIVE REFUGEE RESPONSE FRAMEWORK FOR UGANDA

The Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) for Uganda was launched at a high-level
meeting in Kampala in March 2017, with a view to harness a whole-of-society approach in responding
and finding solutions to refugee crises in Uganda, building on existing initiatives and policies.

The CRRF is part of a rich policy environment including the Refugee Act 2006 and the Refugee
Regulations 2010, which states that refugees have access to the same public services as nationals,
including education services. Further, Uganda’s Second National Development Plan (NDP II) aims to
assist refugees and host communities by promoting socioeconomic development in refugee-hosting
areas. This is supported by the United Nations through the Refugee and Host Population
Empowerment (ReHoPE) initiative developed in collaboration with the World Bank and the Settlement
Transformation Agenda (STA) with an overall goal of enabling refugees achieve self-reliance and local
settlement for refugee hosting areas as a durable solution to the refugee problem, while protecting
national and local interests. This requires the Office of the Prime Minister to develop and implement
a Refugee Settlement Transformative Agenda, and provides an entry for the local government to make
provisions for the refugees.

21
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

The main identified aims of the CRRF response in Uganda is to facilitate the link between humanitarian
and development actors and activities; to agree on policy priorities; to enhance development in the
refugee hosting districts, and improve the integrated service delivery in areas such as education,
health, water, sanitation and livelihoods for both refugees and host communities. Education has been
identified by refugees as high priority. Sector-specific plans are a crucial step in operationalising and
implementing the CRRF, and the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities sets
out to define how the ambitions to strengthen access, learning outcomes and transition between
education levels for all targeted children.

The Government of Uganda’s policy framework is progressive, with all new arrivals receiving land for
residential and farming purposes, and the right to access to health, education and social services
established within the national development plan. Refugees also have the right to work and to
establish businesses.

Uganda’s response is hampered by humanitarian funding patterns (normally 12 months or less, and
funding received amounting to less than 40 % of the identified needs). Within the humanitarian
response the first priority remains on saving lives and ensuring basic necessities are met including
providing safe spaces for children and education.

EDUCATION SECTOR STRATEGIC PLAN

The Ministry of Education and Sports has developed a new strategic plan which includes the provision
of education to children in refugee and host communities. Under objective one, the education and
sports sector strategic plan 2017-2020 clearly states “the need to develop and implement response
programs for the provision of quality education to refugees and the host communities”. This Plan is
designed to provide an implementable plan to deliver this strategic intention.

The three objectives of the strategy overall are to:

• Achieve equitable access to relevant and quality education and training
• Ensure delivery of relevant and quality education and training; and
• Enhance efficiency and effectiveness of education and sports service delivery at all levels.

THE EDUCATION RESPONSE PLAN FOR REFUGEES AND HOST COMMUNITIES

The Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host-Communities in Uganda is presented against this
background. The Government of Uganda serves as a model example in affording refugees in Uganda
asylum and access to the same rights as its citizens, including the right to education. Uganda is one of
UNHCR’s pilot countries of the Global Compact for Refugees and the Comprehensive Refugee
Response Framework. Echoing the calls of the WHS, the Education Response Plan for Refugees and
Host-Communities in Uganda presumes that quality education is central and logical to achieving all
the other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), strengthen the odds for preventing conflict,
maintain peace and security, and advance economic development.

This Plan also aims to bridge humanitarian and development programming and to advocate for
predictable and sustainable financing for this emergency and protracted crisis. Under the coordination
of the Ministry of Education and Sports, OPM and UNHCR, this Plan recognizes the comparative
advantages of both humanitarian and development actors. It reinforces an interdependent approach
over a three year period that addresses both an immediate humanitarian crisis-response, as well as
medium-and long-term investments towards recovery and development.

22
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

In the humanitarian response, Education remains one of the least funded sectors, Uganda’s
commitment through these overarching frameworks requires a costed operational education
response plan to guide and coordinate future funding, development and humanitarian efforts to
collectively agree upon education priorities for both refugees and host communities. This planning
and response are undertaken within the education sector policy framework comprising the Education
Act (2008), annual Education Sector Strategic Plans and multiple thematic guidelines issued by MoES.
A cornerstone of the policy framework is that primary education in “a joint responsibility of the state,
the parent and or guardian and other stakeholders”. All these stakeholders need to work together in
a more effective and coordinated way to support the holistic development of children. The refugee
and host community education response plan will go a long way in strengthening humanitarian
response to the refugee crisis. This plan envisions that all host community and refugee children have
equitable access to quality learning in every level of education (pre-primary, primary, and secondary
education and non-formal education), but recognizes that a series of concrete steps will need to be
taken over a period of time to achieve this vision.

23
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

4. THEORY OF CHANGE
The theory of change responds to the educational needs described in the situational analysis. Guided
by Uganda’s Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework, it describes the strategic inputs and
activities, which we believe will lead to outcomes that contribute to the result of improved learning
outcomes for the refugees and their hosting communities.

This theory of change attempts to address the multiple needs in the education response. Given the
wide gap of resources and capacity to address the overwhelming numbers and high education hopes
of the new refugees crossing borders into Uganda, the most pressing and obvious needs are to provide
furnished classrooms, fully functional schools, qualified teachers, teaching and learning materials,
water and sanitation facilities, child protection and wellbeing. The situation analysis demonstrates
that currently there is an enormous shortfall of these most basic requirements, with an estimate of
over 3,000 additional classrooms and 1,750 more teachers needed simply to address the current gap
for primary schooling (when following the government standard of 53:1). Without significant progress
towards putting these fundamentals in place, there is no possible path towards the results of improved
learning outcomes for children currently served, much less for new refugees who arrive daily.

These pressing needs must be balanced with the need to embed inclusive and quality education from
the outset of the Response Plan. The impact of improved learning will not be achieved without quality
education service provision. Building on existing good practice and further embedding better systems
are essential, so that the transition from a humanitarian to a development response can be made over
time. Therefore, the Plan also recognizes the crucial role of systems strengthening and close
partnership with government bodies, under the leadership of the Ministry of Education and Sports.

Thus, this Plan aims to result in the provision of accessible and safe infrastructure, including
classrooms, offices, water points and latrines; additional qualified teachers using an Accelerated
Education Programme; training program; appropriate instructional materials; a system of supervision,
inspection, professional development of teachers and educators; and strengthened management,
including monitoring and evaluation. These inputs are necessary to improve the two most pressing,
short term outcomes for the Plan: Improved Equitable Access to Inclusive Relevant Learning
Opportunities, and Improved Delivery of Quality Education Services and Training.

The Plan’s activities and outcomes, as well as the longer-term result, address the needs for: early
childhood development; primary school age children; those overaged who have missed or dropped
out of primary school and seek to re-enter the education system through Accelerated Education
Programs; those able to enrol in secondary schools; and adolescents who are unable to enrol in
secondary education and seek relevant and flexible skills training. It is recognized that the
requirements for infrastructure, teaching, materials and equipment, supervision, professional
development and management are quite different for each of these levels and types of education.
The Education Response Plan’s theory of change does not attempt to address the specific needs, issues
and outcomes for each of these, but rather provides an overall framework that can be applied, with
modifications, to these levels and forms of education.

The Education Response Plan outcomes also call for activities related to developing and piloting
innovations in the design and use of infrastructure, and for the improvement of teaching and learning
within schools, classrooms and communities. These innovations include: the use of double shifts, the
application of ICTs for learning, addressing social-emotional and psycho-social issues for refugee
children and teachers, enhancing safety, innovative but low cost pedagogies, use of children’s spoken
languages, and drawing on persons from the community as assistant teachers, especially for over-
sized classes as well as to provide in-class language support to refugee children. These innovations

24
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

seek to break new ground in providing a high quality of education, improved protection, resilience and
child wellbeing, and learning outcomes at a reasonable cost.

In addition, it is of critical importance that systems are in place to track changes in learning outcomes
over time both within settlement areas as well as within hosting communities. There are a number of
current initiatives that can be used for this purpose, although some would need further adaptation.
These includes the Government of Uganda’s existing National Assessment of Progress in Education
(NAPE) as well as the household survey of learning (Uwezo) conducted by the organisation Twaweza.

Inclusive education and equity are built into all aspects of this Plan. This means there will be targeted
interventions for a range of learner groups. The, the Plan incorporates specific activities to improve
the attendance of girls in school, in particular through appropriate WASH facilities (gender segregated
latrines?), and the recruitment and training of female teachers. There are also activities to ensure girls
have a positive experience of education, such as promoting increased awareness of safeguarding
issues in schools. For children with disabilities, the Plan calls for appropriate support activities, and
will ensure that all learning environments are accessible for those with disabilities.

To achieve both equitable, inclusive access and quality teaching, the Plan calls for resources and
support for the third overarching outcome: Strengthened Systems for Effective Delivery. This
outcome is realized through activities that include advocacy for policy and regulations needed to
address unique refugee needs (such as the current ceiling on appointing additional teachers and
Coordinating Centre Tutors for the teacher training colleges); strengthening capacity at district and
national levels for coordinating donors and implementing partners; managing an EMIS for refugees
and host-communities; supporting the Plan’s monitoring and evaluation system; and engaging local
communities in support of children’s education and schools.

The fundamental principle of the Education Response Plan, as for the Comprehensive Refugee
Response Framework, calls for an effective system for the coordination of donors, implementing
agencies, and the Ministry of Education and Sports. At an operational level, this requires
strengthening and resourcing both the national MoES and especially the District Education Offices so
that they can increasingly take on responsibilities of coordination, including refugee and host-
community education information management systems, monitoring and evaluation.

The link between the inputs and activities described broadly here and the Plan outcomes and results
is based on a wide body of research and experience, well documented by the International Network
for Education in Emergencies: http://www.ineesite.org/en/ and other sources. The Plan has drawn
on the recommendations of the INEE Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response,
Recovery, which represents the combined experience of hundreds of implementing partners and
donors in providing education in emergency contexts.

Assumptions
There are a number of assumptions on which the linkages from inputs and activities, to outputs,
outcomes and the long-term results are based. The Plan is grounded on a forecast from OPM/UNHCR
on the projected increase of the refugee population. Should this prediction prove to be an
underestimate, there would need to be additional resources and actions to realize the outcomes of
improved access and quality, or the result of improved learning.

Secondly, there is the assumption that the financing required to incrementally improve both access
and quality for the refugee and host-community children will be forthcoming. Without that financing
the Plan will face very difficult strategic choices between expanding access into inadequate
infrastructure, overwhelmed undertrained teachers, and severe shortages of instructional materials,

25
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

or holding to quality standards by denying opportunity to refugee children-with very high hopes - for
places in pre-primary, primary and secondary schools, accelerated education programs, and youth
training.

Assumption three is that there will be regular monitoring of the implementation and programmes and
theories of change will be revised if required.

The fourth Assumption is that there is enough capacity in the MoES and implementing partners to
complete the work planned.

