Mid-term evaluation of the “Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities” Project

Background  
This study intends to document the project practices, including successes and challenges, developed on the course of the implementation of the above-mentioned Save the Children project in 6 selected districts of Albania throughout the last 7 years (2004-20010). Furthermore the study is intended to come out with important recommendations for insertion of additional key elements/actors/ideas missing or inadequately highlighted during project implementation. One of main users of this study will be the MoES and the REAs which would have a tool of replicating the model in new areas where experience and expertise in Inclusive Education practices with a focus on CWD is either missing or at an embryonic phase.
  
Purpose/objective  
1. Document how the IE model with a focus on CWD has been established at different stages of project implementation and how it is enriched with new elements; by associating those adjustments with explanations/justifications why those were needed.
2. Document the involvement of different actors; describe their roles and responsibilities in this project (parents, teachers, education specialists, psychologists, social workers, health specialists etc).  Describe the necessity of their involvement in accordance with IE principles.
3. Bring the perspective of teachers (mainly those in project schools but compare with those who have not exposed to the IE concept) on what their role is and/or can be in achieving success.
4. Bring the perspective of parents on what their role is and/or can be in achieving success. How much they feel involved in education of CWD? Ways for improvement?
5. Bring out the main successes and challenges of the project throughout the years. Explain how those derive from the existing education legislation and MOES strategy. Bring recommendations on what changes are needed in the legislation (Education law and by laws) based on the project experience."  

Methodology  
The methodology adopted entails a two-fold analysis. The first one is a Process Based Analysis geared towards understanding how the programme operates and how it produces its outcomes thus enabling the programme’s replication in other Albanian regions or elsewhere..
The second type is an Outcome Based Analysis that by using a beneficiary and partner perspective highlights the program’s main outcomes and assigns each of them appropriate indicators realizing in this way the programme’s impact on individual beneficiaries and key partners. During the field investigation phase the consultant will be based in the 6 cities where project has been implemented, Tirana, Berati, Librazhdi, Vlora, Gjirokastra, Korca.                         
Key findings  
1. The vast majority of closely targeted children - students with disabilities and special education needs – and schools benefiting from these SCiA interventions are positively affected in many ways. Major developmental progress is reported in students’ educational and behavioral performance while teachers’ skills are enhanced in the delivery of traditional classes and subjects as well as additional extra-curricular activities employing newly introduced methods. Furthermore, the schools are sensitized on issues such as disability rights and inclusive approaches to education and schools’ administrations performed better due to training tailored for principles’ needs as well as the introduction of a whole-school approach.
2. Despite ‘capacity building’ generally being non-exhaustive in nature, SCiA’s investment in this important component of project delivery is largely perceived as satisfying the needs of teachers and other school staff. The combination of conventional training workshops with experience-sharing activities and on-the-job mentoring by key project staff is often referred to as rewarding by the respondents. In a number of cases, schools (staff) highlight the need for ‘training of parents’ as an important activity not sufficiently planned about and/or implemented.
3. Both schools and parents refer to the due importance given by project staff to ‘attending closely’ schools’ and students’ progress. This, to them, is a distinct feature of SCiA’s support as opposed to other organizations. However, the same report for a scarcity of interest from the education authorities. It seems as SCiA has often made efforts to involve key national and regional education authorities in its project monitoring activities yet these efforts have not been either sufficient, or simply not consistent throughout the years and areas of implementation.
4. SCiA’s interventions in disability and inclusive education have been largely sustainable aiming at taking a holistic approach to the targeted issues. Nevertheless, in some cases the activities have had a lesser impact due to insufficient back up of advocacy at national or local levels. The case of Librazhd where historical enthusiasm towards inclusive education or even disability was seen to gradually fade away sheds light into an often not well-coordinated support to the initiatives by all actors, much so in a case of oft-changing heads (and stances) of local education authorities.
  
Recommendations  
"1. SCiA should scale-up advocacy efforts focusing both on the implementation of existing legislation favorable to disability and inclusive education as well as design of new legislation based on the proved successes and best practices to date as documented by these pilot project interventions. The persisting needs of schools and students with special education needs are another major drive in this direction.
2. In order to support advocacy, SCiA should continue to maintain some practical support at project level in selected, or, funding-permitted, historical areas of implementation. That would support sustainability which has proven to be fragile, as seen in the case of Librazhd or Gjirokastra. There are at least two promising directions in this respect: 1. Supporting the ‘support teachers’ model wherever in crisis or in need to be enforced and, 2. continuing to support the newly created multi-disciplinary ‘commissions for the determination of SEN/disability support’.
3. Joint education authority-SCiA monitoring of project interventions and valorization of best practices is an area of work which SCiA needs to plan for and implement better. This relates more to the involvement of national level authorities and agencies such as the NIPE (I.K.A.P.) and IED (I.Zh.A.) but obviously to the strengthening of collaboration with the REDs and EOs too.
  
Comments from the organization, if any