© SMARTEDGE What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? A SNAPSHOT BASED ON THE GLOBAL EDUCATION POLICY DASHBOARD 2024 © 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Contents 3 Acknowledgements 4 The EdoBEST reforms and the Introduction:  need to identify the drivers of learning 7 Methodology 10 of the dashboard An overview  11 Indicatorson Practices Teaching 12 Learners 13 School Management 14 Inputs and infrastructure 16 19 Policy Indicators Teaching policies 20 School ManagementPolicies 21 Inputs andinfrastructure 22 Learners 23 De jure and the factodifferences 23 25 Capacity Indicators Political and Bureaucratic  Characteristicsof the Bureaucracy 25 Impartial decision-making 26 Mandates& Accountability 26 State-levellearning goals 26 Differences between localand state level authorities 27 28 and takeaways Conclusions  3 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Acknowledgements T his report was written by Martín De Simone (Education Specialist) under the guidance of Scherezad Latif (Practice Manager). The information presented is the product of the implementation of the Global Education Policy Dashboard (GEPD) in Edo State, led by Sergio Venegas Marín and Halsey Rogers. The team also included Emma Catherine Lambert-Porter and Brian William Stacy. Special thanks go to Wuraola Mosuro, a key member of the EdoBESST team from the World Bank side, and Eliot Jolomi Dikoru, who supported the field implementation and led the policy survey. Federico Manolio also provided coordination support with the monitoring and evaluation team from the delivery team. The report and the implementation of the GEPD were possible thanks to the commitment of the government of Edo State, especially the Executive Governor, Godwin Obaseki; the Honorable Commissioner of Education, Dr. Joan Osa Oviawe; and the Chairperson of the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB), Mrs. Eyitayo Ozavize Salami. Similarly, the Secretary of SUBEB, Imuentinyan Akin-Omoyajowo, coordinated the implementation of the dashboard from the government side, along with Ruth Aliu, the focal person for the Accelerator Program. Additionally, we acknowledge Dele Salami, the Project Coordinator of EdoBESST, and the rest of the delivery team for their unwavering commitment and support throughout the project. This report would not have been possible without the collective efforts and dedication of all these individuals and teams. 4 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Introduction: The EdoBEST reforms and the need to identify the drivers of learning W hat are the main drivers of learning in basic education? How can policymakers effectively enhance learning outcomes for all children? What actions should be prioritized? These questions are at the center of policy discussions in countries interested in improving learning. However, a roadmap to guide these discussions is usually not available and countries “fly blind”. They see the budget that goes into education and (sometimes) the learning that students come out with, but they lack information on many of the crucial factors in between—the practices, policies, and politics—that drive those learning outcomes. The Global Education Policy Dashboard (GEPD) shines a light on those hidden drivers. This report summarizes the findings from the implementation of the GEPD in Edo state, Nigeria. The GEPD is a tool designed to measure the drivers of learning outcomes in basic education globally. By spotlighting where educational systems are deficient in providing quality education for all children, the GEPD identifies critical gaps between current practices and evidence-based strategies that effectively promote learning for all. It assists governments in setting priorities and tracking progress as they strive to close these gaps. The dashboard tracks progress across three key areas: practices (or service delivery), policies, and politics. Its indicators are both comprehensive, covering the most significant drivers of learning at scale, and focused, directing stakeholders’ attention to the most critical factors. The GEPD highlights gaps between what is proven to be effective in promoting learning and what is currently practiced in each system. It also provides a method for governments to track their progress in addressing these gaps. This tool enables countries -or subnational governments- to monitor how well they are improving learning and attainment for all children, ultimately contributing to better human capital outcomes. The structure of the GEPD is built on the conceptual framework of the World Development Report 2018. At its core are outcome indicators that capture the essence of learning for all, integrating learning with access. Surrounding these are indicators representing the four main school-level service-delivery factors, termed “practices”: prepared learners, capable teaching, appropriate inputs and infrastructure, and effective school management. 5 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Introduction: The EdoBEST reforms and the need to identify the drivers of learning FIGURE 1. Politics Policies Practices rs Lea he r c ne Tea rs Learning Shoo uts lm in p na l a ge oo men t Sch Source: World Bank, 2021a. Another set of indicators represents the policies that influence each of these areas, and the final set captures the political context and bureaucratic capacity of the system. Achieving sustained, system-wide improvement in learning likely depends on enhanced performance in these policy and politics domains. The GEPD thus provides a comprehensive, focused framework to help countries improve their educational systems and outcomes. The implementation of the dashboard in Edo state comes at a very critical moment. The government of Edo has been implementing a program since 2018 known as Edo Basic Education Sector Transformation (EdoBEST). While the reform is comprehensive, the main intervention is a tech- enabled structured pedagogy program. The reform was initially structured around three different questions: a) are the teachers in school? b) are the teachers teaching? and c) are the learners in schools? Thus, the initial phase of the reforms was focused on improving inputs and processes, including teachers’ attendance, the availability of teaching and learning materials, and the delivery of scripted lessons, including tracking in real-time the lesson pacing by the teachers. Since 2022, there has been a significant shift towards learning outcomes. This has been reflected in the Edo State Learning Agenda, launched in April 2023 with the support of the World Bank and the Accelerator Program (Edo State Government, 2023). This brought another question into the policy-making arena: are the learners learning? The learning agenda recognized that while the initial phase’s focus on inputs and processes was needed, it was not enough. The program had succeeded at creating a routine where teachers used lesson plans delivered via tablets and received coaching by teachers with high levels of fidelity. It was then time to focus on ensuring that real learning was happening in the classroom. 6 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Introduction: The EdoBEST reforms and the need to identify the drivers of learning Therefore, the new phase focused on measuring learning systematically and identifying what the drivers of learning were, in order to detect entry points to improve outcomes. Thus, the learning agenda determined specific learning targets -with a focus on early reading- and identified actions to improve the measurement of learning. This included the development and implementation of a learning assessment system and strategy supported by the World Bank, whose first round of implementation was a large-scale census-based learning assessment conducted in 2023, the first of its kind in Nigeria. The most recent evidence, highlighted in other reports, shows that, even though learning outcomes in Edo are low, they are improving as a consequence of the EdoBEST program. But what are the main avenues to increase learning even more? To answer this question, the learning agenda also committed to implementing the GEPD. 7 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Methodology T o generate comprehensive indicators of the drivers of learning system-wide, the GEPD utilizes three meticulously designed instruments.1 These tools were deployed to capture a holistic view of the educational landscape in Edo State, focusing on practices, policies, and the political context influencing education. The first instrument was a school survey conducted in October 2023. The school survey collects data primarily on practices (the quality of service delivery in schools), but also on some de facto policy indicators. It consists of streamlined versions of existing instruments—including Service Delivery Surveys on teachers and inputs/infrastructure, Teach