The Education Response Plan’s theory of change is represented in the diagram below. This diagram
does not attempt to present all of the details of the Plan, but provides an overview of the main
elements, and the logic and processes that have been described here. The arrows from the inputs and
activities to the outcomes, and from the outcomes to the results are marked with question marks to
make the point that these are essentially hypotheses, and are subject to confirmation and change. A
theory of change for social development is useful to the extent that it can be evaluated and changed,
based on feedback. That is the role of the feedback loops using the M&E, feeding into stakeholder
consultations which result in programme adaptations, which thereby modify, deepen and strengthen
the theory of change. This cycle is represented by the light blue arrows from the situational analysis
(which must be regularly updated), to the inputs and activities, and to the outputs and the results.

26
 Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

THEORY OF CHANGE
For ECD, Primary, Accelerated Education, Secondary, Vocational Skills With these
Long-Term

And these
Then these ? Results
A Complex,
Under-resourced, Actors, Inputs &
Actions
? Outcomes

Changing Context
IMPROVED LEARNING
Steering committee, secretariat, Multi- OUTCOMES FOR REFUGEE
donor, Multiple Education Partners,
• 685,000 refugee AND HOST-COMMUNITY
MoES leadership, strong coordination
children (3-17 yrs.)
and planning, adequate financing: CHILDREN AND
• 61% out of school
• Pupil/classroom ratio • Improved Equitable ADOLESCENTS
• Develop infrastructure & safety
of 154:1 Access to Inclusive
• Recruit, train, and develop teachers
• Overwhelmed and Relevant Learning
under-resourced Opportunities
• Provide instructional materials
MoES capacity
• Develop capacity for supervision,
• ECD, AEP for
inspection, and guidance • Improved Delivery of
overaged, and
• Develop innovations with Piloting Quality Education and
Vocational Skills for
livelihoods in high Training Annual ERP and
• Advocate for policy & regulations
demand
• Improve coordination of donors/IPs • Strengthened Systems for Sector Reviews
• Improve EMIS, M&E Effective Delivery
• Increase community engagement

Situation
Analysis

Feedback: Frequent M&E, Collaborative Consultation for Programme Decisions

27
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

5. PLAN AND BUDGET

It is important that what is set out to be achieved is realistic within potential funding scenarios. As
mentioned in the introduction to the Education Response Plan, a detailed and costed prioritisation
exercise was conducted to develop an ambitious but feasible plan. Based on the situational analysis
and the theory of change, this section sets out three overarching outputs with prioritised and costed
activities. More details on the prioritisation and costing methodology are included in Annex C.

The overall objective of the Plan is to ensure the children, adolescents and youth from the refugee
and host communities to access sustained quality learning opportunities. The Plan targets an average
of 567,500 refugees and host communities’ learners per school calendar year. The Plan will support
Uganda to meet its long term commitment to the SDGs to ensure all school-age children to have access
to quality education programme by 2030, the results will also contribute to the Uganda Refugee
Response Plan 2018. As explained in detail below, the number of target beneficiaries is based on the
target enrolment which has been set for each year, which also incorporates the projected refugee
influx in the coming years and the population growth in the host communities. The target number of
children, adolescents and youth to be reached over the 3.5 years of the Plan increases from 435,399
in Year 0 (January to June 2018) to 604,417 in Year 3 (July 2020 to June 2021). The Plan goes beyond
improving the number of children accessing education. It also puts in place activities to improve the
quality of education at all levels, and strengthen the management of the education system.

The cost of providing a better education for an average of 567,500 learners annually for these 3.5
years is 389 million USD. This Plan calls for the international community to provide financing towards
this goal and clearly shows the results which can be achieved if the financing becomes available. In
order to achieve the output areas identified in the Theory of Change, the Plan consists of the following
three output areas with a breakdown of 16 activity areas as listed below. The 16 activity areas are
further broken down by detailed activities as listed in Annex B.

Output 1: IMPROVED EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE ACCESS TO RELEVANT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

1.1. Increased provision of education infrastructure
1.2. Support Provision of Scholastic Materials and Instruction Materials
1.3. Develop Skills and Livelihoods Opportunities for out of school adolescent and youth
1.4. Expand Access to Education for Children with Disabilities
1.5. Improve Safety and Learning Environment
1.6. Other Innovations to increase access to education

Output 2: IMPROVED DELIVERY OF QUALITY EDUCATION AND TRAINING

2.1. Increasing Teacher Supply and Quality
2.2. Support Capacity Development, Support Supervision and Inspection
2.3. Enhance Support to School Inspection and Support Supervision
2.4. Provision of adequate supply of relevant teaching and learning materials
2.5. Improve pedagogy and Pilot innovations
2.6. Support to school clubs and co-curricular activities

Output 3: STRENGTHENED SYSTEM FOR EFFECTIVE DELIVERY

3.1. Advocate for a supportive policy and regulations
3.2. Improved management and coordination of education services delivery by partners
3.3. Improved data, management and information systems for M&E
3.4. Increased Community Engagement on Education Issues (all levels)

28
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

5.1 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

Following are the key strategies which are underlying the Plan.
Based on the ReHoPE strategy that all refugee response should cater the children from the host
community, the Plan targets to provide education opportunities to children, adolescents and youth
both from refugee and host communities. An average of 23% of the target beneficiaries for each
year would be from the host communities.
1. In order to bring more learners into education and ensure the quality of learning, the Plan
prioritizes to improve the pupil teacher ratio by employing more teachers, rather than
improving the pupil classroom ratio by establishing more classrooms. This strategic decision
was made to ensure the educational access of more children while maintaining and improving
the quality of learning in the long term.
2. The absorption capacity of the government primary and secondary schools will be
strengthened through setting increasing targets in the pupil teacher ratio over the years, as
well as introducing double shifting partially to the target schools.
3. A range of non-formal alternative education programmes will be introduced and/or
strengthened to provide access to education for the overaged children, out of school children
and youth.
4. This Plan was established as a rolling-work plan, which the priorities will be reviewed
annually, so that they are chosen activities are based on the latest data and needs analysis.

5.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN OUTCOME AND ACTIVITIES

The following presents the overview of the three main output areas of the Plan. Each of the three
output areas are closely interdependent and only together will they contribute to the overall objective
of this Plan. The following overview also describes the rationale of the prioritization of each of the
activity (as listed in Annex A) which was based on the situation analysis (in Section 2) and extensive
consultations with national and district level government stakeholders (especially in the West Nile
region and South West region), education implementing partners and the donor community.

Output 1: IMPROVED EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE ACCESS TO RELEVANT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

These activities are aimed to expand access to education, by construction of school facilities, provision
of scholastic/ instructional materials, expansion of access to life-skills/ vocational skills opportunities
and making the school environment a safer and accessible place, especially taking into consideration
of the children with disabilities who have currently very limited access to education.

The magnitude of the refugee influx has resulted in serious lack of learning facilities and congestion in
existing schools, which resulted in huge infrastructure demands to enhance access to education. In
this Plan, semi-permanent classroom 20 construction has been prioritized for primary school level
which targets the largest number of children. In contrast, permanent classroom construction is
prioritized in Secondary School level, as specific infrastructures needed for secondary schools (e.g.
laboratories) are only able to be accommodated on a permanent structure foundation. In order to
improve the absorption capacity of the government schools, the Plan targets 30% of the Primary
School and Secondary School to be double shifted over the period of the Plan, in both Primary School
and Secondary School.

20 The design of the semi-permanent structures for Primary School and Secondary School approved by the Ministry of Education and

Sports and acknowledged by the refugee hosting districts. The design enables the community to upgrade it into a permanent structure
based on the necessity and available resources.

29
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

From the standpoint of retaining learners in school, maintaining good health and protecting girls from
various forms of violence, gender segregated latrines and WASH facilities (including gender facilities
for menstrual hygiene management and girls’ changing rooms) has been prioritized in the Plan for
Primary and Secondary School. Together with the construction of WASH facilities, training on hygiene
and sanitation practices, menstrual hygiene management, provision of sanitary kits (to the refugee
learners) and awareness raising of child protection issues in schools are also prioritized in the Plan.

Inadequate support is provided to children with disabilities from the refugee and host communities,
and their access to education is highly constrained. It is estimated that 11% of the learners in the
target districts are children with disabilities. The Plan prioritizes the improvement of school
environment and distribution of assistive devises in Primary and Secondary Schools.

Adolescents and youth (14 to 24 years old) account for 33% of the refugee population, however the
majority of them are over-aged to be enrolled in their appropriate education level, and suffer from
lack of learning and employment opportunities. In addition, as highlighted in the situational analysis,
57% of the school aged children are out of school. Therefore, the Plan incorporates provision of life
skills and vocational skills training, and also prioritizes Accelerated Education Programmes (AEP)
(including the construction of AEP centres) for the overaged and out of school children who have not
completed primary education in their country of origin. The harmonization of the AEP curriculum is
also embedded in this Plan for standardised service delivery.

Output 2: IMPROVED DELIVERY OF QUALITY EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The activities under this output constitutes of salary for teachers, provision of induction teacher
training, continuous teachers’ development support, school governance strengthening, provision of
teacher and learning materials, support to school clubs and improvement of pedagogy and pilot
innovations.

In order to ensure the quality of education provided to the learners from the refugee and host
community, the Plan prioritizes resource allocation to improve the teacher pupil ratio by recruiting
additional teachers and promoting rapid accreditation of teachers from the refugee community
(targeting refugees who were already performing as accredited teachers in their country of origin).

The Plan also aims to enhance teachers’ capacity through induction training to ensure the learning
and wellbeing of the children in the refugee context - for example, working with large classes,
assessment of learning and social and emotional learning (SEL)/Psycho-social Support/GBV
counselling, and special needs education. Continuous Professional Development training and
leadership training to school managements are also planned.

As many schools are reported to not have enough materials to cater for the refugee influx, the supply
of text books, teachers guide and learning materials have been prioritized all across the education
levels, including AEP and Vocational skills training based on the pupil textbook ratio which has been
targeted for each year.

Output 3: STRENGTHENED SYSTEM FOR EFFECTIVE DELIVERY

The activities under Output 3 covers national and district level support in the area of institutional
development, coordination and planning, data and information management and enhanced
community engagement.

Based on the analysis of the current conflict situation, it is expected that majority of the refugees will
remain in the country at least during the implementation of this Plan. The system strengthening
component through robust policies and strengthened governance, plays a crucial role in ensuring the

30
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

sustainability of the humanitarian response to the refugees and enhancing the national education
capacity from which the host community will equally benefit. Host community schools will also benefit
directly from a stronger system of support and data analysis.

In order to cater to the large demand for education from the refugees and host community, various
policy discussions are required at the national level. The current Ugandan education system sets a
ceiling in the number of teachers to be employed in each district, putting a limitation to hire additional
government funded teachers in the refugee hosting districts. Unlike in the case of primary schools,
refugee children are required to pay certain amount of fees to gain access to the government funded
secondary schools, which is also creating a burden to enhance the enrolment of refugee learners in
secondary education. These issues, together with lack of harmonized AEP curriculum, dissemination
of school feeding guidelines and harmonized condition of services for teachers in refugee hosting
districts needs further consideration. The development of refugee education policy aligned with the
ESSP and Uganda Education White Paper is due to be revised.

