Generation of Knowledge and Capacity-Building of Managers and Public Resources Operator’S Partners and of Councilors for Social Control (BR0041)

to enhance capacity-building actions for corporate extension of the National Fund for Education Development (FNDE). This commitment aims at fostering the continuous performance improvement of processes for managing and executing public resources for education, as well as at strengthening its social control, thus enhancing the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of educational policies. The Institute “Train for School”, unit responsible for the development and strengthening of the educational actions of the FNDE, especially corporative actions and the ones related to the areas of management and financing of educational policies, shall be established.

Commitment 1.5 Generation of knowledge and capacity-building of managers and public resources operator’s partners and of councilors for social control

Commitment Text: To enhance capacity-building actions for corporate extension of the National Fund for Education Development (FNDE). This commitment aims at fostering the continuous performance improvement of processes for managing and executing public resources for education, as well as at strengthening its social control, thus enhancing the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of educational policies. The Institute “Train for School,” unit responsible for the development and strengthening of the educational actions of the FNDE, especially corporative actions and the ones related to the areas of management and financing of educational policies, shall be established.  

Responsible institution: Ministry of Education

Supporting institution: None

Start date: Not specified                          End date: 15 March 2015

Commitment aim

As stated in the text above, this commitment intended to strengthen the capacity of government officials and civil society members to oversee the use of national education funds. The government planned to complete this objective by: (1) Continuing training activities through the already-existing Training for School Program, and (2) Creating a “Train for School” Institute (Instituto Formar para a Escola) to expand the trainings.

Status

Midterm: Substantial

The commitment was substantially completed. The government created an advisory group for education to work alongside UNESCO, and installed fiber optics communications to connect state secretaries of education. These tasks, though not explicitly mentioned in the commitment text, were relevant to its goal of capacity-building. By providing Internet access to state secretaries and school councils, they could now access basic tools (e.g., budget monitoring) to perform their roles, whereas previously, they could not.

The Training for School Program — a government program that predated the action plan — trained over 5,000 public education administrators and experts in person, as well as tens of thousands of others (including citizens) online on issues such as basic education, school transportation, student nutrition, and social oversight.^{[Note 4: National Fund for Education Development (FNDE), Statistical data 2015, http://goo.gl/NTYN3f.]} Nonetheless, while the government carried out social oversight training as required by the commitment, it did not create a stand-alone “Train for School” Institute to expand the trainings as planned.

End of term: Substantial

The IRM researched found no additional progress on this commitment since the midterm review. According to its self-assessment, the government decided not to implement the “Train for School” Institute after assessing its “viability and realigning the strategic planning of FNDE [National Fund for Education Development].”^{[Note 5: OGP, Final Assessment Report – Second National Action Plan, October 2016, http://bit.ly/2f1BTQ5.]}

Did it open government?

Access to information: Did not change

Civic participation: Did not change

Public accountability: Did not change

A 2013 analysis in the Public Education Magazine (Revista Escola Pública) pointed out that the poor management of educational resources was associated with the low quality of social oversight.^{[Note 6: Filipe Jahn, “Dentro do Fundeb,” Revista Escola Pública 2013, http://bit.ly/2fdHwIQ. ]} To help overcome this issue, the government trained public administrators and citizens on how to provide better social oversight of public resources in education. Although a new agency (“Train for School” Institute) was proposed, no new activities were included in the commitment, as trainings on social oversight in education were already being carried out by the Training for School Program prior to the OGP action plan. For this reason, the commitment was assigned no potential impact at the midterm assessment.

By the end of the action plan, the government had trained thousands of people through the Training for School Program on how to better hold the government accountable on issues ranging from the management of funds for school transportation to access to information requests. The commitment did not change government behavior, though, since the Training for School Program pre-existed the action plan. Enrollment data actually show a decline in the number of people enrolled in the program from 2012 onwards.^{[Note 7: For more on the Training for School Program, see FNDE, http://www.fnde.gov.br/programas/formacao-pela-escola. ]} While the total number of people trained by the government increased during the period of the action plan, the number trained each year decreased. According to the government, this was because no new classes were opened, as resources shifted to the development of a new course.^{[Note 8: OGP, Final Assessment Report – Second National Action Plan, October 2016, http://bit.ly/2f1BTQ5.}

] In this sense, the social oversight trainings were not expanded, and the “Train for School” Institute, which was supposed to expand the trainings, was not established.

Carried forward?

The commitment was not carried over to the next action plan. If carried forward in the future, the IRM researcher suggests evaluating whether the training improves public oversight, and including the larger school community in the training.