on pedagogical practice, Global Early Child Development Database (GECDD) on school readiness of young children, and the Development World Management Survey (DWMS) on management quality—together with new questions to fill gaps in those instruments. Though the number of modules is similar to the full version of the Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) Survey, the number of items and the complexity of the questions within each module is significantly lower. The School Survey includes 8 short modules: School Information, Teacher Presence, Teacher Survey, Classroom Observation, Teacher Assessment, Early Learner Direct Assessment, School Management Survey, and 4th-grade Student Assessment. This survey covered 200 schools, carefully selected through a stratified random sampling method. This approach ensured a representative sample by selecting schools with probability proportional to their size and stratifying them by urban/rural classification. The survey aimed to capture diverse educational practices, challenges, and successes across Edo State by including a wide array of schools from different regions. The collected data provided valuable insights into the daily realities of schools, encompassing aspects such as teaching quality, school management, and student attendance. In each school, the survey sample consisted of a) the principal; b) five teachers (including at least one from Grade 4); c) one teacher from Grade 5; d) three students from Grade 1; d) one Grade 4 class. The survey was designed to be thorough yet efficient, with each session lasting approximately four hours per school. Two enumerators conducted the survey to ensure accuracy and consistency in data collection. The second instrument was a survey of public officials in Edo State, also conducted in October 2023, aimed to understand the perspectives of those in key educational and administrative roles. This survey collects information about the capacity and orientation of the bureaucracy, as well as political factors affecting education outcomes. This survey is a streamlined and education-focused version of the civil-servant surveys that the Bureaucracy Lab (a joint initiative of the World Bank’s 1 This section and the rest of the report rely heavily on the GEPD Technical Note, Reference Guide, and Implementation Brief. They can be found on the reference list. 8 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Methodology Governance Global Practice and the Development Impact Evaluation unit of the World Bank) has implemented in several countries. The survey includes questions about technical and leadership skills, work environment, stakeholder engagement, impartial decision-making, and attitudes and behaviors. The survey takes 30-45 minutes per public official and is used to interview education officials working at the central, regional, and district levels in each country. In Edo, it involved interviewing 152 public officials from various regions and levels of government. Officials were interviewed across three senatorial districts: Edo Central (29), Edo South (87), and Edo North (36), covering 18 Local Government Areas (LGAs). The survey focused on two main tiers of educational administration: the authorities from the Ministry of Education and SUBEB at the state level (46 officials) and Local Government Education Offices (106 officials). Public officials were randomly selected from different profiles to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the educational landscape. These profiles included heads of offices, planning specialists, school monitoring specialists, and relevant administrative specialists such as finance and human resources. Each interview lasted approximately 40-45 minutes and was based on open-ended questions. This approach allowed for detailed responses, providing valuable qualitative data on the challenges and opportunities within the educational system. By gathering insights from a diverse group of public officials, the survey offered a detailed view of the administrative and political factors affecting education in Edo State. The final instrument was a policy survey conducted in December 2023, focusing on a legislative and regulatory review. This survey collects information to feed into the politics indicators. This survey is filled out by key informants in each country, drawing on their knowledge to identify key elements of the policy framework. The survey includes questions on policies related to teachers, school management, inputs and infrastructure, and learners. This survey evaluated the existing educational policies and their effectiveness in promoting learning outcomes. By analyzing the policy environment, the GEPD aimed to identify gaps and areas for improvement in the legislative framework governing education in Edo State. While most dashboard indicators are derived from data collected using these instruments, the team also draws on existing data for a small number of indicators. In the case of Edo, most of the additional information comes from the Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey (MICS) from 2021. The analysis in report is sometimes contextualized with qualitative information, but to keep the report concise this was only done when the values of the indicators needed to be nuanced. Together, these instruments form a comprehensive and streamlined approach to understanding the drivers of learning. By integrating data from schools, public officials, and policy reviews, the GEPD offers a robust evidence base to inform educational reforms and enhance learning outcomes in Edo State. This multi-faceted approach ensures that the complexities of the educational system are captured, providing actionable insights for policymakers and stakeholders committed to improving education for all children. 9 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Methodology The GEPD uses a simple color-coded system to help stakeholders quickly understand the status of various educational indicators. This system uses three colors to represent different performance levels: 1. Red (Needs Improvement): This color is used for indicators that fall within the 0%-85% range or score between 1 and 3 points. It signifies that there are significant areas that need attention and improvement. 2. Yellow (Caution): Indicators that fall within the 85%-90% range or score between 3 and 4 points are marked with yellow. This color indicates that while the performance is approaching satisfactory levels, there is still room for improvement, and caution should be exercised. 3. Green (On Target): This color represents indicators within the 90%-100% range or scoring between 4 and 5 points. It indicates that the performance is on target and meets or exceeds expectations. This color-coded system simplifies the process of assessing and prioritizing areas that require immediate action, caution, or continued support to maintain high standards. Given that Edo has started measuring learning systematically, the goal of this report is to focus on the drivers of learning rather than the learning levels themselves. To understand learning levels, the readers can refer to the recently published report of the first round of the census-based learning assessment conducted in the state (Edo State Government, 2024). The rest of this document is organized along the main areas covered by the GEPD. The following section provides a brief overview of the dashboard. The subsequent sections are organized around the three key dimensions analyzed by the dashboard, including practices, policies (in both cases covering teachers, learners, school inputs, and school management), and politics. Finally, the report concludes with some key takeaways and recommendations to improve learning in Edo. 10 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? An overview of the dashboard The Global Education Policy Dashboard (GEPD) presents a mixed picture of Edo State’s educational system, highlighting clear strengths alongside areas needing further improvement. At the service delivery level, significant strengths include teachers’ presence and the operational management skills of school leaders. However, teachers’ content knowledge and the basic infrastructure of schools are identified as weak points. Additionally, students’ readiness for learning requires considerable improvement, with many necessary actions needing to occur before students enter the school system. At the policy level, functions related to school management, including selection, deployment, and evaluation, are identified as strengths. Conversely, there is room for improvement in monitoring, accountability, and policies related to teachers. Politically, the characteristics of the bureaucracy and the clarity of mandates are strong points, yet there is more room for improvement in decision-making processes and the monitoring of state-level goals. The following sections of this report will delve deeper into these areas, providing a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and opportunities for enhancing Edo State’s educational system. FIGURE 2. Characteristics of Bureaucracy Impartial Decision-Making Mandates & Accountability National Learning Goals Inputs & Infrastructure Learners Nutrition Programs Standards Basic Inputs Readiness for Learning Health Programs Monitoring Basic Infrastructure Student A endance Early Childhood Education Caregiver Skills Capacity Learning Caregiver Financial Capacity School Management Teaching Core School Functions Teachers' Skills A raction Operational Management Clarity of Functions Content Knowledge Selection & Deployment Instructional Leadership A raction Pedagogical Skills Support Selection & Deployment Managerial Skills Evaluation Support School Knowledge Monitoring & Accountability Teachers' Presence Evaluation Management Practices Intrinsic Motivation Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. 