The national level system strengthening will be implemented together with development of
comprehensive education database which captures the refugee learner’s enrolment data together
with the national enrolment data through EMIS. The support also includes co-ordination of the
response and ongoing evaluation of its success, which will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the strategy in the long-run.

Together with the national level system strengthening, the Plan prioritizes system strengthening at
the settlement and district level, through support in coordination, planning and management.
Community engagement (including community sensitization on Home Grown School Feeding and
school participation) is also necessary, as parents and the community members have an essential role
in determining the demand for education. The positive engagement of community members, including
women, will not only enhance the participation to education and lead to good maintenance of the
schools, but will also pave the way to mitigate the tension among the refugee and host community
and enhance social cohesion.

5.3 GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF THE PLAN

The Plan targets to be implemented in the 34 sub counties in the 12 districts, which the refugee
settlements are currently established (as the following map shows). The 12 districts correspond to the
areas which are showing challenging education indicators in the host communities (in enrolment rate,
pupil teacher ratio etc.), possibly affected by the large influx of refugees.

31
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

MAP OF REFUGEE HOSTING DISTRICTS IN UGANDA

Yumbe
Moyo
Koboko Lamwo

Adjumani
Arua

Kiryandongo

Hoima

Kyegegwa
Kampala

Kamwenge

Isingiro

LIST OF THE 12 REFUGEE HOSTING DISTRICTS AND 34 SUBCOUNTIES

District Sub county District Sub county

1. Adjumani 1. Adjumani T/C 5. Kamwenge 19. Katalyeba T.C
2. Ofua 20. Nkoma
3. Dzaipi 6. Kiryandongo 21. Mutunda
4. Pachara 22. Bweyale T.C
5. Ukusijoni 7. Koboko 23. Lobule
6. Itirikwa 8. Kyegegwa 24. Mpara
7. Pakelle 25. Kyegegwa Rural
2. Arua 8. Rigbo 26. Ruyonza
9. Omugo 9. Lamwo 27. Palabek-Gem
10. Uriama 28. Palabek-Kal
11. Udupi 10. Moyo 29. Ituri
3. Hoima 12. Kyangwali 11. Yumbe 30. Romogi
4. Isingiro 13. Kikagate 31. Kochi
14. Ngarama 32. Kululu
15. Isingiro T.C 33. Odravu
16. Rugaaga 34. Ariwa`
17. Rushasha 12. Kampala
18. Kashumba

32
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

5.4 TARGETING OF THE PLAN

5.4.1 Population Projection

Table 4: Overall Population Projection in the 34 Refugee Hosting Sub Counties

Current
R/ HC Age Group 2018 2019 2020 2021
(Nov 2017)
Refugee 3-5 years old 164,795 199,402 223,330 223,330 223,330
6-13 years old* 370,303 448,067 501,835 501,835 501,835
14-17 years old** 147,020 176,684 197,886 197,886 197,886
18-24 years old*** 116,079 138,541 155,166 155,166 155,166
SUBTOTAL 798,197 962,694 1,078,217 1,078,217 1,078,217
Host 3-5 years old 119,572 124,050 128,659 133,458 138,437
Community 6-12 years old* 245,766 254,948 264,436 274,315 284,574
13-18 years old** 163,192 169,202 175,365 181,779 188,432
19-24 years old*** 105,376 109,234 113,226 117,374 121,671
SUBTOTAL 633,906 657,434 681,686 706,926 733,114
GRAND TOTAL 1,432,103 1,620,128 1,759,903 1,785,143 1,811,331
*Age range to be accommodated in Primary Education, **Age range to be accommodated in Secondary Education, ***Age
range to be accommodate in Post-Secondary Education programmes

This Plan takes into account refugee and host communities’ population from 3 to 24 years old in the
34 refugee-hosting sub-counties in 12 districts, namely, Yumbe, Moyo, Arua, Adjumani, Koboko,
Lamwo, Kiryandongo, Kyangwali, Kamwenge, Kyegegwa, Isingiro and Kampala. It aims to cover
refugee children, adolescents and youth registered by OPM, including refugee children from South
Sudan, DRC, Burundi and other countries and the host community children from the 34 refugee
hosting sub-counties. The overall population for each year is projected based on the following
assumptions.

• Refugee
Population data from 3 to 24 years old in the 12 refugee hosting districts as of November
2017. Based on the current population data, the projected refugee influx for 2018 and 2019
provided by OPM/UNHCR was reflected. As there are no projections available for 2020 and
2021, the same population projection of 2019 has been applied for these 2 years. As the
refugee population projection cannot be set in the long term, the target population will be
reviewed and updated periodically.
• Host Community
3 to 24 age groups population data in the 34 refugee hosting sub-counties in 12 districts
from the UBOS 2014 Census for the 2017 current population, and then projected for further
years using the UBOS population projection for 2018 to 2021.

Based on the above population projection, the Plan targets the number of learners, teachers,
classrooms, textbooks and stances based on the target indicators which is set for each year. For the
refugee target, the Plan sets a reasonable target for each of the indicators to be achieved by the end
of the implementation of this Plan (by June 2021), based on the current status as of November 2017
in the 8 refugee hosting districts where enrolment data was available 21. As the ‘Year 0 22‘ only covers
from January to June 2018, the improvement in the target to be achieved during these 6 months is set
half, compared with the other years.

21 As the education data (e.g. enrolment, teachers, and classrooms) was only available in the 8 out of the 12 refugee
hosting districts, the plan applies the data for the 8 refugee hosting district as the current status of representing the overall
refugee hosting districts. Therefore, the target to be accomplished by June 2021 is set as a target to be achieved by the 12
refugee hosting districts. However, further situational analysis for each district is in need in the district level planning.
22 Year 0 allows for preparation work for the plan to be finalized and to align to the Government’s financial year.

33
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

For the host community, the target of these indicators was mainly drawn from the Education and
Sports Sector Strategic Plan 2017/18-2019/20, which the Ministry of Education has set the target for
every year. The coverage of the host community who will be benefiting from this Plan among the 34
refugee hosting sub-counties, was decided based on the number of host community children who are
already accessing the refugee hosting schools, and the coverage of the host community beneficiaries
which is benchmarked in the CRRF and ReHoPE strategy.

5.4.2 Target Enrolment in 3.5 years

The overall Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) target was set for each year as the chart below (as highlighted
in yellow). As the government service provision on pre-primary is limited to regulation development,
teacher training, standard setting and quality assurance, the target enrolment for pre-primary has not
been set for this Plan.

As of November 2017, the GER for pre-primary is 38.5% among the refugees and 19.1 % among the
host communities in the refugee hosting districts. As pre-primary acts as a crucial window for children
and parents to access protection mechanisms in the refugee settings, continued investments are
required from the non-government actors to maintain the services.

Table 5: Target Gross Enrolment Rate

Current Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
R/ HC Education level As of Nov (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2017 2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Refugees Primary School (6-12 y/o) 58.2% 59.2% 61.1% 63.1% 65.0%
(3-17 y/o) Secondary School (13-17 y/o) 11.3% 12.5% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0%
Accelerated Education Program 1.4% 4.1% 9.4% 14.7% 20.0%
Host Primary School (6-12 y/o) 120.8% 121.6% 122.4% 124.0% 125.6%
Community Secondary School (13-18 y/o) 17.9% 19.0% 20.1% 22.3% 26.7%
(3-18 y/o)
Accelerated Education Program 1.4% 1.9% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

The enrolment target was set based on the following strategic decisions.

Refugee
• The Primary education GER target was agreed with the partner organizations based on the
expected implementing capacity and the growth rate of each year.
• The secondary school enrolment target was set by taking into consideration of absorbing the
primary school graduates. This estimation was made based on the national P7 survival rate
(33.0%), P7 completion rate (69.6%), the PLE passing rate (89.0%) and the S1 transition rate
(70.5%) which is targeted for 2020 in the MoES ESSP 2017/18 – 2019/20. The target was also
set to cater to the overaged children who are waiting for the opportunity to access secondary
schools, currently constrained by the lack of service provision in secondary education.
For the Accelerated Education Programme (AEP), considering that many of the refugee
children are overaged and have missed out the opportunity to complete primary education
in their country of origin, it was decided to set the target high to feed into the formal
primary and secondary schools.

Host Community
• For the host community, the national outcome growth target was applied to the current status
of the 34 refugee hosting sub counties (added 1.6% for Primary School, 2.2% for Secondary

34
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

School each year, as targeted in EMIS 2016). The target for AEP is set based on the ratio of
host community learners who are accessing AEPs in the settlement.

Although the overall enrolment target was set based on the refugee and host community population,
the fact that the refugee hosting schools (in settlement and in host community) are catering to
learners both from the refugees and host communities was taken into consideration, as the host
community children accessing the refugee hosting schools will inevitably receive the interventions
provided to the refugees. By identifying the number of host community children who are accessing
the refugee hosting schools, the target of settlement and non-settlement Gross Enrolment was set,
which became the basis of calculating the target number of activities for each of the activity listed in
Annex A.

• Settlement
Beneficiaries accessing schools in the settlement catchment area (Refugee Hosting Schools),
covering children/adolescents from both refugee and host communities
• Non-Settlement
Beneficiaries accessing schools in the sub-counties, which are not hosting any refugees,
covering only children/adolescents from host community but may potentially host refugees

In order to develop a realistic and implementable plan, the Plan sets a coverage ratio of the settlement
and non-settlement targets. As explained in detail in Annex C, the Plan will cover 100% of the
Settlement and 20% of the Non-Settlement as defined above. This translates into covering a yearly
average of 29% of the total 6 to 24 year old refugee population, and 13% of the total 6 to 24 year old
host community population from the 34 refugee hosting sub-counties. The coverage was set based on
a detailed costing and prioritization exercise, given the realistic funding/ resources the sector is able
to expect during the duration of implementing this Plan. As this is a rolling work plan, the target
population are to be revisited each year and further planning should be done to provide educational
access to all affected children beyond 2021.

5.4.3 Targeting of Teachers, Classrooms, Stances and Textbooks in 3.5 years

A reasonable target to be achieved by the end of the implementation of this Plan (by June 2021) for
the Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR), Pupil Classroom Ratio (PCR), Pupil Textbook Ratio, and Pupil Stance
Ratio has been set based on the current status as of November 2017 (highlighted in yellow in following
charts). This is the target set to be accomplished if all the activities (detailed in Annex B) and the target
refugee and host communities are fully implemented and covered.

The target for Year 1 and Year 2 was set to have a gradual improvement in the indicators, from the
current status to the target aimed for Year 3. As the ‘Year 0‘ only covers from January to June 2018,
the improvement in the target during these 6 months is set half, compared with the other years.

Table 6: Target Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR)

Current Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Education level As of Nov (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2017 2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Settlement Primary School (6-12) 85 83 77 71 65
Secondary School (13-17) 50 53 53 53 53
AEP 34 50 50 50 50
Non- Primary School (6-12) 60 59 57 55 53
Settlement Secondary School (13-18) 20 53 53 53 53
AEP - - - - -

35
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Table 7: Target Pupil Classroom Ratio (PCR)

Current Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Education level As of Nov (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2017 2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Primary School (6-12) 154 147 135 122 110
Settlement
Secondary School (13-17) 143 138 129 119 110
Non- Primary School (6-12) 73 70 67 64 61
Settlement Secondary School (13-18) 45 45 45 45 45

Table 8: Target Pupil Textbook Ratio

Current Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Education level As of Nov (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2017 2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Settlement Primary School (6-12) 8 7 6 4 3
Secondary School (13-17) 36 31 22 12 3
Non- Primary School (6-12) 3 3 3 3 3
Settlement Secondary School (13-18) N/A 3 3 3 3

Table 9: Target Pupil Stance Ratio

Current Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Education level As of Nov (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2017 2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Primary School (6-12) 108 103 92 81 70
Settlement
Secondary School (13-17) 54 54 54 54 54
Non- Primary School (6-12) 53 53 53 53 53
Settlement Secondary School (13-18) 31 31 31 31 31

For the settlement indicators, an achievable target was set by considering the current status which
shows quite substantive gap compared with the non-settlement (host community) schools. The
indicators which the current status is showing lower than the national standard (e.g. PTR for secondary
school in the settlement), the national standard has been set as a target all across the years. For the
non-settlement schools, the target is aligned with the ESSP, except for the Primary School level Pupil
Classroom Ratio (target being set as 61:1) which the current level (73:1) is far beyond the national
target of 53:1. The target for this indicator was discussed and agreed by the task team and the
ministry.

Double-shifting is taken into consideration by covering 10% of the total target schools in Year 1, 20%
in Year 2 and 30% in Year 3. The double shifting has implications on the number of classrooms to be
constructed (by reducing the number of classrooms by the target ratio of double-shifted schools for
each year), and number of teachers (by adding the number of teachers by the target ratio of double-
shifted schools for each year). This was done under the assumption that different set of teachers will
be teaching in the morning and afternoon class when the double shifting is implemented.

However, as explained above (and also in Annex C), the final targeting and costing was calculated
based on the target coverage of activities and the coverage of the settlement and non-settlement.
Therefore, the actual target indicators to be accomplished by the end of this Plan will differ from the
above mentioned targets, especially for the activities which are prioritized as ‘B’ or ‘C’ (e.g. Pupil
Classroom Ratio), or for the non-settlement schools. The target indicators will be clarified in the
Results Matrix which will be developed during ‘Year 0’ (preparation phase).

36
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

5.4 NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES

The Education Response Plan targets to reach an average of 435,344 refugee learners and 131,316
host community learners (average of 567,245 Learners in TOTAL) each year, to be enrolled in the
various education levels, and adding 361,840 new learners to the currently enrolled children.

Table 10: Target Number of Children Enrolled

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Category Programme Area (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Refugee Primary School Programme 265,128 306,693 316,443 326,193
Secondary School Programme 22,161 29,739 34,658 39,577
Accelerated Education Programme 13,759 34,094 51,221 66,790
Life skills training 7,881 17,653 17,653 17,653
Vocational skills training (incl. non-formal) 7,094 15,888 15,888 15,888
Refugee Enrolment TOTAL 316,023 404,067 435,863 466,101
Host Primary School Programme 102,719 106,100 110,058 114,185
Commun Secondary School Programme 11,027 11,748 12,909 14,970
ity
Accelerated Education Programme 1,592 2,397 3,005 3,269
Life skills training 2,784 2,886 2,992 3,101
Vocational skills training (incl. non-formal) 1,253 2,597 2,693 2,791
Host Community Enrolment TOTAL 119,376 125,729 131,657 138,316
% of Total Beneficiaries from the Host Community 27% 24% 23% 23%

In order to cater to the huge demand of the above enrolment, an increasing number of teachers is
needed, which is calculated based on the target Pupil Teacher Ratio for each year. The Plan targets to
recruit and pay salaries to an average of 8,166 teachers in the settlement and 1,287 teachers in the
non-settlement (average of 9,454 teachers in total), which is an addition of 6,797 new teachers to be
hired in addition to the current number of teachers in the target refugee and host communities.

Table 11: Target Number of Teacher to be Recruited and Salary Paid (TOTAL)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Category Programme Area (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Settleme Primary School Programme 3,829 5,141 6,250 7,592
nt Secondary School Programme 526 672 767 862
Accelerated Education Programme 307 730 1,085 1,401
Vocational skills training (incl. non-formal) 180 360 360 360
TOTAL in Settlement 4,842 6,902 8,462 10,216
Non- Primary School Programme 874 951 1,044 1,147
Settleme Secondary School Programme 240 240 240 240
nt
Accelerated Education Programme 0 0 0 0
Vocational skills training (incl. non-formal) 36 72 72 72
TOTAL in Non-Settlement 1,150 1,263 1,356 1,459
Total Target (Refugees + Host Community) 5,993 8,165 9,818 11,675

In addition to the number of teachers to be recruited, the number of teachers targeted to receive
training has also been set for this Plan. As the government commits to providing teacher training to
the ECD caregivers as part of their quality assurance mechanism, the target for pre-primary is also
embedded in the targeting (as set as in Table 12). The Plan targets to train an average of 12,582
teachers per year.

37
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Table 12: Target Number of Teacher to be Trained (TOTAL)

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Category Programme Area (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Settleme Pre-primary Programme 1,814 2,228 2,563 2,964
nt Primary School Programme 3,829 5,141 6,250 7,592
Secondary School Programme 526 672 767 862
Accelerated Education Programme 307 730 1,085 1,401
Vocational skills training (incl. non-formal) 180 360 360 360
TOTAL in Settlement 6,656 9,130 11,024 13,180
Non- Pre-Primary Programme 68 83 111 140
Settleme Primary School Programme 874 951 1,044 1,147
nt
Secondary School Programme 240 240 240 240
Accelerated Education Programme 0 0 0 0
Vocational skills training (incl. non-formal) 36 72 72 72
TOTAL in Non-Settlement 1,218 1,346 1,467 1,599
Total Target (Refugees + Host Community) 7,874 10,476 12,491 14,779

Similar to that of the number of teachers, the number of classrooms to be targeted has been
calculated based on the target enrolment and the Pupil Classroom Ratio which has been set for each
year. In order to cater to the target enrolment in Primary and Secondary School level with the target
Pupil Classroom Ratio set for each year, an average of 2,960 classrooms are in need every year, which
translates into constructing 577 new classrooms in Primary and Secondary Schools in addition to the
existing classrooms.

Table 13: Target Number of Classrooms needed to cater to the Target Enrolment
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Category Programme Area (Jan to June (July 2018 to (July 2019 to (July 2020 to
2018) June 2019) June 2020) June 2021)
Settlement Primary School Programme 1,673 1,865 1,881 1,884
Secondary School Programme 157 194 212 227
TOTAL in Settlement 1,831 2,059 2,093 2,111
Non- Primary School Programme 609 667 738 817
Settlement Secondary School Programme 96 107 126 161
TOTAL in Non-Settlement 706 774 864 978
Total Target (Refugees + Host Community) 2,536 2,834 2,957 3,089

5.5 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE (in USD)

Based on the coverage of beneficiaries targeted above, a costing model was developed to estimate
the total cost of this Plan. The unit cost for each activity was based on the Education and Sports Sector
Strategic Plan 2017/18-2019/20 (MoES) and inputs gained by Education in Emergency Working Group.
As this Plan is expected to be implemented by not only the government but also by all relative
stakeholders, the overhead cost was embedded in the unit cost (+20%). Further assumptions and
details of the costing model are explained in Annex C.

The final cost of the Plan is estimated to be 389,107,619 USD. The breakdown of the cost based on
activity area and programme area for each year is as follows. Please refer to Annex D for a further
detailed breakdown of the cost estimate.

38
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Table 14: Breakdown of costing based on Activity Area for each year

Table 15: Breakdown of costing based on Programme Area for each year

Table 16: Breakdown of costing based on Priority of the Activity for each year

The total cost of the 3.5 years is broken down by activity area and programme area as follows:

Breakdown by Activity Area Simulation 3 (Programme Area)

Strengthening Strengthening
District Piloting/ System Pre-
National Material
1% Strengthening Primary
1% Development
Strengthening 1% 5%
1%
Community
7%
Infrastructure
Training to
27% Vocational Skills
the Children
15% and Adolescents
Dev. 31% Primary
Teacher School
Training 50%
2%
Teacher Materials
Salary 20%
Secondary School
27%
13%

39
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

6. MANAGEMENT
6.1 Governance Arrangements
Several principles should guide the governance structure of the Plan, as follows:

• Government ownership of the Plan and its implementation should be established and should
be supported, guided by the Minister responsible for Education and Sports.
• The governance and management arrangements should allow the widest possible range of
actors to finance the Plan in an accountable and transparent way.
• Robust fiduciary safeguards, risk management procedures and a clear Monitoring and
Evaluation structure are essential.
• Consultation with stakeholders, including those in affected areas, and clear and transparent
decision-making (for example around priority activities).
• Local procurement of goods and services is encouraged in accordance with the Buy Uganda
Build Uganda (BUBU) Policy under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives

A Steering Committee will oversee the implementation of the Plan and report to the political
leadership of MoES. The Steering Committee will be co-chaired by the Permanent Secretary MoES
alongside the Chair of the Education Development Partners. The Terms of Reference of the Steering
Committee are included at Annex E.

The primary role of the Steering Committee will be to provide strategic guidance and oversight of
Uganda’s Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities. Reporting directly to the
Minister of Education & Sports, the main roles of the Steering Committee include:

1. Reviewing and approving the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host
Communities, and each subsequent update/revision of the rolling plan on an annual basis
2. Ensuring transparency and accountability to Government of Uganda and its partners on
funds allocated towards the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities
3. Promoting and supporting resource mobilization and improved coordination of all actors
involved in the refugee response
4. Providing oversight and guidance to partners on the implementation of the response plan
to maintain compliance with identified priorities
5. Establishing and maintaining engagement with various stakeholders (government, local
government, NGOs etc.) including existing coordination structures, particularly the CRRF
and Education Development Partners, in the implementation of the response plan
6. Conducting periodic monitoring of implementation of the ERP, including commissioning
assessments, reviews and evaluations related to the Plan and its implementation.

6.2 The Role of Each Stakeholder

The Government of Uganda

The overall coordination and implementation of the Plan will be the responsibility of MoES - under
the leadership of the Minister of Education & Sports and coordinated by the Steering Committee.
Strong co-ordination between line ministries; departments and agencies, district local
governments and municipalities, development partners, private sector, NGOs, faith-based
organisations, community-based organisations, and communities, will be integral to the Plan’s

40
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

successful operationalisation. The roles of national and local government are both critical
stakeholders in the implementation of the Plan and will adhere to the existing service delivery
model in the Plan’s roll-out. Each level of government will adhere to the same mandate and scope
of work it currently holds.