11 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicatorson Practices This section focuses on actual practices around four key domains: teaching, learners, school management, and inputs and infrastructure. In other words, the section aims to capture how the service delivery of education actually functions in Edo State, providing a comprehensive overview of the strengths and weaknesses within each domain. By examining these areas, the report aims to gain a deeper understanding of the day-to-day operations and effectiveness of the educational system. The image below illustrates the overall scores for each of these domains, highlighting where Edo State excels and where there is room for improvement. Indicator Name Mean Standard Lower Upper Variance N Error Bound Bound Practices Teaching Teacher Presence 93.8 0.8 92.2 95.4 0.7 1837 Teacher Content Knowledge 19.2 1.6 16 22.3 2.6 901 Teacher Pedagogical Skills 11.4 3 5.4 17.3 9 196 Inputs and infrastructure  Basic Inputs 3.8 0.1 3.7 3.9 0 198 Basic Infrastructure 1.2 0.1 1 1.3 0 200 Learners  Student Readiness 20 3.5 13.1 26.8 12.2 589 Student Attendance 79.3 2.6 74.2 84.3 6.5 199 School Management Operational Management 4.2 0.1 4.1 4.3 0 184 Instructional Leadership 3.4 0.1 3.3 3.5 0 886 Principal School Knowledge 3.2 0.2 2.9 3.6 0 200 Principal Management Skills 3.8 0.1 3.7 4 0 200 12 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicators on Practices Teaching A high 93.8% of teachers are present in the school during unannounced visits, showing strong attendance. The presence of teachers is equally strong in urban (93.9 percent) and rural (93.7 percent) areas. Furthermore, 89.5 percent of teachers are present in their classrooms, when they are scheduled to be teaching, during an announced visit. This is a high value that is consistent with administrative data from EdoBEST, which shows that teachers’ attendance has been improving over the years. It is worth noting that increasing teachers’ attendance has been one of the objectives of the government program and has been supported by a strong monitoring and evaluation system, which tracks attendance in real time using the headteachers’ tablets. However, only 19.2% of teachers are proficient in the content FIGURE 3. they teach, indicating a significant need for improvement. For Teacher Content Knowledge Proficiency by this indicator, teachers are considered proficient if the percentage Subject & Urban/Rural Status of correct answers on the teachers’ assessment is equal or higher than 80 percent. 23% of teachers were proficient in language while 19.6 Urban 15.5% of teachers were proficient in mathematics. Literacy scores Math + Literacy Rural combined are similar for urban and rural teachers, while for mathematics, 19.0 teachers in urban schools are slightly more proficient than teachers in rural schools (1.5 percentage points difference). 16.4 Overall, however, the difference in proficiency across areas is Math Subject small, and smaller than what has been seen in other countries. 15.0 These challenges are not unique to Edo state. Data from the SDI 22.7 conducted a decade ago found that only 3.7 percent of public- Literacy school teachers in Nigeria2 - met the minimum competency 23.2 benchmark. The contrast with other countries is enormous. For 0 20 40 60 80 100 instance, 40 percent of teachers reached the same competency Teacher Content Knowledge Proficiency benchmark in Kenya (Pimhidzai, 2015). Similarly, according to the 2019 Monitoring Learning Achievement (MLA) study (Federal Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. Ministry of Education, 2019), only 42 percent of teachers could correctly answer over 75 percent of the test items in primary mathematics, science, and English; 29.3 percent could correctly answer more than half but fewer than 75 percent of the assessment items, while 23.9 percent of teachers could answer more than one-fourth but fewer than half of the assessment items (Belay at al, 2024). The overall pedagogical skills of the teachers are also low, with only 11.4 percent demonstrating good pedagogical skills, although with important differences across subskills. To measure teachers’ pedagogical skills, the GEPD uses Teach, a World Bank-developed classroom observation tool. The tool captures (i) the time teachers spend teaching and the extent to which students are on task, and (ii) the quality of teaching practices that help develop students’ socioemotional and cognitive skills. 2 Defined as teachers scoring 80 percent in the SDI teacher assessment module. 13 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicators on Practices FIGURE 4. Teacher Content Knowledge Across Territories Urban Rural Urban Type Rural 0 40 80 120 Teacher Content Knowledge Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. Almost all teachers demonstrate good classroom culture practices (97.6 percent). This is consistent with the focus of the EdoBEST program on improving classroom management and with other data from administrative sources, including a recently constructed index of quality of teaching practices. The score is the same for male and female teachers and there are no significant differences between teachers in rural and urban areas. Other subskills, however, bring the overall score for pedagogical skills down. In particular, only 15.9 percent of teachers demonstrates good instruction practices, defined as a score of 3 or above on the Teach Instruction score. Differences across genders and between rural and urban areas are small and not significant. Good practices on socioemotional skills seem to be almost non-existent, which might bring light on areas where teacher training needs to be reinforced. Learners The students in 1st grade show relatively low readiness for learning, with only 20 percent having basic skills to succeed in primary school. This indicator measures the extent to which learners are prepared to learn, by assessing the cognitive and socioemotional skills they have when they first arrive at primary school. A short direct assessment is given to 3 randomly selected 1st-grade children in each school. Based on consultations with experts and psychometric analysis of Global Early Child Development Database (GECDD) and Measuring Early Learning Quality and Outcomes (MELQO) items, the GEPD team produced an assessment that includes a total of 16 exercises. These exercises include 7 for literacy, 5 for numeracy, 2 for executive function, and 2 for socioemotional. The threshold for the students to be considered proficient is also 80 percent. The levels of proficiency vary across subjects. The knowledge scores (the percentage of correct answers) are 88.6 percent for numeracy, 64.6 percent for literacy, 52.2 percent for executive function 14 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicators on Practices and 50.7 percent for socioemotional skills. The readiness for FIGURE 5. learning is much higher in urban schools (28.3 percent) than in Knowledge scores for 1st graders rural schools (16 percent). This correlates, among other things, 100 with the levels of parental education found in rural areas versus 88.6 urban areas. 90 80 Percentage of correct answers Student’s attendance was 79.3 percent, with significant room for 70 64.6 improvements. More precisely, this is the percentage of students 60 who are present in their classroom during an unannounced visit. 52.2 50.7 50 During the school survey visit, an enumerator visits a randomly selected 4th-grade class and calculates the share of students 40 present by comparing the number of children present to the 30 number of children on the roster. Student attendance seems to 20 be slightly higher in rural areas (80 percent) than in urban areas 10 (77 percent). This is one of the few indicators for which rural areas 0 seem to perform better than urban one, although the difference Numeracy Literacy Executive Socioemotional Function Skills is not statistically significant. Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. SchoolManagement FIGURE 6. Instructional leadership Edo scores a relatively high value of 4.2 out of 5 for operational 99.7 management functions. The value is higher for urban schools 100 (4.5) than for rural schools (4.1). In both cases, they are on target. 90 86.6 85.8 The aim of this indicator is to measure whether core operational 80 management functions are carried out for each school, regardless 70 Perentage of teachers of whether there is a school principal. The indicator measures 60 two things: presence of functions and quality of functions (in 50 terms of whether they are carried out in a timely manner). This is 40 an indicator adapted from the Development World Management 30 28.2 Survey. The School Management module of the School Survey, 20 which is directed to the principal, head teacher, or most senior 10 teacher includes 2 vignettes describing hypothetical scenarios 0 related to (i) infrastructure repair/maintenance, and (ii) school Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers material availability. Other core functions – like teacher hiring, observed who discuss who receive who discuss results feedback lessons plans supervision, and training – are being captured through other indicators. Each vignette has 4-6 questions asking how the Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. function would be handle or if handled at all. The score for instructional leadership is a bit lower, at 3.4 out of 5, positioning Edo in the yellow category. The value is almost the same for urban areas (3.4) and rural ones (3.5). This indicator measures the availability and quality of instructional leadership (or coaching) at each school, regardless of who is providing it. As part of the School Survey, the Teacher module inquiries about the teachers’ experience with classroom observations, pedagogical feedback, and support. For 15 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicators on Practices example, questions include: a) Has your classroom ever been observed? b) What was the purpose of the classroom observation? c) After the observation, did you have a meeting to discuss the results of your observation? d) If yes, how long did it last? e) Did s/he provide you any feedback? Think about last week at school – did you have written lesson plans for last week? f) Did you discuss the lesson plans for that week with anyone before teaching them? If yes, with whom? However, the disaggregation of this indicator shows an important caveat that indicates that instructional leadership is stronger than what the score might show. The data shows that almost all teachers (99.7 percent) are observed by coaches in the classroom, 86.6 percent discuss results with the coaches and 85.8 percent receive specific feedback. The reason for the indicator to show as yellow instead of green is that only 28.2 percent report discussing lesson plans. This, however, aligns to the design of the program. In Edo, the lesson plans are standardized, and the teachers do not produce them themselves, so it is not expected that they will discuss them with the coaches, who are known as learning and development officers in Edo. Edo scores 3.2 out of 5 on the school knowledge indicator. Urban schools score slightly higher (3.4) than rural schools (3.2). This indicator measures the extent to which principals have sufficient knowledge about their own schools to be effective managers. To measure this indicator, there are 7 questions in the School Management module of the School Survey inquiring about some key indicators that are being collected through the other modules of the school survey. The questionnaire gauges principals’ basic knowledge of their own school. Principals’ knowledge is scored based on how close each principal’s answer is to the actual figure for his or her school (as derived from the school survey data). Again, qualitative information highlights the need to interpret this indicator with caution, and understand the value as a minimum, with the reality being that school management is slightly better than shown by the indicator. The disaggregation of the indicator shows that only 72.3 percent of headteachers are familiar with the availability of classroom inputs. In particular, principals overestimate the number of pupils in Grade 4 with textbooks. However, qualitative interviews shows that this is likely because of the design of EdoBEST. The question in the survey states “In the selected 4th-grade classroom, how many of the pupils have the relevant textbooks?”. While many headteachers might be interpreting this accurately, some other might be responding with respect to the target the program has, which is one textbook every three students. This target was decided as part of the design of the program given the very low availability of inputs in the baseline, and most teachers seem to be familiar with it. However, headteachers also overestimate the content knowledge of teachers. Only 68.2 percent of headteachers were familiar with the level of content knowledge shown by teachers in their school. This overestimation suggests a disconnect between perceived and actual teacher capabilities, which can hinder effective educational planning and intervention. Addressing this gap requires comprehensive assessment and professional development programs to ensure teachers have a realistic understanding of their own proficiency and areas for improvement. 16 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicators on Practices For management skills, Edo scores 3.8 out of 5. Urban schools, FIGURE 7. however, are in the green area (4.1) while rural schools are in the Principals’ awareness of teachers content yellow one (3.7). The indicator measures the extent to which knowledge principals have core managerial skills (such as problem-solving in the short-term, and goal-setting in the long-term) that will Share of principals correctly guessed the (%) of teacher who answered correctly to three assessment tasks enable them to be better school leaders. For this indicator, the principal (if the school has one) is asked a series of questions as part of the School Management module of the School Survey. The Add triple digit 0.805263 quantitative and qualitative responses gathered through these questions are then scored according to a rubric to combine them into a single score. Multiply double digit 0.7 The disaggregation of this indicator shows that headteachers are better at solving short term issues than planning for the long Complete term. The score of problem solving in the short term is 4.2 out of 0.677249 a sentence 5, while the one for goal setting in the long term is 3.4 out of 5. For problem-solving, there are 3 questions related to a hypothetical 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 scenario. These questions use root-cause analysis to analyze how the principal would react to a given situation. For goal setting, the Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. principal is asked a series of questions about the goals that he/ she has set for the given academic year. Inputs and infrastructure The score for the availability of basic inputs found in a typical school is 3.8 out of 5. Urban schools score better (4) and are positioned in the green area, while rural schools are in the yellow area (3.8). However, the differences between urban and rural schools are less pronounced than for other education systems that have been analyzed with similar tools. This indicator measures the availability of basic inputs in the average school. These inputs, based on the literature and general expectations, are (i) functioning blackboard and chalk, (ii) pens, pencils, and exercise books in 4th-grade classrooms, (iii) textbooks, (iv) basic classroom furniture, and (v) access to information and communication technologies. For each of the elements included in this indicator, the questions go beyond basic availability to better capture the actual user experience. The disaggregation shows that the score would have been much better if it weren’t for the relatively low availability of textbooks. Only 45 percent of schools seem to have adequate textbook availability, defined as at least 90 percent of the students having at least one textbook. As mentioned above, this is related to the design of the program, which currently stipulates one textbook for every three students. This can pinpoint a clear area for improvement going forward. 17 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicators on Practices FIGURE 8. Input Across Urban/Rural 0.8 Type Urban Rural 0.6 Density 0.4 0.2 0.0 2 3 Input Index 4 5 Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. The availability of other basic inputs is FIGURE 9. ubiquitous. Almost all schools (99.7 percent) Availability of basic inputs have functional edtech resources. This is 99.7 expected given that the EdoBEST program 100 94 94 93.4 utilizes tablets to deliver the scripted lessons to 90 the teachers. These tablets track time spent on 80 each lesson in real time and are also utilized to measure students’ and teachers’ attendance. 