The Ministry of Education and Sports

Under the leadership of the Minister of Education and Sports, MoES will use Government of
Uganda’s decentralized planning and service delivery model to implement the Plan by
incorporating components of the education response plan in local Government development plans.
Capacity strengthening and support from partners is expected to facilitate this.

Development Partners
The MoES will engage with Education Development Partners, UN agencies and other education
partners to mobilize resources and better coordinate implementation of interventions, including
monitoring and evaluation, to achieve results at scale.

Implementing Partners
Implementing partners such as UN agencies, INGOs, NGOs, private providers, and government
bodies etc., will cooperate with district and settlement level authorities to ensure a harmonized
approach is achieved. They will also engage in the coordination and reporting systems as required.
Implementing partners will need to liaise effectively with refugee and host community to ensure
the success and relevance of activities.

Refugee and host community

The communities and parents play a very important role of ensuring school going-age children go
to school, as do school level committees such as School Management Committees, Parents
Teachers’ Associations and Refugee Welfare Committees. In accordance to the Universal Primary
Education (UPE) Policy of January 1997, parents are required to contribute in monetary and/ or in-
kind to support the education needs of their children. This responsibility is not borne by the MoES
alone. Therefore, deliberate efforts will be put in place to seek the views of these groups in the
planning and implementation process, so that their needs can be recognized and addressed

6.3 Coordination Mechanisms for Implementation of this Plan

Coordination between implementing partners, stakeholders, other education actors and cross
sectoral working groups (including WASH, Child Protection, Shelter) is important for the success of the
Plan. The system of coordination is to be led by the ERP Steering Committee and Secretariat to be
established with a high level of management and technical capacity. As set out above, the Steering
Committee has responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability to the Government of
Uganda, Minister of Education and Sports, and its partners on funds allocated towards the Plan as well
as providing guidance and oversight of the Plan’s implementation.
The Steering Committee will develop coordination mechanisms building on current existing co-
ordination structures, including under the Interagency Group, the Education in Emergency Working
Group and the structures under the Education Sector Consultative Committee - both at national and
settlement/ district levels linked in the work under output 3 and including a link to CRRF Steering
Committee.

A Secretariat will be established within MoES to support the implementation of the Plan and service
the Steering Committee. This Secretariat will sit within the MoES but will require external funding over
the duration of the Plan to provide sufficient technical capacity. The Secretariat will be comprised of

41
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

an Education Response Plan Coordinator whose dedicated role will be to establish a comprehensive
co-ordination system, building on and strengthening existing mechanisms at National, District and
Settlement levels; an Education Response Plan Administrator whose primary function is to provide
all necessary administrative support to the Steering Committee; an Education Information Manager
Officer to strengthen the process and frequency of data collection and dissemination from the
Settlement level to the MoES and Districts. The integrity of information is integral to the successful
operationalisation of the Plan. Linked with strengthened co-ordination, dedicated Monitoring &
Evaluation capacity situated inside the MoES will support on the development of the monitoring and
evaluation system for the Plan and will build on existing systems within the Ministry.

Dedicated personnel within the Secretariat are tasked to establish the Plan’s co-ordination systems,
building on existing co-ordination mechanisms and create linkages to development co-ordination
mechanisms in the districts and at the National level. This will include liaising with the leads in the
settlements, local government offices and the various committees establishing with the MoES to
support the Ministry’s overall leadership of the Plan.

Whilst current efforts are being made under the interagency group to eliminate gaps in field
operations, there is still a need to strengthen cross sectoral planning and implementation. Effective
delivery of education interventions in humanitarian situations requires support from other sectors.
Key areas for cross sectoral coordination include health and nutrition, WASH, child protection
(including referral mechanisms), livelihoods and gender.

The district education offices have responsibilities for coordination of education implementing
partners in development programmes in their areas. To help bridge the humanitarian and
development work, District Education Offices are expected to co-lead the settlement level Education
in Emergencies Working Groups (EiEWG), which feed into the settlement level interagency groups co-
led by OPM and UNHCR. In practice, due to pressures of workload in the district offices, and often
due to the distance between the local government offices and the settlements, this task is delegated
to education implementing partners in the settlements, undermining the potential bridge from
humanitarian to development spheres.

The EiEWGs at settlement level report to the national level EiEWG co-led by the Ministry of Education
and Sports and UNHCR, who report to the national level Interagency group co-led by OPM and UNHCR.
However currently some settlement EiEWG are more operational than others. Dedicated staff time to
coordinate, and clear understanding of roles and responsibilities, are required. There is also limited
coordination between local and national levels; an issue this Plan and the dedicated co-ordination
capacity within the Secretariat will help to address.

42
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Given the current needs, staff and capacity gaps, the task of coordination at district and settlement
level is large and requires additional dedicated, qualified staff and resources to fulfil the role
successfully at national and district level. Plans on how to successfully bridge the coordination of
humanitarian and development programmes without compromising accountabilities and duties on
either side need to be strengthened. The MoES with dedicated co-ordination capacity in the
Secretariat to establish a robust system of co-ordination that builds on existing mechanisms will
contribute toward strengthening current gaps.

6.4 Partnerships

This Plan, of which the MoES has primary responsibility to implement and mobilise resources for,
envisages working collaboratively in multi-stakeholder partnerships. The humanitarian refugee
response in Uganda is co-led and coordinated by OPM and UNHCR, with broad participation of UN and
NGO partners (national and international), in line with the Refugee Coordination Model. In view of
achieving an effective and integrated response, members of the refugee and host communities are
also involved in planning the response and so are local authorities and relevant line Ministries. The
ReHoPE and CRRF underscore the importance of ‘building block of comprehensive response to the
displacement in Uganda’ 23. Effective partnerships will call for shared responsibility and accountability
in fulfilling the roles while maximizing the comparative advantage of each stakeholder in education.

23 ReHoPE strategy 2017

43
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

7. FINANCING
7.1 Financing Modality for this Plan

Whilst there will be a range of different financing mechanisms of the Plan at any one time, efforts will
be made to align donor financing where possible in order to promote efficiency and enhance the
effectiveness of coordination, oversight and delivery. Critically, financing mechanisms that are more
aligned will facilitate MoES’ leadership over the implementation of the Plan and better enable
resources to be transparently accounted for against the results achieved.

A review of financing options for the ERP was published in June 2018. To support the Steering
Committee to make recommendations on future financing channels, the report sets out the
advantages and disadvantages of a range of options, including:

ο Setting up a new UNDP-managed Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF)

ο Expanding the World Bank’s Secondary Education Project to allow other donors to finance
through this same mechanism
ο Setting up a new World Bank-managed Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF)
ο Using an existing education consortium of NGOs
ο Agreeing with a UN agency to act as the managing agent
ο Contracting a private sector institution to act as the managing agent

The report concludes there the selection of the best option will depend on the context and speed
within which it is expected the mechanism will operate. As an initial pooled fund mechanism, the
report recommends exploring two options first: (i) a Multi-partner Trust Fund or (ii) using an
INGO/NGO consortium-managed fund. The report also recommends combing several funding routes
based on various key criteria, including: speed of disbursement; flexibility around priority-setting; and
likely fund manager performance against a results framework.

A final two recommendations were made:

(1) The financing model should utilise a clear results framework, in line with the ERP, should
have a strong accountability component, and should prioritise alignment and capacity
building of in-country actors where possible – for example, undertaking coordinated auditing
with Uganda’s auditor general.

(2) Evaluation and learning should be a priority to ensure lessons are transmitted throughout
providers inside and outside Uganda. This function should be commissioned by the fund
manager or steering committee, and should involve government, host communities, and
refugee communities.

It is envisaged that as new funding opportunities arise, these will be discussed at the Steering
Committee. The role of the Steering Committee will be to make recommendations to the Minister of
Education and Sports on the appropriate funding mechanism, based on the source of the financing
and its associated conditions and drawing on the findings of the report and the context at the time.

It is recognised that due to existing project agreements, individual donor restrictions and because of
the humanitarian nature of the work some donors will continue to directly fund implementing
partners, even in the long term. For transparency, accountability and efficiency, it will be expected

44
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

that all donors and implementing partners provide timely reports through the coordination structure
up to the Secretariat in order that all resources and results can be tracked and monitored, regardless
of the funding mechanism used.

8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community has multiple funding pathways. As
such a strong Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) approach is required to capture all contributions to
the Plan. This approach will require one overarching monitoring and reporting framework, to ensure
a solid, coherent, comprehensive and synchronized response. Systematic and regular monitoring will
be established both at settlement/ district and national levels with feedback embedded into the
system to enable timely tracking of implementation and seek creative ways to address constraints.

The Government of Uganda has also been working to take forward the recommendations of the
International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity, including through the adoption
of the delivery approach in education. The Government of Uganda has been engaged in the
preparation process and established a Joint Lab Task Force to make preparations alongside partners
in the international community. The approach could aid in the overall delivery of education across
the system, including for refugees, and has the potential to create synergies with the Education
Response Plan for Refugees and Host-Communities in Uganda.

To ensure the set-up and operationalisation of a robust M & E system in line with the MoES quality
assurance system, dedicated M & E capacity situated inside the MoES will provide the expertise to
realise this. Under their guidance, and in close consultation with all relevant sections of the MoES, an
M & E Framework for the Plan will be developed and approved by the MoES. The Plan advocates a
rigorous system of monitoring and evaluation, whereby the data on the implementation of activities,
and the indicators for the outcomes, are tracked, reviewed and acted upon in a timely manner,
particularly at the District level.

For this M&E activity to be possible, organizational capacity at the District and sub-District levels will
be strengthened and supported. This system of adaptive management is necessary to be considered,
given the complex, under-resourced and changing current situation. The well-established technology
of ICTs and tablets make the collection, analysis and reporting of data vastly more efficient than the
traditional system of paper reporting forms. This technology makes it possible to implement these
frequent feedback loops. As the situation stabilizes, it will be possible to reduce this level of effort,
and provide less frequent reviews of the data and the input from key stakeholders: the MoES, donors,
implementing partners on the front lines, and local community representatives.

The regular reviews are intended not simply for reporting, but for consultation and input from these
key stakeholders so that the information can be used to critically review the links between inputs,
activities, outputs and outcomes, and to take programmatic actions to improve the implementation
of the Plan. It is of little use to wait for a whole year to address the issues that will arise (including
reviewing the results of innovations), so as to make programme adjustments as needed.

The Plan calls for the integration of its monitoring and evaluation results within the Ministry’s EMIS
and the Annual Education Sector Review. The Education Response Plan is organized so that it’s three
outcomes: equitable access, enhanced quality, and strengthened systems correspond to the strategic
objectives of the Education Sector Strategic Plan (2017/18-2019/20). Thus, the Education Response

45
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Plan is not a parallel and separate operation, but fully integrated within the Government’s Plans and
systems.

The results framework is annexed, highlighting indicators that will be tracked and reported against.
The aim is to improve data disaggregation. Where relevant the results framework disaggregates data
by sex, and where possible by disability, so that needs can be analysed, and further targeted
interventions developed as necessary.

A monitoring framework and settlement level annual implementation plans will be developed in year
zero, indicators may be refined at this point. The intention is to conduct a baseline/ midline and end
line survey where indicated in the results framework.

In addition, these annual reviews will feed into the ESSP Annual Review processes, and into other
appropriate structures. The work undertaken under output 3 will feed into and strengthen the
monitoring framework.

Basic school data for pre-primary, primary and secondary level schooling within the settlements is
captured twice termly by UNHCR for reporting to the Interagency Group and for sharing with donors
and partners. GPS mapping of school facilities is ongoing, and for those settlements where this is
completed the data is housed with UNHCR and UBOS. Currently, the Education Management
Information System (EMIS) only captures data of refugees in registered schools as foreign learners. It
is recommended that a separate module for education data for refugees is incorporated into the EMIS.
Plans for appropriate integration between refugee and national data over time should be considered.
In addition, the Ministry’s Inspectorate Information System which is currently in a pilot phase does
not yet include schools in the settlements. As this is a cloud hosted system which can generate real
time data an opportunity exists to expand the system to include the schools in the settlements. This
would allow for quick and regular updates of programmes for monitoring success and bottlenecks in
provision of education for the refugees and host communities, both at district and national levels.
More in-depth education analysis and evaluations of programmes is done on an individual project
basis and not always shared to all partners and through all relevant Government Ministries; this could
be improved.

9. RISK MANAGEMENT: SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, SUSTAINABILITY

9.1 Social Safeguards
The Education Response Plan could trigger a range of social risks associated with involuntary
resettlement due to the potential need for relocation for site specific civil works where new schools
need to be constructed. Additionally, the project will support an undertaking of low scale and limited
civil works to existing schools. In this context, there may be limited possibilities of displacement of
land and land use. It would be optimum if the support is provided after the land ownership and an
absence of displacement issues have been confirmed. This seeks to reduce and avert possible conflicts
in selected beneficiary schools. Should resettlement issues be identified, appropriate mitigations plans
shall be prepared in consultation with the affected communities and individuals to address specific
impacts, proposed mitigation measures and compensation issues.

The Education Response Plan implementation may also generate risks associated with the potential
influx of labour to target areas during construction activities. To mitigate this, the implementation
teams shall ensure that appropriate social controls and staffing are included in contractor selection
and supervision phases of civil works. Additionally, the implementation may decide to sensitise local
communities on social risks associated with influx of labour, as well as strengthen the capacity of local

46
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

authorities to manage these risks. The mitigation measures shall be supported during implementation
of the activities under the Plan.

9.2 Environmental Safeguards

The Education Response Plan may engender risks associated with the support to civil works activities
which may generate localised, site-specific environmental impacts. During construction, the generic
impacts may include, amongst others, dust and noise pollution, occupational safety of workers and
the nearby members of the public, and construction waste management. In order to address and
guide implementation of environmental and social aspects of the project, an Environmental and Social
Management Frameworks (ESMF) shall be developed by the agencies implementing the Plan. The
preparation of the ESMF shall be consultative, involving a range of relevant stakeholders.

The Education Response Plan implementation may also generate risks associated with adverse
impacts on biodiversity and physical cultural heritage. An Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA) shall be undertaken to specify sites which may require physical cultural resource
investigation, assessment and management. An additional mitigation measure proposed is to
integrate appropriate environmental controls provisions in the procurement, contractor selection and
supervision phases of civil works. The mitigation measures shall be included in relevant activities under
the Plan.

9.3 Sustainability Risks

Uganda is expected to have a protracted refugee crisis and therefore ensuring both financial and
programmatic sustainability is important. For this Plan, it is envisaged that multiple funding modalities
will be used. MoES will continue to finance government schools in the host district as is the case for
the rest of the country. Various development partners will fund activities outlined in this Plan both in
the refugee settlements and the host community schools/institutions. In the medium term the MoES
will have better capacity to collect information through improved management information system
integrated data on refugees, Plan for and provide additional services to both the refugee and host
communities. In the long term the intention is to move to an even more aligned financing structure
over time where a number of activities are captured on and off budget through the budget process
from central to local governments. As such, national ownership is established at the outset and
strengthened during the implementation cycle. Specifically strengthening of the district level planning
and delivery mechanism is crucial for long term sustainability. To enable full ownership of the basic
education provision, it is important that a comprehensive plan is developed for the coding of schools
and where appropriate transferring primary and secondary schools to Government ownership. A long
term plan is also required for the Government to take full responsibility for teachers working in the
schools. This will require long term donor support for increased recurrent costs for primary school
per capita grants and grants for Universal Secondary Education and teacher salaries and associated
costs. It is likely this will need to happen in a phased manner.

Local governments will build capacity through implementation of projects. Local governments are
responsible for implementation and compliance of national educational standards at schools.
Programme implementation will play a critical role in bringing these national and local government
together to help build collaborative platforms, and institutional structures and processes, which will
build up and sustain refugee education. Relevant parts of this Plan will be incorporated into district
development plans to ensure alignment of priorities.

47
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

ANNEX A: SUPPORTING DATA OF THE SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

Chart 1: Educational Access of Primary and Secondary School Aged Refugee Children (6-17 years) by
Settlements in the 8 refugee Hosting Districts (as of November 2017)
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
Population

50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
Adjum Nakiva Oruchi Rwam Kiryan Kyaka Palorin Bidi
Rhino Imvepi
ani le nga wanja dongo II ya Bidi
Children enrolled 38,798 17,050 9,468 19,412 1,800 9,842 15,508 6,547 33,712 57,273
Out of School Children 64,403 34,267 37,959 19,401 955 13,176 12,830 4,935 23,784 86,369

Table 16: Population, Enrolment, Out of School Children and Overaged Children of the Refugee
Population in the 8 Refugee Hosting Districts (RMIS & Multiple Sources, September 2017)
# Out of % Out of # overage % overage
Education Net Gross
Population School School children children
Level enrolment enrolment
Children* Children enrolled enrolled
Pre-Primary
150,482 36,214 57,927 114,268 76% 21,713 37%
(3-5 y/o)
Primary
334,259 156,835 194,532 177,424 53% 37,697 19%
(6-13 y/o)
Secondary
131,782 11,127 14,878 120,655 92% 3,751 25%
(14-17 y/o)

Total 616,523 204,176 267,337 412,347 67% 63,161 24%

*out of school children per level takes into account the overage children enrolled in the preceding level

48
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

ANNEX B: ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLAN

Coverage
# Activity Description
Target
1.0 IMPROVED EQUITABLE ACCESS TO RELEVANT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
1.1 Increased provision of education infrastructure
1.1.1 Construction of Temporary Classrooms
1.1.1.1 Primary School A
1.1.1.2 Secondary School C
1.1.2 Construction of Semi-Permanent Classrooms
1.1.2.1 Primary School A
1.1.2.2 Secondary School B
1.1.3 Construction of Permanent Classrooms
1.1.3.1 Primary School C
1.1.3.2 Secondary School A
1.1.4 Construction of Teacher's Houses
1.1.4.1 Low cost teacher houses A
1.1.4.2 Primary School C
1.1.4.3 Secondary School C
1.1.5 Construction of WASH facilities/Gender facilities for MHM, Girls’ changing rooms
1.1.5.1 Primary School (latrine, hand washing facility, water harvesting) A
1.1.5.2 Secondary School (latrine, hand washing facility, water harvesting) A
1.1.5.3 Primary School (teacher latrine, borehole) A
1.1.5.4 Secondary School (teacher latrine, borehole) A
1.1.6 Provision of playground/sports ground
1.1.6.1 Primary School C
1.1.6.2 Secondary School C
1.1.6.3 Child Friendly Spaces C
1.1.7 Construction of additional school buildings, e.g. Food stores, kitchens, libraries,
laboratories
1.1.7.1 Primary School C
1.1.7.2 Secondary School C
1.1.8 Rehabilitation and Upgrading of Existing Facilities
1.1.8.1 Primary School B
1.1.8.2 Secondary School C
1.1.9 Maintenance cost for Facilities
1.1.9.1 Primary School B
1.1.9.2 Secondary School C
1.1.10 Construction of Staff Room
1.1.10.1 Secondary School C
1.1.11 Furniture for Centres/ Schools
1.1.11.1 Primary School B
1.1.11.2 Secondary School C
1.1.11.3 Vocational Training Institutions B
1.1.12 Establishment of Child Friendly Spaces (CFS)
1.1.12.1 Child Friendly Space B
1.1.13 Establishment of Accelerated Education Programme (AEP) Centre
1.1.13.1 AEP Centre A
1.2 Support Provision of Scholastic Materials and Instruction Materials
1.2.1 Supply of scholastic materials (exercise books, pens, pencils, rulers, math set
etc.)
1.2.1.1 Primary School A

49
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Coverage
# Activity Description
Target
1.2.1.2 Secondary School B
1.2.1.3 AEP Centre A
1.3 Develop Skills and Livelihoods Opportunities for out of school adolescent and
Youth
1.3.1 Expand Non Formal and Formal Vocational Skills Training at All Levels (including
PPP approaches)
1.3.1.1 Scholarship for VTI (formal TVET) C
1.3.1.2 Scholarship for VTI (VTI based non-formal skills training) C
1.3.1.3 Non formal vocational skills training (outside VTIs) B
1.3.2 Expand life skills and livelihood opportunities
1.3.2.1 Life skills training B
1.4 Expand Access to Education for Children with Disabilities
1.4.1 Support distribution of assistive devices (such as hearing aid, crutches, braille,
large prints, eye glasses etc.) to children with disabilities
1.4.1.1 Primary School A
1.4.1.2 Secondary School A
1.4.2 Improve accessibility to school environment for children with disabilities
1.4.2.1 Primary School A
1.4.2.2 Secondary School A
1.4.3 Provide teacher training programmes to accommodate children with disabilities in schools
1.4.3.1 Primary School A
1.4.3.2 Secondary School A
1.5 Improve Safety and Learning Environment
1.5.1 Increase awareness and monitoring of child protections issues in schools
(training of RTRR guidelines, community engagement)
1.5.1.1 Community and Parents A
1.5.1.2 Primary School A
1.5.1.3 Secondary School A
1.5.1.4 AEP Centre A
1.5.2 Support improvement of hygiene and sanitation practices in schools. (soft
component)
1.5.2.1 Primary School B
1.5.2.2 Secondary School B
1.5.3 Supply sanitary kits to girls above 10 years old
1.5.3.1 Primary School A
1.5.3.2 Secondary School A
1.5.3.3 AEP Centre A
1.5.4 Burning facilities (incinerator) for burning disposable sanitary pads
1.5.4.1 Primary School B
1.5.4.2 Secondary School B
1.5.4.3 AEP B
1.5.5 Support training on menstrual hygiene management
1.5.5.1 Primary School A
1.5.5.2 Secondary School A
1.5.5.3 AEP Centre A
1.6 Other Innovations to increase access to education
1.6.1 Introduce double shift schools
1.6.1.1 Piloting of double shift (Primary) A
1.6.1.2 Piloting of double shift (Secondary) A
1.6.2 Expand Accelerated Education Programme
1.6.2.1 Piloting of AEP in secondary school B