70 A very large percentage of classrooms have 60 adequate furniture (93.4 percent), blackboards Percentage 50 45 (94 percent), and pencils (94 percent). 40 30 The availability of basic infrastructure in 20 schools shows a score of 1.2 out of 5, and is 10 the worst performing indicator in Edo. The infrastructure aspects included, based on 0 EdTech Pencils Blackboard Furniture Textbooks the literature and general expectations, are availability of (i) drinking water, (ii) functioning Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. toilets, (iii) electricity, (iv) internet connectivity, and (v) accessibility for people with disabilities. 18 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Indicators on Practices FIGURE 10. Infrastructure in Urban/Rural Areas 0.6 Type Urban Rural 0.4 Density 0.2 0.0 1 2 3 4 Infrastructure Index Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. The disaggregation shows a reality that is common in schools across Nigeria, with very low availability of functioning toilets (12.8 percent) and access to electricity (13.5 percent). Access to drinking water is only available for 19.1 percent of schools and internet is available in 23.9 percent of them. The score is slightly better for the percentage of schools with special facilities for access to children with special needs (46.6 percent). As expected, the infrastructure in urban schools is slightly better than in rural schools (1.4 versus 1.1 out of 5). Schools in rural areas are less likely to have access to drinking water (15.7% compared to 28.6%), electricity (11.2% compared to 19.9%), and functioning toilets (9.7% compared to 21.5%) FIGURE 11. Availability of basic infrastructure 50 46.6 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25 23.9 19.1 20 15 12.8 13.5 10 5 0 Functioning Access to Drinking Access to School access toilets electricity water internet to children with special needs Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. 19 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? PolicyIndicators This section focuses policies around four key domains: teaching, learners, school management, and inputs and infrastructure. The analysis takes into consideration both de facto and de jure policies. Indicator Name Mean Standard Lower Upper Variance N Error Bound Bound Policies  Teaching  Attraction 3.5 0 3.4 3.5 0 884 Selection & Deployment 3.7 0.1 3.5 3.8 0 886 Support 3.2 0.1 3.1 3.4 0 886 Evaluation 4.3 0 4.2 4.3 0 886 Monitoring & Accountability 2.9 0.1 2.8 3 0 847 Intrinsic Motivation 4 0 3.9 4 0 877 Inputs and infrastructure  Standards 4 0.1 3.8 4.2 0 200 Monitoring 2.8 0.1 2.6 3 0 200 Learners Nutrition Programs 3.4 1 Health 2.2 1 Early Childhood Educaation 3.6 1 Caregiver Capacity – Financial Capacity 2.1 1 Caregiver Capacity – Skills Capacity 2.8 1 School Management  Clarity of Functions 4.7 0.1 4.6 4.9 0 200 Attraction 2.5 0 2.4 2.6 0 200 Selection & Deployment 4.6 0 4.6 4.7 0 200 Support 3.8 0.1 3.7 4 0 200 Evaluation 4.7 0.1 4.6 4.8 0 200 20 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Policy Indicators Teachingpolicies Edo scores 3.5 out of 5 in terms of attraction to the teaching profession, a lever that measures whether teaching is an attractive profession with good salary and benefits (compared to potential alternatives), good working conditions, respect from society, and opportunities for career progression. There are 8 questions being used to calculate this indicator. They are part of the Policy Survey (de jure) and Teacher Questionnaire module in the School Survey (de facto). The questions are related to teachers’ salaries, jobs satisfaction and status, career paths, and performance-based incentives. While the status of the teaching professions is not low, the results seem to be driven by the lack of performance-based incentives. 79.3% of teachers feel respected in their communities. 82.8% are satisfied with their jobs. Only 27.3% perceive promotions as being meritocratic and 19.8% receive bonuses. It is worth mentioning that the state is now designing a performance-based system for career progression, but it has not yet implemented it. The state’s score is 3.7 in terms of selection and deployment, suggesting fairly good practices in hiring and placing teachers, but with significant room for improvements. The lever measures the extent to which there is a meritocratic system for recruiting teachers—specifically, whether that system takes into account content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and other relevant characteristics in making hiring and deployment decisions. The score for support available to teachers is 3.2, proxied by the availability and quality of pre-service and in-service training opportunities. 14 questions are utilized to construct this indicator, which are asked in the Policy Survey (de jure) and School Survey (de facto). The score is much better for evaluation (4.3 out of 5), one of the strengths in terms of teaching policies. This lever measures whether there is a teacher evaluation system in place, and if so, what types of decisions are made based on the evaluation results. There are 10 questions that are part of this indicator. These cover the existence of a public authority that evaluates teachers, defined performance standards, criteria for evaluation performance, and consequences for negative/ positive evaluations. They are asked in the Policy Survey and School Survey (as part of the Teacher Questionnaire module). The questions combine de facto and de jure information. The other area of strength is in terms of teachers’ intrinsic motivation, with a score of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5. This lever assesses whether teachers are intrinsically motivated to teach. The questions address this phenomenon by measuring the level of intrinsic motivation among teachers and also asking about teacher values that may be relevant for ensuring that the teacher is motivated to focus on the learning of all children, and not just some. To calculate this indicator, 12 questions were posed to teachers through the Teacher Questionnaire in the School Survey, and 1 additional question was collected through the Policy Survey. These questions capture teacher views on absenteeism, preferential treatment to certain children, growth mindset, teacher’s primary reasons for becoming a teacher, and the existence of probationary periods to allow those who do not like the profession to exit if needed. 21 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Policy Indicators On the contrary, the score for monitoring and accountability is the lowest in terms of teaching policies, with only 2.9 out of 5. This lever measures the extent to which teacher presence is being monitored, whether attendance is rewarded, and whether there are consequences for chronic absence. The 5 questions that are part of this indicator cover the collection of data on absences, incentives for being present, reasons for being absent, and consequences for being frequently absent. The low score for monitoring and accountability is mostly due to the fact that, despite the strong monitoring system to track teachers’ attendance, there are no perceived strong consequences for those who are absent or positive rewards for those who are present. On a scale of 1 to 5, teachers rated their monetary compensation for being present at a low 1.2, indicating minimal financial incentives for attendance. Additionally, 47.6% of teachers reported that there are consequences for being absent 40% of the time, suggesting that nearly half of the teachers perceive some form of accountability for their attendance. However, 19.9% of teachers admitted to being absent due to administrative processes, highlighting a systemic issue that needs to be addressed to improve overall attendance and effectiveness. School ManagementPolicies Overall, the indicators related to policies governing school management seem to show a better performance than teaching indicators. The clarity of function implementation for school management is strong (4.7 on a scale of 1 to 5). This policy lever captures whether the core operational management and instructional leadership functions to be carried out in schools are articulated and allocated in legislation or existing policy frameworks. The evaluation of principals is also strong (4.7). This policy lever measures the extent to which principal performance is being monitored and supported through accountability measures. The indicator is based on 1) there is legislation outlining the need to monitor, 2) principals being evaluated, 3) principals being evaluated on multiple things, and 4) there are accountability mechanisms in place. Similarly, the selection and deployment policies of school management is solid (4.6). This policy lever measures whether the right candidates are being selected to become principals. These questions probe whether the recruitment process is set up to ensure that the most qualified individuals get the positions. The indicator is based on whether: 1) there is a standard approach for selecting principals, 2) that approach relies on professional/academic requirements, and 3) those requirements are common in practice. The GEPD shows the need for caution when it comes to supporting school principals, which shows a score of 3.8. This policy lever measures the extent to which principals receive training and/or exposure to other professional opportunities that could help them be better school leaders. The questions assess whether such programs are provided, and if they are, at what level of quality. 