50
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Coverage
# Activity Description
Target
1.6.2.2 Publish and distribute updated secondary AEP curriculum/ teacher's guide to
B
secondary level AEP centres
1.6.2.3 Support other innovations to increase access to education C
1.6.3 Introduction of distance learning through ICT innovation
1.6.3.1 Piloting of use of ICT in Education C
2.0 IMPROVED DELIVERY OF QUALITY EDUCATION AND TRAINING
2.1 Increasing Teacher Supply and Quality (all levels)
2.1.1 Salary for existing teachers and newly recruited additional teachers (Teachers,
Classroom Assistants and Skills Instructors)
2.1.1.1 Primary School Head Teachers A
2.1.1.2 Primary School teachers A
2.1.1.2 Primary School assistants A
2.1.1.3 Secondary School Head Teachers A
2.1.1.4 Secondary School teachers A
2.1.1.5 AEP teachers A
2.1.1.6 AEP assistant teachers A
2.1.1.7 Vocational Skills Instructors (based in VTIs) A
2.1.2 Provide induction training and refreshers courses for teachers (including on large
class, Social Emotional Learning/Psycho-social support, GBV counselling, CDRM,
accelerated education methodology, use of local materials etc.)
2.1.2.1 ECD caregivers A
2.1.2.2 Primary School teachers (incl. Head Teachers) A
2.1.2.3 Primary School assistants A
2.1.2.4 Secondary School teachers (incl. Head Teachers) A
2.1.2.5 AEP teachers A
2.1.2.6 AEP assistant teachers A
2.1.3 Development of training programmes designed for refugee teachers
2.1.3.1 Development of training programmes for refugee teachers A
2.1.4 Provide accelerated training and accreditation for refugee teachers
2.1.4.1 Primary School A
2.1.4.2 Secondary School A
2.1.5 Review and update existing primary AEP curriculum/ teacher's guide
2.1.5.1 Review and update existing primary AEP curriculum/ teacher's guide B
2.2 Support Capacity Development, Support Supervision and Inspection (ECD,
primary, AEP and secondary)
2.2.1 Increase Teacher Quality through targeted professional development and
supervision (all levels)
2.2.1.1 Continuous Professional Development of ECD caregivers B
2.2.1.2 Continuous Professional Development of PS teachers B
2.2.1.3 Continuous Professional Development of SS teachers B
2.2.1.4 Continuous Professional Development of AEP centres B
2.2.1.5 Continuous Professional Development of TVET lecturers B
2.2.2 Provide leadership and management training to school leaders (Head teachers &
Deputies)
2.2.2.1 ECD centres B
2.2.2.2 Primary School B
2.2.2.3 Secondary School B
2.3 Enhance Support to School Inspection and Support Supervision
2.3.1 Support School Inspection
2.3.1.1 ECD centres A
2.3.1.2 Primary School A

51
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Coverage
# Activity Description
Target
2.3.1.3 Secondary School A
2.3.2 Strengthen Support Supervision
2.3.2.1 ECD A
2.3.2.2 Primary School A
2.3.2.3 Secondary School A
2.4 Provision of Adequate Supply of Relevant Teaching and Learning Materials
2.4.1 Supply of textbooks, teacher’s guides, caregiver’s guide, curriculum books etc.
2.4.1.1 ECD Learning Framework, caregiver’s guide A
2.4.1.2 Teachers guide, curriculum books etc. to Primary School A
2.4.1.3 Teachers guide, curriculum books etc. to Secondary School A
2.4.1.4 Teachers guide, curriculum books etc. to AEP Centres A
2.4.1.5 Learner Textbook (Primary School) A
2.4.1.6 Learner Textbook (Secondary School) B
2.4.1.7 Learner Textbook (AEP centres) A
2.4.2 Provision of teaching and learning materials for life skills and vocational skills
training
2.4.2.1 Materials for life skills training A
2.4.2.2 Materials for TVET (including VTI based non-formal vocational training) A
2.4.2.3 Materials for Non formal vocational skills training (outside VTIs) A
2.4.3 Review and update 'Assessment and Training Package for Skills Training' (for
Vocational Skills training)
2.4.3.1 Review and update 'Assessment and Training Package for Skills Training' B
2.5 Improve pedagogy and Pilot innovations
2.5.1 Develop bridging program for refugee learners (a programme to re- oriented
refugee learners into Ugandan education system, curricula, language of
instruction, examination system etc.)
2.5.1.1 Primary School A
2.5.1.2 Secondary School A
2.5.2 Expansion of the bridging program for refugee learners
2.5.2.1 Primary School B
2.5.2.2 Secondary School B
2.5.3 Pilot Early grade Reading and Numeracy
2.5.3.1 Piloting early grade reading and numeracy A
2.5.4 Promote access to learning materials through ICT innovations
2.5.4.1 Primary School C
2.5.4.2 Secondary School C
2.6 Support to school clubs and co-curricular activities
2.6.1 Provide materials for games and sports
2.6.1.1 Primary School B
2.6.1.2 Secondary School B
2.6.2 Support children clubs (MDD, debating, art, craft and life skills development)
2.6.2.1 Primary School B
2.6.2.2 Secondary School B
3.0 STRENGTHENED SYSTEM FOR EFFECTIVE DELIVERY
3.1 Advocate for a supportive policy and regulations
3.1.1 Exploring modalities for increasing the number of teachers in refugee hosting districts
3.1.1.1 Exploring modalities for increasing the number of teachers A
3.1.2 Support dissemination of guidelines on school feeding in the refugee settings
3.1.2.1 Support dissemination of guideline on school feeding in the refugee settings A
3.1.3 Support development of guidelines for harmonization of AEP programs
3.1.3.1 Support guidelines for harmonization of AEP programs A

52
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Coverage
# Activity Description
Target
3.1.4 Support development of refugee education policy aligned with ESSP and the White Paper
under review
3.1.4.1 Support refugee education policy A
3.1.5 Advocate for regulation and harmonization of terms and condition of service for teachers in
refugee hosting districts
3.1.5.1 Advocate for regulation and harmonization of terms and condition of service for
C
teachers in refugee hosting districts
3.2 Improved management and coordination of education services delivery by partners
3.2.1 Support for leadership and coordination of education service delivery at settlement, district
and national level. (Establish national and district coordination units in refugee hosting
districts)
3.2.1.1 Leadership and management support at district level A
3.2.2 Support MoES in management of refugee education response
3.2.2.1 Support MoES for management of response A
3.2.3 Increase capacity of refugee hosting districts to manage education response
3.2.3.1 Increase capacity of district education offices A
3.2.4 Support district/settlement level planning in refugee hosting districts
3.2.4.1 support district/settlement level planning in refugee hosting districts A
3.2.5 Increase capacity of education partners (e.g. INEE training to NGO partners)
3.2.5.1 Increase capacity of education partners B
3.3 Improved data, management and information systems for M&E
3.3.1 Develop a comprehensive education database incorporated in EMIS and integrated with
Inspectorate Information System at district and national level
3.3.1.1 Develop a comprehensive education database A
3.3.2 Establish a robust M&E system for the refugee and host community education response plan
3.3.2.1 Establish a M&E system A
3.3.3 Conduct research, studies and documentation: detailed baseline surveys, MLA, end line,
language assessment, documentation of learning etc. to inform implementation of the
response plan
3.3.3.1 Baseline survey A
3.3.3.2 Measuring Learning and Achievement (MLA) A
3.3.3.3 End line survey A
3.3.3.4 Language assessment B
3.3.3.5 Others (including documentation of learning etc.) C
3.3.4 Annual reviews linked to ESR to track progress and make reports
3.3.4.1 Annual review B
3.4 Increased Community Engagement on Education Issues (all levels)
3.4.1 Support establishment of Home Grown School Feeding from host communities
and refugees. (supply of basic kitchen utensils)
3.4.1.1 Primary School B
3.4.1.2 Secondary School B
3.4.1.3 Facilitate famers from the community to schools for school feeding programme B
3.4.2 Community sensitization and support to PTA, SMCs, CMCs, BOGs to conduct
monitoring of Home Grown School Feeding
3.4.2.1 Primary School B
3.4.2.2 Secondary School B
3.4.3 Support PTA, SMCs, CMCs, BOGs to conduct monitoring of school
3.4.3.1 ECD centres B
3.4.3.2 Primary School B
3.4.3.3 Secondary School B

53
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Coverage
# Activity Description
Target
3.4.4 Parents and Community sensitization on the value of education to strengthen
the enrolment and retention
3.4.4.1 ECD centres (Centre Management Committees) B
3.4.4.2 Primary School (School Management Committees) B
3.4.4.3 Secondary School (Board of Governance) B
3.4.5 Mapping of ECD centres offering Pre-Primary education
3.4.5.1 Mapping of ECD centres B
3.4.6 Parenting Education on Key Family Care Practices
3.4.6.1 Parenting Education on Key Family Care Practices A

54
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

ANNEX C: DETAILS OF THE COSTING MODEL

DESIGN OF COSTING MODEL
In order to understand the scale of support needed to provide access to quality education for the
refugees and host community children, a costing model was developed 1) to identify the number of
targets for each activity (including the targets for number of enrolment, teachers and infrastructures),
2) to estimate the cost for each activity per year for refugees and host communities, 3) to guide the
decision on realistic annual targets for PTR, PCR and GER to be set during the planning period.

The costing model was developed as a joint effort of the sub-committee of the ERP Task Team with
technical support from Ministry of Education and Sports, Save the Children UNICEF, UNHCR and
USAID. Additional information on the unit cost was provided by Education in Emergencies working
Group members with special contributions from Ministry of Education and Sports, Belgian Technical
Cooperation (BTC), East African Playground, Save the Children International, UNESCO, UNHCR,
UNICEF, War Child Canada, War Child Holland, WFP and Windle International Uganda among others.
All the activities together with the unit cost was reviewed by the EiE Working Group. The design of the
costing model was presented several times to the ERP Reference Group for review, guidance and
feedback prior to the presentation to the Ministry of Education, and the feedbacks from the
participants were reflected to the design of the costing model.

The following steps were taken to establish the costing model.

1. Clarify the number of target beneficiaries from refugee and host communities
2. Agree with all the activities in the education emergency response with partners
3. Prioritize all the activities by A, B and C
4. Identify and agree on the unit cost for each activity
5. Set the 3-year target for each decision making points (e.g. Gross Enrolment Rate, Pupil
Teacher Ratio, Pupil Classroom Ratio)
6. Identify the number of activities implemented for each of the activity based on the decision
making points
7. Finalize the Costing Options based on the total cost.