22 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Policy Indicators The disaggregation of this indicator shows that while management FIGURE 12. training is common, in-service training for principals is weak. Support to headteachers School principals in Edo State demonstrate a strong foundation 100 in formal training, with 89.6% having received formal education in 89.6 school leadership. Among new principals, 82.6% have participated 90 82.6 in management training, equipping them with the necessary skills 80 to lead effectively. However, only 28.9% of principals have received 70 in-service training over the past year, highlighting an area for 60 Percentage potential improvement in continuous professional development. 50 Additionally, just 20% of principals have received mentoring or 40 coaching from experienced peers, suggesting a need for more 28.9 30 structured support and guidance to enhance their leadership 20 20 capabilities and improve school management practices. 10 Contrarily, attraction of headteachers tends to be weak, with a 0 Received Management In-Service Received score of only 2.5 out of 5. This policy lever measures whether the formal training Training mentoring/ training (new coaching from right candidates are being attracted to the profession of school principals) experienced principals principals. The questions capture the provision of benefits to attract and maintain the best people to serve as principals, as Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. well as the level of satisfaction that principals experience with their jobs and within their community. The average head teacher salary is 22 percent of the GDP per capita. 94 percent of headteachers indicate that they are satisfied with their community social status. Inputs andinfrastructure The policy framework for standards scores a solid 4 out of 5, indicating that there are strong guidelines and benchmarks in place for what inputs and infrastructure need to be available at every school. In Nigeria, these standards are usually determined at the federal level through the Universal Basic Education Commission Minimum Standards for Basic Education, which include infrastructure standards (UBEC, 2010). These standards, however, differ widely from what is seen in practice sine, as mentioned above, the infrastructure in schools is very deficient. The policy for monitoring scores only 2.8 out of 5, suggesting that while there are inputs and infrastructure standards in place, the mechanisms to ensure these standards are met are weak. The monitoring details reveal important insights into the oversight of school inputs and infrastructure. A high percentage (91.4%) indicates that there is clear responsibility assigned for monitoring school inputs, and 83.8% of schools maintain inventories to track these inputs. However, community involvement in monitoring school inputs is limited, with only 37% participation. In terms of infrastructure, 58.4% of schools have assigned responsibility for monitoring, and 65.6% maintain inventories for this purpose. Community involvement is higher in monitoring infrastructure, with 66.9% participation. These findings highlight the need for stronger community engagement in monitoring school inputs and more robust systems for tracking and maintaining infrastructure to ensure that educational environments are conducive to learning. 23 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Policy Indicators Learners Early childhood education (ECE) policies received a relatively positive score of 3.6 out of 5, indicating that the frameworks in place are generally good but could benefit from further development and implementation. Strengthening these policies will ensure that early learning environments are well-equipped to provide the foundational skills children need for their future education. In Edo, data from MICS 2021 indicates that 63.9 percent of children aged 36-29 months attend early childhood education. While the value has been growing, there are other eleven states that have larger levels of access, which indicates significant room for improvement. Nutrition programs, while present and somewhat effective, scored 3.4 out of 5. This indicates that while efforts have been made to address children’s nutritional needs, there is still considerable room for enhancement to ensure all children receive adequate nutrition essential for their growth and learning. The indicator takes into consideration both the availability and the quality of programs that support early childhood nutrition during the mother’s pregnancy as well as during the first 5 years of life. Health programs, however, scored notably lower at 2.5 out of 5, highlighting a significant area needing attention. This lever captures the level of health guidance and support available to parents and children in the early years. Such support includes deworming treatment, prenatal visits, immunizations, and access to healthcare services. The low score suggests that current health initiatives are insufficient in supporting the overall well-being of young children. Improving these programs is critical, as good health is foundational to effective learning and development. Comprehensive health programs can help mitigate issues that hinder children’s readiness to learn, such as malnutrition and untreated medical conditions. Caregiver skills capacity also shows room for improvement, given its score of 2.8 out of 5. This score reflects the low availability of programs that aim to build caregiver capacity—for example, programs that teach parents better parenting practices. De jure and the factodifferences One of the unique aspects of the GEPD’s approach is its dual focus on de jure and de facto policies. De jure policies refer to the formal regulations and guidelines as they appear in official documents, while de facto policies are those that are understood, interpreted, and implemented in practice across the educational system. This dual focus allows for a more nuanced understanding of how policies translate into everyday practice and highlights discrepancies between policy intentions and real-world application. In the evaluation and selection and deployment of teachers, the GEPD findings indicate that practices on the ground often exceed the quality of the policies as they are written. This suggests that while the formal policies might lack in some respects, educators and administrators are finding ways to implement more effective practices than those mandated by policy. This is an encouraging 24 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Policy Indicators FIGURE 13. Support to headteachers Teaching-A raction De Facto 5 De Jure School Management- Teaching-Selection Evaluation & Deployment 3 School Management- 1 Teaching-Support Support School Management- Teaching-Evaluation Selection & Deployment School Management-Atraction Teaching-Monitoring & Accountability Source: Team’s analysis of data gathered through the GEPD instrument. sign, as it shows a level of adaptability and commitment to improving educational outcomes beyond the constraints of existing policies. However, this gap between de jure and de facto is most pronounced in areas related to teacher support and attraction. These discrepancies underscore the importance of not only having good policies on paper but also ensuring that these policies are effectively communicated and implemented at all levels of the educational system. 25 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Political and Bureaucratic Capacity Indicators  T his section summarizes the main conclusion from the political and bureaucratic capacity indicators that are part of the GEPD. In particular, it focuses on the characteristics of the bureaucracy, the level of impartiality in decision-making, the mandates and accountability in the system, and the features of the state-level learning goals3. Indicator Name Mean Standard Lower Upper Variance N Error Bound Bound Politics and Bureaucratic Capacity  Characteristics of Bureaucracy 4 0 3.9 4.1 0 152 Impartial Decision-Making 3.5 0.1 3.3 3.6 0 152 Mandates & Accountability 4.3 0.1 4.2 4.5 0 137 National Learning Goals 3.9 0.1 3.7 4 0 138 Characteristicsof the Bureaucracy The characteristics of the bureaucracy indicator scores 4 out of 5, indicating that the bureaucratic structure is relatively strong and effective in supporting educational policies and practices. In other words, the government’s implementing machinery for achieving the state-level goals and ensuring that the policies created to promote learning are enforced seems to be solid. However, from a more qualitative point of view, some caveats must be raised to the bureaucratic capacity of the state. First, the education system in Nigeria is characterized by a decision-making process that is highly fragmented, in a way that even when the capacity within organizations might be adequate, tensions between organizations might create obstacles. In particular, the institutional design creates incentives that reduce the collaboration between agencies such as the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) and the State Ministry of Education (Belay at 3 The GEPD also includes a section on financing, but given the complexities of the public financing arrangements for education in Nigeria, this is not reported for Edo. 26 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Political and Bureaucratic Capacity Indicators al,, 2024). Second, the characteristics of the bureaucracy might be prone to changing drastically across political cycles. Finally, the design of the survey might not capture the nuances that affect the relationships between the different actors within the system. For instance, public officials might not have incentives to point out problems with the collaboration across agencies or the freedom of the policymakers to innovate. Impartialdecision-making Edo scores 3.5 out of 5 on the impartial decision-making indicator, suggesting moderate impartiality. In particular, this indicator captures the extent to which public officials implement policies in an impartial way, meaning that decisions are free from political clientelism or undue influence from any single interest group. The levels of impartiality seem to be much higher at the local government level than at the state level. Within this category, the disaggregation is eloquent: ● Non-Politicized Policy-Making scores 4.5, showing that policy-making processes are largely free from political influence. ● Non-Politicized Personnel Management scores 3.6, indicating some degree of political influence in education policies. ● Non-Politicized Policy Implementation scores 2.2, highlighting significant challenges in ensuring that policies are implemented without political interference. Mandates& Accountability The state scores relatively high in terms of mandates and accountability, indicating that the education sector mandates are clearly defined and allocated in the legislation, as well as whether such allocation is reflected in practice. This finding, however, also needs to be nuanced. In particular, the education sector in Nigeria shows unclear division of responsibilities across agencies and across levels of governments, but the public officials might not have incentives to respond accurately in these sections of the survey. State-levellearning goals In terms of state-level learning goals, the score for the state is 3.9 out of 5. The aim of this indicator is to capture the extent to which there is a goal and/or strategy that encapsulates a desire and a path to reach higher learning outcomes. This is what ultimately drives the work of the ministry, SUBEB, and local government education authorities that together, with the support of other stakeholders and civil society, work towards achieving those goals. 27 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Political and Bureaucratic Capacity Indicators The overall score masks a double reality: while the state has clear learning goals, the incentives for the actors within the system to achieve them are weak. This is reflected in the different components of the indicator. The score for targeting is 4.6, indicating that the setting and focusing of educational goals are well-defined. In particular, the state has made significant efforts to develop learning outcomes in recent years. In 2023, the state approved learning standards and defined learning proficiency levels as part of its learning assessment system. Importantly, the state also approved a Learning Agenda that includes specific targets for early reading, and it aims to achieve a state where every child can read an age-appropriate text. The scores for monitoring (4.1) and community engagement (4.3) are also relatively high. Nevertheless, the state has not developed specific mechanisms to incentivize the achievement of these targets. In fact, the incentives score is only 2.5, indicating a need for improvement. For instance, schools do not have specific rewards attached to the achievement of results (such as performance- based grants), and teachers do not receive additional payments tied to the achievement of learning improvements in their classrooms, as was mentioned above. While the state has commenced some discussions about the use of the large-scale learning assessment to create specific scorecards with targets for each school and a preliminary performance-based system for teachers’ career progression was designed, the implementation is yet to be seen. Differences between localand state level authorities Given the complexity of the education system in Nigeria and the federal system of the country, the de facto responsibilities overlap between the state level (including the Ministry and SUBEB) and the 18 Local Government Education Authorities. The survey of public officials included respondents at both levels and shows important discrepancies. For all the indicators of political and bureaucratic capacity, the score at the state level is higher than the one at the local level. The largest gap between the two government levels exists for National Learning Goals indicator, where local government’s score is 15 percentage points lower than the state level. This could be showing that while the goals are developed at the state level, they do not necessarily trickle down to the local level, and probably less to the schools. There are also significant differences in beliefs between types of public officials regarding student attention and motivation. Less than half of the public officials at both levels (state and local government) believe that students deserve more attention only if they are motivated to learn, come to school with materials, or attend regularly. Specifically, 42% of local government officials versus 24% of state-level officials believe that students deserve more attention if they are motivated to learn. Additionally, 32% of local government officials believe in giving more attention to students who come prepared with materials, compared to only 7% of state-level officials. Similarly, 37% of local government officials versus 13% of state-level officials believe that regular attendance should warrant more attention for students. 28 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Conclusions and takeaways Conclusions and takeaways T he implementation of the Global Education Policy Dashboard (GEPD) in Edo State reveals several aspects of the education system that are working well. These successes highlight the strengths of current initiatives and provide a solid foundation upon which further improvements can be built. In particular, three elements are noteworthy. ● The effectiveness of the edtech-enabled structured pedagogy program. The interventions of the structured pedagogy program appear to be working effectively, providing systematic and evidence-based instructional methods implemented with high fidelity across the state. Edtech is available in all schools, teacher presence is high, and nearly all teachers report classroom observations and receive specific feedback. Although teachers have low levels of preparation, they show very good practices in some important dimensions of pedagogy. Continued support and expansion of structured pedagogy programs can further enhance educational quality and student performance. ● Small differences between urban and rural schools. The differences in learning outcomes and inputs between rural and urban schools in Edo State are relatively minor compared to other countries. This indicates a more equitable distribution of resources and learning opportunities across different geographic areas within the state. EdoBEST is being implemented with high fidelity in nearly all schools, including those in remote and hard-to-reach areas, which helps reduce inequities. This equitable distribution should be maintained and further strengthened to ensure