The costing model takes into consideration the expected refugee influx until 2019 and the population
growth in the refugee hosting communities. By applying the beneficiaries and indicators (GER, PTC,
PTR etc.) targeted for each year (with gradual shifting in target indicator across the 3 years, which are
set differently from refugees and host community), the total cost per activity was calculated. As the
education data (e.g. enrolment, teachers, and classrooms) was only available in the 8 out of the 12
refugee hosting districts, the plan applies the data for the 8 refugee hosting district as the current
status of representing the overall refugee hosting districts. Therefore, the target to be accomplished
by June 2021 is set as a target to be achieved by the 12 refugee hosting districts. However, further
situational analysis for each district is in need in the district level planning.

By applying these steps, a detailed cost estimate was established which allows revisions of costs and
targets on an annual basis taking the changes in the situation and the priorities into consideration.

The following assumptions were made to for developing the model.

• Overhead Cost embedded in the unit cost (+20%)
• VAT is not included in the unit cost
• Exchange Rate: 1 USD= 3650 UGX (UN Exchange rate as of Dec 2017)
• Double-shifting is incorporated in the target figures (10% of the total target schools in Year
1, 20% in Year 2, 30% in Year 3 is targeted to be double-shifted)

55
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

• The costing is based on the understanding that this is a rolling work plan, and the budget to
be reviewed each year
• The unit cost is used as a planning guide and actual cost will depend on individual
organization guidelines for costing funding proposals

Based on the target population and targets in enrolment, teachers, classrooms, textbooks and stances
set above, each activity (which was further broken down by different education levels) has been
identified with a numerical formula which calculates the costing for each year, based on the target
indicator set for each year. As the following example shows, the general idea of the numerical formula
is to multiply the number of Activities (which is identified by dividing the target indicator by the target
enrolment) to the Unit cost for each activity, which gives the estimated cost needed for the activity
for each year. The calculation is done for every activity, by settlement and non-settlement, and by
different education levels, as the unit cost varies for each education level. In this way, the estimated
beneficiaries for each activity is identified, together with total cost which is needed for each year.

All the activities are also tagged with the following information, so as to give costing summaries in
different dimensions.

• Coverage Target of the Activity: every activity is marked as either A, B and C.

• Programme Area: every activity is marked as either the following categories; ECD programme,
Primary School Programme, Secondary School Programme, Adolescents Programme
(including AEP, vocational and life skills training), System Strengthening.
• Activity Area: Every activity is marked as either the following categories; Infrastructure,
Materials, Teacher Salary, Teacher Training, Training to the Children, Strengthening Schools/
Parents/ Community Structures, System Strengthening (District), System Strengthening
(National), Piloting/ Innovations/ Materials Development.
Taking into consideration the scale of funding which is expected from the donor community and the
contribution from the Government of Uganda, the costing was calculated based on the following
coverage of the target activities and the coverage of the settlement and non-settlement:

• Coverage Target of the Activity: A:100%, B:80%, C:20%

• Coverage of the Settlement and Non-Settlement: Settlement: 100%, Non-settlement: 20%

56
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

ANNEX D: DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

Table 17: Breakdown of costing based on Programme and Activity Area for each year

57
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

Table 18: Breakdown of costing based on Activity for each year (detailed breakdown)

58
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

59
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

ANNEX E: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Background
The unprecedented mass influx of refugees into Uganda in since 2016 has put enormous pressure on
the country’s resources, in particular health and education services. More than two thirds of the
refugee population in Uganda is located in refugee settlements in the West Nile region. In the 5
districts in the West Nile there are almost a million refugees making up 32% of the population, while
in the Districts of Adjumani and Moyo refugees now make up well over half of the total population.
Refugees share all social services with the local host communities. The refugee hosting districts are
among the least developed districts in the country; and thus the additional refugee population is
putting a high strain on already meagre resources and services. In line with the Comprehensive
Refugee Response Framework (CRRF), which was adopted by the Government of Uganda in 2016,
there is need for coordinated education service delivery. This entails a paradigm shift from a mainly
humanitarian focus to development as well in ensuring a broader stakeholder involvement to address
these needs and ensure integrated service delivery.

In light of the need for additional support and resources, multiple education partners have worked
with the Government of Uganda to develop a rolling Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host
Communities (2018-2021). A steering committee is to be established to ensure efficient and effective
implementation of the Plan.

These ToRs are designed to guide the work of the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host
Community Steering Committee (henceforth, “Steering Committee).

1. Role of the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host

Community Steering Committee
The primary role of the Steering Committee is to provide strategic guidance and oversight of Uganda’s
education response plan for refugees and host communities (ERP). Reporting to the Minister of
Education & Sports, the main roles of the Steering Committee include:

1. Reviewing and approving the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host
Communities, and each subsequent update/revision of the rolling plan on an annual
basis
2. Ensuring transparency and accountability to Government of Uganda and its partners on
funds allocated towards the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host
Communities
3. Promoting and supporting resource mobilization and improved coordination of all actors
involved in the refugee response
4. Providing oversight and guidance to partners on the implementation of the response
plan to maintain compliance with identified priorities
5. Establishing and maintaining engagement with various stakeholders (government, local
government, NGOs etc.) including existing coordination structures, particularly the CRRF
and Education Development Partners, in the implementation of the response plan
6. Conducting periodic monitoring of implementation of the ERP, including commissioning
assessments, reviews and evaluations related to the plan and its implementation.

60
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

With representation from MoES Top Management, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning,
Ministry of Local Government, the Office of the Prime Minister as well as Education Development
Partners and civil society, the Steering Committee will make decisions in consultation with the
Minister of Education & Sports and the Ministry’s political leadership. An ERP Secretariat will support
the Steering Committee in implementing its role as stipulated above.

The Steering Committee will report to the Minister of Education and Sports on a quarterly basis.
Decisions made by the Steering Committee, in liaison with the political leadership, shall be
communicated through the appropriate channels by the Secretariat at the appropriate time.

The Steering Committee will operate within the broader coordination arrangements of Uganda’s
comprehensive refugee response through maintaining a close link to the CRRF Steering Group and by
ensuring that the respective Secretariats (CRRF and for the ERP) work closely together. Efforts shall be
made to make the steering committee meetings targeted and flexible to minimise additional
transactions costs.

2. Role of individual Steering Committee members

The role of the individual member of the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community
Steering Committee includes:

• understand the strategic implications and outcomes of initiatives being pursued through
the plan
• appreciate the significance of the plan for some or all major stakeholders and perhaps
represent their interests
• be genuinely interested in the initiative and the outcomes being pursued in the plan
• be an advocate for the plan’s outcomes
• have a broad understanding of project management issues and the approach being
adopted
• be committed to, and actively involved in pursuing the plans outcomes

In practice, this means the individual members should make every effort to represent the interests of
the results to be achieved through the ERP rather than to push for an individual institution’s or
agency’s interest:

• ensure the requirements of stakeholders are met by the plan’s outputs

• help balance conflicting priorities and resources
• provide guidance to implementers of the plan
• consider ideas and issues raised
• review the progress of the plan
• check adherence of activities to standards of best practice

61
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

3. General
3.1. Membership
The Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee shall be
comprised of a high level representative designated as follows on the list below. It will be expected
that the representatives of NGOs and the EDP representative will rotate on an annual basis. In
addition, it should be noted that the Steering Committee will draw on the inputs and insights from the
CRRF Steering Group.

1. Two co-chairs (MoES and EDP)

2. MoES Under-Secretary
3. Director, Basic & Secondary Education (MoES)
4. Director, Education Standards (MoES)
5. Director, Higher Education (MoES)
6. Commissioner Planning (MoES)
7. One representative, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
8. One representative, Ministry of Local Government
9. One representative, Office of the Prime Minister (CRRF Secretariat)
10. One representative, UNHCR
11. One representative, UNICEF
12. One representative, Education Development Partners (EDP)
13. One representative, international NGO implementing partner
14. One representative, refugee-led NGO implementing partner
15. Executive Director, Forum for Education NGOs in Uganda (FENU)

3.2. Co-Chairs
The Co-Chairs shall be the Permanent Secretary MoES alongside the chair of the Education
Development Partners. The co-chairs shall convene the Education Response Plan for Refugees and
Host Community Steering Committee meetings. Chairing of the meetings shall alternate between the
co-chairs.

If the designated Chair is not available, then the co-chair will be responsible for convening and
conducting that meeting. The Co-Chairs are responsible for informing each other as to the salient
points/decisions raised or agreed to at that meeting.

3.3. Secretariat
An ERP Secretariat will be set up in MoES whose role will include servicing the Steering Committee,
including drafting of the agenda items (on the instruction of the co-chairs). All Steering Committee
agenda items (with accompanying meeting papers) must be forwarded by the Co-chairs to the Steering
Committee members by C.O.B. five working days prior to the next scheduled meeting.
Members may raise an item under ‘Other Business’ if necessary and as time permits.

62
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

3.4. Minutes & Meeting Papers

The format of the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee
minutes shall be agreed in the first meeting.

The minutes of each Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee
meeting will be prepared by the Secretariat.

Full copies of the Minutes, including attachments, shall be provided to all Education Response Plan for
Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee members no later than 7 working days following
each meeting.

Minutes will be shared with the Education in Emergencies working group within the Inter-agency
structure through the national level co-leads, and with the Education Sector Consultative Committee
and EDP group, no later than 14 working days following each meeting. Minutes will also be shared
with the CRRF Secretariat to allow the Secretariat to pursue cross-sectorial linkages.

By agreement of the Steering Committee, out-of-session decisions will be deemed acceptable. Where
agreed, all out-of-session decisions shall be recorded in the minutes of the next scheduled Education
Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee meeting.

The Minutes of each Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee
meeting will be monitored and maintained by the Secretariat as a complete record.

On a quarterly basis, a report on progress against implementation of the Education Response Plan for
Refugees and Host Communities shall be submitted to the political leadership of the Ministry of
Education & Sports.

3.5. Frequency of Meetings

The Steering Committee shall convene meetings as required with an expectation of a minimum of one
meeting per quarter. It is expected that the meetings will be more frequent in the early stages of the
support while the plan, implementation plans, M&E framework and other project documents need
approval. A meeting schedule will be developed and agreed on an annual basis by the committee.

Due to the humanitarian nature of the plan, where urgent, decisions may be made out-of-session this
will be by the co-chairs calling for an extraordinary meeting. In these situations, quorums for
agreement will still be observed.

3.6. Proxies to Members

Members of the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee shall
nominate a designated proxy to attend a meeting if the member is unable to attend. It is important
that this proxy is the same person over time.

The Chair will be informed of the substitution at least 2 working days prior to the scheduled nominated
meeting.

63
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

The nominated proxy shall have voting rights at the attended meeting. The nominated proxy shall
provide relevant comments/feedback, of the Steering Committee member they are representing, to
the attended meeting.

3.7. Quorum Requirements

A minimum of 50% of Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Community Steering Committee
members (8 out of 15) is required for the meeting to be recognised as an authorised meeting for the
recommendations or resolutions to be valid. The quorum must contain at least both of the co-chairs
or designated proxies.

64
Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host Communities in Uganda

66