all students, regardless of location, have access to quality education. ● School management in Edo State is solid. School management shows strong capabilities in providing instructional leadership and managing core functions effectively. This strength positions school management as a valuable partner in tackling educational challenges and implementing further reforms. Leveraging the existing strengths in school management can help implement and sustain improvements in teaching practices and school operations. Despite these successes, there are areas where the system is weaker and focusing on them could significantly lift learning outcomes. Addressing these areas presents important opportunities for improvement and growth within the educational landscape. The analysis of the GEPD distills at least three areas that require prioritization for the next phase of the reforms. ● Strengthening teachers’ skills is essential. The GEPD consistently shows that teacher qualifications are low, particularly in content knowledge. The state should systematically tackle this issue, focusing on meritocratic recruitment and strengthening pre-service training to align with the support teachers receive as part of the structured pedagogy program. It is 29 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? also important to measure teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge more frequently and systematically, which might also help address the disconnect between the knowledge teachers have and what they are perceived to know by the headteachers. Furthermore, the analysis shows that teacher attraction and teacher support policies are not consistently implemented and are, therefore, an area for improvement. The recently implemented EdoSTAR fellows program provides a good opportunity to assess and improve teacher quality systematically. ● Increasing readiness for learning is crucial. Readiness for learning when students first arrive at school is critically low. Addressing this issue requires multisectoral interventions that extend beyond the education sector to include health, nutrition, and social services. Comprehensive interventions will help ensure that children are better prepared to succeed when they start school. ● Addressing gaps in infrastructure is necessary. Although not previously the focus of the program, infrastructure improvements are essential and could help increase learning outcomes. More recently, the government has initiated an infrastructure plan targeting 72,000 pupils in 336 schools, involving the construction and renovation of classrooms, fences, toilet blocks, and classroom furniture. The plan has utilized geo-referenced data to target the investments where they are most in need. The state could complement the current model, which utilizes UBE funds provided through matching grants, with a community development approach for construction and renovation, which is often more cost-effective. Beyond infrastructure, the state should also increase the availability of quality textbooks. The next stage of the reforms should reduce the current target of 3 students per textbook. In addition to these specific areas of improvement, there are also broader systemic issues that need to be addressed to enhance the overall effectiveness of the education system. Tackling these issues will require strategic interventions and a coordinated effort across various levels of the education sector. First, bridging the gap between local governments and state-level officials is vital. Strategies such as increased collaboration, shared resources, and unified objectives should be implemented. Providing additional training and resources to local governments can help align their practices with national learning goals. Second, developing an incentive structure for learning goals is essential. Public officials have highlighted the clarity and monitoring of learning goals but noted a misalignment with day-to-day activities and a lack of incentives to work towards these goals. There are significant opportunities to create incentive structures that align efforts with educational objectives. Now that Edo State has comprehensive learning data for all students, mechanisms can be established to reward local governments, schools, or teachers that achieve improvements in learning outcomes. Several mechanisms could be implemented to develop this incentive structure. For instance, allocating fiscal based on the performance of schools or local governments could be useful. The performance can be measured in terms of the improvement in learning outcomes, building on the 30 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Conclusions and takeaways recently developed learning assessment system. A more sophisticated option could include an an index that combines access and quality, following the example of Brazil. Another option is the implementation of performance-based grants for schools. These could tackle several issues at once, including creating incentives to improve learning, providing resources to the schools to address the current infrastructure gaps with cost-effective approaches, and empowering communities (through the school-based management committees) to play a bigger role in terms of monitoring and accountability. Additionally, the state could move towards the implementation of the recently developed performance-based system for career progression, making sure that the incentive scheme aims to ultimately improve learning outcomes. The state has recently produced an index of quality of teaching practices that could be leveraged for this purpose. In all cases, both monetary and non-monetary incentives should be considered to motivate and reward stakeholders for their contributions to improving learning outcomes. In conclusion, the implementation of the GEPD in Edo State has provided a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and areas for improvement within the education system. The effectiveness of structured pedagogy programs, equitable distribution of resources between urban and rural schools, and strong school management capabilities are notable achievements that provide a robust foundation for further development. However, addressing weaknesses such as low teacher skills, insufficient readiness for learning, and gaps in infrastructure is crucial for lifting learning outcomes. Additionally, tackling broader systemic issues like bridging the gap between local and state-level officials and developing effective incentive structures will ensure sustained progress. By focusing on these areas, Edo State can enhance educational quality and ensure that all students receive a high-quality education that ensures learning, ultimately contributing to long- term educational success and overall development. 31 What drives learning in Edo State, Nigeria? Conclusions and takeaways References Belay, Tekabe, Martin Elias De Simone, Dilip Parajuli, Olumide Olaolu Okunola, Mahesh Dhal, Ayodeji Gafar, Elina Pradhan, Dmitry Chugunov, Deborah Isser, Ikechukwu John Nweje. (2024). Nigeria Human Capital Public Expenditure and Institutional Review. World Bank. Edo State Government (2023). Edo State learning Agenda. Learning to Read. A Plan to accelerate foundational learning in Edo state in basic education. Federal Ministry of Education of Nigeria (FMoE). (2016). National Education Quality Assurance Handbook. (2016). https://www.esspin.org/National-Education-Quality-Assurance- Handbook-2016.pdf Federal Ministry of Education of Nigeria (FMoE). (2019). Monitoring Learning Achievement (MLA) study. Government of Nigeria. Pimhidzai, O., & Martin, G. (2015). Africa region - Education service delivery in Nigeria: Results of 2013 service delivery indicator survey. World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/099511510072218372/IDU03d762d210e215040e70887c04b10c4a67a32 United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (2021). 2021 Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey – Nigeria MICS full report. https://www.unicef.org/nigeria/media/6316/file/2021%20 MICS%20full%20report%20.pdf Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC). (2010) Minimum Standards for Basic Education in Nigeria. http://wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/AFR/Nigeria/ TCH/Minimum%20Standards%20for%20Basic%20Education.pdf World Bank (2021a). Global Education Policy Dashboard. GEPD Implementation Brief. https:// www.educationpolicydashboard.org/sites/default/files/resources-documents/GEPD%20 Implementation%20Brief.pdf World Bank (2021b). Global Education Policy Dashboard. GEPD Reference Guide. https://www.educa- tionpolicydashboard.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/GEPD%20Reference%20Guide.pdf World Bank (2021c). Global Education Policy Dashboard. GEPD Technical Note. https://www.educa- tionpolicydashboard.org/sites/default/files/resources-documents/GEPD%20Technical%20 Note.pdf 32